How do Reformed Christians justify standing over the councils in judgment, despite the Holy Spirit clearly leading the church to the proper understanding of the Trinity at Nicaea 1? Had the Holy Spirit abandoned the councils by the time of Nicaea 2? That would be absurd.
>Holy Spirit
The problem is that you don't know what it is, where it came from, how it works, who has it, and why.
The Holy Spirit told me there is no Trinity, and that God is one.
thanks for verifying you do not in fact know what the Holy Spirit is.
I do know, it's God's spirit. His influence over someone.
>I do know
You don't, unfortunately. But keep trying to figure it out if you want.
I do know, because I've been influenced by the Holy Spirit to find God and properly understand the scriptures.
The way you are talking about the Holy Spirit confirms my original perception
You too will not understand the gate or its purpose until you understand the fall and the Holy Spirit.
>Enter through the narrow gate by joining the most mainstream interpretation of the most mainstream religion on the planet
Doesn’t sound very narrow
it's narrow because it's by faith alone and mixing your own works in to justify you will only damn you. very few people actually trust in Jesus Christ alone apart from their works.
interestingly, everyone who disbelieves the trinity mixes their own works into salvation. which makes sense, I suppose, seeing as the propitiation and atonement of Christ is illogical without his divinity and the separate appeasement of the Father
Didn't your man Luther want to burn the book of James, because it didn't align with his "faith alone lip service, be lazy and do nothing to be righteous" false teaching?
no.
that's why every protestant bible ever made has James in it.
anyways, you're saved* by faith alone. DONT be lazy and DO be righteous, for other people. but you see, someone with an evil heart cant comprehend goodness for goodness' sake, which is why they won't be saved.
>cant comprehend goodness for goodness' sake, which is why they won't be saved.
I know atheists who are good for goodness sake, and they don't even believe in an afterlife. If you follow faith alone to it's logical conclusion, it's not about that. It's about believing you have a free pass into heaven no matter how much of an butthole you are.
>I know atheists who are good for goodness sake
I didnt say it was possible* to be good; rather, it is possible to have a heart that desires it.
>It's about believing you have a free pass into heaven no matter how much of an butthole you are.
I dont think you understand. The whole world in God's eyes is much worse than "an butthole."
Sin is not something that you can rationalize away by thinking
>x is a good person
>y is a bad person
the entire world is guilty before God.
earning good boy points out of fear of hell isn't good for goodness' sake.
I mean, I* was an atheist who wanted good for goodness sake. Now I believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. Unironically, there is more hope for the honest "atheist" than the self-righteous "believer"
The entire point of human life is to shed your self-righteousness and ultimately, your pride.
Boy, what in sweet frick does this have to do with OP
>Unironically, there is more hope for the honest "atheist" than the self-righteous "believer"
Yeah okay, thanks for admitting the obvious that a God that created all universes isn't a narcissist who punishes you forever because you didn't pay him his lip service.
https://youtube.com/shorts/lF371VFdTuA?si=GNf2Fpy6zpuzBtwN
Jesus says the Father is greater than he and I trust him on that. Do you?
Yes, I trust him on that. God is greater than Jesus. Jesus was greater than even the greatest men, but God is greater than all.
And therefore Jesus is not God.
QED
Agreed
Cursed
>everyone who disbelieves the trinity mixes their own works into salvation
Revelation 20:12-13
And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books. The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works.
Read Matthew 25:31-46
Righteous people enter heaven, evil people go to hell. Everyone will be judged by their actions, no one bypasses judgment.
Also of course hypocrites go straight to hell even if they did good things for appearances. If someone donated to charities by day and is a murderer by night then God will see their sins, but he also knows when someone is truly righteous.
How does the fact Nicea had a correct theology show that they were led by the Holy Spirit in a special way that makes them immune from private judgement?
>How does the fact Nicea had a correct theology show that they were led by the Holy Spirit in a special way that makes them immune from private judgement?
>Nicaea had a correct theology
>implying Nicaea 1 could have been wrong
But Anon, the whole reason you believe the Trinity in the first place is because the Spirit revealed it at the council. The Trinity is not perfectly entailed from the text of scripture alone, the church had to be taught it by the Spirit. Therefore you are in no position to judge councils as “correct” or “incorrect”, and to do so would be goofy.
>the whole reason you believe the Trinity in the first place is because the Spirit revealed it at the council.
actually it was when I read John 1.
>The Trinity is not perfectly entailed from the text of scripture alone
Yes it is.
Scripture contains the data for the Trinity, but that is not enough, for every heretic throughout history has appealed to scripture. It is not clearly defined in the New Testament.
Thanks for confirming that the Trinity is not Biblical: http://bibleteachings.atspace.com/thetrinityisidolatry.html
Satan is the master hegelian who plays every side.
He affirms half truths only to lead you to hell. Watch how he leads Catholics to lie about the Trinity, leading others to disbelieve in it altogether.
The Trinity is biblical btw. And the BIBLE has primacy.
Satan is a master at creating counterfeit doctrines like the Trinity.
COLOSSIANS 2:8
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, following the tradition of men according to the rudiments of the world, and not in accordance with Christ.
okay.
>for every heretic throughout history has appealed to scripture
utterly meaningless statement. do you think God gave a book that didn't make sense.
or, for another example, do people who use "science" to justify their scams invalidate science?
the scam does not invalidate the source which the scam cites.
1 Corinthians 14:33
For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
There is no Trinity, no persons in God. God is One, simple. End of story.
Uh huh.
The Trinity isn't confusing though.
This just means you don’t understand Trinitarianism and are suffering from a case of Dunning Kruger.
From here I predict one of two things
A) Incoming heresy
B) Incoming convoluted waffle that explains nothing
By faith I believe it. And God is omnipotent, and so it is.
>"God was manifest in the flesh"
>"the church was purchased in God's blood"
>"baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost"
>"not my will, but thine be done"
and so on and so forth.
anyone who READS their Bible must come to the conclusion of the trinity. if you just read little snippets here and there, or edited Bibles like JWs put out, yeah, I can see how you could persist in the delusion that the Bible doesn't teach it.
All sufficiently accounted for in a way that does not require believing 2+2=5 by Arius. Arianism is just the the only Christology that is both biblical and comprehensible which is why Satan had to try and destroy it. There would be less apostasy today if the Trinitarians lost at Nicea.
okay so... who is Jesus, according to you? I suspect you will give a different answer than Arius.
Of course. How would this invalidate his divinity though? He submits to the Father as a Son.
He’s the Word, the divine begotten Son of God that was begat before all things and came to Earth as the messiah.
> How would this invalidate his divinity though?
If Jesus himself worships God he is clearly something other than THE God. This is probably my main problem with Trinitarianism, it is not possible to articulate what exactly THE God we are praying to is without inadvertently supporting some kind of heresy or reducing “God” to a mere abstraction that ties 3 persons together.
Who cares what Trinitarians think. Jesus said pray to the Father.
>If Jesus himself worships God he is clearly something other than THE God
why would that be?
do you claim to understand God's omnipotence?
>it is not possible to articulate what exactly THE God we are praying to is
if there is a God why do you believe it would be possible to articulate "EXACTLY" what He is?
I claim to understand the First Commandment. If your creed wants me to potentially violate the most basic commandment of the religion and can’t provide a coherent explanation of why that’s actually okay I’m saying no way.
> if there is a God why do you believe it would be possible to articulate "EXACTLY" what He is?
God already did it for me. There’s one God; with a begotten son in the Word that we know as Jesus Christ.
>the whole reason you believe the Trinity in the first place is because the Spirit revealed it at the council.
No, this had already been revealed to Tertullian
Since it was the first time the bishops around the world had ever gathered in such a capacity, they figured it was a good time to write a codification of sorts of the beliefs they already held (They weren’t introducing new doctrines).
“In a special way”? What’s that supposed to mean? It was either guided by the Spirit or it wasn’t.
Yes, but "guided by the Holy Spirit" obviously does not translate to infallible. No one thinks that. By "in a special way," I mean in such a way as to be infallible.
Spirit-led=reliable. If Nicaea 2 was also Spirit-led then I think we should trust it.
The Protestant can gladly assent to tradition being "reliable." The fact that some belief-forming process is reliable just means that you can trust it in the absence of reasons to doubt it, like you can trust your senses in the absence of reasons to doubt them. But that obviously doesn't get you to the OP's conclusion that no one is permitted to judge the councils. In order to get to there, you need to show that they're infallible, not just that they're "reliable."
> The Protestant can gladly assent to tradition being "reliable."
Is Nicaea 2 reliable? Is Nicaea 2 Spirit-led like Nicaea 1?
>proceeds to kiss images of humans
Is the guy on the floor supposed to be Arius?
>How do Reformed Christians justify standing over the councils in judgment
What is this even supposed to mean?
I just don’t understand how protestants as a whole don’t study history. They have all the material.
You mysteriously forget the history of Late Roman Popular Religion.
As well as the history directly in the New Testament.
You also forget any "church father" when he says something which contradicts cathodoxy. lol
Bishop Nicholas, of the winning faction at the first council, lost his shit and started throwing hands at Saint Arius (pbuh). That is not Christian at all and Saint Arius (pbuh) in true pious fashion did not retaliate.
This, to me, indicates the Trinitarians were not guided by the Spirit but by Satan. Satan was always going to try and hijack Christianity and his corruption was always going to be the most popular form, enter through the narrow gate.
The Arians affirmed the divinity and sonship of Jesus Christ though. They weren't Muslim.
Never said they were, I just said (pbuh) to underscore how based Arius was.
>How do Reformed Christians justify standing over the councils in judgment
Not reformed but they don’t stand over them, Scripture stands over them.
>despite the Holy Spirit clearly leading the church to the proper understanding of the Trinity at Nicaea 1? Had the Holy Spirit abandoned the councils by the time of Nicaea 2? That would be absurd.
This is not an honest OP and these questions aren’t in good faith.
And not only do I know they aren’t honest, but worse I know that YOU KNOW they aren’t honest questions.
Because if I said
>How do Ecclesialist Christians justify standing over the councils in judgment, despite the Holy Spirit clearly leading the church to the proper understanding of the Trinity at Nicaea 1? Had the Holy Spirit abandoned the councils by the time of Hieria? That would be absurd.
You would immediately jump in with caveats and saying “well that wasn’t a real ecumenical council”
Hieria did not receive papal approval. I accept your concession.