How Did The Trinity Doctrine Develop

  • Thread starter Thread starter Old_Scholar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Tinity doctrine developed over a bit of time for the reason that it wasn’t built on just one simple verse spelling it all out. Rather, it took study. There were not many people who had the time, the intellect and the materials to really study.

While one could try and make the case that since it doesn’t hang on just one simple verse it shouldn’t be doctrine. Really it’s the fact that it is so woven throughout, in so many verses that makes it so trustworthy. Someone couldn’t have just changed a word here or there and we suddenly have to throw away the doctrine of the Trinity.

I’m not sure why the show me the proofs show me the prooofs drum beat. That’s been done many times by many people. Because it is so many different verses and such it represents a lot of work to really show it. For instance I have a systematics text that would total about 400 pages to go through most things pertinent to the Trinity.

So I would ask, what is the OP really saying. You say you haven’t said what you believe. Why not quit baiting and waiting for someone to say something so you jump all over them with what you are here to say? Why not just say it. Just because your post afterwards on an individual topic is going to probably be “better” than what someone gives you to attack doesn’t really mean a thing.

The doctrine of the Trinity is a biblical doctrine, it really doesn’t rely on church authroity or Tradition, and that’s a fundamental reason why it’s so widely accepted. When you find it isn’t, it usually comes from one of two backgrounds. Either one of ignorance of the bible especially the original languages, or two an acceptance of an extrabiblical authority, usually someone proclaimed the true prophet of God. In either case they are rejecting the biblical teaching often at the same time they pretend ot uphold it and offer the supposed truth.

So anyway, what’s the rub with the Catholics and the Trinity, 4 pages wasted dancing so far.

JJ
 
Old_Scholar said:
Actually Scripture is quite clear about covenants.
Click to expand...
Actually, unless one is fluent in Hebrew, one can miss subtle meanings which are used to describe the covenants and their nature.

I know that you are probably a busy person, but you might want to read this link to see what Dr. Scott Hahn is talking about when he is explaining covenant from the scriptures.

Covenant Love: Introducing the Biblical Worldview

The page isn’t too long, and is easy to read and understand.
It might agree or disagree with your personal interpretation of what scripture teaches about covenant.

If Dr. Hahn’s description if covenants agrees with your interpretation, then yes, scripture is quite clear in teaching about the covenants, but if Dr. Hahn’s understanding of covenants doesn’t agree with your interpretation, then I would have to say that you are incorrect in you claim that covenants are taught quite clearly in scripture.
 
Read the Gospel of John. There are several chapters about Jesus sending an “Advocate” after he is gone to help the Apostles.
 
Pretty sad when a valid refutation goes ignored.

Still that’s no real surprised coming from an SDA when they are known for fictitious and specious attacks on the Catholic faith.

All one has to do is read through the first few chapters of E.G. White’s “The Great Controversy”.

Also no surprise that OS won’t state his religious affiliation, (though not required here at CAF) since the SDA are notorious for not being upfront and honest about that when announcing “seminars” or other evangelistic events. In fact, most of their publications nowhere state that they are SDA, and most of the SDAs here at CAF list themselves as “protestant”, which is weird since most mainline protestants won’t even claim them either, but treat them as a cult.

So…why not actually deal with the meat of both my posts OS?

Or is your “scholarship” not up to it?
 
Old Scholar
Gottle of Geer = the other stuff
Old Scholar:
**## His **=Constantine I’s] heart is not our business. He was baptised late, but this is no evidence against his having been a Christian. It may be evidence that he was.

**But history records that he was *not ***a Christian.
Click to expand...

His =Constantine I’s] friend Eusebius of Caesarea thought he was a Christian. Eusebius. was his biographer - & biography is a form of history, no ? 🙂​

There are historical data which are compatible with C.'s not being Christian - but compatibility is not proof.
The existence of a Senate in the US is compatible with the thesis that the Romans colonised the US - it doesn’t prove it. 🙂

Constantine might not be a Christian by some standards - so what standards disqualify him ?
**## That was not quite the issue - His consubstantiality with the Father was the Council’s teaching, as that post-Biblical expression was the only way of securing the true Faith concerning His Person against the heresies of post-Biblical times. The text of the Bible cannot secure its own interpretation - that is what allows it to be used to support heresy. **

I am glad to see that at least one Roman Catholic has stated that the Bible was used to combat heresy.
Click to expand...

Although it was so used, I can’t take the credit for saying so. 🙂 Besides, the Bible accepted by (say) St. Justin Martyr was as canonical as, but not as extensive as, that of (say) St Athanasius.​

## To determine matters of Faith is no business of Emperors; not even saintly ones (of whom there have been several) - it belongs to the bishops of the Church to do that, for it is they, not earthly rulers, who are the God-appointed shepherds of the flock of Christ.

But that is exactly what history has recorded as the reason Constantine called the council. He wanted peace within the empire and he saw this as a way to get it. He got tired of the wrangling (two months) and made a decision himself in favor of his friend Athanasius. All but two bishops were afraid not to accept his decision. This is recorded history.
Click to expand...

Calling a Council is not the same as defining a dogma. What he wanted is irrelevant - what the bishops taught is exceedingly relevant. And for their teaching, we must go to the canons & the Creed of the Council. We believe not men’s desires, but the doctrines & dogmas of those who are the teachers in the Church; & that does not include unbaptised Christians. If distinctions like this are not understood, Catholic teaching will be a sealed book.​

## The word for those Christians who “pick & choose” what they believe is - heretic. Those Christians whose disagreement is not founded on making their own understandings the measure of God’s Revelation are mistaken or misled, but they are not guilty of the sin & crime of heresy.

But you do agree that there are those who take literal Scripture and twist it for their own purposes?
Click to expand...

Not only do I agree - I gave a long list of some of those who did or do.​

…more…
 
JOE_OBERR said:
The doctrine of the Trinity was defined the same way the canon of the bible was defined, by the Catholic Church Jesus instituted, the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15). After all the bible doesn’t define its canonical books. Nowhere does the bible teach us what books out of the 250 plus that were considered inspired in the New Testament were actually inspired. It took the Catholic councils and the Pope in the late 4th century to define the canon of the bible.

That is because the Gospel Jesus taught the apostles is a living word. And only the apostles were commissioned by Jesus to preach it. Later some of them wrote only certain elements of the preached word. Only those that hear the Gospel, the oral word of God, believe it and are baptized will be saved (Mk 16:15-16).

Nowhere does Jesus say you will be saved by reading the bible. That is a tradition of men. And we must avoid the tradition of men if we want to be saved. We must put our faith in Jesus who said to listen to the apostles and the Church he founded.

Just curious, if the bible doesn’t define itself, by what logic do you state that any other doctrine of the Catholic Church should/must be found in scripture?
Click to expand...
I didn’t cover this in the other thread but the Bible does claim that everything we need for salvation or any other thing pertaining to faith or morals is written there. That’s the logic; the claim Scripture itself makes!
 
…more…
## That means little if the reason for the persecution is not known. To suffer is not proof of suffering unjustly. The AC is not the work of St. Athanasius - FWIW. St. Fulgentius (d. 533 ?) may be the true author

I am aware that Camerarius was the first one to doubt that the creed was written by Athanasius and for several reasons. That does not change what the creed has to say however.
Click to expand...

I’m not disputing a word of it - I believe & accept it all: I was only explaining that it was not by St. Athanasius, & that as it may be 150 years later than his lifetime, it cannot automatically be taken as reflecting what he believed. I’m sorry that was not clear.​

## What is wrong with using Plato to cast light on the Faith, that is not wrong with using Stoicism to do so ? Yet St. Paul draws on Stoic ideas, & even quotes Stoics. All truth is Christ’s - its cultural origin is secondary importance; though not unimportant

I don’t have any problems with using Plato and didn’t say I did. Maybe you are reading something in what I said that wasn’t there??? ##
Click to expand...

Maybe; but given your desire for Scriptural support for the faith of the Church that God is Tri-Une, & the words “But it was Plato and his philosophies that paved the way for a greater acception of the Trinity doctrine”, this was not an unreasonable interpretation of your words. The Church does not rest its faith on philosophers any more than on emperors, but on the Wisdom of God made man as Christ.​

**Scripture cannot be used by itself - for reasons already explained. **​

You are in error here. Scripture tells us that Scripture is everything we need and is complete for a man of God. ##
]

You know that this book of the NT says that, as do we all - but not because of anything in that book, or any other in the NT. It does not claim to be a book of the Divine Scriptures. That second sentence is self-refuting.​

If “Scripture tells us that Scripture is everything we need and is complete for a man of God”, then we don’t need the NT canon, which is not found anywhere in the Bible, in any form. Nor are we told that this particular letter - or any NT writing - is part of the written Word of God. So the reasoning that tells us that “Scripture tells us that Scripture is everything we need and is complete for a man of God” refutes itself. Besides, the word “Scripture” is useless as a guide to the meaning of the word “Scripture” - there is no reason to take for granted that it refers to a Biblical text. It probably does, but there is nothing to justify assuming this to be so. Apart from Tradition. The logic which undermines the Church to exalt the Bible in its place, only manages to undermine the Bible as well. If “Scripture tells us that Scripture is everything we need and is complete for a man of God”, it is telling us we don’t need it at all. If that notion is true, its truth proves its untruth. Only if it is untrue can it be true - which leaves us as we began.

The only NT the NT mentions is not written at all - it is the “new testament in My Blood”. There is no foundation in the NT for a NT of books. “Scripture alone” does not work unless Scripture alone can prove from Scripture alone what books are in that Scripture.

If OTOH it is alone as the judge in all controversies of religion: how does it judge between which books are to be accepted as “the Word of God written”, & which are not ? If that is not a controversy in religion, it is hard to know what it is. If that controversy is exempted - why are others not ? If it is decided which books are to be accepted as “the Word of God written” on a different basis, what is that basis; & why is it acceptable for a judgement on what counts as Holy Scripture, & only on that ?
 
Jolly_Joe said:
The Tinity doctrine developed over a bit of time for the reason that it wasn’t built on just one simple verse spelling it all out. Rather, it took study. There were not many people who had the time, the intellect and the materials to really study.

While one could try and make the case that since it doesn’t hang on just one simple verse it shouldn’t be doctrine. Really it’s the fact that it is so woven throughout, in so many verses that makes it so trustworthy. Someone couldn’t have just changed a word here or there and we suddenly have to throw away the doctrine of the Trinity.

I’m not sure why the show me the proofs show me the prooofs drum beat. That’s been done many times by many people. Because it is so many different verses and such it represents a lot of work to really show it. For instance I have a systematics text that would total about 400 pages to go through most things pertinent to the Trinity.

So I would ask, what is the OP really saying. You say you haven’t said what you believe. Why not quit baiting and waiting for someone to say something so you jump all over them with what you are here to say? Why not just say it. Just because your post afterwards on an individual topic is going to probably be “better” than what someone gives you to attack doesn’t really mean a thing.

The doctrine of the Trinity is a biblical doctrine, it really doesn’t rely on church authroity or Tradition, and that’s a fundamental reason why it’s so widely accepted. When you find it isn’t, it usually comes from one of two backgrounds. Either one of ignorance of the bible especially the original languages, or two an acceptance of an extrabiblical authority, usually someone proclaimed the true prophet of God. In either case they are rejecting the biblical teaching often at the same time they pretend ot uphold it and offer the supposed truth.

So anyway, what’s the rub with the Catholics and the Trinity, 4 pages wasted dancing so far.

JJ
Click to expand...
**I don’t think it is just “dancing.” I am surprised that so many do not know much about the Trinity however, except what they have been told. It has reaffirmed my position that some people don’t really study the Bible, they simply believe what they have been told.

My reason for starting this thread was to get a discussion but I find the above problem with posters. A few have shown they wanted to discuss it but mostly I get attacked for no reason. I haven’t said what I think at all—that is coming later but I wanted to get people thinking.

For example, do you ever wonder why, while Jesus was on the earth, He continually made it a point to show that the Father was greater than He and continually made comments that would indicate He was not equal with God? Do you believe that Jesus, like the apostles, thought He would be returning soon? He said that He would return before those living then would be dead. He said “this**” generation…Do you think He did not know when the end would come? After all, He said only the Father knows…
 
Old_Scholar said:
You must realize there is a difference between Lord and God.
Click to expand...

That depends on the senses in which these words are used.​

As “Lord” often stands in the OT for the Divine NAME, (often represented by Greek Kurios) & as the NT Church was not unfamiliar with OT ideas, it can’t be assumed that “Lord”/Kurios never represents the NAME. One has to read the texts in context.

As for the texts favouring subordination of Jesus - they are not an objection. Whether as man or Messiah, Jesus was subordinate to His Father.

Evidence of His true humanity =/= evidence against His True Deity.
 
Church_Militant said:
Pretty sad when a valid refutation goes ignored.

Still that’s no real surprised coming from an SDA when they are known for fictitious and specious attacks on the Catholic faith.

All one has to do is read through the first few chapters of E.G. White’s “The Great Controversy”.

Also no surprise that OS won’t state his religious affiliation, (though not required here at CAF) since the SDA are notorious for not being upfront and honest about that when announcing “seminars” or other evangelistic events. In fact, most of their publications nowhere state that they are SDA, and most of the SDAs here at CAF list themselves as “protestant”, which is weird since most mainline protestants won’t even claim them either, but treat them as a cult.

So…why not actually deal with the meat of both my posts OS?

Or is your “scholarship” not up to it?
Click to expand...
**Do you have anything to contribute to the question of the Trinity or just keep attacking me? By SDA I suspect you must mean Seventh Day Adventist. Is that correct? Does that mean I can have several wives? Ha!

I did not deal with your early post because you obviously wanted to shift the focus by trying to say I was simply attacking the Catholic faith and that is when you made your unfounded comment on the Mother of God. I told everyone I started this post to have a discussion, not to be attacked. You have only wanted to attack.

I know all about the Seventh Day Adventists—other than the fact that they are right about the Sabbath, I don’t believe that Joseph Smith found any plates at all. It kind of resembles those who claim revelation from God that isn’t true as many claim. I don’t believe God sent Moroni any more than He gave inspiration to the successors of the apostles as new doctrines.

But to be fair, if all Christians were like the Mormons, we would certainly all be much healthier and more family oriented. That part of their faith is admirable. They certainly take care of their bodies and I do ascribe to the belief that God is within us and our bodies are His temple. Do you believe that?

And by the way, Duet 6:4 can be used to prove that there is but one God, not three.**
 
Old_Scholar said:
For the 100th time, the 1st century Christians had all the epistles of Paul, the Gospels and all the books that ended up in the New Testament except for Revelation. It was written abour 90 - 100 A.D. just before John died. I don’t doubt that some copies of it had been circulated already.

I am glad to see someone finally find some Scriptures that show support for the Trinity.

And you shouldn’t say that I don’t believe in the Trinity. I have not said what I believe yet. I am trying to have a discussion.
Click to expand...

And that might be easier if your credal standpoint were known. Not, BTW, as a tactic to dismiss what you say (C.S. Lewis called that “Bulverism” :)); but, so as to avoid dealing with points that are not at issue. Otherwise, time & energy are wasted on matters that nobody denies, which does not help the discussion. 😦​

The rest of us don’t hide our Catholic identity.
 
Gottle_of_Geer said:
…more…

I’m not disputing a word of it - I believe & accept it all: I was only explaining that it was not by St. Athanasius, & that as it may be 150 years later than his lifetime, it cannot automatically be taken as reflecting what he believed. I’m sorry that was not clear.​

Maybe; but given your desire for Scriptural support for the faith of the Church that God is Tri-Une, & the words “But it was Plato and his philosophies that paved the way for a greater acception of the Trinity doctrine”, this was not an unreasonable interpretation of your words. The Church does not rest its faith on philosophers any more than on emperors, but on the Wisdom of God made man as Christ.​

**Scripture cannot be used by itself - for reasons already explained. **​

You are in error here. Scripture tells us that Scripture is everything we need and is complete for a man of God. ##
]
Click to expand...

You know that this book of the NT says that, as do we all - but not because of anything in that book, or any other in the NT. It does not claim to be a book of the Divine Scriptures. That second sentence is self-refuting.​

If “Scripture tells us that Scripture is everything we need and is complete for a man of God”, then we don’t need the NT canon, which is not found anywhere in the Bible, in any form. Nor are we told that this particular letter - or any NT writing - is part of the written Word of God. So the reasoning that tells us that “Scripture tells us that Scripture is everything we need and is complete for a man of God” refutes itself. Besides, the word “Scripture” is useless as a guide to the meaning of the word “Scripture” - there is no reason to take for granted that it refers to a Biblical text. It probably does, but there is nothing to justify assuming this to be so. Apart from Tradition. The logic which undermines the Church to exalt the Bible in its place, only manages to undermine the Bible as well. If “Scripture tells us that Scripture is everything we need and is complete for a man of God”, it is telling us we don’t need it at all. If that notion is true, its truth proves its untruth. Only if it is untrue can it be true - which leaves us as we began.

The only NT the NT mentions is not written at all - it is the “new testament in My Blood”. There is no foundation in the NT for a NT of books. “Scripture alone” does not work unless Scripture alone can prove from Scripture alone what books are in that Scripture.

If OTOH it is alone as the judge in all controversies of religion: how does it judge between which books are to be accepted as “the Word of God written”, & which are not ? If that is not a controversy in religion, it is hard to know what it is. If that controversy is exempted - why are others not ? If it is decided which books are to be accepted as “the Word of God written” on a different basis, what is that basis; & why is it acceptable for a judgement on what counts as Holy Scripture, & only on that ?

**Do you really believe that Paul did not know he was writing Scripture when he wrote his epistles? Had he not been commissioned by God to do just that? Didn’t Peter call his writings Scripture and validate them as such? Paul was doing exactly what he was told to do and how can you even insinuate that he did now know his writings were Scripture and would be used forever as such? This is the first time I have ever heard this argument.

But it is very common to come back to the old “catch all”, which books did the Bible say should be in the Bible. While the books are being written, how do you suppose anyone could say which ones would be in the Bible? Do you really think that those that were inspired would not be there? Do you not believe that anything written by an apostle would be considered inspired? Have you read the criteria that was used for inclusion?

It’s a little strange that you would consider anything** said by a mortal man, because he is called a priest, as Scriptural, even when it goes against Scripture, but would question what was written by an apostle of Christ. Isn’t it true that you believe anything your church tells you?
 
Old_Scholar said:
Do you believe that Christ was equal to God while He was on this earth?
Click to expand...
Yes.Although I would say that Christ is God. That Jesus=Yahveh. Since we cannot separate the man from the divinity. He is not, as Arius, contended, a creature. Arius, like many before him, fixed on the role of Jesus as mediator. It is the man who is mediator, but in a way that no other man can because of his union with the Son. But I think we do have to consider that we only know about the Son because we know Jesus.
 
RobbyS said:
Yes.Although I would say that Christ is God. That Jesus=Yahveh. Since we cannot separate the man from the divinity. He is not, as Arius, contended, a creature. Arius, like many before him, fixed on the role of Jesus as mediator. It is the man who is mediator, but in a way that no other man can because of his union with the Son. But I think we do have to consider that we only know about the Son because we know Jesus.
Click to expand...
Why then do you suppose Christ made so many comments saying that God was greater than He and that God was the only God and that He did not know what God did? Can you explain that?
 
Gottle_of_Geer said:

That depends on the senses in which these words are used.​

As “Lord” often stands in the OT for the Divine NAME, (often represented by Greek Kurios) & as the NT Church was not unfamiliar with OT ideas, it can’t be assumed that “Lord”/Kurios never represents the NAME. One has to read the texts in context.

As for the texts favouring subordination of Jesus - they are not an objection. Whether as man or Messiah, Jesus was subordinate to His Father.

Evidence of His true humanity =/= evidence against His True Deity.
Click to expand...
Then I guess you still believe that Jesus is subordinate to His Father?
 
Gottle_of_Geer said:

And that might be easier if your credal standpoint were known. Not, BTW, as a tactic to dismiss what you say (C.S. Lewis called that “Bulverism” :)); but, so as to avoid dealing with points that are not at issue. Otherwise, time & energy are wasted on matters that nobody denies, which does not help the discussion. 😦​

The rest of us don’t hide our Catholic identity.
Click to expand...
So we all just state our beliefs and then not worry about having a forum…Why have a discussion then? Or is it possible, just possible, that even one person may learn something from these forums?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top