The Gap Theory of Genesis

They quoted early Christians. Are you saying that the early Christians didn't understand the Trinity when clearly their writings show that they did? I don't care what a modern scholar says, if these early Christians are talking about the Trinity and show they have a clear understanding of it, then that is a more sure witness than a later scholar. I don't care how smart the scholar is, the contemporary witness is always better, and looking at writings of that era reveal that early Christians did understand the Trinity. To say they didn't is to go against clear evidence to the contrary.

All those verses I gave don't mention the term trinity. That's because trinity is a man made term. We talk all the time about the sovereignty of God, yet that term is not in the scriptures either. It is a man made term to describe something taught across scripture. The trinity is the same way. The bible uses the term Godhead. Man coined the term Trinity to describe what the bible taught concerning the Godhead. The council of Nicea didn't figure all of this out themselves but rather the church had always believed these things concerning God and they got those things from scripture. They took scripture and gleaned from it that it taught a 3 in one Godhead, all three "persons" being equal in power, one in essence, yet distinct. The scriptures I quoted, when all of them are put together, including those I failed to quote, form a doctrine of a Triune Godhead. It is taught in the scriptures, which is where Christians get authority to declare that we believe in one God, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. If it wasn't taught in the scriptures, and wasn't understood by the early church, it would have been a new teaching, not in line with the faith once delivered to the saints, and would have therefore been heresy. Are you going to, now, deny the Trinity? I hope not. If not, upon what authority do you claim it to be true? I say the scriptures teach it. If they do not, as you have concluded, then you are believeing in a man-made doctrine and have no authority.

 

First of all I have many writings of the ECF in my library at home and you haven't given me a referrence for them. You have given me a referrence to a message board hardly the work of a scholar and to a general wiki referrence. Give me book and page and I will look at it.
That being said. You have to ask to what level of the trinity are they speaking about. when the work was writen. Progressive revelation happens over time and becomes more spelled out over time. I'm saying they had a general knowledge of the Trinity some more than others but it wasn't dogmatically defined until 325 AD.

BTW all terms are man made.

 

Jude said God had once delivered (past tense) the faith to the saints. Do you deny this?

 

I tend to go with the context of the passage. This is what Jude says

It is clear that "once delivered" is to a specific issue that was delivered. Mainly Salvation and the grace thereby given in contrast to using the grace as an excuse for immorality. This passage means the very simple message of the Gospel that 1) we were dead in our sins 2) that while we were yet sinners christ died for us 3) that we are made right with God and have access to eternal life. So there is the basic gospel that was sent and passed on by the apostles. Stricter deffinitions for many things like the trinity came later.

 

The Didache 7:3

Ignatius to Smyrna Chapters 1 and 3

Ignatius to the Magnesians Chapter 13

Polycarp 12:2

Clement of Alexandria Stromata Book V chapter 14

Tertullian On the flesh of Christ Chapter 5

And the kicker and clincher on this debate, which I will quote in full

Tertullian Against Praxeas Chapter 2:

"In the course of time, then, the Father forsooth was born, and the Father suffered,God Himself, the Lord Almighty, whom in their preaching they declare to be Jesus Christ. We, however, as we indeed always have done and more especially since we have been better instructed by the Paraclete, who leads men indeed into all truth), believe that 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, much more before Praxeas, a pretender of yesterday, will be apparent both from the lateness of date which marks all heresies, and also from the absolutely novel character of our new-fangled Praxeas. In this principle also we must henceforth find a presumption of equal force against all heresies whatsoever -- that whatever is first is true, whereas that is spurious which is later in date. But keeping this prescriptive rule inviolate, still some opportunity must be given for reviewing (the statements of heretics), with a view to the instruction and protection of divers persons; were it only that it may not seem that each perversion of the truth is condemned without examination, and simply prejudged; especially in the case of this heresy, which supposes itself to possess the pure truth, in thinking that one cannot believe in One Only God in any other way than by saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are the very selfsame Person. 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. How they are susceptible of number without division, will be shown as our treatise proceeds."

Heresies were around prior to 325 and men knew how to handle heresy with scripture prior to 325.

 

I'll look at the other passages you presented and get back with you. But I wanted to mention a couple of things from your quote of Tertullian. 1) Tertullian lived in the 3rd Century when the begining of this fight began. He uses the term substance which is new in the debate as is person. And yes he brings forth his defence from what he states as

which I find humorous and brings about my second point. You are appealing to the Deposit of faith based on the Tradition as passed down by the Apostles rather that scripture alone. So in this case you hold to the deposit since scripture doesn't meet out your defense in which case you apeal to the age old Catholic fall back Tradition. I must laugh :laugh:
Now that asside the term trinity is firsed used by Theophilus at the end of the 2nd century befor tertullian. But it was not dogmatically defined as trinity until 325 AD. Tertullian expresses the believe as I have already pointed out God the father, God the son, and god the Holy spirit and all are one. He initiates two new terms of person and substance. which are both applied at nicea.

And note I'm not sure the Aposltes would have used the terms substance or persons in their deposit but the trinity idea was put accross from the begining as I've suggested but on more general terms.

 

You are quite good at circular arguments. Your cheif argument was that the early church didn't understand the Trinity as we do today, and that this wasn't accomplished until 325. Thus, I brought forth the following argument:

1) Jesus, the apostles, and the scriptures taught the doctrine of a Triune Godhead, thus the early church understood it well
2) that number 1 is proven by the fact that the early church fathers understood the doctrine and defended it against heretics
3) that the early church fathers pointed to the fact that it had always been understood, that it wasn't a new doctrine or something they had just figured out, and that which is new is heresy and that which is old is sound

To all of this you can do nothing but resort to name calling and circular reasoning. I have abundantly proven that the early church understood the triune aspect of God in extremely well defined terms such that they could refute heresy. I have abundantly proven that the scriptures teach this, the Lord and His apostles taught this, and thus the early church understood this, to which the early church fathers also themselves witness. To all of this evidence, which I say is a mountain of evidence, you have name calling and circular reasoning.

 

No I suggested that the early Church understood the trinity on general terms. More descriptive terms came in use over time culminating with doctrinal definition in 325. So you've mistated my argument. What I find funny is that you appeal to a deposit which the same as the catholic does. Don't you find that humorous?

 

You keep trying to throw that on me when I clearly stated my argument. My argument was the early church understood this doctrine as well as we do today because they had been taught by the Lord, the apostles, and the scriptures. The early church fathers stated that it had always been believed from the beginning of the gospel. They support my position. Furthermore, the early church fathers, in refuted heresy and supporting the well established trinitarian doctrine, quoted extensively from scripture. They, too, understood these things from scripture. It wasn't tradition, it was a historic belief gained from the Lord, the apostles, and the scriptures. Since you have a hard time with this, I'll give you an example. Baptists have historically believed in believers baptism by immersion. Is that tradition? No, it was gained from the scriptures and it is proven today by the scriptures, not history. Thus we would say that Baptists historically believe in baptism by immersion only for believers, but rest the proof on scripture. In much the same way the early church fathers were saying the belief in a Triune Godhead, equal in power, one in essense, yet distinct was a historic belief of the church from day one, yet they rested their proofs on scripture. This isn't catholic tradition, and you know it. That is an attempt to undermine an argument you can't refute.

Cocerning me misrepresenting your argument, here's what I said: You are arguing that the early church didn't understand the Trinity the way we do today. You say they understood general terms but not specific, while we today understand specifics. Thus, you are saying they didn't understand it like we do today. The problem is Tertullian did understand it that in depth and he says that is what the church always believed from the beginning of the gospel. Thus, they didn't have only a general understanding, but a specific one well defined enough to spot and refute the heresy that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all the same person. Your argument has holes shot all in it, and you know it, thus resorting to these tactics.

 

Not at all you are espousing that the first century christians had the doctrine spelled out specifically as dogmatically defined with the apostles rather than development. Scripture "alludes" to the Trinity it doesn't spell it out as you are asserting. My assertion is non other than is repeated here by a different author.

I've said nothing in contradiction to this. You on the otherhand make suggestion that specifics mentioned here were at the very begining. My suggestion is that generally yes specifically no. And as our understanding and doctrine grows so does our understanding of the bible. Certainly we know more of the bible now then they did 200 years ago. Especially with all the recent finds.

 

I think we have gotten off the subject... of the gap theory! LOL.. and I admit it's my fault by saying that God has progressively revealed stuff to us humans as we have been able to understand things... I used the subject of the Trinity as an example.

And keeping this example, the Hebrews had NO concept of the Trinity.
And many things, even Paul said were mysteries until Jesus came.

Some would include the "rapture" into this category of progressive knowledge.
Since the church never talked of a pre-trib rapture until the 1800s.

The point I am making is that there is a lot of things we don't know.
HOW exactly God created the world is one of those things.
But he has given us the details he wants us to know for now.

God will only reveal to humans what HE wants us to know, nothing more.

If we knew everything, we would be God.. and it would blow our minds.

Of course that desire has been with us since Adam ate of the tree of KNOWLEDGE of good and evil. That desire to find out more is ingrained in us humans as much as original sin is.

Sorry the thread was hijacked...

 

That's what I was trying to say!... you did it much better...

More observable evidence increases our knowledge, no matter what field we are studying... be it Theology, or Geology.

 

You are making guesses, I'm showing evidence. The evidence shows from their own writings that they did have a specific understanding of the doctrine.

 

There is a stark difference between the Hebrews before Jesus came and God's people during and after Jesus' life on this earth. Jesus brought life and immortality to life through the gospel. The Jews didn't have a good concept of the trinity prior to Christ because He hadn't brought it to light yet. He did in the NT, not later on by some church council.

Rapture is an example of a late developing belief, something not held by the early church. It's not progressive revelation, it's inventive imagination.

Concerning creation, God gave us everything we need to know how He created the world and when in the scriptures. If He didn't, we are hopelessly mired in never knowing.

 

I partly agree with your very last statement.

- He didn't -

- Well, never knowing fully. But we're comfortable in not understaning the Trinity fully. And Creation is just as much a mystery as the trinity. And as my knowledge of God grows so will my knowledge of these other areas.

 

No guesses at all. In fact I quote another author with the same premise. It is clear Turtullian advanced the consept of the trinity by developing two terms into the discussion of the Dogma. Substance and person. Before that the trinity was not spoken of in that manner.

 

It is clear the Tertillian said the church had always believed what he was writing. He said they believed it from the beginning of the gospel.

 

You can always believe something. Like I believed Jesus Christ was my savior when I first put my trust in him but since then I've learned so many things about how salvation is afforded but I can always say I always believed it though I didn't know the specific details.

 

Here's what he actually wrote:

"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, much more before Praxeas, a pretender of yesterday, will be apparent both from the lateness of date which marks all heresies, and also from the absolutely novel character of our new-fangled Praxeas."

This was something he said they had an understanding of. Not simplying believing in a 3 in one Godhead, but believing that they are one in essence, equal in power, yet distinct. In other words, he didn't advance the doctrine, he explicitly states that Christians had always had an understanding of this doctrine equal to this. They didn't merely believe in a Triune Godhead, they believed in one who has one essence, yet the Father, Word, and Holy Ghost are distinct and equal in power. In his own words he didn't advance anything, he merely stated the historic understanding of the church regarding the Triune Godhead. I realize that you don't want to admit that what he wrote denies your argument, and that you'd rather wrest his words, but clearly he is refuting your argument and you should admit it and move on.

 

And note in that monologue he adds two terms never used before. Therefore his understanding of it has highten to include them. Maybe he had a better understanding of it. Like physics we always knew there were atoms but not necisssarily how they were composed but know we do.