Trinitarians Do Not View God As An Abstraction!

[Rob Bowman]

Steve,

When I say "God" without any qualification, I am very often referring to the Father, but what I say (again where there is no clear qualification) might also apply to the other two persons as well. I can also use the term in reference to the three persons in their unity. I don't know if I can quantify which usage is most common in my own personal speech.

Rob,

When you, personally, say "God," are you usually referring to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit collectively, or just one of them?

[ebeddoulos]

There are three primary creeds which over time refined the definition of trinity; those being the Apostle's Creed (date unknown), The Nicene Creed (325 CE), the Athenasian Creed (late 5th - early 6th century).

The Apostles Creed, in its present form, does little more than mandate a belief in God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost. There is little, if anything, which indicates or acknowledges the theory of the trinity.

The Nicene Creed is more specifically worded than the Apostles Creed to define the Divinity of Christ and to expose heretical views, in particular, Arianism. Yet the theory of the Trinity is but an embryo, if that, in the Nicene Creed. The primary claim to fame for the Nicene creed is the addition of the filioque. Because this was unilaterally added by the Latin speaking churches, it became one of the major issues which caused the 1054 a.d. Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox schism.

It is the Athanasian Creed which finally gives birth to the Trinity theory. I reproduce a portion of the Athanasian Creed below but I do so hesitantly because I know Rob Bowman thinks that older books and the ideas within them have an associated outdate. Schaff did his writing in the mid-1800s and that the Athanasian Creed is a thousand years plus older so poor Rob is probably going to be apoplectic. I assure you all that I have examined Shaff’s Creeds of Christiandom quite closely and cannot find anything similar to a “Best If Used Before:” date stamped on them.

• 3. … That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
  4. Neither confounding the Persons: nor dividing the Substance [Essence] .
  5. For there is one Person of the Father: another of the Son: and another of the Holy Ghost.
  6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one: the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal.
  7. Such as the Father is: such is the Son: and such is the Holy Ghost.
  15. So the Father is God: the Son is God: and the Holy Ghost is God.
  16. And yet they are not three Gods: but one God.
  17. So likewise the Father is Lord: the Son Lord: and the Holy Ghost Lord.
  18. And yet not three Lords: but one Lord.
  19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity: to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord:
  20. So are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion: to say, There be [are] three Gods, or three Lords.
  Phillip Schaff, “The Creeds of Christiandom”, Grand Rapids: Baker Books, [1998 reprint of the 1931 edition], vol 2 of 3, pg 66-67

Now if lines 15-20 is not an abstract idea, I would like to be instructed as to why not. And according to Rob Bowman and others who espouse the Athansian Trinity dogma, if you do not “think” this way about the Trinity you will not be saved. So much for saved by grace.

[BCSpace]

I am not a she and yes, the trinitarian god is an abstraction. You can trace this starting as Jesus, to the second century christian, becomes the "Logos", which to the Greeks, whose philosophy the early christians adopted in order to become mainstream, was a divine principle that brought order to creation and made knowledge possible; also the "Reason of God".

The most important step that was ever taken in the domain of Christian doctrine was when the Christian apologists at the beginning of the second century drew the equation: the Logos = Jesus Christ. Ancient teachers before them had also called Christ "the Logos" among the many predicates which they ascribed to him; nay, one of them, John, had already formulated the proposition: "The Logos is Jesus Christ." But with John this proposition had not become the basis of every speculative idea about Christ; with him, too, "the Logos" was only a predicate. But now teachers came forward who previous to their conversion had been adherents of the platonico-stoical philosophy, and with whom the conception "Logos" formed an inalienable part of a general philosophy of the world.

Harnack, What is Christianity?, 202-203

A trinitarians like Bowman have nothing to work with because as was stated earlier, trinitarians themselves don't know what the trinity is. So what a trinitarian apologist has to do is deny everything but posit nothing.

[Hughes]

I am not a she and yes, the trinitarian god is an abstraction. You can trace this starting as Jesus, to the second century christian, becomes the "Logos", which to the Greeks, whose philosophy the early christians adopted in order to become mainstream, was a divine principle that brought order to creation and made knowledge possible; also the "Reason of God".

A trinitarians like Bowman have nothing to work with because as was stated earlier, trinitarians themselves don't know what the trinity is. So what a trinitarian apologist has to do is deny everything but posit nothing.

As was stated by Rob in the OP, "...these are false statements. They are blatant misrepresentations of the doctrine of the Trinity. No Trinitarian views God as an abstraction."

Why continue to misrepresent what we believe?

[Mudcat]

I am not a she and yes, the trinitarian god is an abstraction.

I don't believe this is the case BC.

I don't want to horn in on Bowman's thread. But your address is certainly broad enough that I feel room to remark.

I dunno if actually fit the norm for Evangelicals, but on this issue I think I am on par. I believe in a tangible Savior. Christ had a body and still does. I believe that the Holy Spirit, though intangible, lives within me and has communicated on occasions with me. I believe the Father has answered prayers, requests for healing and so forth by his actions.

Well.. this sort of thing seems far from abstract.

You can trace this starting as Jesus, to the second century christian, becomes the "Logos", which to the Greeks, whose philosophy the early christians adopted in order to become mainstream, was a divine principle that brought order to creation and made knowledge possible; also the "Reason of God".

The thing I am impressed with is the apparent LDS ability to specifically define when Christians of a period erred while at the same time they are not able to specifically define when apostasy occurred.

What is your evidence in regard to the 2nd century Christians?

Would you disagree with the statement that Jesus is the Living Word of God?

edit add.. LDS seem to define "One God" as oneness is purpose. I would ask you BC, how in the world is "oneness in purpose" anything but an abstraction?

Edited September 3, 2011 by Mudcat

[altersteve]

I am not a she and yes, the trinitarian god is an abstraction.

No, He's not.

[Bernard Gui]

7. Such as the Father is: such is the Son: and such is the Holy Ghost.

If the Father is not a resurrected being of flesh and bone, then

neither is the Son. But Jesus said a spirit does not have flesh and bone

as he has, therefore, the Son is not such as the Father.

#7 is false.

Bernard

[Zakuska]

• 15. So the Father is God: the Son is God: and the Holy Ghost is God.
  16. And yet they are not three Gods: but one God.
  17. So likewise the Father is Lord: the Son Lord: and the Holy Ghost Lord.
  18. And yet not three Lords: but one Lord.
  19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity: to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord:
  20. So are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion: to say, There be [are] three Gods, or three Lords.
  Phillip Schaff, “The Creeds of Christiandom”, Grand Rapids: Baker Books, [1998 reprint of the 1931 edition], vol 2 of 3, pg 66-67

Now if lines 15-20 is not an abstract idea, I would like to be instructed as to why not. And according to Rob Bowman and others who espouse the Athansian Trinity dogma, if you do not “think” this way about the Trinity you will not be saved. So much for saved by grace.

Which is also contrary to scripture...

1 Cor 8

6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

[ebeddoulos]

Which is also contrary to scripture...

1 Cor 8

6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Agreed. But what really is surprising, at least to me, is that the "saved by grace alone" crowd actually buys into dogma that one cannot be saved unless one believes in the in the dogma of the Athansian trinity. It is either that or they find it acceptable to selectively believe or not believe in the various aspects of the dogma of the Athansian trinity. If that be the case, then the LDS doctrine of the Godhead should not be an issue for them.

This would be an interesting question for the Athansian trinitarian folk to answer:

"Can one selectively decide which aspects of the Athanasian trinity dogma one should believe in or must one believe it all in order to be saved?

[ldsfaqs]

I would like to also point out that Rob Bowman quoted the "Baptist Confession" on the Trinity, not the actual traditional Trinity of the Nicene Creed.

The traditional Trinity doesn't call God a "being" (although the modern ones do), and the Athanasian Creed certainly doesn't which is really the actual "Trinity" most Christians follow. In fact, most "Trinitarians" balk when LDS mention modalism which is really the trinity that Rob Bowman has described, i.e. one being, essence, substance, etc. manifested as "three persons", not three Gods, not three beings, but three "persons".

The traditional trinity simply states that God has a "substance" that Christ etc. is part of by being begotten thereof.

What is further interesting to me is that the Original Nicene Creed is entirely "LDS in it's structure".

However, modern versions of it, the ecumenical councils, the various Protestant and Evangelical versions, all vary and have been changed significantly and worse so, doctrinally speaking. The modern creeds teach a completely different Gospel than the original one.

[ldsfaqs]

Agreed. But what really is surprising, at least to me, is that the "saved by grace alone" crowd actually buys into dogma that one cannot be saved unless one believes in the in the dogma of the Athansian trinity. It is either that or they find it acceptable to selectively believe or not believe in the various aspects of the dogma of the Athansian trinity. If that be the case, then the LDS doctrine of the Godhead should not be an issue for them.

This would be an interesting question for the Athansian trinitarian folk to answer:

"Can one selectively decide which aspects of the Athanasian trinity dogma one should believe in or must one believe it all in order to be saved?

Me I'll go with the "original" version, which actually represents more so the original teaching of the Church and Christ's Gospel, compared to that of men, which completely changed the theology as years went by into something completely different, and particular individuals pet-peeved interpretations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed

Edited September 3, 2011 by ldsfaqs

[elguanteloko]

To JeremyOrbe-Smith about your definitions::

1

a : disassociated from any specific instance <an abstract entity>

Since you need to clarify what the "specific instance" is so as to say God is disassociated from it , then this can't be answered. Same for everything that is unspecified, actually.

b : difficult to understand : abstruse <abstract problems>

Sure. But in this case anything you find hard to understand is abstract for you though it doesn't need to be so for others. Then, this doesn't explain anything about the thing itself we are speaking about. It only says it's hard to understand but a bunch of concrete stuff are hard to understand (the movement of an electron, for example) and this is clearly not what is meant here (or should be meant) by the word "abstract in the posts Rob is talking about. In other words, saying something is 'abstract' in this sense speaks about our abilities, not about the thing we are referring to.

c : insufficiently factual : formal <possessed only an abstract right>

God's existence as a Trinity is purported by believers to be a fact so this also doesn't hold. In this sense God isn't said to be more 'abstract' by the Trinity than cars are... that is, not at all (then, factual).

2 : expressing a quality apart from an object <the word poem is concrete, poetry is abstract>

Since we are not talking about a quality of God but about the object, then this definition also doesn't hold. If you say that we are talking about a quality of God, namely God's existence, then your definition is going to apply to everything that exists, making it useless since it now describes everything.

3

a : dealing with a subject in its abstract aspects : theoretical <abstract science>

Once again, we are speaking of God's ACTUAL existence, not about his 'theoretical' aspects. If you are measuring my height and weight and you speak of these measurements, you aren't dealing with 'abstract' aspects of me but about actual properties about me (namely, short and fat).

b : impersonal, detached <the abstract compassion of a surgeon - Time>

Well, Trinitarians do define God as personal and loving, so this other one doesn't work. That's about God but if we speak about the statement of the Trinity then things get worse since statements can't really be 'personal'. That you quote this definition and the next one is just bizarre.

4 : having only intrinsic form with little or no attempt at pictorial representation or narrative content <abstract painting>

I don't get how this use can be used here.

[zerinus]

In another thread, BCSpace wrote:

This isn't the first time BCSpace has advanced this false claim about what Trinitarians believe. In the thread "Question for Evangelicals on the Trinity," she wrote:

And she also wrote this:

Thankfully, some of BCSpace's fellow Mormons disagreed with her criticism (thanks, Ahab and Mola). As I have explained to her in that thread, these are false statements. They are blatant misrepresentations of the doctrine of the Trinity. No Trinitarian views God as an abstraction. Here is what I said in that thread:

BCSpace made no response at all to the above post. Yet here she is again making the same false statements about what we Trinitarians believe.

In fairness to BCSpace, she isn't the first Mormon to make a false accusation of this sort against the doctrine of the Trinity. Bruce R. McConkie characterized the doctrine of the Trinity as affirming "one spirit nothingness" (The Promised Messiah: The First Coming of Christ, 132), as "an impersonal nothingness" (The Mortal Messiah 1:64). In his book Articles of Faith James Talmage quoted with apparent approval Orson Pratt's claim that "there are two classes of atheists in the world," the explicit kind that denies any God exists and the "religious atheist," referring to the orthodox Christian, who "believes that Nothing is god and worships it as such" (465).

I trust that those of you who are LDS and who do not appreciate it when critics make inaccurate statements about your beliefs will be consistent and let it be known that Mormons should also not make such patently false statements about Trinitarians.

The Trinity doctrine is not an abstraction, it is an absurdity; calling it an abstraction gives it a measure of intellectual respectability that it does not deserve. Something can be "abstract" but still be intelligible, and make sense. This thing doesn't make sense. What doesn't make sense is called an absurdity, not an abstraction.

[Rob Bowman]

ebed,

You wrote:

There are three primary creeds which over time refined the definition of trinity; those being the Apostle's Creed (date unknown), The Nicene Creed (325 CE), the Athenasian Creed (late 5th - early 6th century).

The Apostles Creed, in its present form, does little more than mandate a belief in God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost. There is little, if anything, which indicates or acknowledges the theory of the trinity.

The Nicene Creed is more specifically worded than the Apostles Creed to define the Divinity of Christ and to expose heretical views, in particular, Arianism. Yet the theory of the Trinity is but an embryo, if that, in the Nicene Creed. The primary claim to fame for the Nicene creed is the addition of the filioque. Because this was unilaterally added by the Latin speaking churches, it became one of the major issues which caused the 1054 a.d. Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox schism.

It is the Athanasian Creed which finally gives birth to the Trinity theory. I reproduce a portion of the Athanasian Creed below but I do so hesitantly because I know Rob Bowman thinks that older books and the ideas within them have an associated outdate. Schaff did his writing in the mid-1800s and that the Athanasian Creed is a thousand years plus older so poor Rob is probably going to be apoplectic. I assure you all that I have examined Shaff’s Creeds of Christiandom quite closely and cannot find anything similar to a “Best If Used Before:” date stamped on them.

Okay, you've had your little laugh. Hopefully this wasn't meant as a serious argument but just a bit of sarcasm.

The Nicene Creed is clearly Trinitarian in its theology, although it does not use the word "Trinity." The Athanasian Creed did not "give birth to the Trinity theory," since Christians had been speaking about the Trinity (using that specific word) for over two centuries before the Athanasian Creed.

You wrote:

Now if lines 15-20 is not an abstract idea, I would like to be instructed as to why not.

I've addressed this confusion before. Ideas can be abstract; realities can be explained in an abstract way. But the claim to which I objected was the claim that Trinitarians view God himself as a mere abstraction. That is a patently, flagrantly false claim.

You wrote:

And according to Rob Bowman and others who espouse the Athansian Trinity dogma, if you do not “think” this way about the Trinity you will not be saved. So much for saved by grace.

I've addressed this before, too. In fact, I addressed it so often I published a blog article on it.

[Rob Bowman]

ldsfaqs,

You wrote:

I would like to also point out that Rob Bowman quoted the "Baptist Confession" on the Trinity, not the actual traditional Trinity of the Nicene Creed.

It's called the Baptist Faith and Message, and I quoted it because the discussion was specifically about what evangelicals believe about the Trinity.

You wrote:

The traditional Trinity doesn't call God a "being" (although the modern ones do), and the Athanasian Creed certainly doesn't which is really the actual "Trinity" most Christians follow.... The traditional trinity simply states that God has a "substance" that Christ etc. is part of by being begotten thereof.

This is how the Nicene Creed's statement about Christ's deity reads in modern translations, such as is found in the modern Book of Common Prayer:

"We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,

the only Son of God,

eternally begotten of the Father,

God from God, Light from Light,

true God from true God,

begotten, not made,

of one Being with the Father."

The reason for this translation is that the modern English word substance is too easily misunderstood to refer to material composition or "stuff," which is not what the Greek homoousios or the Latin substantia meant.

You wrote:

In fact, most "Trinitarians" balk when LDS mention modalism which is really the trinity that Rob Bowman has described, i.e. one being, essence, substance, etc. manifested as "three persons", not three Gods, not three beings, but three "persons".

No, what I described is the Trinity, not modalism. Modalism denies that God is three persons; it maintains that God is a single person who manifests himself in three different ways or modes.

Perhaps the strictures expressed elsewhere on this forum recently against one presuming to know what another person believes better than he does has some relevance here.

You wrote:

What is further interesting to me is that the Original Nicene Creed is entirely "LDS in it's structure". However, modern versions of it, the ecumenical councils, the various Protestant and Evangelical versions, all vary and have been changed significantly and worse so, doctrinally speaking. The modern creeds teach a completely different Gospel than the original one.

This is simply false. Modern versions of the Nicene Creed are simply modern language translations; they do not change the actual doctrine of the creed. And I do not believe that any Mormon could agree that Christ is "eternally begotten of the Father" or "of one being/substance with the Father" (using "substance" in its intended sense).

Edited September 3, 2011 by Rob Bowman

[Loran Blood]

But whether one accepts the doctrine of the Trinity or not, or finds it intelligible or not, it is simply a misrepresentation to claim that God in Trinitarian theology is "an abstraction" or "nothingness" and that Trinitarians are "closet atheists." This should not even be necessary to debate; it is an obvious and fragrant misrepresentation.

But for historical (post-apostolic to the present) Catholic and Protestant Christianity, is it not the case that Christians conceive of God as "immaterial?" Is it not the case that Christians conceive of God, whatever he or "it" is, as outside or beyond matter, and in a state of radical contradistinction to it?

As Vance pointed out (!), the doctrine of the Trinity does not teach that the three persons are..."three beings in one." The triune God is one being in three distinct persons

.

So then, the Trinity is not an ontological composition of three beings in one essence, but a composition of one being comprised of a totality of three. If that is the case, there appears to be a distinction without very much difference to deal with. What is the difference, or the theological ramifications, of a god that is a group of three entities combined into one, or one single entity comprised of three? These would appear to be nothing more than logical reciprocals of each other.

On the other hand, when you ask about Jesus' praying in Gethsemane, "What does that even mean if there is not more than one person speaking?" you are making the opposite error of construing the Trinity to mean that God is only one person.

But the doctrine of the Trinity teaches that these three "persons" (which itself is a very difficult concept in the trinitarian sense, as they defy the law of identity) are a single ontological essence, or entity, which is both logically and conceptually unintelligible. Nothing can be conceptually understood in some fundamental, underlying ontological sense as one and yet three, or three and yet one (the difference in going either way, emphasizing one in three or three as one, not being particularly clear as to its philosophical consequences). Why does it matter if Christ is concieved, when praying in the Garden, as an aspect or "person" of a greater, single entity (three in one) or as that one, single entity fully comprised within himself (one as three) but separated from the single entity for some earthy function?

3. You stated that if God is personal "He must be limited to a body or substance of some sort" and therefore cannot be infinite. This is a theological and philosophical assertion, and perhaps I should say assumption. I don't know why God must be limited to a body or something similar to be personal. That claim seems to make an assumption about what counts as personal.

But so does the doctrine of the Trinity and its defense, which makes huge assumptions regarding the ontological nature of God and their relationship to his personal attributes. The doctrine of the Trinity makes, for example, the very same assumption as you criticize Jeremy, only going the other direction, i.e., that God can be "immaterial" and metaphysically, wholly "other" than man, and yet at the same time have a personal relationship with him.

The demand that God communicate truth about himself in such a way that no one could misunderstand or misinterpret it is a demand contrary to fact.

What does this mean?

Whatever one's theology, clearly some people have misunderstood the Bible. The only question is whose understanding is the better, or best, understanding of what God has said. If we accept that God is a transcendent being beyond our abilities to comprehend fully, this premise neatly accounts for the differing views of the nature of God

It don't think this can be sustained. There is no question that we cannot in any sense fully understand God's attributes (his love, intelligence, knowledge, wisdom, omniscience, omnipotence etc.). However, biblically speaking, there is no reason to think that his fundamental structure as an existent being (depending upon which God we are discussing) as a exalted, glorified member of the human family, and his beingness as a separate, individual person composed of matter and having dimension and substance, is anything beyond what anyone of normal intelligence can grasp, with the exception being the level of being at which that matter exists (the matter composing God's physical structure is of a perfected, exalted, divine nature, quite unlike ours).

Edited September 3, 2011 by Loran Blood

[ldsfaqs]

ldsfaqs,

It's called the Baptist Faith and Message, and I quoted it because the discussion was specifically about what evangelicals believe about the Trinity.

Oh, I know that's what you believe. But it's NOT the original Nicene Trinity.

This is how the Nicene Creed's statement about Christ's deity reads in modern translations, such as is found in the modern Book of Common Prayer:

"We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,

the only Son of God,

eternally begotten of the Father,

God from God, Light from Light,

true God from true God,

begotten, not made,

of one Being with the Father."

The reason for this translation is that the modern English word substance is too easily misunderstood to refer to material composition or "stuff," which is not what the Greek homoousios or the Latin substantia meant.

I'm well aware of what the "modern interpretations" and adaptations are.

No, what I described is the Trinity, not modalism. Modalism denies that God is three persons; it maintains that God is a single person who manifests himself in three different ways or modes.

The two mix together, so no matter what LDS say, we are accused of Modalism.

Perhaps the strictures expressed elsewhere on this forum recently against one presuming to know what another person believes better than he does has some relevance here.

I'm not contesting against what YOU believe, only what the actual Trinity actually was.

This is simply false. Modern versions of the Nicene Creed are simply modern language translations; they do not change the actual doctrine of the creed. And I do not believe that any Mormon could agree that Christ is "eternally begotten of the Father" or "of one being/substance with the Father" (using "substance" in its intended sense).

It's not false at all.... You are confused. Modern versions of the Nicene Creed are not simply "modern language translations". Read the link to the Wikipedia article on the Nicene Creed I posted or google it. It shows the ORIGINAL english language translation of the Nicene Creed. Modern so-called "translations" are not actually translations, they are later interpretations and adaptations. They are the equivalent of what Joseph Smith did with the Bible, clarifying and changing some things, in some cases completely opposite meanings.

Also, the modern versions most certainly DO change the doctrines in the creed. When I read the original I see LDS Doctrine.... When I read the modern and other versions, I see a completely different theology. I not only see it, but you all claim it.

Further, you only show how you don't know mormonism. Mormonism completely teaches that Christ was the Only Begotten of the Father, the only mortal to be sired by God, i.e. the Father. Thus, obviously they ARE of the "same substance". That's how the original Nicene Creed read..... but your later versions changed it into them being actually the "same being". They were NEVER the same being.

[ldsfaqs]

Here's the "original" Nicene Creed.... It's NOTHING like the modern versions, and it's entirely LDS in Doctrine.

Edited September 3, 2011 by ldsfaqs

[HeatherAnn]

Well insnt a happy middle the best bet.

Sometimes it is.

"Moderation in all things."

And I'd say, the middle is not always happy. It can be downright confusing & soul-wrenching.

Considering multiple perspectives takes work & sometimes emotional pain.

Sometimes the middle may not be best.

Scriptures indicate Jesus cautioning not to be "luke warm" or else we'll be spit out.

What's most important is spirit! Passion!

If we're just floating along the path of least resistance, where's the spirit & passion?

Yet, "wickedness never was happiness."

This is why I think it's so important to combine both intellect & spirit (intuition) in discovering what is best, of God, in any given circumstance.

[HeatherAnn]

Yes, God is. And how do we learn, such as to change from belief, faith or hope to *knowing*?

As a mystic, I would say by *experiencing*. But words fail-- the reality is ineffable. So we use metaphors and symbols. Which results in others who have experienced God understanding the metaphors etc., and everyone else being annoyed, because they cannot.

HiJolly

Good points, Jolly.

It's why I love parables.

When I'm "in tune" - I realize the essence of all is more spiritual - that almost everything can be spiritual metaphors.

We interpret according to our understanding, heart & intent.

I don't think much is 100% knowable, because our perspectives are limited.

"A conclusion is when one gets tired of thinking."

I think the essence of spirituality is searching... reaching for answers... through active faith.

That which is alive is moving, growing - that which is dead isn't.

[erichard]

... No Trinitarian views God as an abstraction. ...

I am sure you are correct in this statement.

However, the idea of an "immaterial" being, by definition, is abstract. So what they consider "God" to others is an abstration.

BCSpace could have said: To them, "God" is what others think of as an abstraction that permeates the Father and the Son (and the HG).

Would you agree with that?

Richard

[Rob Bowman]

Loran,

You wrote:

But for historical (post-apostolic to the present) Catholic and Protestant Christianity, is it not the case that Christians conceive of God as "immaterial?" Is it not the case that Christians conceive of God, whatever he or "it" is, as outside or beyond matter, and in a state of radical contradistinction to it?

I'm not sure what you mean by "a state of radical contradistinction,' but yes, orthodox Christians view God as immaterial. This is because they believe that God created matter when he brought the universe into existence. But immaterial does not mean abstract. There are even immaterial realities in the physical world that are not themselves material. For example, gravity is not an abstraction; it is a real force exerted by physical objects on one another. But gravity is not material; it has no shape, no weight, no mass, no composite elements. Of course, gravity is not a person; but that is a different issue. The claim that I was refuting was the claim that Trinitarians view God as an abstraction. That is simply false.

You wrote:

So then, the Trinity is not an ontological composition of three beings in one essence, but a composition of one being comprised of a totality of three. If that is the case, there appears to be a distinction without very much difference to deal with. What is the difference, or the theological ramifications, of a god that is a group of three entities combined into one, or one single entity comprised of three? These would appear to be nothing more than logical reciprocals of each other.

The Trinity is not a "composition" at all. That is, the three persons are not three parts that collectively form something else. Parts and composition presuppose material, finite objects.

You wrote:

But the doctrine of the Trinity teaches that these three "persons" (which itself is a very difficult concept in the trinitarian sense, as they defy the law of identity) are a single ontological essence, or entity, which is both logically and conceptually unintelligible. Nothing can be conceptually understood in some fundamental, underlying ontological sense as one and yet three, or three and yet one (the difference in going either way, emphasizing one in three or three as one, not being particularly clear as to its philosophical consequences). Why does it matter if Christ is concieved, when praying in the Garden, as an aspect or "person" of a greater, single entity (three in one) or as that one, single entity fully comprised within himself (one as three) but separated from the single entity for some earthy function?

I am pessimistic about persuading you that the Trinity is intelligible and coherent, and that's really not my purpose here. The point is that the triune God is real, genuinely existing, and concrete, not unreal, nothingness, or abstract.

You wrote:

But so does the doctrine of the Trinity and its defense, which makes huge assumptions regarding the ontological nature of God and their relationship to his personal attributes. The doctrine of the Trinity makes, for example, the very same assumption as you criticize Jeremy, only going the other direction, i.e., that God can be "immaterial" and metaphysically, wholly "other" than man, and yet at the same time have a personal relationship with him.

The comparison is apples and oranges. Jeremy assumed that the Trinity was both nonexistent and impossible. I am not assuming that the Trinity is existent. Nor do I merely assume that God could be triune or that he could be immaterial. I base those beliefs on what I and most Christians historically have found clearly taught in the Bible.

You wrote:

It don't think this can be sustained. There is no question that we cannot in any sense fully understand God's attributes (his love, intelligence, knowledge, wisdom, omniscience, omnipotence etc.). However, biblically speaking, there is no reason to think that his fundamental structure as an existent being (depending upon which God we are discussing) as a exalted, glorified member of the human family, and his beingness as a separate, individual person composed of matter and having dimension and substance, is anything beyond what anyone of normal intelligence can grasp, with the exception being the level of being at which that matter exists (the matter composing God's physical structure is of a perfected, exalted, divine nature, quite unlike ours).

You are assuming that God is what Mormonism claims him to be. And to qualify this claim as "biblically speaking" invites the test of comparing the LDS doctrine of God to what the biblical writings actually say.

[Rob Bowman]

erichard,

You wrote:

I am sure you are correct in this statement.

However, the idea of an "immaterial" being, by definition, is abstract. So what they consider "God" to others is an abstration.

BCSpace could have said: To them, "God" is what others think of as an abstraction that permeates the Father and the Son (and the HG).

Would you agree with that?

No, because the statement makes no sense and also has nothing to do with the doctrine of the Trinity. Abstractions cannot "permeate" anything. Abstractions are not real existing things. And Trinitarians do not view God as permeating the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. So the statement has no relevance to the real world of what Trinitarians believe or what non-Trinitarians would think if they had anything close to an accurate understanding of orthodox theology.

To repeat something I said earlier: an idea can be abstract, but that to which it refers is not an abstraction but the object of abstract thought. God is not an abstraction, but one can think abstractly about God. The idea of an immaterial being may be abstract, but an immaterial being is not itself an abstraction.

Edited September 4, 2011 by Rob Bowman

[WalkerW]

I personally find the Thomist-Aristotelian metaphysics compelling compared to the earlier Platonic views. They are similar, but different in the sense that Plato's forms existed "out there" in some ideal third realm. This seems to me quite abstract compared to the views of Aristotle and eventually Thomas Aquinas. As Eastern Orthodox philosopher David B. Hart writes,

The most venerable metaphysical claims about God do not simply shift priority from one kind of thing (say, a teacup or the universe) to another thing that just happens to be much bigger and come much earlier (some discrete, very large gentleman who preexists teacups and universes alike). These claims start, rather, from the fairly elementary observation that nothing contingent, composite, finite, temporal, complex, and mutable can account for its own existence, and that even an infinite series of such things can never be the source or ground of its own being, but must depend on some source of actuality beyond itself. Thus, abstracting from the universal conditions of contingency, one very well may (and perhaps must) conclude that all things are sustained in being by an absolute plenitude of actuality, whose very essence is being as such: not a “supreme being,” not another thing within or alongside the universe, but the infinite act of being itself, the one eternal and transcendent source of all existence and knowledge, in which all finite being participates.

The best treatment of this subject that I have come across is the work of Catholic philosopher Edward Feser. His books The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism (St. Augustine's Press, 2008) and Aquinas: A Beginner's Guide (Oneworld, 2009) are eye-opening. I have difficulty equating the Incarnation and personality of God with "the ground of all being" or "Being Itself." However, similar to what Francis Beckwith has noticed, I don't have any problem equating this with, say, eternal laws, principles, intelligence, etc.

In other words, Mormon theology technically believes in the First Cause. It just doesn't seem to equate it with God.

Edited September 4, 2011 by WalkerW

[Rob Bowman]

ldsfaqs,

You wrote:

Here's the "original" Nicene Creed.... It's NOTHING like the modern versions, and it's entirely LDS in Doctrine.

What "modern versions" do you have in mind?

You wrote:

Further, you only show how you don't know mormonism.

Uh-oh. Here it comes. Some people think I have no right to claim to know Mormonism. How shall I respond to your challenge?

You wrote:

Mormonism completely teaches that Christ was the Only Begotten of the Father, the only mortal to be sired by God, i.e. the Father. Thus, obviously they ARE of the "same substance". That's how the original Nicene Creed read..... but your later versions changed it into them being actually the "same being". They were NEVER the same being.

There's some serious errors here, for whatever reason. First, Mormonism does indeed teach that Christ became the "Only Begotten" when he was sired as a mortal by God the Father. You're right about that. But that is definitely not what the Nicene Creed says or means. In the 381 version it states that the Son is "begotten of the Father before all ages" (commonly translated in older English translations "before all worlds"). The 325 version also speaks of the Son as "begotten of the Father" in the context of his pre-mortal, preincarnate state:

"And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God,

begotten of the Father,

Light from Light, true God from true God,

begotten, not made,

of one substance with the Father,

through whom all things were made;

who for us humans and for our salvation came down and was made flesh and became human...."

In this context "begotten of the Father" clearly refers to the Son's divine, preincarnate relation to the Father, expounded in the following clauses about him being Light from Light, true God from true God, and so forth.

Second, I have already explained that "one being with the Father" is an accurate translation of the sense and intent of "one substance with the Father." This isn't a change to the meaning; it is a modern articulation of the same meaning.