In article <085.18.08.05.614473000@srcbs.org>, basicallyblues says...
>
>
>
>Did the Ante-Nicene Fathers Teach or Believe in the Trinity?

Yes, they did. Only the more modern vocabulary for 'Trinity' had not yet been
invented. So they had to express themselves in more indirect and cumbersome
ways.

Unfortunately, this laborious periphrasis left them open to misinterpretation --
which is exactly the pit the author of your tract fell into.

>Some of the most significant extant religious documents available to us
>at present are the writings of the ante-Nicene Fathers.

Hardly. Too much has not survived, or survived only in fragmentary form. This is
why interpreting what we _do_ have should be left to people with more expertise
than you or the author of this tract you cite without attribution.

> The voluminous

'Voluminous'? Don't make me laugh. Their collected, surviving works do not even
match St. Augustine for volume. And St. Augustine was only one man! Such is the
difference in literary productivity Constantine made by legalizing Christianity.

>literary corpus produced by the early Church Fathers is crucial

It is crucial, which makes it all the more a pity your author has misread it so
badly.

> since
>it provides a glimpse into the early Church's unique belief system.

It is not 'unique'. It is the same belief system the Orthodox hold to today in
spite of persecution and harassment from Moslem, Atheist, JW etc. Only the
language has changed on an 'as-needed' basis.

>In
>short, the ante-Nicene library of works contains early Christianity's
>doctrine of God. Most important for our present purposes, these
>theological documents help us to appreciate the early Church's position
>on the Trinity and its view of Christ in God's divine purpose.

They do, but only when read without the deep prejudice you and your authors
continually display. Selective quotation is a dishonest device for making others
say whatever you want them to say.

> With
>regard to the Trinity doctrine, however, what was the view of the
>ante-Nicene ecclesia? Did the ante-Nicene fathers teach that God is
>threefold?

Yes.

> Alternatively, did these men espouse a subordinationist
>view?

Some did. But that was not the only 'alternative' view.

>When reading the last question, some readers may feel that we are
>guilty of the either/or (vel/vel) fallacy.

And rightly so.

>"Stop question loading!" logicians may assert.

Again, and rightly so.

> Yes, certain readers may think that it is
>erroneous to assume that the ante-Nicene fathers w