Christianity Is Not A Monotheistic Religion

[Zakuska]

Jesus isn't a part. He is the one true God.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

John 5:18 For this cause therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.

So then how do you reconcile him calling someone other than himself... "The one true God".

John 17: 3

3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Why does even he have a God?

John 20

16 Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.

17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

[consiglieri]

So then how do you reconcile him calling someone other than himself... "The one true God".

A good question.

And the obvious answer is that it is because orthodox Christians like PaulD are polytheists.

In spite of their protestations to the contrary.

Methinks the polytheist doth protest too much.

All the Best!

--Will Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

Once again --- we are not really talking about "postulating" --- merely considering the professed

reports of many people in many religions, in many times and many different places. Some folks

in South Asia call it the "perennial realization."

There is no postulation required -- only an openness to encounter and reflection.

And, to repeat -- we are not talking about "a" God ---- in the sense that we might speak of a planet

or a continent or a mountain.

Yes -- we are all "one" with God ----- but not with "a" Being. We experience it as so, because we

cannot generally comprehend infinity and Infinite Being.

Think of Heavenly Father's Grandfather's Grandfather --- if such a mental exercise will get your

perceptions to open up. Or think about the what the Milky Way Galaxy was like before Eloheim

progressed to godhood.

At least those things can be "postulated," and some new possibilies pondered.

Uncle Dale

.

You may be right about a lot of this, Uncle Dale. I don't know. I'm just a tadpole in the Milky Way.

I remember once looking at a volume of the Journal of Discourses about 20-years ago and being surprised to read one of the early brethren preaching about God's body; and how God's body extends throughout all things, including us, and that we are therefore all part of God's body, as is everything in the universe.

Now, knowing how good you are with LDS documents, does that unusual reference ring a bell?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Uncle Dale]

You may be right about a lot of this, Uncle Dale. I don't know. I'm just a tadpole in the Milky Way.

I remember once looking at a volume of the Journal of Discourses about 20-years ago and being surprised to read one of the early brethren preaching about God's body; and how God's body extends throughout all things, including us, and that we are therefore all part of God's body, as is everything in the universe.

Now, knowing how good you are with LDS documents, does that unusual reference ring a bell?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Sounds like Orson Pratt -- he was always a few steps ahead of his more mundane brother -- I think

that Orson also had a secret hankering for the Lectures on Faith, long after they became "old stuff"

in Deseret.

Had I been around Great Salt Lake City in the 1880s, the first place I would have headed would

have been to Orson's door.

Uncle "and the second place -- to his much maligned former first wife's doorstep, of course" Dale

[Uncle Dale]

You callin' me chicken? Are ya? I double dog dare ya. I triple dog dare ya! Knock this here spud off'n my shoulder. I'll knock you all the way to St. Agony.

USU "There be L--ds many" 78

Travis -- tie up Old Yeller.

Now, getting back to our discussion, Horatio. Just when was it that Mormons all decided to agree that

God is not Infinite? It must have been after you guys took off in your wagons to the desert, I guess.

But can you remember back to 1830-31-32, when all we had was the Book of Mormon and that skinny

blond guy with the white hat? Back when infinity wasn't quite so unfamiliar?

What happened to you people?

UD

[johnny]

consiglieri,

Which brings us back to the point of the original post--What is it about the claim of monotheism that makes it so desirable as to cause orthodox Christianity to adopt an internally inconsistent and mutually contradictory view of God in order to lay claim to it?

Orthodox Christianity adopted this view because it is consistent with the Bible.

Neither the Old Testament nor the New Testament reveal "three Gods" like Mormonism does.

The Bible reveals "three persons".

The Bible reveals "one God".

The Bible reveals the Trinity, one God in three persons (2Cor 5:19).

And it seems that the only reason for all this strangeness is the unquenchable desire for orthodox Christians to call themselves Monotheists.

The Bible reveals that the disciples of Christ and Christ were Monotheists:

Mark 12

[29] And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

[32] And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:

[ED500]

It strikes me as odd that many Christians claim to be monotheists when they believe in more than one God.

They believe in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost.

If my elementary school math still holds true, that looks like three gods to me.

And yet, in spite of this, many of these same Christians will also claim to be monotheists . . . absolute monotheists . . . monotheists without any disclaimer or qualifier.

My question is this:

What is the cachet associated with Monotheism that causes many Christians to claim it in spite of the fact that they do not believe it?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Consiglieri,

I sort off responded to a similar thread.

Do you really want to completely understand God in terms of basic pre-elementary mathematics (1+1+1=3)?

Yes or NO?

[structurecop]

Consiglieri,

I sort off responded to a similar thread.

Do you really want to completely understand God in terms of basic pre-elementary mathematics (1+1+1=3)?

Yes or NO?

Speaking on behalf of the grand master, I imagine he might be equally satisfied with a description in terms of quantum particles.

[Zakuska]

The Bible reveals the Trinity, one God in three persons (2Cor 5:19).

The Bible reveals that the disciples of Christ and Christ were Monotheists:

Mark 12

[29] And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

[32] And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:

Yep as predicted... there Johhny goes again believing the Leaven of the Saducees.

John 10

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

Scripture contradicts the Saducees private interpretation. It also shows that Christ himself was not a Monotheist.

[johnny]

Zakuska,

Scripture contradicts the Saducees private interpretation. It also shows that Christ himself was not a Monotheist.

Which scripture reveals that "Christ himself was not a Monotheist" ... John 10:30 is referring to that "called gods" (1Cor 8:5)

The Apostle Paul clarifies that there is one God.

1Cor 8

[4] As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.

[5] For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

[Zakuska]

The Saducees private interpretationi is the Hyper-Montheisim running rampant in todays churchs.

"There is none other but he"

Yet in this one Verse Christ shows that the Saduccess interpretation is flawed, and that there are other gods, even himself.

[Uncle Dale]

Yep as predicted... there Johhny goes again believing the Leaven of the Saducees.

John 10

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

Scripture contradicts the Saducees private interpretation. It also shows that Christ himself was not a Monotheist.

Are we here talking about the Pharisees or the Saducees? They were very different sects, with different

oral interpretations of the law. If Jesus is here being accused of blasphemy, I think it is important for us

to keep in mind who was making that charge and for what reason.

Also -- WHO was here referred to as "gods"??? Are you attempting to say that Jesus was looking into

the eyes of his accusors and calling them "gods"??? That is simply ridiculous!

Do you not catch the irony here? Ironic rhetoric is NOT Christian doctrine, I think you will agree.

Why does Jesus go to the trouble of paraphrasing an excerpt from the [52nd] Psalm here? That psalm

speaks of judges in Israel having the power or function of "gods" in their official duites. All of this is

hearkening back to the days when Israel-Judah was a functioning theocracy, wherein the established

judges had both the vested authority to pronounce the divine law and to render civil punishment. They

had the power over life and death -- (supposedly making use of the Mosiac Law as their reference).

The irony -- which you are here missing -- is that, in applying the words of the psalm to his accusors --

Jesus is showing them that they are NOT judicial "gods" like their ancestors were. The Pharisees have

no vested authority to act as godly judges, or god-like judges.

The "gods" of the [52nd] Psalm are functional divinities -- they die and decay just like their fellow human

beings. They are not "gods" in the sense of being self-existent, nor in any way equals to YHWH. And even

less, these Pharisee accusors ----- for they are not authorized judges at all.

Only when you begin with these understandings, does the pericope make any sense.

Besides which, I sincerely doubt that we have preserved in John 10, the exact, full words of Jesus. This

reads more to me like a later Johanine argument against Jewish rivals, decades after Jesus' death.

Uncle Dale

[rhinomelon]

At the very least they are ditheists -- the Trinity and Satan.

Well, if we thought Satan was a God, then you might have a point, but...

Anyway, I am seeing a great deal of misunderstanding and muddy thinking here regarding the doctrine of the Trinity. It seems as though most LDS (on this thread and elsewhere) seem to think that if something is hard to understand, or if there is a part of it that is beyond understanding, then it is automatically self-contradictory or nonsensical. This is certainly a messy way to approach anything in life. Does anyone understand the dual nature of light (wave or particle)? Or how about quantum theory, which does contain seemingly contradictory elements but still provides a reliable way to continue digging deeper into the workings of the universe.

Of course, I think the problem is that LDS simply assume that the Trinity is contradictory, as that makes it easier to dismiss it off the bat, instead of putting any real effort into understanding it. It is a difficult piece of Christian theology, but certainly not a contradictory one beyond any kind of understanding. Me listening to LDS discuss the Trinity is likely akin to LDS listening to vociferous anti-Mormons discuss what is real Mormon doctrine.

Some more quick thoughts here: The 1+1+1=1 argument doesn't make much sense when related to the Trinity. The Trinity does not claim that God is one and three in the same sense (i.e. "God is three Gods and one God" or "God is three Persons and one Person"). Rather, the Trinity is "one God in three Persons", which has no logical difficulties whatsoever. God is one in one sense, and three in another sense. So there is one God, not three. Hence, monotheism is a legitimate claim. Although I would take issue with the "absolute monotheism" label that some LDS are trying to stick on mainstream Christianity here. "Absolute monotheism" would more accurately refer to conceptions of God that contain no kind of plurality or distinction within it. The conceptions of God of Islam and Judaism would tend more toward "absolute".

Also, to take issue with the claim that the early Christians were not monotheists, the general scholarly consensus is that this is not the case. As J.N.D. Kelly put it in his book "Early Christian Doctrines":

The monotheistic idea, grounded in the religion of Israel, loomed large in the minds of the earliest fathers; though not reflective theologians, they were fully conscious that it marked the dividing line between the Church and paganism. . . The doctrine of one God, the Father and creator, formed the background and indisputable premiss of the Church's faith. Inherited from Judaism, it was her bulwark against pagan polytheism, Gnostic emanationism and Marcionite dualism. The problem for theology was to integrate with it, intellectually, the fresh data of the specifically Christian revelation."

Monotheism, along with the belief that God was not a part of the created order but was its Creator, formed the foundation of all Christian theology to follow.

As English theologian Leonard Hodgson observed, "Christianity began as a trinitarian religion with a unitarian theology. The question at issue in the age of the Fathers was whether the religion should transform the theology or the theology stifle the religion."

While I can sympathize with LDS who find the Trinity unfamiliar and confusing, I have little regard for those who simply write it off as too difficult and therefore self-contradictory. I find the Trinity to be a beautiful and awe-inspiring picture of the God Who works in history and in our lives. It does require clear thinking and specificity of thought and language, but so do many other things.

Consider legal documents, for example. Most of us can make little headway in fully understanding some of these legal tomes and contracts, with their confusing language and fine print. (That's why we hire lawyers!) But all the confusing language and density of prose is specifically designed to serve one specific purpose, no more or less than that. The language clearly sets the limits and conditions, closes loopholes, and focuses on the sole purpose as much as possible. Same with the Trinitarian language, at times. The language is so specific and purposeful that a great deal of words and concepts are needed in order to be as clear as possible about it.

Anyway, more later, I'm sure. Take care, everyone

[Zakuska]

Are we here talking about the Pharisees or the Saducees? They were very different sects, with different

oral interpretations of the law. If Jesus is here being accused of blasphemy, I think it is important for us

to keep in mind who was making that charge and for what reason.

Also -- WHO was here referred to as "gods"??? Are you attempting to say that Jesus was looking into

the eyes of his accusors and calling them "gods"??? That is simply ridiculous!

Do you not catch the irony here? Ironic rhetoric is NOT Christian doctrine, I think you will agree.

Why does Jesus go to the trouble of paraphrasing an excerpt from the 132nd Psalm here? That psalm

speaks of judges in Israel having the power or function of "gods" in their official duites. All of this is

hearkening back to the days when Israel-Judah was a functioning theocracy, wherein the established

judges had both the vested authority to pronounce the divine law and to render civil punishment. They

had the power over life and death -- (supposedly making use of the Mosiac Law as their reference).

The irony -- which you are here missing -- is that, in applying the words of the psalm to his accusors --

Jesus is showing them that they are NOT judicial "gods" like their ancestors were. The Pharisees have

no vested authority to act as godly judges, or god-like judges.

The "gods" of the 132nd Psalm are functional divinities -- they die and decay just like their fellow human

beings. They are not "gods" in the sense of being self-existent, nor in any way equals to YHWH. And even

less, these Pharisee accusors ----- for they are not authorized judges at all.

Only when you begin with these understandings, does the pericope make any sense.

Besides which, I sincerely doubt that we have preserved in John 10, the exact, full words of Jesus. This

reads more to me like a later Johanine argument against Jewish rivals, decades after Jesus' death.

Uncle Dale

Apparently Uncle Dale didn't read the recent exchange between Heisler and Bokovoy on Psalms 82. This is not a defense of Chris'st divinity if these arent actual Divine beings. Second, to tell these divine beings they are going to bark like a dog doesn't make sense if they already are dogs.

[Uncle Dale]

Apparently Uncle Dale didn't read the recent exchange between Heisler and Bokovoy on Psalms 82.

Well, then if Heisler and Bokovoy have agreed that Jesus was a polytheist, then who am I to say otherwise?

This is not a defense of Christ's divinity if these arent actual Divine beings.

The judges in the psalm or the "Jews" in John?

There was an old Jewish hermeneutic, that involved moving from the lesser to the greater in scriptural

interpretation -- also a related method of moving from one point to a related point. A theologian today

would not base a Christological exposition on the psalm -- so, did Jesus really do that? I greatly doubt it.

The scholars of the "Jesus Seminar" mark the entire chapter as John's theologizing -- that is, they do

not credit any of the relevant passages to an original Jesus oral tradition and they do not cross-reference

any parallel Jesus teachings elsewhere in any of the other four gospels they have compared. In this,

I believe the scholars are accurate. While the citation of the 82nd (I previously wrote from imperfect

memory 132) may indeed be an original Jesus remark, recalled by John, I do not believe that all of

the theologizing surrounding that remark is anything other than John's personal argument.

And, even if it did depend upon a tradition earlier than John's writing, I still cannot agree that the psalm

language proves Jesus to have been a proponent of the LDS notion of plurality of gods. Show me a

reputable theological writer in all of history who has ever reached such a conclusion.

Second, to tell these divine beings they are going to bark like a dog doesn't make sense if they

already are dogs.

If that is your line of reasoning, then perhaps all of this proof-texting ought to be taken back to the

Primary, Sunday School and Seminary classes where seems to have originated.

When will Mormons live up to their calling and join the rest of the world in a proper Christological dialogue?

If this Message Board and Farms Review represent the most advanced of their efforts, they are

going nowhere, other than preaching to their own kind.

Or ---- maybe that was the intent all along?

UD

[jwhitlock]

Of course, I think the problem is that LDS simply assume that the Trinity is contradictory, as that makes it easier to dismiss it off the bat, instead of putting any real effort into understanding it. It is a difficult piece of Christian theology, but certainly not a contradictory one beyond any kind of understanding. Me listening to LDS discuss the Trinity is likely akin to LDS listening to vociferous anti-Mormons discuss what is real Mormon doctrine.

Perhaps part of the problem we have is that the consensus about the doctrine of the Trinity is not consistently defined by those different groups that espouse it - from Eastern Orthodox to Roman Catholics to Evangelicals.

The Trinity does not claim that God is one and three in the same sense (i.e. "God is three Gods and one God" or "God is three Persons and one Person"). Rather, the Trinity is "one God in three Persons", which has no logical difficulties whatsoever. God is one in one sense, and three in another sense. So there is one God, not three.

You would need to expand on how this does not compose any logical difficulties. The statement of one God in three Persons is not logical when taken at face value.

Perhaps you could further define what you mean by the term "one God".

Hence, monotheism is a legitimate claim. Although I would take issue with the "absolute monotheism" label that some LDS are trying to stick on mainstream Christianity here. "Absolute monotheism" would more accurately refer to conceptions of God that contain no kind of plurality or distinction within it. The conceptions of God of Islam and Judaism would tend more toward "absolute".

This is interesting. When talking about monotheism, I would usually think that something is either monotheistic or it is not. You seem to indicate that there are shades of monotheism; could you elaborate on that?

Monotheism, along with the belief that God was not a part of the created order but was its Creator, formed the foundation of all Christian theology to follow.

This poses an interesting question. Why would the theology concerning the nature of God in Christianity differ materially from what was understood in Judaism? After all, God worked with His people the Jews; why, with the coming of Christ and afterwards Christianity, would there be a new understanding concerning the nature of God? Wasn't it well understood by the Jews, His people, to whom He had revealed Himself through His prophets in the OT?

As English theologian Leonard Hodgson observed, "Christianity began as a trinitarian religion with a unitarian theology. The question at issue in the age of the Fathers was whether the religion should transform the theology or the theology stifle the religion."

What, in your estimation, is the answer to this question? Did the religion (or the church) transform the theology? Or how could the theology stifle the religion if the theology was true?

While I can sympathize with LDS who find the Trinity unfamiliar and confusing, I have little regard for those who simply write it off as too difficult and therefore self-contradictory. I find the Trinity to be a beautiful and awe-inspiring picture of the God Who works in history and in our lives. It does require clear thinking and specificity of thought and language, but so do many other things.

LDS find the concept of a personal God of the same species as us, who is literally the Father of all on the earth to be beautiful and awe-inspiring. The understanding of our relationship to such a God, who we believe is well documented in the scriptures and by latter day revelation, is much easier to grasp than the concepts of the Trinity. Not that such clarity makes it right or wrong; however, we are everywhere commanded to improve our relationship with God and become closer to Him. I suspect that the doctrine of the Trinity can tend to muddy the workings of that relationship in our lives.

Consider legal documents, for example. Most of us can make little headway in fully understanding some of these legal tomes and contracts, with their confusing language and fine print. (That's why we hire lawyers!) But all the confusing language and density of prose is specifically designed to serve one specific purpose, no more or less than that. The language clearly sets the limits and conditions, closes loopholes, and focuses on the sole purpose as much as possible. Same with the Trinitarian language, at times. The language is so specific and purposeful that a great deal of words and concepts are needed in order to be as clear as possible about it.

While I understand what you're trying to say here, I wouldn't carry the legal documentation analogy too far. There is much legal documentation nowadays whose intent is to mislead, to muddy understanding, and to keep things very unclear. Indeed, the mystery of understanding the doctrine of the Trinity could just as well be applied to this type of legal documentation.

[Zakuska]

Well, then if Heisler and Bokovoy have agreed that Jesus was a polytheist, then who am I to say otherwise?

The judges in the psalm or the "Jews" in John?

The gods in the Pslam.

[rhinomelon]

Perhaps part of the problem we have is that the consensus about the doctrine of the Trinity is not consistently defined by those different groups that espouse it - from Eastern Orthodox to Roman Catholics to Evangelicals.

Other than the filioque clause, accepted by the west and rejected by the east, the basic formulation of the Trinity is the same across the board: one God in three Persons. All three branches of Christianity look back to the Nicene Creed. Now, it is true that the Trinity is visualized, experienced and studied differently among the branches, mostly between east and west, but the basic formulation is the same.

Eastern Orthodoxy tends to work from the three Persons back to the divine unity, while the western traditions of Roman Catholicism and Protestantism tend to start with the divine unity and work toward the three persons. This obviously can create some differences in approach, but the basic formulation is the same (apart from the filioque, of course).

You would need to expand on how this does not compose any logical difficulties. The statement of one God in three Persons is not logical when taken at face value.

How is that simple statement inherently illogical? It is only contradictory if one equates the term "God" with "Person", which the statement explicitly does not do. It is not illogical simply because one cannot understand it.

Perhaps you could further define what you mean by the term "one God".

Okay. "One God" means one being that is unique, Creator, over all, the omni- statements and all that. This one God has no equal, no partner, nothing and no one like Him. This is just off the cuff, but I can stick with it. Now, that is describing God from our perspective, but within the life and being of God there has been revealed three Persons who are equally God, with there only being one God. So reconciling these two poles is the Trinity. LDS got around the issue by ditching "one God" altogether, while other religious groups and religions have avoided the issue by ignoring the three.

This is interesting. When talking about monotheism, I would usually think that something is either monotheistic or it is not. You seem to indicate that there are shades of monotheism; could you elaborate on that?

Monotheism is conceived of in different ways. I think Muslims would think of Christians as polytheists (as does consiglieri, apparently) because they equate "God" with "Persons" as many LDS do, thinking of personhood in terms of our experience as human beings. "Absolute monotheism" usually refers to a belief that God is completely transcedent and alone, with no other supernatural beings in the equation, or plurality within the Godhead. Some scholars would use the term "dualistic monotheism" to describe Christianity, Judaism and Islam, because in addition to God, there are other, lesser players in the divine realm. Absolute monotheism would discount any kind of plurality in the divine realm, whether of fully divine persons with the Trinity or lesser supernatural beings outside of the Trinity. Consider this from Rodney Stark's book "One True God: Historical Consequences of Monotheism":

In practice, absolute monotheism is possible only when the supernatural is conceived of as an essence. If there is only one supernatural being, such a God would of necessity be irrational and perverse; one God of infinite scope must be responsible for everything, evil as well as good, and thus must be dangerously capricious, shifting intentions unpredictably and without reason. Within the confines of absolute monotheism, the only alternative to such a fearsome God is a divine essence that is responsible for nothing, being utterly remote from human concerns.

Hope that helps. I simply think "absolute monotheism" is not the right term to be throwing about in this discussion.

This poses an interesting question. Why would the theology concerning the nature of God in Christianity differ materially from what was understood in Judaism? After all, God worked with His people the Jews; why, with the coming of Christ and afterwards Christianity, would there be a new understanding concerning the nature of God? Wasn't it well understood by the Jews, His people, to whom He had revealed Himself through His prophets in the OT?

The answer to this one is simple: Jesus Christ. Christianity comes from clearly monotheistic Jewish roots, but also had to deal with the mind-blowing revelation revealed in and through Christ, that Christ was going around doing and saying things that only God could do. Like that quote from Hodgson I posted earlier says, Christianity inherited a unitarian theology from its Jewish foundation, but had to integrate the new revelation of God brought by Christ into that theology. The religion of Christianity from the beginning held Christ to be divine, and worshipped him as such. It took quite a while for the implications and difficulties of holding Jewish monotheism together with the divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit revealed since, but to answer your later question, the trinitarian religion did indeed transform the unitarian theology.

This is one of the areas in which I find it hard to believe LDS views of the Old Testament. There is no indication that the complete nature of God and Christ and the gospel was a part of every major Old Testament epoch since Adam. LDS seem to think that if there were prophets, they must have known everything, from Christ to the gospel and the complete nature of God. But we simply don't see that in the Old Testament. I don't believe that the Jews knew the whole picture; God Himself had to come down and reveal it through the incarnation of the Son, something unexpected, unprecedented and unique!

I suspect that the doctrine of the Trinity can tend to muddy the workings of that relationship in our lives.

Actually, just the opposite is true. Sure, it can be a hindrance if we just want to think about God, try to understand Him completely and fit Him into nice neat categories. But the experience and actual work of the Christian life becomes much clearer when one thinks of the one God working on so many levels in our lives. I'll let C.S. Lewis do some talking here:

You may ask, "If we cannot imagine a three-personal Being, what is the good of talking about Him?" Well, there isn't any good talking about Him. The thing that matters is being actually drawn into that three-personal life, and that may begin any time--tonight, if you like.

What I mean is this. An ordinary simple Christian kneels down to say his prayers. He is trying to get in touch with God. But if he is a Christian he knows that what is prompting him to pray is also God: God, so to speak, inside him. But he also knows that all his real knowledge of God comes through Christ, the Man who was God--that Christ is standing beside him, helping him to pray, praying for him. You see what is happening. God is the thing to which he is praying--the goal he is trying to reach. God is also the thing inside him which is pushing him on--the motive power. God is also the road or bridge along which he is being pushed toward that goal. So that the whole three-fold life of the the three-personal Being is actually going on in that ordinary little bedroom where an ordinary man is saying his prayers. The man is being caught up into the higher kind of life--what I call Zoe or spiritual life: he is being pulled into God, by God, while still remaining himself.

And another quote from the same chapter that I found germane to this discussion: "This definition [the Trinity] is not something we have made up; Theology is, in a sense, experimental knowledge. It is the simple religions that are the made-up ones."

While I understand what you're trying to say here, I wouldn't carry the legal documentation analogy too far. There is much legal documentation nowadays whose intent is to mislead, to muddy understanding, and to keep things very unclear. Indeed, the mystery of understanding the doctrine of the Trinity could just as well be applied to this type of legal documentation.

Yeah, I wouldn't go too far in anything that compares theologians to lawyers... But aside from the junk legal jargon that is intended to trick or trap, I think the analogy holds. The deeper and more specific you get about anything, the harder it is to understand and the more language and thought it takes to fully or adequately describe it. Just try to read some of the philosophical or scientific journals as an untrained layman! But the fact is that billions of people have found the Trinity to be an accurate and powerful description of the Church's experience of God from Christ to today. I find it hard to believe that something really so impossible and difficult would be held to so tightly by so many people from so many different cultures, languages, and backgrounds.

While we mainstreamers could always do better in explaining and studying our own beliefs, the fact remains that there are people out there who do understand that Trinity and have written many books and devotional materials on the subject. LDS should go to the best sources in order to at least attempt to understand what the Trinity is all about. Instead, all too often I see LDS simply relying on what Joe Schmoe said on the street corner after church. LDS get quite annoyed when evangelicals do similar things with LDS beliefs, so they rightly tell us to go to the best sources. Perhaps the LDS could try the same for the Trinity?

Take care, everyone

[Zakuska]

Hope that helps. I simply think "absolute monotheism" is not the right term to be throwing about in this discussion.

Which is exactly the way the Saducee Interpreted Duet.

[jwhitlock]

Okay. "One God" means one being that is unique, Creator, over all, the omni- statements and all that. This one God has no equal, no partner, nothing and no one like Him. This is just off the cuff, but I can stick with it. Now, that is describing God from our perspective, but within the life and being of God there has been revealed three Persons who are equally God, with there only being one God. So reconciling these two poles is the Trinity. LDS got around the issue by ditching "one God" altogether, while other religious groups and religions have avoided the issue by ignoring the three.

Here's where the problem of understanding via the terminology perhaps starts. We have to understand what is meant by the terms:

One God

Three Persons

Does "three Persons" mean three separate individuals, such as what Stephen saw in Acts 7, when he saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God? Or is there another nuance to this that Christians apply, apart from the one God terminology which I'm separating it from?

The traditional meaning of "one God" is where, I think, most of the difficulty occurs. As LDS we try to get some kind of concrete definition about what it really means. So far you have used "one being", "unique", "omnipresent" (along with the other omni's), "having no partner", "Him" (gender based?), "no one like Him", having "life and being", and "divine unity". You specifically state that "one God" does not equate to "one Person". You have also stated that the Trinity is not absolute Monotheism, in that the Trinity allows for "plurality within the divine realm" (unknown if "divine realm" is an aspect of "one God").

It appears to me that we have conflicting phraseology in the definition of what "one God" really is. And so far, we haven't even come to the material / substance discussion portion of "one God", let alone the material / substance implications of the "three Persons".

Can "one God" be succinctly defined so it is anywhere near understandable in the same way "three Persons" appears to be? If so, what is that definition?

Monotheism is conceived of in different ways. I think Muslims would think of Christians as polytheists (as does consiglieri, apparently) because they equate "God" with "Persons" as many LDS do, thinking of personhood in terms of our experience as human beings. "Absolute monotheism" usually refers to a belief that God is completely transcedent and alone, with no other supernatural beings in the equation, or plurality within the Godhead. Some scholars would use the term "dualistic monotheism" to describe Christianity, Judaism and Islam, because in addition to God, there are other, lesser players in the divine realm. Absolute monotheism would discount any kind of plurality in the divine realm, whether of fully divine persons with the Trinity or lesser supernatural beings outside of the Trinity. Consider this from Rodney Stark's book "One True God: Historical Consequences of Monotheism":

In practice, absolute monotheism is possible only when the supernatural is conceived of as an essence. If there is only one supernatural being, such a God would of necessity be irrational and perverse; one God of infinite scope must be responsible for everything, evil as well as good, and thus must be dangerously capricious, shifting intentions unpredictably and without reason. Within the confines of absolute monotheism, the only alternative to such a fearsome God is a divine essence that is responsible for nothing, being utterly remote from human concerns.

I'm not sure that I follow this quote properly, because the Trinitarian concept of God does indicate a God of infinite scope who is responsible for everything. It appears like it applies properly to Trinitarianism, as well as absolute monotheism.

The LDS perspective of God is as of a discrete being of physical nature, subject to certain limitations of divine law. Does Trinitarianism apply any limits to God, or are there no limits?

Hope that helps. I simply think "absolute monotheism" is not the right term to be throwing about in this discussion.

I would mostly agree; we should probably put this aside for now as part of the discussion and simply concentrate on the monotheism of the Trinity, as defined.

The answer to this one is simple: Jesus Christ. Christianity comes from clearly monotheistic Jewish roots, but also had to deal with the mind-blowing revelation revealed in and through Christ, that Christ was going around doing and saying things that only God could do. Like that quote from Hodgson I posted earlier says, Christianity inherited a unitarian theology from its Jewish foundation, but had to integrate the new revelation of God brought by Christ into that theology. The religion of Christianity from the beginning held Christ to be divine, and worshipped him as such. It took quite a while for the implications and difficulties of holding Jewish monotheism together with the divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit revealed since, but to answer your later question, the trinitarian religion did indeed transform the unitarian theology.

This is one of the areas in which I find it hard to believe LDS views of the Old Testament. There is no indication that the complete nature of God and Christ and the gospel was a part of every major Old Testament epoch since Adam. LDS seem to think that if there were prophets, they must have known everything, from Christ to the gospel and the complete nature of God. But we simply don't see that in the Old Testament. I don't believe that the Jews knew the whole picture; God Himself had to come down and reveal it through the incarnation of the Son, something unexpected, unprecedented and unique!

It is actually not that simple, nor was it unexpected:

1 Cor 10:1-4

1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud and all passed through the sea;

2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;

3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;

4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

The concept of Christ did not come suddenly into existence with the birth of the babe in Bethlehem, as I think you understand. And from Paul's understanding, the concept of Christ among the Israelites in the OT was not something that was unknown either. So, the answer is really not as simple as you indicate. The theology of Christ and the concept of "one God" is most likely something that the Israelites had to deal with also; however, we have no indication of the concept of a Trinity before the Christian era, so something doctrinally appears to have changed.

Actually, just the opposite is true. Sure, it can be a hindrance if we just want to think about God, try to understand Him completely and fit Him into nice neat categories. But the experience and actual work of the Christian life becomes much clearer when one thinks of the one God working on so many levels in our lives. I'll let C.S. Lewis do some talking here:

I don't think LDS doctrine tries to categorize God into neat categories; there is much about Him that we do not understand, even though we also speculate about His attributes and motivations. However, the fact that so much must be written about the Trinity in order to help ordinary people work around it, much less comprehend it, is interesting.

And another quote from the same chapter that I found germane to this discussion: "This definition [the Trinity] is not something we have made up; Theology is, in a sense, experimental knowledge. It is the simple religions that are the made-up ones."

I disagree with this entirely. For all intents and purposes, the concept of Trinity did not exist until the 3rd-4th century. Speculation is experimental knowledge; theology should try to identify eternal truths. The religion preached by the Savior was indeed a simple religion, as James so plainly states when he identifies "pure religion".

Yeah, I wouldn't go too far in anything that compares theologians to lawyers... But aside from the junk legal jargon that is intended to trick or trap, I think the analogy holds. The deeper and more specific you get about anything, the harder it is to understand and the more language and thought it takes to fully or adequately describe it. Just try to read some of the philosophical or scientific journals as an untrained layman! But the fact is that billions of people have found the Trinity to be an accurate and powerful description of the Church's experience of God from Christ to today. I find it hard to believe that something really so impossible and difficult would be held to so tightly by so many people from so many different cultures, languages, and backgrounds.

Interesting; one of the things many evangelical scholars seem to bemoan is the lack of understanding about the Trinity among most Christians.

While we mainstreamers could always do better in explaining and studying our own beliefs, the fact remains that there are people out there who do understand that Trinity and have written many books and devotional materials on the subject. LDS should go to the best sources in order to at least attempt to understand what the Trinity is all about. Instead, all too often I see LDS simply relying on what Joe Schmoe said on the street corner after church. LDS get quite annoyed when evangelicals do similar things with LDS beliefs, so they rightly tell us to go to the best sources. Perhaps the LDS could try the same for the Trinity?

Perhaps you're right. Then again, the reason we tend to pick on the Trinity doctrine is that clear explanations of it are not usually forthcoming. I look forward to your response in helping to clear that up.

[structurecop]

Well, if we thought Satan was a God, then you might have a point, but...

He has all the characteristics and powers of a god.

[roman]

He has all the characteristics and powers of a god.

Not of the ONE and ONLY true God

satan can not create as God does

satan cannot forgive as God does

satan can not love as God does

[Uncle Dale]

He has all the characteristics and powers of a god.

Except creation, redemption and eternal life, of course.

UD

[structurecop]

Except creation, redemption and eternal life, of course.

UD

Eternal life is arguable... he can, however, create -- he creates "evil" (if fast & testimony meetings are any indication, he creates boy bands, network television, and Abercrombie & Fitch) and apparently has the power to defeat God (according to Christian folklore) although supposedly God will eventually defeat him (I'll believe it when I see it).

[Uncle Dale]

Eternal life is arguable... he can, however, create -- he creates "evil" (if fast & testimony meetings are any indication, he creates boy bands, network television, and Abercrombie & Fitch) and apparently has the power to defeat God (according to Christian folklore) although supposedly God will eventually defeat him (I'll believe it when I see it).

"Evil" did not exist before Lucifer created it? hmmmmm..... mayhap you've been reading too much Milton??

Scientists can "create" elements heavier than plutonium -- that's about as "godlike" as anything I might

be inclined to attribute to invisible "powers" in the air, or to the "Fallen Star of the Morn."

UD