DoctrinesofGraceBapt
Well-known member
Ok, so can you provide some proof or logic to your stance?DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
You are mixing up critiquing our internal logic and critiquing our assertions.
Yes, but such requires justifying the NT which is beyond the discussion in this thread and beyond what I'm willing to get into in this context.
So, God can worship God?DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Nope. See, no discrepancy.
Nope. That's not what we are saying.
Ok. So where's the logic?DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
You are assuming what I am not saying. The sequence of theological enlightenment is: revelation, then interpretation, and finally logical implication. You're stuck at revelation; that's all I'm saying.
Logic comes after one agrees to what is revelation. We can't move onto step two before step one.
Distinction isn't exclusively one, alone.DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Yes, the oneness of God is exclusively one, alone. You still have to interact with the distinction between person and being before such is relevant.
Why would you say that? They are exclusively one, alone in being.
That 3 persons with the same name isn't one with the name YHWH. Only one can be named YHWH.DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
And? What does that have to do with believing there's only one YHWH, one alone with that name?
There is only one YHWH. There are three who are the one, alone, singular, exclusive God, YHWH.
They argue the same thing of your side. Maybe you should focus on the logic of the trinity so we can make some progress?DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Again, that the unlearned rebel against the obvious, shouldn't give you any reason to think the NT isn't conclusive.
Up to you.
There is nothing to argue about. That sinners rebel against the truth isn't a reason to think the NT isn't conclusive. There is no logical issues with the Trinity; just those assuming axioms as to deny the Trinity.
God Bless