Incoherency of Mainstream Christology

[Brenda]

The point is that there is water, ice, and vapor, and they have the same molecular formula, yet they are separate from each other on the table (with vapor in the air).

Okay, I can kind of get that . . . sort of. Now, do ALL non-LDS Christians agree with that? That's my complaint. Just when I think I have a workable definition, another Christian steps forward, and says, No! That's not what I believe!.

Then I go back to square one.

[ChristKnight]

Good luck on finding a central source of doctrine for MC. Oh how I wish there was one. As for LDS doctrine, there are a number of sources. Start with lds.org.

So then I'm curious as to how you "know" that these lists are shorter in LDS Christianity than Mainstream Christianity. And of course there won't be a "central source of doctrine for MC", since it is not a monolithic organization. You have to compare to specific churches, otherwise we can also compare to the entirety of movements extending from Joseph Smith's first vision, such as the Community of Christ, Strangites, etc. I represent (or am trying to ) the Catholic position.

And if there is no "list" for LDS either, then...

For Catholics, the Catechism is a good place to start.

[ChristKnight]

Okay, I can kind of get that . . . sort of. Now, do ALL non-LDS Christians agree with that? That's my complaint. Just when I think I have a workable definition, another Christian steps forward, and says, No! That's not what I believe!.

Then I go back to square one.

Yes, I think that is probably the best analogy I have seen. Now, I don't know if all non-LDS Christians agree with it, since we are not one monolithic group! Of course we cannot compare the two fully because non-LDS Christians do not agree on everything, hence the reason why there are so many different churches claiming various things, many times from the same KJV of the Bible.

[Sargon]

I read an informal essay by William Lane Craig on this subject, but I was disappointed that he didn't address the issue at all. He basically argued that Jesus' divine attributes were stored in his subliminal subconscious during his mortal life. This of course doesn't erase the fact that an individual, even Jesus, can't be both uncreated and created ex nihilo at the same time.

[ChristKnight]

Maybe my problem is that I'm lumping all non-LDS Christians into one group. Yet, don't they all call each other Christian? Is an EV not a Christian to a Baptist? Or a Baptist a Christian to a Catholic?

Maybe I'm just wanting simplicity, consistency, and clarity, to be where it just isn't.

Sorry, just saw this. Yes, I do believe the issue is lumping all non-LDS Christians into one group. And not all of us call each other Christians. I post on the CARM forums, and well, they definitely don't think Catholics are Christians. So, I think it's easier to compare to specific groups, rather than "non-LDS Christianity" (at least in many cases), since we are not one organization.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Haha, those are...interesting analogies.

The best one that I have heard is this:

The molecular formula of water is H2O. That is the "substance" of water, it is what water is. Now, I can have a cup of water, a bowl of ice, and some water vapor. They are completely separate and distinct. Yet they all still have "H2O" as the molecular formula. That is the analogy that I like the best, and from the Catholic perspective, explains "consubstantial" well. Of course, one can nitpick and say that the ice is melting and water evaporating, but that's besides the point of the analogy. The point is that there is water, ice, and vapor, and they have the same molecular formula, yet they are separate from each other on the table (with vapor in the air).

I very much appreciate this my catholic brother. I think this is a very interesting analogy. I must say that all three are separate and distinct but all 3 have the same element in them. Is that what you are saying in a nut shell?

I must fall back to what Maklelan has said

"According to the doctrine of consubstantiality, they are separate and united at the exact same time. The three physical states of water fail because water molecules cannot be all three at the same time. If the Hypostatic Union truly is incomprehensible then there are no adequate analogies for it."

He does have a point on the bolded part.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I post on the CARM forums, and well, they definitely don't think Catholics are Christians.

At leat we can claim that we truely do have something in common. Lol. That is that CARM doesn't see us as Christians either.

[Daniel Peterson]

Will it "never" be comprehensible in the next life, or only this one? What are we using to "comprehend", our human brains? How will we "think" in the spirit world? I think these are important questions to discerning how far this incomprehensibility goes. For Catholics, it ends in Heaven where we have the beatific vision, and become co-heirs in Christ, partakers of the Divine nature (the culmination of a process that began with baptism).

It's not at all apparent that propositions that are logically incoherent can ever be comprehended, because they are, by definition and by nature, incomprehensible.

I agree with Catholics that, in the life to come, we -- or, at least, the blessed faithful -- will fully comprehend God. But I can believe that only because I also believe that the "facts" about God are, however difficult, ultimately coherent.

[Doctor Steuss]

So can you fully comprehend God in this life?

I'm still trying to comprehend myself.

At least for Catholics, we will be able to fully comprehend God in Heaven. This is called the "beatific vision". We are currently limited by human minds to comprehend something eternal. However in the afterlife, we will be able to comprehend God.

I didn't know about this Catholic tenet. Groovy.

Learned something new... thank you.

[ChristKnight]

I very much appreciate this my catholic brother. I think this is a very interesting analogy. I must say that all three are separate and distinct but all 3 have the same element in them. Is that what you are saying in a nut shell?

I must fall back to what Maklelan has said

"According to the doctrine of consubstantiality, they are separate and united at the exact same time. The three physical states of water fail because water molecules cannot be all three at the same time. If the Hypostatic Union truly is incomprehensible then there are no adequate analogies for it."

He does have a point on the bolded part.

No problem! Yes, I am saying that all three are separate and distinct, but all 3 have the same elements in them. I call H2O the "substance" in this analogy.

Now, as for "the three physical states of water fail because...", I do not agree with that. Firstly what does he mean by "united"? Also, it is not that water molecules are to be all three at the same time (as in, one group of H2O molecules being solid, liquid, and gas at the same time). It is as I explained it, that they are separate and distinct, yet they all are the same substance (H2O). In fact, humans are consubstantial with each other. We all are composed of the same "stuff" that makes us human and not roaches. Now, with humans this gets much more complex than the water example, since we are that much more complex. However, the water example is the best one. Now imagine if the ice, water, and vapor was not just of the same substance (H2O), but was also one in purpose, will and intent (whatever that would mean for water... ). That would be a good approximation of the Trinity.

As for the bolded part, I would say that the hypostatic union is not fully comprehensible (at least in this ife), and for that reason, no analogy can fully explain it. I would agree with that.

[ChristKnight]

At leat we can claim that we truely do have something in common. Lol. That is that CARM doesn't see us as Christians either.

LOL i know, I browse the Mormonism board, and both of our boards are fiascos. I'm currently hitting my head against the desk trying to explain Catholic beliefs. It's really pointless.

[ChristKnight]

It's not at all apparent that propositions that are logically incoherent can ever be comprehended, because they are, by definition and by nature, incomprehensible.

I agree with Catholics that, in the life to come, we -- or, at least, the blessed faithful -- will fully comprehend God. But I can believe that only because I also believe that the "facts" about God are, however difficult, ultimately coherent.

Right, and I still think that what we are trying to "comprehend" with (i.e. our brains) is very important to consider in these arguments, since we are trying to comprehend the Eternal. Now, I sometimes agree with the Eastern Orthodox position that once we try to keep defining and explaining something that we cannot fully comprehend until the next life, we will descend into logical incoherence. Therefore, I can see much logic in the Trinity and the Hypostatic Union, yet when we keep trying to get into the details and specifics of the Eternal, in this life, it will become illogical.

And yes, I agree that the "facts' about God are ultimately coherent. However we cannot fully comprehend the eternal in this life with our limited minds, nor am I sure that God wants us to fully know how He thinks and operates in this life, as I believe the Bible says (or maybe it's not that He doesn't want us to know, just that it is not possible for us to know His ways fully).

[TrespassersW]

So can you fully comprehend God in this life? At least for Catholics, we will be able to fully comprehend God in Heaven. This is called the "beatific vision". We are currently limited by human minds to comprehend something eternal. However in the afterlife, we will be able to comprehend God.

I don't have a problem when someone says "I don't comprehend God." I have a problem when someone says "I DO comprehend God and because you comprehend Him differently you aren't a Christian," but then, when asked to explain their view of God, go right back to "we can't comprehend God."

I've grown really tired of being told I'm not a Christian because I don't accept the Trinity by people who themselves admit that they don't understand the Trinity.

[ChristKnight]

I'm still trying to comprehend myself.

I didn't know about this Catholic tenet. Groovy.

Learned something new... thank you.

No problem!

And yes, I'm still trying to comprehend as well.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

No problem! Yes, I am saying that all three are separate and distinct, but all 3 have the same elements in them. I call H2O the "substance" in this analogy.

Now, as for "the three physical states of water fail because...", I do not agree with that. Firstly what does he mean by "united"? Also, it is not that water molecules are to be all three at the same time (as in, one group of H2O molecules being solid, liquid, and gas at the same time). It is as I explained it, that they are separate and distinct, yet they all are the same substance (H2O). In fact, humans are consubstantial with each other. We all are composed of the same "stuff" that makes us human and not roaches. Now, with humans this gets much more complex than the water example, since we are that much more complex. However, the water example is the best one. Now imagine if the ice, water, and vapor was not just of the same substance (H2O), but was also one in purpose, will and intent (whatever that would mean for water... ). That would be a good approximation of the Trinity.

As for the bolded part, I would say that the hypostatic union is not fully comprehensible (at least in this ife), and for that reason, no analogy can fully explain it. I would agree with that.

Good. it seems that we could agree on this.

I really only should have quoted teh bolded part. I don't wish to argue if the analogy fails or not. You feel it adequetly defines your beliefs and that is all that I am after. Thanks.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I don't have a problem when someone says "I don't comprehend God." I have a problem when someone says "I DO comprehend God and because you comprehend Him differently you aren't a Christian," but then, when asked to explain their view of God, go right back to "we can't comprehend God."

I've grown really tired of being told I'm not a Christian because I don't accept the Trinity by people who themselves admit that they don't understand the Trinity.

I don't think this is ChristKnight's position though. Some people on this board do hold to this position and I too am sick of it.

[ChristKnight]

I don't have a problem when someone says "I don't comprehend God." I have a problem when someone says "I DO comprehend God and because you comprehend Him differently you aren't a Christian," but then, when asked to explain their view of God, go right back to "we can't comprehend God."

I've grown really tired of being told I'm not a Christian because I don't accept the Trinity by people who themselves admit that they don't understand the Trinity.

I think there is a difference in saying "I don't understand the Trinity" and "I don't fully understand the Trinity". I think that those that say that LDS are not Christians because of the difference in theology on God say this based on what they know (or think they know) about the Trinity, and see what they "know" as contradicting what LDS "know" about God. I have never seen someone say "we can't comprehend God" in response to someone asking them to explain their view of God.

I personally believe that LDS are Christians in that we all believe in and worship Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The "not Christian" part comes up when you add to that definition, such as belief in the traditional Trinity. This is why the Catholic Church does not accept LDS baptism. Of course, that is for a different thread.

[ChristKnight]

I don't think this is ChristKnight's position though. Some people on this board do hold to this position and I too am sick of it.

Thank you. Yes, I fully believe that LDS are Christians for the reasons I said above. Whenever we add to that definition, we can come to others not being Christians. Hence why CARMites don't think Catholics are Christian, as another example.

[Brenda]

Sorry, just saw this. Yes, I do believe the issue is lumping all non-LDS Christians into one group. And not all of us call each other Christians. I post on the CARM forums, and well, they definitely don't think Catholics are Christians. So, I think it's easier to compare to specific groups, rather than "non-LDS Christianity" (at least in many cases), since we are not one organization.

As far as the nature of God/Christ, I've never seen an inconsistency of beliefs among LDS members. We have one final source to look to, and that's our current prophet. So we're very used to simple and concise definitions. We (or at least I) become uncomfortable when things appear wavering and vague, and even worse, over-explained.

I lump all non-LDS Christians into one group, because I ASSUMED they all agreed on the Christian title. We too, call them ALL Christian, as we call ourselves Christian, even though our beliefs differ. Most of them do not include us as Christians BECAUSE our beliefs differ too much. The divisions between other churchs is so blurred, that we LDS constantly trip up in trying to sort it all out. (Btw, I don't see how break-off groups of the LDS Church can be confused with us in a like manner. They are as different from us as any other Christian church. We recognize no authority in any former-LDS group whatsoever. Yet, as long as they worship Christ, they are Christian.)

Anyway, it usually boils down to communication. Too often, we just don't speak the same language.

[Brenda]

So, I think it's easier to compare to specific groups, rather than "non-LDS Christianity" (at least in many cases), since we are not one organization.

Another question: Since you are not one organization--is one right and the others wrong? If not, then are you ALL right? Or are SOME right? If so, then doesn't that make those that are right, one organization?

(Right--meaning, teach true doctrine.)

Note: At least with Catholics, (bless their hearts) they are more defined and easier to sort out from among everyone else. I can really appreciate that!

[ChristKnight]

As far as the nature of God/Christ, I've never seen an inconsistency of beliefs among LDS members. We have one final source to look to, and that's our current prophet. So we're very used to simple and concise definitions. We (or at least I) become uncomfortable when things appear wavering and vague, and even worse, over-explained.

I agree. Over explanation is a key issue in doctrinal definition.

I lump all non-LDS Christians into one group, because I ASSUMED they all agreed on the Christian title. We too, call them ALL Christian, as we call ourselves Christian, even though our beliefs differ. Most of them do not include us as Christians BECAUSE our beliefs differ too much. The divisions between other churchs is so blurred, that we LDS constantly trip up in trying to sort it all out. (Btw, I don't see how break-off groups of the LDS Church can be confused with us in a like manner. They are as different from us as any other Christian church. We recognize no authority in any former-LDS group whatsoever. Yet, as long as they worship Christ, they are Christian.)

Sadly, not all non-LDS Christian churches agree on who is Christian. Catholics are typically called non-Christian by many evangelicals and fundamentalists, as well as churches like Seventh Day Adventists, various types of Baptists, Assemblies of God, etc. Orthodox are usually forgotten, but when remembered, they are grouped in with Catholics. I think there are clear divisions in non-lDS Christianity, where we do not all recognize the same authoritative leaders, hence why there are various types of churches. For Catholics, the sign of Catholicism is union with the Bishop of Rome, the Pope. I agree that break-off groups of the LDS Church cannot be confused with the LDS Church, however many group them all together under "Latter-day Saint movement" or "Mormonism", defining those terms as those groups that see Joseph Smith as a prophet, and leave it at that. I don't think that is right, however I think it is a clear example of how even if we may have common origins, we do not agree on everything (including whether others are Christian), hence why there are various denominations.

Anyway, it usually boils down to communication. Too often, we just don't speak the same language.

I agree. Definition of terms is always important. I'm currently trying to argue this over on CARM, where they keep telling me that we believe Mary was the mother of the Trinity. Sigh.

[maklelan]

No problem! Yes, I am saying that all three are separate and distinct, but all 3 have the same elements in them. I call H2O the "substance" in this analogy.

But three different and separate states of the same substance is not the Trinity. The Trinity is three different states of one substance dwelling at the same time in the same person. It's 100% water and 100% ice at the same time, not ice one minute and water the next minute, but the same molecules throughout.

[ChristKnight]

Another question: Since you are not one organization--is one right and the others wrong? If not, then are you ALL right? Or are SOME right? If so, then doesn't that make those that are right, one organization?

(Right--meaning, teach true doctrine.)

Note: At least with Catholics, (bless their hearts) they are more defined and easier to sort out from among everyone else. I can really appreciate that!

Well, that is a complicated question. For Catholics, we of course believe that we are right, as in, teaching all of the true doctrines. Therefore, we would believe that non-Catholics have either added or deleted something, causing them to not be "right" on various issues. In that, we believe that "apostolic succession" is important in determining who is right. Apostolic succession is not just tracing back the bishops to the Apostles. It is also about the continuance of doctrine. Thus, one can trace their bishops somehow back to the Apostles, yet some addition or subtraction of doctrine causes the succession to break. One example of this is with Anglicans that allow the ordination of women. Because of that (among other reasons), there is a break in apostolic succession. We believe that this is related to the sacraments, and the ability to "validly" give the sacraments. Another example is the Orthodox Church. They separated from the Catholic Church (or, more objectively, we separated from each other). However, they have not added or deleted any doctrines (they remain somewhat static in doctrinal development), and because of that, the Catholic Church believes that the Orthodox have valid apostolic succession, hence a valid priesthood and sacraments. This is a complicated issue that probably isn't for this thread, but I hope that gives an example.

So, for Catholics, in non-LDS Christianity, we hold the Catholic Church as the standard. Other groups have departed from it on various doctrines, however they are also "right" in many regards. This is the same with our view on the LDS Church (with the Trinity being a big issue of difference, as it is with Jehovah's Witnesses, Oneness Pentecostals, etc). And you will see that each group believes the same things about themselves, otherwise they would not exist! As universalist as a group may be, they still believe that they have something, even if it is just one thing, more "right" than the other groups, otherwise they wouldn't exist.

[changed]

I just had a FB chat in which, by the end of the chat, this is how God was defined:

Definition of god by the majority of the Christian faiths.

An abstract, unknown, immaterial spirit, that fills the immensity of space and is everywhere and nowhere in particular present, philosophical thought experiment, whose revelation has ceased, prophets and apostles are no more, inspired only one book â?? the Bible, deals with no other people on the Earth except the Jews, damns to hell all who do not believe (whether or not they had the chance to learn of Him in this life or not), does not care what works you do, creator of everything â?? including Satan and evil, whose purpose in creation is to obtain a horde of inferior groveling slaves to eternally worship Himâ?¦ Schizophrenic 3 in one being who prays to Himself crying â??not my willâ?¦ but my other willâ?¦ be done.â?

How would your enemy describe you to others as? The above description of God was authored by the Devil.

Such a convoluted warped picture of who God is, I don't even know where to start.... and this is who the majority of Christians think God is???? sad.

[ChristKnight]

But three different and separate states of the same substance is not the Trinity. The Trinity is three different states of one substance dwelling at the same time in the same person. It's 100% water and 100% ice at the same time, not ice one minute and water the next minute, but the same molecules throughout.

No it is not "three different states of one substance dwelling at the same time in the same person". That is something called "modalism" or sabellianism. I will give the Catholic understanding, however I believe it is common among those that believe in the Trinity. It is that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three separate, distinct Persons (not one Person). They are as separate as I am from you. We see this at Jesus' baptism, and we also know that Jesus did not pray to Himself. He prayed to the Father, as they are separate Persons. However, they are also "one in substance/being/essence/whatever you want to call it". This is what is meant by "consubstantial". In the water example, I use "H2O" as the substance".

It is not correct that the understanding of the water analogy is "ice one minute and water the next minute, but the same molecules throughout". The analogy I gave is this-there is a cup of water on the table. There is also a bowl of ice on the table as well. There is also water vapor in the air. Each of these is separate (of course) and distinct. Yet, they all are the same substance, i.e. H2O. Imagine that this is a "system" (from chemistry and physics). The system is at equilibrium, therefore there is no change of state of any of the things that are in the bowl, cup, or in the air. That is what the Trinity is, as far as consubstantial goes. It is incorrect to say that it is three different states in the same person, if for anything because we believe there are Three Persons, not one.