Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Engaging your intellect is essential in understanding Scripture. It dos not at all mean you are trying to put yourself above God. Again, the problem is that the Bible implies a Trinity, but does not work it out. That's the reason for all the later Trinitarian formulas.
I'm not sure what this "diversity of concepts" means here. I do know the Bible is not a work in systematic theology or metaphysics. It tells us very little about how God is actually built. We get snap shots that often conflict. For example, in many passages God is presented as immutable, whereas many others speak of God as changing. It's up to us, the readers, to piece all this together.
The Bible isn't that clear, that's the problem. There are many ambiguities in Scripture here. Remember, the anti-Trinitarians also used Scripture to support their position. Others used the Bible to deny the Deity of the Spirit.
personally, i have never experienced any problem at all in accepting and understanding the father, son and holy spirit as taught in scripture. it is so tragic how divisions and schisms have developed over such innocuous parts of scripture. for some people, such disagreements become a severe stumbling block to their faith, and it can deny them years of meaningful friendship with God. this is tragic, needless and pointless. since when was being a 'trinitarian' or 'anti trinitarian' ever a requirement to be received into the love of Jesus? perhaps if we all just agreed to agree on what scripture actually says, instead of bickering about its possible interpretations, we would make far better progress.
i didnt say we are to disengage out intellects. i said that it is important to have our intellects in their rightful place. scripture should ALWAYS be approached with a humble and seeking and grateful manner. when we over utilise our intellect to the expense of our common sense and our hearts, we make scripture null and void.
Not at all. In fact the old adage holds true that there's nothing new under the sun and that these concepts that come from the Bible have been around every since the Bible has. The point is that there is a majority consensus and opinion that is paramount in all these issues and what I express is that consensus of opinion based on my own 45 years having studied the Bible.
His argument is no different than the argument of the cube. It is meant to convey that three separate and distinct planes of existence can come into one reality. It's an example or an analogy, and it's not meant to satisfy what apparently is something that is not satisfiable to you.
What points? Maybe I missed them? What post were they in? Do you think that there's any scholarly language sample explain the Trinity any better than the common English vernacular can? If that's the case then why don't you 'splain that for us?
Because those who identify them and understand them are trying to convey them to people that are spiritually ill prepared to receive them. It is also apparent from my perspective that those who can't receive what the Bible says are usually indicative of those who have never received the baptism of the Holy Spirit, who helps us to understand complex issues like these. There is no harm in trying to make people understand. There is only harm and those who refuse to understand.
No, it really does not work. It is a version of the Trinity unique to you, certainly not the world of major Trinitarian thought. The reason is that it does not even begin to make any real sense. It's like saying Jane x Pat x Sally = something. But what? An apple x an orange x a pear = What?
So God is an inanimate object like a cube? Also, it now appears you are arguing that the three are part of some larger, al-inclusive whole that transcends any one of them. OK, fine. What do you call that whole? Meta-God?
Perhaps I was unclear. I am asking for an explanation about how my comment doesn't hold up to solid grammatical rules? Here is a popular online source for such rules: http://www.grammarbook.com/english_rules.asp Here is a list of their grammar rules.
