Protestants And The Nicene Creed...

[PacMan]

CK,

Now, having read every word of the document you linked me to, I must say that my ‘editor’s hat’ certainly has some harsh criticism. I know the purpose wasn’t to critique, but I am very, very wary of argumentum verbosium, and feel a natural gag when such wool blankets any given paper.

Essentially, the paper takes a falsely objective approach to determine the meaning of the given phrase, asking multiple rhetorical questions. The exegesis then gives floods of information, and I had to ask my self many, many times…’what’s the point?’ The premise is backed into, with loads of information but very little evidence—not that there is none, but it is presented in a massive dump, not presented as linearly understandable.

I have actually made many comments from the paper as I went, which I have since erased. Instead, I want to identify a few things in critique to hopefully engage the paper as presented.

“In order to enter the kingdom of God, it is necessary for one to be physically born and, subsequently, to experience a spiritual birth. This view is supported by connecting u{dwr

with the amniotic fluid that surrounds an unborn child in its mother’s womb and ruptures at delivery,94 or by taking it as a metaphor for semen.”

It seems that one of the main arguments is that the water birth is but metaphoric for our actually, earthly birth. If that is the case, then consider the following:

1) Either one exists before birth, by which the initial birth and re-birth are needed for salvation, or

2) The command to receive such ‘birth by water’ is completely, and utterly useless, for one doesn’t exist prior to birth to even be considered.

But following the water theme, also written is the following:

The coordinate relationship between John 3:5 and Ezekiel 36:25–27 demonstrates that “water” is a cleansing from sin, and that God’s “Spirit” transforms the heart.

So is our actual birth now this water that cleanses us from sin? The whole structure of the paper begins to flounder in complete confusion…what is being talked about, what is the point of the author, and how in the heck does he presume that he is proving his point (assuming we know what it is)?

Also, there seem to be terribly subjective “fuzzy math,” that I frankly, don’t understand:

If we attribute any significance to the fact that Jesus only refers to water in three contexts and that in the other two he connects these to the Spirit or life, this would suggest that his use of water in “3:5 likewise symbolizes the life-giving operation of the Spirit.

IF we attribute such significance to the former, one may like to hope that it suggests the latter. I find no convincing necessity to follow this rationale.

Another thought:

On a number of occasions, I’m surprised at the analysis. Jesus would not necessarily have spoken to Nicodemus in Greek. Clearly, the context as given was received by Nicodemus as being born from the womb, with Christ amending it as being “born again” in a like, but metaphoric indication. It is likely unhelpful to analyze the Greek, to see how Nicodemus misunderstood Jesus’ Aramaic. Cross-language translational nit-picking is tremendously difficult and almost uselss. But that’s just my experience with four languages speaking. Perhaps Jesus and Nicodemus and Jesus were speaking Greek…I don’t know.

In summation, Jesus has told Nicodemus in 3:5 that, if one is to enter the kingdom of God, he must be the recipient of the life-giving and purifying work produced by the Spirit.

One cannot verbosely unfold interesting insights without lines of logical coherence, and then credibly summarize them in a magical fashion to one's preferred image. The fact is that this is NOT the summation of the insights, at least in any particularly convincing manner. The evidence is not presented linearly, but with hidden and buried hypotheses, leaving the reader lost in connecting the dots and wondering, “huh?” It is confusing, and rather frustrating. Surely, the passive phrase "born of" is interesting, but it is far removed from this conclusion. Moreover, the passive makes perfect sense considering one does the baptizing unto the recipient and the laying on of hands, again, unto the recipient. This is another can of worms altogether, but such needs be objectively discussed.

Come the conclusion is the anti-climatic ending:

Therefore, we conclude that “born of water and the Spirit” refers to the life-giving and purifying activity of the Spirit.

I am forced to wonder, ‘What? Where did this come from? Moreover, what does this have to do with the water? What does the water do, and why is there an “AND” placed between it and the ‘birth’ of the spirit if they were not mutually exclusive?’

It seems that the honest premise of the work is, “Baptism isn’t a saving work/ordinance/sacrament, etc.” In my own summation, why in the world would Christ be baptized if it were not necessary to fulfill all righteousness?

I don’t want to be critical and say there is no merit to the paper…but to be honest, I don’t know where the merit is. What appears to by the premise of the paper seems weakly supported…but I’m not even sure that I’ve identified it correctly. Verbosity seems to have gotten the best of me and embittered my judgment. Please, if I’ve missed the point of the paper now having waded through it, I think you owe it to me to point it out.

Best,

PacMan

[AZBeliever]

I've had a short PM conversation with CKSalmon concerning the issue, and am interested in opening it up (he, most apparently has more of a life than I do...leaving me to wait for responses longer than I'm willing)!

For protestants, note (quote in whole, but bolded for emphasis):

The two questions become:

1-Do you as Protestants believe in "one holy catholic and apostolic Church?"

2-Do you acknowledge the one baptism as subscribed by the RCC (infant baptisms, baptism by desire, etc.)? Deviations denote differences.

I'll wait for other postings and not preemptively respond to the obvious rebuttles.

Cheers,

PacMan

1- Yes, I believe there is only one true church of God. It is all of God's redeemed people that have trusted in Him for their salvation. This church is not one formal human institution (such as the LDS Church, the Catholic Church or the Southern Baptist Convention), but the totality of God's people that will come from every nation and every tribe.

2. No, I do not believe in baptism as subscribed to by one human instition known as the Roman Catholic Church. I believe that all who are saved will be baptized by the Holy Spirit. As an act of obedience, professing believers should become baptized by water, but it is not a work that must be done to receive salvation.

By the way, "Catholic" typically refers to the Roman Catholic Church and "catholic" means universal.

Cheers,

AZBeliever

[PacMan]

Cksalmon,

Again, youâ??re missing the point:

(1) I think this is precisely the issue of debate at Nicea.

I am not talking of what was the issue of debate at Nicea. There were several, and Arianism (the subsequent definition of Christianity) was a major one. But thatâ??s not what weâ??re talking about here.

(2) You seem to read some sort of nefarious power-grab into the council. I don't see that at all, frankly.

Are you kidding? You honestly believe these Bishops werenâ??t power-grabbers? Ariusâ??s likely detainment is evidence enoughâ?¦as a Ph.d in divinity told me yesterday, â??Yeahâ?¦hahahaâ?¦they were doing that to each other all the time!â?

You make much of Constantine's influence, but I'd suggest that whatever council he gave was received by him from Christian bishops.

Untrueâ?¦the influence of the counsel wasnâ??t necessarily Constantineâ??s, but its arrangement certainly was (and very secondaryâ?¦donâ??t get caught up on him). Iâ??m making much of the Popeâ??s influence, which you have successfully evaded again, and again. These Bishop were subject to the Pope, whom was clearly the leader of the RCC (again, anachronisms aside). If youâ??d respond to that, Iâ??d appreciate it.

Until you can come to at least countenance the idea that Nicea constituted a demarcation of legitimate Christian faith vis-a-vis a purely political contrivance, I don't know if we can move forward in the discussion.

Constantine did what he did for his own reasons, but it doesnâ??t change what Nicea was. I donâ??t disagree with you. I simply suggest that it has no holding in our conversation. Iâ??ve only used Constantine as an example of an authorityâ??whatever be the minor role which he had. But that was simply to precede that of the Pope, for which I was hoping for a response.

If that's all and only what Nicea is in your mind, then I'd suggest we just cannot come to any sort of reasonable d

[PacMan]

AZ:

1- Yes, I believe there is only one true church of God. It is all of God's redeemed people that have trusted in Him for their salvation. This church is not one formal human institution (such as the LDS Church, the Catholic Church or the Southern Baptist Convention), but the totality of God's people that will come from every nation and every tribe.

2. No, I do not believe in baptism as subscribed to by one human instition known as the Roman Catholic Church. I believe that all who are saved will be baptized by the Holy Spirit. As an act of obedience, professing believers should become baptized by water, but it is not a work that must be done to receive salvation.

By the way, "Catholic" typically refers to the Roman Catholic Church and "catholic" means universal.

1) So why did the church at the time of Nicea have a Pope, and was composed of Bishops subject to him?

2) I presume you disagree with the premise that John 3:5 refers to baptism? Why then did Christ ask his cousin to baptize him to fulfill all righteousness? What else does this "born of water" refer to? I have yet to see a convincing, or tenable argument and am eager to hear one.

PacMan

[David Waltz]

Good morning CKS,

You posted:

CK:>> Well, I consider myself something of a fundamentalist Baptist (though perhaps not in the sense you mean, as I do have a great affinity for the ministerial praxis of John Bunyan).>>

Me: By â??fundamentalist Baptistâ? I was referring to groups like the Bible Baptist Fellowship International, Independent Baptist Fellowship International, General Association of Regular Baptist Churches, etc.

CK:>>And I do manifestly accept the early creeds as accurate summaries of deduced biblical truths.>>

Me: As I thought you did.

CK:>>The reason Protestants (if they do) subscribe to the early creeds is a matter of generic identification with the universal Christian church--not a specific identification with RCC, etc. Why wouldn't I ascribe truth value to Nicea, for example? I see no reason not to. I certainly wouldn't avoid doing so simply because it might appear to some that I don't believe scripture is more or less perspicuous.

I don't think there is any need to be perplexed about that.>>

Me: I suppose my caveat is that the Nicene creed and the symbol of Chalcedon were created because the Scriptures alone were just not clear enough on the matters addressed therein.

The renowned Biblicist, Raymond E. Brown, had the following insightful comments:

Precisely because the â??trinitarianâ? line of development was not the only line of thought detectable in the NT, one must posit the guidance of the Spirit and on intuition of faith as the church came to its decision. [Footnote 18: â??The Fathers at Nicea were perfectly aware that in the way they were defining the divinity of Jesus they were going beyond purely biblical categoriesâ?¦â?] (Biblical Exegesis and Church Doctrine, p. 33.)

Grace and peace,

David

[PacMan]

DW:

I find Raymond Brown's quote interesting...what information or evidences does he use to support the footnote?

PacMan

[David Waltz]

Hi Pacman,

You posted:

>>I find Raymond Brown's quote interesting...what information or evidences does he use to support the footnote?>>

Me: Though known as a Biblical scholar, Brown also has a vast knowledge of patristics. He does not reference any sources in support of his statements, so I shall recommend a couple:

The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God â?? R.P.C. Hanson

Divine Substance â?? Christopher Stead

These two books trace the development of post-Biblical theology and terminology concerning the doctrine of the Godhead; both are superb IMHO.

Grace and peace,

David

[PacMan]

--Da Bump--

P.S. Thanks David.

[paulhadik]

Brer David:

had to travel all the way over here to track you down! How are you? It is sea snail season out here, do you get those on your track of the ocean?

anyway, you could have told Sargon that we Prots don't exclude anyone from anything for not accepting parts of creeds...

and I think we both know that creeds served a couple purposes: mainly as clarification against heresy and very often as teaching tools especially in a time when few people had Bibles of their own.

As for me I have been preaching doctrine for a couple years now and find it better to get my doctrine straight from Scripture then to Wikipedia certain councils to see what I should preach on...

but, that's just me

perspecuilly yours,

paul

Hi Sargon,

You wrote:

>>I too remain perplexed as to why such importance is placed by protestants on the creeds of the early RC chuch. They exclude us from Christianity for not accepting parts of certain creeds, yet they themselves accept only about 7 of the 21. What is the cutoff for how many creeds you can accept and still be considered Christian?>>

Me: As with pretty much EVERYTHING, it is impossible to lump the Prots together concerning the ancient creeds and Ecumenical Council. Some groups (e.g. fundamentalist Baptists and Pentecostals) reject all the Councils; but I would say the majority of Prots, who still care about doctrine, would accept the first 4.

Grace and peace,

David

P.S. BTW, I am a bit perplexed too given THE basic tenant of Protestantism: sola scriptura. If the Scriptures are the only source of divine authority, and they are CLEAR (perspicuity) concerning the â??essentialsâ?, then why make/subscribe to creeds, confessions, catechisms, et al.?

[PacMan]

paulhadik,

On what account do you accept parts of creeds? The majority of Protestants (on such issues as the Trinity) are in lockstep, but why? Obvsiously, there was a great deal of debate on the subject with varying views. Yet somehow, nearly all traditional Christians have happened upon the same theological conclusions? It is most suspect to me. It is obvious that the creeds have held authority over the many years, influencing interpretations, etc.; but why? What authority do these creeds hold, made up Bishops and representatives from the Pope himself? Do you as a Protestant leave such interpreations to Catholics? What if they're wrong? Then where would you look for such inspiration for interpretation?

PacMan

[David Waltz]

Well hello Paul!

I am quite pleased that you tracked me down (btw, I was not attempting to hide <grin>).

No sea snails here, just tons of seagulls, sandpipers, and those crazy terns who dive bomb me when I run on the beach! (Pelicans will be showing up shortlyâ?¦)

As for creeds, it sure seems to me that many feel a certain necessity concerning their formation (one could add: commentaries, catechisms, confessions, etc.). And I do not think it a stretch to suggest that Arians would be a dominate coalition in the Church if the Nicene Creed had not been formulated.

Now, a couple of quotes from much brighter men than me on the clarity of the Sacred Scriptures:

First, from Benedict XVI -

Historical research has done away with the Reformation idea that Scripture has one clear meaningâ?¦ (Cardinal Ratzinger, â??The Transmission of Divine Revelationâ?, in Commentary On The Documents of Vatican II, vol. 3, p. 194.)

The Protestant scholar, A.N.S. Lane concurs -

The Reformers unequivocally rejected the teaching authority of the Roman Catholic Church. This left open the question of who should interpret Scripture. The Reformation was not a struggle for the right of private judgement. The Reformers feared private judgement almost as much as did the Catholics and were not slow to attack it in its Anabaptist manifestation. The Reformation principle was not private judgement but the perspicuity of the Scriptures. Scripture was â??sui ipsius interpresâ?? and the simple principle of interpreting individual passages by the whole was to lead to unanimity in understanding. This came close to creating anew the infallible churchâ?¦It was this belief in the clarity of Scripture that made the early disputes between Protestants so fierce. This theory seemed plausible while the majority of Protestants held to Luthern or Calvinist orthodoxy but the seventeenth century saw the beginning of the erosion of these monopolies. But even in 1530 Casper Schwenckfeld could cynically note that â??the Papists damn the Lutherans; the Lutherans damn the Zwinglians; the Zwinglians damn the Anabaptists and the Anabaptists damn all others.â?? By the end of seventeenth century many others saw that it was not possible on the basis of Scripture alone to build up a detailed orthodoxy commanding general assent. (A.N.S. Lane, â??Scripture, Tradition and Church: An Historical Surveyâ?, Vox Evangelica, Volume IX â?? 1975, pp. 44, 45 - bold emphasis mine.)

Oh, and btw, I finally broke down and created my own blog todayâ??shocking, but nonetheless true: http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/

Grace and peace,

David

[AZBeliever]

AZ:

1) So why did the church at the time of Nicea have a Pope, and was composed of Bishops subject to him?

2) I presume you disagree with the premise that John 3:5 refers to baptism? Why then did Christ ask his cousin to baptize him to fulfill all righteousness? What else does this "born of water" refer to? I have yet to see a convincing, or tenable argument and am eager to hear one.

PacMan

PacMan,

Question 1-

I do not see the relevance of this question, quite honestly. Is it not possible for someone (or an institution) to have a correct understanding of some concepts, but perhaps a fault understanding of others? Can I not agree with the Catholic church on issues that I think they are correct on? Can I not disagree with them on others? I think the RCC has a solid understanding of the nature of God, but have faulty views on issues of salvation itself, the role of the the authority of the scriptures and Tradition, and troubling doctrines such as the sinlessness of Mary and purgatory. I disagree with the LDS on most theological issues, but do agree with them mainly on social and political issues. Is it possible that the RCC deteriorated over time, especially when it became the "official" religion of the Roman Empire?

Question 2-

What does "born of water" refer to? Strangely enough, baptism is nowhere mentioned in this passage, so many assume that baptism is referred to because water is mentioned. But, here are my thoughts:

Possibility 1- the amniotic fluid associated with natural birth. I personally don't subscribe to this as I think it is a weak argument, but some interpret it this way.

Possibibility 2- The water in this passage refers to the spiritual cleansing associated with the spiritual rebirth that must take place. The idea of cleansing is seen in many other places in the Bible where water is reference and yet does not refer to baptism:

Ezekiel 36:24 "For I will take you from the nations, gather you from all the lands and bring you into your own land. 25 "Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. 26 "Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 "I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.

Numbers 19:17 'Then for the unclean {person} they shall take some of the ashes of the burnt purification from sin and flowing water shall be added to them in a vessel. 18 'A clean person shall take hyssop and dip {it} in the water, and sprinkle {it} on the tent and on all the furnishings and on the persons who were there, and on the one who touched the bone or the one slain or the one dying {naturally} or the grave. 19 'Then the clean {person} shall sprinkle on the unclean on the third day and on the seventh day; and on the seventh day he shall purify him from uncleanness, and he shall wash his clothes and bathe {himself} in water and shall be clean by evening.

Psalm 51:9 'Now a man who is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer and deposit them outside the camp in a clean place, and the congregation of the sons of Israel shall keep it as water to remove impurity; it is purification from sin.

Jeremiah 2:13 "For My people have committed two evils: They have forsaken Me, The fountain of living waters, To hew for themselves cisterns, Broken cisterns That can hold no water.

The "spiritual washing" of the soul by the God occurs at the moment of salvation for the individual:

Ephesians 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, 26 so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless.

Titus 3:5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit...

Baptism is an outward sign of an inward change, just as circumcision was in the Old Testament...

Romans 2:28 - For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh.

29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.

Besides, we know from numerous other passages that salvation is by grace, through faith alone in Christ, apart from human effort or even will:

John 1:12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. 14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Ephesians 2:1 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, 2 in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. 3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the R76 lusts of our flesh, indulging F28 the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. 4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

I hope this helps answer your questions...

Cheers

AZ95

[paulhadik]

Pacman:

to be honest, for most of us we think the Nicene Creed is a boxer from one of the Rocky movies. we consider words like homouisis to be simply alternate lifestyles...

Is there a traditional basis for much of our beliefs, certainly yes and I would be disingenuous to deny it.

BUT...I was raised, and I raise my children not to base their beliefs simply on what they have heard and been taught, but what they see and learn through diligent study of Scripture. From that I have come to my personal understanding of the nature of God, man, salvation etc...as I think many others have.

That's these beliefs are quite similar do not necessarily mean we derived them from creeds, but more probably that we derived them from the same source: the Holy Spirit.

So the foundations for my "interpretations" is not the seat of Rome but Scripture itself.

As for Rome being wrong? They have been quite often. Their doctrines of mariology, denying the sacrament of wine to the laity and church authority structure all lack any Scriptural backup so they have developed development and elevated tradition

paul

paulhadik,

On what account do you accept parts of creeds? The majority of Protestants (on such issues as the Trinity) are in lockstep, but why? Obvsiously, there was a great deal of debate on the subject with varying views. Yet somehow, nearly all traditional Christians have happened upon the same theological conclusions? It is most suspect to me. It is obvious that the creeds have held authority over the many years, influencing interpretations, etc.; but why? What authority do these creeds hold, made up Bishops and representatives from the Pope himself? Do you as a Protestant leave such interpreations to Catholics? What if they're wrong? Then where would you look for such inspiration for interpretation?

PacMan

[kantgomo]

The two questions become:

1-Yes

2- Not exactly sure what the RCC believes on this. I do know that I very much disagreed with what the Catholic priest had to say about infant baptism when my infant cousin was baptized in the Catholic church.

[kantgomo]

Hi Pacman,

You posted:

>>I find Raymond Brown's quote interesting...what information or evidences does he use to support the footnote?>>

Me: Though known as a Biblical scholar, Brown also has a vast knowledge of patristics. He does not reference any sources in support of his statements, so I shall recommend a couple:

The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God â?? R.P.C. Hanson

Divine Substance â?? Christopher Stead

These two books trace the development of post-Biblical theology and terminology concerning the doctrine of the Godhead; both are superb IMHO.

Grace and peace,

David

What? Now you want us to define Scripture through a couple of books while complaining about us allegedly not adhering to sola scriptura?

[paulhadik]

Kantgomo:

I know David will respond for himself but he is RCC and rejects the idea of sola scriptura so I am sure he won't hold it against you if you reject it also.

[PacMan]

AZ,

Question 1-

I do not see the relevance of this question, quite honestly. Is it not possible for someone (or an institution) to have a correct understanding of some concepts, but perhaps a fault understanding of others? Can I not agree with the Catholic church on issues that I think they are correct on? Can I not disagree with them on others? I think the RCC has a solid understanding of the nature of God, but have faulty views on issues of salvation itself, the role of the the authority of the scriptures and Tradition, and troubling doctrines such as the sinlessness of Mary and purgatory. I disagree with the LDS on most theological issues, but do agree with them mainly on social and political issues. Is it possible that the RCC deteriorated over time, especially when it became the "official" religion of the Roman Empire?

You don’t see the relevance? Well…that’s a surprise! The issue is that it’s held authoritatively, and I ask…by what authority? Considering the great number of disagreements, why does it seem coincidental that Orthodox Christianity as a whole just happens to now agree on the subject? I sure hope it has nothing to do with other being condemned as heretics, and others being tortured and murdered for differencing opinions! Considering the ages of debate on the matter, it tells me one thing: Orthodox Christianity are lockstep lemmings. The Trinitarian definition is so elusive, and not particularly well based. Plausible…certainly, and I respect your and others beliefs. But it is one of the more poorly defined doctrines…so why the general agreement? 1) Because general Christianity accept the authority of the Catholic counsels to define such things as the trinity, 2) traditional complacency.

Who’s to say they got it right? They were, indeed…Catholics?!

On the water and baptism issue, I responded in a fairly lengthy article to CKSalmon over a paper he suggested I read on the subject. I reject it fully, for multiple reasons that I outline.

Possibility 1- Amniotic fluid: You don’t subscribe to it (good thing to, or else it’d cause some severe doctrinal explaining to be done), and I think it’s stupid…so we’ll move on.

Possibility 2-

The water in this passage refers to the spiritual cleansing associated with the spiritual rebirth that must take place.

This makes absolutely no sense. As I responded in my commentary, why then would Jesus say, “born of the water AND of the spirit” if it is one and the same? Why would Paul refer to both Noah and Moses’ group as having been baptized, speaking specifically of Noah and those “eight souls” being saved “by” the water? Why would Jesus be baptized to fulfill all righteousness if it weren’t needed? Certainly if he does, we NEED it.

Now, I’m not going through all your scriptures because I don’t respond to senseless listings. But here’s the first couple:

Ezekiel (Numbers) says “sprinkle clean water.” This is in no way any submersion, and thus cannot be baptism. Moreover, the priests of old washed themselves as part of the purifying process to sacrifice (as did others for any number of given situations). It was under an old law, and simply not baptism.

Psalms are talking about ashes like water. I don’t know what this has to do with anything.

Jeremiah: Certainly Christ is the living water, NEEDED for spiritual sustenance. That is what you’d call an overt metaphor. Moreover, it has nothing to do with “cleansing.” You confuse your own argument (here and a couple more places).

I cannot respond when you conflate the old law and practices with the new law, when they were no longer followed. I cannot respond when you use verbosity to prove a point through confusion. Jesus speaks directly on being “born again,” of “water and of the spirit,” and so far you’ve sufficed in drowning (no pun intended) the issue by saying, “well, water doesn’t always been baptism.” So what? I never said that it did? But more importantly, you’ve give no coherent explanation to WHAT it DOES refer. Certainly, I respect your belief, but I have a hard time respecting a song and dance that confuses and confounds the issue without giving any credible explanation as to the verse in question, nor any meaningful juxtaposition of other NT mentioning of baptism such as those I’ve previously referred.

In other words, I need to respectfully reject your explanation…for it isn’t one.

Best,

PacMan

[PacMan]

paulhadik,

BUT...I was raised, and I raise my children not to base their beliefs simply on what they have heard and been taught, but what they see and learn through diligent study of Scripture.

I believe thatâ??s what you sincerely believe, but a diligent study of the scriptures will evidence that the Trinitarian definition not only finds very little support in the scriptures, but contradicts itself. For example, John 10:30 & 17:21-22: How is it possible to juxtapose this â??onenessâ? without being inconsistent? John 10 is literal that â??I and my Father are one,â? but John 17 is metaphoric in saying â??they also may be one in usâ?¦that they may be one, even as we are one?â? That makes no sense. We are to be one â??asâ? they are one. That means, â??just likeâ?? they are. Whatever application you submit in John 10 needs be applied in John to avoid disingenuousness.

Now, you can believe what you will, but I cannot accept the reasoning that it is diligent scripture study that lends this belief. That in of itself is simply not enough. There is strict reliance on traditionalism. Not bad necessarily, but one begs to ask what authority this traditionalism operates? The answer in this case is glaring: The Catholic church.

That's these beliefs are quite similar do not necessarily mean we derived them from creeds, but more probably that we derived them from the same source: the Holy Spirit.

So the foundations for my "interpretations" is not the seat of Rome but Scripture itself.

And there were many that held to the same inspiration and came up with remarkably different interpretations. The problem is that they were weeded out, many likely to corruption and conspiracy. Labeled heretics then later slaughtered, these other forms of thinking werenâ??t even permitted.

Cheers,

PacMan

[David Waltz]

Hi kantgomo,

You posted:

>> What? Now you want us to define Scripture through a couple of books while complaining about us allegedly not adhering to sola scriptura?>>

Me: The books I recommended deal with historical development.

As for the issue of sola scriptura, more than one form exists within Protestantism; and believe it or not, a Catholic form exists. Note the following:

Unlike modern Evangelicalism, the classical Protestant Reformers held to a high view of the Church. When the Reformers confessed extra ecclesiam nulla salus, which means â??there is no salvation outside the Church,â? they were not referring to the invisible Church of all the elect. Such a statement would be tantamount to saying that outside of salvation there is no salvation. It would be a truism. The Reformers were referring to the visible Churchâ?¦The Church is the pillar and ground, the interpreter, teacher, and proclaimer of Godâ??s Wordâ?¦The Church has authority because Christ gave the Church authority. The Christian who rejects the authority of the Church rejects the authority of the One who sent her (Luke 10:16). (Keith A. Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura, pp. 268, 269.)

And:

I would like, however, to try in the last part of our reflections to bring forward certain reasons for our not needing to accept â?? not even from a Catholic point of view â?? a constitutive material function of tradition which goes beyond the testimony of the nature of scripture; that we can say conversely, therefore, that it is entirely possible to formulate a Catholic sola scriptura principle with regard to the Churchâ??s deposit of faith, provided that we understand this in a Catholic sense and therefore understand it to involve also an authoritative attestation and interpretation of holy scripture by the living word of the Church and her magisterium, and an attestation of scripture itself and its authoritative interpretation which cannot be replaced by scripture itself. (Karl Rahner, Theological Investigations vol. 6, p. 107.)

Grace and peace,

David

[David Waltz]

Hello again Paul,

You said:

>>I know David will respond for himself but he is RCC and rejects the idea of sola scriptura so I am sure he won't hold it against you if you reject it also.>>

Me: I reject most of the variants of sola scriptura, but accept a Catholic form known as â??material sufficiencyâ?. (See my post to kantgomo for more info on this.)

Grace and peace,

David

[cksalmon]

Hey Pac--

I'm back from NOLA.

I'm going to post this as a CFR to get the ball rolling again.

You wrote:

I’m making much of the Pope’s influence, which you have successfully evaded again, and again. These Bishop were subject to the Pope, whom was clearly the leader of the RCC (again, anachronisms aside). If you’d respond to that, I’d appreciate it.

I haven't been evading it, frankly. I have been somewhat ignoring it. I was hoping you'd revisit the issue and back down a bit because I don't find your reading of the situation historically accurate. I don't think one can wave aside one's anachronistic reading of the historical record with a wand, as it were, by invoking the phrase "again, anachronisms aside." They are not an aside. They are part and parcel of this issue under discussion.

I'm curious whether you could provide references for the following: (1) that Sylvester was intimately involved with the crafting of the AD 325 Nicene Creed, (2) that the Roman bishopric enjoyed unquestioned primacy in AD 325, (3) that the bishops of the empire were universally subject to Sylvester in Rome, and (4) that the "catholic" in the Nicene Creed functioned as part of formal title, rather than as the adjective "universal" (written as it was, originally, in Greek [katholikos], in AD 325). I think these are historically unsupportable claims, yet they seem central to your position.

You've asserted that Sylvester was "clearly the leader of the Roman Catholic Church" in AD 325 and that all the bishops were subject to him; you've accused me of evading that issue. The truth of the matter is that I just don't find your assertion historically justifiable. I'd be greatly interested in knowing what sources you used to come to your conclusions.

As one starting point, I might suggest the relevant chapters in Jaroslav Pelikan's The Riddle of Roman Catholicism.

Best.

CKS

PS. A trivia question: how many bishops at Nicea were from the West (i.e., from your proposed RCC)?

[cksalmon]

Hey Pac--

Since you've been away from the boards (I think) for several days (as I was, too--nice to take a break, n'est-ce pas?), I'm giving the discussion a friendly bump.

Best.

CKS

[rhinomelon]

If I recall correctly, Pac is in the middle of moving, so his internet access is somewhat spotty. I know the feeling

Just so you don't think he's avoiding you on purpose.

[cksalmon]

Just so you don't think he's avoiding you on purpose.

Not at all. I never figured him for the cut-and-run type. I was just afraid that if I didn't bump it, it'd get lost on page 13 and I'd never find it again! And if he's in the middle of moving, then he's certainly not taking the good kind of "break" from the board--more's the pity. I hate the process of moving.

Best, rhino.

CKS

PS. You in Washington yet?

[rhinomelon]

Yes, I'm in our new place in College Park, Maryland. School doesn't start for another couple weeks, so I'm just getting settled in and applying for part-time jobs. I like it out here!