|
jt: I submit that these creeds are the problem
and the men who came up with them had a "Builder Bob" mentality. They were going to "fix it!!" and it sounds as though
they actually thought they could amongst all the political intrigue and
infighting and vying for favor with their half pagan Emperor who had
the last word.
I have to confess that [horrors!!]
for the first time I have been reading some writings by the Church
Fathers to try and sort through some of this Creed business on TT because I can
not understand why some of you allow them more authority and deference
than the Word of God itself. I note that by the time of Athanasius
and the Council at Nicea what was calling itself the Church [which was by no
means every believer] were well off the rails. Constantine and his
sons wanted unity for the sake of Empire and political expediency
and Truth was not a high priority.
In contrast the Church that Jesus founded
had no creeds and no doctrine of "eternal Sonship" - The apostles were
Biblicists who let God be God. Look at how it
functioned from the start. Peter exhorts the people by God's Word.
Those who gladly received his words were baptized and that day 3,000 souls
were added to them [Acts 2:41,47]. This is power without force. Then we
see over and over in the book of Acts how the Word
grew [Acts 12:24; 19:20] and how God added to the Church daily those who were
being saved.
I had never studied what Arius taught and still
don't know all of it but from what I have read so far his questions make a
lot of sense. He asks:
1) If the Son were, [according to Athanasius
interpretation] eternally existent with God, He would
not have been ignorant of the Day [of His return Mark 13:4,32] but
would have known it as the Word [God in His
Omnipotence].
2) Nor would He have been forsaken [on the
cross] if he was co-existent...
3) Nor would he have had to pray at all...
because being the Word, he would have needed
nothing.
What's wrong with these questions? Dealing
with heresy and hereticks was the justification for why these creeds came
into being. However there is no precedent for this in scripture either.
Jesus said to "leave them alone, it was the blind leading the blind"
Paul counselled putting one man who refused to repent out for a period of time
and later said that even if someone preaches from wrong motives we should
rejoice because Jesus name is being lifted up. [my paraphrase] - John wrote
that their teaching would reveal those in error but we (who are in Christ)
have an anointing from the Holy One and we need not fear them. I'd sure
rather run with the Biblicists than be at the mercy of those who took to
heart and followed the creeds - and I'm sure most of you have read enough Church
History to know the outcome. Nothing but bloodshed and evil ever
since.
On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 05:42:45 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Given the ever present infighting over 'the place of creeds in
relation to truth' we shall see. You, of course, experience similar
contentiousness from and within your own tradition. You may not have as many
but, the wrangling is just as bitter with each convinced of it's own intrinsic
'rightness' and your 'wrongness'.
|
