Originally Posted by T.J .
Is this true?
The early church fathers were relatively silent on the doctrine of the Trinity because they were busy defending other areas of scripture. Many doctrines are honed and clarified through persecution and needful defense. Their (the early church fathers) silence does little to discredit the doctrine of the Trinity.

Likewise, the “historical gap” theory does little to discredit what the Apostle Paul, Jesus, and God Himself teach throughout the entirety of the Bible.
I think your last statement is ultimately the answer since Scripture is the ultimate authority in all matters of faith (doctrine) and practice. And CovenantInBlood likewise confirmed this as well.

Let's not forget that the last of the Apostles, perhaps John, lived to almost 100 A.D. So, there is but a 225 period of time elapsing from then to the first Ecumenical Council held at Nicea (modern day Turkey) in 325 A.D. where the Nicean Creed was formulated. And why did this Council meet? A man named Arius attacked the universally held doctrine of the Church; the Trinity. Notice please that Arius tried to refute what was already believed. The doctrine of the Trinity was extent and believed on in the Church, therefore, before 325 A.D. which means the ECF also believed this doctrine. There was no pressing need to publish the doctrine of the Trinity as there was no real opposition to it. So, it's not as if the doctrine was unknown by the ECF.

Church history shows clearly that the overwhelming majority of the Creeds and Confessions came about AFTER someone(s) brought an opposition to what was already believed as biblical truth in the Church. These great statements of faith didn't introduce NEW doctrine but rather iterated long-held beliefs and articulated them to refute the error(s) brought against them.

In His grace,

[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]