The Trinity Doctrine in the Bible

[BamaPapist]

Sola Scriptura is most certainly biblical. And you most certainly can draw out the doctrine of the Trinity using the just the Scriptures.

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (2 Ti 3:16–17). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.


And yes, Jesus founded the church which is a pillar and buttress of the truth (1 Tim 3:15). Both are true. But Rome is not that church.

Those two verses do not show that the Bible is the only infallible source of our faith. It says scripture is profitable, not sufficient.

 

[phil36]

Those two verses do not show that the Bible is the only infallible source of our faith. It says scripture is profitable, not sufficient.

Saying scripture is not sufficient is the only way Rome can claim magesterium sufficiency and infallibility in interpreting scripture.

This makes the magesterium the authority over scripture. in other words the RCC.

"Why was the supreme authority of Scripture an issue at the Reformation? A variety of medieval theologians believed that the institutional church’s leadership, the bishops headed by the Pope (technically called the “magisterium”), were the true interpreters of Scripture. This effectively placed the teaching authority of the bishops over Scripture itself. The magisterium then could not be questioned. (T4G)"

 

[BamaPapist]

Saying scripture is not sufficient is the only way Rome can claim magesterium sufficiency and infallibility in interpreting scripture.

This makes the magesterium the authority over scripture. in other words the RCC.

"Why was the supreme authority of Scripture an issue at the Reformation? A variety of medieval theologians believed that the institutional church’s leadership, the bishops headed by the Pope (technically called the “magisterium”), were the true interpreters of Scripture. This effectively placed the teaching authority of the bishops over Scripture itself. The magisterium then could not be questioned. (T4G)"

You know why Luther had to develop the doctrine of Sola scriptura? Because no Christian church ever held to that doctrine before he invented it. If you can tell the name of one Christian (outside of the New Testament) and the name of that Christian’s church he belonged to in the 1st 4 centuries that believed in Sola Scriptura ill become Protestant.

 

[phil36]

You know why Luther had to develop the doctrine of Sola scriptura? Because no Christian church ever held to that doctrine before he invented it. If you can tell the name of one Christian (outside of the New Testament) and the name of that Christian’s church he belonged to in the 1st 4 centuries that believed in Sola Scriptura ill become Protestant.

Lets get back to whats important here... The dogma of papal infallability.

Saying scripture is not sufficient is the only way Rome can claim magesterium sufficiency and infallibility in interpreting scripture.

This makes the magesterium the authority over scripture. in other words the RCC.

"Why was the supreme authority of Scripture an issue at the Reformation? A variety of medieval theologians believed that the institutional church’s leadership, the bishops headed by the Pope (technically called the “magisterium”), were the true interpreters of Scripture. This effectively placed the teaching authority of the bishops over Scripture itself. The magisterium then could not be questioned. (T4G)"

Just one verse proves the sufficiency of scripture (and the bible is full of proofs). But there is zero scripture on Papal infallibility.

 

[BamaPapist]

Lets get back to whats important here... The dogma of papal infallability.

Saying scripture is not sufficient is the only way Rome can claim magesterium sufficiency and infallibility in interpreting scripture.

This makes the magesterium the authority over scripture. in other words the RCC.

"Why was the supreme authority of Scripture an issue at the Reformation? A variety of medieval theologians believed that the institutional church’s leadership, the bishops headed by the Pope (technically called the “magisterium”), were the true interpreters of Scripture. This effectively placed the teaching authority of the bishops over Scripture itself. The magisterium then could not be questioned. (T4G)"

Just one verse proves the sufficiency of scripture (and the bible is full of proofs). But there is zero scripture on Papal infallibility.

I don’t blame you for deflecting to the Papacy instead of arguing for Sola Scriptura.

You don’t seem to care that no early Christian believed it for some reason. You don’t seem to care that the Bible doesn’t say it’s sufficient as the sole rule of our faith. You also don’t care that Protestantism shows Sola Scriptura has created nothing but division.

But sure, let’s act like the Papacy is the problem lol.

 

[phil36]

I don’t blame you for deflecting to the Papacy instead of arguing for Sola Scriptura.

You don’t seem to care that no early Christian believed it for some reason. You don’t seem to care that the Bible doesn’t say it’s sufficient as the sole rule of our faith. You also don’t care that Protestantism shows Sola Scriptura has created nothing but division.

But sure, let’s act like the Papacy is the problem lol.

It's not deflecting it is right at the heart of the issue. So can you show us why scripture isn;t sufficient and needs the ''infallible magesterium'' to make up for scripture deficiencies? If scripture is not sufficient it has to be in some way be deficient.

There are many verses of scripture attesting to its sufficiency to all matters of faith yet zero scripture on the so called dogma of papal infallibility.

Lets get back to whats important here... The dogma of papal infallibility.

"Why was the supreme authority of Scripture an issue at the Reformation? A variety of medieval theologians believed that the institutional church’s leadership, the bishops headed by the Pope (technically called the “magisterium”), were the true interpreters of Scripture. This effectively placed the teaching authority of the bishops over Scripture itself. The magisterium then could not be questioned. (T4G)"

Just one verse proves the sufficiency of scripture (and the bible is full of proofs). But there is zero scripture on Papal infallibility.

 

[CS1]

I believe Jesus is God for He is God manifest in the flesh, and if you want to remove me go ahead.

Eph 4:6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

The Bible plainly states that there is one God the Father.

Jesus is God if you do not understand that that is on you No one goes to the Father but through him. nothing you said is an issue stop trying to interject yourself into the issue I have pointed out of those who are of the RCC and ill speaking of the Trinity.

 

[BamaPapist]

It's not deflecting it is right at the heart of the issue. So can you show us why scripture isn;t sufficient and needs the ''infallible magesterium'' to make up for scripture deficiencies? If scripture is not sufficient it has to be in some way be deficient.

There are many verses of scripture attesting to its sufficiency to all matters of faith yet zero scripture on the so called dogma of papal infallibility.

Papal infallibility is a big topic because you also have to talk about apostolic succession. All the answers you’re looking for is in document Pastor Aeternus from the 1st Vatican Council. Give that a read if you’re interested.

 

[Magenta]

You don’t seem to care that no early Christian believed it (Sola Scriptura) for some reason.

How in the world could anybody make such a claim?

There is absolutely no way to ascertain the veracity of it

 

[BamaPapist]

How in the world could anybody make such a claim?

There is absolutely no way to ascertain the veracity of it

Find it, all you have to do is find just one Christian in the 1st 400 years of Christianity that held these uniquely Protestant beliefs. You won’t find it, not because you can’t find Christian writers from those centuries, it’s just that they are all Catholics. It’s so obvious when you read the beliefs of these people.

 

[Alyd20]

As a kid I though that was weird that our God was 3 in one and I asked my parents one day why is God 3 persons she don’t know the answer to my question and I’m 20 now I still have the same question.

 

[ewq1938]

I guess you don’t believe in the Trinity then, you won’t find that term nowhere in the Bible

It's an argument from silence to require a certain word or term when it can be demonstrated using other words or terms. Trinity means three and three is found in the bible so that's a moot point anyways.

 

[PennEd]

Humor me a minute...

It’s clear in that passage of Revelation those elders in heaven are offering prayers to God. I’ve never met a Protestant that disputes that by the way. They’re obviously not offering prayers for souls in heaven because people in heaven don’t need prayers, they’re in heaven already.

So who else would they be offering prayers for if not the people on Earth? Rev Ch 5: 8 is the verse.

The prayers that are being offered by the elders are FROM the saints, NOT from the elders.
It says so right in the text.

As an ex catholic, I’d greatly urge you to leave that dead religion.

So many doctrinal problems it’s hard to know where to begin.

 

[ewq1938]

What is the post number where I said the elders prayed? I have consistently said they offered the prayers.

But scripture doesn't say they do that. It says an angel offers up the prayers to God.

 

[PennEd]

This is the whole joke of the matter. A concept was 'devised' by the Roman Catholic Church that they themselves cannot even understand. NOBODY CAN. Because it makes ZERO sense.

Proponents say, "Oh, it's just spiritually discerned is all. That's ... that's why!"

Well, has anybody YET discerned it? NO. They concede that it CAN'T be discerned ... that it's a Big MYSTERY that you must trust THEM about it - NOT GOD, mind you. God explains it exactly NOWHERE in scripture.

KNOW THIS FIRST "... no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation (origin)." (2 Pet. 1:20)

This means that NOTHING about God, or in God's Word, was written ONLY FOR CERTAIN people to know/comprehend!! All of scripture was written, and directed, to ALL.

So it's not even possible, according to the Word of God, for anybody to perceive some 'abstract' truth about God, that nobody else can perceive or understand, and simply tell others to trust THEM about it.

Guess what? That is EXACTLY how cults operate!!

"WE can see things in scripture that YOU cannot!!", they declare. "You must come to US to understand the scriptures!!"

Hmmm ...

This is the EPITOME of the Roman Catholic Church's stance in the Dark Ages of hunting down Bible-believing Christians and MURDERING them for not accepting the Biblical concepts that were put forth by the early Popes!

Surely somebody on this forum recognizes that.

Father, Son and Holy Spirit were ALL present AND separate at Jesus’s baptism.

Definitive proof of the Trinity.

 

[Alyd20]

As a kid I was confused about my faith​

 

[GaryA]

It’s very clear that many of the people you replied to have never read the early church fathers (first 4 centuries). If they did, it would of been obvious that all these holy people held uniquely Catholic beliefs. It’s why Protestant churches don’t educate their members on early Christian writings from that period.

I misread this earlier today.

In my view, the "early church fathers" were the generation of members of the very first churches started by the apostles - perhaps extending into the 2nd century, but definitely not into the 3rd.

As for whoever in the first couple of centuries that had 'Catholic' views --- it does not mean that they "had it all right"...

The "true test" is in how well they are aligned with the Bible. And, they are not...

 

[BamaPapist]

The prayers that are being offered by the elders are FROM the saints, NOT from the elders.
It says so right in the text.

As an ex catholic, I’d greatly urge you to leave that dead religion.

So many doctrinal problems it’s hard to know where to begin.

I have never said that these aren’t the prayers of the saints. I have no idea where you’re getting the idea that I said that.

 

[GaryA]

Jesus did not, however, create the RCC as it is today; that was the doing of sinful men.

He didn't create it at all -- Constantine did...

 

[BamaPapist]

I misread this earlier today.

In my view, the "early church fathers" were the generation of members of the very first churches started by the apostles - perhaps extending into the 2nd century, but definitely not into the 3rd.

As for whoever in the first couple of centuries that had 'Catholic' views --- it does not mean that they "had it all right"...

The "true test" is in how well they are aligned with the Bible. And, they are not...

So let me get this straight...
You believe that Protestantism is the authentic Christian faith of the Early Church (that was present during at least the 2nd century)...but you cannot name one Christian during that time that wrote about these beliefs Protestants have today and held those beliefs themselves?

Do you not see how crazy that is?