Speculations on Condescension of God and the Fall

[mfbukowski]

There is a problem in Christian theology that I think the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has solved, and one I have thought about at length, and that is the tension in Christianity between the transcendence of God, and his immanence.

Wikipedia gives a good and simple account of some of the issues involved  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendence_(religion)

Quote

 

In religion, transcendence is the aspect of a deity's nature and power that is wholly independent of the material universe, beyond all known physical laws. This is contrasted with immanence, where a god is said to be fully present in the physical world and thus accessible to creatures in various ways. In religious experience, transcendence is a state of being that has overcome the limitations of physical existence, and by some definitions, has also become independent of it. This is typically manifested in prayer, séance, meditation, psychedelics and paranormal "visions".

It is affirmed in various religious traditions' concept of the divine, which contrasts with the notion of a god (or, the Absolute) that exists exclusively in the physical order (immanentism), or is indistinguishable from it (pantheism). Transcendence can be attributed to the divine not only in its being, but also in its knowledge. Thus, a god may transcend both the universe and knowledge (is beyond the grasp of the human mind).

Although transcendence is defined as the opposite of immanence, the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Some theologians and metaphysicians of various religious traditions affirm that a god is both within and beyond the universe (panentheism); in it, but not of it; simultaneously pervading it and surpassing it.

Long story short, if God is 100% "transcendent" by definition, we could not understand Him or even speak or pray to him and think that he could or would respond to us.   We would be too insignificant for him to even notice us.  And in no way could he be described as our Father.

So for him to hear and answer our prayers, and be concerned about our welfare etc, he has to have some characteristics of "immanence"

But how can the two opposite poles be balanced?   It is a problem Christianity has faced since its inception.  Catholicism has developed some views on how that is possible, but I won't cover them right now- if that is a direction the thread goes, I have no problem with it.

But for right now I will summarize what I have been thinking about and then explain further as the thread grows progresses.   It is a complicated issue and would not be easily summarized.  Yet some here are informed enough about these issues to notice exactly where I am going with this already, so we will see how the thread goes and cover those issues as they come up

One solution I see is to see God as being "self- determining"  Imagine you are trying to lose weight, and decide to go on a diet.  You are free to eat a whole chocolate cake- nothing stands in your way- except your own decision to NOT eat the cake.

So you yourself have limited your agency by choosing NOT to eat the cake.   And doing that is a sacrifice.  Now eating cake may or may not be much of a sacrifice in your life, but let's look at a moment for what it could mean for Heavenly Father if he decided to make a similar sacrifice.

Suppose our transcendent Father decides voluntarily to GIVE UP his transcendence and limit his abilities in significant ways so that he CAN have earthly children, and to serve them and hear and answer prayers?   He gives up VOLUNTARILY a great portion of what it is to BE God so that he can serve his earthly children!   He gives it all up and decides to be limited by his own "natural laws" and instead of creating ex nihilo- which he COULD have done if he decided to- he decides to take the immanent path and "organize" existing matter using natural law

So how would this affect the atonement?

Isn't the condescension of Christ similar to this sacrifice? The great Jehovah decides to take upon himself human existence and sacrifice his life for us so that he can understand every possible emotion and pain of humanity and overcome them so that we can have peace, knowing he has experienced the worst of anything we can possibly experience.  He must suffer and die to know what mankind faces.

So now we have two condescensions - that of the Father AND the Son.

But wait?  What about Adam and Eve?   As a pre-qualifier to becoming exalted, we all need to understand both Good AND Evil, and so we have what has been termed the "Fortunate Fall" in which first Eve, and then Adam, come to understand that they must sacrifice the immortality of of the Garden and learn about evil and death in order to be able to overcome it.

So Father takes on immanence and gives up a large portion of his powers- for his children.  Christ gives up his Heavenly home and comes to earth to suffer and die for his children, and then Eve and Adam give up the Garden and immortality to learn the hard way about evil and death and so they have the freedom to make the choices they need in order to learn these principles.

But there is another angle to this.

Were there "really" three sacrifices or are these three LEVELS of sacrifice (telestial, terestrial and celestial?) "really" portions of one sacrifice and the atonement?

What are the implications of all this for the "Adam-God Theory" that Brigham Young put forward - that Adam WAS our Father?   

It's all just speculation but what do you think?

 

Edited November 17, 2019 by mfbukowski

[InCognitus]

Deleted.

I posted my question 10 seconds too soon (you were in the process of editing your post).

Edited November 17, 2019 by InCognitus

[mfbukowski]

1 minute ago, InCognitus said:

Can you elaborate?

Yes sorry - I had to pause and I did not realize the thread had been published when I had barely started the OP

[InCognitus]

I may need some help in understanding how your view of God's transcendence and Condescension fits in with different events in the LDS creation narrative and theology, such as the eternal nature of spirits or intelligences, and God "organizing" them before the world (as in Abraham 3:22) and the teaching that we are basically the same kind of being that God is (which I find to be something taught more distinctly in the Bible than elsewhere in scripture).  If spirits or intelligences are eternal and co-existed with God in the beginning, then isn't God's condescension in that situation very much like a father to a child already?  And if we are indeed the very "genos" of God and God is the "Father of spirits", then doesn't that indicate we are related to him to begin with?   I think I get what you are saying, but I'm not sure the gap is as great as it is made out to be in other belief systems.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Long story short, if God is 100% "transcendent" by definition, we could not understand Him or even speak or pray to him and think that he could or would respond to us.   We would be too insignificant for him to even notice us.  And in no way could he be described as our Father.

While I believe God is in the Universe I am not convinced of the quoted premises. Saying something or someone is beyond our comprehension does not mean the inverse is also true. Sounds like the child who hides by closing their eyes figuring if they cannot see you that you cannot see them. I am also confused on the insignificance thing. What makes something insignificant? Size? Intellect? Scale of impact on the universe?

Edited November 17, 2019 by The Nehor

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

I may need some help in understanding how your view of God's transcendence and Condescension fits in with different events in the LDS creation narrative and theology, such as the eternal nature of spirits or intelligences, and God "organizing" them before the world (as in Abraham 3:22) and the teaching that we are basically the same kind of being that God is (which I find to be something taught more distinctly in the Bible than elsewhere in scripture).  If spirits or intelligences are eternal and co-existed with God in the beginning, then isn't God's condescension in that situation very much like a father to a child already?  And if we are indeed the very "genos" of God and God is the "Father of spirits", then doesn't that indicate we are related to him to begin with?   I think I get what you are saying, but I'm not sure the gap is as great as it is made out to be in other belief systems.

 

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

While I believe God is in the Universe I am not convinced of the quoted premises. Saying something or someone is beyond our comprehension does not mean the inverse is also true. Sounds like the child who hides by closing their eyes figuring if they cannot see you that you cannot see them. I am also confused on the insignificance thing. What makes something insignificant? Size? Intellect? Scale of impact on the universe?

We seem to have a theme developing here about the definition of "transcendence", which perhaps I oversold. 

From a Catholic source, with added emphasis:

https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2017/03/30/science-and-the-transcendence-of-god/

Quote

 

So what is God like? Or more properly, what can we know about him? St. Thomas Aquinas makes the crucial point that “we cannot know what God is, but rather what he is not”—the way of negation it’s called. Revelation aside, such positive knowledge of God as we may have is knowledge by analogy, which comes from knowing created things: God is something like this, something like that, but very unlike anything in our experience.

Above all, God is transcendent—he exists in an order of being altogether outside our own. And, as Notre Dame historian Brad S. Gregory remarks in his important book The Unintended Reformation (Harvard, 2012), “If real, a transcendent God is by definition not subject to empirical discovery or disproof.

 

Wikipedia:

Quote

In religion, transcendence is the aspect of a deity's nature and power that is wholly independent of the material universe, beyond all known physical laws. This is contrasted with immanence, where a god is said to be fully present in the physical world and thus accessible to creatures in various ways. In religious experience, transcendence is a state of being that has overcome the limitations of physical existence, and by some definitions, has also become independent of it.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church- these are official doctrine:

Quote

2 God transcends all creatures. We must therefore continually purify our language of everything in it that is limited, image-bound or imperfect, if we are not to confuse our image of God--"the inexpressible, the incomprehensible, the invisible, the ungraspable"--with our human representations.16 Our human words always fall short of the mystery of God.

Quote

239 By calling God "Father", the language of faith indicates two main things: that God is the first origin of everything and transcendent authority; and that he is at the same time goodness and loving care for all his children. God's parental tenderness can also be expressed by the image of motherhood,62 which emphasizes God's immanence, the intimacy between Creator and creature. The language of faith thus draws on the human experience of parents, who are in a way the first representatives of God for man. But this experience also tells us that human parents are fallible and can disfigure the face of fatherhood and motherhood. We ought therefore to recall that God transcends the human distinction between the sexes. He is neither man nor woman: he is God. He also transcends human fatherhood and motherhood, although he is their origin and standard:63 no one is father as God is Father.

I think it is clear that the transcendent view of God is hardly the LDS "Father in Heaven", yet it gets close in what is described as "immanence".

I never meant to imply that there was not a continuum between transcendent and immanent- I used the word "poles" specifically to illustrate that my descriptions we both ends of a continuum.

 

Edited November 17, 2019 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

I may need some help in understanding how your view of God's transcendence and Condescension fits in with different events in the LDS creation narrative and theology, such as the eternal nature of spirits or intelligences, and God "organizing" them before the world (as in Abraham 3:22) and the teaching that we are basically the same kind of being that God is (which I find to be something taught more distinctly in the Bible than elsewhere in scripture).  If spirits or intelligences are eternal and co-existed with God in the beginning, then isn't God's condescension in that situation very much like a father to a child already?  And if we are indeed the very "genos" of God and God is the "Father of spirits", then doesn't that indicate we are related to him to begin with?   I think I get what you are saying, but I'm not sure the gap is as great as it is made out to be in other belief systems.

I guess I did not make my point clear- YES LDS theology teaches that God is immanent and so has "condescended".  So it DOES fit into LDS doctrine - it IS LDS doctrine

That's what makes possible my assertion that God surrendering transcendence to BE "immanent" was a sacrifice. That means He as Christ came down a level to BE  an "immanent" human.  YES all of LDS theology is set up as an explanation of the IMMANENCE of God, He has a body, He is our Father,  He organized the world out of matter using natural law, He gives us personal revelation at our request, we can become like him because we also have a spark of divinity etc.

Regarding where most of the scriptures are showing God to be immanent, I will just quote the Encyclopedia of Mormonism (sic) and you can see the references it finds to be important and where they are located. 

Quote

 

Condescension of God

See this page in the original 1992 publication.

Author: Merrill, Byron R.

The Book of Mormon prophet Nephi 1 (c. 600 B.C.) was asked by an angel, "Knowest thou the condescension of God?" (1 Ne. 11:16). Nephi was then shown in a vision a virgin who was to become "the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh" (verse 18). He next beheld the virgin with a child whom the angel identified as "the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father" (11:21). Then Nephi understood that the condescension of God is the ultimate manifestation of God's love through Jesus Christ (11:20-22). Such condescension denotes, first, the love of God the Father, who deigned to sire a son, born of a mortal woman, and then allow this Son to suffer temptations and pain (Mosiah 3:5-7), "be judged of the world," and be "slain for the sins of the world" (1 Ne. 11:32-33). Second, it signifies the love and willingness of God the Son (Jesus Christ) to die for mankind.

The word "condescension" implies "voluntary descent," "submission," and "performing acts which strict justice does not require." This definition is particularly applicable to Jesus in the portrayal of him by prophets who lived before his birth and who affirmed: "God himself shall come down" to make an Atonement (Mosiah 15:1); "the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, yieldeth himself…into the hands of wicked men" (1 Ne. 19:10); "the great Creator…suffereth himself to become subject unto man in the flesh" (2 Ne. 9:5); and "he offereth himself a sacrifice for sin" (2 Ne. 2:7). "The Lord Omnipotent," said King Benjamin, "shall come down from heaven among the children of men, and shall dwell in a tabernacle of clay" (Mosiah 3:5).

In fulfillment of these prophecies, Jesus descended from the realms of glory for the purposes of experiencing mortal infirmities that he might have mercy and compassion according to the flesh and of taking upon himself the sins, transgressions, pains, and sicknesses of men in order to satisfy the demands of justice and gain victory over death, thereby redeeming his people (Mosiah 15:8-9; Alma 7:11-13). Christ's selfless sacrifice merits profound gratitude and endearing love from all who are recipients of his supernal offering.

 

 

[Meadowchik]

This reminds me of the individualism versus connectedness in humanity, which would be characteristics passed down from the divine.  And they present a paradox as well.

Resolving my example may provide insight into resolving the transcendence versus immanence.

Individualism is like our own personal transcendence, and immanence is like the total connectedness of the collective.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

 

We seem to have a theme developing here about the definition of "transcendence", which perhaps I oversold. 

From a Catholic source, with added emphasis:

https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2017/03/30/science-and-the-transcendence-of-god/

Wikipedia:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church- these are official doctrine:

I think it is clear that the transcendent view of God is hardly the LDS "Father in Heaven", yet it gets close in what is described as "immanence".

I never meant to imply that there was not a continuum between transcendent and immanent- I used the word "poles" specifically to illustrate that my descriptions we both ends of a continuum.

 

I do not dispute any of that. I questioned your assertion that a transcendent God would necessarily find humanity too insignificant to notice. That is a very anthropomorphic projection onto a transcendent being. If unknowable why is that assertion about such a God’s “character” self-evident?

[mfbukowski]

9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I do not dispute any of that. I questioned your assertion that a transcendent God would necessarily find humanity too insignificant to notice. That is a very anthropomorphic projection onto a transcendent being. If unknowable why is that assertion about such a God’s “character” self-evident?

Ok.

Easily solved

Apparently in your opinion I exaggerated the Catholic view of transcendence.

That's something we can easily just agree to disagree on. It's not even relevant to the thesis I think.

My real question is is there value in seeing these as different Falls.?

Is there an important parallel between 1-Eloheim's voluntary fall from Transcendence and His sacrifice 2 -the voluntary sacrifice of the atonement of Christ and his acceptance of a human death and 3-the fall from innocence of Adam and Eve to also accept death, making a sacrifice in order to obtain a possibility of exaltation?

Was it three Falls or was it simply three different stories about one huge sacrifice?

And did Brigham Young at least get part of it right about Adam being God?

Perhaps figuratively making a similar sacrifice?

 

[mfbukowski]

26 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

If unknowable why is that assertion about such a God’s “character” self-evident?

Well yeah I don't think I said that though I think the catechism said that. I was trying to show my understanding of the Catholic position.

[The Nehor]

22 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Ok.

Easily solved

Apparently in your opinion I exaggerated the Catholic view of transcendence.

That's something we can easily just agree to disagree on. It's not even relevant to the thesis I think.

My real question is is there value in seeing these as different Falls.?

Is there an important parallel between 1-Eloheim's voluntary fall from Transcendence and His sacrifice 2 -the voluntary sacrifice of the atonement of Christ and his acceptance of a human death and 3-the fall from innocence of Adam and Eve to also accept death, making a sacrifice in order to obtain a possibility of exaltation?

Was it three Falls or was it simply three different stories about one huge sacrifice?

And did Brigham Young at least get part of it right about Adam being God?

Perhaps figuratively making a similar sacrifice?

 

1. I do not believe this one happened.

2. This was an amazing sacrifice.

3. I suspect Adam and Eve might have reached exaltation without falling which makes their sacrifice more compelling and daring and also done on behalf of others and has an amazing parallel to that of the Savior and is in some ways not separable from what the Savior did.

I do not know what Brigham Young was talking about.

 

Edited November 17, 2019 by The Nehor

[3DOP]

Mark, hi.

You wrote:

"The Catechism of the Catholic Church- these are official doctrine:"

Not so. The pope disagrees with that Catechism and is making a change in it to favor his position which seems insupportable in light of Catholic Tradition. The pope's subject matter is irrelevant to this discussion.

I prefer the catechism that Pope Benedict described while he was Prefect for the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, as, "the most important Catholic Catechism". He made this comment after the publication of the catechism you are quoting. He was speaking of the Catechism of the Council of Trent. This catechism was expressly designed to enable pastors to have a guide for systematic instructions to the faithful.

I am a little troubled at the way the new catechism seems to expect the faithful to "continually purify our language of everything in it that is limited, image-bound or imperfect, if we are not to confuse our image of God..." Did Moses or the prophets do that? No. Did Christ and the Apostles do that? No. Even the Nicene Creed retains language that is "limited, image-bound or imperfect." The Church has always allowed for figurative language to help describe God and His kingdom for the very aid of our minds which now "see" only with the "eye" of faith. Perhaps I have misunderstood, but it seems difficult for the heart to love such a God, as He deserves, and as we should thirst for, with the kind of literalist language the new catechism seems to be recommending.

The catechisms are correct in affirming what you seem to be saying is impossible, the Catholic teaching that God is both immanent and transcendent. Call it a mystery or a paradox, but that is our faith. Both catechisms also emphasize the necessity of prayer implying that God takes an interest in us.

"In the first place the necessity of prayer should be insisted upon. Prayer is a duty not only recommended by way of counsel, but also commanded by obligatory precept." (Catechism of Trent, Part IV: The Lord's Prayer)

Like The Nehor, I do not know know why you insist that any transcendent God would not or could not take notice of our prayers. I do understand why anyone might be filled with wonder that such a Being would have an interest in us. I do understand why someone, unfamiliar with, or not believing Catholic tradition might have a reasonable fear that such a God would find finite creatures to be beneath his notice. A Catholic should understand King David as an example of one who saw God as being both transcendent and immanent. In Psalm 8, we see that David was filled with admiration that his God was so magnificent as to be "elevated above the heavens." A Catholic will read this and see nothing except language that is trying to express transcendence over the created universe. What follows shows the royal psalmist filled with even greater delight and wonder at the certainty that a Being of such greatness would have any interest in us.

Quote

"O Lord our Lord, how admirable is thy name in the whole earth! For thy magnificence is elevated above the heavens...What is man that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man that thou visitest him?"

---Ps. 8:1, 5

3DOP

Edited November 17, 2019 by 3DOP

[CV75]

On 11/16/2019 at 8:28 PM, mfbukowski said:

It's all just speculation but what do you think?

I think our teaching that while He is above all things, He also condescended, and went below all things, makes His transcendence (to paraphrase: my thoughts ad ways are not your thoughts and ways) a bit more relatable; as do the teachings that He invites us to come unto Him and become like Him. It seems to me that those who perhaps present these concepts as more of a mystery still incorporate them. People have to relate to their faiths.

But believing in an unknown mystery, instead of what is known of that mystery, to me, is the difference between fantasy and faith, or daydream and reality. From Alma 32, one produces more enduring and growing actionable feelings than the other.

I see choosing not to eat the cake as an expression of agency. Because it yields the desired results, agency is expanded because you can continue to choose. On the other hand, once eaten, you cannot choose to not eat the cake… hence an ending to or a loss of agency.

The Father does not condescend, hence our total reliance on Jesus to instead bring us back to Him. And the Father’s total reliance on Jesus to do that. This requires a “most high” level of humility, faith, love, and other godly attributes on the Father's part—that is His form of condescension. Similarly, God condescended to give us our agency to choose or reject Him. Since the Father is already perfectly reconciled, this condescension is exaltation and vice-versa.

I see this as a pattern for, but not a strict replication in paradise or on earth by Jesus, Adam, and the rest of us in our respective kingdoms and spheres of operation. And condescending includes but is not limited to a willing sacrifice: while the Son’s coming here and the Father’s sending Him here were a sacrifice by each of Them, see what else Jesus did to glorify the Father throughout His mortal life, which brought both of Them joy along the way to Jesus’ time in Gethsemane, on the cross, and then His death and resurrection.

From the Pearl of Great Price: Adam (really the Father-condescended; actually a partial condescension since He can resurrect Himself anyway) praying to His Father, the "Most High God" in the name of Jesus who would condescend as either a) the Son of Adam (Father-condescended) via Mary and Adam-as-Father God again or b) Adam (Father-condescended) via Mary and Adam's (the Father-condescended) Most High God doesn't seem very practical... maybe it's one of those transcendent things!

Edited November 18, 2019 by CV75

[mfbukowski]

18 hours ago, The Nehor said:

1. I do not believe this one happened.

2. This was an amazing sacrifice.

3. I suspect Adam and Eve might have reached exaltation without falling which makes their sacrifice more compelling and daring and also done on behalf of others and has an amazing parallel to that of the Savior and is in some ways not separable from what the Savior did.

I do not know what Brigham Young was talking about.

 

1- Father's sacrifice

"Christians" in general accept only some kind of mix between transcendence and immanence.  If God is not transcendent in some sense, he cannot be omniscient, omni-present, and all the other "omni's" that are usual seen in God.

The advantage of the belief that God WAS completely transcendent but then voluntarily gave it up- is that there is one cohesive story how God is both transcendent- He had to be to give it up- and immanent- he chose to be immanent so that he could communicate with his children and fully understand what it is to be an earthly Human.  So that puts us closer to traditional Christianity when we need an explanation for why our God seems somewhat limited and "created" for other Christians.

I recall a conversation with a Catholic priest about this issue and he was insisting that if God had a body, he must therefore be imperfect because matter is of a lower order than spirit- so I instantly asked him how then the resurrected Christ has a body and remains God.

He could not answer

So this explains how Eloheim performed a sacrifice like the savior's and yet did not have to somehow be "reincarnated" - to explain why the savior "only did what his Father did"

We know from the temple that Father did have some kind of "fall" as well - and that he somehow learned the difference between good and evil through it.  If that is the way Father gained his knowledge - as it says- then there must have been some kind of fall for him as well.

2- The Savior's sacrifice

If we view the atonement from the point of view that Christ did all he did for us to gain knowledge of every human pain so we can go to Him for solace, we have less emphasis on the economic view that somehow he had to "pay for" all our sins, and the strange idea of scales of justice that for every evil there has to be a compensating good to be paid for.   Who is the tax collector who demands the payment?  How can one person pay the debt for another's sins?  How can the cost of a sin be measured against the payment of another good work?  This view allows for this balance to somehow still be maintained but puts the emphasis on the savior's sacrifice on his desire to undergo all of humanities problems so that he can overcome them all and provide solace for us.

3- I think we are probably very close to agreeing on this one.  That is because it is pretty clear LDS doctrine

[The Nehor]

10 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Mark, hi.

You wrote:

"The Catechism of the Catholic Church- these are official doctrine:"

Not so. The pope disagrees with that Catechism and is making a change in it to favor his position which seems insupportable in light of Catholic Tradition. The pope's subject matter is irrelevant to this discussion.

I prefer the catechism that Pope Benedict described while he was Prefect for the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, as, "the most important Catholic Catechism". He made this comment after the publication of the catechism you are quoting. He was speaking of the Catechism of the Council of Trent. This catechism was expressly designed to enable pastors to have a guide for systematic instructions to the faithful.

I am a little troubled at the way the new catechism seems to expect the faithful to "continually purify our language of everything in it that is limited, image-bound or imperfect, if we are not to confuse our image of God..." Did Moses or the prophets do that? No. Did Christ and the Apostles do that? No. Even the Nicene Creed retains language that is "limited, image-bound or imperfect." The Church has always allowed for figurative language to help describe God and His kingdom for the very aid of our minds which now "see" only with the "eye" of faith. Perhaps I have misunderstood, but it seems difficult for the heart to love such a God, as He deserves, and as we should thirst for, with the kind of literalist language the new catechism seems to be recommending.

The catechisms are correct in affirming what you seem to be saying is impossible, the Catholic teaching that God is both immanent and transcendent. Call it a mystery or a paradox, but that is our faith. Both catechisms also emphasize the necessity of prayer implying that God takes an interest in us.

"In the first place the necessity of prayer should be insisted upon. Prayer is a duty not only recommended by way of counsel, but also commanded by obligatory precept." (Catechism of Trent, Part IV: The Lord's Prayer)

Like The Nehor, I do not know know why you insist that any transcendent God would not or could not take notice of our prayers. I do understand why anyone might be filled with wonder that such a Being would have an interest in us. I do understand why someone, unfamiliar with, or not believing Catholic tradition might have a reasonable fear that such a God would find finite creatures to be beneath his notice. A Catholic should understand King David as an example of one who saw God as being both transcendent and immanent. In Psalm 8, we see that David was filled with admiration that his God was so magnificent as to be "elevated above the heavens." A Catholic will read this and see nothing except language that is trying to express transcendence over the created universe. What follows shows the royal psalmist filled with even greater delight and wonder at the certainty that a Being of such greatness would have any interest in us.

---Ps. 8:1, 5

3DOP

Thanks, I thought it was off.

[The Nehor]

46 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

1- Father's sacrifice

"Christians" in general accept only some kind of mix between transcendence and immanence.  If God is not transcendent in some sense, he cannot be omniscient, omni-present, and all the other "omni's" that are usual seen in God.

The advantage of the belief that God WAS completely transcendent but then voluntarily gave it up- is that there is one cohesive story how God is both transcendent- He had to be to give it up- and immanent- he chose to be immanent so that he could communicate with his children and fully understand what it is to be an earthly Human.  So that puts us closer to traditional Christianity when we need an explanation for why our God seems somewhat limited and "created" for other Christians.

I recall a conversation with a Catholic priest about this issue and he was insisting that if God had a body, he must therefore be imperfect because matter is of a lower order than spirit- so I instantly asked him how then the resurrected Christ has a body and remains God.

He could not answer

So this explains how Eloheim performed a sacrifice like the savior's and yet did not have to somehow be "reincarnated" - to explain why the savior "only did what his Father did"

We know from the temple that Father did have some kind of "fall" as well - and that he somehow learned the difference between good and evil through it.  If that is the way Father gained his knowledge - as it says- then there must have been some kind of fall for him as well.

2- The Savior's sacrifice

If we view the atonement from the point of view that Christ did all he did for us to gain knowledge of every human pain so we can go to Him for solace, we have less emphasis on the economic view that somehow he had to "pay for" all our sins, and the strange idea of scales of justice that for every evil there has to be a compensating good to be paid for.   Who is the tax collector who demands the payment?  How can one person pay the debt for another's sins?  How can the cost of a sin be measured against the payment of another good work?  This view allows for this balance to somehow still be maintained but puts the emphasis on the savior's sacrifice on his desire to undergo all of humanities problems so that he can overcome them all and provide solace for us.

3- I think we are probably very close to agreeing on this one.  That is because it is pretty clear LDS doctrine

1. If we do not understand transcendence then how can you unequivocally state God must be transcendent to have certain abilities? It seems reasonable but it is hypotheticals about things we do not understand.

God did not necessarily fall. He just partook of the fruit (symbolic or literal). The Fall to Adam and Eve came from disobeying God and not from eating the fruit. It is therefore possible to get that knowledge without a Fall.

2. Jesus created a world that was, at least in a sense, designed to Fall and then let that Fall happen. In that sense He was the one responsible for everything that went wrong except for the sins of humanity not committed in ignorance which He also suffered for. While the knowledge gained is part of His power to heal He also did bear the sins of humanity. Much of the suffering is for the daring of his bold rescue mission to save us.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

I think our teaching that while He is above all things, He also condescended, and went below all things, makes His transcendence (to paraphrase: my thoughts ad ways are not your thoughts and ways) a bit more relatable; as do the teachings that He invites us to come unto Him and become like Him. It seems to me that those who perhaps present these concepts as more of a mystery still incorporate them. People have to relate to their faiths.

But believing in an unknown mystery, instead of what is known of that mystery, to me, is the difference between fantasy and faith, or daydream and reality. From Alma 32, one produces more enduring and growing actionable feelings than the other.

I see choosing not to eat the cake as an expression of agency. Because it yields the desired results, agency is expanded because you can continue to choose. On the other hand, once eaten, you cannot choose to not eat the cake… hence an ending to or a loss of agency.

The Father does not condescend, hence our total reliance on Jesus to instead bring us back to Him. And the Father’s total reliance on Jesus to do that. This requires a “most high” level of humility, faith, love, and other godly attributes on the Father's part—that is His form of condescension. Similarly, God condescended to give us our agency to choose or reject Him. Since the Father is already perfectly reconciled, this condescension is exaltation and vice-versa.

I see this as a pattern for, but not a strict replication in paradise or on earth by Jesus, Adam, and the rest of us in our respective kingdoms and spheres of operation. And condescending includes but is not limited to a willing sacrifice: while the Son’s coming here and the Father’s sending Him here were a sacrifice by each of Them, see what else Jesus did to glorify the Father throughout His mortal life, which brought both of Them joy along the way to Jesus’ time in Gethsemane, on the cross, and then His death and resurrection.

From the Pearl of Great Price: Adam (really the Father-condescended; actually a partial condescension since He can resurrect Himself anyway) praying to His Father, the "Most High God" in the name of Jesus who would condescend as either a) the Son of Adam (Father-condescended) via Mary and Adam-as-Father God again or b) Adam (Father-condescended) via Mary and Adam's (the Father-condescended) Most High God doesn't seem very practical... maybe it's one of those transcendent things!

Well I think you are on to something, but I am having trouble understanding your argument

No doubt that accepting law makes one free- see Isaiah Berlin- "Two Concepts of Liberty."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Concepts_of_Liberty

But I am glad you caught the Adam/God connection here.  It would be an interesting idea to enable one to have only ONE being - presumably Jehovah/Jesus/Adam- all perhaps separate name/titles for the same individual who underwent ONE huge sacrifice for us told as three different stories.

Just speculation of course.

I see all of these stories as just that- ways of tacking together various doctrines which are more abstract. Of course they could be literally true as well in the right contexts.

 

[mfbukowski]

22 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

This reminds me of the individualism versus connectedness in humanity, which would be characteristics passed down from the divine.  And they present a paradox as well.

Resolving my example may provide insight into resolving the transcendence versus immanence.

Individualism is like our own personal transcendence, and immanence is like the total connectedness of the collective.

Maybe you could elaborate?

[Meadowchik]

24 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Maybe you could elaborate?

Do you see the parallels between transcendence and individualism? And between immanence and connectedness? Both former terms, respectively, are like an ultimate version of both latter terms.

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Mark, hi.

You wrote:

"The Catechism of the Catholic Church- these are official doctrine:"

Not so. The pope disagrees with that Catechism and is making a change in it to favor his position which seems insupportable in light of Catholic Tradition. The pope's subject matter is irrelevant to this discussion.

I prefer the catechism that Pope Benedict described while he was Prefect for the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, as, "the most important Catholic Catechism". He made this comment after the publication of the catechism you are quoting. He was speaking of the Catechism of the Council of Trent. This catechism was expressly designed to enable pastors to have a guide for systematic instructions to the faithful.

I am a little troubled at the way the new catechism seems to expect the faithful to "continually purify our language of everything in it that is limited, image-bound or imperfect, if we are not to confuse our image of God..." Did Moses or the prophets do that? No. Did Christ and the Apostles do that? No. Even the Nicene Creed retains language that is "limited, image-bound or imperfect." The Church has always allowed for figurative language to help describe God and His kingdom for the very aid of our minds which now "see" only with the "eye" of faith. Perhaps I have misunderstood, but it seems difficult for the heart to love such a God, as He deserves, and as we should thirst for, with the kind of literalist language the new catechism seems to be recommending.

The catechisms are correct in affirming what you seem to be saying is impossible, the Catholic teaching that God is both immanent and transcendent. Call it a mystery or a paradox, but that is our faith. Both catechisms also emphasize the necessity of prayer implying that God takes an interest in us.

"In the first place the necessity of prayer should be insisted upon. Prayer is a duty not only recommended by way of counsel, but also commanded by obligatory precept." (Catechism of Trent, Part IV: The Lord's Prayer)

Like The Nehor, I do not know know why you insist that any transcendent God would not or could not take notice of our prayers. I do understand why anyone might be filled with wonder that such a Being would have an interest in us. I do understand why someone, unfamiliar with, or not believing Catholic tradition might have a reasonable fear that such a God would find finite creatures to be beneath his notice. A Catholic should understand King David as an example of one who saw God as being both transcendent and immanent. In Psalm 8, we see that David was filled with admiration that his God was so magnificent as to be "elevated above the heavens." A Catholic will read this and see nothing except language that is trying to express transcendence over the created universe. What follows shows the royal psalmist filled with even greater delight and wonder at the certainty that a Being of such greatness would have any interest in us.

---Ps. 8:1, 5

3DOP

Hi Rory good to see you.  I hope we do not get off on the wrong foot yet again, and take any of this personally.  For context, I have quoted your whole post above, and now let's take it a bit at a time.

Quote

 

You wrote:

"The Catechism of the Catholic Church- these are official doctrine:"

Not so. The pope disagrees with that Catechism and is making a change in it to favor his position which seems insupportable in light of Catholic Tradition. The pope's subject matter is irrelevant to this discussion.

I prefer the catechism that Pope Benedict described while he was Prefect for the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, as, "the most important Catholic Catechism". He made this comment after the publication of the catechism you are quoting. He was speaking of the Catechism of the Council of Trent. This catechism was expressly designed to enable pastors to have a guide for systematic instructions to the faithful.

 

Frankly this sounds like a sectarian disagreement here since there is obviously conflict between your statements and the pope's, since the Pope - in YOUR WORDS has a position "which seems insupportable in light of Catholic tradition."

So the Pope says it is doctrine and you say it is not because the position of the Pope is "insupportable".  THEN- though I do not understand the argument here- you say that YOU prefer some other Catechism endorsed by another Pope.

Sorry.   I am not getting into that one.  I have no dog in that fight- all I know is what I quoted was endorsed by SOMEBODY to give it an Imprimatur and a Nihil Obstat, I presume.  I am not getting into Catholic squabbles about Catholic doctrine.

Quote

I am a little troubled at the way the new catechism seems to expect the faithful to "continually purify our language of everything in it that is limited, image-bound or imperfect, if we are not to confuse our image of God..." Did Moses or the prophets do that? No. Did Christ and the Apostles do that? No. Even the Nicene Creed retains language that is "limited, image-bound or imperfect." The Church has always allowed for figurative language to help describe God and His kingdom for the very aid of our minds which now "see" only with the "eye" of faith. Perhaps I have misunderstood, but it seems difficult for the heart to love such a God, as He deserves, and as we should thirst for, with the kind of literalist language the new catechism seems to be recommending.

OK well it seems again this is a sectarian squabble- I don't mean to minimize the problem but I do not fully understand the nuances.  I think your position sounds to be more like the LDS position, which would be great if it is true,  but I don't fully understand the issues

And honestly I don't care about the nuances of transcendence- Do Catholics believe God is transcendent at all?  Of course they do.

This is about dictionaries more than doctrine or philosophy.

"Transcendent" is usually defined as the opposite of "immanent"   THAT is the point, nuance is irrelevant here.  What Catholics "really believe" is irrelevant to my argument- I simply used those those quotes to prove that SOMEBODY- whoever wrote those words, understood "transcendence" and "immanence" to mean what I said they did.

I was contrasting two concepts- this discussion is not about Catholicsm it is about the philosophy behind the contrast between transcendence and immanence.

Quote

The catechisms are correct in affirming what you seem to be saying is impossible, the Catholic teaching that God is both immanent and transcendent. Call it a mystery or a paradox, but that is our faith. Both catechisms also emphasize the necessity of prayer implying that God takes an interest in us.

Thank you, that was my point, so where's the beef? 

Quote

Like The Nehor, I do not know know why you insist that any transcendent God would not or could not take notice of our prayers.

I don't insist on anything- going back to the sources I quoted that is what THEY said.  Yes I know the Catholic church has come up with ways to mitigate these extremes and I said in the first post that we could get into that later.   I suppose this is it, but it doesn't make a difference because it is still the case that GOD IS TRANSCENDENT in many faiths and I think NO CHRISTIAN faith other than ours makes God immanent.  I mean our God has a human body, exists in time and space, organizes matter rather than "creating it", I cannot imagine a better definition for characteristics which are "immanent", and that is the whole point.

This is about an argument, a philosophical position about immanence and transcendence.  A few early posts said essentially "no one believes that" and I cited sources that did to illustrate that YES some people do , and quoted them.   This is not an attack on Catholicism- it is about finding a source saying that no one believes what this very good source obviously believes.

Quote

I do understand why anyone might be filled with wonder that such a Being would have an interest in us. I do understand why someone, unfamiliar with, or not believing Catholic tradition might have a reasonable fear that such a God would find finite creatures to be beneath his notice.

I agree but I do not "fear" such ridiculous positions.    But that IS the full definition of transcendence as I quoted it.

Quote

A Catholic should understand King David as an example of one who saw God as being both transcendent and immanent. In Psalm 8, we see that David was filled with admiration that his God was so magnificent as to be "elevated above the heavens." A Catholic will read this and see nothing except language that is trying to express transcendence over the created universe. What follows shows the royal psalmist filled with even greater delight and wonder at the certainty that a Being of such greatness would have any interest in us.

OK now you have me confused.

How does this:, Psalm 8

Quote

4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?

Show that no one believes that God is too transcendent to imagine that God might not notice us?

It seems to show exactly THAT some may believe that, erroneously.

But again I am just trying to follow your argument- it seems you have given me more reasons to think I was right that some people must see transcendence that way.  

This though is a thread about putting together ideas, not about what is "true" or "reality"

It is about possible views people could have about God, and is totally a thought experiment!

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Do you see the parallels between transcendence and individualism? And between immanence and connectedness? Both former terms, respectively, are like an ultimate version of both latter terms.

Not really

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Not really

None whatsoever?

Individualism and transcendence are both paradigms of independent identity.

Immanence and connectedness are both paradigms of inseparableness from other entities and elements.

They both pose dilemmas to us. Therefore, their congruence could mean that resolving the more immediately relatable (possibly easier) dilemma could prove insightful for resolving the other.

[CV75]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Well I think you are on to something, but I am having trouble understanding your argument

No doubt that accepting law makes one free- see Isaiah Berlin- "Two Concepts of Liberty."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Concepts_of_Liberty

But I am glad you caught the Adam/God connection here.  It would be an interesting idea to enable one to have only ONE being - presumably Jehovah/Jesus/Adam- all perhaps separate name/titles for the same individual who underwent ONE huge sacrifice for us told as three different stories.

Just speculation of course.

I see all of these stories as just that- ways of tacking together various doctrines which are more abstract. Of course they could be literally true as well in the right contexts.

 

I think the so-called transcendent can be understood once the key is given to us, and that God intends to reveal His mysteries to those who receive and apply faith and knowledge until the perfect day.

I’m sure the authors of the Trinity and Adam-God had good intentions and these alternate stories of redemption made sense to them and their adherents.

But it seems to me that a god (let’s call him “Elovahdam”) who gives up degrees of agency to condescend to and empathize with lesser estates and kingdoms (paradisiacal and mortal beings having less agency than an elovahdam), and unwittingly (because of the veils over lesser estates) relies on himself to get it back, is ultimately not sacrificing anything at all, and submitting in faith to no one. This leaves out the “example” aspect that lesser beings require in order to attain his glory (precept having to match reality).

What might you speculate to be the overriding and exceptional (transcendent in that sense!), one huge sacrifice?

[pogi]

On 11/16/2019 at 6:28 PM, mfbukowski said:

There is a problem in Christian theology that I think the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has solved, and one I have thought about at length, and that is the tension in Christianity between the transcendence of God, and his immanence.

Wikipedia gives a good and simple account of some of the issues involved  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendence_(religion)

Long story short, if God is 100% "transcendent" by definition, we could not understand Him or even speak or pray to him and think that he could or would respond to us.   We would be too insignificant for him to even notice us.  And in no way could he be described as our Father.

So for him to hear and answer our prayers, and be concerned about our welfare etc, he has to have some characteristics of "immanence"

But how can the two opposite poles be balanced?   It is a problem Christianity has faced since its inception.  Catholicism has developed some views on how that is possible, but I won't cover them right now- if that is a direction the thread goes, I have no problem with it.

But for right now I will summarize what I have been thinking about and then explain further as the thread grows progresses.   It is a complicated issue and would not be easily summarized.  Yet some here are informed enough about these issues to notice exactly where I am going with this already, so we will see how the thread goes and cover those issues as they come up

One solution I see is to see God as being "self- determining"  Imagine you are trying to lose weight, and decide to go on a diet.  You are free to eat a whole chocolate cake- nothing stands in your way- except your own decision to NOT eat the cake.

So you yourself have limited your agency by choosing NOT to eat the cake.   And doing that is a sacrifice.  Now eating cake may or may not be much of a sacrifice in your life, but let's look at a moment for what it could mean for Heavenly Father if he decided to make a similar sacrifice.

Suppose our transcendent Father decides voluntarily to GIVE UP his transcendence and limit his abilities in significant ways so that he CAN have earthly children, and to serve them and hear and answer prayers?   He gives up VOLUNTARILY a great portion of what it is to BE God so that he can serve his earthly children!   He gives it all up and decides to be limited by his own "natural laws" and instead of creating ex nihilo- which he COULD have done if he decided to- he decides to take the immanent path and "organize" existing matter using natural law

So how would this affect the atonement?

Isn't the condescension of Christ similar to this sacrifice? The great Jehovah decides to take upon himself human existence and sacrifice his life for us so that he can understand every possible emotion and pain of humanity and overcome them so that we can have peace, knowing he has experienced the worst of anything we can possibly experience.  He must suffer and die to know what mankind faces.

So now we have two condescensions - that of the Father AND the Son.

But wait?  What about Adam and Eve?   As a pre-qualifier to becoming exalted, we all need to understand both Good AND Evil, and so we have what has been termed the "Fortunate Fall" in which first Eve, and then Adam, come to understand that they must sacrifice the immortality of of the Garden and learn about evil and death in order to be able to overcome it.

So Father takes on immanence and gives up a large portion of his powers- for his children.  Christ gives up his Heavenly home and comes to earth to suffer and die for his children, and then Eve and Adam give up the Garden and immortality to learn the hard way about evil and death and so they have the freedom to make the choices they need in order to learn these principles.

But there is another angle to this.

Were there "really" three sacrifices or are these three LEVELS of sacrifice (telestial, terestrial and celestial?) "really" portions of one sacrifice and the atonement?

What are the implications of all this for the "Adam-God Theory" that Brigham Young put forward - that Adam WAS our Father?   

It's all just speculation but what do you think?

 

Interesting thoughts. 

However, this self-determined Celestial sacrifice of the father requires us to believe that transcendence is even an option for the Father.  Given the following definition, I don't see that as a thing:

 

Quote

In religion, transcendence is the aspect of a deity's nature and power that is wholly independent of the material universe, beyond all known physical laws

I will agree that he is beyond all "known" physical laws, but that doesn't make him "independent" of physical laws and the material universe.  It simply means we don't understand as he does.  I don't think he could have created ex-nihlo, even if he really, really wanted to. Perhaps the solution that our doctrine provides is to suggest that there is not a problem in the first place.