The Trinity

The Trinity


  • Total voters
    121

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
You should be eager to explain it or admit you cannot. Diverting is not helping anything.

Will you please define the word "subsistence" in the manner that you used it in your initial post towards me today? If you cannot them please admit that.
I have provided the answer. No diversion is taking place. So cease with this vitriolic and baiting rhetoric. See point #2 in the Spoiler content of my original response.

The term person does not mean a distinction in essence but a different subsistence in the Godhead. A subsistence in the Godhead is a real difference but not an essential difference in the sense of a difference in being. Each person subsists or exists under the pure essence of deity. Subsistence is a difference within the scope of being, not a separate being or essence. All persons in the Godhead have all the attributes of deity.

Formally speaking, subsistence is the means of individuation of essence with respect to existence. Less philosophically, subsistence is the means by which essence exercises existence, or even more succinctly, subsistence means something that really exists.

Thus we can say that the divine essence does not exist independently along with the three Persons. The divine essence has no existence outside of and apart from the three Persons. For if the divine essence did, there would be no true unity, but a division that would lead into tetratheism.

Asked and answered. :AMR:

AMR
 

popsthebuilder

New member
Shall we conduct a poll to see what the general opinion would be as to the outcome of this one-on-one?

If you prevail in the poll's results I will gladly leave TOL and never return.
If I prevail in the poll's results will you gladly leave TOL and never return?

Wait for it...wait...wait...

AMR
Well why don't we have a debate? You and I? I must admit that I do not denying trinity per say though even though you think I am.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
 

God's Truth

BANNED
Banned
Shall we conduct a poll to see what the general opinion would be as to the outcome of this one-on-one?

If you prevail in the poll's results I will gladly leave TOL and never return.
If I prevail in the poll's results will you gladly leave TOL and never return?

Wait for it...wait...wait...

AMR

I don't make deals with the...AMR.
 

popsthebuilder

New member
Um, so when God repented from destroying Ninevah, He changed His mind about a thing meaning He made some mistake along the way around some previous point?
I'll have to reread the scripture bit I am certain that GOD made no mistake.

Reference the text and I will give you a more specific response.

Please excuse my ignorance.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
 

popsthebuilder

New member
I have provided the answer. No diversion is taking place. So cease with this vitriolic and baiting rhetoric. See point #2 in the Spoiler content of my original response.

The term person does not mean a distinction in essence but a different subsistence in the Godhead. A subsistence in the Godhead is a real difference but not an essential difference in the sense of a difference in being. Each person subsists or exists under the pure essence of deity. Subsistence is a difference within the scope of being, not a separate being or essence. All persons in the Godhead have all the attributes of deity.

Formally speaking, subsistence is the means of individuation of essence with respect to existence. Less philosophically, subsistence is the means by which essence exercises existence, or even more succinctly, subsistence means something that really exists.

Thus we can say that the divine essence does not exist independently along with the three Persons. The divine essence has no existence outside of and apart from the three Persons. For if the divine essence did, there would be no true unity, but a division that would lead into tetratheism.

Asked and answered. :AMR:

AMR
And you couldn't simply agree when I asked if subsistence meant existence? In fact you said that was not what it meant.

Now you are saying it does.

What gives?

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
 

popsthebuilder

New member
If he agrees to debate you one on one, he can copy and paste from our debate.
Then I would forfeit. If I can't even be afforded my own response, as if I am somehow lesser than another then there is little point debating because one will never hear the other.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Well why don't we have a debate? You and I? I must admit that I do not denying trinity per say though even though you think I am.
One anti-Trinitarian debate is sufficient for my purposes.

If you do not deny the Trinity then you affirm all that I have discussed here and elsewhere. If you have some scruples about what I have written, that is whatever you mean by the use of per se, then outline them herein plainly...as I have done in the previous debate for all to examine. Feel free to quote from that debate on the points that you hold in disagreement.

By the way, it is, "I do not deny the Trinity, per se." versus what you wrote above.

AMR
 

God's Truth

BANNED
Banned
Then I would forfeit. If I can't even be afforded my own response, as if I am somehow lesser than another then there is little point debating because one will never hear the other.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

I think his whole debate to me was a copying and paste from some of his other posts.
 
Top