You were dealing with one limited definition. You have clarified that you don't agree that the modes are purely consecutive, but only some modalists believe that. You have not indicated how you differ from the modalists who don't believe that, but have instead argued for their position.


Very good Brian and right on target. In the broader sense of the term it would seem that Jerry is indeed a modalist unless he can totally reject the broader definition and not deceitfully center on the narrow definition that was provided. Thanks for pointing that out Brian.




If it walks like a duck and swims like a duck, it does not have to claim 'I am a duck!' to be a duck.


Again right on target, quack, quack.





Yes you have, Jerry. And more than once.
Again how does Jerry respond to that truth?




I do mean person, just not with the definition you want, but rather the definition Christianity has used for nearly 2,000 years.
You do realize Brian that there are avowed Trintarians that are uncomfortable with the term "Persons," but like you said it is the constant orthodox teaching of the church for the past 2,000 years and the term is sufficient, even though I like to use the term "personalities."






Yet I don't use that definition, nor separate the three into three gods. Therefore your definition is not the correct one.
I agree.  I have been beaten over the head and called a babbler by one here because I explain the trinity as "three distinct Persons in the one divine essence." I don't understand why Jerry thinks because he gives a definition that he is comfortable with makes it the correct definition? You Brian are correct and Jerry's definition is not correct!

Thanks for jumping back in on this one Brian, as you can see we have the Trinity deniers coming out of the woodwork.

Proverbs 29:2 "When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn."