Works based salvation is another gospel Gal 1:8-9. Regardless I am trying to explain the trinity with him in my letter.
I'm not sure where works based salvation came in....but what I was saying GreekTim said better.
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Works based salvation is another gospel Gal 1:8-9. Regardless I am trying to explain the trinity with him in my letter.
I'd expect Cal and ARMIN to agree on this doctrine. Anyways lots of helpful replies. I am gonna choose the best to modify and add to my letter. I not only used a condensed Grudem systematic theology but also the CrossWay ESV SBC which was helpful as well.
This man believes in works salvation and also denies the trinity. He is no JW nor Mormon but of another cult. Interesting the church does preach hard on sin and emphasizes repentance very hard, but they also add a List of works to salvation including how one dresses when they attend church.
Doctrine of the Trinity is just that - doctrine. It is not plainly taught in scripture. If it were, everybody should agree. Does that mean it's not true? Not at all. Just that scripture doesnt plainly give us a creedal formula
If you want to go the "3 Persons" route, then it is of UTMOST importance to be ready to aswer.....what is a "person" ??
People use this creedal jargon without any thought whatsoever. Where does scripture use "3 Persons" to describe the essence of God? Just one verse, anybody?
Unfortunately, people agree with the doctrine first, then try to make scripture fit the doctrine. If you really adhere to what scripture says, you cannot contain it in a catchy little cliché
What does "3 Persons" mean? Here are a few options:
3 beings
3 spirits
3 personalities
3 manifestations
3 modes
Before you go down the road of regurgitating a doctrine, you should at least know what it is you're saying
Am I a Trinitarian? Nope. Not in the "3 Persons" kind of sense. Why? Because nobody will define "person" in such a way that doesn't conflict with scripture.
And if you're trying to teach someone else this "persons" doctrine, you owe it to that person to make it clear what you're saying. Don't leave the poor fella to his own imagination to fit it together.
If you believe God is 3 beings, then say so. If you believe He's 3 manifestations, then say so.
Eggs and water don't cut it in my mind, either. An egg can be split into parts, and water modes aren't all stable in the same parameters. And 3 beings = 3 Gods.
So what is a Person?
An egg has three distinct elements.
The shell, the white, the yolk.
The shell has its own uses and is neither the white nor the yolk.
The yolk, has its own distinct uses apart from the others and is neither the shell nor the white.
The white has its own distinct uses and is neither the shell nor the yolk.
Yet without one of those elements there is no egg.
Neither do we say there are eggs because of the three distinct elements.
It is always one single egg.
The doctrine of the Trinity is plainly taught in scripture, it is a primary doctrine, and anything other than that is heresy.
As someone else said, each part is not an egg yet we know that the Father is fully God, Jesus is fully God and the Holy Spirit is fully God. I don't think I've heard of a good analogy ever - it's just not something that we have an example of in our nature.
Philippians 1:2 this say "God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ" or "The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." What version are you reading that says "One God in 3 Persons" ??
Titus 2:13 - I don't see 3 Persons written there. Oneness Pentecostals use this verse to support the "Jesus only" myth
Acts 5:3–4 - ok. So where is a plain declaration of 3 Persons ?
John 3:16 ----->> ???
John 16:10 - yes, He went back to the Father. Where is 3 Persons plain there?
John 14:26 - yes, the Father sent the Holy Spirit. I still haven't read a plain statement of 3 Persons.
Acts 2:33 - says God raised Jesus.
Mark 1:10–11
John 1:1
Matthew 3:17, 17:5
John 5:19, 11:41–42; 17:1ff
I could go on and on but I am sure you get the point.
Book, chapter, and verse, please?
I do get the point. There isn't a plain teaching in scripture that God is "3 Persons". You start with a doctrine, reference one and two verses at a time to try to compile them into a cohesive, neatly packaged doctrine.
Care to define "Person" ???
What?????? You would question the doctrine of the trinity? Are you serious? Not even WinMan would do such a thing!
Why don't you tell us your belief about the Father, Son, Holy Spirit and God.
I do get the point. There isn't a plain teaching in scripture that God is "3 Persons". You start with a doctrine, reference one and two verses at a time to try to compile them into a cohesive, neatly packaged doctrine.
Care to define "Person" ???
First, I have to ponder some difficulty with the "3 Persons" view. Not philosophical problems, because I really don't care if a view upsets my philosophy. If it's truth, truth must trump my understanding, or how I feel. And if truth is in conflict with what's always been promulgated, then truth must win there, too.
The first difgicilty is that it's worse than pulling teeth to try and pry a definiton out of people. It's a simple request, to simply define "person". Why should anyone be expected to give a nod to something, if nobody knows for sure what's being said? Define "person" so there's no ambiguity.
But I think most people don't want to be real clear, out of fear they'll be labeled a heretic. It's just more comfortable to just agree
But there are scriptural difficulties with 3 Persons existing eternally co-equal. Plain scriptural statements that put this doctrine in an impossible bind
Not denying the deity of Christ or the Holy Spirit, not trying to make scripture say something that conforms to Modalism or anything of the sort
Doctrine of the Trinity is just that - doctrine. It is not plainly taught in scripture. If it were, everybody should agree. Does that mean it's not true? Not at all. Just that scripture doesnt plainly give us a creedal formula