Exposing The Trinity

[Thomas]

Hi Netti-Netti –

A philosophical conception of truth is that it's a human approximation to reality.

But the Trinity is not a philosophical conception, it's a theological one, so different rules apply. Nor is that concept axiomatic in philosophy. Some assert it, some qualifiy it, others refute it.

Paul Ricouer observes that the distinction between philosophy and theology is a necessary one, and 'philosophy is the handmaid of theology', as the saying goes (not the other way round — philosophy, after all, offers a range of paradigmatic options, for example not all philosophies would agree with your premise, whereas theology, although containing many branches and schools, nevertheless all points to one and the same end.)

So where philosophy is proximate knowledge in light of uncertain data, theology is certain knowledge in light of revealed truth.

From that (philosophical) standpoint, is seems the spirit of truth should be considered to be fairly limited in terms of its role and function, namely, as a source of guidance in illuminating truth. Specifically, where the "spirit of truth" appears in the NT, it is seen to have an informational function: "when the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth."

And this shows the radical failure of post-Cartesian philosophy to comprehend the data of Revelation. 'Guide you into all truth' is towards gnosis, and in the Christian tradition gnosis is a matter of being, not information ... sanctity in the Christian Tradition is a matter of being, not of knowing, of the Uncreated Light, not the lights of the intellect.

Are you aware of a passage that identifies it (the Spirit) with divine reality itself instead of portraying it as a manifestation or divine operation of some kind?

Yes. If one reads Paul in the Greek, all of it.
John 14:16-17: "And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever."

Are you aware of any passages that suggest ontological identity between the Holy Spirit or 'the spirit of truth' and the Father?

Yes. John 15:26: "But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me."

Finally, are you aware of a passage that actually uses the term "spirit of truth" as a divine name for the Father?

Yes. John 16:13: "But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth."

Thomas

 

[Netti-Netti]

Verses 5:72-75

Those who say, 'God is the Messiah, son of Mary,' have defied God. The Messiah himself said, 'Children of Israel, worship God, my Lord and your Lord.'​

A woman spoke to Jesus:

“I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called Christ). When he comes, he will tell us all things.” Jesus said to her, “I who speak to you am he.”
​

Importantly, in the OT the Jewish Messiah is identified as "purely human" (see Prof. William David Davies).

One can reject Jesus own words. Or one can contend that Jesus meant something other than what he reportedly said; or one can reject OT Messianic prophesy even though this would cast aspersions on the Gospels that link Jesus to the OT Messianic prophesy (e.g., Matthew 3:1-3) and thus undercut Jesus' stature. Obviously, none of these are good options.

 

[Netti-Netti]

....in the Christian tradition gnosis is a matter of being, not information

Christian Gnosticism as an identifiable doctrinal belief system did not come about until the second century. The term "spirit of truth" appears in the Gospels of John. Would you contend the author was a Gnostic who was ahead of his time?

Jesus is identified as a teacher (John 7:14) and the disciples refer to him as rabbi (= teacher). Jesus himself specifically identified himself as such: "You call me 'Teacher' and 'Lord,' and rightly so, for that is what I am." (John 13-13)

Before he left the planet, Jesus told the disciples he would ask the Father to send them "another Paraclete" - i.e., a substitute teacher. We would conclude that the spirit's function was to replace Jesus as someone who served as a source of guidance. Like I said before, the spirit's role and mission was informational.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Netti-Netti —

Importantly, in the OT the Jewish Messiah is identified as "purely human" (see Prof. William David Davies).

And understandably so. However, God is apt to do the unexpected.

One can reject Jesus own words. Or one can contend that Jesus meant something other than what he reportedly said; or one can reject OT Messianic prophesy even though this would cast aspersions on the Gospels that link Jesus to the OT Messianic prophesy (e.g., Matthew 3:1-3) and thus undercut Jesus' stature. Obviously, none of these are good options.

Quite. The better option then is to accept Jesus' own words, on own His terms; to listen to what he says rather than rest on our own presumptions. All three options cited place a man-imposed limit according to reason. Revelation supersedes reason, although does not conflict with it, rather it illuminates it.

Experience would suggest when we second-guess God, we tend to be wrong.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Christian Gnosticism as an identifiable doctrinal belief system did not come about until the second century.

No, Gnosticism as a doctrinal heresy was identified in the second century.

An authentic Christian gnosis (and esoterism) existed from the very beginning:
"And he said to them: To you it is given to know (ginosko the verb form from which gnosis derives) the mystery of the kingdom of God: but to them that are without, all things are done in parables" Mark 4:11.

"To give knowledge (gnosis) of salvation to his people, unto the remission of their sins" Luke 1:77.

"To one indeed, by the Spirit, is given the word of wisdom: and to another, the word of knowledge (gnosis), according to the same Spirit" 1 Corinthians 12:8.

"O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and of the knowledge (gnosis) of God! How incomprehensible are his judgments, and how unsearchable his ways! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? Or who hath been his counsellor?" Romans 11:33-34.

And was misrepresented from the beginning, also:
"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding the profane novelties of words, and oppositions of knowledge (gnosis) falsely so called."
1 Timothy 6:20

The term "spirit of truth" appears in the Gospels of John. Would you contend the author was a Gnostic who was ahead of his time?

Well that idea flies in the face of the evidence. Tradition suggests that John was opposed by Cerinthus, a 'proto-gnostic' and perhaps a Christian heresiarch in the sense of teaching a dualism, which is axiomatic to all Gnostic doctrines.

The Johannine Gospel and Epistles refute the doctrines of gnosticism.

Jesus is identified as a teacher (John 7:14) and the disciples refer to him as rabbi (= teacher). Jesus himself specifically identified himself as such: "You call me 'Teacher' and 'Lord,' and rightly so, for that is what I am." (John 13-13)

Then His own words refutes you. 'Lord', Kyrios, is a Divine Name in Christian usage.

Before he left the planet, Jesus told the disciples he would ask the Father to send them "another Paraclete" - i.e., a substitute teacher. We would conclude that the spirit's function was to replace Jesus as someone who served as a source of guidance. Like I said before, the spirit's role and mission was informational.

False premise. Another does not imply 'substitute', therefore your conclusion is wrong.

When John says 'another' he uses allos, which in Strong's Concorance denotes a numerical difference. The qualitative distinction of 'another' you imply in Greek is heteros which implies another 'not of the same nature, form, class, kind'.

"There is another (allos) that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true" John 5:32. As Jesus said "I am the truth" (John 14:6) then the Other is the truth also.

Thomas

 

[Netti-Netti]

Thomas,

in the Christian tradition gnosis is a matter of being, not information ... sanctity in the Christian Tradition is a matter of being, not of knowing, of the Uncreated Light, not the lights of the intellect.

Christian Gnostics were considered heretics by the Church. Do you have some handy references regarding the Church's position on gnosis that would enable us to make sense of the fact that the Church rejected Gnostics?

An authentic Christian gnosis (and esoterism) existed from the very beginning:

"And he said to them: To you it is given to know (ginosko the verb form from which gnosis derives) the mystery of the kingdom of God..." Mark 4:11.
​

"To give knowledge (gnosis) of salvation to his people, unto the remission of their sins" Luke 1:77.
​

Thomas, which of these Biblical quotes speak the the notion of gnosis as pertaining to "being, not information"?

"Knowledge of salvation" could be an expectation predicated on the acceptance of Grace. My experience with the Catholic church was that you needed to accept atonement doctrine. What's so "authentically gnostic"about that?

As for the "kingdom of God," it can be understood as the quality of relationships between persons, thus pertains to the defining moral characteristics of spiritual partnerships. It's an interpersonal dimension.

 

[Thomas]

Do you have some handy references regarding the Church's position on gnosis that would enable us to make sense of the fact that the Church rejected Gnostics?

Yes — Scripture — all of it. It is fundamentally monotheistic and holistic. Gnosticism is polytheist and dualist. For a detailed argument read Irenaeus "Against Heresies." When you've ploughed through that lot, there's a ton of other stuff.

Thomas, which of these Biblical quotes speak the the notion of gnosis as pertaining to "being, not information"?

Both of them. It's who you know, not what you know.

"Knowledge of salvation" could be an expectation predicated on the acceptance of Grace. My experience with the Catholic church was that you needed to accept atonement doctrine. What's so "authentically gnostic" about that?

What isn't? You think atonement doesn't play a part in every gnostic doctrine?

Christian atonement happened on the Cross or it did not happened at all (1 Corinthians 15:3).
The bodily Resurrection of Christ happened or our faith is in vain (1 Corinthians 15:17).
2nd century Gnosticism refutes both these points (and almost every other). So as posing as 'true Christians' they profess a faith that is imitative but essentially counterfeit. It's a false philosophy, and the Christians were not the only ones to see it. The Stoics were highly critical of their methodology and saw through it when they tried to claim possession of true Stoic doctrine.

It's in the nature of the Gnostic to invent his own doctrine, which is a clear sign of its subjectivity, and then declare it the sole truth. No two Gnostic teachers taught the same thing, not even supposedly Christian ones, which is why there is no 'universal' doctrine from which they span their webs. The different doctrines are identified by their authors, Cerinthus, Valentinus, Basilides, and so on.

As for the "kingdom of God," it can be understood as the quality of relationships between persons, thus pertains to the defining moral characteristics of spiritual partnerships. It's an interpersonal dimension.

It can be understood as anything one fancies. The trick is to understand it as it is meant to be understood. I doubt you see 'interpersonal' quite as I do. I see it as the sanctification of a created nature.

So far in all this it seems to me you have failed to 'expose' the Trinity is fabricated or as misapprehended. I have consistently 'exposed' your arguments as flawed or as a misapprehension of the doctrine and its foundation.

How long will it take to realise that all doctrine is coterminous — every part touches every other part in a seamless whole? You'll not find the hole you're looking for ...

Thomas

 

[Netti-Netti]

in the Christian tradition gnosis is a matter of being, not information ... sanctity in the Christian Tradition is a matter of being, not of knowing, of the Uncreated Light, not the lights of the intellect.

When I hear the term "tradition," I get the impression of longevity over time as well as being part of original teachings or doctrine (which presumably attests to the tradition's authenticity and/or its importance). In connection with the Church's rejection of Gnosticism, I wonder just how "traditional" gnosis actually was/is. We should be able to identify it as longstanding church doctrine, especially since the Church's understanding of "authentic Christian gnosis" (your terms) would presumably have provided a vantage point for judging Gnosticism as false or incompatible with ("true") Church doctrine.

So far in all this it seems to me you have failed to 'expose' the Trinity is fabricated or as misapprehended. I have consistently 'exposed' your arguments as flawed or as a misapprehension of the doctrine and its foundation.

I have not at any time used words like "fabricated" or as "misapprehended." So far my comments on the subject have been scattered, in part because of various tangents. I hope to get back on track shortly. I appreciate your patience and fortitude, as well as your willingness to attack me on positions I never took.

 

[Netti-Netti]

You think atonement doesn't play a part in every gnostic doctrine?

Apparently not even a minor one. This covers it pretty well:

The Gnostic conception of Salvation, is quite the opposite of the atonement theology of “institutional Christianity.” Atonement theology basically postulates that God created a good world, which then became corrupted and “fallen” when the first humans sinned by disobeying God. Their sin brought suffering and death to what was originally a perfect paradise. Redemption is brought about by Jesus Christ who is sent into the world by the Father in order to suffer and die on the cross thereby making up for our sins. Salvation is a sort of vicarious arrangement based upon believing that Jesus died for ones sins.

Gnostic soteriology rejects this atonement concept completely. The Gnostic view is that the world was created flawed by a lower level flawed creator, a false god referred to as the Demiurge. Because this being imprinted its own flaws and limitations upon creation, this world is a realm of suffering. Ignorance of our own innate primordial nature, in other words, the radical alienation and separation from Authentic Reality a.k.a. God is the root of our suffering. Gnosis is knowledge of God and the means by which we may obtain salvation.
​

Jesus

In short, Gnosis makes atonement unnecessary. Hence my question about Tradition in my above post. I don't see an emphasis on Gnosis as compatible with atonement doctrine.

Fundamental differences between Gnostics and the Church as far as how they defined 'the problem' and 'the solution' would explain the Church's rejection of Gnosticism and the Gnostics' opposition to the Church. Given their view of the nature of the problem, the Gnostics apparently saw no need for atonement.

How long will it take to realise that all doctrine is coterminous — every part touches every other part in a seamless whole?

First of all, when did Binitarian doctrine become Trinitarian?

Do you have any reason to believe that Binitarians anticipated a need for Trinitarian doctrine? If they did, why didn't they just go straight for Trinity?

 

[Thomas]

Apparently not even a minor one...

OK. It was late at night and I was answering your post whilst writing an essay. I overstated my case. So let me draw back.

As your own argument states, Gnostics believe the world is essentially evil, created by a demiurge either ignorant (although the idea of an ignorant god is riddled with contradiction), mad (ditto) or the result of an abortive union between two other gods ... none of which is found in Scripture.

Gnostics simply ignored Scripture and anything else that disputes their teaching, and claims 'a secret transmission' as a kind of deus ex machina trump card.

People like to claim that Christianity 'stamped out' Gnostic Doctrine in the 2nd century. It's nonsense, and in those times Christianity itself was being stamped on, and lacked any kind of institutionalised systematic unity to stamp out anything.

Gnosticism failed because it has no legs of its own ... it simply couldn't stand up to rigorous inquiry, which is why all philosophers ridiculed its claims. People are drawn to it today not because of its doctrines, but because it symbolises an alternative to 'orthodoxy' ... just bang 'gnostic' on the cover of your book and you're pretty well guaranteed an increase in sales by a significant factor.

+++

In short, Gnosis makes atonement unnecessary.

I would say impossible. The world is not fallen by error (which can be atoned for), to them the world is created evil in its very nature. You are then left with the logical impossibility that a thing which is evil by nature cannot become good simply by knowing lots of stuff. It just becomes a highly informed evil thing. And God is not impressed by how clever one is.

First of all, when did Binitarian doctrine become Trinitarian?

Well first of all 'Binitarian doctrine' is a false premise as has been amply demonstrated in prior argument ... you're doing it again, jumping to another position when the one you're standing in looks perilous.

This is a thread on Trinity ... let's get back to that ... so the argument is 'exposing' the Trinity, not rehashing every heresy that ever was.

Thomas

 

[Netti-Netti]

Thomas,

'Binitarian doctrine' is a false premise as has been amply demonstrated in prior argument ... you're doing it again, jumping to another position when the one you're standing in looks perilous.

My point was that Binitarian ideology was normative for some time. In fact, The Holy Spirit was not declared Divine until 381 AD at the Council of Constantinople.

there was no serious theological dispute about the Son until the Arian controversy, that called for a more sophisticated doctrine of the Holy Spirit.

I'm not sure how you'd gauge "serious," but pre-Nicene debates on consubstantiality dealt specifically - and apparently almost exclusively - with the Son, not with the Holy Ghost. The would explain why Binitarian theology was a forerunner to Trinitarian ideology.

You have asserted that Trinity was normative from the start. My comeback is simply this: the Third Person's divinity was not declared until 381 AD at the Council of Constantinople. It seems the early church fathers had been debating a Trinity without a Third Person, which is hard to reconcile with your contention that Trinity was "there" from the start. It was not part of the Creed for a long time. If you are interested in the history of early Christian worship, maybe take a look at the literature on Binitarian theology. It's substantial.
binitarian - Google Book Search

It is nonsense to suppose that Monotheists would require that Baptism in the name of the One True God would then call on someone or something else to be effective or meaningful....The Church never baptised in the name of John the Baptist, Peter, John, James, Paul, or any of the Apostles ...

Jesus said, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19). Why mention all three? Why not simply say "baptise in the name of the One True God"? Based on the fact that Jesus mentions them separately — as though they are to be considered separate entities — I believe we can reasonably conclude that Jesus did not equate them! Why ignore what Jesus said and substitute your own language for the language of the Bible?

show me where Kelly suggests, as you presume from his comments (I assume you're referring to Early Christian Doctrines, which I have, and which is required reading on my course), that the doctrine was fabricated ...

Yes, that's the book I'm referring to. But Kelly doesn't say it was "fabricated" and that's not the word I used either. Kelly noted that theologians' treatment of the Holy Spirit was "ambiguous," thus giving the impression that they were unsure about how to define a place for the Holy Spirit in the Christian Trinity. "Spirit" is a theologically ambiguous concept. The term spirit appears in the Bible in reference to very different divine actions (Creation, and inspirational/informational source for the prophets, renewal of "the face of the earth," and transformation of the person). In light of these varied descriptions of how the Spirit functions not at all surprising that Kelly observed a difference in the way the early church fathers treated the Holy Ghost versus the way they handled the Second Person. I'm puzzled that you are having trouble with it.

Anyway, since you asked, here's Father Kelly for you: "As compared with their thoughts about the Logos (Christ Jesus), the (early church) Apologists appear to have been very vague regarding the exact status and role of the Spirit." You should see that on page p. 102 of Kelly's Early Christian Doctrines.

Well first of all 'Binitarian doctrine' is a false premise as has been amply demonstrated in prior argument ... you're doing it again, jumping to another position when the one you're standing in looks perilous.

Sorry, Thomas, this comment shows no interest in historical development, which is actually all we have to talk about here because G-d's true and nature are unknowable.

Your flippant attitude toward Binitatrian doctrine suggests that you choose to ignore the fact that the early fathers were not even interested in the Trinity at first. Rather, they were interested in resolving the issue of Christ Jesus' relation to the Godhead. The nature of the Son was also the focus of the Arian heresy. As summarized in the Catholic Encyclopedia, it was a heresy that "arose in the fourth century, and denied the Divinity of Jesus Christ." It seems to have had nothing to do with the Holy Spirit at all.

It appears the Holy Spirit was added on to Church doctrine as an afterthought. I've seen some suggestion that the political context of the Counsel was a more important factor than concern about doctrinal integrity. Constantine moved to put the Arian controversy to rest without actually resolving theological issues. That is, the Constantine council Creed was designed to be politically conciliatory; it was not even intended to be a doctrinal advancement. (See p. 254 of Kelly's Early Christian Creeds.)

ok, so I've cited two of Kelly's books. You might also consider the conclusion W.G. Rusch arrived at:

No doctrine of the Trinity in the Nicene sense is present in the New Testament…There is no doctrine of the Trinity in the strict sense in the Apostolic Fathers.

The fact that Rusch wrote a book called "The Trinitarian Controversy" does not necessarily make his views any more informed or compelling than mine, but still....maybe worth considering.

I don't think you'll have any trouble finding other very well researched books that trace the development of Church doctrine and show how scattered and almost haphazard it has been.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Netti-Netti.

My point was that Binitarian ideology was normative for some time.

No it wasn't, I would argue the Church was always 'Trinitarian':
The Father + two Paracletes = Three.

That theology follows behind is entirely ordered to nature, for theology is 'faith seeking understanding' (St Anselm) — not faith inventing things for no good reason, which is what this thread is arguing.

The task of the Church is to explain itself, and sometimes it does it well, and sometimes it does it badly, but its Faith is never in doubt.

It's like Augustine said: "What then is time? If no one asks me, I know what it is. If I wish to explain it to him who asks, I do not know."

What is often seen as a sign of weakness, I see as strength — that man seeks always and constantly to go deeper, not just to understand the Mysteries, but to engage in them, to immerse himself in them — but to assume that his understanding at the beginning of the process is complete and entire is, I would suggest, an erroneous one.

The Fathers of the Church distinguish between theology (theologia) and economy (oikonomia). "Theology" refers to the mystery of God’s inmost life within the Blessed Trinity and "economy" to all the works by which God reveals himself and communicates his life. Through the oikonomia the theologia is revealed to us; but conversely, the theologia illuminates the whole oikonomia. God’s works reveal who he is in himself; the mystery of his inmost being enlightens our understanding of all his works. So it is, analogously, among human persons. A person discloses himself in his actions, and the better we know a person, the better we understand his actions.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, 236

The premise of this thread is the Church did not believe in the Trinity, but invented it at some point (for what reason, one might ask) ...

All I'm trying to show is that the doctrine is not an invention or an innovation, but is just one step along the Way, as is Christology, as in fact is every doctrine and dogma we hold true, in the reasoned reflection (in the Greek philosophical tradition) upon the data of Revelation ... a process which continues to this very day.

Thomas
PS: If you're looking to find fault, or error, or the 'ah-Ha!' which proves you right, I suggest you investigate the difference between the 'immanent Trinity' and the 'economic (salvific) Trinity' ... you might find some better ground there, but it's well ploughed, and you'd need a far greater depth of Scripture and theology than you have at the moment.

Another route might be salvation itself. There is no declared Doctrine of Salvation (as I recall) so you could argue that the Church doesn't believe in salvation at all, because it has never formally declared it does, and that the whole things just one huge accidental assumption. Of course, we've never formally declared it because it's in Scripture, in Tradition, and self-evident, but it is a loophole that a good lawyer (in the US sense of the term) could wriggle away at.

Thomas

 

[Netti-Netti]

Hi Netti-Netti.

Hi Thomas,

There is no declared Doctrine of Salvation...we've never formally declared it because it's in Scripture, in Tradition, and self-evident, but it is a loophole that a good lawyer (in the US sense of the term) could wriggle away at.

Thomas, if it's in the church Tradition, as you say, then that might be considered functionally equivalent to having been "<declared>," depending on what you mean by it being "declared."

To get back to Trinity, I see it described as important church doctrine. Can you or someone in the know explain why it's important?

 

[nativeastral]

to validate Christs divinity plain and simple; the holy spirit the communicative aspect validating the prohecies?

 

[Nick_A]

Hi Thomas,

Thomas, if it's in the church Tradition, as you say, then that might be considered functionally equivalent to having been "<declared>," depending on what you mean by it being "declared."

To get back to Trinity, I see it described as important church doctrine. Can you or someone in the know explain why it's important?

Without understanding how God is simultaneously one and three, I don't see how it can be possible to understand the God - Son - Man relationship and why the son is necessary for man.

 

[shawn]

People get so technically knowing about matters they really have no knowledge about.
It is pathetic really.
then they fall back on the It is right here in black and white in this here book which is the word of God schtick.
See?
Can you read?
It says so right here and there and there.
So there.

But, believe what you will, it is all harmless until people start to get worked up in their various religious disputes of I am right and you are wrong as we are the chosen and you must be satan's spawn or puppets or some other such nonsense.

 

[Thomas]

Thomas, if it's in the church Tradition, as you say, then that might be considered functionally equivalent to having been "<declared>," depending on what you mean by it being "declared."

Yes it might be, or it might not be ... depends on what we mean by declared. As you appear not to know, it's a moot point.

To get back to Trinity, I see it described as important church doctrine. Can you or someone in the know explain why it's important?

I wpould have thought, at this stage of the discussion, if you don't know, you never will.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

People get so technically knowing about matters they really have no knowledge about.

Really? That's a rather assumptive statement. Just because you might know nothing, please don't assume that no-one else does.

Thomas

 

[shawn]

My, my, isn't that just the picture of humility.

 

[Netti-Netti]

Yes it might be, or it might not be ... depends on what we mean by declared. As you appear not to know, it's a moot point.


I wpould have thought, at this stage of the discussion, if you don't know, you never will.

Thanks for your help.

I try to limit my participation in these long-winded discussions to things that might actually have some relevance to a life of faith. I should point out that I'm interested in how ideology fit into worship. One way we can make inferences about such a connection is to look at professions of faith. Early creeds rarely included references to Trinitarianism or Binitarianism. When they did show up, the Trinititian ones were even rarer than Binitarian ones. (see Father Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, p.25)

Early doctrinal preoccupations were related principally - if not exclusively - to Christology and the Father/Son identity. This is reflected in an a recognition of Jesus as Messiah. Nazarene Christianity appears to have been dominant for at least two hundred (200) years after Jesus' departure. For these people Trinity was evidently irrelevant to worship.

Moreover, as a matter of historical interest, there was no Latin Church opposition to the Nazarenes for almost 400 years. The Nazarenes believed Jesus was the son of G-d. According to Prof. Hurtado at Eddinburgh University, the Nazarenes were representative of a "proto-orthodox binitarian pattern of devotion.'' The point here is that the Church was fine with Binitarinian ideology for some time and only took a stand on Trinity much later. That is, much later. Contrary to Bro. Thomas' contention, the Arian controversy of the 4th century was concerned with the divinity of Christ, not the divinity of Holy Spirit. Ambiguities regarding the Holy Spirit would persist, eventually leading to the Great Schism in the year 1059.

When the Church did take a stand on Trinity in terms of fixed rules of faith, the result was puzzling. Even the presumably more sophisticated creed articulated by the First Council of Constantinople in 381 AD doesn't particularly help an aspiring Traditionalist make a convincing case for Trinitarianism as having been normative ideology from the start. The Creed reads: (We believe) "in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father."

The "proceedeth from the Father" part would be a direct takeoff on the Gospel of John. However, what's missing is an affirmation of the Holy Spirit's role as a source of guidance. Shortly before he left, Jesus promised the disciples the Holy Spirit as a guide. The creed's notion of Holy Ghost as "Giver of life" is ambiguous. Unless the Council meant a new life in the sacramental body of Christ, they seem to have been invoking Old Testament imagery of the spirit's role in the creation and renewal of the earth.

Given political context, the Council may not have been very interested in sorting out theological ambiguities regarding the Spirit. Still, they could at least have tipped their hat to the Gospel of John's description of the holy spirit as a present source of guidance in facilitating a effective filial relation between Christ Jesus and the Heavenly Father in the life of an individual person of faith.

At any rate, I think it would be fair to say that the Church's effort to refine Trinity doctrine is remarkable when seen for what it is: (1) a historical aberration and a significant departure from the long-term (two centuries) predominance of Binitarian Nazarene Christianity, and (2) an indication of the Church's willingness to ignore or gloss over New Testament teachings for no apparent reason.