OK… I’m truly not trying to be sarcastic or negative, but let’s look at this from the view of an outsider who is not theologically versed in the doctrine of the trinity… They hear him say, “It’s not illogical or unreasonable if it’s defined properly” and then he presents a confusing statement for the uninitiated… “Not three beings that are one being, and not three persons that are one person, but three divine persons who are together the one being.” To the outsider, this neither clearly defines the Trinity nor shows it to be illogical.
Then they hear him say, “Here’s the problem… the Bible states that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God…” Where’s the problem in that? There is no problem. People who read the Bible without being pre-indoctrinated with the concept of a Trinity see no problem with the Bible saying this… they see the One God who became human to present himself as a sinless sacrifice for the sins of humanity, and whose Spirit directly influences and fills the hearts of those He died for and who turn to Him. To the uninitiated, there is no problem with this… the problem comes when one inserts the term “Trinity” into the equation in order to define this single, multifaceted God. The early church, just as with those uninitiated in Trinitarian doctrine, had no concept of a “Trinity”… they held a strictly monotheistic view of God. So, the only ‘problem’ they would have had would have been with the an attempt to make the One God more than One.
I’m just saying… this two minute apologetical discourse didn’t do any favors. Perhaps more time would have helped him state his case.
“the Bible states that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God…” Where’s the problem in that? There is no problem. People who read the Bible without being pre-indoctrinated with the concept of a Trinity see no problem with the Bible saying this… they see the One God who became human to present himself as a sinless sacrifice for the sins of humanity, and whose Spirit directly influences and fills the hearts of those He died for and who turn to Him. To the uninitiated, there is no problem with this… the problem comes when one inserts the term “Trinity” into the equation”
“It’s not illogical or unreasonable when properly defined… it’s not two minutes that are one minute, or two sixty-second time segments that are one sixty-second time segment, but rather 120 seconds that are 1 minute” Haha
I thought he did a pretty good job of clarifying what the concept is, while also admitting that it is not “easy” to understand. He also made the impt point that the Bible is full of trinitarian facts.
So this is great for people who take the Bible as their source of truth. But if it’s somebody else you’re talking to, they’re not going to be to impressed with “the Bible is trinitarian all over…so we know that God is a trinity…”
Didn’t do the Trinity view of the godhead any favors, in my opinion.
Why not? In what ways did this not “do the Trinity view of the godhead any favors”?
OK… I’m truly not trying to be sarcastic or negative, but let’s look at this from the view of an outsider who is not theologically versed in the doctrine of the trinity… They hear him say, “It’s not illogical or unreasonable if it’s defined properly” and then he presents a confusing statement for the uninitiated… “Not three beings that are one being, and not three persons that are one person, but three divine persons who are together the one being.” To the outsider, this neither clearly defines the Trinity nor shows it to be illogical.
Then they hear him say, “Here’s the problem… the Bible states that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God…” Where’s the problem in that? There is no problem. People who read the Bible without being pre-indoctrinated with the concept of a Trinity see no problem with the Bible saying this… they see the One God who became human to present himself as a sinless sacrifice for the sins of humanity, and whose Spirit directly influences and fills the hearts of those He died for and who turn to Him. To the uninitiated, there is no problem with this… the problem comes when one inserts the term “Trinity” into the equation in order to define this single, multifaceted God. The early church, just as with those uninitiated in Trinitarian doctrine, had no concept of a “Trinity”… they held a strictly monotheistic view of God. So, the only ‘problem’ they would have had would have been with the an attempt to make the One God more than One.
I’m just saying… this two minute apologetical discourse didn’t do any favors. Perhaps more time would have helped him state his case.
I meant to say, “To the outsider, this neither clearly defines the Trinity nor shows it to be LOGICAL.”
Jay Jones
Enjoyed your explanation – a lot…
Yes…
“the Bible states that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God…” Where’s the problem in that? There is no problem. People who read the Bible without being pre-indoctrinated with the concept of a Trinity see no problem with the Bible saying this… they see the One God who became human to present himself as a sinless sacrifice for the sins of humanity, and whose Spirit directly influences and fills the hearts of those He died for and who turn to Him. To the uninitiated, there is no problem with this… the problem comes when one inserts the term “Trinity” into the equation”
Yes – Trinity – NOT in the Bible.
The show is called “The One Minute Apologist” and it takes two minutes to explain this. Anybody else think that’s funny?
Preachers are always going over their allotted time…
I thought he did a pretty good job of clarifying what the concept is, while also admitting that it is not “easy” to understand. He also made the impt point that the Bible is full of trinitarian facts.
So this is great for people who take the Bible as their source of truth. But if it’s somebody else you’re talking to, they’re not going to be to impressed with “the Bible is trinitarian all over…so we know that God is a trinity…”