a former Evangelical "born again" explains why Protestantism isn't true

Originally posted by adjensen

Fine, I'll make this short. Prove that Tertullian didn't write anything about the Trinity until after he left the church (as Montanism was a movement within the church, simply saying that he showed Montanistic influences doesn't mean he wasn't still a member.)

In his writing, On Prayer, written by Tertullian before leaving the Church, he identified Jesus as the "Spirit of God". The Montanists, who emphasized the work of the Spirit, influenced him to change from binitarianism to a more trinitarian teaching. Even in Against Praxeas, he still showed some binitarianism when he identified the Holy Spirit as the Word.

Originally posted by truejew
The early Christian writers not only did not write about the trinity doctrine, but also taught quartodecimanism and Patripassianism, two more doctrines condemned by the Catholic Church.

Wrong. The early Church writers did indeed write about the Trinity. And every so often an early writer would write something wrong but then get corrected. So what?

Early Church Fathers Writing about The Trinity

The Didache

"After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. . . . If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Didache 7:1 [A.D. 70]).

Ignatius of Antioch

"[T]o the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God" (Letter to the Ephesians 1 [A.D. 110]).

"For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God’s plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit" (ibid., 18:2).

Justin Martyr

"We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things; but they are ignorant of the mystery which lies therein" (First Apology 13:5–6 [A.D. 151]

Read More Early Church Fathers Writing about The Trinity

Plus, the apostles did not have a one person leader such as the pope.

Dude .. read the bible. Matthew 16:18.
Dude .. read the bible. Apostolic Succession

Early Church Writers on Peter as Pope and Head of the Church

Cyprian of Carthage

"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

"There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering" (Letters 43[40]:5 [A.D. 253]).

"There [John 6:68–69] speaks Peter, upon whom the Church would be built, teaching in the name of the Church and showing that even if a stubborn and proud multitude withdraws because it does not wish to obey, yet the Church does not withdraw from Christ. The people joined to the priest and the flock clinging to their shepherd are the Church. You ought to know, then, that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop, and if someone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church. They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priests of God, believing that they are
secretly [i.e., invisibly] in communion with certain individuals. For the Church, which is one and Catholic, is not split nor divided, but it is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere one to another" (ibid., 66[69]:8

Read more of what the Early Church Writers said on Peter as Pope and Head of the Church HERE

The trinity does limit God to the number three.

WHAT are you talking about?? That's aburd. God the Father. God the Son. God the Holy Spirit. All are separate and yet one. Like a clover leaf. And they are OMNIPOTENT. Did you read what was posted?

In addition the title "God the Son" is not Biblical.

Dude .. read the bible. Jesus is God

Originally posted by truejew
Just a quick off topic post... Received confirmation that I do not have cancer. [/]

Very glad to hear that. I've been working with cancer patients all month - I'm a med student, always glad to hear when someone is clear or in remission.

And your beliefs are truly interesting. I've known a oneness family for decades and always enjoy talking to them about their interpretation of scripture and their impression of what God is like.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Wrong. The early Church writers did indeed write about the Trinity. And every so often an early writer would write something wrong but then get corrected. So what?

What I said was correct. The first to write that God is three persons was Tertullian. John, Polycarp, and probably ignatius since he is believed to also be a disciple of John, taught Quartodecimanism. Ignatius taught Patripassianism.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

The Didache

"After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. . . . If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Didache 7:1 [A.D. 70]).

The Didache is actually from the second century and it's claim to be from the apostles is false. It is not a reliable source for Church doctrine.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Ignatius of Antioch

"[T]o the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God" (Letter to the Ephesians 1 [A.D. 110]).

"For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God’s plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit" (ibid., 18:2).

Neither quote is anti-oneness

Originally posted by FlyersFan

[Ex]Justin Martyr

"We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things; but they are ignorant of the mystery which lies therein" (First Apology 13:5–6 [A.D. 151]

Justin Martyr was not an ordained minister and therefore not a reliable source for Church doctrine. Plus, he teaches that the Son and Holy Spirit are subordinate to the Father, not equal as modern trinitarians teach.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Dude .. read the bible. Matthew 16:18.

The rock that the Church is built on is, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."

Originally posted by FlyersFan

WHAT are you talking about?? That's aburd. God the Father. God the Son. God the Holy Spirit. All are separate and yet one. Like a clover leaf. And they are OMNIPOTENT. Did you read what was posted?

If God is multiple persons and omnipotent, then He could not be limited to three.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Dude .. read the bible. Jesus is God.

The Biblical title is Son of God, not God the Son. Only the Spirit manifest in the flesh of the Son of God was God. His flesh was human.

Originally posted by truejew
Just a quick off topic post... Received confirmation that I do not have cancer.

Well, that's good to hear. I received a similar "no, you're clear" diagnosis in 2010, and it does wonders for the mind (well, in my case it did for a week, lol.)

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Fine, I'll make this short. Prove that Tertullian didn't write anything about the Trinity until after he left the church (as Montanism was a movement within the church, simply saying that he showed Montanistic influences doesn't mean he wasn't still a member.)

In his writing, On Prayer, written by Tertullian before leaving the Church, he identified Jesus as the "Spirit of God". The Montanists, who emphasized the work of the Spirit, influenced him to change from binitarianism to a more trinitarian teaching. Even in Against Praxeas, he still showed some binitarianism when he identified the Holy Spirit as the Word.

As I said, that's not proof of anything, as regards him having left the church.

Here's the problem -- you're proposing this:

1. No one in the church prior to Tertullian believed in the Trinity
2. Tertullian is a member of the church, aligns himself with a heretical movement
3. Tertullian really aligns himself with them, and leaves the church
4. Tertullian dreams up the Trinity, and writes Against Praxeas, though he's no longer a member of the church
5. The church rejects its own orthodoxy, accepts the teaching of a heretic who left the church, and who has based that teaching on his heresy

See the problem there? That sequence of events makes absolutely no sense.

The far more plausible alternative is:

1. Though the Doctrine of the Trinity is not established, the concept existed in the church from the beginning
2. Tertullian is a member of the church, aligns himself with a heretical movement
3. Tertullian writes his perception of the Doctrine of the Trinity
4. As this is in congruence with existing beliefs, and he's still a member in good standing, the church does not reject Tertullian
5. Tertullian really aligns himself with them, and leaves the church

That makes sense. Your scenario does not.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by colbe
Everyone in Heaven is Roman Catholic

I would really caution against this statement -- even the Catechism says that this isn't true.

When I was a Protestant, this sort of line was what really turned me away from the Catholic church. It wasn't until I understood that the church didn't really teach that that I was open to learning more about the church, and which eventually resulted in my conversion.

edit on 29-1-2013 by adjensen because: (no reason given)

I agree. When I was a Protestant this point was contentious for me as well. I believe we're going to be surprised at who ends up in heaven. I believe we're in for a great number of surprises (not foundational, but more to do with "through a glass darkly" type issues).

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by colbe
Everyone in Heaven is Roman Catholic

I would really caution against this statement -- even the Catechism says that this isn't true.

When I was a Protestant, this sort of line was what really turned me away from the Catholic church. It wasn't until I understood that the church didn't really teach that that I was open to learning more about the church, and which eventually resulted in my conversion.

edit on 29-1-2013 by adjensen because: (no reason given)

Hi,

I didn't say previously athensen, I stated everyone in Heaven is Catholic. The Holy Mass is offered in Heaven.

Originally posted by AvisNigra

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by colbe
Everyone in Heaven is Roman Catholic

I would really caution against this statement -- even the Catechism says that this isn't true.

When I was a Protestant, this sort of line was what really turned me away from the Catholic church. It wasn't until I understood that the church didn't really teach that that I was open to learning more about the church, and which eventually resulted in my conversion.

edit on 29-1-2013 by adjensen because: (no reason given)

I agree. When I was a Protestant this point was contentious for me as well. I believe we're going to be surprised at who ends up in heaven. I believe we're in for a great number of surprises (not foundational, but more to do with "through a glass darkly" type issues).

Avis and adjensen,

Yes, who ends up in Heaven, so happy God is the judge. BUT, everyone in Heaven is Roman Catholic.

The 2nd Pentecost, the Great Warning isn't going to be God revealing you can believe what you wish, the
faith is Roman Catholicism...same as in Heaven.


blessings to you both,

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Wrong. The early Church writers did indeed write about the Trinity. And every so often an early writer would write something wrong but then get corrected. So what?

What I said was correct. The first to write that God is three persons was Tertullian. John, Polycarp, and probably ignatius since he is believed to also be a disciple of John, taught Quartodecimanism. Ignatius taught Patripassianism.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

The Didache

"After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. . . . If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Didache 7:1 [A.D. 70]).

The Didache is actually from the second century and it's claim to be from the apostles is false. It is not a reliable source for Church doctrine.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Ignatius of Antioch

"[T]o the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God" (Letter to the Ephesians 1 [A.D. 110]).

"For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God’s plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit" (ibid., 18:2).

Neither quote is anti-oneness

Originally posted by FlyersFan

[Ex]Justin Martyr

"We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things; but they are ignorant of the mystery which lies therein" (First Apology 13:5–6 [A.D. 151]

Justin Martyr was not an ordained minister and therefore not a reliable source for Church doctrine. Plus, he teaches that the Son and Holy Spirit are subordinate to the Father, not equal as modern trinitarians teach.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Dude .. read the bible. Matthew 16:18.

The rock that the Church is built on is, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."

Originally posted by FlyersFan

WHAT are you talking about?? That's aburd. God the Father. God the Son. God the Holy Spirit. All are separate and yet one. Like a clover leaf. And they are OMNIPOTENT. Did you read what was posted?

If God is multiple persons and omnipotent, then He could not be limited to three.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Dude .. read the bible. Jesus is God.

The Biblical title is Son of God, not God the Son. Only the Spirit manifest in the flesh of the Son of God was God. His flesh was human.

You limit God, especially with your new teachings that are absolutely false. God can be a man and God,
that's exactly what happened. Happy to hear of your good report.

Quit assigning your new beliefs to the Church Fathers, they all believed in the most Holy Eucharist, you don't
I wish you would...

Originally posted by colbe

Originally posted by AvisNigra
What a fine thread. It seems that Catholic converts are quite literally everywhere these days. I know of a few that have left the Church as well, but the influx is truly stunning.

AvisN, hello,

It's so true, People are leaving certain Protestant denominations in great numbers because of their acceptance of obvious grave sin. Here's a man who left Protestantism, notice, he was first a Methodist. I think most all Methodists will say "yes" to God, they will convert when the Great Warning happens.

Dave Armstrong (1958-...) was raised Methodist, went on to Evangelicalism, to the Jesus Movement, to Messianic Judaism and finally, to the faith, Dave became Roman Catholic. He has written * 150 reasons why I am Catholic. * Dave has a marvelous way of expressing himself. Here are five of the reasons, to me, these are major and they're only five out of 150.

Everyone in Heaven is Roman Catholic so please, come along, the most Holy Eucharist is true.

~ ~ ~

21. Many Protestants take a dim view towards Christian history in general, esp. the years from 313 (Constantine's conversion) to 1517 (Luther's arrival). This ignorance and hostility to Catholic Tradition leads to theological relativism, anti-Catholicism, and a constant, unnecessary process of "reinventing the wheel."

22. Protestantism from its inception was anti-Catholic, and remains so to this day (esp. evangelicalism). This is obviously wrong and unbiblical if Catholicism is indeed Christian (if it isn't, then - logically - neither is Protestantism, which inherited the bulk of its theology from Catholicism). The Catholic Church, on the other hand, is not anti-Protestant.

23. The Catholic Church accepts the authority of the great Ecumenical Councils (see, e.g., Acts 15) which defined and developed Christian doctrine (much of which Protestantism also accepts).

24. Most Protestants do not have bishops, a Christian office which is biblical (1 Tim 3:1-2) and which has existed from the earliest Christian history and Tradition.

25. Protestantism has no way of settling doctrinal issues definitively. At best, the individual Protestant can only take a head count of how many Protestant scholars, commentators, etc. take such-and-such a view on Doctrine X, Y, or Z. There is no unified Protestant Tradition.

www.ourcatholicfaith.org...

I didn't notice any comments on Dave's list above. Maybe, take one at a time.


21. Many Protestants take a dim view towards Christian history in general, esp. the years from 313 (Constantine's conversion) to 1517 (Luther's arrival). This ignorance and hostility to Catholic Tradition leads to theological relativism, anti-Catholicism, and a constant, unnecessary process of "reinventing the wheel."


"Theological relativism"....

That's a term for Protestantism. Whatever you wish to believe, even deciding your own justification. It's easy
to be Protestant. I can't wait until the Millennium and in this end time, after the Great Warning. It's going to
take God to show our brothers and sisters the truth, no more "theological relativism." Amen.

We keep sharing....there is more, the Sacramental way of Catholicism is grace filled!

Originally posted by adjensen

Here's the problem -- you're proposing this:

1. No one in the church prior to Tertullian believed in the Trinity

I am not saying that. I am saying that Tertullian (After 200 AD, after he joined the Montanists) is the first who was a minister to teach the trinity in his letters. I see that as very strange for something that is considered such an important doctrine.

Originally posted by adjensen

Tertullian is a member of the church, aligns himself with a heretical movement

Tertullian really aligns himself with them, and leaves the church

Tertullian dreams up the Trinity, and writes Against Praxeas, though he's no longer a member of the church

I would not exactly use the word "dreams". Tertullian's writings were binitarian before joining the Montanists. After joining the Montanists, he wrote Against Praxeas, which while calling God a trinity of persons, he still called the Holy Spirit, "the Word". Showing that at that time, the trinity doctrine was not a fully developed doctrine. If God was really a trinity, Jesus would have taught that to the apostles and the doctrine would not have been developed by men over time like it was.

Originally posted by adjensen

The church rejects its own orthodoxy, accepts the teaching of a heretic who left the church, and who has based that teaching on his heresy

The Church never accepted his teaching, however his teaching gained a following.

Originally posted by adjensen

The far more plausible alternative is:

1. Though the Doctrine of the Trinity is not established, the concept existed in the church from the beginning
2. Tertullian is a member of the church, aligns himself with a heretical movement
3. Tertullian writes his perception of the Doctrine of the Trinity
4. As this is in congruence with existing beliefs, and he's still a member in good standing, the church does not reject Tertullian
5. Tertullian really aligns himself with them, and leaves the church

That makes sense. Your scenario does not.

I do not believe that Tertullian would still be in good standing with the Church after joining a heretical movement. Even if the Church was trinitarian.

Originally posted by colbe

God can be a man and God,

The teaching that the flesh of Jesus was divine is not a true Christian doctrine. His flesh died and was therefore human. The Son of God was God and man, not God only.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Here's the problem -- you're proposing this:

1. No one in the church prior to Tertullian believed in the Trinity

I am not saying that. I am saying that Tertullian (After 200 AD, after he joined the Montanists) is the first who was a minister to teach the trinity in his letters. I see that as very strange for something that is considered such an important doctrine.

Well, the fleshing out of doctrine was usually a product of its time -- The Gospel of John was written in response to the Ebionites, and some of Paul's letters were clearly prompted by the heretical teaching in some churches as regards to the observance of Jewish Law for Christians. In the case of Tertullian, he was likely writing against Sabellius and the newly arising Modalists.

Though the concept of the Trinity is clearly evident in scripture (your misinterpretations and illogical suppositions notwithstanding,) and the writings of early church fathers before him, just as John was necessary to clarify the divine nature of Christ, the Doctrine of the Trinity was presented to explain (as best it could -- witness your cluelessness about there being only one God within that doctrine) how there is one God, but three distinct persons, exactly as it is represented in the Bible.

The real controversy that the early church faced was not whether Father, Son and Holy Spirit were all distinct persons, since that is patently obvious, but whether Christ was divine, which was the purpose of John. There is no evidence, whatsoever, that the Apostles, or anyone else, for that matter, taught "Oneness" theology, any more than there is evidence that immersion baptism "in the name of Jesus", re-baptism by the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues has anything to do with salvation -- that is salvation by works, a heresy since the church began.

reply to post by adjensen


If God is a trinity, wouldn't He be telling His people that from the beginning? Why would He leave it up to His people to flesh out the doctrine 4,200 years after creation? Was Abraham a "cult" leader for not teaching it?

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by adjensen

 

Was Abraham a "cult" leader for not teaching it?

Who's to say that he didn't? Were you there?

Abraham, ironically, is used by the Eastern church to reference the eternal Trinity:

Traditional Christian teaching holds that God is truly one and yet at the same time exists in three "persons," the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The commandment against graven images in Exodus 20:3-5 was not applied to the Son because, according to the reasoning of the Second Council of Nicea in 787, he had become man and thus shared in our human ability to be seen and visualized. However, direct depictions of the Father or the Holy Spirit have always been avoided in the East and did not enter western art until the second millenium.

In the first millenium, and still today in the East, the usual way to represent the Trinity symbolically was by depicting "The Hospitality of Abraham" -- God's visit to Abraham at Mamre in Genesis 18:1-15. The text says it was "the LORD" who visited at Mamre, but Abraham saw three men and Christians take this as a revelation of the Trinity. (Source)

(Picture source and commentary)
Genesis has God referring to himself in a plural form ("And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" Genesis 1:26 KJV), so unless you think the angels are the same as God, and we're made in their image, as well, you've some problems right out of the gate.

Only a plurality of persons can justify the phrase. Hence, we are forced to conclude that the plural pronoun indicates a plurality of persons or hypostases in the Divine Being.

-- Barnes' Notes on the Bible

Originally posted by adjensen

Who's to say that he didn't? Were you there?

You are making a big assumption when 1. You were not there. 2. It is not recorded in Scripture.

Originally posted by adjensen

Abraham, ironically, is used by the Eastern church to reference the eternal Trinity:

The problem with that view of Genesis 18:1-15 is one of multiple gods. The three men are separate beings. Three separate beings equal three gods.

Genesis 1:26 is God speaking to the angels.

Originally posted by truejew
The problem with that view of Genesis 18:1-15 is one of multiple gods. The three men are separate beings. Three separate beings equal three gods.

Genesis 1:26 is God speaking to the angels.

You need to work on your reading/comprehension skills -- you've made two errors there.

From the text I quoted above:

The text says it was "the LORD" who visited at Mamre, but Abraham saw three men and Christians take this as a revelation of the Trinity.

The scene with Abraham is not viewed by the church as actually being the Trinity, but being representative of it.

And, from Genesis 1:26

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness

Whoever God is speaking to there, they are equivalent in some fashion to him, or else he wouldn't use the plural form.

Do you think that the angels are equivalent to God? That the angels made man? That man is made in the angels' image, after their likeness?

Where's your wings?

truejew,

We love you, we love you, we love you...why do you think adjensen tries even before others have to show you...the faith.

One Lord, one faith, one baptism (Eph 4:5), you can't run away from this verse.

Christianity believes in the Triune God, it has been revealed, it's only sects, throughout history who have said no.

God would not leave us, His beloved creation, not knowing...



colbe

Originally posted by adjensen

The scene with Abraham is not viewed by the church as actually being the Trinity, but being representative of it.

Yes, they see it as being representative of three separate gods.

Originally posted by adjensen

Do you think that the angels are equivalent to God?

Let us see... No.

Originally posted by adjensen

That the angels made man?

Let us see... No. In verse 27 it is a "He" who did the creating. Did you answer also when I said "let us see"? Or was it just I who answered?