UPDATE: Trinity Discussion

Renz responded to me last week, but I forgot to post it here on my blog. In case you didn't read my post, "Trinity Discussion" here it is. 

I've been having a discussion on the Trinity with a oneness fellow at the UPC fan page on Facebook. It's been an interesting conversation to say the least, also very polite, which is odd these days. I explained that the Trinity is not illogical, gave biblical references and I was waiting for his reasoning on why I failed in my delivery and why I was wrong for thinking so. He doesn't give me the answer I was expecting. I was expecting the usual grammar errors for this word or for this context, but no he gives me a new rebuttal. His response was that person is not used in the Bible in reference to God. This surprised me. 

His words:

"This my question.....Where in the bible you read the word person, if we talking about God? Not about person explaining the trinity because i am sure that no biblical ref about that.Heb.1:3 that is the only verse in the bible states that Jesus is the express image of His [God] person." 

I thought OK, why does that matter? 

My response:

"Ok Renz, I see your point. You want person to be in the bible, word for word. I assume, for you to hold the Trinity as a true doctrine you would have to be able to read in the Bible, "God has three persons."

I ask though, what doctrines are so clearly, word-for-word detailed in the bible? I assume you hold that God is omniscient. What verse says, "God is omniscient," or "God is omnipresent." I'm sure you also hold that God is omnipotent. Where in the bible do you find, "God is omnipotent." These are attributes of God that we find described in the Bible in different ways than just plainly saying so.

The Trinity is described in the bible the same way that God's omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence is described. I have given you biblical references and explanations of the Trinity, the same way you would give verses and explanations describing God's other attributes. I have wonder if you've read my responses. The one time person is used in the bible explaining God's attributes, it actually does defend the Trinity doctrine.

Therefore, just because the word 'person' isn't in the bible more as in "Father is a person, Son is a person, and Holy Spirit is a person," doesn't mean the doctrine isn't true. If that logic was followed, then the most beautiful attributes and doctrine of God that we (me and you) hold wouldn't exist. You will have to find some other reason to not hold the Trinity doctrine as true." 

I'm eager to read his response because if that is the only reason he has to not hold the Trinity as true, then he has serious problems with other doctrine. 

This was Renz's response to me.

"My ans.
1. No, you gave numerous ref.but it is not prove your point.
For you what's the meaning of;
Trinity and Person, can you give a ref from dictionary.
I response and gave the only verse in the bible about person not persons of God.

2. I understand all part of your post, that's why i said thanks for having trinity doctrine
because this strengthens proven that the oneness doctrine is real and true
according to the scripture."

I wanted to ask how did my scriptural references not prove my point, but according to this response and his previous responses I know I wouldn't have been given a clear explanation. Then, he insults me to finish off his response. Thanks Renz. 

I replied with 

"Renz, I've given you the definition of Trinity and person in my other responses. I've given you the scriptural explanation for the Trinity, a logical explanation, and why your argument is invalid; that's about all I can give you. Read over my responses again sometime. I know for me, I need to read over things a few times to understand it better.

I'm going to let you have the last word Renz. It's been a pleasure talking with you on this subject that is dear to both of us. It's been beneficial to me, hopefully it has for you as well.

Maybe we'll talk again sometime?" 

I let him have the last word. How could I have continued the discussion? To read the full discussion, you can click here. Our discussion is on page 5.  

If you read the entire discussion, feel free to give me constructive criticism here on the blog or there at the discussion forum.