An Inconsistency in Evangelical Doctrine?

[mfbukowski]

Doing this from my phone. It will be Wed. before I can respond.

@Bukowski

I dunno....

"Love is Plasma" would make a great tshirt logo for a Physics club...at least

Jk

C yall tomorrow.

Mudcat

Yeah but we would need a good symbol for plasma to go with.... maybe a heart? Like <3 = plasma? Hmmmmm- lightning is plasma...

How about

<3=ZZ ??

Totally perfectly esoteric, and adequately nerdy!!

See you soon!

[3DOP]

mfbukowski

I believe none of those things, including the idea that love is plasma. I didn't want to answer this, but I feel that you were misrepresenting my views, and if I did not answer I would be allowing the misrepresentation to stand.

What I did say is that perhaps the spirit somehow is material in a similar way that plasma is matter as a gas, and then under certain conditions changes its state of matter into a different state of matter which is neither liquid, solid nor gas. That was of course total speculation- we have no idea how the spirit is material.

I certainly said nothing even remotely like "love is plasma".

3DOP

Upon a brief review of the subject matter under discussion, it is clear that you are correct regarding my misrepresentation of what you had speculated about plasma. I am sorry for having provoked you to a reply that was repugnant to you, and ask your forgiveness.

[mfbukowski]

3DOP

Upon a brief review of the subject matter under discussion, it is clear that you are correct regarding my misrepresentation of what you had speculated about plasma. I am sorry for having provoked you to a reply that was repugnant to you, and ask your forgiveness.

Absolutely no problem at all!

The only reason I responded was that I did not want to leave the impression that your characterization of what I said was accurate!

[Mudcat]

Dang, that's a really great criticism, and the first time I have heard it! I probably would have been nastier about it myself and said something like: "'Spirit matter'?? What does that give you- it is virtually the same as 'substance' and you can't explain either one!". I was looking for a genuinely good criticism on this thread and I think this is the first one! Notice the OP ends in a question mark, and this really goes to the heart of that question mark.

Bukowski,

Glad your appreciative of the criticism, though I am dubious to the notion of you being nastier.

Sorry for the delay. I am still working on a response related to the side road the thread has taken. It's a fascinating subject and I do want to follow through with that part. But for the moment I will confine my remarks to your referral to the OP in this next statement.

Though I think you are certainly partially right on the fact that we cannot explain "spirit matter"- I think you are wrong to find it "inconsistent" with the rest of our theology. I think it is perfectly consistent, and as you recall from the whole previous thread, my criticism of the Evangelical view is that it seemed inconsistent to me, whereas the Catholic view, though I disagreed with it, WAS consistent. Again I think it is clear that we are closer to Catholicism on this than we are to Evangelicals, which will I am sure will be fine with the Evangelicals.

As to your perception of Evangelical inconsistency. I wanted to touch on a thing that I am uncertain has been mentioned on the thread.

Primarily your OP pits Luther against himself and IMO does a fair job of it. Luther's rationale seemed inconsistent, to hold a view for the reasons Luther may have held it would seem equally inconsistent... if that is all there was to it. I think I said about all I wanted to on that particular notion much earlier on in the thread.

However, in regards to Eucharistic theology most Evangelicals actually don't embrace Luther's particular view. Rather their thinking is more in line with that of that espoused by John Calvin or Zwingli. In many ways Calvin has been considered a bit of a disciple of Luther's. They agreed about a lot, but on the notion of the Eucharist they had differing views.

Here is a link to Calvin's take.

Calvin specifically refutes consubstantiation as well as transubstantiation. Reformed churches would certainly be more in line with Calvin than Luther on the view... and that is quite a lot of Evangelicals there.

Baptist being the most predominant Evangelical group hold more along the lines of Zwingli and the concept of memorialism.

I guess my point is that the majority of Evangelicals don't hold a view of the Eucharist in the same way that Luther did with his view of consubstantiation. It makes your statement about Evangelical inconsistency a bit broad stroked since you seem to be applying a Lutheran view to the all Evangelicals. Don't you think?

I will follow up on the rest of your post a bit later.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

[mfbukowski]

Bukowski,

Glad your appreciative of the criticism, though I am dubious to the notion of you being nastier.

Sorry for the delay. I am still working on a response related to the side road the thread has taken. It's a fascinating subject and I do want to follow through with that part. But for the moment I will confine my remarks to your referral to the OP in this next statement.

As to your perception of Evangelical inconsistency. I wanted to touch on a thing that I am uncertain has been mentioned on the thread.

Primarily your OP pits Luther against himself and IMO does a fair job of it. Luther's rationale seemed inconsistent, to hold a view for the reasons Luther may have held it would seem equally inconsistent... if that is all there was to it. I think I said about all I wanted to on that particular notion much earlier on in the thread.

However, in regards to Eucharistic theology most Evangelicals actually don't embrace Luther's particular view. Rather their thinking is more in line with that of that espoused by John Calvin or Zwingli. In many ways Calvin has been considered a bit of a disciple of Luther's. They agreed about a lot, but on the notion of the Eucharist they had differing views.

Here is a link to Calvin's take.

Calvin specifically refutes consubstantiation as well as transubstantiation. Reformed churches would certainly be more in line with Calvin than Luther on the view... and that is quite a lot of Evangelicals there.

Baptist being the most predominant Evangelical group hold more along the lines of Zwingli and the concept of memorialism.

I guess my point is that the majority of Evangelicals don't hold a view of the Eucharist in the same way that Luther did with his view of consubstantiation. It makes your statement about Evangelical inconsistency a bit broad stroked since you seem to be applying a Lutheran view to the all Evangelicals. Don't you think?

I will follow up on the rest of your post a bit later.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

I will confess right now to the fact that I know NOTHING about Protestant theology, but of course that will not prevent me from shooting off my mouth on the subject.

Having done no study whatsoever on Calvin or Zwingli at this moment, let me just say that I cannot for the life of me figure out how one could refute ANY theory accepting a Platonic (Yes, Bowman- I said it- because on this Aristotle was a Platonist,- something you don't understand) idea like "substance" and still accepting the Nicene view of the Trinity.

But thanks for the links.

I will do my best to read up on it and come back with my pre-conceived opinion completely justified in my mind.

Seriously, I will do my best to be objective. I will never convince anyone if I am not, at least a little bit!

[Mudcat]

Mudcat,Here is the problem I have. I can't find the word (or concept of) "immaterial" in scripture. The ONLY way you can get there is to read it INTO the text.Take the word "substance", it both expresses and implies materialism.Take the word "essence", it both expresses and implies materialism.We live in a material world and our language revolves around or is based upon materialism.

Bold mine Vance. I might have said it a bit differently, not everyone in the world is adheres to materialism, your truly in example. But I think your general sentiment is correct. Our language is designed with terms that reflect the conditions in which we live those conditions are grounded in physical world, made up of physical stuff. I don't suppose our language could be otherwise.

This does present a linguistic challenge, but not an insurmountable one.

The only way to get to "immaterial" is to add the prefix "im", so even "immaterial" is based on our material language.

Certainly you are correct. I see no sense denying that. Of course we have words that address negatives without prefixes. Like "empty, void, bare" but even so the implication of the terms is that something is missing... and if "something" is missing well that is an material inference to.I will quit jabbering on that for that moment and try to address your main complaint. Which seems to be that God should declare he is immaterial if he is immaterial. I certainly agree that we see no specific statement to that effect in Scripture to that effect.

Yet, a lot of Christians tend to believe there is an implicit claim, that is fairly apparent. I'll give you my brief thoughts on the matter (punny huh.) Or perhaps the Scriptural framework, for the notion.

From the NASBJohn 4:24"God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth." So there is a precedent that God is spirit and we also are spiritual beings, for we are capable of worshiping him in spirit.

But I don't think there is a precedent that spirit is material. In fact, Christ affirms something quite different.Luke 24:39 "See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have."

There are verses like Colossians 1:15 and others which also point to God being invisible... I suppose there is another "in/im" prefix for you. But you can actually find that one in the Bible.

Given this fact, then for God to reveal Himself as "immaterial" would, in my opinion, require Him to specifically declare Himself to be "immaterial". This I can't find in scripture.

I don't know that I agree with you here. You are just offering an argument from silence.

Okay(Besides, doesn't "sola scriptura" require you to reject anything not specifically declared in scripture?)

I probably fall under the category of Prima Scriptura, but the short answers is no.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

[Vance]

Bold mine Vance. I might have said it a bit differently, not everyone in the world is adheres to materialism, your truly in example. But I think your general sentiment is correct. Our language is designed with terms that reflect the conditions in which we live those conditions are grounded in physical world, made up of physical stuff. I don't suppose our language could be otherwise.

Ok, I think we understand each other.

This does present a linguistic challenge, but not an insurmountable one.

Certainly you are correct. I see no sense denying that. Of course we have words that address negatives without prefixes. Like "empty, void, bare" but even so the implication of the terms is that something is missing... and if "something" is missing well that is an material inference to.

Ok, BUT (admit it, you knew a "but" was coming),

even an "empty" basket isn't empty, even a "bare" shelf isn't empty. Both have that non-visible material called air. Even "void", expresses something is missing, not necessarily that EVERY thing is missing.

We are even finding that the "emptiness" of space isn't really "empty", lots of Electromagnetic radiation passing through.

Now, I will quit jabbering and get to your main point.

I will quit jabbering on that for that moment and try to address your main complaint. Which seems to be that God should declare he is immaterial if he is immaterial. I certainly agree that we see no specific statement to that effect in Scripture to that effect.

Ok, thanks for validating my own findings.

Yet, a lot of Christians tend to believe there is an implicit claim, that is fairly apparent. I'll give you my brief thoughts on the matter (punny huh.) Or perhaps the Scriptural framework, for the notion.

From the NASBJohn 4:24"God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth." So there is a precedent that God is spirit and we also are spiritual beings, for we are capable of worshiping him in spirit.

Sorry, BUT (there is that word again),

to see this verse as an "implicit" claim is to read into it something that isn't there. Even IF God was only a spirit (as many believe), this verse can't be used to show "immateriality" without a PREsumption that "spirit" means "immaterial".

But I don't think there is a precedent that spirit is material.

Well, that concept certainly isn't expressed. But there is evidence.

In fact, Christ affirms something quite different.Luke 24:39 "See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have."

Again, the PREsumption that not having "flesh and bones" means immaterial. Just because a spirit (only) is "empty", "void", "bare" of "flesh and bones" only means that it is without "flesh and bones" not that it is without matter/material.

There are verses like Colossians 1:15 and others which also point to God being invisible... I suppose there is another "in/im" prefix for you. But you can actually find that one in the Bible.

I will refer you to the oldest dictionary of which I am aware.

http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,invisible

INVIS'IBLE, a. s as z. [L. invisibilis; in and visibilis, viso, to see.] That cannot be seen; imperceptible by the sight. Millions of stars, invisible to the naked eye, may be seen by the telescope.

He endured, as seeing him who is invisible. Heb.11.

I have heard the phrase "term slippage" on this board recently. Meaning that the original meaning of the word has shifted over time to mean something different.

"invisible" in 1828 meant that you didn't see it under normal circumstances, not that it was impossible to be seen.

Air is "invisible", does that make it "immaterial"? Your breath is "invisible" (most of the time) does that make it "immaterial".

Pure steam (the superheated kind) is "invisible", does that make it "immaterial"? Radio waves are invisible, does that make them "immaterial". Sound waves are "invisible" does that make them "immaterial".

I don't know that I agree with you here. You are just offering an argument from silence.

It isn't quite "silence".

In John 3:8 (in the Greek) the same word for "wind" is used for "spirit", so how can that imply "immaterial". This is just one example.

I probably fall under the category of Prima Scriptura, but the short answers is no.

Ok, that is more consistent. But still, I don't see "immateriality" of God in the scriptures without making the presumption and reading it into them.

[mfbukowski]

Bukowski,

Glad your appreciative of the criticism, though I am dubious to the notion of you being nastier.

Sorry for the delay. I am still working on a response related to the side road the thread has taken. It's a fascinating subject and I do want to follow through with that part. But for the moment I will confine my remarks to your referral to the OP in this next statement.

As to your perception of Evangelical inconsistency. I wanted to touch on a thing that I am uncertain has been mentioned on the thread.

Primarily your OP pits Luther against himself and IMO does a fair job of it. Luther's rationale seemed inconsistent, to hold a view for the reasons Luther may have held it would seem equally inconsistent... if that is all there was to it. I think I said about all I wanted to on that particular notion much earlier on in the thread.

However, in regards to Eucharistic theology most Evangelicals actually don't embrace Luther's particular view. Rather their thinking is more in line with that of that espoused by John Calvin or Zwingli. In many ways Calvin has been considered a bit of a disciple of Luther's. They agreed about a lot, but on the notion of the Eucharist they had differing views.

Here is a link to Calvin's take.

Calvin specifically refutes consubstantiation as well as transubstantiation. Reformed churches would certainly be more in line with Calvin than Luther on the view... and that is quite a lot of Evangelicals there.

Baptist being the most predominant Evangelical group hold more along the lines of Zwingli and the concept of memorialism.

I guess my point is that the majority of Evangelicals don't hold a view of the Eucharist in the same way that Luther did with his view of consubstantiation. It makes your statement about Evangelical inconsistency a bit broad stroked since you seem to be applying a Lutheran view to the all Evangelicals. Don't you think?

I will follow up on the rest of your post a bit later.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

OK well I have done a little reading, but this is said to be Calvin's definitive statement on the subject, click on the link and navigate to Book 1 section 16

(Distinctions and unity of the three Persons, 16-20)

16. Oneness

But as God has manifested himself more clearly by the advent of Christ, so he has made himself more familiarly known in three persons. Of many proofs let this one suffice. Paul connects together these three, God, Faith, and Baptism (Eph. 4:5), and reasons from the one to the other, viz., because there is one faith he infers that there is one God; and because there is one baptism he infers that there is one faith. Therefore, if by baptism we are initiated into the faith and worship of one God, we must of necessity believe that he into whose name we are baptised is the true God. And there cannot be a doubt that our Saviour wished to testify, by a solemn rehearsal, that the perfect light of faith is now exhibited, when he said, "Go and teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," (Matth. 28: 19,) since this is the same thing as to be baptised into the name of the one God, who has been fully manifested in the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. Hence it plainly appears, that the three persons, in whom alone God is known, subsist in the Divine essence.

And since faith certainly ought not to look hither and thither, or run up and down after various objects, but to look, refer, and cleave to God alone, it is obvious that were there various kinds of faith, there behaved also to be various gods. Then, as the baptism of faith is a sacrament, its unity assures us of the unity of God. Hence also it is proved that it is lawful only to be baptised into one God, because we make a profession of faith in him in whose name we are baptised. What, then, is our Saviour's meaning in commanding baptism to be administered in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, if it be not that we are to believe with one faith inthe name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit? But is this any thing else than to declare that the Father, Son, and Spirit, are one God? Wherefore, since it must be held certain that there is one God, not more than one, we conclude that the Word and Spirit are of the very essence of God. Nothing could be more stupid than the trifling of the Arians, who, while acknowledging the divinity of the Son, denied his divine essence. Equally extravagant were the ravings of the Macedonians, who insisted that by the Spirit were only meant the gifts of grace poured out upon men. For as wisdom understanding, prudence, fortitude, and the fear of the Lord, proceed from the Spirit, so he is the one Spirit of wisdom, prudence, fortitude, and piety (cf. Isaiah 11:2). He is not divided according to the distribution of his gifts, but, as the Apostle assures us, (1 Cor.12: 11,) however they be divided, he remains one and the same.

17. Threeness

On the other hand, the Scriptures demonstrate that there is some distinction between the Father and the Word, the Word and the Spirit; but the magnitude of the mystery reminds us of the great reverence and soberness which ought to he employed in discussing it. It seems to me, that nothing can be more admirable than the words of Gregory Nanzianzen:

"Ou ftano to ei noesai, kai tois trisiperilampomai; ou ftavo ta tria dielein kai eis to hen anaferomai",(Greg. Nanzian. in Serm. de Sacro Baptis.) "I cannot think of the unity without being irradiated by the Trinity: I cannot distinguish between the Trinity without being carried up to the unity. "

Therefore, let us beware of imagining such a Trinity of persons as will distract our thoughts, instead of bringing them instantly back to the unity. The words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, certainly indicate a real distinction, not allowing us to suppose that they are merely epithets by which God is variously designated from his works. Still they indicate distinction only, not division. The passages we have already quoted show that the Son has a distinct subsistence from the Father, because the Word could not have been with God unless he were distinct from the Father; nor but for this could he have had his glory with the Father. In like manner, Christ distinguishes the Father from himself when he says that there is another who bears witness of him, (John 5: 32; 8: 16.) To the same effect is it elsewhere said, that the Father made all things by the Word. This could not be, if he were not in some respect distinct from him. Besides, it was not the Father that descended to the earth, but he who came forth from the Father; nor was it the Father that died and rose again, but he whom the Father had sent. This distinction did not take its beginning at the incarnation: for it is clear that the only begotten Son previously existed in the bosom of the Father, (John 1: 18.) For who will dare to affirm that the Son entered his Father's bosom for the first time, when he came down from heaven to assume human nature? Therefore, he was previously in the bosom of the Father, and had his glory with the Father. Christ intimates the distinction between the Holy Spirit and the Father, when he says that the Spirit proceedeth from the Father, and between the Holy Spirit and himself, when he speaks of him as another as he does when he declares that he will send another Comforter; and in many other passages besides, (John 14:6; 15:26; 14:16.)

18. Difference of Father, Son, and Spirit

I am not sure whether it is expedient to borrow analogies from human affairs to express the nature of this distinction. The ancient fathers sometimes do so, but they at the same time admits that what they bring forward as analogous is very widely different. And hence it is that I have a great dread of any thing like presumption here, lest some rash saying may furnish an occasion of calumny to the malicious, or of delusion to the unlearned. It were unbecoming, however, to say nothing of a distinction which we observe that the Scriptures have pointed out. This distinction is, that to the Father is attributed the beginning of action, the fountain and source of all things; to the Son, wisdom, counsel, and arrangement in action, while the energy and efficacy of action is assigned to the Spirit. Moreover, though the eternity of the Father is also the eternity of the Son and Spirit, since God never could be without his own wisdom and energy; and though in eternity there canbe no room for first or last, still the distinction of order is not unmeaning or superfluous, the Father being considered first, next the Son from him, and then the Spirit from both. For the mind of every man naturally inclines to consider, first, God, secondly, the wisdom emerging from him, and, lastly, the energy by which he executes the purposes of his counsel. For this reason, the Son is said to be of the Father only; the Spirit of both the Father and the Son. This is done in many passages, but in none more clearly than in the eighth chapter to the Romans, where the same Spirit is called indiscriminately the Spirit of Christ, and the Spirit of him who raised up Christ from the dead. And not improperly. For Peter also testifies (2 Pet. 1:21, cf. 1 Peter 1:11) that it was the Spirit of Christ which inspired the prophets, though the Scriptures so often say that it was the Spirit of God the Father.

19. The relationship of Father, Son, and Spirit

Moreover, this distinction is so far from interfering with the most perfect unity of God, that the Son may thereby be proved to be one God with the Father, inasmuch as he constitutes one Spirit with him, and that the Spirit is not different from the Father and the Son, inasmuch as he is the Spirit of the Father and the Son. In each hypostasis the whole nature is understood the only difference being that each has his own peculiar subsistence. The whole Father is in the Son, and the whole Son in the Father, as the Son himself also declares, (John 14: 10,) "I am in the Father, and the Father in me;" nor do ecclesiastical writers admit that the one is separated from the other by any difference of essence. "By those names which denote distinctions" says Augustine "is meant the relation which they mutually bear to each other, not the very substance by which they are one." In this way, the sentiments of the Fathers, which might sometimes appear to be at variance with each other, are to be reconciled. At one time they teach that the Father is the beginning of the Son, at another they assert that the Son has both divinity and essence from himself, and therefore is one beginning with the Father. The cause of this discrepancy is well and clearly explained by Augustine, when he says, "Christ, as to himself, is called God, as to the Father he is called Son." And again, "The Father, as to himself, is called God, as to the Son he is called Father. He who, as to the Son, is called Father, is not Son; and he who, as to himself, is called Father, and he who, as to himself, is called Son, is the same God." Therefore, when we speak of the Son simply, without reference to the Father, we truly and properly affirm that he is of himself, and, accordingly, call him the only beginning; but when we denote the relation which he bears to the Father, we correctly make the Father the beginning of the Son. Augustine's fifth book On the Trinity is wholly devoted to the explanation of this subject. But it is far safer to rest contented with the relation as taught by him, than get bewildered in vain speculation by subtle prying into a sublime mystery.

20. The triune God

Let those, then, who love soberness, and are contented with the measure of faith, briefly receive what is useful to be known. It is as follows: - When we profess to believe in one God, by the name God is understood the one simple essence, comprehending three persons or hypostases; and, accordingly, whenever the name of God is used indefinitely, the Son and Spirit, not less than the Father, is meant. But when the Son is joined with the Father, relation comes into view, and so we distinguish between the Persons. But as the Personal subsistence carry an order with them, the principle and origin being in the Father, whenever mention is made of the Father and Son, or of the Father and Spirit together, the name of God is specially given to the Father. In this way the unity of essence is retained, and respect is had to the order, which, however derogates in no respect from the divinity of the Son and Spirit. And surely since we have already seen how the apostles declare the Son of God to have been He whom Moses and the prophets declared to be Jehovah, we must always arrive at a unity of essence. We, therefore, hold it detestable blasphemy to call the Son a different God from the Father, because the simple name God admits not of relation, nor can God, considered in himself, be said to be this or that.

Then, that the name Jehovah, taken indefinitely, may be applied to Christ, is clear from the words of Paul, "For this thing I besought the Lord thrice." After giving the answer, "My grace is sufficient for thee, "he subjoins, "that the power of Christ may rest upon me," (2 Cor.12:8,9.) For it is certain that the name of Lord (Kuriou) is there put for Jehovah, and, therefore, to restrict it to the person of the Mediator were puerile and frivolous, the words being used absolutely, and not with the view of comparing the Father and the Son. And we know that, in accordance with the received usage of the Greeks, the apostles uniformly substitute the word Kurios for Jehovah. Not to go far for an example, Paul besought the Lord in the same sense in which Peter quotes the passage of Joel, "Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved," (Acts 2:21; Joel 2:32.) Where this name is specially applied to the Son, there is a different ground for it, as will be seen in its own place; at present it is sufficient to remember, that Paul, after praying to God absolutely, immediately subjoins the name of Christ. Thus, too, the Spirit is called God absolutely by Christ himself (John 4:24). For nothing prevents us from holding that he is the entire spiritual essence of God, in which are comprehended Father, Son, and Spirit. This is plain from Scripture. For as God is there called a Spirit, so the Holy Spirit also, in so far as he is a hypostasis of the whole essence, is said to be both of God and from God.

There is no question in my mind that Calvin is far more sophisticated a thinker on this subject than Luther, and he makes a darn good argument in my opinion.

The notion that Father Son and Holy Spirit are simply different "names" for One God just makes sense to me- and it uses a kind of contextualist approach which I think anticipates Wittgenstein's understanding of language, and in a very real way makes the kind of argument an analytical philosopher of today might make. Good stuff!

But by using the word "essence" as he does, it is not clear to me that he makes a complete break with Greek philosophy and the idea of "substance/essence/being" not because he uses the word, but I think it is clear that he feels forced into its use precisely so that he can still appear "politically correct".

So it seems to me that he feels pressure to be "politically correct" for his times to on one hand throw out the idea of "essence" and yet he has to find a way to make that concept work with more acceptable doctrine.

And on the other hand, he repudiated the Nicene Creed for the "God from God" wording- so I am still working on that.

How he was able to do that and still be called a "Christian" is problematic in the extreme imo.

But overall, I think that he IS consistent in the way he condemns transubstantiation and yet holds to his specially defined notion of "essence"

Maybe he is fudging a little, but not to the point of being inconsistent.

Hey, like I said, that's why the OP ends in a question mark- I really wanted to know! So imo were I an EV I would not take the Lutheran position on this issue, but the Calvinist instead. But Calvin repudiated the Nicene Creed, so we have a major problem there.

I still think it is a centrally flawed understanding- but my I think it is ultimately consistent. I much prefer a Social Trinitarian interpretation of three separate persons being "one" in purpose and love.

When I get some time I want to look at Zwingli and finish up on Calvin

[Mudcat]

There is no question in my mind that Calvin is far more sophisticated a thinker on this subject than Luther, and he makes a darn good argument in my opinion.

Well he is certainly more prolific than Luther and he seems to strive for more continuity in his theology. I disagree with him on a number of things.. but that is more of an Armenian vs. Calvinism issue. Interestingly, it's arguable that Calvin himself wasn't a 5 point Calvinist.

But by using the word "essence" as he does, it is not clear to me that he makes a complete break with Greek philosophy and the idea of "substance/essence/being" not because he uses the word, but I think it is clear that he feels forced into its use precisely so that he can still appear "politically correct".

I think anyone discussing it from a Trinitarian view has to be inclined to call it something "essence" may have been PC.. who knows really. But if you had stuck "nature" or some other relative term in it's place I think the conveyance of meaning wouldn't have changed in any significant manner.

And on the other hand, he repudiated the Nicene Creed for the "God from God" wording- so I am still working on that.

How he was able to do that and still be called a "Christian" is problematic in the extreme imo.

Bold mine, I almost fell out my chair laughing when I read this. Given the context of your own position in contrast to Calvin's on the Trinity. Just struck me as funny.

However, I think given the times, the majority view would have discounted Calvin as a "Christian" at all if you consider the RCC's position at the time.

But overall, I think that he IS consistent in the way he condemns transubstantiation and yet holds to his specially defined notion of "essence"

Maybe he is fudging a little, but not to the point of being inconsistent.

Hey, like I said, that's why the OP ends in a question mark- I really wanted to know! So imo were I an EV I would not take the Lutheran position on this issue, but the Calvinist instead. But Calvin repudiated the Nicene Creed, so we have a major problem there.

Calvin was extremely consistent with his theology. The man was solid on the whole shooting match. I don't agree with many aspects of his theology, however I willingly admit that if you buy into it... Well it's bullet proof in many respects.

I still think it is a centrally flawed understanding- but my I think it is ultimately consistent. I much prefer a Social Trinitarian interpretation of three separate persons being "one" in purpose and love.

When I get some time I want to look at Zwingli and finish up on Calvin

I think you will find Zwingli more in line with the RCC and Luther on the Trinity.

My point was that the OP was tying the Trinity and sacramental type ordinances together..via Luther... when most EV's don't actually have that perspective on the issue. Simply put, there are a number of EV views on what the sharing of sacramental or ordinance related stuff actually means. So taking a minority EV view and relating it to all is a bit of a misnomer.

edited out my closing "soap box" rant.

I was feeling a bit snippy about the topic last night Bukowski.

My sincerest apologies MFB. My comments were certainly undeserving.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

[mfbukowski]

My point was that the OP was tying the Trinity and sacramental type ordinances together..via Luther... when most EV's don't actually have that perspective on the issue. Simply put, there are a number of EV views on what the sharing of sacramental or ordinance related stuff actually means. So taking a minority EV view and relating it to all is a bit of a misnomer.

Well if the truth be told what I am questioning in this whole thread is really the consistency of the Protestant position on these issues; on one hand we are not "Christian" because we don't adhere to the Nicene Creed, but it appears that many many protestants don't either- there is no consistent view of the Trinity that I have seen yet. It seems that there is little actual agreement on what constitutes Christianity, but what IS agreed on, is that whatever it is, Mormons ain't it!

"One faith, one baptism" is nowhere to be found. I guess most just pick and choose and have no real consistent theology. If there is nothing which defines "Christianity" then why are we not termed "Christians"?

It's not clear in my mind, in terms of what we call the "Great Apostasy", how much Catholicism is OK with EV's in general. Where did Catholics go wrong in the EV collective mind? For Calvin it was apparently with whoever first defined "transubstantiation", and he also rejects the Nicene Creed.

So does he want to roll the clock back to the First Century? How is that different than "restoration" movements, and why is not therefore a "restorationist"?

Maybe that is for still another thread.

This is really more of a bump than anything- I will get back with something more substantive soon.

I really do not want to attack anyone personally any more than you do, but if there are no consistent answers to the exact nature of allegedly "Christian" beliefs, I think they are ultimately in a much move vulnerable position in having their beliefs questions than we will ever be, but no one has done it.

I would never start an anti- Protestant website, but I think it is appropriate to question and try to find consistency in belief for the purpose of better understanding if nothing else. I don't think Protestants have ever experienced that, except from atheists perhaps, or maybe I am just not well informed in these matters. Catholics won't do it, and Mormons won't do it.

[Mudcat]

Well if the truth be told what I am questioning in this whole thread is really the consistency of the Protestant position on these issues; on one hand we are not "Christian" because we don't adhere to the Nicene Creed, but it appears that many many protestants don't either- there is no consistent view of the Trinity that I have seen yet. It seems that there is little actual agreement on what constitutes Christianity, but what IS agreed on, is that whatever it is, Mormons ain't it!

"One faith, one baptism" is nowhere to be found. I guess most just pick and choose and have no real consistent theology. If there is nothing which defines "Christianity" then why are we not termed "Christians"?

I think if you are looking for doctrinal consistency, then the "Protestant position" isn't the best place to look. I don't mean that as a pejorative against Protestants in any sense. Just simply saying there really isn't a doctrinal view that is distinctly Protestant. Unlike Catholics and LDS who, for the most part, unite under group specific doctrinal stuff. "Protestant" is a fairly broad based grouping of different Christian sects that left the Catholic Church during the Reformation. I don't want to say that these groups have nothing in common. IMO, they have quite a bit in common but not enough to say that they are doctrinally consistent with each other. If that were the case, there would only be one Protestant denomination.

Some of them believe in infant baptism, some don't baptize by immersion, some are Armenian some Calvinistic and so on. The primary element that seems consistent among them all is their approach to authority. I think all of them felt the authority of God's Church had been a bit hijacked by men through... Papal authority, Catholic Councils and so forth. These Reformers felt the authority of God's church rested upon the Holy Spirit that wrought upon the hearts of Christ believers and in the teachings and directives that were in God's inspired words of Scripture. I certainly feel similarly.

Bold mine. I think there is quite a bit more to the issue than LDS acceptance of the Nicene Creed. It's actually tertiary IMO.

As I see it, it has more to do with what LDS do believe rather than what they don't. At one point, I fell squarely in the camp of a Christian who though that JS had led a bunch of people straight to hell, many of my nearest and dearest included. Though I no longer hold that belief. I quite understand the "why" that lies behind it and it hasn't got very much to do with the Trinity.

The reason I say so, is that even though many Pentecostals are modalists, most EV's are acceptable to them simply being a Charismatic sort of Christian, because they do share a common view on where authority lies. I don't doubt that even though Catholics accept the Trinity, there are more EV's who would discount their status as Christian than they would a non-Trinitarian like a "Oneness" Pentecostal.

If you wanted to start a thread and get the full scoop. "Why don't EV's think LDS are Christians?" would be a good title.

It's not clear in my mind, in terms of what we call the "Great Apostasy", how much Catholicism is OK with EV's in general. Where did Catholics go wrong in the EV collective mind? For Calvin it was apparently with whoever first defined "transubstantiation", and he

also rejects the Nicene Creed.

I think over the last 4 or 500 years, the air is finally beginning to clear between EV's and Catholics as a whole. There is still a lack of ecumenism by many. Lots of EV's think Catholics are going to bust Hell wide open. Though I don't agree with the hard liners and I am happy to say that it seems many of the hard liners are coming to a different understanding on the matter.

As to where the Catholics went wrong, at least in my opinion, it started with this notion that Peter needed to have a successor and to what ends that particular course has run.

So does he want to roll the clock back to the First Century? How is that different than "restoration" movements, and why is not therefore a "restorationist"?

I think most of the restorationists came a bit later. I would count JS as one, though there were others. I am no expert on the matter Bukowski. My opinion is that the Reformers wanted to place the authority of the Church back into it's proper hands.. that being God's inspired word and the Holy Spirit through Christ. The Restorationists seemed to agree with a Catholic position, in that there needs to be a man in charge of it all down here and they just disagreed that the Catholics had the right man to do the job.

Maybe that is for still another thread.

It would be a very short one I think.. but go for it.

I really do not want to attack anyone personally any more than you do, but if there are no consistent answers to the exact nature of allegedly "Christian" beliefs, I think they are ultimately in a much move vulnerable position in having their beliefs questions than we will ever be, but no one has done it.

I don't think it's a question of vulnerability.. unless you try to treat all Protestants as a collective force. We aren't. IMO, you would have to do it on a one to one sort of thing. Baptist, Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans and so on.

Bold mine. It's been done, but it was a while back.

I would never start an anti- Protestant website, but I think it is appropriate to question and try to find consistency in belief for the purpose of better understanding if nothing else. I don't think Protestants have ever experienced that, except from atheists perhaps, or maybe I am just not well informed in these matters. Catholics won't do it, and Mormons won't do it.

Bold mine.

It might do you some good to look at the 30 Years' War

For roughly 30 years Protestants and Catholics warred with one another in Europe. Conservative estimates say 3 million were killed in the struggle. Though speculative estimates take it to 11.5 million. It has been counted the 12th bloodiest struggle in human history.

Based on minimal estimates, Christians killed Christians nearly on a 3 to 1 ratio versus the differential views fought in the Crusades.

I don't want to paint the Protestants as heroes or something. It was a bloody mess all the way round. It upsets me to think of all the violence done falsely in the name of Christ.

Just saying, that Protestant views have been challenged quite violently in the past. Of course Protestants did their fair share of persecuting the Catholics too. I don't want to misrepresent the situation.

[USU78]

I think if you are looking for doctrinal consistency, then the "Protestant position" isn't the best place to look. I don't mean that as a pejorative against Protestants in any sense. Just simply saying there really isn't a doctrinal view that is distinctly Protestant. Unlike Catholics and LDS who, for the most part, unite under group specific doctrinal stuff. "Protestant" is a fairly broad based grouping of different Christian sects that left the Catholic Church during the Reformation. I don't want to say that these groups have nothing in common. IMO, they have quite a bit in common but not enough to say that they are doctrinally consistent with each other. If that were the case, there would only be one Protestant denomination.

Some of them believe in infant baptism, some don't baptize by immersion, some are Armenian some Calvinistic and so on. The primary element that seems consistent among them all is their approach to authority. I think all of them felt the authority of God's Church had been a bit hijacked by men through... Papal authority, Catholic Councils and so forth. These Reformers felt the authority of God's church rested upon the Holy Spirit that wrought upon the hearts of Christ believers and in the teachings and directives that were in God's inspired words of Scripture. I certainly feel similarly.

Bold mine. I think there is quite a bit more to the issue than LDS acceptance of the Nicene Creed. It's actually tertiary IMO.

As I see it, it has more to do with what LDS do believe rather than what they don't. At one point, I fell squarely in the camp of a Christian who though that JS had led a bunch of people straight to hell, many of my nearest and dearest included. Though I no longer hold that belief. I quite understand the "why" that lies behind it and it hasn't got very much to do with the Trinity.

The reason I say so, is that even though many Pentecostals are modalists, most EV's are acceptable to them simply being a Charismatic sort of Christian, because they do share a common view on where authority lies. I don't doubt that even though Catholics accept the Trinity, there are more EV's who would discount their status as Christian than they would a non-Trinitarian like a "Oneness" Pentecostal.

If you wanted to start a thread and get the full scoop. "Why don't EV's think LDS are Christians?" would be a good title.

I think over the last 4 or 500 years, the air is finally beginning to clear between EV's and Catholics as a whole. There is still a lack of ecumenism by many. Lots of EV's think Catholics are going to bust Hell wide open. Though I don't agree with the hard liners and I am happy to say that it seems many of the hard liners are coming to a different understanding on the matter.

As to where the Catholics went wrong, at least in my opinion, it started with this notion that Peter needed to have a successor and to what ends that particular course has run.

I think most of the restorationists came a bit later. I would count JS as one, though there were others. I am no expert on the matter Bukowski. My opinion is that the Reformers wanted to place the authority of the Church back into it's proper hands.. that being God's inspired word and the Holy Spirit through Christ. The Restorationists seemed to agree with a Catholic position, in that there needs to be a man in charge of it all down here and they just disagreed that the Catholics had the right man to do the job.

It would be a very short one I think.. but go for it.

I don't think it's a question of vulnerability.. unless you try to treat all Protestants as a collective force. We aren't. IMO, you would have to do it on a one to one sort of thing. Baptist, Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans and so on.

Bold mine. It's been done, but it was a while back.

Bold mine.

It might do you some good to look at the 30 Years' War

For roughly 30 years Protestants and Catholics warred with one another in Europe. Conservative estimates say 3 million were killed in the struggle. Though speculative estimates take it to 11.5 million. It has been counted the 12th bloodiest struggle in human history.

Based on minimal estimates, Christians killed Christians nearly on a 3 to 1 ratio versus the Crusades.

I don't want to paint the Protestants as heroes or something. It was a bloody mess all the way round. It upsets me to think of all the violence done falsely in the name of Christ.

Just saying, that Protestant views have been challenged quite violently in the past. Of course Protestants did their fair share of persecuting the Catholics too. I don't want to misrepresent the situation.

Just a thought here, Muddy. My Danish Granddad was a prolific memorizer. Knew all the verses to Abdul abulbul Amir, Soldiers of the Queen, and other XIXth Century stuff, would recite longish poems about every time I saw him. I wish I could remember the name of the poem that your post minded me of: it was a call for inter-Christian peace. Specifically, it mentioned the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre in France, when the Huegenots were nearly all wiped out (except those who fled to Britain and the Low Countries). It called for people to forget the excesses of the past and find peace in the present.

Good post.

[Gervin]

It called for people to forget the excesses of the past and find peace in the present.

As I walk through

This wicked world

Searchin' for light in the darkness of insanity.

I ask myself

Is all hope lost?

Is there only pain and hatred, and misery?

And each time I feel like this inside,

There's one thing I wanna know:

What's so funny 'bout peace love & understanding? Ohhhh

What's so funny 'bout peace love & understanding?

And as I walked on

Through troubled times

My spirit gets so downhearted sometimes

So where are the strong

And who are the trusted?

And where is the harmony?

Sweet harmony.

'Cause each time I feel it slippin' away, just makes me wanna cry.

What's so funny 'bout peace love & understanding? Ohhhh

What's so funny 'bout peace love & understanding?

So where are the strong?

And who are the trusted?

And where is the harmony?

Sweet harmony.

'Cause each time I feel it slippin' away, just makes me wanna cry.

What's so funny 'bout peace love & understanding? Ohhhh

What's so funny 'bout peace love & understanding? Ohhhh

What's so funny 'bout peace love & understanding?

[Mudcat]

Bukowski,

I thought about this thread today.

Given you disagreement with substance theology how do you ramify the following.

Mosiah 15

1And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.

2And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—

3The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—

4And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.

Alma 11

38Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father?

39And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last;

Regards,

Mudcat

[urroner]

Bukowski,

I thought about this thread today.

Given you disagreement with substance theology how do you ramify the following.

Alma 11

Regards,

Mudcat

I can't speak for Bukowski, but here is a thread that explains it and you even participated in it.

[TAO]

Bukowski,

I thought about this thread today.

Given you disagreement with substance theology how do you ramify the following.

Alma 11

Regards,

Mudcat

It would be explained with the way Moroni believed it, I believe;

And may the grace of God the Father, whose throne is high in the heavens, and our Lord Jesus Christ, who sitteth on the right hand of his power, until all things shall become subject unto him, be, and abide with you forever. Amen.

Moroni 9:26

They are both God the Very Eternal Father of Heaven and Earth (see Book of Abraham), however, Christ is the Father of our spirit through adoption, rather than through creation, as God the Father is.

They are both together God, with the Holy Spirit, as shown in this verse... sitting on the right hand of his power... together with unity of will but still separate people, separate spirits.

At least that's how I view it ;-). Although it would also come from my personal testimony. And experiences and feelings of the spirit and stuff.

Bleh, I guess I've been privileged to get their response, I guess =3. But I don't know how to explain it without being awkward... I guess I could if you wanted me to.

I guess I could say I've been really privileged in life in terms of what he's given me, really. I owe him. Big time. Makes me happy just knowing him. And his Father is great too... in a different, but similar way =D. Aaargh... I feel bad... I can't explain it properly without getting into weird details. XD

Best Wishes,

Your Friend TAO =)

[Mudcat]

I can't speak for Bukowski, but here is a thread that explains it and you even participated in it.

Yep, I did participate in it briefly.

You'll note that the link I proffered in my first statement, is now dead. Such is the way of things. Deleted in the forum changes and so forth.

Regardless, It was a really good bash between yours truly and the beloved Ben McGuire. It was never settled I suppose.

IMO, the BoM has a modalistic thrust to it that doesn't sit well with Bukowski's position.