history of the Trinity doctrine

[ken777]

Here's an interesting couple of exerpts from a Catholic writer on the topic of the Trinity:

The Trinity is a key doctrine of the Bible. It has developed over the centuries as people struggled with heretical teachings. Each new formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity came closer to expressing the modern doctrine until there was stability with Augustine's statement and the modern view of the Trinity was established.​

Two important questions for Protestants to consider are, (1) "If we are committed to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, why should we accept the doctrine of the Trinity at all since it clearly goes beyond the statements of the Biblical text and even adds to Paul's concept?" and (2) "What justification is there for believing in doctrinal formulations that took centuries to develop?"​

http://www.northforest.org/CatholicApologetics/SolaScriptura1.html

 

[childofGod31]

I am not sure which point you are making, but if it's about the fact that our Christian doctrine should not be based on the understanding of Trinity, I agree.

The trinity is a mystery. Whoever says he knows it for sure, knows very little about it.

It's the same way with end times theory. Nobody really knows when the Second coming is. And whoever says they do for sure, there is a 50/50 chance that they are mistaken. But people, in their proud ignorance, call those who disagree with their view - heretics, as though our salvation is based on the knowledge of end times.

 

[ken777]

I was mainly interested in seeing how people might answer the two questions posed by the writer.

I think an understanding of the Godhead is important.

 

[gort]

Here's an interesting couple of exerpts from a Catholic writer on the topic of the Trinity:

The Trinity is a key doctrine of the Bible. It has developed over the centuries as people struggled with heretical teachings. Each new formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity came closer to expressing the modern doctrine until there was stability with Augustine's statement and the modern view of the Trinity was established.​

Two important questions for Protestants to consider are, (1) "If we are committed to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, why should we accept the doctrine of the Trinity at all since it clearly goes beyond the statements of the Biblical text and even adds to Paul's concept?" and (2) "What justification is there for believing in doctrinal formulations that took centuries to develop?"​

http://www.northforest.org/CatholicApologetics/SolaScriptura1.html

First, I don't think the doctrine of the Triune God goes beyond the statements of the biblical texts. As scripture interprets scripture, revelation/ having ones eyes opened to see regarding said subject must also play a part. The evidence is clearly there, but not all can see.

Secondly, in what way did this formulation of the trinity come about? I'm curious.

In my experience, it took time to formulate an expression of words for it. As time went by, these formulations went by the way side, until I found that there are no real descriptions of words that can do justice to explain the Triune God, particularly to those who do not understand the concept of the trinity. They all fall short, very short.

Perhaps much like Augustine who finally commented, Love God and do as you please...

 

[Brotherbrown]

Seeing as how the word "trinity" doesnt even show up in the Word of God should be your first clue that it CANT be all that important. Second the evidence that the trinity doctrine uses isnt in the Word of God either, that should be your second bit of evidence. Third when you understand how they pervert the definition of words like deity which isnt in the Word of God should tell you it is all made up. Trinity isnt in the Word of God, God the Son isnt in the Word of God, God the Holy Spirit isnt in the Word of God, deity isnt in the Word of God, divinity isnt in the Word of God. A matter of fact the word "deity" hasnt even got the same definition that the trinity uses it for.
Deity-Divinity
I have seen these words used in so many different context, that I had to go to the library and look in the big dictionary. To try to find out why these people are using it the way they are. It amazed me. The carnal language is dangerous because it is satans play ground. Satan can use the carnal mind, change a few words, exaggerate anything there. But the spiritual mind which is only verses, he has no power. He can only try with a piece of a verse, and this is why I tell everybody. If you ever get a piece of a verse, go look it up for verification. But he(satan) will not use a whole verse because that is glorifiing Christ. And satan is anti-christ. Now when I speak of verses I'm speaking of new testament verses, because we know that he(satan) quotes old testament verses. And yes the Holy Spirit quotes old testament verses to. But Christ is the new testament. Anyway check out these deffinitions from the big dictionary at the library.

deity 1 a: often cap : divine nature or rank: the essintial nature of a god or of a supreme being: DIVINITY
di-vin-i-ty 1:the quality or state of being divine: nature or essence of God: GODHEAD (the divinity of Jesus) a celestial being inferior to the supreme God but superior to man<one of the subservient divinities>
Now it doesnt say that Jesus is God, what it says is He is second in command, it says Jesus is inferior to the supreme God but over every other creature in heaven and on earth.
I got my deffinitions from websters new world dictionary copyright 1993

And last but not least the Word says

Rev 22:18-19
18 For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book;
19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
(NKJ)

 

[gort]

I'm sorry Brotherbrown, but this thread is'nt about trying to refute the doctrine of the Trinity.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I'm sorry Brotherbrown, but this thread is'nt about trying to refute the doctrine of the Trinity.

Funny, I'm trying to figure out what it is about...

As it stands, the first reference to de Trinitas comes from Tertullian, who also first references the formula 'one God in three persons.'

And yes, it is a problem for Protestants, although folks like Barth, Pannenburg, and Jenson have done a marvelous job reinvigorating the doctrine throughout the latter twenteith century (also Jean-Luc Marion and Karl Rahner, but, well, they're Catholic).

 

[2ducklow]

Trinity was created at the council of Nicea.

According to the result of my studies, the Trinity Doctrine was birthed, but not defined as it is today, in the council of bishops in the city of Nicaer by the Roman emperor, Constantine in the year of 325 CE. That&#8217;s why one will not find any Scriptural support for this belief in the bible. The Scriptures that are used to support this belief are misinterpreted. The early church certainly didn&#8217;t share in this belief for there is nothing written by the Apostles to support it. After what was defined in the year of 325 CE, the Trinity Doctrine later evolved over the years to the now common teaching, that God the Father, Jesus the Son and the Holy Spirit of God are three separate persons, all equal, but then one of the same God. That Jesus is His own Father, and the Father is also the Son and that the Father and the Son are the same age and the Holy Spirit is neither but also the same. This ostensible belief, does serve a purpose but not for the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. If one tries to take on this belief, all understanding of the relationship that Jesus, had with His heavenly Father is removed, making it impossible to then understand the relationship that we can also have with the Father as Jesus described in John . 20. "I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; 21. "that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. Notice that Jesus is talking about, in this world, and not in some divine place in the future. 22. "And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: 23. "I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me. 24. "Father, I desire that they also whom You gave Me may be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory which You have given Me; for You loved Me before the foundation of the world. The glory that Jesus is talking about is the presence of &#8220;God the Father in Him&#8221; that by His sacrifice, those that are His can also have this &#8220;Presence&#8221; dwelling in them. This is the glory and that place that Jesus said that He&#8217;d go and prepare. With His final breath on that cross, He said &#8220;it is finished!&#8221; That place within the fullness of God was prepared by His death and now anyone that has truly repented can share in this same glory, the fullness of God in them. Their body became the temple of the living God prepared by the death of Jesus, the &#8220;only begotten Son&#8221;.

http://www.christnus.com/trinity.htm

that is also when the spurious matthew 28.19 was put in the bible to supprt the doctrine the council created.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Trinity was created at the council of Nicea.

[/COLOR][/B]

http://www.christnus.com/trinity.htm

that is also when the spurious matthew 28.19 was put in the bible to supprt the doctrine the council created.

The is completely wrong, as I've already pointed out.

The first reference to the Trinity comes over a century before Nicea, in the person of Tertullian.

 

[2ducklow]

The is completely wrong, as I've already pointed out.

The first reference to the Trinity comes over a century before Nicea, in the person of Tertullian.

Actually Trinity had its beginning at the council of nicea, It was formaly adopted and forced on the church afterwards, but the trinity doctrine that exists today didn't really come about until the second council of chalcedon in around 450 A.D. I believe was the date.
the vast majority of christians of Tertullians day were mostly modal monarchists, or what we would call today oneness. Tertuliian came up with the name perhaps but he was not a trinitarian. What he believed was more modalistic than trinitarian in that he believed god had 3 personas or masks as actors wore in his day. that describes oneness more so than trinity.

Tertullian formulated the Godhead in Latin as tres personae, una substantia. The Greek prospon which meant "face" and later "representative" or "type." Pope Damasus (c. 304-384) approved the use of persona and substantia as equivalent to hypostasis and ousia respectively. This meant that there was only one substance in God even though He "wore the mask" of even more than three personified beings.
​

The Catholic Encyclopedia then uses Theophilus and Tertullian to defend their fairly recent trinity of three "persons" where person is like a "people." However, the perhaps universal view of the trinity by these early writers is that God is One God who expresses Himself in three or more human-like images.

http://www.piney.com/HsTertTrinity.html

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Actually Trinity had its beginning at the council of nicea, It was formaly adopted and forced on the church afterwards, but the trinity doctrine that exists today didn't really come about until the second council of chalcedon in around 450 A.D. I believe was the date.
the vast majority of christians of Tertullians day were mostly modal monarchists, or what we would call today oneness. Tertuliian came up with the name perhaps but he was not a trinitarian. What he believed was more modalistic than trinitarian in that he believed god had 3 personas or masks as actors wore in his day. that describes oneness more so than trinity.

[/COLOR][/FONT]
http://www.piney.com/HsTertTrinity.html

Actually, I'll send you my study on patristic Christology and settle the whole matter.

Tertullian didn't become a modalist until later in his life, at which point he was criticized by the church for deviating from orthodoxy. Clear evidence that the Trinitarian position already existed at the time- why would they criticize him for becoming a modalist?

And no, most weren't modalists. Can you even name a modalist theologian (you know, except Tertullian)?

 

[2ducklow]

Actually, I'll send you my study on patristic Christology and settle the whole matter.

Tertullian didn't become a modalist until later in his life, at which point he was criticized by the church for deviating from orthodoxy. Clear evidence that the Trinitarian position already existed at the time- why would they criticize him for becoming a modalist?

And no, most weren't modalists. Can you even name a modalist theologian (you know, except Tertullian)?

the theologians of Tertullians day were out of touch with what the common people believed. Much as today most bible scholars are universalists and liberal, whereas most born again christians are not.

My recollection from what I have read is that Tertullian consider modalists as inferior and I believe he became either an arian or something in later life, not a modalist.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

the theologians of Tertullians day were out of touch with what the common people believed. Much as today most bible scholars are universalists and liberal, whereas most born again christians are not.

My recollection from what I have read is that Tertullian consider modalists as inferior and I believe he became either an arian or something in later life, not a modalist.

Arianism didn't exist for another century. What he actually became was a Motanist, which often included believe in a modal Godhead.

And can you name a single major theologian today? I have a list of about thirty groundbreaking theologians from the twentieth century. I'll give you 100 blessings you can name five of the people on there.

 

[2ducklow]

Arianism didn't exist for another century. What he actually became was a Motanist, which often included believe in a modal Godhead.

I believe you are correct, he did become a Motanist, as to what they believe I do not know.

And can you name a single major theologian today? I have a list of about thirty groundbreaking theologians from the twentieth century. I'll give you 100 blessings you can name five of the people on there.

I have quite a number of bible commentarys, and invariably they will have some unbelieving view of the bible such as calling prophecy a prediction, or t hey will often attribute scripture to a prevalent belief even pagane belief of the day, instead of to the true author who is God.

Oneness the Dominant Belief In the Second and Third Centuries
We have indicated that Oneness was the only significant belief in the early second century with regard to the Godhead. Even when forms of binitarianism and trinitarianism began to develop they did not gain dominance until the latter part of the third century. During this time there were many notable Oneness leaders and teachers who opposed this shift in doctrine. (For support of our assertion that Oneness was the predominant belief during the period immediately following the apostles, see the research paper entitled "Modalistic Monarchianism: Oneness in Early Church History" at the end of this chapter. This paper describes the major Oneness teachers and their doctrine at this period in church history.)
Modalistic Monarchianism Modalistic monarchianism is the term most often used by church historians to refer to the Oneness view

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pentecostal/One-Ch10.htm

According to the church historian Adolph Harnack, modalistic monarchianism was the most dangerous rival to trinitarianism in the period from 180 A.D. to 300 A.D. He concludes from passages in Hippolytus, Tertullian, and Origen that modalism was the official theory in Rome for almost a generation, and that it was at one time "embraced by the great majority of all Christians." [49]

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pentecostal/One-Ch10.htm

So there is evidence that modalism predominated prior to trinity being forced on the church after the council of nicea.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I believe you are correct, he did become a Motanist, as to what they believe I do not know.


I have quite a number of bible commentarys, and invariably they will have some unbelieving view of the bible such as calling prophecy a prediction, or t hey will often attribute scripture to a prevalent belief even pagane belief of the day, instead of to the true author who is God.


http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pentecostal/One-Ch10.htm

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pentecostal/One-Ch10.htm

So there is evidence that modalism predominated prior to trinity being forced on the church after the council of nicea.

Funny, you've changed your argument.

You've gone from saying that Trinitarianism did not exist before Nicea and was made up by the council. Now you're merely saying it was a minority view.

I'll take that a tacit admission of success on my part.

 

[2ducklow]

Funny, you've changed your argument.

You've gone from saying that Trinitarianism did not exist before Nicea and was made up by the council. Now you're merely saying it was a minority view.

I'll take that a tacit admission of success on my part.

My understanding from what I've read is that trinity in it's present form did not exist until the second council of chalcedon in around 450 A.D.
But it had it's real beginning and formulation at the council of Nicea. Of course there were elements of it expoused prior to the c ouncil of Nicea and some refer to this as trinitarianism. I do not. It was the person I quoted who held the view that trinity existed prior to the council of Nicea. I don't agree with that assesment. Mainly I quoted it to show that there is evidence that modalism predominated early on in christianity.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

My understanding from what I've read is that trinity in it's present form did not exist until the second council of chalcedon in around 450 A.D.
But it had it's real beginning and formulation at the council of Nicea. Of course there were elements of it expoused prior to the c ouncil of Nicea and some refer to this as trinitarianism. I do not. It was the person I quoted who held the view that trinity existed prior to the council of Nicea. I don't agree with that assesment. Mainly I quoted it to show that there is evidence that modalism predominated early on in christianity.

You quoted an unsubstatiated opinion. Show the evidence. Or the scholar's evidence.

 

[ken777]

I think we have to concede that the doctrine of the Trinity is not explicitly stated in Scripture. It is a conclusion based on the evidence, and it is a conclusion that evolved over time. And it was a considerable period of time before it was universally adopted by the Church as three distinct co-equal persons. It is very doubtful that Paul would have approved of such a statement about the Godhead.

THE CHRISTIAN FAITH: AN INTRODUCTION TO DOGMATIC THEOLOGY
By CLAUDE BEAUFORT MOSS, D.D. (Anglican priest and theological writer).
Since the doctrine of the Trinity is revealed, Scripture must prove it, which is the record of revelation. It is not explicitly stated in Scripture, but has been worked out by the Church as the only possible conclusion from the evidence given in Scripture.
http://www.katapi.org.uk/ChristianFaith/VIII.htm

“Trinitarian”, Encyclopedia Britannica, 2003, Vol 11, p928
Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: “Hear O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord”.

The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies.

It was not until the 4th century that the distinctiveness of the three and their unity were brought together in a single orthodox doctrine of one essence and three persons.
​

 

[ken777]

This statement of Tertullian is often argued about so I thought I'd throw it in. Do the majority (the simple) assume that the Trinity is a "division of the unity"?

"The simple, indeed, (I will not call them unwise and unlearned) who always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation (of the Three in One), on the ground that their very rule of faith withdraws them from the world's plurality of gods to the one only true God; not understanding that, although He is the one only God, He must yet be believed in with His own 'oikonomia'. The numerical order and distribution of the Trinity they assume to be a division of the Unity; whereas the Unity which derives the Trinity out of its own self is so far from being destroyed, that it is actually supported by it." (Tertullian, Against Praxeas, III).​

alternative translation​

"All simple people, not to say the unwise and unprofessional (who always constitute the majority of believers), since even the rule of faith itself removes them from the plurality of the gods of this world to the one true God, become greatly terrified through their failure to understand that, while He must be believed to be one, it is along with his economy, because they judge that economy, implying a number and arrangement of trinity, is really a division of unity, whereas unity, deriving trinity from itself, is not destroyed by it but made serviceable."
Against Praxeas
​

 

[GenemZ]

Here's an interesting couple of exerpts from a Catholic writer on the topic of the Trinity:

The Trinity is a key doctrine of the Bible. It has developed over the centuries as people struggled with heretical teachings. Each new formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity came closer to expressing the modern doctrine until there was stability with Augustine's statement and the modern view of the Trinity was established.​

Two important questions for Protestants to consider are, (1) "If we are committed to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, why should we accept the doctrine of the Trinity at all since it clearly goes beyond the statements of the Biblical text and even adds to Paul's concept?" and (2) "What justification is there for believing in doctrinal formulations that took centuries to develop?"​

http://www.northforest.org/CatholicApologetics/SolaScriptura1.html

First of all. What that page says is of no consequence pertaining to the Trinity. Here's and example as to why, from a quote of what that page has to say.

Protestants claim that the Bible is the sole authority in all that it asserts. The difficulty of this view is that so many well-meaning theologians have come up with so many different interpretations from the same Bible. Who are we to believe?
Catholics, however, believe that the authority of the Catholic Church supercedes the Bible because she has the divinely given authority to provide the true interpretation of the Bible based on Jesus' promise to the church.

I do not want to delve into that too much. But what it boils down to is this. The RCC feels its their right to say what is to be believed. They do have many teachings, which in the light of Scripture? Screams distortion.

What they do they claim is better. In one sense it may be. There will not be a lot of confusion with many conflicting reports. That is because they only will allow for one false teaching to be accepted by all!

While the Protestants are allowed to be more freedom to be creative and create many variables in false teachings. That's basically the difference between the two.



Now? As far as the Trinity?

Let's see what Scripture says about the Holy Spirit in a few passages.

Isaiah 6:8-9 (New International Version)
"Then I heard the voice of the Lord [Jehovah/Yahweh] saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?"

And I said, "Here am I. Send me!"




He said, "Go and tell this people:
" 'Be ever hearing, but never understanding;
be ever seeing, but never perceiving.'​

Combine that with Acts 28:25?



What do we discover?

Acts 28:25-26 (New International Version)
"They disagreed among themselves and began to leave after Paul had made this final statement: "The Holy Spirit spoke the truth to your forefathers when he said through Isaiah the prophet:

" 'Go to this people and say,
"You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving."
​

​

The Bible does not always come straight out and say the Holy Spirit is God! Nor, the same about Jesus.

The Bible many times requires years of study and learning of knowledge of the Word first... then will come the comparing of Scripture with Scripture as your knowledge in the Word grows.

The Holy Spirit must guide you into truth. For, many truths are hidden to the natural mind. Then you will be able to connect and correlate the many different angles of a single gem into one light!

For, Isaiah said....

"Then I heard the voice of the Lord [Jehovah/Yahweh] saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?"

And I said, "Here am I. Send me!"

​

​

And? Whom does Paul later reveal is the Jehovah/Yahweh - Lord, speaking in Isaiah's passage?



​

"The Holy Spirit spoke the truth to your forefathers when he said through Isaiah the prophet..."
​

That was the means by which the Trinity was discovered! By correlation of Scripture with Scripture! It should have taken years to see the correlation. So? Having taken years to develop the concept of the Trinity? So what?

Those who want to disprove the Trinity may demand that we give them a single passages that makes direct reference.

But, there are even a few like that as well...

Here.

Acts 5:3-4 (New International Version)
"Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God."
​

We do not need any one Church claiming a patent on truth telling us what to believe because they say that they hold a copyrite on the Truth.

We need the Word of God taught by the means of anointed teachers. Men of integrity who have been given the spiritual gift. Wherever that happens? There we will find members of the Church thriving and growing spiritually in the Lord.

We will also find mistakes there as well. But, because the ones teaching having no claim to being the sole voice for God? Others can be used of God to introduce corrections. That causes growth! For we know that to those who love God, he causes all things to work together for the good.
With a church claiming its the only means for the truth? That guarantees corruption as soon as the first error is introduced and no one is allowed to challenge it on the basis of the claim there is no voice outside of that one Church. One that also claims it was promised to always be right.

So much for that.

In Christ, GeneZ
​

​