Another EV dichotomy problem.

[ElfLord]

Reading a thread on another board and an EV responded to the poster:

There are communicable attributes of God and incommunicable attributes of God. There are ways in which we are (and will become) like Him and ways in which we are not (and will not).

My question is... Is this not the same thing as saying that God is not all powerful in that he cannot overcome the creator <-> creation gap?

I'm not so sure if thats a God worthy of praise.

[Nathair/|\]

Reading a thread on another board and an EV responded to the poster:

My question is... Is this not the same thing as saying that God is not all powerful in that he cannot overcome the creator <-> creation gap?

I'm not so sure if thats a God worthy of praise.

Is it that He cannot or that he chooses not to?

[ElfLord]

Is it that He cannot or that he chooses not to?

I agree. Re Choosing

This conversation is worth sharing.

Zak said: "So... what you are really saying is God is not all powerful in that he can't over come the creator <-> creation Gap? "

Poster said: Might as well ask me if God can make a stone He can't lift.

Zak said: Exactly because thats the box you have drawn yourself into. If God cannot overcome that Gap is he all powerful? Is that a God you'd like to follow?

Poster Responsed:

<drum roll>

Better than yours.

Zak:

You get backed into a corner of your own making and you come back with that?!

ROFLROFLROFLROFL

TALK ABOUT YOUR ANTICLIMACTIC LET DOWNS!

[Rob Bowman]

ElfLord,

Regarding the "incommunicable" attributes of God, you asked:

My question is... Is this not the same thing as saying that God is not all powerful in that he cannot overcome the creator <-> creation gap?

I'm not so sure if thats a God worthy of praise.

This question cannot be intelligently answered without first determining what the attributes of God and the attributes of (human) creatures are. For example, if orthodox theology is right, God is eternal, meaning at the very least that he has no beginning to his existence, and classically that God's existence transcends our linear temporal boundaries. Furthermore, according to orthodox theology, all creatures, including human beings, are temporally finite creatures, each of whose existence has a beginning in time. Now, if this is all correct, it doesn't even make logical sense to say that the Creator-creature gap can be "overcome." If you had a beginning, this fact cannot be overcome so that it is no longer true that you had a beginning. There is no logical possibility or meaning to saying that a being that had a beginning could become a being that had no beginning.

In orthodox theology, God has not only always existed at all times, he has always been God at all times. There was never a time when God was not God. That is, to be God is to be God always, at all times. If something is not God at all times, it can never be God, because being God at all times is part of the essence of what it means to be God. So, if you're not God now, you never can become God, because God is that which never becomes God but is God at all times.

The problem here is not a lack of power on God's part. God is omnipotent. But omnipotence does not mean having the capacity to do that which is self-contradictory or nonsense. God can make you perfectly holy, but he cannot make you perfectly holy and horribly sinful at the same time and in the same respect. God can make a body that is extremely huge, but he cannot make an infinitely large body because that is a self-contradiction: a body has a shape or form, which entails having an outer edge, and therefore by definition cannot be infinitely large. God can enable you to live forever from now indefinitely into the future without end, but if you have not always existed, he cannot make it so that you have always existed.

Now, of course LDS theology does not have the same view of the attributes of God as orthodox theology. But your question is directed to the evangelical doctrine of the Creator-creature distinction and questions God's omnipotence within that context. That is the context in which I am responding to your question.

[Zakuska]

Turn your back for one minute...

Hey Elflord that was a pretty funny conversation.

But now theo thinks Im you. Thanks a lot!

[Vance]

Just for fun, shall we expose some of the FATAL FLAWS in "orthodox" evangelical theology?

For example, if orthodox theology is right, . . . .

I will refrain from comment on that statement.

God is eternal, meaning at the very least that he has no beginning to his existence, and classically that God's existence transcends our linear temporal boundaries.

Ok,

Furthermore, according to orthodox theology, all creatures, including human beings, are temporally finite creatures, each of whose existence has a beginning in time.

Yet are some how capable of doing things worthy if INfinite punishment. How can that be? Could it be the INJUSTICE of the so called just "orthodox" God?

If you had a beginning, this fact cannot be overcome so that it is no longer true that you had a beginning. There is no logical possibility or meaning to saying that a being that had a beginning could become a being that had no beginning. In orthodox theology, God has not only always existed at all times, he has always been God at all times. There was never a time when God was not God. That is, to be God is to be God always, at all times. If something is not God at all times, it can never be God, because being God at all times is part of the essence of what it means to be God. So, if you're not God now, you never can become God, because God is that which never becomes God but is God at all times.

Therefore the "orthodox" God is INCAPABLE of reproduction.

The problem here is not a lack of power on God's part. God is omnipotent.

NOPE!!!

He is incapable of reproduction.

But omnipotence does not mean having the capacity to do that which is self-contradictory or nonsense.

Is "reproduction" self-contradictory or nonsense?

No it isn't. Yet the orthodox so called "omnipotent" God is impotent.

God can enable you to live forever from now indefinitely into the future without end, but if you have not always existed, he cannot make it so that you have always existed.

Therefore the "orthodox" God is INCAPABLE of reproduction.

The orthodox so called "omnipotent" God is impotent.

Now, of course LDS theology does not have the same view of the attributes of God as orthodox theology.

Thank God for revealing them to us.

But your question is directed to the evangelical doctrine of the Creator-creature distinction and questions God's omnipotence within that context. That is the context in which I am responding to your question.

And in context, the "orthodox" God is INCAPABLE of reproduction.

The orthodox so called "omnipotent" God is impotent, in context.

[ElfLord]

Turn your back for one minute...

Hey Elflord that was a pretty funny conversation.

But now theo thinks Im you. Thanks a lot!

Hey Zak... Sorry man... Please

.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

Just for fun, shall we expose some of the FATAL FLAWS in "orthodox" evangelical theology?

If that was your intent, you failed miserably.

You wrote:

Therefore the "orthodox" God is INCAPABLE of reproduction.

Well, this is a different issue. Hypothetically, if God reproduced himself, he would be reproducing someone who also transcended time. That would mean that his "son" would be "eternally generated." Hmm, that sounds familiar to me; how about you? Yes, this is actually one classic Trinitarian understanding of the dynamic relationship between the Father and the Son: the Son is eternally generated by the Father.

In any case, nothing of the sort could apply to creatures that have not always existed. Assuming for the sake of argument that God could reproduce himself, it doesn't make any sense to say that someone who is not eternal might be or become a reproduction of God. I can and have reproduced myself (though my wife did most of the work!), but I can't make a rock one of my reproductions. It doesn't even make sense. Thus, if God can reproduce himself, that doesn't mean you or I can be among those reproductions. Nor does this mean that God is "impotent," as you claimed. God's omnipotence does not mean he can do nonsense.

[Vance]

If that was your intent, you failed miserably.

Actually it is you that has failed miserably in your response.

Well, this is a different issue. Hypothetically, if God reproduced himself, he would be reproducing someone who also transcended time.

Of course this is hypothetical, because the "orthodox" God CAN NOT reproduce. He (no sexual connotation intended) is incapable of doing so. The "orthodox" God is impotent.

That would mean that his "son" would be "eternally generated."

This fails to surmount two issues;

1) For the "orthodox" God to produce "offspring", there would of necessity have been a time (or call it what you will) when the "offspring" did not exist (and the "orthodox" God did exixt), therefore the "offspring" could not be

[Vance]

And thus we see the "fatal flaws" of the "orthodox" God remain.

The "orthodox" God is unjust and impotent.

[Vance]

bump

[Vance]

Bump.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

Your line of argument is hopelessly illogical. It amounts to saying that if an eternal God is omnipotent, he must have the power to take finite creatures that have not always existed and make them into Gods that have always existed. That is nonsense, and repeating over and over again that 'the orthodox God is impotent" will negate that point.

[ELF1024]

Vance,

Your line of argument is hopelessly illogical. It amounts to saying that if an eternal God is omnipotent, he must have the power to take finite creatures that have not always existed and make them into Gods that have always existed. That is nonsense, and repeating over and over again that 'the orthodox God is impotent" will negate that point.

Anyone who can accept the Nicean Creed at face value has no right to lecture anyone about logic.

The Nicean Creed is closer to Gnostic belief than the true nature of God.

There are communicable attributes of God and incommunicable attributes of God.

The idea that there are incommunicable attributes of God is clearly Gnostic in origin.

[Hick Preacher]

Anyone who can accept the Nicean Creed at face value has no right to lecture anyone about logic.

The Nicean Creed is closer to Gnostic belief than the true nature of God.

The idea that there are incommunicable attributes of God is clearly Gnostic in origin.

It is perhaps an oddity, but D&C 20 appears to be a paraphrase of the Nicean Creed.

It is given as a doxology, ending with an "Amen" and it calls the God who did the hands on of the creation 'the only being to be worshiped". A deep analysis of D&C 20 shows that it infers that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are One God-being.

D&C 20 is basically the same kind of statement about God and humanity as the Nicean Creed. And it appears to have been designed as a Baptismal Confession just like the Nicean Creed was used in the 19th Century. See the Attached html comparison.DC20.html

[Vance]

Vance,

Your line of argument is hopelessly illogical.

Not at all.

It amounts to saying that if an eternal God is omnipotent, he must have the power to take finite creatures that have not always existed and make them into Gods that have always existed.

Not at all. My point is that the "orthodox" God is impotent.

The "orthodox" God is incapable of reproduction. Period.

The logic is ROCK SOLID!

That is nonsense, and repeating over and over again that 'the orthodox God is impotent" will negate that point.

Nor will just saying "NUH UH" make this fatal flaw go away.

You can now return to your head shaking and hand waving.

[ELF1024]

It is perhaps an oddity, but D&C 20 appears to be a paraphrase of the Nicean Creed.

It is given as a doxology, ending with an "Amen" and it calls the God who did the hands on of the creation 'the only being to be worshiped". A deep analysis of D&C 20 shows that it infers that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are One God-being.

D&C 20 is basically the same kind of statement about God and humanity as the Nicean Creed. And it appears to have been designed as a Baptismal Confession just like the Nicean Creed was used in the 19th Century. See the Attached html comparison.DC20.html

You may see it that way, but that is not what it is. Both God the Father, and Jesus Christ the Son, appeared to Joseph Smith. That shatters any "Gnostic" Nicean mythology.

You may read it as you please, but no matter what mental gymnastics you may feel the need to do, it just isn't so.

[Vance]

<SNIP>

It is that "Being of one substance with the Father" part that makes the creed unacceptable.

[Hick Preacher]

It is that "Being of one substance with the Father" part that makes the creed unacceptable.

Even the Roman Catholics think so-- the 'Same/One Substance' phrase in more current versions read "one being".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_versions_of_the_Nicene_Creed_in_current_use

[Hick Preacher]

You may see it that way, but that is not what it is. Both God the Father, and Jesus Christ the Son, appeared to Joseph Smith. That shatters any "Gnostic" Nicean mythology.

You may read it as you please, but no matter what mental gymnastics you may feel the need to do, it just isn't so.

Joseph Smith's first vision, and seeing two personages, the Father and the Son in no way contradicts the Trinity. Anyone can realize this if they closely study Trinitarian formulas.

It is also a simple fact that nowhere in the LDS Standard Works is there an exact statement saying the the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are 'three separate God-beings'. Instead the LDS Standard works say precisely that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are One God. Commentaries using remedial language by Mormon leadership in 'non-official' literature is where the Godhead is described as three separate 'beings'-- but not in actual scripture.

Up until the 1970s LDS Leadership used the term 'Trinity" to describe the Godhead in public addressed related to theology.

This citation from James Ruben Clark sounds like St. Augustine's teachings on the Trinity.

God has revealed to us that he is the Father of all, and that he loves and cares for the righteous everywhere, and seeks ever to bring back the wayward to his ways. He has made known that Jesus is the Christ, the Only Begotten of the Father, the Redeemer of the World, the First Fruits of the Resurrection. He has shown to us that as Jesus died, lay in the tomb, and was resurrected, so shall it be with every son and daughter of God. He has manifested to us that he is a person, that Christ is another person, and that the Holy Ghost is a third person, and that these make the Trinity of the Godhead. He has taught us the immortality of the human soul, itself a trinity of intelligence, of spiritual body, and of mortal body, and that after the resurrection, our trinity reunited, we become perfected beings.

James R. Clark, Messages of the First Presidency, Vol.6, p.236

( Hick's emph and underlines)

[ELF1024]

Joseph Smith's first vision, and seeing two personages, the Father and the Son in no way contradicts the Trinity. Anyone can realize this if they closely study Trinitarian formulas.

It is also a simple fact that nowhere in the LDS Standard Works is there an exact statement saying the the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are 'three separate God-beings'. Instead the LDS Standard works say precisely that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are One God. Commentaries using remedial language by Mormon leadership in 'non-official' literature is where the Godhead is described as three separate 'beings'-- but not in actual scripture.

Up until the 1970s LDS Leadership used the term 'Trinity" to describe the Godhead in public addressed related to theology.

This citation from James Ruben Clark sounds like St. Augustine's teachings on the Trinity.

James R. Clark, Messages of the First Presidency, Vol.6, p.236

( Hick's emph and underlines)

That may be true, but we have never accepted the Nicean Creed. We have been "creedless" for as long as we have been a church. To the heartburn of many of our Christian brothers and sisters. It has been our rejection of the Nicean Creed that has caused many to question our relationship to the "Christian" club.

As I have said before, the Nicean Creed seems to be based on the Gnostic idea of God. That is to say that God is unknowable and uncomprehendable.

[Rob Bowman]

ELF,

You wrote:

That may be true, but we have never accepted the Nicean Creed. We have been "creedless" for as long as we have been a church. To the heartburn of many of our Christian brothers and sisters. It has been our rejection of the Nicean Creed that has caused many to question our relationship to the "Christian" club.

Your rejection of the Nicene Creed is a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. The problem is that the LDS Church teaches theological notions at odds with the Bible on the most basic of questions.

You wrote:

As I have said before, the Nicean Creed seems to be based on the Gnostic idea of God. That is to say that God is unknowable and uncomprehendable.

Such a statement derives from ignorance of the historical development of Nicene theology, which represents the triumph of an anti-Gnostic theological framework over Gnosticism. Even scholars hostile to orthodox theology, such as Bart Ehrman, will tell you that much. Gnosticism taught a secret or esoteric knowledge of God, not that God was unknowable. Orthodox theology taught, and teaches, that God is "incomprehensible" in that knowledge of his essence is beyond our complete grasp because of God's transcendence and infinitude, not that we cannot know something about God or that we cannot know him personally. The whole point of Trinitarian theology, from that standpoint, is that the God we know in the "economic" acts of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ad extra (acts "outside of" God, toward his creatures) is the same "ontological" God who exists ad intra as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Thus, epistemologically, the doctrine of the Trinity functions as a safeguard of the possibility of having genuine knowledge of God.

[Vance]

Even the Roman Catholics think so-- the 'Same/One Substance' phrase in more current versions read "one being".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_versions_of_the_Nicene_Creed_in_current_use

Still unacceptable.

[ELF1024]

Your rejection of the Nicene Creed is a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. The problem is that the LDS Church teaches theological notions at odds with the Bible on the most basic of questions.

No Rob, our rejection of the Creed is just futher proof that we are correct. The creeds of men are meaningless when it comes to the true nature of God. After all, who are you going to believe, some relative cave man from 1600 years ago? Or God himself? The fact that you continue to choose the wisdom of men is a symptom of YOUR problem, not the LDS Church's problem.

The LDS Church doesn't teach notions against the Bible; it is simply your incorrect intrepretation of the Bible that is at odds with the teachings of both the Bible and the LDS Church.

[Vance]

The problem is that the LDS Church teaches theological notions at odds with the false interpretations of the Bible on the most basic of questions.

There, fixed it for you.

I don't know how many times you have to be told this. You do NOT have authority to declare the meaning of scripture.

Such a statement derives from ignorance of the historical development of Nicene theology, which represents the triumph of an anti-Gnostic theological framework over Gnosticism.

Not the result of revelation or the accurate understanding of scripture. We know. That is the point.

Edited to add,

That is why they ended up creating the concept of a God that was impotent.