Dan Scott's Thought on Trinity

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by trfrance

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.

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooops!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by Amos

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

Sadly, there are many who think that way.
The Bible already tells us that in the last days there would be some who will not endure sound doctrine. I think we're seeing evidence of that in the church world already.

To them, being firm on doctrine is "divisive", "closed minded", etc . I've already been called a variety of insulting names on this forum for being firm on Oneness doctrine and Acts 2:38 salvation... and this supposedly from my "brothers" in the Lord.

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.

According to this line of reasoning then... one could conclude that there's no such thing as incorrect Godhead doctrine: Trinity, Oneness, or an in-between mixture of the two... nobody's right, nobody's wrong.

---------
(sigh)
Lord, have mercy on your people.

[Jack Shephard]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

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.

Since you can not read really well I will quote it for you....

"We are speaking about Jesus, of course. He was a Jew who claimed to be God (see John 10:24-34). He was a wonderful teacher, or rabbi. He claimed to be the legitimate King of Israel. We believe that He was God. We also believe that He was fully man. Christians believe that this God-man, Jesus Christ, offers a way for human beings to become God’s immortal companions. We also believe that as King of the covenant nation of Israel, Christ has granted citizenship to all that believe in Him and accept Him as their King. In other words, Christians believe that the Christian church is the spiritual continuation of the ancient nation of Israel, and that Christians are citizens of that nation."

This is VERY clear. He believes that Jesus is God. Do you see it now?

Another quote:
"Obviously, by deciding to use the word persona, the Church fathers were using a metaphor to help us understand the nature of God as we had come to understand Him in the New Testament. Like all metaphors, the word persona has strengths and weaknesses. A mask hides the actual face of a person. A role is something an actor assumes in contrast to his actual personality. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not God’s masks; they are who He is. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not roles the God assumes; they are revelations of His actual nature."

Another:
"So the word persona can confuse as well as enlighten. Greek speaking Christians decided not to use the word persona for that very reason. However, Western Christians have continued to use it, despite its limitations because we really have no other word that works nearly as well. I once heard an Eastern Orthodox theologian say that “Father,” “Son,” and “Holy Spirit” are the interior names of God, they tell us what God is like inside Himself. That comment helped me a lot."

If this don't allow you to see it like I saw it then I can not help you.

[Jack Shephard]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

Sadly, there are many who think that way.
The Bible already tells us that in the last days there would be some who will not endure sound doctrine. I think we're seeing evidence of that in the church world already.

To them, being firm on doctrine is "divisive", "closed minded", etc . I've already been called a variety of insulting names on this forum for being firm on Oneness doctrine and Acts 2:38 salvation... and this supposedly from my "brothers" in the Lord.



According to this line of reasoning then... one could conclude that there's no such thing as incorrect Godhead doctrine: Trinity, Oneness, or an in-between mixture of the two... nobody's right, nobody's wrong. ---------
(sigh)
Lord, have mercy on your people.

Boy are you trying to read between the lines. When you do that you miss the truth. There is no way my reasoning brings this, unless you are putting words into my mouth which is what you are doing. I have enough words in my mouth..I don't need yours.

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by JTULLOCK

Boy are you trying to read between the lines. When you do that you miss the truth. There is no way my reasoning brings this, unless you are putting words into my mouth which is what you are doing. I have enough words in my mouth..I don't need yours.

Nobody's "putting words into your mouth". I see what you said. I simply stated what seemed to be the logical implications of what you said.

Originally Posted by JTULLOCK

Since you can not read really well I will quote it for you....

"We are speaking about Jesus, of course. He was a Jew who claimed to be God (see John 10:24-34). He was a wonderful teacher, or rabbi. He claimed to be the legitimate King of Israel. We believe that He was God. We also believe that He was fully man. Christians believe that this God-man, Jesus Christ, offers a way for human beings to become God’s immortal companions. We also believe that as King of the covenant nation of Israel, Christ has granted citizenship to all that believe in Him and accept Him as their King. In other words, Christians believe that the Christian church is the spiritual continuation of the ancient nation of Israel, and that Christians are citizens of that nation."

This is VERY clear. He believes that Jesus is God. Do you see it now?

Another quote:
"Obviously, by deciding to use the word persona, the Church fathers were using a metaphor to help us understand the nature of God as we had come to understand Him in the New Testament. Like all metaphors, the word persona has strengths and weaknesses. A mask hides the actual face of a person. A role is something an actor assumes in contrast to his actual personality. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not God’s masks; they are who He is. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not roles the God assumes; they are revelations of His actual nature."

A... The phrases you highlighted in red immediately got my attention of course. Those 2 phrases you've highlighted are things that both Oneness and Trinitarians would/could say. Nothing in his post is clearly Oneness or clearly Trinitairian. That's my whole point, from the beginning. But anyway...

Originally Posted by JTULLOCK

Since you can not read really well I will quote it for you....

B... I "cant read really well"?
Well, I know you're being sarcastic, and I expect that on these boards sometimes, but there's something about your tone there that just crosses the line with me...and it's a nastiness I'm seeing from you that has escalated gradually throughout this thread.

Let me make myself very clear here: If you can't speak to someone you disagree with without resorting to personal insults.... then maybe it's better for you not to address me at all around here. Ok? Think on that.

[Jermyn Davidson]

I have an idea:

Let's just call him and ask him and see what he says.

I have spoken with him on the phone before. You can too!

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by 1399

I have an idea:

Let's just call him and ask him and see what he says.

I have spoken with him on the phone before. You can too!

Well, if his words are so murky on his blog, why do we think they'd be any less murky if you spoke with him on the phone about this?

-----------
Anyway, sometimes a person can tell you a lot by some of the things they refuse to say... or choose not to say.
.

[Jack Shephard]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

Nobody's "putting words into your mouth". I see what you said. I simply stated what seemed to be the logical implications of what you said.

A... The phrases you highlighted in red immediately got my attention of course. Those 2 phrases you've highlighted are things that both Oneness and Trinitarians would/could say. Nothing in his post is clearly Oneness or clearly Trinitairian. That's my whole point, from the beginning. But anyway...

B... I "cant read really well"?
Well, I know you're being sarcastic, and I expect that on these boards sometimes, but there's something about your tone there that just crosses the line with me...and it's a nastiness I'm seeing from you that has escalated gradually throughout this thread.

Let me make myself very clear here: If you can't speak to someone you disagree with without resorting to personal insults.... then maybe it's better for you not to address me at all around here. Ok? Think on that.

Yeah seems I forgot the "TIC" thing I meant to type with that. No offense intended..I am not an easily offended person. Seems you aren't either. I know that you and I disagree, like all the time, but I mean nothing serious with anything that seems like a personal attack. I don't stand for personal attacks especially on a public forum. If I wanted to attack you--which would never happen--I would send a PM to ya. Cleared up here? Hope so. Now back to the vicious assault. TIC

There are differences between us oneness folk and tritheist. There is not a lot of difference between and honest to God Trinitarian other than formula of baptism. You and I know different people. Some Trinitarians I know explain God like a oneness person and some I know are like the tritheist. I am sure you know some that do the same. I am not trying to paint with a broad brush here, but most of the Trinitarians I know are not tritheists. Often times my Trinitarian buddies explain the Godhead and other issues like I do and you do. A big distinction is the baptismal formula. I have not issues with a person that is baptized in the titles though I prefer the name of Jesus being said, but I also don't think baptism alone saves an individual. I believe it is a sign of our faith in Jesus once we fully repentant then that person because they are saved is to be baptized and the HG is a subsequent gift to ALL believers. IMO

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

Well, if his words are so murky on his blog, why do we think they'd be any less murky if you spoke with him on the phone about this?

-----------
Anyway, sometimes a person can tell you a lot by some of the things they refuse to say... or choose not to say.
.

You have to ask the right questions. Duh!!!

Gosh TRFRANCE!

You can't read!
You can't ask the right questions!
What's wrong with you!!!!

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by JTULLOCK

Yeah seems I forgot the "TIC" thing I meant to type with that. No offense intended..I am not an easily offended person. Seems you aren't either. I know that you and I disagree, like all the time, but I mean nothing serious with anything that seems like a personal attack. I don't stand for personal attacks especially on a public forum. If I wanted to attack you--which would never happen--I would send a PM to ya. Cleared up here? Hope so. Now back to the vicious assault. TIC

It is what it is, JT.

We can just move along...

Originally Posted by 1399

You have to ask the right questions. Duh!!!

Gosh TRFRANCE!

You can't read!
You can't ask the right questions!
What's wrong with you!!!!

Behave yourself.