Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted August 29, 2012 Posted August 29, 2012 This should read,SOME Christians = three distinct personages, none of them have bodies of flesh and bone (at least I've never heard of any of them having physical bodies outside of Christ's time on earth).BTW, can you tell me when Christ died (shed his body of flesh) the second time. I am unable to find that in the Bible.I am not so sure that Grim is a Christian or currently believes. He does not appear to be peddling a belief.
Bart Burk Posted August 29, 2012 Posted August 29, 2012 No, we don't know ENTIRELY how they are one. BUT we do know that they are one in purpose and will.And that is enough.It is enough in our present situation, but I think it would be wrong to limit it to just that. And can you really say you know how they are one in purpose and will when we likely don't completely understand the purpose and will of God?
zerinus Posted August 29, 2012 Posted August 29, 2012 OK, but I think you are opening up a can of worms. Because the disciples that followed Jesus are not necessarily the disciples who followed Paul's re-imagining of Jesus's Christianity. In fact, if we are true disciples of Jesus, we'd be Jewish.You are now trying to define the meaning of disciple, which is a different issue. While it is true that during the ministry of Christ His disciples were exclusively Jews (by race), after His death and resurrection Gentiles were admitted to the discipleship, therefore it was no longer the exclusive club of Jews.
zerinus Posted August 29, 2012 Posted August 29, 2012 But then you have to deal with the LDS scriptural declarations regarding the Oneness of the Godhead. I think it is more than just a reference to the disciples of Jesus Christ, but also declares the essential unity of the Father and the Son which the disciples are encouraged to imitate. Since the essential unity of the Godhead is beyond our current understanding, it is perhaps something which we can never totally obtain in this life, but something we can approach as we keep the precepts Jesus taught us in the moral law and to the extent we allow the Holy Ghost to rule our lives.In the NT the word Christian is identified by, or associated with the disciples of Jesus. It is not a statement about doctrine, but about discipleship. Discipleship relates to obedience to a master. A disciple is a believer in, or adherent of someone, whose instructions he obeys implicitly. 1
Rob Bowman Posted August 29, 2012 Posted August 29, 2012 Mola,You wrote:Well we would say that the LDS are social trinitarians.I explain briefly in my blog article why that is not an accurate statement.
altersteve Posted August 29, 2012 Posted August 29, 2012 Labels, labels, labels.Worrying about this stuff is such a waste of time.
Bart Burk Posted August 29, 2012 Posted August 29, 2012 Labels, labels, labels.Worrying about this stuff is such a waste of time.I tend to feel the same way. I think we emphasize differences when we have more in common than we want to admit.
Zeta-Flux Posted August 30, 2012 Posted August 30, 2012 Rob Bowman,I didn't see a link to your argument. What do you see as the reason we are not social trinitarians?On the wikipedia cite it says "Social Trinity is an interpretation of the Christian doctrine of the trinity. Its central idea is that the trinity consists of three persons whose unity consists of a loving relationship." That seems to fit into our doctrine (although we probably wouldn't say that the unity consists of a loving relationship, but that it is part of the unity).
Zeta-Flux Posted August 30, 2012 Posted August 30, 2012 Labels, labels, labels.Worrying about this stuff is such a waste of time.This, I think, is a fundamental misunderstanding of the argument. We don't care how we are "labelled" (per se), we care that people understand our doctrine. 2
Rob Bowman Posted August 30, 2012 Posted August 30, 2012 Zeta-Flux,You wrote:I didn't see a link to your argument.See my recent post in the new thread I started today for an explanation.You asked:What do you see as the reason we are not social trinitarians?On the wikipedia cite it says "Social Trinity is an interpretation of the Christian doctrine of the trinity. Its central idea is that the trinity consists of three persons whose unity consists of a loving relationship." That seems to fit into our doctrine (although we probably wouldn't say that the unity consists of a loving relationship, but that it is part of the unity).The statement you quoted from Wikipedia is not an adequate or complete definition of social Trinitarianism. The social model of the Trinity takes as a given that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God, meaning one infinite, personal, transcendent Creator and Lord of everything else that exists. It presupposes the traditional Christian view of God as being unchangeably God from all eternity to all eternity, so that the three persons and they alone are God. The point of social Trinitarianism is to propose a model by which we can conceptualize the unity of three distinct persons. The standard Mormon doctrine, on the other hand, maintains that the three persons are actually three Gods, separately embodied, and even that they became Gods at different times and in different ways. It also holds that human beings potentially can become Gods of the same kind (and indeed that there currently are other Gods of the same kind). The two theologies are really poles apart. Perhaps a simple way of making the point is to say that while I would agree that the Mormon conception is "social," I would not agree that it is "Trinitarian."
Rob Bowman Posted August 30, 2012 Posted August 30, 2012 Zeta-Flux,You wrote:This, I think, is a fundamental misunderstanding of the argument. We don't care how we are "labelled" (per se), we care that people understand our doctrine.A sensible and refreshing perspective. If I had three thumbs I'd give you three thumbs up.
The Grimace Posted August 30, 2012 Posted August 30, 2012 (edited) BTW, can you tell me when Christ died (shed his body of flesh) the second time. I am unable to find that in the Bible.I don't understand the question - are you insinuating I said Christ died twice? If I did, it was by accident.ETA: Ah, I get it...you are using the Mormon concept of Jesus, stating he has a resurrected, perfect body. Which other Christian denominations believe in a Christ that currently has a body of flesh and bone? Edited August 30, 2012 by The Grimace
The Grimace Posted August 30, 2012 Posted August 30, 2012 Labels, labels, labels.Worrying about this stuff is such a waste of time.I'm not worried about it, but I think a number of us in this thread, believer and non-believer, Mormon and non-Mormon, find it interesting. No motivation needs to exist beyond that.
Zeta-Flux Posted August 30, 2012 Posted August 30, 2012 The statement you quoted from Wikipedia is not an adequate or complete definition of social Trinitarianism. The social model of the Trinity takes as a given that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God, meaning one infinite, personal, transcendent Creator and Lord of everything else that exists. It presupposes the traditional Christian view of God as being unchangeably God from all eternity to all eternity, so that the three persons and they alone are God.I accept all of this, as stated. I suppose that if we delved further, you might disagree with my understanding of "eternity" and you might disagree with my understanding that "the Son" was not always "God". But everything you wrote I actually agree with (except, perhaps, your implicit claim to a single "traditional Christian view of God as being unchangeably God").The point of social Trinitarianism is to propose a model by which we can conceptualize the unity of three distinct persons. The standard Mormon doctrine, on the other hand, maintains that the three persons are actually three Gods, separately embodied, and even that they became Gods at different times and in different ways.Yes and no. Three Gods, using a different definition of "God" than the one used above. More precisely, it states that there are three persons who bear the title "God". (So, three only in the sense of social trinity.)Different times, yes.Different ways, not necessarily. That is not clearly revealed doctrine.It also holds that human beings potentially can become Gods of the same kind (and indeed that there currently are other Gods of the same kind). The two theologies are really poles apart. Perhaps a simple way of making the point is to say that while I would agree that the Mormon conception is "social," I would not agree that it is "Trinitarian."I suppose that this fundamentally rests on the supposition that the persons in God were God from all eternity to all eternity. Is there no understanding of the trinity where the Son was part of God later?Cheers,Zeta-Flux
Avatar4321 Posted August 30, 2012 Posted August 30, 2012 Interesting article. I liked the following:1) The response to the deification question with referneces to the various articles.2) Pointing out that he doesnt rely on the Bible alone when he turns to the creeds.One point of criticism. I think the response to point number 5 could have been expanded. There is no doubt that your answer was correct, but it didnt cite much or explain much. If your goal is persuading people, it's not going to be as effective.
zerinus Posted August 30, 2012 Posted August 30, 2012 Well we would say that the LDS are social trinitarians. I guess I really wont try to offer up any opinions right nowI wouldn't. I would say we are biblical Trinitarians. The reason why the Mormons here are not able to hold their own against Rob is because they are arguing out of context. The context in which we want to argue is scripture, not some clever idea found somewhere else. He claims the Bible to be his authority, and that is his Achilles heel. If you can show that your doctrine is biblical, you have him beat, otherwise you lose.
zerinus Posted August 30, 2012 Posted August 30, 2012 This, I think, is a fundamental misunderstanding of the argument. We don't care how we are "labelled" (per se), we care that people understand our doctrine.I very much care how I am labelled. I care that the enemies of the Restored gospel of Jesus Christ do not misrepresent faith by declaring that I am not a Christian.
zerinus Posted August 30, 2012 Posted August 30, 2012 (edited) I suppose that this fundamentally rests on the supposition that the persons in God were God from all eternity to all eternity. Is there no understanding of the trinity where the Son was part of God later?Cheers,Zeta-FluxMormonism teaches that the Son was God from all eternity to all eternity. Edited August 30, 2012 by zerinus
Storm Rider Posted August 30, 2012 Posted August 30, 2012 Zeta-Flux,You wrote:See my recent post in the new thread I started today for an explanation.You asked:The statement you quoted from Wikipedia is not an adequate or complete definition of social Trinitarianism. The social model of the Trinity takes as a given that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God, meaning one infinite, personal, transcendent Creator and Lord of everything else that exists. It presupposes the traditional Christian view of God as being unchangeably God from all eternity to all eternity, so that the three persons and they alone are God. The point of social Trinitarianism is to propose a model by which we can conceptualize the unity of three distinct persons. The standard Mormon doctrine, on the other hand, maintains that the three persons are actually three Gods, separately embodied, and even that they became Gods at different times and in different ways. It also holds that human beings potentially can become Gods of the same kind (and indeed that there currently are other Gods of the same kind). The two theologies are really poles apart. Perhaps a simple way of making the point is to say that while I would agree that the Mormon conception is "social," I would not agree that it is "Trinitarian."What you just said above is not what I believe, not what I have been taught, and not what I teach. It is not LDS doctrine. Further, humans don't make themselves God. God makes us gods. Why is this so hard to understand, repeat, portray about our teachings? Jesus said that we may be joint-heirs with him. Jesus said we would be gods. Do you believe Jesus or not? If so, state it clearly that you may be a joint-heir with Jesus. Now explain what Jesus will inherit? Will you inherit this will Jeus or was he not really telling the truth? LDS actually believe Jesus' teachings; LDS actually believe that Jesus was telling the truth and that we could be joint-heirs with him. It is just too easy to believe the Bible rather than create a system of belief that excludes so much of what the Bible says. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted August 30, 2012 Posted August 30, 2012 Mormonism teaches that tha Son was God from all eternity to all eternity.An interesting assertion, zerinus, but what does it mean? How do you interpret Moses 6:67, D&C 38:1, 39:1, Moroni 8:18, Ps 90:2, and any related verses? Do those words interpret themselves?
Zakuska Posted August 30, 2012 Posted August 30, 2012 I suppose that this fundamentally rests on the supposition that the persons in God were God from all eternity to all eternity. Is there no understanding of the trinity where the Son was part of God later?Cheers,Zeta-FluxWhich would bring us back to interpretation and wether Christ/The Word/Wisdom was "Created by God" as the scriptures can be interpreted to say.
zerinus Posted August 30, 2012 Posted August 30, 2012 (edited) An interesting assertion, zerinus, but what does it mean? How do you interpret Moses 6:67, D&C 38:1, 39:1, Moroni 8:18, Ps 90:2, and any related verses? Do those words interpret themselves?I interpret them by 2 Nephi 26:12; Mosiah 3:5; 15:1-2; and other verses which I do not have the time to look up right now. Edited August 30, 2012 by zerinus
The Grimace Posted August 30, 2012 Posted August 30, 2012 What you just said above is not what I believe, not what I have been taught, and not what I teach. It is not LDS doctrine. Further, humans don't make themselves God. God makes us gods. Why is this so hard to understand, repeat, portray about our teachings? Jesus said that we may be joint-heirs with him. Jesus said we would be gods. Do you believe Jesus or not? If so, state it clearly that you may be a joint-heir with Jesus. Now explain what Jesus will inherit? Will you inherit this will Jeus or was he not really telling the truth? LDS actually believe Jesus' teachings; LDS actually believe that Jesus was telling the truth and that we could be joint-heirs with him. It is just too easy to believe the Bible rather than create a system of belief that excludes so much of what the Bible says.Um, I was taught that Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ are both Gods. In fact, I was taught that Jesus Christ is Jehovah in the Old Testament, the very god of the OT. I was also taught that HF, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost form the 'Godhead', not one Eternal God. Each are gods, and together they form the godhead, which is a different thing altogether than the traditional Christian trinity.
KevinG Posted August 30, 2012 Posted August 30, 2012 ,,,which is a different thing altogether than the traditional Christian trinity.Which is a different thing altogether than the God of the Bible and pre-credal Christianity. 2
Rob Bowman Posted August 30, 2012 Posted August 30, 2012 Grimace,You asked:Ah, I get it...you are using the Mormon concept of Jesus, stating he has a resurrected, perfect body. Which other Christian denominations believe in a Christ that currently has a body of flesh and bone?That Jesus Christ rose from the grave with an immortal, glorious, perfect body of flesh and bones is the traditional Christian position, taught in Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant churches. The biblical and historic Christian doctrine is that Jesus Christ is now permanently God incarnate; he will have a physical body for the rest of time. Admittedly, many of the theologically illiterate in many churches do not understand this, but it is the traditional Christian position.
Recommended Posts