Athanasian Creed - The Man-Made Doctrine

[2timothy316]

For clarity, is the Athanasian Creed found here https://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/c ... sian-creed the accepted belief of the trinity for all trinitarians?
If not what is? Who is reading this creed for the first time? Who considers it to be holy scripture?

The creed ends with "one cannot be saved without believing it firmly and faithfully."
If it isn't scripture...How do they have the authority to say such a thing?

[SiNcE_1985]

Sadly no other trinitarians are willing to touch this thread.

I am a Trinitarian, and I am touching this thread.

No, I do not believe that one must believe in the Trinity in order to be saved.

And anyone who believes this, expouses, or teaches this..is pushing a false doctrine.

[2timothy316]

Sadly no other trinitarians are willing to touch this thread.

I am a Trinitarian, and I am touching this thread.

No, I do not believe that one must believe in the Trinity in order to be saved.

And anyone who believes this, expouses, or teaches this..is pushing a false doctrine.

So you're of the opinion that all of the Athanasian creed is indeed a man-made doctrine?

[SiNcE_1985]

So you're of the opinion that all of the Athanasian creed is indeed a man-made doctrine?

I was clear about the part that I disagree with.

No offense.

[onewithhim]

The Bible does not refer to the Son of God as God, and neither the Holy Spirit. Please show me verses that say so. I think the trinity falls into the realm of tradition, and tradition trumps the Bible, as I've had Catholics tell me.

I’m not Catholic. Tradition doesn’t trump the Bible for me. As far as what the Bible says on this issue, we are already having a bit of that conversation on another thread, so you can respond to my latest post there: viewtopic.php?t=41587.

The Athanasian Creed was men's thinking, according to their misunderstanding of the Scriptures (or their deliberate pulling the wool). I think they knew that they were going against Scripture.

This is psychological speculation. It doesn’t matter what explanation you can contrive for their beliefs. It doesn’t matter if your explanation for their beliefs is even right. That would be the genetic fallacy. What matters is the argument for and argument against.

Some of the "early fathers" thought that Colossians 1:15 clearly showed that Christ was created, as it says "the first-born" of all creation. He was part of the "creation," and the first-born of it. They felt this was too much against their teachings, so they contrived an explanation that you probably hold to today. It doesn't match the clear meaning of the verse.

If your argument here for Col 1:15 teaching Jesus was created is that some early fathers interpreted it that way, then that’s a bad argument because it’s just an appeal to authority and only one side of the authorities at that. Other early fathers interpreted it differently, so why not go with them?

I wouldn't go to the other early "fathers" because they are part of the great apostacy that Jesus and his disciples warned of. The only fathers that I would give any credence to are the three that existed in the first century, closer to the time of Jesus. They are Clement, Polycarp, and Ignatius. There is no trinity evident in their letters. They mention just God and Christ, two individuals.

Clement says things like: "The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus has done so from God. Christ was therefore sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ." Nowhere does he mention any kind of trinity. He honors the Father, God, throughout, as the Most High (The First Epistle of Clement, chapter XLII.)

Clement, Chapter LVIII: "May God, who seeth all things, and who is the Ruler of all spirits and the Lord of all flesh---who chose our Lord Jesus Christ and us through him to be a peculiar people---grant to every soul that calleth upon His glorious and holy Name, faith, fear, peace, patience, long-suffering, self-control, purity, and sobriety, to the well-pleasing of His Name, through our High Priest and Protector, Jesus Christ, by whom be to Him [God] glory, and majesty, and power and honour, both now and forever more."

Polycarp writes as such: "Serve the Lord in fear and truth, as those who have forsaken the vain, empty talk and error of the multitude, and 'believed in Him [God, the Father] who raised up our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead, and gave him glory,' and a throne at His right hand."The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, chapter II.

Polycarp, Chapter XII: "May the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ himself, who is the Son of God, and our everlasting High Priest, build you up in faith and truth..." He refers to the Father as the God of Jesus, and there are TWO distinct individuals mentioned, the Father and Christ. No trinity.

There are two versions of Ignatius' epistle to the Ephesians, and I feel that the longer version is the true one. "Beware of false teachers": "Our Physician is the only true God the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only begotten Son." Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians, Chapter VII. How do we understand the meaning of "Begetter" and "only begotten" here? I think it would mean "caused" and the only one begotten by God alone without Jesus' being in on it. "Begetter" being the One who caused Jesus to exist.

Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians. The Father is recognized as "God," not a trinity. Ignatius writes: "Ignatius...to the [church] blessed in the grace of God the Father, in Jesus Christ our Saviour, in whom I salute the church which is at Magnesia...and wish it abundance of happiness in God the Father AND in Jesus Christ our Lord..." (Introduction to his letter) No trinity. Just God, the Father, and Jesus Christ. He goes on in Chapter VIII: "There is one true God, the Almighty, who has manifested Himself by Jesus Christ His Son, who is His Word..." And in Chapter XI: "He [Jesus] made known the one and only true God, his Father." And he returned "to Him that sent him, and is sat down at His right hand, and shall come at the end of the world, with his Father's glory to judge the living and the dead, and to render everyone according to his works."

This is why I listen only to these three earliest "fathers," who did not write of a trinity. It was later that the trinity legend started up and was finally accepted as doctrine. (Brackets mine.)

[onewithhim]

All of this is very odd to me that you don't get the connections between identifying what is man-made and what isn't and what scripture is important.

Clarifications of basic definitions are needed.
Concerning any trinity creed, can anything written down as being identified from God not be considered as holy scripture?

What does scripture mean to you?

Scripture are specific books of the Bible that were written by certain people, within a certain time period about God’s dealings with humanity. Creeds are philosophical reflections on scripture and, as such, contain truths from God.

Explain this in as much detail as you can. Explain how it calls to you. Do you hear something? Do you see a hand gesturing? Do Bible pages and words glow?

It was simply a poetic choice of words. I’m saying the trinity idea comes from putting scriptural passages together. Scripture teaches (1) there is one God, (2) the Father is God, (3) Jesus is God, (4) the Spirit is God, and (5) the Father, Son, and Spirit interact.

Exactly where does the Bible say that "Jesus is God" and "the Spirit is God"?

[onewithhim]

It was simply a poetic choice of words. I’m saying the trinity idea comes from putting scriptural passages together. Scripture teaches (1) there is one God, (2) the Father is God, (3) Jesus is God, (4) the Spirit is God, and (5) the Father, Son, and Spirit interact.

Exactly where does the Bible say that "Jesus is God" and "the Spirit is God"?

[2timothy316]

So you're of the opinion that all of the Athanasian creed is indeed a man-made doctrine?

I was clear about the part that I disagree with.

No offense.

So, you're stopping short of saying it's a man-made creed by saying you disagree with a part of it. That means there are parts you agree with. Is that allowed, agreeing with parts and disagreeing with others, and why? Isn't because the creed is a man-made doctrine?

[SiNcE_1985]

So you're of the opinion that all of the Athanasian creed is indeed a man-made doctrine?

I was clear about the part that I disagree with.

No offense.

So, you're stopping short of saying it's a man-made creed by saying you disagree with a part of it. That means there are parts you agree with. Is that allowed, agreeing with parts and disagreeing with others, and why? Isn't because the creed is a man-made doctrine?

Reading comprehension, Timmy.

I clearly stated that I am a Trinitarian...so obviously I agree with mostly the entirety of the creed.

However, I also stated that I disagree with the part about it (the Trinity) being a part of the doctrine of salvation.

[TheHolyGhost]

[Replying to 2timothy316 in post #1]

Good questions. I'll bet you get zero responses. Probably most posters here don't even know what the Athanasian Creed is.

Since it is a false doctrine, why would anyone want to know it anyway?
Do you go around learning false doctrines?

[2timothy316]

So you're of the opinion that all of the Athanasian creed is indeed a man-made doctrine?

I was clear about the part that I disagree with.

No offense.

So, you're stopping short of saying it's a man-made creed by saying you disagree with a part of it. That means there are parts you agree with. Is that allowed, agreeing with parts and disagreeing with others, and why? Isn't because the creed is a man-made doctrine?

Reading comprehension, Timmy.

I clearly stated that I am a Trinitarian...so obviously I agree with mostly the entirety of the creed.

However, I also stated that I disagree with the part about it (the Trinity) being a part of the doctrine of salvation.

And my other questions?