How Did The Trinity Doctrine Develop

[Old_Scholar]

If the Trinity is not taught in the Bible, how did it get to be a doctrine of Christendom?

How many people believe in the Trinity? Shouldn’t it be in the Bible with no question left at all about it?

The Roman Catholic Church states: “The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion… ‘Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: "The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God.’ In this Trinity…the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent.” (The Catholic Encyclopedia)

Most all other churches agree; the Orthodox Church also calls the Trinity “the fundamental doctrine of Christianity,” even saying: “Christians are those who accept Christ as God.” The same church declares: “God is triune…The Father is totally God. The Son is totally God. The Holy Spirit is totally God.”

Thus the Trinity is said to be “one God in three persons.” Each is said to be almighty, with each neither greater nor lesser than the others.

Is this hard to follow? Many sincere believers have found it to be confusing, contrary to normal reason, unlike anything in their experience. Some of them ask, how could the Father be God, Jesus be God, and the Holy Spirit be God, yet there be not three Gods but only one God.?

If this is really true—wouldn’t it be clearly outlined in the Scriptures? Jesus Christ Himself said, “Eternal life is this: to know you, the4 only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.” So we must know the true nature of God and to do that we must get to the root of the Trinity controversy. And yes, there is a controversy because some do not believe in this concept.

The best thing to do is examine it ourselves and I hope to be able to do it with this thread and I ask for help with those who are knowledgeable and not just those who will say, it is true and that is that!

John 17:3 “Now this is eternal life: That they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.”

This verse seems to support those who say that the Trinity doctrine is false, that Almighty God stands alone as a separate, eternal, and all-powerful being. They say that Jesus in his prehuman existence was, like the angels, a separate spirit person created by God, and for this reason he must have had a beginning. They believe that Jesus has never been God’s equal in any sense; He has always been subject to God and still is. They also believe that the Holy Ghost is not a person but God’s spirit, his active force.

Supporters say that it is founded not only on religious tradition but also on the Bible. Critics say the doctrine is not a Bible teaching, one history source even declaring: “The origin of the [Trinity] is entirely pagan.” (The Paganism in Our Christianity)

If the Trinity is true, it degrades Jesus as part of the Godhead but if it is false, it is degrading to Almighty God to call anyone His equal, and even worse to call mary the 'Mother of God."

Obviously there are very good reasons to know the truth about the Trinity. I believe it would be helpful to examine its origin and its claim of truthfulness, and to define the doctrine more specifically. What exactly is the Trinity? How do supporters of it explain it?

What say ye?

 

[Church_Militant]

If the Trinity is not taught in the Bible, how did it get to be a doctrine of Christendom?

I know of no Catholic who denies the Trinity.

There is however a difference between and explicit teaching in the Word of God and an implicit teaching the Word of God.

How many people believe in the Trinity?

I don’t know how many.

I just know that I do and that the Catholic Church teachers it and has since the earliest times.

Shouldn’t it be in the Bible with no question left at all about it?

Again, no faithful Catholic says that it is not in the Bible.

Still, as with any implicit teaching, some people doubt or deny it.

The Roman Catholic Church states: “The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion… ‘Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: "The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God.’ In this Trinity…the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent.” (The Catholic Encyclopedia)

Okay…better to refer to the Catechism though.

I. “IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER AND OF THE SON AND OF THE HOLY SPIRIT”

(Link)

232 Christians are baptized "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"53 Before receiving the sacrament, they respond to a three-part question when asked to confess the Father, the Son and the Spirit: “I do.” "The faith of all Christians rests on the Trinity."54

233 Christians are baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: not in their names,55 for there is only one God, the almighty Father, his only Son and the Holy Spirit: the Most Holy Trinity.

234 The mystery of the Most Holy Trinity is the central mystery of Christian faith and life. It is the mystery of God in himself. It is therefore the source of all the other mysteries of faith, the light that enlightens them. It is the most fundamental and essential teaching in the “hierarchy of the truths of faith”.56 The whole history of salvation is identical with the history of the way and the means by which the one true God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, reveals himself to men “and reconciles and unites with himself those who turn away from sin”.57

235 This paragraph expounds briefly (I) how the mystery of the Blessed Trinity was revealed, (II) how the Church has articulated the doctrine of the faith regarding this mystery, and (III) how, by the divine missions of the Son and the Holy Spirit, God the Father fulfills the “plan of his loving goodness” of creation, redemption and sanctification.

236 The Fathers of the Church distinguish between theology (theologia) and economy (oikonomia). “Theology” refers to the mystery of God’s inmost life within the Blessed Trinity and “economy” to all the works by which God reveals himself and communicates his life. Through the oikonomia the theologia is revealed to us; but conversely, the theologia illuminates the whole oikonomia. God’s works reveal who he is in himself; the mystery of his inmost being enlightens our understanding of all his works. So it is, analogously, among human persons. A person discloses himself in his actions, and the better we know a person, the better we understand his actions.

237 The Trinity is a mystery of faith in the strict sense, one of the “mysteries that are hidden in God, which can never be known unless they are revealed by God”.58 To be sure, God has left traces of his Trinitarian being in his work of creation and in his Revelation throughout the Old Testament. But his inmost Being as Holy Trinity is a mystery that is inaccessible to reason alone or even to Israel’s faith before the Incarnation of God’s Son and the sending of the Holy Spirit.I suggest that you not only read that section, but also see and check into the footnotes as well. It will expose you to scholarship on a level that I doubt you have encountered before.

(Cont’d)

 

[Church_Militant]

Most all other churches agree; the Orthodox Church also calls the Trinity “the fundamental doctrine of Christianity,” even saying: “Christians are those who accept Christ as God.” The same church declares: “God is triune…The Father is totally God. The Son is totally God. The Holy Spirit is totally God.”

Thus the Trinity is said to be “one God in three persons.” Each is said to be almighty, with each neither greater nor lesser than the others.

And your point is?

Is this hard to follow? Many sincere believers have found it to be confusing, contrary to normal reason, unlike anything in their experience. Some of them ask, how could the Father be God, Jesus be God, and the Holy Spirit be God, yet there be not three Gods but only one God.?

Probably that comes of the human thinking and experience of “too many chiefs and not enough Indians”, something that would not apply to a perfect being.

If this is really true—wouldn’t it be clearly outlined in the Scriptures? Jesus Christ Himself said, “Eternal life is this: to know you, the4 only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.” So we must know the true nature of God and to do that we must get to the root of the Trinity controversy. And yes, there is a controversy because some do not believe in this concept.

I’d beg to differ with you here. There is no controversy among those who accept this doctrine.

The issue was settled centuries ago in a Catholic council and has been restated again and again.

The best thing to do is examine it ourselves and I hope to be able to do it with this thread and I ask for help with those who are knowledgeable and not just those who will say, it is true and that is that!

What? You wanna use CAF as a test ground for your arguments with non-trinitarians like the Jehovah’s Witnesses or something? I suggest a forum search on the topic.

John 17:3 “Now this is eternal life: That they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.”

This verse seems to support those who say that the Trinity doctrine is false, that Almighty God stands alone as a separate, eternal, and all-powerful being. They say that Jesus in his prehuman existence was, like the angels, a separate spirit person created by God, and for this reason he must have had a beginning. They believe that Jesus has never been God’s equal in any sense; He has always been subject to God and still is. They also believe that the Holy Ghost is not a person but God’s spirit, his active force.

Supporters say that it is founded not only on religious tradition but also on the Bible. Critics say the doctrine is not a Bible teaching, one history source even declaring: “The origin of the [Trinity] is entirely pagan.” (The Paganism in Our Christianity)Why start there?

I suggest Deuteronomy 6:4 (The Jewish Sh’ma)
Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord. 5 Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole strength.

If the Trinity is true, it degrades Jesus as part of the Godhead but if it is false, it is degrading to Almighty God to call anyone His equal, and even worse to call Mary the 'Mother of God.

"Ah… there’s the anti-Catholic argument! Couched as it is in a pseudo-study of the Trinity in order to bait us Catholics, not into a study of the Trinity, but into a discussion & debate on the title “Mother of God”.

Obviously there are very good reasons to know the truth about the Trinity. I believe it would be helpful to examine its origin and its claim of truthfulness, and to define the doctrine more specifically. What exactly is the Trinity? How do supporters of it explain it?

The Catholic Church has no issues whatever with the Trinity and only someone who intentionally misrepresents its teachings would even attempt this kind baiting thread. I will post this last post and then I refuse to post on this thread for the simple reason that this is a specious baiting of Catholics.

As for the title “Mother of God” even the three “pillars of the reformation” understood its meaning and accepted it as the following quotes show.

The three “pillars of the reformation”, Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli, all believed that Mary was the mother of God.

Mother of God

Martin Luther: “In this work whereby she was made the Mother of God, so many and such good things were given her that no one can grasp them… Not only was Mary the mother of Him who is born [in Bethlehem], but of Him who, before the world, was eternally born of the Father, from a Mother in time and at the same time man and God.” (The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, Vol. 7, page 572)

John Calvin: “It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of His Son, granted her the highest honor…Elizabeth calls Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time the eternal God.” (Calvini Opera, Corpus reformatorum, Braunschweig-Berlin, 1863-1900, Vol. 45, page 348 and 335.)

Ulrich Zwingli: “It was given to her what belongs to no creature, that in the flesh she should bring forth the Son of God.” ( Zwingli Opera, Corpus reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, in Evang. Luc., Op. Comp., Vol.
6, I, page 639.)

What say ye?

I say, don’t bait us and don’t make specious assertions about the Catholic faith when you don’t know what you are talking about.

 

[VociMike]

The Trinity is indeed a problem from those who insist on taking their doctrine from the bible alone. That’s why a good number of “bible-only” believers reject the Trinity. And I find it grimly amusing to see Protestants who believe in the Trinity try and defend that belief via sola scriptura to other Protestants who don’t believe in the Trinity and who also resort to sola scriptura.

It is not a problem for the Catholic Church (or for the Orthodox), since they do not claim to derive their doctrine from the bible alone.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

The Biblical Basis of the Doctrine of the Trinity: An Outline Study
By Robert M. Bowman, Jr.
apologetics.com
spotlightministries.org.uk/bowmanonthetrinity.htm

I have no problem seeing this doctrine in scripture. I beleived in the trinity even before someone taught on it.

Basically, in church history it was not neccessary to define it until someone like Arius denied a major plank of it, mainly the deity of Christ or qualifly it, when someone like Sabellius became confused.

Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church
by Harold O. J. Brown

 

[Scottgun]

http://members.cox.net/swaddell/pics/ike_where_this_thread_is_going-vi.jpg

 

[pprimeau1976]

Is this hard to follow? Many sincere believers have found it to be confusing, contrary to normal reason, unlike anything in their experience. Some of them ask, how could the Father be God, Jesus be God, and the Holy Spirit be God, yet there be not three Gods but only one God.?

If it is hard to follow, I don’t know why it’s so hard to follow, especially when we’re talking about God. People will firmly believe that God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, yet the moment you mention the Trinity personal beliefs will fall apart. To me, this is putting limits as to what God can be, much like those who refused to believe that God could become a carpenter and then die for our sins.

I’ve told people before that three persons in one human being is unnatural and is given a name…multiple personality disorder. Three persons in one divine being is natural and is given a name…the Trinity.

 

[teadough]

I must admit,as much as I believe in the Triune,I have plenty of nights when I lay in bed and ponder certain parts of scripture. I think about what Jesus says in John 16:7 in regards to Him sending a “Helper”,but the fact that He could not do so until after He had died and arose.

When I think of this I think of God grace and love towards all humans and how the Holy spirit speaks through all people at certain times.

When I think back at what I felt when I attended protestant churches,I notice that the Holy Spirit was in all of them. When I am in a Catholic Church I notice something else.

 

[Fidelis]

Many sincere believers have found it to be confusing, contrary to normal reason, unlike anything in their experience. Some of them ask, how could the Father be God, Jesus be God, and the Holy Spirit be God, yet there be not three Gods but only one God.?

The main problem is assuming we could understand the internal workings of the One who created us – and the whole universe, for that matter. It would be like a worm trying to understand a human being. If that pricks your pride, you may have to reconsider your understanding of the exaltedness and transendence of God. If you are referring to a lesser more easily understood being of your own making, we are talking about different beings.

When dealing with the nature and the inner life of God beyond what has already been revealed to us, “HOW” is futile, even presumptous, question to ask. As Augustine said, “If I understood God, I would be God.”

Here is another article that may help:

The Divine Trinity
rosary-center.org/ll47n3.htm

 

[Jolly_Joe]

I just have to ask the OP how can the doctrine of the Trinity degrade Jesus? I cannot figure out how being the one true God degrades Jesus?

JJ

 

[teadough]

I think too many people are taking this thread the wrong way and are thinking they need to read in-between the lines of the actual thread topic.

Just a thought.

 

[JimG]

The question of Jesus’ identity is one of the first questions that arose, even in his own time. Christianity arose as the fulfillment of Judaism, a strictly monotheistic religion. Christianity did not discard monotheism in proclaiming Jesus Lord. It recognized him not only as Lord but also as equal to the Father.

Perhaps that is why John the Evangelist begins his gospel with the words that “in the beginning” (echoing Genesis) “was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

Belief in one God does not require that one God to be fully expressed in just one Person. That was the surprising revelation of Christ.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Church Militant, you seem to have a chip on your shoulder. I don’t understand why you are so adversarial right at the start. If you do not want to participate in this thread, then by all means don’t do so, but don’t denigrate those who do.

I have not said that what I am posting is my belief. I am only wanting to have a good discussion about the Trinity, and what better way than to have people comment on it. There is no hidden agenda here or RCC baiting as you suggest, rather an honest attempt to have a good discussion with Christians about one of our major beliefs. You don’t have to be here if you don’t want to.

We should ask ourselves if the Trinity is really a Bible teaching?

As I said before, some will argue that if true, the Trinity would surely be taught in Scripture. After all the apostles affirmed that the Bible is God’s revelation of Himself to mankind. If we want to worship Him and really know Him, the Bible is what we have to tell us what we want to know. To listen to someone else would really not be proper because we are told that the Scriptures contain everything we need to know.

In the first century, believers believed that the Scriptures were the authentic revelation of God. It was the basis for their beliefs, the final authority.

Acts 17:10-11 “they received the word with the greatest eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so.”

Paul tells us that prominent men of God at that time used as their authority, the Scriptures.

In Acts 17:2-3, we are told, “According to Paul’s custom…he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving by references[from the Scriptures].”

It seems clear that the Scriptures were to be the foundation for their teaching. We are told that “all Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.”(2 Tim 3:16-17. Corinthians 4:6; 1 Thess 2:13; 2 Peter 1:20-21 also pertain to the subject.

One protestant publication says that the word Trinity is not found in the Bible and that is true. They also say that it did not find a place formally in the theology of the church until the 4th century.

From the *New Catholic Encyclopedia *and The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, it is said that the Trinity “is not directly and immediately the word of God.”

If the Old Testament and the New Testament did not speak of the Trinity, then we need to look carefully at what it did say and what the early church fathers said about it.

Was it taught by the early Christians? We must see what was said about the Trinity then. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology says: "Primitive Christianity did not have an explicit doctrine of the Trinity such as was subsequently elaborated in the creeds."

From “The Paganism in Our Christianity” it is written, "The early Christians, however, did not at first think of applying the idea to their own faith. They paid for their devotions to God the Father and Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and they recognized the Holy Spirit; but there was no thought of these three being an actual Trinity, co-equal and united in One."

Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics, "At first the Christian faith was not Trinitarian. It was not so in the apostolic and sub-apostolic ages, as reflected in the New Testament and other early Christian writings."

The New Catholic Encyclopedia, "The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective."

What did the Ante-Nicene Fathers teach? They were the leading religious teachers in the early days aft Christ.

Justin Martyr called the prehuman Jesus a created angel who is 'other than the God who made all things." He said that Jesus was inferior to God and “never did anything except what the Creator willed Him to do and say.”

Irenæus said that the prehuman Jesus had a separate existence from God and was inferior to Him. He showed that Jesus is not equal to the 'One true and only God," who is “supreme over all, and besides whom there is no other.”

Clement of Alexandria called Jesus in his prehuman existence “a creature” but called God “the uncreated and imperishable and only true God.” He said that the Son “is next to the only omnipotent Father” but not equal to Him.

Tertullian taught the supremacy of God. He observed: “The Father is different from the Son, as He is greater; as He who begets is different from Him who is begotten; He who sends, different from Him who is sent.” He also said, “There was a time when the Son was not…Before all things, God was alone.”

Hippolytus said that God is “the one God, the first and only One, the Maker and Lord of all,” who “had nothing co-eval (of equal age) with Him. But He was One, alone by Himself; who, willing it, called into being what had no being before,” such as the created prehuman Jesus.

Origen said that “the Father and Son are two substances, two things as to the essence,” and that “compared with the Father, [the Son] is a very small light.”

**So it seems that the Bible and the early church fathers were clear that the Trinity was unknown for several centuries.

So how did the Trinity Doctrine Develop? As Christians should we believe in it simply because we are told it is true? Or rather should we seek the truth for ourselves as the Bible teaches us when it says "search the Scriptures?**

 

[Old_Scholar]

I just have to ask the OP how can the doctrine of the Trinity degrade Jesus? I cannot figure out how being the one true God degrades Jesus?

JJ

I meant it only in this sense: If the Trinity is true, it is degrading to Jesus to say that He was never equal to God as part of a Godhead. That is saying that He is the ‘same’ as God but is not Almighty ‘God.’ But if the Trinity is false, it is degrading to Almighty God to call anyone His equal, because He has told us, as has Jesus, that there is but one God. That is also why I said it would be bad to say that Mary is the Mother of God, because we all know that God was in the beginning and in the beginning was God. Therefore God did not have a mother.

Also we are told many times by Jesus that “the Father is greater than I.” Jesus is said to “sit at the right hand of God.”

Isn’t it easy to see why many are so confused?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

If the Trinity is not taught in the Bible, how did it get to be a doctrine of Christendom?

It’s a long story…​

Old Scholar:

How many people believe in the Trinity? Shouldn’t it be in the Bible with no question left at all about it?

The Bible can always be questioned - the mind of man is full of excellent reasons for unbelief.​

The Roman Catholic Church states: “The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion… ‘Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: "The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God.’ In this Trinity…the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent.” (The Catholic Encyclopedia)

Most all other churches agree; the Orthodox Church also calls the Trinity “the fundamental doctrine of Christianity,” even saying: “Christians are those who accept Christ as God.” The same church declares: “God is triune…The Father is totally God. The Son is totally God. The Holy Spirit is totally God.”

Thus the Trinity is said to be “one God in three persons.” Each is said to be almighty, with each neither greater nor lesser than the others.

Is this hard to follow?

No ​

Many sincere believers have found it to be confusing, contrary to normal reason,

And it is not “contrary to normal reason” that God should pardon sinners ? Forgiveness is “contrary to normal reason” - yet God forgives us. The difficulty probably owes something to the fact that not all Christians are capable of following an argument, theological or not - that’s not a reason for disbelief, but a weakness in us.​

If we shrink the Eternal God down to the puny limits of our own hearts & understandings, of course we won’t be able to believe. God is not known by reason, nearly as well as by faith & hope & love above all.

The great Saints & Doctors - St. Augustine, St.Thomas Aquinas, St. Alphonsus Liguori etc. - were great believers & great lovers of God & His mysteries: that is why they are Saints & Doctors. They were very aware of the limitations of the human intellect - it was their faith & their love of God, that overcame these limitations. Not their reason; reason can be helpful, but it’s too shallow to explore God

unlike anything in their experience.

God tends to be that - otherwise, He is nothing but an idol. Which is pagan. A God we could understand fully would not be worthy of our adoration. If God is God, He far exceeds our tiny minds​

Some of them ask, how could the Father be God, Jesus be God, and the Holy Spirit be God, yet there be not three Gods but only one God.?

There is no real analogy to God, Who is Incomparable .​

If this is really true—wouldn’t it be clearly outlined in the Scriptures? Jesus Christ Himself said, “Eternal life is this: to know you, the4 only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.” So we must know the true nature of God and to do that we must get to the root of the Trinity controversy. And yes, there is a controversy because some do not believe in this concept.

The Blessed Trinity is a Reality - not a “concept”​

The best thing to do is examine it ourselves and I hope to be able to do it with this thread and I ask for help with those who are knowledgeable and not just those who will say, it is true and that is that!

John 17:3 “Now this is eternal life: That they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.”

This verse seems to support those who say that the Trinity doctrine is false, that Almighty God stands alone as a separate, eternal, and all-powerful being. They say that Jesus in his prehuman existence was, like the angels, a separate spirit person created by God, and for this reason he must have had a beginning. They believe that Jesus
has never been God’s equal in any sense; He has always been subject to God and still is. They also believe that the Holy Ghost is not a person but God’s spirit, his active force.

This is good Judaism - we are Christians; Judaism is venerable - & incomplete.​

Supporters say that it is founded not only on religious tradition but also on the Bible.

And most of all on the grace of faith - the Church’s, & ours who are in the Church​

…more…]

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Critics say the doctrine is not a Bible teaching, one history source even declaring: “The origin of the [Trinity] is entirely pagan.” (The Paganism in Our Christianity)

OK…​

1. Define “pagan”
2. Look at the question the other other way round - other religions contain elements of Christianity
3. That something is present in “paganism” does not of itself make it wrong - if it did, prayer would be a great sin
4. There is no “Bible teaching” that there is to be a written NT - logically, it is as much a perversion of the Gospel as the Trinity is sometimes said to be. It would be easy to “prove” that the sin of having a written NT is evidence of the “Great Apostacy”
5. It is illogical to use the NT, which is a fruit of tradition, to argue against the Trinity, which is also a fruit of tradition. Two things that belong to the same class, are to that extent indistinguishable - something from outside the class they belong to has to do that. That something, is the Church in which both are present by God’s help.
6. Those who accept anything as a “Bible teaching” have no basis to do so except the tradition they reject - they don’t explain the basis on which they accept part of what that tradition has brought them (such as the NT or the Deity of Christ, prayer to the Holy Spirit) while not accepting other things it has brought (the Trinity, the Papacy, veneration of the Saints)

If the Trinity is true, it degrades Jesus as part of the Godhead but if it is false,

Understood. The Godhead is not material, so it without parts.​

it is degrading to Almighty God to call anyone His equal,

Two points:​

• 1. The Book of Isaiah, which is echoed here, cannot be quoted against faith in the Blessed Trinity, as it was written before that Reality was revealed.
• 1. The name “God” can mean
• • • • the Father in particular
• • • • any one of the Divine Persons
• • • • the Divine Nature in general

• the phrase “Almighty God” may mean any of these. The Divine Nature “in” Which the Divine Persons subsist is not a fourth Person, so cannot be distinguished from or contrasted with the Three Persons, whether individually or together

and even worse to call mary the 'Mother of God."

To deprive Mary of what God has not been ashamed to give her is a sort of theft - which is against the Commandments. She is “the mother of My Lord” (Luke 1.42) - & that Lord is God the Word “in the flesh”. If the Father is pleased to confer, on a mere creature such as she is, the dignity of sharing in His Fatherhood, the Church cannot tell Him not to.​

She is not the Mother of the Blessed Trinity, nor of the Word in His Divine Nature; but, of the Word “made flesh”. So no eternity or divinity of Mary is implied. For a creature to become God is in any case impossible; as well as heretical, & ruinous to the Catholic Faith. God cannot not be God - but can most definitely assume our human nature, to become “God-with-us”. God cannot be born or die - the God-man, can, & has. And Mary is the mother of that Man Who is God. If she is not, He is not truly man, did not die, was not raised in Glory, & we are still in our sins.

The Word took on Himself a human nature, from her, to become true man - this is evidence of her Assumption

Obviously there are very good reasons to know the truth about the Trinity. I believe it would be helpful to examine its origin and its claim of truthfulness, and to define the doctrine more specifically. What exactly is the Trinity? How do supporters of it explain it?

What say ye?

Do it ​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Church Militant, you seem to have a chip on your shoulder. I don’t understand why you are so adversarial right at the start. If you do not want to participate in this thread, then by all means don’t do so, but don’t denigrate those who do.

I have not said that what I am posting is my belief. I am only wanting to have a good discussion about the Trinity, and what better way than to have people comment on it. There is no hidden agenda here or RCC baiting as you suggest, rather an honest attempt to have a good discussion with Christians about one of our major beliefs. You don’t have to be here if you don’t want to.

We should ask ourselves if the Trinity is really a Bible teaching?

As I said before, some will argue that if true, the Trinity would surely be taught in Scripture. After all the apostles affirmed that the Bible is God’s revelation of Himself to mankind. If we want to worship Him and really know Him, the Bible is what we have to tell us what we want to know. To listen to someone else would really not be proper because we are told that the Scriptures contain everything we need to know.

In the first century, believers believed that the Scriptures were the authentic revelation of God. It was the basis for their beliefs, the final authority.

Acts 17:10-11 “they received the word with the greatest eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so.”

Paul tells us that prominent men of God at that time used as their authority, the Scriptures.

In Acts 17:2-3, we are told, *“According to Paul’s custom…he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving by references[from the Scriptures].” *

These references are not likely to be to any of the NT books. Two are words translated “Scripture”:​

• graphe, or graphai in the plural
• gramma, or grammata " " "
  Gramma = letter (of the ABC).
  Graphe = writing

The “writings” in the passage may not be any Biblical writings at all; or, they may. Both meanings may be present, in different verses. Translators & commentators have to solve the uncertainty as best they can. It is at least conceivable that a written confession of faith is meant. One must not speculate too freely, but the possibility deserves to be mentioned.

It seems clear that the Scriptures were to be the foundation for their teaching.

“the foundation” - or, evidence of a faith already believed on other grounds ? Reading the Divine Scriptures doesn’t in itself show what they mean (every error & heresy can quote the Bible !) - it is God Who does that, by the Spirit Who enlivens His Church, through the ministry of that Church,of which Christians are the members.​

The Pharisees had the OT - & unlike the Bereans, they rejected Christ The Gospel message is not “The Bible is authoritative” - it is “Jesus Christ is Lord”. Christ is our sure Foundation - the Bible is evidence of Him; it is not the source of belief in Him. A lot is said about Him - joining up the dots that form His outline in the Bible & the other writings of Christians is the task of the Church, because the faith held by Catholics is the faith of the Church. Only that corporate Faith, the faith of Christ’s Universal Body, is the whole Faith of the whole Church - anything less, is not.

We are told that “all Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.”(2 Tim 3:16-17. Corinthians 4:6; 1 Thess 2:13; 2 Peter 1:20-21 also pertain to the subject.

The Bible is all these things & more - but it is not sufficient. Nor is it a systematic theology, showing the relations between all doctrines; some parts of it are close to being that, but only a few: Hebrews & Romans for instance​

One protestant publication says that the word Trinity is not found in the Bible and that is true. They also say that it did not find a place formally in the theology of the church until the 4th century.

From the *New Catholic Encyclopedia *and The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, it is said that the Trinity “is not directly and immediately the word of God.”

That quotation does not make sense ​

…more…

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

If the Old Testament and the New Testament did not speak of the Trinity, then we need to look carefully at what it did say and what the early church fathers said about it.

Was it taught by the early Christians? We must see what was said about the Trinity then. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology says: "Primitive Christianity did not have an explicit doctrine of the Trinity such as was subsequently elaborated in the creeds."

That does not mean it was not implicit - it needed to be developed in a systematic way, that avoided the errors & other weaknesses your post refers to. The Church can’t simply bung down any old idea - she has to take a lot of things into account, such as finding the words needed for accuracy in expressing what is meant.​

From “The Paganism in Our Christianity” it is written, "The early Christians, however, did not at first think of applying the idea to their own faith. They paid for their devotions to God the Father and Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and they recognized the Holy Spirit; but there was no thought of these three being an actual Trinity, co-equal and united in One."

Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics, "At first the Christian faith was not Trinitarian. It was not so in the apostolic and sub-apostolic ages, as reflected in the New Testament and other early Christian writings."

The NT is a result of the same organic development & growth in the Wisdom of Christ as the explicit dogma of the Blessed Trinity. A rose is not falsified by having grown from a seed in the earth - it is an organic development of that seed. Its fragrance is not a lie or perversion - it should be fragrant.​

Are Christians born with a knowledge of NT Greek ? They have to grow & mature - & so does doctrine. So the mere material absences of explicit expressions of a dogma are no an objections to their being true & Christian & Catholic.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia, "The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective."

What did the Ante-Nicene Fathers teach? They were the leading religious teachers in the early days aft Christ.

Justin Martyr called the prehuman Jesus a created angel who is 'other than the God who made all things." He said that Jesus was inferior to God and “never did anything except what the Creator willed Him to do and say.”

Irenæus said that the prehuman Jesus had a separate existence from God and was inferior to Him. He showed that Jesus is not equal to the 'One true and only God," who is “supreme over all, and besides whom there is no other.”

Clement of Alexandria called Jesus in his prehuman existence “a creature” but called God “the uncreated and imperishable and only true God.” He said that the Son “is next to the only omnipotent Father” but not equal to Him.

Tertullian taught the supremacy of God. He observed: “The Father is different from the Son, as He is greater; as He who begets is different from Him who is begotten; He who sends, different from Him who is sent.” He also said, “There was a time when the Son was not…Before all things, God was alone.”

Hippolytus said that God is “the one God, the first and only One, the Maker and Lord of all,” who “had nothing co-eval (of equal age) with Him. But He was One, alone by Himself; who, willing it, called into being what had no being before,” such as the created prehuman Jesus.

Origen said that “the Father and Son are two substances, two things as to the essence,” and that “compared with the Father, [the Son] is a very small light.”

So it seems that the Bible and the early church fathers were clear that the Trinity was unknown for several centuries.

So how did the Trinity Doctrine Develop? As Christians should we believe in it simply because we are told it is true? Or rather should we seek the truth for ourselves as the Bible teaches us when it says "search the Scriptures?

The Church as a whole, & not the witness of any one Father or author or group of them, however illustrious for holiness, theological wisdom or anything else, is the “canonical” teacher of all Christians. Her teaching as a corporate person is the canon, the yardstick, of what is authentic & Apostolic - not that of any Father or writer.​

That’s why the Church is the Catholic, the Universal, Church of Christ, & why we are Catholics, & not (say) Irenaeans or Hippolytans. What these & others taught is, much of it, a cause for thanksgiving: it is not a final standard for orthodoxy in doctrine.

…one more…

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

**…**third & last bit…

The Church is Catholic in her very nature; that is part of her vocation, because God’s purpose is universal; & her vocation is from the God Who is the Creator of all things - His universal Lordship, is the source of the universal mission of His Church. He is Lord of all - she is sent by Him to all.

For us, the canon, the yardstick, of right faith & right practice is the Apostolic Tradition as taught by the Spirit-instructed Church - the Bible is a privileged, God-inspired, expression of this Tradition up to a certain point in the life of the Church. It is not the sole expression - the truth & truthfulness of God do not depend upon what expresses them, but upon their source. So whether they are written under inspiration, or come to us by Apostolic Tradition, makes no difference to their authority. What matters is that they come to us “in Christ” - & it belongs to His Church, in her exercise of the teaching authority she has been given, to be the final judge of that; not to any single Catholic or any group in the Church.

The whole Faith was held from the beginning - insight into the details of what that committed Christians to holding as explicit doctrines & dogmas, grew with the Church. No Bible teacher is identical in every respect with the toddler he used to be - but he is the same person as that toddler. So with the Faith of the Church, in time & in space.

 

[JimG]

In the first century, believers believed that the Scriptures were the authentic revelation of God. It was the basis for their beliefs, the final authority.

I would have to disagree with this. The apostles did not carry around bibles with them to preach. The apostles were themselves the final authority for handing down what they had been taught by Jesus. That was their responsibility, to teach and to hand down what had been revealed to them by Christ the living Word.

Acts 17:10-11 “they received the word with the greatest eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so.”

What scriptures were they using? Not the KJV, not the NIV, not the NAB. The New Testament had not yet been fully written, nor had it been decided which of these writings belonged in the new testament. They were likely reading the old testament scriptures from the Septuagint.

One of the early councils made the decision to use the term “Theotokos” ("God-bearer) with reference to Mary. The purpose was not so much what it said about her, but what it said about Him. Who did she bear? The answer was that the Person she bore was not only of a human nature, but also possessed the divine nature and was a divine person–the Word.