Quote:
Originally Posted by Igzy
I still think this is more on target than anything I've every considered. For me, this argument is amazingly consistent and logical. It explains the origins and eternal nature of the Trinity. It explains why God must be exactly three Persons. It explains why each Person has the roles they do. It explains why the Father loves the Son and the Son loves the Father, but the Bible never says either loves the Spirit. It explains why the Spirit does not call attention to himself, but points back to the Son and the Father. It explains how the Three are distinct, and yet how they are the same. It also explains, if you've ever wondered, how we can be perfectly in the image of a Three-One God.
Jonathan Edwards' Ontological Argument
In his "Essay on the Trinity" (and private notebooks and public sermons), Jonathan Edwards suggested a form of ontological argument for each of the three persons of the Trinity. . . .
|
Not sure that I buy this argument. But it is not bad. I could surely have fellowship with someone who held it. If they believe in Christ and his work on the Cross on our behalf, it is acceptable.
But none of this puts the Trinity into the passage/discussion that includes 1 Cor 15:45. We are still responding to the guy in class who continually asks irrelevant questions and wastes the professor's time as he discusses that and leaves the topic for the day languishing. (Probably means we need a new professor. One that is not distacted from his purpose.)