(2) I agree that one cannot prove the Trinity in all its Nicene glory from Scripture.
(3)But, one cannot "prove" Newton's Three Laws. What we mean when we say they are "true" is that if we use them as tools to examine what we see, we find we can construct elegant explanations which also help us predict future phenomena. Newton is saying, essentially,"If you ASSUME these three laws to be true then you can understand a lot of things, and ultimately derive the law of gravity from the assumption of these laws and observations of the planets."
I think Ephesus, Chalcedon, Nicea, and others serve this function. We have here the Scriptures. We have the experience of the Saints. We have the expositions of thoughtful Christians.
IF WE ADOPT the schemata of these early conciliar formulations, we find a meaningful way of understanding our Lord when he sometimes describes himself as less than the Father and other times says they are One, AND a host of other stuff as well.
So, I think, JUST AS we do not "prove" Newton by observation and deduction, but rather we find him to be true because his principles order our deductions elegantly and to make predictions of future observations, SO ALSO the conciliar schema are not proved by researching Scripture, etc, but one might almost say they are induced to be true from their clarifying so much Scripture, thought, and religious experience.
Anyway that's how I think of it. If I try to assume Arianism is right, it leads me to a watered down gospel, which is exactly what I find the Jehovah's Witnesses to have. I have never thought enough of my moral capacity to think that Adoptionism could be right, but I seem to find a brittle Pelagianism among those who think Jesus was rewarded with Divine status and essence because he was especially good.
I bow to your wisdom; you are of course correct.
(2) I agree that one cannot prove the Trinity in all its Nicene glory from Scripture.
Very good.
(3)But, one cannot "prove" Newton's Three Laws. What we mean when we say they are "true" is that if we use them as tools to examine what we see, we find we can construct elegant explanations which also help us predict future phenomena. Newton is saying, essentially,"If you ASSUME these three laws to be true then you can understand a lot of things, and ultimately derive the law of gravity from the assumption of these laws and observations of the planets."
Very handy illustration.
Anyway that's how I think of it. If I try to assume Arianism is right, it leads me to a watered down gospel, which is exactly what I find the Jehovah's Witnesses to have. I have never thought enough of my moral capacity to think that Adoptionism could be right, but I seem to find a brittle Pelagianism among those who think Jesus was rewarded with Divine status and essence because he was especially good.
Again, I find myself in agreement. Thank you for stepping in.