Trinity

[rnmomof7]

I disagree heavly that is what paul taught, but I am sure we are still on the same page(follow G-d's will) so I fiqure I will keep this to a minimum.

What gives you the idea the law was simply for the Jews, and not all the sons of abraham?Surly it is not nessary, but surly still it is G-d's will not just a law for the jews?

Second are you sure, he taught the gentile to not follow the laws...
I can ponit out many of the laws in his writting...It is my impression that paul was clearly talking about being under grace and not law, not self and not law.

Anyways, now I think about it there is probably no need to disscuss this with you, becuase you try and follow yeshua life in full, and try to do as he does...

So Shalom,
G-d bless,
DaTsar

So one question: If a gentile follows the law are you saying they are a legalist?

You do need to take some time to read the scriptures.
God gave the law to the Jews not the gentiles. Paul speaks of that in Romans.
In acts and the letter to the Galatians that the gentile was not to be held to the Law.
Gal 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage

The discussion in the scriptures was one of legalism . Peter was pressing circumcision and dietary laws and God intervened with a dream and the apostle to the gentiles Paul.

You will win no brownie points on the other side for legalism . Jesus was the end of the law

Rom 10:4 For Christ [is] the end of the law for righteousness to every one
that believeth.

Jhn 8:36**
If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

 

[TOmNossor]

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Posted previously:Both assertions are nonsense! Post your evidence and I will refute it. Pre-Nicea there was one bishop who taught Arianism, the one from which it gets it name, Arius, and his few followers.

If there were so many Arians and Arianism was the correct doctrine. Why, at the end of the Nicaean council, were there only two dissenters who refused to sign the accords? Arius was one of them.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
​

Here is my response to those two points, actually about four points. Show in my response, quoted here, where I said anything about you personally “in no uncertain terms?” And most specifically show where I said “in no uncertain terms,” you were dishonest? I did say that the “assertions” were “nonsense” and that I could refute “evidence,” which you might choose to post.


Do you know the difference between addressing a person and addressing issues? If you are unable to make that distinction I suggest you excuse yourself from these discussions.

Der Alter,

Calling my post nonsense suggest that something is amiss. I said that you were suggesting I was dishonest or misinformed.

I responded by posting evidence.

You responded by saying very little.

I responded to that very little.

I have nothing more from you to respond to. You have done nothing but say I posted nonsense, claim you would refute it, then decide to get concerned about what I thought it meant when you said “nonsense.”

You have yet to refute anything (other than some miniscule comments that I have demonstrated do not address my original comments (see post 165) or show evidence that what I said was nonsense. To show what I said was nonsense in light of the evidence I have provided is impossible in my opinion. You could (but have not) provide a reasonable position to disagree with me, but my position is quite solid. I also do not think you can really provide good reasons to disagree with most of what I said. Especially reasons devoid of bias.

I will repeat post 160 and post 165 (which was a response to the little bit you had to say in post 162).

Please respond by “refuting” the nonsense. Or explain how you meant by “nonsense” that actually I was putting forth good information concerning doctrine and history.



Post 160:

TOm before:

Before 300AD there were no strictly Trinitarians of the “co-equal” formulation. That is zero Christians who didn’t subordinate Christ to Heavenly Father!

Pre-Nicea there were many men who were Arian. Post-Nicea it took quite a while before the world started to line up behind a Trinitarian structure denying semi-Arian positions.



Der Alter:

Both assertions are nonsense! Post your evidence and I will refute it. Pre-Nicea there was one bishop who taught Arianism, the one from which it gets it name, Arius, and his few followers.



TOm:

In a previous interaction, you posted that Theophilus was the first to mention the Trinity. I commented that Theophilus did not embrace the Trinity, he used a word that is translated “Trias,” and his writing points to the fact that he didn’t strictly accept the divinity of Christ. And actually clearly made Him distinct from God (Newman, Arians of the 4th Century). Unless I missed your response, you didn’t respond. I thought we agreed.



Concerning subordinationism, here are a few scholar comments.



Henry Bettenson, The Early Christian Fathers, p.330:

"'subordinationism'... was pre-Nicene orthodoxy."



The Achievement of Orthodoxy in the Fourth Century AD", in Williams, ed., The Making of Orthodoxy, p. 153 (a quote of Richard Hanson):

"Indeed, until Athanasius began writing, every single theologian, East and West, had postulated some form of Subordinationism. It could, about the year 300, have been described as a fixed part of catholic theology."



R.P.C. Hanson, Tradition in the Early Church, pp.244,245:

"Finally, what is Christian midrash(i.e. tradition)? What are its contents? Is it the Gnostic formulae of Ignatius? The angel-Christology of Hermas? ...or the economic Trinity of Irenaeus and Tertullian? The modalistic monarchianism of Callistus and Zephyrinus? The graded Trinity of Origen?"



John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine,(6th edition 1989) p. 17:

If we limit our view of the teaching of the Fathers by what they expressly state, St. Ignatius may be considered Patripassian, St. Justin arianizes, and St. Hippolytus is a Photinian... Tertullian is heterodox on the Lord's divinity... Origen is, at the very least suspected, and must be defended and explained rather than cited as a witness of orthodoxy; and Eusebius was a Semi-Arian.



TOm:

So Newman calls St. Justin an arian. He points to Theophilus as a seed for the arian beliefs.

The most critical thing that I wish to show is that pre-Nicea there was a subordinationism that did not exist after the 4th Century defined this view out of Christianity. This is well accepted by scholars.



Der Alter:
If there were so many Arians and Arianism was the correct doctrine. Why, at the end of the Nicaean council, were there only two dissenters who refused to sign the accords? Arius was one of them.



As I said in one post, above. Constantine did not rule at the council and did NOT force the council to do or accept anything. Constantine was NOT a Trinitarian, but an Arian. If Constantine wanted to force the church to do anything, it would have been Arianism.

Another fallacy of the argument that Constantine forced the church to accept the Trinity doctrine, or anything else. Constantine had ended the persecution of Christians. Until his reign Chrstians were arrested, tortured and killed, on a massive scale, because they would not deny Jesus and worship the emperor and their pagan idols. Many of the bishops who attended the Nicean council had been victims of that persecution.

It is absurd to assume that over 300 Christian leaders would meekly stand by and, without any objection, permit pagan practices to be incorporated into the church, when only a short time before they had resisted, at the peril of their own lives, that very thing.



TOm:

Constantine was not a Christian until close to the end of his life. I actually do not think he really cared who won the conflict. According to Boulenger, Constantine used Christianity to unify his empire. One thing is clear he called the council of Nicea and he financed it.

Here is one historian’s breakup of the council attendees.

Albers-Hedde, Manual d’Histoire Eclesiatique, vol 1 p.153 (translated Barker):

“The opinions (of the members of the Council) followed three directions: The Egyptians and the Occidentals defended the orthodox doctrine (Athanasian) – Athanasius was the spokesman for Bishop Alexander of Alexandria; the majority of the Orientals (the moderate group) held for the divinity of Christ, but hesitated to recognize his perfet equality with the Father; about twenty adherents of Arius declared the Verb (Jesus) a simple creature.”

Also, according to Mourret, both Eusibuis (there were two with the same name) had to intervene with Constantine to prevent him from taking measures again Arius. So I would be interested to see what your source say about Constantine being an Arian.



Der Alter said:

If there were so many Arians and Arianism was the correct doctrine.



TOm:

Actually it was the semi-Arians that were the majority. And I have never suggested that Arianism is a correct doctrine. I actually believe that this whole conflict resulted from the embracing of creation ex nihilo and the subsequent view that everything is either God or Creature. Without this error there would have been much less to quibble about.



Der Alter:

Constantine did not rule at the council and did NOT force the council to do or accept anything



TOm:

He called the Council.

According to Battifol in La Paix Constantinienne p. 319 “This letter of Eusibuis throws a little light on the debate: the Council discussed the definition of faith in the presence of the Emperor, who asked the bishops to accept the omoousios, speaking first: after which, all bishops, after explaining themselves signed.”

Battifol also says that the Eusebians (semi-Arian) signed under fear of exile (which can only be carried out by the Emperor.

I would be interested in seeing your evidence that Constantine was not a major player in this council. Remember the historian I have sited Battifol who is a Catholic so he would have no reason to see in history what he has put forth.



Der Alter:

Constantine was NOT a Trinitarian, but an Arian. If Constantine wanted to force the church to do anything, it would have been Arianism.



TOm:

Actually, Constantine was not even a Baptized Christian during Nicea. Also, my evidence suggested he actually was opposed to the Arians, but in truth I doubt he cared. Constantine was interested in a unifying force for his empire. Arian or non-Arian Christianity would be no different.

Please show your evidence that Constantine was Arian, and remember Mourret is Catholic so again he is not presenting a pro-Catholic position.



Der Alter:

Another fallacy of the argument that Constantine forced the church to accept the Trinity doctrine, or anything else. Constantine had ended the persecution of Christians. Until his reign Chrstians were arrested, tortured and killed, on a massive scale, because they would not deny Jesus and worship the emperor and their pagan idols. Many of the bishops who attended the Nicean council had been victims of that persecution.



TOm:

I do not follow your logic. I agree Constantine made Christianity acceptable, but what does this have to do with his support of Athanatius or Arius. Before Nicea both men were Christians, just not your type of Christian. Both sides and the more popular semi-Arian position were anti-pagan Christians. I am sure the persecution was felt on both sides of the fence. In fact, those persecuted Bishops would be unlikely to not sign something that Constantine spoke first to embrace. It seems that you have actually provided evidence that the Emperor would likely have the ability to coerce not that he didn’t?



Der Alter:

It is absurd to assume that over 300 Christian leaders would meekly stand by and, without any objection, permit pagan practices to be incorporated into the church, when only a short time before they had resisted, at the peril of their own lives, that very thing.



TOm:

I have neither suggested that the Trinity is pagan (although I could if you would like only I do not believe this) nor that there were not objections. I have not even suggested that Athanasius’ position was inferior to Arius’. The fact of the matter is that this was a dividing argument and Constantine didn’t want division. He called a council. Bishops discussed and a position was put out, signed by almost all, likely under the overseeing gaze of the Emperor.



My point in favor of our non-Trinitarian friends is that history is not near so simple as many seem to think it was. If the Catholic Church had authority and the seal of the Holy Ghost, then all is well. But for those who deny this authority, scripture does not make the issue clear, and there was quite a bit of conflict.

BTW, the canon was decided by the victors after this historic decision so while all the books of the Bible existed by this time, the Bible as it is today didn’t.



Again for clarity, I embrace the term Trinitarian. But I do not believe it proper to march out Theophilus and say he was the first Trinitarian (to use the term) because he was not. Also, the Catholic Church does not dogmatically use the term “co-equal” and when Protestants do this, they are following Athanasius in ways the Catholic Church doesn’t. I believe the Social Trinitarian structure that I embrace with a clear subordinationism is much closer to the Ante-Nicene fathers than the Augustinian Trinitarian formula so common today.



Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

______________________________________________________________________________________________


Posted previously:Both assertions are nonsense! Post your evidence and I will refute it. Pre-Nicea there was one bishop who taught Arianism, the one from which it gets it name, Arius, and his few followers.

If there were so many Arians and Arianism was the correct doctrine. Why, at the end of the Nicaean council, were there only two dissenters who refused to sign the accords? Arius was one of them.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

​

Here is my response to those two points, actually about four points. Show in my response, quoted here, where I said anything about you personally “in no uncertain terms?” And most specifically show where I said “in no uncertain terms,” you were dishonest? I did say that the “assertions” were “nonsense” and that I could refute “evidence,” which you might choose to post.



Do you know the difference between addressing a person and addressing issues? If you are unable to make that distinction I suggest you excuse yourself from these discussions.

Der Alter,



Here is post #165. I make the distinction between refuting evidence and person quite well. It is I who have posted evidence and you who have taken offence at my assumptions about the word “nonsense.”



Again, if my post is “nonsense” then I am either dishonest or misinformed. If you will “refute” my evidence, then please do so. Or you might decide to say that my post is not “nonsense,” but you disagree based on the following evidences. Or you might decide that my post is not “nonsense” and you have now learned more about the Early Church than you previously knew. I will be happy to learn from you and have, but disagree though I may, I do not say your posts are “nonsense” unless I mean that you are either “dishonest or misinformed.” I have yet to say that your posts are “nonsense” BTW, but I could envision a time when I might so I want you to know it WOULD mean you are either “dishonest or misinformed” in my opinion.



Charity, TOm



Refute away:



Der Alter,I will say this twice so we do not forget. I made two simple statements. You in no uncertain terms said I was either misinformed or dishonest and you would refute whatever evidence I put forth. Thus far you have said very little about the bulk of what I said so do not construe my response to these couple of points as thinking that you have adequately dealt with any of my response farther more the bulk of it, to which you have not even directly commented.Der Alter:I will only address two points at this time, maybe more later. First, let me say the unsupported opinions of 19th-21st century scholars, without historical documentation, is virtually meaningless. Anybody can say anything.TOm:The corpus of literature upon which I am commenting by appealing to these authors is quite large. I appealed to multiple authors who would have reason to say the opposite of what they said so BIAS is not an issue. It is true “anybody can say anything,” but it is also true the Newman, Hanson, and Bettenson are quite well respected and Rowan Williams is no slouch. I leave it to you to:

· Site your authorities who deny what has been said by these respected authors.

· Demonstrate why your authorities are better than mine.

· And explain away the Bias of the authorities you use since you will not find any unbiased source to support your position.

Or

· Conduct a survey of all the Ante-Nicene fathers.

· Site specific examples from each where they deny subordination of Jesus Christ to the Father.

· And give me some reason to accept your NEW idea above the idea of the scholars I have already referenced.

Der Alter:Concerning Theophilus. Let us read what he actually wrote. So what if he used the word “[trias.” Note, how he defined it, classic Tinitarianism.Theophilus-Book II
In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity, of God, and His Word, and His wisdom.

[url="http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-02...tm#P1469_430289"]http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-02...tm#P1469_430289

[/url]TOm:
Actually Theophilus did not write in English. So the above source you sited is actually second hand since it was translated for you. Also of note there is a footnote upon the word Trinity in this presentation. Instead of honestly representing that this word is not the same word that was ultimately embraced a Nicea, there is no mention of this. I submit that it is the BIAS of your secondary source that results in this misinformation. And it is BIAS to not even mention that the word they translated Trinity is not the word used by Nicea.
Don’t get me wrong, I use the same site. I just recognize BIAS when I am exposed to it. In fact, lets read what Theophilus has to say about “The Nature of God” and the “Attributes of God.” If Theophilus was a Trinitarian this would be a great time to mention that Jesus and the Holy Ghost are God, but this doesn’t happen. From Book I at the same site:
Chapter III.-Nature of God.
You will say, then, to me, "Do you, who see God, explain to me the appearance of God." Hear, O man. The appearance of God is ineffable and indescribable, and cannot be seen by eyes of flesh. For in glory He is incomprehensible, in greatness unfathomable, in height inconceivable, in power incomparable, in wisdom unrivalled, in goodness inimitable, in kindness unutterable. For if I say He is Light, I name but His own work; if I call Him Word, I name but His sovereignty; if I call Him Mind, I speak but of His wisdom; if I say He is Spirit, I speak of His breath; if I call Him Wisdom, I speak of His offspring; if I call Him Strength, I speak of His sway; if I call Him Power, I am mentioning His activity; if Providence, I but mention His goodness; if I call Him Kingdom, I but mention His glory; if I call Him Lord, I mention His being judge; if I call Him Judge, I speak of Him as being just; if I call Him Father, I speak of all things as being from Him;5 if I call Him Fire, I but mention His anger. You will say, then, to me, "Is God angry? "Yes; He is angry with those who act wickedly, but He is good, and kind, and merciful, to those who love and fear Him; for He is a chastener6 of the godly, and father of the righteous; but he is a judge and punisher of the impious.
Chapter IV.-Attributes of God.
And He is without beginning, because He is unbegotten; and He is unchangeable, because He is immortal. And he is called God [Qeo/j] on account of His having placed [teqeike/nai] all things on security afforded by Himself; and on account of [qe/ein], forqe/ein means running, and moving, and being active, and nourishing, and foreseeing, and governing, and making all things alive. But he is Lord, because He rules over the universe; Father, because he is before all things; Fashioner and Maker, because He is creator and maker of the universe; the Highest, because of His being above all; and Almighty, because He Himself rules and embraces all. For the heights of heaven, and the depths of the abysses, and the ends of the earth, are in His hand, and there is no place of His rest. For the heavens are His work, the earth is His creation, the sea is His handiwork; man is His formation and His image; sun, moon, and stars are His elements, made for signs, and seasons, and days, and years, that they may serve and be slaves to man; and all things God has made out of things that were not7 into things that are, in order that through His works His greatness may be known and understood.

TOm:
And BTW, in Book II if you read around his Trias reference you will find subordinationism which is what I said existed universally anyway. The above quote sets the stage for Arianism (which is what I said Newman said) and in Book II regardless of what was meant by Trias it was not “co-equal.”Der Alter:I just love those unsupported catchall phrases, e.g.,“accepted by scholars.” Which scholars? None of the scholars I have studied for example, Reinhold Seeberg, J.N.D. Kelly, and Kenneth Scott Latourette.TOm:I will await for you to demonstrate that Seeberg, Kelly, or Latourette deny a subordinationism pre-Nicea. At least I quoted reputable scholars who said something that had something to do with my position. You have merely listed names. And the which scholars for this particular comment would be Hanson, Bettenson, and Williams as I sited before I made this comment.

Post 165 to be continued.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Post 165 continued:

Der Alter:
Concerning Justin being an Arian, let’s read Justin, himself and see. Note the word “abscission” means cutting off. This power that is called God, was begotten of the Father but not by cutting off.
TOm:
The concern over Justin being an Arian derives from him not embracing the eternal nature of the Son. I doubt Newman would deny that the Son was begotten of God according to Justin. Again, I will site Newman. He will specifically analyze the ancient language and point out that Justin seems to deny the eternality of the Son.
Newman, Causes of Arianism –Section 13:2.
JUSTIN suffers from a like misinterpretation. How can Bull not know that the point he has to prove as regards certain of his authors, is their witness to the eternal gennesis? He actually discusses the difficulty arising from the fact that a certain number of them seem to deny it. He has to prove the eternity of the Son, not the eternity of the Logos; yet, as in the case of the author last quoted, so as regards St. Justin Martyr, when Justin speaks of the eternal Logos, Bull substitutes the word "Son." He says, "Testimonia quædam ex eodem [Justino] adducemus, quæ co-æternam [tou logou], sive Filii Dei cum Patre suo existentiam apertissime confirment." F. N. iii. 2, init. ed. 1721. Then he proceeds to quote two passages which speak only of the eternity of the Logos, not of the Son. As to the latter of these, the word "Son," or its equivalent {249} does not occur in it at all; as to the former, Grabe, whose annotations have for their object to defend and to support Bull's hypothesis, candidly confesses that both text and stopping must be corrected in a direction adverse to the necessities of Bull's argument.Now let us consider St. Justin's theology; for myself, indeed, though I have done my best to master what he has written, I distrust too much whether my eyesight or my power of sustained attention, to speak with the fullest confidence; but, speaking under correction of these defects, I will say, that, though I have found passages in the Alexandrians, I cannot find a single passage in St. Justin, in which the Son, or the only-begotten, or the gennesis, is declared to be from everlasting, except in such phrases as "before all creatures," which are short of the directness of the Alexandrian School.(1.) The following is the passage, on which Bull principally relies in proof of St. Justin's taking the orthodox view of the point in question. I quote with Grabe's correction and stopping, introducing the three letters, which I have assigned as notes for the Endiathetic Word, the Prophoric, and the Primogenitus respectively.[Ho huios ekeinou, ho monos legomenos kurios huios, ho logos pro ton poiematon, kai sunon, (A)—kai gennomenos, hote (B) ten archen di' autou panta ektise kai ekosmese (C).] Apol. ii. 6. Grabe's Latin runs: "Verbum ante omnes creaturas et coexistens (Patri); et nascens, quando [non quoniam ...] primitus cuncta per eum condidit et ornavit." p. 170. It is observable Justin does not even use the phrase [pro aionon], but [pro ton poiematon]. {250}There is no mention in this passage of the eternity of the gennesis; rather it is said to have taken place when the world was to be created. Nor does Bull's second passage or collation of passages, to the effect that our Lord was the "I am" of the burning bush, avail better for his purpose; vid. ad Græc. 21, Apol. i. 63, and Tryph. 60. Doubtless our Lord is from eternity, and Justin believed Him to be the One True God; but I am looking for a categorical passage declaring that the Son always existed as the Son; such as Origen's "the Only-begotten Word, ever-coexisting with Him," or "Who dares say, 'Once the Son was not?'" I will set down some other passages of Justin; none of them, I think, rise above the level of the foregoing. I have no doubt of his holding the co-eternity and consubstantiality of the Word; but does he anywhere profess the everlasting gennesis?

TOm:
At this juncture I would like to again state that you have not addressed much of what I have posted (which I posted in response to you suggesting I was misinformed or deceptive and that you would refute EVERY bit of evidence I posted). You have put forth the position that Constantine was not a decisive factor in the Council of Nicea and that he was Arian. I refuted this with appeals to respected historians. We will not be able to ask Constantine his opinions so I will await your “evidences.”

Again, like your translation problem with the writings of Theophilus, BIAS is on my side here. The authors I site have reason to not want it to appear that Constantine profoundly influenced the Council. The authors I have sited have reason to want it to appear that pre-Nicea orthodoxy was identical to post Nicea orthodoxy.

They contrary to their BIAS state just the opposite. And once again, I am a Trinitarian. I just maintain that it is the authority of a Church that allows one to accept or reject Trinitarian structures. When the JWs and other non-Trinitarians go against sola scriptura adherents, the information I point to above is relevant. I also might add that LDS subordinationism, while in no way denying the eternality of Jesus Christ nor his divinity, is in agreement with pre-Nicea orthodoxy. The term or concept of “co-equal” is not part of pre-Nicea orthodoxy.

Charity,
TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Sorry about the formating. If one wishes to see the formating go back and read post

160 which was a response to the post calling my ideas “nonsense”

Post 162 that was the very limited response to post 160 by Der Alter.

And Post 165 that was my attempt to show that 162 was not really refuting the small subsection of post 160 Der Alter commented on.



Charity, TOm

 

[Achichem]

You do need to take some time to read the scriptures.
God gave the law to the Jews not the gentiles. Paul speaks of that in Romans.
In acts and the letter to the Galatians that the gentile was not to be held to the Law.
Gal 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage

The discussion in the scriptures was one of legalism . Peter was pressing circumcision and dietary laws and God intervened with a dream and the apostle to the gentiles Paul.

You will win no brownie points on the other side for legalism . Jesus was the end of the law

Rom 10:4 For Christ [is] the end of the law for righteousness to every one
that believeth.

Jhn 8:36**
If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

before I respospond in a new thread let me just make sure we are in disagreement.

I am a gentile, who chosses to keep the statues of the law, I do not require this of others, but do pride myself in them, and hold them close to my heart.
I glote of their gloy, and woo other to them, but I never call it a requirment of any man...am I a legalist by your defintion?

Also, are you calling these joys of my heart, bondage and lead weight on my heart?

Shalom,
DaTsar

 

[Der Alte]

Tom, you seem to have a problem remembering what you wrote. So I will remind you of your earlier post, with a link directly to that post.

I will say this twice so we do not forget. I made two simple statements. You in no uncertain terms said I was either misinformed or dishonest and you would refute whatever evidence I put forth.

http://www.christianforums.co.uk/showthread.php?p=1388303&postcount=165

At this juncture I would like to again state that you have not addressed much of what I have posted (which I posted in response to you suggesting I was misinformed or deceptive and that you would refute EVERY bit of evidence I posted). You have put forth the position that Constantine was not a decisive factor in the Council of Nicea and that he was Arian. I refuted this with appeals to respected historians. We will not be able to ask Constantine his opinions so I will await your “evidences.”

You will note that your outright accusation in the previous post was, “You in no uncertain terms said I was either misinformed or dishonest. . ..” However, in this most recent post you say, to me, “you suggesting I was misinformed or deceptive.” Until we get the truth of this straightened out there is little point in proceeding. Did I, say, “in no uncertain terms,” Did I “suggest?” Or did I do neither? In that I did not address you personally but the material you posted. Although you claim to know the difference, you assume that anything said about whatever material you post is, in fact, a personal attack on you. Therefore you do NOT know the difference!

I, on the other hand, realize even if I quote a source exactly, that source may be wrong, therefore the information is wrong, it can even be nonsense, but I am neither dishonest nor misinformed, and I always cite my sources, unlike others I might name.

Now as for the Hanson, Bettenson, and Williams I say you have never read them, except for the cut and paste you posted. So other than those quotes you know almost nothing about them.

Bettenson, for example, you quote only four words and that is supposed to be proof? What evidence does Bettenson cite upon which he bases his claim, that, "subordinationism'... was pre-Nicene orthodoxy."? If one were to go over to “Barry’s Early Christianity and Mormonism Page.” they would find those exact quotes, word for word, verbatim. OTOH I cited all my sources. If I want to debate Barry I will go to his website. Do you think we can get a little honest scholarship here?

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/2671/ECTheop.html

Newman, Causes of Arianism –Section 13:2.
He says, "Testimonia quædam ex eodem [Justino] adducemus, quæ co-æternam [tou logou], sive Filii Dei cum Patre suo existentiam apertissime confirment." F. N. iii. 2, init. ed. 1721.

.[Ho huios ekeinou, ho monos legomenos kurios huios, ho logos pro ton poiematon, kai sunon, (A)—kai gennomenos, hote (B) ten archen di' autou panta ektise kai ekosmese (C).] Apol. ii. 6. Grabe's Latin runs: "Verbum ante omnes creaturas et coexistens (Patri); et nascens, quando [non quoniam ...] primitus cuncta per eum condidit et ornavit." p. 170.

Here is part of one of your quotes from Newman. Please explain, in detail, how it does or does not support your argument?

John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine,(6th edition 1989) p. 17:

If we limit our view of the teaching of the Fathers by what they expressly state, St. Ignatius may be considered Patripassian, St. Justin arianizes, and St. Hippolytus is a Photinian... Tertullian is heterodox on the Lord's divinity... Origen is, at the very least suspected, and must be defended and explained rather than cited as a witness of orthodoxy; and Eusebius was a Semi-Arian.

Here another quote from Newman. Please expand upon the historical evidence he relied on to reach these conclusions? I think I said before you posted your first so-called evidence, the unsupported opinions of scholars is virtually meaningless, because anyone can "say” anything.

So Newman calls St. Justin an arian. He points to Theophilus as a seed for the arian beliefs.

Above, copied and posted from the earlier post. Please show me where Newman said anything about Theophilus in this quote? And in response to your Newman I call and raise you a Newman. Considering this I must seriously question the context of your quote, above.”St. Ignatius may be considered Patripassian,”, etc.

It may be true also, or at least shall here be granted as true, that there is also a consensus in the Antenicene Church for the doctrines of our Lord's Consubstantiality and Coeternity with the Almighty Father. Let us allow that the whole circle of doctrines, of which our Lord is the subject, was consistently and uniformly confessed by the Primitive Church, though not ratified formally in Council. But it surely is otherwise with the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity. I do not see in what sense it can be said that there is a consensus of primitive divines in its favour, which will not avail also for certain doctrines of the Roman Church which will presently come into mention. And this is a point which the writer of the above passages ought to have more distinctly brought before his mind and more carefully weighed; but be seems to have fancied that Bishop Bull proved the primitiveness of the Catholic doctrine concerning the Holy Trinity as well as that concerning our Lord. (Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, John Henry Newman, a cardinal by Pope Leo III in 1879, 1878, p40)​

And OBTW I have more Newman if you need it.

Actually Theophilus did not write in English. So the above source you sited is actually second hand since it was translated for you. Also of note there is a footnote upon the word Trinity in this presentation. Instead of honestly representing that this word is not the same word that was ultimately embraced a Nicea, there is no mention of this. I submit that it is the BIAS of your secondary source that results in this misinformation. And it is BIAS to not even mention that the word they translated Trinity is not the word used by Nicea. Don’t get me wrong, I use the same site. I just recognize BIAS when I am exposed to it.

Of course, Theophilus did not write in English. You accuse the translator of dishonesty and bias. Please tell us what language Theophilus did write in and exactly what the word “Trias” means. You have mentioned BIAS three times in this paragraph but you have not shown one shred of evidence of bias. You say that “trias” is not the word used at Nicaea. What was the word used at Nicaea? Hint, it was NOT Trinity! And you certainly are the one to be commenting on second hand quoting, aren't you?

 

[Der Alte]

Now let us continue responding to the earlier post. All your posturing and grandstanding was wasted. You should not assume anything, especially that if I don’t jump right in with a response, I do not have one. I do have a life outside this forum and there are certain things that take precedence over this discussion.

And BTW, in Book II if you read around his Trias reference you will find subordinationism which is what I said existed universally anyway. The above quote sets the stage for Arianism (which is what I said Newman said) and in Book II regardless of what was meant by Trias it was not “co-equal.”

Since you are the one claiming subordinationism, in Theophilus, right about here is where you should be quoting Theophilus to make your point, instead of sending me on a wild goose chase through the ECF to prove your argument. You quoted a couple of paragraphs, before, which OBTW did NOT prove your argument, why didn’t you do the same here? How did they not support your argument? Elementary, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!. I will have more to say on this later.

Lets review Theophilus whom you keep accusing of subordinationism.

Theophilus of Antioch, Book II

For if I say He is Light, I name but His own work; if I call Him Word, I name but His sovereignty; if I call Him Mind, I speak but of His wisdom; if I say He is Spirit, I speak of His breath; if I call Him Wisdom, I speak of His offspring; if I call Him Strength, I speak of His sway; if I call Him Power, I am mentioning His activity; if Providence, I but mention His goodness; if I call Him Kingdom, I but mention His glory; if I call Him Lord, I mention His being judge; if I call Him Judge, I speak of Him as being just; if I call Him Father, I speak of all things as being from Him; if I call Him Fire, I but mention His anger.

But he is Lord, because He rules over the universe; Father, because he is before all things; Fashioner and Maker, because He is creator and maker of the universe; the Highest, because of His being above all; and Almighty, because He Himself rules and embraces all.

Chapter X.-The World Created by God Through the Word.

And first, they taught us with one consent that God made all things out of nothing; for nothing was coeval with God: but He being His own place, and wanting nothing, and existing before the ages, willed to make man by whom He might be known; for him, therefore, He prepared the world. For he that is created is also needy; but he that is uncreated stands in need of nothing. God, then, having His own Word internal within His own bowels, begat Him, emitting Him along with His own wisdom before all things. He had this Word as a helper in the things that were created by Him, and by Him He made all things. He [the Word] is called "governing principle" [a0rkh/], because He rules, and is Lord of all things fashioned by Him. He, then, being Spirit of God, and governing principle, and wisdom, and power of the highest, came down upon the prophets, and through them spoke of the creation of the world and of all other things. For the prophets were not when the world came into existence, but the wisdom of God which was in Him, and His holy Word which was always present with Him. Wherefore He speaks thus by the prophet Solomon: "When He prepared the heavens I was there, and when He appointed the foundations of the earth I was by Him as one brought up with Him." And Moses, who lived many years before Solomon, or, rather, the Word of God by him as by an instrument, says, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." First he named the "beginning," and "creation," then he thus introduced God; for not lightly and on slight occasion is it right to name God. For the divine wisdom foreknew that some would trifle and name a multitude of gods that do not exist. In order, therefore, that the living God might be known by His works, and that [it might be known that] by His Word God created the heavens and the earth, and all that is therein, he said, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Then having spoken of their creation, he explains to us: "And the earth was without form, and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God moved upon the water." This, sacred Scripture teaches at the outset, to show that matter, from which God made and fashioned the world, was in some manner created, being produced by God.

Chapter XXII.-Why God is Said to Have Walked.

You will say, then, to me: "You said that God ought not to be contained in a place, and how do you now say that He walked in Paradise? "Hear what I say. The God and Father, indeed, of all cannot be contained, and is not found in a place, for there is no place of His rest; but His Word, through whom He made all things, being His power and His wisdom, assuming the person of the Father and Lord of all, went to the garden in the person of God, and conversed with Adam. For the divine writing itself teaches us that Adam said that he had heard the voice. But what else is this voice but the Word of God, who is also His Son? Not as the poets and writers of myths talk of the sons of gods begotten from intercourse [with women], but as truth expounds, the Word, that always exists, residing within the heart of God. For before anything came into being He had Him as a counsellor, being His own mind and thought. But when God wished to make all that He determined on, He begot this Word, uttered, the first-born of all creation, not Himself being emptied of the Word [Reason], but having begotten Reason, and always conversing with His Reason. And hence the holy writings teach us, and all the spirit-bearing [inspired] men, one of whom, John, says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God," showing that at first God was alone, and the Word in Him. Then he says, "The Word was God; all things came into existence through Him; and apart from Him not one thing came into existence." The Word, then, being God, and being naturally produced from God, whenever the Father of the universe wills, He sends Him to any place; and He, coming, is both heard and seen, being sent by Him, and is found in a place.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-02/TOC.htm#TopOfPage

The First Apology of Justin

Chapter VI.-Charge of Atheism Refuted.

Hence are we called atheists. And we confess that we are atheists, so far as gods of this sort are concerned, but not with respect to the most true God, the Father of righteousness and temperance and the other virtues, who is free from all impurity. But both Him, and the Son (who came forth from Him and taught us these things, and the host of the other good angels who follow and are made like to Him), and the prophetic Spirit, we worship and adore, knowing them in reason and truth, and declaring without grudging to every one who wishes to learn, as we have been taught.

Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who also was born for this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judaea, in the times of Tiberius Caesar; and that we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we will prove. For they proclaim our madness to consist in this, that we give to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all; for they do not discern the mystery that is herein, to which, as we make it plain to you, we pray you to give heed.

It is wrong, therefore, to understand the Spirit and the power of God as anything else than the Word, who is also the first-born of God, as the foresaid prophet Moses declared; and it was this which, when it came upon the virgin and overshadowed her, caused her to conceive, not by intercourse, but by power.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/TOC.htm

Historians

He who was formerly Logos, and appeared now in the semblance of fire, now in incorporeal fashion, has finally by God’s will become man for the human race. He preexisted as God, and was made flesh of the Virgin, being born as man. His incarnation involved the assumption of flesh and blood. (7) and Justin insists, (8) in spite of the scandal thereby occasioned to Jewish critics, on the reality of the Messiah’s physical sufferings. Yet He did not cease to exist as Word, being in fact at once ‘God and man.’ (9)

Early Christian Doctrines, J.N.D. Kelly, Harper and Row, 1978, p. 145.

Along with the “Word” is mentioned also the Wisdom of God, or the holy prophetic Spirit; but comparatively little prominence is given to the latter (Just. Ap. I. 6. 60 Ath. 12. 24.). The Trinity is certainly an article of the common faith. The term Trias occurs first in Theoph. ii. 15. Although the Apologists find little occasion to speak of this mystery, the apprehension of it constitutes for them the profoundest problem and the supreme desire of their hearts: “carried away with the desire only, to see God and the Logos with him. What is the unity of the Son with the Father? What fellowship of the Father with the Son? What the spirit? What the union and the difference of those who are thus united-the Spirit, the Son, and the Father?” (Ath. 12)

The History of Doctrines, Reinhold Seeberg, Baker Book House, 1978. p. 114​

In case you haven't noticed, the sources I quoted, unlike most of yours, cite historical documents in support of their conclusions.

 

[Peterson]

Posturing and grandstanding? Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[TOmNossor]

Tom, you seem to have a problem remembering what you wrote. So I will remind you of your earlier post, with a link directly to that post.





You will note that your outright accusation in the previous post was, “You in no uncertain terms said I was either misinformed or dishonest. . ..” However, in this most recent post you say, to me, “you suggesting I was misinformed or deceptive.” Until we get the truth of this straightened out there is little point in proceeding. Did I, say, “in no uncertain terms,” Did I “suggest?” Or did I do neither? In that I did not address you personally but the material you posted. Although you claim to know the difference, you assume that anything said about whatever material you post is, in fact, a personal attack on you. Therefore you do NOT know the difference!

I, on the other hand, realize even if I quote a source exactly, that source may be wrong, therefore the information is wrong, it can even be nonsense, but I am neither dishonest nor misinformed, and I always cite my sources, unlike others I might name.

Now as for the Hanson, Bettenson, and Williams I say you have never read them, except for the cut and paste you posted. So other than those quotes you know almost nothing about them.

Bettenson, for example, you quote only four words and that is supposed to be proof? What evidence does Bettenson cite upon which he bases his claim, that, "subordinationism'... was pre-Nicene orthodoxy."? If one were to go over to “Barry’s Early Christianity and Mormonism Page.” they would find those exact quotes, word for word, verbatim. OTOH I cited all my sources. If I want to debate Barry I will go to his website. Do you think we can get a little honest scholarship here?

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/2671/ECTheop.html



Here is part of one of your quotes from Newman. Please explain, in detail, how it does or does not support your argument?



Here another quote from Newman. Please expand upon the historical evidence he relied on to reach these conclusions? I think I said before you posted your first so-called evidence, the unsupported opinions of scholars is virtually meaningless, because anyone can "say” anything.







Above, copied and posted from the earlier post. Please show me where Newman said anything about Theophilus in this quote? And in response to your Newman I call and raise you a Newman. Considering this I must seriously question the context of your quote, above.”St. Ignatius may be considered Patripassian,”, etc.

It may be true also, or at least shall here be granted as true, that there is also a consensus in the Antenicene Church for the doctrines of our Lord's Consubstantiality and Coeternity with the Almighty Father. Let us allow that the whole circle of doctrines, of which our Lord is the subject, was consistently and uniformly confessed by the Primitive Church, though not ratified formally in Council. But it surely is otherwise with the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity. I do not see in what sense it can be said that there is a consensus of primitive divines in its favour, which will not avail also for certain doctrines of the Roman Church which will presently come into mention. And this is a point which the writer of the above passages ought to have more distinctly brought before his mind and more carefully weighed; but be seems to have fancied that Bishop Bull proved the primitiveness of the Catholic doctrine concerning the Holy Trinity as well as that concerning our Lord. (Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, John Henry Newman, a cardinal by Pope Leo III in 1879, 1878, p40)

​

And OBTW I have more Newman if you need it.





Of course, Theophilus did not write in English. You accuse the translator of dishonesty and bias. Please tell us what language Theophilus did write in and exactly what the word “Trias” means. You have mentioned BIAS three times in this paragraph but you have not shown one shred of evidence of bias. You say that “trias” is not the word used at Nicaea. What was the word used at Nicaea? Hint, it was NOT Trinity! And you certainly are the one to be commenting on second hand quoting, aren't you?

Der Alter:

I, on the other hand, realize even if I quote a source exactly, that source may be wrong, therefore the information is wrong, it can even be nonsense, but I am neither dishonest nor misinformed, and I always cite my sources, unlike others I might name.



TOm:

We have different definitions of “misinformed” I think. The dictionary says that misinform is –

Misinform: To provide with incorrect information.

So to be misinformed would be to have been provided with incorrect information. Do we agree now that you intended to say that I was misinformed?



So if you or I put forth a believe predicated upon wrong information. This makes us misinformed. Do you truly disagree with this?



I changed from “no uncertain terms” to “suggested” because though I couldn’t understand what concerned you from my interpretation of your saying my post was nonsense, I recognized that you were taken aback by my understanding.



I believe you to be misinformed with respect to pre-Nicea orthodoxy. I believe you to be misinformed as to which side of the debate Constantine supported at Nicea. I believe you to be misinformed with respect to the amount of Arian and semi-arian (referred to as Arian by many as it was opposed to Athanasiaus after Nicea and also most of what was truly Arius’ is lost to history).



Der Alter:

Now as for the Hanson, Bettenson, and Williams I say you have never read them, except for the cut and paste you posted. So other than those quotes you know almost nothing about them.



TOm:

Well, you are correct relative to Williams and Hanson. Also, I have not read much of Bettenson, but definitely some. I have read extensively from Newman and Barker. Also, I have read some of Kelly and plan to buy Early Christian Doctrines, when money and time allow.



I quoted:

Henry Bettenson, The Early Christian Fathers, p.330:

"'subordinationism'... was pre-Nicene orthodoxy."





The more full text (without ellipses)



“‘Subordinationism’, it is true, was pre-Nicene orthodoxy;”



With some context,

“Rufinus seems here to have modified the original in the interests of orthodoxy. According to the quotation in Justinian, Origen gave here a bold statement of subordination of the Son and Holy Spirit. ‘Subordinationism’, it is true, was pre-Nicene orthodoxy; but it was not generally so frankly expressed. The substantial accuracy of Justinian’s quotation seems to be guaranteed by Jerome, Ep. (cxxiv) ad Avitum.



Der Alter:

Bettenson, for example, you quote only four words and that is supposed to be proof? What evidence does Bettenson cite upon which he bases his claim, that, "subordinationism'... was pre-Nicene orthodoxy."? If one were to go over to “Barry’s Early Christianity and Mormonism Page.” they would find those exact quotes, word for word, verbatim. OTOH I cited all my sources. If I want to debate Barry I will go to his website. Do you think we can get a little honest scholarship here?



TOm:

Actually, I have come across that quote in two articles and one book by Barry (A LDS)and one article by DWaltz (a Catholic) and I have read it in the original text.

Now, I have never taken a religion class in my life except for Sunday school. All of my knowledge is from reading books and the Internet. I understand that you have either a masters or a PhD in religion. I commend you. But, I ask that you deal with the information I present rather than suggest I am a poor scholar. I am not a scholar. I just read and form opinions based what I have read. I have no desire to show you that I am a better scholar than you. I just hope to show that you could understand that the EarlyChurch is not the black/white orthodoxy that I infer you as saying.



What Bettenson is actually saying that some person he calls Rufinus modified some test to make it appear more orthodox. He then says of course we must recognize that this is faithfully produced in opposition to Rufinus by a different person because this different person presents the subordinationism position which is “pre-Nicene orthodoxy.”



“Rufinus seems here to have modified the original in the interests of orthodoxy. According to the quotation in Justinian, Origen gave here a bold statement of subordination of the Son and Holy Spirit. ‘Subordinationism’, it is true, was pre-Nicene orthodoxy; but it was not generally so frankly expressed. The substantial accuracy of Justinian’s quotation seems to be guaranteed by Jerome, Ep. (cxxiv) ad Avitum.”



Der Alter quotes me quoting Newman:

Newman, Causes of Arianism –Section 13:2.
He says, "Testimonia quædam ex eodem [Justino] adducemus, quæ co-æternam [tou logou], sive Filii Dei cum Patre suo existentiam apertissime confirment." F. N. iii. 2, init. ed. 1721.

.[Ho huios ekeinou, ho monos legomenos kurios huios, ho logos pro ton poiematon, kai sunon, (A)—kai gennomenos, hote (B) ten archen di' autou panta ektise kai ekosmese (C).] Apol. ii. 6. Grabe's Latin runs: "Verbum ante omnes creaturas et coexistens (Patri); et nascens, quando [non quoniam ...] primitus cuncta per eum condidit et ornavit." p. 170.



Der Alter says:

Here is part of one of your quotes from Newman. Please explain, in detail, how it does or does not support your argument?



TOm:

First, you should have at least included the infamous “…” if you are going to leave out a large portion of my quote of Newman. The fact of the matter is, in my full quote Newman explains quite well exactly what he is saying. I will be happy to explain it to you.

The first section is a quote of Bishop Bull. Newman is saying that Bishop Bull implies the eternality of the Son, but that this is a mistaken way of looking at what Justin says. I think Newman is pretty clear here.

The second section is Newman again saying that Bishop Bull is somewhat mistake. Newman is quoting what he calls the Grabe’s correction. He then suggests that again Bishop Bull has failed to prove the eternity of the “gennesis.”



It seems to me quite possible that you have chosen to quote Latin form my quote of Newman. Newman explains what he is trying to say, but I think perhaps you want me to admit that I cannot read Latin. I certainly cannot. If you can, then again you have shown me to be your inferior in this regard. I have no intention of showing that I am superior to you, instead I wish to show that there is a lot of writings by people who do read Latin and Greek to show that what you have said is incorrect. You have yet to refute with anything but isolated quotes from a huge corpus of literature. So it is currently my opinion that I despite being your inferior am doing quite well.



Der Alter:

Here another quote from Newman. Please expand upon the historical evidence he relied on to reach these conclusions? I think I said before you posted your first so-called evidence, the unsupported opinions of scholars is virtually meaningless, because anyone can "say” anything.



TOm:

Having read Newman who was a Protestant and became a Catholic, it is obvious to me he is quite well read and informed on Patristics and history. So yes, he could say anything, but so could you or anyone else. And as I have pointed out many times what he does say is in opposition to his ultimate conclusions regarding the Trinity. Were he to want to present Christianity in a non-LDS way, he would not say what he says. You are the one who pulls out isolated ORIGINAL quotes and says that they represent the totality of what the ECF or ECFs said. I say this is a particularly weak position against respected scholars. Against me, you would be doing fine. I cannot read Latin, I have not read all the ECFs in Latin. But unless Newman, Bettenson, Williams, and Hansen who have read virtually all the ECF are trying to present non-Catholic and non-Protestant views to make me feel good, then I will tend to place more weight on their UNBIASED statements on the totality of the writings than on your isolated quotes.

Am I unwise for doing this?


continued later.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Continued from before:



Der Alter:

Above, copied and posted from the earlier post. Please show me where Newman said anything about Theophilus in this quote? And in response to your Newman I call and raise you a Newman. Considering this I must seriously question the context of your quote, above.”St. Ignatius may be considered Patripassian,”, etc.



TOm:

I will provide where Newman points to Theophilus as a seed for the Arian beliefs. It was not something I had previously quoted for you.



Newman, Arians of the Fourth Century:

The following are additional instances of Platonic language in the early Fathers; though the reader will scarcely perceive at first sight what is the fault in {95} them, unless he happens to know the defective or perverse sense in which philosophy or heresy used them [Note 51]. For instance, Justin speaks of the Word as "fulfilling the Father's will." Clement calls Him [Note 52] "the Thought or Reflection of God;" and in another place, "the Second Principle of all things," the Father Himself being the First. Elsewhere he speaks of the Son as an "all-perfect, all-holy, all-sovereign, all-authoritative, supreme, and all-searching nature, reaching close upon the sole Almighty." In like manner Origen speaks of the Son as being "the immediate Creator, and as it were, Artificer of the world;" and the Father, "the Origin of it, as having committed to His Son its creation." A bolder theology than this of Origen and Clement is adopted by five early writers connected with very various schools of Christian teaching; none of whom, however, are of especial authority in the Church [Note 53]. They explained the Scripture doctrine of the generation of the Word to mean, His manifestation at the beginning of the world as distinct from God; a statement, which, by weakening the force of a dogmatic formula which implies our Lord's Divine Nature, might perhaps lend some accidental countenance after their day to the Arian denial of it. These subjects will come before us in the next chapter.



Note53:

53. Theophilus of Antioch (A.D. 168); Tatian, pupil of Justin Martyr (A.D. 169); Athenagoras of Alexandria (A.D. 177); Hippolytus, the disciple of Irenæus and friend of Origen (A.D. 222); and the Author who goes under the name of Novatian (A.D. 250).



Der Alter (repeated with his Newman):

Above, copied and posted from the earlier post. Please show me where Newman said anything about Theophilus in this quote? And in response to your Newman I call and raise you a Newman. Considering this I must seriously question the context of your quote, above.”St. Ignatius may be considered Patripassian,”, etc.



Der Alter quotes Newman:
It may be true also, or at least shall here be granted as true, that there is also a consensus in the Antenicene Church for the doctrines of our Lord's Consubstantiality and Coeternity with the Almighty Father. Let us allow that the whole circle of doctrines, of which our Lord is the subject, was consistently and uniformly confessed by the Primitive Church, though not ratified formally in Council. But it surely is otherwise with the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity. I do not see in what sense it can be said that there is a consensus of primitive divines in its favour, which will not avail also for certain doctrines of the Roman Church which will presently come into mention. And this is a point which the writer of the above passages ought to have more distinctly brought before his mind and more carefully weighed; but be seems to have fancied that Bishop Bull proved the primitiveness of the Catholic doctrine concerning the Holy Trinity as well as that concerning our Lord. (Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, John Henry Newman, a cardinal by Pope Leo III in 1879, 1878, p40)



TOm:

Do you know what the Patripssian heresy is? It is a very small blip (smaller than the Sabellian heresy which it is similar to) on the ante-Nicene Early Church. One who holds to the Patripssian position would embrace Consubstantiality and Coeternity, because this person would not separate God into distinct persons. If fact this person would say that George, Walker, and Bush are just three names for one person.

Newman of course continues on in you quote to suggest that “…with the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity. I do not see in what sense it can be said that there is a consensus of primitive divines in its favour,”

Perhaps you are suggesting that Newman is in conflict with Bettenson in that he does not see subordination in some of these writers. Perhaps Bettenson should have been more clear and said that if you do not fall to the Sabellian or Patripssianheresies you will postulate a greater subordinationism than Nicea ratified. Because if you embrace the Sabellian or Patripssian heresies, there is not room for subordination because there are not three persons.



Der Alter:

Of course, Theophilus did not write in English. You accuse the translator of dishonesty and bias. Please tell us what language Theophilus did write in and exactly what the word “Trias” means. You have mentioned BIAS three times in this paragraph but you have not shown one shred of evidence of bias. You say that “trias” is not the word used at Nicaea. What was the word used at Nicaea? Hint, it was NOT Trinity! And you certainly are the one to be commenting on second hand quoting, aren't you?



TOm:

I was pointing to second hand quoting as a parrot. I do not know the originals. I am aware Trinity is not a word used in the language written by the ECF. All I say is that Theophilus would not have recognized an Augustinian Trinitarian structure as his own. Do you disagree? Now that I have shown you were Newman points to Theophilus as a predecessor to Origin who is a predecessor to Arius (according to Arius) that Theophilus is not expressing an Augustinian Trinity, would you recognize there is difference?



Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Now let us continue responding to the earlier post. All your posturing and grandstanding was wasted. You should not assume anything, especially that if I don’t jump right in with a response, I do not have one. I do have a life outside this forum and there are certain things that take precedence over this discussion.



Since you are the one claiming subordinationism, in Theophilus, right about here is where you should be quoting Theophilus to make your point, instead of sending me on a wild goose chase through the ECF to prove your argument. You quoted a couple of paragraphs, before, which OBTW did NOT prove your argument, why didn’t you do the same here? How did they not support your argument? Elementary, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!. I will have more to say on this later.



Lets review Theophilus whom you keep accusing of subordinationism.

Theophilus of Antioch, Book II

For if I say He is Light, I name but His own work; if I call Him Word, I name but His sovereignty; if I call Him Mind, I speak but of His wisdom; if I say He is Spirit, I speak of His breath; if I call Him Wisdom, I speak of His offspring; if I call Him Strength, I speak of His sway; if I call Him Power, I am mentioning His activity; if Providence, I but mention His goodness; if I call Him Kingdom, I but mention His glory; if I call Him Lord, I mention His being judge; if I call Him Judge, I speak of Him as being just; if I call Him Father, I speak of all things as being from Him; if I call Him Fire, I but mention His anger.

But he is Lord, because He rules over the universe; Father, because he is before all things; Fashioner and Maker, because He is creator and maker of the universe; the Highest, because of His being above all; and Almighty, because He Himself rules and embraces all.

Chapter X.-The World Created by God Through the Word.

And first, they taught us with one consent that God made all things out of nothing; for nothing was coeval with God: but He being His own place, and wanting nothing, and existing before the ages, willed to make man by whom He might be known; for him, therefore, He prepared the world. For he that is created is also needy; but he that is uncreated stands in need of nothing. God, then, having His own Word internal within His own bowels, begat Him, emitting Him along with His own wisdom before all things. He had this Word as a helper in the things that were created by Him, and by Him He made all things. He [the Word] is called "governing principle" [a0rkh/], because He rules, and is Lord of all things fashioned by Him. He, then, being Spirit of God, and governing principle, and wisdom, and power of the highest, came down upon the prophets, and through them spoke of the creation of the world and of all other things. For the prophets were not when the world came into existence, but the wisdom of God which was in Him, and His holy Word which was always present with Him. Wherefore He speaks thus by the prophet Solomon: "When He prepared the heavens I was there, and when He appointed the foundations of the earth I was by Him as one brought up with Him." And Moses, who lived many years before Solomon, or, rather, the Word of God by him as by an instrument, says, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." First he named the "beginning," and "creation," then he thus introduced God; for not lightly and on slight occasion is it right to name God. For the divine wisdom foreknew that some would trifle and name a multitude of gods that do not exist. In order, therefore, that the living God might be known by His works, and that [it might be known that] by His Word God created the heavens and the earth, and all that is therein, he said, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Then having spoken of their creation, he explains to us: "And the earth was without form, and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God moved upon the water." This, sacred Scripture teaches at the outset, to show that matter, from which God made and fashioned the world, was in some manner created, being produced by God.

Chapter XXII.-Why God is Said to Have Walked.

You will say, then, to me: "You said that God ought not to be contained in a place, and how do you now say that He walked in Paradise? "Hear what I say. The God and Father, indeed, of all cannot be contained, and is not found in a place, for there is no place of His rest; but His Word, through whom He made all things, being His power and His wisdom, assuming the person of the Father and Lord of all, went to the garden in the person of God, and conversed with Adam. For the divine writing itself teaches us that Adam said that he had heard the voice. But what else is this voice but the Word of God, who is also His Son? Not as the poets and writers of myths talk of the sons of gods begotten from intercourse [with women], but as truth expounds, the Word, that always exists, residing within the heart of God. For before anything came into being He had Him as a counsellor, being His own mind and thought. But when God wished to make all that He determined on, He begot this Word, uttered, the first-born of all creation, not Himself being emptied of the Word [Reason], but having begotten Reason, and always conversing with His Reason. And hence the holy writings teach us, and all the spirit-bearing [inspired] men, one of whom, John, says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God," showing that at first God was alone, and the Word in Him. Then he says, "The Word was God; all things came into existence through Him; and apart from Him not one thing came into existence." The Word, then, being God, and being naturally produced from God, whenever the Father of the universe wills, He sends Him to any place; and He, coming, is both heard and seen, being sent by Him, and is found in a place.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-02/TOC.htm#TopOfPage

The First Apology of Justin

Chapter VI.-Charge of Atheism Refuted.

Hence are we called atheists. And we confess that we are atheists, so far as gods of this sort are concerned, but not with respect to the most true God, the Father of righteousness and temperance and the other virtues, who is free from all impurity. But both Him, and the Son (who came forth from Him and taught us these things, and the host of the other good angels who follow and are made like to Him), and the prophetic Spirit, we worship and adore, knowing them in reason and truth, and declaring without grudging to every one who wishes to learn, as we have been taught.

Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who also was born for this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judaea, in the times of Tiberius Caesar; and that we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we will prove. For they proclaim our madness to consist in this, that we give to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all; for they do not discern the mystery that is herein, to which, as we make it plain to you, we pray you to give heed.

It is wrong, therefore, to understand the Spirit and the power of God as anything else than the Word, who is also the first-born of God, as the foresaid prophet Moses declared; and it was this which, when it came upon the virgin and overshadowed her, caused her to conceive, not by intercourse, but by power.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/TOC.htm

Historians

He who was formerly Logos, and appeared now in the semblance of fire, now in incorporeal fashion, has finally by God’s will become man for the human race. He preexisted as God, and was made flesh of the Virgin, being born as man. His incarnation involved the assumption of flesh and blood. (7) and Justin insists, (8) in spite of the scandal thereby occasioned to Jewish critics, on the reality of the Messiah’s physical sufferings. Yet He did not cease to exist as Word, being in fact at once ‘God and man.’ (9)

Early Christian Doctrines, J.N.D. Kelly, Harper and Row, 1978, p. 145.

Along with the “Word” is mentioned also the Wisdom of God, or the holy prophetic Spirit; but comparatively little prominence is given to the latter (Just. Ap. I. 6. 60 Ath. 12. 24.). The Trinity is certainly an article of the common faith. The term Trias occurs first in Theoph. ii. 15. Although the Apologists find little occasion to speak of this mystery, the apprehension of it constitutes for them the profoundest problem and the supreme desire of their hearts: “carried away with the desire only, to see God and the Logos with him. What is the unity of the Son with the Father? What fellowship of the Father with the Son? What the spirit? What the union and the difference of those who are thus united-the Spirit, the Son, and the Father?” (Ath. 12)

The History of Doctrines, Reinhold Seeberg, Baker Book House, 1978. p. 114
​

In case you haven't noticed, the sources I quoted, unlike most of yours, cite historical documents in support of their conclusions.

Der Alter:

Now let us continue responding to the earlier post. All your posturing and grandstanding was wasted. You should not assume anything, especially that if I don’t jump right in with a response, I do not have one. I do have a life outside this forum and there are certain things that take precedence over this discussion.



TOm:

As do I, but I am not in the habit of calling the posts of others “Nonsense” and proclaiming that they should post any evidence they might have so I can “refute it.”



Der Alter:

Since you are the one claiming subordinationism, in Theophilus, right about here is where you should be quoting Theophilus to make your point, instead of sending me on a wild goose chase through the ECF to prove your argument. You quoted a couple of paragraphs, before, which OBTW did NOT prove your argument, why didn’t you do the same here? How did they not support your argument? Elementary, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!.I will have more to say on this later.



TOm:

First Theophilus speaks of God, His Word, and His Wisdom as a type of Trinity similar to the first three days. But we are talking about the fourth day in this passage. So he goes on to say the fourth type is of man.



Theophilus:

And the fourth is the type of man, who needs light, that so there may be God, the Word, wisdom, man.



TOm:

BTW, “wisdom” was not capitalized by our translator (at this point).

Now I do not suggest that Theophilus does not put man much below God, but I do suggest that he implies a hierarchy by listing God - man (the lack of capitalization not withstanding, but further supports my position).



All this is still periphery BTW, because unless you really do have unlimited time, you will need to find some respected scholar to deny Subordinationism pre-Nicea. I have found 3+ who recognize Subordinationism and so far all you have done is tell me I am not a Scholar and some individual comments by ECF do not clearly bear out Subordinationism. I hardly think we will have time for you to search out every ECF to find quotes that hint they do not Subordinate. Then for me to search out the same ECF to find a heretical statement by them. Hanson, Williams, Bettenson, Waltz, and Bickmore think I will be successful; but this does not mean we should really take the time doing this.



I would be happy to say that Hanson, Williams, Bettenson, Waltz, and Bickmore (4/5 of whom have no BIASED reason to see subordinationism) see subordinationism as pre Nicea Orthodoxy; and Der Alter does not agree. Then we can let those on this board decide which witness is more powerful. How about that?



Der Alter:

In case you haven't noticed, the sources I quoted, unlike most of yours, cite historical documents in support of their conclusions.



TOm:

None of your sources address pre-Nicene orthodoxy and subordinationism. They express what they feel is true as evidenced by pre-Nicene fathers and the developments of history. They do not specifically refute the position I have put out. Their reference of their sources is very important because they are putting forth a position that is in support of their personal position. Newman admits that the Trinity in its current form was not put forth with any kind of clarity pre-Nicea. This is a frank admission (which he does support with examples). Your authors when making broad statements do not say that subordinationism was not pre-Nicea Orthodoxy. They comment on components of the Trinity being found in the ECF, but as we have demonstrated with Theophilus components do not even represent the full opinion of the author.

Theophilus used the term “Trias,” but in the passages I have quoted were he is specifically discussing the nature of God, he doesn’t say anything about a Trinity.



So far, we have only addressed a subsection of my position. You have said that Constantine was an Arian. I have shown where historians said that he leaned very much towards Athanasius and was about to banish Arius. I am waiting for you to substantiate your claims.

I also said that the majority of the Bishops at Nicea were Arian or semi-Arian (both of which are heretical). I have again appealed to historians to show this. You have not said anything, but that I was wrong.



Charity, TOm

 

[Der Alte]

Der Alter,
I will take particular notice of 1 Peter 1:2; Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: grace be unto you and peace, be multiplied.

Sanctification is from the Greek hagiasmos and means purity, holiness, hallowed or a state of being holy. Verse 5 tells us that it is to have the Father's Spirit in us by his power. We are sanctified (made holy) and kept by the power of the Father, and this is accomplished through Jesus Christ (11).

Thank you for the gratuitous and unnecessary definition of agiasmw, which adds nothing to the discussion. Eisegesis, reading into the text, in a court of law this would be “Assuming facts not in evidence”. Vs. 5 says nothing about “sanctification” or “the Spirit.” As anyone can plainly see it only says “kept by the power of God.” It may or may not refer to the Spirit.

1Pe 1:5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.​

Christ is the only transmitter of the Father's Spirit (Romans 8:9; Gal. 4:6). There is no third person of a trinity involved.

More eisegesis, reading into the text. You have this Unorthodox Theological Doctrines misquoting, quoting out-of-context, Biblical (mis)interpretation down pat. Neither verse states that Jesus is the “only” transmitter.

Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Gal 4:6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.​

In 2 Peter 1:3-4, again, we are told that we are given all things that pertain to life and Godliness and are partakers of the divine nature by the power of the Father, not some third entity. This is the true Holy Spirit. What Peter is saying, is that sanctification is the power, likemindedness we have with the Father through Jesus Christ

And once again, eisegesis, reading into and adding to the text. These verses say nothing about “sanctification” or “likemindedness.” And they certainly do NOT say, “sanctification is the power.”

2Pe 1:3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:
4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.​

You also mention 1 Peter 3:18 and I assume you think that the Spirit mentioned here is a third person of a trinity that raised Christ from the dead. This is false. Christ was raised from the dead by the Father (Galatians 1:1; Ephesians 1:20).

”Christ was raised from the dead by the Father” that is only partly true, Jn 2:19, Jesus said He will raise Himself.

Joh 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.​

Also in this case you blatantly ignore what the scripture clearly states, then make reference to other scriptures, trying to twist the meaning of the passage, to fit your presuppositions. Read 1Pt 3:18-19, carefully, Jesus was quickened, i.e. “made alive, given life,” by the Spirit and by the same Spirit, went and preached to the spirits in prison.

1Pe 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;​

Do feel free at any time to share with us your wresting and twisting of the scripture, vainly trying to make the scriptures fit your presuppositions and assumptions.

 

[Peterson]

Everything Jesus did, he did by the Power (spirit) of the Father. If you argue against it, your argument is with Jesus himself (John 6:30; 7:16; 12:49-50; 14:10; 20:17). If you do not think that Jesus is the only transmitter of the Spirit of the Father, then you have to expunge 1 Timothy 2:5 from your Bible. Unfortunately, you like all trinitarians, assume that the "Spirit" automatically means a third person, when in every case it means the mind, power or attributes of the Father, or Christ, or both. Context context, context.

Incidentally, I was reading The International Inductive Study New Testament, with a Forward by Billy Graham, and I noticed that they have eliminated Father , Word and Holy Ghost from 1 John 5:7 without so much as a footnote.

The Godhead of Scripture is neither triune or coequal. Belief is not a condition of salvation. Athanasianism is the product of a politically corrupt Constantinian Roman church.

 

[Der Alte]

Everything Jesus did, he did by the Power (spirit) of the Father. If you argue against it, your argument is with Jesus himself (John 6:30; 7:16; 12:49-50; 14:10; 20:17). If you do not think that Jesus is the only transmitter of the Spirit of the Father, then you have to expunge 1 Timothy 2:5 from your Bible. Unfortunately, you like all trinitarians, assume that the "Spirit" automatically means a third person, when in every case it means the mind, power or attributes of the Father, or Christ, or both. Context context, context.

Incidentally, I was reading The International Inductive Study New Testament, with a Forward by Billy Graham, and I noticed that they have eliminated Father , Word and Holy Ghost from 1 John 5:7 without so much as a footnote.

The Godhead of Scripture is neither triune or coequal. Belief is not a condition of salvation. Athanasianism is the product of a politically corrupt Constantinian Roman church.

Once again a post with some vague references to scripture and also blatantly false information about Constantine. Please explain the relevance of 1 Tim 2:5. The absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. You, like all anti-Trinitarians, throw out 1-2 knee jerk proof texts and think that answers anything.

"a politically corrupt Constantinian Roman church" This is laughable. Constantine left Rome and never returned.

I assumed NOTHING, when I first began to see the Trinity doctrine being challenged, I studied the issue and arrived at the correct doctrine of a Trinity by studying the Bible and the historical church long BEFORE Niacaea. I am not going to go through long lists of scriptures if you think a scripture is relevant post it and explain how is supports your argument. If you can't present your points and support them, forget about it, you evidently don't have anything worth saying. And I notice you have not addressed anything I posted.

Just for fun, did you know, outside of Christianity, the ONLY Trinity was NOT in a pagan culture but in Judaism, before the Christian era? And it was a Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

 

[TOmNossor]

Once again a post with some vague references to scripture and also blatantly false information about Constantine. Please explain the relevance of 1 Tim 2:5. The absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. You, like all anti-Trinitarians, throw out 1-2 knee jerk proof texts and think that answers anything.

"a politically corrupt Constantinian Roman church" This is laughable. Constantine left Rome and never returned.

I assumed NOTHING, when I first began to see the Trinity doctrine being challenged, I studied the issue and arrived at the correct doctrine of a Trinity by studying the Bible and the historical church long BEFORE Niacaea. I am not going to go through long lists of scriptures if you think a scripture is relevant post it and explain how is supports your argument. If you can't present your points and support them, forget about it, you evidently don't have anything worth saying. And I notice you have not addressed anything I posted.

Just for fun, did you know, outside of Christianity, the ONLY Trinity was NOT in a pagan culture but in Judaism, before the Christian era? And it was a Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Der Alter:

"a politically corrupt Constantinian Roman church"This is laughable. Constantine left Rome and never returned.



TOm:

Constantine called the Council of Nicea. Then you are correct he left Rome, but the next Ecumenical council was of course the Council of Constantinople. Most of the Trinity was defined at these two councils (Ephesus got to explain the nature of Christ the God-man).

And I still say that Constantine almost prevented Arius from getting the audience he was afforded, but both Eusibius’s who were semi-Arian appealed to Constantine and prevented this. I am waiting to see why you disagree.



Der Alter:

Just for fun, did you know, outside of Christianity, the ONLY Trinity was NOT in a pagan culture but in Judaism, before the Christian era? And it was a Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.



TOm:

As strange as this may be, here I agree with you. I always say that modern Jews would level the charge of polytheism against Christians, but I believe there is evidence of Trinitarian structures in the old testament.



The Biblical scholar Margaret Barker (I am pretty sure she is Protestant in that her book is published by Westminster/John Knox Press) has recently 1992 written a book entitled, The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God. In it she suggests that the idea of a Second God is really Jewish and that Christ is that great angel from the Old Testament.



This is the framework upon which Early Church Christology was built.



Charity, TOm

 

[Peterson]

Encyclopedia of Religion (McMillan Books), Page 53:

TRIGLAV, a three headed deity of the heathen Slavs, was literally named from tri, "three," and glava, "head."
In the words of the high priest of the temple at Szczecin, Triglav had three heads in order to make it known that he ruled over the three realms: heaven, earth, and the underworld. Ebbo refers to him as "summus deus" ("highest god"). Hence, Triglav may have been either a manifestation of three major gods or three aspects of one god.

... in France, Gallo-Roman sculptures of three-headed gods date from the second to fourth century CE.

Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Holy Spirit (p.521)
HOLY SPIRIT. In the NT, the third person of the Trinity; in the OT, God's power. In the OT the Spirit of the Lord is generally an expression of God's power, the extention of himself whereby he carries out many of his mighty deeds.
Bottom of page: The OT does not contain an idea of a semi-independent divine entity, the Holy Spirit.

1 Timothy 2:5; "For there is ONE God (Father), and ONE mediator between God (Father) and men, the man Christ Jesus." This is a clear statement that is not difficult to understand. One, means ONE. No third entity involved.

Jesus Christ is the only access we have with the Father.

If you check my above post again, you'll notice I said Roman church. I said nothing about the city of Rome. When a religious organization marrys a political civil government, that of itself, should make one highly suspect of its motives. It certainly would no longer be representing Christ. Paul would never had a part in compromising God's word in such a fashion as Nicea. He would have condemned the whole sordid affair.

 

[TOmNossor]

So now I will disagree with what I think you are saying here, Peterson. I infer that you are somehow suggesting that the Trinity is a Pagan idea AND that this fact is damning to Trinitarians. BTW, I should have been clearer when I agreed with Der Alter. I agree that ancient Judaism has hints of a Trinity, but I also agree that Pagan cultures (both East and West) seem to have had some forms that resemble a Trinity.



So not only do I think that Trinitarian ideas exist in the New Testament, I think oneness and threeness must somehow be explained by anyone who accepts the New and Old Testament. I disagree with Der Alter in that the only way to explain this is with an Augustinian Trinity (or even a strict Trinity necessarily). I however also disagree with you in that I do not think a Trinity structure or Augustinian Trinity is in any way ****** by Pagan parallels that may or may not have influenced its definition.



The early church did interact with Pagans. Some things were adopted and latter rejected. Some things it seems were adopted and stayed.

Newman acknowledges this, but he rightly argues that even this adoption is not a perversion if the meaning is altered to point to the one true God. He also says the following about the common seeds of the One True God.



Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine:

Since it has been represented as if the power of assimilation, spoken of in this Chapter, is in my meaning nothing more than a mere accretion of doctrines or rites from without, I am led to quote the following passage in further illustration of it from my "Essays," vol. ii. p. 231:—

"The phenomenon, admitted on all hands, is this:—That great portion of what is generally received as Christian truth is, in its rudiments or in its separate parts, to be found in heathen philosophies and religions. For instance, the doctrine of a Trinity is found both in the East and in the West; so is the ceremony of washing; so is the rite of sacrifice. The doctrine of the Divine Word is Platonic; the doctrine of the Incarnation is Indian; of a divine kingdom is Judaic; of Angels and demons is Magian; the connexion of sin with the body is Gnostic; celibacy is known to Bonze and Talapoin; a sacerdotal order is Egyptian; the idea of a new birth is Chinese and Eleusinian; belief in sacramental virtue is Pythagorean; and honours to the dead are a polytheism. Such is the general nature of the fact before us; Mr. Milman argues from it,—'These things are in heathenism, therefore they are not Christian:' we, on the contrary, prefer to say, 'these things are in Christianity, therefore they are not heathen.' That is, we prefer to say, and we think that Scripture bears us out in saying, that from the beginning the Moral Governor of the world has scattered the seeds of truth far and wide over its extent; that these have variously taken root, and grown as in the wilderness, wild plants indeed but living; and hence that, as the inferior animals have tokens of an immaterial {381} principle in them, yet have not souls, so the philosophies and religions of men have their life in certain true ideas, though they are not directly divine. What man is amid the brute creation, such is the Church among the schools of the world; and as Adam gave names to the animals about him, so has the Church from the first looked round upon the earth, noting and visiting the doctrines she found there. She began in Chaldea, and then sojourned among the Canannites, and went down into Egypt, and thence passed into Arabia, till she rested in her own land. Next she encountered the merchants of Tyre, and the wisdom of the East country, and the luxury of Sheba. Then she was carried away to Babylon, and wandered to the schools of Greece. And wherever she went, in trouble or in triumph, still she was a living spirit, the mind and voice of the Most High; 'sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them and asking them questions;' claiming to herself what they said rightly, correcting their errors, supplying their defects, completing their beginnings, expanding their surmises, and thus gradually by means of them enlarging the range and refining the sense of her own teaching. So far then from her creed being of doubtful credit because it resembles foreign theologies, we even hold that one special way in which Providence has imparted divine knowledge to us has been by enabling her to draw and collect it together out of the world, and, in this sense, as in others, to 'suck the milk of the Gentiles and to suck the breast of kings.'

"How far in fact this process has gone, is a question of history; and we believe it has before now been grossly exaggerated and misrepresented by those who, like Mr. Milman, have thought that its existence told against Catholic doctrine; but so little antecedent difficulty have we in the matter, that we could readily grant, unless it were a question of fact not of theory, that Balaam was an Eastern sage, or a Sibyl was inspired, or Solomon learnt of the sons of Mahol, or Moses was a scholar of the Egyptian hierophants. We are not distressed to be told that the doctrine of the angelic host came from Babylon, while we know that they did sing at the Nativity; nor that the vision of a Mediator is in Philo, if in very deed {382} He died for us on Calvary. Nor are we afraid to allow, that, even after His coming, the Church has been a treasure-house, giving forth things old and new, casting the gold of fresh tributaries into her refiner's fire, or stamping upon her own, as time required it, a deeper impress of her Master's image.

"The distinction between these two theories is broad and obvious. The advocates of the one imply that Revelation was a single, entire, solitary act, or nearly so, introducing a certain message; whereas we, who maintain the other, consider that Divine teaching has been in fact, what the analogy of nature would lead us to expect, 'at sundry times and in divers manners,' various, complex, progressive, and supplemental of itself. We consider the Christian doctrine, when analyzed, to appear, like the human frame, 'fearfully and wonderfully made;' but they think it some one tenet or certain principles given out at one time in their fulness, without gradual enlargement before Christ's coming or elucidation afterwards. They cast off all that they also find in Pharisee or heathen; we conceive that the Church, like Aaron's rod, devours the serpent of the magicians. They are ever hunting for a fabulous primitive simplicity; we repose in Catholic fulness. They seek what never has been found; we accept and use what even they acknowledge to be a substance. They are driven to maintain, on their part, that the Church's doctrine was never pure; we say that it can never be corrupt. We consider that a divine promise keeps the Church Catholic from doctrinal corruption; but on what promise, or on what encouragement, they are seeking for their visionary purity does not appear."



TOm:

Anyway, it is easy to demonize someone for parallels with someone already the demon, but it is faulty logic.



Charity, TOm

 

[Peterson]

TOm , What I am saying, is the doctrine of the trinity (in any form) has absolutely no basis in Scripture, Old Testament or New Testament. 1 Corinthians 8:6 is a complete statement concerning the Godhead. It is totally unconditional.

Trinitarians worship they know not what(like the woman at the well, John 4:22),

 

[TOmNossor]

Peterson,

I disagree with much of this statement. I do not think you, I, the Pope, or the Prophet know the nature of God completely, but I believe the Old and the New Testament speak of threeness and oneness. John 1 points to a divinity of Christ. Christ praying to the Father points to a distinctness between the two. And I think we agree there is a huge amount of oneness texts.

Were I Catholic, I would look to Nicea, Constantinople, and Augustine to help define what the Trinity is. As a LDS, I look to my 4 volumes of scripture. I believe your modalist (I think) belief is supportable from the Bible. I believe what I expect Der Alter to hold, an Augustinian Trinitarianism, is supportable from the Bible. I also believe that what I hold, a Social Trinitarianism, is supportable from the Bible.

Charity, TOm