Is the Trinity an essential doctrine?

Philip · Oct 2, 2005

Blackhawk said:
But the participants in the ecumenical councils took what they believed in large part from scripture.

Agreed, but we must also remember that the heretics also claimed their beliefs were supported by Scripture. As is often the case, it comes down to the proper interpretation of Scripture.

Blackhawk · Oct 3, 2005

Philip said:
Agreed, but we must also remember that the heretics also claimed their beliefs were supported by Scripture. As is often the case, it comes down to the proper interpretation of Scripture.

True. But I see the Fathers as seeing scripture showing the proper interpretation of it. Not that the proper interpretation had to be put on scripture. Proper interpretation was not something alien to scripture. It was the natural reading of scripture. So Irenaeus could state Jesus is the hypothesis of scripture not because Jesus was not in scripture before but b4ecause he was there.

See my point? I have no problem with what you said above but i see the Fathers stating that how scripture is itself is how it should be interpreted.

Blackhawk · Oct 3, 2005

depthdeception said:
Of course the council used Scripture as a source. However, if one considers the orthodox definition of the Trinity, one will very quickly realize that such a definition cannot be explicitly found in Scripture. Therefore, it took the council of the bishops of the Church to authoritatively speak on this matter of doctrine (which was what Christ had commissioned them to do) in order to distinguish between false and correct belief. Remember, the definition of the Trinity, Christ's nature, etc. were done just for the heck of it. Rather, these definitions were bourne out of the necessity of preserving the truth faith which had been taught by the apostles from false teaching that, interesting enough, was very much based upon "Scripture."

Okay. I do not have a problem with the church being the one who recognizes the true interpretation of scripture. I know why the councils were convened. And I do think that they should be looked at as authortative. What I took as incorrect is "It took an Ecumenical Council, not Scripture, to establish the belief as dogma." I think this is incorrect. It was scripture and the councils. it was the councils as they interpreted scripture. So to say the councils did it instead of scripture I think is incorrrect.

Philip · Oct 3, 2005

Blackhawk said:
True. But I see the Fathers as seeing scripture showing the proper interpretation of it. Not that the proper interpretation had to be put on scripture. Proper interpretation was not something alien to scripture. It was the natural reading of scripture. So Irenaeus could state Jesus is the hypothesis of scripture not because Jesus was not in scripture before but b4ecause he was there.

Agreed.

depthdeception · Oct 3, 2005

Blackhawk said:
I know why the councils were convened. And I do think that they should be looked at as authortative. It was scripture and the councils.

Would you, then, see the decisions of the councils as authoritative as Scripture?

PaladinValer · Oct 3, 2005

I do

depthdeception · Oct 3, 2005

PaladinValer said:
I do

Yes indeed! I would hardly guess otherwise! As you well know, we are in agreement.

billwald · Oct 3, 2005

The first council was convened because Constantine so ordered. He wanted to establish and maintain control over the Church, which he did.

depthdeception · Oct 3, 2005

billwald said:
The first council was convened because Constantine so ordered. He wanted to establish and maintain control over the Church, which he did.

Yes, and the apostles convened the Jerusalem council in order to determine what was essential for Christian belief. They were seeking to "control" belief within the Church as well. What's your point?

PaladinValer · Oct 3, 2005

**Wonders why Depthdeception isn't Anglican, Eastern Orthodox, Old Catholic, or of the like**

"Control?" I'd say "establish orthodoxy" when contradictory doctrines are currently being offered by the church (monophysitism vs. diphysitism, for example).

...

((and for those curious to know, the diphysites won. Praise the Lord!))

Philip · Oct 3, 2005

billwald said:
He wanted to establish and maintain control over the Church, which he did.

Wow, what a wonderly wrong history.

You should remember that the Council of Nicaea denounced Arianism. Constantine supported Arianism before the Council and latter slipped back into it. It was only near the end of his life that he finally renounced Arianism. Fairly poor job of controlling the Church, wouldn't you say?

Blackhawk · Oct 3, 2005

depthdeception said:
Would you, then, see the decisions of the councils as authoritative as Scripture?

It matters what you mean by that. Really I think it is a bad question since the councils can't be thought of apart from scripture as I see them as recognizing Orthodoxy which to me means the right reading of scripture. So I guess my answer is no because if I was pressed and IF they contradicted which they do not then I would say the council was wrong and not scripture. But this is all hypothetical since the councils did not go against scripture.

depthdeception · Oct 3, 2005

PaladinValer said:
**Wonders why Depthdeception isn't Anglican, Eastern Orthodox, Old Catholic, or of the like**

I wonder that myself, sometimes...!

Seaioth · Oct 10, 2005

Yes... anyone who denies the Trinity is not truly Christian...

go to CARM apologetics for more defense on that matter

DeaconDean · Oct 11, 2005

Can I add my two cents worth? Here's what we can glean from the Bible: God was there from the beginning, Gen. 1:1. Jesus was with God, John 1:1. Jesus was the one through whom all that was created, was created. John 1:3. The Holy Spirit was there to move upon all that was created Gen. 1:2. God said "Let us make man in our own image," Gen. 1:26. Who was the "us?" God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit! The angelic host had no part in the creation. God was there from the beginning and will be there when the end comes, "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." (Luke 1:35) The Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary, and the power of God come upon her, and 9 months later, the word was made flesh and we beheld the his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. While it is true that 1 John 3:5 was not in the original manuscripts, it is, however, possible to draw with a certainty that the Trinity is visible in the scriptures. It isn't specifically said but one can read and see it for themselves! It is there! And to deny the Trinty would be akin to denying one of the basic doctrines that Christianity is founded on.

davidoffinland · Oct 12, 2005

From Finland.

Two good sites which I think one should read before coming to forming one´s opinion about the Trinity.

This 1st one discusses abit about YHWH being infinite instead of being divided into 3 persons. 1 Kings 8:22 relates to this fact clearly Infinite is greater than one! It is Andrew Gabriel Roth´s site who examines things via the Aramaic. Please scroll down to #17 p76 for Echad & Plurality. Go to:

http://aramaicntruth.org/downloads/ThePathtoLife.pdf

Try: http://www.aramaicntruth.org/page.php?page=home

I just tried these 2 but the link does not work, go to a search engine and type in the above or Anrew Gabriel Roth.

The 2nd is from Caspari and the Mishkan magazine article "Ehad, Jesus and the early church". It discusses why Jesus was worshipped because it was his identity not his divinity that the early Jewish saw. Go to and scroll down to this title.

http://www.caspari.com/mishkan/zips/mishkan39.pdf

For now,
Shalom,
David.

DeaconDean · Oct 12, 2005

Here's another one for you: http://www.dabar.org/Theology/Hodge/HodgeV1/P1_C06.htm

http://www.rtrc.net/documents/wcf/hodge/wcfaah2.htm

http://www.bpc.org/resources/henry/wsc_he_006.html

http://www.bpc.org/resources/watson/wsc_wa_006.html

http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Doctrinal_Divinity/Book_1/book1_27.htm

http://www.founders.org/library/boyce1/ch14.html

http://www.carm.org/doctrine/trinity.htm

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/ipb-e/epl-04/cvin1-10.txt

http://www.pcanet.org/general/cof_chapi-v.htm#chapii

http://www.mountzion.org/fgb/Summer98/FgbS3-98.html

http://www.equip.org/free/DT160.htm

Finally, all these article may be found at: http://monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/trinity.html

IgnatiusOfAntioch · Oct 12, 2005

gopjeff said:
Greetings,

Just a quick question that I wanted to get other people's take on: Is belief in the Trinitarian nature of God an essential Christian doctrine?

Yes!

davidoffinland · Oct 15, 2005

From Finland.

What about this link? http://www.monachos.net/patristics/index.shtml

It has to do with the Nestorians the Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East. Emphasis on the Eastern perspective.

I was introduced to it awhile back.

For now,
David.

Vaneeza Malkah · Oct 22, 2005

you can call me a heretic

I simply find it funny that pagan greek, romans and hindus all worshipped trinities long before the messiah came.

Is the Trinity an essential doctrine?

Orthodoxy: Old School, Hard Core Christianity

Monkey Boy

Monkey Boy

Orthodoxy: Old School, Hard Core Christianity

Well-Known Member

Traditional Orthodox Anglican

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Traditional Orthodox Anglican

Orthodoxy: Old School, Hard Core Christianity

Monkey Boy

Well-Known Member

Seaioth

Guest

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον

Senior Member

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον

Contributor

Senior Member

Baruch Hashem!

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency