Nowhere? It's everywhere. It's embedded in the very fabric of language itself. Language makes the distinction between persons all by itself. I don't need a philosophical dissertation to tell me that "I" and "he" are two different people.
And you won't get anywhere with me by saying concepts come not out of the Bible but out of Greek philosophy. I'm Catholic. I never held to Sola Scriptura and I don't cotton to this idea that we can proof-text our own religion out of what Scripture says to us personally.
What counts ultimately is the authority of the Church that *wrote* the Scripture. If the Holy Catholic Church says that these Greek philosophical terms accurately describe the nature of God then that's the end of the story. Because the same infallible Church that gave us the Scripture also produced the Ecumenical Councils that interpreted it. I don't go in for this notion that God allowed the Church to be infallible just long enough to get stuff down on paper after which it all fell apart.
Hopefully I can answer your John 17 example when I get some more time. But in the meantime let me make one final observation. I often notice this little sleight-of-hand whereby people say that because a doctrine wasn't explicitly taught by the Fathers then it wasn't believed.
Maybe. Maybe not. But it's a leap of logic to turn that *ambiguity* into a *denial*. In order to make your case, you have to show me not only that the Trinity *was not taught* by the Fathers but that it was *explicitly denied* by them.
So let me shift the burden of proof now. You show me where the Trinity is explicitly denied by the Church Fathers prior to Nicaea.
“Nowhere? It’s everywhere. It’s embedded in the very fabric of language itself. Language makes the distinction between persons all by itself. I don’t need a philosophical dissertation to tell me that “I” and “he” are two different people.”
But I agree that the Bible says they are two persons, I disagree that anything in the Bible indicates that two persons can be one being in the general sense, or that specifically Christ and the Father are two persons but one being or ‘one substance’. It just isn’t stated there, it only says that they are one and from there you add a dose of Greek philosophy and come up with the Trinity.
The core of the disagreement is in HOW they are one, in what sense they are one with each other. There is no assertion or example of a trinitarian kind of oneness in the scriptures. There are however, many instances in the scriptures of the kind of oneness I say they have, I pointed out one in John 17. Christ wants his followers to be one with each other and one with him IN THE SAME WAY HE IS ONE WITH THE FATHER, he wants husbands to be one with their wife, and in all these cases there is no justification for saying he wanted them to become some single being composed of one substance containing different persons.
“And you won’t get anywhere with me by saying concepts come not out of the Bible but out of Greek philosophy. I’m Catholic.”
Are Greek philosophers your apostles? I hope not, but the idea of the Trinity comes from their ideas, not from the apostles Christ called or his own teachings.
“What counts ultimately is the authority of the Church that *wrote* the Scripture.”
The scriptures were written by prophets and apostles, not by a church.
“If the Holy Catholic Church says that these Greek philosophical terms accurately describe the nature of God then that’s the end of the story.”
If the story is ‘Signs That the Original Christian Church Went Apostate After the Apostolic Age’ then I would agree. It isn’t just the terminology, but the ideas themselves that are not in the Bible. At least you concede Greek philosophy had a role in forming the creed.
“I don’t go in for this notion that God allowed the Church to be infallible just long enough to get stuff down on paper after which it all fell apart.”
Again I would agree, the church fell apart before they wrote that stuff down, and I don’t recall the Bible saying the church was infallible. It did say the church would fall away however.
“I often notice this little sleight-of-hand whereby people say that because a doctrine wasn’t explicitly taught by the Fathers then it wasn’t believed.
Maybe. Maybe not. But it’s a leap of logic to turn that *ambiguity* into a *denial*.”
If someone came along and said the early church fathers believed that the moon was made of green cheese, and defend their position by saying there is no quote of them denying that belief, would you then accept as valid that they did believe that?
You can’t hold the Trinity up as being so important that it divides Christians from non-Christians, then gloss over the fact that it wasn’t taught early on. The early apostles and church fathers did teach about the nature of God, and they did so without claiming they were ‘one being’ or ‘one substance’. The lack of statements for it is perfectly consistent with the claim that it was an idea that came along later, how could they deny a false teaching nobody was teaching in their day?
There are several statements from early church fathers that are supportive of the idea of subordinationism, which is inconsistent with the idea of the Trinity. The article I posted contained several quotes form non-Mormon scholars who examined the writings of the early Church fathers and concluded that they belived in subordinationism, not trinity. If the opinion of the early church fathers is important to you, I would suggest you start by examining the work of those scholars.
You can also find many instances in the Bible that establish the Father and the Son being separate individuals. Consider these examples:
“He, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, and said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.” (Acts 7:55-56,Eph 1:20)
“Jesus, when he was baptized, went straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, this is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” Matthew 3:16-17
“Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren and say unto them, I ascend to my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.” (John 20:17)
“When he, the Spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whosoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and show it unto you.”John 16:13-14
“It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment.” John 16:7-8:
“And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.” Luke 2:52
“But of that day and hour knoweth no [man], no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.” Matthew 24:36
“I will confess also before my Father in heaven...him also I will deny before my Father which is in heaven.” Matthew 10:32-33:
“And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.” Mark 10: 18
“Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.” John 14: 28
Galatians 1:1 tells us he was raised by his Father. John 8:28 tells us again that Christ learned, even from his Father. Did the Father teach himself?
None of these make any sense except to view the Father and Son and separate individuals. They had separate locations, individual wills and knowledge, difference in rank and goodness. In every instance, in every case they are portrayed as separate, individual beings.
The only recourse for the Trinitarian is to assert that the scriptures don’t mean what they plainly say, that some great ‘mystery’ transforms these verses to mean something not said anywhere in the text. It isn’t just that the idea of the Trinity is absent from the scriptures, it is contradictory to what the scriptures show.