Jump to content

Talk:Nontrinitarianism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ic2705 (talk | contribs) at 23:28, 23 August 2009 (→‎Important editing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconChristianity: Theology / Latter Day Saints / Witnesses C‑class Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by theology work group (assessed as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement (assessed as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses (assessed as Top-importance).
WikiProject iconReligion: Unitarian Universalism C‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Unitarian Universalism work group.

This article was nominated for deletion on 05/12/05. The result of the discussion was keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.


Christadelphians

Why is there an entire section dedicated to a small and obscure group like the Christadelphians? If we add a section for every fringe group out there, this page would take hours to read. pjh3000 (talk) 02:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed from core article, but retained in expanded sections. They are relevant, but not well known.pjh3000 (talk) 18:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bible Students & Church of God International

Do we really need to include Bible Students & Church of God International under Groups? Information about these groups is virtually non-existent on Wikipedia. If you pad an article with too much useless information, you discourage others from reading any of it.pjh3000 (talk) 18:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

artificially restrictive definition

Why should it be organized "groups" that are implied by the term? Why should only "Christian" groups be implied? And why should the only applicable arguments be those that conclude the doctrine of the Trinity to be "non-scriptural"? I think that the introduction arbitrarily adopts these terms. Why should Jewish, Muslim, gnostic, rationalist or pantheistic notions be excluded, etc.? The doctrine of the Trinity is rejected by diverse groups and individuals, on a variety of grounds. Any one of those groups, grounds, or arguments is properly implied by the term. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scriptural Confirmations - Two incompatible arguments against the Trinity

The Biblical quotes given here seem primarily to be making the argument that Jesus was a being totally apart from Jehovah, which is one non-trinitarian argument. However, other trinitarians (Swedenborgians, for example) argue that the person of Jesus is identical with the person of Jehovah--one God, one person. But if the numerous Biblical quotations supporting that position were to be added to this list, it would be confusing, I think. (E.g. Jehovah is the Father in Isaiah 63:16; 64:8, and Jesus is the Father in Isaiah 9:6; so Jehovah is same person as Jesus.)

But before diving in and coming up with a solution myself, I wanted to see what others who have been working with this page think. I am new to this article, and it is clearly one with a history and with plenty of room for controversy.

I just want to make a contribution that adds some depth to the understanding of the topic, without causing chaos. But the current organization seems too limited to encompass the various forms of non-trinitarianism. So what do others think? --Mac (talk) 22:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration Movement

This article currently states that Restoration groups (which I understand to refer to the Churches of Christ, Christian Churches, and Disciples of Christ - if I am incorrect, please state this more clearly) do not believe in the trinity since the word does not appear in the Bible. This is inaccurate; while churches of Christ do not typically use the word 'trinity' for this reason, all churches of Christ that I know of believe in the doctrine of the trinity (although, since there is no central organization, there may be exceptions). This should be corrected. 24.131.79.170 (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive to Muslims and Jews

A common argument for Christian-based Nontrinitarianism is that the Trinity is offensive to Muslims and Jews. It has been made several times, it should maybe be looked up as a statement or argument. For instance, a similar comment was made by Anglican archbishop Rowan Williams. [1] ADM (talk) (talk) 16:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfC?

There is allegedly an RfC on this article started on the 17th. I don't see any evidence on the page to indicate this. Does anyone here know what the RfC was filed for, if in fact one was intentionally filed? John Carter (talk) 14:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pagan sections

The following sections mostly repeat and should be condensed to a single section: 7 Pagan origin 8 Pagan basis Fig (talk) 11:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about individuals

Extended Primary Source Quotes

Justin Martyr

Why is Justin Martyr said to be beleive Nontrinitarianism?

150 AD Justin Martyr "The Father of the universe has a Son, who also being the first begotten Word of God, is even God." (Justin Martyr, First Apology, ch 63) 150 AD Justin Martyr "Christ is called both God and Lord of hosts." (Dialogue with Trypho, ch, 36) 150 AD Justin Martyr "Moreover, in the diapsalm of the forty-sixth Psalm, reference is thus made to Christ: 'God went up with a shout, the Lord with the sound of a trumpet." (Dialogue with Trypho, ch 37) 150 AD Justin Martyr quotes Hebrews 1:8 to prove the Deity of Christ. "Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever." (Dialogue with Trypho, ch 56) 150 AD Justin Martyr "Therefore these words testify explicitly that He [Christ] is witnessed to by Him who established these things, as deserving to be worshipped, as God and as Christ." - Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 63. 150 AD Justin Martyr in Chap. LXVI. He (Justin) Proves From Isaiah That God Was Born From A Virgin. (Chapter Title, Chap. LXVI) 150 AD Justin Martyr "And Trypho said, "You endeavor to prove an incredible and well-nigh impossible thing;[namely], that God endured to be born and become man...some Scriptures which we mention, and which expressly prove that Christ was to suffer, to be worshipped, and [to be called] God, and which I have already recited to you, do refer indeed to Christ." (Dialogue with Trypho, ch 68) 150 AD Justin Martyr "But if you knew, Trypho," continued I, "who He is that is called at one time the Angel of great counsel, and a Man by Ezekiel, and like the Son of man by Daniel, and a Child by Isaiah, and Christ and God to be worshipped by David, and Christ and a Stone by many, and Wisdom by Solomon, and Joseph and Judah and a Star by Moses, and the East by Zechariah, and the Suffering One and Jacob and Israel by Isaiah again, and a Rod, and Flower, and Corner Stone, and Son of God, you would not have blasphemed Him who has now come, and been born, and suffered, and ascended to heaven; who shall also come again, and then your twelve tribes shall mourn. For if you had understood what has been written by the prophets, you would not have denied that He was God, Son of the only, unbegotten, unutterable God. For Moses says somewhere in Exodus the following: `The Lord spake to Moses, and said to him, I am the Lord, and I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, being their God; and my name I revealed not to them, and I established my covenant with them.' And thus again he says, `A man wrestled with Jacob,' and asserts it was God; narrating that Jacob said, `I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.'" (Dialogue of Justin with Trypho, A Jew, Chap. CXXVI [See also The First Apology of Justin, Chap. XIII; XXII; LXIII; Dialogue of Justin with Trypho, A Jew, Chap. XXXVI; XLVIII; LVI; LIX; LXI; C; CV; CXXV; CXXVIII) [Trypho to Justin] "...you say that this Christ existed as God before the ages, and that He submitted to be born and become man" - Dialogue with Trypho, ch.48. 150 AD 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). 150 AD Justin Martyr "Jesus Christ is the only proper Son who has been begotten by God, being His Word and first-begotten, and power; and, becoming man according to His will, He taught us these things for the conversion and restoration of the human race" (First Apology 23). 150 AD Justin Martyr "But both Him, and the Son (who came forth from Him and taught us these things, and the host of the other good angels who follow and are made like to Him), and the prophetic Spirit, we worship and adore." (Justin Martyr, First Apology, ch 6) Notice what else Justin say: "Worship God alone." (Justin Martyr, First Apology, ch 16) "Whence to God alone we render worship." (Justin Martyr, First Apology, ch 17) 150 AD Justin Martyr "God begot before all creatures a Beginning, who was a certain rational power from himself and whom the Holy Spirit calls . . . sometimes the Son, . . . sometimes Lord and Word ... We see things happen similarly among ourselves, for whenever we utter some word, we beget a word, yet not by any cutting off, which would diminish the word in us when we utter it. We see a similar occurrence when one fire enkindles another. It is not diminished through the enkindling of the other, but remains as it was" (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 61). 150 AD Justin Martyr "God speaks in the creation of man with the very same design, in the following words: 'Let us make man after our image and likeness' . . . I shall quote again the words narrated by Moses himself, from which we can indisputably learn that [God] conversed with someone numerically distinct from himself and also a rational being. . . . But this Offspring who was truly brought forth from the Father, was with the Father before all the creatures, and the Father communed with him" (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 62). 150 AD Justin Martyr [Note: Justin never says Jesus is a created angel. Justin never refers to Jesus as an angel before creation, although JW’s will falsely affirm such from the text below. Justin, however, does refer to Jesus as the "angel of the Lord" after creation in various appearances to man. Many but not all Trinitarians would have no problem affirming, along side of Justin, that Jesus as uncreated God, was referred to as the Angel of Jehovah.] "HOW GOD APPEARED TO MOSES. And all the Jews even now teach that the nameless God spake to Moses; whence the Spirit of prophecy, accusing them by Isaiah the prophet mentioned above, said "The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master's crib; but Israel doth not know Me, and My people do not understand." And Jesus the Christ, because the Jews knew not what the Father was, and what the Son, in like manner accused them; and Himself said, "No one knoweth the Father, but the Son; nor the Son, but the Father, and they to whom the Son revealeth Him." Now the Word of God is His Son, as we have before said. And He is called Angel and Apostle; for He declares whatever we ought to know, and is sent forth to declare whatever is revealed; as our Lord Himself says, "He that heareth Me, heareth Him that sent Me." From the writings of Moses also this will be manifest; for thus it is written in them, "And the Angel of God spake to Moses, in a flame of fire out of the bush, and said, I am that I am, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, the God of thy fathers; go down into Egypt, and bring forth My people." And if you wish to learn what follows, you can do so from the same writings; for it is impossible to relate the whole here. But so much is written for the sake of proving that Jesus the Christ is the Son of God and His Apostle, being of old the Word, and appearing sometimes in the form of fire, and sometimes in the likeness of angels; but now, by the will of God, having become man for the human race, He endured all the sufferings which the devils instigated the senseless Jews to inflict upon Him; who, though they have it expressly affirmed in the writings of Moses, "And the angel of God spake to Moses in a flame of fire in a bush, and said, I am that I am, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob," yet maintain that He who said this was the Father and Creator of the universe. Whence also the Spirit of prophecy rebukes them, and says, "Israel doth not know Me, my people have not understood Me." And again, Jesus, as we have already shown, while He was with them, said, "No one knoweth the Father, but the Son; nor the Son but the Father, and those to whom the Son will reveal Him." The Jews, accordingly, being throughout of opinion that it was the Father of the universe who spake to Moses, though He who spake to him was indeed the Son of God, who is called both Angel and Apostle, are justly charged, both by the Spirit of prophecy and by Christ Himself, with knowing neither the Father nor the Son. For they who affirm that the Son is the Father, are proved neither to have become acquainted with the Father, nor to know that the Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God. And of old He appeared in the shape of fire and in the likeness of an angel to Moses and to the other prophets; but now in the times of your reign, having, as we before said, become Man by a virgin, according to the counsel of the Father, for the salvation of those who believe on Him, He endured both to be set at nought and to suffer, that by dying and rising again He might conquer death. And that which was said out of the bush to Moses, "I am that I am, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, and the God of your fathers," this signified that they, even though dead, are let in existence, and are men belonging to Christ Himself. For they were the first of all men to busy themselves in the search after God; Abraham being the father of Isaac, and Isaac of Jacob, as Moses wrote." (Justin Martyr, First Apology, ch 63) 150 AD Justin Martyr "It is not on this ground solely," I said, "that it must be admitted absolutely that some other one is called Lord by the Holy Spirit besides Him who is considered Maker of all things; not solely [for what is said] by Moses, but also [for what is said] by David. For there is written by him: ‘The Lord says to my Lord, Sit on My right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool,’ as I have already quoted. And again, in other words: ‘Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever." (Dialog of Justin with Trypho, a Jew, ch 56) 150 AD Justin Martyr "Then I replied, "Reverting to the Scriptures, I shall endeavor to persuade you, that He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from Him who made all things, — numerically, I mean, not [distinct] in will. For I affirm that He has never at any time done anything which He who made the world — above whom there is no other God — has not wished Him both to do and to engage Himself with." (Dialog of Justin with Trypho, a Jew, ch 56) 150 AD Justin Martyr "… even so here, the Scripture, in announcing that the Angel of the Lord appeared to Moses, and in afterwards declaring him to be Lord and God, speaks of the same One, whom it declares by the many testimonies already quoted to be minister to God, who is above the world, above whom there is no other [God]." (Dialog of Justin with Trypho, a Jew, ch 60) 150 AD Justin Martyr "I shall give you another testimony, my friends," said I, "from the Scriptures, that God begat before all creatures a Beginning, [who was] a certain rational power [proceeding] from Himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom, again an Angel, then God, and then Lord and Logos; and on another occasion He calls Himself Captain, when He appeared in human form to Joshua the son of Nave (Nun). For He can be called by all those names, since He ministers to the Father’s will, and since He was begotten of the Father by an act of will; just as we see happening among ourselves: for when we give out some word, we beget the word; yet not by abscission, so as to lessen the word [which remains] in us, when we give it out: and just as we see also happening in the case of a fire, which is not lessened when it has kindled [another], but remains the same; and that which has been kindled by it likewise appears to exist by itself, not diminishing that from which it was kindled. The Word of Wisdom, who is Himself this God begotten of the Father of all things, and Word, and Wisdom, and Power, and the Glory of the Begetter, …" (Dialog of Justin with Trypho, a Jew, ch 60) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.174.41.241 (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please top with the endless quotes, please. We don't need to be told what the people involved said, and such data dumps are basically useless anyway. Personally, I'm not an expert in the field, so I'm not in a position to answer, and am hoping someone else will shortly. And, again, please refrain from the quotation dumps. The only thing they really accomplish is making this talk page much longer than it needs to be. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tertullian

Why is Tertullian said to be beleive Nontrinitarianism?

200 AD Tertullian "Never did any angel descend for the purpose of being crucified, of tasting death, and of rising again from the dead." (The Flesh of Christ, ch 6) 200 AD Tertullian "All the Scriptures give clear proof of the Trinity, and it is from these that our principle is deduced...the distinction of the Trinity is quite clearly displayed." (Against Praxeas, ch 11) 200 AD Tertullian "The origins of both his substances display him as man and as God: from the one, born, and from the other, not born" (The Flesh of Christ, 5:6-7). 200 AD Tertullian "[God speaks in the plural ‘Let us make man in our image’] because already there was attached to Him his Son, a second person, his own Word, and a third, the Spirit in the Word....one substance in three coherent persons. He was at once the Father, the Son, and the Spirit." (Against Praxeas, ch 12) 200 AD Tertullian "Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are, one essence, not one Person, as it is said, 'I and my Father are One' [John 10:30], in respect of unity of Being not singularity of number" (Against Praxeas, 25) 200 AD Tertullian "As if in this way also one were not All, in that All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons — the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (Against Praxeas, by Tertullian) 200 AD Tertullian "So too, that which has come forth out of God is at once God and the Son of God; and the two are one…. In his birth he is God and man united." (Apology, ch 21) 200 AD Tertullian "There is one only God, but under the following dispensation, or oikonomia, as it is called, that this one only God has also a Son, His Word, who proceeded from Himself, by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made. Him we believe to have been sent by the Father into the Virgin, and to have been born of her — being both Man and God, the Son of Man and the Son of God, and to have been called by the name of Jesus Christ; we believe Him to have suffered, died, and been buried, according to the Scriptures, and, after He had been raised again by the Father and taken back to heaven, to be sitting at the right hand of the Father, and that He will come to judge the quick and the dead; who sent also from heaven from the Father, according to His own promise, the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost. That this rule of faith has come down to us from the beginning of the gospel, even before any of the older heretics." (Against Praxeas, ch 2) 200 AD Tertullian "That there are two Gods and two Lords, however, is a statement which we will never allow to issue from our mouth; not as if the Father and the Son were not God, nor the Spirit God, and each of them God; but formerly two were spoken of as Gods and two as Lords, so that when Christ would come, he might both be acknowledged as God and be called Lord, because he is the Son of him who is both God and Lord" (Against Praxeas 13:6) 200 AD Tertullian "The Spirit is God, and the Word is God, because proceeding from God, but yet is not actually the very same as He from whom He proceeds.." (Against Praxeas, ch 26) 200 AD Tertullian "For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a judge previous to sin" (Against Hermogones, Ch 3) 200 AD Tertullian "He will be God, and the Word - the Son of God. We see plainly the twofold state, which is not confounded, but conjoined in One Person - Jesus, God and Man.." (Against Praxeas, ch 27) 200 AD Tertullian "God alone is without sin. The only man who is without sin is Christ; for Christ is also God" (The Soul 41:3) 200 AD Tertullian "We do indeed believe that there is only one God, but we believe that under this dispensation, or, as we say, oikonomia, there is also a Son of this one only God, his Word, who proceeded from him and through whom all things were made and without whom nothing was made. . . . We believe he was sent down by the Father, in accord with his own promise, the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, the Sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father and the Son, and in the Holy Spirit. . . . this rule of faith has been present since the beginning of the Gospel, before even the earlier heretics" ... "And at the same time the mystery of the oikonomia is safeguarded, for the unity is distributed in a Trinity. Placed in order, the Three are the Father, Son, and Spirit. They are three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in Being, but in form; not in power, but in kind; of one Being, however, and one condition and one power, because he is one God of whom degrees and forms and kinds are taken into account in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Against Praxeas 2). 200 AD Tertullian "While keeping to this demurrer always, there must, nevertheless, be place for reviewing for the sake of the instruction and protection of various persons. Otherwise it might seem that each perverse opinion is not examined but simply prejudged and condemned. This is especially so in the case of the present heresy [Sabellianism], which considers itself to have the pure truth when it supposes that one cannot believe in the one only God in any way other than by saying that Father, Son, and Spirit are the selfsame person. As if one were not all . . . through the unity of substance" (Against Praxeas 2:3-4) 200 AD Tertullian "Keep always in mind the rule of faith which I profess and by which I bear witness that the Father and the Son and the Spirit are inseparable from each other, and then you will understand what is meant by it. Observe now that I say the Father is other [distinct], the Son is other, and the Spirit is other. This statement is wrongly understood by every uneducated or perversely disposed individual, as if it meant diversity and implied by that diversity a separation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" (Against Praxeas, 9) 200 AD Tertullian "[W]hen God says, 'Let there be light' [Gen. 1:3], this is the perfect nativity of the Word, while he is proceeding from God. . . . Thus, the Father makes him equal to himself, and the Son, by proceeding from him, was made the first-begotten, since he was begotten before all things, and the only-begotten, because he alone was begotten of God, in a manner peculiar to himself, from the womb of his own heart, to which even the Father himself gives witness: 'My heart has poured forth my finest Word' [Ps. 45:1Against Praxeas 7:1). 200 AD Tertullian "… it is not by division that He is different, but by distinction; because the Father is not the same as the Son, since they differ one from the other in the mode of their being. For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole, as He Himself acknowledges: "My Father is greater than I." In the Psalm His inferiority is described as being "a little lower than the angels." Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son, inasmuch as He who begets is one, and He who is begotten is another; He, too, who sends is one, and He who is sent is another" (Against Praxeas, by Tertullian) 200 AD Tertullian [Just as JW’s attribute words to Tertullian that he never said. We draw your attention to the fact that the quoted words (from "Should you believe in the trinity", Watchtower booklet), "There was a time when the Son was not" are not Tertullian’s, but those of Bishop Kaye in his appendix section on Tertullian. (Bishop Kaye, Account of the Writings of Tertullian, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol 3, p 1181). Kaye, Tertullian, some Trinitarians and all Modalists teach that Jesus was eternally pre-existent as God, and that the title of "Son" was first applied to Jesus after his incarnation. Just as a man cannot be called a father, until after he has a son, so too Jesus cannot be called a Son until after he was physically born via incarnation. This is the gist of what Kaye is saying Tertullian taught. To support this, notice this comment by Tertullian,] "For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a judge previous to sin" (Against Hermogones, Ch 3) see next quote: 200 AD Tertullian [Interesting that Tertullian being a modalist, not only says there was a time before the Son became the Son, so too a time before God was the Father] Because God is in like manner a Father, and He is also a Judge; but He has not always been Father and Judge, merely on the ground of His having always been God. For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a Judge previous to sin. There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son; the former of which was to constitute the Lord a Judge, and the latter a Father. In this way He was not Lord previous to those things of which He was to be the Lord. But He was only to become Lord at some future time: just as He became the Father by the Son, and a Judge by sin, so also did He become Lord by means of those things which He had made, in order that they might serve Him. (Tertullian, Against Hermogenes, chapter 3) 200 AD Tertullian "For before all things God was alone — being in Himself and for Himself universe, and space, and all things. Moreover, He was alone, because there was nothing external to Him but Himself. Yet even not then was He alone; for He had with Him that which He possessed in Himself, that is to say, His own Reason. For God is rational, and Reason was first in Him; and so all things were from Himself. This Reason is His own Thought (or Consciousness) which the Greeks call , by which term we also designate Word or Discourse and therefore it is now usual with our people, owing to the mere simple interpretation of the term, to say that the Word was in the beginning with God;" (Against Praxeas, by Tertullian) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.174.41.241 (talk) 20:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Origen

Why is Origen said to be beleive Nontrinitarianism?

225 AD Origen "And that you may understand that the omnipotence of Father and Son is one and the same, as God and the Lord are one and the same with the Father, listen to the manner in which John speaks in the Apocalypse: "Thus saith the Lord God, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty."(3) For who else was "He which is to come" than Christ? And as no one ought to be offended, seeing God is the Father, that the Saviour is also God; so also, since the Father is called omnipotent, no one ought to be offended that the Son of God is also cared omnipotent." (De Principis, On Christ, Book 1, Ch 2) 225 AD Origen "Nothing in the Trinity can be called greater or less, since the fountain of divinity alone contains all things by His word and reason, and by the Spirit of His mouth sanctifies all things which are worthy of sanctification." (De Principis, Book I, ch. 3, section 7) 225 AD Origen "Saving baptism was not complete except by the authority of the most excellent Trinity of them all, i.e., by the naming of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." (De Principis, Book I, ch. 3, section 2) 225 AD Origen "The holy Apostles, in preaching the faith of Christ, treated with the utmost clarity of certain matters which they believed to be of absolute necessity to all believers...The specific points which are clearly handed down through the Apostolic preaching [are] these: First, that there is one God who created and arranged all things...Secondly, that Jesus Christ himself was born of the Father before all creatures...Although He was God, He took flesh, and having been made man, He remained what He was, God" (De Principis, Preface, sections 3 - 4) 225 AD Origen "For we do not hold that which the heretics imagine: that the Son was procreated by the Father from non-existent substances, that is, from a substance outside Himself, so that there was a time when He did not exist." (De Principis, Book V, Summary, section 28) 225 AD Origen "We worship one God, the Father and the Son." (Against Celsus, Book VIII, section 12) 225 AD Origen "The specific points which are clearly handed down through the apostolic preaching are these: First, that there is one God who created and arranged all things, and who, when nothing existed, called all things into existence, and that in the final period this God, just as he had promised beforehand through the prophets, sent the Lord Jesus Christ. Secondly, that Jesus Christ himself, who came, was born of the father before all creatures; and after he had ministered to the father in the creation of all things, for through him all things were made" ... "Although he was God, he took flesh; and having been made man, he remained what he was. God" (The Fundamental Doctrines 1:0:4). 225 AD Origen "For we do not hold that which the heretics imagine: that some part of the Being of God was converted into the Son, or that the Son was procreated by the Father from non-existent substances, that is, from a Being outside himself, so that there were a time when he [the Son] did not exist" ... "No, rejecting every suggestion of corporeality, we hold that the Word and the Wisdom was begotten out of the invisible and incorporeal God, without anything corporal being acted upon . . . the expression which we employ, however that there was never a time when he did not exist is to be taken with a certain allowance. For these very words `when' and `never' are terms of temporal significance, while whatever is said of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, is to be understood as transcending all time, all ages, and all eternity" ... "For it is the Trinity alone which exceeds every sense in which not only temporal but even eternal may be understood. It is all other things, indeed, which are outside the Trinity, which are to be measured by time and ages" (The Fundamental Doctrines 4:4:1). 225 AD Origen "While we have been sketching the proof of the divinity of Jesus, we have made use of the prophetic statements concerning him, and have at the same time demonstrated that the writings which prophesied about him are divinely inspired" (The Fundamental Doctrines, 4:1:6). 225 AD Origen "So also Wisdom, since he proceeds from God, is generated from the very substance of God" (Commentary on Hebrews). 225 AD Origen "In what follows, some may imagine that he says something plausible against us. "If," says he, "these people worshipped one God alone, and no other, they would perhaps have some valid argument against the worship of others. But they pay excessive reverence to one who has but lately appeared among men, and they think it no offence against God if they worship also His servant." To this we reply, that if Celsus had known that saying," I and My Father are one," and the words used in prayer by the Son of God, "As Thou and I are one, he would not have supposed that we worship any other besides Him who is the Supreme God. "For," says He, "My Father is in Me, and I in Him." And if any should from these words be afraid of our going over to the side of those who deny that the Father and the Son are two persons, let him weigh that passage, "And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul," that he may understand the meaning of the saying, "I and My Father are one." We worship one God, the Father and the Son, therefore, as we have explained; and our argument against the worship of other gods still continues valid. And we do not "reverence beyond measure one who has but lately appeared," as though He did not exist before; for we believe Himself when He says, "Before Abraham was, I am." Again He says, "I am the truth; " and surely none of us is so simple as to suppose that truth did not exist before the time when Christ appeared. We worship, therefore, the Father of truth, and the Son, who is the truth; and these, while they are two, considered as persons or subsistences, are one in unity of thought, in harmony and in identity of will. So entirely are they one, that he who has seen the Son, "who is the brightness of God’s glory, and the express image of His person," has seen in Him who is the image, of God, God Himself." (Origen Against Celsus, book 8, chapter 12, 225 AD) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.174.41.241 (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps huge chunks of primary sources were not the way to go about it, but the IP above brings up the good point that the list of individuals, without sourcing to strong secondary sources, seems a bit arbitrary and arguable. I would think that if individuals were notable for their nontrinitarian ideas, it would be noted in the general text of the article, and backed by refs. AthanasiusQuicumque vult 17:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Every individual who accepted the Logos Christology cannot be an Orthodox Trinitarian for a very simple reason: The core of the Logos Christology is that Logos is between of the Sovereing God and the created cosmos. This is how Philo taught it, and this is how the 2nd and 3rd century Fathers taught it. In other words, Logos was considered in principio ontological inferior to the God Almighty. I don't believe that any scholar of the field would deny this.

In addition, the majority of the Fathers, before Origen, who believed in the Logos Christology accepted that the Son of God was not co-eternal as a person with God. They taught, as Philo did, that Logos endiathetos, that is the Reason of God, was expressed as Logos proforikos, uttered, and then Logos became a person. Only with the addition of the platonic timeless generation doctrine by Origen the idea of co-eternity of the Father and the Son as persons was established. As regards this idea the New Catholic Encyclopedia admitts:

"In fact, even Tertullian seems to think (Adv. Hermog. 3) that God is neither Son nor, in the strictly personal sense, Father until ‘‘after’’ the coming forth of the Word with a view to creation. Side remarks in his treatise against Praxeas show more conclusively still that a concept of truly eternal generation or nativity was not yet current [circa 200 C.E.]".—R. L. RICHARD/W. J. HILL/EDS, "Trinity", The New Catholic Encyclopedia, Gale, 2003, Vol. 14, p. 192.

More details in the article in the future. See the five stages of the formulation of the Trinigy under the subtitle Origin.

--Vassilis78 (talk) 06:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pagan origin vs. pagan basis

I am not expert in this field but it appears to me that the sections pagan origin and pagan basis either need to be merged or differentiated. — Robert Greer (talk) 13:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secularism, Modernism, and Pluralism

It would be interesting if the article could mention the impact of certain contemporary philosophical trends such as secularism, modernism and pluralism in the development of anti-trinitarianism and/or nontrinitarianism. For instance, many of the proponents of the historical Jesus quest tried to redefine christology in a way that excluded a proper understanding of what is meant by Christ's divinity, which placed them in a de facto position of undermining the doctrinal basis of Nicea's Trinitarian belief. Also, certain currents of thought within the interfaith movement tend to emphasize the political or doctrinal harmony of religions in a way that is arguably nontrinitarian, in that it presents Jesus as an admirable humanist or a remarkable socio-political liberator. ADM (talk) 08:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Misunderstanding of Church Fathers

This article shows a great misunderstanding of the early church and the entire section of people who are nontrinitarians is simply ridiculous and filled with error. Just because the Trinity hadn't been formulated does not mean that the ideas were not in the early church fathers. The view that the church fathers espoused a non-trinitarian formula is only an opinion and it should not be presented as factual as it is in this article. Therefore I am going to go through the article and delete the instances that lack citation or that simply are inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ic2705 (talkcontribs) 04:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Important editing

I have edited this article substantially based on three criteria: 1. Lack of citations and thus pure speculation and opinion that has been presented. 2. Declaration of something as if it is factual when it is not. For instance I deleted many of the early church fathers as being people who supported nontrinitarianism because their teachings are up for interpretation and it is unfair to present them as belonging to any view which they did not clearly articulate, and which is heavily debated. 3. I added to the introduction to reflect the reality that nontrinitarinism is full-heartedly rejected by historical Christianity. This is simply a fact and it should surely be part of the introduction of this topic since it is integral to an encyclopedic understaning of the issue.

I expect people to undo my editings (as in fact one person already has, however this person did not follow guidelines for undoing edits by summarizing and explaining why the edits were undone). I implore anyone who does not like what I did to discuss your disagreement on the talk page and to at least be courteous enough to explain what you are doing in the summary. I have documented what I have done on the edit summaries and on this discussion page. Everything I have done is fully in line with WP standards. Thank you. --Ic2705 (talk) 09:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vasillis 78, I am willing to discuss the changes and come to an agreement, but if you want to play "edit tag" I am up for the game. You have given no reason for undoing the edits, have not discussed it, nor even attempted to explain yourself. It appears you simply do not like what I am adding and subtracting because you don't like the facts. I have done nothing but present the facts. It is impossible to present the early church fathers to be on either side of the view and thus it is mere speculation to present them as such. The least you could do is provide some citations to show why you believe these church fathers held the views they suggested. This is simply WP standard. As for the paragraph I insert in the intro, I am merely stating reality and I have given citations, I could give you many more if you would like. Whether you like it or not the vast majority of Nicene Christianity rejects nontrinitarian formulas and would not even consider them to be Christian in any sense of the term except as herectics. This is reality and thus the article must reflect it, not your opinion. I'm willing to talk but you seem to not care, so I'll continue undoing your edits without further explanation. --Ic2705 (talk) 02:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The facts are what I have writen above (see Question about persons): the Logos Christology. If you know what is this, you will understand me. As you see, above the New Catholic Encyclopedia admitts that at least till Tertulian the eternal generation of the Son was unknown. This is enough for someone not to be an Orthodox Trinitarian. More citations will be provided for each one of the ante-Nicence Fathers, as you wished. Actually, I am the one who has put the most citations in this article.--Vassilis78 (talk) 06:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you finally being willing to discuss why you have been undoing my edits. What you say has some merit but it is only one way of looking at the situation. In other words it seems to me that you are presenting one way of looking at church history, a way which has been disputed for years,and has been rejected by many more than it has been accepted. As an encylopedic article a presentation of reality should be made in a way that a student studying the subject will get a grasp of both the historical reality, the language, the figures and so on. Throughout this article the Orthodox, historical, offical Christian understanding has been attacked in a way that makes nontrinitarinism seem like the correct perspective and historically accurate. This is simply not the reality of the situation. The term "Christian" has developed over the thousands of years of Church history to have a particular meaning. A Christian is someone who believe in the Triune God. This means a nontriniarian theology may be a good theology, or it may not be, but it is not a "Christian theology" according to the correct understanding of the term as validated by historical precedance. This means that at the least the fact that nontrinitarianism differs from the essentials of historical Christianity as the term has been come to be used should be mentioned for the article to give the reality of the situation.--Ic2705 (talk) 03:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the final section about Controversy of status. What is given is bascially the nontrinitarian viewpoint and it is defended. How is this neutral? Let me get it straight. If a historical, orthodox Christian POV is presented it's not neutral, but if a nontrinitarian view is presented it is neutral? It seems both sides need to be presented because the debate still goes on and no dictionary, encylopedia or scholars have any authority to declare it either way. If anything the default should be to the historical and orthodoxy perspective and certainly not to the minimal nontrinitarinism which has been rejected by Christianity over and over again from the beginning and thus only claims to be Christian with their own authority and precedence. --Ic2705 (talk) 03:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This argument has been hashed over numerous times on other pages, most notably on Talk:Christianity. The established precedence on Wikipedia is that nontrinitarian groups, such as unitarians, LDS, and Jehovah Witnesses, are included as part of Christianity. That's why they are included at Christianity and List of Christian denominations and other higher level pages. That is why these same groups are included under "Christian" groups on pages giving religious demographics for populations. Even on the Christian page, a Christian is "one who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or lives the lifestyle based on the life and teachings of Jesus; one who lives according to the teachings of Jesus." Hmmm, no mention of a required trinitarian theology. More importantly, scholarly reliable sources (such as the Pew Forum's The Religious Composition of the United States) include these groups as part of Christianity. If you can get the editors to agree on those much higher level pages that nontrinitarian theology groups should not be included as a "Christian theology" then we might have something to talk about.
As to the neutrality of this article, I think that there are definite areas that need work, but most of the nontrinitarian views and criticisms of trinitarianism are properly attributed thus satisfying the NPOV requirement, ie the article doesn't say that the nontrinitarians are correct but simply reports that this is what nontrinitarians believe. But stating categorically without citation that nontrinitarian are distinct and outside of Christianity (certainly we can say that they are outside of mainstream Christianity) and that "Nontrinitarian Christianity" is a paradox is an unacceptable lack of NPOV. As an editor said one of the last times this came up over at Christianity, "Can we nip this discussion in the bud? We've had it before. We'll have it again. The shorter it is, the better. We refer to JWs and Mormons as Christians whether they "really" are or not." --FyzixFighter (talk) 06:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fyzix, has struck the right foundation...it depends upon the definition of Christan. What IC has done is use the definition of 4th century Christianity; a definition that could easily be used to demonstrate that all of the early apostles were heretics because none of them demonstrated a belief in the Trinity. Much of the scholarship of the last 75 years has completely debunked the one time belief that from the time of Christ to the 4th century there was only one doctrine or one Christianity. The facts are that Christianity held many teachings and that there was no "orthodoxy" in existence.
All that is needed to demonstrate the beliefs of patristic fathers is the quote of a reliable source or, if the primary text is absolutely clear, quote the father himself.
Christianity is not defined by individual churches or their doctrines. It defined by those who follow Jesus Christ; believe that he lived, died, was resurrected, and will return. There is no belief, no doctrine, greater than that teaching and that is the definition used to define Christianity.
Within Christianity you have a goodly number of followers who demand belief in the Trinity and in the catholic church. There are others who don't believe in the catholic church or its doctrines. Can one follow Jesus Christ and not be part of the catholic church? Of course, I have yet to hear of anyone being appointed by God to define the sole, absolute teachings of being a Christian.
The sole purpose of this article is to explain what non trinitarian beliefs are, who possesses them and why. I think the article already clearly stated that there is a Trinitarian position possesed by the majority of Christianity. For more information, see the Trinity article. --StormRider 14:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Storm Rider, I disagree with everything you said. The "scholarship" of the last 75 years doesn't show anything of the sort, except maybe your own chosen scholars. I could bring just as many current scholars that would argue differently. Christians have always known that the development of doctrine was not one straight line, and that is not what good Christian scholars hold. Christians hold that there were variant doctrinal strands but that the teachings of the apostles as defined by the the line of leadership the apostles appointed remained intact and as the centuries progressed the correct (orthodox) belief was defined, defended and handed down. You are also incorrect to say that the definition I use is from the 4th century. This of course would be based on your readings of the fathers. It is true that a clear definition of the Trinity is not articulated but the seminal understanding is surely present in the fathers. In fact the formulators of he Nicene Creed used the Scriptures, the Fathers, and their own ordained leadership to articulate the Trinity. So a more correct way to say it is this: I use the definition as clearly articulated and handed down from the 4th by the leaders of the church who were in the line of the apostles, a definition which has defined Christianity for 17 centuries and continues to do so, and also a definitions which rejected and made unChristian all other articulations of doctrine.

What I find ironic is that you contradict yourself. You say: "Christianity is not defined by individual churches or their doctrines" (which is simply your unsubstantiated claim against the centuries of Christian proclamation). But then you go on to do just that, you give a definition of what you believe Christainity is! The fact is this article is against the historical, theological, and ecclesiastical precedence and it defines Christianity in its own terms as if it has some insight on truth. It is not neutral and this neutrality has been questioned by many, as can be seen by the archives. Likely WP will allow it to stay the way it is because that is usually how it rules on matters as such, but there is no doubt that at the least "nontrinitarian Christianity" is a paradox and a non-existent entity and is akin to saying: A black rainbow. No such thing exist, is is a distinct entity which is in its own category such as: Unorthodox Christian doctrines and sects. This would be not only historically and theologically accurate but also true to current reality. That's what an encyclopedia is supposed to do, present the reality, whether people like it or not.