The Trinity

[Valerie]

I wonder how Jesus felt about people using violence and warfare to kill "heretics" who didn't believe quite the right doctrine about the nature of Jesus.

Yeah, Nicea must have been quite a show. Including fights;

http://www.stnicholascenter.org/pages/b ... -his-cool/

My guess is about the same as when Zwingli, Calvin and Archduke Ferdinand started burning the Anabaptists. Violence to further religion is the natural sinful tendency of man.

J.M.

So the link provided the story of Nicholas apparently being overcome with 'righteous anger' and slapping Arius. It's not like a dog fight broke out however- Bishop Nicholas was punished, he repented and was sorry for his 'behavior' but not his position on the matter. We can blow this out of proportion if not careful. For one thing- the heresy of Arius was spreading like cancer to the Church. This was recognized by Constantine who himself saw the potential of damage it was creating, which is why he called for the council of Bishops. Over 300 Bishops convened to settle this. Councils were established in Acts 15 and became the pattern for the Church to 'settle' matters that arose. It's the way the "brotherhood" in Anabaptists settle matters. There was no deaths nor martyrdom at this council to establish the doctrine of the Trinity. The way I see it, Nicholas was consumed with righteous anger, and zeal for the Lord and Apostolic doctrine- there can be a zeal for the Church that it's possible will overcome someone. Think about this passage from John 2:

13 And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem,

14 And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:

15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;

16 And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise.

17 And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.

I am not defending Nicholas' action, just commenting that there can be a consuming righteous zeal. This had nothing to do with 'personal' defense but defending Christ's and Apostolic doctrine previously establish. The over 300 bishops that gathered to establish the doctrine of the Trinity, bore the marks of persecution on their bodies- (almost all of them had suffered physical persecution). Nicholas served 8 years in prison for his Christianity- suffering even torture.

Just saying, heresy was no small thing in the Church. TODAY it is somewhat tolerated due to the sectarianism that has become the norm.

Here's the true story account:
https://orthodoxwiki.org/Arianism

[Valerie]

....
Strangely, those who hold strongly to the inerrancy of scripture are the ones who also stand the strongest behind this construct, which, as I said, is entirely manmade.
....

This is an interesting observation. I remember when I was being considered for membership in Wycliffe Bible Translators. Part of the application process was writing out our complete doctrinal statement. Regarding the Inerrancy of the Scripture, I initially wrote something simple, like the "the Scripture is our authority in all matters of faith & practice". Even though the man with whom I was interviewing was a Mennonite, that was not enough for him. I told him that I couldn't really see the sense in saying a lot about the "original autographs", since none of them exist, that I'd rather make a statement about what we have today. I don't recall the exact words I put in my final copy (I could look it up - I think i still have it here someplace), but I think I said that I do believe that the original Scripture texts were fully inspired, and contained no errors. (But I kept in my part about the Bible as we have it, I'm pretty sure.)

But it is interesting that you make this remark, and also in regards to those who talk about 'sola scriptura'. I probably do not understand all of the ins & outs of these arguments, so I'll just stick to the statement I originally gave WBT. I think it adequately covers both of these issues. But I do find it really odd that people who claim to regard the original Scripture texts as inerrant have the nerve to add to it in this way.

I do not believe it was 'man made'. Either the bishops of the Church prayed and the Holy Spirit led, or not. I suppose one can have their own opinions about this. I for one, believe the promise of Jesus that He would never leave nor forsake the Church, and that the Holy Spirit would continue to guide Her. To say this was 'man made' is to deny the leading of the Holy Spirit to lead into truth. Why do the 'brethren' meet to pray and decide issues? Would we say that all decisions a church makes are man made when they gather and pray together? I think not.

[Neto]

....
Strangely, those who hold strongly to the inerrancy of scripture are the ones who also stand the strongest behind this construct, which, as I said, is entirely manmade.
....

This is an interesting observation. I remember when I was being considered for membership in Wycliffe Bible Translators. Part of the application process was writing out our complete doctrinal statement. Regarding the Inerrancy of the Scripture, I initially wrote something simple, like the "the Scripture is our authority in all matters of faith & practice". Even though the man with whom I was interviewing was a Mennonite, that was not enough for him. I told him that I couldn't really see the sense in saying a lot about the "original autographs", since none of them exist, that I'd rather make a statement about what we have today. I don't recall the exact words I put in my final copy (I could look it up - I think i still have it here someplace), but I think I said that I do believe that the original Scripture texts were fully inspired, and contained no errors. (But I kept in my part about the Bible as we have it, I'm pretty sure.)

But it is interesting that you make this remark, and also in regards to those who talk about 'sola scriptura'. I probably do not understand all of the ins & outs of these arguments, so I'll just stick to the statement I originally gave WBT. I think it adequately covers both of these issues. But I do find it really odd that people who claim to regard the original Scripture texts as inerrant have the nerve to add to it in this way.

I do not believe it was 'man made'. Either the bishops of the Church prayed and the Holy Spirit led, or not. I suppose one can have their own opinions about this. I for one, believe the promise of Jesus that He would never leave nor forsake the Church, and that the Holy Spirit would continue to guide Her. To say this was 'man made' is to deny the leading of the Holy Spirit to lead into truth. Why do the 'brethren' meet to pray and decide issues? Would we say that all decisions a church makes are man made when they gather and pray together? I think not.

The answer is in your own choice of words. The 'brethren' meet to pray & decide issues, these bishops were deciding doctrine, two very different levels of authority. But it certainly is a good reminder, because there is too often a confusion between decisions regarding conduct and understanding of Biblical doctrine. Possibly not so much in the minds of the ones making the decisions, but their statements sometimes lack the clarity to prevent inferences being made by those that read these statements.

[Josh]

Which is worse, Arianism "heresy", or Constantine merging the church and state and waging war to expand his earthly kingdom?

I can't really see what's majorly wrong with Arianism or why any of should even care. Jesus is the Son of God, and 1 Corinthians 11 describes the headship order of God - Jesus - Man - Woman. Doesn't seem like something worthy of being executed for to believe Jesus could be subordinate to God the Father.

Constantine, on the other hand, led war and killed many. That is the exact opposite of what Jesus came to show us.

[gcdonner]

Which is worse, Arianism "heresy", or Constantine merging the church and state and waging war to expand his earthly kingdom?

I can't really see what's majorly wrong with Arianism or why any of should even care. Jesus is the Son of God, and 1 Corinthians 11 describes the headship order of God - Jesus - Man - Woman. Doesn't seem like something worthy of being executed for to believe Jesus could be subordinate to God the Father.

Constantine, on the other hand, led war and killed many. That is the exact opposite of what Jesus came to show us.

It should be noted, that Constantine remained in fellowship with the Arians and was baptized by an Arian bishop when he was on his death bed. Constantine had no desire for doctrinal purity, but rather universal acceptance for the purpose of political expedience. I believe that this is one doctrine that God has allowed to flourish, not because it is "right" but because that is what men have forcibly determined. Majority opinion does not make any doctrine right or Divinely sanctioned. If that were true, then why would God have allowed Islam to flourish for all these centuries?
Circular reasoning that determines something is right because it has flourished and therefore blessed (inspired?) by God is fool hardy. Popularity does not determine orthodoxy (at least it shouldn't...)

[lesterb]

Popularity does not determine orthodoxy (at least it shouldn't...)

Neither should unpopularity determine orthodoxy.

I think you're straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.

It seems fairly obvious that the Father, Son, and Spirit all existed in the OT era. David was filled with the Spirit. Jesus seems to have appeared to Abraham, Joshua, and others. And he states that he was involved in Creation.

The incarnation is a mystery. The trinity is a mystery. But just because we can't understand how it all works doesn't mean that we need to toss the ideas. It'll all make sense some day.

[ohio jones]

Here's the true story account:
https://orthodoxwiki.org/Arianism

I was expecting another perspective on the St. Nicholas story corresponding to "The Truth About Santa Claus" in JM's link. Instead, no mention of him at all. Oh well.

I can't really see what's majorly wrong with Arianism or why any of [us] should even care.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Unless Jesus somehow made himself, I find Arianism ("there was a time when the Son was not") rather outside the lines.

However, while myself accepting the Trinity, I do not find it necessary to quibble with those who accept the eternal existence and deity of Christ while stopping a step short of the orthodox (and/or Orthodox) trinitarian formula. Whether the unity among, or the distinction between, the persons of "the Godhead" is what's emphasized, it's a relationship that we aren't really capable of fully understanding. Maybe looking at it from both perspectives can give us a more complete picture.

[gcdonner]

Popularity does not determine orthodoxy (at least it shouldn't...)

Neither should unpopularity determine orthodoxy.

I think you're straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.

It seems fairly obvious that the Father, Son, and Spirit all existed in the OT era. David was filled with the Spirit. Jesus seems to have appeared to Abraham, Joshua, and others. And he states that he was involved in Creation.

The incarnation is a mystery. The trinity is a mystery. But just because we can't understand how it all works doesn't mean that we need to toss the ideas. It'll all make sense some day.

I am not against "trinity", but against the insistence that we can know and define the Divine in this way. It never was defined in scripture, because it is beyond our comprehension. Why do we need to define it? I am not an Arian or a Trinitarian, I am a biblicist. The trinity doctrine is MAN's way of trying to define God, MAN's way of trying to put God into a box and anyone who doesn't agree with that particular construct is a heretic? The arguments were over small details, and even the proper understanding of particular words. Jesus never made this an issue, nor did the Apostles, why should we? And why should we accept a definition that was borne out of political expediency?
Think about it, Lester. You nailed it when you said "...a mystery", so why try to define a mystery and make all people conform to something we don't have a clue about?
Think about it. Maybe we should go back to the orthodox view of a flat earth? Ignorance is not the blessing of God, and trying to define things we have no clue about is absolute pride in action.

"Who has known the mind of God?"

[Valerie]

Which is worse, Arianism "heresy", or Constantine merging the church and state and waging war to expand his earthly kingdom?

I can't really see what's majorly wrong with Arianism or why any of should even care. Jesus is the Son of God, and 1 Corinthians 11 describes the headship order of God - Jesus - Man - Woman. Doesn't seem like something worthy of being executed for to believe Jesus could be subordinate to God the Father.

Constantine, on the other hand, led war and killed many. That is the exact opposite of what Jesus came to show us.

You cannot compare the two- and it wasn't about Constantine- it was about WHO CHRIST IS and yes, that is important.
And the Holy Spirit, is who revealed the truth- anyone arguing against the Holy Spirit on it, was blaspheming-
And no, no one was killed to the best of my knowledge about this- but Arian was excommunicated and rightly so.

[Valerie]

This is an interesting observation. I remember when I was being considered for membership in Wycliffe Bible Translators. Part of the application process was writing out our complete doctrinal statement. Regarding the Inerrancy of the Scripture, I initially wrote something simple, like the "the Scripture is our authority in all matters of faith & practice". Even though the man with whom I was interviewing was a Mennonite, that was not enough for him. I told him that I couldn't really see the sense in saying a lot about the "original autographs", since none of them exist, that I'd rather make a statement about what we have today. I don't recall the exact words I put in my final copy (I could look it up - I think i still have it here someplace), but I think I said that I do believe that the original Scripture texts were fully inspired, and contained no errors. (But I kept in my part about the Bible as we have it, I'm pretty sure.)

But it is interesting that you make this remark, and also in regards to those who talk about 'sola scriptura'. I probably do not understand all of the ins & outs of these arguments, so I'll just stick to the statement I originally gave WBT. I think it adequately covers both of these issues. But I do find it really odd that people who claim to regard the original Scripture texts as inerrant have the nerve to add to it in this way.

I do not believe it was 'man made'. Either the bishops of the Church prayed and the Holy Spirit led, or not. I suppose one can have their own opinions about this. I for one, believe the promise of Jesus that He would never leave nor forsake the Church, and that the Holy Spirit would continue to guide Her. To say this was 'man made' is to deny the leading of the Holy Spirit to lead into truth. Why do the 'brethren' meet to pray and decide issues? Would we say that all decisions a church makes are man made when they gather and pray together? I think not.

The answer is in your own choice of words. The 'brethren' meet to pray & decide issues, these bishops were deciding doctrine, two very different levels of authority. But it certainly is a good reminder, because there is too often a confusion between decisions regarding conduct and understanding of Biblical doctrine. Possibly not so much in the minds of the ones making the decisions, but their statements sometimes lack the clarity to prevent inferences being made by those that read these statements.

Not really- these bishops were not 'deciding doctrine' the doctrine was already established. Arian, was spreading another doctrine.

Galatians 5:
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,

21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

The Apostles, already had the true understanding of Christ and this is why the Church was defending it- it was long before canonized Scripture-
It is significantly more important that this council convened to know what to do about this- it couldn't just 'slide' (I realize in todays situation with Christianity it 'seems' like no big deal) than say, to have meetings about things like clothing, internet use, cars or no cars, etc- don't you think so? Wouldn't Christ, who this is/was about, think so?