Interesting Trinitarian Statement - trithestic?

[H2H]

Originally Posted by sola gratia

I did not say that - I said the make up 99.9% of Christianity......

OK it is still problematic though. We have the Catholic Church (the largest group in your stats) because of Trinitarian desire to reach the lost?

It's OK - your point stands that salvation is not predicated on our understanding of the Godhead.

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by sola gratia

You wont find them reject the term - but they do attempt to define it better

Trinity (Triunity) of God
J. Hampton Keathley III Dallas Theological Seminary

Person: In speaking of the Triunity, the term “person” is not used in same way it is in ordinary usage in which it means an identity completely distinct from other persons. Actually the word persons could detract from the unity of the Trinity. According to the teaching of Scripture, the three Persons are inseparable, interdependent, and eternally united in one Divine Being.

It is evident that the word “person” is not ideal for the purpose. Orthodox writers have struggled over this term. Some have opted for the term subsistence (the mode or quality of existence), hence, “God has three substances.” Most have continued to use persons because we have not been able to find a better term. “The word substance speaks of God’s essential nature or being and subsistence describes His mode or quality of existence.”

I anxiously await Fuller Theological Seminary's removal of the Nicene creed from their textbooks on the Godhead. They would throw you out on your ear.
It is silly to assert trinitarians don't believe in God in three persons. It is laced throughout all of their liturgy and history.

They still believe God in three persons, coequal, coexistent, and coeternal. To say they do not is a discredit to the concept of honesty.

[H2H]

Originally Posted by sola gratia

You wont find them reject the term - but they do attempt to define it better

Trinity (Triunity) of God
J. Hampton Keathley III Dallas Theological Seminary

Person: In speaking of the Triunity, the term “person” is not used in same way it is in ordinary usage in which it means an identity completely distinct from other persons. Actually the word persons could detract from the unity of the Trinity. According to the teaching of Scripture, the three Persons are inseparable, interdependent, and eternally united in one Divine Being.

It is evident that the word “person” is not ideal for the purpose. Orthodox writers have struggled over this term. Some have opted for the term subsistence (the mode or quality of existence), hence, “God has three substances.” Most have continued to use persons because we have not been able to find a better term. “The word substance speaks of God’s essential nature or being and subsistence describes His mode or quality of existence.”

Thanks! As stated earlier this information is not getting to most laypersons. They need to be teaching this at Evangel College and the local baptist churches.

[H2H]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

I anxiously await Fuller Theological Seminary's removal of the Nicene creed from their textbooks on the Godhead. They would throw you out on your ear.
It is silly to assert trinitarians don't believe in God in three persons. It is laced throughout all of their liturgy and history.

They still believe God in three persons, coequal, coexistent, and coeternal. To say they do not is a discredit to the concept of honesty.

In all fairness, his post said the term persons "in it's ordinary usage"...

[SDG]

Originally Posted by H2H

In all fairness, his post said the term persons "in it's ordinary usage"...

That's the thing ... Old time Pentecostals are still harping on one definition .... and semantical interpretation that a couple of guys propagated 80 years ago.

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by H2H

In all fairness, his post said the term persons "in it's ordinary usage"...

There is a huge chasm between what is being said and plausibility.

I dare anyone here to walk into any mainline denomination's seminary and reject the notion of "persons" in it's traditionally received usage.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

There is a huge chasm between what is being said and plausibility.

I dare anyone here to walk into any mainline denomination's seminary and reject the notion of "persons" in it's traditionally received usage.

Who is defining the traditionally received usage ... ????

[Nahum]

Dishonesty in debate serves no one.

Does anyone here deny that trinitarian dogma defines God as "One God in three persons, coequal, coexistent, and coeternal"?

It is a tenant of their faith. Come on folks. Let's be real here.

[Jack Shephard]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

But Brother, if they may mean to agree with our thinking why are they so vehemently predisposed to call us a cult because of our view on the Godhead? The reason is that modern trinitarianism views the term "persons" to represent what we normally think of a person as. Distinction. Not in manifestation - but in presence of being.

We can all talk about what was ORIGINALLY MEANT by trinitarians but the simple truth is we are all left with what is presently accepted by modern trinitarians. That is the One God-three persons ideal. Coequal, coexistent, coeternal.

Surely none of you deny the reality that orthodox trinitarianism accepts the notion of God in three persons?

Just as alot of oneness people think the doctrine of the trinity is damnable, because that is what we are taught, they do it the same way. They are taught the we deny the Sonship of Jesus, etc. Of course we don't, but that does not stop them from being taught we do.

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by JTULLOCK

Just as alot of oneness people think the doctrine of the trinity is damnable, because that is what we are taught, they do it the same way. They are taught the we deny the Sonship of Jesus, etc. Of course we don't, but that does not stop them from being taught we do.

So you also deny that they believe in God in three persons, blessed trinity?