Early Church Fathers and Sola Scriptura

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

In terms of the latest round of quotes you provided, you have not defined the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity from Scripture alone. You quoted St. Thomas Aquinas who cited the Comma Johanneum which I have already demonstrated to be unbiblical. Moreover, Aquinas is basically making a philosophical argument (not a scriptural one) on how the mystery of the Holy Trinity is best understood by considering it in terms of a relationship of love.

St. Ambrose is giving an elaboration on the nature of the Holy Trinity based on an interpretation of the three-fold “Holy”. In other words, what we see here is an example of eisegesis rather than exegesis. For example, St. Ambrose is commenting on Isaiah 6:1-3, which states that the angels in heaven called to one another and said, “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory.” The text itself does not describe why they said “Holy, holy, holy.” To give an exegetical answer to this question, one has to consider what the text alone says, and the conclusion is that this phrase simply means “holiest.” As I stated in an earlier post, there is no single word in Hebrew to say “holiest”, and therefore this was accomplished by saying “holy, holy, holy.” In other words, God is not merely “holy”, nor is he merely “holier” (when compared to others) but is “holiest” (i.e., his holiness surpasses all others). That is all that can be derived from the three-fold “holy” as a purely exegetical exercise. But St. Ambrose is not trying to do that, so he gives an eisegetical explanation (i.e., he explains the nature of the tree-fold “holy” beyond what the text actually says).

In terms of the quote from St. Victor, the same critique applies which I have just made concerning the quote from St. Ambrose.

So, once again, the challenge you to use Scripture alone to demonstrate the teachings of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity (as outlined in red text in my last post) which are strong enough to also allow for the act of prayer and worship I outlined in purple text in my last post. In order for you to do so, you have to give an exegetical explanation of the Bible passages you cite, not an eisegetical one (otherwise you are relying upon someone’s interpretation to do the job, and what we are debating here is the validity of “Sola Scriptura”, not “Sola Interpretation”). If you are unable to do that, you will have to conclude that Sacred Tradition is needed to sufficiently express the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Here is Augustine’s thought on the wholesome and necessary relationship that exists between the Scriptures and the Church:

“hould you meet with a person not yet believing the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not believe? For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. So when those on whose authority I have consented to believe in the gospel tell me not to believe in Manichæus, how can I but consent? Take your choice. If you say, Believe the Catholics: their advice to me is to put no faith in you; so that, believing them, I am precluded from believing you—If you say, Do not believe the Catholics: you cannot fairly use the gospel in bringing me to faith in Manichæus; for it was at the command of the Catholics that I believed the gospel;— Again, if you say, You were right in believing the Catholics when they praised the gospel, but wrong in believing their vituperation of Manichæus: do you think me such a fool as to believe or not to believe as you like or dislike, without any reason? It is therefore fairer and safer by far for me, having in one instance put faith in the Catholics, not to go over to you, till, instead of bidding me believe, you make me understand something in the clearest and most open manner. To convince me, then, you must put aside the gospel. If you keep to the gospel, I will keep to those who commanded me to believe the gospel; and, in obedience to them, I will not believe you at all. But if haply you should succeed in finding in the gospel an incontrovertible testimony to the apostleship of Manichæus, you will weaken my regard for the authority of the Catholics who bid me not to believe you; and the effect of that will be, that I shall no longer be able to believe the gospel either, for it was through the Catholics that I got my faith in it; and so, whatever you bring from the gospel will no longer have any weight with me. Wherefore, if no clear proof of the apostleship of Manichæus is found in the gospel, I will believe the Catholics rather than you. But if you read thence some passage clearly in favor of Manichæus, I will believe neither them nor you: not them, for they lied to me about you; nor you, for you quote to me that Scripture which I had believed on the authority of those liars. But far be it that I should not believe the gospel; for believing it, I find no way of believing you too. For the names of the apostles, as there recorded, do not include the name of Manichæus. And who the successor of Christ’s betrayer was we read in the Acts of the Apostles (cf. Acts 1:26); which book I must needs believe if I believe the gospel, since both writings alike Catholic authority commends to me” (, Ch. 5Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus).

The authority of the Church and of the Scriptures go together and either stand or fall together in Augustine’s mind. If you separate the one from the other, you end up losing the reality of both. When confronted with this line of reasoning, Calvin referred his readers to Augustine’s treatise, On the Profit of believing, in order to obtain what he said was Augustine’s true thought on the matter. But here is what Augustine says in this treatise:

“When we see the great help of God, such manifest progress and such abundant fruit, shall we hesitate to take refuge in the bosom of that Church, which, as is evident to all, possesses the supreme authority of the Apostolic See through the Episcopal succession? In vain do heretics rage round it; they are condemned partly by the judgment of the people themselves, partly by the weight of councils, partly by the splendid evidence of miracles. To refuse to the Church the primacy is most impious and above measure arrogant. And if all learning, no matter how easy and common it may be, in order to be fully understood requires a teacher and master, what can be greater evidence of pride and rashness than to be unwilling to learn about the books of the divine mysteries from the proper interpreter, and to wish to condemn them unknown?” (, 35On the Profit of Believing; translation taken from Satis Cognitum)

Augustine’s proposal to his friend is exactly what Calvin refused to do. He refused to learn the Scriptures from those who held the episcopacy through apostolic succession in Catholic unity.

“If you acknowledge the supreme authority of Scripture, you should recognise that authority which from the time of Christ Himself, through the ministry of His apostles, and through a regular succession of bishops in the seats of the apostles, has been preserved to our own day throughout the whole world, with a reputation known to all” (, Bk. 33, 9Against Faustus).

Still more Awesome than I know!

With love in Christ,
Pete

 

[Pete_Holter]

I’m having a somewhat difficult time following some of the posts here. It seems as if this thread is being conflated with another one – perhaps the “SPLIT” thread concerning whether the Catholic Church is the true Church, which was recently closed? I dunno, but questions about whether the Catholic Church apostatized at Trent seem rather far afield here.

I actually thought this was an interesting thread until long multi-part posts that consisted primarily of quotes were introduced. After that everything fell apart for me. It went from a discussion to a chore at that point.

A labor of love!

A provision of citations from the Church Fathers is a great way to learn the faith.

Thanks, Ignatius!

In Christ,
Pete

 

[Algo1]

Algo, unless I am mistaken, I believe the material you posted originated from the below people. Of course, as guanophore pointed out, it is your responsibility to give proper references to your sources.

St. Thomas Aquinas:
en.wikisource.org/wiki/Summa_Theologiae/First_Part/Question_30

St. Ambrose:
christianbookshelf.org/ambrose/works_and_letters_of_st_ambrose/chapter_xvi_the_father_is.htm

St. Victor of Lerins:
voskrese.info/spl/lerins16.html

At this point I think I need to reiterate the challenge I set before you, and maybe to give it a bit more clarification.

The Doctrine of the Holy Trinity teaches the following:

There is one God who exists in the perfect unity of three divine persons: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Divinity does not exist apart from these specific divine persons, therefore in the one God there are three and only three persons, no more, no less. The substantial nature of divinity shared by the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is exactly the same, which means each person is the Eternal Living God. Despite this perfect unity, each divine person is fully distinct from the others. In light of all this, it is taught that the Father is the Son and is the Holy Spirit, but at the same time the Father is not the Son and is not the Holy Spirit. This same formula is used for each person (i.e., the Son is the Father, the Son is not the Father, etc.).

In terms of the ramifications of this teaching for a Christian…

It is permissible for a Christian to focus his prayer on the Holy Spirit and to worship the Holy Spirit as a person (and therefore not simply understood as a manifestation of God’s power) and moreover as a person distinct from the Father and the Son, but nonetheless their full equals.

As far as I am concerned, Scripture alone is not sufficient to express what is taught in the above red text, and therefore is not sufficient to allow the act of worship described in the above purple text. To fully express the above definition of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity to the extent that makes the act of worshiping the Holy Spirit (as described) permissible, one needs Sacred Tradition. At best, the Bible implies the Holy Trinity, but such implications cannot support the full weight and ramifications of what is found in the above red & purple text.

Moreover, in declaring “Scripture alone” to be insufficient in attempting to teach the fullness of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, I do not simply state my opinion. To back this up, I point out that if the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity could be sufficiently demonstrated from Scripture alone then the following heresies would not have gotten any traction (i.e., they each contradict one or more points in the above text in red):

Macedonianism: The Holy Spirit does .shared between the Father and the Son was “similar” but not the “same.”

Monarchianism: God exists as only one person.

Adoptionism (a.k.a., Dynamic Monarchianism): Jesus is simply a man who, during his earthly life, was empowered by God and, in a manner-of-speaking, became God. Therefore, Christ is not eternal.

Modalism (a.k.a., Sabellianism): God exists as only one person, but acts in three “modes”: the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Arianism: The Son is not the Eternal Living God, but is rather an entity subordinate to the Father.

Ebionitism: Jesus is the Messiah but not God. He is understood as a righteous man selected by God to be a messianic prophet.

Nestorianism: Jesus was born simply as a man but was later filled with the divine logos and therefore can be considered a kind of incarnation of the Holy Spirit.

(Continued in my next post)

Very good,
Ambrose use of Scripture (alone) to prove the Trinity.

Thomas Aquinas use of Scripture (alone) to prove the Trinity.

Vincent of Lerins use of Scripture (alone) to prove the Trinity.

And one more from Basil’s use of Scripture (alone) to prove the Trinity.

Your initial rejection to my paraphrasing of the above cited ECFs was in essence a rejection of what these ‘catholic’ writers have defended from Scripture (alone).
I paraphrased the arguments of the fathers from Scripture (alone) because I agree with them.
I omitted the citations because I am willing to own the arguments - the arguments stand on their two legs, even without the weight of the fathers

This debate is conducted by a Trinitarian using “Scripture Alone” against a Oneness Pentecostal. He proves definitively that the Trinity can be defended from Scripture Alone.

I would respond to your two definitions defining The Trinity and describing Prayer and Worship above but I’m not sure where you got them.

Regarding the Comma Johanneum.
If you want to reject the Comma, that’s fine, but Clementine’s Vuglate includes it. As did the Douay Rheims. In other words your communion considered it Scripture for centuries.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Very good,
Ambrose use of Scripture (alone) to prove the Trinity.

Thomas Aquinas use of Scripture (alone) to prove the Trinity.

Vincent of Lerins use of Scripture (alone) to prove the Trinity.

And one more from Basil’s use of Scripture (alone) to prove the Trinity.

Your initial rejection to my paraphrasing of the above cited ECFs was in essence a rejection of what these ‘catholic’ writers have defended from Scripture (alone).
I paraphrased the arguments of the fathers from Scripture (alone) because I agree with them.
I omitted the citations because I am willing to own the arguments - the arguments stand on their two legs, even without the weight of the fathers

This debate is conducted by a Trinitarian using “Scripture Alone” against a Oneness Pentecostal. He proves definitively that the Trinity can be defended from Scripture Alone.

I would respond to your two definitions defining The Trinity and describing Prayer and Worship above but I’m not sure where you got them.

Greetings, Algo!

I think this is right. Saint John of Damascus wrote:

“Moreover, by the Law and the Prophets in former times and afterwards by His Only-begotten Son, our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ, He disclosed to us the knowledge of Himself as that was possible for us. All things, therefore, that have been delivered to us by Law and Prophets and Apostles and Evangelists we receive, and know, and honour, seeking for nothing beyond these. For God, being good, is the cause of all good, subject neither to envy nor to any passion. For envy is far removed from the Divine nature, which is both passionless and only good. As knowing all things, therefore, and providing for what is profitable for each, He revealed that which it was to our profit to know; but what we were unable to bear He kept secret. With these things let us be satisfied, and let us abide by them, not removing everlasting boundaries, nor overpassing the divine tradition.

…]

“It is not within our capacity, therefore, to say anything about God or even to think of Him, beyond the things which have been divinely revealed to us, whether by word or by manifestation, by the divine oracles at once of the Old Testament and of the New” (, Bk. 1, Chs. 1 & 2An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith).

And when Saint Thomas Aquinas was faced with this same thought, he didn’t respond by saying that not everything we believe about God needs to be found in the Scriptures; rather, he reaffirmed the thought by explaining that the teaching of the Scriptures subsumed the idea under discussion:

“Objection 1. It would seem that in God there are no notions. For Dionysius says (Div. Nom. i): ‘We must not dare to say anything of God but what is taught to us by the Holy Scripture.’ But Holy Scripture does not say anything concerning notions. Therefore there are none in God.

“Reply to Objection 1. Although the notions are not mentioned in Holy Scripture, yet the persons are mentioned, comprising the idea of notions, as the abstract is contained in the concrete” (, First Part, Question 32, Article 2, “Objection 1 and its Reply”Summa Theologica).

Regarding the Comma Johanneum.
If you want to reject the Comma, that’s fine, but Clementine’s Vuglate includes it. As did the Douay Rheims. In other words your communion considered it Scripture for centuries.

I was surprised when I first read Cyprian quoting this verse. That’s pretty early!

In Christ,
Pete

 

[EricFilmer]

Very good,
Ambrose use of Scripture (alone) to prove the Trinity.

Thomas Aquinas use of Scripture (alone) to prove the Trinity.

Vincent of Lerins use of Scripture (alone) to prove the Trinity.

And one more from Basil’s use of Scripture (alone) to prove the Trinity.

Algo, I am no longer going to do your work for you. I specifically challenged you to provide an exegetical demonstration of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity. That should be easily done by simply giving me the book/chapter/verse citations from the Bible. If you think any of these links have done that then it is up to you to not only provide the links but to also quote the pertinent information from them in this thread. That saves me (and anyone else following this discussion) from wasting time reading through pages of material in order to try to glean what you think is pertinent.

So let me put that again in another way: As far as I am concerned, neither St. Aquinas nor St. Ambrose nor St. Vincent nor St. Basil ever used a purely exegetical approach to prove the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity. I challenge you to prove me wrong in this thread. Simply posting a bunch of links and saying, “It’s all in here” is not going to cut it, and I have no intention of wasting time reading through several pages of text looking for something that I am already pretty certain is not actually there (and I say this stemming from my experiences of having actually studied Trinitarian Theology in an academic setting).

Your initial rejection to my paraphrasing of the above cited ECFs was in essence a rejection of what these ‘catholic’ writers have defended from Scripture (alone).
I paraphrased the arguments of the fathers from Scripture (alone) because I agree with them.
I omitted the citations because I am willing to own the arguments - the arguments stand on their two legs, even without the weight of the fathers.

The material you quoted in this thread did not demonstrate the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity by use of Scripture Alone. As I have already pointed out, they gave interpretations of Scripture beyond what the text actually states, meaning eisegesis rather than exegesis. As a side note, would you accept an eisegetical defense of Marian doctrine? I’m guessing you would not.

This debate is conducted by a Trinitarian using “Scripture Alone” against a Oneness Pentecostal. He proves definitively that the Trinity can be defended from Scripture Alone.

So now I am supposed to listen to a video that is nearly an hour long? How about instead you listen to the video, write down any book/chapter/verse citations from the Bible that are used to that give an exegetical defense of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity and then post them in this thread. Feel free to also provide any quotes from this video that you think are pertinent.

I would respond to your two definitions defining The Trinity and describing Prayer and Worship above but I’m not sure where you got them.

The text in red is my own elaboration of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, stated in such a way to emphasize the points that are relevant to the discussion. FWIW, I have a M.Div in Theology and a M.A. in Systematic Theology.

The text in purple is also mine, based on what is permissible among Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants. If you feel that the material I posted in the red and/or purple text is not accurate then explain why. Otherwise there is no reason we can’t use it in the basis of this debate.

Regarding the Comma Johanneum.
If you want to reject the Comma, that’s fine, but Clementine’s Vuglate includes it. As did the Douay Rheims. In other words your communion considered it Scripture for centuries.

Not only do I reject it, but so do all modern biblical scholars, including Protestant ones. The passage in question is not found in the ancient manuscripts. Moreover, if it were then there would have been none of the ancient heresies that I mentioned, seeing as they would have been in clear contradiction to the Comma Johanneum. Notice that in the debates with these heretical sects, as recorded by the ECFs and in the eccumenical councils that addressed them, the Comma Johanneum is never mentioned! That’s a pretty darn big omission, don’t you think? So why was the Comma Johanneum never mentioned by them? Because it didn’t exist at the time. It was a marginal note made by someone copying an ancient manuscript that somehow got confused with having biblical origin.

 

[EricFilmer]

I’ll see what I can do with #146 now.

I will see how well you addressed by specific points concerning belief in the Immaculate Conception in a moment. But first, in the interest of clarity and focus, I will present a reiteration of the elements specific to our discussion:

Your premise seems to be that the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, as outlined in Ineffabilis Deus, is a papal fabrication. If this statement does not accurately represent your position then naturally I invite you to make a correction. As for me…

My stance is that the teachings of Ineffabilis Deus cannot be a papal fabrication because it stemmed from widespread beliefs which existed prior to it being written in 1854. To demonstrate this, I have pointed out that there are non-Catholic Churches, denominations and even a religion (Islam) that have historically taught the core belief that Mary, through a special action of God, was sinless. Even if these groups do not express this belief with all the nuances of Catholicism (as we see outlined in Ineffabilis Deus) the core belief is embraced. This proves that belief in the sinless nature of Mary was (a) historical, (b) widespread, and (c) not confined to Catholics. Simply put, based on this the teaching of the Immaculate Conception is not a papal fabrication.

And now I will examine your recent rebuttals to my stance…

Ok, I’m reading the wiki listing for “Other Churches”. This is what they present.
I wonder if these are some of the more conservative folks that are leaving the hemorrhaging Church of England. Is this an official teaching or just a private belief held by some?

It does not matter if Anglicans see the Immaculate Conception as official or as a private belief. The point is that they claim the Immaculate Conception is a historical belief. And despite how pro-Catholic some Anglicans are, the denomination as a whole would not use the Immaculate Conception in its liturgies simply based on pro-Catholic sentiments.

Well this seems to be official but not very significant.

The fact that Anglican belief in the Immaculate Conception predates Ineffabilis Deus makes it significant.

I guess not accepting them as Revelation could be a problem. Not to mention them as a matter of faith.

This simply illustrates the often quirky way that some Anglicans have concerning the concept of doctrine and what amounts to giving doctrine the assent of faith (and I am speaking as a former Anglican). But, once again, the point is that Anglicans represent a body of Protestants who state that the core teaching of the Immaculate Conception is historical. They would not have accepted it if they felt it was a papal fabrication.

That wasn’t a problem for Pelagius either.

Let us stay focused on the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception rather than the Doctrine of Original Sin.

Oh great, the example they give is from an African Book of Legends .

It doesn’t matter if they cited an African book of nursery rhymes. The point is that belief in the sinless nature of Mary is historical and widespread.

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

Rastafarians (and Muslims) are always reliable commentators on Christian history and doctrine.

Any inability they have to give valid commentary on Christian history & doctrine is not the point. The point is that the fact that they have always taught that Mary is sinless shows that such a belief is historical and widespread.

I guess that’s what makes them “Old Catholics”. Those “accretions” just keep thinning the herd.

It does not matter that the Old Catholics do not specifically identify the Immaculate Conception as a defined doctrine or dogma. The point is that they have historically believed it to be true, and the wiki quote you provided specifically points out that they do not believe that Pope Pius IX had the ability to make infallible statements of this nature. Hence, the Old Catholics would not have embraced belief in the Immaculate Conception if they thought it was a papal fabrication.

Now this is fascinating, in case you didn’t know, Muhammad believed that All prophets sent from Allah could NOT sin. Including David, which is very odd because he recounts the confrontation of David by Nathan but never tells us what the subject was.

I think it is worth pointing out that Islam teaches that Mary was not a prophet, and yet she was still awarded this same special grace from God that Islam states is provided the prophets. Nevertheless, this does not refute the fact that Muslims have historically taught that Mary was sinless.

His tremendous knowledge of Christianity made him conclude that the Trinity consisted of The Father, Mary and Jesus. Try to read Surah 3 starting at verse 36 and following. Eventually you see Muhammad telling tales from the Gnostic Gospels about Jesus making a bird out of clay (v.49) and breathing life into it. Now if Muhammad believed in the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception as defined by Ineffabilis deus then he would be the first recorded in history to do so.

As I stated earlier, any inability Islam has to give accurate and valid representations of Christian teaching is not the point. The fact that the sinless nature of Mary has been taught by the Muslims demonstrates that the basic core of the belief expressed in the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception cannot be held as a papal fabrication.

This from Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.p.201.

Now Eric, remember that Ineffabilis deus claims that this was revelation. Does not revelation end with the last Apostle?
Or as the Catholic Encyclopedia describes it:

To be more specific, public revelation was concluded at the end of the Apostolic age. According to Ineffabilis Deus, the belief that God completely preserved Mary from sin has been passed down since the Apostolic age, so there is no problem with saying that it is part of God’s revelation, even if it was not officially defined as doctrine until Ineffabilis Deus. So what exactly is your criticism here? Throughout your posts you seem to be fixating on whether or not a certain group of people thought that the sinless nature of Mary was “revelation” or “official teaching.” What does that matter? The point is that they believed it to be true, and that they believed it apart from Catholic teaching and long before the writing of Ineffabilis Deus.

 

[Algo1]

Algo, I am no longer going to do your work for you. I specifically challenged you to provide an exegetical demonstration of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity. That should be easily done by simply giving me the book/chapter/verse citations from the Bible. If you think any of these links have done that then it is up to you to not only provide the links but to also quote the pertinent information from them in this thread. That saves me (and anyone else following this discussion) from wasting time reading through pages of material in order to try to glean what you think is pertinent.

A. There is One God: Deuteronomy 4:35, 6:4, 10:14, Psalm 96:5, 97:9, Isaiah 43:10, 44:6-8, 44:24, 45:5-6, 45:21-23, 46:9, 48:11-12, John 17:3, 1 Timothy 2:5, Revelation 1:8, (Hosea 13:4). He is not, in His essential nature, a man: Hosea 11:9, Numbers 23:19.
B. There are three Persons: Father, Son and Spirit: Matthew 3:16-17, 11:27, 17:1-9, 27:46, John 1:18, 14:16-17. The Pre-existence of the Son: Colossians 1:13-17, Hebrews 1:2-3, John 1:1.
C. Equality: the Deity of Christ: Colossians 2:9, John 20:28, Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1, John 1:18; identification as Yahweh: John 6:39-41/Isaiah 6, Hebrews 1:10-12/Psalm 102:25-27.
The Forgotten Trinity James R. White (endorsed by Fr. Mitchell Pacwa S.J)

So let me put that again in another way: As far as I am concerned, neither St. Aquinas nor St. Ambrose nor St. Vincent nor St. Basil ever used a purely exegetical approach to prove the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity. I challenge you to prove me wrong in this thread.

Lets just look at one example from one of the four mentioned above:

Basil of Caesarea (AD. 329-379):
“But it is not sufficient for us, that it is the tradition of the Fathers. For they also followed the mind of Scripture; having taken their first principles from the testimonies which, a short time since, we placed before you, from the Scripture.”
Basil On the Holy Spirit Translation by William Goode, Vol. 3, p.133.

And this is counter-evidence to your claim that Basil was never purely exegetical.

 

[Algo1]

The material you quoted in this thread did not demonstrate the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity by use of Scripture Alone. As I have already pointed out, they gave interpretations of Scripture beyond what the text actually states, meaning eisegesis rather than exegesis.

Then you would also accuse the authors of The Cath. Encyclopedia of practicing eisegesis in their similar interpretations and conclusions?
Theirs received this:
Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
And yours?

The doctrine as to the Holy Spirit is equally clear. That His distinct personality was fully recognized is shown by many passages. Thus He reveals His commands to the Church’s ministers: “As they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Ghost said to them: Separate me Saul and Barnabas . . .” (Acts 13:2). He directs the missionary journey of the Apostles: “They attempted to go into Bithynia, and the Spirit of Jesus suffered them not” (Acts 16:7; cf. Acts 5:3; 15:28; Romans 15:30). Divine attributes are affirmed of Him.

He possesses omniscience and reveals to the Church mysteries known only to God (1 Corinthians 2:10);
it is He who distributes charismata (1 Corinthians 12:11);
He is the giver of supernatural life (2 Corinthians 3:8);
He dwells in the Church and in the souls of individual men, as in His temple (Romans 8:9-11; 1 Corinthians 3:16, 6:19).
The work of justification and sanctification is attributed to Him (1 Corinthians 6:11; Romans 15:16), just as in other passages the same operations are attributed to Christ (1 Corinthians 1:2; Galatians 2:17).
To sum up: the various elements of the Trinitarian doctrine are all expressly taught in the New Testament. The Divinity of the Three Persons is asserted or implied in passages too numerous to count. The unity of essence is not merely postulated by the strict monotheism of men nurtured in the religion of Israel, to whom “subordinate deities” would have been unthinkable;

but it is, as we have seen, involved in the baptismal commission of Matthew 28:19, and, in regard to the Father and the Son, expressly asserted in John 10:38. That the Persons are co-eternal and coequal is a mere corollary from this.** In regard to the Divine processions, the doctrine of the first procession is contained in the very terms Father and Son: the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and Son is taught in the discourse of the Lord reported by St. John (14-17)** (see HOLY GHOST).
But apart from passages such as these, where there is express mention of the Three Persons, **the teaching of the New Testament regarding Christ and the Holy Spirit is free from all ambiguity. ** In regard to Christ, the Apostles employ modes of speech which, to men brought up in the Hebrew faith, necessarily signified belief in His Divinity. Such, for instance, is the use of the Doxology in reference to Him. The Doxology, “To Him be glory for ever and ever” (cf. 1 Chronicles 16:38; 29:11; Psalm 103:31; 28:2), is an expression of praise offered to God alone. In the New Testament we find it addressed not alone to God the Father, but to Jesus Christ (2 Timothy 4:18; 2 Peter 3:18; Revelation 1:6; Hebrews 13:20-21), and to God the Father and Christ in conjunction (Revelations 5:13, 7:10).
newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm

As a side note, would you accept an eisegetical defense of Marian doctrine? I’m guessing you would not.

No, but in fact here is a perfect example of a Roman Catholic Apologist who has written numerous articles claiming “Material Sufficiency” doing just that.

So now I am supposed to listen to a video that is nearly an hour long? How about instead you listen to the video, write down any book/chapter/verse citations from the Bible that are used to that give an exegetical defense of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity and then post them in this thread. Feel free to also provide any quotes from this video that you think are pertinent.

Actually the video is in 2 parts and is more than two hours. Since others are reading this post maybe they will benefit from it even if you won’t. I posted excerpts (“quotes”) and a link to The Forgotten Trinity above which was the cause for the debate.

The text in red is my own elaboration of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, stated in such a way to emphasize the points that are relevant to the discussion.

Here is an even more succinct definition:

“Within the one Being that is God, there exist eternally three coequal and coeternal Persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”

FWIW, I have a M.Div in Theology and a M.A. in Systematic Theology.

Excellent.

The text in purple is also mine, based on what is permissible among Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants. If you feel that the material I posted in the red and/or purple text is not accurate then explain why. Otherwise there is no reason we can’t use it in the basis of this debate.

Ok.

 

[Algo1]

Not only do I reject it, but so do all modern biblical scholars, including Protestant ones. The passage in question is not found in the ancient manuscripts. Moreover, if it were then there would have been none of the ancient heresies that I mentioned, seeing as they would have been in clear contradiction to the Comma Johanneum. Notice that in the debates with these heretical sects, as recorded by the ECFs and in the eccumenical councils that addressed them, the Comma Johanneum is never mentioned! That’s a pretty darn big omission, don’t you think? So why was the Comma Johanneum never mentioned by them? Because it didn’t exist at the time. It was a marginal note made by someone copying an ancient manuscript that somehow got confused with having biblical origin.

I actually agree with you that it was not in the earliest manuscripts. If you noticed, I usually cite from the ESV:

*For there are three that testify:
(1 John 5:7 ESV)

And the Study Notes from the ESV Study Bible:

1 John 5:7–8 three that testify. The gospel is not based on merely human testimony. John indicates that there are in fact “three that testify,” namely, the witness of the Spirit (cf. note on v. 6), the water baptism of Jesus (including the “Spirit descending on him like a dove” and the voice of the Father from heaven; Mark 1:10–11; cf. John 1:32–34), and the blood (which “cleanses us from all unrighteousness”; 1 John 1:7). These three agree, thereby providing persuasive confirmation for believing in Jesus as the “Son of God” (5:10). The OT taught that every charge must be confirmed by “two or three witnesses” (Deut. 17:6; 19:15), a principle continued in the NT (Matt. 18:16; 2 Cor. 13:1).

I just thought it would be interesting to watch you refute what was considered to be Scripture at Trent.

The Council of Trent in 1546 defined the Biblical canon as “the entire books with all their parts, as these have been wont to be read in the Catholic Church and are contained in the old Latin Vulgate,” meaning that the comma was included.

As well as the Douay-Rheims,

 

[Algo1]

Since we are discussing Sola Scriptura, the Early Church Fathers and the revelation of The Trinity in Scripture Alone. Permit me a few more quotes:

**Tertullian (c. 160-c. 220): ** These are a few testimonies out of many; for we do not pretend to bring up **all the passages of Scripture, ** because we have a tolerably large accumulation of them in the various heads of our subject, as we in our several chapters call them in as our witnesses in the fulness of their dignity and authority. Still, in these few quotations the distinction of Persons in the Trinity is clearly set forth. For there is the Spirit Himself who speaks, and the Father to whom He speaks, and the Son of whom He speaks. In the same manner, the other passages also establish each one of several Persons in His special character—addressed as they in some cases are to the Father or to the Son respecting the Son, in other cases to the Son or to the Father concerning the Father, and again in other instances to the (Holy) Spirit. ANF: Vol. III , Against Praxeas, Chapter 11.

Ambrose (c. 339-97): Therefore, God is one, the majesty of the eternal Trinity being preserved, as it is set forth in the example set before us. And yet not in that place alone do we see the Trinity expressed in the name of the Godhead, but both in many places, as we have said above, and especially in those letters which the Apostle wrote to the Thessalonians, did he very clearly declare the Godhead and the sovereignty of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. For thus it reads: ‘And may the Lord multiply you, and make you abound in charity towards one another, and towards all men, as we do also towards you, to confirm your hearts without blame, in holiness before God and our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.’ See FC, Vol. 44, Saint Ambrose: Theological and Dogmatic Works, On the Holy Spirit, Book III, Chapter 14, §94 (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1963), p. 187.

Augustine (354-430): The lesson of the Gospel hath set before me a subject whereof to speak to you, beloved, as though by the Lord’s command, and by His command in very deed. For my heart hath waited for an order as it were from Him to speak, that I might understand thereby that it is His wish that I should speak on that which He hath also willed should be read to you. Let your zeal and devotion then give ear, and before the Lord our God Himself aid ye my labor. For we behold and see as it were in a divine spectacle exhibited to us, the notice of our God in Trinity, Conveyed to us at the river Jordan. For when Jesus came and was baptized by John, the Lord by His servant (and this He did for an example of humility; for He showeth that in this same humility is righteousness fulfilled, when as John said to Him, “I have need to be baptized of Thee, and comest Thou to me?” He answered, “Suffer it to be so now, that all righteousness may be fulfilled”), when He was baptized then, the heavens were opened, and the Holy Spirit came down upon Him in the form of a Dove: and then a Voice from on high followed, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” ** Here then we have the Trinity in a certain sort distinguished. The Father in the Voice, — the Son in the Man, — the Holy Spirit in the Dove. It was only needful just to mention this, for most obvious is it to see. For the notice of the Trinity is here conveyed to us plainly and without leaving room for doubt or hesitation.** NPNF1: Vol. VI, Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament, Sermon 2, §1.

 

[guanophore]

Since we are discussing Sola Scriptura, the Early Church Fathers and the revelation of The Trinity in Scripture Alone. Permit me a few more quotes:

Scripture was never "alone’ until the Reformation, Algo. The reason we see the Trinity it it, and in the Early Fathers, is because we have received this truth from the Apostles. Those that don’t receive it, cannot see it.

And the Gnostics and Arians used the same scriptures to prove there was no Trinity.

 

[Algo1]

Here is Augustine’s thought on the wholesome and necessary relationship that exists between the Scriptures and the Church:

“hould you meet with a person not yet believing the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not believe? For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. So when those on whose authority I have consented to believe in the gospel tell me not to believe in Manichæus, how can I but consent? Take your choice. If you say, Believe the Catholics: their advice to me is to put no faith in you; so that, believing them, I am precluded from believing you—If you say, Do not believe the Catholics: you cannot fairly use the gospel in bringing me to faith in Manichæus; for it was at the command of the Catholics that I believed the gospel;— Again, if you say, You were right in believing the Catholics when they praised the gospel, but wrong in believing their vituperation of Manichæus: do you think me such a fool as to believe or not to believe as you like or dislike, without any reason? It is therefore fairer and safer by far for me, having in one instance put faith in the Catholics, not to go over to you, till, instead of bidding me believe, you make me understand something in the clearest and most open manner. To convince me, then, you must put aside the gospel. If you keep to the gospel, I will keep to those who commanded me to believe the gospel; and, in obedience to them, I will not believe you at all. But if haply you should succeed in finding in the gospel an incontrovertible testimony to the apostleship of Manichæus, you will weaken my regard for the authority of the Catholics who bid me not to believe you; and the effect of that will be, that I shall no longer be able to believe the gospel either, for it was through the Catholics that I got my faith in it; and so, whatever you bring from the gospel will no longer have any weight with me. Wherefore, if no clear proof of the apostleship of Manichæus is found in the gospel, I will believe the Catholics rather than you. But if you read thence some passage clearly in favor of Manichæus, I will believe neither them nor you: not them, for they lied to me about you; nor you, for you quote to me that Scripture which I had believed on the authority of those liars. But far be it that I should not believe the gospel; for believing it, I find no way of believing you too. For the names of the apostles, as there recorded, do not include the name of Manichæus. And who the successor of Christ’s betrayer was we read in the Acts of the Apostles (cf. Acts 1:26); which book I must needs believe if I believe the gospel, since both writings alike Catholic authority commends to me” (Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus, Ch. 5).

The authority of the Church and of the Scriptures go together and either stand or fall together in Augustine’s mind. If you separate the one from the other, you end up losing the reality of both. When confronted with this line of reasoning, Calvin referred his readers to Augustine’s treatise, On the Profit of believing, in order to obtain what he said was Augustine’s true thought on the matter. But here is what Augustine says in this treatise:

“When we see the great help of God, such manifest progress and such abundant fruit, shall we hesitate to take refuge in the bosom of that Church, which, as is evident to all, possesses the supreme authority of the Apostolic See through the Episcopal succession? In vain do heretics rage round it; they are condemned partly by the judgment of the people themselves, partly by the weight of councils, partly by the splendid evidence of miracles. To refuse to the Church the primacy is most impious and above measure arrogant. And if all learning, no matter how easy and common it may be, in order to be fully understood requires a teacher and master, what can be greater evidence of pride and rashness than to be unwilling to learn about the books of the divine mysteries from the proper interpreter, and to wish to condemn them unknown?” (On the Profit of Believing, 35; translation taken from Satis Cognitum)

Augustine’s proposal to his friend is exactly what Calvin refused to do. He refused to learn the Scriptures from those who held the episcopacy through apostolic succession in Catholic unity.

“If you acknowledge the supreme authority of Scripture, you should recognise that authority which from the time of Christ Himself, through the ministry of His apostles, and through a regular succession of bishops in the seats of the apostles, has been preserved to our own day throughout the whole world, with a reputation known to all” (Against Faustus, Bk. 33, 9).

Still more Awesome than I know!

With love in Christ,
Pete

Pete,
This is a very thoughtful post.
I will attempt to provide you with a thoughtful response.

 

[EricFilmer]

Algo, at this time I think this discussion needs an official statement concerning the development of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity. For this I will quote the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church [F.L. Cross, E.A. Livingstone, editors, (Oxford University Press: New York, 1997), page 1641]. FWIW, this is not a Catholic publication. The following quotes in blue text are found under the subject title: “Trinity, doctrine of the”.

“The central dogma of Christian theology, that the one God exists in three Persons and one substance, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. God is one, yet self-differentiated; the God who reveals Himself to mankind is one God equally in three distinct modes of existence, yet remains one throughout all eternity.”

“Though the word ‘Trinity’, first used in its Greek form Τριάς by Theophilus of Antioch (c. AD 180), is not found in Scripture, Christian theologians have seen adumbrations of the doctrine in the biblical narratives;”

Note that according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the word adumbrate means, "(1) To foreshadow vaguely : intimate; (2) To suggest or disclose partially; (3) Shade, obscure.”

“…in the OT, for example, the appearance of the three men to Abraham (Gen. 18) was held by the Fathers to foreshadow the revelation of the threefold nature of God. In the NT the most influential text was the reference to the three Persons in the baptismal formula at the end of Mt. (18:19), but there are other passages held to have Trinitarian overtones, such as the Pauline benediction of 2 Cor. 13:14. From the biblical language concerning the Father, Son (or Logos), and Spirit, Trinitarian doctrine developed, as the Church’s expansion led to the need for reflection, confession, and dialogue.”

Note that terms such as “foreshadow” and “overtones” emphasize that the doctrine was not considered explicit from an exegetical basis. Moreover, an examination of the cited Bible passages clearly shows that we are dealing with eisogesis here rather than exegesis.

“Finding the appropriate concepts was not easy, and many 2nd- and 3rd-cent. Christians adopted views that were later considered unorthodox.”

This goes along with what I have presented earlier in this discussion concerning the various heresies that rejected one or more aspects of the above definition of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity. If Scripture alone is sufficient to clearly teach this doctrine, why was it “not easy” for Christians to find it for three hundred years? Why did all those heresies find traction? Why do some areas within Christianity, such as the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses still not see it in Scripture?

“At the Councils of Nicaea (325) and Constantinople (381) the doctrine was defined in its simplest outlines, by negative rather than positive pronouncements, affirming against Sabellianism the real distinction of the divine Persons, and against Arianism and Macedonianism their equality and co-eternity.”

This, then, is where the belief in the three divine Persons of the Holy Trinity was officially defined as a doctrine. To do this, the above mentioned councils had to appeal to both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, because nowhere in the Bible is the fullness of this doctrine clearly spelled out in an exegetical manner.

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

A. There is One God: Deuteronomy 4:35, 6:4, 10:14, Psalm 96:5, 97:9, Isaiah 43:10, 44:6-8, 44:24, 45:5-6, 45:21-23, 46:9, 48:11-12, John 17:3, 1 Timothy 2:5, Revelation 1:8, (Hosea 13:4). He is not, in His essential nature, a man: Hosea 11:9, Numbers 23:19.
B. There are three Persons: Father, Son and Spirit: Matthew 3:16-17, 11:27, 17:1-9, 27:46, John 1:18, 14:16-17. The Pre-existence of the Son: Colossians 1:13-17, Hebrews 1:2-3, John 1:1.
C. Equality: the Deity of Christ: Colossians 2:9, John 20:28, Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1, John 1:18; identification as Yahweh: John 6:39-41/Isaiah 6, Hebrews 1:10-12/Psalm 102:25-27.
The Forgotten Trinity James R. White (endorsed by Fr. Mitchell Pacwa S.J)

From an exegetical standpoint, the full Doctrine of the Holy Spirit cannot be demonstrated from these Bible passages. None of them state that the Holy Spirit is a person who is distinct from the Father and the Son, and yet at the same time their equal in divinity. None of these passages say that divinity must be limited to three persons.

Lets just look at one example from one of the four mentioned above:

Basil of Caesarea (AD. 329-379):
“But it is not sufficient for us, that it is the tradition of the Fathers. For they also followed the mind of Scripture; having taken their first principles from the testimonies which, a short time since, we placed before you, from the Scripture.”
Basil On the Holy Spirit Translation by William Goode, Vol. 3, p.133.

And this is counter-evidence to your claim that Basil was never purely exegetical.

First of all, just to be clear, I said that Basil was never purely exegetical about the teaching of the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit. He may have been purely exegetical about certain other topics. Secondly, this quote does nothing to refute my position. To explain why I will now give a more in depth clarification (that what I have previously done) of the terms exegesis and eisogesis.

Exegesis:
Meaning “out from”. This is an objective examination of what the text actually says (we pull meaning “out from” what the words clearly convey). For example, an exegetical examination of Scripture allows us to conclude that Jesus is God due to John 1:1, 14 (among other applicable NT passages). After all, John clearly states that the “Word was God”, and that this “Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (i.e., Jesus). Therefore, such texts do not imply that Christ could possibly be God, they flat-out states that he was.

Eisogesis:
Meaning “into.” This is a subjective examination of what the text says. We read the text and then insert a possible meaning “into” it. Eisogesis deals with what a text may imply, but from a purely objective basis one cannot say that the proposed meaning is undoubtedly what the text is actually trying to convey. For example, Catholics see the angelic greeting of Luke 1:27 as demonstrating the concept of the Immaculate Conception. Objectively speaking, this is an example of eisogesis, because the text does not actually tell us what Gabriel meant when saying “full of grace.” An examination of the Greek term shows that something more profound than “highly favored one” is being expressed, but to make a case for the Immaculate Conception one has to delve into the subjective realm of implication. Here is a brief audio link describing what I am talking about here (and I got this link from you, actually, so thanks for that): tquid.sharpens.org/akin_full.mp3

Notice that both exegesis and eisogesis are Scriptural, because both are examinations of biblical passages. Moreover, from the Catholic standpoint, an eisogetical conclusion that conveys a teaching which is expressed in Sacred Tradition can be a valid one. Therefore, going back to my above example from Luke 1:27, even though seeing this passage as teaching the Immaculate Conception is not an example of exegesis, it is still a valid interpretation (as far as Catholics are concerned) due to the fact that it is eisogesis grounded in a defined doctrine. Eisogesis is subjective, but doctrine is not.

Now, going back to your above quote from St. Basil…
St. Basil can speak of Trinitarian theology being found in Scripture because it is. He appeals to what is clearly found in an exegetical examination of certain texts and an eisogetical examination of other texts (which is grounded in the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity as defined in ecumenical councils). So his statement does not convey that he was speaking in terms of only exegesis.

However, the question at hand is whether or not an adherent of Sola Scriptura is awarded the same luxury that St. Basil is in saying that a doctrine is scriptural. I say that an adherent is not, but I will elaborate on that further in a bit.

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

Then you would also accuse the authors of The Cath. Encyclopedia of practicing eisegesis in their similar interpretations and conclusions?
Theirs received this:
Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
And yours?

My position does not contradict anything that this encyclopedia has stated. Consider one of the lines you highlighted: “To sum up: the various elements of the Trinitarian doctrine are all expressly taught in the New Testament. The Divinity of the Three Persons is asserted or implied in passages too numerous to count.” This is saying that some elements of the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit is asserted (i.e., can be demonstrated objectively through exegesis) whereas the other elements are implied (i.e., can be demonstrated subjectively through eisogesis). Keep in mind what it said, “…asserted OR implied.” So this encyclopedia makes it statement in keeping with the process I outlined in my last post, concerning St. Basil. In other words, Trinitarian doctrine is “expressly taught” through a process of exegesis and eisogesis which is backed up by Sacred Tradition.

No, but in fact here is a perfect example of a Roman Catholic Apologist who has written numerous articles claiming “Material Sufficiency” doing just that.

No, this is an example of the eisogesis used by Catholics when referring to the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception in conjunction with Luke 1:27. It seems you posted the wrong link, but, hey, we all make mistakes. Nevertheless, as you can see in my last post, this still proved to be a helpful audio link for our discussion on the Holy Trinity.

Actually the video is in 2 parts and is more than two hours. Since others are reading this post maybe they will benefit from it even if you won’t. I posted excerpts (“quotes”) and a link to The Forgotten Trinity above which was the cause for the debate.

For the record, a purely exegetical demonstration of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity would not require two hours’ worth of commentary. The length of this video alone gives me the “heads up” that it is eisogetical in nature.

Here is an even more succinct definition:

Yes, that works too. I think we are on the same page concerning what the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity teaches.

I actually agree with you that it was not in the earliest manuscripts. If you noticed, I usually cite from the ESV:

And the Study Notes from the ESV Study Bible:

I just thought it would be interesting to watch you refute what was considered to be Scripture at Trent.

The Council of Trent in 1546 defined the Biblical canon as “the entire books with all their parts, as these have been wont to be read in the Catholic Church and are contained in the old Latin Vulgate,”

I don’t need to refute Trent. If we go to the exact same Wikipedia article you got this from, the very next thing it states (which I presume you read but elected not to quote) is, “Yet although the revised Vulgate contained the Comma, the earliest known copies did not, leaving the status of the Comma Johanneum unclear. On 13 January 1897, during a period of reaction in the Church, the Holy Office decreed that Catholic theologians could not “with safety” deny or call into doubt the Comma’s authenticity. Pope Leo XIII approved this decision two days later, though his approval was not in forma specifica — that is, Leo XIII did not invest his full papal authority in the matter, leaving the decree with the ordinary authority possessed by the Holy Office. Three decades later, on 2 June 1927, the more liberal Pope Pius XI decreed that the Comma Johanneum was open to dispute. The updated Nova Vulgata (New Vulgate), published in 1979 following Second Vatican Council, does not include the Comma, nor does the English-language New American Bible.

So, according to Pope Pius XI, I am free to dispute the Comma Johanneum’s authenticity. My thanks to “el papa.”

As well as the Douay-Rheims,

My Douay-Rheims version (being the World Publishing Company’s revision of 1952) has the Comma Johanneum but it is in brackets. The footnote for it states, “According to the evidence of many manuscripts, and the majority of commentators, these verses should read: ‘For there are three that bear witness: the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three are one.’ The Holy See reserves to itself the right to pass finally on the origin of the present reading.”

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

Since we are discussing Sola Scriptura, the Early Church Fathers and the revelation of The Trinity in Scripture Alone. Permit me a few more quotes:

In all these quotes we see the same thing that I have outlined earlier. When the Fathers speak of Trinitarian theology being demonstrated in Scripture, they mean in terms of what can be explicitly seen through exegetical examination (for some aspects of this theology) and implicitly seen through eisogetical examination which is validated by Sacred Tradition (for other aspects).

For example, exegesis can be used to demonstrate that God is one, that Jesus is God, and that Jesus is distinct from the Father. So those elements of Trinitarian theology can be objectively derived from the Bible (although it is probably worth noting that Arius did object to Jesus being equal in divinity to the Father and used credible exegesis in his critique).

But exegesis cannot be used to clearly demonstrate the following:
• The divinity of God is limited to specifically three persons.
• The personal attributes for the Holy Spirit in the Bible are not a simple matter of artistic personification as is seen in the OT descriptions of wisdom.
• The descriptions of the Holy Spirit are not simply descriptions of the power of God in action.
• The Holy Spirit is fully distinct from the Father and the Son.

But these other aspects are taught by Sacred Tradition, and therefore eisogetical demonstrations of Trinitarian theology can be valid because they are backed up by Sacred Tradition. For example, the eisogetical proposition that the three-fold “Holy” in the Bible teaches the concept of God in three persons is a valid interpretation (if not an exegetical one) due to what is taught in Sacred Tradition.

The question at hand is whether or not an adherent of Sola Scriptura is allowed this same luxury in defending the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, and it seems obvious that the answer to this question is “no.” After all, an adherent of Sola Scriptura claims that “Scripture alone” is sufficient to express Christian doctrine. The only authority that is recognized is the authority of Scripture itself, without relying upon someone’s interpretation. Therefore, as I have been saying all along, this means that for an adherent of Sola Scriptura all the aspects of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity must be demonstrated from the Bible from a purely exegetical basis. Once one starts relying upon the interpretations of the ECFs (or anyone else for that matter) then it crosses the line into the realm of subjective eisogesis. The authority of such subjective interpretations must then be proven. As I stated before, Catholics feel that an eisogetical interpretation of Scripture can be considered valid if it is grounded in Sacred Tradition. But an adherent of Sola Scriptura does not believe in Sacred Tradition as being part of God’s revelation, and therefore (from this perspective) any eisogetic interpretations must be considered non-authoritative and fallible. But this presents the problem of something considered a doctrine being at least partially formulated upon material that is non-authoritative and fallible. The two concepts are contradictory. What this boils down to is such a person officially rejecting the validity of Sacred Tradition while secretly accepting it, at least as far as the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity is concerned (as well as for the canon of Scripture, but that’s another topic).

 

[EricFilmer]

P.S.,

Concerning the following exchange that happened earlier in this discussion…

No, but in fact here is a perfect example of a Roman Catholic Apologist who has written numerous articles claiming “Material Sufficiency” doing just that.

No, this is an example of the eisogesis used by Catholics when referring to the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception in conjunction with Luke 1:27. It seems you posted the wrong link, but, hey, we all make mistakes…

Sorry Algo - obviously I have to retract my statement about you posting the wrong link. I usually cut & paste people’s CAF material into my word processor when I work on my responses and somehow missed “cutting” the proper context of your audio link. I thought you were referring to the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity rather than the Immaculate Conception. Well, like I said, everyone makes mistakes, and this time it actually happened to be me. So sorry for the confusion this created in Post #262. (I wish I had caught this before the editing timer ran out…)

 

[Algo1]

P.S.,

Concerning the following exchange that happened earlier in this discussion…

Sorry Algo - obviously I have to retract my statement about you posting the wrong link. I usually cut & paste people’s CAF material into my word processor when I work on my responses and somehow missed “cutting” the proper context of your audio link. I thought you were referring to the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity rather than the Immaculate Conception. Well, like I said, everyone makes mistakes, and this time it actually happened to be me. So sorry for the confusion this created in Post #262. (I wish I had caught this before the editing timer ran out…)

Thanks, I was a tad confused but now I understand.