I think some of problem revolves around the fact that the doctrine of
the Trinity is an implicit biblical testimony. There are those who
require explicit testimony. Those who do so are usually of the mind
that perspicuity of Scripture means that all the primary or essential
doctrines are stated with absolute clarity in the Bible.

Not necessarily "absolute clarity" but that any particular doctrine can
be correctly understood with a compariosn of all related scriptures on
any given belief. The problem with insisting "implicit" testimony is it
veers dangerously close to gnostic thinking.

1) Scripture is clear enough for even the simplest of minds to live by
2) Scripture is deep enough for readers of the highest intellectual
ability to never exhaust appreciation or new insights

yes it is brilliant and satisfying on every level. These "new
insights", however, are not "essential" as in the identity of God, the
condition of the dead, what faith is, etc...whether God was a trinity
or not would certainly be an essential doctrine that would be clearly
taught in the Scriptures. YOu would not expect to find Jesus referring
to his Father as "my God".

3) Scripture is clear in the essential matters
4) obscurity is the result of both the finiteness and the sinfulness of
man

the Bible is certainly written in parts where only if one has the right
"heart condition and motive" will they get the point. Jesus'
illustration of eating his flesh and drinking his blood is a good
example. (John 6:48-69)

6) unsaved readers can understand intellectually, but not spiritually
7) illumination of the Spirit is required for spiritual understanding

"with spirit and truth" (John 4:24)

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))

>But this is a non-sequitur. Not only that, it is false. As Steve
already pointed
>out, both Ignatius and Irenaeus clearly spoke of Trinity.

Steve didn't pint out any such thing. You guys are READING the trinity
into what they wrote and that is the point Matthew. It was NOT the
trinity that you believe in because THE trinity was not formed until
the 3rd Century. Neither of you has yet to disprove this. Quoting
Ignatius and Irenaeus as "proof" they believed in the trinity is wrong.
They didn't:

Even if Ignatius had said that the Son was equal to the Father in
eternity, power, position, and wisdom, it would still not be a Trinity,
for nowhere did he say that the holy spirit was equal to God in those
ways. But Ignatius did not say that the Son was equal to God the Father
in such ways or in any other. Instead, he showed that the Son is in
subjection to the One wh