How Did The Trinity Doctrine Develop

[Old_Scholar]

Well since no one wants to answer the questions, I will continue. The last question was “How did the Trinity doctrine develop?”

All the answers are there if you will only look.

Many think the Trinity doctrine arose from the Council of Nicæa in 325 A.D. That is not totally correct but the Council did assert that Christ was of the same substance as God, which laid the groundwork for later Trinitarian theology. It did not establish the Trinity however. The reason was that at that Council there was no mention of the third person of a triune Godhead.

For many years there had been a great deal of opposition on Biblical grounds that Jesus was God. Constantine, the Roman Emperor, decided to resolve the issue and called all the bishops to Nicæa. Out of 1800 bishops, only about 300 showed up.

Constantine was not a Christian at that time, although it is said he was converted on his deathbed and baptized to be sure he would not be lost. He worshiped the Unconquered Sun. You couldn’t call his conversion an inward experience of grace. He considered it purely a military matter.

At the Council, Constantine himself presided, guided the discussions, and personally proposed the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, of one substance with the Father. Overawed by the emperor, only two bishops refused to sign the creed, although many of them did not agree with it. They had met for two months and then the pagan emperor intervened and decided in favor of those who said that Jesus *was *God. It was not by any Biblical conviction of Constantine. He had no basic understanding of the questions that were being asked in Greek theology. He understood that a religious division was a threat to his empire and he wanted to solidify his domain.

None of the bishops promoted the Trinity. They were deciding only the nature of Jesus. It has been asked that if the Trinity had been a clear Bible truth, the council should have proposed it at that time.

For decades the question of whether Christ was equal to God continued to be discussed as there were still many who had disagreed with the Council of Nicæa, and it was not until the
Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D., called expressly for the purpose to clarify the situation. At this council it was agreed to place the Holy Spirit on the same level as God and Christ. This was the first time the Trinity began to come into focus, although it did not become a widely accepted creed.

There were many persecutions of those who did not accept the Trinity even though it was centuries later before the Trinity was actually formulated into set creeds.

It was the Athanasian Creed that defined it fully. Athanasius was a supporter of Constantine at Nicæa. But it was Plato and his philosophies that paved the way for a greater acception of the Trinity doctrine.

If anyone would read their world history and the religious history, they would agree with what I have posted so far.

What I expected was some one posting some Scriptural references that told of the Trinity. I know the word is not used but I expected some one to be able to give Scriptures that supported it.

JimG gave us a start with the Gospel of John but I know there must be some on this forum who study the Scriptures. Where are you? Is it all up to me to prove it?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Well since no one wants to answer the questions, I will continue. The last question was “How did the Trinity doctrine develop?”

All the answers are there if you will only look.

Many think the Trinity doctrine arose from the Council of Nicæa in 325 A.D. That is not totally correct but the Council did assert that Christ was of the same substance as God, which laid the groundwork for later Trinitarian theology. It did not establish the Trinity however. The reason was that at that Council there was no mention of the third person of a triune Godhead.

For many years there had been a great deal of opposition on Biblical grounds that Jesus was God. Constantine, the Roman Emperor, decided to resolve the issue and called all the bishops to Nicæa. Out of 1800 bishops, only about 300 showed up.

Constantine was not a Christian at that time, although it is said

by Eusebius of Caesarea, who ought to know

he was converted on his deathbed and baptized to be sure he would not be lost. He worshiped the Unconquered Sun. You couldn’t call his conversion an inward experience of grace. He considered it purely a military matter.

His 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.​

At the Council, Constantine himself presided, guided the discussions, and personally proposed the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, of one substance with the Father. Overawed by the emperor, only two bishops refused to sign the creed, although many of them did not agree with it. They had met for two months and then the pagan emperor intervened and decided in favor of those who said that Jesus *was *God.

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.​

It was not by any Biblical conviction of Constantine. He had no basic understanding of the questions that were being asked in Greek theology. He understood that a religious division was a threat to his empire and he wanted to solidify his domain.

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.​

None of the bishops promoted the Trinity. They were deciding only the nature of Jesus. It has been asked that if the Trinity had been a clear Bible truth, the council should have proposed it at that time.

Something can be true & yet not clear. And it is horribly impertinent for us to tell God what He is to do, or when, or how. If our bleary sight of His mysteries is a reason for us to tell Him His business, we might as well not bother with Him at all. He teaches His Church according as He Wills - not as sinful, poor, beggarly, blind, wretched, self-conceited man wills; & for that, we cannot be too thankful.​

For decades the question of whether Christ was equal to God continued to be discussed as there were still many who had disagreed with the Council of Nicæa,

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.​

and it was not until the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D., called expressly for the purpose to clarify the situation. At this council it was agreed to place the Holy Spirit on the same level as God and Christ. This was the first time the Trinity began to come into focus, although it did not become a widely accepted creed.

Councils don’t create truths - they discern & witness to them. The difference is not in the Blessed Trinity, but in man’s perceiving of the details of the Truth Who is the Blessed Trinity.​

There were many persecutions of those who did not accept the Trinity even though it was centuries later before the Trinity was actually formulated into set creeds.

That means little if the reason for the persecution is not known. To suffer is not proof of suffering unjustly.​

It was the Athanasian Creed that defined it fully.

The AC is not the work of St. Athanasius - FWIW. St. Fulgentius (d. 533 ?) may be the true author

Athanasius was a supporter of Constantine at Nicæa. But it was Plato and his philosophies that paved the way for a greater acception of the Trinity doctrine.

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​

If anyone would read their world history and the religious history, they would agree with what I have posted so far.

What I expected was some one posting some Scriptural references that told of the Trinity. I know the word is not used but I expected some one to be able to give Scriptures that supported it.

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

…more…

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

…the rest.

All errors quote the Divine Scriptures - they can be made to support the doctrines of (to name a few, in no particular order):​

• the Sadducees
• Docetism
• Modalism
• Adoptionism
• Arianism
• Donatism
• Macedonianism
• Eutychianism
• Nestorianism
• Tetradritism
• Catharism
• British Israelism
• Seventh-Day Adventism
• the Jehovah’s Witnesses
• Mormonism
• Dispensational Premillennialism
• Oneness Pentecostalism

• & so on The Divine Scriptures are of very high authority, but they cannot be understood if they are used against the Church. They are a spot-light, a scalpel, & a medicine for what is amiss in her - not ammunition to demolish her. To attack the Church or her Faith with them, is to cut off one’s legs. So while many helpful, Christian & gracious things can & do exist outside the visible communion of the Church, it is self-destructive to use what is in her to undermine her.

JimG gave us a start with the Gospel of John but I know there must be some on this forum who study the Scriptures. Where are you? Is it all up to me to prove it?

There is evidence in the Bible for the Blessed Trinity - but it is not convincing without the Church’s Tradition, the Church’s Faith &, most vital of all, the Spirit Who grants us to accept, believe & love that Faith & theologise in that Tradition & Church.​

 

[Church_Militant]

Well since no one wants to answer the questions, I will continue. The last question was “How did the Trinity doctrine develop?”

This is poppycock. I answered your premise, just not the way you wanted, and for good reason. I change my mind…I don’t think I’m gonna let your specious posting off so lightly.

The doctrine of the Trinity has been discussed here many times before. Examples: Trinity in Scripture?
Protestants and their own Development of Doctrine
Trouble With Trinity
The Holy Trinity?

What I expected was some one posting some Scriptural references that told of the Trinity. I know the word is not used but I expected some one to be able to give Scriptures that supported it. JimG gave us a start with the Gospel of John but I know there must be some on this forum who study the Scriptures. Where are you? Is it all up to me to prove it?

:yawn: You don’t have to prove this to any faithful Catholic, and I did provide scripture in my 2nd post that is a better starting place that any you have offered and that you have ignored while disparaging me for calling you out on something you said that tipped your hand on why you opened this thread.

Here’s the scripture that I provided and you didn’t bother to pick up on with regard to the Trinity (probably because your “scholarship” really isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. )
Why start there?

I suggest Deuteronomy 6:4 (The Jewish Sh’ma)
Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord.

Those who reject the Trinity will often point out this verse as a proof text which on its face is pretty convincing…until one looks into the Hebrew that this comes from.

The Hebrew word “echad” is used there for “one” and it is important to note what this word means. It is also used in Genesis 2:24 where it says Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh. The fact is that the one means “one unity” which, although it doesn’t prove the Trinity, certainly disqualifies the Sh’ma as a counter argument.

Also important is Genesis 1:26 which says, And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth. Was the Almighty talking to Himself? Indeed not! This can only be seen as an example of interaction between persons of the triune God as further expressed in the Word of God.

You said:

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."

This indicates that you are not really interested in a discussion of the Trinity at all but seek to oppose something totally else in Catholic doctrine. That is why post #3 shows that you are in opposition, not only to Catholic and Biblical teaching, but to the teachings of the very reformers themselves.

It is my contention that you did not bother to answer my posts,which did indeed address your supposed issue, but chose to denigrate me because I saw through your dishonesty.

It’s not having a chip on one’s shoulder to oppose dishonesty of this kind, but a deep commitment to truth.

So…are you ready to cut to the chase now and admit that your whole purpose on this thread is not a discussion of the Trinity but to use it as some kind of basis to oppose the title “Mother of God” for the Blessed Virgin?

I don’t think any of the other people posting on this thread are dumb enough to have missed it, they just saw that I had already “outted” you for it and are probably waiting for you to come clean.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Gottle of Geer

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"

Why don’t you give us Scriptures that tell us it is a reality? I’m sure you aren’t going to just take someone’s word for that!!!

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

We can’t claim to be able to understand God in all matters but don’t you think we can understand His word? And I am glad to see you say an idol is pagan, but that is another subject for another thread.

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)**

l. A pagan is one who adheres to a polytheistic religion and primarily refers to the people in ancient times who observed a polytheistic religion, such as the Greeks and Romans.

1. But the “other religions” predates Christianity so you can’t say they copied Christianity.
2. Agreed
3. Scripture itself tells us it was “written down” in order that we may know the truth.
4. Any argument for or against the Trinity would have to come from the New Testament. There is nothing in the OT about it and if we wanted to accept what “man” has to say about it without consulting God’s Word, then we are no better than the pagans.
5. No one should accept “Bible teaching” is it can’t be found in the Bible.

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.
2. 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**

**1. I believe you are wrong about Isaiah because he prophesies about the Messiah and if you read deeply enough, you could probably get the HS out of it as well. If God was in “three persons” then He would have been so in the OT as well as the NT.

1. Except that the term “Almighty God” was never used for Jesus or the Holy Spirit—only God who claims to be “one.”**

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.​

We have no knowledge that God “gave” Mary this title. God was in the beginning and will be forever. He had no Mother. To claim otherwise seems a little blasphemous to me because in order to be the mother of God, you would have to be a God yourself and that’s not true as we all know. Mary was the mother of Jesus and Jesus came to earth in the flesh and remained that way until the resurrection. Mary was the mother of Christ in the flesh but that certainly doesn’t mean she was the mother of God.

And I am sure you must be aware that the word “Lord” has an entirely different meaning than the word “God.” There were other “Lords” in olden days who weren’t Gods. They were simply “masters” of others.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Gottle of Geer

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

Why would you say that the Scriptures are not sufficient when they tell us they are? Are you saying the Bible is not true?

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 **

What is it about that one that you don’t understand?

 

[Old_Scholar]

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. ## 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 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…

But aso far you are not giving any evidence either for or against the doctrine…that is, unless you are saying that men have decided it is so…

 

[Old_Scholar]

**…**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.

**You seems to be saying that through the years, the church keeps learning new things and creates new doctrines because of some special revelation it is receiving. Is this what you are saying? Or are you saying that as time goes along, some men are able to convince others that their ideas are right and then they decide on a new doctrine?

With all the writings of the first two centuries, how is it possible that the men of the last 1800 years are finding out things those who traveled with the apostles did not know? **

 

[Old_Scholar]

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.

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.

While it is true the apostles taught from the Old Testament, they also taught what they had been taught by Christ and the Holy Spirit. In addition, they wrote them down and stated that they were doing so in order that they may have a record of what they preached. This was all done before the end of the first century. After Paul died, there was 40 years or more left in the first century and copies of all he wrote was in every church. Everything the writers wrote that later became the New Testament in written form, was finished before the end of the first century. It was all Scripture as indicated by the acceptance of them into the canon. Nothing written since 100 A.D. was part of the canon. So we had the Scriptures then and needed nothing else. The fact that it took the church a long time to make it official doesn’t change the fact that all the Scripture was already there, and being taught from.

 

[Old_Scholar]

by Eusebius of Caesarea, who ought to know

## His 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.

**## 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.

## 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.

## 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?

## 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.

## 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???

**## 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.
…more…

 

[Old_Scholar]

…the rest.

All errors quote the Divine Scriptures - they can be made to support the doctrines of (to name a few, in no particular order):​

• the Sadducees
• Docetism
• Modalism
• Adoptionism
• Arianism
• Donatism
• Macedonianism
• Eutychianism
• Nestorianism
• Tetradritism
• Catharism
• British Israelism
• Seventh-Day Adventism
• the Jehovah’s Witnesses
• Mormonism
• Dispensational Premillennialism
• Oneness Pentecostalism

• & so on The Divine Scriptures are of very high authority, but they cannot be understood if they are used against the Church. They are a spot-light, a scalpel, & a medicine for what is amiss in her - not ammunition to demolish her. To attack the Church or her Faith with them, is to cut off one’s legs. So while many helpful, Christian & gracious things can & do exist outside the visible communion of the Church, it is self-destructive to use what is in her to undermine her. ## There is evidence in the Bible for the Blessed Trinity - but it is not convincing without the Church’s Tradition, the Church’s Faith &, most vital of all, the Spirit Who grants us to accept, believe & love that Faith & theologise in that Tradition & Church.

Many of those cannot be supported by Scripture, at least with a thorough search of Scripture.

Do you believe there is far more evidence in the Bible that speaks against the Trinity that there is that supports it?

 

[cfrancis]

While it is true the apostles taught from the Old Testament, they also taught what they had been taught by Christ and the Holy Spirit. In addition, they wrote them down and stated that they were doing so in order that they may have a record of what they preached.

Whoa! Where do Matthew, Mark, or Luke say they wrote anything? or Hebrews? or Acts?
And which of them say they are writing under the inspiration of God (aside from Revelation)?

This was all done before the end of the first century. After Paul died, there was 40 years or more left in the first century and copies of all he wrote was in every church.

You have either Scriptural or historical proof of this? Your statement appears more an assertion you wish to be granted without support.

Everything the writers wrote that later became the New Testament in written form, was finished before the end of the first century. It was all Scripture as indicated by the acceptance of them into the canon. Nothing written since 100 A.D. was part of the canon.

What about the rest of Paul’s letters (for example Col 4:16, 1 Cor 5:9)?

So we had the Scriptures then and needed nothing else. The fact that it took the church a long time to make it official doesn’t change the fact that all the Scripture was already there, and being taught from.

Aside from Scirpture never saying Scripture is all one needs, as you know, many more writings were being taught from.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Gottle of Geer

## The Blessed Trinity is a Reality - not a "concept"

Why don’t you give us Scriptures that tell us it is a reality? I’m sure you aren’t going to just take someone’s word for that!!!

I’ve told you why not - twice . Please, don’t ask me to repeat myself - if it’s not much fun for me to do so, it’s probably even more boring for the OPs. And boring others is neither very friendly nor very productive.​

## 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

We can’t claim to be able to understand God in all matters but don’t you think we can understand His word? And I am glad to see you say an idol is pagan, but that is another subject for another thread.

I’m a Catholic - what else would I say idols are ? Apart from: lies, vanity, filth, abominations, & other words of that kind.​

As for understanding the Bible: I wrote a long post with more bullets in it than a crime-scene, to (try to) explain why this is more difficult than may appear. One must not exaggerate the difficulties - but there are difficulties, & they are not always where we might suppose.

## 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)

l. A pagan is one who adheres to a polytheistic religion and primarily refers to the people in ancient times who observed a polytheistic religion, such as the Greeks and Romans.

1. But the “other religions” predates Christianity so you can’t say they copied Christianity.

That depends on the detail of their histories - a pre-Christian religion can be influenced by a religion younger than itself.​

And, that was not quite what I had in mind. I was thinking of things in religions older than Christianity, that are not unlike things in Christianity: IOW, of scattered anticipations of what has been revealed as an organically-connected whole “in Christ”. Sorry for not making that clearer

IOW - “dying & rising gods” are Christian in that sense. So are sacred meals, prayers, myths of ascent to Heaven or descent to the netherworld, hymns to gods, anointings, myths of monster-slaying, purifications. From that POV, Isis the “mother of god” is an anticipation of the genuine, proper, Christian mother of God. Isis is the anticipation, Mary is the Mother of God whom Isis pre-figured. The Maiden Anath prefigures Mary the Virgin. Every argument that Catholicism is re-heated paganism is a blow at Christ, because the reasoning that “proves” Mary to be “nothing but” Ishtar, Aphrodite or Isis with a Christian veneer, “proves” Christ to be “nothing but” Adonis, Attis, or Horus with a Christian veneer. That sort of thinking is entirely back-to-front.

1. Agreed

Good - we agree on something ​

…more…

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

…second bit…

1. Scripture itself tells us it was “written down” in order that we may know the truth.

True - but any book can contain words of that sort. Containing words of that meaning tells us nothing about the status of the book that contains those words.​

If I write:

• “I am a prophet: for God has raised me up to speak His Truth - obey the Holy Words He speaks through my mouth, or be destroyed by Him”

• are you going to believe that ? If I say, “God sent me a dream proving that “Star Trek” is His Word for this generation, & for all generations to come”, does that make Gene Roddenberry a Prophet of God ? Whyever not ? Fundamentalists never stop lambasting certain people for “failing to take the supernatural into account” - very well: why are they not supernatural-minded enough to believe in the predictions of the Prophet Roddenberry ? They say “God can do anything” - fine: & one of things, is His raising up the Prophet Roddenberry.

The reason people do not believe the witness of the Prophet Roddenberry is simple: God has blinded them for their sinfulness. Real believers - i.e., people who are like me - accept God’s Word. God has spoken through GeneRoddenberry to inspire “Star Trek”, therefore, all those who are not blinded of God will believe me, him, & it.
I hope no one is ever taken in by such utterly loopy reasoning - but I’m not going to bet against it.

1. Any argument for or against the Trinity would have to come from the New Testament. There is nothing in the OT about it and if we wanted to accept what “man” has to say about it without consulting God’s Word, then we are no better than the pagans.

None of that tackles the logical difficulty I referred to, which you have been kind enough to quote. As to the absence of the doctrine from the OT, you won’t have any disagreement from me on that point at least.​

If the NT does not exist, it cannot be quoted. And it did not exist for some time - not even as a body of uncollected writings. A reply to this might be: “But it did exist as a body of traditions; that they were not yet written, does not make them any less truly “of God”, any less truly His Word, any less authoritative”. Exactly - they were unwritten, & “of God”, & His Word, & authoritative. They were, IOW, no different from Catholic Tradition.

The Apostles had no NT - all they had was the Apostolic Tradition. Their preaching expressed that Tradition. Tradition is what the whole NT comes from. When St. Paul preached, he had no NT: not for the Life of Christ, His saving Work, His Resurrection, salvation by grace, or anything else: including the Blessed Trinity. It has the same basis as they do - the Apostolic Tradition, committed to them by Jesus Christ. So an Old Scholar travelling back to Corinth in the 50s & hearing St. Paul preach would have had no NT to consult - he would have had only Tradition to go on: if he had said then what he says now, he might well have rejected all that Paul preached, as being the word of man, & nothing more than the word of man. He was, after all, only “someone”

…more…

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

1. No one should accept “Bible teaching” is it can’t be found in the Bible.

I think I’ve explained why it is unrealistic to require that. Or am I missing something ?​

## 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.
2. 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

1. I believe you are wrong about Isaiah because he prophesies about the Messiah and if you read deeply enough, you could probably get the HS out of it as well. If God was in “three persons” then He would have been so in the OT as well as the NT.

God is not subject to time - men are. Unlike God, Isaiah was not eternal - he was a man, living in a particular culture at a particular period. As he lived before Christ & not since, we cannot expect him to give us an account of NT doctrines; let alone an account of something made manifest after the Glorification of Christ, rather than before.​

The facts that dogmas express & point to are experienced before they are analysed - this is true in everyday matters; what would H2O mean, to someone ignorant of chemistry ? We drink water, not the formula that teaches us of it. Jesus Christ did not send a Treatise on the Holy Spirit, or a dogmatic definition - He sent the Holy Spirit. The treatises & definitions came later, when Christians had become fairly acquainted with the Holy Spirit. He must be known, before He can be written of. One of the effects of this, was that the infant Church expressed its message in ways that can be mistaken as Jewish & not Christian, rather than Jewish Christian.

2. Except that the term “Almighty God” was never used for Jesus or the Holy Spirit—only God who claims to be "one."

That is not contrary to faith in the Blessed Trinity - for if at that period all the Divine Persons had been spoken of in exactly the same terms, it would have been impossible to know which was which. If everyone in a street is called John Smith, it is not going to be easy to distinguish them. Asking for John Smith the builder is little good if there are ten of them. If eight have black hair, there is still a problem. If six of the eight are married, there is still a problem. And so on.​

That’s why dogma is needed, with those distinctions it makes that are seemingly so remote from “real life”. Dogma guards the truth of God from distortion; that about the Blessed Trinity supplies us with all sorts of details about God & about each of the Divine Persons - details that help us to avoid thinking the Father was crucified, or the Spirit begets the Son, or that the Son proceeds from the Father by way of spiration. By avoiding such confusions - which she has has lived through, even if some of her critics have not - the Church is better enabled to know Whom it is that she loves - &, more important, Who loves her.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

…and finally…

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.​

We have no knowledge that God “gave” Mary this title. God was in the beginning and will be forever. He had no Mother. To claim otherwise seems a little blasphemous to me because in order to be the mother of God, you would have to be a God yourself and that’s not true as we all know.

If she were the Mother of the Divine Nature, that would be true. She is not - mothers are mothers of persons, not of natures. Her Son is a Divine Person. A woman is therefore the Mother of God.​

These confusions are the result of looking only to the Bible; if we ignore the Church’s ministry in guarding the truths declared in the Bible & Tradition, we will not have a proper understanding of the meaning even of the Bible. We must also take in what comes later, if we are to understand what comes to us in the Bible. Otherwise, by rejecting the one so as to honour the other, we will lose both. It is not those who call Mary the Mother of God, who deny that Jesus Christ her Son is truly God - it is those who deny her to be the Mother of God, who make Him nothing more exalted than a mere Saint .

Mary was the mother of Jesus and Jesus came to earth in the flesh and remained that way until the resurrection. Mary was the mother of Christ in the flesh but that certainly doesn’t mean she was the mother of God.

And I am sure you must be aware that the word “Lord” has an entirely different meaning than the word “God.” There were other “Lords” in olden days who weren’t Gods. They were simply “masters” of others.

1. God the Son became her Son - not in fiction, or figuratively, or in appearance, but in reality. He is God in Person & by Nature, graciously taking upon Himself our corruptible human nature - & mothers bear persons, human persons, persons who are human because their nature is a human nature. Mary bore Him, therefore, she bore a Divine Person of two natures: that which is His Nature eternally, & that which He graciously assumed in time. He is her Son, because that is what a male person born of a woman is. She is His mother, because there is nothing human in Him that is not from her; just as with any other man. By being born of a woman, God the Word became a man. This man is God - she is therefore, & in the sense explained, rightly & with truth called the Mother of God.​

Even if the NT did not call her “His mother” - & it does - His gracious action makes her His mother; therefore, it is our privilege to call her by a title which befits what He has made her. If she is not truly the mother of a Person Who is God, we are still in our sins, for He is not true man, did not truly die for our sins, & is not truly risen. If He is indeed the Son of Mary, then we are truly redeemed, for He is truly Risen.

A mere man, however exalted, is no more than we are; he cannot atone for our sins. If Jesus Christ be only a man, he may be a great saint, but nothing more. What good is that ? We don’t need saints - we need a Saviour. Saints depend on Christ the Lord Our God - they are in no sense His equals.

1. You’ve proved my point - Scripture is useless, unless it be received in faith. All the quotations in the world will be useless, if they are not received with faith. That is one reason I have not quoted it much. So we do know what you say we do not. ​

You wanted Scripture - I gave you Scripture. Including the reference (Luke 1.42). St. Elizabeth called her “the mother of My Lord” - St. Paul calls Him “the Lord of Glory”, which is probably a Semitism for “the Glorious Lord”. If Mary is the mother of the Glorious Lord, she is not the mother of any man, but of God. And this is an argument for the Reality of the Blessed Trinity

 

[teadough]

[SIGN]“These confusions are the result of looking only to the Bible”[/SIGN]

Amen:thumbsup:

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Many of those cannot be supported by Scripture, at least with a thorough search of Scripture.

Do you believe there is far more evidence in the Bible that speaks against the Trinity that there is that supports it?

IOW - they supported (or support) their errors from the Bible; which many or all of them searched thoroughly enough for the purpose. And on what basis can you be sure that “[m]any of those cannot be supported by Scripture…” ? Those who held these errors would not agree at all. In another sense, “they can” indeed “not be supported by Scripture…” - but that does not affect the beliefs of the groups listed, nor their respective convictions that the Bible supported the doctrines for which they called on its aid.​

As for the question: a head-count of texts is not the way to proceed; it counts for something, but it’s not decisive. Dogmas are established by what a thing is - not by stats about it. What things are, is (generally speaking anyway) more important that what is said about them.

There is a logical problem: the texts can be arranged in many different combinations - a bit as in a kaleidoscope. This affects the meaning that is obtained from the union of the texts in their combinations. There is also a difficulty almost the reverse of that: the Bible is like a Rorshach blot - people see different things in it. To see in it what we should, we need Tradition: it is by having the mind of the Church that we are able to see what the Church sees.

The answer to the question depends on the design of the pattern in the kaleidoscope - &, on which pattern one accepts as standard. The problem is, that there is no reason why one should choose any one (or more) over the others. To have a standard for choosing at all, one has to go outside the kaleidoscope entirely. Looking in the kaleidoscope may give us all sorts of wonderful patterns - what it can’t give (for that is not its purpose) is a basis for choosing one & not some other.

One might of course accept all of them without distinction - but if so, on what basis ? If one accepts all possible interpretations of a body of texts, so that no distinction is made between the doctrines that Christ is only a man, that He only seems to be a man, & that He is God & not man in any real sense, the question of the basis of belief has not been solved; it has been shelved. And why bother with a Bible that no-one interprets ? If it can mean every doctrine we are ingenious enough to see in it, that amounts to saying it means none. So why bother with it ? That may be one reason many people do not.

Hope that helps

 

[Old_Scholar]

…second bit…

True - but any book can contain words of that sort. Containing words of that meaning tells us nothing about the status of the book that contains those words.​

If I write:

• “I am a prophet: for God has raised me up to speak His Truth - obey the Holy Words He speaks through my mouth, or be destroyed by Him”

• are you going to believe that ? If I say, “God sent me a dream proving that “Star Trek” is His Word for this generation, & for all generations to come”, does that make Gene Roddenberry a Prophet of God ? Whyever not ? Fundamentalists never stop lambasting certain people for “failing to take the supernatural into account” - very well: why are they not supernatural-minded enough to believe in the predictions of the Prophet Roddenberry ? They say “God can do anything” - fine: & one of things, is His raising up the Prophet Roddenberry.

The reason people do not believe the witness of the Prophet Roddenberry is simple: God has blinded them for their sinfulness. Real believers - i.e., people who are like me - accept God’s Word. God has spoken through GeneRoddenberry to inspire “Star Trek”, therefore, all those who are not blinded of God will believe me, him, & it.
I hope no one is ever taken in by such utterly loopy reasoning - but I’m not going to bet against it. ## None of that tackles the logical difficulty I referred to, which you have been kind enough to quote. As to the absence of the doctrine from the OT, you won’t have any disagreement from me on that point at least.

If the NT does not exist, it cannot be quoted. And it did not exist for some time - not even as a body of uncollected writings. A reply to this might be: “But it did exist as a body of traditions; that they were not yet written, does not make them any less truly “of God”, any less truly His Word, any less authoritative”. Exactly - they were unwritten, & “of God”, & His Word, & authoritative. They were, IOW, no different from Catholic Tradition.

The Apostles had no NT - all they had was the Apostolic Tradition. Their preaching expressed that Tradition. Tradition is what the whole NT comes from. When St. Paul preached, he had no NT: not for the Life of Christ, His saving Work, His Resurrection, salvation by grace, or anything else: including the Blessed Trinity. It has the same basis as they do - the Apostolic Tradition, committed to them by Jesus Christ. So an Old Scholar travelling back to Corinth in the 50s & hearing St. Paul preach would have had no NT to consult - he would have had only Tradition to go on: if he had said then what he says now, he might well have rejected all that Paul preached, as being the word of man, & nothing more than the word of man. He was, after all, only “someone”

…more…

What do you suppose happened to the letters Paul wrote?

 

[Old_Scholar]

…and finally…

If she were the Mother of the Divine Nature, that would be true. She is not - mothers are mothers of persons, not of natures. Her Son is a Divine Person. A woman is therefore the Mother of God.​

These confusions are the result of looking only to the Bible; if we ignore the Church’s ministry in guarding the truths declared in the Bible & Tradition, we will not have a proper understanding of the meaning even of the Bible. We must also take in what comes later, if we are to understand what comes to us in the Bible. Otherwise, by rejecting the one so as to honour the other, we will lose both. It is not those who call Mary the Mother of God, who deny that Jesus Christ her Son is truly God - it is those who deny her to be the Mother of God, who make Him nothing more exalted than a mere Saint .

1. God the Son became her Son - not in fiction, or figuratively, or in appearance, but in reality. He is God in Person & by Nature, graciously taking upon Himself our corruptible human nature - & mothers bear persons, human persons, persons who are human because their nature is a human nature. Mary bore Him, therefore, she bore a Divine Person of two natures: that which is His Nature eternally, & that which He graciously assumed in time. He is her Son, because that is what a male person born of a woman is. She is His mother, because there is nothing human in Him that is not from her; just as with any other man. By being born of a woman, God the Word became a man. This man is God - she is therefore, & in the sense explained, rightly & with truth called the Mother of God.​

Even if the NT did not call her “His mother” - & it does - His gracious action makes her His mother; therefore, it is our privilege to call her by a title which befits what He has made her. If she is not truly the mother of a Person Who is God, we are still in our sins, for He is not true man, did not truly die for our sins, & is not truly risen. If He is indeed the Son of Mary, then we are truly redeemed, for He is truly Risen.

A mere man, however exalted, is no more than we are; he cannot atone for our sins. If Jesus Christ be only a man, he may be a great saint, but nothing more. What good is that ? We don’t need saints - we need a Saviour. Saints depend on Christ the Lord Our God - they are in no sense His equals.

1. You’ve proved my point - Scripture is useless, unless it be received in faith. All the quotations in the world will be useless, if they are not received with faith. That is one reason I have not quoted it much. So we do know what you say we do not. ​

You wanted Scripture - I gave you Scripture. Including the reference (Luke 1.42). St. Elizabeth called her “the mother of My Lord” - St. Paul calls Him “the Lord of Glory”, which is probably a Semitism for “the Glorious Lord”. If Mary is the mother of the Glorious Lord, she is not the mother of any man, but of God. And this is an argument for the Reality of the Blessed Trinity

You must realize there is a difference between Lord and God.