That’s an unusual position to take when discussing a historical creed‘a relationship to a historical marker of orthodox theology. It’s like saying the Reformation is not so important to the formulation of the Westminster confession. Systematic theology is as much about church history as it is about scripture.
I agree, but neither does it prove apostolic or very early Church origin either. The evidence of first usage, and the fact that discussion of the creed is conspicuous by its absence in the Patristic writings pre-390AD, seems to suggest that it the creed did not appear centuries before the doctrine of the Trinity.
Only if the creed predates the doctrine, which as I have demonstrated, lacks evidence as is therefore unlikely. Furthermore, if it did not reach its final form until Pirminius then the current version we use today is implicitly Trinitarian by virtue of its final editor and therefore should be read in a Trinitarian light. Much like the bible, theology and theological documents need to be understood in their historical cultural context.
I thought I was by fact checking your claim.
Since is no evidence to suggest that the Apostles Creed predates the doctrine of the Trinity by centuries. I would suggest that an approach to the Creed which is respectful of its historical context and late development should understand it as part of a wider package of Trinitarian theology. So I’d respectfully say, no, one cannot hold to the creed without holding to a doctrine of the Trinity.
What a strange position, Liam, you have presented:
The Apostles’ Creed is Trinitarian if it was created after a subset of the church promulgated the doctrine of the Trinity, but we don’t know its date of origin.
The simple fact is that the Creed does not present the doctrine of the Trinity. And a Christian who doubts or does not accept the doctrine of the Trinity can fully embrace the Apostles’ Creed.
And don’t you think it would be strange that a creed developed after the promulgation of the doctrine of the Trinity would not present the Trinity?
My apologies, if I have been unclear. Let me outline my position so far
We do not know the date of the origin creed.
we do not have a copy of the original creed to assess its content.
We cannot prove that Ambrose (late 4th Century) and Pirminius (8th Century) are referring to the same document.
We do know that the creed we use today first appeared in the writings of Pirminius in the 8th Century.
The evidence suggests it is safest to read the creed in the historical context of the 8th Century church in which trinitarian theology was mainstream orthodoxy.
The alternative is to read the theology of, by all accounts, an edited 8th century document back into theology of the early church. Generally, this is frowned upon in most theological circles.
They are more than welcome to affirm the creed so long as they are aware that they are removing it from its 8th century historical context. And that, in all likelihood, are affirming an understanding of the creed that sets them outside of historical orthodox.
I never said it wasn’t odd. Just said it was safest to assume a trinitarian understanding given the date by which it reaches its final form.
The Trinitarian doctrine is finite. It declares that the triune is complete and immutable. The Nicene and Anathasian creeds even had athemas… The Apostle’s creed does not try and define the Trinity but it does declare Jesus to be divine. Modern theology tends towards a more flexible view of God whereby Father, son and Holy Spirit are no more finite than declaring that the White house is the home of the President (which is incomplete as a definition).
There is always a danger of “boxing” or “Limiting” God. We only know what He reveals and what we can understand. God, by definition, is greater than both of these. To limit God to Father, Son And Holy Spirit is to declare that we fully understand God.
I think I’ve demonstrated this quite adequately. One could argue that the adoption of the Creed as a formal part of catholic baptism liturgy in 12th century marks the final form of the creed, since at that point it becomes codified in canan law. Though all that does is push the final form later and further into a context of assumed trinitarian understanding.
I also think I have demonstrated that the situation is more complex than that. If you disagree, please provide evidence to the contrary.
Respectfully, Richard this is an argument from novelty. New does not necessarily equal true.
Putting ‘God in a box’ arguments always sound good, but they are ultimately an argument from silence. Since, all we have to go on is what God has revealed to us, we can only understand him based on that revelation. To say, ‘this is what God is like’ is only a claim to understand God as far as one understand what he has revealed to us in the bible. I could argue that God is a forty year old women called Pamala, and that anyone who disagrees is ‘limiting’ or ‘boxing’ God but that does not make it true. Nor do I have any evidence to support my (hypothetical) belief other than my desire for it to be true. The reality is that Christianity is a historic religion that requires assent to certain historic beliefs, of which, the Trinity is one. That is not boxing God, more an observation about church history.
I do not see God as tri-personal, as orthodox Trinity doctrines express. I believe scripture presents God as one person, YHWH (or the “Father”). Jesus is the human messiah and son of God, and the Spirit is the power of God, not a person, but sometimes personified.
I fully acknowledge this does put me outside of orthodox belief and I am fine with that. Creeds and councils aside, I have the responsibility to search scripture and try to understand it on its own terms. The Trinity can be drawn from scripture depending on interpretation, but is by no means a concept that is taught.
I notice this thread now has a title about “denying that God is triune.”
I wonder who is doing that. My position is different: that the Doctrine of the Trinity is an expansion past what is revealed in scripture and is not stated in what is generally recognized as the earliest Creed (the Apostles’ Creed).
Recognizing that the doctrine of the Trinity is a man-made tradition which is an extension past what is clearly revealed in scripture is not “denying that God is triune.” It is simply recognizing that some of us see defining the Almighty God as above our abilities, rights, and obligations.
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.
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.
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.
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.
