The Real Trinity

I am here to debate the scriptural validity of doctrine, not people.

Well, enjoy yourself. But do please understand that there might be folks here for some other reason or reasons. And it may help you to know that it SEEMS that you are here to triumph in a debate, and that the desire for triumph and the frustration that some interlocutors might not want to play your game exactly your way tempts you to provocative misconstructions of what those who disagree with you are saying.

If someone wants to defend the Trinity from scripture, but they don't hold scripture to be the final arbiter of doctrine, then what's the point?

I'm assuming that by "The Trinity" you mean "the doctrine of the Trinity". The Trinity itself needs no defense.

The purpose of that smart-alecky comment is to convey that in discussions of this kind, precision of language, an avoidance of extravagant claims, and a willingness to seek for nuance and the occasional tertium quid will cover a multitude of sins.

For example, the phrase "final arbiter of doctrine" may be about as applicable to the Catholic understanding of role of Scripture as "love" may be to the way I related to my teenager, when I had one -- that is, it's not as simple as it may first appear or as you might like it to be or wish it were.

Will you go back to Polygamy too?

Are you kidding? One wife is enough!

Second, he is not alone in the assertion that there is Scriptural warrant for celebrating "the Lord's Day" rather than the pre-resurrection sabbath.

This is a position contrary to the teachings and doctrinal holdings of the Catholic church. There is no scriptural warrant for any Sabbath other than the one God created in Genesis and spoke to the Hebrews in Exodus.

1Th 5:2 For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord will come just like a thief in the night.

Sunday has yet to catch me by surprise.

The trinity is also a doctrinal invention of the church at Rome. The Father and the Son are two seperate entities, if scripture is your guide.

Mat 7:21 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.

Mat 16:17 And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.

Mat 26:53 "Or do you think that I cannot appeal to My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels?

I write boldly because I have confidence in my faith and the doctrines I hold. I understand that what I do here comes with great responsibility

Jam 3:1 Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment. Jam 3:2 For we all stumble in many ways. If anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able to bridle the whole body as well.

I also readily admit that I do not have all the answers. If someone can show me irrefutable scripture that I should believe God is really some sort of Janus with 3 heads, then I will take the correction. If someone can show me the scripture relocates the Sabbath to the Day of the Sun, then I will take the correction.

Deu 4:19 "And beware not to lift up your eyes to heaven and see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven, and be drawn away and worship them and serve them, those which the LORD your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven.

Repetition is not an argument.You are merely demonstrating what I said about your approach. You insist that your misunderstanding is correct and then attribute it to your interlocutor and then tell him he's wrong.

It is quite entirely possible the the phrase "The Lord's Day" might mean different things in different contexts, in which case your citation is nonsense

A Cardinal's saying something does not make it de fide, consequently your characterizaton of what I said is incorrect.

If you think you're going to suck me into playing your game, think again. You're just showing yourself more interested in looking like you've won some logomachy than in learning anything.

You need a hobby.

I must mean a lot to you for you to devote so much of your time to correcting me. Can you feel the love in here?

Read the last sentence of my #180.<p.Yes, the abuse of discourse to dominate others troubles me greatly.

Yet your screen name is "Mad Dawg". If the thread bugs you, why don't you quit pinging me? You wouldn't be trying to win or anything, would you? Seriousy, if your posts to me get any more personal, I might start to thinking you are flirting with me. As a matter of fact, if you don't want to discuss doctrine or scripture or some other issue, I would apreciate it if you would stop pinging me. Leave the character flaw illumination to my wife.

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

I withdraw the "you need a hobby" with an apology. I am not aware of anything else being personal.

I characterized your approach to what you call "Debate". You made plenty of invidious characterizations about Campion and others and showed no interest that I could see in trying to understand their point of view.

Then you addressed several remarks to me. I responded to them. Then you tell me not to ping you. If you don't want answers, I would suggest the easiest way to avoid them would be to quit asking. If you don't want me to respond to you, why do you address posts to me?

None of these statements is about you. I have not mentioned your character and I know nothing about your character. On the other hand you characterized the starter of this thread as a troll. The rules on legitimate criticism of argumentative rhetoric and personal characterizations seem fluid.

The problem in the discussion is that, as it appears, you want there to be one clear authority of teaching from which teaching can be derived in a manner analogous from that in which the theorems of geometry are derived from the axiomata and postulates. When you don't get that, you characterize the response as evasive or ungraspable.

An example of the problem would be implication that since in some places "The Day of the Lord" means the last day, that it must mean so in every place, as though "Day of the Lord" were a defined geometrical term and the Bible were an geometry text in which terms always had the same defined meaning.

Similarly, the simple assertion that Sunday worship is not Scriptural depends, as another Catholic poster suggested, on a particular approach to Scripture and doctrine AND a particular understanding of the relationship between Scripture and the early Fathers, and between Scripture and Tradition -- and "Tradition" itself is a word we use differently. For me, Scripture itself is a tradition -- a thing handed down. So if someone wants to insist that Catholics argue from Scripture in that way, many will tend to balk because they think that have good reasons to use Scripture and to think of its authority in a quite different way. In fact it is to assume that there is agreement at one level, when there is disagreement at that level.

So when you say we are evasive, it seems to us -- it gives the appearance -- that you don't really want to understand what we think, you just want to prove it wrong, whatever it is, and to win at the argument.

I'm not even sure that dialog is something you want. If it were, then I would say that you probably wouldn't find interlocutors by insulting them. Where I went to college, we were advised that whenever we felt like saying, "That's the stupidest thing I ever heard!" we should perhaps say,"I don't understand what you're saying." AS it is, you seem to be swinging your sword and sounding your trumpet two or three fields over from where I am, and I don't know how to engage with you in a useful way. All I know is that you are swinging this sword around, hitting no one, yelling that we aren't fighting fair ... and I'm afraid somebody's' going to get hurt.

That's the best I can do. If that's an illegitimate personal remark, well then I'm done. It's certainly not intended as such.

The problem in the discussion is that, as it appears, you want there to be one clear authority of teaching from which teaching can be derived in a manner analogous from that in which the theorems of geometry are derived from the axiomata and postulates. When you don't get that, you characterize the response as evasive or ungraspable.

Thanks for telling me what I want. Now, here is what the Bible says:

Deu 13:1 "If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, Deu 13:2 and the sign or the wonder comes true, concerning which he spoke to you, saying, 'Let us go after other gods (whom you have not known) and let us serve them,' Deu 13:3 you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God is testing you to find out if you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Deu 13:4 "You shall follow the LORD your God and fear Him; and you shall keep His commandments, listen to His voice, serve Him, and cling to Him. Deu 13:5 "But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has counseled rebellion against the LORD your God who brought you from the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of slavery, to seduce you from the way in which the LORD your God commanded you to walk. So you shall purge the evil from among you.

Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn.

Act 17:11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.

2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

As it turns out, there is one clear authority on matters of doctrine, well if scripture is your guide.

An example of the problem would be implication that since in some places "The Day of the Lord" means the last day, that it must mean so in every place, as though "Day of the Lord" were a defined geometrical term and the Bible were an geometry text in which terms always had the same defined meaning.

Take it up with the Cardinal:

"You may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify." Cardinal Gibbons (for many years head of the Catholic Church in America), The Faith of Our Fathers (92d ed., rev.; Baltimore: John Murphy Company), p.89.

So when you say we are evasive, it seems to us -- it gives the appearance -- that you don't really want to understand what we think, you just want to prove it wrong, whatever it is, and to win at the argument.

What do I owe you for the therapy?

Parting shot:Thanks for telling me what I want.

If you will take the trouble to read what I wrote you will find:

The problem in the discussion is that, as it appears, you want there to be one clear authority of teaching... [emphasis added]

The rest of your post shows the same problem. You could have this conversation all by yourself and it would be a lot less work for the rest of us. Let me help: You're right. I'm wrong. Enjoy it.

Get back to me when you really want to know what Catholics think.

Sunday has yet to catch me by surprise.

I'm going to remember that one!

The phrase “the day of the Lord” is used nineteen times in the Old Testament (Isaiah. 2:12; 13:6: 13:9; Ezekiel 13:5; 30:3; Joel 1:15; 2:1; 2:11; 2:31; 3:14; Amos 5:18 [2 times], Amos 5:20; Obadiah. 15; Zephaniah. 1:7; 1:14 [2 times]; Zechariah 14:1; Malachi. 4:5) and four times in the New Testament (Acts 2:20; 2 Thessalonians 2:2; 2 Peter 3:10). It is also alluded to in other passages (Rev. 6:17; 16:14). These scriptures are usually showing events taking place at the end of history.

The phrase "The Lord's Day" is used only one time in [Revelation 1:10] and John is not sitting at the beach on Patmos some Sunday morning writing this phrase. He has been brought forward in time "in the Spirit"[Revelation 4:2] to the Great and Terrible Day of the Lord.

The Roman Church has attempted to use this single phrase to somehow justify their doctrinal error of ignoring the Sabbath. They cannot find a scripture that will show a Sunday resurrection to fit their theology so they attempt to manufacture things of this nature to somehow show a Sunday connection.

It is so amazing to me that they go to these lengths in attempting to justify the sanction of a heathen day of worship over that of The Lord.

You're right. I'm wrong. Enjoy it.

Get back to me when you really want to know what Catholics think.

Having been Catholic, I am not sure how to respond. I will try to articulate my confusion. The basis of the church at Rome is that through apostolic succession from Matthew 16:18-19, the church is now the final arbiter of all things on earth, and apparently heaven. If my studies had shown me that this is indeed true, and I was still Catholic, then I would be shouting it from the rooftops. You see, the members of my family who are still Catholic completely agree with the statements that I have posted here from Cardinal Gibbons and company. I happen to agree with the statements, too. So, in conclusion, I don't understand why Catholics would even have an academic discussion regarding the scriptural basis for any point of doctrine, since the doctrine supercedes the scripture based on the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19. A more appropriately titled thread, IMHO, would be "Let us see how the church outlines how "One God in three persons" was revealed to it through the church fathers".

Short answer: having been Cathlic and having been around Catholics is no guarantee that you know what the Catholic Church teaches. (Or that I know what the Catholic Church teaches.) Longer picky answer:
Matt 16:18f is not the only source for the thinking that the Church has the gift of the Holy Spirit and is in many respects reliable. There's what the word apostolos means, there's the Resurrection appearance in John, as SOME (not all ) examples of other places one could in, good will and using one's pious wits directed toward obedience to God, reach the opinion that the Church has some pretty awesome authority.

The reason for having "even an academic discussion regarding the Scriptural basis etc." is that, as has been said more than once on this thread, doctrine arises not from any creature or any kind but through the Scriptures AND the magisterium and is conveyed through traditions, among which the Scriptures are chief.

I meant what I said about how Doctrine is not derived from Any one source of undefined temrs, axiomata and postulates. It's not that kind of thing. It's kind of like what Aristotle says (or, rather, implies) early in the Nichomachean ethics about different sorts of subject matter get different sorts of argument. Consequently I am not prepared to agree, and I don't think the Church is prepared to agree, with the proposition that doctrine supcercedes Scripture.

I don't know what it means that my Spanish version of the Catechism was in my ammunition bag. But what it says is that the Scriptures are the word of God and that they and tradition interpenetrate one another. That is different from supercession.

When I, personally, think that Scriptures alone (Oh, the guys that crucified the Lord probably spoke Greek, by the way) are not the whole deal, it makes me nervous. On the other hand, I have seen plenty of Scripture Alone types disagree adamantly with one another, so I guess I'd end up just as nervous in any case. But what the whole thing comes down to for me is that at every monent I have to place my hpe and trust in God's continuing direction not only of me personally, but of the Church, so that, tug at the leash as she does, she will never stop being reliable. "In a certain way" (waffle words beloved of Catholics) I don't so much trust the Church, as I trust that God will act and teach and all the rest through her.

Consequently, I do not see that we think that Scripture is superceded by dogma. And I do not, in my own life, find that believing the incomprehensible mess that the church is (on another thread I compared it to an avalanche - and the Catholics there approved the metaphor) means I place my trust so much in IT (or her, or whatever) as in God.

So, if you base your approach to the question on the idea that the Catholics think that Scripture is superceded, I think a lot of Catholics won't be able to find the necessary agreed upon principles or shared ground upon which to build a dialog. Wed have to go back further to trusting in the mercy of God.

I thought the thread was about what the Doctrine was, not about where it came from or whether it was any good. So I didn't have much problem with the title.

Thanks for so clearly phrasing your view of the question. I hope my response is, uh, responsive.

I invite (implore) other Catholics to tell me how inadequate (and in what particular way the inadequacy is manifested) my account of this aspect of Catholicism is.

Short answer: having been Cathlic and having been around Catholics is no guarantee that you know what the Catholic Church teaches. (Or that I know what the Catholic Church teaches.)

Which is why I refer to Cardinal Gibbons and his colleagues for clarification when I could find no justification for Sunday worship in the Bible.

The reason for having "even an academic discussion regarding the Scriptural basis etc." is that, as has been said more than once on this thread, doctrine arises not from any creature or any kind but through the Scriptures AND the magisterium and is conveyed through traditions, among which the Scriptures are chief.

Yes, the true Catholic view is that the scriptures are a tradition handed down by the church, the church coming before the scriptures. I thought I said this already.... a few times.

I meant what I said about how Doctrine is not derived from Any one source of undefined temrs, axiomata and postulates. It's not that kind of thing. It's kind of like what Aristotle says (or, rather, implies) early in the Nichomachean ethics about different sorts of subject matter get different sorts of argument. Consequently I am not prepared to agree, and I don't think the Church is prepared to agree, with the proposition that doctrine supcercedes Scripture.

What's the deal with all that exclusionary language? Common men need not apply?

If doctrine does not supercede scripture, then show me the scripture for Sunday worship, Christmas, Easter, Mary worship, the trinity, et. al.

I don't know what it means that my Spanish version of the Catechism was in my ammunition bag.

tal vez, estaba haciendo "canonized" :)

Consequently, I do not see that we think that Scripture is superceded by dogma. And I do not, in my own life, find that believing the incomprehensible mess that the church is (on another thread I compared it to an avalanche - and the Catholics there approved the metaphor) means I place my trust so much in IT (or her, or whatever) as in God.

My faith is quite tidy and easy to comprehend. If I had made such a comment, I would be getting lambasted. Maybe that was the point of this thread. Hmmmm.

So, if you base your approach to the question on the idea that the Catholics think that Scripture is superceded, I think a lot of Catholics won't be able to find the necessary agreed upon principles or shared ground upon which to build a dialog. Wed have to go back further to trusting in the mercy of God.

Most Catholics have no clue what their religion is all about. God is not merciful to willful disobedience, so many live happily and purposefully in blissful ignorance and delegate their salvation to the clergy.

I thought the thread was about what the Doctrine was, not about where it came from or whether it was any good. So I didn't have much problem with the title.

Well, we'll never know what the thread was supposed to be about since the troll who posted it is nowhere to be found. Hack, the mods even removed the thread from the troll's home page.

I invite (implore) other Catholics to tell me how inadequate (and in what particular way the inadequacy is manifested) my account of this aspect of Catholicism is.

Let's see if we can get this "Puppy" (no pun intended) to 200!

Happy Thanksgiving to you both....and to God, be all the glory!

You say your faith is tidy and easy to comprehend.

I do not understand or comprehend human beings, and they are anything but tidy. I place my trust in Christ and in the saving work of Christ who is a man and more than a man, and therefore messy and incomprehensible. Regular people are incomprehensible. How much more the incarnate Son of God!

How can there be any disagreement about the sequence in time of the Church and the Scriptures? There are writings. Somebody wrote them. The Church recognized, over a period of time, that these writings were special. Do you have an alternative history in which the Bible precedes the people who wrote the books, read them, gathered them, and set the collection apart? I don't see that that means the Scriptures are superceded. And I don't see that Sunday worship means the Scriptures are superceded. Once you have Pentecost and the Apostolic Conference saying "It seems good to us and to the Holy Spirit" then the top is blown off a lot of things, and you can count on its being a heck of a ride from here on out.

To the best of my recollection what you said was that RCs said we "created" the Scriptures. That's different.

And if you are going to insist that Catholics "worship" Mary then you are a victim of a lie. I don't see how you could make such comments and then complain about being handled roughly.

I don't get the remark about exclusionary language.

Most Catholics have no clue what their religion is all about. God is not merciful to willful disobedience, so many live happily and purposefully in blissful ignorance and delegate their salvation to the clergy.Yep and a WHOLE Lot of Protestants don't know what Catholicism is about either, but they are so sure that they DO know that they simply can't learn what we do teach. They don't want to know, they want to tell us instead.

Threads I've started don't appear on my home page, so I don't see what policymaker's home page has to do with whether or not he is a troll. In any event, the question is interesting, IMHO. I think the best way to see what the thread was about is to read the initial post. I did so. It was a question about the doctrine of the Trinity.

Happy Thanksgiving to you guys, too.

THis ought to push 'er over the top: THere is NO truth whatsoever to the rumor that the Doctrine of the Trinity has ANYTHING to do with Tinkers to Evers to Chance. Triple Play? MAYBE, Chicago CUBS? NEVER!

May the Loving God protect us from the consequences of a possibly over-enthusiastic celebration of gratitude for all his gifts.

(I see that a fellow named DeJesus was involved in a triple play in the season immediately concluded. Coincidence? YOU decide .... [cue dramatic music ...])