Denying that God is triune puts you outside orthodox Christian teaching?

The Bible never calls God the “Trinity” either. Do you object to me using that name as well? It’s just the words of men, not Scripture.


If you want to adopt the fourth century expansion of what is actually revealed in scripture, that is up to you. But the “God in three persons” is not found in scripture, and I don’t think it is appropriate for us to extrapolate to that.

It is clear from scripture that Jesus is God.

Yes, but I think you are really overestimating the confusion this causes. When the Bible talks about baptism in the Gospels, it means a ritual Jewish cleansing ceremony of repentance, not what it means to us today, an outward symbol of the inner reality of being united with Christ in death and raised to new life in him. Somehow we manage to use the word baptism to mean what it means in our Christian churches and baptism to mean what John was doing for Jews in the Jordan, and we figure things out just fine. Words have a semantic range. Our brains can handle this.

OK. But then you’re kind of a heretic, because you don’t affirm any of the Christian creeds. So your call for my repentance is not really that meaningful to me. :slight_smile:


I agree completely with the Apostles’ Creed. Do you? What else is essential?

You said the Trinity was an inappropriate “extrapolation” that wasn’t in the Bible. The Apostle’s Creed is Trinitarian.


You apparently are not familiar with the Apostles’ Creed. It makes no comment on the Trinity.

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit
and born of the virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again.
He ascended into heaven,
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of the saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.

It is Trinitarian even though it doesn’t use the word. I think refusing to affirm Trinitarian theology is outside orthodoxy.


No, the Apostles’ Creed does not present the doctrine of the Trinity.

Perhaps you have a non-standard definition of the Trinity.

Perhaps you have a non-standard understanding of Church history and doctrine?

Read the Wikipedia entry you just cited:

Although there is much debate as to whether the beliefs of the Apostles were merely articulated and explained in the Trinitarian Creeds, or were corrupted and replaced with new beliefs,[24] all scholars recognize that the Creeds themselves were created in reaction to disagreements over the nature of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These controversies took some centuries to be resolved.

And if Wikipedia is the theological standard, look up Apostles’ Creed.

The Apostles’ Creed is trinitarian in structure with sections affirming belief in God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. The Apostles’ Creed was based on Christian theological understanding of the canonical gospels, the letters of the New Testament and to a lesser extent the Old Testament.


The Apostles’ Creed does not contradict the doctrine of the Trinity, and it does not go as far as supporting the orthodox presentation of the doctrine of the Trinity.

Of course Trinitarians editing Wikipedia want to claim the Apostles’ Creed, but they had the fairness to say it is “Trinitarian in structure,” not that it presents the doctrine of the Trinity. You, on the other hand, simply called it “Trinitarian,” which was an overstatement.

There is no claim of “God in 3 persons” in it. There is no consubstantial or hypostates in it.

You have an abbreviated, unorthodox definition of the doctrine of the Trinity.

The doctrine of the Trinity came centuries after the church began and people accepting the Apostles Creed and not accepting the doctrine of the Trinity were excommunicated from the Roman Church. Nestorius is an example, but do question any Roman propaganda against him.

You have no idea what I believe about the Trinity and could not possibly evaluate it based on what I have said on this thread.

Nestorians were admirable missionaries. They were also outside orthodoxy. And so are you if you don’t believe in a triune God.


Respectfully, that’s highly debatable. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (ODCC) notes that the phrase ‘apostles creed’ first appears in the writings of Ambrose in 390AD. There is also very little evidence to suggest that the creed was written by the apostles and their are no references to it outside of the Latin Fathers. Rather the ODCC points out that the version of the Apostles Creed used today first appeared in the writings of Pirminius in the 8th Century as an expansion of the Old Roman Creed from 3rd Century. The Roman Creed itself is likely an expansion of the early church baptism questions based on Matthew 28:19.

Meanwhile the doctrine of the Trinity was outlined in its most basic form at the council of Nicaea (325) and then later at the council of Constantinople (381).

1 Like

I know you declared the Apostles’ Creed “Trinitarian.”

That is excellent evidence that you are either confused about the doctrine of the Trinity or that you an an unorthodox definition of it.

Its history is not so important. The first instance in extant church writings does not specify the origin.

The fact that it is not “Trinitarian.” It neither contradicts the doctrine of the Trinity, nor does it present the Doctrine of the Trinity.

Why not comment on the real topic. Can a person believe the Apostles’ Creed and doubt or not support the details of the Doctrine of the Trinity?

It is. Because Trinitarian theology has been part of the Church since extremely early on. Did I ever claim it elucidates the entire Christian doctrine of the Trinity? No, I did not. You decided that me saying the Creeds were Trinitarian implied somehow that I thought the Apostle’s Creed explained everything Christians have traditionally believed about the Trinity and therefore you knew my entire understanding of was “abbreviated and unorthodox.” It is off-putting when you tell other people what they believe based on your own questionable leaps of logic.

That is excellent evidence that you are either confused about the doctrine of the Trinity or that you an an unorthodox definition of it.

This statement is excellent evidence that your reasoning process, here and elsewhere on this thread, is suspect.

1 Like

I think it is more accurate to say that the Nestorians are a subset of the church that disagree with the Roman Church on the nature of God.

There are some in the church, including me, that think it is exceedingly arrogant of people to believe that they can define God. That is what the Doctrine of the Trinity attempts to do. It might be right. It might not.

The most certain thing in my mind is that we should be willing to admit we people aren’t brilliant enough to full understand Almighty God and should certainly should not ostracize those who are unwilling to accept our attempts to define Him past what scripture has revealed.

Christy, We disagree in your claim the Apostles’ Creed is Trinitarian. I have given you reasons.

And we disagree on the timing of origin of the doctrine of the Trinity. But you made that assertion without evidence, so no rebuttal is needed.

Okay. I think it is extremely arrogant of people to think their understanding is above the counsel of the Church throughout history and their personal opinion trumps the collective wisdom of saints.

And you are outside orthodoxy, which has been my only point. I am not interested in getting you to change your perspective, just be honest about what it is.

Liam pointed you to scholarship on the dating and origin of the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed which reflects what I learned in church history and systematic theology classes. You did not respond to that, so you are actually the one disagreeing without evidence.

You don’t seem to understand that only part of the church accepted the doctrine of the Trinity.

Your view is very Roman-centric.

Actually, if you read his post again you will see that he did not provide a date for the Apostles’ Creed, as no one knows. He only mentioned the first extant reference.