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

[MH84]

Do evangelicals believe this:

That the Son is begotten by the Father’s thought of Himself. Because the Father is perfect, a thought of Himself is Personified. The Person begotten from the Father is the Son.

That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the perfect outpouring of love between the Father and the Son? That love is Personified generating the Holy Spirit.

Note: This is my understanding of the Trinity as a Catholic. I have just typed down what I remember from sources such as “Theology and Sanity” by Frank Sheed, and probably from this forum and other sources.** I am not saying this is the official Catholic teaching.** But I think I am on the right track.

Now, if you believe in Sola Scriptura, where would you get this information based the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas (I think)?

Catholics, please correct me where I am wrong in any part of this post. Cheers.

This is what I just found on Wikipedia on Saint Thomas Aquinas’ theolgy on the Nature of the Trinity.

Nature of the Trinity
Aquinas argued that God, while perfectly united, also is perfectly described by three interrelated persons. These three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) are constituted by their relations within the essence of God. The Father generates the Son (or the Word) by the relation of self-awareness. This eternal generation then produces an eternal Spirit “who enjoys the divine nature as the Love of God, the Love of the Father for the Word.”

This Trinity exists independently from the world. It transcends the created world, but the Trinity also decided to communicate God’s self and God’s goodness to human beings. This takes place through the Incarnation of the Word in the person of Jesus Christ and through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (indeed, the very essence of the Trinity itself) within those who have experienced salvation by God.[18]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Thomas_Aquinas#Nature_of_the_Trinity

Btw, St Thomas lived in the 13th century, way before the Reformation.

So at the end of this long post, Sola Scriptura followers, please tell me how you honestly believe in all this theology? That’s if you do.

How can you believe the Catholic Church’s understanding of the Trinity, but not believe the Church is the true church?

 

[paidion]

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

hmmm… perhaps… but didn’t G-d already reveal Himself as a composite unity in the Scriptures?

“Hear, O Israel: the L-rd our G-d is one L-rd.” (Deut. 6:4) It’s interesting to note the word one in Hebrew is echad meaning “composite oneness” vs. yachid meaning "the number one - like for counting.

Why does it say in Genesis (2:26), “Let Us make mankind in Our image…” - unless G-d is revealing His composite oneness?

Also in the beginning of Genesis, the word “G-d” is Elohim. The ending “im” is plural, not singular…

John’s Gospel also refers G-d’s oneness… “In the beginning was the W-rd, and the W-rd was with G-d, and the W-rd was G-d…” (emphasis mine)

There are plenty of other references that could be included as well.

I don’t believe the idea of the composite unity of G-d was a new idea.

shalom

 

[MH84]

hmmm… perhaps… but didn’t G-d already reveal Himself as a composite unity in the Scriptures?

“Hear, O Israel: the L-rd our G-d is one L-rd.” It’s interesting to note the word one in Hebrew is echad meaning “composite oneness” vs. yachid meaning "the number one - like for counting.

Why does it say in Genesis (2:26), “Let Us make mankind in Our image…” - unless G-d is revealing His composite oneness?

Also in the beginning of Genesis, the word “G-d” is Elohim. The ending “im” is plural, not singular…

John’s Gospel also refers G-d’s oneness… “In the beginning was the W-rd, and the W-rd was with G-d, and the W-rd was G-d…” (emphasis mine)

There are plenty of other references that could be included as well.

I don’t believe the idea of the composite unity of G-d was a new idea.

shalom

The quote is taken out of context here, even though you probably didnt mean to. It is not so much the fatc that the Church officially defined the fact that God is a Trinity in the 4th century, its that there were so many opinons gonig around about what are the characteristics of the true God in Christianity. That’s what I was probably getting at.

Please read the whole of post #5. Don’t you think it is more than a coincidence that Sola Scriptura Christians believe in the same God as Catholics, but disregard the theology behind this. I know this is a bit of a generalisation, but it is important to remeber that I am not neccessarily directing this towards the churches that fell away from the Catholic Church. Im talking about those who claim everything they need to know is in the bible.

Please tell me how can you believe what is stated in the Athanasian creed? Because that is what you believe isnt it?

There is no mention of the “Trinity” in the Bible. There is none of the complicated theological concepts found there. I am talking about the fact that Jesus Christ is 100% man and 100% God, and that each of the divine Persons wholly possesss the nature of God not share it etc. What about the theology of ST. Thomas Aquinas. Here I’ll copy and paste it from wikipedia.

In basic terms this is some of what he taught about the Trinity:

Nature of the Trinity

Aquinas argued that God, while perfectly united, also is perfectly described by three interrelated persons. These three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) are constituted by their relations within the essence of God. The Father generates the Son (or the Word) by the relation of self-awareness. This eternal generation then produces an eternal Spirit “who enjoys the divine nature as the Love of God, the Love of the Father for the Word.”

This Trinity exists independently from the world. It transcends the created world, but the Trinity also decided to communicate God’s self and God’s goodness to human beings. This takes place through the Incarnation of the Word in the person of Jesus Christ and through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (indeed, the very essence of the Trinity itself) within those who have experienced salvation by God.[18]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Thomas_Aquinas

WHERE IS ALL THIS FOUND IN THE BIBLE?

I would like to ask the following questions that I still do not know the answers to:

How do bible only Christians believe the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son? Why not only the Father? Why did He proceed at all?!

How do bible only Christians believe Jesus is not younger than the Father?

How do bible only Christians believe that the Holy Spirit is of the same substance as the Father and the Holy Spirit?

How do bible only Christians know that they have to worship the Holy Spirit?

Sorry paidon that this is an indirect ersponse to your post, but hopefully you will see what Im getting at with all this. For all I know, there could be answers to these questions. Its just I don’t know them…Maybe there is no such thing as Sola Scriptura .

 

[moondweller]

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.

Poor logic, indeed!!! The OP is under the false notion that “Protestants” (a very general term) have no connection with historic Christianity and that ALL of historic Christianity is “Roman.”

 

[MH84]

Poor logic, indeed!!! The OP is under the false notion that “Protestants” (a very general term) have no connection with historic Christianity and that ALL of historic Christianity is “Roman.”

Moondweller, you seem to be good at sharp responses. Why don’t you answer the questions I posted based on the Bible alone.

Thanks

 

[MH84]

Start with these if you want. They are from post #23:

How do bible only Christians believe the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son? Why not only the Father? Why did He proceed at all?!

How do bible only Christians believe Jesus is not younger than the Father?

How do bible only Christians believe that the Holy Spirit is of the same substance as the Father and the Son?

How do bible only Christians know that they have to worship the Holy Spirit?

good luck

If you have time, answer this using only the Bible:

These are from post #5
Why are these heresies wrong?

Arianism
Nestorianism
Monophysitism

Remember that the Catholic Church condemned these. Not your later religion.

 

[MH84]

**Sorry everyone.

This question in post #23

“How do bible only Christians believe that the Holy Spirit is of the same substance as the Father and the Holy Spirit?”

should be

“How do bible only Christians believe that the Holy Spirit is of the same substance as the Father and the Son?**”

 

[moondweller]

Moondweller, you seem to be good at sharp responses. Why don’t you answer the questions I posted based on the Bible alone. Start with these if you want. They are from post #23:

How do bible only Christians believe the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son? Why not only the Father?

John 15:26"When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, {that is} the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me,"

Why did He proceed at all?!

Jesus explained this in the last part of Jn. 15:26: “He will testify about Me,” Also,John 16:13-14 “But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose {it} to you.”

How do bible only Christians believe Jesus is not younger than the Father?

Jesus? “Jesus” is the name given to the incarnate Son. The Son, second Person of the Triune God, did not exist as “Jesus” prior to the incarnation. Through the miracle of the incarnation the eternal Son entered into our time/space continuum. And at that point in time He became the Man, Christ Jesus.

How do bible only Christians believe that the Holy Spirit is of the same substance as the Father and the Son?

Acts 5:3 "But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back {some} of the price of the land?

Acts 5:4 “While it remained {unsold,} did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.”

How do bible only Christians know that they have to worship the Holy Spirit?

We’re not instructed anywhere in the Scriptures to worship the Holy Spirit. However, the Scriptures do reveal Him to be God and He is therefore certainly worthy of our worship.

If you have time, answer this using only the Bible: These are from post #5 Why are these heresies wrong?
Arianism
Nestorianism
Monophysitism

Remember that the Catholic Church condemned these. Not your later religion.

AGAIN, “Protestantism” did not start a new “religion,” it simply rejected and discarded the unscriptural excesses of “Romanism” (for lack of a better term). For example the selling of “Indulgences.” From there it expanded and included discarding the doctrine of “indulgences” itself. Can you show me where the Reformers ever rejected the historic doctrine of the Trinity? The Incarnation? Faith in Christ? The cross? The redemptive value of the shed blood of Christ? Christ’s bodily resurrection and ascension back into heaven? His present intercessory work as our High Priest and Advocate before the Father? One Holy Catholic church (not one holy Roman catholic church)? The future, bodily return of Messiah? And judgment of all unbelievers?

As to why the above heresies are wrong, the question must first begin with on what objective basis were they deemed heretical? Hint - it wasn’t personal opinion or simply unanimous vote. Even after the council of Nicaea the majority of bishops held to Arianism. And on that same objective basis “Protestantism” rejected the excesses of Rome’s extrabiblical traditions but retained the historic doctrines pertaining to God, faith and salvation. History testifies to the fact that truth is not always found amongst the majority, but it is always there within the “God-breathed” Scriptures for all to find and to test even the belief system of the majority.

 

[MH84]

Thank you for your direct answers. Finally someone has attempted to answer directly.

However, I have certain questions about those responses.

John 15:26
“When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, {that is} the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me,”

Are you saying that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father only? Catholics don’t believe this, but apparently the Orthodox church does.

Jesus explained this in the last part of Jn. 15:26: “He will testify about Me,” Also,
John 16:13-14 “But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose {it} to you.”

I wasnt talking about the Holy Spirit being sent to he Church. I am talking about from eternity. Where in the bible does it say that the Holy Spirit proceeded from all eternity. And why? Why is God a Triune God?

Jesus? “Jesus” is the name given to the incarnate Son. The Son, second Person of the Triune God, did not exist as “Jesus” prior to the incarnation. Through the miracle of the incarnation the eternal Son entered into our time/space continuum. And at that point in time He became the Man, Christ Jesus.

Yes, I meant Son. Sorry about that. But you didnt answer the question. How do you know that the Son is the same age, so to speak as the Father?

Acts 5:3 "But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back {some} of the price of the land?

Acts 5:4 “While it remained {unsold,} did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.”

Im not sure about this. Just because “God” and “Holy Spirit” are used in a group of sentences doesnt mean they are the same. Further, to refute this, the term “God” in the Bible seems to have been used for “God the Father”. Therefore, how do you know that the Sci[ture here wasnt talking about both the Holy Spirit and God. Are you basing the doctrine that the Holy Spirit is a divine Person based on one scripture?

We’re not instructed anywhere in the Scriptures to worship the Holy Spirit. However, the Scriptures do reveal Him to be God and He is therefore certainly worthy of our worship.

If you belive in Sola Scritura, you believe that all you need to know is found in the Bible. How come the bible doesn’t record anyone worshipping the Holy Spirit? Also, you seem to be basing the fact that the Holy Spirit is a Person based on one, possibly unclear, quote in Acts.

 

[MH84]

Btw is this true:

Even after the council of Nicaea the majority of bishops held to Arianism.

Can I please have your source of the information? Why then did the Church vote against the heresy?

 

[mercygate]

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.

It is definitely not “obvious” from Scripture that the Holy Spirit is a divine Person, co-equal and co-eternal with the Father. There are places where “the spirit of God” appears to be Christ, or where it appears to be an angel.

 

[EmergencyOps]

The term catholic only belongs to the Roman Catholic Church.

The CatholicTM Church?

 

[moondweller]

Thank you for your direct answers. Finally someone has attempted to answer directly.

However, I have certain questions about those responses.

Are you saying that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father only? Catholics don’t believe this, but apparently the Orthodox church does.

No. John 15:26 is the passage the Western church appealed to for its adherence to the “filioque” (which means, “and from the Son”). Now if you’re going to question me on this verse, then you are also questioning your own church (if you’re a Roman Catholic) who appeals to this particular verse for its doctrine.

I wasnt talking about the Holy Spirit being sent to he Church. I am talking about from eternity. Where in the bible does it say that the Holy Spirit proceeded from all eternity. And why? Why is God a Triune God?

I think you’re rather confused on the whole doctrinal issue, MH84. The doctrinal issue of the “filioque,” which caused the rupture between the East and the West, is not about the Spirit proceeding from eternity. Jesus promised that when He would go He would ask the Father and He would give them another “Paracletos” that He (not “it”) may be with them forever (Jn. 14:16). We know this “Paracletos” to be the Holy Spirit (Jn. 14:26). The Father sends Him in the name of the Son and He came on the day of Pentecost.

The Holy Spirit did not proceed from the Father from eternity:John 16:7-9 "But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you. And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment; concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me;"Christ did not send the Holy Spirit, nor did He proceed from the Father UNTIL Jesus ascended back to heaven. The H.S. could not proceed from the Father until then.

How do you know that the Son is the same age, so to speak as the Father?

This is the kind of question only a Mormon would ask. Are you Mormon? The God of the Bible has no age.

Im not sure about this. Just because “God” and “Holy Spirit” are used in a group of sentences doesnt mean they are the same.

Read the text carefully. To whom did they lie in verses three and four?

If you belive in Sola Scritura, you believe that all you need to know is found in the Bible. How come the bible doesn’t record anyone worshipping the Holy Spirit?

Why should it? The Spirit’s work here on earth is to reveal and exalt the Son, not Himself. Church leaders could learn a thing or two about such Divine humility.

Also, you seem to be basing the fact that the Holy Spirit is a Person based on one, possibly unclear, quote in Acts.

You’re making it obvious you don’t study the Scriptures. I often make the mistake of thinking most people have studied.

In John 16 the Holy Spirit is ALWAYS referred to with a personal pronoun: “He will convict the world”; “He will guide”; “He will speak”; “He hears”; “He will disclose,” etc. Only a Person does these things. The Holy Spirit is always revealed as a PERSON in the Scriptures, not an “it.” Often I see Catholics erroneously refer to “HIM” as an “IT.” How insulting.

Can I please have your source of the information? Why then did the Church vote against the heresy?

You can look it up in any good Church history book.

The filioque (“and from the Son”) refers to the Western version of the Nicene creed (based on John 15:26). Originally this was not contained in the confessions agreed at Nicaea (a.d. 325) and Constantinople (a.d. 381). It seems to have been first inserted at the local Council of Toledo (A.D. 589) and gradually made its way into the usage of the West. It was then denounced by Photius of Constantinople in the 9th century, causing the rupture between East and West in A.D. 1054. You can read both sides of the issue for yourself. But based on Scripture, I agree with the West.

 

[MH84]

I think you’re rather confused on the whole doctrinal issue, MH84. The doctrinal issue of the “filioque,” which caused the rupture between the East and the West, is not about the Spirit proceeding from eternity. Jesus promised that when He would go He would ask the Father and He would give them another “Paracletos” that He (not “it”) may be with them forever (Jn. 14:16). We know this “Paracletos” to be the Holy Spirit (Jn. 14:26). The Father sends Him in the name of the Son and He came on the day of Pentecost.

The Holy Spirit did not proceed from the Father from eternity:
John 16:7-9 “But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you. And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment; concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me;”
Christ did not send the Holy Spirit, nor did He proceed from the Father UNTIL Jesus ascended back to heaven. The H.S. could not proceed from the Father until then.

These are simply strawman arguments. You are accusing me repeatedly of saying what I did not intend to.

Please read this exceprt from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity#God_exists_as_three_persons

In the Trinity, the Three are said to be co-equal and co-eternal, one in essence, nature, power, action, and will. As laid out in the Athanasian Creed, The Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated, and the Holy Spirit is uncreated And all three are eternal with no beginning.[47] The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

This is what I was talking about.

In other words, the Father is said to have generated the Son. While the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. This occurs from all eternity. This is what I believe the Church understands in relation to the Blessed Trinity.

You’ve started attacking me when you don’t even know what I mean.

 

[MH84]

This is the kind of question only a Mormon would ask. Are you Mormon? The God of the Bible has no age.

You need to take a chill pill.

I have been Catholic all my life.

“How do you know that the Son is the same age, so to speak as the Father?”

Sorry if my question was not worded correctly. I can understand why you got the wrong impression.

What I mean by my question is that where in the bible does it say that Jesus is co-eternal with the Father. I presume you are a sola scriptura Christian. With that assumption answer the question. Why don’t you take literally what St. Paul says in Colossians for instance? Where he says that Jesus is the “first-born” of all creation.

Or put simply in another way: How do you know from the bible alone that Jesus was not literally the first of God’s creation? Even though he would be Lord over all creation, he would still be subject, or subordinate, to God. How do you know by taking all your theology from only the bible?
.

 

[MH84]

This is what I said:

Im not sure about this. Just because “God” and “Holy Spirit” are used in a group of sentences doesnt mean they are the same. Further, to refute this, the term “God” in the Bible seems to have been used for “God the Father”. Therefore, how do you know that the Sci[ture here wasnt talking about both the Holy Spirit and God. Are you basing the doctrine that the Holy Spirit is a divine Person based on one scripture?

Response:

Read the text carefully. To whom did they lie in verses three and four?

Acts 5
3Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the **Holy Spirit **and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God.”

biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%205;&version=31;

I am not going to say that God is not a Trinity. I am a Catholic. But we need to remember what the title of this thread is.

You are basically saying that because the Holy Spirit was mentioned in v 3, and then in v 5 God was mentioned, that means that the Holy Spirit is God. Think about that for a minute.

If I was to lie to a “brother A” (v 3), why would that preclude me from having lied to “brother B” as well? It wouldnt. I would be lying to two different people.

If it helps, exchange the names of the divine Persons with other names such as your own.

Now, what I want to clarify is, that you could be right in using this passage of Scripture to prove the divinity of the Holy Spirit. But what I don’t understand is how a person by using only the Bible can believe all what is taught by the CC, like in for instance the Athansius Creed in relation to the Trinity.

I hope you understand me.
[/quote]

 

[paidion]

There is no mention of the “Trinity” in the Bible. There is none of the complicated theological concepts found there. I am talking about the fact that Jesus Christ is 100% man and 100% God, and that each of the divine Persons wholly possesss the nature of God not share it etc. What about the theology of ST. Thomas Aquinas. Here I’ll copy and paste it from wikipedia.
…

WHERE IS ALL THIS FOUND IN THE BIBLE?

I would like to ask the following questions that I still do not know the answers to:

How do bible only Christians believe the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son? Why not only the Father? Why did He proceed at all?!I am not a “Bible -only” Christian, and do not believe I can speak for them, so I won’t.

How do bible only Christians believe Jesus is not younger than the Father?

How do bible only Christians believe that the Holy Spirit is of the same substance as the Father and the Holy Spirit?

How do bible only Christians know that they have to worship the Holy Spirit?

Sorry paidon that this is an indirect ersponse to your post, but hopefully you will see what Im getting at with all this. For all I know, there could be answers to these questions. Its just I don’t know them…Maybe there is no such thing as Sola Scriptura .

If you take a look at some of the Scriptures to which I alluded, you might notice that the idea of G-d being a composite unity is throughout the Scriptures - both OT & NT.

Especially in the beginning of Genesis, this combined-oneness of G-d is very clear by the very term used to describe G-d, “Elohim”. The fact that His name has a plural ending is highly significant.

I realize this doesn’t adequately answer all your questions. My reason for responding was to suggest that the concept of the “Trinity” is not necessarily property of the RCC.

(btw, “Trinity” is in quotes, only because I think it inadequately represents G-d, not because it is false or I mean any disrespect by it)

For the sake of discussion, however, let’s assume the teachings of the “Trinity” totally come from the RCC. If both non-RCs and RCs were once one and the same, doesn’t it make sense that some of their beliefs would be the same? For example, both groups believe in G-d, no? Both groups believe in Jesus as the Messiah, no? So why is it that they couldn’t share other concepts too?

Perhaps you are equating evangelical Christians with “Bible-only” ones? Thus real question would be “How can Bible-only Christians believe in the same ‘Trinity’?”

shalom

 

[paidion]

The CatholicTM Church?

very cute


(I must admit I’m surprised at how passionately defensive some become over the use of this word.)

(sorry, this isn’t really “on topic”, is it?)

shalom

 

[MH84]

Perhaps you are equating evangelical Christians with “Bible-only” ones? Thus real question would be “How can Bible-only Christians believe in the same ‘Trinity’?”

I admit that I always thought that all evengelicals believe in Sola Scriptura. I don’t want to derail this thread, but could you tell me what the main difference between a ‘bible-only’ Christian and an Evangelical Christian is? Thanks

For the sake of discussion, however, let’s assume the teachings of the “Trinity” totally come from the RCC. If both non-RCs and RCs were once one and the same, doesn’t it make sense that some of their beliefs would be the same? For example, both groups believe in G-d, no? Both groups believe in Jesus as the Messiah, no? So why is it that they couldn’t share other concepts too?

 

[moondweller]

In other words, the Father is said to have generated the Son.

The Father did not “generate” the Son. The Son is eternal, as is the Father, as is the Holy Spirit. They are ONE God in three co-equal Persons.

While the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. This occurs from all eternity.

No it doesn’t. His proceeding from the Father and the Son occurred once Jesus ascended back to heaven.

This is what I believe the Church understands in relation to the Blessed Trinity.

Talk to your priest and present it the SAME way you do here.

You’ve started attacking me when you don’t even know what I mean.

Please, don’t get dramatic on me. I didn’t attack you. I still think you’re confused on the issue.