The Trinity

[Valerie]

Are you sure about that? You're speaking for a lot of people and that is quite an assumption.

The pastor at the SBC church that I attended before coming to Anabaptism said, and I quote, "Paul's thesis in Ephesians is that your theology is the most important thing about you." That was around when I was getting tired of living as if my theology were the most important thing about me, so it sticks out in my mind.

It is true that evangelical Protestantism is really big, so I should be careful not to paint them all with that brush - thank you for the reminder.

But to be clear, the Apostles made 'doctrine' very essential to the faith, not JUST behavior- but evangelical Protestants are 'doing' quite a lot of 'good works' in the world, I learn of them constantly.

I never said they weren't.

They are being the hands and feet of Jesus all over the world. Maybe don't quibble about suspenders, plain clothing, etc- but perhaps their emphasis on serving is as important as other Christians? Sorry if I find that statement offensive as I know many evangelicals that are serving the Lord, but maybe not 'plain' in dress.

I never said anything about plain dress. Remember that the context of my statements was trying to explain why evangelicals condemn a person for using a picture from nature to explain the Trinity (article is satire, but yet representative).

But doctrine IS important...

I never said it wasn't important. I do say it is not the most important.

I understand, and can relate to becoming 'sour grapes' from previous church experiences, we just have to be careful about judging 'entire' denominations, unless they are heretical and need correction-all denominations get some things wrong and some things right, they all place 'emphasis' on what they feel is 'most' important to convey- especially when it comes to evangelizing- the Apostles preached Christ and Him crucified- and used the Old Testament primarily to show how Christ fulfilled Old Testament prophesies- so when we read 'the Bereans searched the Scriptures to see if these things were so' it was because the Apostles emphasized Christ, the fulfillment of OT prophesy in regards to Him, and His crucifixion and resurrection- and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on converts-

[Wade]

The term Trinty was not an invention of Nicea. Tertullian used it as well as the terms "substance" and "economy."

I have found helpful the lecture by D. Bercot. "What The Early Christians Believed About the Trinity."

It is available at:

https://www.scrollpublishing.com/store/product133.html

Thank you.

A couples hours late - I just put in an order... I would have added that if I seen it...

Thankfully for Scroll Publishing's excellent service they were able to adjust my order when I sent an email they phoned the next day and I received the trinity CD with my order recently. It was good.
Also listened to Bercot's CD on grace, which I before had the wrong impression of what he actually thought grace was from one of his books that really bothered me. This CD cleared things up and was also helpful.
Now if his talks were posted somewhere besides youtube I would listen to more since youtube doesn't work for us in applying staying away from "all appearance of evil"...

[JayP]

I stayed quiet through most of this discussion. I'm not sure if my comment on the Trinity may have triggered the original creating of this thread (or maybe not). I had raised the point as a tangent to another discussion, that the Trinity is a fine example of how we use vocabulary (especially jargon) to express thoughts in a way acceptable to each other, when in fact the words are not necessarily fully meaningful to our limited human understanding.
But we use the terms we can all agree on (3 but 1, etc.) so we don't have to fight over it! Especially because we would be terrible at arguing our points since there is such a lack of vocabulary.

I will stand by this view. I suspect a Christian generally kinda/sorta understands the Trinity and then remains comfortable that he need not have every answer. Even think about concepts like "God is outside of time", or "reconcile free will and omniscient", "born of a Virgin".
We grope to understand them, state them, repeat them (as is appropriate), but can we REALLY understand this right now.
I'm not the biggest fan of Paul, but "For we see through a glass, darkly, ...." so well describes this.

I have always been fascinated by (and perhaps some of you are unaware) one of the major doctrinal divisions between the RCC and the Orthodox is the RCC says in the creed "...He proceeds from the Father and the Son" whereas the Orthodox say "...He proceeds from the Father".

I"m not suggesting a debate on the merits of each. Just how hard it is to express something we 'sort of' understand. But I think there is a huge lesson in that we can understand something WELL even when only understanding it VAGUELY. I suspect we all experience in our lives things we KNOW we should do, we recognize good from evil, or right from wrong, without being able to expound on it explicitly.

[ohio jones]

I stayed quiet through most of this discussion. I'm not sure if my comment on the Trinity may have triggered the original creating of this thread (or maybe not).

Considering that the thread was active from Dec. 2016 to Jan. 2017 and you joined in Sept. 2023, it seems unlikely the thread was originated as a result of your comment.

On the other hand,

"God is outside of time"

[Josh]

Since JayP revived this thread, and he's Catholic, I'll repeat a point I often make.

Most of us are descended from Western Catholic traditions and origins, and for various reasons we all basically have identical cristology and trinitarian doctrine to the Roman Catholic church. I find that very interesting. In more fundamentalist groups, they consider these doctrines foundational to even things like salvation itself - it is important to them to believe these exact doctrines, which often appear at the top of their statements of faith.

[eccentric_rambler]

Since JayP revived this thread, and he's Catholic, I'll repeat a point I often make.

Most of us are descended from Western Catholic traditions and origins, and for various reasons we all basically have identical cristology and trinitarian doctrine to the Roman Catholic church. I find that very interesting. In more fundamentalist groups, they consider these doctrines foundational to even things like salvation itself - it is important to them to believe these exact doctrines, which often appear at the top of their statements of faith.

Interesting observation. I don't think I even know what other trinitarian doctrines there are, besides those that deny the trinity. Perhaps you can point me to some groups that would believe in the trinity but have some other understanding?

[Josh]

Interesting observation. I don't think I even know what other trinitarian doctrines there are, besides those that deny the trinity. Perhaps you can point me to some groups that would believe in the trinity but have some other understanding?

Apostolic Pentecostals who are basically modalist (still trinitarian, but a different cristology; a strict fundamentalist Trinitarian will accuse them of not being trinitarian, though). The Church of the East holds to a slightly different view that its accusers would claim to be Nestorianism. And then there are a myriad of groups out there with bizarre doctrines, some of which mirror marcionism or arianism; these groups range from liberal Christians who would hold to marcionism to some large church groups in the Phillippines and Mexico who basically hold to arianism (albeit none of these groups have any historical link to those ancient groups).

[eccentric_rambler]

Thanks Josh.

[gcdonner]

It is a sad commentary on Christianity that it can excommunicate, disfellowship or even persecute those who hold to different views of our God's nature. How can we finite beings claim such infallibility when attempting to describe and define the ineffable, who himself declares that his thoughts are above our thoughts?
I presently am fellowshipping at a Pentecostal church here in Tennessee. They used to be UPC, but the pastor no longer entirely embraces all of their doctrines. He still leans towards the "Oneness" idea, but preaches like a trinitarian. I choose not to try and define and therefore make it plainly known that I am neither one nor the other and have, in fact expressed my thoughts in a sermon in our church.
Who are we to ultimately decide who is and who isn't "saved" according to a particular doctrinal viewpoint. I certainly believe that God/YHWH and his son Yeshua/Jesus are more tolerant of my fully confessed ignorance of their nature, than they may be of those who will divide over a turn of words. The term "trinity", like the term "oneness" is not found in scripture. How can we separate and pronounce anathemas over those who embrace a different "definition"?
There is one God who has only one begotten son, both of those terms are found in scripture and there I will rest.
(I'll step down from my soap box and skulk away to the sidelines again)

[Valerie]

I believe Jesus taught it correctly to His Apostles who then passed down the understanding. Then the Church encountered heresies ,(Biblical term who's is addressed seriously in the Bible) therefore the Church took seriously to address heresy and through the ages we have become very "new age" in saying "your truth" and "my truth" in Christian interpretation. That's just where we are today. I do think Jesus taught it correctly and He didn't use the word Trinity but that word gave meaning to what He did teach those He sent to start Churches. The word was used very early.