The CT and WSC Q 6

Status
Not open for further replies.

KMK

Administrator
Staff member
Q. 4. What is the meaning of the word Trinity, so commonly used in expressing this doctrine?
A. It signifies the same with Tri-unity, or three in one; that is, three distinct persons, in one and the same individual or numerical essence, 1 John 5:7. James Fisher; Catechism on the Catechism, Q. 6

What proof texts would a CTer use to defend Fisher's answer here?

This is not the thread to argue for or against the CT, BTW.
 
Pastor Klein, unless I am horribly mistaken this is the only *verse* in scripture which speaks to one numerical essence subsisting in three persons. Without this verse, the doctrine of the Trinity will, of course, still stand firmly, but I'm quite certain there is no "single verse" which will serve as a prooftext for three persons in one numerical essence: rather, you would have to combine several verses and produce a conclusion.
 
Last edited:
Pastor Klein, unless I am horribly mistaken this is the only *verse* in scripture which speaks to one numerical essence subsisting in three persons. Without this verse, the doctrine of the Trinity will, of course, still stand firmly, but I'm quite certain there is no "single verse" which will serve as a prooftext for three persons in one numerical essence: rather, you would have to combine several verses and produce a conclusion.

Perhaps Fisher would have omitted this answer from his catechism?
 
Randy, all persons of the Trinity are, indeed, named in that verse; however, it *by itself* does not teach the Trinity, as one must use other verses in conjunction therewith to show that God's essence is one, and that these three persons are in the unity of that one essence.
 
Randy, all persons of the Trinity are, indeed, named in that verse; however, it *by itself* does not teach the Trinity, as one must use other verses in conjunction therewith to show that God's essence is one, and that these three persons are in the unity of that one essence.

Paul, couldn't the one "name" of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit show the oneness?
 
Ruben, by implication, yes, I think it can; and I certainly want to be able to press all Trinitarian texts as far as allowable. And to this end, it has indeed been used by many of our most respectable theologians, who have argued that "the name" (singular) requires one essence. With, however, the variety of ways in which this has been interpreted (e.g., " 'I bequeath this land to you in the name of Charles the King, and of the Dauphin.' does not denote one essence), I would be uncomfortable staking the doctrine of the Trinity against a skeptic on this one verse alone, considered in isolation.

Realizing, however, that such is not the nature or purpose of a proof-text (a point which seemingly evaded me late last night) -- Randy, I apologize and retract my statement: if, for whatever reason, 1 John 5:7 were not allowed for use, yes, I would use Matthew 28 for a proof-text. Indeed, it would require explanation and exegesis if questioned, but a proof-text nonetheless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top