The Deception of the Teaching of the Trinity
- Thread starter christiang
- Start date
-
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!
I have not erected a straw man. Please do not attempt to disparage what I stated with a false charge.
Creed of Trinitarians/The Apostles Creed
I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.
I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
Wormwood
Chaps
I will disparage your message when it is false and a clear misrepresentation of other people's beliefs. Notice the first line of that Creed...
"I believe in one God,"
Trinitarians believe in one God that consists of three personas...Father, Son and Holy Spirit. God is one. No Trinitarian would deny that. For you to act as if they don't believe "God is one" is a false charge. Three persons of ONE substance (hence consubstantial).
Believing that God is a trinity can be rationalized in any manner you like but, it doesn't make it truth.
my proof texts are relevant to the time of mans creation in the image of God. the ability of man to produce offspring is a part of the image of God since God thru Christ created mankind. The male and female (the twain) reflect God's image perfectly. The two individuals work together as one and are considered one by God and in so doing they create others in their image just as God and Christ did. When offspring are formed by the two acting as one that offspring then leaves the parents to join with another offspring to become one with them thus, children are not one flesh with the parents as it is written;
Genesis 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
The man and the wife spoken about in the above proof text were both the children of each of their parents. Each of them as individuals are not defined as the one flesh until they come together (cleave). God defined what it meant to be one flash quite specifically and this holy union of two individuals set up from the beginning of the creation is what God defined as "our image"
Gen 1:26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply...
You can also take note that these proof texts show that after God created them male and female to represent "our image" that the pair were told to " Be fruitful, and multiply". God stated it clearly in the proof texts... after he formed mankind as a pair to represent their image that the pair together acting as one flesh were to go out and multiply.... to have children who would then do the same thing their parents did... they would find another human and cleave together becoming one flesh with them at that time and multiply.
God's image is represented by two, a male and a female which he states from the beginning are to be considered one just as God the Father and Christ his Son act as one, and in Christ's own words here is another proof text you can deny; John 10:30 I and my Father are one
I don't see any mention by Christ about any other being as part of that group.... do you? I don't see him referring to any children being part of that oneness. It is just him and his father... two individuals who acting as one created mankind as representatives of their image in the form of a male and female and directed them to act in the same way by becoming one to form offspring who would then perpetuate the pattern of God's image.
Those men who you assert were apostolic in origin were only men. You have absolutely zero evidence that any one of them had the holy spirit within them. They were sinful men no different than any other men.
The council was a gathering coordinated by the PAGAN emperor Constantine and was attended by about 300 men who were assumed to know the will of God. Do you have any evidence that they indeed did possess such a blessing from God?
As for the argument about the Father and the Son that was taken up during the council both sides had errors of understanding. Neither side actually had the right POV.
If you could correctly discern the meaning contained in the creation of God's image then you and those sinful men from 325 ad would be able to answer the very question that was supposed to be answered during that time however, based on your answers in the previous post it is clear that you do not yet possess the understanding of that scripture. You have chosen instead of getting understanding from God to place your trust in the tradition begun by sinful men from nearly 1700 years in the past.
This is a prime example of Pharisaism;
Recall what Jesus says about the Jews/Pharisees: "All too well you reject the commandments of God, that you might keep your tradition" (Mark 7:9). Paul is saying the same thing, only in more detail and later in time. However, he adds something to it: ". . . they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge." This summarizes their zealous attitude and its result. Despite their learning, they were ignorant and established their own righteousness.
With a great deal of zeal, they went about thinking and saying they were serving God, but all they did was produce their own set of standards. Their zeal was probably their greatest barrier to the truth. The apostle Paul is a prime example. Before conversion, he was a zealous Pharisee! He was so zealous that it was notorious to the first-century church; it was afraid of him!
Romans 10:2 (NKJV) - Forerunner Commentary
If by some chance you do realize that you may not have all the right understanding then I invite you to attempt an answer for the thread about the formation of Eve. no worries though I am quite convinced that you are set in your ways.
Truth is objective, not subjective. I haven't rationalized anything. I simply made an analogy with God and the human family you obviously didn't get.
Children are one flesh with their parents, you contradict yourself with "the ability of man to produce offspring is a part of the image of God". I think "eternal economy" is over your head.
It says, "...let us make man in our image..." You want it to say "let us make A man in our image." It doesn't mean singular. Once again, the family is the closest analogy to understanding the Trinity. Christ didn't present to the Apostles the advanced complex Chaledonian trinitarian theology because these things take time to develop and the Apostles would not have understood it. But they understood the essence.
a·nal·o·gy
noun
- a comparison between two things, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
"an analogy between the workings of nature and those of human societies"- a correspondence or partial similarity.
"the syndrome is called deep dysgraphia because of its analogy to deep dyslexia" - a thing that is comparable to something else in significant respects.
"works of art were seen as an analogy for works of nature"
- a correspondence or partial similarity.
So the Bible fell from the sky bound in black leather in the KJV in 33 AD. Men were not needed to compile the books.
It's impossible to convene a council without papal approval. Constantine was present as a TEMPORAL ruler, and there is not a shred of evidence he held any SPIRITUAL jurisdiction. It's one of many anti-Catholic myths about Constantine.
So the final ruling against Arius was in error? Are you a JW?
If it were not for Tradition you wouldn't have ANY scripture.
This has nothing to do with any of my posts. However, there is good Tradition we are commanded to follow, and bad tradition we are to avoid. Scripture doesn't say all tradition is bad, but you do. It's a false man made tradition in itself.
You are quite right. I would never be an ignorant anti-Protestant bigot with false histories to prove my point.
Last edited by a moderator:
No, you shall not.
You will only demean yourself with such a commitment. No one else has to receive such foolishness.
There is one God. Thinking there are three separate powers or entities is polytheism. Believe as you will. God knows his own. However, you will never succeed in delivering your intention to bring malice or aggression into my consciousness as I discuss the word with sisters and brothers in Christ. The peace of Christ prevails in those indwelt with the Holy Spirit.
You have my sympathies and prayers that you are unaware.
To sisters and brothers in Christ, I pray we can discuss further in the love and light of our precious Father. :)
Our God is one.
God is a Spirit.
God is a Holy Spirit.
All revealed in the scriptures.
That means one; Spirit (God). Jesus was born of a woman, but bestowed in Mary's womb by the Holy Spirit. He was born in flesh. And at his baptism he was imbued, indwelt, sealed, with the Holy Spirit. And that, as the scriptures tell Christians, is when Immanuel (God with us) , began his earthly ministry. "God" is a title. The Holy Spirit is the power of creator/creation. Hear oh Israel, our God, our God is one. Not subject to interpretation by those who uphold a triune identity that God never spoke of or two in his inspired word. Trinity appears nowhere in scripture.
Ephesians 4:29 Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.
Wormwood
Chaps
Peanut,
It still doesn't change the fact that Trinitarians believe in one God. You can claim all you like that we don't, but it is clear you understand very little about Trinitarian doctrine. Moreover, if you want to debate the issue, I would be happy to examine the texts. If you are intent to just make absolute statements that you are right and we are wrong, then that is your right. However, if you want to actually look at what the Bible teaches and compare it to each of our views, I would be happy to do so.
It still doesn't change the fact that Trinitarians believe in one God. You can claim all you like that we don't, but it is clear you understand very little about Trinitarian doctrine. Moreover, if you want to debate the issue, I would be happy to examine the texts. If you are intent to just make absolute statements that you are right and we are wrong, then that is your right. However, if you want to actually look at what the Bible teaches and compare it to each of our views, I would be happy to do so.
yes you have rationalized. You rationalize that the ability to produce offspring is somehow equivalent to a third part of God's image and I don't need to get your analogy because it only has as much relevance as someone may buy into it and since you are not God I have every reason not to buy into it. We are to live by every word of the mouth of God and God say his image is male and female as it is written;
Gen 1:26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Then after creating mankind in their image as a pair, mankind was told to go and multiply.... to go and repeat the pattern of creation which being the image of the creating God reflects them quite well;
28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply...
Even Christ echo's genesis
Matt 19:4 Jesus answered, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female" 5and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”
Pay attention to verse 6;
So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.
See it? in his own words Christ says they are no longer two and also note that the two individuals that represent the image of God are considered joined by God and basic common logic would tell you that such a union occurs prior to any possibility of children or family.
Genesis 2:24 is about marriage. The grammar used in the verse does not support a reading of it as simply a sexual union. As is shown in preceding verses a man is incomplete without the woman. God specifically created a partner for Adam because he was alone so the two when they come together in a marital union are defined by God and Christ as one flesh which reflects the image of God as it was intended to.
Biblical reference?
Does one have to be a JW to say both sides were in error as I stated?
Traditions that alter the intent of God's word are the ones to be aware of.... washing your hands after using the bathroom has no effect on God's word.
You already gave it.
Then after creating mankind in their image as a pair, mankind was told to go and multiply.... to go and repeat the pattern of creation which being the image of the creating God reflects them quite well;
28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply...
Do you mean children are not made in God's image?
That's what JW's think so you tell me.
I am well aware of the matrimonial covenant established by God. I made an analogy of the family with that of the Trinity. In order for you to dismantle my analogy, you have to remove children from the scenario, or prove they are not made in God's image.
The Holy Spirit is poured forth through the exchange of love between the Father and the Son.
In the eternal economy of the Trinity, therefore, a person 'proceeds' from the love between two other persons. And so, the Holy Spirit is love 'proceeding' or 'coming from' the first two persons of the Blessed Trinity.
The human family has a rather striking parallel to this dynamic. A striking parallel is not a proof text duplicate, which is what you demand from me.
The ultimate act of intimacy in a marriage mirrors the eternal exchange of love between the first two persons of the Trinity.
And like the eternal or continual procession of the Holy Spirit in the Trinity, the act of love between a man and a woman causes a 'procession' of another human person (i.e. the birth of a child).
Thus, it is precisely because the homosexual sex act is not ordered to the procession of another person, that it can never be a Trinitarian reflection of the divine essence.
Indeed, the sexual act itself, which is supposed to be a reflection of the Trinitarian relationship, becomes, through the homosexual act, a blasphemy against God since it ends up distorting the Trinitarian image of Him.
The human sexual act either affirms God's image or it distorts it. This is why all forms of contraceptive sex, including the homosexual act, are serious sins: they seek to create God in another image. It is anti-Trinitarian.
The Catholic Legate
That would be precisely what I mean. Just as God did not make a single man to represent their image, human parents don't normally give birth to a male and female pair, who would then be joined together as one flesh.
We as human parents typically produce one half of a pair and then that offspring must go out and find the other half of the pair and become joined to them.
Human parents cannot create the image of God as God did. Parents create one half of God's image just as they were designed to do.
God has stated what God's image is and if you live by every word of the mouth of God as you are told to do by God then you would know that their image is represented as a pair who are joined as one in spirit and purpose.
John 17:11 ...Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name, the name you gave me, so that they may be one as we are one.
John 17:22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— 23I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity.
See here again by God's own words the joining together of Father and son is considered a complete unity.
John 17:26 I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them.”
So far you are the only one in this conversation who began making any reference to JW's
I have no necessity to dismantle any of your imaginary connections. I have God's word as my direction in all things.
Children as I have pointed out are not referenced by God when they created mankind in their image;
Matt 19:4 Jesus answered, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female" 5and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?
See not one mention of children in the forming of God's image. I defy you to show any children within God's word that were created at the beginning and were made part of the one flesh covenant defined by God for that male and female pair. You cannot do it. You cannot by any rationale or imagination add anything to God's word without being judged by God as adding to his word.
Proverbs 30:5-6 Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar.
Who's Holy Spirit?
There is no trinity in God or in God's word. God's image is defined by God as a pair (male and female) and is stated as such in several places throughout God's book. Your adherence to a tradition by man to redefine God's image as something other than what God has defined as their image is anti-God & anti-Christian.
Indeed your mind errs. since you don't comprehend that the two persons / beings who will become parents are already one Just as the Father and Christ were already one prior to the forming of Adam and Eve (male and female) to represent their image (a pair) to the world.
I have been prompted to give you this question.
Were Adam and Eve considered one flesh before or after the birth of Cain?
Galatians 1:6
The Bible and what it contains is what is paramount. Not what sects, or denominations named after men founders, teaches the faithful in them to believe about their teachings.
The Bible does not include the word Trinity. Anywhere at all. There have been those I've read elsewhere who will make some remark that the Bible doesn't contain the world Republican either, but that exists. I pay no attention to such counters. This is scripture being discussed.
In the first part of what is the Christian Bible we are told God is one. (Deuteronomy 6:4) God is not a name, God is not an identity. God is a title, not a separate entity.The scriptures tell us this when they inform God is a Spirit. (John 4:24) A Holy Spirit. (1 Peter 1:16)
Too often sisters and brothers in Christ believe what they are taught as children. Or they enter into a denominational church and are led to believe the doctrine of that denomination. The true church of Christ after Christ's departure to the Father was eventually forced underground. Because faith in the Savior of the world was illegal. Punishment often went so far as to kill the faithful. All but John the Apostle , of all the Apostles of our Lord, were executed due to their teaching the truth of God in Christ.
The Apostle Paul , who's epistles dominate the new testament, was beheaded. Peter, who at first denied Christ three times before the crock crowed during Jesus' trial before the Hebrew Sanhedrin, was crucified upside down. Because he did not feel worthy of being crucified in the same manner as his Lord.
Other Apostles met horrible fates.
Not until Roman Emperor Constantine did Christianity become legal in Roman occupied lands. And then it was a credal faith decided by the council Constantine convened and oversaw when he called Christian clerics, largely bishops, to a meeting in Nicea.
The true church of Christ following the original oral teachings of the Apostles was not present.
Unfortunately, discussions like this reveal creed oriented faithful. Those that ascribe vehemently to a creed dictated by men. And as such, that is why in pagan Rome, a Roman pagan emperor, becuase Constantine did not actually convert to the faith of Christ until he was on his death bed, but invoked the faith while alive because in his mind the cross sign in the sky before a major battle was like unto what he as a pagan believed was a sign from the latest god of the new faith, the people of the book. And as such he invoked that god ideal all his reign. Until he was about to leave this world. And then long before it had a name Constantine committed to what is today referred to as "Pascal's wager". He converted officially to Christ and the faith of our Lord in the event Hell was real. Otherwise, for pagan Constantine, Yeshua and Yahweh, were just two more names in the pantheon of Roman god's.
From that Nicene meeting many things were decided. And unfortunately not many Christians care to do the research to find out what. Largely because of fear. Like unto Constantine, they fear Hell for daring to "question" God. But that is not what happens in Apologetics. Hermeneutics and Soterology and other disciplines are that which inspires the God given intellect to delve deeper into the origin of the faith of Christianity.
God is one. God is eternal. God is omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, and omni~benevolent. And God is not constrained in his power, presence or authority by the votes of men.
If a Christian denies the authority of the Council of Trent and their blasphemy that decreed man was authoritarian and God was subject, a Christian certainly owes it to themselves to do the research God called his faithful to prepare for those seeking the righteous path.
[Sic]"...
The Trinity becomes official doctrine
The teaching of the three Cappadocian theologians “made it possible for the Council of Constantinople (381) to affirm the divinity of the Holy Spirit, which up to that point had nowhere been clearly stated, not even in Scripture” ( The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, “God,” p. 568).
The council adopted a statement that translates into English as, in part: “We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages . . . And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets . . .” The statement also affirmed belief “in one holy, catholic [meaning in this context universal, whole or complete] and apostolic Church . . .”
With this declaration in 381, which would become known as the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, the Trinity as generally understood today became the official belief and teaching concerning the nature of God.
Theology professor Richard Hanson observes that a result of the council’s decision “was to reduce the meanings of the word ‘God’ from a very large selection of alternatives to one only,” such that “when Western man today says ‘God’ he means the one, sole exclusive [Trinitarian] God and nothing else” ( Studies in Christian Antiquity,1985,pp. 243-244).
Thus, Emperor Theodosius—who himself had been baptized only a year before convening the council—was, like Constantine nearly six decades earlier, instrumental in establishing major church doctrine. As historian Charles Freeman notes: “It is important to remember that Theodosius had no theological background of his own and that he put in place as dogma a formula containing intractable philosophical problems of which he would have been unaware. In effect, the emperor’s laws had silenced the debate when it was still unresolved” (p. 103).
Other beliefs about the nature of God banned
Now that a decision had been reached, Theodosius would tolerate no dissenting views. He issued his own edict that read: “We now order that all churches are to be handed over to the bishops who profess Father, Son and Holy Spirit of a single majesty, of the same glory, of one splendor, who establish no difference by sacrilegious separation, but (who affirm) the order of the Trinity by recognizing the Persons and uniting the Godhead” (quoted by Richard Rubenstein, When Jesus Became God, 1999, p. 223).
Another edict from Theodosius went further in demanding adherence to the new teaching: “Let us believe the one deity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, in equal majesty and in a holy Trinity. We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title of Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since, in our judgement, they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give their conventicles [assemblies] the name of churches.
“They will suffer in the first place the chastisement of the divine condemnation, and the second the punishment which our authority, in accordance with the will of Heaven, shall decide to inflict” (reproduced in Documents of the Christian Church, Henry Bettenson, editor, 1967, p. 22).
Thus we see that a teaching that was foreign to Jesus Christ, never taught by the apostles and unknown to the other biblical writers, was locked into place and the true biblical revelation about the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit was locked out. Any who disagreed were, in accordance with the edicts of the emperor and church authorities, branded heretics and dealt with accordingly.
Trinity doctrine decided by trial and error
This unusual chain of events is why theology professors Anthony and Richard Hanson would summarize the story in their book Reasonable Belief: A Survey of the Christian Faith by noting that the adoption of the Trinity doctrine came as a result of “a process of theological exploration which lasted at least three hundred years . . . In fact it was a process of trial and error (almost of hit and miss), in which the error was by no means all confined to the unorthodox . . . It would be foolish to represent the doctrine of the Holy Trinity as having been achieved by any other way” (1980, p. 172).
They then conclude: “This was a long, confused, process whereby different schools of thought in the Church worked out for themselves, and then tried to impose on others, their answer to the question, ‘How divine is Jesus Christ?’ . . . If ever there was a controversy decided by the method of trial and error, it was this one” (p. 175).
Anglican churchman and Oxford University lecturer K.E. Kirk revealingly writes of the adoption of the doctrine of the Trinity: “The theological and philosophical vindication of the divinity of the Spirit begins in the fourth century; we naturally turn to the writers of that period to discover what grounds they have for their belief. To our surprise, we are forced to admit that they have none . . .
“This failure of Christian theology . . . to produce logical justification of the cardinal point in its trinitarian doctrine is of the greatest possible significance. We are forced, even before turning to the question of the vindication of the doctrine by experience, to ask ourselves whether theology or philosophy has ever produced any reasons why its belief should be Trinitarian” (“The Evolution of the Doctrine of the Trinity,” published in Essays on the Trinity and the Incarnation, A.E.J. Rawlinson, editor, 1928, pp. 221-222).
Why believe a teaching that isn’t biblical?
This, in brief, is the amazing story of how the doctrine of the Trinity came to be introduced—and how those who refused to accept it came to be branded as heretics or unbelievers.
But should we really base our view of God on a doctrine that isn’t spelled out in the Bible, that wasn’t formalized until three centuries after the time of Jesus Christ and the apostles, that was debated and argued for decades (not to mention for centuries since), that was imposed by religious councils presided over by novices or nonbelievers and that was “decided by the method of trial and error”?
Of course not. We should instead look to the Word of God—not to ideas of men—to see how our Creator reveals Himself!
"2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture Is God Breathed. And God Does Not
__________________________________________________Waste His Breath" Anonymous
Blessings to you and yours.
P.
The Trinity becomes official doctrine
The teaching of the three Cappadocian theologians “made it possible for the Council of Constantinople (381) to affirm the divinity of the Holy Spirit, which up to that point had nowhere been clearly stated, not even in Scripture” ( The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, “God,” p. 568).
The council adopted a statement that translates into English as, in part: “We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages . . . And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets . . .” The statement also affirmed belief “in one holy, catholic [meaning in this context universal, whole or complete] and apostolic Church . . .”
With this declaration in 381, which would become known as the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, the Trinity as generally understood today became the official belief and teaching concerning the nature of God.
Theology professor Richard Hanson observes that a result of the council’s decision “was to reduce the meanings of the word ‘God’ from a very large selection of alternatives to one only,” such that “when Western man today says ‘God’ he means the one, sole exclusive [Trinitarian] God and nothing else” ( Studies in Christian Antiquity,1985,pp. 243-244).
Thus, Emperor Theodosius—who himself had been baptized only a year before convening the council—was, like Constantine nearly six decades earlier, instrumental in establishing major church doctrine. As historian Charles Freeman notes: “It is important to remember that Theodosius had no theological background of his own and that he put in place as dogma a formula containing intractable philosophical problems of which he would have been unaware. In effect, the emperor’s laws had silenced the debate when it was still unresolved” (p. 103).
Other beliefs about the nature of God banned
Now that a decision had been reached, Theodosius would tolerate no dissenting views. He issued his own edict that read: “We now order that all churches are to be handed over to the bishops who profess Father, Son and Holy Spirit of a single majesty, of the same glory, of one splendor, who establish no difference by sacrilegious separation, but (who affirm) the order of the Trinity by recognizing the Persons and uniting the Godhead” (quoted by Richard Rubenstein, When Jesus Became God, 1999, p. 223).
Another edict from Theodosius went further in demanding adherence to the new teaching: “Let us believe the one deity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, in equal majesty and in a holy Trinity. We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title of Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since, in our judgement, they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give their conventicles [assemblies] the name of churches.
“They will suffer in the first place the chastisement of the divine condemnation, and the second the punishment which our authority, in accordance with the will of Heaven, shall decide to inflict” (reproduced in Documents of the Christian Church, Henry Bettenson, editor, 1967, p. 22).
Thus we see that a teaching that was foreign to Jesus Christ, never taught by the apostles and unknown to the other biblical writers, was locked into place and the true biblical revelation about the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit was locked out. Any who disagreed were, in accordance with the edicts of the emperor and church authorities, branded heretics and dealt with accordingly.
Trinity doctrine decided by trial and error
This unusual chain of events is why theology professors Anthony and Richard Hanson would summarize the story in their book Reasonable Belief: A Survey of the Christian Faith by noting that the adoption of the Trinity doctrine came as a result of “a process of theological exploration which lasted at least three hundred years . . . In fact it was a process of trial and error (almost of hit and miss), in which the error was by no means all confined to the unorthodox . . . It would be foolish to represent the doctrine of the Holy Trinity as having been achieved by any other way” (1980, p. 172).
They then conclude: “This was a long, confused, process whereby different schools of thought in the Church worked out for themselves, and then tried to impose on others, their answer to the question, ‘How divine is Jesus Christ?’ . . . If ever there was a controversy decided by the method of trial and error, it was this one” (p. 175).
Anglican churchman and Oxford University lecturer K.E. Kirk revealingly writes of the adoption of the doctrine of the Trinity: “The theological and philosophical vindication of the divinity of the Spirit begins in the fourth century; we naturally turn to the writers of that period to discover what grounds they have for their belief. To our surprise, we are forced to admit that they have none . . .
“This failure of Christian theology . . . to produce logical justification of the cardinal point in its trinitarian doctrine is of the greatest possible significance. We are forced, even before turning to the question of the vindication of the doctrine by experience, to ask ourselves whether theology or philosophy has ever produced any reasons why its belief should be Trinitarian” (“The Evolution of the Doctrine of the Trinity,” published in Essays on the Trinity and the Incarnation, A.E.J. Rawlinson, editor, 1928, pp. 221-222).
Why believe a teaching that isn’t biblical?
This, in brief, is the amazing story of how the doctrine of the Trinity came to be introduced—and how those who refused to accept it came to be branded as heretics or unbelievers.
But should we really base our view of God on a doctrine that isn’t spelled out in the Bible, that wasn’t formalized until three centuries after the time of Jesus Christ and the apostles, that was debated and argued for decades (not to mention for centuries since), that was imposed by religious councils presided over by novices or nonbelievers and that was “decided by the method of trial and error”?
Of course not. We should instead look to the Word of God—not to ideas of men—to see how our Creator reveals Himself!
__________________________________________________Waste His Breath" Anonymous
Blessings to you and yours.
P.
Extremely well said. You have a literary gift as well as a very good grasp on this subject. Researching history is a great method for seeing the unseen.
Edit: I was so impressed from the first run through, I had to take another spin.
There is not one point made that rubs me any other way than the right one. It was like experiencing that morning breath of fresh air.
Last edited:
Thank you for your kind words. I do need to clarify for my own sake however. What you quoted in my prior post? Those are not my words. Those are that separate post that was linked in the beginning from the source for that article on the Trinity. It is a large portion excerpt of the full article. That author then is that one blessed with a literary gift. :)
That is why my post and my words are separate and above that linked article and the excerpted portion which begins as, The Trinity becomes official doctrine (Source linked in that posting:The Surprising Origins of the Trinity Doctrine)
Thank you again. God Bless.
Lol. I have been swindled. You will be summarily demoted to not as literarily gifted however, The intended point still stands that you are learning by exploring history to see what is not usually seen which in itself is probably the greatest gift God can invest into us.
I just went to the reference link and was reading through some of material and found;
"For this reason, in that stormy period we often see debates not between truth and error, but between one error and a different error— a fact seldom recognized by many modern scholars yet critical for our understanding."
The Surprising Origins of the Trinity Doctrine
Which mirrors exactly what I just got done telling someone else here. It was nice to find that there is truth being understood by others that I didn't think was within any specified organized religion. Since my understanding comes from studying history personally and praying for the proper understanding from the only one who can possibly give it. I find it amazing that each of the important points echo everything so far from the personal experience.
Some days can be good.
Last edited:
Wormwood
Chaps
I assure you the doctrine of the Trinity is based solely in Scripture. There would be no reason to develop such a concept otherwise.
Fine, let us discuss the Bible. I assure you there are a lot of theological terms that we use today that are not found in the Bible. The words simply represent concepts and it makes no difference whether or not the Bible actually uses the specific word. The Bible doesn't use the word monotheism or incarnation either. Of course, these concepts are taught, so it doesn't really matter if the actual word is used.
Yes, the Trinitarian doctrine does not dispute God is one, as I have already said.
And you accuse Trinitarians of just believing what they are told. smh. Outside of your anti-trinitarian group's writings, no Christian or secular historian would make such a statement.
I assure you I have read plenty of apologetics, church history and about soteriology (as well as plenty of other subjects). I am not afraid to question or research anything. I assure you that it is my research that has led me to my position and your Cliff Notes version of the early church counsels and are a very poor representation of actual history.
Comparing the Council of Trent and how they sought to deal with Protestantism and the virtually unanimous decisions about the early church with regards to false teachings about God such as Arianism are nowhere close to the same thing.
I agree that the doctrine of the Trinity was something debated and discussed for a long period of time in the early Church. This is not primarily because they were confused about how to understand the Scriptures as it relates to God. The same could be said about the NT canon. It was something that was developed over a period of time, but this ISNT because there was a great deal of confusion about what books were inspired (although a few were debated). First, the first couple hundred years of Christianity was more concerned with surviving persecution. Second, like the canon, the reason this issue was pursued was because of false teachings that begin to spring up and lead people astray. Marcion, a Gnostic heretic, actually developed the first canon and did so as a means of promoting his false doctrines. The church responded in order to provide stability for the church because books that everyone assumed as inspired were beginning to be questioned. Likewise, the doctrines of God came about in similar fashion. The church leaders began to gather to discuss and decide on such matters in order to refute new and false teachings (like that of Arianism, Adoptionism, Gnosticism, etc.) that began to spring up and lead Christians astray. A false teacher would arise saying Jesus was man and not divine, and the church would respond because the leaders recognized this was not based in what the core of Christianity believed. A false teacher would arise saying Jesus was God and not a man...and the church would respond. Etc, etc.
Thus, the Church began to develop a specific doctrine about the nature of God because false doctrines continued to arise that were contrary to what the Church had believed about Jesus. Of course, Constantine urged the Church to develop a consensus quickly because of his own agenda for desiring a united empire...and it is debated whether or not he was a Christian. I think the point is somewhat meaningless because it wasn't like he was the one creating the doctrines. He simply pushed for the gatherings and consensus...it was still the church leaders that agreed upon and decided on the doctrine. Yet they had already decided by pretty much unanimous decision that Arianism, etc. were false teachings.
Anyway, I am sure no one on here wants to read an extensive review on church history and councils. The takeaway is simply that heretical views about God proposed by Oneness theology and modern-day Arians (JWs) were decided very early on to be false... So this picture you have painted that makes it sound like an unbelieving emperor and one or two people developed this doctrine and as a result denounced and condemned all the other views about God held by the true church is just nonsense.
Similar threads
