Mormonism and the Trinity

[_KimberlyAnn]

It is unfortunate that Baptists do not accept the infant Christian baptisms of other denominations, as it places them outside orthodoxy, in my opinion, but other than that sticking point, the doctrine of the Trinity and the sustaining of Bible-based creeds binds the many bodies of believers into one.

How do you think it (denying infant baptisms) places Baptists outside orthodoxy?

What are the purposes of the infant baptisms you're referring to?

This isn't the thread on which to discuss this issue, and there is fun to be had for me this afternoon and I must leave the house quickly, but I wanted to give you a quick response, Jersey Girl.

Before the nineteenth century, there wasn't a single Christian denomination, of which I know, practicing believer's baptism to the exclusion of infant baptism. The default, orthodox position on baptism has always been one of believer's baptism and infant baptism. Prior to the nineteenth century, the default position on "end times" was always amillenial. Beliefs falling outside those traditional doctrines are, to my mind, unorthodox but not un-Christian, if that makes sense. Perhaps unorthodox is the wrong word? I'm certainly open to that being the case.

I'm no theologian. Theologians don't know nothin' about our souls, at any rate. Take my opinion for what it's worth. :)

KA

[Guest]

Just to help the apologists out here a little, if you want to make friends with the EVs a) you've got to forsake Skinny-L tactics no matter how deserving you think some EVs are.

Neither you nor the serious Scratch have or have had any real access to Skinny-L, and you know far less about it than you pretend.

b) you need to quit trying to be "one of them".

I have not the slightest interest in "trying to be 'one of them.'" My article on the Trinity is, among other things, forthrightly critical of Nicene Trinitarian orthodoxy.

I didn't write it on account of any of the silly political reasons that you and the serious Scratch impute to me. I wrote it because the subject interested me, and because I believe what I wrote.

There is a gulf between Mormons and [other] Christians which will never be bridged as long as Mormons are not considered Christian by most [?], well, Christians.

I completely agree, and -- though, in my book Offenders for a Word, I've challenged the grounds on which the Christianity of Mormonism is typically denied -- have never suggested otherwise, even for a moment, anywhere.

Are there any mainstream Christian denominations which accept Mormon baptism? They do not accept Mormon baptisms as Christian, because, among a number of things, Mormons deny the Trinity.

My article denies that supposed denial of the Trinity.

Despite slight doctrinal differences, mainline Christian denominations consider themselves part of one large body, the Church.

Those "slight doctrinal differences" include such fundamental issues as limited atonement versus universal atonement, predestination versus libertarian free will, the literality of Christ's physical resurrection, the origin of the Holy Spirit (the filioque debate), the nature of the Church, the role of grace and works, and etc. There are vast differences within mainstream Christianity.

Mormonism is outside that body and it ever will be.

And I'm delighted that it is so.

And honestly, I don't understand the desire to be included.

I don't wish to be included.

Why not highlight the differences--the intrinsic peculiarity of Mormonism?

I'm happy to do so, and have done so on numerous occasions, in numerous venues, in print and elsewhere.

But I want to clarify precisely where the differences are and where they aren't. Exactness and accuracy are key.

At any rate, I will purchase the publication and give it a read so that I can be an informed respondent.

I appreciate that.

The article sounds very interesting, actually.

I hope it proves so.

As a Mormon are you not conflicted having to honor, by your tainted verbage, the god of academia?

There's no "tainted verbiage" in what I wrote, and I honor no "god of academia."

Sorry about the big words.

But when people start arguing that the Trinity relies on Greek philosophical concepts that are alien to Christianity, I am usually skeptical.

That's a very small part of my article, but I stand by it.

Christianity was born in a Hellenistic Jewish context, and the Gospel of John is a Hellenistic Jewish-Christian document. The word Logos is a Greek word with inescapable philosophical and theological connotations

I'm well aware of that. I read classical and koiné Greek, and I'm reasonably well versed in Middle Platonic logos doctrine, etc.

that accord much better with mainline Trinitarian theology than with the anthropomorphism of Mormonism.

We absolutely part company on that point.

So I can accept that orthodox theology used Hellenistic concepts, but the talk about these concepts having been alien to Christianity is in my opinion misinformed. Christianity emerged from a Hellenized context, and Hellenism is in its very marrow.

Typical ancient formulations of Nicene Trinitarian dogma would be seriously crippled without reference to concepts like substance, essence, accident, hypostasis, homoousios/homoiousios, etc., that, as even their Hellenized ancient critics often pointed out, are entirely foreign not only to the vocabulary but to the thought-world of the biblical texts.

I've added your article to my reading list.

I look forward to any response you might make.

I was raised Baptist, Daniel. Taught Sunday School, sang in the choir, was Mary in the Christmas play, as a Baptist. How about you? Have you ever attended a revival and walked down the aisle for the altar call? Attended and then taught in Daily Vacation Bible School for over 10 years? Experienced life as a Baptist teenager? Gone bow and arrow hunting for carp in a waist-deep slough with a Bible-spouting preacher by your side? Floated down the river on an inner tube singing praise songs?

Alas, I've only spent many hours reading Augustine, Aquinas, LaCugna, Bracken, McGrath, Plantinga, Moltmann, Boff, and a score or two of other writers on the doctrine of the Trinity.

I bow, as I must, to your superior grasp of the subtleties of Trinitarian doctrine.

The Trinity is the Trinity. If it's changed, it's no longer the Trinity; it's whatever it's changed to. So if the Trinity is changed to a social trinity, or tritheism, or anything else, then it's not the Trinity any longer. It's the something else. All your slick preachers and theologians can't change it and still call it the Trinity. Because if they change it, it's something else.

I surrender. Your carp know what no human theologian today appears to grasp.

My article is worthless trash. No need to read it.

Water is water. If I add lemon juice and sugar to it, it's not water anymore; it's lemonade. If I boil it, it's not water anymore, it's steam. If I freeze it, it's not water anymore; it's ice.

QED.

Case closed.


.

[_Gadianton Plumber]

I bow, as I must, to your superior grasp of the subtleties of Trinitarian doctrine.

Was that sarcasm?

[_Daniel Peterson]

I bow, as I must, to your superior grasp of the subtleties of Trinitarian doctrine.

Was that sarcasm?

It was definitely intended ironically.

Sarcasm I take to be a little harder edged.

[_richardMdBorn]

This isn't the thread on which to discuss this issue, and there is fun to be had for me this afternoon and I must leave the house quickly, but I wanted to give you a quick response, Jersey Girl.

Before the nineteenth century, there wasn't a single Christian denomination, of which I know, practicing believer's baptism to the exclusion of infant baptism. The default, orthodox position on baptism has always been one of believer's baptism and infant baptism. Prior to the nineteenth century, the default position on "end times" was always amillenial. Beliefs falling outside those traditional doctrines are, to my mind, unorthodox but not un-Christian, if that makes sense. Perhaps unorthodox is the wrong word? I'm certainly open to that being the case.

I'm no theologian. Theologians don't know nothin' about our souls, at any rate. Take my opinion for what it's worth. :)

KA

There are many baptist confessions which date at least back to the 17th century. I guess we could quibble over whether they were a denomination then. See

http://www.vor.org/rbdisk/baptconf.htm

[_Doctor Scratch]

Just to help the apologists out here a little, if you want to make friends with the EVs a) you've got to forsake Skinny-L tactics no matter how deserving you think some EVs are. b) you need to quit trying to be "one of them". If I were FLDS, I would not write:

FLDS and other LDS will continue to disagree on many things. But, if I'm correct, the doctrine of (fill in blank) need not loom quite so large among them.

The LDS don't want the FLDS to be one of them anymore than Evangelicals want LDS associated with them. A better tactic would be to emphasize less theological agreements. The prop 8 charade was pure brilliance.

In fact, as far as human nature goes, if FARMS were able to show that LDS and EVs are very similar theologically, and if they are right, it will only piss of the EVs more. (that's why posters at MAD get banned for showing FLDS to be similar to LDS).

You are quite right, Dr. Robbers, and I have to say that I have found DCP's statements on this thread to be very bizarre. He claims he wants "substantive" dialog (despite his previous denunciations of this elsewhere on the board), and then he links to an article that we'll either A) have to pay for (how much of a cut of that do you suppose he gets?), or B) wait 1 year in order to access. So, is he really asking for dialog, or is he up to something else?

All that said, I think you're on to something. The Good Professor's latest projects---trying to show that belief in the Resurrection is "reasonable," his "interfaith" SMPT presentation, and now this Trinity thing--all point to an effort to get in good with non-LDS religious people. I bet that he has at last arrived at the conclusion that his best tactical bet is to launch an all-out assault on "secular anti-Mormons," and he feels that he needs to recruit apologists of other faiths. When was it that he published his "Secular Anti-Mormonism" essay (the one that Bob McCue blew to smithereens)? Was it in the early aughts? In any case, it was definitely post-FARMS-joining-with-BYU. DCP has also seemingly backed away from his heavy participation with the FARMS Review, turning editorial duties over to Lou Midgley & etc. Something's definitely going on here. Perhaps we a seeing a "Second Shift" somewhat akin to the backing away from all-out hostility that we saw following the BYU-FARMS integration. I wonder if, similarly, the apologists were ordered to do this.

[_Daniel Peterson]

As the originator of the thread, I would prefer that Scratch keep his absurd theories and never-substantive conspiracy fantasies out of it.

He can start, and has started, his own threads focused on his peculiar kind of nonsense and devoted to his weird fixation on me, and he's entirely welcome to them. That should be enough, I would think.

[_Gadianton Plumber]

When was it that he published his "Secular Anti-Mormonism" essay (the one that Bob McCue blew to smithereens)?

Is it possible to read that online? Mormonism vs. secularism could be interesting. Maybe also the rebuttal?

Thanks!

[_Calculus Crusader]

I think the doctrine of the trinity as stated in the creeds of Nicaea and Constantinople is logically incoherent and unscriptural but Mormon monolatry makes for even worse theology.

[_Doctor Scratch]

As the originator of the thread, I would prefer that Scratch keep his absurd theories and never-substantive conspiracy fantasies out of it.

Aw. How sad for you that you aren't the boss of the board, and that you don't get to make the rules. I guess that's what the aptly named MADboard is for? I.e., so you can utterly control the type of conversation that takes place?

And I bet you'd like to shut me up and ban me from the thread! I supplied a lot of concrete evidence to support the hypothesis that you have shifted your rhetorical goals. Incidentally, you've provided no counterargument whatsoever.