How did the Trinity doctrine develop in the early church?

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Brakelite

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2020
10,877
7,256
113
Melbourne
brakelite.wordpress.com
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
learn to understand the doctrine of Trinity,
Anyone can understand the doctrine. Understanding man's teaching on any topic merely takes an education and time and a willingness to learn. But of what purpose is it to understand the doctrine? Ought we aspire more to understand God? It is the actual doctrine, the attempt to reduce the nature of God to a formula, that has been the catalyst for persecution for centuries. Demands and declarations that "you aren't a real Christian unless you understand God the way we do".
The Scripture says, "this is life eternal. That they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ Whom Thou did send".
The apostle John never suggested in all his writing against heresies regarding the nature of God, that the Trinity doctrine was the alternative. What John did repeatedly uplift and stress,
“23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. 24 Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father. 25 And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life. ”
1 John 2:23-25 KJV
....echoing what Jesus said in John 17:3.
“9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. 10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. ”

“9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. 10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. ”
1 John 4:9-10 KJV

“13 Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit. 14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world. 15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God. ”
1 John 4:13-15 KJV
“1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. 5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? 10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. 11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. 13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. ”
1 John 5:1, 5, 10-13 KJV

You are able to quote the verse but unable to provide an interpretation.
I was leaving the obvious to you.
How many people does Jude allude to the letter?
Wow. You turn the obvious into a Bible trivia quiz? Never mind. I'm sure you have a nice neatly packaged response that pretends the devil referred to in that text is a figment of everyone's imagination, that the devil referred to in Revelation 12 is a Chinese astronaut, and the one in the wilderness during Jesus temptation was a rock lizard and Jesus took Himself to the pinnacle of the temple and tried to tempt Himself into creating bread out of rocks. In other words Jesus was hallucinating because of the fasting.
@RLT63 @Brakelite

If you both cannot recognize that the lament is addressed to the King, which neither of you has acknowledged in these discussions because of an out of context, fictional story, how can I possibly explore the deeper meaning of the lament when the central message of the chapter is not even being admitted?

There is so much more in that chapter that remains hidden from you, yet you seem more interested in a ‘choose-your-own-adventure’ approach than in submitting your will to learn.

Here is your problem.

Here is how it starts:

Ezekiel 28:12 “Son of man, raise a lamentation over the king of Tyre

Here is how it finishes:

Ezekiel 28:19 “…you have become a horror and shall be no more forever.”

Everything between those verses is unknown to you, and not only that, but you also do not understand to whom it is addressed or how it is fulfilled.

Your response shows the same willing ignorance I saw in @Aunty Jane, who understood the interpretation of this lament yet offered nothing in return except her own, and her group’s preconceived ideas.

Now I have an SDA, a JW, and I’m not even sure what RLT considers himself, all rejecting the true meaning of the chapter.

Why not simply move on to Isaiah 14 and impose your fallen-angel theology there? The pattern is entirely predictable
Rejecting the true meaning of the chapter? No-one is denying that Ezekiel is writing to a literal king. What you are denying is the power and spiritual breadth and nature of God's word in its ability to address numerous people and apply itself equally powerfully to different times and contexts yet remaining true to each.
Take for example Jesus's address to the disciples in Matthew 24. While he was speaking in the immediate context of the soon destruction of Jerusalem, He was also speaking directly to events ushering in His second coming in the near future.
Take for example the letters to the 7 churches in Revelation 2 and 3. While these letters were real literal counsels to literal local churches, they apply equally and powerfully to different prophetic time periods in church history.
Ezekiel was writing under the inspiration of the holy Spirit of God, Who was not revealing truth solely about a random king of Tyre who no doubt deserved the rebuke, but was revealing to all of God's people who in the future would read these words, and discern that as with many prophetic words, they had immediate literal application, but also applied to other entities, times, contexts and events in the future. To deny that reality is both short sighted and narrow minded.
 

shepherdsword

Encounter Team - Eagle
Staff member
Encounter Team
Feb 12, 2009
2,034
1,633
113
Millington
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
I don't think I would agree with that formulation of the Trinity*. The reason? Names identify Persons, and YHVH (יהוה.) is the Personal Name of the Father*. Jesus is the Personal Name of the Son. The Holy Spirit is not identified by a personal name.

The orthodox expression of the Trinity is

1) The Father is God
2) The Son is God
3) The Holy Spirit is God

Please note: We need to be very precise in differentiating when we use the word "God" to mean a name versus when we mean a nature or substance. In the Nicaean formulation, "God" is used as an "ousia", a "nature", which is why English expressions use the word "consubstantial".

* But I could be wrong.
I think we can say this of all three: in Exodus 3:14, אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה (“I Am That I Am”).
They are all eternally pre-existent as in "I am always, I have always been and I will always be"
 

Lambano

Well-Known Member
Jul 13, 2021
10,005
12,781
113
Island of Misfit Toys
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
I think we can say this of all three: in Exodus 3:14, אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה (“I Am That I Am”).
They are all eternally pre-existent as in "I am always, I have always been and I will always be"
That's pretty much what the Arian controversy in the 300s was all about. Was the Son always co-eternal with the Father? If so, in what "form"? (The great Philippians 2 formulation says "He was in the 'form' of God", though attributing "form" to God may be a heresy in itself.) If an ontological "thing" changes form, like H20 changing from water to steam or to ice, is it the same ontological thing?

Note: Sabellianism (monarchal modalism) was declared a heresy at the Council of Rome in 382.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: St. SteVen

shepherdsword

Encounter Team - Eagle
Staff member
Encounter Team
Feb 12, 2009
2,034
1,633
113
Millington
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
That's pretty much what the Arian controversy in the 300s was all about. Was the Son always co-eternal with the Father? If so, in what "form"? (The great Philippians 2 formulation says "He was in the 'form' of God", though attributing "form" to God may be a heresy in itself.) If an ontological "thing" changes form, like H20 changing from water to steam or to ice, is it the same ontological thing?
Arian believed:
The Son (Jesus) was not eternal,
The Son was created by God the Father, and therefore
The Son was subordinate to the Father.

Arius summarized this with the famous phrase: “There was when he was not.”

This view was declared heretical at the Council of Nicaea in 325, which affirmed that the Son is of the same substance (homoousios) as the Father and eternally begotten, not made.
Do you believe they are the same substance?
Note: Sabellianism (monarchal modalism) was declared a heresy at the Council of Rome in 382.
Who is promoting it? Is that something you believe? If not, it's strange you brought it up because it's obvious that I am not promoting modalism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lambano

Lambano

Well-Known Member
Jul 13, 2021
10,005
12,781
113
Island of Misfit Toys
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Do you believe they are the same substance?
Uh, what "substance" is God made of? Is "spirit" a substance?

If the Son changes form from "the form of God" (whatever that is; see Philippians 2:6) to the form of a servant (to wit, a man; see Philippians 2:7), is the Son still the Son?
 

shepherdsword

Encounter Team - Eagle
Staff member
Encounter Team
Feb 12, 2009
2,034
1,633
113
Millington
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Uh, what "substance" is God made of? Is "spirit" a substance?
Whatever this substance is....do you agree with all three being the same?
If the Son changes form from "the form of God" (whatever that is; see Philippians 2:6) to the form of a servant (to wit, a man; see Philippians 2:7), is the Son still the Son?
In eternity past the members of the Trinity were all co-equal. The subordinate positions we currently see are all do to their respective roles in creation and redemption.
 

St. SteVen

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2023
18,269
6,823
113
71
Minneapolis
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I think we can say this of all three: in Exodus 3:14, אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה (“I Am That I Am”).
They are all eternally pre-existent as in "I am always, I have always been and I will always be"
Remember, there was no God the Son before the Word became flesh.
 

St. SteVen

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2023
18,269
6,823
113
71
Minneapolis
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Arian heresy. (See, it even has a name.)

The Son is co-eternal with the father.
Heretical (heterodox) just means it disagrees with orthodoxy.

The Word (Logos) became flesh.
Are you saying that God the Son existed before Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit?
Every view of this seems "heretical".

I guess I'm in good company. - LOL

Was Jesus Heretical? - Why did they crucify Him?

Maybe there should be a topic about Orthodoxolatry? (worship of orthodoxy) ???
 

St. SteVen

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2023
18,269
6,823
113
71
Minneapolis
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
How would I know what God is made of? How would I know what Jesus was made of before incarnation, and what is He made in the risen and ascended state?
C'mon, answer the question.
Show us what your made of. - LOL
 

Lambano

Well-Known Member
Jul 13, 2021
10,005
12,781
113
Island of Misfit Toys
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
The Word (Logos) became flesh.
Are you saying that God the Son existed before Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit?
Every view of this seems "heretical".

I guess I'm in good company. - LOL
That is EXACTLY what Trinitarian doctrine asserts.

And yes, any attempt to drill down into it leads to heresy. And this doctrine is considered normative to be a Christian.
 

St. SteVen

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2023
18,269
6,823
113
71
Minneapolis
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
That is EXACTLY what Trinitarian doctrine asserts.

And yes, any attempt to drill down into it leads to heresy. And this doctrine is considered normative to be a Christian.
I have biblical reasons to reject both.
I gladly wear the label Heretic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lambano

St. SteVen

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2023
18,269
6,823
113
71
Minneapolis
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
That is EXACTLY what Trinitarian doctrine asserts.

And yes, any attempt to drill down into it leads to heresy. And this doctrine is considered normative to be a Christian.
From my perspective, the Trinity doctrine of three named persons does not begin until the birth (or conception) of God the Son.