A Necessity - 4 Marian Doctrines

[MarkRohfrietsch]

You applaud them for the work they did on stuff you agree with. The same people you applaud on further defining the Trinity further defined the virginity of Mary, and you reject them on Mary only. Ok then.

It is also interesting that some feel the need to mock and refute what they could just as easily simply dismiss as pious opinion and even adiaphora.; they for what ever reason take everyone's Christianity and run it through a strainer of their own construction filtering out the bits that they, for the most part, don't want to take the time and effort to understand.

More emphasis on personal humility, repentance and a charitable nature towards others would be the true fruit that is born from faith.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Punt.

I read the article and this fellow comes up short on scriptural references that helps us answer my challenge questions. A lot of opinion. And anyway, you need scripture, not opinion, you need scripture

I can see why you couldn't answer on your own. Didn't think anyone would read the article?

One last chance to answer my challenge.

Give me the Book, chapter, and Verse of Scripture that teaches

1. That the Father, Son and holy Spirit have one nature or substance.
2. That They have one power and authority.
3. That there is a consubstantial Trinity, one Deity to be adored in three subsistences or persons.

Hint: don't use the article you posted cause there is nothing in there that will help you.

I will get to it when I have time but I sense it's going to be a waste of my time because you will find fault with whatever I present. Without (yet) citing verses, the OT clearly teaches there is only one God. The Father is called God, the Son is called God, the Holy Spirit is called God. Jesus said He and the Father are of the same substance. At Jesus' baptism by John we see all three persons of the Trinity. If there is only one God, and all three are that one God then ergo they share one power and one authority. We use human terms such as persons to try and express the nature of God. The Bible doesn't use the word "persons" with regard to the triune nature of God. The triune nature of God is understood by studying the Scriptures and connecting the dots. That is what theologians have done. They didn't invent new doctrine or receive some new revelation. They studied the Scriptures and found words to best define what the Scriptures taught. The wording was essential because they were responding to heresies and needed to make sure the words they chose shut the door on those heretical teachings.

What we know of as the RC church today, evolved over centuries. I would not call all the men who met at those early councils Catholics. I would call them Christians. The RC church wants to take credit for every church council ever held as though they were all fully Catholic councils. I would disagree.

I will get to my answer as I have time. I just moved to a new city and am still busy unpacking.

 

[prodromos]

I will get to it when I have time but I sense it's going to be a waste of my time because you will find fault with whatever I present.

If you are honest with yourself, you will admit you do the same.

 

[prodromos]

Jesus said He and the Father are of the same substance.

Jesus never used the word "substance". The verse you are referring to is open to interpretation.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

You on the other hand have started with your belief that Mary had other children, based on your own interpretation of Scripture, and have constructed the above from your imagination, including a few strawman arguments.

Their family was not normal or natural. No other family has ever raised the creator of the universe as a child in their home.

You are viewing the domestic life of Mary and Joseph through the lens of RCC doctrine, which is an interpretation of Scripture based on tradition.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

There is enough in the Gospels about Jesus' childhood to recognise there is a complete absence of siblings mentioned. At the age of 12 when He had stayed back at the Temple, Luke doesn't say that Joseph and Mary left their children in the care of others and went back to Jerusalem. Are you claiming they didn't have any other children until Jesus turned 12. According to you they had at least 6 other children. If they started having children after Jesus was born, as Protestants are wont to interpret Matthew 1:25, at least one of them would have been nursing still and Mary could not have left her child with others in order to go look for Jesus.

A reasonable assumption based on human logic and through the lens of RCC doctrine.

 

[prodromos]

You are viewing the domestic life of Mary and Joseph through the lens of RCC doctrine, which is an interpretation of Scripture based on tradition.

I'm not, nor have I ever been Roman Catholic. Please check your prejudices at the door before responding.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I'm not, nor have I ever been Roman Catholic. Please check your prejudices at the door before responding.

What you call prejudice, I call fact. It is what it is. You have your interpretation and I have mine.

 

[prodromos]

What you call prejudice, I call fact. It is what it is. You have your interpretation and I have mine.

Yours is based on a modern Protestant tradition.

 

[concretecamper]

I will get to it when I have time but I sense it's going to be a waste of my time because you will find fault with whatever I present

I've read the article you posted, so I will read what you come up with.

Regarding the article, I cross checked all the verse the author presented. While his commentary is mostly true, the scriptural references fall short because even the author had to supplement scripture with Tradition in an attempt to explain the Trinity. And it's ok. Scripture doesn't claim to contain all truths a Christian must believe.

I'll restate the 3 doctrines I posted a page or 2 back for ease.

1. That the Father, Son and holy Spirit have one nature or substance.
2. That They have one power and authority.
3. That there is a consubstantial Trinity, one Deity to be adored in three subsistences or persons.

Every Christian acknowledges these 3 truths. Please quote book, chapter, verse of scripture that teaches them. @Watchman1 just joined the conversation. Maybe he can help?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Yours is based on a modern Protestant tradition.

Totally correct, because I am a modern Protestant.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I've read the article you posted, so I will read what you come up with.

Regarding the article, I cross checked all the verse the author presented. While his commentary is mostly true, the scriptural references fall short because even the author had to supplement scripture with Tradition in an attempt to explain the Trinity. And it's ok. Scripture doesn't claim to contain all truths a Christian must believe.

I'll restate the 3 doctrines I posted a page or 2 back for ease.

1. That the Father, Son and holy Spirit have one nature or substance.
2. That They have one power and authority.
3. That there is a consubstantial Trinity, one Deity to be adored in three subsistences or persons.

Every Christian acknowledges these 3 truths. Please quote book, chapter, verse of scripture that teaches them. @Watchman1 just joined the conversation. Maybe he can help?

Even though the Trinity is not overtly set out as a hard and fast doctrine in the Bible, there are passages in the Bible that clearly show it. At the baptism of Jesus, we have Jesus being baptised, the voice from heaven saying, "This is my beloved Son", and the Holy Spirit in visible form, like (but not) a dove coming down and resting on Him. Because we know that the Holy Spirit is a real Person whom we recognise as God, then it is obvious that there are three entities at that baptism. Whose is the voice from heaven if not the Father's? We have the same happening at the transfiguration of Jesus. There's Jesus with Elijah and Moses, and the voice from heaven saying, "This is my beloved Son. Hear Him." In the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus prayed to the Father. We are also told by Jesus that when He was to leave the earth, He will send the Holy Spirit to represent Him. Then He went and offered His blood to the Father in the heavenly holy of holies.

So, when one uses his intelligence when reading the Scriptures, one sees that there are definitely three entities: one recognised as the Father, who is a spirit invisible to everyone, another recognised as the Son who came to our world as Jesus Christ, and still another the Holy Spirit who has shown to have a voice of His own, for example in Acts where He called Paul and Barnabas to the work He had prepared for them.

To say that there is no Trinity, and that there is only one God, defies simple intelligence when reading what the Bible actually says. Or like the Oneness people who say that God shows Himself in three different modes. When we view Jesus' baptism and transfiguration, we see the stupidity of that, because we see the Father who spoke from heaven and Jesus being right there for all to see. So in these cases, you can't have a God who manifests in two or more modes at once. And when Jesus went off the pray to the Father, how can one mode pray to itself? One would have to be a total dufus to believe in modalism.

We are not told directly about the substance of God, but we do know that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are totally unified in nature, character and mission, and that it was the Father who sent Jesus to the world, and it was Jesus who sent the Holy Spirit to indwell believers. Jesus did what the Father told Him, and the Holy Spirit does what Jesus has told Him, making the three of them say exactly the same thing, so it doesn't matter how God speaks to us, we can know that the Father speaks, the Son speaks, and the Holy Spirit speaks. and so no matter who speaks to us, we can rightly say, "God told me".

 

[prodromos]

Because we know that the Holy Spirit is a real Person whom we recognise as God, then it is obvious that there are three entities at that baptism

Which Scriptures emphatically identify the Holy Spirit as a person?

 

[concretecamper]

Even though the Trinity is not overtly set out as a hard and fast doctrine in the Bible, there are passages in the Bible that clearly show it.

Of course it clearly show 3. That's not the question.

You could have just said scripture doesn't define the Trinity in the manner most Christians accepts today, or you can't provide scripture to answer the 3 doctrines I posted

Sorry, I expected a bit more scripture instead of a personal commentary.

Btw, you post sounded Roman Catholic. You evidently rely on sources outside of scripture.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Which Scriptures emphatically identify the Holy Spirit as a person?

Jesus told the disciples that when the Holy Spirit comes He will remind them of all that He taught them. Only a Person can do that. Also, it was the Holy Spirit who said, "Separate unto me Barnabas and Saul for the work I have prepared for them." Only a Person has a voice who gives instructions. He is not some indeterminate mist that hovers around in churches.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Of course it clearly show 3. That's not the question.

You could have just said scripture doesn't define the Trinity in the manner most Christians accepts today, or you can't provide scripture to answer the 3 doctrines I posted

Sorry, I expected a bit more scripture instead of a personal commentary.

Btw, you post sounded Roman Catholic. You evidently rely on sources outside of scripture.

All I did was to use my brain to show where it clearly shows in the Scripture record that there were three persons identified as God. I just rely on other intelligent people to look up the passages for themselves to see if what I saying is true. That's what the Bereans did to establish whether Paul was preaching the truth or not.

The suggestion to give my contribution was made, and I gave it.

 

[prodromos]

Jesus told the disciples that when the Holy Spirit comes He will remind them of all that He taught them. Only a Person can do that. Also, it was the Holy Spirit who said, "Separate unto me Barnabas and Saul for the work I have prepared for them." Only a Person has a voice who gives instructions. He is not some indeterminate mist that hovers around in churches.

Thanks, those are good examples. I just wasn't able to think of any off the top of my head.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

There is enough in the Gospels about Jesus' childhood to recognise there is a complete absence of siblings mentioned. At the age of 12 when He had stayed back at the Temple, Luke doesn't say that Joseph and Mary left their children in the care of others and went back to Jerusalem. Are you claiming they didn't have any other children until Jesus turned 12. According to you they had at least 6 other children. If they started having children after Jesus was born, as Protestants are wont to interpret Matthew 1:25, at least one of them would have been nursing still and Mary could not have left her child with others in order to go look for Jesus.

The passage simply says "they went back to look for him." "They", being his parents, but it says nothing one way or the other about taking along other children. If Mary was still nursing a child then naturally she would have brought that child along. Older children might have been left in the care of relatives but the text doesn't say. The message of the story is about Jesus and His relationship with the Father. We're not told details about who they were traveling with nor are they pertinent to the story.

The writers of the Gospels mention Jesus having siblings. It doesn't matter if they mentioned them in the context of his childhood or later in his life. As I previously wrote, we are not told much about Jesus' life prior to turning 30. Beyond his birth, the focus of the Gospels is on his ministry. Only the story of his staying behind in the Temple is given to us. I'm guessing his life growing up was unremarkable in that he was helping his father in his carpentry and not yet preaching or performing miracles. I'm sure his knowledge and holiness were readily apparent to his parents and siblings but we are not told about any of that. The Gospels are about his ministry that started around the age of 30.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Of course it clearly show 3. That's not the question.

You could have just said scripture doesn't define the Trinity in the manner most Christians accepts today, or you can't provide scripture to answer the 3 doctrines I posted

Sorry, I expected a bit more scripture instead of a personal commentary.

Btw, you post sounded Roman Catholic. You evidently rely on sources outside of scripture.

Using our God-given intelligence to put words around what the Bible teaches is not going outside of Scripture or new revelation. The early church faced many heresies about the nature of Jesus or the Godhead. It was in response to these constant heresies that they met, on more than one occasion, and sought to come up with precise words that kept the orthodox understanding of the Godhead yet excluded each of the herisies.

It's not necessary to find verses to prove your three questions. The answers were logically deduced from all the verses about the Trinity. It took no new revelation by the RC church to come up with the historic understanding of the Trinity. First, it was already establish though not stated by a church council. The RC church was still not fully formed when these councils met. To infer they were Catholic councils is false. They were a gathering of bishops from different cities and regions who collectively discussed and defined these terms. The full establishment of the RC church had not yet happened.

You are trying to imply our understanding of the Trinity only comes from the teaching and traditions of the RC church and thus outside of Scripture. Sorry, not buying it.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Using our God-given intelligence to put words around what the Bible teaches is not going outside of Scripture or new revelation. The early church faced many heresies about the nature of Jesus or the Godhead. It was in response to these constant heresies that they met, on more than one occasion, and sought to come up with precise words that kept the orthodox understanding of the Godhead yet excluded each of the herisies.

It's not necessary to find verses to prove your three questions. The answers were logically deduced from all the verses about the Trinity. It took no new revelation by the RC church to come up with the historic understanding of the Trinity. First, it was already establish though not stated by a church council. The RC church was still not fully formed when these councils met. To infer they were Catholic councils is false. They were a gathering of bishops from different cities and regions who collectively discussed and defined these terms. The full establishment of the RC church had not yet happened.

You are trying to imply our understanding of the Trinity only comes from the teaching and traditions of the RC church and thus outside of Scripture. Sorry, not buying it.

The Council of Nicea sorted out what was to be recognised as orthodox Christian doctrine, accepted by the RCC and Protestants alike. Although there is RC theology not accepted by Protestants, the central basics are shared, because the RCC accepted the Nicene Creed as well as did orthodox Protestant churches (including Pentecostal and Charismatic).