Amateurs...

[Rob Bowman]

mfbukowski,

I appreciate your apology for your mistaken statements about what I had said and what I supposedly knew about Neoplatonism and the Trinity. I wish you had not taken it back by your claims, in the same post, that I am "trying to avoid the central issue," that I am "blowing smoke," and that I might try to manufacture an excuse not to continue the discussion. I do not appreciate your continuing to harass me with such baseless accusations of dishonesty.

You wrote:

I am beating a dead horse, and you are blowing smoke. It is clear from your defense that you are trying to avoid the central issue, that the cornerstone of your practice of Creedal Christianity is based on the notion that three beings can be "one" being based on the notion of homoousios which is based on Platonic philosophy.

This is false for several reasons, not the least of which is that the doctrine of the Trinity denies that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three beings.

You seem to be stuck still on the word homoousios. You reason that since this word originates (indirectly) from Platonism, it means the doctrinal use of that word in the Nicene Creed is Platonic. That is simply not the case. Let me give you an example. The Greek word logos is a Greek word, of course, and in religious and cosmic contexts it denoted a cosmic principle or power of order, rationality, and coherence underlying all things. This usage was especially prominent in Stoic philosophy. The apostle John clearly alludes to this usage when he employs the term logos as a name for the preincarnate Christ (John 1:1-5, 14). Yet John was not teaching Stoicism. He was using a term that had coinage in Stoic thought to build a thought-bridge to the biblical worldview and to explicate the cosmic work of the preincarnate Christ in a way that cultured Greeks and Romans would understand. The Nicene fathers did the same kind of thing when they used the word homoousios in reference to the Father and the Son. The word seems to have originated in Gnosticism (not in Platonism), but it went through two or three semantic transformations in the third and fourth centuries and meant something quite different in the Nicene Creed than it did in its earlier usages.

You wrote:

The fact is that the prefix "neo" attached to any word means nothing more than the word "new". So "Neoplatonism" simply means "new Platonism". Pick any dictionary and you will see that I am right.

That's the whole point: Neoplatonism is not the same old Platonism that Plato himself taught, but a new form of Platonism originating from Plotinus.

You wrote:

Even your quotes which you use to prove me wrong actually have the opposite effect.

No, and your emphasis is selective. I agree that Neoplatonism was based on Platonism, drew its inspiration and philosophical direction from Platonism, and so forth. I agree with everything in the statements quoted, while you are blatantly denying what they explicitly say as to when Neoplatonism originated.

You wrote:

Perhaps the name "Plotinus" appears in your bible, but not mine.

Perhaps in YOUR history he was a church leader of some kind. I would appreciate you showing me that

Why would I try to do that, when I explicitly deny it?

You wrote:

The fact is that the notion of "three in one" originates in Platonic philosophy, as revamped by Plotinus, now called "Neoplatonism" by your own quotes.

I don't know how you could possibly maintain that the Trinity is a Biblical doctrine. It is not, using your own quotes. It was invented by Plotinus.

This is hopeless. The quotations do not say anything about the Trinity. "The One, the intelligence, and the soul" is not the doctrine of the Trinity. It is a pagan philosophical triad. It is in no sense the origin of the doctrine of the Trinity, nor is it compatible with that doctrine. Your follow-up post confirms this fact by its description of Plotinus's system as teaching that all of us are in some sense part of the divine. That is not the orthodox position at all. Furthermore, the idea of a demiurge, which your quotation also mentions, is a pagan idea roundly rejected by the Nicene theology.

According to Edward Moore, whom I quoted and with whom you professed to agree, Plotinus's system "does not permit the notion of creatio ex nihilo (creation out of nothingness)." Well then, since creatio ex nihilo is an essential part of the orthodox, creedal doctrine of the Trinity, it follows that Plotinus's system was and is incompatible with the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity.

You wrote:

You perhaps will find some excuse to discontinue this discussion.

I find snide remarks like this offensive. I have responded to you repeatedly on this and other topics. You are free to your opinion that my view is wrong, but you have no grounds for continuing to claim that I am trying to avoid answering you. Perhaps you could find some excuse to be courteous?

[mfbukowski]

This is hopeless. The quotations do not say anything about the Trinity. "The One, the intelligence, and the soul" is not the doctrine of the Trinity. It is a pagan philosophical triad. It is in no sense the origin of the doctrine of the Trinity, nor is it compatible with that doctrine. Your follow-up post confirms this fact by its description of Plotinus's system as teaching that all of us are in some sense part of the divine. That is not the orthodox position at all. Furthermore, the idea of a demiurge, which your quotation also mentions, is a pagan idea roundly rejected by the Nicene theology.

It may very well be hopeless and a waste of time.

At this point, all I think I can do is present a digest of the contemporary literature and let the reader if there actually are any, judge for themselves. I have added underlining.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trinity/trinity-history.html

Introduction

This supplementary document discusses the history of trinitarian doctrines. Although early Christian theologians speculated in many ways on the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, no one clearly and fully asserted the doctrine of the Trinity as explained at the top of the main entry until around the end of the so-called Arian Controversy. (See 3.2 below and section 3.1 of the supplementary document on unitarianism.) Nonetheless, its proponents always claim it to be in some sense founded on, or at least illustrated by, biblical texts.

Sometimes popular antitrinitarian literature paints the doctrine as strongly influenced by, or even illicitly poached from some non-Christian religious or philosophical tradition. Divine threesomes abound in the religious writings and art of ancient Europe, Egypt, and the near east, not to mention Hinduism and Mahayana Buddhism. These include various threesomes of male deities, of female deities, of Father-Mother-Son groups, or of one body with three heads, or three faces on one head (Griffiths 1996). However, similarity alone doesn't prove Christian copying or indirect influence, and many of these examples are because of their time and place less likely to have influenced the development of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.

There is, however, arguably a direct influence on early Christian theology by Platonist Jewish philosopher and theologian Philo of Alexandria (a.k.a. Philo Judaeus) (ca. 20 BCE - ca. 50 CE). Inspired by the Timaeus of Plato, Philo read various Jewish scriptures as teaching that God created the cosmos by his Word (logos) or creative power, and that he subsequently governs the cosmos through the seemingly personal agency of the Word together with that of God's royal power (Philo Works; Morgan 1853, 63-148; Norton 1859, 332-74; Wolfson 1973, 60-97).

Another striking parallel, which has been cited by friends and foes of Trinity doctrines, is found in Plotinus' (204

[John Larsen]

That the three witnesses saw with their "spiritual eyes". This is consistent with what Moses experienced in Moses 1:11.

You do know that Moses was written by Joseph Smith after the events of the witnessing of the Book of Mormon, right?

[Questing Beast]

You mean YOUR EDITORIAL?

Because you certainly didn't provide ACTUAL quotes that were "mutually exclusive".

The CFR is yet to be addressed.

Now you're just criticizing my writing ability. The content is there. I'm not rewriting it just for you....

[Rob Bowman]

mfbukowski,

You wrote:

It may very well be hopeless and a waste of time.

Perhaps we can agree there.

You wrote:

At this point, all I think I can do is present a digest of the contemporary literature and let the reader if there actually are any, judge for themselves.

That would have been a helpful thing to do, if only you had done so.

Your selective quotation concerning "social Trinitarianism" is also totally irrelevant. I have already thoroughly refuted the claim that social Trinitarianism is in any significant way akin to the Mormon theology.

I consider this discussion at an impasse.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

"I consider this discussion at an impasse."

Heavens, I hope so.

Debates about the "Trinity vs. Godhead" are the most tedious and least edifying ones I can possibly think of.

[Vance]

Now you're just criticizing my writing ability.

Nah, I am just pointing out that you haven't shown any statements that are "mutually exclusive", and therefore the CFR remains.

Your editorializing doesn't change that fact.

The content is there.

Some content is there, but no "mutually exclusive" statements. The CFR remains.

I'm not rewriting it just for you....

Of course not. And it is because you can't show any "mutually exclusive" statements. Because there aren't any.

[Vance]

I have already thoroughly refuted the claim that social Trinitarianism is in any significant way akin to the Mormon theology.

By admitting (although you refuse to admit it) that the doctrine of the trinity is indeed based upon Neo-Platonism philosophy, as I recall.

[Vance]

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God -- one eternally existent Divine Being.

Sorry, but the bolded part is NON-Biblical.

Chirp . . .

Chirp . . .

[mfbukowski]

Your selective quotation concerning "social Trinitarianism" is also totally irrelevant. I have already thoroughly refuted the claim that social Trinitarianism is in any significant way akin to the Mormon theology.

"Selective quotation"?

I guess you want to carry this on. That is evident from your comment.

There are some significant Mormon thinkers who see it as I do, including Dr. P. This could go on forever, but it is pointless.

My mission here is just to counter your nonsense in the event anyone thinks you are actually right.

[mfbukowski]

For the record, the discussion Rob is referring to can be found here in post 224

and my reply in post 226.

Further discussion can be found in 245 and 247

I think it is clear he did not "refute" Mormon usage of the Social Trinity. Because the thread is closed, it is not possible to link more directly to it, or at least that is not in my computer capability at this time.

[mfbukowski]

By admitting (although you refuse to admit it) that the doctrine of the trinity is indeed based upon Neo-Platonism philosophy, as I recall.

Yep, after re-reading it, you are right.

His argument repeatedly was essentially "Creedal Social Trinitarians believe x, you do not believe x, therefore you cannot be a Social Trinitarian".

The problem with that argument is that all he showed is that we cannot be Creedal Christians, NOT "Social Trinitarians"

In short, he conflated Social Trinitarianism with Creedal Christianity, not conceiving that one could believe only the Social Trinity part and leave behind the Creedal part.

I am not looking about similarities with Creedal Social Trinitarians, but with Social Trinitarianism.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

By admitting (although you refuse to admit it) that the doctrine of the trinity is indeed based upon Neo-Platonism philosophy, as I recall.

Congratulations on a truly incoherent statement.

[Rob Bowman]

mfbukowski,

Vance had written:

By admitting (although you refuse to admit it) that the doctrine of the trinity is indeed based upon Neo-Platonism philosophy, as I recall.

You replied to him:

Yep, after re-reading it, you are right.

It is not possible for Vance's statement to be right, because it is incoherent. Either I admitted it or I did not; Vance asserts both.

You wrote:

His argument repeatedly was essentially "Creedal Social Trinitarians believe x, you do not believe x, therefore you cannot be a Social Trinitarian".

The problem with that argument is that all he showed is that we cannot be Creedal Christians, NOT "Social Trinitarians"

In short, he conflated Social Trinitarianism with Creedal Christianity, not conceiving that one could believe only the Social Trinity part and leave behind the Creedal part.

I am not looking about similarities with Creedal Social Trinitarians, but with Social Trinitarianism.

This is truly silly. The term social trinitarianism refers to a doctrine that seeks to maintain theological continuity with and faithfulness to the historic, orthodox, "creedal" doctrine of the Trinity, while explicating this doctrine using a "social" analogy or model. If you use the term in a different sense, you are simply redefining it to suit your polemical agenda and confusing the issue.

Your argument is just as confused as if someone were to claim "that could believe only the 'Latter-day Saint' part and leave behind the 'Book of Mormon' part."

[Vance]

Vance,

You wrote:

Congratulations on a truly incoherent statement.

LOL!!!

Of course it would NEVER cross your mind that it is YOUR argument that is incoherent. Would it?

You refuted the argument, IN YOUR OWN MIND.

The rest of us saw the incoherence of your argument.

[Vance]

By admitting (although you refuse to acknowledge it) that the doctrine of the trinity is indeed based upon Neo-Platonism philosophy, as I recall.

Here, Bowman, I fixed it JUST FOR YOU.

[LeSellers]

You do know that Moses was written by Joseph Smith after the events of the witnessing of the Book of Mormon, right?

After Joseph received the book of Moses, yes, but the Harris "spiritual eyes" statement came long, long after Moses 1.

Lehi

[mfbukowski]

The term social trinitarianism refers to a doctrine that seeks to maintain theological continuity with and faithfulness to the historic, orthodox, "creedal" doctrine of the Trinity, while explicating this doctrine using a "social" analogy or model. If you use the term in a different sense, you are simply redefining it to suit your polemical agenda and confusing the issue.

Your argument is just as confused as if someone were to claim "that could believe only the 'Latter-day Saint' part and leave behind the 'Book of Mormon' part."

Not confused at all. It is you who are confused. In fact the opposite has already happened

I would be very happy if all present Creedals accepted that God consists of three persons, unified in purpose as an ideal family, and dropped the Greek nonsense of "being", "essence" and "substance".

Please note that the moment the Disciples of Christ, or the "RLDS" church accepted the Creedal Trinity, they were welcomed into the Council of Churches as a mainstream Protestant group even though they still use the Book of Mormon as a scripture.

They kept the "Book of Mormon part", changed the "Trinity" part, and were magically accepted as "Christians".

From the National Council of Churches website: http://www.ncccusa.org/witnesses2010/ga2010.nov1011.1.htm

Community of Christ

The Community of Christ, once known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, was enthusiastically recommended for membership by the Membership and Ecclesial Relations Committee.

NCC General Secretary Michael Kinnamon welcomed the church's application to membership.

"They bring gifts for this whole body," Kinnamon told the delegates. "They have experience as a church that is being marginalized and out of that comes a witness that they share to our own benefit.

I have experienced in this church the power of the Holy Spirit to transform a church in the direction of ecumenical commitment but now understands its own need to grow in love and faith to the common God we all serve."

Voting as communions and individual delegates, the church was unanimously accepted into membership.

After the vote, the Rev. Dr. Dale E. Luffman, ecumenical and interfaith officer for the church, expressed his thanks.

"We

[Questing Beast]

Surely the greater truth is infinitely more than some finite manifestation called a Trinity. Why put a limit on "God"? That is just a different kind of self-imposed limitation on imagination. Mormonism's theology and resulting cosmology is satisfied with a finite concept for "God", but an infinite concept for existence; a dichotomy of logic that I cannot embrace. But Mormonism's theology/cosmology is no different than a finite Trinity, no matter how it is explained. Both concepts are finite. "God" is not numbered....

[Rob Bowman]

mfbukowski,

In the case of the Community of Christ (not the Disciples of Christ), they kept the Book of Mormon part and left behind the Latter-day Saints part.

Your post contributes nothing to the issue of whether social Trinitarianism is "creedal" Trinitarianism. It is, by definition. As an orthodox scholar who has written a book on the Trinity, I think I can say I know what I'm talking about here.

One more thing -- a little pet peeve of mine. You referred to orthodox Christians as "Creedals." No one calls himself a Creedal. It is not a recognized or standard term used in any context as a term of identification (it is simply an adjective). Please stop misusing the word.

[mfbukowski]

mfbukowski,

In the case of the Community of Christ (not the Disciples of Christ), they kept the Book of Mormon part and left behind the Latter-day Saints part.

Your post contributes nothing to the issue of whether social Trinitarianism is "creedal" Trinitarianism. It is, by definition. As an orthodox scholar who has written a book on the Trinity, I think I can say I know what I'm talking about here.

One more thing -- a little pet peeve of mine. You referred to orthodox Christians as "Creedals." No one calls himself a Creedal. It is not a recognized or standard term used in any context as a term of identification (it is simply an adjective). Please stop misusing the word.

Any argument which says "it is, by definition, _________" is absurd when you are disputing definitions. You say it is, I say it isn't.

Using yourself in an argument from authority is also a horrible argument. It is clear you know nothing whatsoever about contemporary philosophy, which is the issue here. I quoted extensively from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, backing my position. It is an impartial source- that is why I chose it.

Social Trinitarianism is a philosophical position and a way of describing the unity of the trinity. It is not a religion. "Oh- what denomination are you? Oh, I'm a Social Trinitarian."

I don't think so.

I don't accept arguments from authority from anyone, much less an anti-Mormon who makes his living attacking my church.

We LDS often use the term "Creedal Christians" and I shall continue to do so.

You are in a desperate position when you say you are right "by definition".

[Calm]

One more thing -- a little pet peeve of mine. You referred to orthodox Christians as "Creedals." No one calls himself a Creedal. It is not a recognized or standard term used in any context as a term of identification (it is simply an adjective). Please stop misusing the word.

Yet for some Christians, their understanding of the term "Christian" brings with it certain theological arguments and a historical framework that doesn't fit within the doctrinal system of the restored gospel in these latter days. For them the term "Christian" is often a reference to the more narrow term "creedal Christian" -- adherence to a set of creeds formulated centuries after biblical writings, which are not themselves canonical. This term includes subscribing to specific beliefs and practices, together with the Christian ethical system that changed the world. It may well mean accepting the inerrancy of the Bible. It leaves little or no room for new revelation beyond what they regard as orthodoxy.

http://newsroom.lds.org/blog/are-mormons-christian

Evangelical writer David French wrote:

[Vance]

One more thing -- a little pet peeve of mine. You referred to orthodox Christians as "Creedals." No one calls himself a Creedal. It is not a recognized or standard term used in any context as a term of identification (it is simply an adjective). Please stop misusing the word.

I am dying with laughter.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/27/focus-on-the-family-voter_n_83464.html

"Jan 27, 2008 ... Mitt is not a Creedal Christian."

http://www.faithfulnews.com/contents/view_content2/27097

"Creedal Christian"

http://anglicanrss.com/

"Creedal Christian

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

I am dying with laughter.

Perhaps you should have that treated.

You then went on to give examples of people using the expression "creedal Christians." I did not object to that expression. I objected to calling people "Creedals."

[Vance]

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God -- one eternally existent Divine Being.

Sorry, but the bolded part is NON-Biblical.

Chirp . . .

Chirp . . .

Shall we assume that there just isn't ANY Biblical verse to support that statement.

(Is Sola Scriptura thrown under the Trinity bus?)