What Constitutes A Christian?

[zerinus]

zerinus, didn’t I say something similar up thread? The troops on the ground need not be held to an impossibly high standard of doctrinal understanding. Yet doctrine IS very important at a certain level.

You glossed over my query concerning whether we were to discuss “true Christian persons” versus a “true Christian faith.”

The distinction was not between “true Christian persons” versus a “true Christian faith.” The distinction was between “true Christian persons” versus a “true Christian church.” Since a church consists of the body of its membership (that is the literal meaning of the word “church”), then that distinction largely disappears. There have been bodies of Christians in history who have exemplified the standards of true discipleship as a group, such as the Puritans, or present day Amish people. They may be regarded as “churches,” in the strict etymological definition of that word.

I would say that your definition of a “true Christian person” would hold up so long as the person (even if holding heretical beliefs) were acting in good faith.

Your definition breaks down when your “true Christian person” KNOWS what Christian teaching IS and rejects it. There is a place where theology and discipleship meet.

That is a contradiction in terms. Who determines who “knows” what? A group of like minded folks who fulfill the conditions of discipleship are true Christians by the scriptural definition, even if they differ from you in doctrinal understanding—and even if they genuinely erred in doctrine (by divine standard).

“Who do you say I am?” . . .

Like I said, the requirement of discipleship is firstly to believe in Him, and secondly to obey his commandments and live according to them.

. . . History has shown us that this is both the simplest thing in the world and also extremely complex. Many sincere, devoted people hold extremely odd notions about the Incarnation. Many who hold perfectly orthodox views of the doctrine of God present a perfectly hideous witness for the Lord they claim to love.

That is beside the point. Each individual case has to be examined separately. It is not possible to generalize on that.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

really? and who made this determination? if i ask.

God did, when He restored His Church on earth.

zerinus

 

[mercygate]

You call it “Christian teaching;” I call it Apostate Christian teaching; because we believe that early Christianity went into Apostasy, and the doctrine of the Trinity that you are referring to is one of the results of that Apostasy.

Yes. We understand your view.

Well, not entirely. We have additional books of scripture that give us a deeper understanding of those doctrines than would be possible from reading the Bible alone. I am referencing the Bible because that happens to be a volume of scripture that we both share. The Bible is adequate to prove my point without needing to refer to LDS-specific books of scripture.

If the Bible were “adequate” to prove your point beyond debate, it would be adequate to disprove the Christian view, which, of course it is not and does not.

That is very much a debatable subject; but debating it will not be possible unless you can be more forthcoming with evidence to back up that highly questionable claim.

Settling the question of the Nature of Jesus Christ and the hypostatic union was the reason the Council of Nicea was called. It is not a “debatable subject” at all that the doctrine was understood before the canon of the New Testament was set at the 27 books we now receive as authentic.

That is hardly a valid argument for the truth of the doctrine. It is more of a valid argument for the Apostasy. It shows that Apostasy can only be corrected by a Restoration, not by a Reformation. A Reformation cannot fix the problem of the Apostasy.

The only point I was making was that people who flat-out reject the Catholic Church nevertheless, through reason and grace, interpret the same Scriptures you say “prove” your version of the doctrine of God, in a thorougly Catholic and orthodox way, even while rejecting the authority of the Catholic Church.

We understand that you believe all of us are apostate.

I am not sure that is correct either. The word “Trinity” refers to the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost that is referenced in Christian scripture; not to a particular theological interpretation of it. Even in early Christianity the Trinity had more than one definition or meaning. Some were “subordinationists,” meaning that they believed in the subordination of the Son and the Spirit to the Father, while others were not; and going back further, we find that the doctrine begins to get closer to the LDS definition.

zerinus

Since the word “Trinity” does not appear in Scripture but was developed specifically to explain the Christian teaching on the subject, it IS confusing when the LDS adopt the term to describe something quite different from what the word was coined to describe. In orthodox Christianity it means consubstantial and co-eternal. I cannot recommend a better word but it should be something that specifically points to your rejection of the hypostatic union.

 

[MelanieAnne]

really? and who made this determination? if i ask.

They did.

The Holy Spirit is always missing in these discussions. Oh sure, the Holy Spirit is mentioned, but almost always in passing. And yet Mormons will claim the Holy Spirit is part of the Godhead and Christians of every type will agree, even if it is just barely.

But whether the Holy Spirit is of the “Mormon” sort or of some other “Christian” sort, the Holy Spirit is only one. And yet Mormons claim that the “spirit” tells them one thing and all other Christians claim something else. It is a matter of faith which way you believe, but one thing is for sure ~ the Holy Spirit is not going to say one thing to one person, and something totally different to someone else. God doesn’t deceive.

The Mormon Holy Spirit is, obviously, a different Holy Spirit than the one worshiped in the Christian Trinity. No matter what the definition is, no matter what words are used at baptism, no matter ANYTHING else ~ the Mormon Holy Spirit is different from any other Christian Holy Spirit because of the difference in “revelation”. That’s not a criticism of anyone, it’s just a fact.

 

[zerinus]

Yes. We understand your view.

If the Bible were “adequate” to prove your point beyond debate, it would be adequate to disprove the Christian view, which, of course it is not and does not.

We think it does.

Settling the question of the Nature of Jesus Christ and the hypostatic union was the reason the Council of Nicea was called.

Actually, it wasn’t. The Council of Nicaea was held to resolve the question of the divinity of Jesus Christ, which was being challenged by the Arians.

It is not a “debatable subject” at all that the doctrine was understood before the canon of the New Testament was set at the 27 books we now receive as authentic.

The date when the books of the Bible were canonized is utterly irrelevant to the question we are considering. The books of the New Testament were recognized by the Christians as sacred scripture long before the Council of Nicaea; and they contain the beliefs and teachings of the Jesus and His Apostles, and of the earliest Christians. There is no evidence that even the Nicene folks understood the Trinity as you understand it today, never mind the Christians of Jesus’ day or Paul’s day.

The only point I was making was that people who flat-out reject the Catholic Church nevertheless, through reason and grace, interpret the same Scriptures you say “prove” your version of the doctrine of God, in a thorougly Catholic and orthodox way, even while rejecting the authority of the Catholic Church.

I know; and I explained to you what I think the reason for that is.

Since the word “Trinity” does not appear in Scripture but was developed specifically to explain the Christian teaching on the subject, . . .

It wasn’t. It was developed to refer to the Triune Divines of Christian scripture: the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost. It did not refer to a particular theological interpretation of it.

. . . it IS confusing when the LDS adopt the term to describe something quite different from what the word was coined to describe. In orthodox Christianity it means consubstantial and co-eternal. I cannot recommend a better word but it should be something that specifically points to your rejection of the hypostatic union.

The Trinity refers to the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost, which we believe in. It does not refer to a particular theological interpretation of it. I don’t care what you say. You can’t monopolize the word Trinity for yourself! We believe in the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost. That is the Trinity. You can interpret it as you please. We are not obliged to abide by your interpretation of it.

zerinus

 

[mercygate]

We think it does.

The JWs, who have a different view from yours also claim their version is “proved” by the Bible.

Actually, it wasn’t. The Council of Nicaea was held to resolve the question of the divinity of Jesus Christ, which was being challenged by the Arians.

Right. That’s what the hypostatic union is about.

The date when the books of the Bible were canonized is utterly irrelevant to the question we are considering. The books of the New Testament were recognized by the Christians as sacred scripture long before the Council of Nicaea; and they contain the beliefs and teachings of the Jesus and His Apostles, and of the earliest Christians. There is no evidence that even the Nicene folks understood the Trinity as you understand it today, never mind the Christians of Jesus’ day or Paul’s day. The Council of Nicea had nothing to do with the canon. And books we cherish were disputed well past Nicea: Hebrews & Revelation being two of them.

I agree that the Christians of St. Paul’s day would not have been able to articulate the doctrine of the Trinity as we understand it today. They didn’t have Arians and Nestorians and Gnostics banging on the door with their novel theories. Refinements of doctrine come by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who guides the Church “into all the truth.”

I know; and I explained to you what I think the reason for that is.

OK.

It wasn’t. It was developed to refer to the Triune Divines of Christian scripture: the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost. It did not refer to a particular theological interpretation of it.

Tell that to Athanasius.

The Trinity refers to the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost, which we believe in. It does not refer to a particular theological interpretation of it. I don’t care what you say. You can’t monopolize the word Trinity for yourself! We believe in the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost. That is the Trinity. You can interpret it as you please. We are not obliged to abide by your interpretation of it.

The very point of my quibbling about your appropriation of the word Trinity is that we cannot interpret it as we please. We, as Catholics (or as Orthodox or mainstream Protestants) use the word in a very precise and specific way to stand for a precise and specific formulation of the core teaching of the Christian faith. The term was around for 1500 years before Joseph Smith came along to tell us all how wrong we were. I would think the LDS would reject the term out of hand.

We do not ask you to abide by “our interpretation” of the word. I would ask that you make up your own word rather than borrowing one that, by your own admission, describes concept you believe to be Apostate.

 

[MelanieAnne]

We do not ask you to abide by “our interpretation” of the word. I would ask that you make up your own word rather than borrowing one that, by your own admission, describes concept you believe to be Apostate.

Most Mormons do not use the term “trinity” to refer to the Godhead. They may speak of Father or Heavenly Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but the actual term “trinity” is rarely used. It may be argued about in forums such as this one, but in practice, it is not something heard from your average Mormon.

Having said that, Mormons (at least some of them) have appropriated not only that term, but also the entire phrase “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” and have given their own meaning to them. As a result, many Christians, when speaking to a Mormon, naively believe that when the subject is Father, Son and/or Holy Spirit (or “trinity”) that everyone is talking about the same thing. But they’re not. There is little that they have in common beyond the name itself. I submit that at least some Mormons exploit such misunderstanding by potential converts deliberately, but it is a deceit. So each time this is done they are breaking their own rules.

 

[mercygate]

Most Mormons do not use the term “trinity” to refer to the Godhead. They may speak of Father or Heavenly Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but the actual term “trinity” is rarely used. It may be argued about in forums such as this one, but in practice, it is not something heard from your average Mormon.

Having said that, Mormons (at least some of them) have appropriated not only that term, but also the entire phrase “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” and have given their own meaning to them. As a result, many Christians, when speaking to a Mormon, naively believe that when the subject is Father, Son and/or Holy Spirit (or “trinity”) that everyone is talking about the same thing. But they’re not. There is little that they have in common beyond the name itself. I submit that at least some Mormons exploit such misunderstanding by potential converts deliberately, but it is a deceit. So each time this is done they are breaking their own rules.

Thank you for that. You sound very knowledgeable.

I don’t belive zerinus is deceitful. All I am asking is that he stand up for what he believes and stop applying HIS idea of what HE thinks the Trinity is to a word that has been a clear distinctive of Christianity ever since the term was coined.

 

[Erich]

zerinus:

Actually, it wasn’t. The Council of Nicaea was held to resolve the question of the divinity of Jesus Christ, which was being challenged by the Arians.

Right. That’s what the hypostatic union is about.

Out of the First Council of Nicaea (yes, there was a Second Council of Nicaea) came the following (emphases mine):

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance ek tes ousias] of the Father, God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of the same substance with the Father homoousion to patri], through whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth; who for us men and our salvation descended, was incarnate, and was made man, suffered and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven and cometh to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost. Those who say: There was a time when He was not, and He was not before He was begotten; and that He was made out of nothing (ex ouk onton); or who maintain that He is of another hypostasis or another substance [than the Father], or that the Son of God is created, or mutable, or subject to change, [them] the Catholic Church anathematizes.

From New Advent:

The adhesion was general and enthusiastic. All the bishops save five declared themselves ready to subscribe to this formula, convince that it contained the ancient faith of the Apostolic Church. The opponents were soon reduced to two, Theonas of Marmarica and Secundus of Ptolemais, who were exiled and anathematized. Arius and his writings were also branded with anathema, his books were cast into the fire, and he was exiled to Illyria.

 

[mercygate]

Out of the First Council of Nicaea (yes, there was a Second Council of Nicaea) came the following (emphases mine):

From New Advent:

Well, Erich: THANK you very much!

 

[MelanieAnne]

Thank you for that. You sound very knowledgeable.

I don’t belive zerinus is deceitful. All I am asking is that he stand up for what he believes and stop applying HIS idea of what HE thinks the Trinity is to a word that has been a clear distinctive of Christianity ever since the term was coined.

Oh, I’m not suggesting that he is deceitful when he uses any of these terms, because he is on record. But I do think that many Mormons, particularly missionaries, exploit the fact that the Christians they talk to very often mistakenly believe they’re all speaking the “same language” when they are definitely not. Whether it is deliberate or not, it occurs.

 

[mercygate]

Oh, I’m not suggesting that he is deceitful when he uses any of these terms, because he is on record. But I do think that many Mormons, particularly missionaries, exploit the fact that the Christians they talk to very often mistakenly believe they’re all speaking the “same language” when they are definitely not. Whether it is deliberate or not, it occurs.

I do not doubt you. But I wonder if, in fact, the average 20-year-old has enough understanding of the subject to know that we are on two different planets (heh, heh). It seems that Mormonism is “mainstreaming” toward Christianity in character and culture and the present generation may not be as finely tuned as their forebears.

'Nother thread perhaps?

 

[zerinus]

The JWs, who have a different view from yours also claim their version is “proved” by the Bible.

So what! Just because they are wrong (assuming they are) it does not prove that we must be wrong too. Where is the logic in that?

Right. That’s what the hypostatic union is about.

Nowadays people like to think that; but in those days they didn’t.

The Council of Nicea had nothing to do with the canon. And books we cherish were disputed well past Nicea: Hebrews & Revelation being two of them.

I am not saying they did. What I am saying is that the date of the canonization (whatever that was) is irrelevant to the question we are discussing.

I agree that the Christians of St. Paul’s day would not have been able to articulate the doctrine of the Trinity as we understand it today. They didn’t have Arians and Nestorians and Gnostics banging on the door with their novel theories. Refinements of doctrine come by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who guides the Church “into all the truth.”

That is your theory. We disagree with your theory.

Tell that to Athanasius.

I didn’t know Athanasius was the first person to use the word Trinity, nor to give it the “Trinitarian” meaning.

The very point of my quibbling about your appropriation of the word Trinity is that we cannot interpret it as we please.

You know what I mean.

We, as Catholics (or as Orthodox or mainstream Protestants) use the word in a very precise and specific way to stand for a precise and specific formulation of the core teaching of the Christian faith. The term was around for 1500 years before Joseph Smith came along to tell us all how wrong we were. I would think the LDS would reject the term out of hand.

Actually, we use the word “Godhead” to refer to the three members of the Trinity. Trinity is not a theological term we use very often. But I know why you want to monopolize it for yourself. You want to do that so that you can use it to misrepresent Mormonism to the uninformed. You want to tell them that Mormons are not “Christians” because they do not believe in the “Trinity,” which would give them the false impression that we do not believe in the three members of the Godhead: the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost. That is false! Our first Article of Faith states: “We believe in God the Eternal Father, and in his Son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost”. We just interpret that differently from the way you do. So I am not going to let you get away with misrepresenting Mormonism in this way. We believe in the Trinity; but we don’t interpret it in the way in which post-Apostate Christendom does—be they Catholics, Protestants, or any other.

We do not ask you to abide by “our interpretation” of the word. I would ask that you make up your own word rather than borrowing one that, by your own admission, describes concept you believe to be Apostate.

See above.

zerinus

 

[wisdomseeker]

God did, when He restored His Church on earth.

zerinus

nope. try again.

for i say to you. the CC is the True Church. the only Church. According to Jesus promise.

now what? who will decide who is right?

Cyprian

**
The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.” . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]). ***

 

[Seraphim25]

an excellent question that demonstrates ones loyalties to a deity or figure. For Christians it is love to the neighbor and to love god with all your heart and with all your soul. But not just any love. For example it is save to say that we all love it is just primarily who we love. Do we love only those who love us back. For I tell you even atheist love. But I can also say to you that unlike any other reglion the love of neighbor with out any conditions is in fact christian based.

God tells us this command: To love God with all your sole heart and mind. And to love your neighbor as yourself. Those who love thy neighbor is acceptable to God. And the truth is in that individual and the fruits at which is produced will be shown to all men. The light that came into the world Jesus Christ the Lord.

If however if you say, I love God and are racists and are hateful revenge full then the truth is NOT in you and your sins remain full force unless you repent.

Based on the bible you are in fact a christian if you accept Christ as your Lord and personal savior that he came down was buried, and was raised and is now sitting at the right hand of the father. That you are a sinner and you need Gods help and that you are not God IE Mormans understanding. That you love God and Neighbor. Then you are in fact a christian!!!

It is ALWAYS in the best interest of anybody who is seekers of the truth please do NOT look at the faults of men or men in and of itself. Look at what GOD says and how HE defines what it means to be his son/daughter. For I tell you Men will disappoint you but God will never disappoint.

Test all things try all things and you will find peace in the one who sanctifies your soul who bought you with a price.

May the Lord bring you glad tidings and give you rest to the glory of his name!

 

[zerinus]

It seems that Mormonism is “mainstreaming” toward Christianity in character and culture and the present generation may not be as finely tuned as their forebears.

Hardly! It is more like traditional Christianity is “mainstreaming” towards Mormonism! Who produced these artistic depictions of the Trinity, representing them as three separate and differentiated personages?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

I bet you thought it was some crazy Mormon artist, right? Wrong! They were done by Christian artists of several centuries ago. The truth is that the Apostate version of Trinity doesn’t make sense to anybody, including to those who profess it; and the intelligent mind cannot think of them in any other way than three separate and differentiated personages.

zerinus

 

[mercygate]

So what! Just because they are wrong (assuming they are) it does not prove that we must be wrong too. Where is the logic in that?

Nowadays people like to think that; but in those days they didn’t.

I am not saying they did. What I am saying is that the date of the canonization (whatever that was) is irrelevant to the question we are discussing.

The date of the canonization of Scripture is relevant to anybody who claims that the Bible is the Word of God. The canon was set in the late 4th Century. You accept the canon of the New Testament as the Word of God. But in your view, the Church had apostatized 300 years earlier. So by what authority do you accept the New Testament?

That is your theory. We disagree with your theory.

Third and fourth century heresies concerning the nature of Christ are not “our theory.” They are a fact of history.

You disagree that the apostate Church had the authority to combat them. OK. Then how do you not disavow the New Testament canon? The same apostate Church that delineated the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, beginning at Nicea in 325, pronounced the authoritative table of contents (canon) of the New Testament some 60 years later.

I didn’t know Athanasius was the first person to use the word Trinity, nor to give it the “Trinitarian” meaning.

I do not know that he was, but he suffered continuous persecution during his lifetime and several exiles from his diocese for his defence of the Trinity and the hypostatic union as defined at Nicea.

You know what I mean.

Do I? You say that the word “Trinity” is up for grabs. I say that it needs to be used as it has been understood theologically for 1600 years. All I ask is that you hold to a respectable scholarly standard. You are not some kitchen apologist carping about dictionary definitions. This is WAY beyond Webster.

Actually, we use the word “Godhead” to refer to the three members of the Trinity. Trinity is not a theological term we use very often. But I know why you want to monopolize it for yourself. You want to do that so that you can use it to misrepresent Mormonism to the uninformed. You want to tell them that Mormons are not “Christians” because they do not believe in the “Trinity,” which would give them the false impression that we do not believe in the three members of the Godhead: the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost. That is false! Our first Article of Faith states: “We believe in God the Eternal Father, and in his Son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost”. We just interpret that differently from the way you do. Believe me, I have not lost five minutes of sleep thinking about how I plan to misrepresent Mormonism. By insisting on your own, eccentric, partisan definition of the word “trinity,” YOU are the one misrepresenting Mormonism.

Create a term of your own for your triple but non-triune God, derived from your understanding of Scripture. That should not be difficult; in fact, it would help you clarify your quarrel with Christianity.

So I am not going to let you get away with misrepresenting Mormonism in this way. We believe in the Trinity; but we don’t interpret it in the way in which post-Apostate Christendom does—be they Catholics, Protestants, or any other.

Again: I do not represent or misrepresent Mormonism. I ask that you not appropriate a highly specific, technical Christian term and apply it to your non-consubstantial triple godhead.

 

[mercygate]

Hardly! It is more like traditional Christianity is “mainstreaming” towards Mormonism! Who produced these artistic depictions of the Trinity, representing them as three separate and differentiated personages?

http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i153/zerinus/Trinity/Trinity1.jpg

http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i153/zerinus/Trinity/Trinity2.jpg

http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i153/zerinus/Trinity/Trinity3.jpg

http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i153/zerinus/Trinity/Trinity4.jpg

http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i153/zerinus/Trinity/Trinity5.jpg

http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i153/zerinus/Trinity/Trinity6.jpg

http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i153/zerinus/Trinity/Trinity7.jpg

http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i153/zerinus/Trinity/Trinity8.jpg

I bet you thought it was some crazy Mormon artist, right? Wrong! They were done by Christian artists of several centuries ago. The truth is that the Apostate version of Trinity doesn’t make sense to anybody, including to those who profess it; and the intelligent mind cannot think of them in any other way than three separate and differentiated personages.

zerinus

Start a thread on trinitarian iconography. It is traditionally considered unacceptable to portray the Trinity graphically. Although this restriction is occasionally honored in the breach, depictions of the Trinity are not all that common.

The Rublyev Icon of the Old Testament “Trinity” (the penultimatet icon in your set on which the two above and below it are later versions) is actually the Hospitality of Abraham at Mamre. Christians believe Abraham entertained God Himself in the persons of the messengers who visited him. This icon would not fall under the heading of depictions of the Trinity as a theological concept because it represents the messengers as a TYPE of the Trinity*.*

 

[zerinus]

The date of the canonization of Scripture is relevant to anybody who claims that the Bible is the Word of God. The canon was set in the late 4th Century. You accept the canon of the New Testament as the Word of God. But in your view, the Church had apostatized 300 years earlier. So by what authority do you accept the New Testament?

That is something that I have heard form Catholics a lot, so I have given a reply to it in my Blog. You can read it here.

Third and fourth century heresies concerning the nature of Christ are not “our theory.” They are a fact of history.

You disagree that the apostate Church had the authority to combat them. OK. Then how do you not disavow the New Testament canon? The same apostate Church that delineated the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, beginning at Nicea in 325, pronounced the authoritative table of contents (canon) of the New Testament some 60 years later.

First of all this is irrelevant to what you are supposed to be replying to. But to answer it, see above.

I do not know that he was, but he suffered continuous persecution during his lifetime and several exiles from his diocese for his defence of the Trinity and the hypostatic union as defined at Nicea.

Again, that is irrelevant to what the word “Trinity” ultimately means, which is what the original question was about.

Do I? You say that the word “Trinity” is up for grabs. I say that it needs to be used as it has been understood theologically for 1600 years. All I ask is that you hold to a respectable scholarly standard. You are not some kitchen apologist carping about dictionary definitions. This is WAY beyond Webster.

What you are saying is just not true. According to the Wikipedia article on Trinity:

The English word “Trinity” is derived from Latin “Trinitas”, meaning “the number three, a triad”. This abstract noun is formed from the adjective trinus (three each, threefold, triple), as the word unitas is the abstract noun formed from unus (one).

The corresponding word in Greek is “Τριάς”, meaning “a set of three” or “the number three.”

The first recorded use of this Greek word in Christian theology (though not about the Divine Trinity) was by Theophilus of Antioch in about 170. He wrote:

“In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity Τριάδος], of God, and His Word, and His wisdom. And the fourth is the type of man, who needs light, that so there may be God, the Word, wisdom, man.”

Tertullian, a Latin theologian who wrote in the early third century, is credited with using the words “Trinity,” “person” and “substance” to explain that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are “one in essence – not one in Person.”​

Trinity is a word like any other which refers to the three Members of the Godhead. We are not bound by how post-Apostate Christendom has chosen to define it.

Believe me, I have not lost five minutes of sleep thinking about how I plan to misrepresent Mormonism. By insisting on your own, eccentric, partisan definition of the word “trinity,” YOU are the one misrepresenting Mormonism.

Then I suggest you let me worry about that! LOL! I don’t know about you; but I do know that the opponents of Mormonism are not exactly scrupulous in their honesty, and will use any dishonest tactics they can think of to misrepresent Mormonism, and I am not going to give them that chance if I can help it.

Create a term of your own for your triple but non-triune God, derived from your understanding of Scripture. That should not be difficult; in fact, it would help you clarify your quarrel with Christianity.

We have. As I said, the theological term we commonly use for the Trinity is the Godhead. But to us the word Trinity means the same thing. The fact that you want to define it in some other way is not something that concerns me.

Again: I do not represent or misrepresent Mormonism. I ask that you not appropriate a highly specific, technical Christian term and apply it to your non-consubstantial triple godhead.

I don’t care what you think. I don’t see the word Trinity in that light you are trying to depict it. It is like the word God. To you God is a pure spirit without body, parts, or passions. To us He is a personage in human form with a physical body, parts, and passions. Your objections to our use of the word Trinity as we understand it would be like trying to monopolize the word “God” because you understand something different from what we mean by it. Of course we are not going to let you do that. We believe in God, as you claim to do; but we define it differently that you do. The same applies to the word Trinity. No difference.

zerinus

 

[zaffiroborant]

Actually, we use the word “Godhead” to refer to the three members of the Trinity. Trinity is not a theological term we use very often.** But I know why you want to monopolize it for yourself. You want to do that so that you can use it to misrepresent Mormonism to the uninformed**. You want to tell them that Mormons are not “Christians” because they do not believe in the “Trinity,” which would give them the false impression that we do not believe in the three members of the Godhead: the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost. That is false! Our first Article of Faith states: “We believe in God the Eternal Father, and in his Son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost”. We just interpret that differently from the way you do. So I am not going to let you get away with misrepresenting Mormonism in this way. We believe in the Trinity; but we don’t interpret it in the way in which post-Apostate Christendom does—be they Catholics, Protestants, or any other.

Nonsense, Trinity had a specific meaning long before Mormonism existed. If anyone has an agenda concerning it’s usage it’s the LDS wanting to appear as though they’re just another run of the mill bunch of Christians when talking with investigators.

Same thing you do with the word theosis, and now you want it do it with the word Christian. I don’t see any reason to change the definitions of words just because you feel excluded. the JW’s don’t whine about it they agree they don’t fit the definition.

You really have no reason to be upset with someone else’s definitions just like we have no business being offended when you perform your rituals our dead.