WHO REALLY IS 'ANTI-CATHOLIC?'

Alpha and Omega Ministries ^ | 1-23-10 | James Swan

[Uri’el-2012]

Exactly..your view is that God the Father and the Son (Jesus Christ) are one and the same person, nature etc. and that it is just us mortals who perceive them as separate. What scripture do you see that states that the Holy Spirit is not a separate entity? After all, Jesus does say that after Him, the Spirit will come and teach.

How do you read :

Psalm 51:11 Do not cast me away from Your presence
And do not take Your Holy Spirit from me.

Isaiah 63: 10 But they rebelled And grieved His Holy Spirit;
Therefore He turned Himself to become their enemy,
He fought against them.

Isaiah 63: 11 Then His people remembered the days of old, of Moses.
Where is He who brought them up out of the sea with the
shepherds of His flock?
Where is He who put His Holy Spirit in the midst of them,

There seems to be the Holy Spirit in Psalms & Isaiah.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

[Ken4TA]

I credit it all on God's spirit moving my spirit to seek the truth - and find it to make me truly free. This is available to all who will listen to God's spirit and let it be the leader.

Thanks for your encouragement - it's always welcomed.

[Ken4TA]

Good points from an “on-the-ground” perspective. Thank you!

I'm sure that others have points that are more interesting than mine. It's just that they have not mentioned them. But thank you anyway - Praise God!

[roamer_1]

Of course, but the Early Christians had a question mark: what exactly IS God-breathed? They knew the Mat, Mrk, Luke and Jhn were, but what about the other 80 gospels in Circulation? What about the Acts of Paul and Theda? What about the Protoevangelium? What of the Gospel of Thomas?

Yet here we are, even yet, with multiple canons.

I have a different approach to authoritative moves such as "canon," so this is not a good argument to use with me. I accept as canon what everyone accepts (that being the most refined), but not because some authority ordains it is so, but rather, because it is the most agreed upon.

That leaves me in the Protestant Bible, but that does not suppose that it is the ONLY books that are relevant or even God Breathed. I look for the signature of His Prophecy in extant psuedapigraphal books, and consider them on that alone, along with the efficacy of the current extant text against an assumed original.

In that, I find canon (authorized works) to be instructive, and I prove other texts against them, but I do not discount other books strictly because someone told me they are wrongly attributed.

Tradition is the tool the Holy Spirt used to bring together the truly inspired works into one canon.

If that were true, then there would be *no* dispute.

The standard used by the Holy SPirit through the councils was simple: is it in tradition, is it in the orthdox faith? And that's what tool the Spirit used to collect the canon.

Yet the same mechanism was used by Judah - and it failed miserably. And the official Hebraic scribal authority is far more defined than anything noted in the New Covenant. Their mistake? Tradition held to the same level of authority as the Word. Them with eyes, Let them see.

Holy Tradition does not contradict Scripture

I could not disagree more emphatically.

[roamer_1]

That is, anyone who accepts Jesus as their Lord?

What of those who reject Jesus Christ's divinity yet call him Lord or Prophet?

Were those that SAW Him, and believed instructed in the Hypostatic Union? Did all those He and His disciples called brothers know Him as you say?

I know this: They KNEW Jehovah. They accepted His Grace in Christ. The rest... not so much.

[Cronos]

What I am pointing to is the bare fact that other solutions to the Godhead can just as easily exist, and qualify, by the evidence.

valid -- however, I will repeat that we can know what the Godhead is NOT like for instance, we do KNOW that Jesus is God, you, I, Uri believe that (none of us believe the Oneness Pentecostal belief that believes that the Son was not eternally begotten but was a man, Jesus, who was born, crucified and died which is Adoptionism, pure and simple).

Uri's "solution" to the Godhead is a lot more subtle, as it denies the complex "three persons, one substance (ousia) According to the Athanasian Creed, each of these three divine persons is said to be eternal, each almighty, none greater or less than another, each God, and yet together being but one God, "So are we forbidden by the Catholic religion to say: 'There are three Gods or three Lords.'"—Athanasian Creed, line 20.

Modalism, to which Uri subscribes seems to me to be that belief that the Heavenly Father, Resurrected Son and Holy Spirit are different modes or aspects of one God, as perceived by the believer, rather than three distinct persons in God Himself. Modalists note that the only number ascribed to God in the Holy Bible is One and that there is no inherent threeness ascribed to God explicitly in scripture except the Great Commission (Matthew 28:16-20) and the Comma Johanneum.

Against this, Tertullian said in his work Adversus Praxeas, Chapter I, "By this Praxeas did a twofold service for the devil at Rome: he drove away prophecy, and he brought in heresy; he put to flight the Paraclete, and he crucified the Father."

I'm not certain of the relationship of Uri's beliefs with Unitarianism, though I'll venture enough to say that he is not a member of the Unitarian Universalists!

Interestingly, Arius himself does not subscribe to idea that Jesus was non-divine. he says

Some of them say that the Son is an eructation, others that he is a production, others that he is also unbegotten. These are impieties to which we cannot listen, even though the heretics threaten us with a thousand deaths. But we say and believe and have taught, and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor in any way part of the unbegotten; and that he does not derive his subsistence from any matter; but that by his own will and counsel he has subsisted before time and before ages as perfect God, only begotten and unchangeable, and that before he was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, he was not. For he was not unbegotten. We are persecuted, because we say that the Son has a beginning, but that God is without beginning.

Arius taught that Jesus Christ was divine and was sent to earth for the salvation of mankind but that Jesus Christ was not equal to the Father (infinite, primordial origin) and to the Holy Spirit (giver of life). Under Arianism, Christ was instead not consubstantial with God the Father [6] since both the Father and the Son under Arius were made of "like" essence or being (see homoiousia) but not of the same essence or being (see homoousia).

[roamer_1]

I look to Scriptures that are not in dispute.

Mar 12:29 Jesus answered, .... 'HEAR, O ISRAEL! YHvH OUR GOD IS ONE YHvH;

You and I seem to be largely on the same page in this thing. :)

[Cronos]

But do you mean that the Holy Spirit is separate from God (Father-and-Son)?

[Cronos]

Yet here we are, even yet, with multiple canons.

Not really -- just two: incl Apocrypha or not. No one argues that the Acts of Paul and Theda should be canon anymore.

[xone]

As the both of us has commented, the HOW of the Trinity is the rub, not the IF. I fully confess I don’t know how God does it, and frankly I don’t care about the HOW. I’m thankful for the blessings/guidance/salvation from the finished product.

[Cronos]

I have a different approach to authoritative moves such as "canon," so this is not a good argument to use with me. I accept as canon what everyone accepts (that being the most refined), but not because some authority ordains it is so, but rather, because it is the most agreed upon.

And yet, that was an argument used in the councils. Those "authorities" you refer to are none other than the authority of the community of believers, the Church as a whole.

If you lived in Bahrain in the 2nd century, going by that definition one would probably attest to the Gospel of Thomas as inspired canon. But it was rejected by The Church as a whole -- local churches may err but the entire communion of believers, The Church does not err (and to clarify, my usage of The Church indicates the community of believers, the common priesthood of believers, not just the magisterium or some council of bishops or presbyters/priests)

I look for the signature of His Prophecy in extant psuedapigraphal books, and consider them on that alone, along with the efficacy of the current extant text against an assumed original. Ok -- then why not include Maccabbees which is mostly historical or the Didache which, written in 70 AD approx is a Syriac manual, or the Acts of Paul and Theda which do not contradict (to my knowledge) what we consider canon?

There is truly no dispute -- why was there utter silence for 1500 years until Luther?

[Cronos]

Yet the same mechanism was used by Judah - and it failed miserably. Why do you say that?

If you say that tradition failed, than you say that the tool usd to collect the canon failed

[xone]

why was there utter silence for 1500 years until Luther?

Arguing publicly with church (APWC) resulted in excommunication/death

APWC resulted in the loss of sovereignty.

APWC resulted foreigners in your lands.

All pretty good reasons, until finally the burden on the conscience became too great, and the worst consequences became bearable when considered against the pain the corruption was causing.

[Cronos]

Were those that SAW Him, and believed instructed in the Hypostatic Union?

Nope -- that doesn't mean it wasn't there.

Did all those He and His disciples called brothers know Him as you say?

They knew he was God (well, AFTER the Resurection we know they ALL knw). They knew JHWH, yes and accepted his Grace in Christ.

[Cronos]

A further question — what is your position on those who do not subscribe to this interpretation of the Godhead and yet say that yours is a valid assumption, as is theirs?

[Cronos]

What of the APWC in lands that were NOT orthodox in beliefs? In say Ethiopia or Yemen or the Parthian Empire? Yet they held to the same canon.

[the_conscience]

Cronos,

Modalism has been a problem for the Western Church since Augustine. I wish my Pastor was little more Trinitarian in his preaching but he is young so I give him a break.

But I wonder if you have the same concerns with the Eastern Church and their Monarchialism?

I think we can say God is both One Person and three Persons which allows the unity of God to be personal and the distinct economic nature of the persons, without being irrational.

[xone]

NOT orthodox in beliefs?

Perhaps, this is your answer.

[xone]

See #1350 for my take.

[roamer_1]

[Cronos:] ...and as I've said: Tradition does not contradict Scripture.

[wmfights:] Bowing down, or kneeling, to statues of Mary and expecting her to make God respond to your prayers is against Gods' will.

Precisely on point. Thank you.