<roymock@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:4a909f1a-933b-428d-a439-38018f0d1e61@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On May 12, 5:49 pm, "Chuck Stamford" <shell__stamf...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> "Carl" <sai...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>
>>
news:3048b31e-6a11-4c3e-8c18-46b8e59e8cc1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On May 12, 2:20 am, roym...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 12, 3:29 pm, "Carl" <sai...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> > > James Boyce originally wrote this over 100 years ago but his points
>> > > concerning the Biblically-based doctrine of the Trinity remain just
>> > > as
>> > > valid
>> > > now as they did then. It's an interesting and educational look into
>> > > an
>> > > essential Biblical doctrine. I hope you will save this article and
>> > > read
>> > > it
>> > > carefully.
>>
>> > > May God bless,
>> > > Carl
>> > > website --http://www.nettally.com/saints/
>> > > blog --http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
>>
>> > When he says "... he [Christ] being indeed the manifestation in the
>> > world, of the divine Father ... " or "... He [Christ] is the
>> > manifestation of the Divine Being in this world ...", I take it that
>> > Boyce had modalistic tendencies.
>>
>> Actually, no. He did not.
>
> I quoted directly from the piece presented.
>
>> If you care to, you can read biographical information on him at:
>>
>> http://www.theopedia.com/James_Petigru_Boyce
>>
>> Chuck:
>>
>> Perhaps more im****tantly is the link at the bottom of the page to which
>> this
>> link points...
>>
>> http://www.founders.org/library/boyce1/toc.html
>>
>> which itself leads to the online version of his "Abstract of Systematic
>> Theology", the resource, I assume, you used for "Chapter XIV: The
>> Trinity",
>> of that same work.
>>
>> God bless
>>
>> Chuck Stamford
>>
>> http://www.founders.org/journal/fj19/article4.html
>>
>> http://www.tlogical.net/biojboyce.htm
>
> Thanks, Chuck.
>
> In your last link he wrote "... The revelation to us, is not that of
> tritheism or three Gods; nor of triplicity, which is threefoldness,
> and would involve composition, and be contrary to the simplicity of
> God; nor of mere manifestation of one person in three forms". Clearly
> he was far from modalism.
>
> Cheers
Happy to help.
Chuck Stamford
|
