Remember dzheremi, the Sabellian tendencies are squarely on your shoulders.
So you say, but you don't really have any reason for saying so beyond your own equation of Trinitarianism with Sabellianism, despite the fact that they are opposing positions. Sabellius' 'trinity' was in fact a sort of monad which merely exchanged one 'mask' for another according to the situation. There would not have been any substance to be shared between the persons, because there aren't persons involved in it to begin with.
So as you can see we are far far away from tending toward Sabellian doctrine, in fact we destroy it.
If you were not at least tending towards Sabellianism, you would not confuse the Father and the Son as you do by claiming that both have bodies of flesh and bone when this is only true of the Son by virtue of His incarnation -- not of the Father, Who is not incarnate. The Trinitarian maintains the distinction between the Persons while affirming the unity of their nature -- one God in three Persons -- by recourse to these very basic, traditional concepts of ousia (essence/substance) and hypostasis (~ 'person'). This is why I quoted St. Basil earlier in response to a question about what ousia means, because it is necessary to understand these two terms to understand traditional Trinitarianism: "The distinction between
ousia and
hypostases is the same as that between the general and the particular; as, for instance, between the animal and the particular man. Wherefore, in the case of the Godhead, we confess one essence or substance so as not to give variant definition of existence, but we confess a particular hypostasis, in order that our conception of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit may be without confusion and clear."
One essence/substance (ousia), in the shared divinity which is equal and indivisible, in
three hypostases -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This is not three 'modes' because they are not merely manifestations of
one person, but
three persons, and it is not three gods (as in Mormonism) because they are not heterogeneous in essence/substance, but instead fully and equally of the same divinity. They share all that it is to be God, being equal in their power, authority, eternality, etc. Whereas he Mormon gods are, as has been explained to me here by Mormons, united in purpose, love, etc. and other things that say nothing of their sharing the same essence (in fact, poster Jane Doe once flatly told me that the LDS do not affirm this 'unbiblical' concept, although as you can see above she has not been consistent in rejecting this).
I say that the Sabellian doctrine was the proto type for the Trinity doctrine. Change 1 word and everything is OK all of a sudden. Sabellian also used the word 'homoousa' which was rather abhored by the church around 210-250.
Yes, and if you change one letter (not even a full word) from homoousios to homo
iousios, you similarly come up with a concept that is completely unpalatable and heretical. What's your point? You can't just change whatever you want in order to make it easier to construct an argument. If we're talking Mormon theology, I'm going to want to talk theology, not about how easy it is to change 'Mormon' to 'Moron' therefore that surely must mean something. Please adhere to the same very basic standard when discussing Christian theology.
My how times changed between then and 325. Change Modes to Persons, but keep the abhored 'homoousia', and even with the weight and threat of the great Constantine and his army in Nicea, the Trinity doctrine barely passed.
Constantine was pliable on this issue, as he had been baptized by an Arian (Eusebius of Nicomedia), and it was under the sway of the Arians that he was convinced to exile St. Athanasius the Apostolic for the saint's continued conflict with the Arians (the Arian party lied and said that St. Athanasius threatened the grain supply from Egypt to the rest of the empire) in the aftermath of the Council of Tyre in 335 (Constantine did not pass on until 337).
So you can't really be serious about "Constantine and his army at Nicaea". I'm sure he wanted the parties to stop fighting (a council would not have been called if there wasn't a major problem in the ongoing state of affairs), but that desire and the means to enforce whatever result seemed to be at issue doesn't add up to anything like an "army", and if it had, there would've certainly been better people to lead it than Constantine.
