Trinity Definition and Justification

[rhinomelon]

The terms used to describe it may have been different, but in essence it amounted to the same thing. We have additional doctrine revealed that they did not have, and that changes the equation and terminology a little bit.

The "additional doctrine" you refer to not only "changes the equation and terminology a bit," but changes the LDS version into something contradictory to what the early church fathers taught regarding deification. For just one example, where do early church fathers write that God and man are the same species, that man is a "god in embryo"?

I question that. Neither he, nor any Christian of that time understood the Trinity as you understand and describe it today. They believed in the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost; and so do we. But there is nothing in their writings that suggest that they understood it in the same terms as you describe it today.

False. As I posted a few days ago, Tertullian described the Trinity in the exact terminology I used in my definition: One God in three persons. This terminology is found throughout the Trinitarian writings. As a student of church history, I've been digging into this issue for a while, and actually feel more comfortable describing the Trinity in early church terminology than otherwise. Do you think that my definition contradicts that of Athanasius, or the conclusions of the Nicene council? If so, please elaborate.

The issue is not settled by the number of scriptures you quote, but how relevant and applicable they are to the case, and you are able to defend that with sound reason.

Which I have done repeatedly. Thus your statement about defenders of the doctrine being unable to use scripture in its defense is proven to be a falsehood.

Zerinus has hung almost his entire case on one scripture passage, John 17.

Not true. I discussed that a lot because you kept challenging what it teaches.

To be more specific, you don't accept what it actually teaches; you prefer to add a great deal more of your own understanding. And in this instance, your own understanding contradicts numerous other scriptures, some of which I have posted and examined at length.

But that is not the main scriptural reason for defending the separate identities of the members of the Trinity. The main scriptural passages are those that identify the Father and the Son as to separate Beings; and they are many. Every verse in which the Son prays to the father is proof.

Now we're getting somewhere, I suppose. Let's address these one at a time. First, those verses in which the Son prays to the Father are during his incarnation, and as a perfect human being Christ demonstrated a perfect human relationship to his God. Philippians 2 provides the rubric through which to understand these instances. The Son humbled himself, took on the form of a servant (i.e. humanity), and was obedient to God as a servant. Thus, he prayed to God, worshipped God, and demonstrated the proper reverence and respect due God from all human beings. But this is not the end of the picture. In other ways, Jesus Christ proclaimed his equality with the Father, and his unity with Him. "Before Abraham was, I AM", for example, or the statements of "I and the Father are one."

Every verse in which the Son speaks of the Father as someone separate from himself is a proof.

This fits quite well within Trinitarian thought; it actually is a necessary part of Trinitarian thought. If the Son did not speak of the Father as of a separate person, we would end up with modalism! The Father and the Son (and the Holy Spirit, as well) are distinct persons within the Trinity. They communicate, act in unison (though they perform different roles in every action of the Trinity), speak to or on behalf of each other, etc. Once again, the passages you speak of do not say all that you need them to say. Where does Jesus Christ say "The Father is a completely separate Being from myself" or "I am a separate God from the Father"?

Every verse in which the Father speaks separately and independently from the Son is proof. Every verse in which the Father is seen separately from the Son is proof. They are too many to quote.

See above. These examples (good ones, I might add) not only fit in with the doctrine of the Trinity, but are a necessary, foundational part of the doctrine.

There are many different answers for those. Each verse needs to considered and addressed in its own context. That is why it is not practicable to give a lump sum answer to then all together.

I can see that. But I see this kind of thinking relying more on modern assumptions about ancient Israel than the biblical text as authoritative scripture. They are both useful disciplines, but only one can really be considered authoritative for the life of the church. I would also point out that Jesus, the apostles, and the early Christians didn't see the need to examine the OT context for loopholes allowing for the existence of other Gods like the one true God. They were monotheists, whether the ancient Israelites were or not.

Others can be understood in the same context that the early Christians understood themâ??i.e. that there were many gods, with a chain of subordination running though them. Jesus was subordinate to the Father, while the Saints that became gods remained subordinate to Jesus, as Clement teaches for example. In one sense there is only One God because all are subordinate to Him, and pray to Him and regard Him as their God. In another sense there is more than one god, all of who are subordinate to that One Supreme GOD. What is there about this that you do not understand?

I understand the idea you're putting across; what I don't understand is how that is justified by either Scripture or the early church fathers. Now, if you are merely referring to beings that are called "gods", while still acknowledging that they are ontologically different from the one true God, I can buy that. And that is still very much compatible with Trinitarian theology. But if you are saying (as many LDS do) that these other beings called "gods" are like the one true God in terms of nature and being, then I really don't see that anywhere. God is unique, in both scripture and the early church.

That is not how I read that verse. To me that verse is talking of two separate beings, each of whom is God.

Fair enough. Now, could you back up that assumption by looking at the actual text, in the Greek?

Also, I can accept you have a different interpretation than my own; that's to be expected, given the foundational differences between our respective theologies. But simply because I disagree with you, does not give me the right to go around saying you don't have an interpretation, or that your doctrine is completely unscriptural or indefensible with scripture. See the point here?

It does teach the Son becoming incarnate; but it doesnâ??t say anything about the Father and the Son being one and the same â??Godâ?.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Only one God being talked about here, and the Word is it, just as the Word is also spoken of as being "with" God. The Trinity describes how this relationship can be this way quite well.

By becoming incarnate means simply that He took upon Him flesh and bloodâ??as we do when we are born into the world. It does not mean His nature somehow â??changingâ? as a consequence. We believe that we too existed as spirits before we were born; and in that sense we too assume â??flesh and bloodâ? in the same way as He did; no difference.

There are plenty of differences, biblically speaking. First and foremost, even in LDS belief none of us are referred to as "God" before we are born. The Son is unique in this respect. Once again, scripture uses words and concepts about the incarnation of the Son that it does not use for anyone else. The Son is unique. Philippians 2, says that the Son did not hold onto divinity, but took on the form of a servant. In Hebrews, it speaks of him becoming like his brothers in every way. Why is this such a big deal if we all do it anyway? The answer is, quite simply, that the incarnation was something totally unique, totally without precedent. I would also point out that scripture makes clear distinctions between God's nature and our human nature; there is no natural progression there. They are different at the core. One is created, one is Creator, etc.

For another scriptural example, why would "partaking of the divine nature" be such a novel, mind-blowing idea, if there really was no difference between human nature and divine nature? If what you're saying is true, then are we not partaking of the divine nature now, even the most vile sinners among us?

The first couple chapters of Romans also deal with this fundamental difference between the divine and human natures.

That is because nobody brought it up, so it was not addressed. It is up to you folks to bring your arguments so they can be addressed.

John 1 was brought up several times, from the first few posts onward. If you missed it, that's fine. But it's there, nonetheless.

I canâ??t comment on something that is so speculative as that. Neither can I accept it as sound argument in favor of Trinitarian theology.

It's not speculative at all. It's a paraphrase of Philippians 2. The Son did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but voluntarily "let go" of his divinity in order to take on the form of a servant (i.e. human beings). This statement leads naturally to three conclusions: (1) It demonstrates the equality the Son has with the Father, for he did not think it robbery to be equal with God. (2) It demonstrates the clear difference between the divine nature and the human one, because the Son had to let go of his divinity in order to become a human being. Clear distinction there. And finally, (3) it demonstrates the different kind of relationship the Son has with the Father than we do. After all, we did not give up equality with God, nor was becoming a human being a "humbling" experience for us. "Human" is what we are; it was not what the Son was before the incarnation, as Philippians 2, Colossians 1, John 1, and other verses show.

More in a bit, take care, everyone

[rhinomelon]

Although I do not question the unique relationship between the Father and the Son, John 17 makes it clear that the kind of unity that exists between them should be the same. Although there is no doubt that there is a special relationship between the father and the Son, the kind of unity that exists between them is not a byproduct of that special relationship, but is something that can be shared with the disciples. That is what John 17 teachesâ??and this is the last time I am going to repeat that argument!

That's fine, simple repetition of an argument doesn't do anything anyway. What I'd like to see you do is defend it--use other scriptures, go into the original language, something other than "This is it, I say so, argument finished!" I have defended my reading of John 17 by (1) pointing to other passages to show that the unity between Father and Son is unique, and something no other human being is called to, and (2) by pointing out that the language of the passage itself is neutral, and says nothing qualitative about the kind of unity Jesus is referring to. Now, what do you have? What passages show that the kind of unity between the Father and the Son is something that all human beings can really participate in?

QUOTE

So this passage in Colossians posits a unique unity between Father and Son; . . .

No it doesnâ??t!

Simple negation is a failed argument. If this passage is meant to portray a relationship between God and any human being, please provide references to back up that assertion. Until you do, this particular contention remains unaddressed.

as a side note, it also strongly implies that the Father is not an embodied being, as LDS believe, nor does "divinity" have to be embodied. After all, if the Father were embodied, why doesn't anyone speak of the Father as "the fulness of deity in bodily form," and what's so special about the Son being this way? Therefore, God is not embodied by nature, but took on flesh through the incarnation of the Son in Jesus Christ, who is fully God (John 1, Colossians 1, Philippians 2) as well as fully man (John 1 again, Philippians 2 again, Hebrews 3, if I remember right).

You got really carried away with that one. I donâ??t see the logic behind that conclusion at all.

Let me put it another way here. If the Father was also "the fulness of deity in bodily form", why is such a big deal made of Christ being such? Why isn't the Father ever mentioned in these terms? To use a more personal example, if one wanted to tell my friend Naveen and I apart, one would point out a difference. "Rhinomelon is the white one". This distinction strongly implies (if not says outright) that my friend is not white. Likewise, in this passage, Jesus Christ is specifically spoken of as "the fulness of deity in bodily form", which distinguished him from the Father, who is not.

I did no such thing. I addressed all the questions that were raised, and did not address the ones that were not brought up.

This is untrue. Until your last couple posts, most of my references and applications of biblical concepts were ignored by you. You preferred instead to concoct your own definition of the Trinity and pronounce it absurd. There has been some actual interaction with my ideas, but it gets tainted by an overly aggressive posting style and a seeming unwillingness to learn from other people about their own beliefs. Now, I apologize if these last couple posts have been more forthright, but I've seen much more heat than light coming into this discussion from your end, and I'd very much like to cut through the tangents and the noise and get to the point of the thread.

I will let others decide who won or lost. They are also free to come here and participate in the discussion if they want to. They havenâ??t done that very much so far. I will let you draw your own conclusion from that.

Already have, and it looks as though my conclusion may be shared by other people as well.

Not that you will have missed this point, but just to underscore it: Whereas before the charge was that you failed to cite biblical texts for your beliefs, now the charge is that, no matter how many biblical texts you have cited, they have tended to be irrelevant, non-applicable, and unable to be defended with sound reason.

Yup, ck, I did catch that. Oh well, progress is progress, I suppose

Take care, everyone

(And sorry for the long post back there, didn't realize it. Feel free to break it up into smaller bits, I usually do that)

[Mudcat]

Not that you will have missed this point, but just to underscore it: Whereas before the charge was that you failed to cite biblical texts for your beliefs, now the charge is that, no matter how many biblical texts you have cited, they have tended to be irrelevant, non-applicable, and unable to be defended with sound reason.

Sounds like he got double charged.

..Well maybe is it wasn't that funny.

[rhinomelon]

Sounds like he got double charged.

..Well maybe is it wasn't that funny.

Maybe I should ask for a refund?

[Mudcat]

Maybe I should ask for a refund?

I'd like to help you out, but you'll have to talk to the manager.

I'm just the guy who puts the pickles on the omelets, keeps the shake machine inoperable and makes sure were out of apple pies during the lunch rush.

[zerinus]

The "additional doctrine" you refer to not only "changes the equation and terminology a bit," but changes the LDS version into something contradictory to what the early church fathers taught regarding deification.

Certainly not! The main â??additional doctrineâ? that I was referring to is the belief that God the Father had a physical body like the Son. That is the main fundamental difference between what they knew and what we know. And it doesnâ??t â??contradictâ? anything. It simply tells us something that they didnâ??t know.

For just one example, where do early church fathers write that God and man are the same species, that man is a "god in embryo"?

That is not the â??additional doctrineâ? I was referring to. These are not in fact â??fundamentalâ? differences. Those expressions are not basic to the LDS doctrine of deification. The words â??speciesâ? and â??embryoâ? do not occur in the scriptural passages dealing with deification. Those are vocabulary devised by Latter-day Saints to comprehend the concept in more down to earth human terms. All cultures to that, including the early Christians. The early Christians may not have used words like â??embryoâ? of â??speciesâ? to express their understanding, because culturally they didnâ??t think in those terms. But the basic concepts for them to use such terms were there, if the cultural environment was conducive to it. The theological foundation for it existed. Their concept of deification was intimately tied up with their being the children of God. So the idea of our being â??gods in embryoâ? was not alien to their theological understanding of deification. They just chose not to express it in those terms because culturally it did not fit into their way of thinking.

False. As I posted a few days ago, Tertullian described the Trinity in the exact terminology I used in my definition: One God in three persons. This terminology is found throughout the Trinitarian writings. As a student of church history, I've been digging into this issue for a while, and actually feel more comfortable describing the Trinity in early church terminology than otherwise.

I need to see the passages quoted in context to comment.

Do you think that my definition contradicts that of Athanasius, or the conclusions of the Nicene council? If so, please elaborate.

The Athanasian Creed was not written by Athanasius; it is a 7th century production attributed to him. And there is nothing in the Nicene Creed to support Trinitarianism as you people understand it today. Show me where in the Nicene Creed the Trinity is defined in the same way as you do today (or even as it is defined in the Athanasian Creed).

Which I have done repeatedly. Thus your statement about defenders of the doctrine being unable to use scripture in its defense is proven to be a falsehood.

Well, I am not going to continue this unnecessary back and forth foreverâ??you keep telling me that you have quoted me scripture, and I keep telling you that your scriptures to not prove your point.

Now we're getting somewhere, I suppose. Let's address these one at a time. First, those verses in which the Son prays to the Father are during his incarnation, and as a perfect human being Christ demonstrated a perfect human relationship to his God. Philippians 2 provides the rubric through which to understand these instances. The Son humbled himself, took on the form of a servant (i.e. humanity), and was obedient to God as a servant.

That is true of every prophet and every saint that has ever lived. Every prophet has had to humble himself before God and become a servant to be saved and help with the salvation of others. The only difference is that Jesus did it better and more completely than anybody else.

Thus, he prayed to God, worshipped God, and demonstrated the proper reverence and respect due God from all human beings. But this is not the end of the picture. In other ways, Jesus Christ proclaimed his equality with the Father, and his unity with Him. "Before Abraham was, I AM", for example, or the statements of "I and the Father are one."

You keep throwing the â??oneâ? business at me again, and I will keep throwing John 17 back at you. You pays your money and takes your choice.

This fits quite well within Trinitarian thought; it actually is a necessary part of Trinitarian thought. If the Son did not speak of the Father as of a separate person, we would end up with modalism! The Father and the Son (and the Holy Spirit, as well) are distinct persons within the Trinity. They communicate, act in unison (though they perform different roles in every action of the Trinity), speak to or on behalf of each other, etc.

It does no such thing. Trinitarian theology is nonsense basically, and you are trying to make it look sensible by hook or by crookâ??and it aninâ??t working!

Once again, the passages you speak of do not say all that you need them to say. Where does Jesus Christ say "The Father is a completely separate Being from myself" or "I am a separate God from the Father"?

He doesnâ??t have to; the language He uses implies that. I donâ??t have to keep telling people that my dad and I are two different people, because every idiot in town already knows that.

I understand the idea you're putting across; what I don't understand is how that is justified by either Scripture or the early church fathers. Now, if you are merely referring to beings that are called "gods", while still acknowledging that they are ontologically different from the one true God, I can buy that. And that is still very much compatible with Trinitarian theology. But if you are saying (as many LDS do) that these other beings called "gods" are like the one true God in terms of nature and being, then I really don't see that anywhere. God is unique, in both scripture and the early church.

They are as much â??the sameâ? as God the Father, as Jesus is; or as â??differentâ? from Him as Jesus is. Jesus is the theological connect between us and the supreme God, who is the Father. Everything that Jesus is we may become (in relation to the Father), and everything that Jesus is not we may not becomeâ??apart from being subordinate to Him. That is the bottom line; and it agrees with the beliefs of the Early Church Fathers.

Fair enough. Now, could you back up that assumption by looking at the actual text, in the Greek?

I have something better than the Greek to look at. I have the JST! Have you looked at that one by any chance?

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Only one God being talked about here, and the Word is it, just as the Word is also spoken of as being "with" God. . . .

Better from the JST!

For another scriptural example, why would "partaking of the divine nature" be such a novel, mind-blowing idea, if there really was no difference between human nature and divine nature? If what you're saying is true, then are we not partaking of the divine nature now, even the most vile sinners among us?

We donâ??t say that human nature is the same as divine nature. All we say is that we can follow the same path that Jesus pursued, and acquire what He has acquired, and become â??heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ,â? as Paul says:

Romans 8

:

16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the

children of God:

17 And if

children,

then heirs; heirs of God, and

joint-heirs with Christ;

if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Got the idea now? â??joint-heirs with Jesus Christâ? means that we inherit from the Father everything that He inherits. That includes His divinity, His â??nature,â? and everything else. What he â??inheritsâ? from the Father is not bricks and mortar. It is not gold in fort Knox. It is not money in the bank. It is sharing in His divinity, His glory, His salvation, and all else that He has. Or as John says, â??. . . when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he isâ? (John 3:2). That is what we beleive, and it agrees with what the ECFs believed.

That language, by the way, is not much different from the â??embryoâ? analogy of the Latter-day Saints.

zerinus

[rhinomelon]

Certainly not! The main â??additional doctrineâ? that I was referring to is the belief that God the Father had a physical body like the Son. That is the main fundamental difference between what they knew and what we know. And it doesnâ??t â??contradictâ? anything. It simply tells us something that they didnâ??t know.

First of all, that understanding definitely contradicts what the ECF said on the subject. Secondly, that is not the only contradiction, by any means. The fundamental difference in nature between God and man was a foundational presupposition of the early church fathers, and it is a foundation the LDS church explicitly rejects. The ECF did not teach that God and man are of the same nature, just in different stages of maturity or development, as the LDS church teaches.

That is not the â??additional doctrineâ? I was referring to. These are not in fact â??fundamentalâ? differences. Those expressions are not basic to the LDS doctrine of deification. The words â??speciesâ? and â??embryoâ? do not occur in the scriptural passages dealing with deification. Those are vocabulary devised by Latter-day Saints to comprehend the concept in more down to earth human terms.

These are about as fundamental as differences can be. Are God and man of the same nature, or are they of very different natures? LDS doctrine says the former, mainstream Christianity (including the ECF) say the latter. As far as the specific terms, that is not the issue; the issue is the concepts being communicated, and since you acknowledge that the concepts expressed are indeed LDS doctrine, please show me the church fathers that agree with such a conclusion. Where do any church fathers say that God the Father and mankind share the same nature intrinsically? This would be a call for references.

Their concept of deification was intimately tied up with their being the children of God. So the idea of our being â??gods in embryoâ? was not alien to their theological understanding of deification. They just chose not to express it in those terms because culturally it did not fit into their way of thinking.

The ECF did not understand "children of God" the way LDS do. It was not taken literally, as in a direct correlation between human children and their parents. Most often, it was seen as a statement of God's creation of man, not implying a correlation of nature. I would also point out that it was quite common to distinguish between those who were children of God, and those human beings who were not. There is ample biblical support for this distinction, such as Jesus' referring to the Pharisees as children of the devil, etc. So there is ambiguity in this phrase even in scripture. Nevertheless, I would like to see references from some ECF saying that we are children of God just like I am a child of my human father, as LDS doctrine teaches.

I need to see the passages quoted in context to comment.

Since the phrase "one God in three persons" is itself the issue, not any underlying concept, context is irrelevant. But in the interests of further discussion, from Tertullian's "Against Praxeas":

"Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are one as it is said, â??I and my Father are One,â? in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number."

Here's a link to "Against Praxeas", in which all sorts of Trinitarian language shows up, even if his understanding of it has not deepened to the point of the Nicene formulation many years later:http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.ix.html

This is just one example of the Trinity being spoken of in terms like "One God in three persons". A simple Google search pulls up many other references. This is clearly not a new, modern way of speaking about the Trinity; in a very real sense, such language predates the formulation of the doctrine itself!

The Athanasian Creed was not written by Athanasius; it is a 7th century production attributed to him. And there is nothing in the Nicene Creed to support Trinitarianism as you people understand it today. Show me where in the Nicene Creed the Trinity is defined in the same way as you do today (or even as it is defined in the Athanasian Creed).

I wasn't referring to the Athanasian creed, or even the Nicene creed by itself. I was referring more to the overall writings of Athanasius, and of those church fathers who formulated the Trinity. Perhaps you should read some of them. As far as the Nicene Creed goes, tell me where my definition contradicts it. Here's the creed, for your convenience:

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

Who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.

And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Take care, everyone

[rhinomelon]

Well, I am not going to continue this unnecessary back and forth foreverâ??you keep telling me that you have quoted me scripture, and I keep telling you that your scriptures to not prove your point.

I have not only quoted scripture, I have proposed interpretation of it, integrated it with other scriptures, and linked it together to form a reasonable account of the Trinity from biblical references. You, on the other hand, just say, "No, you're wrong," and never demonstrate why. I'm beginning to think you don't have an actual case. You prefer to pretend that I don't have one either, and hope this will all go away. Well, it won't, especially if you keep acting as though your opinions sans evidence or interpretation should settle the matter. In short, don't simply tell me I'm wrong; tell me WHY I'm wrong and back it up. Otherwise, concede and let the discussion continue with other participants.

That is true of every prophet and every saint that has ever lived. Every prophet has had to humble himself before God and become a servant to be saved and help with the salvation of others. The only difference is that Jesus did it better and more completely than anybody else.

Really? The only difference between Jesus and any other prophet was that he humbled himself better? Then tell me, what other prophet or saint is ever referred to as equal with God before their humbling, as Philippians 2 states about the Son? What saint or prophet is ever spoken of as "taking on the form of a servant"? They are already in the form of a servant, after all. There is a clear difference here. The Son did not think it robbery to be considered equal with God, but chose to humble himself and take on the form of a servant. Which human prophet or saint has ever been spoken of in this way? I look forward to your examples.

It does no such thing. Trinitarian theology is nonsense basically, and you are trying to make it look sensible by hook or by crookâ??and it aninâ??t working!

Thank you for sharing your opinion. I disagree, and have posted at length about why. You have yet to show you know enough about the Trinity to pronounce it sensical or not, and until you do, your opinions do not matter at all in this discussion. Back it up, in other words. Tell me why my statement doesn't make sense (which is different from "why it doesn't make sense to you"). Reason it out. Prove you know what you're talking about, or prove that you're willing to learn about it before passing judgment.

He doesnâ??t have to; the language He uses implies that. I donâ??t have to keep telling people that my dad and I are two different people, because every idiot in town already knows that.

Some of the language he uses does indeed imply that, you're correct. However, other language he uses (and that the apostles use) speaks to a deep unity as well. So one must balance these two sets of statements. The Trinity does this nicely. The Father and the Son are indeed distinct persons, but are united in nature as one God (along with the Holy Spirit). In this sense, both the separation and the unity are held together, without losing either one.

I have something better than the Greek to look at. I have the JST! Have you looked at that one by any chance?

I have read it, yes, but when looking at ancient beliefs and events, I prefer to use ancient sources that originated before the 19th century. Perhaps if Joseph Smith still had the ancient Greek text he used when translating the JST, it would play a part in this discussion about the ancient doctrine of the Trinity.

We donâ??t say that human nature is the same as divine nature.

The "gods in embryo" statement, as well as Lorenzo Snow's couplet and many other similar statements, point to a different conclusion. There is really no distinction between God and man in terms of nature in LDS theology; they are of the same species, just in different levels of progression. But that's a discussion best kept for another thread. This is about mainstream Christian theology, not LDS theology.

All we say is that we can follow the same path that Jesus pursued, and acquire what He has acquired, and become â??heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ,â? as Paul says:

Romans 8:

16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Got the idea now? â??joint-heirs with Jesus Christâ? means that we inherit from the Father everything that He inherits. That includes His divinity, His â??nature,â? and everything else. What he â??inheritsâ? from the Father is not bricks and mortar. It is not gold in fort Knox. It is not money in the bank. It is sharing in His divinity, His glory, His salvation, and all else that He has. Or as John says, â??. . . when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he isâ? (John 3:2). That is what we beleive, and it agrees with what the ECFs believed.

That language, by the way, is not much different from the â??embryoâ? analogy of the Latter-day Saints.

See, this is an actual argument. Well done. Now, in response, I would point out that it states we will inherit all that Jesus Christ has, not that the Son has. As Irenaeus also taught, for just one example, we will be everything that Christ was in terms of his humanity. We will be glorified, perfected, etc. But we will not be divine, as in having the divine nature in and of ourselves; rather, as it states in 1 Peter, we will partake of the divine nature. Only the Father, Son and Holy Spirit possess the divine nature in and of themselves, while we will participate in it through the perfect humanity of Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son.

Take care, everyone, I'm off to learn some German.

[zerinus]

First of all, that understanding definitely contradicts what the ECF said on the subject. Secondly, that is not the only contradiction, by any means. The fundamental difference in nature between God and man was a foundational presupposition of the early church fathers, and it is a foundation the LDS church explicitly rejects. The ECF did not teach that God and man are of the same nature, just in different stages of maturity or development, as the LDS church teaches. . . .

This â??natureâ? thing has now become your new mantra. You seem to think that you have a trump card with that. Well I have got bad news for you. You are barking up the wrong tree with that one. Firstly, LDS doctrine says nothing about â??natureâ?. All it says is that we become godsâ??just as the ECFs did. That is all it says. Secondly, it is the ECFs that actually said that we become gods â??by natureâ? in fact. That is their choice of vocabulary, not ours. Here are a couple of quotes:

Hippolytus: â??Your body shall be immortal and incorruptible as well as your soul. For you have

become God

. All the things that follow upon the

divine nature

God has promised to

supply to you

,

for you were

deified

in being born to immortalityâ? (

Philos

. x.34).

Chrysostom: â??Christ came to us, and took upon him

our nature

and

deified it

.â? [i.e. converted it into divine nature]

Gregory of Nyssa said that Christ coming in

flesh

has now

â??deified

everything

kindred and related to mankindâ?

(

Catechism

xxxv). [i.e. human â??natureâ? (flesh) has been converted into the divine nature.]

Like I said, you are barking up the wrong tree with that one. LDS doctrine says nothing about â??natureâ?. All it says is that we become gods. It is the ECFs who said that we will acquire divine nature.

The ECF did not understand "children of God" the way LDS do. . . . I would like to see references from some ECF saying that we are children of God just like I am a child of my human father, as LDS doctrine teaches.

Whether they did or not I don't know; but Paul does for sure:

Acts 17

:

28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For

we are also his offspring

.

29 Forasmuch then as we are the

offspring of God,

we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

Romans 8

:

16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the

children of God:

17 And if

children,

then

heirs;

heirs of God, and

joint-heirs with Christ;

if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Since the phrase "one God in three persons" is itself the issue, not any underlying concept, context is irrelevant. But in the interests of further discussion, from Tertullian's "Against Praxeas":

"Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are one as it is said, â??I and my Father are One,â? in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number."

This is just one example of the Trinity being spoken of in terms like "One God in three persons".

That does not express Trinitarianism as you understand it. It says, â??in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number.â? In other words, the Father and the Son are not numerically one. That is contrary to your Trinitarian doctrine.

A simple Google search pulls up many other references. This is clearly not a new, modern way of speaking about the Trinity; in a very real sense, such language predates the formulation of the doctrine itself!

I am here to debate, not Google.

I wasn't referring to the Athanasian creed, or even the Nicene creed by itself. I was referring more to the overall writings of Athanasius, and of those church fathers who formulated the Trinity. Perhaps you should read some of them. As far as the Nicene Creed goes, tell me where my definition contradicts it. Here's the creed, for your convenience:

That puts the cart before the horse. You tell me what in the Nicene Creed supports your Trinitarian theology.

zerinus

[rhinomelon]

This â??natureâ? thing has now become your new mantra. You seem to think that you have a trump card with that. Well I have got bad news for you. You are barking up the wrong tree with that one. Firstly, LDS doctrine says nothing about â??natureâ?. All it says is that we become godsâ??just as the ECFs did. That is all it says.

So LDS doctrine is that men become "gods" in name only? Interesting.

Secondly, it is the ECFs that actually said that we become gods â??by natureâ? in fact. That is their choice of vocabulary, not ours. Here are a couple of quotes:

Hippolytus: â??Your body shall be immortal and incorruptible as well as your soul. For you have become God. All the things that follow upon the divine nature God has promised to supply to you, for you were deified in being born to immortalityâ? (Philos. x.34).

This is a great quote. It demonstrated clearly one of the differences between ECF uses of the word "god" (theos) and our modern usage. For the ancient Greeks as well as many church fathers (including Hippolytus), anything that was immortal could be called "theos". This is clear from even the short quote above, "you were deified in being born to immortality". This was one area I researched for a recent paper, in fact. I can quote relevant scholars if you'd like.

Chrysostom: â??Christ came to us, and took upon him our nature and deified it.â? [i.e. converted it into divine nature]

The "i.e. converted it into divine nature" is a nice addition, but it doesn't say that in the quote itself. Show me what Chrysostom meant by "deified", and then that would be applicable. Same goes for Gregory of Nyssa; in fact, there are few theologians who defended the uniqueness and wholly "other" nature of God than Gregory of Nyssa. He is not a good one to use in support of LDS belief in this matter. He wrote of salvation as swimming in the infinite sea of God for eternity, always making progress and yet never comprehending all that God is, always moving on into infinity.

Whether they did or not I don't know; but Paul does for sure:

Acts 17:

28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

Romans 8:

16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Great quotes. Here again we see the two streams of thought regarding the fatherhood of God: in the first verse, a more expansive reading applies, while in the second, Paul only speaks of the believers as children of God. The distinction is certainly made in Scripture. And given that the first statement was a quote from a Greek philosopher used in speaking to a pagan audience, and the second was written in direct address to the church, I weight the second a bit more, while acknowledging the first one has its interpretations as well.

That does not express Trinitarianism as you understand it. It says, â??in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number.â? In other words, the Father and the Son are not numerically one. That is contrary to your Trinitarian doctrine.

Does Tertullian speak of more than one God? "Against Praxeas" is all about defending the unity of the Father and Son as separate persons while still believing in only one God. "One God in three persons" is the whole point of the text!

I am here to debate, not Google.

It's difficult to debate without information. If you are unwilling to do research, then you are unable to really debate. What your doing now is mostly airing out opinions, which hold no weight with me without something substantial to back them up.

That puts the cart before the horse. You tell me what in the Nicene Creed supports your Trinitarian theology.

Already have. That's basically what this thread's been about. The Nicene Creed states the belief in only one God, with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit all being God and making up the Trinity. They are persons, as you've already agreed earlier. Therefore, what is wrong with "one God in three persons"? Tell me why I'm wrong, or I'll be forced to conclude you don't know.

Take care, everyone

[JDave]

I see you managed to interest zerinus again. Apparently you're not a 'hopeless case' any more. I wanted to finally respond to what you wrote.

Interpretation is always a foundational issue, as are our preconceptions. I fully admit I have them, as does everyone else. I will also admit it took me a while to think in LDS boxes. Contradictions that I thought were there actually vanished when I made the effort to think as LDS do. Such contradictions were between LDS beliefs and my own (which I couldn't really expect them to hold, eh?).

I agree. Most of the contradictions I saw are worked out as I have gone through this exercise. I tried to additionally see if the ideas were 'reasonable'. Removing all of my paradigm filters for that exercise was much more difficult.

Here's another key distinction to make here. It helps to distinguish between the Son before the incarnation, and Jesus Christ, who is the incarnate Son, human and divine. Applying this rubric to the above would yield: 1-Christ did have a human and divine nature in one person. 2- The Son "acquired" a human body, but did not change according to his divinity. The name of this embodied God is and was Jesus Christ. In his humanity, Jesus Christ certainly did change and grow and die, just as we all do. But in his divinity, he remained fully divine, unchanging. The human body certainly is integral to the person of Jesus Christ, just as his divinity is. The humanity of Christ is just as necessary as his divinity.

Will Christ ever lose his physical body, maybe after the Second Coming? That would resolve, for me, what currently seems like a contradiction.

I literally burst out laughing at this part, because mainstream Christians tend to see LDS as way too literalistic in their interpretations, mostly involving the various "body parts" of God in the Old Testament. I've even heard LDS take pride in the fact that they take the scriptures so literally. But you make a good point in turning it around! It was just refreshingly unexpected...

Glad I could be refreshingly unexpected. I wonder if the symbolism and figurative language in the Bible is meant to allow us and individuals to seek out God and come to know Him. But it does make it hard when people start to disagree as to what is symbolic and what is literal.

Tonight, if I have some time during my library desk duties, I'd like to post a summary of the thread thus far. Apparently zerinus has chosen to believe the debate is over, and that mainstream Christians were completely unable to marshal any scriptural support for this position. I think even a cursory reading of this thread will demonstrate just the opposite, but I'll wait and see. Until then, take care, everyone

Thanks for that summary. I was wondering, partly from one of nathansoz's posts about trying to understand LDS ideas, if you found the LDS doctrine on the Godhead as one that could be justified from the Bible. Obviously you didn't like it enough to change your own paradigm... But were there items that you found contradictory or simply unjustifiable based on the Bible?

[zerinus]

So LDS doctrine is that men become "gods" in name only? Interesting.

LDS believed that men become gods in the same way that the early Christians believed men become gods.

This is a great quote. It demonstrated clearly one of the differences between ECF uses of the word "god" (theos) and our modern usage. For the ancient Greeks as well as many church fathers (including Hippolytus), anything that was immortal could be called "theos". This is clear from even the short quote above, "you were deified in being born to immortality". This was one area I researched for a recent paper, in fact. I can quote relevant scholars if you'd like.

That is not my reading of it.

/snip/

Already have. That's basically what this thread's been about. The Nicene Creed states the belief in only one God, with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit all being God and making up the Trinity. They are persons, as you've already agreed earlier. Therefore, what is wrong with "one God in three persons"? Tell me why I'm wrong, or I'll be forced to conclude you don't know.

I wasn't aware that you "had". The Nicene Creed does not teach your Trinitarian theology. This is what it says, to use your own quote:

I believe in

one God, the Father

Almighty, . . .

And in

one Lord Jesus Christ,

the only-begotten Son of God, . . .

And I believe in

the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life;

who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who

with the Father and the Son together is worshipped

and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.

This uses none of the Trinitarian language of the modern Trinitarians, nor even implies the concepts involved. It worships one God the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ, and one Holy Ghost. That makes three who are worshipped, not one.

zerinus

[rhinomelon]

LDS believed that men become gods in the same way that the early Christians believed men become gods.

Prove it. I've given you several examples of how LDS deification is different from early Christian deification, while you've simply said, "They use the same words, so they must be the same." This is manifestly not the case. For instance, the ancient Greeks as well as the early Christians used "theos" in a much broader sense than we do today. For many philosophers and early church fathers, natural immortality alone could qualify someone to be called "theos". But today, the term has a much narrower usage, even narrower when one considers the difference between "God" and "god" in common usage.

You have to dig deeper than mere surface similarities here, because the concepts at work give these words their meaning; one cannot assume that a word today means the same as a word two thousand years ago (especially translated from a different language!), or even one hundred years ago, or maybe even fifty! Heck, even English words have changed meanings since then. For example, back when my parents were kids, every young man wanted a gay marriage. How things change.

You've made your case based on surface similarities. I've pointed out several reasons why these surface similarities are just that. Now, either respond to directly to the counter-proposal, or give up the debate, because at that point you're not even debating anymore--you're preaching, and I save my sermons for Sunday. I really prefer discussion and dialogue to debate (that is what this folder's for, after all), but if even true debating is out the window with you, I'll just talk to people who are interested in true conversation.

This uses none of the Trinitarian language of the modern Trinitarians, nor even implies the concepts involved. It worships one God the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ, and one Holy Ghost. That makes three who are worshipped, not one.

The creed states there is only one God. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct persons, but as the Nicene Creed states , the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are "homoousios", or "of one substance or being". Therefore, one God in three persons. It's quite simple.

Now, what "language of the modern Trinitarians" is not found in early Christian discussions of the Trinity? Be specific. Cite the actual language. No more of your baseless accusations and groundless assertions.

Actually, I want to ask two simple, yes or no questions before I go any further with you.

(1) Do you want to have a correct understanding of the Trinity?

(2) Are you willing to back up your assertions with hard evidence, as is expected on these boards?

Take care, everyone

[rhinomelon]

I see you managed to interest zerinus again. Apparently you're not a 'hopeless case' any more.

Yeah, I know. But I'm thinking this is the kind of interest I could happily live without...

I agree. Most of the contradictions I saw are worked out as I have gone through this exercise. I tried to additionally see if the ideas were 'reasonable'. Removing all of my paradigm filters for that exercise was much more difficult.

Just the fact that you were able to see your filter and try to think through my filter is fantastic! I agree, it can be quite difficult to do, but it's a great exercise. For me, it helps me not only understand LDS theology, but also to see my theology in a different light. I've been able to teach my youth group kids about some pretty deep theological stuff because I had to see it from different angles in my discussions with LDS. I think more Gentile kids should grow up in Utah...

Just out of curiosity, what parts of your "filter" were the hardest to set aside? For me, the idea of God's "otherness" was difficult to put away for a little while.

Will Christ ever lose his physical body, maybe after the Second Coming? That would resolve, for me, what currently seems like a contradiction.

I don't believe Christ will ever lose his human body (otherwise he wouldn't really be "Jesus Christ" anymore, but simply the divine Son). And I think that belief is generally assumed throughout mainstream Christianity; I've never heard of anyone saying or even theorizing that the Son may one day "unincarnate". I think that Christ's unique role as the mediator or bridge between God and man would mean he always remains fully divine and fully human at the same time. So what's the contradiction that's still got you stuck?

Glad I could be refreshingly unexpected. I wonder if the symbolism and figurative language in the Bible is meant to allow us and individuals to seek out God and come to know Him. But it does make it hard when people start to disagree as to what is symbolic and what is literal.

There were not a few church fathers who felt just the same way about the sometimes-ambiguous language in the Bible. I think it was Origen who said that the seeming errors and oddities were meant to stretch our faith and cause us to dig deeper into the scriptures. In other words, God did it on purpose! Augustine tried early on to read through the prophetic books of the Old Testament, but got so confused he said he had to set it aside until he had "learned the Lord's language." So yeah, I think that the different kinds of language are meant to drive us closer to God, at least out of utter frustration and despair at ever figuring it all out!

Thanks for that summary. I was wondering, partly from one of nathansoz's posts about trying to understand LDS ideas, if you found the LDS doctrine on the Godhead as one that could be justified from the Bible. Obviously you didn't like it enough to change your own paradigm... But were there items that you found contradictory or simply unjustifiable based on the Bible?

That's a good question. I can certainly see how LDS can justify their doctrine of God using scripture, and some parts I find compelling. LDS are good at finding the "threeness in the Godhead" parts of scripture. The biggest problem that prevents me from adopting the LDS interpretation is the rejection of monotheism, which I think is one of the clearest, most cited teachings in the Bible. I've said elsewhere here that if I were not a Trinitarian but still wanted to take the Bible seriously, I'd either be a modalist or a unitarian. Tritheism or henotheism swings too far away from what I see as one of the most foundational teachings of the Bible.

So I guess I would say that some parts of LDS doctrine can certainly be justified from scripture, while other parts of LDS doctrine have to come from sources other than the scripture. Lucky you, you have additional sources to work with!

Take care

[zerinus]

Prove it.

The proof of it is that they said the same things. Here are some quotes:

. . . 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 [Christ] 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 [i.e. in the body] 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.)

[From Henry Bettenson,

The Early Christian Fathers

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

Do we cast blame on him [God] because we were not made gods from the beginning, but were at first created merely as men, and then later as gods? Although God has adopted this course out of his pure benevolence, that no one may charge him with discrimination or stinginess, he declares, â??I have said, Ye are

gods;

and all of you are the

sons of the Most High

.â? . . . For it was necessary at first that nature be exhibited, then after that what was mortal would be conquered and swallowed up in immortality. (Irenaeus,

Against Heretics

, 4.38.)

But he himself that justifies also defies, for by justifying he makes sons of God. â??For he has given them power to become the sons of Godâ? [John 1:12]. If then we have been made sons of God, we have also been

made gods

.â? (Augustine,

On the psalms

, 50.2.)

Theophilus: â??that a man, by keeping the directions of God, may receive from him immortality as a reward and

become God

â? (

ad Autol

. ii.27).

Clement of Alexandria said mankind was to become immortal: â??to be imperishable is to

share in Divinity

[to be like God]â? (

Strom

. v.10:63).

Hippolytus: â??Your body shall be immortal and incorruptible as well as your soul. For you have

become God

. All the things that follow upon the

divine nature

God has promised to

supply to you,

for you were

deified

in being born to immortalityâ? (

Philos

. x.34).

Athanasius: â??For He [Christ] was made man that

we might be made God

â? (

De Incar

. Para. 54). â??The Word was made Flesh in order to offer up this body for all, that

we might be deified

â? (

De Dec

. para. 14). â??He was God, and then became man, and that to

deify us

â? (

Orat

. I..para.39).

Chrysostom: â??Christ came to us, and took upon him our

nature

and

deified it

.â?

Gregory of Nyssa said that Christ coming in

flesh

has now

â??deified

everything

kindred and related to mankindâ?

(

Catechism

xxxv).

I've given you several examples of how LDS deification is different from early Christian deification, . . .

You havenâ??t done any such thing. All you have done is to keep harping on about Godâ??s â??nature,â? and how Mormons believe that men become â??Godsâ? by nature, while the ECFs didnâ??t; and I gave you quotations to prove that the opposite is in fact the case. LDS doctrine says nothing about â??natureâ?. It simply says that men become gods. It doesnâ??t say how they become gods. On the other hands, it is the ECFs who in fact say that men become gods by acquiring God's â??natureâ?. So it looks like you have scored an â??own goalâ? with that argument. You have proved nothing against Mormonism or in favor of Trinitarianism.

. . . while you've simply said, "They use the same words, so they must be the same."

When two people say the same things, the assumption is that they mean the same things, unless proved otherwise. If you think that they donâ??t mean the same things, then the burden of proof is on you to prove that they donâ??t, not on me to prove they do.

This is manifestly not the case. For instance, the ancient Greeks as well as the early Christians used "theos" in a much broader sense than we do today. For many philosophers and early church fathers, natural immortality alone could qualify someone to be called "theos". But today, the term has a much narrower usage, even narrower when one considers the difference between "God" and "god" in common usage.

That is no proof. It is a declaration without evidence. It prove nothing.

The creed states there is only one God. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct persons, . . .

The creed doesnâ??t say that. It says there is â??one Godâ? who is the Father; and â??one Lordâ? who is Jesus Christ. That makes two people, one God and one Lord. And it doesnâ??t say that they are conglomerated into a single God.

. . . but as the Nicene Creed states , the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are "homoousios", or "of one substance or being". Therefore, one God in three persons. It's quite simple.

That is not what â??homoousiosâ? means. If I have a table in my home made of oak, and you have a chair in your home made of oak, my table and your chair are â??of the same substanceâ?. That does not mean that they are the same identical objects. The reason why they put that word in there is that the Arians argued that they Father and the Son were not of the same substance (and used the word â??homoousiosâ? to express it). The council put that in there in order to counter the Arian asertion. They did not mean by it that the Father and the Sone were numerically one.

Now, what "language of the modern Trinitarians" is not found in early Christian discussions of the Trinity? Be specific. Cite the actual language.

The â??three Persons in one Godâ? language is not found in the Nicene Creed, nor is it implied.

Actually, I want to ask two simple, yes or no questions before I go any further with you.

(1) Do you want to have a correct understanding of the Trinity?

I think I already do!

(2) Are you willing to back up your assertions with hard evidence, as is expected on these boards?

LOL! I already have.

zerinus

[cksalmon]

The proof of it is that they said the same things. Here are some quotes:

The fundamental standard by which Mormons measure patristic beliefs is modern LDS theology and practice. This nonnegotiable premise must be recognized in order to understand Mormon work in patristics.

From this CRI article. In general, I find Welborn's article a bit superficial and much too cut-and-dried for my taste. I don't think Mormon scholars typically argue in the manner he suggests. With regard to your approach, however, I think Weldon may be spot-on.

You haven't done any such thing. All you have done is to keep harping on about God's "nature," and how Mormons believe that men become "Gods" by nature, while the ECFs didn't; and I gave you quotations to prove that the opposite is in fact the case. LDS doctrine says nothing about "nature". It simply says that men become gods.

But, the ECF's say quite a bit about "nature," that's the distinction you're failing to make.

Or, as Weldon has it:

Mormons look for remnants of what they consider correct theology; that is, theology that agrees with current Mormon beliefs. To Mormons, an important feature of this alleged correct theology is that historically the Eastern and Western Catholic churches either rejected it as heretical or ignored it as incidental. Mormons inductively argue that the existence of ancient teachings that are similar to current Mormon theology is evidence that the earliest Christians in the period of purity before the apostasy also believed such theology. Mormons then assert that as the Catholic churches grew corrupt and politically dominant, they pushed this alleged true theology out of existence, suppressing it and its advocates. Mormon academicians thus pick through the proverbial patristic refuse pile for scraps of theology that actually or potentially can match their own, while scarcely touching the banquet of teaching in the Bible. Perhaps the reason for this is that the Bible provides a poor foundation for Mormon theology and practice. This realization drives the diligent Mormon examination of extrabiblical sources, from ancient discarded beliefs to heretical new revelation, to find support for the existence of their Church.

cks

[rhinomelon]

The proof of it is that they said the same things.

But they did not mean the same things. To put it another way, they are using a different dictionary than you are. "Theos" to them carried different shades of meaning than "God" does today. Perhaps this will help:

Moderns are often unaware that [theos] had a much broader semantic range than is allowed for G/god in contemporary Western European languages. With respect to patristic notions of deification, drastic misunderstanding will occur if one does not properly appreciate this. As Murray Harris observes, God "may be used only to identify, not to describe, it cannot be used predicatively without suggesting equivalence or numerical identity (Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1992], p. 297). The same holds true for god. In contrast, [theos] originated as a predicative term and for this reason enjoyed a broad semantic range. Operative throughout the interpretation of Justin [Martyr's] testimony is the common synonymy between [theos] and [athanatos], that is, the understanding that any immortal being is a 'god'. Here [theos] retains the sense of its predicative usage. On the broad semantic range of [theos] and it's various synonymies, see [a long list of scholars and authors all exploring the various meanings of [theos] in antiquity--if you want the reading list, just let me know].

From Carl Mosser, "The Earliest Patristic Interpretations of Psalm 82, Jewish Antecedents, and the Origin of Christian Deification", Journal of Theological Studies, NS, Vol. 56, Pt 1, April 2005.

Now, how about some evidence (other than your own opinion) from some outside sources that contend that "theos" as used in the early church fathers is exactly the way it is used today. It's your turn.

[rhinomelon]

You havenâ??t done any such thing. All you have done is to keep harping on about Godâ??s â??nature,â? and how Mormons believe that men become â??Godsâ? by nature, while the ECFs didnâ??t; and I gave you quotations to prove that the opposite is in fact the case.

So you're arguing that in LDS belief, men do not become gods by nature? It's really quite simple; can men actually become gods in LDS theology, or do LDS just call them "gods" for kicks? If they actually become gods, then it is a matter of nature, whether you like the word or not.

And I'm fine with using words like "nature" and "person" to speak of the doctrine of the Trinity. Discussions about the definition of the Trinity are filled with such words, from at least the third century onward.

When two people say the same things, the assumption is that they mean the same things, unless proved otherwise. If you think that they donâ??t mean the same things, then the burden of proof is on you to prove that they donâ??t, not on me to prove they do.

That can safely be assumed of people from the same culture, same time period, and same language, although even then there is ambiguity. For instance, when John McCain and Barack Obama both talked about "ending the war in Iraq", did they mean precisely the same thing? As far as prove goes, I've provided many examples. For another one, see my last post. The ball's in your court.

The creed doesnâ??t say that. It says there is â??one Godâ? who is the Father; and â??one Lordâ? who is Jesus Christ. That makes two people, one God and one Lord. And it doesnâ??t say that they are conglomerated into a single God.

It says there is only one God, and that the Son is "God from God, Light from Light, Very God from Very God" etc. It says they are of the same substance, and that there is only one Being with that substance. Therefore, one God in three persons. Now, tell me why that definition is wrong. You haven't yet.

That is not what â??homoousiosâ? means. If I have a table in my home made of oak, and you have a chair in your home made of oak, my table and your chair are â??of the same substanceâ?. That does not mean that they are the same identical objects.

True enough, but if I know there is only one oak object in existence, then any oak is that object. That's one point you're missing here. There is only one God; the Son and the Spirit cannot be "God" without being one being.

The â??three Persons in one Godâ? language is not found in the Nicene Creed, nor is it implied.

The precise language isn't found, true, but it is implied. And the language is found in early church writings of the time regarding the Trinity. That is undeniable. Even a simple concordance search demonstrates this handily. I am not limiting my explanations of the Trinity to the creed alone; I am including all the writings and discussions that went into that creed.

I think I already do!

Nah, you're version bears little resemblance to what mainstream Christianity believes. It's utter bilge. Your understanding is deficient, which leads to your case against the actual doctrine deficient as well. If you actually made an effort to understand the doctrine, you'd probably be able to make an actual debate about this. JDave asks for more difficult and interesting questions than you do, because he's asking them with an understanding of the subject matter. This is what you lack, and I'd be happy to help you understand.

Take care, everyone

[rhinomelon]

Zerinus, here is where the rubber meets the road. If you think my definition of the Trinity is incorrect, then show me how it is such. Don't just tell me it is wrong.

If you say that your definition is the correct one, then I think we can agree that your definition is incorrect. Therefore, I would then propose that my definition is better, because it avoids the obvious logical errors of yours. We are then left with the same question: How is my definition of the Trinity wrong? Be specific.

Take care, everyone

[JDave]

Just the fact that you were able to see your filter and try to think through my filter is fantastic! I agree, it can be quite difficult to do, but it's a great exercise. For me, it helps me not only understand LDS theology, but also to see my theology in a different light. I've been able to teach my youth group kids about some pretty deep theological stuff because I had to see it from different angles in my discussions with LDS. I think more Gentile kids should grow up in Utah...

Just out of curiosity, what parts of your "filter" were the hardest to set aside? For me, the idea of God's "otherness" was difficult to put away for a little while.

Yep, it is a great exercise for helping one to understand even their own doctrine better. For me I had an obvious early hurdle of the material nature of God. Later on and even now I have a hard time with God the Son becoming human and yet still maintaining a "completely other" nature that has no relation to our own nature. What I was specifically thinking of when I wrote that was trying to place my understanding of the Trinity within a larger picture of eternity and how God relates to His creations.

I don't believe Christ will ever lose his human body (otherwise he wouldn't really be "Jesus Christ" anymore, but simply the divine Son). And I think that belief is generally assumed throughout mainstream Christianity; I've never heard of anyone saying or even theorizing that the Son may one day "unincarnate". I think that Christ's unique role as the mediator or bridge between God and man would mean he always remains fully divine and fully human at the same time. So what's the contradiction that's still got you stuck?

I view Christ taking on a mortal body, and then being resurrected with that same body now immortal, as a change to the nature of God the Son. The divine nature may not have changed, and there may be no mixing of substance, but the humanity the Christ took upon himself seems too integrally a part of Him to explain away by saying that only His divine nature need never change.

So yeah, I think that the different kinds of language are meant to drive us closer to God, at least out of utter frustration and despair at ever figuring it all out!

If you can't possibly comprehend something without turning to God, and it makes you want to turn to Him for understanding, has He done a good job? It's an interesting thought.

That's a good question. I can certainly see how LDS can justify their doctrine of God using scripture, and some parts I find compelling. LDS are good at finding the "threeness in the Godhead" parts of scripture. The biggest problem that prevents me from adopting the LDS interpretation is the rejection of monotheism, which I think is one of the clearest, most cited teachings in the Bible. I've said elsewhere here that if I were not a Trinitarian but still wanted to take the Bible seriously, I'd either be a modalist or a unitarian. Tritheism or henotheism swings too far away from what I see as one of the most foundational teachings of the Bible.

I guess when it comes to the actual text, the Bible speaks of ONE and it speaks of THREE. Trinitarians resolve that by saying God is Three in One. LDS resolve that by saying God is One in Three. I think either viewpoint can be read into the scriptures. I don't find the LDS viewpoint contradictory with monotheistic teachings in the Bible. But as I stated earlier, I think that (assuming one has a decent understanding of both viewpoints) the most compelling aspect of Trinitarianism is the stricter adherence to monotheism.

[zerinus]

So you're arguing that in LDS belief, men do not become gods by nature? It's really quite simple; can men actually become gods in LDS theology, or do LDS just call them "gods" for kicks? If they actually become gods, then it is a matter of nature, whether you like the word or not.

And I'm fine with using words like "nature" and "person" to speak of the doctrine of the Trinity. Discussions about the definition of the Trinity are filled with such words, from at least the third century onward.

That can safely be assumed of people from the same culture, same time period, and same language, although even then there is ambiguity. For instance, when John McCain and Barack Obama both talked about "ending the war in Iraq", did they mean precisely the same thing? As far as prove goes, I've provided many examples. For another one, see my last post. The ball's in your court.

It says there is only one God, and that the Son is "God from God, Light from Light, Very God from Very God" etc. It says they are of the same substance, and that there is only one Being with that substance. Therefore, one God in three persons. Now, tell me why that definition is wrong. You haven't yet.

True enough, but if I know there is only one oak object in existence, then any oak is that object. That's one point you're missing here. There is only one God; the Son and the Spirit cannot be "God" without being one being.

The precise language isn't found, true, but it is implied. And the language is found in early church writings of the time regarding the Trinity. That is undeniable. Even a simple concordance search demonstrates this handily. I am not limiting my explanations of the Trinity to the creed alone; I am including all the writings and discussions that went into that creed.

Nah, you're version bears little resemblance to what mainstream Christianity believes. It's utter bilge. Your understanding is deficient, which leads to your case against the actual doctrine deficient as well. If you actually made an effort to understand the doctrine, you'd probably be able to make an actual debate about this. JDave asks for more difficult and interesting questions than you do, because he's asking them with an understanding of the subject matter. This is what you lack, and I'd be happy to help you understand.

Take care, everyone

I find your arguments now becoming confused and disjointed, and make no sense. That is the sign of someone who has lost the argument, but doesn't want to admit it. No further comment need be added.

Donâ??t forget that this is an open forum. It is not a private discussion. Other people are reading the discussions. They are the ultimate judges of who has won or lost the argument. I will let them decide. It is obvious that you are never going to admit that you are wrong, no matter how much the argument goes against you. There comes a point where continuing the discussion is no longer a worthwhile exercise.

I rest my case. I will let others decide.

zerinus

[rhinomelon]

Donâ??t forget that this is an open forum. It is not a private discussion. Other people are reading the discussions. They are the ultimate judges of who has won or lost the argument. I will let them decide.

I'm pretty happy with my case here, and I've always been aware that this is an open forum. I welcome other people's opinions. See you around.

Now, on to some actual dialogue and discussion! JDave, I'll have some thoughts for you later on today. Anybody else want in? Apparently one of our main participants is off to bigger and better things. As for me, I could talk about the Trinity for a while yet.

Nathan, do you have any thoughts?

Take care, everyone

[Hoops22]

I will let others decide.

zerinus

Done.

[nathansoz]

I'm pretty happy with my case here, and I've always been aware that this is an open forum. I welcome other people's opinions. See you around.

Now, on to some actual dialogue and discussion! JDave, I'll have some thoughts for you later on today. Anybody else want in? Apparently one of our main participants is off to bigger and better things. As for me, I could talk about the Trinity for a while yet.

Nathan, do you have any thoughts?

Take care, everyone

Haha my thoughts would just be anticlimactic. I have been content to just read this and take it all in! I don't even know how I could participate.

[rhinomelon]

Haha my thoughts would just be anticlimactic. I have been content to just read this and take it all in! I don't even know how I could participate.

Just asking questions usually gets things rolling. And it's also almost impossible to argue with a person who's just asking questions.

And honestly, after the last 8 pages or so, "anticlimactic" sounds pretty nice...

Done.

Wow, quick decision! What's the verdict.

Take care, everyone