THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY

When was the "Table of Contents" for the Bible settled?

It is OK that you and I do not agree, you say it was not settled, I say it was. You can take almost every "christian" doctrine in practice today and read how it was prayed over, fought over, submitted to the will of the Holy Spirit and settled on, by what was at one time the world wide church.
Good point and even the "chasm in the body of Christ" didn't change that.
 

Madman

Senior Member
Why can't Christianity(me included) just focus on what Jesus did from the incarnation or when he became the human Son of God and Mother Mary?
You and I can, the Church can't. it has the responsibility to always be the watchman, to hold the earliest interpretation of the Scriptures and to keep the teaching and traditions that were passed from Christ to the Apostles, correct. 2 Corinthians 11:4 pretty much puts a pin in where the church should stand.
 
Last edited:
Some are some are not. 1054 was over several different things. A lot of pride got wrapped up in it. The Coptic church left hundreds of years earlier because they thought the councils "threw rock" at their man Cyril. In reality is was probably a language barrier issue.
Then you admit that the pride of man was involved. That was the Trump and present day politics comparison. Any time you get group A and group B together, pride will be involved.
I know Republicans that will defend and back Republican decisions 100% of the time. I know Democrats who do this as well. Human pride I guess.

Now put both groups in the same room to "vote" on things. How much of that is from prayer or pride?
 
You and I can, the Church can't. it has the responsibility to always be the watchman, to hold the earliest interpenetration of the Scriptures and to keep the teaching and traditions that were passed from Christ to the Apostles, correct. 2 Corinthians 11:4 pretty much puts a pin in where the church should stand.
Paul is proclaiming the Jesus that is the Son of God. The same Son that the Father sent in John 3:16. The same Jesus that said "my Father and your Father, my God and your God."
 

Madman

Senior Member
Good point and even the "chasm in the body of Christ" didn't change that.
It did make a few changes in what was taught, and Martin Luther wanted a few books left out that did not agree with his theology. The Book of James is one example.

There were some letters that were used by churches in the different areas for teaching the traditions of the church and why some things are the way they are, that did not make the cut for the "table of contents". The early church still saw them as valuable for teaching but not for canonization, the "Reformers" threw them out of their Bible. The Church has always known them as the Apocrypha.
 

Madman

Senior Member
Then you admit that the pride of man was involved.
That was in relation to the schism of 1054. Part of that was over the papacy. The west said the Pope of Rome was the head of the church and the Eastern Church said he wasn't. Involved a lot more than just pride.. i.e. the marriage of priests, etc.
 

Madman

Senior Member
Paul is proclaiming the Jesus that is the Son of God. The same Son that the Father sent in John 3:16. The same Jesus that said "my Father and your Father, my God and your God."
Not sure of the Point you are making. Jesus said a lot more, he said that he WAS God.
 

1gr8bldr

Senior Member
There was no need for the doctrine of the Trinity to be defined it had never needed to be defined, just as there was no need to ensure that the doctrine of the divinity of Christ was written. Christ himself taught that he was God.

I am not sure what you mean by the bold sentences. Help me with that.
I was not aware I bolded anything. Not intentional. Creeds were designed to draw a circle around correct belief. They tried hard to define it best they could so as to put other beliefs out of the circle. Current and upcoming. So, at the time, they spent much time on the wording.
 
It did make a few changes in what was taught, and Martin Luther wanted a few books left out that did not agree with his theology. The Book of James is one example.

There were some letters that were used by churches in the different areas for teaching the traditions of the church and why some things are the way they are, that did not make the cut for the "table of contents". The early church still saw them as valuable for teaching but not for canonization, the "Reformers" threw them out of their Bible. The Church has always known them as the Apocrypha.
I can see Luther wanting to leave James out. He was more of a works kind of guy than Paul was. Not that I would agree with Luther on this point.
I think it's easy for all of us to read what we want to in scripture to justify our beliefs.
 

Madman

Senior Member
I was not aware I bolded anything. Not intentional. Creeds were designed to draw a circle around correct belief. They tried hard to define it best they could so as to put other beliefs out of the circle. Current and upcoming. So, at the time, they spent much time on the wording.
I made it bold. That was what I did not understand. Yes creeds were written to make definitive statements as to what the church believes.

I think we agree.
 
I would disagree. Oneness doctrine is the heresy of modalism. Very different coins.
What if a person say in the Philippines back before the Church arrived just wanted salvation? A lot of people are more interested in the salvation aspect of Christianity than the doctrine indoctrination. Maybe that individual in the Philippines wanted to keep the name he was born with instead of a new Christian Spanish name.

He may be more into what Jesus did than the doctrine, rituals, and ceremonies of the Church.

Even today in America, most Christians aren't into the historical or deep doctrinal aspect of Christianity. They have accepted that Jesus is the Son of God and that he died for their sins. They have faith in the grace of God.
Beyond that is it really necessary for them to learn the Church's doctrine and participate in all of the Church's rituals?

What doe it do to one's salvation to delve as deeply into the things that we do on this forum? Maybe they've learned the basics and that's good enough for them. Maybe the Trinity belief one of those basics. Did they learn it as salvation or later?
Do you think that every Christian really understands the Trinity as presented by the Church?

Isn't that probably a learning process required by the Church?
 
The political parties are not heads of the church. Read up on Polycarp and then make a political comparison.
Political parties is only the comparison. Let's just leave it at group A and group B of the Councils. There was some politics involved with the reason of the Councils. You had one group that believed the Son eternally existed with the Father and another group that believed he became the Son when he became the Son of Mary.

"The First Council of Nicaea was convened by Emperor Constantine the Great upon the recommendations of a synod led by Hosius of Córdoba in the Eastertide of 325."

I was looking at how two groups at a council could form prideful alliances more than the political aspect of the emperors involvement.

The comparison would be on how their votes were influenced by man and not prayer or divine intervention.
 

Madman

Senior Member
What if a person say in the Philippines back before the Church arrived just wanted salvation?

Isn't that probably a learning process required by the Church?
you and I are not in the Philippines, we are having this discussion. Peter started with the peoples sin in Acts and the Holy Spirit moved them to repentance.

The church does not require the learning process, she offers it.

Good night all.
 
There were some letters that were used by churches in the different areas for teaching the traditions of the church and why some things are the way they are, that did not make the cut for the "table of contents". The early church still saw them as valuable for teaching but not for canonization, the "Reformers" threw them out of their Bible. The Church has always known them as the Apocrypha.
Even though the councils didn't canonize them the Church still saw them as valuable for teaching. That's a bit ironic. So much for the councils.

Makes the Church say; "we like what you thought about the Trinity, the Apocrypha, not so much."
 

Madman

Senior Member
The comparison would be on how their votes were influenced by man and not prayer or divine intervention.
As I said, read up on Polycarp, see what Paul says in 2 Corinthians. I don't believe that history shows the church's motives were human driven, I don't necessarily believe those eventually called heretics were motivated by pride, these men were trying their best to define the doctrines of the faith. That was a very difficult thing to do, maintained tradition was very important to those councils.
 

Madman

Senior Member
Even though the councils didn't canonize them the Church still saw them as valuable for teaching. That's a bit ironic. So much for the councils.

Makes the Church say; "we like what you thought about the Trinity, the Apocrypha, not so much."
Pretty sarcastic remark. a book needed to meet the "root and the fruit" test. Clement, who sat at the feet of Paul, had teachings that were worth learning but not necessary for salvation, so why include them in the table of contents? They were already being taught in most of the church.

read some of them it may help you.
 
Pretty sarcastic remark. a book needed to meet the "root and the fruit" test. Clement, who sat at the feet of Paul, had teachings that were worth learning but not necessary for salvation, so why include them in the table of contents? They were already being taught in most of the church.

read some of them it may help you.
Salutation from Clements to the Corinthians;

THE Church of God which sojourns at Rome, to the Church of God sojourning at Corinth, to them that are called and sanctified by the will of God, through our Lord Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, from Almighty God through Jesus Christ, be multiplied.

Sounds similar to Paul's salutation.

Second salutation;

BRETHREN, we ought so to think of Jesus Christ as of God: as of the judge of the living, and the dead; nor should we think any less of our salvation.

Again similar to Paul in that neither address or salute the Holy Spirit in their salutations yet the Holy Spirit is an equal part of the Trinity.

I wonder why Clement didn't say BRETHEN, Jesus Christ "is" God. The way he worded it, Jesus Christ should be considered God concerning judgement. Almost like God gave that authority to Jesus.

John 5:22
In addition, the Father judges no one. Instead, he has given the Son absolute authority to judge,

John 5:25-27
For as the Father has life in Himself, so also He has granted the Son to have life in Himself. 27And He has given Him authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man.

Oh, it looks like the Father did give his Son that authority. Clement was a smart man. When it comes to the judgement, we can think of Jesus as God.

Now if a Trinity of co-equals? How could the Father give the Son authority? Remember, God never changes. He is what he has always been and will be.

Again, no mention of the co-equal Holy Spirit. Why didn't Clement or Paul at least mention the Holy Spirit in their salutations?

"from Almighty God through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit" would have shown the Trinity a lot better.
 
Are God's People, while in the flesh, guided to spiritual growth?
How much doctrine is questioned, or discussed, among the saints in Eternity?
Do doctrinal questions become more important or less important as we grow in faith?
Faith … a good word.
 
Top