Is it possible that the Trinity is a false doctrine?

[Davidius]

This question has to do with ecclesiastical authority and the power of what I'll call "pre-Roman Catholic" conciliar pronouncements.

As Martin Luther said, popes and councils have erred. Since scripture is the only infallible Christian authority, and our understanding of doctrine develops over time, and various Church or so-called Church bodies have erred grievously in times past, is it theoretically possible that we could decide at some point in the future that Arius' interpretation of scripture was right? If not, why not? How can we be sure that opinion with respect to any systematic doctrinal formulation will not flip-flop at some point? To put it another way: how we can we know that Nicene and Chalcedonian orthodoxy are in fact orthodox?

If someone denies an aspect of either of those creeds, on what authority do we tell him that he is mistaken, if he is making his argument from scripture? Did Nicea have some kind of special protection against error which Trent lacked?

 

[Brian Bosse]

Yes, it is possible.

 

[TheFleshProfitethNothing]

The work of the Father in the Salvation of men is Election, the Work of the Son in the Salvation of men is to Procure that which the Father Elected, and the Work of the Spirit is to reveal the Work of the Son, who already revealed the Work of the Father.

So, to me, NO! If others try to convince me otherwise...they will have to answer the above.

 

[Grymir]

One cannot deny the trinity using scripture. They may try, but that would involve the improper use of scripture, and shows bad exogesis. The doctrine is not infalible, but is is not false either. Only scripture is infalible.

 

[Presbyterian Deacon]

NO.

 

[Herald]

David, the councils that have erred did so because they did not bind their consciences and minds to scripture alone. The doctrine of the Trinity has been based solely on scripture and has withstood scriptural examination for over two millennia.

 

[Davidius]

The work of the Father in the Salvation of men is Election, the Work of the Son in the Salvation of men is to Procure that which the Father Elected, and the Work of the Spirit is to reveal the Work of the Son, who already revealed the Work of the Father.

So, to me, NO! If others try to convince me otherwise...they will have to answer the above.

I know this is our formulation, but it assumes that the Trinitarian doctrine is correct.

One cannot deny the trinity using scripture. They may try, but that would involve the improper use of scripture, and shows bad exogesis. The doctrine is not infalible, but is is not false either. Only scripture is infalible.

Heretics have attempted to deny the Trinity using scripture (gnostics, Arians, modalists, whoever). If we say that it's impossible to deny the Trinity using scripture, how do we escape the charge of question begging? To us it seems impossible, but to the heretics, it seems possible.

Isn't there a quote from church history saying something to the effect that all heretics quote scripture?

David, the councils that have erred did so because they did not bind their consciences and minds to scripture alone. The doctrine of the Trinity has been based solely on scripture and has withstood scriptural examination for over two millennia.

Are we saved from error by committing our consciences to scripture alone? What about all of the Christians today who do so and come up with a bunch of ridiculous stuff?

As to the second half, what is "scriptural examination"? Whose examination? This seems to beg the question again.

 

[MW]

No, it is not possible, not in the slightest.

Protestants do not agree with Romanists that tradition provides an authoritative source of teaching additional to Scripture; but we do acknowledge the priesthood of believers, and this entails a catholic tradition in which true believers hold certain truths in common because they are taught by the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.

 

[Davidius]

No, it is not possible, not in the slightest.

Protestants do not agree with Romanists that tradition provides an authoritative source of teaching additional to Scripture; but we do acknowledge the priesthood of believers, and this entails a catholic tradition in which true believers hold certain truths in common because they are taught by the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.

So far this has probably been the most helpful, but I still don't understand how we escape circular reasoning. We believe in a catholic tradition in which "true believers" hold certain truths in common because they are taught by the Holy Spirit, but how do we know which truths those are? It's almost a non-starter. To know who the Christians are, we have to know who holds the universal Christian truths, but to know the universal Christian truths, we have to know who the Christians are (I think this is something I read in Clark/Robbins).

 

[Herald]

Are we saved from error by committing our consciences to scripture alone? What about all of the Christians today who do so and come up with a bunch of ridiculous stuff?

As to the second half, what is "scriptural examination"? Whose examination? This seems to beg the question again.

Examination is exactly what the framers of the confessions did. They examined or studied the scriptures and wrote the confessions. As Matthew said in his reply:

believers hold certain truths in common because they are taught by the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.

The confessions have proven valuable in documenting shared belief regarding scripture. They remove or mitigate the post-modern view of interpretation that says, "What does this mean to me?"

 

[Grymir]

Isn't there a quote from church history saying something to the effect that all heretics quote scripture?

Yes, along with all heresy begins with a mis-conception of the nature of God. We don't have a begging of the question problem. Our doctrines come from scripture. The church didn't make scripture, but discovered them. Therefore we can use them to study God, because it's our only source that comes from God about Himself, ie, outside our space-time continuum. People try many different things. It's irrelevent that people twist scripture. We need to be able to defend and show their errors. Impossible implies something in the philosphical realm. That in order to be true, it must be possible to prove it false. That's different than saying it's impossible because the scriptures don't allow for such idea's. ie, it's proven by scriptures.

 

[Brian Bosse]

Hello Rev. Winzer,

Is it possible that the Trinity is a false doctrine?

Yes, it is possible.

No, it is not possible, not in the slightest.

Rev. Winzer, are you saying that you know this with philosophical certainty? In other words, are you claiming infallabilty in this judgment?

Brian

 

[Grymir]

No, it is not possible, not in the slightest.

Protestants do not agree with Romanists that tradition provides an authoritative source of teaching additional to Scripture; but we do acknowledge the priesthood of believers, and this entails a catholic tradition in which true believers hold certain truths in common because they are taught by the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.

So far this has probably been the most helpful, but I still don't understand how we escape circular reasoning. We believe in a catholic tradition in which "true believers" hold certain truths in common because they are taught by the Holy Spirit, but how do we know which truths those are? It's almost a non-starter. To know who the Christians are, we have to know who holds the universal Christian truths, but to know the universal Christian truths, we have to know who the Christians are (I think this is something I read in Clark/Robbins).

Ah! Now I see... False premisis. To know the universal Christian truths, we have to know the Bible, not who the Christians are. Voila!

 

[MW]

So far this has probably been the most helpful, but I still don't understand how we escape circular reasoning. We believe in a catholic tradition in which "true believers" hold certain truths in common because they are taught by the Holy Spirit, but how do we know which truths those are?

Circular reasoning is a fact of life for finite understandings; it is just a matter of how broad one needs to make his circle in order to hide this fact from others. Better to simply be honest about it, and ensure that we maintain the true centre of the circle around which we reason.

Jesus Christ made promises concerning the ministry of the church and the presence of His Spirit with it. We are bound therefore to proceed on the basis that there is a genuine tradition to be found in history. No person abstractly considers a teaching on its own merit. We are all influenced by our context. But there are truths which have been believed by Christians irrespective of time and place. It is there that we recognise the voice of the Spirit guiding the church in what is undoubtedly a true confession of the faith of Jesus Christ in opposition to the spirit of delusion.

 

[Herald]

Hello Rev. Winzer,

Is it possible that the Trinity is a false doctrine?

Yes, it is possible.

No, it is not possible, not in the slightest.

Rev. Winzer, are you saying that you know this with philosophical certainty? In other words, are you claiming infallabilty in this judgment?

Brian

Brian,

Rev. Winzer didn't make that statement because he has philosophical certainity. He has scriptural certainty. The confessions affirm it. You joined this board by likewise affirming what the confessions teach. Are you departing from that affirmation? Please let us know if you are. If you are rescinding your affirmation of the confessions, are you prepared to offer scriptural evidence that the Trinity is not an accurate doctrine of the church?

 

[Davidius]

Isn't there a quote from church history saying something to the effect that all heretics quote scripture?

Yes, along with all heresy begins with a mis-conception of the nature of God. We don't have a begging of the question problem. Our doctrines come from scripture. The church didn't make scripture, but discovered them. Therefore we can use them to study God, because it's our only source that comes from God about Himself, ie, outside our space-time continuum. People try many different things. It's irrelevent that people twist scripture. We need to be able to defend and show their errors. Impossible implies something in the philosphical realm. That in order to be true, it must be possible to prove it false. That's different than saying it's impossible because the scriptures don't allow for such idea's. ie, it's proven by scriptures.

I see what you're saying in the first part, but you're saying that people "twist" scripture. It's a simple fact that people who are not the willing, conscious minions of Satan we like to make them in order to make our history seem more simple and black & white have come to different positions even on doctrines as fundamental as the Trinity by reading and interpreting the same scriptures you and I possess. As wrong as I think Phillips, Craig, & Dean are, I don't think they go home at night and pray before candle-lit shrines to Lucifer, thanking him for sowing the seeds of damnable heresy in their minds.

Hence I don't see how you get from the premise that the scriptures are God's word to the conclusion that the Nicene council was correct. There's a missing premise which Rome grants and we deny. If we say, "well Christians get things right, so we can know we have things right," then we're at best begging the question and opening up the floor for anyone who calls himself a Christian to claim that he must have it right since he's a Christian. Since Rome uses scriptural arguments to enforce its authority, I don't see how they escape from this either.

**EDIT**

Rev. Winzer,

We cross-posted so I didn't see your latest comment. I find the idea of looking for a common thread in history very thought-provoking; how do you think that relates to our notion of the development of Christian doctrine (i.e. clarity of formulations)?

 

[MW]

Rev. Winzer, are you saying that you know this with philosophical certainty? In other words, are you claiming infallabilty in this judgment?

See WCF 18:2. Infallible assurance does not rest on philosophical certainty.

I am not a Cartesian. I don't need to doubt my tradition before I can be brought to faith. The doctrine of the Trinity is for me an infallible certainty because of (1) the divine truth of Scripture, (2) the spiritual grace this truth ministers to my soul, and (3) the living voice of the Holy Spirit Who has ministered the same conviction and grace to believers through the ages.

 

[Davidius]

Hello Rev. Winzer,

Is it possible that the Trinity is a false doctrine?

No, it is not possible, not in the slightest.

Rev. Winzer, are you saying that you know this with philosophical certainty? In other words, are you claiming infallabilty in this judgment?

Brian

Brian,

Rev. Winzer didn't make that statement because he has philosophical certainity. He has scriptural certainty. The confessions affirm it. You joined this board by likewise affirming what the confessions teach. Are you departing from that affirmation? Please let us know if you are. If you are rescinding your affirmation of the confessions, are you prepared to offer scriptural evidence that the Trinity is not an accurate doctrine of the church?

I can't speak for anyone else with certainty, but we're not questioning the doctrine of the Trinity. We're talking merely about knowing whose interpretations are correct. For example, I used to be a credobaptist...now I'm a paedobaptist. Some people move from lots of positions to other positions when they've been looking at the same evidence for a long time. Yet we somehow claim that the statements of the so-called ecumenical councils are beyond this, and I just want to know what makes them different, since we affirm that councils can err.

 

[Grymir]

Isn't there a quote from church history saying something to the effect that all heretics quote scripture?

Yes, along with all heresy begins with a mis-conception of the nature of God. We don't have a begging of the question problem. Our doctrines come from scripture. The church didn't make scripture, but discovered them. Therefore we can use them to study God, because it's our only source that comes from God about Himself, ie, outside our space-time continuum. People try many different things. It's irrelevent that people twist scripture. We need to be able to defend and show their errors. Impossible implies something in the philosphical realm. That in order to be true, it must be possible to prove it false. That's different than saying it's impossible because the scriptures don't allow for such idea's. ie, it's proven by scriptures.

I see what you're saying in the first part, but you're saying that people "twist" scripture. It's a simple fact that people who are not the willing, conscious minions of Satan we like to make them in order to make our history seem more simple and black & white have come to different positions even on doctrines as fundamental as the Trinity by reading and interpreting the same scriptures you and I possess. As wrong as I think Phillips, Craig, & Dean are, I don't think they go home at night and pray before candle-lit shrines to Lucifer, thanking him for sowing the seeds of damnable heresy in their minds.

Hence I don't see how you get from the premise that the scriptures are God's word to the conclusion that the Nicene council was correct. There's a missing premise which Rome grants and we deny. If we say, "well Christians get things right, so we can know we have things right," then we're at best begging the question and opening up the floor for anyone who calls himself a Christian to claim that he must have it right since he's a Christian. Since Rome uses scriptural arguments to enforce its authority, I don't see how they escape from this either.

Just because somebody claims to be a Christian, doesn't mean that they are. Tell'em to their face if needs be. Somebody also doesn't need to be Satan's minion to be wrong. Which is what they are. Just wrong. Plain people who don't take the time to study scripture, but are able to use a few verse's to show what they want. Isogesis instead of exogesis. We don't base our knowledge on what 'people' say, but what the Bible says.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Well put, Rev. Winzer.

BTW, Master Poole Publishing hopes to soon publish an essay relevant to this topic on the subject of "Postmodern Skepticism, Relativism, and Religious Toleration in the Light of the Westminster Standards and the Thought of George Gillespie." Lord willing, it will appear soon.

 

[ManleyBeasley]

So far this has probably been the most helpful, but I still don't understand how we escape circular reasoning. We believe in a catholic tradition in which "true believers" hold certain truths in common because they are taught by the Holy Spirit, but how do we know which truths those are?

Circular reasoning is a fact of life for finite understandings; it is just a matter of how broad one needs to make his circle in order to hide this fact from others. Better to simply be honest about it, and ensure that we maintain the true centre of the circle around which we reason.

Jesus Christ made promises concerning the ministry of the church and the presence of His Spirit with it. We are bound therefore to proceed on the basis that there is a genuine tradition to be found in history. No person abstractly considers a teaching on its own merit. We are all influenced by our context. But there are truths which have been believed by Christians irrespective of time and place. It is there that we recognise the voice of the Spirit guiding the church in what is undoubtedly a true confession of the faith of Jesus Christ in opposition to the spirit of delusion.

Very similar to Calvin's argument for the the authority of scripture and how we know it is true; "the secret testimony of the Spirit" (which we learn of from the scripture). Amen.

 

[Herald]

Hello Rev. Winzer,





Rev. Winzer, are you saying that you know this with philosophical certainty? In other words, are you claiming infallabilty in this judgment?

Brian

Brian,

Rev. Winzer didn't make that statement because he has philosophical certainity. He has scriptural certainty. The confessions affirm it. You joined this board by likewise affirming what the confessions teach. Are you departing from that affirmation? Please let us know if you are. If you are rescinding your affirmation of the confessions, are you prepared to offer scriptural evidence that the Trinity is not an accurate doctrine of the church?

I can't speak for anyone else with certainty, but we're not questioning the doctrine of the Trinity. We're talking merely about knowing whose interpretations are correct. For example, I used to be a credobaptist...now I'm a paedobaptist. Some people move from lots of positions to other positions when they've been looking at the same evidence for a long time. Yet we somehow claim that the statements of the so-called ecumenical councils are beyond this, and I just want to know what makes them different, since we affirm that councils can err.

Baptism, eschatology, church polity etc. are matters that have been debated by Christians since the beginning of the church. Most paedos are not going to say a credo is unsaved because of their baptismal position and vice versa. But there are some doctrines that are fundamental to the faith. There are no alternatives. The Trinity is one such doctrine. Don't lose sight of the fact that the Trinity has been attacked most eloquently by more than a few theologians. It has been tried and tested by many and their attacks still are unproven. The confessions have been sliced, diced and pureed and still the Trinity stands unscathed. Where is the scriptural challenge to the doctrine of Trinity that will disprove this foundational teaching of the Christian faith?

 

[MW]

We cross-posted so I didn't see your latest comment. I find the idea of looking for a common thread in history very thought-provoking; how do you think that relates to our notion of the development of Christian doctrine (i.e. clarity of formulations)?

"Development" is a difficult word to use today because evolutionary dogma supposes anything that grows must be good. But I notice good gardeners often stake saplings so that they do not grow in a distorted way. Likewise, not all didactic or moral development is good. The Papacy is a development, and I don't think anyone here would think it is good. There is a mystery of iniquity which develops through the ages side by side with the mystery of godliness.

It comes down to this -- by their fruits ye shall know them, Matt. 7:20. Hence we find tests for distinguishing teachers in terms of the character which their teaching produces, James 3:13-18. Paul expected that the truly spiritual among the Corinthians would know that he wrote to them the commandments of the Lord, 1 Cor. 14:37. And in 1 John we find various criteria for knowing the Spirit of God.

I think it comes down to what has been called a "package deal." One cannot evaluate a claim on the basis of a single truth, but must take the system as a whole.

 

[MW]

BTW, Master Poole Publishing hopes to soon publish an essay relevant to this topic on the subject of "Postmodern Skepticism, Relativism, and Religious Toleration in the Light of the Westminster Standards and the Thought of George Gillespie." Lord willing, it will appear soon.

Andrew, that sounds like good reading. Please keep us informed.

 

[Iconoclast]

Not possible/ Hebrews 13:8

Jesus came down from Heaven to do the will of the Father who sent Him>
Jesus revealed the Father to us like no one else can.
Jesus promised that the Father would send "another" comforter/ another of the same kind [allos].
This promise has been fulfilled.

The trinity is scripturally revealed. What other teaching are you thinking of?
oneness? modalism? Which part of the trinity would not seem to be clear to someone? To deny the trinity is to deny God himself.
The Jews in Jesus day rebelled against it,and were reprobated. All major cults deny it to their own destruction.

 

[fredtgreco]

Hello Rev. Winzer,





Rev. Winzer, are you saying that you know this with philosophical certainty? In other words, are you claiming infallabilty in this judgment?

Brian

Brian,

Rev. Winzer didn't make that statement because he has philosophical certainity. He has scriptural certainty. The confessions affirm it. You joined this board by likewise affirming what the confessions teach. Are you departing from that affirmation? Please let us know if you are. If you are rescinding your affirmation of the confessions, are you prepared to offer scriptural evidence that the Trinity is not an accurate doctrine of the church?

I can't speak for anyone else with certainty, but we're not questioning the doctrine of the Trinity. We're talking merely about knowing whose interpretations are correct. For example, I used to be a credobaptist...now I'm a paedobaptist. Some people move from lots of positions to other positions when they've been looking at the same evidence for a long time. Yet we somehow claim that the statements of the so-called ecumenical councils are beyond this, and I just want to know what makes them different, since we affirm that councils can err.

David,

This may or may not be helpful to you, but I think that the difference is with respect to the nature of the creedal statements made by the Ecumenical Councils, rather than the nature of the men who made them up. In other words, those Creeds were on such fundamental articles of the Faith worked out over a long period of time (the time from the closing of the Canon until Nicea was roughly longer than the U.S. has been in existence, and it was another couple of centuries until the final Ecumenical Creed was established) that it is not possible to alter the core of those creeds.

For example, if someone denies the Trinity, he cannot be a Christian. He cannot deny Christ was God and be a Christian. It is not possible. But it may be possible that on lesser (both in terms of fundamentals and clarity in the Scripture) matters, that errors have been made.

 

[kalawine]

I would say, "No, it's not possible."

David, I see where you are coming from. This is the way liberal theologians sometimes come at many doctrines they don't like or would like to abolish. (I'm not accusing you of this by any means. You seem to be playing Devil's advocate) They say that "orthodoxy" was awarded to whoever won the day.

I say it's not possible because the guys who "gave" us the Trinity (the "Theologians" -- 4th century) were convinced that they didn't invent it or discover it but were passing along a doctrine that the apostles had always believed. I agree with them because of the many text in the Bible where all three Persons are mentioned.

You Church history experts out there may see something that I've misstated here. Feel welcome to correct me.

 

[Brian Bosse]

Hello Gentlemen,

It looks like I am out here by myself. Well, if this is the case, then let it be so.

You joined this board by likewise affirming what the confessions teach. Are you departing from that affirmation? Please let us know if you are. If you are rescinding your affirmation of the confessions, are you prepared to offer scriptural evidence that the Trinity is not an accurate doctrine of the church?

This response seems absolutely over the top. I affirmed the philosophical possibility that the doctrine of the Trinity is incorrect. This is NOT the same as denying the doctrine or saying it is wrong. I believe the doctrine to be correct, but I acknowledge my own (and everyone else’s) epistemic limits.

See WCF 18:2. Infallible assurance does not rest on philosophical certainty.

The issue seems to be philosophical certainty – at least that is how I take the question and your answer. To say “it is not possible in the slightest” for the doctrine to be incorrect is to claim philosophical certainty.

The doctrine of the Trinity is for me an infallible certainty because of (1) the divine truth of Scripture, (2) the spiritual grace this truth ministers to my soul, and (3) the living voice of the Holy Spirit Who has ministered the same conviction and grace to believers through the ages.

Even this answer hints at your lack of philosophical certainty. When you speak of “the same conviction and grace to believers through the ages” it seems you are making an appeal to consistency over time of the doctrine being held as a Christian conviction. This is an inductive argument. I would also say that your subjective appeal to (2) is claimed by many other religions regarding doctrines that are false, and lastly (1) misses the point. I believe Scripture to be infallible. I believe everything it teaches is inerrant. I just acknowledge that what I think Scripture teaches is not in the same category.

The bottom line is that I am a fallen creature suffering the noetic affects of sin. No one on this board is any different. To think that you can know anything infallibly seems to ignore this condition, and may even confuse the creator/creature distinction. Now, this does not mean that we cannot have a very high degree of certainty about doctrines like the Trinity. It just acknowledges that there is a philosophical possibility that we are incorrect.

Brian

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

BTW, Master Poole Publishing hopes to soon publish an essay relevant to this topic on the subject of "Postmodern Skepticism, Relativism, and Religious Toleration in the Light of the Westminster Standards and the Thought of George Gillespie." Lord willing, it will appear soon.

Andrew, that sounds like good reading. Please keep us informed.

Will do!

 

[sotzo]

Brian:

What is philosophical certainty?

Is such a thing possible with respect to any type of knowledge?