Contra Trinitas

[Log]

Hi 3DOP,

You wrote:

(I)t seems entirely reasonable that as man, Christ spoke of His human ignorance in Mt. 24.

Please forgive me, but on its face, it is not a reasonable reading of Christ's simple statement.

If we make the assumptions that you have made, and accept the teachings you refer to, then, and only then, does such a reading become reasonable.

But then, that's part of the bigger picture of what's at stake.

Thank you for your reply.

Edited April 3, 2012 by Log

[3DOP]

I get dizzy every time I hear someone try to reconcile the doctrine of the Trinity with Christ saying that the Son did not know something that the Father knew. The spin is incredible . . . and wrong.

Rob implied something interesting, that God doesn't get fatigued or sleep.

The writer of Genesis writes that after 6 days of creative work, God rested.

The Psalmist queried of the Lord, "why sleepest thou?"

I don't know. Does God ever take a nap?

Rest occurs when activity ceases, it does not necessarily imply that God was weary as you seem to believe.

[3DOP]

Hi 3DOP,

You wrote:

Please forgive me, but on its face, it is not a reasonable reading of Christ's simple statement.

If we make the assumptions that you have made, and accept the teachings you refer to, then, and only then, does such a reading become reasonable.

But then, that's part of the bigger picture of what's at stake.

Thank you for your reply.

You're welcome Log. I am not asking YOU to make the assumptions and believe what we do. I think I have demonstrated though that if one wants to critique our belief, one has to allow for the "assumptions" that you reject that have been the Catholic dogma for 1500 years. I am satisfied with your concession of "then and only then." I agree. Totally. But it seems like you don't feel any obligation to acknowledge that our beliefs have to be taken as an integral whole. Assuredly, Latter-day Saints are monophysites par excellence. Man and God are of the same species! Of course, our beliefs are nonsense if they are observed over LDS presuppositions.

I am not arguing that our beliefs are true, much less that yours are false. I don't expect that in the least. I am pointing out the absolute necessity of allowing all of our beliefs to be examined as a whole, and if you allow that, "then and only then" does such a reading become reasonable. I am only asking that we not be considered crazy or ridiculous. I assure you that I try very hard to always view LDS beliefs as a whole. I do not try to confute LDS teachings, and I believe that the Restoration makes a lot of sense. All of your doctrines are coherent according to my understanding. I do not think they are crazy. I admire the integrity of your teachings. I think they are very reasonable. Successful false doctrine, that which has been widely accepted, is always at least reasonable, if one examines it in its total integrity. "Then, and only then."

-----

Hi Mark Beesely,

You say "the spin is incredible". I beg to differ. There over a billion baptized Catholics in the world and although most haven't needed to learn of monophysitism, those who have believe "the spin", which means it IS credible. Intelligent people believe this. You can discount us as crazy or stupid if you want. But you will minimize your own believability/credibility by doing so. How can you possibly expect to dialogue with people who believe that which you have declared to be incredible. You can't. We are nuts. You can't reason with somebody who is insane can you?

I am asking that we tone down the rhetoric. Can't something ever be wrong in our view, but still be sensible, or even clever? How can everything that is wrong be ridiculous, crazy, absurd, or incredible? Clearly if a lot of other people believe something, it IS at least credible! If we want to live in our own comfortable world that's okay with me. But if we want to critique someone, we have to do the hard work of trying to understand everything about them. A superficial critique always takes an isolated doctrine and makes it appear ridiculous. Anti-Mormons do this to you all the time. It is a very common mistake that has been around for a long, long time. But that doesn't make it any more commendable.

3DOP

Edited April 3, 2012 by 3DOP

[Mark Beesley]

Rest occurs when activity ceases, it does not necessarily imply that God was weary as you seem to believe.

Just to clarify, I have no belief related to this.

Edited April 3, 2012 by Mark Beesley

[Log]

Hi 3DOP,

I felt to address this statement:

I am only concerned to make it clear that my beliefs are in full harmony with the Catholic teaching, which as you admit (along with my as yet, untested view of consubstantiality), "resolves the contradiction."

I am not at all sure that Catholic teaching does, in fact, resolve the contradiction between Christ as fully God and Christ not being omnisicent, and was not making such an admission. The views you appeared to propound did, in fact, resolve the contradiction, but it appears now that you do not, in fact, espouse the views which you appeared to.

Indeed, it appears the contradiction still follows, granting Catholic teachings.

Just to clarify. Thanks again.

[3DOP]

Hi 3DOP,

I felt to address this statement:

I am not at all sure that Catholic teaching does, in fact, resolve the contradiction between Christ as fully God and Christ not being omnisicent, and was not making such an admission. The views you appeared to propound did, in fact, resolve the contradiction, but it appears now that you do not, in fact, espouse the views which you appeared to.

Indeed, it appears the contradiction still follows, granting Catholic teachings.

Just to clarify. Thanks again.

Okay Log,

Thanks for the disappointing (to me) clarification. I thought that could happen. There's no use I guess in sentimentalist pretense that all is well when we don't believe it.

So our beliefs are self-contradictory? So you think you have a handle on two natures in Christ as we understand it? It isn't the easiest thing to get a grip on at first. You see why we reject various forms of monophysitism and you go back to believing our beliefs are not just false, but illogical starting from our own premises? Okay.

I am almost certain that the reason many Mormons find our doctrines illogical is that they can't bring themselves to analyze it as though we believe that there really are two different and distinct natures natures in Christ. Most of you don't even know and couldn't begin to explain it properly. I am telling you, the reason Catholics and Protestants think your doctrines are crazy is because they don't even realize that you don't believe in two different natures between God the Father and every single human being. Catholics and Protestants try to understand your doctrines on deification in the light of their own beliefs and it doesn't make sense. Mormons try to understand our doctrines in light of their own beliefs and they don't make sense.

I agree that "on the face of it", your reading of Mt. 24 on Christ's lack of knowledge seems to certainly teach that He was not omniscient. But we have to go deeper. "On the face of it" is not how we interpret Scripture. Other passages, we are convinced, teach that us Christ is God. Still other passages we are convinced teach us that God is omniscient. Other passages teach us that Christ is a man. We have to reconcile all of this information and you think your way is the only one that isn't illogical. I suggest your way of reconciling is the only way that isn't illogical...to you. I think I understand our position better than you do. Would you have been able to identify before today what we mean by a monophysite? What Catholic books have you ever read? I'm not saying you are obligated to take up a great big load of study that would take years...unless you want to say that we are self-contradictory. I've read enough LDS books to see that my friends are wrong who think you guys are out of your minds and illogical. I just disbelieve your teachings. I see that your beliefs make sense from your points of view.

In my opinion, the single most convincing reason to decide against an LDS Restoration is the persistent inability of most Mormons to understand what they claim is apostate. It seems to me like it started that way in 1830. Even if your expectations were correct, and we were wrong about God's greatness, is it really such a terrible thing to have exaggerated the greatness of God and His Son? You guys act like its just this horrible terrible thing to believe God is greater than you think he is. My Dad wouldn't mind if I over-estimated how smart, or athletic, or good at anything he was.

Anyway, take care, be good, God bless. I won't belabor my "successful error theories" anymore to you, Log. It was a pleasure.

3DOP

[Mudcat]

I'm having some difficulty with your explanation here. It appears you have an issue with P1 or P2. Which of these is problematic, in your view, and why?

My real problem is the cardboard Trinity offered. It's not accurate. Perhaps you suffer the same difficulty Vox has.

Your intractability on the matter after cogent discussion from Bowman and 3DOP is evident. You have started with your conclusion in mind and any discussion that leads you from such takes you back to your presupposition.

I enjoy such discussions about as well as LDS likely enjoy discussions with a nonLDS who incalcitrantly asserts what they think LDS believe and doesn't pay attention to their actual views. I don't plan further discourse on the matter. You seem preferential to a logical argument that does not accurately depict Trinitarian thinking.

[Log]

MudCat, and 3DOP (and Rob):

Here's my issue.

The conclusion of the argument is true if, and only if, the premises are true. That is how propositional logic works.

So far, the only premise anyone has taken serious aim at is, to my mind, the most uncontroversial of them all - P3.

If P1 and P2 are true - and, thus far, nobody seems to be arguing them to be false - then P3 follows.

Anything not aimed at the truth of the premises of the argument is really beside the point. It doesn't matter if you don't like the implications of the argument - the distastefulness of the conclusion is irrelevant to its truth, which depends critically on the truth and accuracy of the premises.

So, if P1 or P2 is not accurate, then that needs to be addressed. Of what benefit is a logical argument with false premises?

I have no intention, and no reason, to misrepresent your beliefs. I really don't have a dog in the fight.

Edited April 3, 2012 by Log

[3DOP]

Log

Of what benefit is a logical argument with false premises?

3DOP

If I build a good and beautiful house on a faulty foundation, what benefit is there in criticising what is beautiful and good in the house? Criticise the foundation or don't criticise anything!

There IS benefit in admitting that those who err can still have the discernment to recognise and build an edifice that is beautiful and good, even if the premise is faulty. It makes us recognize that those who are wrong, are not so different from ourselves. We are able to think wrong people are not necessarily stupid or wicked. Premises, like the foundations of a house are less easy to analyze and determine to be true or false. My entire theory of the successful error presupposes and insists that there is tremendous value in recognizing a logical argument with false premises. It is one thing to recognize that there are a lot of crazy ideas in the world that are plain to see. It will not do to claim that every argument from a false premise is worthless.

Log, it will not hurt to consider my most vehement objection to your rhetorical question. Truth is the most important thing, but it isn't EVERYTHING. It will not do to say that everything untrue is of necessity also ugly. We cannot hope to build relationships with souls if we insist to them that what they know from experience is beautiful, is in your inexperienced opinion, ugly, because what is out of easy sight is false. The foundation is of primary importance. But I am encouraged to see beautiful structures on bad foundations. It can be a source of hope.

3DOP

Edited April 3, 2012 by 3DOP

[saemo]

From Vox Day:

I would think Rob Bowman might have something to say about this...

p3 is where you deviate from Christian doctrine. "Therefore, the Son and the Holy Spirit are not omniscient, and furthermore, do not possess the same knowledge as the Father." is not the logical conclusion in light of Christian doctrines regarding the Incarnation of Jesus Christ.

Matthew 24:36 is an indication of the emptying that is described in Philippians 2

6 Who, though he was in the form of God,

did not regard equality with God something to be grasped.

7

Rather, he emptied himself,

taking the form of a slave,

coming in human likeness;

and found human in appearance,

Edited April 3, 2012 by saemo

[Log]

p3 is where you deviate from Christian doctrine. "Therefore, the Son and the Holy Spirit are not omniscient, and furthermore, do not possess the same knowledge as the Father." is not the logical conclusion in light of Christian doctrines regarding the Incarnation of Jesus Christ.

Matthew 24:36 is an indication of the emptying that is described in Philippians 2

6 Who, though he was in the form of God,

did not regard equality with God something to be grasped.

7

Rather, he emptied himself,

taking the form of a slave,

coming in human likeness;

and found human in appearance,

I'm sorry - P3 follows logically and necessarily from P1 and P2. If P3 is false, then P1 or P2 must also be false. Which, therefore, do you choose, and why?

[saemo]

I'm sorry - P3 follows logically and necessarily from P1 and P2. If P3 is false, then P1 or P2 must also be false. Which, therefore, do you choose, and why?

It doesn't logically follow, not any more than

1. humans don't have wings

2. wings are needed to fly

3. therefore humans can't fly

Very logical, but based on a narrow view that ignores certain facts.

You are ignoring certain facts, most notably the very important fact of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. The doctrines of the Holy Trinity are based on the whole of scripture, not one verse.

I also have to say, this argument is similar to the one I've seen, that says, "God cannot die, Jesus died, therefore Jesus is not God." It also relies on ignoring the most important event of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. God became Man.

Edited April 4, 2012 by saemo

[Log]

It doesn't logically follow, not any more than

1. humans don't have wings

2. wings are needed to fly

3. therefore humans can't fly

Very logical, but based on a narrow view that ignores certain facts.

You are ignoring certain facts, most notably the very important fact of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ.

Hi Saemo,

There is nothing of relevance that is ignored. Does P1 and P2 accurately express your understanding of the dogma of the Trinity, and do you agree Christ said that which is attributed to him in P3?

[saemo]

Hi Saemo,

There is nothing of relevance that is ignored. Does P1 and P2 accurately express your understanding of the dogma of the Trinity, and do you agree Christ said that which is attributed to him in P3?

The Incarnation is as relevant to Jesus' nature as human and divine as your birth is to your humanity. We do not separate Jesus from His humanity, or from His divinity. It is impossible to discuss the Holy Trinity, the relationship of the Father to the Son, without discussing the nature of Jesus Christ. It is illogical to believe you can.

So Christian understanding of the doctrine you are arguing against has been explained to you several times. I think it has already been pointed out you have a straw man going. Beat away!

Edited April 4, 2012 by saemo

[Log]

The Incarnation is as relevant to Jesus' nature as human and divine as your birth is to your humanity. We do not separate Jesus from His humanity, or from His divinity. It is impossible to discuss the Holy Trinity, the relationship of the Father to the Son, without discussing the nature of Jesus Christ. It is illogical to believe you can.

Hi Saemo,

I understand that you don't wish to answer my question with a simple yes or no. However, unfortunately, anything other than the truth of the premises is really besides the point. If the premises accurately capture your understanding of the dogma of the Trinity and the attributes of God, then you're stuck with the conclusion.

The fact that the premises are not, in fact, questioned thus far is to me good evidence that they do accurately reflect the dogma of the Trinity, but, again, I am willing to be corrected. I have no interest nor desire to misrepresent your understanding of your own dogmas (meant in the formal sense).

Edited April 4, 2012 by Log

[saemo]

Log, I understand that you have taken one statement regarding the Holy Trinity, and built a fallacy around it. P1 states the nature of God, P3 is in context of the nature of the Son, who most certainly is divine, yet also human. You wish to discount Who Jesus IS, ignore His humanity and the doctrines of the Incarnation, in order to keep your P3 conclusion intact.

I also think what has been portrayed is straying into modalism. In short, there isn't an understanding of Trinitarian doctrine, or doctrines of the Incarnation, both of which are being addressed in a somewhat modal fashion.

Can't answer yes or no to something I can clearly see is in error. I can only tell you why the comments are not logical to Trinitarian understanding to begin with. A house of sand, so to speak.

Edited April 4, 2012 by saemo

[Log]

Can't answer yes or no to something I can clearly see is in error.

Hi Saemo,

Let's try the following: Do you agree with P1? If you do not, why?

Edited April 4, 2012 by Log

[saemo]

Hi Saemo,

Let's try the following: Do you agree with P1? If you do not, why?

1. The Trinity is God as three divine persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These three persons are distinct yet coexist in unity, and are co-equal, co-eternal and consubstantial. These three divine persons are combined in one being we call God.

The red part is where I see a possibility of modalism. I would just leave it off.

[Log]

I want to be perfectly clear: is the statement "The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are NOT combined in one being we call God" consistent with the dogma of the Trinity?

[saemo]

I want to be perfectly clear: is the statement "The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are NOT combined in one being we call God" consistent with the dogma of the Trinity?

No.

"Combined" is odd choice of words to use, and you won't find it used by Trinitarians. It implies that God is not One. Basic theology will begin with, God IS. That is, He exists. Exemplified in the OT, when God names Himself as "I AM". God is not a combination, God IS.

[Log]

Ok. If there was a better word in this context than "combined," I am sure it could be used (I haven't a clue what that word is, though). Nevertheless, P1 as it stands is a fair statement of the dogma of the Trinity, correct?

[saemo]

Ok. If there was a better word in this context than "combined," I am sure it could be used (I haven't a clue what that word is, though). Nevertheless, P1 as it stands is a fair statement of the dogma of the Trinity, correct?

Possibly, I can't know what meaning you are attributing to the statement. As I said, the last part looks modal to me.

The word is consubstantial, but that was already said in the first sentence, so it's redundant. That's why I said, I'd just leave the last sentence off.

Edited April 4, 2012 by saemo

[Log]

I'm not attributing anything to the statement other than what it contains. Let's continue on.

Do you agree with P2, and if not, why?

[saemo]

I'm not attributing anything to the statement other than what it contains. Let's continue on.

Do you agree with P2, and if not, why?

Yes, I agree.

[Log]

Ok.

Do you agree that Jesus said what is attributed to him in Matthew 24:36 / Mark 13:32?

For reference, Matt 24:36 reads thus: But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

Mark 13:32 reads thus: But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.