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

[MisterE]

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

The most effective way to discuss the Trinity, is under systematic theology. For example, in GJohn 10, we see Christ and the Father are one in essence. In Acts, Peter refers to the Spirit as God. But the best way of all is to get the book Putting Jesus in his Place.

 

[Free]

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

There, finally. You really need to be more clear in what you are saying. Yes, we all know what the Bible is, but "before the Bible" is very vague and can cause "the Bible" to mean different things. It could mean "before the OT was written," "before any of the NT books were written," "before some of the NT books were written," "before all the books NT were accepted," or "before the Bible was canonized." Clarity matters.

So, what is your point about the Trinity being taught before the Bible (really the NT) was canonized? Was that a good thing or a bad thing?

No, what I believe comes from the Church.

Now you're contradicting yourself. Which "Church"? If you deny the Trinity, then what you believe doesn't come from either the Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches. Your belief might come from a church or certain denomination, but it is not from "the Church." The doctrine of the Trinity has been accepted as orthodox belief for hundreds of years; belief in Jesus's deity and distinctness from the Father for much longer.

What am I rejecting?

The doctrine of the Trinity, maybe even the deity of Jesus and or the Holy Spirit.

 

[LanaPodesta]

So, what is your point about the Trinity being taught before the Bible (really the NT) was canonized? Was that a good thing or a bad thing?

We're not talking about it if it's 'good' or 'bad'. We're talking about why those who don't believe to the Apostolic Church believe in it.

Now you're contradicting yourself. Which "Church"? If you deny the Trinity, then what you believe doesn't come from either the Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches. Your belief might come from a church or certain denomination, but it is not from "the Church." The doctrine of the Trinity has been accepted as orthodox belief for hundreds of years; belief in Jesus's deity and distinctness from the Father for much longer.

How am I contradicting myself? I'm Eastern Orthodox.

The doctrine of the Trinity, maybe even the deity of Jesus and or the Holy Spirit.

Where have I done that?

 

[jonathanbrickman0000]

What I believe, comes from God. For one thousand years, the authorities of the Church commanded as much mass murder as they could of unbelievers, dissenters, and those that did not obey them, so I am not interested in their lineage.

 

[Free]

We're not talking about it if it's 'good' or 'bad'. We're talking about why those who don't believe to the Apostolic Church believe in it.

Because, as I said, and you denied, it’s biblical. So, of course those who are Christians but don’t belong to the so-called Apostolic Church believe in it. I’ve already made all this clear.

Yet again, clarity in your posts is an issue. You should stop using “Apostolic Church,” as that means different things. Different Protestant denominations are fond of (incorrectly) using “Apostolic” to define their churches.

How am I contradicting myself? I'm Eastern Orthodox.

Where have I done that?

This is what happens when you lack clarity and don’t answer questions that seek for clarity. When I ask questions it isn’t for the fun of it, it’s to get clarification so the discussion can be understood and productive. But, here we are.

When you say “It's not Biblical,” that is the exact argument that anti-Trinitarians use to say the doctrine of the Trinity is false. When you say “The Trinity is an extra-Biblical concept that predates the Bible,” that is the exact same argument anti-Trinitarians use to say that the doctrine of the Trinity comes from pagan beliefs that predate the Bible.

To deny that the doctrine of the Trinity is biblical is to be anti-Trinitarian. The whole tone of your posts so far is that of an anti-Trinitarian.

The fact is, all the foundations of the doctrine of the Trinity are in the Bible, which is exactly why they were repeated in early extra-biblical writings and then eventually formulated into the doctrine. That is why Christians believe it, even those outside the EO church.

 

[LanaPodesta]

To deny that the doctrine of the Trinity is biblical is to be anti-Trinitarian. The whole tone of your posts so far is that of an anti-Trinitarian

Nope.

 

[Free]

Nope.

The foundations of the Trinity are biblical which is why the Church ended up developing a formal doctrine about it.

 

[LanaPodesta]

The foundations of the Trinity are biblical which is why the Church ended up developing a formal doctrine about it.

The Trinity was preached before the Bible.

The Church didn't read the Bible and go "oh, it talks about the Trinity". The Church preached the Trinity first. The Bible isn't a catechism.

 

[Free]

The Trinity was preached before the Bible.

The Church didn't read the Bible and go "oh, it talks about the Trinity". The Church preached the Trinity first. The Bible isn't a catechism.

Evidence, please. I asked you twice before and you have yet to give any. And, yet, again, please post with clarity and precisely what you mean by "before the Bible," as that can be taken in several different ways as I've previously shown.

 

[LanaPodesta]

Evidence, please. I asked you twice before and you have yet to give any. And, yet, again, please post with clarity and precisely what you mean by "before the Bible," as that can be taken in several different ways as I've previously shown.

Before the Bible was canonised? I've said this previously

The Trinity was taught, by Jesus, and then by the apostles (the early Church) and their successors before the Bible was canonised...by the Church.

You're acting like the Bible is a catechism.

 

[miamited]

Hi LanaPodesta

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

I would say that isn't a true statement.

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

It doesn't.

Where is the doctrine in the Bible

It's most readily and easily found in Jesus' command to us to go out and make disciples of all nations. Baptizing them IN THE NAME OF the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. It is also not quite so clearly explained to us by John's writing to us in his testimony found in 1John 5. And throughout the new covenant especially, we find reference to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Now, you claim that the trinity was preached before the bible. When do you believe the 'bible' began?

 

[Free]

Before the Bible was canonised? I've said this previously

I know, but as I stated, you need to be more clear and specific. You need to do that every time you make that statement as it will help those who join the conversation without reading all that has been written. Instead of saying "The Trinity was preached before the Bible," say "The Trinity was preached before the Bible was canonized," "before the NT was decided upon," or whatever you think the case may be. Eliminate as much ambiguity as possible to minimize confusion.

The Trinity was taught, by Jesus, and then by the apostles (the early Church) and their successors before the Bible was canonised...by the Church.

It depends on what you mean by "the Trinity." If you mean the foundations of the Trinity, then I agree. If you mean that Jesus and the apostles laid out a clear doctrine of the Trinity, much less a comprehensive one, then I disagree.

What matters is what is recorded in the books of the Bible, particularly the NT, all of which were written before AD 100, perhaps even AD 90, long before the NT books were even chosen much less canonized. That is where our beliefs on the Trinity come from and that is exactly why the Church has always taught the foundations of the Trinity before finally developing a formal definition and doctrine of it.

The Trinity is thoroughly biblical; it has to be otherwise we need to abandon it.

You're acting like the Bible is a catechism.

You're acting like the Bible has no relevance and that the Church is infallible. The Bible is the highest and only infallible authority for Christian belief and practice. Everything we believe, especially about God, should come straight from Scripture.

 

[LanaPodesta]

The Trinity is thoroughly biblical; it has to be otherwise we need to abandon it.

Exactly. Because otherwise you'd have to admit it is an extra-Biblical doctrine that comes from the Church whose authority you deny.

 

[LanaPodesta]

You're acting like the Bible has no relevance and that the Church is infallible

The Bible is secondary. If the Church is the appliance, the Bible is the manual, so to speak.

Many people are only barely literate, if not completely literate. Even less are Biblical scholars. Do you even know any Greek?

 

[miamited]

Hi LanaPodesta

The Bible is secondary. If the Church is the appliance, the Bible is the manual, so to speak.

I would say that's backwards. The church is secondary to the bible. The church is merely those who have understood what the bible tells them and have chosen to gather as a group of the 'called out ones'.

Many people are only barely literate, if not completely literate. Even less are Biblical scholars. Do you even know any Greek?

That doesn't make sense that people are only barely literate, if not completely literate. I'm going to guess that you mean that many people are only barely literate, if not completely 'illiterate'. And those who read the Scriptures don't have to know Greek. The people who translate the Scriptures need to know Greek. The Scriptures were written in a language that is foreign to most of the world. The old covenant even more so, as it was written in Hebrew and only Jews are familiar with Hebrew.

So, we depend on people who are fluent in these languages to translate for us into our own native languages what was written in the Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew languages of these ancient writings. But once that has been done, and it's usually done with a group of people so that there is some consensus in how the various languages are translated, then we should be able to accept that translations as being reasonably faithful to the original writings.

Sadly, we don't have any of the original writings and so now we are forced to depend on the translations that we have, or the copies made that are supposed to have been made from the originals. If one considers God's purpose in all of this, then they must agree that God has not left us without a faithful witness, and that witness is the Scriptures themselves. We can't talk to Jesus or Moses or Daniel or John or Paul or Peter. But if we know that God's purpose in delivering to us the Scriptures, according to both Jesus and Paul, was that we would know the truth.

The church is just the body of people who have believed what the Scriptures say. It has no authority to say what God wants or desires us to know and believe, beyond what is written in the Scriptures. You see, that's the same error that Israel made. They turned over their beliefs to what the leaders of the synagogue told them was the truth. According to Jesus, they were really a lot wrong! No, what the Scriptures tell us is the truth. What the church tells us must be in alignment with that truth. The church doesn't get to make up any of the rules of what God wants. God has already quite plainly told us what it is that He wants. God bless and trust that the Scriptures are the only known truth that we have about the things of God.

 

[Free]

Exactly. Because otherwise you'd have to admit it is an extra-Biblical doctrine that comes from the Church whose authority you deny.

But, it isn't. All the foundations are in the Bible. You don't even see what you're promoting, do you? Based on your reasoning, you're promoting the traditions of man over the God-inspired Bible.

Mar 7:6 And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, “‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me;
Mar 7:7 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
Mar 7:8 You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.”
Mar 7:9 And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition! (ESV)

2Ti 3:15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
2Ti 3:17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. (ESV)

The Bible is secondary. If the Church is the appliance, the Bible is the manual, so to speak.

And, here it is--"The Bible is secondary." The Bible must be primary or you should just throw it out. You're teaching the same belief as Mormons, JWs, and Word of Faith and Charismatic types who reject what the Bible says in favor of their own beliefs and "revelations"--the doctrine of the "Church" trumps Scripture.

The Church must be subservient to the Bible, or the Bible is pointless. One could make up all sorts of nonsense, like the immaculate conception or perpetual virginity of Mary.

Gal 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.
Gal 1:9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. (ESV)

Even the apostles were subject to what was spoken and, therefore, written.

What did Jesus do when he confronted the Jewish leaders of his day? He appealed to Scripture, not his own authority, even though he is God incarnate. The Catholic and EO churches have put the cart before the horse, claiming the authority that the Jewish leaders claimed over the Scriptures. Jesus corrected it, but your church decided to go back into error.

Many people are only barely literate, if not completely literate. Even less are Biblical scholars. Do you even know any Greek?

What does this have to do with anything?

 

[LanaPodesta]

The people who translate the Scriptures need to know Greek

Right...funnily enough they might just be the same Greek speaking people who brought you the Bible.

Btw, do you know what the Greek word for 'book' is?

 

[LanaPodesta]

hat doesn't make sense that people are only barely literate, if not completely literate. I'm going to guess that you mean that many people are only barely literate, if not completely 'illiterate'

Yes that was my mistake. How can the Bible be the ultimate authority if people can't even read it, let alone accurately interpret its contents?

 

[LanaPodesta]

The Bible must be primary or you should just throw it out.

Who says?

 

[LanaPodesta]

So, we depend on people who are fluent in these languages to translate for us into our own native languages what was written in the Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew languages of these ancient writings.

If you must depend on people to translate it for you, why do you reject the body that gave you the canon in the first place and their interpretation?