Doctrine of the Trinity – Is it Fundamental to the Christian Faith

[Runner]

Again, Ireneaus, a Greek disciple of Polycarp (a disciple of John, a Jew) knew exactly what John meant by "the Word". Same thing as the Trinity means:

I admire your enthusiasm, but it appears to me that you are simply flailing at anything and everything that you regard as a challenge to your beliefs. I don't believe there is anything in my posts that should be regarded as a challenge to your beliefs. As I have said repeatedly, I accept the Trinity.

Irenaeus' theology is described in the scholarly book I cited above as "proto-Trinitarian." Based largely on OT passages, he identified God's "word" as the Son and God's "wisdom" as the Spirit. He referred to these as the "two hands" of God through which God acts. He did not (and perhaps did not feel any need to) define precisely the internal nature of God - i.e., precisely how the two hands relate to the monotheistic God. This is why his theology is described as proto-Trinitarian rather than Trinitarian. The author of the scholarly book I cited regards Irenaeus' proto-Trinitarianism as more consistent with modern formulations of the Trinity (which he regards as flawed) than with classical Trinitarianism as formulated in the fourth century.

What is the point of your response? Yes, the portion of Irenaeus' Book V that you quote is fully consistent with a Trinitarian understanding. It says nothing specifically about a Trinity and really does no more than restate the Gospel of John. I have stated repeatedly that, yes, John is clearly referring to Jesus as the preexistent Word - so what is the point you are making by quoting Irenaeus as though you were refuting something I had stated?

The fact is, the doctrine of the Trinity had not been formulated when John wrote his gospel. Polycarp apparently did not hear any clear expression of a Trinity from John or communicate any clear notion of a Trinity to Irenaeus. Irenaeus had a roughly Trinitarian understanding, but this was not the focus of his writings. The Trinity was a doctrine that evolved in fits and starts until the fourth century (and even thereafter). All of which is well and good - most of us are now Trinitarians, even though theologians still disagree as to exactly what this entails. Why is there this seeming need to "prove" that the Trinity dates back to some time before it actually did and that it was clearly understood by the early Christians when it definitely wasn't?

You seem to be under the impression that I am suggesting that John meant something other than Jesus, the preexistent Son, by his reference to the Word. I would suggest that you read my posts more carefully if you are going to respond to them.

 

[chessman]

You seem to be under the impression that I am suggesting that John meant something other than Jesus, the preexistent Son, by his reference to the Word.

When you said;

"when you understand what this concept meant to the Greeks and Jews it does not necessarily follow that by "was God" John meant "was the Second Person of a Trinity." This was read back into it after the doctrine of the Trinity was formulated"​

did you mean "the word" was understood as a "concept" or as the pre-existent Son? Because in no way shape or form does Irenaeus think of "the word" as a concept.

I would suggest that you read my posts more carefully if you are going to respond to them.

I read your post carefully the first time.

I don't believe there is anything in my posts that should be regarded as a challenge to your beliefs.

I don't believe the Word was ever a "concept" nor do I believe Ireneaus or John spoke of "the Word" as a concept. That was my point and why I quoted that portion of your post.

He did not (and perhaps did not feel any need to) define precisely the internal nature of God - i.e., precisely how the two hands relate to the monotheistic God.

He describes the fact the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, all three distinctly, had a hand in the creation of Adam. Even calling their creation "God's handiwork". If that's not Trinitarian, way prior to the 4th Century, I don't know what would qualify.

what is the point you are making by quoting Irenaeus as though you were refuting something I had stated?

Ireneaus did not speak of the Word, the Son or the Holy Spirit as "concepts" of God. He spoke of them as distinct 'persons" without using the word 'person'.

The Trinity was a doctrine that evolved in fits and starts until the fourth century (and even thereafter).

I don't believe that for a minute. It startes with the Gospels, Paul and the apostolic Fathers.