Athanasian Creed - The Man-Made Doctrine

[2timothy316]

For clarity, is the Athanasian Creed found here https://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/c ... sian-creed the accepted belief of the trinity for all trinitarians?
If not what is? Who is reading this creed for the first time? Who considers it to be holy scripture?

The creed ends with "one cannot be saved without believing it firmly and faithfully."
If it isn't scripture...How do they have the authority to say such a thing?

[SiNcE_1985]

"That is what people do anyway"...So you're just following others. Typical but thanks for this insight.

Yeah, it is typical for one to read something and interpret what is/has been read.

Now, whether it is being interpreted the right or wrong way is a different story.

Everyone does it, even you.

So don't make it seem like some big cat is being let out of the bag when I said what I said.

As far as I'm concerned, if part of of the Athanasian creed is man-made then all of its. Because things that are God breathed have nothing false in them at all.

Oh, well in that case, Jehovah's Witnesses and the Watchtower and Tract Society is a man-made organization and is not God breathed.

So, we can add them along with others to the long list of false religions that aren't God breathed.

Thus the Athanasian creed is not God breathed, not important for salvation and thus not important and can be discarded.

Ok, so we should do the same for JW doctrine.

1. They believe that Jesus is the Son of God.
2. They do not believe that Jesus is God incarnate.

Therefore, their theology should be discarded, because it contains half truths and God doesn't deal with half truths... thus their organization is not God breathed.

As long as you play the game fair, then we have no issues.

Using this information, I'll be able to talk others who are not so sure about the trinity and help them uproot this non-scriptural belief. After all, their salvation doesn't depend on it. This has been very helpful.

Their salvation depends on whether or not they accept Christ for salvation.

Talk to them about that.

[JehovahsWitness]

I dont understand what you are asking me. Sorry.

I'm simply saying to make your case instead of just claiming that Trinitarians don't know the Scriptures correctly. If you are going to argue the Athanasian Creed is non-scriptural, then offer support here or we can just stick to the other thread if the focus on the Athanasian creed doesn't add anything to your case there.

I have no case to make, I was challenging your implication that an argument is valid simply because it references scripture.

... the trinity idea comes from putting scriptural passages together.

My point is that if trinitarians do not understand the scriptures their conclusion can be distorted. It happens.


JW

[2timothy316]

"That is what people do anyway"...So you're just following others. Typical but thanks for this insight.

Yeah, it is typical for one to read something and interpret what is/has been read.

Now, whether it is being interpreted the right or wrong way is a different story.

Everyone does it, even you.

So don't make it seem like some big cat is being let out of the bag when I said what I said.

Whatever you need to tell yourself.

As far as I'm concerned, if part of of the Athanasian creed is man-made then all of its. Because things that are God breathed have nothing false in them at all.

Oh, well in that case, Jehovah's Witnesses and the Watchtower and Tract Society is a man-made organization and is not God breathed.

So, we can add them along with others to the long list of false religions that aren't God breathed.

Thus the Athanasian creed is not God breathed, not important for salvation and thus not important and can be discarded.

Ok, so we should do the same for JW doctrine.

Just still following others I see. Is that how you worship God? "If they do this then I'll do that"... I don't care what you think of the JW doctrine. This thread isn't about that. Start your own thread or add to the hundreds of other threads. Just changing the subject tell me what you're going to reject doesn't make a good defense. Actually its not a defense at all.

Using this information, I'll be able to talk others who are not so sure about the trinity and help them uproot this non-scriptural belief. After all, their salvation doesn't depend on it. This has been very helpful.

Their salvation depends on whether or not they accept Christ for salvation.

Talk to them about that.

I will, as soon as I help them uproot the man-made Athanaian Creed. John 4:24 says that God must be worshiped in truth. Trinitarians have taught me on this thread that the Athanaian Creed isn't scripture. They feel a part of it is false and that to believe it isn't necessary to be saved. All this tells me that its a complete waste of time to consider the Athanaian Creed. Its amazing people spend to much time trying to defend something that at the end of the day is worthless. Well, thanks for your input!

[The Tanager]

I have no case to make, I was challenging your implication that an argument is valid simply because it references scripture.

Why do you think I implied that an argument is valid simply because it references scripture? I never claimed or implied that.

My point is that if trinitarians do not understand the scriptures their conclusion can be distorted. It happens.

Yes and if non-trinitarians don’t understand the scriptures, their conclusion can be distorted. Both of these statements add nothing to the actual discussion.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to onewithhim in post #26]

Tanager, please show me in the Bible where it states that the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God.

[onewithhim]

I wouldn't go to the other early "fathers" because they are part of the great apostacy that Jesus and his disciples warned of. The only fathers that I would give any credence to are the three that existed in the first century, closer to the time of Jesus. They are Clement, Polycarp, and Ignatius. There is no trinity evident in their letters. They mention just God and Christ, two individuals.

Clement alsos says this in chapter 58 of his first letter, talking about trusting the most hallowed name of His majesty as God lives…Jesus lives…and the Spirit lives which is stereotypical in the Hebrew scriptures applied to Yahweh (e.g., 2 Sam 14:11, 2 Chron 18:13, Jer 16:14-15, Jer 38:16, Hos 4:15

Clement also opens his second letter with these words: “Brethren, it is fitting that you should think of Jesus Christ as of God - as the Judge of the living and the dead.”

In chapter 13 Clement writes “For when they hear from us that God says…and then quotes Jesus’ words about loving those who hate you. He doesn’t say Jesus says, but God said it.

Polycarp writes “who shall believe on our Lord and God Jesus Christ and on his Father that raised him from the dead” (Phil 12:2). He calls Jesus God.

Even if you think the longer one is the true one it still calls Jesus God in that same chapter. It says the physician is the only true God and “we have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began…” Polycarp believed Jesus was God, was the Physician, which is the only true God. Ignatius also calls Jesus our God in Romans 3, Romans 6, Polycarp 8.

Jesus said what Jehovah God told him to say, so whatever Jesus says and does comes originally from God. That is why they could say that he was "God." In that sense. All the verses I quoted have to harmonize with the ones you quoted. The ones I quoted show that God is separate from the Son. See post #34 please. In addition to that:

John 5:19: "Jesus went on to say to them, 'Most truly I say to you, the Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he beholds the Father doing. For whatever things that One does, these things the Son also does in like manner.'"

John 12:49,50: "I have not spoken out of my own impulse, but the Father who sent me has given me a commandment as to what to speak....Therefore the things I speak, just as the Father has told me, so I speak."

[JehovahsWitness]

I have no case to make, I was challenging your implication that an argument is valid simply because it references scripture.

Why do you think I implied that an argument is valid simply because it references scripture? I never claimed or implied that.

Okay then I have no issue.

Be Well,


JW

[The Tanager]

Tanager, please show me in the Bible where it states that the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God.

I have given you like 8 posts to respond to in that other thread about Jesus being God. I used verses right next to verses you brought into that discussion. You responded to 3 of those, said you’d respond later to the others but haven’t, and neither have you responded to my response to your response to those first 3. That’s the next step to move our discussion about that forward.

Jesus said what Jehovah God told him to say, so whatever Jesus says and does comes originally from God. That is why they could say that he was "God." In that sense.

If that was your principle, then you could have used it in regards to the later Christian fathers as well instead of just rejecting them as Trinitarian.

But this isn’t what Clement, Polycarp, and Ignatius say about Jesus being God. To reiterate the five points I previously made with this in mind: (1) The Hebrew scriptures don’t do this with people or angels just speaking for God. (2) Clement follows “think of Jesus Christ as of God” by calling him the Judge of the living and the dead, not telling us what God says. (3) Writers who believe there is a distinction between God and man/angel make that clear and would say “Jesus taught us that God says…” or something like that as they do other places. (4) Polycarp isn’t saying anything about what God says in Phil 12:2, he’s talking about believing on the Lord and God Jesus Christ. (5) Ignatius’ contexts are also calling Jesus God, not just talking about what Jesus says God says.

If you reject people who teach that Jesus is God, not just that Jesus says what God tells him to say, then you must reject these three men as well.

All the verses I quoted have to harmonize with the ones you quoted. The ones I quoted show that God is separate from the Son. See post #34 please. In addition to that:

John 5:19: "Jesus went on to say to them, 'Most truly I say to you, the Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he beholds the Father doing. For whatever things that One does, these things the Son also does in like manner.'"

John 12:49,50: "I have not spoken out of my own impulse, but the Father who sent me has given me a commandment as to what to speak....Therefore the things I speak, just as the Father has told me, so I speak."

In post 34 you quote those three early church fathers, which I’ve responded to; there aren’t any Biblical verses. Are you talking about post #27? The only Bible verse there is Col 1:15, which the support you’ve offered I’ve already critiqued as (1) appeal to a minority of authorities and (2) begging the question via semantics to which you never responded to.

John 5:19 and John 12:49-50 don’t contradict (or give us) the Trinity; they fit both of our views.

[SiNcE_1985]

Whatever you need to tell yourself.

Here is what I am telling myself, and you.

I do not believe that belief in the Trinity is necessary for salvation, as the Athanasian Creed seems to suggest.

However, I agree 100% with the Creed's breakdown of what the concept of the Trinity entails, as I am a Trinitarian myself.

I can accept the truth value of X, while also denying the falsehood of Y.

Just still following others I see. Is that how you worship God? "If they do this then I'll do that"...

We all interpret what we read.

That shouldn't be a point that we have to sit here and argue about.

I don't care what you think of the JW doctrine.

And I don't care what you think about my assessment of the Athanasian creed.

I said what I said.

This thread isn't about that.

Yeah, it is. It is exposed hypocrisy.

Your own organization is full of interpretations (and false, at that).

But now you are putting up a front because I made a factual statement that everyone must interpret what they read?

Tsk, tsk.

Start your own thread or add to the hundreds of other threads. Just changing the subject tell me what you're going to reject doesn't make a good defense. Actually its not a defense at all.

I clearly stated my position on the subject, more than once, actually.

And got a few JW jabs in there, as well.

Your responses to what I've been saying makes no sense at all.

It isn't rocket science.

One can believe in the Trinity doctrine while also not believing that salvation requires a belief in it.

Plain and simple.

I will, as soon as I help them uproot the man-made Athanaian Creed. John 4:24 says that God must be worshiped in truth.

And I say amen to that.

But is it saying/suggesting that one needs to have absolutely, positively 100% accurate knowledge of God's ways, or his nature?

No.

Because to have that is to actually be God.

Are you God?

No, you aren't.

So you yourself will be in violation of John 4:24.

God leaves room for finite human beings with finite knowledge and finite understandings...we don't have to get everything right, as that would be a standard that no human being can live up to and we would all be doomed.

Trinitarians have taught me on this thread that the Athanaian Creed isn't scripture. They feel a part of it is false and that to believe it isn't necessary to be saved. All this tells me that its a complete waste of time to consider the Athanaian Creed. Its amazing people spend to much time trying to defend something that at the end of the day is worthless. Well, thanks for your input!

I leave on my understanding of what the Bible say, and if there is an argument against the Trinity, I haven't seen it yet.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #59]

I don't read or respond to rants as they have no value. I'm adding you to my block list. Don't bother replying as I will not see it or any posts from you from here on.