Trinity vs Oneness

Here is a discussion I had with a dear friend from Facebook.  She had some questions on the Trinity and the need for the historic councils. Here is the full conversation unedited.

The dialog is quick and moves fast so at times there is spelling and grammatical errors (especially from me).

Lamarie Austin i hope I'm not being to intrusive here Devin and Norm, but I'd like to chime in here. The council of Nicea 325 AD, some almost 300 years AFTER thhe resurrection of Jesus. Here's a few points I've always had an issue with this. First, because the council implemented the Doctrine of the Trinity, setting the terms of Christian Orthodoxy, going forward, anyone NOT UTILIZING THE TERMINOLOGY THEY DECIDED ON are AUTOMATICALLY BRANDED HERETICS. Now, here's my question on this point-NO ONE used this doctrine or terminology in coming to Faith in Jesus at Pentecost. There is not one recorded Account of this ANYWHERE IN THE BIBLE. Which leads me to infer that the early church, founded on the Apostles and the Prophets with Christ as the cornerstone, THIS CHURCH, The one the gates of hell could not prevail against, WAS PERFECTLY CAPABLE to come to faith in the Lord Jesus, and to be LASTINGLY established, without this doctrine in place. So, if everyone after 325 AD is a heretic for not using the term Trinity in referencing the Godhead, Are you/this council claiming the early Christians/Apostles were HERETICS TOO?????




Lamarie Austin because if after this meeting non-trinity terminology using makes one a heretic, then before this meeting the same standard should apply, right?

Lamarie Austin Issue Number 2, this passage Comes from the second Catholic Encyclopedia-“As a colleague, then as guide of the bishops, the emperor felt he had a vocation to lead all men to unity in honoring the divinity within the Christian Church (Vita 2:65:1). In the Scriptures, Constantine found justification for his idea of the Church as a peace-bringing house of truth, the unifying element of the state as a kingdom of God (Vita 2:56,67). He respected the decisions of the bishops in synod, particularly the decrees of the Council of Nicaea, and considered all further theological dispute as nugatory. Hence his policy hardened toward pagans and Jews as time wore on. Although he employed pagan terms in speaking of the 'divinity,' 'the highest god,' and 'divine providence,' he had in mind the unique God of the Christians, the creator and judge of all who saved fallen man through His Son....In dealing with heretics and in his policy toward pagans, he exercised astute forbearance. There can be no doubt that he was a convinced Christian, whatever may have been the limitations in his understanding of the full significance of that faith.” (NCE, volume 4, page 182) Notice midway down what they say about Contstantine-ALTHOUGH HE EMPLOYED PAGAN TERMS IN SPEAKING OF DIVINITY-whoooooaaaaaa!!!! I don't care about their assessment of him, Look what they admit about the mans profession-He uses PAGAN TERMINOLOGY?!? Same Constantine who brought in these idolotrous holiday traditions that we are rooting out the Christian church now. Same Constantine over the Council of Nicea, same Pagan terminology using emporer now gives ANOTHER TERM TO DIVINITY, THIS TIME IT'S TRINITY. Why doesn't  anyone else see this as problematic??? Would a Christian Pastor Allow a Hindu to come into their meeting and set the terms for how their church should be run and how God should be taught doctrinally??? NO, absolutely Not! Yet, this council of Bishops let's a PROFESSING PAGAN do this at Nicea! I have an issue with this!

Lamarie Austin Devin, I'm a believer in the bible. I believe the Scripture CLEARLY speaks of the Godhead expressed in Father, Son, And Holy Spirit all over the place!! The bible clearly says that in Jesus is the fullness of the Godhead in bodily form. I believe the Son is the Only way to the Father. I'm not denying a belief or affirmation of SCRIPTURE. I am discussing Constantine and my problem with this Compromised Paganism that He CLEARLY brought to the church. We still have all these pagan holidays now because of That time in History. COMPROMISE. And him and his leaders get to set a new RULE in Orthodox Christianity. It's suspect to me bro, the terminology, NOT SCRIPTURE.

Lamarie Austin Third point, which piggy backs off my first point, this council did not meet or decide on the new orthodox Christianity term UNTIL AFTER ALL THE EYEWITNESSES OF CHRIST'S RESURRECTION AND THEIR DIRECT DISCIPLES WERE DEAD. Everyone knows, that by the 3rd or 4th generation of followers, COMPROMISE slips in. What we don't do in excellence, the next generation won't do in mediocrity. That's how it always works. SOOOOO, No trinitarian term required for first generation, ARGUABLY some of THE MOST RADICAL IN THE CHURCH! I mean, when's the last time you've heard of anyone being healed by your shadow or the sweat off your handkerchief?!?. First generation Church warning all over the epistles of apostacy, false teachers slipping in unaware and bringing in damnable teaching that denies the Lordship and deity of Jesus, this generation. Raising up a next generation-one that will commit the testimony to faithful men. No trinitarian term passed down anywhere in the epistles to the second generation. NO WHERE IN THERE. they pass down to their disciples, hey, Constantine may be 5th or 6th generation of folks my point is, why did it take so long for this terminology to show up, if it's that authentic, shouldn't the WITNESSES WHO WALKED WITH JESUS HIMSELF AND WERE WITH HIM DIRECTLY, shouldn't they if anyone have given us the terms to believe in Him??? Did they not already???? And who authorized the changing of the terminology????

Lamarie Austin Term change always denotes a spiritual shift, does it not???

Devin Pellew Put up your Dukes Lamarie :)

Let me say up front that me and Lamarie are good friends and I would not try and insult her or be nasty to her. This is two friends having a theological discussion. That said I will be pressing her and holding her feet to the fire :)

Let ma make a few points that will hopefully clarify the issues.

You said in your first post

" Here's a few points I've always had an issue with this. First, because the council implemented the Doctrine of the Trinity, setting the terms of Christian Orthodoxy"

This is simply not true. The councils do not "determine" a doctrine but rather put forth what has already been "discovered" in the texts of scripture. They did not "invent" the Trinity anymore than they "invented" the deity of Jesus. The doctrines are already revealed through out the scriptures. The creeds put the scriptures in a systematic form to clarify what has already been taught. So a lot of what you say from here on collapses because it is based on a false premise of what the creeds do.

Next you said

" anyone NOT UTILIZING THE TERMINOLOGY THEY DECIDED ON are AUTOMATICALLY BRANDED HERETICS"

One must understand church history and understand the NUMEROUS heresies that were arising. You had the Arians (Modern day Jehovahs Witnesses) claiming Jesus was a created being as well
 as other numerous heresies. With the Trinity you had Sebalious who denied the Trinity and taught that God instead appeared in three different modes, rejecting that the Father, Son and Spirit are co-persons ,co-equal and co-eternal. Thus even today we see MASSIVE confusion in the church over this issue thus when the Athanasian creed (Most detailed creed on the Trinity) they are making the distinctions that MUST be made to separate Saballeianism and Trinitarianism.

If one does not want to use the term Trinity, my question would be why? To say one affirms the Trinity is to make the distinction between orthodox Christianity and outright heresy. To say that because the word "Trinity" is not used in the Bible, is to miss the point. The word "Monotheism" (Only one God) is not used in the scriptures either but the concept is taught, and that is how we derive our doctrines. Nor whether the paticular word is there. As protestants we all affirm the 5 solas of the reformation and why the terms are not used the concepts are.

Next you said

"Now, here's my question on this point-NO ONE used this doctrine or terminology in coming to Faith in Jesus at Pentecost. "

I would completly disagree with you that the doctrine of the Trinity is not taught implicitly through the scriptures. If you want to say the "word" Trinity was not used then I agree, but to say the doctrine is not there is completly false in my view. Just as the word (Monotheism) was not used the doctrine is taught all through out scripture. Again the "word" does not have to be there, but rather the question is if the "concept" is taught.

Next you said

"So, if everyone after 325 AD is a heretic for not using the term Trinity in referencing the Godhead, Are you/this council claiming the early Christians/Apostles were HERETICS TOO?????"

Who said those who do not use the term "Trinity" is a heretic? If one denies that the Father, Son and Spirit are co-equal-co eternal and co-persons then I would affirm one is a heretic. If they deny the word "trinity" that does not make one a heretic, to deny the "doctrine" would be heretical. Just as if one does not use the term monotheism they are not a heretic, however to deny the doctrine of Monotheism Would be a heresey.

You brought up a second issue and quoted out of the Catholic Encyclopedia and after quoting it you said

"Notice midway down what they say about Contstantine-ALTHOUGH HE EMPLOYED PAGAN TERMS IN SPEAKING OF DIVINITY-whoooooaaaaaa!!!! I don't care about their assessment of him, Look what they admit about the mans profession-He uses PAGAN TERMINOLOGY?!?"

Again this is all irrelevant to the doctrine Lamarie. This actually would commit the "genetic-fallacy" in logic where you are attacking the source of the term used rather than the merits of the doctrine found in scripture.

The question is whether or not the doctrine is found in the scriptures, not who came up with what they eventually name it.

Secondly, Constantine DID NOT first use the term Trinity but rather he employed the term which had already been around

"This word is derived from the Greek word trias, first used by Theophilus (A.D. 168-183), or from the Latin trinitas, first used by Tertullian (A.D. 220), to express this doctrine."

http://christiananswers.net/dictionary/trinity.html

This being said your second objection fails because

1-It commits the "genetic-fallacy"

2-The term Trinity had been used before Constantine was even alive!

Part 2 is coming to address the rest of your objections

Great dialog

Devin Pellew Actually looking at your third point is was already addressed in your first point. The term is irrelevant, it is the doctrine or substance is the key issue. The doctrine IS taught through scripture. If one wants to uphold the doctrine but not use the term "Trinity" then I am ok with that.

Great discussion my friend and I hope that helps :)


I will post part 2 of the debate Wednesday!