Welsh Tract Society and Unitarianism

[Brandan]

I read through some of Ed Vrell's book and noticed he really laid into the Welsh Tract Society (for being anti-triniarian - or anti-trinitarian gnostic trash as Ed calls them!), and later this week, I now discovered what I think he was talking about. Someone on facebook pointed me to Wilson Thompson's articles on the trinity ( or is it non-trinity? ). My question is do these articles deny God and His Gospel? I have only read the first article and I do not like it.

Would you please give these a gander and let me know what you think?

https://welshtractpublications.blogs...h-trinity.html

https://welshtractpublications.blogs...trinity-2.html

https://welshtractpublications.blogs...trinity-3.html

https://welshtractpublications.blogs...trinity-4.html

https://welshtractpublications.blogs...trinity-5.html

[Razor]

I couldn't make it through the first article. Some of the text really messed with my eyes. Almost as if in 3D.

[Bob Higby]

I will review as soon as opportunity permits (which won't be a long time), I have many things to deliver for people right now. --Bob

[VoxVeritas90]

Hey everyone. I wanted to comment briefly on the articles posted from Welsh tract. I have read all 6 articles that have been made available on the main site and must say that this is not modalism. It is certainly not trinitarian, or even easy to make sense of, but it does not quite line up with what one could call ancient or modern modalism. The author appears to have some difficulty with the distinction of "persons" found in most trinitarian Creeds. His primary contention is that if the Bible does not expressly use a term or distinction then the church ought not to use it either. His arguments range from the lack of clarity in trinitarian classification, the use of personal pronouns for non personal entities (such as the wind or Sun), and the lack of express testimony in the scriptures to the personal separations between the persons of the Trinity.

Like most heretics he is quick to say that he accepts the '3-in 1' of the Godhead but has yet to answer how he explains that. While he does not use the 'its all a mystery too big for humans to understand' excuse explicitly, he none the less goes out of his way to make a mockery of sound logic and biblical exegesis. I would recommend distancing one's self from anyone that agrees with this man and his organization. They do appear to teach a new nonsense doctrine on the 'trinity' not all too dissimilar from Van Til. If you want to read them for yourself you are more than welcome to, but there is nothing in it that will convince an honest student of the scriptures.

[VoxVeritas90]

As much as I have to sound like Marc Carpenter, we ought not fellowship with heretics. I'm sorry that they mislead you, alot of their other doctrine seems spot on. Sad that this gentleman seems to have his noodles twisted studying the Trinity. Poor guy spyn himself into a great big theological mess.

May God be the Judge

[Bob Higby]

I do think that many of the arguments advanced in these articles are the same as those in sabellianism (today called 'modalism'). I do not accept these arguments, the persons of the Trinity as manifested in history and God's revelation are clearly three distinct personalities relating separately to all creation. However, it is important to remember that Dr. Robert Reymond and other teachers have been accused of denying the Trinity because of challenges to the doctrine of eternal generation--which challenges I also agree with. This is a very long discussion!

Btw, unitarianism (by definition) historically refers more to the denial of Jesus as God (hence only the Father is God, like Arius) than the doctrine that Jesus is 'the one and only God' as in sabellianism.

I have trouble with both eternal generation and the idea of the 'handshake' of the Trinity in a covenant of redemption transcendent of all creation. The two doctrines go together for 'Reformed' teachers. For me, the essence of the Trinity in God's transcendent essence has to do with the fact that God has fellowship with Himself, not that the three 'persons' are in a subordinate hierarchy transcendent of time and space. Three personalities does not mean 'three minds' or 'three wills' in my understanding--as God is one infinite mind with one infinite purpose in creative/redemptive history. Infinite mind and infinite will (purpose) cannot be three independent personalities coming together in covenant 'over lunch' after discussing what to do in gathering the contributory thoughts of each independent person of the Godhead (which is how the 'covenant of redemption' among the Trinity is portrayed in most Reformed teaching).

Well, a start. I'm sure some will call me a heretic also.

Bro. Bob

[VoxVeritas90]

Vadim, I must say you hit the nail on the head. I have always soughtbto express the three persons as follows. God has a single mind in the sense that one body of knowledge is known by God. That body of knowledge includes all true propositions, God's knowledge of them is the source of their veracity. However, there are three distinct views of that knowledge amongst the Godhead. This is a result of the activity of God. Ex. All of the members know the details of the cross, but only one of them knows it as 'i went to the cross'. Their separation exists in that their activities are different in relationship to one another.
This is not to say that they would not be separate persons if they did not act, but that our experience of them reveals to us that they are three in how we see their acts. They know each other and themselves perfectly and would know that they are all one even if they never acted. It is still not a perfect explanation, but I feel like it helps avoid the modern versions of the ancient heresies.

May God be the Judge

[Bob Higby]

Vadim: I think the Covenant of Redemption can be successfully interpreted in the context of your understanding of the Trinity as God's communion with Himself.

Yes! For me, the Covenant of Redemption and the Covenant of Grace are not two separate covenants as scripture defines God's plan transcendent of all history as a purpose primarily. Yes, there is agreement between the members of the Trinity in this regard but it is not the result of three independent eternal minds 'discussing' how to make it happen and constructing what the plan should end up being

One more point--although the critics of 'pure equality' in the Trinity with regard to God's self-existence claim that such a doctrine is tri-theistic, it is actually more firmly monotheistic than most other Trinitarian viewpoints. The Trinity is not like 3 eternal books stacked on top of one another without beginning or historical placement (like some illustrate eternal generation and 'eternal submission' within the Godhead).

Thanks also to VoxVeritas90 for your thoughtful participation in this thread and helpful insights.

Bro. Bob