The death of Jesus was a sacrifice

[TomL]

Wrtath is your word, not mine. Death, that is permanent removal from God's presence and eternal torment in Hell, is the penalty for sin. Sounds sort of wrathful to me but you do you!

It is in the doctrine of penal substitution



From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Penal substitution (also called penal substitutionary atonement or, sometimes, esp. in older writings, called forensic theory)[1][2] is a theory of the atonement within Protestant Christian theology, which declares that Christ, voluntarily submitting to God the Father's plan, was punished (penalized) in the place of (substitution) sinners, thus satisfying the demands of justice and propitiation, so God can justly forgive sins making us at one with God (atonement). It began with the German Reformation leader Martin Luther and continued to develop within the Calvinist tradition[1][2][3][4][5] as a specific understanding of substitutionary atonement. The penal model teaches that the substitutionary nature of Jesus' death is understood in the sense of a substitutionary fulfilment of legal demands for the offenses of sins.....

The penal substitution theory teaches that Jesus suffered the penalty due, according to God the Father's wrath for humanity's sins. Penal substitution derives from the idea that divine forgiveness must satisfy divine justice, that is, that God is not willing or able to simply forgive sin without first requiring a satisfaction for it. It states that God gave himself in the person of his Son, Jesus, to suffer the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for our sin.

Penal substitution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

perhaps you are unfamilar with all that the doctrine teaches

I've already done that.


Again, this is your INTENTIONAL mischaracterization of the doctrine. You're the only person I've even seen put it such terms. And the terms themselves aren't even an issue for me. It's the weird sadistic connotation that you're implying that is the problem. The fact is that Christ's death did indeed "exhaust" God's wrath against sin! Put another, much better way, we need not endure God's wrath because of Christ's death. It is Christ's death that saves us from God's wrath! You must surely believe that!

sorry but i do not think you understand the atonement theory you are affirming

Oh but now you are affirming wrath

Nonsense. Calvinists didn't write the New Testament. It is Paul and the author of Hebrews that speak about our being "bought at a price" and who use terms such as "reckon" and "account" and "redeem" and "ransom", et al.

Um the new testament does not mention any atonement theories

Penal substitutionary atonement​

Penal substitutionary atonement refers to the doctrine that Christ died on the cross as a substitute for sinners. God imputed the guilt of our sins to Christ, and he, in our place, bore the punishment that we deserve. This was a full payment for sins, which satisfied both the wrath and the righteousness of God, so that He could forgive sinners without compromising His own holy standard.

Background

The Penal-Substitution Theory of the atonement was formulated by the 16th century Reformers as an extension of Anselm's Satisfaction theory. Anselm's theory was correct in introducing the satisfaction aspect of Christ's work and its necessity; however the Reformers saw it as insufficient because it was referenced to God's honor rather than his justice and holiness and was couched more in terms of a commercial transaction than a penal substitution. This Reformed view says simply that Christ died for man, in man's place, taking his sins and bearing them for him. The bearing of man's sins takes the punishment for them and sets the believer free from the penal demands of the law: The righteousness of the law and the holiness of God are satisfied by this substitution.

https://www.theopedia.com/penal-substitutionary-atonement

Look, I have no affection whatsoever for Calvin or Calvinism but I also don't go looking for anything at all that I can find to hang around their neck. Nor do I reject a doctrine on the basis that Calvin taught it. A doctrine isn't wrong because Calvin believed it and taught it. If that were true, we'd all be Catholics. A doctrine is wrong if it's unbiblical and/or irrational.

I did not write those articles

and your lack of background knowledge regarding atonement theories does not translate to me looking for something to hang around the necks of calvinists

This is history

 

[civic]

It is in the doctrine of penal substitution



From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Penal substitution (also called penal substitutionary atonement or, sometimes, esp. in older writings, called forensic theory)[1][2] is a theory of the atonement within Protestant Christian theology, which declares that Christ, voluntarily submitting to God the Father's plan, was punished (penalized) in the place of (substitution) sinners, thus satisfying the demands of justice and propitiation, so God can justly forgive sins making us at one with God (atonement). It began with the German Reformation leader Martin Luther and continued to develop within the Calvinist tradition[1][2][3][4][5] as a specific understanding of substitutionary atonement. The penal model teaches that the substitutionary nature of Jesus' death is understood in the sense of a substitutionary fulfilment of legal demands for the offenses of sins.....

The penal substitution theory teaches that Jesus suffered the penalty due, according to God the Father's wrath for humanity's sins. Penal substitution derives from the idea that divine forgiveness must satisfy divine justice, that is, that God is not willing or able to simply forgive sin without first requiring a satisfaction for it. It states that God gave himself in the person of his Son, Jesus, to suffer the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for our sin.

Penal substitution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

perhaps you are unfamilar with all that the doctrine teaches


sorry but i do not think you understand the atonement theory you are affirming

Oh but now you are affirming wrath



Um the new testament does not mention any atonement theories

Penal substitutionary atonement​

Penal substitutionary atonement refers to the doctrine that Christ died on the cross as a substitute for sinners. God imputed the guilt of our sins to Christ, and he, in our place, bore the punishment that we deserve. This was a full payment for sins, which satisfied both the wrath and the righteousness of God, so that He could forgive sinners without compromising His own holy standard.

Background

The Penal-Substitution Theory of the atonement was formulated by the 16th century Reformers as an extension of Anselm's Satisfaction theory. Anselm's theory was correct in introducing the satisfaction aspect of Christ's work and its necessity; however the Reformers saw it as insufficient because it was referenced to God's honor rather than his justice and holiness and was couched more in terms of a commercial transaction than a penal substitution. This Reformed view says simply that Christ died for man, in man's place, taking his sins and bearing them for him. The bearing of man's sins takes the punishment for them and sets the believer free from the penal demands of the law: The righteousness of the law and the holiness of God are satisfied by this substitution.

https://www.theopedia.com/penal-substitutionary-atonement

I did not write those articles

and your lack of background knowledge regarding atonement theories does not translate to me looking for something to hang around the necks of calvinists

This is history

Some do not know their church history and the origins of the doctrines they espouse.

 

[Joe]

It is only your frankly weird mischaracterization of it that makes God out to be a murderer, Joe!
The actual doctrine doesn't teach anything similar to what you're saying. Jesus is God Himself, that seems to be the key aspect of this that you're missing, or at least one of them. The Two are One! It isn't murder if the person dying is doing so willingly and for a purpose and Jesus didn't commit suicide!

Another key point you seem to be missing is that death is the punishment! The only reason He had to die is because death is the consequence of sin! That's the debt we owe! And that isn't arbitrary determined by God either, by the way. Sin is a rebellion against God. God is life. A rebellion against God is a rebellion against life, thus the loss of life (i.e. death) is the logical consequence. We owe God our life due to our sin because it is God against whom we have sinned. Jesus, our Kinsman Redeemer, rescues us from this debt by paying for it with His life which is of INFINITE value. That's why it had to be God doing the dying. One man dying would pay the debt for another man but we're talking about the whole human race and billions of lives and so a more noble coin is needed!

In short, there is no sadism happening here! It is simply dealing with sin in a just manner such that mercy can be offered without compromising righteousness.

I found the problem. Here in this post of yours you said, "I do not base my doctrine on what PSA holds to. I wouldn't know what it holds to."

You injected yourself into a category specifically for debating Penal Substitution Atonement (PSA) and you have no idea what the doctrine of PSA holds to.

The arguments we make are to disprove PSA, which you readily admitted you have no clue about. This is the source of the confusion that I read in this thread between you and us who oppose.

You don't go on a Modalism board without knowing modalism doctrine and expect to understand the debate of the opposers.

You should educate yourself about PSA before debating those who oppose it. Then you will begin to understand our posts and the points we make that is directed at adherants of PSA. From what I read, we who oppose are very similar to you in our understandings. We shall see.

God Bless

 

[civic]

I found the problem. Here in this post of yours you said, "I do not base my doctrine on what PSA holds to. I wouldn't know what it holds to."

You injected yourself into a category specifically for debating Penal Substitution Atonement (PSA) and you have no idea what the doctrine of PSA holds to.

The arguments we make are to disprove PSA, which you readily admitted you have no clue about. This is the source of the confusion that I read in this thread between you and us who oppose.

You don't go on a Modalism board without knowing modalism doctrine and expect to understand the debate of the opposers.

You should educate yourself about PSA before debating those who oppose it. Then you will begin to understand our posts and the points we make that is directed at adherants of PSA. From what I read, we who oppose are very similar to you in our understandings. We shall see.

God Bless

Yes that’s exactly what happened. We remember the same thing with so- called “ Calvinists “ on the old forum when they had no idea what Calvin taught and we would quote him and other reformed/ Calvinist theologians to point it out then they would cry wolf - we don’t follow Calvin we follow Jesus.

Then I would say stop calling yourself a Calvinist since you deny what Calvin taught . The same here with PSA. Ignorance is not bliss. And it’s no excuse.

 

[TomL]

Some do not know their church history and the origins of the doctrines they espouse.

True

 

[TomL]

Yes that’s exactly what happened. We remember the same thing with so- called “ Calvinists “ on the old forum when they had no idea what Calvin taught and we would quote him and other reformed/ Calvinist theologians to point it out then they would cry wolf - we don’t follow Calvin we follow Jesus.

Then I would say stop calling yourself a Calvinist since you deny what Calvin taught . The same here with PSA. Ignorance is not bliss. And it’s no excuse.

It also seems he is deficient in his understanding of Christology and the trinity

 

[101G]

Did his human spirit separate from his divine spirit?

GINOLJC, to all.
this is Interesting, "Did his human spirit separate from his divine spirit?". question time. "Was not the Spirit that came into that body of flesh that Mary birthed was it not DIVINE/God's own Spirit in a G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō') state? supportive scripture, OT, FIRST. Isaiah 63:5 "And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me; and my fury, it upheld me." his own ARM is him. and the ARM of God is the Son, who is God in Flesh, per Isaiah 53. now if the Son is God's Own Spirit, how can God be separate from his ....."OWN ARM, per Isaiah 63:5?"

now NT, Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:" now let's breakdown this verse. "being", here is present tense indicative of the time spoken. and "being" IN, IN, IN, the Form of God, and "Form" here is NATURE, and IN that "Form" which is Spirit, again How is God separated?
G3444 μορφή morphe (mor-fee') n.
1. form.
2. (intrinsically) fundamental nature.
[perhaps from the base of G3313 (through the idea of adjustment of parts)]
KJV: form
Root(s): G3313

now if God's own ARM is HIM, (per Isaiah 63:5 and Isaiah 53), please tell us how is God separated? because my next question will be, is God divided? for the Lord Jesus was in the Nature of the Spirit... God, and Philippians 2:6 states EQUAL "WITH". and if separated, how much of the Spirit/God was the Son in Human flesh? ...... 1/3? .... that's if separated. or 1/2 of the Spirit while in human flesh to be EQUAL WITH. or NONE, or All of the Spirt in that body. well all want work because the Spirit desended on that body of Flesh while the same "Spirit/spirit" was already in a G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō')in that flesh.

your answer please, this will generate a good discussion. ..... (smile).

101G.

 

[TomL]

GINOLJC, to all.
this is Interesting, "Did his human spirit separate from his divine spirit?". question time. "Was not the Spirit that came into that body of flesh that Mary birthed was it not DIVINE/God's own Spirit in a G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō') state? supportive scripture, OT, FIRST. Isaiah 63:5 "And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me; and my fury, it upheld me." his own ARM is him. and the ARM of God is the Son, who is God in Flesh, per Isaiah 53. now if the Son is God's Own Spirit, how can God be separate from his ....."OWN ARM, per Isaiah 63:5?"

now NT, Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:" now let's breakdown this verse. "being", here is present tense indicative of the time spoken. and "being" IN, IN, IN, the Form of God, and "Form" here is NATURE, and IN that "Form" which is Spirit, again How is God separated?
G3444 μορφή morphe (mor-fee') n.
1. form.
2. (intrinsically) fundamental nature.
[perhaps from the base of G3313 (through the idea of adjustment of parts)]
KJV: form
Root(s): G3313

now if God's own ARM is HIM, (per Isaiah 63:5 and Isaiah 53), please tell us how is God separated? because my next question will be, is God divided? for the Lord Jesus was in the Nature of the Spirit... God, and Philippians 2:6 states EQUAL "WITH". and if separated, how much of the Spirit/God was the Son in Human flesh? ...... 1/3? .... that's if separated. or 1/2 of the Spirit while in human flesh to be EQUAL WITH. or NONE, or All of the Spirt in that body. well all want work because the Spirit desended on that body of Flesh while the same "Spirit/spirit" was already in a G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō')in that flesh.

your answer please, this will generate a good discussion. ..... (smile).

101G.

???

Have you forgotten the question is addressed to those who state Jesus was separated from God or that he died spiritually

I do not believe he died spiritually or was separated from God

You need to address that question to them of whom you are one

BTW were you not one who denied Christ had a human spirit?

Mocking that idea or was it another?

 

[101G]

???

Have you forgotten the question is addressed to those who state Jesus was separated from God or that he died spiritually

I do not believe he died spiritually or was separated from God

You need to address that question to them of whom you are one

??? 101G didn't studder. can you answer the question?

what 101G believe is irreverent, just answer the question

No, 101G is addressing the question to U. so, are you saying you cannot answer 101G question?

101G.

 

[101G]

I do not believe he died spiritually or was separated from God

now if you believe that why do you believe in a trinity of separate persons. so 101G question is appropriate to U.

101G.

 

[TomL]

now if you believe that why do you believe in a trinity of separate persons. so 101G is appropriate to U.

101G.

I believe they are three persons because the bible teaches they are three person Father, son and Holy ghost and all three are called God

Are you a modalist, a oneness pentecostal?

 

[101G]

I believe they are three persons because the bible teaches they are three person Father, son and Holy ghost and all three are called God

so, you walk by sight then... (smile).

Are you a modalist, a oneness pentecostal?

neither. now answer 101G's question. "the Spirit that was in the Body that Mary birthed was it 1/3 of the Spirit, the (person called the Son?), or was it 1/2 the Spirit to be EQUAL "WITH" God, or was it all of the Spirit, or none of the Spirit..... your answer please.

101G.

 

[101G]

@TomL,
there is no math involved, just a mulit-choice. pick one.

101G.

 

[TomL]

so, you walk by sight then... (smile).

Believing the bible is not walking by sight

correct your error

neither. now answer 101G's question. "the Spirit that was in the Body that Mary birthed was it 1/3 of the Spirit, the (person called the Son?), or was it 1/2 the Spirit to be EQUAL "WITH" God, or was it all of the Spirit, or none of the Spirit..... your answer please.

101G.

God is but one essence it cannot be divided

But seeing as you brought up the question do you deny there are three persons in the godhead

and if you concur god is of one essence then you need to explain how Christ was separated from God

or died spiritually

 

[101G]

Believing the bible is not walking by sight

correct your error

are not Father, Son, and Holy Spirit .... Titles, and titles are not Persons. just as 1 John 5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." these, these, these? these are titles of ONE PERSON. if the scripture would have said, THEY are ONE then it would have been three persons. for they indicate person, nit these that indicate titles, or 1 John 5:8 "And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." because the answer was already given in verse 6 before, 1 John 5:6 "This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth."

these vs they..... blood and water and spirit is ONE PERSON, and that ONE person is Jesus the Christ.... again, 1 John 5:6 "This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth." blood and water are not separate Person, my God how Hard is it. THESE, THESE, not THEY. just as Father, the Word is the Holy Spirit.

YOU WALK BY SIGHT........ SEE, SEE, SEE, IT SAID FATHER, SON, AND HOLY SPIRIT. WELL SEEING HAS DECIEVED YOU. just as Mother Eve. listen, Genesis 3:6 "And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat."

see saw without KNOWLEDGE. just you today making the same mistake..... excuse my English, "SAWING" without KNOWLEDGE or UNDERSTANDING.

God is but one essence it cannot be divided

God is one NATURE, and you said of this doctrine, the Son is not the Father. so by Nature, you just contradicted the Scriptures, Isaiah 63:5 "And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me; and my fury, it upheld me." HIS "OWN ARM IS HIM".
so you just divided God by saying the Son is not God, and when Philippians 2:6 states he Jesus is the same one Nature, "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:" now if the same one Nature and this Nature is not divided the all of God, (which is Spirit, per John 4:24a), then 101G ask, "what Holy Spirit came in that body at his Baptism if it's the same one Spirit and is Not divided? well. right back to 101G OQ, is Jesus all the Spirit, or 1/3 of the Spirit, or 1/2. last time asking.

101G.

 

[TomL]

are not Father, Son, and Holy Spirit .... Titles, and titles are not Persons. just as 1 John 5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." these, these, these? these are titles of ONE PERSON. if the scripture would have said, THEY are ONE then it would have been three persons. for they indicate person, nit these that indicate titles, or 1 John 5:8 "And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." because the answer was already given in verse 6 before, 1 John 5:6 "This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth."

No they are not just titles and what you state smacks of modalism

The father is not the son and the son is not the father and neither are the Holy Ghost



Trinitarian Basics

Far from being an abstruse philosophical speculation, the doctrine of the Trinity attempts to describe and account for something biblically obvious and quite fundamental to the gospel. That fact is this: Scripture testifies from beginning to end that God is one; but it also presents three persons who are God: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. As we will see, there is no legitimate argument over the deity of these three persons. Their deity pervades Scripture and assures us that our salvation is from beginning to end a divine salvation, the work of God himself. Nor can it be debated whether the biblical God is one. Indeed, his oneness is also important to our salvation. He is God alone; there is none beside him. So none can prevent him from bringing eternal salvation to his people.
So God is one but somehow also three. This fact is difficult to understand, but it is quite unavoidable in Scripture and central to the biblical gospel.
The doctrine of the Trinity attempts to account for this fact and to exclude heresies that have arisen on the subject. Its basic assertions are these: (1) God is one. (2) God is three. (3) The three persons are each fully God. (4) Each of the persons is distinct from the others. (5) The three are related to one another eternally as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit


John M. Frame, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2013), 423.

 

[101G]

No they are not just titles and what you state smacks of modalism

personal opinion do not count. now is blood, and water a person? no, so your answers are down the Toile.

he father is not the son and the son is not the father and neither are the Holy Ghost

and there is the separation. and if all are the one Spirit, then all came into that one body. for Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:" and "Form" is NATURE, which God is a Spirit.

so the scripture do not agree with you. meaning you lie.

Trinitarian Basics

see above. and since you cannot answer 101G question, then your beliefs are flawed and incorrect... good day.

101G.

 

[TomL]

personal opinion do not count. now is blood, and water a person? no, so your answers are down the Toile.

and there is the separation. and if all are the one Spirit, then all came into that one body. for Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:" and "Form" is NATURE, which God is a Spirit.

so the scripture do not agree with you. meaning you lie.

see above. and since you cannot answer 101G question, then your beliefs are flawed and incorrect... good day.

101G.

Er i quoted a systematic theology and i could have quoted many more

you clearly lack understanding of christian theology concerning the trinity

Further i did answer your question that you put in the 3rd person

I also suggest you not resort to claims of lying

And i did not say they are the same spirit or the same person

i stated they are one essense

as for the verse

just as 1 John 5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

It does not say they are one person. These are three persons

and the alternate translation

1 John 5:7–8 (ESV) — 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.

is not addressing the trinity


the belief you hold to is indeed modalism which you denied

it is not orthodox christian theology

modalism sometimes called modalistic monarchianism; antitrinitarian heresy that gained some following in the patristic period and still boasts some adherents today. Simply stated, modalism is the teaching that God is but a single person who manifests himself successively as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These three are not distinct persons in the Godhead but rather are masks or roles in which God reveals himself to his creation. Thus, modalism denies the ontological Trinity, which is the view that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit refer to three actual, internal distinctions within the Godhead itself. For modalists the Trinity is purely an economic Trinity. Modalism is also called Sabellianism after Sabellius, an early proponent of the teaching. It is also sometimes called patripassianism, because by this theory the Father suffered on the cross in his manifestation as the Son. Modalism should not be confused with the orthodox trinitarian concept of modus subsistendi (mode of subsisting)

William Greenough Thayer Shedd, Dogmatic Theology (ed. Alan W. Gomes; 3rd ed.; Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Pub., 2003), 957.

Quite perplexing however is how you can then claim Jesus died spiritually (separated from the father)

 

[101G]

And i did not say they are the same spirit or the same person

i stated they are one essense

Another ERROR on your part. the bible never states "THEY" , but "THESE", are one in 1 John 5:7 & 8
Essence: the intrinsic nature or indispensable quality of something, especially something abstract, that determines its character: U just step into polytheism.

101G

 

[TomL]

Another ERROR on your part. the bible never states "THEY" , but "THESE", are one in 1 John 5:7 & 8
Essence: the intrinsic nature or indispensable quality of something, especially something abstract, that determines its character: U just step into polytheism.

101G

You really do not have a clue what you are talking about

No text states they are one person

All systematic theologies say they are of One essence

God Is One in Respect to Essence
the Greek usage: for they say three substances (hypostaseis),47 one essence, in the same way as we say three persons, one essence or substance (essentiam vel substantiam)”48 (Augustine, On the…
Dogmatic Theology, pp 231–232 (3 times)

Chapter II: Doctrine of the Trinity
4. This tripersonality is not tritheism; for while there are three persons, there is but one essence. 5. The three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, are equal. 6. Inscrutable yet not self…
Systematic Theology, p 304 (1 time)


Chapter 13: Unity of the Divine Essence in Three Persons Taught, in Scripture
but also the Manichees and Anthropomorphites. These latter briefly refuted. 2. In this one essence are three persons, yet so that neither is there a triple God, nor is the simple essence of…
Institutes of the Christian Religion, Institutes I, xiii (2 times)

A. The Being of God
of the divine essence. During the trinitarian controversy the distinction between the one essence and the three persons in the Godhead was strongly emphasized, but the essence was generally…
Systematic Theology, p 42 (1 time)

The Background
succeed in giving a scriptural representation of the relation of the three Persons to the one essence in the Godhead. While he was the first to explain the relation of the Father to the Son by…
The History of Christian Doctrines, p 87 (1 time)

The doctrine of the Trinity means that there is one God who eternally exists as three distinct Persons — the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Stated differently, God is one in essence and three in person.

What is the Doctrine of the Trinity? - MattPerman.com​

https://ref.ly/logosres/LLS:MKSNSTRINERICKSON;art=CH2.2
mattperman.com/2020/04/what-is-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity/
https://ref.ly/logosres/LLS:MKSNSTRINERICKSON;art=CH2.2
etchttps://ref.ly/logosres/LLS:MKSNSTRINERICKSON;art=CH2.2