I find it interesting that Protestants never understood that the concept of the Trinity as a doctrine had no basis in the New Testament at all and did not reject it. Even Catholicism admit it isn't sourced in the NT. Maybe on this point the Oneness groups and Jehovah's Witnesses have a point.
This would also make sense if the whole religion only emerged under the new Constantinian regime of the 4th century, and therefore Christians used it if Christianity did not exist before then.
"The formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective." - The New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XIV, p. 299, (1967)
You're assuming "Protestant" means "Bible only", that isn't the case. The historic Protestant groups, such as Lutherans, Reformed, Methodists, Anglicans, et al don't reject the history and tradition of the Church, we don't reject the Creeds and Ecumenical Councils of the first millennium. And we don't subscribe to the idea that if something is not explicitly written in the Bible then it isn't true. Those sorts of ideas come much later after the Reformation, or as part of the Radical Reformation.
I'm a Lutheran. Lutherans are the original Protestants. We also fully embrace the Historic Creeds, the first seven Ecumenical Councils, etc. Our confessional texts, known as the Book of Concord, explicitly include the three Western Creeds (Nicene Creed, Apostles' Creed, and Athanasian Creed), implicitly affirms the Chalcedonian formula of the Hypostatic Union, and is absolutely and abundantly explicit that we reject nothing of the historic catholic faith of the Church:
"
This is about the Sum of our Doctrine, in which, as can be seen, there is nothing that varies from the Scriptures, or from the Church Catholic, or from the Church of Rome as known from its writers. This being the case, they judge harshly who insist that our teachers be regarded as heretics. There is, however, disagreement on certain abuses, which have crept into the Church without rightful authority. And even in these, if there were some difference, there should be proper lenity on the part of bishops to bear with us by reason of the Confession which we have now reviewed; because even the Canons are not so severe as to demand the same rites everywhere, neither, at any time, have the rites of all churches been the same; although, among us, in large part, the ancient rites are diligently observed. For it is a false and malicious charge that all the ceremonies, all the things instituted of old, are abolished in our churches. But it has been a common complaint that some abuses were connected with the ordinary rites. These, inasmuch as they could not be approved with a good conscience, have been to some extent corrected.
Inasmuch, then, as our churches dissent in no article of the faith from the Church Catholic, but only omit some abuses which are new, and which have been erroneously accepted by the corruption of the times, contrary to the intent of the Canons, we pray that Your Imperial Majesty would graciously hear both what has been changed, and what were the reasons why the people were not compelled to observe those abuses against their conscience. Nor should Your Imperial Majesty believe those who, in order to excite the hatred of men against our part, disseminate strange slanders among the people. Having thus excited the minds of good men, they have first given occasion to this controversy, and now endeavor, by the same arts, to increase the discord. For Your Imperial Majesty will undoubtedly find that the form of doctrine and of ceremonies with us is not so intolerable as these ungodly and malicious men represent. Besides, the truth cannot be gathered from common rumors or the revilings of enemies. But it can readily be judged that nothing would serve better to maintain the dignity of ceremonies, and to nourish reverence and pious devotion among the people than if the ceremonies were observed rightly in the churches." - The Augsburg Confession, Article XXI.5-15
That's why it was a
reform, not a revolution or a revolt. We were not revolting against the Holy Catholic Church, but seeking its reform by affirming the centrality of the Christ and His Gospel. Lutherans explicitly confess ourselves to be catholic Christians. From the Lutheran POV we never left the Catholic Church.
It is imperative to understand that there is no such thing as a "Protestant", there's instead only different Protestant
s. As such there is no such thing as "Protestantism" there are instead Protestant
isms.
Further, we do believe the Doctrine of the Trinity is biblical. Not expressly or in name, but all the essential components of Trinitarian dogma, as confessed and codified in the writings of the holy fathers and in the Creeds and Councils are present in the biblical writings:
1) The oneness of God.
2) The Deity of the Son.
3) The Deity and Personhood of the Holy Spirit.
4) The distinction of the Three Persons.
etc.
The doctrine of the Trinity didn't show up in a vacuum, but is a clear articulation of Christian faith rooted in the revelation and reality of Christ, and apostolic teaching concerning Him, God the Father, and the Holy Spirit.
Alternative perspectives (such as Sabellianism, Adoptionism, and Arianism) don't stand up to muster, they do not stand under the scrutiny of Scripture and the historic and received teaching of the Church from the beginning.
-CryptoLutheran
