How do Protestants defend and explain the Trinity from the Bible alone.

[ralphinal]

ralphinal,

Since I don’t know you and what motivates you I will operate on the assumption that you are asking this rather complex question (which would require hours of typing to explain properly) in good faith. Briefly, the New Testament teaches that Jesus was both God and Man. He is unique in that sense. He is God in that he created the world (Heb. ch1), yet a man, the sinless Lamb of God sent to take away the sins of the world.

FOr the record, I tend to be charitable and ask in good faith. Some people do rub me the wrong way, but they are generally the kind who keep saying that I believe X when told that I do not. No issue with what you said about Jesus.

Modalism is an attempt to (among other things) to avoid a tritheism (as opposed to monotheism) by denying the distinct personalities of the Godhead. In other words, instead of one God with three persons (traditional trinity) it teaches a complete oneness of the Godhead with no personal distinctions. NOTE: I’m a clumsy writer and this is a complex issue.

Correct. Now, you and I both know that it is an incorrect position, but can you honestly say that those who arrived at it did not fully study scriptures?

As far as Mormon teaching my understanding is that Jesus became diety, he wasn’t always God.

Sort of. He was a Spirit Child of God, but he did not acheive his full divinity until his work on earth was finished

Both of these doctrines came about due to a lack of Bible understanding, not as is implied that a study of the Bible alone can allow this to happen. A doctrine of faith cannot contridict scripture. John Chapter 1 vs. 1 and 2 clearly state that Jesus in the beginning created the world and that he is God. This echos Gen. Ch 1 vs. 1 and 2 where Jehovah and the Holy Spirit are involved with creation in the beginning.

Correct. The only part that I question is that the people who arrived at this may very well have put hours and hours into study. Why did they get the wrong answer? Either they had no concept of what was being said (meaning Scripture cannot explain itself but needs another guide), or they had too many pre-conceived notions about it (they can claim that about us), or they just plain got it wrong for another reason (insert one here if you would like).

I would further add that modalism was argued against and defeated by the use of scripture. The premise of the question is wrong because if it wasn’t for scripture, modalism would have won the day and would have become dogma of the church by way of tradition (of the fathers).

Well, where do the Scriptures come from? Was there a Bible at Pentecost?

And no one ever became a Mormon or Jehovah Witness by reading and studying the clear teaching of the Bible. Both of these groups use other publications to supplement and superceed the Bible, the Mormons have D&C, Pearl of Great Price and the Book of Mormon, the JWs have the Watchtower, AWAKE!, their own biased “translation” of the Bible and literally fifty million other books that they use for their doctrine.

Oh, I really don’t want to get into the JWs, but you are correct on both

As a point of fact, the JWs are not allowed to study the Bible without using watchtower literature under threat of excommunication. They say that if you study the Bible without WT literature, within two years you will “fall out of the truth” as they see it.

And they might be right.

I’m sure this answer or anything else that I write will not satisfy you so I’m keeping it brief because this is a fools errand I’m on.

No, it is not a fools errand. Not at all. The question is more difficult than the OP probably thought. Is it possible that you already had an understanding of the Trinity and so you read it into the Bible?

 

[Mickey]

Sacred Scripture is filled with examples of the Holy Trinity. For me the two most compelling examples are the Baptism of Christ in the Jordan—and the Transfiguration.

Baptism of Christ

---

The Father’s voice is heard

The Son is being baptized

The Holy Spirit descends in the form of a dove

The Transfiguration

The Father’s voice is heard

The Son shines with the uncreated light

The Holy Spirit descends in the form of a cloud

 

[Jon_Hus]

Ralph,

If I say that Jesus is God and site scripture and also state that this is the position of Augustine, Jerome, the Apostles Creed, Pope Innocent III and Henry VIII then I suspect you will cry out that I came to this position using Scripture and xxx.

The idea of modalism and other other un-orthodox ideas may have began by persons who knew the Bible and may have had innocent motivations to make the claim, wrong as they are. What I’m saying is that the idea does not pass the test that docrtine, in order to be Biblical, has to agree with the entire Bible. So, when for example the JWs claim that Jesus (who as previously stated was the unique God-man) claim that he was only a man and use those portions of scripture that say he was a man to deny his diety, they are not correctly using the Bible for their doctrine.

Even the Apostles had to be corrected on doctrine. And how were they corrected? By the Holy Spirit using scripture. Jesus, when tempted by Satan used scripture. When he argued with the teachers of the law he used scripture. These teachers, by Jesus own admission knew and studied the Bible but they were wrong because they were trusting in themselves, not God. They rejected God and His decrees and instead trusted in the teachings of their fathers.

Today, a large precent of Christians have as their personal doctrine things that are either not in the Bible or are are actually considered un-biblical by the direct teaching of the Bible.

God, in His wisedom gave us this book the Bible. Most catholics would say that it was compiled and edited by the church and this gives the church certain rights regarding it’s meaning. If that is your position then you are exercising your God given freedom of religion, be it right or wrong. Of course we are blessed to live in a society that allows us the freedom to believe anything we want.

But for this believer in Christ, when I have to give an accounting of my life, it will be simple: Lord, not because of anything I did, but because in your word, the Bible John 1 vs. 12 “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the **right **to become sons of God, even to those who believe in His name” and all I’m doing Ralph is trusting God in His word. Now, am I to loose that right because I don’t see some point of doctrine in the Bible, therefore I reject it? I will not make that decision for you Ralph and you should not make it for any other person because on that day, I’m not going to be there for you and you will not be there for me.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Really? Then why is the Morman view wrong, based on the Bible? Why is modalism wrong, based on the Bible?

Same questions, Jon Hus.

Not that I am disputing you, but the Bible Alone can lead to problems with the Trinity

I have often wondered that myself. Why don’t Mormon’s believe in the Trinity? Maybe they don’t really read the Bible.

 

[WesleyF]

I had started this thread to get my questions answered, not for everyone else to engage in fruitless discussions. Please stop discussing things which are irrelevant to the topic and please answer the questions I’ve asked (in post no. 19).

 

[deb1]

Wouldn’t the first two verses of the first chapter in the Gospel of John be proof of the Trinity?

In the beginning was the Word(Jesus)
and the Word was with God,
And the Word was God

He was in the beginning with God

---

and then further in verse 14 it proves that the Word means Jesus

**And the Word became flesh **
and made his dwelling among us,
and we saw his glory
the glory as of the Father’s only Son
full of grace and truth

---

Does that help?

 

[Jon_Hus]

I had started this thread to get my questions answered, not for everyone else to engage in fruitless discussions. Please stop discussing things which are irrelevant to the topic and please answer the questions I’ve asked (in post no. 19).

My dear WesleyF, In post #13, I answered your question from post #1. This obviously didn’t satisfy you so in post #19 you expanded the question to include statements from church creeds.

It seems to me and accept my appology if I’m wrong, that you are reluctant to agree in concept that the Bible is capable of answering the question without help from church teachings. Your Muslim friend knows this as well and is using your reliance on extrabiblical teaching to discredit your faith. This is the exact same tactic that some Catholics use to discredit protestants and Christians of all stripes can and do use it to discredit Muslims by asking them to prove their doctrine from the Koran. They have the same problem and they know it.

You want a quick answer to the question and you want it now. Pick up any protestant theology book, I can make recomendations if you want to find your answer. But your problem is much more difficult than that because you do not believe in your heart that the Bible alone can answer the question and you are not willing to spend the many hours studying the Bible in context to get it stright in your head and heart. You could recite Bible verses to your friend to try to bluff your way through but if you don’t understand the full Biblical doctrine of the trinity you will stumble when you are asked follow on questions that he already has prepared to ask you. If I were you and a Muslem asked me that question, my answer would be “I know I can do it but I have to prepare my answer. I will study it and get back to you when I’m ready”. Then I would do what ever it takes in time and energy to find the answer and if for some reason I cannot find the answer, I would have to re-evaluate my belief in the doctrine.

So WesleyF, you can get all annoyed at me for being honest and to the point or you can get busy and hit the books, the choice is yours to make. All you are getting out of me is this: you can prove the Trinity from the Bible. I’m not going to do your homework for you thought. But if you take my advice to heart and spend the time in God’s word, God will reward you with a knowledge that transcends all understanding.

Peace Brother.
Tom

 

[Jon_Hus]

Wouldn’t the first two verses of the first chapter in the Gospel of John be proof of the Trinity?

In the beginning was the Word(Jesus)
and the Word was with God,
And the Word was God

He was in the beginning with God

---

and then further in verse 14 it proves that the Word means Jesus

**And the Word became flesh **
and made his dwelling among us,
and we saw his glory
the glory as of the Father’s only Son
full of grace and truth

---

Does that help?

What about the third person of the trinity?

 

[Mickey]

All you are getting out of me is this: you can prove the Trinity from the Bible.

Better yet…work up your answer using Sacred Scripture **and **Sacred Tradition. Sacred Tradition interprets Sacred Scripture.

 

[Jon_Hus]

No, it is not a fools errand. Not at all. The question is more difficult than the OP probably thought. Is it possible that you already had an understanding of the Trinity and so you read it into the Bible?

Well good question Ralph. Yes it is possible and actually certain that I had an understanding of the trinity when I started my study. The purpose of my study was verify to myself that the doctrine was in fact biblical. You have no way of knowing if I posess the personal integrety to acomplish such a feat and I wouldn’t want you to take my word for it anyway. If you went strictly by my word, as nice as a person as I am, you would be in effect placing your faith and trust in me and my take on the Bible. I don’t want you to place your faith and trust in me, I want you to place it in Jesus and the Bible, God’s word.

 

[Jon_Hus]

Better yet…work up your answer using Sacred Scripture **and **Sacred Tradition. Sacred Tradition interprets Sacred Scripture.

Are you missing the question asked in post #1 on purpose?

 

[deb1]

What about the third person of the trinity?

I would think that if you could get someone to admit that Jesus and God are one and the same then accepting further that the Holy Spirit is part of the Trinity would be easy.

 

[Jon_Hus]

I would think that if you could get someone to admit that Jesus and God are one and the same then accepting further that the Holy Spirit is part of the Trinity would be easy.

It probably would not be easy if the person had never heard of the Holy Spirit or belonged to a religion that sees the Holy Spirit as some kind of impersonal force like Luke Skywalker does.

 

[deb1]

It probably would not be easy if the person had never heard of the Holy Spirit or belonged to a religion that sees the Holy Spirit as some kind of impersonal force like Luke Skywalker does.

I had not thought of that

.

I don’t know if this would work but I would point out that Jesus instructed the apostles to baptize in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Perhaps a study on what the Holy Spirit is might work.

Also, the Bible says that God does not change. If God suddenly broke off into three individuals then he would be different then what he was to begin with. that would go against the Bible.

 

[Mickey]

Are you missing the question asked in post #1 on purpose?

Nope. The OP should not worry about sola Scriptura. The Catholic faith embraces Sacred Scripture **and **Sacred Tradition and he shoud use both to prove the Trinity. One compliments the other.

 

[NDfan]

I agree that the elements are there, but what about the relationships? The understandings of the Trininty that we have?

Can you say that all of the Athenasian creed is in Scriptures?

Ralph that’s a great question brother. I personally believe so. Christ flat out tells us that HE and the Father are one in the same and the Holy Spirit comes from GOD. So when Athenasius makes his statements such as “Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Ghost uncreate”; I couldn’t agree more. In the Gospel of John Jesus says I tell you even before Abraham “I AM”. This is the same identity GOD told Moses to use so Jesus and GOD must be of the same substance. Likewise for the Holy Spirit.

I personally love Athenasius’ statement: “The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible.”

We as humans simply cannot comprehend this. Scripture doesn’t spell out the creed word for word but I see Athenasius taking scripture and creating solid commentary. I don’t believe his commentary contradicts anything that scripture says and vice versa.

PEACE brother hope all is well with you and your family

 

[ralphinal]

If I may say, Jon, you are providing excellent posts. I am very impressed. If you have internalized your faith that you seem to have intellectualized, you are well on your way! I look forward to learning together.

Ralph,

If I say that Jesus is God and site scripture and also state that this is the position of Augustine, Jerome, the Apostles Creed, Pope Innocent III and Henry VIII then I suspect you will cry out that I came to this position using Scripture and xxx.

Probably. That does not mean that it is not true. Sometimes, we must stand on the backs of giants to see farther.

The idea of modalism and other other un-orthodox ideas may have began by persons who knew the Bible and may have had innocent motivations to make the claim, wrong as they are. What I’m saying is that the idea does not pass the test that docrtine, in order to be Biblical, has to agree with the entire Bible. So, when for example the JWs claim that Jesus (who as previously stated was the unique God-man) claim that he was only a man and use those portions of scripture that say he was a man to deny his diety, they are not correctly using the Bible for their doctrine.

No doubt. The fact remains that they are honestly trying. And they may have put a lot of study into it, too.

Even the Apostles had to be corrected on doctrine. And how were they corrected? By the Holy Spirit using scripture. Jesus, when tempted by Satan used scripture. When he argued with the teachers of the law he used scripture. These teachers, by Jesus own admission knew and studied the Bible but they were wrong because they were trusting in themselves, not God. They rejected God and His decrees and instead trusted in the teachings of their fathers.

Can you show me an example, post Pentecost, of the Apostles being corrected on matters of faith? I do not disagree with the rest

Today, a large precent of Christians have as their personal doctrine things that are either not in the Bible or are are actually considered un-biblical by the direct teaching of the Bible.

True. Very true

God, in His wisedom gave us this book the Bible. Most catholics would say that it was compiled and edited by the church and this gives the church certain rights regarding it’s meaning. If that is your position then you are exercising your God given freedom of religion, be it right or wrong. Of course we are blessed to live in a society that allows us the freedom to believe anything we want.

Do you disagree that the Catholic Church compiled and organized the Bible? What did the Christians do before there was a Bible?

But for this believer in Christ, when I have to give an accounting of my life, it will be simple: Lord, not because of anything I did, but because in your word, the Bible John 1 vs. 12 “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the **right **to become sons of God, even to those who believe in His name” and all I’m doing Ralph is trusting God in His word. Now, am I to loose that right because I don’t see some point of doctrine in the Bible, therefore I reject it? I will not make that decision for you Ralph and you should not make it for any other person because on that day, I’m not going to be there for you and you will not be there for me.

And I am trusting God’s Word as well. How are we not the same? What is the Word of God? I do not question your belief in God. Or that you are trying to be a good example of Christianity, not at all. I am just trying to grasp your position as it is different than mine, even though the “what” we believe is the same in this case. Does that make sense?

 

[NDfan]

Really? Then why is the Morman view wrong, based on the Bible? Why is modalism wrong, based on the Bible?

Same questions, Jon Hus.

Not that I am disputing you, but the Bible Alone can lead to problems with the Trinity

Ralph this is such a great point and I think it goes right back to what Athenasius stated in his creed. That GOD, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are incomprehensible to us. The most interesting thing I find about the first 500 years of church history is how the early Christians argued about things we cannot explain. This is why I loved the Pope’s comment regarding the nature of Christ. “HE was 100% man and 100% GOD period.” Something like that. Why try to explain the unexplainable? I believe so strongly that this is why we have such divisions among Christianity today. Everyone wants to try and explain the unexplainable.

JWs don’t believe the Trinity as traditional Christians have defined it because they believe there was a time when Jesus did not exist. This is based solely on 1 verse from Colossians which is cherry picking at it’s finest They choose to ignore other verses which when taken together as a whole show Jesus was GOD in the flesh. I asked a JW point blank how they reconcile John’s opening lines of his Gospel regarding the Word being with GOD and the Word was GOD. The response was that John’s writing style was more philosophical and shouldn’t be taken literally.

While I agree that Bible alone can lead to problems, I think those problems stem more from interpreting scripture partly instead of as a whole using good systematic theology.

JMHHO by the way.

Peace

 

[NDfan]

ralphinal,

Since I don’t know you and what motivates you I will operate on the assumption that you are asking this rather complex question (which would require hours of typing to explain properly) in good faith. Briefly, the New Testament teaches that Jesus was both God and Man. He is unique in that sense. He is God in that he created the world (Heb. ch1), yet a man, the sinless Lamb of God sent to take away the sins of the world.

Modalism is an attempt to (among other things) to avoid a tritheism (as opposed to monotheism) by denying the distinct personalities of the Godhead. In other words, instead of one God with three persons (traditional trinity) it teaches a complete oneness of the Godhead with no personal distinctions. NOTE: I’m a clumsy writer and this is a complex issue.

As far as Mormon teaching my understanding is that Jesus became diety, he wasn’t always God.

Both of these doctrines came about due to a lack of Bible understanding, not as is implied that a study of the Bible alone can allow this to happen. A doctrine of faith cannot contridict scripture. John Chapter 1 vs. 1 and 2 clearly state that Jesus in the beginning created the world and that he is God. This echos Gen. Ch 1 vs. 1 and 2 where Jehovah and the Holy Spirit are involved with creation in the beginning.

I would further add that modalism was argued against and defeated by the use of scripture. The premise of the question is wrong because if it wasn’t for scripture, modalism would have won the day and would have become dogma of the church by way of tradition (of the fathers).

And no one ever became a Mormon or Jehovah Witness by reading and studying the clear teaching of the Bible. Both of these groups use other publications to supplement and superceed the Bible, the Mormons have D&C, Pearl of Great Price and the Book of Mormon, the JWs have the Watchtower, AWAKE!, their own biased “translation” of the Bible and literally fifty million other books that they use for their doctrine.

As a point of fact, the JWs are not allowed to study the Bible without using watchtower literature under threat of excommunication. They say that if you study the Bible without WT literature, within two years you will “fall out of the truth” as they see it.

I’m sure this answer or anything else that I write will not satisfy you so I’m keeping it brief because this is a fools errand I’m on.

Jon sorry to interrupt but I personally think this is a great post

As an aside Ralph is a good person and I love chatting with him.

 

[ralphinal]

Ralph this is such a great point and I think it goes right back to what Athenasius stated in his creed. That GOD, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are incomprehensible to us. The most interesting thing I find about the first 500 years of church history is how the early Christians argued about things we cannot explain. This is why I loved the Pope’s comment regarding the nature of Christ. “HE was 100% man and 100% GOD period.” Something like that. Why try to explain the unexplainable? I believe so strongly that this is why we have such divisions among Christianity today. Everyone wants to try and explain the unexplainable.

JWs don’t believe the Trinity as traditional Christians have defined it because they believe there was a time when Jesus did not exist. This is based solely on 1 verse from Colossians which is cherry picking at it’s finest They choose to ignore other verses which when taken together as a whole show Jesus was GOD in the flesh. I asked a JW point blank how they reconcile John’s opening lines of his Gospel regarding the Word being with GOD and the Word was GOD. The response was that John’s writing style was more philosophical and shouldn’t be taken literally.

While I agree that Bible alone can lead to problems, I think those problems stem more from interpreting scripture partly instead of as a whole using good systematic theology.

JMHHO by the way.

Peace

That last little bit, about needing a good systematic theology is the key. One of the reasons that so many Catholics have trouble with some protestants is because they lack that one little thing, and we have no idea how to discuss with them. Lutherans, for example, have a well-developed and solid theological system, making discussion easier, though not always more effective.

If I do not get a chance to say so, I wish you and yours a good Holy Week.