The Trinity

[Valerie]

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?"

You assume the Church was clueless about it, but history reveals that Christ revealed the truth about who He was- but then Arian misinterpreted 'Scripture'- I don't believe Christ left them in the dark on who He was before He became 'flesh' and dwelt among us.
Not only that aren't we mindful of what Jesus said in John 16?
12I still have much to tell you, but you cannot yet bear to hear it. 13However, when the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all truth. For He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and He will declare to you what is to come.…
I honestly feel the Church already had a grasp on who Christ was, both in His own words, and in future words- and that became part of Apostolic doctrine and was worthy of determining when 'heresy' showed up- and when it did, it set out to divide the Church.

[Valerie]

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.

They are not 'adding to Scripture' it is a Creed- somewhat like the Dordrecht Confession and it's purpose- to 'define'- a summary, if you will. Not adding to Scripture, they didn't canonize the Nicene Creed as part of Scripture.

[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.

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

If Jesus has really intended to do violence to people, he would have surely used something other than " a whip of small cords", likely he was just driving the "merchandise" out.

Sometimes, it seems it is " consuming righteous zeal" if it is someone that supports ones views, and violence in the name of religion if they do not.

BTW, I think only a few of of us have been defending the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, I among them.

Homousian the correct Biblical understand, insomuch as it can be put to words.

The following I see as totally unBiblical:

A council called by a secular ruler who has no claim whatsoever to spiritual leadership
Members of the council jailed because of their actions, including Nicholas.
The decrees of the council enforced by a government.

The conclusions of Nicea were correct, but hey, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

J.M.

[Judas Maccabeus]

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.

Cyanide or Arsenic, take your pick!

J.M.

[gcdonner]

You assume the Church was clueless about it, but history reveals that Christ revealed the truth about who He was- but then Arian misinterpreted 'Scripture'- I don't believe Christ left them in the dark on who He was before He became 'flesh' and dwelt among us.
Not only that aren't we mindful of what Jesus said in John 16?
12I still have much to tell you, but you cannot yet bear to hear it. 13However, when the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all truth. For He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and He will declare to you what is to come.…
I honestly feel the Church already had a grasp on who Christ was, both in His own words, and in future words- and that became part of Apostolic doctrine and was worthy of determining when 'heresy' showed up- and when it did, it set out to divide the Church.

I don't believe that Christ ever intended for his people to argue over his "substance", or his "nature" and those things were not established in the first century or the second, neither was the "orthodox" view already established at this point. If it were, it would have been as simple as having one council to decide it, just like in the book of Acts, but in fact the Nicene Council didn't finish it, nor the next or the next. It took over 50 years to come to the point that they finally arrived at. Arianism wasn't just a new fad in town either...

[gcdonner]

The conclusions of Nicea were correct, but hey, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
J.M.

If the above statement is true, then why did it take another 50 years to get it "right"? They were nit picking over words, and inferences, which I highly doubt was inspired by the Holy Spirit.
If the Trinity doctrine is totally correct then how could Paul say:

1Co 15:28  And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God (the Father) may be all in all. 

Seems like a contradiction of terms if Jesus is/was totally co-equal with the Father.

[Valerie]

You assume the Church was clueless about it, but history reveals that Christ revealed the truth about who He was- but then Arian misinterpreted 'Scripture'- I don't believe Christ left them in the dark on who He was before He became 'flesh' and dwelt among us.
Not only that aren't we mindful of what Jesus said in John 16?
12I still have much to tell you, but you cannot yet bear to hear it. 13However, when the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all truth. For He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and He will declare to you what is to come.…
I honestly feel the Church already had a grasp on who Christ was, both in His own words, and in future words- and that became part of Apostolic doctrine and was worthy of determining when 'heresy' showed up- and when it did, it set out to divide the Church.

I don't believe that Christ ever intended for his people to argue over his "substance", or his "nature" and those things were not established in the first century or the second, neither was the "orthodox" view already established at this point. If it were, it would have been as simple as having one council to decide it, just like in the book of Acts, but in fact the Nicene Council didn't finish it, nor the next or the next. It took over 50 years to come to the point that they finally arrived at. Arianism wasn't just a new fad in town either...

You don't know though- heresy is a work of the flesh- one man's opinion, who gathers a following.
There is nothing new under the sun, you're correct. The devil has always wanted to bring division. However, Jesus said He is the Way, the Truth and the Life- and the Spirit would guide into Truth, and He did- and there were those who tried to confuse and change it to their own understandings. It's happened since the beginning.

[Valerie]

The conclusions of Nicea were correct, but hey, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
J.M.

If the above statement is true, then why did it take another 50 years to get it "right"? They were nit picking over words, and inferences, which I highly doubt was inspired by the Holy Spirit.
If the Trinity doctrine is totally correct then how could Paul say:

1Co 15:28  And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God (the Father) may be all in all. 

Seems like a contradiction of terms if Jesus is/was totally co-equal with the Father.

Why did it take another 50 years? Clarification, NOT nitpicking- for the simple minded perhaps? Who knows, we were not there. Why does it take countless pages on this forum to answer much simpler things that are wrangled about?

Why can you read accounts in Matthew, Mark, Luke & John and find discrepancies in the various accounts? (this initially upset me when I received my Chronological Bible which would reveal that several of the stories had different facts)
Because we are human.

Also, you pulling out 'one' Scripture passage to justify an Arian view is prooftexting isn't it? I think it is somewhat what Arius did when he brought in the heresy- there really is such thing as 'rightly dividing' the Word of Truth. However I believe there was an understanding by the Apostles, passed down that was established. I don't think Jesus left them in the dark about it- in my Orthodox Study Bible, it has been a pleasure to read the Old Testament and the footnotes to see where the Word manifested Himself, before He became flesh- and He was with the Father in the beginning- something Arius did not believe. Like Jehovah Witnesses.

[gcdonner]

Why did it take another 50 years? Clarification, NOT nitpicking- for the simple minded perhaps? Who knows, we were not there. Why does it take countless pages on this forum to answer much simpler things that are wrangled about?

Why can you read accounts in Matthew, Mark, Luke & John and find discrepancies in the various accounts? (this initially upset me when I received my Chronological Bible which would reveal that several of the stories had different facts)
Because we are human.

Do your homework on this one, Valerie, they were nit picking over forms of the words and tenses of the verbs and all that good stuff. You are too ready to accept everything the EO church says is fact...

[Valerie]

Why did it take another 50 years? Clarification, NOT nitpicking- for the simple minded perhaps? Who knows, we were not there. Why does it take countless pages on this forum to answer much simpler things that are wrangled about?

Why can you read accounts in Matthew, Mark, Luke & John and find discrepancies in the various accounts? (this initially upset me when I received my Chronological Bible which would reveal that several of the stories had different facts)
Because we are human.

Do your homework on this one, Valerie, they were nit picking over forms of the words and tenses of the verbs and all that good stuff. You are too ready to accept everything the EO church says is fact...

Again, to bring 'clarification' to HELP PEOPLE UNDERSTAND-not shouting, emphasizing why. I have read all about the councils- to bring clarification. You don't have to agree with it, but neither do I have to disagree with it- I think it is important-