I agree, he is clearly not Trinitarian. OP and I exercised him about this 12 months ago. I think the kicker for me in this recent exchange was where he delcared that Jesus will be absorbed back into the Godhead. I shudder to think what that means, but I think it is clear that his belief is offensive to this scripture:
First off, as a courtesy i am posting to ftD as well as you guys, after all, we are talking about his statements.
The issue that Woody raises was also raised on the other thread that Jean hyperlinked to us. i chose to ignore the statement, because it was simply a distraction from the main point that ftD and i were arguing about at that time. The central point to ftD's argument was the citation from Psalm 2:7 that is made in Acts 13:33, Hebrews 1:5, and Hebrews 5:5. The only problem with the citations is that the context of all three is the Ressurection, not the incarnation
As i recall, what had gotten that started was an issue of the Nestle/Aland-UBS Greek text which has only begotten God in John 1:18, compared to the TR which has only begotten Son of God. Of course, we all know that --for those of you who don't have it, go to crosswalk.com and download the free BST fonts so you can read this-- monogenh;ß -only begotten- does not always mean only created. ftD was concerned that by removal of the word son, that the Jehovah's Witnesses and others could denigrate the deity of Christ. Of course a cursery walk through Isaiah 42:8, 43:10-11, 44:6, 44:8, 45:5-7, 45:18, 45:21-22, 46:9, 48:11-12, and so on, demonstrate that this is a false claim. i have in the past, used these verses to confound Jehovah's Witnesses on their "unique" understanding of John 1:1.
As for what ever ftD was trying to say concerning God being "all in all", i haven't a clue, and did not persue the issue.
I'm not sure what your point is here, but "begotten" never means "created."
"Begotten, not made" is the line in the Nicene Creed. Jesus is not a "Creature", He is not "Created."
He is begotten.
SD