Link: Copy link
[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]Dr. Crump, it is OK to identify yourself in some other way. "B" was not addressability-friendly. Call yourself "Professor" perhaps? You are aware that we may address "Anonymous" as "Annie Mouse."If we must necessarily put away "Trinity" because that term does not exist in Scripture, then we must also put away the terms "Bible" and "Holy Bible," because those terms also do not exist in Scripture. Those two latter terms are man-made, yet we would never think of deleting them from our vocabularies, because they are well-accepted terms that do not violate any Scriptural principles. No, we can't use the it-ain't-in-Scripture bit against the "Trinity" unless we want to follow a double standard.
I do not believe calling Father, Son, and Holy Spirit the "Trinity" violates any Scriptural principles, given that we know they are not three physical persons. I also believe that it is unreasonable to reject the term "Trinity" just because the Catholics coined it. Early (Catholic) Church fathers like Chrysostom in the fourth century first referred to the Scriptures as ta biblia (the books) which evolved to "Bible" in English. So, if we reject "Trinity" because of the Catholic influence, then we must also reject "Bible" because of the SAME influence.
Speaking strictly about terms, if we reject "Trinity" but accept "Bible," even though both terms are NOT found in the Scriptures, then we practice a double standard. If we reject "Trinity" because the early Catholics coined the term but accept "Bible," a term the early Catholics ALSO coined, we likewise practice a double standard. If we're going to teach anyone anything with credibility, we must first be consistent with our reasons for accepting or rejecting terms derived from a common origin.[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]Dr. Crump, it is OK to identify yourself in some other way. "B" was not addressability-friendly. Call yourself "Professor" perhaps? You are aware that we may address "Anonymous" as "Annie Mouse."
Putting away "Trinity" is not feasible; so, that's not going to happen. The use of the expression "Trinity" itself is not an issue until an investigation of the creed reveals that what it teaches regarding "the 3rd PERSON HOLY SPIRIT IS GOD" is NOWHERE found in the Scripture.
The use of the term "Bible" or "Holy Bible" is not analogous to the what the Trinity doctrine teaches. You know better than that.
What about dealing with this very specific issue -- DO YOU BELIEVE that God's holy spirit is another (a separate, the 3rd PERSON of the "Trinity") Divine Being? Please do not explain what others believe; rather, share with us what you believe.[/color]
Donnie, Mr. Sublett is very adamant and diligent in his work. Likely he poured over countless websites in his quest. I am sure he searched long and hard to find the perfect ..... illustration. Mr. Sublett enjoys his passions.
[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Well, Big Fish, some people need a vivid illustration to help them clearly understand the substance of a fallacious doctrinal argument. (A picture is worth a thousand words -- isn't that what they say?)
I think it took a while to search and find that illustration online. Someone must have thought, understandably so, that designating a masculine gender to an improper noun "spirit" can be illustrated in that manner. [/color]
What you believe about the Holy Spirit and the Trinity is fine. What I believe about them is also fine. Our perceptions differ, but that's also fine, because I don't believe this subject has anything to do with our eternal salvation. It is not advantageous for anyone to say that his/her viewpoint about the Holy Spirit is THE ONLY RIGHT ONE and every other viewpoint is absolutely false, because the New Testament does not command us to see the Holy Spirit this way or that way on penalty of damnation. Because I don't believe this topic pertains to salvation, it is academic IMO, meaning that it allows for arguments by those who enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing. There's also nothing wrong with that, unless either side becomes so arrogant and fanatical about his own viewpoint that he is intolerant of other views and shouts down or cuts off all who disagree with him. You can't have a decent dialogue with that kind of hostile environment.[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Bill,
I believe that THE HOLY SPIRIT OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST is not a separate Divine Being. His spirit sanctifies just as His blood redeems. I do not believe that the blood of Christ is a separate Divine Being, either.
Here are some references to THE SPIRIT OF JESUS CHRIST:[/color]
[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Since we do not agree and you seem to have NO KNOWLEDGE of the passages above, explain why you believe that THE SPIRIT of Jesus Christ is a separate Divine Being.[/color]
- [color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. (Romans 8:9)[/color]
- [color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. (I Peter 1:11)[/color]
- [color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]For I know that this shall turn to my salvation through your prayer, and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ... (Phil. 1:19)[/color]