Posted on 08/10/2006 6:22:46 PM PDT by Teófilo
Folks, I've been leafing through volume 11 of the Twentieth Century Encyclopedia of Catholicism which I purchased second hand. The title of this volume is What is the Trinity? and also contains a study on The Holy Spirit. Bernard Piault wrote What is the Trinity, and indeed it's a very rich study on this most central question in Christian Theism. At the beginning of its fifth chapter I found three tables detailing the different kinds of Trinitarian heresies and their refutations. I'm going to try to reproduce these tables below for your information. All those spaces correspond roughly to those in the original tables.
I. Total Rejection of the Trinity
|
Heresy |
Refutation |
||||
| Year | Of Judaizing Origin | Of Philosophical Origin | Inspired Writers | Final Authority | Christian Teachers |
| 50
100
150 200 |
Ebionites Cerinthus (96-100)
|
Simon Magus. Basilides.
Valentine
(Widespread Gnosticism) |
St. Paul St. John |
The Apostles' Creed |
St. Clement of Rome (96-100) St. Ignatius of Antioch (+107) St. Justin (150) St. Ireneaus |
II. Rejection of the Distinctions of Persons
|
Heresy |
Refutation |
|||
| Year | Adoptionism | Modalism | Teachers | Final Authority |
|
200
250
|
Theodotus the Currier Theodotus the Banker Artemon Paul of Samosata (The Word lives in the man Jesus as in a Temple. Hence, Jesus is not the Son of God) |
Praxeas Sabellius Noetus of Smyrna |
Tertullian (213-18) Hyppolytus of Rome (c. 230-40) |
The two Denises (265) The Three Councils of Antioch(263-8) |
III. Rejection of Equality of Persons
|
Heresy |
Refutation |
|||
| Year | About the Word | About the Holy Spirit | Teachers | Final Authority |
| 300
350
400
|
Arius Eusebius of Nicomedia Eusebius of Caesarea Anomeans Homoiousians Homoeans |
Pneumatomachians Macedonius
Marathon |
St. Alexander of Alexandria (320) St. Athanasius St. Hilary St. Athanasius St. Basil of Caesarea St. Gregory of Nyssa St. Gregory Nazianzen |
Nicea (325)
Alexandria (362)
2nd Council of Constantinople (381 |
Let's be clear here- we read completely different versions of the Bible, and there are verses that can be isolated, grouped and quoted to support both of our views.
The version I read has been around for a while longer than yours, and the version you read was picked through and selected chapters excluded, by an excommunicated former member from my church, who was excommunicated NOT for his religious views, (which were in rough alignment with my churches' at the time of his excommunication) but for pointing out the rampant political corruption in his former employer's administation at the time. The whistleblower got fired, if you will, because he blew the whisle, on corruption, not because he was a bad man.
Since that time, this man's edited copy of the Bible has held fast, and has stood the test of time. However, this man's followers have suffered schism after schism, and the splinter groups that broke off from the ONE former Christian church have formed splinter groups on their own, until the present day, when all of these hundreds of splinter groups still read the same text, and completely disagree on many aspects of the meaning, translation and message behind that text. Is the bible to be taken literally, word for word, or not? For Protestants, that depends on which splinter groups you ask. Amid this confusion, every day new little schisms happen. Some groups unite, some align with others, some focus on common aspects, some preach hatred and condemnation. You happen to belong to one of these splinter groups or another. Is the teaching of your church correct, or is mine? We'll find out at the end of our days, I suppose. For my part, I'm sticking to my own churches' catechism, 'cus my church has stuck with theirs.
Yeah, Eagle Eye was misinformed on that denial thing... Who says that Jesus wasn't here in the flesh? I never heard that one, even among the snake-handling set of Protestants.
You take much for granted, Captain. You don't even know my faith. You have not the slightest idea that the Church I support predates yours by 300 years. It is the "Church of God" mentioned specifically twelve times in the New Testament. Can you make that claim of yours? I thought not.
And the version you read was picked through and selected chapters excluded by an excommunicated former member from my church, who was excommunicated
Captain....I am no supporter of Martin Luther....if that is the one you are referring to. My faith stipulates that we observe the Feasts of The Lord [Leviticus 23] and the weekly Sabbath....as Jesus and the Apostles did. I believe it was your organization, which in about the fourth century, mandated the illegality of such observances in your various Church/State councils.
Needless to say....since mine is the original Church of the New Testament we don't subscribe to the trinitarian nonsense.....because the Apostles didn't either.
What's this "true God and true man" thing? One cannot believe that Jesus can in the flesh if he is also true God.
If anyone truly believes that Jesus is God or God/Man then they cannot confess (homologeo) that Jesus came in the flesh.
Your premise is rejected until you show that verse to me in the Bible.
Then you admit that your God is not one but three.
The Father of Jesus Christ, on the other hand, is one.
The Bible clearly teached that God created the heavens and the earth, that there is only one true God for worship and that God is one.
Deu 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God [is] one LORD
Gal 3:20 Now a mediator is not [a mediator] of one, but God is
1Cr 8:6 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.
Eph 4:6 One God and Father of all, who [is] above all, and through all, and in you all.
1Ti 2:5 For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
The Bible also tells us what God is...and in not:
Jhn 4:24 God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth.
Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God
Num 23:19 God [is] not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent
Jam 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
God is spirit and invisible. God is not a man, nor the son of Man and cannot be tempted.
God has no beginning or end. Jesus had a 'genesis' (beginning) at his birth although God knew about him in his (God's) foreknowledge.
Jesus was visible, a man, frequently referred to as the son of man, and was tempted in all ways as we are.
God is the father of Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God.
Jesus had a separate will from his Father.
Jesus is subordinate to God.
Jesus is God's representative to man.
Jesus is the mediator between man and God.
Jesus died for our sins.
God raised Jesus from the dead.
God caused Jesus to ascend to a place at his (God's) right hand.
There is but one way to God and that is through Jesus Christ.
If one confesses Jesus as Lord and believes in his heart that God raised him from the dead, one will be saved.
But what we don't see in the Bible are "Trinity", "God the Son", "Jesus is God", "True God and True Man", "Three in One", "Triune God" or any of the other phrases used to describe this doctrine.
So when I say that I believe that Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God who lived a perfectly sinless life, died for our sins, was raised on the third day, currently sits at that right hand of God and will one day return for his saints, where is the flaw?
But I can and have shown mulitple flaws in the reasoning of three being really one; frequent contradictions to the Bible with the notion of Jesus being God and Flesh; and just plain loss of common sense! If Jesus is God then who did he pray to? Who did God call his beloved son? If Jesus is God, then no one saw him because God is invisible...
Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am (John 8: 58).
And I reject your premise that the New Testament is a kind of Koran. But just consider the meaning of "Lord Jesus." Moses saw the hindquarters of the Lord; the apostles saw His face.
You better show me where I said that or apologize for lying.
Your problem is that you cannot support your thesis from the Bible. You have to use fiction.
No, I don't accept the Protestant dogma that only that which is stated in the Bible is authentic Christian teachings. That is to view the Bible as a Muslim viuews the Koran.
Jesus saith to him: Have I been so long a time with you; and have you not known me? Philip, he that seeth me seeth the Father also. How sayest thou, Shew us the Father? Do you not believe, that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak to you, I speak not of myself. But the Father who abideth in me, he doth the works (John 14: 9-10).
Bringing in another issue doesn't refute my point or strengthen yours.
And, btw, you really don't understand what Jesus was saying to the Pharisees.
Somehow you guys thing that Jesus saying "I am" according the the KJV means that he is saying he is God when God says "I am that I am"....which really means 'I will become what I will become' in relationship to meeting Isreal's needs. Do a study on the 'redemptive' names of Jehova and you'll see that Jehova Repha, Jehova Tsidknu, Jehova Shalom, etc. were all names of the same one God but were descriptive of his relationship and function.
Jehova had several names depending on his relationship with Isreal. This was mimiced by the gods of baalim and ashteroth and others. It was these others that Jehova contantly warned Isreal not to follow, but they were continually deceived into idolotry. Hence the admonishment that despite many names, Jehova is one Lord.
When, exactly, do you think that the devil stopped tring to trick people into worshipping a plurality god instead of the One True God?
Your statement that I made a premise that the New Testament was a kind of Koran was YOUR invention, not my statment.
You lied about what I said and I will no longer address you or acknowledge you in this discussion.
Have some common sense man!
Jesus had all of God's authority.
Jesus so perfectly represented God his Father that he was ables to tell people that if you've seen me, you've seen him.
He certainly wasn't trying to pass himself off as the Father!
It is not much different than a Father-Son business with the son running things and telling people that they don't need to see dad, he can take care of it all.
Remember what Jesus told his disciples?
Jhn 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater [works] than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
So believers are going to do the same works that Jesus did and even greater.
If Jesus was God, he was promising that his believers would then do greater works than God.
But that isn't what he was promising, was it?
Just a parting shot: I didn';t say you lied; I said that your Lutheran view of the Bible is like that of the Muslims'view of the Koran.
Everything you have said about God and about Jesus has been far from "common sense."
The words that I speak to you, I speak not of myself. But the Father who abideth in me, he doth the works
How that becomes a defense for the trinity is... quite odd. :-/
Who walked with Adam in the cool of the day?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.