Church councils?
- Thread starter theefaith
- 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!
Did I neglect to mention that Fortman was a hard core Trinitarian? He doesn’t write against the Trinity. He writes in favor of the Trinity. I’m not judging motives but anyone who tells us otherwise is giving us an incorrect understanding of his writing.
Fortman an anti-trinitarian? No way.
P.S.
I’ve been posting on Church history in a couple of threads today (and on another forum.) I went back and checked to see what I said about Fortman, and where I said it, and found in post # 124 in this thread that I actually did use the phrase “hard core trinitarian” to characterize Father Fortman.
To the reader. I’m not connected or associated with the Watchtower Society. I agree with them on some things and disagree with them on others.
Fortman an anti-trinitarian? No way.
P.S.
I’ve been posting on Church history in a couple of threads today (and on another forum.) I went back and checked to see what I said about Fortman, and where I said it, and found in post # 124 in this thread that I actually did use the phrase “hard core trinitarian” to characterize Father Fortman.
To the reader. I’m not connected or associated with the Watchtower Society. I agree with them on some things and disagree with them on others.
Last edited:
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
Non-binding on those who went before; non-binding on those who came after and do not acknowledge their authority.
In other words, not binding on all people. Resolution not acknowledged by all people.
In other words, not binding on all people. Resolution not acknowledged by all people.
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
What was FINALLIZED in 325 A.D. does not mean INVENTED. The Council of Nicaea proved the Church had always been trinitarian using both Scripture and Tradition; Arius, a sola scripturist, lost out because the tradition of Arianism was non-existent. Jesus is both God and man, He was not a mere creature. The authoritive verdicts from that council is binding then and now ON CHRISTIANS, NOT EVERYBODY AND ANYBODY ELSE. It was amended at the Council of Constantinople, and is accepted by most Protestants. There had to be a further development and clarity of the Trinity because of the heretic Nestorius preached an erroneous view of the 2 natures of Christ. "Christotokos" was rejected because the Church Fathers were concerned it would cause confusion on the true Nature of Christ. , "Theotokos" was accepted because the humanity of Christ was not excluded. This was the Council of Ephesus in 451., and again, it's authoritive verdicts are accepted by all Christians. I usually don't waste much time with anti-trinitarians because they are argumentative, illogical and re-write church history to make it fit their opinions.
Thanks.
My background is in the Southern Baptist Church. Are you aware that Baptists aren’t creedal?
Are you aware that other Christian denominations also aren’t creedal?
Are you aware that some non-denominational Christian Churches aren’t creedal?
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
They may not be creedal but they are all Trinitarians.
Are you aware that the Nicene Creed is the accepted standard by the administrators of this forum?
Are you aware that every heretic in the patristic period thumbed their noses at the historic institutional Church and went by Scripture Alone???
How is it that Southern Baptists and non-denominationals can pick and choose what they accept and don't accept from the Council of Nicaea, and then accuse Catholicism of deviating from its canons that we never dropped??? That makes no sense. Neither does this:
Jesus said- "This is how you should pray- Our Father which art in heaven..." yet catholics disobey him by praying to his mum and to human "saints", tut tut.
No wonder Fredo's prayer fell on deaf ears..
where does it say that’s is the only possible prayer?
Jesus prayed three time “let this cup pass from me”!
They may not be creedal but they are all Trinitarians.
Are you aware that the Nicene Creed is the accepted standard by the administrators of this forum?
Are you aware that every heretic in the patristic period thumbed their noses at the historic institutional Church and went by Scripture Alone???
How is it that Southern Baptists and non-denominationals can pick and choose what they accept and don't accept from the Council of Nicaea, and then accuse Catholicism of deviating from its canons that we never dropped??? That makes no sense. Neither does this:
I was raised a Southern Baptist; a trinitarian. I’m now a Jewish monotheist; not a trinitarian.
I’m aware of the accepted standard of the forum. The same authority that established the standard has also stated in writing that I’m still considered a Christian.
I understand your complaint about Protestants taking your creed and then kicking sand in your face.
P.S.
Not all Protestants are trinitarian. I’m neither a Protestant nor a trinitarian.
Last edited:
Truth is the Reformers reconized the first to five to eight councils as authoiritive and as the rule of faith.
The Baptist Faith and Message.
"
Baptists are a people of deep beliefs and cherished doctrines. Throughout our history we have been a confessional people, adopting statements of faith as a witness to our beliefs and a pledge of our faithfulness to the doctrines revealed in Holy Scripture.
Our confessions of faith are rooted in historical precedent, as the church in every age has been called upon to define and defend its beliefs. Each generation of Christians bears the responsibility of guarding the treasury of truth that has been entrusted to us [2 Timothy 1:14]. Facing a new century, Southern Baptists must meet the demands and duties of the present hour.
New challenges to faith appear in every age. A pervasive anti-supernaturalism in the culture was answered by Southern Baptists in 1925, when the Baptist Faith and Message was first adopted by this Convention. In 1963, Southern Baptists responded to assaults upon the authority and truthfulness of the Bible by adopting revisions to the Baptist Faith and Message."
Report of the Baptist Faith and Message Study Committee to the Southern Baptist Convention - The Baptist Faith and Message
Found SB Creeds by google southern baptist convention creed
"The Southern Baptist Convention is a confessional network of autonomous local congregations who have generally clustered around mutual affirmation of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 as a minimum statement of theological belief that permits cooperation, though there are churches that are in cooperation with the SBC (based on CP giving) that do not affirm the BF&M 2000. Many Southern Baptists are clear that they see the Baptist Faith and Message as a confession, which loosely binds, rather than a creed, that more clearly delineates and binds. Thus, affirmation of the BF&M is not required for churches or pastors to affiliate with the SBC.
The BF&M is a helpful document for this particular moment, because it defines the currently debated boundaries of SBC cooperation."
Should Southern Baptists Use Creeds? — Ethics and Culture
"The Southern Baptist Convention is a confessional network of autonomous local congregations who have generally clustered around mutual affirmation of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 as a minimum statement of theological belief that permits cooperation, though there are churches that are in cooperation with the SBC (based on CP giving) that do not affirm the BF&M 2000. Many Southern Baptists are clear that they see the Baptist Faith and Message as a confession, which loosely binds, rather than a creed, that more clearly delineates and binds. Thus, affirmation of the BF&M is not required for churches or pastors to affiliate with the SBC.
The BF&M is a helpful document for this particular moment, because it defines the currently debated boundaries of SBC cooperation."
Should Southern Baptists Use Creeds? — Ethics and Culture
That’s what they / we believed when I was a Southern Baptist. That’s what they believe now.
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
That's debatable. A non-infallible church is a man made reformist tradition. If the reformers recognized the first to five to eight councils as authoritive and as the rule of faith, there would be no need for a revolt. The Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 was infallible because the Holy Spirit was there. That is a main criterion for infallibility. We see that council as a template for all future councils, whereas 'reformers' reject that or ignore it all together because it doesn't fit the reformers man made tradition of a non-infallible church. Even today, reformers have a totally different definition of key words such as "infallible" and "idolatry", rendering meaningful dialogue impossible.
Let's take the Council of Ephesus for example. The title for Mary as "Mother of God" (accepted by Luther, rejected by Calvin) gives some reformers fits because they refuse to take into account the history and reasons for that title. That title was for the preservation of the true identity of Christ, not to elevate Mary. But radical reformers refuse to examine the canons of the Council of Ephesus, so their objections don't hold water.
VII. SECOND COUNCIL OF NICAEA
Year: 787
Summary: The Second Council of Nicaea was convoked by Emperor Constantine VI and his mother Irene, under Pope Adrian I, and was presided over by the legates of Pope Adrian; it regulated the veneration of holy images. Between 300 and 367 bishops assisted.
Further Reading: www.newadvent.org/cathen/11045a.htm
Most reformers today remain under the spell of Calvin's insane iconoclasm, reducing all veneration of images into the false charge of idolatry. I see that every day in these forums. Year: 787
Summary: The Second Council of Nicaea was convoked by Emperor Constantine VI and his mother Irene, under Pope Adrian I, and was presided over by the legates of Pope Adrian; it regulated the veneration of holy images. Between 300 and 367 bishops assisted.
Further Reading: www.newadvent.org/cathen/11045a.htm
***
Every several hundred years, cardinals, bishops, priests, theologians and other Catholic leaders, get together under the leadership of the Pope to discuss doctrine and the future of the Church. These are called ecumenical councils. So far, there have been 21 councils in the history of the Church since 325 A.D. (Prior to that, serious persecution prevented widespread meetings. There were however, less organized councils.)
In the Bible we have an example of a Church council (Acts 15-16). Paul and Barnabus went to Jerusalem in Israel to settle the circumcision issue." As they (Paul and Timothy) went through the towns they delivered to the believers the rules decided upon by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem, and they told them to obey those rules." (Acts 16:3) This is a good example of the Lord using the "Church" to decide on matters of interpretation.
The councils are part of the glue of the Church and are extremely important because it is where the Church settles many issues about what God is saying in Scripture and what he is saying to his Church. They are also where the Church officially responds to doctrinal threats. Sometimes we hear Evangelicals say something like, "Catholics made up the doctrine of [insert your favorite Catholic doctrine] at such and such a council" when, in truth, the Church was simply officially defining something that it had always believed as a response to a challenge from those opposed to the Catholic doctrine.
Catholics believe the Holy Spirit is seriously present, guiding the proceedings at these councils. Jesus said to Peter, "..you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Catholics believe that was Jesus' promise that he would protect the Church from doctrinal error. This doctrinal protection is called "infallibility". It does not mean that Catholics leaders throughout history would not be "indefectible" on issues other than doctrine.
These councils are called ecumenical because there are several rites in the Catholic Church including the Eastern Rite (Byzantine, Antiochene, Armenian, Chaldean, etc). All of these rights recognize the Pope in Rome as their leader. The largest rite is the Latin-Rite (that's the one most people know). Usually the Pope comes from that rite. However, several times in history, the Pope has come from other rites.
Evangelicals sometimes criticize these councils and have a problem with the idea that the Church could get together to decide what God is saying to the Catholic Church as a whole. However, every Evangelical fellowship I've ever been around has had their own types of councils and conferences to assert what they collectively believe God is saying in various passages of Scripture.
For instance, we attended the Canadian Pentecostal Assembly in Ottawa, where many of these kinds of issues were discussed. They believe the Holy Spirit is present, guiding them as they meet, to decide their interrelationships and communications, etc.
source
Similar threads
