The Trinity

[Neto]

I came on this morning thinking to post this, then saw some of the other comments, and started to write up something more, but decided to let it go, at least for now. So now I'll just say what I was thinking to add to the discussion this morning.

Here is where I see the most damage from this (extra-Biblical) doctrine: I sense that it confuses or over-shadows the Biblical truth that there is but one true God, and he is one. Where this becomes important (in my opinion) is in any attempt to reach Jewish people with the truth of Jesus as the Promised Messiah. It is not an insurmountable problem, but it seems to me to form an unnecessary wall between them and the Gospel. Jesus is the 'stumbling stone' revealed in Scripture - Let's not add trinitarianism to their reasons for rejecting him. (I also suspect that the same is true of attempts to reach Muslim peoples, at least to some degree.)

[RZehr]

I came on this morning thinking to post this, then saw some of the other comments, and started to write up something more, but decided to let it go, at least for now. So now I'll just say what I was thinking to add to the discussion this morning.

Here is where I see the most damage from this (extra-Biblical) doctrine: I sense that it confuses or over-shadows the Biblical truth that there is but one true God, and he is one. Where this becomes important (in my opinion) is in any attempt to reach Jewish people with the truth of Jesus as the Promised Messiah. It is not an insurmountable problem, but it seems to me to form an unnecessary wall between them and the Gospel. Jesus is the 'stumbling stone' revealed in Scripture - Let's not add trinitarianism to their reasons for rejecting him. (I also suspect that the same is true of attempts to reach Muslim peoples, at least to some degree.)

I would be interested in what you decided to let go.

[Josh]

My experience with Muslims is they tend to think we believe in multiple gods, but sometimes include Mary in that pantheon (basically, they think we believe in their Allah God, but also believe Jesus is a god and that Mary is a goddess). I am guessing they picked that up from their Catholic and Orthodox neighbours who venerate Mary, have statues of her, and otherwise pretty much do with Mary the things you expect people to do with a goddess.

The idea of "The Lord your God is one God" is a theme all throughout scripture, and I think it will be a good one to stick with.

[Neto]

I came on this morning thinking to post this, then saw some of the other comments, and started to write up something more, but decided to let it go, at least for now. So now I'll just say what I was thinking to add to the discussion this morning.

Here is where I see the most damage from this (extra-Biblical) doctrine: I sense that it confuses or over-shadows the Biblical truth that there is but one true God, and he is one. Where this becomes important (in my opinion) is in any attempt to reach Jewish people with the truth of Jesus as the Promised Messiah. It is not an insurmountable problem, but it seems to me to form an unnecessary wall between them and the Gospel. Jesus is the 'stumbling stone' revealed in Scripture - Let's not add trinitarianism to their reasons for rejecting him. (I also suspect that the same is true of attempts to reach Muslim peoples, at least to some degree.)

I would be interested in what you decided to let go.

Well, I.m not sure that the tone of this is very nice, but I was going to respond as follows:

It is important to remember, the Trinity is a doctrine of revelation, not a doctrine of reason. We believe this because this is what Jesus taught, this is what the Apostles taught. We do not believe it because it sounds good or makes sense.

To understand how the Trinity works, one would need ability to comprehend the infinite, timeless and immeasurable. We cannot.

J.M.

It seems to me that the doctrine of the trinity is something they reasoned out, then, having decided what seemed most 'reasonable' to them, they claimed it to have been revealed to them.

[Judas Maccabeus]

I came on this morning thinking to post this, then saw some of the other comments, and started to write up something more, but decided to let it go, at least for now. So now I'll just say what I was thinking to add to the discussion this morning.

Here is where I see the most damage from this (extra-Biblical) doctrine: I sense that it confuses or over-shadows the Biblical truth that there is but one true God, and he is one. Where this becomes important (in my opinion) is in any attempt to reach Jewish people with the truth of Jesus as the Promised Messiah. It is not an insurmountable problem, but it seems to me to form an unnecessary wall between them and the Gospel. Jesus is the 'stumbling stone' revealed in Scripture - Let's not add trinitarianism to their reasons for rejecting him. (I also suspect that the same is true of attempts to reach Muslim peoples, at least to some degree.)

I would be interested in what you decided to let go.

Well, I.m not sure that the tone of this is very nice, but I was going to respond as follows:

It is important to remember, the Trinity is a doctrine of revelation, not a doctrine of reason. We believe this because this is what Jesus taught, this is what the Apostles taught. We do not believe it because it sounds good or makes sense.

To understand how the Trinity works, one would need ability to comprehend the infinite, timeless and immeasurable. We cannot.

J.M.

It seems to me that the doctrine of the trinity is something they reasoned out, then, having decided what seemed most 'reasonable' to them, they claimed it to have been revealed to them.

The authors of the early Christology did not claim special revelation to the best of my knowledge. If I am wrong, please show me where. I teach this stuff to mainland Chinese.

My contention would be that the Athanasian formula is simply a statement of what is found in scripture,

""For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. ""

Uses complex language, but conveys the Scriptural concept.

J.M.

[Neto]

I would be interested in what you decided to let go.

Well, I.m not sure that the tone of this is very nice, but I was going to respond as follows:

It is important to remember, the Trinity is a doctrine of revelation, not a doctrine of reason. We believe this because this is what Jesus taught, this is what the Apostles taught. We do not believe it because it sounds good or makes sense.

To understand how the Trinity works, one would need ability to comprehend the infinite, timeless and immeasurable. We cannot.

J.M.

It seems to me that the doctrine of the trinity is something they reasoned out, then, having decided what seemed most 'reasonable' to them, they claimed it to have been revealed to them.

The authors of the early Christology did not claim special revelation to the best of my knowledge. If I am wrong, please show me where. I teach this stuff to mainland Chinese.

My contention would be that the Athanasian formula is simply a statement of what is found in scripture,

""For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. ""

Uses complex language, but conveys the Scriptural concept.

J.M.

I apparently misunderstood your earlier comment. I thought you were saying that they considered the description that they made of God to be a revelation at that time (to deal with heresies being spread around). But it seems to me that terms like 'Godhead" imply the fuller description of the trinity doctrine (such as "three persons, one essence"), and these go beyond Scripture. I am not claiming that this doctrine is false, only that Scripture does not reveal or determine in such detail as they present, the nature of God.

I read through the entire English translation of the declaration (on wikipedia), and I would also take it to task in regards to how they describe the incarnation of The Christ:

One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood into God.

The Scripture, in contrast, says that the Word became (human) flesh. Their statement seems to imply that their "Trinity" ("Godhead") all as one "assumed manhood" into itself. In general, however, without looking at it more carefully, I should say that they did not go as far beyond Scripture as do later discussions, such as attempting to determine if the Holy Spirit "emanates" from the Father or the Son, or both equally, etc. (If I recall correctly, this was in response to a heresy which regarded the Holy Spirit as maybe not being really God, or something of that nature.)

[Chris]

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.

[gcdonner]

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?

[Chris]

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?

Define Scripture. There wasn't a Bible then. Books like "Clement I" were read in the churches at that time.

Curious where you got the information that the vast majority was an Arian viewpoint?? From what I understand, Arius was a ringleader pushed a heretical nature of God.

Nonetheless, this creed was put into place from NICEA (which gathered because of Arianism) to directly DEFINE what the Trinity was. The creed flowed out of Nicea because they were defining the Trinity and to grasp the understanding of the "Godhead" and make it universal.

To define what the Trinity is, why not take the definition from the source of those who coined the word?

Mennonites directly believe in the Triune God, which was defined out of Nicea.

There is "bible support", but the Bible isn't everything either to an Anabaptist as they are not Sola Scriptura.

[Judas Maccabeus]

Well, I.m not sure that the tone of this is very nice, but I was going to respond as follows:



It seems to me that the doctrine of the trinity is something they reasoned out, then, having decided what seemed most 'reasonable' to them, they claimed it to have been revealed to them.

The authors of the early Christology did not claim special revelation to the best of my knowledge. If I am wrong, please show me where. I teach this stuff to mainland Chinese.

My contention would be that the Athanasian formula is simply a statement of what is found in scripture,

""For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. ""

Uses complex language, but conveys the Scriptural concept.

J.M.

I apparently misunderstood your earlier comment. I thought you were saying that they considered the description that they made of God to be a revelation at that time (to deal with heresies being spread around). But it seems to me that terms like 'Godhead" imply the fuller description of the trinity doctrine (such as "three persons, one essence"), and these go beyond Scripture. I am not claiming that this doctrine is false, only that Scripture does not reveal or determine in such detail as they present, the nature of God.

I read through the entire English translation of the declaration (on wikipedia), and I would also take it to task in regards to how they describe the incarnation of The Christ:

One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood into God.

The Scripture, in contrast, says that the Word became (human) flesh. Their statement seems to imply that their "Trinity" ("Godhead") all as one "assumed manhood" into itself. In general, however, without looking at it more carefully, I should say that they did not go as far beyond Scripture as do later discussions, such as attempting to determine if the Holy Spirit "emanates" from the Father or the Son, or both equally, etc. (If I recall correctly, this was in response to a heresy which regarded the Holy Spirit as maybe not being really God, or something of that nature.)

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 thee attributes of personhood, than deity is almost a given.

J.M.