Doctrine

I’ve retained this page for the comments. Things — people, I — change.

0 thoughts on Doctrine

  1. The Bible is the Word of God, but given to the world thru both the Judeo-Christian witness and reality. This includes both the Jewish people, Israel, and the new Israel of God the historic and Apostolic Church of God. The Scripture is thus itself a “tradition”, and as to the NT..it was given by and thru the authority of the Church. (Acts 2:42 / 2 Thes. 2:15; 3:6)
    It is fact that before there was a NT text, there was an Apostolic Church, and the Church with the Apostolic authority and power, wrote the NT. Both the Apostles and their delegates! This Church still lives today, thru the Oecumenical Councils, and the biblical text and life.

  2. “So Philip ran up to it [him] and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah. He asked, “Do you understand what you are reading? He replied, How can I, unless someone guides me? And he invited Philip to get in and sit beside him.” (Acts 8:30-31)

    Only the Spirit and the Apostles doctrine/teaching (Acts 2:42) can lead us to any truth. Without Oecumenical council & creed, etc. The scripture cannot be fully understood. As with your loss sadly shows.

  3. I agree. The Spirit does lead us into all truth and understanding, however, that truth will not deviate from the Apostles’ doctrine.

    Again, you contradict yourself by saying that the Spirit will lead us unto the truth, and yet you say that we need man’s formulated creeds.

    Creeds are nothing more than man’s understanding and thoughts made after a period of development. Theology should no more be based on creeds than on songs.

  4. It is very interesting that perhaps one of our most profound apostolic theological scripture statements is thought to be a hymn (by many NT scholars)…that would be Phil. 2: 5-11.
    I must confess it is hard for me to deal with narrow minds like yours. And I don’t say this so much ad hominem, as just from the subject and tools, or lack thereof you bring. I know your presuppositions are narrow also.

    To say it once more, the Oecumenical Councils are not man-made to the Orthodox and certain Anglicans..and even some Reformed. Orthodox theology attaches the utmost significance to the role of Councils in the life of the Church. The highest outward authority, alike in doctrine and discipline, is the Oecumenical Council, attended by representatives from the whole Church.

  5. Yes, scholars think it a hymn, but it only became inspired when Paul (if it was a hymn that is) put it in Philippians.

    You say “To say it once more, the Oecumenical Councils are not man-made to the Orthodox and certain Anglicans..and even some Reformed” acknowledging the fact that not all Anglicans hold that the Creeds are more than man-made. Can you show me from inspired scripture that Creeds are allowed? Can you show me that doctrine is allowed to be developed to the point that it is unrecognizable to a generation before?

    You say, “The highest outward authority, alike in doctrine and discipline, is the Oecumenical Council, attended by representatives from the whole Church.” Is not God our highest authority and His word?

  6. The first four councils settled the Orthodox faith on the doctrines of the Trinity and of the two natures of the one person of Christ; the fifth supplemented the decisions of the first four. But all of this can be seen and maintained in Holy Scripture from also whence it also came.

    Have you ever read the first four councils? Read them, then perhaps we can dialog..Okay?

  7. Actually, I have studied all the councils. I have not limited myself to just studying apologetics that defend my position, but those that constantly challenge it. If you have books on those councils or other resources, I am more than happy to read them.

    However, in th end, it will come back to the authority of the Councils to develop doctrine; further, it will come down to the issue of doctrinal development. Why did it take so long after the Apostles to develop the Trinitarian doctrine, and is doctrinal development on any level (since development constitutes change) allowed by Holy Writ?

  8. Polycarp. I know that you perhaps distain Roman Catholicism? But, if you are going to at least try and understand Rome and the West, you simply must read John Henry Newman’s works on his theory of the development of Christian doctrine. And by the way, before Newman went to Rome he was an Anglican priest and theologian. So he knows the west, and something of the evangelical mind also (raised that way), etc.

  9. It should be said, that when the Roman Church met in 1870 for the Vatican I, Newman at first voted against the doctrine of the Papal authority. After the majority voted in favor, he in humility submitted to it.

    Of course Newman was spot on the first time, but we know what history has gone since. R. Catholicism is at real crossroads on many issues at the present.

  10. This will be my last statement to you. I read your blog on the Holy Spirit. Very sad that you are so deceived! But most people are deceived by their own will and desire. I think that is true in your case too. You want to teach others, but don’t want to be taught at all. Again sad deception!

    If you ever awake from “your” deception, you might try reading the very best book on the Person of the Holy Spirit: The Comforter, by Sergius Bulgakov.

  11. Irishanglican, you continue to shout that I am wrong without providing any proof. That is like me telling a Trinitarian that he is wrong without showing him some sort of doctrine.

  12. As far as “John Henry Newman’s works on his theory of the development of Christian doctrine” I will do my best to put my hands on a copy. Thanks for the suggestion.

  13. I can see that you have never talked to any eastern, or also mid-eastern people. I taught in Jerusalem for several years. It is not just western forms there. I have not argued in that direction on purpose with you. This is a spiritual as well as mental pursuit, but mostly a “persuasion” of the heart! See the Wisdom lit. of the OT…as many portions of the Synoptic Gospels, and of course the Book of James. The heart must be willing as also the mind to receive truth! (Luke 6:43-45 ; 11:33-36) Truth comes only to the seeker, and open heart. This is of course grace at work, but not without “our” hearts being prepared!
    In western forms many people think you can agrue your way into truth, but this is only true, when the heart is seeking. So far with you..I don’t see you working on or toward “my” heart, or “yours”! Mental or even theological truth, without the heart and spirit, (even true doctrine) will be dead letter!

  14. What is your point? Your founding fathers were the ones who debated and thrashed against the Church and the historical doctrine of the Apostles.

  15. Since you don’t listen to me, and thus even seek to understand my words and concepts (so far), you certainly will not get my points. By the way, I thought the points sent back to you about the real and Trinitarian Polycrap were unassailing! That bog is perfect for you! But, pure argument alone will never change someones mind. But the best mind that needs changing..is often our own! Here we can change by the grace and nature of God! Indeed your doctrine of God is flawed! As for me, you forget I already believe in the oneness of God, but always in the three, distinct, divine persons (hypostases)..without overlap or modality among them, but who share one divine essence or entity (ousia) – uncreated, immaterial and eternal.

  16. You know, I believe that you have said at least once that you would not comment again. Seems to me that that was hollow.

    I have no need to listen to you because you are wrong. You do not care to explain yourself, and your concepts are not biblically based.

    What comments about Polycarp? You asked if I read a letter. And?

  17. You are correct, I have also been somewhat frustrated, I am only human. If ya wish to quit? Just say uncle! lol The fact that you make such a statement: “I have no need to listen to you because you are wrong” is very telling! Not the most objective statement for a western debater.

    As to the real Polycarp, I saw that from the blog that Duane sent me. And by the way, our brother Duane has some humility, nice eh.

  18. Frustrate? Oh you mean, what you accused me of being.

    Seriously, quit? When will you start your defense? I have not seen anything from you of a substantial nature since you started posting. My statement was correct. I will discuss things with you, but when it comes to listening to you, following you, etc…, it ain’t going to happen.

    Humility?

  19. I know you are frustrated with me! You want to win…no matter what! It is obvious. But I am perhaps a harder head than you, being Irish? lol I know you are never gonna understand me or my theology. It would take you sometime, even if you had an open heart. And as you say..”it ain’t gonna happen”!

    But indeed humility, hard pill to shallow eh? You don’t have a clue to what I am saying huh? Sad!

  20. It is indeed tempting to go with you on a long Hebrew and Greek word study run, etc. Hermeneutics, etc. But, really when I read you writings I cannot get a thematic cohesion, save your deep dislike for the Trinitarian doctrine. And it would do me no good to do so, much as you might like it. When I was younger I would have already gone for it. But not now. So as I have said, I have gone in the way of the more mystical and spiritual sense. And this is not the western way really. Rome does have some place for mystical theology. And it has great value, but for the church and theology as a whole, it is need really not sought or understood. But at least some Anglicans, hopefully like myself (by grace) we have come to discover that the Eastern Orthodox have simply the depth, theology and mysticism..both Pauline and Johannine that is powerfully Apostolic and the sure deposit of Acts 2:42 down thru the ages. But again, you won’t understand this, so I will end this. But if you want to really dialog (and perhaps look up the meaning for that word..before). I am here mate.

    Fr. Robert +++

  21. Actually, I am part Irish myself. What frustrates me is that you actually think that you are debating when all you are doing is shouting that you are right. Not much of a discussion there.

    Of course I deeply dislike the Trinity doctrine, as a Trinitarian should dislike my doctrine. They are opposed to each other. If your doctrine was likable, then there would be no need to change it.

    What a shame that you so quickly retreat and retreat so many, many, many times.

  22. I have read back over what I have written you. And you have not said a word to anything I have written about the subject really. What you see as retreat, I see as the wisdom of God. As a pastor also I can see your weakness in your desire to try and teach and play Greek scholar. And I will not play, but call you to task in history and theology. Some at least, and also the wisdom of the God, from both the Old and the NT. It is really you that have not answered my scripture points and history of the Church and Creed. And you appear to have no handle on theology at all. And also your error, just happens to be one of the worst things, both a false Christology and a certain loss of God, both in theism and the grand Trinity. Very sad!

    I will not argue further with your heterodoxy! I have gone way past this text – Titus 3:10-11.

  23. PS The Apostles had no quarter with early Gnosis and Gnosticism! Those that failed to “confess” the truth about Jeus, were those who really are “deceivers and antichrists.” (1 John 4:1-3 / 2 John 7)

  24. I promise this will be my last post with you! I held this until the end. But I indeed see you and your anti-trinitarian doctrine and teaching as very deceptive, and even anti-christian. In reality your error is much like the gnosis and gnostic’s of old. (1 John 4: 1-3) “False prophets” come with false doctrine! (2 Peter 2: 1…”false teachers”)

  25. Robert, you have some serious focus issues. First, I have answered you when you have attempted to say something of substance. 99% of what you say lacks real substance. You mention the Creeds and the supposed authority of them, but fail to give any scriptural support for that view. You mention that I am wrong in my doctrine of the One God, but again, you fail to give any real support for your trinitarian view besides simply saying that I am wrong.

    The blogger at Ad Gloriam Dei is a well reasoned debater and is constantly giving his reasoning. All you have done is to simply see if you can shout Modalism out of me.

    Considering that Peter understood Christ to be God, I would imagine the false teachers were the coming Trinitarians.

    Robert, perhaps you should write a blog instead of these pithy comments.

  26. if this move of god in florida, is well of god all the spliting of hairs over hebrew, greek, one version to another,vrsion of the bible, will not stop god himself from defending his holy name.yes gods word is a light,but iv watched todd bentley for weeks, would you find it more acceptable if he had a nice suit on, no tatoos,studs? my brother was saved in a prison cell, the lord chooses who he wills.maybe it would be a good idea if you went to florida yourself.

  27. Todd Bentley is not a vessel of God. And their is no move of God brought by Todd Bentley to Florida.

    ‘Splitting hairs’ as you say is quite important, since Paul told us to rightly divide the word of Truth. I can understand some of you love for this man, since he focuses not on doctrine, which was commanded by Paul many times.

    As a matter of fact, those that look for signs and miracles were often derided by Christ and His Apostles. What a shame that more people would not split more hairs in determining what Truth really is.

    I suggest that you do it and really search the scriptures to see if Todd Bentley stacks up to scripture.

  28. This comment is about (not to) Irishanglican.(No desire to debate with him, but I’d like to answer something he said.)

    On comment 2, he wrote:

    “So Philip ran up to it [him] and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah. He asked, “Do you understand what you are reading? He replied, How can I, unless someone guides me? And he invited Philip to get in and sit beside him.” (Acts 8:30-31)…. Without Oecumenical council & creed, etc. The scripture cannot be fully understood. As with your loss sadly shows.”

    This is the EXACT SAME argument that Jehovah’s Witnesses use to teach a person that they cannot rightly divide the Word of Truth for themselves, and bring them under the authority of the WatchTower! The Bible clearly says “You do not need anyone to teach you” (I John 2:27.) God has preserved His Word for us and His Spirit is able to illuminate the Scriptures for those of us with teachable hearts.

    The eunuch from Acts 8 had NOT YET HEARD THE GOOD NEWS. He did not yet have the Spirit, thus he could not understand the things of the Spirit. (I Cor. 2:14)

    However, the Eunuch was studying the scriptures, and trying to figure out who was the man “led like a sheep to the slaughter.” Because he was seeking the Truth, God sent Philip to explain the gospel. God rewards those who diligently seek Him.

    After the Eunuch’s conversion, Philip did NOT advise the Eunuch to subscribe to his teaching tape ministry or submit to his personal authority. NO- the Eunuch was filled with the Spirit, who would continue to teach him all things.

    Both the JW WatchTower Society and IrishAnglican are twisting this passage out of context to support their unBi blical position.

  29. Melissa,

    The JW’s are a False Church, false prophets and teachers, but not the “Apostles doctrine” and historic Church!

    But enlighten dear one with the proper exegesis of this text, if I am wrong?

    Father Robert

  30. Debate, is a western term and idea. But it is not the way the people of God, understand the Holy Scripture or the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Even theologians (and not every person with a theology degree, is a “church” theologian) when they dialogue, have respect for each other normally.

    The OT is the foundation for proclaiming the gospel or good news of Jesus Christ. But for the most part, the NT biblical and hermeneutic is typological/typology. (1 Cor. 10:1-13, etc.). And because the Scriptures have a specific, God-given meaning (2 Pet.1:20-21), it is impossible to truly understand them apart from the Church, for the apostolic interpretation is held in the consciousness of the Church.

    And as to Acts 8:36-39, from the beginning, baptism in water and faith in Christ are both essential for entrance into the NT Church. But this was also given to the covenant head of the house, and brought forth for those who were bapstised in the “household”, i.e. the faith of the covenant head of the household, and for them. (Acts 2:29..”and to YOUR children”.

    Fr. Robert

  31. We would be remiss in failing to understanding that the early councils were filled with, among other things, debate. The first Nicene Council is proof positive of this. I agree that Scripture has a very specific meaning intended by the Author Himself, but that meaning does not change nor does it take centuries to formulate. I do not believe that Councils and Creeds are a part of the guidance given by the Spirit for interpretation, but instead those set above us that instruct us presently.

    For our agreements, we would agree that it is impossible to see the Faith without the Church and that baptism in necessary.

  32. Polycarp,

    I would agree, as we see it in Acts 15 that when the early Church came together there was “dissension” or controversy. But this was the nature of the way the Jewish men and elders brought together their issues. It was not so much as the way of the pagans and Romans, as we see with St. Paul at Mars hill. If we look closely St. Paul (Acts 17:17-33), he was not received well. See also, (2 Cor.1:8-20). The Epicureans and Stoics agrued in a manner that was more Greco-Roman, and thus pagan (See Acts 17:21). Of course Paul was well versed and educated enough to talk and argue with these men, but this alone did not make or win disciples. (See also 1 Cor. Chapter 1 & 2 – note verses 4-5).

    Since then, to our modern time, the debate has become much more Greco-Roman philosophy type. With the logic of the Greeks, etc. seemingly being the way of scholasticism, etc. (This became the way for the Roman Catholic Church and education) But then came the modern era and the enlightenment, etc. And the whole racical empiricism down to Kant, etc. And later too came the modern existentialism of Sarte, Heidegger, etc. And then the worst of it with Nietzsche and finally nihilism.

    When I taught in Jerusalem I saw the difference of so much of this. It was here that I came to respect greatly the Judeo way. Indeed, as our Lord said: “Salvation is from the Jews!” (St. John 4:22)

    Finally, I don’t see the real difference between the Church Apostolic, with Church Councils, and the Church Apostolic that guides us with faith and to baptism. Poly, I would really like you to at least read and make comment on some parts of JND Kelly’s book: Early Christian Doctrines? He has sections on: Dynamic Monarchianism and Modalistic Monarchianism in the chapter on Third-Century Trinitarianism.

    Fr. Robert

  33. Polycarp, I came to enjoy an informative blog, but in the comments section, I saw something disturbing and I ask both, you and irishanglican to allow me to address this quote: ["The Scripture is thus itself a “tradition”, and as to the NT..it was given by and thru the authority of the Church. (Acts 2:42 / 2 Thes. 2:15; 3:6)]End Quote.
    I respectfully disagree with this as Paul states in 2Tim 3:16 “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, [therefore]“and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” This gives God full/final authority in dispensing the truth and not one iota was left up to the church. They only obeyed what was taught them and followed after the leading of the Spirit/Holy Ghost. Its called total submission, which is the tradition of allowing Christ full control. Christ is at the head, chief cornerstone, advocate, Holy Spirit. The true church knows the masters voice. We [church] follow, He leads.
    Polycarp, great blog. Thanks for the visit. Allow me to return often, Lanis

  34. Lanis,

    Always feel free to post comments, etc… I have a fairly liberal comment policy so baring rude or foul language, well, most things get through.

    Irishanglican will comment from time to time and he comes from the Anglican/Catholic/Orthodox viewpoint, of that of primacy of Tradition. I can understand his view, but strongly disagree with it as I too believe in the final authority of scripture. Scripture reveals Tradition, therefore, we lack the need of Councils and Creeds.

    Again, I hope that you continue to visit.

  35. First, happy 4th to you Americans!

    Thanks Poly for the statement of balance in my position.

    Lanis, as I have sought to explain, my position and belief is one that the Apostles Doctrine had to develop. This seems obvious to me. Even in the Book of Acts, we can see the Church first on Jewish ground, then slowly moving to the Gentiles as the Jewish people and Nation as a whole reject the Gospel, and thus even their own Christ,(Acts 28:25-29).

    And we can really see a development in the theology and mind of St. Paul! Of course St. Paul calls it given “revelation” in Galatians, but it had to be instilled for 14 years for St. Paul (Gal.2:1), but even brought before the whole Apostolic body and confirmed (Gal.2:2).

    The whole nature of doctrine is one of constant understanding and growth. See, (Eph.4:12-13). To believe is to confront Christ in a living relationship of person to Person. Christianity is simply but profoundly Christ, and this is never static. The living image of Christ, as imprinted on the soul of faith, is the vital secert of Christianity and the sole explanation of the extraordinary and miraculous success of the Church in the world, which furnishes a convincing proof of its being authentically divine.

    Father Robert

  36. Curious about your mention of tithes. These are not part of the New Covenant. We are to give cheerfully and not under compulsion, proportional to God’s blessing in our lives. I believe in giving what God requires. That has usually been much more than 10%. The Rich Young Ruler was rejected because he did not give 100%! Pastors today would have said 10% and been thrilled!

  37. Thanks for the well wishing for this day when we, umm, had our little squabble with the British. I hope that I can present your viewpoint, if I must, with a good balance. I was fortunate to have had a summer to work with various interns, 2 Catholic and 1 Methodist. They, along with others of Rome, helped to understand the position of Tradition better than I had before. I don’t agree with it, but I understand it.

    I understand that revelation is given to a person, perhaps over a bit of time, but the truth behind the revelation never changes, thus for Paul, he was always a oneness believer, but he would discover that the one God was Jesus Christ. The slow separation of the Church from Judaism was a necessity, I believe, that had to be achieved over a period of time, but was correct from the very start.

    I simply disagree with you that doctrine contains growth, but as you have requested, I have purchased your recommended book, so perhaps soon we can discuss that.

  38. [Quote] “Lanis, as I have sought to explain, my position and belief is one that the Apostles Doctrine had to develop”
    I have read the complete dialog from the beginning. I can see why and how you place so much emphasis on the ‘church authority’. I’ve not studied your faith or that of any ‘religion’ of the trinity.[I am somewhat privy to most] I have however, studied scripture concerning doctrine in both prophetical and instructional designs. Your quote above gives me concern as well as before; the ‘Apostles Doctrine’ was completely developed in the teachings of Jesus. It is his doctrine and His alone as He was God manifest in the flesh [1Tim 3:16]. It was passed on to the Apostles for use in building the kingdom [church]. As it was placed in their care, it was very complete and paid for by His blood and His giving of His Spirit to guide the converts into all truth. [John 16:13] I agree the doctrine is passed on to each generation up until now, but I seem to recollect Catholicism believe the ‘keys’ were passed on to Popes…I have the keys and I’m not a Pope, I am a saint and Jesus Christ is still the ‘living’ head of the church. The doctrine I embrace is identical as that taught from the beginning, nothing else can suffice as it is the promise ‘unto the uttermost part of the earth’. [Acts 1:8]So, the doctrine was complete and final from the beginning and was not available to Constintine and the Nicene Council for recommendations. I want to stress one other point, I have no quarrel of anykind with the people of Catholicism or any trinity religion, just the concept derived at in 325 A.D. and thereafter. Gods doctrine cannot be replaced or re-evaluated by any man; we can only be followers and partakers. We can’t take on the soveriengty of God and decide for Him or change His mind, He is perfect and His wisdom is far above mine and yours.

  39. Lanis, I would agree with a good many of your points, except for the 325 remark. The doctrine of the trinity was in development long before the Nicene Council. Seems to me that it started from the Northern Coast of Africa, say Alexandria. I would go further in saying that what happened at Nicea in 325 was a complete failure and that the Trinity was not codified until 381. (And supported by Chalcedon in 451)

    But you are right, the sermon that Peter preached during the Jewish celebration of Weeks had the essential doctrine. If there was anything developed against it, then that doctrine is wrong.

  40. Polycarp,

    This is the book by JND Kelly: Early Christian Doctrines right? As I said, I met Kelly before he died, a great scholar and Anglican! He was Principal of St. Edmund Hall, in Oxford. If you look in the Index, you can see how much he wrote about the Trinity. Kelly’s work here, though not indepth enough perhaps, does touch on the vast sweep in pre-Nicene trinitarian to Nicaea, and touches Chalcedon. The doctrine of the Trinity was/is fully Apostolic, but its understanding and growth is certain development. But as I said, Nicaea does not expalin the totality of the mystery, but it does fence it in certain orthodoxy! If you ever have the desire for it? You might want to try and read the Russian Orthodox Sergius Bulgakov’s: The Comforter. It is on the Holy Spirit strictly, but is a wealth of information on the whole Trinity. If your going to know the the most modern, and the most indepth work on the Trinity of God, you certainly must read him! There can be no doubt, the E. Orthodox are your most profound Trinitarian advocates! (Thus “your” most profound adversaries!)

    Fr. Robert

    PS Lanis, I will write you shortly.

  41. Quote: “The doctrine of the trinity was in development long before the Nicene Council”…this is true as it was Gnosticism in Johns day,[1John 2:18-23] The distinction John makes in 22,23 “Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ..” 23 “Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father..the Gnostics were already trying to separate Christ and Father in ‘head knowledge’. He is saying to deny Christ is also denying Father for they are the same. The distinguishing factor John makes is those annointed need no teaching beyond what the Spirit gives. The essentiality of recieving the Holy Ghost reiterated once again.
    PS. irishangelican, one that has been enlighten in the Spirit cannot take less than what is scriptural truth. It is not that we choose a doctrine and go with it, we choose to follow Jesus Christ teachings verbatum and anything added by religions down the line is totally unacceptable. It is described in Romans 1:18-25KJV. No church entity has a monopoly on truth, it is available to you as well, but only on Christ’s terms and not ‘church authority’.

  42. Lanis,

    I can appreciate your desire and zeal for biblical truth, but it must always be based upon “spirit and truth”, which can only be the true “knowledge.” The Gnostics in 1 and 2 John, were those that denied the real “Incarnation” of the Christ. That God became Man: “He being one Son, dual in nature, not dual in Person. Wherefore, we do confess, preaching the truth that Christ our God is perfect God and perfect Man.” (Troparion of the Resurrection)

    Again, the Holy Scripture, and NT, did not just fall out of heaven, but it has a human and apostolic transmission. And our understanding of such has taken time and theological development. In reality this just cannot be denied to my mind at least. In the early Church they only knew it in its nascent form, but they knew it in its spiritual reality as well. But not yet in its full doctrinal procession. As we can see in the Creed of Chalcedonian, this creed was written amid controversy bewteen the western and eastern churches over the meaning of the Incarnation (see Christology). The western churches readily accepted the creed, but some eastern churches did not. But this is something of a theological mystery, for the miaphysite position, often known as “Monophysitism” felt that the creed should have stated that Christ be acknowledged “FROM two natures” rather that “IN two natures”. Really both are orthodox.

    I fear that much of our differences in Christendom are really ignorance, rather than just defense for the truth! But both the Incarnation, and the Trinity of God are profound mystery, and we must approach such with great reverance and even proper fear of God! But as the Orthodox teach, this is a position of faith, rather than argument.

    And, one cannot argue one into truth. No this is again something of “spirit and truth” done alone by God. But we can stand upon the historical faith, and seek the Apostles Doctrine, (Acts 2:42). This is still in spiritual process, and will be until Christ comes and finishes the “eschaton” (as I quoted Eph.4:12-13). I would ask you to read back over the first few of my posts here, rather than repeat myself.

    Finally, it is the whole Church…’One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic’ Church body that has the truth. (Matt.16:18-19) This Church is both East and West. And Christ is both the Rock and Head, for all of those who have come to know and experience “the salvation of God in Christ.”!

    Sincerely In Christ,
    Father Robert

  43. My dear sir, One cannot have truth without first having the infilling of the Holy Ghost/Spirit. That is what teaches and qualifies one to ‘buy the truth and sell it not; also wisdom, and instruction, and understanding.”[Pro. 23:23] One cannot come to God unless they enter at the ‘door'[John 10:1,7. This is that ‘door’ the trinity doctrine chooses to change by opening another way of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost [titles]. If that was viable, then why did Matthew enter the upper room and recieve the Holy Ghost with the rest and then was baptised in the name of Jesus Christ for the remissions of sin? That would make him dead wrong according to your doctrine and a ‘heretic’. The Catholic church wasn’t the first to call us ‘heretic’ it happened to Paul in Acts 24:14.

    You almost got it Robert, Jesus was dual in nature, he spoke as man and as God. He thought it not robbery. But you made the common error of making a separation of Perfect God, Perfect Man, they were inseparable. 1John 5:7 “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” This is a direct question, answer if you will, how can you maintain in your doctrine ‘three distinct ‘persons’ when all three were Spirit in heaven? [This is speaking of our heaven record which was before the world was] The Word hadn’t become flesh yet…now can you possibly separate God? What you do see in ‘three’ is the dispensational attributes created in behalf of mankind. Father: creator, Word: supreme sacrifice/Jesus Christ/God manifest in the flesh, and Holy Ghost, our infilling to restore us to our lost dominion status. [Gen. 1:27,28] If you are to try and separate God you have seven Spirits to contend with, not just three. The dispensations were a total different matter, and not ‘persons’.

    I must echo Polycarp; we simply do not recognize mans Creeds or Councils,it is futile for you to try and bring manmade doctrine into the equasion. To do so is not speaking to us with any validity whatsoever.

    Please reconsider your statement on ignorance, you pointed that in the wrong direction. We both use bible scripture as foundation rightfully divided in spiritual guideance. However you are so right there is ignorance in Christianity, but it is not our doing. Have you read my blog on Isaiah 28? It will explain where your heretical doctrine was prophecied to come from.

    No, I am not arguing, debating. [I will surely end before that takes place] I am expounding the truth to one that needs to see Christ as He is, One. When I am done and satisified I have accomplished my task, I will depart this conversation.

    Quote: “And, one cannot argue one into truth. No this is again something of “spirit and truth” done alone by God”
    [End Quote]You may have an element of truth in you afterall, but you suppress it with all the creeds and councils of men that have devised an erronous doctrine. Forget them and embrace the Word of God as infallible and you can enjoy the spiritual blessings Jesus gives to those that follow him.

    Finally, you escape the usual provincial attitude, because you named the church: One [God] Holy Apostolic. And you wrongfull added Catholic. They are trinitarian, they don’t fit into Gods doctrine. I’m not being facetious, just realistic to scripture.

    PS. Polycarp, sorry to interject into your thread, I’ll refrain from further post. This is your stage, not mine.

  44. Lanis,

    Thank you to seek to “expound” for me. Indeed the true Christian is one that is indwelt and lives fully by the Spirit of God. For without Him..’the Spirit’, we are “none of His”.

    The Church of God does not live without its own history in this fallen world. And the salvation history that began in Gen.3:15, still continues in the now Body Life – the Mystical Body of Christ – of the continued life of the Ascended Christ above (Heb.9:24). And the continuing humanity of Christ is the pattern and guarantee of the glorified humanity which awaits us. The Spirit links us now to this future as the guarantee of what we await. So St. Paul can say, “hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit whom he has given us.” (Rom.5:5)

    The sight of the Ascended Christ dawning in our hearts through the Holy Spirit transforms us for “our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ..etc.” (Phil.3:20-21)

    These are promises for the People of God, and those who “know” they are Christ’s! This is always a spiritual witness and reality fully in the love of God, which nothing and no one, can take from those who know and love God in Christ! (Rom.8:38-39)

    “For through HIM (Christ) both of us (Jew & Gentile) have access in (by) one Spirit unto Father.” (Eph.2:18)

    Sincerely In Christ,
    Father Robert

  45. PS I forgot the article “the” in Eph.2:18..’the Father’. Very important!

    Fr. R.

  46. Note, 2 John 3…”Grace, mercy, and peace will be with us from God the Father and from Jesus Christ, The Son Of The Father, in truth and love.” The article shows that the persons of the Father and the Son while very close, are also separate!

    Fr. R.

  47. [Quote] “Note, 2 John 3…”Grace, mercy, and peace will be with us from God the Father and from Jesus Christ, The Son Of The Father, in truth and love.” The article shows that the persons of the Father and the Son while very close, are also separate” [End Quote]

    Will you agree the bible has no contradictions? [I noted your scripture seemingly separating Father/Son] Now, does the bible have contradictions?

  48. Lanis,

    The Bible or Holy Scripture, has tons of “human” contradictions, but none in the mind or will of God Himself! We should try and press for the “mind” and will of God! As St. Paul says: “For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.” (1 Cor.2:16..Isa.40:13 also comes to mind here!) But this mind we have as regenerate people of Christ, is not just logic and mental. In fact, it is not that at all, but spirit and spiritual! Thus the “mind” here is not some mere instrument of thought, but a mode of thought, or mind-set. It is a spiritual character or disposition. The Spirit who teaches what it is to know the mind of Christ is no naturalistic “spirit of the world,” nor an instrumental “power” to provide some supposed spiritual elite with status. No, this is the Spirit who anointed the Christ to die for others on the cross. Thus again, this “mind” is the work of “the Spirit”, and is defined always in terms of Christological criteria. And also, it is because Christ lives in those who have received the Spirit that their stance and outlook can be that of Christ! And all this is because of grace and glory…God’s In Christ! Finally, this Spirit is a Person of love, and the lover of both Christ and the Father! (Col.1:8/Rom.15:30/ St.John 15:26..”the Spirit of truth, which proceeds from the Father”).

    Fr. Robert

  49. [Quote] “Note, 2 John 3…”Grace, mercy, and peace will be with us from God the Father and from Jesus Christ, The Son Of The Father, in truth and love.” The article shows that the persons of the Father and the Son while very close, are also separate” [End Quote][you miss quoted it]

    If this scripture gives you separation; which it doesn’t if understood correctly which I can explain. [You place 'persons' where it should be dispensations] But lets look at another and see what it says, same writer, so there should be no contradiction or all is failure and nothing to believe in. 1John5:20 “And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, ..in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.”
    It is certain John was not fickle or daft, but astutely knowledgeable of Jesus Christ. I have read many theologians that admit they cannot explain this verse. You may not have it in your bible at all, but its in there.
    To see the ‘understanding’ of your quoted scripture you need to refer to Jesus intercessory prayer;John 17. The key word is glorify. Jesus is commmitting himself back to who He was before the beginning..verse 5 “…glorify thou me with thine “own self” with the glory which “I” had with thee before the world was.” I could break down the meaning of your scripture, but it would be overkill, so,if you’re truthfully honest with yourself, you cannot possibly deny they were one and the same before any creating took place; for Is.45:5 “I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me…:” [1Cor.15:47] “The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.” Theology doesn’t teach this or rightly divide scripture to show truth. It sees 1John 5:20 and says ‘what?’ [I need to make a profound point, God reveals himself to those he uses as he did Cyrus in this same chapter. He still reveals himself [revelation] to those willing to forget head knowledge [Ro. 8:7] and accept Christ doctrine.] Again, I ask you to lay down your creeds, councils and church authority long enough to search scripture without bias. Your theology training did not contain true dividing of scripture. I was sucessful recently in showing a young theologian the truth and he saw it and loved it. You may have aged in your position and need the retirement and can’t walk away, but your soul is so much more important, God will provide. This is my last post here; if you wish to visit: http://lanis.wordpress.com

  50. lanis,

    Thanks again for a bit of time. It is my prayer for you dear one, that you will discover the truth and beauty of God Triune! The very central tenet of the Christian faith and theology is the Trinity of God: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit! See, the Trangsfiguration, and St. Peter’s version: 2 Pet.1:16-21. (There is nothing of a dispensational element here at all) “For He received honor and glory from God THE Father when that voice was conveyed to Him by THE Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, MY Beloved, with whom I am well pleased.” (verse 17)

    “WE worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance.” Athanasian Creed

    See also the “prichoresis, Gk.” The interpenetration of the three persons of the Trinity, first used by St. John Damascus. It describes the seamless Trinity of God while maintaining the personal distinctions of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

    God Bless,
    Father Robert

    PS I am very blessed financially, I don’t need the so-called retirement money. I have been called and blessed by the Triune God in many ways. And for just fun and exercise, I am now a rather new 2nd degree black belt. Not bad for a older one time Royal Marine officer, now in my late 50’s. Yes just a bit of Irish pride! lol Bye now.

  51. lanis,

    I am not sure if ya post was sent my way? But if so, typology is not just some workable form with God. It is in reality, the way we understand the OT itself. We can see that the NT itself uses the typological, but Christological understanding. And the triune nature of the Godhead is simply undeniable, if we will be honest with the NT Text! Like St.John chapters 14-16, not to mention St. Paul. And the best and most full history of the Christian Church is Trinitarian, over any other ideas, modalism..dynamic or modalistic monarchianism, etc.

    We are not going to agree here, but I hope you will refain from any ad hominem with me! Polycarp and I don’t agree, but we try to give each other some kind of mutual respect, etc. This is always the Christ-like way!

    Fr. Robert

  52. I am not a “biblical scholar”. I am a Christian. After I found true salvation I always prayed for the Holy Spirit to give me the interpretation of scripture meant for me, & was given that. My eyes were opened. I realized that the Holy Spirit was the only One to show me the real truth. I was shown that the doctrine I was strongly raised in & also the doctrine I received my salvation through (somewhat similar, yet different than what I grew up in) had “evolved” from the original church. When a person, or “council” changes, adds, or omits things from the Bible, or it is taught that certain things either no longer occur in modern day or that other things do now occur that did not then, it is not truth. So many organized religions have put limitations on God, Jesus Christ, & the Holy Spirit. I don’t believe the teachings of Christ’s Church should be changed by man. I also do not believe that one should build one’s belief strongly on selected or individual parts of the scriptures. Let the Holy Spirit lead you & teach you. That is the only way to receive the whole truth.

  53. Marsha, you will find a few here that would agree with you concerning evolution of doctrine.

  54. I know this is a blog for: The Church of Jesus Christ. My friend Polycarp (again blog name).

    So I will not nitpic here, nor bring my Church people to witness their truth and experience, etc.

    I am by western and my Anglican Church standards, a man in the arena of biblical scholarship. But if you note, I do not use the term doctor before my name here, which I could (I have two), but I use the term “Father” which is the Anglo-Catholic term for priest-presbyter-pastor, etc. My point is, I argue, or seek to from positions of truth and sound logic. No we cannot escape logic & reason to some degree! And I seek to use the historical method. As even Polycarp does.

    As to the term used here “evolved” and “evolution”, this can be used very broadly. (Poly, you know this!) The word is not used in theology in the sense of development. It has negative connotations with fundamental Christian’s (as yourselves) because of the aspect of Darwin, and Darwinian evolution, etc.

    I will finish today, with Luther’s final statement before John Eck the Roman integrator:

    “Unless I am convinced by the testimony of Scripture or by an evident reason (ratione evidente) – for I confide neither in pope nor in a church council alone (note his word alone! He does not simply negate the history of church council), since it is certain that they have often erred and contradicted themselves (he is speaking of Rome here) – I am held fast by the Scriptures adduced by me (he was a Doctor of Theology), and my conscience is taken captive by God’s Word, and I neither can nor will revoke anything, seeing that it is not safe or right to act against conscience. God help me. Amen.”

    Father Robert

  55. Fr. Robert,

    Luther was indeed a man of genius and passion (much like myself – humor). I believe that doctrine can be ascertained from history, not Tradition, just as from the Bible. I believe that biblical scholarship is essential to understanding deeper doctrine, and by that I mean doctrine more than the Gospel (death, burial and resurrection from to to the new life), of course that scholarship has to be done in an equal sense to prove and disprove doctrine, so that the right things can be sought out.

    I do not agree with bringing in unbiblical terms (Nicene Council – West vs. East) and more than that, philosophical terms, thoughts, and reasoning, to explore and shore up our doctrine. I believe that we have to search only the Scriptures.

    When I say evolution, it does carry a negative weight, but I am not sure of a better word. Progression, as I believe Fr. Robert to us, is a much more positive word, so for the time being, I have no problem using that, although I strongly disagree with doctrinal progression of any kind, or continuing revelation.

  56. Polycarp,

    Yes, “Progression” would be a more fair and correct term for the development of Christian doctrine. Funny but many oneness people (Pentecostal) practise a most real type of continuing revelation. In the strict sense both the High Church East and West do not allow or practise continuing revelation. But they both believe that doctrine can progress in its understanding and spiritual development( like the doctrine of Mary the Mother of God etc). To believe as Christians is not to accept dispassionately, but to live in the moving presence of Christ. And this life is real in the Mystical Body of Christ! And this Body is the One, Holy, Catholic (Universal), and Apostolic Church…alive and real, in historical time. And it has its own real and living history, both in its people and in its form therein. “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock (petra) I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.” (Matt.16:18) This Church is built on both the Apostolic Christological witness, and the continued doctrinal and teaching life and witness of its own Body Life and Discipleship. Simply the Church makes saints and lives redemption! But this is always in the pilgrim nature of the Church, warts and all!

    By the way, listening in…I have read a bio of the life of Edward Irving (Dallimore). In fact, since me great gram (born 1882 and died when I was 16), who was both part Scot but mostly Irish (she, born R. Catholic, was a “born-again” Plymouth Brethern). She had a sister who was an among the Irvingites. Also the well known Oswald Chambers mother was of the Irvingites. The point is, this Church the Apostolic Catholic Church, was not modalist. But in his tract: The Orthodox and Catholic Doctrine of our Lord’s Human Nature, he declared Christ’s human nature to be sinful flesh, which of course is great error and heresy. Also later in their doctrine and practice they were inclined to Catholic doctrines and practices, their ‘priests’ wore vestments and used incense, etc. After the death of the last ‘Apostle’, in 1901, who had been expected to survive till the Second Coming, they gradually diminished and are now virtually extinct.

    Fr. Robert

  57. Sorry if I got off blog sequence..too many blogs about lol. Least for this Irishman!

    Fr.R.

  58. Polycarp,

    I guess you blocked some sites I sent you about Modalism? Just thought you might find them of interest?

    Fr. Robert

  59. Fr. Robert, you can send as much as you want. I enjoy reading them. Of course, I will not be able to read into detail until Monday or so.

  60. Fr. Robert, not a problem. I enjoyed the app107, but it seems to me to be too close the KJVO argument that only the Author can change His Words. (Of course to them, these means that since the KJV/AV was dropped out of Heaven in 1611, it alone is the Word of God, and that the LXX never existed until Origen). I understand the issue of discrepancies, of course I contribute them to the fact that when the Greek translation was made (not that the OT was translated at one time into Greek) the translators broke the thoughts from the penned words. So, when Isaiah speaks of isles, Christ speaks of Gentiles.

  61. Polycarp,

    Yes I agree with you on the Textual issues. Bullinger was the head of the English Trinitarian Bible Society. Which today makes the KJV version only. I have one of their bibles, very nice leather, paper..etc. It is funny though in his Companion Bible (KJV) Bully uses the more ecletic text (in his notes) often of the RV made in 1885 I believe. As you can see perphaps the Orthodox Study Bible is the first modern Bible to use the Septuagint for the OT. I read my Greek NT often, but I don’t pretend to be the scholar Bully was. On Greek word studies he is simply great! His Companion Bible is still in print, to buy on-line. And really worth having to my mind. Not of course that I follow his dispensational ideas. But even there, he is more consistent than most modern dispensational thinkers. His view that the whole book of Acts gives a transitional view from the OT mentality to finally the full NT view, has some merit in my opinion (here perhaps a case could be made for the Jesus name baptism..if that were true, without the use of the Greek Prepositions?). But his ultra-dispensational view places the Pauline Church only in the Prison-Epistles (Letters), which is error. But at least consistent logic with his theological ideas and hermenutic. I use his two books on Greek words and his Figures of Speech often. Both great and lasting works truely!

    I like and use the American ESV…English Standard Version. But like you I have almost every English NT translation known to man! lol Perhaps the NRSV is the best, save its issue with putting sister/sisters with the word brother and brethren in the NT. And I don’t like the use to drop the term Son of Man in many cases. But over all it is perhaps the best translation. And also I love the Wisdom books of the so-called apocrypha! Closer to the mind of the wisdom mind and ideas-truth of Christ (least to my mind).

    Fr.R.

  62. I’ll have to look into getting a copy of the Companion Bible, but I really wanted to answer your love of the Wisdom books.

    I totally agree. Seriously. Since I discovered these recently added to the canon books (Wisdom, Sirach, some of Baruch) I cannot put them down. In truth, I have not studied much of Sirach or Baruch, but have discovered Wisdom (of Salomon) to be the hidden Gospel, the ‘Above’ of Luke, the constant companion to Paul in Romans, and above all, a delight upon my own understanding. I do not understand the reasoning behind separating these books and throwing them into the trash heap of history as so many Protestants are want to do.

    By the way, the ESV is coming out with a Deuterocanon next year. Have you seen the New English Translation of the Septuagint? Not very liturgical but helpful nonetheless.

  63. Poly, Yes the Wisdom Books are closer to the incarnate wisdom of Christ. I love and read them often. As to their being taken out of the original KJV version, we can thank the English Puritans for that. They had their way with the King, etc. Poly you have a mind fit for broader fields, I pray God keeps opening it! I am certainly a man with feet of clay myself, but I ask God to keep both my mind and spirit aloft! God bless my friend! And have not seen the New English Sept…it’s not part of the older New English Bible is it?

    And I had heard of the Deuto-books with the ESV, but was not sure if it were true, but so glad to hear that. I will surely get that copy, if the Lord allows me to be around? Since my time with the Royal Marines, etc. every day is a gift of God!

    Fr. R.

  64. Go here for the NETS (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/) I have a hard copy and enjoy it. Why are the Marines, no matter the nationality, always the roughest bunch of folks? I know a few ex-Marines here and no matter the age, they are still ready to pounce.

    Judith, as we know, is filled with historical inaccuracies, but Tobit has visions connected to John, while the Wisdom books are generally looking towards the Incarnation. Why throw out the baby with the bath water?

    Our congregation is KJV-only, but I still not have one without the Deuterocanon. It seems that every other bible is just missing something without them. (I have a Cambridge, black letter with the Apocrypha and the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible, which is still KJV and with the Apocrypha.)

    Thank you for you kind comments. I know that I believe, but I want to know why I believe something, and if I find myself in error, I want to be able to correct it.

  65. Poly, First..there is no such thing as an ex-Marine, Brit or American lol. And when ya got to go to war, ya better be trained-up hard! I was also in a Recon unit, we did it all, I made over 30 parachute jumps also. And one real combat night jump. It was a great time, but we did lose some mates. The comradery of any Marine combat unit will always be profound!

    Thanks for the site. We are on the same page as to seeking truth. And Cambridge still makes a good bible! What ya have is rare, with black letter and the Apocrypha. I used to have over 5,000 books, and not a few different bibles too. But when I went to Israel I sold much of it (regret that now) but God knows it was getting to be a burden too. Since then I have again aquired many back, but not the same as. I had some older and certain rare books to say the least. But we can only use it, cannot take it with us! lol

    Fr.R.

  66. My wife says the same things about my books (can’t leave with them), which although they do not number in the 1000’s, I hope that they will soon. I have a small collection of rare books, such as Tholuck’s first English edition of his commentaries on the Sermon on the Mount and Romans, both great treasures and in fair condition. Of course, I got into the habit of collecting old bibles, but found that I could not use them and therefore could not justify them. I do however, keep my eyes peeled to rescue bibles that are about to be thrown away.

    I posted a commentary (start – in the infant stages) on Wisdom. I hope that you can provide insights, whether we agree with the Christology impact or not.

  67. Poly,

    Looking forward to reading your thoughts and study on Wisdom. I am just busy right now.

    Fr.R.

  68. Okay, they had me here, for the most part.

    We all believe in our hearts and confess with our mouths that there is a single and simple spiritual being, whom we call God — eternal, incomprehensible, invisible, unchangeable, infinite, almighty; completely wise, just, and good, and the overflowing source of all good.

    But then they go on to talk about the Trinity. How can it be a single and simple being and yet eternally distinct? And in such a way that they needed centuries to fully develop the thought.

  69. Poly,

    You are declaring what is surely one of the most profound truths of both Scripture and God’s own revelation: He is One, but also a Mystery of Tri-Hypostatic Hypostasis! And in incarnation, Divinity is “indivisbly united” with His humanity in a “hypostatic union”. Also perhaps like the Miaphysite doctrine, you would simply see that Christ has one united nature out of two: divinity and humanity? Thus ‘the one nature of God the incarnate Logos/Word’. (St. Cyril of Alexandria).

    I have always maintained that the Incarnate Christ is the visible center of the triune God! “Who is the image of the invisible God” (Col.1:15).

    You see in reality, the doctrine of the Trinity only is “developed” in our time. In Himself, the Holy Trinity remains a sealed book, and has “neither assimilated nor unfolded.” Here the Eastern Orthodox understanding of God’s eternal essence which is totally transcendent and His “uncreated energies” which is how He reaches us are seen. And this is much more than anthropomorphic, but God’s eternal essence, which again is totally transcendent.

    Fr. R.

  70. i just recently heard the song “healer” and it has really resonated in my spirit as coming from an individual who has been or is walking in the fire of life. the word of God says out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. as i read about this artist today, my heart ached for him and i truly believe he wrote from his heart and God’s spirit led him to confess his sins and seek forgiveness and healing. as a part of the family of God, i will keep him in my prayers and pray that God cover him with love and impart healing to his wounded, broken heart and life.

  71. If the New Testament has not bee tampered with by the Catholics, then why does Hebrews chapter 8 have an opposite quotation in part of it from Jermiah chapter 31. Jer says “though I was a husband to them` The 8th chapter of Hebrews says that He rejected them`. It is best to read to the end of Jer 31 to see what Yahweh was saying and that the people who translated the Hebrew text of the book of Hebrews into Greek changed it. Truth seeker, Not scared to dig..Shalom

  72. Danke für die Anmerkung.

    The author of Hebrews used the Septuagint for many of the quotations. The Septuagint, LXX, was the Greek translation that Jews and the early Church used. To disbelieve facts and history of the Septuagtint, then you would have to believe Rome has somehow created some 600 years of history, complete with forgeries in the New Testament and the Church Fathers – Ignatius and Polycarp.

    The Epistle of Hebrews does not have a Hebraic, or Aramaic, original. It as written in Greek for a Greek speaking audience of Jews.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_the_Hebrews

  73. And you know what, if you think God cannot preserve His Word from inept Rome, then you should worry about your soul, for God said – we think, unless Rome changed that too – that nothing can removed us from His hand. It would be mighty difficult for God to hold to that promise if God can’t even keep His Word pure from a bunch of men and women.

  74. I love your articulation of the basic Christian doctrine. I would like to quote it on my blog sometime.

  75. @IrishAnglican

    How do you reconcile your faith with the atrocities committed by the Roman Catholic church such as the Inquisition?

  76. .Love men, slay error; without pride be bold in the truth, without cruelty fight for the truth.”
    Fr.Seraphim of Platina

  77. Polycarp, how can you say what you do not know? Knowledge of history, your twist on history.

    Nice to see you evade the question. What I asked was “Where in the bible does it say, anywhere, that it’s complete? The Bible and the Church can be likened to a seed planted, as in Jesus’ parables. The seed was tiny, the plant which formed was huge. The doctrine of the Trinity came from Matt 28:19, but before the Gospel was widely spread in written form came this from the Didache: “After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. . . . If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Didache 7:1 [A.D. 70]).

    I can quote many others- Justin Martyr (151), Theophilus of Antioch (181), Iranaeus, Tertullian and Origen regarding this doctrine, the seed which was planted in the Gospel and Acts, and grew in understanding from these others.

    Regarding the Orthodox communions, they may disagree, for they aren’t in full communion with the Catholic Church. The Church, fyi, is not Roman. It is Catholic. Correctly, Catholic Church, Latin Rite. It doesn’t matter when or that the seat of power shifted to Rome. What matters is the succession of the head of that Church, founded by Christ at Caesarea Phillipi in Matt 16:18. The most prominent apostle in the Gospels, the one who personally witnessed things no other apostle did, was told that he would be the rock that Christ’s Church was founded on. Peter went to Antioch as bishop, then onward to Rome. The title is not important. His only title, Bishop of Rome, is what’s important. Cyprian may have resisted, but the Gates of Hell, Christ said, would not prevail against His Church. And they haven’t.

    Regarding what St. Paul preached, try reading the letters to Timothy and Titus, regarding tradition. Equal with Scripture.

    Council of Jerusalem or any council, it doesn’t matter where a council is held. It is held at the behest of the head of the Church, in this case St. Peter our first pope. The Jewish Christians wanted the Gentiles to either follow Mosaic law or not be admitted into full communion.

    Once again, your insults aren’t appreciated-they show you’re not living fully Christian.

  78. Please explain further on how you reconcile a preincarnate Christ with the oneness doctrine.

  79. So, correct me if I am wrong; you contend that Christ is the manifestation of God’s word in the flesh? Is that correct? That is what I have gathered after a cursory reading of the doctrinal page you have provided. Did the Word simply pre-exist in the mind of God?

    If that is your belief, how might you reconcile it with the fact that God had made a promise to redeem a people prior to time beginning with Christ (titus 1:1-2)? Is God speaking to Himself? Is He simply speaking to His own attributes in Genesis 1:26? I am not an educated man, but you seem to have a very deficient view of Christ. Please correct me if I have erred in my assessment of your doctrine.

  80. That’s ok, I posted it on my own blog…why don’t you come and see…You’re also invited to come and see the real Church Christ founded.

  81. I have read your dialoge with David. I am less inclined to accept the nicene creed due to the hint of logos cristology held within it. The creeds do hold some authority but they are ultimatley nothing when compared to scripture. As a reformed evangelical, Sola Scriptura is something that I hold very dear. You are right in saying Rome is twisted, but that does not mean that all their doctrine is off. They are a cult in much the same way that the oneness church and Eastern Ortho. churches are. Just as your oneness faith lends itself to a works-righteousness justification, in your case through baptism, these other heretical traditions err on the side of all world religions with the exception of biblical Christianity. Please understand, no personal offense intended.

    Tell me, were you a convert to the oneness faith from another, or did you belong to a family who were oneness?

  82. I have taken the time to dismantle your previous post. What is your response?

    By the way, I don’t catagorically deny the creeds, you know very well that that is not what I said. Are you honestly suggesting that there is no basis for the doctrine of the Trinity in scripture? For no reason for anyone to hold to it found in the bible?

    I noticed that your “doctrine” page was basically a group of suprious qoutes that you henpecked and produced a defense to. What it is not is a credible and cogent scriptural basis for your doctrine of God.

    I would hope that you would also respond to what I wrote in the larger of the two posts from yesterday.

  83. I have shown you several writers before Tertullian who have written on the Trinity, as well as where the Trinity-the three manifestations of God- is shown in the Bible. One Who, three whats.

  84. It’s you who needs to provide first some detail of what I believe, and what the Church teaches that’s in error. Provide what I’ve stated, what the Catholic Church believes, and show your proof that this is what the Catholic Church believes. This is the only way you’re going to find out what the Church really believes.

  85. “God is spirit. The Spirit is God. And?”

    It appears that you have painted yourself into somewhat of a corner. If the Holy Spirit is omnipresent and the same person as the Father, how then can the Spirit be sent?

    John 14:26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

    Let me guess, your not going to post this either, huh?

  86. What blog are you reading? You have outrightly contradicted yourself.

    YOU SAID:

    “Never said the holy Spirit was omnipresent”

    “The Spirit is God”

    MY RESPONSE:

    The only logical conclusion that anyone can draw from what you have said is that God is NOT omnipresent.

    What about Luke 12? I care not about semantics.

  87. Mystery: A truth of the faith that we could not know unless God revealed it; once it is known, it is understandable and reasonable, but is never fully comprehensible; truths that surpass reason’s powers and can only be shown to be non-contradictory.

    I think we’re saying the same thing different ways.

    Our belief in the Trinity is belief in one, undivided God. The Father is an uncreated Being who created all things from nothing; the first cause. The Son is begotten by the Father, not made or created, completely divine and coequal, and nothing was made without him. In their perfect love for each other, the Father and the Son spirated the Holy Spirit. He proceeds from them as an uncreated divine Person, completely divine and coequal with the Father and the Son. John 14:23-26 shows all three persons of the Trinity.

    This fulfills what a mystery is. God revealed it, it’s understandable and reasonable. Not fully comprehensible.

  88. David, I will allow, in my own understanding, that a mystery as understood by the Apostles allows for something unseen.

    I believe in one God, the Father, undivided from eternity. The Father is uncreated, immutable, alone in the Godhead and the creator of all things. He has His Logos through which He created all things and His Wisdom. They are not distinct nor equal, but His and Him. The Father sent the Word which became the Son for oursakes. The Son sends the Spirit.

  89. “If they are eternally separate, then do you believe in three Gods? Or is their a supreme God, the Father, and lesser Gods, the Son and the Spirit?”

    Once again, they are not separate. They are eternally distinct and co-equal. Again: Have you recanted that the Holy Spirit is God?

  90. So let me understand, you define your belief as economic? As in an economic Trinity? Theologically how do you differ than that of David Bernard in so far as your doctrine of God? This will help me to understand where you are coming from.

  91. Polycarp, do you believe Christ has two natures, 100% God and 100% man?

  92. David, if I may be honest, I am not sure of my own understanding of 100% human.

    This is of course a conversation that I would love to have with you, if you are willing. I do that Jesus Who was born Christ was born of a woman, suffered and died under Pontius Pilate. He truly ate, truly slept and live truly as a man. He had true flesh and was not a mere appearance of a human. I believe that He knew that He was God in the flesh.

    Concerning the hypostatic union, I cannot find Scriptural support.

    I see Paul writing to the Philippians stating that God emptied Himself and took on flesh.

    Your attitude should be the same that Christ Jesus had. Though he was God, he did not demand and cling to his rights as God. He made himself nothing; he took the humble position of a slave and appeared in human form. And in human form he obediently humbled himself even further by dying a criminal’s death on a cross. Because of this, God raised him up to the heights of heaven and gave him a name that is above every other name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Philippians 2:5-11 NLT)

    David, I would be happy for you to completely share your views on this.

  93. F.W., sola scriptura says ‘Scripture Alone.’ You sound more Catholic/Orthodox than the Catholic. The Church was never given license to develop doctrine or dogma, being told to hold what we were already given.

    Again, not modalist.

    F.W., how man thrones in heaven? How many entities with the name of God? You sound a lot like the Eusebians of the 4th century.

  94. What about the Inquisition? It was Rome’s attempt to destroy the Protestants. So what? By the way, I cannot find a similiar movement from the Orthodox Communions.

  95. David,

    Actually, I do the history – and it is apparent that you do not.

    First,

    CCC 86 “Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication, and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.”

    First, it is reality that Scripture stands above Tradition. Paul said that Scripture is given, not Tradition, for doctrine. Paul never equated Scripture with Tradition. Never once was Tradition used for Scripture.

    Concerning the Didache – Although it is an ancient document, it was not preserved as well as Scripture as been. Further, you quote the thrice holy baptism found only later in the Church – long after the time of the Apostles. The Didache, however, provides us with this from chapter 9,

    but they who have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, Give not that which is holy to the dogs

    Again, evident reality that the baptism of the sinner was according to Acts 2.38. The Canon was closed with John, as we know that we receive commandments only through the Apostles.

    There is not growth of Doctrine. I quote Paul, Jude, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Cyprian all who said that they held to the faith of the Apostles. The idea of doctrinal development was not mentioned by them, as a seed or otherwise, but defended as something fully given by the Apostles.

    The Orthodox Communions preceded Rome, and all came from the one True Church, Holy and One. Tell me, what did Peter witness that no others did? And does that give him authority that he himself never took? There is nothing in Scripture, nor Tradition for 400 years that gave Peter prominence over the other Apostles. Christ did not establish Peter as the ‘rock’ – read it in the original tongue and audience, David.

    David, Jerusalem was called because of Paul and Barnabas, not Peter. As a matter of fact, Scripture does not assign a particular ‘call’ was need. The Apostles and Elders were already there and came together. Peter had nothing to do with the leadership of it. As a matter of fact, nothing in the first few centuries allowed of any Bishop of Rome to do anything contrary to the rest of the Church.

    Tell me, who called Nicaea? The Council of 381? 451? The ones in between? David, ‘titles’ do matter, because it shows the progression of Church authority. Granted, Victor I thought himself powerful, but that was overturned by the next Bishop, Zephryinus who was battled by Hippolytus. If the Bishop of Rome was all powerful, then the Trinitarian dogma would never had developed.

    Please do not stay steeped in your Catholic Tradition, David, as even many Catholics realize the truth.

  96. Half the time I don’t know what you’re saying-you leave words out. I never said the Magesterium was superior to tradition or scripture. They are equal, each supporting the other.

    Regarding the Didache, it is certainly closer in time to the Apostles than some of the Fathers you seem to endear-like Tertullian. The point is that the Trinity, though not named in the bible (neither is Bible, yet that’s the name that was given to the collection of works), but the doctrine of the Trinity most certainly is. In fact, all three Persons of the Trinity can be seen in the first chapter of Genesis.

    Again, twisting my words. I didn’t say Doctrine grew. I said understanding of it did. Just as the seed in many of Jesus’ parables.

    We will disagree about the Orthodox communions preceding Rome-do you have any citation for that? Regarding Peter as leader of the Church, the very prominence of Peter in all four gospels, being the most named, and when the group is represented, it’s with the phrase “Peter and the other apostles”. Matt. 16:18, 1 Cor. 3:11, Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:5–6, Rev. 21:14 all point to apostolic succession.

    Tertullian has some interesting things to say about Peter…
    “Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the Church would be built’ [Matt. 16:18] with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and on earth’ [Matt. 16:19]?” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]).

    “[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys” (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

    It is clear that Jesus conferred the leadership of the early Church on St. Peter. Sorry you don’t see that. But tell me, you who know better than 2000 years of Tradition, what did Christ establish in Matt 16:18-19?

    Peter’s involvement in the Council of Jerusalem was to ratify the decision of all the other apostles. He suggested how they should handle the situation, they voted and he ratified their opinion. Regarding whether the pope could do anything contrary to the rest of the Church, he could, only if inspired by the Holy Spirit. No need, no inspiration, no change. Popes can never, and have never, done anything contrary to what Christ taught when he walked the earth.

    Constantine I convoked Nicaea,Theodosius convoked Constantinople, but why they were convoked is more important than who. The emperors only presided-they had little or no part in the decisions.

    Do not admonish me about my faith. I grew up in a number of protest-ant churches, none of them stuck. Went away to school, lost all but my belief in God. But the devil believes in God too. My faith is strong in the Church Jesus built on the Rock of St. Peter. St. Peter who was given the power to bind and loose. The ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC Church. Jesus did not say “Upon this rock I will build my church-es.” He said he would build his Church-one church which will not be divided. Those who believe Jesus at His word, who take Him at His word, who live His word constitute the Church. All his words, including John 6:51-56.

  97. I am leaving nothing out, David. You seem to have a problem with the Truth, but that is okay. Most of the Catholics that I deal with actually agree to my words, as they are historical fact. Either Doctrinal Development is correct, and the Trinity is right, of DD is not, and well, you get the picture.

    The original Didache is indeed closer to the Apostles than say Tertullian, but not by much. Further, we do not know the original from, and it has contradicting statements within itself. The documents that we rely upon are those of the Apostles, and no more. Although we learn from the Fathers, and grow thereby, we must only hold the doctrine established, firmly, in the New Testament.

    You make the same silly statement concerning the ‘bible’ as if that is your big defense. I have already answered that. Formally, the writings of the Apostles and Prophets were called Holy Writings. So, again, what is your point.

    The only time that a Trinity can be seen anywhere is using the commentaries made after Nicaea. Otherwise, God was always seen as a Monad.

    Yes, as a matter of fact, Rome was not the first church established. Second, Alexandria as a center of power is well attested before even Victor I. Nicaea solidified that fact with the power that it gave to the Bishop there. It seems that both John and Peter had preeminence in the Gospels, and Paul for the majority of the New Testament and Church History – yet none of them would claim any superiority above that of another.

    I have no problem with Apostolic Succession, but it was broke in Rome after Clement as well as Alexandria and Antioch, and less we forget Jerusalem, all before 135 with Bishops elected rather than chosen by the previous Bishop.

    Never said Tertullian was perfect, but Tertullian should be seen in light of his greatest pupil, Cyprian, who fought hard against the rising power of Rome.

    Tradition must never trump Scripture. The Church must hold to the Doctrine, but never develop it. It is not a ‘seed’ – the light of the Gospel is. Catholic Tradition, like any Tradition for 2000 years unchecked by Reality, is composed of legends here and there. Legends do not make history nor truth. Peter was the Son of the Rock, the little pebble. That might be lost on your, if you only accept what Rome tells you, but all of history, true Tradition, and the firm Doctrine stands against it.

    Actually, although Peter might have first spoke, James is the one who ‘answered.’ He laid out the facts, but James is the one who framed the answer. David, this simple reading is clear. As far as popes acting contrary to the Church, you are blind to history. They were only lately declared infallible.

    You did say that Popes called the Councils, right? Convoke means call. Actually, Constantine had a lot to do with Nicaea, just ask blessed Marcellus of Ancyra. The Emperor had a great deal to do with the decision.

    I admonish you because you have no faith in God, but in man. You have glorified sinful man and legend/lies to replace what you have lost.

    Christ did build His one and holy Church, but it was not, and is not, Rome.

    .

  98. Ok, slowly…the Trinity appears for the first time in the first book of Genesis.

    Part of your problem is you have a black/white view of things, when in reality life is shades of gray. It’s not either/or, it’s both/and.

    Doctrine does not develop. It is there in Scripture and Tradition and pointed out and studied by…the Magisterium. What evolves from doctrine is understanding. The Trinity has been there, from the beginning of the Bible.

    Regarding power in early Christianity, it wasn’t about power. It was about spreading the faith. No bishop has more power than any other bishop-no physical power. The Bishop of Rome is as powerful as the bishop of Paris. One bishop, one vote. But Rome was always looked at as above the rest. Even among the Orthodox, until they decided to be out of communion with the rest of the Church.

    How a bishop is chosen is immaterial. Once chosen, the laying on of hands gives the office to the bishop, just as is expressed in Timothy and Titus.

    Again, you misrepresent my words. Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium, all equally important. Doctrine is there in Scripture, interpreted and studied for understanding in tradition and the Magisterium. Again, I repeat-Doctrine exists in Scripture. It is understood and expressed with ever more understanding by the Magisterium with the power of the Holy Spirit. Where does this power come from? The Holy Spirit which was expressed in Genesis 1.

    In Councils, generally all speak their mind before a consensus is made. Peter ratified the decision and declared it good.

    Regarding convoking councils, the Church would not have gotten together without the Pope’s consent, so the Emperor had but little power to convoke council without consent. And the reason for calling the council was ultimately to combat some heresy that was affecting not only the church, but the state as well.

    What you don’t understand is that infallibility is a doctrine which has always been held by the Church. Precisely what that means is what was declared. Infallibility means that the Pope can never teach error in the matter of faith and morals when he preaches ex cathedra-from the chair of St. Peter. It was always held, and never has a pope taught error.

    To close, my faith is totally in God-that he would steer the Church he created while he was here on earth, that he would steer it the way he said he would. The Church exists at God’s desire. I place no faith in any man, not myself, nor any one. My faith is that when the Pope speaks on faith and morals, he does so with the Holy Spirit’s guidance.

  99. David,

    The Trinity cannot be seen at any point in the Bible, not until after the Cappadocians started to show the world. Scripture is black and white. No other way.

    You realize, of course, that the Magisterium developed over time? No, of course not. Doctrinal Development is upheld by Rome and the Orthodox Communions as legitimate, which is why the cult of saints developed and the view of Mary. (http://godfearin.blogspot.com/2008/08/development-of-various-dogmas-in-light.html)

    You seem to throw away everything once you are proven wrong. I would suggest you note this problem of yours and seek help, in God.

    Nothing in Acts 15 shows Peter’s ratification, as you present it.

    Even Rome acknowledges that the Popes did not exist until after Nicaea. Why do you choose to ignore history, even history accepted by Rome? Are you the Old Catholics? If so, that would explain a lot.

    Answer that question, so that I may know what I am dealing with.

  100. http://thechurchofjesuschrist.wordpress.com/2008/04/17/trinitarianism-v-modalism-pt-4-pre-existence/

    How can the Word not pre-exist? In the beginning (from eternity) was the Logos. The Logos was with God (His almighty Word, His creative channel). The Logos was God.

    Again, the ‘beginning’ here is important.

    I realize that many ‘oneness’ believers do not understand the implication of saying that Christ suddenly sprang forth from Mary by the Spirit – but Paul of Samosata does. Many do not understand that a distinction occurred in time, or else we have the problem of Noetus and patripassianism. Pre-existence is a reality, or else we are all Arians, even more so than the Nicaean Christians.

    The Word of God (not the Scriptures for anyone particular reading) was in the beginning. The Logos is God’s order, reason, and word or perhaps His Voice. When He spoke, He uttered the Word, and it never returned to Him void. When it was time for the Incarnation, God Spoke Himself.

    I would hope that you would at least read my doctrine page, if nothing else so that you will not be confused of my own theology.

  101. F.W.,

    The Word was in dynamis in God until the Incarnation, when God spoke. The Word is God active, or energeia. Yes, the Incarnation is God in the Flesh – Phil. 2.5-9. The Word is God in the Flesh. I would hope that you give it a more than cursory glance.

    Deficient? You mean, like ascribing to God a division, naming it Son, and placing it as subordinate?

    Paul, a bondservant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God’s elect and the acknowledgment of the truth which accords with godliness, in hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began, (Titus 1:1-2 NKJV)

    That’s a very good question, F.W., but I think that you are missing a key to that question. When did time begin? Is this a new revelation of Paul? Hardly, as Paul was not up for anything new.

    Was there time in the Garden of Eden? No, until after the Fall, when God separate man from His presence. Before Time began – which is always a countdown – God promised us a salvation, through the seed of a woman (the virgin birth)

    And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel.” (Genesis 3:15 NKJV)

    Who was God speaking to? Tell me, are there three Gods? No. Do you really picture God as a multi-personal being, with three minds? Three reasonings? Only God is given the Logos. Only God is given Wisdom and Power. If God has Logos, then the Son is without reasoning. Does that really make sense to you?

    Who was God speaking to? Remember, if there is but One God, then to speak to another as equal is to speak to another God, destroying Monotheism, and ignoring the fact that God said that He alone was God would share His glory with no other.

    Let the heavens praise thy wonders, O LORD, thy faithfulness in the assembly of the holy ones! For who in the skies can be compared to the LORD? Who among the heavenly beings is like the LORD, a God feared in the council of the holy ones, great and terrible above all that are round about him? (Psalms 89:5-7 RSVA)

    God is more than likely speaking to the angels around Him. Notice that God is always singular. Can a He/Him speak Himself without being a They?

    Concerning Church history, the idea of a multi-personal God was non-existent until after Nicaea. Even Athanasius defended the position of the One Person of the Godhead for a time. If for 300 years, God was seen as One Person, then why do so many now see Him as the They of Three Persons?

  102. Do you believe in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit?

    All three are first introduced in Genesis 1. That’s the only way to see it.

    Christ gave us the Magesterium when he gave the Apostles the authority to teach. Plain and simple, that’s what the Magesterium is. By what authority do you teach? The bishops in communion with the Bishop of Rome got their commission to teach from Jesus.

    Doctrinal development is not upheld by the Latin Rite (nor the Eastern Rite, nor the Orthodox). Deeper, more meaningful understanding is. Do you think you know the ocean just because you’ve swum in it? No. To truly understand the ocean you must go deeper. In the same way we understand things like the Trinity, the Eucharist, the doctrines about the Blessed Virgin Mother of God. The Saints are merely those who, in their life on earth exemplified the ideals of Christ and his Father. We know they are in heaven, we ask their help in beseeching God to help us through our trials.

    Proven wrong? Not. You have not proven anything. I’m the one who cites readings and passages that prove my point. You just sweep it off the table.

    How could Rome possibly acknowledge that Popes didn’t exist when we have a line of succession that precedes Nicaea? Again, the title is unimportant-it’s an honorarium. Would you like to know who the popes were prior to Nicaea? Peter, Linus, Anacletus, Clement, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Hyginus, Pius, Anicetus, Soter, Eleuterus, Victor, Zephyrinus, Callixtus, Urban, Pontian, Anterus, Fabian, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephen, Sixtus II, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychian, Caius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Mark, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, Siricius, Anastasius. Just because Siricius was the first to employ a title of Pope means nothing. The honorific goes to the Bishop of Rome.

    Regarding the Council of Jerusalem
    Acts 15:4-35 – On their arrival at Jerusalem [18] they (Paul and Barnabas) were welcomed by the Church, by the apostles and elders, and they reported how greatly God had worked with them. But some members of the Pharisees’ party who (in spite of Jesus’ earlier confrontations with them) had become believers stood up and declared that it was absolutely essential that these men be told that they must be circumcised and observe the Law of Moses.

    – The apostle Peter (Acts 15:6-20 following) supports Paul and Barnabas, reminding those present how the centurion Cornelius, a Gentile, received God’s Holy Spirit. James continues, doing the same through scripture, but proposes a set of simple rules to guide Gentiles in their relations with Jewish converts:

    The apostles and elders met to consider the matter. After an exhaustive enquiry (the apostle) Peter stood up and addressed them in these words: “Men and brothers, you know that from the earliest days God chose me (the apostle Peter, not Paul at this stage in the Church’s development) as the one from whose lips the Gentiles should hear the Word and should believe it. Moreover, God who knows men’s inmost thoughts has plainly shown that this is so, for when he had cleansed their hearts though their faith he gave the Holy Spirit to the Gentiles exactly as he did to us. Why then must you now strain the patience of God by trying to put on the shoulders of these disciples a burden which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? Surely the fact is that it is by the grace of the Lord Jesus that we are saved by faith, just as they are!”

    These words produced absolute silence, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul while they gave a detailed account of the signs and wonders which God had worked through them among the Gentiles.

    Silence again followed their words and then James made this reply: “Men and brothers, listen to me. Symeon (or Simeon, that is Simon Peter) has shown how in the first place God chose a people (the Jews) from among the nations who should bear his name. This is in full agreement with what the prophets wrote, as in this scripture:

    ‘After this I will return and will rebuild the tabernacle of David which has fallen down. I will rebuild its ruins, and I will set it up, so that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, even all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord who does all these things. (Amos 9:11,12)

    ‘Known to God from eternity are all his works.’

    “I am firmly of the opinion that we should not put any additional obstacles before any Gentiles who are turning towards God. Instead, I think we should write to them telling them to avoid anything polluted by idols, sexual immorality, eating the meat of strangled animals, or tasting blood…….

    I am Catholic, a member of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, sir. I am not a what, I am a who. Would you do the same and answer the questions I’ve asked you?

  103. God is not given anything. He already has everything. Stop lying to people about the Trinity, when it is represented in Genesis 1. As does the Gospel of John. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was WITH God, and the Word WAS God. He was in the beginning with God…” and later in verse 32 “I saw the Spirit come down like a dove from the sky and remain upon him”.

    This represents the triune God…God is God, Jesus is God, the Holy Spirit is God, three persons, one God.

    It’s there in the Gospel, also in Genesis 1. God expresses Himself as plural “Let us…”.

    You must not understand the dual nature of Christ either, huh?

  104. In other words, as a Latin Rite Catholic, you deny Vatican II? Show me, in Scripture the phrases ‘God the Son’ and ‘God the Holy Spirit.’ That was a phrase not uttered until the time of Nicaea. Whether or not you acknowledge Doctrinal Development or not, it occurred. The ancient communions recognize it – they have to, or else they must dismiss the Trinity, the various Sacraments except for Baptism and Communion, the cult of saints, and the adoration of Mary.

    The Mag. was not instituted until long after even Nicaea. Again, history.

    You list a group of Bishops or Rome, but simply because you stand here and call them ‘popes’ in no way makes them so. Rome did not have centralized power again, until after the 2nd Ecumenical Council, and if I remember correctly, 451 gave the central authority to Constantinople. You affirmation of Peter as a pope is not held by Scripture or history. It was James that answered for the Council, and framed the answer. Peter was a man of God, but nothing more than an Apostle. Stop worshiping him – I think he might be offended.

    Actually, I do understand Christ as God and Man. David, it is clear that you are not even in line with Rome’s teachings – holding to pre-Vatican II understanding Why don’t you leave Rome altogether? It will do you good in eternity.

  105. David, I no longer allow ‘last comments’ unless I choose to. You ‘I’ll insult you and then leave’ comment will not be allowed. Thank you for visiting. I hope and pray that you leave Rome before it is too late.

  106. Who said that He did? Let me ask you, is Washington DC the whole of the United States? No more than Rome is the Catholic Church. The Church is defined by the body of Christ, Christ’s people. I even included you, because you seem to believe in Him. You just do not have the whole truth. You see your faith through the eyes of men, not through the eyes of God.

    By the way, I ask your forgiveness for what I said here about you. But you are partially to blame for your condescending attitude. I will even amend the title of the post I wrote about you, hopeful for reparation from you, my brother in Christ.

  107. David, I meant Rome as the Roman Catholic Church, and I am not part of it, contrary to your opinion. I have had worse things said about me, David. You do not offend me.

  108. If you believe in Jesus Christ, you are part of it. Whether you want to know it or not. Christ began one Church. Not many sects. All our belief in Christ stands on John 3:16. That’s the essential. That He died for the expiation of our sins. Fundamental. The Nicene Creed.

    Regarding what was said, the point is I shouldn’t say it if I really follow Christ’s commands, and I’m sorry for it. Your acceptance of that means something. God has already forgiven it.

    Christ founded the Church in Jerusalem. When that holy place was destroyed, it spread. It’s all the same Church. Your beliefs are founded on the earliest Christians, whether you know it or not, whether you accept it or not. By your baptism, you did accept it.

    God bless you.

  109. David, our Church stands against Rome and all that she has become. She is not the one true and holy Church, but a horrible disfiguration of what the holy Church really is. We do not hold to the Nicene Creed.

    I was baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, not the Roman tradition. Thank God for that.

  110. Then you stand against Christ, because that’s what the Catholic Church stands for. You need to start being specific if you want to know what the Catholic Church believes. Your view of history is off kilter at best.

    That’s ok, you are in my prayers. We’ll see where the Holy Spirit leads this.

  111. F.W., no offense intended – I know full well the demons that you suffer under, and the blindness that you self-inflict. You deny the creeds, but accept the doctrine which they produce. You would not have the Trinity or the Three-in-One formula without the Creeds or Doctrinal Development.

    I guess I understand it – I mean, I choose to read only the bible, and not fining the Trinity in it, I can easily give it up. I believe that Paul was correct in telling us to hold to the pattern of his words – but you go beyond that.

    It’s difficult to understand that you still hold to this because you obvious know a tiny bit about doctrine.

  112. F.W.,

    I have better uses of my time than to constantly respond to you – especially since I written extensively on my doctrine.

    Yes, I am honestly standing on the Apostles and Prophet and Church Fathers when denying that there is any hope of finding the Three in One Formula in the Scriptures. The three in one formula wasn’t invented until Tertullian – although his formula is something that is not totally objectionable. It was not until after Nicaea that the full formula was developed. You claim to hold to Sola Scriptura, but you deny the very premise. If we are to live by Scripture alone, show me the phrase ‘God the Son’ and God the Holy Spirit’, as well as co-eternal, co-existent, and Trinity. Show me the three in one formula as well.

    Your little insults only show the depravity of your spirit, F.W.

    When I feel like responding to your posts, I will, until then, I will not.

    I pray that you will see the light, F.W. and that God will change your heart. It seems to be as hard as your head.

  113. If you’re reading the Bible, and not finding the trinity God, Son and Holy Spirit, you’re not reading the Bible with an open heart.

    Do you believe Jesus is God? Do you believe the Holy Spirit is God?

  114. By the way, you didn’t answer the questions I posed here: By whose authority do you teach? The Apostles, the Church’s first Magesterium, were commissioned by Jesus. The Bishops in succession from the apostles, for they all stem from an unbroken line to the apostles, are the authority, guided by the Holy Spirit, to teach.

    I forget where it was you asked about this, or disputed it, but Ignatius of Antioch (50-117AD) understood Peter’s primacy. Also, Irenaeus of Lyons, a disciple of your namesake, also confirms it in Against Heresies, Book 3 Chapter 3. It’s there, and was understood from the earliest days of the Church.

    Jesus founded his Church in Jerusalem, from whence it spread. The primacy of the bishop of Rome does not disparage the importance of the other bishops, in the least.

  115. F.W.,

    I no longer allow ‘I’ll insult you and run’ comments. I am deleting any pending comments from you, as I see it at as a dishonest attempt to drive people to you rather feeble blog.

  116. I teach on the authority of the Apostles, from the Scriptures, as led by the Spirit of the one God. You may quote who you desire, but Ignatius did not see Peter’s Primacy, and Irenaeus did not see Rome’s. Irenaeus saw Apostolic Succession as primacy, as Rome, instead of Lyons or any of the other cities of Europe, was founded by the Apostles, supposedly.

  117. So what is it that came upon the apostles on Pentecost, allowing them to speak in tongues? Was that not the Holy Spirit?

    Who was it that conceived Jesus Christ with the consent of the Virgin Mary?

    What about the Holy Spirit in Matt 1, 3,12 and 28? Mark 3? Is this not a reference to Go, the Holy Spirit? What about in Genesis 1:1?

    What is the Holy Spirit, in all these cases, if not God???

  118. And so, you have established the Trinity-the three persons of the one God. As it is in the Scriptures.

    So, if you don’t believe in the Trinity, you don’t believe in the Christian God.

    So what are you? Gnostic? God is God. God is the Father. God is the Son, God is the Holy Spirit.

  119. No details on the errors of the evil Catholic Church? Show me one.

  120. Do you even understand your Trinity? Do you understand the words ‘person’ and ‘distinct’?

    There is not a distinct hypostasis within a ousia that is the holy Spirit. The holy Spirit of God is the power of God.

    I am unsure as if you really know what you believe.

  121. I never said that Rome was evil – on the contrary, I can admire the beauty of Rome. It is in doctrinal error, however. Such as the papacy. Or Doctrinal Development. Or the adoration of Mary, or the adoration of the Saints. Or the baptismal formula. Or the priests.

    Pick one.

  122. Should I care that you’re unsure of what I believe?

    Who really understands God’s mysteries. If you think you know exactly what the Trinity is, you’re mistaken. The totality of it will be revealed in Heaven.

    One God-one What. Three Persons-three Who’s.

  123. David, that’s the thing. Christ came to reveal God to us. Why do you consider it such a mystery?

  124. F.W., perhaos you could show me how a monotheistic God has an equal? Never said the holy Spirit was omnipresent. I said that the Spirit of God (and of Christ – Romans 8.38) was His power (Gen. 1.3) How are you Catholics creating three distinct hypostaseis?

  125. A monotheistic God does not have an equal. Two infinite beings cannot exist simultaneously. That is one of the reasons why the Trinity is the only biblical doctrine of God. So you would disagree with David Bernard on the point that the Holy Spirit is omniscient?

    “The Holy Spirit is simply God…There is only one Spirit of God”
    -David K. Bernard

  126. I would agree with David here. The Spirit is God. You do realize that the Trinity has three being existed simultaneously, right?

  127. “Never said the holy Spirit was omnipresent”

    “The Spirit is God”

    The only logical conclusion that anyone can draw from what you have said is that God is NOT omnipresent. Care to explain?

    Allow me to restate what I have said already: If the Spirit is God, and God is omnipresent, how then can the Spirit be sent from God?

    By the way, in regards to Luke 12:10; If God is one person, how can somebody blaspheme only the Holy Spirit? Wouldn’t they be blaspheming Jesus and the Father too?

    Luke 12:10 And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but the one who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.

  128. You seem to be confusing the Spirit with the sum total of what God is. The Spirit is the Power of God. If God is three persons, then there are three Gods.

  129. F.W., so you are giving up when I present the very real case that your three persons equal three Gods? Shame that – I thought you might actually gain the Truth

  130. F.W.,

    There is no such thing as a distinct hypostasis,or person, of the spirit. The Spirit is God’s power, and as such is God. The Spirit is sent by God, which means that it is not independent of the sender. What part of this are you not getting?

    Who knows, you may be more oneness than you think.

    I take it you are speaking about Luke 12.10. When you deny the power of God, you deny God. When you blaspheme the power of God, you blaspheme God.

    In Luke-Acts, the author connects power and Spirit at least three times.

    Luke 1.35, which directly connects the holy Spirit as the power of God
    Luke 4.14, which puts Jesus in the power of the Spirit
    Acts 1.8, which gives power after the Spirit falls on the Church.

    The Spirit is God’s power.

    See also, Acts 10.38; Romans 1.4 and 15.13, 19; 1st Co. 2.4; 1st. Thess 1.5

    Eph. 2.2 even connects the spirit of the adversary with his own power

    Notice, that many times the Spirit is referred to as the Spirit of God or the Spirit of Christ. If the Spirit is a separate hypostasis, how can it belong to either one or both of these other hypostasis and still be considered co-equal?

  131. “The Spirit is God’s power, and as such is God.”

    Please hear me out: If the Spirit is God, the Spirit must be omnipresent. How then can the Spirit be sent from God? You have tried to weasel out of this gaping problem by saying that the Spirit is “God’s power.” But either the Spirit is God or the Spirit is not God. There is no in between. A power doesn’t show emotion: Heb 10:29, Eph 4:30, Isaiah 63:10. The Spirit has a personage. Luke 1:35 does not call the Spirit the power of God, instead it says “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, AND the power of the Most High will overshadow you.” The Spirit is God, in that you are right. But the Spirit is not simply God’s power. The Spirit POSSESSES God’s power because He is God. Your hermanutic is unbelievable. . . Wait a minute, is this some sort of satire?

  132. F.W.,

    Can you show me in the Bible where the Spirit is given a distinct hypsostasis? Can you show me where ‘ownership’ implies a co-equal standing? The holy Spirit is God’s Spirit. It is Christ’s Spirit. Yet you would have us believe that it stands as a separate and distinct Person.

    Do you understand biblical writings at all – including parallelism? Otherwise, Christ would have two fathers, the Spirit and the Power, which adds another Person to your Trinity. The Spirit is the Power that overshadows the Virgin. This Spirit is God’s Power. This Spirit is God, but not distinct from God. You deem to separate from the Father everything that makes Him God. Shame that.

    Tell me, if God the Father is the Father of the Son, but yet it takes both the Spirit and the Power of God which are separate Persons of God to produce the Son, then how is God the Father still the Father of the Son?

    Please answer my questions before you ask any more. If the Spirit is clearly God’s, how can ownership equate with Co-equality and a separate Person?

  133. You have answered my question with a question. I guess that means you don’t have an answer.

    “Christ would have two fathers,”

    Number one, “Father” is a relational term. God the Father is Christ’s father in the sense of their relationship. If you believe that the Father was Christ’s biological father, you might want to convert to Mormonism. You may say that the Holy Spirit was the means by which Christ was concieved.

    “The Spirit is the Power that overshadows the Virgin”

    Nice isogesis. That is not what the text says. The Spirit is God and POSSESSES the power.

    Luke 1:35 And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God.”

    “You seem to separate from the Father everything that makes Him God”
    Uh no. I preserve the distinction seen in scripture. You have a deficient view of Christ and the Spirit in that, you claim that they are simply attributes of God (the word of God, and the power of God).Meanwhile they communicate with eachother, show emotion, etc.

  134. F.W.,

    What a nice way to admit that you have no answers. I would hope that you are not a dishonest debater.

    Tell me, where in Scripture is it written that the Spirit is a distinct hypostasis which can possess the power of God? Try to be honest, F.W.

    If they are apart from each other, then they are not one, and monotheism is destroyed. How many Gods do you worship?

  135. Ah, here we go. You see? Mostly it is you, misunderstanding what the Catholic Church teaches…
    Papacy-Matthew 16:18 shows the first one, Jesus gave his apostles authority to commission others (bishops) to carry the Good News. The Pope (which is just a title, nothing more) is the head bishop, as Peter was the first among the apostles. If you don’t see this, then the issue is with you.

    The Catholic Church does not develop doctrine. She defines what has been believed when others call into question what is to be believed.

    Mary…well let me put it this way. Did Jesus follow all the commandments? I think we can agree that he did. That would include the commandment to honor his father and mother. The Catholic Church honors Mary the way Jesus honored Mary, no more no less. Granted that some people in the Church get carried away, but Mary is nothing more than the most perfect creation of God.

    We honor the saints in the same way. We consider them examples, role models, if you will, who we should look up to.

    In short, we do not adore anyone but God.

    We’ve been around and around on the baptismal formula. We baptise the way Jesus told us to. Show me evidence that the passage in Matthew was edited to add the formula.

    As for priests, 1 Peter 2:5–9 tells us, “Like living stones be yourselves built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. . . . But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people.” The fact that all baptized Christians are referred to as priests means it is not a contradiction to say that Christ is our unique priest/mediator/intercessor while affirming the biblical truth that Christians can act as priests/mediators/intercessors as well.

    The key is to understand properly the nature of the body of Christ. Catholics do not usurp or diminish the unique priesthood of Christ when they are referred to as priests; they participate in that unique priesthood. So intimate is the union of the baptized with Christ that Paul describes this mystical union as a body (1 Cor. 12:12–27; Rom. 12:5) with Christ as its head (Eph. 1:22–23). What can be attributed to a hand in the body does not somehow take away from the head. The fact that Christians are priests does not usurp the priesthood of Christ because it is Christ who empowers them to participate in his own priesthood. It is Christ living in them (Gal. 2:20).

  136. Polycarp, we can only know some of God. Just as He didn’t allow Moses to see his face. Christ revealed as much as human kind could take, and had they understood him, they might not have killed him.

    There are mysteries. Can you say you understand how Christ was born? How He was concieved? That he was conceived by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary is no mystery. How and why are.

    Yes we know lots. We know that the world was created. Not how or why. That’s a mystery that may not be revealed until we are accepted into heaven.

    So, that he came to reveal it, and what he revealed, yes. We know a lot of who, what, where. We know so little of why and how-those will be fully revealed when we get to heaven.

  137. Why edit my replies? Dishonesty? You have got to be kidding.

    If God is the Holy Spirit, then the Holy Spirit is omnipotent. Therefore, how can the Holy Spirit be sent by Christ and the Father?

    “Tell me, where in Scripture is it written that the Spirit is a distinct hypostasis which can possess the power of God? ”

    As I have stated before, I don’t have a formal theological education. However I do know how to read the bible in context. I am unsure what hypostasis is. I may not have a singular verse to answer your question with, at least yet anyway, but you have yet to address the gaping problem in your doctrine… You seem to be the dishonest one here. You can read the original languages, your educated, so lets hear your answer. Reconcile the above. It is obvious that you do not understand the doctrine of the Trinity. I will refer you to the Athanasian creed so that you might be familiarized with the doctrine.

  138. F.W., no one is editing your replies.

    The spirit which is God’s and Christ’s is sent, because it is His Spirit not some separate and distinct hypostasis.

    A hypostasis (Hebrews 1.3) is the Greek word for substance, reality and is literal stand under. During the Trinitarian debates in the 4th century, one side supported the idea of God having only one hypostasis (Athanasius and Marcellus, leading the charge) while the Arians and Eusebians supported three distinct hypostaseis, Father, Son, and Spirit, with the Father being first in rank, the Son created and second in rank, and the Spirit which is usually left undefined until the late 4th century.

    In 325, nothing happened. The Council met, proposed a compromise which lasted until the death of the Emperor, but upon his death, the Arian/Eusebian party took back over, expelled the likes of Athanasius and Marcellus and replaced them with pastors who taught three hypostaseis. If you can, read Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 56. You might also want to read Origen and his development of the Trinity. For him, the Son was a second God, and until 381, ‘another God’ or ‘second’ God was used to describe the Son. The Spirit was only assumed to be God, but no one every provided the chance to argue it.

    Irenaeus was a mai-hypostatic believer (Mia meaning one in Greek) who saw God as the only Person (hypostasis) interacting with humanity through His two Hands, which is the Wisdom and the Word. Since Ignatius, the word ‘Economy‘ had been used to describe the manner in which God interacted with His creation.

    The main difference between you and I, I believe is that I believe in an Economic dispensation. Yes, the Incarnation was distinct from God the Father – or else we have the Father dying on the Cross. Yes, I believe that God can send His Word and His Wisdom or Spirit to accomplish what He wishes, but they are not eternally distinct from Him. There is but One God, indivisible and unchangeable. Do you agree with that statement?

    God is spirit. The holy Spirit is God in power.

  139. David, the Spirit of God caused Mary to concieve. I am not talking about Science, but about religion and theology. I do not believe that those that know the Truth see mysteries.

  140. If you want to just see the surface, you may. That’s fine. But theologically, do you understand why God allows suffering? Why would He allow a baby to be born deformed? What does baptism do, really? What change is there in the baptised person? The short answer is that God gives the baptized person remission from original sin and sanctifying grace. Is either tangible? These are mysteries.

  141. David, those are not mysteries. We are told what happens during baptism and we are told why. What is difficult about that – read Romans 6.1-7

    God ‘allows’ suffering because of sin. It was not merely one Man who fell, but all of Creation through him. Once we are separate from God, there is nothing but suffering. This is the results of sin. What is mysterious about that?

    It does not have to be tangible to be seen. Faith is the unseen, but it is real. It is evidence of those things unseen. No mystery indeed.

  142. No. I cannot agree. They are eternally distinct. I refer you to:

    Phil 2:6-10 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

    Form = essence

    The subject object relationship remains

  143. If your modalistic doctrine was the doctrine of the apostles, then why was it condemned universally by early church Fathers and at ecclesiastical councils?

    Justin Martyr said this in 190AD:

    “Those persons who declare that the Son is the Father are proved neither to have become acquainted with the Father, nor to know that the Father of the universe has a Son”

    Seems like we have some revisionism going on here…

  144. “God is spirit. The holy Spirit is God in power.”

    You have previously stated that the Holy Spirit IS God. Have you now recanted this? If not, how then can the Spirit be sent if God is unipersonal and omnipresent? Also, the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ because He proceeds from them both. When you see Spirit of Christ, generally the context is that of Christ or His work, likewise with God. I am somewhat suprised you were not aware of this.

  145. F.W.,

    Though he was God, he did not demand and cling to his rights as God. He made himself nothing; he took the humble position of a slave and appeared in human form. And in human form he obediently humbled himself even further by dying a criminal’s death on a cross. Because of this, God raised him up to the heights of heaven and gave him a name that is above every other name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.(Philippians 2:6-11 NLT)

    Form here, in the Greek is morphe meaning external image. This is not what is meant by ousia, which is indeed essence.

    If they are eternally separate, then do you believe in three Gods? Or is their a supreme God, the Father, and lesser Gods, the Son and the Spirit?

  146. Why are you not getting this? Just because God sends something that in no way removes what is sent from being God. How can co-equality exist if one is sent by another? Is the spirit of a man separate from the man? Is the breath of a man separate from a man? (Remember, in the Greek, spirit and breath are both pneuma)

    Read Romans 8. It is called the Spirit of Christ and God in one verse in one context, because it is one Spirit.

  147. So you do not believe in three separate gods, just three distinct Gods who are co-equal. Care to explain that one? You realize that separate and distinct are synonyms? Both meaning the same things?

    Why should I recant the Truth? God is Spirit, God is the holy Spirit. The Spirit is God.

  148. By the way, the replys are getting put all over the place. Hard to follow.

    I must say it sounds like you and I are saying the same thing in different languages. And in truth, many who broke off from the Catholic Church did so from misunderstanding or cultural differences, the biggest being the Eastern/Western Schism, but Luther broke off because he thought something that wasn’t really true. By the time he realized it, he was too prideful to put it back, and his political supporters wouldn’t let him.

    Again, I think we believe in the same God, same Christ, same Holy Spirit, just in different mindsets. If you look up the column, there’s an unapproved comment from me on all that.

  149. Please do not remove my words from their context. Each member of the Godhead is distinct from one another, yet they are one.

    “Why should I recant the Truth? God is Spirit, God is the holy Spirit. The Spirit is God.”

    If God is the Holy Spirit, then the Holy Spirit is omnipotent. Therefore, how can the Holy Spirit be sent by Christ and the Father? Why won’t you acknowledge my question? This is the fourth time I have asked.

  150. I have answered you many times.

    F.W., you refuse to answer anything that I ask. When you are ready, come back. Until then, do not post.

  151. F.W.,

    I am not a Modalist. If you study your history, you will see that a unipersonal God was defended by Rome against the schismatics Hippolytus and Tertullian. You will see that my language is in line with Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus and others leading up to Nicaea. It was not until after Nicaea that ‘modalism’ was condemned.

    And you would quote Justin who believed in three literal Gods. You know, three separate Gods who talk around each other in Heaven.

    I do not believe that the Son is the Father, and to say I do you lie.

    It seems to me that you refuse to even study Church History. I suggest you start. Perhaps with RND Kelly’s book, Early Christian Doctrines. Please stop lying to yourself, F.W. It does nothing for you. I have taken a great deal of time to state my doctrines and beliefs, with Scripture and Church History on this blog. If you do not have the time to read them, or search of them, I can email them to you. I would suggest, that you do read Justin before you quote him.

  152. No, not economic Trinitarian. I will hold only to what the Apostles have given – it’s that sola scriptura thing.

    I have not studied David much, caring less for oneness pentecostals than I do for Catholics – no offense, David – but from what I understand, David teaches a two wills in Christ, two spirits, two souls. He denies the pre-existence of Christ. Further, he does not allow for the distinction of the Incarnation. Most oneness people will tell you that the prayer – by the Son to the Father – in the Garden is an example to follow. I disagree.

    http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pentecostal/One-Ch1.htm

  153. I don’t feel much like dealing with that prayer. Another day maybe. So, you believe that Christ is the word of God, the Holy Spirit is the power of God right? How do you reconcile the communication between them?

    How many people are there that believe the way that you do?

  154. F.W., the only communication that we have is the one between the Father and the Son which is the Incarnation, exemplified by the prayer in John 17. What is there to reconcile? In His Humanity, God who had emptied Himself had to have to a relationship with the Father as we must.

    I would assume plenty. As I said, I try to temper my words only with biblical language, as I believe we are mandated to do. Further, I judge it by the early Church Fathers – none of which mentioned certain terms used today.

    Do you believe that we can add our own understanding to the Doctrine delivered by the Apostles. Perhaps we should start there.

    How do you understand 1st Co. 4.6 and 2nd Tim 1.13?

  155. We have communication between the Father and the Son, and the Spirit and the Father (intercession).

    Your articulation of your doctrine of God is vague and somewhat illogical. I do not feel that your doctrine fits within what the bible has revealed. There seems to be a very strange deficiency in your understanding of Christ, as if He is simply the flesh of God.

    By the way, you seem to hold to baptismal regeneration, is that right?

    So far as the two texts you cited,

    1 Tim: God treated Paul with mercy because of misinformation.

    In 1 Cor: Paul reminded the corinthians where they came from and to whom they once belonged, and of course to stick with the word.

  156. F.W.,

    You did not answer my questions. I specified a verse, not the chapter. Please answer that question.

    I do hold to baptismal regeneration.

    Come to think it, you have not yet answered my first question. Are you a Landmark Baptist?

  157. No, as I have stated previously I am not a landmark Baptist. I am reformed/evangelical/Baptist in the tradition of Spurgeon. By founder I meant Christ, I was being sarcastic.

    So far as your question regarding the 1Tim and 1Cor texts, I believe my answer was suffient. I won’t get into application simply because I would like to stay on topic.

    I would like to answer your questions, and hopefully I will. Sometimes I have to delay answering simply to prepare an answer.

    Also, so far as your definition of “economic,” after further review I think your doctrine would be better defined as modalistic monarchanism. Perhaps with a slight influence of dynamic monarchianism due to your belief that the Christ was literally the word of God, and the Spirit the power of God.

    Your constant return to the doctrine of the early church fathers is somewhat troubling to me. Doctrine is something that develops over time. It does not simply drop out of the sky. I will agree that there were well meaning Christians that held a doctrine very close to what you believe, and in a loose sense I would say they were orthodox simply because the orthodoxy hadn’t yet been defined. But you have the benefit of time and other’s experience, making your belief damnable. (no offense) Men like Polycarp and Justin Martyr held their respective beliefs with an open hand. Therefore, someone can be saved without understanding or being exposed to the Trinity like these men(perhaps that would be a 2nd Tim 1.13 situation) , but no one can be saved if they deny the Trinity.

    I will agree with also that there are many places in scripture where the Spirit is seen as the agent of power or power of God. Similairly, Christ is also scene as the agent or personification of the wisdom of God. But then again there is that subject object relationship. All three communicating with another, all three working in unity with another simultaneously, all three claiming divinity and personal attributes such as will,emotion, etc, these things provide substantial detractions from your doctrine. And it seems as though you have no answer to give in reference to them.

    I believe there is a substantive case to say that God is one “substantia” in three “persona.” One essence simply because there is one God. You agree that Christ is God, that the Spirit is God, and that the Father is God. But yet you deny the obvious; that they are eternally distinct and yet one. Why do you insist on viewing a progressive revelation backwards? It certainly would be advisable to view the OT through that of the NT, while maintaining the integrity of both.

    “Do you believe that we can add our own understanding to the Doctrine delivered by the Apostles. ”

    Tricky question. There is only one proper interpretation to any biblical text. However there may be a multiplicity of applications. To me, the entirity of doctrine was not immediatley made known to the early church. I think we can both agree that doctrine went through a series of developmental stages. To understand a doctrine is not to add to it, but to apprehend it. So I guess I would answer your question by saying that the apostles delivered some main and plain doctrines, others were developed. Whether you want to say that people “added” to what the apostles provided or whether defined what they provided, I suppose it would be the same difference, I prefer the latter.

    “I do not believe that the Son is the Father, and to say I do you lie.”
    This is a most curious statement to me. Can you further elaborate so that I might understand your view?

  158. F.W., to use your own words from above,

    So far as your question regarding the 1Tim and 1Cor texts, I believe my answer was suffient. I won’t get into application simply because I would like to stay on topic.

    When you choose to answer the questions concerning those specific verses, I will return to answering yours.

  159. David, to say that He was 100% God and 100% man is a illogical. Instead say this: He was fully God and fully man. He had two natures. In His divine nature He was fully divine. In His human nature He was fully man.

  160. Polycarp, I think that one thing you don’t understand is that man struggled to come up with a term to embrace something that was of God. How can any word define anything that is of God? Simply, it cannot.
    In this case, hypostatic union, we have a definition before there was a word for it. John 1:1 shows that Jesus is God. John 1:14 shows that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. True God and True man. Truth is absolute, so this can be inferred 100% God and 100% man.
    But the term, earliest I can find, is Irenaeus, and that is a fragment.

    You can see how words can be misinterpreted. You didn’t understand “mystery” the way I did until I defined it. This seems true of the Trinity too. The reason I asked about the hypostatic union is that, if you believe that Jesus was true God and true man, 100% of both, it’s not such a stretch to see the three persons of one God (Triune). All this doctrine tries to do is to wrap up into one word a ton of meaning. The Trinity is sort of like one man acting several roles in a play. In this case, It was God, the Son who was born, The Holy Spirit is divine, and came upon the Virgin Mary. The Father who is divine, Jesus talks to. Ephesians 1:3-14 shows all the elements of the triune God.

  161. “How do you understand 1st Co. 4.6 and 2nd Tim 1.13?”

    I would apply 1 Cor 4:6 in that we ought to allow the scriptures to be our boundry thereby preventing us from the sin of pride and to exemplify love.

    The 2 Tim passage would be applicable in that we ought not to use words which are in vain stemming from worldliness, also to adhere to the teaching brought by the apostle through Christ.

  162. Only illogical to human eyes and minds. True God and True man. Truth is absolute, so it is 100%. But I see your point. Even “fully God” and “fully man” doesn’t sound logical together. But that’s the mystery. God is and was that.

    Remember that most whose eyes fell on Christ did not see divinity. They saw humanity.

  163. So, if scripture is out boundary and we must adhere to the teaching brought by the Apostles to the one holy Church, then tell me how you can look at history and see the development and expansion in terms and thoughts, including but not limited to Trinity and Co-Eternal and accept them as biblical?

  164. Good point, but easily defeatable. The developement of doctrine IS rooted in scripture. The finite, fallible, and ultimatley sinful people of God must develop theology in accordance with sacred scripture. Theology is the application of scripture not the development of scripture. A doctrine is a principal or belief which is produced from a theological understanding of scripture. Sola Scriptura says that scripture is not simply the boundry but the source. Your modalistic doctrine was developed much in the same way that the true doctrine was developed, only the true doctrine stands the test of scripture.

    I have spent quite a bit of time the last two days studing various areas of church history in regards to the doctrine of God. This is my conclusion and my verdict so far as where you have gone wrong:

    We see in scripture (for proof texts let me know) that all three are co-equal in divinity and united with eachother not by some impersonal essence, but by their mutual fellowship and coinheritence. The relationship between the Father, Son, and Spirit is a personal one, and it is not based on some abstract essence. God may very well have an essence, but the concern of scripture lies elsewhere. The scriptures are concerned with their relationship as three persons. Each of them indwells one another, every time you consider or read about one, you get them all. The very knowledge of God involves all three of them. You have from the beginning of our dialoge been concerned with the question of essence. Clearly you are concerned about being scriptural with your reason, but in your attempt you have walked away from what the scriptures have focused on: the relationship held within the Godhead, the indwelling of each within each, and their unified role redemption. (There is a greek word that deals with the indwelling that starts with a “P” but I can’t rememeber it).

  165. “The Trinity is sort of like one man acting several roles in a play”

    David,

    Study the doctrine of the Trinity, because what you just said is heresy. That IS modalism. I understand you are a Roman Catholic, is that right?

  166. From Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenaeus XXVIII:

    Got just as the wood, which is the lighter body, was submerged in the water; but the iron, the heavier one, floated: so, when the Word of God became one with flesh, by a physical and hypostatic union, the heavy and terestrial, having been rendered immortal, was borne up into heaven, by the divine nature, after the resurrection.

    This refers to 2 Kings 6:6

  167. F.W.,

    Actually, what David is speaking of is the classic Trinitarian understanding, not the Americanized version of the West. Tertullian had one of the best formula’s that I have seen when he said that God was three Persons (Personae in Latin, Prosopon in Greek) in one Substance (Substantia in Latin, Hypostasis in Greek). The Eusebians denied the idea of consubstantial as indeed being too modalistic, but it is biblical.

  168. Trying to describe the mysteries of our faith, as usual, words are inadequate. All analogies leave something to be desired. Trying to put something of God into human terms, impossible. Deal with it. One What, three whos.

  169. “The Trinity is sort of like one man acting several roles in a play”

    Yes I do agree with Tertullian’s primitive formula, as I qouted it yesterday. Semantics aside, that was not what David articulated. He gave one of the classic modalist explanations for their doctrine of God, and you a seemingly theologically educated person, know that very well. To say anything differently you would be being decietful.

    Your right, your not a modalist, your a modalistic monarchian, and there is nothing new under the sun.

    “You sound more Catholic/Orthodox than the Catholic.”

    Really? I do huh? So your doctrine just dropped from the sky eh? Please, you are reaching. I didn’t say we hold to dogma. Doctrine is derived from theology. Theology is the application of the word. Your heretical baptismal regeneration doctrine is a product of that process (however perverse). Where do you think Sola Scriptura came from? THEOLOGY! By the way, it is interesting to me that you hold to Sola Scriptura while not holding to the remaining four solas. Interesting but not suprising. I find it also interesting that the very scriptures in your hands were translated and protected by those of my creed, and yet you and your brood claim exclusivity all the while promoting a works righteousness through baptism. Apparently you forgot that little greek word “for” in Acts 2:38 that when litterally translated means “because” or “on behalf of.” Sounds like your more Catholic than you think.

    Care to comment on what I stated previously regarding your focus on essence?

  170. F.W., essence (ousia) is not in the bible, and I believe the use of it denies the idea of sola scriptura. It is a philosophical word developed by the Arians and Eusebians.

    FW, if you read what I wrote about Tertullian, I believe that answers you question.

    A modalist and a modalistic monarchian are the same thing. I believe in one God where you believe in three. That makes you a Tritheist. See, both of us can be whole dishonest about the other’s views and we will get no where.

    Your believe that Doctrine can be developed is false. If doctrine developed past that of the Apostles, then would the Apostles recognize it? No. So, by using the Apostles terms, and the early Church Fathers – which you have already admitted was closer to me than you – I prove a view of the Godhead that is wholly biblically. This view is different than yours. Who do you think is right?

    You realize that the Apostles and all the Church Fathers taught baptismal regeneration? Only since the Reformation did Baptism become merely a good show.

    FW, this is not merely about Acts 2.38, but many passages in the NT. Concerning the NT, it was not protected by your corruption, but by God, who preserves His word, and do not need your help.

    I would suggest, that if you want to keep this conversation going, you leave the childishness off your next comment.