What essential parts of Christianity are not found in Scripture?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BouleTheou
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
KarenL -
In your opinion, can one come to know the love of Jesus Christ, develop a personal relationship with Him, and be saved–all without a bible?
Click to expand...
Yes. But not apart from hearing the message contained therein.

BouleTheou
 
40.png
BouleTheou:
sabrina -

That would necessitate literally dozens and dozens of posts. The testimony spans the entirety of Scripture. Surely you are not suggesting that the blessed truth that there is one true God in three divine persons is not a Biblical doctrine are you?

BouleTheou
Click to expand...
BouleTheou:

That is exactly what I am suggesting. I contend specifically that the Trinity is not found explicitly in the Scriptures. The doctrine was passed down orally through the last 2,000 years, starting with the apostles, and now from me to you and from you to whoever.

Please lay your dozens of scriptures on us. You could even start with one or two, and we can go from there.

Go, Brother Phil! You are right that Boule Theou must offer us something more than the names of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. That’s like saying, “Tom, Dick, & Harry”. That proves their existence, but it does not prove equality, one substance, three distinct persons in one God.
 
boule (Patrick) << And Phil, you never did answer my question over at Envoy. Why didn’t you call in to the Dividing Line that one time? >>

I remember the day vividly, sometime in February 2002, myself and Apolonio get a whole James White program dedicated to us. I was not listening live to the show, discovered the Real Audio recording later in the day. I probably won’t call in since I’m not fast enough thinking on my feet. I’ve known White since 1991, so yeah I’ve heard his stuff and the development of his arguments over the years. :o

<< And why would you be willing to debate James White’s books with anyone except James White himself? >>

Because I don’t feel competent with White. JasonTE is more my league, since as amateur apologists we both play fast and loose with Scripture and the Fathers. 😛

Now show me that full Trinity in the Bible, one or two explicit verses would be fine. 😃

Phil P
 
Phil -

First, you ignored most of my post. I’d like to hear your answers to my questions.
(1) Do you believe the Trinity in its full Nicaean-Constantopolitan-Athanasian expression is an “essential doctrine of the Christian faith” ?
Click to expand...
Yes.
(2) If not, how can you consider yourself an orthodox Christian?
Click to expand...
Well, I do so…
(3) If so, can you please show me the one or two biblical verses that clearly and explicitly teach this full doctrine of the Trinity – something about “one in substance/nature/essence but three in Person” would be acceptable, not the bare mention of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, or the bare mention that each is somehow “God” since the Arians affirmed that as well.
Click to expand...
No because it’s not based upon one or two verses [chuckle]. I could do it based on about 1,000 verses if you’d like. We are forced to believe in the Trinity by the testimony of Scripture, Phil. You can’t say that about any of Rome’s distinctive doctrines like the papacy, papal infallibility.
BTW, purgatory, indulgences, and the Marian doctrines have been given various biblical, historical and theological Catholic defenses. You find them wanting. Fine.
Click to expand...
I find them akin to what the last pair of LDS missionaries said about Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon being prophesied in Isaiah and Ezekiel.
Many Arians find the clear and explicit biblical evidence for the Trinity from the Scriptures alone wanting.
Click to expand...
Many Catholics find the clear and explicit biblical evidence for the doctrine of justification sola fide wanting. What does this prove? That spiritual blindness is real…
Stay with the Trinity and answer the questions.
Click to expand...
I just did.
😃 And please acknowledge the development of the doctrine as your evangelical mentors do. 👍
Click to expand...
I did just that in my previous post and discussed development - you simply chose to ignore it, so I’ll reproduce it here. I said above:

The question has never been, “Does the church develop in its understanding of the Christian faith?” The real question is: “What are the parameters that guide that development?” I say that parameter is Scripture alone. If you deny that, then show us your other source of God-breathed revelation that is distinct from and different from Scripture.

What do you have to say to this, Phil?

Let’s stick to the subject of this thread please: What essential parts of Christianity are not found in Scripture? You do realize you’re on thin ice by saying, “the Trinity.” Would the Nicene and post Nicene fathers agree with you that the Trinity is not taught in Scripture?

Boule
 
40.png
BouleTheou:
Phil -

Let’s stick to the subject of this thread please: What essential parts of Christianity are not found in Scripture? You do realize you’re on thin ice by saying, “the Trinity.” Would the Nicene and post Nicene fathers agree with you that the Trinity is not taught in Scripture?

Boule
Click to expand...
Let’s not worry about what the Nicene fathers would think of Phil and myself. Moreover, I would love to hear how we are on thin ice. You say there are 1,000 Scriptures, so please just show us a few, as per our many, many requests. Are you going to do this, or not??
 
sabrina -

you asked for it:

The Father is not begotten, but the Son is (John 3:16). The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (John 5:26). The Father sent the Son (1 John 4:10). The Son and the Father send the Holy Spirit (John 14:26; 15:26). The Father creates (Isaiah 44:24), the Son redeems (Gal. 3:13), and the Holy Spirit sanctifies (Rom. 15:16).

The following verses are often used to demonstrate that in the doctrine of the Trinity is indeed biblical. Matt. 28:18, 1 Cor. 12:4-6, 2 Cor. 13:14, Eph. 4:4-7, 1 Pet. 1:2, Jude 20-21

more coming…
 
boule (Patrick) << I could do it based on about 1,000 verses if you’d like. We are forced to believe in the Trinity by the testimony of Scripture, Phil. >>

Makes no sense. The Arians were not forced by their rational scriptural interpretations which interpreted Scripture otherwise. No one is “forced” to believe something.

Okay, give me a thousand verses that teach that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one in substance/essence/nature, but three in Person. A little hard to do I’ll admit since the terms substance, essence, nature, and Person are later developments. I am looking for the essential 4th-century expression of the doctrine of the Trinity, which you admit is essential, clearly and explicitly in the Bible. Show us where its there, or admit its a development by the Catholic Church.

This is getting a little ridiculous bringing up thousands of subject. Your statements on development (taken verbatim from James White) make no sense, there is theological and dogmatic development as well. Protestants and Catholics admit that (see above quotes from Beisner and Svendsen on the Trinity). What you mean by “parameters of development” I’m not sure. Those “parameters” are not mentioned in the Bible itself.

boule (Patrick) << Would the Nicene and post Nicene fathers agree with you that the Trinity is not taught in Scripture? >>

They agree its there in Scripture in seminal, implicit form, as I do and most Catholics would. They would also agree we get the full orthodox and essential Christian expression of the doctrine from the decisions of the Bishops and Councils of the 4th century Catholic Church, made after many centuries of theological development and reflection. I’m just trying to get you to admit that, as Beisner and Svendsen do.

Phil P
 
boule (Patrick) << (John 3:16) (John 5:26) (1 John 4:10) (John 14:26; 15:26) (Isaiah 44:24) (Gal. 3:13) (Rom 15:16) The following verses are often used to demonstrate that in the doctrine of the Trinity is indeed biblical. Matt. 28:18, 1 Cor. 12:4-6, 2 Cor. 13:14, Eph. 4:4-7, 1 Pet. 1:2, Jude 20-21 >>

We are looking for “one in substance / nature / or essence and three in Person” but keep going. Here I’ll help you

But even my own article is not good enough, or rather not explicit enough for the full orthodox essential Christian 4th century expression of the doctrine of the Trinity. 😃

Phil P
 
Phil -
boule (Patrick) << I could do it based on about 1,000 verses if you’d like. We are forced to believe in the Trinity by the testimony of Scripture, Phil. >>

Makes no sense. The Arians were not forced by their rational scriptural interpretations which interpreted Scripture otherwise. No one is “forced” to believe something.
Click to expand...
You’ve misunderstood what I mean by “forced.” We have to believe in the Trinity because it is taught in Scripture, i.e. we are “forced” to that conclusion by surveying the entire panorama of Biblical data in the construction of our doctrine of God. The Arians misinterpreted Scripture and were often more concerned with philosophical concerns than Biblical ones. Arius didn’t wrestle with passages of Scripture the way Athanasius did…

Phil, what would you say to someone who is a Traditionalist and a sedevacantist who believes the Novus Ordo was a departure from the true Catholic faith? And he believes this on the basis of reading the exact same Roman Catholic documents you yourself have read and have interpreted differently? What say you to that person?
Okay, give me a thousand verses that teach that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one in substance/essence/nature, but three in Person. A little hard to do I’ll admit since the terms substance, essence, nature, and Person are later developments. I am looking for the essential 4th-century expression of the doctrine of the Trinity, which you admit is essential, clearly and explicitly in the Bible. Show us where its there, or admit its a development by the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
just did… gave you but a small sampling.
This is getting a little ridiculous bringing up thousands of subject. Your statements on development (taken verbatim from James White) make no sense, there is theological and dogmatic development as well. Protestants and Catholics admit that (see above quotes from Beisner and Svendsen on the Trinity). What you mean by “parameters of development” I’m not sure. Those “parameters” are not mentioned in the Bible itself.
Click to expand...
What I mean by parameters is this: the sources of Christian doctrine. I say there is one: Scripture. You reject that. I say, ok then what else do you have. You say: Tradition. I then say: What does Tradition teach?
boule (Patrick) << Would the Nicene and post Nicene fathers agree with you that the Trinity is not taught in Scripture? >>

They agree its there in Scripture in seminal, implicit form, as I do and most Catholics would.
Click to expand...
That’s bogus and you know it. Anyone even slightly familiar with the patristic sources knows that Athanasius and Augustine and the Cappadocians, etc did not think the Trinity was there in “seminal” form. That’s ridiculous Phil, you’re playing to your audience here.
They would also agree we get the full orthodox and essential Christian expression of the doctrine from the decisions of the Bishops and Councils of the 4th century Catholic Church, made after many centuries of theological development and reflection. I’m just trying to get you to admit that, as Beisner and Svendsen do.
Click to expand...
Of course. The Reformation was never about blowing the whole thing up and starting over. It was a “Reformation.” No more masses, statues, papal abuses, indulgences, etc. They Reformed the church. The great men of God whom he used to hammer out the Christian doctrine of God would not recognize a mass at your local parish, Phil.

BouleTheou
 
Phil -
one in substance / nature / or essence and three in Person
Click to expand...
The word Trinity isn’t in Scripture either Phil. You are grossly equivocating on this entire issue and I think you know it. You’re getting us off on this issue so you don’t have to try to prove that indulgences and the marian dogmas are apostolic.

“one in substance / nature / or essence and three in Person” are deduced from Biblical premises, Phil. They are not extra-Biblical revelation. Can you not see this?

BouleTheou
 
Phil -

After 6 points wherein you cite many many passages of Scripture, you conclude in point 7 with:
(7) Therefore, the ONE GOD is THREE PERSONS, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit according to the Bible
Click to expand...
“According to the Bible?” Amen! 😃

Viva la Sola Scriptura!

BouleTheou
 
boule (Patrick) << What I mean by parameters is this: the sources of Christian doctrine. I say there is one: Scripture. You reject that. I say, ok then what else do you have. You say: Tradition. I then say: What does Tradition teach? >>

I don’t necessarily reject the one source of Christian doctrine is Scripture. Although there do seem to be doctrines or practices that show up in the early 2nd century that are believed to be apostolic based purely or at least mainly on oral tradition (as I mentioned in another thread): infant baptism, prayers for the dead, Mary as New Eve, the primacy and authority of Rome, and its Bishop is the successor of Peter. Whether one believes such beliefs are at least “implicit” in Scripture determines if one holds to “material sufficiency” or partim-partim. Doctrinally and practically it makes no difference to a Catholic.

Now on the subject of “Tradition,” here is what the Fathers believed Tradition was and is, and why they knew it was essential to the proper orthodox interpretation of the Catholic Christian faith.

Here is what JND Kelly says on Scripture and Tradition:

“It should be unnecessary to accumulate further evidence. Throughout the whole period Scripture and tradition ranked as complementary authorities, media different in form but coincident in content. To inquire which counted as superior or more ultimate is to pose the question in misleading and anachronistic terms. If Scripture was abundantly sufficient in principle, tradition was recognized as the surest clue to its interpretation, for in tradition the Church retained, as a legacy from the apostles which was embedded in all the organs of her institutional life, an unerring grasp of the real purport and meaning of the revelation to which Scripture and tradition alike bore witness.” (page 47-48)

“Thus in the end the Christian must, like Timothy [cf. 1 Tim 6:20] ‘guard the deposit’, i.e. the revelation enshrined in its completeness in Holy Scripture and correctly interpreted in the Church’s unerring tradition.” (page 51)

So “Tradition” in the Fathers, according to oxford scholar JND Kelly, gives us the true interpretation of the Scriptures, like how to understand all those biblical texts you have just brought up, and not to understand such texts as “the Father is greater than I” (John 14:28) as being opposed to the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity.

Phil P
 
Phil -
boule (Patrick) << What I mean by parameters is this: the sources of Christian doctrine. I say there is one: Scripture. You reject that. I say, ok then what else do you have. You say: Tradition. I then say: What does Tradition teach? >>
I don’t necessarily reject the one source of Christian doctrine is Scripture.
Click to expand...
Ok. Then what do you necessarily affirm?
Although there do seem to be doctrines or practices that show up in the early 2nd century that are believed to be apostolic based purely or at least mainly on oral tradition (as I mentioned in another thread): infant baptism, prayers for the dead, Mary as New Eve, the primacy and authority of Rome, and its Bishop is the successor of Peter. Whether one believes such beliefs are at least “implicit” in Scripture determines if one holds to “material sufficiency” or partim-partim. Doctrinally and practically it makes no difference to a Catholic.
Click to expand...
No difference, eh? Then why has Patrick Madrid treated the changing of a Traditionalist Catholic over to Madrid’s understanding of Catholicism as a conversion story in “Surprised by Truth 3” ?

I can’t believe you’d dismiss such a giant disagreement among Catholics as “doctrinally and practically” irrelevant. So Phil, what you’re in effect saying here is this: We reject Sola Scriptura becuase we have this other source of Christian truth and even though we can neither tell you what it is or what it teaches, you need it to have fullness of the truth. That is just beyond belief.
Now on the subject of “Tradition,” here is what the Fathers believed Tradition was and is, and why they knew it was essential to the proper orthodox interpretation of the Catholic Christian faith.

Here is what JND Kelly says on Scripture and Tradition:

“It should be unnecessary to accumulate further evidence. Throughout the whole period Scripture and tradition ranked as complementary authorities, media different in form but coincident in content. To inquire which counted as superior or more ultimate is to pose the question in misleading and anachronistic terms. If Scripture was abundantly sufficient in principle, tradition was recognized as the surest clue to its interpretation, for in tradition the Church retained, as a legacy from the apostles which was embedded in all the organs of her institutional life, an unerring grasp of the real purport and meaning of the revelation to which Scripture and tradition alike bore witness.” (page 47-48)
Click to expand...
Kelly is correct. It was not an additional source of revelation.
“Thus in the end the Christian must, like Timothy [cf. 1 Tim 6:20] ‘guard the deposit’, i.e. the revelation enshrined in its completeness in Holy Scripture and correctly interpreted in the Church’s unerring tradition.” (page 51)
Click to expand...
What is “The Church?” Oh, the modern Roman Catholic Church. Every time we see the word “church” in Scripture, that means our visible organization. All authoritarian groups make that giant leap and assumption Phil…
So “Tradition” in the Fathers, according to oxford scholar JND Kelly, gives us the true interpretation of the Scriptures, like how to understand all those biblical texts you have just brought up, and not to understand such texts as “the Father is greater than I” (John 14:28) as being opposed to the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity.
Click to expand...
How many passages of Scripture has your Tradition given you the proper interpretation to? 6? 8 maybe?

BouleTheou
 
40.png
BouleTheou:
Phil -

After 6 points wherein you cite many many passages of Scripture, you conclude in point 7 with:

“According to the Bible?” Amen! 😃

Viva la Sola Scriptura!

BouleTheou
Click to expand...
Of COURSE the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is in the Bible. But it is not on the surface of the text. It is embedded across the spectrum of the sacred books and reasoned to under the guidance of the Holy Spirit acting through the Church. That is the point. The doctrines you so scorn are also embedded, all have Scriptural warrant, and all are reasoned to. The doctrine of the Holy Trinity as Orthodox Christians believe it in the Athanasian Symbol, does not pop off the pages in full-blown perfection to an ordinary reader, or even to the sophisticated reader. It took 300 years for the Church to comprehend this truth in its fullness. Nor is “Trinity” the only possible doctrine of God which can be derived from Scripture – as the existence of non-Trinitarian, Bible-only believers attests.

Non solam sed etiam. Non solam sed etiam.
 
mercygate -

Where is the Bodily Assumption of the Virgin Mary “embedded” in Scripture? Where is its “Scriptural warrant”? And how is it then “reasoned to?”

How about indulgences too?

BouleTheou
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top