One thing that doctrines that are required by authority (other than logic and scripture that is) tend to have in common,is a slipperiness re:definitions. For instance Trinitarians assure non trinitarian Christians that despite what our eyes and ears fairly scream to us, their doctrine does not represent a reversion to polytheism.
Thus despite claiming that each of the three persons(/beings?) Constituting their compound deity is "fully God" the listener/reader would be mistaken should he then come to perfectly logical conclusion that the trinity is composed of three Gods. It all begs the question what does being fully God entail? Can one be fully God ,in the scriptural sense ,without being a God? For instance when the scriptures say :
1Corinthians8:4NIV"So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is NO God but ONE.”"
To whom (or what?) are they referring? Can anyone (or anything?) other than this one be sensibly said to be "fully God" ,is it not plain that the designation fully God is exclusive to this one ,denoting as it does, supremacy?
No comments:
Post a Comment