mfbukowski Posted March 21, 2011 Author Posted March 21, 2011 I respect your need to do something else for a time. I'll be going out of town tomorrow for a few days and expect the thread to have spent its energy by the time I am scheduled to return. Maybe Lord willing, we'll have an opportunity to refresh some of these topics sometime after that. Anytime! Just respond and I will respond to you. You might have to PM me because for some reason, after a period of time, it seems the notifications turn off or something- I often see old replies on threads that I subscribe to but do not get a notification of the reply after a period of time- don't know why that happens!
mfbukowski Posted March 21, 2011 Author Posted March 21, 2011 I think that many LDS distrust philosophy because they see many such attempts to replace (as opposed to follow from) revelation and inspiration. LDS would generally say "we know by revelation, we understand by inspiration" meaning that true knowledge of God's Word can only come through the Spirit. This does not deny the usefulness of reason (and perhaps for completeness we should add on to the 'summary' "we study by faith and reason"), but just identifies where we should begin and end, imo.I agree incidentally and for the record. I came to the church out of philosophy, and it is part of me and I can't get rid of it no matter how hard I try. It's the way my brain works. But if my SP ever pulled me in for speaking about "the philosophies of men mingled with scripture" (which is not going to happen since he is my friend, knows me well, and know how my stupid brain works) I would pull a "McConkie" in about 5 seconds flat, and repudiate all I had ever said about it all.The principle of obedience and the humility it engenders is far more important than any ego, once you have taken upon yourself the covenants we have and that has been ratified by a personal revelation from God himself that this is the correct course for you personally. But some of us just have to think about how all this fits together- it is part of us.
mfbukowski Posted March 21, 2011 Author Posted March 21, 2011 Mr. Bowman Your original claim was that Luther rejected substance metaphysics in Eucharistic doctrine and that evangelicals are being inconsistent in following Luther in that regard while accepting substance metaphysics in the doctrine of the Trinity. You have now abandoned that claim and are engaging in a bit of mind-reading: Luther, you assure us, didn
mfbukowski Posted March 21, 2011 Author Posted March 21, 2011 Mr. Bowman Your original claim was that Luther rejected substance metaphysics in Eucharistic doctrine and that evangelicals are being inconsistent in following Luther in that regard while accepting substance metaphysics in the doctrine of the Trinity. You have now abandoned that claim and are engaging in a bit of mind-reading: Luther, you assure us, didn
Vance Posted March 21, 2011 Posted March 21, 2011 No, it stands quite on its own that three people can be one person, based on substance theory. Oh oh mfb,You are going to be accused of misrepresenting the creedals doctrine.It is "three persons" and "one being".You know, the "special pleading" for the meaning of "person" to not mean a separate individual.
Rob Bowman Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 Mr. Bukowski,At the end of your post, you wrote:I doubt there is anything substantive you can say about this frankly that is not just a waste of time.I found this statement rather amusing. Horrors! You used a form of the word "substance"! Apparently you were correct when you said concerning philosophy, "it is part of me and I can't get rid of it no matter how hard I try"!I'm sure your use of this word was, however, just an accident.What Luther found objectionable was not the concept of substance. Your own quotation from The Babylonian Captivity of the Church (to which I had referred you) makes this clear. What he found objectionable was the medieval Catholic theologians' "fine-spun philosophy of substance and accidents" according to which bread could become non-bread while still looking, smelling, feeling, and tasting exactly like bread.Luther's understanding of substance is, of course, pre-scientific. No one denies this fact. But his understanding of the sun was also pre-scientific, yet he was not mistaken in believing that the sun existed.In another thread you had tried to argue that Neoplatonism was simply a revival of Platonism. Now, caught trying to argue that the Trinity was Aristotelian after claiming it was (Neo)platonic, you attempt to extricate yourself from the discrepancy by explaining that Neioplatonism "combines Platonic issues with Aristotilean [sic] issues." Well, then, you are now admitting that Neoplatonism was not simply a revival of Platonism. And since, as I have already documented, Neoplatonism originates too late to be the source of the doctrine of the Trinity, your original claim has gone down a Southern California mudslide.You wrote:No, it stands quite on its own that three people can be one person, based on substance theory. That's good enough all on its own for me to question it.It would be for me, too, if that were true--but it isn't. Your misrepresentation of the Trinity is on record for all to see. You are criticizing something you are misrepresenting (Prov. 18:13).
mfbukowski Posted March 22, 2011 Author Posted March 22, 2011 Oh oh mfb,You are going to be accused of misrepresenting the creedals doctrine.It is "three persons" and "one being".You know, the "special pleading" for the meaning of "person" to not mean a separate individual.Oh well.I am used to being an offender for a word!
mfbukowski Posted March 22, 2011 Author Posted March 22, 2011 What Luther found objectionable was not the concept of substance. Your own quotation from The Babylonian Captivity of the Church (to which I had referred you) makes this clear. What he found objectionable was the medieval Catholic theologians' "fine-spun philosophy of substance and accidents" according to which bread could become non-bread while still looking, smelling, feeling, and tasting exactly like bread.Lol.Yes, of course the idea of bread becoming non-bread while still looking, smelling, feeling, and tasting exactly like bread is precisely a denial of the very idea of "substance".Luther's understanding of substance is, of course, pre-scientific. No one denies this fact. Please describe an understanding of substance which is NOT pre-scientific, which assumes it actually exists in a non-linguistic context. "Substantives" exist- linguistically but in a physical sense, how do you measure "substance"?But his understanding of the sun was also pre-scientific, yet he was not mistaken in believing that the sun existed.But of course he WAS mistaken that substance exists- unless of course you can show me some.In another thread you had tried to argue that Neoplatonism was simply a revival of Platonism. Now, caught trying to argue that the Trinity was Aristotelian after claiming it was (Neo)platonic, you attempt to extricate yourself from the discrepancy by explaining that Neioplatonism "combines Platonic issues with Aristotilean [sic] issues." Well, then, you are now admitting that Neoplatonism was not simply a revival of Platonism. And since, as I have already documented, Neoplatonism originates too late to be the source of the doctrine of the Trinity, your original claim has gone down a Southern California mudslide.I have already answered this. Substance is really a Platonic concept. Aristotle's treatment of universals is highly problematic. There is a reason it is not called "Neo-Aristotelianism".It would be for me, too, if that were true--but it isn't. Your misrepresentation of the Trinity is on record for all to see. You are criticizing something you are misrepresenting (Prov. 18:13).Yep, I missed the word grabbing some extra drama to emphasize how silly the argument was. It was a mistake.Somehow I think I will live it down.On the other hand, you have yet to defend any theory of substance whatsoever.
Rob Bowman Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 Mr. Bukowski,I have not even tried to defend a metaphysical concept of "substance." All I have argued is that evangelicals are not, as you allege, inconsistent when they accept the Trinity and reject Transubstantiation. Whether "substance" is still a serviceable concept to use in articulating the divine identity of the Son is another matter. Trinitarian theologians have a friendly discussion going on this and similar questions, while all remaining Trinitarian.Your line of criticism is a dead end.
mfbukowski Posted March 22, 2011 Author Posted March 22, 2011 Mr. Bukowski,I have not even tried to defend a metaphysical concept of "substance." All I have argued is that evangelicals are not, as you allege, inconsistent when they accept the Trinity and reject Transubstantiation. Whether "substance" is still a serviceable concept to use in articulating the divine identity of the Son is another matter. Trinitarian theologians have a friendly discussion going on this and similar questions, while all remaining Trinitarian.Your line of criticism is a dead end.But then of course the Nicene Creed would fall without "substance".
mfbukowski Posted March 22, 2011 Author Posted March 22, 2011 Your line of criticism is a dead end.Not at all.With this sentence:Whether "substance" is still a serviceable concept to use in articulating the divine identity of the Son is another matter.I think it is just beginning.There is no way to put 3 persons into one "Being" without somehow reverting to Platonism unless one has a concept something like the Mormon conception of the Godhead- including possibly perechoresis and/or the Social Trinity.What is the alternative? Regardless, the Nicene Creed would no longer apply.
mfbukowski Posted March 22, 2011 Author Posted March 22, 2011 A quote from Rob Bowman:http://www.google.com/search?q=bowman+trinity+debate&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a(underlining added)The debate is not whether or not God is fully comprehensible under either system of beliefs. The debate is whether or not Trinitarians have reasonably made the leap from God being one to Him being three-in-one
Rob Bowman Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 Mr. Bukowski,Somehow you think you can get away with claiming that the affirmation of three persons in one (infinite, divine) Being can be fairly represented as meaning that "three people can be one person." By this method, any doctrine can be made to look ridiculous. Fair-minded individuals, however, will see the method for what it is: caricature.
Vance Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 Oh well.I am used to being an offender for a word!I told you so.
Vance Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 (with the term person stipulated to be used with a somewhat different connotation as compared to its use for human beings).YUP!!!Special pleading."Person" doesn't mean "person" when applied to the trinity, it means something else all together. Its usage is a slight of hand trick to bamboozle the ignorant. What it really means is "personality", but one being with three personalities smacks of multiple personality disorder. Can't have that! So VIOLA !!! magic presto, special pleading logical fallacy.
Vance Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 Mr. Bukowski,Somehow you think you can get away with claiming that the affirmation of three persons in one (infinite, divine) Being can be fairly represented as meaning that "three people can be one person."Well, "somehow you think you can get away with claiming that the affirmation of three persons in one (infinite, divine) Being" is Biblical.
Rob Bowman Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 Mr. Bukowski,You wrote:Oh well.I am used to being an offender for a word!A truly bizarre comment. Your whole case against the Trinity is based on one word that offends you, and yet you want to twist things around and claim to be only an "offender for a word" if I point out that you completely misrepresented the doctrine of the Trinity.Mormons take offense if some evangelicals refuse to acknowledge them as "Christians" or if evangelicals refer to the LDS Church as a "cult"; can they defend themselves by saying that they are just being noble "offenders for a word"?
mfbukowski Posted March 22, 2011 Author Posted March 22, 2011 Mr. Bukowski,A truly bizarre comment.You know, for a guy who is so sensitive about every word I use, you sure throw around the insults a lot.Your whole case against the Trinity is based on one word that offends you, and yet you want to twist things around and claim to be only an "offender for a word" if I point out that you completely misrepresented the doctrine of the Trinity.Mormons take offense if some evangelicals refuse to acknowledge them as "Christians" or if evangelicals refer to the LDS Church as a "cult"; can they defend themselves by saying that they are just being noble "offenders for a word"?I have no problem retracting my erroneous word- "person"- and I am willing to go with the phrase you used repeatedly: "three in one".If you think that is substantially different (a linguistic concept, not a metaphysical one!) from "three persons in one person", more power to you.It is just as illogical to me, but if it makes you happy, I will be glad to use it from now on.What does all this do to the Nicene Creed in your opinion, which is based on the concept of "homoousios", if we abandon the metaphysical concept of "substance"? It seems to me that if "substance" is abandoned, the entire theoretical underpinning of the Trinity is gone, and all that is left is a traditional belief which used to work, but now does not.An analogy might be that of a rocket which loses all power to the engines. It might coast on inertia for awhile, but ultimately it has nowhere to go but down.Perhaps 3DOP's earlier view becomes more important- Christians who accept the Nicene Creed (I am using that term due to your objection on the last thread to the term "Creedal Christian") would now lack a Creed- and/or would have to accept the Trinity without theoretical underpinning as a "mystery of faith"There's nothing wrong with that as long as no one thinks about it very hard, or actually wants to make sense of it.
3DOP Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 What, exactly is "Jewish monotheism"?Hi Vance,Sorry. Let me rephrase. "The monotheism that Catholics think is taught in the Old Testament and to which Christ bore witness according to how Catholics understand Him". I just couldn't make that fit into the sentence, you know? Heh. I should have thought of a better way to put it.
Anijen Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 From transubstantiation (OP) to the trinity. IMO Christianity struggles to maintain a complex monotheistic view when most non-Christians would say that Christians definitely are not monotheistic. I would have to agree with them.
Vance Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 Hi Vance,Sorry. Let me rephrase. "The monotheism that Catholics think is taught in the Old Testament and to which Christ bore witness according to how Catholics understand Him". I just couldn't make that fit into the sentence, you know? Heh. I should have thought of a better way to put it.Ok.But you do know that "monotheism" in its current usage/definition is a rather modern invention, right?I will see if I can find a link for you. It might take me a day or so.I don't really think that it worked the way you are asserting. I think it was the Hellenization of the Christian theology that drove the creation of the doctrine of the trinity, not OT, Jewish, or (insert a term you like) "monotheism". Besides, I would think the revelation of the NT would override/supercede any OT thought/understanding on the nature of God.I am just saying.Edited to add,I am better at searching than I thought.Here is a link to the thread I had in mind.And here is the article I had in mind.http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6259597/Monotheism.pdf
mfbukowski Posted March 23, 2011 Author Posted March 23, 2011 From transubstantiation (OP) to the trinity. IMO Christianity struggles to maintain a complex monotheistic view when most non-Christians would say that Christians definitely are not monotheistic. I would have to agree with them.You just cannot have the Father and Son be one without contradiction unless they are somehow unified in a way which affirms thier personhood. Imo the only way that can be done is by understanding the concept as some sort of collective, as we do: The Godhead, unified in purpose and love, not unlike a family.You cannot have three in one. It just doesn't make sense.
Anijen Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 You just cannot have the Father and Son be one without contradiction unless they are somehow unified in a way which affirms thier personhood. Imo the only way that can be done is by understanding the concept as some sort of collective, as we do: The Godhead, unified in purpose and love, not unlike a family.You cannot have three in one. It just doesn't make sense.I agree 100%. However my non Christian friends would point out that isn't monotheism (in the literal sense).
mfbukowski Posted March 23, 2011 Author Posted March 23, 2011 I agree 100%. However my non Christian friends would point out that isn't monotheism (in the literal sense).It is what it is! Dare I say it? "Offenders for a word?" Maybe we are the only ones honest enough to fess up for what it is!
Calm Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 Maybe we are the only ones honest enough to fess up for what it is!You might want to rephrase that because I think it has some implications you don't really want to make....
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.