tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post6585149279374417646..comments2023-10-05T08:25:13.232-04:00Comments on Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: Dialogue on the Perspicuity (Clearness) of Scripture, and the Definition of "Christian" in Relation to the Holy Trinity, Part IIDave Armstronghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-55887091859210062522010-02-04T17:16:33.935-05:002010-02-04T17:16:33.935-05:00What I did not see you respond to was my statement...<i>What I did not see you respond to was my statement about –ousia. The Bible NEVER uses –ousia as it was used at Nicea. When the Bible claims that the Son and the Father are one, it never uses –ousia (or hints at –ousia) as the HOW of this oneness.</i><br /><br />So what? How is that relevant to anything? Obviously, councils develop the original kernel of biblical revelation, and so different words are employed. Famously, the word "Trinity" is not in the Bible either. This is neither here nor there.<br /><br />But you say they are apostate anyway, which is another huge issue.<br /><br />What I demonstrated was that oneness of God the Father and Jesus is apparent in Scripture. All essential characteristics possessed by God the Father are also possessed by Jesus. The only difference are things like Jesus having a body / the Incarnation, which do not represent essential differences, but only difference of role or action.<br /><br />Deification / theosis (which I am well familiar with) is not at all like the Mormon concept. it retains God's transcendence (and for that matter, monotheism) in a way that Mormon theology does not.<br /><br />Unfortunately, I don't have the time at the moment to engage in a full-scale examination of the many serious errors of Mormonism (and many others could do a better job than myself at that, anyway, since my specialty in examination of heresies has been Jehovah's Witnesses, not Mormonism).<br /><br />I'm already behind on several projects because of all this discussion swirling around David Waltz. I'm dialoguing with him, and with Rory, and a while back, with Jason Engwer, in order to try to assist David, and now you, while getting more and more behind on things I need to get done, of my own projects (about a month behind now). The longer I put those off, the more likely it is that I will be having financial problems in the next few months. I can't devote unrestricted time to these sorts of projects that have no relation to my income. I have to make a living, too, as I am a full-time writer / apologist.<br /><br />I try to make time, despite all, for at least my present dialogue with David Waltz, but I can't justify now taking on Mormonism per se. That is too vast and involved of a project and I have always been careful at all times (even apart from the present time / financial conundrum) not to spread myself too thin in my activities, because whatever ones I am involved in, I always give 100% effort.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-34767107064457305412010-02-04T13:03:21.220-05:002010-02-04T13:03:21.220-05:00Dave A:
God was not once one of us, as Mormons tea...Dave A:<br />God was not once one of us, as Mormons teach. We will not be "one of Him" either, because of the essential differences outlined above. Scores of biblical passages spell all these things out.<br /><br />TOm:<br />I suspect you are not well versed in the more scholarly presentations of LDS thought on these matters. If you want to have more than a “surfacey” understanding, I would recommend the <b>Exploring Mormon Thought</b> series.<br />I believe that God the Son was in fact once one of us. Do you disagree?<br />I believe that God the Son only did what He had seen God the Father do so, the EXTRA-Biblical ideas that exist within the LDS tradition with respect to God the Father I think should be interpreted in the same way the Biblical data concerning God the Son is interpreted.<br /><br />Also, if –ousia is an extra Biblical concept embraced in the fourth century by an apostate authority, I do not see why I should be concerned with the –ousia gap between God and man.<br /><br />Finally, the ECF regularly spoke of men becoming gods. If you are unfamiliar with the Biblical foundation or the teaching of the ECF, I recommend (from a Catholic perspective) Daniel A. Keating’s <b>Deification and Grace</b>. <br /><br />The main difference between the LDS position I embrace and the pre-Athanasian teaching of deification is that Justin Martyr was the last ECF to reject creation ex nihilo. So the bulk of the deification teachings before Athanasius come from folks who believe men were created ex nihilo. Simultaneously however, before Athanasius they never limit the FINAL state of deified man. Athanasius and then Augustine do limit the FINAL state of deified man. <br /><br />Where I Catholic, I would lean towards the belief that just as Christ became homoousian with men, we can become homoousian with Christ. Of course such is a pretty radical statement and it relies upon a definition of homoousian that is seldom embraced by those who condemn my version of the Trinity. Still, it is a wholly Catholic definition!<br /><br />Anyway, I am more interested in your defending an –ousia based Trinity from the Bible. I looked at your http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2005/09/holy-trinity-biblical-proofs.html and didn’t see that there. I would also suggest that LDS thought is not surfacey and perhaps you shouldn’t introduce things like “God was not once one of us, as Mormons teach” least I respond with “call no man father!”<br /><br />Charity, TOmTOmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12511360918671604918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-92054866185092240112010-02-04T13:03:07.874-05:002010-02-04T13:03:07.874-05:00Dave A,
Thanks for your response.
This passage:
2...Dave A,<br />Thanks for your response. <br />This passage:<br />2 Peter 3:15b-16 . . . So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, [16] speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.<br /><br />Says nothing about requiring help in interpreting the Bible, but it is consistent with 2 Peter 1:20 and what I referenced concerning the Ethiopian eunuch. I lean towards recognizing that the Bible is best interpreted via authority for all three, but I suppose one of the caveats of such things seems to be that the Bible is not a surfacey document so I will concede such.<br /><br />I am not sure how your long list of scriptures is supposed to move me from my Social Trinity model. I certainly recognize the statements where Christ claims some identity with His Father, but I do not believe such are incompatible with a Social Trinity model. Beyond this, the Augustinian Trinity still must preserve the truth that there are three persons.<br /><br />What I did not see you respond to was my statement about –ousia. The Bible NEVER uses –ousia as it was used at Nicea. When the Bible claims that the Son and the Father are one, it never uses –ousia (or hints at –ousia) as the HOW of this oneness. When the Fathers were seeking Nicene language there was a proposal to use Biblical language, but it was rejected as not able to exclude Arian confessions.<br /><br />Your long list of scriptures IMO did not reply to the –ousia issue or to the specific desire to import extra Biblical language to represent the Biblical truth. I have some reservations about the coherence of the Augustinian Trinity, but as an expression of the teachings present in the Bible, I think it is satisfactory. What I maintain is that it is far from the only satisfactory formula. And the Nicene formulation being specifically extra Biblical IMO renders it less than the most solo scriptura way of presenting the Trinity.<br />cont...TOmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12511360918671604918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-45927324581899978342010-02-03T13:58:19.307-05:002010-02-03T13:58:19.307-05:00[cont.]
Whatever history teaches … this one thing...[cont.]<br /><br /><i>Whatever history teaches … this one thing is certain, the history of INTELIGENT REASONED positions that claim to rest upon the Bible shows convincingly that the Bible is not able to teach a single orthodoxy.</i><br /><br />It shows no such thing. The Bible is quite able to do that, but for MEN, who distort it and don't take all of it into consideration. This is why we need a Church to interpret with finality: not because the Bible is not materially sufficient, but because men twist it: precisely as St. Peter stated.<br /><br />Folks can be quite sincere, intelligent, and well-intentioned (as you are), while still being wrong about some things.<br /><br /><i>I think one of the clearest ways for a Catholic to decide who to apply the title “Christian” to is via the acceptance or rejection of the baptism of purported Christians. I am far more comfortable when a Catholic says that because of the way the magisterium has ruled on LDS baptism, I am not a Christian.</i><br /><br />I have indeed used that argument, but also the one from Vatican II that presupposes belief in a Triune God, as part and parcel of being a Christian. And this precludes the radically unbiblical Mormon belief that God was once man, and man (men) will be God(s).<br /><br />Correct baptism also presupposes a trinitarian formula, so the Trinity is key to the equation any way you look at it.<br /><br /><i>I am not sure if Art or Hans B. would suggest that Arius arrived at his position via a REASONED application of sola scriptura, but it seems like they lean that direction.</i><br /><br />It's impossible to do, if by "reasoned" one means "internally consistent and coherent." If it means Arius was an intelligent, thoughtful guy; he likely was that; doesn't mean he will arrive at true conclusions.<br /><br /><i>On the surface there are scriptural assertions that appear to contradict one another.</i> <br /><br />And "appear" is the key word.<br /><br /><i>When trying to take scripture as a whole, there are decisions that must be made concerning how to address these apparent contradictions. God’s oneness, the divinity of Christ, and the distinction between the Father and the Son create an apparent contradiction that must be resolved for a reasoned theology.</i><br /><br />I don't see any, in the way that orthodox trinitarianism ties everything together.<br /><br /><i>Nicene orthodoxy is one method that has some points in its favor,</i><br /><br />No other schema is coherent, by a long shot.<br /><br /><i>but the biggest of which is not that it is the most sola scriptura option IMO.</i><br /><br />It explains the Bible in a coherent, self-consistent manner and takes into account all of the biblical data, not just tiny portions of it: and those, misinterpreted.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-14170771344672640462010-02-03T13:58:09.411-05:002010-02-03T13:58:09.411-05:00So, my point is that I think you are quite incorre...<i>So, my point is that I think you are quite incorrect when you suggest that there is some straight forward way of developing Nicene orthodoxy to the exclusion of many other Trinity constructions from the Bible alone.</i><br /><br />I've provided plenty of Scripture already, and that is only the tip of the iceberg. You are welcome to provide Scripture for your beliefs, if you are convinced that multiple "trinitarian" viewpoints can be found in the Bible.<br /><br /><i>Where does the Bible say it is not a “surfacey” document.</i><br /><br /><b>2 Peter 1:20</b> (RSV) First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, <br /><br /><b>2 Peter 3:15b-16</b> . . . So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, [16] speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.<br /><br /><i>I guess if you walk a non-authority path (which you once did), you might demand that this is a Biblical teaching that teaches the Bible is not a surfacey document. I think that is far from clear.</i><br /><br />I don't. Apart from explicit statements like the above, it is also quite obvious that Paul's writings in particular, are complex on many levels (as Peter says straight out), and require great study to properly comprehend.<br /><br /><i>Who is to judge which books are good.</i><br /><br />Ultimately, the Catholic Church, when it comes to orthodoxy.<br /><br /><i>I think development is the strongest anti-Protestant argument available.</i><br /><br />We agree there, because this was the primary reason I became a Catholic.<br /><br /><i>to overcompensate (IMO) and suggest that the Bible is far clearer than it really is can removes the strongest pro-Catholic case.</i><br /><br />It can only be shown to be clear enough to resolve questions in actual examples. Above I had no problem presenting several dozen indications of the divinity of Jesus, directly contrary to your assertion that there was little or nothing along these lines in Scripture. As I have said, with Mariology and some other areas, it is a lot more difficult, but not for trinitarianism, where there are many hundreds of proof texts.<br /><br /><i>Now, I believe you do well to show that Catholic truth can be found in the Bible, but to speak as if it is the only REASONED position to be found in the Bible just does violence to Catholic and Protestant history.</i> <br /><br />There is only one truth in any given instance. If positions contradict each other, then someone is dead wrong. That is not an argument against the Bible, but against inadequate human reasoning.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-57185873797323349662010-02-03T13:30:45.224-05:002010-02-03T13:30:45.224-05:00I personally believe that God is three and God is ...<i>I personally believe that God is three and God is one and we are to become gods.</i><br /><br />The Bible teaches that God is absolutely transcendent. He is eternal; He is the Creator; He is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, and perfectly holy in and of Himself. None of these characteristics can ever apply to man. We are creatures, not eternal; we did not create the world, and lack all of the other characteristics above. We are fallen. We need a Savior. God doesn't need a savior because He is perfectly holy.<br /><br />God was not once one of us, as Mormons teach. We will not be "one of Him" either, because of the essential differences outlined above. Scores of biblical passages spell all these things out.<br /><br /><i>The exact manner of aligning those three Biblical truths is not specified in the Bible such that there is little room for differing opinions.</i><br /><br />I profoundly disagree, and I have the biblical passages all laid out in my two papers detailing biblical proofs for the Trinity ad Deity of Christ:<br /><br />http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2005/09/holy-trinity-biblical-proofs.html<br /><br />http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/01/jesus-is-god-biblical-proofs.htmlDave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-75924042489169648402010-02-03T13:22:03.024-05:002010-02-03T13:22:03.024-05:00[cont.]
Jesus' subjection to the Father is se...[cont.]<br /><br />Jesus' subjection to the Father is seen in such verses as John 14:28: ". . . for my Father is greater than I," 1 Corinthians 11:3: ". . .the head of Christ {is} God," and 1 Corinthians 15:28: "And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all." <br /><br />John 14:28 is to be understood in light of passages such as Philippians 2:6-8, which show us that Christ in John 14:28 was speaking strictly in terms of his office as Messiah, which entailed a giving up, not of the Divine Nature, but of certain prerogatives of glory and Deity which are enjoyed by the Father. Christ subjected Himself to the Father in order to undertake His role as the Incarnate Son and Mediator between God and man (1 Tim 2:5). Similarly, one might say that "the President of the United States is a greater man than I am," but this would not mean he was necessarily a better man. In any event, he is still a man like us. Since Jesus is still God, even while "humbling" Himself (Phil 2:8), Scripture also indicates that the Father is, in a sense, "subject" to the Son:<br /><br />JOHN 16:15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew {it} unto you.<br /><br />JOHN 16:23 And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give {it} you.<br /><br />When the Father is called the "head" of the Son (1 Cor 11:3), this also does not entail any lessening of the equality between the Son and the Father. The Bible also talks about wives being subject to their husbands (1 Pet 3:1,5), even while the two are equals (Gal 3:28, Eph 5:21-22), and indeed, "one flesh" (Mt 19:5-6). Likewise, one Person of the Godhead can be in subjection to another Person and remain God in essence and substance (Phil 2:6-8). Luke 2:51 says that Jesus was "subject" to Mary and Joseph. Yet no orthodox Christian of any stripe would hold that Jesus was lesser in essence than His earthly parents! The same Greek word for "subject" in Luke 2:51 (<i>hupotasso</i>) is used in 1 Cor 15:28, and in 1 Pet 2:18 below. Besides, submissiveness and servanthood is not presented as a sign of weakness in Scripture. Quite the contrary:<br /><br />1 PETER 2:18 Servants, {be} subject to {your} masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.<br /><br />MATTHEW 23:11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.<br /><br />The word for "greatest" here is <i>meizon</i>, the same word used in John 14:28. Thus, any notion that submissiveness is a lessening of equality is absolutely unscriptural.<br /><br />Likewise, in 1 Cor 15:28, the subjection spoken of is that of the Son as incarnate, not the Son as Son in essence. While this verse tells us that God will be "all in all," Colossians 3:11 tells us that ". . . Christ {is} all, and in all." Thus, Jesus' office as Messiah and Mediator will cease in time, but not His Godhood, since Scripture teaches that He will be "all in all" just as His Father is.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-16195832211300804182010-02-03T13:21:51.888-05:002010-02-03T13:21:51.888-05:00[cont.]
NT Apostolic Witness
JOHN 1:1-4 In the b...[cont.]<br /><br /><i>NT Apostolic Witness</i><br /><br />JOHN 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (2) The same was in the beginning with God. (3) All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. (4) In him was life; and the life was the light of men.<br /><br /><b><i>Monogenes</i> ("Only Begotten")</b> The phrase "only begotten (Son)" (also used in Jn 3:16,18 and 1 Jn 4:9) is the Greek <i>monogenes</i>, which means, according to any Greek lexicon, "unique, only member of a kind." It does not mean "created," as some (e.g., Jehovah's Witnesses) falsely interpret it. Christ is the eternal Son of God, and as such, possesses every attribute of pure Godhood, just as a human son partakes fully of humanness.<br /><br />ACTS 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.<br /><br />COLOSSIANS 1:16-17 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether {they be} thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: (17) And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. <br /><br />COLOSSIANS 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.<br /><br />TITUS 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; {RSV,NIV: "our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ"}<br /><br />2 PETER 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ: {RSV, NIV: "our God and Saviour Jesus Christ"}<br /><br /><i>Thus, what the Bible does do is subordinate Christ to His Father and not comment on the relative equivalence or lack of equivalence of their –ousia.</i><br /><br />It certainly does comment (a lot) on the latter, as shown above.<br /><br />Jesus is not "subordinate" in the sense that He is inferior in any way, shape, or form. He obeyed the Father in His human nature, according to the "kenosis":<br /><br />PHILIPPIANS 2:5-6 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: (6) Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-16332252571174254132010-02-03T13:21:27.348-05:002010-02-03T13:21:27.348-05:00Hi Tom,
Thanks for your comments.
My general opi...Hi Tom,<br /><br />Thanks for your comments.<br /><br /><i>My general opinion is that the Bible teaches that Jesus is divine. There is clearly a degree of subordinationism within the Bible (and the pre-Nicene Fathers). I do not think the Bible suggests that Christ’s –ousia is inferior to the Father’s –ousia, but I do not think that God’s divinity or Christ’s divinity in the Bible is ever said to be a product of their (one or shared or possessed or different or …) ousia. Of course the Bible never uses “ousia” to mean the substance of the Father or the shared divine substance.</i><br /><br />[KJV]<br /><br /><i>Jesus' Own Words</i><br /><br />MATTHEW 10:40 . . . he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.<br /><br />JOHN 5:17-21 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. (18) Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God. (19) Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. (20) For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel. (21) For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth {them}; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.<br /><br />JOHN 10:30-33 I and {my} Father are one. (31) Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. (32) Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? (33) The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. <br /><br />JOHN 10:38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father {is} in me, and I in him.<br /><br />JOHN 12:44-45 Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me. (45) And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me. <br /><br />JOHN 14:7-10 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. (8) Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. (9) Jesus saith unto him, have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou {then}, Shew us the Father? (10) Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.<br /><br />JOHN 15:23 He that hateth me hateth my Father also.<br /><br />JOHN 17:10-11 And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them. (11) And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we {are}.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-50357691851380099892010-02-03T09:16:49.128-05:002010-02-03T09:16:49.128-05:00Dave A:
You could also argue that the majority of ...Dave A:<br />You could also argue that the majority of Protestants also believed in it, based on Scripture alone as their ultimate authority.<br /><br />TOm:<br />I believe (and I suspect that Rory does too) that Protestants BORROWED from the Catholic Church.<br /><br />Dave A:<br />Good. No doubt most are sincere, good, well-meaning people, with good morals and traditional values. But according to the definition of historic Christianity, they cannot possibly qualify as a species of it.<br /><br />TOm:<br />I think one of the clearest ways for a Catholic to decide who to apply the title “Christian” to is via the acceptance or rejection of the baptism of purported Christians. I am far more comfortable when a Catholic says that because of the way the magisterium has ruled on LDS baptism, I am not a Christian.<br /><br />Back to this so I can finish with Art Sippo.<br />Dave said:<br />That may be true in his own case, as far as allegiance, but I contend that he cannot in any way, shape, or form, defend Arianism from Scripture. If he thinks differently, I would be happy to dialogue with him and let him try to prove that Jesus is not God. That is an unenviable task if there ever was one: to try to prove that from Scripture.<br /><br />TOm:<br />Here are a few words from Catholic apologist Art Sippo. He links favorably to a Protestant scholar who teaches that Arius was the sola scriptura (or perhaps solo scriptura) Christian at Nicea.<br /><br />Art Sippo (http://art-of-attack.blogspot.com/2007/05/sola-scriptura-vs-historic-catholic.html):<br />Sadly, the folks at Biola do not understand the distinction between "infallible" and "inspired" in Catholic and Orthodox theology. They have also confused the Acta of the Council for its output. And I find it highly amusing that the Biola folks think that Arius' main fault was "that he twisted scripture's true meaning" and not that "he held to sola Scriptura and thereby failed to give enough place to tradition". Anyone even remotely familiar with Arianism knows that its adherents appealed to Scripture against the traditions of the Church in an attempt to change the teaching about who Jesus was. There is an excelent explanation of this in a talk Begotten Not Made? Athanasius and the Creeds given by Protestant Scholar Hans Boersma:<br />http://www.regentaudio.com/product_details.php?item_id=148&category_id=85<br /><br /><br />TOm:<br />I am not sure if Art or Hans B. would suggest that Arius arrived at his position via a REASONED application of sola scriptura, but it seems like they lean that direction. <br /><br />On the surface there are scriptural assertions that appear to contradict one another. When trying to take scripture as a whole, there are decisions that must be made concerning how to address these apparent contradictions. God’s oneness, the divinity of Christ, and the distinction between the Father and the Son create an apparent contradiction that must be resolved for a reasoned theology. Nicene orthodoxy is one method that has some points in its favor, but the biggest of which is not that it is the most sola scriptura option IMO.<br /><br />Charity, TOmTOmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12511360918671604918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-6015596709878703222010-02-03T09:16:41.600-05:002010-02-03T09:16:41.600-05:00Dave A said:
One would do that if the passage is i...Dave A said:<br />One would do that if the passage is interpreted on a surface-level, yes. But the Bible is not a "surfacey" document. Those who approach it in that way are bound for trouble. And that gets back to a Church and Tradition that provides the parameters of orthodoxy, tying into biblical interpretation.<br /><br />TOm:<br />Where does the Bible say it is not a “surfacey” document. I could argue that the Ethiopian eunuch who needed a man to guide him is a good place. Perhaps this means that Ethiopian eunuchs are poor thinkers, but I think it far easier to infer that it means that some amount of authority or tradition or Tradition or … should be part of proper interpretation. I guess if you walk a non-authority path (which you once did), you might demand that this is a Biblical teaching that teaches the Bible is not a surfacey document. I think that is far from clear.<br /><br />Dave A:<br />I've used that passage as an argument against perspicuity. But on the other hand, there were not abundant Bible aids and reference books as there are now. I don't disagree that guidance is needed. Of course it is. I'm saying that such guidance can also come in the form of good books about hermeneutics, exegesis, and theology.<br /><br />TOm:<br />Who is to judge which books are good. I think Ostler’s series <b>Exploring Mormon Thought</b> has some of the best ways of interpreting the Bible. He draws on Protestant and Catholic scholars throughout. Perhaps we should use something by him when we offer a companion to the Bible.<br /><br />Dave A:<br />Authority is absolutely necessary in the final analysis. But can many truths be arrived at by a person with the Bible alone? Yes, I think they can. The Bible is not utterly mysterious, as if it is as undecipherable as Egyptian hieroglyphics. When we are that pessimistic about the clearness of Bible teaching, we fall into the stereotypes of what Protestants habitually think of Catholics: biblical illiterates, mindlessly following whatever the Church teaches them. We "demote" the Bible. That is not at all required by the Catholic position. All we do is bring in Church and tradition as the other two legs of the stool. The Bible isn't lowered; it is merely placed in its proper position vis-a-vis Church and Tradition (where it places itself). All are of a piece. They all serve to transmit to us "God's Word."<br /><br />TOm:<br />I can understand your sensitivity to the criticism that Catholics are Biblically illiterate, but to overcompensate (IMO) and suggest that the Bible is far clearer than it really is can removes the strongest pro-Catholic case. In my non-Catholic, non-Protestant position, Protestantism doesn’t work because without acknowledging the Catholic authority it leans on the Catholic authority. I think development is the strongest anti-Protestant argument available. As David W. is fond of saying, “AND THIS ONE THING AT LEAST IS CERTAIN; WHATEVER HISTORY TEACHES, WHATEVER IT OMITS, WHATEVER IT EXAGGERATES OR EXTENUATES, WHATEVER IT SAYS AND UNSAYS, AT LEAST THE CHRISTIANITY OF HISTORY IS NOT PROTESTANTISM. IF EVER THERE WERE A SAFE TRUTH, IT IS THIS…TO BE DEEP IN HISTORY IS TO CEASE TO BE A PROTESTANT.” – JOHN HENRY NEWMAN.<br /><br />Now, I believe you do well to show that Catholic truth can be found in the Bible, but to speak as if it is the only REASONED position to be found in the Bible just does violence to Catholic and Protestant history. Whatever history teaches … this one thing is certain, the history of INTELIGENT REASONED positions that claim to rest upon the Bible shows convincingly that the Bible is not able to teach a single orthodoxy.<br /><br />cont ...TOmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12511360918671604918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-10169931804413483812010-02-03T09:15:56.069-05:002010-02-03T09:15:56.069-05:00Hello Rory and Dave A,
I thought I might tread in ...Hello Rory and Dave A,<br />I thought I might tread in here. As is my way I will probably post this. Then I may … and then I will likely disappear for a while. <br /><br />My general opinion is that the Bible teaches that Jesus is divine. There is clearly a degree of subordinationism within the Bible (and the pre-Nicene Fathers). I do not think the Bible suggests that Christ’s –ousia is inferior to the Father’s –ousia, but I do not think that God’s divinity or Christ’s divinity in the Bible is ever said to be a product of their (one or shared or possessed or different or …) ousia. Of course the Bible never uses “ousia” to mean the substance of the Father or the shared divine substance. Thus, what the Bible does do is subordinate Christ to His Father and not comment on the relative equivalence or lack of equivalence of their –ousia.<br /><br />I personally believe that God is three and God is one and we are to become gods. The exact manner of aligning those three Biblical truths is not specified in the Bible such that there is little room for differing opinions. I build upon “God is love” into a Social Trinity model (like many Protestants and some Catholics). This seems to me to be the most straight forward way of interpreting the Bible. The only place that I am aware of that offers information on HOW God the Father and God the Son are ONE is when Christ prays for the Apostles to be one like He and His Father are one. Surely this will not be a oneness like Athanasius and Augustine meant when they said “homoousian.” It is also surely true that the Apostles were homoousian as Eusebius (the historian not the Nicene dissenter) and the majority of the Bishops at Nicea conceived of the term, even before Christ offered His prayer. <br /><br />To me the Trinity when used as a stick to beat upon LDS is associated with a meaning of homoousian that Athanasius and Augustine shared. This meaning was generally rejected during the Sabellian heresy. It was not preserved in the Council of Chalcedon. And it was not held by the majority of Bishops as Nicea. But, such technical designations IMO are extra Biblical and clearly so. In fact the moderate party at Nicea said they wished to only use Biblical language, but this was rejected because it would not adequately protect against the Arian heresy.<br /><br />So, my point is that I think you are quite incorrect when you suggest that there is some straight forward way of developing Nicene orthodoxy to the exclusion of many other Trinity constructions from the Bible alone. To the extent that “sola scriptura” is unequal to “solo scriptura,” perhaps you have a point. Maybe “sola scriptura” will get one to Nicene orthodoxy, but that is specifically allowing for more than just scripture in ones definition of the Trinity. Once you allow for that, you are imbuing your scripture with tradition or Tradition.<br /><br />cont...TOmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12511360918671604918noreply@blogger.com