Jump to content
270soft Forum

Conservative Party of Canada Leadership Race


Recommended Posts

Good day everyone,

For those of us who are Canadian/live in Canada/follow Canadian politics, it looks like the CPC leadership race is heating up in the waning moments.

https://ipolitics.ca/2020/08/19/mackay-ahead-of-otoole-by-a-hair-in-tory-leadership-race-poll/

It appears to be a dead heat between MacKay and O'Toole.  I personally think that MacKay needs to get over 50% on the first ballot, or Lewis and Sloan's supporters will probably put O'Toole over the top on the second or third.  With a possible fall election looming (I don't think that there will be one, the NDP is too broke to trigger it), MacKay would honestly be my choice to lead the CPC into a battle against Trudeau in the immediate future.  That being said, I think that MacKay would do well to adopt some of O'Toole's platform, particularly his climate change positions.  The carbon tax battle is settled in my mind.

I personally think that MacKay correctly identified the situation surround Scheer's loss very well when he called his social conservative beliefs a "stinking albatross".  Scheer was far too wishy washy about the topic, and should have just came out and said that the abortion and LGBT debate was finalized and would not be reopened.  I know that there are still many social conservatives in Canada, but the country as a whole is trending in the complete opposite direction.  I think that they need to recognize that, and be thankful that the CPC still allows them to have a very powerful voice in the party.  Regardless of personal beliefs, a social conservative is not going to win a general election in Canada in 2020. 

In my mind, MacKay is the perfect leader to unseat Trudeau in an upcoming election.  The social conservative question is not applicable, and even Trudeau's most staunchest supporters must admit that there are far too many ethics violations to ignore.  I am honestly impressed that Trudeau keeps getting away with it to be frank, he must have a million fall guys.  A candidate that appeals to the center is exactly what the Tories need to pick up additional seats in Ontario and in the Maritimes.  I still stand by my position that Pierre Poilievre was the best choice that the CPC had, but you can only choose among candidates that are actually running.

Anyone else have any thoughts?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Good day everyone, For those of us who are Canadian/live in Canada/follow Canadian politics, it looks like the CPC leadership race is heating up in the waning moments. https://ipolitics.ca/2

I'll almost certainly still vote for Singh regardless of who wins this leadership race. The only Federal right-of-centre party leader in an election I ever even CONSIDERED voting for as long as I coul

Agreed with the admin. Singh was relatively likeable, even if you didn't like his policies. He saved the NDP from perhaps losing the "third party" status to the Greens. He could maybe peel off more Li

32 minutes ago, CPE said:

Scheer was far too wishy washy

Scheer was a poor candidate all around. Yet the Conservatives still came pretty close to beating the Liberals.

My guess is either MacKay or O'Toole will be an improvement. O'Toole is more charismatic IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, CPE said:

should have just came out and said that the abortion and LGBT debate was finalized and would not be reopened

Scheer made the mistake it seems many so-cons make when running for office - being unable to articulate the reasons for his views and then frame those effectively and compassionately. Instead, he looked like he had something to hide ... because he did!

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Scheer was a poor candidate all around. Yet the Conservatives still came pretty close to beating the Liberals.

My guess is either MacKay or O'Toole will be an improvement. O'Toole is more charismatic IMO.

I think that O'Toole is a little too "true blue" for the next election, but he does have the potential to win it.  There are going to be a lot of dissatisfied centrist Liberal voters when the next election occurs, Trudeau has had too many scandals to ignore.  The NDP will probably siphon off the more progressive set looking for different leadership, while a MacKay led CPC would probably be able to pick up the centrist voters that the Liberals will probably hemorrhage.  I think O'Toole can do it as well, just that MacKay has better odds of pulling off a victory.  I do agree that O'Toole is more charismatic from what we have seen so far, but then again, MacKay has been the front runner from the beginning.  His campaigning efforts would probably be significantly ramped up in a general election scenario.

15 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Scheer made the mistake it seems many so-cons make when running for office - being unable to articulate the reasons for his views and then frame those effectively and compassionately. Instead, he looked like he had something to hide ... because he did!

Well his reasons were religious, that is why.  Most Canadians from my experience are rather irreligious.  It is going to be hard to drum up sympathy when there are two different sets of moral values.  I still think he could have placated many concerns if he would have just openly stated that the issues are closed and not open for any further debate.  I remember the media harping on the fact that he refused to rule out challenges to the existing policies from a backbencher.  Everything just looked to shady.  It certainly didn't help that he kept his US citizenship hidden, lied about being an insurance broker, and just seemed to have a platform of "Trudeau bad".  The only significant part of his manifesto that I vividly remember were the various tax breaks (I think he had several for pensions, families, etc.)  He made the same mistake Mitt Romney made in the US, they both lost winnable elections due to focusing on their opponent without talking about policy differences.  Romney and Trump's campaigns were night and day, Trump made his policy positions known from day 1.  I still find it hard to believe that Stephen Harper allegedly chose Scheer to be his direct successor, Harper was a master politician that was able to create and hold together a united conservative movement across Canada, no small feat.  

I like the man personally, but think that he did a horrible job campaigning.  He needed to focus more on a platform, and less on attacking Trudeau.  Did not manage the perception surrounding his social conservative beliefs well either.  He lost a perfectly winnable election.  Between SNC Lavalin and the blackface scandals, he should have been able to obtain a minority government at the very least.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, CPE said:

Harper was a master politician

I dunno about that. A good strategist, yes. But he was helped by having to run against a string of low-charisma opponents (Martin, Dion, Ignatieff). 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, CPE said:

Well his reasons were religious, that is why

Ya, so if someone believes something because their religion tells them that, they're going to have a hard time. This might often be the case. They might have accepted certain views without thinking them through. They have to move to the reasons *why*. "My religion says so" isn't good enough if you're in a religiously heterogenous or largely secular society.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

I dunno about that. A good strategist, yes. But he was helped by having to run against a string of low-charisma opponents (Martin, Dion, Ignatieff). 

I concede that the Liberal competition certainly wasn't the best, but I do admire how he managed to unite the progressive and social wings of the conservative movement into one unified voice.  This is going to be the biggest challenge for the next CPC leader imo, keeping the party intact.  Social conservatives are not going to be happy about a MacKay or O'Toole leadership, but they need to realize that the nation as a whole is drifting away from that mentality.  It is going to be near impossible to get a social conservative elected as Prime Minister in today's Canada, best for them to find someone who is sympathetic even if they personally disagree with their beliefs.  Despite not being social conservatives themselves, MacKay and O'Toole both know that social conservatives hold influence in the CPC, and will have to play ball with them at some point.

 

14 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Leslyn Lewis is from your neck of the woods originally, I believe. One of her main planks is being forthright about her views on various social issues, unlike Scheer.

Yes, she is from Jamaica.  I am not personally from Jamaica, but I am very familiar with the culture.  I can assure you that Caribbean social positions would be described as "far-right" in Canada.  Depending on which locale you are in, Anglicanism (not the Episcopalian version either) Catholicism, or Southern Christian denominations (ie. Baptist, Pentecostal) are going to be the predominant religions.  There are some Sunni Muslims, Hindus, atheists, etc. spread throughout the region, but the vast majority of the population identifies with a socially conservative Christian denomination.  Support for the LGBT movement and abortion is not going to be found anywhere near here, except in isolated pockets (ie. Cuba has a strong LGBT movement thanks to Castro's daughter if my memory is correct).  

I don't see Leslyn Lewis as Prime Minister of Canada due to her social conservative beliefs, however, I think that she is well suited for a cabinet position as she has proven herself to be an intelligent, well rounded individual and speaker.  I have seen some Tory supporters hyping her up, but it would be throwing an election away if she were ever nominated.  If I am any other party, the first thing I am going to ask her is how is she going to ban sex-selective abortions?  How can you truly discern a mother's intent, and decide whether she is aborting a child based on sex alone?  It leads to way too many uncomfortable questions, and raises the hidden agenda argument once again.  Supporting conversion therapy will sink her campaign even worse.

Despite her social conservative views, I think that CPC does need to bring her into the party fold.  At the very least, as an MP; at the most, a Cabinet minister, maybe even Deputy Prime Minister.  Expecting her to become the Prime Minister of Canada is a mere pipe dream in my opinion though, her social policy positions will not sit well with most Canadians.

20 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Ya, so if someone believes something because their religion tells them that, they're going to have a hard time. This might often be the case. They might have accepted certain views without thinking them through. They have to move to the reasons *why*. "My religion says so" isn't good enough if you're in a religiously heterogenous or largely secular society.

I am a Roman Catholic myself, but I understand that a non-Catholic is not going to use the Bible or Catholic Church teachings as a moral compass.  A large portion of Evangelical Christians do not even consider us Christian at all lol!  Even most Protestant denominations cut out the parts of the Bible that support Catholic teachings (ie. 1st and 2nd Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, Tobit etc.), so they would hold different views as well.  My point is that I could not expect others to sympathize with my beliefs/support my positions based on a religion that is in the minority in Canada.  If it were me personally, I would steer the conversation away from my personal beliefs just by saying that the questions have been settled and will not be brought up by front or backbenchers, period.  Kill the topic there, and make it clear in the media and manifesto that my personal beliefs are private and not a part of the discussion.  I do believe in evangelization for my faith, but trying to bring religion into Canadian politics is absolute suicide.  Converts need to be won outside of Ottawa.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, CPE said:

If it were me personally, I would steer the conversation away from my personal beliefs just by saying that the questions have been settled and will not be brought up by front or backbenchers, period.

To be fair, this is what Scheer tried to do. See articles like this

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/scheer-abortion-pro-life-1.5307415

But it didn't work.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, CPE said:

I can assure you that Caribbean social positions would be described as "far-right" in Canada

Interesting description of the culture there - thanks for this.

One interesting dynamic in Canada is that there are lots of immigrants, typically from places more socially conservative than Canada. Yet they tend not to vote Conservative.

One big success of Harper was figuring out how to get enough of them to vote Conservative to win a majority.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My criterion for whether someone is a Christian is, do they think Jesus is the Christ, and attempt to follow his teachings and example? If so, they are probably Christians.

So I find a lot of denominational bickering over criteria to be a Christian a bit silly, TBH.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, CPE said:

I concede that the Liberal competition certainly wasn't the best, but I do admire how he managed to unite the progressive and social wings of the conservative movement into one unified voice.  This is going to be the biggest challenge for the next CPC leader imo, keeping the party intact.  Social conservatives are not going to be happy about a MacKay or O'Toole leadership, but they need to realize that the nation as a whole is drifting away from that mentality.  It is going to be near impossible to get a social conservative elected as Prime Minister in today's Canada, best for them to find someone who is sympathetic even if they personally disagree with their beliefs.  Despite not being social conservatives themselves, MacKay and O'Toole both know that social conservatives hold influence in the CPC, and will have to play ball with them at some point.

 

Yes, she is from Jamaica.  I am not personally from Jamaica, but I am very familiar with the culture.  I can assure you that Caribbean social positions would be described as "far-right" in Canada.  Depending on which locale you are in, Anglicanism (not the Episcopalian version either) Catholicism, or Southern Christian denominations (ie. Baptist, Pentecostal) are going to be the predominant religions.  There are some Sunni Muslims, Hindus, atheists, etc. spread throughout the region, but the vast majority of the population identifies with a socially conservative Christian denomination.  Support for the LGBT movement and abortion is not going to be found anywhere near here, except in isolated pockets (ie. Cuba has a strong LGBT movement thanks to Castro's daughter if my memory is correct).  

I don't see Leslyn Lewis as Prime Minister of Canada due to her social conservative beliefs, however, I think that she is well suited for a cabinet position as she has proven herself to be an intelligent, well rounded individual and speaker.  I have seen some Tory supporters hyping her up, but it would be throwing an election away if she were ever nominated.  If I am any other party, the first thing I am going to ask her is how is she going to ban sex-selective abortions?  How can you truly discern a mother's intent, and decide whether she is aborting a child based on sex alone?  It leads to way too many uncomfortable questions, and raises the hidden agenda argument once again.  Supporting conversion therapy will sink her campaign even worse.

Despite her social conservative views, I think that CPC does need to bring her into the party fold.  At the very least, as an MP; at the most, a Cabinet minister, maybe even Deputy Prime Minister.  Expecting her to become the Prime Minister of Canada is a mere pipe dream in my opinion though, her social policy positions will not sit well with most Canadians.

I am a Roman Catholic myself, but I understand that a non-Catholic is not going to use the Bible or Catholic Church teachings as a moral compass.  A large portion of Evangelical Christians do not even consider us Christian at all lol!  Even most Protestant denominations cut out the parts of the Bible that support Catholic teachings (ie. 1st and 2nd Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, Tobit etc.), so they would hold different views as well.  My point is that I could not expect others to sympathize with my beliefs/support my positions based on a religion that is in the minority in Canada.  If it were me personally, I would steer the conversation away from my personal beliefs just by saying that the questions have been settled and will not be brought up by front or backbenchers, period.  Kill the topic there, and make it clear in the media and manifesto that my personal beliefs are private and not a part of the discussion.  I do believe in evangelization for my faith, but trying to bring religion into Canadian politics is absolute suicide.  Converts need to be won outside of Ottawa.

I have never understood the heady and toxic brew that is "Christian Social Conservativism," in politics, as it stands now, and going back centuries. There is NOTHING said in the Ministry of Christ - not a word - and many parables explicitly AGAINST that viewpoint of things. Christ preached peace, charity, giving up wealth, non-violence, non-judgementalism, forgiveness, and condemning lives devoting to acquiring wealth. So, where did an ideology, and other views often tied at the hip to those - like tight money (usually hurting the poor), support for rampant corporatism and free-market economics, hard law-and-order justice, and, often, military interventionism, spring from His Ministry? It is inexplicable and non-sensical, and strikes me as most likely being the Lord's Name used in vain to justify evil acts upon the earth by wolves in sheep's clothing amongst the flock.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

To be fair, this is what Scheer tried to do. See articles like this

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/scheer-abortion-pro-life-1.5307415

But it didn't work.

"Scheer has said he would allow individual Conservative MPs to introduce legislation they want to pursue, while affirming that he, as leader, would vote against legislation that seeks to limit abortion access."

This is where he screwed up in my opinion.  He should have threatened expulsion from the CPC if a member brought such legislation forth.  I know it goes against his religious beliefs, but there will have to be compromises playing Canadian politics on a federal level as a Roman Catholic.

28 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Interesting description of the culture there - thanks for this.

One interesting dynamic in Canada is that there are lots of immigrants, typically from places more socially conservative than Canada. Yet they tend not to vote Conservative.

One big success of Harper was figuring out how to get enough of them to vote Conservative to win a majority.

Yes, the LGBT movement and abortion are not very popular agenda items outside of North America and Western Europe.  Even in the entirety of Europe, there is a sharp divide between East and West over this.  Duda's reelection in Poland illustrates this quite well.  It is the same issues with the black vote in the United States; they are culturally conservative and really should be a part of the Republican Party if talking about ideology, but welfare/immigration/local community activists have kept them in the Democratic field so far.  We will see how this changes in 2020 though, President Trump is polling well among black voters so far (there seems to be an overestimation of black support for Republicans every cycle though).  Yes, the Tories will have to pick up a few seats in the GTA in order to win a minority/majority government, and the Caribbean immigrant demographic is going to be a key part of that.  Large Canadian-Jamaican community there...

 

33 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

That might be what happens (or shadow cabinet position). First, she has to win a seat in Parliament, though. 😉

The CPC will probably run her in a vacant safe Tory seat if possible.  Despite the high likelihood of being eliminated from the leadership race, she has a much more visible national profile thanks to all of what has transpired.

25 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Now you know how Mormons feel. 😇

 

14 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

My criterion for whether someone is a Christian is, do they think Jesus is the Christ, and attempt to follow his teachings and example? If so, they are probably Christians.

So I find a lot of denominational bickering over criteria to be a Christian a bit silly, TBH.

 

 

I do not consider Mormons to be Christian due to the lack of belief in the Trinity.  They have some other "interesting" (for a lack of better word) beliefs as well.  

Traditionally, a belief in the Trinity is required to be considered a "Christian" denomination by most religious scholars and authorities.  The Catholic Church obviously teaches that it is the one true "catholic" church, but I would say that a denomination wanting to identify as Christian should look over the Nicene Creed and decide whether the beliefs can be considered Christian or not.  The Nicene Creed is one of the most basic foundations of the Christian faith and I would suggest that you cannot be considered a Christian without agreeing with and espousing the beliefs containing within.

Most of the Evangelicals that do not consider Roman Catholics to be Christian are typically obsessed with "end times" prophesies identifying the Church as the New Babylon spoken about in the book of Revelations.  For the most part, we are generally considered Christian by every major denomination, but there are quite a few out there with grievances towards us.  Remember how popular anti-Catholic sentiment was in the United States until the election of JFK?  We have seen in rear its ugly head again during the Kavanaugh proceedings as well, Kamala Harris certainly worked hard to bring back a long dead stereotype of American Catholics having loyalties to the Vatican before their nation.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, CPE said:

I do not consider Mormons to be Christian due to the lack of belief in the Trinity.  They have some other "interesting" (for a lack of better word) beliefs as well.

Right.

6 minutes ago, CPE said:

Traditionally, a belief in the Trinity is required to be considered a "Christian" denomination by most religious scholars and authorities.

Yes, but in early Christianity you have various views, with trinitarianism not becoming the standard view until hundreds of years in, apparently. Odd to say those early Christians weren't really Christians. Did St. Peter conceive of God in trinitarian terms? Not clear. If he didn't, does that disqualify him as a Christian?

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Patine said:

Christ preached peace, charity, giving up wealth, non-violence, non-judgementalism, forgiveness, and condemning lives devoting to acquiring wealth

So do Christian social conservatives! So indeed, truly you have never understood them, as you yourself say.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

So do Christian social conservatives! So indeed, truly you have never understood them, as you yourself say.

Let me clarify my statement. I was moreso referring to their "political arm," (or claimed political arm, at least) specifically, and the empyrical results of legislation and policy from that part.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Patine said:

I have never understood the heady and toxic brew that is "Christian Social Conservativism," in politics, as it stands now, and going back centuries. There is NOTHING said in the Ministry of Christ - not a word - and many parables explicitly AGAINST that viewpoint of things. Christ preached peace, charity, giving up wealth, non-violence, non-judgementalism, forgiveness, and condemning lives devoting to acquiring wealth. So, where did an ideology, and other views often tied at the hip to those - like tight money (usually hurting the poor), support for rampant corporatism and free-market economics, hard law-and-order justice, and, often, military interventionism, spring from His Ministry? It is inexplicable and non-sensical, and strikes me as most likely being the Lord's Name used in vain to justify evil acts upon the earth by wolves in sheep's clothing amongst the flock.

I will tell a little bit about my backstory : I was raised in a Pentecostal family and know 100% about what you are talking about.  Growing up, I hated going to church services with my family and I had a really bad (but incorrect) perception of Christianity as a whole, due to everything that you described above.  I thought that all Christians were the biggest hypocrites ever, because that was the only version of Christianity that I ever saw.  When I got into adulthood, I felt the Holy Spirit call me back to church but I knew that I was never going to identify with that hard core Pentecostal "brimstone and fire" ideology.  I church "shopped" for years until I finally ended up the Roman Catholic Church (I always felt a calling to the Catholic Church but heard so much misinformation about Marian worship, statues, etc. the typical Protestant myths that it took me a while to do some research and realize how wrong they were).  It was like a night and day difference in terms of how the community operated, the level of outreach, teachings about giving back, etc.  For as much hypocrisy as I saw in the Pentecostal Church (adultery, fornication, judgementalism and gossip within the congregation) growing up, as I matured in Christ I realized that I was being judgmental about these people as well.  Yes, I believe that there are many toxic people in those "fire and brimstone" denominations, but much like politics, the loudest, craziest voices get amplified as well.  I realized as with the "speck in your eye" parable, that I had many faults myself that I can be rightly criticized for.  Do many of them take zealousness overboard, yes, but not all of them preach damnation.  I think that a lot of the damnation preaching comes from the fact that Western society is evolving away from Christian principles, and it is like a cultural backlash of sorts to an ever changing world around them.

One thing that I have always loved about the Roman Catholic Church is the belief in giving back.  I am a businessman and proponent of free market economic principles myself, but I also believe in giving back a large portion of my earnings to the community as well.  After all, it is God Himself that blesses me with the ability to make the money in the first place. 

I despise hearing socialists profess that Jesus would be considered a socialist in today's world.  "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and render unto God what is God's.  Did Jesus prioritize almsgiving as part of a healthy Christian lifestyle, absolutely, but I do not think that he would condone the government forcing individuals to collectivize for the greater good.  Taxation is not a form of giving in my opinion, giving requires that you expect nothing in return and are not forced to do it.  You get a one way ticket to jail if you do not contribute to the government's revenue, hence removing the "willingness" aspect of it.

At the same time, I do not think Jesus would condone uninhibited capitalism either.  It would result in too many disenfranchised and neglected souls.  There is a middle ground somewhere, but I do believe the individual charity is important to any Christian.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Right.

Yes, but in early Christianity you have various views, with trinitarianism not becoming the standard view until hundreds of years in, apparently. Odd to say those early Christians weren't really Christians. Did St. Peter conceive of God in trinitarian terms? Not clear. If he didn't, does that disqualify him as a Christian?

No I would not say that is disqualifies him from being a Christian if He didn't. The Church and it's doctrine have evolved over time, there have been major changes to official teaching as recent as Vatican II.  I personally believe that everyone will be judged according to the standards of their time. 

Old Testament scriptures refer to the Messiah and Holy Spirit, so the idea of the Trinity is supported from the Scriptures. Genesis 1:26 can be used as support as well.  I personally believe that there has been understanding of this passed down throughout generations as well, until it was formally articulated.

Many arguments evolve around the Bible not being composed until later as well, but remember that the Church originally started off as many small communities meeting homes, living partial communal lifestyles, etc. with very strong oral teachings.  I just say this to address the argument that the Church we know today is not what God intended, you would be surprised how many hold that point of view.  Teachings have evolved over time, but there has been a continuous succession of authority and organization from those times.

In today's world, I find it hard to ignore belief in the Trinity and classify oneself as Christian given how widely professed and documented it is.  The Nicene Creed is pretty much standard for any Christian faith.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, CPE said:

One thing that I have always loved about the Roman Catholic Church is the belief in giving back

"Give, and it shall be given unto you. Pressed down, shaken together, and overflowing."

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, CPE said:

I personally believe that everyone will be judged according to the standards of their time.

That's an interesting response. So you have non-trinitarian Christians pre trinitarianism becoming an official view, but once it becomes an official view, there are no non-trinitarian Christians?

So were non-trinitarian baptisms valid before trinitarianism became the official view of Christendom?

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

That's an interesting response. So you have non-trinitarian Christians pre trinitarianism becoming an official view, but once it becomes an official view, there are no non-trinitarian Christians?

So were non-trinitarian baptisms valid before trinitarianism became the official view of Christendom?

Evidence does suggest that the early Church did believe in the Trinitarian doctrine.  There were many battles fought during the early Church years because of this issue in particular, but alternative doctrines were all declared heresies.  Arianism and Modalism come to mind if you are interested in further research.

Maybe I should have made my point clearer, if it was so that a non-Trinitarian doctrine was taught and accepted during the early Church, they would be valid, but since evidence suggests that the early Church Fathers and teachings supported the idea of the Trinity, they wouldn't be because evidence suggests that the Trinitarian doctrine was a part of the official early church teachings.  I feel confident to say that St. Peter understood the doctrine of the Trinity, all evidence points to it being a teaching of the early Church apostles.  My answer was more in a more hypothetical light.

https://www.catholic.com/tract/the-trinity

For converts that may have been mislead by false teachings, and never heard the truth, I truly think that only God knows what happened with their souls.

Regardless, it is impossible to deny the Trinitarian doctrine and claim to be a Christian in our era.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...