Question for all protestants

[Jon_S_1]

If you are looking for it, yes - that is, if you already know about the Trinity by the teaching of the Church, then you will easily find it in Scripture.

But if you have never heard of it before, and if it does not occur to you that the Holy Spirit is God, and Jesus is God (which are never explicitly spelled out in Scripture, although they are certainly hinted at) you would miss it completely - as the Unitarians do and the Oneness Pentecostals do.

And the Mormons

And the Jehovah’s Witnesses

And many others.

 

[dronald]

The material doctrine of the Trinity is certainly present in Scripture; that is the raw data without any real interpretation. But the formal doctrine of the Trinity, the definitive teaching of the Church concerning the nature of God is certainly not present. As PR pointed out, there are many who do not even see the material doctrine and therefore deny the Trinity. The Trinity as you understand it was given to you by the Catholic Church. To now go back into Scripture to find support for the dogma and subsequent doctrine is an entirely different exercise than gleaning it from the pages of Scripture absent the teaching of the Church.

The belief that Jesus is God seems so obvious in Scripture to me I guess. I suppose that’s why this argument seems ridiculous. The existence of poor interpretations does not mean that the right interpretations rely on the Catholic Church’s interpretation.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

My question is clear though… Can the Trinity be found in Scripture? Yes or no question.

You can’t demand an answer to this unless you know what is Scriptures.

How do you know what is Scriptures?

 

[SteveVH]

The belief that Jesus is God seems so obvious in Scripture to me I guess. I suppose that’s why this argument seems ridiculous. The existence of poor interpretations does not mean that the right interpretations rely on the Catholic Church’s interpretation.

But a belief that Jesus is God does not necessarily translate into the doctrine of the Trinity. Some, such as the LDS, believe that Jesus is God, but a separate God from the Father. The Christian definition of the Trinity was given to the world by the Catholic Church. There is just no way around that fact.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

The belief that Jesus is God seems so obvious in Scripture to me I guess. I suppose that’s why this argument seems ridiculous. The existence of poor interpretations does not mean that the right interpretations rely on the Catholic Church’s interpretation.

How do you know what is Scripture?

 

[Jon_S_1]

The belief that Jesus is God seems so obvious in Scripture to me I guess. I suppose that’s why this argument seems ridiculous. The existence of poor interpretations does not mean that the right interpretations rely on the Catholic Church’s interpretation.

No, everyone gets lucky sometimes.

Practically though, this teaching of the Trinity was taken by the reformers from the church and the early counsels. In the first 400 years of Christianity this was hotly debated. It was not clear at all to the Arians and others.

So then the Trinity was just accepted through the reformation until the great awakening when Certain groups started with the bible only and started their own groups based on their own studies with truly the Bible only. No historical context necessary and they reject the trinity as a result.
So I definitely think the Catholic Church’s declarations historically are necessary to hold belief in the Trinity.

 

[dronald]

I’ll try a different approach here…

My Church does not believe in the literal body and blood of Jesus during communion, therefore I do not have the same belief as Catholics on this.

If however our Church changed beliefs and said it is the literal body and blood based on their interpretation would you as Catholics take credit for their interpretation?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I’ll try a different approach here…

My Church does not believe in the literal body and blood of Jesus during communion, therefore I do not have the same belief as Catholics on this.

If however our Church changed beliefs and said it is the literal body and blood based on their interpretation would you as Catholics take credit for their interpretation?

That’s what Christ said it is and we have defended. It is not an interpretation - it is what it means.

Your Church and those that separated changed the meaning - that is an interpretation.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I’ll try a different approach here…

My Church does not believe in the literal body and blood of Jesus during communion, therefore I do not have the same belief as Catholics on this.

If however our Church changed beliefs and said it is the literal body and blood based on their interpretation would you as Catholics take credit for their interpretation?

It depends on why.

If they say, look at John 6. Jesus explicitly states it here.

Then Catholics will just take credit for giving them the scripture to learn such a thing.

But if they point to history and proclamations of councils as there sole proof, with perhaps some debatable scriptural support, as is done with the Trinity, then yes I supposes the Catholic Church would be credited as the source of their providence for believing such a thing.

 

[jmcrae]

The belief that Jesus is God seems so obvious in Scripture to me I guess. I suppose that’s why this argument seems ridiculous. The existence of poor interpretations does not mean that the right interpretations rely on the Catholic Church’s interpretation.

Without the Catholic Church, though, there is no standard of “right” or “wrong” interpretation, since outside the Catholic Church, all opinions are equal - no one can claim authority or say, “I know that I am right.”

But even a Protestant can say, “The Tradition of the Church is that Jesus is God, as we see in the Council of Ephesus.” This is Roman Catholic tradition; it isn’t Scripture, but it is a standard of correctness that is available even to non-Catholics as they interpret the Scriptures.

 

[JonNC]

You can’t demand an answer to this unless you know what is Scriptures.

How do you know what is Scriptures?

Jose,
Do we agree that Matthew 3:16-17 is scripture? And did the early council have access to it?
To say that the Church had nothing to do with the Doctrine of the Trinity is obviously false. To say that they did not find it in scripture, ISTM, is highly unlikely.

Jon

 

[dronald]

So if the JW’s suddenly went back to using the KJV and changed their interpretation on their own to believe in the Trinity, it’s only because of Catholicism?

 

[JonNC]

If you are looking for it, yes - that is, if you already know about the Trinity by the teaching of the Church, then you will easily find it in Scripture.

But if you have never heard of it before, and if it does not occur to you that the Holy Spirit is God, and Jesus is God (which are never explicitly spelled out in Scripture, although they are certainly hinted at) you would miss it completely - as the Unitarians do and the Oneness Pentecostals do.

More than merely hinted at. John 1:1 “…and the Word was God.” is pretty overt.

Matt 3:16-17 *And Jesus being baptized, forthwith came out of the water: and lo, the heavens were opened to him: and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him. 17And behold a voice from heaven, saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. *

Pretty overt, it seems to me.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

So if the JW’s suddenly went back to using the KJV and changed their interpretation on their own to believe in the Trinity, it’s only because of Catholicism?

Certainly in part…

Whether non-Catholics like it or not, everything we know about the faith is from the Catholic Church, particularly the unified early Church, but also the western Church since the Schism. Luther recognized that, and on that basis alone, I give God thanks for the Catholic Church.

Jon

 

[Jon_S_1]

So if the JW’s suddenly went back to using the KJV and changed their interpretation on their own to believe in the Trinity, it’s only because of Catholicism?

No, I’m not sure why you like to dream up these strange scenarios.

Anyone can come up with anything. Some nomadic headsman may very well come up with an idea that there is one God in 3 persons.

Even a blind horse can find water sometimes.

But returning to REALITY the only reason that this doctrine is widely accepted is because the Catholic Church said it was so. Declared it anathema (in line with Matt 18) to believe otherwise, and the reformers had no problem with it.

And now it’s resurrected by apologists to show that the church is necessary for proper understanding of scripture, and fundamentalists and other protestant groups don’t like it because it explodes the Sola Scriptura argument and requires subsequent back pedaling and twisted scriptures.

 

[dronald]

No, I’m not sure why you like to dream up these strange scenarios.

Anyone can come up with anything. Some nomadic headsman may very well come up with an idea that there is one God in 3 persons.

Even a blind horse can find water sometimes.

But returning to REALITY the only reason that this doctrine is widely accepted is because the Catholic Church said it was so. Declared it anathema (in line with Matt 18) to believe otherwise, and the reformers had no problem with it.

And now it’s resurrected by apologists to show that the church is necessary for proper understanding of scripture, and fundamentalists and other protestant groups don’t like it because it explodes the Sola Scriptura argument and requires subsequent back pedaling and twisted scriptures.

Thank you, I knew the CC wasn’t necessary for such a belief and I’m glad we found common ground there.

As for the second part, I disagree and that’s your theory.

 

[jmcrae]

So if the JW’s suddenly went back to using the KJV and changed their interpretation on their own to believe in the Trinity, it’s only because of Catholicism?

The most likely reason for them to do so would be that they found out that that’s what the Early Church (aka the Roman Catholic Church) believed at the time when the New Testament was still being written - so, yes, it would be because of the Catholic Church.

 

[pocohombre]

Not if one goes by Scripture alone.
We know of the Trinity because of the Church, not because of Scripture (alone).

 

[Jon_S_1]

PRmerger;11385421:

And what did the church use to determine it’s truth. And what did the differing views use way back then. That is right, they both used scripture and, if they used anything else or anyone, it was what they thought scripture means. Just the fact that the full diety of Christ was believed before the “church” convened at Nicea shows the power of scripture The authority of the council is derivative of its fidelity to scripture. As Athanasius defended the council not because of its inherent authority, but because of fidelity to scripture. “Vainly do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded councils for the faith sake: for divine scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrines so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture.” As James White points out, "Scriptures are not made insufficient

by the council; rather the words of the council “remind” one of the “religion towards Christ announced in divine scripture”. It is clear the role of scripture and the role of Bishops properly interpreting them (for some did not), and boldly declaring them. So one can properly defer to scriptures and be led by the Holy Ghost to proper interpretation, and concur with the majority of Nicene Bishops. One can also defer to the Nicene Bishops and be led by the Holy Ghost and concur that they indeed properly interpreted scriptures.
Either way ,“He teaches us” (Augustine) about “church” and about “scripture” and do not defer away to anyone or anything this sacred tradition.

Just remember poco that the apostles left us two things. The oral teachings and practices they shared every day.

And the writings they wrote. (The scriptures)

It is these two hand in hand that allows for understanding of Christian truth. It is both of these that the church cares for.

Imagine this.

You go to church on Sunday, and Jesus is there in glory. He tells you and the whole church to offers special prayer every year for the salvation of all and then demonstrates how this should be done.

Your church faithfully does it year after year.

As time goes on and the memory fades, the pastors start writing down some details.

Maybe they write the words Jesus spoke and the date of the year it should be done. Maybe a couple of other clarifying things. But the things without dispute that everyone knows maybe they felt no need to write down.

Likewise with the ancient church.

The scriptures were written, but it is naive to think that the oral and traditional teachings were not kept with equal care.

 

[pocohombre]

And now it’s resurrected by apologists to show that the church is necessary for proper understanding of scripture, and fundamentalists and other protestant groups don’t like it because it explodes the Sola Scriptura argument and requires subsequent back pedaling and twisted scriptures.

But your position also does not want to backpedal and assume responsibility of the individual being also led of the Holy Spirit, into all truth, helping safeguard your church The first councils did not recognize the infallibility of any bishop(s), so what was the safety net ? … The need for our backpedaling is in your own paradigm, not mine. Because we hold scripture to be higher than “church”, you figure we rule out all teachers, apostles,prophets, presbyters/bishops etc… We do not just as you do not rule out Scripture totally. We both have our spiritual challenges, the working out of our salvation. For us I suppose it is to make sure our “interpretations” are right, and for you to make sure you have chosen the right church, that indeed the CC is the only real Christian church. That is worthy “backpedaling”/ self examination for both of us.