Is There Not An Apparent Problem To The Doctrine Of The Trinity?

[Spammer]

I don't.  I never claimed to.  You are making a lot out of a innocent speculation of what some of those books might have contained.  You are right that we do know some of what they contained from an adversarial perspective, but we never get to see the other side of the coin.  All I am saying is that it would be nice to have those records.  I suspect that there is much more to the story than what we have.

 

Ok, I think I understand you better.  So, you're speculating that perhaps the destroyed texts might have contained mention of unique Mormon beliefs? 

 

 

Well, there is the stick of Joseph A.K.A.the Book of Mormon But not even that contains a record of specific templte rituals, eternal marraiges, or doctrines on the natutre of the Father.

 

Right, but then the lack of any reference in ancient sources to unique LDS teachings about temples, temple rites, and doctrines on the nature of the Father is what's at issue.

 

Temples?  Yes there are writtings on those, it's called the Bible.  Eternal marriage? No, I am not aware of any writtings.  I suspect it wasn't practiced in the early Church, but they did not have the fullness of the gospel either (some would disagree with me as there are several Bible passages which hint at eternal marriage).  God is a glorified man?  I have addressed this several times now, why do you keep bringing it up?

 

Lol, ok.  I was unclear in my reference to ancient references to temples.  I was referring to ancient descriptions of LDS-like temple beliefs and rites. 

 

I keep bringing up 'God is a glorified man' because in my experience Mormons continually point to ancient descriptions of the Godhead in the church fathers that seem similar to Mormon teaching, but always neglect to mention the quite radical difference in what the cited ancient authors intend and what Mormons believe.  The similarity, even with your example of Arianism, is merely superficial.  Joseph Smith's idiosyncratic teachings about the Father as a glorified man, who was once like us, who created spirits out of a pool of intelligences, and created the universe out of preexisting matter are nowhere to be found in the ancient sources.  At most there are certain Bible verses that can be interpreted so support the LDS view, but there isn't anything in the early church fathers that sounds like that.  Instead, the church fathers, to a man, all sound rather Catholic, to varying degrees. 

 

Edited April 29, 2014 by Spammer

[pogi]

Ok, I think I understand you better.  So, you're speculating that perhaps the destroyed texts might have contained mention of unique Mormon beliefs? 

 

I suppose.  Really, I am wondering if there may have been (I am being modest) more profound teachings on the doctrines of the Godhead being of seperate substance.  Perhaps there was a better history of these arguments and their origins?  It is hard to understand someone by listening only to their adversary.  What was suppressed is only speculative.  They were obviously very persuasive arguments as demonstrated by their following.

 

Lol, ok.  I was unclear in my reference to ancient references to temples.  I was referring to ancient descriptions of LDS-like temple beliefs and rites. 

 

There are some biblical passages which describe some of the ordinances performed in our temples.  I agree however that the temple ceremony was probably not like it is now.  Hey, but neither was the trinity

 

I keep bringing up 'God is a glorified man' because in my experience Mormons continually point to ancient descriptions of the Godhead in the church fathers that seem similar to Mormon teaching, but always neglect to mention the quite radical difference in what the cited ancient authors intend and what Mormons believe.  The similarity, even with your example of Arianism, is merely superficial.  Joseph Smith's idiosyncratic teachings about the Father as a glorified man, who was once like us, who created spirits out of a pool of intelligences, and created the universe out of preexisting matter are nowhere to be found in the ancient sources.  At most there are certain Bible verses that can be interpreted so support the LDS view, but there isn't anything in the early church fathers that sounds like that.  Instead, the church fathers, to a man, all sound rather Catholic, to varying degrees. 

 

I don't believe that the primitive church contained the fulness of the gospel.  What we do believe is that Christ and His apostles understood and taught the proper oneness of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.  I believe the church fell into Apostacy before it had a chance to develop fully through continued revelation.  It is clear from Col. 2 that contradictory heretical ideas arose early in the church to confuse their relationship. 

 

It has already been pointed out that there were church fathers who taught that the universe was created out of preexisting matter, to say that it can't be found is not accurate.  You can claim that they originated from Plato, but I don't know if it can be proven that such beliefs did not exist pre-Plato.   

Edited April 29, 2014 by pogi

[MiserereNobis]

I don't believe that the primitive church contained the fulness of the gospel.

I wonder how prevalent this idea is in the LDS church. It seems like Mormons really want to claim that the primitive Church is identical to the LDS church (from the common member to general authorities). But this claim here would undermine that.

What we do believe is that Christ and His apostles understood and taught the proper oneness of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.  I believe the church fell into Apostacy before it had a chance to develop fully through continued revelation.  It is clear from Col. 2 that contradictory heretical ideas arose early in the church to confuse their relationship.

I just want to point out (as I have in other threads) that the idea of "continuing revelation" seems quite compatible to the Catholic idea of developing doctrine. From my point-of-view as a Catholic, that undermines the LDS claim that modern-day revelation is unique. We Catholics certainly believe that all truth for salvation was available to the primitive Church, yet at the same time we absolutely accept that that truth was not fully understood and required development, elaboration, and explanation, under the guidance of the Holy Ghost. In LDS terms, we believe in "continuing revelation."

[mfbukowski]

I wonder how prevalent this idea is in the LDS church. It seems like Mormons really want to claim that the primitive Church is identical to the LDS church (from the common member to general authorities). But this claim here would undermine that.

 

Yes and no.

 

Many of the temple rites, it seems to me, were present in the primitive church, as evidenced in the Mass which looks quite familiar in structure in many ways.

 

We allow what you might think of as "Catechumens" to do temple baptisms for the dead in a segregated portion of the temple perhaps not unlike your old "baptistries"

 

However I think probably only the apostles and a few authorities in the early church had the full temple ordinances.

[Storm Rider]

I wonder how prevalent this idea is in the LDS church. It seems like Mormons really want to claim that the primitive Church is identical to the LDS church (from the common member to general authorities). But this claim here would undermine that.

I just want to point out (as I have in other threads) that the idea of "continuing revelation" seems quite compatible to the Catholic idea of developing doctrine. From my point-of-view as a Catholic, that undermines the LDS claim that modern-day revelation is unique. We Catholics certainly believe that all truth for salvation was available to the primitive Church, yet at the same time we absolutely accept that that truth was not fully understood and required development, elaboration, and explanation, under the guidance of the Holy Ghost. In LDS terms, we believe in "continuing revelation."

 

I don't believe the Church of Jesus Christ teaches that the ancient church "taught" the identical doctrines. What we teach is that the structure of the church was the same - prophets and apostles - today as it was anciently. You are applying the statement in improper contexts.

[pogi]

I wonder how prevalent this idea is in the LDS church. It seems like Mormons really want to claim that the primitive Church is identical to the LDS church (from the common member to general authorities). But this claim here would undermine that.

 

We believe that we are in the dispensation of the fullness of times.  I believe our teachings suggest that it is in this dispensation that all truths and ordinances which have existed in previous dispensations will be restored in their fullness.  We believe that each of the previous dispensations have had pieces of truth which may not have been taught or practiced in others.  This is the dispensation where we bring it all together through the restoration of keys from previous dispensations.  Many of those keys came from the dispensation of Christ, but others came from dispensations before Christ if that makes sense.

 

To clarify, I do believe that all of the doctrines and ordinances that we have today have existed in at least one previous dispensation.  For example, I do believe that Adam understood the correct nature of the Father as a corporeal being, I do not believe that this doctrine was taught in the meridian of time, but it has been restored in this last dispensation.  No previous dispensation held the fullness, but were preparatory to this last and great dispensation of the fullness of times. 

Edited April 29, 2014 by pogi

[coolrok7]

The basic issue to me (the "problem" being both Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses teachings on God, especially in a salvation context) is in what it means for God to be God and not man before the creation of man in a time space world that we exist in as far as being alive in the flesh. Man is who it is that needs to be saved from an eternal punishment which is the why of Jesus becoming a man.

 

I would begin with the Biblical teaching to establish how we as Trinitarian believers derive our meaning of the nature of God in what Jesus was saying. Referring back (Mark 12:29) to the Hebrew Schema- Hear O Israel the Lord our God is one Lord is contrasted to the statement in Matthew 28 of baptizing believers in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Jesus is uniquely the only-begotten God in the flesh in John 1:14 (NASB).

 

Also in Phillipians 2 where Paul teaches that Jesus became a man as a servant in order to suffer death (in the atonement) while not ceasing to be God. Jesus is both God and man in the incarnation which is not talking about the Father Holy Spirit in that context. It also wasn't so that men could become g(G)ods, a teaching of both Joseph and Russell, the founders of both groups.

 

Partaking of the nature of God as in the sacrament of communion (unleavened bread and wine) doesn't make one a divine being as God is. One doesn't become a loaf of bread by eating it, one only derives the benefits it has to offer in the sustaining of life

 

It is the Mormon and Jehovah's Witnesses misconception (a big problem in my perspective) of what is meant in the Nicene creed which was derived to refute the heresy of Arius of Alexandria (Jehovah's Witnesses being a modern example of this idea), once the Son of God did not exist and therefore is a created being- brought into existence (this would only be true of his physical form initially beginning with the forming of Adam from the dust of the ground, in which Jesus received through the Virgin Mary of Luke chapter 1).

 

Also the idea of modalism, an heresy, which is the view (not really the Father Son Holy Spirit of the Nicene creed) which is actually being objected to by both Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses in their writings- such as these statements in part, Joseph Smith: All are to be crammed into one God, Legrand Richards A Marvelous Work and a Wonde: "oneness of personage", a Witness publication, You can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth: "the two could not be the same person".

 

It is unfortunate that many misconstrue modalism with Trinitarianism in the way some attempt to explain the Trinity which adds to the confusion. The Father, Son, Holy Spirit are the one God, "not the same person" of Biblical revelation.

Edited May 3, 2014 by coolrok7

[halconero]

1) The Shema is monolartist, not monotheist. This is consistent with Early Israelite belief

2) The doctrine of the Trinity is not explicit in he Bible. Other denominations take the same verses you use in a non-Trinitarian interpretation.

3) At least one of the early apostles was a monolartist: Paul

[saemo]

1) The Shema is monolartist, not monotheist. This is consistent with Early Israelite belief

2) The doctrine of the Trinity is not explicit in he Bible. Other denominations take the same verses you use in a non-Trinitarian interpretation.

3) At least one of the early apostles was a monolartist: Paul

Sola scriptura presents problems, and Mormon arguments are usually aimed at Bible only.

I agree that Bible only presents many doctrinal problems, the ultimate conclusion being, there is no such thing as Bible only.

The question then becomes, where did Jesus establish the authority to interpret scripture?

[halconero]

Sola scriptura presents problems, and Mormon arguments are usually aimed at Bible only.

I agree that Bible only presents many doctrinal problems, the ultimate conclusion being, there is no such thing as Bible only.

The question then becomes, where did Jesus establish the authority to interpret scripture?

Mhm. I think you and I can agree that the crux of the argument should rely on the authority of the post-apostolic era Bishops and the ecumenical councils. Would that be correct?

[MDalby]

I have always liked Orson Scott Card's analogy

 

To help make the difference clear, let me use, as a parable, some "doctrines" we all learned in high school geometry class: A line is perfectly straight and infinitely long.

All lines in the same plane either touch or they don't touch. If they don't touch, they are parallel and they go in the same direction, infinitely.

Those are the only two choices with lines in the same plane: They're either parallel or they intersect somewhere.

Now here's a theological argument between a traditional Christian (TC) and a biblical Christian (LDS):

 

TC: The Trinity consists of three parallel lines, which touch each other.

 

LDS: If they touch each other, they're not parallel.

 

TC: Nevertheless, they are parallel, and they touch. They touch at every point.

 

LDS: If they touch at every point, they're the same line. Not three.

 

TC: They touch at every point, yet there are three.

 

LDS: That doesn't make any sense. Lines can't be different yet the same, parallel yet intersecting. The words stop having any meaning when you say such things.

 

TC: That's because you have a finite, mortal mind, which cannot comprehend the nature of geometry.

 

LDS: That's just crazy. The Trinity is three lines, completely distinct, perfectly parallel, so they go infinitely in the same direction. That's simple, it's clear, and it's true. In fact, we've seen the lines.

 

TC: That's blasphemy! You can never see the lines! They're only imaginary!

 

LDS: Your lines are imaginary. The lines we've seen are real.

 

TC: Then you are not Geometers!

 

And that's where the discussion always ends.

[MiserereNobis]

 

I have always liked Orson Scott Card's analogy

 

To help make the difference clear, let me use, as a parable, some "doctrines" we all learned in high school geometry class: A line is perfectly straight and infinitely long.

All lines in the same plane either touch or they don't touch. If they don't touch, they are parallel and they go in the same direction, infinitely.

Those are the only two choices with lines in the same plane: They're either parallel or they intersect somewhere.

Now here's a theological argument between a traditional Christian (TC) and a biblical Christian (LDS):

 

TC: The Trinity consists of three parallel lines, which touch each other.

 

LDS: If they touch each other, they're not parallel.

 

TC: Nevertheless, they are parallel, and they touch. They touch at every point.

 

LDS: If they touch at every point, they're the same line. Not three.

 

TC: They touch at every point, yet there are three.

 

LDS: That doesn't make any sense. Lines can't be different yet the same, parallel yet intersecting. The words stop having any meaning when you say such things.

 

TC: That's because you have a finite, mortal mind, which cannot comprehend the nature of geometry.

 

LDS: That's just crazy. The Trinity is three lines, completely distinct, perfectly parallel, so they go infinitely in the same direction. That's simple, it's clear, and it's true. In fact, we've seen the lines.

 

TC: That's blasphemy! You can never see the lines! They're only imaginary!

 

LDS: Your lines are imaginary. The lines we've seen are real.

 

TC: Then you are not Geometers!

 

And that's where the discussion always ends.

 

 

Strawman.

[MDalby]

Strawman.

Illogical

[Calm]

I am not sure the analogy works either...been awhile but different lines may occupy the same space if defined differently depending on the type of geometry...the simpe stuff is two points on a plane yield only one line, but higher maths start throwing in some interesting twists...and last I checked I don't believe trinitarians see the three as identical anyway...so that would appear to be a strawman as stated.

And at the least Christ has been seen..and the use of "imaginary" is insulting, IMO, even in an analogy...more like parody really.

Edited May 3, 2014 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

To me it is a mass of confusion.....

[Vance]

.and last I checked I don't believe trinitarians see the three as identical anyway...so that would appear to be a strawman as stated.

 

Last I checked they do and they don't.  Thus the confusion.

[Ran]

It seems to me that much of the confusion regarding discussions on the Trinity has to do with the term "person".

 

Ratzinger's "Concerning the notion of person In theology" is indispensable to clarifying this issue. Here's a fascinating quote from this article (p.444-445, bold and underline added)—

 

 

"[A]t the turn of the fifth century, Christian theology reached the point of being able to express in articulated concepts what is meant in the thesis: God is a being in three persons. In this context, theologians argued, person must be understood as relation. According to Augustine and late patristic theology, the three persons that exist in God are in their nature relations. They are, therefore, not substances that stand next to each other, but they are real existing relations, and nothing besides. I believe this idea of the late patristic period is very important. In God, person means relation. Relation, being related, is not something superadded to the person, but it is the person itself. In its nature, the person exists only as relation. Put more concretely, the first person does not generate in the sense that the act of generating a Son is added to the already complete person, but the person is the deed of generating, of giving itself, of streaming itself forth. The person is identical with this act of self-donation.

 

One could thus define the first person as self-donation in fruitful knowledge and love; it is not the one who gives himself, in whom the act of self-donation is found, but it is this self-donation, pure reality of act. An idea that appeared again in our century in modern physics is here anticipated: that there is pure act-being. We know that in our century the attempt has been made to reduce matter to a wave, to a pure act of streaming. What may be a questionable idea in the context of physics was asserted by theology in the fourth and fifth century about the persons in God, namely, that they are nothing but the act of relativity toward each other. In God, person is the pure relativity of being turned toward the other; it does not lie on the level of substance—the substance is one—but on the level of dialogical reality, of relativity toward the other. In this matter Augustine could attempt, at least in outline, to show the interplay between threeness and unity by saying, for example: in Deo nihil secundum accidens dicitur, sed secundum substantiam aut secundum relationem (in God there is nothing accidental, but only substance and relation). Relation is here recognized as a third specific fundamental category between substance and accident, the two great categorical forms of thought in Antiquity. Again we encounter the Christian newness of the personalistic idea in all its sharpness and clarity. The contribution offered by faith to human thought becomes especially clear and palpable here. It was faith that gave birth to this idea of pure act, of pure relativity, which does not lie on the level of substance, and does not touch or divide substance; and it was faith that thereby brought the personal phenomenon into view.

 

We stand here at the point in which the speculative penetration of Scripture, the assimilation of faith by humanity’s own thought, seems to have reached its highest point; and yet we can notice with astonishment that the way back into Scripture opens precisely here. For Scripture has clearly brought out precisely this phenomenon of pure relativity as the nature of the person. The clearest case is Johannine theology. In Johannine theology we find, for example, the formula, “The Son cannot do anything of himself” (5:19). However, the same Christ who says this says, “I and the Father are one” (10:30). This means, precisely because he has nothing of himself alone, because he does not place himself as a delimited substance next to the Father, but exists in total relativity toward him, and constitutes nothing but relativity toward him that does not delimit a precinct of what is merely and properly its own—precisely because of this they are one. This structure is in turn transferred—and here we have the transition to anthropology—to the disciples when Christ says, “Without me you can do nothing” (15:5). At the same time he prays “that they may be one as we are one” (17:11). It is thus part of the existence even of the disciples that man does not posit the reservation of what is merely and properly his own, does not strive to form the substance of the closed self, but enters into pure relativity toward the other and toward God. It is in this way that he truly comes to himself and into the fullness of his own, because he enters into unity with the one to whom he is related.

 

I believe a profound illumination of God as well as man occurs here, the decisive illumination of what person must mean in terms of Scripture: not a substance that closes itself in itself, but the phenomenon of complete relativity, which is, of course, realized in its entirety only in the one who is God, but which indicates the direction of all personal being. The point is thus reached here at which—as we shall see below—there is a transition from the doctrine of God into Christology and into anthropology.

[cdowis]

Sigh.

 

You can always find an analogy to prove anything.

 

I think the words of Christ on the matter are quite clear ==

Not my will, but thy will be done,

Touch me not....,

John 17:19-23

whether these are the doctrines of myself....

The Son does not know of the time of his coming, but the Father does

Christ has a resurrected body.

Edited May 4, 2014 by cdowis

[coolrok7]

Cdowis, Jesus at the time He said the words you referred to were said while He was still in the form of a suffering servant (Phillipians 2) in which He was as a man (the word became flesh) in dependence on the Holy Spirit for living on earth in the way He expects us to.

 

The Father and Holy Spirit do not have resurrected bodies as Jesus does (in addition to His spiritual nature before the incarnation) as God is a spirit (John 4:24). In the resurrection we will be like Him (Jesus) in a resurrected state in a glorified physical form which does not have the limitations as ours do now which will die unless physically alive at the Resurrection Day (will be changed from mortal to immortal along with all others but some to eternal punishment, believers to eternal life):

 

Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. (1 John 3:2)

 

[mfbukowski]

: God is a being in three persons. In this context, theologians argued, person must be understood as relation. According to Augustine and late patristic theology, the three persons that exist in God are in their nature relations. They are, therefore, not substances that stand next to each other, but they are real existing relations, and nothing besides. I believe this idea of the late patristic period is very important. In God, person means relation. Relation, being related, is not something superadded to the person, but it is the person itself. In its nature, the person exists only as relation. Put more concretely, the first person does not generate in the sense that the act of generating a Son is added to the already complete person, but the person is the deed of generating, of giving itself, of streaming itself forth. The person is identical with this act of self-donation.

 

NOT SUBSTANCES.

Relations.

That's what we believe and he is moving in that direction.  It is essentially social trinitarianism which the church has heretofore rejected.

 

 

The 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.^[1]

Positively, the traditional teaching emphasizes that God is an inherently social being.^[2] Human unity approaches conformity to the image of God's unity through self-giving, empathy, adoration for one another, etc. Such love is a fitting ethical likeness to God - but is in stark contrast to God's unity of being.^[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Trinity

Edited May 4, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Ran]

NOT SUBSTANCES.

Relations.

That's what we believe and he is moving in that direction.  It is essentially social trinitarianism which the church has heretofore rejected.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Trinity

 

It's not clear to me from reading that Wikipedia article that the notion that person is relation — specifically, that the divine persons are subsistent relations (cf. Thomas Aquinas, De potentia 9.4, Summa Theologiae 1.29.4, and 1.40.1]) — is reducible to Social Trinitarianism or that that person=relation notion has been deemed irreconcilable with Trinitarian dogma.

 

I'll have to do more reading on Social Trinitarianism, but it seems to me that its proposal of divine personhood entails the further distinguishing feature, that of a center of consciousness—there being three such centers in the Godhead—which is absent in the theology that traverses at least through Thomas Aquinas and his exponents.

[Storm Rider]

Cdowis, Jesus at the time He said the words you referred to were said while He was still in the form of a suffering servant (Phillipians 2) in which He was as a man (the word became flesh) in dependence on the Holy Spirit for living on earth in the way He expects us to.

 

The Father and Holy Spirit do not have resurrected bodies as Jesus does (in addition to His spiritual nature before the incarnation) as God is a spirit (John 4:24). In the resurrection we will be like Him (Jesus) in a resurrected state in a glorified physical form which does not have the limitations as ours do now which will die unless physically alive at the Resurrection Day (will be changed from mortal to immortal along with all others but some to eternal punishment, believers to eternal life):

 

Cool, why does God want us to have a physical body for eternity?  What is the purpose of the resurrection?  

Edited May 5, 2014 by Storm Rider

[mfbukowski]

It's not clear to me from reading that Wikipedia article that the notion that person is relation — specifically, that the divine persons are subsistent relations (cf. Thomas Aquinas, De potentia 9.4, Summa Theologiae 1.29.4, and 1.40.1]) — is reducible to Social Trinitarianism or that that person=relation notion has been deemed irreconcilable with Trinitarian dogma.

 

I'll have to do more reading on Social Trinitarianism, but it seems to me that its proposal of divine personhood entails the further distinguishing feature, that of a center of consciousness—there being three such centers in the Godhead—which is absent in the theology that traverses at least through Thomas Aquinas and his exponents.

I am not trusting wikipedia for anything. Nor is anything Aquinas says clear in my opinion.  The man was clearly a genius but the changes in our modes of thought have made him unintelligible in my opinion to anyone who thinks in a postmodern way.  That doesn't mean he was "wrong"either.

 

My only point is that Ratzinger seems to be moving away from substance and toward seeing persons as relations which is a completely postmodern notion, and in my opinion a major break with Scholasticism.

 

I am certainly not saying that Aquinas thought that,

[Vance]

<SNIP>

Never mind.

Edited May 5, 2014 by Vance

[Vance]

Cdowis, Jesus at the time He said the words you referred to were said while He was still in the form of a suffering servant (Phillipians 2) in which He was as a man (the word became flesh) in dependence on the Holy Spirit for living on earth in the way He expects us to.

You seem to be separating Jesus from Godhood here.