Ernie wrote:Neto wrote:Only if they eventually come to ascribe to the same definitions for the terms they use, but I'm not sure that happens. Language is a tool to convey meaning, and it seems to me that if we do not ascribe the same meanings to the words we use, then we are not really communicating. Maybe it is due to impatience on my part - I don't want to wait for the next generation to reach understanding.
Not sure how to reply.
It seems to me that it is more likely that the church will have a united definition in the future if we use the term Godhead, vs. the term Trinity or God in Three Persons.
It seems to me that it is more likely that the church will have a united definition in the future if we talk about "meet the Lord in the air" then if we use the term "rapture".
I can agree with avoiding 'Rapture', because of its association with a particular eschatological view (which incidentally I personally consider to be incorrect). I guess that I wouldn't use the term 'Godhead' myself (and certainly not 'Trinity' or 'God in Three Persons'), because I think it goes beyond Scripture. (It seems to imply some sort of conglomerate, is sometimes associated with Mormon teaching in particular, and also with the trinity doctrine in general.)
I have sometimes stated that Jesus is Deity, instead of saying that Jesus is God (although I do think he is), because the word 'God' is used in the English Scripture as both a descriptive term, and also as a proper name, interchangeable with 'God the Father'. My purpose in that is to avoid the confusion of someone thinking that I am saying that Jesus is the Father.