Good response Allen. I think you not far from Wisdom.
Consider please that trinity is not divine. It bogs us down in controversy when we do not simply let the scriptures explain the three, individually and together. Perhaps it was a noble attempt to explain God, his Son, and the Holy Spirit, but the way it was formulated creates non-scriptural suppositions from the reader. This causes people to try to match the scriptures to the un-divine doctrine rather than comparing the doctrine to the scriptures. Even to do the latter, we cannot justify plausible conclusions because we do not know what the context of their expressions were back then. Actually if one views the trinity as a philosophical statement, contemporary to their time, within a religio-politcal area; it becomes more palatable. That way we can all conjecture and not be bound by what they might have meant.
For example, the sentence: "There is no division of substance." Well what do they mean by substance. What is the context of the word in their little minds; perhaps some similar common-characteristic of spiritual substance? The closest commonality I find here is that they all are not material in their nature. If one takes the view that the three are "the" same substance "by location and totality of existing essence," this would not be true. They are not the same by absolute location, ever.
The scriptures will show that in regard to one another, in relational substance by location; they are always with, from, or to one another. In their existing presence, they are never a same, exact, no-division-of-substance single entity.
A further thought is that the trinity doctrine is just another bondage upon men not-informed by the scriptures. It is tradition that divides the body of Christ. It is from the un-inspired heart of men.
Edited by - Thomas Poole on 10 July 2002 15:55:41
Edited by - Thomas Poole on 10 July 2002 16:0:53
Edited by - Thomas Poole on 10 July 2002 16:16:58
