I will answer, but first I will back up and take a look at where we’ve come from. We agree that the author makes two statements:
1. In a specific sense, the Trinity is not a Biblical doctrine (the Trinity formulation is not in the Bible)
2. The doctrine of the Trinity is Biblical (the Trinity substance is in the Bible)
By analyzing the sentence structure and language/grammar, I believe we can answer the following questions:
· Does the author put equal weight on both of these claims, or is there more emphasis on one over the other?
· Does each point carry the same degree of significance with regard to the terms involved?
As for the first question, I say there are some clues the author gives, including the construction of the sentence. Point #1 is in a dependent clause, whereas point #2 is in the independent (main) clause. That fact alone allows us to determine that the full intended meaning of #1 cannot be determined without considering point #2, hence the “Although” at the beginning. This fact has already tipped the scale towards point #2 which is in the main clause. But, if that isn’t enough, to be sure to clear up any ambiguity as to the author’s intended meaning, s/he rephrases and clarifies point #2 in the following sentence.
As for the second question, we must define the terms the author uses. If you look in the Bible from cover to cover, this author claims that you will not find the formulation of the Trinity. From Webster’s Dictionary, formulation means “to formulate”. Formulate- 1 a: to reduce to or express in a formula; b: to put into a systematized statement or expression. This author has just claimed in point #1 that, in the entire Bible, you will not find the Trinity reduced to a formula or a systematized statement or expression. If you look in the Bible from cover to cover, this author also claims that you will find the substance of the Trinity (explicit in some areas and implicit in others). Substance- 1 a: essential nature; 2 a: ultimate reality that underlies all outward manifestations and change. This author has just claimed in point #2 that, in the entire Bible, you will find the essential nature or ultimate reality that underlies all outward manifestations of the Trinity. When examining the two terms the author chooses to include, it certainly looks like ‘substance’ carries more significance in definition compared to ‘formulate’.
If we put these facts together in context, we can see how the author does not put equal weight on both claims – ie. S/he clearly makes point #2 the intended meaning – and the author uses terms and structure that support his/her emphasis.
I think, if anyone claims this author’s intent is to admit the Trinity is not Biblical, or that the doctrine of the Trinity is not Biblical, it is a distortion of the Author’s intended meaning. Like you pointed out, anybody can debate the points the author makes, even argue against them and use his/her words to attack his/her belief. I completely agree. But to claim the author intended anything other than his/her full meaning in the context s/he gave, is a distortion.
So what is my point now? I was hoping to gain further knowledge about the structure of these sentences and ideas that provide integrity to intended meanings. I am not an expert on the English language by any means, but am willing to take in as much information as possible. You (and others) have provided valuable information and insight. I then wanted to apply the same construction or “structure” to a relatively non-controversial topic. This all has proven to be informative, yet difficult, and has shown how bias can creep in, even when a goal is to avoid bias, in analysis.