1. In response to HiddenNChrist2's assertion "I was expecting a debate, not another "lesson" on the Trinity"...my understanding of a debate is that there is an affirmative opening statement, a rebuttal statement, several other rebuttals, perhaps some questions to bring out other information or clarify one's understanding and then summations.  Perhaps it was not the idea of the debate that you had (mine was obviously an informative debate format).  As to being willing to debate the doctrine in a chat room, I am certainly willing to do so but in a private chat room with no other distractions from other people.  The same applies to NoTrinity's assertion that this "email" exchange is not a debate.  I would assert that such an exchange can be a debate and has served as a debate format for many fields.  Perhaps the misconception of debate is that it is about "going back and forth" in an argumentative manner.  Needless to say, an affirmation has been made and the debate happens when a rebuttal is given to it. 

 

2.  in response to the charge that I "spent much time defining the Trinity"...this really makes me feel like my paper was glanced over very quickly.  I only took one paragraph to define the doctrine of the Trinity and the body of the paper was proving that Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are distinct persons from the Father and yet equally God in their nature.  Thus, that I am not "interested in my audience", I believe, is wholly unwarranted.  I did assume that you know what the Trinity was and I only stated what I believed was the Trinity so that you, my audience, could know where I was coming from and what I was seeking to prove from the Scriptures.

 

3.   in response to the charge of "extra biblical sources"....again, this gives me more reason to believe that my paper was not read thoroughly but only glanced over.  Never once in my paper to do I quote a church father or a theologian when proving the doctrine of the Trinity.  In all my body paragraph I was careful to only exegete the text of Scripture as I believe that Scripture is the only source in which the doctrine of the Trinity is revealed!  I expressly said in my introduction that I believed the sole infallible authority for Christian doctrine is the God-breathed Scriptures alone.  Sola Scriptura. 

 

4.  in all of this, I must point out that so far these responses are nothing more than "red herrings" since they have not dealt with the arguments that I have presented from Scripture.  Truly, if I have misread the texts of Scripture, then one should be able to point out the grammatical and syntactical errors from the readings of Scripture.  I should also point out that these responses from you gentlemen are the times to refute my exegesis or belief from the Scriptures.  Hidden offered to say that there  are "many" biblical accounts of MEN who were saviours yet offers not a single scripture to prove the assertion.  That men were often called "Elohim"...etc....if the Bible does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity, then I believe that there should be Scripture that could refute such a belief.  But I was offered none.  I have offerered many scriptures that teach the points that make up the doctrine that is the Trinity.  if they are understood in a wrong manner, then I would appreciate your correction on the understanding that one should have of them and not simply an flat out rejection of the Trinity because you take it as part of "roman Catholic dogma" (of which I am not Roman Catholic nor did I use Roman Catholic sources at all in my paper). 

 

 

5.  Perhaps it would do me better to offer me an understanding of the relationship of God the Father to Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit that you both have.  That is, offer to me an affirmative statement of what you believe the Godhead to be like so that I can understand where you both are coming from.  Right now, all that I know is that you both understand the doctrine of the Trinity and reject it. 

 

I hope we can continue these conversations and I will attempt to respond to what is relevant to our discussion.  In further discussions, however, I would hope to get a response back to material that was presented BY ME and not what you have heard before.  I think we should all agree to this that way we will not talk past each other. 

 

Looking forward to your response(s)

 

Moses