LDS as a Christian Denomination

[pam]

Just so everyone is aware that might want to respond to SolaFide. This user is no longer a member of the site.

[Maxel]

SolaFide, I don't think you've dealt with the assertion made by Evangelical theologians (with more knowledge than you) that the doctrine of the Trinity cannot be found in the text of the Bible itself (I posted on this here). If you did and I missed it, I apologize.

I do not base my belief in the Trinity off of the Creed.

Really? You arrived at the advanced doctrine of the Tinity through the text of the Bible itself? Which translation of the Bible did you use (this is important)?

Yes, Scripture is interpreted, but does that mean that God failed to be clear in His revelation? Certainly not.

It doesn't mean that man cannot misinterpret the Lord's revelations to us, though.

If we actually trust the Scripture then we can come to a conclusion. One God. (Isaiah 43:10) Father is God (Philippians 1:2) Son is God (Hebrews 1;8, John 20:28) Spirit is God (Acts 5:3-4). Father Son and Spirit are distinguished (Matthew 3). What does this lead us to?

The Godhead!

The Trinity.

Oh...

Joking aside, SolaFide, you cannot prove, using the text of the Bible, that the Trinity is rock-solid Biblical doctrine (you may believe it is, but the hard evidence is not there to convince anyone else). Hundreds- thousands- of theologians before you have tried, and failed. The matter is one of interpretation, and the Trinitarian interpretation is nowadays derived from the Christian creeds, which are supposedly authoritative.

If the Creeds aren't authoritative, than you have to admit you believe in the Trinity not because it's plainly taught in the Bible (we've established that it's not), but because your religious tradition demands it.

And tradition is one of the worst reasons to believe anything.

Edited December 14, 2009 by Maxel

[Guest]

Just so everyone is aware that might want to respond to SolaFide. This user is no longer a member of the site.

Got too much for him to handle? And I was gonna jump in and join the fray...

[ozzy]

Yeah I totally missed that. Oh well.

[pam]

Ozzy you're cool. It was done after you had posted.

[Maxel]

Ozzy you're cool. It was done after you had posted.

My excuse is that I had started the reply before SolaFide001 was banned- I just took a while to edit and post.

These kind of discussions are frustrating. I can handle discussions about the Trinity when those arguing for a Triune God recognize that the Trinity doctrine isn't plainly written into the Bible, but relies largely in interpretation through the lens of the Creeds. When the person fails to do even that, though...

You end up with ~16 pages of back-and-forth that, ultimately, accomplishes nothing but reaffirms prejudices.

[MichaelCraig]

I'm a very simple man. I don't understand some of these big words. I do know that God is love and remember as a child being told by my grandma that Jesus says to love God with all my heart, mind and soul and to love others as I love myself. I also have learned that when a person is refered to by others as anything besides thier name it automatically changes them from a living breathing person, to a thing. Mormon. Baptist. Methodist. When I'm asked what I am I always say, "I'm Craig". I love Jesus and I love every single one of you and no fancy words or the show of how much knowledge of scripture any of you have is going to change that love I have for you. I think Jesus made a really good point when faced with this type situation when he said, "show me the fruits". :)

[thekabalist]

Even though the member is not part of the site anymore I'd like to answer anyway as the poster may still be lurking as a non-member or even for the sake of the other users. To make it more simple I'll write addressing the poster.

Yes sir, with all due respect, you do misunderstand it. Trinitarians are ABSOLUTE MONOTHEISTS. That is the core, bedrock principle of Trinitarianism. No matter what else the Bible says, it is clear that there is ONLY ONE GOD. Anything that contradicts that is wrong. Mormons are polytheists, that's why it doesn't fit. Your description of "fitting 3 into 1" shows you simply don't understand, or that you refuse to understand. They are two different categories.

Your logic is flawed. What you are saying basically is: If you don't consider the Trinity to be absolute monotheism then you don't understand it. This is wrong. I do understand the idea of 3 persons which are one in substance (and thus one being). I just don't agree this is absolute monotheism. To me this is still a form of triteism that is made to fit into a monotheistic formula.

I would love for you to quote for me a handful of well-respected philosophers who say this, let alone "most philosophers". Please go right ahead and do so.

How's cogito ergo sum for starters? A rock doesn't "cogito" ;-)

Actually, sir, it is you who is missing my point. Saying that I am attempting to, "make distinct entities become 1" shows this very clearly. Father, Son, and Spirit ARE NOT 3 distinct entities. For you to claim they are is simply incorrect. Yes, 3 entities being 1 entity would not be strict monotheism. I agree. However, this is not what I am arguing. There is one entity, one being, one essence, or one nature that is God. This ONE being is shared by three persons, Father, Son, and Spirit. The three person are not different entities. They are one entity. 'Person' in regards to the Trinity is not a separate, finite human person as we usually think of it. Even if you disagree with my conclusion, please do not continue to misrepresent it in this way.

I'm sorry but to me this is sheer terminology and as such sounds rather hypocritical. As I said before: Just because you call those "3" by a different name. Be it substance, person, whatever, it doesn't make it less than three. You still have 3 in 1. And Trinitarianism doe say that the Father is not the Son. So still you are not absolute monotheists to those outside Christianity. In other words you are only an absolute monotheist by your own standards. And so when you criticize the LDS by claiming to be monotheist by their own standards you are using double standards.

Considering that I was responding to the very objection you are making, it seems imprudent to cut my response into snippets and not take it in context with the rest of my response. Please do me the courtesy of reading my whole remarks and quoting me in full if you wish to respond to me.

Do you realize that you are refuting yourself here? When I told you that you didn't understand the Trinity you disagreed. You didn't think of yourself as unqualified to comment on Trinitarianism, despite not being a Trinitarian. You did not humbly accept it from me. You continue to argue with me. So why do you say that I should take this approach with the LDS faith when you won't apply your own standard to my faith? By your definition you are not qualified to speak on either Trinitarianism or LDS faith. You are saying one thing and doing another. In practice, you seem to be working form the standpoint that I would take: Anyone, through much study, can learn about another's belief system. So, I simply ask you for consistency.

Not really. It's different. I said what I said because it's very often in Evangelical apologetics that other faiths get misrepresented by those opposing it. So what I said is that you not being an LDS are not qualified to say I misunderstand LDS doctrine. Especially when everyone around is LDS. I said that I would humbly be willing to accept it from them not from you. Now of course if they said that I was wrong about their view then I would expect them to explain it to me. As for the Trinity for starters it is a much more public domain knowledge that anyone can easily have access to. Second of all you simply saying I don't understand it because I don't believe in it doesn't count. If I am wrong about it then you should be able to demonstrate how. And you haven't. You just take issue with my not accepting it as monotheistic.

No, sir, you don't understand it. And I am not saying that simply because you are not a Trinitarian. I am saying that because you have continually used terms in reference to it (even in this post, calling the three person three entities) that are blatantly false. Such a consistent misrepresentation can only come from one who doesn't or one who is a liar. I honestly do not think you are lying, so I conclude that you just don't get it.

I do understand the Trinity. I just think that calling the 3 characters (for lack of better words) "persons" doesn't diminish from the fact that I see 3 distinct entities there. To me as an outsider this formula is only a word-game to conceal the fact that you have 3 entities within 1.

Do you fully understand the nature of God? Do you understand how He created the cosmos? Do you understand how He can know all things? I'm guessing the answer to all three of these is a resounding 'No'. Does our human inability to understand take away from them these things in any way? Of course not. Does it make them less true? Of course not.

I never said we must understand everything. But it seems to me that G-d wanted us to understand the revelation He's given us. I think He would have made us capable of understanding Him. When He says He's infinite I can't conceive it but I can have a good understanding of what it means. The Trinity is just irrational.

The average Christian probably doesn't understand the Trinity all that well. (No one understands it even close to fully because we could never hope to understand the totality of God.) They probably have some misconception, the most common that Ive seen being Modalism. But, here's the key: True Christians, upon being corrected from the Scripture. will eventually change their beliefs to match the core issues of Scripture. Most people have never really thought about it and that's the problem.

It's funny because Modalism is condemned as a terrible heresy and yet you correctly acknowledge that most Christians are practical modalists.

Once again, sir, you show a misunderstanding of the Trinity. This is Modalism, not Trinitarianism. Modalists show no distinction between the persons which leads to one persons talking to Himself.

Actually, no it isn't. Multiple Personality Disorder is the closest thing to the Trinity that we can find in the natural world. One being with 3 different personas. Modalism is the belief that G-d can take different forms when manifesting Himself. This would be closer to John being a CEO, a father, a brother, a son depending on the context.

So you are saying that you are even remotely close to understanding the way that God made the world?

No. What I'm saying is that G-d would have made me capable of understanding that of Him which He wishes to reveal. Especially if I'm made in His likeness.

I disagree with you when you say that Trinitarians will slip into practical belief of some other God. That's simply untrue.

And yet you acknowledged that many Christians are practical modalists.

The Trinity is Greek philosophy? Really? Because the number one person I look to for information on the topic is the Semite Jesus Himself as He claims the name of the God (John 8:28, 8:58), is called God (John 20:28), claims the divine authority to forgive sins (Mark 2:5), claims authority of the Sabbath (Mark 2:28), claims authority over the temple (Matthew 21), claims to be the judge of the wicked (Matthew 7:21-23), claims authority over angels (Matthew 13:41), has power over life and resurrection (John 11).

Yes it is Greek philosophy. None of the passages above state that G-d is composed of 3 persons and yet one being. Yes they do claim Jesus is divine but nothing more than that. The idea of G-d being composed of 3 different persons is totally alien to Judaism.

No serious scholar would say that? Really? So all conservative Christian scholars aren't serious? (I suggest we are all biased, including you and me). This type of argumentation is the type of things that Liberals throw out at Christians and Jews both all the time. "No serious scholar believes this actually happened." I should point out to you that the same scholars who cite the Trinity as being some later addition are the same ones who would say that Moses didn't write the Torah, that the Flood never happened, that Adam and Eve were not historical people, that all Old Testament Prophecy is after the event actually happens. Do you really want to align yourself with those folks? You can if you may but if chose to cite the very same people who would turn around and destroy your system as well then you lose credibility

What I mean is that no serious scholar will say that the Trinity is a Jewish concept. It is alien to Judaism. It's common knowledge actually.

I guess this sums up my points.

b'shalom!

[Giant_Son]

No. What I'm saying is that G-d would have made me capable of understanding that of Him which He wishes to reveal. Especially if I'm made in His likeness.

Thank you.

[Gatorman]

Well, I am frustrated that the original poster is gone, but, my question would be, if there is only 1 being 'God', then why the 3 different 'personas'? And, if God can not abide any unclean thing, why can the Holy Spirit reside with us today? Why could Jesus walk among us? If Jesus is God in 'being', then Jesus could never have walked among us, for God can not abide...You get the point.

[Maxel]

I'm content with the Trinitarian explanation for all your questions and others like them, Gatorman. I am willing to accept that the idea of 'believing in something that we cannot concretely define' isn't crazy- in a way, that is the very definition of faith. I do get annoyed when people like SolaFide come in and employ double standards to try to trip up LDS theology, but for someone who's willing to let differences be differences I have the utmost respect.

I get the feeling that more than just SolaFide got attacked in this thread (e.g. the doctrine of the Trinity itself), and I can't help but feel for our Trinitarian friends who don't try to trip us up who might be hurt by our words.

[Gatorman]

I grew up being taught the Trinity. I grew up reciting the Nicean Creed. I grew up with my own testimony of it being hogwash. That is not meant as an attack, this is my own knowledge and faith.

[ozzy]

Ozzy you're cool. It was done after you had posted.

whew... thats a relief. I thought I had missed something... as usual.

[JohnnyRudick]

I'm content with the Trinitarian explanation for all your questions and others like them, Gatorman. I am willing to accept that the idea of 'believing in something that we cannot concretely define' isn't crazy- in a way, that is the very definition of faith. I do get annoyed when people like SolaFide come in and employ double standards to try to trip up LDS theology, but for someone who's willing to let differences be differences I have the utmost respect.

I get the feeling that more than just SolaFide got attacked in this thread (e.g. the doctrine of the Trinity itself), and I can't help but feel for our Trinitarian friends who don't try to trip us up who might be hurt by our words.

Then again, Prayerfully- many of them will re-examine their position and listen to the missionaries for a change and get a change;-)

Bro. Rudick