How can evangelical Christians believe in the same Trinity as the CC?

[MH84]

Evangelicals, how can you get this same doctrine from the bible:

Excerpt from the Athanasian creed:

…Now this is the catholic faith: We worship one God in trinity and the Trinity in unity, neither confusing the persons nor dividing the divine being.

For the Father is one person, the Son is another, and the Spirit is still another.

But the deity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, equal in glory, coeternal in majesty.

What the Father is, the Son is, and so is the Holy Spirit.

Uncreated is the Father; uncreated is the Son; uncreated is the Spirit.

The Father is infinite; the Son is infinite; the Holy Spirit is infinite.

Eternal is the Father; eternal is the Son; eternal is the Spirit:

And yet there are not three eternal beings, but one who is eternal;

as there are not three uncreated and unlimited beings, but one who is uncreated and unlimited.

Almighty is the Father; almighty is the Son; almighty is the Spirit:

And yet there are not three almighty beings, but one who is almighty.

Thus the Father is God; the Son is God; the Holy Spirit is God:

And yet there are not three gods, but one God.

Thus the Father is Lord; the Son is Lord; the Holy Spirit is Lord:

And yet there are not three lords, but one Lord.

As Christian truth compels us to acknowledge each distinct person as God and Lord, so catholic religion forbids us to say that there are three gods or lords.

The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten;

the Son was neither made nor created, but was alone begotten of the Father;

the Spirit was neither made nor created, but is proceeding from the Father and the Son.

Thus there is one Father, not three fathers; one Son, not three sons; one Holy Spirit, not three spirits.

And in this Trinity, no one is before or after, greater or less than the other;

but all three persons are in themselves, coeternal and coequal; and so we must worship the Trinity in unity and the one God in three persons.

Whoever wants to be saved should think thus about the Trinity.

It is necessary for eternal salvation that one also faithfully believe that our Lord Jesus Christ became flesh.

For this is the true faith that we believe and confess: That our Lord Jesus Christ, God’s Son, is both God and man.

He is God, begotten before all worlds from the being of the Father, and he is man, born in the world from the being of his mother –

existing fully as God, and fully as man with a rational soul and a human body;

equal to the Father in divinity, subordinate to the Father in humanity.

Although he is God and man, he is not divided, but is one Christ.

He is united because God has taken humanity into himself; he does not transform deity into humanity.

He is completely one in the unity of his person, without confusing his natures.

For as the rational soul and body are one person, so the one Christ is God and man…

elca.org/communication/creeds/athanasian.html

IMO, either the evangelicals need to acknowledge they are following a Catholic doctrine, or that they have really have a limited basis (from Scripture alone, which is not explicit about the doctrine) for believing in the Triune God.

 

[episcogirl]

I’m not really understanding the question, exactly.

Scripture does not explicitly say “this is the Trinity” but God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are mentioned separately. Yet, we are taught by the 10 Commandments that you shall have no other God than God, and that there is only one God.

Yet, Jesus is God. And Jesus said the Holy Spirit would come to us.

Three in One. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Yet we are not polytheistic. At least, I’m not.

Maybe I’m being too simplistic in this.

I don’t think you have to be Catholic to believe in the “same” Trinity. What other Trinity would I believe in?

 

[bengal_fan]

IMO, either the evangelicals need to acknowledge they are following a Catholic doctrine, or that they have really have a limited basis (from Scripture alone, which is not explicit about the doctrine) for believing in the Triune God.

poor logic.

protestants separate catholic and “roman catholic” (the same way the orthodox do). the catholic church is the one church made up of all believers. the roman catholic church is one branch of that, centered in rome and headed up by the pope.

we would read this creed and say, “of course, that is what the catholic (meaning one or universal) church teaches. and, as i am a member of the catholic church, i believe it.”

you are assuming that whenever some one says catholic they mean roman catholic.

 

[bengal_fan]

and where do you think the doctrine of the trinity comes from?

it comes from scripture. of course the word is not used, but it is an obvious doctrine within scripture.

 

[MH84]

But there was so much debate in the first 4 or 5 centuries AD relating to the nature of Christ for starters, and there arose many heresies. Such as:

Arianism - Acknowleding the Son as a divine Being, but nevertheless not equal to the Father. Arius held Jesus to not be of the “same substance”.

Nestorianism - Jesus has two natures

Monophysitism - Jesus had only one nature

Modalism/ Sabellianism - “In Christianity, Sabellianism (also known as modalism, modalistic monarchianism, or modal monarchism) is the nontrinitarian belief that the Heavenly Father, Resurrected Son and Holy Spirit are different modes or aspects of one God (for us only), rather than three distinct persons (in Himself).” (wikipedia)

And there were many more. Also, I think the Ebonites thought that Jesus was only a man. And as we know, so do Muslims.

I believe there was a heresy claiming that the Holy Spirit was not equal to the Father or the Son.

God wasnt formally formally recognised as being a Trinity until the 4th century. I don’t know how an evangelical could work out from the bible alone the same conclusion in the Trinitarian doctrine as the Catholic Church confesses. There is no way, unless of course they have been influenced by historical Christianity…

 

[MH84]

it comes from scripture. of course the word is not used, but it is an obvious doctrine within scripture.

I don’t think so. Only the Church could have come up with the details of the doctrine.

How come so many heresies sprang up (see above). These were rekindled after the Protestant Reformation. Now we have Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christadelphians, Iglesia Ni Christo, Mormonism and so on and so on.

Look at the Athanasius Creed above, you can’t find all those details in the bible.

 

[episcogirl]

Well, couldn’t they have been “influenced” by “historical Christianity” and not be Roman Catholic?

Again, I’m very simplistic. I can see the evidence for the “Trinity” in the Scriptures. I can see the point about having to come up with a name for such a concept and that others have borrowed this concept from whoever it was that first used that phrase (I am sorry but I am ignorant on that point).

But, to address directly the question as posed in the title of this thread, what would make the Trinity an evangelical different than the Trinity as believed by Roman Catholics? Is there a different set being worshiped by some evangelicals?

Not trying to be flip, just not getting it.

 

[exoflare]

God wasnt formally formally recognised as being a Trinity until the 4th century. I don’t know how an evangelical could work out from the bible alone the same conclusion in the Trinitarian doctrine as the Catholic Church confesses. There is no way, unless of course they have been influenced by historical Christianity…

I think it’s kind of similar to the way Muslims are taught a lot of things they take for granted, and then somehow they manage to “find” those same beliefs in the Christian/Jewish Bible by reading stuff into the text with a preconceived agenda.

The difference is that Protestants and Catholics are in agreement on the doctrine of the Trinity. It’s just that the explicitly defined doctrine is not so “obvious” from reading scripture straight through as some Protestants seem to tell themselves.

 

[MH84]

I think it’s kind of similar to the way Muslims are taught a lot of things they take for granted, and then somehow they manage to “find” those same beliefs in the Christian/Jewish Bible by reading stuff into the text with a preconceived agenda.

The difference is that Protestants and Catholics are in agreement on the doctrine of the Trinity. It’s just that the explicitly defined doctrine is not so “obvious” from reading scripture straight through as some Protestants seem to tell themselves.

Its strange how after the Church eliminated the main Christological heresies, the reformation then took place some centuries later. And ever since the bible has been read withourt the Church’s teachings, there has been more and more ideas about who Christ “really” is/was (which affects the concept of the Trinity).

Another one… adoptionism… Big one.

 

[MH84]

and where do you think the doctrine of the trinity comes from?

it comes from scripture. of course the word is not used, but it is an obvious doctrine within scripture.

Where in the bible does it say the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son? Or negatively speaking, where does it say in the bible that the Holy Spirit wasnt created by God (co-eternal)?

 

[exoflare]

But, to address directly the question as posed in the title of this thread, what would make the Trinity an evangelical different than the Trinity as believed by Roman Catholics? Is there a different set being worshiped by some evangelicals?

Not trying to be flip, just not getting it.

As I understand it, a lot of the specific doctrinal beliefs of Evangelicals are heavily reliant upon the final interpretation of the individual. So it’s kind of hard to nail down each individual Evangelical’s idea of just what the “Trinity” is. (most that I’ve talked to seem to take it as a matter of faith, but can’t really explain what it means)

 

[St_Violet]

The term catholic only belongs to the Roman Catholic Church. As Augustine says :

*the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house" (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 4:5 [A.D. 397]). *

 

[MH84]

…of course the word is not used, but it is an obvious doctrine within scripture.

Where does it say we have to worship the Holy Spirit?

I bring this up because many evangelicals say that they believe in the bible alone, which quite frankly, cannot be true in regards to believing God is one God, but three Persons as well. On top of that, that the Son possessed two natures fully and simultaneously when He became man, not a confusion of both. Further, no where in the bible alone does it say that the Persons are equal ie. no subordiantion within the Godhead. my :twocents:.

Correct me if Im wrong here somewhere.

 

[MH84]

I was on another thread recently, which reminded me of another point.

The Catholic Church believes that each Person of the Trinity fully possesses the Divine Nature, and that they do not share it.

How could an evangelical reach this conclusion with this based on the bible alone, and not influenced by the Catholic Church? Its just not biblical!

 

[bengal_fan]

Correct me if Im wrong here somewhere.

i already did. it can all be extracted from the bible.

Jesus said He was sending the Spirit. but they all saw the Spirit descend on Him from the Father at His baptism. therefore, the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. scripture.

too many references to quote concerning the bible showing us the trinity.

notice all the heresies you quoted in the early church were before the canon of scripture was put together. the qualification to be included was apostolic connection (legitimate connection, not just an apostle’s name on a book). the church got it’s doctrines from the teachings of the apostles. those teachings were put together in what we call the new testament.

to say there were secret teachings that were only passed on to select few rings of gnosticism to me.

the bible contains the necessary teachings, and you can get the trinity completely from scripture.

in regards to JW’s and the like… they are not Christian denominations but new religions entirely. most based on private revelations, not scripture.

i am not a sola scripturist. i am a prima scripturist. the bible is our primary and over-arching source for the rule of faith. traditions are great. a teaching segment of the church is fantastic. but everything is subject to scripture first.

 

[exoflare]

But there was so much debate in the first 4 or 5 centuries AD relating to the nature of Christ for starters, and there arose many heresies. Such as:

Arianism - Acknowleding the Son as a divine Being, but nevertheless not equal to the Father. Arius held Jesus to not be of the “same substance”.

Nestorianism - Jesus has two natures

Monophysitism - Jesus had only one nature

Modalism/ Sabellianism - “In Christianity, Sabellianism (also known as modalism, modalistic monarchianism, or modal monarchism) is the nontrinitarian belief that the Heavenly Father, Resurrected Son and Holy Spirit are different modes or aspects of one God (for us only), rather than three distinct persons (in Himself).” (wikipedia)

And there were many more. Also, I think the Ebonites thought that Jesus was only a man. And as we know, so do Muslims.

I believe there was a heresy claiming that the Holy Spirit was not equal to the Father or the Son.

God wasnt formally formally recognised as being a Trinity until the 4th century. I don’t know how an evangelical could work out from the bible alone the same conclusion in the Trinitarian doctrine as the Catholic Church confesses. There is no way, unless of course they have been influenced by historical Christianity…

I still think this is the best illustration of why what so many Protestants claim about the Trinity being so “obvious” from scripture simply cannot be true. If it were so clear from scripture you wouldn’t have had all this debate. Much less the notion of a readily pre-packaged “Canon of Scripture” which was also under lots of debate before this time.

 

[MH84]

i already did. it can all be extracted from the bible.

Do you really think “all”?
Please tell me:

1. Where in the bible does it say that each Person of the Trinity Fully possesses the divine nature, and does not share that nature (or something to that effect)?
2. Where does it defend itself against the Nestorian heresy (forget the name, but the actual theory behind it):

• “He (Nestorius) taught that the human and divine aspects of Christ were distinct natures, not unified.”
• “He also argued that God could not suffer on the cross, as he is omnipotent. Therefore, the human part of Christ died on the cross, but not the divine.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestorianism

Just explain where the refutations of this heresy “can all be extracted from the bible”?

Jesus said He was sending the Spirit. but they all saw the Spirit descend on Him from the Father at His baptism. therefore, the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. scripture.

1. Where does it say that the Holy Spirit is Co-eternal and to receive worship like the Father and the Son?

too many references to quote concerning the bible showing us the trinity.

I know, I’ve probably heard/know about a lot of them anyway. But just answer the three questions above if you can. I personally don’t think the Church found “all” the answers from the Bible. I think the Church (and the Church Fathers) used philosophy, Tradition, reflection, and the use of papal infallibilty that was given by Christ (Matthew 16) to determine which concepts and definitions were truth and which was heresy.

I just want to reitterate that since the other Christian denominations that arose after the reformation, there has been a great number of these opinions being re-presented and believed by those who read the Bible outside the deposit of Faith given to the Church. As exoflare said, amongst evangelicals, understanding of the bible is left up to what the individual thinks. There is no real authority that evangelicals have which will guide them while reading and interpreting the Bible.

Last point…The heresies relating to the divinity of Christ, and therefore relating to the concept of the Trinity, were condemned in **Church Councils that were held by the Catholic Church **(such as Nicea, Chalcedon, Constantinople). The correct understanding of the Trinitarian belief was determined by the Church, not the average bible student next door.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

But there was so much debate in the first 4 or 5 centuries AD relating to the nature of Christ for starters, and there arose many heresies. Such as:

Arianism - Acknowleding the Son as a divine Being, but nevertheless not equal to the Father. Arius held Jesus to not be of the “same substance”.

Nestorianism - Jesus has two natures

Monophysitism - Jesus had only one nature

Modalism/ Sabellianism - “In Christianity, Sabellianism (also known as modalism, modalistic monarchianism, or modal monarchism) is the nontrinitarian belief that the Heavenly Father, Resurrected Son and Holy Spirit are different modes or aspects of one God (for us only), rather than three distinct persons (in Himself).” (wikipedia)

And there were many more. Also, I think the Ebonites thought that Jesus was only a man. And as we know, so do Muslims.

I believe there was a heresy claiming that the Holy Spirit was not equal to the Father or the Son.

That’s right - Pneumatomachianism. Or, to give it the name it had after the bishop who sponsored it - Macedonianism.​

God wasnt formally formally recognised as being a Trinity until the 4th century.

This implies an already existing belief. Councils do not invent dogmas - they witness to them, & often clarify them too.​

I don’t know how an evangelical could work out from the bible alone the same conclusion in the Trinitarian doctrine as the Catholic Church confesses. There is no way, unless of course they have been influenced by historical Christianity…

The pre-Reformation history of the Church is as much theirs as ours: for they come out it no less than we do.​

They don’t interpret it in all of the same ways as we do.

So - historically at least - the Fathers are as fully part of Calvinist or Anglican or Lutheran history, as they are of Catholic or Orthodox history.

Where Evangelicals do differ is that - if they are “Bible only” Evangelicals; & assuming they accept the Blessed Trinity as being a Trinity (some Evangelicals do not) - they assert the doctrine, without the philosophical foundations the Fathers worked with. A Father working with some Neo-Platonist assumptions, & an Evangelical working without them, may both be equally orthodox, but not equally skilful in avoiding dangerous expressions: Evangelicals are apt to say “Jesus is God” - which is true in some senses, but false in others. Which does not mean they would approve the false senses.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

The term catholic only belongs to the Roman Catholic Church. As Augustine says :

*the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house" (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 4:5 [A.D. 397]). *

As Augustine says: “…[A]ll heretics want to be called ‘Catholic…”​

Claiming to be Catholic is not the slightest reason to be believed to be so.

Especially as it is far from clear that the CC is even united, or apostolic in doctrine & manners. I don’t think Catholics appreciate the weakness of the Catholic claims.
It’s not as though there had been no change in the history of the Church since Augustine. Were he alive today, he might not think we are Catholic at all. He only seems to be endorsing our position, if we ignore the fact that he was describing the Church in his day, & not ours.

 

[MH84]

Gottle of Geer - The pre-Reformation history of the Church is as much theirs as ours: for they come out it no less than we do.

They don’t interpret it in all of the same ways as we do.

So - historically at least - the Fathers are as fully part of Calvinist or Anglican or Lutheran history, as they are of Catholic or Orthodox history.

I think that many evangelicals want nothing to do with the Catholic Church’s teachings.

Where Evangelicals do differ is that - if they are “Bible only” Evangelicals; & assuming they accept the Blessed Trinity as being a Trinity (some Evangelicals do not) - they assert the doctrine, without the philosophical foundations the Fathers worked with. A Father working with some Neo-Platonist assumptions, & an Evangelical working without them, may both be equally orthodox, but not equally skilful in avoiding dangerous expressions: Evangelicals are apt to say “Jesus is God” - which is true in some senses, but false in others. Which does not mean they would approve the false senses.

Yeah, I think evangelicals believe in doctrine of Trinity only as much as the bible reveals.

I just read something from the famous Fr. Raymond E Brown. In his book preview of “An introduction to New Testament Christology”, he says that he is a Christian who believes that Jesus is true God and true man, but he confesses that “…the formulation of the 4th century goes beyond what is explicitly stated in the NT…”. (Foreword vi).

I know some people are weary of some of his works, but that seems like a fair enough statement in my book (pardon the pun).