Is there an official Trinity doctrine?

[tгєรкเค]

Actually, I don't accept the doctrine of the Trinity, but it's for far more logical reasons than you've managed to invent.

And where did you obtain those pharmaceuticals that cause such lovely flights of theological fancy?

I just read.

 

[sojourner]

I just read.

No scholar “just” reads. he also interprets, makes judgments, draws inferences, etc. That may be your downfall here.

 

[tгєรкเค]

No scholar “just” reads. he also interprets, makes judgments, draws inferences, etc. That may be your downfall here.

That is my personal interpretation, based on what I've read, I like reading contexts, my downfall is I'm no scholar, sorry.

 

[sojourner]

That is my personal interpretation, based on what I've read, I like reading contexts, my downfall is I'm no scholar, sorry.

Interpretation is more a “sense of the community.” That’s what the church councils were all about: getting the sense of the community.

 

[Terry Sampson]

The Father's possible history: is a different subject, and one that's not actually core LDS Christian doctrine (not being anywhere in official scriptural cannon). There are some speculations on the the subject, and you'll find people all over the board in regard to it & all in equally good standing.

"The Father's possible history ... is not actually core LDS Christian doctrine" ??? Really? I understand the difference between:

1. a core doctrine that is expressed in or supported by canonical scripture and
2. a core doctrine that is standard and officially accepted but not specifically expressed in or supported by canonical scripture and
3. a popular but unofficial opinion which isn't found in or supported by canonical scripture and does not require a bona fide church member's personal belief.

But it would seem to me that the LDS has doctrine regarding the Father's history which is core, canonical--albeit not, perhaps, specifically stated in either the Bible or in the Book of Mormon, and necessary taught and believed by LDS members in good standing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I see that core doctrine (regarding the Father's history) stated on page 4 of the LDS Student Manual, "Achieving a Celestial Marriage", to wit:

 

[tгєรкเค]

Interpretation is more a “sense of the community.” That’s what the church councils were all about: getting the sense of the community.

Read history, you are wrong.

 

[sojourner]

Read history, you are wrong.

You don’t know what you’re talking about.

 

[tгєรкเค]

You don’t know what you’re talking about.

Then learn history.

 

[Shiranui117]

Read history, you are wrong.

What primary sources have you read? Which exact works and Fathers?

 

[tгєรкเค]

What primary sources have you read? Which exact works and Fathers?

Matthew 23:9
And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

Matthew 23:8-12
But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.


I read just about everything that interests me.
I have no inclination towards any pre-3rd century and post-Nicean Church doctrines, but if there'd be ant authority but beyond the first Council in Jerusalem, I'd cling more to the teachings of the arius'ies before the Arius.

 

[Muffled]

I can't speak to Athanasius. If it has been accepted, then it is in line with Nicea.

I understand that Modalism is one interpretation of your Christian Scriptures -- however it is an interpretation that has been rejected by the Christian church. As an outsider, when there are disputes like this, I look to see what the church decides to know what is actually Christian teaching.

I believe Luther decided the roman Catholic Church wasn't always right and I agree.

The question is which would you rather believe the RCC which often reflects the ideas of men or the Bible elucidated by the Holy Spirit?

 

[Muffled]

Did you ever weigh out the amount of sugar in
a Pepsi? Do it! Put it in a pile and see if you can
ever drink pepsi again.

My body loves sugar. It is a non-stop engine that needs to keep burning fuel. I have found that it has its limits though and there is such a thing as overdoing the sugar.

 

[Muffled]

Do you have any evidence that St. Athanasius believed this?


Even after Nicaea, the Church never had one singular see that served as "a single authority". The only ultimate authority in the Church is when the Church gathers together in council, as in Acts 15.


Christ sends the Holy Spirit, but Christ is not the source of the Holy Spirit's personhood or divinity. The Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father alone (i.e. the Father alone is the One from Whom the Spirit originates), but both the Son and the Father can send the Spirit into the world. None of these verses imply that Christ is the eternal source of the Trinity. They merely say that the Son can send the Spirit into the world. This is actually made clear in John 15:26: 26 But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me.

"But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal". - Wikipedia Athenasian Creed

I believe if he had left out this, the rest of the creed has some credence.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I believe Luther decided the roman Catholic Church wasn't always right and I agree.

The question is which would you rather believe the RCC which often reflects the ideas of men or the Bible elucidated by the Holy Spirit?

Luther isnt "the Church." He is one excommunicated priest that began an age in which the religion split into thousands of disagreeing denominations. Terrible legacy. At any rate, like I said, I when there is disagreement, I look to see what the Christian Church teaches to know what is orthodoxy. I try to stick with things they all agree on, and the Trinity is one such thing. Even Luther agreed with the Trinity.

 

[Shiranui117]

"But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal". - Wikipedia Athenasian Creed

I believe if he had left out this, the rest of the creed has some credence.

Fun fact, the so-called "Athanasian Creed" was not actually composed by St. Athanasius. It was a Western text written in the 500's, more than a century after the death of St. Athanasius (who lived and was bishop in Alexandria, Egypt).

 

[Jane.Doe]

"The Father's possible history ... is not actually core LDS Christian doctrine" ??? Really? I understand the difference between:

1. a core doctrine that is expressed in or supported by canonical scripture and
2. a core doctrine that is standard and officially accepted but not specifically expressed in or supported by canonical scripture and
3. a popular but unofficial opinion which isn't found in or supported by canonical scripture and does not require a bona fide church member's personal belief.

But it would seem to me that the LDS has doctrine regarding the Father's history which is core, canonical--albeit not, perhaps, specifically stated in either the Bible or in the Book of Mormon, and necessary taught and believed by LDS members in good standing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I see that core doctrine (regarding the Father's history) stated on page 4 of the LDS Student Manual, "Achieving a Celestial Marriage", to wit:

Hi Terry, my apologies about the tardiness of my response to this. I do appreciate the generally academic way you approach things.

The speculation about the Father's would fall in the #3 category you described above: an unofficial that not canonical scripture nor remotely a required belief. There are a totally of two original speculative statements from LDS Christian leaders on the subject, and then much speculation on those speculation. Those you'll see quoted in the 1992 "Achieving a Celestial Marriage" manual. Notably, these reference were removed from the post-1992 manuals.

 

[Terry Sampson]

Those you'll see quoted in the 1992 "Achieving a Celestial Marriage" manual ... were removed from the post-1992 manuals.

Ahh! Time to up-date my reference manual, eh? Thanks for the info.

 

[Jane.Doe]

Ahh! Time to up-date my reference manual, eh? Thanks for the info.

Happy to help
Faith is a big and complicated subject after all.

 

[101G]

I have been having discussions recently involving the Trinity. Many people have various views regarding the details of it.

I have said that the Trinity is a specific set of ideas. So saying that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is God does not mean that one is a Trinitarian.

The reason why I say this is because James White says that the Trinity is a specific set of beliefs and the various councils came to official conclusions from what I have read.

The question I would like Trinitarians and those who know church doctrine and history to answer is this:

In order for one to be a Trinitarian, must they have specific beliefs about the relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit apart from them being God?

For instance Modalists belief that all three persons are God, yet they aren't Trinitarian. Also I believe there is a difference between the Catholic view and the Greek Orthodox view?

GINOLJC, to all
Addressing the OP only, and having not read all the posts, not saying that any is right or wrong, but consider this. "ONE person two titles". the title Father and the title Son is of the one person the Holy Spirit.
example, John 14:16 "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;" QUESTION, "who sent the Holy Spirit, was it a. the Father, or b. the Son? let's see.
the "Father", John 14:26 "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." ok, the Father sent the Holt Spirit... right. now this, John 15:26 "But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:" and this, John 16:7 "Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you."

clearly the Father is sending the Holy Spirit, but the Son also. now this, John 14:23 "Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him." STOP, if both are coming, who then is sending?

now something else to think about,
John 14:16-18 "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;" 17 "Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you." 18 "I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you." so it is JESUS who is coming. but did not the Lord Jesus say that he is sending the Holy Spirit?.

so again my question, how is the Father and the Son, both sender, are dwelling in the believer, per John 14:23?

PICJAG.

 

[Muffled]

Luther isnt "the Church." He is one excommunicated priest that began an age in which the religion split into thousands of disagreeing denominations. Terrible legacy. At any rate, like I said, I when there is disagreement, I look to see what the Christian Church teaches to know what is orthodoxy. I try to stick with things they all agree on, and the Trinity is one such thing. Even Luther agreed with the Trinity.

I believe most agree but with variations on the meaning of it.