An Inconsistency in Evangelical Doctrine?

[Hughes]

So I suppose we are supposed to believe things which are unreasonable to us?

He himself debates it with others, but only those who believe nearly as he does.

It appears that's true for you. You appear to wave your hand and disqualify things that are unreasonable to you.

As you just said, "The unspeakable mysteries must be left unspoken. They can only be known in the heart. That's why Creeds don't work."

It's a similar argument that I hear from Atheists. That the word "God" is meaningless because we can't demonstrate what it means in physical terms. They disqualify anything "spiritual" based on their definition of what is reasonable or meaningful.

It has no more persuasive power coming from them, than it is coming from you.

The fact remains that those who believe that there are three persons in one God, understand that their own understanding about God is limited by their finite minds.

It's the best we can do, to understand that at some point, God is going to be mysterious or on some level unknown.

This doesn't equal "untrue" as it appears you are arguing.

[Vance]

(Vance, that ambiguous phrase is for your benefit. I hope you like it.)

Hey!!

I saw that!

[mfbukowski]

It appears that's true for you. You appear to wave your hand and disqualify things that are unreasonable to you.

As you just said, "The unspeakable mysteries must be left unspoken. They can only be known in the heart. That's why Creeds don't work."

It's a similar argument that I hear from Atheists. That the word "God" is meaningless because we can't demonstrate what it means in physical terms. They disqualify anything "spiritual" based on their definition of what is reasonable or meaningful.

It has no more persuasive power coming from them, than it is coming from you.

The fact remains that those who believe that there are three persons in one God, understand that their own understanding about God is limited by their finite minds.

It's the best we can do, to understand that at some point, God is going to be mysterious or on some level unknown.

This doesn't equal "untrue" as it appears you are arguing.

It is not "untrue"- I have never used the word "truth" here. One cannot determine the truth of propositions which remain undefined.

I believe that if we are going to discuss the nature of God, we need to have terms which make sense. Mormonism makes sense in a rational discussion of the Godhead.

I believe in "three persons in one God" and so do you! The Book of Mormon uses that kind of terminology all the time!

But if you are going to talk about "three persons in one God", at least to me, it better make sense, and the Mormon conception makes sense, whereas the language of "being" or whatever does not.

I mean if you want to sit under a tree contemplating your navel and thinking about how three persons can be one God, go ahead. I meditate- I understand mysteries, revelation, and direct communication with God.

But if you are going to talk to others about it, it better make sense and be rational because otherwise there is no point in talking about it.

But worst of all don't tell someone that they are a "cult" or "not Christian" because they believe something rational and you can't even define your own terms!

[Vance]

I think part of the disconnection between Mormons and Creedal Christians takes place because the non-creedalist has the mistaken assumption that we think that the Creeds really explain something about what God is like. They don't. The Creeds are deliberately non-confining and are very unsatisfactory to anyone who looks to them for any insight on the nature of God. I'll say that again and be more clear. The Nicene Creed says NOTHING about the essence/being/nature/substance of God.

Which is fine as far as it goes.

BUT!

I find it strange when (some) Creedals make the claim that we have it wrong.

If you don't know what it is, how can you know that we have it wrong? (Not necessarily speaking to you, 3DOP.)

[Vance]

1. There is one (true, living) God, identified as the Creator.

2. This one God is the one divine being called YHWH (or Jehovah, the LORD) in the Old Testament.

3. The Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is God, the LORD.

4. The Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, is God, the LORD.

5. The Holy Spirit is God, the LORD.

6. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are each someone other than the other two.

Perhaps, since Bowman has fled, some other Evangelical would like to explain how 6 does NOT violate 2-5, or how 2-5 do not violate 6.

[mfbukowski]

The Nicene Creed assumes that God has a nature/being/substance/essence. (Doesn't everything? If we can't agree on that there is no use in going forward.) ....

I think I once owned two cars of the same make and model at the same time. Is that telling you anything about the car? No. The Nicene Creed doesn't tell you about air conditioners, curburetors, exhaust pipes, radiators, motor mounts, stereo components, or tinted windows either. Nor does it tell us anything about what God is like. (For that we can consult the Scriptures). It just says we believe that the Three Persons have the same divine nature. That is all. The divine nature is clearly communicable. It shouldn't be hard to believe that a Father could give it to HIs Son, or that both of them could give it to a Third Person. This is especially so when we read in Holy Scripture that there is a way by which even we "may be made partakers of the divine nature"! (II Peter 1:4) It is the same nature that is spoken of in the Nicene Creed with no further details.

I just want to say this because I think I am not communicating the problem I see here too clearly I guess.

If two things are similar, we can list the things which are similar. Like in your car example, the color is identical, body shape identical (let's assume no dents, scratches etc- I will go that far, but notice that really no two things are "identical"- they at least have to be in different locations- they can't be the same place at once) steering wheel identical, etc.

THAT would be a list of their similarities.

But to say there is some "Thing" else, called their "nature" or "essence" just isn't true! There literally is no such "thing" as "essence". It is an abstraction, an idea, a shorthand way of listing their similarities.

Their "nature" doesn't unify the two cars in any way except linguistically. They are still TWO cars with similarities. The rest is made up. If there were no people around to SEE what they called "similarities" there would be no"thing" there at all.

Even when we are listing similarities, we have to ignore that one drips from the oil pan, there is a scratch on the fender, dirt on the license plate, etc- there are similarities, but there also are differences!

I guess if Trinitarians want to say that God is three persons unified in their "similarities" I could probably live with that, but I don't think that would make it for a typical Trinitarian.

"Nature" comes from the Latin "natus" meaning birth- it really means characteristics we were born with, or inherited. So again- it ultimately is a list of similarities.

"Substance" comes "sub-stare" - hypostasis- or literally "stand under"- what "underlies". It is a pre-scientific way of looking at the world, and again really is "no-thing"

"essence" is from the Latin "esse" which is the verb "to be"- that pesky word "being" again and means nothing more than "existence" really. Do we really want to say that three persons make "one God" because they are unified in the fact that they "exist"? Lots of things exist!

As far as us being "partakers of the divine nature" we again see if we take it literally, we have a much more LDS interpretation than any other church.

Again- nature from "natus"- we have inherited characteristics from God- we have a seed of divinity, which we can cause to grow, and then we can grow to be like him in a very organic way- we can grow to be exalted and become just as he is! THAT is how we are literal partakers in his divinity from our birth- THAT is our literal "nature"! It is our "nature" to overcome the world as in fact we have through culture, but that is another story.

But of course most Christians would not take it that far, even though that is, I believe, what Paul is actually saying there.

All these words just represent lists of similarities- and do not create some kind of "entity" which exists- called our "nature" or our "being" or whatever word you like.

[3DOP]

Which is fine as far as it goes.

BUT!

I find it strange when (some) Creedals make the claim that we have it wrong.

If you don't know what it is, how can you know that we have it wrong? (Not necessarily speaking to you, 3DOP.)

Hey Vance,

There are strange things on your side too if I am not mistaken.

I earlier gave the analogy about how I thought I recalled that I owned two models of the same make of car at the same time. The information I gave doesn't tell you if the car was a Dodge or a Jeep. I am only insisting that they are the same. I could not think that you were anything except wrong if you insisted that they are not the same make and model even though you don't know what the car is.

I don't know if you are individually wrong about what you believe. I can't think the CoJCoLDS is corporately wrong. I thought Mormons had a lot of doctrinal liberty. Orthopraxy not Orthodoxy. I think you are mistaken about what you attribute to us creedalists.

I am convinced that the LDS faith is compatible with the Nicene Creed, properly understood. Consider, the creed is saying that whatever makes the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost different is in respect to their relations as Persons. Whatever makes them divine, which the Scripture calls "nature", is held in fulness by all three. The former explains why the Son and Spirit are subordinate. The latter explains why the Son and Spirit are not "lesser Gods" in any respect except relationship to Him from whom they proceed.

Is a Mormon required to believe that the Son and Spirit have less power and majesty? Must they hold that the other members of the Godhead are worthy of less worship than the Father? Could one who was an otherwise faithful, tithing member of the Church, observing the Word of Wisdom, be censured for believing in the natural unity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Would he be refused attendance at the Temple if it was known that he dared to believe that by virtue of the gifts the Father has bestowed upon them, His Son and the Holy Ghost are equally worthy of worship? Would such a belief even hinder one from being baptized if it was coupled with a testimony of the Book of Mormon, the Prophet Joseph Smith and the Restoration? None of those scenarios seem realistic to me and if I am correct that is how I know that your faith is compatible with the Nicene Creed. The Nicene Creed affirms that the same divine nature of which we on earth may partake according to 2 Peter 1:4, is held by all Three members of the Blessed Trinity without diminution. I have never seen why you guys find that to be so intolerable when we believe it.

Unless you can say that this allegedly absurd belief would disqualify a convert from baptism, a member from the Temple, and even the need to separate yourself from such an one, how can you say that the belief is so bad when we hold it? If you would tolerate it from a believer in Joseph Smith and the Restoration, don't you have to tolerate it in someone who doesn't have what you would consider as the advantage of Latter-day revelation? We believe it and it is hellenistic. We believe it and it is symptomatic of apostasy. What about if one of you believes it?

Thanks,

3DOP

[Vance]

Hey Vance,

<SNIP>

Thanks,

3DOP

Thanks for your reply. THAT is why I said "(Not necessarily speaking to you, 3DOP.)"

[3DOP]

I just want to say this because I think I am not communicating the problem I see here too clearly I guess.

If two things are similar, we can list the things which are similar. Like in your car example, the color is identical, body shape identical (let's assume no dents, scratches etc- I will go that far, but notice that really no two things are "identical"- they at least have to be in different locations- they can't be the same place at once) steering wheel identical, etc.

THAT would be a list of their similarities.

But to say there is some "Thing" else, called their "nature" or "essence" just isn't true! There literally is no such "thing" as "essence". It is an abstraction, an idea, a shorthand way of listing their similarities.

Their "nature" doesn't unify the two cars in any way except linguistically. They are still TWO cars with similarities. The rest is made up. If there were no people around to SEE what they called "similarities" there would be no"thing" there at all.

Even when we are listing similarities, we have to ignore that one drips from the oil pan, there is a scratch on the fender, dirt on the license plate, etc- there are similarities, but there also are differences!

I guess if Trinitarians want to say that God is three persons unified in their "similarities" I could probably live with that, but I don't think that would make it for a typical Trinitarian.

"Nature" comes from the Latin "natus" meaning birth- it really means characteristics we were born with, or inherited. So again- it ultimately is a list of similarities.

"Substance" comes "sub-stare" - hypostasis- or literally "stand under"- what "underlies". It is a pre-scientific way of looking at the world, and again really is "no-thing"

"essence" is from the Latin "esse" which is the verb "to be"- that pesky word "being" again and means nothing more than "existence" really. Do we really want to say that three persons make "one God" because they are unified in the fact that they "exist"? Lots of things exist!

As far as us being "partakers of the divine nature" we again see if we take it literally, we have a much more LDS interpretation than any other church.

Again- nature from "natus"- we have inherited characteristics from God- we have a seed of divinity, which we can cause to grow, and then we can grow to be like him in a very organic way- we can grow to be exalted and become just as he is! THAT is how we are literal partakers in his divinity from our birth- THAT is our literal "nature"! It is our "nature" to overcome the world as in fact we have through culture, but that is another story.

But of course most Christians would not take it that far, even though that is, I believe, what Paul is actually saying there.

All these words just represent lists of similarities- and do not create some kind of "entity" which exists- called our "nature" or our "being" or whatever word you like.

Maybe we are getting somewhere. I particularly appreciate your observation on existence and linguistics. Neat. Of course I totally hold that there is a physical disturbance in the woods when a tree falls with or without the ear to hear it as "sound". The sound is an interpretation of a real existing reality. Now I am seeing why we disagree. I forget that you guys are committed materialists and we aren't.

But its time for a siesta. You get those in So. Cal don't you? Later...You know, we are remodelling. I need to go help with some stuff after my nap...But you won't forget. Me either, I bet I'll be pondering all the way to Riddle, Oregon and back to Portland on Saturday. I might need to wait until Sunday or even later to get to this. I haven't worked a Saturday in years and there is an emergency this week so my time isn't all my own. I had some comments that Christ Knight prompted too and I intend to hit those first when time permits. Thanks for your patience. And feel free to chime in on what I just asked Vance. That's for anybody to answer.

Regards,

3DOP

[mfbukowski]

And feel free to chime in on what I just asked Vance. That's for anybody to answer.

Is a Mormon required to believe that the Son and Spirit have less power and majesty? Must they hold that the other members of the Godhead are worthy of less worship than the Father? Could one who was an otherwise faithful, tithing member of the Church, observing the Word of Wisdom, be censured for believing in the natural unity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?

Do you know that the Book of Mormon says that the Father Son and HS are "one God"??

None are "less God" than the others. We pray to the Father in the name of the Son.

Would he be refused attendance at the Temple if it was known that he dared to believe that by virtue of the gifts the Father has bestowed upon them, His Son and the Holy Ghost are equally worthy of worship? Would such a belief even hinder one from being baptized if it was coupled with a testimony of the Book of Mormon, the Prophet Joseph Smith and the Restoration? None of those scenarios seem realistic to me and if I am correct that is how I know that your faith is compatible with the Nicene Creed. The Nicene Creed affirms that the same divine nature of which we on earth may partake according to 2 Peter 1:4, is held by all Three members of the Blessed Trinity without diminution. I have never seen why you guys find that to be so intolerable when we believe it.

If that is your understanding of "substance" or "being" or "Nature"- merely that the three persons are "equal"- there is no problem at all with that. If you think that is what it means, you have a Mormon understanding- three equal persons- absolutely yes. But I find it hard to believe that is what the Creed is saying. But if that is your belief- then we are very close indeed.

Unless you can say that this allegedly absurd belief would disqualify a convert from baptism, a member from the Temple, and even the need to separate yourself from such an one, how can you say that the belief is so bad when we hold it? If you would tolerate it from a believer in Joseph Smith and the Restoration, don't you have to tolerate it in someone who doesn't have what you would consider as the advantage of Latter-day revelation? We believe it and it is hellenistic. We believe it and it is symptomatic of apostasy. What about if one of you believes it?

I'm not sure where you are going with this, but if you think all the Creed is saying is that the three persons are "equal"- we would have no problem with that. If you accepted Joseph Smith and all the other things necessary for "orthopraxis"- yes, you could have a temple recommend based on this view of the Godhead. If you have "faith in, and a testimony of, God the Eternal Father, his son Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost" you would qualify- that is all that is required on the Godhead in order to get a temple recommend.

[3DOP]

Hi. Ten minutes.

Bukowski

Do you know that the Book of Mormon says that the Father Son and HS are "one God"??

3DOP

Haha. I suspected as much. Wonderful.

Bukowski

None are "less God" than the others. We pray to the Father in the name of the Son.

3DOP

We are agreed.

Bukowski

If that is your understanding of "substance" or "being" or "Nature"- merely that the three persons are "equal"- there is no problem at all with that. If you think that is what it means, you have a Mormon understanding- three equal persons- absolutely yes. But I find it hard to believe that is what the Creed is saying. But if that is your belief- then we are very close indeed.

3DOP

8 minutes.

You are familiar with the reason for the Nicene Creed I think? The Arian controversy. Arius taught counter to what you are saying according to how the Church understood his teaching:

Such is the genuine doctrine of Arius. Using Greek terms, it denies that the Son is of one essence, nature, or substance with God; He is not consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father, and therefore not like Him, or equal in dignity, or co-eternal, or within the real sphere of Deity. The Logos which St. John exalts is an attribute, Reason, belonging to the Divine nature, not a person distinct from another, and therefore is a Son merely in figure of speech. These consequences follow upon the principle which Arius maintains in his letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, that the Son "is no part of the Ingenerate." Hence the Arian sectaries who reasoned logically were styled Anomoeans: they said that the Son was "unlike" the Father. And they defined God as simply the Unoriginate. They are also termed the Exucontians (ex ouk onton), because they held the creation of the Son to be out of nothing.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913

Notice what the Church says one essence, nature, or substance means. Notice what consubstantial means. Rejecting what the Council taught, the Arians did what? They made the Son "therefore not like Him [The Father], or equal in dignity or co-eternal, or within the real sphere of Deity". It is to oppose a doctrine that denies what you have accepted as Mormon doctrine that the Nicene Creed is written. Consubstantiality is a term that tried to make certain that Arius' followers understood that the Council was teaching co-equality of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. There is no question that this was trhe purpose and the mind of the Council with regards to why they spoke as they did. To read more into the Creed than is stated here is unwarranted. It may very well be that you may discover other differences along the way with regards to acceptable views of the Trinity, but you don't want to quarrel against what the Council is saying to the Arians. The Book of Mormon and your own testimony agrees wiuth the Council!

bukowski

I'm not sure where you are going with this, but if you think all the Creed is saying is that the three persons are "equal"- we would have no problem with that. If you accepted Joseph Smith and all the other things necessary for "orthopraxis"- yes, you could have a temple recommend based on this view of the Godhead. If you have "faith in, and a testimony of, God the Eternal Father, his son Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost" you would qualify- that is all that is required on the Godhead in order to get a temple recommend.

3DOP

Time is up!

Bye.

[Hughes]

It is not "untrue"- I have never used the word "truth" here. One cannot determine the truth of propositions which remain undefined.

I believe that if we are going to discuss the nature of God, we need to have terms which make sense. Mormonism makes sense in a rational discussion of the Godhead.

I believe in "three persons in one God" and so do you! The Book of Mormon uses that kind of terminology all the time!

But if you are going to talk about "three persons in one God", at least to me, it better make sense, and the Mormon conception makes sense, whereas the language of "being" or whatever does not.

I mean if you want to sit under a tree contemplating your navel and thinking about how three persons can be one God, go ahead. I meditate- I understand mysteries, revelation, and direct communication with God.

But if you are going to talk to others about it, it better make sense and be rational because otherwise there is no point in talking about it.

But worst of all don't tell someone that they are a "cult" or "not Christian" because they believe something rational and you can't even define your own terms!

First, "Mormonism makes sense..." to you! It doesn't make sense to me.

Second, "three persons in one God" - The Book of Mormon uses that kind of terminology. Yes, and it means differently that Evangelicals understand it. There is no "council of Gods" in the Bible.

Third, " it better make sense and be rational because otherwise there is no point in talking about it." - Again, it's you disqualifying our definition of our theological position, based on your myopic use of the term reasonable.

It is not unreasonable to us.

Fourth, "you can't even define your own terms!" - Again, we can and do define our own terms. The fact that you don't think our definitions are reasonable isn't our problem.

[mfbukowski]

There is no "council of Gods" in the Bible.

Revised Standard Version Psalm 82

Ps.82

[0] A Psalm of Asaph.

[1] God has taken his place in the divine council;

in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:

[2] "How long will you judge unjustly

and show partiality to the wicked? [selah]

[3] Give justice to the weak and the fatherless;

maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute.

[4] Rescue the weak and the needy;

deliver them from the hand of the wicked."

[5] They have neither knowledge nor understanding,

they walk about in darkness;

all the foundations of the earth are shaken.

[6] I say, "You are gods,

sons of the Most High, all of you;

[7] nevertheless, you shall die like men,

and fall like any prince."

[8] Arise, O God, judge the earth;

for to thee belong all the nations!

That's a start.

If you can't define "substance" you can't understand the Nicene Creed. You haven't defined it yet.

[Hughes]

Revised Standard Version Psalm 82

Ps.82

That's a start.

If you can't define "substance" you can't understand the Nicene Creed. You haven't defined it yet.

Re: Ps. 82 and the council of the gods:

The object of his judgment is earthly. As for "gods," the meaning of the Hebrew elohim here, translated "gods" is somewhat flexible. In most of its Old Testament (OT) uses it denotes God himself and is translated "God." Less often it is plural in meaning referring to the false "gods." In this use the word identifies supernatural, created beings who wield authority in heavens over the nations. Although the most common reference is to false gods (therefore associated with demons rather than with angels), at least some angelic powers could easily be categorized as "gods" by virtue of their nature and authority. In a related use it sometimes refers to human rulers, as we will see in chapter 82. Possibly the best interpretation understands the "gods" as human judges in Ex 21:6, as well as 22:8 and following. The human nature of these "gods" is indicated in verses 6-7 (above), of which a rough interpretation paraphrase might be, "you are like God as judges, but you are like everyone else, since you are mortal." 1

http://www.mormonfallacies.com/RefutationOfBrighamYoung.pdf

When we defined substance, and you called it unreasonable, that doesn't equal a "non" definition.

Your refusal, or lack of acceptance of our definition isn't our problem.

[mfbukowski]

Re: Ps. 82 and the council of the gods:

There is no "council of Gods" in the Bible.

Now you're changing your story.

You said it wasn't there, I showed you it was. Blatantly false that it is not a Biblical idea. Your interpretation is different, but it IS THERE.

When we defined substance, and you called it unreasonable, that doesn't equal a "non" definition.

Your refusal, or lack of acceptance of our definition isn't our problem.

You're right of course. You can believe anything you want. The point is that it is difficult to find someone who seriously defends a "substance" ontology anymore, not even Rob Bowman apparently.

I have not even tried to defend a metaphysical concept of "substance." All I have argued is that evangelicals are not, as you allege, inconsistent when they accept the Trinity and reject Transubstantiation. Whether "substance" is still a serviceable concept to use in articulating the divine identity of the Son is another matter. Trinitarian theologians have a friendly discussion going on this and similar questions, while all remaining Trinitarian.

Define away to your heart's content. Perhaps no one will understand your definition, but that is your perogative.

[Hughes]

Now you're changing your story.

You said it wasn't there, I showed you it was. Blatantly false that it is not a Biblical idea. Your interpretation is different, but it IS THERE.

Wow, you are so right. Unfortunately I was referring the Mormon Doctrine of the council of Gods, not the one made of men.

You're right of course. You can believe anything you want. The point is that it is difficult to find someone who seriously defends a "substance" ontology anymore, not even Rob Bowman apparently.

Define away to your heart's content. Perhaps no one will understand your definition, but that is your perogative.

Doesn't matter what you call it, you still think the concept of three persons in one God is unreasonable.

[Vance]

Doesn't matter what you call it, you still think the concept of three persons in one God is unreasonable.

You haven't been paying attention.

[ChristKnight]

Doesn't matter what you call it, you still think the concept of three persons in one God is unreasonable.

No, he has repeatedly said the opposite.

[Hughes]

No, he has repeatedly said the opposite.

Oh, so he must be a trinitarian now?

[3DOP]

I finally have a moment Christ Knight. In keeping with our discussion on substance, nature, etc. I've been wanting to reply to a comment you made and ask a question if you don't mind.

Christ Knight

Latter-day Saints would also agree that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost have the same "nature", however we would also say that, as children of God, we also have the same nature as God.

3DOP

We are God's offspring. We are made in his image. There has to be a sense in which we bare a striking resemblance to God. Let me ask you this: If all humans already have the same nature as God, to what does 2 Peter 1:4 refer when it speaks of the great and precious promises of Christ by which we may be made "partakers of the divine nature"?

As all things of his divine power which appertain to life and godliness, are given us, through the knowledge of him who hath called us by his own proper glory and virtue. By whom he hath given us most great and precious promises: that by these you may be made partakers of the divine nature:

---verse 3 and 4a

Allow me to suggest that although we all agree that every human bears a remarkable resemblance to God, enough to be declared to be made in his image, and God's offspring, we do not in this life at least possess whatever properties qualify one to be God. The divine nature of which 2 Peter speaks is something other than what every human person is born with. It is something to be obtained, something to be gained. That is the divine nature that is spoken of in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass:

O God, Who in creating human nature didst marvelously ennoble it, and hast still more marvelously renewed it: grant that by the mystery of this water and wine, we may be made partakers of His Divinity who vouchsafed to become partaker of our humanity, Jesus Christ, Thy Son...

In keeping with my theme of pointing out how Catholics and Mormons often believe the same things note the "ennobling" of human nature in Adam. Adam was born a partaker of the divine nature. The elevation of his human nature at Creation made him worthy to be named a son of God. But then we see how the Church proclaims that in Christ, human nature is renewed "still more marvelously". Just like you guys talk about the benefits of Adam's Fall, so, without making it into a necessity, the Catholic Church recognizes in the Mass and more explicitly in the Easter Liturgy that the Fall of Adam was a "felix culpa", happy fault. The Scriptures instruct us to believe that the "natural man perceives not the things of the Spirit of God." I Corinthings 3? This is because since the Fall, "the ennobling" or "partaking of the divine nature" by human nature has been suspended in Adam and His children. God's image in man has been wounded, but through "the great and precious promises of Christ", it would seem that mankind's "ennobling" is even more wonderful than before.

Anyway, I know you are very familiar with the Catholic teaching, but I am wondering as a Mormon now, if you attribute 2 Peter 1:4 to the ordinary biological process by which all human souls come into the world, already children of God, and partakers of the divine nature, or if that is something that must follow our first birth? Obviously I am suggesting with the Mass, that we must be born again "more marvelously" than the original creation of Adam and Eve. And why is that? Because there appears to be a problem with our first birth whereby we don't attain our desires, potential, and only happiness as human souls who cannot have joy without God their Father. Worse than that. We even sin! We treat God terribly and are our own worst enemies. Terrible. Adam wasn't made that way originally. II Peter 1:4 from a Catholic perspective would need to apply to a post-birth event. Do you agree?

Thanks,

3DOP

[Vance]

Oh, so he must be a trinitarian now?

STILL not paying attention.

[Vance]

Bukowski

Do you know that the Book of Mormon says that the Father Son and HS are "one God"??

3DOP

Haha. I suspected as much. Wonderful.

You mean, you haven't read the Book of Mormon?

You are missing out!

[mfbukowski]

Oh, so he must be a trinitarian now?

At least follow the thread.

No more soup for you!

[Mudcat]

But to say there is some "Thing" else, called their "nature" or "essence" just isn't true! There literally is no such "thing" as "essence". It is an abstraction, an idea, a shorthand way of listing their similarities.

I know it wasn't directed at me Bukowski, but I think you have nailed down the key distinction here.

Whereas I might think an idea, or an abstract thing or concept, perhaps even an immaterial being for that matter, actually exists. "Exists" intangibly albeit,but exists nonetheless... well such jargon seems foreign to you.

Am I reading you right?

[mfbukowski]

I know it wasn't directed at me Bukowski, but I think you have nailed down the key distinction here.

Whereas I might think an idea, or an abstract thing or concept, perhaps even an immaterial being for that matter, actually exists. "Exists" intangibly albeit,but exists nonetheless... well such jargon seems foreign to you.

Am I reading you right?

It is the logical fallacy of Reification