Name one doctrine that is not supported by Scripture.

Thatgirloncfforums said:

You asked about the filioque (and the Son), so I said that, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son (according to the Western confession)

Click to expand...

the West doesn't teach that.

Thatgirloncfforums said:

How have I proved the OP wrong?

Click to expand...

you haven't, I did

Thatgirloncfforums said:

Again, you asked about the filioque, so I didn't mention the Father

Click to expand...

ugh, how can anyone describe the Fillioque and not mention the Father.

Thatgirloncfforums said:

No one denies the monarchy of the Father, or confesses a double spiration, so I don't understand where you are coming from.

Click to expand...

I can only read what you write. I have no idea what you are thinking.

Thatgirloncfforums said:

How?

Click to expand...

by showing the doctrine concerning the Fillioque (either the West or East versions) IS NOT supported by scripture

anna ~ grace said:

This is interesting, because it gets to the heart of why the Councils are so important.

I have noticed that many evangelicals refuse to or feel uncomfortable calling Jesus “God”. They will describe Him as “the Divine Son of God”, or as “the Son of God”, but less frequently “the Second Person of the Trinity” and even less frequently “God”.

Some explain they don’t feel comfortable calling Christ God, as Scripture describes Christ most frequently as the Son of God. Going further than this might be blasphemy, or over-kill. They are scared to say anything that is not Biblical, and so, unfortunately, they inadvertently turn into semi-Arians.

Many don’t see anything wrong with this.

Click to expand...

The Christ was YHWH, the Creator, the redeemer, born the King of Israel. Lord of the Sabbath. Jesus and the Father are one.

If your looking at Jesus your seeing the Father.

If you hear Jesus your hearing the Father.

If you know Jesus then you know the Father.

No one has ever seen the Father, heard the Father, or even known the Father.

Everything anyone ever knew about God was revealed by the revelation of Jesus.

Jesus is the Lord of heaven and earth.

Everything exists because it was created for Jesus.

John 5:23
So that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.

Thatgirloncfforums said:

Because Filioque literally means, 'and the Son'

Your question was not about Arians versus Orthodox Catholics, but about East vs West. No one in the Eastern or Western Orthodox Catholic Church denies the uniqueness of the Father.

It can be. It's still a somewhat debated topic. That the Lutheran Church is being generous to both the Eastern and Western positions, does not mean that SS is invalid. You agreed at first, that no doctrine exists which is not attested by Scripture. Do you now think that the Filioque is one, and on that basis, will you break communion with the Eastern Orthodox? It is not necessary to believe in the Filioque to be saved. There are saints in both halves of the Church.
If I was going to defend the Filioque from Scripture, I would cite:

1) Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so also I am sending you. When he had said this, he breathed on them and said, 'receive the Holy Spirit'. Jn 20:21-22

2) if anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said: 'streams of living water will flow from within him.' he was speaking about the spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Jn 7:37-38

3) Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. Jn 16:7

Click to expand...

So, which position do these 3 scriptures you cited support? Do they support the East or West position?

GodsGrace101 said:

Here's the problem with calling Mary the Mother of God.
When we refer to God, we usually mean God Father, or Yahweh.
God, Yahweh, did not have a mother - God always existed and there was no being before Him.

If we mean Jesus, the Word Incarnate, and we know that He is God,,,then it would seem to be correct.
Except we really don't mean Jesus, do we?

I like to say that Mary is the Mother of Jesus,,,Mother of The Word - or the 2nd person of the Trinity.

Comment?

Click to expand...

I definitely see your point and the Church’s definition of the Theostokos specifically mentioned these points you made by affirming Cyril’s second letter to Nestorius. Here’s what Cyril wrote and how the Theostokos is defined by the Church.


To the most religious and beloved of God, fellow minister Nestorius, Cyril sends greeting in the Lord.

I hear that some are rashly talking of the estimation in which I hold your holiness, and that this is frequently the case especially at the times that meetings are held of those in authority. And perchance they think in so doing to say something agreeable to you, but they speak senselessly, for they have suffered no injustice at my hands, but have been exposed by me only to their profit; this man as an oppressor of the blind and needy, and that as one who wounded his mother with a sword. Another because he stole, in collusion with his waiting maid, another’s money, and had always laboured under the imputation of such like crimes as no one would wish even one of his bitterest enemies to be laden with. I take little reckoning of the words of such people, for the disciple is not above his Master, nor would I stretch the measure of my narrow brain above the Fathers, for no matter what path of life one pursues it is hardly possible to escape the smirching of the wicked, whose mouths are full of cursing and bitterness, and who at the last must give an account to the Judge of all.

But I return to the point which especially I had in mind. And now I urge you, as a brother in the Lord, to propose the word of teaching and the doctrine of the faith with all accuracy to the people, and to consider that the giving of scandal to one even of the least of those who believe in Christ, exposes a body to the unbearable indignation of God. And of how great diligence and skill there is need when the multitude of those grieved is so great, so that we may administer the healing word of truth to them that seek it. But this we shall accomplish most excellently if we shall turn over the words of the holy Fathers, and are zealous to obey their commands, proving ourselves, whether we be in the faith according to that which is written, and conform our thoughts to their upright and irreprehensible teaching.

The holy and great Synod therefore says, that the only begotten Son, born according to nature of God the Father, very God of very God, Light of Light, by whom the Father made all things, came down, and was incarnate, and was made man, suffered, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven. These words and these decrees we ought to follow, considering what is meant by the Word of God being incarnate and made man. For we do not say that the nature of the Word was changed and became flesh, or that it was converted into a whole man consisting of soul and body; but rather that the Word having personally united to himself flesh animated by a rational soul, did in an ineffable and inconceivable manner become man, and was called the Son of Man, not merely as willing or being pleased to be so called, neither on account of taking to himself a person, but because the two natures being brought together in a true union, there is of both one Christ and one Son; for the difference of the natures is not taken away by the union, but rather the divinity and the humanity make perfect for us the one Lord Jesus Christ by their ineffable and inexpressible union.

So then he who had an existence before all ages and was born of the Father, is said to have been born according to the flesh of a woman, not as though his divine nature received its beginning of existence in the holy Virgin, for it needed not any second generation after that of the Father (for it would be absurd and foolish to say that he who existed before all ages, coeternal with the Father, needed any second beginning of existence), but since, for us and for our salvation, he personally united to himself an human body, and came forth of a woman, he is in this way said to be born after the flesh; for he was not first born a common man of the holy Virgin, and then the Word came down and entered into him, but the union being made in the womb itself, he is said to endure a birth after the flesh, ascribing to himself the birth of his own flesh. On this account we say that he suffered and rose again; not as if God the Word suffered in his own nature stripes, or the piercing of the nails, or any other wounds, for the Divine nature is incapable of suffering, inasmuch as it is incorporeal, but since that which had become his own body suffered in this way, he is also said to suffer for us; for he who is in himself incapable of suffering was in a suffering body.

In the same manner also we conceive respecting his dying; for the Word of God is by nature immortal and incorruptible, and life and life-giving; since, however, his own body did, as Paul says, by the grace of God taste death for every man, he himself is said to have suffered death for us, not as if he had any experience of death in his own nature (for it would be madness to say or think this), but because, as I have just said, his flesh tasted death. In like manner his flesh being raised again, it is spoken of as his resurrection, not as if he had fallen into corruption (God forbid), but because his own body was raised again.

We, therefore, confess one Christ and Lord, not as worshipping a man with the Word (lest this expression “with the Word” should suggest to the mind the idea of division), but worshipping him as one and the same, forasmuch as the body of the Word, with which he sits with the Father, is not separated from the Word himself, not as if two sons were sitting with him, but one by the union with the flesh. If, however, we reject the personal union as impossible or unbecoming, we fall into the error of speaking of two sons, for it will be necessary to distinguish, and to say, that he who was properly man was honoured with the appellation of Son, and that he who is properly the Word of God, has by nature both the name and the reality of Sonship.

We must not, therefore, divide the one Lord Jesus Christ into two Sons. Neither will it at all avail to a sound faith to hold, as some do, a union of persons; for the Scripture has not said that the Word united to himself the person of man, but that he was made flesh. This expression, however, “the Word was made flesh,” can mean nothing else but that he partook of flesh and blood like to us; he made our body his own, and came forth man from a woman, not casting off his existence as God, or his generation of God the Father, but even in taking to himself flesh remaining what he was. This the declaration of the correct faith proclaims everywhere. This was the sentiment of the holy Fathers; therefore they ventured to call the holy Virgin, the Mother of God, not as if the nature of the Word or his divinity had its beginning from the holy Virgin, but because of her was born that holy body with a rational soul, to which the Word being personally united is said to be born according to the flesh.

These things, therefore, I now write unto you for the love of Christ, beseeching you as a brother, and testifying to you before Christ and the elect angels, that you would both think and teach these things with us, that the peace of the Churches may be preserved and the bond of concord and love continue unbroken amongst the Priests of God. Send greetings to the brothers who are with you.

Those who are with me send greetings in Christ.

Thatgirloncfforums said:

(For the anti-Sola Scriptura crowd).

Name one doctrine that was held by the Chalcedon affirming Church that is not supported in Scripture.

I contend that one doesn't exist.

Click to expand...

Although the doctrine of the holy trinity perfectly aligns with scripture, it is nowhere mentioned in scripture.

Thatgirloncfforums said:

I read it. I don't understand why 'born' implies inferiority.

Click to expand...

The word BORN implies inferiority because the Son never has the authority of the Father, in any circumstance.

A King has a son that is a prince and will one day be King, but he is not King at birth.
Instead, Jesus was God at birth.

The word begotten causes a lot of misunderstanding and the Trinity is difficult enough to understand.

Thatgirloncfforums said:

I read it. I don't understand why 'born' implies inferiority.

Click to expand...

This is also for @Abaxvahl

You had mentioned Strong's concordance...
Here's the page:

Strong's Greek: 3439. μονογενής (monogenés) -- only begotten

in which it states the meaning for Begotten:

single of its kind, only

monogenés: only begotten
Original Word: μονογενής, ές
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: monogenés
Phonetic Spelling: (mon-og-en-ace')
Definition: only begotten
Usage: only, only-begotten; unique.
HELPS Word-studies
3439 monogenḗs (from 3411 /misthōtós, "one-and-only" and 1085 /génos, "offspring, stock") – properly, one-and-only; "one of a kind" – literally, "one (monos) of a class, genos" (the only of its kind).


As you can see, monogenes means one and only, one of a kind, the only of its kind, unique.

It can also mean born to someone...but in theology it cannot be accepted that Jesus was ever born....except to Mary as a child, as Jesus - NOT as the 2nd person of the Trinity.

Again, we must use the meaning UNIQUE because the 2nd person of the Trinity was never born...
John makes this clear in the beginning of his gospel and also in 1 John.

In the beginning was the Word...the Word already existed in the beginning. John 1:1
We proclaim to you the One who existed from the beginning.....1 John 1:1

John strives to make us understand that Jesus, as the 2nd Person, always existed...
and He has now come in the flesh.

Thatgirloncfforums said:

How else, would you express the truth that the second person of the Trinity proceeds from the first, or that the first is Father?

I've never understood why Christians say that the Trinity is hard to understand. What's so difficult about, Light from Light? Or three persons, one nature?

Click to expand...

Because it's difficult to understand that there are 3 persons in one being.
If YOU can say that the 2nd Person was born at some time...this means that you also do not really understand the Trinity.

The 2nd does not proceed from the first. Where is this stated?
The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son because He is the love between the Father and Son.
Also difficult to understand, IMO.

GodsGrace101 said:

The second person of the Trinity was never born.
He always existed or He wouldn't be God.

Click to expand...

He is the only begotten Son.