Poll On Mitt And Trinity Is Flawed

[Calm]

<br />I my experience on other forums which I post on more frequently than this one, the issue really does get down to what is meant by the term &quot;substance&quot; or &quot;essence.&quot;  I think that if, when trinitarian Christians speak of God's essence, they are speaking of the qualities which make Him divine, it would be reasonably accurate for us Mormons to agree that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are &quot;one in essnece.&quot;  They all share the same divine attributes -- perfect and absolute knowledge, power, love, justice, etc.  Since we don't use the words, &quot;substance&quot; or &quot;essence&quot; in our religious dialogue, we tend to assume that they are referring to God's physical make-up.  Obviously, that causes us to question the logic of how a Father and a Son could both be the same substance.  For instance, how can a single substance be both incorporeal (as traditional Christianity teaches that the Father is) and corporeal (as it teaches the Son at least was during His mortal life).  I have tried unsuccessfully, more times than I can count, to get to the bottom of the issue as to what a trinitarian Christian means when they use the words &quot;substance&quot; and/or &quot;essence.&quot;  If they could do that, it would help us come to a better understanding of what they actually believe, in my opinion.<br />

And it does not seem to increase the similarities by limiting the substance to spiritual or rather divine substance if what is meant by "being"; is purely singular and not a collective noun.

As far as I understand...and if I am wrong please correct me....the Trinity does not teach that there is a 'set' of substance that was divided into three parts for each of the persons of God, rather they emphasize that there is no division of divine substance.

Edited September 15, 2011 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Adding a post rather than screwing up the coding in my previous one....a problem with replying from my iPad...The closest analogy I can think of is a family with the shared attributes being the attributes of familyhood, but a family is still a collective and not a singular being so it can only go so far.

[Calm]

<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />I think it is much more than that.  Individuality and independence****  is a huge aspect of LDS thought.  The classical Trinity appears to LDS to blur that to a certain extent.<br /><br />****not referring to how God has given us all, but to the fundamental eternal nature of mankind.<br />

Just to clarify, the lack of the unbridgeable gap between Creator and created is the primary difference between LDS and nonLDS from what I have seen and it is nonLDS who view that as blasphemy (understandably so) so I do not see the need to differentiate as so much an LDS requirement as a mutual position.

[Vance]

It means they are three separate persons who are eternally God, omnipotent, omniscient and omnipotent. They are three persons, not one person, who all share the exact same attributes of Godliness. The term Being does not describe something physical, but a spiritual reality.

But that doesn't really help me out.

Bowman (an Evangelical) keeps saying that they are three persons in one being or entity.

But your discription is still not clear.

Sorry but "The term Being does not describe something physical, but a spiritual reality." isn't helpful at all.

Could you look at my questions again and give it another try?

[Bart Burk]

But that doesn't really help me out.

Bowman (an Evangelical) keeps saying that they are three persons in one being or entity.

But your discription is still not clear.

Sorry but "The term Being does not describe something physical, but a spiritual reality." isn't helpful at all.

Could you look at my questions again and give it another try?

I don't know that I have much more to say. The purpose of the Nicene Creed's idea of substance was to make it clear that Jesus was God from all eternity just like the Father always existed as God. The point was there never was when Jesus didn't exist as God in equality with his Father. The Father is the source of the Godhead, but since God existed before time and space began Jesus wasn't created. It really shouldn't be hard for a church that believes in uncreated intelligence to understand that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost existed from as one eternal uncreated God since before time began. It is hard for us to understand the Trinity because we have never experienced the oneness the Godhead experiences. We might try to imagine it, we strive for it, but we have never actually experienced it. The emphasis on this unity is so important in explaining God that it is inappropriate to call them three Gods. Even Mormon scripture seems to recognize that.

[Vance]

I don't know that I have much more to say. The purpose of the Nicene Creed's idea of substance was to make it clear that Jesus was God from all eternity just like the Father always existed as God.

Ok, but did they exist as two separate entities (or beings) or only one entity (or being)?

The point was there never was when Jesus didn't exist as God in equality with his Father.

Irrelevant to my question.

The Father is the source of the Godhead, but since God existed before time and space began Jesus wasn't created.

This both irrelevant to my question and totally confusing.

I am not interested in getting into this confusing stuff. I am only interested in understanding what is meant by the "one substance" stuff.

It really shouldn't be hard for a church that believes in uncreated intelligence to understand that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost existed from as one eternal uncreated God since before time began.

Still irrelevant to my question.

It is hard for us to understand the Trinity because we have never experienced the oneness the Godhead experiences.

Is this "oneness" a oneness of entity or is it multiple entities united in some fashion?

We might try to imagine it, we strive for it, but we have never actually experienced it.

Still not relevant.

The emphasis on this unity is so important in explaining God that it is inappropriate to call them three Gods.

Ok, but this still isn't helpful. I am still trying to understand what you mean by "unity" "oneness" "same substance or being".

Even Mormon scripture seems to recognize that.

Also irrelevant.

[Mansquatch]

Why can't people get it through their heads that traditional Christians don't believe that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are not three beings in one body or substance, but three separate persons who have exactly the same substance or being?

Thanks for making that perfectly clear.

[Bart Burk]

Ok, but did they exist as two separate entities (or beings) or only one entity (or being)?

Irrelevant to my question.

This both irrelevant to my question and totally confusing.

I am not interested in getting into this confusing stuff. I am only interested in understanding what is meant by the "one substance" stuff.

Still irrelevant to my question.

Is this "oneness" a oneness of entity or is it multiple entities united in some fashion?

Still not relevant.

Ok, but this still isn't helpful. I am still trying to understand what you mean by "unity" "oneness" "same substance or being".

Also irrelevant.

They are two separate persons who are one in being where being means nature or essence. In other words they are two separate persons who exist as one completely united God who are exactly the same in eternal nature with exactly the same omnipresent nature, exactly the same omnipotent nature and exactly the same omniscient nature. If you continue to view my discussion of the unity of God as irrelevant I don't know what more I can say. The creed says they are one in Being, not one Being. Our being as humans is different from the being God has as God. As separate human persons we have a human being and the three separate persons of the Trinity have a God being. It's not really a difficult concept to grasp.

Maybe instead of being it would be better to use the traditional word substance. One definition for the word substance in the Webster's Dictionary is "essential nature" or "a fundamental or characteristic part or quality". When we say the three separate persons of the Trinity have the "same substance" we mean they have the same essential nature. They share the same fundamental or characteristic parts or qualities.

Edited September 15, 2011 by Bart Burk

[Questing Beast]

I don't think the belief the Father and the Son have physical bodies would invalidate the Trinity at all. As long as all the members of the Godhead are eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient we are in agreement on the Trinity. The Father, Son and Holy Ghost are equally God, but the Son and the Holy Ghost voluntarily submit their wills to the Father's will. That is not in conflict with the doctrine of the Trinity. Jesus is not subordinate because he is a lesser God. The Mormon scriptures always refer to the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as one eternal God, not three eternal Gods. I am suggesting Mormonism use scriptural language when communicating their doctrine. It doesn't help Mormons to refer to them as three Gods when the Mormon scriptures assert just the opposite.

The previous criticism of modalism (Sabellianism) is not well founded, imho. If taken to its ultimate, logical conclusion, the Trinitarian godhead must derive from a Necessary Cause. That this is referred to as the "Father", from which proceeds the Son and Holy Spirit from both of them, is illustrative of that Necessary Cause. ALL things derive ultimately from the Necessary Cause. This is the core tenet of modalism: that there is only One, and from this Is everything else manifested. The various manifestations - including especially the sapient ones, all of us - are NOT omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient: but the One Is all of those things. The Mormon doctrine of eternally existing intelligences (of which "God the Father" is merely the greatest of them all) does not address the Necessary Cause at all. This is my main beef with Mormon theology and cosmology. "God the Father" is only the creator of the "plan of salvation", not the originator of Existence in the first place. But as I have said earlier: I won't be worshiping my own "Father". I want to worship the God that he worships; and that can only be the Necessary Cause: from which all existing things derive, including the manifesting Godhead of the Trinity....

[Vance]

Ok, now I think we might be getting somewhere.

They are two separate persons who have are one in being where being means nature or essence.

Ok, so this means that they are two separate and distinct beings/entities but are exactly alike.

Do I have it right?

In other words they are two separate persons who exist as one completely united God who are exactly the same in eternal nature with exactly the same omnipresent nature, exactly the same omnipotent nature and exactly the same omniscient nature.

Ok, so this means that they are two separate and distinct beings/entities but are exactly alike.

Correct?

If you continue to view my discussion of the unity of God as irrelevant I don't know what more I can say.

The problem is you are using "unity" in a way that confuses the issue. What you really mean is that they (two separate and distinct individuals) are exactly alike.

Correct?

The creed says they are one in Being, not one Being.

Well, FINALLY an answer to my question.

They are two totally separate and distinct beings/persons/individuals/entities that are exactly alike in everything (except one is the Father and the other is the Son).

Correct?

Our being as humans is different from the being God has as God.

Well, of course our state of being is different from their state of being. But we are beings and they are beings

But this is irrelevant to my question.

As separate human persons we have a human being and the three separate persons of the Trinity have a God being. It's not really a difficult concept to grasp.

Or more explicitly, we have a different state of being than their state of being.

Correct.

Maybe instead of being it would be better to use the traditional word substance.

Nah, that only confuses the issue. "one substance" implies that they are only one entity rather than two separate and distinct entities that are exactly alike.

One definition for the word substance in the Webster's Dictionary is "essential nature" or "a fundamental or characteristic part or quality".

It is the other definitions that cause the confusion.

When we say the three separate persons of the Trinity have the "same substance" we mean they have the same essential nature. They share the same fundamental or characteristic parts or qualities.

It is much clearer to simply say they are two totally separate and distinct individuals/entities/beings/persons that are exactly alike (excepting, of course, that one is the Father and the other is the Son).

Do I have it right?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It means they are three separate persons who are eternally God, omnipotent, omniscient and omnipotent. They are three persons, not one person, who all share the exact same attributes of Godliness. The term Being does not describe something physical, but a spiritual reality.

This sounds more like LDS doctrine then it does Catholic doctrine. This sounds like you are saying they are one in all things but metaphysically. Are each one independently God? Or is each one considered God when you look at the whole?

[Questing Beast]

Each one of us is independently "God" as well. Our Existence cannot be explained any other way than by, ultimately, the Necessary Cause. All things proceed from the Necessary Cause. That in Judeo-Christian thought, this has a name - "the Father" - is only an illustration: or manifestation of the Necessary Cause in a manner that illustrates how it causes all things to manifest. The Necessary Cause Is God. The Son and Holy Spirit are equally "God" manifesting, as the Father Is.

I am "God" manifesting as the person that I Am. The same is true of every sapient being in the multiverse. Each one can trace a direct connection to "God In Total". But I am not you, and you are not anyone else. Looking at each other, we are not each other; but instead we are separate manifestations, each connected to "God", the Cause of all Existence. We are created as separate individuals in the empirical sense. But in the metaphysical sense, we are connected to each other, THROUGH our shared connection to the Cause of Existence in the first place.

This means, of course, that if "God" willed it, any number of us could immediately be linked to an apprehension of "God In Total", and therefore to the minds of others like ourselves, via that link. But it appears that "God" does not ever do that: we remain separate, as we were intended to be: connected individually to "God" alone: we remain individuals to each other. And unless I am shown otherwise, I will expect to remain individual, with my thoughts and feelings known only to "God" forever....

[Bart Burk]

This sounds more like LDS doctrine then it does Catholic doctrine. This sounds like you are saying they are one in all things but metaphysically. Are each one independently God? Or is each one considered God when you look at the whole?

Now you've gotten beyond my understanding. I can only grasp the idea they are three separate persons who have exactly the same nature. Anything else is beyond my human understanding so I just leave it alone. Their oneness is beyond my human understanding. I accept it on faith.

[Bart Burk]

Each one of us is independently "God" as well. Our Existence cannot be explained any other way than by, ultimately, the Necessary Cause. All things proceed from the Necessary Cause. That in Judeo-Christian thought, this has a name - "the Father" - is only an illustration: or manifestation of the Necessary Cause in a manner that illustrates how it causes all things to manifest. The Necessary Cause Is God. The Son and Holy Spirit are equally "God" manifesting, as the Father Is.

I am "God" manifesting as the person that I Am. The same is true of every sapient being in the multiverse. Each one can trace a direct connection to "God In Total". But I am not you, and you are not anyone else. Looking at each other, we are not each other; but instead we are separate manifestations, each connected to "God", the Cause of all Existence. We are created as separate individuals in the empirical sense. But in the metaphysical sense, we are connected to each other, THROUGH our shared connection to the Cause of Existence in the first place.

This means, of course, that if "God" willed it, any number of us could immediately be linked to an apprehension of "God In Total", and therefore to the minds of others like ourselves, via that link. But it appears that "God" does not ever do that: we remain separate, as we were intended to be: connected individually to "God" alone: we remain individuals to each other. And unless I am shown otherwise, I will expect to remain individual, with my thoughts and feelings known only to "God" forever....

Uh huh ...

[ChristKnight]

Now you've gotten beyond my understanding. I can only grasp the idea they are three separate persons who have exactly the same nature. Anything else is beyond my human understanding so I just leave it alone. Their oneness is beyond my human understanding. I accept it on faith.

How does having three separate persons with the same nature make them "one God" in a monotheistic sense?

[Bart Burk]

How does having three separate persons with the same nature make them "one God" in a monotheistic sense?

The scriptures say there is only one God. It also makes clear that all three persons in the Godhead are God. So we are forced into that understanding. The Mormon scriptures make it even more explicit by continually saying that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one Eternal God. The relationships within the Godhead rule out modalism. A Trinitarian understanding is all that is left for me unless I decide to reject the scriptural claim that Christ was God. The Unitarians did that, but eventually it led them to reject Christ's divinity altogether. My faith doesn't allow me to go there. And it won't allow me to claim that humans are by nature of the same species as God which is where I believe Mormonism goes off the rails. But that is for another thread, not this one.

[Vance]

If taken to its ultimate, logical conclusion, the Trinitarian godhead must derive from a Necessary Cause.

If there was a "Cause" then there was a before the implementation of the cause and an after. The state before the "Cause" necessitated the "Cause" to change the state to that after the "Cause". A change drastic enough to demand the "Cause", and yet no change eternally?

As a whole it doesn't make any sense to me.

[LeSellers]

The scriptures say there is only one God.

Where, exactly, do they say this? (Please do not bring up the Shema, because it does not make this claim.)

It also makes clear that all three persons in the Godhead are God.

How, exactly, does it make this "clear"?

So we are forced into that understanding.

So, you must swallow a logical inconsistency because you interpret the Bible in one way. The fact is the Bible says neither of the things you claim it does, at least not without your interpreting it to say it.

The relationships within the Godhead rule out modalism.

Where, exactly, does the Bible say this?

My faith ... won't allow me to claim that humans are by nature of the same species as God which is where I believe Mormonism goes off the rails.

Why?

Is God not our Father, as the Bible says? Does He not call many men His sons? Was Jesus not the ony begotten Son of God?

"Begotten" for all the tap dancing seen here, means "sexually procreated". It does not mean "grabbed out of the air (or a vacuum) and then made temporal".

Lehi

Edited September 15, 2011 by LeSellers

[Bart Burk]

Where, exactly, do they say this? (Please do not bring up the Shema, because it does not make this claim.)

How, exactly, does it make this "clear"?

So, you muist swallow a logical inconsistency because you interpret the Bible in one way. The fact is the Bible says neither of the things you claim it does, at least not without your interpreting it to say it.

Where,exactly, does the Bible say this?

Why?

Is God not our Father, as the Bible says? Does He not call many men His sons? Was Jesus not the ony begotten Son of God?

"Begotten" for all the tap dancing seen here, means "sexually procreated". It does not mean "grabbed out of the air (or a vacuum) and then made temporal".

Lehi

It's obvious that we are coming from such a different understanding that I can't even begin to have a discussion with you. I suggest if you have enough interest in the subject that you read this:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm

That's the best answer I can give.

[LeSellers]

It's obvious that we are coming from such a different understanding that I can't even begin to have a discussion with you. I suggest if you have enough interest in the subject that you read this:

Catholic Encyclopedia: The Blessed Trinity

That's the best answer I can give.

You made the claims. You should be able to defend them independently of any outside source. We don't have the authors and editors of the Catholic Encyclopedia here, and we're not discussing this with them. You are the one making the assertions.

I ask you to provide your personal understanding of the statements you made.

Lehi

[Bart Burk]

You made the claims. You should be able to defend them independently of any outside source. We don't have the authors and editors of the Catholic Encyclopedia here, and we're not discussing this with them. You are the one making the assertions.

I ask you to provide your personal understanding of the statements you made.

Lehi

I already have. Several times. That's all I can do.

[ERayR]

The scriptures say there is only one God. It also makes clear that all three persons in the Godhead are God.

What is God? Is God a person or an achievement or both?

When you can answer those questions your understanding of those scriptures will be greatly enhanced.

[LeSellers]

I already have. Several times. That's all I can do.

Sorry, but you have not "answered those questions". What you have done is make assertions without providing any scriptural basis for your position.

I ask specifically what, in the Bible (alas for you, your only scripture), makes you believe that there is only one God; what scripture makes you believe that the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost all qualify as "God" (and, as an aside, how each does, yet there be not three Gods); and why the LDS understadnig of the nature of God is off the rails, in your words, because it includes the truth of His being of the same species as us.

Lehi

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Now you've gotten beyond my understanding. I can only grasp the idea they are three separate persons who have exactly the same nature. Anything else is beyond my human understanding so I just leave it alone. Their oneness is beyond my human understanding. I accept it on faith.

Good answer brother. BTW I think my interaction with my catholic friends on this board have been the most value. Not saying that any of the EVies on the board do offer some insights, but I find the Catholic perspective very interesting.

I at least walk away from a discussion in the Trinity with at least some useful info.

[Bart Burk]

Sorry, but you have not "answered those questions". What you have done is make assertions without providing any scriptural basis for your position.

I ask specifically what, in the Bible (alas for you, your only scripture), makes you believe that there is only one God; what scripture makes you believe that the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost all qualify as "God" (and, as an aside, how each does, yet there be not three Gods); and why the LDS understadnig of the nature of God is off the rails, in your words, because it includes the truth of His being of the same species as us.

Lehi

I've already answered these questions to the best of my ability. I gave a link to an article which provides all of the scriptures I would cite, and I'm too lazy to rewrite it. I'll leave it to the LDS to defend their idea that we are the same species as God. Nobody else believes it.