Thanks for the reference. I believe it was one of the text book I read when I was in seminary.
It was a process of
- Selecting books that are genuine and inspired
- Rejecting books that are forged, not what the apostles taught, or true but not inspired.
Before canonization a variety of books were circulating, and different books were accepted in different places. e.g. the Gospel of Thomas. It was only upon canonization that the church said, “This is what we accept. And this is what we reject.”
Well said. I agree wholeheartedly
Do you have a non-Trinitarian faith community such as Unitarianism?
btw, the Qur’an teaches against belief in the Trinity.
Actually no 
I am part of a trinitarian church. It is just me to rather keep the tension between God the Father and God the Son as a mystery as I can’t bring myself to comfortably hold to the doctrine of Trinity.
1 Like
There is still tension and mystery in the truth of the doctrine!
What tension? Why don’t you talk to the pastor about this?
2 Likes
Not sure if you follow my post on this thread. But this is what I wrote:
I would say that it is better to accept a mystery than to lose your faith trying to unravel it.
Richard
It is said of quantum mechanics: “if someone says they understand it, they clearly don’t!”. QM is deeply, unfathomably mysterious. Even Einstein struggled with it.
Likewise the Trinity.
Even across mainstream churches with theologians who have thought about this for their whole lives, there is difference. Remember that phrase we say, without really thinking, every week in the creed: “Holy Spirit…who proceeds from the Father and the Son”? Well, that’s the western version. Go to an Orthodox church and it is “…who proceeds from the Father”. Here, within solidly Trinitarian worldwide church, there is still nuance. (To pursue that further, search for “Filioque clause”.)
Here’s a hymn I wrote exploring the Trinity: God, eternal, timeless moment
And far more light-heartedly, a spoof poem, pointing up the exasperating difficulties of trying to understand the un-understandable: Macavity among the Triune-fails
4 Likes
Nothing? Writing the prologue to John’s gospel is nothing?
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
6 There was a man sent from God whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.
9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.
14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
That’s nosebleed high Christology!
And Jesus and the Apostles and Paul addressed controversies as they came up. And the Arian controversy was handled when it came up.
As for mystery, there is plenty of it in other Christian doctrines. No need to slam them to get mystery.
O Magnum Mysterium
O great mystery,
and wonderful sacrament,
that animals should see the newborn Lord,
lying in a manger!
Blessed is the virgin whose womb
was worthy to bear
the Lord, Jesus Christ.
Alleluia!
2 Likes
Not to mention Philippians 2, Colossians 1, and what, like, all of Hebrews 1-12 
2 Likes
Is that because God the Son is coterminous with The Son of God for you? That they are titles of the same being?
I wonder if part of the problem is the actual statement of the doctrine of the Trinity you have heard, because there are certainly versions I do not agree with either, and others which are declared anathema and heretical.
correct statement of the doctrine:
The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons but only one God.
statements of the doctrine which go too far and I do not agree with:
God is three persons.
God is triune.
statements of the doctrine which are heretical:
God is made up of three persons.
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the three parts of God.
God has different aspect or modes known as the Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
Thus, the tension I am talking about. did the apostles or Paul try to define the trinitarian nature of God? No. Why not? They could see clearly the tension with OT that declared that God is one. That is what I meant with “nothing”
That is basically my objection to the doctrine of Trinity. Of course our endeavour here is to find the truth. I am always open to views that might enlighten me to see past my own objection.
Perhaps when Gnosticism came up during his time, Paul should come up with the doctrine of Trinity. He didn’t.
Others would think the opposite. How can you have an ultimate being without these very critical relationships. How can we admire someone who says to serve and submit to others but never does so Himself?
That is what makes it so real… so unlikely to be just an invention to fit our own preconceptions… not a God made in our own image. I see it as the quantum physics of theology… something so contrary to our expectations that it points to a reality outside of our own minds.
But yeah I know you might think you could fit any nonsensical thing into a role like that, right? Actually no. On the contrary it can easily be argued that it makes more sense rather than less. Are we really supposed to believe a singular particular personality is supposed to be the origin of everything? Such a thought and suspicion that a god like this has been made in our own image has been one of the greatest objections to the idea of a personal God by some of the greatest minds such as Einstein. After all, it is not a logical contradiction, just contrary to expectations which come from our own limited experiences. And most important, it doesn’t make God less than we are but more.
But that is just the thing… I don’t say anything of the sort. These are versions of the doctrine which I have rejected.
And so you prefer a God who wants people to be parrots refusing to use the brain He gave. The parable of the slothful servant suggest that this is not what God wants at all. So this reason of yours for disliking the doctrine of the Trinity is one of my reasons for liking it.
Well, the goalposts certainly keep shifting. If there is tension with the OT declaring that God is one, why does Paul write
For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,
in Col. 2:9 ?
Why? They have nothing to do with each other.