Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

Calvinism and the Nicene Creed

2024 Website Hosting Fees

Total amount
$1,048.00
Goal
$1,038.00
One night is what it was in the account in the parts of Daniel that were written in Hebrew/Aramaic, but in another "Greek only" section of Daniel, he was in the den a whole week.

The prophet Habakkuk took Daniel some food, an angel carried him by the hair of his head. Daniel 12:31-42 in Orthodox Study Bible. It's commentary said
Habakkuk was about a century earlier than Daniel in the den, so Habakkuk was carried not only through space but also through time.

That is a deuterocanonical section of Daniel - is it in Catholic Bible also?
 
Daniel chapter 6 - in everybody's Bible - says Daniel was only there for one night. Habakkuk is not mentioned in that account. Thoughts?
 
According to your logic, I positively reject the Presbyterian church, the Lutheran church, ad infinitum, by not being in them. That's silly.
 
The Methodist Church never claimed to be "the one true church", rather

A

true church among other true churches.

The holy catholic and apostolic church referred to in the CREED is the universal church, lower-case catholic.

I believe there is an Invisible Church that the gates of hell would not prevail against, built by Christ, before there was any designations like Roman Catholic or Greek Orthodox. Before there was any Pope or Metropolitan.

To say I "totally reject" every CHURCH/DENOMINATION I do not belong to is quite absurd.

I do not belong to Assembly of God or Church of the Nazarene, but I do not "reject" them, those 2 are Wesleyan/Arminian in theology like Methodist.

Church of Christ, Baptist, Coptic and whatever else - - I do not "reject them" just because I don't belong to them.

I "reject" certain CULTS like JWs based on their heretical views of the person, natures, deity and pre-existence of Christ.

There is theology I consider wrong, but it is not a matter of heresy.
 
One night is what it was in the account in the parts of Daniel that were written in Hebrew/Aramaic, but in another "Greek only" section of Daniel, he was in the den a whole week.

The prophet Habakkuk took Daniel some food, an angel carried him by the hair of his head. Daniel 12:31-42 in Orthodox Study Bible. It's commentary said
Habakkuk was about a century earlier than Daniel in the den, so Habakkuk was carried not only through space but also through time.

I presumed you do not accept the deuterocanonical books of the Bible so I answered your question with the familiar protocanoncial account in the 6th chapter of the book of Daniel.

That is a deuterocanonical section of Daniel - is it in Catholic Bible also?

Yes, it is in the "Catholic Bible" also.
 
Daniel chapter 6 - in everybody's Bible - says Daniel was only there for one night. Habakkuk is not mentioned in that account. Thoughts?

Yes, because the account where the prophet Habakkuk feeds Daniel is the second time he is thrown into the lion's den, after destroying the Babylonian gods of Bel and the Dragon. It is a different incident.

Here is Bernini's famous depiction of it...

360px-Santa_Maria_del_Popolo_Capella_Chigi_Bernini_Habakuk.jpg
 
According to your logic, I positively reject the Presbyterian church, the Lutheran church, ad infinitum, by not being in them. That's silly.

Exactly. If you positively reject John Calvin and Reformed theology, then you positively reject the Presbyterian Church. If you positively reject the Augsburg Confession, then you positively reject the Lutheran Church as well.

This isn't rocket surgery.
 
The Methodist Church never claimed to be "the one true church", rather

A

true church among other true churches.

It can't because even the most rudimentary study of Christian history can identify the founder of Methodism, which dates only to 18th century England.

There is no Protestant church which actually claims itself as the "one true Church."


The holy catholic and apostolic church referred to in the CREED is the universal church, lower-case catholic.

Minuscule (lowercase) Greek lettering was not invented until centuries after Nicea.

I believe there is an Invisible Church that the gates of hell would not prevail against, built by Christ, before there was any designations like Roman Catholic or Greek Orthodox. Before there was any Pope or Metropolitan.

This idea of a pneumatological (invisible church) is a Protestant notion rooted in an early heresy (Gnosticism). The Church, by definition, must be a visible body. It is not an invisible group of disjointed people with differing and contradictory doctrines and practices. That would be an absurdity, demonstrating a flawed Christology and a complete lack of understanding of the Incarnation.

To say I "totally reject" every CHURCH/DENOMINATION I do not belong to is quite absurd.

I do not belong to Assembly of God or Church of the Nazarene, but I do not "reject" them, those 2 are Wesleyan/Arminian in theology like Methodist.

Church of Christ, Baptist, Coptic and whatever else - - I do not "reject them" just because I don't belong to them.

I "reject" certain CULTS like JWs based on their heretical views of the person, natures, deity and pre-existence of Christ.

There is theology I consider wrong, but it is not a matter of heresy.

If you do not accept their creeds and practices, then you are positively rejecting them. In other words, you have freely chosen to not accept the the other sects / denominations / Churches.
 
Rocket SCIENCE I have heard of, rocket SURGERY is new to me.

It is true that all Greek letters were capital until 9th or 10th century, therefore the one holy catholic and apostolic church would have been in capital letters in the creed, but that does not negate catholic meaning universal. Relating an Invisible Church to Gnosticism is a real stretch.

The angel in Bernini's depiction sure doesn't have much of Habakkuk' s hair to carry him by, what could be a container of stew is possibly portrayed.

In any case, you think there were two separate incidents of Daniel in the lion's den, apparently.

You have made me into a POSITIVE REJECTOR of many churches/assemblies/DENOMINATIONS, but I maintain that I do NOT reject Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Presbyterians, etc.

I do positively reject Gnosticism.
 
Rocket SCIENCE I have heard of, rocket SURGERY is new to me.

It's a malapropism.

It is true that all Greek letters were capital until 9th or 10th century, therefore the one holy catholic and apostolic church would have been in capital letters in the creed, but that does not negate catholic meaning universal. Relating an Invisible Church to Gnosticism is a real stretch.

The "Catholic Church" is a proper noun, hence it is capitalized. It is the one started by Jesus and in fact it its name is explicitly stated in Scripture. In Acts 9:31, it states:

Αἱ μὲν οὖν ἐκκλησίαι καθ᾽ ὅλης τῆς Ἰουδαίας καὶ Γαλιλαίας καὶ Σαμαρείας εἶχον εἰρήνην οἰκοδομουμέναι καὶ πορευομέναι τῷ φόβῳ τοῦ κυρίου καὶ τῇ παρακλήσει τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος ἐπληθύνοντο

The word "Catholic" comes from two Greek words:
καθ (katah) - Meaning throughout; according to
ολης (holos) - All; whole; completely

Εκκλησια (ekklesia) - A gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place; an assembly; church

Thus, "ekklesia kata holos" = The Catholic Church


Incidentally St. Luke is the only one who wrote a conclusion to the Gospel with his Acts. The book of Acts details the Church's growth from Pentecost in Jerusalem and concludes with the arrival of the faith in the city of Rome, from whence it would go out to all the world. "First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed in all the world." (St. Paul to the first Roman Catholics, 1:8)

The first to advocate the concept of pneumatological / “invisible churches" were the Gnostics. In fact many of the earliest Church Fathers spent their lives combating such beliefs amongst the Gnostics. (e.g. St. Irenaeus)

Apostolic succession is the ultimate trump card against this heresy.



The angel in Bernini's depiction sure doesn't have much of Habakkuk' s hair to carry him by, what could be a container of stew is possibly portrayed.

With God, all things are possible.


In any case, you think there were two separate incidents of Daniel in the lion's den, apparently.

Yes.


You have made me into a POSITIVE REJECTOR of many churches/assemblies/DENOMINATIONS, but I maintain that I do NOT reject Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Presbyterians, etc.

I do positively reject Gnosticism.

If you don't reject them, wouldn't you be professing their beliefs and hence be a member of them? The reason you don't is obvious: Catholicism and Orthodoxy are incompatible with Lutheranism and Reformed churches. Likewise Lutheranism too is incompatible with Reformed churches.

If you do not in fact positively reject all of these, then I presume you are a baptized member of one?
 
Last edited:
I do not REJECT all churches that I was not baptized into, that's YOUR RULE - "not to be baptized into a certain church is to POSITIVELY REJECT IT"

It's not my rule, it seems to be what you are saying.
 
I do not REJECT all churches that I was not baptized into, that's YOUR RULE - "not to be baptized into a certain church is to POSITIVELY REJECT IT"

It's not my rule, it seems to be what you are saying.

This is not rocket surgery...

If you did not reject all these churches, you would be a member of one of them.

By choosing to not be a member, you are positively rejecting them.
 
This idea of a pneumatological (invisible church) is a Protestant notion rooted in an early heresy (Gnosticism). The Church, by definition, must be a visible body. It is not an invisible group of disjointed people with differing and contradictory doctrines and practices. That would be an absurdity, demonstrating a flawed Christology and a complete lack of understanding of the Incarnation.
Then the CHURCH ceased to exist in the 11th Century when the Eastern and Western churches excommunicated each other. At that point there were clearly TWO visible bodies.
 
Then the CHURCH ceased to exist in the 11th Century when the Eastern and Western churches excommunicated each other. At that point there were clearly TWO visible bodies.

Given Matthew 16:18 it would seem the end of the world ended in the 11th century. How come we're still here?

Given that St. Peter was told that Christ's Church would be built on him
And
Given the Church is the body of Jesus Christ who is eternal (without end).

it would seem to me that no man can take what is Christ's and since God's word is immutable Christ only commissioned one 'church'.

Joe T
 
Last edited:
Given Matthew 16:18 it would seem the end of the world ended in the 11th century. How come we're still here?

Given that St. Peter was told that Christ's Church would be built on him
And
Given the Church is the body of Jesus Christ who is eternal (without end).

it would seem to me that no man can take what is Christ's and since God's word is immutable Christ only commissioned one 'church'.

Joe T
Technically, there are two different words in Greek used in Matthew 16 and translated as “rock” in English. Peter (boulder) is not the “bedrock” (living stone) upon which Christ would build His Church ... the bedrock was the truth that Jesus is the Christ, son of the living God that Peter had just spoken.

I agree that there is one Church ... the Body of Christ ... drawn by the Father, those sheep given to the Good Shepherd, whom Christ has given eternal life ... whatever denominational congregation they fellowship with.
 
Technically, there are two different words in Greek used in Matthew 16 and translated as “rock” in English. Peter (boulder) is not the “bedrock” (living stone) upon which Christ would build His Church ... the bedrock was the truth that Jesus is the Christ, son of the living God that Peter had just spoken.

I agree that there is one Church ... the Body of Christ ... drawn by the Father, those sheep given to the Good Shepherd, whom Christ has given eternal life ... whatever denominational congregation they fellowship with.

Why wasn't Peter's brother Andrew named Petros? Or what about Nathaniel? These two were the first to confess and identify Jesus as the Messiah, the Christ and the Son of God...

"... Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter. He, first of all, found his own brother Simon, and told him, 'We have discovered the Messias, which means, the Christ'". (John 1:40-41)

"Then Nathaniel answered him, 'Thou, Master, art the Son of God.'" (John 1:49)
 
Back
Top