Trinity Definition and Justification

[rhinomelon]

And care to answer this one for me as well:

QUOTE(zerinus @ Feb 2 2009, 06:58 PM)

Thank you. I have a question for you now. Is the ONE God, the One and Only true God of the scriptures, is He a "person" or not? Is He depicted in the scriptures as "person" (i.e. haveing a distinct personality) or not? What is your answer to that?

I think I addressed that on the last page, my computer was having troubles so I was a bit slow on the uptake there.

So how do you deal with John 17:11, 21-23 quoted above?

I touched on that on the last page as well, but as to those verses specifically, I interpret them as Christ praying for the unity of his followers, a unity of purpose and love like that of the Trinity, but obviously not exactly like it (for the reasons I listed in my earlier response). It's like Paul's comparison of the relationship between Christ and the Church, and a married couple. The two relationships are similar in important ways, but not identical.

Take care, everyone

[rhinomelon]

You seem to be suggesting that Christians cannot be one with God as it would change the nature of God and dissolve the Trinity because God's nature would be changed.

I didn't get that out of zerinus' earlier post. I think he was saying that if the Trinity was indeed true, this would mean that it had to be true eternally, with the unity of God remaining unchanged. After all, if you start adding people to the Trinity, it's certainly not a Trinity anymore! Quadinity, maybe?

I would say that Christians cannot be one with God in the exact same sense that the Father is one with the Son (as per the scriptures already mentioned earlier). Does that help at all, or did I muddy up the waters for both of you?

[Mudcat]

That was not what I was saying. You seem to have difficulty understanding what I say. Suggest you go back and read my posts again.

zerinus

Thanks for the answer, Zerinus.

I appreciate the time you took to clarify your thoughts on the matter.

[Mudcat]

I would say that Christians cannot be one with God in the exact same sense that the Father is one with the Son (as per the scriptures already mentioned earlier). Does that help at all, or did I muddy up the waters for both of you?

Hey Rhino,

Most likely I am taking a more literal interpretation of Romans 8:17 than most.

I think I am going to bow out of this thread.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

[rhinomelon]

Most likely I am taking a more literal interpretation of Romans 8:17 than most.

I think I am going to bow out of this thread.

Nah, you should stick around, if only to clean up any textual criticism tangents...

I can see where you're headed with the Romans 8:17 reference, but does it help at all if I point out that it is still Christ's glory we are sharing in? It's not our own, as if we in and of ourselves are capable of union with God. I think we will be unified with God eventually, but in a somewhat secondary sense, through the mediation of the Son. I think this is pretty much how the Eastern Orthodox look at it, and they're bigger on the eventual unity of God and man than us westerners.

Seriously, I'd hate to see you go. Always nice to have another perspective on these kinds of things.

Take care, everyone

[zerinus]

Now, to zerinus' question. The one God of scripture is not a single person, that would be a modalist understanding. But God is very much personal (or if you will, "tripersonal"), in that the Scripture attributes personal characteristics to God: emotions, judgments, communication, relationship, etc. So God is not some soulless robotic being without personality. Quite the opposite!

To me, anything that displays personal characteristics is a person. The scriptures constantly portrays the One God of the Bible as a Person. He has a distinct personality. That makes Him a Person. Where does it say in the scriptures that the One God is not a Person?

To go even further along these lines, Scripture not only applies personal characteristics to God as a whole, but also to the three persons individually. The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are all seen grieving at different places in Scripture, for example. It is for this reason (among others) that modalism is rejected, because the three persons are all portrayed as distinct personalities.

That confuses things even more. You conclude that the Father, Son, and holy Ghost each display a personality, therefore they are separate persons. But you conclude that the One God who also displays a personality is not a Person? How does that make sense? And where does it say in the Bible that God is not a Person?

If those were the only verses that spoke of the unity between Father and Son, I would agree more with your interpretation. However, there are plenty of verses that speak to a much deeper unity there, beyond what applies to human beings. For instance, Christ is called the express image of God's person, the brightness of His glory. As already noted, John 1 shows a unity between Father and Son that goes beyond human unity, as they are one God. Philippians 2 speaks of the Son's equality in nature with the Father (which he then voluntarily gave up to become a human being). Christ is spoken of on several occasions as God's "only-begotten Son", also speaking to a unique relationship.

We are not taking about â??human unityâ?. Nobody said anything about â??human unityâ?. I also do not deny that the Father and the Son have a special relationship by virtue of Jesus being the â??Only Begottenâ? of the Father. That is not the issue. The passages in John 17 (especially the bits which I had emphasized), suggest that the unity between the Father and the Son and the disciples will be identical. I donâ??t see how else one can understand that. The scriptures do suggest that the Father and the Son have a special relationship; but at the same time, they show that that relationship is not so unique that we can never approach it. Before His ascension to the Father Jesus declared to His disciples:

John 20

:

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

.

And the following verses also suggest that Jesus and the rest of mankind are essentially the same type of beings:

Hebrews 2

:

11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified

are all of one:

for which cause he is not ashamed to call them

brethren,

12 Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.

13 And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.

14 Forasmuch then as the

children

are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

16 For verily he

took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham

.

17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto

his brethren,

â??Are all of oneâ? suggests that Jesus and the rest of mankind are essentially the same kind of beings. He is ahead of us; but no so far that we can never hope to get where He is.

Colossians 1 speaks of the fulness of Deity dwelling in Christ, definitely a unique relationship, and a unity that goes beyond what we, as human beings, are called to. I don't see Paul telling us to strive to become the fulness of deity in bodily form, or that we will ever become God's only begotten.

Interesting comment! But the scriptures do teach that we can acquire divinity as He has done! Peter informs us that we can become â??partakers of the divine natureâ? (2 Peter 1:4). And all the early Christians believed that we can acquire divinity, just as Jesus did. Quotes can be given if required.

There are other passages I could cite, but those are some biggies. The unity of the Father and the Son is much deeper than the unity we are all called to as Christians.

First of all, we are not just called to a unity together as Christians. We are called to a unity with the Father and the Son; and that unity is to be the same as the unity of the Father and the Son. That is made clear in John 17. Secondly, although I do not dispute that Jesus and the Father have a special relationship because of His being the Only Begotten of the Father; John 17 suggests that the kind of unity that will exist between us will not be any different because of that special relationship.

zerinus

[nathansoz]

So how do you deal with John 17:11, 21-23 quoted above?

I am not so sure about 17:11, but isn't 21-23 almost support for at least the father and son being one together. Could the "Glory" be the holy spirit? Sorry I totally am going out on a limb there, and I may be completely incorrect.

[nathansoz]

Interesting comment! But the scriptures do teach that we can acquire divinity as He has done! Peter informs us that we can become â??partakers of the divine natureâ? (2 Peter 1:4). And all the early Christians believed that we can acquire divinity, just as Jesus did. Quotes can be given if required.

But can we acquire divinity to the extent Christ has done? The verse mentions partaking in the divine nature to escape the evils of the world. Christ didn't just escape the evils, he triumphed over them.

Quotes would be awesome!

[zerinus]

But can we acquire divinity to the extent Christ has done?

Yes, but we will be subordinate to Him; just as Jesus remains subordinate to the Father.

The verse mentions partaking in the divine nature to escape the evils of the world. Christ didn't just escape the evils, he triumphed over them.

2 Peter 1:4 doesn't say that we partake of the divine nature "to escape the evils of the world". It says we partake of the divine nature as a consequence of escaping the evils of the world.

zerinus

[zerinus]

I am now escaping from the evils of this computer in order to go to bed!

Have a good night everyone.

zerinus

[nathansoz]

2 Peter 1:4 doesn't say that we partake of the divine nature "to escape the evils of the world". It says we partake of the divine nature as a consequence of escaping the evils of the world.

My bad, I was reading a couple different translations and I got a little mixed up.

Yes, but we will be subordinate to Him; just as Jesus remains subordinate to the Father.

If we are (or will become) as divine as Christ, where is the justification for being subordinate to him?

[rhinomelon]

To me, anything that displays personal characteristics is a person. The scriptures constantly portrays the One God of the Bible as a Person. He has a distinct personality. That makes Him a Person. Where does it say in the scriptures that the One God is not a Person?

I agree, mostly. I don't recall saying that the one God is not a person. Quite the opposite, in fact. God is not just one person, but three!

That confuses things even more. You conclude that the Father, Son, and holy Ghost each display a personality, therefore they are separate persons. But you conclude that the One God who also displays a personality is not a Person? How does that make sense? And where does it say in the Bible that God is not a Person?

See above.

We are not taking about â??human unityâ?. Nobody said anything about â??human unityâ?.

Actually, Jesus did. That was his prayer, that his disciples would be united like he and the Father were united.

The passages in John 17 (especially the bits which I had emphasized), suggest that the unity between the Father and the Son and the disciples will be identical. I donâ??t see how else one can understand that.

Except the word "identical" is not in there at all. I think that is an overreach, especially considering the other biblical passages about the unique unity between Father and Son. Human beings cannot have the exact same kind of unity; we're never even called to it as an ideal.

Before His ascension to the Father Jesus declared to His disciples:

John 20:

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.And the following verses also suggest that Jesus and the rest of mankind are essentially the same type of beings:

Both these verses refer to the incarnation of the Son, described particularly clearly in Phillippians 2. The Son voluntarily humbled himself, giving up his divine status in order to become human, or "take on the form of a servant". As a human being, Christ would undoubtedly worship God. The next set of verses you posted speak of the exact same thing. The Son took on flesh and became a human being--God became man. The Son was not man before the incarnation, John 1 tells us this.

â??Are all of oneâ? suggests that Jesus and the rest of mankind are essentially the same kind of beings. He is ahead of us; but no so far that we can never hope to get where He is.

We can all be like Christ in his humanity, but not according to his divinity. We can participate in the divine nature, but it will never be our nature. As it says in the passage you quoted, Jesus "took on" the human nature; it was not his nature to begin with.

And all the early Christians believed that we can acquire divinity, just as Jesus did. Quotes can be given if required.

Actually, I know of no early Christians who believed that Christ "acquired" divinity. Do you have any quotes on this specifically? I know that deification is a large part of early Christianity (and present Christianity as well, for that matter). But it is not as extensive as you seem to imply here. I actually just wrote a large paper on deification in Irenaeus' writings last year, so I dug into this topic pretty heavily.

First of all, we are not just called to a unity together as Christians. We are called to a unity with the Father and the Son; and that unity is to be the same as the unity of the Father and the Son. That is made clear in John 17. Secondly, although I do not dispute that Jesus and the Father have a special relationship because of His being the Only Begotten of the Father; John 17 suggests that the kind of unity that will exist between us will not be any different because of that special relationship.

Where does it say the unity will be of the exact same kind, and that the unity will be one of nature as opposed to purpose? Heck, if nature were included in Jesus' statement, wouldn't that be rather redundant? After all, we human beings share the same nature already!

I am not so sure about 17:11, but isn't 21-23 almost support for at least the father and son being one together. Could the "Glory" be the holy spirit? Sorry I totally am going out on a limb there, and I may be completely incorrect.

I don't think I would go that far. Not every passage dealing with the nature of God has to have all three persons mentioned (although there are plenty that do).

But can we acquire divinity to the extent Christ has done? The verse mentions partaking in the divine nature to escape the evils of the world. Christ didn't just escape the evils, he triumphed over them.

Interesting point! Another interesting observation from the church history side of things is that "partaking of the divine nature" was not really used that much in support of deification in the beginning, oddly enough. To us it's one of the most obvious ones, but the early church got to deification largely by another route.

Take care, everyone

[rhinomelon]

If we are (or will become) as divine as Christ, where is the justification for being subordinate to him?

Great question! For Trinitarians, the answer is easy enough. We will never be "as divine as Christ", because Christ is truly God and truly possesses the divine nature as his own, while we can only participate in it through Christ, in a secondary sense. To put it another way, Christ is God, while we participate in God while remaining what we are: human beings, through and through. It's a completely different relationship to the divine nature.

I am now escaping from the evils of this computer in order to go to bed!

Have a good night everyone.

Ditto. Pleasant dreams, everybody.

[nathansoz]

Ditto. Pleasant dreams, everybody.

Yep I'm turning in for the night too.

Start it up tomorrow guys Sorry if I'm not very good at talking about this, my 16 year old brain only gets me so far.

[zerinus]

My bad, I was reading a couple different translations and I got a little mixed up.

If we are (or will become) as divine as Christ, where is the justification for being subordinate to him?

The justification for it is the same as the reason why Jesus remains subordinate to the Father:

John 14

:

28 . . . my Father is greater than I.

John 20

:

17 Jesus saith . . . I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Jesus calls the Father His God; the Father never calls the Son His God. Jesus prays to the Father; the Father never prays to the Son. Jesus says the Father is greater than Him; the Father never says the Son is greater than Him. Jesus was sent by the Father; the Father was not sent by the Son. Jesus came to do the will of the Father; the Father did not come to do the will of the Son. The list continues. That is what we mean by the subordination of the Son and the Spirit to the Father. That is one of the many flaws in Trinitarian theology. It remove the subordination of the Son an the Spirit to the Father, which is clearly taught in the scriptures.

Those who are saved in the Celestial kingdom and are deified thereby become gods, but remain subordinate to the Father and the Son. This was a commonplace belief in early Christianity, before it was lost sight of as a consequence of the Apostasy:

. . . and they have received the title of â??gods,â? since they are destined to be enthroned with the other â??godsâ? who are

ranked next below the Saviour

. (From Clement of Alexandria, in Henry Bettenson,

The Early Christian Fathers

(London: Oxford University Press, 1956, repr. 1958)p. 244.)

zerinus

[rhinomelon]

The justification for it is the same as the reason why Jesus remains subordinate to the Father:

Of course, both the passages you provide refer to the incarnate Son, who, as a human being, was certainly subordinate to the Father as any human being must be. The distinction between the Son in his humanity and the Son in his divinity is a vitally important one with regard to Trinitarian theology.

Jesus calls the Father His God; the Father never calls the Son His God. Jesus prays to the Father; the Father never prays to the Son. Jesus says the Father is greater than Him; the Father never says the Son is greater than Him. Jesus was sent by the Father; the Father was not sent by the Son. Jesus came to do the will of the Father; the Father did not come to do the will of the Son. The list continues. That is what we mean by the subordination of the Son and the Spirit to the Father. That is one of the many flaws in Trinitarian theology. It remove the subordination of the Son an the Spirit to the Father, which is clearly taught in the scriptures.

All of these references refer to the Son in his humanity. Passages like John 1, Philippians 2, and Colossians 1 speak of the Son in his divinity. They point out that the Son was fully God before the incarnation, was equal with God before humbling himself to take on human form, and is fully divine even in human form.

Now, the subordination you speak of is certainly there, and the Trinity does not ignore it. Rather, we make a distinction between ontological subordination and functional subordination. Fancy-sounding words, but all it means is that the Son is not subordinate in terms of his nature, but in terms of his willing submission to the Father. An analogy can be made with the kind of submission the Bible commands of a wife to her husband. The wife has nothing inferior in terms of her nature (husband and wife are both human beings, after all), but in terms of the role she plays she is asked to willingly submit herself to her husband. Not because she has to because she's different in nature from the husband, but because she is called to a different role in the marriage. Just so in the Trinity. The Son is not subordinate to the Father because he is unequal to him, but because he willingly submits himself to the will of the Father.

Those who are saved in the Celestial kingdom and are deified thereby become gods, but remain subordinate to the Father and the Son. This was a commonplace belief in early Christianity, before it was lost sight of as a consequence of the Apostasy:

. . . and they have received the title of â??gods,â? since they are destined to be enthroned with the other â??godsâ? who are ranked next below the Saviour. (From Clement of Alexandria, in Henry Bettenson, The Early Christian Fathers (London: Oxford University Press, 1956, repr. 1958)p. 244.)

Here it is important to realize that the early church fathers spoke of "gods" in a much different sense than we do, and did not mean that we would become Gods like the one true God in terms of nature. I'm fine with these statements (and agree with them) when they are understood in the proper context.

Also, I would point out that while deification in some form was pretty common in the early church, the idea of a multi-tiered heaven like the LDS celestial kingdom was never widespread.

Sorry if I'm not very good at talking about this, my 16 year old brain only gets me so far.

Hey, at sixteen I was thinking of far less important things than the Trinity. I'm impressed! It's great that you're getting a jump on understanding it all.

Take care, everyone

[zerinus]

I agree, mostly. I don't recall saying that the one God is not a person. Quite the opposite, in fact. God is not just one person, but three!

That is a clever twist; but it doesnâ??t let you off the hook. The Bible portrays the One God as a distinct Person. He has an â??image,â? in which man was made; and throughout the Bible He is portrayed as having One Distinct Personality. The scriptures that could be quoted are legion. Here are just a few examples:

Genesis 1

:

27 So God created man in

HIS

own image, in the image of

God

created he him . . .

Exodus 20

:

3 Thou shalt have no other gods before

ME

.

Isaiah 45

:

5

I

am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside

ME

. . .

The words â??he,â? â??him,â? â??me,â? â??Iâ? care called personal pronouns. That means that they indicate a person. That makes the â??One true Godâ? a â??Personâ?â??One Person, not many Persons.

Actually, Jesus did. That was his prayer, that his disciples would be united like he and the Father were united.

Which proves my point, that the kind of unity of the Father and the Son was to be the same as the unity envisaged for God and the disciples of Jesus.

Except the word "identical" is not in there at all.

It does not have to be; the language implies it: â??that they may be one, as we are;â? â??that they may be one, even as we are one;â? â??as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in usâ?. This language is designed to convey to the reader the same kind of unity between Jesusâ?? disciples and God as there is between the members of the Godhead. There is no difference. The word â??identicalâ? is not used, but is implied.

I think that is an overreach, especially considering the other biblical passages about the unique unity between Father and Son. Human beings cannot have the exact same kind of unity; we're never even called to it as an ideal.

According to the above quotations, they areâ??at least as an ideal. They may not be able to achieve it in this life, but certainly in the next.

Both these verses refer to the incarnation of the Son, described particularly clearly in Phillippians 2. The Son voluntarily humbled himself, giving up his divine status in order to become human, or "take on the form of a servant". As a human being, Christ would undoubtedly worship God. The next set of verses you posted speak of the exact same thing. The Son took on flesh and became a human being--God became man.

Not quite. John 20:17 was spoken after Jesus had been resurrected. After His resurrection Jesus was glorified and returned to the status He had before His incarnation, according to His intercessory prayer:

John 17

:

5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

Following His resurrection He was no longer in a mortal (and hence humbled) state. He had been glorified, and regained the status He had with the Father before the Incarnation. But we find that He still addresses the Father as His Godâ??and refers to His disciples as His brethren. So your argument doesnâ??t hold water with that one. As regards the second verse, that too does not support your argument. It says:

Hebrews 2

:

11 For both he that sanctifieth [i.e. Jesus] and they who are sanctified [i.e. the disciples] are all

of one:

[i.e. of the same order of beings] for which cause he is not ashamed to call them

brethren

.

Well, He still continues to call them His â??brethren,â? even after His resurrection and glorification; so that is not a valid argument either.

The Son was not man before the incarnation, John 1 tells us this.

He was not mortal man; but He was still Man; otherwise how could He have made man in His own image?

We can all be like Christ in his humanity, but not according to his divinity.

According to the teachings of the early Christians, we can be like Him in His divinity, not just His humanity. We are already like Him in His humanityâ??except that He was more righteous than us. His human nature was no different from ours.

We can participate in the divine nature, but it will never be our nature.

To â??partake of the divine natureâ? was understood by the early Christians to mean a total deification of man. Nothing less.

As it says in the passage you quoted, Jesus "took on" the human nature; it was not his nature to begin with.

By that is meant that He assumed mortality. He took upon Himself flesh and blood, so that He could die for the sins of mankind. It does not mean that His â??natureâ? before was different from us. Before His incarnation He was a spirit, just as we are spirits inside our bodies. He was a divine spirit, and we can become divine like Him.

Actually, I know of no early Christians who believed that Christ "acquired" divinity. Do you have any quotes on this specifically?

No, but that is irrelevant to our discussion. We are discussing the validity of the Trinitarian theology in the light of biblical revelation.

I know that deification is a large part of early Christianity (and present Christianity as well, for that matter). But it is not as extensive as you seem to imply here. I actually just wrote a large paper on deification in Irenaeus' writings last year, so I dug into this topic pretty heavily.

So have I. I have written a couple of articles about it in my Blog that you can read here and here. The doctrine was very extensively believed in early Christianity.

Where does it say the unity will be of the exact same kind, and that the unity will be one of nature as opposed to purpose?

See passages quoted above. Where does it say in the Bible that the unity of the Father and the Son is one of â??natureâ? rather than something else? The scriptures quoted above suggest the same kind of unity between God and mankind as between the members of the Trinity. There is nothing there to suggest a difference.

zerinus

[Ambrose]

See passages quoted above. Where does it say in the Bible that the unity of the Father and the Son is one of â??natureâ? rather than something else? The scriptures quoted above suggest the same kind of unity between God and mankind as between the members of the Trinity. There is nothing there to suggest a difference.

I very much look forward to the post that is in red, zerinus. You are one of my favorite posters, here and elsewhere.

It seems silly to me, as a believer in the Church as a body that illuminates Scripture by guidance of God, to demand that only Scripture suggest teachings. Rather, I look both to Scripture and to the Church for understanding.

I imagine that you do the same, but our difference is in which church we happen to view as authoritative.

[zerinus]

Of course, both the passages you provide refer to the incarnate Son, who, as a human being, was certainly subordinate to the Father as any human being must be. The distinction between the Son in his humanity and the Son in his divinity is a vitally important one with regard to Trinitarian theology.

Not quite. Jesus remained subordinate to the Father both before and after the Incarnation. See my previous post.

All of these references refer to the Son in his humanity. Passages like John 1, Philippians 2, and Colossians 1 speak of the Son in his divinity. They point out that the Son was fully God before the incarnation, was equal with God before humbling himself to take on human form, and is fully divine even in human form.

Again, not true. Many passages suggest that the Son was subordinate to the Father both before as well as after the Incarnation. Here are some quotes:

Hebrews 1

:

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath

appointed

heir of all things,

by whom also he made the worlds

.

God the Father â??appointedâ? the Son, not the other way; and God the Father made the worlds by the Son before the Incarnation, not the other way. That suggests subordination of the Son to the Father before the Incarnation.

1 Corinthians 15

:

27 For he [i.e. the Father] hath put all things under his [Jesusâ??] feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he [i.e. the Father] is excepted, which did put all things under him.

Again, this suggests subordination of the Son to the Father both before and after the Incarnation.

Mark 16

:

19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.

1 Peter 3

:

22 Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

It is the Son who sits at the right hand of the Father not the opposite; and it is the Father Who has made all things subject to the Son, not the opposite. All suggest subordination at all times, both before and after the Incarnation.

Now, the subordination you speak of is certainly there, and the Trinity does not ignore it. Rather, we make a distinction between ontological subordination and functional subordination. Fancy-sounding words, but all it means is that the Son is not subordinate in terms of his nature, but in terms of his willing submission to the Father. . . .

This â??natureâ? business that you keep going on about is quite meaningless. There is no such thing as being â??subordinateâ? in â??natureâ?. Subordination indicates an act of will, and implies status and station. The Son is and has always been and will always remain subordinate to the Father. That is what the scriptures teach.

Here it is important to realize that the early church fathers spoke of "gods" in a much different sense than we do, and did not mean that we would become Gods like the one true God in terms of nature.

Again, you are getting carried away with your nature! They said â??gods,â? period. Gods means gods. If they didnâ??t mean gods, they could and should have used some other word, but they didn't.

Also, I would point out that while deification in some form was pretty common in the early church, the idea of a multi-tiered heaven like the LDS celestial kingdom was never widespread.

The â??multi-tieredâ? heaven is not relevant here; but the â??multi-tieredâ? gods is! They spoke of a hierarchy of gods, with some gods being above other gods, with Jesus being above them, and the Father being above them all.

zerinus

[zerinus]

I very much look forward to the post that is in red, zerinus. You are one of my favorite posters, here and elsewhere.

Thank you. And I am also very appreciative of your wonderful Catholic faith. It is a great church, no doubts about it. No apostate!

It seems silly to me, as a believer in the Church as a body that illuminates Scripture by guidance of God, to demand that only Scripture suggest teachings. Rather, I look both to Scripture and to the Church for understanding.

I imagine that you do the same, but our difference is in which church we happen to view as authoritative.

Well, I know that Catholics use scripture as well as Tradition as a source of their theology. LDS do something similar, but there are differences. If I understand it correctly, for you Tradition is equal to scripture in determining Catholic doctrine. Well, we do have something equivalent to your Tradition. The teachings of Joseph Smith and those of the past prophets and leaders of the Church to us plays roughly the same role as Tradition does to you; except that to us scripture takes precedence over Tradition. If a contradiction or conflict is observed between the two, then scripture always wins. I have a lot of respect for Catholic Tradition too. I donâ??t think it is all wrong by any means. But it is not 100% correct either. If there is a contradiction between it and scripture, the scripture wins it for me. That is how we do things in the LDS Church.

Great talking to you all the same.

zerinus

[rhinomelon]

The words â??he,â? â??him,â? â??me,â? â??Iâ? care called personal pronouns. That means that they indicate a person. That makes the â??One true Godâ? a â??Personâ?â??One Person, not many Persons.

Two responses to this argument. First of all, using English grammar as an argument against an ancient doctrine strikes me as a rather odd approach. Secondly, the Trinity, as well as all of Scripture and all our theology, uses earthly, human language to describe realities that go beyond such language. That's a simple fact. I think there are even places in Scripture where words fail the writers. That's the limitations of language for you.

And a third point, I'll throw it in for free. Even the language of the Bible points to something beyond a unitary being, or one solitary Person as God, to use your phrasing here. For instance, in the first chapters of Genesis, the plural word elohim is used for God, but it is paired up with singular nouns and verb forms. Also, the Shema, "The Lord our God, the Lord is one", using a Hebrew word for "one" that does not refer to a unitary object or nature, but to a unity of more than one.

Which proves my point, that the kind of unity of the Father and the Son was to be the same as the unity envisaged for God and the disciples of Jesus.

Is the unity to be the same in all respects? Every single aspect? Or rather, is it to be a unity as deep as possible for human beings? Given the multiple passages regarding the unique unity between the Father and the Son, and given the absence of a conclusive phrase in John 17, I must conclude the latter.

According to the above quotations, they areâ??at least as an ideal. They may not be able to achieve it in this life, but certainly in the next.

Please show me references in which human beings are called to be "the express image of God's being", or "the fulness of Deity in bodily form", or even that we are called to be God, as it says of the Son in John 1. The relationship between the Father and the Son is clearly a unique one, and human beings can participate in it, but never in the same way as the Father and the Son.

Following His resurrection He was no longer in a mortal (and hence humbled) state. He had been glorified, and regained the status He had with the Father before the Incarnation.

Actually, he had not yet ascended as was not yet glorified. This happened after the ascension, when he sat down at the right hand of the Father.

Well, He still continues to call them His â??brethren,â? even after His resurrection and glorification; so that is not a valid argument either.

As the Son still has his human nature, he still calls us brethren. This is no problem for the Trinity.

To â??partake of the divine natureâ? was understood by the early Christians to mean a total deification of man. Nothing less.

That depends on what you mean by "total deification". Man will be glorified, yes, but will not assume the divine nature as his own. He will never become a "God" in his own right, in the same sense that the one God is God. There will always be a distinction. The early church fathers taught this, as well as the Eastern Orthodox today.

By that is meant that He assumed mortality. He took upon Himself flesh and blood, so that He could die for the sins of mankind. It does not mean that His â??natureâ? before was different from us. Before His incarnation He was a spirit, just as we are spirits inside our bodies. He was a divine spirit, and we can become divine like Him.

No, he actually assumed human nature, not just mortality. Flesh and blood, all of human nature, "becoming like his brethren in every way". To assume something it means you didn't have it before. Also, scripture tells us what nature the Son had before the incarnation, in John 1 and Philippians 2, for example. According to the latter, Christ emptied himself of his divinity in order to take on the form or nature of a servant (i.e. human beings).

More later, I'm sure. Take care, everyone

[rhinomelon]

This â??natureâ? business that you keep going on about is quite meaningless. There is no such thing as being â??subordinateâ? in â??natureâ?. Subordination indicates an act of will, and implies status and station. The Son is and has always been and will always remain subordinate to the Father. That is what the scriptures teach.

Just one more point. "Nature" is a perfectly biblical word and concept (check out Romans 1, Hebrews, etc.). I think I said recently that we should be limited to the words of scripture in formulating our beliefs, as if those were the only acceptable words to use. Given this, I will certainly not be limited as to what scriptural words I can actually use! This "nature business" is part and parcel of the scriptural witness. Any justification of any doctrine would do well to take it into account.

Again, you are getting carried away with your nature! They said â??gods,â? period. Gods means gods. If they didnâ??t mean gods, they could and should have used some other word, but they didn't.

Actually, in the context of the early church, "gods" (theos, in Greek) carried much different connotations and meanings than it does today. In our modern world, "God" is used in a relatively narrow set of meanings. In the ancient world, philosophers and poets used "gods" in a much broader sense. Early Christian writers, given their linguistic context, also used the term, but always qualified it somehow. Irenaeus, for example, pointed out that there were those called "gods" in Scripture, but went on to say that upon examination, all "gods" besides the one true God were only called such "by a certain addition or subtraction, by which they were shown to be no gods at all." You have to read the early church fathers in context.

Take care, everyone

[rhinomelon]

The scriptures quoted above suggest the same kind of unity between God and mankind as between the members of the Trinity. There is nothing there to suggest a difference.

Actually, the scriptures you quoted are rather neutral on the subject. It doesn't say anything about different nature (as in my position), nor does it say the unity is exactly the same in all respects (which appears to be your position, but correct me if I'm wrong). The solution? Look at other verses, which I done, and I've shown why I believe the unity between the Father and the Son to be of a different sort than the unity we human beings are called to.

There is no such thing as being â??subordinateâ? in â??natureâ?. Subordination indicates an act of will, and implies status and station.

I disagree. I think both our religions would maintain that the canine nature is subordinate to human nature, for example. God's nature is portrayed as unchanging (James 1, I believe), while ours changes (seen in certain psalms "man will wither and fade like grass"). God is eternal, while man is not. God is everywhere present (Jeremiah 23:23, for example), while man is not. God is omniscient, while man is not. God is the Creator, while man is created. God cannot sin, while human beings can and do. And the list goes on. As a human being, it is in my nature to be subordinate to God, who is a different, perfect nature of the highest possible order.

Now you are correct in that subordination can also imply an act of will, which is how I would describe the subordination of the Son to the Father. The Son chooses to subordinate himself to the Father. The very fact that the Son chooses to do so (as opposed to being forced or bound by his nature to do so) demonstrates the equality of nature between the Father and the Son. They are both equally God, equally divine.

The doctrine was very extensively believed in early Christianity.

I agree deification was widely believed in early Christianity (and still is). But do you understand what deification meant to the early church? As a hint, I can tell you that it varied from writer to writer, but I can also tell you that there were common elements held among them. The preeminent element was that the one true God was unique, and that man, as a creature, would never become exactly like Him in all respects. I could send you my Irenaeus paper if you'd like; it delves into some background issues as well as Irenaeus' teachings specifically.

Take care, everyone

[zerinus]

Two responses to this argument. First of all, using English grammar as an argument against an ancient doctrine strikes me as a rather odd approach.

A pronoun is a pronoun. It doesnâ??t matter what language you are referring to. Hebrew pronouns are still pronouns. They are not something else.

Secondly, the Trinity, as well as all of Scripture and all our theology, uses earthly, human language to describe realities that go beyond such language. That's a simple fact. I think there are even places in Scripture where words fail the writers. That's the limitations of language for you.

Maybe; but that does not justify us in making wild assumptions without anything to back it up. Just because the Bible was not written in English, it does not mean we can just assume that â??meâ? doesnâ??t mean â??me,â? and must mean something else.

And a third point, I'll throw it in for free. Even the language of the Bible points to something beyond a unitary being, or one solitary Person as God, to use your phrasing here. For instance, in the first chapters of Genesis, the plural word elohim is used for God, but it is paired up with singular nouns and verb forms. Also, the Shema, "The Lord our God, the Lord is one", using a Hebrew word for "one" that does not refer to a unitary object or nature, but to a unity of more than one.

That may be; but in the Bible the One God is portrayed as a Person, not something else. And there is a reason why I brought that up. The reason is that your definition of the Trinity as â??Three persons in one Godâ? is actually a verbal trick. It is a play on words. It does not mean a lot. It is a word trick designed to avoid having to say â??Three Gods in one Godâ?! That is the real definition of your Trinity. But to say it like that would expose the obvious absurdity of it, so you have invented that verbal trick to avoid having to say it like that. The Athanasian Creed, which is the epitome of the Trinitarian theology, clearly states that each member of the Trinity is individually God; so you might just as well have defined the Trinity as â??Three Gods in one Personâ?! Your Trinitarian theology permits you to adopt that definition just as much as the other one. A quote from the Athanasian Creed is instructive here:

15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;

16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

* * *

19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;

20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.

LOL! That is your real definition of the Trinity! Thus:

Trinity = Three Persons in one Person = Three Gods in one God!

And that definition is illogical, absurd, unscriptural, and untrue.

Is the unity to be the same in all respects? Every single aspect? Or rather, is it to be a unity as deep as possible for human beings? Given the multiple passages regarding the unique unity between the Father and the Son, and given the absence of a conclusive phrase in John 17, I must conclude the latter.

The scripture says nothing about â??respectâ? and â??aspectâ?. It just makes it clear that their â??kindâ? of oneness is qualitatively the same. The disciples are to be â??oneâ? with the Father and the Son in the same way in which the Father and the Son are â??oneâ?. The respect and aspect of it is not a relevant argument.

Please show me references in which human beings are called to be "the express image of God's being", or "the fulness of Deity in bodily form", or even that we are called to be God, as it says of the Son in John 1. The relationship between the Father and the Son is clearly a unique one, and human beings can participate in it, but never in the same way as the Father and the Son.

You are beating a dead horse with that one. Their relationships may be unique; but the type of union that exists between them is qualitatively the same as that between them and the disciples. That is what John 17 teaches. You canâ??t get away from that.

Actually, he had not yet ascended as was not yet glorified. This happened after the ascension, when he sat down at the right hand of the Father.

Well, He ascended and descended several times. After He first met Mary Magdalene, He no doubt ascended to His Father; and then He came back and visited with His disciples on several occasions (and even allowed them to touch Him). So He stopped being their â??Brother,â? just because He had ascended to His father? That donâ??t make sense to me.

As the Son still has his human nature, he still calls us brethren. This is no problem for the Trinity.

Well He doesnâ??t have â??human natureâ? any more. By â??human natureâ? I understand mortality. It means flesh and blood. It means being subject to the pain and suffering of this existence. Jesus has passed beyond that. He is still â??Man,â? I agree. But He was always Man; otherwise He couldnâ??t have made man in His own image. But He is no longer mortal man, therefore He no longer has â??human natureâ?.

That depends on what you mean by "total deification". Man will be glorified, yes, but will not assume the divine nature as his own. He will never become a "God" in his own right, in the same sense that the one God is God. There will always be a distinction. The early church fathers taught this, as well as the Eastern Orthodox today.

I would rather let them speak for themselves, rather than let you act as their mouthpiece. They seem to be pretty good at speaking for themselves. I donâ??t see why they need you as an interpreter:

. . . and they have received the title of â??gods,â? since they are destined to be enthroned with the other â??godsâ? who are

ranked next below the Saviour

. (Clement of Alexandria, p. 244.)

. . . the Word, I say, of God, who became man just that you might learn from a man how it may be that

man should become God

. (Clement of Alexandria, p. 244.)

The Son in his kindness generously imparted deification to others . . . who are transformed through him into gods, as

images of the prototype

. . . the Word is the archetype of the many images. (Origen, p. 274.)

For the Word was not degraded by receiving a body, so that he should seek to â??receiveâ? Godâ??s gift. Rather he deified what he put on; and, more than that, he

bestowed this gift upon the race of men

. (Athanasius, p. 384.)

. . . If the works of the Godhead had not taken place by means of the body, man would not have been made divine. (Athanasius, p. 399.)

The Word was made man in order that we might be made divine. (Athanasius, p. 404)

Those are quotes from my Blog. There is more there for anybody who is interested.

No, he actually assumed human nature, not just mortality. Flesh and blood, all of human nature, "becoming like his brethren in every way". To assume something it means you didn't have it before. Also, scripture tells us what nature the Son had before the incarnation, in John 1 and Philippians 2, for example. According to the latter, Christ emptied himself of his divinity in order to take on the form or nature of a servant (i.e. human beings).

That explanation does not adequately explain the words of St Paul:

Hebrews 2

:

11 For both he that sanctifieth [i.e. Jesus] and they who are sanctified [i.e. the disciples] are all

of one:

[i.e. of the same order of beings] for which cause he is not ashamed to call them

brethren

.

Are you suggesting that before His Incarnation Jesus would have been ashamed to call those who believed in Him His â??brethrenâ?? I donâ??t think that is what that means. I think it means that Jesus would have never been ashamed to call His true disciples â??His brethrenâ?. I think that is the meaning that that verse is trying to convey.

Just one more point. "Nature" is a perfectly biblical word and concept (check out Romans 1, Hebrews, etc.). I think I said recently that we should be limited to the words of scripture in formulating our beliefs, as if those were the only acceptable words to use. Given this, I will certainly not be limited as to what scriptural words I can actually use! This "nature business" is part and parcel of the scriptural witness. Any justification of any doctrine would do well to take it into account.

That is okay, provided that we define our terms clearly so that we both have the same understanding of what it means. To me â??human natureâ? means mortality. It means flesh and blood. It means being subject to the weaknesses of the flesh. It does not mean Jesus in His glorified and resurrected state. That is no longer human nature.

Actually, in the context of the early church, "gods" (theos, in Greek) carried much different connotations and meanings than it does today. In our modern world, "God" is used in a relatively narrow set of meanings. In the ancient world, philosophers and poets used "gods" in a much broader sense. Early Christian writers, given their linguistic context, also used the term, but always qualified it somehow. Irenaeus, for example, pointed out that there were those called "gods" in Scripture, but went on to say that upon examination, all "gods" besides the one true God were only called such "by a certain addition or subtraction, by which they were shown to be no gods at all." You have to read the early church fathers in context.

Like I said, I would rather let them speak for themselves. They seem to be pretty good at that. I let them define their terms in the context of their own speech. I donâ??t think they need someone to interpret their meanings for them.

zerinus

[zerinus]

I think both our religions would maintain that the canine nature is subordinate to human nature, for example.

Canine nature is inferior to human nature, not subordinate to it. You are confusing inferiority with subordination.

I agree deification was widely believed in early Christianity (and still is). But do you understand what deification meant to the early church? As a hint, I can tell you that it varied from writer to writer, but I can also tell you that there were common elements held among them. The preeminent element was that the one true God was unique, and that man, as a creature, would never become exactly like Him in all respects. I could send you my Irenaeus paper if you'd like; it delves into some background issues as well as Irenaeus' teachings specifically.

We don't claim to know in precise terms what it means to be deified either (beyond what God has revealed about it). What we have in common with the early Christians is that we both saw fit to define the process as deification. I think that the choice of that vocabulary is highly significant in both cases.

zerinus