OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 20, 2014, 04:13:24 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Why do Sola Scriptura Protestants Believe in the Trinity?  (Read 5885 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Punch
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,566



« Reply #45 on: December 08, 2012, 11:40:42 AM »

"Sola Scriptura" doesn't mean that the Bible is the only source of teaching and doctrine. It means that it is the only infallible source(I know you folks hate that word) and that all that is necessary for salvation can be found within it.
If that's so (and I'm sure you know there are Protestants who will disagree with you on that), then why do they have the fallible interpret the infallible? BTW, I hate the word folks. Wink

In Christ,
Andrew

First, I have to say that watching a bunch of Orthodox Christians discuss Protestant Theology is like listening to people from the Congo discuss snow.  But that said, the Lutherans are probably the earliest proponents of "Sola Scriptura", and even they use some form of tradition to validate the interpretation of the Scriptures.  If one studies the early Reformation writings, one will find that early Reformers such as Luther accepted the Theological concepts of the first Seven Ecumenical Councils, just not the Canons (or rather, not all of them).  Most of Luther's issues with Roman doctrine was not what was believed by the unified Church, but the deviations from the early beliefs by the Latin Church in later years.  He still held a health respect for the "Eastern" Church (what he knew of it) and believed that it more than any preserved the True Faith, certainly more than Rome.  In Luther's eyes, men like Calvin and Zwingli were heretics that were in some cases worse than the Pope.
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,262



« Reply #46 on: December 08, 2012, 11:49:33 AM »

Just a question out of curiousity. Why do Protestant sects who adhere to Sola-Scriptura--that is, Bible Only, believe in the doctrine of the Trinity?

Hi James. The difficulty with questions like ^^ this is that protestants are not one group. (So it's kind of like asking "What do non-Americans think about democracy?") The fact that you limited your question to protestants who adhere to Sola-Scriptura helps a little, since it excludes e.g. Anglo-Catholics.
I didn't think he was talking about them as one group. It seems like he qualified it pretty well (using "Protestant sects who adhere to Sola Scriptura").

In Christ,
Andrew

Yes. As I said, that helps a little, since it excludes e.g. Anglo-Catholics.
I thought James was directing his question to the Protestant sects that adhere to Sola Scriptura, not all of them.

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,262



« Reply #47 on: December 08, 2012, 11:55:28 AM »

"Sola Scriptura" doesn't mean that the Bible is the only source of teaching and doctrine. It means that it is the only infallible source(I know you folks hate that word) and that all that is necessary for salvation can be found within it.
If that's so (and I'm sure you know there are Protestants who will disagree with you on that), then why do they have the fallible interpret the infallible? BTW, I hate the word folks. Wink

In Christ,
Andrew

First, I have to say that watching a bunch of Orthodox Christians discuss Protestant Theology is like listening to people from the Congo discuss snow.  But that said, the Lutherans are probably the earliest proponents of "Sola Scriptura", and even they use some form of tradition to validate the interpretation of the Scriptures.  If one studies the early Reformation writings, one will find that early Reformers such as Luther accepted the Theological concepts of the first Seven Ecumenical Councils, just not the Canons (or rather, not all of them).  Most of Luther's issues with Roman doctrine was not what was believed by the unified Church, but the deviations from the early beliefs by the Latin Church in later years.  He still held a health respect for the "Eastern" Church (what he knew of it) and believed that it more than any preserved the True Faith, certainly more than Rome.  In Luther's eyes, men like Calvin and Zwingli were heretics that were in some cases worse than the Pope.

Yes, but why do they have the fallible interpret what they regard as the infallible? There are at least as many different ideas about Sola Scriptura as there are Protetestant sects. I saw several views in my Methodist days, despite Wesley not formally adopting Sola Scriptura.

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,144



« Reply #48 on: December 08, 2012, 12:10:31 PM »

Just a question out of curiousity. Why do Protestant sects who adhere to Sola-Scriptura--that is, Bible Only, believe in the doctrine of the Trinity?

Hi James. The difficulty with questions like ^^ this is that protestants are not one group. (So it's kind of like asking "What do non-Americans think about democracy?") The fact that you limited your question to protestants who adhere to Sola-Scriptura helps a little, since it excludes e.g. Anglo-Catholics.
I didn't think he was talking about them as one group. It seems like he qualified it pretty well (using "Protestant sects who adhere to Sola Scriptura").

In Christ,
Andrew

Yes. As I said, that helps a little, since it excludes e.g. Anglo-Catholics.
I thought James was directing his question to the Protestant sects that adhere to Sola Scriptura, not all of them.

In Christ,
Andrew

I also thought that -- and I still think so. (And I granted that it "helps a little, since it excludes e.g. Anglo-Catholics.")
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Punch
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,566



« Reply #49 on: December 08, 2012, 05:53:36 PM »

"Sola Scriptura" doesn't mean that the Bible is the only source of teaching and doctrine. It means that it is the only infallible source(I know you folks hate that word) and that all that is necessary for salvation can be found within it.
If that's so (and I'm sure you know there are Protestants who will disagree with you on that), then why do they have the fallible interpret the infallible? BTW, I hate the word folks. Wink

In Christ,
Andrew

First, I have to say that watching a bunch of Orthodox Christians discuss Protestant Theology is like listening to people from the Congo discuss snow.  But that said, the Lutherans are probably the earliest proponents of "Sola Scriptura", and even they use some form of tradition to validate the interpretation of the Scriptures.  If one studies the early Reformation writings, one will find that early Reformers such as Luther accepted the Theological concepts of the first Seven Ecumenical Councils, just not the Canons (or rather, not all of them).  Most of Luther's issues with Roman doctrine was not what was believed by the unified Church, but the deviations from the early beliefs by the Latin Church in later years.  He still held a health respect for the "Eastern" Church (what he knew of it) and believed that it more than any preserved the True Faith, certainly more than Rome.  In Luther's eyes, men like Calvin and Zwingli were heretics that were in some cases worse than the Pope.

Yes, but why do they have the fallible interpret what they regard as the infallible? There are at least as many different ideas about Sola Scriptura as there are Protetestant sects. I saw several views in my Methodist days, despite Wesley not formally adopting Sola Scriptura.

In Christ,
Andrew

All religion is the fallible attempting to interpret the infallible.  The fact that one group (the Orthodox), over a long period of time, has been a bit better at it is really the work of the Holy Spirit more than any skill at interpretation on any of our parts.
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
Ashman618
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 504



« Reply #50 on: December 08, 2012, 10:11:01 PM »

I myself have a hard time seeing scripture as infallible, I just don't understand how one could call it "infallible" can someone help me with this?
Logged
walter1234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 928


« Reply #51 on: December 10, 2012, 12:54:28 AM »

Protestant teach that the author of Scriptures is inspired by God when they wrote them.  And Scriptures are all the word of God. Thus, the teachings insides  are 100% correct and no mistake.

However, the translator of bible would always make mistake.Just like in 1 Cor 3:15(e.g.but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire. ), the translator of NIV just add a word 'escape' to fit with Protestant's teaching of salvation(e.g.but yet will be saved—even though only as one 'escaping' through the flames.). By fire/ through fire/ passing the fire does not mean escaping through the fire. When a substance pass the fire, it may become brighter, stronger and more valuable, or it may be destroyed by that fire. The meaningof 1 Cor 3:15 in NIV have been totally changed by Protestant translatosr.

Also, the meanings of bible verse are all determined by how we interpret them. That's why no matter the teachings of Calvinism , Arminianism, Universalism,Lutheran, Charismatic,Wesylan,Jehovah's Witnesses,Seventh-day Adventist, Prosperity Gospel, etc, they are all supported by bible verse. Since the meaning of the bible verse depends on how we interpret , everybody has good interpretation skill on bible can form a theology easily.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2012, 01:22:47 AM by walter1234 » Logged
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,840


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #52 on: December 11, 2012, 05:22:20 PM »

Getting back on track, I suspect we believe in the Trinity for a number of reasons, despite its not being explicit in Holy Writ.

- Our teachings are shaped by the ancient creeds, not because the creeds have the same authority as scripture, but becuse they expound scripture.

- We aimed to correct the errors of mediæval Catholicism, not to jettison Christian truth.

- As someone's earlier post says, its is not hard to prove the divinity of the Father, Son and Spirit one by one in the Bible, as well as the fact that there is one God: hence, he must be a trinity.

- Most people probably believe it because they are taught it from the pulpit; I doubt anyone understands it.
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
walter1234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 928


« Reply #53 on: December 13, 2012, 09:54:26 AM »

- We aimed to correct the errors of mediæval Catholicism, not to jettison Christian truth.


Not all Protestant Churches and pastors agree with this. Some Protestant pastors and church teach that the Church started to fall after Roman Empire stoped persecuting the Christians. They teach that  after Roman Empire stoped persecuting the Christians, the Christians could live with peace. So, they started to make the idols , worshipped them ,played the power struggle ,alienated the church from the truth,etc. The church entered the dark age for more than 1000 years  until 16 th century.

Some Protestant Churches and pastors even teach that Church started to fall after Apostle John died.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2012, 09:58:48 AM by walter1234 » Logged
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,478


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #54 on: December 13, 2012, 10:03:13 AM »

Quote
I myself have a hard time seeing scripture as infallible, I just don't understand how one could call it "infallible" can someone help me with this?
In every little minute detail its not.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,840


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #55 on: December 13, 2012, 12:38:55 PM »

Quote
I myself have a hard time seeing scripture as infallible, I just don't understand how one could call it "infallible" can someone help me with this?

People say there is a difference between infallible and inerrant. They say that infallible means it won't fail in its purpose, it won't lead anyone astray; whereas inerrant means every detail in it is historically and factually correct. I find no problem with believing that the Bible is infallible, that it won't fail in its purpose, it won't lead anyone astray.
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
simplygermain
beer-bellied tellitubby
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA - Northwest, Baby!
Posts: 771


Zechariah 11:7


WWW
« Reply #56 on: December 13, 2012, 02:27:51 PM »

Quote
I myself have a hard time seeing scripture as infallible, I just don't understand how one could call it "infallible" can someone help me with this?

People say there is a difference between infallible and inerrant. They say that infallible means it won't fail in its purpose, it won't lead anyone astray; whereas inerrant means every detail in it is historically and factually correct. I find no problem with believing that the Bible is infallible, that it won't fail in its purpose, it won't lead anyone astray.
Which interpretation? Which translation?

To be sure, you would authorize one and not another. Wink
Logged

I believe, help Thou my unbelief!! - St. John of Krondstadt

http://Http://hairshirtagenda.blogspot.com

 Witega: "Bishops and Metropolitans and even Patriarchs have been removed under decidedly questionable circumstances before but the Church moves on."
adampjr
Karamazov
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 89


Penguin


« Reply #57 on: December 13, 2012, 02:47:38 PM »

Just a question out of curiousity. Why do Protestant sects who adhere to Sola-Scriptura--that is, Bible Only, believe in the doctrine of the Trinity? The Trinity was developed by the Church and is never explicitely explained in the Bible. Sure, it may have been briefly implied in certain instances, but there are not any smoking-gun proof passages in the Bible that support the Trinity as far as I know. Most of the purely Biblical arguments in support of the Trinity seem rather unconvincing and built more on speculation than the actual Bible to be honest. I don't see how you can believe these arguments and believe in the Trinity UNLESS you accepted the authority of the Church and extra-biblical sources--something that most Protestant sects refuse to do.

In a sense, it seems like as time goes on, more and more Protestants are actually trying to return back to the Sacraments, fasts and "traditional Christianity"--yet, they are doing it by trying to isolate the Church from it and desperately trying to form these strange, enourmously implicit arguments to prove that their practice is "rooted in the Bible" by twisting, isolating and using even the most basic, obscure, shortest passage there is in the Bible in ways that you would never think to use that scripture before, in order to support some odd theological practice that is more rooted in speculation and a desire for order than actually in the Bible. Such as the "Daniel Fast"--which is a half-butted attempt at having their own form of the Church's official Lent, to all these weird "spiritual retreat Jesus camp" thingys that seem to be a knockoff of the Church's monastic practices, to belief in the doctrine of the Trinity--which is purely rooted in the Church.

How long till they throw in the towel and just return back to proper Christianity instead of all these desperate attempts to recreate it?

Because Sola Scriptura does not mean everything needs a direct and immediate proof text. The Trinity is nto explicitly in the Scripture per se, but it is a reasonable induction accounting for everything that is in Scripture about it.
Logged
Ashman618
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 504



« Reply #58 on: December 13, 2012, 07:43:20 PM »

I myself have a hard time reading scriptures anymore it seems that every time a do I find some mistake or contradiction so I kinda just leave them alone, but from what I have read the trinity seems NEARLY obvious.
Logged
walter1234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 928


« Reply #59 on: January 01, 2013, 02:17:10 PM »

Quote
Did you know that the original Greek and Hebrew texts of the Bible didn't use punctuation? Translators and editors of all modern versions have added that. The punctuation can directly change the meaning of a sentence.
 
An English professor wrote the words: "A woman without her man is nothing" on the chalkboard and asked her students to punctuate it correctly.
 
All the males in the class wrote: "A woman, without her man, is nothing."
 
All the females in the class wrote: "A woman: without her, man is nothing!"

 A very interest thing which show sola scriptural is nonsense.  Just  Punctuation can cause the problem of interpretation.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2013, 02:21:18 PM by walter1234 » Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #60 on: January 01, 2013, 02:33:50 PM »

Quote
Did you know that the original Greek and Hebrew texts of the Bible didn't use punctuation? Translators and editors of all modern versions have added that. The punctuation can directly change the meaning of a sentence.
 
An English professor wrote the words: "A woman without her man is nothing" on the chalkboard and asked her students to punctuate it correctly.
 
All the males in the class wrote: "A woman, without her man, is nothing."
 
All the females in the class wrote: "A woman: without her, man is nothing!"

 A very interest thing which show sola scriptural is nonsense.  Just  Punctuation can cause the problem of interpretation.

Except English relies on syntax to express meaning. Other languages rely on it less so, or almost not at all (Latin).
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,144



« Reply #61 on: January 01, 2013, 05:20:28 PM »

Except English relies on syntax to express meaning.

I thought it relied on emoticons.  Huh
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
walter1234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 928


« Reply #62 on: January 02, 2013, 06:03:27 AM »

Quote
Did you know that the original Greek and Hebrew texts of the Bible didn't use punctuation? Translators and editors of all modern versions have added that. The punctuation can directly change the meaning of a sentence.
 
An English professor wrote the words: "A woman without her man is nothing" on the chalkboard and asked her students to punctuate it correctly.
 
All the males in the class wrote: "A woman, without her man, is nothing."
 
All the females in the class wrote: "A woman: without her, man is nothing!"

 A very interest thing which show sola scriptural is nonsense.  Just  Punctuation can cause the problem of interpretation.

Except English relies on syntax to express meaning. Other languages rely on it less so, or almost not at all (Latin).
Punctuation can help us to organise a sentence and express the meaning of a sentence. Greek,Hebrew, Latin do not have the punctuation.That means people can organise the Greek,Hebrew and Latin sentence and express their meaning freely as well as according to the way ,the will they like and   the perception they have ?
« Last Edit: January 02, 2013, 06:18:22 AM by walter1234 » Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #63 on: January 02, 2013, 11:23:39 AM »

Quote
Did you know that the original Greek and Hebrew texts of the Bible didn't use punctuation? Translators and editors of all modern versions have added that. The punctuation can directly change the meaning of a sentence.
 
An English professor wrote the words: "A woman without her man is nothing" on the chalkboard and asked her students to punctuate it correctly.
 
All the males in the class wrote: "A woman, without her man, is nothing."
 
All the females in the class wrote: "A woman: without her, man is nothing!"

 A very interest thing which show sola scriptural is nonsense.  Just  Punctuation can cause the problem of interpretation.

Except English relies on syntax to express meaning. Other languages rely on it less so, or almost not at all (Latin).
Punctuation can help us to organise a sentence and express the meaning of a sentence. Greek,Hebrew, Latin do not have the punctuation.That means people can organise the Greek,Hebrew and Latin sentence and express their meaning freely as well as according to the way ,the will they like and   the perception they have ?

No, the case structure of the words determine their meaning leaving the invention of punctuation unimportant.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
jesusisthekey
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 15


« Reply #64 on: February 10, 2013, 11:39:00 AM »

Well the Bible does mildly hint at the fact of the trinity  Roll Eyes , but it doesn't explicitly say it. It is another reason why we also should read the Church fathers to get their understanding.

Remember that in the Gospel of John it is mentioned that not everything Jesus said or did is mentioned in the Bible, we have to also get another source for our knowledge, hence the importance of the early Church Fathers.
Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,994


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #65 on: February 10, 2013, 02:42:51 PM »

Well the Bible does mildly hint at the fact of the trinity  Roll Eyes , but it doesn't explicitly say it. It is another reason why we also should read the Church fathers to get their understanding.

Remember that in the Gospel of John it is mentioned that not everything Jesus said or did is mentioned in the Bible, we have to also get another source for our knowledge, hence the importance of the early Church Fathers.

True!

(applause)
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,478


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #66 on: February 15, 2013, 02:41:50 PM »

Quote
Remember that in the Gospel of John it is mentioned that not everything Jesus said or did is mentioned in the Bible, we have to also get another source for our knowledge, hence the importance of the early Church Fathers
^This
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
thethinker
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 73



« Reply #67 on: February 15, 2013, 03:36:25 PM »

Just a question out of curiousity. Why do Protestant sects who adhere to Sola-Scriptura--that is, Bible Only, believe in the doctrine of the Trinity? The Trinity was developed by the Church and is never explicitely explained in the Bible. Sure, it may have been briefly implied in certain instances, but there are not any smoking-gun proof passages in the Bible that support the Trinity as far as I know. Most of the purely Biblical arguments in support of the Trinity seem rather unconvincing and built more on speculation than the actual Bible to be honest. I don't see how you can believe these arguments and believe in the Trinity UNLESS you accepted the authority of the Church and extra-biblical sources--something that most Protestant sects refuse to do.

In a sense, it seems like as time goes on, more and more Protestants are actually trying to return back to the Sacraments, fasts and "traditional Christianity"--yet, they are doing it by trying to isolate the Church from it and desperately trying to form these strange, enourmously implicit arguments to prove that their practice is "rooted in the Bible" by twisting, isolating and using even the most basic, obscure, shortest passage there is in the Bible in ways that you would never think to use that scripture before, in order to support some odd theological practice that is more rooted in speculation and a desire for order than actually in the Bible. Such as the "Daniel Fast"--which is a half-butted attempt at having their own form of the Church's official Lent, to all these weird "spiritual retreat Jesus camp" thingys that seem to be a knockoff of the Church's monastic practices, to belief in the doctrine of the Trinity--which is purely rooted in the Church.

How long till they throw in the towel and just return back to proper Christianity instead of all these desperate attempts to recreate it?

I believe in the Trinity because it is taught in the scriptures and not because the Niceans formulated it. In fact, my view of the Trinity is more in line with the pre-Niceans.
Logged
alanscott
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant
Jurisdiction: Wesleyan
Posts: 309



« Reply #68 on: February 20, 2013, 09:33:48 AM »

I would actually reverse the question…

Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”  Matthew 28:19 (NKJV)

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all. Amen.” 2 Corinthians 13:14 (NKJV)

For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.”  1 John 5:7 (NKJV) “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.”  John 1:14 (NKJV)

When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him. 17 And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” Matthew 3:16-17 (NKJV)

…how can any Solo-Scriptura Christian not believe in the Trinity?

Now, if they want to deny the use of the word ‘trinity’ so be it, but the concept/definition of God being; one God manifesting as three separate personhoods, if you will, is undeniable imho.
Logged

There are heathens that live with more virtue than I. The devil himself believes Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Neither of these things truly makes me Christian.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,638


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #69 on: February 20, 2013, 11:44:13 AM »

Now, if they want to deny the use of the word ‘trinity’ so be it, but the concept/definition of God being; one God manifesting as three separate personhoods, if you will, is undeniable imho.
Correction: One God existing as three distinct Persons. To say He manifests Himself as three Persons could be seen as modalistic, since "manifest" has more to do with how one makes himself visible rather than what one is in his very essence.
Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,485


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #70 on: February 20, 2013, 11:49:42 AM »

For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.”  1 John 5:7 (NKJV)

LOL.
Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
alanscott
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant
Jurisdiction: Wesleyan
Posts: 309



« Reply #71 on: February 20, 2013, 11:56:17 AM »

Now, if they want to deny the use of the word ‘trinity’ so be it, but the concept/definition of God being; one God manifesting as three separate personhoods, if you will, is undeniable imho.
Correction: One God existing as three distinct Persons. To say He manifests Himself as three Persons could be seen as modalistic, since "manifest" has more to do with how one makes himself visible rather than what one is in his very essence.

Correction well noted, agreed, and appreciated!
For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.”  1 John 5:7 (NKJV)

LOL.
Huh
Logged

There are heathens that live with more virtue than I. The devil himself believes Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Neither of these things truly makes me Christian.
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,485


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #72 on: February 20, 2013, 12:03:07 PM »

For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.”  1 John 5:7 (NKJV)

LOL.
Huh

Are you serious with that quote?
« Last Edit: February 20, 2013, 12:03:22 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
alanscott
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant
Jurisdiction: Wesleyan
Posts: 309



« Reply #73 on: February 20, 2013, 12:10:56 PM »

For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.”  1 John 5:7 (NKJV)

LOL.
Huh

Are you serious with that quote?
Not sure I understand the context of your question.
Yes, I am serious that that quote indicates the Trinity.
Yes, though it is not widely accepted in all translations I do accept it.

Is that what you mean? Why do you ask?
Logged

There are heathens that live with more virtue than I. The devil himself believes Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Neither of these things truly makes me Christian.
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,485


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #74 on: February 20, 2013, 12:15:30 PM »


Yes, though it is not widely accepted in all translations I do accept it.

Is that what you mean? Why do you ask?


Medieval Latin scribes were inspired?
Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
sheenj
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Posts: 1,402


St. Gregorios of Parumala, pray for us...


« Reply #75 on: February 20, 2013, 12:17:08 PM »

That's the Comma Johanneum, [Allegedly] inserted by Latin Scribes during the Middle Ages.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2013, 12:24:30 PM by sheenj » Logged
alanscott
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant
Jurisdiction: Wesleyan
Posts: 309



« Reply #76 on: February 20, 2013, 12:47:27 PM »

That's the Comma Johanneum, [Allegedly] inserted by Latin Scribes during the Middle Ages.

Yes, though it is not widely accepted in all translations I do accept it.

Is that what you mean? Why do you ask?


Medieval Latin scribes were inspired?

I knew it was a controversial passage but have been ignorant as to why. I accept the Trinity for reasons well beyond 1 John 5:7 so I guess I just wasn’t very concerned. It is good to know these things though and TY for your insight. I have much to learn!
Logged

There are heathens that live with more virtue than I. The devil himself believes Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Neither of these things truly makes me Christian.
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,431



« Reply #77 on: February 21, 2013, 11:30:34 PM »

I should point out that Sola Scriptura means only that doctrine must be proven from scripture, not that it must appear word-for-word in it. Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, and so forth haven't seemed to have had much problem with the proof part in this case.
Logged
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,266


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #78 on: February 23, 2013, 12:33:54 AM »

Just a question out of curiousity. Why do Protestant sects who adhere to Sola-Scriptura--that is, Bible Only, believe in the doctrine of the Trinity? The Trinity was developed by the Church and is never explicitely explained in the Bible. Sure, it may have been briefly implied in certain instances, but there are not any smoking-gun proof passages in the Bible that support the Trinity as far as I know. Most of the purely Biblical arguments in support of the Trinity seem rather unconvincing and built more on speculation than the actual Bible to be honest. I don't see how you can believe these arguments and believe in the Trinity UNLESS you accepted the authority of the Church and extra-biblical sources--something that most Protestant sects refuse to do.

In a sense, it seems like as time goes on, more and more Protestants are actually trying to return back to the Sacraments, fasts and "traditional Christianity"--yet, they are doing it by trying to isolate the Church from it and desperately trying to form these strange, enourmously implicit arguments to prove that their practice is "rooted in the Bible" by twisting, isolating and using even the most basic, obscure, shortest passage there is in the Bible in ways that you would never think to use that scripture before, in order to support some odd theological practice that is more rooted in speculation and a desire for order than actually in the Bible. Such as the "Daniel Fast"--which is a half-butted attempt at having their own form of the Church's official Lent, to all these weird "spiritual retreat Jesus camp" thingys that seem to be a knockoff of the Church's monastic practices, to belief in the doctrine of the Trinity--which is purely rooted in the Church.

How long till they throw in the towel and just return back to proper Christianity instead of all these desperate attempts to recreate it?

James,

Didn't read the entire thread.

The church coined the term "trinity", but the trinity is scriptural.

Book of John
"In the beginning was the word, the word was with God, the word is God".
"The word became flesh".

Later, as Jesus was preaching to the Jews
"Before Abraham was born, I AM".
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
shreek
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Maronite
Posts: 6


« Reply #79 on: November 08, 2013, 10:14:26 AM »

You can easily find the Trinity in the Scriptures, unless you're reading with blindfolds on, that is.

Yes but it is not defined there.
Even if I grant you that it is defined, where is surrogate motherhood in the Bible, where is IVF in the Bible?

Who is going to decide on these issues? The Church does.

This is why there are over 30,000 Protestant denominations because they all argue over sola scriptura.
Private interpretation breeds division.
Logged
xOrthodox4Christx
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,372



« Reply #80 on: November 08, 2013, 10:44:12 AM »

That's the Comma Johanneum, [Allegedly] inserted by Latin Scribes during the Middle Ages.

It would have to have been. Only late Latin Vulgate manuscripts and one very late Greek manuscript contain it.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2013, 10:44:38 AM by xOrthodox4Christx » Logged

"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.... While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." (Eugene Debs)
FormerCalvinist
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 142


« Reply #81 on: November 17, 2013, 02:14:17 AM »

That's the Comma Johanneum, [Allegedly] inserted by Latin Scribes during the Middle Ages.

It would have to have been. Only late Latin Vulgate manuscripts and one very late Greek manuscript contain it.

In the 1700s, John Gill wrote that he knew of nine "ancient copies" which contained the verse. Perhaps he was mistaken, or they have been lost. From his commentary on the Bible:

Quote
And as to its being wanting in some Greek manuscripts, as the Alexandrian, and others, it need only be said, that it is to be found in many others; it is in an old British copy, and in the Complutensian edition, the compilers of which made use of various copies; and out of sixteen ancient copies of Robert Stephens's, nine of them had it.
Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,523



« Reply #82 on: November 17, 2013, 02:21:03 AM »

Just a question out of curiousity. Why do Protestant sects who adhere to Sola-Scriptura--that is, Bible Only, believe in the doctrine of the Trinity? The Trinity was developed by the Church and is never explicitely explained in the Bible. Sure, it may have been briefly implied in certain instances, but there are not any smoking-gun proof passages in the Bible that support the Trinity as far as I know. Most of the purely Biblical arguments in support of the Trinity seem rather unconvincing and built more on speculation than the actual Bible to be honest. I don't see how you can believe these arguments and believe in the Trinity UNLESS you accepted the authority of the Church and extra-biblical sources--something that most Protestant sects refuse to do.

In a sense, it seems like as time goes on, more and more Protestants are actually trying to return back to the Sacraments, fasts and "traditional Christianity"--yet, they are doing it by trying to isolate the Church from it and desperately trying to form these strange, enourmously implicit arguments to prove that their practice is "rooted in the Bible" by twisting, isolating and using even the most basic, obscure, shortest passage there is in the Bible in ways that you would never think to use that scripture before, in order to support some odd theological practice that is more rooted in speculation and a desire for order than actually in the Bible. Such as the "Daniel Fast"--which is a half-butted attempt at having their own form of the Church's official Lent, to all these weird "spiritual retreat Jesus camp" thingys that seem to be a knockoff of the Church's monastic practices, to belief in the doctrine of the Trinity--which is purely rooted in the Church.

How long till they throw in the towel and just return back to proper Christianity instead of all these desperate attempts to recreate it?

James,

Didn't read the entire thread.

The church coined the term "trinity", but the trinity is scriptural.

Book of John
"In the beginning was the word, the word was with God, the word is God".
"The word became flesh".

Later, as Jesus was preaching to the Jews
"Before Abraham was born, I AM".

That's not the Trinity. That is the Duality and not the closed case argument folks like to think it is anyhow.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2013, 02:21:24 AM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Laird
Not yet able to attend an Orthodox church
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer (Catechumen soon hopefully)
Jurisdiction: Baptist
Posts: 287


Lord, have mercy on me


« Reply #83 on: November 20, 2013, 08:57:29 PM »

Just a question out of curiousity. Why do Protestant sects who adhere to Sola-Scriptura--that is, Bible Only, believe in the doctrine of the Trinity? The Trinity was developed by the Church and is never explicitely explained in the Bible. Sure, it may have been briefly implied in certain instances, but there are not any smoking-gun proof passages in the Bible that support the Trinity as far as I know. Most of the purely Biblical arguments in support of the Trinity seem rather unconvincing and built more on speculation than the actual Bible to be honest. I don't see how you can believe these arguments and believe in the Trinity UNLESS you accepted the authority of the Church and extra-biblical sources--something that most Protestant sects refuse to do.

In a sense, it seems like as time goes on, more and more Protestants are actually trying to return back to the Sacraments, fasts and "traditional Christianity"--yet, they are doing it by trying to isolate the Church from it and desperately trying to form these strange, enourmously implicit arguments to prove that their practice is "rooted in the Bible" by twisting, isolating and using even the most basic, obscure, shortest passage there is in the Bible in ways that you would never think to use that scripture before, in order to support some odd theological practice that is more rooted in speculation and a desire for order than actually in the Bible. Such as the "Daniel Fast"--which is a half-butted attempt at having their own form of the Church's official Lent, to all these weird "spiritual retreat Jesus camp" thingys that seem to be a knockoff of the Church's monastic practices, to belief in the doctrine of the Trinity--which is purely rooted in the Church.

How long till they throw in the towel and just return back to proper Christianity instead of all these desperate attempts to recreate it?

It is simply because Protestants are inconsistent and blindly believe in the Trinity (except for JWs and Oneness Pentecostals) which they received from the Catholic Church, and refuse to face the fact that the Trinity is not defined in Scripture, only mentioned. And if that doesn't suffice, they ramble off the Fathers only when they agree with them.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2013, 09:02:09 PM by Laird » Logged
xOrthodox4Christx
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,372



« Reply #84 on: November 20, 2013, 09:45:46 PM »

That's the Comma Johanneum, [Allegedly] inserted by Latin Scribes during the Middle Ages.

It would have to have been. Only late Latin Vulgate manuscripts and one very late Greek manuscript contain it.

In the 1700s, John Gill wrote that he knew of nine "ancient copies" which contained the verse. Perhaps he was mistaken, or they have been lost. From his commentary on the Bible:

Quote
And as to its being wanting in some Greek manuscripts, as the Alexandrian, and others, it need only be said, that it is to be found in many others; it is in an old British copy, and in the Complutensian edition, the compilers of which made use of various copies; and out of sixteen ancient copies of Robert Stephens's, nine of them had it.

If that's true, that's unfortunate. But it's worthy to note it's not in the Greek Fathers either. Only in the Latin Fathers, like St. Cyprian.
Logged

"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.... While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." (Eugene Debs)
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.154 seconds with 69 queries.