Leolaia,
Excellent post again! Your arguments are solid and reflect a good knowledge of early Church writings.
Thanks again, Jim Whitney
The Earliest Trinity Statements
by Amazing1914 86 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
lovelylil
Leolaia and Jim,
those were good posts. I agree with you both totally that Jesus and God were both equal in nature. I have no problem with that.
But, as someone who has personally experienced the power of the Holy Spirit, I can attest to the fact that it is not a person. It is the power of God that he uses to influence people. That is why the in the bible it says that the writers of it where "borne along by holy spirit". God or Christ can pour it out on believers. I understand what the early church fathers taught but, that is only their way of explaining the nature of God, Jesus and the Holy spirit and the relationship between the three. They were just mere men and I choose to believe what the Bible says about the Holy Spirit, not any mans interpretation. I do not agree that the Apostles or any one else in the bible felt that the Holy Spirit was a person. People were filled with Holy Spirit in the OT also. this was not a new teaching. Just because Christ did not pour it out upon Christians until pentecost, does not mean that the early followers of him did not know what it was. So I think on this point, we will just have to disagree.
But, clearly, the Holy Spirit was not talking in acts. The Holy Spirit moved people to speak and might have influenced them as to what to say, but it still is not a seperate person.
As for now, we will just have to respectfully disagree or we can argue this point forever. Thanks again.
-
barry
Vincent of Lerins lived about the 5th century on the island of Lerins. Vincent said Christian doctrine is developed just as a child grows into a man.thats the very example he used. The modern champion of the developement of doctrine is John Henry Newman who wrote a essay on the subject. He wrote about the rules to follow to test if a developement is true.This is a catholic beleif so why would i be promoting a Catholic beleif? Because all christians in practice beleive in the developement of doctrine.Note the following. the doctrine of salvation was not developed by the protestants until the 15th century.
b.Slavery was permitted in the new testamant later slavery was not continued by the christian church.
c The full new testament was not decided apon until the fourth century. True most of the new testament was in place by the second century but hebrews to Revelation had not been decided on with Revelation being the last to be included.
d And to the WT beleifs 1914 was not decided apon until some time after 1914 so does the WT beleive in the developement of doctrine? Well yes they just call it by another name "New Light ' comes to mind.
eNow with the trinity which wasnt developed until the 4th century my question here would be Why Not?
Sometimes we all may beleive certain things to be true but they may not have them written down in a precice way.I may say to you do you like black sabbath or elton john? Now you may preferr elton john but you may have never saw the nead to make think about or even make that statement and the doctrine of the christian church is a bit like that. People beleive the trinity doctrine way before the forth century but until a hericy came up didnt see the nead to argue a non issue. Barry
-
Amazing1914
Barry,
Very interesting comments. Your are correct about the later development of the 1914 WT doctrine. The 1914 doctrine of Jesus second presence was not developed until after 1929. The WT book, "Prophecy" released in 1929, at the bottom of page 65 still "strongly" promoted 1874 as Jesus second presence.
eNow with the trinity which wasnt developed until the 4th century my question here would be Why Not?
Your question and subsequent reasoning is good. However, if you read my opening post, which started this thread, the Trinity was fully developed by the year 190 AD. The 4th century action was to solidify a unified wording that could accomodate small variations, and deal with heresies, as you correctly noted.
Lovelylil,
But, as someone who has personally experienced the power of the Holy Spirit, I can attest to the fact that it is not a person. It is the power of God that he uses to influence people.
Your testimony is fine for you, but it is not acceptable to hundreds of millions of Christians. Claims of personal experience as proof of anything are not proof, unless you have objective edvidence to back it up. Anyone can claim spiritual experiences, and it is meaningless for others. JW anointed (of which I was one for 20-years of my 25 years in the organizations) claim to be specially bron of the holy spirit to a hope to be in heaven as co-rulers with 144,000 in a kingdom over the earthly paradise. Their claim is just that, a claim.
That is why the in the bible it says that the writers of it where "borne along by holy spirit". God or Christ can pour it out on believers.
The Bible also says that God is light, God is love, Jesus is a rock, etc. The Bible also shows that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit dwell within us. These are sayings to help us grasp a feature of what these persons do. So, being "borne along" by Holy Spirit or the Holy Spirit being "poured out" are simple descriptors of what they are or what they do.
I understand what the early church fathers taught but, that is only their way of explaining the nature of God, Jesus and the Holy spirit and the relationship between the three.
Nonetheless, they taught it. They were far closer to the early Apostles and Christ than we are. The Church did not have a consistent book called the Bible until well after the 4th century. Most of what Christians learned was taught by word of mouth and tradition, and letters being read from all sorts of Church Fathers, including the Bible writers. The objective evidence sides with the Trinity, and not with teachings like the Watchtower has.
They were just mere men and I choose to believe what the Bible says about the Holy Spirit, not any mans interpretation.
Likewise, you are just a mere women, and I am just a mere man. Any decisions we make for ourselves is no better than what those mere mortals decided upon. They were mere men, true. But the Bible was not even begun to be compiled until the 4th century and not declared inspired until hundreds of year later ... all done by Trinitarians. However, Jesus promised that he would be with the church all days right up to the end of the world, and that the gates of hell would not prevail over it. So, what Church has continued uninterrupted since the time of the Apostles? The Catholic Church (Roman and Orthodox). This is not a statement of faith, but an observation of evidence.
I do not agree that the Apostles or any one else in the bible felt that the Holy Spirit was a person.
They why did the Bible writers quote the Holy Spirit as speaking in the first person? Your disagreement does not negate the objective evidence in the Bible itself.
People were filled with Holy Spirit in the OT also. this was not a new teaching. Just because Christ did not pour it out upon Christians until pentecost, does not mean that the early followers of him did not know what it was. So I think on this point, we will just have to disagree.
I am not sure what the exact disagreement is. All I have done is to point to scriptures (just a few of th many examples, to show the Holy Spirit speaking. I can find similar scriptures showing the Father speaking, and you will immediately accept his words as he himself speaking. When I showed you the Holy Spirit speaking in the first person, you denied him speaking. Your own beliefs are creating a bias that prohibits you from reading language as it is written. That is okay for you, but it does not make the language as shown in all translations change one little bit.
But, clearly, the Holy Spirit was not talking in acts. The Holy Spirit moved people to speak and might have influenced them as to what to say, but it still is not a seperate person.
You are only claiming that the Holy Spirit is not speaking in Acts. Read it again. And as they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, "Separate me Barnabus and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them." - KJV / AV
The Holy Spirit spoke in the first person, therefore, he himself speaks whether we want to believe in the Holy Spirit as a person or not. Your paradidgm of the Holy Spirit is causing you to deny clear language that is irrefutable in all Bible translations ... even the non-Trinitarian New World Translation was forced by Greek grammar to use quotation marks as does the other translations.
As for now, we will just have to respectfully disagree or we can argue this point forever. Thanks again.
There is nothing for me to disagree with you on. I do not promote a particular definition of God. I see objective evidence in various sources which agrees with a conclusion that I did not expect to find. I cannot ignore the clear and irrefutable language in the Bible. It says what it says regardless of any disagreements people might have.
Jim Whitney
-
Leolaia
However, if you read my opening post, which started this thread, the Trinity was fully developed by the year 190 AD. The 4th century action was to solidify a unified wording that could accomodate small variations, and deal with heresies, as you correctly noted.
I guess it depends on what you mean by "fully developed". I distinguish between trinitarian thinking and the "Trinity" as defined by the post-Nicene church. Athenagorus and Tertullian were certainly trinitarian (and Irenaeus was at least fully binitarian), but their trinity was a very different animal (pardon the expression) from the trinity confessed in the fourth century. Tertullian was a subordinationist, the Son and Holy Spirit were thought to have been derived from the Father, he believed that the Son was begotten as the Logos (i.e. as a distinct person) when God uttered, "Let there be light!" tho what became the Son was eternal within God since God was eternally rational, the relationship between the persons was economical rather than ontological, he did not view the trinity as "three co-equal/co-eternal personae in one ousia", tho he was part way there by viewing the three as personae and by describing them as united by "substance". It isn't just the precise wording but the concept of the Trinity itself is quite different. To get from there to the post-Nicene Trinity, there would have to have been quite a bit of further theological development. But just because Tertullian did not subscribe anachronistically to the later post-Nicene Trinity is not cause to deny that he was trinitarian. The Society hides the latter fact by the way they portray his theology and by focusing only on the lateness of when the doctrine was fully developed. It is one thing to hit upon a trinitarian harmonization of montheism with the Deity of the Son and Holy Spirit (as opposed to monarchianist modalism or other theologies), it is another thing to explain how this Trinity is supposed to work. There are many different ways to conceive of a trinitarian God.
-
Amazing1914
Leolaia,
Excellent points. Sorry for the red ink, but the color button on JWD does not all change. Here is my specific point.
Year 190 AD, Clement Of Alexandria "There was then, a Word importing an unbeginning eternity; as also the Word itself, that is, the Son of God, who being, by equality of substance, one with the Father, is eternal and uncreated." (Fragments, Part I, section III) ... "I understand nothing else than the Holy Trinity to be meant; for the third is the Holy Spirit, and the Son is the second, by whom all things were made according to the will of the Father." (Stromata, Book V, ch. 14) ... "When [John] says: 'What was from the beginning [1 John 1:1],' he touches upon the generation without beginning of the Son, who is co-equal with the Father. 'Was,' therefore, is indicative of an eternity without a beginning, just as the Word Himself, that is the Son, being one with the Father in regard to equality of substance, is eternal and uncreated. That the word always existed is signified by the saying: 'In the beginning was the Word' [John 1:1]." (fragment in Eusebius History, Bk 6 Ch 14; Jurgens, p. 188)
Certainly, Clement had down all of the essential ingredients that makes up the Nicene creed and the Trinity doctrine. True, certain specific wording, and certain theologians, like Tertullian, continued to debate the finer points, and even some significant issues. Nothing in Clement's statements, however, is out of line with what was agreed upon at Nicea, 325 AD, nor with the doctrine as believed today by the overwhelming majority of Christians. And, as you posted earlier, the earlier Fathers, such as St. Ignatius in 105, also had down the essential components of what became used in the Trinity doctrine. The underlying theme is that the claim by the Watchtower that the Trinity was not formed until the Council of Nicea in 325 AD and Constantinople in 381 AD is completely without justification. I sent you another PM. Thanks, Jim Whitney -
Leolaia
Clement of Alexandria had a very complex theology (based largely on Platonism but departing from it in many respects, such as the way in which the Divine Thought and World-Soul of Plato is utilized to specify the relationship of the Son and Holy Spirit to the Father), which I cannot profess to fully understand. He described a threefold generation of the Logos and thus distinguished between the Logos eternally immanent in God and the Son-Logos who proceeded from the Father to become "the progenitor of all creation and substance," and both from the Logos who was begotten "when the Logos became flesh so that he would become visible" (Excerpta ad Theodoto, 19; Stromateis 5.3.16). This is similar to Tertullian's distinction between the Logos as eternal Reason (for God was always rational) and as externalized Discourse (i.e. the begetting occurring when God declared, "Let there be light"...a declaration that itself created light, Logos thus being the Creator of light but also being produced by God through an act of his will), which again is dependent on Platonic notions. One must be careful not to oversimplify this complexity, for your quotation implies that Clement of Alexandria had no notion that the Logos had a "beginning" while the Society (in the Trinity broshure) implies that Clement thought that the Son only existed by being begotten by the Father (similar to how Photius misunderstood Clement); both are inadequate characterizations. Clement's student Origen went on to develop both these themes through his notion of the eternal generation of the Son and by reasserting the Platonic idea of a hierarchical relationship between the hypostases (allowing for a quasi-tritheism, with the Logos having "an essence of his own"). The latter idea, of course, played an important role in the theology of the Alexandrine presbyter Arius, who emphasized this subordinationism and construed the different hypostases as different in kind (i.e. that the Son had a different essence than the Father, hence his objection to the term homoousios). Clement certainly had an affinity with the later post-Nicene trinity but still had a kind of ontological subordinationism (with the Son-Logos and the Spirit being generated from the Father) and a distinction being maintained between the generated Logos and the eternal, immanent Logos. He also did not have the concept that Tertullian had hit upon of three personae united in one undivided substance. This idea was not even generally accepted by Nicea, for the Nicene fathers commonly used the terms ousia "essence" and hupostasis "substance" interchangeably (and even Athanasius argued against formally distinguishing the terms); it was not until the Cappadocian fathers who formalized it, tho by then the Son and Holy Spirit were not viewed as derived from the Father's ousia or hupostasis (despite the language in Hebrews 1:3), but rather all three persons (hupostases/personae) sharing equally in a single ousia/substantia.