The Trinity...

[simonthezealot]

I am personally sick of the catholic and orthodox apologetic that states we would not know what the trinity was except with the developing of the understanding of the doctrine and by the work of the Early church fathers...

YET when I read the fathers many many of them are quick to point out that the "Trinity" is CLEAR in scripture, and really go on a rather lot on the perpiscuity of scripture...These are both ante-nicene and post-nicene fathers.
So how bout ya'll give it a rest?

 

[Anglian]

Dear Simon,

I think we are not explaining the Orthodox position very well to you. Of course the ECFs say that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are in Holy Scripture and that one can therefore derive the word Trinity therefrom; St. Basil and St. Gregory Nazianzus also actually finally come up with an explanation which makes sense of the various versions on how there could be One God in three persons.

This is what we are saying, that we owe our understanding of the Trinity as being three persons of one essence, and of equal standing, to the ECFs, as there had been those who argued that the Holy Ghost was a created being, and that the Son was also created. Hence the Nicene Creed's very careful formulation.

It is the understanding of what is written, as well as the word, that we owe to the Fathers.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[plmarquette]

Put the lime in the cocconut and drink it all up....
Doctor.....
is there some thing I can take ....
to relieve this belly ache....
put the lime and the cocconut & drink em both 2gather...

 

[Ramon96]

I am personally sick of the catholic and orthodox apologetic that states we would not know what the trinity was except with the developing of the understanding of the doctrine and by the work of the Early church fathers...

YET when I read the fathers many many of them are quick to point out that the "Trinity" is CLEAR in scripture, and really go on a rather lot on the perpiscuity of scripture...These are both ante-nicene and post-nicene fathers.
So how bout ya'll give it a rest?

No one argue that the Holy Fathers believe the Trinity can be supported through Scriptures, but what you do not understand or won't accept, is that our understanding of it is not clear in Scriptures. We owe to the Early Church Fathers for making us understand what the Holy Trinity is. Mormons have a Trinity, but there understanding of it is far from Historical Christianity. Different understandings of the Trinity is floating around today, but the Orthodox definition of the Holy Trinity is the correct understanding of it, based on Historical Christianity. The Fact that you use the words "Trinity" or "Holy Trinity" is because of the Early Church Fathers; is was there language. You did not not get that in Scriptures. We know "how" through the Early Church Fathers knowledge. Holy Scriptures does not defined the Holy Trinity. The Early Church Fathers play an important part in this matter.

Thus, you appeal to the ECF's more than you know.

The fact is that if you take a person who have not read the Holy Bible nor Church History [ignorant of anything relating to Christianity] and tell him or her to read Scriptures, he or she will not say "I believe in the Holy Trinity and this is what it is........[a sophisticated (scholarly) explanation follows]" after reading the Holy Bible unless that person had some private revelation unknown to us. The triadic patterns can be seen through Scriptures, and the doctrine of the Holy Trinity can be supported through Scriptures, but it was the Early Church Fathers that help us unravel and defined the Holy Trinity [particularly in the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea]. Many false doctrines relating to the Second and Third Person of the Holy Trinity came about starting around the second or third century [although starting from the Apostolic Era we can see heresies developing] but the Church settle the matter through the Ecumenical Councils [particularly the 1st-4th Holy Ecumenical Councils]

Blessings,
Ramon

 

[Rick Otto]

St. Basil and St. Gregory Nazianzus also actually finally come up with an explanation which makes sense...

To you.

...our understanding of it is not clear in Scriptures

Speak for yourself, thank you.

Holy Scriptures does not defined the Holy Trinity

Sure they do.

 

[Ramon96]

Thank-you Rick Otto for making "just so" statements. You have not prove anything. Perhaps others who want to have a discussion and make statements back up with proof will join this thread.

Come on, let's be honest, what did Rick Otto contribute to this thread?

It seems Rick Otto mentor is LittleLambofJesus.

 

[Anglian]

To you.

Speak for yourself, thank you.

Sure they do.

Dear Rick,

To me, and via the Nicene Creed, to all Christians. Again, their views have become so much a part of Christianity that it is now hard to imagine what the Faith was like before the writings of the Cappadocian Fathers.

Of course we are told in the Good Book of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, but if you could help show us where, in Holy Scripture, it is written that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are of one essence and that neither the Second nor the Third person of the Trinity is in any way subordinate to the Father or created by Him, then we will more easily accept your assertions that it is all clear in Scripture.

After all, as late as the seventh century, Muhammad recorded his thoughts on what he clearly found an unacceptable idea (Surah 5.72-74):
'Indeed, the truth deny those who say:"Behold God is the Christ, son of Mary" ... Behold, anyone who ascribes divinity to any being outside of God, unto him will God deny paradise, and his goal shall be the fire ... Indeed, the truth deny they who say, "Behold, God is the third of a trinity" - seeing that there is no deity whatever save the one God.' That's one 'plain reading' of the Holy Scriptures, and one we see earlier in the Christian story; only the acceptance by the Church of the work of the Cappadocian Fathers gave us the understanding we now have. Whether you acknowledge that or not, it is there in the standard histories of the doctrine of the Trinity. I recommend Professor Dunzl's, A Brief History of the Doctrine of the Trinity (2007) as a good, up to date guide.


Peace,

Anglian

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Anglian;Dear Rick,
Of course we are told in the Good Book of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost,

Bada-boom, Bada-bing.

...but if you could help show us where, in Holy Scripture, it is written that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are of one essence

Mark 12;29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

...and that neither the Second nor the Third person of the Trinity is in any way subordinate to the Father or created by Him, then we will more easily accept your assertions that it is all clear in Scripture.

Two are subordinate to one in that they do His will, so I can't show you they are not.
Consider:

1. John 1 - "The Word was WITH God and the Word was GOD" - a VERY simple statement of pure-and-simple plurality-in-unity.
2. This Word (i.e. Jesus Christ) prayed to the Father in heaven. (numerous places)
3. This Jesus would send the Holy Spirit from the Father in heaven, after his departure from earth. (John 14-17)
4. This Spirit could be grieved (Ephs 4) and lied to (Acts 5), and made sovereign decisions (I Cor 12:11 etc.)
5. These three are listed co-equally and co-ordinately in the baptismal formula (Matt 28) and the Benediction (2 Cor 13:14).
6. Old Testament passages repeatedly demonstrate that the Angel of YHWH 'was' YHWH and 'was with YHWH'; and that the Spirit of YHWH 'was' YHWH and 'was with YHWH'. 7. Old Testament passages repeatedly describe a messianic figure that is super-human, super-angelic (agreed to even by non-Christian rabbinic writings), and is even called YHWH in a few verses.
from: "A Christian Think Tank"

After all, as late as the seventh century, Muhammad recorded his thoughts on what he clearly found an unacceptable idea (Surah 5.72-74):
'Indeed, the truth deny those who say:"Behold God is the Christ, son of Mary" ... Behold, anyone who ascribes divinity to any being outside of God, unto him will God deny paradise, and his goal shall be the fire ... Indeed, the truth deny they who say, "Behold, God is the third of a trinity" - seeing that there is no deity whatever save the one God.' That's one 'plain reading' of the Holy Scriptures,

No, that is presumptuous blasphemy, not "plain reading".

...and one we see earlier in the Christian story; only the acceptance by the Church of the work of the Cappadocian Fathers gave us the understanding we now have. Whether you acknowledge that or not, it is there in the standard histories of the doctrine of the Trinity.

Would it be a leap to imagine they derived their understanding from scripture?

I recommend Professor Dunzl's, A Brief History of the Doctrine of the Trinity (2007) as a good, up to date guide.

I recommend prayerful study of scripture, and a visit to "A Christian Think Tank", neither of which will cost you a cent & both of which can be done from right where you are.
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/trin01.html
Uncreated:
Gen1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
-He had to already exist to do that.
1Tim 17: Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen

 

[Anglian]

Dear Rick,

Thanks for the links - good to see that the ideas of the Cappadocian Fathers are now on line - even if there is no attribution. That's my point really, we know that for the first few centuries Christians disagreed on how to interpret St. John and the other passages. And of course the Cappadocians based themselves on Scripture - but so did Arius, so the idea that a plain reading of Scripture always leads to the orthodox conclusion is not supported by historical experience.

I don't know whether you think that men like Arius and Nestorius were not prayerful men who read Scripture with an desire to know the Lord more clearly, but they were; they were, nonetheless, teaching a version of the faith that separated man from God.

In terms of subordination of the three persons of the Trinity, google 'subordinationism' and see why the view you propound is not orthodox Christianity; if the Godhead is one, there is not a separate will for the Father and the Son and the Spirit; any how, look it up and see what you think.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[JacktheCatholic]

All for One and One for All.

TRINITY... is that like the 3 musketeers?

 

[Rick Otto]

but so did Arius

wrong.

 

[Rick Otto]

All for One and One for All.

TRINITY... is that like the 3 musketeers?

Yes the muskateers, but not the candy bar. That has only two elements - chocolate exterior & creamy nougat center.
The Trinity as a candy bar would have to be more like a Snickers.

 

[Anglian]

wrong.

Dear Rick,

I was basing myself on what St. Athansius writes, as well as on the standard histories by Kelly and Chadwick. Your view is based on what?

Peace,

Anglian

 

[Rick Otto]

Based on reality.
Arius did not use scripture as a basis. He used it as a point of departure.
So where do you stand on the 3 Musketeers & Snickers analogies?

 

[Anglian]

Dear Rick,

Lacking your insight into Arius' mind, I have to rely on what those who have spent a good deal of time studying this say. Like so many, Arius seems to have thought that the plain meaning of Scripture, according to him, took precedence over what the Church taught. He wasn't the first, nor will he be the last.

For analogies, I stick with the ECFs.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[Albion]

Dear Simon,

I think we are not explaining the Orthodox position very well to you. Of course the ECFs say that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are in Holy Scripture and that one can therefore derive the word Trinity therefrom; St. Basil and St. Gregory Nazianzus also actually finally come up with an explanation which makes sense of the various versions on how there could be One God in three persons.

This is what we are saying, that we owe our understanding of the Trinity as being three persons of one essence, and of equal standing, to the ECFs, as there had been those who argued that the Holy Ghost was a created being, and that the Son was also created. Hence the Nicene Creed's very careful formulation.

It is the understanding of what is written, as well as the word, that we owe to the Fathers.

Peace,

Anglian

We base hardly anything on the ECFs with regard to the Trinity except that there is one God and that the persons are equal as God, with the Son and Holy Spirit proceding from the Father.

They got it from the same place we get it--Scripture.

IOW, we don't accept the convoluted Hellenic philosophical dressing that they applied in an attempt to explain the "how" of it. It's as good as the next guy's explanation, probably, but that's about all.

 

[Anglian]

We base hardly anything on the ECFs with regard to the Trinity except that there is one God and that the persons are equal as God, with the Son and Holy Spirit proceding from the Father.

They got it from the same place we get it--Scripture.

IOW, we don't accept the convoluted Hellenic philosophical dressing that they applied in an attempt to explain the "how" of it. It's as good as the next guy's explanation, probably, but that's about all.

Dear Albion,

You and your Church may not; that's fine. My Church does, and that, I hope is also fine.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[Albion]

Dear Albion,

You and your Church may not; that's fine. My Church does, and that, I hope is also fine.

Peace,

Anglian

I guess I misunderstood your previous post. I thought that when I read this--

This is what we are saying, that we owe our understanding of the Trinity as being three persons of one essence, and of equal standing, to the ECFs, as there had been those who argued that the Holy Ghost was a created being, and that the Son was also created. Hence the Nicene Creed's very careful formulation.

It is the understanding of what is written, as well as the word, that we owe to the Fathers.

that you were saying that this is what is fact (we Christians owe X to the ECFs, and the rest that follows), not that you were explaining, when using the word "we," what your church believes to be the case.

Of course I understand that you base your beliefs on the ECFs, but sometimes when I read your posts I think you are speaking to what is right or wrong rather than that you are telling us what your church's beliefs are. Sorry.

 

[Anglian]

Dear Albion,

I am sure that any misunderstanding was entirely my fault. On these matters my own views, whilst no doubt significant to me, are only relevant when they are in accord with what my Church teaches, so I try, as best I can, to represent that teaching in what I post here.

This is not quite as restrictive as it might sound; apophatic theology leaves many areas where one might speculate freely - as long as nothing one concludes runs counter to the Holy Tradition of the Church. As you will probably know, the Orthodox Church isn't hot on infallibility - neither that of any one man, nor of any one's own reading of the Scripture.

Again, please accept my apology, as I am sure any confusion was of my making.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[Thekla]

IOW, we don't accept the convoluted Hellenic philosophical dressing that they applied in an attempt to explain the "how" of it. It's as good as the next guy's explanation, probably, but that's about all.

the ECFs did use careful language, but the 'description' of the Trinity did not rely on Hellenistic philosophy. For example, the Platonic concept of trinity is clearly heirarchical. In fact, as some of the EFCs had knowledge of Greek philosophy through their secular education, they were able to identify and excise secular philosophical thinking in theology.