The Problems of Solo Scriptura (from Keith Matthison)

[MatthewG]

The Word of God is not a book. It is a Person, Jesus Christ. See John 1:1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Jesus Christ is the Word of God. Not a book and certainly not a translation of a book, and most certainly not a translation of a book personally interpreted wthout the Church Christ founded that compiled the book.

Not to disrupt the flow of conversation between everyone, just wanted to say this is a good reminder for me Augustin. Not that I had forgotten but most certainly sometimes I believe that people look at Jesus Christ as some type of Character, and though he was not a living human being, not only from having been sent born in flesh, but he was alive, s the "Word" of Yahavah. And that "Word" created light, and Yahavah separated the light from the darkness. :) Thank you sir! Yahavah spoke his "Words" and with his WORD - Yahavah through him, created all the things we see.

 

[Rockerduck]

The Word of God is not a book. It is a Person, Jesus Christ. See John 1:1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Jesus Christ is the Word of God. Not a book and certainly not a translation of a book, and most certainly not a translation of a book personally interpreted wthout the Church Christ founded that compiled the book.

There are many places in the bible, where Lord said write this down.

Jeremiah 30:2 - Thus speaketh the Lord God of Israel, saying, Write thee all the words that I have spoken unto thee in a book.

 

[Johann]

You disregarded my question in favor of criticizing my post. Let's say, your criticism aside, how do I know who's traditions I am to believe? The CC has it's sacraments through which the grace of salvation is administered. They'be been saying that a long time. Should I accept it just because it's a major church institution, with a consistent teaching over the years? Or should I compare their teaching to the Bible, to be accepted or rejected based on Biblical teaching?

Much love!

Same goes for the Early Church Fathers-and some read them selectively.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

That is understood, and just wanted to stop by and share my thoughts and reasonings concerning the failure of Sola Scriptura just by those few things. Also to say that it is good to see you are still around because it has been a long time since I have seen you.


I have a friend, who questions the bible too. From what a friend of mine said, Atheist have faith too, in "non-faith." That to me is a scary place to be.

I actually don't question the Bible. My issue is more with the Rorschach Inkblot nature to scripture. This is really true the more people have a Nude Scripture view they project all kinds of stuff into the passages that come from their personal perspective rather than what would be true of the context of the ancient writers, or the ancient audience that those passages would be aimed at.


That also is really the point of the Calvinist author who wrote this article. As an Eastern Christian I actually disagree a lot with the author's conclusions etc. but nevertheless like him a lot for summarizing some of my own thoughts that I have debated on message boards for decades. It kind of reminds me of another Calvinist that I've become fond of, Myles Christian of Answering Adventism on YouTube and the web. He summarizes things when dealing with certain Adventists who do their very best to impersonate Biblical Fundamentalists in arguing their side with a "The Bible and Me, under a Tree", mode of operations. (This is largely a false depiction because the SDA brings an awful lot of special revelation to the table by which they read various parts of the Bible through).


Anyway, yes nice talking to you and I will stick around. Got a lot of topics, I would like to talk about. I would really like to get back to trying to do content creation for places like Youtube etc. but kind of bogged down with various things on the personal and technical side, but it is always cool to have a thread on some project one is working on.

 

[Matthias]

“Why are creeds so important? Because ‘I just believe the Bible’ is no defense against cults, superstitions, apostasy, and heresy, since nearly every sect for the last 2,000 years has claimed the Bible for support.” - Michael Horton

x.com

x.com

 

[Johann]

“Why are creeds so important? Because ‘I just believe the Bible’ is no defense against cults, superstitions, apostasy, and heresy, since nearly every sect for the last 2,000 years has claimed the Bible for support.” - Michael Horton

x.com

x.com

The Bible as Sufficient Authority:
The claim that "I just believe the Bible" is insufficient assumes that the Bible alone, interpreted correctly, cannot guard against error. However, scriptures such as 2 Timothy 3:16–17 affirm the Bible's sufficiency:

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."

If the Bible equips believers to be "thoroughly furnished" for every good work, reliance on it alone (when approached faithfully) should be adequate for safeguarding against heresies.

Creeds Derive Their Authority from Scripture:

Creeds are valuable as summaries of biblical teaching, but their authority is derivative, not independent. When disagreements arise, the ultimate standard of truth is the Bible, not the creed. For instance, in Acts 17:11, the Bereans were commended for verifying Paul's teachings against the scriptures themselves, not any pre-existing creed or confession.

Potential for Misuse of Creeds:

While creeds can clarify doctrine, they are also subject to error and misuse. Over-reliance on creeds can lead to legalism or dogmatism, where traditions take precedence over scripture.

Mark 7:13 warns against making "the word of God of none effect through your tradition."
Historical schisms (e.g., the Great Schism, Reformation) often involved competing interpretations of creeds rather than direct appeals to scripture.

Misapplication of Horton's Argument:

The existence of cults or heresies that claim biblical support does not inherently invalidate the Bible as a sufficient guide. It highlights the necessity of proper hermeneutics and the work of the Holy Spirit in guiding interpretation. John 16:13 assures believers of the Spirit’s role in leading into truth, which is an essential safeguard.

The Danger of Adding Unnecessary Mediators:

Placing excessive importance on creeds could risk undermining the principle of sola scriptura, one of the foundational doctrines of the Reformation. This principle asserts that scripture alone is the ultimate authority, whereas creeds, while useful, should remain subordinate to and derived from scripture.

The Bible’s Clarity (Perspicuity):

While interpretative disagreements exist, the Bible's core message regarding salvation and essential doctrines is clear (Psalm 119:105; 2 Peter 1:19-21). Creeds may assist in articulating these truths but are not indispensable.
Proper teaching, coupled with the Holy Spirit’s guidance, enables believers to discern truth without requiring creeds as intermediaries.

In conclusion, the importance of creeds should not be overstated. They are helpful as expressions of shared belief and tools for teaching, but they are not essential for defending against heresies if believers faithfully interpret and apply the Bible, relying on its sufficiency and clarity under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Thanks.

J.

 

[Matthias]

The Bible as Sufficient Authority:
The claim that "I just believe the Bible" is insufficient assumes that the Bible alone, interpreted correctly, cannot guard against error. However, scriptures such as 2 Timothy 3:16–17 affirm the Bible's sufficiency:

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."

If the Bible equips believers to be "thoroughly furnished" for every good work, reliance on it alone (when approached faithfully) should be adequate for safeguarding against heresies.

Creeds Derive Their Authority from Scripture:

Creeds are valuable as summaries of biblical teaching, but their authority is derivative, not independent. When disagreements arise, the ultimate standard of truth is the Bible, not the creed. For instance, in Acts 17:11, the Bereans were commended for verifying Paul's teachings against the scriptures themselves, not any pre-existing creed or confession.

Potential for Misuse of Creeds:

While creeds can clarify doctrine, they are also subject to error and misuse. Over-reliance on creeds can lead to legalism or dogmatism, where traditions take precedence over scripture.

Mark 7:13 warns against making "the word of God of none effect through your tradition."
Historical schisms (e.g., the Great Schism, Reformation) often involved competing interpretations of creeds rather than direct appeals to scripture.

Misapplication of Horton's Argument:

The existence of cults or heresies that claim biblical support does not inherently invalidate the Bible as a sufficient guide. It highlights the necessity of proper hermeneutics and the work of the Holy Spirit in guiding interpretation. John 16:13 assures believers of the Spirit’s role in leading into truth, which is an essential safeguard.

The Danger of Adding Unnecessary Mediators:

Placing excessive importance on creeds could risk undermining the principle of sola scriptura, one of the foundational doctrines of the Reformation. This principle asserts that scripture alone is the ultimate authority, whereas creeds, while useful, should remain subordinate to and derived from scripture.

The Bible’s Clarity (Perspicuity):

While interpretative disagreements exist, the Bible's core message regarding salvation and essential doctrines is clear (Psalm 119:105; 2 Peter 1:19-21). Creeds may assist in articulating these truths but are not indispensable.
Proper teaching, coupled with the Holy Spirit’s guidance, enables believers to discern truth without requiring creeds as intermediaries.

In conclusion, the importance of creeds should not be overstated. They are helpful as expressions of shared belief and tools for teaching, but they are not essential for defending against heresies if believers faithfully interpret and apply the Bible, relying on its sufficiency and clarity under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Thanks.

J.

Unlike biblical creedal statements which are scripture, post-biblical creeds aren’t scripture.

Post-biblical creeds are based on post-biblical interpretation of scripture. They come from the Catholic Church, not from Jesus and the apostles.

The only real question about the post-biblical creeds is whether they are valid or not.

Which would you say came first in the church: unitarianism or trinitarianism?

 

[Johann]

Unlike biblical creedal statements which are scripture, post-biblical creeds aren’t scripture.

Post-biblical creeds are based on post-biblical interpretation of scripture. They come from the Catholic Church, not from Jesus and the apostles.

The only real question about the post-biblical creeds is whether they are valid or not.

Which would you say came first in the church: unitarianism or trinitarianism?

Trinitarianism.

J.

 

[Matthias]

Trinitarianism.

J.

Thanks. I think that would be the perception of the average trinitarian. Historically, unitarianism pre-dates trinitarianism in the church.

 

[Johann]

I think that would be the perception of the average trinitarian. Historically, unitarianism pre-dates trinitarianism in the church.

If "unitarianism" refers to the strict monotheism of pre-Christian Jewish belief, then yes, it pre-dates trinitarianism. However, in the context of Christian theology, unitarian views are generally seen as deviations from the apostolic faith, not its foundation.
Trinitarianism is a theological articulation of the God revealed in scripture, grounded in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ and the outpouring of the Spirit.

Your perception that unitarianism pre-dates trinitarianism in the church arises from conflating Jewish monotheism with Christian theology. The evidence from scripture and early church writings supports the conclusion that trinitarian belief, while formally defined later, has its roots in apostolic teaching and the earliest Christian community.

Thanks.

J.

 

[Matthias]

If "unitarianism" refers to the strict monotheism of pre-Christian Jewish belief, then yes, it pre-dates trinitarianism.

That’s a good observation. I’m in full agreement with you on that point.

However, in the context of Christian theology, unitarian views are generally seen as deviations from the apostolic faith, not its foundation.
Trinitarianism is a theological articulation of the God revealed in scripture, grounded in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ and the outpouring of the Spirit.

That’s a fair summary of the trinitarian position and attitude toward unitarianism.

Your perception that unitarianism pre-dates trinitarianism in the church arises from conflating Jewish monotheism with Christian theology.

That’s also a fair statement. I would just like to point out to our readers that that’s not always the case with unitarianism in general.

The evidence from scripture and early church writings supports the conclusion that trinitarian belief, while formally defined later, has its roots in apostolic teaching and the earliest Christian community.

I don’t fully agree with that. The church was already going off the rails in the late 1st century. The Jewish unitary monotheism of Jesus and the apostles was gradually undermined and replaced with trinitarianism. The shift that occurred can be seen in the writings that you are alluding to.

Recently, in another thread, I was discussing Gregory of Nyssa with a trinitarian member of the forum. Every trinitarian should become familiar with his statement concerning the destruction of Jewish monotheism by the church.

Thanks.

J.

 

[Johann]

I don’t agree with that. The church was already going off the rails in the late 1st century. The Jewish unitary monotheism of Jesus and the apostles was gradually undermined and replaced with trinitarianism. The shift that occurred can be seen in the writings that you are alluding to.

I see where you're coming from, and I agree that the early church faced significant challenges with false teachings and heresies, even during the apostolic era. The New Testament itself warns about such issues (e.g., Acts 20:29-30, 2 Peter 2:1).

However, I would argue that the presence of heresies doesn’t mean the entire church was “going off the rails.” The apostles’ writings provided corrective teaching to guide the early Christian community and safeguard the faith, as seen in passages like Jude 1:3, which exhorts believers to “contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints.”

I agree that Jesus and the apostles upheld Jewish monotheism, but they also revealed something more profound about the nature of God through the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. For example, in John 10:30, Jesus says, “I and the Father are one,” and in Matthew 28:19, the baptismal formula explicitly includes the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These teachings don’t contradict Jewish monotheism but expand its understanding in light of Christ’s incarnation and the Spirit’s work.

Regarding the writings of the early church, I understand how they might seem to reflect a theological shift, but I see them as a development of terminology rather than a departure from apostolic faith. For instance, Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 AD) refers to Jesus as “our God” in his letters (e.g., Letter to the Ephesians 18:2), and Justin Martyr (mid-2nd century) articulates Christ’s preexistence and divinity in ways consistent with John 1:1-3. These early church fathers didn’t create new doctrines-they were defending and clarifying what was already present in scripture, especially in response to challenges like Arianism.

I’d also point out that the apostles themselves taught about the divinity of Christ and the role of the Holy Spirit. For example, 1 Corinthians 8:6 affirms monotheism while distinguishing between the Father and the Son: “There is but one God, the Father... and one Lord Jesus Christ.” Similarly, Philippians 2:6-11 describes Jesus as existing in the form of God and being exalted, which aligns with trinitarian thought. These passages show that the foundation of trinitarianism is scriptural and not a later corruption.

If unitarianism were the original and dominant view of the apostolic church, I think we’d see more evidence of it in both the New Testament and the writings of the early church fathers. Instead, unitarian views, like those of the Ebionites, were often marginalized and considered heretical by the broader church. The councils, such as Nicaea, didn’t introduce new doctrines—they clarified and defended what the church already believed based on scripture.

So, while I understand your perspective, I’d argue that trinitarianism wasn’t a departure from the faith of Jesus and the apostles but rather a deeper understanding of the nature of God as revealed in scripture. The shift you see in early writings seems to me to be more about defending biblical truths in clearer terms rather than undermining them.

Shalom.

J.

 

[Matthias]

Elemental trinitarianism. I don’t recall if I’ve discussed it with you or not @Johann. I first became aware of the terminology in Fortman’s book, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity.

Fortman, a Catholic, isn’t shy about unitarianism preceding trinitarianism, nor about the apostles being in the strictest sense unitarians.

Elemental trinitarianism is taking isolated statements made in scripture and interpreting them in a non-unitarian way to develop trinitarian theology.

 

[Johann]

Elemental trinitarianism. I don’t recall if I’ve discussed it with you or not @Johann. I first became aware of the terminology in Fortman’s book, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity.

Fortman, a Catholic, isn’t shy about unitarianism preceding trinitarianism, nor about the apostles being in the strictest sense unitarians.

Elemental trinitarianism is taking isolated statements made in scripture and interpreting them in a non-unitarian way to develop trinitarian theology.

I believe we discussed this when I first joined the forum years ago, but I don’t need to read Fortman to know that the Triune Godhead is in Scripture, brother.

Edmund J. Fortman, in The Triune God, acknowledges that the full articulation of trinitarian doctrine was a gradual development. He discusses how the explicit terminology and theological frameworks of later councils (e.g., Nicaea, Constantinople) were not present in the apostolic era.

However, Fortman does not suggest that the apostles were "unitarians" in a sense that denies the divinity of Christ or the Holy Spirit. Instead, he emphasizes that the foundational elements of trinitarian theology-such as the divinity of Jesus, the personal nature of the Holy Spirit, and the relational aspects within the Godhead-are rooted in scripture and apostolic teaching.

2. Unitarianism and Early Christianity
If unitarianism is defined as a strict belief in a single-person God (as opposed to a triune understanding), this reflects the monotheism of Judaism, from which Christianity emerged.

The apostles, being Jewish, naturally operated within a monotheistic framework, but their writings reflect a redefinition of this monotheism in light of Jesus’ divine identity and the Spirit’s work. For example:

John 1:1 speaks of the Word as both with God and being God.

Philippians 2:6-11 describes Jesus as existing in the form of God.

2 Corinthians 13:14 places the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in a relational framework.

3. Elemental Trinitarianism in Scripture
The term "elemental trinitarianism" likely refers to identifying scriptural statements that hint at a triune understanding of God and using them as a foundation for later theological development. This process is not inherently flawed or non-scriptural-it reflects the church’s effort to synthesize and articulate biblical teaching in a coherent manner.

Key trinitarian elements in scripture include:
The baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19 ("in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit").
Jesus’ declaration of unity with the Father in John 10:30.
The identification of the Holy Spirit as divine in Acts 5:3-4.

4. Are the Apostles Unitarian in the "Strictest Sense"?
The apostles affirmed monotheism but expanded its understanding to include Jesus as divine and the Holy Spirit as a distinct personal presence. This is not unitarian in the strictest sense, as it goes beyond the Jewish understanding of God as a single-person deity.

Trinitarian theology is not a rejection of monotheism but an explanation of how the one God is revealed in three persons.

Fortman’s work acknowledges the historical development of trinitarian terminology but also affirms that its roots are in scripture and apostolic teaching. The apostles were not "strict" unitarians as understood in modern terms; their writings point to a more complex understanding of God that forms the basis for trinitarian theology. The process of articulating trinitarianism involves interpreting scripture as a whole, not isolating statements or imposing foreign concepts.

God bless.

J.

 

[Matthias]

I see where you're coming from, and I agree that the early church faced significant challenges with false teachings and heresies, even during the apostolic era. The New Testament itself warns about such issues (e.g., Acts 20:29-30, 2 Peter 2:1).

That’s a point of agreement for us.

However, I would argue that the presence of heresies doesn’t mean the entire church was “going off the rails.”

That’s a point of agreement for us as well. The primitive belief of the church, though persecuted, survives to this day.

The apostles’ writings provided corrective teaching to guide the early Christian community and safeguard the faith, as seen in passages like Jude 1:3, which exhorts believers to “contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints.”

Absolutely.

I agree that Jesus and the apostles upheld Jewish monotheism …

As Gregory of Nysaa explicitly points out, the church came to consider Jewish monotheism / dogma as heresy.

… but they also revealed something more profound about the nature of God through the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. For example, in John 10:30, Jesus says, “I and the Father are one,” and in Matthew 28:19, the baptismal formula explicitly includes the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These teachings don’t contradict Jewish monotheism but expand its understanding in light of Christ’s incarnation and the Spirit’s work.

That understanding is a reading of later trinitarianism into scripture. Strict Jewish unitary monotheism is incompatible with trinitarianism.

Regarding the writings of the early church, I understand how they might seem to reflect a theological shift, but I see them as a development of terminology rather than a departure from apostolic faith. For instance, Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 AD) refers to Jesus as “our God” in his letters (e.g., Letter to the Ephesians 18:2) …

As I’ve documented in another thread recently, the letters of Ignatius have been corrupted. We can read the long version and the short version of his letter.

Let’s pause for a moment anyway to look at the post-biblical phrase “Jesus our God”. As a Jewish monotheist (which Ignatius was not), I wouldn’t commonly use the phrase. My God is his God and no other. However, it is acceptable in Jewish monotheism to refer to persons who aren’t God as God. This can be done with Jesus (and others), as scripture attests.

… and Justin Martyr (mid-2nd century) articulates Christ’s preexistence and divinity in ways consistent with John 1:1-3.

Justin Marytr believed in two numerical Gods, not one numerical God. One God was superior to the other in his understanding.

As for John 1:1-3, you’ll probably recall that I direct peoples attention to the rendering given in English translations of the Bible published prior to the King James.

These early church fathers didn’t create new doctrines …

Trinitarianism is a new doctrine and it wasn’t fully defined until the fourth century.

-they were defending and clarifying what was already present in scripture, especially in response to challenges like Arianism.

Arianism was a fourth century, not a second century, affair. It is correct to say that it is a form of unitarianism. I reject that form.

I’d also point out that the apostles themselves taught about the divinity of Christ and the role of the Holy Spirit. For example, 1 Corinthians 8:6 affirms monotheism while distinguishing between the Father and the Son: “There is but one God, the Father... and one Lord Jesus Christ.”

I Corinthians 8:6 is a pure expression of Jewish unitary monotheism. The one God is identified as one person, the Father. The one lord is Jesus (see Psalm 110:1, and applied to Jesus in the NT).

Similarly, Philippians 2:6-11 describes Jesus as existing in the form of God and being exalted…

Yes. Exalted by whom? By the one God of Jewish monotheism, his God, the Father.

... which aligns with trinitarian thought.

Trinitarian thought destroyed Jewish monotheism thought.

These passages show that the foundation of trinitarianism is scriptural and not a later corruption.

I would say that what these passages show is that the foundation is Jewish monotheism. This is where the testimony of Gregory of Nyssa becomes critical in our understanding of the post-biblical development of the doctrine of the Trinity.

If unitarianism were the original and dominant view of the apostolic church, I think we’d see more evidence of it in both the New Testament and the writings of the early church fathers.

Jewish monotheism is unitarian. Jesus and the apostles upheld Jewish monotheism. That is what we see in the New Testament.

The church slowly destroyed Jewish monotheism. That is what we see in the writings of the early church fathers.

Let us take Tertullian as an example. Do you think he was a trinitarian?

Instead, unitarian views, like those of the Ebionites, were often marginalized and considered heretical by the broader church.

The Ebionites were unitarian. They were Judaizers and Judaizers are seen as heretics in scripture.

The councils, such as Nicaea, didn’t introduce new doctrines—they clarified and defended what the church already believed based on scripture.

Even the Council of Nicaea didn’t establish trinitarianism as orthodoxy. That was done at the Council of Constantinople in AD 381 and enforced by the Roman Empire.

So, while I understand your perspective, I’d argue that trinitarianism wasn’t a departure from the faith of Jesus and the apostles but rather a deeper understanding of the nature of God as revealed in scripture. The shift you see in early writings seems to me to be more about defending biblical truths in clearer terms rather than undermining them.

Shalom.

J.

There is much more that I can do with this paragraph but I’ll leave it at that for now. Good conversation. Thank you.

 

[Matthias]

I believe we discussed this when I first joined the forum years ago, but I don’t need to read Fortman to know that the Triune Godhead is in Scripture, brother.

Edmund J. Fortman, in The Triune God, acknowledges that the full articulation of trinitarian doctrine was a gradual development. He discusses how the explicit terminology and theological frameworks of later councils (e.g., Nicaea, Constantinople) were not present in the apostolic era.

Excellent.

However, Fortman does not suggest that the apostles were "unitarians" in a sense that denies the divinity of Christ or the Holy Spirit. Instead, he emphasizes that the foundational elements of trinitarian theology-such as the divinity of Jesus, the personal nature of the Holy Spirit, and the relational aspects within the Godhead-are rooted in scripture and apostolic teaching.

Have you read for yourself what he said they believed? If you haven’t, you should. I’ll quote it for our readers after I retrieve it from my personal library later today.

2. Unitarianism and Early Christianity
If unitarianism is defined as a strict belief in a single-person God (as opposed to a triune understanding), this reflects the monotheism of Judaism, from which Christianity emerged.

That’s correct. Christianity began as a sect of, and within, Judaism.

The apostles, being Jewish, naturally operated within a monotheistic framework, but their writings reflect a redefinition of this monotheism in light of Jesus’ divine identity and the Spirit’s work. For example:

John 1:1 speaks of the Word as both with God and being God.

Philippians 2:6-11 describes Jesus as existing in the form of God.

2 Corinthians 13:14 places the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in a relational framework.

The apostles weren’t just monotheists; they were strict Jewish monotheists, as is Jesus. Their writings don’t redefine Jewish monotheism. We must always keep in mind the testimony of Gregory of Nyssa.

3. Elemental Trinitarianism in Scripture
The term "elemental trinitarianism" likely refers to identifying scriptural statements that hint at a triune understanding of God and using them as a foundation for later theological development. This process is not inherently flawed or non-scriptural-it reflects the church’s effort to synthesize and articulate biblical teaching in a coherent manner.

You’re saying that scripture hints at a triune understanding is an important one. It assumes that scripture hints at something which scripture itself doesn’t actually say.

Key trinitarian elements in scripture include:
The baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19 ("in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit").
Jesus’ declaration of unity with the Father in John 10:30.
The identification of the Holy Spirit as divine in Acts 5:3-4.

All of these passages of scripture, I would argue, should be understood as explained by the Jewish unitary monotheism of the 1st century setting in order to be properly understood.

4. Are the Apostles Unitarian in the "Strictest Sense"?
The apostles affirmed monotheism but expanded its understanding to include Jesus as divine and the Holy Spirit as a distinct personal presence.

There was no expansion by the apostles. There was an expansion, much later, by the church.

This is not unitarian in the strictest sense, as it goes beyond the Jewish understanding of God as a single-person deity.

The Jewish understanding of God is unitarian. That’s an important point that you’re making.

Jesus is a Jew. His understanding of God is that he is a single-person deity. The apostles are Jews. Their understanding of God is that he is a single-person deity.

Is the Messiah’s God not a single-person, the Father?

Do you think the apostles themselves had a different understanding of who his God and their God is? I don’t.

The Church began as a sect of Judaism. Primitive Christianity is Jewish. Nicene Christianity is not Jewish.

Trinitarian theology is not a rejection of monotheism but an explanation of how the one God is revealed in three persons.

Trinitarian monotheism isn’t Jewish monotheism. The revelation that you’re embracing (and I’m rejecting) is a post-biblical revelation.

Fortman’s work acknowledges the historical development of trinitarian terminology but also affirms that its roots are in scripture and apostolic teaching. The apostles were not "strict" unitarians as understood in modern terms; their writings point to a more complex understanding of God that forms the basis for trinitarian theology. The process of articulating trinitarianism involves interpreting scripture as a whole, not isolating statements or imposing foreign concepts.

God bless.

J.

Trinitarianism “connects the dots” in a way that is incompatible with Jewish monotheism. A different picture is painted.

 

[Matthias]

The difficulty for trinitarianism is the Jewish unitary monotheism of the historical Jesus -> His God, we see in scripture, is only one person, the Father. By faith and by practice, by simple definition, he himself is a strict unitarian.

 

[Johann]

All of these passages of scripture, I would argue, should be understood as explained by the Jewish unitary monotheism of the 1st century setting in order to be properly understood.

Please explain these passages of Scripture by the Jewish unitary monotheism of the 1 century so I can properly understand it.

J.

 

[Matthias]

In your opinion @Johann, is it a salvation issue?

 

[Johann]

In your opinion @Johann, is it a salvation issue?

No brother.

J.