jaiotu

w00dy931, Somewhere on the road to the 21st Century, the term "tolerance" underwent a radical redefinition by post-modernism. True tolerance is not agreeing that everyone's opinions are equally right and are therefore above criticism. For instance, I "tolerate" my wife eating in bed even though it drives me crazy. I am tolerated on this discussion board even though I openly disagree with Mormon theology and express a different view. I tolerate you even though I think it is absolutely crazy to assume that each new generation of Christians has the right to radically redefine their beliefs based on a personal interpretation of Scripture when the Apostle Peter clearly stated that no scripture is open to private interpretation. Likewise, when I read in the Bible that, "...a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned." - John 5:28-29 - I tolerate the fact that you contradict the explicit teaching of Scripture even though I think your contradiction arises from a lack of diligent study of God's word. The modern notion of tolerance promotes a kind of pluralism where everyone's beliefs should be considered equally correct. This is a logical fallacy. The typical trinitarian concept of God and the typical LDS concept of God are mutually exclusive of each other. They can both be wrong, but they can't both be right at the same time. The key to true tolerance is recognizing the difference, not sweeping it under the rug. That's not being faithful to either perspective. Tolerance is being able to vocally debate the differences without calling for an executioner. Tolerance does not mean abandoning central tenants of my faith in order to nurture the feeling of those who don't hold to those beliefs. With that, Peace and bless.

@Rameumptom, The Bible clearly teaches that the Resurrection will include those destined for judgement as well as those destined for Glory. Your right... our resurrection means nothing. But Christ's resurrection becomes the sign and the seal, the proof, that He is God and His sacrifice has made propitiation on the Christian's behalf. "There shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust."—Acts 24:15.

Thanks Madeliene1! I appreciate your taking the time to clarify. Being Reformed, my understanding is quite opposite from yours, so I wanted to take the time to understand what you are saying more fully. Honestly, I'm not quite sure I understand where you're coming from, but I appreciate your taking the time to address my questions all the same.

Madeline1; Thanks for the reply. Of course, as a Reformed Baptist, I disagree with many of your views (and the Roman Catholic Church's views.) But I do find it interesting to hear opposing viewpoints. I've read the Catholic Catechism regarding Hell, and I can find no way to read it in which Universal Salvation can be the remotest of possibilities. The Catechism seems to affirm the reality of Hell and that those whom die in Mortal Sin will be imprisoned there for eternity. It seems that to do away with the doctrine of Hell is not only contrary to the teachings of the Apostles, but it is Contrary to the teachings of the Saviour Himself as we see recorded in the Holy Scriptures. As the Catholic Catechism states, "The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, 'eternal fire.' The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs." That seems to be the official teaching of your Church... so I'd ask you if that is what you believe, or do you believe that the Catholic Catechism itself does not reflect the teaching of the Apostles and that you must look to some other source for that teaching? Bless

The Apostle Paul was not *technically* a murderer. He was acting on behalf of the authorities who authorizes him. His murder was socially acceptable, much like the murders committed in the name of Hitler, making them all the more repugnant. Paul was more than just a murderer. He was a monster until Christ knocked him of his horse.

Madeline1; Paul's statements in Romans 5 seem to indicate that some are dead in Adam, while others are alive in Christ, not that those who are dead in Adam are also alive in Christ. You seem to be equivocating around the question of universalism. Regardless of what some Catholic theologians have states regarding universal salvation, what I am asking is "where do you stand?" If all men are saved, and Hell is emptied, then what is the profit of Christ's Great Commission to reach the lost? If the lost are actually saved, then why even reach them with the message of Salvation in Christ?

Madeline1; If you believe that all of human kind HAS been saved, do you therefore believe that everyone will go to heaven? If not, then what has everyone been saved FROM? If so, then what about Jesus' own extensive teachings on Hell? Your answer has me confused...

What is the Blaspheme of the Holy Spirit? I think that it is the rejection of the Spirit's testimony that Jesus is the Christ. All those who die without believing the Spirit's testimony of the Son have blasphemed the Holy Spirit and are under eternal condemnation. No one whom God has saved can blaspheme the Holy Spirit and no one who blasphemes the Holy Spirit could ever have truly been saved.

As a confessional Baptist (1689 London Confession,) I hold to the view that Regeneration and Salvation are states from which no true Christian can ever be divorced from. These are solely the gifts of God that are unmerited. Just as we can do nothing to earn Salvation, we can do nothing to loose it since we never deserved it to begin with. God, who perfectly saves, also grants those whom he saves with the perseverance to continue to walk according to the spirit... not that the Christian cannot temporarily enter into a state of Sin that might cause him or her to question their own salvation... but God uses these circumstances to bring the Christian back into a state of repentance and relationship with Him. There are those, however, who give the outward appearance to being a Christian who have never truly repented and been regenerated by God. These false converts were never truly saved. Many people express a desire to be saved from Hell but they never have a true desire to be saved from their sin and submit to Christ as Master. The Sheep and the Goats, the Wheat and the Tares, etc.

If you are referring to the difference between "Trinity" and "Godhead" you're wrong. I think Maureen and I are, in fact, on the same page. In my prior post, I referred to the "LDS doctrine of the Godhead." This is different from the non-LDS Christian doctrine of the Godhead. For Non-LDS Christians the terms "Godhead" and "Trinity" are essentially interchangable. See: Godhead (Christianity) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and Godhead (Latter Day Saints) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Same word. Different meanings.

Agreed. Further illustration of why precision of language is necessary on this subject.

I would submit that anything that can be explained can also be undertood. However, just because something can be explained or understood does not, by default, make it correct. You already have a pretty good understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity. You just reject that the conclussions make logical sense.

That gets back to my original post. How do we solve the dilemma in a way that post accurately expresses the doctrine of the Trinity, yet still contextualizes the doctrine in a way that is understandable to the LDS way of thought? How do we accurately convey the differences in a way that does not whitewash them but is still respectful of both sides? Here's my suggestion for a replacement of the text on Mormonwiki: "Mormon beliefs regarding the relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Ghost bare similarities and differences to the traditional Christian concept of the Holy Trinity. Mormon's generally agree that the Nicene Council was correct when it identified that the Bible teaches that Father was God, the Son was God and the Holy Ghost was also God. However, Mormons would tend to agree with each other that, without the aid of divine revelation, the council was in error when it attempted to use reason to solve the apparent contradition of the Bible also teaching that there is only one God. The resulting solution was the formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity which teaches three divine beings united together as one God. In contrast, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe that the relationship between God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are accurately expressed in the LDS doctrine of the Godhead." Yes. This is a bit more verbose, but it does accurately express what Trinitarians believe while properly placing the Trinitarian belief in a frame of reference which makes it accessible to the LDS reader.

Faded, thanks for the advice regarding attempting to directly contact the administrator of Mormonwiki.com. That's exactly what I am doing in addressing this Forum, as the method provided on Mormonwiki.com is to address all comments to these forums. Perhaps that is a little like WalMart telling customers to address their complaints to the Sears' customer service department, but it is what it is. I think you might be inadvertantly bearing false witness against me Faded. I'm sure it wasn't intentional, but in several places you've claimed that I said that "Trinitarians believe in something that cannot make sense." That is NOT what I said. You've taken my statement out of context. I was referring to the definition of the Trinity on Mormonwiki.com. What I said, regarding that definition, was that "any LDS reading that definition would be left with the idea that Trinitarians beleive in something that cannot make sense." This was not an admission that the doctrine of the Trinity does not make sense. I was pointing out that the definition provided on Mormonwiki.com does not make sense. Like I said, I doubt that you were trying to intentionally misrepresent what I said. I'm sure that it was merely the result of reading through my post all too quickly. Question: Are you familiar with the concept of a "tesseract?" A tesseract can be defined mathematically, but is very difficult to visualize because it exists in more dimensions then the ones that we three-dimensional beings can perceive. We can "project" a tesseract into 3-dimensional space to TRY and make it understandable but when we do so, the resulting projection still does not capture the reality of a tesseract: Yet we know that a tesseract makes mathematical sense: Similarly, we can attempt to illustrate the Trinity in all manner of analogies, but they all fail to fully capture the reality of the Trinity. You simply cannot illustrate that which is supernatural by falling to natural illustrations. For instance: There is only ONE Supreme Court of the United States, but there are Nine Supreme Court Justices. Likewise, there is only ONE God, but there are three persons in this one God. The illustration fails, however, because unlike God, the Nine members of the Supreme Court do not abide in each other. It should be easy to undertand how the members of the Trinity abide in each other without actually being each other. If you believe you are filled with The Holy Ghost (who is a person) you do not necessarily believe that you, yourself are in fact the Holy Ghost. Likewise, while the Father, Son and Spirit are all God, the Father is not the Son, the Spirit is not the Father and the Son is not the Spirit, yet they all abide in each other so that when Jesus says that He and the Father are one, he can do so without contradiction. The Bible is replete with phrases about Christians being found "in Christ" and Christ being "in us." This is all metaphysical, supernatural. The doctrine of the Trinity presupposes the existence of a God who is not bound by nature's laws. A God who is not merely an organizer of pre-existent materials but rather a God who creates a universe out of nothing. He therefore stands apart from his creation and does not have to conform to the limitations of that creation. The Trinity most assuredly CAN be understood. The Trinity is simply often misunderstood, just as the concept of a tesseract, when imported from it's mathematical consistent 4-dimensional space into natural 3-dimensional space can be misunderstood. Perhaps a good starting point, on wrapping you mind around understanding that something can exist outside of what we understand to be the natural world, would be "Flatland" by Edwin Abbot. It was written in the 1880's and has been adapted to film: The Official Movie Version of: FLATLAND

Wouldn't the correct thing to do be to define the Trinity according to the Nicene Creed instead of dumbing it down to something that is "easily comprehended by your Latter Day Saint reader?" While I would agree that most self-proclaimed Trinitarians in the U.S. of A. don't have a good grasp of the doctrine, and therefore many rank-and-file Christians can't adequately communicate the concept, that doesn't mean that the doctrine of the Trinity doesn't have a definition. I would think it would be in the interest of Mormonwiki to make sure they are clearly expressing the actual doctrine, rather than presenting a mischaracterization... even if it is well intentioned when doing so. It would otherwise be all-too easy for someone, reading the site, to make the accusation that Mormonwiki is intentionally misrepresenting the Nicene Faith. Many conversations between non-LDS and LDS break down with accusations of misrepresentation of the other's beliefs because of less then precise definitions. In this case, the mormonwiki page is simply importing an LDS concept (that the Father, Son and Spirit are three Gods) into the non-LDS Trinitarian concept (that they are three persons who, united together, are one God.) The resulting definition is self defeating. Any LDS reading that definition would be left with the idea that Trinitarians beleive in something that cannot make sense. Correcting the definition would result, at least, in a better understanding of what Trinitarians actually believe instead of leaving the reader misinformed.

The Book of Hebrews begins with the following introduction: "After God spoke long ago in various portions and in various ways to our ancestors through the prophets, in these last days he has spoken to us in a son." A common understanding of this passage is that God's revelation to humanity has been made complete in Christ... that the age of prophets is now passed and God's revelation through Christ by His Apostles contains a complete and finished revelation. As a Reformed Baptist, I adhere to the London Baptist Confession of 1689 which states, in regard to divine revelation: "...those former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people (are) now ceased." I believe that the need for prophets and apostles and continuing revelation are not only not necessary, but would also be counter productive. Those parts of Scripture that are necessary to salvation are clear and plain and can be understood without great theological training.

Not sure where to address this... but mormonwiki.com says to discuss the articles there in the lds.net forums. In the entry entitled "Mormon Doctrine - An Introduction" there is a subheading "The Nature of Deity" which states: "Mormon doctrine does not state a belief in the trinity (three gods in one)" This needs to be changed, since it does not acurately convey the true Christian understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity. The doctrine does not claim "three gods in one." Rather, the doctrine teaches "three Persons, one God." This is fundamentally different. Let me try and clarify... Jesus is God, the Father is God and the Holy Spirit is God. But they are not three different Gods. Jesus is not just "a god," but, along with the Holy Spirit and The Father they, together, are God. God does not exist without all three. The mormonwiki article should be edited to state, ""Mormon doctrine does not state a belief in the Trinity (three persons in one being)"