Nicea confession a heresy ???

[Davidius]

Not just wrong... heresy; as is - check me if I'm wrong - the idea of some sort of eternal generation of Christ's HUMAN nature. He took on flesh at a point in time and space, as Scripture affirms. To make up some sort of "eternal" human nature is a wretched twisting of the trinity. Perhaps the man is totally confused, but if his words have reflected his true beliefs concerning Christ and the Godhead he's a heretic.

It may just be an imprecise use of terms. We say that the three persons are one substance. He says "being" instead of "person." Does anyone know what a "person" or a "substance" actually is? I wouldn't be too quick to judge without more context.

Well, the problem is, David, that the author uses the word "being" in a rather consistent way within the paper, and a consistent way with the usage we would have of "being" as opposed to "person". "Being" is a term that serves to distinguish in an ontological sense - it is akin to the word "entity" (which I hope NOBODY would use to distinguish the Father from the Son from the Spirit). "Person" is not quite so constraining in an ontological sense.

"Being"-hood implies self-existence and a separation of existence in a way that "person" does not in any necessary fashion. The author even uses this word "self-existent" to apply to these three divine "beings". A "being" has a separate "is-ness" to coin an awkward word... this doesn't apply to God the Father, Son or Holy Spirit. Herein lies the problem, then... and it's not small.

Thanks

 

[Semper Fidelis]

No, he's asking you what you think of the article.

Yes.

The article states that the Eternal Generation of the Son and the Eternal Procession of the Holy Spirit are heretical beliefs.

These are central to the Trinitarian theology of the Reformed Confessions.

Thus, my question stands.

Ralph's first language is not English. I know you are cutting to the chase and you're used to that in your line of work but it comes across as overly combative. I don't think that Ralph has past 'form' as a troublemaker here.

The point is to be plain. Sometimes asking people a question in a forthright way gets their attention.

The question was: "What do you think?" In answering as I did I wanted Ralph to realize that this fellow stands diametrically opposed to orthodoxy by the question.

We're a Confessional board and this is core to the Confessions. It was meant to be an ironic way of saying that I have a major problem with the paper.

 

[Stomata leontôn]

...Perhaps the man is totally confused, but if his words have reflected his true beliefs concerning Christ and the Godhead he's a heretic.

It may just be an imprecise use of terms. We say that the three persons are one substance. He says "being" instead of "person." Does anyone know what a "person" or a "substance" actually is? I wouldn't be too quick to judge without more context.

..."Being" is a term that serves to distinguish in an ontological sense - it is akin to the word "entity" (which I hope NOBODY would use to distinguish the Father from the Son from the Spirit). "Person" is not quite so constraining in an ontological sense.

"Being"-hood implies self-existence and a separation of existence in a way that "person" does not in any necessary fashion. The author even uses this word "self-existent" to apply to these three divine "beings". A "being" has a separate "is-ness" to coin an awkward word... this doesn't apply to God the Father, Son or Holy Spirit. Herein lies the problem, then... and it's not small.

You all are right.

I think the author is confused. In most of the paper, he uses being as "Person," but elsewhere he defines "Person" as we would define being. So, I think the problem in the paper is its author doesn't know the difference between the two terms. Worse, he also doesn't seem to have read the Creed that he is writing about and he makes up statements about it such as: "Their statement regarding the origin of God the Word is terrible enough, but their assertion that God the Father joined with God the Son and They Two produced yet another Divine Being, the Holy Spirit, is terrible blasphemy." Elsewhere, he seems to say that it was all written by Constantine, so I rather suspect he got his information from the Da Vinci Code movie.

 

[sotzo]

Would be interested to know from Ralph if he believes his OP has been sufficiently addressed. Not trying to take moderator responsibilities here...but sometimes it is good to hear from the person who posted the OP on whether the thread is advancing their understanding.

 

[Pergamum]

This just goes to show that though it appears that theology is so easy that anyone can do it, it ain't.

Let's see, in this corner, the Nicene Creed, promulgated by an ecumenical council and used by the church since 325 as a summary of essential Christian truths and in the opposite corner, some schmuck with a computer and an internet connection. This is an argument that should, by definition not attract our attention.

Does this mean that the Nicene Creed is unassailable? No, but neither are we obligated to weigh carefully and measure every ignorant opinion of every self-appointed nut case in the world.

Is calling someone a schmuck with a computer a 9th commandment violation?

 

[timmopussycat]

Let's see, in this corner, the Nicene Creed, promulgated by an ecumenical council and used by the church since 325 as a summary of essential Christian truths and in the opposite corner, some schmuck with a computer and an internet connection. This is an argument that should, by definition not attract our attention.

Does this mean that the Nicene Creed is unassailable? No, but neither are we obligated to weigh carefully and measure every ignorant opinion of every self-appointed nut case in the world.

I don't think your last sentences in each paragraph are entirely wise. While much of the theological content I have examined on the internet is seriously flawed and not deserving serious consideration, It seems to me that I will be unconfessional if I automatically reject all opinions that come from uncredentialled persons with computers and internet connections. For in mandating Scripture as the final ground prescribed to settle all controversies of religion, the Confessions have, among other things, forbidden us to arbibtrarily rule out the possibility that one uncredentialled man "with a computer and an internet connnection" might possibly get something right that the rest of the world has gotten wrong. In addition elders are specifically required to be refuters of error. If our elders do not take this charge seriously the errors of the opinionated but wrong gain unopposed headway.