The following CAF member states the following:
Yes. That is what I believe. I believe everything the Bible teaches about God, Christ, and the Holy Ghost. I do not use terms not found in the Bible. Or I TRY not to I should say.
I think it is very inconsistent for people who proclaim a belief in the teachings of the Bible to incorporate terminology that Christ himself did not use and is not recorded in scripture.
what are you trying to start here?
A conversation I suppose. Very strange question.
What did you mean in the quote manny provided? Did you mean that you reject the idea of the trinity because you don’t believe it to be scriptural or do you reject the term “trinity” because the term/word isn’t found in the scriptures but accept the doctrine?
I was actually referring to the original post.
Although I am no expert on anyone’s doctrine to say 100%.
Good on you :rolleyes:
The Trinity was defined by the Council of Nicea in 325 AD in response to the heresy of Arianism.
Arianism is belief asserting that Christ was not God like the Father, but a creature made in time.
Source on Arianism: newadvent.org/cathen/01707c.htm
The Council of Nicea condemned Arianism as a heresy. It defined God is Three Divine Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It was in this Council where the Nicene Creed or Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed came into being.
From Wikipedia it states:
For Bishop Alexander and others, however, greater clarity was required. Some distinctive elements in the Nicene Creed, perhaps from the hand of Hosius of Cordova, were added.
Jesus Christ is described as “God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God,” confirming his divinity. When all light sources were natural, the essence of light was considered to be identical, regardless of its form.
Jesus Christ is said to be “begotten, not made,” asserting his co-eternalness with God, and confirming it by stating his role in the Creation.
Finally, he is said to be “from the substance of the Father,” in direct opposition to Arianism. Some ascribe the term Consubstantial, i.e., “of the same substance” (of the Father), to Constantine who, on this particular point, may have chosen to exercise his authority
The bases on the Trinity is the Scripture itself.
Very consistent. If you are going be Sola Scriptura, be Sola Scriptura…although you are probably not Sola Scriptura because that term is not in the Bible either:shrug:
Christians do not worship terms, creeds, or doctrines. We worship the God that those things point to, which happens to be a Triune God.
I’m not really ensnared in this matter enough to have an opinion, but I am a little troubled by your determined course of thought here. We have language precisely so that we can name things and talk about them. If we limit our vocabulary to that which is contained in any one (or more) document(s), no matter how holy they be, we run the risk of not being able to adequately describe reality. It does not much good if we know the doctrine but cannot tell it to others so that they may enjoy it too. Scripture is obscure. Remember in Acts 8:26-40, the Ethiopian eunuch required Philip to explain it to him, and that certainly required Philip to use words not contained in the Scripture. But perhaps I’m wrong. Can you explain the doctrine of the Trinity only using phrases that are used in Scripture?
That’s why the Church in the Council of Nicea 325 AD, like the Council of Jerusalem, settle the issue. This is just following Jesus order. “If he does not listen to you, take it to the Church.”
If you want to be picky about this, the words God and Holy Ghost are not mentioned in the Bible (just to pick two)
They are both English words in Roman script, not Hebrew words in Hebrew script or Greek words in Greek script which is what the Bible was written in.
They are then actually interpretations of what the original writer meant by the Hebrew of Greek terms. They are words we use to express the concepts the scripture writers expressed, just as Trinity is a word we use to express the concepts the scripture writers expressed.
And the KJV didn’t drop out of the sky already written in English.
Mannyfit and Rightlydivide.
Let’s apply the same fundamentalism to see just how far we can reason this out:
“Mannyfit” and “Rightlydivide” are names not written in the Bible therefore they do not exist and are not real. Nor does King James, nor does “Protestant” nor does “America and apple pie”. The things spoken in tongues in foreign languages are not recorded in the bible so none of what the Spirit reveals should be believed either?
Fundamentally I think that answers it yes?
What I want to know is who keeps misusing God’s gifts to irresponsibly resurrect these dead horse ideas and discussions?
Ahem, I’m Catholic. I don’t believe in Sola Scriptura. I believe that Jesus established One Church, which is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. He build it upon Peter (See Matthew 16:18) and His Apostles (See Matthew 18:20), who are succeeded by the Pope and bishops of today.
and lastly, I do believe in the Trinity, God, the Father, God, the Son, and God, the Holy Spirit. One God, three Divine Persons.
Scripture is not obscure at all. Theoretical physics is obscure. Maxwell’s equations…that is obscure.
I have no desire to explain the doctrine of a word I do not use.
As far as the Ethiopian eunuch, we do not know what was said. It is not to suggest I only use words found in the KJV, I do not go outside of scripture to use the musings and declarations of men for matters of salvation.
I never said that only things that exist in scripture are the only things that are real. As far as speaking in tongues, you lost me. The only real gift of tongue takes interpretation and someone who understands or can translate.
Quit whopping up on that strawman
Did someone say that it did or do you just like repeating obvious statements?