What the Nicene Creed is and isn’t etc..

[JonC]

I accept that Catholic means universal, it is you who can not accept that Catholic means a large, distinct, Apostolic Church under The Chair of Peter. Anything but that surely.

I can accept that "catholic" means both "universal" and also that it has been applied to a large, distinct Church that was created in the 4th century with the secularization of Christianity.

The problem is that you have to weigh Scripture (which describes the Apostolic Church as small congregations, independent and differing in practice, under an "overseer" chosen by the congregation and from the congregation...something Baptists often ignore as well) against what the RCC has taught you and side against Scripture.

That is why we will not agree on this.

We have different standards.

Where I hold my Church as accountable to Scripture you hold Scripture as subordinate to what your "church" teaches.

I test what my church teaches against God's Word.

You test what your "church" teaches against what your "church" teaches.


And that is fine. It just means we will never agree.

I find discussing theology with Roman Catholics is very much like discussing theology with Mormons. The similarity is Roman Catholics and Mormons hold their "church" dogma as absolute truth and the interpreter of Scripture. The difference, of course, is that tge gospel is in Roman Catholic doctrine (Catholics can be Christian despite their doctrine, Mormons cannot).

 

[Cathode]

I can accept that "catholic" means both "universal" and also that it has been applied to a large, distinct Church that was created in the 4th century with the secularization of Christianity.

It wasn’t created in the 4th century, I gave you quotes of bishops in there own writings from the second and third centuries talking about the headship of the Church in Rome.
You ignored Bishop Irenaeus of Lyon France 180 AD, Bishop Cyprian of Carthage 250 AD talking of The Chair of Peter.
I’m presenting real Church History to you, far prior to the foundation date you nominate for the Catholic Church, actual evidence of the Catholic Church as it is and believes.
You keep making assertions and present no historical evidence at all.

Rome was Christianised not Christianity secularised. All that happened is the persecution was lifted against Christians.

The problem is that you have to weigh Scripture (which describes the Apostolic Church as small congregations, independent and differing in practice, under an "overseer" chosen by the congregation and from the congregation

No, what we see in Scripture and Church history is not independent churches at all, and not differing in practice. We see Paul constantly writing to different churches telling them to adhere to what they had been taught, not come up with their own ideas.
You are trying to imprint the modern Baptist model with the chaos of independent churches on scripture and it is neither seen in scripture or Church history.

I quoted early “overseers “ bishops Cyril of Jerusalem, Irenaeus, Cyprian, and many others, you ignored them all. They quoted Scripture all the time and you ignored their understanding as well. They tell of not a baptist church but a very Catholic Church in structure and Doctrine.

...something Baptists often ignore as well) against what the RCC has taught you and side against Scripture.

That is why we will not agree on this.

We have different standards.

Did you read the Church Fathers I quoted? Did you see their scriptural references?
They understand scripture as Catholics do today, not as Baptist’s do.

Where I hold my Church as accountable to Scripture you hold Scripture as subordinate to what your "church" teaches.

I test what my church teaches against God's Word.

You test what your "church" teaches against what your "church" teaches.

And that is fine. It just means we will never agree.

My Church determined and declared the Scripture after preserving those writings from the Apostles and passing on to me the Apostolic understanding of those Scriptures.

I find discussing theology with Roman Catholics is very much like discussing theology with Mormons. The similarity is Roman Catholics and Mormons hold their "church" dogma as absolute truth and the interpreter of Scripture. The difference, of course, is that tge gospel is in Roman Catholic doctrine (Catholics can be Christian despite their doctrine, Mormons cannot).

The difference is that the Bible came from the Catholic Church and preserved the Scriptures from the Apostles and the correct Apostolic understanding of those Scriptures.
And it can prove it.

 

[JonC]

It wasn’t created in the 4th century, I gave you quotes of bishops in there own writings from the second and third centuries talking about the headship of the Church in Rome...

No, I read your doctrine about the Early Church.

I did not respond as I wouldn't to a Mormon. It is not up to me to combat your indoctrination but to simply state the Truth. God will do with that what He may on your heart.

For the board, what is being offered as "proof" is the sentence “Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam.”

There are a couple of interpretations.

One is that the Christians in Rome (remember, there was no "Church" in Rome during the Apostolic period) exemplified or mirrored what it is to be faithful, following the Apostles doctrine.

Another interpretation is that the Church in Rome is primary and was founded by Peter and Paul.


The question to ask, obviously, is exactly why Catholics do not even inform others that there are debates over the interpretation of Against Heresies.

The reason is they worship at the feet of men and blindly follow their doctrine.

This does not mean that some Catholics are not saved. The gospel is there, amongst the manure (a better word than the true meaning of "filthy rags"). And it is God, not doctrine, that saves.

 

[JonC]

....

Oh....I need to add:

I agree with you that the "trail of blood" is pseudo-history. It is, in fact, pretty stupid.

But the True Church is not the type of "church" that both Catholics and Landmarkists seek. Landmarkism is just Catholicism for Baptists.

That is NOT what I was speaking of when I insisted that our theology goes beyond Luther.

 

[SavedByGrace]

The Nicene creed uses unbiblical language for the relationships between Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit and the Father.

The Father is NOT in any way greater than either Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit in the Eternal Godhead.

The Three distinct Persons are 100% COEQUAL COESSENTIAL AND COETERNAL

Each Person is YHWH

Only this is what the Infallible Word of God Teaches. Anything else is HERESY!

 

[Cathode]

No, I read your doctrine about the Early Church.

I did not respond as I wouldn't to a Mormon. It is not up to me to combat your indoctrination but to simply state the Truth. God will do with that what He may on your heart.

For the board, what is being offered as "proof" is the sentence “Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam.”

There are a couple of interpretations.

One is that the Christians in Rome (remember, there was no "Church" in Rome during the Apostolic period) exemplified or mirrored what it is to be faithful, following the Apostles doctrine.

Another interpretation is that the Church in Rome is primary and was founded by Peter and Paul.

The question to ask, obviously, is exactly why Catholics do not even inform others that there are debates over the interpretation of Against Heresies.

The reason is they worship at the feet of men and blindly follow their doctrine.

This does not mean that some Catholics are not saved. The gospel is there, amongst the manure (a better word than the true meaning of "filthy rags"). And it is God, not doctrine, that saves.

There is debates but essentially Catholic translation is fine.

 

[Cathode]

Oh....I need to add:

I agree with you that the "trail of blood" is pseudo-history. It is, in fact, pretty stupid.

But the True Church is not the type of "church" that both Catholics and Landmarkists seek. Landmarkism is just Catholicism for Baptists.

That is NOT what I was speaking of when I insisted that our theology goes beyond Luther.

If you can show a clear baptist continuity back to the Apostles, I’m all ears.

 

[JonC]

There is debates but essentially Catholic translation is fine.

I agree....for a Catholic

 

[JonC]

If you can show a clear baptist continuity back to the Apostles, I’m all ears.

You obviously did not read my post.

I'll rephrase - the "Trail of Tears" is misguided hogwash.

Landmarks fall into the same category as Catholics in their misunderstanding of what constitutes a true church. In fact, the "trail of tears" was just a Landmark attempt to be "Catholic".

The true church has existed throughout Christian history. It is seen among various congregations, to include Catholic congregations.

My point is that there was never a time in history when the entire church was encompassed by the Roman Catholic Church.

The Roman Catholic Church came into existence in the 4th century and, like Landmarkism, claimed a history that did not legitimately belong to it.


We see the true church in the New Testament, with congregations that differed greatly from one another. They did take an external lead in planting, but not from Rome (it was actually from Jerusalem...read Acts). And this lead was not in HOW to be but rather what was not essential.

The churches in Corinth, Jerusalem, Galatia....where ever the church existed.....differed.

In the 4th century Rome blended Chriatianity with paganism (not intentionally, but by making Christianity the religion of the Empire). Same thing has happened every time a faith is mandated (we saw this priot to the Hasmonean period with the hellinization of the Hebrew religion, in Haiti with Christianity, and even in 17th century Japan with Roman Catholic evangelism).

And this birthed the Catholic ChChurcha "church" born apostate. But the church being the church (the true church) existed within and without this stillborn entity.

I am not asking you to believe truth. I am simply reiterating my point that the Roman Catholic Church and Baptist Landmark churches have the same misunderstanding of "true church".

 

[37818]

From: Dr. Ben Townsend

Latin quote,

Nam & alterius Principis edictum non ita pridem legi, qui vicem Anabaptistarum dolens, quos ante mille ducentos annes haeretisos, capitalique supplicio dignos esse pronunciatos legimus, vult, ut audiantur omnino, nec indicta causa pro condemnatis habeantur. (The letters of Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius, Liber Epistolarum 150, titled "Alberto Bavariae Duci" in about 1563 A.D.)

Translation of Quote:

For not so long ago I read the edict of the other prince who lamented the fate of the Anabaptists who, so we read, were pronounced heretics twelve hundred years ago and deserving of capital punishment. He wanted them to be heard and not taken as condemned without a hearing.

(by Carolinne White, Ph.D, Oxford University, Head of Oxford Latin) Note: For reference purposes, it would be good to put the proper cite in the footnote, the phrase "Translated by Dr. Carolinne White, Ph.D., Oxford Latin," then followed by the Latin sentence.

 

[37818]

From: Dr. Ben Townsend

Latin quote,

Nam & alterius Principis edictum non ita pridem legi, qui vicem Anabaptistarum dolens, quos ante mille ducentos annes haeretisos, capitalique supplicio dignos esse pronunciatos legimus, vult, ut audiantur omnino, nec indicta causa pro condemnatis habeantur. (The letters of Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius, Liber Epistolarum 150, titled "Alberto Bavariae Duci" in about 1563 A.D.)

Translation of Quote:

For not so long ago I read the edict of the other prince who lamented the fate of the Anabaptists who, so we read, were pronounced heretics twelve hundred years ago and deserving of capital punishment. He wanted them to be heard and not taken as condemned without a hearing.

(by Carolinne White, Ph.D, Oxford University, Head of Oxford Latin) Note: For reference purposes, it would be good to put the proper cite in the footnote, the phrase "Translated by Dr. Carolinne White, Ph.D., Oxford Latin," then followed by the Latin sentence.

1563 AD - 1200 years = 363 AD being the 4th century.

 

[Cathode]

You obviously did not read my post.

I'll rephrase - the "Trail of Tears" is misguided hogwash.

Landmarks fall into the same category as Catholics in their misunderstanding of what constitutes a true church. In fact, the "trail of tears" was just a Landmark attempt to be "Catholic".

The true church has existed throughout Christian history. It is seen among various congregations, to include Catholic congregations.

My point is that there was never a time in history when the entire church was encompassed by the Roman Catholic Church.

The Roman Catholic Church came into existence in the 4th century and, like Landmarkism, claimed a history that did not legitimately belong to it.


We see the true church in the New Testament, with congregations that differed greatly from one another. They did take an external lead in planting, but not from Rome (it was actually from Jerusalem...read Acts). And this lead was not in HOW to be but rather what was not essential.

The churches in Corinth, Jerusalem, Galatia....where ever the church existed.....differed.

In the 4th century Rome blended Chriatianity with paganism (not intentionally, but by making Christianity the religion of the Empire). Same thing has happened every time a faith is mandated (we saw this priot to the Hasmonean period with the hellinization of the Hebrew religion, in Haiti with Christianity, and even in 17th century Japan with Roman Catholic evangelism).

And this birthed the Catholic ChChurcha "church" born apostate. But the church being the church (the true church) existed within and without this stillborn entity.

I am not asking you to believe truth. I am simply reiterating my point that the Roman Catholic Church and Baptist Landmark churches have the same misunderstanding of "true church".

Can you cite some sources. One of the frustrations is, you make blanket statements and assertions but don’t cite sources. I need sources.

 

[Cathode]

From: Dr. Ben Townsend

Latin quote,

Nam & alterius Principis edictum non ita pridem legi, qui vicem Anabaptistarum dolens, quos ante mille ducentos annes haeretisos, capitalique supplicio dignos esse pronunciatos legimus, vult, ut audiantur omnino, nec indicta causa pro condemnatis habeantur. (The letters of Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius, Liber Epistolarum 150, titled "Alberto Bavariae Duci" in about 1563 A.D.)

Translation of Quote:

For not so long ago I read the edict of the other prince who lamented the fate of the Anabaptists who, so we read, were pronounced heretics twelve hundred years ago and deserving of capital punishment. He wanted them to be heard and not taken as condemned without a hearing.

(by Carolinne White, Ph.D, Oxford University, Head of Oxford Latin) Note: For reference purposes, it would be good to put the proper cite in the footnote, the phrase "Translated by Dr. Carolinne White, Ph.D., Oxford Latin," then followed by the Latin sentence.

I think your proto Baptist’s would turn out be heretics of those days.

 

[37818]

I think your proto Baptist’s would turn out be heretics of those days.

Well, if heretics as being accused to be. They too were 4th century not first century as the churches found in the New Testament accounts. The claimed to be Orthodox Churches immerse using water to this day.

 

[JonC]

Can you cite some sources. One of the frustrations is, you make blanket statements and assertions but don’t cite sources. I need sources.

I don't need to cite sources (you have them in your history).

But prior to the Catholic Church there was the Church in Jerusalem, in Corinth, in Gaul, in Edessa. These were by no means Catholic.

Then you have the sects you refer to as "heretic". The doctrine may be unorthodox, but many of these "heresies" (I'd view many as heresys as well) do not actually negate the gospel of Jesus Christ (they were Christians).

You also have the 4th century Cathokic Church (which is a different entity than the current Catholic Church....actual doctrine has changed).


That is the problem with looking to the past.

Roman Catholic doctrine woukd be considered heresy to early Catholics.

Many Baptists who look back run into this same issue. They claim a "church like us" relationship when none exists.

 

[Cathode]

Well, if heretics as being accused to be. They too were 4th century not first century as the churches found in the New Testament accounts. The claimed to be Orthodox Churches immerse using water to this day.

Catholics immerse baptise to this day. But not only.

 

[37818]

But not only.

Here is the point of disagreement. Only immersion is immersion aka translated as baptism.

 

[Cathode]

Here is the point of disagreement. Only immersion is immersion aka translated as baptism.

No. This is entering pharisaical excess, and forgetting the mission, mercy and the Love of God.

When I was a criminal animal, I punched the teeth out of an officious snob that wouldn’t allow desperate people access to the water in a bush fire. I confessed it later and was told it wasn’t a sin in that situation.

Even David took the sacred bread from the priests by necessity.

Mercy is our mission and the mission of the whole church together.

I stand firmly with Gamaliel on this one, I am not going to fight God and His Great Mercy by bureaucratic rules. I experienced God’s Great Mercy, it is looking for any excuse to go out, it is busting to be asked.

It shocked those with Peter to witness The Holy Spirit descend on a whole house full of disgusting Gentiles.

Do not put officious pharisaical obstacles before the little ones to come to Christ.

Even the worst wretch has an ember of conscience in him while he has life, the last hallow of Eden of promise of hope worth redeeming.

We have a responsibility to be ambassadors of Christ, not His gatekeepers.

When we think in terms of mercy, we think like Jesus. The mind of Christ is Mercy.

Nothing is more excessively hypocritical and pharisaical than preventing the little ones to come Jesus in baptism on a technicality, when one holds that Baptism has no effect at all.

I have seen the effect of Baptism, it is regenerative, a baby radiant in the Glorious light of God and a rejoicing about it beyond anything in this world.
I wasn’t told, I saw and experienced it. Only later I asked if that baby was baptised and the father who had secretly baptised the baby a short time earlier asked how I knew. He was stunned that I knew, he was in the middle of his own conversion at the time.

I experience the same rejoicing around any newly baptised, I recognise it every time, but I have not seen the same brilliant light that from the baby that day however. That is very special to me.

 

[JonC]

No. This is entering pharisaical excess, and forgetting the mission, mercy and the Love of God.

The issue is that you consider a multitude of Christian churches, believing different doctrines, to be one and the same.

In a way, I agree and consider them to be the catholic church (not the Catholic Church and certainly not the Roman Catholic Church).

The problem is you take what began in the 4th century and look back to claim what does not belong.

There were, in fact, churches BEFORE Christianity reached Rome. And they looked to the "rock" or foundation as centered in Jerusalm.

But here there were different doctrines abs practices (Paul outlined a very small point of agreement in addition to the gospel).

Until the 3rd century these different churches often clashed. This is expected as they were working out theologians and doctrines.

All of the early church held, for example, to premillennialism....until Origen challenged the view. And this separated some (although it shouldn't have).


Prior to the 4th century the elements of Communion were viewed as to signify Jesus' Body and Blood.

But doctrines changed (taking on a form found in the mystery cults of Rome). In the 4th century Ambrose wrote - "Before the blessing of the heavenly words another nature is spoken of, after the consecration the Body is signified. He Himself speaks of His Blood. Before the consecration it has another name, after it is called Blood."

Chrysostom taught there was an actual change to the elements in some form, and Augustine that the elements transformed to flesh and blood.


Anyway...some of these churches that stood outside of the Catholic Church grew to accept non-Christian beliefs.

Others grew to hold doctrines that opposed the majority (heresies, unorthodox, but still Christian)....these often dealt with the nature of Communion (Ambrose would be a heretic to today's Catholic Church) and details of the Persons of the Trinity. BUT they were still churches.

 

[37818]

No. This is entering pharisaical excess, and forgetting the mission, mercy and the Love of God.

Not possible. Baptists hold to believers immersion. And it not the requirement in order to obtain forgiveness. See 1 Corinthians 1:17, For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.