Why So Much Trinity Bashing?

[InChrist]

I've noticed on RF there are a lot of heretical (that's the technical term) Christians who disbelieve in the Trinity.

Why?

We've had the creeds since Late Antiquity (Apostolic, Nicaean, Athanasian) and they all include the Trinity, especially the latter, which is all about it. These creeds are regularly read in churches and have been for hundreds of years. If the Trinity were so easily disproven, why would it have held out and been accepted by the orthodox Christians? Why spend so much time fighting the Arians? And why, I'm sorry to ask, is it almost always Protestants? Do you think you know something that everybody in the early orthodox Church failed to grasp?

Why is there so much of this around lately? How do you explain how Jesus is God without the Trinity?

How do you explain the worship of Christ?

And why is it treated in such a light manner?

I believe the scriptures present the triune nature of God; both Old and New Testaments. I also think God’s triune nature is stamped upon creation and the universe displays this reality.

Why so much disbelief, rejection and/or attack?
My thoughts are that it’s a spiritual attack on the very Nature and Being of God and the truth of Whom He has revealed Himself to be to humanity through His Word, creation, and the Person of Jesus Christ.
Truth is often attacked with lies.

The Trinity

Many Christians are at a loss to understand, much less to defend, the "Trinity." Critics argue that that word is not even found in the Bible. To deal with that issue, we must begin with God,

www.thebereancall.org

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So you guys are saying you know better than the men closer to the Apostles, the men who drew up the creeds and wrote the theological texts?

"... closer to the Apostles" is a silly argument.

 

[Rival]

"... closer to the Apostles" is a silly argument.

Closer to the people who knew Jesus is a silly argument for Christians?

Okay.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Their understandings and interpretations aren't seen as inerrant though (I'm not sure who's saying this or if this is a myth some people believe?) they are often different (Tertullian believes different things to Origen of Alexandria re Greek Philosophy, for example). We take them as being authorities seeing that they took their information from the Apostles (Ignatius, for instance, in the late 1st early 2nd century almost certainly knew John the Elder), along with Polycarp. We have Ignatius' writings and it would seem beyond absurd to me to just call them an opinion when he's there in the first decades of Christianity with Polycarp. He seems to have known Paul personally, for example.

To ignore what these men have to say, even if we disagree with some of it in favour of other theologians, strikes me.

As there was no Bible until around the 4th c., Christians must have been listening to and taking instruction from something other than a written text. These are those men whose writings we go to as what these earliest Christians were listening to in sermons and homilies etc.

What a lot of these people seem to be saying, forgive me if I'm wrong, is that they would not have been convinced by this unless it were supplemented with some kind of text, and that Paul coming to preach the Gospel simply wouldn't have been enough?

Correct. They believe the Bible was created as a necessity to make God's will known globally. They think that Paul and people who knew Paul are of no consequence on their own, only when coupled with divine inspiration are their words relevent. Which is why they don't put much stock in early Christian theological opinions, because they don't believe being in proximity to the Apostles matters to authority or accuracy. They believe the only thing needed needed is the Bible itself with no other supplementation.

I'm definitely not saying lack of outside scholarship is a good thing. Sola scriptura and anti-intellectualism is why I think the JW faith is frustratingly shallow and rigidly so.
But to them, outside scholarship is not only unnecessary, but inviting 'pagan' influences. Such as revering saints, or the Trinity doctrine, or celebrating Christmas, etc.

 

[Rival]

Correct. They believe the Bible was created as a necessity to make God's will known globally. They think that Paul and people who knew Paul are of no consequence on their own, only when coupled with divine inspiration are their words relevent. Which is why they don't put much stock in early Christian theological opinions, because they don't believe being in proximity to the Apostles matters to authority or accuracy. They believe the only thing needed needed is the Bible itself with no other supplementation.

I'm definitely not saying lack of outside scholarship is a good thing. Sola scriptura and anti-intellectualism is why I think the JW faith is frustratingly shallow and rigidly so.
But to them, outside scholarship is not only unnecessary, but inviting 'pagan' influences. Such as revering saints, or the Trinity doctrine, or celebrating Christmas, etc.

Thanks, this makes it more understandable.

I enjoy our discussions.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Closer to the people who knew Jesus is a silly argument for Christians?

Tell me, which Apostle "who knew Jesus" authored any of the NT or contributed to any of the Christian creeds?

 

[Rival]

Tell me, which Apostle "who knew Jesus" authored any of the NT or contributed to any of the Christian creeds?

I didn't say the Apostles did this, so please don't misread me.

I am talking about the Tradition being handed down. I'm not sure where else you would get information about Jesus; it's the Apostles and the people they evangelised; these people teach others and so on. There's literally no other way for it to have come into being, so I am not sure what your point is.

It has to start with the Apostles and those who knew them, there's no-one else we could possibly go to for this kind of information.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Thanks, this makes it more understandable.

I enjoy our discussions.

Thank you and likewise.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I don't know. It's like some Protestants are adopting a form of Progressive Revelation: Progressive revelation (Baháʼí) - Wikipedia

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I didn't say the Apostles did this, so please don't misread me.

I am talking about the Tradition being handed down. I'm not sure where else you would get information about Jesus; it's the Apostles and the people they evangelised; these people teach others and so on. There's literally no other way for it to have come into being, so I am not sure what your point is.

It has to start with the Apostles and those who knew them, there's no-one else we could possibly go to for this kind of information.

Scan through The First One Hundred Years of Christianity and we'll talk further.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I don't know. It's like some Protestants are adopting a form of Progressive Revelation: Progressive revelation (Baháʼí) - Wikipedia

And that it's like they are taking this idea and trying to continue it through to completion to apply to now: Progressive revelation (Christianity) - Wikipedia

 

[Rival]

Scan through The First One Hundred Years of Christianity and we'll talk further.

Yes, I'm studying this topic at university, I'm not ignorant. Please don't treat me as though I am.

What is the point you are trying to make? Just make it.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I've noticed on RF there are a lot of heretical (that's the technical term) Christians who disbelieve in the Trinity.

Why?

It has to do with the century or so of isolation in the USA as settlers spread out they lived on farms in isolated rural communities, often with little time for anything but work. Generations of people relied upon the bible and ignored or didn't even know about catholic ideas. They did have bibles, however. Many separate groups formed, and their connection to Christianity often was the bible, plus a preacher. Many different communities had their own ideas about the trinity. In addition they rejected state churches, because state churches (such as the Calvinist church) had proven to be oppressive. They also rejected Catholic church which had a bad reputation as oppressive, and its bad reputation was due to the still recent reformation period. That's why there is a lot of distinctiveness in the USA and hence here on RF.

My great grandfather helped to found a small baptist church that is still in operation. They do believe in the trinity there, but they don't believe in it in the same way as catholic. This isolated place has only recently been more connected by radio, television and internet. The tradition, here, is no less respected than you Europeans and British people respect your own traditions. Things here may seem new to you, but to us they are as old as anything else. A 400 year old church is older than the nation.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yes, I'm studying this topic at university, I'm not ignorant. Please don't treat me as though I am.

What did you mean by ...

So you guys are saying you know better than the men closer to the Apostles, the men who drew up the creeds and wrote the theological texts?

The men who read the Bible in its original languages?

You know better?

What "men closer to the Apostles" would you deem so authoritative on Trinitarianism that challenging some the akin to the Apostle's creed should be deemed hubris? Who specifically did they know? Where might I find out more about them?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So you guys are saying you know better than the men closer to the Apostles, the men who drew up the creeds and wrote the theological texts?

The men who read the Bible in its original languages?

You know better?

Personally, I think it's telling that Trinitarian doctrine didn't really take off until the original apostles were all dead and conveniently unavailable to voice disagreement.

What do you make of this?

 

[Rival]

Personally, I think it's telling that Trinitarian doctrine didn't really take off until the original apostles were all dead and conveniently unavailable to voice disagreement.

What do you make of this?

Well, we find it in Matthew so it's early enough for me to be confident about.

These doctrines are based on what the Apostles taught, the Gospels, letters etc. and extra-canonical writings such as Ignatius who is solid in his belief that Christ is God. If we take Christ to be God and the Holy Ghost to be so (taken from OT and NT theology according to Christian understanding, 'The Holy Ghost will come upon you' etc. etc. ), either one has 3 Gods, which is not monotheism, or one has a triune God, which is what was settled on to solve the conflict. I find it reasonable to believe Jesus claimed to be God and that is what needed to be squared with monotheism. The Trinity was agreed to be the best answer to this question.

So if we take the premise that the authors of the Gospels were writing the memoirs of the Apostles (Mark being Peter's interpreter, for instance), and these Gospels contain the belief in Christ's and the Holy Ghost's divinity, the Apostles must have had some way of reconciling this. The Trinity is that theology.

If that premise is not given, I wouldn't bother arguing as that's my premise, take it or leave it. I think it logically follows from there.

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't know. It's like some Protestants are adopting a form of Progressive Revelation: Progressive revelation (Baháʼí) - Wikipedia

That may well happen to some degree. But I think that it is more likely to be over-analysis of the matter.

My reckoning is that most Protestants just aren't all that interested in theology and Christian traditions and end up third-partying any claims on those matters to their respective church leaders.

Speaking as an outsider, I just don't think that it is a big issue either way. I would not mind if tradition and doctrine said that God has a different number of aspects for each believer either, or for each full hour of the day. The number is IMO immaterial and inconsequential. We are talking about measurements of an entity that pretty much personifies the ideas of exception and transcendence, after all.

Church authorities may perhaps care about those matters in order to establish and express doctrine, but I have a hard time convincing myself that it is much of a deal either way for most or many Christians.

I may easily be missing something significant, but it seems to me that the most likely and influential reasons to take a stance either way are:

1. Aesthetical preference: the Trinity implies a God that knows and understands human existence. In traditional Christian teachings it also means that God understands human suffering and has decided that it cares about it. On the other hand, there are those who just won't accept that idea, perhaps because they believe that the Trinity presents God as less transcendental and less exhalted than it should be perceived as.

2. Obedience to the authority of doctrine, scripture and/or church leaders. This can be a very big deal for many a Christian.

 

[blü 2]

I AM is the name of Elohim. Elohim is not the same as "the only true theos" or to the theos who is the Father.

It's generally taken to be the way the God of the Tanakh identified [him]self, and the God of the Tanakh was the Jewish God hence the God of Jesus, who you'll recall was a circumcised Jew (Luke 1:59).

Or so it seems to me.

 

[Firenze]

So on what basis do people believe in Christianity at all if they have no Tradition?

They believe because of the 2 COLOSSAL promises it makes, found in no other religion:

1. The Bribe of Heaven. "Believe as we do, and you will get to eat Nana's cookies and play with your children in heaven that god let die of cancer....... FOR ETERNITY!" (clashing of cymbals)

2. The Threat of Hell. "Worship me or suffer ...... FOR ETERNITY!" (kettle drums booming out 'Doom...Doom'.)

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I've noticed on RF there are a lot of heretical (that's the technical term) Christians who disbelieve in the Trinity.

Why?

We've had the creeds since Late Antiquity (Apostolic, Nicaean, Athanasian) and they all include the Trinity, especially the latter, which is all about it. These creeds are regularly read in churches and have been for hundreds of years. If the Trinity were so easily disproven, why would it have held out and been accepted by the orthodox Christians? Why spend so much time fighting the Arians? And why, I'm sorry to ask, is it almost always Protestants? Do you think you know something that everybody in the early orthodox Church failed to grasp?

Why is there so much of this around lately? How do you explain how Jesus is God without the Trinity?

How do you explain the worship of Christ?

And why is it treated in such a light manner?

Basically sola scriptura has come home to roost. When Protestantism decided that all you needed for doctrine was the Bible, without the necessity of Church interpretation, the first thing that happened was that the movement split into a zillion pieces. Many Christians today really don't care about the early church councils that hammered things out. Every Christian is his own pope, and feels perfectly free to read the Bible and interpret it however they feel. Thus, we are seeing in our time the resurgence of a great many ideas that the early generations of Christians had basically declared heresies and had eliminated from the churches. I even know Christians today who do not believe that Jesus is God -- totally unthinkable in days gone by. And of course all the different groups ALL claim to be "just following the Bible." It's not that I agree with Christian orthodoxy -- I have MANY problems with its doctrines. But then again, I'm not Christian. It's just that when there is this little unity, I kind of feel like Protestantism has lost its credibility.