for Athanasian - on the Trinity

[BrianB]

Re: http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=28540#post28540

Athanasian,

I have a question regarding one of your statements. In the above-cited post (under “The Dual Nature of Christ” thread), you quote Calvinist:

---begin quote---
02-09-2003 @ 10:54 PM
Calvinist:

Water is the same substance no matter the form. This is exactly what the doctrine of the Trinity claims: Father, Son, Holy Ghost are same in substance and power. Therefore, it does not violate the law of non-contradiction.
---end quote---


And then you say:


---begin quote---
This is a classic example of the poor reasoning which results from people not understanding the Trinity.

The same volume of water never exists in all three forms simultaneously. If you take a gallon of water, you cannot find conditions under which it will be a gallon of solid, a gallon of liquid, and a gallon of gas - and still only have a gallon of water.

But when you consider the Trinity, you have the same 'volume' (the ousia, in this case), which exists in three persons. The Godhead is 100% Father, 100% Son, and 100% Holy Spirit.

The Creeds make this utterly clear. Each one is 'very God', but there is only one God.

It's analogies like the one which you have drawn which get Trinitarians laughed at. Please, forget trying to draw analogies from the comprehensible to illustrate or 'prove' the incomprehensible. It cannot be done.
---end quote---

I’m confused by a comment you made, that “the same volume of water never exists in all three forms simultaneously.” Could you comment further on this. You’re just saying that you cannot magically multiply water to get 3 gallons, right?
If that is all you are saying, then it’s irrelevant to the point that Calvinist was making.

I personally think the water analogy is great for illustrating how one can have one (water) and three (solid, liquid, gas) all existing at the same time. I have used it in the past and will continue in the future unless I see a reason not to. By the way, liquid water is “100% water” ice is “100% water” and gaseous water is “100% water” so I fail to see what point you were even trying to make.

Oh, and if you’re going to make comments like “This is a classic example of the poor reasoning which results from people not understanding the Trinity.” you better be prepared to back up such a statement. :)

Brian

[Athanasian]

Today @ 07:23 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46249#post46249)
BrianB:
I’m confused by a comment you made, that “the same volume of water never exists in all three forms simultaneously.” Could you comment further on this. You’re just saying that you cannot magically multiply water to get 3 gallons, right?

No, I am saying that if you have one gallon of water, it cannot be one gallon of ice, one gallon of liquid, and one gallon of gas simutaneously.

But that is the Trinity - God is one Father, one Son, and one Holy Spirit, but still one God.

[qoote]I personally think the water analogy is great for illustrating how one can have one (water) and three (solid, liquid, gas) all existing at the same time.[/quote]

One volume of water cannot exist as one volume of liquid, solid, and gas simultaneously.

By the way, liquid water is “100% water” ice is “100% water” and gaseous water is “100% water” so I fail to see what point you were even trying to make.

Fallacy of equivocation. I'n not arguing that ice, liquid water and water vapour cannot all three be '100% water', I am saying that one volume of H20 cannot be one gallon of liquid, one gallon of solid, and one gallon of gas simultaneously.

If you can give me a one gallon bucket which contains one gallon of liquid, one gallon of ice, and one gallon of gas, then you'll be making a point. :tongue:

Oh, and if you’re going to make comments like “This is a classic example of the poor reasoning which results from people not understanding the Trinity.” you better be prepared to back up such a statement. :)

It's a self evident fallacy of equivocation. Like the egg one.

[Reasonable]

I agree with Athanasian on this. I believe the water illustration actually fits Mormon theology better than trinitarianism. One molecule of water CANNOT be in all three phases AT THE SAME TIME. Liquid, Steam and Ice can all exist at the same time and they can all be "water" but they are not the SAME water. Thus, one could argue from an LDS viewpoint that the Father, Son and Spirit are all "God" but they are not the same God, they are different Gods, all made of the same essence, and they could use the water illustration to demonstrate it. (And I am not an LDS expert so maybe this doesn't fit their belief either. Any LDS around? Does this fit Modalism?)

However, just because the illustration is not perfect does not mean it is not useful. It is far better than the "egg" illustration as the egg yolk is NOT the same substance as the shell and white. The "water" illustration helps people visualize the different "phases", if you'll permit me to borrow language from the illustration, that God is in. To my knowledge there is no physical way one can illustrate the Trinity but this is not necessarily a requirement for the belief. The aceptance should rest on the Bible and not an illustration.

[PuritanD]

Maybe we need to combine the two analogies.

Of course, as Reasonable indicated, there are no 100% accurate analogy when trying to describe the Trinity. I think that each analogy only works with a great deal of explanation of its limitations and what each one is trying to prove.

I have always had trouble with any analogy due to the inherent weakness in all of them. But, why should we limit ourselves to just one analogy? There are strengths in each one and if used in combination could be a very strong explanation for something our poor finite minds still cannot grasp.

PuritanD

[Athanasian]

Yesterday @ 08:29 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46297#post46297)
Reasonable:

I agree with Athanasian on this. I believe the water illustration actually fits Mormon theology better than trinitarianism. One molecule of water CANNOT be in all three phases AT THE SAME TIME. Liquid, Steam and Ice can all exist at the same time and they can all be "water" but they are not the SAME water. Thus, one could argue from an LDS viewpoint that the Father, Son and Spirit are all "God" but they are not the same God, they are different Gods, all made of the same essence, and they could use the water illustration to demonstrate it. (And I am not an LDS expert so maybe this doesn't fit their belief either. Any LDS around? Does this fit Modalism?)

Spot on. :thumb:

[Kevin W. Graham]

== I believe the water illustration actually fits Mormon theology better than trinitarianism.

How on earth did you come to that conclusion? I would say the three are one substance in a manner which three glasses of water contain the same substance. But they are still three distinct glasses. The three states of matter explanation is just an analogy offered by Trinitarians to try making sense of an obvious paradox. Of course, there is no reason outside the creedal professions, to believe the Godhead is of one homoousia in a manner comparable to water, ice and steam. So logically speaking, the analogy itself proves nothing unless one can make such a relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, stick biblically.

Of course problems will only occur when we begin to import non-biblical terms into Christian theology ( i.e. substance, persons, essence, generated, eternally begotten) and then read them into the Bible as if this theology was present in the NT. Each one requires qualification and definition which the Bible doesn't offer. This is a major reason why it took centuries for the early Church to decide on the nature of the Godhead.

[BrianB]

Re:
http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=46264#post46264

Athanasian,

By your statements:

---begin quote---
I am saying that if you have one gallon of water, it cannot be one gallon of ice, one gallon of liquid, and one gallon of gas simutaneously.

But that is the Trinity - God is one Father, one Son, and one Holy Spirit, but still one God.
---end quote---

and

---begin quote---
If you can give me a one gallon bucket which contains one gallon of liquid, one gallon of ice, and one gallon of gas, then you'll be making a point.
---end quote---

By these statements it seems to me you are saying:

God is one X and three X in the same way that
Water is one Y (volume) and three Y (volumes) [given your “give me” request]

Have I misunderstood you, or is this what you really believe? I want to have clarification on this before I proceed further.

Thanks,
Brian

---
Side Note

It would be better for you to use “mass of water” and not volume. I’m pretty sure I could take one gallon of water and get one gallon of liquid-water and one gallon of gaseous-water out of it in a two-gallon container. Use mass instead. Then the statement would be more technically correct.

[AVmetro]

If you can give me a one gallon bucket which contains one gallon of liquid, one gallon of ice, and one gallon of gas, then you'll be making a point.

..you'll more like be making an analogy to tritheism.

[TBush]

Yeah- the water/Trinity analogy is way more modalistic than trinitarian- but that being said, technically there is a nanosecond of time where water being frozen is both liquid and solid- and the same (liquid and vapor) for water being brought to a boil! The argument is still antiquated in light of other analogies we can use based in physics or whatever...

[AVmetro]

I believe the Trinity is spiritually discerned in regards to the understanding of the biblical doctrine. Knowing the fact from scripture is a different story. ATs often ask me to 'explain' the Trinity to them. I simply request, in turn, that they explain to me precisely how an apple tastes without using the words "like", "as" etc,. Bottom line, you know the Trinity, you just can't explain it with any sufficient analogy. Precisely why I don't waste my time doing so.

[Athanasian]

03-28-2003 @ 08:40 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46782#post46782)
Kevin W. Graham:
I would say the three are one substance in a manner which three glasses of water contain the same substance. But they are still three distinct glasses.

The problem here is that this is not the Trinity. Three separate glasses are three separate entities, even if they are made of the same stuff.

It's like having three different people - all made of flesh, but all distinct beings. You have just given yourself three gods - three distinct entities with their own unshared substance. The fact that they are made of the same stuff does not make them a Trinity anymore than the fact that I can find two other people who are made of the same stuff as me makes us a Trinity.

There is no sharing of the substance in your model, therefore you have three separate beings - three gods.

[Athanasian]

Yesterday @ 02:28 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47710#post47710)
TBush:
Yeah- the water/Trinity analogy is way more modalistic than trinitarian- but that being said, technically there is a nanosecond of time where water being frozen is both liquid and solid- and the same (liquid and vapor) for water being brought to a boil!

You are talking about the so called 'triple-point' of water. This phenomenon is badly misunderstood. It is not a case of the same mass of water existing in two states (this is physiucally impossible), it is a case of one mass of liquid water and one mass of solid water (ice), existing in the same environment.

It is not a good analogy for the Trinity, because it requires two different masses. The Trinity requires one mass in three different states simultaneously. This is impossible for anything physical.

[TBush]

"It is not a good analogy for the Trinity, because it requires two different masses. The Trinity requires one mass in three different states simultaneously. This is impossible for anything physical."

Yup- that's why I said it's antiquated (not to mention just silly) to use the water analogy when trying to explain the Trinity. What are you- smart or something?:smile:

[dizzle]

That is a very bad analogy, and I cringe when I hear it used.

[TBush]

Amen.

[Kevin W. Graham]

== The problem here is that this is not the Trinity. Three separate glasses are three separate entities, even if they are made of the same stuff.

True. But why is this a problem? It might not be the creedal Trinity, but it is certainly biblical.

== It's like having three different people - all made of flesh, but all distinct beings.

Exactly. The only way to have three people in on being is to have a schizophrenic being.

== You have just given yourself three gods - three distinct entities with their own unshared substance.

Depends on how you define gods. I'd say I just described the Godhead. A term unlike trinity, persons, substance, etc., is actually biblical.

== The fact that they are made of the same stuff does not make them a Trinity anymore than the fact that I can find two other people who are made of the same stuff as me makes us a Trinity. There is no sharing of the substance in your model, therefore you have three separate beings - three gods.

Which is essentially what the Bible, along with the earliest church fathers taught. They are one God in purpose, but three distinct entities for sure. God is not schizophrenic. Christ is subordinate to the Father and always will be. He isn't subordinate to his other personality of his same entity. Of course this was all worked out trhough the centuries of creeds, but that only makes it Orthodoxy, not biblical. Strict monotheism, which denies other deities in existence, has been proven false and was only one of many fallacious reasons teh church Fqwtahers moved towards a concept of the Trinity. Somehow trying to reconcile the problem of monotheism ye teh distinctions of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. So they came up witrh the "persons" argument and then swept all the ambiguity under the carpet and stamped it "Mystery of God."

Which is fine I suppose. But don't be surprised when others don't find this too convincing. Especially if they don't come from a Trinitarian upbringing.

Jesus said, Whom do men say that I am?

And his disciples answered and said, Some say you are John the Baptist returned from the dead; others say Elias, or other of the old prophets.

And Jesus answered and said, But whom do you say that I am?

Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Logos, existing in the Father as His rationality and then, by an act of His will, being generated, in consideration of the various functions by which God is related to his creation, but only on the fact that Scripture speaks of a Father, and a Son, and a Holy Spirit, each member of the Trinity being coequal with every other member, and each acting inseparably with and interpenetrating every other member, with only an economic subordination within God, but causing no division which would make the substance no longer simple."

And Jesus answering, said, "What?"

[dizzle]

Oh boy, don't get me started....

And Peter said, "Thou art the spirit brother of Lucifer, one of many spirit children of our heavenly mother and father who produce children in the same way that we do, and who were once were men like us, so that we too may one day be gods like them."

[Kevin W. Graham]

== And Peter said, "Thou art the spirit brother of Lucifer, one of many spirit children of our heavenly mother and father who produce children in the same way that we do, and who were once were men like us, so that we too may one day be gods like them."

Aside from the obvious misrepresentation of LDS doctrine, this is irrelevant. We believe Christ is the eldest spirit brother of all spirits. This is true. But we derive this teaching from the Bible in the same way other non-LDS do and did. Of course this would be hard to do if we were first wedded to the Trinitarian model of interpretation.

The problem here is that Evangelicals have to believe only what the Bible teaches - as your own signature states, the Bible is your statement of faith. Yet, the Evangelical theological concepts surpass far beyond what the Bible explicitly states. So there is a tremendous need for interpretation. For LDS, the same is not true. Some doctrines may be extra-biblical and that is ok for us since we are not sola scripturists. And your caricature of LDS belief is a bit misrepresentative on the procreation part. Although we do believe we are meant to become gods as the Bible and Church fathers support, the entire creature-creator dichotomy is platonistic assumption that has no basis in the Bible.

But we are told time and time again that there is one interpretation of the Bible. The Bible interprets itself. The Bible is all we need, etc. But whose interpretation is correct?

[dizzle]

Dear Kevin:

You may not have liked the bluntness with which I stated it (and deemed such bluntness a caricature) but you demonstrated no misrepresentation on my part. I can assure you that I understand LDS belief. Now perhaps you personally part ways with some of what was taught by Church, that I have encountered with other LDS, so since my statement was not about your personal beliefs, but about things that have been taught by widely accepted authorities in your Church, I have misrepresented nothing.

[BrianB]

Athanasian,

I’m still waiting for an answer to my question in post:
http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=47191#post47191

I hate misunderstanding something, so if you could answer my question it would help before I move forward in the discussion.

Thanks,
Brian

[Kevin W. Graham]

Dee Dee, you asserted, "...heavenly mother and father who produce children in the same way that we do."

This is not LDS doctrine. If you want to argue LDS belief, then yeah I suppose there are some LDS who might believe this. But can you show me where this was "taught"?

It does you little good to show where something may have been taught in the past or believed in teh present. This creates a huge opportunity for a straw man construction site. I could play the same game you're indulging now by asking you why you refuse to accept polygamy which was TAUGHT by Evangelicals like Martin Luther?

== you demonstrated no misrepresentation on my part.

I'm a Latter-day Saint. Sorry, but I can speak for my faith far better than you or perhaps anyone here. If, however, you want to cherry-pick through LDS history and nit pick on what some LDS may or may not have suggested, then you're indulging in straw man creativity that knows no bounds. What I can tell you is what is doctrine and what isn't doctrine. This goes for now and then.

Now I was addressing your orthodox position on the Trinity, sola scriptura, etc. And you return with a critique of what was "once taught" by unnamed LDS? This is inconsistent. You've not only failed to demonstrate that you have properly represented the LDS faith, but you respond to my comment on an orthodox Evangelical teaching, with one of your own on a non -orthodox LDS "teaching?"

I'm just setting the record straight. The LDS don't teach that God and Heavenly Mother procreate in the same manner as we do. They may very well do so, but we don't know for sure, and such information is not pertinent to our salvation. so we don't concern ourselves with such useless information.

Now, having said that, how do you deal with the dilemma that your starting point requires an explicit biblical teaching where none exists?

We could believe God lives in a bowl of jello and it wouldn't mean squat to us if it isn't biblical. So saying the Bible "doesn't say that" means very little to us.

[Athanasian]

03-28-2003 @ 07:54 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47191#post47191)
BrianB:
By these statements it seems to me you are saying:

God is one X and three X in the same way that
Water is one Y (volume) and three Y (volumes) [given your “give me” request]

I should have said mass, as you said. But volume still works. You can't have three volumes of one mass occupying one volume.

[Kevin W. Graham]

I found it very interesting that the church fathers referred to mankind in general as "homoousia" (one substance). A Catholic buddy of mine pointed this out and the logical problems lept out at me.

If the Trinity is one entity because they are (homoousia) one substance, then is mankind one entity or several billion entities who are the same species? Clearly even the application of homoousia changed at some point if it meant the three persons were the same being/entity.

[dizzle]

Now Kevin, don't be coy. You know for a fact that what I am saying was in fact taught, and I can understand that you want to distance yourself from such things. If you want to force me to get the cites, fine, but that will just prove that you are not being forthcoming with what you have already admited that you would have a superior kowledge of. Are you denouncing such teaching?? If you are claiming it is not binding or authoritative are you denouncing the statement of any former LDS Prophet who said that it was?? I notice that you did not deny that you believe we have a Heavenly Mother.. you just quibble on how they may or may not beget children. That hardly relieves the problem. In fact you believe that God has multiple "wives." You see, and I mean sincerely mean no personal disrespect, but we are no where of the same faith. You have a different god and a different Jesus. The twain do not meet. A god who used to be a man is fundamentally ontologically not the God of the Bible. I know there are some here who would highly disagree, or perhaps think I should not say this so forthrightly.... but I am a straight shooter, you will always know where you stand with me.

[Kevin W. Graham]

== Now Kevin, don't be coy. You know for a fact that what I am saying was in fact taught, and I can understand that you want to distance yourself from such things.

Is constantly accusing your opponent of some sort of devious malice common on this forum? You don't seem to handle dissent very well.

== If you want to force me to get the cites, fine,

Yep, go right ahead. You are the one making such claims remember? Do you need the Tanners url?

== but that will just prove that you are not being forthcoming with what you have already admited that you would have a superior kowledge of.

Rhetoric.

== Are you denouncing such teaching??

I'm denouncing it as official doctrine. I thought I made myself clear. I already stated quite clearly that you might be able to pull up a quote here and there, but that doesn't make it doctrine. I said you appeared to be building straw men, and your response here only confirms my suspicions. Now you want to attack the argument that I am denying something when I most certainly do not. I wrote very little in the above post, but you've failed to comprehend even the most basic comments.

== If you are claiming it is not binding or authoritative are you denouncing the statement of any former LDS Prophet who said that it was??

Logic dictates that it was. I provided a joke of sorts regarding the official Evangelical doctrine on the inexplicable Trinity. You said "don't get me started" and then provided a little sarcasm of your own with what would naturally be interpreted as LDS doctrine . Now you're back peddling to say it was just something somebody taught, but not doctrine? Only if it were LDS doctrine would it be a worthy response to my sarcasm. However your only response was an apples/bricks comparison. Official Evangelical doctrine with LDS folklore.

Again, I could also play that game. How do you respond to the fact that Martin luther believed polygamy was ok?

== I notice that you did not deny that you believe we have a Heavenly Mother.. you just quibble on how they may or may not beget children.

I suggest you pay careful attention to what I say. I didn't deny we have a Heavenly Mother because that is in fact LDS doctrine. Nor did I deny that they had children. In fact the only thing I deny from your initial post as being LDS doctrine, is the comment about procreating children in the same manner as humans. Now you have the burden of proof here. Show me where it states anywhere in LDS history that God the Father and heavenly Mother have physical sex like we do, and that this is how they create spirit children. This was your implication. I await your list of citations.

== That hardly relieves the problem. In fact you believe that God has multiple "wives."

What "problem"? Trust me when I say that I am the world's authority on what Kevin Graham believes. It is the epitomy of arrogance to presume to speak of my beliefs, and it adds further insult to injury to do so in such a derrogatory manner. I know some LDS have spoken on God's wives in the past, and maybe this is true. But the fact still remains it isn't LDS doctrine and it isn't LDS teaching and it isn't a fundamental part of the LDS faith that we must accept to be either saved, or remain LDS. The Trinity however, is something most Christians believe must be accepted to be both saved and a Christian. You're having trouble staying on topic here.

== You see, and I mean sincerely mean no personal disrespect, but we are no where of the same faith.

Apparently you got side-tracked in your own zeal to argue. When did I ever say otherwise? Of course we believe differently. Since when was this the issue? The issue that I am discussing is your fallacious response to my Trinity joke. I never hinted, suggested or implied that the LDS Christainity is synonymous with Evangelical Christainity. I tossed you an apple for fun, and you shot me a brick through a canon. Now there are so many red herrings that I can't keep track.

== You have a different god and a different Jesus. The twain do not meet.

Different from what, your interpretation of who God and Jesus are? I have no doubt. But argument by assertion isn't impressive.

== A god who used to be a man is fundamentally ontologically not the God of the Bible.

Huh? God IS a man, which is fundamentally true according to the Bible. You're bound by the notion of the creature-creator dichotomy (thank you Plato), but the Bible clearly tells us we are the offspring of God. (Oh boy, if we keep this up I'm going to have to release my reviews of Mormon Defenders earlier than planned - these are precisely the issues I responded to)

== I know there are some here who would highly disagree, or perhaps think I should not say this so forthrightly.... but I am a straight shooter, you will always know where you stand with me.

Hellbound in a handbasket I presume. I'm used to these "Christian" attitudes. But just so you know, where I stood with you was never in doubt, nor was it a concern of mine. I'm more concerned with where I stand with Christ.

[dizzle]

A few quick comments, and the rest is better left for a different thread.. and after I take care of other obligations. I have a nasty habit of getting involved in more conversations that I can reasonably handle.

Today @ 04:54 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=49698#post49698)
Kevin W. Graham:

== Now Kevin, don't be coy. You know for a fact that what I am saying was in fact taught, and I can understand that you want to distance yourself from such things.

Is constantly accusing your opponent of some sort of devious malice common on this forum? You don't seem to handle dissent very well.

Hmm, is exaggerating for effect common for you? I did not accuse you of devious malice whatsover, it it appeared that way then I apologize for a poor choice of words. I do think you are being coy, that is not devious malice. Both devious and malice imply a level of intent that I would not impute to you.

== If you want to force me to get the cites, fine,

Yep, go right ahead. You are the one making such claims remember? Do you need the Tanners url?

Oh, wow, and I am the one who doesn't handle dissent well. Egad!! I will need some turpentine to scrape that tar off.

== but that will just prove that you are not being forthcoming with what you have already admited that you would have a superior kowledge of.

Rhetoric.

Hmm, an analogy about pots and kettles comes to mind.

== Are you denouncing such teaching??

I'm denouncing it as official doctrine. I thought I made myself clear.

Now you have, and I thank you for that. I will be exploring that more with you in the future.

I already stated quite clearly that you might be able to pull up a quote here and there, but that doesn't make it doctrine.

And I will, or at least attempt to, show otherwise or at least inconsistency.

I said you appeared to be building straw men, and your response here only confirms my suspicions. Now you want to attack the argument that I am denying something when I most certainly do not.

That made no sense so I cannot respond. If I said you deny something, and then you confirm you do not deny it, I retract the statement. I have no need to put words in your mouth.

I wrote very little in the above post, but you've failed to comprehend even the most basic comments.

Is patronizing common?

== If you are claiming it is not binding or authoritative are you denouncing the statement of any former LDS Prophet who said that it was??

Logic dictates that it was.

That made no sense. Are you denouncing the statement of any former LDS Propeht who said that such things you claim are not doctrine were?

I provided a joke of sorts regarding the official Evangelical doctrine on the inexplicable Trinity.

Yes, you mocked the Trinity, the heart and soul of orthodox Christian faith.


You said "don't get me started" and then provided a little sarcasm of your own with what would naturally be interpreted as LDS doctrine .

Well I am glad you recognized that your sarcasm came first, and I responded with some of my own. As I beleive yours was not intended maliciously, you seem to be the one having the problem with a response in kind, instead imputing to me what you yourself did not have. And I do believe what I stated is LDS doctrine. I believe that you have conceded it all in fact was except for the fact of the manner of procreation. So I have no problem withdrawing that comment until I prove it. So my statement stands without that one comment.

Now you're back peddling to say it was just something somebody taught, but not doctrine? Only if it were LDS doctrine would it be a worthy response to my sarcasm.

I believe you are equivocating on what is doctrine and what is not in a semantical exercise. And you have conceded that it all was execept for the procreation statement, which I have said I withdraw until such time as I can expound further.



Again, further proof is in order by me. Fine, I have no problem with that.

[quote]Again, I could also play that game. How do you respond to the fact that Martin luther believed polygamy was ok?

A, I am not Lutheran. B, Luther was not a Prophet. C, I denounce it. That was easy.

== I notice that you did not deny that you believe we have a Heavenly Mother.. you just quibble on how they may or may not beget children.

I suggest you pay careful attention to what I say. I didn't deny we have a Heavenly Mother because that is in fact LDS doctrine. Nor did I deny that they had children. In fact the only thing I deny from your initial post as being LDS doctrine, is the comment about procreating children in the same manner as humans. Now you have the burden of proof here. Show me where it states anywhere in LDS history that God the Father and heavenly Mother have physical sex like we do, and that this is how they create spirit children. This was your implication. I await your list of citations.

Fair enough. Since Mormonism is not my hobby horse, this is not something I have at the tip of my fingers. I will get back with you though.

== That hardly relieves the problem. In fact you believe that God has multiple "wives."

What "problem"? Trust me when I say that I am the world's authority on what Kevin Graham believes. It is the epitomy of arrogance to presume to speak of my beliefs, and it adds further insult to injury to do so in such a derrogatory manner. I know some LDS have spoken on God's wives in the past, and maybe this is true. But the fact still remains it isn't LDS doctrine and it isn't LDS teaching and it isn't a fundamental part of the LDS faith that we must accept to be either saved, or remain LDS.

I do believe you are equivocating, and if you do not personally beleive that, then I should not have said you personally did. I meant to keep my comments more general, not specific, for I am aware that just as I may differ with others in my tradition, you may as well. But, I will, as with the begetting question, deal with this further. But if you do not believe it, I have no reason to say you do. I will have more to say on this.

The Trinity however, is something most Christians believe must be accepted to be both saved and a Christian. You're having trouble staying on topic here.

Hmm, did someone say "derogatory" before?? The Trinity is something that one cannot deny and be part of the historic Christian faith. However, notice that is different from saying it has to be accepted to be saved or be a Christian.

== You see, and I mean sincerely mean no personal disrespect, but we are no where of the same faith.

Apparently you got side-tracked in your own zeal to argue. When did I ever say otherwise? Of course we believe differently.

I never implied that you did. It goes beyond believing differently. Futurists and I beleive differently yet we are of the same faith.

Since when was this the issue? The issue that I am discussing is your fallacious response to my Trinity joke. I never hinted, suggested or implied that the LDS Christainity is synonymous with Evangelical Christainity.

Well you have shown that one element you think is fallacious and the rest is right on point, and I will prove that one element you dispute, or attempt to. And again, if I have not made this clear, I was trying in my comments to be more general and not necessarily what you believe specifically. The LDS church today believes itself to be Christian, and I was commenting on that more than what you personally beleive. I apologize if I was unclear.

I tossed you an apple for fun, and you shot me a brick through a canon. Now there are so many red herrings that I can't keep track.

First of all, since the Trinity is sacred, it is not an apple to be tossed for fun. And funny I found "two" subjects that I have to provide some further proof of. I have confidence that you can count that high (and that is a joke man!!!!)

== You have a different god and a different Jesus. The twain do not meet.

Different from what, your interpretation of who God and Jesus are? I have no doubt. But argument by assertion isn't impressive.

Don't be in such a "zeal" to make a nonexistent point. Of course we are dealing with each other's interpretations, and by each other's interpretations we have fundamentally different "gods" and different "Jesuses." I readily concede that as concerns me to you. You throw out an allegation of argument by assertion and yet you agree with my assertion!! You know it will not kill you to simply agree with a point.

== A god who used to be a man is fundamentally ontologically not the God of the Bible.

Huh? God IS a man, which is fundamentally true according to the Bible. You're bound by the notion of the creature-creator dichotomy (thank you Plato), but the Bible clearly tells us we are the offspring of God. (Oh boy, if we keep this up I'm going to have to release my reviews of Mormon Defenders earlier than planned - these are precisely the issues I responded to)

And I look forward to seeing it. And what was that about argument by assertion??

== I know there are some here who would highly disagree, or perhaps think I should not say this so forthrightly.... but I am a straight shooter, you will always know where you stand with me.

Hellbound in a handbasket I presume. I'm used to these "Christian" attitudes.

Your eternal standing with God is not my province to judge, but nice way to poison the well. And of course that was a nice slam that this view is an "attitude." Did Jesus have an UnChristian attitude when He claimed that no one gets to the Father except through Him? I am not comparing myself with Christ, but I am pointing out that stating a firmly, genuinely, and nonmalicioulsy held truth-claim is not an attidue, but that was simply a smear you lobbed my way.

But just so you know, where I stood with you was never in doubt, nor was it a concern of mine. I'm more concerned with where I stand with Christ.

Well, I too am most concerned about where I stand with Christ but I also value open and honesty with my fellow man. You have made this somewhat personal, which is not my intent. If I contributed to that, I readily apologize. I like you,and JP has vouched for you which is recommendation enough for me. But that does not mean I like or agree with your views.

[Kevin W. Graham]

== Hmm, is exaggerating for effect common for you? I did not accuse you of devious malice whatsover, it it appeared that way then I apologize for a poor choice of words. I do think you are being coy, that is not devious malice. Both devious and malice imply a level of intent that I would not impute to you.

However, I am reading this in light of your recent comments that I am being dishonest. You said: "For you to say that the Timothy and Titus passages shows an acceptance of polygamy, is simply not being honest with those texts." Good grief, was that really called for? Of course, you haven't come anywhere near proving dishonesty of any sort. I let that one slide but then you insinuate that I'm hiding something.

Now you decide to tell me what LDS doctrine is. Even worse, you begin to tell me what MY belief is. I corrected you. You obviously don't like to be corrected, especially by a "cultist" Mormon. So do you finally back up your argument with substance? Not a chance. Instead, you accuse me of being "coy" while informing me that you are right, and that you'll prove it whenever you get around to it.

== Oh, wow, and I am the one who doesn't handle dissent well. Egad!! I will need some turpentine to scrape that tar off.

If this were true, then why would I offer you help in retrieving the quotes your looking for?

== And I will, or at least attempt to, show otherwise or at least inconsistency.

Only to the Evangelical mind, which for the most part, proves nothing of importance. Reading LDS literature with Evangelical goggles is bound to cause "inconsistency."

== That made no sense so I cannot respond.

A straw man is a logical fallacy whereby an opponent creates an imaginary argument and begins to destroy it instead of dealing with the actual argument presented by his or her opponent. It is done to make it appear as if you're actually winning an argument, when in reality it is a sideshow

== If I said you deny something, and then you confirm you do not deny it, I retract the statement. I have no need to put words in your mouth.

Excellent! Then we are getting somewhere.

== Yes, you mocked the Trinity, the heart and soul of orthodox Christian faith.

In response to Athanasius who insisted that a rejection of the Trinity demands multiple gods.

== Well I am glad you recognized that your sarcasm came first, and I responded with some of my own. As I beleive yours was not intended maliciously, you seem to be the one having the problem with a response in kind, instead imputing to me what you yourself did not have.

The problem I had is when I corrected you, you turned around and told me I didn't know my own faith. How anyone is expected to take this lightly is a mystery to me, but I suppose I should be used to it by now.

== And I do believe what I stated is LDS doctrine. I believe that you have conceded it all in fact was except for the fact of the manner of procreation. So I have no problem withdrawing that comment until I prove it. So my statement stands without that one comment.

Well, that was easy wasn't it? That was the only thing I took issue with.

== I believe you are equivocating on what is doctrine and what is not in a semantical exercise. And you have conceded that it all was execept for the procreation statement, which I have said I withdraw until such time as I can expound further.

Not at all. You have to keep in mind that the LDS Church has no systematic theology. Orthodoxy has had 1900 years to fine-tune its theology, and much of this took place during the first 400 years whereby the basic doctrine of Christ's relationship to the Father was being debated rigorously. Many things are "taught" at one time or another, but not everything is official Church doctrine. Brigham Young admitted that sometimes he taught wrong, and he had to ponder over some issues for years before he completely understood them well enough to declare them "official LDS doctrine."

And since Evangelicalism has been around only slightly longer than Mormonism, where, do tell, can I find the official "Evangelical" doctrines? Who is teh Evangelical authority to write official Evangelical doctrines? To say it is in the Bible is a cop out. Everyone claims to be biblical, so this is nothing new. To slam it all under the label "Christian" is misleading, for the Catholics, once upon a time, deemed all protestants heretics. You guys used to be in the cult frying pan just like we are now. Where does one find the official doctrine of "Christian salvation?" Calvinists, Armenians, Pentecostals and Catholics all have different models of salvation that conflict with one another. So which one is the official Christian or official Evangelical version? You may all agree on something like the Trinity, but you're far from harmonious on other issues like salvation.

If you think you can quote an LDS leader from 150 years ago who said XYZ, then why shouldn't I be able to do the same thing with any number of Evangelical leaders who you probably consider Christian?

== A, I am not Lutheran. B, Luther was not a Prophet. C, I denounce it. That was easy.

You're splitting hairs now. Don't you believe Martin Luther was a "Trinitarian Christian?" Aren't you all part of the "Body of Christ?" Without reformers like, Wesley, Luther and Calvin, you'd probably be Catholic. You guys can't hide behind denominations when it suits you and then declare all denominations to be "Christian" when it doesn't.

== Fair enough. Since Mormonism is not my hobby horse, this is not something I have at the tip of my fingers. I will get back with you though.

Well, good grief! That was a complete 180 from your previous insinuation that you knew my faith better than myself.


== Hmm, did someone say "derogatory" before?? The Trinity is something that one cannot deny and be part of the historic Christian faith.

And the "historic Christian faith" began when exactly? It must have been during the late 4th century. We never claimed to be part of that in the first place.

== However, notice that is different from saying it has to be accepted to be saved or be a Christian.

Well, you'd be surprised how many times I have been told that this is precisely the case.

== Well you have shown that one element you think is fallacious

One element too many apparently. Again you don't seem to handle dissent too well.

== and the rest is right on point, and I will prove that one element you dispute, or attempt to.

Attempt all you want.

== And again, if I have not made this clear, I was trying in my comments to be more general and not necessarily what you believe specifically.

Really? "...you believe that God has multiple wives."

== The LDS church today believes itself to be Christian, and I was commenting on that more than what you personally beleive. I apologize if I was unclear.

It is Christian. It isn't "Traditional Christian" for sure, but it is Christian because we believe salvation only comes by Jesus Christ. We emphatically follow his teachings as a way of life. We place him at the forefront of our worship. By dictionary definitions we are Christians. You'd have to dig up a subjective definition from an Evangelical dictionary in order to deny us this title.

== Don't be in such a "zeal" to make a nonexistent point. Of course we are dealing with each other's interpretations, and by each other's interpretations we have fundamentally different "gods" and different "Jesuses." I readily concede that as concerns me to you. You throw out an allegation of argument by assertion and yet you agree with my assertion!! You know it will not kill you to simply agree with a point.

Perhaps I would agree, if you'd answer the question. My response was in the form of a question if you didn't notice. In order for me to make any definitive statement one way or the other, I would first need to make sure I knew your position fully. This is why I asked the question. This is far more preferable than simply jumping to conclusions as to what you believe.


== And I look forward to seeing it. And what was that about argument by assertion??

It was no argument at all, just a statement of fact. You were the one who intended to prove God to be entirely ontologically other than man.

== Your eternal standing with God is not my province to judge, but nice way to poison the well. And of course that was a nice slam that this view is an "attitude."

Poison the well? You said many would disagree with you, so I assumed you took the extreme position. That is a compliment to the forum. On other forums I would consider it the norm.

== Did Jesus have an UnChristian attitude when He claimed that no one gets to the Father except through Him?

Strawman argument, since we believe this too.

== I am not comparing myself with Christ, but I am pointing out that stating a firmly, genuinely, and nonmalicioulsy held truth-claim is not an attidue, but that was simply a smear you lobbed my way.

Dee Dee, don't kid yourself. Your posts have A-T-T-I-T-U-D-E written all over them.

== Well, I too am most concerned about where I stand with Christ but I also value open and honesty with my fellow man. You have made this somewhat personal, which is not my intent. If I contributed to that, I readily apologize. I like you,and JP has vouched for you which is recommendation enough for me. But that does not mean I like or agree with your views.

Hopefully we can get past this speedbump and get back on topic. Now that I have a feel for you, I'll try to approach your arguments in a less provoking manner. But just know that I am not going to let crude Ed Deckerisms slide by without someone being called to the red carpet.

[dizzle]

Today @ 01:05 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50036#post50036)
Kevin W. Graham:

However, I am reading this in light of your recent comments that I am being dishonest. You said: "For you to say that the Timothy and Titus passages shows an acceptance of polygamy, is simply not being honest with those texts." Good grief, was that really called for? Of course, you haven't come anywhere near proving dishonesty of any sort. I let that one slide but then you insinuate that I'm hiding something.

And you continue with your exaggeration for effect. You are not being honest with those texts in your extreme statement not simply that they can be reconciled with polygamy (which I would still disagree with) but your completely overboard characterization that not only are those texts NOT a problem for you, they are actaully proof texts for polygamy! Pluhease! That is not dealing with honestly with those texts. If you want to make a case of grand exaggeration from an entirely different conversation to say that now generally I think you are simply being deviously malicious (can anyone say overstatement?), be my guest. I can point out instances where a person does not deal honestly with certain texts (I do it with futurists) all the time without making a characterization of every argument that person makes or a characterization of the person. You obviously in your disagreement with me on those texts have implied the same thing as me, just have not come out and worded it that way, but that does not remove the implication.


Now you decide to tell me what LDS doctrine is. Even worse, you begin to tell me what MY belief is. I corrected you. You obviously don't like to be corrected, especially by a "cultist" Mormon.

:rofl: You brought up that word, and it is you getting your undies all in a knot. Funny, when you corrected me about what YOUR personal belief is, I retracted those statements and clarified my intentions. How very ungracious of you to then claim that I do not like to be corrected. I suspect it is you that do not like to be challenged so strenuously. Oh well. Don't bother me none.


So do you finally back up your argument with substance? Not a chance. Instead, you accuse me of being "coy" while informing me that you are right, and that you'll prove it whenever you get around to it.

Spin, spin, spin. You may have a second career as a DJ. You conceded that the majority of my original statement was correct with the exception of the exact manner by which God and his wife beget children. You then later took exception as to the number of wives that God allegedly has, blissfully unaware that the very issue that you conceded that God has a wife!! is Mormon doctrine is enough!

If this were true, then why would I offer you help in retrieving the quotes your looking for?

Yeah that is what you were doing, and I have some oceanfront property in the Sahara that I would like to sell you. Pluheeasse!!! At least have the decency to admit when you were being sarcastically deroggatory and not try to pass it off as an "offer for help."

Only to the Evangelical mind, which for the most part, proves nothing of importance. Reading LDS literature with Evangelical goggles is bound to cause "inconsistency."

Wow, make your opposition wrong by definition. Are you always that prejudiced? Way to go there Kevin. Perhaps I should write off whatever you come up with as being a defect of the "Mormon mind."


A straw man is a logical fallacy whereby an opponent creates an imaginary argument and begins to destroy it instead of dealing with the actual argument presented by his or her opponent. It is done to make it appear as if you're actually winning an argument, when in reality it is a sideshow

And that still did not make any sense of your comment but nice way to upchuck a definition of a logical fallacy.

Excellent! Then we are getting somewhere.

Obviously not considering your earlier comments. But I would hope so.

== Yes, you mocked the Trinity, the heart and soul of orthodox Christian faith.

In response to Athanasius who insisted that a rejection of the Trinity demands multiple gods.

Didn't ask you for justification, was just making an observation. You were mocking the sacred Trinity (and if that is the point that A. was making you proved it for him in spades - though I doubt that was the point he was ultimately making since he is rejecting the Trinity but is moving towards modalism).

== Well I am glad you recognized that your sarcasm came first, and I responded with some of my own. As I beleive yours was not intended maliciously, you seem to be the one having the problem with a response in kind, instead imputing to me what you yourself did not have.

The problem I had is when I corrected you, you turned around and told me I didn't know my own faith. How anyone is expected to take this lightly is a mystery to me, but I suppose I should be used to it by now.

Ah the Matryr Complex. Been recognizing that quite a bit in your posts. Just because you are LDS does not it sancrosanct for others to question what LDS dcotrine actually is. You may think that grants you the golden scepter but it does not.

== And I do believe what I stated is LDS doctrine. I believe that you have conceded it all in fact was except for the fact of the manner of procreation. So I have no problem withdrawing that comment until I prove it. So my statement stands without that one comment.

Well, that was easy wasn't it? That was the only thing I took issue with.

And it would have been easy for you at the beginning of this post to simply graciously accept that instead of the diatribe you launched into. Oh yeah, but it is me who does not handle challenges well :rofl:

Not at all. You have to keep in mind that the LDS Church has no systematic theology. Orthodoxy has had 1900 years to fine-tune its theology, and much of this took place during the first 400 years whereby the basic doctrine of Christ's relationship to the Father was being debated rigorously. Many things are "taught" at one time or another, but not everything is official Church doctrine. Brigham Young admitted that sometimes he taught wrong, and he had to ponder over some issues for years before he completely understood them well enough to declare them "official LDS doctrine."

No comment at this point.

And since Evangelicalism has been around only slightly longer than Mormonism, where, do tell, can I find the official "Evangelical" doctrines? Who is teh Evangelical authority to write official Evangelical doctrines? To say it is in the Bible is a cop out. Everyone claims to be biblical, so this is nothing new. To slam it all under the label "Christian" is misleading, for the Catholics, once upon a time, deemed all protestants heretics. You guys used to be in the cult frying pan just like we are now. Where does one find the official doctrine of "Christian salvation?" Calvinists, Armenians, Pentecostals and Catholics all have different models of salvation that conflict with one another. So which one is the official Christian or official Evangelical version? You may all agree on something like the Trinity, but you're far from harmonious on other issues like salvation.

Again a topic for another thread and time.

If you think you can quote an LDS leader from 150 years ago who said XYZ, then why shouldn't I be able to do the same thing with any number of Evangelical leaders who you probably consider Christian?

Because we do not believe in continuing doctrinal revelation from the mouths of official Living Prophets?? Hmm, do you think that might be a small clue?

== A, I am not Lutheran. B, Luther was not a Prophet. C, I denounce it. That was easy.

You're splitting hairs now. Don't you believe Martin Luther was a "Trinitarian Christian?" Aren't you all part of the "Body of Christ?" Without reformers like, Wesley, Luther and Calvin, you'd probably be Catholic. You guys can't hide behind denominations when it suits you and then declare all denominations to be "Christian" when it doesn't.

Nice way to dodge the point. Luther was wrong on that issue. That was easy. He was not a Prophet. Hmm, he never claimed that his words were on par with Scripture, and I could go on and on.

== Fair enough. Since Mormonism is not my hobby horse, this is not something I have at the tip of my fingers. I will get back with you though.

Well, good grief! That was a complete 180 from your previous insinuation that you knew my faith better than myself.

Whatever. You consider yourself the Untouchable to be challenged about exactly what Mormon belief is because you are a Mormon. I do not accept that. You could be wrong. You could be mistaken. There are a number of options.


== Hmm, did someone say "derogatory" before?? The Trinity is something that one cannot deny and be part of the historic Christian faith.

And the "historic Christian faith" began when exactly? It must have been during the late 4th century. We never claimed to be part of that in the first place.

Good, then we have no disagreement that the LDS church is not part of the historic Christian faith.

== However, notice that is different from saying it has to be accepted to be saved or be a Christian.

Well, you'd be surprised how many times I have been told that this is precisely the case.


Well I think you have missed my fine distinction which may be understandable do to the brevity of the words and context.


== Well you have shown that one element you think is fallacious

One element too many apparently. Again you don't seem to handle dissent too well.

Maybe if you keep saying that enough times you will really believe it. That seems to be your chacteristic way of brushing off arguments.


== and the rest is right on point, and I will prove that one element you dispute, or attempt to.

Attempt all you want.

Thank you.

== And again, if I have not made this clear, I was trying in my comments to be more general and not necessarily what you believe specifically.

Really? "...you believe that God has multiple wives."

And I told you that I should not have attributed it to you and apologized. That my general intent was not to do such a thing but to discuss LDS belief more generally. You do not need to "prove" that I made the comment attributing it to you, I never denied that and apologized (something you will notice that I am not stingy in doing), so spare me the dramatics.

== The LDS church today believes itself to be Christian, and I was commenting on that more than what you personally beleive. I apologize if I was unclear.

It is Christian. It isn't "Traditional Christian" for sure, but it is Christian because we believe salvation only comes by Jesus Christ. We emphatically follow his teachings as a way of life. We place him at the forefront of our worship. By dictionary definitions we are Christians. You'd have to dig up a subjective definition from an Evangelical dictionary in order to deny us this title.

Words have meanings and using the same terminology but pouring different meanings into the words strips them of any real value whatsover. And you once again make your opposition wrong by defintion. Of course an evangelical definition cannot be right, it is subjective while you are objective. :rofl: Which pretty much tantamount to saying, you can't be right, you're Evangelical. I will spare you the definition of ad hominen.



== Don't be in such a "zeal" to make a nonexistent point. Of course we are dealing with each other's interpretations, and by each other's interpretations we have fundamentally different "gods" and different "Jesuses." I readily concede that as concerns me to you. You throw out an allegation of argument by assertion and yet you agree with my assertion!! You know it will not kill you to simply agree with a point.

Perhaps I would agree, if you'd answer the question. My response was in the form of a question if you didn't notice. In order for me to make any definitive statement one way or the other, I would first need to make sure I knew your position fully. This is why I asked the question. This is far more preferable than simply jumping to conclusions as to what you believe.

And the waters get even muddier. My position is that God was never a man. My position is that in stating that God was once a man, the God of Mormonism is in no shape or form the God of the Bible. This is what you called an argument by assertion, and then simply proceeded to make an assertion yourself. I do not care if you make assertions, knock yourself out, it is your double-standard that I called you out on. But of course that must mean that I am a subjective and blinded Evangelical who does not handle dissent well.

== And I look forward to seeing it. And what was that about argument by assertion??

It was no argument at all, just a statement of fact. You were the one who intended to prove God to be entirely ontologically other than man.

And neither was mine, just showing your inconsistency in your lobbing of labels. Mine was ALSO a statement of fact. You have issues granting your oppositions the same lattitudes you yourself expect to enjoy.

== Your eternal standing with God is not my province to judge, but nice way to poison the well. And of course that was a nice slam that this view is an "attitude."

Poison the well? You said many would disagree with you, so I assumed you took the extreme position. That is a compliment to the forum. On other forums I would consider it the norm.

You brought up something I did not bring up and that is what I was referring to. You sought to inflame and overdramatize. I said that SOME (not MANY) would disagree with me in fairness to those who would so that I was not in any shape or form holding myself out as the sancrosanct representative of my brethren. As a leader here my voice can easily be misunderstood as declaring the "official" position of this site or the other leaders, and I wanted to be sure that I was not perceived as doing so. My opinon is my own though I believe it is shared by many of my brethren and disagreed with by some. I also made that statement, because believe it or not Kevin, I do not enjoy having to say such things, especially to people whom I am sure that I would like meeting in person and could be good friends with.

== Did Jesus have an UnChristian attitude when He claimed that no one gets to the Father except through Him?

Strawman argument, since we believe this too.

Way to completely miss the point and manage to lob yet another alleged fallacy my way. You should learn the names of a few more.

== I am not comparing myself with Christ, but I am pointing out that stating a firmly, genuinely, and nonmalicioulsy held truth-claim is not an attidue, but that was simply a smear you lobbed my way.

Dee Dee, don't kid yourself. Your posts have A-T-T-I-T-U-D-E written all over them.

Hmm. I think it is you who do not like being challenged firmly. And it was not my style of posting that was what you were questioning, so the bait and switch is nice, but I am not biting. Here is the orignal quote

Hellbound in a handbasket I presume. I'm used to these "Christian" attitudes. But just so you know, where I stood with you was never in doubt, nor was it a concern of mine.

The context was not my "attitude" (i.e. my posting demeanor), the context was your deroggatory labeling of anyone who genuinely and nonmaliciously believes that Mormons are not Christians and are not saved as having a "Christian" attitude that you have encountered. I notice how you smeared me and those people in that comment by using the old "insinuate by judicious use of quote marks" that such an "attitude" is not "Christian." My quote was simply to prove that claiming exclusivity in a truth claim was a hallmark of Christ himself. Oh, yeah, but it is I who do not handle dissent well.

== Well, I too am most concerned about where I stand with Christ but I also value open and honesty with my fellow man. You have made this somewhat personal, which is not my intent. If I contributed to that, I readily apologize. I like you,and JP has vouched for you which is recommendation enough for me. But that does not mean I like or agree with your views.

Hopefully we can get past this speedbump and get back on topic. Now that I have a feel for you, I'll try to approach your arguments in a less provoking manner. But just know that I am not going to let crude Ed Deckerisms slide by without someone being called to the red carpet.

Can I have that turpentine once again? Do you have a compulsion to lump all those who disagree with you into a convenient category? I have not once used any material by either the Tanners or Ed Decker. I will thank you to stop insinuating that I have. What you giveth with one hand you taketh away with the other. Do you often simply charactericterize people who forcefully disagree with you that way?

But hey Kevin I told you up front, I have no personal issue with you. The fact that JP has recommended you so highly prejudices me in your favor. We are cool as far as I am concerned, we just have strong and vigorous disagreement.

[Kevin W. Graham]

== And you continue with your exaggeration for effect. You are not being honest with those texts in your extreme statement not simply that they can be reconciled with polygamy (which I would still disagree with) but your completely overboard characterization that not only are those texts NOT a problem for you, they are actaully proof texts for polygamy! Pluhease!

Absolutely. You have failed to deal with anything regarding the logical implications. The big kicker is that I've provided commentary from several non-LDS scholars, Catholic apologists, and even St. Jerome who basically said the same exact thing regarding these scriptures and polygamy. All you have done is cut and paste an entire web article from someone who simply reiterrates the same fallacious argument as presented on this forum. I guess the scholars are being "dishonest," and so was Jerome. Right?

== That is not dealing with honestly with those texts.

Hence, you're inability to handle dissent without accusing someone of dishonesty. This is uncalled for, and I thought you apologized for this. Giving with one hand and taking away with the other are we?

== If you want to make a case of grand exaggeration from an entirely different conversation to say that now generally I think you are simply being deviously malicious (can anyone say overstatement?), be my guest. I can point out instances where a person does not deal honestly with certain texts (I do it with futurists) all the time without making a characterization of every argument that person makes or a characterization of the person.

You can keep whining about exagerration, but your incessant accusal of my dishonesty only proves my point. This is how you normally respond to dissent? Your overall reaction has been reduced to nothing more than, "That isn't what the text says, and you're lying!" I call these "no it isn't" arguments, and the dishonesty was something you added for extra flavor.

No offense, but this recipe sucks.

== You obviously in your disagreement with me on those texts have implied the same thing as me, just have not come out and worded it that way, but that does not remove the implication.

That you are being dishonest? I never said, hinted or implied such a thing, so don't seek justification by implying that I did it too. I'm fairly confident that there are some critics of my faith who are never going to be convinced no matter what the evidence shows. But I can make my case anyway so the neighborhood anti-Mormons can't use this as a cataylst in their mantra against my faith. Obviously I don't believe in polygamy, but it cannot be argued that it is anti-Christian in any shape or form.

== You brought up that word, and it is you getting your undies all in a knot. Funny, when you corrected me about what YOUR personal belief is, I retracted those statements and clarified my intentions. How very ungracious of you to then claim that I do not like to be corrected. I suspect it is you that do not like to be challenged so strenuously. Oh well. Don't bother me none.

The word has appeared on this forum more than once - I've seen already. And on the contrary, I love challenges.

== Spin, spin, spin. You may have a second career as a DJ.

Rhetoric. I simply gave you a little history lesson on what you said and how you approached my posts. It isn't spin, since your own posts are here to testify of its accuracy. Please deal with them point by point if you're confident in your rebuttals.

== You conceded that the majority of my original statement was correct with the exception of the exact manner by which God and his wife beget children.

Right.

Dee Dee: I notice that you did not deny that you believe we have a Heavenly Mother.

Kevin: I didn't deny we have a Heavenly Mother because that is in fact LDS doctrine.

Dee Dee: Fair enough. Since Mormonism is not my hobby horse, this is not something I have at the tip of my fingers.

Kevin: Well, good grief! That was a complete 180 from your previous insinuation that you knew my faith better than myself.

== You then later took exception as to the number of wives that God allegedly has, blissfully unaware that the very issue that you conceded that God has a wife!! is Mormon doctrine is enough!

Again you fail to comprehend the most basic of comments. I stated very clearly that God having a wife (Heavenly Mother) is doctrine. So how, may I ask, is it deduced that I was "blissfully unaware" of this? Having a wife and having many wives is not the same thing. Surely you knew that? One is doctrine the other is not, but you claimed it was MY belief nonetheless. Again, anyone with eyes and a brain to guide them, can skim over the previous posts. I have not misrepresented anything.


== Yeah that is what you were doing, and I have some oceanfront property in the Sahara that I would like to sell you. Pluheeasse!!! At least have the decency to admit when you were being sarcastically deroggatory and not try to pass it off as an "offer for help."

It is well known that the Tanner website is pretty much the only place you're going to find these quotes on the web. Heck, even I go there to retreive citations sometimes.

== Wow, make your opposition wrong by definition. Are you always that prejudiced? Way to go there Kevin. Perhaps I should write off whatever you come up with as being a defect of the "Mormon mind."

Are you always this paranoid? You've managed to misinterpret just about everything I've said thus far. I meant nothing bad by the "Evangelical mind" which simply denotes a different paradigm. Of course I have a "Mormon mind." My point was simply that looking at LDS scriptures/writings through an Evangelical lens might make inconsistencies appear to the "Evangelical mind," but then again, you guys obviously have this problem with atheists looking to the Bible. It is their perspective that determines their conclusions moreso than the content itself. Same thing with Evangelicals trying to interpret LDS writings.

== And that still did not make any sense of your comment but nice way to upchuck a definition of a logical fallacy.

Cat had recently wondered what a straw man was. I took your post as the perfect opportunity to elaborate. What can I say... the shoe fit.


== Ah the Matryr Complex. Been recognizing that quite a bit in your posts. Just because you are LDS does not it sancrosanct for others to question what LDS dcotrine actually is. You may think that grants you the golden scepter but it does not.

Perhaps you despise the LDS doctrines, but that doesn't give you license to hide behind this veil of "Oh, I'm just questioning it" and expect us not to notice. Your posts are very "matter of fact" statements. Rarely do I find a "question" coming from your end regarding my faith because you've made it perfectly clear that you know all about it - even better than myself. So drop the rhetoric and deal with your own fallacious presentation and stop trying to recreate history here.


== And it would have been easy for you at the beginning of this post to simply graciously accept that instead of the diatribe you launched into. Oh yeah, but it is me who does not handle challenges well

Absolutely right about that. And again, anyone with eyes can guide them 12 O'clock to see this long "diatribe" of mine which essentially said yes, you were right about everything except that one issue. The "diatribe" kicked in full gear when you failed to comprehend what I actually said, and then began beating straw men. Disagreement with only ONE issue in your post was one issue too many. As I said, you don't like dissent. It took three posts before you realized that I agreed with you from the beginning. Obviously you were too wrapped up in the emotion of dissent, to pay attention to what I was actually saying. Then we both fell down the slippery slope.

== Because we do not believe in continuing doctrinal revelation from the mouths of official Living Prophets?? Hmm, do you think that might be a small clue?

This is irrelevant since LDS do not hold the "mouths of official Living Prophets" infallible. Smith said quite clearly that he is prophet only when speaking as prophet and I can offer many citations to the effect that we aren't supposed to take a Prophet's word just because he spoke. We are supposed to pray and receive spiritual confirmation if what he says is true or not. During thetime of Smith, if he said something like, "I predict Joe Shmoe will win the race for Mayor", those with Evangelical mentality (and unfortunately many in the Church had the same mentality) would bank on it and hold it as a prophecy of some sort. He was just as weak and fallible as the next guy.

== Nice way to dodge the point.

WHAT? I dodged the point when it took TWO postings before you responded to it?

== Luther was wrong on that issue. That was easy.

Thus saith the Dee Dee.

== He was not a Prophet.

Irrelevant. He was one of the men responsible for your own faith believe it or not. You can say no it is the Bible, but the truth is if it weren't for men like Luther you'd still be repressed by Catholicism. So he is inspired enough to teach you the truth about sola scriptura and sola gracia but not when it comes to polygamy.

== Hmm, he never claimed that his words were on par with Scripture, and I could go on and on.

I never claimed that all the words of prophets were always on par with scripture either. Get it? I think you should now begin to see the fallacy of your presentation.

== Whatever. You consider yourself the Untouchable to be challenged about exactly what Mormon belief is because you are a Mormon. I do not accept that. You could be wrong. You could be mistaken. There are a number of options.

I could be wrong, but until you prove otherwise, I remain the sole authority on this forum. Take that as a boast if you will, but I would certainly concede to your authority as a spokesperson for YOUR faith. And take a look around you. We have people like Lynn, Dave and Hitch who have nothing to offer by way of Mormonism except "God once sinned, had sex wity Mary etc." Good grief.

== Good, then we have no disagreement that the LDS church is not part of the historic Christian faith.

Of course not. If that is your definition of "histroic Christian faith." The Church that proceeded from the early councils. But these are word games used by critics. Our faith I would argue has many things in common with first-second century Christainity that modern Christianity doesn't. They had no Trinity creed to determine who was Christian. They believed Christ was a second-subordinate God. They rejected creation ex nihilo. They had no NT canon of scripture to go with sola scriptura. All of the sudden the "Historic Christian faith" label seems rather dubious does it not?


== Maybe if you keep saying that enough times you will really believe it. That seems to be your chacteristic way of brushing off arguments.

That's the pot calling the cotton black! We have addressed very little in our exchanges but you've managed to ignore many things I've presented on both threads, all the while taking the opportunity to fill the pages with endless rhetoric. These are the hallmarks of those who can't stand dissent. Do I need to make a list of the issues you dodged or the questions you've failed to answer, in light of your claim that you've addressed my arguments point by point?

== And I told you that I should not have attributed it to you and apologized. That my general intent was not to do such a thing but to discuss LDS belief more generally. You do not need to "prove" that I made the comment attributing it to you, I never denied that and apologized (something you will notice that I am not stingy in doing), so spare me the dramatics.

Dramatics? It is hard to accept an apology when you keep reiterrating the same thing over again. I'm still dishonest and I am now "blissfully unaware" of something I clearly stated I believe to be true. You're spinning, bobbing and weaving but I'm not going to let you get away with even the smallest mispresentation. And apparently it just drives you nuts.

== Words have meanings and using the same terminology but pouring different meanings into the words strips them of any real value whatsover.

But we don't pour Evangelical or Mormon meanings into "Christian." We simply use the English dictionary. This isn't good enough for Evangelicals because it doesn't serve their agenda.

== And you once again make your opposition wrong by defintion.

No, you do. The minute you declare we are not Christian because your "Evangelical" dictionary says so.

== Of course an evangelical definition cannot be right, it is subjective while you are objective. Which pretty much tantamount to saying, you can't be right, you're Evangelical. I will spare you the definition of ad hominen.

No it isn't. The English dictionary IS OBJECTIVE. I am not relying on Mormon Dictionaries here. You however, cannot strip the Christian title from LDS without using some sort of theological dictionary which is strictly subjective. This is the fact that you've failed to come to grips with. Therefore the entire argument that Mormons are not Christians is meaningless because it comes from a source that means nothing to us.

== My position is that in stating that God was once a man, the God of Mormonism is in no shape or form the God of the Bible.

That is because according to your theological background, God himself has no shape or form, like the God of the Bible. :)

== This is what you called an argument by assertion, and then simply proceeded to make an assertion yourself. I do not care if you make assertions, knock yourself out, it is your double-standard that I called you out on. But of course that must mean that I am a subjective and blinded Evangelical who does not handle dissent well.

It was an obvious "tit for tat," trying to make a point. You can sit there all day and say the Bible says X and I can do the same, the Bible says Y. This is essentially what most Evangelical arguments amount to. Proof texting as a means to prove an argument. But this means nothing unless you can first get your opponent to accept your paradigm of interpretation. He would first have to accept creedal professions like sola scriptura.

== You brought up something I did not bring up and that is what I was referring to.

I brought up attitude which was after you questioned my integrity. Sorry, maybe I'm just defensive, but I fail to see how the repetitive insinuation that I am being less than honest, is supposed to be taken that I am in your favor. I'm getting mixed signals here.

== Way to completely miss the point and manage to lob yet another alleged fallacy my way. You should learn the names of a few more.

It is a straw man. That is what you presented. Just deal with it and move on. Pointing out my recognition of every fallacy you offer doesn't justify or vindicate the fact that you are indeed using logical fallacies.

== Hmm. I think it is you who do not like being challenged firmly.

Actually the opposite is true. That is why I'm getteing a bit frustrated here. There really isn't much of a challenge going on. Just this little spitball fight between you and I that amounts to nothing. Just think, with about half the time and energy you've put into this meaningless thread, you could have responded to our posts on the polygamy thread, three times over.

== The context was not my "attitude" (i.e. my posting demeanor), the context was your deroggatory labeling of anyone who genuinely and nonmaliciously believes that Mormons are not Christians and are not saved as having a "Christian" attitude that you have encountered. I notice how you smeared me and those people in that comment by using the old "insinuate by judicious use of quote marks" that such an "attitude" is not "Christian."

Such an attitude is not Christian. Apparently you agree to some extent or else you wouldn't be making a mountain of this molehill. Just think Dee Dee, it could have been worse. I mean instead of being disturbed by your attitude I could have resorted to name calling, and called you, oh I don't know... dishonest?

== Can I have that turpentine once again? Do you have a compulsion to lump all those who disagree with you into a convenient category?

I can't get over how our critics always downplay their position as mere disagreement. Or as you said before, "questioning" the LDS faith. I have no problem with disagreement or questions. But since when did you ask any questions about the LDS faith? You came in here knowing everything already. Anything I said to the contrary for you was only evidence that I was being COY. Does this sound like sincere disagreement and questioning? Get real.

== I have not once used any material by either the Tanners or Ed Decker. I will thank you to stop insinuating that I have.

Great. So where on earth are you going to get these citations about God having sex with his wife?

== Do you often simply charactericterize people who forcefully disagree with you that way?

How have I characterized you? I put the "Christian" in quotes as an eye opener for anyone who had mud in their eyes. If it doesn't apply to you, then that is dandy. Glad to hear it.

== But hey Kevin I told you up front, I have no personal issue with you. The fact that JP has recommended you so highly prejudices me in your favor. We are cool as far as I am concerned, we just have strong and vigorous disagreement

Ditto. Not sure if I could go another round on this thread though since it really discusses nothing of substance.

Whenevr the JP project is released maybe we can discuss some of teh issues therein.

Cheers.

[phantaz sunlyk]

**7** say hey Kevin, peace.
by the by, are you the (one of the?) Mormon(s) who is somewhat close to J. P.?

The only way to have three people in on being is to have a schizophrenic being.

**8** how is this possible unless "being" is identified with "person"? and where is the evidence that "creedal Trinitarianism" ever intended this to be understood?
creedal Trinitarianism does not teach that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three persons who are identical with the person who is God while not being identical with eachother. rather, it teaches that the Father, Son, and Spirit (to use an anachronistic phrase) logically entail the existence of eachother, and that the Father is the font and source both of the Son and Spirit and of the activity ad extra of the Godhead.
someone said--

therefore you have three separate beings - three gods.

**7** ...to which you replied--

Which is essentially what the Bible, along with the earliest church fathers taught.

**8** care to back up either of these claims, especially the one regarding the early Church padres? i have Bickmore's book which partially deals with this subject.

God is not schizophrenic.

**7** care to back up the claim that, according to creedal Trinitarianism, God is, in fact, a schizo?

Strict monotheism, which denies other deities in existence, has been proven false and was only one of many fallacious reasons teh church Fqwtahers moved towards a concept of the Trinity. Somehow trying to reconcile the problem of monotheism ye teh distinctions of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. So they came up witrh the "persons" argument and then swept all the ambiguity under the carpet and stamped it "Mystery of God."

**8** the above mentioned "movement towards a concept of the Trinity" (i take it you here refer to the theological atmosphere of the early to late 4th century) was nothing more than the articulation of a previously held belief in light of, and over against, a claim that had up to that point not been made--that the Son of God was a contingent creature created ex nihilo.
if you plan on taking Bickmore's route here (viz., "but the only reason this was a problem was because 'creation ex nihilo' was new on the theological scene"), let me know, and we can move straight to Origen, being pre-Methodius and, supposedly, a believer in the eternal pre-existence of souls.
Athanasius and the Cappadocians did nothing more than affirm the (ontological and essential) Fatherhood of God while maintaining the identity of the Son via the Wisdom paradigm.

If the Trinity is one entity because they are (homoousia) one substance, then is mankind one entity or several billion entities who are the same species? Clearly even the application of homoousia changed at some point if it meant the three persons were the same being/entity.

**7** go to ccel.org/fathers2 and look for Gregory of Nyssa's _To Ablabius: Why They are not Three Gods_ for the ('an initial', rather) answer to this "problem".

during the first 400 years whereby the basic doctrine of Christ's relationship to the Father was being debated rigorously.

**7** this isn't true--it was neither debated, nor debated rigorously, until around 320 (Origen's Dialogue with Heraclides, for example, can hardly be called a 'debate'; the apologists didn't 'debate' so much as explain their belief to Jews and Greeks; Irenaeus doesn't even speculate at all, he simply states the Sonship in light of the Logos paradigm; it could be claimed that Novatian and Hippolytus 'debated' against modalistic understandings, but have we any decent evidence that these were clearly 'debates' within the Church, as opposed to being apologia against recognized heretics/heterodoxy?)
the rigor left the debate around 380.
by the way, i was wondering if you've read any of the Social Trinitarian models of modern theologians such as Moltmann or Swinburne?

You're bound by the notion of the creature-creator dichotomy (thank you Plato),

**7** actually, Plato's distinction between "the One" and "creation" isn't anything like Christianity's distinction between the creator and creation.

but the Bible clearly tells us we are the offspring of God

**8** ...it was more akin to this claim, in your sense of the words. according Christian 'Platonists' God is essentially incomprehensible; according to Platonic and neo-Platonic mysticism the soul in man can ascend to and know God/the One because, basically, it is 'homoousios' with it.

Our faith I would argue has many things in common with first-second century Christainity that modern Christianity doesn't.

**8** out of curiousity, have you ever read Newman's _Development of Doctrine_?

They had no Trinity creed to determine who was Christian.

**7** well, the creed wasn't primarily intended as a litmus test for telling whether or not this or that person was a Christian. it was the profession of faith that preceded baptism.
and of what we can glean of the creedal fragments in early authors, every single one of them had a Trinitarian structure. you can, of course, argue that they didn't then understand them in the Nicene sense. but let it be proven rather than asserted.

They believed Christ was a second-subordinate God.

**8** that they believed that Christ was subordinate cannot be denied. the sense in which this was understood needs to be carefully analyzed before it is passed off as "proof" that they were at odds with "later" orthodoxy.
Justin and Origen call Jesus deuteros theos, yet they also understood him as the Logos of God. hence such statements cannot simply be offered as proof texts.

They rejected creation ex nihilo.

**7** even were this true (and it would need to be modified severely, in my opinion), what reason would we have for not thinking this doctrine to be of Greek rather than Christian origin?
peace.

[dizzle]

I love you Phantaz. And yes Kevin is JP's Mormon friend. JP's gave him the hightest recommendation which as I told Kevin means a great deal in my book.

Kevin, gonna be busy for a bit. I am going to comment on a few things you said in your last post and let a lot of rest until a further time. I will see you on the other thread before then... I am trying to break my nasty habit of too much thread diversification and keep to just a few. It is tough. OCD and all. And every since you mentioned Sweet Tomatos, I have been wanting to go. That was very bad of you :whip:

[BrianB]

[submitted]

Athanasian,

At this point it is somewhat difficult for me to tell what it is you are calling contradictory. As far as I see, there are two possible ideas that you would call logically contradictory

1. The biblical teaching on the nature of God
2. The orthodox understanding of the biblical teaching (the Trinity)

If you think that the orthodox teaching of the Trinity is what the Bible teaches, then I guess you would claim that both #1 and #2 are contradictory.

Are you claiming that the orthodox definition of the Trinity is not what the Bible actually teaches, and that the Trinity is contradictory but the Bible is not, or is it something else? Do you think the Trinity accurately expresses the biblical teaching and both are contradictory?

Thanks,
Brian

[phantaz sunlyk]

**7** say hey cool chicky--

I will see you on the other thread before then...

**8** do be quick--i got plans for the ring afor i gotta leave in a week and a half...
wot ya mean by "sweet tomatos"?
peace.

[dizzle]

Hey PS, Kevin had mentioned dining with JP at Sweet Tomatos and has me hungry every since.

[Kevin W. Graham]

Hello Phantaz sunlyk,

I'm just curious, but what is the significance of the constant repetition of the 7-8?

== how is this possible unless "being" is identified with "person"? and where is the evidence that "creedal Trinitarianism" ever intended this to be understood?

Being isn't identified with person or else you would have three beings, right? You already accept three persons, but the problem the Trinity has with monotheism is identifying the three persons as one being - or entity as Athanasius puts it. So it is one God - three persons. Latter-day Saints see it the same way except we believe one God in purpose - meaning one Godhead or authority - while in the ontological sense they are three gods.

== creedal Trinitarianism does not teach that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three persons who are identical with the person who is God while not being identical with eachother.

I don't believe I ever said that. I'm not even sure what you mean by "identical with the person who is God ." Aren't all three persons identical with God?

== care to back up either of these claims, especially the one regarding the early Church padres? i have Bickmore's book which partially deals with this subject.

I address much of this in my chapter 7 review of JP's book. I don't want to let too much out of the bag just yet. The church fathers meant salvation was to "become something." Indeed, we were to become gods. But as the creature-creator dichotomy got wider, they began to reform their theology of theosis. For instance the theosis of Augistine and Athanasius was very different from the theosis of Origen or Clement of Alexandria.

== care to back up the claim that, according to creedal Trinitarianism, God is, in fact, a schizo?

Sure. The Trinity denotes one God with three personalities right? One entity with three persons. Anything with multiple personalities is by definition schizophrenic. This is precisely how it was explained to me by a few Catholics last month. But what I am finding more and more fascinating is the various ways in which the early creedal statements are being interpreted.

== the above mentioned "movement towards a concept of the Trinity" (i take it you here refer to the theological atmosphere of the early to late 4th century) was nothing more than the articulation of a previously held belief in light of, and over against, a claim that had up to that point not been made--that the Son of God was a contingent creature created ex nihilo.

I'm aware of this, but certainly you are aware that this proved to be a major boost for the Trinity. Without the victory at Nicea, the Trinity would have never survived.

== if you plan on taking Bickmore's route here (viz., "but the only reason this was a problem was because 'creation ex nihilo' was new on the theological scene"), let me know, and we can move straight to Origen, being pre-Methodius and, supposedly, a believer in the eternal pre-existence of souls. Athanasius and the Cappadocians did nothing more than affirm the (ontological and essential) Fatherhood of God while maintaining the identity of the Son via the Wisdom paradigm.

I fail to see how any of this responds to my comment that the "persons" argument is extra-biblical, and was used to explain much of the "mystery" of the Trinitarian relationship of the Godhead. Maybe I missed something here.

== this isn't true--it was neither debated, nor debated rigorously, until around 320

Ok, forgive the hyperbole. The exact relationship Christ had with the Father was "unresolved" or "undetermined" during the first 300+ years. How is that? The subordination of Christ to His Father was pre-Nicene orthodoxy.

== actually, Plato's distinction between "the One" and "creation" isn't anything like Christianity's distinction between the creator and creation.

Oh really? Because Augustine's Contra Academicos 3.41, seems to make a big deal of Plato's influence as the most "pure" and clear writings. Is it just coincidence that Augustine and Athenagoras emphasized the creature-creator dichotomy more than the rest? Likwise, Athenagoras in his Plea for the Christians, references Plato no less than a dozen times, including his argument for the creature-creator dichotomy. Coincidence? I suppose its plausible, but I'm not convinced. The Plato doctrine solidifies the difference between man and God. One is entirely "other" from the next. Something that is fundamental to the developed creature-creator idea that orthodoxy emphasizes so often.

== ...it was more akin to this claim, in your sense of the words.

In my sense of the words offspring?

== out of curiousity, have you ever read Newman's _Development of Doctrine_?

Nope, but I know a buddy who has a copy. Is it a good read?

== well, the creed wasn't primarily intended as a litmus test for telling whether or not this or that person was a Christian.

Thank you. But unfortunately that is how it is being used today.

== it was the profession of faith that preceded baptism. and of what we can glean of the creedal fragments in early authors, every single one of them had a Trinitarian structure. you can, of course, argue that they didn't then understand them in the Nicene sense. but let it be proven rather than asserted.

I agree. So prove it. The burden of proof is on who ever attempts to assert "every single one of them had a Trinitarian structure." This is a clear sweeping generalization of MANY individuals which is hard to take seriously. Besides, any such attempt on my part would be worthless since anyone mentioned would be deemed "heretic" and therefore wouldn't count anyway. It is a clear case of question begging when one assumes so much from so many people from so long ago, and a touch of circular reasoning when the outcome of the development is used as a litmus test for determining who is the smart guy and who is just a heretic.


== that they believed that Christ was subordinate cannot be denied. the sense in which this was understood needs to be carefully analyzed before it is passed off as "proof" that they were at odds with "later" orthodoxy. Justin and Origen call Jesus deuteros theos, yet they also understood him as the Logos of God. hence such statements cannot simply be offered as proof texts.

And the logos was considered a "second God" altogether- even Philos had no problem stating it this way. More on this in Cromis' review of JP's chapter 2.

But don't tell me... he was only "functionally" subordinate right? :smile:

Yet, another non-biblical word appears ex nihilo. But you won't have much of an issue with LDS on this point because unlike JW's we don't argue for an ontological subordination. We just believe Christ's subordination to the Father, in any sense, does absolutely nothing for the Trinity concept. Again images of schizophrenia come to mind.

== even were this true (and it would need to be modified severely, in my opinion), what reason would we have for not thinking this doctrine to be of Greek rather than Christian origin? peace.

There is no reason to think it is not of Greek origin. Christianity emerged from a Jewish background before it was hellenized, and the Jews had a clear concept of preexistent chaotic matter. But even JP admits that this doctrine cannot be discerned from the Bible alone. It must be argued via logic or, ironically enough, philosophy.

Thanks for your comments. It looks like I will learn a lot on this forum. Something I wasn't expecting.

Cool.

[Woman]

Well I'm totally out in left field on this one. I thought the Trinity was an early church doctrine but not Biblical.


:argh:

[Socrates]

Woman:Well I'm totally out in left field on this one. I thought the Trinity was an early church doctrine but not Biblical.That's half right. It was indeed an early church doctrine, but precisely BECAUSE it is Biblical. Naturally AiG has some articles on this, e.g. Jesus Christ our Creator: A Biblical Defence of the Trinity (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4222.asp).

[Kevin W. Graham]

That the Trinity is "biblical" is a matter of interpretation. Of course you can read just about anything into the Bible nowadays, if you try hard enough. I doubt I have ever run into any faith claiming to be Christian, which doesn't also claim to be biblical (JW, SDA, Armstrongism, Oneness Pent, etc.) but hat doesn't necessarily make their doctrines biblical anymore than it does the Trinity. The fact that Christianity couldn't develop this doctrine via the "Bible alone," despite the doctrine of sola scriptura, should speak volumes on this matter. Its formula involved many non-biblical terms/concepts (persons, substance, essence, oneness, eternally begotten, generated etc) which prove vital to its existence, and which could not come about without the philosophical musings of the early councils.

So I'm skeptical when websites list scriptures that say "Jesus is God" and expect this to be some sort of proof for the Trinity (to say nothing of the dependance on sources like McDowell and Rhodes). That isn't the Trinity. The Trinity we disagree with involves a conglomerated relationship between the Father, Son and HG. And of course the only scripture which mentions the three being one in any sense, ended up being a later addition to the text (1 Jn 5:7-8).


The thesis of this article kicks things off with teh same premise used by many proponents of the "proven biblical Trinity" (Rob Bowman comes to mind), in that the Bible says there can only be one God. Meaning that the three MUST be one ontologically because to be three distinct beings would throw monotheism out the window. Of course this premise relies on yet another non-biblical term: monotheism. A theological premise which I believe has been thoroughly decimated through modern scholarship. Evangelicals have had to either drop it or at the least, redefine what they mean by it.

The explanations I find rather silly are those which follow this guidline:

Bible: One God (I agree - with qualification)
Bible: Jesus is God (I agree)
Bible: Father is God (I agree)
Bible: HG is God (I agree)
Conclusion: The Trinity is biblical. (I disagree)

It is a mathematical paradox and it doesn't explain what being "God" means. It rests on the assumption it fails to prove and it totally ignores the concept of "Godhead" in the NT. All the illogical fallacies and ambiguity is dismissed as the mystery of God. But given this scape-goat, one could realistically come up with any doctrine and use this as means to prove it is "biblical."

It is fair to say that the Bible does not clearly teach the doctrine of the Trinity, if by clearly one means there are proof texts for the doctrine. In fact, there is not even one proof text, if by proof text we mean a verse or passage that “clearly” states that there is one God who exists in three persons.

How then do we arrive at a doctrine of the Trinity? Simply by accepting two lines of evidence in the Bible: (1) clear statements that teach there is only one God: and (2) equally clear statements that there was someone called Jesus and someone designated the Holy Spirit who in addition to God the Father claimed to be God. Such evidence permits only one of two conclusions: either Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not divine, or God exists as a triunity. Orthodox Christians have never shied away from the second conclusion even though evidence for it is of a different kind of clarity than that which proof texts provide.(Dr. Charles C. Ryrie, "What you should know about inerrancy" (Willow Grove, PA: Woodlawn Publishers) 1998, c1981, p.4 - Th. D. Dallas Theological Seminary, Ph. D. University of Edinburgh)


And as I said, the premise of strict monotheism is absolutely crucial to the Trinity's existence. It is a premise sitting in quicksand however.

[phantaz sunlyk]

**8** say hey Kay Gee (hope ya don't mind the nickname--twas the first thing that popped in my head).

I'm just curious, but what is the significance of the constant repetition of the 7-8?

**7** no sig whatsoever. when i first started using a hotmail account, i sometimes had trouble telling where my talk ended and the other person's began. so i decided to make it, for my part, clear every time. a demarcation that sticks out like a sore thumb (7 and 8 being my favorite numbers), followed by two spaces. all of this for Lady Clarity.

You already accept three persons, but the problem the Trinity has with monotheism is identifying the three persons as one being - or entity as Athanasius puts it. So it is one God - three persons.

**7** so long as you don't let the notion of one being cloud the actual distinction between the persons and the dynamic relationships between them, i have no problem with such talk. true enough, the average Trinitarian, when trying to this fact, fumbles all over the place. but this merely tells us, if anything, that the average believer in the Trinity is not a philosopher (and rightfully so)--it tells us little about the Trinity itself.
hence i recommend for anyone seeking to know "how can one be three?" that they attend to the works of those who have the philosophical/theological equipment necessary to unpack the notions, and not hit at the "weak spots" of the average believers attempt to translate into words the worship they carry in their hearts (and i'm not accusing you of this, btw).

Latter-day Saints see it the same way except we believe one God in purpose - meaning one Godhead or authority - while in the ontological sense they are three gods.

**7** honestly, with a little tweaking here and there, i don't think we're necessarily that far apart. i think you might like Richard Swinburne's account of the Trinity in _The Christian God_ (bring ya thinking cap, though). also, i recommend Walter Kasper's _The God of Jesus Christ_. both of these do full justice to the actual distinctiveness of each person while demonstrating the unity, and what accounts for it in the ontological sense (and here i'd follow Kasper over Swinburne, though they aren't mutually exlusive).


== creedal Trinitarianism does not teach that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three persons who are identical with the person who is God while not being identical with eachother.

I don't believe I ever said that. I'm not even sure what you mean by "identical with the person who is God ."

**8** you didn't say it, but it seemed to be implicit in some of your assertions (such as the schizo charge, which was brought forward more than once, i believe).

Aren't all three persons identical with God?

**7** well, given the sense in which [I]i think you understand the predicate "God", no.
we would say, first and foremost (and here i speak from what i know, which is the liturgy and theology of the Catholic Church, the theology of the Orthodox Church, and the writings and theology of the Fathers and medievals), that the one God is the Father. the Son is related to the Father as shine is to the sun. at every moment at which the sun is, the sun brings forth its shine, whereby it expresses its glory. the two are distinct, but they absolutely entail one another at the ontological level (if sun, then shine; if no shine, then no sun; if Father, then Son, etc.).
we don't see the three as being separable from one another--its like a chain with three links. to pull one is to bring the other two into motion; the motion of each piece depends upon and is conditioned by the motion of the other two, etc.
most importantly (and this is the absolute key to understanding the Trinity), we perceive God not merely as an all powerful monad, but as communion. the OT describes God as "Father" fewer than twenty times. the gospel of John alone does it nearly 120 times. keeping in mind that 1)Jn. 1:18 tells us that the Son who dwells in the Father's heart has revealed God, and that 2)the form of the Son's life is revealed on the cross, we conclude that Jesus the Christ revealed God as absolute love.
the presupposition of this is the fact that in himself God is a relationship. with the coming of the Christ came the revelation that God is Father, essentially. and the way the Son is related to the Father is like the way shine is related to the sun. the latter is the cause of the former, but at every moment at which the one exists, so too will the other.

I don't want to let too much out of the bag just yet.

**8** okay. try and let me know where i can find it when you bring it out for the public. i'll review it for Tekton.

The church fathers meant salvation was to "become something." Indeed, we were to become gods. But as the creature-creator dichotomy got wider, they began to reform their theology of theosis. For instance the theosis of Augistine and Athanasius was very different from the theosis of Origen or Clement of Alexandria.

**7** i love your bringing up theosis, discovering this doctrine was a true blessing for me, and it is my prayer that those of us in the West will regain a perception of it.
you are, however, wrong i think in claiming that the doctrine of theosis in Athanasius was "very different" from that of his Alexandrian predecessors (Augustine tended to think of salvation more in juridicial terms, though this isn't necessarily mutually exclusive).
the padres understood salvation as theosis in this sense--we are saved by participation in the being of the one God, and this happens via being "in" the person of the Son. Origen makes it clear that the distinction between us and the true Son will always hold. the Son is Son by nature, we are Son's by grace.

Sure. The Trinity denotes one God with three personalities right?

**8** aye, but keep in mind what i said earlier--we don't claim that the Father, Son, and Spirit are identical with the person who is God while not being identical with eachother.

Anything with multiple personalities is by definition schizophrenic.

**7** i'd temper the word "anything" in the above sentence. a classroom is a "thing", yet we wouldn't consider it schizo because there are, within it, thirty personalities.
hence i'm wondering whether or not, by claiming "one entity", you automatically equate this with "one person"?
or it may be because (i think, lemme know if i'm wrong), you guys think of God in physical terms? hence three persons in one being would mean three heads with one brain on one body, or some such thing?
but this doesn't arise for us, for the simple reason that we don't think that God essentially subsists in a material form.

This is precisely how it was explained to me by a few Catholics last month.

**7** re my statement above regarding common believers. if you have complex questions, you need a source of info that can actually address them.

But what I am finding more and more fascinating is the various ways in which the early creedal statements are being interpreted.

**8** aye, as Karl Rahner said, the creeds aren't so much an end as they are a beginning.


I'm aware of this, but certainly you are aware that this proved to be a major boost for the Trinity.

**7** nah, i wouldn't really say that. C. M. La Cugna actually argues that precisely the opposite was the case in her _God For Us_.

Without the victory at Nicea, the Trinity would have never survived.

**8** what do you mean? read, for example, Karl Rahner's _The Trinity_, and it will become apparent that had the level of theological expression remained at that of the Apologists, we'd still be on the same page, basically.

I fail to see how any of this responds to my comment that the "persons" argument is extra-biblical, and was used to explain much of the "mystery" of the Trinitarian relationship of the Godhead.

**8** as for being "extra-biblical", i could, quite frankly, care less. there is a huge difference between unbiblical (the precise books we should include in our canon), and anti-biblical (thinking that we can find fulfillment without the express grace of God).
hence this issue is, for me, irrelevant.

Ok, forgive the hyperbole. The exact relationship Christ had with the Father was "unresolved" or "undetermined" during the first 300+ years. How is that? The subordination of Christ to His Father was pre-Nicene orthodoxy.

**7** nah, i disagree. see the following works i've written at Tekton--
http://tektonics.org/PS_NC.html
http://tektonics.org/PS_FS.html
i'd argue that Nicene trinitarian theology requires a certain form of subordination which doesn't essentially exclude the ante-Nicene form.

== actually, Plato's distinction between "the One" and "creation" isn't anything like Christianity's distinction between the creator and creation.

Augustine's Contra Academicos 3.41, seems to make a big deal of Plato's influence as the most "pure" and clear writings.

**7** and i wouldn't necessarily disagree. i think that people like Plato and Buddha managed to go a good distance towards the truth without the benefit of categorical revelation.
but i think you missed the point. for Platonists, especially via neo-Platonism, the soul in man is capable of grasping the One. this is so because the the radical discontinuity of nature between the creature and the creator isn't recognized.

Is it just coincidence that Augustine and Athenagoras emphasized the creature-creator dichotomy more than the rest?

**7** this isn't true; where did you get this idea?

Likwise, Athenagoras in his Plea for the Christians, references Plato no less than a dozen times, including his argument for the creature-creator dichotomy. Coincidence?

**8** it probably has more to do with the fact that Athenegoras (seems to have had) an impressive hellenistic education and was writing to no less a thinker than Marcus Aurelius.

I suppose its plausible, but I'm not convinced. The Plato doctrine solidifies the difference between man and God.

**7** see John Meyendorff's chapter on Origen in _Christ in Eastern Christian Thought_. this isn't quite the case.
and another thing. y'all believe that matter is co-eternal with God, right? do you maintain that God is nonetheless the creator of matter (albeit eternally)?

One is entirely "other" from the next.

**8** again, the correlation between orthodoxy and platonism doesn't go below the surface.

In my sense of the words offspring?

**8** yes, in the sense indicated above.

== out of curiousity, have you ever read Newman's _Development of Doctrine_?

Nope, but I know a buddy who has a copy. Is it a good read?

**7** its excellent.

== well, the creed wasn't primarily intended as a litmus test for telling whether or not this or that person was a Christian.

Thank you. But unfortunately that is how it is being used today.

**8** by whom? how i wish the Nicene Creed was a recognized authority on par with Scripture by most Christians!

I agree. So prove it. The burden of proof is on who ever attempts to assert "every single one of them had a Trinitarian structure."
This is a clear sweeping generalization of MANY individuals which is hard to take seriously.

**8** um, okay.
Mt. 28:20; J Mart 1 Apol. 6:2, 61:10, 65:3, 67:2; Iren Apost. Pre. 6, Ag. Her. 1:10; Ethiopic Epistula Apostolorum 6; Tert Bapt. 6, Persc. Ag. Her. 13; Orig First Princ. 1:1...
do you really deny that a confession of faith prior to baptism which included the Father, Son, and Spirit was lacking in early Christianity?
where is your proof of this?

Besides, any such attempt on my part would be worthless since anyone mentioned would be deemed "heretic" and therefore wouldn't count anyway. It is a clear case of question begging when one assumes so much from so many people from so long ago, and a touch of circular reasoning when the outcome of the development is used as a litmus test for determining who is the smart guy and who is just a heretic.

**7** try me.

And the logos was considered a "second God" altogether- even Philos had no problem stating it this way. More on this in Cromis' review of JP's chapter 2.

**8** if you have a chance, i think it would do you well to first investigate the way Philo and company understood the manner in which the Logos is related to God.
proof-texting authors from the 1st through the 4th centuries who spoke of "many gods", such as Origen in his Commentary on John, is anachronistic. the word didn't have the theological freight it does today.

But don't tell me... he was only "functionally" subordinate right?

**7** see above links. i'll be leaving town soon, but when i get back (april 21 or thereabouts, God willing), i'd be more than willing to debate you on this.

Yet, another non-biblical word appears ex nihilo.

**8** being Catholic, i accept 2 Maccabees as Scripture. hence for me, this word isn't non-biblical.
and as i said above, even if it were, this fact would carry little weight with me.

But you won't have much of an issue with LDS on this point because unlike JW's we don't argue for an ontological subordination.

**7** true. and to be honest, in a sense i think it is a good move on your part to emphasize the distinction between the persons. keeping in mind that i'm not up to date on Mormon theology, the problem, as i perceive it right now, lies in the fact that for you the processions don't seem to be intrinsic to the relationship between the persons, and the persons don't seem to be defined essentially as persons in communion (relationality being an ad hoc addition to those who are already persons).

Christianity emerged from a Jewish background before it was hellenized,

**7** ya mean before hellenism was Christianized? :wink:

But even JP admits that this doctrine cannot be discerned from the Bible alone. It must be argued via logic or, ironically enough, philosophy.

**8** what's your problem with philosophy? Scripture isn't a catechism; the Bible stands in relation to clear doctrinal definitions in much the same way as a seed stands in relation to fruit.

The fact that Christianity couldn't develop this doctrine via the "Bible alone," despite the doctrine of sola scriptura, should speak volumes on this matter.

**7** are you trying to suggest that the first Christians believed in "the Bible alone" in the modern Protestant sense of the term?

Thanks for your comments. It looks like I will learn a lot on this forum. Something I wasn't expecting.

**7** aye, it was nice talking to you. if i don't respond rapidly, don't take it personally. i gotta busy schedule coming up.
may the peace of Christ be with you.

[Athanasian]

04-02-2003 @ 09:52 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=51262#post51262)
BrianB:
As far as I see, there are two possible ideas that you would call logically contradictory

1. The biblical teaching on the nature of God
2. The orthodox understanding of the biblical teaching (the Trinity)

The latter.

Are you claiming that the orthodox definition of the Trinity is not what the Bible actually teaches, and that the Trinity is contradictory but the Bible is not...

Yes. And nor are the earliest creedal statements. You'll see that the creedal statements become increasingly complicated, confused, and contradictory as the centureis roll by. This is a sign of corruption, in my opinion.

[qupte]Do you think the Trinity accurately expresses the biblical teaching...[/quote]

No.