'For my Father is greater than I.'

[3DOP]

St. Paul sets out a rule by which we can reconcile revelation which teaches that Christ is equal to the Father in one sense, and less than the Father in another sense. Speaking of the Son Incarnate he writes:

Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man.

---Phil 2:6, 7

Very simply, in the form of God, Christ is equal. In the form of a servant, made in man's likeness for the purpose of redeeming us as the Second Adam, He is not equal. As man, he became susceptible even to death as we see in the next passages. Someone else cited Hebrews to show that Christ was lower than the angels. In the same book, the author says He is made higher than the angels.

Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath inherited a more excellent name than they...But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour: that, through the grace of God, he might taste death for all.

---Heb. 1:4 and 2:9

So which is it? Higher or lower than the angels? Equal to or less than the Father? In both cases, it is both, according to whether our perspective is of Christ as He is in the form of God, or Christ as He is in the form of man per Phillipians 2.

-----------------------------------------------

1 Cor. 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

However, we do have confusion in the Christian Churches of the world on this and other issues. Why is that? Why would God confuse us with so many different ideas about His nature? Especially when He is not the author of confusion.

Glenn

Hi Glenn,

When I read Barry Bickmore's book, the title of which escapes me at the moment, my biggest criticism was that he lumped all of the non-Mormon churches into one confused homogenous mess. No one is going to defend having lots of different churches preaching different confusing doctrines, and even more importantly, no one is going to recommend joining all of these conflicting churches.

If my choice was between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and "the Christian Churches of the world" as a whole, I would choose to be Mormon. But it is not between those two choices. I am Catholic and do not try to reconcile the Catholic faith with those beliefs which we reject. Were I Protestant I would not recommend that one join to "Protestantism" as a whole, but to join one church. I don't think anyone defends trying to believe in "the Christian Churches of the world". Something has to make one of them stand out. In your case Glenn, it was the LDS beliefs, and your confusion is relieved. For me, it is the Catholic faith. For coolrok 7, it is the Lutheran Church, Mo. Synod.

So I would say that your point is valid. But it wouldn't be fair to assume that the question is between my faith and all the rest lumped together confusedly. Of course the Catholics would come out the winner if the opponent was disunited. Likewise, the Mormons were clearly more viable in Bickmore's scenario because he compared the claims ofthe Restored Gospel to a bunch of disunited groups that disagree with each other. Any fruitful examination of faith claims must involve individual communities.

You are correct that God has not authorized thousands of churches with conflicting messages. We have to choose one. I found that the confusion was dramatically diminished in my own search when I eliminated from consideration every church that denied that it was the one true church. Then I only considered the half-dozen or so, like yours and mine, who claim at least some form of exclusive authority on earth.

Thanks for your consideration.

3DOP

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Thats easy... Its a Mystery.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Hi Joseph,

I think that most Trinitarians interpret this in the context of Jesus being fully God and fully man. Jesus, being God the Son, is co-equal to the Father in His divinity. When the Son incarnated on the earth, He made Himself lower than the angels (Hebrews 2:9). Yet He did not stop being divine. So, in His humanity, Jesus was indeed lower than the Father. However the Son did not stop being divine when He incarnated, and was not subordinate in His divinity.

I hope that helps.

Not bad

[3DOP]

Hi Sargon,

I can feel you thinking out there. I think it is only fair that since Catholics beliefs about the simplicity of God arose, even as you would probably admit, in an environment familiar with Greek ways of thinking, that we be permitted to employ the terminology consistently throughout the analysis of our discussions about the simplicity of God as being an argument against any sense in which the Son is less than the Father. I think I have probably satisfied you that the Scriptures affirm that Christ is both less, and equal to the Father, and if you do not accept the way that I suggested, you can surely see how it can plausibly follow from the Scriptures.

In the philosophical language which defines God as simple and non-composite we find historically that certain critics of the Nicene doctrine and its developments also objected that simplicity is impossible because of the differences between father and son. They cannot both be the simple God that the Church was proclaiming, according to the critic. But the problem is resolved if it is admitted that the relationship between Father and Son is permanent and has never varied. This is probably the reason why we say in the Creed that the Son is "eternally begotten."

And now I'll let the Fathers who first met with your objections do my speaking for me:

For the offspring of men are portions of their fathers, since the very nature of bodies is not uncompounded, but in a state of flux , and composed of parts; and men lose their substance in begetting, and again they gain substance from the accession of food. And on this account men in their time become fathers of many children; but God, being without parts, is Father of the Son without partition or passion; for there is neither effluence of the Immaterial, nor influx from without, as among men; and being uncompounded in nature, He is Father of One Only Son.

---St. Athanasius, Concerning the Decrees of the Council of Nicea, ch. 3, para. 11

Here we must see that the relation of Father and Son in the Godhead is eternal admits of no diminution of the substance of the Father because of the begetting of the Son. An eternal, purely spiritual, uncreated, non-composite being, is not going to be divided as corporeal creatures are through reproduction.

Wherefore nothing in Him is said in respect to accident, since nothing is accidental to Him, and yet all that is said is not said according to substance. For in created and changeable things, that which is not said according to substance, must, by necessary alternative, be said according to accident. For all things are accidents to them, which can be either lost or diminished, whether magnitudes or qualities; and so also is that which is said in relation to something, as friendships, relationships, services, likenesses, equalities, and anything else of the kind; so also positions and conditions, places and times, acts and passions. But in God nothing is said to be according to accident, because in Him nothing is changeable; and yet everything that is said, is not said, according to substance. For it is said in relation to something...wherefore, although to be the Father and to be the Son is different, yet their substance is not different; because they are so called, not according to substance, but according to relation, which relation, however, is not accident, because it is not changeable.

---St. Augustine, On the Trinity, Book V, Ch. 5, para. 6

If Christ is begotten in time, or of a corporeal Father, we cannot posit that a Father and Son can be one simple God. I cannot insist enough that our belief will appear absurd if you attach a part of LDS doctrine to it. The one who would be critical must take the entire scope of our beliefs about the Godhead. We can maintain the simplicity of God in the face of your objection, because we also hold that the relationship between the Persons is eternal and incorporeal and again that it is relational and not substantial. Clearly, the one who will criticize this doctrine must understand and accept for the sake of objective criticism what the Fathers meant by substance, accident, and relation in God and in creatures.

The truth is Sargon, that I have given more thought to this question in the last week and a half than in my first 53 and a half years. I am now very satisfied with regards to the biblical ways of affirming both the Son's equality and inequality to the Father. That was a good study. I am sure that more research could yield contemporary criticisms of the positions of Augustine and Athanasius. Philosophy is often about positioning and repositioning. I have faith that Christ is Head of the Catholic Church. I didn't become Catholic because of the simplicity of God, and I doubt I could leave even if I thought the Triune relations disqualify God from simplicity. For me, this is an academic exercise, and it is possible that I have failed to adequately defend my faith. I am very sorry if that is the case. Not that I ever expect a bunch of converts from internet discussions. But I want strangers to my faith to catch a glimpse of the beauty, truth, and goodness which thrill my soul on a frequent basis. I certainly hate to appear to be absurd or confused, not for my sake, (I know I am just a dummy and won't let my failure discourage me)...but for those who might turn away from the truth because of the speculations of an uneducated gear jamming Catholic truck driver.

---------

In closing my efforts for now, I want to say a word here to Obiwan too. I have been thinking about you too. I'm sorry we got off on a bad foot together. I've seen your name around a lot, but don't recall any prior interaction, negative or positive. There is some truth to what you said about my trying to appear nice. Yeah. I excel at sarcasm, giving offense, and alienating. I don't deny that I usually take pains to squelch this strong tendency, and make my tone deliberately softer in a way that isn't necessarily natural to my temperament. Even this apology, if you want to call it that is calculated in some respects. Of course, I would like to imagine that the softening of my tone is God's love coming out just a little. In any event, there is a nasty guy behind every word I say. Yeah. There is. I try to keep him down, but sometimes fail. I think I could have avoided irritating you, but I took exception to a few things you wrote...and maybe I wanted to tweak you just a bit back while still not betraying my own irritation. I seem to have succeeded. It doesn't bring me any joy. I am sorry for my part, Obiwan, and I hope there are no hard feelings.

Sincerely...and may God be with you,

Rory

[Glenn101]

If Christ is begotten in time, or of a corporeal Father, we cannot posit that a Father and Son can be one simple God.

Rory

That is pretty much it in a nutshell. I am not sure what you mean by simple. Maybe I missed an explanation in an earlier post in this thread.

The most simple explanation of the attributes of God the Father would describe him as having a corporeal body. This would fit in tightly with the Old and New Testament scriptures dealing with the attributes of God.

Take this selection from the Old Testament:

Exodus 33:11 And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend............

The most simple, non-confusing interpretation was that Moses was speaking to someone who had a face.

Okay, then we go just a little further and we read (still in Exodus 33):

22 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand awhile I pass by:

23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.

In those verses, the most simple, straight forward, non-confusing explanation would show that God has a form. This would hold true for either belief that the Jehovah speaking there is God the Father or Jesus Christ yet to take upon himself a mortal tangible body. Even if one believes that God is a spirit without a body, the most simple explanation is that God's spirit has a form.

I am not addressing the apparent contradiction in those verses of Moses speaking face to face with God in the tabernacle then a few verses later being told that he could not see god's face and live.

Earlier in Genesis we note that God creates Adam and Eve in his own image:

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Again, the most simple, straight forward, non-confusing explanation is that God has a form, and that form is the form of a body, because we are made in His image. That does not mean that we look like him exactly, but that we have the same form.

There are other verses in the Old Testament also talking about God from which the most simple, non-confusing conclusion that can be drawn is that God has a visible body.

From the New Testament, there are several scriptures also to choose from. I will submit only one or two.

Hebrews 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Here again, the most simple, straight forward, non-confusing explanation is that Jesus looks just like His Father in Heaven, and that God the Father has a body.

The most simple, straight forward explanation for the vision that occurred when Jesus was baptized is that God, the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Ghost are three separate entities.

The same is true concerning the prayer that Jesus offered in the Garden of Gethsemane where He (Jesus) asked if the cup could be removed from him, but vowed yet to do the will of His Father in Heaven.

I am not arguing the actual interpretation of those scriptures here. I am only noting the most simple, straight forward, and non-confusing explanation.

Of course others may disagree and can make some logical, non-convoluted, simple explanation why my simple is not the most simple.

Glenn

[3DOP]

That is pretty much it in a nutshell. I am not sure what you mean by simple. Maybe I missed an explanation in an earlier post in this thread.

The most simple explanation of the attributes of God the Father would describe him as having a corporeal body. This would fit in tightly with the Old and New Testament scriptures dealing with the attributes of God.

Take this selection from the Old Testament:

Exodus 33:11 And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend............

The most simple, non-confusing interpretation was that Moses was speaking to someone who had a face.

Okay, then we go just a little further and we read (still in Exodus 33):

22 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand awhile I pass by:

23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.

In those verses, the most simple, straight forward, non-confusing explanation would show that God has a form. This would hold true for either belief that the Jehovah speaking there is God the Father or Jesus Christ yet to take upon himself a mortal tangible body. Even if one believes that God is a spirit without a body, the most simple explanation is that God's spirit has a form.

I am not addressing the apparent contradiction in those verses of Moses speaking face to face with God in the tabernacle then a few verses later being told that he could not see god's face and live.

Earlier in Genesis we note that God creates Adam and Eve in his own image:

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Again, the most simple, straight forward, non-confusing explanation is that God has a form, and that form is the form of a body, because we are made in His image. That does not mean that we look like him exactly, but that we have the same form.

There are other verses in the Old Testament also talking about God from which the most simple, non-confusing conclusion that can be drawn is that God has a visible body.

From the New Testament, there are several scriptures also to choose from. I will submit only one or two.

Hebrews 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Here again, the most simple, straight forward, non-confusing explanation is that Jesus looks just like His Father in Heaven, and that God the Father has a body.

The most simple, straight forward explanation for the vision that occurred when Jesus was baptized is that God, the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Ghost are three separate entities.

The same is true concerning the prayer that Jesus offered in the Garden of Gethsemane where He (Jesus) asked if the cup could be removed from him, but vowed yet to do the will of His Father in Heaven.

I am not arguing the actual interpretation of those scriptures here. I am only noting the most simple, straight forward, and non-confusing explanation.

Of course others may disagree and can make some logical, non-convoluted, simple explanation why my simple is not the most simple.

Glenn

Hi Glenn,

The doctrine of the divine simplicity means that everything in God is perfectly complete and full. God does not have love. He is love. He is wisdom. He is justice. And so on. The gist of Sargon's argument against my way of explaining how Jesus could be less than the Father was by pursuing the Catholic doctrine of the divine simplicity which Mormons do not accept. How can God's nature be simple and one if "part" of God is father, and another part of God is "son"? That is how I understood Sargon's objection anyway.

For the record, I find your understanding of the Old Testament passages to be quite natural, and simple too, in the contemporary sense. Later Scriptures that are authoritative to Catholics, as well as the New Testament come along later, which gave early Christians (heroes to us, apostates to you) pause to consider that the earlier revelations could have been anthropomorphisms. (God condescending to use human analogies to describe divine realities). That is how we would explain them. And as you pointed out yourself, even the Old Testament seems to give hints that it might not be "as simple" as we might like. Catholics tend to take the simple interpretation to expressions about the "invisible God", "God is spirit", He with whom "there is no change, nor shadow of alteration", and "look upon heaven and earth, and all that is in them: and consider that God made them out of nothing, and mankind also." Seems simple too doesn't it? I'll bet if that was plopped down in the middle of the Book of Mormon it would be hard to reconcile with creation ex materia for you too, regardless of any arguments about free will!

That latter quote is from 2 Maccabees, a canonical book for Catholics. I realize that Protestants and Mormons will have reasons for rejecting it. Of course. But whether it should be rejected is not the point. The point is that this and these other passages are and have been for Catholics, inspired revelations that cannot be put aside, and that taken together make us evaluate the view of God differently than Mormons. It seems to me like we have to admit that each of our faiths is following the canon that we accept. We don't have the same data and not surprisingly, we arrive at different conclusions. I don't say your conclusion is wrong given your information, and neither is ours wrong given our information.

3DOP

[Glenn101]

Hi Glenn,

The doctrine of the divine simplicity means that everything in God is perfectly complete and full. God does not have love. He is love. He is wisdom. He is justice. And so on. The gist of Sargon's argument against my way of explaining how Jesus could be less than the Father was by pursuing the Catholic doctrine of the divine simplicity which Mormons do not accept. How can God's nature be simple and one if "part" of God is father, and another part of God is "son"? That is how I understood Sargon's objection anyway.

For the record, I find your understanding of the Old Testament passages to be quite natural, and simple too, in the contemporary sense. Later Scriptures that are authoritative to Catholics, as well as the New Testament come along later, which gave early Christians (heroes to us, apostates to you) pause to consider that the earlier revelations could have been anthropomorphisms. (God condescending to use human analogies to describe divine realities). That is how we would explain them. And as you pointed out yourself, even the Old Testament seems to give hints that it might not be "as simple" as we might like. Catholics tend to take the simple interpretation to expressions about the "invisible God", "God is spirit", He with whom "there is no change, nor shadow of alteration", and "look upon heaven and earth, and all that is in them: and consider that God made them out of nothing, and mankind also." Seems simple too doesn't it? I'll bet if that was plopped down in the middle of the Book of Mormon it would be hard to reconcile with creation ex materia for you too, regardless of any arguments about free will!

That latter quote is from 2 Maccabees, a canonical book for Catholics. I realize that Protestants and Mormons will have reasons for rejecting it. Of course. But whether it should be rejected is not the point. The point is that this and these other passages are and have been for Catholics, inspired revelations that cannot be put aside, and that taken together make us evaluate the view of God differently than Mormons. It seems to me like we have to admit that each of our faiths is following the canon that we accept. We don't have the same data and not surprisingly, we arrive at different conclusions. I don't say your conclusion is wrong given your information, and neither is ours wrong given our information.

3DOP

The non-Catholic non-LDS Christians who believe in creation ex nihilo would do well to accept at least that book of the apocrypha as scripture. There is nothing in the Old or New Testaments of Non-Catholic Christians which clearly support a doctrine of creation ex nihilo. The 2 Maccabees selection you quoted is pretty explicit. As noted the LDS do not use the apocrypha as scripture because it has been revealed that "There are many things contained therein that are not true, which are interpolations by the hands of men. (D&C 91:2)

As you noted, we are following our canon, but with a slightly different data set.

Glenn