• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why Didn't the Protestants Reject Jesus' Divinity?

Child of Stardust

Child of Stardust

Member
The Reformation, from what I can see, seemed to be about getting back to "sola scriptura". But what stands out like a sore thumb is the doctrine of the Trinity. It's not in the Bible (I could be wrong on this, and please correct me if I am but I've never seen any explicit mention of it) and seems to be leaning towards the practices early reformers seemed to dislike (like veneration of Mary and the other saints) - a kind of pseudo-polytheism. Not that this makes it a bad belief per se, just that it isn't in the Bible as far as I can see and seems to be the sort of thing reformers would disagree with. Was it seen as too integral to Christianity (as it was perceived at the time) to be challenged? Or were there sects that adopted it and died out (not counting Jehovah's Witnesses and other groups that appeared later...not sure when the Unitarians cropped up?).

I hope this question doesn't come across as offensive...I'm not saying belief in the Trinity is bad or wrong, not at all, it just seems to conflict with the general Protestant sensibility of what to reject in Catholicism. Does anyone have any historical suggestions for why there weren't any significant nontrinitarian protestant movements?
 
ForeverFaithful

ForeverFaithful

Son Worshiper
Child of Stardust said:
The Reformation, from what I can see, seemed to be about getting back to "sola scriptura". But what stands out like a sore thumb is the doctrine of the Trinity. It's not in the Bible (I could be wrong on this, and please correct me if I am but I've never seen any explicit mention of it) and seems to be leaning towards the practices early reformers seemed to dislike (like veneration of Mary and the other saints) - a kind of pseudo-polytheism. Not that this makes it a bad belief per se, just that it isn't in the Bible as far as I can see and seems to be the sort of thing reformers would disagree with. Was it seen as too integral to Christianity (as it was perceived at the time) to be challenged? Or were there sects that adopted it and died out (not counting Jehovah's Witnesses and other groups that appeared later...not sure when the Unitarians cropped up?).

I hope this question doesn't come across as offensive...I'm not saying belief in the Trinity is bad or wrong, not at all, it just seems to conflict with the general Protestant sensibility of what to reject in Catholicism. Does anyone have any historical suggestions for why there weren't any significant nontrinitarian protestant movements?
Click to expand...

You`d be wrong in assuming the the reformers didn`t venerate Mary, as they loved the Bless Virgin, but the Trinity is biblical, simply as that,

Jesus refers to himself as the same God as the God of the Old Testament (John 8:58, John 6:54) The Apostles also made it clear Jesus was God (John 1:1, John 20:28)
 
Lucian

Lucian

Theologian
Child of Stardust said:
The Reformation, from what I can see, seemed to be about getting back to "sola scriptura". But what stands out like a sore thumb is the doctrine of the Trinity. It's not in the Bible (I could be wrong on this, and please correct me if I am but I've never seen any explicit mention of it) and seems to be leaning towards the practices early reformers seemed to dislike (like veneration of Mary and the other saints) - a kind of pseudo-polytheism. Not that this makes it a bad belief per se, just that it isn't in the Bible as far as I can see and seems to be the sort of thing reformers would disagree with. Was it seen as too integral to Christianity (as it was perceived at the time) to be challenged? Or were there sects that adopted it and died out (not counting Jehovah's Witnesses and other groups that appeared later...not sure when the Unitarians cropped up?).

I hope this question doesn't come across as offensive...I'm not saying belief in the Trinity is bad or wrong, not at all, it just seems to conflict with the general Protestant sensibility of what to reject in Catholicism. Does anyone have any historical suggestions for why there weren't any significant nontrinitarian protestant movements?
Click to expand...

The Lutheran Reformation turned into a magisterial reform rather than actually going by the principles of the Reformation. It stagnated very quickly into institutionalism and legalism, as is seen with the period known as the Lutheran orthodoxy. Only after the Enlightenment did things start moving again in the Lutheran world.

Considering people were killed for having differences in views even of the eucharist, not to mention the pedobaptism/credobaptism question, it's not a surprise nontrinitarians got some bad treatment. There was discussion on the doctrine, but it became difficult after John Calvin had Michael Servetus murdered for his nontrinitarianism and opposition to infant baptism. It was a shock. Mostly the magisterial reformers didn't want to talk about the doctrine critically, because they were afraid of what might happen. I think it was Melanchton who somewhat famously wrote that he was very afraid of the issue being raised to debate. The nontrinitarians either influenced discreetly, were executed or were forced out of Protestant lands. After Servetus, the question of freedom of religion also came to the forefront.

There were also significant movements, but people don't seem to know about them. These two were the most established and had even Unitarian high schools. The Minor Reformed Church (the Polish Brethren) was established around 1565. They were exiled from Poland in 1650s. They continued in exile in Prussia, the Netherlands and Transylvania to the early 1800s when they merged with others. The Unitarian Church of Transylvania (which was the first to use the word "Unitarian") was established around 1568 and is still in operation in both Hungary and Romania. These churches did not believe in the "cuius regio, eius religio" policy, but wanted freedom of religion to others as well, so they did not want to become state churches, even though in the Principality of Transylvania they had the opportunity.

Also there were others, such as the Family of Love, Seekers, Collegiants, and Adam Pastorians, but these would be the groups that died out or transformed, influencing others who continued after them. English history has so many dissenting movements, you just have to look into them. Latitudinarians basically got rid of the doctrine and did not replace it with anything, preferring broad views. Quakers are an example of a Latitudinarian attitude with nontrinitarians in the movement.

So we would have to look at the 16th and 17th century Protestant history: Scandinavia, the Baltics and northern Germany became mostly Lutheran with powerful state control, so not much change was possible there. Switzerland's Reformed became Calvinist. So this leaves only Poland, Hungary/Transylvania, the Netherlands, France, Ireland and Britain. Poland's Protestantism became almost nonexistant after the Deluge in 1650s, and in France as well after its wars of religion. The Netherlands' Protestants became very Latitudinarian, same with English Dissenters. The Church of England is comparable to the Lutheran state churches, and in England nontrinitarianism was punishable by death, yet somehow the dissenting movements seemed to gain ground there even in difficult circumstances. Many were exiled to America afterwards. In Ireland the Presbyterians became Latitudinarian and mostly Unitarian. In Transylvania, where freedom of religion was instituted for a short time, most became Unitarians, but after the Catholic and Calvinist rulers they became a minority.

So in short, I would think the reason is the same as it is nowadays: people closed their eyes and refused to look at it critically. It's much easier to just ignore the issue and go with the flow. Thinking about the issue might have led the person being left out of whatever communion they were in.
 
ForeverFaithful

ForeverFaithful

Son Worshiper
Lucian said:
So in short, I would think the reason is the same as it is nowadays: people closed their eyes and refused to look at it critically. It's much easier to just ignore the issue and go with the flow. Thinking about the issue might have led the person being left out of whatever communion they were in.
Click to expand...

Enlighten me as to what I have missed with my closed eyes?

If you plan to ramble on about interpolation, don't bother, I mean Tota Scripura, as accepted by the Councils of Rome, Hippo and Carthage.
 
Lucian

Lucian

Theologian
ForeverFaithful said:
Enlighten me as to what I have missed with my closed eyes?

If you plan to ramble on about interpolation, don't bother, I mean Tota Scripura, as accepted by the Councils of Rome, Hippo and Carthage.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure, since I have no idea who you are or what you think.
 
Terrywoodenpic

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
The reformation was mostly about "getting out from under the foot of Rome" Luther remained a catholic, in belief. As did Henry VIII in England. It was the likes of Calvin that pushed the new theology.

The detachment from Rome was largely slow and incomplete. Eventually Calvinists and Lutherans became as equally oppressive and dogmatic as their Roman predecessors, and just as blood thirsty.

The Anglicans went largely their own way, separate in authority from Rome but virtually identical in style of worship. (which is true to this day) Only during the commonwealth when the "Puritans" held the upper hand, did the church take on a Calvinist turn. only to be reversed at the restoration.
The winners of the Reformation were the strong men who were prepared to enforce their beliefs.
It was never the case that Ideas won on their merit alone.
 
Terrywoodenpic

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
Child of Stardust said:
.............Or were there sects that adopted it and died out (not counting Jehovah's Witnesses and other groups that appeared later...not sure when the Unitarians cropped up?).

I hope this question doesn't come across as offensive...I'm not saying belief in the Trinity is bad or wrong, not at all, it just seems to conflict with the general Protestant sensibility of what to reject in Catholicism. Does anyone have any historical suggestions for why there weren't any significant nontrinitarian protestant movements?
Click to expand...

The question of the Trinity has always been in question since its adoption at Nicea.
Prior to that it was just one of many concepts of how to square the circle of "God Jesus and the Holy Spirit". There were Unitarians even then....Though they were not able to legally exit in most countries till the 17th century.

In the West the Church meant "Roman Catholic" this proscribed every other form of Christian belief as either Heterodox or Heretical.
It was only as they lost the power to enforce their domination "Country by Country" that all the other long standing beliefs could establish themselves as legal Christian denominations.
The rest is history.
 
Lucian

Lucian

Theologian
ForeverFaithful said:
you seemed to be saying that Trinitarians don't think critically, I am a Trinitarian
Click to expand...

Many reformators certainly just wanted to bury the subject without thinking about it, this much is true, and it happens today as well. Sometimes the lack of critical thinking on a doctrine is seen as a virtue, because a church's authority is seen as the ultimate guide. It was not a personal comment, or even "everyone is like that". I have no idea whether you have studied the subject critically and truly weighed other points of view.
 
Terrywoodenpic

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
ForeverFaithful said:
I subscribe to the doctrine of the Trinity held by the Church for 2000 years, is there another one?
Click to expand...

Of course there is.... very many people believe in a trinity with out understanding a word of this....
Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic Faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity. Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all One, the Glory Equal, the Majesty Co-Eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father Uncreate, the Son Uncreate, and the Holy Ghost Uncreate. The Father Incomprehensible, the Son Incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost Incomprehensible. The Father Eternal, the Son Eternal, and the Holy Ghost Eternal and yet they are not Three Eternals but One Eternal. As also there are not Three Uncreated, nor Three Incomprehensibles, but One Uncreated, and One Uncomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not Three Almighties but One Almighty.

So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not Three Gods, but One God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not Three Lords but One Lord. For, like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord, so are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion to say, there be Three Gods or Three Lords. The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father, and of the Son neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.So there is One Father, not Three Fathers; one Son, not Three Sons; One Holy Ghost, not Three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is afore or after Other, None is greater or less than Another, but the whole Three Persons are Co-eternal together, and Co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity.
Click to expand...

There are probably more words written about the Trinity than any other Christian concept. Probably because it is so hard to defend.
 
D

Doulos

Member
Child of Stardust said:
The Reformation, from what I can see, seemed to be about getting back to "sola scriptura". But what stands out like a sore thumb is the doctrine of the Trinity. It's not in the Bible (I could be wrong on this, and please correct me if I am but I've never seen any explicit mention of it) and seems to be leaning towards the practices early reformers seemed to dislike (like veneration of Mary and the other saints) - a kind of pseudo-polytheism. Not that this makes it a bad belief per se, just that it isn't in the Bible as far as I can see and seems to be the sort of thing reformers would disagree with. Was it seen as too integral to Christianity (as it was perceived at the time) to be challenged? Or were there sects that adopted it and died out (not counting Jehovah's Witnesses and other groups that appeared later...not sure when the Unitarians cropped up?).

I hope this question doesn't come across as offensive...I'm not saying belief in the Trinity is bad or wrong, not at all, it just seems to conflict with the general Protestant sensibility of what to reject in Catholicism. Does anyone have any historical suggestions for why there weren't any significant nontrinitarian protestant movements?
Click to expand...

Thank you for your thoughtful and very courteous question.

The simple answer would be that the Trinity is found within the scriptures.

While the Protestant split from Catholicism took place because Catholicism was allowing other sources to be held equal in weight to the books of scripture (and this is the meaning of 'Sola Scriptura':not that scripture is alone as our only source on God, but that it is the sole highest authority, and that all other claims are tested by it)... there has never been disagreement upon the question of Trinity.

I think the passages that ForeverFaithful mentioned would be a good starting point for the Trinity in scripture, but the concept really permeates much of scripture.


God's peace be with you :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top