Is it possible that the Trinity is a false doctrine?

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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

Brian,

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

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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. 5God 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 the blood of his Son and forgave our sins. 8He has showered his kindness on us, along with all wisdom and understanding.

9God 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, to 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.
 
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.



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


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.
 
Last edited:
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 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.
 
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,
 
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,

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 .
 
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,
 
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,

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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?".
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top