tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post3458028594539081797..comments2024-03-21T10:33:24.876-07:00Comments on Articuli Fidei: The Trinity and the Development of DoctrineDavid Waltzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comBlogger53125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-80756678689711482832021-12-06T15:56:08.724-08:002021-12-06T15:56:08.724-08:00No worries, Andreis. Take care.No worries, Andreis. Take care.Roryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04636193337129338354noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-68539943697853907242021-12-06T08:12:19.979-08:002021-12-06T08:12:19.979-08:00Hi Rory
I am sorry about the tone of my previous c...Hi Rory<br />I am sorry about the tone of my previous comment.<br />Please delete it.Andrieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10046713548446259445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-45958619885154036192021-12-05T23:26:33.051-08:002021-12-05T23:26:33.051-08:00Hi Rory
You say: "I am not deducing the natur...Hi Rory<br />You say: "I am not deducing the nature of the eternal God from analogies with created beings. I am deducing that the Father and Son are "of the same kind", else there is no sense in revealing Themselves as Father and Son." <br />You contradict yourself. With that kind of logic, I am afraid, I cannot deal.<br />Good luck!Andrieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10046713548446259445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-69458107705137325282021-12-05T13:27:53.122-08:002021-12-05T13:27:53.122-08:00Andries
You also use the analogy of a human parent...<b>Andries</b><br />You also use the analogy of a human parent and child, but I would submit to you that that argument is invalid. We cannot derive arguments about the nature of the eternal God from analogies with created beings.<br /><br /><b>Rory</b><br />But I am not deducing <i>the nature</i> of the eternal God from analogies with created beings. I am deducing that the Father and Son are "of the same kind", else there is no sense in revealing Themselves as Father and Son. It would be misleading to modern and ancient minds who are only familiar with created fatherhood. It is unknown to us that a naturally begotten Son would be an inferior being. As though a lion should be parent to a rabbit. It is a confused revelation if Jesus is of a different kind of being than His Father.<br /><br />And that created fatherhood is analogous to and follows the pattern of divine fatherhood, we learn from the Catholic Douay-Rheims translation of Ep. 3:14, 15:<br /><br /><i>"For this cause I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, <b>Of whom all paternity in heaven and earth is named...</b></i><br /><br />It appears to me from this, that a plausible argument could be made that we might expect analogous understandings between created and uncreated paternity.<br /><br />All my best Andries. The work week is upon me. I suppose it is Monday for you already. I don't post much during the week, although we do have a feast day on Wednesday of this week, The Feast of the Immaculate Conception, a paid holiday. I would be interested in your thoughts and appreciate your consideration of mine. <br /><br />If it happens that we never correspond again here below, I hope we might meet in a happy eternity. I don't mind if you pray for me, that I make it. I end this post with a prayer for a sincere seeker for God's revealed truth, who comes from "the most beautiful continent"! God bless. <br /><br />RoryRoryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04636193337129338354noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-81009022286240756642021-12-05T13:26:24.367-08:002021-12-05T13:26:24.367-08:00Andries, greeting from the best hemisphere to the ...Andries, greeting from the best hemisphere to the most beautiful continent. How blessed are we?<br /><br /><b>Andries</b><br />My problem is that ontological equality, which the Bible knows and says nothing about, is elevated to the position of extreme importance while subordination, which the Bible is clear and consistent about, is relegated to the level of words without meaning.<br /><br /><b>Rory</b><br />"Level of words without meaning?" Subordinationism is pregnant with meaning. Jesus is encouraged by His disciples to take some food. He replies that He has "meat" to eat that they do not understand yet. Finally He straightforwardly says: <br /><br /><i>"My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, that I may perfect his work."</i> (John 4:34)<br /><br />Here is the lesson, and it is wonderful and grand. If the natural begotten Son of God's very sustenance is to do His Father's will, how much more so for the adopted sons and daughters of Jesus' Father? It would be outrageous if the natural begotten Son, who is ontologically equal to the Father, should be entirely submissive, while at the same time the adopted children of God, whose created status can never be changed, but who are deified by partaking of the divine nature, should be disobedient. <br /><br />Now you also said that the Scripture says nothing about ontological equality. Neither does it mention "ontological inequality". Neither expression is in Scripture, but both ideas are.<br /><br /><i>"Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man. He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross."</i> (Phil. 2:6-8)<br /><br />In these three verses we see Jesus in the form of God, and equal with God. We also see the form of a servant, and the habit of a man. The Catholic would say that the Son is consubstantial with the Father as to His divinity, and consubstantial with us as to His humanity. Not word for word, but defined at the Council of Chalcedon in the middle of the 5th Century. But it terribly important to see that the Son is obedient, not because of inferiority, not simply because He became man. No one made Jesus become man. He who thought it not robbery to be equal with God, "emptied Himself". His will was not His own, but His Father's, that He might glorify His Father, from whom He received His Being.<br /><br />I fail to see your problem: that subordination is reduced to "a level of words without meaning", much less that ontological equality is incompatible with subordination. BOTH are wonderfully true. There is no need to choose one and reject the other. They are both revelations that must be reconciled.<br /><br />RoryRoryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04636193337129338354noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-51078108650857438472021-12-04T22:26:16.879-08:002021-12-04T22:26:16.879-08:00Hi Rory
Thanks for responding to a late comment f...Hi Rory<br /><br />Thanks for responding to a late comment from Africa.<br /><br />My problem is that ontological equality, which the Bible knows and says nothing about, is elevated to the position of extreme importance while subordination, which the Bible is clear and consistent about, is relegated to the level of words without meaning.<br /><br />You also use the analogy of a human parent and child, but I would submit to you that that argument is invalid. We cannot derive arguments about the nature of the eternal God from analogies with created beings.<br /><br />Greetings from the most beautiful continent!<br />Andrieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10046713548446259445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-84099073541958959792021-12-04T11:04:46.008-08:002021-12-04T11:04:46.008-08:00How great to have such an old thread be revisited,...How great to have such an old thread be revisited, and by a newcomer from South Africa. Hello, Andries. <br /><br />I am so busy. But I simply have to respond to one thing you said above (so I can beat Dave to it!):<br /><br /><b>Andries</b><br />My problem is that the Trinity doctrine CONTRADICTS the Bible. For example the "one God" passages where God is defined (e.g. 1 Cor 8:6). To say that the Son is of the same substance as the Father, is development, for it says more than what the Bible says. <i>But to say that they are one substance (numerical identity) is CONTRARY to the Bible for the Bible clearly teaching (in my arrogant opinion) that the Son is subordinate to the Father.</i><br /><br /><b>Rory</b><br />The beauty of the subordination of the Son to the Father, is that He that thought it not robbery to be equal with God (ontology), became a servant. Why? The subordination that Christ gives to His Father is not because of ontological inferiority, but because of their relationship. <br /><br />I am Roman Catholic. One of my favorite Gospel passages is read every year in our Church on the Feast of Pentecost. From St. John: "The Father is greater than I."<br /><br />Indeed He is greater than the Son who is subordinate and rightly so, aside from the fact that the Father and Son are ontologically equal. Jesus does not obey because the Father is mightier. He obeys because it is fitting, and because of the mutual love they have with each other. It is just, and fitting, and beautiful that a son reverence a father, even if the "son"...is God.<br /><br />What kind of father has natural children that are unequal in their natures to their fathers? No animal has offspring that are not "after their kind". Likewise in the Godhead. The solution to Christ's subordination needs to be found elsewhere than by making the so-called son into a different kind of being than a so-called father.<br /><br />Regards from the best hemisphere!<br /><br />Rory McKenzie, St. Mary's, Kansas, USARoryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04636193337129338354noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-39539486501098657092021-11-28T18:01:01.355-08:002021-11-28T18:01:01.355-08:00Hi Andries,
Thanks much for the link to Hanson...Hi Andries,<br /><br />Thanks much for the link to Hanson's 1981 lecture. Just moments ago, I posted a new thread at AF to bring the link to the attention of AF readers.<br /><br />Had a very busy weekend, so I was not able to check/read any other posts at your interesting website; will try to do so Tuesday.<br /><br /><br />Grace and peace,<br /><br />DavidDavid Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-66187572460657048012021-11-27T20:08:10.737-08:002021-11-27T20:08:10.737-08:00Hi David,
Thanks for responding.
I agree with you...Hi David,<br />Thanks for responding.<br /><br />I agree with your view of God and Christ, except that I do not regard that to be a Trinity doctrine. I would call that a Unitarian view. On my personal blog, I analyze the 325 Nicene Creed, and by reading homoousion as qualitative sameness, I conclude that that creed is consistent with the view that we share. For that reason, I am very grateful for your quotes of people with the same view of homoousion. <br /><br />I am also now analyzing and preparing a summary of a 1981 lecture by RPC Hanson which confirms what you say about the pre-Nicene fathers (the Alopogists). I came across your website by searching for material on RPC Hanson. See https://revelationbyjesuschrist.com/hanson/ for his lecture.<br /><br />I am trying to edit Wikipedia and put questions and answers on Stackexchange to reflect what I believe to be the truth, but since I am not singing in the choir, my views are met with a fair amount of hostility.<br /><br />I started this study of Christology (rather than the Trinity) years ago by listening to the excellent TRINITIES podcast of Dale Tuggy, though his views are very different from mine.<br />Regards<br />Andries van Niekerk, Stellenbosch, South AfricaAndrieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10046713548446259445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-63583859906651177202021-11-27T11:50:48.702-08:002021-11-27T11:50:48.702-08:00Thanks for taking the time to comment; you wrote:
...Thanks for taking the time to comment; you wrote:<br /><br />==Your conclusion, however, is that the Trinity doctrine is based on development. My problem is that the Trinity doctrine CONTRADICTS the Bible. For example the "one God" passages where God is defined (e.g. 1 Cor 8:6).==<br /><br />There are a number of differing types of “the Trinity doctrine”. The one I lean towards does not contradict the Bible. I affirm that the “one God” is the Father, and only the Father. Interestingly enough, all of the Church Fathers who wrote before the Council of Constantinople in 381 acknowledged that the “one God” of the Bible was the Father. Even the Nicene Creed of 325 clearly states that the “one God" is the Father.<br /><br />I also affirm that the Father alone is <i>autotheos</i>, and that the Son of God owes his existence to the Father. I believe the Son of God is truly begotten of/by the Father, and not “made” or created from nothing; as such, the Son is truly 'God' from the "one God".<br /><br />Anyway, this is much more I could add, but would first like to hear from you concerning what I have already related.<br /><br /><br />Grace and peace,<br /><br />David<br />David Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-40976489343046223922021-11-26T22:59:49.603-08:002021-11-26T22:59:49.603-08:00Thanks for a wonderful series of quotes.
Your con...Thanks for a wonderful series of quotes. <br />Your conclusion, however, is that the Trinity doctrine is based on development. My problem is that the Trinity doctrine CONTRADICTS the Bible. For example the "one God" passages where God is defined (e.g. 1 Cor 8:6). To say that the Son is of the same substance as the Father, is development, for it says more than what the Bible says. But to say that they are one substance (numerical identity) is CONTRARY to the Bible for the Bible clearly teaching (in my arrogant opinion) that the Son is subordinate to the Father.Andrieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10046713548446259445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-46780326051242822972008-07-01T20:45:00.000-07:002008-07-01T20:45:00.000-07:00Dave, you'll be seeing more of me, I added your bl...Dave, you'll be seeing more of me, I added your blog to my reader. <BR/><BR/>I also featured this thread as the top post on the <A HREF="http://godfearin.blogspot.com/2008/06/patristic-carnival-xiii.html" REL="nofollow">Patristic Carnival</A> I just hosted.<BR/><BR/>As for the discussion, I think it depends as much on the word "orthodoxy" as on "Subordinationism" here. <BR/><BR/>I don't think sloppiness in language with the earliest fathers equals heterodoxy (I'm sure you will agree). For example, when certain fathers speak of the Eucharist they fall well short of Transubstantiation in the earliest centuries but I wouldn't say they denied it. St. Paul speaks of the Trinity in Scripture (or fails to) in a way that would simply be unacceptable post-Constantinople yet I think it would be almost dangerous to speak of primitive Trinitarianism as pre-Nicene orthodoxy. <BR/><BR/>I don't think I really disagree with you on this, I just don't see strong Subordinationism in other ante-Nicene writers, I just see sloppiness on the Trinity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-31948296329113501022008-06-29T06:04:00.000-07:002008-06-29T06:04:00.000-07:00Hello Tim,Just now noticed your new post in this t...Hello Tim,<BR/><BR/>Just now noticed your new post in this thread; you wrote:<BR/><BR/>>>Nice work. I fully agree with the thrust of this argument but do take a slight issue with the notion that Subordinationism could rightly be called "orthodoxy" pre-Nicaea. I have no doubt whatsoever of the father's inability to rightly speak of the Trinity before Nicaea but to say they adopted Subordinationism is a bit of a stretch in my opinion.>><BR/><BR/>Me: I suspect it depends on how one defines “Subordinationism”. Two dominate themes permeate the pre-Nicene Fathers: one, the term “the one God” is reserved for God the Father; and two, sharp contrast between the Father as the producer/begetter/creator and the Son as the one produced/begotten/created. <BR/><BR/>>>I do not have any problem labeling Tertullian & Origen as such, but beyond that, I think we would meet with difficulty. I don't think the apostle Paul could have spoken correctly about the Trinity if pressed to give precise definitions but I don't think he could be called Subordinationist, Modalist or anything else even if he were to use sloppy language like Ignatius and a few other orthodox fathers.>><BR/><BR/>Me: Once again, it probably hinges on ones definition of “Subordinationism”. How would you personally define the term?<BR/><BR/>>>At any rate, once again - wonderful discussion.>><BR/><BR/>Me: Thanks Tim; and I sincerely appreciate your participation. Hope to see more of you here at <I>AF</I>.<BR/><BR/>Grace and peace,<BR/><BR/>DavidDavid Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-26237710468715718552008-06-26T18:52:00.000-07:002008-06-26T18:52:00.000-07:00Nice work. I fully agree with the thrust of this ...Nice work. I fully agree with the thrust of this argument but do take a slight issue with the notion that Subordinationism could rightly be called "orthodoxy" pre-Nicaea. I have no doubt whatsoever of the father's inability to rightly speak of the Trinity before Nicaea but to say they adopted Subordinationism is a bit of a stretch in my opinion.<BR/><BR/>I do not have any problem labeling Tertullian & Origen as such, but beyond that, I think we would meet with difficulty. I don't think the apostle Paul could have spoken correctly about the Trinity if pressed to give precise definitions but I don't think he could be called Subordinationist, Modalist or anything else even if he were to use sloppy language like Ignatius and a few other orthodox fathers.<BR/><BR/>At any rate, once again - wonderful discussion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-89047601494048929252008-06-11T13:26:00.000-07:002008-06-11T13:26:00.000-07:00Hi Tom,After reading over your June 10, 2008 posts...Hi Tom,<BR/><BR/>After reading over your June 10, 2008 posts again, I wanted to briefly comment on a couple of items.<BR/><BR/>First, on this:<BR/><BR/>TOM:>>The BOM has been declared the work of a fool, a deceiver, a religious genius, and …. Where I not a LDS, I would see the BOM as having some satanic causes.>><BR/><BR/>Me: I have never been satisfied with any of the non-supernatural arguments that have put forth since the early 1830’s in an attempt to explain away the BOM. And yet, as one who is not LDS, I also am not comfortable with a Satanic cause, leaving me in a state of limbo on the true origin of the BOM.<BR/><BR/>And second:<BR/><BR/>Tom:>> I believe that Mormonism with post-mortal evangelization and pre-mortal existence provides a lot of fertile ground for developing religious pluralistic ideas (not to mention theodicies).With a high view of the Bible, I still think there is a oneness of the church. I see this as the focal point of salvific relationships (God), the existence of an absolute truth (truth is not all relative), the existence of a paradigm whose premises are closer to absolute truth than other churches, and the existence of a church most (more) directly lead by God who is at its head.>><BR/><BR/>Me: The Bible has fallen on hard times with many “internet” Mormons, as well as a few BYU scholars. This trend goes against a much stronger “tradition” of the CoJCoLDS’ stance on the Bible as I pointed out in this <A HREF="http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2008/01/mormonism-and-margaret-barker-part-4.html" REL="nofollow">THREAD</A>. <BR/><BR/>I find it refreshing to see you bucking the more recent trend, and embracing “a high view of the Bible”. I think you may find the following quote from Nibley an interesting one:<BR/><BR/>“Worst of all, the Book of Mormon bears such alarming resemblance to scripture that, for Meinhold, it not only undermines but threatens in a spirit of ‘nihilistic skepticism’ to discredit the Bible altogether. Since one can reject the Book of Mormon without in any way jeopardizing one’s faith in the Bible, and since no one ever can accept or ever has accepted the Book of Mormon without complete and unreserved belief in the Bible, the theory that the Book of Mormon is a fiendish attempt to undermine faith in the Bible is an argument of sheer desperation. Recently Professor Albright has noted that the Bible is first and last a historical document, and that of all the religions of the world, only Judaeo-Christianity can be said to have a completely ‘historical orientation.’” (Hugh Nibley, “The Book of Mormon True or False?”, in <I>The Prophetic Book of Mormon</I>, p. 220.)<BR/><BR/><BR/>Grace and peace,<BR/><BR/>DavidDavid Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-39705559489174901832008-06-11T13:04:00.000-07:002008-06-11T13:04:00.000-07:00Hi Kepha,Thanks for the link to the book; it sound...Hi Kepha,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the link to the book; it sounds very interesting but $99.00 ??? OUCH…<BR/><BR/>[Though I did find cheaper at B&N (<A HREF="http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?r=1&ISBSRC=Y&ISBN=9781593331948&z=y" REL="nofollow">HERE</A>)…still a bit too expensive for a beachbum with a modest book allowance and so many areas of interest.]<BR/><BR/><BR/>Found the following from the B&N site quite interesting:<BR/><BR/>“<B>In crises of the first century, the New Testament recorded (monepiscopal?) bishops and succession, and Ignatius and 1 Clement make monepiscopacy and apostolic succession explicit</B>.”<BR/><BR/>Williams position on 1 Clement is certainly a bit surprising, for I have found only a hand full of recent Catholic and Anglican patristic scholars arguing for the monoepiscopate in Rome during the time of Clement. Does Williams discuss this at length in his book?<BR/><BR/><BR/>Grace and peace,<BR/><BR/>DavidDavid Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-45791187450625891782008-06-11T00:02:00.000-07:002008-06-11T00:02:00.000-07:00>>As for God being able to use fallible men to tea...>>As for God being able to use fallible men to teach infallible truths, I think you know where I stand on this [wink].<BR/><BR/>Yes, I think I do. :) <BR/><BR/>But then, I don't buy it. You'll have to forgive me for being a bit blunt in what follows, David. I certainly am not trying to be offensive: this is really the way I see things, and if I'm wrong I would like to be corrected. The truth is that if "fallible" were the worst adjective that could be truthfully applied to members of the magisterium who historically oversaw the development of the church's doctrine, I might at least be able to understand your view (even though I see no real <I>evidence</I> for divine supervision of the developmental process). But as I'm sure you know, there have been some fairly important figures in the history of the Roman Church who were <I>immoral</I> or worse. Sometimes their this-worldly motives seem clearly to have impinged upon their ecclesiastical decision-making. How Vatican I be portrayed as other than a Papal power play? How can a council this "rigged" even be considered an authentic council? If what happened there was a logical working out of the biblical tradition, it was something of an accident. But that just scratches the surface. Even Athanasius, that great champion of Trinitarian orthodoxy, fielded something of an ecclesiastical mafia in order to accomplish his theological ends. Nicene orthodoxy was also advanced by such dubious means as systematic book-burning. The very importance that has been attached to Trinitarian orthodoxy in the subsequent history of the church can have been affected not a little by Constantine and his political agenda to unite church and empire. The list goes on, but you get the idea. Where "development" was clearly intended to support totalitarian regimes and to consolidate the power of the few over the many, what is there but sheer, blind assertion to assure us that these are legitimate and logical outworkings of an apostolic deposit?<BR/><BR/>-ChrisChristopher Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09539170598198122642noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-33024709426962068732008-06-10T20:19:00.000-07:002008-06-10T20:19:00.000-07:00Mr. Waltz,1.) I understand the teaching of the Apo...Mr. Waltz,<BR/><BR/>1.) I understand the teaching of the Apostles to be contained in both the inscripturated Tradition (New Testament) and the oral Tradition passed on via the Early Church. <BR/><BR/>2.) I understand both the inscripturated and oral apostolic teachings to be doctrinally the same, that is to say, there are not apostolic doctrines that did not make it into the canon but were passed on orally.<BR/><BR/>3.) I understand that the Church's understanding of the teachings that the Apostles handed down to her has developed in response to erroneous teachings.<BR/><BR/>In light of the above, I don't understand where the notion of "implicit apostolic teachings" comes from? I mean, it seems to me that for hundreds of years the Church was dealing various interpretations of the body of teachings handed down by the Apsotles, and then at some point she started dealing with "implicit teachings," that is, teachings not handed down by the Apostles but that were logically inferred.<BR/><BR/>Hope this helps.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-26960692584526072812008-06-10T17:23:00.000-07:002008-06-10T17:23:00.000-07:00Hi Chris,I only have had limited exposure to SRTIC...Hi Chris,<BR/><BR/>I only have had limited exposure to SRTICT “narrative theology”; by strict I mean a focus on the narrative aspect while virtually ignoring both systematic theology and biblical theology. Personally, I think all three are important when dealing with the Scriptures and the development of doctrine; one should never overemphasize any of the three. Yet as with so many things with life, balance is so difficult to achieve. <BR/><BR/>As for God being able to use fallible men to teach infallible truths, I think you know where I stand on this [wink].<BR/><BR/><BR/>Grace and peace,<BR/><BR/>DavidDavid Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-76769536619763930722008-06-10T17:08:00.000-07:002008-06-10T17:08:00.000-07:00Hi Kepha,I am sure it is I, and not you, but your ...Hi Kepha,<BR/><BR/>I am sure it is I, and not you, but your position on these issues remain a bit fuzzy.<BR/><BR/>I am a left brain kinda guy, so bear with me as I put the ducks-in-a-row.<BR/><BR/>You said: “the teaching of the Apostles is in the New Testament and tradition of the early Church”. Understood, but how is this any different than the Catholic position?<BR/><BR/>Next: “Further, as I've stated before, I believe both are essentially the same.” This is very close to what Lane terms the “coincidence view”, Scripture and Tradition coincide. <BR/><BR/>Given the above, I fail to understand is why you seemed troubled with what I posted earlier:<BR/><BR/>DW:>> Me: Let see if I understand your position: baptism is explicitly mentioned in Scripture, but the theology concerning baptism (including mode, subjects, effects, etc.) required development. However, the Marian dogmas are not explicitly mentioned in Scripture, and as such, there can be no legitimate development. Is this an accurate assessment of your position?>><BR/><BR/>You replied with:<BR/><BR/>K:>> No. As I stated before: "For me, it is not so much the sufficiency of Scripture that is the issue; rather, it is the sufficiency of the Apostles' teaching that is at stake." The marian dogmas are not explicitly mentioned in the teaching of the Apostles, and so there can be no development.>><BR/><BR/>If the New Testament and “tradition of the early Church” are “essentially the same” then how can there be any “essential” difference between “the sufficiency of Scripture” and “the sufficiency of the Apostles’ teaching”?<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Sincerely trying to understand,<BR/><BR/>DavidDavid Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-43988951450029351782008-06-10T17:00:00.000-07:002008-06-10T17:00:00.000-07:00Tom,I agree that Mormonism is more open to a sort ...Tom,<BR/><BR/>I agree that Mormonism is more open to a sort of pluralism than the tradition in which I was raised. In fact, that was the most significant attraction for me when I initially investigated the Church. Joseph Smith had managed to wed biblical exclusivism to a merciful and loving God in a way that not only sounded remarkably reminiscent of Irenaeus' three kingdoms of heaven, but that also made sense of the otherwise-incomprehensible passage in Corinthians about baptism for the dead. The soteriology of the Roman Catholic Church accomplishes none of these things, and none of the evangelical alternatives I had encountered-- including PME, annihilationism, and inclusivism-- accomplished them in the measure that Joseph Smith had done. With all of this to commend it, Mormonism had to have some pretty serious deficiencies in order to turn me away. Unfortunately, said deficiencies were not long in manifesting themselves. Still, I can certainly sympathize with those who find the LDS Church spiritually and intellectually satisfying.<BR/><BR/>Regarding the divinity of Christ: this has been a very difficult issue for me, and my view is one at which I have arrived only after much soul-searching. In studying Mormonism and other religious traditions, I was struck by just how many persons throughout history had claimed to be special, divine, messianic-type figures. I was also struck by how vast is the scope of the history of human (and proto-human) religion, which may date back a hundred thousand years or more. In all of this, I was presuming that Jesus was <I>the</I> incarnate Son of God, just because he was the one I happened to be attached to due to upbringing and personal experience. From an evidentiary perspective, I realized I had no real justification for privileging Jesus. And doing so seemed to so narrow the scope of God's work on earth as to make him a rather parochial deity. All of this left me profoundly unsettled and unsatisfied with my beliefs, despite my reluctance to let go of them. Reading mystics like Emerson, Denck, Franck, and others provided me with what I think is a coherent framework-- and one consonant with my experience-- for both affirming Christ's divinity/sincerity and allowing God to be as big as I believe he has to be.<BR/><BR/>Maybe I do believe too little. But I think pluralism allows me to believe in a pretty big God. In my mind, that compensates for all the lesser dogmas that get lost along the way. And it doesn't leave me with the kind of agonizing dissonance that has always so deeply troubled me. Best,<BR/><BR/>-ChrisChristopher Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09539170598198122642noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-28848860240633443682008-06-10T16:17:00.000-07:002008-06-10T16:17:00.000-07:00David,Are you at all familiar with narrative theol...David,<BR/><BR/>Are you at all familiar with narrative theology? It is the idea that the Bible's fundamental purpose is to convey a narrative of God's salvific work in the world. From my perspective, it is much more tenable to read the Bible as a narrative in this manner (especially since so much of it has no pretentions to being a transcript of divine revelation) than to read it as a propositional sourcebook for systematic theology. There's nothing systematic about the biblical text. Is it not a bit presumptuous, then, to try to impose a systematic structure upon it to which we assign the same authority as was possessed by the original text? If God gives us a set of revelations, and they happen to be a mess, who are we to authoritatively tidy them up or "develop" them systematically? <BR/><BR/>I can see how one might speak of new chapters in God's salvation narrative being "unfolded" as history proceeds, but I find it difficult to wrap my mind around the assertion that a magisterium composed of fallible, political, and often immoral human beings is somehow invested with the authority to infallibly "develop" the words of God. Newman's development theory lodges the unfolding of God's work in a few wealthy Europeans who happen to have appropriated to themselves tremendous political and ecclesiastical power. This is a far cry from the universal scope of the biblical narrative, in which God's work is unfolded through shepherd-prophets, carpenters, and fishermen as much as through kings and priests. The theory of development is history and theology written by the winners, which in and of itself should make us suspicious of it. The Bible records several instances in which the "winners," so to speak, were <I>not</I> God's chosen vessels. So I'd say that Newman's theory of infallible development is itself an <I>un</I>faithful development of the text.<BR/><BR/>-ChrisChristopher Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09539170598198122642noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-72480730007350251952008-06-10T14:33:00.000-07:002008-06-10T14:33:00.000-07:00Mr. Waltz, as I've stated before, the teaching of ...Mr. Waltz, as I've stated before, the teaching of the Apostles is in the New Testament and tradition of the early Church. Further, as I've stated before, I believe both are essentially the same. Hence, one of my most recent comments:<BR/><BR/><I>"Indeed, as Robert Lee Williams has pointed out in his dissertation on the issue of apostolic succession, Irenaeus's understanding is not that whatever a successor of the apostles says regarding the Faith is true by virtue of his office; rather, it is that a successor of the apostles is a torch-bearer. Like the Apostle Paul, each successor says, 'I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received'!"</I><BR/><BR/>BTW, I totally forgot about your request for a link to Williams's dissertation. Here is a link to it on Amazon.com: <BR/><BR/>http://www.amazon.com/Bishop-Lists-Succession-Ecclesiastical-Dissertations/dp/1593331940/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1213133495&sr=1-1Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-9717147168340148842008-06-10T12:55:00.000-07:002008-06-10T12:55:00.000-07:00Hello again Kepha,You responded with:>>[DW]However...Hello again Kepha,<BR/><BR/>You responded with:<BR/><BR/>>>[DW]<I>However, the Marian dogmas are not explicitly mentioned in Scripture, and as such, there can be no legitimate development</I>.<BR/><BR/>[K]No. As I stated before: "For me, it is not so much the sufficiency of Scripture that is the issue; rather, it is the sufficiency of the Apostles' teaching that is at stake." The marian dogmas are not explicitly mentioned in the teaching of the Apostles, and so there can be no development.>><BR/><BR/>Me: OK, sounds like you hold to a constitutive “teaching of the Apostles” that is not explicitly in the Scriptures; if this is the case, where does one find that body of teaching? However if the “No” in your response pertains merely to terminology, such that you believe “the teaching of the Apostles” = the Scriptures I fail to understand the correction.<BR/><BR/>Grace and peace,<BR/><BR/>DavidDavid Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-20211474534917050242008-06-10T12:53:00.000-07:002008-06-10T12:53:00.000-07:00Chris:One possible consequence of a pluralist view...Chris:<BR/>One possible consequence of a pluralist view is that maybe we all have license to go with whatever religious option "feels good to me," as you asserted. But this is not a necessary consequence, and it is not what I consider to be the consequence of the pluralist view. I see evidence that God values sincerity and loving action toward others. To select one's religious practices based strictly on selfish motives, then, would in my opinion be misguided.<BR/><BR/>TOm:<BR/>Chris, thanks for responding (NO Thanks for answering Ken’s question!!! Just kidding!).<BR/>I think I have a higher view of the Bible than you do.<BR/>I think I have a higher view of certainty in many things than you do.<BR/>I think however we have some similar views on religious pluralism. You might be less than comfortable with my view that there is a “highest” truth, but perhaps not. Here is a thread I wrote on this long ago (May 2005):<BR/>http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=8450<BR/>I believe that Mormonism with post-mortal evangelization and pre-mortal existence provides a lot of fertile ground for developing religious pluralistic ideas (not to mention theodicies).<BR/>With a high view of the Bible, I still think there is a oneness of the church. I see this as the focal point of salvific relationships (God), the existence of an absolute truth (truth is not all relative), the existence of a paradigm whose premises are closer to absolute truth than other churches, and the existence of a church most (more) directly lead by God who is at its head. <BR/><BR/>I sometimes wonder just how “teachable” I am. I do not shy away from ideas that are very dissimilar to mine. However, do I reject them on occasion not because they lack merit, but because they are very different than my current paradigm? The Bahai offer compelling apologetics. My problems with them seem likely to be similar to my problems with your view. Christ is just more than the Bahai (or it seems Emerson) allow Him to be. Is this a view I adopt based on evidence or personal preference. I can say some of it is because I have met Christ, but I do not think that should have much sway as I dialogue with others (and I have not in any kind of literal sense watered His feet with my tears or anything near so extraordinary). Still, I am left with the impression (both from external and internal evidence) that Christ is uniquely the savior of men. As you (religious liberals and critics) poke holes in the external evidence that Christ is uniquely the savior of men, perhaps my internal (personal such that it will not compel others into belief) evidences seem to take a larger role. Still I have covenanted with Christ and He is my God, I have faith, and I doubt I could (and really do not see a need or have a desire) to walk away. <BR/><BR/>Chris:<BR/>I don't find many people who are willing to take my perspective seriously, which is a bit distressing for me since it sometimes makes me wonder if I've completely lost my marbles. :) I'm glad to hear you think my perspective is more coherent than evangelicalism. I'm moving in the right direction, then! *grin*<BR/><BR/>TOm:<BR/>Before you celebrate too much remember, I think the BOA is scripture!<BR/><BR/>There is much that I am uncomfortable with in your paradigm. But, I have seen (especially recently) how your ideas seem to sidestep some of the most obvious problems I see with being a non-Catholic, non-LDS Christian. Sidestepping problems is certainly not a bad thing, but the devotee to high school math also avoids much of the problems in various Christian traditions. I worry sometimes that you believe too little. And, I would be very sad to discover that you one day decided to believe even less.<BR/><BR/>Concerning the Trinity, I think Ostler’s (I cannot remember if you have read his first two books) third book makes a compelling case for an integration of the Social Trinity with a Monarchical Monotheism. Of course you might be likely to reject the polytheism and monolatry present in the Old Testament rather than trying to integrate all the Biblical books into a remotely consistent whole. I would of course reject the idea that the books of the Bible are univocal, but I would be uncomfortable trying to discard certain avenues of thought all together. (I am not a fan of the fairly rare LDS apologetic tactic of saying that XYZ is an area of Biblical corruption). <BR/><BR/>Concerning Emerson, I am less comfortable with the idea that Christ is God incarnate in a non-unique way, while still maintaining that Christ is God in a non-exclusive way. Christ is the God-man who was fully divine while being human. We are called to be as He is/was, but our divinity will be born of Christ’s humanity (meaning the entire sweep of Christ’s earthly ministry: birth, teaching, atonement, death, and resurrection). Christ’s divinity while associated with communion with the Father is not born of the atonement or … of another. So when deified men enter into communion with God, we will have been elevated by Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Christ did not require a mediator as deified men do. Still our communion will be full and within the oneness of God, there will be no jealousy because “at first we were not gods.”<BR/><BR/>Charity, TOmAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com