On Colwell's Rule

From: Mike Phillips (mphilli3@mail.tds.net)
Date: Wed Aug 21 1996 - 14:14:34 EDT


> From: Paul Dixon - Ladd Hill Bible Church <pauld@iclnet93.iclnet.org>, on
8/21/96 10:53 AM:
> Mike:
> The author of John's prologue was certainly not versed in the
> doctrine of the Trinity as we now know it <wink>. Does that mean any
> argument for the doctrine of the Trinity from the Gospel is therefore to
> be discarded?

        Whoa, Paul, I was only commenting on your logic, i.e.,
 
> > > From: Paul Dixon - Ladd Hill Bible Church <pauld@iclnet93.iclnet.org>,
on
> > 8/21/96 10:23 AM:
> >
> > > Furthermore, theos cannot be definite in Jn 1:1c because Sabellianism
> > > then follows, for then the theos in 1:1c is the same as the definite
ton
> > > theon in 1:1b.

        The claim that "theos cannot be definite in Jn 1:1c because
Sabellianism then follows..." simply doesn't "follow." I assumed you didn't
actually intend to make that statement "as is" and hence, the <wink> indicating
that what you wrote and what you meant don't follow, and I was giving you the
benefit of the doubt to revel with you in your slip. I am not particularly
interested in dogmatic theological arguments with you or anyone else in this
forum in this vein.

Best wishes,
  
-------------
Mike Phillips
mphilli3@indy.tdsnet.com

A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanging;
it is the skin of living thought and changes from day
to day as does the air around us. - Oliver Wendell Holmes
-------------
Mike Phillips
mphilli3@indy.tdsnet.com

A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanging;
it is the skin of living thought and changes from day
to day as does the air around us. - Oliver Wendell Holmes



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:49 EDT