Is the Trinity an essential doctrine?

Simonline · Dec 10, 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."

Absolutely! It never ceases to amaze me how guilible Christians can be taken in by the assertion that it [false teaching] is 'all Scripturally based!' not realizing that 'being Scripturally based' and 'being Scripturally consistent' or 'Scripturally sound' are not necessarily the same thing. Much of the theology of the Christian cults is 'Scripturally based' but none of it is 'Scripturally consistent' otherwise they would be welcomed with open arms by mainstream orthodox conservative Christianity.

Simonline.

Simonline · Dec 10, 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.

Actually, he wanted to consolidate his control over his politically unstable empire and he saw the Church as the instrument by which he might achieve that aim... political expediency, pure and simple.

Simonline.

Simonline · Dec 10, 2005

whitneysyed said:
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.

Could that possibly be because God is ultimately Trinitarian in Nature rather than Unitarian and all those different Trinitarian expressions of religious faith are simply corrupt derivations of the ultimate Truth?

Simonline.

Simonline · Dec 10, 2005

Sentry said:
One has to wonder how people can claim it is so vital to the faith when a three person God is never identified in Scripture.

You must be reading different Scriptures then?!

Simonline.

Simonline · Dec 10, 2005

Sentry said:
IgnatiusOfAntioch said:

Sentry said:

The point is that the Bible never mentions or identifies a three person

Once again this does not prove a three in one God. It only demonstrates the existence of three. It does not demonstrate that these three are the one God.

Click to expand...

"In the begining was the Word; and the Word was with God; and the Word was God." (Jn.1:1)

Propositional truth a) In the begining the Word [a.k.a. 'the Son'] existed.
Propositional truth b) In the begining the Word [a.k.a. 'the Son'] was with God [a.k.a. 'the Father'] (i.e. The Word [a.k.a. 'the Son'] was a separate Person to 'God' [a.k.a. 'the Father'])
Propositional truth c) In the begining the Word [a.k.a. 'the Son'] was God (i.e. God [a.k.a. 'the Father'] and the Word [a.k.a. 'the Son'] were simultaneously separate and distinct Persons but one and the same Being (Deut.6:4; Isa.43:10-13). [The Holy Spirit's inclusion as the third Person of the Trinity can be established on the basis of other Scriptures]

Simonline.

Click to expand...

Simonline · Dec 10, 2005

Sentry said:
One has to wonder how people can claim it is so vital to the faith when a three person God is never identified in Scripture.

Ah, but it is (though only deductively, never explicitly, John.1:1 comes closest to an explicit assertion).

Simonline.

Simonline · Dec 10, 2005

Sentry said:
Yes Christ plainly identified three entities.

How you perceive that is a plain affirmation of a three in one God is anyone's guess.

JW's read that verse too and it presents no problems for them. You may want to think about that.

No he didn't, since, being an orthodox Jew, he would have refused point blank to even acknowledge the concept of multiple Divine entities let alone the reality of such (Deut.6:4). It may have escaped your notice but Orthodox Judaism is strictly monotheistic (which is why many of them tried to have him executed for blasphemy in claiming to be the same Divine Being as God in Heaven (Jn.10:30-33)).

Simonline.

Simonline · Dec 10, 2005

edb19 said:
God Himself speaks of a plurality.

Genesis 1: 26Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

Genesis 11:7Come, let us go down and there confuse their language, so that they may not understand one another's speech."

God speaks of a plurality because there is a plurality within God but this does not deny or contradict the singularity that is God (Deut.6:4; Isa.43:10-13). God is One in Nature whilst simultaneously being Three in Person.

Simonline.

Simonline · Dec 10, 2005

Sentry said:
How is this God speaking of himself in plurality?

Let me illustrate:

Then Jack the Mayor said, "Let us make a statue in our image, after our likeness."

Would you assume that Jack is a multi-personal being now? No, you would assume that Jack is including himself in a group of some sort.

That's because 'Jack' is a unitarian human creature rather than the Trinitarian Divine Creator and therefore incapable of being Trinitarian. Thus in this case it is blatantly obvious (from the context) that 'Jack' is speaking to separate unitarian creatures other than himself.

However, when referring to God, the context changes and the possibility (based on the total teachings of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures (and not just isolated 'proof texts' in support of pejudicial theological presuppositions)) of the Eternal and Immutable God being Trinitarian rather than Unitarian must be acknowledged as a serious proposition.

Simonline.

Simonline · Dec 10, 2005

whitneysyed said:
No, not what I'm saying. I'm saying that if other non-biblical practices (that existed before the messiah's birth) were adopted by the churches, then it's plausible to believe that other's also brought their own belief systems (such as the trinity) with them. I however believe oil and water cannot mix.

That would only be true if the Judeo-Christian Scriptures themselves did not actually support the Trinitarian doctrine but the truth is that the Judeo-Christian Scriptures are shot through with the doctrine of the Trinity like a stick of Blackpool rock!

Simonline.

Simonline · Dec 10, 2005

PaladinValer said:
The "Us" is probably really the Heavenly Host, God's Court.

However, John 1:1 makes it clear that another reading for "Us" is God speaking through each Person together.

What other Scriptural evidence do you have to support the belief that the 'us' of Gen.1:26 refers to the Heavenly host since nowhere in the Scriptures are we told that Man is made in anyone's image other than God?

Simonline?

A Brother In Christ · Dec 10, 2005

Simonline said:
What other Scriptural evidence do you have to support the belief that the 'us' of Gen.1:26 refers to the Heavenly host since nowhere in the Scriptures are we told that Man is made in anyone's image other than God?

Simonline?

Gen 1:1 in the beginning God [elohim, plural] pointing to persons of the godhead

yet this is one God [isa 44:6] with three persons like in matt 28:19.."name" is singular

tommiegrant · Dec 10, 2005

Very simply YES! Without the doctrin of the Trinity we have a huge mess that makes no sense what so ever. Tom

A Brother In Christ · Dec 10, 2005

3 persons = 1God

trinity

but the trinity is not nessecary for salvation

yet it is hard to understand a lot of truth about the family

believing in the Father and Son are equally God is...John 17:21

davidoffinland · Dec 10, 2005

From Finland

I hope some of you may start reading the history and theology of the Creeds from the time of Nicea through the last one. It took some 150 plus yrs to make sense of how the divinity & humanity met in Yeshua.

Bishops who were quite opinionated, who were influenced by Platonic or Aristotalian philosophies, hammered-out and clarified the final Creed trying to make sense what the Nicean was all about. It settled the question mostly in Western Christianity but it didn´t in the East. The final results was that it made matters worst in the East.

So image the picture: !st Ct Jewish monotheistic believers knew that Yeshua was divine & human, but does that make him necessarily part of a Trinity...a doctrine that wasn´t there in the beginning but hammered out 4-5 Cts later when Gentile educated bishops, trained in either Platonic or Aristotolian philosophies tried to figure out how this all worked. Some bishops or theologian would take the John 1:1, from a platonic background, the world of form and figure of the Greek world to make sense of Yeshua who was essentially from a Jewish world. Or, one would take it from a Aristotolian background to make sense of the humanity of Yeshua fitting it into a more practical, humane picture, plus, how divinity would make sense.

A note about the philosophers Plato and Aristotle..the latter was educated by Plato but parted company because Aristotle didn´t like Plato´s mysticism.

The whole thing makes for interesting reading if you got the time to figure out the philosophical terms, the characters involved, plus the historical time set of the Empire and the Eastern & Western churches. Or, do you want to just take it for granted what earlier fathers have said without investigating all sides of the issues.

For now,
David.

Simonline · Dec 12, 2005

Post deleted.

Simonline · Dec 12, 2005

Post deleted.

A Brother In Christ · Dec 12, 2005

Simonline said:
If 'the Trinity is not necessary for salvation' then how do you know that you're trusting in the right 'god'?! Furthermore, if 'the Trinity is not necessary for salvation' then kindly explain how a Unitarian God fulfilled all the necessary roles in the execution of the plan of salvation (including incarnating as the Messiah in order to die upon the cross and be resurrected three days later)?!

Simonline.

verses that you have too..

I can find verses for the Father and the Son...

tommiegrant · Dec 12, 2005

The Us in Gen 1:26 probaly does not refer to the Trinity it is most likely he plural of majasty as Elohim is used elesewhere in scripture in a like manner. Note I have not said it can not refer to the Trinity but only that this is one of the weakest arguments for the Trinity. Much stronger arguments can be made and are throughout the enitrity of the scriptures. Yes the Trinity is an essential without it the Christian Faith fails to exist.
In Christ, Tom

A Brother In Christ · Dec 13, 2005

tommiegrant said:
The Us in Gen 1:26 probaly does not refer to the Trinity it is most likely he plural of majasty as Elohim is used elesewhere in scripture in a like manner. Note I have not said it can not refer to the Trinity but only that this is one of the weakest arguments for the Trinity.

So by YOUR words how many God's are out there since it is plural...

Yet we have deut 4:35 there is only one God...

so with scripture it stongly give a notion of trinity even though not mentioned very much in OT

Much stronger arguments can be made and are throughout the enitrity of the scriptures. Yes the Trinity is an essential without it the Christian Faith fails to exist.
In Christ, Tom

verses...

Is the Trinity an essential doctrine?

The Inquisitor

The Inquisitor

The Inquisitor

The Inquisitor

The Inquisitor

The Inquisitor

The Inquisitor

The Inquisitor

The Inquisitor

The Inquisitor

The Inquisitor

Senior Veteran

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Member

The Inquisitor

The Inquisitor

Senior Veteran

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency