Posted on 12/29/2007 7:45:17 AM PST by Gamecock
Precisely. Bullseye.
You cannot say, "B is rejected because it does not appear in A," but then turn around and say, "C is accepted even though it does not appear in A."
The truth would be: "C is rejected because it does not appear in A."
The Book of Mormon, etc (C) is rejected because it does not appear in The Bible (A.)
'The view of God worked out in the early [postapostolic] church, the "biblical-classical synthesis," has become so commonplace that even today most conservative [Protestant and Catholic] theologians simply assume that it is the correct scriptural concept of God and thus that any other alleged biblical understanding of God . . . must be rejected. The classical view is so taken for granted that it functions as a preunderstanding that rules out certain interpretations of Scripture that do not "fit" with the conception of what is "appropriate" for God to be like, as derived from Greek metaphysics.'
John Sanders; cited in Clark Pinnock, Richard Rice, John Sanders, William Hasker, and David Basinger, The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 60.
Using your logic, the fact that no one in the bible mentioned Jesus’ visit to the Americas means that it did not happen, and that, therefore, your faith is false.
The Bible does not mention many, many things. In fact, it even admits not all Jesus said and did are recorded in the Bible.
John 21:25
"And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written."
According to the teaching of nobility (Acts 17:11), a people group is "more noble" if they run the alleged latter revelations thru the filter of the former revelations "to see if they were true."
The Bereans fit the bill when it came to New Testament teachings. The Mormons flunked this test badly.
Unlike the broad base of the historic Christian church and two testaments, where everything was revealed with multiple men...multiple prophets...multiple apostles...even a shepherd in the OT...the LDS foundation is tenuous...it stands or falls on one man and his vision as a 14 yo lad. The proverbs repeatedly tell us there is wisdom in multiple counselors; and multiple counselors simply defined what was already in New Testament content to give us the Nicene & other creeds.
LDS turned things on their head & created a bottleneck in Smith...here they have a one-man based "Articles of Faith" where it's so easy for one man to go the erroneous route.
Folks we better worry about the democRATs instead of fighting over the religion BS. I am afraid that WAY TO MANY people who will or will not vote for someone based on religion. They remind me of one of the “leaders” of my mother’s church that made a comment about me dating a Catholic when I started dating my wife those many years ago
No, the problem is the claim that is made by Mormons that they are Christian. Clearly your beliefs are not Christian.
The main difference is that Mormons do not believe in the metaphysical monotheism of trinitarians. I don't consider trinitarians to be monotheistic. Father, Son, Holy Ghost add up to 3, i.e. trinitarians are not true monotheists as the Muslims are.
What a contradictory argument.
You are saying that because the bible does not mention things, that you are then free to make them up and believe them.
Previously, you stated that because the word Trinity is not in the bible, that the doctrine of the Trinity must be rejected.
Now you are saying that even though something is not in the bible it is allowed to be believed.
I hope you realize that is a contradiction.
I might point out that we don't know those things that John said we don't know. We have not made them up so that we can believe them. We have not written a new "Book of Mesmerism" that contains made up things and declared them to critical to the faith.
>The main difference is that Mormons do not believe in the metaphysical monotheism of trinitarians. I don’t consider trinitarians to be monotheistic. Father, Son, Holy Ghost add up to 3, i.e. trinitarians are not true monotheists as the Muslims are.
This is because you are stuck on the TRI- and have no clue as to how to interpret the UNITY. THis is the same problem that all Muslims, Oneness Pentecostals, Watchtower Society, Jews, and the Mormon church have. It is the stumbling block that is used as the cornerstone of the new temple.
At least you are not alone in your ignorance. I just wish you could at least read and perhaps understand that which you cannot accept, even as you reject it.
I disagree. Please check the Bible passage below!!!!
At the end of the Gospel of Matthew, Christ tells his disciples:
11 [18] All power . . . me: the Greek word here translated power is the same as that found in the LXX translation of Daniel 7:13-14 where one "like a son of man" is given power and an everlasting kingdom by God. The risen Jesus here claims universal power, i.e., in heaven and on earth.
12 [19] Therefore: since universal power belongs to the risen Jesus (Matthew 28:18), he gives the eleven a mission that is universal. They are to make disciples of all nations. While all nations is understood by some scholars as referring only to all Gentiles, it is probable that it included the Jews as well. Baptizing them: baptism is the means of entrance into the community of the risen one, the Church. In the name of the Father . . . holy Spirit: this is perhaps the clearest expression in the New Testament of trinitarian belief. It may have been the baptismal formula of Matthew's church, but primarily it designates the effect of baptism, the union of the one baptized with the Father, Son, and holy Spirit.
13 [20] All that I have commanded you: the moral teaching found in this gospel, preeminently that of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7). The commandments of Jesus are the standard of Christian conduct, not the Mosaic law as such, even though some of the Mosaic commandments have now been invested with the authority of Jesus. Behold, I am with you always: the promise of Jesus' real though invisible presence echoes the name Emmanuel given to him in the infancy narrative; see the note on Matthew 1:23. End of the age: see the notes on Matthew 13:39 and Matthew 24:3.
FWIW, every book in the NT was written by a person directly taught by Jesus, a very close disciple of one directly taught by Jesus, or by one of Jesus' brothers. All the books were written during the period in which direct testimony could be found from other sources, except for Revelation which was written by the last living Apostle. Numerous witnesses existed to the exceptional events of the NT.
The Book of Mormon has no direct connection to Jesus supported by eye witnesses and independent testimony. Our Saviour not only did all that he claimed he would do, but did it with numerous witnesses present.
Father, Son, and HS may add up to three, but one keeps adding up to one for us, and so the so-called Athanasian creed tirelessly repeats, And yet there are not THREE eternals (or Almighties, or what have you) but one eternal.
It is interesting to see what comes of strict, non personal monism. For example, the statement, "Whatever God does is just (or beautiful, or loving, or ....)" is sneakily ambiguous and problematic. And one pole of the ambiguity is that one can look at the most dreadful atrocity and say, "God willed it; it is just." But the other pole would seem to suggest that there is something called "justice" by which God can be, what, assessed or measured or even judged. But that suggests that there is something higher than God.
Monotheism is tough.
But what do YOU mean by 'metaphysical monotheism'?
**Folks we better worry about the democRATs instead of fighting over the religion BS**
Having the Holy Spirit as our guide during all the election mess is a plus. I certainly wouldn’t discount it, and I don’t believe you were. Just trying to draw us out of this discussion?
Don’t forget the scriptural verses that define and separate the three personages, such as:
God the Father is spirit and cannot be seen by man without death (in Judges, Exodus, various other places)
God the pre-incarnate Son walking and is seen by Adam, Abraham, the Burning bush and the Rock in the desert (as written in Genesis and Exodus, mentioned in Amos and Psalm 2, just off the top of my head, and other various places besides the NT)
God the Spirit is the spirit of prophecy ( in 1 Samuel, and various other places)
The God of the Trinity is biblical, and can through study can lead to the revealing of the nature of God. Athanasus and Nicea both used the Scripture to find the wisdom and correct the apostasy that the catholic (small c) church was led into by the Arians. But of course you agree with all that.. :o)
Actually, it is the trinitarians that need to learn about what is meant by the oneness of the godhead. And it can be found in, of all places, the Bible. :-)
John 17
20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
Polytarian would be a more accurate word than trinitarian. :-)
LOL! That is according to your belief that only that which is in the Bible is true, not mine. My belief is that what is in the Bible is true, but it does not encompass all divine truth. The Bible admits as much in the last verse of John. I will not place a limit on what God chooses to reveal to His children.
Amen! Keep sending the Gospel!
As for your constant misunderstanding as to the Unity of God, hey, you are just proving you have no idea what Tri-Unity means.
But hey, that is just one of the HUGE problems of the Mormon church. I would suggest a study of the Bible using the terms inside with the non-Mormon definitions, but rather the orthodox understandings of them. That is IF you wish to understand what is really meant by Christians when we share with you.
My concern is that the Republican race is going to get very bloody with religion being one of the main reasons. Refusing to vote for someone because their Church has some different rites than yours does nothing but help the RATs. I am old enough to remember the idiots that voted for jimmy-the-jerk because of his talk about how religious he was.
Hmmmm...trinitarianism? Not seeing it. From our baptismal prayer: ...I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." We believe in all three as individual beings.
I suggest a much more relevant passage is John 17:
20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
xins said>>Previously, you stated that because the word Trinity is not in the bible, that the doctrine of the Trinity must be rejected.
>LOL! That is according to your belief that only that which is in the Bible is true, not mine. My belief is that what is in the Bible is true, but it does not encompass all divine truth. The Bible admits as much in the last verse of John. I will not place a limit on what God chooses to reveal to His children
You are laughing in this serious matter?
Which bible is true for you? J. Smith’s uncompleted KJ version? Or the one that is handed out by elders in the Mormon Church, even though it is befouled in apostasy and false teachings?
What does truth mean? Can the Bible be tainted by the ‘apostasy’ and still be true? Do you follow what the Mormon church has taught in the past, or are you going off in a new direction?
So, what you are now saying that it doesn’t matter if something appears in the bible; that you will believe what you feel like believing.
Do I have it now?
:>)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.