Thank you for your response. I appreciate though do not agree, with your taking the position that I misunderstood what you stated in your post numbers 30, 34 and now 38 where you "selectively respond to what you choose to, and ignore and or inadvertently distort the reason what I contacted you in the first place regarding my original post number 26.
Taco,
My apologies for not responding sooner but things have been crazy at our house. I've also had some formatting problems.
I did not address every comment you made or every quote you selected in your initial post, not because I was shrugging anything off, but because I thought it best to address portions that seemed representative of the general gist of what you were getting at. If you would like a direct response to a specific portion, by all means point it out to me. In the meantime, I stand by the comments I made. Again, I think they address the general gist of what you were trying to convey. Most of the quotes you cited were basically saying the same thing anyway: e.g., "the doctrine of the Trinity is not expressly stated in the Bible." How many times it is necessary for me to respond to that one point?
With the above quotes in mind, you mention in the opening words of your second paragraph, "My remark that most Christians are trinitarians was, again, simply a statement of fact" is does not harmonizes with what I state in my first post (26), from which I quote from above. It was in fact, after stumbling onto this website, and after reviewing comments this string, that it became patently clear that the persons posting including you, believe that the ones not believing in a Triune God, are "ONLY" found form those who come from non-mainstream Christian religions and others, (i.e. The Way, JW's, Mormons, Islam etc.)
I think the problem we're having here comes down to a basic difference in what we mean by the expression "mainstream Christianity". You seem to be focusing more on denominations, the organizations that make up what I think of as "Christendom" (or the Christian world, if you will), rather than the beliefs that make up "Christianity." You are focusing more on organization, whereas I am focusing on doctrine: that is, what most Christians believe, rather than how they affiliate with one another.
Based on this, I will agree that you may indeed find some Presbyterians, Methodists, or what-have-you who question the Trinity, and, by identifying them, justly point to a "disagreement" within those mainstream Christian denominations. Be that as it may though, I would still not see that as a conflict within "mainstream Christianity," defined as the beliefs to which most Christians hold. That is why I made reference to the majority of Christians, not because they are necessarily right in what they believe, but simply because those who hold their beliefs outnumber those who do not. A belief to which a minority of Christians hold cannot be considered "mainstream," even if the dissenters belong to mainstream denominations.
and is the primary reason why I pointed out in post 26 that this matter of disagreement, can also be found by "some" from mainstream Christian religions and by making that statement I did not state, nor do I have to show "most" but rather that it simple exists and it is really that simple when it comes to establishing the same! Thus the reason for quoting the comments under the title, "Shocking Admissions" to further emphasize that this issue clearly exists. You even remarked, or rather appeared to question a quote(s) by the Trinitarian(s) I quoted, regarding their beliefs' as Trinitarians. I submit that if you were take the time to verify and validate the information (as there are names listed) you will indeed find these persons are not only Trinitarians, but that they come from what is termed mainstream Christianity, like Baptists and the like!
I believe my reply above answers this. We've been talking about two different things as though they were the same.
Thus, again, while folks like this are in the minority, it goes to establish that the doctrine is not as cut and dry as one would mistakenly take it to be and only found among the non-conforming Christians!
You've contradicted yourself. You only find non-conforming beliefs among non-conformists, by definition. So yes, rejection of the Trinity is only found among those who reject the Trinity. Where else would you expect to find it?
Therefore, this serves to expand the controversy passed the obvious non mainstreamer, by pointing out that such an issue exists, albeit admittedly few when compared to the numbers (most) in Christendom that do accept and believe that God as Triune!
While some within the various trinitarian denominations may question the doctrine, the bulk of what controversy there is over the matter has been created by the attacks of the JWs, Muslims and the Oneness Pentacostals, not by dissenting Presbyterians, Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, etc. I think it's important that you acknowledge this. You seem to be suggesting that disagreement over the Trinity is one of mainstream Christendom's great secrets, but that is simply not so. There are far more serious disagreement over many other issues. By contrast, the doctrine of the Trinity is one of the few things that is still held in common by most Christians the world over, whether they be Catholic or Protestant.
Your statement, QUOTE "You're misunderstanding what I've said. My position on this issue has nothing to do with majority rule, nor am I advocating some human contrivance over biblical authority." End QUOTE does not necessary characterize your own reply! Also the last part of this (your) sentence just quoted, and post stands in stark contrast to the admission and statement made by you, where you admit in post 30 QUOTE "First, as a Trinitarian, I readily admit that the doctrine is not mentioned by name in the New Testament. Neither will you find any direct references to the persons of the Trinity being "one in essence", etc. However, the fact that it is not explicitly named or systematized in the New Testament does not mean that it cannot be accurate theology. End QUOTE, in your own words, a Trinitarian by admission, I submit that this would be a similar "Shocking Admission" to those who believe like you,
Actually, no. I can tell you from first-hand experience, having attended church (independent Baptist) all of my life, and having been educated in "mainstream" Christian schools all the way up through the college level (I'm a Pensacola Christian College grad), that what I've said would not be at all shocking to those who believe as I do. The fact that the Trinity is not referenced by name nor explicitly stated in the scripture is one that has been admitted outright in every Bible doctrines class I've ever attended, and I've sat through quite a few. I've also heard this said in more than a few sermons.
as this statement readily states the parameters of how this matter or controversy of God being Triune is decided, and that is, on the basis of theology and it's view of the Bible and not the other way around! Thus, I submit that if taken the other way around, you will not be able to get to the same place as it is not reciprocal. It can't be, as the term Trinity is not Bible based
Theology, properly speaking, is a systematized approach to studying the scriptures, and is, therefore, based on the scriptures. Now, this does not mean that I agree with everyone's theology, as I believe that some people and groups rather obviously twist the scriptures to suit their own purposes, but such abuses do not invalidate theology in principle nor set it against the scriptures. For an example of proper theological method, see the PFRS statement on philosophy and methodology: http://www.pfrs.org/foundation/index.html
The following is a statement from William Evans' book The Great Doctrines of the Bible, a "mainstream" book that I first encountered as a textbook in my "mainstream" Christian high school. It provides what I think is a "mainstream" understanding of theological method (note that it does differ from the PFRS stance, which incorporates such additional factors as the oral tradition handed down by the Apostles):
The doctrines herein treated are dealt with from the standpoint of Biblical rather than dogmatic theology. This is evident from the plan which is followed in the work, namely, to gather together all the Scripture passages dealing with the subject under consideration, and from them choose a required number that may be called representative; then seek to understand the meaning of these references by the study of the text itself as well as its context and parallel passages; and finally, from the selected proof-texts, formulate the doctrinal teaching, and place such results under appropriate headings.I practice what I believe to be "Biblical rather than dogmatic theology," as Evans puts it. As such, I stand by my statement that my theology is based on the Bible. To argue as you have that my theology cannot be biblical simply because the word "Trinity" does not appear in the Bible itself is to miss the point entirely. The word "Trinity" and the phrase "the doctrine of the Trinity" are labels (or, as Evans says, "appropriate headings") that theologians have used to explain what they feel the Bible teaches regarding the nature of God; the identities of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and their relationships to one another; is based on a harmony of the relevant scriptures that address these matters. Just because the name of the doctrine is not found in the scripture, that does not necessarily mean that the teaching itself is not biblical. To determine whether it is biblical, we need to examine the passages upon which it is based, not the name by which men have chosen to call it.
though interestingly enough can be found in pagan religions and also according to history, can be found in Christendom after the counsel of Nicaea that presided over by a pagan.
I would like you to show me a single example of one pagan idea that reflects one God in three distinct but co-equal, co-eternal persons that share one divine essence. You can find groupings of three in various pagan mythologies, such as the Greek "Moirae" and the ancient worship of Nimrod, Simeramus and Tammuz, which was later reflected in Canaanite religion and the Mystery Babylon cult, but there is nothing like the Christian Trinity in the beliefs of those pagan cultures. If you're going to argue that pagan trinities led to the formulation of the Christian Trinity, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that connection; the mere existence of groups of three in pagan culture does not establish it.
Yes, the doctrine of the Trinity (as we recognize it today) was first enunciated at Nicaea in AD 325, but this does not mean that it was invented at that gathering. Consider the reason that the council met (from Wikipedia's article on the First Council of Nicaea):
The purpose of the council was to resolve disagreements arising from within the Church of Alexandria over the nature of Jesus in relationship to the Father; in particular, whether Jesus was of the same substance as God the Father or merely of similar substance. St. Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius took the first position; the popular presbyter Arius, from whom the term Arian controversy comes, took the second. The council decided against the Arians overwhelmingly (of the estimated 250-318 attendees, all but two voted against Arius[1]).As the article reflects, the council was convened in order to examine the dispute over the nature of Jesus and His relationship to God the Father, whether Jesus was of the same or similar substance as the Father. Clearly, the teaching that Jesus was of the same substance as the Father was already in place in Christendom at that time, and, as the decision of the council shows, it was not only present but dominant in early Christian thinking. Arius was overwhelmingly defeated.
So, although the doctrine itself was not clearly enunciated and systematized until Nicaea, the idea of unity within the Godhead already existed before Nicaea. Jesus is actually referred to as God in the New Testament. Four instances that I can think of right off the top of my head would be: the Apostle John's reference to "the Word was with God, and the Word was God" in John chapter 1, Thomas' confession of Jesus as "My Lord and My God" in John 20, Paul's reference to the "glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ" (the Greek showing that both "God" and "Savior" reference Jesus), and the Father referring to the Son as "God" in Hebrews 1. And although you don't find the word "Trinity" itself, you do find such terms as "God the Father" (Galatians 1:3, Ephesians 5:20) and "Godhead" (Romans 1:20, Colossians 2:19). Note also that the Holy Spirit is referred to as "God" (Acts 5:3-4) and yet He is clearly distinguished from the Father and the Son in a number of passages (ex: Matthew 28:19, Mark 3:29, II Corinthians 13:14).
The following is taken from an article on the Council of Nicaea (by one Steven Brant), and expresses the same thought as I listed above, namely, that the doctrine affirmed at Nicaea was based on teachings that were much older:
It must be concluded, then, that the controversy was between a great majority who held the belief that the doctrine expressed by the Nicene Creed was ancient and Apostolic, and a minority who believed that Arius' new interpretation of the faith was correct .
The Word Homoousious
The Nicene Creed introduced the word "homoousious" or "consubstantial" meaning "of one substance." This word was not invented at the Council. Eusebius writes that some of the "most learned and distinguished of the ancient bishops had made use of consubstantial in treating of the divinity of the Father and the Son" (See document E in the Appendix, Baker). We do not have the sources that Eusebius must have had regarding the use of this word. Today, the only source is Origen who used the word in what seems the orthodox way (Johannes Quastren, "Patrology," Volume 2, p78). However, this phrase of Eusebius stands as a witness to the existence of wider use...
And yes while there may be far more contentious issues within QUOTE "mainstream" Christianity", END QUOTE, this is NOT the one I have chosen to post about!
True, but I do think you're trying to make it look more contentious than it really is.
Keeping in mind the quote above from your words as underlined by me, you state, QUOTE "As to speaking of "theology" or "Bible," I'm afraid that it's not as simple as you make it out to be…" END QUOTE and reply, what I point out is indeed a simple fact, the existence of controversy from within the ranks, rarely pointed out (like with evolutionists) and further, I quoted you in reference to the same, and pointed out how it harmonizes with the quotes of others including scholars from mainstream Christianity, as I did in my first post number 26, not to mention non religious encyclopedias and other historical sources that harmonize with this as well.
I've never denied that there is controversy over the doctrine, just that those who criticize it are not in the mainstream of Christian thought, which is incontrovertibly true. Even though they may belong to mainstream denominations, they hold to ideas that are not mainstream themselves.
Now here you revise, what you state above that I quoted and underlined, by explaining that for you, QUOTE "…theology is based on my understanding of the Bible…" END QUOTE and reply that you are now, in your explanation, you are somewhat departing from you own words in underline above, and that you take what "you" believe from "theology" and not Bible to understand the Bible, and I submit that taking it from Bible alone, from it's plain and simple words, and working backward, is not possible nor appropriate.
My theology is based on my understanding of the Bible, which understanding comes from what I see as the "plain and simple words" of the Bible. What do you not understand about that? Theology is systematized Bible study, the comparison of similar passages to harmonize doctrine, etc. It is the searching of the scriptures, the "rightly dividing" of the Word. There is nothing sinister about it. Again, I don't agree with everyone's theology, but, when I disagree with someone it is because I see their teachings as in conflict with my understanding of the Bible, which is my final authority.
How do you study the Bible? Do you never compare one passage with another? Jesus and His apostles consistently did this.
You then state, QUOTE "If you read my responses to Gregg, I think you would have to agree that I do appeal to scripture in defense of the Trinity. Disagree with my use of those passages or the conclusions I draw from them, if you see fit, but don't argue that my position is somehow extra-biblical until you show me -- from the Bible -- that the passages in question cannot mean what I interpret them as meaning" END QUOTE and submit, that first and foremost, you are again attempting to control the outcome by setting up the beginning, and I am simply stating that instead, one should first acknowledge and admit to the foundation for one's belief as with anything else, meaning that one needs to keep in upper most in mind this foundation when discussing scripture (or anything else) as to ignore it, serves no value other than to support ignorance.
I will state again, as I have stated several times now, that my "foundation for belief" is the Bible. My understanding of what the Bible teaches is what I call my "theology".
Now, before we resort to discussing scriptures it is critical to note the following by way of summary along with a few other issues that need to be dealt with that will serve to guide or control the discussion as to fairness;
- We have agreed that there is no explicit teaching of Trinity, Oneness, God being Triune in the Bible.
- We have agreed and established that besides those in non mainstream Christendom, that there are those (minority, some, few etc.) from mainstream Christendom that supports the statement in sentence one.
Emphasizing the term "explicit" and recognizing the differences between
"Christianity" (a system of belief) and "Christendom" (the world of Christians and their various affiliations), yes.
Now, we need to settle the matter of its origin and history that the scholars I quoted from in my very first post, number 26, also mention, that historically speaking, this teaching of God being Triune (as to Christianity ONLY as the belief in God being Triune dates back before Christ and the OT) rests with the Nicene Creed which was presided over by a pagan. I would like your thoughts on the same.You have my thoughts on it above. The doctrine was not named and systematized until Nicaea, although the concept of a unity of persons within the Godhead quite obviously did exist prior to Nicaea (I would argue, by way of the scriptures I cited, that such an understanding goes all the way back to the New Testament writings).
I trust you will allow for us to set a consensus on the above matters, which will end up being only three for this discussion, (unless you have some to add to it) which will allow us to fairly and reasonably exchange thoughts on scriptures accordingly.
I find it interesting that you condemn my take
on theology as somehow adding something to the scripture, but, at the same time, you feel that we can't discuss the scriptures in dispute without first
settling on some historical issues. If you're interesting in settling what the Bible teaches, I don't see what else is needed. Nevertheless, I've
given you my thoughts on the Council of Nicaea.
As to Constantine, the "pagan" who presided over the council, he converted to Christianity sometime in the year 312 (a number of years before the council convened) and did not, as far as I've seen, practice paganism after that time, although he did retain the old imperial title of Pontifex Maximus, which was certainly pagan. Whether Constantine's conversion was genuine or not, I can't say for certain. All of the evidence suggests that he understood that there was one supreme God, the Christian God, but I don't know that he understood the central tenets of the Christian faith. It is also more than likely that Constantine used his conversion for political reasons.
The following comes from a Catholic site where Constantine's Christianity is discussed:
That Constantine "converted" to Christianity in the simple sense of accepting the Christian God as supreme seems pretty much beyond doubt, although, again, I do doubt that he understood Christianity entirely. I would not consider him a "saved" man, from everything I've read about him. As to his influence, while the official embrace of Christianity by the Roman state did lead to the paganizing that is evident in the Roman Catholic Church even to this day, I have not seen evidence that the Council of Nicaea was influenced by paganism. Steven Brant writes:Constantine the Great converted to Christianity in 312 which is "now almost universally acknowledged"; painted the Christian monogram on his army's shields; opposed the persecution of Christians; practiced forbearance toward, signed an edict of religious tolerance for, and issued mandates restoring rights and property to Christians; published decrees giving religious freedom to all; built several Christian basilicas and churches; restored Christian property; aided the bishops and became involved in all affairs of the Church; supported Christian communities, parishes, kingdoms; held Christian synods and councils; a statue of himself and silver coins were decorated with the Christian monogram; he read the Scriptures and organized Christian religious ceremonies; made Sunday a civil holiday; freed Christian soldiers for religious services; the "Sol Invictus" was adopted in a Christian sense; he spoke of God's providence; claimed divine protection for Christians; an Oration to the Assembly of Saints attributed to Constantine is a model of contemporary Christian apologetics; refused religious honors to the Roman Senate; induced his mother Helena to become a Christian; asked that fifty copies of the Christian scriptures in "magnificent and elaborately bound volumes" be used by the churches in the city.
If the man was a pagan, he was a very bad pagan.
The New Catholic Encyclopedia (NCE, 2003, 2nd edition) article concludes:
"As a colleague, then as guide of the bishops, the emperor felt he had a vocation to lead all men to unity in honoring the divinity within the Christian Church (Vita 2:65:1). In the Scriptures, Constantine found justification for his idea of the Church as a peace-bringing house of truth, the unifying element of the state as a kingdom of God (Vita 2:56,67). He respected the decisions of the bishops in synod, particularly the decrees of the Council of Nicaea, and considered all further theological dispute as nugatory. Hence his policy hardened toward pagans and Jews as time wore on. Although he employed pagan terms in speaking of the 'divinity,' 'the highest god,' and 'divine providence,' he had in mind the unique God of the Christians, the creator and judge of all who saved fallen man through His Son....In dealing with heretics and in his policy toward pagans, he exercised astute forbearance. There can be no doubt that he was a convinced Christian, whatever may have been the limitations in his understanding of the full significance of that faith." (NCE, volume 4, page 182)
Whatever you think of Constantine (and again, I don't think much of his "conversion"), he does not appear to have had much of an effect on the outcome of the debate at Nicaea. If you can establish otherwise, please do present your evidence.Constantine did play an important role at the Council. Eusebius of Caesarea reports that he played an key part in calming, convincing, and bringing all to agreement on contested points. The account of Eusebius fairly glows in regard to the Emperor, and he is portrayed as a key figure. It is nowhere suggested, however, that he was permitted to vote with the bishops nor that he used any form of force to obtain an outcome.
It may be that the eloquence and glory of the Emperor had sway with some, however it should be remembered that he did eventually (years after the Council) support the Arian party...
The Church was willing to accept the help of an emperor, to listen to what he had to say, but not to accept the rule of an emperor in matters of faith. However one describes the role of Constantine at the Council of Nicea, it must be remembered that the Creed of Nicea expressed what the great majority of bishops at the council found to be traditional, Biblical, and orthodox of the Christian faith, a faith in which they believed so firmly that they were willing to die for it.
Now, if you'd care to discuss the scripture passages in question, I'm at your disposal. Please address those that I have already listed in my exchange with Gregg.
- Robert
