Why Do Protestants Believe In The Trinity?

[Brother Adam]

awww....shucks :sadder:

[Circle_Master]

This is a silly idea anyway since the Bible is not, and has never been intended as a blue-print for Christianity divorced from Tradition or the life of the Church Christ instituted. The Jews were Jews first of all because they belonged to the Jewish community, the Bible (OT) was the main authoritative collection of books representing their tradition, it was the heart and soul of their religion but it wasn't the totality of their religion by any means. And the concept of a lone Jew figuring out Judaism for himself from the OT without reference to the historical Jewish community is completely foreign. This is true also for fulfilled Judaism in the Church Christ established.

I would agree with that except if you notice in much of the gospels Jesus says 'you have heard it said.... but I say to you....' redefining what their 'tradition' was. And he always went back to 'it is written', and not 'it is said... and it is true...'. While the concept of a lone Jew figuring out Judaism for himself is truly impossible, I agree completely a lone Christian today with Scriptures will never understand the bible for what it is. You misrepresent the protestant hermeneutics to say otherwise.

Another tough call for protesants who want to claim that they are strictly "bible-only" is the fact of Sunday worship. Where is that in the Bible? The Bible says that the Sabbath is the seventh day, namely Saturday. Why do protestants worship on Sunday? Maybe groups such as the Seventh Day Adventists are more bible-only, but hey, they still have quite a few extra-biblical protestant traditions even if they won't admit it, and you'll have to get used to the teachings of William Miller and Ellen Gould White. And you'll have to follow some dietary restrictions based on the mosaic law and forget about hell because the damned are in fact anihilated by the teachings of this sects founders.

Bible only that almost all educated protestants use is Sola Scriptura, not Solo Scriptura. Sola uses Church History, it uses secular History, it uses grammer, linguistics, theology previously given, etc. So when you say Bible-only, remember that we study based on the entire scope of history to test and rest and figure out what the words mean. The bible is always the ultimate authority, but what is a figure of speech, what isn't, what is an idiom, what isn't, what is this prophecy referring to, what it isn't, etc. can be severely enlightened from research. The trinity it itself is rather clear and takes some twisted or incorrect grammer usage (such as Mormon's) and just that the very early church all spoke it without consideration shows it was an understood thought of the time. All of this research works to look at how the mosaic law does apply today - I could recommend 'Five views on the Law' with contributions by L. Moo and Walter Kaiser, and some others. Rather decent work and interesting to read. There are many students of the Old Testament to understand our role today in response to what has been previously revealed. Catholic Scholars do much of the same as well, I don't see as much research there in this area though, not sure why. As far as I know nothing of the antithesis of the Law has been made dogmatic.

[Jake Huether]

Sola Scriptura, not Solo Scriptura

Can someone verify that there is an actual "solo scriptura". First of all, I've never heard of "solo" Scritpura. And I know that these words are Latin. But if they are anything like spanish, then there wouldn't be a "solo" Scriptura, since the noun is feminine, then it would have to be "sola". Essentially Solo and Sola mean the same exact thing then in context (meaning only).

Is this one more point that Protestants will disagree on. I'm not taking a jab, Circle. I'm just curious. Because I've honestly never heard even a protestant bring this point up: the difference between solo and sola.

According to your definition then of Sola Scriptura, you would almost HAVE to be Catholic. Because all our Doctrines and Dogmas are Historically, etc., etc., backed up.

And you mentioned that the Church has changed. And I wanted to ask you how so? I'v done a bit of studying over the years and have never found a Catholic Teaching on Faith and Morals that has changed. No doctrine has changed. I can't find it. Indeed, disciplines have changed. But that is expected, as disciplines have nothing do do with doctrine or Teaching.

[Jake Huether]

I was tipped off about a link that helped me understand the difference between sola and solo scriptura.

Although, technically speaking, solo and sola mean the same thing, it appears that a certain someone "coined" the term "solo" in order to differentiate it from the "true" teaching of sola scriptura.

In any case... I would like to post parts of this website and add a few comments. Hopefully I will be able to learn more about this subject:

From: http://www.visionforumministries.org/secti...f_scripture.asp

This message is an expansion of the NCFIC Confession Article I "Scripture is Sufficient," which states:

We affirm that our all-wise God has revealed Himself and His will in a completed revelation -- the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments -- which is fully adequate in both content and clarity for "everything pertaining to life (salvation) and godliness (sanctification)" including the ordering of the church and the family (2 Pet. 1:3-4; 1 Tim. 3:15).

It is interesting that there are no Scriptural passages deliniating which letters and writings were to be chosen. Neither does it give the number 66 as the final sum of those writings. So, now, I'm wondering, once the Apostles died, where was the written Scripture that gave the early Church the knowledge of which writings were Scripture??

In recent history, the Bible has faced attack both from without and from within. It is no surprise, of course, that the unbelieving world would assault God's Word in an effort to destroy the God who holds them accountable. It is likewise understandable that the cults -- Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, etc. -- would add to, subtract from, and cleverly twist the Scriptures to fashion a God of their own making. But how does the church -- even the most conservative and faithful -- do violence to Scripture and thus bring a famine in the land for God's Word?

But didn't the father of Protestantism also subtract books?? How do they justify the change in books from before the 1500's to after??

Make no mistake: the ultimate matter in question is the authority of Scripture -- and Scripture's God -- over our life and our opinions. Is there an authoritative God who guides and governs His creatures with an authoritative standard, or are we left to our own imaginations and devices? Does the Bible really speak with authority about how to order our families, how to rear our children, how to conduct church, and a host of other issues including abortion, euthanasia, evolution, homosexuality, bioethics, divorce, politics, and even debt? If so, then where God speaks, it is man's duty to hear and to obey.

Great Question!

Dr. John MacArthur's Sufficiency of Scripture lectures warn that the Evangelical (and Fundamental and Reformed) churches have been duped into believing that marketing techniques are required to build the church, entertainment is needed to communicate the Gospel, psychology is essential to solve people's problems, and social theory must redefine the role of women and homosexuals in the church. After all, the Bible was written thousands of years ago during the time of man's ignorance of modern science and thought. Most pastors would deny the charge that they don't really believe in the sufficiency of Scripture. But as Vision Forum president Doug Phillips insightfully explains, "Most Christians today live as practical humanists."

So true!

The Problem -- autonomy

As stated above, the ultimate issue in question is the authority of the Bible over our lives. Who is in charge? Who gets the final word? And the way that men (even saved but sinful men) avoid God's authority is through autonomy: a self-determination that pursues self-sufficiency producing self-rule. It may not be an "intentional" self-determination -- indeed we may be unthinkingly swept along by the influences of our culture -- but the outcome is the same: a self-sufficiency (in place of God's sufficiency through His Word) that results in self-rule.

But then who's to blame them? There are a few underlying problems that aren't mentioned or discussed, namely:

They were handed a Bible. If one cannot personally interpret the Bible without first knowing the history, etc., then one shouldn't have the Bible in their hands. The reformers certainly didn't pass along a bulletine with a warning when they handed out copies of the Bible. Neither do Protestants nowadays. If the Bible cannot be personally interpeted, and if it is dangerous to do it, why is there no warning to "Bible toating Christians". And indeed, if this is the case, then when is one prepared to read and understand the Word of God. Must one take history classes. Must one first be a scholar in early church history? When can one personally read the Bible without fearing the results of peronal opinion or bias slipping in?? Is there a difinitive time or circumstance?

If the Bible can be interpreted wrongly, then who's to interpret it?

Those who have sidestepped (even inadvertently) the authority of a fully sufficient Bible have strayed in two opposite directions. The Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and authoritarian cults have wrongly given autonomy and final authority to the Church.

Although, the author of this article actually indirectly gives authority to the Catholic Church, because without the Catholic Church he wouldn't know that his 66 books were inspired by God.

And what he fails to realize is that because of our submission to the Church, we MUST necessarily submit to Scripture. He is implying that the Church is above Scripture, when the Church supports and in fact wrote the Scriptures! If we were against the Church, we would have to be against Scripture, and vise versa!

Our knee-jerk response is to think this error is surely not to be found in our camp. But think again. Even some Fundamental and Reformed churches have drifted into an authoritarian church polity that speaks "almost infallibly" whenever the pastor preaches or the church leadership decides an issue. In place of sola Scriptura they have substituted sola ecclesia resulting in an autonomous church.

Agreed.

At the other end of the spectrum are those who, in reaction to an authoritarian church, have skirted a fully sufficient Bible by giving autonomy and final authority to the individual's conscience and reason. They assert that every believer has the unfettered right to interpret the Scriptures not only for himself but by himself. Interpretation, according to this view, is strictly an individual matter. In place of sola Scriptura they have substituted SOLO Scriptura (a term coined by Douglas Jones of Credenda/Agenda), resulting in a privatized religion, theological chaos, false doctrines, endless schisms, and thousands of denominations.

Here's where I was taught the difference between the two. Although it seems to me then that Sola Scriptura is just another "doctrine" which resulted from an outgrowth of SOLO Scriptura. Or maybe Solo Scriptura is a word used by a Sola Scripturist in order to defend his doctrine by pointing out error in another doctrine. Really, both "doctrines" are man-made traditions. It looks as though SOLO Scriptura is a straw-man created by Sola's in order to make their doctrine look like the correct one. (paraphrase) 'Catholics and the like give authority to the Church, SOLO Scripturists give authority to the individual, so we, the SOLA Scripturists are right - because we give the Authority to God". But then you ask a SOLO, and they tell you that they give Authority to God. And you ask a Catholic, and they'll tell you that they are serving God too. So, now we're back at the begining: who's right?

As Keith Mathison rightly concludes in his scholarly treatise, The Shape of sola Scriptura, "most Protestants have adopted a subjective and individualistic version of sola Scriptura that bears little resemblance to the doctrine of the Reformers" (p. 14). Historically, this viewpoint came to us not from the Reformers (such as Luther and Calvin) but from those who were known as the Radical Anabaptists (or Radical Reformers). In reaction to the Roman Catholics making the Church a law unto itself, the Radical Anabaptists made the individual a law unto himself.

Point taken. They MUST be right since the others are wrong??

With few exceptions, solo Scriptura -- the autonomy of individual conscience and reason -- is the perspective that underlies both the consumer-driven mega churches and the leaderless house churches. Most mega churches use solo Scriptura to justify everything from church rock bands to female worship leaders. And many house churches use it to hide from any form of church authority. But as Mathison warns, "Anarchy is not the cure for tyranny. The autonomy of the individual is equally as dangerous as the autonomy of the pope or of the Church" (p. 153).

The Solution -- sola Scriptura

LOL. Like I said. Anyway. We'll continue.

Sola Scriptura literally means "Scripture alone."

And therein lies the problem. Scripture alone is silent! It needs a voice. And the voice is 1) the Church, 2.) the individual, 3) the Holy Spirit, or 4) a combo of the others.

But since the Church claims it's led by the Spirit. The individuals believe they are led by the Spirit, and even this authore would tell you that... Then... Um. Who has the Spirit!?

I'll tell you right now, the Catholic Church is the ONLY church, the only entitiy that has never changed it's interpritation of Scripture. Nor has she ever changed her Teachings.

Individuals come and go. Churches begin and die out or change to keep with the times. Even this Solo / sola thing will come to pass. But the Church never.

In How God Wants Us to Worship Him, Dr. Joe Morecraft defines sola Scriptura as "the comprehensive and completed revelation of the will of God for us by which we can be thoroughly equipped for every good work ... such a complete, perfect, eternal, all-embracing, and all-sufficient revelation from God that it will never need amendment, correction, or supplementation" (p. 10).

It doesn't need supplementation? Let's keep this thought fresh...

The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646), one of the most influential statements of belief ever written, gives its understanding of sola Scriptura in these words: "The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men." (WCF, 1:6).

The above definitions of sola Scriptura are firmly grounded in the Bible as is obvious from a reading of several pertinent passages:

2 Tim. 3:16-17 -- "All Scripture is inspired (breathed out) by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate (sufficient, competent), equipped for every good work."

I'd like to point out that Scripture is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction and for training. It is the teaching, reproof, correction and training that makes the man of God adequate. Scripture never limits teaching, reproof, correction, and training to Scripture alone. In other words, it is profitable to use Scripture for teaching, but teaching may also include Tradition (as handed down by Christ). It is Teaching that makes a man adequate. Scripture is profitable for Teaching.

2 Pet. 1:3-4 -- "His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life (salvation) and godliness (sanctification), through the true knowledge (in the Bible) of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence. For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises (in the Bible), so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature (conformed to Christ), having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust."

I thought that Scripture didn't need "supplementation", yet he disproves this by the necessity to use (brackets) in order to clarify what Scripture is saying. In fact, the way he populates this passage, one would conclude that Peter himself had a Bible. But we know that a "Bible" didn't exist until nearly 400 years later! Scripture wasn't even complete.

1 Tim. 3:15 -- "I write so that (the purpose) you will know how one ought (must) to conduct himself in the household of God (church life and order), which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth."

LOL. An obviouse attempt to take our eyes off the meaning of the passage, which is that the CHURCH is the PILLAR and SUPPORT of the TRUTH. He didn't HAVE to write. Therefore, the WORD OF GOD didn't have to come in writing! St. Paul only had to write because he couldn't be in two or more places at once! But the church that he was at didn't get his letter. They heard his teachings from his mouth. LOL.

1 Cor. 4:6 -- "Now these things (vv. 1-5), brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us (Paul's and Apollos's faithful example) you may learn not to exceed what is written (with human innovation), so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other (caused by pride in opinions)."

Out of context. What was it that they were "exceeding"? And what was written that they were exceeding? Because the NT hadn't even been compiled at this time. And if we were to take that passage for what this authore intends, we would have then to cast out the NT as it exceeds the OT.

Deut. 4:2 -- "You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." (Cf. also Deut. 12:32; Prov. 30:6; Rev. 22:18-19.)

Well, then Protestants should make darn sure that the 66 books they use weren't subtracted from.

Psalm 19:7-9 -- "The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul. The statutes of the LORD are trustworthy, making wise the simple. The precepts of the LORD are right, giving joy to the heart. The commands of the LORD are radiant, giving light to the eyes. The fear of the LORD is pure, enduring forever. The ordinances of the LORD are sure and altogether righteous."

Isa. 55:11 -- "So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; it will not return to Me empty, without accomplishing what I desire, and without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it (needs no supplementation)"

These two passages talke about the Word of God. But "Bible" and not even "Scripture" are mentioned. Isn't Jesus the Word of God? And if no supplementation is needed, did he need to add (needs no supplementation) for us to know that?

In sola Scriptura and the Regulative Principle of Worship, Brian Schwertley explains that the Westminster Confession's censure against "new revelations of the Spirit" is teaching two essential elements: the completeness and the finality of Scripture. The revelatory process ceased with the sixty-six books in the Old and New Testaments which contain exactly what God wanted us to have. Our Lord told His disciples that, after His ascension, He would send the Holy Spirit who would guide them (the disciples present) into ALL the truth (John 16:7,13; 14:26). These were the men who, under the supernatural inspiration of the Holy Spirit, would finalize the writing of the New Testament. Paul said that when the "perfect" comes (i.e., the completed New Testament revelation), prophecy and other modes of revelation would cease (1 Cor. 13:8-12). It is a fact of history that divine revelation did cease when the last Apostle died.

Firstly, the "perfect" isn't the complete New Testament revelation". The Perfect is Christ! Secondly, if all other modes of revelation had ceased, then who does the author suppose came up with the NT table of contents, and why does he believe them. Wouldn't we have to believe that ALL of the writtings of ALL of the "present" disciples were inspired?

I could go on, but I feel my point was made. Further more, the fact the this guy quotes: Dr. Joe Morecraft, Keith Mathison, Dr. John MacArthur, Brian Schwertley and A.A. Hodge, to name a few sources, solidifies the fact that it is impossible to "interpret" Scripture without "supplementation". You'd think if that was the case, this guy could write his article without the aid of others.

Anyway. Okay. So now I know the "difference" between Solo and Sola.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Great post Jake!

I was just going to say that the Church teaches the sufficiency of Scripture. The protestants have different versions of sola scriptura but regardless of where you stand on the precise nature of sola scriptura the problems of authority and interpretation remain. The Church doesn't have this problem because it has always taught that the Scriptures cannot be seperated from Sacred Tradition and the authoritative Church. This is in line with what the Scriptures say about themselves and is in line with what the Fathers believed.

http://www.chnetwork.org/journals/authority/authority_6.htm

http://www.chnetwork.org/journals/sola/sola11.htm