Andrew P.C.
Puritan Board Junior
If one says "I still think the confession (Ch. 2.1 and 2.2) is reasoning about the attributes of the person rather then appealing to some abstract nature and identify the attributes of that nature", and then say "I didn't say that the persons were defined by the divine attributes, I said that they are the divine attributes", is this not the same thing? Is he wrong in ascribing attributes to the *Persons* when WLC 10 gives the only properties for the persons?
Thoughts?
Edward Leigh says the following: "they are three not in respect of Essence or Divine Attributes, three Eternals; but three in respect of personal properties, as the Father is of none, the Sonne of the Father, and the holy Ghost of both; three Persons but one God, as to be, to be true, to be good, are all one, because Transcendents."
Edward Leigh, A Systeme or Body of Divinity Consisting of Ten Books, Book 2 CHAP. XVI. Of the Trinity
Thoughts?