Re: Isa 44:6 disproves the Trinity

In article <55EF264A-4F49-C715-D42D-F28D7D9F2EB7@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Gary
says...

>"Matthew Johnson" <matthew_member@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>news:D0D94C71-99BD-5D5F-0945-58D250D4E8F1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> In article <2DD0A99D-E2FE-1666-B6A6-FCD737FA50E6@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>> kent62@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 says...


>> [snip]

>>>> For that matter, do you believe that a man can consciously and
willfully
>>>> deny the doctrine and still be saved?

>>>A wiser course might be to not deny that such a man might be saved.

>> No, that would not be 'wiser'. What did you _think_ John 3:18 is
>> about?  Those who do not believe in Him are already judged, and
>> remain under condemnation. But He taught Trinity, though he never
>> used the word 'Trinity'.


>Just curious. Did the thief on the cross to whom Christ said, "This
>day thou shalt be with me in paradise." Understand and believe the
>Trinity?

Explaining the case of the thief on the cross has always been
difficult, since the Gospels tell us so little about him.

>Especially since the doctrine of the Trinity was not formally stated
>until many years later.

But when it was "formally stated", it was made clear: it was stated
the way it was stated _precisely_ to preserve what had _always_ been
the true teaching of Christianity. And that true teaching is what the
thief on the cross somehow wondrously came to believe.


-- 
------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)


((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group.  All posts are approved by a
moderator. )))
(((   Read http://srcbs.org
for details about this group BEFORE you post. 
 )))