Why do Protestants accept the Trinity?

[catholic1seeks]

Also, my questions are not to criticize the faith of non-Catholic Christians.

Rather, I’m trying to get at the issue of authority: how are we supposed to find out what the Christian Faith even is?

The Trinity is the central Christian doctrine, and yet that teaching was not developed for a few centuries — just as the New Testament canon was being finalized.

Can we really be honest and claim the Scriptures as our authority?

Do Protestants accept the Trinity because it is so clear from the Bible, or are they accepting — consciously or not — the binding authority of the Catholic councils and its bishops?

Seems to be the latter.

 

[ltwin]

No honest person will claim that the doctrine of the Trinity is clear from Scripture.

I’m sure there are lots of people who would disagree with you. It’s clear to me. Of course, I have the benefit of having had it all spelled out by theologians, but still, its clear to me.

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.

That’s mainly because the development of Trinitarian and Christological theology was reactive. The church was reacting to weird and shady things Christians were saying about God and Christ by saying no you guys are wrong and this is correct teaching.

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.”

Yes, if it were not for heresies there would have been no reason to create complex theological definitions. We could have just stuck to the Apostles Creed.

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?

Because they can be backed up by Scripture. As the Church of England put it in its 39 Articles of Religion:

VIII. OF THE THREE CREEDS

THE Three Creeds, Nicene Creed, Athanasius’s Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles’ Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed: for they may be proved by most certain warrants of holy Scripture.

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

Well, you should seek to be conformed to scriptural truth, not the other way around.

Or is there something about these early councils that makes the Church authortiative and its decisions binding?

What makes them binding is that they can be proved from Scripture. They line up with the sum of Scriptural teaching and therefore, Bible believing Christians must conform to those conclusions.

 

[JoyToTheWhirled]

James White’s book The Forgotten Trinity is very good. It’s clearly explained and convincing. I recommend it for apologetic purposes most definitely.

Its existence as a finished, fleshed out explanation of the biblical foundations of the Trinity is entirely owed to the centuries of the Holy Spirit’s revelation to the Church, and the authority given to the Church in the first place, though, which is a rather large grey zoo animal in the room.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Hmmm interesting.

So when you say the Trinity is “clear” from Scripture, what do you mean?

What do you mean by the doctrine of the Trinity?

As in, how developed of an expression in terms and language. Do you think the Bible says that the Son eternally proceeds from the Father, for example, whereas the Holy Spirit spirates eternally from the Father through the Son?

 

[catholic1seeks]

James White is anti-Catholic.

I tend not to trust his writings.

 

[catholic1seeks]

What makes them binding is that they can be proved from Scripture. They line up with the sum of Scriptural teaching and therefore, Bible believing Christians must conform to those conclusions.

Well yes, that is the Protestant position.

But it’s just an assertion at this point.

Most Christians historically and alive today (Catholics and Orthodox) would not buy that theory.

After all, the Church and its authority preceded the Bible, which depends upon it.

 

[Pathway2]

It may have been originally this idea that the church had gone of the rails. The original idea that they were trying to reform the church, not destroy it, thus being called Protestants (This is what i believe) they would keep the trinity as that wasn’t the main problem in comparison to say Indulgences and the authority of the pope.

 

[JoyToTheWhirled]

I don’t disagree that he is anti-Catholic. But it’s still a good and useful book within the parameters of discussing the biblical foundations of the Trinity doctrine. I just mention it because I agreed with the pp that it’s a good book, it’s just a case of cart before horse to believe that coming to the conclusions he does is possible without the authority of the Catholic church to begin with.

 

[catholic1seeks]

I think that the Trinity can be found in Scripture.

The Trinity is not anti-biblical.

But in no way do I think one can easily arrive at a doctrine of the Trinity from Scripture alone.

Most people, willing to accept it or not, are simply relying on the Tradition of the Catholic/Orthodox Church.

And it is the church’s authority that they are depending on, perhaps casually accepting.

 

[AugustTherese]

What makes them binding is that they can be proved from Scripture. They line up with the sum of Scriptural teaching and therefore, Bible believing Christians must conform to those conclusions.

What did Christians do before the Bible was compiled?

 

[Vico]

…

Calvin believed that the distinctive roles of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are taught in Scripture.

 

[MichaelP3]

The last part reminds me of a poster who frequented this board on the previous CAF.

Your OP question leads me to wonder if you are aware that many non-Catholics also accept and profess the Nicene Creed?

I rather wonder when these kinds of questions are raised, that if people realise there are actually not that much disagreement with the early Church. You hardly (I have never) seen a debate/whatever where early Church is the topic. That is not the problem.

I saw you asked some questions on James White and I am inclined to believe that you have never seen any of his talks/debates. Have a look. He is also “deep into history” and very much use this. He is a Theological Academic Scholar (Maybe depending who you talk to) The Forgotten Trinity is a great book and it is not at all wishy washy. If you wonder, take a look at it.

Regards

 

[ltwin]

Hmmm interesting.

So when you say the Trinity is “clear” from Scripture, what do you mean?

I mean that Scripture can address things that are not explicitly written in it. As Gregory of Nazianzus wrote in hisTheological Orations 31.24:

XXIV. Since, then, there is so much difference in terms and things, why are you such a slave to the letter, and a partisan of the Jewish wisdom, and a follower of syllables at the expense of facts? But if, when you said twice five or twice seven, I concluded from your words that you meant Ten or Fourteen; or if, when you spoke of a rational and mortal animal, that you meant Man, should you think me to be talking nonsense? Surely not, because I should be merely repeating your own meaning; for words do not belong more to the speaker of them than to him who called them forth. As, then, in this case, I should have been looking, not so much at the terms used, as at the thoughts they were meant to convey; so neither, if I found something else either not at all or not clearly expressed in the Words of Scripture to be included in the meaning, should I avoid giving it utterance, out of fear of your sophistical trick about terms.

What do you mean by the doctrine of the Trinity?

That there is one God who exists in 3 divine, coeternal, consubstantial persons, namely the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

As in, how developed of an expression in terms and language.

The Bible says:

“Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”—Matthew 28:19

We can deduce the rest of the theology out of other parts of Scripture in which the natures and missions of the Father, Son and Spirit are distinguished. For example, John 6:37-38 gives us a glimpse into the dynamics of the relationship between the Father and the Son:

All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.

Do you think the Bible says that the Son eternally proceeds from the Father, for example, whereas the Holy Spirit spirates eternally from the Father through the Son?

We have many Scriptures that say Christ is the only son of God (John 1:14). We also have proof that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son:

"But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me" (John 15:26)

 

[ltwin]

What did Christians do before the Bible was compiled?

They heard or read the teachings of the Apostles and the witness of other Christians.

 

[Sean77]

We accept the ecumenical creeds because it is scripturally sound. Just because people were scandalized variously by the fact that Christ was both God and Man doesn’t mean it was somehow unclear or unscriptural. Its no different than people who deny other doctrines that are clearly laid out in scripture such as that Marriage is between a man and a woman, etc. Man is sinful and there is no text, no matter how clear, that man cannot twist if he decides to hold himself over and above the word of God.

 

[Dlee]

I know of at least one protestant faith that does not accept the trinity.

 

[End_Timer]

If you accept Christs Divinity, that makes you a Trinitarian.
Else you’re likely to be a JW
An expression dear to me is “God, the First Family”

Seen the last great vision of Fatima ?

 

[JonNC]

No honest person will claim that the doctrine of the Trinity is clear from Scripture.

Why? Jesus’ Baptism includes all three persons of the Triune God.

It took the early church centuries to flesh out the doctrine of Christ and his relationship to the Father.

Why would you think “Protestants “ ( you’re not specific about who you’re talking about) would or should reject it, or any other parts of the seven ecumenical councils?

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?

Maybe because they are right.

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

Non sequitur. Lutherans, for example, are a doctrinal church. Others accept the Trinity as an article of faith.

Or is there something about these early councils that makes the Church authortiative and its decisions binding?

It depends on the communion, which is why any statement about doctrine or practice using Protestant is folly.

 

[anon10271182]

Well, MacArthur, Piper, Stanley, et.al. still uphold the Trinity, so it must be true.

 

[lilypadrees]

Yes, there are people who reject them.