Is it possible that the Trinity is a false doctrine?
- Thread starter Davidius
- Start date
- Status
CharlieJ
Puritan Board Junior
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. .
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
Puritan Board Freshman
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.
Let us always give thanks to The Father, Son and Holy Ghost one God
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.
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
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
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
)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
Inactive User
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.
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.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
Our book should be published this week, dv. I'll post the official announcement soon hopefully.
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.
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...
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
Inactive User
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.
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.
Last edited:
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.
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
Puritan Board Sophomore
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.
(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
Inactive User
Perhaps, but I could make a similar argument (i.e. assertion of a doctrine's "perspicuity") about a host of other issues.
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.
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.
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
Puritanboard Doctor
NO!
Christusregnat
Puritan Board Professor
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
Puritan Board Sophomore
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.
Last edited:
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
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
Puritan Board Professor
Looks very interesting!
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
