Posted on 08/12/2002 7:24:31 PM PDT by restornu
Fine.
Then prove for me using scripture alone that there is one God in Three Persons, each Person wholly and entirely God, all co-equal, co-eternal, and possessing the divine nature totally unto Himself, the Godhead having but one divine intellect and one divine will.
This modern orthodox Christian understanding of the Trinity comes from the doctrinal definitions of the RCC, not the clear sense of sola scriptura, yet you accept it and embrace it.
Without the Tradition of the Church of Rome handing down this orthodox teaching of Christianity, you would have no clear understanding of this doctrine, and the LDS understanding would be just as valid as your own.
Why is the LDS understanding wrong?
Not because it is refuted by scripture. Frankly it is not clearly refuted by scripture.
It is wrong because it is refuted by the orthodox Tradition of the RCC.
I've read portions of the Book of Mormon, but certainly no large percentage of it. Much of what I've read was in the context of excerpts in "Kingdom of The Cults" (Which I'm sure you are familiar with) as well as evangelical and Catholic tracts and books countering LDS claims.
You are misunderstanding my primary point.
I'm saying that the LDS denial of the Trinity as we understand it can be defended from scripture. I'm not saying their doctrines they put in place of the Trinity can in any way be defended.
All I'm saying is that the modern orthodox Christian understanding of the Trinity, i.e., one God in Three Persons, each Person wholly and entirely God, all co-equal, co-eternal, and possessing the divine nature totally unto Himself, the Godhead having but one divine intellect and one divine will, is not so much an understanding that can be arrived at by scripture reading as much as an understanding delivered to us by Tradition for which supporting scriptural proof texts can be offered.
As such, I'm saying that 1)based on sola scriptura alone, and 2) rejecting the Tradition of the RCC,
the modern orthodox Christian understanding might be arrived at,
but just as likely, the LDS rejection of one God in Three Persons, each Person wholly and entirely God, all co-equal, co-eternal, and possessing the divine nature totally unto Himself, the Godhead having but one divine intellect and one divine will,
could just as easily be arrived at, as the Arians did.
...regardless of whatever nonsense apostate groups advance in place of the Trinity.
A bit harsh. I hope you now understand the distinction I was trying to make, and how far afield this jab was compared to where I was heading.
I don't have all the answers to the pass accept I do know some where between 33AD - 325 AD that there was a genocide on the Christians and much of the written word of God was destroyed. and here in 2002 all we have left for over 5000 years plus of the Lord Word is 66 books that were selected to be canonized and by who authority? I have always looked at it as Political Clergy and no one knows it they had an agenda.
But if we our a student of history who have read and witness even today the dismantleing of our own Constitution, and many are taking our Founding Fathers Words and spinning them for their own benefits.
The Dead Sea Scroll were found in 1947 and it is 2002 AD and all we have gotten is bites and pieces. For some reason the complete work is being held back.
I am looking forward to exchanging ideas and learn more of the Early Church history. Its like there is one sanitized version or simular even on the net.
I am afraid in America we are behind Europe in this area because of thier knowledge of languages and access to antiques, and the sad part is that many, most likely don't care about the search for truth!
Yes, there was persecution of Christians by pagans.
Yes, all Divine Revelation stopped with the death of the last apostle.
No, much of the written Word of God was not destroyed. Such would make for a laughable, weak, impotent God, not the awesome God I serve.
No, the Church did not fall into apostacy with the death of the last Apostle. If it did, Christ was a liar.
The Church has never taught error in matters of faith and morals. Christ promised it wouldn't.
You can't have it both ways. Either the Church is Christ's body, which He protects from error, or it is not. If the Church fell into error, Christ lied when He said, "I will be with you always," and "what you hold bound on earth will be held bound in Heaven," and (most importantly) "The gates of Hell shall never prevail against you."
The LDS position is untenable. You can't have it both ways. Either the Church is Christ's body, which He protects from error, or it is not. If the Church fell into error, Christ lied. If you believe Christ lied and Rome introduced error, then your entire Christian belief system is schizophrenic. You should be an agnostic or an atheist if you honestly believe Christ allowed His own Church, which He instituted and promised to protect, to fall into error.
The Church is the Body of Christ, with Him as its Head. If the Body is sick (in error) the Head (Christ) is sick. If you ever succeed in convincing me the Body fell into sickness, you will make of me an atheist.
Its either Rome (or Orthodoxy) or nothing. The LDS is not an option for an honest Christian.
Poly #28: A bit harsh.
Drj: Not really, in context. You repeatedly attempted to associate Protestantism with Mormonism...
Example... (post #9): ***Based on Sola Scriptura, restornu's religion regarding the Trinity is correct:*** (SEE ALSO POSTS: 7, 12, 13, 18, 21)
... despite my repeated attempts to tell you that Mormons hold to neither the Trinity or sola scriptura and therefore the comparison was silly.
I called your hand (i.e. that you have not read enough LDS material to speak with any authority). You verified this finally in post #27:
I've read portions of the Book of Mormon, but certainly no large percentage of it. Much of what I've read was in the context of excerpts in "Kingdom of The Cults" (Which I'm sure you are familiar with) as well as evangelical and Catholic tracts and books countering LDS claims.
I did this because it was obvious that you had little if any knowledge of what Mormons actually believe on either subject (sola Scriptura and the Trinity) and obviously had not read their unique "scriptures." -- An apparent ploy to discredit Protestants by claiming that their views are like or similar to Mormonism. That was and is silly and lacks credibility.
-=-=-=
Now that the LDS guilt by association ruse has been exposed. Let me answer your argument in substance minus the bogeyman.
Protestants, who believe sola biblia sancta [sola scriptura], have always embraced any confession of faith or theological writing which accurately presents biblical truth and guards against error. We embrace Trinitarianism (for example) because it accurately reflects biblical truth already revealed and shields against those who distort the truth (ex. Arians and Mormons).
The same is true of the Lutheran/Melancthonian formulation regarding the doctrine of justification by faith or BB Warfield's explanation of the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy.
This is not embracing the authority of the authors of these creeds or writings, nor an acknowledgement that any individual(s) or convocation is infallible in all pronouncements. It is honoring the Scriptures (the Bible) as authoritative. Acts 17:11.
Your fixation on Holy Church clouds your ability to grasp our position of sola scriptura despite our multiple attempts to explain a fairly simple concept to you.
Excelent point and unacknowledged by protestants in this and other cases. They read the Bible with an established template of truth originally hammered-out and codified by the Catholic Church guided by the Holy Spirit - and usually in response to heresies begun, in good faith, against the Apostolic Traditions
The "mind of a clam." LOL Polycarp's mind isn't closed. It is open to truth but it rejects error. One's mind ought to be treated like one's mouth. Do you eat and swallow poison? Don't entertain and embrace the sulphourous and poisonous lies that oppose common sense, logic, Traditon, auhthority and scripture.
You may consider me a clam also :)
Hey, don't blame Polycarp. He is but a clam :)
Seriously, sola scriptura has changed over the years. Who first formulated it and do you have a link to its original written explanation so we can read it oursleves? I have seen countless different explanations and it seems to me that if it IS a standard, there ought to be one agreed upon definition and it ought to be the definition of the original Sola Scripturalist.
| Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. --John 17:17 |
Suitable for Framing!
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.