The Trinity

[Tri Unity]

You wrote: "Those 2nd and 3rd century Fathers were particularly blessed with gifts of teaching. They were approved by the apostles for this end."

How could those 2nd and 3rd century Fathers have been approved "by the apostles" as the apostles had been deceased for 1 to 2 centuries? The gifts of Eph.4:10-13 were of a miraculous nature and did not extend beyond the NT.

Polycarp, Ignatius and Clement all lived into the 2nd century, and they were appointed and taught by the apostles. These ones carried on the same mandate and appointed others in their place. Irenaeus, Theophilus, Tertullian, etc, were 2nd century fathers living into the 3rd century. The lineage from the apostles was over two or three generations. Ignatius was said to have been the child on Jesus' knee in the gospels. The Ephesian gifts did not last only through the first century. Show me where in scripture does it say that. Some of the miracles lasted well into later centuries. For instance; the christians in the late 2nd century prayed for emperor Marcus Aurelius, and God answered them by bringing down lightning and hail onto the enemy. Theophilus the Indian prayed for the wife of emperor Contantius, and she was healed. He also brought someone back from the dead. Gregory Thaumaturgus was said to bring people back from the dead and reversed the flow of a river.

This is why reading the history of the church is so important; it places the work of God into a continuum and allows us to understand so many other things. It also teaches us about the progress of teachings, and where errors became noticeable. Again, the Jesus Wars, which began in the 4th century, earmarked a period of time when the church lost God's favor. Without learning about the church before and after this time you are blind to God's activity among christians over time, or how to interpret it.

 

[Butch5]

Hi Butch5

As said previously, I do look with respect upon the church fathers as well I do with any student of the word. But, none of the above are inspired, and therefore subject to error in their interpretation and remembrance of which none of the apostles were.

Apparently we agree that salvation is not by faith only. For Luther to have had to understand that it was not by faith only he would not have had to access the Ante-Nicene writings to learn that but only the scripture. Actually, I find that most of the cardinal errors of churches have already been identified in the scripture long before those errors were espoused, sprinkling and pouring for baptism for example.

I continue to assure you that I do occasionally read and profit the writings of the above, but the scriptures are without peer, Jn.5:39.

God bless

Hi Webb,

Agreed. My point about Luther wasn't in reference to the Ante-Nicene writers, but rather to what many times is a lack of consideration for context, which I think you agree.

 

[Webb]

I previously said in effect that God looked down the corridors of time and saw the many doctrines of error which would arise and placed in the scriptures the contradiction of those errors even before they arose in history. Yours is one such. A simple search or study of the word of God clearly reveals:

1. The apostles of Christ were baptized with the Holy Spirit.
2. This enabled them not only to teach without


error but also to perform
miracles.
3. Those apostles, in turn, could lay hands on others and they too could per-
form miracles.
4. However,those who received the laying on of hands from an apostle could
not, in return, lay hands on others that they might have those gifts.
5. Thus, when the last apostle died, and the last disciple who had received
the laying on of an apostle's hand died, such gifts ceased. By then the
NT had been completed and such gifts of the miraculous nature were
no longer needed.

If your position be true it should be easy for you to show where and how according to the NT those miraculous gifts were to continue. I apologize for the misarrangement of lines in the above. I hit the wrong key and don't have time to correct it.

God bless

 

[Tri Unity]

If your position be true it should be easy for you to show where and how according to the NT those miraculous gifts were to continue. I apologize for the misarrangement of lines in the above. I hit the wrong key and don't have time to correct it. God bless

Hi Webb, I think the burden of proof is on you to show that the gifts were resticted to the first century. As I have already mentioned, the early fathers did not understand that the gifts had disappeared with the Apostles. God continued to do miracles beyond the first century. You have two problems to solve...

• Where do the scripture say that the gifts were restricted to the first century?

• Why did miracles continue past the first century that were recognised by all Christians to be brought from God.

You also have gifts of "evangelists" and "pastors" mentioned in Ephesians. Do you really think there have been no pastors or evangelists since the apostles died? To cancel out the gift of teaching you must also cancel out the gift of pastor and evangelist. Why were there instructions to appoint pastors in Titus and Timothy if the gifts were not intended to continue?

 

[heymikey80]

Does anyone really get The Trinity? Whenever I ask people, I get John 1:1 quotes and a bunch of sort of disconnected thoughts.

And yeah I've heard all the stuff like I am my father's son, my daughter's father,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Well, the doctrine of Trinity is not a complete description of God's nature, it's simply an observation about God's nature and personhood.

God's personhood is three. This is demonstrated by showing the three Persons -- Father, Son, Spirit -- as three different Persons in Scripture.

God's nature is one. This is demonstrated by showing the unity or oneness of God in Scripture.

Going further than this would be speculative.
Trying to deny one on the basis of speculating from the other would offend the truth stated in Scripture.

The point behind all this is that neither the three Persons of God nor the one substance of God are denied. Any speculation that God must be one Person because He's One, is not valid. Any speculation that God must not be one God because He's three persons, is not valid.

The most obvious extension of this idea is that personhood is not the definition of substance. If we think just one person is enough to contain the one substance of God, then we're wrong. He's bigger than we comprehend, and more than we expect.

 

[Tri Unity]

The point behind all this is that neither the three Persons of God nor the one substance of God are denied.

It is interesting that you use the word "substance"; a non-biblical term. It sort of brings us around full circle to the consubstantial debate. Consubstantial means “of the same substance”. This comes from the Greek word, Homoousian, which was first used by Tertullian. This view was later contrasted to the Greek word Homoiousian, which means “of like substance.” Both terms agree to the definition of “substance”; although one says that Jesus is “the same substance” as the father, while the other says that Jesus is “of like substance” to the father.

What is intriguing to me is that Tertullian’s usage of the Greek term combines a little of both definitions – both like and same. God might have laughed at this until we started to kill each other for disagreeing with our definitions; since Jesus came to bring the sword.

 

[heymikey80]

It is interesting that you use the word "substance"; a non-biblical term. It sort of brings us around full circle to the consubstantial debate. Consubstantial means “of the same substance”. This comes from the Greek word, Homoousian, which was first used by Tertullian. This view was later contrasted to the Greek word Homoiousian, which means “of like substance.” Both terms agree to the definition of “substance”; although one says that Jesus is “the same substance” as the father, while the other says that Jesus is “of like substance” to the father.

What is intriguing to me is that Tertullian’s usage of the Greek term combines a little of both definitions – both like and same. God might have laughed at this until we started to kill each other for disagreeing with our definitions; since Jesus came to bring the sword.

I realize this is going to eventually sound like a repeat of the same thing, because Trinitarianism is nothing more than a fixed point at the Personhood of God, and a fixed point at the oneness of God. That's the point of the Trinity; describing more would be to try to get past these two fixed points, both established in Scripture.

Granted that "substance" is not a Biblical term, it's an attempt to say what God says about Himself, "Hear oh Israel: the Lord our God, the LORD is One." Clearly this doesn't mean God is one Person. So a word is pulled from Greek philosophy to represent God's substantial reality or existence -- and to assert that God exists as uniquely One, as God has said about Himself.

For the record, prior councils actually anathematized the homoousios term ... when used by monphysites. But that bounced into nestorianism so by the next century the issue came back to a head.

The issue of homoiousios is a basic issue of blurring monotheism: polytheists would agree that the gods are homoiousios -- "of like nature". The Greek gods were all born from the same Mother and Father, and thus had the same nature or essence of being gods. In the same way, the entirety of humanity is "of like nature", and there're billions of humans. However, it's pretty clear from God's words in Scripture -- "I am God -- there is no other". The God of the universe is unique in instance -- that is, there's only One of God -- and thus God is substantially One.

The monophysites couldn't handle the three Persons described as God in Scripture; the nestorians couldn't handle the one instance of God in monotheism.

 

[Tri Unity]

For the record, prior councils actually anathematized the homoousios term ... when used by monphysites. But that bounced into nestorianism so by the next century the issue came back to a head..

I think you have your centuries mixed up and back to front. The term homoousios was rejected at the second Creed of Sirmium in 357. That was after the Nicene Council; not "prior". The Monophysites were primarily in the 5th century; a century later.

The monophysites couldn't handle the three Persons described as God in Scripture; the nestorians couldn't handle the one instance of God in monotheism.

The Monophysites were not arguing about the three persons in the Godhead; they were arguing about the nature of Christ's divinity; whether or not Christ had one nature (divine) or two natures (divine and human). Read through the above links I posted for a full explanation of these terms. The debates from the 4th and 5th centuries were complex. They are easy to confuse.

Post Script: An interesting discussion on substance used in philosophy ensued between Spinoza and Descartes: http://www.trinity.edu/cbrown/modern/spinozaPartI.html

It touches on one of your statements...

 

[heymikey80]

I think you have your centuries mixed up and back to front. The term homoousios was rejected at the second Creed of Sirmium in 357. That was after the Nicene Council; not "prior". The Monophysites were primarily in the 5th century; a century later.

I'm sure I have things confused, so I went back to where I was reading it. It turns out, it's not monophysitism, but Sabellianism that I was thinking of. That'd be the Council of Antioch in the mid-200's where the term was rejected, and then embraced with the distinction of Persons in Nicea in 325.

Thanks for the consideration and thought in your post, Tri Unity.

 

[Tri Unity]

I'm sure I have things confused, so I went back to where I was reading it. It turns out, it's not monophysitism, but Sabellianism that I was thinking of. That'd be the Council of Antioch in the mid-200's where the term was rejected, and then embraced with the distinction of Persons in Nicea in 325.

Thanks for the consideration and thought in your post, Tri Unity.

You are most welcome brother; I very much enjoy reading your posts.

These early centuries (3rd - 6th) were very unusual with the quarrels and animosity that God's identity posed for us. I don't think there is any simple solution, as people will always feel passionate about their convictions. For me personally, I look for the spirit of truth as much as empirical truth. We all need to develop humility. Humility is a great fruitage that develops with the indwelling Spirit. Even if we know all things, but have not love... having the right spirit is imperative to us learning more; as knowledge is also a gift from God.

 

[Webb]

Hi Tri-Trinity
In response to your post 104 which was in response to my post 103.

You think I have 2 problems needing to be solved. I answered and solved the 1st problem you imagined I have by presenting the argument showing that there is absolutely no evidence in the scripture (which you must have to prove your position) that miracles continued past the time when the last person in the NT died who had received the laying on of an apostles hand. Until you can answer that all your arguments are absolutely nil. You have no way of proving today that the miracles your referred to (under church fathers) were real. In light of my argument above this solves the 2nd problem you suppose I have. Is it your position that such miracles are for us today? If so, we can easily address that.

Now, lets briefly address your proof text of Eph. 4 which you apparentliy feel justifies miraculous gifts today. Verily, vs. 8 says He gave gifts to men, agreed. The question is, WHAT were the gifts in this passage? Vs.11 clearly tells us. The gifts were positions to be helt in the early church. A position, such as the the position (or office, or title etc.) of a bishop for example is not to be mistaken for the gifts of the miraculous nature. The miraculous gifts any of those men of Eph.4 had are to be identified in I Cor.12, which begins reading in vs. 1: "Now concerning spiritual gifts brethren---." Then he lists 9 gifts of the spirit. The face remains: you cannot show those miraculous gifts extending beyound the death of the last apostle and the last disciple having received these gifts from an apostle. Go ahead, try it.

I shall now return to my argument made in post 103 and ask you to answer it step by step: ONE, The apostles of Jesus were promised the baptism of the Holy Spirit which would bring to their remembrance ALL things Jesus had said, Jn.14:26; 15:13. This baptism of the Spirit enabled the apostles to perform miracles and the scripture states this was fulfilled on Pentecost in Acts 2, (Acts 1:4-8; 2:1-20 etc.). I will now ask you: Do you agree? Yes or no? Upon your answer I will proceed further.
God bless

 

[Tri Unity]

Hi Tri-Trinity, In response to your post 104 which was in response to my post 103.

Hi Webb. This post has drifted too far away from the original post; so I don't want to go into it further here. To do so would be redundant anyway, as you have misrepresented and misunderstood my position.

Tri

 

[Webb]

Hello Tri-Trinity

Its as you wish, but to set things straight, I may misunderstand your position but I would never willfullly misrepresent you. There is also the possibility that you are unable to answer what I wrote. God knows, doesn't He?

God bless

 

[Tri Unity]

Hello Tri-Trinity

Its as you wish, but to set things straight, I may misunderstand your position but I would never willfullly misrepresent you. There is also the possibility that you are unable to answer what I wrote. God knows, doesn't He? God bless

Hi Webb, I didn't mean to imply that your misrepresentation was deliberate. See, I just misrepresented you... That is part of the limitations of this type of medium. I would be happy to discuss the gifts with you in more detail in a dedicated thread. I warn you though; we probably agree on more than what we disagree.

 

[Webb]

Thanks and God bless

 

[Tri Unity]

I have placed a thread up on an interesting document from the 3rd century relating to the Trinity. If anyone gets a chance to have a look and comment that would be great.

http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=44748

Tri

 

[Tri Unity]

I'm sure I have things confused, so I went back to where I was reading it. It turns out, it's not monophysitism, but Sabellianism that I was thinking of. That'd be the Council of Antioch in the mid-200's where the term was rejected, and then embraced with the distinction of Persons in Nicea in 325.

That was strange that the term Homoousios was rejected at the Council of Antioch in 268 AD, only to be championed as orthodox at Nicaea in 325. That was an oversight on my part when I mentioned that "the second Creed of Sirmium in 357" was the time it was rejected. This was actually the second time it was rejected. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[heymikey80]

That was strange that the term Homoousios was rejected at the Council of Antioch in 268 AD, only to be championed as orthodox at Nicaea in 325. That was an oversight on my part when I mentioned that "the second Creed of Sirmium in 357" was the time it was rejected. This was actually the second time it was rejected. Thanks for pointing that out.

It was interesting to me. Sorta echoes one of my historical council's assertions, "Councils can err and have erred."

They're great advisors, though. "They often know better'n me." What subtleties led one council to the negative, then another to the positive, it's an interesting subject. Still, I see it as the church reforming slightly, taking to heart the critiques of even non-Christians to recognize their own problems and come up with better answers. Not revolution -- just reform toward their Savior.

May we always do the same.

 

[Tri Unity]

It was interesting to me. Sorta echoes one of my historical council's assertions, "Councils can err and have erred."

They're great advisors, though. "They often know better'n me." What subtleties led one council to the negative, then another to the positive, it's an interesting subject. Still, I see it as the church reforming slightly, taking to heart the critiques of even non-Christians to recognize their own problems and come up with better answers. Not revolution -- just reform toward their Savior. May we always do the same.

Absolutely. There is a word of caution in this event for all of us. The explanation has been given that the rejection of Homoousios in 268 AD was based on the use of the term by Paul of Samosata. Paul used the term in reference to a form of Modalism which was rejected. The irony (IMO) is that the current explanation of the trinity is exactly the same as Modalism, only that we have replaced the word "mode" with "person". Paul said that God exists as 3 modes in one essence (homoousios); whereas we say that God exists as 3 persons in one essence (homoousios). For Paul of Samosata the word homoousios was rejected as heresy, but when used in reference to "persons" it was accepted. This was the reason that the first Arians rejected the term homoousios; because it was rejected as heresy through a previous council. The whole subject is riddled with mines and grenades.

Tri

 

[heymikey80]

Absolutely. There is a word of caution in this event for all of us. The explanation has been given that the rejection of Homoousios in 268 AD was based on the use of the term by Paul of Samosata. Paul used the term in reference to a form of Modalism which was rejected. The irony (IMO) is that the current explanation of the trinity is exactly the same as Modalism, only that we have replaced the word "mode" with "person". Paul said that God exists as 3 modes in one essence (homoousios); whereas we say that God exists as 3 persons in one essence (homoousios). For Paul of Samosata the word homoousios was rejected as heresy, but when used in reference to "persons" it was accepted. This was the reason that the first Arians rejected the term homoousios; because it was rejected as heresy through a previous council. The whole subject is riddled with mines and grenades.

Tri

Yes. It seems to me the issue with Paul of S. was the very definition of "mode" and "modalism". But Antioch seems to have taken a swipe at the word "homoousios", not limiting itself to the idea of modalism.

But ... just an opinion.