You think Trinitarians accept you?

[Orthodoxy]

Originally Posted by Dante

Personally, I don't care if trinitarians accept me or not. Frankly, I don't really care what anyone thinks about me or my beliefs. I'm too busy focused on my personal walk with God to be concerned with anything else at this point.

I understand what you're saying...

But the point is that for centuries, Oneness theology (modalism) has been regarded as heresy by the church. I am not saying that people should just accept Trinitarianism for that simple reason, but at least it should make us pause and think very carefully.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Orthodoxy

I understand what you're saying...

But the point is that for centuries, Oneness theology (modalism) has been regarded as heresy by the church. I am not saying that people should just accept Trinitarianism for that simple reason, but at least it should make us pause and think very carefully.

This is a false argument. It's two logical fallacies, argument of numbers and argument of antiquities.

Let me give an example..Let's say it's the first 40 years of the Protestant Reformation and you are a Protestant that does not believe baptism is essential. A Roman Catholic says to you "The church has always viewed your position as heretical, baptism is essential". See my point?

The Trinity was a doctrine in development and did not historically exist in it's present form for several centuries after the Apostles. At one point it was declared the official doctrine of "the church" by a Roman Emperor. Later it was changed to heretical by a Roman Emperor and Arianism was the dominant view...all because of Secular influence.

In other words the "church" was meddled with by secular and often pagan Roman officials. They saw unifying the Christian sects as a benefit to their Empire. That is how people have come to the view today that the church is Trinitarian

[Orthodoxy]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

This is a false argument. It's two logical fallacies, argument of numbers and argument of antiquities.

Let me give an example..Let's say it's the first 40 years of the Protestant Reformation and you are a Protestant that does not believe baptism is essential. A Roman Catholic says to you "The church has always viewed your position as heretical, baptism is essential". See my point?

The Trinity was a doctrine in development and did not historically exist in it's present form for several centuries after the Apostles. At one point it was declared the official doctrine of "the church" by a Roman Emperor. Later it was changed to heretical by a Roman Emperor and Arianism was the dominant view...all because of Secular influence.

In other words the "church" was meddled with by secular and often pagan Roman officials. They saw unifying the Christian sects as a benefit to their Empire. That is how people have come to the view today that the church is Trinitarian

I agree with your argument about numbers and antiquity. That's why I said that we should not just accept Trinitarianism for that reason, but we should at least think about it very carefully. Your Protestant Reformation example was bouncing around in my head when I wrote my previous comment. On the other hand, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses could use a good dose of respect for historic Christianity!

Here is a portion from a recent blog post by Carl Trueman regarding TD Jakes and the Elephant Room:

Further, to place Nicene orthodoxy in the category of over-scrupulous doctrinal precisianism is, in effect, to declare the entire church (except for strands of American evangelicalism, apparently) from 381 to the present day to be wrong-headed. True catholic Christianity has always regarded Nicene orthodoxy as vital. An evangelicalism which argues for the basic irrelevance of such is simply not part of that catholic tradition; rather than being generously connected to other believers, it effectively isolates itself from the mainstream Christian tradition. Maybe there are consciences here bound to scripture. I would certainly never demand that a man subscribe to something which he does not see in scripture; but for myself, I need more than a few brief blog comments to understand why I should abandon Nicaea as crucial to salvation, revelation and my doctrine of who God is and what he has done. I want to know how and why Athanasius, the Cappadocians, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin and Owen, to name just eight representatives of Trinitarianism, considered this to be more than a matter of over-scrupulousness. A humble listening to the past is important for the church in any circumstance; in the context of the creeds, such listening is absolutely non-negotiable.

[emphasis added]

Read the whole post here: http://www.reformation21.org/blog/20...ty-that-im.php

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Orthodoxy

I agree with your argument about numbers and antiquity. That's why I said that we should not just accept Trinitarianism for that reason, but we should at least think about it very carefully. Your Protestant Reformation example was bouncing around in my head when I wrote my previous comment. On the other hand, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses could use a good dose of respect for historic Christianity!

Here is a portion from a recent blog post by Carl Trueman regarding TD Jakes and the Elephant Room:



[emphasis added]

Read the whole post here: http://www.reformation21.org/blog/20...ty-that-im.php

Further, to place Nicene orthodoxy in the category of over-scrupulous doctrinal precisianism is, in effect, to declare the entire church (except for strands of American evangelicalism, apparently) from 381 to the present day to be wrong-headed.

I think history is valuable to learn from but I must point out this on what this person said (not you)...what's wrong with seeing the chrch being wrong-headed? Evangelicalism/Protestantism believes the church was wrong-headed for several centuries.