My doctrine is not Hindu. You said your doctrine is not "Oneness". But you said "Oneness is closer to the truth" than Trinity is. Could you explain what you mean by this, and show from Scripture how Oneness is better than Trinity? In Erie PA / Scott R. Harrington
Hi, Scott-
I came to CC to share a deep truth that completes the incomplete. As I challenged the area of incompleteness, you and others held on for dear life to the single extra-biblical word that has caused the understanding of God to be less than it can be. The more I've tried to get you to see the importance of understanding the simple truth of "persons" not being scriptural, the more you adamantly cling to argument based on Tradition.
Unfortunately, I get too testy about this because of how it affected my life and what God has called me to do in ministry. My frustration with simply getting you past a basic position of defensiveness put me into a mode of sarcastic attack with little love. I've taken a breather from the thread topics and have been conversing privately with those who want a deeper scriptural understanding of God's constiitution. As I've done so, I realized the contrast in how I lovingly spoke with others compared to the escalation in my own methods of communication with you.
Though I have great zeal and desire to share the truth, I cannot do so without love. Love can be firm and unyielding, but it can't be what I progressed to in the flesh. There's no need for me to oppose someone beyond the futility of their adamance in rejecting anything but what they already believe to be the complete truth. Such futility becomes a war of words and wills that profits no one, including the Gospel.
I hereby return to my original contention and proceed with care and love. I ask yours and others' forgiveness for the offense of my frustrated methodology; and I pray the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him have preeminence over all flesh and the wiles of the enemy.
My simple contention is this: the single word "person(s)" has obscurred to true understanding of who God is my constitution and nature. Though I wholly affirm the remainder of Trinity doctrine, the narrowness of orthodoxy in anathematizing other views has forced me to stand against it in truth from the Word. I am not Sola Scriptura, but I stand against anything presented that can't be substantiated in scripture. If scripture were silent (as it has been widely presumed to be), I would have less issue. But the Word says something ELSE. Unfortunately, few will accept the simple truth correlated from the text, and it requires at least a brief exegesis from the Greek to stand against well-established Trinity formulation.
I have no desire to continue exhaustingly refuting and obviously unbiblical single word. There is no doubt that much of the early Church believed in the Deity of Christ in some manner. The early writings strongly indicate the inclusion of reverence and worship with some sense of equality for F-S-HS. As the need arose to defend and or evangelize the faith, those understandings began to take shape. All emphasis was upon maintaining monotheism, and some presented Jesus as a created special man or a created God. Trinity emerged from various influences as the best understanding they had.
No matter what historical or biblical information I provide, few are going to set aside a current understanding that has such traditional momentum of persuasion and indoctrination. My reasonable challenges are ignored. I think it best to discontinue my futile attempts to get others to see the fallacy of the use of the term "persons". If someone can't see and admit that it is conceptually projected instead of literally presented in scripture, then that someone will not be dissuaded from their insistence.
For those who can see there is room for deeper understanding beyond "persons", I can step through scripture and desctiptive apologetics to show the truth of who God is.