Which Trinity ?

[MiserereNobis]

Thinking this over it is monotheistic because the proclamation is made that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one Eternal God. That's not any different than what the Book of Mormon proclaims. I had never really thought about the understanding that Christ is consubstantial with humanity until today. I think understanding that gives us a glimpse of how Christ can be consubstantial with the Father, but be a different person just as Christ is consubstantial with us even though we have different physical bodies. The oneness of God has nothing to do with any kind of physical oneness anymore than Christ's consubstantiality with us has to do with any kind of physical oneness between us and Christ. The argument ends when we don't make consubstantial mean more than it really means.

I've made the point a couple of times before but I'll make it again here. Humans and God are NOT of the same substance. God is one substance, humans another. These two substances (natures) were mystically unified in Jesus in what has been called the hypostatic union. Now, whether or not you agree with this is up to you, but I'm just pointing out that thinking that the LDS Godhead and the Catholic Trinity can be reconciled by saying that Jesus has the same substance as God and the same substance as humans goes against Catholic doctrine, so it is not a path to reconciliation.

[Bart Burk]

Yes, but I'll add that God's Divinity is of a different substance than Jesus' humanity. The two substances are in union, but not equal to each other.

That's obviously true, but it doesn't have to do with anything physical. LDS always see things in physical terms, when the term consubstantial is a philosophical term. Consubstantial means the same thing when talking of Jesus' consubstantiality with the Father as it does when talking of Jesus' consubstantiality with us. It isn't far fetched to see that Jesus' mission was to bring our humanity into union with God's divinity just as Jesus is united with both God and man. And if our humanity achieves union with the Father's divinity through Jesus, what will that make us?

[MiserereNobis]

And just to beat the dead horse -- I can find plenty of verses in Mormon scripture where Father, Son and Holy Ghost are proclaimed to be One Eternal God. I can't find one verse in Mormon scripture that claims that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three Gods. So if you are going to say the terms consubstantial and Trinity aren't scriptural, you're going have to come up with a scripture somewhere that says Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three Gods to make me believe that Mormonism teaches that. Some might incorrectly infer it, but it is not scriptural. You won't even find it in chapters 4 and 5 of the Book of Abraham because the term Gods is never defined in a way that limits the term Gods to the Godhead.

I suppose this is why some Mormons say that the plurality of gods is not an official Mormon doctrine, despite the many many prophets, apostles, and leaders who have taught it. It all depends on the measuring stick for Mormon doctrine.

People may dislike the idea of mystery in Catholic doctrine, but at least it is clear what is and is not Catholic doctrine, and you would never find Popes openly and repeatedly speaking on something as important to religion and theology as the nature of God, Pope after Pope, year after year, and then the Church saying that was just speculation.

[ChristKnight]

I've made the point a couple of times before but I'll make it again here. Humans and God are NOT of the same substance. God is one substance, humans another. These two substances (natures) were mystically unified in Jesus in what has been called the hypostatic union. Now, whether or not you agree with this is up to you, but I'm just pointing out that thinking that the LDS Godhead and the Catholic Trinity can be reconciled by saying that Jesus has the same substance as God and the same substance as humans goes against Catholic doctrine, so it is not a path to reconciliation.

Again, I think you're misunderstanding him. Bart Burk is merely repeating this, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"

467 The Monophysites affirmed that the human nature had ceased to exist as such in Christ when the divine person of God's Son assumed it. Faced with this heresy, the fourth ecumenical council, at Chalcedon in 451, confessed:

Following the holy Fathers, we unanimously teach and confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, composed of rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father as to his divinity and consubstantial with us as to his humanity; "like us in all things but sin". He was begotten from the Father before all ages as to his divinity and in these last days, for us and for our salvation, was born as to his humanity of the virgin Mary, the Mother of God.⁹¹

We confess that one and the same Christ, Lord, and only-begotten Son, is to be acknowledged in two natures without confusion, change, division or separation. The distinction between the natures was never abolished by their union, but rather the character proper to each of the two natures was preserved as they came together in one person (prosopon) and one hypostasis.^92"

[MiserereNobis]

Thanks, Bart Burk. The pure mind thing -- at least as insofar as the Catholics are concerned -- sounds like something that grew out of the ruminations of Plato and friends.

There is nothing wrong with using truth in one field to understand truth in the other.

Just because an idea has an apparent source doesn't make the idea false. One could argue that the blatant democratic ideals (and a divine elevation of the United States) in the LDS church came about since Joseph Smith was an American. While this may be true, it would be the genetic fallacy to then state that they must be false.

To prove the neo-Platonic ideas in Catholicism wrong, you have to prove neo-Platonism wrong, not just show that Catholicism has neo-Platonic ideas.

And, to clarify, Catholicism doesn't teach that God is ONLY pure mind, just that mind is one thing that God and humans share. When we were created in the image of God, it was in the image of His mind -- reason, intellect, and will.

[MiserereNobis]

We claim we do know how they are one. You are confusing the issue by introducing a non scriptural term like "consubstantial". If you eliminate that, and stick to the scriptural terms, the concept becomes easier to discuss and understand.

There are many non-Biblical terms that the LDS use. Are you planning on eliminating those as well in any future discussion of religion?

[Bart Burk]

No, Trinity is a technical term of Catholic theology which does not mean the same as three. You are conflating the two to suit your purposes. If you look up in a dictionary the words, it doesn't say under "three": see trinity. There is a difference. You may believe that the Trinity is not Biblical, is not right, is not whatever, but that doesn't mean the word now loses its meaning. The word "unicorn" may not correspond to anything in reality, but it doesn't mean the word is meaningless.

Stop trying to change meanings of techinical terms.

First of all, the scripture simple says "one," which means that we have to explain what "one" means. Mormons say it means one in purpose, will, goals, etc. Catholics say it means one in substance and being. Now, one may be wrong, or both wrong, but my point is that we are both adding an interpretation to the end of that verse and we both have our reasons to do so.

What is most likely and quite possible is that both we Catholics and the Mormons are right. It is very likely that one in substance really boils down to one in purpose, goals, etc. -- I don't think the Mormons would deny that Father and Son are both one in divinity either. So instead of talking past each other, maybe both Mormons and Catholics are basically stating the same thing.

[zerinus]

Well, the word Trinity does not appear in the Bible, so why are you attached to using it?

Of course it occurs in the Bible. Didn't you read my post #46? The word Trinity simply means three. Here is the etymology of the word Trinity according to the Wikipedia:

The English word Trinity is derived from Latin Trinitas, meaning "the number three, a triad". 

The corresponding word in Greek is Τριάς, meaning "a set of three" or "the number three".

Since the word three occurs in the Bible (in relation to the Godhead), then Trinity occurs in the Bible too, because they mean the same thing.

I don't even think it appears in the LDS scriptures, does it?

The same rule applies here. It occurs in LDS scriptures as well for the same reasons.  

[altersteve]

There are many non-Biblical terms that the LDS use. Are you planning on eliminating those as well in any future discussion of religion?

To us, "non-biblical" does not = "unscriptural"

[zerinus]

I can see what you are saying and perhaps you are right However, it seems to me that many LDS, at least in my experience here and in person, decry the doctrine of the Holy Trinity as being a post-apostasy vain philosophy of man, found in creeds that God himself said were an abomination.

I distinguish between the biblical doctrine of the Trinity and the post-4th-century doctrine. The first is true, and the second isn't. The problem with the above comment is that you are failing to make that distinction. That makes it difficult to address the point you are raising. Regrettably, Mormons also often fail to make that distinction.

Does the LDS view admit to the possibility that they've got some things wrong and could actually be Trinitarian as traditionally defined?

I admit the possibility that we may have got some things wrong; but as far as us being Trinitarians, that again depends on what kind of Trinitarianism you are talking about. If you mean the Trinitarianism of the Bible, then yes, we are definitely Trinitarians; but if you mean the Trinitarianism of post-4th-century Christianity, then we definitely are not.

Edited September 18, 2012 by zerinus

[Bart Burk]

I distinguish between the biblical doctrine of the Trinity and the post-4th-century doctrine. The first is true, and the second isn't. The problem with the above comment is that you are failing to make that distinction. That makes it difficult to address the point you are raising. Regrettably, Mormons also often fail to make that distinction.

I admit the possibility that we may have got some things wrong; but far as us being Trinitarians, that again depends on what kind of Trinitarianism you are talking about. If you mean the Trinitarianism of the Bible, then yes, we are definitely Trinitarians; but if you mean the Trinitarianism of post-4th-century Christianity, then we definitely are not.

I still haven't seen you explain why you definitely are not. It can't just be because of the use of the word consubstantial. You must be able to explain why you definitely are not. Unless of course you are attached to the three Gods language. Edited September 18, 2012 by Bart Burk

[zerinus]

I'm sorry, zerinus, but this is rather silly. I'm not copyrighting the word "Trinity." Trinity is a technical term in Catholic theology. Words have meaning and we should stick to the meanings of those words. That is not copyrighting or any such silly thing -- it is the basis of any intelligent discussion. If words can mean whatever I want them to mean then we won't get very far in conversation now, will we?

You believe that your understanding of the nature of God conforms more closely to the Bible and is more correct -- fine, but that doesn't mean that it matches the definition of the word "Trinity."

Why are you so attached to using a word that is not in the LDS tradition and whose definition, if studied, doesn't mean what the LDS church has taught?

Sorry, but you are trying to copyright the word Trinity. That word is not exclusive to Catholic theology. Other theologies (and theologians, including early Christians) have defined it differently than it is defined in Catholic theology. The word Trinity simply refers to the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost. It does not carry the burden of defining the relationship between them. That relationship is defined in different ways at different times in different theologies and by different people. Mormons like to define it as the Bible and the earliest Christians did. I am not going to let you get away with attempting to copyright the word Trinity exclusively for Catholicism. There is no doubt that Mormons believe in the Trinity---the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost. How you want to define the relationship between them is a separate issue from the word "Trinity" itself. I should have thought that was a pretty obvious thing.

[zerinus]

Tertullian is generally given the honor of first using the terms Trinity, substance/being, and person to describe God. He was a Catholic theologian in the 3rd century. It is a technical Catholic term of theology and thus has a technical definition, to which we should adhere in order to communicate clearly.

I think you are playing with words here. The word Catholic literally means universal. It was not used "denominationally" in those days. In the days of Tertullian Christianity had not yet become "sectarian" or "denominational;" but it was not unanimous in its belief system either. There was wide diversity of belief among Christian thinkers and theologians. Tertullian's "Trinity" was most likely very different from the Catholic Church's Trinitarian theology of today. Recruiting Tertullian as a champion of present day "Catholic" doctrine of Trinity is a bit disingenuous. I am willing to guess that his idea of the Trinity was a lot closer to the current Mormon idea than the present day Catholic one.

[zerinus]

Well, if this is the case, then you LDS shouldn't be clamoring over yourselves to say you believe in the Trinity, right?

I certainly disagree with him on that score. I have no doubt that I/we believe in the Trinity---the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost. But it is the Trinity of the Bible, not the Trinity of modern day Christendom.

That means parts of us are like Him, namely our reason, intellect, and will, our spiritual faculties. By the way, even though you reversed yourself, the fact that you said God looks like man shows your view of God is different than traditional Christianity.

Unfortunately I am going to have to agree with him on this one! The Bible says that God made man in His own image. There is no valid reason to understand "image" differently than one might expect it to be understood. The expression "in his Image" is used again in Genesis to describe the close likeness of Adam to one of his sons, Seth. I don't see a valid reason to understand the two "images" differently from each other in the two different verses.

[zerinus]

Well, I can't explain where Rostuk is in Russian, because I don't know, but I know the essential fact that it is in Russia, so if you are in Africa I know that you are not in Rostuk, even though I don't know exactly where Rostuk is.

I hope this analogy helps. We know some things about the Trinity -- they have been infallible and dogmatically declared. From all appearances, unless we mince words behind any rational meaning, the LDS view of the Godhead doesn't correspond with what we do know. Our God is in Russia, yours is in Africa

Our God is actually in the Bible. If yours is different from ours, then it must come from somewhere else!

[zerinus]

No, Trinity is a technical term of Catholic theology which does not mean the same as three. You are conflating the two to suit your purposes. If you look up in a dictionary the words, it doesn't say under "three": see trinity. There is a difference. You may believe that the Trinity is not Biblical, is not right, is not whatever, but that doesn't mean the word now loses its meaning. The word "unicorn" may not correspond to anything in reality, but it doesn't mean the word is meaningless.

Already answered in an earlier post.

Stop trying to change meanings of techinical terms.

Stop trying to copyright the English language.

First of all, the scripture simple says "one," which means that we have to explain what "one" means. Mormons say it means one in purpose, will, goals, etc. Catholics say it means one in substance and being. Now, one may be wrong, or both wrong, but my point is that we are both adding an interpretation to the end of that verse and we both have our reasons to do so.

Agreed.

Finally, the word Trinity is not mentioned in that verse, so I'm not sure why you keep using it... tell me again, why are you so attached to giving a different definition to the word that my religion created, defined, and has used for 1700+ years? Why not just stick with your own word, Godhead?

The word Trinity is mentioned in that verse. The word Trinity originally meant just that, "Three," or "The Three," which is what that verse contains. The rest of your post is nonsense. See my previous posts.

[Vance]

Mormon scripture continually refers to the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as one God. Why would it do that if we are supposed to call them three Gods?

Mormon scripture (the Bible) clearly separates the Father (The God) from the Son (The Logos) and declares the Son (The Logos) is God (or having the attribute of Godhood). Thus opening the door to refer to both as Gods.

If people correctly understood the divinity of both, the unity of both and the separateness of both, then calling them three Gods would not be useful in helping others to understand.

[Vance]

You really confuse the issue when you claim we Catholics believe the Godhead is one Being. That is not what the teaching is -- they are consubstantial, of the same substance, or of the same Being. It plays right into the LDS argument because it makes it sound like we believe in what Joseph Smith incorrectly labeled a "monster God' in his Sermon in the Grove (assuming we believe the transcription is accurate). We Catholics so often drift towards modalism when we try to explain the Trinity. The threeness is real and the oneness is real, but they aren't one Being. They are one in Being where Being is more of an adjective than a noun.

If that is the case, then I don't see so much difference between us.

As a point that might be of some interest. Bowman (our resident self proclaimed spokesman for Evangelicals) claims that They are one Being where Being is an entity or organism.

Edited September 18, 2012 by Vance

[Vance]

It cannot be explained or understood fully, but the essentials can be understood and explained. And it is the essentials that appear to differ with the LDS view.

It is unfortunate that your "essentials" are a logical mess.

Well, I can't explain where Rostuk is in Russian, because I don't know, but I know the essential fact that it is in Russia, so if you are in Africa I know that you are not in Rostuk, even though I don't know exactly where Rostuk is.

I hope this analogy helps. We know some things about the Trinity -- they have been infallible and dogmatically declared. From all appearances, unless we mince words behind any rational meaning, the LDS view of the Godhead doesn't correspond with what we do know. Our God is in Russia, yours is in Africa

And what if what you think you know you don't really know but only believe?

The only things we can know about God must be revealed to us. And all of the scriptural accounts of those to whom God revealed himself do not correspond to what you "know".

Why do you see mystery as such a negative thing?

Only when it is an excuse for the logical inconsistencies.

And, as I keep repeating, something as immense as the Divine Nature of God would probably be a bit hard for us humans to understand, wouldn't you agree?

That is one of the reasons Christ was sent. To reveal God to man. If you want to know what God is like, just study the characteristics of the risen Christ. No Hellenized philosophy needed.

Do you understand the intricacies of particle physics? Quantum waves? Do you think you could get a full understanding by reading a couple of posts on a physicists' forum or blog? God is so much more than modern physics. His Being should be at least as difficult to comprehend.

And yet it is said, "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."

Yes, I'm trying to point out that you have mysteries in your religion, too, to try to get you to see that mystery isn't the boogie man you've made it out to be.

Well, if you find me using it as an excuse for logical inconsistencies please feel free to pounce.

You are a defensive fellow, eh?

It comes from dealing with anti-Mormons for so many years.

Where something comes from doesn't mean it is or isn't true. Thinking so is called the Genetic Fallacy.

So, you have no argument against what was said, so you simply complain about its source. Talk about a Genetic Fallacy!

[thesometimesaint]

There is nothing wrong with using truth in one field to understand truth in the other.

Just because an idea has an apparent source doesn't make the idea false. One could argue that the blatant democratic ideals (and a divine elevation of the United States) in the LDS church came about since Joseph Smith was an American. While this may be true, it would be the genetic fallacy to then state that they must be false.

To prove the neo-Platonic ideas in Catholicism wrong, you have to prove neo-Platonism wrong, not just show that Catholicism has neo-Platonic ideas.

And, to clarify, Catholicism doesn't teach that God is ONLY pure mind, just that mind is one thing that God and humans share. When we were created in the image of God, it was in the image of His mind -- reason, intellect, and will.

True, in theory, but they must be related closely enough as to make sense. IE; C=Pi D and grass is green are both true statements, but one doesn't prove the other.

I have no idea as to what your talking about here. The US isn't Divine simply because JS was born here anymore than Nazareth is Divine simply because Jesus walked its dusty roads.

Take your pick Plato or Jesus

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

My reading of the Bible has it that we are in Gods' likeness and image.

[zerinus]

I've made the point a couple of times before but I'll make it again here. Humans and God are NOT of the same substance. God is one substance, humans another. These two substances (natures) were mystically unified in Jesus in what has been called the hypostatic union. Now, whether or not you agree with this is up to you, but I'm just pointing out that thinking that the LDS Godhead and the Catholic Trinity can be reconciled by saying that Jesus has the same substance as God and the same substance as humans goes against Catholic doctrine, so it is not a path to reconciliation.

Although a lot of the time I disagree with Bart, I think I can see the point he trying to make here. When you say that the Father and Son are "of one substance" (homoousios) with each other, what you mean is that they are in effect numerically one. That "substance" or "essence" is not two separate "things," but "one thing". Although the Father and the Son are two separate "persons" (as it is claimed), their "essence" or "substance" is essentially one, in the same way that class of water is one water, not two or more waters. The problem with that is that this notion of "substance" is in conflict with the concept of Jesus being "of one substance" (homoousios) with the rest of mankind, because mankind is not all one entity or being, but many. You see, when you say that the Father and the Son are "of one substance" with each other, there are two ways of understanding this. One way is to mean by it that they are "made of the same stuff" (whatever that is). For example, you and your cousin are made of the same "stuff" (oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, carbon etc); but you are still two different people, beings, entities. If the Father and the Son are of "one substance" in that sense of the term, then your Trinitarian theology is destroyed, because it hinges on the idea that the Trinity is one entity or being, not three. If, on the other hand, by "of one substance" (homoousios) you mean that the Father and the Son are in fact one being or entity, then there arises a contradiction in the usage of the term when applied to Jesus and humans, because when it is said in Chalcedonian declaration the Son is "of one substance" (homoousios) with the rest of mankind, it means that they are different entities or beings, not one entity or being. So there is a contradiction in which the way the word homoousios" (of one substance) is used here. You need to make up your mind which one it is going to be.

Edited September 19, 2012 by zerinus

[Vance]

From another thread.

And we must remember deep within their hearts, Creedal Christians fear that Plato and the Alexandrian academics at Nicea were wrong.

Just in case some missed it.

[Vance]

I've made the point a couple of times before but I'll make it again here. Humans and God are NOT of the same substance. God is one substance, humans another.

Ok, now say that Jesus is 100% God and 100% human. And then use the word mystery to cover over this logical mess.

These two substances (natures) were mystically unified in Jesus in what has been called the hypostatic union.

Ah, there it is. And no where found in scripture. What a deal.

Now, whether or not you agree with this is up to you, but I'm just pointing out that thinking that the LDS Godhead and the Catholic Trinity can be reconciled by saying that Jesus has the same substance as God and the same substance as humans goes against Catholic doctrine, so it is not a path to reconciliation.

To me, what you are saying is a mass of confusion.

The thing that you may not understand is that we do not accept the notion that "Humans and God are NOT of the same substance". So we don't need the "mystically unified" thingy.

[Gervin]

Ok, now say that Jesus is 100% God and 100% human. And then use the word mystery to cover over this logical mess.

The Christian doctrine of Jesus as fully divine and fully human is not a logical mess. Despite the fact that it is, in fact, a mystery it is not a flat contradiction. A logical contradiction posits two mutually exclusive premises, such as "Vance is a man and is not a man", where "man" means the same thing on both sides of the statement. If you attempt to remove the paradoxical then you are attempting to objectify what we cannot know objectively or, because we are in the process of becoming, dismiss the role of faith as an absurdity - silliness.

[MiserereNobis]

Ah, there it is. And no where found in scripture. What a deal.

The foundations of the Catholic Faith are more than just the Bible, since the Faith existed prior to the Bible and was used to compile the Bible. Catholics are not Bible-only Christians, just like Mormons are not Bible-only believers. Please don't attack Catholicism for having beliefs that are clearly stated in extra-Biblical sources (but from our point-of-view are not in contradiction with the Bible). That would be disingenuous and rather hypocritical, since the LDS church has beliefs that are also more clearly stated in extra-Biblical sources (but from your point-of-view also not in contradiction with the Bible).

In other words, don't argue with me as if I were a EV or a Protestant

To me, what you are saying is a mass of confusion.

Clearly

The thing that you may not understand is that we do not accept the notion that "Humans and God are NOT of the same substance". So we don't need the "mystically unified" thingy.

No, I do understand that. That is why I am saying that the LDS church is not a Trinitarian church. That has been my only point all along, to show that the Trinitarian view and the LDS view are incompatible. Humans and God are of a different substance in the Trinitarian view. Humans and God are of the same substance in the LDS view. That makes for a big difference in ontology.