|
Post by blandie on Mar 9, 2017 14:26:45 GMT -5
Trinity believers need to be real careful when detecting a belief in the trinity from those old notes. Its too easy to read into them what you want to hear. 2x2-ism has long ago redefined words to say one thing to the elect and another to the outside world - including making unorthodox beliefs sound palatable to the outsiders they seek to attract. Carrolls and george-w and others were masters at this and many of todays workers and friends I've known would agree to everything quoted above and some have said nearly the same things when asked about the trinity - but they absolutely do not believe jesus and the father and the holy spirit are the ONE ALMIGHTY GOD. As I've said before - jack-c stated on more than one occasion things that sounded like he held trinity beliefs but I have it on the authority of a worker who was under him that this was NOT what he taught or was believed under his reign.
Just like 'grace' in 2x2-ism isn't the bibles version of grace so words like 'word' and 'one' and 'divine' and 'godhead' and 'trinity' and even 'god' have been carefully parsed over the years. Yes 2x2-ism believes the word was made flesh and the word is god - its in the bible after all - but they parse that to mean jesus was filled with god's spirit. Yes 2x2-ism believes that the jesus and the father are one but if you ask enough questions it turns out that they are saying they were one in spirit - the same attitude and for the same things. Yes 2x2-ism believes in a sort of trinity - and workers and overseers have acknowledged to outside reporters that this consists of the father son and holy spirit - but thats not the same as saying jesus and the father are one god. Yes I've heard 2x2s state that jesus was god - but you have to ask more than that because it turns out that they meant 'a god' just like moses wrote that 'ye are all gods.' Sometimes their statements get ridiculously picky - like where a comma is placed or the emphasis in how something is said that doesn't always get put down on paper. The workers - early ones right up to today - and friends do accept what the bible says tho there are whole sections that they've learned to heavily rationalize to fit with the concepts the group has inculcated and long held. As I've also said before - the anti-Trinitarian belief didn't get to be worldwide among the friends just starting in the last 50 years. Sure the earliest workers came from churches that accepted the traditional trinity view - but parkers and others tell us that at one of the first conventions they all renounced all traditional christian doctrines. From the early 1920's the senior brother overseers were zealous in defending their realms against doctrines from outside - including barring workers from certain other areas - and its unlikely that anti-trinity views would have spread after that. Irvine was kicked out in 1914 and they don't have anything like a traditional trinity view. Cooney was kicked out in 1928 and his followers are also anti-trinity - we've seen it here and others from ireland to canada have affirmed that. Those early workers did come from traditional churches so they also knew that a lot of traditional christian beliefs would raise hackles and impair their recruiting efforts if not disguised - so they became really good at dissimulation and diversion and redefining. On this and other subjects there can be lots of talking past each other - and lots of falling into word-traps laid long ago.
I forget which worker said - 'It depends who we're talking to as to whether or not we believe in the trinity' - but at least he was being honest about that.
|
|
|
Post by alistairhenderson on Mar 9, 2017 15:01:27 GMT -5
Hi Blandie,
I absolutely hear what you are saying! I think in some cases what you are saying is quite true, particularly when the wording is deliberately vague, or when the references are isolated and disconnected without adding up to much. I really get that. I really do.
In fact the 'all three working together in perfect harmony' version is the most common prevarication I think most of us have heard more than once in our lives.
However, I am confident that a number of the early workers held onto and passed on their Trinity beliefs for a number of decades before there was a 'second' or 'third generation' shift in teaching, possibly a gradual one.
I have to say I was quite taken aback to find in Truth Archive much more explicit teaching, especially by major 'first generation' workers like Jack Carrol and George Walker, about the Trinity, in very explicit and extensively argued terms, than I ever expected. After all, one of the reasons we left was because we could get no sense out of modern workers we spoke to about this issue.
So why did these workers bother going to that length if they weren't trying to make a point?
Also, others have already noted from their own research that there has definitely been a shift from the early days in thinking and teaching about the Trinity - Irvine Grey, Cherie (I think), Ross, even some early written accounts.
I don't doubt that some of the early leading lights (Irvine, Cooney) may have already repudiated or watered it down for their own purposes to differentiate themselves, but I strongly suspect, from the documentary evidence alone, that not all first generation workers drank that particular Kool aid. Then some got into positions of senior authority and didn't have Irvine and Cooney looking over their shoulders.
In fact they were constantly disagreeing on major issues like divorce and remarriage, or fruit juice versus wine, or where to have communion (in the home only or also at convention). So it should be no surprise that there has been no consensus on the Trinity teaching. However, a few key players on the face of it, mainly up till the 1950s (and some beyond that) seem, to me and others here, to have propounded a basically orthodox view.
Even good ole Leslie White (I know he was naughty) used this expression about God, "He's God the Son; God the Father and God the Holy Ghost. "
This sounds pretty explicit to me.
Also, for a number of reasons, I believe Bill Carroll here in Australia (Jack's brother), also was a clear Trinity believer. Could it be that it was more than the house at Rosebud that got other regional workers in a tizz about him, resulting in a 'take-over' by people outside the state?
Anyway, altogether we may be talking about a few senior and not so senior workers, but some were quite influential. John W I firmly believe to have been the latest and best of those who believed in the Trinity and could explain it perhaps best of all the workers who went before him. He is my generation (I'm 57). Of course, he is no longer in the work, so the majority view does rule nowadays.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 9, 2017 15:44:47 GMT -5
Someone wrote: I think the workers realized that trinitarian dogma is a convoluted man-made theory that adds nothing to "Christ in you, your hope of glory".
Leaving aside the derogatory terminology "trinitarian dogma", for the large number of Spirit-filled believers on TMB, the albeit humanly inadequate understanding of the nature of the Godhead and who Christ is adds EVERYTHING to the reality of "Christ in us, our hope of glory".
To suggest otherwise can come across as offensive, primarily to Christ our Lord and hope.
And yes, I have heard Workers - dear brothers and sisters in Christ - speak lovingly of the blessed trinity. admin
|
|
|
Post by alistairhenderson on Mar 9, 2017 15:53:23 GMT -5
Amen. Sorry to anyone who thinks I have come on a bit too strong here at all. Not meaning to offend.
Just passionate about the truth of who Jesus is.
|
|
|
Post by howitis on Mar 9, 2017 16:16:49 GMT -5
Bearing in mind, that almost every person I know, male or female,whether brought up to know Christianity or not, have at some stage, longed for an elder brother, who was perfect in every way......we wouldn't want to take that away from Jesus either, would we, because it is after all a very important thing.
|
|
|
Post by alistairhenderson on Mar 9, 2017 16:19:23 GMT -5
Yes of course, Howitis. It is quite scriptural to also think of Jesus as our elder brother, humanly speaking.
This is the thing - he was perfect man and perfect God at the same time.
So I'm not disagreeing - I'm affirming what you just said, absolutely!
He came from heaven to show what it is to live a perfect life. But he wasn't just a man who happened to be perfect - far, far more than that!
If we only think of him as our elder brother, we miss the divine dimension.
If we only think of him as God come in the flesh, we miss the human dimension.
We need the balance, and this is what has been lacking I believe.
Hope that makes sense.
For me, Jesus is my God (with the Father and the Holy Spirit), my Creator, my Redeemer, my Saviour, my Lord (of Lords and King of Kings), my friend, my spiritual Companion, my Brother in the journey of life, my perfect Substitute, my Hope, my Righteousness, my Glory and my Security.
I might put up later summary thoughts from our Tuesday night bible study - John 1 - all about Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 9, 2017 16:33:44 GMT -5
Bearing in mind, that almost every person I know, male or female,whether brought up to know Christianity or not, have at some stage, longed for an elder brother, who was perfect in every way......we wouldn't want to take that away from Jesus either, would we, because it is after all a very important thing. My understanding, FWIW, is that Christ ("the last Adam") is both fully God and fully man. Impossible from our natural, earth-bound perspective. Christ lived on this earth as man - the last Adam. Perfect as God intended mankind in the creation. He lived as a man, totally dependent on his Father in heaven. Hence he is the example for living our natural lives by faith, trusting God for everything. And in that sense we can think of him as our "elder brother". Also so many other things - divine and eternal Son of God, Saviour, risen Lord, our all in all. Forgive the deficiencies in my understanding and even more in trying to put into words, admin
|
|
|
Post by alistairhenderson on Mar 9, 2017 16:37:31 GMT -5
I think we concur, Admin! What's to forgive?
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Mar 9, 2017 17:49:12 GMT -5
Someone wrote: I think the workers realized that trinitarian dogma is a convoluted man-made theory that adds nothing to "Christ in you, your hope of glory".Leaving aside the derogatory terminology "trinitarian dogma", for the large number of Spirit-filled believers on TMB, the albeit humanly inadequate understanding of the nature of the Godhead and who Christ is adds EVERYTHING to the reality of "Christ in us, our hope of glory". To suggest otherwise can come across as offensive, primarily to Christ our Lord and hope. And yes, I have heard Workers - dear brothers and sisters in Christ - speak lovingly of the blessed trinity. admin Adm., I'm sorry but I'm having a hard time understanding what exactly you are saying. It seems to me that you said that having an humanly lack of understanding the Nature if the God head or Christ our Lord helps our hope in life eternal. I'm sure it's the way I'm reading it.
|
|
|
Post by alistairhenderson on Mar 9, 2017 17:55:05 GMT -5
I think, Sharingtheriches, that Admin is saying that even an imperfect understanding of who Christ is as part of the Godhead (as part of the Trinity), still adds stronger weight to the idea of 'Christ in us,the hope of glory'. In other words, even those of us, like Admin, who believe in the trinity, cannot say we fully understand it. But the fact that we believe it adds great value to our relationship.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Mar 9, 2017 17:55:34 GMT -5
Bearing in mind, that almost every person I know, male or female,whether brought up to know Christianity or not, have at some stage, longed for an elder brother, who was perfect in every way......we wouldn't want to take that away from Jesus either, would we, because it is after all a very important thing. My understanding, FWIW, is that Christ ("the last Adam") is both fully God and fully man. Impossible from our natural, earth-bound perspective. Christ lived on this earth as man - the last Adam. Perfect as God intended mankind in the creation. He lived as a man, totally dependent on his Father in heaven. Hence he is the example for living our natural lives by faith, trusting God for everything. And in that sense we can think of him as our "elder brother". Also so many other things - divine and eternal Son of God, Saviour, risen Lord, our all in all. Forgive the deficiencies in my understanding and even more in trying to put into words, admin Ive understood that the brotherhood of Jesus with us actually has more to do with him being the firstborn of the resurrection. And that this is where we become joint heirs with him as brothers would do. Doesn't the Bible say that Jesus gave some the right to be called the sons of God? Isn't this through being born again and being given life eternal by Jesus' sacrifice?
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Mar 9, 2017 18:02:51 GMT -5
I think, Sharingtheriches, that Admin is saying that even an imperfect understanding of who Christ is as part of the Godhead (as part of the Trinity), still adds stronger weight to the idea of 'Christ in us,the hope of glory'. In other words, even those of us, like Admin, who believe in the trinity, cannot say we fully understand it. But the fact that we believe it adds great value to our relationship. Thanks. That's what I believe. My own growth in this is a prime example. Just first accepting that Jesus is God the Son helped my faith to grow. The bible is clear that things that are meat in the bible opened to us is measured by the gift of Christ. Another place says by the gift of faith. The secret being the exercising of the use of the word and consistently asking that God would help our unbelief.
|
|
|
Post by alistairhenderson on Mar 9, 2017 18:08:08 GMT -5
You said: "Doesn't the Bible say that Jesus gave some the right to be called the sons of God? Isn't this through being born again and being given life eternal by Jesus' sacrifice?"
Yes, that's all correct.
SO, to a faithful person, one who trusts in Jesus and is saved, he is our elder brother from a human standpoint, as well as God!
Here are a couple of verses that might help:
Heb 2:11 "For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,"
Heb 2:17 "Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people."
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Mar 9, 2017 18:12:00 GMT -5
Paul wrote that he was all things to all men. But I believe Jesus surely is the One all in all... he can touch us in every facet of our lives. And will do so if we are open to him.
|
|
|
Post by blandie on Mar 9, 2017 18:26:30 GMT -5
However, I am confident that a number of the early workers held onto and passed on their Trinity beliefs for a number of decades before there was a 'second' or 'third generation' shift in teaching, possibly a gradual one. I have to say I was quite taken aback to find in Truth Archive much more explicit teaching, especially by major 'first generation' workers like Jack Carrol and George Walker, about the Trinity, in very explicit and extensively argued terms, than I ever expected. After all, one of the reasons we left was because we could get no sense out of modern workers we spoke to about this issue. So why did these workers bother going to that length if they weren't trying to make a point? Again folks under jack carroll didn't accept the traditional view of the trinity - doubt bill did either - no matter what impression jack and george gave on rare occasions. If you put on your 2x2 glasses those statements aren't supporting that jesus is almighty god at all - which is why you and nathan and ross are talking right past the normal 2x2 anti-trinity crowd. Workers aren't explicitly supporting the traditional trinity ideas when they're using completely different definitions and viewpoint than you are. They believe that jesus is united with god on one level but is not god almighty. They believe he is the image of god - resembling him - but not god. They believe that jesus was 'a god' but not the one god or god in the same way as the father is called god. They look at a clover leaf and see 3 individuals joined in common purpose and not one leaf or a single entity. I've talked with F&W's about this very subject and they had no problem with statements you've quoted - some said almost the same things - but when asked further about whether jesus and the father are the same god or to go into detail about what their belief is about jesus being god almighty - the answer has come back 'NO' over and over again. They learned that dissimulation from somewhere and it goes back a lot longer than some would like to think and came from the top early on. I wasn't looking for it but I just came across the following letter that appeared a couple decades ago in an irish newspaper from a lady and probably her husband who was very familiar with jack-c back in the 50s similar to what I was trying to say. I think she's still around tho not on the internet and expect she'd have more to say about what was the real doctrine/teaching under jack-c but she does warn against putting an orthodox spin on worker statements that seem to agree but really don't: I'm sort of amazed that what she is saying is exactly what I've seen and heard. Much as I'd like to think that a change has occurred on this topic I don't buy it - and doubt that it convinces the anti-trinitarian friends here - it doesn't fit with what I know from the older friends I've known who'd professed way back under that initial crop of overseers. Using the same logic I could quote older worker notes about grace and all kinds of other teachings and say something's changed but it hasn't.
|
|
|
Post by alistairhenderson on Mar 9, 2017 18:41:39 GMT -5
I am not saying things have changed in the right direction!
If anything, teaching on a whole range of issues, Trinity, deity of Christ, grace etc have become much murkier in the last 20 years even. And I absolutely agree that dissimulation is the order of the day nowadays. And I have no doubt that generally speaking it always has been.
Having said that, my point and Ross's (I think) is that the line appears to have changed even nominally from a more 'orthodox' Trinity stance by some workers (probably only ever a minority anyway at the greatest extent) up to the 1950s, to a blatantly anti-trinity stance pretty much universally since then.
I think we all agree it is not the case now, nor has it been for at least 60 years, that the Trinity has been upheld by more than a tiny handful of workers. That is not in dispute here.
I think that even with possible dissimulation by the workers you mentioned, it may not be the case that every worker was doing so.
More importantly for our discussion, no matter how much there may have been dissimulation involved, the preaching still supports the Trinity case much more strongly than many other worker statements or even explicitly anti-trinity statements I have read and heard from other workers.
So a little illumination is better than none, and can only strengthen the case, don't you agree?
I also note in Ruth Miller's notes that there is very little that explicitly addresses the issues we are discussing here in any detail. It does not preclude a number of workers holding and preaching Trinitarian views, albeit definitely in the minority in any generation! Even Leslie White by preaching in Australia as he did may have been playing it a bit safe.
I do believe that John W was and is unambiguously a Trinitarian in any case. Don't know why he left the work, but he also is non-exclusive I believe.
Please understand, I am not defending the teaching of the workers as a whole, either now or 100 years ago.
I am just trying to show our friends who absolutely deny the deity of Christ "because that's not the workers' doctrine" that even a number of senior workers in the past have made quite explicit-sounding statements about it - even though their Trinitarian views may ultimately prove to have been deficient.
|
|
|
Post by Ross.Bowden on Mar 9, 2017 18:42:02 GMT -5
The transcript from the New South Wales worker in 2016 reads:
"...God sent Jesus His only Son into the world. Because Jesus was in our likeness He was given a physical body. He was human when he was born into this world. While he lived here he was human. He wasn’t God but he understood the Spirit of God teaching him and guiding His life".
While Doug Parker's book "The Secret Sect" is focused primarily on the history of the 2x2 church, pages 99-107 cover Doctrine of the 2x2 church.
Concerning Jesus he makes the following points:
"At the beginning of the 20th Century, William Irvine and his companions accepted the trend of emphasis upon the humanity of Jesus Christ. From the sources available it appears that Christ is seen as having been neither perfect man nor perfect God, but as the pattern preacher, and it has been evident in discussions with sectarians that they do not hold the doctrine of the divinity of Christ as it is believed by Christian denominations who teach His pre-existence as God's eternal Word through whom all things were created. It follows that a comparatively limited view of Christ is held in the areas of the doctrines of the incarnation and purpose of the atonement, and the primary objects of interest are the "true way" preachers and church in the home.
A former worker in North America (F Miller) wrote ... "there was but scant reference either in the preaching or testimonies to the blood of Christ - scant reference to Christ as our Saviour and none whatsoever to Him as our Redeemer and Sin-bearer; much attention to his earthly life and ministry, none to His atoning death - only a heavy emphasis on Him as our example, especially demonstrated to us by the workers, which emphasis we knew was not that of the New Testament Gospel.....at every encounter....they tried to side-step the doctrinal issue....they would accuse us with: There is something there in your testimonies which is not of us, not the same spirit."
Our experience lines up with this.
Jesus was mentioned regularly but almost always in the context of His example.
Very rarely did we hear the term Redeemer or Sin-bearer. I can remember at maybe 2 Sunday conventions (Sunday morning) over many years atonement being discussed.
In the late 1990's I spoke in Sunday morning meeting of Thomas finally realising that Jesus was His Lord and God and Jesus giving assent to what Thomas had said.
Clyde Mackay, the NSW Head Worker at the time was in the meeting.
He didn't call me in the next 2 weeks to have a chat about it but came to our meeting 2 weeks later.
He spoke first in testimony time and said:
"Two weeks ago a brother in this meeting spoke of Jesus being God - I just want to all know that this is wrong doctrine".
He didn't explain why he felt that. Nobody bothered to ask him after meeting (including myself) because they knew it would be pointless.
Case closed apparently.
It should be no surprise to anyone that the New South Wales workers in this core area of Christian teaching have departed so seriously from the truth of God's Word.
|
|
|
Post by alistairhenderson on Mar 9, 2017 18:48:57 GMT -5
Yes, notwithstanding anything some other workers may have said or claimed to believe (and they may have) about the Trinity and the deity of Christ, Clyde is definitely Exhibit A when it comes to 'invincible ignorance'!
|
|
|
Post by alistairhenderson on Mar 9, 2017 19:21:30 GMT -5
Ross, re the 'Do not call' Register.
I'm not sure you are joking....well, you might be....but if there is such a register, I'm probably on it...except for relatives. We've had visits from Robert and Doreen at different times.
|
|
|
Post by alistairhenderson on Mar 9, 2017 19:23:35 GMT -5
Yes Nathan, I think the rot probably set in in earnest with the likes of Howard Mooney, Elvis Tennisracket et al
|
|
|
Post by alistairhenderson on Mar 9, 2017 19:56:42 GMT -5
Just like the JWs unfortunately.
I know two of my wife's male relatives (one now deceased) who kept/keep a copy of the JW bible to hand so they can refer to the 'correct rendering', for example, of John 1:1 (inserting the word 'a' before God).
Pathetic. Unbelievable. But true
|
|
|
Post by alistairhenderson on Mar 9, 2017 20:45:02 GMT -5
This just reveals the abysmal ignorance and uneducated arrogance of people like Willis Propp.
They 'speak of that which they know not' and lead people even further astray.
The more I think about it, the less I feel like continuing to try and make excuses for any of them....
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 10, 2017 3:11:12 GMT -5
Just like the JWs unfortunately. I know two of my wife's male relatives (one now deceased) who kept/keep a copy of the JW bible to hand so they can refer to the 'correct rendering', for example, of John 1:1 (inserting the word 'a' before God). Pathetic. Unbelievable. But true Have you checked the earliest manuscripts?
|
|
|
Post by alistairhenderson on Mar 10, 2017 4:13:54 GMT -5
Hi Fixit,
With respect, I don't believe it has to do with early or late manuscripts. My understanding, having studied this question, is that this particular verse does not have any variations across the vast majority of manuscripts, unlike some verses.
You may be thinking of the verse about 'these three are one' which appears in some manuscripts and not others. But a good argument can still be put that that particular verse (I don't mean John 1:1) was in the earlier manuscripts and it was preserved in the main text that was used to translate the King James ( Textus Receptus).
The argument by more recent scholars about older and more recent manuscripts also has to be considered in the light of earlier versions of a particular rendering (like the Textus Receptus) being just as old as those said to be older, but the original versions of the 'younger' manuscripts were lost, usually because they were recopied by scribes because older copies got worn out. This was common practice.
The reason that only more recent copies of the Textus Receptus remain is likely because that particular version was so over-used by scholars as a main reference. This is a sound argument when looking at the provenance of different manuscripts. So things are not always as straight-forward as some would like to make out.
The other thing is that the Greek grammatical rules that the JWs use to mistranslated John 1:1 are spurious, and the majority of scholars of biblical Greek have shown time and again that the verse as we have it in the King James and every modern version except the JW version is the correct one.
The JW version is simply not correct, and I cannot understand why people keep pushing it as being correct when they are not JWs.
The only explanation is desperation.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Mar 10, 2017 12:23:29 GMT -5
I have experienced this changing of the message from workers since 1954. The workers in those days preached Jesus and only Jesus. There was never a word about tthe 2x2 itinerant ministry. It wasn't discussed even at conv. I think that is why there were more young people offering for the work. They didn't know about the ministry except the visual evidence they saw. They didn't know that workers left all and went out with not much more then the clothes on their backs. They didn't know that marriage of workers were forbidden and this was the great sacrifice that workers gave. Most thought the giving up of all was simply being in the road all the time, plus they saw the glory and honor bestowed on the workers as if they were more than human. Now days the workers haveore money in their pockets then some of the young friends have, thus that is a pull. I know this for a fact. A worker relative said it. They have top brand clothing even undergarments.
The message always gets back to the 2x2 itinerant ministry and the mtgs in the home. Sometimes it's as if Jesus becomes an after thought. These two tenets of faith is all they have and they are very defensive if them as if there aren't other 2x2 ministers/missionaries in the world and there aren't other mtgs in the home. It's as if this is the very sign that they are the true church. Boxing God up in a very small population as if God can't do or go anywhere on his own counsel.
When a relative passed away a few yrs ago, shed wanted to be brought back to our home area to be buried. Well it is quite expensive to cross state lines with an embalmed corpse and for her purpose would have required several state lines. So it was suggested to cremate and then the ashes could be freely taken it sent anywhere. The relative where this deceased relative was was very against cremation. I asked why. The answer was it wouldn't be advisable for God's sake in resurrection day. I had to laugh. That didn't go over well. So I said, Why do you want to box God in on what he can do or not do? They had to admit that was exactly what they were doing. I reminded them that there would be nothing but dust and/or ashes in very many circumstances anyway. They'd never thought of that because 2x2s have always been more or less against cremation.
|
|
|
Post by alistairhenderson on Mar 10, 2017 14:19:56 GMT -5
And here is the crux of the matter. You said: "They'd never thought of that because 2x2s have always been more or less against cremation."
They'd never thought of that. Exactly. They'd never thought of that. The problem. Not thinking.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Mar 10, 2017 18:13:18 GMT -5
And here is the crux of the matter. You said: "They'd never thought of that because 2x2s have always been more or less against cremation." They'd never thought of that. Exactly. They'd never thought of that. The problem. Not thinking. Why is it many of the friends are content to take what the workers say as all that is necessary for them to know? Note I said many. We have some very independent thinking ones here in TMB, but seems that they are only a fraction of them. That's one thing that's changed in their preaching. The workers used to tell folks listening to their sermons that when they got home to look at the Scriptures used and see if it agrees with what the workers said. This would have been in those days when the triune God would have often part if their sermons. I really think what happened to that doctrine was not only it being a Catholic doctrine but too many if the workers and friends could not begin to understand it. They were trying to grasp it by using human measure s. JMO
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 10, 2017 22:59:16 GMT -5
The only explanation is desperation. Desperation seems to be mostly from the pro-trinitarian side. People I fellowship with don't seem to have any trinitarian hangups.
|
|