Problems With The Teachings Of The Trinity

[jo1952]

This is some of what Tertullian taught concerning the Trinity long BEFORE the First Council of Nicea (emphasis added):

http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian17.html

“As for myself, however, if I have gleaned any knowledge of either language, I am sure that monarkia (or Monarchy) has no other meaning than single and individual rule; but for all that, this monarchy does not, because it is the government of one, preclude him whose government it is, either from having a son, or from having made himself actually a son to himself, or from ministering his own monarchy by whatever agents he will. Nay more, I contend that no dominion so belongs to one only, as his own, or is in such a sense singular, or is in such a sense a monarchy, as not also to be administered through other persons most closely connected with it, and whom it has itself provided as officials to itself. If, moreover, there be a son belonging to him whose monarchy it is, it does not forthwith become divided and cease to be a monarchy, if the son also be taken as a sharer in it; but it is as to its origin equally his, by whom it is communicated to the son; and being his, it is quite as much a monarchy (or sole empire), since it is held together by two who are so inseparable.”

...and

“But as for me, who derive the Son from no other source but from the substance of the Father, and (represent Him) as doing nothing without the Father's will, and as having received all power from the Father, how can I be possibly destroying the Monarchy from the faith, when I preserve it in the Son just as it was committed to Him by the Father? The same remark (I wish also to be formally) made by me with respect to the third degree in the Godhead, because I believe the Spirit to proceed from no other source than from the Father through the Son.”

...and

“Therefore, inasmuch as the Divine Monarchy also is administered by so many legions and hosts of angels, according as it is written, "thousand thousands ministered to Him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him;" and since it has not from this circumstance ceased to be the rule of one (so as no longer to be a monarchy), because it is administered by so many thousands of powers; how comes it to pass that God should be thought to suffer division and severance in the Son and in the Holy Ghost, who have the second and the third places assigned to them, and who are so closely joined with the Father in His substance, when He suffers no such (division and severance) in the multitude of so many angels? Do you really suppose that Those, who are naturally members of the Father's own substance, pledges of His love, instruments of His might, nay, His power itself and the entire system of His monarchy, are the overthrow and destruction thereof? You are not right in so thinking. I prefer your exercising yourself on the meaning of the thing rather than on the sound of the word. Now you must understand the overthrow of a monarchy to be this, when another dominion, which has a framework and a state peculiar to itself (and is therefore a rival), is brought in over and above it: when, e.g., some other god is introduced in opposition to the Creator, as in the opinions of Marcion; or when many gods are introduced, according to your Valentinuses and your Prodicuses. Then it amounts to an overthrow of the Monarchy, since it involves the destruction of the Creator.”

...and,

“He still had Him within Himself, both in company with and included within His very Reason, as He silently planned and arranged within Himself everything which He was afterwards about to utter through His Word. Now, whilst He was thus planning and arranging with His own Reason, He was actually causing that to become Word which He was dealing with in the way of Word or Discourse. And that you may the more readily understand this, consider first of all, from your own self, who are made "in the image and likeness of God," for what purpose it is that you also possess reason in yourself, who are a rational creature, as being not only made by a rational Artificer, but actually animated out of His substance. Observe, then, that when you are silently conversing with yourself, this very process is carried on within you by your reason, which meets you with a word at every movement of your thought, at every impulse of your conception. Whatever you think, there is a word; whatever you conceive, there is reason. You must needs speak it in your mind; and while you are speaking, you admit speech as an interlocutor with you, involved in which there is this very reason, whereby, while in thought you are holding converse with your word, you are (by reciprocal action) producing thought by means of that converse with your word. Thus, in a certain sense, the word is a second person within you, through which in thinking you utter speech, and through which also, (by reciprocity of process,) in uttering speech you generate thought. The word is itself a different thing from yourself. Now how much more fully is all this transacted in God, whose image and likeness even you are regarded as being, inasmuch as He has reason within Himself even while He is silent, and involved in that Reason His Word! I may therefore without rashness first lay this down (as a fixed principle) that even then before the creation of the universe God was not alone, since He had within Himself both Reason, and, inherent in Reason, His Word, which He made second to Himself by agitating it within Himself.”

...and,

“Everything which proceeds from something else must needs be second to that from which it proceeds, without being on that account separated: Where, however, there is a second, there must be two; and where there is a third, there must be three. Now the Spirit indeed is third from God and the Son; just as the fruit of the tree is third from the root, or as the stream out of the river is third from the fountain, or as the apex of the ray is third from the sun. Nothing, however, is alien from that original source whence it derives its own properties. In like manner the Trinity, flowing down from the Father through intertwined and connected steps, does not at all disturb the Monarchy, whilst it at the same time guards the state of the Economy.”

This is NOT the Trinity which is taught today. In fact, I would offer that within Tertullian’s description of the monarchial Trinity are imbedded beliefs which more closely resemble what the LDS hold to; much more so than today’s Trinitarian.

However, by the time of the first Council of Nicea, man had taken what Tertullian had written in his discourses and twisted and subtracted from them and added to them which evolved into the version of a Trinity which taught that there was no monarchy; no hierarchy at all. The church also abandoned the idea that we are also sons and daughters of God – that we have no substance in common with God. She abandoned and even denies the very argument that we, as rational and reasoning beings, also share those very same qualities with God. Yet there is plenty of evidence that many of the early church fathers believed we ARE sons and daughters of God; and, in fact, that we also have the potential to become gods, as shown in other recent threads.

Also, I would remind us that it is the RCC which brought the Trinity to the Christian world. What the RCC has to say about today’s Trinity, which in addition to seeing how it does NOT look like the Trinity taught by Tertullian, says this:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm

“The trinity as a mystery"

"The Vatican Council has explained the meaning to be attributed to the term mystery in theology. It lays down that a mystery is a truth which we are not merely incapable of discovering apart from Divine Revelation, but which, even when revealed, remains "hidden by the veil of faith and enveloped, so to speak, by a kind of darkness" (Constitution, "De fide. cath.", iv). In other words, our understanding of it remains only partial, even after we have accepted it as part of the Divine message. Through analogies and types we can form a representative concept expressive of what is revealed, but we cannot attain that fuller knowledge which supposes that the various elements of the concept are clearly grasped and their reciprocal compatibility manifest. As regards the vindication of a mystery, the office of the natural reason is solely to show that it contains no intrinsic impossibility, that any objection urged against it on Reason. "Expressions such as these are undoubtedly the score that it violates the laws of thought is invalid. More than this it cannot do."

The RCC also makes the claim that even if a person accepts their version of a truth which no one is capable of discovering apart from Divine Revelation, and even when revealed, remains “hidden by the veil of faith and enveloped, so to speak, by a kind of darkness” (and, wow, I would personally never describe any ideas about God as being enveloped by “darkness”), that you still cannot be saved unless you join the RCC.

Now, what I have seen on various apologetic websites is in conflict with these ideas. Protestant websites insist that the RCC is part of the same body of Christ which they are part of – which I will call, according to their own definition: mainstream Christianity. However, if you LOOK at what the institution of the RCC teaches, she claims that Protestants cannot be saved unless they become members of the RCC institution. Therefore, we can see that the believers (the actual members of the various denominations) profess something different from what their own institutions claim.

Even though there is much evidence through discussions with Protestants that there is NOT only one version of the Trinity which is agreed upon, they insist that it is necessary to accept the Trinity in order to be saved. Some claim they DO understand the Trinity. The RCC claims it is NOT understandable. Institutions within the “accepted” denominations of Orthodoxy, claim that unless you accept the Trinity, you cannot be saved. Believers within those denominations, however, range from claiming you cannot be saved all the way to the opposite side of saying they believe their institution is incorrect; that you do not have to accept the Trinity to be saved. Yet these believers do not separate themselves from their institutions of belief. Why? I could not tell you, though I have some ideas about this.

Some Protestants say that a person MUST have the correct nature of God in their mind when they pray. To NOT have the correct nature of God in your mind indicates that when you pray, you wind up NOT praying to God. That your prayers are being heard and answered by a false or demonic god (even though these same Protestants SAY that there is NO other God….so it beats me how a person can be accused of having prayers heard and answered by a false or demonic god if no such beings exist…). These same Protestants, when pressed to explain what the Trinity looks like, will frequently admit that they do not completely understand it. All they “know” is that a person HAS to accept it; BECAUSE THE TRINITY EXPLAINS THE TRUE NATURE OF GOD. But if a person does not understand the Trinity, then how can THAT person KNOW THE TRUE NATURE OF GOD??? When I ask THIS question, they tell me that it DOESN’T MATTER if you don’t understand it; you just MUST accept it. Yet NOT understanding the Trinity, even if you accept it, STILL leaves you with NOT understanding the TRUE or CORRECT nature of God!!!!!! Therefore, if you don’t understand the Trinity, then WHAT GOD ARE YOU PRAYING TO?? Then, we have the RCC who comes right and claims that you CAN’T comprehend the Trinity – even with Divine Revelation; that the Trinity is STILL "hidden by the veil of faith and enveloped, so to speak, by a kind of darkness".

Does THIS sound like doctrine taught by a loving God who is NOT a respecter of persons? Does this sound like a doctrine God requires us to understand, since the very artificers of the Trinity itself claim that this dogma is NOT understandable? Is God the AUTHOR OF CONFUSION? Or is MAN the AUTHOR OF CONFUSION????

At this point, even as my head is about to explode with all of the conflict, I can't help but remember how millions of believers have died at the hands of other believers - yet I am told by both the RCC and the Protestant denominations, that no apostasy has ever taken place...sigh.

Best regards,

jo

Edited August 14, 2011 by jo1952

[jo1952]

After my head exploded, and I was putting the pieces back together, I suddenly recalled the "Who's on First" exchange between Abbott and Costello. THAT lead to the following scenario question which I would invite any Triniatarian to give me the answer to:

Father is standing at third base waiting to score a run, Jesus is on second, and the Holy Ghost is waiting on first. If I come to bat and hit a triple, how many runs would score?

Best regards,

jo

[BCSpace]

Tertullian was no trinitarian:

1) He believed the "Divine Substance" was a material substance.

2) He believed that there was once a time "when the Son and Spirit did not exist as such".

3) To him, the Son and Spirit were portions of the "Divine Substance", "rather than interpenetrating 'centers of consciousness' in a simple, indivisible 'Divine Substance' ".

4) And he still accepted Subordinationism.

He wasn't LDS either, but rather a step along the trail of universal apostasy which traces the loss of the true doctrine of God.

Edited August 15, 2011 by BCSpace

[BCSpace]

After my head exploded, and I was putting the pieces back together, I suddenly recalled the "Who's on First" exchange between Abbott and Costello.

Jesus said, Whom do men say that I am?

And his disciples answered and said, Some say you are John the Baptist returned from the dead; others say Elias, or other of the old prophets.

And Jesus answered and said, But whom do you say that I am?

Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Logos, existing in the Father as His rationality and then, by an act of His will, being generated, in consideration of the various functions by which God is related to his creation, but only on the fact that Scripture speaks of a Father, and a Son, and a Holy Spirit, each member of the Trinity being coequal with every other member, and each acting inseparably with and interpenetrating every other member, with only an economic subordination within God, but causing no division which would make the substance no longer simple."

And Jesus answering, said, "What?"

-Barry Bickmore(?)

THAT lead to the following scenario question which I would invite any Triniatarian to give me the answer to:

Father is standing at third base waiting to score a run, Jesus is on second, and the Holy Ghost is waiting on first. If I come to bat and hit a triple, how many runs would score?

Three, because in the trinity there are three distinct Persons. However, if you asked how many runs would be scored if God hit a home run with bases empty, the correct answer is zero because God is merely an abstraction that "interpenetrates" the Three.

Edited August 15, 2011 by BCSpace

[jo1952]

Tertullian was no trinitarian:

1) He believed the "Divine Substance" was a material substance.

2) He believed that there was once a time "when the Son and Spirit did not exist as such".

3) To him, the Son and Spirit were portions of the "Divine Substance", "rather than interpenetrating 'centers of consciousness' in a simple, indivisible 'Divine Substance' ".

4) And he still accepted Subordinationism.

He wasn't LDS either, but rather a step along the way of the universal apostasy to trace the loss of the true dcotrine of God.

Thank you, BC Space! It appears there are many versions of the Trinity which have been held to ever since the ancient Apostles had written the last books which later became canon. I have been wondering WHICH Trinity is the official Trinity of today's "essential core doctrines" which a person needs to believe and accept in order to be considered a Christian. Tertullian is obviously a pre-Nicea Trinitarian. Then there is the First Council of Nicea Trinity. Then there is the post-381 Council Trinity. Then there is the Trinity which has evolved into the generally still inexplanable one that is believed in today....which the RCC claims is a mystery veiled in darkness even after receiving Divine Revelation concerning it. I would offer that it is pretty telling that the RCC claims this dogma is veiled in "darkness".

Best regards,

jo

[jo1952]

Jesus said, Whom do men say that I am?

And his disciples answered and said, Some say you are John the Baptist returned from the dead; others say Elias, or other of the old prophets.

And Jesus answered and said, But whom do you say that I am?

Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Logos, existing in the Father as His rationality and then, by an act of His will, being generated, in consideration of the various functions by which God is related to his creation, but only on the fact that Scripture speaks of a Father, and a Son, and a Holy Spirit, each member of the Trinity being coequal with every other member, and each acting inseparably with and interpenetrating every other member, with only an economic subordination within God, but causing no division which would make the substance no longer simple."

And Jesus answering, said, "What?"

-Barry Bickmore(?)

Three, because in the trinity there are three distinct Persons. However, if you asked how many runs would be scored if God hit a home run with bases empty, the correct answer is zero because God is merely an abstraction that "interpenetrates" the Three.

hahaha -- I thought the answer would be one run. What was I thinking?!!!

jo

[Rob Bowman]

jo,

Mormon theologians engage in theological and even philosophical reflection on what they believe are revealed truths. Such reflection changes over time. Browse through the recent threads in this forum and you'll see that Mormon beliefs on a number of subjects are still in flux. This is a natural religious phenomenon and there is nothing inherently wrong with it.

Orthodox theologians also engage, as they have from the earliest church fathers, in theological and philosophical reflection on the revealed truths of the Bible. That reflection was not a static process. The doctrinal formulations of the fourth century benefited from and at the same time advanced beyond the pioneering theological work of the church fathers of the second and third centuries. It is hardly surprising to anyone who understands church history that the doctrine of the Trinity as understood today is not identical to the way that Tertullian articulated it.

That having been said, some of what you claim the church abandoned from Tertullian's theology was not in fact abandoned. For example, the Nicene Creed affirms that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. Many Trinitarian theologians affirm that in some sense the Father is the head or fount of the Trinity, that the other two persons in some sense stand in a relation of dynamic dependence on the Father. There is some sense in which he is properly the first, even if the primus inter pares.

Your claim that the Roman Catholic Church originated the doctrine of the Trinity is historically anachronistic. To have a RCC, one must have an ecclesiastical system in which the bishop of Rome is regarded as the head of the entire church. No such system existed until centuries after the development of the formal doctrine of the Trinity in the second through the fourth centuries. I'm afraid you don't really know much about the RCC. For example, it is not true that the RCC teaches that Protestants cannot be saved except by becoming members of the RCC institution.

The rest of your post offers similarly off-base or irrelevant criticisms of the doctrine of the Trinity. The only relevant issue is whether that doctrine faithfully represents the teachings of the Bible. It does. On this issue, see my outline study on the biblical basis of the doctrine of the Trinity.

[BCSpace]

Mormon theologians engage in theological and even philosophical reflection on what they believe are revealed truths. Such reflection changes over time. Browse through the recent threads in this forum and you'll see that Mormon beliefs on a number of subjects are still in flux. This is a natural religious phenomenon and there is nothing inherently wrong with it.

I have no problem with that. The problem for trinitarians though is an absolute (zero, nada, none) lack of scriptural support and a history that diverges from the scriptures and early Christian belief. Whereas LDS doctrine is the only Christian doctrine that does not conflict with the Bible and it's history is more of restoring what the Bible and the early Christians taught.

[altersteve]

I just want a Trinitarian to help me understand this:

The doctrine of the Trinity is the idea that God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are three distinct, separate personages who are somehow united in essence, or substance, as one Being who somehow does not have an essence, but whose somehow non-existent essence is somehow the same as His existence, and who somehow created the universe out of nothing and from an essence that He somehow does not have.

Is that correct? I've heard about fifty different explanations of what the Trinity is, and each of them is just as illogical and confusing as the last one. It seems clear to me that such a confusing doctrine, which is not taught in the Bible whatsoever, is an entirely human invention. The gospel of Jesus Christ, and every aspect of it, is supposed to be clear, simple, and understandable by persons of all levels of intelligence and education, not reasoned in our minds using philosophical thinking and non-revelatory means of interpreting the inspired biblical text.

Edited August 15, 2011 by altersteve

[BCSpace]

Thank you, BC Space! It appears there are many versions of the Trinity which have been held to ever since the ancient Apostles had written the last books which later became canon.

You;re welcome. Theophilus is also often called upon to witness for the trinity yet he is no trinitarian either.

I have been wondering WHICH Trinity is the official Trinity of today's "essential core doctrines" which a person needs to believe and accept in order to be considered a Christian.

"Christian" is too general a term to indentify one who will receive eternal life or is part of the body of Christ or, in LDS parlance, is part the Church of Christ (as opposed to church of the Devil). But nonLDS christians do differ among themselves as to the doctrine of the trinity.

Tertullian is obviously a pre-Nicea Trinitarian. Then there is the First Council of Nicea Trinity. Then there is the post-381 Council Trinity. Then there is the Trinity which has evolved into the generally still inexplanable one that is believed in today....which the RCC claims is a mystery veiled in darkness even after receiving Divine Revelation concerning it.

I've had Protestants also try to use the pre-Nicene fathers to witness for the trinity, including Oneness (Modalism) Pentecostals.

I would offer that it is pretty telling that the RCC claims this dogma is veiled in "darkness".

The better to not have to explain the hypostatic (or mysterious) union.

[Rob Bowman]

BCSpace,

You wrote:

I have no problem with that. The problem for trinitarians though is an absolute (zero, nada, none) lack of scriptural support and a history that diverges from the scriptures and early Christian belief. Whereas LDS doctrine is the only Christian doctrine that does not conflict with the Bible and it's history is more of restoring what the Bible and the early Christians taught.

This is quite a bold claim. Perhaps you will try to back it up by responding to my outline study on the biblical basis of the doctrine of the Trinity, which I mentioned in the post to which you are responding. That outline study lists about a thousand biblical references drawn from well over 300 chapters of the Bible, including every book of the New Testament. To claim that the doctrine has "an absolute (zero, nada, none) lack of scriptural support" is simply and spectacularly false. And my outline study, since I am an evangelical Christian, did not even cite the LDS scriptures, which, as I have also pointed out in another thread, contains even more explicit affirmations of the doctrine of the Trinity as commonly defined as the belief that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God (2 Ne. 31:21; Alma 11:44; Mormon 7:7; D&C 20:28; see also the Testimony of Three Witnesses). You are required by LDS doctrine to reinterpret these statements to mean something other than the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, but your claim that there is absolutely no support for the doctrine is clearly false.

[Rob Bowman]

altersteve,

You wrote:

I just want a Trinitarian to help me understand this:

The doctrine of the Trinity is the idea that God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are three distinct, separate personages who are somehow united in essence, or substance, as one Being who somehow does not have an essence, but whose somehow non-existent essence is somehow the same as His existence, and who somehow created the universe out of nothing and from an essence that He somehow does not have.

Is that correct?

No, and I don't think you're really trying to understand our position. If you were, you wouldn't make up the ridiculous caricature of the doctrine that it supposedly teaches that God has a "non-existent essence."

You wrote:

I've heard about fifty different explanations of what the Trinity is, and each of them is just as illogical and confusing as the last one.

I have too, and they were all anti-Trinitarian misrepresentations of the doctrine that butcher it and then triumphantly claim that the doctrine is illogical and confusing.

[Storm Rider]

jo,

Mormon theologians engage in theological and even philosophical reflection on what they believe are revealed truths. Such reflection changes over time. Browse through the recent threads in this forum and you'll see that Mormon beliefs on a number of subjects are still in flux. This is a natural religious phenomenon and there is nothing inherently wrong with it.

Orthodox theologians also engage, as they have from the earliest church fathers, in theological and philosophical reflection on the revealed truths of the Bible. That reflection was not a static process. The doctrinal formulations of the fourth century benefited from and at the same time advanced beyond the pioneering theological work of the church fathers of the second and third centuries. It is hardly surprising to anyone who understands church history that the doctrine of the Trinity as understood today is not identical to the way that Tertullian articulated it.

That having been said, some of what you claim the church abandoned from Tertullian's theology was not in fact abandoned. For example, the Nicene Creed affirms that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. Many Trinitarian theologians affirm that in some sense the Father is the head or fount of the Trinity, that the other two persons in some sense stand in a relation of dynamic dependence on the Father. There is some sense in which he is properly the first, even if the primus inter pares.

Your claim that the Roman Catholic Church originated the doctrine of the Trinity is historically anachronistic. To have a RCC, one must have an ecclesiastical system in which the bishop of Rome is regarded as the head of the entire church. No such system existed until centuries after the development of the formal doctrine of the Trinity in the second through the fourth centuries. I'm afraid you don't really know much about the RCC. For example, it is not true that the RCC teaches that Protestants cannot be saved except by becoming members of the RCC institution.

The rest of your post offers similarly off-base or irrelevant criticisms of the doctrine of the Trinity. The only relevant issue is whether that doctrine faithfully represents the teachings of the Bible. It does. On this issue, see my outline study on the biblical basis of the doctrine of the Trinity.

I understand where those who belive in the Trinity find scriptural support, but I also understand that none of that support exists without first concluding that the Trinity doctrine is true and then going back to find support for it. I have never read any support that the early church fathers read the scriptures and then said, Ah ha, here is where substance is inferred or outlined and thus the three are really one. Unfortunately, what appears to have occured is how is the Son of God divine and how can monotheism be maintained? Viola, Trinitarian doctrine. It was the only way they found that Jesus could actually be the divine Son of God.

This claim that Mormon theology is always in a state of flux seems to be a very useful criticism for all Christian religion. Catholicism has changed their doctrine over the centuries. Initially, there was only One, Holy and True Catholic Church and none could be saved except by being a member of that church. Now the RCC recognizes the baptisms of those who not only baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, but also must believe in the Trinitarian doctrine. Catholics can be a little cloudy if there was no baptism that occured.

As far as who created the doctrine of the Trinity? Ask your friendly neighborhood Catholic priest. Their claim is from Peter on down to the present; if you wish to deny their claims you should probably take it up with them.

[Storm Rider]

I have too, and they were all anti-Trinitarian misrepresentations of the doctrine that butcher it and then triumphantly claim that the doctrine is illogical and confusing.

It was the Bible Answer Man that freely stated that the Trinity could not be comprehended, but only apprehended. I know of no church that claims the T. doctrine is not a mystery; it is not a rational, logical statement; it is simply the mystery of God as most Christians believe and it does allow for the a meager claim of montheisim to be maintained. Of course, Muslims and many others just call it as it is; whatever it is, it is not monotheism. Instead of a sleight of hand, it is a sleight of words.

On a brighter note, God is a mystery for all of us. None of us can comprehend eternity or so much of what God has planned for us. As we humbly stumble through life, striving to follow the example of Jesus and falling short, we rely fully, completely on the Grace our Redeemer so fully offers us, to perfect us in his perfection, to open the Gate of Heaven and let us in. I think when we get there all of us will be surprised to look down at Jesus' feet and realize that the tears shed there are from people of all churches and different faiths.

[altersteve]

No, and I don't think you're really trying to understand our position. If you were, you wouldn't make up the ridiculous caricature of the doctrine that it supposedly teaches that God has a "non-existent essence."

I didn't make any of that up at all. I've heard people who believe in the Trinity tell me that. I always ask Trinitarians to tell me their own understanding of it, not "anti-Trinitarians" as you seem to be implying.

[Rob Bowman]

Storm Rider,

You wrote:

I understand where those who belive in the Trinity find scriptural support, but I also understand that none of that support exists without first concluding that the Trinity doctrine is true and then going back to find support for it.

This is funny, coming from a Mormon. Shall we discuss all of the LDS doctrines that Mormons try to support from the Bible -- or even from the Book of Mormon -- that non-Mormons simply don't see there?

You wrote:

I have never read any support that the early church fathers read the scriptures and then said, Ah ha, here is where substance is inferred or outlined and thus the three are really one. Unfortunately, what appears to have occured is how is the Son of God divine and how can monotheism be maintained? Viola, Trinitarian doctrine. It was the only way they found that Jesus could actually be the divine Son of God.

How much of the church fathers have you actually read? I don't mean quotations from their writings imbedded in Mormon apologetic writings. Have you ever picked up Athanasius's On the Incarnation of the Word or Augustine's On the Trinity and just read large portions of these works? Scripture very much informed their thinking about the doctrine of the Trinity. It was the anti-Trinitarians that ripped biblical proof texts from their contexts to try to prove such false doctrines as that Jesus was only a created being (Arianism) or that Jesus was the Father in the flesh (Monarchianism).

You wrote:

As far as who created the doctrine of the Trinity? Ask your friendly neighborhood Catholic priest. Their claim is from Peter on down to the present; if you wish to deny their claims you should probably take it up with them.

This is a strange appeal to authority. My "friendly neighborhood Catholic priest" would have to refute the facts I gave for denying that the Roman Catholic Church created the doctrine of the Trinity. If I were in conversation with Catholics who made this claim I would "take it up with them," but I am in conversation with you, a Mormon, and you made this claim.

You wrote:

It was the Bible Answer Man that freely stated that the Trinity could not be comprehended, but only apprehended.

I see nothing problematic in that statement. It does not say what you claimed, which is that the doctrine is illogical.

[Rob Bowman]

altersteve,

You wrote:

I didn't make any of that up at all. I've heard people who believe in the Trinity tell me that. I always ask Trinitarians to tell me their own understanding of it, not "anti-Trinitarians" as you seem to be implying.

CFR. No Trinitarian would ever say that God's essence is "non-existent." I'll even take an anonymous Trinitarian internet poster for this one.

[Storm Rider]

How much of the church fathers have you actually read? I don't mean quotations from their writings imbedded in Mormon apologetic writings. Have you ever picked up Athanasius's On the Incarnation of the Word or Augustine's On the Trinity and just read large portions of these works? Scripture very much informed their thinking about the doctrine of the Trinity. It was the anti-Trinitarians that ripped biblical proof texts from their contexts to try to prove such false doctrines as that Jesus was only a created being (Arianism) or that Jesus was the Father in the flesh (Monarchianism).

How much of early Church Fathers have I read? Fair question. I own the 38 volumes edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson and Henry Wace and have read almost every volume. In addition, I own (the two you mentioned even) and have read various other texts by the ECF. In addition, I have read most of John Paul II's encyclicals and the Catholic Church's writings explaining Vatican II. I have read quite a number of other writings of the Catholic Church. No, scripture did no inform their thinking on the Trinity. The Trinity doctrine is a fabrication of man to quell the criticism and to square that Jesus was divine, but not a separate God from the Father. No need to keep creating history to meet your own agenda. Of course, it is funny when you want to through a stone at the Church of Jesus Christ using ECF texts while still being an Evangelical. Of course, you guys also call the Catholic Church a cult. Seems like you might have it in for everyone but yourselves.

This is a strange appeal to authority. My "friendly neighborhood Catholic priest" would have to refute the facts I gave for denying that the Roman Catholic Church created the doctrine of the Trinity. If I were in conversation with Catholics who made this claim I would "take it up with them," but I am in conversation with you, a Mormon, and you made this claim.

Strange appeal? I don't think so; you might want to engage with Catholics they can be wonderful people. Many are very devout; not just there to fill a pew on Sunday, but are Christian everyday of the week. What is absolutely clear to all is tEvangelicalsials did not come up with the doctrine or the belief.

I see nothing problematic in that statement. It does not say what you claimed, which is that the doctrine is illogical.

At this point, I haven;t a clue what your point is.

Lastly, you might not want to assume too many things about me. Assuming that LDS do not read anything except LDS published material on this forum is just plain stupid. Your accusation might actually have had some degree of merit if you were a Catholic. I don't know, but do you guys even know the ECF exist as a group?

With me you also get a twofer; I am someone that has seen your type of Christianity up close and personal in the youh. Thank yoiu, but no thank you.

Edited August 16, 2011 by Storm Rider

[altersteve]

CFR. No Trinitarian would ever say that God's essence is "non-existent." I'll even take an anonymous Trinitarian internet poster for this one.

Since it was an actual person, and not an internet poster, who told me that, I can't be bothered with proving to you that somebody told me this. What I was told was that God has no essence apart from His existence, and that because He has no physical body or definition, it follows that He has no substance or essence. His existence and essence are identical. Call BS on that if you like, but that's what I have been told.

[Rob Bowman]

Storm Rider,

You wrote:

Lastly, you might not want to make too many assume too many things about me. Assuming that LDS do not read anything except LDS published material on this forum is just plain stupid.

I did not "assume" any such thing. I asked if you had read the church fathers. You say you have. Okay. I don't know how you could have missed their extensive discussions of biblical passages and how they informed their beliefs, but I accept your claim that you have read them.

You wrote:

Your accusation might actually have had some degree of merit if you were a Catholic.

Actually, I am a former Catholic, so I've seen the arguments from the inside of that perspective.

[Rob Bowman]

altersteve,

You wrote:

Since it was an actual person, and not an internet poster, who told me that, I can't be bothered with proving to you that somebody told me this. What I was told was that God has no essence apart from His existence, and that because He has no physical body or definition, it follows that He has no substance or essence. His existence and essence are identical. Call BS on that if you like, but that's what I have been told.

The doctrine that you summarize as "that God has no essence apart from His existence" is an affirmation that existence is a necessary predicate of God; that is, that God necessarily exists. That is a common affirmation in orthodox Christian theology. Likewise, the statement "His existence and essence are identical" more or less adequately represents an orthodox belief that God's existence is necessary because it is of his essence that he must exist, i.e., his existence is not contingent on anything or anyone else. However, when you say, "and that because He has no physical body or definition, it follows that He has no substance or essence," this is absolutely not orthodox Christian doctrine, and such a claim has nothing to do with the doctrine of the necessity of God's existence. This sounds like a Mormon's take on the orthodox doctrine that God is incorporeal, and it certainly has nothing to do with God's essence necessarily entailing his existence. So I can well imagine an orthodox Christian making the first two statements I just quoted from you, but not the third. If you say that someone representing himself as an orthodox Christian told you that God has no substance or essence, I can only say that such a person cannot really understand orthodox Christian doctrine and is probably not an orthodox Christian at all.

Edited August 15, 2011 by Rob Bowman

[altersteve]

If you say that someone representing himself as an orthodox Christian told you that God has no substance or essence, I can only say that such a person cannot really understand orthodox Christian doctrine and is probably not an orthodox Christian at all.

Probably not. He never claimed to be an "orthodox Christian."

[Rob Bowman]

Steve,

You wrote:

Probably not. He never claimed to be an "orthodox Christian."

But Steve, you had told me earlier (see post #15):

I've heard people who believe in the Trinity tell me that.

No one who believed in the Trinity could possibly also believe that God's essence is nonexistent.

[Anakin7]

http://student631.tripod.com/id16.html Rob former Evangelical Christian [ Now Catholic Christian] Francis Beckwith would like to discuss with you why you need to be a Roman Catholic again !!!. May True Grace Be with You.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDs JEDI KNIGHT

[LeSellers]

Father is standing at third base waiting to score a run, Jesus is on second, and the Holy Ghost is waiting on first. If I come to bat and hit a triple, how many runs would score?

Four. The defense (in this case) is Satan, and they'd make an error, so you'd come in, too.

Lehi