Is there an official Trinity doctrine?

[Muffled]

But.... you being a Modalist by definition means that you don't believe in the Trinity.

I believe that is an unfounded opinion. I do not believe in the Roman Catholic Church version of the Trinity.

What you are saying is that if I don't believe in Coke I don't believe in cola. I am a Pepsi fan, lol.

 

[Muffled]

If you want the foundational texts of Trinitarianism, you have to go to two church Councils. The first is the Council of Nicea in 325. It ruled that the Son is consubstantial with the Father, defeating Arianism. In 381, the Church convened the Council of Constantinople to make sure that everyone knew the Holy Spirit was also included in the God-head, and determine Trinitarian dogma once and for all.

With the defining of Trinitarianism by a Church Council, other competing beliefs became heretical, such as Modalism. Baptisms not done in Trinitarian form are considered invalid.

I've tried to listen to various Christians tell me their particular church's unique take on Trinitarianism, but I get lost. It has always seemed to me that they are trying to split hairs. But that's just me, a non-Christian, thinking. Maybe if I had a horse in the race I'd feel different.

I believe it is my understanding that Athanasius had a different view that he presented at the council of Nicea but it was not accepted. Later the Roman Catholic Church did accept it and many protestants also hold to it. I mostly agree with the findings of the council of Nicea.

Modalism is in agreement with the Bible statement that God is one and with consubstantiation.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I believe it is my understanding that Athanasius had a different view that he presented at the council of Nicea but it was not accepted. Later the Roman Catholic Church did accept it and many protestants also hold to it. I mostly agree with the findings of the council of Nicea.

Modalism is in agreement with the Bible statement that God is one and with consubstantiation.

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.

 

[Shiranui117]

I believe it is my understanding that Athanasius had a different view that he presented at the council of Nicea but it was not accepted. Later the Roman Catholic Church did accept it and many protestants also hold to it. I mostly agree with the findings of the council of Nicea.

Modalism is in agreement with the Bible statement that God is one and with consubstantiation.

I don't know anybody who claims this or any primary source documents which say this. Certainly St. Athanasius in his own writings nowhere makes mention of believing in a different doctrine of the Trinity than the one that he presented and defended at the Council. There's no reason to believe that he did either; modalism had already been a condemned heresy for quite some time before Nicaea, and certainly if St. Athanasius were a Modalist he would have been condemned as well.

 

[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 the teaching of Athanasius about the Trinity was rejected at Nicea so acceptance by the RCC doesn't change that.

I believe that is where I differ. I don't really care who is in the majority or what the official position is. I only care about the Truth and the church does not have it.

 

[Muffled]

I don't know anybody who claims this or any primary source documents which say this. Certainly St. Athanasius in his own writings nowhere makes mention of believing in a different doctrine of the Trinity than the one that he presented and defended at the Council. There's no reason to believe that he did either; modalism had already been a condemned heresy for quite some time before Nicaea, and certainly if St. Athanasius were a Modalist he would have been condemned as well.

I believe you misunderstood. Athanasious is not a Modalist but is a Personalist. His concept is essentially a three god concept in the Trinity and that was rejected at Nicea because the majority believed God to be one.

I believe the church authorities can call whatever they want a heresy but that does not alter the truth or falsehood of it. I believe Modalism is the truth and anything other than that is false and idolatry.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I believe the teaching of Athanasius about the Trinity was rejected at Nicea so acceptance by the RCC doesn't change that.

I believe that is where I differ. I don't really care who is in the majority or what the official position is. I only care about the Truth and the church does not have it.

Nicea WAS Catholic/Orthodox. The two were still united at that time, so both get credit. So its basically the same folks we're talking about here.

Everyone cares about the truth, Muffled. You. Me. Jews. Catholics. Buddhists. Atheists.

 

[sojourner]

From what I understand, the Orthodox church and the Western Holy Roman Empire split because the east didn't agree with the idea of having a Pope? Then they had a patriarch instead? I have also read that the Orthodox church disagrees with the Western Holy Roman Empires view of the Trinity because apparently they disagree with the relationships of the three slightly. I always understood that the Protestants had the same Trinity as the Western Catholics. Is there any truth in this?

One of the problems centers around the Filioque Clause. The EO states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. The RCC added the clause to the original statement out of 1 Nicea and Constantinople which states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

 

[Muffled]

Nicea WAS Catholic/Orthodox. The two were still united at that time, so both get credit. So its basically the same folks we're talking about here.

Everyone cares about the truth, Muffled. You. Me. Jews. Catholics. Buddhists. Atheists.

I believe you will find that some people care more about doctrine than truth.

I believe the early church had people from different areas of the world and could hardly be seen as having a single authority which is why Constantine called the council in the first place to see if Christianity could provide a united front.

 

[Audie]

I believe that is an unfounded opinion. I do not believe in the Roman Catholic Church version of the Trinity.

What you are saying is that if I don't believe in Coke I don't believe in cola. I am a Pepsi fan, lol.

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.

 

[Katzpur]

One of the problems centers around the Filioque Clause. The EO states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. The RCC added the clause to the original statement out of 1 Nicea and Constantinople which states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

I understand that. But where does the Bible make the distinction?

 

[Audie]

Nicea WAS Catholic/Orthodox. The two were still united at that time, so both get credit. So its basically the same folks we're talking about here.

Everyone cares about the truth, Muffled. You. Me. Jews. Catholics. Buddhists. Atheists.

Id really have to say that an awful lot of
people do not care about it very much,
based on the things I see creationists
saying.

 

[sojourner]

I understand that. But where does the Bible make the distinction?

I believe it hinges on a few passages in John:
15:26 -- When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you...
16:7 -- Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him...
20:22 -- He breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit."

 

[Katzpur]

I believe it hinges on a few passages in John:
15:26 -- When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you...
16:7 -- Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him...
20:22 -- He breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit."

So I take it you're of the opinion that the Holy Ghost "proceeds from the Father and the Son," I take it? Those verses actually make it sound as if He "proceeds" directly from the Son. Do Trinitarians see that as impossible? And do you know what the reasoning behind the EO perspective is? From my perspective, it doesn't really matter a great deal where the Spirit "proceeds from." Could you tell me why you see it as important?

 

[sojourner]

So I take it you're of the opinion that the Holy Ghost "proceeds from the Father and the Son," I take it? Those verses actually make it sound as if He "proceeds" directly from the Son. Do Trinitarians see that as impossible? And do you know what the reasoning behind the EO perspective is? From my perspective, it doesn't really matter a great deal where the Spirit "proceeds from." Could you tell me why you see it as important?

When I go to an Eastern church, I say the Creed their way. When I go to a Western church, I say it their way. Since I was raised in the Western church, I naturally fall into the filioque. The EO say the traditional Nicene Creed (which does not have the filioque clause). I only brought it up to demonstrate that there are subtle differences in the way even the historic churches understand the Trinity. Both Eastern and Western churches are Trinitarian.
I tend to agree with the Western view, but it's not that important to me, personally.

 

[Shiranui117]

I believe you misunderstood. Athanasious is not a Modalist but is a Personalist. His concept is essentially a three god concept in the Trinity and that was rejected at Nicea because the majority believed God to be one.

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

I believe you will find that some people care more about doctrine than truth.

I believe the early church had people from different areas of the world and could hardly be seen as having a single authority which is why Constantine called the council in the first place to see if Christianity could provide a united front.

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.

I believe it hinges on a few passages in John:
15:26 -- When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you...
16:7 -- Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him...
20:22 -- He breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit."

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.

 

[tгєรкเค]

One of the problems centers around the Filioque Clause. The EO states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. The RCC added the clause to the original statement out of 1 Nicea and Constantinople which states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

I understand that. But where does the Bible make the distinction?

I believe it hinges on a few passages in John:
20:22 -- He breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit."

So I take it you're of the opinion that the Holy Ghost "proceeds from the Father and the Son," I take it?

the Filioque Clause.
The EO states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.


The RCC added the clause to the original statement out of 1 Nicea and Constantinople which states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

The Holy Spirit= the Breath of life
The Son= the Image of God

Revelation of John 13:15-18
And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

The 666 Trinity.
And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark,
or the name of the beast,
or the number of his name.

Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

Beware of the Trinity doctrine, that is, the mark of the beast, his image, and number (666).

It has been prophesied.

 

[Firemorphic]

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.

IMHO, this kind of theology shows how Orthodox theology is more logical than Catholic and Protestant.

All the best

 

[Katzpur]

the Filioque Clause.
The EO states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.


The RCC added the clause to the original statement out of 1 Nicea and Constantinople which states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

The Holy Spirit= the Breath of life
The Son= the Image of God

Revelation of John 13:15-18
And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

The 666 Trinity.
And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark,
or the name of the beast,
or the number of his name.

Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

Beware of the Trinity doctrine, that is, the mark of the beast, his image, and number (666).

It has been prophesied.

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

 

[sojourner]

the Filioque Clause.
The EO states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.


The RCC added the clause to the original statement out of 1 Nicea and Constantinople which states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

The Holy Spirit= the Breath of life
The Son= the Image of God

Revelation of John 13:15-18
And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

The 666 Trinity.
And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark,
or the name of the beast,
or the number of his name.

Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

Beware of the Trinity doctrine, that is, the mark of the beast, his image, and number (666).

It has been prophesied.

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