Arianism Vs. the Trinity

[Vance]

Actually it is not monothesitic in any sense other then they say that they are monothesitic because there is only one nature. I fail to see how 3 distinct beings does not make 3 Gods. Just sharing one nature does not mean there is only physically one God. Just as we 6 billion persons on the earth share the human nature that does not mean there is only one human.

Well, see, they don't call "them" three beings but three persons (special definition of person here) in one being.

To me it is a mass of confusion.

[coolrok7]

????

Then why do Trinitarians apply "person" to God?

I know that. That is why we know that the word person in that context means an individual/being and not the special Trinitarian definition. Where it explained the Trinitarian view the the Father and Son are one being/individual.

Other people are NOT required to use YOUR special definitions when describing your theology to others.

The Trinitarian view is that "they" "are" one being. In non-Trinitarian parlance that would be one person, or one individual with multiple personalities.

One God, not one being in the sense as we understand being. Jesus is the one Who stated:

Jesus answered, . . .

[Anakin7]

Perhaps we should understand that the definition of "Being" in this theological context [ As used from 4rth century till today ] means "Nature". If this is so then LDS should have no problems with all 3 persons of the Godhead/Trinity having the same Being [ True God Nature]. But then which form/model of the Trinity is one to accept/believe as correct - Western, Eastern, Economic, Essential, Social, Monarch ?.

Salvation is in Christ The Person

Anakin 7

[Vance]

One God, not one being in the sense as we understand being.

Humm,

And not one person as we understand person either, right?

Jesus is the one Who stated:

Jesus also said many things that clearly show individuality of and separateness between the Father and the Son.

As in,

#

Matt. 11:27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

#

Matt. 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

#

Mark 8:38 Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.

#

Mark 13:32

[Anakin7]

From a non - LDS Christian site - http://www.sullivan-county.com/identity/trinity.htm

Salvation Is In Christ The Person

Anakin7

[Anakin7]

Humm,

And not one person as we understand person either, right?

Jesus also said many things that clearly show individuality of and separateness between the Father and the Son.

As in,

#

Matt. 11:27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

#

Matt. 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

#

Mark 8:38 Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.

#

Mark 13:32

[Vance]

"Because the Trinity is such an important part of later Christian doctrine, it is striking that the term does not appear in the New Testament. Likewise, the developed concept of three coequal partners in the Godhead found in later creedal formulations cannot be clearly detected within the confines of the canon. Since the Christians have come to worship Jesus as a god ... Matthew 28.19 ... Matthew records a special connection between God the Father and Jesus the Son (e.g., 11.27), but he falls short of claiming that Jesus is equal with God. It is John's gospel that suggests the idea of equality between Jesus and God ... While there are other New Testament texts where God, Jesus, and the Spirit are referred to in the same passage (e.g., Jude 20-21), it is important to avoid reading the Trinity into places where it does not appear. An example is 1 Peter 1.1-2" (Oxford Companion to the Bible, Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan, Trinity, p 782).

[Anakin7]

Remember Vance that our non LDS Christian critics state thou the word trinity does not appear in scripture the framework and doctrine is underlying within the words of scripture [bible].

Salvation is in Christ The Person

Anakin7

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

One God, not one being in the sense as we understand being. Jesus is the one Who stated:

Its 1x1x1=1 not 1+1+1=1 which would be 1+1+1 does not equal one.

So when there are 3 people in the room all we have to do is to multiply those three people against each other and then that makes only one person in the room? That is what you are doing here.

I am sorry but the logic of using multiplication for getting God to equal the number one is just faulty.

[Vance]

In this case, the standard is who won the vote.

Apparently the vote was "fixed" a bit.

"It was at this stage that Constantine made his momentous suggestion. Might not the relationship of Son to Father be expressed by the term homoousios ("of the same substance" ). Its use, however, by the Sabellian bishops of Libya had been condemned by Dionysius of Alexandria in the 260s, and, in a different sense, its use by Paul of Samosata bad been condemned by the Council of Antioch in 268. It was thus a "loaded" word as well as being unscriptural. Why Constantine put it forward we do not know. The possibility is that once again he was prompted by Hosius, and he may have been using it as a "translation" of the traditional view held in the West, that the Trinity was composed of "Three Persons in one substance," without inquiring further into the meaning of these terms. The Emperor bad spoken, and no one dared touch the creed during his lifetime. The great majority of the Eastern bishops found themselves in a false position" (The Rise of Christianity, 1985, W.H.C. Frend, p140-141).

Humm,

Agree (with the Emperor) or not to agree, that is the question. Whether it is better to suffer the slings and arrows (of the Emperor) . . .

[Vance]

"The Old Testament tells us nothing explicitly or by necessary implication of a triune God who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected the existence of a trinity within the Godhead. Even to see in the Old Testament, suggestions or fore-shadowings or veiled signs of the trinity of persons, is to go beyond the words and intent of the sacred writers. The New Testament writers give us no formal or formulated doctrine of the trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. Nowhere do we find any trinitarian doctrine of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same Godhead [The Triune God, by Edmund Fortman, Jesuit].

[Anakin7]

"The Old Testament tells us nothing explicitly or by necessary implication of a triune God who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected the existence of a trinity within the Godhead. Even to see in the Old Testament, suggestions or fore-shadowings or veiled signs of the trinity of persons, is to go beyond the words and intent of the sacred writers. The New Testament writers give us no formal or formulated doctrine of the trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. Nowhere do we find any trinitarian doctrine of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same Godhead [The Triune God, by Edmund Fortman, Jesuit].

Perhaps he was spiritualy un-regenerated and Blind and did not see the Docrtine of the Trnity there.

Salvation is in Christ The Person

Anakin7

[coolrok7]

The thread is about Arianism Vs. the Trinity and how our view is distorted with modalism, an heretical view by Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses who are basically Arian in their view of Jesus. Read the opening of the thread. Anyone going to answer that as I provided the quotes from both organizations in their misrepresentation of the Trinitarian view?

[Vance]

That is not what I said. To clarify, its three "persons" or personas (in their identity as existing in their nature as God but not a "plurality of g(G)ods) of the Godhead (Father, Son, Holy Spirit)= the one God of Biblical recorded revelation.

Humm,

Josh. 22:22 The Lord God of gods, the Lord God of gods, he knoweth, and Israel he shall know; if it be in rebellion, or if in transgression against the Lord, (save us not this day,)

Deut. 10:17 For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:

Ps. 136:2 O give thanks unto the God of gods: for his mercy endureth for ever.

Dan. 2:47 The king answered unto Daniel, and said, Of a truth it is, that your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, seeing thou couldest reveal this secret.

Dan. 11:36 And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.

Are these other Biblical gods real or fictional?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The thread is about Arianism Vs. the Trinity and how our view is distorted with modalism, an heretical view by Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses who are basically Arian in their view of Jesus. Read the opening of the thread. Anyone going to answer that as I provided the quotes from both organizations in their misrepresentation of the Trinitarian view?

THere is more than one trinitarian view Cool. I think the Nicean Trinitarian view is fately flawed. For reasons that we have outlined.

You do not own the rights to the "Trinitarian © view".

Basically you just disagree with the LDS and JW view of the godhead. We are just stating why your view is wrong. You can't take that. Not my problem.

[cdowis]

The thread is about Arianism Vs. the Trinity and how our view is distorted with modalism, an heretical view by Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses who are basically Arian in their view of Jesus. Read the opening of the thread. Anyone going to answer that as I provided the quotes from both organizations in their misrepresentation of the Trinitarian view?

The LDS do not believe in modalism, nor the Arian view. Both of those views are heretical, along with homoousia.

We accept the teaching of Christ as found in John 17:19-23. I think the closest terms to this concept is "power of attorney", or "Patrimony". You will find that specifically in the first couple of verses in Hebrews. We are joint heirs with Christ, as Christ and the apostles taught us.

I would suggest that you have no idea what we believe.

[T-Shirt]

The thread is about Arianism Vs. the Trinity and how our view is distorted with modalism, an heretical view by Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses who are basically Arian in their view of Jesus. Read the opening of the thread. Anyone going to answer that as I provided the quotes from both organizations in their misrepresentation of the Trinitarian view?

First of all, I find it interesting that you had to go back to 1961 to find a statement that shows a Mormon misunderstanding of mainstream trinitarianism. While I will agree that Elder Richards' understanding of your doctrine was inaccurate, I would also say that it is understandable. If you replaced the word "person" with the word 'being", his statement would be largely accurate. The problem is, most modern readers don't see any difference between the two words, it is easy to understand such an error.

That being said, I must say that every single mainstream Christian that I have talked to, away from these boards, have explained the Trinity to me in Modalistic terms. Furthermore, it is no secret that not a single trinitarian, including you, is capable of logically understanding the doctrine, as it is impossible. Before you go about trying to set the record straight among the Mormons, you might want to consider trying to do so among your fellow believers first.

Best,

T-Shirt

[coolrok7]

Humm,

Josh. 22:22 The Lord God of gods, the Lord God of gods, he knoweth, and Israel he shall know; if it be in rebellion, or if in transgression against the Lord, (save us not this day,)

Deut. 10:17 For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:

Ps. 136:2 O give thanks unto the God of gods: for his mercy endureth for ever.

Dan. 2:47 The king answered unto Daniel, and said, Of a truth it is, that your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, seeing thou couldest reveal this secret.

Dan. 11:36 And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.

Are these other Biblical gods real or fictional?

You sure "Humm" a lot!

The justxaposition is to those "gods" of the surrounding nations who are not truly God at all. So in the sense of "God of gods" there are no other gods but are believed to be (falsely):

So now you intend to resist the kingdom of the LORD through the sons of David, being a great multitude and having with you the golden calves which Jeroboam made for gods for you.

[coolrok7]

First of all, I find it interesting that you had to go back to 1961 to find a statement that shows a Mormon misunderstanding of mainstream trinitarianism. While I will agree that Elder Richards' understanding of your doctrine was inaccurate, I would also say that it is understandable. If you replaced the word "person" with the word 'being", his statement would be largely accurate. The problem is, most modern readers don't see any difference between the two words, it is easy to understand such an error.

That being said, I must say that every single mainstream Christian that I have talked to, away from these boards, have explained the Trinity to me in Modalistic terms. Furthermore, it is no secret that not a single trinitarian, including you, is capable of logically understanding the doctrine, as it is impossible. Before you go about trying to set the record straight among the Mormons, you might want to consider trying to do so among your fellow believers first.

Best,

T-Shirt

How about Mormons themselves (It hasn't been correcteed by those in leadership as of yet) accurately represent the Trinitarian view (Nicea) not modalism (even if there are those that explain it using wrong terminology). I can't help that people don't accurately understand the view and present it in the ways that they do.

I stated this earlier (How many times do I have to restate this???):

BCSpace, on 01 September 2010 - 09:34 AM, said:

Instead of three Persons, there is only one, the three being separate manifestations of the one Person. Otherwise, the same. God is an abstraction.

Congratulations....I believe you just described Modalism....the heresy the Nicene Creed was trying to do away with.

This post has been edited by Hannah Rebekah: A week ago

Hannah Rebekah

"LDS Christian"

The heresy being dealt specifically with is Arianism not modalsim.

[Vance]

You sure "Humm" a lot!

The justxaposition is to those "gods" of the surrounding nations who are not truly God at all. So in the sense of "God of gods" there are no other gods but are believed to be (falsely):

Humm,

So God is a God of (false) gods? Faint praise indeed. Let's see how it works.

Josh. 22:22 The Lord God of FALSE gods, the Lord God of FALSE gods, he knoweth, and Israel he shall know; if it be in rebellion, or if in transgression against the Lord, (save us not this day,)

Deut. 10:17 For the Lord your God is God of FALSE gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:

Ps. 136:2 O give thanks unto the God of FALSE gods: for his mercy endureth for ever.

Dan. 2:47 The king answered unto Daniel, and said, Of a truth it is, that your God is a God of FALSE gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, seeing thou couldest reveal this secret.

Dan. 11:36 And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of FALSE gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.

Edited to add,

That kind of praise is sure to win friends and influence God.

[Vance]

How about Mormons themselves (It hasn't been correcteed by those in leadership as of yet) accurately represent the Trinitarian view (Nicea) not modalism (even if there are those that explain it using wrong terminology). I can't help that people don't accurately understand the view and present it in the ways that they do.

How do you accurately represent something that is a mystery? No matter how they represent it, someone will claim misrepresentation.

Even Trinitarians can't agree amongst themselves what it all means.

[coolrok7]

How do you accurately represent something that is a mystery? No matter how they represent it, someone will claim misrepresentation.

Even Trinitarians can't agree amongst themselves what it all means.

I provided the context. Deal with the context please is all I'm asking.

[Vance]

In the common usage of English, "being", "person", and "individual" are interchangeable. It is only in the Trinitarian theological world that they are different.

Deal with it. That is all I am asking.

[T-Shirt]

How about Mormons themselves (It hasn't been correcteed by those in leadership as of yet) accurately represent the Trinitarian view (Nicea) not modalism (even if there are those that explain it using wrong terminology). I can't help that people don't accurately understand the view and present it in the ways that they do.

What correction are you looking for? You quoted two Mormon sources, the first being a missionary training tool from 1961 that has long since been replaced and the second is from a book by LeGrande Richards, printed in 1950 that is no longer used as a missionary tool.

T-Shirt

[coolrok7]

What correction are you looking for? You quoted two Mormon sources, the first being a missionary training tool from 1961 that has long since been replaced and the second is from a book by LeGrande Richards, printed in 1950 that is no longer used as a missionary tool.

T-Shirt

The Mormon missionaries are the ones who come to the door with the same misunderstanding of the Trinty as the ones from back in the latter part of the 1970's when I first started having "discussions" with them. It hasn't changed.

The corrections requested is to state the Tritity (not modalistic) in the terms actually used such as one God, three persons being the one Lord (God not g(G)ods) as Jesus stated Himself:

Jesus answered, . . .