altersteve Posted August 15, 2011 Posted August 15, 2011 No one who believed in the Trinity could possibly also believe that God's essence is nonexistent.Except for this person. And yes, he believes in the Trinity, but he never said he was an orthodox Christian. He is an ex-Mormon Protestant, not a member of the Orthodox Church.
BCSpace Posted August 15, 2011 Posted August 15, 2011 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.Yes. I've been making and successfully defending it since before my mission.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.One angle of approach would be that the Biblical doctrines of Subordinationism, LDS Theosis, and the Three as disitinct Gods, etc. preclude any type of trinitarian intepretation.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.The problem you'll have here is that LDS don't approach the BoM as a separate work to be considered against other scripture. So there are actually no BoM verses supporting a trinity doctrine. In this case, the Bible provides the details on how the Father and the Son are "one" and "in" each other (such as John 17) and it isn't at all how a trinitarian would view it.
LeSellers Posted August 15, 2011 Posted August 15, 2011 (edited) 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?To be totally honest, you'd have to include the entire LDS canon and that includes more than the Standard Works: we have several additional official statements ("The Family, a Proclamation to the World", etc.). It may be (and I am not admitting anything by this hypothetical) that the LDS doctrines you pretend to be unable to find actually are not there, but we do not rely on the Bible, nor on "scripture", even in toto, for the truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ: if we did, we'd be in no better shape than the rest of Christianity: rudderless in an ever-changing sea. Here is one serious deficiency I find in nearly every critic of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: you all cannot accept the fact of an open canon, an unbounded view of God. You do not, in short, grasp the meaning behind the ninth Article of Faith: We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.This is all the more confusing because there is, in the Bible, a well-attested event that speaks of just this concept: What were the "things of the kingdom of heaven" about which Jesus spoke in Acts 1:2~3? There is no record at all. You may choose to claim these things were reported elsewhere in the New Testament, but there is nothing on which you can legitimately make that claim. It appears that you all do not believe all that God has revealed for the notable reason that you do not know all God has revealed, even if you do not accept what we Saints have received from Him. Lehi Edited August 15, 2011 by LeSellers 2
Rob Bowman Posted August 15, 2011 Posted August 15, 2011 Steve,You wrote:Except for this person. And yes, he believes in the Trinity, but he never said he was an orthodox Christian. He is an ex-Mormon Protestant, not a member of the Orthodox Church.I said "orthodox" with a small "o," not "Orthodox" (member of the Eastern Orthodox Church). I don't know what kind of Protestant he is, but if he says that God's essence is nonexistent, he does not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. This sounds possibly like something in the liberal tradition of Paul Tillich, which in effect amounts to a form of atheism masquerading as Christian theology.
Rob Bowman Posted August 15, 2011 Posted August 15, 2011 BCSpace,You wrote:Yes. I've been making and successfully defending it since before my mission.... One angle of approach would be that the Biblical doctrines of Subordinationism, LDS Theosis, and the Three as disitinct Gods, etc. preclude any type of trinitarian intepretation.Well, since the Bible does not teach that the three are distinct Gods, your angle of approach will not work. Nor does the Bible teach what you call LDS theosis.
Anakin7 Posted August 15, 2011 Posted August 15, 2011 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 Repost
Anakin7 Posted August 15, 2011 Posted August 15, 2011 (edited) http://www.concordant.org/expohtml/GosAndChrist/TriuneGod.html In His Debt/Grace Anakin7 Edited August 15, 2011 by Anakin7
Rob Bowman Posted August 15, 2011 Posted August 15, 2011 (edited) Anakin7,Try the link...it doesn't lead to an actual web article.http://www.angeifire...lf/trinity.html In His Debt/Grace Anakin7Never mind--I see that you have replaced the link. Edited August 15, 2011 by Rob Bowman
Anakin7 Posted August 15, 2011 Posted August 15, 2011 I know I reposted one that does work. In His Debt/Grace Anakin7 LDS JEDI KNIGHT
Anakin7 Posted August 15, 2011 Posted August 15, 2011 Anakin7,Try the link...it doesn't lead to an actual web article.Never mind--I see that you have replaced the link. No Problem. May True Grace Be With You. In His Debt/Grace Anakin7
jo1952 Posted August 15, 2011 Author Posted August 15, 2011 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.Rob,Obviously, you are a well-trained apologist and you use your knowledge to sway people away from yourself and the inconsistencies of your own beliefs.What you claim came later was controversy – not an evolution of continuing truth. Besides, we are talking about salvation here----not the evolution of church administration which needed to expand as the numbers of members of the church increased. God did not make the path to salvation a mystery veiled in darkness! The “all truth” which the Holy Ghost leads us to is beyond the requirements for salvation; rather, it is continuing to increase our knowledge about the Kingdom of God. If you believe that the church continued to evolve in knowledge on HOW we are saved, then you make Jesus a liar.Your argument concerning the RCC church is a rabbit trail. Everyone knows that the original ancient church evolved into the RCC. The very word “catholic” meant “general”, and was used to make distinction of what was generally believed by true Christians versus the beliefs of heretical groups. The RCC adopted it and claims the Catholic church is the SAME church founded by Jesus Christ at the confession of Peter (Mat 16:18). This indicates that in the mind of the RCC, there is NO time element which distinguishes the RCC as being anything other than the very same ancient church which Christ set up through Peter. Therefore, there IS no anachronism held by the RCC – that anachronism exists in your interpretation of the history of the ancient church. The term “catholic” is seen in a letter from Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrmeans in AD 110. Obviously, for his letter to have been understood, the term “catholic” would have shown up earlier than his letter. Also, there has been an unbroken line of Popes, according to the RCC, which indicates that Peter was the first Pope (Bishop of Rome). By the time of the Council of Constantinople was held in AD 381, there had been 37 Popes. It was after this council that a stake was placed in the ground concerning the now officially recognized power and authority of the RCC:“…let us believe in the one diety of the father, Son and Holy Spirit, in equal majesty and in a holy Trinity. We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since in out judgment they are foolish madmen, we decree that the shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give their conventicles the name of churches. They will suffer in the first place the chastisement of divine condemnation an the second the punishment of out authority, in accordance with the will of heaven shall decide to inflict...(Theodosian Code XVI.1.2. Cited in Bettenson H, ed., Documents of the Christian Church, London: Oxford University Press, 1943, p. 31).”http://www.religioustolerance.org/rcc_salv.htm“The fate of non-Catholics, as expressed at Vatican II: The "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church - Lumen Gentium" (1964) is one of many documents to come out of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council (often referred to as "Vatican II"). The Council was held in Rome between 1962 and 1965. Lumen Gentium" contains in its Chapter 1 an essay on "The Mystery of the church." Sections 14 to 16 describe the potential for salvation of: Followers of the Catholic Church, Members of other Christian denominations, and Believers of non-Christian religions.The language is difficult to follow for a lay person. However, an "Assessment of this Council" was written "as an AID to study by Catholic Students of the Second Vatican Council. They contain material, some written in a journalistic style, for the American reader." In the section "The Constitution of the Church" the assessment reads:""The Catholic Church professes that it is the one, holy catholic and apostolic Church of Christ; this it does not and could not deny. But in its Constitution the Church now solemnly acknowledges that the Holy Ghost is truly active in the churches and communities separated from itself. To these other Christian Churches the Catholic Church is bound in many ways: through reverence for God's word in the Scriptures; through the fact of baptism; through other sacraments which they recognize." 5. The non-Christian may not be blamed for his ignorance of Christ and his Church; salvation is open to him also, if he seeks God sincerely and if he follows the commands of his conscience, for through this means the Holy Ghost acts upon all men; this divine action is not confined within the limited boundaries of the visible Church." 6This statement would seem to include the possibility that seekers after God may attain salvation, even though they have not concluded that God exists. Presumably, the authors of this document define "God" in Roman Catholic terms as a super-human intelligence and personality with specific attributes, such as being omnipotent, omniscient, omnibeneficient, omnipresent, etc. This statement indicates that even some Agnostics and Atheists could be saved and attain heaven, if they sincerely sought this Christian God. It also seems to imply that many Buddhists -- those who follow traditions that have no concept of such a deity -- will be relegated to h*** after death.”If you read closely, it appears that Agnostics and Atheists COULD be saved; however, those who follow whomever the Catholics identify as the wrong God, or incorrect doctrine, are still unsavable. Wow! So in the eyes of the RCC, you would be better off not believing in God at all, then to believe something incorrect. This is NOT consistent with what Jesus taught in the Bible.Now, it seems to me that this Vatican II was the politically correct thing to do; it is not something that the RCC would have done without political pressure, or without an agenda in mind. I would also like to ask how the Vatican II explained or excused the atrocities which the RCC had wielded upon mankind prior to this meeting. Was there an apology? Did they admit any wrong-doing? Or was this, in accordance with your own terminology and beliefs, merely the evolution of “truth”. IOW, you would seem to be adhering to an understanding that when Jesus claimed that His own Apostles weren’t able to bear any more knowledge, that the RCC wasn’t able to bear the “truth” which would have ultimately saved the physical lives of millions of people who suffered torture, misery, and death at the hands of His church, because their knowledge had not evolved enough yet. Therefore, Jesus willingly taught them a different truth, which has now evolved into an entirely opposite truth. I’m sorry, but this does not affirm any of the qualities of the loving and merciful Heavenly Father I believe in.I would also like to point out that the RCC has made the claim previous to the Vatican II that anything the Pope teaches is INFALLIBLE. So, which teaching is infallible---the pre-Vatican II teaching? Or the complete about-face post-Vatican II teaching? This also indicates to me a belief that Christ changed His mind about who could and could not be considered Christian. So, you are okay with this? You are able to accept the changes the RCC has made in respect to suddenly in 1964 the RCC now says that the believers in the Protestant denominations are saved? If you DO, then what your belief looks like is that you believe Christ has changed His mind; though I doubt you will admit this. The following shows that I am not making this up:http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm“Proof of the Church's infallibilityThat the Church is infallible in her definitions on faith and morals is itself a Catholic dogma, which, although it was formulated ecumenically for the first time in the Vatican Council, had been explicitly taught long before and had been assumed from the very beginning without question down to the time of the Protestant Reformation. The teaching of the Vatican Council is to be found in Session III, cap. 4, where it is declared that "the doctrine of faith, which God has revealed, has not been proposed as a philosophical discovery to be improved upon by human talent, but has been committed as a Divine deposit to the spouse of Christ, to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted by her"; and in Session IV, cap. 4, where it is defined that the Roman pontiff when he teaches ex cathedra "enjoys, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith and morals". Even the Vatican Council, it will be seen, only introduces the general dogma of the Church's infallibility as distinct from that of the pope obliquely and indirectly, following in this respect the traditional usage according to which the dogma is assumed as an implicate of ecumenical magisterial authority. Instances of this will be given below and from these it will appear that, though the word infallibility as a technical term hardly occurs at all in the early councils or in the Fathers, the thing signified by it was understood and believed in and acted upon from the beginning. We shall confine our attention in this section to the general question, reserving the doctrine of papal infallibility for special treatment. This arrangement is adopted not because it is the best or most logical, but because it enables us to travel a certain distance in the friendly company of those who cling to the general doctrine of ecclesiastical infallibility while rejecting the papal claims. Taking the evidence both scriptural and traditional as it actually stands, one may fairly maintain that it proves papal infallibility in a simpler, more direct, and more cogent way than it proves the general doctrine independently; and there can be no doubt but that this is so if we accept as the alternative to papal infallibility the vague and unworkable theory of ecumenical infallibility which most High-Church Anglicans would substitute for Catholic teaching. Nor are the Eastern schismatical Churches much better off than the Anglican in this respect, except that each has retained a sort of virtual belief in its own infallibility, and that in practice they have been more faithful in guarding the doctrines infallibly defined by the early ecumenical councils. Yet certain Anglicans and all the Eastern Orthodox agree with Catholics in maintaining that Christ promised infallibility to the true Church, and we welcome their support as against the general Protestant denial of this truth.”“(1) As the supreme teacher of the Church, whose it is to prescribe what is to be believed by all the faithful, and to take measures for the preservation and the propagation of the faith, the following are the rights which pertain to the pope:" IOW, the POPE determines what is allowed to be believed by all the faithful. I would ask you where does the Holy Ghost fit in with this??? Isn’t it the Holy Ghost who leads us to all Truth and NOT the Pope??? Isn’t it the Holy Ghost who IS the witness for Christ on the Earth; NOT the Pope????I would also offer that this is evidence that the RCC has taken on the very powers which Jesus HATES; that these powers describe the beliefs of the Nicolaitans mentioned more than once in Revelation whom Jesus hates!!! If all Protestants were honest with themselves; and if they understood what has gone on in the RCC all of this time, that they would recognize the RCC as being a church of Nicolaitans, and they (the Protestants) would be rejecting the RCC; just the way Martin Luther did. As it is, there are only relatively few Protestants who have the courage to reject the institution of the RCC, while still being able to love the believers. Why am I making such a big deal out of this? Because, even in accordance with the RCC beliefs, it IS the RCC that artificed the Trinity dogma. If the institution of the RCC is as fallible as she appears to much of the world, then how can you be so comfortable with accepting her teaching about what you are allowed to believe about God through the auspices of the Trinity; especially in light of the evidences that today's Trinity is NOT the Trinity originally described before the Nicene Trinity emerged? Aren't you really picking and choosing what you want to believe they got right versus what you may think they got wrong? Aren't you ignoring the real history of the church by doing so; i.e., that today's Trinity is NOT the Trinity originally believed in? And you are willing to wave this all away, why? Come on, Rob, the readers know that you are merely waving away confronting the problematic evidences of ancient church history which disrupts what you claim to believe today, with what was actually believed in ancient times. If you are unwilling or unable to address these issues, then I would offer you have no business insisting that you understand LDS beliefs better than we do. You certainly have no leg to stand on in continuing your relentless agenda of trying to dismantle our beliefs since you are unable to hold your own beliefs to the same standard you demand of ours.Regards,jo
jo1952 Posted August 15, 2011 Author Posted August 15, 2011 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.Actually, it is the very artificers of the Trinity who claim that you cannot understand the Trinity. Therefore, if you claim otherwise, you are actually in disagreement with those who constructed it. To me, this is an indication that you don't understand it either.Regards,jo
jo1952 Posted August 15, 2011 Author Posted August 15, 2011 Four. The defense (in this case) is Satan, and they'd make an error, so you'd come in, too.LehiI love it! This means I hit a grand slam!!! Thank you, Lehi.Best regards,jo
jo1952 Posted August 15, 2011 Author Posted August 15, 2011 Yes. I've been making and successfully defending it since before my mission.One angle of approach would be that the Biblical doctrines of Subordinationism, LDS Theosis, and the Three as disitinct Gods, etc. preclude any type of trinitarian intepretation.The problem you'll have here is that LDS don't approach the BoM as a separate work to be considered against other scripture. So there are actually no BoM verses supporting a trinity doctrine. In this case, the Bible provides the details on how the Father and the Son are "one" and "in" each other (such as John 17) and it isn't at all how a trinitarian would view it.Indeed, the writings of many of the early church fathers (pre-Nicea) believed in a plurality of Gods which was binatarian or dualism; i.e., the Father and the Son. It was not until later that the church started including the Holy Ghost to be part of the Godhead. I have noted that at the First Council of Nicea that the majority of those in attendance were either Arians (10%), and "in-between" (they had not made any committment) which represented 75%. This left only 15% who were pre-Nicea trinitarians. It was only after Constantine arose after a compelling speech was given by a trinitarian, and became noted by all in attendance that this (the trinitarian) belief is the one which he liked the best, that the majority vote was then swayed to reflect his desires. Also, it is prudent to recognize that as a Roman first (before being Christian), Constantine was familiar with a triad pagan belief. It is not difficult to surmise that he would then feel most comfortable with a triad Christian decision of belief. I understand that even though Constantine was a Christian, that he demanded that when he died, he would be buried in a pagan cemetery; not a Christian cemetery. Seems he was trying to make sure he had all of his bases covered.Regards,jo
jo1952 Posted August 15, 2011 Author Posted August 15, 2011 Steve,You wrote:But Steve, you had told me earlier (see post #15):No one who believed in the Trinity could possibly also believe that God's essence is nonexistent.I suppose that even YOU would be amazed at some of the things Trinitarians claim their belief in the Trinity looks like when they are pressed. Yet they are believed, nonetheless.Regards,jo
jo1952 Posted August 15, 2011 Author Posted August 15, 2011 (edited) Steve,You wrote:I said "orthodox" with a small "o," not "Orthodox" (member of the Eastern Orthodox Church). I don't know what kind of Protestant he is, but if he says that God's essence is nonexistent, he does not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. This sounds possibly like something in the liberal tradition of Paul Tillich, which in effect amounts to a form of atheism masquerading as Christian theology.I suppose it is according to your personal agenda that you STILL ignore that the very religion which constructed the Trinity dogma says this: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. (Catholic Dictionary)Therefore, your claim that a person who says he is a Trinitarian who doesn't understand the Trinity could NOT actually believe in the Trinity is in direct conflict with the above. I wish that you would not misrepresent the Trinity. As the Director of Research for the IRR, you should not need to stoop to such tactics. Clearly, a Trinitarian who does not understand the Trinity is exactly at the right place because the Trinity cannot BE understood. I wonder if the RCC realizes that their own explanation of this "mystery" encompasses the reality that their own understanding of the Trinity is, therefore, only a "guess". I am more amazed, therefore, that they seem able to admit the Trinity is a mystery; but unless you accept this mystery, you must, at last, be damned. I don't know about anybody else; but this sure sounds like double-speak to me. You know, as in "with a forked tongue" - afterall, the mystery IS veiled in darkness even AFTER receiving Divine Revelation about it. Best regards,jo Edited August 15, 2011 by jo1952
jo1952 Posted August 15, 2011 Author Posted August 15, 2011 BCSpace,You wrote:Well, since the Bible does not teach that the three are distinct Gods, your angle of approach will not work. Nor does the Bible teach what you call LDS theosis.If I might remind you, I invited you to this thread to defend YOUR beliefs. Please keep your comments on topic. Thanks,jo
Hughes Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 I suppose it is according to your personal agenda that you STILL ignore that the very religion which constructed the Trinity dogma says this: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. (Catholic Dictionary)Therefore, your claim that a person who says he is a Trinitarian who doesn't understand the Trinity could NOT actually believe in the Trinity is in direct conflict with the above. I wish that you would not misrepresent the Trinity. As the Director of Research for the IRR, you should not need to stoop to such tactics. Clearly, a Trinitarian who does not understand the Trinity is exactly at the right place because the Trinity cannot BE understood. I wonder if the RCC realizes that their own explanation of this "mystery" encompasses the reality that their own understanding of the Trinity is, therefore, only a "guess". I am more amazed, therefore, that they seem able to admit the Trinity is a mystery; but unless you accept this mystery, you must, at last, be damned. I don't know about anybody else; but this sure sounds like double-speak to me. You know, as in "with a forked tongue" - afterall, the mystery IS veiled in darkness even AFTER receiving Divine Revelation about it. Best regards,jobolded and copied here:"Clearly, a Trinitarian who does not understand the Trinity is exactly at the right place because the Trinity cannot BE understood."Why say that? Why misrepresent what you quoted? When it was clearly stated in what you quoted: " In other words, our understanding of it remains only partial"Just like our understanding of everything in this life. We could say the same about the LDS dogma of the Godhead. How it's claimed to be one God yet three gods?
altersteve Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 We could say the same about the LDS dogma of the Godhead. How it's claimed to be one God yet three gods?This has been explained to you countless times, Hughes.
jo1952 Posted August 16, 2011 Author Posted August 16, 2011 bolded and copied here:"Clearly, a Trinitarian who does not understand the Trinity is exactly at the right place because the Trinity cannot BE understood."Why say that? Why misrepresent what you quoted? When it was clearly stated in what you quoted: " In other words, our understanding of it remains only partial"Just like our understanding of everything in this life. We could say the same about the LDS dogma of the Godhead. How it's claimed to be one God yet three gods?You will have to explain how it is that I misrepresented what the RCC claims about the Trinity. It seems you would rather deflect the inherrant problems of the Trinity than face them and explain them.It appears to me that since the RCC and the Protestants base their faith in something that can only be partially understood, that they are standing on a slippery slope to THEN claim that a person must accept this dogma or they cannot be considered Christian, or saved. When I study the history of the ancient church, along with the history of the Trinity, I realize that the RCC had no choice but to speak of the Trinity AS a mystery. Since they were unable to re-write history, they were forced to place all of the history surrounding this dogma which questions its divinity and veracity into an untouchable and closed-loop realm. How convenient. BTW, the purpose of my thread is to discuss the Trinity. If you wish to discuss the Godhead as the LDS understand and believe it, please start another thread. Regards,jo
Hughes Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 (edited) You will have to explain how it is that I misrepresented what the RCC claims about the Trinity. It seems you would rather deflect the inherrant problems of the Trinity than face them and explain them.It appears to me that since the RCC and the Protestants base their faith in something that can only be partially understood, that they are standing on a slippery slope to THEN claim that a person must accept this dogma or they cannot be considered Christian, or saved. When I study the history of the ancient church, along with the history of the Trinity, I realize that the RCC had no choice but to speak of the Trinity AS a mystery. Since they were unable to re-write history, they were forced to place all of the history surrounding this dogma which questions its divinity and veracity into an untouchable and closed-loop realm. How convenient. BTW, the purpose of my thread is to discuss the Trinity. If you wish to discuss the Godhead as the LDS understand and believe it, please start another thread. Regards,joYou said, "the Trinity cannot BE understood."Yet it actually said - " In other words, our understanding of it remains only partial"Do you see the difference? You misrepresented what it said. Why do that? You seem to be in attack mode, when you misrepresent the Trinitarian view.If person "A" says that how cars work is only partially understood. And person "B" said that person "A" said that how cars work, "Cannot BE understood." Do you think that is reflective of what person "A" actually said? Edited August 16, 2011 by Hughes
ebeddoulos Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 (edited) You said, "the Trinity cannot BE understood."Yet it actually said - " In other words, our understanding of it remains only partial"Do you see the difference? You misrepresented what it said. Why do that? You seem to be in attack mode, when you misrepresent the Trinitarian view.If person "A" says that how cars work is only partially understood. And person "B" said that person "A" said that how cars work, "Cannot BE understood." Do you think that is reflective of what person "A" actually said?Perhaps a better word would be incomprehensible?“St. Augustine constantly recalls that the mystery of God is incomprehensible. The famous formulas of his sermons are well known: ’If you have grasped, it is not God; if you were able to understand, then you have understood something else in God’s place.’ The De Trinitate is no exception. God the Trinity cannot be ‘understood,’ he cannot be spoken (he is ineffable), he cannot be explained, his mystery is not ‘grasped,’ we do not know him. In this domain more than any other, one must exclude all presumption (praesumptio).” (Michael Duaphinais, Barry David, Matthew Levering, eds., Aquinas the Augustinian, Washington,DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2007, pg. 10-11) Edited August 16, 2011 by ebeddoulos
Rob Bowman Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 jo,You wrote:Actually, it is the very artificers of the Trinity who claim that you cannot understand the Trinity. Therefore, if you claim otherwise, you are actually in disagreement with those who constructed it. To me, this is an indication that you don't understand it either.You might want to do some homework before saying things like this. I have published a book on the Trinity and written other published materials (articles, etc.) of relevance to that topic. I have been discussing the doctrine of the Trinity with anti-Trinitarians of all stripes (not just or even mostly Mormons) for 35 years. This includes a highly visible public debate on a well-trafficked blog just last year. I have also lectured on the subject at the college and graduate school levels. I know this subject matter extremely well.Given the attitude you have toward me (see below), I am not going to spend a lot of time responding in the kind of detail I could until I see a change in that attitude. Here I will simply point out that one must distinguish between understanding of a basic, working, functional kind and understanding that is comprehensive, definitive, and perfect. It is possible to have the former kind of knowledge of the doctrine of the Trinity but not, in this life, the latter.You wrote:Obviously, you are a well-trained apologist and you use your knowledge to sway people away from yourself and the inconsistencies of your own beliefs.This is the sort of judgmental comment that will make me quickly lose interest in trying to have a reasoned discussion with you. There is no point in me trying to prove your judgment of me wrong.You wrote:If you believe that the church continued to evolve in knowledge on HOW we are saved, then you make Jesus a liar.The issue was the nature of the Trinity, not how we are saved. But I disagree with your statement. Jesus never said that we could not grow in our understanding of how we are saved. You of all people should be careful about making such statements, because the LDS Church's understanding of how we are saved also developed, especially during Joseph Smith's tenure as prophet.You wrote:Your argument concerning the RCC church is a rabbit trail. Everyone knows that the original ancient church evolved into the RCC.You're right. But you're not stating the whole truth. The original ancient church evolved into the RCC and the Eastern Orthodox Church. But if the original ancient church evolved into these institutions, then they did not actually exist as such in the ancient period. So even your statement ends up conceding my point.I am not going to concede the claims that the RCC makes for itself. For example, I deny that it is the only true church. Your "historical argument" which you are taking uncritically from RCC theologians is used by them to prove just that -- the doctrine that the RCC is the only true church. You don't believe that Peter was the first pope, do you? I don't understand why you think this is a legitimate line of argument from a Mormon perspective. Since I reject their historical arguments, I also reject their claim that they, the RCC, developed the doctrine of the Trinity. The ancient church did that.You raised various issues pertaining to what the RCC taught in the past and teaches now about the salvation of non-Catholics and so forth. None of this is relevant to your thread, and certainly you are asking the wrong person if you are looking for a defense of the RCC claims, since I am a former Catholic who converted to evangelical Protestantism. Your reasoning that if I "accept" the current Catholic position on the salvation of Protestants then I am saying that Christ changed his mind is bizarre. I am not a Catholic, so I don't "accept" the Catholic position on this subject.There is a huge fallacy in reasoning that if I accept a doctrine the Catholic Church claimed to formulate, then I am somehow accepting Catholic dogma. You accept the same 27 books of the NT as Catholics and Protestants, don't you? Well, the RCC claims it is responsible for deciding which books should be in the NT. Do you accept that claim?You wrote:Come on, Rob, the readers know that you are merely waving away confronting the problematic evidences of ancient church history which disrupts what you claim to believe today, with what was actually believed in ancient times. If you are unwilling or unable to address these issues, then I would offer you have no business insisting that you understand LDS beliefs better than we do. You certainly have no leg to stand on in continuing your relentless agenda of trying to dismantle our beliefs since you are unable to hold your own beliefs to the same standard you demand of ours.I am not unwilling or unable to discuss these issues in the proper place and with someone who shows me the same courtesy I am expected to show others here. Those conditions do not apply in this instance.
Storm Rider Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 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.Actually, I am a former Catholic, so I've seen the arguments from the inside of that perspective.Rob, I don't disagree that the ECF used the scriptures significantly in their writings. What I disagree with is that the Bible lead them to the doctrine of the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity was needed to overcome the obvious conflict in the belief of the divinity of Jesus, the Son of God, and the perceived need for monotheism. Once the doctrine was created then they went back to look for evidence to support their new doctrine. It is the chicken or the egg predicament again. Rob, it is not a big deal, but it was quite clear in your previous statement that you felt LDS did not read anything but the quotes used by GAs. You made a poor assumption of LDS, but it is OK. I freely admit that I make poor assumptions of Evangelicals all the time. I have a knee jerk reaction to be very wary of this specific group. When they start burning Mormons at the stake, it will be an EV that is lighting the kindling. When I poke at you, please understand that I realize that it is a bit of the pot calling the kettle black.
zerinus Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 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.The trouble with the traditional Christian doctrine of the Trinity is that it is such an absurd theology, and any formulation of it contains so many inherent absurdities, that trying to fit it into the Bible is no more meaningful than trying to fit it into the bhagavad gita
Recommended Posts