I’ve posted on it ad nauseam. It’s usually just ignored at this level of discourse.
Catholics are much better at acknowledging it than Protestants are.
More on the deity of Christ
- Thread starter KUWN
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
I’ve posted on it ad nauseam. It’s usually just ignored at this level of discourse.
Catholics are much better at acknowledging it than Protestants are.
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
“It is impossible to document what we now call orthodoxy in the first two centuries of Christianity; heresy often appears mire predominantly, so much so that orthodoxy looks like a reaction to it. But we can document orthodoxy for all the centuries since then - in other words, for close to seventeen centuries of the church’s existence.”
(Harold O.J. Brown, Heresies: Heresy And Orthodoxy In The History Of The Church, p. 5)
Dr. Brown was a Protestant.
Will the OP agree with what Dr. Brown wrote? No, it contradicts the OP.
How about the person who says Moses was a trinitarian? No, the constraints of history isn’t recognized and acknowledged.
(Harold O.J. Brown, Heresies: Heresy And Orthodoxy In The History Of The Church, p. 5)
Dr. Brown was a Protestant.
Will the OP agree with what Dr. Brown wrote? No, it contradicts the OP.
How about the person who says Moses was a trinitarian? No, the constraints of history isn’t recognized and acknowledged.
Yes, it is. But he is campaigning against it. If he wants to push it and be a martyr for his cause, starting a thread on it in one of the “Christians Only” forums will do the trick.
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Psychological stability. "Everything was always as it is today" is easier to embrace than constant change.
As a young man, I wanted to change the world in many ways. Now, I'm sick of all this change. I keep things that work and no longer get excited about the newest widget with improved functionality. "Things" I need not more of. Experiences with loved ones is what I crave.
In visiting my 4 yo granddaughter this weekend, she got into wrestling with me every day. This is a special time. Soon, she will no longer think I am a rock star or that wrestling with me is cool. For now, I have an extra twinkle in my eye.
Regarding doctrine, I don't find much of a doctrine purity test in Scripture. I've somewhat moved on from the theory to the practice in participating in Prison Ministry. Rather than debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, all I need do is point these folks toward Christ. He'll straighten them out. Beyond that, I fall back to James in providing practical tools for them to make their way in this cruel, cruel world.
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Abraham was a polytheist. Someone pointed that out to me a few years ago. The Patriarchs are under appreciated for being open about their failings.
There are no Nicene Creed affirming persons, no orthodoxy as defined by the policy, in the Bible. Not one.
Church history demonstrates, documents and proves that historical orthodox trinitarianism is a post-biblical development. There’s nothing controversial about that.
All that remains is Dr. Brown’s question -> is it a valid post-biblical development?
Dr. Brown: Yes.
Non-trinitarians: No.
People have to be allowed to believe what they are persuaded is true. The new policy allows that, it just doesn’t allow members who register as “Christian” to discuss it among themselves here.
As I understand the policy, @APAK and @KUWN, both registered as “Christian”, probably shouldn’t be discussing it with one another here or anywhere else on the forum.
All that remains is Dr. Brown’s question -> is it a valid post-biblical development?
Dr. Brown: Yes.
Non-trinitarians: No.
People have to be allowed to believe what they are persuaded is true. The new policy allows that, it just doesn’t allow members who register as “Christian” to discuss it among themselves here.
As I understand the policy, @APAK and @KUWN, both registered as “Christian”, probably shouldn’t be discussing it with one another here or anywhere else on the forum.
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
I suspect that is an aversion to history. You and I are history buffs. So, we get into the nitty gritty.
Most Protestants consider Christian doctrine rightly began the day their denomination came into existence, over 1,000 years of history disregarded. What does this have to do with the deity of Christ?
Some say to begin with the Gospel of John. Few say to start at the beginning.
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
A Catholic explained their viewpoint. The Bible did not create the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church created the Bible. Therefore, the Catholic Church is the authority and final word on Earth. Anyone who denies this is castigated as relying on "personal" interpretation.
How history repeats itself. Samuel and Kings highlight the divergence between God's plan and man's desire. From time to time God appointed "Judges" to rise up to address national crises. But the people yearned for a man king. Whereas, God's plan was the people of Israel would be holy and set apart, they wanted to be like other nations, replacing God as their king with a man. I'm comforted at the humility of the almighty.
Isaiah 1:18
Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD
Last edited:
I’m not registered here as “Christian”. Apparently the new policy allows both of them to discuss it with me (and / or anyone else who isn’t registered “Christian”) but only in forums like this one that aren’t designated “Christians Only”. That puts me (and / or others) in the middle between them. Both may be tempted to try to get at the other indirectly through me (and / or anyone else who isn’t registered “Christian”). This looks like a loophole to me.
I think it’s probably just a matter of time before the new policy is aborted. As I wrote on the day that the new policy was announced, it’s an interesting decision and something to keep an eye on.
Note that Polycarp saw both the Father and Son/high priest as "eternal." Polycarp was correct in saying that there is a difference between the Father and Jesus, there are 3 Members of the Trinity, each One co-equal in every way possible. Every one who has an eternal nature is appropriately given the right title, which is "God."
“Unitarianism as a theological movement began much earlier in history; indeed it antedated Trinitarianism by many decades. Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian. The road from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching.”
(“Unitarianism,” Encyclopedia Americana, 1956, Vol. 27, p. 294L)
Offered in partial opposition to the OP.
(“Unitarianism,” Encyclopedia Americana, 1956, Vol. 27, p. 294L)
Offered in partial opposition to the OP.
Polycarp didn't affirm the "3 person" or rather distinctions were entirely one God though. Why do you ignore how his theology was unitarian, unlike Marcion and Valentinus?
James White says the epistles and writings of Ignatius of Antioch can be suspect and they are.
I like your point but you’re registered as a “Christian” member and so is @KUWN. I’m neither the theology police nor the forum police. Are you aware your post is a violation of the rules? (I’m just trying to keep you out of trouble.)
A few years after Ignatius, Polycarp the bishop of Smyrna also demonstrated his Trinitarian consciousness before his martyrdom: “I glorify you, through the eternal and heavenly High Priest, Jesus Christ, your (the Father) beloved Son, through whom to you, with him and the Holy Spirit, be glory both now and for the ages to ...
That's Trinitarian theology.
The Father alone is Almighty. The Son is the Mediator between God and man, meaning that He is distinct from God. Polycarp never mentioned “substance” or that Jesus has both a divine and a human nature. These concepts were developed much later.
Based on what you wrote, it appears that it is your belief that God, God and God = the Godhead.
Jewish monotheism recognizes only God (Yahweh, the God and Father of the Messiah) = the Godhead.
Similar threads
