Evidence for God from Science

Byblos wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Those that reject the trinity doctrine do it based on the fact that it is NOT explicitly stated in the Bible and that is a fair enough critique BUT that "rule" then should apply to ANY doctrine NOT explicitly stated in the Bible.

You mean like Sola Scriptura? (okay, okay, I'll behave).

The only "problem" with "sola scriptura" is that what we really are saying is "sola interpretartae"
IE: My/Our interpretation of scripture and no one elses.
A quick view through the history of Christian doctrines shows us that the trinity debate was never that "easy" and that it didn't end in the 4th century.

yes - because they were all tied up and concentrated on the NT as in some places even now - twinc

I think the issues was/is more the language than anything else, it was perhaps too "hellenistic".
Of course under the context what else could it have been?
But I often wonder IF we were to formalize the Doctrine of the nature of Father, Son and HS, how would WE term it and what words would we use?