How Did The Trinity Doctrine Develop

[Old_Scholar]

The Church teaches that Jesus is truly present both body and blood in both species.

If a Catholic is forbidden or seems to be forbidden from receiving from the cup, it probably would be because there might be a problem at that parish of people incorrectly thinking that His body is only to be found in the bread, and his blood only in the cup.

I am not sure what you mean by “the bread is not given by a priest.”

If you are referring to the use of extraordinary ministers they only help the priest distribute the Eucharist to the faithful.

Perhaps I have read it wrong but I thought the instructions were to drink the blood and eat the body and it had to be administered by a priest. Am I wrong about that?

 

[Old_Scholar]

First of all, why do you assume that everything that a Christian believes is only to be found in the written scripture?
I would reply by saying this is why Jesus left us his Church, to teach us his truth.

If one looks back to the Arian heresy, where more than half of the bishops fell into this error, the Arians were rejecting the Sacred Tradition handed down in the church, and basing their teaching on scripture alone.
But orthodoxy prevailed, because they held not only to the written word handed down, but also to the Oral Tradition which was passed down from the Apostles.

Actually what prevailed in this particular case was the “power” of the church, nothing else.

 

[Jordan_Francis]

Timothy 3:16, of course, does not prove the material sufficiency of scripture.

The key word here being “profitable”. The word profitable does not mean “by itself sufficient”. It basically means that scripture lends itself to the following aims, so that man might be fully equiped.

No Catholic would ever deny that scripture is inspired and proftable to doctrine, reproof, correction or instruction in righteousness.

 

[Old_Scholar]

No; though both can be taken in a good sense. But otherwise, both are false & wrong. The CC is not Mormonism. ​

The Church learns & grows - but not though any new public revelation. That is why the Apostolic Tradition is so important.

Humanly speaking, the second alternative describes the spread of Christianity in Acts. What makes the difference, is the gift of faith. ## Because what was known, had to be put together. And what was put together had consequences for belief, & for saying what was believed. Doctrinal definition brings the logical consequences of what already believed together, & articulates them as dogmatic formulae. The novelty is in the articulation - not in the presence in the Church of the thing believed.

5 & 2 = 7, even if a child doesn’t connect them. What 5 oranges & 2 apples make, may not be so clear: 7 oranges, is wrong, as is 7 apples. Individual children may catch on to the answer; some sooner than others. Who is right, if any of them, needs to be pointed out by someone equipped to tell them. Which is what Nicea did in 325. As did the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15.

This does not take place in a vacuum, but in the Church’s history, as a reaction to the events in that history: by encountering beliefs she sees cannot be true if her preaching is true, the Church is better able to define (= delimit) what she believes. So it comes into sharper focus. We see this in the NT itself: St. Paul rejects the doctrine of the Judaisers, not because he had an NT that said what was to be believed, but because if what he believed was true, the Judaisers could not be right. But nowhere in the NT account of the time before his rejection of the doctrine of the Judaisers do we read that they are wrong. If there had been no Gentile mission & no Council of Jerusalem, they would probably have been in the right.

That’s greatly over-simplified, but I hope it helps.

**That’s a good explanation but remember Paul received his teaching directly from the Holy Spirit and it is unlikely that he was wrong. History tells us that there were many “gentile Jews” in those days and those were people who did not follow the Jewish law to the “T”. But the gospel as given to Paul was not to make them obey the old Jewish law but to obey the law of the New Covenant. That’s why Paul talked about “his” gospel.

At the council in Jerusalem, it was those “gentile” Jews who were being asked to follow Jewish law about circumcision. Not non-Jews. Remember, the apostles were Jews.**If Paul was wrong, then we are all living wrong because we do not follow the old Jewish law. Christian Jews of today follow the same teachings we do. They have certain traditions they follow but nothing that contradicts the Scriptures.

 

[Old_Scholar]

But the bible doesn’t claim that we can understand everything which is contained in its pages without the assistance of the church.

In fact it teaches quite the opposite, when St. Peter writes in his 2nd epistle about the writings of St. Paul:
“There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.”

But Peter is speaking of prophecy, not the gospel and salvation.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Timothy 3:16, of course, does not prove the material sufficiency of scripture.

The key word here being “profitable”. The word profitable does not mean “by itself sufficient”. It basically means that scripture lends itself to the following aims, so that man might be fully equiped.

No Catholic would ever deny that scripture is inspired and proftable to doctrine, reproof, correction or instruction in righteousness.

I would like to comment on the sufficiency of Scripture more but my time is up not and it is time to go back to my cell. I’ll have to do that later.

 

[mlchance]

Christ commissioned all the apostles and gave them special power and authority but that all ended with their death…

Proof of this claim?

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Church_Militant]

And you claim*** “I” ***

don’t know anything…Joseph Smith did indeed “found” the Mormon faith. Who do you suppose wrote the book of Mormon? Do you believe Moroni wrote it and then gave it to Smith? Or did Moroni tell Smith what to write?

Whatever gave you the idea the LDS and the Mormons are not the same? Where did you learn history?For a “scholar” you don’t seem to comprehend what you read very well.

I never said the LDS and the Mormons weren’t the same.

I said the SDA and the Mormons aren’t the same.

You are apparently SDA (Seventh Day Adventist), and your posts confused the two.

Again… you dodged actually answering a post that refutes yours.

Oh well…

 

[Church_Militant]

Actually what prevailed in this particular case was the “power” of the church, nothing else.

As well it should have since it was that same church which was appointed by Christ to discern and refute heresies like Arianism.

1st Timothy 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth…

 

[Church_Militant]

Proof of this claim?

– Mark L. Chance.

He can’t… that is nowhere found in the Word of God. It will be interesting to see if he even tries though.

 

[Lampo]

2 Tim 3:16 *All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17) that the person dedicated to God may be capable and equipped for every good work.
*

Can you refute that?

As a Catholic, I would not refute the word of God. I agree with this passage 100%! However, I refute your personal, (already admitted by you) fallible interpretation of it.

 

[Church_Militant]

As a Catholic, I would not refute the word of God. I agree with this passage 100%! However, I refute your personal, (already admitted by you) fallible interpretation of it.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

You need to read Ephesians and you will find that Christ made known to Paul His will and all wisdom and prudence.

I have, & it does not claim to be inspired, let alone to be Holy Scripture.​

When did receiving wisdom from Christ amount to proof of inspiration; or even to a hint of it ? And when, for that matter, did a claim to receive wisdom prove the claim real ? A book outside the Bible can easily be written with a Christ-given wisdom and prudence.

I’ve answered a lot of your questions, often at length - you, OTOH, have not yet explained how you know the NT writings are meant to be Holy Scripture.

 

[JOE_OBERR]

Are you making the claim that the apostles made certain statements that people heard, that were not written down, …

How else would one explain the thousands of hearers that St Peter converted on Pentecost Sunday?

Act 4:4 “But many of those who heard the word believed; and the number of the men came to about five thousand.” And since not one word of the New Testament would be written until 43AD, the only word the author of Acts could have been referring to was the spoken, or oral, word of God. More examples of the spoken word of God

Acts 6:2 “And the twelve summoned the body of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables… 6:4 “But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.”

Acts 10:44 “While Peter was still saying this, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word.

Acts 13:5 “When they arrived at Sal’amis, they proclaimed the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews”

Acts 13:46 “And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, saying, "It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles.”

1 Thes 2:13 “And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.”

Notice the key words of “preaching, spoken, heard, proclaimed”. And how St Paul says in 1 Thes 2:13 that what he utters is literally the word of God. He couldn't have been referring to the NT as the final book of the NT wasn't written until 100 AD and no one knew what the canon of the NT was until 392 AD when the Catholic councils and the Pope settled the issue. 


These are just six quotes where it is plain the word of God was spoken, I could quote another 50 or so but I think these make the point. Literally 98% of the times scripture refers to the word of God in the NT the context is the spoken word.

Jesus taught the apostles “everything”, Jn 15:15 “all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you.” What is this “all that I have heard from my father”? What book of the bible claims to be a summary of this “all”? No claim is made. This “all” is the gospel Jesus taught his apostles.

Since Jesus came to save us from our sins, this salvation is known in its fullness in the gospel the apostles preached. Certain elements of this gospel were written in the scriptures, not the fullness that was preached and witnessed by the apostles. How did Jesus convert his followers? By his loving kindness and preaching the word of God. 


 Every word he spoke was literally the word of God, but only what he taught the apostles was important and carried forth by the apostles in their preaching.

Nowhere does scripture say the word of God is only what is written in scripture. That is a tradition of men which popped up in the 16th century by a Catholic priest of the Augustinian order who lost his faith. We should always reject traditions of men as they are not of the Spirit of God. (cont’d)

 

[JOE_OBERR]

cont’d

What did Jesus commission his apostles to do when he was assumed to heaven? He told them to go out and PREACH. That is, speak directly to his hearers, not write. Then when questions were asked they could respond immediately, verbally.

He did not tell them to go forth and write. What good would that have done for evengalization in a period of 90% plus illiteracy? And no printing press as Gutenberg didn’t appear until the 15th century. Examples:

Mt 28:19-20 “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you…" How did they teach? By preaching and proclaiming the word of God so it could be heard and understood.

What book, chapter & verse of the bible claims to have a complete record of this “all that I have commanded you”? There is none. Jesus being the omnipotent, omniscient God that he is, knew the best way to teach was orally. After all, St Paul does say that faith comes by “hearing”, he doesn’t say it comes by reading scripture or having scripture read to you.

Though scripture can witness, illumine and nourish the gospel as preached by the apostles and their successor bishops in the Catholic Church.

Mk 16:15-16 And he said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

Here Jesus says if we want to be saved we have to HEAR the gospel as preached by the apostles, believe it and be baptized. Their successors are the bishops of the Catholic Church so if we have faith in Jesus and really love him, we will obey him by listening to the Church he founded, the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15).

Notice he says we are saved if we hear the gospel as preached by the Church. He does not say we are saved by reading the bible.
Lk 24:46-47 …and (Jesus) said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.”

** and Catholic doctrine is supported by those statements? **

Catholic doctrine is not supported by the word of God as found in apostolic Tradition, it is the word of God. The word of God does not need support since God is truth and can neither deceive nor be deceived.

Unless I am mistaken, the Roman Catholic Church still makes the claim that all their doctrines and dogmas can be supported by Scripture.

The Catholic Church does not, nor has it ever made the claim that all their doctrine/dogmas can be supported by scripture. The easiest example is the canon of scripture. Where is the inspired list of the canon of scripture? There is none. Even if there was one in the bible it would a case of circular reasoning.
Also, the Catholic Church (Pope St. Siricius in the 390s) defined the canon of the bible in the late 4th century. At this point the gospel had been preached about 360 years.

About half of the Roman Empire was now Catholic.
All of this without anyone knowing for sure which of the 250 plus books of the NT era were actually inspired. So obviously the preached gospel came first, including dogma and doctrine, and then the written gospels and NT letters came second.

Some Catholic doctrine can be supported in the bible, but it is not necessary as that claim has never been made by the Church

What are you trying to say? Are you making a claim that there is Scripture that is not written down?

Scripture by definition is the written word of God. The 46 books of the OT and 27 of the NT were defined in 390s, therefore there are no other inspired books. That issue was settled long ago.

What I’m pointing out is that Jesus said if we want to be saved we must hear the gospel as preached, not the gospel as written down. (cont’d)

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17) that the person dedicated to God may be capable and equipped for every good work.

Can you refute that?

I’m not interested in trying to; why would I want to ? I’ve asked you to explain how appeals to the NT can be made when not one of of its books has even been recognised as inspired Scripture; merely to quote them is not a reply. All I’ve been given in this exchange is one evasion after another. 2 Tim 3.16 BTW - like 2 Timothy generally - does not so much as imply its own inspiration.​

The NT books are part of Scripture - in no way do I deny that. But I know why I believe them to be inspired - & only Revelation says anything that even resembles a claim to
be God-breathed. Not only does a claim prove nothing at all, but that leaves the other 26 unaccounted for. If they had not been canonised by the Church, there would be very good reason to think them purely human. As happened to a good number of them for many years, even centuries. I’ve given examples.

 

[JOE_OBERR]

Final - part 3 of 3.

The gospel as written down is salvation history, how God has intervened in human history to save us, it is not a catechism to organically & systematically explain the gospel as preached by the apostles.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

**That’s a good explanation but remember Paul received his teaching directly from the Holy Spirit **

**## **How do you know he did ? “From the Bible” is no answer - well, it is, but it’s a circular answer.

and it is unlikely that he was wrong. History tells us that there were many “gentile Jews” in those days and those were people who did not follow the Jewish law to the “T”. But the gospel as given to Paul was not to make them obey the old Jewish law but to obey the law of the New Covenant. That’s why Paul talked about “his” gospel.

And…?​

At the council in Jerusalem, it was those “gentile” Jews who were being asked to follow Jewish law about circumcision. Not non-Jews. Remember, the apostles were Jews.If Paul was wrong, then we are all living wrong because we do not follow the old Jewish law. Christian Jews of today follow the same teachings we do. They have certain traditions they follow but nothing that contradicts the Scriptures.

If the Blessed Virgin Mary is not the Mother of God & if the Blessed Trinity is not a Reality, we are much worse off than that.​

“[Not] contradicting the Scriptures” is a very weak argument that a group is Christian. Wombats are warm-blooded - that doesn’t mean they are human beings. There is more to being human than being warm-blooded

St. Paul’s rightness is not an issue - the illogicality of quoting the NT books to prove their status as God-breathed Scripture is very much an issue.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Actually what prevailed in this particular case was the “power” of the church, nothing else.

That puts to paid to the Bible then - every claim that any or all of its books are inspired can be met with that remark. As can all others.​

BTW, the Arians were fond of quoting Proverbs 8.22 against their opponents - so to quote the Bible against those who can also quote it, is pointless. It proves nothing.

And the NT itself - no, Ephesians itself - tells us that “Christ loved the Church, & gave Himself for her…” - not, “Christ rejected the Church”. In fact, here’s the whole passage:

• Eph 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
• Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
• Eph 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so [let] the wives [be] to their own husbands in every thing.
• Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
• Eph 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
• Eph 5:27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
• Eph 5:28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
• Eph 5:29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
• Eph 5:30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
• Eph 5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
• Eph 5:32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
• Eph 5:33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife [see] that she reverence [her] husband.

 

[RobbyS]

Why then do you suppose Christ made so many comments saying that God was greater than He and that God was the only God and that He did not know what God did? Can you explain that?

He also said that the Father and I are one, and that no one can separate Him from the Father. But don’t your objections lend themselves to the answer that Jesus was just a man? Historically, unitarianism, not Arianism, has been the alternative to Trinitarianism,