Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Why is the trinity so important?


Recommended Posts

On 9/2/2021 at 2:21 PM, Teancum said:

This was the position of McConkie and his son as well as other more literal LDS leaders.  If you have it wrong about God's attributes you are worshipping a false God and false Jesus and won't be saved.  The EVs feel the same way about us.

This draws a bit of a false equivalency. Along with people who leaned hard on “literalism” there’s been a solid core that haven’t. I would assume that at this point is the majority of LDS folk. And being “saved” even on a more literal variant is still more nuanced and universalist leaning than what I’ve seen from the vast majority of evangelicals, non-denoms, and many other branches of what would be deemed orthodox Christianity. 
 

with luv, 

BD 

Link to comment
On 9/3/2021 at 3:45 PM, Navidad said:

You all figured I would weigh in this, right? What might surprise you is that I think some of you may be overthinking this. Just a couple of general things to begin – I have never preached or taught that a belief in the trinity is essential for salvation. I have never heard it preached or taught as essential to salvation. I don’t say that to try and negate or minimize those of you who have heard it said to you. I believe you. I also believe that this helps prove the point that I am about to make.

Second, I will confirm that a belief in the trinity is necessary for membership in some denominations and churches, both Evangelical and Fundamentalist. Not all, perhaps not many, but some. Just like I would have to answer certain questions in a certain way to be baptized in, and join the LDS church, there are groups in the non-LDS Christian world who make a belief in the trinity essential for church membership. This is validated by the fact that the Catholic Church (probably much to the chagrin of our resident Catholic forum gurus) provide a list of baptisms from a page-full of denominations that they accept. I could, for example join our local Catholic parish based on my childhood baptism. I would have to go through an adult catechetical experience but would not have to be re-baptized. My LDS friends would have to be re-baptized, because the LDS baptism is viewed as non-trinitarian in mode (I think that is the right word). So, to join the Catholic church one would have to have a “trinitarian” baptism, whether inside or outside the Catholic church.

In much of the Protestant world, salvation and becoming a member of the church are not the same thing. One doesn’t happen at the same time as the other. They are sequential, perhaps months or years apart, or never. Salvation first and then church membership after training, baptism, and public profession of faith. I digress, back to the subject at hand.

Let me make it perfectly hazy. . . . I know of no Fundamentalist group or Evangelical group that requires a belief in the trinity to consider someone “saved” or a “Christian. If someone tells you that, they are, as Elder Holland said recently using the musket with the trowel. They are performing boundary maintenance. They are the Border Patrol, keeping you out of their world because of their belief in your church's heterodoxy. Do you believe that when someone went forward during an evangelistic crusade put on by John R Rice, Billy Graham, or my dad that they knew about and understood about the trinity? Of course not. Yet, they were all pronounced “saved” on the spot – perhaps the more wretched the soul, the greater the joy. I still have the billy club that my dad took away from a guy on the streets of Chicago the night the guy got saved. I believe it was in 1929. My dad kept that as a reminder of God’s grace and handed it down to me.

Remember for both the typical Fundamentalist and Evangelical, salvation is a point in time (aorist in the Greek) happening. It is not a process. It doesn’t happen over time. Now, Fundamentalists tend to believe that salvation once experienced is forever. Evangelicals are all over the barnyard about that – Baptist Evangelicals believe the same as their Fundamentalist friends. Mennonite and Methodist Evangelicals believe you must persevere to maintain your salvation.

You see, most if not all Fundamentalists want members of the LDS church to be saved, but they just as much want them to leave the LDS church. Ditto for some Evangelicals. So, beliefs like the trinity, which LDS church leaders don’t teach, are convenient means to not simply ensure that someone is getting saved, but also leaving the church. It is the LDS church that is the problem, not the individual person. When someone says to you, you have to accept the trinity, which they would not say to the bum on the street, they are simply saying you must also leave the LDS church. Of course, this is also why the LDS church doesn’t want you going near such an evangelist, because experiencing Protestant salvation seems to be tantamount to leaving the church. I have never heard someone in the ward express concern that so and so had become born again. The concern is that they “left the church.” Point-in-time salvation and leaving the LDS church seem to go hand in hand.

I have done street evangelism as a teenager and young adult. We would always meet somewhere afterwards and there would be great and genuine joy if someone was “saved” that night. Notice past tense. Right there on the street corner they prayed and were saved. Point in time. No one in those ice cream-filled after meetings asked if the person believed in the trinity. Perhaps months later if the person was still around and willing to go through a baptism class, he or she would be taught about the trinity (depending on the group) but belief in it was never in my experience made a requirement for baptism or church membership. I don’t remember ever asking anyone anything about the trinity prior to baptizing them.  I have heard my LDS friends use the term “milk before meat.” I think that is the idea.

Please don’t believe that Fundamentalists (those Chik tracts people) or Evangelicals believe that a belief in the trinity is necessary for salvation. That simply isn’t true, whether they say it is, or not. If someone on the spot who had no knowledge whatsoever of the trinity prayed the sinner’s prayer, they would be considered saved and evangelists would be thrilled about it. As I pointed out in my chart on another thread, many Evangelical Statements of Faith state that “God is eternally existent in three persons," no mention of the trinity per se.

Don’t get me wrong. Many sincerely love to study the trinity doctrine and are passionate about it. As a teenager I sometimes carried around an egg to explain the shell, yolk, and egg illustration of the trinity. “How many eggs do I have” I would then separate the three parts of the eggs into three bowls and triumphantly ask, “Now how many eggs do I have?” One of course! Case closed. Of course when I got to college, my theology professor frowned deeply at my egg illustration and deemed it a yoke! (not really) Do not underestimate the boundary maintenance function of the trinity. It also is historically significant in church history. It is an important yea, vital doctrine for many. However, lack of understanding or even knowledge of it never prevented anyone from praying the sinner’s prayer and being pronounced saved on the spot.

 

So my brother recently converted to what I think is a conservative non-denom oriented religion/family. The dad of said family spent hours  trying to convince him of the trinity, to little effect. It didn't make sense to him, even from the bible passages they pulled out...even from his limited understanding of our own religion. What did work was what you describe as "boundary maintenance." I call it stacking the cards in their favor. As in, make continuing his relationship with their daughter contingent on studying their religion (and strongly inferring conversion = keeps first love and their family while he's still figuring out how to adult). That one was likely extremely unique to his circumstance. Other's were less so. Like the dad realizing he would need to throw some heavy doubt about my brother's religion he was raised in, to leave him more open to his own. Forget whether the stuff was actually accurate. I cannot emphasize how painfully true the bold has become to me. Particularly after said brother who I helped through some of his hardest moments stated clearly that he believed I was going to hell because of my beliefs. 

I could also believe that the trinity and contingent beliefs are maybe a stance of "overthinking it." But here's the things, while my bro was parroting what he was taught and explaining why he believed I would go to hell if I continued as I was, he didn't mention anything about my saved status (at least at first). His assumption of my heathen hell-bound destination if I died tomorrow was tied heavily to doctrinal assertions. Ie. my disbelief of the trinity, beliefs of JS as a prophet, etc. It was only after I pointed to the scripture in galatians about the gifts of the spirit and he noted that he'd seen all of those traits in me that he even mentioned something about being saved (summarizing) and one of those is still tied to a theological boundary (whether I believe in that all I need to do is believe in Jesus to be saved...again summarizing).

At least from I've seen to presentations to "the mormons," pointing to these areas of theological boundaries is really important to evangelizing to us. It likely isn't how it's presented to everyone, but it is definitely how I've seen it presented to me and others like me in areas heavily populated with evangelicals.

 

With luv,

BD

 

Link to comment
23 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I could go along with this. 

Then welcome to LDS temple beliefs! We baptize 'em all, and let God sort 'em out! ;)

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Eph2,8 said:

I do not remember ever mentioning Kant. I even searched through all of my comments - admittedly that is not very much - and I have never posted anything relating to Kant (not even the name) on this discussion board. I also never found the phrase "postmodern" or any form of it in any of my comments. Perhaps you have me mixed up with the wrong person?

You are correct, it was another poster.

I stand corrected, and fully apologize.

Link to comment
On 9/5/2021 at 8:24 AM, Eph2,8 said:

I want to understand your views better, and I seem to see a common thread. Are you saying that all history is subjective? Or, in other words, that history is simply a conglomerate of human adaptations/interpretations of events? I would definitely agree with that for written history - I think it's a pretty well accepted that victors glorify their victory and whatnot. 

Here's where I think we disagree. I would say that there is an objective history - things that actually happened, "I ate a doughnut this morning" - and then a written history - or oral or something similar. The written and the objective might possibly disagree quite a bit, but that does not change the objective. We might not always know or understand it, but it exists. When we corroborate, cross reference, and examine multiple different sources from different perspective we can grow closer and closer to objective history. 

I struggle to let go of the objective because then we risk losing our "anchor". If everything is only ultimately tied to the perceptions of the humans at the time, then we have no authority outside of ourselves. 

Ok now we are getting somewhere.

When you think about it, what makes it "objective" is two or more people constructing a representation of their experience describing agreement between two accounts or more.

So we meet each other and decide to go for a donut (different spelling) - is it "really" a fritter or fry-cake?  Or how about any of these- which is it "really"?  Was it a "Cake donut" which is made from an entierly different 'substance'-- and possibly not even a "donut" or technically a fry cake?   If this were a scripture about what is usable for the sacrament could it make a real difference?

 
Quote

 

synonyms for doughnut
  • bun.
  • pastry.
  • Danish.
  • cruller.
  • dunker.
  • sinker.
  • sweet roll.

 

https://www.rochestercitynewspaper.com/rochester/fried-cakes-a-sacred-rochester-tradition/Content?oid=2895757#:~:text=While the standard yeast doughnut,fatten up for the winter.

....And so we go into the shop and start talking about truth. We are the only two people in the shop, except the guy behind the counter, who happens now to be in the back room for a moment.   In the course of the conversation, sitting opposite of you at the table, I see something unbelievable outside the shop, flying by.  I cry out, pointing, "Look at that, it's like a flying dinosaur ......!

You turn quickly and see something out of the corner of your eye before it disappears behind some trees, but it could have been a bird, it's even hard to judge its size because judging the distance...

"Did you see it?? I ask excitedly 

"Well I thought I saw something but I really don't know what- I didn't see much..."

Somehow I pull myself together and curb the excitement, not even positive that I saw something-- it could have been an illusion, or a reflection in the glass ......

So after a little more discussion about "truth" our discussion ends, because each of us have prior committments, and we head on out to the parking lot.   

On the way to the car, right in front of us, there appears in the air, EXACTLY what I had experienced, and now you have experienced, the flying dinosaur appears again just at the tree top level, circles around us a couple of times and then quickly zips out of sight!!  But what was it "really"?

Now notice that my first observation could have been an illusion, a hallucination, ANYTHING!   It was completely "subjective" even though I tell you that I clearly saw it and used WORDS to tell you it was like a "flying dinosaur".   But to you, I was talking nonsense- you had no basis for a conclusion that I had just "really seen" a flying dinosaur.

But NOW you become a "second witness" and the status of the "reality" changes considerably.   It is something we can talk about and construct in language!   How big was it?  We can guess and discuss many details.  What color was it?  We can agree on grey and brown perhaps but I saw a patch of red under one wing that you did not see.   How long was the beak?  Did it have feathers?

But between the two of us, we can build up the beginnings of an "objective" account of the experience.

So now we start telling others!   Are they impressed?   No, they think we are nuts and demand further evidence.  Perhaps they think it is a conspiracy.... and they start investigating why we would want to scare people in that area, and what we can get out of it.  

The events get publicized,  There are demands for more detailed descriptions.   Was it a pterodactyl?  If so, what species was it?  Does the story cohere with other "facts" known about pterodactyls?   How could it be possible that such things could "really happen"??

The other accounts develop- there are more witnesses!....   and so the story grows.....

The "objective" accounts grow- because the accounts are shared between people in .... language.   Doesn't matter if it is spoken or written- what matters is how many people have the "same" experience.

But what qualifies as the "SAME" experience??   Some sightings are at night and no colors are seen.  Some think they see feathers and others do not.

With more witnesses, the theories start!  "Well it could have been...."What if it is this...?"   Pretty soon it starts to sound a LOT like the Loch Ness Monster!   We get interviewed time after time about our experience, and then others as well get interviewed.   Many of the accounts disagree.  Were there drugs in the donuts??   Then the sightings stop abruptly.

So what is "REAL" here?

Note that ALL the accounts, from mine on up, rely on LANGUAGE to repeat the experiences.

Like the many terms for "donuts" which words are most descriptive?   Was it "really" a dinosaur?  What kind?  Could it have been a drone of some kind that someone made to LOOK LIKE a flying dinosaur?   What would be their motivation?   Fame? Fortune?  A cheaper apartment because the accounts make the area undesirable?

The mystery continues for a hundred years....

What "really happened" here and what can be taken as "objective evidence" as the "truth" of the history?

Why is it important to know?   

Does studying these accounts move us "closer" to knowing "what really happened"?

I submit that the only people who have any knowledge of anything are those HAD THE EXPERIENCE personally for themselves, the eyewitnesses.

EVERYTHING else is hearsay.

NO ONE knows anything from the accounts- they only ones who can pronounce the accounts for themselves are those who HAD the experience themselves.

So too with spiritual experience.  NO ONE can describe a spiritual experience in words, any more than you can describe the color called "blue" to a blind person.

The basis for all COMMUN-ICATION is a subjective experience COMMUN-ICATED to ... THE COMM-UNE.

You see something, you tell others.  They see it too and use the same words to describe it.  Language is born.  Language does not "represent the world", it represents "experiences"- human subjective experiences that we can relate, through language, to OTHER subjective human experiences.

One might say that "reality" is INTER-subjective.

I know this is long.  Too bad!!  ;)  If you don't agree, maybe I can use it elsewhere, if the community judges it as COMMUN-ICATION

Now back to your quoted post, line by line

Quote

I want to understand your views better, and I seem to see a common thread. Are you saying that all history is subjective? Or, in other words, that history is simply a conglomerate of human adaptations/interpretations of events? I would definitely agree with that for written history - I think it's a pretty well accepted that victors glorify their victory and whatnot. 

Not a bad start!  But the culprits are not just the "victors"- they are all observers who have their own take on what happened- which includes most people, imo.

And then there is linguistic ambiguity in the account   ALWAYS.   Was the "donut" a cake donut?  Then there could be argument about whether or not cake batter can be used in a "donut".   And then there are all the descriptive words I posted above which give nuance to such a simple thing as a "donut"- Which of these "really" describe what you ate??  Suppose as I suggested, it was really important to know exactly what it is that you ate, but that sentence, as if it were in the bible, IF it was important AS the bible, could be misinterpreted

Quote

Here's where I think we disagree. I would say that there is an objective history - things that actually happened, "I ate a doughnut this morning" - and then a written history - or oral or something similar. The written and the objective might possibly disagree quite a bit, but that does not change the objective.

Almost there!  But think it through!!  Was your description using the word "donut" accurate?  Since we are seeking the objective, how do I know you even ate anything for breakfast, or maybe pancakes- another kind of "frycake" or "flapjack"?  Maybe cereal and an egg?  Maybe a leftover taco?

How do I know that STATEMENT is "objectively true"?   Truth is not about the state of the world it is about your personal REPORTS about how you experience the world!!  How could the contents of your breakfast be verified with objective certainty?  Because you said so?

YET what you actually experienced- say you "really did" "eat a donut"- might very well be the case, but I cannot be "objectively" sure unless I saw you do it.

Quote

We might not always know or understand it, but it exists.

What "exists"?  Your experience of eating a donut?   Where is it?  What evidence do we have that this claim is "true"? (or more technically)" justified"?;)

In philosophical technical-ese, I might want to say :"based on your claim that you ate a donut this morning for breakfast, I am justified in believing that this is the case, since I cannot show any counter-evidence, nor can I imagine that you would lie about such an innocuous event"

Quote

When we corroborate, cross reference, and examine multiple different sources from different perspective we can grow closer and closer to objective history. 

Nails it!!  Righty Oh! Fully agree! Using the technical language, it might be better written by saying "we can grow closer to fully justifying what is/was the case."

"I struggle to let go of the objective because then we risk losing our "anchor". If everything is only ultimately tied to the perceptions of the humans at the time, then we have no authority outside of ourselves. "

What else do you suggest?

You, like everyone, wants some authority outside yourself and you have it!  Let's look at famous scripture:

"Now we see through a glass (mirror) darkly, but then face to face"

What is that dark mirror?

It is our own perceptions!!   When we look around us, science, using that paradigm for a moment, tells us that the world "outside" is perceived and constructed by our own brains!   What we call "light waves ... or particles"- science cannot yet give us a consistent paradigm for what it is that enters our eyes, but it stimulates the nerve receptors in our eyes and then goes directly to our brains which sort out the chaos of neural responses and create "an outside world" of things we know.  Chairs, tables, cars- we have names for these things ....  AS THEY ARE?   Who knows?

Remember these things entering our eyes are REFLECTED "light"- waves or particles- we don't even know what they are totally- which our brains organize for us!

So is that "reality" made by our brains really "What is"?   Who knows?   We see "color" from what we are told is a "spectrum of light" while we cannot even describe fully - in words- what "light" is 

Is that "through a mirror darkly"? sounds about right to me!!  

Can we put a description of color into words?   Try it!   Describe "blue" so that a deaf person would know exactly what the experience is!  You can't do it.

The world AS WE KNOW IT cannot - repeat- cannot- be anything more than our perceptions of it.

How could it be?   Think about it!   Where is that very act of making sense of the world taking place??   In your brain!

Quote

I struggle to let go of the objective because then we risk losing our "anchor". If everything is only ultimately tied to the perceptions of the humans at the time, then we have no authority outside of ourselves. 

Think about it- you have never had anything else except WHAT YOU HAVE LEARNED to deal with the world AS WE KNOW IT through direct experience.

You know what "blue" is through your direct experience- not what others have told you and taught you the word for that experience

The same thing with chairs, tables, algebra, the location of Europe, what 5x4 means.

So direct experience is reality as we can know it.

Anything in words SEPARATES from real experience.  "Blue" cannot describe the color of the sky, or the richness of the color of the sea.

"A vision" as Joseph described it- in words- cannot capture the experience (I am sure) of seeing God

And so we DO know reality in the ONLY way we can do so- directly- not through words.

And your feelings about what is right - ultimately what people would call "subjective" ARE EXACTLY your direct experiences of the world as you see/feel/hear/smell and taste the world.

Are these "good smells" or is the food "Tasty"?  In YOUR experience it is exactly HOW you will experience it.

Yet others may disagree.   Such is life!   There is no arbiter of whether onions smell "good" or bad.

 

So at least this gives us a start on whether or not this discussion is worth pursuing   

 

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
On 9/1/2021 at 12:30 PM, Fether said:

I have heard the notion that we (latter-day Saints) worship the wrong Jesus many times in my life. As I push that comment further, I have always found that it is entirely because we believe in the God head and not the trinity. I then follow up with the question “so salvation is not found in accepting Christ, or by his grace and mercy, or in the blood of Christ? But rather salvation is found through theological study of God and his nature and coming to a correct conclusion?”

To which I haven’t heard anything convincing or really all that informative.

So what is so important about believing in the trinity for traditional Christians? Many will say that if you don’t believe in the trinitarian nature, you are not only wrong, but at risk of damnation

Which Trinity form, model, version -  Athanasioun, Augustinian, Western, Eastern, Social, Bultmann ?.

 

Link to comment
On 9/3/2021 at 7:44 PM, Eph2,8 said:

A shared text that can't be trusted as inspiration from God? I'm asking honestly because I want to know your view. 

Considering the fact that the Bible is full of contradictory claims that cannot all be true, it's incumbent upon the believer(s) to wrestle with the text to understand what they believe to be inspired by God--or perhaps to simply be inspired through the various contributors to the sacred texts. This is basically the point of Julie Smith's excellent As Iron Sharpens Iron: Listening to the Various Voices of Scripture.

Ultimately, people don't find inspiration in the scripture because it come from God. They determine that it comes from God because they find inspiration in it.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, the narrator said:

Considering the fact that the Bible is full of contradictory claims that cannot all be true, it's incumbent upon the believer(s) to wrestle with the text to understand what they believe to be inspired by God--or perhaps to simply be inspired through the various contributors to the sacred texts. This is basically the point of Julie Smith's excellent As Iron Sharpens Iron: Listening to the Various Voices of Scripture.

Ultimately, people don't find inspiration in the scripture because it come from God. They determine that it comes from God because they find inspiration in it.

Wow.

You really should get into some kind of job like an editor, or publishing, or something like that!  You're pretty good at it!

😜

Link to comment
On 9/1/2021 at 11:37 PM, mfbukowski said:

The Trinity is based on the Father and Son being one in "Substance"- or "consubstantial "  Remember that word- consubstantial,= of one substance.

But what does "Substance" mean?  Or sometimes it is said they have one "Being". One "essence", one "nature".   But what do those vague terms mean??  It means they are One. But why not just say that and not worry about "substance" or "being" which has very little meaning to us today

Those ideas/terms derive from Platonic philosophy which came into the church over a period of time after the death of Jesus- Greek philosophy was very influential in the ancient world. Plotinus, a follower of Plato, and a Christian, was a major figure in bringing Platonic philosophy into the church. Plato of course was not even a Christian- he lived hundreds of years before Christ and his view of substance at the time had little to do with any religious ideas- it was more about the nature of objects vs the nature of ideas.   I won't get into the details right now becaue it will take to long, but suffice it to say that the whole purpose of the false science of alchemy was also about substance.   

Thomas Aquinas adopted this philosophy and became a major contributor to bringing "Scholasticism"- the philosophy of the "schools"- into Christianity

The metaphysical paradigm/concept was that there were "substances" and there were "appearances" or "accidents" which were about the way things APPEARED to us, while substances were what things REALLY ARE.

So in alchemy, both gold and lead had the SAME "substance" of being metals. They were "consubstantial".

 But they have different appearances, they are different colors.  The same volume of each metal weighs a different amount.   One is softer than the other.  But they had the same substance- both were metals.

It's hard to even think this way for us- these ideas are 2500 years old!   Nevertheless, this is exactly what they thought.

 So IF one could just change the APPEARANCE of lead- changing its weight and color and hardness etc- since lead and gold were already consubstantial, then it would theoretically be possible to make lead into gold!   And so alchemists went at it trying to change lead into gold- all based on the metaphysics of "substance".  All one needed to do is find the "Philosopher's Stone" which- theoretically could make the change in appearances while retaining the metalic substances

And then the other side of the question- flesh is a different substance than bread.  But theoretically if one could change the substance of bread while retaining its appearances, then one could make what was REALLY the flesh of Christ, look exactly like bread and his blood appear to be wine.   This was called "trans"- (Change) substantiation (substance)

And thus we have a very quick explanation of what I call "Substance Theology".

And so it was - we LDS believe- that we needed a new way of understanding how it is that three persons can be one, because the idea of substance vs appearances just does not work anymore.  There was need for a "Restoration" of what was lost to pagan Greek philosophy.

And so was revealed that Our Father and Christ had bodies like humans and were unified by purpose and love.  And this can be seen as biblical, which of course "substance" was not. 

That is perfectly simple and easy.  We feel one with our families in love.  We love and become one with our spouses.  We are one in purpose in a Ward service project, helping someone move or going to the Stake or regional farm to pick peaches, etc, or work at the Bishop's storehouse.

And so we can be One as God is One with the Godhead, not in substance theology but in the simplicity of love and purposeful activity in the service of Man.

And what is their purpose? The immortality and eternal life of Mankind.

This is of course a very long story put into a very few ambiguous words. Hope it helped someone

Arianism - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Goes back to the beginning, it's not something that I think a lot of privileged suburbanites who never had to deal with this sort of thing concern themselves with, then again it's really just the USA where even those on the Catholic end of things feel like they can ignore the Pope and run their mouths off while acting as uncharitable as they do.  High church Protestants are the same, it's pitiful what they've done to their Liturgy all in the name of getting middle/upper middle class WASP types in their pews while they shun the more liberal synods/denominations who actually do still try to help the poor and marginalized.  BTW, those of us who are more so on the left?  That spouse and family thing does reek of privilege which is why so many of us who never had that tend not to take you nor a lot of Christiandom here stateside seriously and do tend to vote against religious conservatives whenever possible.   If you want to go against something so traditional, I'd say do so from a background like Christ, the Apostles and many of the Saints did, as one of the people vs from a position of privilege.  At the very least it makes us think you're sincere vs. how we see religious politics nowadays, an ugly battle at the polls.   Know a lot of you guys may not know nor really understand the ugly political infighting going on with the rest of Christiandom here but if you want to adopt the Christian brand and bash something like the trinity while mentioning Catholics, well, be prepared to be called out depending on where you say such things.  It's rather sickening watching how ugly the religious politics are getting.

Edited by poptart
Link to comment
12 hours ago, poptart said:

Arianism - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Goes back to the beginning, it's not something that I think a lot of privileged suburbanites who never had to deal with this sort of thing concern themselves with, then again it's really just the USA where even those on the Catholic end of things feel like they can ignore the Pope and run their mouths off while acting as uncharitable as they do.  High church Protestants are the same, it's pitiful what they've done to their Liturgy all in the name of getting middle/upper middle class WASP types in their pews while they shun the more liberal synods/denominations who actually do still try to help the poor and marginalized.  BTW, those of us who are more so on the left?  That spouse and family thing does reek of privilege which is why so many of us who never had that tend not to take you nor a lot of Christiandom here stateside seriously and do tend to vote against religious conservatives whenever possible.   If you want to go against something so traditional, I'd say do so from a background like Christ, the Apostles and many of the Saints did, as one of the people vs from a position of privilege.  At the very least it makes us think you're sincere vs. how we see religious politics nowadays, an ugly battle at the polls.   Know a lot of you guys may not know nor really understand the ugly political infighting going on with the rest of Christiandom here but if you want to adopt the Christian brand and bash something like the trinity while mentioning Catholics, well, be prepared to be called out depending on where you say such things.  It's rather sickening watching how ugly the religious politics are getting.

Where's "here"?

Los Angeles is quite diverse and it's hard to relate to this post.

 

Link to comment
16 hours ago, poptart said:

Arianism - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Know a lot of you guys may not know nor really understand the ugly political infighting going on with the rest of Christiandom here but if you want to adopt the Christian brand and bash something like the trinity while mentioning Catholics, well, be prepared to be called out depending on where you say such things.  

Fether is asking why, from his perspective, other Christians put a strong emphasis on their preferred form of the Trinity. It seems like a reasonable question. If as all Protestants agree, the Catholic Church is false, on what authority do they require LDS to loosely follow a Creed formulated by over 300 Catholic bishops one thousand-seven hundred years ago?

Protestants should recognize the gravity of breaking from the Catholic Church. They still do not seem to realize that this means more than disdaining a sacerdotal priesthood. Everything is open for reevaluation. This includes the Trinity of the Council of Nicea which is not clear from the Bible alone. Of course it is compatible with Bible. But so what? So are the positions LDS usually take. Protestants cannot legitimately appeal to Catholic Tradition, and that is the problem when they insist that LDS are in the wrong about "the Trinity".

Link to comment
5 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Fether is asking why, from his perspective, other Christians put a strong emphasis on their preferred form of the Trinity. It seems like a reasonable question. If as all Protestants agree, the Catholic Church is false, on what authority do they require LDS to loosely follow a Creed formulated by over 300 Catholic bishops one thousand-seven hundred years ago?

Protestants should recognize the gravity of breaking from the Catholic Church. They still do not seem to realize that this means more than disdaining a sacerdotal priesthood. Everything is open for reevaluation. This includes the Trinity of the Council of Nicea which is not clear from the Bible alone. Of course it is compatible with Bible. But so what? So are the positions LDS usually take. Protestants cannot legitimately appeal to Catholic Tradition, and that is the problem when they insist that LDS are in the wrong about "the Trinity".

Yes, this is precisely THE issue and THE basis, I think, for rejecting the Protestant position 

Link to comment
6 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Fether is asking why, from his perspective, other Christians put a strong emphasis on their preferred form of the Trinity. It seems like a reasonable question. If as all Protestants agree, the Catholic Church is false, on what authority do they require LDS to loosely follow a Creed formulated by over 300 Catholic bishops one thousand-seven hundred years ago?

Protestants should recognize the gravity of breaking from the Catholic Church. They still do not seem to realize that this means more than disdaining a sacerdotal priesthood. Everything is open for reevaluation. This includes the Trinity of the Council of Nicea which is not clear from the Bible alone. Of course it is compatible with Bible. But so what? So are the positions LDS usually take. Protestants cannot legitimately appeal to Catholic Tradition, and that is the problem when they insist that LDS are in the wrong about "the Trinity".

>Protestants should recognize the gravity.

We owe you nothing.  Likes of us broke off because so many Germans and others were sick and tired of the corruption.  Luther tried to be nice but the powers that be didn't care.  It took a 30 years war and about 10 million dead to somewhat fix things.  You're a conservative trad, we are different belief and politics wise, I'm all for extending an olive branch but bending the knee to someone as privileged, lol no.  I'd say take a good look in the mirror and fix your own problems but people on your side here really aren't about that, from what I've seen anyway.

 

It's ironic, if the likes of sspx go the Sedevacantist route you'll be even more isolated than you are now.  Doubt you'll even acknowledge any of this, not like it matters we're likely bitter enemies at the polls anyway.  Keep up with the petty Protestant vs Catholic infighting, I'll happy stand with my side.  Will say, your Pope, like it not not sure doesn't mind making friends with us.  I do find it ironic how most trad Catholics in the USA like to "feel" Via the entitlement and whatever cherry picked dogma they find they are right.   Hmm, sounds kinda like a Protestant move.

 

Edited by poptart
Link to comment
8 hours ago, 3DOP said:

...If as all Protestants agree, the Catholic Church is false...

Why do you think that ALL Protestants think the Catholic Church is false? I'm Protestant and I don't think the Catholic Church is false. In fact I am very impressed with how articulate Catholics are in discussing theology. Protestant and Catholics do agree with the doctrine of the Trinity. There are other beliefs that we do not share, but they are inconsequential with the bigger picture of God and our relationship with him.

M.

Edited by Maureen
Link to comment
2 hours ago, poptart said:

>Protestants should recognize the gravity.

We owe you nothing.  Likes of us broke off because so many Germans and others were sick and tired of the corruption.  Luther tried to be nice but the powers that be didn't care.  It took a 30 years war and about 10 million dead to somewhat fix things.  You're a conservative trad, we are different belief and politics wise, I'm all for extending an olive branch but bending the knee to someone as privileged, lol no.  I'd say take a good look in the mirror and fix your own problems but people on your side here really aren't about that, from what I've seen anyway.

 

It's ironic, if the likes of sspx go the Sedevacantist route you'll be even more isolated than you are now.  Doubt you'll even acknowledge any of this, not like it matters we're likely bitter enemies at the polls anyway.  Keep up with the petty Protestant vs Catholic infighting, I'll happy stand with my side.  Will say, your Pope, like it not not sure doesn't mind making friends with us.  I do find it ironic how most trad Catholics in the USA like to "feel" Via the entitlement and whatever cherry picked dogma they find they are right.   Hmm, sounds kinda like a Protestant move.

 

Hi poptart.

I think somebody owes something?

I am sorry if I have alienated. I think you misunderstand. I was not suggesting anything like a debt from Protestants to the Catholic Church, when I said that "Protestants should recognize the gravity of breaking with the Catholic Church". The "gravity" means that Protestants can't appeal to anything except the Bible if they call LDS non-Christian. That seems like a grave difficulty to a non-Protestant like me. As a Catholic, I cannot prove the Nicene Trinity from Scripture alone. That was all that I meant. I doubt Luther, or you, or anyone can prove the Nicene Trinity from Scripture alone.

As soon as they were cut off from Catholic Tradition, many Protestants have gone far away from the Nicene Trinity. That was a good point made, I think, by Anakin7. John Calvin rejected Nicea when he affirmed that Christ was "autotheos". That means that Jesus would be God the Son, independently of the Father. That is as blasphemous to Catholic ears as anything the LDS might say. In what respect can a son be independent of a father?. 

https://calvinistinternational.com/2012/05/02/is-there-a-calvinist-doctrine-of-the-trinity/ 

 

Edited by 3DOP
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Maureen said:

Why do you think that ALL Protestants think the Catholic Church is false? I'm Protestant and I don't think the Catholic Church is false. In fact I am very impressed with how articulate Catholics are in discussing theology. Protestant and Catholics do agree with the doctrine of the Trinity. There are other beliefs that we do not share, but they are inconsequential with the bigger picture of God and our relationship with him.

M.

Hi Maureen. The Catholic Church makes truly extravagant claims, which are either true or false. Nulla Salus Extra Ecclesia means in English, No Salvation Outside the Church (Catholic Church). I hope that explains a little why I would say that to be non-Catholic is to believe that the Catholic Church is false. It seems hard to think that a non-Catholic could think such a teaching to be inconsequential.

I am glad if Protestants agree with Catholics about Trinitarian doctrine. But it concerns me about why they agree. For a Catholic, it is important to deny that Scripture alone is sufficient to prove the Nicene Trinity. I am confident that Scripture alone is insufficient. Sometimes I fear that LDS and Protestants think that we think the Bible alone is enough. Without Tradition, we could believe as most LDS do, or as Calvin!

-----

By the way, "Godhead vs. Trinity"? If I am not delusional, I have seen that here somewhere. For Catholics, the Godhead derives exclusively from the Father, the Fount of divinity, who eternally begets a Son, from whom the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds. Godhead and Trinity are necessarily compatible ideas according to a correct understanding of the Catholic faith.

My apologies, I have forgotten who mentioned this.   

 

Edited by 3DOP
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Maureen said:

Why do you think that ALL Protestants think the Catholic Church is false? I'm Protestant and I don't think the Catholic Church is false. 

By definition didn't "protestants" come about as a "protest" against Catholic teachings?

Link to comment
52 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Hi poptart.

I think somebody owes something?

I am sorry if I have alienated. I think you misunderstand. I was not suggesting anything like a debt from Protestants to the Catholic Church, when I said that "Protestants should recognize the gravity of breaking with the Catholic Church". The "gravity" means that Protestants can't appeal to anything except the Bible if they call LDS non-Christian. That seems like a grave difficulty to a non-Protestant like me. As a Catholic, I cannot prove the Nicene Trinity from Scripture alone. That was all that I meant. I doubt Luther, or you, or anyone can prove the Nicene Trinity from Scripture alone.

As soon as they were cut off from Catholic Tradition, many Protestants have gone far away from the Nicene Trinity. That was a good point made, I think, by Anakin7. John Calvin rejected Nicea when he affirmed that Christ was "autotheos". That means that Jesus would be God the Son, independently of the Father. That is as blasphemous to Catholic ears as anything the LDS might say. In what respect can a son be independent of a father?. 

https://calvinistinternational.com/2012/05/02/is-there-a-calvinist-doctrine-of-the-trinity/ 

 

Ok, that's fair. This is the USA, anymore religion esp with Catholics and Protestants is quite political and ugly.  I am a cultural Christian at best but when it comes to reality and my own loyalties I absolutely draw the line and judge harshly, end of discussion.

That being said, so long as that ecumenical olive branch is extended I have no issues.  Also not everyone likes Calvin, many a Lutheran are not fans.  Only way I kind of swallowed it, when rationalism and what not was taking over when. Prussia really started to throw their weight around with the state church.  I view Christianity also as a cultural institution, big fan of how the ekd as well as the Nordic churches operate.  Again, draw the line there.  You have your sociopolitical aliegences you don't budge on, as do I.

This is why I'm hoping Pope Francis can mend wounds.  I get it, amongst the more privileged trads he's not liked.  thing is, when people go off about cherry picked dogma that fits their personal narrative, that's how you end up alienating people and eventually making bitter enemies as we're seeing now in the USA.

Link to comment
44 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Hi Maureen. The Catholic Church makes truly extravagant claims, which are either true or false. Nulla Salus Extra Ecclesia means in English, No Salvation Outside the Church (Catholic Church). I hope that explains a little why I would say that to be non-Catholic is to believe that the Catholic Church is false. It seems hard to think that a non-Catholic could think such a teaching to be inconsequential.

I am glad if Protestants agree with Catholics about Trinitarian doctrine. But it concerns me about why they agree. For a Catholic, it is important to deny that Scripture alone is sufficient to prove the Nicene Trinity. I am confident that Scripture alone is insufficient. Sometimes I fear that LDS and Protestants think that we think the Bible alone is enough. Without Tradition, we could believe as most LDS do, or as Calvin!

-----

By the way, "Godhead vs. Trinity"? If I am not delusional, I have seen that here somewhere. For Catholics, the Godhead derives exclusively from the Father, the Fount of divinity, who eternally begets a Son, from whom the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds. Godhead and Trinity are necessarily compatible ideas according to a correct understanding of the Catholic faith.

My apologies, I have forgotten who mentioned this.   

 

Politics.  Read up on Luther's time in Rome, how indulgences were marketed and the brothels he came across.  Believe he wrote about it to his followers and a few Lords, guessing one was the electorate of Saxony.   Something about say Lutherans, at the end of the day we are realists.  At that time the Catholic Church was doing some pretty corrupt things, took the council of Trent and a bloody religious war to make Rome pay attention.  People here tend to suck at remembering these things, that and anymore church education really sucks, it's all about keeping the money flowing and everyone happy.  That being said, there it is.  Big reason why sola scriptura was so popular, was a sure fire way to have an absolute without having to rely on clergy who may or may not have the best interests of the faithful in mind.  Don't get me wrong, obviously there were problems with this but that's a big reason why it was so popular.  When I do come across what's left of the old school Lutherans that realism is still there as well as a bit of distrust of Rome.   Once again, politics. 

Edited by poptart
Link to comment
4 hours ago, poptart said:

Politics.  Read up on Luther's time in Rome, how indulgences were marketed and the brothels he came across.  Believe he wrote about it to his followers and a few Lords, guessing one was the electorate of Saxony.   Something about say Lutherans, at the end of the day we are realists.  At that time the Catholic Church was doing some pretty corrupt things, took the council of Trent and a bloody religious war to make Rome pay attention.  People here tend to suck at remembering these things, that and anymore church education really sucks, it's all about keeping the money flowing and everyone happy.  That being said, there it is.  Big reason why sola scriptura was so popular, was a sure fire way to have an absolute without having to rely on clergy who may or may not have the best interests of the faithful in mind.  Don't get me wrong, obviously there were problems with this but that's a big reason why it was so popular.  When I do come across what's left of the old school Lutherans that realism is still there as well as a bit of distrust of Rome.   Once again, politics. 

 

Link to comment

Politics in the first sentence. Politics in the last sentence. You see Luther's questioning of indulgences for the poor souls in Purgatory as political? I am intrigued. Please explain. 

I have been to Rome in our own century. I doubt that what outraged me was nicer than what Luther found. Whatever Luther thought, the priesthood survives outrage, if we can believe both Testaments.

Unlike Luther, who wouldn't take his outrage to its logical conclusion, I hold that if his outrage was just, mere reformation was inadequate. This is why I continue to talk to LDS...the consistent "lutherans".

Ecclesiology. 

 

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Politics in the first sentence. Politics in the last sentence. You see Luther's questioning of indulgences for the poor souls in Purgatory as political? I am intrigued. Please explain. 

I have been to Rome in our own century. I doubt that what outraged me was nicer than what Luther found. Whatever Luther thought, the priesthood survives outrage, if we can believe both Testaments.

Unlike Luther, who wouldn't take his outrage to its logical conclusion, I hold that if his outrage was just, mere reformation was inadequate. This is why I continue to talk to LDS...the consistent "lutherans".

Ecclesiology. 

 

Ops, phone post.  Have had to redo them before, poor editing on my part.  Same, been to Rome, a sight to behold.  Sure, priesthoods survive outrages but hey, he got the job done.  He made Rome and the Catholic world pay attention.  Also, thanks to him we ended up with Prussia, no complaints there.  I absolutely say his outrage was just.  One complain I have, a lot of powers did take advantage of his work to just take church property.  Still, people were mad and the corruption was going unanswered so hey, there it is.  When you do things like a lot of corrupt church officials and nobles were doing, sooner or later people get sick of it.  Ohh boy consistent Lutherans?  Gee...

Will say this, their scholarship and family values is fantastic, Catholics and others really could learn from them.  If I had my way I'd have the family a proclamation to the world posted everywhere.  I blame the ruining of the American family for most of the USA's societal ills.  Far as I can tell, it's very much been the Latter Day Saints who have gone to the extent they have to make a point of it.  Anymore I think among Christian orgs, they may well be it anymore.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...