Creeds of Men vs Creed of Heaven

Excerpts from the Athanasian Creed

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic Faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity. This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Any supplemental writing to the scriptures needs to be weighed against the scriptures for validity and accuracy for what it states. This creed is no different than the Book of Mormon, for both were written by men who claim a level of inspiration equivalent to that of the Apostles who penned the New Testament. Both supplements are considered by those who hold them as of the same level of authority as the inspired word of God.

The die hard Trinitarian line is that not believing in the Trinity is tantamount to departing the faith. Some do say there is a gray area here, for the creed “may not necessarily” jeopardize a person’s salvation. As one proponent of this thought put it:

“I believe that consciously advocating a doctrine opposed to the church's doctrine of God could possibly jeopardize one's salvation.”

Could possibly? That isn’t what the creed states. As much as I question the authority the authors of the Athanasian creed, who made such claims as they did, I am equally perplexed by what authority those who make this claim do so. Is this some new creed in that is formulating? I know of the Reformation Creeds, but haven’t ever heard this one.

So, let’s compare the creed to the inspired scriptures. First of all, we have Jesus who clearly said someone other than himself is the only true God (John 17:3). Then, we also having him tell us that his God and Father is our God and Father (John 20:17). Further on in John, we find John declaring that the reason he wrote the record he did was so that we may believe Yahshua (Jesus) is the Christ, the Son of God (John 20:31). This parallels Peter’s answer when the disciples were asked who Yahshua is. Peter said that Yahshua is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. Yahshua told Peter his answer was inspired from God.

Now, you’d think there would be recorded moments where the preaching would include specific detail that one must believe in the deity of Christ in order to be saved, but this isn’t the case at all. The message remained the same that Yahshua is the Christ, the Son of the living God, who died, was buried, and rose again.

On the day of Pentecost, this was the clear message, and thousands were added unto the church (Acts 2:22-24, 36). Paul, after his conversion, when called upon for his testimony, preached Yahshua of Nazareth, the Son of God, and him crucified, but raised from the dead (Acts 9:19-20). To the Gentile nations the message was the same (Acts 10:30-47). In none of these cases was belief in the trinity, let alone the deity of Christ, expected as the Athanasian creed demands. Were the Apostles mistaken to not have preached this most basic tenet? According to the creed, you’d think so.

There is no such requirement to believe the Trinity in order to be saved. Acts 2:21, Acts 4:12, Acts 16:31, Romans 10:13, just to name a few, speak of clear directives of what one must do to be saved. As for the idea that one can lose their salvation if they do not come to believe the Trinitarian doctrine, as this alternate creed in formation suggests, the scriptures do not contain any such language or idea. None of the Apostles ever preached such a doctrine. There is enduring unto the end, there is working out salvation with fear and trembling, there is receiving those whom Christ receives, there is loving one another, there is taking up our cross daily, but no directive to believe anything other than what Christ himself taught, and his Apostles preached, as the creed demands. This is what they were speaking of in continuing in the faith, regardless of what the old creeds, and this new creed, suggests.

Therefore, since the creed doesn’t meet up to the standards as set forth by the Lord of Glory, nor by his Apostles, I conclude that this creed is on par with other writings of men, and is not inspired of God. I do believe it is inspired, but not a directive of the kingdom of heaven. After all, the doctrine of the Trinity, and the councils that dubbed this doctrine as the official Christian doctrine, were nothing more than the product of debates over what the relationship is between God and His Son. I fear for those who elevate this gospel, (which this creed is, since it establishes a different message about the good news of who Christ is and what one must do to be saved) to such a level:

Rev 22:18-19 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

This creed, and those who demand belief in the trinity, is preaching someone other than who the Apostles preached. This gospel of those who espouse it as the authoritative teaching is showing a different way than what was shown by the Apostles of receiving redemption. This creeds gospel message stands in the way of the redemption offered to all.

No, as the creed says, what Peter preached, and what Paul preached wasn’t good enough. They must have been preaching the wrong way. But thank goodness for the council of Nicea, which gave birth to this gospel. I just don’t know where we’d be if they hadn’t come along to get everything unified and in order.

Paul said it best:

2 Cor 11:3-4 But I am frightened, fearing that in some way you will be led away from your pure and simple devotion to our Lord, just as Eve was deceived by Satan in the Garden of Eden. You seem so gullible: you believe whatever anyone tells you even if he is preaching about another Jesus than the one we preach, or a different spirit than the Holy Spirit you received, or shows you a different way to be saved. You swallow it all.

Thoughts?

-- Eric Halleck (EHalleck@planetkc.com), October 10, 2003

Answers

Eric, I think your quotes from acts and Romans said it all.

I was a trinitarian most of my first 25 years. I went through a period of crisis for the next 13. Then I had a dream which cleared me of all doubts about God and Jesus, in the same dreams. They were not the same. Yet, Jesus had great power. Power given to him by God.

I am no longer a trinitarian.

Unfortunately, I expect Eugene and John G. to make you confetti.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), October 10, 2003.

Comparing the Creed of the Christian faith to the Book of Mormon is absurd. The Book of Mormon is derived from the mental meanderings of one unstable individual, who alone is its source of "authority". The Creed is a concise restatement of the essential teachings of the Apostles, which they received directly from the mouth of God in the Person of Jesus Christ, and which the Christian Church universally held and professed long before the Bible was ever compiled, indeed before the New Testament was even written. It is not a "supplement" to scripture. Rather, both the Creed and the New Testament are derived from the teachings of the Church, which preceded them both.

If you do not worship the Trinity, you do not worship the God of Christianity, Who has revealed His triune nature to His Church, the pillar and foundation of truth. Rejecting elements of the Creed does indeed jeopardize a person's salvation, since Christ Himself said it is the truth which sets men free, and the Creed is a brief synopsis of the most essential truths of the Christian faith.

In John 17:3 Jesus does indeed tells us that the Father is God; and two verses later He states that He ruled in glory with the Father before the creation of the world. We know that nothing existed before the creation except God. Jesus reveals that He and the Father are One. (John 10:30) Yet they are not one and the same Person, or Jesus could not refer to the Father in the third person. So, their unity must be a oneness of nature, not personhood. The Father does not have a human nature. Therefore the only way Jesus and the Father could be one is to share a divine nature. And just in case there was still any doubt, the Father specifically tells us that Jesus, the Son of God, is God, eternal and co-ruler with Himself. (Heb 1:8) Thus we know that Jesus was and is God from the scriptures, authoritatively interpreted by His infallible Church, even apart from the obvious fact that He spent every day of His adult earthly life doing things only God could do.

The question is not whether one must believe in the divinity of Christ to be saved. The question is, how could the death of a mere man restore the void that had been created between God and the human race by the sin of Adam and Eve? If this rift could have been repaired by mere human effort, surely someone would have done so long before Jesus was born. However, it is apparent that a relationship shattered by rebellion against God could only be restored by an act of God. If Jesus had not been man, He could not have died. If He had not been God, His death would have accomplished nothing more than the deaths of the prophets and other holy men who died doing God's will.

The Apostles preached the Trinity everywhere they went, and as a result the New Testament is overflowing with refences to the three distinct Persons. Obviously they did not use the term "Trinity", just as they didn't use the term "Bible", since those terms had not yet been coined. But they did stress the absolute necessity of believing in Jesus (a strange requirement if Jesus was merely a man - how could belief in a mere human being be the means of salvation?). They did preach God the Father. And they did call upon the Holy Spirit, always speaking of Him in the third PERSON, just as they spoke of Jesus and the Father. The idea that one could be saved without believing in the Father, or without believing in Jesus, or without believing in and receiving the Holy Spirit, was anathema to them. In the final analysis, whether or not the Bible teaches, supports, or even mentions the Trinity is entirely irrelevant. The purpose of the Bible is not to reveal doctrine to us. The Church Jesus founded had its doctrine in place long before the Bible existed. Of course, for those who have abandoned God's plan in favor of manmade denominational religion, nothing else remains. These poor souls have nothing but a book of Catholic writings which they are clearly unable to interpret in any consistent or authoritative way, from which they derive hundreds of conflicting and contradictory beliefs. But those who hold fast to the faith of the Apostles, those who live in the Church of the Living God and look to it for the fullness of truth as the bible instructs, believe for the same reason the Apostles did - not because it is written down somewhere, but because it was given by Christ to the Apostles, and through them to the universal Church until the end of time. If one accepts the Bible as the Word of God, then one MUST believe that the Church is the foundation of truth. One MUST believe that he who listens to the Church listens to God. One MUST believe that whatsoever the Church binds on earth is bound in heaven. For that is what the Bible clearly teaches. A Bible-believing Christian MUST accept that the Holy Spirit guides the Church to ALL TRUTH. These are essential biblical principles. If the Church teaches that the Trinity is binding belief on earth, then we know that belief is bound in heaven. If you hear the Church preaching about the Trinity, you hear Christ Himself preaching. We know because He said so. To reject these truths is to reject the Bible.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 10, 2003.

Eric: You asked for thoughts about

''I conclude that this creed is on par with other writings of men, and is not inspired of God. I do believe it is inspired, but not a directive of the kingdom of heaven. After all, the doctrine of the Trinity, and the councils that dubbed this doctrine as the official Christian doctrine, were nothing more than the product of debates over what the relationship is between God and His Son. I fear for those who elevate this gospel, (which this creed is,-- ''

So? Quote: YOU conclude; YOU do believe, You fear;

If I were to say, ''I'm here to tell you, Eric, the power of God is in ME, Eugene. Give me your money, give me your daughters, don't dispute my all-powerful word,'' --Would you do what I demanded? Don't keep us guessing! Would you give me the time of day?

Neither is it our obligation to humor your extravaganzas. Your opinion of the Catholic faith, the Creeds, or even of the scriptures; is fool's gold;

We will not exchange the faith of the apostles, GOLD; --for your confusion, LEAD. Stick around here. Learn the truth; we welcome your inquiries, made in good faith. Ciao /

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 10, 2003.

Thanks, Moderator, for deleting the mean-spirited post. It shows we have lurkers around constantly. Not all will necessarily act like him; we reach others whom God wills to come to the faith, I'm sure. We have to stay the course, for their good.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 11, 2003.

Thank you for your response Eugene. You seem to be upset over my conclusions, which is completely understandable. However, the scriptures plainly tell us to prove all things, and to study to show ourselves approved.

If you would like to objectively tell me WHY my conclusions are incorrect, I'd be interested in hearing them out. My conclusions are solidly supported by scriptural precepts, thus I would also appreciate a solid scriptural basis for why you think I'm wrong.

Eugene, I have not stated anything you assert, I have not asked for your money, and I have not asked you not to dispute my post. Quite differently, I've asked you to give me your thoughts about it. And don't worry, I'm happily married, so I don't need your daughters, nor do I want one penny of your money. What I would like, though, is an honest review of the Creeds and whether or not the scriptures support their requirements. You call it fools gold, thus I guess I have your opinion, though you have offered me no reason for it, other than your emotions, which you tell me to stick around and learn from. Sorry, I'm not to keen on emotionally driven doctrines.

Still interested in yours, and others, thoughts on this article.

-- Eric Halleck (EHalleck@planetkc.com), October 13, 2003.

Hi Paul, You prove one of my points well when you state “It is not a ‘supplement’ to scripture. Rather, both the Creed and the New Testament are derived from the teachings of the Church, which preceded them both.” Thus, by making this statement, you elevate the Creed to the same level of inspiration as the New Testament! I know that the scriptures are given by the inspiration of God, but is the Creed?

Jesus called Peters answer to who he was perfect, and inspired, given to him by God. This answer is the foundation of the church; that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. Though you say the creed is a brief synopsis of the essential truths, I contend that it goes way beyond, even to the point of changing, the most essential truth.

In John 17:3 Jesus clearly states that someone other than himself is the ONLY true God. There is no way around this statement of fact, unless we want to add to what he meant, and say what he said was not a complete statement. After Jesus’ resurrection, he told Mary to go to the disciples and tell them that he was going to His God and Father, and OUR God and Father. Thus, in two distinct places Yahshua (Jesus) said someone other than himself is the only true God, who is also HIS God, and our God and Father.

Yahshua also revealed that we are to be one with them, even as they are one. If I follow your reasoning out, that would mean we are to be God, or are God, as well. We are to partake of the divine nature, but I seriously doubt we are God because of this.

Now you say the Apostles preached the Trinity everywhere they went, but the article clearly shows that they did not. In key points of early church history as shown in the scriptures there wasn’t even a hint of belief in a Trinity in order to be saved. It wasn’t a part of Peters answer to Yahshua as to who he is; it wasn’t preached on the day of Pentacost; it wasn’t a part of Pauls testimony of his conversion; it wasn’t preached to the Gentiles when they were first given the Holy Spirit and added to the Church. The preaching was clear – Jesus is the Christ, the Anointed One (by the way, why would Jesus need to be anointed if he was God? Who anointed him?). He is the Son of the Living God who was crucified, rose, and given all power in heaven and earth by His God and Father. There is no evidence that the message of the gospels deviated at all from Yahshuas own declaration of who His God is, and who he is.

I would ask you to think again when you make such statements as “The purpose of the Bible is not to reveal doctrine to us”.

2 Tim 3:16-17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

We are to prove out all things ourselves Paul, and to study to show ourselves approved. And if in the process we find that the teachings of others is in contradiction to what the inspired Word of God states, it is our responsibility to hold fast to the truth, regardless of what others may demand of us to the contrary. Thus the reason I wrote the article, because I simply do not see requirements in the scriptures that support the supplemental writing – The Athanasian Creed – and all that it demands of someone in order to be saved.

Thank you for your thoughts.

-- Eric Halleck (EHalleck@planetkc.com), October 13, 2003.

Dear Eric,
This reply was a well-calculated attempt at diplomacy; except you lost it right at the finale.

''. . . other than your emotions, which you tell me to stick around and learn from. Sorry, I'm not to keen on emotionally driven doctrines.'' --All went down the drain as you exposed your petulant side. That's fine; thank you.

It behooves us here, then, to speak plainly: The scriptures you give your protestant spin to come from a Catholic epistle written to Catholic bishops and other disciples at the beginning of the Christian (Catholic) era. These exhortations were made to true believers. It's hard to imagine Saint Paul, who extolled the Romans so graciously, (Rom 1, :7, :8, :9) turning around and warning them not to fall for the Roman religion, as you seem to be asking us here. The fact you accept his word as inspired should lead you to the other extreme; a careful examination of the Church's authority. And her doctrines, which gave to the world this very Holy Bible to begin with!

Every plain truth in the New Testament is given you by the Catholic Church; and even then; by the evil conduct of so-called reformers, you've met with immense misfortune. Not the loss of doctrines driven by emotion; but your total loss of Christ's apostolic succession and truth. You misconstrue daily whole BLOCKS of Bible truth; truth which the Church has preserved for two millennia.

Here was your truth; not based on scripture as an instrument, based on Church as teacher, and the Holy Spirit as Advocate. They left the Teacher behind to follow after false prophets. Precisely what Paul told Catholics never to do! Then you founded the ''new'' church: protestant bible study! And you, like many others before you, come to us with the old story: ''Any supplemental writing to the scriptures needs to be weighed against the scriptures for validity and accuracy for what it states.'' Use the scriptures to attack the apostles' Creed? Dear Sir-- Get a life!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 13, 2003.

Eugene, Because I read your responses as they are, emotionally driven, you call me peevish? I guess I know what to expect from your responses. But you know, I do understand how irritating such an evaluation as I have presented here can be, especially when it challenges the very foundation you stand on. Please understand I’m not interested in destroying anyones faith in the Son of God. Rather I am more interested in why the churches hold to doctrines that are not supported by the scriptures as they do, and in this case, why the Athanasian creed is held up as an equal to the inspired scriptures.

Just so you know, I am not Protestant, and in fact, I belong to no organized church of any kind. I am a part of the Body of Christ, which I see as anyone else can as broken and divided. It is comprised of Catholic, Protestant, and non-denominational alike, all of which have doctrines that reject the others as anathema. I am looking for the unity of the Body of Christ, and have found that one of the key elements that keeps the individual members of the Body of Christ seperated from each other is their unwillingness to hear Yahshuas statement that we are to receive whom he has received. This creed does just that, thus my questioning of it.

I’m not asking you to fall into any other religion, nor am I asking you follow me or anyone else. What I am asking is simple. By what authority does the creed have in demanding belief in something that was never stated by any of the Apostles in the scriptures? If this is a challenge of the Catholic authority, then so be it. Just the same, it is a reasonable question to ask when we are admonished to prove all things in the scriptures.

-- Eric Halleck (EHalleck@planetkc.com), October 13, 2003.

Eric,
Please trust me, I'm always at a red hot emotional level when people who free lance as bible scholars 'challenge'' the Church. --Our Lord said He would like us either hot or cold; lukewarm was revolting to Him. Here you've ''challenged'' the Creed. ''--an evaluation as I have presented here . . . it challenges the very foundation you stand on.'' Apparently you challenge things you don't understand.

What's another word for faith? I Believe. CREDO, Creed. You challenge the faith of the Holy Apostles, and of Saint Athanasius? On what grounds? Are you a theologian? You don't seem to know your theology. If you say you're a ''member'' of the Body of Christ, again you've failed to understand what that Mystical Body of Christ really is. Within the words of the Creeds you'll find: ''I believe in the Holy Catholic Church''.

The Mystical Body of Christ is the Church He founded. Not free lance Christians self-styled, Eric. Up to now you've misunderstood the very REAL Body of Christ, as well as most of the Word of God. But you've come to the right place; we're very pleased to welcome you. You'll be disabused of many misconceptions here. Here is the holy faith of all your ancestors. HALLECKS were once Catholics. Hallecks once recited the Creed and believed.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 13, 2003.

Hi Eugene,

I’m just fine with you being passionate. However, don’t expect me to get worked up and emotional because you are, nor should you expect me to just roll over and accept what you say because you are emotionally driven. What matters is truth, and that is my aim, nothing more, nothing less.

You state I am challenging the faith of the Apostles, which is an untrue statement. The article itself is an evaluation of just what the inspired Word of God has to say was their faith, their message, and the gospel they preached. Yes, it is a challenge of Athanasius, who was not an Apostle. Yes, it is a comparison of what Athanasius has to say about what one must do and believe in order to be saved compared to what the apostles taught and preached.

On what grounds and what authority do I do so? Simply put, based on the scriptural precedent that we are to prove all things, and to hold fast to that which is good. Every person has an individual responsibility to do so, and not just take what others say and teach at face value. Every person has a responsibility to study to show themselves approved. Is that good enough grounds for you?

I think I understand your position, that the Catholic Church is the only true church, thus making all others claiming to be Christs as liars. If I am mistaken in this about your position, then please feel free to correct me. However, that is not my position, as I see lively stones of the Body of Christ throughout the splintered and schismed church, collectively called Christianity.

I agree that the Body of Christ is the Church he founded, but I humbly disagree that the Catholic Church is the only true representation of the church he founded in the world today. Actually, I do not see a true whole representation of that Body as defined in scriptures anywhere. I am looking, and have been for years, and do look for the day that His people are united as he has called us to be, not rejecting those whom he has received, but rather embracing them.

I appreciate the fact you feel inclined to instruct me in the ways of Catholicism, however if your view is to hold fast to a creed of a man that stands in the way of the creed of heaven, I will have to bow out of your offer to be taught to follow your ways. My ancestors may very well have recited the creeds of men, but I’m not much on following tradition over factual truth.

Now if you would like to address why the Apostles never once made any requirements as Athanasius made as to what one must do and believe in order to be saved, I’d like to hear it. Until then, I’m taking the scriptures over the product of debate – the Athanasian creed – first.

-- Eric Halleck (EHalleck@planetkc.com), October 13, 2003.

''I humbly disagree that the Catholic Church is the only true representation of the church He founded in the world today. Actually, I do not see a true whole representation of that Body as defined in scriptures anywhere.''

Eric-- there's just one Church. Not a ''representation'' of what once was; that Church herself.

I haven't used the word liars; but they're pretenders to an original faith, those others.

You say: ''. . .that Body as defined in scriptures, anywhere,'' The scriptures don't define such a Church; they come historically from within her. We know Christ's Body the Church from scripture, as what Saul knew from Christ, on the road to Damascus. And, on that day, Saint Paul wasn't a member of the Mystical Body either. He needed Baptism, and he later on accepted such.

Be that as it may; It is inside that very Church, for whom Paul evangelized, we become members of Christ's Body. Heretics, needless to say, are escapees from the Body. Some of the less heretical sects are just aspiring members; or partly given membership in baptism. Assuming it's valid Catholic baptism. (There's only one.)

To expect by proof text some graphic picture of the infant Church emerging, by which you can match the countless competing sects until one suits you; is a little quixotic; particularly since only one Church, not sect, stands alone during 2,000 years of history. The One from where the Bible originates in this world! The Church your ancestors knew to be Christ's and His apostles' !!! You can't make these things up, Eric!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 13, 2003.

I agree that there is one church, as there is only one body. What I mean by "representation" is that we, as the members of the Body of Christ are the ambassadors / representatives to the world of the Church carrying the message of reconciliation. The Church includes many more than just your sect. You consider the others not Catholic as pretenders, imposters if you will, which I find to be exactly the attitude that keeps all the lively stones from coming together as the scriptures DO define:

Eph 4:16

From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.

1 Cor 12:18-28 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you. Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary: And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness. For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked: That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another. And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it. Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

If you want to be narrow minded and exclusionary, then there isn’t much I can say to that point. But it does give me an understanding of why you won’t answer my questions as raised in the article. You in essence are saying that anyone who is not Catholic is not a member of the body of Christ. If my view of a unified body of Christ that is all inclusive of those who call Christ Lord is too lofty of an ideal for you, than all the more reason I could not call myself a member of an organization such as that. The Lord said it, not me, and you seem to be the epitome of why he said:

Matt 18:5-6 And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me. But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

You know, Christ died to tear down the partitions that kept mankind from coming to know him, and to know His Father and God. Yet, here you are, defending the walls that have been rebuilt to keep out certain members! You ought to consider the fact that the gospel went forward unto all the world, for Jew and Gentile alike. Yahweh made it clear that the gospel was for all, not just a select group. The simple gospel message was and is that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. Once again, I must point back to my article, and ask why Catholicism has built walls that had been torn down, even to the point of establishing criteria as to who is, and who is not saved, that are not in agreement with the Word of God.

The fact you continue to avoid the question before you is quite telling to me. I guess you cannot explain the reason that Athanasius established a creed that was not taught or preached by the Apostles. I thank you for the various tangents you’ve taken this off into, but I’d rather that we got back to the original point of this article / post. And if you have nothing to offer as to why the severe contradiction between the scriptures and the manmade creed, then I bid you a good day.

-- Eric Halleck (EHalleck@planetkc.com), October 13, 2003.

Eric, there's no membership within the Body of Christ if we reject the Holy Gospel. It's not I who say that, it's Paul himself telling you. He preached the pure Gospel of the apostles. He preached it to the gentiles; and within the Church to his disciples and the bishops, Timothy & Titus. This was Catholic truth. The teachings of One Church founded by Jesus. He said if anyone preached a different one, that one was anathema. Is that too exclusionist for you? He meant you're supposed to be in the Catholic faith for your salvation. Else you have not accepted the Gospel, but anathema. ''. . . anyone who is not Catholic is not a member of the Body of Christ? If my view of a unified body of Christ that is all inclusive of those who call Christ Lord is too lofty of an ideal for you, than all the more reason I could not call myself a member.'' Exactly-- Your view is your view, not the teaching of the apostles and Christ. Your view is not what Paul preached. Calling Jesus Lord collectively makes nobody a believer; it's a start. We must believe every doctrine he revealed to His apostles, to send them into the world to preach. (In other words the CREED of the Holy Apostles.) So why are you saying you're a member? Calling Christ Lord is just lip service if you dismiss His teaching and His teaching Church. Your view isn't lofty at all. It's counter to the scripture itself, which says the Church is the pillar & mainstay of the truth. (1 Tim, :14) This is Christ's Church, (Matt, 16, :17-:18-:19). and you call it a sect? Still you think you're a member of His Mystical Body? Sir; your blessed ancestors were members; they heard the Word of God and believed. You're called once again to enter their Holy Church where you belong.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 13, 2003.

We recite and believe the Nicene Creed & the Apostle's Creed. The Athanasian Creed as well, though it is rarely recited. It speaks the entire revealed truth of the Holy Trinity. The possibility that you might reject it is irrelevant. Christ did not call you to teach, He called the apostles.

The Church believes and teaches this truth. The Church of the Apostles, saints, martyrs and even your very ancestors. I haven't avoided this question. I saw it as irrelevant until you realise where you stand vis a vis Christ and His Gospel.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 13, 2003.

Clarification of term – Catholic. When I refer to the Catholic church, I am referring to the organized religion that is called the Catholic church, or the Roman Catholic Church to be more specific. I realize that the term catholic also means universal, comprehensive, all inclusive. The catholic church I see in the scriptures is not the Roman Catholic Church, but rather the universally complete church which includes all those who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

To my knowledge, no one in this discussion has rejected the gospel. Even here, you will have to explain what YOU mean by the Holy Gospel. My definition is as the scriptures state. That Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, was crucified, died, and rose again, and was made Lord and Christ by His God and Father, and given all power in heaven and earth. Through his death, burial and resurrection we have accesss to His God and Father, and the redemption from sin. Whosoever will call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. This is the pure gospel, but this is NOT what the Athanasian creed demands. No, it expects more, and has changed the simplicity of Christ into something far more complicated and exclusionary. And as I contend, if it isn’t in line with the holy scriptures message of the plan of salvation, then it is another gospel than the one preached and taught by the Apostles.

So, I will agree with you that to be in the body of Christ we are supposed to be in the catholic, that is, universal faith as briefly described above for our salvation. Elsewise, we are not embracing the gospel message as preached to the Apostles by Christ, the gospel message that was preached on the day of Pentecost, nor the gospel message that was preached to the Gentiles as described in the book of Acts. In none of these cases was there any hint of requirements to believe in a Triune God as the Athanasian creed demands in order to be saved. If it is there, than SHOW ME. If it isn’t, than it cannot be upheld as a viable belief, credo, creed of the universal Body of Christ because it has no scriptural support.

You are correct that we are to believe every doctrine that the Apostles preached, and this is exactly my point. This creed, and its demands, have never been proven to me to be what the Apostles taught or preached, and has no scriptural support for it.

I understand the need for creedal statements, so that is not what I am concerned about. The Old Roman Form of the Apostles Creed which was formulated in 341 AD is consistent with what I’ve stated here. The history of this creed is traceable to the earliest churches, so there is no contention here. The Received Form of the Apostles Creed has a much more obscure history, and has had additional clauses added over a long period of time. Be that as it may, the creed I am addressing differs greatly in its origin than either one of these versions of the Apostles Creed. Even you have elluded to the fact that you consider the Athanasian Creed is on par with the Apostles Creed, but that simply isn’t the case at all. Neither in language, nor origin, does the Athanasian Creed match up with the Apostles Creed. Even its authorship, which you claim to be Athanasius, is unclear. Thus we have a document, called the Athanasian Creed, that has uncertain origin and authorship that is heralded as a statement of Christian faith, belief, and creedal formula to be saved.

My point remains a valid one, and one you have yet to address. The creeds must be supported by the scriptures in order for it to be considered a true statement of Christian belief. If it cannot, than it may very well be a Creed, but cannot be embraced as a true Christian Creed, or upheld as having the same inspiration as the holy scriptures in validity and accuracy.

-- Eric Halleck (EHalleck@planetkc.com), October 14, 2003.

Eric,

My point remains a valid one, and one you have yet to address. The creeds must be supported by the scriptures in order for it to be considered a true statement of Christian belief.

The scriptures cannot *contradict* anything that is true, but that does NOT mean that the scriptures directly address everything in human existence. For example, is it ethical to clone humans? Where do you find this in Scripture?

The Catholic church is Christ's church on Earth, and is a living one. The Pope and a full church council both have the capability of speaking *infallibly* on matters of faith and morals. (again, this does NOT mean that everything the Pope says is true, etc., but under certain conditions, the Pope and Magesterium can speak with absolute authority given by Christ) This being the case, a statement in a creed does NOT have to be in the scriptures if it is deemed True by an infallible church decree. Does that address your concern?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 14, 2003.

Hi Frank,

"...a statement in a creed does NOT have to be in the scriptures if it is deemed True by an infallible church decree."

Wow, now THAT is an open can of worms! So, just about anything goes as long as it is deemed true by an infallible church decree? I'm sorry Frank, that doesn't address my concern. Actually, it broadens the issue.

2 Tim 3:16-17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

What we have here is a question of valid creedal formula, which is a doctrinal statement. The scriptures are profitable for that purpose, and should provide verifiable proof to what is considered a doctrine, especially when it states ones salvation hinges on it.

In this instance, the scriptures DO directly address a matter of human existence - that being salvation. The Athanasian Creed addresses this same matter, and should be able to withstand the litmus test of the holy scripture to support its demands in order to be saved.

-- (EHalleck@planetkc.com), October 14, 2003.

Mr. Halleck thinks that 2 Tim 3:16-17 was written for his benefit, as if he were asked to declare what the bible means. It isn't of course. Paul wrote that letter to Timothy, a bishop of the Catholic Church. He is told how scripture will prepare him for his ordained post: ''That the man of God may be perfect.''

So, Eric thinks he is elected to parse every verse of the scriptures and pass private judgment on it. That's a totally deviant view of that pasage. Eric Halleck isn't a bishop of Christ's Church! He isn't even a member of Christ's Church. --How can he assimilate this passage, written to Catholics, as if it were opposed to the Church it was relating to? Eric; find another subject to discuss, will you? You've exhausted our patience arguing this one.

The Athanasian Creed is a truth of Christ's Church. It lists exactly those attributes proper to the Holy Trinity as God has revealed them to His Church. This can be supported indirectly through a thorough understanding of all related truths found in the gospels. God revealed His Holy Trinity to his Church primarily through his Divine son. He himself spoke of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit; and declared them One God. His words are really very plain, in different parts of the gospel narratives. One of the plainest revelations is Matt 3, :16-- :17.

The Creeds all concurr in this revealed truth.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 14, 2003.

Eric,

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

It says all scripture is PROFITABLE, not "scripture is the ONLY thing you SHOULD use. We are also told to keep all Tradtion either by letter (Scripture) or oral (Tradition). Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit will continue to guide the church as Christ promised the gates of Hell would not prevail against it. We use both Scripture and oral Tradition in the church, which has continued since the Apostles.

Again, Scripture does not address every human situation directly. It is God's continuing influence in the church that lets her continue to define the Truth as necessary for the faithful. (did you find me a scripture verse on cloning by the way?)

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 14, 2003.

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions wich you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter (2 Thess 2:15).

-- - (David@excite.com), October 14, 2003.

So now you won’t even directly respond to me?

Ok, so Eugene Chavez now stands in judgement of me, and has effectively proven my point well by his own words. By no authority but that of his own he boldly states that I am not even a member of Christ’s Church. By stating this Mr. Chavez has done exactly what the Lord Jesus warned not to do – which is to not offend one that believes in Him. It would behoove Mr. Chavez to repent lest the judgement preordained by the Lord in such matters be his end.

Yes, it is indeed my position that 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is written to all who are members of the body of Christ. While a direct letter to Timothy, which I do not dispute, Mr. Chavez wants to state that no member of the body of Christ should follow that same example, to be prepared for their walk with Christ. No, quite the contrary, we are to simply close the scriptures and sit at the feet of others and take whatever they say as infallible doctrine.

Mr. Chavez further proves my point by stating that I “parse every VERSE and pass judgement on it.” As anyone who has been reading this knows, I am not examining closely and judging the scriptures, rather I am parsing a Creed that has yet to be proven accurate. Once again, the Creed is being elevated to INSPIRED SCRIPTURE status. Through all these dialogs it has not once been shown where belief in the Trinity is required in order to be saved, as the Creed demands. It is not contained in the scriptures, therefore it should be subject to critique.

Much to the dismay of Eugene, he believes the scriptures only apply to Catholics, which in essence he rejects all others as having not been received by Christ. What a sad commentary of the True Church, that was commisioned to go into all the world and preach the good news. So exclusionary is this view, it makes me wonder what the Messiah must think and feel when one who claims to be his rejects millions of others that are his. Mr. Chavez wants to state the Athanasian Creed is truth, I stand ready for that proof that belief in the Trinity is required in order to be saved. Not because he says so, or even the Pope, but shown to me by the writings of the Apostles themselves. And though Eugene wants to interpret Matt 3:16 as he does is of little significance to the question at hand.

-- Eric Halleck (EHalleck@planetkc.com), October 14, 2003.

Frank,

If the oral tradition contradicts the inspired written Word of God, than I would say it is subject to critique, wouldn't you? Therefore, my challenge remains, and I'll be interested in a actual response to the post rather than continual dancing around it. Where is the scriptural mandate as the Creed state that we must believe in the Trinity in order to be saved?

This is more than just a mere matter of human existence as you would like to trivialize it (as if cloning were on an equal par to). We are talking about SALVATION, something very clearly addressed in the scriptures, but not as the Athanasian Creed suggests.

-- Eric Halleck (EHalleck@planetkc.com), October 14, 2003.

-relax...

Eric,

You are so determined to destroy?

I quote you "I stand ready for that proof that belief in the Trinity is required in order to be saved."

keep it simple...

Belief in Jesus is a requirement for salvation -right?

Jesus is God is Holy Spirit -right? (maybe this is your sticky point?)

Here -read this regarding the Trinity maybe it will help you: The Holy Trinity: Biblical Proofs

P.S. Are not all creeds of men? Your anti-creed is but another creed, is it not; therefore, it too is not a "Creed of Heaven"? You have invested much time in this argument; e.g. Creeds of Men vs. Creed of Heaven. -to what purpose? The sure path to truth is straight, what is this detour you persist within?

Maybe you are deceived by your own false grandeur?

Sincerely in Father, Son, & Holy Spirit,

Daniel

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), October 14, 2003.

Hi Daniel,

My sticking point is as I've said all along....the requirement of the Athanasian Creed that demands belief in the Trinity in order to be saved. Simply put, it changes the simple plan of salvation into something other than what the Apostles preached.

Once again, if someone would like to show me where belief in the Trinity is an essential requirement for salvation, I'm all ears.

Not grandeur, Daniel, just honest evaluation of these traditions in light of the scriptures.

-- Eric Halleck (EHalleck@planetkc.com), October 14, 2003.

Eric,

I wasn't trying to be sneaky or obscure. The Pope and Magesterium can speak *without error* in matters of faith and morals. If they say you must believe in the Trinity, then you must. They aren't saying something NEW, rather clarifying what has always been true for our understanding.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 14, 2003.

When the fact most patently clear is that a man by his own light cannot interpret the Word of God strictly without error, it becomes a sad fact he will fall into error without a Teacher; the Church. For the same man, to presume beforehand that he is ready and able to offer a ''just honest evaluation of these traditions in light of the scriptures'' is false. He will never know all that the Bible teaches, while he's outside the Catholic Church. His false presumption that he is within the Body of Christ, simply by sayiing Jesus is Lord; (Shazam!) is typical of bibliolaters. They read a ''key'' verse, and BAM! they're in the Body of Christ. Despite not knowing or adhering to half of the truth in the Bible! They deny the Bread of Life. They deny the Trinity, they deny the true Church, they misconstrue heaps and heaps of the Bible. (Oh!) But, there they presume they are; in the Body of Christ!

Sadly, I wish they WERE in the Body. It would be great, WONDERFUL! to welcome a brother, to give him our love. But these are lost sheep in a wilderness. They have no knowledge of the truth as the apostles preached it. They lost it through the evil conduct of false prophets.

And here as a result is Eric; making the same false prophesy as his teachers did. The blind leading the blind. Or, he would, if we were lost like him.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 14, 2003.

First of all, I would like to thank you all for your responses as I really am looking for objective responses to my article. I expected no less than these biased responses, but just the same the responses have been provocative.

Eugene, though emotionally charged and degrading in his responses, has presented to me validation of why I have been studying this for as long as I have. He exhibits the most bias thus far, even to the point of judging my receiving of Yahshua the Messiah as my Savior. Thus, when the Athanasian Creed states that one must believe this in order to be saved, Mr. Chavez provides the fact that this IS the mindset of Catholicism. Whether the Creed has any validity or not, he’ll stick to it no matter what.

It is not my intentions to question anyones salvation or relationship with the Messiah and His Father and God. I wish the same were true for Eugene, but that isn’t the case. Mr. Chavez assumes that he can judge my heart, stating that I reject the Messiah, that I am a false prophet (???), blind leading the blind, lost sheep in the wilderness, blah, blah, blah….

Matt 12:36-37 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned. Mr. Chavez may want to try and rob me of the hope that lies within me, but that is simply not possible for him to do. My hope is Christ in me, my hope of glory. We are admonished repeatedly throughout the scriptures to hear the voice of the Shepard, and this voice from Mr. Chavez is not that voice.

On that point, it is recorded in Mark 9:7 where God stated “This is my beloved Son, Hear Him.” Thus, when I hear the Son of God say that His God and Father is also MY God and Father, I listen. When I hear Him say that His God is the only true God, I hear him. When I hear Him say that there is only one God, I hear Him. When I hear Him say that anyone who calls on Him will be saved, I listen. Yet, when I question ANOTHER voice stating I must believe something differently in order to be saved, I am called into question as to why. And, as I’ve already illustrated, as in the case of Eugene, rejected altogether as a brother in Christ.

Frank, you’ve presented a piece of the puzzle for me I have not really seen as clearly before. That being that the word of the Pope and the Magesterium are as if Christ Himself is speaking. Thus, if we want to hear Christ, we need to listen to them, irregardless of what the scriptures may state otherwise. This baffles me, but I do see your point, although I do not agree with it. This is not to say that Jesus wouldn’t speak through these people, rather that he would not do so exclusively through them. And, in relation to what one must believe in order to be saved, I will still contend that their word must be supported by the inspired Word of God mandates in the matter.

For instance, Daniel stated “Belief in Jesus is a requirement for salvation -right? Jesus is God is Holy Spirit -right?” He correctly assessed this is a sticking point with me, since who Yahshua is was clearly answered by Peter – “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God”. This answer was perfect and inspired, or so Jesus told Peter. In Acts we are told that Jesus was MADE Lord and Christ, and GIVEN all power in heaven and earth. Throughout the scriptures Jesus repeatedly referes to someone other than Himself as HIS GOD. So yes, this is an issue in the equation. I see no mandate to accept anything else but that which has already been clearly stated.

Just the same, I do appreciate the responses, but my query has become unfruitful. I was hoping someone could provide the scriptural support for the creedal mandates, but there is none. No, it appears that my premise was and is correct, that the Creed is equivalent to the inspired Word of God, at least to those who hold to that tradition, no matter whether there is proof or not. Yup, Paul said it best, you swallow it all.

-- Eric Halleck (EHalleck@planetkc.com), October 15, 2003.

Eric,

Frank, you’ve presented a piece of the puzzle for me I have not really seen as clearly before. That being that the word of the Pope and the Magesterium are as if Christ Himself is speaking. Thus, if we want to hear Christ, we need to listen to them, irregardless of what the scriptures may state otherwise

The Scriptures do NOT contradict the infallible teachings of the church. They could not. Are you a Biblical scholar to the extent that you consider YOUR opinion more educated and correct than that of Catholic saints such as Thomas Aquinas and many others? It's really a pretty arrogant thing to think YOU have found the truth that 2000 years of Catholics "missed" somehow, don't you think?

This is not to say that Jesus wouldn’t speak through these people, rather that he would not do so exclusively through them. And, in relation to what one must believe in order to be saved, I will still contend that their word must be supported by the inspired Word of God mandates in the matter.

I never said Jesus spoke ONLY through or to them. Jesus might decide to have a lengthy conversation with YOU this afternoon. The only thing the church allows us is PROOF that someone else's inspired revelation is True. Do you understand this difference? A lot of people CLAIM to have God's word, some of them may, some not. How can one decide which is true? Catholics can by having this stated by the Pope speaking infallibly, or by an approved church council, such as Vatican II, or the Council of Trent.

I see no mandate to accept anything else but that which has already been clearly stated.

With all respect, this is the whole problem with your approach. What seems clearly stated to YOU is NOT clearly stated to someone else. Therefore you get everyone believing something different, and all of them think they believe the "truth". Even on such basic issues as abortion there are Protestant churches who believe it is unacceptable, and some that say it IS acceptable. It cannot be both. The only real way to get the Truth on these matters is to have it given to you. The Scriptures give us most, the uncovered areas are defined by the Chruch.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 15, 2003.

Frank, The scriptures are given to provide us the PROOF about someones inspired revelation is true or not. You say it receives the stamp of approval by the Pope, the Vatican etc. Why? Because their word is infallible in these matters.

Lest we forget, we are not speaking about abortion, cloning, or whether pot smoking is acceptable. The issue is one that has been clearly outlined in the scriptures, with many examples for our review. It is about SALVATION, and whether the creedal requirements of the Athanasian Creed are supported by the one source we KNOW is the inspired Word of God.

If you find this approach to be problematic, well I’m sorry. The Lord and His Apostles went to great lengths to warn us to watch out for things that would lead us away from the simplicity in Christ, instructed us to try the spirits to see whether they are of God or not, to prove all things, to beware of false prophets and false teachings, and to not be led astray. If your answer to this is to accept an infallible answer from Rome, than so be it. As for me, I’ll test even those spirits, and those teachings, against the one source I know to be inspired – the scripture.

-- Eric Halleck (EHalleck@planetkc.com), October 15, 2003.

Eric,

I'll try again. You say Scripture is proof. Fine. Who decided which books comprised the New Tesatment? The Catholic Church at the councils of Hippo and Carthage (if I remember right). Many books were found at that time to NOT be inspired. Therefore, if you believe that Scripture is inspired, you HAVE to believe in the authority of the Catholic Church to declare something True. If you don't, you might as well decide that the church didn't have the authority to say the Gospels were inspired.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 15, 2003.

Why do some Bible versions contain different writings of 1 John 5:7?

KJV: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

RVS: "And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the Truth."

I did read a link, but I was not convinced.

rod

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 15, 2003.

John, 14 is replete with Christ's own testimony to the Oneness of the Father with His Son Jesus.

At verse :25, He states, ''These things I have spoken to you while yet dwelling with you. But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, He will teach you all things and bring to your mind whatever I have said to you.''

Firstly, Christ clearly states the two Persons in One; His Father with the Son Jesus Christ.

It is a unity! Not just two different Persons, but Two Persons in the same Being. By showing that the Advocate, the Holy Spirit was not Himself, & not the Father either, yet sent by the Father in Jesus' name, He tells the Church (His apostles gathered at the Last Supper) unequivocally-- ''We are not each the same Person; but three in One. My Father is God; We three still are --One God.

Therefore, Unity, Which is One God, has Trinity which is interface between Three Persons, but even so not three Gods; the one Living God!

The source we call Athanasius, then; speaks with the authority of these biblical revelations as text proof; and not just the ones I'm quoting, but various others quoted here by CATHOLICS Daniel and Frank; not by way of convincing Eric but just to refute his claim of full wisdom in discerning scriptural truth. He reads, but he doesn't understand.

He won't be convinced, either, by men. His heart is hardened for now. But God has loved Him, we realise. He is far from guilty of denying Jesus Christ, though he persists in denying other gospel truths and even Christ's own words in some cases. Yet, denying them, Eric has the ''certitude'' He is saved without listening to the apostles & Christ, i.e., with no faith in Creeds. Creeds, which by definition ARE faith. May God open his eyes, because God can perfect even the most case- hardened skeptic.

Saul was on the way to persecute Christ (His Mystical Body) in Damascus; and Voila!-- God came to him who now is Saint Paul! If He could do it for Saul the Pharisee, why not Mr. Halleck; whose own ancestors were Catholics.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 15, 2003.

Hi Frank, First of all, by my stating that the scriptures are inspired, I am stating that I believe they contain the Word of God as it had been given to “holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." Thus, if Yahweh is able to speak to us through these holy men, and give us a written record of those words, the same one who inspired these words to be written has the utmost ability to preserve that word by whatever means He sees fit. Though you want to say the Catholic Church is to be credited for that preservation, I rather say it was God Himself who preserved His Word through all generations.

Ps 12:6-7 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Your assumption that I must believe in the authority of the Catholic Church to declare the scriptures as true and inspired is a false premise. I believe the scriptures are the Word of God because HE SAID SO, not the RCC. I believe they are inspired because they bear witness to me. I believe they are inspired because of who wrote them, and the contents within them. Thus, it isn’t because of some Papal stamp of approval I believe they are the inspired Word of God, but rather because Yahweh said he would preserve His Word.

The Athanasian Creed, unlike the scriptures, has an obscure origin and authorship. Thus, as I’ve said all along, I have no reason to question the writings of the Apostles, but I do have a reason to do so with the Athanasian Creed, especially when it contains statements within it that are not found anywhere in the Bible.

-- Eric Halleck (EHalleck@planetkc.com), October 16, 2003.

John, 14 is replete with Christ's own testimony that the Father was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself. It also is clearly speaking of a greater unity which includes OUR unity in them. John 14:20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

So yes Eugene is correct in stating it is a unity, but it is a unity that goes well beyond 3 persons, but countless persons joined as one in the Body of Christ. This makes perfectly good sense when considering that Jesus said His Father was GREATER than him, that His Father is the only true God, and furthermore that His God and Father is also our god and Father. The Apostle said it better than Athanasius (the supposed author of the Athanasian Creed) could hope to explain: 2 Cor 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

God in Christ, not God AS Christ. Yet, Mr Chavez insists that I am to overlook these details, and blindly accept that I must take the Athanasian Creed as my own in order for salvation. Yet, it is not my salvation that I am concerned with, per se, but rather the misconception that the lost are faced with when seeking to come to Christ. The RCC says you must believe in their doctrine in order to be saved, when it cannot be supported by scripture to prove it. No, the only authority that has been spoken of here is that they are the church, and all others are not, thus they have the authority to say whatever they want to since it has the stamp of “infallible” upon it. No wonder people like Jim Jones could sway gullible people into mass suicide. There are so many willing to just swallow whatever is told them without proof that what they state is indeed the Word of God.

There is one mediator between God and men, and that is the MAN Jesus Christ the Messiah. Who then may I ask is your mediator if the Son of God, Jesus, is God himself?

-- Eric Halleck (EHalleck@planetkc.com), October 16, 2003.

Eric,

So when you say you believe in "Scripture", you DO believe in the full Catholic Bible and not the one Martin Luther chopped seven books out of right? If not, how do you explain God's people being without accurate scripture for 1500 years?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 16, 2003.

Dear Eric:
What a brave front you present, without a word of rebuttal; only the imperfect understanding you have of the Bible.

''the same one who inspired these words to be written has the utmost ability to preserve that word by whatever means He sees fit.'' Precisely what He has done, Eric; by His own Divine Will, not because the Church decided. He willed that by the help of the Holy Spirit in the Church Christ gave us, no error should overturn by human wisdom the exact meaning of all His Word. ''Though you want to say the Catholic Church is to be credited --(CREDIT? Christ is with His Church, Eric!) -- Who do we credit? Him; and the Holy Spirit!) ''. . . for that preservation, I rather say it was God-- '' You've argued yourself into a corner, haven't you?

God is the protector of His Word's undefiled truth; and He keeps it out of error in a Holy Church. Not in some ''invisible'' way!

Here is how poorly you understand: -- ''Your assumption that I must believe in the authority of the Catholic Church to declare the scriptures as true and inspired is a false premise.''

Look at the first premise. Before the world could KNOW for certain the precise books and manuscripts eventually written were a complete canon; and that no spurious book or article had entered in and defiled God's Word, there had to be some authorised court of last resort. An unimpeachable witness to that canon.

That had to be the Church. Christ placed her in that capacity: ''The Church of the living God, the pillar and mainstay of the truth'' (1 Tim, 3 :15).

You make a further poor judgment, Eric: ''I believe the scriptures are the Word of God because HE SAID SO, not the RCC. I believe they are inspired because they bear witness to me.''

He truly DID say so; but not from the clouds. He said it emphatically & finally by the Holy Spirit abiding as Advocate in the Catholic Church; and it was her council in union with the Spirit which named the books & declared them inspired. They are there to this day. You didn't have any Bible until the whole Book became a concrete reality in the house of God.

With this concrete reality, the Church and the Holy Spirit also have the authority to guard the interpretation of the Bible from the errors of men. Only she is given any guarantee by Christ, who told her apostles in advance, false prophets would come, ruining the written meaning of the Holy Gospel by their unauthorised interpretations.As you try to say: ''Because it bears witness to me.'' Your own wisdom bears witness to you? That's what Jim Jones thought, too! ( I myself have often reminded many here; of the Rev. Jim Jones; who gave his corrupt interpretation of the scriptures to that sect; didn't he? Why? How could his flock have saved themselves from all evil? By staying in or returning to the One Church of the apostles; and NO other.

There is no invisible Body of Christ assembly (Church) to which you can claim membership, Eric; Christ's Church is truly the visible, permanent, Catholic Church in the world, with all authority over Christ's flock under Saint Peter. THERE ALONE our true membership; within His Church, in the Mystical Body of Christ. No sect can offer anybody that grace. In that respect, you are presently no different from Jim Jones'. He was blind, leading the blind. You are blind, following your human imperfection.

Come back into the light. The Church of your own blessed ancestors. Have faith in God, who has begun the work of opening your soul to Him. Right in this forum.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 16, 2003.

Red Herring: Something that draws attention away from the central issue.

This is what you both have incorporated in your discussions, and have avoided the central question. The only option either of you have offered to answer question is that the RCC has the authority to say whatever it wants to concerning what one needs to believe in order to be saved, irregardless of what the Apostles and Christ Himself had already said on the matter.

When you can give me something other than "because we say so" as an answer, I'll be waiting.

-- Eric Halleck (EHalleck@planetkc.com), October 17, 2003.

Eric,

It's the exact OPPOSITE of a red herring, it's the central question here! The big question is HOW does God say to us what is True and what isn't? If you can't answer that, you have no business saying something is or is NOT True.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 17, 2003.

I'm sure Eric understands what we told him; he won't allow it to register. His interpretation of ALL the scripture is what would make him a True Believer. Not the cafeteria choices he wishes to believe.

If he knows all the simple things written, and misunderstands the stranger or less concise ones, he's part believer, part inventor. By concocting his own interpretations, he hands it all over to his imagination.

This is a result of confusing the Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ with the written Word, and confusing the Bible with Christ's Church. He would have his Teacher on the written page, His Body of Christ anybody who reads the Bible; and Christ's Church on earth any sect who has read the Bible, whether understood or misinterpreted.

Theologically, it's insupportable. Christ called the twelve; He did not write a book. The Book is the Word, but the Word doesn't stand alone. It needs Christ's Church with the Holy Spirit; because Eric is helpless (we all are) to understand the more ambiguous passages in scripture. He can only take stabs.

The Catholic Church knows, because Christ promised her: ''When he, the Spirit of truth comes, He will teach you all the truth.''

Eric might read the words and assume Christ was speaking to the READER. He was speaking to the Church, in the persons gathered with Him during that discourse. The holy apostles. At the moment Jesus spoke these words, the Bible didn't have any written form; He could not have meant them for a reader.--

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 17, 2003.

/ / /

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 17, 2003.

Frank,

A question was posed to Peter by Jesus. "Whom do men say that I am?" Peter answered: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God." The answer was confirmed by Jesus as being given to him by God.

Thus, the Spirit gave the perfect answer, which Peter received and confessed, and was blessed by Jesus.

How did Peter know the answer he was giving? Do you think he was just guessing? No, he KNEW IT, and confessed it. Jesus didn't have to confirm it to make it true. He confirmed it because of the greater truth that came along with knowing the truth of who He is.

The scriptures have been divinely preserved for all generations. Through the scriptures God has told us how to tell whether something is sound in doctrine or not. Measure it against the Owners Manual! If there is someone telling you to operate differently than what the Owners Manual states, chances are you are going to mess something up.

So Peter preached on the day of Pentecost, and never once referred to Jesus as God the Son, second person of the Trinity, and you must believe this in order to be saved. He also preached to the house of Cornelius, and once again no mention of the mandate as prescribed in the Athanasian Creed. These are just a couple of examples of what is clearly recorded of what was preached and received in order to be saved....according to the Owners Manual.

So, you tell me, how did 3000 know what Peter was preaching was the truth? How did the house of Cornelius and those assembled there know what was preached was the truth? And furthermore, if what was preached then was good enough, why isn't it now?

-- Eric Halleck (EHalleck@planetkc.com), October 17, 2003.

Eric addresses Frank--
I won't intrude if Frank wants to reply first. Please be patient, Eric.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 17, 2003.

Eric,

It appears to be YOU that likes herring! I'm not talking about Peter in the presence of our Lord, I'm talking about someone today trying to find out which books of Scripture are inspired.

Please give a straight answer rather than trying to obfuscate the issue. Are you seriously suggesting that each person has to decide for themselves which books are inspired? How about "the Shepherd of Hermas" is it inspired? Are all of the books in the Catholic Bible inspired, and if not, why did the Holy Spirit allow non-inspired books to be treated as inspired for 1500 years? Also, if they AREN'T inspired, on whose authority to determine this was this decision made? How could one man say something was NOT inspired when they were already decided to be? Are there other books in the Bible which in your opinion are not inspired and are there by mistake?

I'd like it if you'd answer, but I know you can't. You see, there's NO way to say that ANY book is inspired unless someone has the authority to define it that way. Protestants don't even claim this authority, and so there's no need to stop with Martin Luther's editing, if you don't believe the Catholic Church can speak authoritatively, there's no reason to believe any book of the Bible is inspired, or to believe that books not in the Bible are not inspired. You can make "Eric's Bible" of whatever books you like.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 17, 2003.

Which indeed, Eric would do, because he now makes the chapt-verse mean anything he favors. Or, what he disputes, he refuses to believe.

The Church was given us by Jesus Christ! Then; the Gospel once committed to written form was given the world by the apostles and their successors. In the recorded form which later Catholics declared without error and inspired of God. This was declared in the light of the Holy Spirit, on Jesus Christ's assurance.

The same Holy Spirit guards His Church from all possibility of misinterpreting the original intention of the inspired writers. Men by themselves would not be safe from error.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 17, 2003.

Is this what you believe, Eric?
''Peter preached on the day of Pentecost, and never once referred to Jesus as God the Son, second person of the Trinity, and you must believe this in order to be saved.''If we read John 21, :28-- Doubting Thomas addresses Jesus Christ our Risen Lord:

''MY LORD AND MY GOD!'' What Christian would dispute then, what an apostle called Jesus face to face, God? Only one who can't interpret the scriptures correctly. It's written!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 17, 2003.

Interesting point Frank.

“why did the Holy Spirit allow non-inspired books to be treated as inspired for 1500 years?”

This is exactly the question I’m asking about the Athanasian Creed! More to the point, why has this supplemental writing been touted as inspired by men, when it doesn’t pass the litmus test of the scriptural standards?

You want to turn this into “Eric doesn’t believe the Bible is inspired because….” Issue. I’ve tried to keep the focus on why the Athanasian Creed mandates something differently than the scriptures. I will continue on this course as well. If you all would like to start a thread concerning which version of the Bible is inspired, whether it by the Authorized Version, KJV, etc., then fine. I might even get into that topic as well as I find this a fascinating topic as well. But, if it isn’t too much to ask, let’s focus on my original question if you don’t mind.

But, to close this issue for you all, I have already stated that Gods Word is divine. It was divinely given, and divinely preserved. How He chose to keep His Word and in whose care is a non-issue to me. Whether you can accept this answer as good enough is not my concern. I seriously doubt you can accept it as a good enough answer to your query, since it appears the answer Peter gave about who Yahshua is wasn’t good enough either, which is why the Athanasian Creed exists.

Now, if your seriously going to contend with me that the RCC has the authority to say Peters answer wasn't good enough, than the burden of proof is on your shoulders to prove it, not mine, which is what I've been seeking all along.

-- Eric Halleck (EHalleck@planetkc.com), October 17, 2003.

Mr. Chavez,

Thomas was acknowledging what Yahshua had been telling him all along, that His God and Father was in Him. Thus, Peter was acknowledging bothe the Temple (Jesus), and the one who resides in the Temple (God Almighty).

God was IN Christ, reconciling the world unto himself.... There is no other mediator between God and man, except the MAN Christ Jesus.

Hope that helps.

-- Eric Halleck (EHalleck@planetkc.com), October 17, 2003.

You can distort the meaning of Saint Thomas' words. Jesus revealed as God the eternal Son; 2nd Person of the Holy Trinity in this verse. Christ Himself revealed the 3rd Person, the Holy Spirit. We acknowledge the Athanasian Creed for the very same reason: to dispute it is to fall into heresy. Heretics wanted to teach a false doctrine; that Christ was only a Man, or only God. He is True God and True Man, two natures in one Person; who is eternal. The human nature is born into the world, but by divine nature was without beginning or end. This is partly what the Athanasian Creed proclaims. That you'll be a heretic if you deny these revealed truths.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 17, 2003.

Sorry, Eric, you can't have it both ways.

Unless you are willing to state exactly which Scriptures are inspired, and how we KNOW they are inspired, you CANNOT say that somehting contradicts Scripture!

That's what I've been trying, perhaps poorly, to get across to you. Until you HAVE an infallible Scripture, saying something is or is NOT Scriptural is meaningless.

If you really want an answer then, start at the beginning: What books constitute inspired Scripture, and how do we KNOW they are inspired, and that no other books that others think are inspired are?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 17, 2003.

Eric:
You say, '' I've tried to keep the focus on why the Athanasian Creed mandates something differently than the scriptures. I will continue on this course as well.''

But, when you're shown in the Bible clear proof that the Creed is truth, you can't clean up your act. That is why we've had to show you where the Church's authority originates as well as the Bible's. From Christ's apostles!

You brought up the inerrancy of God's Word. The natural reply is (we have proved) that even the Bible came from the Church.

You're saying this gives you no concern, i.e., you admit the Creed should give you no concern. It also comes down to us from Christ and his apostles in the same Holy Church. It is equally the mind of the Church, which wrote the Gospels inspired by God. This Creed then does not mandate something apart from the scriptures; it is supported by them.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 17, 2003.

Gentlemen,

Then it is your contention that the Athanasian Creed is an inspired, i.e., God spoken word that is of the same value and riches as the scriptures? You can say this even though the origins of the Creed, and its actual authorship are uncertain?

-- Eric Halleck (EHalleck@planetkc.com), October 17, 2003.

Eugene,

I am not distorting what Thomas was saying at all. Actually, I'm taking in the whole picture about what had been professed and told to these men, and seeing Thomas respond in this manner makes perfectly good sense. So, if you cannot take Pauls word for it, you might as well pull out the white out and blot it from the pages of your Bible, whatever translation you use.

God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself.

While you are at it, white out the portions that say Jesus was MADE perfect through his sufferings. MADE Lord and Christ. GIVEN all power in heaven and earth. And don't forget the portion after his resurrection when he tells you who your God and Father is, because they are also HIS GOD.

-- Eric Halleck (EHalleck@planetkc.com), October 17, 2003.

It is a valid part of Sacred Tradition which stands in the Catholic Church for a revealed truth. It simply defines the true faith of the apostles; in the same way the holy Bible does.

This is the faith in Jesus Christ that saves humankind. --Whatever is denied of this faith endangers your salvation. We MUST believe what God revealed; He is Three Persons in One God. The Bible supports this; so it shouldn't be disappointing to a follower of Christ.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 17, 2003.

Eric,

I'm still waiting for you to tell me what Scripture is inspired, and how you know it.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 17, 2003.

God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself. and your subsequent non sequiturs:

Yes, God was in Him, the human Jesus; who Himself IS God. God made him perfect for the role of Saviour; gave Him everything'; Jesus born of Mary; equal with the Father since before all ages.

Nevertheless, One in being with the Father. ''I and the Father are ONE. He mediates for men with His Almighty Father. Not one thing contradicts the Athanasian Creed in those passages. It's completely true.

It does not contradict the Truth; He is the second Person of the Holy Trinity. ''Before Abraham came to be, I am.'' John 8, :58 /

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 17, 2003.

Frank,

I've already answered this, but I'll answer it again:

2 Tim 3:16-17 ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

How do I know?

Ps 12:6-7 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

How do I know God is real and what these verses say is fact? He's proven it to me, over, and over, and over again that He is true to His Word.

-- Eric Halleck (EHalleck@planetkc.com), October 17, 2003.

Eugene,

Num 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

So I suppose when Jesus was praying, it was his human personality that was praying to his deity personality? I suppose it was the human personality that cried out from the cross "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"

Surely you aren't suggesting the Lord had a dual personality?

-- Eric Halleck (EHalleck@planetkc.com), October 17, 2003.

Jesus is True God and True Man; and yes; it was into humanity He was Incarnated, therein He suffered.

That is consistent with Saint Paul's epistle where the Word says Christ did not deem equality with God something to be grasped after; He assumed the lowliness of our flesh and death on a cross.

Only the sacrifice of God could have atoned for this fallen nature; and God accepted His sacrifice; the death of our Lamb of God.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 17, 2003.

Eric, Frank asked you -----

I'm still waiting for you to tell me what Scripture is inspired, and how you know it.

You responded by quoting 2 Timothy 3 and Psalm 12. That's nice, but is not responsive to Frank's question. He was asking you something quite different. What we call the Bible is actually a collection of 73 separate books, written over the course of about 2,000 years, in various times, places, and languages. (Indeed the Greek "Biblia" means "books," not "book.") What we would like to know is your answers to these questions:

(1) Which ancient writings were inspired by God? Are all 73 books now in the collection called the Bible divinely inspired? Only some of them? Are there other ancient writings that you consider inspired by God too?

(2) However you answered the first question, how do you KNOW that the books you chose are "inspired" (i.e., have God as their primary author)? Did you figure out a list on your own? Or are you trusting your parents or some clergyman or friend or book -- that told you which books are inspired? What gives you (or the other person on whom you depend) the right and ability to judge which books are inspired)?

(3) Do you know who got together (and when) to put those 73 books under the same cover and declared that they were indeed God's word and not just human words?

By the way, this is a Catholic discussion board, and you are speaking to Christians here. To which religion do you belong (i.e., the name of the "church" or denomination where you worship) -- or are you a "free-lancer" who doesn't attend church services?

-- (What@the.Halleck?), October 18, 2003.

What,

Don't hold your breath for a straightforward answer, LOL!

Frank

-- someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 18, 2003.

Good Day,

I hope you haven't been holding your breath all this time since I last responded! It has been a very busy week, and I have not placed much priority on this spinning wheel discussion, but I still do hope to get some clarity from all of your points of view.

First of all, it has been my contention that what I have quoted is within your version of the Bible, whether 73 books or 66 books. The verses addressed are from both, and the "missing" 7 books from the OT has little bearing on the current discussion at hand. I will admit I have never read the "missing 7", but I do not necessarily hold to a dogmatic opinion that they are uninspired. I simply do not know, nor am I that concerned, since they were books pertaining to the old covenant, and not the new.

I realize this all has been done to prove the assertion that you (that is, The Catholic Church) has the authority to say what is and what is not inspired. That is all well and good, and not even a position I'm challenging. It is a misdirection argument, plain and simple.

Maybe the better way for me to pose my question would be as such:

Why is there no harmony between the Athanasian Creed and the scriptures pertaining to the doctrine of salvation? Why does the author of Athanasian Creed (whoever that was) assert additional requirements to obtaining salvation than that which is recorded by the Apostles in the scriptures? And, furthermore, why does the Catholic Church, with all of its authority, maintain that the Athanasian Creed has the same level of inspiration as the scriptures, even though the disconnect exists with the rest of the Gospel message as presented by the Apostles?

Thank you for your patience in awaiting my response. Please take a deep breath and breathe!

-- Eric Halleck (EHalleck@planetkc.com), October 24, 2003.

I almost forgot to respond to ???? who posed this question of me:

By the way, this is a Catholic discussion board, and you are speaking to Christians here. To which religion do you belong (i.e., the name of the "church" or denomination where you worship) -- or are you a "free-lancer" who doesn't attend church services?

First of all, I am aware that this is a Catholic and Christian board, although I thought the argument was to be a Christian, you MUST be Catholic. It seems you are asserting something differently here, which would be refreshing.

If you want to know my "religion", than I'll have to say Christian. If you want a denominational label to affix, such as Catholic, Baptist, Luthern, Jehovah Witness, Moron, etc. than no, I don't have any of those labels stuck to my psyche. I am a blood bought, redeemed, set free Christian who has accepted Jesus the Christ, Yahshua the Messiah, as my Lord and Savior. I recognize HIM as my Head, and that I am one of His sheep that listens for His voice.

I don't like th term "free-lancer", as it denotes that I am desirous of being independent, which is far from the truth. I am totally dependent on Christ, and look for Christ in you (which is our hope of glory) to be united in the Spirit with the rest of those who call Yahshua their Lord and Savior. I know them because they are the ones who receive me, just as Yahshua has. I find those who reject me, or more to the point reject Christ in me, obviously are not of the same mind of Christ.

Hope that answers it for you.

-- Eric Halleck (EHalleck@planetkc.com), October 24, 2003.

''I don't have any of those labels stuck to my psyche. I am a blood bought, redeemed, set free Christian who has accepted Jesus the Christ, Yahshua the Messiah, as my Lord and Savior. I recognize HIM as my Head, and that I am one of His sheep that listens for His voice.'' --

Oh; you must be a Catholic. That's a load off MY mind! You are together with all those ancestors of yours who found Christ in the Catholic faith; loved Him as the Saviour of their souls, gave Him their devotion. They erected marvellous cathedrals to His glory, worshipped the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in One Communion, with HIM.

Your forebears, Eric. Saved and sanctified in the Holy Catholic Church; because that is where He has the sheep since the beginning.

''Simon, son of John, dost thou love me more than these do?'' Peter said to Him, ''Yes, Lord, Thou knowest I love Thee.'' He said to him, ''Feed my lambs.''

He said to him a second time, ''Simon, son of John, dost thou love me?'' He said to Him, ''Yes, Lord. Thou knowest that I love Thee.'' He said to him, ''Feed my lambs.'' A third time He said to him, ''Simon, son of John; dost thou love me?'' Peter was grieved because He said to him for the third time, ''Dost thou love me?''

And he said to Him, ''Lord, Thou knowest all things, Thou knowest that I love Thee!'' He said to him, ''Feed my sheep.''

John, chapt. 21, :15/17.

Your blessed ancestors, Eric, had Peter for shepherd, according to the Will of God. Our Popes are successors in direct line from Saint Peter; made pastor and caretaker of Christ's universal flock. Your ancestors were saints and martyrs. They live with Jesus Christ eternally; in the Church Triumphant. Mine are there as well, if they died repenting all their sins. They were Christ's sheep too.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 24, 2003.

"I find those who reject me, or more to the point reject Christ in me, obviously are not of the same mind of Christ."

Eric,

Could not have Christ said as you:

"I find those who reject me, or more to the point reject God in me, obviously are not of the same mind of God."

Do you have another man in you? -Do you understand? -there is but one God -not three...

And there is man...

Jesus and or the Holy Spirit are God...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), October 24, 2003.

Hi Daniel,

Could not have Christ said as you:

"I find those who reject me, or more to the point reject God in me, obviously are not of the same mind of God."

He did say as much Daniel. "Know ye not that I am in the Father, and the Father is in me?"

The union of the Spirit, where Jesus said I and the Father are one, and where he also prayed to His God and Father that we would be one with them also.

Partakers of the divine nature. It is an awesome calling!

So yes, you are correct. It was God IN Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself. Thomas declared it as well, recognizing that it was His mediator before him, and God within Jesus. "My Lord AND my God".

But you know, Christ in me, as a lively stone, is not properly set unless it is joined with the REST of the lively stones. We all together make the temple, wherein God resides. This is my hope, to see the true foundation built upon. Thus my original post. It seems to me the Athanasian Creed establishes either another foundation that is built upon, or it skews the plumbline to where the walls are not built according to plan. It seems to be a deviation from the blueprint Jesus said the church would be built upon.

Sincerely,

-- Eric Halleck (EHalleck@planetkc.com), October 24, 2003.

In fact it places unwavering faith in the holy Word of God. Therein is revealed the glory of Almighty God; His interior life without beginning or end. Athanasius humbly acknowledges the truth revealed to Christ's apostles and disciples.

In His Holy Church Christ made all error impossible for the ages by sending a Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, to teach His followers the undiluted truth. Therein the divine basis for an Athanasian Creed which is all worthy of belief. Because the Holy Spirit can neither deceive us nor be deceived. He is God Almighty, Third Person.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 24, 2003.

Eric, back on October 17, Frank asked you a question about scripture. In two subsequent posts, you did not give him an answer, so he asked you the question again on the 17th.

You then badly misunderstood his question and gave an answer that wasn't helpful on the 17th. So, on the 18th, I posted a message to explain in detail, with "sub-questions," what Frank (and I) really wanted to know from you. You returned on the 24th and again failed to answer Frank's question and my related questions. (What you said about 66/73 books barely scratched the surface.)

Please scroll up to my message of the 18th, and carefully reply to all the things being asked of you.

You did partially respond to my extra question, not asked by Frank, about your religion. But, while you said that you are not a "free-lancer," you failed to name the kind of church you attend (e.g., Baptist, Oneness Pentecostal, "fundamentalist non-denominational," etc.). Which is it -- or do you not attend church services?

Oh, and I noticed that you wrote: "I thought the argument was to be a Christian, you MUST be Catholic." Are you saying that you thought that Catholics do not consider Baptists, Lutherans, etc., to be "Christian"? If so, who in the world ever gave you such a foolish idea? Although God wants all people on the entire planet to be Catholic (including you), that doesn't mean that non-Catholics on the journey home to Catholicism cannot be "Christians."

I think that we deserve full answers to our questions of you before we embark on the brand-new thing you brought up -- the Athanasian Creed, don't you? After you have fully answered us, why not just quote the specific lines/tenets from that Creed that are giving you trouble? (Keep in mind that the Church Jesus founded, the Catholic Church, is not a "sola-scriptura" organization. Since we go all the way back to the first century, we don't follow that "tradition of men" that was begun in the 16th century.)

-- (What@the.Halleck?), October 25, 2003.

The simple answer for all of these probing questions about my belief in the inspiration of the scriptures is called FAITH. I by faith accept that Yahweh is capable of inspiring the authors to pen His Word, and by faith I accept that Yahweh has been able to preserve His Word. Through reading the Bible I am led to see the harmonious thread of precept upon precept, all leading to the same point, the redemption of mankind to God through the only begotten Son of God.

I think that we deserve full answers to our questions of you before we embark on the brand-new thing you brought up -- the Athanasian Creed, don't you?

I’m curious as to why you are calling my questioning the Athanasian Creed a ”brand-new thing” that I brought up? If you are referring to this thread, this is what the whole discussion has been hopefully getting to. If you are talking about this being a “brand new thing” of questioning the Athanasian Creed, I would like to think that someone has questioned this before!

Let’s agree for a moment the scriptures are indeed inspired (no argument there, or at least, I hope not). Now, we are presented with the Athanasian Creed, which is unclear in authorship and origin. It pronounces “new” revelation about what one MUST do in order to be saved. Is it harmonious with the scriptures? Does the authors assertions align with those penned by the Apostles? Does the salvation formula meet the criteria as outlined in the scriptures (which we’ve already concluded to be inspired)? Do we have harmony in this message to that of Christ and His Apostles? If so, where in the inspired scriptures do we find this message preached and taught?

Acts 2 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

Nope, it’s not here. Actually, Peters message is quite contrary to the message of the Athanasian Creed. How about other accounts of the apostle preaching Jesus, and him crucified? Nope, it isn’t there either. Thus, if there is no harmony with the scriptures we know are inspired, why do we elevate this writing by someone ???? from somewhere ???? and call it authoritative?

You see ???, the distractive questions about ME and why I believe the scriptures are inspired, where I attend church, etc. have nothing to do with the questions I pose. Actually, I wonder if any of you have ever actually asked yourselves these questions about the Athanasian Creed? If you have, I’d like to know how YOU reconcile these discrepencies between what the scriptures state, and what the Creed states. Thus far, all I’ve been offered is that the Pope and Magesterium can call whatever they want to infallible truth. So I’m not accepting that answer, because my Lord said to beware of those who would pervert the simplicity of His message. And, when I see glaring differences as I’ve shown here, it is mine, and your, responsibility to prove all things and to hold fast to that which is good.

You raised another issue that I’d explore with you, but I’m not going to delve into it here. That being your statement that “Catholics do not consider Baptists, Lutherans, etc. to be Christian”. I agree that Yahweh wants all people to be united under the Headship of His Son, or catholic. However, it has been asserted repeatedly anyone who rejects the Pope, or the Roman Catholic “headship” cannot be a part of Catholicism. Eugene has no problem calling anyone that is not under that headship as “pretenders”, doing just “lip service” if anyone dismisses “His Church”, that is, the RCC. So, it was from this vantage point I was speaking in my previous post. Even you eluded to this when you stated:

Keep in mind that the Church Jesus founded, the Catholic Church, is not a "sola-scriptura" organization. Since we go all the way back to the first century, we don't follow that "tradition of men" that was begun in the 16th century.

On this point I would like to say that I am not speaking from a reformed ‘scripture only” theological stance. (Even they hold fast to a revised version of the Athanasian Creed, removing references to the RCC from their version of this particular Creed, but I digress). Inspiration comes in many ways, however to say it is Holy inspired, and is a mandate of heaven in order to be saved, it better align with the scriptures and what they clearly show, especially on issues such as salvation. I firmly believe that in days of old God spoke to us through His prophets, but today, He speaks to us through His Son. His sheep hear His voice, and it is this very issue I am asking. Is this voice of the Athanasian Creed His voice? How do YOU know it is?

-- Eric Halleck (EHalleck@planetkc.com), October 27, 2003.

Dear Eric:
You really think you've opened a can of worms here with your challenge. But that's hardly so. It's not so difficult to snip the legs out from under your logic. It shouldn't be, because we're ruled by the Holy Spirit in Christ's Church.

My personal experience with the Athanasian Creed is superficial; in that once I've read it, I concurr easily. This Creed is the truth.

It isn't invoked very often during our liturgical year; because it treats of something long ago proven; it's a staple of the faith of Catholics. Every day we pray, ''Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit.''

Only from outside; and from the point of view of Sola Scriptura, which is the total submission to, and worship of the Bible alone --would any question arise. It is very unusual; since even most protestant assemblies are trinitarian.

The Athanasian Creed then is an admonition to the faithful; in the form of a dire warning: Do not deny what has been revealed by the Son Of God, His Church, and by the Holy Spirit Himself. If you deny, you are damned. We, the people of God are fortified in that holy Creed against all doubt; God is ONE Triune Deity, in Three Persons, the Three equal in majesty and without beginning or end. The statement is NOT breaking new ground, Eric. It is the formal, ritual reiteration of what is seen by the Church in Holy Scripture. The inspired Word, that revelation made to her by Christ.

Not as opposed to Scripture, but only what is upheld beforehand, before a Creed was necessary for the faithful. You see the reaction, or, Athanasian reaction to those who would have denied the revealed truth; heretical Catholics. It became necessary to admonish THEM, and guard the faith of those who were being attracted to the heresy.

We have in the Athanasian Creed nothing but their burden of faith imposed on Catholics; no different from the Bible. Otherwise they, as you are now tending to, would have started to doubt. The faith is ONE; if we discard the parts we discard the sum total, and we defeat the Gospel!

We can see this illustrated now; by the unfortunate disintegration of the whole faith which resulted from a so-called reformation. In your personal pilgrimage, you make inquiry and hope for resolutions. Maybe one reason you came to us. That's great!

Only, you bring with you an adverse mind-set. Sola Scriptura, which denies you the right to use your reason as an aid to FAITH. The letter kills; the spirit gives life.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 27, 2003.

Eugene,

My quest in this IS personal, as the verbage of the Athanasian Creed is extremely stiff, and in effect cuts off a vast majority of others who claim Christ as their Savior and Lord. It is personal because the Body of Christ is to be bound in love, and when one member suffers, all suffer with it. Therefore when I read the Creed, I see hordes of people pushed aside, and told they are not of the fold, and are unsaved.

For instance, you say that "we're ruled by the Holy Spirit in Christ's Church." The same thing is said by Oneness Pentecostals as well, and you can be sure they don't adhere to the Athanasian Creed. So where does that leave them? According to the Creed, they cannot be saved. The Baptists have their own version of the Athanasian creed, as I mentioned before, with references to the RCC removed, however the same strong damnatory language to non-Trinitarians. They also lay claim as you do to being ruled by the Holy spirit in Christ's Church.

So you may want to call it "superficial", I do not see it that way. Either it has the teeth it bares, or they are falsies. not just the RCC version, but the Reformationists versions as well. The creed may agree with your spirit, just as much as it does to any Baptist who believes firmly in their creed, but it doesn't agree with mine. I've said before, Jesus said that we should receive those whom he recieves, and these creeds, whatever version you want to cling to, are diametrically opposed to that instruction. Sola Scriptura excludes the possibility of any inspiration other than that which is recorded in the scriptures. This is not the vantage point from which this question arises. As with the Toronto movement, and people being "inspired" to bark llike dogs, or laugh hysterically as they are "moved" by the "spirit", it is a precept to prove these things out to be true and good, something "new" from Yahweh. Same thing could go for weeping statues of Mary and visions of Fatima. Is there any historical record to validate these things? Same thing goes for any teaching coming forth, whether taught for centuries or not. Their must be some valid precedent within the scriptures that lend support to these claims.

Do not deny what has been revealed by the Son Of God, His Church, and by the Holy Spirit Himself.

Precisely my point Eugene. I cannot deny what He clearly said of Himself, or the answers given about who He is (such as Peters inspired answer). I cannot deny who Jesus said my God and Father is... the same one He called HIS God and Father, the ONLY true God. I cannot deny the preaching of salvation to the lost by the Apostles, nor what they said needed to be done and believed in order to be saved. I cannot deny the confirmation of the Holy Spirit being given to those who heard that preaching, and received Christ. It is here that my contention lies with ANY teaching that opposes these basic tenets of faith.

If you deny, you are damned. We, the people of God are fortified in that holy Creed against all doubt; God is ONE Triune Deity, in Three Persons, the Three equal in majesty and without beginning or end. The statement is NOT breaking new ground, Eric. It is the formal, ritual reiteration of what is seen by the Church in Holy Scripture. The inspired Word, that revelation made to her by Christ.

What you have just stated hear says that what Peter answered to Jesus about who he was was incomplete. I'm not buying it. You're going to have to prove to me he believed this, and not by someone saying "this is what he believed". Not when the scriptures are explicitly clear about what he, and the others, believed.

The Spirit does indeed give life, but the letter of the Athanasian creed cuts off and denies access to salvation to a multitude of peoples. The Athanasian Creed is not a viable message to the lost, and should be discarded. The Athanasian Creed states that the Trinitarian belief is the only way, the only truth, and the only life, and takes the place of the One who truly IS the only way, truth and life.

Now Eugene, if you can possibly give me some valid scriptural support that belief in the Trinity is necessary in order to be saved is a proven fact preached by Christ and the Apostles, I'll be interested. If it cannot be clearly shown, then it has no place as a mandate of the children of God. No more of this "historical, ritualistic, etc." nonsense. Just a glimmer of sciptural support, ok? Me thinks you don't give any credence to the sciptures as a viable form of proving solid doctrine to admonish the believers. You sure haven't offered any of the scriptures to support your claims, and that of the Athanasian Creed as of yet.

-- Eric Halleck (EHalleck@planetkc.com), October 28, 2003.

Eric,
You have simply misunderstood and misinterpreted Jesus Christ: ''Jesus said that we should receive those whom he recieves, and these creeds, whatever version you want to cling to, are diametrically opposed to that instruction,'' ''Whom He receives'', as you put it, is obviously never going to be anybody who denies His divinity. If He isn't God the Eternal Son, He is just a Man. There is no Atonement. Therefore, everybody loses, not only the ones ''cut off'' by a Creed.

It's basically what Athanasius said; no one is saved who denies the Holy Trinity! How can they be?

You read much more into the Gospel than Jesus promised souls. He stated as doctrine we are to observe everything He has commanded, (Matt 28, :19 and :20)-- and in that passage actually defines the Holy Trinity. Athanasius was correct and doesn't contradict Christ at all.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 28, 2003.

You are so wrong Eugene. WHOSOEVER SHALL CALL ON HIS NAME SHALL BE SAVED. Period. REPENT AND BE BAPTIZED. Period. You are exemplifying my point to a tee.

If He isn't God the Eternal Son, He is just a Man.

This is where your logic is skewed. He is more than just a man. He is the only begotten Son of God! The Lamb of God! He is the perfect, sinless sacrifice for all mankind! He has been made both Lord and Christ, and given all power in heaven and earth by His God and Father! Just a man? Think again.

And, let's not forget, he is also the MEDIATOR between God and men, the MAN Christ Jesus. I've asked before, but I'll ask again. If he is "God the Eternal Son", than who is your mediator?

-- Eric Halleck (Ehalleck@planetkc.com), October 28, 2003.

Jesus is our sole Mediator precisely because He alone is fully God AND fully man. No-one else could possibly serve as Mediator in the reparation of a broken relationship between God and man, except one who IS God and IS man. If mere man could have repaired the damage done by Adam and Eve, surely someone would have done so long before Jesus came along. And if God wanted to repair that relationship on his own, without involving man, then there was no reason for Jesus to be born. The only possible Mediator between God and man is the God-Man, Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. The work of mediation was completed on the cross. If Jesus was not man He could not have died. If He was not God, his death could not have saved the human race. It would only have been the death of another great prophet, no more effective in saving us than the death of Moses or Jeremiah. Whosoever shall call upon His name shall be saved. There is no mere man whose name can save anyone. Only the name of God.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 28, 2003.

Hi Paul,

Jesus is our sole Mediator precisely because He alone is fully God AND fully man. No-one else could possibly serve as Mediator in the reparation of a broken relationship between God and man, except one who IS God and IS man.

I'd be interested in how you have come to this conclusion? I know it is the standard party line, but I don't see it. First of all, Jesus is not just a "mere man" as you imply. He is the ONLY BEGOTTEN Son of God. No other man can lay claim to this. His ability to serve as mediator isn't because he is a God-Man, but rather is because His God and Father appointed Him to the task he was sent forth to accomplish, and anointed Him to that task. Jesus was obedient to the calling, and was perfect and sinless, thus making Him the Lamb of God. The scriptures state that the mediator between god and man is the man Christ Jesus, not the God-Man Christ Jesus.

Moses and Jeremiah were sinners, Paul. Their death would not have been sufficient to the cleansing required. They were spotted, while Jesus was, and is, the spotless Lamb of God. The sacrifice He gave to us, which makes the sacrifice sufficient.

Here are points to ponder. There is only one God. Period. That is the precept upon which all other precepts are built.

Jesus said His God and Father is also our God and Father, who is the only true God. Even now, in future tense, Jesus calls God Almighty His God - see Revelation 3:12.

God cannot be tempted, but Jesus was. No man has seen God at anytime, but thousands clearly saw Jesus. God is a Spirit, but Jesus was flesh and blood.

Christ means - Anointed One. If Jesus is God, then why would he need to be anointed? Did he anoint himself? And to what end would anointing himself accomplish? To become twice the God he was before he was anointed? Furthermore, one who is anointed needs someone to anoint them....who did this?

Peter stated that this same Jesus, who was crucified, was made Lord and Christ. Made? If he was God, why would he need to be made Lord and Christ? Peter also stated that all power in heaven and earth were GIVEN to Jesus. Once again, if he was God, who gave Him all this power? Did he give it to himself? Why would it even be necessary to give it to him at all? Wouldn't he already have it?

Jesus said His Father was greater than him. If Jesus is God, than was he suggesting he was a lesser God of some sort? This cuts against the one God precept. He also said he could do nothing by himself. God unable to do something? That seems out of character for an omnipotent God.

There is no mere man whose name can save anyone. Only the name of God.

Once again I will concur with you. No mere man can save anyone. But Yahshua (Jesus) is no mere man. The name of God is another topic all unto itself. I'd be interested in knowing when God Almighty changed His name, when He told Moses His name is Yahweh, and would be as a memorial unto all generations.

Prov 30:4 Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?

-- Eric Halleck (EHalleck@planetkc.com), October 28, 2003.

Dear Eric,
You came to us with serious questions. You received serious answers. Now because you have faith only in your own biblical wisdom, you are unsatisfied with the answers. But it's your fault. No man should have overweening faith in his own wisdom. To God, the wisdom of men is folly.

By this useless faith in your warped interpretation of the scripture you will always be opposed to the true faith. You can't understand why Christ's true followers would not place faith in you? Is that proper? And I mean faith in you ! This is the depth of your delusion, that you have no peers! Not even the Church; whom you are willing to impugn on account of your personal vain glory.

This is the Church given to the world by GOD; He is Jesus Christ. You are to be a member of His Church, not her opponent. The Church is your teacher and mother. By disputing with the Church you align yourself with all those who persecuted Christ! Do you want to go down to the place where Nero went?

Why, Eric, haven't you been willing to discuss your blessed ancestors? I posed the certainty to you more than once; that they have been faithful Catholics not so many generations ago. All of them, then, knew well Jesus Christ is God the Son.

You seem uninterested in the history of the true faith; a faith for which your ancestors likely have even suffered martyrdom! Do you realise this fact, and still dispute?

Is it because you have a better faith? A faith you concocted for yourself from Sola Scriptura? Well; that's very obvious. And you aren't unique. Many millions are with you. Descendants of Catholics have become turncoats to Jesus Christ by rejecting His One True Church!

The historical certainty is: you embrace errors instead of His Holy Gospel, given to you in His Church.

Furthermore, you're among those in a particularly myopic minority; denying Jesus is God. It makes you anathema. How sorry I am for you!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 28, 2003.

More & more I am suspecting (realising) Eric Halleck is a loving disciple of the refined and charming Elder T. Byron Gantry. The good Elder was here under specious circumstances for some days; arguing against a Trinity; and made no dents in our rocky faith.

So; now Eric has a swing at it. His intellectual property is the same as Elder gantry's; a bizzare interpretation of scripture; with no resemblance to exegesis. An infantile grasp of the role of any apostolic Church. And, yes very laudable; love for the NAME of Jesus Christ.

Catholics also have Holy Name Societies, at least here in our country. I sympathize there with Elder's & Eric's knightly reverence for the name of Our Holy Saviour.

But why should we give away the store? If Eric loves Jesus' name, Eric should love Jesus' Word, and not distort it. Love Jesus' Church, and not spurn her. Love the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and not deny God.

It's time for Eric to return to his Elder with the news. No, Sir. Couldn't convert those mackerel-snappers. They are a hidebound bunch; have been for almost 2,000 years; can you believe it?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 28, 2003.

Eugene, You are right. I came here with serious questions, and have validated my argument with scriptural support of why I pose these questions. It is quite apparent that while I am maligned for my handling of the scriptures, I am given no support for why I am wrong, other than the continual “historical precedent” argument. “We’ve believed this for hundreds of years, we must be right!” That is no way to prove anything, and smacks of superiority complex.

I’ve said from the very beginning that this is NOT an attack on your faith, nor on the church. It is an honest evaluation of a church law that should have scriptural support for it. This is not an effort to gain a following, because I have no desire to be followed. My desire is to point to Jesus, and say follow Him! Any Creed should do the same, but unfortunately this Creed, uncertain in authorship or origin, points to something other than Christ, and says follow it.

When you want to offer substance to this discussion, rather than your continual rambling of why you are superior to me, than bring it. While you misalign me as a believer in Sola Scriptura (wrongfully so), you show that you are a firm believer in No Scriptura.

Come on Eugene, I’m from Missouri – SHOW ME. Show me where Christ said I must believe in the Trinity in order to be saved. Show me where the Apostles said I needed to believe in the Trinity. Is this unreasonable to ask? What is a person supposed to do? Just close their eyes and follow you because you, and this creed says so? Where is the biblical precedent for that? The only one I know of is the blind leading the blind.

By the way, I have no idea who Elder Byron Gentry is. And I might add that though you accuse others of having no resemblence of exegesis, you sure haven’t offered any critical explanation of the text yourself!

-- Eric Halleck (EHalleck@planetkc.com), October 29, 2003.

Well, Dear Eric:
''You ask a good question, '' where Christ said I must believe in the Trinity in order to be saved? Show me where the Apostles said I needed to believe in the Trinity?''

It's an elementary truth that for one to believe in Jesus Christ one must stay faithful to everything Jesus is and everything He taught us. You won't find His followers calling Jesus something He isn't and wasn't. You won't get Jesus' followers to deny His grace in the Church, as if we didn't care for Him. Or Jesus' followers modifying His words to uphold their private agendas.

You do all those things, you deny Jesus' major teachings. It's easy for us to see.

When you presume to compartmentalize the honest words of His apostle Thomas; ''My Lord and my God'' as something preposterous; how can you call yourself a true believer? You embrace a stinking heresy!

That is merely ONE of the erroneous interpretations you've given here. This sham burden of proof you place on us-- as if we had obligations to ''prove'' something openly REVEALED by God; an article of FAITH-- the burden of proof you offer me is sheer paradox. YOU should be proving what you think you read in the Holy Bible! Not us! The Bible isn't a heretic's property! The Bible is for those who really accept Jesus Christ, as He revealed Himself.

''Show me where the Apostles said I needed to believe in the Trinity.'' You are shown clearly throughout the gospel narratives Christ came from heaven sent by His Father. His mother's cousin Elizabeth called Him ''My Lord,''; He said more than once He was One with the Father. In Luke, 3 :21 the Epiphany, the Three Holy Persons, One God are literally shown us by the evangelist. The voice of the Almighty Father calls Jesus His Son; and the Holy Spirit is seen descending over him at His baptism. He told us in the gospels He was to return in time, upon the clouds in power & majesty, as God in triumph. He was called God by the apostle Thomas, and again by Saint Paul: ''. . . in Jesus Christ, who though He was by nature God, did not consider being equal to God a thing to be clung to, but emptied Himself;'' (Phil 2, :5).

If your salvation depends upon your belief in Jesus Our Saviour, you will most certainly endanger it by denying the Person He truly is. You won't be saved by tailoring the Word of God to suit your own fancy.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 29, 2003.

---

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 29, 2003.

Eugene,

You still did not show me where the mandate is that says I must believe in the Trinity to be saved. You say it is sham proof, that I should be proving what I think I read in the Holy Bible. I've done that. Repeatedly. Thus, the burden of proof falls on the unknown author of the Athanasian Creed, and anyone who embraces it, that its mandates are valid.

His mother's cousin Elizabeth called Him ''My Lord,'';

Lord: NT:2962

kurios (koo'-ree-os); from kuros (supremacy); supreme in authority, i.e. (as noun) controller; by implication, Mr. (as a respectful title):

As opposed to God, as in John 20:17:

John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

theos (theh'-os); of uncertain affinity; a deity, especially (with NT:3588) the supreme Divinity; figuratively, a magistrate; by Hebraism, very:

Next:

He said more than once He was One with the Father.

He also said we are also to be one with them. Does your logic allow us to be God as well?

Next:

In Luke, 3 :21 the Epiphany, the Three Holy Persons, One God are literally shown us by the evangelist. The voice of the Almighty Father calls Jesus His Son; and the Holy Spirit is seen descending over him at His baptism.

I'm not disputing this event. You interpret this as being proof of a Trinity. Can we just jump to the conclusion and form a doctrine based on that event? Hardly.

Just the same, where was the mandate to believe in the Trinity in order to be saved? This event must be taken into consideration with all other scriptures. The nature of Jesus was not even a topic in this event! What was clear was that the one Jesus calls His God and Father obliterated any doubt as to who Jesus was, God Almighty's beloved Son in whom He was well pleased. The only BEGOTTEN (created, made) Son, who God gave as a perfect sacrifice for all mankind.

Next:

He told us in the gospels He was to return in time, upon the clouds in power & majesty, as God in triumph.

You are going to have to show me where it says he is returning as "God in triumph".

Next:

Form of God - there are two definitions for this particular word "form". The correct definition of this word must of course be weighed against all other precepts. It is a fact that Jesus was a partaker of the divine nature (as we also are). It also fact that he was anointed by the one he calls His God and Father, and given all power (authority) in heaven and earth. He also was made Lord and Christ by His God and Father. Thus, to me, being in the form of God does not equate to being God, especially when the attributes that made Jesus to be in the form of God were given to him by the Almighty God - the only true God.

Thus, when I read this, I see Jesus as kurios not theos. It is the only way to reconcile how Jesus has been made Lord and Christ, and given all the authority he possesses. If he has always been God, then Gods cannot give himself something he doesn't already have, or make him something he already is.

Does this diminish his authority? By no means! However, it doesn't elevate him above His God and Father, it places him in proper perspective:

1 Cor 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him [Jesus], then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

Think about it.

-- Eric Halleck (EHalleck@planetkc.com), October 29, 2003.

italics off and >>> Sola Scriptura is not biblical. But I bet if you went far enough into outer space and had a sensitive enough stethescope you might hear the echoing words of an Apostle. They just were not recorded in the Catholic bible.

-- Mike H. (beginasyouare@hotmail.com), October 29, 2003.

Thank you Mike. I'm sure all sound doctrine can be built upon this precept you just presented!

-- Eric Halleck (EHalleck@planetkc.com), October 29, 2003.

Eric,
There's nothing to be added. you've received serious answers. It is you who won't try to apply logic.

I said you came to demand proof. Yes, what a sham. The Church is our final authority. Not your definitions.

If you believe your skirting of the truth and boxing in of the various commentaries found in scripture on Christ's nature constitute ''sound doctrine'', take your doctrine and go in peace. You're confirming your own heresy. All heretics rejected the authority of the Catholic Church, you aren't the only one. Almost all of them had a bag of tricks squeezed out of the scriptures. You have yours. The Word of God was not recorded to attack His own revelations; so you've perverted that Holy Word.

Do you cost yourself salvation by becoming a formal heretic? That is, by denying the Holy Trinity?

It's a sin. Sin can bring damnation on a man, if he never repents. You are unrepentent. We can only pray for you, and blame your rejection of the apostles faith on ignorance. May God be merciful to you.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 29, 2003.

Same ole story, same ole song and dance Eugene. You accuse me of "no resemblence of exegesis", and when I apply proper hermeneutics to review the verses you pose, you call me a heretic. Which one of my responses did not apply proper hermeneutics Eugene? You have the audacity to say I'm not applying logic? Excuse me? I have applied logic, but more importantly, I've applied logic on a scriptural level, taking the verses and the topic at hand even to their proper definitions. Me thinks your definition of logic is to blindly accept how YOU define a verse, even when properly looked at from the true authors intent of what they were conveying.

Do you read "Lord" always as God Almighty (theos")? So Jesus was made "theos" (Supreme Diety)? How do you propose one is made a Supreme Deity? Just an example of where I properly apply hermeneutics in relation to your "proof text". Where are your exegesis skills Eugene?

There is plenty yet to be added Eugene. I've offered my views, and have asked serious questions, but they go unanswered. Well, not completely unanswered, since the typical answer is "The Church is our final authority. Not your definitions." Actually, I have no problem with this answer, as long as the authority has the scriptural support to back it up.

Eugene, I have not offered much more than what the scriptures state as to who Jesus Christ is, yet you say I'm skirting the truth (which can and always will be supported by the scriptures). Sorry Eugene. If the commentaries found in the scripture box in the nature of Christ, then shouldn't that be the litmus test of all sound doctrine? Instead of acknowledging that what the scriptures plainly say, you tell me "take youe heretical doctrine and go in peace"? Once again Eugene you are proving to me you operate on a level of No Scriptura, especially when things like the Athanasian Creed are shot down in flames by the inspired Word of God! The scriptures are a bag of tricks? Well praise the Lord for that!

Show me, Eugene, since you want to accuse me of it, where I have perverted the Word of God. Show me where I have attacked Jesus own revelations, or the revelations and preaching of the Apostles. Remember Eugene, I'm from Missouri - you are going to have to Show Me, not just tell me. You want to show me, Eugene, and then you will see the repentence. The only thing I've done here is not acknowledged that the Athanasian Creed as my creed, and you want to call that sin?

I've presented some pretty hard points, none of which you have touched on, and I'll be interested in your exegesis of the scriptures in response.

-- Eric Halleck (EHalleck@planetkc.com), October 29, 2003.

Eric, you are developing diarrhea of the fingers (logorrhea, if you prefer). Sane people are not interested in answering a person like you who goes on and on with all these long messages covering multiple points.

You are able to raise one complex objection in a single sentence or phrase, but it can take us five or more sentences to refute you (which is what we end up doing to EVERY objection of yours). Your posts are loaded up with fifteen objections -- something impossible to reply to. But then you complain that you aren't getting answers! Straighten up, man! Make your posts very short, with only ONE question or objection in each.

Having been away from the forum for four or five days, I just now had the displeasure of reading everything you posted since the 27th. You are getting more and more obnoxious. You need to change or leave, in my opinion.

To touch on one error of yours ... You wrote: "My quest in this IS personal, as the verbage of the Athanasian Creed is extremely stiff, and in effect cuts off a vast majority of others who claim Christ as their Savior and Lord."

You are wrong. You have misinterpreted the meaning of an article in the Creed. The Church considers the Athanasian Creed infallible. Yet the Church teaches that salvation is possible for some people who are not "card-carrying Catholics." That should prove to you that you are misinterpreting the Creed, because it cannot, and does not, contradict the Church's teaching on salvation.

-- (What@The.Halleck?), November 01, 2003.

True; and added to that is the problem Eric shall always have with the actual authority behind his litmus test, text-proof. This authority comes not from old manuscripts preserved in the Church from antiquity, but from the apostles themselves.

Who would presume to prove from the scripture what runs contrary to the preaching of its authors? They had the protection of the Holy Spirit when the Word of God was preached. That protection traces back to the upper room and the birth of the Church. Only many years later did the oral Word find its way into print.

Now, we have heretical newcomers who take the same book, and expect to prove from that a different version of the truth.

Our only recourse against this stacking of the deck is to appeal to the Church, not the Bible. The Church where the Bible had its origin, in the Holy Spirit.

Eric would appeal to the Bible alone, in order to neutralize the teachings of Christ's apostles & disciples, who gave us the Bible! For what purpose? To substitute the words of men, heresies.

In this scheme it's not hard to detect the workings of the devil, who desires all truth to fall before him. Eric forgets the devil quoted scriptures to Jesus Christ. Now the devil wishes to shake the Church's faith through the Bible and its worshippers. So, by denying all testimony except the Bible, Eric cuts the Holy Spirit out of the equation. Not today, Eric. Go in peace, and keep your heretical exegesis and hackneyed hermeneuticals.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 01, 2003.

Thank you ???,

Someone finally got around to the original question. If I have addressed several different points in a single post, it has only been done in order to address the several points given to me to examine.

You are wrong. You have misinterpreted the meaning of an article in the Creed. The Church considers the Athanasian Creed infallible. Yet the Church teaches that salvation is possible for some people who are not "card-carrying Catholics." That should prove to you that you are misinterpreting the Creed, because it cannot, and does not, contradict the Church's teaching on salvation. I appreciate this response because it does get right to the point of what I've been asking. It is still confusing, since on one hand the Church says the Athanasian Creed is infallible, yet on the other hand says the Church teaches something differently than what the Creed plainly states. Words such as "necessary, whole and undefiled, faithfully and firmly" don't leave much wiggle room if we accept the words for what they mean.

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic Faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity. This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.

Since the Church now teaches "...salvation is possible for some people who are not "card-carrying Catholics.", I'd be interested in where this new infallible word is mentioned. I would like to know how "some people" is defined, and what is now considered the Faith required to believe in order to be saved. Does it include (require) belief in the Trinity?

I will say this seems a contradiction of requirements, but I'll await the reference requested.

-- Eric Halleck (EHalleck@planetkc.com), November 03, 2003.

Eugene,

You present a problem in your logic that is concerning to me. You stated:

Our only recourse against this stacking of the deck is to appeal to the Church, not the Bible.

It seems to me that you couldn't care less if there was a written record of what the Apostles taught and preached. You would rather take the word of the Church (Pope and Magesterium) over the scriptures, rather than weighing what they say against the scriptures. Thus, sound doctrine doesn't have to be supported by the scriptures (according to your logic). Sound doctrine is whatever the Pope and Magesterium say it is, even if it cannot be supported by the recorded teachings of the Apostles.

Indeed the devil has and does quote scripture. This is why we are to try the spirits whether they are of God or not. And when Creeds of Men are established that cannot measure up to the test of the scriptures in what they teach and demand of a believer, I would say that is a pretty clear indicator something is amiss.

You see Eugene, it isn't a matter of dismissing all other testimonies than that which is in the Bible. It is a matter in which any testimony should be able to be proven as valid according to scriptural standards. Especially when the testimony, preaching, teaching, and dogma involves salvation.

-- Eric Halleck (EHalleck@planetkc.com), November 03, 2003.

Eric; I find your explanation perfectly sound, and cannot understand the block of those who cannot see it.

The Creeds say what they mean, and mean whaat they say. To find something that is not there is just Inovating, to suit the mindset of those who oppose these creeds.

-- Sidney (Brothman@intella.com), November 03, 2003.

"It seems to me that you couldn't care less if there was a written record of what the Apostles taught and preached. You would rather take the word of the Church (Pope and Magesterium) over the scriptures, rather than weighing what they say against the scriptures"

A: If the Church didn't "care" about preserving the writings of the Apostles, the Church would not have preserved them, and would not have compiled the Bible. The fact that the Holy Catholic Church called a Council of its bishops for the express purpose of discerning which of its writings could definitively be identified as divinely inspired, and bound them into a book for all posterity, should stand as clear testimony to the immense value the Church places on these written records.

"Thus, sound doctrine doesn't have to be supported by the scriptures (according to your logic).

A: Sound doctrine is supported by the scriptures, but that doesn't mean it has to spelled out in the scriptures. Would you suggest that no doctrinal belief the Apostles received from the lips of Jesus was "sound" until an Apostle happened to mention it in his correspondence? What kind of logic is that? The teachings of the Apostles were absolutely "sound" long before they were ever written down, and would have remained just as "sound" if they had NEVER been written down at all - or never subsequently compiled by the Catholic Church into a book.

Anyone with any understanding of the origins of the Bible recognizes at once that this collection of assorted writings was never intended to be a complete handbook of Christian doctrine. In fact, it was never originally intended to be a book at all! When the Thessalonians or the Hebrews or the Colossians were having specific problems in their individual communities, Paul wrote to them and addressed those specific problems. He did not intend or attempt to provide them with a comprehensive course in the Christian faith. Why did Paul write so much about marriage? Because the people he was writing to were having difficulties in that particular area at that particular time. Why does he say so little about baptism? Because the essential facts regarding baptism were already well established and widely accepted by the time Paul wrote, so no local churches were having any great difficulty in that important area of Christian doctrine. The epistles then, address specific issues which called for specific spiritual direction in a specific time and place. What Paul wrote is surely of value in any time and place, but his writings can hardly be expected to address all important questions of the faith - and it is very clear that they don't! Therefore, while is certainly valid to say that no teaching of the Church can conflict with what is in scripture, it is ridiculous to expect that every teaching Christ gave His Church would have ended up being covered in the twenty-seven writings which the Church decided to include in its book. And it is a given that nothing in the Bible conflicts with Catholic teaching, for if it did the Catholic Church would not have allowed it into the Bible in the first place.

"Sound doctrine is whatever the Pope and Magesterium say it is, even if it cannot be supported by the recorded teachings of the Apostles"

A: If you really accepted what IS recorded in the Bible, you would not make such a meaningless statement. The Bible clearly records Jesus telling the leaders of His Church "he who hears you hears Me". Note - he who HEARS you, not he who READS what you have written. The Bible records Jesus telling the leaders of His Church "whatsoever you bind on earth is bound in heaven". Note - WHATSOEVER you bind, not whatsoever you have mentioned in your correspondence. Sound doctrine is defined not by the fact that a specific doctrine was spelled out by an apostle writing to a distant community 2,000 years ago, but by the well supported Biblical fact that Jesus Christ guaranteed the soundness of ALL doctrinal teaching by His Church.

"And when Creeds of Men are established that cannot measure up to the test of the scriptures in what they teach and demand of a believer, I would say that is a pretty clear indicator something is amiss"

A: Amiss? And do you think that something is amiss when men DO use the scriptures alone as a source of their beliefs, and consequently fragment into thousands of conflicting denominations preaching contradictory beliefs?? Now there is "amiss" for you! Jesus said "by their fruit shall ye know them". The fruit of your sola scriptura approach to doctrine has been the utter demolition of God's plan for His Church - "that they all may be ONE, even as you Father and I are ONE" - in a mere 450 years. The fruit of Catholicism is worldwide unity of belief after 2,000 years. By their fruits shall ye know them.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 03, 2003.

Good Day Paul,

What I wrote to Eugene was not written as an indictment of the entire RCC. HIS logic seemed to suggest that the scriptures were not a valid source of where we can obtain sound doctrine.

Our only recourse against this stacking of the deck is to appeal to the Church, not the Bible. Eugene

These are his words, and I’m one for taking them for what they are. This is what I was addressing to Eugene. It has been a theme consistent throughout this thread from him, so I don’t think it inappropriate to call him to task for it.

Sound doctrine is supported by the scriptures, but that doesn't mean it has to spelled out in the scriptures. Would you suggest that no doctrinal belief the Apostles received from the lips of Jesus was "sound" until an Apostle happened to mention it in his correspondence?

Paul, lets not forget what the doctrine is I am asking for scriptural support for – salvation.

I have stated before that I firmly believe the scriptures are inspired (divinely breathed) and penned by anointed men of God. I firmly believe these truths have been preserved for our learning. That is, blessed are we who believe, having not seen. Therefore what was written and divinely preserved is an account of what the Lord and His Apostles taught and preached. What they taught then by word of mouth was sound, and what they teach now, through the inspired Word of God is sound. The Bible is therefore the standard by which all other doctrines and teachings must be compared to.

Especially the doctrine pertaining to salvation. It would be absurd to think that what they taught and preached as significant portions of required beliefs in order to be saved would not have been included in the epistles and letters to the churches, ie, the scriptures. Thus, when you say “sound doctrine is supported by the sciptures”, I would like to see where the proof is that supports the mandates as set forth by the Athanasian Creed.

It should be there, don’t you think?

Paul, I am not disputing that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God. But as I’m sure you will agree, there are a lot of voices out there preaching, and calling what they are preaching the Word of God. How does one prove or disprove their claims? By going back to see what the Apostles had to say on the matter, if anything at all. But once again we are talking about salvation, and there are very clear standards set forth about this. Thus what is recorded must be the standard by which any other statement of faith must be measured against.

If you want to call that “sola scriptura”, then go ahead. But when I have a voice saying “This is what the Apostles taught and preached”, then I am compelled to go to the extensive list of writings preserved by God to see if that claim is true. When that voices commands don’t show up in those letters, epistles, etc., it definitely points to something amiss alright.

-- Eric Halleck (EHalleck@planetkc.com), November 03, 2003.

Eric; what does it require to make you desist? Here you make a big meal out of one statement; ''Our only recourse against this stacking of the deck is to appeal to the Church, not the Bible''-- and nothing on the context. Why do I say stacking the deck? Not because I wanted to exclude any Bible proof. It's because you won't accept anything EXCEPT that!

Follow it up: ''So, by denying all testimony except the Bible, Eric cuts the Holy Spirit out of the equation.'' --In that case, appeal to the Church, and the Holy Spirit indwelt in her. You maintain the Church has to be ratified by scripture altogether. I'll reply the Bible is written on the work of the Church and the Holy Spirit. --All the proof our Bible has of its intrinsic veracity is the power of the Church to SAY SO to this world!

Therefore, that Church has every bit as much authority as the WHOLE Bible; Old and New Testaments. You cannot circumvent the Church of the holy apostles in matters of the faith!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 03, 2003.

“The purpose of the Bible is not to reveal doctrine to us”. Paul

Our only recourse against this stacking of the deck is to appeal to the Church, not the Bible. Eugene

Is this really the mindset of the RCC? The Bible is irrelevant to the cause of proving all things, and holding fast to that which is good? The Bible isn't the standard followed by the Church? Doctrine of the Church is not from the scriptures, but is from other sources? An honest question, hoping for an honest answer. Thank you.

-- Eric Halleck (EHalleck@planetkc.com), November 03, 2003.

So, by denying all testimony except the Bible, Eric cuts the Holy Spirit out of the equation.

You don't know any other tunes do you Eugene? When I call you to task on your own words, you want to accuse me of rejecting the Holy Spirit! Seems to me this is what YOU imply when you "appeal to the Church, not the Bible." Either the scriptures are inspired by God, or they are not. Whose diminishing the importance of the inspiration of God here, Eugene?

-- Eric Halleck (EHalleck@planetkc.com), November 03, 2003.

Eric,

I think you are misunderstanding. Of course Catholics believe in Scripture. We compilied what was True, and discarded what wasn't with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. For the New Testament even Martin Luther admitted that. The question is more of a "what came first, the chicken or the egg" though. The Bible didn't cause the church, the church existed before any of the New Testament was even written. The church compiled the Bible.

Without the Bible, the church could continue, if it kept faithfully to Christ's teachings.

Without the Church, the Bible is meaningless as there is no authority left to say what is authentic *interpretation* of Divinely inspired scripture and what isn't. As an example, some Protestant churches now accept practicing homosexual Bishops (who have divorced their wife to live a homosexual life), others do not. Both cite Scripture to back up their choice. Who is right? What good is the Bible by itself if you can read into it what you want? OTOH the CORRECT interpretation of the Bible is invaluable for Salvation, and with the CORRECT interpretation of Christ's Truth, the church could continue even without the Bible.

Try and think about this before you run off and say "Catholics don't believe in the Bible", we do, and more than any Protestant group in existence. We love it so much we only want the REAL meaning of Scripture, and are not content with what every guy with an agenda makes up to support his cause.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), November 03, 2003.

Eric's post above: ''Now if you would like to address why the Apostles never once made any requirements as Athanasius made as to what one must do and believe in order to be saved, I'd like to hear it. Until then, I'm taking the scriptures over the product of debate – the Athanasian creed – first.''

Address the first part: The apostles HAVE taught us the various articles of faith you find offensive. The reason this escapes you is simple: the scriptures reduce the entire body of revealed truth into a series of letters and the gospels. Much of what the Church has preserved is only obliquely cited in these books. You are perfectly happy and content with that much and no more.

If by the same route you had the good fortune to appreciate Christ's Holy Church and hear her, all the wealth of revealed truth would come to you intact and perfect; NOT reduced to a Christian digest. A (Bible) digest, we might add, which you brutally misinterpret so often.

The subject Catholics know as INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE has something very important about it, which if you investigated would clear you of misconceptions about the Athanasian Creed's seeming inflexibility. Because even with many stern doctrines in the apostles' teachings, there are alongside doctrines that demand some form of equilibrium; they can never be side-stepped. Most wonderful and true of all are Catholic doctrines which teach of Almighty God's infinite perfection.

There is plenty of data to back these in the Old & New Testaments. Outstanding are: God the Omnipotent, Omniscient, All Merciful, All Just, All Wise and All Loving. We see them well illustrated by Our Lord in the gospel narratives.

God being by divine nature All Just will exact perfect Justice. He could not perfectly deal that way if He unjustly damned a soul who had no idea what he must believe or reject.

This is invincible ignorance. God's infinite Justice and Mercy are remote from all possibility of punishing blameless ignorance. Here is a doctrinal clause to place side by side with the Athanasian conditions for salvation. It isn't rocket science, Eric.

A soul who dies in repentence --perfect repentence for sins; and has a just history withal that no knowledge of Christ or his Gospel, may yet find mercy. Because God is Mercy Never- ending! It is SIN which earns damnation; and God can and will wash away sins through His divine Son's infinite merits. A soul that is acceptable to Him though invincibly ignorant may be saved after all; once freed from sin. This comes about in only one way; by hrist's death and resurrection.

We have no way of knowing if this is even possibly frequent. But we know God is perfect and Infinitely Good to His creatures; so there has to be an avenue open to Him.

Even so, in essence the Creeds declare what the believer must confess: ALL OF IT!

''Until then,(says Eric) I'm taking the scriptures over the product of debate – the Athanasian creed – first.'' -- > > > OK; suit yourself, don't have faith in God if you don't care to. The way is always open to you.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 03, 2003.

Hi Frank,

I'm not running off and saying that Catholics don't believe the Bible. I'm not the one who has said that it isn't good for revealing doctrine to us, and that we should appeal to the Church, not the Bible.

I realize that the scriptures are a product of the church, and not vice-versa. I also understand that without the Bible, the church could continue. However, that isn't what is being disputed. The fact is that the Bible DOES exist, and HAS been perserved by God. It is inspired, is good for sound doctrine, and does provide the basic fundamental teachings taught by Christ and the Apostles.

What is in dispute here is that the inspired teachings, as recorded in the Bible, do not correlate to the Athanasian Creed.

Without the Church, the Bible is meaningless as there is no authority left to say what is authentic *interpretation* of Divinely inspired scripture and what isn't.

In part I agree with you, but once again this is purely a hypothetical situation you present. Be that as it may, the bible would NOT be meaningless if there were no church. The Author of it said he would preserve it, and HE will authenticate it if he had to! But that is of course a hypothetical situation we don't live in, so there really is no sense in discussing what may be. Let's discuss what IS.

Of course the scriptures are clear on the issue of homosexuality. Just because there are Protestants and Catholics alike who want to ignore it doesn't make it sound doctrine. Nature itself speaks volumes about this, so to me there is no dispute. But you do indeed bring up a valid question, and runs parallel to my own query:

What good is the Bible by itself if you can read into it what you want?

Precisely. It is a question of authority, and what the Author meant when He inspired the writers to write what they did. And, in relation to the topic of salvation, what good is it if someone determined to place upon a believer something that neither Jesus, nor the Apostles, placed on anyone in order to be saved? My agenda is simple Frank. To reconcile why this creed exists, when the scriptures don't make any such claims for a believer to believe in order to be saved. My agenda is the truth, and the heart of God, to know what he truly wants for and from His people.

I really wish that someone would get beyond all this defensiveness about why they uphold the Athanasian Creed and its demands, and get to the reasons why, scripturally supported, of course.

-- Eric Halleck (EHalleck@planetkc.com), November 03, 2003.

While the people were being subdued with threats of eternal damnation for even thinking of resistance to the changes (really the only thing for which one could be damned anymore!) the teaching and practice for every aspect of the Faith were drastically altered, so that, by now, that which is presented as worship in the churches bears less resemblance to ancient rites than do the worship services of many Protestant churches. The noble and doctrinally precise Latin, which dates in many prayers to the earliest years of the Church in Rome, has been replaced with vernacular verbiage which means, like Pope John Paul's encyclical, one thing to "traditionalists," and something altogether different to "Conciliarists." This division will not be resolved for a long time to come, if at all.

-- (Riley78@earthnet.com), November 03, 2003.

Eric,

The fact is that the Bible DOES exist, and HAS been perserved by God. It is inspired, is good for sound doctrine, and does provide the basic fundamental teachings taught by Christ and the Apostles.

Thanks for your earlier clarifications (above this in your post). Here, I guess my point is that the Bible is an EXcellent source for sound doctrine, as it's the inspired Word of God. HOWEVER, this is assuming that the ***interpretation*** of the word is correct. If someone has a distorted interpretation of the Bible, and acts on it, this could be a very harmful situation indeed, even to where someone does the Devil's work believing they are doing the Lord's. That's why I think the Bible was de-emphasized by someone, it's the *correct interpretation* that's important.

What is in dispute here is that the inspired teachings, as recorded in the Bible, do not correlate to the Athanasian Creed.

I might have missed it earlier, why exactly are you concerned with the Athanasian Creed, and not the Nicene Creed in use today?

Of course the scriptures are clear on the issue of homosexuality

But that's the rub... It's clear to you and I, but NOT to the homosexual Bishop or his flock, apparently. Without submission of the individual to the Church's legitimate authority, this is the type of error you can have (and in a major church, not some Jim Jones cult).

My agenda is simple Frank. To reconcile why this creed exists, when the scriptures don't make any such claims for a believer to believe in order to be saved. My agenda is the truth, and the heart of God, to know what he truly wants for and from His people.

I really wish that someone would get beyond all this defensiveness about why they uphold the Athanasian Creed and its demands, and get to the reasons why, scripturally supported, of course.

Again, I guess my question is the same, why aren't you looking at the Nicene creed in middle of article

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), November 03, 2003.

Eric is imposing on the Catholic Church his overzealous concern for the Bible truth; a limit to what Christ's Church can teach and demand in the Creed.

We'll humor Eric; see what his pleasure is; does the Bible support him?

Because he can't see the need to accept a Holy Trinity for salvation, he can just deny it. He feels the scripture never told him to accept the Father Son Holy Spirit; or even the revelation that Jesus is God and equal to the Father. His idea being, Yeshuah is a holy man.

But this flies in the face of all sriptural truth; and Eric is forced into contorting basic statements within the revelation, trivializing them to his own level of thinking. ''My Lord and my God,'' from one eye-witness, becomes the parsed bowdlerization: ''He's Lord; another person within Him (and within me too) is the ''God'' part of Thomas's confession!''

These gymnastic interpretations are sad! They're tragic! Who will bend this poor man's will; bringing it into conformity with God's Holy Word?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 03, 2003.

Frank,

Eric's problem with the Athanasian Creed (which is one of our creeds, even though we rarely if ever read it) is clearly stated in the opening words of this thread -- and then repeated later I think. He gives this excerpt, which disturbs the hell out of him, because he has always misinterpreted it to be saying that we consider him to be damned, since he ain't a Catholic:

"Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic Faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity. This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved."

I partially pleased him yesterday by telling him that he has misinterpreted this passage, since it has to be read in light of the Church's teaching that some folks can be saved even though they are not "card-carrying Catholics." But now he seems to be saying that he cannot square my statement with the words of the credal excerpt just quoted.

What he has forgotten or never known is the context in which the Athanasian Creed was composed -- the tremendous problem of the Arian heresy, which denied the divine nature of Jesus. VAST numbers of Catholics (including bishops) fell into this heresy, which ripped and tore at the Church for many, many years -- especially strongly during some decades in the 4th and 5th centuries, if I recall correctly. And so, the excerpt that troubles Eric so much is actually directed toward faithful Catholics and those Catholics who had been excommunicated by adopting Arianism. The words are there to explain just how serious was the obligation of all those people to hold on to the genuine Trinitarian, Catholic faith. The words are NOT there to fool people who have been Protestant, Jew, Hindu, or atheist -- "from the cradle" -- into thinking that we consider them automatically damned unless they convert.

-- (What@The.Halleck?), November 03, 2003.

Hi Riley,

This division will not be resolved for a long time to come, if at all.Riley

I think you have a grasp on where I am headed, at least in my life, not just in this thread. I hold fast to the truth that there is a unity yet to be known, and that Christ will have His Body exactly as He said he would. I believe we will see the promises that His Church will be powerful, and do greater works than He did. I believe we will see this unity in love, when all the barriers that stand in the way are destroyed.

Yup, I'm seeing that teachings such as this are indeed a barrier to the calling we've all been called to. It unnecessarily blocks the way for multitudes to come to Christ, because of the extra-biblical language it forces on us to accept, or be damned.

There is a liberty from these walls of constraint, and though I'm testing the mortar, I'm not what is going to bring it down. Christ is the one that sets free, and walls such as the Athanasian Creed build barriers. Barriers to keep the flock in as dirty penned up sheep, and barriers to push other sheep out, not accepted as the fold because the Creeds of Men say so.

We are called to liberty, not manmade constraint. We know where our boundries are by whether we hear His voice or not. As I've said before, I've heard his voice from the Athanasian Creed, and those who uphold it as pure, infallible, and equal to the inspired scriptures. But I'm not buying it.

-- Eric Halleck (EHalleck@planetkc.com), November 03, 2003.

Hi Frank,

Interpretation is actually very simple in areas concerning the deity of Christ. I've shown it throughout various points in this thread, so I don't believe reiteration is necesaary. Simply put, if Christ didn't teach it, and if the Apostles didn't preach it, then the church shouldn't be dogmatic about it.

If my lack of belief in the Trinity is cause for concern, then I'll be happy to address that in depth. It is more than just interpretation, it is clearly defined precepts within the scripture that cause my concern. I understand why some hold fast to the Trinity theory (theory, because it has yet to be proven to me), but I do not damn someone for believing in the Trinity Doctrine. If they have accepted Jesus Christ as their Savior, and fully know that He died for them, and has been made Lord and Christ, I have no problem with the Lord doing whatever is necessary to bring unity to His people in this absolute truth.

The Nicene Creed is very much like the Athanasian Creed in language. Both are held up to be the dogma of the church, and anyone to be claiming to be Christs. My study was primarily directed towards the Athanasian Creed, thus my queries about it only.

Thank you for your response.

-- Eric Halleck (EHalleck@planetkc.com), November 04, 2003.

If anything John, going this route is going to make matters a lot worse.

I partially pleased him yesterday by telling him that he has misinterpreted this passage, since it has to be read in light of the Church's teaching that some folks can be saved even though they are not "card-carrying Catholics."

The first objection on my part is the obvious. It bores Eugene to tears so he says; I'm pretty sure it's never been read by Frank, it's mocked by kiwi, and it sends John into a tirade, but nevertheless, I'm going to say it again. Because it's true. Here it is again, for the uncountableth time... this statement:

"Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly."

...needs no interpretation. It is clear, precise, unambiguous and totally not open to any other interpretation than exactly what it said. It says what it says. Believe it, or deny it. Deny it, and you have denied that Catholic Faith.

That's how faith works. That's how intellectual and spiritual honesty works.

The alternative is harrowing in it's destruction of the Faith. If clear statements need interpretation, then interpretations will need interpretations, and so on, and so on, and so on. In fact, this is exactly what is being witnessed in the post-conciliar Church. Nobody can agree with anyone about who it orthodox and who isn't.

First Vatican II is assumed to have interpreted something definitively. But some confusion arises about certain things, so the CCC comes on line to interpret Vatican II. But it's a big book, see. Be not afraid, though. EWTN and Karl Keating will pick up the slack and take over from there; they'll tell all what it all means.

It gets better. Just when it looks as if all can be reconciled and made whole again (variagated unity?), the TRADS come into the picture. The traditional Catholics simply provide an endless and irritating regurgitation of actual, real 2,000 year-old Church doctrines and traditions. No problem, Matt1618 and Dave Armstrong have arisen to provide clarity for all. They they proceed to interpret things.

So what do you have in the final analysis? Who does the final interpretation? Dave Amstrong, and that's after the locals Gecik and Paul M. and friends fail at it, and start fighting with each other.

For Dave Armstrong hath the words of eternal life, right? Karl Keating and EWTN have the words of eternal life, right?

For when exactly did we actually lose the words of Life that we mightst needs them to re-aquire those words for us? Wake up. We have always had the Deposit of the Faith, nothing's changed, and we are all, each and every one of us, bound to this Deposit of the Faith whether we think we are smarter, or more enlightened, than said Deposit or not.

Nothing has changed; nothing ever will. This statement:

"Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly."

...is a true statement. It was true then, and it's true not. It's a Catholic statement. It's the truth. Believe it or die for eternity. Accept it, and begin living the life of in the pursuit of the Beatific Vision; be a member of the Mystical Body... pick up some charity along the way; die with Christ, rise again with Him. Be a future member of the Church Triumphant in the Heavenly Court.

This statement "card-carrying Catholics" is nowhere to be found in the teaching of the Church. It invokes no concept, doctrine or qualification established by Holy Mother Church.

Baptism, however, does, and is a Sacrament, and according to Trent and according to the words of Christ Himself and according to the Deposit of the Faith and enduring Tradition, Baptism is required for salvation.

That's Church teaching. If the "card" in the term "card-carrying Catholics" is a veiled reference to baptism... IF that's what's meant, then this statement:

"...the Church's teaching [is] that some folks can be saved even though they are not "card-carrying Catholics..."

...is rank heresy.

Maybe it's time to turn the accusations and point to where they belong, and make them stick. It can be done, but the question is, should it be done. That's something that honest Catholics ask themselves.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 04, 2003.

Hi ???,

You did not answer my question posed to you by your post. Where is the teaching of the RCC that overturns the Athanasian Creed and its dogmatic language?

It disturbs me for sure, for the whole body is comprised of members both within, and without, this Creedal formula set forth by the Athanasian Creed. You presented this, therefore I hope you can show the support for it as well. I'm still awaiting a response to the definition of "some folks" as well.

All of this seems rather vague compared to the scriptural precepts of what one must do and believe in order to be saved. Let's see: clarityt, or vagueness - your eternal salvation is the goal. Which one would you grab hold of?

Clarity please.

-- Eric Halleck (EHalleck@planetkc.com), November 04, 2003.

"Where is the teaching of the RCC that overturns the Athanasian Creed and its dogmatic language?"

There are none that overturn this creed.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 04, 2003.

Thank you Emerald for the answer. It seems I've gone full circle here, and I'm still left with the same questions I started out with.

1) How has a Creed that has no certain authorship nor origin ended up as a hallmark of the church?

2) Where is the scriptural precedence that makes the Athanasian Creed have any validity?

3) Where in the scriptures are the accounts where Jesus and / or the Apostles required belief in the Trinity in order to be saved, or be damned?

-- Eric Halleck (EHalleck@planetkc.com), November 04, 2003.

Matt 28 :19--''Go therefore, and make disciples of all nations,'' --Being addressed to His apostles, who started the Catholic faith in the world.

Make disciples is very direct; a command. Disciples presuppose Masters, Teachers. He taught everything to the apostles, He was the Master, they the disciples. They were Masters to those whom they went out to convert.

You fail to see a Master; His Church. You think all we need is a Bible and we're our own master. But / not what Christ commanded: ''Go and make disciples of all nations,''

You are actually a disciple by calling. Only you have rebelled against yur Master. Here's the necessary basis for our faith. Catholics follow Christ because they are faithful DISCIPLES; believers. If we are to be faithful, we have to accept all the Church's teaching, since her Masters sat at the feet of Jesus Christ, the Master of us all.

The Trinity; our various tenets of faith, the Divinity of the Son of God; every truth we are taught, is given us by these Teachers, who were taught by Jesus Christ. Athanasius was also taught by the Masters; those disciples of the apostles, who learned at the feet of Jesus Christ. (If the author of this creed is unknown, that can't matter. The Holy Trinity is still a revealed truth from the apostles, ergo, from Christ. The disciple learns. He doesn't improvise, as you do, Eric.

Notice as well, the same passage above leads to, ''Baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.'' The Thrice-Holy God who reveals Himself in His Son Jesus Christ; as the Bible definitely teaches.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 04, 2003.

Enough rhetoric Eugene. Just answer the questions would ya? They are straight forward questions, and should be easily substantiated by the written records of the teachings of the Apostles.

-- Eric Halleck (EHalleck@planetkc.com), November 04, 2003.

Fine, Eric. You should be capable of that substantiation. It's all in the scriptures. You could very well condense the proofs into:

Believe in Jesus Christ--

Every word that came from Jesus Christ. Not a selection; every word. If we reject certain ''implausible'' words, they remain His words. By rejecting what we deem implausible, we reject the One who spoke them.

Which, seen in proper context means we DO NOT have faith in Him, and cannot be saved.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 04, 2003.

Which “implausible” words are you suggesting that I am rejecting Eugene? Yours? You haven’t shown me one shred of scriptural evidence to support the Athanasian Creed dogmatic language. All you’ve offered is why I need to put my Bible down and hear what you have to say.

Maybe it is the implausible statement of Jesus who said that His Father was greater than him. His implausible statement that His God and Father is the ONLY true God. Maybe the implausibility that His God and Father is also my God and Father. Possibly the implausible words of Peter who proclaimed a perfect answer to the question of who Christ is, or maybe the implausible blessing of that answer by Jesus. The implausible statement that says Jesus was made Lord and Christ, and given all power in heaven and earth. Or maybe it is the implausible declaration by Paul that all things shall be subdued unto Jesus, who will in turn will be subject unto His God and Father who put all things under Him. Then again, maybe it is the implausibility that the mediator between God and man is the man Christ Jesus. And of course, let’s not forget that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself.

These are very plausible, and easily understood precepts Eugene. I find no reason to consider them implausible at all. The author of the Athanasian Creed demands me to think otherwise. These precepts come from your Bible, as well as mine. Call them implausible all you want, but they aren’t to me.

-- Eric Halleck (EHalleck@planetkc.com), November 04, 2003.

You may take the words, ''I and the Father are One,'' lightly or implausible. Or the clear confession of doubting Thomas, ''My Lord and my God''. Or the words of Paul the apostle, ''. . . Jesus Christ, who though He was by nature God, did not consider being equal to God a thing to be clung to, but emptied Himself;'' (Phil 2, :5) too implausible to trust as God's revelation.

It means you've rejected Jesus Christ. He isn't plausible to your reason. He hasn't been accepted in faith!

So you believe only revelations which are plausible; NOT the Bible, not Jesus the Eternal Son, second Person of the Holy Trinity-- but the false Jesus you concocted by Sola Scriptura.

At the heading of this thread, your comment: ''The die hard Trinitarian line is that not believing in the Trinity is tantamount to departing the faith,'' is completely self-serving of you, Eric.

First, because it isn't a ''line''. The Holy Trinity is a revealed truth. And, pitifully for Eric Halleck, couldn't indicate you ''departed from the faith.'' You've never had the faith. You believe and worship just one thing, My Friend: texts in the Bible. You aren't saved by Jesus; you're saved by that Bible and your private judgment of its texts / You haven't discovered the real Jesus.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 04, 2003.

Eugene,

I have accepted the gospel message, and I have also accepted Jesus Christ as my only way, truth and life. It was his blood that has cleansed my soul, a soul that you reject. That, sir, is exactly my grief in my heart over this Creed. It establishes mans ways of discrediting Gods way, and establishes a whole new way to redemption, than that which was preached or taught by Jesus, or the Apostles. Will God honor those who accept Jesus your way? I'm sure he will, just as he will receive those who receive those who don't adhere to the Athanasian Way, but accept Jesus as Lord and Christ.

Your judgements accordingly of my relationship with Jesus are only hurtful to the extent that you block the way for any unity in the faith that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the Living God. Your judgement of my standing with God is based on a manmade creed, and has little bearing on who I am in Christ, but speaks volumes about who you think you are in passing this supposed judgement. I would be neglegent to not tell you that you sir are in no position of authority to cast any such judgement, and the testimony of Jesus is in direct conflict with your testimony.

You are to receive those whom He receives. Period.

My testimony of who Jesus is aligns perfectly with what Peter answered Jesus, and subsequently preached. He is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, a man approved of God who has been crucified, and because He was not worthy of death, God raised Him from the dead. This same man is the mediator between myself and God, the same God Jesus called His God and Father, the same God that Jesus said is the only true God.

This is the testimony of Jesus, and of the Apostles, which you say isn't good enough. Very well Eugene. You have your gospel, and I have mine. May the coucil of Nicea be on your side when we stand before Him and answer for our every word. As for me, I'll have the coucil of the written record of the Lord and His Apostles, a written record that bears witness with my heart as true and undeniable. So be it.

-- Eric Halleck (EHalleck@planetkc.com), November 04, 2003.

Don't heed anybody's words, Eric. Stand up for your own.

Jesus Christ is God. The truth is revealed in the scriptures and taught since 33 A.D. in His Holy Church, Jesus is God; Eternal Son of the Father One in union with Him together with th Holy Spirit. --That is the truth of the Trinity. The Athanasian Creed only reiterates it, with stern warnings. If you deny the truth you are not of God.

If a bush man of Borneo has no way of finding the revealed truth, his ignorance is an excuse. He hasn't rejected God. You, unfortunately are in possession of this truth and will not accept it. You aren't ignorant, you are a heretic. Heresy is anathema. That's on the path of damnation.

That's the total conclusion of this discussion. Goodbye!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 04, 2003.

" ... the coucil of the written record of the Lord and His Apostles, a written record that bears witness with my heart"

Hmmm. So the final authority is your "heart". In other words, how you feel about it. Makes the whole thing pretty subjective, doesn't it? Seems to me Jesus said the objective TRUTH would set us free, not whatever subjective feelings might be in our "hearts". But then, that's the denominational way - and the reason that denominations exist. No objective source of truth.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 04, 2003.

Of course, Paul M., Eric ain't even in a denomination, 'cause he ain't a Protestant. He ain't a Christian, cause he ain't a believer in the Trinity, a foundational dogma of Christianity. He's way out in left field with the Jehovah's Witnesses, Oneness Pentecostals, Muslims, and other Arian typess.

He writes to me, "You did not answer my question posed to you by your post. Where is the teaching of the RCC that overturns the Athanasian Creed and its dogmatic language?"

Pose to me by my post? What the heck does that mean?
Well, never mind that. Kindly go back and re-read my last post or two. I don't have to give you, in writing, any kind of "overturning" of the Ath-Creed, because the Church never overturns her creeds nor needs to do so. What I explained to you -- though you didn't grasp it, I guess -- is that you need to understand what the Church MEANT by each phrase in the Creed. You never understood it correctly, so I explained to you what it meant. Now maybe you'll get it when you re-read what I wrote.

What's this I see? The thread was started on October 10, but the notorious heretic Emerald (Esmeralda in Spanish) never (dis)graced it with his presence until today? Now he finally saw an opening to insert his foul guano? How very, very sad.

[The excerpt from the Ath-Creed,] "Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly" ...needs no interpretation. It is clear, precise, unambiguous and totally not open to any other interpretation than exactly what it said. It says what it says. Believe it, or deny it. Deny it, and you have denied that Catholic Faith. That's how faith works. That's how intellectual and spiritual honesty works.

No that's how Protestantism works! That's how heretics do their dirty work!

I couldn't help but laugh (despite the tragedy of his soul being lost) when Esmeralda said that the quoted passage "needs no interpretation ... is clear, precise, unambiguous, and totally not open to any other interpretation than exactly what it said. It says what it says." That is PRECISELY what many Protestants have said to me (and many other Catholics) about Bible passages that they radically misinterpret, to their doctrinal downfall. Now we have a California Numb-Nut playing the part of the Protestant apologist, misinterpreting the Athanasian Creed. How deliciously ironic it would be, if not so tragic to see his soul in grave peril. [Eric, don't pay any attention to Emerald's comments, because they don't necessarily reflect Catholicism.]

[What@The.Halleck's statement that] "...the Church's teaching [is] that some folks can be saved even though they are not 'card-carrying Catholics...'" ...is rank heresy.

Ah, at long last we see it in black on white -- the biggest reason for which Esmeralda has accurately been referred to as a heretic many times at this forum. He denies a Catholic dogma. The Church teaches infallibly about salvation, including who may be saved, and she carefully explains the meaning of her dogma. But Esmeralda rejects the Church's explanation, calling it "rank heresy" -- thereby making himself a heretic. Case closed.

-- (What@The.Halleck?), November 05, 2003.

Emerald,
Et tu; in sola scriptura morituri? SO!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 05, 2003.

{The (c. 1910) Catholic Encyclopedia's article on the Athanasian Creed is relatively short, so I thought I'd copy it here, in case it may help the conversation.}

The Athanasian Creed, one of the symbols of the Faith approved by the Church and given a place in her liturgy, is a short, clear exposition of the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation, with a passing reference to several other dogmas. Unlike most of the other creeds, or symbols, it deals almost exclusively with these two fundamental truths, which it states and restates in terse and varied forms so as to bring out unmistakably the trinity of the Persons of God, and the twofold nature in the one Divine Person of Jesus Christ. At various points the author calls attention to the penalty incurred by those who refuse to accept any of the articles therein set down. The following is the Marquess of Bute's English translation of the text of the Creed:

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic Faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity. Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all One, the Glory Equal, the Majesty Co-Eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father Uncreate, the Son Uncreate, and the Holy Ghost Uncreate. The Father Incomprehensible, the Son Incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost Incomprehensible. The Father Eternal, the Son Eternal, and the Holy Ghost Etneral and yet they are not Three Eternals but One Eternal. As also there are not Three Uncreated, nor Three Incomprehensibles, but One Uncreated, and One Uncomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not Three Almighties but One Almighty.

So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not Three Gods, but One God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not Three Lords but One Lord. For, like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord, so are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion to say, there be Three Gods or Three Lords. The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father, and of the Son neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

So there is One Father, not Three Fathers; one Son, not Three Sons; One Holy Ghost, not Three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is afore or after Other, None is greater or less than Another, but the whole Three Persons are Co-eternal together, and Co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity is Trinity, and the Trinity is Unity is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity.

Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting Salvation, that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man.

God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the substance of His mother, born into the world. Perfect God and Perfect Man, of a reasonable Soul and human Flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His Manhood. Who, although He be God and Man, yet He is not two, but One Christ. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into Flesh, but by taking of the Manhood into God. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by Unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one Man, so God and Man is one Christ. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into Hell, rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into Heaven, He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire. This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.

For the past two hundred years the authorship of this summary of Catholic Faith and the time of its appearance have furnished an interesting problem to ecclesiastical antiquarians. Until the seventeenth century, the "Quicunque vult", as it is sometimes called, from its opening words, was thought to be the composition of the great Archbishop of Alexandria whose name it bears. In the year 1644, Gerard Voss, in his "De Tribus Symbolis", gave weighty probability to the opinion that St. Athanasius was not its author. His reasons may be reduced to the two following: firstly, no early writer of authority speaks of it as the work of this doctor; and secondly, its language and structure point to a Western, rather than to an Alexandrian, origin.

Most modern scholars agree in admitting the strength of these reasons, and hence this view is the one generally received today. Whether the Creed can be ascribed to St. Athanasius or not, and most probably it cannot, it undoubtedly owes it existence to Athanasian influences, for the expressions and doctrinal coloring exhibit too marked a correspondence, in subject-matter and in phraseology, with the literature of the latter half of the fourth century and especially with the writings of the saint, to be merely accidental. These internal evidences seem to justify the conclusion that it grew out of several provincial synods, chiefly that of Alexandria, held about the year 361, and presided over by St. Athanasius. It should be said, however, that these arguments have failed to shake the conviction of some Catholic authors, who refuse to give it an earlier origin than the fifth century.

An elaborate attempt was made in England, in 1871, by E.C. Ffoulkes to assign the Creed to the ninth century. From a passing remark in a letter written by Alcuin he constructed the following remarkable piece of fiction. The Emperor Charlemagne, he says, wished to consolidate the Western Empire by a religious, as well as a political, separation from the East. To this end he suppressed the Nicene Creed, dear to the Oriental Church, and substituted a formulary composed by Paulinus of Aquileia, with whose approval and that of Alcuin, a distinguished scholar of the time, he ensured its ready acceptance by the people, by affixing to it the name of St. Athanasius. This gratuitous attack upon the reputation of men whom every worthy historian regards as incapable of such a fraud, added to the undoubted proofs of the Creed's having been in use long before the ninth century, leaves this theory without any foundation.

Who, then, is the author? The results of recent inquiry make it highly probable that the Creed first saw the light in the fourth century, during the life of the great Eastern patriarch, or shortly after his death. It has been attributed by different writers variously to St. Hilary, to St. Vincent of Lérins, to Eusebius of Vercelli, to Vigilius, and to others. It is not easy to avoid the force of the objections to all of these views, however, as they were men of world-wide reputation, and hence any document, especially one of such importance as a profession of faith, coming from them would have met with almost immediate recognition. Now, no allusions to the authorship of the Creed, and few even to its existence, are to be found in the literature of the Church for over two hundred years after their time. We have referred to a like silence in proof of non-Athanasian authorship. It seems to be similarly available in the case of any of the great names mentioned above. In the opinion of Father Sidney Smith, S.J., which the evidence just indicated renders plausible, the author of this Creed must have been some obscure bishop or theologian whose composed it, in the first instance, for purely local use in some provincial diocese. Not coming from an author of wide reputation, it would have attracted little attention. As it became better known, it would have been more widely adopted, and the compactness and lucidity of its statements would have contributed to make it highly prized wherever it was known. Then would follow speculation as to its author, and what wonder, if, from the subject-matter of the Creed, which occupied the great Athanasius so much, his name was first affixed to it and, unchallenged, remained.

The "damnatory", or "minatory clauses", are the pronouncements contained in the symbol, of the penalties which follow the rejection of what is there proposed for our belief. It opens with one of them: "Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith". The same is expressed in the verses beginning: "Furthermore, it is necessary" etc., and "For the right Faith is" etc., and finally in the concluding verse: "This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved". Just as the Creed states in a very plain and precise way what the Catholic Faith is concerning the important doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation, so it asserts with equal plainness and precision what will happen to those who do not faithfully and steadfastly believe in these revealed truths. They are but the credal equivalent of Our Lord's words: "He that believeth not shall be condemned", and apply, as is evident, only to the culpable and wilful rejection of Christ's words and teachings. [This article was written during the papacy of St. Pius X, not during the 1970s. WTH] The absolute necessity of accepting the revealed word of God, under the stern penalties here threatened, is so intolerable to a powerful class in the Anglican church, that frequent attempts have been made to eliminate the Creed from the public services of that Church. The Upper House of Convocation of Canterbury has already affirmed that these clauses, in their prima facie meaning, go beyond what is warranted by Holy Scripture. In view of the words of Our Lord quoted above, there should be nothing startling in the statement of our duty to believe what we know is the testimony and teaching of Christ, nor in the serious sin we commit in wilfully refusing to accept it, nor, finally, in the punishments that will be inflicted on those who culpably persist in their sin. It is just this last that the damnatory clauses proclaim. From a dogmatic standpoint, the merely historical question of the authorship of the Creed, or of the time it made its appearance, is of secondary consideration. The fact alone that it is approved by the Church as expressing its mind on the fundament truths with which it deals, is all we need to know.

-- (What@The.Halleck), November 05, 2003.

Sorry. Maybe I shouldn't have done that. It looks a lot longer here than it did at the Encyc. site. Moderator, if you think it best to delete the above, please do so. Here is a link to the Catholic Encyclopedia's article on the Athanasian Creed. It contains an English translation of the Ath-Creed, a bit about its key tenets, many comments concerning speculation about its origin/author(s), and a bit about its binding nature.

-- (What@The.Halleck), November 05, 2003.

Interesting article WHAT. I find it interesting that there certainly have been others to question the damnatory clauses of it.

“The Upper House of Convocation of Canterbury has already affirmed that these clauses, in their prima facie meaning, go beyond what is warranted by Holy Scripture.”

I may look into this aspect further when I have the opportunity. I will be interested to see if their objections are similar to my own.

It is also interesting that the author of this article writes:

They are but the credal equivalent of Our Lord's words: "He that believeth not shall be condemned", and apply, as is evident, only to the culpable and wilful rejection of Christ's words and teachings.

Interesting, because by making such a statement, it is automatically assumed that what the Lord was speaking of was the Trinity. The author further proves his bias for the Athanasian Creed as a viable document by paraphrasing the verse he cites. As with all scripture, it should be read in context, thus let’s see this verse…in context:

John 3:16-18

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

The author of this article, and probably the author of the Athanasian Creed, both start with the opinion / bias that the Trinity is the only plausible explanation of who Jesus is in relation to God. With this bias, it is natural for them to read this series of verses with that bias in mind, and to reach the conclusions they do.

However, the truth contained in these verses is that He, Jesus, is the only begotten Son of God, and that he was sent by God to die, and to not believe Him, or in Him as the Savior of the world is what condemns. Yet, the reality is that believing Him to be who He said He is will be saved.

I have already shown several times throughout this thread who Jesus testified He is. To the fact that Jesus is the son of God, the savior of the world, there is no dispute. However, He stated that he is subordinate to the one he called the only true God, His Father. His authority is not questioned either, for God Almighty has given all power and authority to His Son. All authority, except for authority over His God and Father. And, if we are to accept the testimony of Jesus, we cannot escape the undeniable fact that he said that our God and Father is ALSO His God and Father, clearly pointing to someone else as the Almighty God.

Thus, without the biased opinion of the Trinity theory interjected into John 3:18, we can clearly see that something entirely different was meant by Jesus when he said “He that believeth not on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already.”

I will have to look into the Upper House of Convocation of Canterbury objections to see if they are similar to my own. Whatever the case, the fact is clear that believing Jesus is the Christ, the only begotten Son of the Living God, the savior of the world, leaves volumes of hope for those who seek to be freed from the condemnation of sin and death.

This creed interjects the Trinity doctrine into the place of Jesus Christ Himself . A reshuffling of the verse above will show that this is indeed what the Athanasian Creed has done:

“He that believeth on [THE TRINITY] is not condemned: but he that believeth not [THE TRINITY] is condemned already...”

This, my friends, ought not be.

-- Eric Halleck (EHalleck@planetkc.com), November 05, 2003.

Going backwards in my responses, please forgive any confusion that this creates.

What, excuse my lack of clarity in asking you the question previously. Here again is the question I posed:

Since the Church now teaches "...salvation is possible for some people who are not "card-carrying Catholics.", I'd be interested in where this new infallible word is mentioned. I would like to know how "some people" is defined, and what is now considered the Faith required to believe in order to be saved. Does it include (require) belief in the Trinity?

This statement of yours that “salvation is possible for some people who are not card-carrying Catholics” is in direct contradiction to the wording of the Athanasian Creed. The words either mean what they say, or the entire writing is in question because we cannot take any of it at face value for what the words express. I await your response to those points you raised because of what you posted.

There is one thing that has been evident throughout this thread, and that is the illogical fallicies that is used to argue against my point. Here are just a couple for your review:

Attacking the Person ( argumentum ad hominem ) Definition: The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked.

And a couple of examples as well to prove my point:

He ain't a Christian, cause he ain't a believer in the Trinity, a foundational dogma of Christianity. He's way out in left field with the Jehovah's Witnesses, Oneness Pentecostals, Muslims, and other Arian typess.What

And, pitifully for Eric Halleck, couldn't indicate you ''departed from the faith.'' You've never had the faith. You believe and worship just one thing, My Friend: texts in the Bible. You aren't saved by Jesus; you're saved by that Bible and your private judgment of its texts / You haven't discovered the real Jesus.Eugene

Here is another employed logical fallacy:

Appeal to Force ( argumentum ad baculum )

Definition: The reader is told that unpleasant consequences will follow if they do not agree with the author.

These are just a couple of approaches that have been used here. I personally would appreciate it if these practices would stay out of the discussion. I’m not moved by your threats, or the insinuations. I do not employ such tactics, and I think that it is quite telling of the spirit behind those who use these tactics what their motivation is. So, just to let you know, you can damn me to hell, you can continue to try and discredit me all you want, but the argument is still on the table. Thus, approach the argument, and leave these silly distractions aside you all want to employ.

Oh yeah, and that would also include the argument of guilt by association that is frequently used. Now I’m on par with someone I’ve never met, Emerald. I’ve been thrown into a lot of associations, none of which are true, but it is done for the purpose of trying to paint into the readers minds that I am on par with something that is generally associated as wrong by others of this forum.

Therefore, please prove my argument wrong, not me.

-- Eric Halleck (EHalleck@planetkc.com), November 05, 2003.

Christ is God and Man. The faith of the apostles is clear enough; Jesus was True Man like every other man in all except sin. He allowed Himself to undergo temptation; His human nature recoiled at the immediacy of death during His Agony in the Garden. He is human!

Jesus is True God as well. In a previous post, Eric joked as to whether we were prepared to accuse God of multiple personalities.

NO; God is not various personalities as in the derangement of one mind. He is One God, in Three distinct Persons. Jesus is One Person, not three. This Person is defined by an attribute that differs from the Father's and the Holy Ghost's. He is Son, the Father is Parent and Godhead; and the Holy Spirit is one Person proceeding from the divine Love between the first two Persons.

When the Second Person of the Trinity took flesh, He became Jesus in time and eternity.

Now the Person of the Man Jesus; who was sent from heaven to die for us, has two distinct natures --not persons, but natures. Divine as well as Human / The two natures of Christ act in accord at all times. But the MAN Jesus serves His Holy Father in His human office That Suffering Servant, MAN-- active amidst us. He defers to God the Father acting as a natural man. Acting in the Divine nature He certainly brought with Him from all eternity, He gave the world every blessing God can give. Salvation first. His signs and miracles. The immense powers He demonstrated, which can't be denied. All acieved through His DIVINE nature. All the while, in the Human nature within His Person, He acknowledged the dependence of all men to God. He obeyed the Will of the Father, He was given by His Father a name above all names, and power over all Creation-- IN BOTH HIS NATURES. His human nature today reigns at the right hand of the Father, where His divine nature alone ought to be. This He merited by His obedience as Man, to the Will of God. His Divine nature never knew what divergence from the Father's Will could be, from all eternity.

But Jesus human nature had to be impelled to do His Father's Will. He proved that praying in the Garden of Olives on the eve of the crucifixion. He wanted the cup of His passion and death to be spared Him, as Man; and then as the faithful Man, bowed to His Father's Will; ''Not my will but Thine be done.''

That's indicative of the words of Saint Paul: ''Jesus Christ, who though He was by nature God, did not consider being equal to God a thing to be clung to, but emptied Himself;'' (Phil 2, :5). --

The words of Christ can be discerned through many passages as being on one hand the divine nature dominant, and/or the human nature at the fore. He said, ''My God, my God; why hast Thou forsaken me ?'' CLEARLY from His Man's nature. He could say to the Pharisees, from His Divine nature: ''Destroy this Temple and I will raise it up again in three days.'' --Or, ''Before Abraham came to be, I AM.''

Eric is apparently oblivious to the reasons behind the Servant as Christ; obedient to God; and the power of the God-Man; who was able to atone for the sins of all mankind. Why has Eric failed to understand? He is a heretic. He has no true Gospel.

He only has the Book; and he can't read anything true in it. He lacks the Holy Spirit.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 05, 2003.

Eric, five days ago, I posted the following words. You may have intended to react to them responsibly, but you certainly have not continued, possibly due to a vast self-love that exhibits itself in long-windedness. You just posted two long back-to-back messages, boring me half to death.

Please re-read my words from November 1 (below) and act accordingly. If you refuse to do so, you will not get your questions answered. But if you behave properly, you will get answers.

"Eric, you are developing diarrhea of the fingers (logorrhea, if you prefer). Sane people are not interested in answering a person like you who goes on and on with all these long messages covering multiple points. You are able to raise one complex objection in a single sentence or phrase, but it can take us five or more sentences to refute you ... . Your posts are loaded up with fifteen objections -- something impossible to reply to. But then you complain that you aren't getting answers! Straighten up, man! Make your posts very short, with only ONE question or objection in each. ... You are getting more and more obnoxious. You need to change or leave, in my opinion."

To those words of five days ago, I want to add this:
1. This is a Catholic forum, where we discuss our faith. It is not a religious forum, where you are free to pound away incessantly, proselytizing us to your Arian religion.
2. You are not going to get anyone here to agree with you. We have no use for the religion you espouse. If that troubles you, LEAVE NOW, rather than after more days of frustration.
3. Stay here only if your heart is open to the truth -- i.e., if you know or suspect that what you believe is wrong. But if adamantly insist that you are correct, or if you adamantly refuse to believe that we could be right -- then do everyone a big favor and hightail it right on out of here.

-- (What@The.Halleck?), November 06, 2003.

Eugene,

Is it heretical to say that we are to be like Jesus? Is it heresy to say that while we have borne the image of the earthly man, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly? Is it too far fetched to say that we are to be one with them even as they are one?

My point here is that Jesus is the exact representation of what God has intended all mankind to become from the beginning of creation. Thus, we also are to have the dual nature of both man, and God. In fact, the scriptures state explicitly that we are to be partakers of the divine nature. Thus, it is not difficult to understand that if we are to be partakers of the divine nature, then so it is the same for the Son of God.

Therefore, if we are partakers of the divine nature, and we are to be like Jesus, and we are to be one with Jesus and God Almighty as they are, can we conclude that we are to become God? The obvious answer to this is no, we are not, and cannot, be God Almighty. If we cannot become God, then where is our hope of eternal glory? The promise that when we see him, we shall be like him, is lost if Jesus is God, because we cannot possibly be LIKE Him if he is God.

The hope of glory, then, exists in the finished creation, which Jesus Christ is. He is the firstborn from the dead who has become the first glorified man, albeit the Son of God, who has been made the head of all men by God Almighty. Our hope of glory is that when we see Jesus, we shall be like him, because of the sacrifice He made, in opening the door to have access to God through Him. He is now glorified, and our hope lies in that we shall also share in that glory. Not as God, but as glorified man.

To the fact Jesus exihibits both human nature, and divine, there is no dispute. Where we differ is that you contend that since he exihibited the divine nature, it proves he is God. I contend that because he exhibited the divine nature, it provides the image of the finished creation as Yahweh designed, where man is glorified and made in the image of Him.

-- Eric Halleck (EHalleck@planetkc.com), November 07, 2003.

WHAT,

Are you a moderator of this forum? I was unaware that I am supposed to bow down and post my responses as you demand, otherwise you won’t answer my questions. What a cop out! I’ve already told you that the only reason I address so many different topics is because they were brought up to me first by someone else.

If a moderator would like to interject here that I am somehow out of line by discussing a benchmark of the church, namely the Athanasian Creed, than I’m willing to hear. This is why I have posed this question on this forum, all your points of disagreement not withstanding.

You see, WHAT, I think you’d rather that I go away without a sound answer to my questions because you cannot answer them. There is no scriptural precedent for the language of the Athanasian Creed. There is no other benchmark where “some people” are considered saved according to RCC dogma.

No, instead you proceed down the path as a condescending twit, trying to belittle me. Fine, by all means, please feel free to be superior in all of your grand spirituality and quit looking for reasons why you won’t address the topic, and impart to us your wisdom. I’m waiting.

-- Eric Halleck (EHalleck@planetkc.com), November 07, 2003.

OK,
I also would like to see our blasphemous heretic kicked out for good, Moderator. He lost the debate almost immediately, yet continues boasting here about his great powers of discernment. Very boring, and he contributes NOTHING to a Catholic forum. Please give him the Heave-Ho?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 07, 2003.

Would you care to tell me where I am being blasphemous?

Lost the debate? Well, that is debatable! In any debate, the argument is presented, and counter arguements are presented. Thus far, I've come back with sound biblical supporting precepts to counter your points. What do you do in response? Attack the person! Appeal to force! Hardly winning points of a debate.

If a moderator would like to ask me to leave, then so be it. I've been pretty clear about why I'm here and posing these questions. I'm about finding the truth. I have been respectful in spite of the opponents to this debate who have been condescending twits (which by the way is not an attempt at being disrespectful - it is for description purposes only. Looking down your nose at poor little heretical me and trying to taunt me because of the embrassing way you handle the debate can only be described as that: condescending twit.)

Fine, you all want to appeal to Caesar and see if you can get me to go away by force, that wouldn't be anything new. It is historically accurate, as a matter of fact. But as I said before, the question will always be on the table, even when I'm not around. Why? Because no one has given any validity to the Athanasian Creeds damnatory clauses. They are NOT scripturally sound, and have no place as a Christian benchmark.

-- Eric Halleck (EHalleck@planetkc.com), November 07, 2003.

Moderator; we'll remind you and Eric:
In his title Eric asked for ''objective responses''. He got them; more than he deserved. He rejected them and proceeded to spread false doctrine in this forum. Let's remember the words of Christ,

''Do not give to dogs what is holy, neither cast your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under thei feet and turn and tear you.'' (Matt 7:6)

We can't allow heretical postings in our forum. We can only pray for heretics and schismatics. Good bye, Eric.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 07, 2003.

Your are a real gem, Eugene. Now I'm being characterized as a dog being given "something holy" - as if you've done that! Whatever....

I've told you before - my answer to who Jesus Christ is as Peter professed and preached - He is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. So this is false doctrine? Whatever....

I have been looking for objective responses. I've gotten them indeed. You, more than most, have proven why I'm not satisfied with the language of the Athanasian Creed. You live it, and judge by it, even to the point of damning me. And by what authority?

By the way, "objective" is defined as: 1. Of or having to do with a material object. 2. Having actual existence or reality. 3. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices.

Oh well, one out of three isn't too bad.

Goddbye Eugene. In a way I'm sorry to see you leave this discussion. But if you must leave, then so be it.

-- Eric Halleck (EHalleck@planetkc.com), November 07, 2003.

''This creed is no different than the Book of Mormon, for both were written by men who claim a level of inspiration equivalent to that of the Apostles--'' Eric, Oct 10th

Reply: --Your basic grasp of the scriptures is no different from that of men who believe the Book of Mormon. A believer in the Book of Mormon is just like an *unauthorised* interpreter of the Holy Bible: LOST.

You're lost; you're in the depths of heresy, yet you claim to support only biblical truths. So do idiots who uphold the Book of Mormon. / Want to know what you & they have in common? You have no POPE!

Christ's Church does; and the Pope is Peter, with his lawful successors. The latest one John Paul II; in the Catholic Church. The Bible is useless without an authorised interpreter; and it's Christ's Church, with the Holy Spirit. No more arguing, Eric; get out of here!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 07, 2003.

I think you’d rather that I go away without a sound answer to my questions because you cannot answer them.

Incorrect. We want you to go away because you act like an obnoxious, barely human individual.

From the first legitimate response to you (from Paul M) right up to the present, you have received "sound answers," over and over again. We can and do answer any question proposed -- even being willing to repeat ourselves a few times -- but we can do so only for so long, if we see that we are being badgered by an anti-Catholic who is too prejudiced (or not bright enough) to "absorb" our answers. That's how you disqualified yourself from discourse, Spiderman (Eric the Arachnid). Your mind is shut tighter than a clam -- or it's open but can't process the facts. Get very humble and docile (literally, "teachable"), and you may get respected.

There is no scriptural precedent for the language of the Athanasian Creed.

Been hanging around Catholics for so long, but you STILL don't realize that there doesn't HAVE to be a "scriptural precedent" for religious beliefs? The Bible itself demands no such precedent. In fact, it tells us that religious truth exists outside its pages. There is nothing in the Ath-Creed that is contradicted by the Bible, though -- and that is true of everything in Catholicism.

There is no other benchmark where “some people” are considered saved according to RCC dogma.

I have no idea what the helleck you mean by a "benchmark." However, in case you are asking for a doctrinal statement in an official Catholic document showing that it is possible for a non-Catholic to be saved, that is easy to provide you. This is from the "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church" from the Second Vatican Council (1960s), and parts of it are quoted in the "Catechism of the Catholic Church (1990s) -----

15. The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Savior. They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God. They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood. In all of Christ's disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd, and He prompts them to pursue this end. Mother Church never ceases to pray, hope and work that this may come about. She exhorts her children to purification and renewal so that the sign of Christ may shine more brightly over the face of the earth.

16. Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God. [This includes Eric, who is non-Christian.] In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh. On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues. But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Moslems, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things, and as Savior wills that all men be saved.

Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel. She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator. Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, "Preach the Gospel to every creature", the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.

17. As the Son was sent by the Father, so He too sent the Apostles, saying: "Go, therefore, make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world". The Church has received this solemn mandate of Christ to proclaim the saving truth from the apostles and must carry it out to the very ends of the earth. Wherefore she makes the words of the Apostle her own: "Woe to me, if I do not preach the Gospel", and continues unceasingly to send heralds of the Gospel until such time as the infant churches are fully established and can themselves continue the work of evangelizing. For the Church is compelled by the Holy Spirit to do her part that God's plan may be fully realized, whereby He has constituted Christ as the source of salvation for the whole world. By the proclamation of the Gospel she prepares her hearers to receive and profess the faith. She gives them the dispositions necessary for baptism, snatches them from the slavery of error and of idols, and incorporates them in Christ so that through charity they may grow up into full maturity in Christ. Through her work, whatever good is in the minds and hearts of men, whatever good lies latent in the religious practices and cultures of diverse peoples, is not only saved from destruction but is also cleansed, raised up, and perfected unto the glory of God, the confusion of the devil and the happiness of man. The obligation of spreading the faith is imposed on every disciple of Christ, according to his state. Although, however, all the faithful can baptize, the priest alone can complete the building up of the Body in the eucharistic sacrifice. Thus are fulfilled the words of God, spoken through His prophet: "From the rising of the sun until the going down thereof my name is great among the gentiles, and in every place a clean oblation is sacrificed and offered up in my name". In this way the Church both prays and labors in order that the entire world may become the People of God, the Body of the Lord and the Temple of the Holy Spirit, and that in Christ, the Head of all, all honor and glory may be rendered to the Creator and Father of the Universe.

-- (What@The.Halleck), November 08, 2003.

Thank you WHAT,

The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Savior. They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ.

This simplifies the issue for me greatly. I am still not convinced that the Athanasian Creed is a viable benchmark (a standard by which something can be measured or judged), and apparently by the article you quoted from, someone else thinks otherwise as well.

Yet, I am concerned by how near and dear you, and Eugene, and others like you, honor such a stand. I have come with valid questions (regardless of whether appreciated or accepted), and your respond to me with venom. You call into question my soul, my relationship with Christ, stating that I am lost, have not received the Gospel, etc.

Are you and Eugene followers of Christ? If so, which I am not disputing, then are these fruits you've offered me worthy of eating? How edifying it is to be called an obnoxious, barely human, lost idiot? Oh yeah, these are fruits I want to go into all the world and share!

Thank you so much for being wonderful examples of the love of Christ to me, showing how much someone such as myself, who has a zeal for the Lord, a yearning for the truth and the unity of the body of Christ, who firmly believes in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Savior, is received. You both provide so much encouragement that this article you quote from are indeed the minset of the my fellow laborers in Christ.

With this I am going to move on. Believe it or not, there was much offered that I have received from the participants of this dialogue, although I had to use a weed whacker to cut away the demeaning way in which it has been presented. I have come to understand you better, and how you think, which is invaluable to be. Part of being a follower of Christ is to also become all things to all people, and knowing mindsets as yours enables me to be a better brother in Christ, even to those who don't regard me as the same.

I will continue to return from time to time to see if there are any other objective responses presented, but at this time I'm done. I really do appreciate the article WHAT, in spite of the spirit you presented it to me with.

-- Eric Halleck (EHalleck@planetkc.com), November 10, 2003.

Eric, you weren't paying attention.

I didn't quote to you from an "article." I quoted to you from the DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH -- a major document from the Second Vatican Council. Did you ever even hear of this, the 21st Ecumenical Council in Catholic Church history? About 3,000 Catholic bishops from all over the world got together periodically, over the course of three years, to discuss the faith and prepare documents to guide the Church. EVERY ONE of them was familiar with the Ath-Creed and embraced its TRUE MEANING, which is why they were able to write the passage that I quoted, even though to the uninformed like you, there may appear to be a conflict between the two. There is no conflict, when one knows what each passage really means.

Eric, your last post is alternatingly disgusting and amusing. You really deserve an Oscar for putting on such a good act as the "innocent little boy," so horribly wronged by those mean old Catholics! HAH! You can probably fool some newcomers who just started reading this thread at the bottom (at your last post), but any intelligent person who has read the whole thread would come down to your last post and laugh in your face. Why? Because they would have see that you brought down upon yourself all the corrections, reprimands, derision, etc., by being so disrespectful, repetitious, and otherwise obnoxious. If I had the time to waste, I would go back up through the thread, and would make and display a collection of the terrible things you wrote, which caused good Catholics to defend themselves and their beliefs against your foolish and unjust attacks.

By the way, I was surprised to read the sentences you quoted from the passage I gave you. Those sentences explicitly pertain to CHRISTIANS -- something you are not, since you are an Arian. Part of the definition of "Christian" is a belief that Jesus is God -- the Son of God, the second Person of the Holy Trinity. You are a heretic on that infallible article of the Christian faith. Therefore, the passage you quoted does not pertain to you. So your whole argument falls -- that we are supposed to regard you as a close brother in the faith. No, you are distant, because you consider Jesus to be nothing more than a man like the rest of us. He is a man, but also eternally God.

Do come back, Eric -- and start a new thread -- when you have figured out how to behave properly in our Catholic forum.

-- (What@The.Halleck?), November 10, 2003.