Contrast that to your perspective of believing in a Triune God that at the insistence of a non Christian political figure was defined by a group of religious people with diverse opinions of doctrines several centuries after the advent of Jesus.
Pardon me for butting in, but the greater consideration, here, is NOT the Trinity or a tow-person, one Spirit Godhead ---- rather it (this greater consideration) -- is the notion of an apostasy (implied) resulted in this doctrine of the Trinity "several centuries after the advent of Jesus" as if the First Church began as the Right On Church and lost it's wa several centuries down the road. Nothing could be further from the truth, either historically or biblically !!! The very simple fact of biblical script is that the First Church, the one so many consider to be the "Right Church," was only right because it's membership was individually counted as "right -- eous" through the gracious act of God in viewing "faith" IN THE PLACE OF THEIR RIGHTEOUSNESS. It was made "right" by the action of Another -- by Jesus Christ and NOT BY THE INDIVIDUALS WITHIN THIS ASSEMBLY.
The Book of Romans is an inspired publication that belongs to this "Right Church," does it not? I mean, it was written before the "great apostasy." Correct? And what does it teach.
Well, for starters -- it teaches we are MADE righteous by the EXCHANGE of faith for righteousness. God saw as necessary His decision to give up on our righteousness and consider faith IN IT'S PLACE (Romans 4).
It teaches that law, any law, is doomed to failure (Romans 2 - 4) and yet we find ourselves substituting law for law all the time. The Mormons do it. The Baptist, bless their grace preaching hearts, do it. It is a most common substitution ------- and not of the will of God.
It (The Book of Romans) teaches over and over again that we all "have sinned and continue to fall short of the glory of God (3:23) so how is it that an Assembly of fallen-and-falling believers suddenly become the "Right Church?" ONLY through grace and its several (biblical) applications. Starting over? Getting it right the second time around? Such is the doctrine of denial ---------------- denying that the grace of God in dealing with sin and error is sufficient; denying that a perfect and all knowing spirit being ------that would be "God" ------ had the ability to shepherd His flock and deal with their error, error that existed from the Day of Pentecost onward and error He most certainly knew would happen.
The doctrine of salvation by grace through faith apart from obedience to any law (Romans 4; Eph 2) makes the Mormon Church unnecessary and the Mormon people, who have given themselves to Christ, saved ANYWAY, as is the case with all Christians. The traditions found in the Mormon Church may be as valuable as the traditions and creeds of mainstream Christianity but neither are germane to the issue of salvation by grace through faith, and that not of ourselves, lest any should boast, but it is the gift of God.
It (this Book of Romans) teaches over and over again that we all are failures and the ONLY solution is the solution found in the exchange of faith for a failing and personal righteousness.
I have often asked, How many Trinitarians were there on the Day of Pentecost? Answer: of the three thousand repentant believers on that day, not one was a Trinitarian. How many folks with Mormon teaching were there on that day? If your answer is greater than "zero," you make a claim that is not in evidence. The fact of the matter is this: that First Church didn't look like anything we have today -- whether of Mormon tradition or Catholic, or Protestant, or Charismatic ................... and I am a charismatic believer.
Do we get all bunched up about this difference? Do we run and hide behind some Creed or tradition or personal experience -- thinking that what we DO will make things better? Or do we give ourselves to the teachings of the First Church, found in Romans, that give us hope and salvation knowing that "while we were yet sinners (in religious error and moral decay), Christ died for us." What He did in the beginning, He continues to do.
John Smithson
