Protestantism

» pink101 - Good For You

In response to Eternally Condemned posted by Brother_Jones:
.
Now, that was a pretty good block you took out of the structure. And, you turned it around so we could see it from different angles. And, you put it neatly back into its place.
.
Good for you, Brother Jones.
.
I like it when people use reason.
.
Don't you?
.
TTDAPTS
.
I think we're getting the far outer rim of the tropical storm that is in the gulf today..It's cool and overcast. It foretells Autumn in the Midwest.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Divinity of Jesus

The Nicene Creed was a clear and unequivocal refutation of Arianism, which held that Jesus was subordinate to God the Father and not One WITH the Father.

Contrary to radical liberal claims (aka Dan Brown), however, Arius and his followers were not questioning the divinity of Jesus, merely the NATURE of that divinity.

So, the Council of Nicea did NOT 'decide' or 'establish' the deity of Christ. It merely affirmed an interpretation or understanding of that deity.

» Brian Tubbs - Acts 15

In response to Eternally Condemned posted by Brother_Jones:

I don't see it that way. I DO see later councils acting that way, to be sure. But you're much too harsh with the First Council of Nicea (325). These people really did come together in the spirit of Acts 15. It was the first major council since biblical days.

Now, was the anathema statement in the spirit of Acts 15? No, it was rather harsh. But the idea that the disparate regions and congregations (that's local assemblies, Pink) should come together and work out their differences - that's DEFINITELY in the spirit of Acts 15.

» Brother_Jones - Acts 15

In response to Acts 15 posted by BrianTubbs:

But you're much too harsh with the First Council of Nicea (325). These people really did come together in the spirit of Acts 15. It was the first major council since biblical days.

We know that the Spirit of unity and grace was involved in the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15.
You are suggesting that there is some kind of equal comparison with the two meetings. The Nicea Council in 325 was filled with all kinds of controversy and they issued a number of canons concerning church disciplines. Obviously their main note in history is the Creed. If it was important to Christians then as well as now, then we probably should have this Creed or some other printed into our bibles along with the ancient text. If it is unneccesary, then it becomes a stumbling block to those Christians who don't take the word of Jesus seriously concerning letting your 'yes' and your 'no,' take care of business. I would imagine most of us here who claim to be disciples of Christ would not insist on adherence to this creed or any other creed, but would see any and all creeds as inferior to the message of God in the bible. And it is not an issue that history could alter, given a conservative view of biblical inspiration. I am somewhat taken aback and surprised that this particular issue surfaced in the quest to track Christianity. Just because they had their heart in the right place and they attempted to follow a pattern in the bible did not give them the right to define Christianity and prepare the way for unbiblical disfellowship.
I am not being harsh here. No, I don't think I am. I am being pretty realistic about the failure of Creeds to do any good in the world, because of the very nature of what they claim to be and how there are executed.

i am the Lord's oldtimer.

-- posted by Brother_Jones

» pink101 - Acts 15

In response to Acts 15 posted by Brother_Jones:

.
:)
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Creeds

In response to Acts 15 posted by Brother_Jones:

Brother Jones, I am not elevating creeds above the Bible. Far from it. But most churches today have statements of faith - an overview of their doctrinal tenets. Maybe yours doesn't, and that's fine. But the vast majority do, and I think they serve an important purpose. It lets visitors and members know where a respective church stands.

Are these creeds greater than the Bible? Of course not. But they do explain how the churches in question understand and approach the Bible. For that, they are valuable.

» Brian Tubbs - Council of Nicea

One more thing. Brother Jones and other Christians (haven't heard from Wendell on this one) may not be comfortable with the Roman influence on the Council of Nicea nor with the idea of councils in the first place. I understand that. Remember, I AM a Baptist preacher. We Baptists are all about local autonomy of the church. That and covered dish fellowships, but I digress.

I'm not arguing that the Council of Nicea was all good or even mostly good necessarily. My personal opinion is that the Council of Nicea marked the beginning of the imperial church - which became the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church respectively. I don't consider that a good thing at all.

Nicea also marked a miletone in that, for the first time, Church and State became united. NOT A GOOD THING. Contrary to what Pink and Migisi and others here who have debated me on politics might think, I am 100% in favor of the separation of Church and State. (Just not the separation of religion from politics. People, including politicians, have a right to hold and act on religioius-based convictions and worldviews).

So....I am NOT saying that the Council of Nicea was a great thing. Okay?

What I'm saying is that MOST of the people who came to Nicea in 325 did so for the right reasons AND they did accomplish SOME good while they were there.

One of those good things was the Nicene Creed, even though I personally would've toned down or taken out that last part (which a later Council did).

» Migisi - Council of Nicea

In response to Council of Nicea posted by BrianTubbs:
.
What I'm saying is that MOST of the people who came to Nicea in 325 did so for the right reasons AND they did accomplish SOME good while they were there.
.
What were those "right reasons"?
.
What 'good' did they accomplish?
.
(Not trying to put you on the spot. Just curious for your opinions.)

-- posted by Migisi

» Brian Tubbs - Council of Nicea

In response to Council of Nicea posted by Migisi:

There was a lot of confusion and controversy amongst the Christian churches on a variety of issues, including how to define and understand the Trinity, how to handle persecution, etc. Plus, there was a desire, I think, to get outside their own towns and cities and see what the "other Christians" were like in faraway places. This of course being a time prior to automobiles, radio, TV, the Internet, etc.

As for the good they accomplished, I think they helped solidify Constantine's favor toward Christians. Which was good in one important way. Constantine undid all the decades of persecution leveled against Christians. He restored much of their property and rectified many of the abuses and deprivations they had suffered. Now, on the flip side, he also contributed to the union of Church and State institutionally - and that's NOT so good.

The Council of Nicea also allowed Christians to come together and talk things out with people that had been exposed to different backgrounds and perspectives. Debate and discussion are HEALTHY. So, THAT was a good thing.

But, like I said, the Council of Nicea also had some bad things. It did usher in the medieval imperial church, which became the Roman Catholic (West) and Eastern Orthodox Church (East). These institutions - and they were that, institutions - became centered on higher ecclesiastical authority, new 'revelations,' councils, etc. This led to more power politics, corruption, and (yes) heresy in the Christian world.

Nicea was the first big milestone in moving Christianity away from Christ.

» pink101 - Makes It Sound Like

In response to Council of Nicea posted by BrianTubbs:

.
Brian's response to Migisi makes it sound like there was some unity about the "churches" that apparently were scattered about the known world in those days.
.
Actually, there were various "bishops" that claimed to hold the "truth" in their various "scriptures". That is so unless I am mistaken. Am I, Brian?
.
These different "bishops" were authorities unto themselves. And, Constantine figured it would be a good idea to create a single authority. Am I still on the right track?
.
No sense in continuing beyond this point if I'm wrong again.
.
Is there?
.

-- posted by pink101