Mothra said:Doc Holliday said:ShooterTX said:Doc Holliday said:ShooterTX said:Doc Holliday said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doc Holliday said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doc Holliday said:
I keep hearing this claim that Scripture alone can give you a perfect definition of the Holy Trinity as defined by Nicea and Chalcedon which most Protestants affirm.
Thats absolute nonsense.
Aries made his case to deny the Trinity with texts like Proverbs 8:22 ("the Lord created me at the beginning of his work"), John 14:28 ("the Father is greater than I"), Colossians 1:15 ("firstborn of all creation"), and Mark 13:32 (the Son not knowing the day or hour).
The Trinity was not settled by a better proof text. It was settled by a council with binding authority. Which is the problem. You can't affirm Nicaea and Chalcedon as settled Christianity, but then reject other conclusions from that same tradition and that same authority. You cannot selectively invoke conciliar authority when it suits you and discard it when it doesn't or you have no way to bind everyone.
Nobody actually relies on scripture alone either. Yall need to cut out that nonsense. Total bs. When a Reformed Protestant settles a disputed question by appealing to Calvin, or a Lutheran defers to Luther's exegesis, or a Baptist cites the Second London Confession, they are functionally doing exactly what they accuse Catholics and Orthodox of doing: grounding theological conclusions in the authority of post biblical teachers and confessional documents rather than scripture alone.
You realize that you're arguing against solO scriptura, and not solA scriptura?
And the concept of the Trinity is fully derivable from Scripture, as I had already demonstrated to you. Besides, if it wasn't, how could have the councils come to that conclusion? Did they create a concept out of whole cloth?
Here's a question for you, as well as for everyone else: is the belief in the Trinity necessary for one's salvation?
If the Trinity were simply derivable from Scripture by careful reading, Arius would not have been a serious theological threat requiring an ecumenical council to resolve.
Councils have the authority of the sacrament of apostolic succession. That gives them guidance by the Holy Spirit.
Mainline prots wouldn't be gay and secular. People interpret text multiple ways. You interpret debt and slavery language in a 21st century lens vs me who took time to understand how Jews viewed what those concepts meant in their time.
Yes, Trinitarian faith is necessary.
Have you ever questioned your denomination? Is there anything you think your church is doing wrong?
Do you know that there are numerous Protestant pastors that have become Orthodox?
- so, you agree that you were arguing against solO scriptura, and not solA scriptura?
- I never said the Trinity was "simply" derivable. That's you adding words so you can validate your argument. It takes very careful reading and long, diligent study to derive the Trinity from Scripture. Therefore, it is not surprising that Christians, even true, saved Christians, would not be able to draw it from a simple reading. Arianism, on the other hand, is completely different. It says that Jesus is a created being, and therefore not God. However, Scripture CLEARLY indicates that Jesus is God. And therefore, no church council is needed to know that Arianism is false.
- So, you believe that a belief in the Trinity is necessary for salvation? You believe that if someone hears the gospel and believes and trusts in Jesus for their salvation, and they believe Jesus is God.... but they don't believe the Holy Spirit is God, but rather a kind of subordinate entity "sent" by God - then that means they are not saved? Does salvation depend on having a correct theology, especially one that is not explicitly taught in Scripture? And when did Jesus or his apostles every teach that?
- Look at what you're saying here: you're saying that the Trinity, which is 1) NOT derivable from Scripture but can only be known by the utterances of a council of men, and 2) is necessary for salvation - which is ultimately saying that the word of God is insufficient for our salvation!! Is this truly what you believe?
- I belong to no denomination. I'm simply a bible-believing Christian. Yes, there are things I question about certain teachings coming from various Protestant churches, and it's based on what Scripture says (the word of God), not based on what a council of men declared (the Tradition of men). I don't know how many Protestant pastors became Orthodox, but I'm sure it happens the other way around too. I will say that if a Protestant pastor becomes Roman Catholic or Orthodox, then something is really, really wrong with their faith if they are turning to a church that teaches a different gospel than the Bible and actively promotes and even requires the practice and belief in rank heresy and idolatry. Again, if they are okay with bowing and praying to images and saying "Mary is the salvation of my soul", then it's quite possible that they never really were a true Christian.
If you die and learn that Orthodoxy was the true visible church...are you going to be mad at God?
No you cannot derive the Nicean/Chalcedon understanding of the Holy Trinity from scripture alone. Impossible. The word homoousias (of the same substance), is the entire linchpin of Nicene Trinitarianism and appears nowhere in scripture. The Council of Nicaea took a non-biblical Greek philosophical term and made it the binding theological test of Orthodoxy. That non scriptural vocabulary binds all Christians sotereologically: who authorized it to do so? A COUNCIL.
Every major Christian confession in history, including your own, explicitly requires Trinitarian faith: the Westminster Confession, the London Baptist Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, Belic Confession and every reformed document every written. Do you understand that the ' Jesus Only' position, held by Oneness Pentecostals is classified by every single reformed confession as heresy?.
Jehova's witnesses believe Jesus is a god, but not THE GOD. Are they saved?
Christology is important. Stop making the case that it isn't. You have no faith that Christ was capable of setting up a VISIBLE church. Your theology forces you to believe that the true church is invisible, that most of history people are left in the dark and only a few elect individuals can be saved. You also have no idea how CLOSE your theology is to medieval roman Catholicism. Your faith is derived from Latin assumptions. You wouldn't have PSA without nominalist medieval roman catholics already creating a PSA foundation that only ever appeared in history after the 1000s.
You claim you're trying to argue for sola scriptura, but not solo, while simultaneously claiming man made tradition is a secondary interpretative authority...then you claim Orthodox theology is off limits because its "Man made tradition". Your logic isn't consistent.
Oh thanks for clarifying...
Truth is only true if a council declares it to be true? NO
The truth is true regardless of what any human had to say or think about it. The truth exists on its own.
Jesus declared himself to be "the truth". He doesn't need a council to approve of that statement.
Likewise the Trinity is very clearly described in scriptures. The word "trinity" doesn't need to be used in scripture for the basic concept of the Trinity to be understood.
Some of the early councils recognized and affirmed the truth, they did NOT create it. Later councils created nonsense like the ever sinless ever virgin and the infallible pope.
The Nicea council leaned heavily on the scriptures from the apostolic era... they did not create doctrine, they clarified and confirmed it.
By what principled criterion do you distinguish a council that "recognized truth" from one that "invented nonsense"?
You can't claim scripture because it's only possible to claim your interpretation of scripture. You're using your interpretation of scripture to validate the councils you like and invalidate the ones you don't, which means scripture isn't actually your authority, YOUR INTERPRETATION is.
1 Timothy 4:14, 2 Timothy 1:6, and Acts 14:23 all show the laying on of hands as the mechanism of authoritative transmission. Titus 1:5 shows Titus appointing elders by Paul's authority. This is a chain of transmitted authority, not an invisible spiritual succession. Jesus established a visible Church.
It's not that hard to understand if you actually read the Bible.
The councils that recognized the truth are the ones who took truth directly from the scriptures. The nonsense is the stuff that had no scriptural basis. Example: the Marian dogma.
The Bible never says that Mary was without sin. In fact it says the opposite. Romans 3:23 NIV
[23] for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, Romans 3:10 NIV
[10] As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one;
The Bible never says that Mary was a forever virgin, in fact it says the opposite. Matthew 12:46 NIV
[46] While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Matthew 13:55-56 NIV
[55] "Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? [56] Aren't all his sisters with us?"
The Bible never says that Mary is co-Redemer or co-Mediator or in any way involved in our salvation, in fact it says the opposite. 1 Timothy 2:5 NIV
[5] For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, John 14:6-7 NIV
[6] Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. [7] If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." Acts 4:11-12 NIV
[11] Jesus is " 'the stone you builders rejected, which has become the cornerstone.' [12] Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved." 1 John 2:1-2 NIV
[1] My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the FatherJesus Christ, the Righteous One. [2] He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
Most of the scriptures are very clear. They don't require a magisterium to be understood.
On Romans 3:23, does "all have sinned" include Christ? By your own reading it must, since the text says "all" without exception. You obviously don't believe that, which means you are already doing interpretive work to exclude someone from the universal. The question is not whether exceptions exist, you already grant one. The question is who has the authority to identify them?
On the brothers of Jesus, "adelphos" in the Septuagint describes Lot's relationship to Abraham in Genesis 13:8. Lot was his nephew. The word does not require biological siblings. Jerome, Athanasius, Augustine, and Cyril all held perpetual virginity. The position you are calling obviously biblical was considered the novel one in the patristic period.
If no human being can in any sense participate in bringing others before God, then asking your fellow Christian to pray for you is also forbidden. You don't actually believe that. What the verse excludes is a rival savior, not the prayers of those alive in Christ.
You have 45,000 Protestant denominations with the same Bible who cannot agree on baptism, the Lord's Supper, or predestination. The Arian crisis was resolved not by a better proof text but by a council speaking with binding authority.
We know that Paul wasn't referring to Christ in Romans 3:23 because he has already told us Christ was without sin in 2 Corinthians 5. So it's clear he wasn't referring to Christ in those verses - nor would it make sense for him to do so since he acknowledged Christ was a deity and not a mere mortal man.
Did Paul or anyone else make similar proclamations about Mary? Did Paul say Mary was without sin? No. You and I both know he did not.
As for Christ's siblings, the Greek word adelphoi (brothers) in these contexts most naturally refers to children born to Mary and Joseph after Jesus. There really is no disputing this.
Can I ask you a question? Why is it important for you to try and maintain the narrative that Mary was a sinless virgin?
I'm not maintaining a narrative, its a fact and it's important because of what she reveals about Christ and the nature of God's grace.
"And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel." Genesis 3:15. The Fathers read this as the first announcement of redemption in scripture, and the woman here is understood typologically as Mary. The enmity God places between the woman and the serpent is total and absolute. Not partial. Not intermittent. Complete hostility between her and the devil. Sin is the serpent's domain and instrument. If Mary ever fell under the power of sin, even momentarily, under the dominion of the one she is placed in total enmity against, then the enmity God declares would be compromised. Its right there in Genesis man.
Scripture uses words like "blameless" (Job 1:1) and "righteous" (Luke 1:6, regarding Elizabeth and Zechariah) to describe humans. If Job can be "blameless" in a fallen world, the concept of a human being preserved from sin by God's grace is not a scriptural impossibility. Mary's sinlessness isn't a display of her own power, but the ultimate display of God's power.
This all goes back to your view of salvation. You might think "if she's sinless then why does she need salvation?". From a protestant framework, that would be a fair question, but the protestant framework doesn't understand salvation the way the early church/eastern orthodoxy does.
What did salvation mean for Adam before the fall? You probably think he didn't need to be saved. He wasn't created perfectly. If he was, he couldn't have fallen. If we define salvation as Theosis (becoming partakers of the divine nature), then even an unfallen Adam was on a journey toward a deeper union with God. Adam was made for the purpose to choose God and commune with Him.
The reason the reformers got off track from the early church and church fathers who all share the Orthodox view, is because this doesn't jive with Calvinism. You're looking at Mary through the lens of 'Total Depravity,' where God's glory depends on us being as fallen as possible. But the earlier view, the one held by the Church for 1,500 years, was that God's glory is shown by His ability to actually heal and preserve a human being perfectly, making Mary the first 'finished product' of the Gospel.