Freethought & Rationalism Archive

hatsoff · 10-09-2006, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Almost always doesn't cut it. The fact is that it doesn't have to. We need to be as concise as possible if you're discussing hypothetical theology.

Don't you mean "precise"?

Chris Weimer · 10-09-2006, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hatsoff

Don't you mean "precise"?

Of course, mea culpa. As precise as possible. Now, with that in mind, can we get exactly from what position you're imagining the text coming?

hatsoff · 10-09-2006, 05:00 PM

Like I said above, this thread is intended to discuss whether or not inerrancy believers have a Biblical basis for the Trinity. At this point, I'm inclined to say they do.

J-D · 10-09-2006, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hatsoff

It can work, of course. So can nontrinitarianism. The question is, which is the most natural, unbiased interpretation?

Nontrinitarianism, since trinitarianism is incoherent. In order to believe in a trinitarian creed, you have to believe that some forms of words are correct and others incorrect without knowing what they mean, which is impossible.

As I mentioned before,

Sabellianism is a nontrinitarian position compatible with the texts you're quoting, and has the advantage over trinitarian interpretations of being comprehensible.

hatsoff · 10-09-2006, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Nontrinitarianism, since trinitarianism is incoherent. In order to believe in a trinitarian creed, you have to believe that some forms of words are correct and others incorrect without knowing what they mean, which is impossible.

As I mentioned before,

Sabellianism is a nontrinitarian position compatible with the texts you're quoting, and has the advantage over trinitarian interpretations of being comprehensible.

Eh, I don't buy that. The New Testament is clear in differentiating between Jesus and God. And of course the OT uses plural "elohim," which many Christians eagerly misrepresent as pre-NT evidence for Trinitarian beliefs.

J-D · 10-09-2006, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hatsoff

Eh, I don't buy that.

Which don't you buy?

Quote:

Originally Posted by hatsoff

The New Testament is clear in differentiating between Jesus and God.

If there are texts saying that clearly, then they are on the face of it incompatible with the texts you previously referred to as using 'Spirit of God' and 'Spirit of Christ' interchangeably.

hatsoff · 10-10-2006, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Which don't you buy?

I don't see how a literal reading of Scripture supports a Sabellianist interpretation.

Quote:

If there are texts saying that clearly, then they are on the face of it incompatible with the texts you previously referred to as using 'Spirit of God' and 'Spirit of Christ' interchangeably.

How so?

spin · 10-10-2006, 10:15 AM

If one understands the notion of a mediator, you have one entity acting as a go-between for two other entities. This, by necessity, makes the mediator a separate entity from the other two, otherwise one renders the notion of mediation meaningless, because the mediator is simply a reflection of one of the parties in the mediation and is therefore useless.

spin

Clivedurdle · 10-10-2006, 11:28 AM

Quote:

The terms "Trinity" and "persons" as related to the Godhead, while not found in the Scriptures, are words in harmony with Scripture,

http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/Statement_...s/sft_full.cfm

Assemblies of God - See One True God.

judge · 10-10-2006, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hatsoff

From the perspective of an inerrancy believer, is the Trinity Biblical?

Any thoughts?

If the trinity were biblcal then the bible would mention it. But the bible never mentions the trinity.

The bible uses different words and ideas to describe the relationship between god the spirit and the son

10-10-2006, 10:15 AM	#28
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Just one of the more obvious considerations... If one understands the notion of a mediator, you have one entity acting as a go-between for two other entities. This, by necessity, makes the mediator a separate entity from the other two, otherwise one renders the notion of mediation meaningless, because the mediator is simply a reflection of one of the parties in the mediation and is therefore useless. spin

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-09-2006, 05:00 PM	#23
hatsoff Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Rockford, IL Posts: 740	Like I said above, this thread is intended to discuss whether or not inerrancy believers have a Biblical basis for the Trinity. At this point, I'm inclined to say they do.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.