Josiah wrote:If you can prove you are right from Scriptures, I will convert. If I can prove nicea/chalcedon is right, you must convert. That's how it works, according to the rules we are both playing by. Nobody gets to decide but Scriptures alone. I believe i have been careful not to place any authority in the antiquity, or authority, or majesty of that council. The fact that so many people have agreed with the decision certainly does place the burden of proof with the detractors of their findings, it wouldn't be the first time that truth has stood on the side of a sharp minority (e.g. Athanasius, Luther, J. Gresham Machen).
I don't have time to deal with this topic now, but we can put it on our "to do" list in the future. I would be interested to know how you came to believe that the Trinity is not Scriptural.
Now, in fairness, he said he didn't have time to deal with this right now, but I figured I'd start the thread anyway and wait on him to join.
Regarding my title, my question is, let's assume that Nicea never happened. We never had the political clout, influence, freedom, whatever to gather this many in one place to discuss our respective views on our interpretation of Scripture. None of the early councils allowed us to determine what the "the most popular view" (ie orthodox view) of "Christendom" was. Let's assume that Origen, Justin Martyr, Arius, Eusebius of Caesarea, Athanasius, and many other early apologists were still alive today, arguing the same thing they argued back then. Let's even assume that some of those Biblical converts like those in Antioch in Acts 11:26 or even the thief on the cross were still alive today with their respective measure of wisdom/faith. Would we have the authority to call some of them "Christians" yet withhold the title from others? If so, why? And would Christ Himself condone this practice?