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

[MH84]

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.No it doesn’t. His proceeding from the Father and the Son occurred once Jesus ascended back to heaven.Talk to your priest and present it the SAME way you do here.Please, don’t get dramatic on me. I didn’t attack you. I still think you’re confused on the issue.

LOL

Please read this:

[edit] Eternal generation and procession
**Trinitarianism affirms that the Son is “begotten” (or “generated”) of the Father and that the Spirit “proceeds” from the Father, but the Father is “neither begotten nor proceeds.” **The argument over whether the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, or from the Father and the Son, was one of the catalysts of the Great Schism, in this case concerning the Western addition of the Filioque clause to the Nicene Creed.

This language is often considered difficult because, if used regarding humans or other created things, it would necessarily imply time and change; when used here, no beginning, change in being, or process within time is intended and is in fact excluded. The Son is generated (“born” or “begotten”), and the Spirit proceeds, eternally. Augustine of Hippo explains, “Thy years are one day, and Thy day is not daily, but today; because Thy today yields not to tomorrow, for neither does it follow yesterday. Thy today is eternity; therefore Thou begat the Co-eternal, to whom Thou saidst, 'This day have I begotten Thee.” {Psalm 2:7}

[edit] Son begotten, not created
Because the Son is begotten, not made, the substance of his persona is that of Yahweh, of deity. The creation is brought into being through the Son, but the Son Himself is not part of it except through His incarnation.

The church fathers used a number of analogies to express this thought. St. Irenaeus of Lyons was the final major theologian of the second century. He writes “the Father is God, and the Son is God, for whatever is begotten of God is God.”

Extending the analogy, it might be said, similarly, that whatever is generated (procreated) of humans is human. Thus, given that humanity is, in the words of the Bible, “created in the image and likeness of God,” an analogy can be drawn between the Divine Essence and human nature, between the Divine Persons and human persons. However, given the fall, this analogy is far from perfect, even though, like the Divine Persons, human persons are characterized by being “loci of relationship.” For Trinitarian Christians, this analogy is particularly important with regard to the Church, which St. Paul calls “the body of Christ” and whose members are, because they are “members of Christ,” also “members one of another.”

However, any attempt to explain the mystery to some extent must break down, and has limited usefulness, being designed, not so much to fully explain the Trinity, but to point to the experience of communion with the Triune God within the Church as the Body of Christ. The difference between those who believe in the Trinity and those who do not, is not an issue of understanding the mystery. Rather, the difference is primarily one of belief concerning the personal identity of Christ. It is a difference in conception of the salvation connected with Christ that drives all reactions, either favorable or unfavorable, to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. As it is, the doctrine of the Trinity is directly tied up with Christology.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

You really are ignorant on this issue arent you? But thats not the problem, the problem is that you dare tell me Im the one confused.

 

[MH84]

moondweller, I hope you understand what I mean by this thread now? You proved my point.

 

[moondweller]

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.

Because Paul is using “first-born” as a title, a position of preeminence, not a chronological event (see Col. 1:18; cf. Ps. 89:27).

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?.

Because in the Bible Jesus is called “the Word,” and it is there revealed that “the Word was God.” The doctrine of the Trinity was formed by studying the Scriptures. It wasn’t just pulled out of a hat nor the product of one man’s personal opinion. The Scriptures are its objective basis.

 

[moondweller]

moondweller, I hope you understand what I mean by this thread now? You proved my point.

The Man Christ Jesus is the “only begotten Son of God.” This is in respect to His humanity, the incarnation, not His deity. From all eternity He is the Son, second Person of the Trinity, co-equal with the Father and Holy Spirit. It’s all based on Scripture.

 

[MH84]

The Man Christ Jesus is the “only begotten Son of God.” This is in respect to His humanity, the incarnation, not His deity. From all eternity He is the Son, second Person of the Trinity, co-equal with the Father and Holy Spirit. It’s all based on Scripture.

You do realise that the underlined parts are not “scriptural” according to your bible-only concepts. Anyway…

Your understandings have been influenced by the Church’s teachings of 2000 yrs. This is really why you now believe in the Trinity. There is so much to Christianity then just the bible.

I hope you learned something from post #41.

 

[moondweller]

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.

Yes, and the title of the thread implies that the doctrine of the Trinity is formed from a source other than the Scriptures. Please tell me what you think that other objective source 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.

Verse three says “Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit.” In verse five Peter says, “You have not lied to men, but to God.” He identifies the Holy Spirit as GOD. It’s really quite clear. But your hatred of “sola Scriptura” blinds you of the simplicity of this Scripturally revealed truth.

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.

AGAIN, what do you think is the objective basis for the contents of the Creed? Personal revelation?

I hope you understand me.

I hope you understand me.

 

[MH84]

Yes, and the title of the thread implies that the doctrine of the Trinity is formed from a source other than the Scriptures. Please tell me what you think that other objective source is.

Tradition of the Church.

 

[moondweller]

You do realise that the underlined parts are not “scriptural” according to your bible-only concepts.

It’s ALL based on Scripture. In fact it goes all the way back to a prophetic Scripture in the O.T.Is 9:6 "For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace."The Child born is the Son given.

Your understandings have been influenced by the Church’s teachings of 2000 yrs.

No. Those who formed the doctrine of the Trinity appealed to the Scriptures as their divine source.

This is really why you now believe in the Trinity.

Actually I can test the doctrine of the Trinity BY the Scriptures. And that’s why I accept it.

There is so much to Christianity then just the bible.

What separates true Christianity from all the man-made religions on this earth is that it is based on Divinely revealed truth concerning God, man and salvation. And these Divine truths are found in the “God-breathed” (theopneustos) Scriptures. We have no other source provided for us.

 

[moondweller]

Tradition of the Church.

Proof?

 

[MH84]

Proof?

What about what was defined in the Church councils for a start.

I can probably get more info for you. I’ll look it up.

 

[MH84]

Proof?

Tradition and Living Magisterium
The word tradition (Greek paradosis) in the ecclesiastical sense, which is the only one in which it is used here, refers sometimes to the thing (doctrine, account, or custom) transmitted from one generation to another; sometimes to the organ or mode of the transmission (kerigma ekklisiastikon, predicatio ecclesiastica).

(Theres a lot more info in the link)

newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm

Scripture
I. Scripture Alone Disproves "Scripture Alone"
Gen. to Rev. - Scripture never says that Scripture is the sole infallible authority for God’s Word. Scripture also mandates the use of tradition. This fact alone disproves sola Scriptura.

Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15 - those that preached the Gospel to all creation but did not write the Gospel were not less obedient to Jesus, or their teachings less important.

Matt. 28:20 - “observe ALL I have commanded,” but, as we see in John 20:30; 21:25, not ALL Jesus taught is in Scripture. So there must be things outside of Scripture that we must observe. This disproves “Bible alone” theology.

Mark 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to “preach,” not write, and only three apostles wrote. The others who did not write were not less faithful to Jesus, because Jesus gave them no directive to write. There is no evidence in the Bible or elsewhere that Jesus intended the Bible to be sole authority of the Christian faith.

Luke 1:1-4 - Luke acknowledges that the faithful have already received the teachings of Christ, and is writing his Gospel only so that they “realize the certainty of the teachings you have received.” Luke writes to verify the oral tradition they already received.

John 20:30; 21:25 - Jesus did many other things not written in the Scriptures. These have been preserved through the oral apostolic tradition and they are equally a part of the Deposit of Faith.

Acts 8:30-31; Heb. 5:12 - these verses show that we need help in interpreting the Scriptures. We cannot interpret them infallibly on our own. We need divinely appointed leadership within the Church to teach us.

Acts 15:1-14 – Peter resolves the Church’s first doctrinal issue regarding circumcision without referring to Scriptures.

Acts 17:28 – Paul quotes the writings of the pagan poets when he taught at the Aeropagus. Thus, Paul appeals to sources outside of Scripture to teach about God.

1 Cor. 5:9-11 - this verse shows that a prior letter written to Corinth is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Paul is again appealing to a source outside of Scripture to teach the Corinthians. This disproves Scripture alone.

1 Cor. 11:2 - Paul commends the faithful to obey apostolic tradition, and not Scripture alone.

Phil. 4:9 - Paul says that what you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do. There is nothing ever about obeying Scripture alone.

Col. 4:16 - this verse shows that a prior letter written to Laodicea is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Paul once again appeals to a source outside of the Bible to teach about the Word of God.

1 Thess. 2:13 – Paul says, “when you received the word of God, which you heard from us…” How can the Bible be teaching first century Christians that only the Bible is their infallible source of teaching if, at the same time, oral revelation was being given to them as well? Protestants can’t claim that there is one authority (Bible) while allowing two sources of authority (Bible and oral revelation).

1 Thess. 3:10 - Paul wants to see the Thessalonians face to face and supply what is lacking. His letter is not enough.

2 Thess. 2:14 - Paul says that God has called us “through our Gospel.” What is the fullness of the Gospel?

2 Thess. 2:15 - the fullness of the Gospel is the apostolic tradition which includes either teaching by word of mouth or by letter. Scripture does not say “letter alone.” The Catholic Church has the fullness of the Christian faith through its rich traditions of Scripture, oral tradition and teaching authority (or Magisterium).

2 Thess 3:6 - Paul instructs us to obey apostolic tradition. There is no instruction in the Scriptures about obeying the Bible alone (the word “Bible” is not even in the Bible).

1 Tim. 3:14-15 - Paul prefers to speak and not write, and is writing only in the event that he is delayed and cannot be with Timothy.

2 Tim. 2:2 - Paul says apostolic tradition is passed on to future generations, but he says nothing about all apostolic traditions being eventually committed to the Bible.

2 Tim. 3:14 - continue in what you have learned and believed knowing from whom you learned it. Again, this refers to tradition which is found outside of the Bible.

James 4:5 - James even appeals to Scripture outside of the Old Testament canon (“He yearns jealously over the spirit which He has made…”)

2 Peter 1:20 - interpreting Scripture is not a matter of one’s own private interpretation. Therefore, it must be a matter of “public” interpretation of the Church. The Divine Word needs a Divine Interpreter. Private judgment leads to divisions, and this is why there are 30,000 different Protestant denominations.

cont.

 

[MH84]

2 Peter 3:15-16 - Peter says Paul’s letters are inspired, but not all his letters are in the New Testament canon. See, for example, 1 Cor. 5:9-10; Col. 4:16. Also, Peter’s use of the word “ignorant” means unschooled, which presupposes the requirement of oral apostolic instruction that comes from the Church.

2 Peter 3:16 - the Scriptures are difficult to understand and can be distorted by the ignorant to their destruction. God did not guarantee the Holy Spirit would lead each of us to infallibly interpret the Scriptures. But this is what Protestants must argue in order to support their doctrine of sola Scriptura. History and countless divisions in Protestantism disprove it.

1 John 4:1 - again, God instructs us to test all things, test all spirits. Notwithstanding what many Protestants argue, God’s Word is not always obvious.

1 Sam. 3:1-9 - for example, the Lord speaks to Samuel, but Samuel doesn’t recognize it is God. The Word of God is not self-attesting.

1 Kings 13:1-32 - in this story, we see that a man can’t discern between God’s word (the commandment “don’t eat”) and a prophet’s erroneous word (that God had rescinded his commandment “don’t eat”). The words of the Bible, in spite of what many Protestants must argue, are not always clear and understandable. This is why there are 30,000 different Protestant churches and one Holy Catholic Church.

Gen. to Rev. - Protestants must admit that knowing what books belong in the Bible is necessary for our salvation. However, because the Bible has no “inspired contents page,” you must look outside the Bible to see how its books were selected. This destroys the sola Scriptura theory. The canon of Scripture is a Revelation from God which is necessary for our salvation, and which comes from outside the Bible. Instead, this Revelation was given by God to the Catholic Church, the pinnacle and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15).

scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html

Also, check out this link on Apostolic tradition scripturecatholic.com/oral_tradition.html

Finally,
There’s this famous Catholic convert, Scott Hahn. Part of his conversion story occurred when a student of his (he was Presbyterian) asked him where in the bible did it say that the Bible alone is the sole rule of faith. It seemed like such a simple question. But he never could find the answer to it. No where in the Bible does it say that the faith is found in the bible alone!

 

[MH84]

Also, I found this article from Catholic Answers called, “Scripture and Tradition”
catholic.com/library/Scripture_and_Tradition.asp

 

[ralphinal]

Bengal and MD are correct in the assertion that the Trinity is defined well enough in scrpitures that all should see it. They are also correct to say that we share the teaching of it and it is not only a Catholic dogma. To some people’s dismay (both Catholic and Protestant), we share a common set of faith ancestors. We should have some faith in common.

I think that some of the Catholic posters are saying is that without the development of the understanding of the Trinity within the church during the first few hundred years, the Trinity as it is understood by Scripture Alone might have lead to heresy. To me, the origional poster was asking why do those who reject the authority of the Church accept the fuller teaching of the Trinity? DO they even know where or how it came to be?

MD and Bengal, do you agree that the full understanding of the Trinity that we have today is as much a development of the Church as anything? I know that Bengal is not Sola Scriptura. MD, are you more prima or sola or somewhere in between?

 

[MH84]

…do those who reject the authority of the Church accept the fuller teaching of the Trinity?

DO they even know where or how it came to be?

MD and Bengal, do you agree that the full understanding of the Trinity that we have today is as much a development of the Church as anything?

Sola Scripturists, these are good questions to reflect on.

I wonder how many Protestants in general admit that its the Catholic Church’s understanding of the Trinity in its fullest sense(as Ralphinal says) that they have adopted.

Thanks ralphinal.

If the Church was right then for so important a doctrine, why is it wrong now?

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

look online for Robert Bowman’s Biblical Outline on the trinity.

 

[moondweller]

Bengal and MD are correct in the assertion that the Trinity is defined well enough in scrpitures that all should see it. They are also correct to say that we share the teaching of it and it is not only a Catholic dogma. To some people’s dismay (both Catholic and Protestant), we share a common set of faith ancestors. We should have some faith in common.

Thank you! I pointed out in an earlier post that “Protestantism” (for lack of a better term) is not disconnected from the history of the Christian church. It’s not a new “religion,” as MH84 suggests.

It’s a falsehood indeed for the Roman church to lay exclusive claim to the doctrine of the Trinity. Which is basically what MH84 (and possibly you) is espousing. Just as it is a gross exaggeration to assert that the Ecumenical Councils were intrinsically Roman. Or to arrogantly declare that all church history was essentially Western.

I think that some of the Catholic posters are saying is that without the development of the understanding of the Trinity within the church during the first few hundred years, the Trinity as it is understood by Scripture Alone might have lead to heresy.

Actually, the development of the doctrine came about because certain men did not understand the deity of Christ as it was revealed in the Scriptures (that doesn’t discredit the authority of the Scriptures. Catholics misinterpret the words of their Pope). It is Scripture alone that reveals who/what God is (only God can reveal God), and it was to the Scriptures that those who developed the doctrine appealed. It wasn’t through personal revelation.

To me, the origional poster was asking why do those who reject the authority of the Church accept the fuller teaching of the Trinity? DO they even know where or how it came to be?

Yes, we do know the history behind its development. But the historic development of that doctrine, based on the “theopneustos” (God-breathed) Scriptures, is not the product of, nor a decision made exclusively by the Roman church. It’s not a Roman doctrine!! Nor does the development of the doctrine innately assign to those men who developed it ecclesiastical authority. Nor can Rome’s “magesterium” lay claim to that alleged authority.

It’s been adequately pointed out that the subject of this tread is based on extremely poor logic, a false premise and false assumptions. The church of Rome cannot claim ownership of the doctrine of the Trinity. That’s an absurdity. The validity of the doctrine is found in the Scriptures, not in the halls of the Vatican. And “Protestants” (even those who hold to sola Scriptura) can recognize and appreciate the historic development of the doctrine without recognizing, or bowing to, the authority of Rome’s magesterium. The two are not related.

 

[ralphinal]

look online for Robert Bowman’s Biblical Outline on the trinity.

That is a very good outline. Very good. I am not sure that it hits all of the understanding of the Trinity that Catholics have, but it is the basic understanding of the Trinity defended by the Bible.

 

[ralphinal]

Thank you! I pointed out in an earlier post that “Protestantism” (for lack of a better term) is not disconnected from the history of the Christian church. It’s not a new “religion,” as MH84 suggests.

Agreed

It’s a falsehood indeed for the Roman church to lay exclusive claim to the doctrine of the Trinity. Which is basically what MH84 (and possibly you) is espousing.

I am not espousing that. It’s definition was done by the Church, but it is not ours in as much as it is Christianity’s.

Just as it is a gross exaggeration to assert that the Ecumenical Councils were intrinsically Roman. Or to arrogantly declare that all church history was essentially Western.Actually, the development of the doctrine came about because certain men did not understand the deity of Christ as it was revealed in the Scriptures (that doesn’t discredit the authority of the Scriptures. Catholics misinterpret the words of their Pope). It is Scripture alone that reveals who/what God is (only God can reveal God), and it was to the Scriptures that those who developed the doctrine appealed. It wasn’t through personal revelation.Yes, we do know the history behind its development. But the historic development of that doctrine, based on the “theopneustos” (God-breathed) Scriptures, is not the product of, nor a decision made exclusively by the Roman church. It’s not a Roman doctrine!! Nor does the development of the doctrine innately assign to those men who developed it ecclesiastical authority. Nor can Rome’s “magesterium” lay claim to that alleged authority.

I think I agree. I would point out that the vast majority of all heresies were based on scriptures. When people figure it out as they go, it can get dangerous

It’s been adequately pointed out that the subject of this tread is based on extremely poor logic, a false premise and false assumptions. The church of Rome cannot claim ownership of the doctrine of the Trinity. That’s an absurdity. The validity of the doctrine is found in the Scriptures, not in the halls of the Vatican. And “Protestants” (even those who hold to sola Scriptura) can recognize and appreciate the historic development of the doctrine without recognizing, or bowing to, the authority of Rome’s magesterium. The two are not related.

I would love to agree that everyone can accept the historical development of doctrine. It is my experience that this is not true at all. There are those absolutely cannot accept that a Catholic thought of it first or agrees with them. THere are also those who cannot accept that a Protestant agrees as well. The anit-{insert faith system} people exist on all sides.

MD, I really don’t think that we are distant on this. I am basically on your side that you can accept the Trinity and not accept the Catholic Faith. You cannot however say that the Church is of the devil and accept the Trinity as such, however.

 

[moondweller]

I think I agree. I would point out that the vast majority of all heresies were based on scriptures. When people figure it out as they go, it can get dangerous

So is blindly following others and having them do all the thinking for you. We must study to show ourselves approved.

I would love to agree that everyone can accept the historical development of doctrine. It is my experience that this is not true at all. There are those absolutely cannot accept that a Catholic thought of it first or agrees with them. THere are also those who cannot accept that a Protestant agrees as well. The anit-{insert faith system} people exist on all sides.

The deity of Christ and the triune nature of God were historic issues that all Christendom needed to confront.

MD, I really don’t think that we are distant on this. I am basically on your side that you can accept the Trinity and not accept the Catholic Faith.

OK! I accept it on the same *objective *basis on which it was first accepted - Divine revelation, it’s Biblical.

You cannot however say that the Church is of the devil and accept the Trinity as such, however.

Where did this come from?