What is the doctrine of the Trinity?

[Guest]

9 hours ago, TrevorL said:

 

Greetings Joline and Esther4:14,

 

I was interested in your response, but most of this seems obscure to me. You seem to almost dismiss the humanity of Jesus. I am not sure that this is the average position of Trinitarians.

 

 

I am not sure if it is a good book or not, but it seemed to answer how the doctrine of the Trinity developed. I am a collector of books and found this in a 2^nd hand book sale. I have not studied this history at length. Joline, seeing that you seem to be familiar with some of the history of these doctrines, could I ask if you would agree that the brief summary of some of the developments mentioned in Page 8, Post 3 (linked by Esther) is a reasonable assessment? I asked the same of one of my brethren who studied the early centuries AD, and he agreed, but as he is more on my side of the fence, I would like to ask a Trinitarian’s opinion.

 

 

Hello Trevor,

I attempted to look up a biography about Albert Reville I could not find one. My comments were based upon reading Greek Orthodox Theolgian Timothy Ware. Which speaks to Early Councils of the Church. This Church whose Fathers were directly involved with these councils. So, here you have it from the horses mouth so to speak.

This is the best place to start. I have no idea who Albert is, and why He wrote what he did.

As for what I spoke of..

There are two branches of theology Trevor.

1) One branch concerns Gods very nature itself. The Eternally existent God. God is 3 persons in his very nature or essence, and exists ETERNALLY in 3 persons......................

The person of the Father, The person of the Son, and the person of the Holy Spirit.....

 

2)The other branch concerns The Person of the son, in his incarnation. Becoming being made man. Or called Christology, the study of Christ.

They are two separate branches of theology addressing two distinct doctrines.

The Person of God the Son, taking on humanity, being fully human yet remaining fully divine. 100% God, 100% man. the God man. 

So yes the Person of God The Son can and has been spoken of as TWICE BORN....

1.) Eternally born from the father, being God in essence or substance with the Father, but

2.)distinct (not separate) from the Father.

they all share one and the same ESSENCE AS God, but are distinct in their PERSONS

3) The Person of Christ, God the Son assuming human nature 

You should read Timothy Ware. To at least understand the Doctrine

[Esther4:14]

5 hours ago, TrevorL said:

Greetings again Esther4:14,

I appreciate your response and encouragement. Nevertheless I find the articles that you quoted unusual and do not seem to have much relevance to the Scriptures. I have done some preliminary research into the meaning and usage of the word “Elohim” in the OT Scriptures, but the above extract seems to be very speculative and contrary to the revealed word of God. You seem to be quoting some Rabbinical work, and to my understanding they reject Jesus as their Messiah.

 

Kind regards

Trevor

 

Hi Trevor, 

Basically, it is the fact that they reject Jesus as the Messiah and somehow or the other accept what resembles John 1:1, that is interesting because I do think the teachers in Judaism are responsible for a great degree of oppression of our understanding in the church.  If you will read in Maccabees and Josephus' War of the Jews, there are several times when alliances were formed between Jews and the Romans in order for them to gain advantages, or for certain people to gain advantages.  This does not mean these alliances were not a detriment to the Jews as a whole, or that some people who were innocent didn't suffer with their failed efforts to protect themselves and their positions.   Nevertheless, even in the Bible, Feastus is said to have wished to do the Jews a favor concerning the trial of Paul.  Therefore, I have a strong suspicion that these alliances affected the church and our understanding because the church sought to bring the scriptures to the Gentiles, in particular.  There are many other reasons the Jews rejected the message of Christ during the years of the early church and why the church using the scriptures is an offense to them that would be a motivation to oppress our understanding.  

That would be why this rabbinical writing basically says what John 1:1 says while the Gospel remains rejected, which means what is written in the Gospel is possibly an understanding of something else that the church does not have the privelage to know anymore.  More than likely, because of the same reasons there was conflict for the church of Galatia.  

This doesn't mean the church didn't have opposition in other ways, but in terms of the scriptures, I believe oppression is created primarily by a Jewish influence because they are the original owners of them.  It is kind of like playing tug of war with them, which is an interesting aspect of the time we live in and our capacity to research this possibility in a greater way.

 

[TrevorL]

12 hours ago, Joline said:

I attempted to look up a biography about Albert Reville I could not find one. My comments were based upon reading Greek Orthodox Theolgian Timothy Ware. Which speaks to Early Councils of the Church. This Church whose Fathers were directly involved with these councils. So, here you have it from the horses mouth so to speak.

 

Greetings again Joline and Esther4:14,

 

I appreciate your comments and information. I have in the past found a bit of information about Reville’s personal beliefs and these were not very impressive. At issue is whether what he said as a Historian is valid or biased. My brother, who I asked an opinion on those summaries, gave an address confirming some of this by saying that many of the prominent people in the 2^nd and 3^rd Centuries came from a Greek philosophy background and brought many aspects of their Greek thoughts and combined them with their new found “Christianity”. Also these did not have fully developed Trinitarian ideas, but most considered Jesus of less status than God the Father.

 

I encountered a similar problem when talking to someone who did not believe in the Millennium. I quoted a statement by Gibbon, but he rejected any statement by Gibbon because of Gibbon’s often negative comments about the Catholic Church. My impression is that Gibbon was a good historian even though some of his personal beliefs could be questioned.

 

Kind regards

Trevor

Edited June 13, 2016 by TrevorL

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, TrevorL said:

 

Greetings again Joline and Esther4:14,

 

I appreciate your comments and information. I have in the past found a bit of information about Reville’s personal beliefs and these were not very impressive. At issue is whether what he said as a Historian is valid or biased. My brother, who I asked an opinion on those summaries, gave an address confirming some of this by saying that many of the prominent people in the 2^nd and 3^rd Centuries came from a Greek philosophy background and brought many aspects of their Greek thoughts and combined them with their new found “Christianity”. Also these did not have fully developed Trinitarian ideas, but most considered Jesus of less status than God the Father.

 

I encountered a similar problem when talking to someone who did not believe in the Millennium. I quoted a statement by Gibbon, but he rejected any statement by Gibbon because of Gibbon’s often negative comments about the Catholic Church. My impression is that Gibbon was a good historian even though some of his personal beliefs could be questioned.

 

Kind regards

Trevor

Hi Trevor,

The only point I am getting at is...the doctrine of the trinity is from them. Therefore when you spoke of the doctrine not speaking of Jesus in his humanity, it was never intended to. It is a doctrine on the nature of God. I do not know what you mean by fully developed Trinitarian ideas? The trinity is the ideas of the early Church fathers in it's full development..

The church fathers never intended to explain God's nature. That cannot be done. they merely sought to establish ways of speaking and thinking about it agreeable to the  scriptures.

The person and work of Christ, is another branch of theology.....Christology....................

[TrevorL]

38 minutes ago, Joline said:

The only point I am getting at is...the doctrine of the trinity is from them. Therefore when you spoke of the doctrine not speaking of Jesus in his humanity, it was never intended to. It is a doctrine on the nature of God. I do not know what you mean by fully developed Trinitarian ideas? The trinity is the ideas of the early Church fathers in it's full development..

The person and work of Christ, is another branch of theology.....Christology....................

 

Greetings again Joline,

 

I appreciate your response but I was trying not to get too involved in this era as I have not studied the details. Before posting today I quickly reviewed our speaker’s slides and then while doing other jobs I listened on a mobile mp3 device to his talk. The following is from his revised more recent slides and is only about 1/8^th of his total talk. When he gave the talk he had less people listed and citations. If you have access to their writings you may check what he says for bias as he is on my side of the fence. I do not have access to where to go to check these details.   

 

Clement of Rome (1^st Century)
The Father alone is God; Jesus is the Son of God, born a mortal man, raised to immortality; the Holy Spirit is God’s power.

Ignatius of Antioch (1^st Century)
The Father alone is God; Jesus is the Son of God, born a mortal man, raised to immortality ; the Holy Spirit is God’s power.

Polycarp of Smyrna (1^st-2^nd Century)
The Father alone is God; Jesus is the Son of God, born a mortal man, raised to immortality; the Holy Spirit is God’s power.

Papias of Hierapolis (1^st-2^nd Century)
The Father alone is God; Jesus is the Son of God, born a mortal man, raised to immortality; the Holy Spirit is God’s power.

 

Justin Martyr (2^nd Century)
The Father alone is ‘true God’; Jesus is a pre-existent divine being created by God; the Holy Spirit is a type of angel.

Irenaeus of Lyons (2^nd Century)
The Father alone is ‘true God’; the Son and Holy Spirit are the divine ‘hands of God’, but not fully God in their own right.

Tertullian (2^nd-3^rd Centuries)
Father, Son and Holy Spirit all share the same essence and co-exist equally as God, yet the Son was somehow ‘begotten’ by the Father and there was a time when he did not exist.

 

Origen (2^nd-3^rd Centuries)
The Father alone is ‘very God’; the Son has always existed, being eternally ‘generated’ by Him; the Holy Spirit’s divinity is derived from the Son.

Arius (3^rd-4^th Centuries)
Jesus is the first of God’s creation; a pre-existent divine being.

Athanasius (3^rd-4^th Centuries)
Father, Son and Holy Spirit are equally God; Jesus was—and still is—fully God and fully man.

Council of Nicaea (AD 325)
Condemned Arianism, declared Jesus is fully God, equal to the Father.

 

1^st Council of Constantinople (AD 381)
Re-condemned Arianism, declared that Jesus is fully human yet simultaneously divine; also affirmed that the Holy Spirit is God.

Council of Chalcedon (AD 451)
Declared that Jesus has two natures (human and divine) but is only one person, without sin; also affirmed that Mary is the Mother of God.

 

Kind regards

Trevor

Edited June 13, 2016 by TrevorL

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, TrevorL said:

 

Greetings again Joline,

 

I appreciate your response but I was trying not to get too involved in this era as I have not studied the details. Before posting today I quickly reviewed our speaker’s slides and then while doing other jobs I listened on a mobile mp3 device to his talk. The following is from his revised more recent slides and is only about 1/8^th of his total talk. When he gave the talk he had less people listed and citations. If you have access to their writings you may check what he says for bias as he is on my side of the fence. I do not have access to where to go to check these details.   

 

Clement of Rome (1^st Century)
The Father alone is God; Jesus is the Son of God, born a mortal man, raised to immortality; the Holy Spirit is God’s power.

Ignatius of Antioch (1^st Century)
The Father alone is God; Jesus is the Son of God, born a mortal man, raised to immortality ; the Holy Spirit is God’s power.

Polycarp of Smyrna (1^st-2^nd Century)
The Father alone is God; Jesus is the Son of God, born a mortal man, raised to immortality; the Holy Spirit is God’s power.

Papias of Hierapolis (1^st-2^nd Century)
The Father alone is God; Jesus is the Son of God, born a mortal man, raised to immortality; the Holy Spirit is God’s power.

 

Justin Martyr (2^nd Century)
The Father alone is ‘true God’; Jesus is a pre-existent divine being created by God; the Holy Spirit is a type of angel.

Irenaeus of Lyons (2^nd Century)
The Father alone is ‘true God’; the Son and Holy Spirit are the divine ‘hands of God’, but not fully God in their own right.

Tertullian (2^nd-3^rd Centuries)
Father, Son and Holy Spirit all share the same essence and co-exist equally as God, yet the Son was somehow ‘begotten’ by the Father and there was a time when he did not exist.

 

Origen (2^nd-3^rd Centuries)
The Father alone is ‘very God’; the Son has always existed, being eternally ‘generated’ by Him; the Holy Spirit’s divinity is derived from the Son.

Arius (3^rd-4^th Centuries)
Jesus is the first of God’s creation; a pre-existent divine being.

Athanasius (3^rd-4^th Centuries)
Father, Son and Holy Spirit are equally God; Jesus was—and still is—fully God and fully man.

Council of Nicaea (AD 325)
Condemned Arianism, declared Jesus is fully God, equal to the Father.

 

1^st Council of Constantinople (AD 381)
Re-condemned Arianism, declared that Jesus is fully human yet simultaneously divine; also affirmed that the Holy Spirit is God.

Council of Chalcedon (AD 451)
Declared that Jesus has two natures (human and divine) but is only one person, without sin; also affirmed that Mary is the Mother of God.

 

Kind regards

Trevor

Again I am puzzled by your response. You have to get into it to dialogue on these statements.

Some of these statements are NOT SPEAKING OF TRINITY, But Christology. An example is

Ignatius of Antioch (1^st Century)

The Father alone is God; Jesus is the Son of God, born a mortal man, raised to immortality ; the Holy Spirit is God’s power.

The above is a mixture of the two doctrines..............

The doctrine of the trinity was not formulated until

Athanasius (3^rd-4^th Centuries)
Father, Son and Holy Spirit are equally God; Jesus was—and still is—fully God and fully man.
 

You really can't make former doctrines out to be speaking of the trinity.....

That is what you appear to be misunderstanding..................

Terms were specifically adopted to correctly reflect some earlier statements.

An example....Ignatius the father alone is God.....The father alone is the source..........

The Son was begotten of the Father from all eternity.

The Holy spirit proceeds from the Father from all eternity..........

They all share the same essence as God equally..........But in persons have a distinct relationship to each other.

[TrevorL]

23 hours ago, Joline said:

Again I am puzzled by your response. You have to get into it to dialogue on these statements.

Some of these statements are NOT SPEAKING OF TRINITY, But Christology.

 

Greetings again Joline,

 

I am also confused by your response. My main reason for posting on this thread was to suggest that the Apostolic belief is that there is one God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God. My impression is that most that had contributed to this thread claimed that the Bible teaches the Trinity and that Jesus always claimed to be God and the Trinity was the faith of the Apostles.

 

I have not quite worked out your position. I assume that you accept the Trinity, but I am not sure if you believe it was and is the Bible teaching, or whether you agree with the Catholic position that some of these things were left for the Church to reveal and explain. You seem to specialise in the finer points of the Trinity and classifications of the overall subject. My previous post suggests that the closer we go to the time of the Apostles the closer we are to the belief “that there is one God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” I am not sure if you accept this or understand the implications of the list of people and the citations of their beliefs.

 

Rather than the Trinity being a correct development, I believe that it was a part of the “falling away” from the truth of the Gospel that the Apostles prophesied and spoke about:

2 Thessalonians 2:3,10-11 (KJV): ³ Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; ¹⁰ And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. ¹¹ And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: ¹² That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

 

2 Timothy 4:1-4 (KJV): ¹ I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; ² Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. ³ For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; ⁴ And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

 

1 John4:1-3 (KJV): ¹ Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. ² Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: ³ And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

 

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Guest]

35 minutes ago, TrevorL said:

 

Greetings again Joline,

 

I am also confused by your response. My main reason for posting on this thread was to suggest that the Apostolic belief is that there is one God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God. My impression is that most that had contributed to this thread claimed that the Bible teaches the Trinity and that Jesus always claimed to be God and the Trinity was the faith of the Apostles.

 

I have not quite worked out your position. I assume that you accept the Trinity, but I am not sure if you believe it was and is the Bible teaching, or whether you agree with the Catholic position that some of these things were left for the Church to reveal and explain. You seem to specialise in the finer points of the Trinity and classifications of the overall subject. My previous post suggests that the closer we go to the time of the Apostles the closer we are to the belief “that there is one God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” I am not sure if you accept this or understand the implications of the list of people and the citations of their beliefs.

 

Rather than the Trinity being a correct development, I believe that it was a part of the “falling away” from the truth of the Gospel that the Apostles prophesied and spoke about:

2 Thessalonians 2:3,10-11 (KJV): ³ Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; ¹⁰ And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. ¹¹ And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: ¹² That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

 

2 Timothy 4:1-4 (KJV): ¹ I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; ² Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. ³ For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; ⁴ And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

 

1 John4:1-3 (KJV): ¹ Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. ² Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: ³ And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

 

Kind regards
Trevor

 

I am merely telling you to acknowledge Christolgy.........................Not just trinity in these mens words.

When speaking of Jesus, or Christ It automatically is Christological.............which is him emptying himself of his divine abilities, humbling himself as a man. Son of God, Son of man.

As I began this conversation with you, because you said the trinity does not acknowledge his humanity.....no, because the trinity is all about divinity, ALONE.

Some of these men also spoke of Christ prior to his humanity....That is where you could find Trinitarian ideas...............

But you seem to not understand that for some reason.

[TrevorL]

On ‎8‎/‎06‎/‎2016 at 8:19 AM, TrevorL said:

A brief tentative answer, ..... Philippians 2 is speaking of the disposition of mind that Jesus had after his birth as the Son of God. He was like Adam and Eve who were made in the image and likeness of God, the form of God, but unlike them he did not grasp at equality with God.

 

55 minutes ago, Joline said:

When speaking of Jesus, or Christ It automatically is Christological.............which is him emptying himself of his divine abilities, humbling himself as a man. Son of God, Son of man.

Greetings again Joline,

I have already expressed a disagreement with the pre-existence of Christ and you seem to be alluding to Philippians 2 and I have a different understanding of this. But yes even now I am still confused with what you are saying, even your latest post. Possibly I am old and slow and not discerning. I am happy to have a rest from this thread unless something significant is posted.

Kind regards Trevor

[Wayne222]

       The word was God. Jesus was the word. The Father was God. The Holy spirit is the spirit of each. So they are God. They are the one true God because the Father is the prime source. Jesus comes from The Father. The Spirit from each.Same life force.