Split: Catholic vs Non-Catholic scripture interpretation

[Michael19682]

I believe 1800 bishops were invited to Nicea by Constantine, and varying accounts show approximately 300 attended. I believe only 2 rejected the concept of the Trinity. Why did so many bishops vote in favor of accepting the Trinity if the concept wasn’t already well known from the Scriptures and the early teaching? Maybe a few (Arius) didn’t accept the idea. It wouldn’t be the first or the last time someone was wrong. I don’t think that means nobody for 3 centuries could figure out the concept of the trinity. Was the term itself first created at Nicea?

The concept of the Trinity is all throughout the Bible:
All 3 were present at creation
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
Colossians 1:15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16** For in him all things were created**: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him"
Genesis1:26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image…

Jesus declares to be God
Exodus 3:14 God said to Moses, "I am who I am.[c] This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.’”
John 8:58 “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” 59 At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

3 distinct entities work together
John 14:15 “If you love me (Jesus), keep my commands. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth."

All 3 have a role in salvation
Hebrews 9:14 How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death,[c] so that we may serve the living God!

The examples could go on and on, but I do think the triune nature of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit are very clear in the Bible.

Do you think the Scriptures can support Arianism?

susanlo,

I of course agree with the Magisterium of the Church and with Christians everywhere who agree that God is triune.
As for the clarity of the Trinity in the Bible --well, that is something different that was revealed by the holy Spirit.
If God sent Jesus, does this not imply a separation of the 2 persons?
How can God give an advocate if he and the advocate are One? Wouldn’t he be losing himself or separating himself?
How could Jesus offer himself to God if he is already the second person of God?
Examples of questions like these can go on and on, as you aptly state in a different format.
I firmly believe he is one God in three divine persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
If my hippocampus and research serve me correctly, “They are One because of the Father, Equal because of the Son, and United because of the Spirit.” – Saint Augustine.

The questions I asked are of course not intended to question the actual doctrine!
You are correct! It’s just that I’m not sure that the doctrine itself is obvious.

Rather, they are questions that must linger in the mind when the knowing (science) from Scripture arises from “reverse engineering”, i.e., taking the conclusion we now know from faith, and looking back at the Scriptural material in which it resides hidden, and then just assuming that before we knew the earth was round that it just must have been obvious. Or that before Leibnitz discovered calculus, or Newton was informed by the law of gravity, that these were also obvious.

As for Arianism, I really don’t know if it can be defined satisfactorily from the Bible – however much the Bible, it is said to contain all things (knowable).

 

[susanlo]

susanlo,

I of course agree with the Magisterium of the Church and with Christians everywhere who agree that God is triune.
As for the clarity of the Trinity in the Bible --well, that is something different that was revealed by the holy Spirit.
If God sent Jesus, does this not imply a separation of the 2 persons?
How can God give an advocate if he and the advocate are One? Wouldn’t he be losing himself or separating himself?
How could Jesus offer himself to God if he is already the second person of God?
Examples of questions like these can go on and on, as you aptly state in a different format.
I firmly believe he is one God in three divine persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
If my hippocampus and research serve me correctly, “They are One because of the Father, Equal because of the Son, and United because of the Spirit.” – Saint Augustine.

The questions I asked are of course not intended to question the actual doctrine!
You are correct! It’s just that I’m not sure that the doctrine itself is obvious.

Rather, they are questions that must linger in the mind when the knowing (science) from Scripture arises from “reverse engineering”, i.e., taking the conclusion we now know from faith, and looking back at the Scriptural material in which it resides hidden, and then just assuming that before we knew the earth was round that it just must have been obvious. Or that before Leibnitz discovered calculus, or Newton was informed by the law of gravity, that these were also obvious.

As for Arianism, I really don’t know if it can be defined satisfactorily from the Bible – however much the Bible, it is said to contain all things (knowable).

I do agree with the point that ideas, concepts and terminology can develop and evolve over time. Science and philosophy are two subjects where people continue to develop on the work of others. I think that ideas about the Trinity were already being developed in the early centuries before the Council of Nicea. I believe Tertullian (197-220AD) was the first one to coin the term: earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian17.html I think the idea was known by most early theologians and the concepts could have become part of Christianity even without a council.

I agree with Newton’s laws of gravity. Although I forget much of my physics classes, I experience gravity everyday. Other brilliant scientists have come behind him and have been able to confirm that he is correct. I do not need to believe that God gifted Newton with the gift of infallible teaching to know that he is right on this concept.
I also believe in a few basics of Darwin’s theories. His idea about survival of the fittest - where the stronger species live longer and reproduce more - seems to be a logical observation of nature. If I understand and come to the same conclusion on this matter, that doesn’t mean that I must accept all parts of the theory of evolution that he started and others built upon.

So, in 2016, I read the Bible which declares there is one God, declares that Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit works always for God’s purpose. I see nowhere that denies that Jesus was God, nor where it says there are multiple Gods. This concept was understood in the apostles’ writing. Paul confirms this in his letters. (1 Corinthians 8:6, Colossians 2:9, 2 Corinthians 13:14, Ephesians 4:4-7…)
When was Trinity first used? Did Tertullian make it up or learn it? Either way I agree and confirm the presence of a Trinity - not because a church council was needed to declare it so, but because that term describes the Godhead that saturates every page of the Bible.

 

[PRmerger]

I think the idea was known by most early theologians and the concepts could have become part of Christianity even without a council.

Yes. And this is nothing but a testament to Sacred Tradition.

 

[susanlo]

Yes. And this is nothing but a testament to Sacred Tradition.

That’s interesting. What makes you say that? Do you see him quoting concepts from Sacred Tradition in this?
I see Tertullian mentioning “Sacred Writings” and “Sacred Writers,” each one time on this page. I do not see anything in here about Sacred Tradition. The term tradition is nowhere in here. This website provides the Scripture quotations: newadvent.org/fathers/0317.htm I count 235 references to Scripture. It seems Tertullian believed that Scripture could be used to make the case for a Trinity.

 

[PRmerger]

That’s interesting. What makes you say that? Do you see him quoting concepts from Sacred Tradition in this?
I see Tertullian mentioning “Sacred Writings” and “Sacred Writers,” each one time on this page. I do not see anything in here about Sacred Tradition. The term tradition is nowhere in here. This website provides the Scripture quotations: newadvent.org/fathers/0317.htm I count 235 references to Scripture. It seems Tertullian believed that Scripture could be used to make the case for a Trinity.

Well, the fact that the Scriptures were not canonized until AFTER Tertullian used the term is one indication.

You say that the concept of the Trinity “was known” by most early Christian theologians–and that’s exactly what Catholics profess. Sacred Tradition is the transmission of the Word through oral means–that is, before a single word of the NT was ever put to writ, the concept of the Trinity was “known”.

 

[PRmerger]

It seems Tertullian believed that Scripture could be used to make the case for a Trinity.

Can you tell us how he knew what was Scripture?

 

[AmbroseSJ]

susanlo:

The examples could go on and on, but I do think the triune nature of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit are very clear in the Bible.

Do you think the Scriptures can support Arianism?

You just keep proving my original point. Nevertheless, you seem to be unaware that Arius used Scripture in proving the validity of his heresy. It was so convincing that at one point, most of the Bishops in the East were of his opinion.

If you need further proof, call up the JWs for a Scripture discussion (as was mentioned) and see how “obvious” the teaching of the Trinity is in Sacred Scripture.

 

[adf417]

If you need further proof, call up the JWs for a Scripture discussion (as was mentioned) and see how “obvious” the teaching of the Trinity is in Sacred Scripture.

And dont forget to ask them where their followers generally come from.

Peace!!!

 

[mackbrislawn]

I do agree with the point that ideas, concepts and terminology can develop and evolve over time. Science and philosophy are two subjects where people continue to develop on the work of others. I think that ideas about the Trinity were already being developed in the early centuries before the Council of Nicea. I believe Tertullian (197-220AD) was the first one to coin the term: earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian17.html I think the idea was known by most early theologians and the concepts could have become part of Christianity even without a council.

I agree with Newton’s laws of gravity. Although I forget much of my physics classes, I experience gravity everyday. Other brilliant scientists have come behind him and have been able to confirm that he is correct. I do not need to believe that God gifted Newton with the gift of infallible teaching to know that he is right on this concept.
I also believe in a few basics of Darwin’s theories. His idea about survival of the fittest - where the stronger species live longer and reproduce more - seems to be a logical observation of nature. If I understand and come to the same conclusion on this matter, that doesn’t mean that I must accept all parts of the theory of evolution that he started and others built upon.

So, in 2016, I read the Bible which declares there is one God, declares that Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit works always for God’s purpose. I see nowhere that denies that Jesus was God, nor where it says there are multiple Gods. This concept was understood in the apostles’ writing. Paul confirms this in his letters. (1 Corinthians 8:6, Colossians 2:9, 2 Corinthians 13:14, Ephesians 4:4-7…)
When was Trinity first used? Did Tertullian make it up or learn it? Either way I agree and confirm the presence of a Trinity - not because a church council was needed to declare it so, but because that term describes the Godhead that saturates every page of the Bible.

I agree, the idea of the Trinity is taught the Bible. However, an Evangelical I know said that the Trinity is taught in the Bible, but not defended in the Bible. And I think he has it about right, which is the problem. Because for those of us who already believe in the deity of Christ and the deity and personality of the Holy Spirit, the Trinity, as we call it, is plain enough. We can infer is easily.

But that is only true for those of us who already know it. For those who come to Scripture cold, that is, untaught and ignorant, or those of an heretical disposition such as the JW’s, the Trinity is not so clear. The JW’s do a good job from Scripture convincing many Christians against the Trinity.

So, was the concept of Christ’s and the Holy Spirit’s deity derived initially from Scripture? No, I can’t see how that could have been. Such an important teaching would surely have been taught directly to the first Christians by the apostles. That understanding would already have been in place before Scripture and Scriptural exegesis would have begun.

We do know that Ignatius of Antioch about 107 AD was already referring to Christ as God. That’s way too early for systematic study of Scripture to figure that out. After all, Christian Scripture wouldn’t be assembled into an acknowledged canon for a couple of centuries.

The conclusion is that the divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit was known by the first generation of Christians, taught to them directly by the apostles, independently of Scripture. Only later, when Christian Scripture began to be gathered together, would Church members begin to consolidate apostolic teaching with apostolic writings and create a systematic theology.

This is my theory of how things happened. What do you think?

 

[susanlo]

I agree, the idea of the Trinity is taught the Bible. However, an Evangelical I know said that the Trinity is taught in the Bible, but not defended in the Bible. And I think he has it about right, which is the problem. Because for those of us who already believe in the deity of Christ and the deity and personality of the Holy Spirit, the Trinity, as we call it, is plain enough. We can infer is easily.

But that is only true for those of us who already know it. For those who come to Scripture cold, that is, untaught and ignorant, or those of an heretical disposition such as the JW’s, the Trinity is not so clear. The JW’s do a good job from Scripture convincing many Christians against the Trinity.

So, was the concept of Christ’s and the Holy Spirit’s deity derived initially from Scripture? No, I can’t see how that could have been. Such an important teaching would surely have been taught directly to the first Christians by the apostles. That understanding would already have been in place before Scripture and Scriptural exegesis would have begun.

We do know that Ignatius of Antioch about 107 AD was already referring to Christ as God. That’s way too early for systematic study of Scripture to figure that out. After all, Christian Scripture wouldn’t be assembled into an acknowledged canon for a couple of centuries.

The conclusion is that the divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit was known by the first generation of Christians, taught to them directly by the apostles, independently of Scripture. Only later, when Christian Scripture began to be gathered together, would Church members begin to consolidate apostolic teaching with apostolic writings and create a systematic theology.

This is my theory of how things happened. What do you think?

Yes, I would agree that the Apostles taught verbally and in writing about Christ’s divinity, the role of the Holy Spirit, and the oneness of God. The Trinity is evident in their inspired letters, and should have been evident in their verbal teaching. I don’t know for sure when the word Trinity was first used, but the concept was always present in Christianity as this was taught by Jesus himself.

Often it is brought up that if one believes in the Trinity that there must be an acknowledgment of Sacred Tradition and/or infallible church teaching. I feel like there is sufficient evidence to understand the concept of the Trinity from Scripture alone. Tertullian argued for the presence of the Trinity over one century before the Council of Nicea with the use of Scripture references. I understand that there has been a small minority over the centuries who disagree with this. I personally believe in the Trinity because it is clear in the Biblical Scriptures. I don’t think this should be hard to understand. Here is a website that shows the Biblical references to Jesus being divine. carm.org/bible-verses-show-jesus-divine

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, I would agree that the Apostles taught verbally and in writing about Christ’s divinity, the role of the Holy Spirit, and the oneness of God. The Trinity is evident in their inspired letters, and should have been evident in their verbal teaching.

Again, this is nothing but a testament to the truth of Sacred Tradition.

This also implicitly argues for the need for an entity, a body, an authority, which takes the Scriptures which we have all been given and declares: this is what the Scriptures mean!

(Here, it means that God is a Trinity. Elsewhere it means that Jesus rose physically, not metaphorically. Somewhere else it means that divorce and re-marriage is not permitted, etc etc etc…)

That is, the above is an argument for…a magisterium.

 

[Michael19682]

I do agree with the point that ideas, concepts and terminology can develop and evolve over time. Science and philosophy are two subjects where people continue to develop on the work of others. I think that ideas about the Trinity were already being developed in the early centuries before the Council of Nicea. I believe Tertullian (197-220AD) was the first one to coin the term: earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian17.html I think the idea was known by most early theologians and the concepts could have become part of Christianity even without a council.

I agree with Newton’s laws of gravity. Although I forget much of my physics classes, I experience gravity everyday. Other brilliant scientists have come behind him and have been able to confirm that he is correct. I do not need to believe that God gifted Newton with the gift of infallible teaching to know that he is right on this concept.
I also believe in a few basics of Darwin’s theories. His idea about survival of the fittest - where the stronger species live longer and reproduce more - seems to be a logical observation of nature. If I understand and come to the same conclusion on this matter, that doesn’t mean that I must accept all parts of the theory of evolution that he started and others built upon.

So, in 2016, I read the Bible which declares there is one God, declares that Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit works always for God’s purpose. I see nowhere that denies that Jesus was God, nor where it says there are multiple Gods. This concept was understood in the apostles’ writing. Paul confirms this in his letters. (1 Corinthians 8:6, Colossians 2:9, 2 Corinthians 13:14, Ephesians 4:4-7…)
When was Trinity first used? Did Tertullian make it up or learn it? Either way I agree and confirm the presence of a Trinity - not because a church council was needed to declare it so, but because that term describes the Godhead that saturates every page of the Bible.

Hi susanlo,
I find it hopeful of inquiry that you note Newton was not gifted with infallible understanding or proclamation in his principia mathematica. You also note that you believe in gravity despite how you, like me, may have forgotten that the intensity of gravity is proportional to the square of the inverse of the distance etc. You say that you experience gravity everyday.
I wonder how you think he might have experienced his own confidence or the extent to which he might have been fallible in his principia mathematica before the scientific community confirmed his ideas?
And, for that matter, how confident and infallible we today would be in turn in our personal faith in the triune nature of God had not the doctrine taught by Jesus been confirmed and discovered by Tertullian, explicitly stated and defended as some one else has noted by the Council and later Saints and holy people – perhaps even by some of their spiritual heirs, your friends, relatives in the field?

Unlike the law of gravity which appears we can’t hide on a day to day basis,
we must purchase that field at the price of our entire wealth; so if the doctrine of the Trinity were obvious, I think it would have been taken away from us unless hidden temporarily again from the understanding of those who would have taken it without joy like we, who want it for the safe keeping of our salvation?

Mt 13:44
“The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure buried in a field, which a person finds and hides again, and out of joy goes and sells all that he has and buys that field."

Peace

 

[mackbrislawn]

Yes, I would agree that the Apostles taught verbally and in writing about Christ’s divinity, the role of the Holy Spirit, and the oneness of God. The Trinity is evident in their inspired letters, and should have been evident in their verbal teaching. I don’t know for sure when the word Trinity was first used, but the concept was always present in Christianity as this was taught by Jesus himself.

Often it is brought up that if one believes in the Trinity that there must be an acknowledgment of Sacred Tradition and/or infallible church teaching. I feel like there is sufficient evidence to understand the concept of the Trinity from Scripture alone. Tertullian argued for the presence of the Trinity over one century before the Council of Nicea with the use of Scripture references. I understand that there has been a small minority over the centuries who disagree with this. I personally believe in the Trinity because it is clear in the Biblical Scriptures. I don’t think this should be hard to understand. Here is a website that shows the Biblical references to Jesus being divine. carm.org/bible-verses-show-jesus-divine

When Tertullian was searching scripture for evidence of the concept of the Trinity, he wasn’t trying to find some new doctrine unknown before. He was looking for scriptural evidence for a doctrine he already knew about from his remembrance of the preaching of the apostles, that is, Sacred Tradition. He wasn’t trying to establish the truth of the Trinity–he already knew the truth of it from Sacred Tradition, which is why he didn’t quote Sacred Tradition! His purpose was to make sure the written residue of the apostles corresponded with Sacred Tradition. He decided it did, and we do as well.

We do as well, because we already believe in the Trinity. Kids are taught the Trinity in catechism, and I presume you were taught it in Sunday school also. That is why you and I personally feel there is enough evidence in scripture for the Trinity, because we already have the concept firmly in mind.

However, I seriously doubt that many persons without that concept in mind, unfamiliar with Christianity, ignorant of its teachings, and reading scripture for the first time, would arrive at the Trinity. We know that the Unitarians and the Jehovah’s Witnesses, using the same scriptures we do, can convince a lot of people that Christ was a creature, and that the Holy Spirit is an impersonal force. They are good at it. They are very good at showing how the verses we use to promote the Trinity don’t do that at all. They find verses that they interpret in such a way as to show the opposite of what we believe.

That happened in early times too. Heretics would use scripture to advance false teachings, using scriptural arguments. We know that Arius did that very thing to assert that Christ was created. He persuaded a lot of people, including a lot of bishops. Using scripture alone.

That’s why scripture is not alone. Scripture has a context. Just as we know that verses have a context and mustn’t be quoted out of context, scripture itself was written in a context, written within a pre-existing background of teaching: the preaching of the apostles and evangelists, Sacred, or Apostolic Tradition. Scripture must not be taken out of that context.

 

[PRmerger]

When Tertullian was searching scripture for evidence of the concept of the Trinity, he wasn’t trying to find some new doctrine unknown before. He was looking for scriptural evidence for a doctrine he already knew about from his remembrance of the preaching of the apostles, that is, Sacred Tradition. He wasn’t trying to establish the truth of the Trinity–he already knew the truth of it from Sacred Tradition, which is why he didn’t quote Sacred Tradition! His purpose was to make sure the written residue of the apostles corresponded with Sacred Tradition. He decided it did, and we do as well.

Egg-zactly.

We do not glean our doctrines from a book, no matter how holy.

Rather, our doctrines come from Christ, through the Apostles, to the Church.

And it is the Scriptures which reflect our doctrines.

The doctrines came first.
Then the Church chose the texts which supported these doctrines.
And those texts became the New Testament.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Egg-zactly.

We do not glean our doctrines from a book, no matter how holy.

Rather, our doctrines come from Christ, through the Apostles, to the Church.

And it is the Scriptures which reflect our doctrines.

The doctrines came first.
Then the Church chose the texts which supported these doctrines.
And those texts became the New Testament.

In a nutshell. So simple.