EPILOGUE
Was
the vicar right .... ? The
vicar in our Prologue obviously had strong views on the doctrine
of the Trinity. Having heard the evidence, can you share his
point of view? Had he accepted the doctrine just because it
was part of the long-established position of the Church, or
had he deduced it from his own personal study? Would he have
taken the same line if he had known that:
Many
of his fellow Trinitarians have accepted that the Trinity
is not a Bible doctrine:
the Apostolic church did not teach it; nor did their immediate
successors, the 'Apostolic Fathers':
the doctrine of the Trinity is really a product of the 4th
century, and was formulated only after considerable opposition
at a series of sometimes unrepresentative and poorly run
church councils, and established as official church policy
by edict of the Roman Emperor:
and that most of the biblical passages commonly used to
support the doctrine of the Trinity only appear to do so
if they are read with the Trinity already in mind. Taking
the passages in their context, and with regard to the intentions
of the writers and the understanding of the original readers,
no such meaning was intended?
This
present volume adduces what we hope to be compelling evidence
that the "faith which was once for all (time) delivered to
the saints" (171)
knew nothing of the doctrine of the Trinity: that it was rather
"a capitulation of the biblical revelation to a foreign system
from which Christianity has not yet escaped"
(172).
It
is the authors' prayer that their labours will help some to
escape the 'foreign system', and come to recognise and love
the 'only true God, and Jesus Christ whom He has sent' and
so at last receive the eternal life that will be freely given
to those who truly know him (173).
REFERENCES
171.
Jude 3
172.
Rusch, W.G.: The Trinitarian Controversy, p.27
173.
John 17:3 |
