# Is it possible that the Trinity is a false doctrine?



## Davidius (Sep 24, 2008)

This question has to do with ecclesiastical authority and the power of what I'll call "pre-Roman Catholic" conciliar pronouncements. 

As Martin Luther said, popes and councils have erred. Since scripture is the only infallible Christian authority, and our understanding of doctrine develops over time, and various Church or so-called Church bodies have erred grievously in times past, is it _theoretically_ possible that we could decide at some point in the future that Arius' interpretation of scripture was right? If not, why not? How can we be sure that opinion with respect to any systematic doctrinal formulation will not flip-flop at some point? To put it another way: how we can we know that Nicene and Chalcedonian orthodoxy are in fact orthodox? 

If someone denies an aspect of either of those creeds, on what authority do we tell him that he is mistaken, if he is making his argument from scripture? Did Nicea have some kind of special protection against error which Trent lacked?


----------



## Brian Bosse (Sep 24, 2008)

Yes, it is possible.


----------



## TheFleshProfitethNothing (Sep 24, 2008)

The work of the Father in the Salvation of men is Election, the Work of the Son in the Salvation of men is to Procure that which the Father Elected, and the Work of the Spirit is to reveal the Work of the Son, who already revealed the Work of the Father.

So, to me, NO! If others try to convince me otherwise...they will have to answer the above.


----------



## Grymir (Sep 24, 2008)

One cannot deny the trinity using scripture. They may try, but that would involve the improper use of scripture, and shows bad exogesis. The doctrine is not infalible, but is is not false either. Only scripture is infalible.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Sep 24, 2008)

NO.


----------



## Herald (Sep 24, 2008)

David, the councils that have erred did so because they did not bind their consciences and minds to scripture alone. The doctrine of the Trinity has been based solely on scripture and has withstood scriptural examination for over two millennia.


----------



## Davidius (Sep 24, 2008)

TheFleshProfitethNothing said:


> The work of the Father in the Salvation of men is Election, the Work of the Son in the Salvation of men is to Procure that which the Father Elected, and the Work of the Spirit is to reveal the Work of the Son, who already revealed the Work of the Father.
> 
> So, to me, NO! If others try to convince me otherwise...they will have to answer the above.



I know this is our formulation, but it assumes that the Trinitarian doctrine is correct. 



Grymir said:


> One cannot deny the trinity using scripture. They may try, but that would involve the improper use of scripture, and shows bad exogesis. The doctrine is not infalible, but is is not false either. Only scripture is infalible.



Heretics have attempted to deny the Trinity using scripture (gnostics, Arians, modalists, whoever). If we say that it's impossible to deny the Trinity using scripture, how do we escape the charge of question begging? To us it seems impossible, but to the heretics, it seems possible.

Isn't there a quote from church history saying something to the effect that all heretics quote scripture?



North Jersey Baptist said:


> David, the councils that have erred did so because they did not bind their consciences and minds to scripture alone. The doctrine of the Trinity has been based solely on scripture and has withstood scriptural examination for over two millennia.



Are we saved from error by committing our consciences to scripture alone? What about all of the Christians today who do so and come up with a bunch of ridiculous stuff? 

As to the second half, what is "scriptural examination"? Whose examination? This seems to beg the question again.


----------



## MW (Sep 24, 2008)

No, it is not possible, not in the slightest.

Protestants do not agree with Romanists that tradition provides an authoritative source of teaching additional to Scripture; but we do acknowledge the priesthood of believers, and this entails a catholic tradition in which true believers hold certain truths in common because they are taught by the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.


----------



## Davidius (Sep 24, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> No, it is not possible, not in the slightest.
> 
> Protestants do not agree with Romanists that tradition provides an authoritative source of teaching additional to Scripture; but we do acknowledge the priesthood of believers, and this entails a catholic tradition in which true believers hold certain truths in common because they are taught by the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.



So far this has probably been the most helpful, but I still don't understand how we escape circular reasoning. We believe in a catholic tradition in which "true believers" hold certain truths in common because they are taught by the Holy Spirit, but how do we know which truths those are? It's almost a non-starter. To know who the Christians are, we have to know who holds the universal Christian truths, but to know the universal Christian truths, we have to know who the Christians are (I think this is something I read in Clark/Robbins).


----------



## Herald (Sep 24, 2008)

> Are we saved from error by committing our consciences to scripture alone? What about all of the Christians today who do so and come up with a bunch of ridiculous stuff?
> 
> As to the second half, what is "scriptural examination"? Whose examination? This seems to beg the question again.



Examination is exactly what the framers of the confessions did. They examined or studied the scriptures and wrote the confessions. As Matthew said in his reply:



> believers hold certain truths in common because they are taught by the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.



The confessions have proven valuable in documenting shared belief regarding scripture. They remove or mitigate the post-modern view of interpretation that says, "What does this mean to me?"


----------



## Grymir (Sep 24, 2008)

Davidius said:


> Isn't there a quote from church history saying something to the effect that all heretics quote scripture?



Yes, along with all heresy begins with a mis-conception of the nature of God. We don't have a begging of the question problem. Our doctrines come from scripture. The church didn't make scripture, but discovered them. Therefore we can use them to study God, because it's our only source that comes from God about Himself, ie, outside our space-time continuum. People try many different things. It's irrelevent that people twist scripture. We need to be able to defend and show their errors. Impossible implies something in the philosphical realm. That in order to be true, it must be possible to prove it false. That's different than saying it's impossible because the scriptures don't allow for such idea's. ie, it's proven by scriptures.


----------



## Brian Bosse (Sep 24, 2008)

Hello Rev. Winzer,



David said:


> Is it possible that the Trinity is a false doctrine?





Brian said:


> Yes, it is possible.





Rev. Winzer said:


> No, it is not possible, not in the slightest.



Rev. Winzer, are you saying that you know this with philosophical certainty? In other words, are you claiming infallabilty in this judgment?

Brian


----------



## Grymir (Sep 24, 2008)

Davidius said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > No, it is not possible, not in the slightest.
> ...



Ah! Now I see... False premisis. To know the universal Christian truths, we have to know the Bible, not who the Christians are. Voila!


----------



## MW (Sep 24, 2008)

Davidius said:


> So far this has probably been the most helpful, but I still don't understand how we escape circular reasoning. We believe in a catholic tradition in which "true believers" hold certain truths in common because they are taught by the Holy Spirit, but how do we know which truths those are?



Circular reasoning is a fact of life for finite understandings; it is just a matter of how broad one needs to make his circle in order to hide this fact from others. Better to simply be honest about it, and ensure that we maintain the true centre of the circle around which we reason.

Jesus Christ made promises concerning the ministry of the church and the presence of His Spirit with it. We are bound therefore to proceed on the basis that there is a genuine tradition to be found in history. No person abstractly considers a teaching on its own merit. We are all influenced by our context. But there are truths which have been believed by Christians irrespective of time and place. It is there that we recognise the voice of the Spirit guiding the church in what is undoubtedly a true confession of the faith of Jesus Christ in opposition to the spirit of delusion.


----------



## Herald (Sep 24, 2008)

Brian Bosse said:


> Hello Rev. Winzer,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Brian,

Rev. Winzer didn't make that statement because he has philosophical certainity. He has scriptural certainty. The confessions affirm it. You joined this board by likewise affirming what the confessions teach. Are you departing from that affirmation? Please let us know if you are. If you are rescinding your affirmation of the confessions, are you prepared to offer scriptural evidence that the Trinity is not an accurate doctrine of the church?


----------



## Davidius (Sep 24, 2008)

Grymir said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't there a quote from church history saying something to the effect that all heretics quote scripture?
> ...



I see what you're saying in the first part, but you're saying that people "twist" scripture. It's a simple fact that people who are not the willing, conscious minions of Satan we like to make them in order to make our history seem more simple and black & white have come to different positions even on doctrines as fundamental as the Trinity by reading and interpreting the same scriptures you and I possess. As wrong as I think Phillips, Craig, & Dean are, I don't think they go home at night and pray before candle-lit shrines to Lucifer, thanking him for sowing the seeds of damnable heresy in their minds. 

Hence I don't see how you get from the premise that the scriptures are God's word to the conclusion that the Nicene council was correct. There's a missing premise which Rome grants and we deny. If we say, "well Christians get things right, so we can know we have things right," then we're at best begging the question and opening up the floor for anyone who calls himself a Christian to claim that he must have it right since he's a Christian. Since Rome uses scriptural arguments to enforce its authority, I don't see how they escape from this either.

**EDIT**

Rev. Winzer,

We cross-posted so I didn't see your latest comment. I find the idea of looking for a common thread in history very thought-provoking; how do you think that relates to our notion of the development of Christian doctrine (i.e. clarity of formulations)?


----------



## MW (Sep 24, 2008)

Brian Bosse said:


> Rev. Winzer, are you saying that you know this with philosophical certainty? In other words, are you claiming infallabilty in this judgment?



See WCF 18:2. Infallible assurance does not rest on philosophical certainty.

I am not a Cartesian. I don't need to doubt my tradition before I can be brought to faith. The doctrine of the Trinity is for me an infallible certainty because of (1) the divine truth of Scripture, (2) the spiritual grace this truth ministers to my soul, and (3) the living voice of the Holy Spirit Who has ministered the same conviction and grace to believers through the ages.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Davidius (Sep 24, 2008)

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Brian Bosse said:
> 
> 
> > Hello Rev. Winzer,
> ...



I can't speak for anyone else with certainty, but we're not questioning the doctrine of the Trinity. We're talking merely about knowing whose interpretations are correct. For example, I used to be a credobaptist...now I'm a paedobaptist. Some people move from lots of positions to other positions when they've been looking at the same evidence for a long time. Yet we somehow claim that the statements of the so-called ecumenical councils are beyond this, and I just want to know what makes them different, since we affirm that councils can err.


----------



## Grymir (Sep 24, 2008)

Davidius said:


> Grymir said:
> 
> 
> > Davidius said:
> ...



Just because somebody claims to be a Christian, doesn't mean that they are. Tell'em to their face if needs be. Somebody also doesn't need to be Satan's minion to be wrong. Which is what they are. Just wrong. Plain people who don't take the time to study scripture, but are able to use a few verse's to show what they want. Isogesis instead of exogesis. We don't base our knowledge on what 'people' say, but what the Bible says.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Sep 24, 2008)

Well put, Rev. Winzer. 

BTW, Master Poole Publishing hopes to soon publish an essay relevant to this topic on the subject of "Postmodern Skepticism, Relativism, and Religious Toleration in the Light of the Westminster Standards and the Thought of George Gillespie." Lord willing, it will appear soon.


----------



## ManleyBeasley (Sep 24, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> > So far this has probably been the most helpful, but I still don't understand how we escape circular reasoning. We believe in a catholic tradition in which "true believers" hold certain truths in common because they are taught by the Holy Spirit, but how do we know which truths those are?
> ...



Very similar to Calvin's argument for the the authority of scripture and how we know it is true; "the secret testimony of the Spirit" (which we learn of from the scripture). *Amen.*


----------



## Herald (Sep 24, 2008)

Davidius said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > Brian Bosse said:
> ...



Baptism, eschatology, church polity etc. are matters that have been debated by Christians since the beginning of the church. Most paedos are not going to say a credo is unsaved because of their baptismal position and vice versa. But there are some doctrines that are fundamental to the faith. There are no alternatives. The Trinity is one such doctrine. Don't lose sight of the fact that the Trinity has been attacked most eloquently by more than a few theologians. It has been tried and tested by many and their attacks still are unproven. The confessions have been sliced, diced and pureed and still the Trinity stands unscathed. Where is the scriptural challenge to the doctrine of Trinity that will disprove this foundational teaching of the Christian faith?


----------



## MW (Sep 24, 2008)

Davidius said:


> We cross-posted so I didn't see your latest comment. I find the idea of looking for a common thread in history very thought-provoking; how do you think that relates to our notion of the development of Christian doctrine (i.e. clarity of formulations)?



"Development" is a difficult word to use today because evolutionary dogma supposes anything that grows must be good. But I notice good gardeners often stake saplings so that they do not grow in a distorted way. Likewise, not all didactic or moral development is good. The Papacy is a development, and I don't think anyone here would think it is good. There is a mystery of iniquity which develops through the ages side by side with the mystery of godliness.

It comes down to this -- by their fruits ye shall know them, Matt. 7:20. Hence we find tests for distinguishing teachers in terms of the character which their teaching produces, James 3:13-18. Paul expected that the truly spiritual among the Corinthians would know that he wrote to them the commandments of the Lord, 1 Cor. 14:37. And in 1 John we find various criteria for knowing the Spirit of God.

I think it comes down to what has been called a "package deal." One cannot evaluate a claim on the basis of a single truth, but must take the system as a whole.


----------



## MW (Sep 24, 2008)

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> BTW, Master Poole Publishing hopes to soon publish an essay relevant to this topic on the subject of "Postmodern Skepticism, Relativism, and Religious Toleration in the Light of the Westminster Standards and the Thought of George Gillespie." Lord willing, it will appear soon.



Andrew, that sounds like good reading. Please keep us informed.


----------



## Iconoclast (Sep 24, 2008)

*Not possible/ Hebrews 13:8*

Jesus came down from Heaven to do the will of the Father who sent Him>
Jesus revealed the Father to us like no one else can.
Jesus promised that the Father would send "another" comforter/ another of the same kind [allos].
This promise has been fulfilled.

The trinity is scripturally revealed. What other teaching are you thinking of? 
oneness? modalism? Which part of the trinity would not seem to be clear to someone? To deny the trinity is to deny God himself.
The Jews in Jesus day rebelled against it,and were reprobated. All major cults deny it to their own destruction.


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 24, 2008)

Davidius said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > Brian Bosse said:
> ...



David,

This may or may not be helpful to you, but I think that the difference is with respect to the nature of the creedal statements made by the Ecumenical Councils, rather than the nature of the men who made them up. In other words, those Creeds were on such fundamental articles of the Faith worked out over a long period of time (the time from the closing of the Canon until Nicea was roughly longer than the U.S. has been in existence, and it was another couple of centuries until the final Ecumenical Creed was established) that it is not possible to alter the core of those creeds.

For example, if someone denies the Trinity, he cannot be a Christian. He cannot deny Christ was God and be a Christian. It is not possible. But it may be possible that on lesser (both in terms of fundamentals and clarity in the Scripture) matters, that errors have been made.


----------



## kalawine (Sep 24, 2008)

I would say, "No, it's not possible." 

David, I see where you are coming from. This is the way liberal theologians sometimes come at many doctrines they don't like or would like to abolish. (I'm not accusing you of this by any means. You seem to be playing Devil's advocate) They say that "orthodoxy" was awarded to whoever won the day.

I say it's not possible because the guys who "gave" us the Trinity (the "Theologians" -- 4th century) were convinced that they didn't invent it or discover it but were passing along a doctrine that the apostles had always believed. I agree with them because of the many text in the Bible where all three Persons are mentioned. 

You Church history experts out there may see something that I've misstated here. Feel welcome to correct me.


----------



## Brian Bosse (Sep 24, 2008)

Hello Gentlemen,

It looks like I am out here by myself. Well, if this is the case, then let it be so.



Bill Brown said:


> You joined this board by likewise affirming what the confessions teach. Are you departing from that affirmation? Please let us know if you are. If you are rescinding your affirmation of the confessions, are you prepared to offer scriptural evidence that the Trinity is not an accurate doctrine of the church?



This response seems absolutely over the top. I affirmed the philosophical possibility that the doctrine of the Trinity is incorrect. This is *NOT* the same as denying the doctrine or saying it is wrong. I believe the doctrine to be correct, but I acknowledge my own (and everyone else’s) epistemic limits. 



Rev. Winzer said:


> See WCF 18:2. Infallible assurance does not rest on philosophical certainty.



The issue seems to be philosophical certainty – at least that is how I take the question and your answer. To say “it is not possible in the slightest” for the doctrine to be incorrect is to claim philosophical certainty.



Rev. Winzer said:


> The doctrine of the Trinity is for me an infallible certainty because of (1) the divine truth of Scripture, (2) the spiritual grace this truth ministers to my soul, and (3) the living voice of the Holy Spirit Who has ministered the same conviction and grace to believers through the ages.



Even this answer hints at your lack of philosophical certainty. When you speak of “the same conviction and grace to believers through the ages” it seems you are making an appeal to consistency over time of the doctrine being held as a Christian conviction. This is an inductive argument. I would also say that your subjective appeal to (2) is claimed by many other religions regarding doctrines that are false, and lastly (1) misses the point. I believe Scripture to be infallible. I believe everything it teaches is inerrant. I just acknowledge that what _I think_ Scripture teaches is not in the same category.

The bottom line is that I am a fallen creature suffering the noetic affects of sin. No one on this board is any different. To think that you can know anything infallibly seems to ignore this condition, and may even confuse the creator/creature distinction. Now, this does not mean that we cannot have a very high degree of certainty about doctrines like the Trinity. It just acknowledges that there is a philosophical possibility that we are incorrect. 

Brian


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Sep 24, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> VirginiaHuguenot said:
> 
> 
> > BTW, Master Poole Publishing hopes to soon publish an essay relevant to this topic on the subject of "Postmodern Skepticism, Relativism, and Religious Toleration in the Light of the Westminster Standards and the Thought of George Gillespie." Lord willing, it will appear soon.
> ...



Will do!


----------



## sotzo (Sep 24, 2008)

Brian:

What is philosophical certainty?

Is such a thing possible with respect to _any_ type of knowledge?


----------



## DMcFadden (Sep 24, 2008)

Brian, if your measuring rod is philosophic certainty, then, no, nothing is certain. I'm not even certain that there _is_ a Brian Bosse. However, if you are asking if we know that there is a God and that he consistently reveals himself as a Triune being, and that this is confessed by the Church of Jesus Christ as such, and affirmed by the Reformed Confessions, then, yes, I'm pretty certain.


----------



## ww (Sep 24, 2008)




----------



## Herald (Sep 24, 2008)

Brian Bosse said:


> Hello Gentlemen,
> 
> It looks like I am out here by myself. Well, if this is the case, then let it be so.
> 
> ...



Brian,

And where does your _faith _rest in all of this? That I may have doubts about an issue reinforces the need for faith.


----------



## Brian Bosse (Sep 25, 2008)

Hello Gentlemen,



Joel said:


> What is philosophical certainty?



‘Certainty’ is a subjective psychological state regarding the level of confidence one has in a particular belief. We all hold beliefs at varying degrees of certainty. For instance, I am more certain in my commitment to the belief that I was born on 09/28/66 than I am in my commitment to the belief in supralapsarianism. However, I am not philosophically certain in my commitment to the belief that I was born on 09/28/66. It is _possible_ that a mistake was made, and my birthday really was on 09/27/66 or some other date. Based on this, we can define philosophical certainty as a level of certainty regarding a commitment to a belief such that it is _not possible_ for the belief to be false. (This may be a little rough, but I trust it communicates something close to what is commonly understood as philosophical certainty.)



Joel said:


> Is such a thing possible with respect to any type of knowledge?



I would argue that for someone to have philosophical certainty, they would need to at least be omniscient and infallible. Consequently, I would only put God into the category of beings able to have philosophical certainty. 



Dennis said:


> Brian, if your measuring rod is philosophic certainty, then, no, nothing is certain.



I agree. However, when someone says, “No, it is not possible, not in the slightest,” I do not know how to understand this other than a claim to philosophical certainty. 



> However, if you are asking if we know that there is a God and that he consistently reveals himself as a Triune being, and that this is confessed by the Church of Jesus Christ as such, and affirmed by the Reformed Confessions, then, yes, I'm pretty certain.



I am pretty certain, too. However, this is not the same as “it is not possible to be otherwise.”



Bill said:


> And where does your faith rest in all of this? That I may have doubts about an issue reinforces the need for faith.



I believe the Bible to be the very words of God. I believe the God of the Bible is Triune. I believe that I am a depraved sinner. I believe that any salvation is due only to the sovereign will of God. I believe that God sent His Son in my place to bear my sins and pay the penalty for my offence to such a great and glorious God. I believe God has credited to me the righteousness of Christ, and it is only in Him that I stand. I believe God has given me the Holy Spirit who convicts me of sin, teaches me truth and helps me apply the Word to my life all for the purpose of conforming me to the image of Christ for His glory. I believe the Holy Spirit assures me that I am a child of God. I believe that God is the greatest treasure – the Pearl of Great Price. I believe that I was created to glorify such a worthy being. I believe that God is absolutely sovereign over all things. I can go on and on. This is where my faith rests.

With that said, I also believe that because of indwelling sin, a deceitful heart, ignorance, pride, and/or willful denials of truth, I hold false beliefs about God. I trust God is sanctifying me in this, but until my body of death is done away with, I will always struggle with this. Yet, this is a far cry from the denial of the faith. Rather, it is simply an acknowledgment of my sinfulness and consequent epistemic inability. 

Brian


----------



## Grymir (Sep 25, 2008)

Are we using Kantian/Hume definitions of certainty? hmm.


----------



## Grymir (Sep 25, 2008)

And I can't believe I haven't brought up Barth yet!


----------



## MW (Sep 25, 2008)

Brian Bosse said:


> Rev. Winzer said:
> 
> 
> > See WCF 18:2. Infallible assurance does not rest on philosophical certainty.
> ...



Dear brother, Are you a Christian? If so, is it conjectural, or something that you are certain about? The same Spirit that bears witness with believers that their faith is genuine also assures them that the teachings on which their faith is exercised are true.


----------



## bookslover (Sep 25, 2008)

The doctrine of the Trinity is not like doctrines such as ecclesiology or baptism, where sincere Christians may differ. The doctrine of the Trinity is a revealed doctrine of Scripture, and it has withstood nearly 20 centuries of intense biblical scrutiny. It is a foundational doctrine of the faith. It certainly doesn't need any philosophical underpinnings for it to be true. The fact that God has revealed it in His Word is quite enough.

No. It is not possible for the doctrine of the Trinity to be untrue.


----------



## Kenneth_Murphy (Sep 25, 2008)

I would say that it is very possible for a majority of persons to fail to hold to the doctrine of the trinity. However, I don't believe this well ever be true of the Elect. It's not just a matter of what we can come to understand in our selves, but as regenerate people, humbly submitting to the teachings of the Spirit, we have faith that God does not give us a snake when we ask to be taught and learn the word. God is one of truth and not lies. Just as he will continually preserve an elect remnant even in the worst of times, he will continue to preserve a right teaching of himself among his elect. 

To me this topic holds many similarities with how we view God's providence in forming the canon of scriptures and maintaining their integrity over time.


----------



## Herald (Sep 25, 2008)

> I believe the Bible to be the very words of God. I believe the God of the Bible is Triune. I believe that I am a depraved sinner. I believe that any salvation is due only to the sovereign will of God. I believe that God sent His Son in my place to bear my sins and pay the penalty for my offence to such a great and glorious God. I believe God has credited to me the righteousness of Christ, and it is only in Him that I stand. I believe God has given me the Holy Spirit who convicts me of sin, teaches me truth and helps me apply the Word to my life all for the purpose of conforming me to the image of Christ for His glory. I believe the Holy Spirit assures me that I am a child of God. I believe that God is the greatest treasure – the Pearl of Great Price. I believe that I was created to glorify such a worthy being. I believe that God is absolutely sovereign over all things. I can go on and on. This is where my faith rests.
> 
> With that said, I also believe that because of indwelling sin, a deceitful heart, ignorance, pride, and/or willful denials of truth, I hold false beliefs about God. I trust God is sanctifying me in this, but until my body of death is done away with, I will always struggle with this. Yet, this is a far cry from the denial of the faith. Rather, it is simply an acknowledgment of my sinfulness and consequent epistemic inability.



Brian, that you are still struggling with the deceitfulness of sin is a reality that all of us can relate to. It is for that reason that our doubts should drive us even further to our knees. "I do believe. Help me in my unbelief." Peter was a great study in this. Ultimately his battle with sin drove him to the cross. Even Paul lamented that the very thing he wished not to do, he did. In the end it is the knowledge that we walk by faith, not by sight. Because of that faith we _are able_ to state with certainty those things we do not always live with certainty.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Sep 25, 2008)

The doctrine of the Trinity is not a product of councils or "ecclesiastical authority". It is revealed to us in the Scriptural record of redemption, and that not only in the New, but the Old Testament as well.

I do not need to use the word "philosophical" when talking of this, as though it were something which can either be apprehended or proved by mere human reason. It cannot. Thus I simply say with absolute certainty the doctrine of the Trinity is true.

The Lord knows His nature with absolute certainty, and He has used human language to convey what He knows to us. Language, when used by Him, can convey with absolute precision what He intends for us to understand. That the believing church is unanimous in its apprehension of what God has communicated regarding Himself in this matter reflects on His ability to have us do so.

The best treatment of this subject I've come across is Benjamin Warfield's essay, "The Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity". In hard copy it is in P&R's _The B.B. Warfield Collection_, the volume, _Biblical and Theological Studies_, p. 22ff. It is also in the _ISBE_, James Orr's edition, under "Trinity". Here is a sampling from it.

The term "Trinity" is not a Biblical term, and we are not using Biblical language when we define what is expressed by it as the doctrine that there is one only and true God, but in the unity of the Godhead there are three coeternal and coequal Persons, the same in substance but distinct in subsistence. A doctrine so defined can be spoken of as a Biblical doctrine only on the principle that the sense of Scripture is Scripture. And the definition of a Biblical doctrine in such unBiblical language can be justified only on the principle that it is better to preserve the truth of Scripture than the words of Scripture. The doctrine of the Trinity lies in Scripture in solution; when it is crystallized from its solvent it does not cease to be Scriptural, but only comes into clearer view. Or, to speak without figure, the doctrine of the Trinity is given to us in Scripture, not in formulated definition, but in fragmentary allusions; when we assembled the _disjecta membra_ into their organic unity, we are not passing from Scripture, but entering more thoroughly into the meaning of Scripture. We may state the doctrine in technical terms, supplied by philosophical reflection; but the doctrine stated is a genuinely Scriptural doctrine.

In point of fact, the doctrine of the Trinity is purely a revealed doctrine. That is to say, it embodies a truth which has never been discovered, and is indiscoverable, by natural reason. With all his searching, man has not been able to find out for himself the deepest things of God. Accordingly, ethnic thought has never attained a Trinitarian conception of God, nor does any ethnic religion present in its representations of the Divine Being any analogy to the doctrine of the Trinity. (p. 22)​
He then goes on to talk of triads of divinities in pagan religions, the failure of reason or philosophy to discover or prove the doctrine (he says Edwards perhaps comes the closest in his attempt), and its appearance in rudimentary form in the Old Testament. He says, "It is an old saying that what becomes patent in the New Testament was latent in the Old Testament. And it is important that the continuity of the revelation of God contained in the two Testaments should not be overlooked or obscured." (p. 30)

He then discusses the revelation given in the NT:

The simplicity and assurance with which the New Testament writers speak of God as a Trinity have, however, a further implication. If they betray no sense of novelty in so speaking of Him, this is undoubtedly in part because it was no longer a novelty so to speak of Him. It is clear, in other words, that, as we read the New Testament, we are not witnessing the birth of a new conception of God. What we meet with in its pages is a firmly established conception of God underlying and giving its tone to the whole fabric. It is not in a text here and there that the New Testament bears its testimony to the doctrine of the Trinity. The whole book is Trinitarian to the core; all its teaching is built on the assumption of the Trinity; and its allusions to the Trinity are frequent, cursory, easy and confident. It is with a view to the cursoriness of the allusions to it in the New Testament that it has been remarked that "the doctrine of the Trinity is not so much heard as overheard in the statements of Scripture." It would be more exact to say that it is not so much inculcated as presupposed. The doctrine of the Trinity does not appear in the New Testament in the making, but as already made. It takes its place in its pages, as Gunkel phrases it, with an air almost of complaint, already "in full completeness" (_völlig fertig_), leaving no trace of its growth. "There is nothing more wonderful in the history of human thought," says Sanday, with his eye on the appearance of the doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament, "than the silent and imperceptible way in which this doctrine, to us so difficult, took its place without struggle - and without controversy - among accepted Christian truths." The explanation of this remarkable phenomenon is, however, simple. Our New Testament is not a record of the development of the doctrine or of its assimilation. It everywhere presupposes the doctrine as the fixed possession of the Christian community; and the process by which it became the possession of the Christian community lies behind the New Testament.

We cannot speak of the doctrine of the Trinity, therefore, if we study exactness of speech, as revealed in the New Testament, any more than we can speak of it as revealed in the Old Testament. The Old Testament was written before its revelation; the New Testament after it. The revelation itself was made not in word but in deed. It was made in the incarnation of God the Son, and the outpouring of God the Holy Spirit. The relation of the two Testaments to this revelation is in the one case that of preparation for it, and in the other that of product of it. The revelation itself is embodied just in Christ and the Holy Spirit. This is as much as to say that the revelation of the Trinity was incidental to, and the inevitable effect of, the accomplishment of redemption. It was in the coming of the Son of God in the likeness of sinful flesh to offer Himself a sacrifice for sin; and in the coming of the Holy Spirit to convict the world of sin, of righteousness and of judgment, that the Trinity of Persons in the Unity of the Godhead was once for all revealed to men. Those who knew God the Father, who loved them and gave His own Son to die for them; and the Lord Jesus Christ, who loved them and delivered Himself up an offering and sacrifice for them; and the Spirit of Grace, who loved them and dwelt within them a power not themselves, making for righteousness, knew the Triune God and could not think or speak of God otherwise than as triune. The doctrine of the Trinity, in other words, is simply the modification wrought in the conception of the one only God by His complete revelation of Himself in the redemptive process. It necessarily waited, therefore, upon the completion of the redemptive process for its revelation, and its revelation, as necessarily, lay complete in the redemptive process. (pp. 32, 33)​
If we presuppose the word of God is truth, without error in all its parts, then it is not remarkable that what it reveals is true, certain — _absolutely_ certain — for we live in His realm of absolute certainties. This is the epistemic heritage of His saints in light.


----------



## sotzo (Sep 25, 2008)

So, to summarize the responses to David's OP to this point it sounds like what we always must return to the presupposition that the character of God is such that he can not lie / deceive. That he sends his Son to _really_ save and that the knowledge that He communicates in that act and in the written Word is sufficient to that end. Such knowledge would include the doctrine of the Trinity, the deity of Christ.

Setting this presupposition aside means that not only can we not be certain on the Trinity, but rather, we are in an epistemic vortex on all things...in other words, if God is not able to effectively communicate to us we can't really know to what degree we are certain of anything. 

I think Brian's point is that all knowledge is "on loan" from God and we, as fallible creatures, can / do err in understanding that knowledge. But, I understand what he means by this to be that absent the presupposition that God is able to communicate Himself to us, being wrong on the Trinity is possible. If the presupposition is held though, it is not possible to be wrong about it, since by any measure such a doctrine is integral to God communicating Himself to us.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Sep 25, 2008)

For an interesting study of how the Jewish Church (ie., pre-Christian Councils) understood the Trinitarian nature of God, see:

The judgment of the Ancient Jewish ... - Google Book Search


----------



## Davidius (Sep 25, 2008)

Thanks to everyone for your responses.


----------



## shackleton (Sep 25, 2008)

The reason we know of a Trinity is because of the salvation of man and how God went about saving him. God is definitely revealed in three different ways as it pertains to salvation. It is espressed most clearly in the first chapter of Ephesians. 

All praise to *God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,* who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly realms because we are united with Christ. 4Even before he made the world, *God loved us and chose us in Christ *to be holy and without fault in his eyes. 5*God decided in advance to adopt us into his own family by bringing us to himself through Jesus Christ.* This is what he wanted to do, and it gave him great pleasure. 6So we praise *God *for the glorious grace he has poured out on us who belong to *his dear Son.*£ 7He is so rich in kindness and grace that he purchased our freedom with th*e blood of his Son* and forgave our sins. 8He has showered his kindness on us, along with all wisdom and understanding.

9*God has now revealed to us his mysterious plan regarding Christ*, a plan to fulfill his own good pleasure. 10And this is the plan: At the right time he will bring everything together under the authority of Christ—everything in heaven and on earth. 11Furthermore, because we are united with Christ, we have received an inheritance from God,£ for he chose us in advance, and he makes everything work out according to his plan. 
12God’s purpose was that we Jews who were the first to trust in Christ would bring praise and glory to God. 13And now you Gentiles have also heard the truth, the Good News that God saves you. And when you believed in Christ, he identified you as his own£ by giving you the Holy Spirit, whom he promised long ago. 14The *Spirit *is God’s guarantee that he will give us the inheritance he promised and that he has purchased us to be his own people. He did this so we would praise and glorify him. 
15Ever since I first heard of your strong faith in the *Lord Jesus and* your love for God’s people everywhere,£ 16I have not stopped thanking *God *for you. I pray for you constantly, 17asking *God, the glorious Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, t*o give you spiritual wisdom£ and insight so that you might grow in your knowledge of God. 18I pray that your hearts will be flooded with light so that you can understand the confident hope he has given to those he called—his holy people who are his rich and glorious inheritance.£
19I also pray that you will understand the incredible greatness of God’s power for us who believe him. This is the same mighty power 20that raised Christ from the dead and seated him in the place of honor at God’s right hand in the heavenly realms. 21Now he is far above any ruler or authority or power or leader or anything else—not only in this world but also in the world to come. 22God has put all things under the authority of Christ and has made him head over all things for the benefit of the church. 23And the church is his body; it is made full and complete by Christ, who fills all things everywhere with himself. (NLT)

Then there is the famous John 1:1, "1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was in the beginning with God. 3All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made." 

There is definitely two things being talked about here, God and the Word. They are separate and equally eternal and God. 

There are many other passages in which there are definitely three mentioned. The bible does speak of three different roles or essences that are God. Take it from one who has been extensively trained as a Oneness Pentecostal, the belief in three did not come easy. Maybe we are wrong in our understanding of how God can be three but one but there are defiantly three separate and distinct essences mentioned as being God, The Father, the Son and the Spirit. 

Eternally generated may be a bad choice of words but that does not take away the fact of three in the New Testament. This is how the debate came up, the fact of three being mentioned. Don't look to councils or to creeds as to how they have explained it, look to the bible and see if you find three different essences or persons each separate and distinct and all proclaimed to be God and worshiped as God. Let scripture be your guide not history.


----------



## CatechumenPatrick (Sep 25, 2008)

Brian Bosse said:


> Hello Gentlemen,
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Brain,
You seem to be switching the meaning of “certainty” around quite casually. From your responses you seem to be using “philosophical certainty,” certainty as a “subjective psychological state,” and “epistemic certainty” with no real consistency, taking for granting that we all know what you mean (and this applies to others in the thread who are using such phrases carelessly), and taking for granted that you are using these phrases according to “common usage.” For example, I don’t see how there can be levels of “certainty.” Of course, there can be levels or degrees of confidence and commitment, and levels of epistemic warrant, but to say some proposition is epistemically certain seems analogous to saying something is perfect. It is a maximal state. Perhaps, then, we can talk about approximating “certainty,” where, say, one proposition is closer to certainty than another. For strong arguments against degrees of certainty, see Peter Unger’s Ignorance, chapter 4 or 5 maybe. 
You say, “I would argue that for someone to have philosophical certainty, they would need to at least be omniscient and infallible. Consequently, I would only put God into the category of beings able to have philosophical certainty.” Now I think you are correct, but with one exception, namely, a case in which such a God communicates his infallible knowledge, and sends his Spirit to illuminate that knowledge in our hearts and minds and make its truth clear. This is not a Kierkegaardian “blind faith,” as opposed to a “philosophical certainty” which is really being justified and having no possibility of being incorrect. No, there is a reason why Calvin referred to his institutes as the “Christian philosophy,” and why he and the other Reformers defined faith as a species of knowledge. It is a revealed knowledge, revealed by an omniscient and infinite God. 
So, yes, we Christians can know that God is triune with certainty. Why? Because God has so revealed his tri-unity, and (I would also say) because it could not be otherwise. There is no possible world in which God does not exist and God is not triune, and the index of all possible worlds is determined by God and his nature. 
Finally, you say, “With that said, I also believe that because of indwelling sin, a deceitful heart, ignorance, pride, and/or willful denials of truth, I hold false beliefs about God. I trust God is sanctifying me in this, but until my body of death is done away with, I will always struggle with this. Yet, this is a far cry from the denial of the faith. Rather, it is simply an acknowledgment of my sinfulness and consequent epistemic inability.” It is true that we all hold false beliefs. Our sin does get in the way of fully understanding, or assenting to, all the truths of Scripture. However, just as I am certain I am a sinner, I am certain that God is my savior and exists in an eternal tri-unity. I (we) cannot be wrong about this, because God has so revealed it and illumined our hearts and minds to understand it. I think your distinctions between different types of certainty, which are themselves separate from faith, and your making certainty unobtainable for the Christian, is just phooey.


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 25, 2008)

Davidius Maximus: Is it even your point to question the Trinity or merely question the authority of the teaching on the Trinity based upon man-made councils? These are 2 issues, not one.


----------



## Davidius (Sep 25, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Davidius Maximus: Is it even your point to question the Trinity or merely question the authority of the teaching on the Trinity based upon man-made councils? These are 2 issues, not one.



Yes, exactly. I was not asking for anyone to prove to me that the Trinitarian doctrine is correct. That I already believe.

The question stems from my own experience of moving from place to place on various doctrines. What if some Christian became convinced at some point that the Trinitarian doctrine were false? At that point, what authority would the councils of the 4th and 5th centuries have over him? This then leads into the issue of man's infallibility, and the question whether it could theoretically be shown that Athanasius was wrong. And if councils can be wrong, how can their statements be used (as we do) as standards based on which we label some as heretics? To do so assumes that that council and its creed was infallible. I guess the other option would be to say to the anti-Trinitarian, "You are a heretic to the best of our knowledge at this point in time." But some here seem to be convinced that there's no way these councils could be overturned, and I'm wondering how we can arrive at that position without being Catholic/Orthodox.


----------



## Christusregnat (Sep 25, 2008)

David et al,

This probably doesn't answer anybody's questions, but there is an excellent book on the value of the Oecumenical Creeds by R.J. Rushdoony called "The Foundations of Social Order: Studies in the Creeds and Councils of the Early Church": 

https://www.alibris.com/search/book...he creeds and councils of the early church. -

The reason I mention this book is that it addresses some of the fundamental concerns raised in this thread. For instance, it should perhaps be recognized that the context of the Nicean Synod was that the vast majority of political power was *against *the Trinitarian position (in this way, very similar to Luther's position at Worms; think of Athanasius' pitiable case). The fact that this small group of ministers was able to win over the world, as alluded to before, shows the power of godliness in this doctrine. Their lives were at stake, their society was following Arius, and at the 11th hour, the power of God's word shook the Roman world.

God has ordained councils since the beginning of time, and Acts 15 furnishes us with a similar case where the orthodox opinion came under attack. After deliberations by the Apostles and Elders, with the tacit consent of the congregation, scriptural argumentation prevailed. This decision of the council, being in harmony with the Holy Ghost, was then binding on all of the churches throughout the world. This was a decision of men, under the guidance of the Holy Ghost. God has ordained councils as a basic judicial function of the church. The early church councils exemplify the power of godliness, the supremacy of scripture, and the life changing, culture reforming power of God's word. Later councils (to which Luther referred) erred by teaching things that 1. were clearly contrary to Scripture, and 2. did not manifest the power of godliness.

Also, if we take Luther's comments about "councils have erred" in context, he was very strong on the early oecumenical councils, and was not asserting scepticism. Rather, he understood that some were very good, and some were very bad. He was not anti-conciliar, but anti-unscriptural-conciliar.

Not sure if these comments would help much, but there they are. I can't recommend _The Foundations of Social Order _too highly.

Cheers,


----------



## Davidius (Sep 25, 2008)

Christusregnat said:


> David et al,
> 
> This probably doesn't answer anybody's questions, but there is an excellent book on the value of the Oecumenical Creeds by R.J. Rushdoony called "The Foundations of Social Order: Studies in the Creeds and Councils of the Early Church":
> 
> ...



You're so humble, Adam! I, for my part, found these comments very helpful. It's particularly inspiring to be reminded of the minority who stood for orthodoxy _contra mundum _.


----------



## TimV (Sep 25, 2008)

The Foundations is one of the most valuable books I've ever read.


----------



## Christusregnat (Sep 25, 2008)

Davidius said:


> You're so humble, Adam! I, for my part, found these comments very helpful. It's particularly inspiring to be reminded of the minority who stood for orthodoxy _contra mundum _.



Thank you David; I'm glad you found them helpful. In our current society, with the close of Christendom, I think it needful to understand where the early Christians stood, since I think we will soon face similar circumstances. We need to be inspired by these men and women of faith, *now more than ever*.

Cheers,


----------



## Davidius (Sep 25, 2008)

Christusregnat said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> > You're so humble, Adam! I, for my part, found these comments very helpful. It's particularly inspiring to be reminded of the minority who stood for orthodoxy _contra mundum _.
> ...



I had never thought about that, but you're absolutely right. In that sense there is even so much more than theology that we can learn from them.


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 25, 2008)

TimV said:


> The Foundations is one of the most valuable books I've ever read.



Cool, Tim, I think I am going to get it based on your recommendation.


----------



## TheFleshProfitethNothing (Sep 26, 2008)

In regards to my prior post about the Work of God (The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost), I don't consider what I posted as MY formulation, Davidius. It is God's as put forth in the Holy Writ. It is obvious from the Gospel of John alone that the God reveals His Triunity to us. As Christ mentions He is never alone, and He speaks only that which the Father gives Him, and does only those things which please the Father, and again, Speaks of ANOTHER Comforter Who will not speak of Himself, but of the Son. We see that the Son glorifies the Father, the Holy Spirit glorifies the Son, and the Father glorifies the Son as well. That isn't my formulation, but God's, set forth by none other than Jesus Christ Himself.

As for the POSSIBLILITY that some denominations might change this "formulation"; certainly...anything is possible when it comes to changing Creeds and Catechisms and Confessions these days. But as a whole, in the Reformed Doctrines, I can't see it happening...without there being a Big Stink arising from it.

I have encountered many types in my life, Unitarians, and others like them, and the idea that the Father and the Son ARE the Holy Ghost, and of course the idea the the Son isn't diety and the such-like...the "formulation" in these, at least in my mind, are error...it is natural man's way of trying to make sense of something that God Himself won't reveal in our mortal brains, for reasons I don't dare to fathom. I see as God has shown and revealed himself..."baptising in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Why not just the Name of the Father and of the Son?

So, I do agree with the idea, that many believe the doctrine of the Trinity is false, and their particular "churches" teach it as such; but, a don't see where the Reformed Churches (Reformed, Presbyterian, Reformed Baptists, etc.) will at anytime soon, declare the doctrine false.

Interesting question though...are you doubting the Doctrine?


----------



## TheFleshProfitethNothing (Sep 26, 2008)

Oops! Sorry I questioned whether you were doubting the Doctrine, I just read another post and see that you are, in fact, NOT...


----------



## FrielWatcher (Sep 27, 2008)

I don't know if it matters now but the question reminded my of a friend of mine. We were talking about theological matters et al. We had recently become friends so we did not know each others views too well. 

When it came to the trinity, she told me that I should not believe in the Trinity because it is a Catholic doctrine; it was made by the Catholic church, the antichrist...

Turns out she is United Pentecostal. There are those out there, modalist in particular, that will say that the Trinity should not be believed because of its origins. But then, if one person didn't discover, another would have. 

So, there is a bit of debt there to the founders of the trinitarian doctrine because it is true and it has been proven in circles outside of the RCC. They found it and defended it enough to ensure is sanctity. 

Good question David.


----------



## JoshBrisby (Oct 3, 2008)

David,

Sorry for jumping in late here...just rejoined the PB yesterday. See my intro if you wish.

I have studied Catholicism and Orthodoxy and debated both. Orthodoxy just pushes the question back to "why accept only seven ecumenical councils?" and "who decides they are binding?". "The church" they say. But there hasn't been an ecumenical council for them in over a millennium. 

Furthermore, some ex-Protestants have gone to Rome thinking that they would find "religious certainty" or "epistemological certainty." But even Rome pushes the question back further. Not all councils are considered binding; consider the Robber Council or the Iconoclast Council which was later overturned. So it's finally up to the Pope at the end of the day, they say. 

But Popes have contradicted each other (as Martin Luther correctly observed). The poor Catholics during the embarassing Avignon papacy didn't know which Pope to follow--there were two, and both were under the excommunications of each other, and all the people were under the excommunication of one or the other!

Furthermore, Rome has changed her views on *doctrines* several times. Consider paedocommunion (which I do not adhere to). She used to practice paedocommunion, but now she does not since the twelfth century. They might reply by saying "ah but the Eastern Catholics do. And it's not a matter of faith and morals." But the cry "it's not a matter of faith and morals" seems to be a hiding place for Rome when she won't admit her several changes. Paedocommunion is not a matter of faith and morals??

But Rome has certainly been consistent on denying the sufficiency of Christ and of His righteousness imputed to us. Rome speaks of the "unanimous consent of the Fathers," when the Fathers disagreed with each other all the time. They pick and choose from the Fathers. So to me, all this talk of "the Fathers" doesn't work because numerous times the Fathers were not in accord with Scripture. 

Don't let anyone rob you of the simplicity that is found in Jesus Christ alone and of *resting* in His works alone.


----------



## JoshBrisby (Oct 3, 2008)

Also something else to consider for a Romanist: how do they know they are interpreting the *Popes* correctly? Or the Catechism of the Catholic Church correctly? So when they accuse us Protestants by saying "how do you know you're interpreting Scripture correctly b/c all heretics use Scripture" we could ask them the same thing about "how do you know you are interpreting the Popes correctly because Popes and councils have indeed contradicted each other?".


----------



## yeutter (Oct 15, 2008)

Recently a debate on the question of wheather relations of authority exist eternally among the Persons of the Godhead occurred at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School with Wayne Grudem and Bruce Ware taking the affirmative position. Tom McCall and Keith Yandell [men whose works I am not familiar with] took the negative side of the debate.
I bring this up because:
1. I hope someone can point me to an online transcript of this debate.
2. I am concerned that heretics now redefine the doctrine of the Trinity rather then denying this precious truth. [I am not here saying Grudem and Ware do this.] Many well known Pentecostal Preachers say things that can not be squared with the historic doctrine of the Trinity and no one seems to be holding their feet to the fire.


----------



## py3ak (Oct 15, 2008)

Doctrinal indifferentism sadly seems to be a widespread characteristic of the church in our days. In that point, at least, it seems that we must resign our superiority over the "Dark Ages".


----------



## CharlieJ (Oct 15, 2008)

Davidius, 

I can think of three reasons for our epistemic certainty of the Trinity, though I am not sure if they will satisfy you on the philosophical level that you asked the question. BTW, I think it is a very good question.

1. The early ones were, in fact, ecumenical councils. Later councils did not have the wisdom of the whole church at their disposal due to splits. Trent, especially, could be written off if you accept the Reformation idea that Catholicism ceased to be a true church. 

2. Second, the perspicuity of Scripture, as developed by Luther and Calvin, does not refer to every doctrine of Scripture (as Dispensationalists might have it). It refers to those most necessary to salvation. Therefore, the fact that Christians today may disagree about baptism, polity, etc. does not affect the perspicuity of Scripture on an issue like the Trinity.

3. Modern day deviations from the Trinity are due to a willful neglect of the teaching of church history. The willingness of modern day Jehovah's Witnesses or even oneness Pentecostals to deviate from the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity is due to their holding the theology of the church in such low regard. They are actually sinning by refusing to pay any attention to the teachers of the past, which were given for their edification. .


----------



## David FCC (Oct 16, 2008)

If there was no God there would be nothing, we would not exist & would not be having this discussion, There is a God though, we are here & we are having this discussion. There must be a God in that case.

If there was no Christ then there would be no salvation, we would be dead to trespasses and sin but as we know There is a Christ who is risen indeed. 
So we have God who Gave us Jesus Christ
"God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

The question is how do we know we have a knowledge of salvation through Christ & a living relationship with God the father?

Could we know these things & have the gifts that are so freely given to the Christian without the revelation of all things through the Spirit?

To me there can be no false doctrine in the Trinity as all other things would not be as they are.................. Would they?.


In a poem I wrote shortly after I was born again i penned these three verses which summed up the trinity to me at that time.


*In God I have a father
Who teaches right from wrong
Come and find him while He’s near
Your chance may not last long.

Jesus hung upon a cross
For us his blood was shed
That we may have eternal life
And not be living dead.

The spirit lives within me now
And helps me face the world
Strain of sin wiped from my brow
The flag of Christ Unfurled.*​
Let us always give thanks to The Father, Son and Holy Ghost one God


----------



## panta dokimazete (Oct 16, 2008)

_edited to add (just noticed this is kinda an old thread - sorry )_

going out on a limb here and willing to be corrected 

epistemologically - for a Christian, doesn't theology trump philosophy?

If that is so, then we may consistently make absolute statements, right?

so, based on that epistemology - the doctrine and concept of God in 3 persons (the Trinity) is absolutely true with no probability of falseness.

Just my


----------



## Davidius (Oct 16, 2008)

CharlieJ said:


> Davidius,
> 
> I can think of three reasons for our epistemic certainty of the Trinity, though I am not sure if they will satisfy you on the philosophical level that you asked the question. BTW, I think it is a very good question.
> 
> ...



Hey Charlie,

It's not (at least I don't think it is) asking for "philosophical certainty" to ask for reasoning that doesn't assume what it's meant to prove. Perspicuity of Scripture begs the question because there is no starting list of "most necessary" doctrines. The talk about ecumenical councils begs the question because we aren't assured that the councils' interpretations of scripture are correct. Furthermore, there are 7 ecumenical councils recognized by both the RCC and EOC, but Protestants don't accept most of them as authoritative, so apparently having everyone there isn't actually a criterion we use. #3 only counts if it is already assumed that Church History has something definitely correct to offer. Modern day heretics would deny that that is the case.


----------



## MW (Oct 16, 2008)

Davidius said:


> It's not (at least I don't think it is) asking for "philosophical certainty" to ask for reasoning that doesn't assume what it's meant to prove. Perspicuity of Scripture begs the question because there is no starting list of "most necessary" doctrines. The talk about ecumenical councils begs the question because we aren't assured that the councils' interpretations of scripture are correct. Furthermore, there are 7 ecumenical councils recognized by both the RCC and EOC, but Protestants don't accept most of them as authoritative, so apparently having everyone there isn't actually a criterion we use. #3 only counts if it is already assumed that Church History has something definitely correct to offer. Modern day heretics would deny that that is the case.



This thread keeps playing on the conundrum that interpretation of the Bible is a fallible process; but fallibility does not remove certainty because the Holy Spirit is promised to guide true believers into the truth. The truth exists and is the possession of true believers. If we do not start from that position then we are miserable indeed.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 16, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> > It's not (at least I don't think it is) asking for "philosophical certainty" to ask for reasoning that doesn't assume what it's meant to prove. Perspicuity of Scripture begs the question because there is no starting list of "most necessary" doctrines. The talk about ecumenical councils begs the question because we aren't assured that the councils' interpretations of scripture are correct. Furthermore, there are 7 ecumenical councils recognized by both the RCC and EOC, but Protestants don't accept most of them as authoritative, so apparently having everyone there isn't actually a criterion we use. #3 only counts if it is already assumed that Church History has something definitely correct to offer. Modern day heretics would deny that that is the case.
> ...



 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 31, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> VirginiaHuguenot said:
> 
> 
> > BTW, Master Poole Publishing hopes to soon publish an essay relevant to this topic on the subject of "Postmodern Skepticism, Relativism, and Religious Toleration in the Light of the Westminster Standards and the Thought of George Gillespie." Lord willing, it will appear soon.
> ...



Our book should be published this week, dv. I'll post the official announcement soon hopefully.


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 31, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> > It's not (at least I don't think it is) asking for "philosophical certainty" to ask for reasoning that doesn't assume what it's meant to prove. Perspicuity of Scripture begs the question because there is no starting list of "most necessary" doctrines. The talk about ecumenical councils begs the question because we aren't assured that the councils' interpretations of scripture are correct. Furthermore, there are 7 ecumenical councils recognized by both the RCC and EOC, but Protestants don't accept most of them as authoritative, so apparently having everyone there isn't actually a criterion we use. #3 only counts if it is already assumed that Church History has something definitely correct to offer. Modern day heretics would deny that that is the case.
> ...



So why is it that we throw out Chiliasm and baptismal regeneration that emerged early and seemed to be the majority view of all of these beleivers, guided by the Holy Spirit?

You would agree that councils have errred, right?

We are not miserable because we have the Word of God; not because most (but not all) the councils have gone the way in which we have desired.


----------



## DTK (Dec 31, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> This thread keeps playing on the conundrum that interpretation of the Bible is a fallible process; but fallibility does not remove certainty because the Holy Spirit is promised to guide true believers into the truth. The truth exists and is the possession of true believers. If we do not start from that position then we are miserable indeed.



Indeed, it is recycling that conundrum over and over again. We need not understand Scripture exhaustively nor infallibly in order to understand it sufficiently. Though the elect are not by any means gifted with the attribute of infallibility, collectively or individually, nonetheless God himself has declared that they will not ultimately be overcome by deception of the most intense nature (Matt. 24:22–24; Mk. 13:20–22). This preservation from error is rooted in what God is able to accomplish and effect. Christ himself has declared that his sheep recognize the voice of their shepherd, follow him in obedience, shall never perish, and are so firmly held in his hand that no one can snatch them away (Jn. 10:27–29). *William Whitaker (1547-1595)* pointed out centuries ago...



> For there is nothing in Scripture so plain that some men have not doubted it; as, that God is Almighty, that he created heaven and earth, that Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, conceived of the Holy Ghost, and so forth: these are indeed plainly and openly set down in Scripture, and yet there are controversies about them. Things therefore are not presently obscure, concerning which there are many controversies; because these so manifold disputes arise rather from the perversity and curiosity of the human mind, than from any real obscurity. The apostle says that the minds of infidels are blinded by the devil, lest they should see that brilliant light and acquiesce in it: which is most true of our adversaries. William Whitaker, _A Disputation on Holy Scripture Against the Papists, Especially Bellarmine and Stapleton_, trans. and ed. William Fitzgerald (Cambridge: University Press, reprinted 1849), pp. 388-389.



I think Pastor Winzer has patiently brought light time and time again to this matter, even after being thanked and acknowledged, only to find himself in need of saying the same thing again (perhaps a little differently). One need not be seduced into thinking that any man or group of men must be infallible in order for God to do His work infallibly in us in bringing us to an orthodox understanding of Himself as triune. And yes, God can and does work infallibly through human aids in bringing us to a true understanding of Himself. We can but sing with the Pslamist, _This was the LORD's doing; It is marvelous in our eyes. _

Some folk enjoy test-riding the roller-coaster of doubt, but it holds no thrills for me. 

DTK


----------



## Davidius (Dec 31, 2008)

David, 

The point some have been making is that the explanation begs the question. I don't see how the claim that the Holy Spirit guides true believers into the truth proves anything. It simply leaves the matter open to assertion. Clark and Robbins specifically pointed this out when critiquing Lewis' "Mere Christianity." In order to know the true believers, you have to know whether Consubstantialism or Subordinationism is true. To know which is right, you have to know which group the Holy Spirit led. It's a giant circle. If it makes plain sense to some, I wish it made as much plain sense to me, but that doesn't mean I'm being purposefully ignorant or maliciously contrary.


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 31, 2008)

If the Holy Spirit leads true believers into truth, why are so many still deluded into believing Paedo-ism (or credo-ism, or amil, or postmil,premil...etc). These ARE still true believers right, despite persistent and long-held doctrinal divsions throughout the centuries. Which group is being led into truth? 

Yes, it is a circular argument.

Davidius is no way advocating Anti-Trinitarianism from what I can tell. He is merely pointing out this circular reasoning.

Also, the Catholic Church for centuries was "Christendom united" and I am sure that Papists could muster this same sort of begging the question to cast doubt upon the Reformation by stating that No Scripture is of private interpretation and that the Church is the interpretor of Scripture.


----------



## Stomata leontôn (Dec 31, 2008)

The Trinity is in the Bible: 

(1) Both the Old and New Testaments say there is "one God." 
(2) Both the Old and New Testaments talk about "God the Father" and "God the Son" and "the Spirit of God."

So, if there is one God, and there are three separate Persons who are that one God, what do you have?

All the creeds do is spell it out to leave no doubt.

The councils did not establish the Trinity, they just formulated a technique whereby wolves who preyed on the church could be identified. The councils were necessary and they did a first-rate job fighting these wolves in regard to the Trinity. The wolves always created teachings that if taken seriously, would make salvation possible. One of their favorite games is to change what God people believe in. If people do not believe in the God as told in the Bible, then they believe in something else and are not saved.


----------



## Davidius (Dec 31, 2008)

Peter H said:


> The Trinity is in the Bible:
> 
> Both the Old and New Testaments say there is "one God."
> Both the Old and New Testaments talk about "God the Father" and "God the Son" and "the Spirit of God."
> ...




Perhaps, but I could make a similar argument (i.e. assertion of a doctrine's "perspicuity") about a host of other issues.


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 31, 2008)

Peter H:

Your missing the point.

The council of Trent also spells out a lot of things.

If I am correct, Davidius is asking why we consider these councils as authoritative. He asks, "If someone rejects the Trinity, what use it it to point them back to the ecumencial councils which spell out the doctrine of the Trinity as proof?"

We accept the first Nicean council but do not accept the second Nicean Council (which regulated the veneration of images).


We do not bow to them all but have picked the ones we believe to be true. And then, if someone doubts the Trinity, we point them to these councils as authoritative when we ourselves reject most of them and state that the Holy Spirit leads believers into all truth. As Davidius points out, this is extremely circular.


----------



## DTK (Dec 31, 2008)

> David...



If you are addressing me, I would prefer that you do not address me by my first name. My signature "DTK" will be fine (since that is what I use here), or Pastor King, but not "David."

Thanks,
DTK


----------



## Davidius (Dec 31, 2008)




----------



## Pergamum (Dec 31, 2008)

Peter H said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> > Peter H said:
> ...



Peter:

Please actually read and understand Davidius's argument before you go witch-hunting for Anti-Trinitarian heretics.

Of course, Davidius believes in the Trinity. But from where does this assurance come? Scripture or the councils? Is it possible that councils can be wrong? Of course.

The Protestant did not "receive the faith" from the Catholics, they went back to Scripture and do not accept the majority of the ecumencial councils. Did they believe it was "all up to them?"


----------



## PresbyDane (Dec 31, 2008)

NO!


----------



## Christusregnat (Dec 31, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Peter:
> 
> Please actually read and understand Davidius's argument before you go witch-hunting for Anti-Trinitarian heretics.
> 
> ...



This, in some instances, was true; in others, not so true. The 39 Articles, for instance, recognize the validity of certain creeds/councils within their articles of faith. Thus, accepting the validity of conciliar faith.

I think the argument that may have been more readily accepted was that later councils were not actually edumenical, but were divisive or done by factions, thus limiting the number and nature to certain councils.

There is also a divide between how Luthers, Reformed and Anabaptists would have viewed councils; which were acceptable, how they were viewed, etc. Thus there is no "Protestant" view of the councils.

It may also be noted that this is why the major protestant bodies issued confessions of faith: to demonstrate that they accepted certain conciliar teachings, while rejecting later corruptions or heretical councils.

But, to the actual question, I believe there may be a dichotomy made that is unwarranted: choose you this day whom you will serve: councils or scripture. The Bible teaches and is (among many other glorious things) a system of doctrine. When a council, creed, or confession agrees with Scripture, such a question is nonsensical. "Do you base your faith on Scripture?" "Yes." "Do you base your faith on the Creed?" "Yes." Lawful councils start with the premise that "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us." 

I'm sure I'm just muddying the waters, but I'm doing that solely for Pergs' sake 

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## Stomata leontôn (Dec 31, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Peter H:
> 
> Your missing the point.
> 
> ...


I think, then, that the _question _ needs more work. I think the answers in this thread are unsatisfying because the question is uncertain about where it is going.

Uncertain questions are how the *best questions* start, so the end may be great.

Since I doubt that this question is just pedantic as it may appear on the surface, there is probably another question happily swimming under the surface.

I say this because I have trouble with questions all the time. Often questions are harder for me than the answers.

So when this happens, I have to stop and ask myself what am I really asking. This takes intellectual work. But either I find out that I was just looking at something wrong and really had no question at all, or I find I have asked a really good question. Often, just by coming up with a better question, the answer itself is clear.

(By the way, note that I deleted an earlier comment of mine.)

In other words, I doubt I understood the question correctly.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 31, 2008)

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > VirginiaHuguenot said:
> ...



Our book was released earlier today. It is available at Master Poole Publishing's page on Lulu:

Postmodern Skepticism, Relativism, and Religious Toleration in the Light of the Westminster Standards and the Thought of George Gillespie by Steven Dilday (Book) in Christianity


----------



## Christusregnat (Jan 1, 2009)

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> VirginiaHuguenot said:
> 
> 
> > armourbearer said:
> ...



Looks very interesting!


----------

