Kimel’s review of What is the Trinity – Part 3
What Origen actually says vs. what trinitarians wish that he’d said.
What Origen actually says vs. what trinitarians wish that he’d said.
Kimel lampoons the biblical unitarian historical narrative, and urges that Irenaeus is a big problem for it.
Synopsis: I’m not Eastern Orthodox, so am incompetent to discuss the Trinity, and I’m somehow missing the whole point.
At his blog Faith & Scripture, my friend John interacts with the questions for the reader in chapter 10.
The apostles testify to God the creator and his holy servant Jesus.
Many who are often spun as “proto-trinitarian” thought the one true God is the Father alone.
An apostolic account of what is truly essential to the gospel.
What must you sign off on, to make the deal?
Can someone with two natures be essentially immortal and die?
His views seem to have been those of present-day biblical unitarians.
“I will host a bonfire at which I and any of you who feel inclined can come and burn our copies of this book.”
Marcellus’s theology is a key to understanding the post-Nicea controversies.
Steve Hays provides a stellar example of how not to do apologetics.
McLatchie’s mistake about historical, mainstream Christian theologies.
In the reign of Constantius II yet another council offered language to replace Nicea…
Why did Eusebius have to submit his own creed at the famous council of Nicea in 325?
In 344 a meeting of Eastern bishops sent a statement to the West explaining their theology.