Posted on 04/16/2013 8:20:04 PM PDT by DouglasKC
Many historians and religious scholars, some quoted in this publication, attest to the influence of Greek or Platonic philosophy in the development and acceptance of the Trinity doctrine in the fourth century. But what did such philosophy entail, and how did it come to affect the doctrine of the Trinity?
To briefly summarize what was pertinent, we start with mention of the famous Greek philosopher Plato (ca. 429-347 B.C.). He believed in a divine triad of "God, the ideas, [and] the World-Spirit," though he "nowhere explained or harmonized this triad" (Charles Bigg, Christian Platonists of Alexandria, 1886, p. 249). Later Greek thinkers refined Plato's concepts into what they referred to as three "substances"—the supreme God or "the One," from which came "mind" or "thought" and a "spirit" or "soul." In their thinking, all were different divine "substances" or aspects of the same God. Another way of expressing this was as "good," the personification of that good, and the agent by which that good is carried out. Again, these were different divine aspects of that same supreme good—distinct and yet unified as one.
Such metaphysical thinking was common among the intelligentsia of the Greek world and carried over into the thinking of the Roman world of the New Testament period and succeeding centuries. As the last of the apostles began to die off, some of this metaphysical thinking began to affect and infiltrate the early Church—primarily through those who had already begun to compromise with paganism.
As Bible scholars John McClintock and James Strong explain: "Towards the end of the 1st century, and during the 2d, many learned men came over both from Judaism and paganism to Christianity. These brought with them into the Christian schools of theology their Platonic ideas and phraseology" ( Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, 1891, Vol. 10, "Trinity," p. 553).
The true Church largely resisted such infiltration and held firm to the teaching of the apostles, drawing their doctrine from the writings of the apostles and "the Holy Scriptures [the books of the Old Testament] which are able to make you wise for salvation" (2 Timothy 3:15 ).
Two distinct threads of Christianity split and developed separately—one true to the plain and simple teachings of the Bible and the other increasingly compromised with pagan thought and practices adopted from the Greco-Roman world.
Thus, as debate swelled over the nature of God in the fourth century leading to the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople, it was no longer a debate between biblical truth and error. Both sides in the debate had been seriously compromised by their acceptance of unbiblical philosophical ideas.
Many of the church leaders who formulated the doctrine of the Trinity were steeped in Greek and Platonic philosophy, and this influenced their religious views and teaching. The language they used in describing and defining the Trinity is, in fact, taken directly from Platonic and Greek philosophy. The word trinity itself is neither biblical nor Christian. Rather, the Platonic term trias, from the word for three, was Latinized as trinitas— the latter giving us the English word trinity.
"The Alexandria catechetical school, which revered Clement of Alexandria and Origen, the greatest theologian of the Greek Church, as its heads, applied the allegorical method to the explanation of Scripture. Its thought was influenced by Plato: its strong point was [pagan] theological speculations. Athanasius and the three Cappadocians [the men whose Trinitarian views were adopted by the Catholic Church at the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople] had been included among its members" (Hubert Jedin, Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church: an Historical Outline, 1960, p. 28).
"The doctrines of the Logos [i.e., the "Word," a designation for Christ in John 1] and the Trinity received their shape from Greek Fathers, who . . . were much influenced, directly or indirectly, by the Platonic philosophy . . . That errors and corruptions crept into the Church from this source can not be denied" ( The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Samuel Macauley Jackson, editor, 1911, Vol. 9, p. 91).
The preface to historian Edward Gibbons' History of Christianity sums up the Greek influence on the adoption of the Trinity doctrine by stating: "If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism. The pure Deism [basic religion, in this context] of the first Christians . . . was changed, by the Church of Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the trinity. Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief" (1883, p. xvi). (See "How Ancient Trinitarian Gods Influenced Adoption of the Trinity," beginning on page 18.)
The link between Plato's teachings and the Trinity as adopted by the Catholic Church centuries later is so strong that Edward Gibbon, in his masterwork The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, referred to Plato as "the Athenian sage, who had thus marvelously anticipated one of the most surprising discoveries of the Christian revelation" —the Trinity (1890, Vol. 1, p. 574).
Thus we see that the doctrine of the Trinity owes far less to the Bible than it does to the metaphysical speculations of Plato and other pagan Greek philosophers. No wonder the apostle Paul warns us in Colossians 2:8 (New International Version) to beware of "hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ"!
you totally miss the boat...the conscience, light of God is what inspired the writers of the bible and is what should be guiding us..NOT any book. Yes, the bible is a beautiful testimony of that light...but it is not the light within you!
THE Robert G. Ingersoll noted for his broad range of culture and his defense of agnosticism. He was nicknamed "The Great Agnostic."...that guy??? I wouldn't count on an agnostic to be the best source for expounding on Christian history or doctrine. I kinda think NS was being a little facetious.
Isn't he currently serving a prison sentance for federal tax evasion?
“the conscience, light of God is what inspired the writers of the bible ...”
Since you, apparently, caught the boat, how do you know that the above is true? There are more than a few verses from the Bible that do not agree with you.
it is the holy spirit! That takes precedence over all because it is our daily guide! If you cannot see that then I am sorry...fhu.com has that simple “be still and know I am God’ pathway that the church, frankly, has dropped the ball on.
Ahhh, fhu.com. Now I get it, you are a devotee of Roy Masters, the only man on earth with whom God Himself checks to make sure He is correct.
I think we’re about finished here.
that’s nice...pure judgement from the book worshiper and holy spirit diminisher...have a good one!
OK, thanks for the unfounded and untrue accusations, akin to your unfounded assertions that prompted my first response to you. And I do note that you do not disavow the Roy Masters connection for your theological insight. That’s fine, it’s a free country. You can help him finance his Selma ranch. But whatever Roy is peddling, it isn’t Christianity. And whatever holy spirit/inner light he is pushing, it (and I do note that you choose to use the neuter pronoun when referring to the Holy Spirit) is not the Holy Spirit identified in the Bible. Since this is a thread started by a Herbert W. Armstrong spinoff, I suppose that it is only fitting to find another non-Trinitarian hanging about.
I think we probably use different terms for this but I don't want to take the discussion too far off track...
The cause and purpose of the 'trinity' is explained to us for the purposes of communicating things we cannot literally see unless the Heavenly Father's purpose be served to further or finish His plan. No, I have not been literally visited by a messenger from Him, but I have no doubt that through this flesh age others have been.
Are you taught that when this flesh body dies, the soul sleeps until resurrection? Because if this off-shoot continues the teaching of soul sleep, that would explain the rejection of the sending and purpose of the 'Comforter' or Holy Spirit.
As I stated earlier, I do not consider myself gifted in the ability to communicate what I see in my mind's eye, the Trinity of the Heavenly Father. The Greek's and their Philosophy have little to no bearing upon the final outcome. Because it was Christ Himself that instructed the reason for and the purpose for why He was giving us the Holy Spirit.
This is yet to take place; Mark 13:11 But when thy shall lead you, and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that 'hour', that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Spirit.
Now as far as Christ being our brother, I do not and cannot consider Him, as God with us in a flesh body as a brother... He is our kinsman redeemer, and no other entity either in spiritual or flesh form can or will replace Him. He is the 'tree of life' spoken of in Genesis and in Revelation... there is none other like Him.
I try to choose my words based on scripture (not always successfully). I use the term brother because of this scripture: Rom 8:29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Rom 8:30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.
What does predestined mean? Paul also instructs us as to the elect, chosen, election were all predestined. When did this specific act take place? Paul says it was before the overthrow - casting down .... Moses describes this overthrow - casting down in Genesis 1:2, and there are other places in the New Testament where in Christ uses the same 'time frame', as is translated the foundation which can be a noun or verb but means the overthrow or casting down.... of this world ... means 'age'. II Peter 3 whole chapter Peter gives an outline of the three different heaven/earth ages. And Peter even tells us how God keeps time.
Hebrews 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise too part of the same; that through death He might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
So the souls of the children existed before they were placed in these flesh going to return to dust bodies.
God never required of His children to do anything that He Himself would not likewise partake. We children however, seem to need to partake of all manner of ungodly acts, and then we appear to have a multitude of Lot's wife mindsets.
I do not have animosity toward you. That might be the impression some take when their traditions get rebuffed for getting in the way of having the meat of the Word served.
I hold no animosity toward you either. As your own experience shows holding an unpopular belief among those that believe differently is going to draw fire justified or not. Anyways thanks for sharing just your thoughts. I'm sorry about the experiences you had. I was at dinner with an older man last Saturday night. He was telling me about his experience in the old WWCG in particular where a minister treated him like a naughty school child...made me upset to know that people who call themselves ministers of the Lord could be so callous in their treatment of others. I know some of them have repented and are deeply sorry about getting caught up in that. Some probably never will. But this isn't a problem unique to the COG's...it exists throughout humanity.
While it most certainly was a pained outcome, I can now with no doubt understand Christ's instruction and warning of the tribulation of deception to come. It is very sobering to read His Words that all but the elect will be deceived. .... Many are called but few are chosen (elect).
Any question of there not being a 'trinity' should be answered by what we are told took place in Acts on Pentecost day, referring back to the holy prophet Joel... those days seemed to be nigh upon us. Personally speaking I would flee any and all who attempt to disclaim the Holy Spirit, given it is what will aide us in the last days.
I am totally guessing that DouglasKC's church teaches ‘soul’ sleep until all are resurrected from these earthly graves. I do know the mother church taught that, totally disregarding the Old and the New testament that time and again instructs that when this flesh body dies the soul and spirit intellect returns to the Maker that sent it.
This would explain why the Spirit of God, Holy Spirit would not be recognized as the ‘Comforter’ given us just prior to Christ returning to heaven. I am reminded of what Christ told His disciples regarding leavening.
My thoughts are as well drawn to the book of Ecclesiastes describing the flesh body and the soul/spirit intellect of the children...
We are in agreement on that my friend. If we don't have God's holy spirit we have no hope.
http://www.ronaldweinland.com/
He has removed all the embarrassing blog entries from last year ... he he he ... I however, have saved them.
Here are some partial entries from his blog ... (NOTE: He predicted the return of Christ would be on May 27, 2012)
Ronald Weinland
THE PRESENT TRUTH:
May 26, 2012
The term “present truth” has come to mean much to God’s Church over the past few years, and it is possibly going to mean more to us now.
The “present truth”—truth that we have at this moment in time—truth that is “presently” with us is a possible reality that is not easy to carry. We have believed that Jesus Christ would begin his return in the atmosphere of this earth today, the Sabbath day of May 26th. We have believed this to be a matter of timing for sundown in Jerusalem toward the end of May 26th.
As I write this, that time is just about here and nothing has begun in the world that would signal the need or purpose for that reality—Christ’s return. Yes, it could still take place, as the timing in this present day of a worldwide observance of God’s Sabbath is still ongoing. Such is fully in God’s hands and according to His will, as to what comes to pass and when. It is true that after the captivity of Judah in Babylon that the Jewish people began using the Babylon system of counting time and God did begin to deal with them more according to the type of system they had begun to use. Certainly the weekly Sabbath and annual Holy Days were still counted according to God’s calendar of timing.
So today, I will still look for the possible fulfillment of all those things we have looked forward to right up to the end of the Sabbath day in Hawaii, as that is the timing used today in this modern world.
Yet I feel compelled to write this post, as I strongly feel it is necessary for God’s people right now. I will still look for the possibility of Christ’s coming right up until the very end of this Sabbath on earth. For the sake of all God’s people, I hope that there is not more we must learn concerning Christ’s return, but it appears we likely do have more to “see.”
...
By the end of this day, in the last time zone for this Sabbath day, if Jesus Christ has not begun his return to this earth, then we will do as a minister in the Netherlands said to me today concerning what God admonishes His people to do, “We move forward.” Indeed we will, for we know God’s Church.
So candidly, I am disappointed that Jesus Christ hasn’t begun his return. But I am also excited to know that there remains a short work in front of us. That will be explained in the Pentecost sermon that I will be organizing and prerecording as soon as I finish writing this post.
I wasn’t disappointed when God revealed to us that the two witnesses are not literally killed and then lie dead in the streets of Jerusalem for 3 ½ days.
The blog entries for the days that followed contain the usual backtracking and spiritualizing of the texts ... the usual "God showed me what this text really really means this time ..." etc. ...
He is a false teacher ... and so are his disciples.
I disagree that scripture says "no". But I am curious, since you believe the Holy Spirit is not part of the Godhead, does that mean you believe God is 2 in 1 instead of 3 in 1?
Precisely....this was pretty much the view prior to the council of Constanople in 381 or perhaps before the council of Nicea a few decades earlier...
Perhaps Saint Thomas Aquinas might help you understand ...
That the Holy Ghost is a Subsistent Person
BUT inasmuch as some have maintained that the Holy Ghost is not a subsistent Person, but is either the divinity of the Father and the Son (cf. St Aug. de haeresibus, n. 52), or some accidental perfection of the mind given us by God, as wisdom, or charity, or other such created accidents, we must evince the contrary.
1. Accidental forms do not properly work, but the subject that has them works according to the arbitrement of his own will: thus a wise man uses wisdom when he wills. But the Holy Ghost works according to the arbitrement of His own will (1 Cor. xii, 11).
2. The Holy Ghost is not to be accounted an accidental perfection of the human mind, seeing that He is the cause of such perfections: for the charity of God is spread abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost who is given to us (Rom. v, 5): To one is given by the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit (1 Cor. xii, 8).
3. The Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and receives from the Son (John xv, 26: xvi, 14): which cannot be understood of the divine essence.
4. Scripture speaks of the Holy Ghost as of a subsistent Person: The Holy Ghost said to them: Set aside for me Barnabas and Saul for the work unto which I have taken them: . . . . and they, sent by the Holy Ghost, went (Acts xiii, 2, 4,): It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and us (Acts xv, 28).
5. The Father and the Son being subsistent Persons and of divine nature, the Holy Ghost would not be numbered with them (Matt. xxviii, 19: 2 Cor. xiii, 13: 1 John v, 7) were He not a Person subsistent in the divine nature.
That the Holy Ghost is true God
A TEMPLE is consecrated to none but God: hence it is said: The Lord in his holy temple (Ps. x, 5). But there is a temple appointed to the Holy Ghost, as it is said: Know ye not that your members are the temple of the Holy Ghost? (i Cor. vi, 19.) The Holy Ghost then is God, particularly since our members, which the text says are the temple of the Holy Ghost, are the members of Christ: for the writer had said before: Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? (v. 15.) Seeing that Christ is true God, it would be inappropriate for the members of Christ to be the temple of the Holy Ghost, unless the Holy Ghost were God.
2. The service of latria is paid by holy men to God alone (Deut. vi, 13). But holy men pay that service to the Holy Ghost: for it is said: We who serve the Spirit as God (qui spiritui Deo servimus. — Phil. iii, 3). And though some manuscripts have, We who serve in the spirit of the Lord (qui spiritu Domini servimus [showing the reading Theou]), yet the Greek manuscripts and the more ancient Latin ones have, We who serve the Spirit as God (qui spiritui Deo servimus); and from the Greek itself [latreuontes] it appears that this is to be understood of the service of latria, which is due to God alone.*
3. To sanctify men is a work proper to God: I am the Lord who sanctify you (Levit. xxii, 9). But it is the Holy Ghost who sanctifies, according to the words of the Apostle: Ye are washed and sanctified and justified, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God (1 Cor. vi, 11).
4. As the life of the body is by the soul, so the soul’s life of justice is by God: hence the Lord says: As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father, so whosoever eateth me, the same shall also live by me (John vi, 58). But such life is by the Holy Ghost; hence it is added: It is the Spirit that giveth life (John vi, 63): and the Apostle says: If with the spirit ye mortify the deeds of the flesh, ye shall live (Rom. viii, 18).*
7. The Spirit searcheth all things, even the profound things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man but the spirit of man that is in him? So the things also that are of God no man knoweth but the Spirit of God (1 Cor. ii, 10, 11). But to comprehend all the profound things of God is not given to any creature: for no one knoweth the Son but the Father, nor doth any one know the Father but the Son (Matt. xi, 27); and in the person of God it is said, My secret to me (Isai. xxiv, 16). Therefore, the Holy Ghost is, not a creature.
8. According to the above comparison, the Holy Ghost is to God as a man’s spirit to man. But a man’s spirit is intrinsic to man, not of a foreign nature, but part of him. Therefore the Holy Ghost is not of a nature extrinsic to Deity.
11. Evidently from Holy Scripture it was God who spoke by the prophets, as it is said: I will hear what the Lord God speaketh in me (Ps. lxxxiv, 9). But it is equally evident that the Holy Ghost spoke in the prophets: The Scripture must be fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost foretold by the mouth of David (Acts i, 16). The holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost (2 Pet. i, 21). Clearly then the Holy Ghost is God.
17. The Holy Ghost is expressly called God in the text: Ananias, why hath Satan tempted thy heart to lie to the Holy Ghost? . . . . Thou hast not lied to men, but to God (Acts. v, 3, 4).
23. Now there are diversities of graces, but the same Spirit. And there are diversities of ministries, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of operations, but the same God, who worketh all in all. . . . But all these things one and the same Spirit worketh, dividing to every one according as he will (i Cor. xii, 4 5, 6, 11). This text clearly declares the Holy Ghost to be God, as well by saying that the Holy Ghost works what it has previously said that God works, as also by the declaration of His working according to the arbitrement of His own will.*
'Just' as in 'only'...'exactly as'? All three at once? Your methods are too athletic for me... ; )
I would prefer a stump and a pipe when I am waxing philosofickle, a table and chair (and an easy chair for after) for eating, and as everyone knows, lovemaking requires a tire-swing... So combining them all together would necessitate some sort of hardware upgrade that escapes my feeble imagination.
I think the metric is coherence.
Ahh... Homo-sapiens. 'And calling themselves wise, they became fools'. At one time, the coherence of man claimed a flat earth that one should be careful not to fall from.
I was speaking loosely but, yes, I think one cannot do it both well and poorly at the same time and in the same respect.
Perhaps, as a described discipline, but I think the reality tends toward both, with an edge toward 'poorly', or the resulting conclusion would not look like the cacaphony we have today. Man is, in the main, dumb as a box of hammers (I would describe myself as a ball-peen).
Of COURSE there are things too great to comprehend, things before which reason will fail. I am not coming down against revelation or against the need for revelation. I LOVE it when my reason is overmastered!
Me too - And when I reach that point, I am happy to be boggled by wonderment... I need not go further, to define that which is beyond me. I think YHWH is that, without a doubt in my mind. I don't think He fits in the trinitarian box. It ascribes limits that are not necessary, and probably false (by reason of His greatness).
And while I'm a convinced Trinitarian[...]
I am too, in a basic sense. But YHWH is YHWH, after all - I think the construct is unneeded, and does nothing to resolve the issue. Nor can it, btw, as we cannot KNOW.
I am aware that the Nicene Formulation confronts us with a mystery much bigger than the idea. In fact I think both Nicea and Chalcedon give us principles for theological investigation(and more) but they are in a certain sense like being hit in the face with a cold, wet towel.
I don't think creeds give principles, I think they maintain limits. They become exclusionary (if not designed to be so in the first place). The problem is self-evident in the common expression that one is not a Christian if one does not accept Nicaea... When no such prerequisite is evident within the Scriptures.
And while that serves to preserve orthodoxy, it also calcifies... makes unyielding... That which cannot be confronted cannot be examined for error. I think there should be no such thing. ALL things should be thrown upon the altar continually - That which burns away is better left undone.
And as an aside, 'thrown upon' and 'thrown up on' are very different things... Just sayin' ; )
Thanks for the reply...see post 94 for a response...
LOL.
Troo dat!
Binatarianism is not very well thought out because this heresy only believes God the Father and God the Son eternally exist and did not think deep enough to realize that everything is one NOW with God since God is outside of time, Thus, everything written in Scripture is eternally known.
So when you read something like Genesis 1:2 and 1Cor 12:3- you should realize the Holy Spirit eternally exits as well in the Triune nature of God
“And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the SPIRIT of God moved over the waters”- Genesis 1:2
“And no man can say the Lord Jesus, but by the Holy Spirit.”1-Cor 12:3
Where do you think the Spirit of God mentioned in Genesis came from if you you don’t believe the Holy Spirit did not eternally exist?
Genesis would have no need to mention the Spirit if God was Binatarian
Well, that’s what I can give you for now and the rest of my day is very busy
I will pray for you at Adoration tomorrow.
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.