Tags
Apostles' Creed, Athanasian Creed, Christ, Christian, Christianity, Nicene Creed, Trinity Sunday
So across almost all of our churches, today is Trinity Sunday. The Trinity is, of course, one of the distinctive characteristics of Christianity, and is, in fact, almost always misunderstood by others. And, in truth, it is a difficult concept for us as well.
In the break up of the Roman World, in fact amongst its causes were the Goths who under Arius became again non-Christian, or at least non Orthodox, truthfully in much the same way as Unitarians and Mormons are non-Christians. We could likely say, “Close but no cigar.” But the Arian heresy led to a restatement of the faith that on Trinity Sunday is still used in the Lutheran Church. It’s pretty much the only time we read it aloud.
It’s called The Athanasian Creed, and this is how it appears in The Book of Concord:
Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
And the catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one: the glory equal, the majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three Eternals, but one Eternal. As there are not three Uncreated nor three Incomprehensibles, but one Uncreated and one Incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Ghost almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties, but one Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords, but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord, So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say, There be three Gods, or three Lords.
The Father is made of none: neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son: neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is before or after other; none is greater or less than another; But the whole three Persons are coeternal together, and coequal: so that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshiped. He, therefore, that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe faithfully the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right faith is, that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God of the Substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man of the substance of His mother, born in the world; Perfect God and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood; Who, although He be God and Man, yet He is not two, but one Christ: One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking the manhood into God; One altogether; not by confusion of Substance, but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and Man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead; He ascended into heaven; He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty; from whence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give an account of their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire.
This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.
Why do we only use it on Trinity Sunday? I suspect because it is more specialized than the other two creeds in Lutheranism, The Apostle’s Creed and the Nicene Creed. Each stresses a somewhat different area, and this one was specifically written to help us to understand the Trinity
Carl D'Agostino said:
Most Protestant denominations would agree with this understanding.
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
As far as i know, all Trinitarian Christians agree with it I think it is word for word in most of our churches but, I didn’t check. 🙂
LikeLike
Rob said:
Several churches use no creed, holding the scriptures as their creed but fully agree with the orthodox creeds.
LikeLike
Rob said:
There was discussion on a recent post (during which I confess to getting a little upset) regarding the proper name or title of God used in the Old Testament. It was claimed that the letters YHWH translated in our scriptures LORD was not a name for God and certainly not a proper name.
In many Bibles LORD presented in capitals indicates that the divine name, that is exclusively used for the Almighty God is being referred to.
Many of these scriptures referring to God in the OT apply to Jesus in the NT so the identification of God’s name becomes an important exercise in proving the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ and establishing the doctrine of the Trinity.
Isaiah 42:8 specifically states that YHWH (literally similar to ‘I Am’) is the name of God.
I am the LORD, that is my NAME; My glory I will not give to another, nor my praise to idols.
Or
I am the ‘I AM’, that is my NAME; My glory I will not give to another, nor my praise to idols.
I hope that clarifies the matter for any that were unfortunately left in doubt.
It is interesting that Isa. 42:8 supplies a phrase that supports the Athanasian Creed.
The Creed “the glory equal”, Isaiah My glory I will not give to another.
LikeLiked by 1 person
theophiletos said:
I love the grammatical number of “name” in the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20), where we are commanded to “baptize them in the name (singular) of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” I think this suggests that the three members of the Trinity share a single name.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rob said:
It may mean in the name in the sense in the authority of. Some taking it to means a single name follow the Acts where it seems baptisms were said to be in the name of Jesus – which has been taken up by some as their baptism formula.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Im gonna go off topic here. Forgive me. I think this is important The Diamond brothers brought this to my attention.
“Pope Francis described as “dangerous” the temptation to believe that one can have “a personal, direct, immediate relationship with Jesus Christ without communion with and the mediation of the church.”
http://ncronline.org/blogs/francis-chronicles/church-essential-faith-there-are-no-free-agents-pope-says
Is this what catholics are taught? is this why im told that I am my own false church?
One minute everyone is going to heaven and the next minute only thru the CC can one have a relation with Jesus.
Just wondering.
LikeLike
NEO said:
It is dangerous, Bosco. What we all tell you is that because you rely on only your reading of the Bible (and only parts of it), instead of what our churches have always taught everyone, everywhere, you tend to fall into error.
Today’s post is an example, I and I think every one of us believe this completely, I doubt any of us could have written it. But back when Arius fell into wrong belief, on his own, like you, my friend, a group of wise men got together and wrote this to correct him, and us. And so now we know how the Trinity works, for all time, and we don’t have to figure it out for ourselves.
When people like the Pope, and C., and Servus, and Rob, and Nicholas, and QVO, and Geoffrey, and Jess, and even me, not to mention Cranmer, Luther, Calvin, and Constantine the Great all agree on something, It’s likely to be true. And in truth, that is what the church is, all of us together, trying to discern the truth.
LikeLike
Rob said:
Very true Neo the right hand cannot say forget the little toe or vice versa.
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
Indeed so.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
The pope says one has to be in the catholic faith to know Jesus. Good brother Neo, you aren’t catholic. And remember , good brother Rob, while you pat good brother Neo on the back and tell him hes rite, you aren’t catholic either. You are in error.
LikeLike
Rob said:
I am in error according to the RCC, but then I am not a member of their church.
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
Actually the Pope doesn’t say that, he says, that his church is the best way to know Jesus, but he doesn’t really go farther than that, although some of his followers do. 🙂
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Catholics are caught at a disadvantage. Their dogma says its the only way to salvation, and now a days the CC is back peddling and trying to look less tyrannical. Its confusing the devotees. What with good brother Johnpaul kissing the Koran and all. Its a kinder gentler CC.
LikeLike
Rob said:
There are dangers of deception in the spiritual realm and we should be seeking God personally but glued into a community of Christians as a body with various gifs to assist our maturity. However I am very concerned if denomination claims that role. What was said is unavoidable in some sense for the R C Church given how it understands itself.
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
i can’t in honesty disagree with that, Rob, since I share it. And yer, I suspect all of us hare at least 85% of our beliefs. C. and Jess and I have spoken of it, and believe we are probably at 95% +. So sometimes I think the differences are blown up simply to make our churches look more distinctive, cause there really isn’t all that much difference And none of them really impinge on what my church call “The Three Creeds”.
LikeLike
Rob said:
I agree that it’s probably over 85% for all of us. It is just a pity that each church cannot hold to intercommunion on that basis and recognise that all those who in truth confess Christ as Lord are members of His one body. All the churches I have ever been part of hold that as a fundamental principle of what it means for us to be church.
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
It’s one area that we’ve seen real improvement in, in my lifetime. The rick is to work together without fundamentally diluting our essential beliefs. As jess always said there are many incidentals but there are also essentials, and some vary between us. None of them should stop us from cooperating in many areas, I think.
LikeLike
Rob said:
The saddest division is that family meets around the table and here views have become so divided many are unable do so.
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
True enough.
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
Sad yes, but unavoidable I’m afraid. As long as it remains simply a table in many churches it is impossible. A Catholic will never be able to divest itself of the twofold purpose and activity of what you call a table: for to us it is both table and altar of sacrifice. And as altar of sacrifice it is imperative that one understands and believes with eyes of faith that the bread and wine offered is truly the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. An unavoidable problem but real . . . unity for us is convincing the rest of Christianity the truth of this Holy Sacrament . . . which is seemingly next to impossible I’m afraid.
LikeLike
Rob said:
Yes that is what I meant by the width of division.
Today almost all evangelical churches of any persuasion share communion.
I cannot see why it is not possible for all the churches that hold RCC doctrine on the mass to be in shared communion. Surly their other differences are another matter.
Roman Catholics and Greek Orthodox have frequently shared communion with our church at various times. Was that against the rules for them or was it OK for them to do recognising that for them it was not the sacrament recognised by the R C Church. If this was acceptable it would be a means of fellowship in Christ at one level.
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
The real difference there Rob, is the question of the Real Presence, although their are variations between us. For Catholics, Lutherans, Anglican (all, or at least Anglo-catholics, I just don’t know), and likely others as well Christ is actually present in the Eucharist. for others if a commemoration which to us is not the Eucharist. For us it really is one of the essentials.
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
Yes, doing such was in violation of Church teaching.
As to the ‘other’ differences, because of our belief that this is the ultimate sign of unity Unity in Christ), nobody who does not hold to all the teachings of the faith or are in mortal sin at the moment can receive the Blessed Sacrament legitimately. There can be much unity between us but it only takes one serious denial of a revealed truth to put one in sin and make themselves ineligible for reception. Of course if there are no such impediments, then one would wonder what is preventing them from becoming RCC in the first place, I guess.
LikeLike
Steve Brown said:
Rob, I find it ironic that you have a hard time understanding why your view of “church” shouldn’t be ours (Catholic) also. To quote you: “The saddest division is that family meets around the table and here views have become so divided many are unable do so.”
The reason I find this ironic is that you (your ancestors, but you accept their doctrine) left the Catholic Church, the one Church founded by Jesus Christ. You, and your ancestors, had itching ears and listened to false doctrine. Priests are special, oh no. They have concreated hands, oh no. God uses them to change bread and wine into his body, oh no. Jesus told us in John 6 that we must eat his body and drink his blood, oh no. Confession to a priest, acting in persona Christi, is necessary for salvation, oh no. Jesus told us that Mary was special, oh no. All these oh no’s = you don’t believe as we do, but you want us to change! You walked away, and continue to stay away, but you want us to change! Amazing, just amazing.
From the first apology in defence of the Christians by Saint Justin Martyr.
The celebration of the Eucharist
“No one may share the Eucharist with us unless he believes that what we teach is true, unless he is washed in the regenerating waters of baptism for the remission on his sins, and unless he lives in accordance with the principles given us by Christ.”
In other words, we believe that one must be Catholic i.e. believe what we teach is true, to receive the Eucharist. You see, it’s more than bread and wine.
LikeLike
Rob said:
“You see, it’s more than bread and wine.”
So you say
But you have not heard that from me.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Jesus told us that Mary was special, oh no.
Funny, I don’t recall Jesus saying Mary is special. She is blessed amongst women. Maybe you can provide the passage and refresh my memory. Thanks in advance
LikeLike
theophiletos said:
You’re right to regard the “without” in the quotation as essential to understand the Pope’s point (which I’ll disagree with below). And “the church” in this quotation does refer specifically to the Roman Catholic Church, as that is what they believe. However, if I understand current RCC doctrine (subject to correction from those more invested in it, of course), they believe that people outside the visible RCC may (and “may” is important!) still be saved by Christ through the mediation of the RCC. So they believe that everyone is saved has some unseen spiritual connection with the RCC, and so (on that view) it is wrong to believe that you can have a relationship with Jesus unmediated by the RCC. However, “dangerous” and “wrong” are not “damnable”; I think they would see the danger as leading people (like me) to think that the RCC is unnecessary (or perhaps even irrelevant!) for salvation.
Let me say as much as I can in favor of this view before I dissent. As has been quoted many times on these pages, Christ spoke of founding a church (Matt 16:18). When the first Christians “got saved,” they lived in communities with other Christians (Acts, throughout), and Paul spoke of how important fellow Christians could be for our own spiritual well-being (1 Cor 12). Among these gifts are wisdom, spiritual intelligence, and the discernment of spirits (1 Cor 12:8, 10) which can be very useful for spotting the sorts of false teaching which NEO and Rob both warn about above, so that Christians with other spiritual gifts do not “shipwreck their faith” as Paul said of two false Christians (1 Tim 1:19). The fellowship (same word as “communion” in Greek) of Christians can be very helpful for keeping us on the narrow path to salvation, and defending us against the temptation to pride, thinking that we know better than all those others. So communion with the Church (community) founded by Christ is very important, and I think we all could use a whole lot more of it!
That said, of course I distinguish between the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of Christ (although I acknowledge a certain overlap in population). I agree that all who know Christ have a spiritual union, although I think the RCC puts the cart before the horse by ascribing that spiritual union to their own particular mediation. I worry that many laypeople (not the intelligent sort that reads here, but the average Joe) will not read this as carefully as you have, and conclude that the Pope is saying it is impossible to have a direct relationship with Jesus, and they will therefore cease looking for any relationship with Jesus, contenting themselves only with their relationship with their clergy (who are undeniably a mixed lot) or leaving the Church entirely. The Pope did not say here that a direct relationship with Jesus was impossible (only that it was dangerous to think it was possible apart from the communion and mediation of the RCC), but what he said might sound awfully like he was saying no one could have a direct relationship with Jesus.
What worries me even more, however, is the very language of “mediation”: Jesus calls us to have a direct immediate relationship with him, and anyone who does not come to that immediate relationship with him will suffer the condemnation of the Lord recorded in Matt 7:23: “I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.” Those are people who had even done miracles in Christ’s name, and cast out demons! Yet Christ will say, “I never knew you.”
Now there are appropriate uses of the language of mediation. I appreciate the prayers of my fellow Christians (including those here!). And when I am estranged from my Lord by my own sin and sinfulness, I appreciate a Christian coming alongside and yelling at me to stop it. (Okay, I rarely appreciate it in the moment, but afterwards when I come back to my senses.) However, even in this latter case, I would say that my estrangement does not separate me from Christ’s grace (but that’s because I’m largely a Calvinist; we can have that debate separately). Mediation can be very powerful, but it cannot substitute for the direct, immediate relationship with Jesus Christ, without which no one can experience salvation.
That’s why I think what the Pope said in this quote is wrong and even dangerous (though in many other ways I admire him). Anything that discourages Christians from reaching out to Christ must be condemned in the strongest of terms.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rob said:
Very much agree Theophiletos without a prior relationship with Jesus we can have no true church relationship the RCC have the cart before the horse,
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
Christ is the mediator: Christ is the head of the Church and the Church (acting as Christ visible on earth under His headship with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit) would be considered the mediator as well – for we speak of the same Christ (whether found in the Church visibly or in Heaven invisibly) . . . from the CCC:
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation.337
848 “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.”338
LikeLike
theophiletos said:
These quotes address the danger of thinking one can know Christ without being a part of His Church, but I don’t see how they address the question of how the Church is necessary to mediate an individual Christian’s relationship with Christ. They simply say that the Church is necessary for salvation, and that all who know that must join it.
But I suppose the answer may be the sacramental life: in the sacraments the Church mediates Christ to Christians, and therefore Pope Francis was saying (in a manner opaque to Protestants and, I suspect, many Catholic laypeople) that not only is it dangerous to think one can have a relationship with Jesus without joining the Roman Catholic Church, but it’s dangerous to think one can have a relationship with Jesus without partaking of the sacraments. That I would find much more agreeable, provided again that the sacraments are not taken as a substitute for knowing Jesus individually and directly. I know many Roman Catholics who do not take them that way, but I’ve met quite a number who do; I’m unaware of whether there is any official Roman Catholic teaching on the subject of personal relationships with Jesus, beyond the condemnation of anyone who gets too wacky.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Servus Fidelis said:
To the last there are entire libraries filled with the thoughts and teachings of the mystical saints. Even the normal saints have certainly much to say on their personal relationship with Christ.
I like to think of these things as follows: the de fide teachings are there to make sure that our emotions and our experiential knowledge of Christ is not being misconstrued or tainted by the evil spirits rather than by the Holy Spirit. The mystics give you ways to discern such things. So, though the spiritual lies above the academic work in theology or biblical scholarship and that the de fide teachings are guides and girders which will give one a safe footprint to build your relationship with Christ it becomes a handmaid to a healthy spiritual life. One one has incorporated such habits as part of their lives they will no longer arrogantly go their own way if there ‘relationship’ leads somewhere where it contradicts Christian teaching and tradition.
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
Theo, one of the biggest mistakes that we make in this new age is the divesting of Christ from His Church. When we do that we have torn asunder the basic covenant that Christ has made with the Church and all that Christ endured for the Church; His very Blood and Life as well as the giving of His Holy Spirit to the Church. Once we divest Christ from the Church we end up with the modern concept of church as being nothing more than a corporation; of brick and mortar and functionaries and adherents. We have become blind to the sublime it seems. One need only see the parallel of the OT relationship with God and the NT relationship with God of the respective Churches:
Genesis 12:3
I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse; and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”
Matthew 10:14,15
If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. Truly I tell you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.
In an exchange of persons (I am yours and you are mine) it is Christ as well as the people who is slandered. We seem to have lost the ability to see the Church as the embodiment of the Mystical Body of Christ. Our eyes are as blind without faith as it is for those who cannot see Christ in the Eucharist but only bread and wine.
LikeLike
theophiletos said:
I entirely agree, and I think no one here is attempting to divide Christ from His Church. Not even Bosco, for although his concept of the Church is smaller than the rest of ours, he too recognizes that there are other saved people whom he’d like to recruit into our conversation. Many laypeople (and non-Christians) make the mistake of identifying the Church with a building, bricks and mortar or perhaps stones. More devout (though not necessarily more spiritual) laypeople and clergy make a different mistake in identifying the Church with a certain organizational structure, thus missing some of the places where Christ has chosen built His Church. I fully agree that we should not separate Christ from His Church, and that all who belong to Christ are part of His Church.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Servus Fidelis said:
That is very true Theo. I only have no way of judging if I belong to Christ unless I first belong to His Church and attempt to do what the Church recommends for my salvation and sanctification. I had a visit by the Holy Spirit that gave me the gift of accepting Christ and His Church before joining. At that moment I needed to discern what the Church taught and if I would become obedient to the teachings. It could be said that the original gift let me see the goal and the end that we were made for. The means of reaching that end was what I found in the particular Church. Obedience to that is of course expected once intellectually accepted. Faith preceded conversion and obedience to authority (seen as from God Himself) was the means that is an ongoing process.
LikeLike
theophiletos said:
I had a different experience: God providentially exposed me to his truth at many prior instances in churches of different flavors, but he allowed my life to self destruct, and when on a lark he prayed, then Jesus claimed my life very dramatically, while I was not in fellowship with any church (though I had been hanging around a certain number of Presbyterians, but that was because of this one girl…). After Jesus claimed my life, He led me to one couple who taught me what it meant to be a Christian, and I worshiped with their church. I wrestled for many years with the question whether indeed any particular branch of Christianity might have the claim to be the singularly correct one, and had the privilege to engage in discussions with Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox as well as multiple kinds of Protestants. I prayed and fasted about this decision, listened to apologetics on all sides, imitated the Beroians in searching the Scriptures, and sought counsel from wise Christians of a number of backgrounds and organizational allegiances. But I knew that I already belonged to Jesus; he’d claimed me! So the conclusion of my denomination shopping was that I should learn from all Christians everywhere (and every when! and thus be truly catholic) and strive to live as a Christian recognizable to Christians everywhere (I’ve found that rather harder). Thus I value Christ’s Church and regard it as inseparable from my life as a Christian; I simply do not fully identify it with the Roman Catholic Church particularly or any other organization.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Rob said:
Your a real catholic in my opinion!
LikeLiked by 1 person
theophiletos said:
I appreciate the compliment! Though I’m still (as you well know in other discussion threads) a work in progress. =-)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Servus Fidelis said:
Rather a simpler decision for me even though I had been protestant. Every saint that I considered heroes in the spiritual life and those with magnificent graces given o them in abundance all, as it turned out, were Roman Catholics. To me – seeing was believing: I simply examined the fruit and picked the tree that produced that fruit.
LikeLike
theophiletos said:
By the way, I’ve been wondering why you don’t just post this sort of question as its own blog post. Then it wouldn’t be “off-topic”; it would be the topic.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Each Christian religion believes about 85 to 90 percent the same things. I don’t count Jehovas or Mormons as Christian. But some of the things some religions believe are just not biblical.
LikeLike
njb4725 said:
There is a verse in John’s Gospel where I believe
Jesus is saying that unless one believes He is Yahweh, that person will die in their sins.
LikeLike
Rob said:
Yes Nic I remember that text now “Unless you believe I Am He you will die in your sins”.
I was also wondering about Jesus saying “Before Abram was I Am” and the Jews reaction was to stone Him presumably for the blasphemy of claiming to be God.
LikeLike
njb4725 said:
Exactly. And a lot of verses in John that make mention of believing in Him, mention believing He is the Son of God, the Only-Begotten.
LikeLike
theophiletos said:
I think the reason this creed is only used on Trinity Sunday is because it is too long for impatient people to wait through every day of the year. =-)
I don’t think it was actually written in the fourth century while Arius was around; I’ve heard it was written somewhat later in response to the Arians in Spain, but I forget the reference.
The old doctrinal division which makes this creed unacceptable to Eastern Orthodox Christians is that it clearly states that the Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as the Father (the filioque issue). There are also some recent evangelical Protestant theologians, I am sorry to say, who deny that the Son of God is begotten of the Father before all ages with respect to his divinity. I’ve gone a few rounds with two of them. But other than these details, almost everything else in this creed is shared by all Trinitarian Christians.
LikeLike
NEO said:
I very much agree, nor is it easy to read aloud. 🙂
LikeLike
theophiletos said:
It may also be worth pointing out that Trinity Sunday was developed in Latin Western Europe. Eastern churches do the liturgical celebration of the Trinity specifically on Epiphany in celebrating the baptism of Christ.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
God cannot away with your appointed feasts and incenses is an abomination to him.So are graven images but they don’t seem to care.
LikeLike
Rob said:
In all the years of attending regular church meetings and Bible studies I have never heard the trinity preached about once or studied once.
I have met several former members of Trinitarian churches, whether those that follow regular programs via church calendar or not who and now active Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Any business running well knows it is harder to get new customers that to keep your old ones.
What are we doing!
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
Really? In all the churches I’ve belonged to, although mre as a Lutheran, it has been explained, although not necessarily well, and I note that C. wrote about it on his Parish’s website as well. Seems a strange omission,
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Yes, interesting, as I have never not heard it preached about at Trinity Sunday, or, for the Orthodox, at Epiphany. Often gets preached about at the Transfiguration, too. I will check to see if and when my son preaches on it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
I’d be interested. It just seems such a huge oversight, that was so important in the early church as well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rob said:
My first teaching on the subject followed an encounter I had with JW, when a teenager, which I was not equipped to deal with. I visited one of the church elders to get help. He explained a few things and gave me a pile of notes and scripture references. That began a study document that I have added to ever since each time gain a new insight, or find additional supportive texts.
The trinity forms part of the initial teaching I have provided to all members in churches where I have had any responsibility.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No Man's Land said:
I grew up in a Southern Baptist church and I can’t recall the Trinity being formally taught in Sunday School or even from the pulpit.
And, just as an aside, my better half and myself were out of town this weekend visiting a friend. On Sunday, my friend took us to his local Protestant church and the pastor did not preach on the Trinity, he preached on the Eucharist (or communion).
So I think there is something to what Rob is saying.
LikeLiked by 2 people
No Man's Land said:
In fact, my friends had no idea it was Trinity Sunday.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rob said:
The gaps and lack of continuity in teaching in many churches goes further that the matter of the trinity.
Imagine you are a rank pagan you get converted talking to a neighbour who takes you to church. The first series of things you hear preached goes something like this.
1. Daniel in the lion’s den message about his faith.
2. When Thomas sees Jesus he worships him what do we see in Him?
3. Galatians – the fruit of the Spirit
4. Corinthians – the gifts of the Spirit
5. Sodom and God’s judgement of sin
6. Someone gets baptised so its explained
7. The typology of the day of atonement
So it goes on for the next 18 months until you ask someone how it all fits together. I realised this when giving someone a 2 hour lift to catch a plane and they asked the question – they got a quick 2hr summary from Gen 1 to Rev. 22. Some people in this situation are not even sure which of the events they hear about are from OT or NT.
Our familiarity with the overview can blind us to the fact that others do not have this perspective.
LikeLiked by 2 people
NEO said:
I suspect that this is the very reason that many of the more organizationally inclined churches do use the lectionary, in fact, I know that it had much to do with the change from the one year lectionary to the current three year one. It was felt that we weren’t covering enough of the Bible and now in three year you’ll get just about all of the NT at least.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No Man's Land said:
That was my experience as well, Rob. Of course, my theology and my church affiliation are different now so I cannot speak competently about the present environment.
But it was certainly the case when I was in it, although my mother and friends are still part of that culture and so their lack of knowledge on this subject is telling I think.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No Man's Land said:
Also, just for diligence sake, I called my mother to see what her pastor preached on Sunday, and it wasn’t the Trinity. So…I, then, asked if she can recall being formally taught the Trinity at any point in her religious education at this church, to which she, more or less, responded, “Not really.”
LikeLike
Rob said:
I am not at all surprised it is just assumed we know it or maybe the preacher thinks it too challenging, irrelevant to life or his people would not be interested.
It would make a great survey amongst pastors, to determine if they had preached about the trinity, when last, how often and why not if not.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No Man's Land said:
My interest is piqued, I must admit. Indeed I am texting my Pops at the moment to see where he falls on this spectrum.
Agree, I think it is a combination of those factors.
LikeLike
NEO said:
It is challenging, and likely difficult to preach on, it’s also important since it lead to one of the largest heresies in history, and we see echoes to this day. We have spent many days explaining it here, and still are not sure that some, like Bosco but others as well, understand what it is. As theo noted this creed did play it’s part (unintended, I think, in the Great Schism, as well. Its a very central piece of knowledge
LikeLike
Rob said:
I think that a lot of churches that do not follow a structure to their teaching or a church calendar as traditional churches do miss large and important areas with a continual stream of unrelated sermons as the preacher feels inspired. It’s a weakness of some non liturgical churches.
I do not mean to say the trinity was not mentioned, it was mentioned and assumed, just not taught on so leaving members vulnerable to cults.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bosco the Great said:
I never heard of trinity sunday. I guess ill leave that to you religious people.
LikeLike