The Trinity

[CherubRam]

The Trinity doctrine is questionable because of people like you that claim the Bible teaches that doctrine (as opposed to supporting it) despite all evidence to the contrary.

_____
Does the Bible Support the Idea of the Trinity?

While the word Trinity is not found in the Bible, is the concept of the Trinity taught clearly in it?
The Encyclopedia of Religion Vol. 15 1987 admits: 'Theologians today are in agreement that the Hebrew Bible does not contain a doctrine of the Trinity.'
The New Catholic Encyclopedia: 'The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the Old Testament.'
The Encyclopedia of Religion says: 'Theologians agree that the New Testament also does not contain an explicit doctrine of the Trinity.'
The Encyclopedia Britannica 1976 observes: Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament.'
Protestant theologian Karl Barth (as quoted in The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology 1976) similarly states: 'The New Testament does not contain the developed doctrine of the Trinity. The Bible lacks the express declaration the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are of equal essence.'
_____
​

God knows what His attributes are.
The only one of the three you listed that God said about Himself is being Almighty.
That makes the rest questionable.


The truth is the truth, whether you or I accept it or whether you or I reject it.
Like your rejection of the truth that the Bible does not teach the Trinity doctrine will not change the fact that it does not.
If the Trinity doctrine is the truth, then it is the truth whether the Bible teaches it or not.

Matthew 13:14
In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: “‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.

 

[csuguy]

Of course the church existed prior to the establishment of the trinitarian orthodoxy, where did I say that it didn't? I pretty explicitly said that it did. The church existed for a good while without a canonized New testament as well. That is not the point. The point is that a proper doctrine of church requires a church that is guided by the Spirit. Once the ecumenical church reached a conclusion it was binding, just as it was when she canonized the scriptures to not include for example the gospel of Thomas or Peter's apocalypse. If you start claiming that the church started making doctrinal errors, then you have more or less demolished the church and it seems like Hades brought it down after all.

That heretics were put to death was unjust, but it does not change the fact that the teaching was necessary. Not only was it necessary, it is done, the ecumenical church decided. The arguments of the Capadoccians aren't invalidated because some misguided souls condemned the heretics with physical persecution.

I think a minimal requirement of Christianity today is to accept the doctrines of the seven ecumenical councils.

Erroneous decisions then are still erroneous now. To blindly accept tradition over truth is erroneous. Did not Christ rebuke the Jews who held their traditions over God's commands? No - just because they forcefully silenced and drove out of Rome all competing views at the time does not make them right or their errors binding on Christians.

Tradition is good as a starting place, and we should try to understand the traditional arguments for the Trinity - as well as their opponents and what earlier Church Fathers wrote about the topic. Unfortunately, even the Trinitarians at the time didn't claim to understand their own dogma - but simply said it was a "mystery" that you just need to accept. And if we go back and read the writings of earlier Church Fathers - we find radically different views which are much closer to the, so called, Arians. Even Tertullian's understanding of the Trinity, one of the first Church Fathers to explicitly write of such a doctrine, would be in line with Arius over what because the "Orthodox" position.

And, at the end of the day, the Trinity was much to do about nothing. Accepting the doctrine doesn't bring you closer to God, it even fails to gain you any understanding - being a "mystery" that even the Church Fathers who established it didn't claim to understand. It most certainly isn't a salvific doctrine - if it were then Christ or the disciples or Paul would have plainly laid it all so that there would be no debate.

The alternatives to the trinitarian doctrine are all unsatisfactory. They are either polytheistic and idolatrous in that they worship a creature (which is pretty much the textbook definition of idolatry). Or even worse they reduce Christ to mere human, in which he really just becomes another human prophet that was raised from the dead for some reason. The entire soteriological dimension of the faith crumbles, and the prayers and doxologies directed to Christ in the early church and now are an even more ridiculous form of idolatry than the Arian worship of a demigod.

The only satisfactory answer is one that is in line with the scriptures. The Trinity fails this, big time. Non-theologians have a hard time seeing it because they have been fed rhetoric about how to view particular verses. For instance: saying that Jesus was only temporarily made less than the Father, though scripture makes no such claims. Or making up titles like "God the Son" and dismissing the relationship actually established in scripture of "Father" and "Son".

There is plenty of biblical evidence to suggest that the Son was not simply a man, but was even the first of born of all creation. The Church Fathers linked him to the Wisdom in the Psalms that was with God in the beginning, through which he established all things. However, scripture is also clear that he is not God Almighty - and the early Church Fathers recognized this as well. The recognized a clear hierarchy between the three and at best considered Jesus a second, lesser god.

The term 'god' they didn't shy from using on him, for Christ himself asserted that we are all called 'gods.' If we are 'gods' who are adopted, then how much more Christ, the only begotten of God?

As for worship, the scriptures only prohibit bowing down to others and worshiping them in God Almighty's place. Scripture does support the worship of men, so long as it is not in God's place. This is something lost in translation. Here's a good video on the matter:

RgEDDpLxpWo

Yes. But when read, you see that they dramatically transform that thought with the gospel. As the theologian Robert W. Jenson says, it is more accurate to say that in the fathers Greek thought was evangelized than to say that the gospel was hellenized.

There was definitely a dialog that the Church Fathers had with the Philosophers. They didn't blindly accept it, and in fact spoke against various teachings of the Philosophers. However, there is no denying that Greek Philosophy was ingrained in their culture; it's not something they were capable of fully separating themselves from. I don't think this is necessarily a problem - but something we need to keep in mind when studying them and their ideas. It is definitely a source of error in many theologies of the day - and in fact, some Church Fathers attributed essentially all heresies to Greek Philosophy.

Nothing wrong with Greek thought either. The error is when non-trinitarian thinkers today claim that the trinity was due to a hellenization of the church. It is an error, because dissenters like Arius were more hellenistic in his thought than for example the Capadoccians. His arguments against the full divinity of Christ rested on Neoplatonist principles, not scriptural ones. His concern was that Christ was a mediating divinity, medaiting the One, using a conceptual scheme of gradual degrees of divinity. The other side recognized the Jewish and scriptural distinction of creator and created, and realized that if you place Christ on the side of creature, then Christian worship and liturgy as the church knew it was nothing but pagan polytheism and gross idolatry. They were right about that.

The Trinity most certainly wasn't solely a product of Greek Philosophy - true enough. The problem is that it flies in the face of good reason and the scriptures. They couldn't find a solution to the philosophical problems they had posed, and ended up asserting competing ideas and calling it a mystery. "Jesus isn't God Almighty - and the idea that God Almighty would die is heresy - but surely Jesus couldn't just be man?! I've got it! We will divide God into three parts - though there is no scriptural justification for this - and call him 'God the Son'! But we can't have multiple Gods so we'll maintain that these three distinct entities are one by borrowing from Aristotle and saying that they are of one 'substance'" :shocked:

The non-trinitarians that appeal to scripture only is not much better. Failing to realize that the scriptures are every bit as much a result of the ecumenical church as the doctrine of the trinity, canonized by her for her purposes and intentions.

The scriptures and attempts at canonization were around long before the these ecumenical councils, and they continued to debate them long after. Hence the Protestants removed writings found in Catholic bibles - and more were in question. The scriptures and cannon shouldn't be blindly accepted either. The scriptures certainly aren't free from error - some of which is the product of Trinitarians trying to defend their dogma through disingenuous insertions and translations.

Nevertheless, when well studied the scriptures are ultimately the closest we can get to the unadulterated teachings of Christ and the earliest of all Christians - not to mention the prophets.

It is an absolute perversion of sola scriptura into solo scriptura, thinking that the principle is about an American form of individualism in the form of "Me and my Bible" instead of it being the principle of the scripture being the norm of norms of theology, which is nevertheless guided by norms such as the creedal confessions and doctrinal agreements of the ecumenical councils.

I never asserted that that bible should be studied in isolation of all else. You are making assumptions about me. I've probably read far more of the writings of the Church Fathers than you have. I read straight through the first seven volumes of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, as well as various other works from people like Aquinas.

I did this because I came to the conclusion that the scriptures didn't teach the Trinity, but still had some doubts. What if, as they constantly say, the Church HAD always taught the Trinity from the very beginning? What if they did maintain that it was necessary for salvation? If ever I had a crisis of faith it was when I found that all these things that the Church had taught me and held up as so important was all a lie. The scriptures didn't teach the Trinity, it certainly wasn't logical, and it ultimately wasn't all that important. But what if despite my confidence in these conclusions - the church had actually maintained these things? This led to me spending 5 or 6 years reading chronologically through the writings of the Church Fathers to answer these questions. Was I really so far from what the Early Church believed, despite my understanding of the scriptures?

To my relief and edification, I found that my own views were quite in line with the Church Fathers. They themselves appealed heavily to the scriptures, and I even learned many new arguments from them in favor of my understanding of things. I found that they considered Jesus to be lesser than God Almighty - even a created being. Not to say a mundane being - for they maintained that he was uniquely born of God - but he was not God Almighty himself. Some identified him as the Angel of the Lord who appears throughout the OT. Even Tertullian, one of the earliest Trinitarins, maintained that there was a time when God was not "the Father" - when the Son didn't exist.

 

[Selaphiel]

Erroneous decisions then are still erroneous now. To blindly accept tradition over truth is erroneous. Did not Christ rebuke the Jews who held their traditions over God's commands? No - just because they forcefully silenced and drove out of Rome all competing views at the time does not make them right or their errors binding on Christians.

Moral commands yes. He also said something about respecting the authority of the seat of Moses with regards to teaching, did he not?

Tradition is good as a starting place, and we should try to understand the traditional arguments for the Trinity - as well as their opponents and what earlier Church Fathers wrote about the topic. Unfortunately, even the Trinitarians at the time didn't claim to understand their own dogma - but simply said it was a "mystery" that you just need to accept. And if we go back and read the writings of earlier Church Fathers - we find radically different views which are much closer to the, so called, Arians. Even Tertullian's understanding of the Trinity, one of the first Church Fathers to explicitly write of such a doctrine, would be in line with Arius over what because the "Orthodox" position.

If you think the explanation of the trinity in the Capadoccian fathers is "mystery", then I think you have to revisit it. It is esoteric and complicated to be sure, but it is no mere appeal to mystery as an explanation in Gregory of Nyssa for example. Rather his conception of God is a revolutionary use of the concept of infinity (a concept the Greeks were extremely skeptical of).

And, at the end of the day, the Trinity was much to do about nothing. Accepting the doctrine doesn't bring you closer to God, it even fails to gain you any understanding - being a "mystery" that even the Church Fathers who established it didn't claim to understand. It most certainly isn't a salvific doctrine - if it were then Christ or the disciples or Paul would have plainly laid it all so that there would be no debate.

Salvific no, we are in agreement on that, one does not have to understand advanced theological doctrine to be "saved". That is not my concern here though, it is a matter of coherence of the Christian faith.

If Christ is a demigod, then Christianity is pagan superstition not fit for a rational mind, and Christ would still be a creature and Christianity would be clear and cut idolatry (an issue which you have more or less glossed over in your reply ). If he is a mere man, then the doxologies and prayers of the church are idolatrous to the most extreme degree and the churches idea of salvation through Christ is incoherent nonsense.

The only satisfactory answer is one that is in line with the scriptures. The Trinity fails this, big time. Non-theologians have a hard time seeing it because they have been fed rhetoric about how to view particular verses. For instance: saying that Jesus was only temporarily made less than the Father, though scripture makes no such claims. Or making up titles like "God the Son" and dismissing the relationship actually established in scripture of "Father" and "Son".

I'm not exactly sure what "in-line with scriptures" mean? As I have pointed out, there is no "one scriptural meaning" when removed from the hermeneutical key of the confession of the church.

What you are left with are a 66 different books, containing a vast array of different theological views. This includes the New testament as well, it is not like the alternative to an orthodox Christology and Trinitarian doctrine is "the new testament christology", because there isn't one, there is a plurality of christologies in the New testament. So which one is scriptural? This why I said the Bible is nothing but a bunch of broken shards without the confessions.

There is plenty of biblical evidence to suggest that the Son was not simply a man, but was even the first of born of all creation. The Church Fathers linked him to the Wisdom in the Psalms that was with God in the beginning, through which he established all things. However, scripture is also clear that he is not God Almighty - and the early Church Fathers recognized this as well. The recognized a clear hierarchy between the three and at best considered Jesus a second, lesser god.

No, that is not really clear at all. There instances where some authors suggest that Christ is lower, there are places that suggests that he is a powerful prophet and healer, but a man. There are scriptures where he becomes the Son of God at baptism, there are scriptures where he becomes the Son of God in the resurrection, there are scriptures where He always was the Son of God from eternity.

Certainly, the earlies fathers, in particular Origen had a subordiantionist trinity, but it was eventually dismissed with good reason. It is not as if it was dimissed willy nilly. Conceiving of Christ as a lesser god is paganism, untenable if one is to maintain the fundamental binary distinction of creator/creation, it inevitably leads to idolatry when combined with the churches liturgies, doxologies, prayers and hymns to Christ.

As for worship, the scriptures only prohibit bowing down to others and worshiping them in God Almighty's place. Scripture does support the worship of men, so long as it is not in God's place.

Prostration yes, worship as we understand it, no. Including Christ in the shema can hardly be seen as anything but idolatry unless he shares identity with Israel's God.

The Trinity most certainly wasn't solely a product of Greek Philosophy - true enough. The problem is that it flies in the face of good reason and the scriptures. They couldn't find a solution to the philosophical problems they had posed, and ended up asserting competing ideas and calling it a mystery. "Jesus isn't God Almighty - and the idea that God Almighty would die is heresy - but surely Jesus couldn't just be man?! I've got it! We will divide God into three parts - though there is no scriptural justification for this - and call him 'God the Son'! But we can't have multiple Gods so we'll maintain that these three distinct entities are one by borrowing from Aristotle and saying that they are of one 'substance'

To make that assertion, you really need to demonstrate a good understanding of the doctrine. What you have have said here is no less simplistic than what you accuse the run of the mill trinitarian of doing with the scriptures (and that is a justified accusation in its own).

Aristotle and the Aristotelian conception of substance is not very central to formulation of the trinity at all. In fact, Gregory of Nyssa would be extremely skeptical of for example Augustine's trinitarian theology because he conceives of this overarching substance in which Father=Son=Spirit in that they are all the one substance that is God (And even Augustine is a neoplatonist, not an Aristotelian). He would be skeptical because it seems to prioritize the one divine substance over the persons, and thus it is a subtle form of modalism.

For Gregor it is the dynamics between Father, Son and Holy Spirit that is God. The Father being the arche of divinity, eternally begetting the Son and the Spirit, The Son is the self-understanding of the Father and the Spirit is the love and freedom between them. That dynamism is God, there is no divine substance above that dynamic. Nor can the Father, Son or Holy Spirit be God on their own, because it belongs to their natures to imply each other. There can be no Father that does not have a Son, there can be no Son that does not have a Father and there can be no Spirit that does not proceed from their relationship and there can be no love between the Father and the Son without the Spirit of freedom between them.

To say that the trinity is God sliced up into 3 parts is not the doctrine of the trinity. Nor can you accurately understand it without understanding the Christological doctrines (with regards to the death and suffering of Christ in particular). And that debate on its own is even more complicated in terms of difficult concepts being utilized. What it is definitely not is mere appeal to "mystery".

Read for example the writings on trinitarian doctrines by a current theologian like John Webster (a more western classical approach, let me know I may have an article by him on the subject on my PC) or volume 1 of Robert W. Jenson's systematic theology which almost exclusively is dedicated to elaborating immanent trinity, and he uses a lot of the Capadoccian thinkiing and criticizing some of the western conceptions (being himself a Lutheran theologian, perhaps the greatest living American systematic theologian).

Nevertheless, when well studied the scriptures are ultimately the closest we can get to the unadulterated teachings of Christ and the earliest of all Christians - not to mention the prophets.

Yet, read apart from the confessions of the church, it is nothing but a bunch of contradictory nonsense.

I never asserted that that bible should be studied in isolation of all else. You are making assumptions about me. I've probably read far more of the writings of the Church Fathers than you have. I read straight through the first seven volumes of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, as well as various other works from people like Aquinas.

It wasn't about you, but people like genuineoriginal, he is classical example of what I said. You are running laps around those people, and probably most of the trinitarians here as well for that matter.

You probably have read more of the Ante-Nicene Fathers than I have. But I'm pretty sure I've read a whole lot more of systematic theology (systematics, dogmatics and philosophy of religion in relation to the science/theology debate being my specialities) and critical biblical studies than you. I'm a Lutheran minister now, but that requires a 6 year university liscenciate degree in theology.

My concern is a systematic one, not a salvific one. The doctrines need to be present in the systematic expressions of the faith to insure credibility and coherence, even if its most complicated formulations are not generally expressed in daily religious life. Christianity very quickly degrades into what can only be deemed superstition when orthodox trinitarian thought (at least the intentions of them, if not the particular philosophical expression, I would be open to reformulations of the trinity in new philosophical systems, Christianity is not bound to Greek metaphysics, but the intent of the doctrine must be upheld) and Christology are denied.

If denied, then the Islamic treatment of Jesus seems more appropriate. A powerful prophet, but a human one, and insist on what they call tawhid. But then the doxological praise, the soteriological claims and the liturgies of the church must be dismissed, because they make far higher claims about Christ.

 

[bybee]

Thank you for this "defense" of the Trinity. I am not trained in theology but enjoy following the discussions. It is comforting to me as a lay person to read a cogent defense of the Trinity. Yet, it is by faith that I live and breathe my Christianity. At my age "78" years, I no longer wrack my brain with what a passage might mean or not mean. Still, I do seek the comfort of Scripture with a mind still open to learn. I attend regular Bible studies and always gain food for thought. May I say that I am in awe of the work, the study, the time spent by you and others to obtain the depth and richness of your understanding.
Thank you for sharing.

 

[Selaphiel]

Thank you for this "defense" of the Trinity. I am not trained in theology but enjoy following the discussions. It is comforting to me as a lay person to read a cogent defense of the Trinity. Yet, it is by faith that I live and breathe my Christianity. At my age "78" years, I no longer wrack my brain with what a passage might mean or not mean. Still, I do seek the comfort of Scripture with a mind still open to learn. I attend regular Bible studies and always gain food for thought. May I say that I am in awe of the work, the study, the time spent by you and others to obtain the depth and richness of your understanding.
Thank you for sharing.

I like to compare systematic theology to the foundation of a building. Not something one thinks about in daily practice. But if it is neglected it will crumble and what it holds up will collapse.

Comprehending complex theology is not nesespray for salvation. It is one vocation among many, keeping and understanding the doctrines that constitute the church and the church is a vehicle of salvation. Of course it would be useless without the life of the church.

 

[csuguy]

Moral commands yes. He also said something about respecting the authority of the seat of Moses with regards to teaching, did he not?

This is what he says:

Mark 7:1-13 The Pharisees and some of the scribes gathered around Him when they had come from Jerusalem, 2 and had seen that some of His disciples were eating their bread with impure hands, that is, unwashed. 3 (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they [a]carefully wash their hands, thus observing the traditions of the elders; 4 and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they cleanse themselves; and there are many other things which they have received in order to observe, such as the [c]washing of cups and pitchers and copper pots.) 5 The Pharisees and the scribes *asked Him, “Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with impure hands?” 6 And He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:

‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far away from Me.
7
‘But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’

8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”

9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to [d]be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, [e]given to God),’ 12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”​

He is rebuking them for invalidating the word of God by their traditions - teaching people things that are contrary to word of God. The specific example is Corban, but this is only one of many such things where they do this.

If you think the explanation of the trinity in the Capadoccian fathers is "mystery", then I think you have to revisit it. It is esoteric and complicated to be sure, but it is no mere appeal to mystery as an explanation in Gregory of Nyssa for example. Rather his conception of God is a revolutionary use of the concept of infinity (a concept the Greeks were extremely skeptical of).

"Mystery" is not my word. They themselves describe it as such. Here's a Catholic Article that says as much: http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Blog/2279/the_trinity_a_mystery_for_eternity.aspx

One of the big Trinitarian Theologians, Augustine, has the following legend:

The scene is the seashore, where there is a small pool, a little boy with a seashell, and a sandy beach on which St. Augustine , clad in his episcopal robes, is walking, pondering with difficulty the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity. “Father, Son, Holy Spirit; three in one!” he muttered, shaking his head.

As he approached the little boy who was running back and forth between the sea and the pool with a seashell of water, Augustine craned his neck and asked him: “Son, what are you doing?”

“Can’t you see?” said the boy. “I’m emptying the sea into this pool!”

“Son, you can’t do that!” Augustine countered. “I will sooner empty the sea into this pool than you will manage to get the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity into your head!”

Upon saying that, the boy, who was an angel according to legend, quickly disappeared, leaving Augustine alone with the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity.

(source: http://www.augnet.org/?ipageid=1390)
​

In my experience, all Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants who have studied and yet try to defend the Trinity ultimately fall back to this rhetoric: it's an incomprehensible mystery you just need to accept. The problem is that it isn't a mystery - it's a contradiction formed from bad theology. This rhetoric about it being a mystery only serves to stop people from truly studying the matter and finding the truth. I should know - when I first started questioning the Trinity I joined this and other theological debate sites arguing against the Trinity with the hopes that someone would show me what I was missing, for surely if it were so simply shown to be in error then more people would reject it, right? Wrong apparently.

Salvific no, we are in agreement on that, one does not have to understand advanced theological doctrine to be "saved". That is not my concern here though, it is a matter of coherence of the Christian faith.

If Christ is a demigod, then Christianity is pagan superstition not fit for a rational mind, and Christ would still be a creature and Christianity would be clear and cut idolatry (an issue which you have more or less glossed over in your reply ). If he is a mere man, then the doxologies and prayers of the church are idolatrous to the most extreme degree and the churches idea of salvation through Christ is incoherent nonsense.

Some of the practices and teachings of Catholicism/Orthodoxy ARE idolatrous - but we don't need to dig into them sending their prayers and petitions to saints here. There is nothing wrong with worshiping/honoring Christ as our Savior and King - for certainly he is worthy. But it is wrong to worship him as God Almighty himself when he is in fact the mediator between God and man.

You should first concern yourself with finding the truth, and not with what makes the church look good. If you defend the tradition of men over and against the truth of God - you are part of the problem.

I'm not exactly sure what "in-line with scriptures" mean? As I have pointed out, there is no "one scriptural meaning" when removed from the hermeneutical key of the confession of the church.

What you are left with are a 66 different books, containing a vast array of different theological views. This includes the New testament as well, it is not like the alternative to an orthodox Christology and Trinitarian doctrine is "the new testament christology", because there isn't one, there is a plurality of christologies in the New testament. So which one is scriptural? This why I said the Bible is nothing but a bunch of broken shards without the confessions.

The scriptures weren't written by a council - we don't require their interpretation to understand the scriptures. The Church Fathers managed quite well before Constantine and the various councils. Learn from their example.

And there aren't a plurality of Christologies in the NT. Such a statement reflects a lack of understanding of the NT - not surprising since you prefer tradition over truth. You see contradictions - but the contradictions arise from your traditional understanding, something even the 4th century Church Fathers didn't claim to fully understand and so called it a 'mystery.'

No, that is not really clear at all. There instances where some authors suggest that Christ is lower, there are places that suggests that he is a powerful prophet and healer, but a man. There are scriptures where he becomes the Son of God at baptism, there are scriptures where he becomes the Son of God in the resurrection, there are scriptures where He always was the Son of God from eternity.

Certainly, the earlies fathers, in particular Origen had a subordiantionist trinity, but it was eventually dismissed with good reason. It is not as if it was dimissed willy nilly. Conceiving of Christ as a lesser god is paganism, untenable if one is to maintain the fundamental binary distinction of creator/creation, it inevitably leads to idolatry when combined with the churches liturgies, doxologies, prayers and hymns to Christ.

The Early Church Fathers recognized the teachings of scripture: that Jesus is lesser than God Almighty, the Father, as he himself plainly states. The scriptures are unanimous on this - we can go through pretty much any NT work and find such statements. Even where he is referred to as 'god' in some sense, it is made clear that he is not God Almighty:

Hebrews 1:8-9 But of the Son He says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, And the righteous scepter is the scepter of [h]His kingdom. 9 “You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness above Your companions.”​

See here, he is called 'God', but then notes that he has a God.

This can be clarified by realizing that the term 'god' has been applied to many in the scriptures - not just God Almighty. It has been applied to us by Christ (John 10:34), it has been applied to Moses (Exodus 7:1), and it has been applied to angels (Exodus 3:2-4).

So then, the fact that in a couple places Jesus is referred to as 'god' in some sense is not a big of a deal as Trinitarians like to believe. They are simply unfamiliar with the fact that the term is not exclusively applied to God Almighty - but also to God's representatives and children.

The key is study - Trinitarians aren't familiar with the scriptures. They like to claim they represent what the church has always taught but are clearly ignorant of the knowledge of the Church Fathers. I myself learned how the word 'god' was used throughout scriptures like this by reading their works. Definitely a game changer.

Prostration yes, worship as we understand it, no. Including Christ in the shema can hardly be seen as anything but idolatry unless he shares identity with Israel's God.

Worship as we understand it today is not worship in the biblical sense. There is nothing wrong with bowing down and worshiping/honoring our King and Savior so long as we do not worship him as though he were God Almighty himself.

To make that assertion, you really need to demonstrate a good understanding of the doctrine. What you have have said here is no less simplistic than what you accuse the run of the mill trinitarian of doing with the scriptures (and that is a justified accusation in its own).

Aristotle and the Aristotelian conception of substance is not very central to formulation of the trinity at all. In fact, Gregory of Nyssa would be extremely skeptical of for example Augustine's trinitarian theology because he conceives of this overarching substance in which Father=Son=Spirit in that they are all the one substance that is God (And even Augustine is a neoplatonist, not an Aristotelian). He would be skeptical because it seems to prioritize the one divine substance over the persons, and thus it is a subtle form of modalism.

For Gregor it is the dynamics between Father, Son and Holy Spirit that is God. The Father being the arche of divinity, eternally begetting the Son and the Spirit, The Son is the self-understanding of the Father and the Spirit is the love and freedom between them. That dynamism is God, there is no divine substance above that dynamic. Nor can the Father, Son or Holy Spirit be God on their own, because it belongs to their natures to imply each other. There can be no Father that does not have a Son, there can be no Son that does not have a Father and there can be no Spirit that does not proceed from their relationship and there can be no love between the Father and the Son without the Spirit of freedom between them.

To say that the trinity is God sliced up into 3 parts is not the doctrine of the trinity. Nor can you accurately understand it without understanding the Christological doctrines (with regards to the death and suffering of Christ in particular). And that debate on its own is even more complicated in terms of difficult concepts being utilized. What it is definitely not is mere appeal to "mystery".

Read for example the writings on trinitarian doctrines by a current theologian like John Webster (a more western classical approach, let me know I may have an article by him on the subject on my PC) or volume 1 of Robert W. Jenson's systematic theology which almost exclusively is dedicated to elaborating immanent trinity, and he uses a lot of the Capadoccian thinkiing and criticizing some of the western conceptions (being himself a Lutheran theologian, perhaps the greatest living American systematic theologian).

What I put forth clearly wasn't meant to be an indepth analysis of the various versions of the Trinity. Regardless of whether we look at Augustine, the Cappadocian Fathers, etc. - the proof is in the pudding, as they say. You yourself have recognized that the Trinity contradicts the scriptures. Why then stick by it? Because it is tradition? Tradition for traditions sake is pointless, and it is erroneous when it goes against the truth of God. Instead of standing by something clearly erroneous you should seek the truth of scripture - like those Church Fathers who were around before your ecumenical councils told them how to think.

This is a fundamental reason why Protestants broke off from Catholicism: the Catholics had long since deviated from the scriptures and good reason, putting their traditions before the truth of God. No doubt a key reason why they tried to keep scripture out of the hands of the populace.

Yet, read apart from the confessions of the church, it is nothing but a bunch of contradictory nonsense.

The Church Fathers were able to study and make sense of the scriptures just fine before your ecumenical councils came along. Learn from their example. Follow the ones who sought truth and lived godly lives - not the ones who forced their views down our throats through political decree, murdering their brethren who refused to submit. At what cost does your deception of unity come?

It wasn't about you, but people like genuineoriginal, he is classical example of what I said. You are running laps around those people, and probably most of the trinitarians here as well for that matter.

You probably have read more of the Ante-Nicene Fathers than I have. But I'm pretty sure I've read a whole lot more of systematic theology (systematics, dogmatics and philosophy of religion in relation to the science/theology debate being my specialities) and critical biblical studies than you. I'm a Lutheran minister now, but that requires a 6 year university liscenciate degree in theology.

Thanks I knew you were doing your studies too - congratulations on becoming a minister! As for myself, I have a B.S. in Religious Studies - though most of what I studied was other religions. I would like to eventually get my Doctorate in Church History with an emphasis on the Early Church.

My concern is a systematic one, not a salvific one. The doctrines need to be present in the systematic expressions of the faith to insure credibility and coherence, even if its most complicated formulations are not generally expressed in daily religious life. Christianity very quickly degrades into what can only be deemed superstition when orthodox trinitarian thought (at least the intentions of them, if not the particular philosophical expression, I would be open to reformulations of the trinity in new philosophical systems, Christianity is not bound to Greek metaphysics, but the intent of the doctrine must be upheld) and Christology are denied.

If denied, then the Islamic treatment of Jesus seems more appropriate. A powerful prophet, but a human one, and insist on what they call tawhid. But then the doxological praise, the soteriological claims and the liturgies of the church must be dismissed, because they make far higher claims about Christ.

Unfortunately, the Trinity is neither credible nor coherent. Hence it is deemed a mystery. If the Trinity were so well reasoned and were in agreement with the scriptures and the Early Church, then there wouldn't have been a problem establishing it as the official position in the 4th century. Instead, we read that so heated was the debate that...

If in this city you ask anyone for change, he will discuss with you whether God the Son is
begotten or unbegotten. If you ask about the quality of bread, you will receive the answer that
'God the Father is greater, God the Son is less.' If you suggest that a bath is desirable, you will
be told that 'there was nothing before God the Son was created.'

Bruce L. Shelly, Church History In Plain Language, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1985), 99.​

 

[Selaphiel]

"Mystery" is not my word. They themselves describe it as such. Here's a Catholic Article that says as much[/quote9

The definition of the trinity in itself is not a mystery. If you read the expositions of trinitarian doctrine by a theologian like John Webser, it is a long and complicated description using various, albeit complicated, concepts.

Mystery in this case refers to the fact that we can not exhaustively know God, simply the recognition that if a finite mind could comprehend it, it would not be the infinite God.

In my experience, all Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants who have studied and yet try to defend the Trinity ultimately fall back to this rhetoric: it's an incomprehensible mystery you just need to accept. The problem is that it isn't a mystery - it's a contradiction formed from bad theology. This rhetoric about it being a mystery only serves to stop people from truly studying the matter and finding the truth. I should know - when I first started questioning the Trinity I joined this and other theological debate sites arguing against the Trinity with the hopes that someone would show me what I was missing, for surely if it were so simply shown to be in error then more people would reject it, right? Wrong apparently.

If you are interested in learning about the trinity, why would you go to debate sites that consists primarily of lay people who has not studied the issue? If I wanted to evaluate string theory, I would not go to a physics forum, I would study works written by physicists. Christology and Trinitarian dcotrines are the most complicated and convoluted doctrines the church has. You will need to take the time to study actual theologians who specialize in it.

Some of the practices and teachings of Catholicism/Orthodoxy ARE idolatrous - but we don't need to dig into them sending their prayers and petitions to saints here. There is nothing wrong with worshiping/honoring Christ as our Savior and King - for certainly he is worthy. But it is wrong to worship him as God Almighty himself when he is in fact the mediator between God and man.

It is when the doxologies are based on doxologies used for Yaweh. Other than that, the idea of intermediate divinities strike me as superstitious, an idea that only makes sense in a cosmology tiered into levels with intermediary beings communicating to the ones below it.

You should first concern yourself with finding the truth, and not with what makes the church look good. If you defend the tradition of men over and against the truth of God - you are part of the problem.

Not about making the church look good. There are larger systematic concerns involved her, particularily ecclesiological ones. The church is not just an organization in Christian theology, it is the body of Christ constituted by gathering around the body and blood of Christ in the eucharist. There are severe consequences associated with saying that the truth of theology is outside the church. So severe, that a theologian like Karl Barth would say tat outside the church there is no such thing as Christian theology proper. And Karl Barth was not exactly a theological simpleton. I think his position is too extreme in that matter, but there are no doubts that there are very large systematic theological concerns involved here.

The scriptures weren't written by a council - we don't require their interpretation to understand the scriptures. The Church Fathers managed quite well before Constantine and the various councils. Learn from their example.

No, but they were gathered by the church for the purposes of the church. Those church fathers also used a whole range of other writings that are considered extra-canonical. And the church did learn from their examples, they are called the fathers for a reason. It does not mean that the early fathers were inerrant in every way, no church father is. It is when the church convenes as one and makes a decision and thus speaks as the body of Christ that it must be taken rather seriously.

And there aren't a plurality of Christologies in the NT. Such a statement reflects a lack of understanding of the NT - not surprising since you prefer tradition over truth. You see contradictions - but the contradictions arise from your traditional understanding, something even the 4th century Church Fathers didn't claim to fully understand and so called it a 'mystery.'

Sorry, that is simply wrong, profoundly wrong at that.

You cannot take a biblical studies 101 class without learning to see that it does. It is so evident when you study the scriptures as books on their own that if you were to make this claim in a biblical studies class paper, I wouldn't be surprised f the professor would fail you on principle. It has nothing to do with a traditional reading either, rather quite the contrary, it is a reading that stems from the historical-critical reading of the Bible.

Mark's christology is not the same as the Matthean christology which is not the same as Lukan christology which is not the same as Johannine christology which is not the same as Pauline christology which is not the same as deutero-Pauline christology which is not the same as the christology found in the various authors of the so called catholic epistles which is not the same christology found in Revelation.

I see contradictions because I have been trained to do historical-critical readings of the scriptures in my studies, it is an absolute central part of our education in modern theology. So here you are simply mistaken.

You yourself have recognized that the Trinity contradicts the scriptures. Why then stick by it? Because it is tradition? Tradition for traditions sake is pointless, and it is erroneous when it goes against the truth of God.

I did not use the word contradicted, I said the scriptures did not teach it explicitly, but that it demands it when conjoined with the confessions of the church and the goal of a rational monotheistic conception of God. Arianism and Origen inevitably collapses into paganism.

Not because its tradition. This is not just any tradition associated with the church, these are teachings the church spoke when convened in ecumenical councils. There are ecclesiological concerns, the church is not just some regular institution. It is a voice of revelation, animated by the Spirit.

You say truth of God, which truth is that? There is no one reading of the scriptures without the confessions and guidance of the church. All you have is a ton of different theological voices with no unifying teaching.

Unfortunately, the Trinity is neither credible nor coherent. Hence it is deemed a mystery.

How is it not coherent? What in-depth systematic studies of it have you done? You already mistakenly associated it with an Aristotelian conception of substance, which seems to suggest that you need to go back and study it more, because none of the Capadoccians nor Augustine relies on such a conception of substance.

Go read Webster or Jenson. Jenson specialized in patristic theology, so he kind of knows what he is talking about on that subject. Understand Websters and his attempts to present the doctrine, then you can come back and say that it is incoherent and why that is. I cannot even recall either of them ever using the word mystery as a replacement of argument.

then there wouldn't have been a problem establishing it as the official position in the 4th century

Say what? Why is that? Wouldn't that be true of your position as well? If your position was so self-evident, why was that not easily established?

 

[genuineoriginal]

Christology and Trinitarian dcotrines are the most complicated and convoluted doctrines the church has. You will need to take the time to study actual theologians who specialize in it.

Why are christology and Trinitarian doctrines the most complicated and convoluted doctrines the church has?

Isn't anyone that calls themself a professional theologian interested in the simple truth that is found in the scriptures?

 

[Bright Raven]

Why are christology and Trinitarian doctrines the most complicated and convoluted doctrines the church has?

Isn't anyone that calls themself a professional theologian interested in the simple truth that is found in the scriptures?

The Doctrine of who Christ is and the Trinity are the two most debated doctrines in the Church. Doesn't it make sense that if Satan can cause division over these two that he is accomplishing his mission. The book of Jude rings true that false teachers have crept in unawares and have spread lies to cause strife.

 

[genuineoriginal]

The Doctrine of who Christ is and the Trinity are the two most debated doctrines in the Church. Doesn't it make sense that if Satan can cause division over these two that he is accomplishing his mission. The book of Jude rings true that false teachers have crept in unawares and have spread lies to cause strife.

Yes those false teachers that claim that it is important to understand the nature of God in order to be saved have crept in unawares and have spread lies to cause strife.

They deny the simple truths spoken by the Son of God Himself.

 

[Bright Raven]

Yes those false teachers that claim that it is important to understand the nature of God in order to be saved have crept in unawares and have spread lies to cause strife.

They deny the simple truths spoken by the Son of God Himself.

Please, explain the nature of Christ to us.

 

[Nihilo]

If Christ is a demigod,
If he is a mere man,

I think it's important to note, especially for the unitarians, that Arianism was the former and not the latter. Nobody today is Arian as far as I can tell. Those who reject the Trinity invariably fall to the latter, "Jesus Christ was a mere man," and not to the position that was roundly condemned at Nicaea.

The great split at Nicaea was over whether or not Jesus is our Maker, or whether He is Superman. It was not over whether He was God or just a mere man. This "mere man" business (which I know, is a straw man, since no unitarian would ever explain their position this way) is entirely new and unheard of even among Arians in the fourth century. Brand, new.

 

[Nihilo]

The Doctrine of who Christ is and the Trinity are the two most debated doctrines in the Church. Doesn't it make sense that if Satan can cause division over these two that he is accomplishing his mission. The book of Jude rings true that false teachers have crept in unawares and have spread lies to cause strife.

There is virtually no such debate within Holy Catholicism, just fyi.

 

[Bright Raven]

There is virtually no such debate within Holy Catholicism, just fyi.

It comes from without and creeps in.

 

[csuguy]

"Mystery" is not my word. They themselves describe it as such. Here's a Catholic Article that says as much[/quote9

The definition of the trinity in itself is not a mystery. If you read the expositions of trinitarian doctrine by a theologian like John Webser, it is a long and complicated description using various, albeit complicated, concepts.

Mystery in this case refers to the fact that we can not exhaustively know God, simply the recognition that if a finite mind could comprehend it, it would not be the infinite God.

The mystery refers to the inability of man to understand the definition of the Trinity. The legend of Augustine and the Seashell is apt at displaying this point. For instance - trying to comprehend the idea that all three are one God, but each is distinct so that the Father != Son, Father != HS, and Son != HS. They try to inventing fictions like saying that they are of one substance - though all this does is muddy the waters rather than bring clarity. It furthermore reduces 'God' to an impersonal substance - that common element between these three distinct persons.

I'm not familiar with John Webster but I can add him to my reading list if you have a particular work(s) in mind for me?

If you are interested in learning about the trinity, why would you go to debate sites that consists primarily of lay people who has not studied the issue? If I wanted to evaluate string theory, I would not go to a physics forum, I would study works written by physicists. Christology and Trinitarian dcotrines are the most complicated and convoluted doctrines the church has. You will need to take the time to study actual theologians who specialize in it.

1. At the time, some 10 years ago, I was a Sophmore or Junior in Highschool. I didn't have resources to go buying a bunch of books, nor had I developed the discipline yet to read through large theological texts. I further originally thought that it wouldn't take long for someone to set things straight for me. Everyone was so confident in the doctrine and that it had been established from the beginning of Christianity - there was no reason for me to suspect that everyone was ignorant of their own faith, that none of them had studied. After all, they all go to church every week, they all do bible studies, etc. And they claim this is one of the single most important doctrines there is - a defining belief of a 'true' Christian!

2. Just because people are lay members does not mean that they are all ignorant. I myself am a lay Christian, yet my studies and understanding of the scriptures rival that of most pastors. My Father himself went through all the classes to become a minister with the Church of the Nazarene - so I'm familiar both with what they do and don't teach their ministers in that sect.

3. These communities provide a diverse crowd - both in terms of beliefs and education levels. Some aren't educated at all, while others are. There are even a few pastors on these sites. This is ideal for shooting ideas around and seeing the various answers.

4. I ultimately did go and study the primary sources themselves. When I went to college I got my hands on various primary and secondary sources, like the Ante-Nicene Fathers Series, and spent several years working through them.

It is when the doxologies are based on doxologies used for Yaweh. Other than that, the idea of intermediate divinities strike me as superstitious, an idea that only makes sense in a cosmology tiered into levels with intermediary beings communicating to the ones below it.

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus

Acts 7:56 “Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”

Not about making the church look good. There are larger systematic concerns involved her, particularily ecclesiological ones. The church is not just an organization in Christian theology, it is the body of Christ constituted by gathering around the body and blood of Christ in the eucharist. There are severe consequences associated with saying that the truth of theology is outside the church. So severe, that a theologian like Karl Barth would say tat outside the church there is no such thing as Christian theology proper. And Karl Barth was not exactly a theological simpleton. I think his position is too extreme in that matter, but there are no doubts that there are very large systematic theological concerns involved here.

It is nothing special for orthodox theologians to defend orthodoxy and to deny any merit to 'outsiders.'

It shouldn't be a surprise that God's people become corrupt over time. That is the repeating theme of the OT. The people sin and fall away from God. After repeated warnings and appeals to repent, they are punished. A remnant return to God and the process begins again. The Christian Church has seen the same kind of things.

Furthermore, Jesus teaches that only a few take the narrow path that leads to salvation, while most take the broad one. But how can this be if Christianity is one of the largest religions of the world? If they were all doing what was right and going to be saved, this would seem to contradict what Jesus said. That is, until you realize that many of these so called Christians don't understand the first thing of Christianity, let alone live it. The churches today have become little more than a social club. There's a reason that people are leaving them and find no value attending - even the ones who believe.

No, but they were gathered by the church for the purposes of the church. Those church fathers also used a whole range of other writings that are considered extra-canonical. And the church did learn from their examples, they are called the fathers for a reason. It does not mean that the early fathers were inerrant in every way, no church father is. It is when the church convenes as one and makes a decision and thus speaks as the body of Christ that it must be taken rather seriously.

If the Church acted in accordance with God, doing his will, then we should take them seriously. When they go around killing their brethren and forcing them out of the country - they are not acting in accordance with God's will. Remember it wasn't God who called for these councils - it was Constantine who set the church down the path of reconciling its views and doctrine because he considered it unbecoming for there to be any disagreement in these matters.

Sorry, that is simply wrong, profoundly wrong at that.

You cannot take a biblical studies 101 class without learning to see that it does. It is so evident when you study the scriptures as books on their own that if you were to make this claim in a biblical studies class paper, I wouldn't be surprised f the professor would fail you on principle. It has nothing to do with a traditional reading either, rather quite the contrary, it is a reading that stems from the historical-critical reading of the Bible.

Mark's christology is not the same as the Matthean christology which is not the same as Lukan christology which is not the same as Johannine christology which is not the same as Pauline christology which is not the same as deutero-Pauline christology which is not the same as the christology found in the various authors of the so called catholic epistles which is not the same christology found in Revelation.

I see contradictions because I have been trained to do historical-critical readings of the scriptures in my studies, it is an absolute central part of our education in modern theology. So here you are simply mistaken.

The different books focus on different aspects of Christology, but are not at odds concerning who Christ was or his teachings. Matthew appears to have written to a primarily Jewish audience for instance and so focused on things like the Law. Luke, on the other hand, is aimed at more of a Gentile audience. So, depending on what they wanted to emphasize, each Gospel focuses on different points - but not contradictory ones.

I did not use the word contradicted, I said the scriptures did not teach it explicitly, but that it demands it when conjoined with the confessions of the church and the goal of a rational monotheistic conception of God. Arianism and Origen inevitably collapses into paganism.

You are close: the 'church' demands it.

Not because its tradition. This is not just any tradition associated with the church, these are teachings the church spoke when convened in ecumenical councils. There are ecclesiological concerns, the church is not just some regular institution. It is a voice of revelation, animated by the Spirit.

Councils that did not lead to further agreement - but a century of infighting and political struggles. Clearly not so ecumenical. And certainly not Godly councils - they forced their fellow brethren to accept the decisions of the council or else!

You say truth of God, which truth is that? There is no one reading of the scriptures without the confessions and guidance of the church. All you have is a ton of different theological voices with no unifying teaching.

Again: the Church Fathers didn't have any problem studying the scriptures to learn what they taught without ecumenical councils to tell them what to think. There is no reason we can't study the scriptures as well to learn their meaning. Furthermore, the councils themselves must study the scriptures and debate them to establish meaning - so they clearly don't need an ecumenical council to tell them what the scriptures mean. If they did, you would end up with an infinite regression!

How is it not coherent? What in-depth systematic studies of it have you done? You already mistakenly associated it with an Aristotelian conception of substance, which seems to suggest that you need to go back and study it more, because none of the Capadoccians nor Augustine relies on such a conception of substance.

I do need to study the 4th century Church Fathers more, I am much more familiar with the Ante-Nicene Fathers. At the end of the day it doesn't matter much - it's a fiction made up to defend their dogma.

Say what? Why is that? Wouldn't that be true of your position as well? If your position was so self-evident, why was that not easily established?

I don't maintain that my position was THE position of the church since the beginning. I recognize that there were many competing understandings of God and his relation to Christ - and the Trinity was a much later development in the Church.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

The Doctrine of who Christ is and the Trinity are the two most debated doctrines in the Church. Doesn't it make sense that if Satan can cause division over these two that he is accomplishing his mission. The book of Jude rings true that false teachers have crept in unawares and have spread lies to cause strife.

So you believe Jesus is the same substance as the Father.

LA

 

[Bright Raven]

So you believe Jesus is the same substance as the Father.

LA

Yes, He is the same essence as the Father

From CARM.org

The Trinity is the Christian teaching that God exists in three eternal Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father is not the same Person as the Son; the Son is not the same Person as the Holy Spirit; and the Holy Spirit is not the same Person as Father. They are not three gods and not three beings. They are three distinct Persons; yet, they are all the one God. Each has a will, can speak, can love, etc., and these are demonstrations of personhood. They are in absolute perfect harmony, consisting of one substance. They are co-eternal, co-equal, and co-powerful. If any one of the three were removed, there would be no God.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Yes those false teachers that claim that it is important to understand the nature of God in order to be saved have crept in unawares and have spread lies to cause strife.

Please, explain the nature of Christ to us.

Are you trying to cause strife by asking?

The nature of Christ that we are to accept as Gospel truth is spoken clearly:

Matthew 16:16 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.​

Anything else is not important for salvation.

 

[Bright Raven]

​

Are you trying to cause strife by asking?

The nature of Christ that we are to accept as Gospel truth is spoken clearly:

Matthew 16:16 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.​

Anything else is not important for salvation.

Nope and I agree with you, all that is needed is Christ. But it is still required that we believe who He is, yes or no?

 

[Nihilo]

It comes from without and creeps in.

No, it doesn't; not in Holy Catholicism.

That was my point.