- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (TimothyVI @ Mar. 23 2007,10:55) Hi AdamPastor, Thank you for the clarification.
That paragraph may be misleading, but is the actual quote a misquote?
The entire paragraph is obviously not the quote of Cardinal Ratzinger. Just what is within the quotation marks.
Even within those quotation marks, the words Mat. 28:19, included for emphasis were added within parenthesis, indicating to me that they were not part of the original quote.…
Tim
Greetings TimSee for yourself …
t8
Quote Catholics believe in the bible and tradition. If they admit to adding the verse which seems condemning, they may actually be showing their authority where they claim to be able to reveal and establish truth even outside of scripture.
The Arian doctrine promoted on this forum has a lot in common with the Catholic trinity. The Catholic trinity is completely different to the trinity beliefs of the rest of Christianity.
The Catholic church teaches that in the beginning there was only god the father. They teach that the father “knew himself” (that is copulated with himself) and the son came into existence. They teach that then out of both the father and son came the holy ghost. (I don't like writing about this but unfortunately it is true and we need to know).
Looking at this Catholic model of “trinity”, it says that there really is only god the father, because the others came into existence out of him.
Sounds familiar?
So the Arians and the Catholics are really spiritual relatives, because both their belief systems come from the “originally there was only god the father” theme. They both blaspheme the Bible Godhead by denying its very existence.
Rev 17:5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
The Catholic church is the mother of abominations. Arianism is an abomination and is a variation of Catholic doctrine. It is blasphemy.
The Bible truth is that there is the Godhead consisting of three divine Eternal Persons, each fully God.
Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
To Cult Buster.
If you call me an Arian then I can call you a Catholic.
Besides that, the Catholic faith is certainly what I hear you saying. Check it out for yourself:
Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic Faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity. Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all One, the Glory Equal, the Majesty Co-Eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father Uncreate, the Son Uncreate, and the Holy Ghost Uncreate. The Father Incomprehensible, the Son Incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost Incomprehensible. The Father Eternal, the Son Eternal, and the Holy Ghost Etneral and yet they are not Three Eternals but One Eternal. As also there are not Three Uncreated, nor Three Incomprehensibles, but One Uncreated, and One Uncomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not Three Almighties but One Almighty.
So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not Three Gods, but One God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not Three Lords but One Lord. For, like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord, so are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion to say, there be Three Gods or Three Lords. The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father, and of the Son neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
So there is One Father, not Three Fathers; one Son, not Three Sons; One Holy Ghost, not Three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is afore or after Other, None is greater or less than Another, but the whole Three Persons are Co-eternal together, and Co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity is Trinity, and the Trinity is Unity is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity.
Which part of this creed to you disagree with (if any) Cult Buster ?
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 26 2007,10:56) If you call me an Arian then I can call you a Catholic. Besides that, the Catholic faith is certainly what I hear you saying. Check it out for yourself:
Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic Faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity. Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all One, the Glory Equal, the Majesty Co-Eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father Uncreate, the Son Uncreate, and the Holy Ghost Uncreate. The Father Incomprehensible, the Son Incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost Incomprehensible. The Father Eternal, the Son Eternal, and the Holy Ghost Etneral and yet they are not Three Eternals but One Eternal. As also there are not Three Uncreated, nor Three Incomprehensibles, but One Uncreated, and One Uncomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not Three Almighties but One Almighty.So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not Three Gods, but One God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not Three Lords but One Lord. For, like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord, so are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion to say, there be Three Gods or Three Lords. The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father, and of the Son neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
So there is One Father, not Three Fathers; one Son, not Three Sons; One Holy Ghost, not Three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is afore or after Other, None is greater or less than Another, but the whole Three Persons are Co-eternal together, and Co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity is Trinity, and the Trinity is Unity is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity.
Hi T8,Is that an official catholic creed written somewhere?
Tim
Sorry I meant to give the link in my post.
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 26 2007,11:14) Sorry I meant to give the link in my post.
Thanks,Tim
t8
Quote Which part of this creed to you disagree with (if any) Cult Buster ? I don't agree with the Catholic trinity. Neither do I find Arian doctrine to be Biblical.
Arius states:
There was [a time] when God was alone, and was not yet Father, and afterward he became Father. The Son was not always. For, all things coming into being from not being, and all things created and made having begun to be, this logos or God also came into being from things not existing; and there was [a time] when he was not, and he was not before he was begotten, but he also had a beginning of being created.
The subsequent controversy shows that Arius' avoidance of the words chronos and aion was adroit; when defending himself he clearly argued that there was a time when the Son did not exist. Moreover, he asserted that the Logos had a beginning. By way of contrast, Origen had taught that the relation of the Son to the Father had no beginning and that, to use Dorner's words (Person of Christ, ii. 115), “the generation of the Son is an eternally completed, and yet an eternally continued, act” – or in other words, the Father has, from all eternity, been communicating His Being to the Son, and is doing so still. However, Arius seems to have further support in his view as his is purely intellectual, whereas those claiming the eternity of the “begotten” (i.e. created, made, or produced) Son need textual revelation to back their belief, which they have not been able to gather.
Arius was obviously perplexed by this doctrine, for he complains of it in his letter to the Nicomedian Eusebius, who, like himself, had studied under Lucian. It is to be regretted that so much stress should have been laid in the controversy on words, but this is understood under the influence of Greek philosophical thought, with concepts such as “substance” that are alien to the Jewish religious experience of the Divine. Arius also contended that the Son was unchangeable (atreptos). But what he thus gave with the one hand he appears to have taken away with the other. For so far as we can understand his language on a subject which Athanasius seems to have admitted that it was beyond his power thoroughly to comprehend – he taught that the Logos was changeable in Essence, but not in Will. The best authorities consider that he was driven to this concession by the force of circumstances. He was doubtless confirmed in his attitude by his fear of falling into Sabellianism. Bishop Macedonius, who had to a certain extent imbibed the opinions of Arius, certainly regarded the Son and the Spirit in much the same way that the Gnostic teachers regarded their aeons. Arius undoubtedly drew some support from the writings of Origen, who had made use of expressions which favored Arius's statement that the Logos was of a different substance to the Father, and that He owed His existence to the Father's will. – Wickipedia
Sounds familiar!
Cult Buster,
I'm glad to see that you believe in the Trinity, but I'd be careful about bashing the Catholics and claiming that they have a different Trinity than Protestants. Luther was very clear that he accepted the Catholic understanding of the Trinity when he split from the church. That's why the Lutherans placed the three ecumenical creeds at the beginning of the Book of Concord. Calvin likewise affirmed the Catholic understanding of the Trinity and cooperated with the Catholic authorities in capturing Michael Servetus.
This century, the Catholic understanding of the Trinity was affirmed by a leading Reformed theologian, Louis Berkhof, in his Systematic Theology. Berkhof affirms the Son is begotten of the Father and that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.
Perhaps the generation of the Son and the spiration of the Spirit sound as if they are created, but Catholics and Protestants alike deny that this is the case. The Son is eternally begotten. His generation does not take place in time. There was no moment when the Son did not exist, and there was no moment when he was begotten. Likewise, there was no time when the Spirit did not exist. His procession is from all eternity, beyond time. So it is correct to say that the Father, Son, and Spirit always existed, that none existed before any other, and also to say that the Son is begotten of the Father and the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.
I know the Catholic church teaches many sinful doctrines, and it is our duty to rebuke them for each one and to lead them to repentance. However, it is my understanding that the Catholics have a correct understanding of the Trinity.
Thanks for defending the Trinity, Cult Buster. I pray that God may give us grace to lead the other members of this forum into the truth. For His Glory.
In Christ,
TimHi Nick,
The Son is His title in Scripture, and there is no indication that this is not His title before his birth. So the Son has always been the Son.
Tim
Hi Nick,
Jesus is the Son. I believe He always has been and always will be the Son. Being the Son, it is proper for Him to also be called, or have the title of, Son.
Tim
Hi Tim,
Is he an eternally generated son?
Does this mean he never was fully begotten of God as a son?
A fine title do you not agree for one who never actually becomes a son?
Is that the same as denying the master?Hi Nick,
Yes, the Son is begotten/generated from all eternity. This means that His begetting did not take place at a moment in time, and that there was never a time when the Son did not exist.
I don't know why you say He is “one who never actually becomes a son.” Jesus has always been the Son and always will be the Son. He is the Son eternally. It sounds as though you are looking for a moment when the Son was begotten and then developed into the Son. This is the course of sons in creation. But God is not creation. The passage of time does not change God.
Speaking of sons in creation, have you ever seen a son of human that is not human, or the son of a dog that is not a dog? So if the Son of God does not have the nature of God, how is He the Son of God?
Tim
Quote (Tim2 @ April 04 2007,04:49) Hi Nick, Yes, the Son is begotten/generated from all eternity. This means that His begetting did not take place at a moment in time, and that there was never a time when the Son did not exist.
I don't know why you say He is “one who never actually becomes a son.” Jesus has always been the Son and always will be the Son. He is the Son eternally. It sounds as though you are looking for a moment when the Son was begotten and then developed into the Son. This is the course of sons in creation. But God is not creation. The passage of time does not change God.
Speaking of sons in creation, have you ever seen a son of human that is not human, or the son of a dog that is not a dog? So if the Son of God does not have the nature of God, how is He the Son of God?
Tim
Hi Tim2,So the Son of God has never actually become a son.
Hi Nick,
The Son of God has always been the Son. If you want to know if he “becomes a son,” this doesn't make any sense because he already is the Son. You write as if His becoming the Son is something yet to take place. He already is the Son. He can't become the Son anymore than He already is.
Tim
Sorry Nick,
I missed your tense -“has become a son.” Again, this implies that it was a past event that took place in time. If that is what you mean, then no, He didn't become a son at a point in time. He is begotten the Son outside of time, or as the creed says, before all worlds (or, I believe, ages). So your question comes down to time, and the creeds say that His becoming the Son (more properly, being begotten the Son) did not take place in time.
Tim
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
