Creedal Christianity

[LifeOnaPlate]

There's like 200 LDS and one of me, I can't personally address every question it would be impossible. I can make a general post in hopes it covers most of what people were asking, if it doesn't then it doesn't, I don't think I even read your post.

Not surprising. You drop some ridiculous bomb and then disregard its implications. Take a little more time. I take time to respond; I'd appreciate the same.

[Pantsman]

Pantsman:

As in coming from God to prophets, yer darn tootin it ain't nowhere near this *biblical* nature and LDS nature of revelation. It was pure politics and argument. Revelation had fundamentally nothing to do with the formation of the creeds. The letter of COnstantine to both Athanasius and Arius is striking in this regard. HIS power to convene the Bishops in the first place shows something is woefully wrong. Since when does Non-Christian leadership have the power to force Christians to assemble and then force them to accept the doctrine HE thinks is best tin order to keep the peace? The record is crystal clear in this regard, there was no revelation to the formation of the creeds, no matter how you wish to redefine the word "revelation" in order to suit your needs.

Constantine was more sympathetic with the Arian heresy that was thankfully not adopted by the Christian Bishops. Even after Arius readmitted his heresy by redefining the meaning of "one substance" or homoousious, Constantine adopted the Arian heresy, he had promised his sister to support him while hse were on her deathbed. Constantine pushed to have the Bishops accept Arianism but they outwardly refused. Constantine wasn't the only Emperor to side with Arius, yet the Bishops again would not accept the heresy. So what you say is actually backwards. Like it or not Constantine was in charge of the Roman Empire and it was his duty to keep the peace. No different that Brigham Young playing politics with the US government. The fact is Constantine called the matter between Arius and Bishop Alexander a small trifling matter that was dividing a Church of one communion, and they should get together and settle it. He didn't even initially understand what the argument was over.

You act like there was this huge debate, the fact is the council was CALLED because of the heresy Arius brought up, his views were in the very small minority, at the first vote only 17 out of 300 Bishops refused to sign the Nicean Creed, and by the end only 3 abstained. It wasn't this 50/50 division. The whole majority of the Christian Bishops clearly were against the Arian heresy. Calling councils to solve inner Christian disputes is not uncommon, you can see a similar council in Acts 15:4-22.

4 When they arrived in Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church, as well as by the apostles and the presbyters, and they reported what God had done with them.

5 But some from the party of the Pharisees who had become believers stood up and said, "It is necessary to circumcise them and direct them to observe the Mosaic law."

6 The apostles and the presbyters met together to see about this matter.

7 After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, "My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.

8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us.

9 He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts.

10 Why, then, are you now putting God to the test by placing on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear?

11 On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they."

12 The whole assembly fell silent, and they listened while Paul and Barnabas described the signs and wonders God had worked among the Gentiles through them.

13 After they had fallen silent, James responded, "My brothers, listen to me.

14 Symeon 7 has described how God first concerned himself with acquiring from among the Gentiles a people for his name.

15 The words of the prophets agree with this, as is written:

16 'After this I shall return and rebuild the fallen hut of David; from its ruins I shall rebuild it and raise it up again,

17 so that the rest of humanity may seek out the Lord, even all the Gentiles on whom my name is invoked. Thus says the Lord who accomplishes these things,

18 known from of old.'

19 It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles who turn to God,

20 but tell them by letter to avoid pollution from idols, unlawful marriage, the meat of strangled animals, and blood.

21 For Moses, for generations now, has had those who proclaim him in every town, as he has been read in the synagogues every sabbath."

22 Then the apostles and presbyters, in agreement with the whole church, decided to choose representatives and to send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. The ones chosen were Judas, who was called Barsabbas, and Silas, leaders among the brothers.

Leaders of the Church debating doctrine and formulating that doctrine is how it has always been done, it's right in the Bible. You say it leads to apostasy I say it was lead by the Holy Ghost. The council of Nicea was lead by the Holy Ghost, as was the Council in Acts chapter 15. And Arius and the littany of other heresies after him were defeated because God wanted them defeated, and he used the Church and humans to do so.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Leaders of the Church debating doctrine and formulating that doctrine is how it has always been done, it's right in the Bible. You say it leads to apostasy I say it was lead by the Holy Ghost. The council of Nicea was lead by the Holy Ghost, as was the Council in Acts chapter 15. And Arius and the littany of other heresies after him were defeated because God wanted them defeated, and he used the Church and humans to do so.

If it was led by the Holy Ghost, where is the source claiming so from the participants? Why isn't in the canon? Did they assert the spirit inspired the decision?

[PacMan]

Pants,

The difference from your scriptures and Nicea is that they ACTUALLY ALL MET:

The council decided against the Arians overwhelmingly (of the estimated 250-318 attendees, all but 2 voted against Arius). However, due to the machinations of Athanasius and others in his party, many of the Eastern bishops who were pro-Arian, were prevented from reaching the Council until after the vote had been taken.

Constantine had invited all 1800 bishops of the Christian church (about 1000 in the east and 800 in the west), but only 250 to 320 bishops actually participated. Eusebius of Caesarea counted 250,[6] Athanasius of Alexandria counted 318,[7] and Eustathius of Antioch counted 270[8] (all three were present at the council). Later, Socrates Scholasticus recorded more than 300,[9] and Evagrius,[10] Hilarius,[11] Jerome[12] and Rufinus recorded 318.

Sounds like "corrupt revelation" is you ask me.

PacMan

[Pantsman]

Pants,

The difference from your scriptures and Nicea is that they ACTUALLY ALL MET:

Sounds like "corrupt revelation" is you ask me.

PacMan

You can gather from Acts 15 that ALL OF THEM ACTUALLY MET? You are telling me there wasn't any missing presbyters or Bishops from far off places? I don't see how you can garner that from the Biblical passage I provided. There's no assurance that every Christian presbyter/Apostle/Bishop was present.

It doesn't sound like "corrupt revelation" to me, it sounds like a council of Christian Bishops sanctioned by the Bishop of Rome that overwhelming found against the Arian heresy which was why the council was called in the first place.

[PacMan]

Pants,

It doesn't sound like "corrupt revelation" to me, it sounds like a council of Christian Bishops sanctioned by the Bishop of Rome that overwhelming found against the Arian heresy which was why the council was called in the first place.

Let's go with that. Certainly, I don't know that they ALL were there in the Biblical account. But for that matter, nor do we know that some were detatined malicously to thwart fair input and voting! That's exactly what happened in the council!

Now interestingly, you continue to refer to the Arain heresy yet tout Constantitne a baptised Christian (well...you haven't done it in this thread, but I assume you believe it). Let us recall that Constantine's cousin was the Arian bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia--a heretic! And it was through this heretic that Constantine received his death bed baptism! By defintion of the RCC, Constantine can't be a Christian!

PacMan

[Pantsman]

Pants,

Let's go with that. Certainly, I don't know that they ALL were there in the Biblical account. But for that matter, nor do we know that some were detatined malicously to thwart fair input and voting! That's exactly what happened in the council!

Now interestingly, you continue to refer to the Arain heresy yet tout Constantitne a baptised Christian. Let us recall that Constantine's cousing was the Arian bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia--a heretic! And it was through this heretic that Constantine received his death bed baptism! By defintion of the RCC, Constantine can't be a Christian!

PacMan

Detained maliciously? According to whom? Why was Arius present? If there was malicious intent wouldn't he be the first to be "mailiciously detained"?

Your second part isn't true, a Priest falling into heresy doesn't invalidate baptism or any previous sacraments they may have done, in fact according to Catholics even a pagan can baptize in the Trinitarian formula, as long as the Trinitarian formula is used, and the meaning is correct.

I don't get it one guy argues that Constantine forced the Council to form the decision HE wanted. But Constantine supported Arianism, how could the council come to a differing opinion if Constantine pullled so much weight? Why would Constantine allow all these Arian Bishops to be detained from joining the council, when he was a supporter of arianism? And again if these Bishops were going to use violence and "maliciously detain" pro-arian Bishops, why wouldn't they detain Arius, or stop him from joining the council? They not only allowed him to come, but they let him openly speak.

Your idea is arianism was correct? Then arians dissapeared along with Christ's Church, I can outwardly reject that because Christ promised that wouldn't happen. Either Christ lied, or your claims are false.

[PacMan]

Pants,

I certainly have found interest in the subject and would like to look into it more. Check out Wikipedia for a summary. The fact is something like 1800 were invited, but the vast majority of the Arians didnâ??t comeâ?¦and most apparently, detained by Athanasius and others. Again, I'll need to look into the sources more.

Your second part isn't true, a Priest falling into heresy doesn't invalidate baptism or any previous sacraments they may have done, in fact according to Catholics even a pagan can baptize in the Trinitarian formula, as long as the Trinitarian formula is used, and the meaning is correct.

First, he didnâ??t fall into heresy. He always believed it (unless youâ??ve evidence to the contrary). Secondlyâ?¦itâ??s interesting that paganâ??s can baptize, but of course that goes back to authority, etc., anyway. I am interested, why is the LDS baptismal formula not legititmate? Third, the issue of baptism was tremendous at Nicea. Considering that there were so many different baptismal creeds, etc., what happened to all the oneâ??s that were wrong, and all the Bishops that were themselves baptized in an erroneous fashion? Didnâ??t Paul say, â??one baptism?â? How could those very Bishops with fallacious baptisms and promulgating them have any authority to vote within the counsels? Without this â??one baptism,â? they werenâ??t even really Christians!

But Constantine supported Arianism, how could the council come to a differing opinion if Constantine pullled so much weight?

No one said anything about Constantine and Arianism. I think we all agree that Constantine didnâ??t really careâ?¦he used religion as a political puppet. As such, thereâ??s no reason to assume he had any affiliation with the aforementioned detention, and even if he didâ?¦he probably didnâ??t care.

They not only allowed him to come, but they let him openly speak.

Sureâ?¦and in doing so the 20 that were with him were so vastly outnumbered, they switched sides. Backbones come few, far and in between a mass of populous dissent.

Your idea is arianism was correct? Then arians dissapeared along with Christ's Church, I can outwardly reject that because Christ promised that wouldn't happen. Either Christ lied, or your claims are false.

Huh? I never said that. But again, Christ didnâ??t lie. His authority was lost as His followers turned their backs on Him, and He made preparations that His church would be restored and thus prevail. So your disastrous â??either/orâ? is devastatingly narrow minded. The false dilemma is, He lied, my claim is false, or your interpretation is wildly ridiculous (and the RCC hasnâ??t authority).

PacMan

[LifeOnaPlate]

I'm still waiting for any authoritative statement that the Council considered their findings "revelation" comparable to the Bible.

[PacMan]

Pants,

Oh, I almost forgot. The other reason they wanted Arius there was so they could excommunicate him. The 18 Bishops that supported him wrote up a creed, which was cause an uproar among the other 300 or so. It was so great that they burned Arius's book and excommunicated him right there. No wonder those 16 were thus "influenced" to stab him in the back.

PacMan

[Pantsman]

Pants,

Oh, I almost forgot. The other reason they wanted Arius there was so they could excommunicate him. The 18 Bishops that supported him wrote up a creed, which was cause an uproar among the other 300 or so. It was so great that they burned Arius's book and excommunicated him right there. No wonder those 16 were thus "influenced" to stab him in the back.

PacMan

Are you saying the Church could only issue an order of excommunication by having the ex-communicant present at a Christian council? I don't think that is correct, I believe many have been excommunicated while not being present at a council at all. Arias being at the council had nothing to do with excommunicating him.

I don't know, but if there was this big plot to not allow Arian Bishops at the council, and violence and deception was used against them. You would think it would've made even more sense to use violence and deception against the guy proposing the heresy right? It would've been much simpler to club old Arias over the dome and toss him in the Tiber. Then hold the council and ex-communicate Arias and all Arian Bishops post mortem.

Maybe those "16" didn't stab him in the back at all? Maybe like the Judaizers in Acts chapter 15, they were convinced by the debate that took place at the council and changed their tune, much like the Jewish men who Peter convinced that circumcision and holding the Mosaic law wasn't necessary for converts. Maybe the Holy Ghost compelled them to listen to Turth? I guess it's all how you look at it, if you look at the early Church as corrupted and evil, and scheming then you come to the conclusion you do, I of course don't, therefore I come to a different conclusion.

Are you this cynical when looking at your own faith? If not how do you justify your faith?

[PacMan]

Are you saying the Church could only issue an order of excommunication by having the ex-communicant present at a Christian council? I don't think that is correct, I believe many have been excommunicated while not being present at a council at all. Arias being at the council had nothing to do with excommunicating him.

No, but it's the best way to incite a mob and get a near unanimous support. But yes, it had everything to do with his excommunication, because it was the counselâ??s uprising that â??convincedâ? the other 18 to turn on Arius.

FMI, what was the process of excommunication of a Bishop? The Pope wasnâ??t there.

I don't know, but if there was this big plot to not allow Arian Bishops at the council, and violence and deception was used against them. You would think it would've made even more sense to use violence and deception against the guy proposing the heresy right? It would've been much simpler to club old Arias over the dome and toss him in the Tiber. Then hold the council and ex-communicate Arias and all Arian Bishops post mortem.

I never said violenceâ?¦simply that they were detained. Eradication and torture (as far as I know) hadnâ??t yet been used on supposed heretics.

Maybe those "16" didn't stab him in the back at all? Maybe like the Judaizers in Acts chapter 15, they were convinced by the debate that took place at the council and changed their tune, much like the Jewish men who Peter convinced that circumcision and holding the Mosaic law wasn't necessary for converts. Maybe the Holy Ghost compelled them to listen to Turth? I guess it's all how you look at it, if you look at the early Church as corrupted and evil, and scheming then you come to the conclusion you do, I of course don't, therefore I come to a different conclusion.

The fact is that they DID stab him in the back. The question is whether it was political flip-flop or honest conversion. I donâ??t know.

Are you this cynical when looking at your own faith? If not how do you justify your faith?

???? I look at the facts of the matter and piece them togetherâ?¦and this has everything to do with history (although you see it as â??your faithâ??). Moreover, I donâ??t understand how my approach has anything whatsoever to do with this conversation. Youâ??ve been doing goodâ?¦donâ??t get defensive and throw out red herrings to derail the thread.

PacMan

[Pantsman]

"You've been doing good" LOL how can you be so condescending???? yes Daddy I'll be good, you gotta be kidding me...

It was a SIMPLE question, you make statements that to me show you immediately think the worst of the CC and early Church. I am just curious if you use the same level of scrutiny with your faith? If not then why use it with mine? All it does is show your obvious bias and it's piointless to have a discussion with you.

[PacMan]

Well, it wasn't meant to offend.

Again, I'm looking at history and have never at anytime said that the RCC is thus false. Certain aspects are untenable, and others unflattering...but these that I'm talking about are historical. Realize the argument for what it is...not for the ominous and dreaded conclusions that are implictily realized.

PacMan

[LifeOnaPlate]

ATTN: Pantsman:

I'm still waiting for any authoritative statement that the Council considered their findings "revelation" comparable to the Bible.

[Pantsman]

ATTN: Pantsman:

I'm still waiting for any authoritative statement that the Council considered their findings "revelation" comparable to the Bible.

I don't understand what you mean by "revelation" comparable to the Bible. I will say that what the Nicean Creed states is deemed Dogmatic and an infallible teaching of the Church. It may be a different phrasing but it's essentially stating the same thing.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I don't understand what you mean by "revelation" comparable to the Bible. I will say that what the Nicean Creed states is deemed Dogmatic and an infallible teaching of the Church. It may be a different phrasing but it's essentially stating the same thing.

I was under the impression you felt this creed was inspired by God, revealed to the counsel, rather than a restatement of belief, which actually contradicts its supposed source, the Bible; else the creed wouldn't have been needed.

[Pantsman]

I was under the impression you felt this creed was inspired by God, revealed to the counsel, rather than a restatement of belief, which actually contradicts its supposed source, the Bible; else the creed wouldn't have been needed.

A creed is a simple statement of belief, it was formed at a council I believe was guided by the Holy Ghost and bound as Dogma by the Catholic Church who has the authority to bind and loose. The Nicean Creed in no way contradicts the Bible. And just because something is in the Bible doesn't mean people don't need clarification on certain matters why do you think there's 30,000+ Christian denominations in the world?