I have been down the "T-Doctrine" road with you before, so no need to repeat what I (as well as many others) have already stated. If you haven't gotten it in four years, it isn't likely to come to you today.
Perry
From: Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Trinity Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 07:26:07 -0800
Charles Perry Locke wrote:
DaveH wrote:
Here's the deal, DavidM.....The T-Doctrine speaks to the oneness of God. I've tried to find out just what that means, and so far I've not found consistency with the answers in their relation to the Bible. At first, Perry objected to my use of /purpose /to define /oneness/, and then he came back with an answer that included /purpose/. I read Jn 17 and to me defining /oneness /as used there as /purpose /sure seems to make sense. Yet you and I suspect others apparently cringe when I suggest such.....WHY??? If you have a better way of defining it, what is it???
DavidH, I do not object to your using "one in purpose", I object to your reducing the relationship to "one in pupose" only. True, you do not say "only", but you never have presented any other "oneness" of the relationship than "one in purpose"
DAVEH: Perry, it is most frustrating for me to have to explain all the possibilities and details of my beliefs when I am not here for that reason. I'm trying to find out what YOU (and other Protestants) believe and why they believe it. Regarding the oneness referred to in Jn 17, I feel purpose does a good job of explaining it. I'm not suggesting it is the only way to define it, so I don't understand why you and DavidM are so intent on pinning that ONLY pin to my chest. I'm open to other definitions for oneness. If they fit the context of ch 17, that would be great. If it doesn't, then it would lead me to ask you other questions as to why you believe the way you do about it.
I'm not trying to stab you in the back on this, Perry. I'm just curious as to why Protestants are tied so tightly to the T-Doctrine that infers a /oneness /that is (to your mind apparently) contrary to /purpose/. I'm just trying to get a better understanding of the T-Doctrine and instead am encountering a great resistance to discuss it. At least that's the way I see it.
. However, as DaveidM points out, it is much more than just "one in purpose". "One in purpose" is a prerequisite for the Godhead. "One in purpose" is necessary for any team to acheive a common goal. Now, if you do not beleive that they are "only one in purpose", then tell us more about thier "oneness".
DAVEH: I just don't understand it, Perry....Why do you ignore my questions pertaining to what YOU believe? I'm not saying there aren't other possible definitions for oneness. I'm asking what they are. If you don't have anyway of defining /oneness /other than purpose, that's OK....I just don't understand why you are critical of me for defining it that way. Please explain.
Perry
If you want to convince us that is is not only "purpose
_
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.
_________________________________________________________________
One-click access to Hotmail from any Web page � download MSN Toolbar now! http://clk.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200413ave/direct/01/
---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
