"The Nicene distinction of essence and persons is rejected as 'unbiblical' because the language can’t be found in the New Testament"
An interesting quote from First Things’ On the Square:
“It’s worth noting that start-up and nondenominational churches can vary widely on the spectrum of theological orthodoxy. People sometimes assume that—because they’re “evangelical,” “charismatic,” or “born again” fellowships—they are generally orthodox in their fundamental doctrines. In fact, some of them can be very shaky on the Trinity, even falling into a contemporary version of Sabellianism—the idea that there is only one God, and that Father, Son, and Spirit are but three different modes in which that God has revealed himself. The Nicene distinction of essence and persons is rejected as “unbiblical” because the language can’t be found in the New Testament (an argument made by the Arians of the fourth century). The quickest way to see if any one group is for you: Check the “values,” “beliefs,” and “links” pages on their websites. Don’t be surprised if the first two are remarkably concise, if not downright sparse. But the sites they’re linking to or the books they’re recommending would certainly be a keyhole into their theological universe.”
“It’s worth noting that start-up and nondenominational churches can vary widely on the spectrum of theological orthodoxy. People sometimes assume that—because they’re “evangelical,” “charismatic,” or “born again” fellowships—they are generally orthodox in their fundamental doctrines. In fact, some of them can be very shaky on the Trinity, even falling into a contemporary version of Sabellianism—the idea that there is only one God, and that Father, Son, and Spirit are but three different modes in which that God has revealed himself. The Nicene distinction of essence and persons is rejected as “unbiblical” because the language can’t be found in the New Testament (an argument made by the Arians of the fourth century). The quickest way to see if any one group is for you: Check the “values,” “beliefs,” and “links” pages on their websites. Don’t be surprised if the first two are remarkably concise, if not downright sparse. But the sites they’re linking to or the books they’re recommending would certainly be a keyhole into their theological universe.”
Discussion