Richard Bennett Exposes Roman Catholicism’s Communist Economics Wednesday, Jan 30 2013 

The Meaning of Homoousios in Basil the Great. Monoousios Rejected Wednesday, Jan 30 2013 

Good find Justin Meulemans!

Basil the Great, Letter, LII,

“2.  Because even at that time there were men who asserted the Son to have been brought into being out of the non-existent, the term homoousion was adopted, to extirpate this impiety.  For the conjunction of the Son with the Father is without time and without interval.  The preceding words shew this to have been the intended meaning.  For after saying that the Son was light of light, and begotten of the substance of the Father, but was not made, they went on to add the homoousion, thereby showing that whatever proportion of light any one would attribute in the case of the Father will obtain also in that of the Son.  For very light in relation to very light, according to the actual sense of light, will have no variation.  Since then the Father is light without beginning, and the Son begotten light, but each of Them light and light; they rightly said “of one substance,” in order to set forth the equal dignity of the nature.  Things, that have a relation of brotherhood, are not, as some persons have supposed, of one substance; but when both the cause and that which derives its natural existence from the cause are of the same nature, then they are called “of one substance.”

3.  This term also corrects the error of Sabellius, for it removes the idea of the identity of the hypostases, and introduces in perfection the idea of the Persons.  For nothing can be of one substance with itself, but one thing is of one substance with another.  The word has therefore an excellent and orthodox use, defining as it does both the proper character of the hypostases, and setting forth the invariability of the nature.  And when we are taught that the Son is of the substance of the Father, begotten and not made, let us not fall into the material sense of the relations.  For the substance was not separated from the Father and bestowed on the Son; neither did the substance engender by fluxion, nor yet by shooting forth as plants their fruits.  The mode of the divine begetting is ineffable and inconceivable by human thought. [First, notice he is not saying that the idea of a divine person is beyond human thought.-DS]  It is indeed characteristic of poor and carnal intelligence to compare the things that are eternal with the perishing things of time, and to imagine, that as corporeal things beget, so does God in like manner; it is rather our duty to rise to the truth by arguments of the contrary, and to say, that since thus is the mortal, not thus is He who is immortal.  We must neither then deny the divine generation, nor contaminate our intelligence with corporeal senses.”

Documentation For the Assertion that the Meaning of the Term Homoousios was Misunderstood and Changed in the West Tuesday, Jan 29 2013 

I would like to thank Mark Xu for his work as the following will be taken from research that he did. I am simply editing and putting it in my words. Good work Mark!

I have argued, that the meaning of the term homoousios was changed into monoousios which in the Latin was translated, “unius substantiae cum Patre”. Thus, a generic unity in the Greek was changed into a numeric unity in the Latin. This comparison can be seen at the Early Church Texts website here:

Sir Isaac Newton (Peace be upon him) fingered Hosius for this deceit in his Twenty-three Queries About the Word ὁμοούσιος saying,

“Quære 7. Whether Hosius (or whoever translated that Creed into Latin) did not impose upon the western Churches by translating ὁμοούσιος by the words unius substantiæ instead of consubstantialis & whether by that translation the Latin Churches were not drawn into an opinion that the father & son had one common substance called in the Greek Hypostasis & whether they did not thereby give occasion to the eastern Churches to cry out ( presently after the Council of Serdica) that the western Churches were become Sabellian.”


 “Qu. 8. Whether the Greeks in opposition to this notion & language did not use the language of three hypostases, & whether in those days the word hyposta{sis} did not signify a substance.”

Mark Xu says,

“For the legend of the great Hosius, please see Schaff Vol. III, Chapter 9; note, he is portrayed as the leading Athanasian orthodox bishop from the Latin West by Schaff, a champion so to speak who fought and restored the true Nicene doctrine of consubstantiality; and “true Nicene consubstantiality” in Schaff’s eyes is NUMERICAL UNITY.

‘Basil turns the term oJmoouvsio” against the Sabellian denial of the personal distinctions in the Trinity, since it is not the same thing that is consubstantial with itself, but one thing that is consubstantial with another.  Consubstantiality among men, indeed, is predicated of different individuals who partake of the same nature, and the term in this view might denote also unity of species in a tritheistic sense.

But in the case before us the personal distinction of the Son from the Father must not be pressed to a duality of substances of the same kind; the homoousion, on the contrary, must be understood as identity or numerical unity of substance, in distinction from mere generic unity. Otherwise it leads manifestly into dualism or tritheism. The Nicene doctrine refuses to swerve from the monotheistic basis, and stands between Sabellianism and tritheism’.

Schaff, Nicene And Post Nicene Christianity: History Of The Christian Church Vol. III, Chapter 9, Section 127

Seeing the so-called “Nicene orthodox numerical unity” portrayed by Schaff, and the later Eastern “tri-theism” attempt, and Hosius’ defense of orthodoxy, I am of the supposition that Sir. Newton is correct; the Latin West really, truly thought numerical unity was the “true orthodoxy”.

Afraid of not being very clear about Nicene numerical unity, Schaff further wrote:

The Nicene Creed does not expressly assert the singleness or numerical unity of the divine essence (unless it be in the first article: “We believe in one God”); and the main point with the Nicene fathers was to urge against Arianism the strict divinity and essential equality of the Son and Holy Ghost with the Father. If we press the difference of homoousion from monoousion, and overlook the many passages in which they assert with equal emphasis the monarchia or numerical unity of the Godhead, we must charge them with tritheism.

But in the divine Trinity consubstantiality denotes not only sameness of kind, but at the same time numerical unity; not merely the unum in specie, but also the unum in numero. The, three persons are related to the divine substance not as three individuals to their species, as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, or Peter, John, and Paul, to human nature; they are only one God. The divine substance is absolutely indivisible by reason of its simplicity, and absolutely inextensible and untransferable by reason of its infinity; whereas a corporeal substance can be divided, and the human nature can be multiplied by generation. Three divine substances would limit and exclude each other, and therefore could not be infinite or absolute. The whole fulness of the one undivided essence of God, with all its attributes, is in all the persons of the Trinity, though in each in his own way: in the Father as original principle, in the Son by eternal generation, in the Spirit by, eternal procession. The church teaches not one divine essence and three persons, but one essence in three persons. [Unless you make the distinction between being and hypostasis ontological as I know many Dionysians do.-DS] Father, Son, and Spirit cannot be conceived as three separate individuals, [Why does he only offer us two options: one numeric substance or 3 separate beings? What is wrong with 3 inseparable beings?-DS] but are in one another, and form a solidaric unity.

Here the orthodox doctrine forsook Sabellianism or modalism, which, it is true, made Father, Son, and Spirit strictly coordinate, but only as different denominations and forms of manifestation of the one God. [Notice, he didn’t tell us how they differed, he only asserted it.-DS]

But, on the other hand, as we have already intimated, the term person must not be taken here in the sense current among men, as if the three persons were three different individuals, or three self-conscious and separately acting beings. [DID YOU CATCH THAT SEAN GERETY? DID YOU CATCH THAT JNORM? THE NUMERIC VIEW RULES OUT THREE MINDS! It is time to tap out and come to our side of this issue. Moreover, if they cannot act distinctly then say goodbye to the Covenant of Redemption.-DS] The trinitarian idea of personality lies midway between that of a mere form of manifestation,[But isn’t manifestation the definition we run into frequently?-DS] or a personation, which would lead to Sabellianism, and the idea of an independent, limited human personality [Which we Nicene Monarchists utterly reject! Schaff need to get a clue!-DS], which would result in tritheism.’

Ibid, Section 130”

Now that ends Mark’s quotation but I want to keep going with Schaaf’s quotation because he admits something utterly damning to the anti-Nicene-Neoplatonist construction:

“In other words, it avoids the monoousian or unitarian trinity of a threefold conception and aspect of one and the same being [It does no such thing and isn’t it interesting that Schaaf knows better to associate the Sabellian view with Unitarianism and not the Generic Unity view!-DS], and the triousian or tritheistic trinity of three distinct and separate beings [Why do three beings need to be inseparable in order to be so defined? He never says.-DS]. In each person there is the same inseparable divine substance, united with the individual property and relation which distinguishes that person from the others.[So if I am a cousin, a father and a brother I am multiple persons because I have multiple relations? This is stupid.-DS]  The word person is in reality only a make-shift, in the absence of a more adequate term. Our idea of God is more true and deep than our terminology, and the essence and character of God far transcends our highest ideas.”

That is the Check right there to any Protestant and especially any Scripturalist.  Schaaf here admits that the departure from Nicene Orthodoxy was the first plunge into what we in the Reformed Community call Van-Tilism. It is the idea that God is outside of human language categories and thus outside of univocal predication. On the Van Tillian view, which is really the same Neoplatonism that came into Christianity with Origen and fully with Pseudo-Dionysius, God is “Totally Other”.  When Schaaf said, “the essence and character of God far transcends our highest ideas”, he is expressing the essence of Van Tillian philosophy.

John Robbins said in Cornelius Van Til The Man and the Myth,

“But the Van Til faction was not satisfied. It attempted to redefine incomprehensibility to mean that God cannot be understood at all…God cannot even be conceived by the mind of man, according to Van Til: ‘If we take the highest being of which we can think, in the sense of have a concept of, and attribute to it actual existence, we do not have the Biblical notion of God…Man cannot think an absolutely self-contained being…God is infinitely higher than the highest being of which man can form a concept’ (An Introduction to Systematic Theology, p. 206).” pg. 33.

Are you starting to get it guys? Robbins’ primary mistake in this booklet is that he thinks this language is new with Van Til. It is not new! Gnosticism tried to make its way into Christianity right at the start and then some of the early Fathers were influenced by Hellenistic thinking, but Neoplatonism primarily and formally came into Christianity by a man named Pseudo-Dionysius. Neoplatonism is the basis of the departure from Nicea. Neoplatonism is also the basis of Van Tilism.

In Van Til’s philosophy God and Man are represented by the infamous two circles:

Van Tillian

You see, in their foolishness, the Dionysians thought they could take a Neoplatonic Monad and make it fit into a religion that is not pantheistic. Both of these are wrong. The real diagram should look like this:

anit-van til

 Here we have the analogy of proportion. Man is made in God’s image. Thus there is a generic ontological overlap between divinity and humanity. There are SOME things about God that cannot be said of man. However, there are SOME things about God that can be said of man. This provides an uncreated logos; a design; a compatibility between God and man whereby a divine image may be given, a real revelation can be given, and a real union can take place between a divine person and a human nature in Christ.

Now what did Dr. Clark say about predication of the divine?

“The first part of the answer, the first element in the formulation of a Christian theory of language, and therefore the first criterion for judging the adequacy of biblical revelation, is the doctrine of the image of God in man. Or, rather, the very first part is the biblical doctrine of God. Is God the ‘Totally Other”? Do God and the medium of conceptuality ‘schliessen einander aus,’ completely exclude each other? Or is God an object of thought and knowledge as much as or even more than the square root of minus one?…Such verses [John 5:6, 17:3] as these indicate that God is a rational, thinking, being, whose thought exhibits the structure of Aristotelian logic.”

Language and Theology, page 136-137.

You see. It is the exact opposite of Neoplatonism.

Ryan Hedrich wrote a very detailed account of Clark’s view of homoousios, of which he clearly affirmed a generic unity, and how each member of the Trinity had its own mind and thus its own distinct being:

That should pretty much settle it that Nicene Monarchism is the view that should be taken by ALL Scripturalists and I believe Scripturalist Nicene Monarchism is the Nuclear Warhead philosophy of God that can destroy all Van Tillian, Liberal, Atheistic and Neoplatonic arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God (2 Cor 10:5) which have now destroyed the Protestant Reformation in America.

To Any Supporters I May Have in the RPCNA Tuesday, Jan 29 2013 

It has come to my attention that the RPCNA was supportive of the Union Army and its mission in the South. If you are a member of this Church and do not yet know, the Union Army committed hundreds of unspeakable acts of war crime against my ancestors (See War Crimes Against Southern Civilians by Walter Cisco). The RPCNA was inexcusably ignorant of the Biblical teaching on slavery and thus enabled and conceded to the rape, pillage, murder and impoverishment of my ancestors in the South.  If after examination of the RPCNA’s  covenant and oath by which they united themselves to the Union, you remain a member, do not contact me again. This blog is not for you, my work is not for you. I have no part with you.

The Pope, the Kings and the People by William Arthur Tuesday, Jan 29 2013 

The Pope, the Kings and the People

A History of the Movement to make the Pope Governor of the World by a Universal Reconstruction of Society from the Issue of the Syllabus to the Close of the Vatican Council

by William Arthur

New Forum Created For Nicene Theology Tuesday, Jan 29 2013 

A New Facebook discussion group has been created called “Nicene Head-Quarters”.

Check it out for some serious Nicene Creed 325-ing action!

Friday, Jan 25 2013 

Good post from The Rod of Iron on the Father’s Monarchy and the Son of God!

Dialogue With “Why Won’t God Heal Amputees” Friday, Jan 25 2013 

Jaimehlers, of the Why Won’t God Heal Amputees forum, has replied to my recent blog against Secularism.


Sensation is produced by the effects of electromagnetism.


I did not ask what its source was. I asked what it was.


Vision is the direct detection


You are conflating sensation with perception.


of electromagnetic radiation, hearing is the detection of vibrations


All you are doing is substituting the word “detection” for sensation and perception.


Perception is caused by the makeup of the body’s physical structures that allow for sensations; i.e.


You are again describing the source of of perception. You are not defining perception.


 Abstract ideas are derived from perception, because they are actually based on emotions (which are based on perceptions).


You have conflated an idea with an emotion. You have not shown how emotion causes cognitive activity. The fact is, it is cognitive activity that precedes emotion as you just said,


We perceive something, so we have an emotional reaction to it.


You see the cognitive activity comes before the reaction here but then later you say:


An emotional reaction causes an abstract idea (or a concrete one, depending on the circumstances).


Now this statement is also filled with error. An abstract idea is by definition something universal not particular. Thus an emotion, which corresponds to a particular event is not something universal but particular. You have thus failed to show how an emotion can produce an abstract idea.


 This is a good example of why you cannot solely rely on logic.  Gill may have “proven” that language was impossible, yet it clearly exists


Then you are proving your principles by your conclusions. This is the fallacy of asserting the consequent.


we are using it to communicate with each other right now.  If language was actually impossible, we would not be able to have this argument, therefore it clearly is possible.


And I have an explanation for that but this thread is not about me it is about you.


Therefore, the particular language does not matter provided we both have a sufficient understanding of it.


You are using the word “matter” ambiguously as you are with the word “understanding”. In the former you could mean “exist” in the genus of being or you could mean  “have a defined identity” in the genus of epistemology. In the latter, you could mean “operation” but seeing that you just admitted that Gill has made the endeavor impossible for an empiricist you have only asserted by ad hoc that you have this said understanding.


Your error is your attempt to rely on logic to resolve every question, even questions it is not suited to answer.


According to coherency theory, that is the way to demonstrate knowledge. Syllogisms are the paragon of knowledge, not empiricism.


If you try to use a hammer to pound in a nail, it does a very good job; but if you try to use it to drill a hole in a piece of wood, it will not work very well.  The same goes here.  All four of your attempts to refute individuation use logic, but logic is not good at refuting things that actually exist.


So then you admit then that the abstract does not exist. Aristotle took genus out of the category of substance I think you will have to admit it. Then you have admitted that abstract ideas do not exist. This is just the black hole of empiricism. That means that just in the last paragraph that I am replying to these words that you typed have no justification whatsoever:


“If”, “to”, “a” “in”, “it”, “very”, “but”, “piece”, “same”, “All”, “four”, “of”, “refute”, “logic”, “good”, “exist”, “that”.


Are you starting to see the problem?


You are referring to the problem of induction.  Note that it is not the same thing as the induction fallacy.  The induction fallacy happens when a sample used for testing is found to not be representative of the whole.  The problem of induction is whether or not the information that we base an inductive conclusion on is representative of the whole or not, and the only way we can actually find out is to discover that it is not.  That does not make it a fallacy.


The conclusion is asserted first to be representative of the whole. That is asserting the consequent.


As I have so answered.


You did not such thing.


I addressed this in my earlier post.


A  reply is not to be confused with an answer.

No, as I showed in my earlier post.  By declaring empiricism invalid, you have sabotaged your own argument.  The fact of the matter is that you cannot prove empiricism invalid without some way to test the validity of your premise.

Coherency theory, not Empiricism.


You are essentially arguing that you can do so with logic, but this is impossible, so it is nonsensical to make that claim.


You think it is impossible because you think an operation is a demonstration of truth, which Kline refuted. Kline showed that both Euclidean and Non-Euclidean Geometry had equal function. Function does not equal truth.

Your use of those logical proofs in this case were indeed attempts to confuse the issue.  Logical proofs cannot determine the validity of a premise, therefore giving me the choice of logical proofs to determine the validity of something makes no sense

The coherency of the whole provides a self attestation to the postulate.

No, but you cannot determine that it is valid with logic.  It shares that with something that’s subjective.

Well, the coherency of the set provides a self attestation of the postulate.

No, it is my assertion that you cannot show that coherence theory is valid with just logic, because logic can not validate logic.

You are using the words “show” and “valid” as if I have not already admitted that my first premise is not proven. I admit it is a dogmatic affirmation, not a proven one. However, that does not mean it is an arbitrary one as the coherency of the set provides a self attestation of the postulate.


It is circular because you attempted to define atheism in such a way that it plethora would have found himself defending circular logic if he had agreed with your proposition.


Well I am trying to show you that all theories operate off of axiom’s or postulates.


Basically, you devised a catch-22Wiki (if atheism depends on empiricism, then it cannot be skeptical, because in order to be skeptical it cannot accept empiricism), a logical trap that relies on circular logic.


It does not rely on circular logic but on the reality that all theories require axioms and postulates.


As I have said multiple times in this post, you cannot verify logic with more logic.  You must use something else to verify it.  Normally, empiricism is used to verify logic, but you excluded that, so you have nothing you can use to verify your logic.


You are conflating  the genus of being with the genus of epistemology. By verify you could be referring to experience in the historical chronological order of things, or verify in the logical order of propositions.



Hilary of Poitiers Distinguishes the Orthodox vs. the Sabellian Use of Romans 9:5 Friday, Jan 25 2013 

Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity (Book VIII),

“37. Unless perchance the frenzy of utter desperation will venture to rush to such lengths that, inasmuch as the Apostle has called Christ Lord, no one ought to acknowledge Him as anything else save Lord, and that because He has the property of Lord He has not the true Godhead. But Paul knows full well that Christ is God, for he says, Whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ, Who is God over all. Romans 9:5 It is no creature here who is reckoned as God; nay, it is the God of things created Who is God over all.

38. Now that He Who is God over all is also Spirit inseparable from the Father, learn also from that very utterance of the Apostle, of which we are now speaking. For when he confessed one God the Father from Whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ through Whom are all things; what difference, I ask, did he intend by saying that all things are from God and that all things are through Christ? Can He possibly be regarded as of a nature and spirit separable from Himself, He from Whom and through Whom are all things? For all things have come into being through the Son out of nothing, and the Apostle has referred them to God the Father, From Whom are all things, but also to the Son, through Whom are all things. And I find here no difference, since by Each is exercised the same power. For if with regard to the subsistence of the universe it was an exact sufficient statement that things created are from God, what need was there to state that the things which are from God are through Christ, unless it be one and the same thing to be through Christ and from God? But as it has been ascribed to Each of Them that They are Lord and God in such wise that each title belongs to Both, so too from Whom and through Whom is here referred to Both; and this to show the unity of Both, not to make known God’s singleness. [HUGE!-DS]The language of the Apostle affords no opening for wicked error, nor is his faith too exalted for careful statement. For he has guarded himself by those specially appropriate words from being understood to mean two Gods or a solitary God: for while he rejects oneness of person he yet does not divide the unity of Godhead. For this from Whom are all things and through Whom are all things, although it did not posit a solitary Deity in the sole possession of majesty, must yet set forth One not different in efficiency, since from Whom are all things and through Whom are all things must signify an Author of the same nature engaged in the same work. He affirms, moreover, that Each is properly of the same nature. For after announcing the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God, and after asserting the mystery of His inscrutable judgments and avowing our ignorance of His ways past finding out, he has yet made use of the exercise of human faith, and rendered this homage to the depth of the unsearchable and inscrutable mysteries of heaven, For of Him and through Him and in Him are all things: to Him be glory for ever. Amen. Romans 11:36 He employs to indicate the one nature, that which cannot but be the work of one nature.

39. For whereas he has specially ascribed to God that all things are from Him,[WHICH HILARY CLEARLY IDENTIFIES AS THE FATHER-DS] and he has assigned as a peculiar property to Christ, that all things are through Him, and it is now the glory of God that from Him and through Him and in Him are all things; and whereas the Spirit of God is the same as the Spirit of Christ, or whereas in the ministration of the Lord and in the working of God, one Spirit both works and divides, They cannot but be one Whose properties are those of one; since in the same Lord the Son, and in the same God the Father, one and the same Spirit distributing in the same Holy Spirit accomplishes all things. How worthy is this saint of the knowledge of exalted and heavenly mysteries, adopted and chosen to share in the secret things of God, preserving a due silence over things which may not be uttered, true apostle of Christ! How by the announcement of his clear teaching has he restrained the imaginations of human wilfulness, confessing, as he does, one God the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ, so that meanwhile no one can either preach two Gods or one solitary God; although He Who is not one person cannot multiply into two Gods, nor on the other hand can They Who are not two Gods be understood to be one single person; while meantime the revelation of God as Father demonstrates the true nativity of Christ.”



Replying to Adi Schlebusch at Faith and Heritage Thursday, Jan 24 2013 

Adi Schlebusch has written an article here concerning the Trinity and some Social issues that I am interested in. I am not a Kinist but in general I agree with the fundamental goal that Faith and Heritage is trying to achieve.

Now to the reply:

“He disbelieved the full inspiration and infallibility of the Scriptures, holding that the inspired men apprehended and stated many things obscurely. . . . He expressly denied the consubstantial unity of the Persons and the proper incarnation of the Godhead—the very propositions most clearly asserted in the doctrinal various readings we have under review.”

>>>Incarnation of the godhead? Only the Son was incarnated.

“Throughout the history of Christianity, there have been a great number of distortions of this cardinal doctrine of Trinitarian “consubstantial unity,” as Dabney calls it, but the Church has held it dear since the time of the apostles.”

>>>That is not true. The Council of Constantinople 381 A.D. and later creeds, changed the meaning of the original Nicene Creed 325 A.D. into a sense contradictory to its original intention by  removing the phrase “of the essence of the Father” and Nicea’s anathemas. In the Nicene Creed we read, ‘ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί”, in English “consubstantial with the Father”. Yet this was translated, “unius substantiae cum Patre” in the Latin by Hosius, or whoever first translated the Greek into Latin. Thus homoousios became monoousios. A generic sense was replaced by a numeric sense. In other words, Nicea 325 A.D. affirmed multiple beings that had the same type of nature but only one of those beings was the One God and that was the Father because he is the only source and cause of all.

Leo Donald. Davis, The First Seven Ecumenical Councils, pg. 61; J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, pg. 234-235: The sense of the Nicene Fathers is said by Davis to mean “two individual men, both of whom share human nature while remaining individuals” and by Kelly as “common to several individuals of a class”. This is in direct contrast to the sense they were rejecting which sense Davis describes as “numerical identity, that is, that the Father and the Son are identical in concrete being” and Kelly describes as “an individual thing as such”.

Constantinople 381 A.D. and later creeds affirmed one being. This is a radical change in meaning and has created absolute chaos ever since. David Waltz says,

“Fact 1 – Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381 deletes portions of the Nicene Creed of 325, even though we read from the “Definition of the faith” of the council of Chalcedon in 451 that:

…we have renewed the unerring creed of the fathers. We have proclaimed to all the creed of the 318 [i.e. Nicene Creed of 325]; and we have made our own those fathers who accepted this agreed statement of religion—the 150 who later met in great Constantinople and themselves set their seal to the same creed. (Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Volume 1, Norman P. Tanner, S.J. editor, 1990, p. 83.)

Fact 2 – The Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381 is not “the creed of the 318” [i.e. Nicene Creed of 325].

Fact 3 – “No copy of the council’s doctrinal decisions, entitled τομος και αναθεματισμος εγγραφος (record of the tome and anathemas), has survived.” (Ibid., p. 21.)

Fact 4 – “The Second Council of Constantinople, A. D. 381, was not originally a general council”. (Joseph Pohle, The Trinity, English trans. Arthur Preuss, 1912, p. 129.)” [The Nicene Creed vs. the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed by David Waltz]


“This term opposed the similar but contrary concept of ὁμοιουσιος (homoiousios), which means “of a similar substance.”

>>>I either flatly disagree or ask you to further clarify what you mean by “opposed” and “contrary”, because, as I showed Sean Gerety recently, Athanasius received men who believed the homoiousios clause into communion.

The quotations are at the very bottom of this blog.

“the foundation for the Westminster Divines to eventually summarize the doctrine with these words: “In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost.”

>>>Which is not what the Nicene Creed says.

“The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.”

>>>Which said Eternal Generation Calvin is suspected to have denied as have numerous Presbyterian Theologians including John Murray, and Loraine Boettner.

“God is both one and many”

>>>That is not what the Nicene Creed 325 said. It did not say, we believe in one God the Trinity. It said that we believe in one God the Father and eternally with or emanating from the Father is his eternal Son. The word “God” is being used two different ways in that creed; The first way particularly, the second generically.

“as had been clearly established both by the infallible witness of Scripture and by the early Church. The heretical Unitarian heresy would, however, continue to be professed by various sects throughout history, of which the best known example in recent history is probably the Unitarian Universalist Churches

>>>I disagree. The most widespread heresy that prevails today is Sabellianism which you believe sir.

“the views accompanying this erroneous concept of God are more widespread than some might think, since even the contemporary mainstream Church, by embracing both alienism and egalitarianism, implicitly represents the Unitarian view of God.”

>>>No sir. It is your beliefs in universal equality among the divine persons which buttresses our communist revolution here.


Next Page »

%d bloggers like this: