The Trinity

[Rhyfelwyr]

You are allowed to object, but nonetheless it is well documented that Trinitarianism originated with the council at Nicea with Athanasius as the leader.
The Trinitarians as they were later called, was a minority at that council. Just read any scholarly book about the event and it will say the same.
I’ll even throw in an author: J.N.D Kelly, who states that the great conservative middle party at the council were subordinationists. One can’t be a subordinationist and have three in one God. You need three divided in nature.
Besides, Athanasius was a modalist and would object to the 4th point in your opening statement.
I am tempted to go further into detail pointing out the different groups within this very old debate, but I will not here, but if this point is still being refuted, I might.
It would seem that Trinitariansim could originate with the Gnostics, as it was during the fallout of the Nicean council that the Niceans (later Trinitarians) used the word homo-ousios (same essence) about Christ, a word formerly used by the gnostic community.

I never claimed that Trinitarianism was the dominant position within Christendom at the time of Nicaea or Athanasius. From what I have read, I would be agreement that Trinitarianism was a minority position at that time. What I was trying to say was that I believe that the scriptures show Trinitarianism to be the position of the earliest church - the church in the time of Christ and the apostles. I am well aware that although modern Christians tend to revere the ancient church, it was rife with error even in relatively early days, as is shown by the many doctrinal disputes documented in the scripture itself (the Judaizers of Galatians, the churches of Asia scolded in Revelation, etc).

For this reason, I think it is important to appeal to the scripture as effectively the best source we have on what exactly the very earliest Christians believed - not those hundreds of years later at Nicaea.

It is a constructed word and should be understood as Three gods divided in nature but one in purpose, power etc.

Fair enough.

I can only repeat the scripture which says that Christ is the charaktēr of the Father, which means he should be an exact copy, and having the same attributes as the father including all powers. He is still subordinate as a prince is to a king.

I thought a key belief of Subordinationism which distinguished it from Trinitarianism was the idea that Christ and the Holy Spirit are subordinate to the Father both in nature and their 'office' or 'function'? Isn't that why, after all, you appeal to those verses of scripture which speak of minor created gods, and identify Christ with them? The wikipedia article on Subordinationism opens with:

"Subordinationism is a doctrine in Christian theology which holds that the Son and the Holy Spirit are subordinate to God the Father in nature and being."

I know its not the best source but I did initially refer to that to try to understand where you are coming from. Would you disagree that Subordinationism says Christ is subordinate in nature to the Father?

It isn’t fanciful.
I wish more fundamental Christians would actually read scholarly work on the Bible… these things are not self-evident. And this goes to Vincents comment about interpreting scripture with scripture. Nonsense. You need to understand the ancient Hebrew culture to understand the Old Testament, especially Isaiah. Without the understanding of the Ancient Israelite New Year Festival you will miss most of Isaiahs message in chapters 40-63. And you can’t learn about this festival from the Bible itself.
Scholars (Christian) since the birth of the church in Jesus’ time have commented on the sciptures and its meaning. They are the church Fathers and have coined many of your current beliefs including Trinitarianism.

The idea of interpreting scripture with scripture doesn't mean excluding all other sources for understanding the scripture. It just means that when you come across a verse which is unclear to you, you should attempt to understand it in a way that is consistent with other verses of scripture which speak more clearly on the matter. Naturally, you also have to look to scholarly extra-scriptural sources to understand the historical and cultural contexts.

I don't think there is anything in the context of Isaiah 43:10-11, to suggest that when God speaks of gods being formed, he means only gods being formed by clay. You are making a positive assertion that goes beyond the plain meaning of the text. You were of course right when you observed earlier that Isaiah and many prophets protested strongly against idol worship, but they were equally clear in preaching against the worship of any god besides God. If Christ is one such lesser god, does that mean that Christians are transgressing the commandments given in the Old Testament when they worship Christ?:

"Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God." (Exodus 20:3)

You might say again that he is speaking there of idols, but it seems to me to be a pretty untenable position to say that God would allow for us to worship other gods, so long as we don't make physical representations of them.

Also, I would say it is unfair for you to simply state that my belief in Trinitarianism comes from the Church Fathers and not from scripture. Have I ever appealed to their authority to justify Trinitarianism? I have never appealed to their arguments, the only authority I have appealed to so far is scripture which was written hundreds of years before they were born.

I can’t see the contradiction in Hebrews here.

"And again, when he [the Father] bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him." (Hebrews 1:6)

Not a contradiction, but the Father does speak of God as though God is somehow distinguished from himself [the Father]. In the same way that Paul distinguished between God the Father and Christ the Son.

So, both the Son and the Father are distinguished as being distinct from God.

This is a phrase Paul used… It doesn’t have to imply that he is talking about roles. He could as likely be speaking about two distinct ontologically beings. "Hermenautical approach…" I am not sure if I follow your meaning. Are you talking about interpreting based on presuppositions?

You are right in that he isn't necessarily talking about them having different roles or being ontologically distinct beings. That was my point - you offered this verse as an argument for them being ontologically distinct, but there are other reasonable interpretations of this verse.

The Biblical hermeneutics I mentioned is the idea that you don't consider verses of scripture in isolation - you have to interpret them in a way that is consistent with the rest of the scripture. When there are more than one ways to interpret a verse (as there are for the one in question here) then you have to look to other verses to try to shed some light on what they really mean.

You need to bring the text or I will just dismiss it as (baseless) opinion.

"But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." (1 Corinthians 8:6)

Paul here says there is one Lord, Jesus Christ. Elsewhere, God is called Lord:

"And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord." (Mark 12:29)

A similar example:

"Neither is there salvation in any other [than Christ]: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." (Acts 4:12)

Jesus is here called our only Saviour. Elsewhere, God is called our Saviour:

"To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen." (Jude 1:25)

Ah… but as I am not a JW – you now know two groups. And there are others – trust me.
Moreover, this goes back into the sola scriptura discussion… and we might need to touch on it in this debate. Did the Bible translators have a Trinitarian presupposition? If they did – they would translate Theos as “God” and not “a god” – do you dispute that either translation is equally correct, technically?

I am not learned enough to say which translation is correct. But certainly, from what I can see, scholarly opinion is almost universal throughout Christendom in agreeing that it is "God" and not "a god". You could say this is just because of their presuppositions, but of course ultimately non-Trinitarians will have their presuppositions as well.

“Perhaps”. Seems like you are making an uninformed opinion?

This is just another one of those cases where I am offering an alternative interpretation of a verse that you have offered as proof of your argument (I did initially raise this verse, but only to say that Christ was co-eternal with the Father, not to say that it proves that Christ is part of the Triune God). My opinion regarding this verse is not uninformed since it was based on a wider study of scripture. You formed your opinion on this verse in the same way. That is all either of us can do, since it is one of those things that is not clear in and of itself regarding what we are disputing.

All we can say for certain is that a distinction is made between God and Christ - a distinction that is compatibly with both Trinitarianism and Subordinationism.

bring the text in and we can discuss the particulars.

From my OP:

"Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." (John 8:58)
"I [Jesus] am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty." (Revelation 1:8)

These statements are not compatible with the idea of Christ being a subordinate, created god. These are claims of being the God, as the parallel verses (which Christ was deliberately referencing) regarding God make clear:

"Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God." (Isaiah 44:6)
"And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you." (Exodus 3:14)

Heh.. you are refuting Trinitarianism here. How can the great God be made less when inhabiting the persona of Jesus? Where is the rest of Gods power stored while he fulfils his 33-year mission?

I think you have too narrow a view of Trinitarianism. Trinitarianism demands equality in essence/nature, but there are varying opinions within Trinitarian thought about whether the Son endures a sort of temporal subordination in regards to his role as Saviour. Not in the sense that his nature is ever anything less that perfect, divine and all-powerful - but purely in the sense that he voluntarily submits to the wrath of the Father upon the cross. The Eastern Orthodox would say yes, Catholics would say no, Protestants are split on the matter. All however are Trinitarian because the essential idea of Trinitarianism is that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit each have fully the same nature, and are co-equal and co-eternal in regards to this nature.

As a Subordinationist, you have to address those examples I gave where Christ claims to be equal with God. But you have brought them up a bit further down, so I'll address them then.

Easy… as described in John 3:16
He upholds his great justice by condemning all sin indiscriminately while with great mercy sends his Son to atone for all sin. Thereby he inhabits both attributes – perfect justice and perfect mercy.

Didn't you say that the unity that Christ and the Father share is the same unity shared amongst the saints? In what special sense is Christ then the Father's Son? In what way is it merciful to send one of your brethren to be punished for the sins of a third party? It would only be merciful and selfless to bear that punishment yourself.

I guess I can bring in the verse from John 10:31-37 now since you touched upon something similar.

Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

So the Trintiarians will claim that Jesus is accused of ‘claiming to be God’ (Father). Lets entertain that idea for a bit. Why would Christ quote Psalm 82 as a rebuttal for their claim? It wouldn’t help a bit. He could have quoted other scripture referring to God Almighty, which was fulfilled in himself. No, he quotes a text referring to lesser gods. He puts himself in that category of gods. He is saying that he is not God (the Father) but an ontologically different being separate from The Father.

Christ doesn't put himself in the category of the lesser gods. He quotes Psalm 82 to say that if those who hear the word are called gods, how great then is the blasphemy to deny someone so much greater - the Son of God who has been sanctified and sent into the world by the Father?