Question For Evangelicals On The Trinity

[zerinus]

Give me something to interact with.

I already did, in post #90.

[Rob Bowman]

David,

You wrote:

Hello Dr. Bowman,

You wrote:

>>Here is a serious problem for your line of argument: The Bible refers to both the Father and the Son (and likely the Holy Spirit as well) as Yahweh. For example, in Psalm 110:1 David wrote, "Yahweh said to my Lord, 'Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.'" Here "Yahweh" refers to the Father and "my Lord" refers to the Son, Jesus Christ. So now it turns out that Yahweh is not merely a person, because it is the name of at least two persons, the Father and the Son (see 2 Cor. 3:17 for a likely reference to the Holy Spirit as "the Lord," i.e., Yahweh).>>

That you cite Psalm 110:1 as an "example" to support your view that, "Yahweh is not merely a person, because it is the name of at least two persons, the Father and the Son", is quite baffling, for in this text the person termed Yahweh/Jehovah (i.e. the Father) is clearly distinguished from the person termed 'my Lord' ('my Lord' here being the generic לַאדֹנִי).

Could you clarify your position?

Grace and peace,

David

In Psalm 110:1, the name Yahweh ("the LORD") is used specifically for the Father. However, in other texts Jesus is clearly identified as the Lord Yahweh, particularly in NT passages that quote from or allude to OT texts (e.g., Rom. 10:9-13; Phil. 2:9-11; 1 Peter 3:15). Thus, both the Father and the Son are called Yahweh (in different texts). I understand this to mean that both the Father and the Son are the God called Yahweh in the OT. Psalm 110:1 is distinguishing Christ (("my Lord") from the person called Yahweh in that verse, but in light of other texts we should not understand this verse to deny that Christ is Yahweh.

[zerinus]

The issue for me (well, one of the many issues) is that there was no "technical theological" anything when the Bible was written. Technical theology was an invention of the apostasy, it was not prophetic gift. Technical thoeology didn't show up until Constantine and homo ousia, three centuries after Christ established His (by then lost) Church.

Lehi

I am not sure whether you are objecting to "theology" or to "technical theology". If you are objecting to "technical theology," you can be assured that there is no such thing that you should need to object to it! Such an appellation does not exist in traditional orthodox Christianity. There is "Systematic Theology," "Historical Theology," "Practical Theology," Eschatology, Ecclesiology, Christology, and other branches of theology. But there is no such thing as "technical theology". But if you are objecting to theology itself as a legitimate discipline or science within the Christian faith, then I am afraid I will have to disagree with you. There is room for the development of a theological discipline within Christianity (including Mormonism). And once such a discipline is developed, it requires accurate definitions, and a precise vocabulary to define it with.

Traditional Christian theology is not entirely worthless. It may contain elements which we may not agree with; but on the whole it is a worthwhile discipline that has been developed by people of sincere genuine Christian interest, with many points biblically based and worthwhile to study.

Edited August 9, 2011 by zerinus

[LeSellers]

There is room for the development of a theological discipline within Christianity (including Mormonism). And once such a discipline is developed, it requires accurate definitions, and a precise vocabulary to define it with.

Peter didn't need it. Neither did Joseph Smith.

Traditional Christian theology is not entirely worthless. It may contain elements which we may not agree with; but on the whole it is a worthwhile discipline that has been developed by people of sincere genuine Christian interest, with many points biblically based and worthwhile to study.

"Not entirely worthless". I believe it was thesometimessaint who most recently used the phrase "damning with faint praise". How à propos.

Still, while I do not disagree that it is not entirely worthless, it is not fundamentally part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Nor do we need to apologise (please pardon the pun) for not agreeing with the apostate position of the "technical theologians" whom Rob evidently created out of thin air.

Lehi

[Kix]

I already did, in post #90.

OK, thanks.

Another bad news for the Trinitarians is that throughout the Bible God (the One God) is portrayed as a Person. Personal pronouns (he, him etc.) are used to refer to Him. He uses those same pronouns to refer to Himself. He is even portrayed as a male, never a female. He displays all the attributes of a “personality”. He is capable of Love. He is capable of anger. He can be moved with compassion, and show mercy. He exercises justice and judgement. He speaks. He commands. He always speaks the truth and never lies. He wants us to love Him. He calls us His children. He even made us in His image. He has even been seen by some! What more does He needs to do prove to us that He is a Person.

God is a personal being and has masculine pronouns attributed to him as opposed to an impersonal "it". With an emphasis of the single, ontological I AM through whom ALL things are made and sustained and lacking the language developed in the Trinitarian discourses it makes sense to refer to God in singular terms since that's what God is. You're reading into the word "he" as God having an animal body like ours and not being the one who brings into existence and sustains all others beings.

He has even been seen by some! What more does He needs to do prove to us that He is a Person.

In visions which could be visions of the pre-incarnate Christ or where we have words that serve a clear literary purpose other than literal (for instance "hand of God"). Would you agree that it is best to interpret the text through the obvious doctrinal statements and what coherently makes sense anyway before jumping on things like that? God has no intrinsic animal being he created things with those restrictions. Look what the scriptures say and then from your own church and you have the same problem.

John 1:18

No one has ever seen God; the only God,[1] who is at the Father's side,[2] he has made him known.

1 John 4:12

No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us.

Colossians 1:15

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

1 Timothy 1:17

To the King of ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. [1] Amen.

John 4:24

God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”

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

Now in addition to the scriptures there please view the LDS official website: http://lds.org/scrip...uction?lang=eng

The Testimony of Three Witnesses

"And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God."

http://lds.org/scrip...st,+eternal+God

"And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God"

inappropriate language removed.

[zerinus]

Peter didn't need it. Neither did Joseph Smith.

Actually they did. Have you heard of the Lectures on Faith by Joseph Smith? It sounds like you haven't. If so, I highly recommend it. It is a great book of systematic theology written by Joseph Smith.

"Not entirely worthless". I believe it was thesometimessaint who most recently used the phrase "damning with faint praise". How à propos.

If you don't like that turn of phrase, I will rephrase it for you. I would say a study of traditional Christian theology can be valuable if it is pursued in the light of the Holy Spirit. Here is a quote form an article in the Ensign, heaping great praise on Summa Theologica by St. Thomas Aquinas, possibly the most famous book of Christian theology ever written:

This introduction of reason and logic into Christian theology, to serve as an adjunct rather than an enemy to faith, was one of the triumphs of medieval thought. The greatest of the schoolmen was Thomas Aquinas (1225–74), a Dominican teacher whose

Summa Theologica

, a masterpiece of scholastic reasoning making great use of Aristotelian logic, overcame the apparent conflicts between natural and revealed thought and provided logical proofs of Christian doctrines for the people of the time.

Source

.

Still, while I do not disagree that it is not entirely worthless, it is not fundamentally part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Theology well defined, of course it is! This is how Joseph Smith in the Lectures on Faith defines theology (quoting form Buck's theological dictionary):

It is that revealed science which treats of the being and attributes of God - his relations to us - the dispensations of his providence - his will with respect to our actions - and his purposes with respect to our end.

According to this definition, it certainly is a "fundamental part of gospel of Jesus Christ".

Nor do we need to apologise (please pardon the pun) for not agreeing with the apostate position of the "technical theologians" whom Rob evidently created out of thin air.

Well I hate to come to the defence of Rob! But that is not quite what he did.

Edited August 9, 2011 by zerinus

[Zakuska]

OK, thanks.

God is a personal being and has masculine pronouns attributed to him as opposed to an impersonal "it". With an emphasis of the single, ontological I AM through whom ALL things are made and sustained and lacking the language developed in the Trinitarian discourses it makes sense to refer to God in singular terms since that's what God is. You're reading into the word "he" as God having an animal body like ours and not being the one who brings into existence and sustains all others beings.

In visions which could be visions of the pre-incarnate Christ or where we have words that serve a clear literary purpose other than literal (for instance "hand of God"). Would you agree that it is best to interpret the text through the obvious doctrinal statements and what coherently makes sense anyway before jumping on things like that? God has no intrinsic animal being he created things with those restrictions. Look what the scriptures say and then from your own church and you have the same problem.

John 1:18

No one has ever seen God; the only God,[1] who is at the Father's side,[2] he has made him known.

1 John 4:12

No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us.

Colossians 1:15

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

1 Timothy 1:17

To the King of ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. [1] Amen.

John 4:24

God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”

So how do you reconcile your verses with these?

Jesus has seen God the father.

John 6:46

46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.

Apparently so did Moses.

Hebrews 11:27

27 By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible.

Exodus 24

9 ¶Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel:

10 And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness.

11 And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink.

And don't for get about Amos.

Amos 9:1

1 I saw the Lord standing upon the altar: and he said, Smite the lintel of the door, that the posts may shake: and cut them in the head, all of them; and I will slay the last of them with the sword: he that fleeth of them shall not flee away, and he that escapeth of them shall not be delivered.

PS. "God is spirit" does not mean he does not have a body.

Paul says the ressurected Jesus is spirit yet we know he has a body.

1 Corinthians 15:45

45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

Men of God are also called spirits and they all have bodies.

1 Corinthians 6:17

17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

The late Dr. Brown... World Renouned Scholar on the Gospel of John had this to say about John 4:24 and the typical Christian misapplication of it.

" This is not an essentian definition of GOD, but a description of GOD'S dealing with men; it means that GOD is spirit toward men because he gives the spirit [xiv 16] which begets them anew".

"There are in fact two other such descriptions in John's writtings, " GOD is light" " 1 John 1:5, GOD is "Love"1 John 4:8, thou no one has argued that GOD is a light or a species of Love. In short,one must worship the Father through the spirit which he has given to the Church John 14:16, there being no hint that he himself is "a spirit".

Edited August 9, 2011 by Hestia

[Hannah Rebekah]

The LDS church accepts the teaching of Christ as found in John 17:19-21, where Christ said that his discuples would become one, perfect in one, with the Father, even as I (Christ) is one with the Father.

We reject the nonBiblical doctrine of "one substance", the doctrine of Emporer Constantine, who banished those who refused to vote for this creed.

That is the primary diffence between us. The creeds of man vs the teaching of Christ and the prophets.

Pardon...using an iPad that didn't want to work is the reason for the edit.

I think they have a problem with the"one substance" thingy when we know that Christ was resurrected with a "body." That would mean that they are either not of "one substance" unless the Father and the Holy Ghost have a body; or that Christ lost the "body" somewhere alone the way. This is how I see it. In either case neither fits what the scriptures say. So they have some explanin to do!!!

Edited August 10, 2011 by Hannah Rebekah

[Zakuska]

Christ having a body makes all kinds of problems for them.

[Zakuska]

<double>

Edited August 10, 2011 by Zakuska

[Kix]

Let me ask you a question, Zakuska. Have you have seen/heard a conversation with two people and one explains to the other and that person replies "Oh, I see."? Seeing isn't only used in the sense of perceiving with physical eyes. Take, for instance, a statement by Joseph Smith: "We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see..." --what veil was over our physical eye-sight and what was he trying to show us with our physical eyes? Clearly that's not the intended meaning of the text, right?

Here I think you can answer similarly the Word which Christ is the incarnation of is very intimately linked by the very being of the Father. The Word, as a procession of the Father's reason was from eternity. We can also "see" God through our experience in the Spirit and from His revelation of Himself. This doesn't mean we see him physically with our eyes.

Exodus 24

9 ¶Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel:

10 And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness.

11 And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink.

Amos 9:1

1 I saw the Lord standing upon the altar: and he said, Smite the lintel of the door, that the posts may shake: and cut them in the head, all of them; and I will slay the last of them with the sword: he that fleeth of them shall not flee away, and he that escapeth of them shall not be delivered.

I think these ones a little harder to deal with than the ones before it. I say this because it mentions things like "feet" and "standing" but based on the clarity of the other doctrinal statements and the historical understanding of God by the Jews and through the early Christians, these things should give you a huge pause to just assuming it means God literally has an animal-like body such as us. As I said--I think the best hermeneutics takes what is directly stated as doctrine and or the direct implications first (for instance, God being I AM and all things being created through him, God being the only one like himself that is and will ever be), especially if it is clarified repeatedly and that when these secondary things pop up, unless we have good reason to think that it supercedes the other, is an exception, whatever.

I think, starting with the Exodus 24 passage, taking cognizance of what I said above we can then look at the language itself and really ask yourself, in light of those things and this language, how do you think this suddenly makes it compelling that God is a man? At best it looks like a vision with strange/vague details that I don't think we have good reason to take literally. As I've already mentioned we're already familiar with the use of body parts in non-literal ways; "In the face of danger", "The hand of the king must have been in the matter." and so I'm not sure what's so ridiculous or unpersuasive about this.

As for Amos, it looks like it's directly in the context of a vision. Look at Amos 8 and see even what's going on there: "This is what the Lord God showed me: behold, a basket of summer fruit. 2 And he said, “Amos, what do you see?” And I said, “A basket of summer fruit.” Then the Lord said to me, “The end [1] has come upon my people Israel; I will never again pass by them...." etc. so the visions are obviously supposed to convey a message through the image, I don't think we should take these as literal especially where we see them representing things otherwise. I realize it isn't the exact chapter, I had to look around to see what was going on.

Paul says the ressurected Jesus is spirit yet we know he has a body.

I'll actually grant you this point because the idea of God being truly transcendent of all things and immaterial doesn't rest of the verse and I think it makes plenty of sense that just because it says "God is spirit" that it doesn't exclude the others as you've made in your point.

Men of God are also called spirits and they all have bodies.

1 Corinthians 6:17

17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

I think that this is probably a different use of the word "spirit". It seems to be implying in the same vein/mode or something of the like as opposed to an actual thing.

[Kix]

Zakuska,

I wanted to make a separate post to make things less messing/confusing/overwhelming for all readers and also it's just a different topic.

Christ having a body makes all kinds of problems for them.

Before I go into the doctrine of the incarnation of the Word (the Son), I'd like to know what problems you think it creates.

[Rob Bowman]

Hannah,

You wrote, regarding orthodox Christians:

I think they have a problem with the"one substance" thingy when we know that Christ was resurrected with a "body." That would mean that they are either not of "one substance" unless the Father and the Holy Ghost have a body; or that Christ lost the "body" somewhere alone the way. This is how I see it. In either case neither fits what the scriptures say. So they have some explanin to do!!!

I would be happy to do some explainin' for you.

The "'one substance' thingy" has to do specifically with the unity of the Deity. It is an affirmation that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit exist eternally in an indivisible or inseparable unity. They are not three separate omnipotent beings that have to sit down together in committee to make decisions or catch up on what each other is doing. In terms of their relation to the created world, the Three know, will, and act as one. Each knows what the other knows; each wills or chooses what the other chooses; and all three are active together in everything. Each fully possesses the same attributes--omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, holiness, love, etc.--perfectly and wholly and necessarily. And it has always been that way and always will be that way, from eternity to eternity. Orthodox Christians understand from the Bible that these things are true of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and that in all these ways the three Persons are one God. The expression "one substance" is not about material stuff; it is about the unity of nature, attributes, and divine mode of existence that the three persons inseparably share.

Now, according to the Bible and orthodox Christian doctrine, one of the three Persons, the Son, became incarnate (in carne is Latin for "in the flesh"; see John 1:14), assumed human nature while still being fully God (Phil. 2:6-7; Col. 2:9). We know the incarnate Son as Jesus Christ. Neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit became a human being; only the Son properly became incarnate. However, the Father and the Son were fully active and present with and in the incarnate Son: the Father was always with him and active in and through him, so much so that Jesus could say that the works that he did were works that the Father did through him (John 10:32, 37-38; 14:10-11), and the Holy Spirit was also involved in Jesus' works (Matt. 12:28; Luke 4:1, 14; John 3:34). The term "substance" with regard to Jesus' human nature refers not just to his body but to his whole human constitution, body and soul: Jesus was fully human and at the same time fully God (see again Col. 2:9; also John 20:26-29). When Jesus rose from the dead, he retained his human nature and in fact that human nature was glorified with transcendent perfection and immortality; thus, Jesus still had his physical body, now immortal and supernaturally empowered, just as the bodies of believers will be in their future resurrection (e.g., Luke 24:36-43; Rom. 6:9; 1 Cor. 15:42-49). In orthodox theological language, we say that Christ is of "one substance" with the Father with regard to the divine nature (see previous paragraph), not with regard to human nature, since only the Son became human. This means that the Son uniquely possesses two natures in his person: divine nature and human nature. He is both God and man.

This is pretty heady stuff, so if I lost you somewhere along the way, let me know and I'll try to offer whatever further clarification I can. Bottom line: orthodox theology fully affirms that Jesus the Son rose physically from the grave, that he is permanently embodied in a glorified human body, and that his oneness with the Father and the Holy Spirit is a oneness of divine nature, which does not conflict with the Son uniquely having human nature and a literal human body.

[Storm Rider]

I would be happy to do some explainin' for you.

The "'one substance' thingy" has to do specifically with the unity of the Deity. It is an affirmation that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit exist eternally in an indivisible or inseparable unity. They are not three separate omnipotent beings that have to sit down together in committee to make decisions or catch up on what each other is doing. In terms of their relation to the created world, the Three know, will, and act as one. Each knows what the other knows; each wills or chooses what the other chooses; and all three are active together in everything. Each fully possesses the same attributes--omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, holiness, love, etc.--perfectly and wholly and necessarily. And it has always been that way and always will be that way, from eternity to eternity. Orthodox Christians understand from the Bible that these things are true of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and that in all these ways the three Persons are one Godhead. The expression "one substance" is not about material stuff; it is about the unity of nature, attributes, and divine mode of existence that the three persons inseparably share.

The above is an acceptable explanation of LDS theology except for that the word God, to which I changed to Godhead (bolding the "head"). As you know, LDS have no concept of "substance"; it is foreign to them and the prophets have never seen a need to explain the divinity of Jesus by creating such a concept. I am curious, why do you think the writers of the Bible felt the need to use the term Godhead, rather than just using God?

[Flyonthewall]

Hannah,

You wrote, regarding orthodox Christians:

I would be happy to do some explainin' for you.

The "'one substance' thingy" has to do specifically with the unity of the Deity. It is an affirmation that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit exist eternally in an indivisible or inseparable unity. They are not three separate omnipotent beings that have to sit down together in committee to make decisions or catch up on what each other is doing. In terms of their relation to the created world, the Three know, will, and act as one. Each knows what the other knows; each wills or chooses what the other chooses; and all three are active together in everything. Each fully possesses the same attributes--omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, holiness, love, etc.--perfectly and wholly and necessarily. And it has always been that way and always will be that way, from eternity to eternity. Orthodox Christians understand from the Bible that these things are true of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and that in all these ways the three Persons are one God. The expression "one substance" is not about material stuff; it is about the unity of nature, attributes, and divine mode of existence that the three persons inseparably share.

Now, according to the Bible and orthodox Christian doctrine, one of the three Persons, the Son, became incarnate (in carne is Latin for "in the flesh"; see John 1:14), assumed human nature while still being fully God (Phil. 2:6-7; Col. 2:9). We know the incarnate Son as Jesus Christ. Neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit became a human being; only the Son properly became incarnate. However, the Father and the Son were fully active and present with and in the incarnate Son: the Father was always with him and active in and through him, so much so that Jesus could say that the works that he did were works that the Father did through him (John 10:32, 37-38; 14:10-11), and the Holy Spirit was also involved in Jesus' works (Matt. 12:28; Luke 4:1, 14; John 3:34). The term "substance" with regard to Jesus' human nature refers not just to his body but to his whole human constitution, body and soul: Jesus was fully human and at the same time fully God (see again Col. 2:9; also John 20:26-29). When Jesus rose from the dead, he retained his human nature and in fact that human nature was glorified with transcendent perfection and immortality; thus, Jesus still had his physical body, now immortal and supernaturally empowered, just as the bodies of believers will be in their future resurrection (e.g., Luke 24:36-43; Rom. 6:9; 1 Cor. 15:42-49). In orthodox theological language, we say that Christ is of "one substance" with the Father with regard to the divine nature (see previous paragraph), not with regard to human nature, since only the Son became human. This means that the Son uniquely possesses two natures in his person: divine nature and human nature. He is both God and man.

This is pretty heady stuff, so if I lost you somewhere along the way, let me know and I'll try to offer whatever further clarification I can. Bottom line: orthodox theology fully affirms that Jesus the Son rose physically from the grave, that he is permanently embodied in a glorified human body, and that his oneness with the Father and the Holy Spirit is a oneness of divine nature, which does not conflict with the Son uniquely having human nature and a literal human body.

This may be simplistic, but the obvious inconsistancy for me is that Jesus has two natures, divine and human, so I do not see how He can still be of 'one' nature/substance/being with the Father when He very clearly has two.

[Storm Rider]

I will say that I think a great part of the exclusion LDS incur is self inflicted. When one goes about saying that their finite corner of Christian beliefs are the "one true" real deal and all other views are apostate lines of thinking.. well, I would think that sort of reaction from the "apostates" wouldn't be out of line. I do understand what you are saying, but even for more agreeable non LDS Christians like myself, the elitism of the LDS view does bring one to feel gauled upon occasion.

This concept of being the "one true Chruch" I think can gaul people. I assume it is the same when you hear that the Catholic Church is the "One Holy, True, and Apostolic Church". Their doctrine has softened to the point that they can accpet other Christians, but with qualification. It is one thing to be gauled and quite another to deny others the name of Christ. There is a quantifiable difference to me and for this reason, I have a problem with calling it self-inflicted. Resentment, yes, self-infliction and being called non-Christian is strictly done TO the Latter-day Saint people and the LDS Church.

.....

Again bold mine Storm Rider. I am not gonna let you out of it that easy. The Holy Ghost, is actually the primary conflict I see, when I was referencing the difficulty of the LDS position on the matter. IIRC, LDS do not think he has physical body but a physical body seems a prerequisite for exaltation. Yet it would seem in the LDS paradigm that the Holy Ghost is considered to be "One God" with the Father and Son. It has it's difficulties, I would think.

Again, I would say that the Holy Ghost seems to create a bit of a hurdle here and would suggest that there is more to the relationship than only Father and Son. I'll ask for clarity's sake, do you consider the Holy Ghost to be a God? If so, then why is he considered to be not have a physical body? If not, then how can their be "one God" if part of the relation of this "one God" is less than God?

No, I don't see a problem here from LDS. Letexplainlain. For LDS Jesus was God before he came to earth in a mortal body. Prior to coming to the earth he was only spirit as the Holy Spirit is now, yest was still God. The Holy Spirit is certainly a beingSpiritprit in LDS theology, however, he is also God, the third member of the Godhead. Having a body does not equate to being God or a god. In my personal belief, theresomethingting more than unique about each member of the Godhead. They were member of the Godhead as just spirits. This is something that we as children of God could never be and for this purpose God created the world and formulated the Plan of Salvation. He allows us the opportunity to return to Him. He knows that some of us will be lost from His presence, but we each will have the opportunity to choose.

For LDS we just cannot create this concept of "substance"; it is too foreign to us. Granted, by not doing so and saying there are three Gods, but one Godhead we are open to the criticism of being polytheistic. However, we just cannot deny the simplicity of Father and Son and Holy Ghost. When asked, I state that I pray to the same God that Jesus prayed to; I guess that mamonotheisticeisitic.comfortablefotable with the label; I am never confused about who is God and who is not and who all of pray to. Though I know some groups make a habit of praying directly to Jesus and in many both the Father and Son arinterchangeablyangably in the same prayer, at the end of the day, I know they worship the same God that I do and that we have far more in common than that we separates us.

Continued blessings,

[Rob Bowman]

Storm Rider,

The KJV uses the word "Godhead" only three times (Acts 17:29; Rom. 1:20; Col. 2:9), and in none of these does it refer to the three persons collectively. In fact, Colossians 2:9 says that the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Christ bodily, which can hardly mean that three separate beings dwell in him. The Greek words in these verses are all closely related words. In Acts 17:29 Paul uses the noun to theion, "the Divinity," a term referring in context to one specific God (mentioned specifically in the first part of the verse). In Romans 1:20 Paul says that God's own "eternal power and divine nature" (theiotes) are clearly evident from the created world around us. The term here has nothing to do with the three persons per se. In Colossians 2:9 Paul says that the fullness of the Deity (theotes) dwells in Christ bodily. This is a variant form of theiotes found in Romans 1:20 and both words mean basically the same thing, though we might get the nuance right by translating theiotes "divine nature" and translating theotes "divine being" or "Deity."

LDS theology has a totally different understanding of the unity of the three persons. It views them as three separate entities with three separate histories. The Father was a man who became a God; later the Son was a divine spirit that became a God and later became a man; and the Holy Ghost is apparently another spirit son of the Father that became a God, but this spirit son has never had a physical body. in LDS doctrine, these are properly described as three Gods.

The above is an acceptable explanation of LDS theology except for that the word God, to which I changed to Godhead (bolding the "head"). As you know, LDS have no concept of "substance"; it is foreign to them and the prophets have never seen a need to explain the divinity of Jesus by creating such a concept. I am curious, why do you think the writers of the Bible felt the need to use the term Godhead, rather than just using God?

[Rob Bowman]

Fly,

You wrote:

This may be simplistic, but the obvious inconsistancy for me is that Jesus has two natures, divine and human, so I do not see how He can still be of 'one' nature/substance/being with the Father when He very clearly has two.

Yes, I'd say that was simplistic, but that's okay.

Jesus is "of one substance/nature/being" with the Father with respect to the divine nature only. Jesus has two natures, divine and human. "Of one substance" applied only with respect to the divine nature.

[Anakin7]

Fly,

You wrote:

Yes, I'd say that was simplistic, but that's okay.

Jesus is "of one substance/nature/being" with the Father with respect to the divine nature only. Jesus has two natures, divine and human. "Of one substance" applied only with respect to the divine nature.

Awesome !, Thats True LDS Doctrine,Teaching,Thought,Practice,Walk. The True Substance [True GOD Nature] is what all three members of the Godhead possess. AMEN

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

Edited August 10, 2011 by Anakin7

[zerinus]

Jesus is "of one substance/nature/being" with the Father with respect to the divine nature only. Jesus has two natures, divine and human. "Of one substance" applied only with respect to the divine nature.

Okay, let's say that Jesus had a divine and a human nature in mortality. Does He still have a divine and a human nature now that He has been resurrected and returned to His Father in heaven, or is He all divine nature now? The scripture says that He was made "man" in order to die on the cross. His human nature enabled Him to suffer and die for man:

Philippians 2

:

6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and

was made in the likeness of men:

8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient

unto death, even the death of the cross

.

9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

Does He still have that nature? Is He still able to die and suffer again in His glorified and resurrected state? I think not. In fact, according to the early Christian doctrine of theosis, He actually deified the "human nature" that He put on:

For the Word was not degraded by receiving a body, so that he should seek to “receive” God’s gift. Rather he

deified what he put on;

and, more than that, he bestowed this gift upon the race of men. (Athanasius)

So by this doctrine He is no longer "part human," but all divine. But He still has a physical body! So how does He incorporate his deified physical body into the conglomerate of the Trinity?

Edited August 10, 2011 by zerinus

[Zakuska]

The "'one substance' thingy" has to do specifically with the unity of the Deity. It is an affirmation that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit exist eternally in an indivisible or inseparable unity. They are not three separate omnipotent beings that have to sit down together in committee to make decisions or catch up on what each other is doing. In terms of their relation to the created world, the Three know, will, and act as one. Each knows what the other knows; each wills or chooses what the other chooses; and all three are active together in everything. Each fully possesses the same attributes--omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, holiness, love, etc.--perfectly and wholly and necessarily. And it has always been that way and always will be that way, from eternity to eternity. Orthodox Christians understand from the Bible that these things are true of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and that in all these ways the three Persons are one God.

Mormons would whole heartedly agree that they are united in purpose and will and that they act as one. "Most of the time"... I say this because.... Christ prayed for the cup to be passed from him if at all possible, before finally submitting to it. Yes ultimately he did do the fathers will but not before "counciling" with him.

I also have to take exception to the "Knowing"...

Matthew 24:36

36 ¶But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

Mark 13:32

32 ¶But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

The expression "one substance" is not about material stuff; it is about the unity of nature, attributes, and divine mode of existence that the three persons inseparably share.

Thats funny...

Pre-Nicene use of the term

The term ὁμοούσιος had been used before its adoption by the Nicene theology. The Gnostics were the first theologians to use the word "homoousios", while before the Gnostics there is no trace at all of its existence.^[1] The early church theologians were probably made aware of this concept, and thus of the doctrine of emanation, by the Gnostics.^[2] In Gnostic texts the word "homoousios" is used with these meanings: (1) identity of substance between generating and generated; (2) identity of substance between things generated of the same substance; (3) identity of substance between the partners of a syzygy. For example, Basilides, the first known Gnostic thinker to use "homoousios" in the first half of the 2nd century, speaks of a threefold sonship consubstantial with the god who is not.^[3] The Valentinian Gnostic Ptolemy claims in his letter to Flora that it is the nature of the good God to beget and bring forth only beings similar to, and consubstantial with himself.^[4] "Homoousios" was already in current use by the 2nd-century Gnostics, and through their works it became known to the orthodox heresiologists, though this Gnostic use of the term had no reference to the specific relationship between Father and Son, as is the case in the Nicene Creed

Its all about "acutal substance" and Material stuff and it was adopted from the Gnostics!

Of course this is probably one of those cases where Christians did what they accuse Mormons of doing on a regular basis (on many boards I post at) and stole a term from another faith community and then redefined it.

Edited August 11, 2011 by Zakuska

[Flyonthewall]

I believe a better distinction than divine and human nature, would be physical and spiritual.

You say Christ is fully human and fully divine, and since His human nature does not take away one bit from His divine nature, then human can = divine.

Christ came to earth as a mortal, subject to all the temptations of the flesh, and overcame them.(Note: when I say "subject to", I mean exposed to).

While in this mortal life we have physical desires, wants and needs. Jesus overcame the physical side of things and focused on spiritual things.

We are promised to sit with Christ on His throne, just as He sits with His Father on His Father's throne, to those that overcome.

We, as humans, can be a spiritual person, which is what the scriptures teach. To become "one" with God is to overcome the physical, and become spiritual.

[LeSellers]

First, we read this:

If you are objecting to "technical theology," you can be assured that there is no such thing that you should need to object to it!

Then we read this:

Well I hate to come to the defence of Rob! But [pulling "technical theologians out of thin air] is not quite what he did.

Which is it? Is there such a thing as "technical theology" or not?

If not, then Rob must have pulled them out of thin air, because he acted like his version of God and created them ex nihil. If it does exist, then you were wrong in saying it does not. Both propositions cannot be true.

And, while it may be true that "theology" existed in the II, it is not true that Peter was a theologian: he was an Apostle. Paul may have been a theologian, but he repented along the way to Damascus.

Further, Joseph Smith did not write Lectures on Faith, Sidney Rigdon (a theologian) did. Joseph didn't need "theology": he had seen and talked with God.

There are two different kinds of "theology". One, the "true" kind, comes from God by direct revelation and is the relating of the knowledge He vouchsafed to the prophet. The second is nothing more than the idle (albeit rigorous) musings of uninspired men (like Constantine) on subjects they know only from "study". Joseph Smith said that he could learn more in five minutes of looking into heaven than by a month's study of the Bible*. He was not talking about astronomy. He was, as I understand it, telling us all to go to the Source of Truth. We should prepare o urselves, and that takes study, but we should not presume to tell God what the answer is because we "know" what it should be. We need our "five minutes of looking into heaven".

* The quote is not exact: I don't have my library handy now.

Lehi

[zerinus]

First, we read this:

Then we read this:

Which is it? Is there such a thing as "technical theology" or not?

If not, then Rob must have pulled them out of thin air, because he acted like his version of God and created them ex nihil. If it does exist, then you were wrong in saying it does not. Both propositions cannot be true.

I think that you misunderstood what he was saying.

And, while it may be true that "theology" existed in the II, it is not true that Peter was a theologian: he was an Apostle. Paul may have been a theologian, but he repented along the way to Damascus.

All true prophets are theologians. Theology is the science of knowing God; and if a prophet doesn't know God, he is nothing.

Further, Joseph Smith did not write Lectures on Faith, Sidney Rigdon (a theologian) did. Joseph didn't need "theology": he had seen and talked with God.

Joseph Smith did write the Lectures on Faith. He is the only one who could have written the Lectures on Faith. No one else had the kind of revelation and inspiration required to be able to write the Lectures on Faith.

There are two different kinds of "theology". One, the "true" kind, comes from God by direct revelation and is the relating of the knowledge He vouchsafed to the prophet. The second is nothing more than the idle (albeit rigorous) musings of uninspired men (like Constantine) on subjects they know only from "study". Joseph Smith said that he could learn more in five minutes of looking into heaven than by a month's study of the Bible*. He was not talking about astronomy. He was, as I understand it, telling us all to go to the Source of Truth. We should prepare o urselves, and that takes study, but we should not presume to tell God what the answer is because we "know" what it should be. We need our "five minutes of looking into heaven".

* The quote is not exact: I don't have my library handy now.

You are wrong about many things. I wish there was a quick and easy way of explaining to you why; but unfortunately there isn't one.

[coolrok7]

Biblical teaching is consistent as the truth of God and at times people aren’t always consistent with what it teaches.

(zerinus)I was under the impression that Evangelicals believe in a consistent theology. I didn’t know it was a free-for-all. Perhaps I should have known better. . . .

It is a given for most groups of like-minded people that they have at times differing views about the same topics and use different ways of expressing a common belief (sometimes not the best way of expressing the view held in common with others).

Sorry to break the bad news, but the whole of Trinitarian theology is expressed in "bad language". It is a crazy doctrine, so it comes our crazy whichever way you try to say it.

The “bad news” actually is that Joseph Smith has some “bad language” inserted in place of biblical teaching at certain points of Biblical doctrine in his own writings.

Joseph Smith said that God told him which I don’t believe it was God at all (we all can be wrong at times, we’re all corrupted with sinful natures but the creeds express, sometimes “in other words”, Biblical teaching:

for they were all wrong; . . .all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt;

Concerning creeds, a comment from Robert Millet at Mariners Church in Newport Beach, Ca. in dialogue with Greg Johnson a few years ago:

. . .Thus let’s take one of those harsh language things you’re talking about. Such as, “all their creeds are an abomination in my sight”. That’s hard language, I know that. Let me just say there’s nothing wrong with a creed per say.

A creed is from the Latin, “Creedo”, which just means, “I believe”. I suppose in a sense, our Articles of Faith are a creedal statement of 13 statements of belief by the Latter-day Saints. There’s nothing wrong with a creed per say, it’s when a creed does one of two things.

One, perpetuates an idea or principle or a doctrine that is either unscriptural or non-true. And we think there were some things within, for example, the Nicene creed that we would take issue with, no question. But it also, and this seemed to me to be almost more of an obsession with Joseph Smith about creeds. I’ve read everything he said about creeds and most everything he’s concerned about is what people were doing with creeds in the nineteenth century. They were beating their neighbors over their heads with them.

The founding fathers, many of them reacted strongly against creedal declarations and definitions because of what it was doing to divide people. “You don’t accept my creed, you’re not in Christianity. You don’t accept my creed, you’re not a part of us.” And so what I think Joseph Smith, as well as doctrinal content, Joseph Smith was just as concerned with creedalism. Alexander Campbell, founder as it were of the Disciples or the Church of Christ, deeply concerned.

He was the one that said, “no creed but the Bible.” So I think what we are saying, yes, that is harsh language. Has the church changed it’s position? No, we believe there was a falling away. But I think there’s less tendency in the church to want to set up barriers between us and other people, and we’re more prone recognize now, the goodness, the truth that exists in other faiths and try to find things which we can work together to solve problems in society. . . .

From the Gospel of John:

Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment. Then said some of them of Jerusalem, Is not this he, whom they seek to kill? But, lo, he speaketh boldly, and they say nothing unto him. Do the rulers know indeed that this is the very Christ? Howbeit we know this man whence he is: but when Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence he is. Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am: and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not. But I know him: for I am from him, and he hath sent me. (John 7:24-29)

Zerinus, why then does Joseph Smith use this “crazy” “bad language” from the Nicene Creed (the purported abominable creed) in the BofM, using the “very” terminology from one of the “abominable” “creeds” in Mormon 3:21 (also from the KJV above):

And also that ye may believe the gospel of Jesus Christ, which ye shall have among you; and also that the Jews, the covenant people of the Lord, shall have other witness besides him whom they saw and heard, that Jesus, whom they slew, was the very Christ and the (*) very God.

* The term “very God” was used to defend the Deity of Christ in the Nicene Creed (against the Arian heresy).

The term “very” is not in the Greek manuscripts of the Bible, from which translations come, but appears in the King James translation alongside the term Christ as quoted from John above.