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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
They (the writers of the doctrine of the Trinity) think they can define the Almighty God with words like consubstantial and hypostases. They neglected the words of Jesus who said the Father was greater than He was. They set up the church for a divisive anathema against Christians who were uncomfortable with the claim that Mary was the “Mother of God.” They excommunicated Christians who did not embrace their narrow, specified view based on their belief that man could define God.
Jesus told us to love one another. Such actions reject His most important command.
While I fully understand you’re point of view in the issue, as I see it, the Church that made the creeds was the same Church that Christ set up on the Day of Pentecost and that Church at Pentecost is the One, True, Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church. So from my point of view the Church which came from the original disciples of our Lord Jesus Christ had the proper knowledge of who and what God is and over time have better understanding and definition to who and what God is. It wasn’t that man was redoing who what God is, all the creeds do is give an explanation of who and what the LORD is and over time when the theology got more complex, the terms of defining it would evolve as well. I would agree with you that the Apostles Creed is the most primative and simple of the creeds but over time as the theology got more serious and complex, so did the creeds.
You sound as though you are a Roman Catholic and recognize that subset of Christianity as the one true church.
While I view Roman Catholics as my brothers and sisters in Christ, I encourage them to recognize that there are other parts of Christendom that do not view the Roman Church as infallible in matters of faith and morals yet still are part of the universal church.
Thanks but actually A Wesleyan-Methodist, I will take the word “catholic” in its traditional terms as of the universal Church. When I use those terms, I mean the universal (catholic) Church, the body of believer’s regardless of denomination.
I would say that it is clear from scripture that the Holy Spirit is God.
Also I would say that it is clear from scripture that God is One.
Putting these statement together I would say that God is the Father/Creator, Son/Logos, and Holy Spirit/Love, Three and One, or Trinity. This is the doctrine of the Trinity. Anything in addition to this might be helpful in understanding God, but is not essential.
Nestorius disagree4d with the Chalcedon Creed, not the Trinity. Chalcedon said that Jesus Christ was one Person with 2 natures, both God and human. Nestorius said that Jesus was not one Person.
