I think your opinion on this is as valid as the doctrine of the Trinity. It has this to recommend it: you looked at the scriptures and considered them and compared them to the doctrine.
As you say, and as I have said, that is your right to do so. But your opinion that I am wrong does not necessarily make it so. If you believe I am mistaken, then you are welcome to provide some evidence to the contrary. If the evidence holds up then, believe me, I’ll be the first in line to admit I was wrong.
Alternatively, I am happy to agree to disagree and live the conversation there. The choice is yours.
Edit - Post recanted but kept for context.
Wow, that is out of line Vance! @MeanderTall‘s opinion is no more or less valid than yours or mine or a one else’s’ on this public forum! If you don’t want others chipping in, move the discussion to private messages.
As for Jay, at leat he was intellectually honest enough to recognise that this puts them outside of orthodoxy. Personally, I wonder if any argument or evidence will convince you of any position other than your own. As for me, I’m out.
Thanks for the discussion. Until next time.
You seem to be ignoring the fact that the Church fathers who formulated the Creeds and formalized the doctrine of the Trinity had access to teaching of the apostles and a line of direct discipleship to the apostles and Jesus that we do not necessarily have in the recorded NT Scriptures. So one person’s isolated interpretation of a two thousand year old text from another culture is not as “valid” as the interpretation of those people in the first, second, and third centuries who had direct connections to the oral traditions of the early church, if we are talking about what defines Christianity. Just reading the Bible and drawing your own best conclusions doesn’t get you “orthodox” Christian belief. You need to be discipled in how the Church has historically understood its beliefs.
3 Likes
I think he was trying to say that Jay’s interpretation was just as valid as the Church Father’s interpretation.
2 Likes
Oh really? Probably should have check that before rushing in all guns blazing, shouldn’t I? Oops. 
@03Cobra: apologies for jumping the gun.
1 Like
Close, and thanks for the comment. It is just as valid as the view of some of the Church Fathers, the ones who adopted the doctrine of the Trinity.
Other church fathers disagreed. Some were excommunicated for their disagreement. What a divisive situation.
I disagree with your claims of superior knowledge and access to the teachings of the Apostles by the church leaders from the time of the promulgation of the Trinity doctrine.
The doctrine of the Trinity was defined a couple of hundred years after the death of the Apostles — in the fourth century.
As Liam pointed out, Trinitarian ideas were characteristic of the teaching of the early Church Fathers long before “the doctrine of the Trinity” was formalized in the Nicene Creed.
Sure, they did not nail down all the fine points about homoousios and the filioque clause and whatnot until later, and I will grant that some of those details are constructs imposed on a mystery and probably some people were unfairly excommunicated at various points for failing to embrace a level of detail that is God himself probably doesn’t care about.
But the essence of one God in three persons is a very early Christian teaching and it was deemed of upmost importance to uphold it and protect it from aberrant teaching that claimed otherwise. That counts for a lot in my book.
1 Like
You and Liam are reading things into those quotes that are not there.
“Consubstantial and hypostases”
When a subset of the church leaders chose to define God in the fourth century, they also excommunicated people who objected to calling Mary the “Mother of God.”
A church council of the Roman church in the fourth century also canonized the books called the apocrypha. Yet Protestants are quick to reject that canon.
And that proves the Trinity is not orthodox theology? What exactly is your point?
You can think what you want. Your arguments to support your beliefs aren’t convincing and aren’t orthodox. All you’ve done is make unsupported assertions about your opinions. Liam and I have pointed out actual evidence, which I would find more convincing if I were on the fence about whether the triune God is orthodox. To each their own.
1 Like
On your first question, I don’t know where you got that idea. Not from my posts.
On your second question, my points include:
- The fourth century doctrine of the Trinity defined God in a more specific way than either earlier church leaders or the scriptures define God.
- The promulgation of that doctrine was divisive and caused a rift in the church.
- If you feel obligated to accept decisions of a fourth century church council, then you should adopt the larger canon of the Roman Church.
- Acceptance of the doctrine of the Trinity is never described or indicated in scripture to be a requirement for salvation.
- The Apostles’ Creed, generally accepted as the earliest creed of the church surviving today, does not present the doctrine of the Trinity.
- The evidence you and Liam presented do not support the doctrine of the Trinity as specified in the fourth century.
- And we went down this path because you falsely declared that I don’t affirm any of the creeds.
Agreed. But that does not in any way imply that the early church Fathers had no concept of the Trinity or did not conceive of God in three persons in a less specific way.
Agreed. But the rifts you are talking about were not Arianism or any other heresy that denied that God was triune. They were over fine details in wording like “one substance” or “proceeds from the Father AND the Son.” All the major branches of Christianity- Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant -are Trinitarian. The branches that are not are considered unorthodox sects to this day.
That is patently illogical. If you can’t see how, I don’t have time to explain it to you right now.
I have never claimed anything about the salvation of people who subscribe to unorthodox teachings.
That doesn’t mean a Trinitarian understanding of God is not obvious in it. See arguments above about its historical context that you ignored.
Never said it did. I said it showed that the concept of a triune God existed from the very beginning of early church theology. To which you responded with the rhetorical equivalent of “Nuh-uh!” and “Look, squirrel!”
I said you could not affirm the Creeds if you deny that God is one in three, three in one. Obviously I was not counting on people who affirm their own pet interpretations of the Creeds that deny their historical meaning.
1 Like
Dear @03Cobra I would recommend a good study of the Athanasian Creed which gives a good study on the Triune nature of God. Athanasian Creed - Wikipedia
The Church fought long and hard to nail out the nature of God and the Trinity is the best way we could understand it. You are free to deny it but it is solid historical fact that the One True Holy Apostolic Catholic Church has confirmed the Triune nature of God since the start, even if not in the fancy theological words we have now, it has always confirmed it. Again it took 300 years for the Church to nail out an understanding of what would become the Trinity. The Christian Church has always held to the idea of One God in Three Persons.
1 Like
I think you and I read church history differently.
And we seem to disagree on whether it was appropriate to think a group of people could “nail down” the definition of God.
You had other’s like the Arians, Nestorians, Modalism/Sabellianism, Apollinarianism, and Mecedoninism also try and explain who and what God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are, so why not Biblical Triune Christians? It was a war of opinions and ideas and the Triune-Nicene-Athanasian Christians won out in the end.
1 Like
I think that use to be called the “everybody’s doing it” justification.
Why not encourage stopping at the Apostles’ Creed. It clearly states the deity of Jesus and the existence of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Why do church leaders think they must answer every question?
As for who won, the battle continues. The winners may be the neutrals, for they seek inclusiveness in the church.
It was at first just the Apostles Creed, but it took three other creeds too further define and get down what Christian beliefs are. I see the creeds as extensions of the Apostles Creed.
While I see them as overstepping.