Actscelerate.com Forum Index Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
r/Actscelerate

I believe these trinitarians...

 
   Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Acts-Celerate Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Message Author
Post I believe these trinitarians... Resident Skeptic
There is still room for debate and discussion, though, especially as it relates to Christ's genuine humanity. But these scholars genuinely teach "God in three persons" versus the more modern and popular "thee persons who are each God" distortion. Keep in mind all of these men affirm the doctrine of the Trinity....

Quote:

1) Dr. Frank Stagg, retired professor of New Testament interpretation at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. The following quotes are from the first chapter of his book, The Holy Spirit Today. The chapter is titled, “The Holy Spirit and the Oneness of God.”

The New Testament is content to know God as the eternal Father, as the Word made flesh in Jesus of Nazareth, and as the abiding nearness of the Holy Spirit. It does not attempt to work out a formal doctrine of trinity. This is the work of later generations of Christians....

It was first in the second century that the 'trinitarian question' was raised as such. The word 'trinity' does not appear in the New Testament, and it is to be recognized that there is no formal doctrine of trinity in the New Testament....

The formal doctrine of trinity was rounded out in the fourth century, but its roots are older. Tertullian (A.D. 160?-230?) is credited with coining the word 'trinitas,' the Latin for 'trinity' ... But what began as insistence upon tri-unity eventually became an emphasis upon the threeness and increasing jeopardy to the belief in oneness.2

To the term trinity were soon added the terms 'persons,' 'three persons,' 'three persons of the Godhead,' and even the ranking of the persons as first, second, and third. Thus trinitarianism was fast on the way to tritheism, a de facto belief in three distinct gods. This the New Testament never anticipated and does not support.3


Jesus Christ is God uniquely present in a truly human life, but he is not a second god nor only one third of God. Jesus Christ is the Word made flesh (John 1:1). The Word which became flesh was God, not the second person of the trinity. John does not say, 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was the Second Person of the trinity' (1:1). He says that 'the Word was God.' Jesus Christ is more than 'the Second person of the trinity'; He is Immanuel, God with us. Immanuel does not mean 'the Second person of the trinity with us.' Immanuel is God with us.4



In reference to the Holy Spirit, Dr. Stagg affirms:

Quote:
The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God, not the Spirit of the third person of the trinity. The Holy Spirit is God in his nearness and power, anywhere and anytime, the very divine presence incarnated in Jesus Christ now present in his people. He is not a third God nor one-third of God. He is God himself relating to us in judgment, guidance, strength, redemption, or otherwise.5




2) Professor Alister McGrath is the Principal of the Hall, and Professor of Historical Theology at Oxford University. He studied at the universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and served in a parish in Nottingham before joining the staff at Wycliffe. He is one of the most widely read and influential Christian writers in the world, and travels extensively to speak at conferences and missions.

Quote:
If you look at the doctrine of the early church during the first two and a half centuries or so, you find that the doctrine of the Trinity has yet to be developed....That development took place in the third or fourth centuries.8


... the New Testament tends to think of the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of Christ as much as of God. The Spirit is understood to stand in the closest of possible relationships to Christ, so that his presence among the people of Christ is equivalent to the presence of Christ himself, just as the presence of Christ is treated as being that of God himself. In other words, to encounter the Son is really to encounter the Father and not some demigod or surrogate. To encounter the Spirit is really to encounter the Son and hence the Father. ... To affirm the divinity of Father, Son and Spirit is not to suggest that there are three gods, but simply that the one God can be encountered in these different ways, all of which are equally valid.11


It is not the doctrine of the Trinity which underlies the Christian faith, but the living God whom we encounter through Jesus Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit ... when we think of God, we don’t think of three individual gods, but of one God whom we experience and encounter in a three-fold manner.18

When you’re trying to explain Christianity to someone, the last thing you’d want to talk about is the trinity. Instead, you might begin by talking about Jesus Christ, about his death on the cross and resurrection, or you might talk about the possibility of encountering or experiencing God here and now.20

The word ‘person’ has changed its meaning since the third century when it began to be used in connection with the 'threefoldness of God. By stating that there were three persons but only one God, Tertullian was asserting that all three major roles in the great drama of human redemption are played by the one and the same God. The three great roles in this drama are all played by the same actor: God. Each of these roles may reveal God in a somewhat different way, but it is the same God in every case. So when we talk about God as one person, we mean one person in the modern sense of the word, and when we talk about God as three persons, we mean three persons in the ancient sense of the word.... Confusing these two senses of the word 'person’ inevitably leads to the idea that God is actually a committee.




3) Karl Rahner was the leading Roman Catholic theologian of the 20th century.

Quote:
. . . the use of the term ‘person’ in the doctrine of the Trinity becomes increasingly problematic . . . . We might wonder if it would be more appropriate to speak of three hypostases in God (or, to express it in a more modern form, of three modes of subsistence of the one God in his one sole nature) and in this way more easily to prevent popular misunderstandings of the doctrine of the Trinity and also in what really amounts to indiscriminate speculative interpretations of this doctrine in current theology.


. . . the term . . . ‘mode of subsistence’ . . . involves fewer dangers of what is in the last resort a tritheistic misunderstanding of the trinitarian dogma.
. . . we cannot be content to make use of any kind of blurred, indistinct concept of ‘person’ . . . when speaking about three persons in God, and then to assume that we have understood and correctly expressed the dogma of the Trinity.


. . . it cannot be denied that it is possible . . . to arrive at a theology of the Trinity which does not . . . have to work with the traditional concept of person, but can make use of the concepts of hypostases (as distinct from persons), or modes of subsistence of one and the same God.


. . . we Christians talk a little too ingenuously of three divine persons and then say that each one of these three is God, so that (as we should readily admit to ourselves) we are exposed to the danger of being regarded as tritheists.


. . . It is by no means absolutely necessary to speak of ‘three persons’ even in regard to the Trinity (a usage which is not to be found anyway in the New Testament) in order to explain what Christianity really means by this doctrine.



4) Karl Barth is widely considered the most influential Christian theologian of the 20th century.

Quote:
This distinction or order is the distinction or order of the three “persons,” or, as we prefer to say, the three “modes (or ways) of being” in God. . . .
We have avoided the term “person” . . . . It was never adequately clarified when first introduced into the Church’s vocabulary, nor did the interpretation which it was later given and which prevailed in mediaeval and post-Reformation Scholasticism as a whole really bring this clarification, nor has the injection of the modern concept of personality into the debate achieved anything but fresh confusion.[1]
[1] Barth, Church Dogmatics, 355.


What is called “personality” in the conceptual vocabulary of the 19th century is distinguished from the patristic and mediaeval persona by the addition of the attribute of self-consciousness. This really complicates the whole issue. . . .

. . . the attribute of individuality when it is related to Father, Son and Spirit as such instead of the one essence of God, the idea of a threefold individuality, is scarcely possible without tritheism.

. . . the Holy Spirit could not possibly be regarded as the third ‘person.’ In a particularly clear way the Holy Spirit is what the Father and the Son also are. He is not a third spiritual Subject, a third I, a third Lord side by side with two others. He is a third mode of being of the one divine Subject or Lord.

If it is true that God reveals Himself to us through His only-begotten Son, if it is also true that God’s only-begotten Son is no less and no other than God the Father, if it is true again that God’s revelation is also the revelation of His love, if revelation would not be revelation without the outpouring and impartation of the Spirit through whom man becomes the child of God, can it be that this Spirit is not directly the Spirit of the Son as well?



5) Dr. Millard J. Erickson is Distinguished Professor of Theology at Truett Seminary, Baylor University, and the author of the widely acclaimed Systematics work Christian Theology.
Quote:

... the doctrine of the Trinity ... presents what seems on the surface to be a self-contradictory doctrine ... this doctrine is not overtly or explicitly stated in Scripture.... the formulation of the doctrine has had a long and complex history ... the Scripture ... led the church to formulate and propound this strange doctrine.21

In practice even orthodox Christians have difficulty clinging simultaneously to the several components of the doctrine. Our use of these several analogies suggests that perhaps in practice or in our unofficial theology none of us is really fully trinitarian. We tend to alternate between tritheism, a belief in three equal, closely related Gods, and modalism, a belief in one God who plays three different roles or reveals himself in three different fashions.28

In his concluding comments on the subject, Erickson asserts that the doctrine of the trinity “is so absurd from a human standpoint that no one would have invented it.”32 He closes by quoting a popular expression concerning the doctrine of the trinity:

Try to explain it, and you’ll lose your mind;

But try to deny it, and you’ll lose your soul.33

_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
10/19/18 1:14 pm


View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Reply with quote
Post Dave Dorsey
That's cool. I believe these trinatarians:

Code:
Whoever desires to be saved should above all hold to the catholic faith.

Anyone who does not keep it whole and unbroken will doubtless perish eternally.

Now this is the catholic faith:

    That we worship one God in trinity and the trinity in unity,
    neither blending their persons
    nor dividing their essence.
        For the person of the Father is a distinct person,
        the person of the Son is another,
        and that of the Holy Spirit still another.
        But the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one,
        their glory equal, their majesty coeternal.

    What quality the Father has, the Son has, and the Holy Spirit has.
        The Father is uncreated,
        the Son is uncreated,
        the Holy Spirit is uncreated.

        The Father is immeasurable,
        the Son is immeasurable,
        the Holy Spirit is immeasurable.

        The Father is eternal,
        the Son is eternal,
        the Holy Spirit is eternal.

            And yet there are not three eternal beings;
            there is but one eternal being.
            So too there are not three uncreated or immeasurable beings;
            there is but one uncreated and immeasurable being.

    Similarly, the Father is almighty,
        the Son is almighty,
        the Holy Spirit is almighty.
            Yet there are not three almighty beings;
            there is but one almighty being.

        Thus the Father is God,
        the Son is God,
        the Holy Spirit is God.
            Yet there are not three gods;
            there is but one God.

        Thus the Father is Lord,
        the Son is Lord,
        the Holy Spirit is Lord.
            Yet there are not three lords;
            there is but one Lord.

    Just as Christian truth compels us
    to confess each person individually
    as both God and Lord,
    so catholic religion forbids us
    to say that there are three gods or lords.

    The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten from anyone.
    The Son was neither made nor created;
    he was begotten from the Father alone.
    The Holy Spirit was neither made nor created nor begotten;
    he proceeds from the Father and the Son.

    Accordingly there is one Father, not three fathers;
    there is one Son, not three sons;
    there is one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits.

    Nothing in this trinity is before or after,
    nothing is greater or smaller;
    in their entirety the three persons
    are coeternal and coequal with each other.

    So in everything, as was said earlier,
    we must worship their trinity in their unity
    and their unity in their trinity.

Anyone then who desires to be saved
should think thus about the trinity.
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
10/19/18 2:43 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Resident Skeptic
Dave Dorsey wrote:
That's cool. I believe these trinatarians:

Code:
Whoever desires to be saved should above all hold to the catholic faith.

Anyone who does not keep it whole and unbroken will doubtless perish eternally.

Now this is the catholic faith:

    That we worship one God in trinity and the trinity in unity,
    neither blending their persons
    nor dividing their essence.
        For the person of the Father is a distinct person,
        the person of the Son is another,
        and that of the Holy Spirit still another.
        But the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one,
        their glory equal, their majesty coeternal.

    What quality the Father has, the Son has, and the Holy Spirit has.
        The Father is uncreated,
        the Son is uncreated,
        the Holy Spirit is uncreated.

        The Father is immeasurable,
        the Son is immeasurable,
        the Holy Spirit is immeasurable.

        The Father is eternal,
        the Son is eternal,
        the Holy Spirit is eternal.

            And yet there are not three eternal beings;
            there is but one eternal being.
            So too there are not three uncreated or immeasurable beings;
            there is but one uncreated and immeasurable being.

    Similarly, the Father is almighty,
        the Son is almighty,
        the Holy Spirit is almighty.
            Yet there are not three almighty beings;
            there is but one almighty being.

        Thus the Father is God,
        the Son is God,
        the Holy Spirit is God.
            Yet there are not three gods;
            there is but one God.

        Thus the Father is Lord,
        the Son is Lord,
        the Holy Spirit is Lord.
            Yet there are not three lords;
            there is but one Lord.

    Just as Christian truth compels us
    to confess each person individually
    as both God and Lord,
    so catholic religion forbids us
    to say that there are three gods or lords.

    The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten from anyone.
    The Son was neither made nor created;
    he was begotten from the Father alone.
    The Holy Spirit was neither made nor created nor begotten;
    he proceeds from the Father and the Son.

    Accordingly there is one Father, not three fathers;
    there is one Son, not three sons;
    there is one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits.

    Nothing in this trinity is before or after,
    nothing is greater or smaller;
    in their entirety the three persons
    are coeternal and coequal with each other.

    So in everything, as was said earlier,
    we must worship their trinity in their unity
    and their unity in their trinity.

Anyone then who desires to be saved
should think thus about the trinity.


Even at that, were the authors here defining "person" as "self-aware rationale being" or,as Allister McGrath mentions, were they referring to "persona"which mlore closely resembles the mask an actor wore?

Personally I think it is error to ever make "Father" just a role. It is obvious that the Father is the one true God from which all iminates.

Furthermore, why is it so taboo to rethink Nicea?

Why not accept that the Nicaean participants were fallible men who made some mistakes in their interpretations ?

The men I quoted above are only saying with boldness what many think but are afraid to say.
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI


Last edited by Resident Skeptic on 10/20/18 6:54 am; edited 2 times in total
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
10/19/18 4:07 pm


View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Reply with quote
Post Resident Skeptic
Quote:
And yet there are not three eternal beings;


If that is the case, then "person" cannot mean "center of self-consciousness" as it relates to the persons of the Trinity.
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
10/19/18 4:11 pm


View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Reply with quote
Post Dave Dorsey
In the other thread, you said:

Quote:
With so many varying versions of the trinity (and my belief system fits within the tolerances of some of those "versions"), who gets to decide who is an authentic trinitarian?

IMO - catholicism (little C) makes this really simple. Anyone who confesses the Athanasian Creed is an authentic trinitarian.

The Athanasian Creed is not inspired Scripture -- it was not God-breathed in that sense -- but it is a confession that has been affirmed by the catholic (little C) church throughout hundreds and hundreds of years. I believe it is wise and safe for believers today to join the witness that Christ's catholic church, across time and across space, has expressed and shared concerning this matter. It represents catholic (little C) orthodoxy on this issue.
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
10/19/18 4:56 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Resident Skeptic
Dave Dorsey wrote:
In the other thread, you said:

Quote:
With so many varying versions of the trinity (and my belief system fits within the tolerances of some of those "versions"), who gets to decide who is an authentic trinitarian?

IMO - catholicism (little C) makes this really simple. Anyone who confesses the Athanasian Creed is an authentic trinitarian.

The Athanasian Creed is not inspired Scripture -- it was not God-breathed in that sense -- but it is a confession that has been affirmed by the catholic (little C) church throughout hundreds and hundreds of years. I believe it is wise and safe for believers today to join the witness that Christ's catholic church, across time and across space, has expressed and shared concerning this matter. It represents catholic (little C) orthodoxy on this issue.


If the persons are not three divine beings, then that is fine. But if, prior to the man Christ Jesus being added to the mix, there were three centers of self-consciousness, then that's tritheism.
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
10/19/18 5:03 pm


View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Reply with quote
Post Dave Dorsey
Resident Skeptic wrote:
If the persons are not three divine beings, then that is fine. But if, prior to the man Christ Jesus being added to the mix, there were three centers of self-consciousness, then that's tritheism.

Code:
And yet there are not three eternal beings;
there is but one eternal being.
So too there are not three uncreated or immeasurable beings;
there is but one uncreated and immeasurable being.

The second half of the Athanasian Creed, which I did not include above, addresses the union of Christ's divinity and humanity. Here is a portion:

Code:
Although he is God and human,
yet Christ is not two, but one.
He is one, however,
not by his divinity being turned into flesh,
but by God's taking humanity to himself.
He is one,
certainly not by the blending of his essence,
but by the unity of his person.
For just as one human is both rational soul and flesh,
so too the one Christ is both God and human.
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
10/19/18 5:19 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Resident Skeptic
Dave Dorsey wrote:
Resident Skeptic wrote:
If the persons are not three divine beings, then that is fine. But if, prior to the man Christ Jesus being added to the mix, there were three centers of self-consciousness, then that's tritheism.

Code:
And yet there are not three eternal beings;
there is but one eternal being.
So too there are not three uncreated or immeasurable beings;
there is but one uncreated and immeasurable being.

The second half of the Athanasian Creed, which I did not include above, addresses the union of Christ's divinity and humanity. Here is a portion:

Code:
Although he is God and human,
yet Christ is not two, but one.


He is one,
certainly not by the blending of his essence,
but by the unity of his person.
For just as one human is both rational soul and flesh,
so too the one Christ is both God and human.









Quote:
He is one, however,
not by his divinity being turned into flesh,
but by God's taking humanity to himself.


The emboldened is important. There is something called "the doctrine of divine flesh" floating around that declares part of God's divine substance transformed into flesh. I agree that God took humanity to himself. However, the only God who could have done that imo was the Father by way of his Word. Yet, the flesh he took upon himself was that of his human Son who was begat in the incarnation. But that Son refused to act upon the divine prerogatives associated with being in the ontological union with God and chose instead to die for us, and God delivered him up for us all. Thus, God did not die imo.
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
10/19/18 5:33 pm


View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Reply with quote
Post You simply do NOT have to believe trinitarian doctrine to be saved.... Aaron Scott
First, because it seeks to say something spiritual without being itself scripture. While ALL scripture is inspired by God, all theology is not. Not even those with the best of intentions.

At some point, men began to try to figure out just how God and the Son of God "fit" together. How can there be ONE God, yet Jesus is obviously divine. So what gives? Men came to different conclusions. Men argued their points, each claiming that the other did irreparable harm to the truth of scripture.

One side claimed that the other side had denigrated the status of Jesus to a creation.

The other side claimed that their opponents had denigrated the monotheistic understanding of God.

On and on it went. Finally, they all got together and had it out. One side lost.

Except they didn't quite lose, for the over the next few years the "losing" side changed hands several times. First this one was in favor, then that one was in favor.

Why is it that humans cannot accept that there may actually be things that we cannot understand about God? We handle that well when it comes to explaining what bad things happen to good people (i.e., we often go with the fact that the ways of God are past human understanding). But when it comes down to just how Father, Son, and Holy Ghost fit together, we claim we have it figured out. And not just figured out, but we KNOW we're right...and they, the other side, are WRONG. Oh, and it will probably send you to hell if you believe the wrong one.

If you think that God will send ANYONE to hell for not understanding the trinity, or not accepting it blindly (which is what pretty much every MUST do), then you need to question your concept of God.

Yes, we hold to the truth that the Father and Son have existed--and will exist--for all eternity. We also hold that there is one God. But since we cannot explain it with scripture (and, no, you can't--and everyone who studies it knows that you can't), then why would we dare to claim that someone who doesn't see it OUR way (which we cannot prove from scripture) is going to hell?

Well, it sells books. Maybe.

But most of all, it lets everyone know that the OTHER GUYS are wrong, wrong, wrong. And you should side with us.

Simplification? Sure. But it has more than a grain of truth.

When we debate theology, no matter the topic, it seems we tend to come up with reasons why the other guy's theology will take people straight to hell. Or, if not hell, then will seriously compromise them spiritually.
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6027
10/20/18 6:39 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Re: You simply do NOT have to believe trinitarian doctrine to be saved.... Resident Skeptic
Aaron Scott wrote:
First, because it seeks to say something spiritual without being itself scripture. While ALL scripture is inspired by God, all theology is not. Not even those with the best of intentions.

At some point, men began to try to figure out just how God and the Son of God "fit" together. How can there be ONE God, yet Jesus is obviously divine. So what gives? Men came to different conclusions. Men argued their points, each claiming that the other did irreparable harm to the truth of scripture.

One side claimed that the other side had denigrated the status of Jesus to a creation.

The other side claimed that their opponents had denigrated the monotheistic understanding of God.

On and on it went. Finally, they all got together and had it out. One side lost.

Except they didn't quite lose, for the over the next few years the "losing" side changed hands several times. First this one was in favor, then that one was in favor.

Why is it that humans cannot accept that there may actually be things that we cannot understand about God? We handle that well when it comes to explaining what bad things happen to good people (i.e., we often go with the fact that the ways of God are past human understanding). But when it comes down to just how Father, Son, and Holy Ghost fit together, we claim we have it figured out. And not just figured out, but we KNOW we're right...and they, the other side, are WRONG. Oh, and it will probably send you to hell if you believe the wrong one.

If you think that God will send ANYONE to hell for not understanding the trinity, or not accepting it blindly (which is what pretty much every MUST do), then you need to question your concept of God.

Yes, we hold to the truth that the Father and Son have existed--and will exist--for all eternity. We also hold that there is one God. But since we cannot explain it with scripture (and, no, you can't--and everyone who studies it knows that you can't), then why would we dare to claim that someone who doesn't see it OUR way (which we cannot prove from scripture) is going to hell?

Well, it sells books. Maybe.

But most of all, it lets everyone know that the OTHER GUYS are wrong, wrong, wrong. And you should side with us.

Simplification? Sure. But it has more than a grain of truth.

When we debate theology, no matter the topic, it seems we tend to come up with reasons why the other guy's theology will take people straight to hell. Or, if not hell, then will seriously compromise them spiritually.



The part I like is when you ask them (in both camps) to explain apparent contradictions and they say, "I don't have to explain that which is considered to be orthodoxy. I just have to accept it". Apparently there are certain doctrines that are exempt from scrutinity.
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
10/20/18 6:48 pm


View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Reply with quote
Post Re: You simply do NOT have to believe trinitarian doctrine to be saved.... Dave Dorsey
Resident Skeptic wrote:
The part I like is when you ask them (in both camps) to explain apparent contradictions and they say, "I don't have to explain that which is considered to be orthodoxy. I just have to accept it". Apparently there are certain doctrines that are exempt from scrutinity.

You gave that straw man a wallopin'.
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
10/20/18 7:09 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: You simply do NOT have to believe trinitarian doctrine to be saved.... Resident Skeptic
Dave Dorsey wrote:
Resident Skeptic wrote:
The part I like is when you ask them (in both camps) to explain apparent contradictions and they say, "I don't have to explain that which is considered to be orthodoxy. I just have to accept it". Apparently there are certain doctrines that are exempt from scrutinity.

You gave that straw man a wallopin'.


I said it happens in both camps, and it does. Why label that a straw man?
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
10/20/18 7:48 pm


View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Reply with quote
Post Quiet Wyatt
While I appreciate much that is found in the Athanasian Creed, and while I myself find the Nicene doctrine of the trinity to be essential to reasonable faith with sound interpretation of Scripture and sound theology, the Athanasian Creed’s insistence that affirmation of the doctrine of the trinity is an essential condition of salvation clearly goes beyond the bounds of inspired Scripture. I understand why they felt it necessary to phrase it that way in that day and time, but nevertheless the conditions of salvation are plain in the New Testament, and these inspired Writings simply nowhere require affirmation of trinitarian doctrine as a condition of salvation. [Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12784
10/21/18 9:32 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Acts-Celerate Post new topic   Reply to topic
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Acts-celerate Terms of Use | Acts-celerate Policy
Contact the Administrator.


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group :: Spelling by SpellingCow.