THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY

Madman

Senior Member
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.
We have been given a "reasonable faith" and we need to find a way and the words to describe it. The human mind desires to connect the dots.

1gr8bldr is correct, many of these doctrines were not fleshed out in the beginning because the discussion had not started and the church was world wide with many different languages, that made it even more difficult to find the proper words.

The tradition had been passed down but we needed the explanation. One way we know this is that the Epistles were written before the Gospels.
 
We have been given a "reasonable faith" and we need to find a way and the words to describe it. The human mind desires to connect the dots.

1gr8bldr is correct, many of these doctrines were not fleshed out in the beginning because the discussion had not started and the church was world wide with many different languages, that made it even more difficult to find the proper words.

The tradition had been passed down but we needed the explanation. One way we know this is that the Epistles were written before the Gospels.
It's interesting that in many ways God was new through Jesus Christ yet having always been. True that coming to the earth as a human was new but even that was foretold.

Yet Paul had a new revelation about the mystery/secret that had to be told. It was a lot for everyone to adjust to and learn. Foretold but finally revealed. It was a lot to absorb.

I guess one part of the argument is exactly how much of this learning process was needed or required vs inquiring minds just wanting to know?
I have a quest for knowledge while others are OK with just the basics.
Perhaps the Holy Spirit reveals some knowledge and God has some revealed through men such as Paul. Especially in the early Church as they were trying to put it all together.

In a way you would think that they should have already known but in reality, they didn't.
 

Madman

Senior Member
Yet Paul had a new revelation about the mystery/secret that had to be told.
I'd be interested to here about that.

In a way you would think that they should have already known but in reality, they didn't.
I believe the idea that "just me and my Bible is all I need" can get us into trouble today. They didn't understand it and they lived it.

Acts 8:
30 Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked.


31 “How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

Romans 10:
How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?


Forgot this one:

Luke 24:
And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.


Just remembered this one:

2 Peter 3:16
He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
 
Last edited:
I'd be interested to here about that.
There was a certain mystery/secret about how the Gospel could now be presented to the world. It was revealed to Paul and Paul was also chosen to deliver this message.

Thus the debate on one's effectual calling. If the Holy Spirit can deliver this message, then why is man needed? Is one's salvation dependent on man? Was this Paul's revelation? That man was needed to deliver the message to the world?

The mystery?
Ephesians 3:6
This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are fellow heirs, fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus.

Ephesians 6:19
Pray also for me, that whenever I speak, words may be given me so that I will fearlessly make known the mystery of the gospel,

The "revelation" of the mystery;
Ephesians 3:3
that is, the mystery made known to me by revelation, as I have already written briefly.

Romans 16:25
Now to him who is able to establish you in accordance with my gospel, the message I proclaim about Jesus Christ, in keeping with the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past,

The mystery continues;
Ephesians 2:12
remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world.

Romans 11:25
I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you will not be conceited: A hardening in part has come to Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles has come in.

You could say the mystery revealed by Paul was the Church if that is what you were looking for. No more Gentile or Jew. The formation of the one Church. The Church of God in Rome. The Church of God in Corinth, etc.

Salvation by grace is also a part of the revelation maybe. Hasn't that always been the path though? Whatever it was, it was hidden in the ages until Paul revealed it.
 
Last edited:

Madman

Senior Member
Whatever it was, it was hidden in the ages until Paul revealed it.
If I understand what you are saying I do not believe it was hidden. It was difficult to comprehend but not hidden.

Even the teachers had not bothered to understand the Scriptures. How could they teach correctly?

Matthew 22:29 Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.
 
Thread starter #107
"By the name of" means the same as "in the name of" (Acts 4:10, 30); speaking "in the name of" (Acts 4:17, 18; 5: 28, 40; 8:12; 9:27-29) means the same as in the Old Testament, "by the authority of" the one who sent the speaker (Jer. 20:9; 26:9-20); and "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" means we are to baptize by the authority of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost and not in the name of the Son ONLY. If we baptize in the name of the Son ONLY, we rob the Father and the Holy Ghost of their rightful authority in their part of redemption which baptism symbolizes. We also directly transgress the last commandment of Jesus before He had received in Heaven and Earth (Matt. 28:18). If He had the authority to command men to baptize this way and He Himself never authorized a change, then that authority still holds, and to reject it is to reject Jesus Christ.

Those who believe that Jesus is the only God should not reject and contradict the authority of Jesus. They should try some way to harmonize Acts with obedience to Matt. 28:19. Similarly, if one were authorized to do a job in the name of J. C. Penny and co. and or Sears Roebuck and Co. and of Montgomery Ward and Co. ONLY, rejecting the other two companies because "in the name" was not added before each name, he would be robbing the other two companies of their rightful recognition and authority. Would this do away with two companies , or make all three companies only one company? So Matt. 28:19 we have the full authority of the whole Godhead and of each member of the Godhead in particular. Refusal on the part of some to recognize more than one of the three persons involved does not do away with two of them, or make them only one person.
 
Thread starter #108
In Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5 we have emphasis given to the authority of Jesus, who is only one of the three persons of the Godhead. For it was His authority of only that was being rejected by the Jews at that time. They did not question the authority of the Father or of the Spirit, for they believed and accepted their authority, but to accept the authority of Jesus as they did that of God was another thing entirely. The apostles as described in the book of Acts merely demanded that the Jews accept the name Jesus and be baptized, saved, healed and do other things authorized in the name of Jesus by His authority, but in no passage do they reject or change Matt. 28:19 and say in the name of Jesus ONLY. There is not one place in Scripture where they demand of the Jews to accept Jesus as the only God and the only authority, but they were commanded to accept Him like they did God.
 
In Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5 we have emphasis given to the authority of Jesus, who is only one of the three persons of the Godhead. For it was His authority of only that was being rejected by the Jews at that time. They did not question the authority of the Father or of the Spirit, for they believed and accepted their authority, but to accept the authority of Jesus as they did that of God was another thing entirely. The apostles as described in the book of Acts merely demanded that the Jews accept the name Jesus and be baptized, saved, healed and do other things authorized in the name of Jesus by His authority, but in no passage do they reject or change Matt. 28:19 and say in the name of Jesus ONLY. There is not one place in Scripture where they demand of the Jews to accept Jesus as the only God and the only authority, but they were commanded to accept Him like they did God.
Could you explain in your own words what that means? I'm having trouble grasping your dogma. I would really love to hear it from you.
 
Thread starter #110
To baptize in the name of Jesus ONLY in preference to the authorization given in Matt. 28:19 upon the basis of mere inference that because all three names are not used in Acts they are not to be used, is subject to the judgment of God. Cannot Matt. 28:19 be obeyed as well as Acts? We could not obey both if we followed some sects, but we can and we must obey both if we obey God, for both Matthew and Acts are the word of God, and both must be obeyed (2 Tim. 3:16, 17) . Anyone obeying Matt. 28:19 automatically obeys Acts, but to interpret and obey Acts to mean that we should baptize in the name of Jesus ONLY, is to disobey Matt. 28:19. In other words, in baptizing by the authority of the three of Matt. 28:19 we automatically obey Acts, but if we baptize by the authority of Jesus ONLY we dishonor the other two in Matt. 28:19 and we become direct transgressors of Matt. 28:19. Obeying Acts and disobeying Matt. 28:19 is not excusable to intelligent people. Even if we were to obey Acts only as the true mode of baptism, then which passage in Acts shall we take as a true baptism formula, for all passages differ in wording?
 
Last edited:
To baptize in the name of Jesus ONLY in preference to the authorization given in Matt. 28:19 upon the basis of mere inference that because all three names are not used in Acts they are not to be used, is subject to the judgment of God. Cannot Matt. 28:19 be obeyed as well as Acts? We could not obey both if we followed some sects, but we can and we must obey both if we obey God, for both Matthew and Acts are the word of God, and both must be obeyed (2 Tim. 3:16, 17) . Anyone obeying Matt. 28:19 automatically obeys Acts, but to interpret and obey Acts to mean that we should baptize in the name of Jesus ONLY, is to disobey Matt. 28:19. In other words, in baptizing by the authority of the three of Matt. 28:19 we automatically obey Acts, but if we baptize by the authority of Jesus ONLY we dishonor the other two in Matt. 28:19 and we become direct transgressors of Matt. 28:19. Obeying Acts and disobeying Matt. 28:19 is not excusable to intelligent people. Even if we were to obey Acts only as the true mode of baptism, then which passage in Acts shall we take as a true baptism formula, for all passages differ I wording?
I don't see how you can obey both. Using the same logic, if one is baptized according to Matthew, he isn't baptized according to Acts.

If one believes in Oneness, as all three being one, then the "name" of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit "is" Jesus. Matthew doesn't say "in the names of."

Just seems like one of those things we may not need to dwell on too much. Regardless of the Trinity or Oneness, the unity is still there.
 
Top