Trinity Definition and Justification

[nathansoz]

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...

Hmmm well does anyone know if a trinity justification can be found in say the Book of Mormon? I would find that interesting.

[rhinomelon]

Hmmm well does anyone know if a trinity justification can be found in say the Book of Mormon? I would find that interesting.

I think the kind of justification you'd find in the Book of Mormon would be about the same as you'd find in the Bible, with some differences. I could actually see the BoM leaning more towards modalism at some points, which is about as far from the borderline tritheism you find in the PGP and D&C as you can get! As far as specifics go, I'll have to get back to you on that one. I'm actually heading out tomorrow to help lead a youth retreat with a bunch of other churches, so I'll be out of touch for a bit.

JDave, I do have a response rolling around in my head. I'll see if I can get it out tomorrow before I leave. If not, well, something to look forward to next week...

Don't worry, I'll be back. Feel free to party on without me!

Take care, everyone

[Flyonthewall]

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.

(disclaimer)I know I've come in late, and this may have been explained in detail somewhere in the thread, but this is a sticking point for me in correctly understanding the Trinity. I don't have an academic background on the ECF so I can't say I've read any of them, and really, I am just looking for a simple explaination to help my confusion(/disclaimer)

You say "...One God in three persons. It's quite simple". Well call me a simpleton, or less than a simpleton since it's not as simple as you make it sound.

Here is the way I am seeing it:

If there is One God in 3 persons, and each are individually God, then there are 3 Gods. That is plain and simple

If there is One God in 3 persons, but not 3 Gods, then each are 1/3 God and together they make up a whole God. or

If there is One God in 3 persons, and they are God because of them being of "one substance or being", then there is something higher than the individuals, that being the substance. The substance is God and the 3 persons are part of the substance.

Is there another option? What am I missing?

[Mudcat]

(disclaimer)I know I've come in late, and this may have been explained in detail somewhere in the thread, but this is a sticking point for me in correctly understanding the Trinity. I don't have an academic background on the ECF so I can't say I've read any of them, and really, I am just looking for a simple explaination to help my confusion(/disclaimer)

You say "...One God in three persons. It's quite simple". Well call me a simpleton, or less than a simpleton since it's not as simple as you make it sound.

Here is the way I am seeing it:

If there is One God in 3 persons, and each are individually God, then there are 3 Gods. That is plain and simple

If there is One God in 3 persons, but not 3 Gods, then each are 1/3 God and together they make up a whole God. or

If there is One God in 3 persons, and they are God because of them being of "one substance or being", then there is something higher than the individuals, that being the substance. The substance is God and the 3 persons are part of the substance.

Is there another option? What am I missing?

Can't speak for Rhino, but I see where you are going with this concept of 1/3rd God to make up a whole. IMO, what makes my own view of the Trinity a little different from that concept, is that if the nature of God is a Tri-personal, then if we were to remove one person, you don't have 2/3rds of God left. Instead you have nothing, because its contradictory of the nature of God.

A poor illustration might be a triangle. It exists as three sides, if you remove one side then the triangle ceases to exist, it doesn't become 2/3rds of a triangle.

Hopefully I didn't muddy things up for you.

[zerinus]

Can't speak for Rhino, but I see where you are going with this concept of 1/3rd God to make up a whole. IMO, what makes my own view of the Trinity a little different from that concept, is that if the nature of God is a Tri-personal, then if we were to remove one person, you don't have 2/3rds of God left. Instead you have nothing, because its contradictory of the nature of God.

A poor illustration might be a triangle. It exists as three sides, if you remove one side then the triangle ceases to exist, it doesn't become 2/3rds of a triangle.

Hopefully I didn't muddy things up for you.

The trouble with that analogy is that it does not sit well with Trinitarian theology. According to the Athanasian Creed, which is the epitome of Trinitarianism, each member of the Trinity is by himself God; yet the three of them together constitute one God, not three Gods. To convert that to your analogy, it would be like saying that each side of the triangle is itself a triangle; yet they constitute one triangle and not three triangles. How does that make sense to you?

zerinus

[Flyonthewall]

Can't speak for Rhino, but I see where you are going with this concept of 1/3rd God to make up a whole. IMO, what makes my own view of the Trinity a little different from that concept, is that if the nature of God is a Tri-personal, then if we were to remove one person, you don't have 2/3rds of God left. Instead you have nothing, because its contradictory of the nature of God.

A poor illustration might be a triangle. It exists as three sides, if you remove one side then the triangle ceases to exist, it doesn't become 2/3rds of a triangle.

Hopefully I didn't muddy things up for you.

Well....this makes it sound like the Father is dependent upon the Son and HG to be God and cannot stand on His own, which does not compute in my mind.

This also sounds like the second scenario I mentioned...that God is a substance, and is greater or higher than the individuals, and the individuals in the Trinity are just elements of the substance. Each of the three would have to bring a different element to the substance, so that if one element were removed, the substance would be altered and could not exist as the same substance(I'm thinking Kool-Aid, it exists as a combination of water, sugar and flavor mix, take one of those away and you no longer have the Kool-Aid drink...probably a bad illustration).

[cksalmon]

Well....this makes it sound like the Father is dependent upon the Son and HG to be God and cannot stand on His own, which does not compute in my mind.

Hi Fly--

Traditional trinitarians do not hold that God the Father is alone God and that God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are extraneous divine accretions upon which the "Godness" of the Father is ontologically dependent. (That sounds more like Ostler's view than orthodox trinitarianism, frankly.) Your comment assumes a division of substance in the Godhead, which trinitarians have classically denied.

Best.

cks

[Tanyan]

This kind of reminds me of the Abbot/Costello "Who's on First ?" parady in relation to the Trinity. Perhaps one can come up with a description of the Trinity using the Abbot/Costello system .

In His Debt/Grace, Tanyan - LDS JEDI KNIGHT.

[Flyonthewall]

Hi Fly--

Traditional trinitarians do not hold that God the Father is alone God and that God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are extraneous divine accretions upon which the "Godness" of the Father is ontologically dependent. (That sounds more like Ostler's view than orthodox trinitarianism, frankly.) Your comment assumes a division of substance in the Godhead, which trinitarians have classically denied.

Best.

cks

Thanks for the reply cks. I wouldn't be surprised if there was more than one way the Trinity is described or understood by different Trinitarians. My understanding is a work in progress, and my comment was based upon Mudcat's statement that if one of the persons were removed, then God would cease to exist. It may not have been he way the statement was meant, but it is the way it struck me when I read it.

Perhaps you could help in clarifying my confusion?

If there is no division of substance, then the way it strikes me is still that the 3 individuals are elements of the substance, which is God.

[cksalmon]

Thanks for the reply cks. I wouldn't be surprised if there was more than one way the Trinity is described or understood by different Trinitarians. My understanding is a work in progress, and my comment was based upon Mudcat's statement that if one of the persons were removed, then God would cease to exist. It may not have been he way the statement was meant, but it is the way it struck me when I read it.

Perhaps you could help in clarifying my confusion?

If there is no division of substance, then the way it strikes me is still that the 3 individuals are elements of the substance, which is God.

Hi Fly--

If I might, perhaps presumptuously, clarify Mudcat's analogy: What I would mean, and what I suspect he would mean, is not that God would cease to exist if a trinitarian person were somehow removed from the equation (which is impossible), but rather that there is no absolute God who actually exists that is, at the same time, essnetially non-triune. We neither confound the persons, nor divide the substance, to borrow from the Symbolum Quicunque.

Best.

cks

[Flyonthewall]

Hi Fly--

If I might, perhaps presumptuously, clarify Mudcat's analogy: What I would mean, and what I suspect he would mean, is not that God would cease to exist if a trinitarian person were somehow removed from the equation (which is impossible), but rather that there is no absolute God who actually exists that is, at the same time, essnetially non-triune. We neither confound the persons, nor divide the substance, to borrow from the Symbolum Quicunque.

Best.

cks

I would have taken it for granted that the individuals in the Trinity could not be removed, and it was just a learning aid used for my sake. Which takes me back to first base so to speak.

If there are 3 individuals, and each are God, then that is 3 Gods. If there is one God because of the substance, then it is the substance that is God, not the individuals, the individuals are just parts of the substance...like a drop of water is part of the ocean, but yet each drop is considered ocean water. Am I way off?

[Mudcat]

The trouble with that analogy is that it does not sit well with Trinitarian theology. According to the Athanasian Creed, which is the epitome of Trinitarianism, each member of the Trinity is by himself God; yet the three of them together constitute one God, not three Gods. To convert that to your analogy, it would be like saying that each side of the triangle is itself a triangle; yet they constitute one triangle and not three triangles. How does that make sense to you?

zerinus

Hi Z,

Well I myself recognized it was a poor illustration, taken much beyond the point I was trying to make, the illustration quite nicely falls to pieces.

Hi Fly--

If I might, perhaps presumptuously, clarify Mudcat's analogy: What I would mean, and what I suspect he would mean, is not that God would cease to exist if a trinitarian person were somehow removed from the equation (which is impossible), but rather that there is no absolute God who actually exists that is, at the same time, essnetially non-triune. We neither confound the persons, nor divide the substance, to borrow from the Symbolum Quicunque.

Best.

cks

Presume away CK. You said it better than I could have.

[zerinus]

Hi Z,

Well I myself recognized it was a poor illustration, taken much beyond the point I was trying to make, the illustration quite nicely falls to pieces.

Anything that makes sense cannot be used as analogy for Trinitarianism, because Trinitarianism is at its very center nonsensical. The only analogy that would do it justice would have to be a nonsensical one, which would defeat your objective. Your problem is that you are trying to make sense of something that is intrinsically nonsensical, which means that you have set yourself an impossible task.

zerinus

[Mudcat]

Anything that makes sense cannot be used as analogy for Trinitarianism, because Trinitarianism is at its very center nonsensical. The only analogy that would do it justice would have to be a nonsensical one, which would defeat your objective. Your problem is that you are trying to make sense of something that is intrinsically nonsensical, which means that you have set yourself an impossible task.

zerinus

Hi Z,

I thought you were done with the argumentum ad nauseum . Or was that just Rhino vs. Z?

Anyways, I'm probably not the person you want to get in a discussion with on this... as my own views stray from the normative.

And given what I can only perceive as a tacit inflexibility you exhibit towards the beliefs of others and also a healthy penchant for assertiveness, I am not really that interested in discussing things with you.

The conversation would most likely wind up with you saying my beliefs are nonsensical, as you seem to be implying in the above post.

In an effort to save time, if you choose to reply to this post, why don't you just tell me one more time that it you believe the Trinity is a nonsensical concept and consider this post my reply in advance submitting that I totally disagree you, but see no sense in arguing about it.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

[zerinus]

In an effort to save time, if you choose to reply to this post, why don't you just tell me one more time that it you believe the Trinity is a nonsensical concept and consider this post my reply in advance submitting that I totally disagree you, but see no sense in arguing about it.

This sentence certainly didn't make any sense. I have read it several times to try and make sense of it so I can give it a reply, but I honestly couldn't. It could be an indication that Trinitarianism actually drves people mad, so that after a while nothing they say makes any sense!

zerinus

[JDave]

This sentence certainly didn't make any sense. I have read it several times to try and make sense of it so I can give it a reply, but I honestly couldn't. It could be an indication that Trinitarianism actually drves people mad, so that after a while nothing they say makes any sense!

Very good, zer

[rhinomelon]

You say "...One God in three persons. It's quite simple". Well call me a simpleton, or less than a simpleton since it's not as simple as you make it sound.

Here is the way I am seeing it:

If there is One God in 3 persons, and each are individually God, then there are 3 Gods. That is plain and simple

If there is One God in 3 persons, but not 3 Gods, then each are 1/3 God and together they make up a whole God. or

If there is One God in 3 persons, and they are God because of them being of "one substance or being", then there is something higher than the individuals, that being the substance. The substance is God and the 3 persons are part of the substance.

Is there another option? What am I missing?

Yes, the Trinity is not simple, even if a definition of it can be. The definition can be simple, but understanding all the implications of it can be tricky indeed! It's like when physicists define light as both an energy wave and a particle. Sounds simple, but understanding how it could be so still confuses the heck out of me!

As to an answer to your (very good) question, I think Mudcat and cksalmon already got the gist of it. We human beings cannot really visualize a different kind of existence from our own, or a different nature. Trinitarians believe that God is a tripersonal Being by nature. The Trinity is not a matter of combining three separate Gods or having a nature that is separate from the persons; rather, this is what God is, a single nature held completely and simultaneously by three persons in a single Being.

All analogies, based as they are on created, finite things, will fail at some point, but they are helpful for explaining certain aspects of an issue. For an analogy of the above, take the human being, with the human nature of body, soul and spirit (as we see in I Thessalonians, I think). Now, would we say that the human being is 1/3 body, 1/3 soul, and 1/3 spirit? I wouldn't say so. Rather, all three aspects of the human nature are fully present in a human being. Likewise, we could also look at the spirit specifically, and say truthfully that it is a human spirit (or a human soul or body). This does not mean that we have three humans in a human being, but that body, soul, and spirit are fully human and the full, complete human nature is body, soul, and spirit.

Now, if the above doesn't really make sense, keep in mind I just got through with a youth group winter retreat, and am operating on about six hours of sleep for the entire weekend...

Mudcat's triangle analogy is good for picturing how the nature of God is three and one, and how removing one person from the Trinity means you don't have "God" anymore. But zerinus is also correct that the analogy doesn't go a long ways in describing other aspects of the doctrine. But then, no analogy will. Mudcat's point fits well with his analogy. When you take a side from a triangle, its not a triangle anymore; you don't have 2/3 of a triangle.

Well....this makes it sound like the Father is dependent upon the Son and HG to be God and cannot stand on His own, which does not compute in my mind.

I wouldn't think of it in terms of "dependence", but you can safely say that for the Trinitarians, the Father is not God without the Son or the Spirit, nor is the Son considered "God" apart from the Father and the Spirit, nor is the Spirit considered "God" without the Father and the Son. For Trinitarians, "God" is a tripersonal Being, and if you take away a person, its not tripersonal anymore, and therefore it is not God.

If you think about it, even the language used to describe the persons in the Trinity implies the permanence of these relationships. After all, could the Father be called "Father" if there were no Son? Or vice versa?

What I would mean, and what I suspect he would mean, is not that God would cease to exist if a trinitarian person were somehow removed from the equation (which is impossible), but rather that there is no absolute God who actually exists that is, at the same time, essnetially non-triune.

Couldn't have said it better myself!

Anything that makes sense cannot be used as analogy for Trinitarianism, because Trinitarianism is at its very center nonsensical.

Actually, zerinus, what we all agree on is that your version of Trinitarianism is nonsensical. I wouldn't bother trying to defend your version, either! But what you have not demonstrated at all, to any degree, is that your version bears any substantial resemblance to what mainstream Christianity has believed for about 1700 years or so. I've studied this issue, written papers on it, and thought deeply about it in the context of my faith, for decades. You have not, and it shows.

You have not managed to show any reason why the Trinity as it has been defined by mainstream Christians themselves is nonsensical. Perhaps you should go start a thread of your own, where you can defend your own nonsensical trinitarian formula and cackle delightedly when it fails as you designed it to fail. No more "straw Gods" on this thread, please.

You've obviously got no idea what the classic Trinity is about, nor have you demonstrated any interest in learning. Flyonthewall has already contributed more substance to this thread in a handful of posts than you have in eight pages, because he is making an effort to understand the Trinity as it is, not as he wants it to be. I greatly appreciate that perspective, even if he doesn't agree with the doctrine itself. If an LDS person understands the Trinity and rejects it anyway, that's okay with me, honestly. What is so silly about your approach is that you haven't rejected the Trinity at all, only a strawman version of it.

Very good, zer

[Flyonthewall]

Yes, the Trinity is not simple, even if a definition of it can be. The definition can be simple, but understanding all the implications of it can be tricky indeed! It's like when physicists define light as both an energy wave and a particle. Sounds simple, but understanding how it could be so still confuses the heck out of me!

As to an answer to your (very good) question, I think Mudcat and cksalmon already got the gist of it. We human beings cannot really visualize a different kind of existence from our own, or a different nature. Trinitarians believe that God is a tripersonal Being by nature. The Trinity is not a matter of combining three separate Gods or having a nature that is separate from the persons; rather, this is what God is, a single nature held completely and simultaneously by three persons in a single Being.

All analogies, based as they are on created, finite things, will fail at some point, but they are helpful for explaining certain aspects of an issue. For an analogy of the above, take the human being, with the human nature of body, soul and spirit (as we see in I Thessalonians, I think). Now, would we say that the human being is 1/3 body, 1/3 soul, and 1/3 spirit? I wouldn't say so. Rather, all three aspects of the human nature are fully present in a human being. Likewise, we could also look at the spirit specifically, and say truthfully that it is a human spirit (or a human soul or body). This does not mean that we have three humans in a human being, but that body, soul, and spirit are fully human and the full, complete human nature is body, soul, and spirit.

Now, if the above doesn't really make sense, keep in mind I just got through with a youth group winter retreat, and am operating on about six hours of sleep for the entire weekend...

Mudcat's triangle analogy is good for picturing how the nature of God is three and one, and how removing one person from the Trinity means you don't have "God" anymore. But zerinus is also correct that the analogy doesn't go a long ways in describing other aspects of the doctrine. But then, no analogy will. Mudcat's point fits well with his analogy. When you take a side from a triangle, its not a triangle anymore; you don't have 2/3 of a triangle.

I wouldn't think of it in terms of "dependence", but you can safely say that for the Trinitarians, the Father is not God without the Son or the Spirit, nor is the Son considered "God" apart from the Father and the Spirit, nor is the Spirit considered "God" without the Father and the Son. For Trinitarians, "God" is a tripersonal Being, and if you take away a person, its not tripersonal anymore, and therefore it is not God.

If you think about it, even the language used to describe the persons in the Trinity implies the permanence of these relationships. After all, could the Father be called "Father" if there were no Son? Or vice versa?

Couldn't have said it better myself!

Actually, zerinus, what we all agree on is that your version of Trinitarianism is nonsensical. I wouldn't bother trying to defend your version, either! But what you have not demonstrated at all, to any degree, is that your version bears any substantial resemblance to what mainstream Christianity has believed for about 1700 years or so. I've studied this issue, written papers on it, and thought deeply about it in the context of my faith, for decades. You have not, and it shows.

You have not managed to show any reason why the Trinity as it has been defined by mainstream Christians themselves is nonsensical. Perhaps you should go start a thread of your own, where you can defend your own nonsensical trinitarian formula and cackle delightedly when it fails as you designed it to fail. No more "straw Gods" on this thread, please.

You've obviously got no idea what the classic Trinity is about, nor have you demonstrated any interest in learning. Flyonthewall has already contributed more substance to this thread in a handful of posts than you have in eight pages, because he is making an effort to understand the Trinity as it is, not as he wants it to be. I greatly appreciate that perspective, even if he doesn't agree with the doctrine itself. If an LDS person understands the Trinity and rejects it anyway, that's okay with me, honestly. What is so silly about your approach is that you haven't rejected the Trinity at all, only a strawman version of it.

I don't think he'll get it. And if he doesn't get it, then obviously it's impossible for anyone else to get it.

Take care, everyone

P.S. And Flyonthewall, if what I said doesn't make a lick of sense to you, I am more than happy to clarify my sleep-deprived ramblings. I appreciate the fact that you are asking questions based on how the Trinity is actually defined and understood, instead of chasing off after cheap imitations. You are making an effort to understand, and I really do admire and respect that!

Thanks Rhino! I appreciate all the explainations of the Trinity. I do want to get the concept correct, but it may be something that has to sink in, rather than me grasping it right away. Putting aside my current understanding of things is getting in the way, I think.

Your example of the body, soul and spirit was helpful, but I may look at body soul and spirit differently than you do.

I understand that we have a spirit, and right now we have a temporary physical body(which will become permanent after the resurrection), and together they make a living soul. Now my spirit is me, my body is me and my soul is me. My spirit is part of my soul and my body is part of my soul. These are not self contained entities like the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, they are pieces of me. My body is nothing without my spirit to animate it, and my soul is comprised of both my spirit and body.

Now all that being said, it did help the fog clear a bit...but it's still not clear.

[rhinomelon]

Now all that being said, it did help the fog clear a bit...but it's still not clear.

Glad that I could help somewhat. And it's nice to know that my earlier analogy might not work very well if one is using LDS categories; I'll keep that one on the back burner more!

As far as the Trinity being clear, I'll be the first to admit that there are plenty of foggy areas about the Trinity for me. That's one reason I enjoy discussing the Trinity on the boards here--you LDS can ask some good questions that make me think about new aspects of the doctrine. Your first questions on the thread here, for example, had me chewing on the doctrine over the weekend, only to find that Mudcat and ck had come to the same conclusions I had, only quicker.

For me, studying and thinking about the Trinity has some similarities with the hard sciences. There are physical laws that have been tried and tested, and must be incorporated into any theory (monotheism and the three persons called "God" would be theological laws, in this sense). There are theories that build on these laws to then explain other aspects of reality--the Trinity would be the best theory that reconciles the laws and further explains other aspects of the biblical testimony in a coherent way. And there is all the stuff that we really don't know or can't know. For example, in physics we know a great deal, but there is still a great deal of mystery that scientists haven't gotten a handle on yet. There is no unified field theory!

So, like physicists and biologists, I am happy with the stuff I do know, and use it to make sense of the reality presented to me, and I am likewise content with the permanence of mystery, stuff that I don't know (yet). The fact that there are things I don't know (what caused the Big Bang?) doesn't mean I should abandon the stuff I do know (water boils at 212 degrees F). Nor does the existence of mystery mean that what I claim to know automatically makes no sense, as zerinus seems to say.

Take care, everyone

[Flyonthewall]

Glad that I could help somewhat. And it's nice to know that my earlier analogy might not work very well if one is using LDS categories; I'll keep that one on the back burner more!

Yes, when explaining non-LDS concepts with words LDS use in a different way, may not clarify as much as one would like.

As far as the Trinity being clear, I'll be the first to admit that there are plenty of foggy areas about the Trinity for me. That's one reason I enjoy discussing the Trinity on the boards here--you LDS can ask some good questions that make me think about new aspects of the doctrine. Your first questions on the thread here, for example, had me chewing on the doctrine over the weekend, only to find that Mudcat and ck had come to the same conclusions I had, only quicker.

For me, studying and thinking about the Trinity has some similarities with the hard sciences. There are physical laws that have been tried and tested, and must be incorporated into any theory (monotheism and the three persons called "God" would be theological laws, in this sense). There are theories that build on these laws to then explain other aspects of reality--the Trinity would be the best theory that reconciles the laws and further explains other aspects of the biblical testimony in a coherent way. And there is all the stuff that we really don't know or can't know. For example, in physics we know a great deal, but there is still a great deal of mystery that scientists haven't gotten a handle on yet. There is no unified field theory!

So, like physicists and biologists, I am happy with the stuff I do know, and use it to make sense of the reality presented to me, and I am likewise content with the permanence of mystery, stuff that I don't know (yet). The fact that there are things I don't know (what caused the Big Bang?) doesn't mean I should abandon the stuff I do know (water boils at 212 degrees F). Nor does the existence of mystery mean that what I claim to know automatically makes no sense, as zerinus seems to say.

Take care, everyone

I can certainly understand that things need to be taken on faith. Know what you know and take on faith what isn't clear. I can see that there are aspects of LDS doctrine that don't make sense to others. Just because something doesn't make sense to me, doesn't mean it is not understandable.

[zerinus]

Yes, when explaining non-LDS concepts with words LDS use in a different way, may not clarify as much as one would like.

I can certainly understand that things need to be taken on faith. Know what you know and take on faith what isn't clear. I can see that there are aspects of LDS doctrine that don't make sense to others. Just because something doesn't make sense to me, doesn't mean it is not understandable.

Exactly! The problem with Trinitarianism is that it isnâ??t true, not that it doesnâ??t make sense. There are some people who still genuinely believe that the earth is flat. They can even bring, what appears to them at least, very good arguments to prove their caseâ??except that it isnâ??t true! Trinitarianism is like that. It is a ridiculous concept, and it is not true. But that doesnâ??t bar some people from believing in it, and trying to bring ridiculous (or cunningly devised) arguments to prove that it is true.

zerinus

[rhinomelon]

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.]

Just some additional information regarding the deification tangent zerinus got going. I've been looking through the book he recommended ("The Divinization of the Christian According to the Greek Fathers" by Jules Gross), and I think it is a pretty good read, if a bit dated (it was published in 1938). I'm just not sure that zerinus has read it too closely. The large bone of contention regarding deification is that I contend the early church fathers maintained a clear distinction between God's nature and human nature; zerinus denied this. So, from the book he himself recommended:

Regarding Clement of Alexandria (a favorite of LDS):

However, his Christianity preserved him from the pantheistic tendencies which dominate Hermeticism, whereby ultimate human happiness would consist in absorption by the first principle. Indeed, our doctor firmly maintains the distinction between God and the perfect human being.

--pg 141. So Clement of Alexandria certainly does not teach deification in the LDS sense, according to Gross (and everyone else I've read on the topic).

Regarding Origen, another LDS favorite:

This [fundamentally Christian] inspiration is clearly revealed in the place reserved for human freedom, in the central role assigned to the incarnate Logos, in the preponderance granted to the divine initiative in the work of salvation, and finally, above all, in the firmness with which the distinction between God and the deified creature is maintained.

--pg. 149. Origen does not fit with the LDS view of deification either.

Methodius, while maintaining the distinction between God and man, throws some extra wrinkles into the mix for LDS:

By transforming a person to the image of the divine Husband, virginity, and that 'alone, renders the one who possesses it, who has been initiated to its pure mysteries, like God.' Thus, above all, it is the divine gift of virginity that immortalizes humankind, and by that deifies them.

--pg 158. This is also about as far from LDS deification as one can get!

Regarding the "nature" question, Methodius also makes clear and permanent distinctions between God's nature and human nature:

The fact is that 'God alone is declared the unbegotten nature [agenetos], exempt from need and suffering, being incorporeal.

--pg. 154.

Hippolytus, quoted by zerinus earlier, also doesn't jive well with LDS deification:

After this, He had created the head of the universe [i.e. man], forming him out of every compound substance. He did not end up wanting to make a god or an angel--I am not misleading--but a human being. In fact, if He had wanted to make him god, He could gave done it; you have the example of the Logos. Wanting you to be human, He made you human. If, however, you also want to become god, obey the One who has made you and do not resist Him now, in order that having been found faithful in the little things, you can receive great things from Him. The Logos alone is [descended] from God; this is why He is God, being God's substance [ousia huparchon theou]. The world, on the contrary, is derived from nothingness. This is why it is not god; it is susceptible to being dissolved, when the Creator wants it.

--Hippolytus, "Heresies" 10:33, quoted by Gross on pg. 150-151. Once again, distinctions between God's nature or substance and man's. Gross also writes that Hippolytus distinguishes between the divine Word and the human nature in Christ, pg. 152.

Regarding Athanasius:

Assimilation, not identification, specifies the bishop of Alexandria, for the deified are children of God by adoption, by grace alone; they will never become children by nature, like the incarnated Logos: 'Only One is Son by nature; the others of us become children as well, not, however, like Him, by nature and reality, but according to the grace of the One who calls us. While being people of the earth, we are called gods, not like the true God or His Logos, but just as God has wanted, who has given this grace to us.'

--Gross, pg. 172-173, Athanasius quote from "Contra Arius" 3:19. Once again, from Athanasius this time, a clear distinction between the divine and human natures. Athanasius also defines his use of the term "theos" with reference to humans, noting that it is not in terms of nature, but in terms of adoption and grace that humans can be called "gods".

Regarding Gregory of Nyssa, quoted by zerinus above:

The original condition of our first parents, then, could not have been higher and happier: in them human nature was truly 'assimilated to the sovereign dignity,' [Or. catech. 6] thus deified, 'as far as possible.'[On the Making of Man 12] What this reservation as far as possible implies, the bishop of Nyssa explains more than once with all desirable clarity. 'Human beings are a copy [minema] of the divine nature,'[Or. catech. 21] they partake 'of the properties of divinity;' but will never be able to obtain 'the identity of nature' [ten tes physeos idioteta][Anim. et res.] with God. The archetype, the 'uncreated,' is 'unchanging by nature,' whereas the image, the 'created,' 'having existence from a change, is subject to alteration and does not remain absolutely in existence.' [On the Making of Man 16]

--pg. 180. Once again, Gregory of Nyssa assumes clear distinctions between God and man in terms of nature. Therefore, on that basis alone it is inarguable that the early church fathers taught deification in the same way LDS do, as zerinus claims. There is clearly at least one absolutely fundamental contradiction between the two.

Now zerinus, do you have any bona fide scholars who would back up your claims in this regard? Even the one source you recommended contradicts you time after time!

Take care, everyone

[rhinomelon]

Exactly! The problem with Trinitarianism is that it isnâ??t true, not that it doesnâ??t make sense.

Ah, so you're now conceding that the Trinity can make sense, but now you've shifted the argument to "it's just not true". Interesting. I accept your concession.

Anyway, I'm not sure how your response comports with Flyonthewall's comment.

It is a ridiculous concept, and it is not true.

Ah, concession retracted! Seriously, I would take this statement more seriously if you had actually been able to bring cogent arguments to bear on the doctrine of the Trinity, but you've missed the boat on that one. I readily grant that you do not understand the Trinity, and don't want to understand the Trinity, because you think it is nonsensical. That certainly doesn't mean that other people don't understand it, or that it is truly nonsensical for everyone.

But that doesnâ??t bar some people from believing in it, and trying to bring ridiculous (or cunningly devised) arguments to prove that it is true.

As opposed to people bringing ridiculous, fallacious, incoherent arguments to prove that it's not true, you mean. I don't know that you've shown one pro-Trinitarian argument on this thread to be "ridiculous", and I think most people on here (LDS and non) would agree with me. You simply haven't proven either of your assertions, that the doctrine of the Trinity is "untrue" or "nonsensical".

Yes, when explaining non-LDS concepts with words LDS use in a different way, may not clarify as much as one would like.

Good point, Fly. Once again, a demonstration of the need to think outside one's particular box in order to better communicate to those outside it.

I can certainly understand that things need to be taken on faith. Know what you know and take on faith what isn't clear. I can see that there are aspects of LDS doctrine that don't make sense to others. Just because something doesn't make sense to me, doesn't mean it is not understandable.

Great point, and I hope zerinus can take to heart your last sentence.

Take care, everyone

[rhinomelon]

I understand that we have a spirit, and right now we have a temporary physical body(which will become permanent after the resurrection), and together they make a living soul. Now my spirit is me, my body is me and my soul is me.

Interesting, Fly. I'll have to admit that I'm not as familiar as I'd like to be with the LDS conception of the human person, whether it's tripartite (body, soul, spirit) or bipartite (body and spirit or soul), and all that. From what you said, LDS seem to lean more to the latter.

As far as the analogy I proposed earlier, would it make more sense if I riffed on your last sentence, asking if you would consider your spirit "1/3 of me", or the body "1/3 of me," or the soul "1/3 of me"? Or are they all equally, fully me, because they are all an intrinsic, necessary part of what it means to be "me"?

My body is nothing without my spirit to animate it, and my soul is comprised of both my spirit and body.

To put this into a Trinitarian analogy, the Father is not a Father without a Son, and vice versa. Both are permanently necessary and an intrinsic part of what it means to be "God". Likewise, I would assume that you would not be a human being in any real sense without a spirit to animate a body, or for a body to house a spirit. Am I understanding you correctly here?

Take care

[zerinus]

Actually, zerinus, what we all agree on is that your version of Trinitarianism is nonsensical. I wouldn't bother trying to defend your version, either! But what you have not demonstrated at all, to any degree, is that your version bears any substantial resemblance to what mainstream Christianity has believed for about 1700 years or so. I've studied this issue, written papers on it, and thought deeply about it in the context of my faith, for decades. You have not, and it shows.

You have not managed to show any reason why the Trinity as it has been defined by mainstream Christians themselves is nonsensical. Perhaps you should go start a thread of your own, where you can defend your own nonsensical trinitarian formula and cackle delightedly when it fails as you designed it to fail. No more "straw Gods" on this thread, please.

You've obviously got no idea what the classic Trinity is about, nor have you demonstrated any interest in learning. Flyonthewall has already contributed more substance to this thread in a handful of posts than you have in eight pages, because he is making an effort to understand the Trinity as it is, not as he wants it to be. I greatly appreciate that perspective, even if he doesn't agree with the doctrine itself. If an LDS person understands the Trinity and rejects it anyway, that's okay with me, honestly. What is so silly about your approach is that you haven't rejected the Trinity at all, only a strawman version of it.

The definition of the Trinity I use is the classic, traditional, historical definition as taught in the Athanasian Creed, which is also the only valid one as far as I am concerned. It is as follows:

Athanasian Creed

1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;

2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;

4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.

5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.

6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.

7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.

8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.

9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.

11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.

12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.

13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.

14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.

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.

17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;

18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.

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.

21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.

22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.

23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.

25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.

26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.

27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.

29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.

31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.

32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.

33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.

34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.

35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.

36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.

37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;

38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;

39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;

40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;

42. and shall give account of their own works.

43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.

44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.

It speaks for itself. I don't need to do anything to it.

zerinus