Announcement

Collapse

LDS - Mormonism Guidelines

Theists only.

Look! It's a bird, no it's a plane, no it's a bicycle built for two!

This forum is a debate area to discuss issues pertaining to the LDS - Mormons. This forum is generally for theists only, and is generaly not the area for debate between atheists and theists. Non-theists may not post here without first obtaining permission from the moderator of this forum. Granting of such permission is subject to Moderator discretion - and may be revoked if the Moderator feels that the poster is not keeping with the spirit of the World Religions Department.

Due to the sensitive nature of the LDS Temple Ceremonies to our LDS posters, we do not allow posting exact text of the temple rituals, articles describing older versions of the ceremony, or links that provide the same information. However discussion of generalities of the ceremony are not off limits. If in doubt, PM the area mod or an Admin


Non-theists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Christianity is a falling religion

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    Ohhh yes you did! You believe because I disagree with Traditional Christianity, they are correct, because they are the majority, and I am misrepresenting there views and have no right to disagree with the majority popular opinion.
    No, that is not what I said. You are merely misrepresenting their position.

    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    What possible 'evidence' could there be to a disagreement concerning the correct understanding of the Divine nature of God? I can and did provide philosophical/theological scholars that share my views. Yes, they share the same view, and you are playing 'Duck, Bob and Weave' avoiding responding to my references.
    What difference does it make if others share your views?

    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    Popularity is not the issue here. Again a fallacy dodge

    My theological disagreement and interpretation is not misinterpretation of beliefs.
    You claim that Christains misrepresent their views. That they are not monotheists, as they claim to be. You have no evidence to support this claim.

    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    I do nor mischaractorize, I disagree, and you have failed to respond honestly to my sources and my argument in this thread (of topic) and previous threads.
    Yes, you continually mischaracterize by claiming that Christians are not monotheists.

    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    No problem, they are making the same claims I am.

    My references are genuinely part of the discussion. Ignoring them and failing to respond just weakens your vague response. Differences in belief and interpretation is not misrepresentation. There is no honest dialogue in your responses just foolish accusations.

    Are you considering my sources mischaractorization of the Trinitarian view s of Traditional Christianity? As Philosophy/Theology scholars I do not think they share that view.

    The sources provide a more detailed description of my view. Please respond.
    But it is you who are making the accusation. Without any evidence. I do not see your sources as making the same accusation as you.

    The only source you've used in response to me is a quotation of part of a Wikipedia post referring to unnamed Jewish legal authorities, some of whom say Jews are not permitted to hold a Trinitarian theology, 'though non-Jews holding such a theology would not be considered idolaters, and some Jews debate whether or not Christianity is formally polytheism, some allow non-Jews to swear by the name of God even if they associate other deities with that name, and some permit non-Jews to worship such deities. Some unnamed modern interpreters are said to allow Gentile belief that there are other gods besides the Creator, but forbid actual worship of them, and some consider worship of independent deities other than the creator to be idolatry. None of this, as described in your quotation from Wikipedia, actually pertains to Christian Trinitarian belief as i have described it. We do not believe any of the persons of the Trinity are other deities, nor that some deities are involved in creation and others not involved. As I've already responded, you are using 'person' in a different sense than as is generally done in Christian theology of the Trinity. We believe that God is beyond our human conception of personhood and beyond our human conception of interpersonal relations, thus our human conceptions of persons and relations between and among persons does not limit the oneness and simplicity of God who cannot be defined.

    I note that in another post, you subsequently cited a secondary source describing Daniel Howard-Snyder's criticism of a literal interpretation of the Trinity using an analogy to the mythical three-headed dog Cerberus. This critique does not address the apophatic view of the Trinity I have described here. From what I can see of your quotation, he does not engage my view (nor do you) and I would generally agree with his conclusion as presented, namely that the literal view presents a low view of God, as do all analogies.

    In yet another post, I see you cited an article by Michael Bea who critiques specifically the Social Trinitarian model of the Trinity. Again, it does not touch upon an apophatic understanding of the Trinity which I believe is best for all human models or images of God are insufficient to define his nature. In my experience most theologians readily acknowledge that whatever models or images or analogies used to describe God in general or the Trinity specifically are woefully inadequate.[/quote]

    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    Far too much vague, and actually no response at all. If you have issues with my reference (cursing the messenger) please start a thread on the issue.
    It is always best if the messenger actually understands the message.
    Last edited by robrecht; 12-20-2015, 11:09 PM.
    βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
    ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

    אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by robrecht View Post
      No, that is not what I said. You are merely misrepresenting their position.

      What difference does it make if others share your views?

      You claim that Christains misrepresent their views. That they are not monotheists, as they claim to be. You have no evidence to support this claim.

      Yes, you continually mischaracterize by claiming that Christians are not monotheists.

      But it is you who are making the accusation. Without any evidence. I do not see your sources as making the same accusation as you.

      The only source you've used in response to me is a quotation of part of a Wikipedia post referring to unnamed Jewish legal authorities, some of whom say Jews are not permitted to hold a Trinitarian theology, 'though non-Jews holding such a theology would not be considered idolaters, and some Jews debate whether or not Christianity is formally polytheism, some allow non-Jews to swear by the name of God even if they associate other deities with that name, and some permit non-Jews to worship such deities. Some unnamed modern interpreters are said to allow Gentile belief that there are other gods besides the Creator, but forbid actual worship of them, and some consider worship of independent deities other than the creator to be idolatry. None of this, as described in your quotation from Wikipedia, actually pertains to Christian Trinitarian belief as i have described it. We do not believe any of the persons of the Trinity are other deities, nor that some deities are involved in creation and others not involved. As I've already responded, you are using 'person' in a different sense than as is generally done in Christian theology of the Trinity. We believe that God is beyond our human conception of personhood and beyond our human conception of interpersonal relations, thus our human conceptions of persons and relations between and among persons does not limit the oneness and simplicity of God who cannot be defined.

      I note that in another post, you subsequently cited a secondary source describing Daniel Howard-Snyder's criticism of a literal interpretation of the Trinity using an analogy to the mythical three-headed dog Cerberus. This critique does not address the apophatic view of the Trinity I have described here. From what I can see of your quotation, he does not engage my view (nor do you) and I would generally agree with his conclusion as presented, namely that the literal view presents a low view of God, as do all analogies.

      In yet another post, I see you cited an article by Michael Bea who critiques specifically the Social Trinitarian model of the Trinity. Again, it does not touch upon an apophatic understanding of the Trinity which I believe is best for all human models or images of God are insufficient to define his nature. In my experience most theologians readily acknowledge that whatever models or images or analogies used to describe God in general or the Trinity specifically are woefully inadequate.

      It is always best if the messenger actually understands the message.
      Mystic tofu baloney, and off topic of this thread
      Last edited by shunyadragon; 12-20-2015, 11:16 PM.
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        Mystic tofu baloney, and off topic of this thread
        Yet another intelligent contribution to religious dialogue by Shuny.
        βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
        ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

        אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by robrecht View Post
          Yet another intelligent contribution to religious dialogue by Shuny.
          You basically failed to intelligently respond in the dialogue, and distorted my references.

          Again, what possible evidence could there be in a dialogue such as this?
          Last edited by shunyadragon; 12-21-2015, 06:48 AM.
          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

          go with the flow the river knows . . .

          Frank

          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
            You basically failed to intelligently respond in the dialogue, and distorted my references.
            Point to one single distortion, if you can.
            βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
            ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

            אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by robrecht View Post
              Point to one single distortion, if you can.
              You said: "In yet another post, I see you cited an article by Michael Bea who critiques specifically the Social Trinitarian model of the Trinity."

              False distortion: Rea: "I would urge that attention be shifted away from defending the Christian claim to monotheism and towards an investigation of the question what sorts of polytheism Christianity means to oppose. If, however, there are interpretations of the doctrine of the Trinity which (while avoiding the heresy of modalism) are consistent with monotheism, I say so much the better for those interpretations, and so much the worse for Social Trinitarianism."

              He does not just specifically critiques the later day 'Social Trinitarianism.' He addresses specifically ALL interpretations of the Trinity, and considers 'Social Trinitarianism the worst.

              Second, you are bring up a vague notion of an undefinable apophatic Trinity. My issue is doctrine and dogma of tradtional Christianity defining God specifically as a Trinity. Smooooozing the subject doe not address the specific issue.

              Thus as I said, "vague mystic tofu argument.?"

              Again, failed to answer, What sort of evidence whould you expect in this time of discussion concerning the philosophical/theological issues of the Trinity?

              Realize that 'evidence' conotates an objective repeatable observation. I can cite the Jewish theologists view and reference in the OT, and the belief of Islam and the Baha'i Faith, but these of course fo not represent evidence. There is no evidence for the existence of God, whose nature we are discussing.
              Last edited by shunyadragon; 12-21-2015, 07:35 AM.
              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

              go with the flow the river knows . . .

              Frank

              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                You said: "In yet another post, I see you cited an article by Michael Bea who critiques specifically the Social Trinitarian model of the Trinity."

                False distortion: Rea: "I would urge that attention be shifted away from defending the Christian claim to monotheism and towards an investigation of the question what sorts of polytheism Christianity means to oppose. If, however, there are interpretations of the doctrine of the Trinity which (while avoiding the heresy of modalism) are consistent with monotheism, I say so much the better for those interpretations, and so much the worse for Social Trinitarianism."

                He does not just specifically critiques the later day 'Social Trinitarianism.' He addresses specifically ALL interpretations of the Trinity, and considers 'Social Trinitarianism the worst.
                How is that different from what I said? I too think all interpretations of the Trinity fail to define the the nature of God, hence the need for an appreciation of the apophatic simplicity of God. Our view of God necessarily exceeds the limited human conceptions of person and relations, but it relates to the necessarily interpersonal dimension of personhood.

                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                Second, you are bring up a vague notion of an undefinable apophatic Trinity. My issue is doctrine and dogma of tradtional Christianity defining God specifically as a Trinity. Smooooozing the subject doe not address the specific issue.

                Thus as I said, "vague mystic tofu argument.?
                The apophatic simplicity of an undefinable God is very much a part of traditional Christianity. Always has been, always will. If you want to critique doctrines and dogmas of traditional Christianity by forgetting this important element in the tradition, you are merely ignoring something of incredible importance.
                βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                  Again, failed to answer, What sort of evidence whould you expect in this time of discussion concerning the philosophical/theological issues of the Trinity?

                  Realize that 'evidence' conotates an objective repeatable observation. I can cite the Jewish theologists view and reference in the OT, and the belief of Islam and the Baha'i Faith, but these of course fo not represent evidence. There is no evidence for the existence of God, whose nature we are discussing.
                  You are laboring under a misunderstanding of what I've said. I am not pointing to evidence for the existence of God or a scientific approach to repeatable observation. I am merely talking about respecting the right of others to define their beliefs. This is the only basis for religious dialogue.
                  βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                  ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                  אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                    How is that different from what I said? I too think all interpretations of the Trinity fail to define the the nature of God, hence the need for an appreciation of the apophatic simplicity of God. Our view of God necessarily exceeds the limited human conceptions of person and relations, but it relates to the necessarily interpersonal dimension of personhood.
                    Ok, that is what you believe, but you said of Rea's article: In yet another post, "I see you cited an article by Michael Bea who critiques specifically the Social Trinitarian model of the Trinity." which is a false distortion of Rea's article.

                    The apophatic simplicity of an undefinable God is very much a part of traditional Christianity. Always has been, always will. If you want to critique doctrines and dogmas of traditional Christianity by forgetting this important element in the tradition, you are merely ignoring something of incredible importance.
                    Yes the apophatic simplicity of an undefinable God is very much a part of traditional Christianity. Always has been, always will, but the problem is the 'positive' kataphatic defining of God in terms of a Trinity.
                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      Ok, that is what you believe, but you said of Rea's article: In yet another post, "I see you cited an article by Michael Bea who critiques specifically the Social Trinitarian model of the Trinity." which is a false distortion of Rea's article.
                      I was responding to the citation of the article you quote. If it is worth reading the whole article for some critique of 'my' apophatic understanding of the Trinity, let me know. A quick scan of the article does not seem to indicate that there is.

                      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      Yes the apophatic simplicity of an undefinable God is very much a part of traditional Christianity. Always has been, always will, but the problem is the 'positive' kataphatic defining of God in terms of a Trinity.
                      For those who take apophatic theology seriously, one can never think that it is even possible to have a positive kataphatic definition of God, Trinitarian or otherwise. In the East, it is oftentimes merely asserted that kataphatic theology is inferior to apophatic theology. In the Catholic West, many favor Thomas' dialectical approach that ingrains apophatic theology as a fundamental part of all theological method. All statements about God are only made by analogy. Your criticisms may have some pertinence for Christians who deny the validity of apophatic theology generally or claim that the Trinity is not a supreme mystery that can never be fully understood, but I think most Christians at least implicitly affirm this.
                      βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                      ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                      אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        I see you left out a very important footnote from Rea's conclusion:

                        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                        Also here more 'religious polemics.'

                        Source: https://www3.nd.edu/~mrea/papers/Polytheism.pdf



                        ... If, however, there are interpretations of the doctrine of the Trinity which (while avoiding the heresy of modalism) are consistent with monotheism,[26] I say so much the better for those interpretations, and so much the worse for Social
                        Trinitarianism.

                        Michael C. Rea
                        University of Notre Dame, Indiana

                        26 And I think that there are: see Brower and Rea (2005)

                        © Copyright Original Source

                        βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                        ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                        אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                          I was responding to the citation of the article you quote. If it is worth reading the whole article for some critique of 'my' apophatic understanding of the Trinity, let me know. A quick scan of the article does not seem to indicate that there is.
                          Yes, it is worth reading the whole article, but yes you made a false statement concerning Rea's article.

                          For those who take apophatic theology seriously, one can never think that it is even possible to have a positive kataphatic definition of God, Trinitarian or otherwise. In the East, it is oftentimes merely asserted that kataphatic theology is inferior to apophatic theology. In the Catholic West, many favor Thomas' dialectical approach that ingrains apophatic theology as a fundamental part of all theological method. All statements about God are only made by analogy. Your criticisms may have some pertinence for Christians who deny the validity of apophatic theology generally or claim that the Trinity is not a supreme mystery that can never be fully understood, but I think most Christians at least implicitly affirm this.
                          It is a given that most if not all traditional Christians acknowledge the apophatic nature of mystery of God in one way or another, but the Trinity belief in the nature of God is a 'positive' kataphatic belief is pretty much a universal 'positive' concept in traditional Christianity, and that is the problem. You tend to take more personal independent view of the theology of traditional Christianity, which is a slippery subject. This is ok, but it is not a belief system that I can effectively dialogue with. I deal with the dominant belief, doctrine and dogma of traditional Christianity, which is taught in the churches throughout most of the world.

                          There is, of course, the LDS beliefs which is the subject of this thread. Likewise I cannot deal with independent beliefs outside the doctrines, dogma, and what is taught in the LDS church. Individuals can, of course, believe anything independently, but that I can only deal with independent of the nature of a church or religion in the real world.
                          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                          go with the flow the river knows . . .

                          Frank

                          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                            I see you left out a very important footnote from Rea's conclusion:
                            I did not leave out the foot note, and acknowledged his point, but this does not reflect the whole article. His point here was the 'Social Trinitarianism' is the worst, and not the specific point of the article. Read the whole article, and brush up on your English.

                            Rea said: "If there were no orthodox understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity according to which Father, Son, and Holy Spirit might meaningfully be said to be manifestations of a single divine reality—if, in other words, there were no viable interpretation of that doctrine according to which they were distinct but still, somehow, the same God—then the conclusion of this essay would probably be that Christians should learn to be content regarding themselves as in some sense polytheists."
                            Last edited by shunyadragon; 12-21-2015, 11:37 AM.
                            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                            go with the flow the river knows . . .

                            Frank

                            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              Yes, it is worth reading the whole article, but yes you made a false statement concerning Rea's article.
                              You've yet to show that I made a false statement. It is clear from his abstract that his focus is on a critique of social trinitarianism as a form of polytheism. It is clear from his conclusion that, although he associates social trinitarianism with polytheism, he nonetheless does believe that there are other interpretations of the doctrine of the Trinity which avoid modalism and are consistent with monotheism. It is clear from the conclusion of his introduction that the focus of this article is on social trinitarianism. 'Social Trinitarian' or 'Social Trinitarianism' or 'ST-Christianity' appears more than 40 times in this short article. Perhaps you could show what part of this article critiques all other forms of trinitarian theology in general as polytheistic or my particular theological approach to the trinity as polytheistic? But, regardless, the article is clearly focused on social trinitarianism.

                              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              It is a given that most if not all traditional Christians acknowledge the apophatic nature of mystery of God in one way or another, but the Trinity belief in the nature of God is a 'positive' kataphatic belief is pretty much a universal 'positive' concept in traditional Christianity, and that is the problem. You tend to take more personal independent view of the theology of traditional Christianity, which is a slippery subject. This is ok, but it is not a belief system that I can effectively dialogue with. I deal with the dominant belief, doctrine and dogma of traditional Christianity, which is taught in the churches throughout most of the world.

                              There is, of course, the LDS beliefs which is the subject of this thread. Likewise I cannot deal with independent beliefs outside the doctrines, dogma, and what is taught in the LDS church. Individuals can, of course, believe anything independently, but that I can only deal with independent of the nature of a church or religion in the real world.
                              If you choose to, you can dialogue with good trinitarian theology. It is not necessary for you to only argue against your own pejorative characterization of the beliefs of others.
                              Last edited by robrecht; 12-21-2015, 12:05 PM.
                              βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                              ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                              אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                                I did not leave out the foot note, ...
                                Where does it appear in your quotation?

                                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                                ... and acknowledged his point, but this does not reflect the whole article. His point here was the 'Social Trinitarianism' is the worst, and not the specific point of the article.
                                That indeed was my view of his article.

                                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                                Read the whole article, and brush up on your English.
                                You've yet to show that the rest of the article is relevant to this discussion. Certainly what you've quoted does not make your case.

                                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                                Rea said: "If there were no orthodox understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity according to which Father, Son, and Holy Spirit might meaningfully be said to be manifestations of a single divine reality—if, in other words, there were no viable interpretation of that doctrine according to which they were distinct but still, somehow, the same God—then the conclusion of this essay would probably be that Christians should learn to be content regarding themselves as in some sense polytheists."
                                Regarding brushing up on one's English, notice that the this statement begins with a double conditional clause. If you would read the footnote that you left out of your quotation, you would realize that this is a condition contrary to fact in his view.
                                βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                                ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                                אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X