Arianism Vs. the Trinity

[Ambrose]

You are right that you cannot really say . . . And that is as far as you can go. You cannot really say whether or not he was making a mockery of Trinitarian dogma. However, I certainly would be offended by those ridiculous little images next to nearly orthodox statements.

I meant that in this thread this was the first instance that you have admitted your ignorance of the dogma.

------------------

I think that our conversation would have to go a little differently.

<Mola Ram> So God and Jesus and the HG are the same person?

<Ambrose> Before investigating what we say dogmatically, let us investigate what we must say by reason.

-----------------

By analogy we understand that two things are similar but not the same. In this way, we understand cause and effect. We know the existence of causes by analogy through their effects. The effects are not in themselves the same as the cause, but they are similar for they cannot contain more than what caused them. You might say that effects shadow or resemble their causes. In this way, we understand Creation to be analogous of its Cause, bearing certain imprints of that which forms it.

And it is by this analogous principle of investigating causes that we come to a natural knowledge of Creator. That is where we must begin.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

And it is by this analogous principle of investigating causes that we come to a natural knowledge of Creator. That is where we must begin.

Sounds good.

BTW I am sorry you feel like certain people are making a mock of your beliefs. You will need to take it up with Vance.

[Ambrose]

Sounds good.

BTW I am sorry you feel like certain people are making a mock of your beliefs. You will need to take it up with Vance.

It is not just a mockery of my beliefs that offends me. I cannot think of a Mormon-Catholic dialogue that I have observed or been a part of where one or the other makes some strawman of the other's doctrine and then rolls their eyes at how ridiculous it sounds.

I am terribly frustrated too by how irreverently Mormon doctrines are mocked.

I should like to say something more about analogous theology. There are words that when applied to the Godhead cannot mean entirely the same thing as when applied to Creation. I think that this is especially true of the Mormon position. Words like "material", "body", "presence", &c., are applied to the Godhead in a far superior and more excellent manner than when they are applied to Creation (at least, in its current state). This is not equivocation, but analogy.

[Anakin7]

John 4:24

?????? ? ???? ??? ???? ????????????? ????? ?? ???????? ??? ??????? ??? ??????????

??????

The late Raymond Brown [Catholic Scholar] who was undoubtedly the worlds leading scholarly authority on John's Gospel on the planet in his day stated in relation to John 4:24 - "This is not an essential definition of God, but a description of God's dealings with men; it means that God is spirit toward men because he gives the spirit [xiv 16] which begets them anew, [Anchor Bible, page 172]. There are in fact two other such descriptions in Johns writtings, God is Light [1 John1:5] and God is Love [1 John 4:8], thou no one has argued that God is a light or a species of Love. In short we must worship the Father "Through The Spirit" which he has given to the church [John 14;16], there being no hint of suggesting that he himself is only a spirit.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

[Anakin7]

Where is our Catholic friend David Waltz ?, he would love to talk about this subject with his Catholic friends !.

Salvation is in Christ The Person

Anakin

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

[Vance]

Do you not see Vance's posts with images that are meant to make a mockery of positions? &c.

Ambrose,

On occasion I have been both praised and condemned for my aggressive defense style. And on occasion I may step over the line into mockery. But in this case, you are mistaken.

I have reviewed my posts in this thread and found that, for the most part, I used this emoticon. Which if you will notice means "pardon".

I did find that I used this emoticon ONLY once. In this post.

I am sorry, but I fail to see how that post could be interpreted as mocking your beliefs in any way. Please enlighten me here if I am wrong.

Unfortunately, I am unaware of using words like "nature" and "being" and "person" with special definitions, but I have been trying to immerse myself in the Scholastics for a year or so now.

It is not uncommon to have special definitions for words used in a religious context. The problem here is that "coolrok" is unwilling to make allowances that others may not be limited to these special definitions when discussing his religious beliefs.

[coolrok7]

This thread is about how Trinitarians (if they truly are in their belief) are not modalists:

Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost is only one God! I say that is a strange God anyhow

[volgadon]

Coolrok appaarently has not read Hunter's book, or else he is being disingenious. Here is a selection from chapter 4.

WHO JESUS WAS

21Jesus is man's spiritual brother. We dwelt with Him in the spirit world as members of that large society of eternal intelligences, which included our Heavenly Parents and all the personages who have become mortal beings upon this earth or who ever shall come here to dwell. In that spirit-creation, when we became children of God, Jesus was the "first-born," and so He is our eldest brother. 7

21He was the most intelligent, the most faithful, and the most Godlike of all the sons and daughters of our Heavenly Father in the spirit world. He was so wise, so powerful, so good, that the scriptures speak of Him as "the author of eternal salvation." 8 He played such a dominant role in the pre-mortal world that He is referred to many times as "the creator of heaven and earth." 9 In fact, He worked as co-creator with the Eternal Father in preparing the world for man. Thus it is evident that in the pre-earth life, Jesus Christ shared richly in the life of His Eternal Father, and this prepared Him for the leading role in the work of God in bringing salvation to the human family. For these reasons He is the very center of the plan of salvation. In introducing Himself to the prophets, He says:

22Hearken and listen to the voice of him who is from all eternity to all eternity, the Great I AM, even Jesus Christ, the light and the life of the world 10 . . . the same which looked upon the wide expanse of eternity, and all the seraphic hosts of heaven, before the world was made: the same which knoweth all things, for all things are present before mine eyes: I am the same which spake, and the world was made, and all things came by me. I am the same which have taken the Zion of Enoch into mine own bosom. 11

22The Jehovah of the Old Testament, the God who appeared to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God who revealed the Gospel to the holy prophets from Adam's day down to the present time is Jesus Christ. 12 Among the numerous names by which He is known in the scriptures are the following: "the Lamb of God," "the Only Begotten Son of God," "Son of Man," "the Lord," "Immanuel," "Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." 13

[coolrok7]

Coolrok appaarently has not read Hunter's book, or else he is being disingenious. Here is a selection from chapter 4.

From the book,

[volgadon]

Then I provided a quote of Elder Hunter's statement in regards to Jesus becoming, "a God". This is not what trinitarianism teaches so what is your point?

I have the book, so point out how I'm being "disingenious"?

By providing a quote that makes it seem like Hunter was saying that God became God on earth.

Lets however ask the following philosophical question. Were God to break the rules he established, would he remain God?

[coolrok7]

By providing a quote that makes it seem like Hunter was saying that God became God on earth.

Lets however ask the following philosophical question. Were God to break the rules he established, would he remain God?

That is not what I said. I wasn't elaborating on the Mormon teaching on exaltation, the process of men becoming g(G)ods.

The teaching of Mormonism is that there are heavenly parents procreating spirit babies, our state of existence, before we came to this earth (just as Heavenly Father, according to Mormonism, had been at one point of his own so-called pre-existence). This is not Christianity, it is the heresy of Joseph Smith in the 19th century:

(1-1) INTRODUCTION

The gospel of Jesus Christ teaches that man is an eternal being, made in the image and likeness of God. It also holds that man is a literal child of God and has the potential, if faithful to divine laws and ordinances, of becoming like his heavenly parent.

These truths are generally well understood by Latter-day Saints.

Less well understood, however, is the fact that God is an exalted man who once lived on an earth and underwent experiences of mortality. The Prophet Joseph Smith refers to this as "the great secret." (Times and Seasons, 5:613 15 Aug. 1844. See also Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith p.345) The progression of our father in heaven to godhood, or exaltation, was strictly in accordance with eternal principles, "for he who is not able to abide the law of a celestial kingdom cannot abide a celestial glory." (D&C 88:22.) By definition, exaltation includes the ability to procreate the family unit throughout eternity. This our Father in heaven has power to do. His marriage partner is our mother in heaven. . .

As shown in this chapter our Father in heaven was once a man as we are now, capable of physical death. By obedience to eternal gospel principles, he progressed from one stage of life to another until he attained the state that we call exaltation or godhood. In such a condition, he and our mother in heaven were empowered to give birth to spirit children whose potential was equal to that of their heavenly parents. We are those spirit children. . . .It is this fact that makes marriage in a temple of God such an important step in our eternal progression. Elder Bruce R. McConkie has written this:

[Anakin7]

Augustinian Form/Model of Trinity as used today [in contrast to other Forms/Models of Trinity] is/are same as Sabellianism/Modalism Form/Model

Doctrine Sabellius Augustine Simulartites

#1 Numbers of GOD One God and one substance One God and One substance Same

#2 Tri-Unity in GOD Certain amount of three person Certain amount of three person Difference is one of the duration of the

activity in the substance activity in the substance activity

#3 Innerdwelling God present in the heart of man God present in the heart of man Same

#4 Personality, Consciousness

and Identity

#5 Personality, Consciousness

and Identity Essentially one Essentially one Same

Above reference from my LDS JEDI KNIGHT Archive.

Salvation is in Christ The Person

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

[Calm]

they

[coolrok7]

This is the same issue of insisting someone is not Christian because they don't follow a particular subset of Christian beliefs.

Historically and traditionally speaking, there have been many beliefs attached to the idea of the Trinity, thus it's become a pretty global set of beliefs, not quite as extensive as "Christian" but still quite large and including a variety of interpretations. Definitionally speaking, being a Trinitarian requires a belief in the Trinity or to be a bit more precise: Some beliefs are heresies according to a particular sect, but that still imo doesn't mean that they don't qualify to be call Trinitarian or believers in the Trinity. What would be best in a discussion on the Trinity is to identify what branch of belief is being discussed.

If one makes claims about what is true or not, it is best to add the qualifier "not really Trinitarian according to the Nicene Creed interpretation" or some such thing to avoid misunderstanding as well as inappropriate exclusion.

As contrasted with being modalistic (what the thread partly addresses because of the quotes of BCSpace and Hannah Rebekah) they can't be Trinitarian and modalistic at the same time but first one would have to determine by what is meant by which terms are actually used by the individual using them.

As I've said repeatedly, this is about Arianism Vs. the Trinity (modalsim is a side issue). Can anyone please address this?

[TAO]

This thread is about how Trinitarians (if they truly are in their belief) are not modalists:

Ok, sounds cool. Modalist means "One who regards Father, Son, and Spirit as modes of being, and not as persons, thus denying personal distinction". So you are basically talking about how you view them distinctly, as persons, and not as modes of being. That sounds very much like Mormonism. Yah, not sure what other Trinitarians believe, but yours sounds pretty much like what we believe.

Trinitarian

[coolrok7]

I appreciate your reply here TAO as you do acknowledge certain things of interest to me.

In the idea behind this thread, for years I

[Zakuska]

Death is the enemy of life (the result of sin in Adam and Eve

[volgadon]

Lets however ask the following philosophical question. Were God to break the rules he established, would he remain God?

I hear the unmistakable sound of silence.

My beef here in this thread is the misrepresentation of what one actually believes as opposed to what others say someone believes but are inaccurate and downright misrepresents, either ignorantly or even on purpose (the on purpose I don

[Vance]

My beef here in this thread is the misrepresentation of what one actually believes as opposed to what others say someone believes but are inaccurate and downright misrepresents, either ignorantly or even on purpose.

A mote/beam thing.

[TAO]

I appreciate your reply here TAO as you do acknowledge certain things of interest to me.

Sounds cool, I like talking with people about things =).

In the idea behind this thread, for years I

[coolrok7]

Interesting quote, we believe differently though - we believe his spirit already existed in the pre-existance at that time, and that he helped plan along with God the Father, what this world would be like. And as said, I really don't like the word 'Trinity', cuz even people who are 'Trinitarian' have different views of 'Trinitarianism'. Perhaps there should be another word for each category or something...

I

[TAO]

The source of that difference is Joseph Smith and what he taught, Biblically unjustified in my and many others view.

Ah, but that's why I posted that list of about 30+ scritpures from various books earlier - in other words, Joseph's view IS biblically justified according to what the Bible says. Here, I'll quote it again:

Moses 7:18 - And the Lord called his people ^aZion, because they were of ^bone heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them.

Matt 19:5 - And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall ^acleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

Acts 4:32 - And the multitude of them that believed were of ^aone heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ^bought of the things which he ^cpossessed was his own; but they had all things ^dcommon.

John 17:11 - And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the ^aworld, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be ^bone, as we are.

1 Corinthians 1:10 - Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no ^adivisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same ^bmind and in the same judgment.

Hebrews 2:11 - For both he that sanctifieth and they who are ^asanctified are all of ^bone: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them ^cbrethren,

.....

Now if one looks at these scriptures, one will notice, that God is asking us to be ONE. So obviously, it is possible to be ONE without being one spirit.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now let's check out some scriptures that talk of Christ's individual spirit, but oneness in purpose:

Genesis 1:26 - And God said, Let ^aus ^bmake ^cman in our ^dimage, after our ^elikeness: and let them have ^fdominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Matthew 3:17 - And lo a ^avoice from heaven, saying, This is my ^bbeloved ^cSon, in whom I am well pleased.

Matthew 20:23 - And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my ^aFather.

Matthew 26:39 - And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and ^aprayed, saying, O my ^bFather, if it be possible, let this ^ccup pass from me: nevertheless not as I ^dwill, but as ^ethou ^fwilt.

John 15:19 - Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he ^aseeth the ^bFather do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

John 8:18 - I am one that bear witness of myself, and the ^aFather that sent me beareth ^bwitness of me.

John 14:28 - Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I ^ago unto the Father: for my ^bFather is greater than I.

John 17:20,21 - Neither ^apray I for these alone, but for them also which shall ^bbelieve on me through their word; That they all may be ^aone; as thou, ^bFather, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be ^cone in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

John 20:17 - Jesus saith unto her, ^aTouch me not; for I am not yet ^bascended to my ^cFather: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my ^dFather, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Acts 7:55 - But he, being full of the ^aHoly Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the ^bglory of ^cGod, and ^dJesus ^estanding on the ^fright hand of God,

.....

And yet, through all these things, through all these aknowedgements that though they aren't the same spirit, he still says: I am my father are one (John 10:30).

Thus, Mormons believe in Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, which have become one god through unity in purpose. I don't think this is too different from what you believe is it not? Perhaps... is it the same even? If so were the case, Mormons might then be classified as 'Trinitarian', much to the surprise of many. However, we still choose to use the word Godhead over Trinity because it gives a better understanding than Trinity.

As you can see, the Bible definately supports Joseph's view... so what you see to be 'unbiblical'... I don't really see. Also, really, I don't see why you even worry about the Bible - didn't you say "Before I knew of anything outside of the faith tradition I was raised in.... I became a believer in Jesus Christ as my savior as the direct result of the following (through the Holy Spirit of course)". Asking the Lord is the more pure task as compared to searching in the Bible simply because you will get a more complete and pure answer, and so I ask, why did you not use the same method as before?

This is not of our making but who we choose to listen to is. So with that in mind my point is that those not Mormon are told (by Mormon leadership) that we are wrong, heretical, and not in the

[coolrok7]

You are free to talk about what you believe is important in your view (but are not an official representative of the Church) as contrasted with mine and the reasons for me bringing the issue up, which is the BCSpace/Hannah Rebekah comments. When someone incorrectly states what others actually believe they are obligated to make the necessary corrections after being informed (providing the corrections are correct).

As a Trinitarian (three

[TAO]

You are free to talk about what you believe is important in your view (but are not an official representative of the Church) as contrasted with mine and the reasons for me bringing the issue up, which is the BCSpace/Hannah Rebekah comments. When someone incorrectly states what others actually believe they are obligated to make the necessary corrections after being informed (providing the corrections are correct).

Ah, but this is where we are having problems - as you are stating what is important in your view - and classifying all Trinitarians as believing in it. This being untrue, you must decide whether you would like the discussion to be on your view, or the somewhat conflicting view of Trinitarians as a whole.

As a Trinitarian (three

[coolrok7]

Ah, but this is where we are having problems - as you are stating what is important in your view - and classifying all Trinitarians as believing in it. This being untrue, you must decide whether you would like the discussion to be on your view, or the somewhat conflicting view of Trinitarians as a whole. . . .

As the author of this thread I raised the issue this way:

This thread is a spin off of the subtitle,