The Trinity Doctrine existed long before Constantine
50 AD The Huleatt Manuscript
74 AD The Letter of Barnabas
140 AD Aristides
150 AD Polycarp of Smyrna
160 AD Mathetes
170 AD Tatian the Syrian
177 AD Athenagoras
177 AD Melito of Sardis
180 AD Theophilus of Antioch
250 AD Ignatius of Antioch
253 AD Cyprian of Carthage
262 AD Dionysius
262 AD Gregory the Wonder-worker
305 AD Methodius
305 AD Arnobius
307 AD Lactantius
Facts are stubborn things:
DAVEH wrote:
> For anyone to think they were not heavily biased by their RCC affiliation
> stretches the imagination.
I would not argue that. I agree with you that the bias existed for them to
accept the Trinity, just as the bias existed for them to accept
transubstantiation, infant baptism, purgatory, indulgences, the authority of
the clergy, etc.
DaveH wrote:
> As I see it, their break with the RCC was based on their differences of
> opinion. If they had studied the TD and not found it distasteful to their
> beliefs, then there would be no reason to break from that tradition.
Agreed. My point is only that they did not accept the Trinity only because
of their bias. They studied it out pretty thoroughly.
DAVEH:
> I have no doubt that he did study it himself, but his acceptance of it
> does not change its nature.....which as I see it was a politically
> motivated doctrine of obfuscation. I would not be surprised if Calvin
> felt the need to retain it for the same reason. From his perspective,
> anybody teaching against it might be a real threat to his religious
> foundation.
We have been over the history before. Your argument that the Trininty came
about because of politics is faulty. The Trinity Doctrine existed long
before Constantine, and it was politically unacceptable to believe in the
Trinity for generations after Constantine.
DAVEH wrote:
> Whilst the people came from a Protestant background, I don't see why you
> would think the theology did likewise. There were doctrines (TD, infant
> baptism, etc) that were not a part of Biblical Christianity that the RCC
> adopted and some of the Reformers henceforth adopted. I don't see any of
> that in Mormonism.....do you? I'm perhaps too close to LDS theology to
> see such, but if you do I'd appreciate you sharing it.
My comment was that from a HISTORICAL point of view, Mormonism is a branch
of Protestant Christianity. From a theological point of view, Mormonism
differs significantly from the majority of Protestant Christianity.
Nevertheless, there is still quite a bit of commonality. You still preach
Jesus Christ as Savior of the world, you evangelize by sharing the gospel,
you baptize converts, you practice the laying on of hands for ordination,
you have similar meetings in the sense of singing and teaching.
Peace be with you.
David Miller.
----------
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
