Reviewing Early Christian Doctrines – The Divine 'Triad' (pt1)

Note: I had to break the discussion on this chapter up into two. I will post the other one, I hope, something this afternoon or perhaps later tonight.

In the first section of this chapter, Dr. Kelly exposes us to some of the early writers who readily defined God as one, as Creator and as Father only in the aspect of His creator ship. He states (pg83) that “‘Father’ (in this period) referred primarily to His role as creator and author of all things. This comes at the end of a series of statements where Hermas writes (88-97) that the first commandment is to ‘believe that God is one, Who created and established all things, bringing them into existence out of non-existence’. Moving to Clement of Rome (88-99), we read that Clement saw God as ‘the Father and creator of the entire cosmos’ while for Barnabas (c100), He is ‘our maker’. Kelly acknowledges that this ideas derived directly from the Bible and from latter-day Judaism, and rarely from the philosophy of the day. Acknowledging this leads us to ask, ‘if the bible was a sturdy foundation for these first generation writers, then what lead to the change?’

The Apologists, those coming after the Apostles, seemed to flirt with the idea of secular thought (i.e., paganism and philosophy) as a defense of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Doctrine of the Church. This, however, is an interpretation 1800 years removed. Dr. Kelly, citing on the first apologist, Aristides of Athens, says he opened his letter to the emperor Hadrian with a demonstration of God’s existence based on Aristotle’s argument from motion. (pg84) Aristides does go one to acknowledge only one God, ‘and apart from Him worship no other God.

In moving to Justin Martyr, Kelly focuses on his language ‘strongly colored’ by the ‘Platonizing Stoicism of the day’. Tertullian, separate from Justin by the Mediterranean Sea, stated,

“What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord is there between the Academy and the Church? what between heretics and Christians? Our instruction comes from “the porch of Solomon,” who had himself taught that “the Lord should be sought in simplicity of heart.” Away with all attempts to produce a mottled Christianity of Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic composition! We want no curious disputation after possessing Christ Jesus, no inquisition after enjoying the gospel! With our faith, we desire no further belief. For this is our palmary faith, that there is nothing which we ought to believe besides.

Justin, however, felt completely comfortable combining Christian doctrine with pagan philosophy, establishing an Academy instead of teaching from the Porch. The Martyr went so far as to sincerely hold to the notion that the great Greek thinkers ‘had access to the works of Moses’. Kelly points out that much of Justin can be found in Plato’s Timaeus (pg84) ‘which Justin supposed to be akin to, and borrowed from, that contained in Genesis’. For Justin, God was ‘everlasting, ineffable and without name, changeless and impassable, and ingenerate’. He is also ‘Creator of the Universe, maker and Father of all things; Himself above being, He is the cause of all existence.’ It is worth nothing that Justin’s conversion experience leaves doubt in the mind of the modern believer as to the intentions of the philosopher. Was it repentance or merely a search for purer philosophy that attracted Justin to Christianity?

The era of the Reformation has not been kind to Justin. Flacius discovered “blemishes” in Justin’s theology, which he attributed to the influence of pagan philosophers; and in modern times Semler and S.G. Lange have made him out a thorough Hellene, while Semisch and Otto defend him from this charge. In opposition to the school of Ferdinand Christian Baur, who considered him a Jewish Christian, Albrecht Ritschl has pointed out that it was precisely because he was a Gentile Christian that he did not fully understand the Old Testament foundation of Paul’s teaching, and explained in this way the modified character of his Paulinism and his legal mode of thought. M. von Engelhardt has attempted to extend this line of treatment to Justin’s entire theology, and to show that his conceptions of God, of free will and righteousness, of redemption, grace, and merit prove the influence of the cultivated Greek pagan world of the second century, dominated by the Platonic and Stoic philosophy.

Kelly then moves to Tatian, the pupil of Justin, however, Tatian is a worthy mention. According to Irenaeus, was expelled from the Roman Church because of his encratitic ways. This is a heretical sect which Tatian is accused of starting which attempted to live a very ascetic way of live, forbidding marriage and abstaining from meat. Supposedly his excommunication was a result of his following of Valentinus the Gnostic, of course, this did not stop Tatian from establishing a school of thought as well as, as some say, teaching Clement of Alexandria.

Kelly then goes on to mention Theophilus and Athenagoras in describing creation ex nihilo. It is interesting to here Theophilus’ description of God, which Kelly relates,

‘Without beginning because uncreated, immutable because immortal, Lord because He is Lord over all things, Father because He is prior to all things, most high because He is above all things, almighty because he holds all things; for the heights of the heavens, the depths of the abysses and the ends of the world are in His hands’.

It is noteworthy because of what is lacking: any notion of a ‘Son’ and thus a traditional understanding of the Father-Son relationship in the Trinity. We also see that the notion of ‘Father’ and ‘Almighty’ is in line with Clement of Alexandria and Barnabas. Even here, in the philosophers, we fail to find any mention of the Father as described in the Trinity.

Theophilus was ‘particularly critical of the Platonic notion of the eternity of matter, arguing that, if it were true, God could not be the creator of all thing, and therefore His ‘monarchy’, i.e His position of sole first principle, must go by the board, ‘ says Dr. Kelly. We have to first understand that if Clement (who was in the apostolic succession from Peter) as well as these early Apologists, never used the word ‘Father’ in relation to an co-eternal Son, then the idea of a Trinity as proposed by Nicaea is unknown to the Apostles. If, as according to Theophilus, God is the sole source, the first principle of Creation, then that means that the Wisdom and the Word, or the Spirit and the Son, are created beings at the very least, dismissing the notion that later develops that the Son and the Spirit are both co-eternal with the Father.

Dr. Kelly moves to Irenaeus, often times called the first Orthodox theologian for this strict adherence to Tradition. The author states that the task of this theologian was different that that of the Apologists, ‘being to rebut the Gnostics’ theology of a hierarchy of aeons descending from an unknowable Supreme God.’ Dr. Kelly provides us with texts to make the position taken by Irenaeus clear. In Haer. 2, I, I, Irenaeus states:

It is clear that we should start with the first, most important proposition, vis. God the Creator (a demiurgo deo), Who made heave and earth and everything in them, the God Whom they (the Gnostics) blasphemously describe as an abortive product; and that we should show that there is nothing above or after Him…since He is alone God, alone Lord, alone creator, alone Father, and alone contains all things and bestows existence on them’.

In another work, Irenaeus cites the first article of faith as:

God the Father, increate, unengendered, invisible, one and only Deity, creator of the universe.

Irenaeus taught that “God exercises His creative activity through His Word and His Wisdom, or Spirit, and was a firm believer in creation ex nihilo, point out that ‘mean indeed cannot make anything out of nothing, but only of material already before them.’” We fail to see yet a clear distinction, in the vein of the Trinity, in the words of Irenaeus. It is by the Word (which is Christ) that God creates, yet Irenaeus does seem to argue with Paul who said that Christ was the Wisdom of God. Kelly goes on to say that Irenaeus, in his war waged against the Gnostics, believed ‘every subordinate emanation must share the nature of its principle, but thy very notion of Godhead excludes a plurality of Gods.’ (pg87)

Irenaeus says, ‘Either there must be one God Who contains all things and has made every creature according to His will: or there must be many indeterminate creators or gods, each beginning and ending at his place in the series’, and in saying such, Irenaeus stands as an accuser of the Trinity belief that God is divisible, and that each Person of the Godhead, distinct from one another, has only a place in a series.

Moving into the section which Dr. Kelly has named ‘The Church’s Faith’, he notes that the New Testament, yet uncanonized by the middle of the Second Century, was exerting a ‘powerful influence’. Dr. Kelly also notes ‘how deeply the conception of a plurality of divine Persons was imprinted on the apostolic tradition and the popular faith’ ignoring Tertullian’s quote that the majority of believers knew of only Person in the Godhead, assuming that a plurality lead to paganism. Dr. Kelly does, however, being to build the concept that the dyadic and triadic pattern of the Godhead began to take shape; however, he ignores the monad creeds that are found on the pages of Holy Writ, namely:

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:

God was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory.

(1Ti 3:16 NKJV)

That if you will profess with your mouth that Jesus is God, and will believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, you will be saved!

(Rom 10:9 CTV-NT)

Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider Deity something to be held so tightly to, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a slave, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.

(Php 2:5-8 CTV-NT

It must be noted that these early ‘creeds’ of the Church exhibited only a monad theology, that Jesus Christ was God.

Moving to the issue of baptism, Dr. Kelly notes that the baptismal rite provides evidence of a triadic formula of the Godhead, yet throughout Acts and even into the epistles baptism is seen only in the name of Jesus Christ. Many scholars even today note that the original formula of baptism was in the singular name while Catholic commentators often note the doubt as to the validity of the tri-part name in Matthew 28:19, yet Dr. Kelly fails to acknowledge these meager facts that demonstrate that the early Church’s baptism, in line with the Apostles, was first changed which led to a triadic view of the Godhead.

How ever, Dr. Kelly does bring to light that Justin first used a dyadic formula for baptism and only later changed it to use the third part, that of the Spirit. In the earlier models, Justin would quote ‘In the name of God the Father and master of all things, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, they are washed in the water’ while later, he added in great detail, ‘in the name of God the Father and master of all things, of Jesus Christ, Who was crucified under Pontius Pilate’, and of the Holy Spirit, Who foretold by the prophets the whole story of Jesus’. This of course greatly adds to both baptismal formulas (Matthew 28.19 and Acts 2.38).

If baptism was a keystone in the development of the Godhead, then the Apostles who baptized only in the name of Jesus Christ would surely have failed to recognize the Trinity doctrine that developed later from the heavy reliance upon the singular instance in the New Testament of baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

Moving into the Apostolic Fathers, the apocryphal book of 2nd Clement opens with the monad formula,

Brethren, we ought so to think of Jesus Christ, as of God, as of the Judge of quick and dead. 2Clem 1:1

And again, the author says,

If Christ the Lord who saved us, being first spirit, then became flesh, and so called us, in like manner also shall we in this flesh receive our reward. 2Clem. 9:5

Neither of these statements lead to a dyadic formula, but rather seeing on Christ, as God, as a Spirit. Barnabas seems to have the same problem in placing the ‘spirit’ as an adjective instead of a person. In 7.3 and 11.9 the author of Barnabas calls the body of Christ the vessel of spirit, ‘presumably denoting by the word the spiritual nature of the diving element in the Lord.’ (pg91). It must also be fairly noted that the Epistle of Barnabas was not written by Paul’s companion and John Mark’s uncle; however, this book does given prominence to the pre-existence of Christ, for as Dr. Kelly points out Barnabas says that it is Christ whom God spoke to in Genesis 1.26.

“And I perceived that the world and all that is therein are moved by the power of another; and I understood that he who moves them is God, who is hidden in them, and veiled by them” – It is not uncommon for someone to search based on secular methods for something greater, but when finding the Greater, realizes the futility of the secular methods. Aristides used Paul’s method of discourse by using something familiar to the Roman elite to bring forth Christ, but in no way used philosophy to shape Christ and His doctrine.

In the opening of the “Dialogue,” Justin relates his vain search among the Stoics, Peripatetics, and Pythagoreans for a satisfying knowledge of God; his finding in the ideas of Plato wings for his soul, by the aid of which he hoped to attain the contemplation of the God-head; and his meeting on the sea-shore with an aged man who told him that by no human endeavor but only by divine revelation could this blessedness be attained, that the prophets had conveyed this revelation to man, and that their words had been fulfilled. Of the truth of this he assured himself by his own investigation; and the daily life of the Christians and the courage of the martyrs convinced him that the charges against them were unfounded. So he sought to spread the knowledge of Christianity as the true philosophy.

Matthias Flacius Illyricus (1520-1575) was a Lutheran reformer.

Johann Salomo Semler (1725–1791), was a German church historian and biblical commentator.

Ferdinand Christian Baur (1792 – 1860), was a German theologian and leader of the Tübingen school of theology.

Albrecht Ritschl (1822 -1889) was a German theologian

But he admits that Justin is a Christian in his unquestioning adherence to the Church and its faith, his unqualified recognition of the Old Testament, and his faith in Christ as the Son of God the Creator, made manifest in the flesh, crucified, and risen, through which belief he succeeds in getting away from the dualism of pagan and also of Gnostic philosophy.

1st Corinthians 1.24 which states that Christ is the power and the wisdom of God. If one would understand that the Spirit of God correctly as the power of God, we see that both wisdom and word, power and spirit, are the same in the minds of the Apostles, and this is that they are all Christ.

You Might Also Like

0 Replies to “Reviewing Early Christian Doctrines – The Divine 'Triad' (pt1)”

  1. Joel,
    I am very glad to see that you are reading Kelly’s book, Early Christian Doctrine. I have read this book since my first time back in the 70’s, now many times too. It is a classic to my mind. Would that more Christian thinkers, historical minded, and theolog types read it.

    I know you are seeking to make a sort of running commentary on this book. Chapter by chapter, or certain chapters, etc. But your pre-supposition for Modalism is kind of forefront. I know you want to prove that there is no historical support for the development of the Trinity, but we must remember that the majority of the historic Christian Church IS Trinitarian! And just how did this happen? The fact that the second and third centuries were very hard for the Christian Church is all too real historically. There are many factors here.

    Personally, I think that the best of the obvious early Trinitarian thinkers were Hippolytus and Terullian. They simply stand out in this sense. But we can say with Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp that here began an early “consensus patrum” that was to develop later. And Irenaeus of Lyons emerged as one of the earliest Christian theologians.

    We must remember also that the young Church, after the Apostle John, was beset by heretics. From Marcion to Gnosticism. Also the second century saw the birth of Christian literature. The Didache, Justin the Martyr wrote his Apology, and to the subapostolic writer Hermas. And we must remember too that the number of the martyrs throughout the Roman Empire were in the thousands. So it was a hard time for the Christian Church. And even the third century would see the very bloodiest of Christian martyrdom. And yet even there we have St. Anthony the Great, St. Gregory the Illuminator, Cyprian of Carthage, Hippolytus, etc. Here of course we have two new great Christian theologians, both from or based in Alexandria: Clement and Origen. Here is the first Christian “theology” of Christ as the Logos, the Word of God. Of course a theology rooted in the best hellenic traditions.

    And in the third century North Africa (Carthage) here were among the most heavily Christianized areas of the Roman Empire. It was the first Latin-speaking church and produced some of the greatest of the Church Fathers, including Tertullian and Augustine. Indeed the third century saw the establishment of the first Christian kingdom and the first national church. St. Gregory the Illuminator (257-332) went to Armenia and persuaded King Tiridates, who was then persecuting the church, to embrace Christianity. The king then encouraged all his people to follow him, the first time such a national conversion had taken place. Armenia is the oldest Christian nation in the world!

    My point here is that the East soundly regards the development of the Trinity as from its womb! This is one of the weaknessess of Kelly’s otherwise good book. But in reality the Trinity is rooted in the Apostles doctrine, here is its first Christology, and thus its first sort of prolepsis! (Here would be a good place to read Bauckham’s book: God Crucified – Monotheism And Christology in the NT).

    Keep up the good work and honest search!

    Fr. Robert

  2. Betwixt you, Joel, and Fr. Robert; three in one. “Great is the mystery of godliness.” Between monad and triad. To use my brother Bob’s illustration, much like an egg. Take the yoke, or the white, or the shell away, and you only have a part of an egg, yet it is one egg. Great exegetic discussion, thank you for sharing your research.

  3. Thanks, Rev. Please feel free to check the other parts as well.

    I prefer the illustration of mercury… No matter separation might temporarily appear, once you united the two, no distinction can be seen nor exists.

  4. But with the Incarnation, God & Man (dual in nature) exist together in One Christ Jesus…forever! And the One Mystical Body of Christ also.

    In reality all “illustrations” of God breakdown, in an apathethic theology and doctrine of God. (See the Orthodox doctrine and theology of God).


  5. Apophatic theology—also known as negative theology—is a theology that attempts to describe God by negation, to speak of God only in absolutely certain terms and to avoid what may not be said. In Orthodox Christianity, apophatic theology is based on the assumption that God’s essence is unknowable or ineffable and on the recognition of the inadequacy of human language to describe God. The apophatic tradition in Orthodoxy is often balanced with cataphatic theology—or positive theology—and belief in the incarnation, through which God has revealed himself in the person of Jesus Christ. – from Orthodoxwiki

  6. Amen! My poor But the apophatic is always in tension here, even with the Incarnation. This is how the Orthodox have expressed it to me, with their “cataphatic” theology. This is what is meant by the Trinity of God…”it has neither assimilated nor unfolded.” (Save in what we know in revelation now given: the Father, the Son & the Holy Spirit…three persons, but One God).


  7. P.
    It is obvious that Christ gave the baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19: though it is true that he never said to the Apostles or us to make a “Trinity” out of it…

    So i do not believe that the Apostles would have changed the formula written in Matthew… They baptized believers by His authority [in his name].This does not mean that they “spoke” the name Jesus while baptizing them:

    but perhaps spoke the Name/titles of The Father the Son and the Holy Spirit who are Jehovah/God.

    P as i said before i am tossing away the words Trinity and Persons…But how do we explain it, especially to New believers: That The Father the Son and the Holy Spirit are God?

    P Can it really be done with scripture alone 😀
    Ok but seriously though it has to be done this way and no other way!

  8. Hi P.

    “Scholars generally tend to agree that the name of Jesus Christ was the only formula for baptism for over 100 years. Every example we have in Acts is in the name of the Lord, and further, we have historical evidence that this would have been the proper way to do so”.

    P.Scholars and historical evidence are good things to have on ones side: I causes us to look into certain things that we would normally cast away.

    However,do you/we know wether or not those Scholars and that particular historian that you speak of was also a classical modalist or “Onesness”?

    Modalist or Oneness are not a new group,right? Surely they existed before the Trinitarians did: Since they did baptize in Jesus name.Or were they born out of a doctrinal battle against the Trinitarians?

    Is that not how many false doctrines and cults get there started every day? You know. Fighting the good fight but leaving the “Sword” [the word of God] behind.

    Those who say that Matthew 28:19 was not the proper baptismal formula.I wonder if they say these things because they cannot let go of the Romanish “Trinity” aspect of it:

    Moreover,they should also themselves be prepared to explain what it is that they think that the Lord Jesus did mean,when he said those words to the Apostles.

    P.If something is done in someones “name” it means that it by their delegated authority that the thing is done…Kinda like the written the law giving a police officer delegated authority to detain you: by telling you to “STOP” in the NAME of the Law…

    Though i have decided not to use the words Trinity or Persons does not mean that i now believe that ONLY the Father is God.The scriptures teach that The Son is God and the creator as well…

    Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son,whom he hath appointed heir of all things,by whom also he MADE the worlds; Hebrew 1:2

    That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon,and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and show unto you that eternal life,which was WITH the Father, and was manifested unto us;) 1 John 1:1,2

    In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his ONLY BEGOTTEN SON into the world, that we might live through him.

    1. What does the Phrase “Only begotten” mean scripturally…We know what the Trinitarians say it means: but what say the Greek?

    And we have seen and do testify that the FATHER sent THE Son to be the Saviour of the world. 1 John 4:14

    And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you ANOTHER Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; John 14;16 all emphasis mine.

    2.Does the Son testify that the Spirit is God: by calling him [another] comforter? What does Another mean in the Greek?

    P.i do not know wether or not a man can separated from his Image: But the passage below states that the God-Man has a Prototype who is invisible…

    Who is the image of the invisible God,the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: Colossians 1:15,16

    P. none of this is against you.I know what you believe…

  9. YtLoG,

    Actually, most of those that say Matt 28.19 was a later addition are Catholic, and as you know, they are Trinitarian. They believe this because of all the examples given in baptism, not one follow Matth. 28.19. I personally believe, due to the large amount of historical evidence, that said verse is authentic. Classic Modalism, it seems, was born out of a fear, as the historian says, the the Logos doctrine that Justin and others promoted created a second God – which the Arians would later take up and proudly declare that indeed, the Logos (Word) was a second God.

    No one is saying that the Son is not God, but never once in Scripture will you find the phrase ‘God the Son’, and not until a few hundred years later will you find that in the writings of the Church.

    Monogenes means unique. Indeed, I believe that the Son of God was a unique manifestation of God, the Incarnation, and that through this manifestation, God showed us His love. The Word – reason, message, plan, rationale – was indeed with God in the beginning – but again, can you separate a man and his word or reason?

    Indeed, God sent the Spirit, just as He sent the Son, but we have to understand that the Son is the emanation of the Father, just as the Spirit is from the Father. Christ is the Image of God (can you separate a man and his image – when you look at the image of the man, do you not see the man?) Emanation is a biblical word as well. (Hebrews 1.3) The image (Christ) of the invisible (God), thus we have Phil 2.6-8. God put on the flesh and became man, so that He might reveal Himself to us. God spoke Himself into flesh, and those Apostles handled the Word of God. The Son is the Voice of God. The Son is how God deals with us, directly, not through prophets or angels, but through Himself.

    The Spirit, which is our Advocate and Comforter, is the spirit of God and the spirit of Christ (Romans 8.9).

    The compromise that came out of Nicaea is that the essence of God (again, nonbiblical word) is divided into three Person (substances, which only God the Father has) – the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. Before then, a great majority believed that there was but One Person, undivided, and from Him the Son and the Spirit was sent. The Arians arrived, and created the Three Persons, each of them another God, and each of them subordinate to the Father.

    YtLoG, do you think we are allowed doctrinal development, or do you think the Church was allowed to develop doctrine long after the Apostles were passed?

    Did you get a chance to read all of the Unus Deus?

  10. Hi P

    Did you mean to say that you are NOT classic modalism/Oneness?

    Anyway P. i do not have to have it my way… If baptism is in the name of Jesus the way that modalist/Oneness have it then that’s fine.

    I was baptized in/with the formula in Matthew 28:19.However,i was baptized because i believed: so that’s what matters… Else the thief on the cross should not be in Paradise since he was not baptized at all.

    Moreover: The Lord said that he that believes NOT is damned: So then i am not careful about baptism Acts or Matthew… because i believe.

    If if the Lord means baptism by the Spirit in Mark’s Gospel: then i know that i too have the gaurantee or down payment: The Holy Spirit of promise: And for the same reason: because i believe…

    Wether by semantics or deception or twisting of scripture: No one can convince me that The Father is not God or the Son is not God and that the Holy Spirit is not God… So i guess we will have to just agree to disagree on that one:

    P. i am Amill though i have the same hope as Postmills do: since we have the great commission to fulfill until He comes. I am also a Partial/moderate Preterist.

    I do believe that 2 Thessalonians 2:1-4 is yet future: Not sure if [the man of sin] speaks of a person or of the behavior against believers and by those who have no hope of salvation: because they have fallen away: and therefore cannot be renewed again: Else the Lord would have to be crucified again to save them.

    I do not have a clue as to what 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is really telling us. I only know for certain that some rebuilt or newly built temple anywhere in the world would never be considered the temple of God…

    P those who do fall away: will be those who have once believed: else they could not rebel or commit Apostasy… I only pray that i am not numbered with them…

    This is why i feel that i should not hold to any doctrines of men wether traditional or philosophycal… Nor do i hold to the amill or the Partial/moderate Preterist view with an iron grip.I can let go of both at anytime…

    So if it turns out [somehow] that Dispensationalist,wether classic Premill or Progressives are correct: I will not be disappointed: Or afraid because i have not taught or have tried to convince anyone of anything.

    So how or when i go to be with the Lord forever matters not to me, anymore. That i am ready according to His standards alone does matter:

    So wether out of tribulation: through tribulation after tribulation or no tribulation at all: does not matter to me anymore…

    But i have to wonder just how broken and disappointed others will be… Those who are so unwilling at any cost to let go of their own doctines and beliefs: even when the scriptures and reasoning from them,tells them again and again that something is wrong with what they believe…

    P. i have learned from you as i said before: so i look forward to having other conversations with you about other things: but i am exhausted with this topic: So if it’s all the same with you i will just look forward to your upcoming Post[s]…

    Talk to you soon P.

  11. I am confused about your exegesis.  Are you saying that the theology of the Trinity is a doctrine  that you don’t believe in.  I see you are using the early Fathers of which I am not educated in their writings.  It is hard for me to understand your position on this.  Thank you and looking forward to your reply, Sincerely Cheryl Schalk

Leave a Reply, Please!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.