The Trinity

[Valerie]

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

Actually, the first known use of the Trinity referring to the Godhead- was by Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch-
This is who he was:
https://orthodoxwiki.org/Theophilus_of_Antioch

And this is WHY he used the term- he was dealing with Autolycus an Idolater and Scorner of Christians:
http://www.piney.com/HsTheopTrinity.html

I completely disagree with the implication that this is 'adding to Scripture', but as JM conveyed- it is necessary to help convey the understanding to those who attacked Christianity with heresy-
I agree this is an Anabaptist forum, but- because the Anabaptists were not there when all of this took place and focused on their own doctrines in writing up their particular 'confessions of the faith'- that if a question comes up to try to understand the Trinity, why this doctrine was articulated, it is better to go back to those who actually were the Church where the origin took place- it's difficult to start in the 15th century and look backwards from all the Protestant groups.
It definitely is not adding to Scripture, it's teaching is using Scripture PLUS the understanding the Apostles had through Jesus own words, and revelations of the Holy Spirit-and it was used to deal with the heresies that were trying to destroy the Church.

[ohio jones]

I agree this is an Anabaptist forum, but- because the Anabaptists were not there when all of this took place and focused on their own doctrines in writing up their particular 'confessions of the faith'- that if a question comes up to try to understand the Trinity, why this doctrine was articulated, it is better to go back to those who actually were the Church where the origin took place- it's difficult to start in the 15th century and look backwards from all the Protestant groups.

Well, we would probably say that it's best to go back to Scripture, whether or not the early church, the medieval church, or anyone in the 16th century or since got it right. But since you mentioned confessions of faith, and the Dordrecht Confession is being referred to in another thread, here's how it begins:

Since we find it testified that without faith it is impossible to please God, and that he that would come to God must believe that there is a God, and that He is a rewarder of them that seek Him; therefore, we confess with the mouth, and believe with the heart, with all the pious, according to the holy Scriptures, in one eternal, almighty, and incomprehensible God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and in none more, nor in any other; before whom no God was made or existed, nor shall there be any after Him: for of Him, and through Him, and in Him, are all things; to Him be praise and honor forever and ever, Amen. Hebrews 11:6; Deuteronomy 6:4; Genesis 17:1; Isaiah 46:8; 1 John 5:7; Romans 11:36.

For that matter, I'm not aware of any widely accepted Anabaptist confession of faith that is not essentially (if not explicitly) trinitarian.

[Neto]

I agree this is an Anabaptist forum, but- because the Anabaptists were not there when all of this took place and focused on their own doctrines in writing up their particular 'confessions of the faith'- that if a question comes up to try to understand the Trinity, why this doctrine was articulated, it is better to go back to those who actually were the Church where the origin took place- it's difficult to start in the 15th century and look backwards from all the Protestant groups.

Well, we would probably say that it's best to go back to Scripture, whether or not the early church, the medieval church, or anyone in the 16th century or since got it right. But since you mentioned confessions of faith, and the Dordrecht Confession is being referred to in another thread, here's how it begins:

Since we find it testified that without faith it is impossible to please God, and that he that would come to God must believe that there is a God, and that He is a rewarder of them that seek Him; therefore, we confess with the mouth, and believe with the heart, with all the pious, according to the holy Scriptures, in one eternal, almighty, and incomprehensible God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and in none more, nor in any other; before whom no God was made or existed, nor shall there be any after Him: for of Him, and through Him, and in Him, are all things; to Him be praise and honor forever and ever, Amen. Hebrews 11:6; Deuteronomy 6:4; Genesis 17:1; Isaiah 46:8; 1 John 5:7; Romans 11:36.

For that matter, I'm not aware of any widely accepted Anabaptist confession of faith that is not essentially (if not explicitly) trinitarian.

I don't understand the "in none more, nor in any other" part, but I would not say that this statement is trinitarian. It makes no claim to understand the make up of God as 'three in one' or by any other human contrivance. If in your understanding it seems to go beyond Scripture at some point, please point it out to me.

[Josh]

The Schleitheim contains no explicitly Trinitarian statements, and talks more about the oneness of God.

Of course, this doesn't mean the starement is anti-Trinitarian - early Anabaptists simply felt no quarrel with orthodox christology and Trinitarianism, so their confessions would have had no need to mention it.

[ohio jones]

Schleitheim doesn't really make any theological statements about God, it just seems to assume his existence as foundational to the Brotherly Union.
www.anabaptistwiki.org/Schleitheim_Confession

But, back to Dordrecht: "one ... God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" sounds at least implicitly trinitarian to me. But I think Josh is right that they were not trying to distinguish their beliefs on that subject from the rest of Christianity, nor to rehash the historic arguments, but simply to summarize scripture.

"in none more, nor in any other" appears to connect back to "we confess ... and believe ... in ... God"; no additional or other gods -- but that is a rather tortuous sentence! It probably made more sense in the original (or would to someone fluent in Dutch).

[Wade]

I agree this is an Anabaptist forum, but- because the Anabaptists were not there when all of this took place and focused on their own doctrines in writing up their particular 'confessions of the faith'- that if a question comes up to try to understand the Trinity, why this doctrine was articulated, it is better to go back to those who actually were the Church where the origin took place- it's difficult to start in the 15th century and look backwards from all the Protestant groups.

Well, we would probably say that it's best to go back to Scripture, whether or not the early church, the medieval church, or anyone in the 16th century or since got it right. But since you mentioned confessions of faith, and the Dordrecht Confession is being referred to in another thread, here's how it begins:

Since we find it testified that without faith it is impossible to please God, and that he that would come to God must believe that there is a God, and that He is a rewarder of them that seek Him; therefore, we confess with the mouth, and believe with the heart, with all the pious, according to the holy Scriptures, in one eternal, almighty, and incomprehensible God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and in none more, nor in any other; before whom no God was made or existed, nor shall there be any after Him: for of Him, and through Him, and in Him, are all things; to Him be praise and honor forever and ever, Amen. Hebrews 11:6; Deuteronomy 6:4; Genesis 17:1; Isaiah 46:8; 1 John 5:7; Romans 11:36.

For that matter, I'm not aware of any widely accepted Anabaptist confession of faith that is not essentially (if not explicitly) trinitarian.

I don't understand the "in none more, nor in any other" part, but I would not say that this statement is trinitarian. It makes no claim to understand the make up of God as 'three in one' or by any other human contrivance. If in your understanding it seems to go beyond Scripture at some point, please point it out to me.

The way I understand that confession is worded, would completely agree with my understanding of the term trinity...

?

I really enjoyed the writing about the sun and Christ being the rays while the Spirit is the heat.

[Judas Maccabeus]

Schleitheim doesn't really make any theological statements about God, it just seems to assume his existence as foundational to the Brotherly Union.
www.anabaptistwiki.org/Schleitheim_Confession

But, back to Dordrecht: "one ... God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" sounds at least implicitly trinitarian to me. But I think Josh is right that they were not trying to distinguish their beliefs on that subject from the rest of Christianity, nor to rehash the historic arguments, but simply to summarize scripture.

"in none more, nor in any other" appears to connect back to "we confess ... and believe ... in ... God"; no additional or other gods -- but that is a rather tortuous sentence! It probably made more sense in the original (or would to someone fluent in Dutch).

Controversy forces definition.
No controversy-no need for definition.

That is why many of these statements don't bother to include discussion about issues that the felt were obvious to the average reader.

J.M.

[Neto]

....
But, back to Dordrecht: "one ... God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" sounds at least implicitly trinitarian to me. But I think Josh is right that they were not trying to distinguish their beliefs on that subject from the rest of Christianity, nor to rehash the historic arguments, but simply to summarize scripture.

"in none more, nor in any other" appears to connect back to "we confess ... and believe ... in ... God"; no additional or other gods -- but that is a rather tortuous sentence! It probably made more sense in the original (or would to someone fluent in Dutch).

I guess to me it just sounds like they are restating Scripture in a summary form. To me, for it to be 'trinitarian' would require some statement like '3 in one', or 'one in essence', etc., but there is none of that sort of thing there. But at the same time, by condensing the separate statements into a single statement, instead of writing each out separately, as in “We confess … and believe … in God the Father. We confess … and believe … in God the Holy Spirit. We confess … and believe … in God the Son.”, I can see how some might see the trinity doctrine implied in that statement. But if so, it is a very basic form of it, and not the full-blown description that we generally see in systematic theological explanations of the ‘Godhead'.

I think I get it now (with your explanation – Thanks!) about the phrase I asked about. Would you understand the “in none more” part of that to be saying that they did not believe “in God the Father more than in the Son, or the Holy Spirit, or more in the Son than in the Father & the Holy Spirit, etc.?

[ohio jones]

Here's the same article from Golden Apples, which contains a 1702 translation of Dordrecht from Dutch to German (and more recently to English) as revised by the Swiss Brethren. For those following Mrs. Nisly's thread, this is presumably the Züricher tradition.

Since we find in the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments (Heb. 11:6), that without faith it is impossible to please God, and whoever wants to come to God must believe, and that God will be a rewarder of those that seek him;

We therefore confess with our mouths and believe with our hearts, together with all the devout, according to the Holy Scripture, in one eternal, almighty, holy, righteous, merciful, perfect and incomprehensible God -- Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit -- and in none more, nor in any other; before whom no God was made or existed, nor shall there be any after him: for of him, and through him, and in him, are all things; to him be glory, praise and honor forever and ever. Amen (Deut. 6:4; Gen. 17:1; Isa. 46:8; 1 Jn. 5:7; Mt. 5:48).

I would not interpret "in none more" as a statement of equality among the three persons, but rather as a denial that there could be four or more persons, and perhaps (also) a rejection of polytheism.

[Josh]

One challenge with the Trinity is that some monotheists think we believe in three gods, and it's not hard to see how they could come to this assumption. Muslims in particular have an opinion that we worship both God (same as their Allah), but view Jesus and Mary as two other distinct people we also worship. (Many Muslims are around Catholic or Orthodox people, so it's not hard to see why they think Christians worship Mary as some kind of goddess).

I feel an emphasis on Jesus as indeed being God is important, but without focusing too much on him as a distinct person from God the Father, unless you like the idea of scaring off monotheists.