Why do Sola scriptura Protestants believe in the Trinity?

Mitchell

Disclaimer: the following questions (as well as the title of this thread) is not original to me, but none the less I personally found these questions of interest in understanding how modern western Protestants and modern Western Evangelicals use and apply Sola Scriptura. I think the answers to these questions may be of interested in understanding how Sola Scriptura Protestant who embrace the trinity converse with Sola Scripture Protestants who do not embrace the Trinity.

Where in the bible is the doctrine of the Trinity mentioned? Where is it explicitly defined? Where does it say that there are 3 persons in 1 God? What about Hypostatic union? Is that doctrine in the scriptures?

https://forums.catholic.com/t/why-do-sola-scriptura-protestants-believe-in-the-trinity/228703

Just a question out of curiosity. Why do Protestant sects who adhere to Sola-Scriptura--that is, Bible Only, believe in the doctrine of the Trinity? The Trinity was developed by the Church and is never explicitly explained in the Bible. Sure, it may have been briefly implied in certain instances, but there are not any smoking-gun proof passages in the Bible that support the Trinity as far as I know. Most of the purely Biblical arguments in support of the Trinity seem rather unconvincing and built more on speculation than the actual Bible to be honest. I don't see how you can believe these arguments and believe in the Trinity UNLESS you accepted the authority of the Church and extra-biblical sources--something that most Protestant sects refuse to do.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=48326.0

[Deleted User]

@Mitchell said:
Disclaimer: the following questions (as well as the title of this thread) is not original to me, but none the less I personally found these questions of interest in understanding how modern western Protestants and modern Western Evangelicals use and apply Sola Scriptura. I think the answers to these questions may be of interested in understanding how Sola Scriptura Protestant who embrace the trinity converse with Sola Scripture Protestants who do not embrace the Trinity.

Where in the bible is the doctrine of the Trinity mentioned? Where is it explicitly defined? Where does it say that there are 3 persons in 1 God? What about Hypostatic union? Is that doctrine in the scriptures?

https://forums.catholic.com/t/why-do-sola-scriptura-protestants-believe-in-the-trinity/228703

Just a question out of curiosity. Why do Protestant sects who adhere to Sola-Scriptura--that is, Bible Only, believe in the doctrine of the Trinity? The Trinity was developed by the Church and is never explicitly explained in the Bible. Sure, it may have been briefly implied in certain instances, but there are not any smoking-gun proof passages in the Bible that support the Trinity as far as I know. Most of the purely Biblical arguments in support of the Trinity seem rather unconvincing and built more on speculation than the actual Bible to be honest. I don't see how you can believe these arguments and believe in the Trinity UNLESS you accepted the authority of the Church and extra-biblical sources--something that most Protestant sects refuse to do.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=48326.0

Well, I am looking forward to replies by the Trinitarians here ... perhaps they do not claim to be "sola scriptura" adherents? perhaps they will evade the issue in the same manner as they evade when others here provide detailed textual evidence proving the Trinity dogma to be false ?
Let's see you replies ... wondering what will be written ...

dct112685

@Wolfgang said:

@Mitchell said:
Disclaimer: the following questions (as well as the title of this thread) is not original to me, but none the less I personally found these questions of interest in understanding how modern western Protestants and modern Western Evangelicals use and apply Sola Scriptura. I think the answers to these questions may be of interested in understanding how Sola Scriptura Protestant who embrace the trinity converse with Sola Scripture Protestants who do not embrace the Trinity.

Where in the bible is the doctrine of the Trinity mentioned? Where is it explicitly defined? Where does it say that there are 3 persons in 1 God? What about Hypostatic union? Is that doctrine in the scriptures?

https://forums.catholic.com/t/why-do-sola-scriptura-protestants-believe-in-the-trinity/228703

Just a question out of curiosity. Why do Protestant sects who adhere to Sola-Scriptura--that is, Bible Only, believe in the doctrine of the Trinity? The Trinity was developed by the Church and is never explicitly explained in the Bible. Sure, it may have been briefly implied in certain instances, but there are not any smoking-gun proof passages in the Bible that support the Trinity as far as I know. Most of the purely Biblical arguments in support of the Trinity seem rather unconvincing and built more on speculation than the actual Bible to be honest. I don't see how you can believe these arguments and believe in the Trinity UNLESS you accepted the authority of the Church and extra-biblical sources--something that most Protestant sects refuse to do.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=48326.0

Well, I am looking forward to replies by the Trinitarians here ... perhaps they do not claim to be "sola scriptura" adherents? perhaps they will evade the issue in the same manner as they evade when others here provide detailed textual evidence proving the Trinity dogma to be false ?

That's assuming you have actually given detailed textual evidence "proving" it to be false you have not.

[Deleted User]

@davidtaylorjr said:
That's assuming you have actually given detailed textual evidence "proving" it to be false you have not.

Here we go ... evading as usual.
Why don't you just answer @Mitchell's question and text ??

dct112685

With regard to the OP. We hold to it because of the evidence of Scripture.

C Mc

@Mitchell said:
Disclaimer: the following questions (as well as the title of this thread) is not original to me, but none the less I personally found these questions of interest in understanding how modern western Protestants and modern Western Evangelicals use and apply Sola Scriptura. I think the answers to these questions may be of interested in understanding how Sola Scriptura Protestant who embrace the trinity converse with Sola Scripture Protestants who do not embrace the Trinity.

Where in the bible is the doctrine of the Trinity mentioned? Where is it explicitly defined? Where does it say that there are 3 persons in 1 God? What about Hypostatic union? Is that doctrine in the scriptures?

https://forums.catholic.com/t/why-do-sola-scriptura-protestants-believe-in-the-trinity/228703

Just a question out of curiosity. Why do Protestant sects who adhere to Sola-Scriptura--that is, Bible Only, believe in the doctrine of the Trinity? The Trinity was developed by the Church and is never explicitly explained in the Bible. Sure, it may have been briefly implied in certain instances, but there are not any smoking-gun proof passages in the Bible that support the Trinity as far as I know. Most of the purely Biblical arguments in support of the Trinity seem rather unconvincing and built more on speculation than the actual Bible to be honest. I don't see how you can believe these arguments and believe in the Trinity UNLESS you accepted the authority of the Church and extra-biblical sources--something that most Protestant sects refuse to do.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=48326.0

Thanks, Mitch for sharing. I am open to truth, reason and the Word (Bible-- Ultimate authority). I don't debate the Word. I give witness to it. I declare its principle teachings via grammatical-historical interpretation-- the method of the Reformers. God doesn't need lawyers, only witnesses. The Word needs to be declared. However, it needs to be done in a concise and civil manner. This was more or less my challenge to Wolfgang in another thread. I hope he would accept that challenge. Especially, since he once believed otherwise. All truth (new or old) can endure close examinations. However, in its presentation, it must be done in a tone, that one's hearer would be inclined to hear. This bullying, belittling, "one-ups-man", superior, all-knowing, put-down, Trumpish attitudes; wrapped in verbal shenanigans is a turn-off to one's mother, priest, and dog. This spirit has to go. We must put forth greater efforts (individually), allowing Christian Discussions. "More bees are caught with honey than with vinegar."

We are not all equally educated, trained, skilled or endowed with the gifts of logic and debate tactics, etc. Do we have enough of the God, we write about, in us to make room for others who are not where we are? Let's not forget, many of us have not been where we are today. If we don't do better in regards to civility, this forum is fastly becoming like an old boys club, catering to the spiritually overbearing. Sad!

With this said, let me add to the conversation once again. Mitch, do I understand you to say, or attempting to say, that Trinitarians have it wrong; so many religious groups and denominations, for so many years? I will ask in the spirit of Luther when he writes:

"These then are the four principal Councils and the reasons they were held.
• The first, in Nicaea, defended the divinity of Christ against Arius;
• The second, in Constantinople, defended the divinity of the Holy Spirit against Macedonius.
• The third, in Ephesus, defended the one person of Christ against Nestorius;
• The fourth, in Chalcedon, defended the two natures in Christ against Eutyches.

But no new articles of faith were thereby established, for these four doctrines are formulated far more abundantly and powerfully in St. John's gospel alone, even if the other evangelists and St. Paul and St. Peter had written nothing about it, although they, together with the prophets, also teach and bear convincing witness to all of that.”

For Luther, the basic Christological question concerning the person of Christ is settled at Chalcedon (A.D. 451). But he interprets it with strong leanings toward the Alexandrian tradition, affirming the substantial unity of the divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ. It should be noted that Luther doubted the adequacy of Chalcedonian orthodoxy, e.g., the traditional meaning of "person" presents a difficulty for Luther since it may carry more than one sense, even in Christological statements.

Are you suggesting that this is one more doctrine the Protestants should be protesting against?

Let's speak the truth in love. Remember, man, convinces, God convicts and converts. CM

SOURCES:
-- See Leslie Prestige, God in Patristic Thought (London: S. P. C. K, 1952), 76.
-- Marc Lienhard, Luther: Witness to Jesus Christ, trans. J. A. Bouman (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1982), 18-19.
-- Ian D. Siggins, Martin Luther's Doctrine of Christ (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1970), 223.

C Mc

@Mitchell said:

Where in the bible is the doctrine of the Trinity mentioned? Where is it explicitly defined? Where does it say that there are 3 persons in 1 God? What about Hypostatic union? Is that doctrine in the scriptures?

Mitch, have we become a literalist? Must everything be spelled out even when the big and bold dots are seen and easy to connect? e.g. If someone were to describe your character, look, size, features, knowledge, skills, etc., and not call you a man; does that not make you a man? Does the anti-trinitarians have a case for Christendom to be concern about? Or, is this just a resurrection of Arianism with a 21st Century face pulling the levels as the wizard master in the book, "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz” by L. Frank Baum?

The hypostatic union is a communion between divinity and humanity. The Scottish theologian stipulates that there are three types of union or communion with God:

• (1) Consubstantial (union/communion in the Trinity).
• (2) Hypostatic (union/communion of the natures of Christ).
• (3) Koinonia (union/communion of human beings with God through the Spirit, partakers of the divine nature).

Without disregarding the importance of Christ’s death and resurrection. The Scottish theologian claims that “our human nature is united to his divine nature in the unity of the one person of the Son.” Torrance also sees the communion of humankind with God as a result of Christ’s resurrection. He speaks of “the resurrection of our human nature in Christ into communion with the life of God.” For him, in Christ’s resurrection is “new humanity in perfect union with God.” Let's keep studying for correct understanding and deepening faith. CM

PS. See New info on my post: "Trinity--Making the Case--Pro and Con"

Resources and Deeper study:

-- Incarnation: The Person and Life of Christ. Downers Grove, IL: IVP
Academic, 2008. 80, 82, 195, 221

-- Torrance, Thomas F. Atonement: The Person and Work of Christ. Milton Keynes, UK; Colorado Springs, CO; Downers Grove, IL: Paternoster; IVP Academic, 2009, 231.

This idea of koinonia describes Torrance’s notion of theosis, see:
-- Habets, Myk.Theosis in the Theology of Thomas Torrance. Farnham, UK; Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2009.

-- Torrance, Thomas F. Space, Time and Resurrection. Edinburgh: Handsel Press, 1976, 67.

[Deleted User]

Thus far, no Trinity adherents have provided any sola scriptura answer to the questions raised in the original post ... only complained about my style of writing which seems to get to them (sort of like Peter's rather direct sermon at Pentecost got to his audience) and then provided references to church councils' and other theological evasions ...

I know by experience how it hurts to have someone question the validity and with very simple straight forward scripture text and simple logic point out the error of one's perhaps "most beloved Trinity theology ("most loved" because it has been the one with which one has been most "indoctrinated" by just about all denominational churches).

In the original post the following questions were mentioned:

Where in the bible is the doctrine of the Trinity mentioned? Where is it explicitly defined? Where does it say that there are 3 persons in 1 God? What about Hypostatic union? Is that doctrine in the scriptures?

The answers are simple and plain: Nowhere in the Bible is such found, and that doctrine is not in the Scriptures. The Trinity doctrine is based on the authority of church dogma rather than the authority of Scripture.

Mitchell

@C_M_ said:
Mitch, do I understand you to say, or attempting to say, that Trinitarians have it wrong;

Simple Answer: No, of course, no!. But, I am highly curious what in my post would warrant such a conclusion?

**Step by step Answer: **
(1) Read my disclaimer paying close attention to the words I used
(2) Notice that the questions quoted come from a Catholic forum and an Orthodox forum.
(3) Take into consideration that the individuals asking the questions are probably traditional Christian and are probably also Trinitarians.
(4) Notice the use of the phrase 'Sola Scriptura Protestants' and then take in mind that not all Christians are Protestant, nor do all hold to Sola Scriptura. Some individuals hold to: Prima scriptura or even Ad Fontes
(5)Think very carefully about my actual words in this post, about our interactions, and about the things I have said in the past.

@C_M_ said:
Does the anti-trinitarians have a case for Christendom to be concern about?

Catholics and Orthodox Christians are not anti-trinitarians and that is where the questions come from.

@Wolfgang said:
Thus far, no Trinity adherents have provided any sola scriptura answer to the questions raised in the original post ... only complained..

If it makes you feel any better they also complained about my post or rather what they assumed my post was about before actually reading it. However, I agree that they did not demonstrate how 'sola scriptura' works.

dct112685

@Wolfgang said:
Thus far, no Trinity adherents have provided any sola scriptura answer to the questions raised in the original post ... only complained about my style of writing which seems to get to them (sort of like Peter's rather direct sermon at Pentecost got to his audience) and then provided references to church councils' and other theological evasions ...

That's not true. I said we adhere to it because of the plain evidence of the whole of Scripture.

\

The answers are simple and plain: Nowhere in the Bible is such found, and that doctrine is not in the Scriptures. The Trinity doctrine is based on the authority of church dogma rather than the authority of Scripture.

Actually it's throughout the entire Scriptures and EASILY seen.

C Mc

@Wolfgang said:

The answers are simple and plain: Nowhere in the Bible is such found, and that doctrine is not in the Scriptures. The Trinity doctrine is based on the authority of church dogma rather than the authority of Scripture.

Thanks for your response. Please see my recent post under the heading: "Trinity--Making the Case--Pro and Con"

@Mitchell said:

@C_M_ said:
Mitch, do I understand you to say, or attempting to say, that Trinitarians have it wrong;

Simple Answer: No, of course, no!. But, I am highly curious what in my post would warrant such a conclusion?

Thanks, Mitch, again for the response. Was my question was a conclusion or just a question? Sometimes in a conversation questions of clarification, corrections, and/or understand of perimeters are asked.

**Step by step Answer: **
(1) Read my disclaimer paying close attention to the words I used
(2) Notice that the questions quoted come from a Catholic forum and an Orthodox forum.
(3) Take into consideration that the individuals asking the questions are probably traditional Christian and are probably also Trinitarians.

Thanks for your points of reminders and clarifications.

(4) Notice the use of the phrase 'Sola Scriptura Protestants' and then take in mind that not all Christians are Protestant, nor do all hold to Sola Scriptura. Some individuals hold to: Prima scriptura or even Ad Fontes

Your statement above makes me ask, what is a Christian, in light of the Bible data?
"...not all Christians are Protestant, nor do all hold to Sola Scriptura", could this be the fundamental reasons for questioning the deity of Christ?

Could it be that too many are claiming Christ, but not his inspired Word (The Bible)?

I think a reminder of terms is in order:

1. "Prima scriptura" -- ("the superiority of the Bible as one source among other sources of authority").

2. "Ad Fontes" -- ‘back to the sources’That is, back to the Golden Age
   of the church, in order to reclaim its freshness, purity and vitality in the midst of a period of stagnation and corruption. More clearly defined as "ad fontes is a retrogression, a movement back towards an origin, which ideally would be clearer than the present situation."

3. "Sola scriptura" -- ("the Bible and the Bible only") a.k.a-- ‘Scripture principle’ It involves the supreme authority of the infallible Holy Scriptures to the exclusion of all human authority as regards ‘the standard of character, the revealer of doctrine, and the test of experience.

4. "Tota scriptura" --A principle of biblical interpretation. It means All Scripture--not just part--is inspired by God. This certainly includes the whole OT, the canonical Scriptures of the apostolic church (see Luke 24:17, 32, 44-45; Rom 1:2; 3:2; 2 Pet 1:21; etc.). More on this later...

Let's keep in mind these terms came about as Protestants challenged the Catholic Church’s claim to authority over Scripture. The elephant in the room on the issue of Scripture is, Authority! The ultimate authority of the church rested with the inspired Scriptures, not with any human being or collective human beings, not even with those who were used by the Holy Spirit to write Scripture. (D. A. Carson, “Church, Authority in.” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Walter A. Elwell, ed. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1984), p. 228).

The Roman Catholic inverted the order of authority–Christ, Scripture, and the church a few short centuries after the apostles. They assumed an authority that went beyond Scripture. This is the position it still holds today. George Johnston, writing in the October 1995 issue of the Catholic journal, Crisis, says, “So far as we know, he himself [Christ] never wrote a word (except on sand). . . . Who, then, decided that it [the New Testament] was Scripture? The Catholic Church.” (George Sim Johnston, “Scripture Alone” as part of “Catholics vs. Evangelicals” by Mary Jo Anderson, Crisis, October 1995, p. 27).

It's about power, authority, control, a people assuming more than is entitled. For e.g. See the following:

The 1994 edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church is even more explicit. It says, “The Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, ‘does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.’”-- Catechism of the Catholic Church, Article 2 “The Transmission of Divine Revelation” (Liguori, Missouri: Liguori Publications, 1994), No. 82, p. 26.

“This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it.” -- Catechism of the Catholic Church, Article 2 “The Transmission of Divine Revelation” (Liguori, Missouri: Liguori Publications, 1994), No. 78, p. 25.

Furthermore, “The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.” -- Catechism of the Catholic Church, Article 2 “The Transmission of Divine Revelation” (Liguori, Missouri: Liguori Publications, 1994), “The Magisterium of the Church” No. 85, p. 27.

In Article 9, “I Believe in the Holy Catholic Church,” Paragraph 4,
No. I, “The Hierarchical Constitution of the Church” the meaning of the authority claimed by the Catholic Church is made still clearer.

No. 889, p. 235 says, “In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share of his own infallibility.”

No. 890 continues, “The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium’s task to preserve God’s people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms:”

No. 891, pp. 235, 236 speaks to one such form, “‘The Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful–who confirms his brethren in the faith–he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith and morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,’ above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine ‘for belief as being divinely revealed,’ and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions ‘must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.’ This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.”

The Bible is enough, but no so, by many. The Reformation must continue. The claim by the Roman hierarchy that the church is above Scripture continues to be challenged by Protestants and more specifically by Evangelicals. Catholic Church’s claim to have sole authority to interpret Scripture, and the Pontiff's claim to Apostolic succession, for these claims are not in harmony with divine Revelation.- Dave Hunt, A Woman Rides the Beast (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 1994), chapters 8 and 22, pp. 99-107; 329-344.

Let's get real, Protestants must continue to challenge the Catholic Church’s claim to authority over Scripture, the belief in sola scriptura (the Bible and the Bible only) for prima scriptura (the superiority of the Bible as one source among other sources of authority). CM

Mitchell

@C_M_ said:
Thanks, Mitch, again for the response. Was my question was a conclusion or just a question?

Sometimes Questions, like the yet unanswered ones that started this thread are just/simply questions.

@C_M_ said:
Thanks for your points of reminders and clarifications.

A careful reading of the OP rather than what appears to be knee-jerk reactions would make such reminders/clarifications redundant (at least in my opinion). However, having said that clear communication is something we all should work on and something I would like to improve at very much myself.

@C_M_ said:
"...not all Christians are Protestant, nor do all hold to Sola Scriptura", could this be the fundamental reasons for questioning the deity of Christ? Could it be that too many are claiming Christ, but not his inspired Word (The Bible)?

I doubt it as both those who hold to Sola Scriptura and Prima Scriptura believe in the inspiration of the Scriptures. And of course, those like Orthodox and Catholics who hold to Traditio et Sacra Scriptura believe in the inspiration of the Scriptures.

1. "Prima scriptura" -- ("the superiority of the Bible as one source among other sources of authority").

Interesting but I am not sure I am not sure that definition clarifies what all those who hold to Prima Scriptura actually believe. See: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dial.12258/abstract

Let's keep in mind these terms came about as Protestants challenged the Catholic Church’s claim to authority over Scripture.

This is not true of Ad Fontes, which was popularized not by Protestants but by Erasmus of Rotterdam. Of, course western Protestants, of course, did sometimes use this term and today many still adopt this term.

@C_M_ said:
Let's get real,..

Yes, let's get real the questions in the OP have still not been answered except for by Wolfgang who by the way is not a Roman Catholic nor a member of the Orthodox Church but is a Protestant. The other individuals on this thread whom I also believe to be Protestants have avoided sharing how they arrive at the doctrine of the Trinity using Sola Scriptura. If Catholics be they of the Roman rite or any of the other rites, and Orthodox Christians visited this apologetic thread would they see a defense of Sola Scriptura? Would they see how Protestants can use Sola Scriptura arrive at the Trinity?

C Mc

Thanks, again Mitchell, for the exchange. Let me say first of, I am contributing to the conversation. I don't profess to have all the answers or even to answer your question in the OP, at all. I can only share my faith and understanding. Man (may) convince, but God convicts, converts, and saves!

Secondly, I want to be sure we are on the same page of the question and terms used. e.g. You think my definition of "Prima Scriptura" was anemic, at best and my origin of the term of "Ad Fontes" is completely wrong. This important to know in moving forward in the conversation. I am if you find my contribution a valueless and a distraction to your or the answer to the question in the OP.

Thirdly, What I stated is what I understand, even if, you think it's premature or "knee-jerk reactions." Factual truth rests in its bowels. Notwithstanding, I guess, I answered a question not asked. I didn't mean to upset you or any of my Catholic brothers or sisters.

Fourthly, you asked, "If Catholics [be they of the Roman rite or any of the other rites,] and Orthodox Christians visited this apologetic thread would they see a defense of Sola Scriptura?"

1. I would say if we mutually agreed on term, "Sola scriptura" -- ("the Bible and the Bible only") a.k.a-- ‘Scripture principle’ It involves the supreme authority of the infallible Holy Scriptures to the exclusion of all human authority as regards ‘the standard of character, the revealer of doctrine, and the test of experience, as stated above we're advancing the conversation.

• -- For example: For a person accepting the above definition of "Sola scriptura", wouldn't it be advantageous to exclude "Prima Scriptura" and "Traditio et Sacra Scriptura?" It's unfortunate, we're not mutually agreed upon its meaning. Even, with the limited expressions, can one have both; eating one's cake and having it too? You said above that, "I doubt it as both those who hold to Sola Scriptura and Prima Scriptura believe in the inspiration of the Scriptures." Clearly defined terms lead to the process of elimination. Another may reason this differently, but this, I see it.

2. The order of authority–Christ, Scripture, and the church and not vice-versa. Belief in the Trinity is remembering we are the created and not the Creator!

To this part of your question, "Would they see how Protestants can use Sola Scriptura arrive at the Trinity?"

1. I would say please see what I have contributed to my recent post under the heading: "Trinity--Making the Case--Pro and Con".

2. Embrace whole-heartedly, "Tota scriptura" --A principle of biblical interpretation. It means All Scripture--not just part--is inspired by God. This certainly includes the whole OT, the canonical Scriptures of the apostolic church (see Luke 24:17, 32, 44-45; Rom 1:2; 3:2; 2 Pet 1:21; etc.). I can say more on this if you like.

3. Allow the Bible to be its own expositor.

4. One's method of interpretation and intertextuality study of the Bible.

5. Faith-- accepting that God is, what he says, and have done. e.g. Creation of the world: I don't question it. "In the God, created the Heavens and the earth." Another translation says, "When God began..." I wasn't there, but I believe and accept it. No "Big Bang Theory" for me. I don't need God to prove His manifestations. He has revealed enough in his Word in relation to man or humanity.

6. There a heavenly Trinity? Trinitarians believe everything doesn't have to be proven scientifically. There are somethings beyond our comprehension. We (humanity) is finite and God is infinite. Who can know the mind of God, except He reveals himself?

I hope this helps with the conversation? CM

Mitchell

@C_M_ said:
Thanks, again Mitchell, for the exchange. Let me say first of, I am contributing to the conversation. I don't profess to have all the answers...

Thank you for contributing, and no one individual has all the answers. So, in that regard, we are both in the same boat and in fact that is at least part of the reason I sometimes ask questions.

@C_M_ said:
Secondly, I want to be sure we are on the same page of the question and terms used. e.g. You think my definition of "Prima Scriptura" was anemic, at best and my origin of the term of "Ad Fontes" is completely wrong.

I think we answer differently and that terms have come to have a range of different meanings this is due in part to the high probability that we live across the ocean from each other in very different social environments. I would also add that just like 'Sola Scriptura' may mean or imply something different depending on the individual who is using the term so does Prima Scriptura.

@C_M_ said:
Thirdly, What I stated is what I understand

I am sorry but found your first response highly surprising.
I had really hoped that adding a disclaimer and quoting question Christian groups that clearly hold to a Trinitarian point of views would help to avoid misunderstanding. I am still at lost how the OP could be understood in such a negative light.

If you have any suggestions on how I could have better communicated the questions I would be more than happy to know.

@C_M_ said:
1. I would say if we mutually agreed on term, "Sola scriptura"

That is the reason for the other thread I created on Sola Scriptura. I wanted to find out how each of us is using the term and order to be able to better understand and communicate. I have encountered a number of different individuals on the internet that seems at least to me to be using Sola Scriptura in ways that I never knew it could be used.

@C_M_ said:
You said above that, "I doubt it as both those who hold to Sola Scriptura and Prima Scriptura believe in the inspiration of the Scriptures." Clearly defined terms lead to the process of elimination. Another may reason this differently, but this, I see it.

The Methodist Church and the Episcopal Church holds to Prima Scriptura and they understand the Bible as being inspired and authoritative or at least so I thought.

BUT, yes I agree with you that it would be ideal if terms could be clearly defined and agree upon. I am, however, not sure what you are trying to say by process of elimination.

@C_M_ said:
2. Embrace whole-heartedly, "Tota scriptura" --A principle of biblical interpretation. It means All Scripture--not just part--is inspired by God.

I am not familiar with the term Tota Scriptura, but all on this current thread believe that the entire Bible is inspired as far as I can tell or at least I do not perceive this as being an issue on this thread.

@C_M_ said:
3. Allow the Bible to be its own expositor.

I think all of us on this thread do so or at least are trying to do so, however, that does not mean that we will come to the same conclusions on every issue. I think evidence of this can be seen in the vast number of Protestant points of view and denominations.

@C_M_ said:
Trinitarians believe everything doesn't have to be proven scientifically. There are somethings beyond our comprehension.

I am really confused as to what you are replying to? At, no time have I ever claimed that matters of faith must be proved scientifically. Rather, the questions were concerning the use of Sola Scriptura by western Protestants and in an attempt at better dialogue with how one comes to the Trinty through the Scriptures, not through science. I had really hope that since individuals like you and Wolfgang both hold to Sola Scriptura a thread like this could provide a better understanding.

[Deleted User]

@Mitchell said:
... Rather, the questions were concerning the use of Sola Scriptura by western Protestants and in an attempt at better dialogue with how one comes to the Trinty through the Scriptures, not through science. I had really hope that since individuals like you and Wolfgang both hold to Sola Scriptura a thread like this could provide a better understanding.

From what I have read in various threads that concern the "Trinity doctrine/dogma", all participants supporting this doctrine do not go by "sola scriptura" principles (even though some claim to do so) and eventually resort to quoting catechisms, extra-biblical works from different authors, church councils dogmas, etc.

The reason for this fact is very simple: From Scripture alone ("sola scriptura") the Trinity doctrine can not be arrived it because Scripture does neither contain the terms "trinity", "triune", etc nor any statement which would indirectly imply or directly indicate what the Trinity doctrine teaches.

Dave_L

@Wolfgang said:

The reason for this fact is very simple: From Scripture alone ("sola scriptura") the Trinity doctrine can not be arrived it because Scripture does neither contain the terms "trinity", "triune", etc nor any statement which would indirectly imply or directly indicate what the Trinity doctrine teaches.

The trinity doctrine originated in scripture. The creeds and confessions merely stated it, unusually after intense debate or polishing it into it purest form. I believed in the deity of Christ, the Holy Spirit, and the Father before ever setting foot in a church. Just from reading my bible, and I learned the three were of one spiritual essence called God apart from any church involvement - by studying on my own.

[Deleted User]

@Dave_L said:
The trinity doctrine originated in scripture. The creeds and confessions merely stated it, unusually after intense debate or polishing it into it purest form.

How can the trinity doctrine originate in Scripture when it is not found in Scripture? You yourself state that it was "creeds and confessions" that have produced it.

I believed in the deity of Christ, the Holy Spirit, and the Father before ever setting foot in a church. Just from reading my bible, and I learned the three were of one spiritual essence called God apart from any church involvement - by studying on my own.

One need not go to a church building or attend / become member in a denominational church to have some kind of contact with the Trinity doctrine ... in our Western societies it has permeated religious thinking independent of "church".

What you claim has happened to you "just from reading my Bible", seems rather impossible because there is no such thing found or taught in Scripture as "one spiritual essence called God" !! "Essences" of any kind do not act, but "God" is described from the very first verse in the Bible as One Who acts (!!), He CREATED !!

Dave_L

@Wolfgang said:

@Dave_L said:
The trinity doctrine originated in scripture. The creeds and confessions merely stated it, unusually after intense debate or polishing it into it purest form.

How can the trinity doctrine originate in Scripture when it is not found in Scripture? You yourself state that it was "creeds and confessions" that have produced it.

I believed in the deity of Christ, the Holy Spirit, and the Father before ever setting foot in a church. Just from reading my bible, and I learned the three were of one spiritual essence called God apart from any church involvement - by studying on my own.

One need not go to a church building or attend / become member in a denominational church to have some kind of contact with the Trinity doctrine ... in our Western societies it has permeated religious thinking independent of "church".

What you claim has happened to you "just from reading my Bible", seems rather impossible because there is no such thing found or taught in Scripture as "one spiritual essence called God" !! "Essences" of any kind do not act, but "God" is described from the very first verse in the Bible as One Who acts (!!), He CREATED !!

If an author writes a history book, he or she does not create the history. They only record it. And they might argue details with other historians to arrive at a precise conclusion. This is how the trinity doctrine came into being. The word trinity is a type of "shorthand" for saying all contained in the statement.

I saw God as one in three persons long before reading any of the creeds. And any churches I attended over the years never touched on the doctrine. It is there if you look for it.

[Deleted User]

@Dave_L said:
I saw God as one in three persons long before reading any of the creeds. And any churches I attended over the years never touched on the doctrine. It is there if you look for it.

You are the first and only person of quite many with whom I have had exchange about the topic who has seen "God as one in three persons" by just reading the Bible ...

In addition, since -- even as you yourself state -- it took long and extended and disputed discussions to even come up with this expression "God as one in three persons", but you seemingly immediately saw it, you must have a special "revelation connection" to gain such insights ...

In other words, I don't quite believe what you are claiming ... which is my privilege to do.

C Mc

No one is under any delusion that the word, "Trinity" is not found in the Bible. However, can one see the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit manifested throughout the sacred pages? If not, I would like an anti-trinitarian to show me in historical details (name, dates, times, places, and/or organization(s)) behind this supposedly, damnable doctrine. Given this supposedly wide-spread dogma infesting Christianity.

Please, release the anti-trinitarian bloodhounds to track down what you deem "heresy" or "mistaken understanding" of God. I await your findings. CM

Dave_L

@Wolfgang said:

@Dave_L said:
I saw God as one in three persons long before reading any of the creeds. And any churches I attended over the years never touched on the doctrine. It is there if you look for it.

You are the first and only person of quite many with whom I have had exchange about the topic who has seen "God as one in three persons" by just reading the Bible ...

In addition, since -- even as you yourself state -- it took long and extended and disputed discussions to even come up with this expression "God as one in three persons", but you seemingly immediately saw it, you must have a special "revelation connection" to gain such insights ...

In other words, I don't quite believe what you are claiming ... which is my privilege to do.

If you consider Jesus' baptism, you can more easily see the trinity than not. It takes willful ignorance not to see it. First you have the Son being baptized. You then have the Father's voice from heaven, and the Holy Spirit descending (from heaven where God is) like a dove. Throughout scripture you see the same trio as God doing what only a person can do.

Also, anyone knows that if their father is human, that makes them human too. Or, if Jesus' Father was God, that would make him God too. Wouldn't it?

[Deleted User]

@C_M_ said:
No one is under any delusion that the word, "Trinity" is not found in the Bible. However, can one see the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit manifested throughout the sacred pages?

I can see Peter, John, James in the Bible ... each one is an apostle. Now, since the three are mentioned in the Bible, and even mentioned together, does that make them One "Trinity" Apostle??? Obviously not.

Of course, the Father is mentioned in the Bible ... and He is actually the One Who is specifically identified as THE Almighty God!
Certainly, the Son is mentioned in the Bible ... and he is specifically called "the MAN Jesus, the MAN Christ Jesus" and identified as the Son of God (but never as God)
Also, the Holy Spirit is mentioned in the Bible ... and the term "the Holy Spirit" is used in some contexts as a descriptive of God (similar to how "the Father", "the Creator", "the Almighty", "the Ancient of Days", etc. are descriptives of God); in other contexts the term is used for the gift which God dives to believers, that which believers receive and with which they are sealed.

@C_M_ said:
If not, I would like an anti-trinitarian to show me in historical details (name, dates, times, places, and/or organization(s)) behind this supposedly, damnable doctrine. Given this supposedly wide-spread dogma infesting Christianity.

You only need to read a number of church history works which deal with the early centuries AD and how certain dogmas and doctrines developed and were first introduced into Christendom and eventually "established" as "dogma" by church councils in the 4th century AD (e.g. Nicea in 325 AD)

@C_M_ said:
Please, release the anti-trinitarian bloodhounds to track down what you deem "heresy" or "mistaken understanding" of God. I await your findings. CM

I trust you will give the above some serious thought ....

Mitchell

@Wolfgang said:
From what I have read in various threads that concern the "Trinity doctrine/dogma", all participants supporting this doctrine do not go by "sola scriptura" principles

So far no one on this thread has demonstrated step by step how going by "Sola Scriptura" he/she came to the doctrine of Trinity from examining the Bible. That is not to say that in the future someone won't, but thus far no one on this thread has. Rather, a number of the responses and replies come out as irrational baseless personal attacks, as attacks against other branches of Christianity, as attacks against strawmen arguments and highly emotional.

Personal I excepted or was hoping to finally see a calm rigorous Western Protestant use of Sola Scriptura on these forums for the defense of both sides (or more sides) of the Trinity. After, this thread is in the Apologetics section.

[Deleted User]

@Mitchell said:
Personal I excepted or was hoping to finally see a calm rigorous Western Protestant use of Sola Scriptura on these forums for the defense of both sides (or more sides) of the Trinity. After, this thread is in the Apologetics section.

My experience of more than 4 decades of serious and detailed study and exchange with Trinity adherents leads me to think that you were hoping for something impossible ... something like someone drawing a square circle.
The Trinity doctrine/dogma was arrived at by interpretation "into the text of Scripture", not by interpretation and understanding "from out of the Scriptures".

C Mc

@Mitchell said:

I had really hoped that adding a disclaimer and quoting question Christian groups that clearly hold to a Trinitarian point of views would help to avoid misunderstanding. I am still at lost how the OP could be understood in such a negative light.

If you have any suggestions on how I could have better communicated the questions I would be more than happy to know.

Mitch, thanks for your willingness to continue on this topic. Don't beat yourself up over my response.

1. It could have been my misreading the question or not grasping the full just of it.
2. We all listen, read and speak sometimes of what's the most pressing matter, at the time.
3. It's no secret, I'm very reflective on the Reformation and its continuation.
4. Are you more befuddled over my not answering your question accurately or because of the historical truth shared? Are you having a problem with the truthfulness of the content, the timing and/or in this Forum? Truth is the truth. However, the appropriate context and tone carry weight on the heart and ears of the hearer. Whichever way you conclude my response; Mitchell, I feel your pain, over the miles, wherever you are (This isn't necessarily an inquiry of your location).
5. Whatever, you conclude, it's nothing personal against you.

@C_M_ said:
3. Allow the Bible to be its own expositor.

I think all of us on this thread do so or at least are trying to do so, however, that does not mean that we will come to the same conclusions on every issue. I think evidence of this can be seen in the vast number of Protestant points of view and denominations.

Yes, I agree. When it comes to "conclusions", the elephant in the forum is presuppositions. Isn't it a reality we must live with?

@C_M_ said:
Trinitarians believe everything doesn't have to be proven scientifically. There are somethings beyond our comprehension.

I am really confused as to what you are replying to? At, no time have I ever claimed that matters of faith must be proved scientifically.

Again, I didn't say nor am I accusing you of such. Many times in writing, anticipating others may hold a view, although I am responding to your post.

For some people, if there isn't a literal command giving permission to do or a prohibition; they fail to see the thread throughout Scripture or the composite biblical that texts made the case before their very eyes. Could this be the situation with many anti-trinitarian? This is what I meant above.

Besides, other see can and may respond having such view. I guess it's a bad habit needs to be broken?

Rather, the questions were concerning the use of Sola Scriptura by western Protestants and in an attempt at better dialogue with how one comes to the Trinty through the Scriptures, not through science. I had really hope that since individuals like you and Wolfgang both hold to Sola Scriptura a thread like this could provide a better understanding.

In view of this statement and upon reflection of what we discussed earlier, please help me with some feedback, if you care to do so:

1. Are the terms ("sola scriptura", "Tota Scriptura", Prima Scriptura, etc.) or Bible Texts are the problem in dealing with the Trinity?

2. After all, these terms didn’t descend from heaven nor are they a part of the biblical canon. Have the terms become stumbling blocks to understanding?

3. Are we trying to fit Bible Texts into terms that are not big enough to accommodate the Trinity? Or, are we trying to fit terms into Bible Texts, inadequate to support the Trinity reality?

4. Is it a lack of faith, arrogance, and stiffed-neckedness on the part of the anti-Trinitarians, by refusing to accept the plain reading of the word? An old saying comes to mind, “None is so blind, who will not see."

5. If the anti-trinitarians are not willing to accept Triune God, are they willing to accept a “spiritualized” Trinity? That is, to take something intended as literal, and by calling it “spiritual” to so radically change the concept that it no longer had any real meaning.

I don't mean to offend, just some thoughts. What say ye? CM

Bill_Coley

My reflections on the questions you posed in a response to Mitchell.

@C_M_ said:
In view of this statement and upon reflection of what we discussed earlier, please help me with some feedback, if you care to do so:

1. Are the terms ("sola scriptura", "Tota Scriptura", Prima Scriptura, etc.) or Bible Texts are the problem in dealing with the Trinity?

No. The "problem" is that Christians of authentic faith read the Bible and come to different conclusions as to whether Scripture teaches God's self-expression through a manner the Church came to call the "Trinity." Actually, in my view, that's not a "problem" at all... except when some portion of those Christians of authentic faith react with scorn, judgment, and ridicule to the Christians who disagree with them on the matter.

2. After all, these terms didn’t descend from heaven nor are they a part of the biblical canon. Have the terms become stumbling blocks to understanding?

No. The "stumbling block" - which is more a stumbling block to community agreement/consensus than it is a block to understanding - is the different conclusions groups of Christians come to when assessing Scripture's teaching about God's self-revelation.

3. Are we trying to fit Bible Texts into terms that are not big enough to accommodate the Trinity? Or, are we trying to fit terms into Bible Texts, inadequate to support the Trinity reality?

I think the terms themselves raised in the OP of this thread make only an inconsequential contribution to the disagreement among Christians about the Trinity.

4. Is it a lack of faith, arrogance, and stiffed-neckedness on the part of the anti-Trinitarians, by refusing to accept the plain reading of the word? An old saying comes to mind, “None is so blind, who will not see."

As one member of the "anti-Trinitartian" society, I can tell you that my "refus(al) to accept the plain reading of the word" has nothing to do with a lack of faith, arrogance, or a stiff neck. My refusal comes from the fact that my "plain reading of the word" produces a very different conclusion about the validity of the Trinity doctrine than does the "plain reading of the word" made by people who believe in the Trinity.

5. If the anti-trinitarians are not willing to accept Triune God, are they willing to accept a “spiritualized” Trinity? That is, to take something intended as literal, and by calling it “spiritual” to so radically change the concept that it no longer had any real meaning.

I don't know whether you raise a "spiritualized Trinity" as a compromise between the two camps, or as a criticism of those who so "change the concept that it no longer (has) any real meaning." Please clarify.

I don't mean to offend, just some thoughts. What say ye? CM

I suggest that you read the questions you posed, CM - particularly #4 - as if you were a Christian who has decided Scripture doesn't support the Trinity doctrine, then ask yourself whether they could have produced any offense.

Mitchell

@C_M_ said:
What say ye? CM

If you haven't done so already please look at your inbox.
To go there
(1) click on your thumbnail profile picture/avatar on the top left-hand side of the page
(2) A page with your full-size profile picture should open
(3) Under that picture you will see the following:

Activity
Notifications
Inbox
Discussions
Comments

(4) click on 'inbox'
(5) Hopefully, you see a message from me

@C_M_ said:
Mitch, thanks for your willingness to continue on this topic. Don't beat yourself up over my response.

I seriously, want to figure out how to better communicate on these forums.

Although I consider myself to have native-level fluency in English, I have been living outside of English speaking countries for over 17 years. This means that my English may or may not be current with contemporary colloquial spoken English. My English is more influenced books and articles I read rather than through interacting with other native speakers of English.

3. It's no secret, I'm very reflective on the Reformation and its continuation.

I would definitely like to explore topics about the Reformation and the Reform faith in more detail on other not yet started threads.

4. Are you more befuddled over my not answering your question accurately or because of the historical truth shared?

Neither, I was surprised that (in replies on Feb 9th) the questions in the OP seemed completely ignored and the remarks about anti-trinitarian was not applicable given the fact that the quoted questions about Sola Scriptura asked by Trinitarians!

@C_M_ said:
When it comes to "conclusions", the elephant in the forum is presuppositions. Isn't it a reality we must live with?

I agree with that and I think this one of the reasons why I find it helpful to study a passage/topic with others in a step by step manner because it is only then when I can see where others and I diverge and maybe even why.

And, that is part of what I want to happen here; is for a serious sola scriptura study of the Biblical data.

@C_M_ said:
Again, I didn't say nor am I accusing you of such. Many times in writing, anticipating others may hold a view, although I am responding to your post.

Thanks for the clarification

@C_M_ said:
Besides, other see can and may respond having such view. I guess it's a bad habit needs to be broken?

I do not think it is a bad habit, I think you are right to anticipate counter-arguments. However, maybe if there is time you could add a note. I will be more aware next time/

@C_M_ said:
1. Are the terms ("sola scriptura", "Tota Scriptura", Prima Scriptura, etc.) or Bible Texts are the problem in dealing with the Trinity?

No, or at least I do not think so

2. After all, these terms didn’t descend from heaven nor are they a part of the biblical canon. Have the terms become stumbling blocks to understanding?

If we are each hearing something differently or working with different assumptions then we might speak past each other without realizing it.

3. Are we trying to fit Bible Texts into terms that are not big enough to accommodate the Trinity? Or, are we trying to fit terms into Bible Texts, inadequate to support the Trinity reality?

Great Question!

4. Is it a lack of faith, arrogance, and stiffed-neckedness on the part of the anti-Trinitarians, by refusing to accept the plain reading of the word? An old saying comes to mind, “None is so blind, who will not see."

I will answer the question by sharing the following:
There was a time when a friend of mine did not see Messiah in the Hebrew Bible/OT but during that time it wasn't because of a lack of faith, arrogance, or stiffed-neckedness. It was due more to the fact he had a different 'worldview' and was working with different assumptions.

When he first heard the name Jesus and text that stated that his name meant God will save, he thought it was talking about Zeus because the name Jesus sounds or at least looked a lot like Zeus. And, Jesus did not sound like any of the names or titles for God in the Hebrew Bible/OT so it never dawned on him that the text people were reading off to him was actually making a connection to YHWH by stating that the child was to be named Yeshua or Yehoshua. He thought the concept of Jesus being the son of God was a lot like that of Heracles or Perseus both sons of Zeus and he had no idea that Christ was not his last name but rather the title Moshiach/Messiah. Christians trying to share the gospel with him never explained who Jesus really was, they simply read of NT verses at him and told him had better believe or he was going to hell.

Now, would it have been a lack of faith If he had accepted Jesus when they told him to, but yet he did not know who Jesus was and though he was the son of Zeus? Was, he arrogance or was it do to stiffed neckedness on his part? In my opinion no But zealous, in my opinion, heartless Christians called him an evil Pharisee and told him that was hard-hearted. In doing so all they did was to push him away from hearing what the gospel and reinforce the negative image he already had of Christians.

Dave_L

I believe Sola Scriptura > @Mitchell said:

@Wolfgang said:
From what I have read in various threads that concern the "Trinity doctrine/dogma", all participants supporting this doctrine do not go by "sola scriptura" principles

So far no one on this thread has demonstrated step by step how going by "Sola Scriptura" he/she came to the doctrine of Trinity from examining the Bible. That is not to say that in the future someone won't, but thus far no one on this thread has. Rather, a number of the responses and replies come out as irrational baseless personal attacks, as attacks against other branches of Christianity, as attacks against strawmen arguments and highly emotional.

Personal I excepted or was hoping to finally see a calm rigorous Western Protestant use of Sola Scriptura on these forums for the defense of both sides (or more sides) of the Trinity. After, this thread is in the Apologetics section.

There is a catch to Sola Scriptura. And that is the work of the Holy Spirit. “At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent, and revealed them to little children.” (Matthew 11:25)

I believed God is one having three persons called the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit several decades before ever reading the creeds. And all but one of the churches I attended avoided the subject. The creeds, like a good book, gave me greater insight. But even a child can see the trinity in scripture if you would make a game out of it and see how many references they could find.

Mitchell

@Dave_L said:
There is a catch to Sola Scriptura. And that is the work of the Holy Spirit.

If there is a catch then it can no longer be said to be Sola Scriptura proper.
What you described sounds a lot like Prima Scriptura for in that paradigm one cannot understand the scriptures alone, but they something extra. In the case, you described they need spiritual insight or a charismatic gift they can't go to the scripture alone and understand them.

Dave_L

@Mitchell said:

@Dave_L said:
There is a catch to Sola Scriptura. And that is the work of the Holy Spirit.

If there is a catch then it can no longer be said to be Sola Scriptura proper.
What you described sounds a lot like Prima Scriptura for in that paradigm one cannot understand the scriptures alone, but they something extra. In the case, you described they need spiritual insight or a charismatic gift they can't go to the scripture alone and understand them.

Thanks for calling attention to this. But as Paul says, the literal (letter) of sola scriptura kills but the Spirit gives life. The Charismatics go beyond this principle and add new scripture through their revelations and utterances.

Jesus opened the scriptures to the disciples understanding. The point being that there are two sola scriptura groups. One with understanding and the other without.

C Mc

@Wolfgang said:

My experience of more than 4 decades of serious and detailed study and exchange with Trinity adherents leads me to think that you were hoping for something impossible ... something like someone drawing a square circle.

Wolfgang, given your broad experiences, studies and exchanges on the subject of the Trinity have you considered making your anti-trinitarian case, using Sola Scriptura? Skill is shown and lesson learned for all. I say so, because you seemingly, believed that Trinitarians can't ("impossible"), will not or are incapable of using Sola Scriptura to make their case? Sometimes, you have to do or be what you want others to do or be. What a wonderful opportunity?

The Trinity doctrine/dogma was arrived at by interpretation "into the text of Scripture", not by interpretation and understanding "from out of the Scriptures".

We have to find out (who, what, where and when), in a non-emotional way; yet, in a factual historical manner. I solicit your help. CM