Why do Protestants accept the Trinity?

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

catholic1seeks

Guest
No honest person will claim that the doctrine of the Trinity is clear from Scripture. It took the early church centuries to flesh out the doctrine of Christ and his relationship to the Father. The earliest of Fathers are not always totally consistent with the later orthodox, developed dogma.

Sects and heresies threatened the unity of the church. On a few occasions, lasting schisms broke church unity on the very question of the Trinity and the doctrine of Christ. At one point, Arianism so engulfed the East that the “world groaned to find itself Arian.”

So why do Protestant accept the official, binding decisions of Catholic (and Orthodox) bishops from the early centuries? Why are these creeds and councils authoritative?

Does each Protestant himself or herself first check with the Bible, and see if the Trinity is consistent with his or her interpretation?

Or is there something about these early councils that makes the Church authortiative and its decisions binding?
 
Most protestants draw some line of ‘error’ in the early Church, and, in most cases, this line (rather conveniently) doesn’t include the trinity.
 
Last edited:
So why do Protestants follow, say, the Chalcedonian (modern Catholic and Orthodox) church and not those early Christians that went into schism prior to that church?
 
I accept it as a tradition because that’s what the guys that I admire most believe. James White has a good book called The Forgotten Trinity and it was tremendously helpful for my soul.
 
That’s a question for them and not for me haha I honestly don’t know
 
I wonder if James White realizes that the same churchmen who developed the Trinity also believed in sacraments and the real presence of the Eucharist, as well as prayer to and veneration of saints?
 
No, James White uses the Scriptures to back up his points. He gives a passionate defense of the Trinity. It’s worth a read if you haven’t read it yet. I recommend it.
 
Pretty easy to say after the fact of the Trinity. It took three hundred years plus to hammer out what the scriptures meant. If they were clear, half the church wouldn’t have been Arian at one time, for example.

The point is that the Bible isn’t set up as a faith guide or manual. It’s not a catechism. It doesn’t say anywhere that “God is one nature or essence who lives eternally as three Persons, all co-equal with the Son proceeding eternally and the Holy Spirit spiraling from the Father through the Son. And Christ is two natures, human and divine, with two wills, and is no less than God but is fully so”
 
Last edited:
An Arian cannot reach their conclusions while consistently interpreting the rest of Scripture.
 
While the word “Trinity” isn’t in the Bible, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is/are. The Baptism of Jesus for one.
 
Couldn’t you replace “Arian” with any modern day Christian group that happens to disagree with your own tradition?
 
Yes, but all of the ancient Trinitarian and Christological heresies were aware of the Scriptures as well.
 
Believing in the Trinity for reasons that are different than mine is OK with me. As long as one believes in the Trinity, that’s good with me. I don’t care why someone believes in it, I just care that they believe in it.
 
I already answered that. It’s because I’m a follower of James White and his book seemed to be consistent with the Scriptures.
 
I’ve ran into many that reject the trinity and Jesus’ divinity.
 
Why does James White have authority?

Where did James White get his doctrine of the Trinity?
 
He has authority over me because I’ve learned a lot from him. Hebrews 13:7 says “Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith”. Of course, James White is fallible, but he points to the infallible Word in order to back up his teachings concerning the Trinity.
 
Hebrews is probably talking about bishops when it says “leaders.” Clement of Rome relied on Hebrews’ terminology and also seemed to use “leaders” for “bishops” in his epistle.

So is James White a bishop ordained by a bishop, who in turn is ordained by a bishop all the way back to the original apostles?

For the early church, the only leaders with authority were those appointed by and connected with the Apostles.
 
I don’t know his lineage, but his teachings can be traced back to the apostles because they agree with each other about the Trinity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top