Understanding the Trinity

[chaunceygardner]

re: posts by humblelurker

I really am not capable of debating with both Jerome and Augustine about Catholic theology. And please understand I wasn’t trying to deny the Trinity. I was (and am) asking questions about what is meant by the Trinity and why acceptance of a particular view of it is so critical to being a Christian.

The doctrine of the Trinity is called a “mystery”, by the Church and by Jerome in the part you quoted. One poster said it “isn’t essential to understand the Trinity but it is essential for us to believe in the Trinity”. Two Questions arise: WHY? and WHAT? Why is it essential to believe in it? And what are we supposed to believe IN? Since it is a mystery that no one, not even Jerome or Augustine, can explain, what exactly are we to believe? And how do we know what we believe is correct? And whether it is correct or not, what is the difference? (Getting back to why it should be essential to believe in something that is mysterious and unexplainable).

And there seems to be some problems in the quotes from Jerome and Augustine. Jerome apparently doesn’t like “the sound of those words”, meaning “according to your faith, be it done to you.” He says it twice, and obviously does not want to be judged based on how he has lived his Christian faith. In fact, he says that if God does so, “I shall perish”. Quite a statement from a Father of the Church.

But I do like Jerome’s statement that “singleness of mind and devotion to God” can trump faith in any concept of the Trinity. I would agree with that 100%.

With Augustine, there is his obvious contradiction about the Trinity. In your second quote, Augustine gives a long, detailed account of how the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are “but one God.” He then proceeds to say how the Son is begotten by the Father, and is not the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the other two. And he adds to this confusion by describing how each acts separately from the others, using the terms “but only the Son”, “but only the Holy Spirit”, and “the Father only”, but then concludes by saying they “are indivisible, so work indivisibly” (my underlining, in case you missed that last word).

What a confused, torturous, convoluted explanation that Christians are supposed to accept. It takes me back to my earlier question: Which is it?

Again, I am not saying to throw out the idea of the Trinity, but am wondering why we continue to cling to this impossible to explain concept. If the Church says it is an unexplainable mystery, than (again) what are we asked to believe in? A mystery? Okay, I agree it is a mystery. But then the Church backs itself into a corner by trying to explain the unexplainable, to define the un-definable, and making a very poor job of it.

THAT to me is the biggest mystery.

 

[humblelurker]

The belief in the Holy Trinity is doctrine. Doctrine is a teaching of the Church on revealed truths from either sacred scripture or sacred tradition. The revealed truths can either be explicitly or implicitly. Doctrine develops in that the Church’s understanding of the truths of divine revelation grows over time, a “gradual unfolding of the meaning of what God has revealed. (Fr. John Hardon’s Modern Catholic Dictionary)” Once revealed and understood then it is to be accepted. It must be believed. Why, because the Catholic Church sees it as a revealed truth by God, i.e. it is reality. Even if we want it to be different, we can’t change it. If the revealed truth is larger than what we can understand with our finite minds and seems to be filled with contradictions then we must have faith and believe it because it is a revealed truth by God. We must have Faith. Don’t forget that God is infinite and we are finite, even our minds are finite, so a revealed truth has the potential to be beyond us. Many people over time have spent long hours explaining revealed truths, and have done a better job than me. Perhaps someone here can help you understand it better than me? Perhaps someone can suggest something for you to read to help you understand?

 

[humblelurker]

Don’t forget that we are talking about Church Teaching vs. private interpretation.

 

[schwank111]

Andrew 2009,

I read the first page of comments and there were some good answers there but they all lend to the mystery of the trinity, which may or may not make you feel like you are coming to a better understanding of the trinity. I had alot of questions about the nature of God and the Three Divine Persons. I had a wonderful teacher my senior year in highschool named Mr. D who has recently become a monk. We studied Pope John Paul II’s theology of the body. One of my favorite writings. But JPII says that we can come to know alot about God by coming to know about ourselves and vice versa; for knowledge of self cannot be separated from knowledge of God and love of neighbor cannot be separated from love of God.
We were made in the image and likeness of God, right? well, what the heck does that mean? Is God a man, or a woman? I had lots of questions like these, and then Mr. D told me a simple analogy that is very profound in its simplicity. it goes something like this…

God the Father Loved the Son so much that he gave his entire self to him. The son perfectly resiprocated this gift and in return gave his entire self back to the Father creating a never ending motion or way of Love. This Love is so real and so perfect that it makes a third person; The Holy Spirit.

in the same way a man loves a woman so much that he gives his entire being to her, body and soul. The woman reciprocates this gift and gives her entire self back to the man and this love is so real that it creates a third person…a baby!

this was so profound to me in light of the saying how we are made in the image and likeness of God, and how all of humanity is linked together and called to mirror God.

I hope this helps you as it did me

peace

 

[humblelurker]

A Pastor once told this story:
Saint Augustine was walking along the beach one day when he happen to see a small boy running to the sea to fill a small container. The boy then took the full container over to a small hole in the sand and poured it in. As Saint Augustine watched the small boy did that over and over and over again. Running back to fill the container, and running to the hole to fill it. Eventually Saint Augustine went over to the small boy and asked the small boy what he was doing. The small boy responded, “I’m trying to pour the entire ocean into this small hole.” Saint Augustine laughed responding, “You can’t pour the entire ocean into that small hole.” Then the boy, who was an angel, said, “Neither can you comprehend the infinity of God.”
The Pastor then went on to talk about the Holy Trinity and how it is impossible for our “small minds” to comprehend it.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

chaunceygardner:

The doctrine of the Trinity is called a “mystery”, by the Church and by Jerome in the part you quoted. One poster said it “isn’t essential to understand the Trinity but it is essential for us to believe in the Trinity”. Two Questions arise: WHY? and WHAT? ***Why is it essential to believe in it? And what are we supposed to believe IN? ***Since it is a mystery that no one, not even Jerome or Augustine, can explain, what exactly are we to believe? And how do we know what we believe is correct? And whether it is correct or not, what is the difference? (Getting back to why it should be essential to believe in something that is mysterious and unexplainable).

I answered this question already for you in post #14

John Henry Newman once said that to the consistent and logical mind, there are only two possibilities; one is drawn either to Atheism or Catholicity. You are being drawn to Atheism.

Why? Because you see no compelling reason to believe ANYTHING that can’t be easily explained in natural (scientific) terms.

Try to be objective, and look at your questions.

 

[humblelurker]

re: posts by humblelurker
With Augustine, there is his obvious contradiction about the Trinity. In your second quote, Augustine gives a long, detailed account of how the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are “but one God.” He then proceeds to say how the Son is begotten by the Father, and is not the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the other two. And he adds to this confusion by describing how each acts separately from the others, using the terms “but only the Son”, “but only the Holy Spirit”, and “the Father only”, but then concludes by saying they “are indivisible, so work indivisibly” (my underlining, in case you missed that last word).

What a confused, torturous, convoluted explanation that Christians are supposed to accept. It takes me back to my earlier question: Which is it?

You are saying that unless you understand it with your finite mind then it can’t be true, but you can only understand finite things with your finite mind. If God reveals Himself as being beyond human comprehension and someone comes along and says they don’t believe it because they can’t comprehend it then is God not to be believed? Should we believe a finite ideology over a Divinely Revealed Infinite Truth? If we willingly and knowingly turn our backs on a Divinely Revealed Infinite Truth can we still be counted among the saved? Would we not be denying God? You asked which is it? It is all of the above. Just because you don’t understand it does not mean that it is not true. The fact that you can’t understand it leads me to believe, as a Catholic, that the Church’s Doctrine on the Trinity is true. I don’t limit God with my mind, but understand my limits before God. This basic understanding involving mysteries would not be unknown to ancient tribal people who would not be unaccustomed to mysteries. Only in our time do I see mass amounts of people demanding that everything be understandable to their finite minds or they will not believe it. As a Catholic I believe Christ established The Catholic Church, and she has the final say on interpretation. The Catholic Church’s Doctrine on the Trinity predates your birth, and will be here long after you are gone. For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not believe, no explanation is possible especially when dealing with an infinite truth and the limited finite human mind.

 

[chaunceygardner]

I answered this question already for you in post #14

John Henry Newman once said that to the consistent and logical mind, there are only two possibilities; one is drawn either to Atheism or Catholicity. You are being drawn to Atheism.

Why? Because you see no compelling reason to believe ANYTHING that can’t be easily explained in natural (scientific) terms.

Try to be objective, and look at your questions.

First, I do readily believe in many things that I (and others) can’t easily explain or understand. I am not looking for an explanation, but trying to understand why the Church insists on a particular explanation for something that is admittedly impossible to define; and by extention why thinking of the Trinity in other ways is so wrong.

Here is what I asked about the Trinity:

chaunceygardner:

Why is it essential to believe in it? And what are we supposed to believe IN? Since it is a mystery that no one, not even Jerome or Augustine, can explain, what exactly are we to believe? And how do we know what we believe is correct? And whether it is correct or not, what is the difference?

My point continues to be that the Church has, in an attempt to explain the unexplainable, developed a doctrine that seems torturously convoluted and murky, and at times obviously contradictory. I guess a lot has to do with how you define certain terms, as I said early in this thread.

I have great respect for Newman, but in this statement he is eliminating about 75-80% of the world who is neither Catholic nor atheist. So apparently there are more than TWO possbilities.

Here is what you said in Post 14:

AmbroseSJ:

What the Church has done is to codify this mystery in such a way, as to properly understand the mystery (as far as was revealed to us by Jesus in His Gospel) by using certain terminology and phrases, which should be understood in a certain way.

Again I ask, WHY? If you accept that God the Father, Jesus the Son and the Holy Spirit are all real, why is it necessary to “understand” the relationship between the three in a “certain” way (which as other posters have shown from their quotes of Church fathers and the Catechism, is as clear and understandable to most of us as sub-atomic particle physics)?

One person may understand the Trinity as three persons in One God, while another may see the three as being different aspects or manifestations of The One God. When one reads the Hebrew Bible, it appears that the latter view is more consistent with the Jewish understanding prior to Christ. And much of the Gospels seems also to be consistent with that view of God (what DID Jesus actually reveal to us?), so one could say that the first Christian disciples generally saw God as One (not as three or any other number of persons). If one follows that thought, it not only makes the relationship between God the Father and Jesus the Son easier to fathom, but it could also make our own relationship with God much clearer (and perhaps more in line with what Jesus taught). It would seem to require less patchwork theologizing (?) and doctrine writing in order to explain it.

But as far as I am concerned you could throw all that out, for my most fundamental question is: **What is most important to following Jesus and what is essential in living a life acceptable to God? ** When I ask myself those questions, the “correct” understanding of a mystery like the Trinity seems very trivial and unnecessary in helping me find the answers.

I just can’t imagine that God will judge us on our understanding of a doctrine like the Trinity. Do YOU, really?

 

[Ralph4454]

:banghead::banghead::banghead:

 

[AmbroseSJ]

chaunceygardner:

I have great respect for Newman, but in this statement he is eliminating about 75-80% of the world who is neither Catholic nor atheist. So apparently there are more than TWO possbilities.

Glad to hear it! However, there is an almost infinite array of possibilities in between Atheism and Catholicity, wouldn’t you agree? Newman was defining polar opposites, and saying that to a consistent and logical mind a person will be drawn in one direction or the other. See?

My point continues to be that the Church has, in an attempt to explain the unexplainable, developed a doctrine that seems torturously convoluted and murky, and at times obviously contradictory. I guess a lot has to do with how you define certain terms, as I said early in this thread.

Well, I think the problem is understanding those certain terms. When properly understood, the doctrine of the Trinity is very Biblical. When not properly understood, the doctrine may appear contradictory etc. but it in fact is simple and understandable. I’m not suggesting that we can understand HOW this can be, but rather how we can understand it in human terms. The Jews for instance think Christians worship 3 gods, and have forsaken monotheism. But they don’t understand how we define the ONE GOD, based on the revelations of Jesus Christ Himself.

what DID Jesus actually reveal to us?

“He who hears you hears me.” Jesus left us His Church to preserve all that he taught the Apostles, and to continue to teach humanity. “I am with you all days, even unto the end.”

I just can’t imagine that God will judge us on our understanding of a doctrine like the Trinity. Do YOU, really?

It’s not that we understand HOW the Trinity can be, but to accept in Faith that the Trinity IS, as was revealed to us. Honestly, many Catholics are unable to explain the Trinity in the proper Theological language of the Church. That doesn’t make them bad Catholics. What they DO know is that there are Three Persons in the ONE God. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Son is Jesus Christ. That is simple enough for a child to understand. But we tell the child that it is a mystery of the nature of God, HOW this can be, because we are just human. The child doesn’t ask all sorts of ontological questions about the nature of God, he just accepts it. As adults however, we do ask. That is why the Church has defined the mystery in human terms, so that we understand the Trinity correctly and without error. The definition does not explain HOW this is possible, just HOW we are to understand the mystery, to be in harmony with the teachings of the Apostles.

 

[humblelurker]

It is not just the Church Alone who is stating what has been developed in doctrine, but God through the infallibility of the Church. Catholic Doctrine doesn’t develop without God, but with God’s guidance.

 

[chaunceygardner]

:banghead::banghead::banghead:

Cute, but it doesn’t add a lot to the discussion.

 

[chaunceygardner]

You are saying that unless you understand it with your finite mind then it can’t be true, but you can only understand finite things with your finite mind. If God reveals Himself as being beyond human comprehension and someone comes along and says they don’t believe it because they can’t comprehend it then is God not to be believed? Should we believe a finite ideology over a Divinely Revealed Infinite Truth?

Is it really a “divinely revealed truth” or just our own confused attempt at understanding it?

If we willingly and knowingly turn our backs on a Divinely Revealed Infinite Truth can we still be counted among the saved? Would we not be denying God?

To answer the last question first, I don’t think so. And it is not “turning our backs”, it is looking at it in a different way. If Jesus tells us anything, it is that we should start looking at our relationship with God in a different way than was done in the past (New Covenant?).

For the first question, I find it difficult to believe that whether we will be among the saved will be determined by whether we accept a group’s definition of a particular doctrine. That is not consistent with the teaching of Jesus about what is most important.

You asked which is it? It is all of the above. Just because you don’t understand it does not mean that it is not true. The fact that you can’t understand it leads me to believe, as a Catholic, that the Church’s Doctrine on the Trinity is true. I don’t limit God with my mind, but understand my limits before God. This basic understanding involving mysteries would not be unknown to ancient tribal people who would not be unaccustomed to mysteries. Only in our time do I see mass amounts of people demanding that everything be understandable to their finite minds or they will not believe it.

Interesting (underlined) point. Unfortunately, we also have mass amounts of people refusing to believe the evidence all around them (evolution, age of the earth). Perhaps the problem of people demanding proof is due to being misled in the past from relying on dogma rather than fact and conscience. Lessons learned.

As a Catholic I believe Christ established The Catholic Church, and she has the final say on interpretation. The Catholic Church’s Doctrine on the Trinity predates your birth, and will be here long after you are gone. For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not believe, no explanation is possible especially when dealing with an infinite truth and the limited finite human mind.

The “limited finite human mind” seems to be a theme here. But that “limited finite human mind” is what came up with the doctrine in question! Not God. As AmbroseSJ says, Jews think Christians worship 3 gods. I can understand why they would think that way. And anyone who read the OT and just the Gospels would have a difficult time reconciling what they read with the way the Trinity is defined by the Church.

So, let’s ask this question. What if my creed was this: “I believe in One God, Creator of Heaven and Earth, and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, and in the Holy Spirit.” Would that be acceptable, or would that deny the doctrine of the Trinity?

 

[humblelurker]

Perhaps the problem of people demanding proof is due to being misled in the past from relying on dogma rather than fact and conscience.
But that “limited finite human mind” is what came up with the doctrine in question! Not God.

This clearly shows that you are not listening to me. You hear me, but you are not listening to me. Talking to someone who will not listen is a dead end.

I will pray for you.

 

[jlhargus]

Mark

 

[chaunceygardner]

This clearly shows that you are not listening to me. You hear me, but you are not listening to me. Talking to someone who will not listen is a dead end.

(Like a lot of marriages I know.) But I am sorry you feel that way, because I really did consider what you were saying and tried to respond accordingly.

I will pray for you.

Thank you very much; I certainly need all the help I can get.

I am afraid we have, over the centuries, replaced the mostly simple and clear teachings of Jesus with doctrine and dogma, which have tended to obscure the Gospel message. We acknowledge it from time to time, but then load it down with rules and regulations that diametrically change what being a Christian is supposed to mean. Here, in His words from Mark 12, is what I think it is all about (emphasis mine):

The scribe said to him, “Well said, teacher. You are right in saying, ‘He is One and there is no other than he.’ And ‘to love him with all your heart, with all your understanding, with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself’ is worth more than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.”

And when Jesus saw that (he) answered with understanding, he said to him, “**You are not far from the kingdom of God.” **

Amen

 

[jlhargus]

First, I do readily believe in many things that I (and others) can’t easily explain or understand. I am not looking for an explanation, but trying to understand why the Church insists on a particular explanation for something that is admittedly impossible to define; and by extention why thinking of the Trinity in other ways is so wrong.

JL: The Church was forced formulate and insist on a correct understanding of the Trinity as revealed by Christ because of wrong teachings such as Christ is not God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are the same PERSON just ACTING under different modes, etc…

My point continues to be that the Church has, in an attempt to explain the unexplainable, developed a doctrine that seems torturously convoluted and murky, and at times obviously contradictory. I guess a lot has to do with how you define certain terms, as I said early in this thread.

JL: How is what the Church and the overwhelming majority of Protestants teach on the Trinity contradictory? Just because the Trinity cannot be FULLY understood does not mean we cannot understand clearly what HAS been revealed by Christ.

Again I ask, WHY? If you accept that God the Father, Jesus the Son and the Holy Spirit are all real, why is it necessary to “understand” the relationship between the three in a “certain” way (which as other posters have shown from their quotes of Church fathers and the Catechism, is as clear and understandable to most of us as sub-atomic particle physics)?

JL: Isn’t it important to be correct on ALL Christ revealed? If it isn’t important then why are you objecting to what the Catholic and overwhelming Protestant majority believe? If you say we cannot know then why do you have a contrary teaching? By the way as a former non-denom Protestant I know of only Oneness Pentecostals who hold your view of the Trinity are you one of them?

One person may understand the Trinity as three persons in One God, while another may see the three as being different aspects or manifestations of The One God.

JL: That’s called modalism, which oneness groups hold. It contradicts [Jn1:1 **In the beginning was the Word, and **the Word was WITH God, **and the Word WAS God.]

Doesn’t there have to be another PERSON who IS God for the Word to be with? We know there is only ONE GOD and there is NONE beside him. Yet we see in Jn1:1 the Word who IS God is WITH God. How could God be WITH God if not more than ONE PERSON in the BEING or NATURE of God?

When one reads the Hebrew Bible, it appears that the latter view is more consistent with the Jewish understanding prior to Christ. And much of the Gospels seems also to be consistent with that view of God (what DID Jesus actually reveal to us?), so one could say that the first Christian disciples generally saw God as One (not as three or any other number of persons). If one follows that thought, it not only makes the relationship between God the Father and Jesus the Son easier to fathom, but it could also make our own relationship with God much clearer (and perhaps more in line with what Jesus taught). It would seem to require less patchwork theologizing (?) and doctrine writing in order to explain it.

JL: Not only the first Christians but we still do see God as ONE, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, ONE indivisable God. Three Persons in ONE GOD is in total agreement with the OT. It is only an improper understanding of Christ’s revelation that is in disagreement and contradictory.

The last part of you paragraph in regard to understanding the NATURE of God you state, “If one follows that thought, it not only makes the relationship between God the Father and Jesus the Son easier to fathom, but it could also make our own relationship with God much clearer (and perhaps more in line with what Jesus taught)”]

You have answered the question as to what makes the difference how we see God’s BEING.

But as far as I am concerned you could throw all that out, for my most fundamental question is: **What is most important to following Jesus and what is essential in living a life acceptable to God? ** When I ask myself those questions, the “correct” understanding of a mystery like the Trinity seems very trivial and unnecessary in helping me find the answers.

I just can’t imagine that God will judge us on our understanding of a doctrine like the Trinity. Do YOU, really?

JL: Will you throw out your view? One God ACTING as three persons IS not a Trinity. Trinity is three distint Persons in the ONE BEING of GOD.

 

[kepha1]

IMO, this is the best explanation of the Trinity I have encountered so far:

"…The human family is the closest analogy that mankind will ever come to concretely understanding the Blessed Trinity.

The creeds teach that while there is one God, He exists in three distinct persons. The bible, on the other hand, reveals that man is made in the ‘image of God’. From these two truths, therefore, we can acknowledge that the complete image of God is found in the Triune understanding of Him. This understanding of His Triune nature is reflected by the human family whose personal relationships approach the likeness of the Trinity. There are multiple demonstrations of this truth.

Consider the unity of the Trinity which is reflected in the unity of the family. Or the “family of persons” which is found in both. The persons of the Trinity share the 'same substance ’ while a human family becomes one flesh: wife with husband and parents with children.

There is also another element in the Trinity that lends itself to human likeness. The Nicene Creed professes this about the Trinity: “We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life who proceeds from the Father and the Son.”

In Catholic theology, the Holy Spirit is said to proceed from the will of both the Father and the Son, or in other words, through the activity which they engage in, otherwise known as “love”.

The Holy Spirit is poured forth through the exchange of love between the Father and the Son. This is why perhaps Jesus says to the Apostles: " Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you." (John 16:7)

In the eternal economy of the Trinity, therefore, a person ‘proceeds’ from the love between two other persons. And so, the Holy Spirit is love ‘proceeding’ or ‘coming from’ the first two persons of the Blessed Trinity.

The human family has a rather striking parallel to this dynamic. The ultimate act of intimacy in a marriage mirrors the eternal exchange of love between the first two persons of the Trinity.

And like the eternal or continual procession of the Holy Spirit in the Trinity, the act of love between a man and a woman causes a ‘procession’ of another human person (i.e. the birth of a child). Thus, it is precisely because the homosexual sex act is not ordered to the procession of another person, that it can never be a Trinitarian reflection of the divine essence.

Indeed, the sexual act itself, which is supposed to be a reflection of the Trinitarian relationship, becomes, through the homosexual act, a blasphemy against God since it ends up distorting the Trinitarian image of Him.

The human sexual act either affirms God’s image or it distorts it. This is why all forms of contraceptive sex, including the homosexual act, are serious sins: they seek to create God in another image. It is anti-Trinitarian.

http://catholic-legate.com/articles/antitrinity.html

 

[AmbroseSJ]

So, let’s ask this question. What if my creed was this: “I believe in One God, Creator of Heaven and Earth, and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, and in the Holy Spirit.” Would that be acceptable, or would that deny the doctrine of the Trinity?

That statement could certainly be understood in a Trinitarian light, but at the same time it is so ambiguous, that it could be said by someone that totally denies the Trinity.

It would really amount to an evasion just to avoid censure, therefore making it cowardly.

If you are really interested in living and believing according to the Christian Gospel, you should make an effort to understand better the Church’s teaching on the Trinity. It is not difficult to find this information, and there was already good information in this thread. There is nothing wrong with inquiring into the matter. You should satisfy your conscience that belief in the Trinity is not just some convoluted Church doctrine, but rather an important revelation from God Almighty. You should pray to God, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, to grant you His light in your search.

 

[chaunceygardner]

That statement could certainly be understood in a Trinitarian light, but at the same time it is so ambiguous, that it could be said by someone that totally denies the Trinity.

It would really amount to an evasion just to avoid censure, therefore making it cowardly.

If you are really interested in living and believing according to the Christian Gospel, you should make an effort to understand better the Church’s teaching on the Trinity. It is not difficult to find this information, and there was already good information in this thread. There is nothing wrong with inquiring into the matter. You should satisfy your conscience that belief in the Trinity is not just some convoluted Church doctrine, but rather an important revelation from God Almighty. You should pray to God, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, to grant you His light in your search.

First, I really do appreciate the way in which you state your points and conduct a dialogue. And also for taking seriously and responding to the questions I asked.

The “Creed” I provided is a truncated version of the Apostles’ Creed, actually taken from the first, second and eighth lines of that Creed (Please do not think I was trying to trap you or bait you by quoting those parts of the Creed). And your point is well taken: That those statements could be the foundation for the “accepted” understanding of the Trinity and could just as well be used by someone with a different understanding of the Trinity, or even by someone who “denies” that concept (Although I would suspect that someone who currently does not accept the concept of the Trinity would not agree with the second part).

As you and most people know, what you state above about the creed I asked you to consider WAS the “problem” with the Apostles’ Creed, the first one known to be used in the early centuries of the Church. Different Christian groups could accept and proclaim that statement but hold differing views and understandings of the Triune God. It took a couple of Councils and a lot of effort to get to the Nicene Creed that is used today, with its much more exact definition of the Trinity.

I suspect, however, that the great majority of Christians at that time had no idea about what was correct or incorrect, and probably didn’t think it was important. It was an issue that seemed to mostly concern the theologians and those who for some reason thought it was truly critical that everyone have a uniform understanding of the Trinity. I sincerely doubt that early Christians thought much about it, and it likely did not affect their ability or desire to be good Christians. And I have a very difficult time seeing where and when Jesus made a “correct” understanding of that concept a crucial part of what it takes to be His follower on the way to God.