Trinity is humanity's Father/Son Image!

1gr8bldr

Senior Member
You claimed Trinitarian doctrine originated with Valentinus, I claimed foul that no historical evidence exists to support your claim. You have still failed to support your claim.

Apparently the Trinitarian despute was settled early on and the "One in essence, three in persons" theology held.
I don't follow any single person, I believe that the church opperates best as a body lead by the Holy Spirit. The last time this happened was with the 7th ecumenical council, everything else is just a Hodge podge of individual ideas.
I believe there is evidence of early church teaching that needed no definition until centuries later, especially once heresies started anew. An example of this is infant baptism. There was not much discussion until some time in the 4th century when Tertullian claims infants should not be baptised. From that we know that infants were being baptised and Tertullian did not like it. The church continued to baptize infants.

Language had to be developed to describe beliefs and teachings.
Hypostais vs. ousia for example.

In short, I yield to the decisions of the 7 ecuminical council's.

How about you? Where do you stand?
Well, there is no belief system that I am associated with. My trinitarian upbringing in a baptist church was very hard to deprogram myself from. I studied the early church to see what it was they believed, to ponder over the rebuttals to see what the opposition was etc. Interesting was how writers tried to force their beliefs back into academia as if to validate their current belief. Polycarp for example, was said to have said as he was dying his belief of God as who, yet he was in the middle of an arena of thousands of screaming people so we know that this writer was lying to try to validate his own belief. It however does not mean that Polycarp did not believe this, only that he, not Polycarp, was trying to force a doctrine into academia. And I concede that Marcellus or other falsely quoting Marcellous may have been trying to manipulate church history. But since I can't go back into history to investigate, I take it at face value, with a question mark beside it
 

Madman

Senior Member
Well, there is no belief system that I am associated with. My trinitarian upbringing in a baptist church was very hard to deprogram myself from. I studied the early church to see what it was they believed, to ponder over the rebuttals to see what the opposition was etc. Interesting was how writers tried to force their beliefs back into academia as if to validate their current belief. Polycarp for example, was said to have said as he was dying his belief of God as who, yet he was in the middle of an arena of thousands of screaming people so we know that this writer was lying to try to validate his own belief. It however does not mean that Polycarp did not believe this, only that he, not Polycarp, was trying to force a doctrine into academia. And I concede that Marcellus or other falsely quoting Marcellous may have been trying to manipulate church history. But since I can't go back into history to investigate, I take it at face value, with a question mark beside it
As I said; I do not follow any of the early church writers where they stray from original church doctrine, I believe the body is better when it spoke as a whole, with an amen.

So you left the Baptist church? And where have you ended up?
 
Thread starter #83
As I said; I do not follow any of the early church writers where they stray from original church doctrine, I believe the body is better when it spoke as a whole, with an amen.

So you left the Baptist church? And where have you ended up?
The way you see it is these men, these councils got everything right. That they were inspired by the Holy Spirit. They debated things other men tried to change from the "truth" and stayed with the "truth."

They discussed infant baptism and stayed with infant baptism because it was the truth. They discussed the Trinity and stayed with that belief because it was the truth. They discussed mother Mary and her role and stayed with the Holy Spirit inspired truth that she was the Mother of God. They studied the Eucharist and stayed with the truth which was the blood and bread were actually Jesus' flesh and blood.

They studied the correct beliefs on works, redemption, and confession and since they stayed with the truth, they didn't veer from the original beliefs of the first Christians.

You believe that all the first Christians were experts on doctrine. They even had St. Paul and St. Peter as teachers. They should have got it right. That other men came around later and created heresies. That these councils of men were to put a stop to these heresies and stay with the truth that the Church had right all along.

So in this belief, these councils didn't actually decide the correct beliefs and books of the Bible, they just revealed the correct truth that the early Christians knew all along.

In other words, your guys(the councils, the Catholic Church, etc.) got everything right. In fact they had to, they were inspired by God.
They were just convening to rid the world of heretics and in the process choosing which books to make Canon.
 
Last edited:
Thread starter #84
If this early Church truth was so strong and well defined in beliefs and believed by all? How could a few heretics change it? It's like all the apostles and prophets died and we were really left with just grace and faith.

Sure God provided saints and bishops in the early churches. Soon Paul himself was gone.

I guess what I'm trying to picture is this strong early church of perfect doctrine that slowly got changed by heretics. I would think these early heretics were men of God and not Satan. They probably meant well but just had different beliefs about things.

I'm just not sure how "defined" all of the beliefs were in the early church. Maybe as men became more educated, scholars and teachers looked deeper into Christianity's doctrine.

Maybe everything wasn't "settled" in the early church. Maybe these councils came around because Constantine wanted to put aside all the differences he saw within Christianity.

Then there it the mystery of the voting at the councils. Why would God require or use a council of men to decide on something as important as the eternal destiny of one's soul?
I just can't see God doing that. To me it's like man got together and decided the fate of each man's soul based on whether you believe they got it all right at these councils.

I think that in the early church one only had to believe in the Father and the Son. That God loved the world so much he sent His Son.

1 John 2:22-23
Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist--denying the Father and the Son.23 No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

Then later a council convened and tried to convey the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in a way for man to understand. I don't think they did a very good job explaining it.

Now we have all these churches, denominations, Protestants, and 2 or 3 Catholic like Churches. All because each one has figured out the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Trinity, Oneness, Election, Free Will, OSAS, Predestination, Baptism, Communion, and the list goes on and on.

We were tasked with spreading the Gospel. I feel we have failed.
 

1gr8bldr

Senior Member
As I said; I do not follow any of the early church writers where they stray from original church doctrine, I believe the body is better when it spoke as a whole, with an amen.

So you left the Baptist church? And where have you ended up?
On one hand, I find your view refreshing, because you don't seem to need to force your belief into church history. Lots of forum responders would try their best to make it work. On the other hand, how could it be the "gospel first entrusted to the saints". No need to explain. I currently have no church fellowship, scattered, because my beliefs don't resemble any that I know. I believe their is one God Almighty, that the HS is just another NT word for the spirit of God. That Jesus is the firstborn son of God by adoption, not literal, that Joseph was his real father.
 
Thread starter #86
The Catholic Church makes it appear that they are the ones that got it all right. That they just stuck with the original beliefs of the early church.

That eventually men developed different beliefs from these original, correct beliefs. I can see this in the Great Protest but what about in the early Church?
Did men develop "different" beliefs? Was there even enough knowledge at that time about all of this stuff for there to be a deep set of explanations?
Man had scripture sure. Man had teachers. Man had Churches. But did they have the early church fathers? The scholars, the men who studied manuscripts up and down, back and forth.

I'm still not convinced that all of the early church fathers and councils of men stuck with what the early church believed. I think there was a lot more going on that just picking out the heretics and heresy.

Maybe they studied things too deeply to the point of adding or taking away from what scripture actually said. There is just some of their decisions on things that aren't actually scriptural.

I think that Martin Luther figured this out and exposed it. That it wasn't all original early church dogma. That some doctrine was added to and embellished.

That just because the whole world church believed it so, did not make it the Gospel.

"Mercy there was grace and grace was free"
 
Last edited:
Thread starter #87
On one hand, I find your view refreshing, because you don't seem to need to force your belief into church history. Lots of forum responders would try their best to make it work. On the other hand, how could it be the "gospel first entrusted to the saints". No need to explain. I currently have no church fellowship, scattered, because my beliefs don't resemble any that I know. I believe their is one God Almighty, that the HS is just another NT word for the spirit of God. That Jesus is the firstborn son of God by adoption, not literal, that Joseph was his real father.
I would add that I don't think that makes you a heretic. I don't think the Oneness view makes them heretics. I don't think the Catholic view on Mary being the Mother of God makes them heretics. I don't believe their works based salvation makes them heretics.
I don't think a free will or election belief makes one a heretic. I don't believe infant baptism makes one a heretic.

Actually a lot of those beliefs are based on our own indoctrination. It's not like we are all doing the work of Satan just because we have different beliefs.
Just because the whole world believes something doesn't make it right. We can look at the Catholic Church and see that. If it was "all" right there would have been no Protest.
If Luther himself got it "all" right there would not be so many Protestant denominations.

I'm not saying we can all be right but maybe we're not all wrong either.
 

Madman

Senior Member
The way you see it is these men, these councils got everything right. That they were inspired by the Holy Spirit. They debated things other men tried to change from the "truth" and stayed with the "truth."

They discussed infant baptism and stayed with infant baptism because it was the truth. They discussed the Trinity and stayed with that belief because it was the truth. They discussed mother Mary and her role and stayed with the Holy Spirit inspired truth that she was the Mother of God. They studied the Eucharist and stayed with the truth which was the blood and bread were actually Jesus' flesh and blood.

They studied the correct beliefs on works, redemption, and confession and since they stayed with the truth, they didn't veer from the original beliefs of the first Christians.

You believe that all the first Christians were experts on doctrine. They even had St. Paul and St. Peter as teachers. They should have got it right. That other men came around later and created heresies. That these councils of men were to put a stop to these heresies and stay with the truth that the Church had right all along.

So in this belief, these councils didn't actually decide the correct beliefs and books of the Bible, they just revealed the correct truth that the early Christians knew all along.

In other words, your guys(the councils, the Catholic Church, etc.) got everything right. In fact they had to, they were inspired by God.
They were just convening to rid the world of heretics and in the process choosing which books to make Canon.

Well Close. The councils were made up of hundreds of men from all of Christendom. They spent months praying, arguing, etc., etc., etc., in an attempt to "get it right". This was an immense responsibility and I believe they ALL took it very seriously, even those we call heretics. They too were trying to explain the traditions in a manner that could be understood.

The heretics were alive and well while Paul was writing what came to be the Epistles.

The teachings of Christ to the Apostles, the Apostles to the church had to be maintained in some manner. Language needed to be developed so that later generations and speakers of other languages needed to have the teaching passed on. There was no canon of scripture, various letters were being read in different parts of the world. Somehow the letters that became the canon of Holy Scripture had to be agreed upon. That alone is a fascinating study.
 

Madman

Senior Member
On one hand, I find your view refreshing, because you don't seem to need to force your belief into church history. Lots of forum responders would try their best to make it work. On the other hand, how could it be the "gospel first entrusted to the saints". No need to explain. I currently have no church fellowship, scattered, because my beliefs don't resemble any that I know. I believe their is one God Almighty, that the HS is just another NT word for the spirit of God. That Jesus is the firstborn son of God by adoption, not literal, that Joseph was his real father.
"God sent his only begotten son to the end that all who believe in him shall not perish but have everlasting life".

In the end, if I am saved it is all God, if I am not, it is all me. Christ is the only answer.

I need the church, she dispenses the graces of God, she allows me be quiet and worship, she is the ark in this world, she teaches, and strengthens, she is where Christ placed me for earthly care.

I yield to her ancient teachings and love her beauty as Christ's bride. Brother I would invite you home, back to the Holy Bride of Christ.

No matter the ultimate end;

Go on your way into the world in peace….
Be of good courage; Hold fast that which is good;
Render no man evil for evil; Strengthen the faint hearted;
Support the weak; Help and cheer the sick; Honor all men;
Love and serve the Lord;
And the Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of
God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with us
all evermore.
 

Madman

Senior Member
I would add that I don't think that makes you a heretic. I don't think the Oneness view makes them heretics. I don't think the Catholic view on Mary being the Mother of God makes them heretics. I don't believe their works based salvation makes them heretics.
I don't think a free will or election belief makes one a heretic. I don't believe infant baptism makes one a heretic.

Actually a lot of those beliefs are based on our own indoctrination. It's not like we are all doing the work of Satan just because we have different beliefs.
Just because the whole world believes something doesn't make it right. We can look at the Catholic Church and see that. If it was "all" right there would have been no Protest.
If Luther himself got it "all" right there would not be so many Protestant denominations.

I'm not saying we can all be right but maybe we're not all wrong either.

Salvation belongs to the Lord. I have no say in that. It is Christ that saves us, not the Roman Catholics, or the Baptists, or the Methodists, or the Anglicans.

Even within the church "catholic" many different views can be held and still not considered heretical. i.e. old earth/young earth, or literal 7 day creation vs. creation evolution. The "Church" never needed to make a statement on those and other topics so they didn't.

Another point should be made that a protestant, so long as they have never been part of the "catholic" church, can not be a heretic. They have no way of knowing what the church taught or teaches.

Many views of the catholic church and the Roman Catholic church are just not correct.

we all believe Salvation belongs to the Lord.
 
Thread starter #91
Salvation belongs to the Lord. I have no say in that. It is Christ that saves us, not the Roman Catholics, or the Baptists, or the Methodists, or the Anglicans.

Even within the church "catholic" many different views can be held and still not considered heretical. i.e. old earth/young earth, or literal 7 day creation vs. creation evolution. The "Church" never needed to make a statement on those and other topics so they didn't.

Another point should be made that a protestant, so long as they have never been part of the "catholic" church, can not be a heretic. They have no way of knowing what the church taught or teaches.

Many views of the catholic church and the Roman Catholic church are just not correct.

we all believe Salvation belongs to the Lord.
What were some of those protestant groups that never were a part of the catholic Church? I thought that catholic meant universal and was the early church?
I don't understand why they would not be heretic. They would have to have left before the first Council of Nicea. That was the beginning of exposing the heretics.

Luther believed Salvation belongs to the Lord. I think the main part of what he was against within the Church was man's involvement in the salvation of man.
He believed salvation was by faith and grace alone. I think he thought the Church was saying one could "earn" their way into Salvation.

I still don't see the difference of being heretical concerning when one left the universal church.
 
Last edited:
Thread starter #92
Salvation belongs to the Lord. I have no say in that. It is Christ that saves us, not the Roman Catholics, or the Baptists, or the Methodists, or the Anglicans.

Even within the church "catholic" many different views can be held and still not considered heretical. i.e. old earth/young earth, or literal 7 day creation vs. creation evolution. The "Church" never needed to make a statement on those and other topics so they didn't.

Another point should be made that a protestant, so long as they have never been part of the "catholic" church, can not be a heretic. They have no way of knowing what the church taught or teaches.

Many views of the catholic church and the Roman Catholic church are just not correct.

we all believe Salvation belongs to the Lord.
Well I guess back then they never thought of evolution. They never had birth control pills. They never had robots.
Why did the councils stop? It seems like one would be needed every 100 years to decide on things that happen over time that were never addressed within scripture such as what I mentioned.

Why couldn't a group of men have a council today and it be operated by divine Holy Spirit indwelling? Did the Holy Spirit divide after the last council it didn't need any more councils?

When the other churches approved of the birth control pill the Catholic Church still opposed it. I'm assuming that there was some type of council. I'm sure they were lead by the Holy Spirit in this opposition.
Maybe the difference I'm looking for is Scriptural Doctrine as it pertains to social changes. Then again I guess the Church used scripture to back up their opposition to the pill.

Yet since this happened after the last council, being for the pill wasn't heretical?
 

Madman

Senior Member
I have some answers in here that may not be 100% correct in as much as I am not Roman Catholic, but I am catholic in the definition of "according to the one" and my denomination closely resembles the Roman and Eastern Church.

Well I guess back then they never thought of evolution. They never had birth control pills. They never had robots.
Why did the councils stop? It seems like one would be needed every 100 years to decide on things that happen over time that were never addressed within scripture such as what I mentioned.
there were divisions in the church, geographical, caused by the Muslim take over of land, politics, hurt feelings, etc. The Eastern Church and the Western Church still held separate councils, i.e. The Council of Trent. As I stated before, unless the church speaks with one voice it is difficult for me to see the results as "all encompassing". I will say much headway has been made in the last 100 years to see a reunification of the catholic church, but it most likely will not happen in our life time.

Why couldn't a group of men have a council today and it be operated by divine Holy Spirit indwelling?
PRIDE. There are still differences in doctrine that need to be agreed upon.

When the other churches approved of the birth control pill the Catholic Church still opposed it. I'm assuming that there was some type of council. I'm sure they were lead by the Holy Spirit in this opposition.
Maybe the difference I'm looking for is Scriptural Doctrine as it pertains to social changes. Then again I guess the Church used scripture to back up their opposition to the pill.
I do believe the Roman Catholic Church has been on the forefront of this discussion. See the 1968, landmark encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (Latin, "Human Life"), by Pope Paul VI, which reemphasized the Church’s constant teaching that it is always intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence.

When it comes to catholic doctrine don't forget that we also believe the traditions that were passed down from the apostles need to be observed and upheld. We have been given a "reasonable" faith so how do we keep the intellect involved? For instance, when asked "What is the purpose of intercourse"? Scripture says that it is to bring forth Godly children. In other words, what is the "is-ness" of sex? To produce children, so why would the Christian want to introduce something to prevent that?

Vasectomies? The church sees that as a mutilation of what God has created, now you do not have to agree with that but it is a teaching of the church.

There are many church teachings that are for our spiritual, physical, and emotional benefit. If we choose not to follow them we will not be excommunicated but the church has told us it is not the purpose of our creation and not good for us.

There is a lot of info on this topic PM me and i'll send you some things to read and listen too. Make up your own mind.
 
Last edited:

Madman

Senior Member
What were some of those protestant groups that never were a part of the catholic Church? I thought that catholic meant universal and was the early church?
I don't understand why they would not be heretic. They would have to have left before the first Council of Nicea. That was the beginning of exposing the heretics.

Luther believed Salvation belongs to the Lord. I think the main part of what he was against within the Church was man's involvement in the salvation of man.
He believed salvation was by faith and grace alone. I think he thought the Church was saying one could "earn" their way into Salvation.

I still don't see the difference of being heretical concerning when one left the universal church.
You can read the councils and see some early heretics, Arius would be one. Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, would be examples of reformation heretics. They knew the teaching of the church and chose to oppose them.

My in-laws attend the Christian Church and are as Christian as anyone I know, they would not be considered heretics because they can not be held accountable for what they have never been taught.
 

Madman

Senior Member
What were some of those protestant groups that never were a part of the catholic Church? I thought that catholic meant universal and was the early church?
Typically catholic refers to a Christian denomination that traces it's origin to the apostles, and has maintained the teachings of our Lord as passed down through the apostles succession by the laying on of hands. (2 Thessalonians 2:15)



Luther believed Salvation belongs to the Lord. I think the main part of what he was against within the Church was man's involvement in the salvation of man.
I believe Luther was disenchanted by the corruption that had developed and saw the need to "reform" it. Did not work out so well. What has been named the Reformation I call a schism.

He believed salvation was by faith and grace alone. I think he thought the Church was saying one could "earn" their way into Salvation.
Yes and the Holy Scriptures got in the way of that, that is the reason he removed the Book of James from his Bible. Salvation is by Grace, however we have a response to that Grace, that is all the church is saying. That is a very good teaching. It is a difficult one for some people to here.
 
Thread starter #96
Typically catholic refers to a Christian denomination that traces it's origin to the apostles, and has maintained the teachings of our Lord as passed down through the apostles succession by the laying on of hands. (2 Thessalonians 2:15)

I believe Luther was disenchanted by the corruption that had developed and saw the need to "reform" it. Did not work out so well. What has been named the Reformation I call a schism.

Yes and the Holy Scriptures got in the way of that, that is the reason he removed the Book of James from his Bible. Salvation is by Grace, however we have a response to that Grace, that is all the church is saying. That is a very good teaching. It is a difficult one for some people to here.
I think a lot of why people feel about a certain group is because they don't really know that particular group. I can see some of what you are saying and also some of what 1gr8bldr is as well.

Thanks for hanging in here and giving us some insight to all we have been discussing. We're all remaining pretty civilized in this discussion and the others as well.
 

Madman

Senior Member
When the other churches approved of the birth control pill the Catholic Church still opposed it. I'm assuming that there was some type of council. I'm sure they were lead by the Holy Spirit in this opposition.
Maybe the difference I'm looking for is Scriptural Doctrine as it pertains to social changes. Then again I guess the Church used scripture to back up their opposition to the pill.
You made an excellent point here. There was a time when almost every denomination frowned on the use of contraception because it interfered with the way God had made us male and female. Over time most protestant denominations changed their view on this topic but the catholic church held firm. If everyone would read Humanae Vitae they would see the catholic churches view on natural family planning is good. There are also many scientific studies on what contraceptive medications have done to women and men.
 

Israel

Senior Member
Apostolic succession is not an issue.
What was, is, and remains in all falsehood is that at any given time there remain only one apostle in the earth appointed by the chief apostle of the faith, Jesus Christ.

There's much to this, just as no local assembly has to itself "one" pastor/elder/shepherd. The notion of "associate pastors", "head" pastors, assistant pastors et al, remain also as false.

The church is to have in herself the example of mutually submitted authority in demonstration specifically to this understanding

"Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. And if a revelation comes to someone who is seated, the first speaker should hold his peace.…"

This not only indicates that there is full expectation of prophets being provided in each local assembly, but such working amongst those of such calling that there is a recognition in spirit of revelation received by another in which the first speaker, aware of such, makes way. This "making way" for one another is a potent demonstration of submission and brings about the growth in love that edifies the body.

Those who will only see or say that this can be nothing but an invitation to chaos have not yet appreciated the Lord's order.

Paul submitted his revelation to his brothers of like calling.

And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.

Much of what has been perceived as set in order, has indeed been nothing but the chaos of the world infiltrating with its "head cheese" model, CEO, wrongly oriented pyramid with a so called laity in support of a clergy.

This will not continue unaddressed.
 
Last edited:
Thread starter #99
Even Paul had meetings with Peter and James. I think they were focusing on some false teachers as well as some Jew vs Gentile things.
 

Madman

Senior Member
Israel and Art. I started a new thread under Christianity & Judaism so as not to hijack this thread.

Apostles is the name.
 
Top