Elder Holland On Trinitarianism

[maklelan]

Yet . . .because a respectful, consistent, and careful use of Scriptures favors something much closer to Evangelical, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox reading of Christian doctrine, while LDS scriptures steer one into contrary waters . . .

Where does consubstantial appear in a careful use of scripture? In John 17:22 Jesus tells us he wants us all to be one with them exactly as he is one with the Father. If the ancients understood Christ's unity with the father in the ontological sense outlined by the marriage of Greek philosophy and Christian scriptures that took place at Nicea then we are left inescapably with the conclusion that our salvation amounts to a physical and spiritual assimilation into a giant corporeal uber-God. Only in that way can we become ontologically one with the Father just as Christ is, which is Christ's prayer and his only hint at the nature of his unity with God. Perhaps those bishops weren't as careful as they should have been.

Nothing intelligent, constructive, or good comes of liberal 'scholarship' or of treating liberals as if anything they say or do is worthy of anything other than utter contempt and disdain. If Jeffrey Holland thinks as you do that he is referencing 'mainstream scholarship', he is just as much wrong as you--and he is fortifying his position with alien and insidious ideas which will ultimately prove toxic.

Wow, with that kind of objectivity who needs discourse? We can just defer all questions to your conservative dogmatism.

One council--the council of Nicaea--is noteworthy for the political pressure exerted upon it. Ironically, the Emperor who convened that council was an Arian, and yet his theological views did NOT win the day: the Council of Nicaea roundly rejected Arianism, which is why the Nicene Creed is remembered as a Trinitarian creedal statement.

Wow, this is false. Constantine wasn't Arian, he just wanted an accord. It was actually he who suggested the introduction of the term "homoousios" during the council. He forced all the bishops to sign it under penalty of banishment. Eusebius of Nicomedia and some other bishops later wrote a letter to Constantine in which they said, "We have committed an impious act, O prince, by subscribing to a blasphemy out of fear of you." Obviously his clout played more of a role than you would like. After the banishment of the Arians he grew sympathetic towards them and struggled for the rest of his life to grant them some measure of authority. He brought them back out of banishment, but his son later reversed his hard work.

There's a big difference between conservative scholarship and ignorant scholarship.

[Zakuska]

Constantine wasn't Arian, he just wanted an accord.

Man! What is it with this car and the ancients?!

[maklelan]

Man! What is it with this car and the ancients?!

Great gas mileage. You know how hard it was to dig for oil by hand?

[soren]

Is a transcript of Elder Holland's talk available? I've been trying to find something on the web, but to no avail.

[Daniel Peterson]

Yet . . .because a respectful, consistent, and careful use of Scriptures favors something much closer to Evangelical, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox reading of Christian doctrine, while LDS scriptures steer one into contrary waters . . . Latter-Day Saints are compelled to employ liberal methods of historical and theological revisionism to defend their positions. Yet liberalism is a destructive and poisonous ideology, a cancer or as one political pundit likes to call it, a 'mental disorder'.

Nothing intelligent, constructive, or good comes of liberal 'scholarship' or of treating liberals as if anything they say or do is worthy of anything other than utter contempt and disdain. If Jeffrey Holland thinks as you do that he is referencing 'mainstream scholarship', he is just as much wrong as you--and he is fortifying his position with alien and insidious ideas which will ultimately prove toxic.

Wow. There is so very much wrong with the statements above, on so many levels and from so many angles, that one scarcely knows where to begin.

Maybe I just won't bother.

[Bsix]

Yet . . .because a respectful, consistent, and careful use of Scriptures favors something much closer to Evangelical, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox reading of Christian doctrine, while LDS scriptures steer one into contrary waters.

Six: I disagree completely...as respectfully as I can.

It took hundreds of years for the doctrine of the trinity to bake into a formal doctrine, and then only at the behest of the secular leader of the empire.

I'd guess that if you were to ask 100 intelligent and literate non-Christians and had them study the Bible, they would [most likely not] formulate the creedal trinity of the Bible.

As Elder Holland noted from traditional Christian sources...the doctrine of the trinity is not in the Bible. Trinitiarianism is an extra biblical attempt to reconcile the fact that three seperate and distinct persons...The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit...are referenced as diety.

The ancient Jews were not Trinitarians, Jesus was not a Trinitarian, the original saints and apostles were not trinitarians.

Regards,

Six

(edited to correct error)

[The Nehor]

Wow. There is so very much wrong with the statements above, on so many levels and from so many angles, that one scarcely knows where to begin.

Maybe I just won't bother.

I found the best way to begin was to chuckle.

[ERMD]

Is a transcript of Elder Holland's talk available? I've been trying to find something on the web, but to no avail.

Online transcripts will be available on Thursday, according to lds.org.

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes, YOU say that (and you are probably right.) What I said was that Elder Holland was not so petty as to say that.

I didn't attribute it to Elder Holland.

And I disagree that it is petty.

[Bernard Gui]

One council--the council of Nicaea--is noteworthy for the political pressure exerted upon it. Ironically, the Emperor who convened that council was an Arian, and yet his theological views did NOT win the day: the Council of Nicaea roundly rejected Arianism, which is why the Nicene Creed is remembered as a Trinitarian creedal statement.

Seems like the current situation in Christianity demands calling another

council to hammer out what modern Christians really believe. Who is going

to call it? Who will lead it? Who will enforce the inevitable creeds that follow?

Until then, to whom should we benighted Mormons pay attention?

I think my headache is getting worse.

Bernard

[TOmNossor]

If I have to choose between Platonic paganism and Ugaritic paganism, I'll take Platonism for a thousand, Alex.

Hello Chris,

As a LDS I have been less willing to speak dismissively of the Bible than I have seen you do. I, unlike others, saw in your comment a zing not at the CoJCoLDS, but rather at the Old Testament polytheistic teachings (some perhaps purged and plenty of others still evident). But, still I saw a bow of approval towards "Platonic paganism."

It is my opinion that there is truth in the Old Testamentâ??s â??divine councilâ? AND in the Old Testamentâ??s â??no other Gods.â? It is my opinion that there is truth in the New Testamentâ??s distinctions of persons evidenced in numerous places AND in the New Testamentâ??s Father and Son are one.

I am wondering if you are actually a supporter of the Platonic Paganism associated with â??The ONE,â? associated with immutability, associated with â?¦ that contributed to the Nicene concept of Godâ??s oneness.

For me the Bible tells us that we are to be one as God the Father and God the Son are one. The Bible has concepts of the divine council and the headship of the Father. The Bible shows in numerous places the distinctiveness of the Father and the Son. In my opinion the idea that â??divinity as suchâ? is a perfect love-based communion among divine persons is a far better read of the Bible than is the â??ousia based middle road defined at Nicea and over the next 4 councils.

I find â??perfect love-based communionâ? divinity to be more scriptural AND coherent.

I find â??homoousiaâ? based divinity to be absent from the scriptures AND ultimately incoherent in its neo-modalist formation most common among anti-cultists. LDS are right to reject it. And I wonder of you, Chris, do likewise reject it.

I will offer a bit on what I mean about â??homoousiaâ? based divinity and its incoherence. The majority of folks at Nicea could embrace the following which is a paraphrase of Eusebius (not the full heretic who refused to sign the creed, but the historian), God the Father and God the Son are homoousian just like a human father and son are homoousian. This is good LDS teaching except for the fact that LDS should not IMO suggest that Christâ??s divinity is predicated upon His â??ousia. Athanasius called folks who embraced such things his brothers in Christ despite the fact that it seems Athanasius did not use homoousian in this way.

Over time Eusebiusâ??s view became absent from the church. Ultimately homoousian came to be a one substance that whenever defined is radically more same than the one substance enjoyed by a human father and son. This view is the one necessary to declare numerous LDS, myself included, heretics. This view is only not modalism because those who hold it say it is not modalism. This view of Godâ??s oneness becomes a middle ground that in my opinion does not consistently exist. There is no position that is both not equal to or greater than 50 AND not equal to or less than 50. This is IMO the ground staked out for the Augustinian Trinity. Calling such things â??mysteryâ? is all well and good, but if I am to engage my brain in evaluating the reasons to be a LDS or to be some other type of Christian, should I not evaluate this?

There are a number of reasons I see Nicea as a movement away from New Testament Christianity, but I stop here.

Charity, TOm

[Chris Smith]

Hi Tom,

I am wondering if you are actually a supporter of the Platonic Paganism associated with â??The ONE,â? associated with immutability, associated with â?¦ that contributed to the Nicene concept of Godâ??s oneness.

...In my opinion the idea that â??divinity as suchâ? is a perfect love-based communion among divine persons is a far better read of the Bible than is the â??ousia based middle road defined at Nicea and over the next 4 councils.

...I find â??homoousiaâ? based divinity to be absent from the scriptures AND ultimately incoherent in its neo-modalist formation most common among anti-cultists. LDS are right to reject it. And I wonder of you, Chris, do likewise reject it.

Hi Tom,

I actually think that a homoousia-based divinity, minus co-equality, is a better reading of the Gospel of John than the strictly love-based communion that might better explain passages elsewhere in the New Testament. I do not think that the theology of either the New Testament or the Old is univocal.

I do not consider myself bound to stick with strictly biblical conceptions of God. I am certainly influenced by biblical conceptions, but I see the Bible as a record written by people who had experienced something of the divine and are trying to make sense of it and communicate it to the world. Still, if I had to choose among the biblical conceptions, I would probably pick John's. I am partial to the panentheistic model of God, and especially to panentheistic Trinitarianism.

I recently wrote on this forum an analogy-- however imperfect-- for what "panentheistic Trinitarianism" might mean:

Think of God as a dreamer. Not necessarily a sleeping-dream, which implies a lack of control. Think of him perhaps as a daydreamer. Note that when we daydream, the entire scene exists only in our head. And yet within the dream we conceive of ourselves as a center of consciousness separate from the dream's environs. We are capable of changing those environs at will-- they are within the dreamer's control-- but they can at the same time be dramatically opposed to the dreamer's self-consciousness. I might dream myself into the role of a hero, beset by a barbarian horde. Of course, the horde would let me win, because I'm in control, but within the context of the dream the distinction between them and me is stark. I am noble and cleanshaven; they are stinky, smelly, and ugly. And both of us want to slay each other. When this analogy is extended to God, we might say that the entire universe exists "in his head". He is in control, and yet he in some sense conceives of it as a separate entity (or grouping of entities) from himself. He relates to it. Though it is part of him, it is fallen, and he intends to redeem it. I think that this dreamer analogy expresses very well the implications of the panentheistic model (except that the dreamer would have three centers of consciousness instead of one).

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...entry1208261450

That said, even this conception of God is not without problems. It still makes the dreamer "personal". Spinoza critiqued the idea that God can be both infinite and personal; the two just aren't compatible. The Neoplatonic conception, which probably is the most philosophically coherent model, resolves this problem by having an immutable Monad-- a divine ousia, if you will, randomly emanating off of itself lower orders of reality. Human souls are "divine sparks" trying to find their way back to the Monad. The metaphysic here resolves some problems, but unfortunately is also hopelessly arbitrary.

I don't have an answer to the metaphysical problems of the universe. But while I think looking backwards to see what people before our time have suggested is useful, I don't think the answer is to be found by uncritically accepting a single ancient metaphysical system like that of Ugarit, ancient Israel, or even of Plato. The appeal to an ideal past for religious authority is something I gave up quite some time ago. If the true religion is the original religion, then it died with the Neanderthals a million years ago.

I figure I'll just try to be the best man I can, and hope that whatever being(s) might be looking down on me is/are happy with my performance.

I wish you well,

-Chris

[Tanyan]

Hi Zak--

If this is a paraphrase of John, then it is rough indeed. So rough that it completely fails to represent the intent of the passage, while eisegetically investing it with foreign propositional content.

Best.

CKS

I believe Zak us refering to a post N.T Christian Leader.

[cksalmon]

I believe Zak us refering to a post N.T Christian Leader.

Yeah, someone else already corrected me. See supra.

Best.

CKS

[Zakuska]

Is a transcript of Elder Holland's talk available? I've been trying to find something on the web, but to no avail.

Check Aarons Link to Mormon Coffee... He actually seems to have done a pretty Good Job at transcribing for once.

[David Waltz]

Elder Holland taught the basics of the Nicene Creed the way I always understood it before I came to this board.

Now I'm really confused because the EV's on this board had convinced me that I didn't understand it.

So EV's did Elder Holland explain the creed correctly or not?

Looking forward to your response.

Hi Jerry,

Why ask EVâ??s this question when it was Catholic Christians who formulated the Creed?

Grace and peace,

David

[David Waltz]

Hello Tom,

Longtime no chat!

Though the following question was directed to Chris, I feel a bit compelled to add my â??two-centsâ??. You asked the following:

>> I am wondering if you are actually a supporter of the Platonic Paganism associated with â??The ONE,â? associated with immutability, associated with â?¦ that contributed to the Nicene concept of Godâ??s oneness.>>

Me: I think we must be careful here; strictly speaking I would say that â??The ONEâ? of which you speak is associated with Middle and Neo-Platonism. Early on, Christian apologists with training in the Greek philosophical schools identified this â??ONEâ? with God the Father.

Further, the LDS Scriptures clearly speak of this â??ONEâ?, though I would argue in a non-personal sense, as the â??light/power/Spirit/truthâ? of God. It is this â??ONEâ? infinite attribute of God which ultimately defines God as GOD (and not a physical body!).

Grace and peace,

David

[Tanyan]

DW, welcome back . When can I order your bookk on the GODHEAD/TRINITY ?

Grace to you and yours. In His Debt/Grace, Tanyan.

[volvoman]

Six: I disagree completely...as respectfully as I can.

It took hundreds of years for the doctrine of the trinity to bake into a formal doctrine, and then only at the behest of the secular leader of the empire.

I'd guess that if you were to ask 100 intelligent and literate non-Christians and had them study the Bible, they would [most likely not] formulate the creedal trinity of the Bible.

As Elder Holland noted from traditional Christian sources...the doctrine of the trinity is not in the Bible. Trinitiarianism is an extra biblical attempt to reconcile the fact that three seperate and distinct persons...The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit...are referenced as diety.

The ancient Jews were not Trinitarians, Jesus was not a Trinitarian, the original saints and apostles were not trinitarians.

Regards,

Six

(edited to correct error)

Six,

You are absoultely correct. Trinitarianism is a post-Christ philosophy of man. The Emperor of Rome insisted on a wide and mystical doctrine that would capture the sects of Christianity and allow them to unite under the absolutely incredible babel that the Nicene Creed represents. Here is what I read Sunday to Sunday for years out of the Book of Common Prayer :

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,

the only Son of God,

eternally begotten of the Father,

God of God, Light of Light,

very God of very God,

begotten, not made,

of one Being with the Father.

Through him all things were made.

For us and for our salvation

he came down from heaven:

by the power of the Holy Spirit

he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,

and was made man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;

he suffered death and was buried.

On the third day he rose again

in accordance with the Scriptures;

he ascended into heaven

and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,

and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,

who proceeds from the Father and the Son.

With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.

He has spoken through the Prophets.

We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

We look for the resurrection of the dead,

and the life of the world to come. Amen.

On the surface from My present LDS eyes, I read into the Creed much more than was ever explained by my Reverend Fathers. "God of God, Light of Light, very God of Very God" made absolutely no sense at all to anyone.

The initial sentence is an apostate idea - "We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ.....No, we believe in three Gods - the Father, whom we worship and pray to; the Son who is our mediator with the Father because he was the One to pay for our sins, and three...The Holy Ghost, the One who communicates with us because we could not stand in the presence of Jesus or the Father without being burned alive by their glory. So, we are trinitarians in the sense as Elder Holland says, that we believe in three distinct beings, two of which are embodied as resurrected and glorified Beings.

"Through him all things were made" - The Father was the person through which all things were made - they got that wrong, too.

For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. I'm sorry, I never understood how the Holy Ghost did this - He didn't and still doesn't hae a body yet. An eternal law mandates that in order to create a body, you have to have one already - that is why perhaps the scriptures suggest that Mary was "over shadowed " by the Holy Spirit and that probably refers more to her being prepared to stand in the presence of the Father (transfigured).

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. While this appears to be technically correct when you have no eyes to see with....the fact is that Jesus allowed Himself to be crucified by Pilate in order to obey and bend to the will of the Father - to be a spotless and sinless sacrifice to pay for our sins....no one took His life....He gave it willingly. They are wrong again in their understanding.

"He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. " On this sentence they (the Nicene "scholars") got it right although they didn't really know that they got it right. If so, then a lot of the modern Protestant off-shoots from the original Church, have gone to teaching that the Spirit is the only thing that is resurrected - not a Universal and bodily combined with the Spirit type of resurrection. How could they have come so far away from what Jesus' Resurrection really was - He came from the dead as an embodied, immortal Spirit-Body combination - How can they be so blind as to how we are going to be resurrected ???

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son." And what does this sentence really mean ?? Who are they talking about ??? How is the Holy Spirit the "Lord and giver of Life" ?? I am comfused. I thought that at the Day of Pentecost, His roll was completely understood... that is to say, that He was the voice and messenger to mankind because we were not able to stand in the presence of the Father and the Son as embodied earthly mortal beings. They, the Nicene Fathers, got mixed up with who they were talking about.

It is no wonder that the Protestant and the Catholic is so mislead by the Nicene Creed. It is a creed that is an opiate for the non-thinking masses. It puts people to sleep with its unintelligent jargon. I am sorry that I have to say these things. But you have to remember that I really spoke these words for years at St. John's Episcopal Church and NEVER UNDERSTOOD A WORD OF IT !!!

Thanks be to God and the missionaries, I now understand so much better. Anyway, I applaud Elder Holland for gently saying what I have always believed.

Volvoman

[cksalmon]

Six,

You are absoultely correct. Trinitarianism is a post-Christ philosophy of man. The Emperor of Rome insisted on a wide and mystical doctrine that would capture the sects of Christianity and allow them to unite under the absolutely incredible babel that the Nicene Creed represents.

Hi volvoman--

Is that really what the emperor did?

Interesting then that he himself had little opinion on the matter (or perhaps even leaned toward the Arian side of the argument) and suggested that the matter should never have been brought up in the first place. The council was called because of the manifest possibility of schism, not because Constantine "insisted on a wide and mystical doctrine that would capture the sects of Christianity and allow them to unite under the absolutely incredible babel that the Nicene Creed represents."

I don't find your statement even close to an accurate summary of the actual historical situation.

Whence comes your church history?

Best.

CKS

[David Waltz]

Hi Volvoman,

You wrote:

>>The initial sentence is an apostate idea - "We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ.....No, we believe in three Godsâ?¦>>

Me: Hmmmâ?¦Apostle Holland clearly stated in the same talk that â??we [CoJCoLDS] do not believe in polytheismâ? [i.e. â??three Godsâ?].

Note that the Nicene Creed distinguishes between the â??one Godâ? and the â??one Lordâ? (as does the New Testament).

Grace and peace,

David

[jwhitlock]

Why ask EV's this question when it was Catholic Christians who formulated the Creed?

Such is one of the oddities of the reformation - that it carried the basic creedal foundations of Catholicism with it while decrying the Catholic structure that gave birth to those creeds.

On the other hand, I do seem to detect some difference between how Trinitarian doctrine (for instance) is approached by Catholics vs. Evangelicals.

[cksalmon]

Such is one of the oddities of the reformation - that it carried the basic creedal foundations of Catholicism with it while decrying the Catholic structure that gave birth to those creeds.

On the other hand, I do seem to detect some difference between how Trinitarian doctrine (for instance) is approached by Catholics vs. Evangelicals.

I'm currently reading through William J. Hill's The Three-Personed God: The Trinity as a Mystery of Salvation (per David's recommendation, actually). In general, I'd say that if there is a single doctrine we Protestants got straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak, it is the doctrine of the Trinity.

What difference(s) do you detect?

Best.

CKS

[jwhitlock]

I'm currently reading through William J. Hill's The Three-Personed God: The Trinity as a Mystery of Salvation (per David's recommendation, actually). In general, I'd say that if there is a single doctrine we Protestants got straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak, it is the doctrine of the Trinity.

What difference(s) do you detect?

I'm just speaking off the top of my head - and from the impressions I have of what I have read over time. But the general differences (and it depends on what group you ask) seem to be:

- The permanence of Christ's physical, resurrected body.

- Differences in what "one in substance" and "three separate persons" actually means - including the relationship between the two.

- Possible differences on the "uncreated" status of Christ and the Holy Ghost in relation to the Father; these may be more nuanced than anything else.

While there are plenty of books out there about the Trinity, I do wonder if anyone has written anything that analyzes the level of unity in the details between different Christian denominations concerning Trinitarian doctrine.

[TOmNossor]

Hello again Chris! (and David!)

It looks like there is a lot to respond to now. Here goes something.

I actually think that a homoousia-based divinity, minus co-equality, is a better reading of the Gospel of John than the strictly love-based communion that might better explain passages elsewhere in the New Testament. I do not think that the theology of either the New Testament or the Old is univocal.

First, the last part of the above statement. I too would say that the Bible is not â??univocal.â? I believe that God inspires prophets and prophets write truth. This truth was written in the context of the prophetâ??s life AND most directly to those to whom the prophet was generally writing. IMO the above very strongly supports the view that the Bible is not univocal. I do however think that scripture as a whole is an important source for determining doctrine. As a LDS, I think much is available to me in how I integrate non-univocal messages (all of which are inspired of God). However, for those who reject the authority of the CoJCoLDS, the extra scriptures of the CoJCoLDS, and/or the authority of the Catholic Chruch; I fail to see how the fact that the scriptures are not univocal can be of phenomenal benefit. Why do you place more emphasis upon John than on Mark? What about Paul or James? To me the Bible viewed as a whole is the most clear path for all of us, and I find it especially difficult to see how a non-Catholic / non-LDS Christian can de-emphasize the Bible as a whole in favor of some subset.

Now, to the question of the Gospel of John as a supporter of homoousia-based divinity (even without co-equality which could be a less than simple philosophical trick in and of itself). Clearly John 1:1 is a point of huge discussion among various Christians. None of us are 1st century Greek speakers. I myself am at an even greater disadvantage as I am not a 21st century Greek speaker/reader. That being said, I am unconvinced that John 1:1 does not support a Social Trinity view. Also, I am unconvinced that the reading of John 1:1 typically advocated by the supporters of an Augustinian Trinity is not simply modalist. And finally, aside for the strong language of John 1:1 and perhaps some other Father and Son one passages, I see nothing that supports homoousia-based (or substance-based) divinity. Nobody is denying that God the Father and God the Son are one. The question that the Bible may not answer is â??How are they one?â??

Which brings me to my final point from John. While I am unaware of where in the Bible John or anyone answer the question, â??How are they one?â? with something like homoousia-based divinity, I do think John offers a few places were God the Father and God the Son are one through unity of purpose and/or loving union.

John 5:18,19; 14:9,23 perhaps could be viewed as saying the Son is the Father, but in context, I think a unity of purpose, actions, plans is a much better read (and if this is denied, these a modalist statements having nothing to do with substance anyway).

And John 17:11 & 22 are IMO the clearest denial of the modalist reading of the John passages just referenced AND the clearest statement in all the Bible to point to when asking, â??How are they one?â? If we humans (or the disciples) are to be one as the Father and Son are one, I cannot see how this can support homoousia-based divinity (unity). And to bring love into this since I think that is a component of the answer to our query, John 4:8 and 16 tell us that â??God is love.â? So, â??God is love;â? God the Father and God the Son are one in that they do the same things, have the same plans, reflect the same glory/divinity AND we are to become one in just the same way.

On to the term â??Panentheistic:â?

Ostler has lead me to embrace (and David points toward) some "panentheisticâ? characteristics of divinity. From Ostler, I see the loving communion of God to be responsible for emergent properties. This communion of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit enlivens the universe without being identical to the universe (which would of course be pantheism). So distinct individuals who possess certain perfection, communion into the One God. As a communion, this divinity is panentheistic in many of its characteristics/attributes. As you might note (especially if you have read Ostler), the kenotic emptying of the fullness of this communion is critical to understanding the incarnation. Divine persons can CHOOSE to give up aspects of the fullness of communion so that they might experience mortality. I find this view of the incarnation to also be more Biblical than the two-nature view of Chalcedon (necessitated by homoousia-based divinity). How can one person be of two natures?

I think I will close here. I should respond a little more directly to David some time later.

I hope all is well with both of you.

Charity, TOm