The Trinity

[Judas Maccabeus]

Since the term "Trinity" was coined at Nicea I to begin with, perhaps the Nicene Creed would be the best definition:

I believe in one God, Father Almighty, Creator 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;

Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten,
not created, of one essence with the Father
through Whom all things were made.

Who for us men and for our salvation
came down from heaven and was incarnate
of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man.

He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate,
and suffered and was buried;

And He rose on the third day,
according to the Scriptures.

He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father;

And He will come again with glory to judge the living
and dead. His kingdom shall have no end.

And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Creator of life,
Who proceeds from the Father, Who together with the
Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, Who
spoke through the prophets.

In one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

I look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the age to come.

Amen.

***Note Catholic is not Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic. It is universal. They did not use Icons, statues, or have writings/hymns to Mary then. It was just the universal Apostolic church.

****Note Anabaptists "rebaptists" believe in 1 Baptism. They just didn't hold the infant dunking in water as Baptism.

The Nicene Creed was not the only definition or even the majority definition at the time, but it was the majority of those who attended the council. The vast majority of Christianity at the time were closer to the Arian viewpoint, but many of the bishops from the Eastern churches did not attend.

The real question is, does any of the above definition come from scripture?

I would say most if not all does. The heresy it was designed to refute was thoroughly unbiblical. IF Jesus is not fully God, and co-equal with God, He cannot be God at all. Any less than God is not God. Even the first confession of the church "Jesus is Lord" proclaims Him equal to the Father. If He is less, He is not Lord, but another subordinate, just like us.

This would likely have been used as baptismal vows. It was a definition of what was thought to be what the church, and therefor the Bible taught.

IF you look at history, the majority of people in the "core" Roman empire were orthodox in their views. Tribes like the visigoths and other fringe germanic tribes were generally of an aryan persuasion.

J.M.

[Josh]

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.

[Judas Maccabeus]

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.

[gcdonner]

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.

The same way he does today over the same issue. We humans are trying to define the Divine and some of us think we "KNOW" how it works and anyone who disagrees is a heretic.

The debate over the nature of the Son lasted for another half century (and more) after the Nicene Council.
I am not a trinitarian, nor am I anti-trinitarian. I don't believe that we as humans have the ability or even the right to try and define our God's nature at all. We have only created hate and discontent in the Body of Christ with this and other such disagreements.

I wonder how many folks here in this discussion know what other issues were discussed there?

[Neto]

Neto:

As far as "assumed Manhood into itself", likely the scripture they had in mind was:

Phil 2:6-8
Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!

"Taking" the nature of a servant and "Humbling himself" was the concept they appear to be trying to reinforce here.

The issue with the nature of the Holy Spirit was also part of what was dealt with at Nicea. IF you accept that the Holy Spirit has the attributes of personhood, than deity is almost a given.

J.M.

I won't belabor the point, but I just feel that they were either saying something different than Scripture, or they made a poor choice of words. "Being made in human likeness" fits precisely with what is recorded in John 1. So why didn't they just say it the way Scripture said it? That is what makes me wonder if they might have MEANT something different. Were they also dealing with a teaching that regarded Jesus as a created being? (That would help explain the poor choice of words, if that is what it was. But of course, I am only looking at a translation of the original document, and there could be a translation error as well.)

Was the controversy over where Jesus got his body already raging at that time? I know that according to most commentators, there were already heretical teachings dealt with in some of the epistles about the body being evil, or it not mattering what was done in the body, since it would perish in death.

[gcdonner]

I won't belabor the point, but I just feel that they were either saying something different than Scripture, or they made a poor choice of words. "Being made in human likeness" fits precisely with what is recorded in John 1. So why didn't they just say it the way Scripture said it? That is what makes me wonder if they might have MEANT something different. Were they also dealing with a teaching that regarded Jesus as a created being? (That would help explain the poor choice of words, if that is what it was. But of course, I am only looking at a translation of the original document, and there could be a translation error as well.)

Was the controversy over where Jesus got his body already raging at that time? I know that according to most commentators, there were already heretical teachings dealt with in some of the epistles about the body being evil, or it not mattering what was done in the body, since it would perish in death.

The whole discussion, that became very nasty, was over the nature of the body of Christ and yes Gnosticism was there in the beginning as reported by John in his epistles.
Here is what the Arians declared about Jesus nature:

The early history of the controversy must be pieced together from about 35 documents found in various sources. The Trinitarian historian Socrates of Constantinople reports that Arius first became controversial under the bishop Alexander of Alexandria, when Arius made the following syllogism: he said, "If the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this it is evident, that there was a time when the Son was not. It therefore necessarily follows, that he had his substance from nothing".

It is not hard to understand the way the controversy worked itself out, just read through the varying opinions in this thread and see some of the reactionary comments being made along the way. It has been almost 2000 years and the issue is still not settled. One might wonder why if it is supposedly so clear cut? It is not clear cut, because it is a human invention, totally apart from scripture.
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.
Political correctness is nothing new to the church... I did say "political" didn't I?

[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.

[Judas Maccabeus]

Neto:

As far as "assumed Manhood into itself", likely the scripture they had in mind was:

Phil 2:6-8
Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!

"Taking" the nature of a servant and "Humbling himself" was the concept they appear to be trying to reinforce here.

The issue with the nature of the Holy Spirit was also part of what was dealt with at Nicea. IF you accept that the Holy Spirit has the attributes of personhood, than deity is almost a given.

J.M.

I won't belabor the point, but I just feel that they were either saying something different than Scripture, or they made a poor choice of words. "Being made in human likeness" fits precisely with what is recorded in John 1. So why didn't they just say it the way Scripture said it? That is what makes me wonder if they might have MEANT something different. Were they also dealing with a teaching that regarded Jesus as a created being? (That would help explain the poor choice of words, if that is what it was. But of course, I am only looking at a translation of the original document, and there could be a translation error as well.)

Was the controversy over where Jesus got his body already raging at that time? I know that according to most commentators, there were already heretical teachings dealt with in some of the epistles about the body being evil, or it not mattering what was done in the body, since it would perish in death.

No, more likely the heretical idea that Jesus was born "human" and only became divine at his baptism. That is only a guess, unfortunately, all sorts of problems had developed by that point.

J.M.

[gcdonner]

No, more likely the heretical idea that Jesus was born "human" and only became divine at his baptism. That is only a guess, unfortunately, all sorts of problems had developed by that point. J.M.

The adoptionist view of divinity, based on what the Father said as the Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus in the form of a dove.

Mat 3:16  And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: 
17  And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 

This view was held by the Ebionites. It was viewed as heretical in the 2nd century by what is now viewed as the orthodox church (not the denomination, which didn't exist at that time).
I wonder what would have happened if that had become the view of the powerful and politically connected? Would we all be denouncing the trinity doctrine as heresy down through the ages?

Does Romans 1:3,4 reflect an adoptionist view being stated by Paul?

Rom 1:3  Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; 
4  And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead: 

This discussion has brought to my mind another question, perhaps one that should be addressed in another thread.

Is what we now consider "orthodoxy", in place because God has willed it, or is it in place due to the efforts of man, and what if the truth is somewhat different and one that we need to seek after? In Jesus day, he was considered a heretic and was crucified for that reason and as well were many of his followers for the first, nearly 100 years at the behest of the Jews...

Do we assume too much?

[Josh]

Most of what we call "orthodoxy" now is so because people on one particular side of a christological debate has the best army and won battles.