Posted on 07/15/2002 9:48:49 PM PDT by JMJ333
A related link you both might find interesting:
What are We ... Spouse, Child, Citizen ... to Make of Christ?.
True, but if you are not careful in writing such a treatise, you can quickly depart from the Bible and go off in another direction, as they did in Nicea when trying to counter Arius.
I don't disagree at all with the Apostles' Creed (see #11), but the homoousion (one Being, one substance) in the Nicene Creed is not Biblical, and has led millions of Christians astray over the centuries, as far as having a correct understanding of the nature of God. It is not appropriate to elevate a creed, which is not the Word of God, to the level of Scripture.
We need to stick to the Word of God and to the apostles and prophets who have authority from God to write Scripture.
From the "God in Three Persons" link in #20: Because Modalism asserts that there is only one person in the Godhead, it makes nonsense of passages which show Jesus talking to his Father (e.g., John 17), or declaring he is going to be with the Father (John 14:12, 28, 16:10) One office of a person cannot go to be with another office of that person, or say that the two of them will send the Holy Spirit while they remain in heaven (John 14:16-17, 26, 15:26, 16:13–15; Acts 2:32–33).
This argument against Modalism is an excellent argument against homoousion: "Because the Nicene Creed asserts that there is only one Being (or substance, Greek homoousios) in the Godhead, it makes nonsense of passages ..."
There are some important Bible passages that should be stressed:
1 John 5:7
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
Jesus explains how They are One:
John 17: 20-21
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.
They are separate Individuals (as in post #4) in three different places at the baptism of Jesus:
Matthew 3:16-17
16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
We are created in the image of God, male and female. This should be understood literally, not in the sense of spiritual image or moral image. It means we look like Him because He made us that way:
Genesis 1:26-27
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Genesis 3:22
22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
In both cases this is God the Father talking to God the Son, one Individual speaking to Another:
Pearl of Great Price, Moses 4:28
28 And I, the Lord God, said unto mine Only Begotten: Behold, the man is become as one of us to know good and evil; and now lest he put forth his hand and partake also of the tree of life, and eat and live forever,
Stephen saw them as separate Individuals just before he died:
Acts 7:55-56
55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on [at] the right hand of God,
56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.
Now regarding John 4:24, Spirit is an attribute of God just as Love and Truth are. We are certainly not expected to leave our physical bodies to worship Him in spirit.
1 John 4:16
16 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.
John 4:24
24 God is Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
LDS Topical Guide: Corporeal Nature of God
(I wouldn't call this a debate, especially not on such a gentle thread as this. I much prefer a cordial discussion.)
True, but if you are not careful in writing such a treatise, you can quickly depart from the Bible and go off in another direction, as they did in Nicea when trying to counter Arius.
That was my point entirely. The bible isn't a full scale treatise. Most of the epistles, were written to local churches that were experiencing moral and/or doctrinal problems. Paul and most of the other New Testament writers sent letters to these local churches (e.g., 1 and 2 Corinthians and Galatians) in order to rectify these problems. There was no attempt on the part of the writers to impart a vast body of basic doctrinal instruction to non-believers nor even to simply summarize everything for the believers who received the letters. The New Testament is not the entire basis of the Christian faith since the Christian faith existed and flourished for years before the first book of the New Testament was written. The books of the New Testament were composed decades after Christ ascended into heaven, and it took centuries for there to be general agreement among Christians as to which books comprised the New Testament.
The council of Nicea, held in 325, simply affirmed Christ's divinity. And the Nicene Creed, which we still say today is the tenets of what we believe, and what the doctors of the church believed even before Arius.
The only reason you and I have the New Testament canon is because of the trustworthy teaching authority of the Catholic Church. As Augustine put it, ‘I would not believe in the Gospels were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church’ (Against the Letter of Mani Called "The Foundation" 5:6). Any Christian accepting the authority of the New Testament does so, whether or not he admits it, because he has implicit trust that the Catholic Church made the right decision in determining the canon. [I can almost see some of our more fundamental brethren shuddering with disgust! lol]
The Holy Spirit guided the Catholic Church to recognize and determine the canon of the New and Old Testaments in the year 382 at the Council of Rome, under Pope Damasus I. This decision was ratified again at the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397 and 419). We accept exactly the same books of the New Testament that Pope Damasus decreed were canonical.
But again, the Bishops and doctors of the church promulgated doctrine before the gospels were even recognized. You mirror the Protestant claim that the Bible [excepting the book of mormon which I am purposely excluding for it has no bearing on the teachings of the Trinity] is the only rule of faith, meaning that it contains all of the material one needs for theology and that this material is sufficiently clear that one does not need apostolic tradition or the Church’s magisterium (teaching authority) to help one understand it. In the Protestant view, the whole of Christian truth is found within the Bible’s pages. Anything extraneous to the Bible is simply non-authoritative, unnecessary, or wrong—and may well hinder one in coming to God.
Catholics, on the other hand, recognize that the Bible does not endorse this view and that, in fact, it is repudiated in Scripture. The true "rule of faith"—as expressed in the Bible itself—is Scripture plus apostolic tradition, as manifested in the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church, to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, along with the authority to interpret Scripture correctly.
Now, for those who reject catholic tradition the case can still be made in the New Testament.
The doctrine of the Trinity is encapsulated in Matthew 28:19, where Jesus instructs the apostles: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."
In this passage, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are said to share one name (notice that the term "name" is singular, not plural), and that name is almost certainly Yahweh, the personal name of God in the Bible. We know this because the name Yahweh is applied to both the Father and the Son in the New Testament.
Peter tells us, "David did not ascend into the heavens; but he himself says, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies a stool for your feet.’ Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified" (Acts 2:34–36). Here God is "the Lord" who speaks to "my Lord," Jesus. When one looks at the Old Testament quotation, one finds, "Yahweh says to my Lord: ‘Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool’" (Ps. 110:1); so here the Father is called Yahweh.
In Philippians 2:10–11, we read: "At the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord." This is a reference to Isaiah 45:18–24, which tells us: "I, Yahweh, speak the truth . . . I am God, and there is no other. By myself I have sworn. . . . To me every knee shall bow, every tongue confess. ‘Only in Yahweh,’ it shall be said of me, ‘are righteousness and strength.’ " Here Paul applies the prophecy of every knee bending and every tongue confessing to Jesus, resulting in the prophecy that they will "confess that Jesus Christ is Yahweh." The stress on Christ as God is also picked up by the early Church Fathers.
Jesus himself declares that he is Yahweh ("I AM," in English translation). In John 8:58, when questioned about how he has special knowledge of Abraham, Jesus replies, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM." His audience understood exactly who he was claiming to be. "So they took up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple" (John 8:59).
With the personal name of God, Yahweh, being applied to both the Father and the Son, it is almost certainly applied to the Spirit, and thus to all three members of the Trinity.
The parallelism of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit is not unique to Matthew’s Gospel, but appears elsewhere in the New Testament (e.g., 2 Cor. 13:14, Heb. 9:14), as well as in the writings of the earliest Christians, who clearly understood them in the sense that we do today—that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are three divine persons who are one divine being (God).
And in my last post I will include some quotes by the fathers of the Church.
Ignatius of Antioch
"To the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God" (Letter to the Ephesians 1 [A.D. 110]).
"For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God’s plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit" (ibid., 18:2).
Justin Martyr
"We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things; but they are ignorant of the mystery which lies therein" (First Apology 13:5–6 [A.D. 151]).
Theophilus of Antioch
"It is the attribute of God, of the most high and almighty and of the living God, not only to be everywhere, but also to see and hear all; for he can in no way be contained in a place. . . . The three days before the luminaries were created are types of the Trinity: God, his Word, and his Wisdom" (To Autolycus 2:15 [A.D. 181]).
Irenaeus
"For the Church, although dispersed throughout the whole world even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and from their disciples the faith in one God, the Father Almighty . . . and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit" (Against Heresies 1:10:1 [A.D. 189]).
Tertullian
"We do indeed believe that there is only one God, but we believe that under this dispensation, or, as we say, oikonomia, there is also a Son of this one only God, his Word, who proceeded from him and through whom all things were made and without whom nothing was made. . . . We believe he was sent down by the Father, in accord with his own promise, the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father and the Son, and in the Holy Spirit. . . . This rule of faith has been present since the beginning of the gospel, before even the earlier heretics" (Against Praxeas 2 [A.D. 216]).
Origen
"For we do not hold that which the heretics imagine: that some part of the being of God was converted into the Son, or that the Son was procreated by the Father from non-existent substances, that is, from a being outside himself, so that there was a time when he [the Son] did not exist" (The Fundamental Doctrines 4:4:1 [A.D. 225]).
"No, rejecting every suggestion of corporeality, we hold that the Word and the Wisdom was begotten out of the invisible and incorporeal God, without anything corporal being acted upon . . . the expression which we employ, however that there was never a time when he did not exist is to be taken with a certain allowance. For these very words ‘when’ and ‘never’ are terms of temporal significance, while whatever is said of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, is to be understood as transcending all time, all ages, and all eternity" (ibid.).
"For it is the Trinity alone which exceeds every sense in which not only temporal but even eternal may be understood. It is all other things, indeed, which are outside the Trinity, which are to be measured by time and ages" (ibid.).
Hippolytus
"The Word alone of this God is from God himself, wherefore also the Word is God, being the being of God. Now the world was made from nothing, wherefore it is not God" (Refutation of All Heresies 10:29 [A.D. 228]).
Novatian
"For Scripture as much announces Christ as also God, as it announces God himself as man. It has as much described Jesus Christ to be man, as moreover it has also described Christ the Lord to be God. Because it does not set forth him to be the Son of God only, but also the son of man; nor does it only say, the son of man, but it has also been accustomed to speak of him as the Son of God. So that being of both, he is both, lest if he should be one only, he could not be the other. For as nature itself has prescribed that he must be believed to be a man who is of man, so the same nature prescribes also that he must be believed to be God who is of God. . . . Let them, therefore, who read that Jesus Christ the son of man is man, read also that this same Jesus is called also God and the Son of God" (Treatise on the Trinity 11 [A.D. 235]).
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints places strong emphasis on authority from God to speak and act in His Name, as Catholics do. Throughout the Bible, apostles and prophets were called of God to speak for God and to write what He commanded them to write. That is how our Bible came to be. The Lord still works in the same way today.
He gave the Keys of the Kingdom to Peter, His chief apostle, and where the apostles are not, the Keys of the Kingdom are not.
The Lord led a handful of Israelites across the ocean to the Americas around 600 BC, just before Nebuchadnezzar carried the Kingdom of Judah off to Babylon. He raised up prophets among them, and commanded them to write. The Savior visited them, some of His "other sheep", after His resurrection and ascension, and they wrote an account of His visit. An abridgement of what their prophets wrote over a thousand-year period was brought forth by the gift and power of God in modern times through a true apostle of Jesus Christ and prophet of God, who has authority to baptize and officiate in all other ordinances of the Gospel.
Authority to speak and act for God is a very important thing with us, not only to baptize, bestow the Gift of the Holy Spirit, and have the inspiration to interpret the Scripture we have, but to bring forth new Scripture, as the Lord commands, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, as they did in Biblical times.
These are evidences that the Lord works the same way today as He did in times of old, as the Holy Spirit bears witness.
Now, there is nothing in your answers that refutes what he says, or the article. Mormon view on the Trinity is clearly different from Orthodox Christian doctrine, but you already knew that.
Refute ... that is a debate word. In one post I was going to the Bible for information on the nature of God (rather than to creeds or early fathers) and pointing out that homoousion, one Being or substance, is not taught there, quite the opposite. In the other post I was picking up on your view of the importance of authority from God, and adding a big Amen, talking about our teaching, and Bible teaching, about authority from God, its vital importance, and the blessings that come from having it on the earth in our day. Of course, those who do not receive it cannot be benefitted by it.
I do suggest we stick to the Word of God. You were suggesting that the Bible is too sketchy and needs to be filled in, and to me that shows the need, God willing, for a restoration of the Holy Apostleship and the inspiration, the correct understanding of the Scripture we have, and the additional Scripture that comes with that holy calling.
>> Mormon view on the Trinity is clearly different from Orthodox Christian doctrine, but you already knew that.
Now, should I let you have the phrase "Orthodox Christian" to define as you wish? Would the Eastern or Greek or Russian Orthodox be happy with that? Having true and living apostles of Jesus Christ at the head of the Church makes us the orthodox Christians, obviously!
Refute ... that is a debate word. In one post I was going to the Bible for information on the nature of God (rather than to creeds or early fathers) and pointing out that homoousion, one Being or substance, is not taught there, quite the opposite. In the other post I was picking up on your view of the importance of authority from God, and adding a big Amen, talking about our teaching, and Bible teaching, about authority from God, its vital importance, and the blessings that come from having it on the earth in our day. Of course, those who do not receive it cannot be benefitted by it.
I put up passages that outline on both old an new testament as to the nature of the trinity. It seems clear to me that from the earliest of times, Christians have taught that God is one in three divine persons. There are plenty of quotes and references to back this assertion up.
I do suggest we stick to the Word of God. You were suggesting that the Bible is too sketchy and needs to be filled in, and to me that shows the need, God willing, for a restoration of the Holy Apostleship and the inspiration, the correct understanding of the Scripture we have, and the additional Scripture that comes with that holy calling.
No, I am suggesting that the bible is not a treatise for outlining doctrine. While there are many passages that outline the essence of the Trinity, I think it is equally important to read what the first Christians taught and promulgated. They, after all, knew Christ and followed him as disciples. Their teachings carry a lot of weight with me as do the passages in the bible that have been outlined.
If you think you must get away from the Word of God, and the prophets and apostles through which it came, to find the doctrine of Christ, you are in trouble almost immediately, in my view, beginning with the incorrect idea that apostles and prophets are forever in the past and that the scriptural canon is forever closed.
And how in the world do you know that the Catholic bishops and religious included the right books and letters? After all, you are taking Rome's authority when you use a bible. There were many other writing that weren't included and even the apocalypse was heavily debated. Many thought it didn't belong in the bible.
So you are stuck relying on revelation from John Smith who negated 1900 years of previous doctrine on the trinity.
Let's not include the apostles in that debate.
>> And you can't get away from the fact that they promulgated doctrine before they put together the bible.
Uninspired speculation is a natural human tendency, yes, which some in later generations will call doctrine, others heresy.
>> And how in the world do you know that the Catholic bishops and religious included the right books and letters?
You find that out when God sends another apostle to the earth.
LDS Articles of Faith 8-9
8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
9 We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.
>> After all, you are taking Rome's authority when you use a bible.
The Eastern Orthodox churches may quibble with you just a bit on that. I am not sure you really want to put it quite that way either. After all, the compiler of a volume of English Literature doesn't become the author of the contents.
>> There were many other writing that weren't included and even the apocalypse was heavily debated. Many thought it didn't belong in the bible.
What to include in the canon of Scripture is not a proper subject of debate. That is evidence of a lack of authority and inspiration.
When you have inspired apostles and prophets upon the earth, as in the days of Peter, James, and John, and as in our day, the Lord tells them what He wants in the canon of Scripture, and He directs them to lay that before the Church so they can accept it as binding upon them, in matters of faith and doctrine, as the Word of God.
I believe the only book of the King James Bible that Joseph Smith said was uninspired, and thus included by mistake, is the Song of Solomon (Song of Songs). Read it again and you will see why. As for the apocrypha, some of which you guys include in the canon:
LDS Doctrine and Covenants 91:1-6
1 VERILY, thus saith the Lord unto you concerning the Apocrypha—There are many things contained therein that are true, and it is mostly translated correctly;
2 There are many things contained therein that are not true, which are interpolations by the hands of men.
3 Verily, I say unto you, that it is not needful that the Apocrypha should be translated.
4 Therefore, whoso readeth it, let him understand, for the Spirit manifesteth truth;
5 And whoso is enlightened by the Spirit shall obtain benefit therefrom;
6 And whoso receiveth not by the Spirit, cannot be benefited. Therefore it is not needful that it should be translated. Amen.
LDS Bible Dictionary: Apocrypha
>> So you are stuck relying on revelation from John Smith who negated 1900 years of previous doctrine on the trinity.
His name is Joseph Smith. Having a proper understanding of what the Word of God says on such an important subject is worth far more than nineteen thousand years of the doctrines and speculations of men.
Why, then, is the Song of Songs included in LDS scriptures?
I can imagine Joseph, Emma and the other wives reading it responsively...
1:5 I am black, but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon.
1:6 Look not upon me, because I am black, because the sun hath looked upon me: my mother’s children were angry with me; they made me the keeper of the vineyards; but mine own vineyard have I not kept.
The question not only is why the LDS keep in their bible, but also why he doesn't think it is inspired. He didn't seem to have any problem with the content in daily use.
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.