Why do members of non-Apostolic churches believe in the Trinity?

[LanaPodesta]

The Trinity is an extra-Biblical concept that predates the Bible.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

That depends on your understanding of the Trinity. If you go by the traditional definition - "God manifested in three co-equal, co-eternal persons", I only have some doubt on the "co-equal" part since Jesus the son is always subservient to God the Father. Don't get me wrong, the trinity doctrine is absolutely biblical, the difference is that unlike other trinitarian Christians, I don't weaponize it against other people who don't agree with me, or worship it as an idol, I simply see the trinity as a necessary mechanism for us, on earth, to connect and communicate with God who's in heaven. I don't wanna go into another long dragged out debate on this.

 

[Free]

“Why do members of non-Apostolic churches believe in the Trinity?”

Because it’s biblical. Why do members of “Apostolic churches” believe in the Trinity?

The Trinity is an extra-Biblical concept that predates the Bible.

What does this have to do with the title of the thread? What are your sources to backup your claim? Would it actually matter if it was? Would it matter only to members of “non-Apostolic churches” or “Apostolic churches,” or both, and how so?

 

[LanaPodesta]

That depends on your understanding of the Trinity. If you go by the traditional definition - "God manifested in three co-equal, co-eternal persons", I only have some doubt on the "co-equal" part since Jesus the son is always subservient to God the Father. Don't get me wrong, the trinity doctrine is absolutely biblical, the difference is that unlike other trinitarian Christians, I don't weaponize it against other people who don't agree with me, or worship it as an idol, I simply see the trinity as a necessary mechanism for us, on earth, to connect and communicate with God who's in heaven. I don't wanna go into another long dragged out debate on this.

Where does it say "God manifested in three co-equal, co-eternal persons" in the Bible

 

[LanaPodesta]

“Why do members of non-Apostolic churches believe in the Trinity?”

Because it’s biblical. Why do members of “Apostolic churches” believe in the Trinity?


What does this have to do with the title of the thread? What are your sources to backup your claim? Would it actually matter if it was? Would it matter only to members of “non-Apostolic churches” or “Apostolic churches,” or both, and how so?

Where is the doctrine in the Bible

 

[Free]

Where is the doctrine in the Bible

I asked my questions first.

 

[LanaPodesta]

I asked my questions first.

The burden of proof is on whomever claims the doctrine of the Trinity is in the Bible

 

[Free]

The burden of proof is on whomever claims the doctrine of the Trinity is in the Bible

That has nothing to do with it. I asked you specific questions regarding the title of this thread and your OP. If you don’t want to answer my questions that’s fine, but understand that this thread will then be closed for trolling.

 

[JLB]

Where does it say "God manifested in three co-equal, co-eternal persons" in the Bible

Hey Lana, great topic.

I hope we can discuss it from the scriptures.

Me personally, I don’t use the term “Trinity” because it’s not a scriptural word and means different things to different people.

I use the word Godhead.

Sometimes I use the word Elohim, which is the Hebrew Transliteration of the word God. Elohim is a plural word.

Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness;… Genesis 1:26


For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily;
Colossians 2:9

From your study of scripture, Who is included in the fullness of the Godhead?




JLB

 

[jonathanbrickman0000]

Why do members of non-Apostolic churches believe in the Trinity?

The Trinity is an extra-Biblical concept that predates the Bible.

It is true that there was something like a trinity in late Roman Mithraism. And I do not ever prefer to describe God using words absent from those we have that God has Personally said. But some of the meanings that people have for that word "trinity" are not in violation of that which God has Personally said of Himself, and bearing this, I fellowship with many who consider themselves apostolic and the like.

 

[LanaPodesta]

Me personally, I don’t use the term “Trinity” because it’s not a scriptural word and means different things to different people.

Right. This is where Sola Scriptura gets you.

Rejecting the term Trinity because it isn't in scripture.

 

[LanaPodesta]

“Why do members of non-Apostolic churches believe in the Trinity?”

Because it’s biblical. Why do members of “Apostolic churches” believe in the Trinity?


What does this have to do with the title of the thread? What are your sources to backup your claim? Would it actually matter if it was? Would it matter only to members of “non-Apostolic churches” or “Apostolic churches,” or both, and how so?

It's not Biblical.

Because the Church teaches the doctrine, and did so before the Bible.

Because the Trinity is Church Doctrine, and those outside of the Church reject the Church, why would they follow said doctrine?

 

[D-D-W]

Actually the Trinity was hinted at by Moses. It was also hinted at by David in the Psalms and by Daniel in his visions.

 

[JLB]

Right. This is where Sola Scriptura gets you.

Rejecting the term Trinity because it isn't in scripture.

Godhead refers to the Father, Son (Word) and Holy Spirit.

For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.
1 John 5:7

 

[Free]

It's not Biblical.

It is biblical and we can discuss that, but first I need clarification as you keep making vague statements.

Because the Church teaches the doctrine, and did so before the Bible.

What do you mean by “the Church”? Catholicism? What do you mean by the Church teaching the doctrine of the Trinity “before the Bible”?

Because the Trinity is Church Doctrine, and those outside of the Church reject the Church, why would they follow said doctrine?

If by “the Church” you mean the Catholic Church, then the fact that the Reformers kept the doctrine of the Trinity shows that they also thought it was biblical. That supports it actually being biblical.

The Reformers wanted to reform the Catholic Church, not completely reject everything, because they did have some things right.

 

[LanaPodesta]

It is biblical and we can discuss that, but first I need clarification as you keep making vague statements.


What do you mean by “the Church”? Catholicism? What do you mean by the Church teaching the doctrine of the Trinity “before the Bible”?


If by “the Church” you mean the Catholic Church, then the fact that the Reformers kept the doctrine of the Trinity shows that they also thought it was biblical. That supports it actually being biblical.

The Reformers wanted to reform the Catholic Church, not completely reject everything, because they did have some things right.

For the sake of argument, the Orthodox and Catholic Church.

The doctrine of the Trinity predates the Bible.

"they thought it was Biblical"

Thought being the operative word. You can think whatever you like when it's your personal interpretation.

 

[Free]

For the sake of argument, the Orthodox and Catholic Church.

The doctrine of the Trinity predates the Bible.

Again, what do you mean by the Church teaching the doctrine of the Trinity “before the Bible”?

"they thought it was Biblical"

Thought being the operative word.

Could it be because it actually is biblical?

You can think whatever you like when it's your personal interpretation.

I agree, which is all the more important for you since you're going against nearly 2,000 years of Christian belief.

 

[LanaPodesta]

Again, what do you mean by the Church teaching the doctrine of the Trinity “before the Bible”?

Is that not self explanatory? Before the Bible...the Church taught the doctrine of the Mystery of the Trinity

Could it be because it actually is biblical?

Moot point if you consider anything to be Biblical that which you have personally interpreted

I agree, which is all the more important for you since you're going against nearly 2,000 years of Christian belief.

How so?

 

[Free]

Is that not self explanatory? Before the Bible...the Church taught the doctrine of the Mystery of the Trinity

No, it isn't self-explanatory. What do you mean by "before the Bible"? What do you even mean by "the Bible"?

Moot point if you consider anything to be Biblical that which you have personally interpreted

You're assuming that what you believe is biblical. At least I have nearly 2,000 years of Christian belief behind what I believe, despite coming to my own conclusions about the doctrine of the Trinity.

How so?

If you're going to reject nearly 2,000 years of Christian belief about the Trinity, then how much more are you thinking "whatever you like" based on "your personal interpretation."

 

[LanaPodesta]

No, it isn't self-explanatory. What do you mean by "before the Bible"? What do you even mean by "the Bible"

The time before the Bible was canonised? Why are you being reductive. We all know what the Bible is.

You're assuming that what you believe is biblical

No, what I believe comes from the Church.

If you're going to reject nearly 2,000 years of Christian belief about the Trinity

What am I rejecting?