The word Trinity appears nowhere in Scripture. Neither is the concept explicitly laid out in Scripture.
I would agree with the first part, but I also believe the Trinity is indispensible specifically because it is laid out in Scripture…not that the doctrine is there word-for-word, but then again, what doctrine is? I think the Trinity is of utmost importance, though, and that it’s faithful to the “plain meaning of Scripture” or “the sense of Scripture.” (Second quote belongs to Athanasius; I don’t know about the first).
Iow, I think it’s indispensible because it articulates something of utmost importance that is in the Bible. If it articulated something that wasn’t in the Bible, I could easily still agree with it, but I wouldn’t refer to it as indispensible to Christianity.
As christians, we have inherited the benefit of the insights handed down directly from Christ himself and the apostles on the matter. But when somebody else reads Scripture for himself without the benefit of that Tradition and comes to a different conclusion about what Father, Son and Holy Spirit truly are, you feel qualified to label those persons “apostates.”
It’s not really the process that I take issue with- even though it’s not a very good process. My main concern is with the conclusion and the things that it denies- things that are central not just to Protestantism but to Christianity as a whole.
In the SAME thread where you claim to not understand why catholics see many protestants as having declared themselves each to be popes.
Here’s the thing. Let’s say you have a continuum on which you have placed all different kinds of Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants. At the left side of the continuum, there’s the pope. At other places on the continuum to his right, we place everyone else in order of similarity to the pope based on what they claim of themselves, what they do, and their place within Christianity and among other Christians.
I would place the Orthodox bishops and the Catholic bishops closest to the pope. The patriarch of Constantinople would be a tad closer to the left side than the other Orthodox bishops. I’m not sure where I’d put the Catholic bishops relative to the Orthodox ones, but they’re right in the same area. I don’t know if Eastern Catholic bishops are any less similar than any of the other bishops, but they’re somewhere in the mix, too.
Further to the right, I think we’d have to put Anglican bishops and some of the other High Church leaders of various Protestant denominations. I have no idea what order the Lutherans or Anglicans or Episcopals might go in, but they’re all a little more to the middle of this continuum.
Even further to the right, there’s going to be other Protestant leaders that have less in common with the pope. And all the way to the right, there’s the laity. I won’t try and decide which kinds of laity are more similar or less similar than the pope, but all of them are in a group way over to the right.
It is my opinion that some of the Protestant leaders- especially someone like a pastor of a Bible church, or anyone else that wears no distinctive church-related clothing and includes no aspects of High Church worship- are so far to the right that they can practically fist-bump the laity. And for the most part, the Protestant laity knows this and likes it, even as they look to their pastor for meaningful leadership.
I understand that everyone on this continuum has at least something in common with the pope. What I’m saying is this: Protestants- especially my kind of Protestants- are as far to the right as we can possibly be. So when someone says “You guys realize you’re sitting cheek to cheek with the pope on this continuum? You have so much in common!”, my initial reaction is to say “What planet are you on? We could not possibly have any less in common with the pope. As far as church leadership goes, our leaders went further to the right than anyone ever did before! A lot of them are far closer to the laity than they are to the pope!”
What would your continuum look like? Would you be any more detailed than I was? Would you place the Protestant leaders in an entirely different place, or would it be about the same?
Do you really also wonder why people could read Scripture (especially the gospels) and potentially reject the idea that jesus was fully consubstantial with the Father? In many instances, it sure isn’t obvious from what Jesus says! Divorced from Tradition, Scripture sometimes is ambiguous on issues like these, but you simultaneously affirm Sola Scriptura and condemn those who read just the plain text and draw different conclusions than you do.
I think I have an idea of why people reject Jesus’ consubstantial nature or the Trinity…they explain their reasoning when asked about it, and one of my roommates actually has a detailed paket on JW teaching (made by JW’s) that he’s making use of for a theology class. I agree that tradition is a valuable guide, and as long as nothing’s wrong with it, it does what it’s supposed to do and is very necessary. But Sola Scriptura shouldn’t (and, both historically and currently, usually doesn’t) imply that everyone should read the plain text, chuck all tradition, form whatever opinions come to mind, and either try to force everyone else to your point of view or become relativistic in your approach. It just means tradition is not inspired by God, and while it has authority and is anywhere from useful to indispensible, it is no better than second in authority to Scripture.
We really do live in different worlds, don’t we?
I had the same response when people said Protestants have popes. It helps to talk about it, though.
I’ll do my best to finish up with one more post.