Trinity

[zerinus]

Sorry, you missed where I bolded that portion (v19, 20). Here I'll post it again:

"Just as Christian truth compels us

to confess each person individually

as both God and Lord,

so catholic religion forbids us

to say that there are three gods or lords."

Notice it says that the catholic religion forbids us to say there are three gods. So, the descriptor of three persons in one God isn't a recent invention, the Athanasian Creed uses it.

Yes; but it declares each of those three "Persons" to be individually God, which you deny.

Edited July 30, 2011 by zerinus

[Storm Rider]

If I remember correctly, I think I know what you're talking about as far as the Catholic Encyclopedia. Remember though that the Catholic Encyclopedia is not a magisterial document.

Agreed. There is a difinite effort to demonstrate that the doctrine of the Trinity was taught by the early church fathers though a difference between those from Greece to Rome. However, was no unity of belief in this concept until much later.

[Ambrose]

"Cover it up" is not only improper wording, it is blantantly incorrect. The Catholic Church began to de-emphisize it. Today most Catholics are perplexed with CCC 460 when they see it the first time. As you well know, apologists will do everything, but admit that they may become gods. Theosis, the doctrine of the EO, seems different than the teaching of Deification of the CC, or at least my EO friends would say so. EO has kept this teaching front and center and the members reflect this by their knowledge of it. CC members seem wholly in the dark about deification as is evidenced by one of the major criticisms being that Mormons believe they will become gods.

The Catholic Church teaches that man may become gods; this is the same language that Mormons use. In my opinion, neither of them have a complete understanding of what that means. One seeks to clarify it as being one in righteousness with God, but never being God. The other seeks to clarify it as being joint-heirs with Jesus Christ and inherit all that he does. There are a range of teachings on this topic and both can learn from the other by studying the language used to describe what it means to become gods; what is absolutely unacceptable is for one to persecute the other for believing in the same doctrine they themselves believe in.

The doctrine of Theosis in the Church, like all of Her teachings, is not to be reduced to an intellectual exercise whereby all the faithful mustn't be ignorant of any theological proposition. Rather, these doctrinal declarations are most clearly seen in the liturgical life of the Church, especially in that source of the liturgical life, the celebration of the Eucharist.

The ordinary Catholic might not have a clear understanding of the theological language (e.g. theosis) but they do practice this doctrine. Every Mass that commemorates a Saint, every holy reliquary filled, every private petition for intercession (S. Maria, ora pro nobis) is the work of a Church that believes that by Christ, man has truly become a partaker in the divine nature.

This is the primary difference in our doctrines of Theosis. The ordinary member of CoJCoLDS might know propositionally that men become gods, but they do not know it liturgically. The ordinary member of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church might not know Theosis propositionally, but they know it liturgically.

[Ambrose]

It carries an Imprimatur though, which is an official way of saying that the Catholic Church does not object to its teachings.

No, an Imprimatur is a declaration that it ought to be printed.

There is a separate mark of the Censor Liborum that shows it to be free from doctrinal error: NIHIL OBSTAT. But this is not a declaration that is held to be the end-all declaration of the doctrinal content of a work; it is but a helpful tool. There are liberal censors that have placed their NIHIL OBSTAT on a work only to have it rejected by the consensus of the theologians or the consensus of the faithful.

The Catholic Encyclopedia might have a NIHIL OBSTAT from when it was first printed, but I am not certain that the revised work on-line carries one.

[zerinus]

The doctrine of Theosis in the Church, like all of Her teachings, is not to be reduced to an intellectual exercise whereby all the faithful mustn't be ignorant of any theological proposition. Rather, these doctrinal declarations are most clearly seen in the liturgical life of the Church, especially in that source of the liturgical life, the celebration of the Eucharist.

The ordinary Catholic might not have a clear understanding of the theological language (e.g. theosis) but they do practice this doctrine. Every Mass that commemorates a Saint, every holy reliquary filled, every private petition for intercession (S. Maria, ora pro nobis) is the work of a Church that believes that by Christ, man has truly become a partaker in the divine nature.

This is the primary difference in our doctrines of Theosis. The ordinary member of CoJCoLDS might know propositionally that men become gods, but they do not know it liturgically. The ordinary member of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church might not know Theosis propositionally, but they know it liturgically.

In early Christianity, theosis = salation. To be saved is to be deified. Christian salvation centers around deification. God became man so that man could become God. That is much bigger than liturgy. It is the focal point of an entire theology. I don't in fact see it prominent in Catholic liturgy. Sow me how a Catholic can know "liturgically" that man may become god?

[zerinus]

No, an Imprimatur is a declaration that it ought to be printed.

I thought that an Imprimatur is not normally issued without a Nihil Obstat.

There is a separate mark of the Censor Liborum that shows it to be free from doctrinal error: NIHIL OBSTAT. But this is not a declaration that is held to be the end-all declaration of the doctrinal content of a work; it is but a helpful tool. There are liberal censors that have placed their NIHIL OBSTAT on a work only to have it rejected by the consensus of the theologians or the consensus of the faithful.

Still, it gives it a measure of respectability and official status.

The Catholic Encyclopedia might have a NIHIL OBSTAT from when it was first printed, but I am not certain that the revised work on-line carries one.

Then we will just have to refer to the old one, don't we!

[ChristKnight]

Either way, the Catholic Encyclopedia is not a magisterial document, which is what the original CFR was about, right?

[zerinus]

Either way, the Catholic Encyclopedia is not a magisterial document, which is what the original CFR was about, right?

But the main thing is whether something conforms to Catholic doctrine or not.

[Hughes]

Hughes, on 30 July 2011 - 09:16 AM, said:

Sorry, you missed where I bolded that portion (v19, 20). Here I'll post it again:

"Just as Christian truth compels us

to confess each person individually

as both God and Lord,

so catholic religion forbids us

to say that there are three gods or lords."

Notice it says that the catholic religion forbids us to say there are three gods. So, the descriptor of three persons in one God isn't a recent invention, the Athanasian Creed uses it.

Yes; but it declares each of those three "Persons" to be individually God, which you deny.

False. I deny that there are three gods, which is exactly what the Creed also denies. However, I do affirm as does this creed, that each person in the trinity are individually God.

What has been called non-sensical, is this affirmation that there are three persons, yet one God. That three persons can individually be God, yet there is still only one God. It hasn't been my lack of acknowledgement of this truth that has troubled you all, rather it's been your claim that it doesn't make sense.

[Flyonthewall]

False. I deny that there are three gods, which is exactly what the Creed also denies. However, I do affirm as does this creed, that each person in the trinity are individually God.

What has been called non-sensical, is this affirmation that there are three persons, yet one God. That three persons can individually be God, yet there is still only one God. It hasn't been my lack of acknowledgement of this truth that has troubled you all, rather it's been your claim that it doesn't make sense.

This is the type of language and reasoning that leads me to conclude that "God" is not the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, but the substance/being/nature that each of them share, or have in common.

There is no way possible for 3 individuals to each individually be God, and yet be only one God. They are either 3 pieces of a whole or "one", "three", and "individually" have been re-defined to something other than what a dictionary has.

If you can shed light on this, please do... so far, I have never heard any explaination or comments that gives meaning to this concept. Pretty much the only thing that is stated is: "it's a mystery" or "that's just the way it is"

[altersteve]

What has been called non-sensical, is this affirmation that there are three persons, yet one God. That three persons can individually be God, yet there is still only one God. It hasn't been my lack of acknowledgement of this truth that has troubled you all, rather it's been your claim that it doesn't make sense.

Saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are united in every way except in being or substance makes much more sense than claiming otherwise.

Honestly, Hughes, it's not that hard. Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are separate and distinct. We do not call them gods (though they could certainly be referred to as such), but rather personages. However, they can each be referred to as "God," and they can also collectively be referred to as one God, as members of the Godhead. They are perfectly united because they are perfectly agreed in all things, they love equally, and ay of them can fully represent another—in other words, they are united in heart, mind, and purpose. That does not mean that they literally have "one heart," or "one mind." The "oneness" between them is a metaphorical and spiritual description.

And this is precisely what the Bible teaches about their unity. It never says anywhere that their oneness is a oneness of being, or substance, or essence. If you can show me a verse stating or even implying otherwise, then I will happily eat my words.

[volgadon]

What has been called non-sensical, is this affirmation that there are three persons, yet one God. That three persons can individually be God, yet there is still only one God. It hasn't been my lack of acknowledgement of this truth that has troubled you all, rather it's been your claim that it doesn't make sense.

The claim that it doesn't make sense certainly doesn't bother me.

I see your argument boiling down to this. Mormon claim that three persons are individually God, yet there is only one God = impossible and polytheistic.

Trinitarian claim that three persons are individually God, yet there is only one God = right and true and monotheistic.

[Hughes]

This is the type of language and reasoning that leads me to conclude that "God" is not the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, but the substance/being/nature that each of them share, or have in common.

There is no way possible for 3 individuals to each individually be God, and yet be only one God. They are either 3 pieces of a whole or "one", "three", and "individually" have been re-defined to something other than what a dictionary has.

If you can shed light on this, please do... so far, I have never heard any explaination or comments that gives meaning to this concept. Pretty much the only thing that is stated is: "it's a mystery" or "that's just the way it is"

There is no possible way for three individuals to be God, and yet there be only on God. And you know this how?

Saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are united in every way except in being or substance makes much more sense than claiming otherwise.

Honestly, Hughes, it's not that hard. Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are separate and distinct. We do not call them gods (though they could certainly be referred to as such), but rather personages. However, they can each be referred to as "God," and they can also collectively be referred to as one God, as members of the Godhead. They are perfectly united because they are perfectly agreed in all things, they love equally, and ay of them can fully represent another—in other words, they are united in heart, mind, and purpose. That does not mean that they literally have "one heart," or "one mind." The "oneness" between them is a metaphorical and spiritual description.

And this is precisely what the Bible teaches about their unity. It never says anywhere that their oneness is a oneness of being, or substance, or essence. If you can show me a verse stating or even implying otherwise, then I will happily eat my words.

You are correct, it's not hard to believe in three gods. It makes much more sense, except when the biblical text teaches there is only one God.

The claim that it doesn't make sense certainly doesn't bother me.

I see your argument boiling down to this. Mormon claim that three persons are individually God, yet there is only one God = impossible and polytheistic.

Trinitarian claim that three persons are individually God, yet there is only one God = right and true and monotheistic.

My argument?

My observation is that the LDS claim is that there are many gods, and even in the Godhead there are three gods. And this is seen to "make more sense" to the LDS believer, than the trinitarian position.

My understanding of the Trinity is that there are not three gods. There are three persons, yet one God.

The differences I have observed:

The Father - Eternal, uncreated or created and once like man is now, and currently has a physical body

Jesus - Eternal and uncreated or created and a spirit brother with lucifer

Holy Spirit - not observed any differences

[altersteve]

You are correct, it's not hard to believe in three gods. It makes much more sense, except when the biblical text teaches there is only one God.

And we agree with these biblical teachings. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are "gods," in that they are divine beings, but individually and collectively they are God. Everyone has told you this, time and again. It's really not that hard. Also, please cite an authoritative declaration from the Church that refers to the three members of the Godhead as gods. But you probably won't find one, because it will probably refer to them as personages, or beings.

The Father - Eternal, uncreated or created and once like man is now, and currently has a physical body

CFR that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that God is created and not eternal. We actually teach that all beings, including God, are eternal and have always existed in some form. There is no authoritative statement from the Church that God was once exactly like man is now (i.e., a fallible human being, a sinner), only that He passed through mortality at one point, like Christ did. That idea (along with the idea that He has a physical body) really bothers a lot of people for some reason, but it honestly shouldn't.

Jesus - Eternal and uncreated or created and a spirit brother with lucifer

CFR that the Church teaches that Jesus Christ is created and not eternal. Again, the Church teaches clearly that all beings, including Jesus Christ, are eternal in their very nature. If Jesus has the nature of God (which He does), then wouldn't it follow that He has always been God? Of course. Further, Jesus and Lucifer are not "spirit brothers," or at least not any longer. They have the same Father, but Satan has denounced his inheritance and nature as a child of God, and is now only our (and Jesus') "brother" in the sense that he and we have the same basic origin. Besides, if Jesus is the Son of God, and if God created Lucifer, thereby making Lucifer also a son of God, then they would basically be "siblings," would they not? Obviously.

You really know a lot less about LDS theology than you think you do. Please allow us to tell you what we believe instead of reading the nonsense that our critics write.

Edited July 31, 2011 by altersteve

[Ambrose]

In early Christianity, theosis = salation. To be saved is to be deified. Christian salvation centers around deification. God became man so that man could become God. That is much bigger than liturgy. It is the focal point of an entire theology. I don't in fact see it prominent in Catholic liturgy. Sow me how a Catholic can know "liturgically" that man may become god?

I would certainly agree that the doctrine of Theosis is what is also meant by salvation, but not just in early Christendom, but also today, and it has been faithfully handed down in the liturgical life of the Church.

I offered three examples in my last post of this liturgical catechesis that the faithful receive, but I understand if you are unfamiliar with their specifics how these would be ambiguous. Allow me to offer a definite example of this liturgical knowledge: prayers to the Saints.

The ordinary Catholic might not be able to tell you why they can pray to saints, but they do know they can and should. This knowledge is given them liturgically (that is through the liturgy or 'work of the Church), and is not held propositionally. That the saints become powerful aids is only by Theosis. But the ordinary Catholic need not know this to have a liturgical knowledge (working knowledge or practical knowledge) of Theosis.

Ut queant laxis...

[Storm Rider]

I would certainly agree that the doctrine of Theosis is what is also meant by salvation, but not just in early Christendom, but also today, and it has been faithfully handed down in the liturgical life of the Church.

I offered three examples in my last post of this liturgical catechesis that the faithful receive, but I understand if you are unfamiliar with their specifics how these would be ambiguous. Allow me to offer a definite example of this liturgical knowledge: prayers to the Saints.

The ordinary Catholic might not be able to tell you why they can pray to saints, but they do know they can and should. This knowledge is given them liturgically (that is through the liturgy or 'work of the Church), and is not held propositionally. That the saints become powerful aids is only by Theosis. But the ordinary Catholic need not know this to have a liturgical knowledge (working knowledge or practical knowledge) of Theosis.

Ut queant laxis...

It sounds as if you are saying they may be ignorant of its real meaning, but understand some of its building blocks. I am not sure that knowing it liturgically has any value. Partaking in the divine nature is a code word for becoming a god. Why is it so difficult for Catholics to use the same language as the ECF?

[zerinus]

False. I deny that there are three gods, which is exactly what the Creed also denies. However, I do affirm as does this creed, that each person in the trinity are individually God.

What has been called non-sensical, is this affirmation that there are three persons, yet one God. That three persons can individually be God, yet there is still only one God. It hasn't been my lack of acknowledgement of this truth that has troubled you all, rather it's been your claim that it doesn't make sense.

I agree that the Trinity (of modern Christendom) doesn't make sense, whichever way you look at it; but you did initially not accept each "Person" of the Trinity to be individually God. Now you have shifted your ground. So now tell me something. The Trinity consists of three Persons in on God. Each "Person" is individually God. Yet the Trinity does not consist of three Gods in one God? You bet it don't make sense to me!

[Hughes]

And we agree with these biblical teachings. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are "gods," in that they are divine beings, but individually and collectively they are God. Everyone has told you this, time and again. It's really not that hard. Also, please cite an authoritative declaration from the Church that refers to the three members of the Godhead as gods. But you probably won't find one, because it will probably refer to them as personages, or beings.

CFR that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that God is created and not eternal. We actually teach that all beings, including God, are eternal and have always existed in some form. There is no authoritative statement from the Church that God was once exactly like man is now (i.e., a fallible human being, a sinner), only that He passed through mortality at one point, like Christ did. That idea (along with the idea that He has a physical body) really bothers a lot of people for some reason, but it honestly shouldn't.

CFR that the Church teaches that Jesus Christ is created and not eternal. Again, the Church teaches clearly that all beings, including Jesus Christ, are eternal in their very nature. If Jesus has the nature of God (which He does), then wouldn't it follow that He has always been God? Of course. Further, Jesus and Lucifer are not "spirit brothers," or at least not any longer. They have the same Father, but Satan has denounced his inheritance and nature as a child of God, and is now only our (and Jesus') "brother" in the sense that he and we have the same basic origin. Besides, if Jesus is the Son of God, and if God created Lucifer, thereby making Lucifer also a son of God, then they would basically be "siblings," would they not? Obviously.

You really know a lot less about LDS theology than you think you do. Please allow us to tell you what we believe instead of reading the nonsense that our critics write.

How is this different from the Trinity? You say, "The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are "gods," in that they are divine beings, but individually and collectively they are God."

You are correct, I didn't know that the LDS teach that all "beings" are eternal, that is news to me, thanks.

That sort of messes up the theology of God being the "I Am" , the only self existent being in existence, now doesn't it?

[LeSellers]

Jesus - ... a spirit brother with lucifer

Why is this a problem?

I am not posing this as a gottcha or anything other than a sincere query.

Grant me one premise before answering: that Jesus is the Son of God and that all the spirits created, which Jesus is/was one of, are, as Job (along with Jeremiah) tells us, "sons of God".

Satan rebelled against God. He divorced himself from the family of God. He is not now part of that family, and, in spite of being Jesus' brother long ago, he is no longer.

People throw this in our faces as if it were impossible, but they never explain why we ought to be ashamed of the fact that Jesus is the First Born of the Father (biblical to the n^th degree) and that "First Born" requires "later born". If so, and there is no reasonable denying it, then why is it mockable to claim that Satan was also among the sons of God?

Lehi

[zerinus]

I would certainly agree that the doctrine of Theosis is what is also meant by salvation, but not just in early Christendom, but also today, and it has been faithfully handed down in the liturgical life of the Church.

I offered three examples in my last post of this liturgical catechesis that the faithful receive, but I understand if you are unfamiliar with their specifics how these would be ambiguous. Allow me to offer a definite example of this liturgical knowledge: prayers to the Saints.

The ordinary Catholic might not be able to tell you why they can pray to saints, but they do know they can and should. This knowledge is given them liturgically (that is through the liturgy or 'work of the Church), and is not held propositionally. That the saints become powerful aids is only by Theosis. But the ordinary Catholic need not know this to have a liturgical knowledge (working knowledge or practical knowledge) of Theosis.

Ut queant laxis...

Praying to the Saints is not an acknowledgement of theosis. None of the ECFs prayed to, or suggesting praying to the Saints as an acknowledgement of theosis; and neither do the Mormons. Praying to anyone other than the one true God of heaven is alien to the Bible. There is no record of any righteous man or prophet ever practising it in either the Old or New Testament. I don't know where you got that idea from, but it isn't true. Theosis has nothing to do with praying to the Saints, or visa versa.

[Hughes]

I agree that the Trinity (of modern Christendom) doesn't make sense, whichever way you look at it; but you did initially not accept each "Person" of the Trinity to be individually God. Now you have shifted your ground. So now tell me something. The Trinity consists of three Persons in on God. Each "Person" is individually God. Yet the Trinity does not consist of three Gods in one God? You bet it don't make sense to me!

And the idea that there are three beings, each fully God, is considered one God does make sense to you?

Please tell me what the difference is between the Trinity and the LDS Godhead.

Why is this a problem?

I am not posing this as a gottcha or anything other than a sincere query.

Grant me one premise before answering: that Jesus is the Son of God and that all the spirits created, which Jesus is/was one of, are, as Job (along with Jeremiah) tells us, "sons of God".

Satan rebelled against God. He divorced himself from the family of God. He is not now part of that family, and, in spite of being Jesus' brother long ago, he is no longer.

People throw this in our faces as if it were impossible, but they never explain why we ought to be ashamed of the fact that Jesus is the First Born of the Father (biblical to the n^th degree) and that "First Born" requires "later born". If so, and there is no reasonable denying it, then why is it mockable to claim that Satan was also among the sons of God?

Lehi

First it equates an infinite God with the created, as though they are equal, which they never were or are now. That's the primary problem.

From this error, comes the idea that Jesus was created (which altersteve just got done explaining wasn't true, so which is it?).

In Christian Theology all of life comes through God, as it says, "all things were created by him and for him." Which means Satan was created by Jesus, hence they couldn't have been spirit brothers.

Edited July 31, 2011 by Hughes

[altersteve]

Please tell what the difference is between the Trinity and the LDS Godhead.

Once again, the Trinity doctrine says that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are united in being. That is the part that we reject and the part that doesn't make any sense.

That sort of messes up the theology of God being the "I Am" , the only self existent being in existence, now doesn't it?

CFR that God (Jesus Christ, to be exact, since it was He who covenanted with Israel) being the Great I AM means that He is "the only self existent being in existence."

[zerinus]

And the idea that there are three beings, each fully God, is considered one God does make sense to you?

Yes, they are three separate beings and three separate Gods, but they are one in mind, purpose, and will. They are one in the same way that we will be one with them when we are saved in the kingdom of God:

John 17

:

11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

Don't tell me you never read these verses before!

Please tell me what the difference is between the Trinity and the LDS Godhead.

We believe that they are three distinct and separate beings, and three separate and distinct Gods. Joseph Smith saw them as three separate beings:

JS-History 1

:

17 . . . When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—

This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!

But still they are One in the way described above. Which part of that doesn't make sense to you?

[Hughes]

Once again, the Trinity doctrine says that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are united in being. That is the part that we reject and the part that doesn't make any sense.

CFR that God (Jesus Christ, to be exact, since it was He who covenanted with Israel) being the Great I AM means that He is "the only self existent being in existence."

Right. One Being = One God

For the LDS three Beings = One God

Did I get that right?

As for being the only self existent being in existence. God alone existed in the beginning, before creation. God alone states that he is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, that all things are created by him and for him.

All other beings depend on him to exist, and were created by him.

Yes, they are three separate beings and three separate Gods, but they are one in mind, purpose, and will. They are one in the same way that we will be one with them when we are saved in the kingdom of God:

John 17

:

11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

Don't tell me you never read these verses before!

We believe that they are three distinct and separate beings, and three separate and distinct Gods. Joseph Smith saw them as three separate beings:

JS-History 1

:

17 . . . When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—

This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!

But still they are One in the way described above. Which part of that doesn't make sense to you?

Oh, it makes sense to me, that the LDS believe that they are three separate beings, or Gods.

However, united in purpose, doesn't make one God. Just as we are united to God, doesn't make us one God.

[zerinus]

Oh, it makes sense to me, that the LDS believe that they are three separate beings, or Gods.

Thank you. That is more than can be said about the Trinitarian theology!

However, united in purpose, doesn't make one God. Just as we are united to God, doesn't make us one God.

There is another aspect of the Mormon doctrine of Godhead that you have overlooked. Although there are many gods, they all worship the One God, who is the Father. In other words, there is a hierarchy of gods, with the Father standing at the apex. He is the God to whom all other gods pay homage and give reverence, including Jesus. Jesus worshipped God. He prayed to that God. He prayed to that God even after His resurrection, as evidenced by His visit to the Nephites. So in that sense of the term there is literally only one God, and all other "gods" become such by being transformed into His image and likeness to such an extent that they become "one" with Him in mind, purpose, and will, as taught in the Gospel of John.