Radio Replies Second Volume - The Holy Trinity

Celledoor.com ^ | 1940 | Fathers Rumble & Carty

[GonzoII]

The Holy Trinity

519. Let us turn to your abstract and intangible dogmas; and firstly the doctrine of the Trinity.

Though no human mind can fully comprehend the doctrine of the Trinity, yet the concept is not unintelligible. It certainly conveys a definite meaning to Christians. In revealing Himself to us God had to employ terms on our own level which could not but be inadequate to express His infinite perfection. But the terms used are not nevertheless without meaning. We know what a nature is, and we know what a person is. It may be, and in fact must be, that the Divine Nature, and the real character of Personality in God will be mysterious to us. But that does not mean that our ideas are wrong, or that they have nothing in them. It only means that if our ideas are right as far as they go, they do not go far enough to completely exhaust the reality.

520. To the lay mind it seems a hair-splitting of terms which cannot be of supreme importance.

I can but assure you that the matter is of supreme importance. For if the doctrine of the Trinity be false, that would be the end of the Christian religion.

The very essence of the Christian religion is that the Eternal Son of God became man for our salvation. If there is no Trinity of Persons in God, there would be no Eternal Son to become man at all, and the whole of Christianity would be built on a mere flight of fancy. If I believed the doctrine of the Trinity to be false, or in the least uncertain, I would abandon Christianity altogether. That would be the only logical thing to do. So from the Christian point of view you can see that it is no question of hair-splitting, but a matter of supreme importance.

521. Wherein lies the significance?

The doctrine of the Trinity lifts the notion of God, and carries it beyond the most powerful created intelligence, as befits the dignity and majesty of God. By it, God takes life instead of being the great unknown X of the universe. One, He is not solitary. And the multiplicity of the universe is but the shadow of the diversity of God in Himself according to the Trinity of relationships. How conceive of God save as knowing and loving? And how conceive of thought and love in God save as God Himself, yet distinct as operations? How conceive of God as happy without society and reciprocal activity, before the universe; and after its creation, since the universe adds nothing to God Himself? The Trinity gives us a living rather than an abstract God, individualizing Thought and Love in Him, giving interior multiplicity with His eternal unity. If my thought became myself intimately and adequately, and my happiness in myself were essentially identified with myself, I would be a trinity while remaining myself. But what is not possible with me is a fact with God; and His living unity is the Trinity.

522. Isn't it merely ways of thinking of God, drawn from Plato?

The philosophy of Plato has contributed towards explanations of the subject, as it has contributed much towards many other departments of human thought. But the dogma of the Trinity in no way came from Plato, or from any other merely human source. The Trinity of Persons in God was taught as a fact by Christ to explain His own Person and work. He gave the dogma, and the dogma gave rise to philosophical explanations of it. Nor does the doctrine merely give ways of thinking of God. Aspects of our own thinking would not be Divine Persons. The dogma tells us of God's own intimate life within the Divine Nature.

523. Are the names Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, merely different titles of the one Being?

They are not merely three different titles of the one Being as if they were names only and in no sense realities. They are three relative personal aspects of one absolute and substantial Being. One and the same Absolute Being can have relative aspects distinct from one another. In God, of course, we meet with what should not be an unexpected mystery. The three relative aspects of the one Divine Nature are Personal. Our experience of finite and created man is of one nature and one person. But our knowledge of finite and created man cannot give us an adequate knowledge of the Infinite Creator unless we are prepared to work on a very crude and anthropomorphic basis. The fact that in the one Absolute God there are three relative Personalities, distinct in virtue of their relationship to each other, yet identically possessing the Divine Nature, is known to us by revelation alone. And we know the fact without being able to comprehend it fully, not because of any defect in God, but because of the defect in our finite selves.

524. Who first promulgated the doctrine that Christ is equal to the Father in power and glory?

That doctrine was first promulgated by Christ Himself, as recorded in the Gospels. Thus Christ said, "I and the Father are one." The doctrine was also clearly taught by St. Paul. Against various heretics in the early Church again and again the Bishops re-declared the truth both implicitly and explicitly. The General Councils of Nicea, and of Ephesus, as well as other Councils, excluded all ambiguity as to what Christ had revealed by their specific definitions and formulas.

525. Can you find one Scripture text containing the word Trinity?

No. Nor is there any need to do so.

526. Can we suppose that the doctrine of the Trinity is taught in the Bible, yet no such word is there?

There is no question of supposition. The doctrine is clearly given by Christ in His words, "Baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." Mt 28:19.

527. The recurring genitive indicates a plurality of names, so that we should say, "In the name of the Father, and in the name of the Son, and in the name of the Holy Ghost." In that case the one name does not indicate one Divine Nature.

The one name of the Three Persons was certainly meant to indicate the unity of God despite triple Personality.

528. If you discount grammar in the interests of a particular exegesis words lose the power to prove anything.

Our exegesis involves no violation of grammar. And all danger of distortion is removed by the use of the usual safeguards of exegesis; namely, the analogy of faith, the interpretations of the Fathers, and the constant tradition of the Catholic Church. No argument based on grammatical form arises where the baptismal formula is concerned; nor can any such considerations rob the words of their trinitarian value.

529. When St. John says, "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God," God was the subject of attribution where His word was concerned just as your hand is the instrument of your own conduct.

The Word of God was personal. My hand is not a person. The Word was with God, because the Second Person of the Trinity is distinct by personality from the Father and the Holy Ghost; yet the Word was God because possessing the same Divine Nature with them. To suggest that the Word of God is no more personal than my hand is quite opposed to the truth. St. John, who declares that the Word was with God, and was God, says also that the Word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us; that in "Him" was life; that "He" was in the world; that "He" dwelt amongst us; that we saw "His" glory, and of "His" fullness we receive grace. The Word was the Eternal Son of God, every bit as personal as the Father.

530. God the Father is explicitly stated.

It is also explicitly stated that the Word is "the only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father." God may act in a fatherly way towards us men, but He is a true Father to the only-begotten Son, generated in the same Divine Nature, and equally the uncreated God with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

531. When Christ said, "My God, why hast Thou forsaken me?", whom did He address? Was He speaking to Himself?

He was addressing His heavenly Father, and in virtue of the sufferings of His created human nature.

532. What did the expression imply?

It did not imply any distinction between Himself and His Father so far as the Divine Nature was concerned. It implied that, in His human nature, He experienced that sense of dereliction by God which man deserved. If man abandons God he deserves to be abandoned by God. Jesus took the place of sinners, and suffered the sense of dereliction deserved by sinners.

533. I certainly do not understand the mystery of the Trinity.

Centuries ago St. Augustine replied to a similar complaint with the words, "If you do understand, then that is what God is not." He meant, of course, that no human being can fully comprehend God. We cannot exclude mystery when speaking of God, for if He came within the limits of our finite intelligence He would be finite and not God at all. At the same time, we can understand on our own level what the doctrine of the Trinity means. The idea of personality is not foreign to us, nor is the idea of a given nature. If the Trinity is a mystery it is because both the Nature and the Persons in God transcend all our notions of these things, our ideas giving but a faint and most inadequate reflection of the truth. It is also a mystery because our experience is limited to a single nature with a single personality. A single Divine Nature with a threefold Personality is not on the same plane as any of our ordinary experiences, and is known by revelation alone; and even then only insofar as human words can express the transcendent truth. But the terms are not meaningless, and we do find a profound significance in the doctrine.

Encoding copyright 2009 by Frederick Manligas Nacino. Some rights reserved.
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0
http://www.celledoor.com/cpdv-ebe/

[D-fendr]

We do not even know where the events described in the Book of Mormon took place on the American continent.

It was remarkably like the area where Joseph Smith lived, down to the place names.

Book of Mormon

Northeast US

However, LDS where unsuccessful in finding any archeological record of the major civilizations and battles of the BOM there. So the hunt continues forever Southward. I believe they're down to Central America now…

[TrueConstitutionalPrinciples]

I would be interested in knowing what your thoughts and perspectives on the scriptures cited previously: whole chapter of John 17 (ONENESS of Godhead with Apostles and with followers of Christ), Rom. 8:17 (joint-heirs with Christ), and John 10:34/Psalms 82:6 (Ye are gods)?

The fact that Jesus is the Heir indicates that He is a distinct person and will continue to exist as a person for Eternity. If Jesus and God the Father were of the same substance (or same entity), then it would not make sense for Jesus to proclaim that He came to do the Will of the Father (John 6:38).

What does it mean to you that we were created in the IMAGE of God? It is recorded in scripture that a number of prophets have talked with God “face to face” which indicates that God has an anthropomorphic appearance. Also, it is recorded that God has feelings and passions and determination, which is further evidence of the Personhood for each member of the Godhead.

[TrueConstitutionalPrinciples]

“It was remarkably like the area where Joseph Smith lived, down to the place names.”

This is humorous. However, most Mormons believe that Lehi and his family traveled from the Midian Peninsula (present day Saudi Arabia) eastward to the west coast of the Americas. I don’t think they would have marched 2 or 3 thousand miles to the Great Lakes area.

There is an Aztec legend of the visitation of Quetzalcoatl, often referred to as The Bearded White God. Mormons believe this is based on the actual visit of Christ in the Americas.

See John 10:
11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
12 But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep.
13 The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep.
14 I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.
15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.
16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

Here is Jesus talking about His intention to go visit the “other sheep” located in a different place. Mormons teach that this was in the Americas.

[D-fendr]

You can see very simply that Smith took the place names and geography of his area - yet the truth just goes right past you.

However, most Mormons believe that Lehi and his family traveled from the Midian Peninsula (present day Saudi Arabia) eastward to the west coast of the Americas.

Absolutely no archeological evidence for the events in the BOM. Huge civilizations, armies, huge battles, no evidence at all. Unlike biblical evidence for Judaism and Christianity.

There is an Aztec legend of the visitation of Quetzalcoatl, often referred to as The Bearded White God. Mormons believe this is based on the actual visit of Christ in the Americas.

Or it could be Moses, or a Viking, or anything you like. The Central American civilizations bear no resemblance to the BOM civilizations. LDS is grasping at any straw. As I said, after North America (which the original Mormons believed was the site), was debunked, the search continued Southward - and still no evidence.

Mormons teach that this was in the Americas.

I know they do. The main topic of Smith's time was "where did the Indians come from?" (American Indians). Smith used this as part of the story. Until the real origin was proven - and it wasn't anywhere near Smith's story. The Central American Indians origin is not according to BOM either; it a red herring.

Smith has been completely debunked. His "translation" of the Book of Abraham is more than sufficient proof of fraud, and yet there's much more proof. The LDS will tell you to go with your burning in your heart or some such, when faced with solid evidence that the whole thing is bunko.

[D-fendr]

He is a distinct person

The Trinity consists of three persons in one Godhead. But not persons as "individual, self-actualized center of free will and conscious activity." "The one God exists in three Persons and one substance, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."

One substance (not in the sense of a material substance), rather than the one in "purpose" as LDS teaches.

The Word became flesh." God did not become another God or create another God or beget another God.

What does it mean to you that we were created in the IMAGE of God?

Primarily that we know the difference between good and evil.

It is recorded in scripture that a number of prophets have talked with God “face to face” which indicates that God has an anthropomorphic appearance.Or a burning bush. It would be something that man could see, could even be something familiar, but God is not contained by the burning bush or any other physical object.

Also, it is recorded that God has feelings and passions and determination, which is further evidence of the Personhood for each member of the Godhead.

We anthropomorphize God. Full comprehension of God is always beyond any man. Attributing passions would necessitate and changing God. God is unchanging and not subject to passions.

[TrueConstitutionalPrinciples]

You can see very simply that Smith took the place names and geography of his area - yet the truth just goes right past you.
Your saying so does not make it so.

However, most Mormons believe that Lehi and his family traveled from the Midian Peninsula (present day Saudi Arabia) eastward to the west coast of the Americas.
Absolutely no archeological evidence for the events in the BOM. Huge civilizations, armies, huge battles, no evidence at all. Unlike biblical evidence for Judaism and Christianity.
I'll just say a few things:
1. Please go to fairlds.org for a number of findings in Central America.
2. There were cataclysmic earthquakes: 1811/12 New Madrid, Missouri (covered several states); tremendous upheavals in the Americas at time of the Crucifixion.
3. The name of a village not known in Joseph Smith's time. The Book of Mormon indicates that Lehi's family stopped by Nahom on their way to SE corner of Saudi Arabia. This name was only later found by archeologists. Joseph had very little education, he had no way for coming up with this village name (see http://www.fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/Arabia_and_the_Book_of_Mormon.html).
4. You should refrain from using the word "absolutely". It is unscientific.

The LDS will tell you to go with your burning in your heart or some such, when faced with solid evidence that the whole thing is bunko.
Millions of Mormons, including myself, have received a witness of the spirit. I have thought seriously about my experiences. I know that I cannot turn it "on and off" on my own and I know that this experience is separate from my emotions. All I can say is for you to follow the suggestion of the Savior in John 7:17 (obtain your witness by reading the Book of Mormon, you can get a complimentary copy by going to lds.org).

What does it mean to you that we were created in the IMAGE of God?
Primarily that we know the difference between good and evil.
This does not make sense. How does this relate to our appearance as "humanoids" with heads, arms, legs, etc? Good and Evil has to do with actions or choices, not appearance. When God created Adam and Eve, He made them to have the same form as His "appearance".

It is recorded in scripture that a number of prophets have talked with God “face to face” which indicates that God has an anthropomorphic appearance.
Or a burning bush. It would be something that man could see, could even be something familiar, but God is not contained by the burning bush or any other physical object.
God used the burning bush to draw Moses up the mountain so he could be alone with Him. But Moses most likely did not see God at first, he only heard His voice. Later, as he gained more experience and purification, he was permitted to see the face of God.

Also, it is recorded that God has feelings and passions and determination, which is further evidence of the Personhood for each member of the Godhead.
We anthropomorphize God. Full comprehension of God is always beyond any man. Attributing passions would necessitate and changing God. God is unchanging and not subject to passions.
There are numerous references in the Bible where God refers to Himself as having body parts (in the IMAGE of the humanoid):
Exodus 33:11,23
Isaiah 6:1
Amos 9:1
John 14:9 (the earthly appearance of Jesus is like that of Heavenly Father)
There are also numerous references that show God as having many kinds of strong feelings (passions both joyful and angry):
Exodus 32:10
Isaiah 65:2-3,19
It is quite disturbing that people would prefer to theorize of an abstract entity that has no feelings and did not create man in His IMAGE. Satan is delighted if he can hoodwink people into believing this which would cause them to become more alienated from God.