Why do Sola scriptura Protestants believe in the Trinity?

Mitchell

@Dave_L said:
Jesus opened the scriptures to the disciples understanding.

Sure, Jesus explained the written scriptures (Luke 24:27) and reprimanded the disciples for not believing what was already plainly written in the scriptures(Luke 24:25). Having said, that today I believe that vast majority of Christians claiming Sola Scripture actually hold Prima Scriptura in practice.

If, you use common sense, logic, the grammatical-historical method, spiritual interpretation, assumptions, tradition, or anything else you are practicing Prima Scriptura. And, there is nothing wrong with that as long as one is honest and admits that in fact is what he/she is doing.

Dave_L

@Mitchell said:

@Dave_L said:
Jesus opened the scriptures to the disciples understanding.

Sure, Jesus explained the written scriptures (Luke 24:27) and reprimanded the disciples for not believing what was already plainly written in the scriptures(Luke 24:25).

“Then he opened their minds so they could understand the scriptures,” (Luke 24:45)

“who has made us sufficient to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.” (2 Corinthians 3:6)

etc.

Mitchell

Luke 24:45 and 2 Corinthians 3:6 are neither related in topic nor subject. Luke Speaks of Jesus explaining the scriptures (Luke 24:27 and Luke 24:45) and 2 Corinthians speaks of Christians as being ministers of a new covenant, not of a scroll, or book, or a collection of books at that time not yet complied.

Jesus also speaks of the blood of the covenant (Matthew 26:28) he is not speaking of the scriptures not yet written. And, again 2 Corinthians 3:6 does not even hint some special interpretational method.

Dave_L

Regardless, Paul says the letter kills (the meaning) but the Spirit gives life. And nobody understood the scriptures except those whom Jesus gave understanding.

“But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and will cause you to remember everything I said to you.” (John 14:26)

This is true also in OT times: “Guide me into your truth and teach me. For you are the God who delivers me; on you I rely all day long.” (Psalm 25:5)

[Deleted User]

@C_M_ 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?

I have made reference to scripture over and over again, never relied on any non-biblical books doctrines dogma and sources in order to point out that Scripture teaches that there is only ONE individual entity Who Alone is true God ... how much more "sola scriptura" do you want ????

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?

It is impossible not because of anything personal to a Trinitarian ... it is impossible because the Trinity doctrine is NOT taught, mentioned, implied or indicated in Scripture. If there is no apple juice in the glass, no one can show that there is apple juice from either "just the glass" or even by using other things in addition.

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

I already mentioned that church history books and writings available from the early centuries AD will tell the story of how the doctrine began to show up in Christendom and that most likely influential "church fathers" of a Greek background were instrumental in bringing in ideas that eventually led to the dogma of the Trinity (by the way, it didn't start out with a "Tri-(3 persons in a Godhead)-nity", but rather with ideas about Jesus being something else in addition to being a human being as Scripture teaches, leading at first to a "Bi-(2 persons in a Godhead)-nity"

C Mc

@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.

Could it be that we’re putting too much weight on this phrase, "Sola Scriptura", to work within the bowels of Scripture? Given that this phrase has been around…
1. DURING the Protestant Reformation and employed to point TO the Bible as the only normative authority **for Christian belief and practice.
2. **Please note that the phrase gained prominence during the Reformation. As you rightly pointed out, the phrase, "Sola Scriptura" was NOT **a creation of the Reformers.
3. **However, "Sola Scriptura" has been around DURING the MIDDLE AGES. What was its meaning at this time? (See Heiko A. Oberman, The Harvest of Medieval Theology (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963), 390.

4. Again, note well, the contexts in which the phrase has been used, however, created nuances of meaning which should not be confused.

Mitchell, until we view "Sola Scriptura", in the context of the Reformation, served to focus attention on the Bible as a principle of interpretation against competing principles, we are going to go in circles. (see G. C. Berkouwer, Holy Scripture (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1975), 306.).

What was the main competing principle of interpretation? It was the traditions! This was what I was trying to bring out, more so, than attacking a religious Institution of the past. Luther’s critique of tradition was, first and foremost, not as a source of religious authority. What were the traditions? Luther's main point was the church CAN NOT, SHOULD NOT or MUST NOT use of tradition as a principle of biblical interpretation. This is interesting. Later for another time, perhaps, another post.

Luther’s call was to recover the true tradition of biblical truth through correct interpretation of the Bible, unhampered by an assumed, necessary congruity between the Bible and traditional church teaching.

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.

Could it be your characterization is the same thing projected, in light of others who seek to unearth this phase ("Sola Scriptura") with its ancient and multiple meanings, from its historical context? Therefore, every contribution to the conversation has value. It may not be equal or the one you prefer, but nevertheless, value. Are we all equally educated and trained in the Reformation and Apologetics? The answer is obvious.

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.

It's not the end of the world. Let’s allow for some time and additional thoughts to marinade under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I am wondering, is there a calm rigorous Eastern Protestant use of Sola Scriptura? I am sure, this forum would welcome it.

Let’s be a team to shine a light on the dark pages of history. Let's not fear its reality, but enlighten minds, warm hearts and give God glory. Must we be independent wells of truth, sitting on reserves waiting for others to run dry? Could we at lease, share from our overflow?

Contextual truth can be enlightening and yet, excruciatingly painful when it cuts across the grains of one's current position or exposes one's past dealings (man/institution). However, truth, in all its forms, is not to be feared but embraced and endure close examination. CM

Mitchell

@Dave_L said:
Regardless, Paul says the letter

Yet, that was never the issue as no one on this thread doubted what Paul wrote. Go back and read what I wrote.

@Dave_L said:
“But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and will cause you to remember everything I said to you.” (John 14:26)

Of, course but in context that has nothing to do with helping them read the Bible For no one had a complete personal Bible: as each book of the Bible was still written in individual scrolls, those scrolls were not sold in stores but had to be written down by hand, only rich individuals (like the Ethiopian servant of the Queen in Acts), or devout religious institutions/individuals would have some (but not all) the scrolls, and the canon of scripture had not yet been completed. The NT never hints that any of the disciples had their own scrolls, but Paul. So, it is clear that John 14:26 speaks not of the written word but of everything Jesus spoke to the disciples.

@Dave_L said:
This is true also in OT times: “Guide me into your truth and teach me. For you are the God who delivers me; on you I rely all day long.” (Psalm 25:5)

God can guide and teach us with having to give us a mystical ability.

Mitchell

@C_M_ said:
Could it be that we’re putting too much weight on this phrase, "Sola Scriptura",

One: Being that the topic of this thread is the "Sola Scriptura" I am not sure how too much weight can be put on it.

Two: The questions in the OP still have not been answered by anyone other Wolfgang on this thread. I am still looking forward to seeing how others on this thread answer the questions rather than avoiding, ignoring them, or changing the subject.

@C_M_ said: Could it be your characterization is the same thing projected,

Sure it could because I did not project anything to others but I started this thread on a positive note, and then rather than the questions in the OP being answered I was immediately attacked and accused of supporting anti-trinitarians. Yet, the quoted questions were not from ant-Trinitarians but from two historic groups that support the Trinity doctrine. That is not a characterization or a projection but a statement of the facts. So when I also stated that the questions have not been answered by anyone other than Wolfgang on this thread again that is not a projection but rather the fact.

@C_M_ said:Therefore, every contribution to the conversation has value.

Of, course every contribution has value, the point however was not about value but the fact that those contributions ignored the questions posted in the OP

C Mc

@Mitchell said:

@C_M_ said:
Could it be that we’re putting too much weight on this phrase, "Sola Scriptura",

One: Being that the topic of this thread is the "Sola Scriptura" I am not sure how too much weight can be put on it.

Two: The questions in the OP still have not been answered by anyone other Wolfgang on this thread. I am still looking forward to seeing how others on this thread answer the questions rather than avoiding, ignoring them, or changing the subject.

Brother Mitchell,
"...putting too much weight on this phrase, "Sola Scriptura", in this thread was not what I was trying to say. I meant in general when it comes to having the requested outcome.

Besides, no one is "avoiding, ignoring them, or changing the subject." I am working on going back and working my way through the historical setting forward. If time is of the essence, you or another, can lead the way and produce, if you can, to your heart's desire. Is it too much, to respect individual differences and one's time? Please consider re-reading my post above.

Is there a new requirement or a litmus test (unknown to me) for using CD, in general, and this thread post, in particular? If the task requested is possible, be patient. If the task is impossible, then you have your answer.

Regardless, there can be no application without comprehension of the base (concept, formula, or principle). This is not a game of avoidance. It's about principles of understanding. If you believe in your heart, a game of posting tag is going on; I am not a part of it. Until next time, peace, blessings and rest. CM

Mitchell

CM have you checked out this yet:
https://christiandiscourse.net/index.php?p=/messages/4/#Item_1

@C_M_ said:

if you can, to your heart's desire. Is it too much, to respect individual differences and one's time?

Sure, this why I posted questions from a Catholic and Orthodox website and from time to time do so from other groups. I usually am forced to leave a disclaimer because sometimes people think that I am automatically endorsing the point of views when I am simply respecting them.

Eitherway that is great advice.

GaoLu

There are elements of God that we can talk about without full comprehension. I can tell you about Northern Lights. You can have a pretty good idea, but you can't really know unless you go see them for yourself. We can talk about God, knowing that we don't really know like will someday know.

The word Trinity is a bit off-putting to me, though I use it. Explaining God as the Trinity is much harder than just knowing the fact, and explaining the matter just muddies what we know. God is one God. OUr explanations sort of divide Him up, because there is a real division of His existence of some sort. That we see and know. Yet clearly only God. When we discuss the differences in what God is we end up with Trinity. Well, it works more or less.

Explaining northern lights is nearly impossible. We can talk about other things we know to sort of explain, like curtains, colors and rainbows, but none of those is the real thing. We just have to accept that. Likewise, we accept that Trinity is a great explanation, but certainly doesn't wholly capture who and what God is.

Here is an explanation that I found with weaknesses but interesting: https://blog.faithlife.com/blog/2015/11/the-best-conceptual-explanation-of-the-trinity-ive-ever-seen/

[Deleted User]

@GaoLu said:
There are elements of God that we can talk about without full comprehension. I can tell you about Northern Lights. You can have a pretty good idea, but you can't really know unless you go see them for yourself. We can talk about God, knowing that we don't really know like will someday know.

Why is there so often a pointing to "what we don't really know like we will someday know", as if the Trinity doctrine already was what we will someday really know, just don't know it now ?? Eh, if that were the case, how could those who came up with the "Trinity doctrine/dogma" already know, when supposedly we can NOT know now??

The word Trinity is a bit off-putting to me, though I use it. Explaining God as the Trinity is much harder than just knowing the fact, and explaining the matter just muddies what we know. God is one God.

There is a big difference between God is "one God" and "God is One". IF the term "God" was a name, title etc for an acting team, then this "one God"-team could have more than one and even a vast number of "persons". IF however "God" is a name, title, etc for "one single individual" (rather than a team, family, group), then the "God" is only One acting individual (and not a duo, trio, quartett, etc)

OUr explanations sort of divide Him up, because there is a real division of His existence of some sort.

The Trinity doctrine actually does not divide God up, rather it defines a second and third acting individual additionally as "God" and then turns "God is One (individual)" into "God is one God-Trio", made up of three individual Gods.

That we see and know. Yet clearly only God. When we discuss the differences in what God is we end up with Trinity. Well, it works more or less.

It only "works" in the sphere of speculation and assumption ... resulting in contradiction to the Scripture truth that only One Alone is God (and NOT Two, Three, Four, or more who are each God).

Explaining northern lights is nearly impossible. We can talk about other things we know to sort of explain, like curtains, colors and rainbows, but none of those is the real thing. We just have to accept that.

Ok .... then accept the next logical step (see below)

Likewise, we accept that Trinity is a great explanation, but certainly doesn't wholly capture who and what God is.

The Trinity doctrine is NOT the real thing .... and since it contradicts the plainly and clearly stated truth that God is only One single acting individual Spirit Being (and not two, three, or more), the Trinity doctrine is not only "not the real thing" but in truth it is a false doctrine/dogma.

Here is an explanation that I found with weaknesses but interesting: https://blog.faithlife.com/blog/2015/11/the-best-conceptual-explanation-of-the-trinity-ive-ever-seen/

Nothing new in regards to futile attempts at an explanation of the trinity doctrine ... and the claim of "the best conceptual explanation ... i've ever seen" is nothing but an empty catch phrase to get some "bonus points" with a likely reader before they read the article ...

Mitchell

@C_M_ said:
"...putting too much weight on this phrase, "Sola Scriptura", in this thread was not what I was trying to say. I meant in general when it comes to having the requested outcome.

Thanks for the clarification

... I am working on going back and working my way through the historical setting forward. If time is of the essence, you or another, can lead the way and produce, if you can, to your heart's desire.

One, thanks that is good to know and If you had said that at first we could have avoided a lot of the back and forth.

Bye the way did, you see your inbox, yet?

Is there a new requirement or a litmus test (unknown to me) for using CD, in general, and this thread post, in particular? If the task requested is possible, be patient. If the task is impossible, then you have your answer.

There is no litmus test and point in noting that rather than an answer I got attacked for asking the question. I can only know if a question is impossible to be answered if some one tells me, if not how can I know, but in general I would assume that people posting on a thread asking a question would have an answer or at least be upfront if they did not have one rather than attacking or accusing the one asking the question.

there can be no application without comprehension of the base (concept, formula, or principle). This is not a game of avoidance. It's about principles of understanding.

Yes, I agree and that is mainly the reason for this thread is for us all to see 'Sola Scriptura' inaction by both sides on the issue of the Trinity in order to facilitate better understanding between each other. Before I started this thread I knew that there were other threads on the Trinity and I thought this topic might be approached from a different angle.

Grace and Peace

Dave_L

@Mitchell said:

@Dave_L said:
Regardless, Paul says the letter

Yet, that was never the issue as no one on this thread doubted what Paul wrote. Go back and read what I wrote.

@Dave_L said:
“But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and will cause you to remember everything I said to you.” (John 14:26)

Of, course but in context that has nothing to do with helping them read the Bible For no one had a complete personal Bible: as each book of the Bible was still written in individual scrolls, those scrolls were not sold in stores but had to be written down by hand, only rich individuals (like the Ethiopian servant of the Queen in Acts), or devout religious institutions/individuals would have some (but not all) the scrolls, and the canon of scripture had not yet been completed. The NT never hints that any of the disciples had their own scrolls, but Paul. So, it is clear that John 14:26 speaks not of the written word but of everything Jesus spoke to the disciples.

@Dave_L said:
This is true also in OT times: “Guide me into your truth and teach me. For you are the God who delivers me; on you I rely all day long.” (Psalm 25:5)

God can guide and teach us with having to give us a mystical ability.

I believe the OT at the time of Christ was off limits in many ways to those not born again. It is obvious that the unregenerate could keep the letter of the Law. That is why God gave it at a level they could understand.

But any spiritual understanding of the Word, written or spoken needed and continues to need enlightenment by the Holy Spirit. Please consider Paul on the matter.

“For what man knows the things of a man, except the spirit of man which is in him? Likewise, no one knows the things of God, except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God, so that we might know the things that are freely given to us by God. These things also we proclaim, not in the words which man’s wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Corinthians 2:11–14)

Mitchell

@Dave_L said:
Please consider Paul on the matter.

I already have, however it is clear from our many engagements that we each sometimes understand Paul different and most likely that is the case now. Never-the-less I thank you for sharing your beliefs, advice, and views.

GaoLu

@Wolfgang said:

@GaoLu said:
There are elements of God that we can talk about without full comprehension. I can tell you about Northern Lights. You can have a pretty good idea, but you can't really know unless you go see them for yourself. We can talk about God, knowing that we don't really know like will someday know.

Why is there so often a pointing to "what we don't really know like we will someday know", as if the Trinity doctrine already was what we will someday really know, just don't know it now ?? Eh, if that were the case, how could those who came up with the "Trinity doctrine/dogma" already know, when supposedly we can NOT know now??

I am not defending the Trinity doctrine with that argument at all. I am only saying that our finite minds probably cannot grasp the whole of who and what God is. Perhaps I am mistaken and there are individuals who can. Would you be one? Do you know one?

The word Trinity is a bit off-putting to me, though I use it. Explaining God as the Trinity is much harder than just knowing the fact, and explaining the matter just muddies what we know. God is one God.

There is a big difference between God is "one God" and "God is One". IF the term "God" was a name, title etc for an acting team, then this "one God"-team could have more than one and even a vast number of "persons". IF however "God" is a name, title, etc for "one single individual" (rather than a team, family, group), then the "God" is only One acting individual (and not a duo, trio, quartett, etc)

Maybe I am following you.

"One God" would mean that there is not God but Jehovah.
"God is one" seems to suggest that God isn't made up of multiple parts.

Does that seem right to you?

OUr explanations sort of divide Him up, because there is a real division of His existence of some sort.

The Trinity doctrine actually does not divide God up, rather it defines a second and third acting individual additionally as "God" and then turns "God is One (individual)" into "God is one God-Trio", made up of three individual Gods.

That would certainly not be the understanding of Trinity of anyone that I know. Have you ever heard of a person who thought that?

That we see and know. Yet clearly only God. When we discuss the differences in what God is we end up with Trinity. Well, it works more or less.

It only "works" in the sphere of speculation and assumption ... resulting in contradiction to the Scripture truth that only One Alone is God (and NOT Two, Three, Four, or more who are each God).

The way you describe it that would be true. I don't think anyone defending Trinity thinks that. (I am not strong in the term and popular descriptions of Trinity, though I understand the concept and believe it. We like to stuff God in pigeon holes and God invariably escapes.

Likewise, we accept that Trinity is a great explanation, but certainly doesn't wholly capture who and what God is.

The Trinity doctrine is NOT the real thing .... and since it contradicts the plainly and clearly stated truth that God is only One single acting individual Spirit Being (and not two, three, or more), the Trinity doctrine is not only "not the real thing" but in truth it is a false doctrine/dogma.

Oh, and you are so right! The doctrine is not the real thing at all. Surely you didn't think I meant that! If so, I am so sorry. The doctrine is a description reflecting what the Bible says. Probably people sometimes make false doctrine or dogma from that.

Here is an explanation that I found with weaknesses but interesting: https://blog.faithlife.com/blog/2015/11/the-best-conceptual-explanation-of-the-trinity-ive-ever-seen/

Nothing new in regards to futile attempts at an explanation of the trinity doctrine ... and the claim of "the best conceptual explanation ... I've ever seen" is nothing but an empty catch phrase to get some "bonus points" with a likely reader before they read the article ...

@Wolfgang said:

@GaoLu said:
There are elements of God that we can talk about without full comprehension. I can tell you about Northern Lights. You can have a pretty good idea, but you can't really know unless you go see them for yourself. We can talk about God, knowing that we don't really know like will someday know.

Why is there so often a pointing to "what we don't really know like we will someday know", as if the Trinity doctrine already was what we will someday really know, just don't know it now ?? Eh, if that were the case, how could those who came up with the "Trinity doctrine/dogma" already know, when supposedly we can NOT know now??

The word Trinity is a bit off-putting to me, though I use it. Explaining God as the Trinity is much harder than just knowing the fact, and explaining the matter just muddies what we know. God is one God.

There is a big difference between God is "one God" and "God is One". IF the term "God" was a name, title etc for an acting team, then this "one God"-team could have more than one and even a vast number of "persons". IF however "God" is a name, title, etc for "one single individual" (rather than a team, family, group), then the "God" is only One acting individual (and not a duo, trio, quartett, etc)

OUr explanations sort of divide Him up, because there is a real division of His existence of some sort.

The Trinity doctrine actually does not divide God up, rather it defines a second and third acting individual additionally as "God" and then turns "God is One (individual)" into "God is one God-Trio", made up of three individual Gods.

That we see and know. Yet clearly only God. When we discuss the differences in what God is we end up with Trinity. Well, it works more or less.

It only "works" in the sphere of speculation and assumption ... resulting in contradiction to the Scripture truth that only One Alone is God (and NOT Two, Three, Four, or more who are each God).

Explaining northern lights is nearly impossible. We can talk about other things we know to sort of explain, like curtains, colors and rainbows, but none of those is the real thing. We just have to accept that.

Ok .... then accept the next logical step (see below)

Likewise, we accept that Trinity is a great explanation, but certainly doesn't wholly capture who and what God is.

The Trinity doctrine is NOT the real thing .... and since it contradicts the plainly and clearly stated truth that God is only One single acting individual Spirit Being (and not two, three, or more), the Trinity doctrine is not only "not the real thing" but in truth it is a false doctrine/dogma.

Here is an explanation that I found with weaknesses but interesting: https://blog.faithlife.com/blog/2015/11/the-best-conceptual-explanation-of-the-trinity-ive-ever-seen/

Nothing new in regards to futile attempts at an explanation of the trinity doctrine ... and the claim of "the best conceptual explanation ... I've ever seen" is nothing but an empty catch phrase to get some "bonus points" with a likely reader before they read the article ...

I suspect you are largely right here. The exception I might make is that the author might actually have been sincere.

Mitchell

@GaoLu said:
I am only saying that our finite minds probably cannot grasp the whole of who and what God is.

When comments like this appear I wish there was a 'like button'!

[Deleted User]

@Mitchell said:

@GaoLu said:
I am only saying that our finite minds probably cannot grasp the whole of who and what God is.

and yet, the Trinity folks claim that they do not only grasp but actually know that God is THREE (Father, Son, Holy Spirit), and then question everyone else who is not on the "Three are God" train of thought or even call those like me who insist that God is only One Alone (who would be the Father ...cp John 17:3) heretics and false teachers and lost souls

[Deleted User]

@GaoLu said:
I am not defending the Trinity doctrine with that argument at all. I am only saying that our finite minds probably cannot grasp the whole of who and what God is. Perhaps I am mistaken and there are individuals who can. Would you be one? Do you know one?

I don't claim to know the whole of who and what God is ... I have no clue why you would even ask the question.
I claim to adhere to what Scripture reveals about God, and refute that which was added to Scripture by later developed doctrines and dogmas which actually add false information to what Scripture states.

"One God" would mean that there is not God but Jehovah.
"God is one" seems to suggest that God isn't made up of multiple parts.

Does that seem right to you?

Not quite ... "God is One" states that there is only One Spiritual Being (called in Scripture the Creator, the Almighty, the Father, the Ancient of Days, the Highest, YHWH) Who Alone is the true God.

"One God" could mean the same as "God is one", but Trinitarians use that term insist that even though (1) the Father is God, (2) the Son is God, (3) the Holy Spirit is God these THREE are only "one God" ... which "one God" makes it look as if this "one God" was a team, a family, a group or whatever which can be made up of numerous individuals. On the other hand, if that were the case, then the claim that these three individually each are "God" would be false, because they each would only be 1/3 of "God".

The Trinity doctrine actually does not divide God up, rather it defines a second and third acting individual additionally as "God" and then turns "God is One (individual)" into "God is one God-Trio", made up of three individual Gods.

That would certainly not be the understanding of Trinity of anyone that I know. Have you ever heard of a person who thought that?

Those I know (including those here on CD forum) have given the impression that their belief is that there are 3 -- Father, Son, Holy Spirit -- who are distinct individuals are each equally "God". This in fact makes 3 Gods! Now, of course, those folks don't like that fact, and thus they simply add a big fat claim that these 3 are not three Gods but only one God.

When you have 3 fruit which each are an apple, you then have three apples and not one apple ... all attempts to "nullify" this plain truth are futile and achieve nothing, except that "repeating error long enough makes folks who don't stay awake in their reasoning and logical thinking eventually fall for the trick and regard the lie to actually be the truth"

The doctrine is a description reflecting what the Bible says. Probably people sometimes make false doctrine or dogma from that.

See above ... the Trinity doctrine does NOT describe what the Bible reveals and says about the true God, His only begotten Son (the man Christ Jesus), or about holy spirit.

It is in fact the false doctrine which reflects much of ancient mythologies (Babylonien, Egyptian, Greek, Roman) with their God(s) having "God-man" children, with their trios of "Top-Godheads", etc ...

Dave_L

I think most of the problem in discerning the trinity of God comes from assuming the spiritual realm is subject to the constraints of the physical realm. For instance, the gadarene demoniac is said to have been possessed of thousands of demons, all in the same space at the same time. And that the devil is the spirit who works in the children of disobedience covering the earth. And so on...

But in scripture we find God not only in the Father, but also in the Son and the Holy Spirit. In ways unique to God, and not in ways unique to his closest children as Christians.

[Deleted User]

@Dave_L said:
I think most of the problem in discerning the trinity of God comes from assuming the spiritual realm is subject to the constraints of the physical realm.

I do not think this has any relevance ... In my opinion, it's a silly excuse in that the trinity doctrine is of course something in the physical realm and thus is subject to reason and logic. One could claim anything and just declare that it is beyond your ability to comprehend and you only need to believe it.

Eh, you should actually send me a cheque for US$ 10.000 .... it's of course beyond what you can understand, but just trust me, that is what you should be doing, and do it quickly before thinking too much about it with your finite mind.

But in scripture we find God not only in the Father, but also in the Son and the Holy Spirit. In ways unique to God, and not in ways unique to his closest children as Christians.

In Scripture, I do NOT find God "IN the Father" .... I read that the Father IS God.
In Scripture, I do read about God "IN the man Jesus".
In Scripture, I do NOT find God "IN the Holy Spirit ... I read that God gives holy spirit to believers, that God put holy spirit upon His prophets of old, that believers are filled with holy spirit, etc ...

Dave_L

@Wolfgang said:

@Dave_L said:
I think most of the problem in discerning the trinity of God comes from assuming the spiritual realm is subject to the constraints of the physical realm.

I do not think this has any relevance ... In my opinion, it's a silly excuse in that the trinity doctrine is of course something in the physical realm and thus is subject to reason and logic. One could claim anything and just declare that it is beyond your ability to comprehend and you only need to believe it.

Eh, you should actually send me a cheque for US$ 10.000 .... it's of course beyond what you can understand, but just trust me, that is what you should be doing, and do it quickly before thinking too much about it with your finite mind.

But in scripture we find God not only in the Father, but also in the Son and the Holy Spirit. In ways unique to God, and not in ways unique to his closest children as Christians.

In Scripture, I do NOT find God "IN the Father" .... I read that the Father IS God.
In Scripture, I do read about God "IN the man Jesus".
In Scripture, I do NOT find God "IN the Holy Spirit ... I read that God gives holy spirit to believers, that God put holy spirit upon His prophets of old, that believers are filled with holy spirit, etc ...

If you cannot discern the trinity or deity of Christ in scripture, it does not automatically mean that Christendom is in error for doing so. It only means they can see it and you cannot. In fact it is the deity of Christ and the trinity that separates Christendom from the cults of Christendom.

The same reasoning applies if a blind person thinks blindness is normal, and since they cannot see, nobody can see. And those who claim to see are deluded because if people could see, certainly I should be able to see.

GaoLu

Makes me think of H. G. Well's "The Country of the Blind." That book shook me when I was about 15. In the country of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

C Mc

Sure, Jesus explained the written scriptures (Luke 24:27) and reprimanded the disciples for not believing what was already plainly written in the scriptures(Luke 24:25). Having said, that today I believe that vast majority of Christians claiming Sola Scripture actually hold Prima Scriptura in practice.

If, you use common sense, logic, the grammatical-historical method, spiritual interpretation, assumptions, tradition, or anything else you are practicing Prima Scriptura. And, there is nothing wrong with that as long as one is honest and admits that in fact is what he/she is doing.

Mitchell,

A short answer, yes. CM

GaoLu

Trinity folks claim that they do not only grasp but actually know that God is THREE (Father, Son, Holy Spirit), and then question everyone else who is not on the "Three are God" train of thought or even call those like me who insist that God is only One Alone (who would be the Father ...cp John 17:3) heretics and false teachers and lost souls

I think the issue here isn't fretting about perfect articulation of the concept of "trinity." The issue is the awfulness of missing the truth the Jesus is God. My premise, which I see as biblical is that If Jesus is not God, He is not Savior. Positively stated, Jesus can save us only if He is God.

If Jesus was not God, then all you have is a superman or a demigod--neither of which is biblical.

Not quite ... "God is One" states that there is only One Spiritual Being (called in Scripture the Creator, the Almighty, the Father, the Ancient of Days, the Highest, YHWH) Who Alone is the true God.

I like that. Good job. Many other names as well including Emmanuel, Jesus, Holy Spirit.

One God" could mean the same as "God is one", but Trinitarians use that term insist that even though (1) the Father is God, (2) the Son is God, (3) the Holy Spirit is God these THREE are only "one God" ... which "one God" makes it look as if this "one God" was a team, a family, a group or whatever which can be made up of numerous individuals. On the other hand, if that were the case, then the claim that these three individually each are "God" would be false, because they each would only be 1/3 of "God".

The way you are thinking about it here would be wrong. Once again, I don't know anyone who thinks anything like that, although there may be someone...even here. If so, speak up!

Those I know (including those here on CD forum) have given the impression that their belief is that there are 3 -- Father, Son, Holy Spirit -- who are distinct individuals are each equally "God". This in fact makes 3 Gods! Now, of course, those folks don't like that fact, and thus they simply add a big fat claim that these 3 are not three Gods but only one God.

You mean Dave? He just cites creeds, but doesn't interpret them. However we may try to talk about the majesty and fullness of the Godhead, any conclusions other than that there is only one God and that God is one are incorrect.

the Trinity doctrine does NOT describe what the Bible reveals and says about the true God, His only begotten Son (the man Christ Jesus), or about holy spirit.

I agree that the term and our best efforts to describe God fall far short of reality. The crux of the matter relevant to this discourse is that we don't miss one of the most vital facts pertain to us--that Jesus is God. If we miss that, we are lost.

It is in fact the false doctrine which reflects much of ancient mythologies (Babylonien, Egyptian, Greek, Roman) with their God(s) having "God-man" children, with their trios of "Top-Godheads", etc ...

Oh dear. That would be a complete misunderstanding of Trinity as Christians use it. When Christians use the term in heir hearts and minds (I hope) there is only one God.

Not to be pejorative, but we found that our children had little difficulty understanding. I wonder why that would be. Perhaps as adults, we stuff our imagination into logic boxes and end up missing the forest by looking only at trees.

[Deleted User]

@GaoLu said:

The issue is the awfulness of missing the truth the Jesus is God.
What you state is not truth, but only an unsupported (false) claim.

My premise, which I see as biblical is that If Jesus is not God, He is not Savior. Positively stated, Jesus can save us only if He is God.

Reading Rom 5:12ff tells a different story ... one man => sin / one man => salvation from sin

If Jesus was not God, then all you have is a superman or a demigod--neither of which is biblical.

Actually, the Trinity and "Jesus = fully God & fully man" folks are those who have the "demigod or superman"

Not quite ... "God is One" states that there is only One Spiritual Being (called in Scripture the Creator, the Almighty, the Father, the Ancient of Days, the Highest, YHWH) Who Alone is the true God.

I like that. Good job. Many other names as well including Emmanuel, Jesus, Holy Spirit.

Just adding what you think are names of God (Emmanuel, Jesus, Holy Spirit) doesn't turn error into truth ... a rather plain simple and clear truth: God is the Father, BUT God is not anywhere "the Son"? Whose Son should God be? Who is above God Who could have a Son? I suppose you will not try and tell me that the Father is His own Son and the Son is also his own Father ??

One God" could mean the same as "God is one", but Trinitarians use that term insist that even though (1) the Father is God, (2) the Son is God, (3) the Holy Spirit is God these THREE are only "one God" ... which "one God" makes it look as if this "one God" was a team, a family, a group or whatever which can be made up of numerous individuals. On the other hand, if that were the case, then the claim that these three individually each are "God" would be false, because they each would only be 1/3 of "God".

The way you are thinking about it here would be wrong. Once again, I don't know anyone who thinks anything like that, although there may be someone...even here. If so, speak up!

Well, I thought you were one of those ... So then, you do NOT think that (1) the Father is God and also (2) the Son is God and also (3) Holy Spirit is God? Can you count to 3? Or do you live in denial and claim that 3 = 1 ??

Those I know (including those here on CD forum) have given the impression that their belief is that there are 3 -- Father, Son, Holy Spirit -- who are distinct individuals are each equally "God". This in fact makes 3 Gods! Now, of course, those folks don't like that fact, and thus they simply add a big fat claim that these 3 are not three Gods but only one God.

You mean Dave?

Not only Dave, how about you? See above ... How many of Father, Jesus, Holy Spirit do you believe to each be God ? Why would you only take those three to be God, and not add Creator, Almighty, Ancient of Days, etc as number 4, 5, 6, etc to the picture?

He just cites creeds, but doesn't interpret them. However we may try to talk about the majesty and fullness of the Godhead, any conclusions other than that there is only one God and that God is one are incorrect.

WOW ... Paul rather plainly states the following: "Gal 3,20 Now a mediator is not [a mediator] of one, but God is one."

the Trinity doctrine does NOT describe what the Bible reveals and says about the true God, His only begotten Son (the man Christ Jesus), or about holy spirit.

I agree that the term and our best efforts to describe God fall far short of reality. The crux of the matter relevant to this discourse is that we don't miss one of the most vital facts pertain to us--that Jesus is God. If we miss that, we are lost.

See above ... your assumption / claim is not what Scripture states rather clearly.

It is in fact the false doctrine which reflects much of ancient mythologies (Babylonien, Egyptian, Greek, Roman) with their God(s) having "God-man" children, with their trios of "Top-Godheads", etc ...

Oh dear. That would be a complete misunderstanding of Trinity as Christians use it. When Christians use the term in heir hearts and minds (I hope) there is only one God.

I am sure Christians are convinced that there is only "one God" ... but with that they actually flat out deny what they also claim => the Father is God, Jesus is God, Holy Spirit is God (and in some denominations also Mary is mother of God).

Not to be pejorative, but we found that our children had little difficulty understanding. I wonder why that would be. Perhaps as adults, we stuff our imagination into logic boxes and end up missing the forest by looking only at trees.

I had little difficulty as long as I did not really think and used my God given ability of reason and logic instead of trusting what parents, teachers, preachers, church propagated with sincerity. Error will not be detected when people just believe (without any logical and reasonable checking against Scripture and facts) what they are told ...

See, I had no reason to believe that my parents were lying to me with what they told me about Santa ... until I grew up to the point of evaluating what I was told against some simple facts and figured out - for example - that reindeer are unable to pull a sled through the air or get into the house through a chimney ...

GaoLu

I happened across this which might be helpful: http://evidenceforchristianity.org/how-do-i-convince-a-jehovah-witness-that-jesus-is-god/

[Deleted User]

@GaoLu said:
I happened across this which might be helpful: http://evidenceforchristianity.org/how-do-i-convince-a-jehovah-witness-that-jesus-is-god/

Just to clarify, I am not affiliated in any way with the JW, and there quite some differences between what they believe concerning Jesus and what I believe and have communicated here in posts on this CD forum.

What the author of the linked article has to say is not evidence at all, nor is it convincing to anyone who is withstanding being "programmed" / "brainwashed" ... because his introductory paragraphs are another example of "salesman talk" in which claims are sold as if they were facts with not evidence support.

Bill_Coley

@GaoLu said:
I happened across this which might be helpful: http://evidenceforchristianity.org/how-do-i-convince-a-jehovah-witness-that-jesus-is-god/

To make its case, the article to which you link, Gao Lu, cites numerous texts, many of which we have engaged in these forums. What the article does not do - principally because it's not in the purview of the piece - is engage the many-more-than-numerous number of texts that are, by people who aren't JWs, using Bible translations other than the JW's, argued to demonstrate that Jesus is not God.

I concur with one of the points the author makes in the opening paragraphs of his response: his recommendations of prayer for, rather than arguments with, people who disagree, and of living a life that reflects the depth of your relationship with God. Such counsel applies to all sides of the is Jesus God debate.