U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Is acceptance of the formalized doctrine of The Holy Trinity a prerequisite for salvation?
Yes 4 21.05%
No 13 68.42%
Maybe 1 5.26%
No Idea 1 5.26%
Voters: 19. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-30-2013, 06:23 PM
 
Location: Chicago Area
7,462 posts, read 3,864,836 times
Reputation: 2635

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Blue View Post
My answer to the OP is.

(IMO, of course) No, the Ecumenical councils have no authority over the bible and no authority over man except if he chooses to follow them instead of Christ who has written his word from God in our hearts and sent the Comforter/ Holy Spirit to further teach/guide us to God.
100% agreed with that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-30-2013, 06:33 PM
 
Location: Oregon
3,066 posts, read 2,938,348 times
Reputation: 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by augiedogie View Post
To the OP: IMHO, all of it is clearly taught in the Bible. So your statement contracts scholars who are very knowledgeable of the scriptures both today, and many centuries past. Today, still the majority of Christians in the world confess the Nicene Creed. This includes those who of the Roman Catholic church, the Eastern church, many Lutherans bodies around the world, and most of the church of England around the world.

I could detail it but it would take far to long for this forum. I'd suggest you do some reading on the issue. You could check out Luther's Small Catechism, the Reformed or Catholic Catechisms.
RESPONSE:

Christian denominations that do not accept the Trinity dogma include Unitarian Universalist Christians, Christadelphians, Christian Scientists, Friends General Conference, Iglesia ni Cristo, Jehovah's Witnesses, Latter Day Saints, Oneness Pentecostals, and the United Church of God.

Of course Jewish and Muslim denominations reject the Trinity also.

The Trinity doctrine had to be developed in the second century when Christian doctrine began to claim that Jesus, in additon to being the messiah, was divine himself. Such contradicted the Shema, the basic Jew teaching on monotheism. Christians were soon anathmatized from the Jewish synagogues (see the 18 Benedictions)

The response was to develop a doctrine in which there were, it was claimed, three different persons in one God all coequal, coeternal, and of the same subsstance.

This teaching was made formal doctrine by the majority vote of the 300 bishops (all but five of whom were members of the Greek church) who attended the council of Nicaea and later the 150 Greek bishops who attended the Council of Consantinople (of the Roman empire's 1800 bishops at that time). Those voting against the Nicene doctrine were excommunicated by the Church and exiled by Rome.

It's interesting that ecumenical councils with only a minority of bishops attending determined the will of the Holy Spirit by majority vote, isn't it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2013, 06:50 PM
 
Location: Chicago Area
7,462 posts, read 3,864,836 times
Reputation: 2635
Quote:
Originally Posted by twin.spin View Post
secondly ..... the bolded above is not Nicene Creed, but then what else but strawman arguments do you have?

Yea right ..... you're "more than willing to be proven wrong on the matter."
The Nicene Creed is more of a confession of faith. What I quoted was the Athanasian Creed -- which is a more thorough attempt to describe the formalized doctrine of the Trinity. The whole point of the Athanasian Creed was to completely nail down all the particulars of the nature of God.

But if you like, we can just focus on the Nicene Creed. The Nicene Creed is very general. Like the Trinity Shield, it could be made to fit many "heretical" belief sets ... which was kinda the whole point behind the Athanasian Creed. A Unitarian could look at the phrase, "one in Being with the Father" and conclude that it is teaching Unitarianism. A Jehovah's Witness could see, "We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son" and see a slightly mangled version of their own belief about the Holy Spirit. A Mormon wouldn't see a problem with most of it either I expect. It is general and non-specific to fit many many beliefs about God.

Personally, I say Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Unitarians and Trinitarians all qualify for God's mercy. None of them is going to burn in hell for eternity for failing to understand God correctly. God views us as his children after all. Why would he toss some into hell and save others from it just for failing to understand the nature of a being that is infinite and therefore impossible for us to actually understand. If you can live with that, I certainly can. I think condemning others is God's territory and not mankind's. Agreed?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2013, 07:09 PM
 
14 posts, read 6,225 times
Reputation: 11
Heres the other side of the discussion. Its an interesting topic. If there is rational or reasonable issue or argument it will be much appreciated, thanks. This would be the short form.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Blessed Trinity

Last edited by feildway; 06-30-2013 at 07:20 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2013, 09:25 PM
 
Location: arizona ... most of the time
11,824 posts, read 9,816,901 times
Reputation: 1301
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010 View Post
The Nicene Creed is more of a confession of faith. What I quoted was the Athanasian Creed -- which is a more thorough attempt to describe the formalized doctrine of the Trinity. The whole point of the Athanasian Creed was to completely nail down all the particulars of the nature of God.

But if you like, we can just focus on the Nicene Creed. The Nicene Creed is very general. Like the Trinity Shield, it could be made to fit many "heretical" belief sets ... which was kinda the whole point behind the Athanasian Creed. A Unitarian could look at the phrase, "one in Being with the Father" and conclude that it is teaching Unitarianism. A Jehovah's Witness could see, "We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son" and see a slightly mangled version of their own belief about the Holy Spirit. A Mormon wouldn't see a problem with most of it either I expect. It is general and non-specific to fit many many beliefs about God.

Personally, I say Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Unitarians and Trinitarians all qualify for God's mercy. None of them is going to burn in hell for eternity for failing to understand God correctly. God views us as his children after all.Why would he toss some into hell and save others from it just for failing to understand the nature of a being that is infinite and therefore impossible for us to actually understand. If you can live with that, I certainly can. I think condemning others is God's territory and not mankind's. Agreed?
The point to any of the creeds was to counter false teachings.
The Athanasian creed was prepared in combating two errors that undermined Bible teaching.
  • One error denied that God's Son and the Holy Spirit are of one being or Godhead with the Father.
  • The other error denied that Jesus Christ is true God and true man in one person.
In totality through scriptures, God revealed himself to be Triune. That is who the true God is, and to believe otherwise is to believe in false god. It is not true that those who believe in a false god will qualify for God's mercy when confronted with their unbelief.

I do not do the condemning but rather again it is God who does.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2013, 10:43 PM
 
37,528 posts, read 25,250,403 times
Reputation: 5857
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Blue View Post
My answer to the OP is.

(IMO, of course) No, the Ecumenical councils have no authority over the bible and no authority over man except if he chooses to follow them instead of Christ who has written his word from God in our hearts and sent the Comforter/ Holy Spirit to further teach/guide us to God.
Amen!
Quote:
Originally Posted by slo1318 View Post
For me, its been good to see the votes here that most believe this way. Not any type of, Im right your wrong scenario, but just the recognition that the Ecumenical councils do not = Gods Word.
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010 View Post
100% agreed with that.
The trinity is just a poor attempt to understand consciousness before it was even known or considered. The Ecumenical councils were political enclaves designed to formalize the opinions of the religious leaders at the time, period. Neither the Councils nor the Bible are "authoritative" in the sense meant . . . as God's Word. They are for our instruction, period. Christ is the Living Word of God and abides with us.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2013, 03:52 AM
 
14 posts, read 6,225 times
Reputation: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by twin.spin View Post
The point to any of the creeds was to counter false teachings.
The Athanasian creed was prepared in combating two errors that undermined Bible teaching.
  • One error denied that God's Son and the Holy Spirit are of one being or Godhead with the Father.
  • The other error denied that Jesus Christ is true God and true man in one person.
In totality through scriptures, God revealed himself to be Triune. That is who the true God is, and to believe otherwise is to believe in false god. It is not true that those who believe in a false god will qualify for God's mercy when confronted with their unbelief.

I do not do the condemning but rather again it is God who does.
Good point. There have been a few ways over the years that people have used to understand the Mystery, a few years ago I thought of the teaching, we were made in God's image.

Image - abstract.

A) When we interconnect with others, our consciousness could be said one distinct truth in itself.

B) Our unconscious mind which we know helps guide and protect us, could be said another distinct truth.

c) Our soul, allows in its measure or state a guiding potential to B) which guides A) in growth. A person can only grow from a workable, understandable point of reference.

There are three in man, the unconscious mind can make decisions in of itself, this is a known, therefore it would be "open to the value" which it would able maintain and able to grow from.

The only way it could be open to a value, or measure or some call it state, is to be subject to something other, to the inner quiet "I" the soul. A bridging interconnecting three open, to God.

This could be likened to a common ground association by its form, in communication. Common ground a necessary in all language and communication.


I thought of this a couple of years ago wondering about things. Anyway awareness or consciousness has been understood for thousands of years. We were made in God's image another one of the idea's in this and thought about it, no arguing intended. It seems to make sense along with the writings for myself anyway.

A) Jesus
B) The Holy Spirit
C) God

Last edited by feildway; 07-01-2013 at 05:06 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2013, 10:07 AM
 
Location: Chicago Area
7,462 posts, read 3,864,836 times
Reputation: 2635
Quote:
Originally Posted by ancient warrior View Post
RESPONSE:

Christian denominations that do not accept the Trinity dogma include Unitarian Universalist Christians, Christadelphians, Christian Scientists, Friends General Conference, Iglesia ni Cristo, Jehovah's Witnesses, Latter Day Saints, Oneness Pentecostals, and the United Church of God.

Of course Jewish and Muslim denominations reject the Trinity also.

The Trinity doctrine had to be developed in the second century when Christian doctrine began to claim that Jesus, in additon to being the messiah, was divine himself. Such contradicted the Shema, the basic Jew teaching on monotheism. Christians were soon anathmatized from the Jewish synagogues (see the 18 Benedictions)

The response was to develop a doctrine in which there were, it was claimed, three different persons in one God all coequal, coeternal, and of the same subsstance.

This teaching was made formal doctrine by the majority vote of the 300 bishops (all but five of whom were members of the Greek church) who attended the council of Nicaea and later the 150 Greek bishops who attended the Council of Consantinople (of the Roman empire's 1800 bishops at that time). Those voting against the Nicene doctrine were excommunicated by the Church and exiled by Rome.

It's interesting that ecumenical councils with only a minority of bishops attending determined the will of the Holy Spirit by majority vote, isn't it?
The more that I have studied the historical development of the formalized Trinity, the more it seems like a desperate attempt to slam a square peg through a round hole: An attempt to take three person/beings and merge them into one being ... while at the same time maintaining that they are actually three separate beings. "One in substance" whatever that means. (Yes I know that it means something. Trouble is, there are many different ways "one in substance" is understood in Christendom and there doesn't seem to be any consensus on the matter.) That is where I get lost and confused despite my best efforts to understand.

As the theology developed over the centuries, the Trinity doctrine has been kept carefully balancing on the razor's edge line between strict monotheism and a form of polytheism. It is an elegant solution, I must say. The problem is that everything that keeps the formalized Trinity in that state of balance is non-scriptural. The Bible never says that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all one substance. It never says they are one being either. Jesus Christ says he and the Father are one and that is as far as it goes. He also prays to the Father that his disciples may become one with him and the Father. Being one is commanded of the Church, of husbands and wives, etc. So the intent of the statement gets a little muddied, and some very Hinduistic possibilities start opening up. Interestingly enough, I can't think of a single scriptural reference where the Holy Spirit is included in the statement of oneness with Father and Son.

The apostles clearly believed in Father, Son and Holy Spirit -- what I would call the informal Trinity. Just leaving it at that is very simple. It leaves the nitpicky details in the "wait and see, only God knows" category. Any reader of the Old and New Testaments can clearly see all three represented. Any honest Christian theology must at least account for Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Beyond that, the Bible does not offer enough clarity on the matter to justify the draconian dogmatism and damning the heretics to hell that we've seen throughout Christian history.

Christianity is taking a beating from all directions right now. Many are losing their faith in God. Islam has been very successful at converting Christians into Muslims. Atheism is trying to become the de facto world religion for all. Christian values are under siege. We need to unlearn this silly tendency we have of quarreling over menial nit-picky details. The truth is, we all tend to agree on matters far more often than we disagree. We need to learn to stand united in spite of our trivial doctrinal differences.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2013, 03:16 PM
 
1,194 posts, read 736,046 times
Reputation: 122
Default Exsqueeze me!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by nateswift View Post
"Unworthy" of what?
...I'm not the Judge that I can determine or decide "what" by design or reward. Don't look to me...look to Yeshua.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2013, 04:45 PM
 
14 posts, read 6,225 times
Reputation: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010 View Post
The more that I have studied the historical development of the formalized Trinity, the more it seems like a desperate attempt to slam a square peg through a round hole: An attempt to take three person/beings and merge them into one being ... while at the same time maintaining that they are actually three separate beings. "One in substance" whatever that means. (Yes I know that it means something. Trouble is, there are many different ways "one in substance" is understood in Christendom and there doesn't seem to be any consensus on the matter.) That is where I get lost and confused despite my best efforts to understand.

As the theology developed over the centuries, the Trinity doctrine has been kept carefully balancing on the razor's edge line between strict monotheism and a form of polytheism. It is an elegant solution, I must say. The problem is that everything that keeps the formalized Trinity in that state of balance is non-scriptural. The Bible never says that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all one substance. It never says they are one being either. Jesus Christ says he and the Father are one and that is as far as it goes. He also prays to the Father that his disciples may become one with him and the Father. Being one is commanded of the Church, of husbands and wives, etc. So the intent of the statement gets a little muddied, and some very Hinduistic possibilities start opening up. Interestingly enough, I can't think of a single scriptural reference where the Holy Spirit is included in the statement of oneness with Father and Son.

The apostles clearly believed in Father, Son and Holy Spirit -- what I would call the informal Trinity. Just leaving it at that is very simple. It leaves the nitpicky details in the "wait and see, only God knows" category. Any reader of the Old and New Testaments can clearly see all three represented. Any honest Christian theology must at least account for Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Beyond that, the Bible does not offer enough clarity on the matter to justify the draconian dogmatism and damning the heretics to hell that we've seen throughout Christian history.

Christianity is taking a beating from all directions right now. Many are losing their faith in God. Islam has been very successful at converting Christians into Muslims. Atheism is trying to become the de facto world religion for all. Christian values are under siege. We need to unlearn this silly tendency we have of quarreling over menial nit-picky details. The truth is, we all tend to agree on matters far more often than we disagree. We need to learn to stand united in spite of our trivial doctrinal differences.
lots of good points and enjoyed reading. Its a mystery what exactly god would be anyway, no matter what it Is, would be outside of time or have dominion over time, as we experience and know the process to be.

Aquinas stopped writing at one point and some asked after some time why, he said that he was consecrating and had some kind of a vision or something, and nothing he ever wrote seemed to be in the capturing or could be, in this strange idea of what he saw in the idea of creation I guess, only remembering from what I read. He was a very good and sincere guy, if his life is read it pretty much obvious that there was no interest for att or money, he came from a wealthy family who did not want him to be any kind of a priest at all. No question he was gifted with a great mind.

anyway my opinion is the largest mistake a human being can make is refusing to use the available brain power or comprehensible common sense they have. It makes no sense to create a full picture or concept perfectly in your head about god.

Also...people use the word God...so much that it becomes so often said, and used that the concept becomes within the self suggestion, something that is completely self known and understood, which is illogical. The human is in fact the creature, no matter what we are restricted in understanding and science confirms this with relativity. God would be in dominion of relativity. My opinion is that all idea's man has of God can only be approach to what would be. If the approach is in understanding who is who, with the humility feature I think thats the most important in opinion . So we can't know all god and put him in a box which is what we do with everything, in a natural way trying to reduce and understand things, the nature of reason and coming to a reduced point. We can't reduce god I don't think to a 'limited point', -( this could or may be possibly expanded on with some meaning on its own alongside textures and meaning in prayer ) great post in a difficult subject.

Last edited by feildway; 07-01-2013 at 05:21 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top