Dan Scott's Thought on Trinity

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by JTULLOCK

Did you even read his whole blog about the Trinity? If so then you would have seen where he talks about the word 'persona' translated in english to persons not being the proper way to describe God. You and TR try to get all tricky and the reason is that if you saw it then you would realize you have been explaining wrong for a long time. JMHO

Tricky?
Are you kidding me here?

The guy Dan Scott has a solid Oneness background. He knows the essentials of Oneness doctrine in and out. He also knows the essentials of Trinity doctrine.

He writes an article that says a lot but ends up saying nothing. The article is entitled "Thoughts on Trinity", so he could easily have taken a position of "Trinity is incorrect, Oneness is correct", or "Oneness incorrect, Trinity doctrine is correct". Or if he believes in a hybrid doctrine mixing the two, he could say that two. Obvioulsy he is an educated man, who is able to express his thoughts clearly if he wants to...

But after reading his article, you yourself see that some people end up thinking he has a Oneness slant to the article, while others think he has a Trinitarian slant. So at the end of the day, one is left not even sure what he believes... but you accuse Epley and I of being "tricky"?

Please JT... stop it. Stop the madness.

Are you so blinded by your love for, and allegiance to, this man that you can't see things clearly any more? If so, that would be sad.

[Jack Shephard]

I have no allegiance to Bro. Scott. I have only heard him preach several times. One time was in person. Thing is that how he wrote that post is how a lot of my friends and I believe. His explaination according to you is a slant. To him and others it is clear.

[Amos]

Clear?

It implies that the godhead is some murky mystery that is beyond our comprehension, and that it really doesn't matter anyway.

[ManOfWord]

Originally Posted by Traci

Besides baptism one thing I see different between oneness/trinitarian is that they believe that "the Son" Jesus was from the beginning of time along with God--I just don't see it that way--I was taught that Jesus did not exist until he was born--Jesus is God in the flesh--he is not like a brain with 3 bodies and that is how I understand some trinitarians believe. I don't know--I am like Bro. Epley on this--why do they make something that is simple seem so complex?? I do believe that many of them do not really understand what they believe because they tell me they only believe in one God???? My question at this moment----does God really expect us to understand everything about everything before we can be saved???

I hate to burst your bubble but Jesus WAS in the beginning with God. However, He did not come into literal material existence until Bethlehem. He DID exist in the beginning with God because He was God's plan. God's plan/Logos was with Him in the beginning. But once again, Jesus did not have a material existence until Bethlehem. Jesus was different from God in the fact that He became that which was created/begotten. That plan existed with God in the beginning and in the fullness of time He was sent forth!

This clearly makes 2! Not two Gods or two persons, but two natures...humanity and divinity...one God...who is Spirit...these three are ONE.

Shema Yisroel, Adonai Elohenu, Adonai Echad!

[Jack Shephard]

Originally Posted by Amos

Clear?

It implies that the godhead is some murky mystery that is beyond our comprehension, and that it really doesn't matter anyway.

You are right. The Godhead is a mystery that is not totally comprehendable by humanity. You can say that you have it right, but you really don't--no one does.

[Amos]

Originally Posted by JTULLOCK

You are right. The Godhead is a mystery that is not totally comprehendable by humanity. You can say that you have it right, but you really don't--no one does.

That sounds wise, noble, and humble, but it doesn't agree with the Scripture.


Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by JTULLOCK

I have no allegiance to Bro. Scott. I have only heard him preach several times. One time was in person. Thing is that how he wrote that post is how a lot of my friends and I believe. His explaination according to you is a slant. To him and others it is clear.

It's clear? Really? Great.
I assume that to you it's clear too then.

Now lets recap from just the first 40 posts of people reading this thread, trying to figure out where he stood on the issue:

Sam wasn't sure.
I wasnt sure initially
Epley wasnt sure (at least initially)
DeltaGuitar thought it had a "oneness slant" (<---his own words)
1399 didnt seem to be sure either...
Neither was St Mark (he suggested a member of Scott's church "could clear this up" for us).

Multiple people read it and werent sure exactly what DScott's position was....But to you it's just "clear"? Well that's pretty impressive then if that's the case.

So explain to us then, JT .... Is his article clearly Oneness, or clearly Trinitarian? Break it down for us, if you dont mind.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

Tricky?
Are you kidding me here?

The guy Dan Scott has a solid Oneness background. He knows the essentials of Oneness doctrine in and out. He also knows the essentials of Trinity doctrine.

He writes an article that says a lot but ends up saying nothing. The article is entitled "Thoughts on Trinity", so he could easily have taken a position of "Trinity is incorrect, Oneness is correct", or "Oneness incorrect, Trinity doctrine is correct". Or if he believes in a hybrid doctrine mixing the two, he could say that two. Obvioulsy he is an educated man, who is able to express his thoughts clearly if he wants to...

But after reading his article, you yourself see that some people end up thinking he has a Oneness slant to the article, while others think he has a Trinitarian slant. So at the end of the day, one is left not even sure what he believes... but you accuse Epley and I of being "tricky"?

Please JT... stop it. Stop the madness.

Are you so blinded by your love for, and allegiance to, this man that you can't see things clearly any more? If so, that would be sad.

Tell it like it is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Amos

That sounds wise, noble, and humble, but it doesn't agree with the Scripture.


Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Paul hadn't read Scott!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ManOfWord]

Here is the excellent book by Chancellor Roberts (some may remember his from NFCF) entitled: God In Three What? An examination of the use of persons in the Trinity Doctrine.

You can get it on Amazon.com. I highly recommend it. It is well done and covers the subject quite well.