It"s unfortunate that rather than "allowing the vitality of orthodox ideas to be felt" through a "direct presentation," or even through "rational argument," as Austin Farrer suggests1, and which the writings of the great C.S. Lewis exemplify, that some on this site have chosen to forego dialogue in deference to invective meant to impugn LDS belief as irrational and/or illogical. In essence they are encouraging a pissing match in which neither participant comes out smelling like a bed of roses.
I strive as a general rule to follow the advice of Joseph Smith to "meddle not with any man for his religion" agreeing that "All laws and government ought to tolerate and permit every man to enjoy his religion, whether right or wrong. There is no law in the heart of God that would allow anyone to interfere with the rights of man."2 Indeed, in words again ascribed to Joseph Smith "If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way."3 Yet truth and reason seem to be furthest from the minds of our acerbic hecklers. Rather they prefer the salacious and the scandalous, anything with ample shock value will do no matter how inaccurate or aberrant. I suppose it won"t be long before they move on from polygamy to stress the old anti-Mormon chestnuts of Jesus as Lucifer"s brother and God having sex with Mary (both misrepresentations). It is interesting that in such things the Latter-day Saints to me exemplify Christianity far better than their enemies, for:
"To the best of my knowledge, not a single Latter-day Saint makes his or her living as a professional critic of anybody else"s faith. We don"t run anti-Protestant "ministries." We don't have a Sunday School curriculum focused on the errors of the Baptists. No Mormon tabloids exist that aim at refuting Calvinism. We don't buy or sell books with titles like Forty Years an Evangelical Slave. We don't produce sensationalistic videos devoted to attacking Protestant fundamentalism. I have never seen a Latter-day Saint cartoon lampooning, say, the Assemblies of God. We don't flit around the world trying to disrupt the work of other religious organizations. We don"t picket them when they dedicate new buildings. We don't haunt their meetings. We don't distribute leaflets assaulting other faiths. We don't sponsor lectures or seminars in our chapels assaulting the "evils" of our neighbors" religions, and we don't have television and radio programs "exposing" the stupidity or depravity of others" beliefs."4
The intentions of our dedicated antagonists in using such arguments as they have are described rather well by Roman Catholic writer Karl Keating who writes of anti-Catholics:
"It must be admitted they enjoy a certain tactical (if short-term) advantage in that they can get away with presenting bare-bones claims such as these; they wear our Catholicism"s defenders by inundating them with short remarks that demand long explanations."5
Indeed, it is much easier to focus on the scandalous nature of Joseph Smith"s alleged polyandry than to discuss Joseph"s plural marriages in the context of LDS history and belief as well as the biblical underpinnings of polygamy.6 I cannot stress too forcefully that there is, in my opinion, no reliable evidence that Joseph Smith ever engaged in intimate relations with any of the married women to whom he was sealed.7 Therefore I believe there is a deliberate attempt inherit in such accusations to make Joseph out to be libidinously driven and morally reprehensible when there is no warrant.8 But this is off topic.
Our position on other religions and their adherents is summed up canonically as claiming "the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience" and we have no difficulty whatsoever with allowing "all men the same privilege," no matter "how, where, or what they may" choose to "worship." (Articles of Faith 1:11)
But I am also a firm believer in equity. So firm in fact that I believe it is the Achilles heel of all anti-Mormon arguments. So if a pissing match is what is desired a pissing match it shall be. Let us see if creedal orthodoxy can measure up to the standards of logic and rationality which our critics expect us to meet.
Yet I will observe certain rules of engagement which our Critics have ignored, glossed over, or dismissed entirely. These are outlined quite well by B.H. Roberts who in reviewing a dialogue between Robert Southey and Charles Butler (the latter of whom wrote in answer to the formers arguments against Roman Catholicism), encourages both Latter-day Saints and their adversaries to adhere to such principles in matters of controversy9. He quotes Butler:
"I willingly admit that to produce against our creed or conduct all that research or fair argument can supply, is legitimate controversy; but surely to conceal our merits, or to represent them very briefly and imperfectly, and to display our defects at length, and with highest cloying, to impute to our general body what justice is only chargeable on individuals; or to estimate the writings or actions of our ancestors in the dark age, by the notions and manners of the present age, is a crying injustice."10
Butler basically asserts the following rules of engagement:
1. "to produce against our creed or conduct all that research or fair argument can supply, is legitimate controversy"
Yet it is "a crying injustice":
2. "to conceal our merits, or to represent them very briefly and imperfectly, and to display our defects at length, and with highest cloying"
3. "to impute to our general body what justice is only chargeable on individuals"
4. "to estimate the writings or actions of our ancestors in the dark age, by the notions and manners of the present age"
I will strive adhere to these specifications but based upon the subject I will address and the focus of my response, it will be utterly impossible to avoid displaying at length the defects of the creeds. I do not however believe that such will represent an excess that would be disgusting or distasteful (cloying). I will strive to give credit where credit is due in regards to the positive nature of any creedal statement. I certainly will not impute to the whole that which is the peculiar position of the part or the one. Nor, unlike our antagonists, will I attempt to pull from the creedal Christian closet the skeletons of the past. I consider it, in the words of Charles Butler, "a crying injustice" that the issue of polyandry or even polygamy proper has been drug into the limelight when no modern orthodox11 LDS Christian practices either nor was the former ever a subject of LDS belief or practice at large. Both are simply non sequitur12. Shall we similarly drag out the atrocities of the Middle Ages chargeable to both Protestant and Catholics alike and parade them about in triumph? Perhaps the depraved immorality of the popes of that time should be touted as sufficient grounds for rejecting entirely the tradition which most fully meets the requirements inherent in the term "historically orthodox?" Perhaps we should stress the modern acceptance or at least toleration of fornication, infidelity, and even adultery in the name of grace by modern creedal Christians?13 No, this is unjust.
Butler continues:
"On all I beg leave to suggest, that in every religious controversy between Protestant and Roman Catholics, the following rule should be rigidly observed: That no doctrine should be ascribed to the Roman Catholics, as a body, except such as is an article of their faith."14
Thus:
5. "no doctrine should be ascribed to the Roman Catholics [or anyone else], as a body, except such as is an article of their faith."
And how does a "doctrine" become "an article of their faith?" Why, "they consider no doctrine to be of faith unless it has been delivered by divine revelation, and propounded by the Roman Catholic Church, as a revealed article of faith."15 In a similar manner, no "doctrine" is considered to be an article of LDS faith unless it has been received by revelation, approved through authoritative channels, and presented for the acceptance of the membership of the church as a whole though a vote of common consent. Our critics have utterly ignored this standard and in doing so have attempted to present homiletics as canonical or binding. I will not do similarly.
Yet on this point it must be recognized that:
"the boast of fundamentalists that they (alone) approach the Bible without preconceived notions or extrabiblical intellectual baggage is, simply, false. The difference between the Catholics and the fundamentalists [or between the Latter-day Saints and the fundamentalists] on this point rests largely on the fact that Rome [or Salt Lake] is aware of what it is doing, and explicit about it, whole conservative Protestants tend to smuggle foreign ideas into their interpretations silently, and probably without even being aware of it themselves. Fundamentalists, Keating observes, "do not really "find" their doctrines through a literal reading of the Bible. They approach the Bible with already-held views, their own tradition, one might say, and they use the Bible to substantiate those views."16
A primary example of this is in the creedal rejection of anthropomorphism and anthropopathism or their assertion that God is not physical and emotional as we understand those words. Under this pretext all attributions to God of physicality or emotionality are merely symbolic. Yet if one jettisons these extra-biblical assumptions, accepting the possibility that God can be both anthropomorphic and anthropopathic and then read the Bible one sees a God who is very much physical and emotional; a God who angers, a God who sorrows, a God who has an actual, perceivable, physical presence (this is glaringly apparent from the incarnation).
Therefore although some may argue that I am approaching the matter from the wrong end, addressing creeds and conclusions resulting there from rather than biblical justifications thereof, such is indeed the manner in which the average fundamentalist Protestant mind works. They accept such concepts as creatio ex nihilo, divine impassability, immutability, incomprehensibility, and biblical inerrancy and sufficiency and then go to their Bible trolling for support. Granted, LDS Christians are not exempted from such actions for the manner in which we interpret the Bible is conditioned by our acceptance of Latter-day revelation, but we are not the ones clinging to the Protestant rallying cry sola scriptura (solely scripture).17
Yet back to Butler:
"When any of their adversaries, find in any Catholic writer, a position which they think reprehensible they should inquire whether it be an article of Catholic faith, or an opinion of a writer. In the latter case they should reflect, that the general body of the Catholics is not responsible for it, and should therefore abstain from charging it upon the body.
"And if they [Roman Catholic adversaries] take the higher ground, they should first endeavor to ascertain, that it is an article of the Catholic faith. But here again they should carefully examine whether it be the principle itself which they mean to impute to the Catholics, or a consequence, which they themselves reduce from it; these are widely different, and should never be confounded. If it be the principle, they should then inquire, whether it has been propounded as an article of faith by the Church.
"Whatever other opinions can be adduced though they be the opinions of their most respectable writers, though they be the opinions of the fathers of their church, still they are but matters of opinion, and a Catholic may disbelieve them without ceasing to be a Catholic."18
Additional rules derived from the above would include:
6. "When any of their adversaries, find in any Catholic writer, a position which they think reprehensible they should inquire whether it be an article of Catholic faith, or an opinion of a writer. In the latter case they should reflect, that the general body of the Catholics is not responsible for it, and should therefore abstain from charging it upon the body."
7. "But here again they should carefully examine whether it be the principle itself which they mean to impute to the Catholics, or a consequence, which they themselves reduce from it; these are widely different, and should never be confounded."
In keeping with this standard I will make certain to differentiate between that which is fundamentalist creedal belief and that which I deduce there from (of which the majority of my arguments will consist); an important distinction which our critics have failed to observe. One in particular has felt himself qualified to define what Mormons believe even though he has absolutely no authority whatsoever to do so (and I might add comes to some rather inaccurate conclusions). I will not similarly err in presenting my deductions as the beliefs of another; rather I will clearly distinguish the two. I will at no point violate rule 6 for I will adhere to the creeds as accepted which are most certainly an article of Catholic faith and are accepted, often in only slightly modified form, by the majority of creedally orthodox Christians (a term which is utterly indiscernible from historically orthodox ecumenical Christians which aptly describes most fundamentalists) .
I will begin with examining the logical, rational, and biblical nature of the creeds in my next post and then move on to a very disconcerting issue which I believe to be utterly fatal to creedal orthodoxy; the problem of evil.
_________________________
Notes: 1 Austin Farrer, "The Christian Apologist," in Light on C.S. Lewis, ed. Jocelyn Gibb (New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1965), p. 25-26. 2 Stan Larson, "The King Follett Discourse: a Newly Amalgamated Text" BYU Studies 18/2 (Winter 1978), p. 200. 3 Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 vols., introduction and notes by B. H. Roberts (Salt Lake City, UT: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1932-1951), v. 5, p. 499. 4 Daniel C. Peterson, "What Certain Baptists Think They Know about the Restored Gospel," FARMS Review of Books 10/1 (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1998), pp. 19-20. 5 Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism: The Attack on "Romanism" by "Bible Christians" (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius, 1988), p. 75 as quoted in Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks, Offenders for a Word: How Anti-Mormons Play Word Games to Attack the Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake City, UT: Aspen Books, 1992), p. 149, hereafter Offenders. 6 Which Samuel Katich does quite admirably in "A Tale of Two Marriage Systems: Perspectives on Polyandry and Joseph Smith," (Redding, CA: FAIR, 2003). Available online at http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/polyandry.pdf Hereafter Perspectives. I would also suggest for those interested the excellent articles by Richard Lloyd Anderson and Scott H. Faulring ("The Prophet and His Plural Wives") and Danel W. Bachman ("Prologue to the Study of Joseph Smith"s Marital Theology") in FARMS Review of Books 10/2 (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1998), pp. 67-137. The are available online at http://farms.byu.edu/pdf.php?filename=ODI2MjQ3MzE2LTEwLTIucGRm&type =cmV2aWV3 and http://farms.byu.edu/pdf.php?filename=MjcxMjU3NDExLTEwLTIucGRm&type =cmV2aWV3 respectively. 7 The alleged exception of Sylvia Porter Sessions Lyon is questionable at best and erroneous at worst for it is second hand, open to interpretation, and quite possibly represents only the eternal adoption implied in sealing. See Perspectives, p. 6. 8 There is in fact ample historical evidence to the contrary. 9 Brigham H. Roberts "Answer Given to "Ten Reasons Why 'Christians' Can Not Fellowship With Latter-Day Saints"" The Deseret News Saturday July 23, 1921, Section Four, p. VII. Hereafter Answer. 10 As quoted in Ibid. 11 Used here not in its historical sense but its technical sense as "confirming to established doctrine." 12 Some might argue that LDS Christians accept, with canonical support, the principle of plural marriage and such is certainly true (D&C 132). Yet there is a huge difference between the abstract acceptance of a principle and its practice. As Peterson and Ricks noted in a different context: "A thief is not merely a believer in the abstract redistribution of wealth" (Offenders, p. 31) nor is a polygamist defined as one who accepts the abstract belief that under certain circumstances God approves of the taking of plural wives. I am not a polygamist. 13 I recently engaged in conversation with a youth minister in Washington state who seemed to be entirely too willing to look the other way regarding a man who had already committed adultery three times and seemed entirely unremorseful and obdurate. 14 As quoted in Answer, p. VII. 15 Ibid. 16Offenders, pp. 127-128, brackets mine, cf. pp. 42, 43, and 99, the last of which quotes Lloyd Averill"s comment on the fundamentalist tendency toward succumbing "regularly and readily to the cult of personality." (Religious Right, Religious Wrong: A Critique of the Fundamentalist Phenomenon [New York, NY: Pilgrim, 1989], pp. 112-113) I might add that where fundamentalists do not succumb "regularly and readily to the cult of personality" they instead succumb to the cult of professionality, accepting the interpretations of the learned as opposed to those of the allegedly "spirit-filled." Either way, they accept a standard which is more than biblical; whether its "personality" or "professionality," both standards rely on a leader steeped in extra-biblical creedal orthodoxy. 17 Of course, this based upon the Protestant definition of that Latin phrase as the Bible alone, for it could be argued that certain Latter-day Saints adopt "a version of sola scriptura" i.e. "only doctrines presented in works accepted as scripture are binding on Latter-day Saints." (Blake T. Oster, "Bridging the Gulf," in FARMS Review of Books 11/2 [Provo, UT: FARMS, 1999], p. 104) I am partial to Oslter"s suggestion of a continuum of authoritative sources (p. 104-105) although I would disagree with the particular continuum he outlines. Yet he agrees in principle with Robinson, "only the scriptures are binding and must be accepted in all that they say." 18 As quoted in Answer, p. VII, including brackets.
__________________
"And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith." (D&C 88:118)
RE: Creedal Illogic, Irrationality, and Contradiction
big country,
This is no cut and paste, I wrote this specifically for this forum.
__________________
"And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith." (D&C 88:118)
RE: Creedal Illogic, Irrationality, and Contradiction
2. "all their creeds [are] an abomination in [my] sight"
These were the words which Joseph Smith claimed were spoken to him by Jesus Christ on a spring day in 1820. Words which some have attempted to brand as "hateful denunciations of Christianity" and have misrepresented with inaccurate abridgments such as "all Christian beliefs "were an abomination in his sight.""1
The actual text relates that "the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight" (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith-History 1:19, hereafter JS-H). So the first error is in claiming that "In this official account of the First Vision Joseph wrote that God told him that all Christian churches were wrong and all Christian beliefs "were an abomination in his sight.""2 It certainly says, in response to Joseph"s question "which of all the sects was right" and which I should join," that "I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt" (JS-H 1:18, 19). Yet the use of the adjective "all" is not here used with a connotation of doctrinal inclusiveness but merely numerical inclusiveness. All the present churches were wrong and bore the same mark of error, abominable creeds. Note that it is not "all Christian beliefs" which are abominable but "their creeds." This distinction is lost upon the majority of creedal Christians who believe creedal affirmation/conformity and Christianity to be synonymous. Worst yet, they usually accept creedal affirmation/conformity to be synonymous with biblical affirmation/conformity. Further compounding the error is the belief that creeds encompass "all Christian beliefs." All three assertions are erroneous.
First, apostolic Christians couldn"t have affirmed a creed dating several centuries after the passing of the apostles. The Forma Recepta of the so-called Apostles" Creed dates back to no earlier than the sixth century (even though it is believed to date earlier). And the later Nicene (325 A.D.) and Nicæno-Constantinopolitanum (381 A.D.) (I will hereafter refer to these two collectively as the Nicene Creed) as well as the Athanasian (which probably dates no earlier than the ninth century and did not gain its stature until the thirteenth), are well beyond the reach of any apostolic Christians. Therefore, logically, creedal affirmation/conformity cannot define Christianity since Christianity preceded creedal affirmation/conformity.
Second, the creeds are post-biblical, innovative (with one exception), and revolve around unbiblical terms such as Trinity and substance (homoousios) so cannot be said to reflect biblical belief (again with one exception). Some will resort to the old saw that the creeds are a summary of biblical belief yet a summary may not introduce arguments or assertions not already present in the material being summarized and the creeds definitely introduce arguments or assertions which are not biblical (with one exception); two glaring examples having already been mentioned. The Bible is entirely unconcerned with the question of whether God and Christ are of the same or like substance. I do not even believe such metaphysical speculation would have been intelligible to apostolic Christians.
Third, it is simply absurd to claim that the brief statements of belief which constitute the creeds comprise "all Christian beliefs." Certainly Jesus" Sermon on the Mount is considered part and parcel of "Christian beliefs" yet I see no mention of it in any of the primary creeds.3 Further, the miracles of Christ, certainly a pivotal portion of Jesus" ministry (considering the evidentiary nature he claimed they provided, for instance John 5:36; 10:25, 32, 37-38), are considered part of "Christian beliefs" yet no mention is made of such in even the basic Apostles Creed which Schaff acknowledges is "not the production of the apostles" but an admirable summary of the apostolic teaching, and in full harmony with the spirit and even the letter of the New Testament."4 LDS Christians would agree with this sentiment in general for the only portion of the Apostles Creed which we might have difficulty with is the phrase "who was conceived of the Holy Ghost" which depending upon the translation may endanger the Son"s begotten nature which in certainly biblical. Yet I might question why the philosophical speculations which are part and parcel of Nicene and later creeds are necessary if the Apostles Creed represents "an admirable summary of the apostolic teaching."
Indeed, it is the metaphysical speculations of the Nicene and later creeds which provide the scaffolding within which historically orthodox Christians have constructed God. Joseph Smith stated that "I cannot believe in any of the creeds of the different denominations, because they all have some things in them I cannot subscribe to, though all of them have some truth. I want to come up into the presence of God, and learn all things; but the creeds set up stakes, and say, "Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further;" which I cannot subscribe to."5 Here Joseph is referring to the creeds subscribed to by the various denominations of his day, which were primarily the Nicene (with all of its trappings from both Nicaea and Constantinople) or Athanasian Creeds. Indeed, it is the very issue of our ability to approach God, to know God, and to become like God which the creeds deny. Little wonder then that the majority of creedal fundamentalist Protestants have rejected theosis in any form.
As I noted above, I will readily grant the merits of the Apostles Creed although I consider it to be largely superfluous. It reads:
"I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth. And in Jesus Christ his only (begotten) Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary; suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell [Hades, spirit-world]; the third day he rose from the dead; he ascended into heaven; and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body [flesh]; and the life everlasting. Amen."6
In affirming a sure and abiding belief in the Bible (although rejecting infallibility and inerrancy) one cannot help but affirm the propositions of this creed. Again, as long as one is careful to retain the Fatherhood of the Father and recognizes the original meanings of "catholic" as universal, LDS Christians would indeed agree that the Apostles Creed is "an admirable [though incomplete] summary of the apostolic teaching." Yet we would also question why a summary would be required when one can merely affirm belief in the material being summarized.
Yet most if not all creedal Christians prefer the more theologically precise Nicene and Athanasian Creeds. For in merely repeating biblical assertions the Apostles Creed leaves open to speculation a great many things. As Schaff notes:
"As it is confined to the fundamental articles, and expresses them in plain Scripture terms, it admits of an indefinite expansion by the scientific mind of the Church. Thus the Nicene Creed gives clearer and stronger expression to the doctrine of Christ's divinity against the Arians, the Athanasian Creed to the whole doctrine of the Trinity and of Christ's person against the various heresies of of the post-Nicene age."7
The Apostles Creed would simply have been insufficient to address the interpretations which "orthodoxy" branded "heresy." Yet, it should be noted that:
"Terms like "orthodoxy" and "heresy" seem increasingly"to modern objective scholarship"to be mere self-congratulatory epithets worked up by the victors in the dogmatic skirmishes of Christian history. In earliest Christianity, the two are often impossible to distinguish, at least without the benefit of hindsight. In many area, the "heretics" were the established church, while the "orthodox" were the damnable minority."8
Compared to the lengthier Nicene and Athanasian Creeds the Apostles Creed is to orthodoxy what a nursery rhyme is to literature at large; quaint and agreeable but hardly useful. Indeed, as an exclusionary tool it is hardly adequate and thus usually dismissed by fundamentalists.
No, the fundamentalist draws their definition of God from the later philosophical speculations and post-biblical innovations which are endemic of the later creeds. As I have noted, many of these same fundamentalists would object that I have misrepresented their position, that their doctrine is a product of the Bible just as the creeds are, but such a claim is either a naive misrepresentation or a willful deception. The creeds are indeed used to define the bounds or orthodoxy, for the Bible certainly does not claim that God is incorporeal, impassable, immutable, or incomprehensible and the incarnation of the Son alone speaks volumes again such declarations. The Bible states only once that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one (1 John 5:7-8, the notorious Johannine Comma) and even if we overlook the dubious authenticity of the passage, it relates this unity to that of the "three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood" which are not simply "one" but merely "agree in one." (1 John 5:8) Yet this is only the tip of the iceberg.
Mind you, in assaulting the "Trinity" I am not impugning the biblical belief in the three which are one but the unbiblical manner in which the creeds attempt to define how the three are one, thereby rendering God incomprehensible and excluding human beings from any hope of eternal life, for "this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." (KJV John 17:3)
Interestingly most historically orthodox Christians are actually heretics in their own right for their view as they explain it usually ends up sounding like Modalism rather than Trinitarianism; they usually ere in doing exactly what the Athanasian Creed warns against, "confounding the Persons" by overly asserting their unity. Less familiar are those who commit the opposite fallacy in "dividing the substance" by overly stressing the individual persons. Regardless it should be noted that most attempts to explain the Trinity in rational manner upon inspection are hopelessly flawed.
I have often heard the matter related using analogies such as eggs or water. True, both are composed of three identifiable substances which are joined in unity; an egg consists of shell, white, and yolk and water is composed of two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen. The problem is that both the analogies fail to properly explain the Trinity for the former is three separate substances and thus divides the substance. The latter is really only two substances, hydrogen and oxygen and it is in the unity of their bond that they are one. The Trinity posits that God is elementarily one in essence and this substance is manifested in three persons sort of like a river which splits into three steams but still has only one head. And yet even this river analogy ends up muddying the waters, for it fails to account for other quotients of creedal orthodoxy such as the uncreated nature of the Trinity. The creeds (used hereafter to refer to the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds) understand the inability of anything empirical, rational, comprehensible to explain the creedal view of God for after almost a paragraph of contradictory nonsense the Athanasian Creed states that whether in their individual persons or their collective essence God is "Incomprehensible."
This in fact is the position to which every creedally orthodox Christian I have met has retreated to when confronted with the irrational and contradictory nature of the creeds; God is incomprehensible. Even the acknowledged expert on the creeds, Philip Schaff, retreats to this position writing:
"If the mystery of the Trinity can be logically defined, it is done here [i.e. in the Athanasian Creed]. But this is just the difficulty: the infinite truth of the Godhead lies far beyond the boundaries of logic, which deals only with finite truths and categories."9
Modern philosophers might argue with what Schaff defines as "the boundaries of logic" but inherent in his statement is the veiled admission that the only creed capable of logically defining the Trinity is in fact illogical. James E. Talmage stated after quoting the greater portion the Athanasian Creed that "It would be difficult to conceive of a greater number of inconsistencies and contradictions expressed in words as few."10 "[T]he mystery of the Trinity" cannot "be logically defined" and every attempt to do so fails. It is illogical and incomprehensible, i.e. beyond comprehension.
This seems to provide little difficulty for the ardent adherent to creedal Christianity and indeed I would most likely, on the grounds of our incomplete knowledge of things (1 Corinthians 13:12, cf. Isaiah 55:8-9), agree to overlooking such things as well if it were not for the fact that "eternal life" is to "know" the only true God." Jesus certainly comprehended God for he stated "All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son." But the verse does not end there, for Jesus came to reveal the Father to man, therefore "whomsoever the Son will reveal him" (KJV Matthew 11:27) to, can also know God. Thus in asserting that God is incomprehensible the Athanasian Creed not only bars mankind from receiving "eternal life" but thoroughly contradicts the Bible, as does any creedal Christian who falls back upon the argument that God is incomprehensible.
One can begin to understand why Jesus would label such creedal statements an "abomination" for they do indeed refuse to mankind the access to God which Jesus promised. They indeed state ""Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further."" The doctrinal line in the sand which they draw however is a line which the Bible crosses quite often.
To begin with the Athanasian Creed states that ones salvation is dependant upon ones acceptance of the "Catholic Faith" which is not a biblical proposition. There is not passage in the Bible which supports such an assertion.
Yet lest we stop there it moves on to define this "Catholic Faith" as "we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity." As previously noted, "Trinity" is not a biblical term and is therefore an innovation. But the primary issue is "worship" of this "one God in Trinity." Jesus made clear that "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." (KJV Matthew 4:10) This was in response the invitation of Satan to "fall down and worship me." (KJV Matthew 4:9) Clearly Jesus reserved worship for one being only, the being whom he called his God (Matthew 27:46; Mark 15:34; John 20:17) whom he clearly identified as the God of the Jews (John 8:54; 20:17), i.e. Jesus" God and the God of the Jews were one and the same God. One could argue that there are instances of worship being directed toward Christ, but Jesus acknowledged his clearly subordinate role and directed all praise be given to the Father. Yet even if one could argue for "devotion to Christ in terms and actions characteristically deemed appropriate for God"11 as Larry Hurtado does, one is still left with only a binity not a Trinity (which is really all that John 10:30 could support). There is no biblical warrant whatsoever for "worship" of the Holy Ghost, not even in unity with the Father and Son. So it would seem questionable on biblical grounds to "worship" Jesus and extra-biblical to "worship" the Holy Ghost. Granted, such an argument might divide the substance but the Athanasian Creed also counsels us not to be cautious not to confound the persons. In worshipping "one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity" the Athanasian Creed again provides us with contradictory standards for no matter what one does in the matter one is violating its standards or a biblical standard. This is of course my perception.
This same creed claims that "the Godhead of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all One, the Glory Equal, the Majesty Co-Eternal." If the "Godhead" of the three is really "One" then why does Paul state that "in him," that is in "Christ Jesus the Lord", "dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." (KJV Colossians 2:9) This clearly is a matter of an unequal possession of the fullness of the Godhead (at least "bodily") in the person of Jesus who bears "the fulness of the Godhead bodily." For if "the fulness of the Godhead bodily" "dwelleth" alone in Jesus then it cannot also logically dwell in the Father and the Holy Ghost for then it could not in its fullness dwell in Christ. Likewise Jesus request in his great intercessory prayer "O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory I had with thee before the world was" (KJV John 17:5) which clearly indicates that Jesus' "Glory" was certainly at one point less than "equal" to that of the Father. To whom shall we defer, Jesus or pseudo-Athanasius?
It continues in asserting that "Such as the Father is: such is the Son and such is the Holy Ghost." Yet isn"t that rather a confounding of the persons? Indeed the Father is not the Son, neither is the Son the Holy Ghost but if one is such as the others are then the Father is the Son and the Holy Ghost as well. The Son would then be the Father and the Holy Ghost as well and the Holy Ghost is the Father and Son. This is certainly a confounding of the persons and utterly contradictory.
There follows an affirmation that there is a "Father," a "Son," and a "Holy Ghost" and all three are "uncreate" yet contrary to conventional arithmetic "there are not Three Uncreated." Isn"t this again a bit of a "confounding [of] the Persons?" For if each of the "Persons" is "uncreate" why would then that not result in "Three Uncreated." But that would then divide the substance. It seems that either way some aspect of Trinitarian profession is in danger. Likewise one does not get "three incomprehensibles" from a "Father incomprehensible," a "Son incomprehensible" and a "Holy Ghost incomprehensible" although the very distinction of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost implies that that is indeed what we get. The very existence of three titles and their unique roles implies a separation. Indeed, only the Father is "made of none: neither created, nor begotten." In contrast "The Son is of the Father alone: not made, nor created, but begotten." And finally we have "The Holy Ghost" who "is of the Father and of the Son [the filioque]: neither made, nor created, nor begotten: but proceeding." (brackets identifying the filioque mine) The very fact that the Father is alone "made of none: neither created, nor begotten" and the Son alone is "begotten" and the Holy Ghost alone is proceeding means that "Such as the Father is: such is [not] the Son" or "the Holy Ghost" for otherwise all would have to be "made of none," "begotten," and "proceeding." The very fact that they have varying aspects indicates that they are not "equal." If this utter mass of confusion and contradiction is not enough to convince one of the illogical nature of Trinitarian orthodoxy I am not sure what is.
Yet in this same vein "the Father is God: the Son is God: and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet there are not three Gods: but one God." As I recall Jesus said, contrary to this mish-mash of gibberish, that there was "only" one "true God" (KJV John 17:3) and that he was not that God but was "sent" thereby. And this God was undoubtedly his superior: "my Father is greater than I." (KJV John 14:28) Yet the Athanasian Creed asserts "And in this Trinity none is afore, or after another: none is greater, or less than another [there is nothing before, or after: nothing greater or less]." The contradiction here is blatant.
How can there be "nothing before, or after: nothing greater or less" if the Son is "begotten" and the Holy Ghost "proceeding?" If the Son is eternally begotten and the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding than has not the substance always and forever been divided? Why concern oneself with avoiding "dividing the substance" when this is of necessity the eternal state of that substance? One thing is for certain, this abysmal attempt at logic (which either flirts with or outright violates the most basic rule of logic: noncontradiction, i.e. P and not P) is certain to lead to "confounding the persons" who read it. Granted that time becomes meaningless to those who are eternal there being no end (and no beginning) but there is a sequence of events. There was a point both before and after the incarnation, a point before Jesus was begotten and a point thereafter. A point before the Son sent forth the Holy Ghost as promised (John 16:7) and a point after then this promise was fuflilled (Acts 2). Events have continued to occur sequentially ever since so there must have been a point in the eternally vast range of God's history in which the essence was not divided, a time before the Son was "begotten" and before the Holy Ghost proceeded. Yet such logic confounds "the Persons."
In reviewing "all things, as aforesaid" we return back to the assertion of "the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped" and a reassertion of the absolute need to "thus think of the Trinity." At this point I might paraphrase this statements that "He therefore that will be" hopelessly befuddled and excluded from eternal life "[let him] thus think of the Trinity."
And yet we have only begun, for we enter into the Christological portion of the creed next where we are informed that "it is necessary to everlasting salvation: that he also believe rightly [faithfully] the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ." Granted, the New Testament informs us that the "spirit of anti-Christ" which is most certainly "not of God" will assert that confess "not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh." (1 John 4:2-3) So I will agree that "everlasting salvation" does indeed seem to be dependant upon accepting "the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ" but does the two-nature Christology of Creed of Chalcedon and Athanasian Creed truly represent the manner in which one should "believe rightly?"
The creed moves on to define "the right Faith" as believing and confessing "that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Substance [Essence] of the Father; begotten before the words: and Man, of the Substance [Essence] of his Mother, born in the world." If this statement had ended with "is God and Man" it might have escaped notice, but is moves on the posit two Christ"s one "of the Substance [Essence] of the Father" and another "of the Substance [Essence] of his Mother." This separation continues to be compounded with statements such as "Perfect God: and perfect Man," "Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead: and inferior to the Father as toughing his Manhood." Yet we are told later on that these two natures are "One together; not by confusion of the Substance [Essence]: but by unity of Person." So here we have to substances, two essences, combined in the one Person of Jesus Christ "not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh: but taking [assumption] of the Manhood into God." Thus we have two Christ"s in essence joined in one person. This is highly problematic in many respects. First, it is not biblical. There is not a single passage in the Bible in support of such an assertion and it springs from "attempts to explain how God can be impassible, immutable, timeless, and omniscient in the absolutist sense." It is founded solely is "the assumptions" of "Greek philosophy, particularly Middle Platonism."12
Its primary problem is that it violates "The most basic law of logic, the law of noncontrdiction" for "the essential properties of "God" appear to be incompatible with the essential properties of humans."13 Of course, if there is any creedal Christian out there who believes that the incommunicable attributes of God"s essence are communicable to humans we might have something to address but I dare say that as Craig Blomberg, they will agree that only God is "uncreate" yet humans are "Created or ontologically contingent." This single attribute is a violation of the law of noncontradition for it assertsboth P and not P, i.e. Jesus is both uncreate and created for to posit otherwise violates the unity of the Person. If God and man are truly incompatible then Jesus is a logical contradiction. He cannot exist. Other "Essential Attributes" which creedal Christians would affirm further compound the problem, such as incorporeality, omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence, all of which stand directly opposed to what would be the essential properties of humanity, "A nonessential property is one that a thing can fail to have and still be what it is."14 Since God, as conceived by creedal Christians cannot cease to be uncreated, incorporeal, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent and still be God and yet Jesus was indeed created, corporeal, and limited in knowledge, perception, power, and presence. Jesus cannot simultaneously be both God and not-God at the same time. This would bea clear violation of logic yet this seems to be exactly what the creed asserts.
It also thoroughly contradicts the Bible, for in opposition to the creed which states that the incarnation was "not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh: but taking [assumption] of the Manhood into God," John states "the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." (KJV John 1:14) The incarnation is indeed the "conversation of [at least one member of] the Godhead into flesh" (brackets mine). God became man in the person of Christ. This is the clear teaching of Paul, for Jesus "though he was in the form of God, did not account equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied [kenosis] himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men." (RSV Philippians 2:6-7) Jesus was man in the fullest sense having "emptied himself" of his divinity. Yet the creed asserts that Jesus was "Perfect God" which is directly opposed to his own admission that "the third day I shall be perfected." (KJV Luke 13:32) Was Jesus ignorant of the other half of his alleged dual-nature or was he merely being deceptive? If the latter, he pulled the wool over Paul"s eyes who believed he was "made perfect" through sufferings (KJV Hebrews 5:8-9).
Indeed, in the words of John Hick, to say that Christ is "very God and very man" is "as devoid of meaning as to say that a circle" is also a square."15
This is probably one of the most serious difficulties that I believe creedal Christians must face, for the matter ends up being much more serious that merely illogic and contradiction, it threatens the very nature of Christ"s ability to save. Jesus did indeed, although emptied, receive through his divine paternity certain divine abilities for he indicated clearly that "Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again." (KJV John 10:17-18) This power over death allowed Christ literally to choose when he would die, thus his final statement "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit" (Luke 23:46). It is only in this melding of divine and human that Jesus could have endured sufficiently to provide an infinite atonement. In separating God and Man in the person of Christ creedal Christians are left with a finite Man who can suffer only a finite amount and thus provide only a finite atonement. Such is especially true for those who accept the absolute impassibility and immutability of God. For if God is truly incapable of change and incapable of suffering or experiencing pain then the divine nature of Christ not only did not but could not suffer.
The creed tries to relate the "soul and flesh" which result in "one man" to the "God and Man" which "is one Christ" but in stating that this "perfect Man" is "of a reasonable soul and human flesh consisting" they actually violate the confines of the two combined as one as is the case with "soul and flesh." We have Jesus, the "perfect Man" who has both "a reasonable soul" and "human flesh" as well as a second divine nature which is separate there from. No, just as with the Trinity, there is no earthy analogy which will suffice to dismiss the illogical and contradictory character of dual-nature Christology.
The creed concludes with affirming some biblical events of Jesus" existence, including suffering "for our salvation" (although if truly impassible only half of him suffered), "descended into hell," "rose again the third day from the dead," "ascended into heaven," "From whence [thence] he shall come to judge the quick and the dead," as well as "At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies." Interestingly, many creedal Christians with whom I have conversed are hesitant to confirm the decensus ("descended into hell") even though it is part and parcel of even the Apostles Creed and they are also, when stressing their fundamentalist Reformation saved by Grace theology in apparent contradiction to the creeds affirmation that after resurrection "all men" shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into everlasting life: and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire" (italics mine). What? Works? Yes, you read correctly. The pet theological proposition of most fundamentalists appears to thoroughly contradict the Apostles and the Athanasian Creed. Interestingly the Nicene Creed includes no such statement.
The Athanasian Creed closes with its final of three anathemas, "except a man believe faithfully [truly and firmly]" in this "Catholic Faith," "he can not be saved." Clearly such a threat can be rejected for the authority on which it rests is extra-biblical and even counter-biblical, contradictory and illogical. Paul counseled us to "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." (KJV 1 Thessalonians 5:21) I have tried the Athanasian Creed and it is certainly not good.
Based upon the length of this study so far I will leave the Symbol of Chalcedon and the Nicene Creed proper unreviewed in their entirety. The assertions of the Symbol of Chalcedon regarding the dual-nature of Christ are largely represented in the Athanasian Creed as are the general contents of the Nicene Creed.
I believe I have provided ample evidence (although not exhaustive for I failed to compare the creeds to each other to pick out inconsistencies, contradictions, and variations and I did not present the entirely of my biblical objections) that creedal belief is illogical, contradictory, and irrational. Thus rendering the orthodox view of God, (which is a directreflection thereof) illogical, contradictory, and irrational.
In my next post I will address the problem of evil.
_________________________
Notes: 1 Robert McKay, The Evangel 38 (October 1991), p. 3 and The Utah Evangel 34 (May-June 1987), p. 6 respectively as cited in Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks, Offenders for a Word: How Anti-Mormons Play Word Games to Attack the Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake City, UT: Aspen Books, 1992), p. 166-167, hereafter Offenders. 2 Ibid. 3 These are the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed (which in its accepted form includes revisions and additons which actually make it the Nicæno-Constantinopolitanum Creed), the Creed of Chalcedon and the Athanasian Creed which encompasses and develops upon the assertions of the first four. I will draw the text of the creeds from Phillip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, 3 vols., 6th ed. (Grand Rapids, CO: Baker, 1983), 2:45 (printed PDF, pp. 73-74), 2:58-59 (printed PDF, p. 91), 2:62-63 (printed PDF, pp. 94-97), and 2:66-70 (printed PDF, pp. 98-102) respectively. The first two volumes being central to the topic and conveniently available online in their entirety in the "Christian Classics Ethereal Library" at http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds1.pdf and http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.pdf. I used the PDF but there are multiple formats available. Hereafter Creeds 1 and 2 with page number as above (2:45). 4Creeds 1:14. 5 Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 vols., introduction and notes by B. H. Roberts (Salt Lake City, UT: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1932-1951), v. 6, p. 57. 6Creeds 2:45. 7Creeds . 8Offenders, pp. 40-41. 9Creeds 1:38. 10 James E. Talmage, Articles of Faith (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1981), p. 43. 11 Larry W. Hurtado, "What Do We Mean by "First-Century Jewish Monotheism?"" at http://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/Hu...Monotheism.htm, p. 4 (printed copy). Originally published in Society of Biblical Literature 1993 Seminar Papers, ed. Eugene H. Lovering Jr. (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993). 12 Blake T. Ostler, "Bridging the Gulf," in FARMS Review of Books 11/2 (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1999), pp. 142-143. Hereafter Bridging. Oslter, in reviewing "Blomberg on the Incarnation" provides a very sound refutation of dual-nature Christology, see pp. 143-149. Available online at http://farms.byu.edu/pdf.php?filenam...;type=cmV2aWV3 13 Ibid, p. 143. 14 Ibid, p. 144. 15 John Hick, The Myth of God Incarnate (London, England: SCM, 1977), p. 178, as quoted in Ibid, p. 144.
__________________
"And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith." (D&C 88:118)
RE: Creedal Illogic, Irrationality, and Contradiction
Mr. Mahonri
I noticed you stated that your next post would concern a different subject.
Before you move on to the next subject I would like to ask you to please explain the LDS doctrine and beliefs concerning the relationship of God Father-God Son-God Holy Spirit.
For my benefit can you please explain why a person might look on LDS doctrine as correct?
Please cite doctrine explaining the LDS view of the God-Head.
Thanks
Mr-Pirk
__________________
A proud owner of a Flying Vee. Bestowed by the fine Gentleman VC1111 himself.
RE: Creedal Illogic, Irrationality, and Contradiction
Mr-Pirk,
Your comments in quotes followed by my replies:
Quote:
I noticed you stated that your next post would concern a different subject.
Yes, that is correct.
Quote:
Before you move on to the next subject I would like to ask you to please explain the LDS doctrine and beliefs concerning the relationship of God Father-God Son-God Holy Spirit.
No, I will not, for that is not the purpose of this discussion.
Quote:
For my benefit can you please explain why a person might look on LDS doctrine as correct?
Again, no, I will not. The purpose of this discussion would not be served by entering into a debate regarding which view is correct (in fact I am not arguing for the acceptability of LDS belief in this discussion even though I believe I could provide a good case for it). I am only arguing that creedal orthodoxy is not logical or rational just as some have attempted to argue regarding LDS Christianity.
Quote:
Please cite doctrine explaining the LDS view of the God-Head.
Again, I decline. My next post introducing the problem of evil will follow shortly.
__________________
"And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith." (D&C 88:118)
RE: Creedal Illogic, Irrationality, and Contradiction
Not to get in a pissing contest, but using division in this case to prove SOME point is a bit beyond me Using Catholic writers etc to support your case is a little misleading toa small minded lay person such as myself..The truth is Catholics think Its,LDS, belief is all bunk.I am not Bashing as some might think,just stating a fact..If you want to change doctrine of the Catholic church why not just go to a Catholic web site that will explain this in words you will clearly understand.Believe me we have people who can do that.
I have top soil from the John Smith Farm in my front yard. TRUTH. It does not hold water well.I suggest your arguments are the same. Swamp's title for discussion was correctand the wrong posts were closed. Not that I think any should be.
Creedal Illogic, Irrationality, and Contradiction
