Latter-Day Saint Misunderstanding Of The Trinity Of Historical Christianity

[mfbukowski]

You realize these statements you've made are simply claims, right?

As opposed to what?

[mfbukowski]

"He (Christ), being the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, and having overcome, received a fulness of the glory of the Father, possessing the same mind with the Father, which mind is the Holy Spirit that bears record of the Father and the Son. These three are one; or, in other words, these three constitute the great, matchless, governing, and supreme power over all things, by whom all things were created and made. And these three constitute the Godhead and are one. The Father and the Son possess the same mind, the same wisdom, glory, power, and fulness filling all in all."

So the divine substance the Father and the Son share -- and all Latter-day Saints should know the Spirit spoken of here is material and therefore of real substance -- is the Holy Spirit or Holy Mind. Therefore, though some may bristle at the thought, according to Joseph Smith, the Father and the Son share the same heavenly substance, and are, in a manner of speaking, consubstantial. For both are filled with and share the fulness of a very real and tangible substance called the Holy Spirit (aka divine mind). And what could be more substantial than a real material (though refined) substance. And remember, Joseph Smith said there can be no such thing as an immaterial substance.

Oh gosh no!

Please don't bring in the heresy of substance! There is no such thing!

Being of "one mind" just means that they agree on their purposes and are "one mind" in the same sense that perfect parents would be raising kids. They are "single minded" in making sure they are cared for, protected, etc.

Please don't bring in that Thomist nonsense- it leads nowhere. I agree with being one in spirit with our other Christian brethren but see no need to drop the clarity of thought Joseph brought us by bringing in the language of "substance" - it completely takes away Joseph's insight!

If you insist on using that kind of notion say that they are of one "material"- that material being spirit matter- but then we ALL are as well

They are not ontologically separate from us as having a kind of "substance" or material different from all of us- all spirit IS material according to Joseph.

Don't bring in all that Thomistic stuff- please! That is where the whole problem lies!

[teddyaware]

Oh gosh no!

Please don't bring in the heresy of substance! There is no such thing!

Being of "one mind" just means that they agree on their purposes and are "one mind" in the same sense that perfect parents would be raising kids. They are "single minded" in making sure they are cared for, protected, etc.

Please don't bring in that Thomist nonsense- it leads nowhere. I agree with being one in spirit with our other Christian brethren but see no need to drop the clarity of thought Joseph brought us by bringing in the language of "substance" - it completely takes away Joseph's insight!

If you insist on using that kind of notion say that they are of one "material"- that material being spirit matter- but then we ALL are as well

They are not ontologically separate from us as having a kind of "substance" or material different from all of us- all spirit IS material according to Joseph.

Don't bring in all that Thomistic stuff- please! That is where the whole problem lies!

You assume too much. I agree with you. As the 5th Lecture on Faith stipulates, the "substance" the Father and the Son share is the "Holy Spirit;" the one and the same Holy Spirit that enables the faithful to become one with the Father and the Son as well. I was very careful to point out that the Holy Spirit is made of a real, tangible substance. Don't blame me that in the 5th Lecture on Faith Joseph Smith equates this substance called the Holy Spirit with the expression "mind of God" -- that's his doing, not mine.

Edited March 6, 2013 by teddyaware

[mfbukowski]

Or perhaps, 1 + 1 + 1 = 1 for sufficiently small values of 1.

Now that sounds like the "Fat FREE!" labeling on some food wrappers I have seen- it's fat free until you actually see the oils in the ingredients!

[mfbukowski]

A very good example of what happens when one begins to dissemble words to obfuscate what they are really saying.

The problem is deeper than that. The words are all we have to say what we are "really saying" so how do you know what anyone is "really saying"?

[mfbukowski]

The ancient church refrained from dogmatically defining the nature of God's being precisely because that nature is infinite. As Calmoriah said, the rules are different. We humans have no experience of the infinite, rooted as we are within space and time. ....

Let me see if I can make a feeble attempt at explaining my understanding of the ancient idea of God's nature....

"God cannot be grasped by the mind. If he could be grasped, he would not be God." - Evagrius of Pontus (4th Century)

I hope that helps.

Well it certainly sets forth the problem.

[mfbukowski]

You assume too much. I agree with you. As the 5th Lecture on Faith stipulates, the "substance" the Father and the Son share is the "Holy Spirit;" the one and the same Holy Spirit that enables the faithful to become one with the Father and the Son as well. I was very careful to point out that the Holy Spirit is made of a real, tangible substance. Don't blame me that in the 5th Lecture on Faith Joseph Smith equates this substance called the Holy Spirit with the expression "mind of God" -- that's his doing, not mine.

Oh- ok. The substance language got me going there! I think in those cases we should use "material" precisely to differentiate ourselves from the sectarians and emphasize the material nature of God, including the point that spirit itself is "material" but more "refined matter".

The material nature of God and Mormon materialism in this sense, as well as God and man being of the same "ontology" - insofar as that term is even relevant in that context- is one of those things which makes us totally unique, and I oppose anything which dilutes that understanding.

But to clarify- that is perhaps why that lecture is not canon- it differs from present doctrine in that the Holy Spirit is a personage of spirit, not some "mind of God" filling the universe. We have the "light of Christ" which really I think more describes God's influence more than anything, and perhaps some sort of spirit matter "ether" filling the universe- not well understood. But there is really no known theological need to postulate the Light of Christ- I can't think of a theological function it performs really. That's not to say it's not real- maybe we just don't fully know what it does.

[Calm]

that's his doing, not mine.

More likely Pratt or Phelp's actually.

[Vance]

I need to clarify. Remember, by their own admission traditional Trinitarians do not take the Greek word homoousios to mean "one being" in the usual sense of those words.

One time local self proclaimed expert on Evangelical theology Robert Bowman made very clear that the three persons of God are, in fact, "one being". I don't remember if he claimed that the notion of "one being" comes from "homoousios" or not.

But, unfortunately, Mr. Bowman has fled the scene.

Edited March 6, 2013 by Vance

[Spammer]

Well it certainly sets forth the problem.

Is matter, however pure and refined, infinite? Can it transcend? There are all loaded terms, but I think it's precisely how those terms are understood and defined that provides the divergent solutions to the problem. If God is material and is thought to also be infinite, in what sense? How is the embodied Father simultaneously localized and simultaneously present in all times and places? Though enfleshed and occupying a particular spatial coordinate right now at this instant, is it his consciousness that transcends time and space? Is that what makes the Father infinite? Or is he not infinite in the trinitarian sense? Trinitarians will say that any limit placed on God, e.g. a body with finite dimensions existing within space-time, contradicts the notion of infinity and is therefore nonsense. That's because they define 'infinity' a certain way. It seems it comes down to how you define 'infinite', whose definition you go with, and on what grounds. What are those grounds? If language is contingent, it seems that grounds based on linguistic constructs cannot serve the purpose. We can't step outside of our language and concepts to directly, and in pure, unmediated fashion, observe reality. Experience, then? If so, how does a person's personal experience of the divine relate to the truth of whether God is immaterial or material? Is God's immateriality or materiality directly experienced? Is inner experience somehow free of the constraints of language and concept? That seems to be the claim of mystics, both East and West. If not, given the contingency of language and concepts, how can anyone really know anything about God? Joseph Smith claimed a direct experience of the material God. The Apostles claimed a direct experience of the resurrected, material Jesus. Countless Catholic and Orthodox saints claimed a direct experience of the immaterial, transcendant God. Personal experiences contradict and all of language is contingent. Were all of those experiences (Joseph's included) completely naked in the sense that they occured outside of the linguistic framework of the experiencer? If not, what's a seeker to do? (just playing devil's advocate).

Edited March 6, 2013 by Spammer

[mfbukowski]

Is matter, however pure and refined, infinite? Can it transcend? There are all loaded terms, but I think it's precisely how those terms are understood and defined that provides the divergent solutions to the problem. If God is material and is thought to also be infinite, in what sense? How is the embodied Father simultaneously localized and simultaneously present in all times and places? Though enfleshed and occupying a particular spatial coordinate right now at this instant, is it his consciousness that transcends time and space? Is that what makes the Father infinite? Or is he not infinite in the trinitarian sense? Trinitarians will say that any limit placed on God, e.g. a body with finite dimensions existing within space-time, contradicts the notion of infinity and is therefore nonsense. That's because they define 'infinity' a certain way. It seems it comes down to how you define 'infinite', whose definition you go with, and on what grounds. What are those grounds? If language is contingent, it seems that grounds based on linguistic constructs cannot serve the purpose. We can't step outside of our language and concepts to directly, and in pure, unmediated fashion, observe reality. Experience, then? If so, how does a person's personal experience of the divine relate to the truth of whether God is immaterial or material? Is God's immateriality or materiality directly experienced? Is inner experience somehow free of the constraints of language and concept? That seems to be the claim of mystics, both East and West. If not, given the contingency of language and concepts, how can anyone really know anything about God? Joseph Smith claimed a direct experience of the material God. The Apostles claimed a direct experience of the resurrected, material Jesus. Countless Catholic and Orthodox saints claimed a direct experience of the immaterial, transcendant God. Personal experiences contradict and all of language is contingent. Were all of those experiences (Joseph's included) completely naked in the sense that they occured outside of the linguistic framework of the experiencer? If not, what's a seeker to do? (just playing devil's advocate).

Good points, all, but I am a Wittgensteinian. That means if I cannot say it clearly and know what I am talking about, I leave it alone.

Notice: In tonight's performance, the part of Aquinas will be played by Spammer and the part of Wittgenstein will be played by Bukowski

Proposition 7

As the last line in the book, proposition 7 has no supplementary propositions. It ends the book with a rather elegant and stirring proposition: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." („Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen.“)

Both the first and the final proposition have acquired something of a proverbial quality in German, employed as aphorisms independently of discussion of Wittgenstein.

Wittgenstein's conclusion in Proposition 7 echoes the Old Testament words of Jesus ben Sirach (ישוע בן סירא, Yešwaʿ ven Siraʾ): What is too sublime for you, do not seek; do not reach into things that are hidden from you. What is committed to you, pay heed to; what is hidden is not your concern. (Sirach 3: 21-22). Saint Thomas Aquinas addressed ben Sirach--and, by extension, Wittgenstein--in the First Article, First Part, of his Summa Theologica:

I answer that, it was necessary for man's salvation that there should be a knowledge revealed by God, besides philosophical science built up by human reason. Firstly, indeed, because man is directed to God, as to an end that surpasses the grasp of his reason:

The eye hath not seen, O God, besides Thee, what things Thou hast prepared for them that wait for Thee

(

Isaiah

64:4). But the end must first be known by men who are to direct their thoughts and actions to the end. Hence it was necessary for the salvation of man that certain truths which exceed human reason should be made known to him by divine revelation. Even as regards those truths about God such as reason could have discovered, it was necessary that man should be taught by a divine revaluation; because the truth about God such as reason could discover, would only be known by a few, and that after a long time, and with the admixture of many errors. Whereas as man's whole salvation, which is in God, depends upon the knowledge of this truth. Therefore, in order that the salvation of men might be brought about more fitly and more surely, it was necessary that they should be taught divine truths by divine revelation. It was therefore necessary that, besides philosophical science built up by reason there should be a sacred science learned through revelation.

[10]

Following Aquinas, moral philosophers and theologians have addressed the problem of religious language for centuries. Moreover, there has been extensive commentary on the relationship between the respective treatises of Wittgenstein (Tractatus) and Aquinas (Summa Theologica).^[11][12] In addition, Fergus Gordon Kerr, a Roman Catholic priest of the Order of Preachers founded by Saint Dominic, notes that "theological questions lie between the lines of all of Wittgenstein's writing. It is hard to think of a great philosopher, at least since Nietzsche, whose work is equally pervaded by theological considerations."^[13]

http://en.wikipedia....o-Philosophicus

Quoth Bukowski/Wittgenstein: That's it. I have nothing to say.

Edited March 6, 2013 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

If language is contingent, it seems that grounds based on linguistic constructs cannot serve the purpose. We can't step outside of our language and concepts to directly, and in pure, unmediated fashion, observe reality. Experience, then? If so, how does a person's personal experience of the divine relate to the truth of whether God is immaterial or material?

Yep that's the problem all right.

Is God's immateriality or materiality directly experienced?

Not for me. I have not shaken his hand except in a certain place. But I have a testimony that that is the model which God wants me to have for now.

Is inner experience somehow free of the constraints of language and concept?

Yep. You can't describe the sound of a trumpet to a deaf person

That seems to be the claim of mystics, both East and West. If not, given the contingency of language and concepts, how can anyone really know anything about God?

Testimony- religious experience. That's about it.

Joseph Smith claimed a direct experience of the material God. The Apostles claimed a direct experience of the resurrected, material Jesus. Countless Catholic and Orthodox saints claimed a direct experience of the immaterial, transcendant God. Personal experiences contradict and all of language is contingent. Were all of those experiences (Joseph's included) completely naked in the sense that they occured outside of the linguistic framework of the experiencer? If not, what's a seeker to do? (just playing devil's advocate).

God teaches each of us the model which will bring us closest to Him.

But we need to know they are all models and none of them contain it all- because the all cannot be put into language.

So we do the best we can and take on the model He leads us to, and work on it for a lifetime, then the learning goes on, on the other side.

Edited March 6, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Questing Beast]

...

...Anytime we attempt to force the infinite into our finite minds, error is the inevitable result, such as the idea of a God who looks like us, complete with long, white hair and a beard. To trinititarians this idea is nonsense.

"God cannot be grasped by the mind. If he could be grasped, he would not be God." - Evagrius of Pontus (4th Century)

I hope that helps.

I must be a good trinitarian then. The Infinite is apprehensible to the finite mind, but never comprehensible. To comprehend the Infinity that is "God" would require that we be "God", God In Total, i.e. Infinite ourselves....

[Darren10]

I must be a good trinitarian then. The Infinite is apprehensible to the finite mind, but never comprehensible. To comprehend the Infinity that is "God" would require that we be "God", God In Total, i.e. Infinite ourselves....

We are infinite beings, just in a current mortal state. Even Jesus suffered limits of mortality, so it seemed:

¶But of that ^aday and ^bhour knoweth no man, no, not the ^cangels of heaven, but my Father only.

Mathew 24:36

Although I guess it's "possible", I find it very difficult to believe that Jesus *still* does not know the hour of His coming.

[Questing Beast]

Is matter, however pure and refined, infinite? Can it transcend?

Yes and yes.

Thee are all loaded terms, but I think it's precisely how those terms are understood and defined that provides the divergent solutions to the problem. If God is material and is thought to also be infinite, in what sense?

Manifesting as physical material, including you and me.

How is the embodied Father simultaneously localized and simultaneously present in all times and places?

By being Existence In The First Place, God is both outside of space-time and manifesting AS all of space-time, including you and me.

Though enfleshed and occupying a particular spatial coordinate right now at this instant, is it his consciousness that transcends time and space?

God is "conscious" of all things and there is no "before or after" or space-time about that consciousness.

Is that what makes the Father infinite?

Being the "Cause" of space-time necessarily makes God Infinite.

Or is he not infinite in the trinitarian sense? Trinitarians will say that any limit placed on God, e.g. a body with finite dimensions existing within space-time, contradicts the notion of infinity and is therefore nonsense. That's because they define 'infinity' a certain way. It seems it come[] down to how you define 'infinite', whose definition you go with, and on what grounds. What are those grounds? If language is contingent, it seems that grounds based on linguistic constructs cannot serve the purpose. We can't step outside of our language and concepts to directly, and in pure, unmediated fashion, observe reality.

Yes, we can. But putting such experiences into language to explain concepts that are indescribable is the inevitable limit on transmitting what we experience.

Experience, then? If so, how does a person's personal experience of the divine relate to the truth of whether God is immaterial or material?

God is both material and immaterial, outside of "creation" as its Cause, and within it as manifested to us through the world.

Is God's immateriality or materiality directly experienced?

Yes of course it is. Everything we experience is part of "God". Including especially our own selves.

Is inner experience somehow free of the constraints of language and concept? That seems to be the claim of mystics, both East and West.

"Inner experience" seems to mean here "imagination" and "transcendent experience". So yes of course such experiences are not only "free" of the constraints of language and concept/expression, but inevitably language/expression/concepts cannot fathom such "inner experiences", much less describe them to others.

...how can anyone really know anything about God? Joseph Smith claimed a direct experience of the material God. The Apostles claimed a direct experience of the resurrected, material Jesus. Countless Catholic and Orthodox saints claimed a direct experience of the immaterial, transcendant God. Personal experiences contradict and all of language is contingent. Were all of those experiences (Joseph's included) completely naked in the sense that they occur[r]ed outside of the linguistic framework of the experiencer? If not, what's a seeker to do? (just playing devil's advocate).

The experiences we call "mystic" are all outside the "linguistic framework". The best anyone can do is relate what happened with the words available to them. Inadequate! But even if adequate, the receiver/reader will individually take an incomplete view of what is said. Nobody "gets it", all of it, not the first time, not later with subsequent study. This is why people claim that they get more out of the scriptures and temple ceremonies through repetition. We are always changing/learning, so naturally, inevitably, we will "see" things in the written framework that were not "there" before. I expect that someday I will return to a reunion with the scriptures, and then I will see if there is more "there" than I saw before....

Edited March 7, 2013 by Questing Beast

[3DOP]

I think you are exactly right.

If they just left it as a "mystery" it would be fine with me- I think our explanation is much better, at least in that it IS an explanation.

But the problem is that they bring in Scholastic philosophy in talking about "being" and "substance" to tie it all together with transubstantiation, and in my opinion that is where the error begins.

But now to read the thread further.

Hi bukowski.

According to its proponents, Thomists insist that the Trinity is a mystery.

The Trinity doctrine is a mystery and nothing that Catholics, Protestants, or Orthodox have taught changes that. I know you don't have too much respect for the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas (an opinion shared by many Protestants), and even less so for modern day Thomists who would still see value in his teachings when you are convinced that they are so thoroughly discredited. I am not citing this 20th Century Thomist for any other reason than to ask if you could at least concede that Catholics believe that St. Thomas taught that the Trinity is a mystery.

In his work, The Christian Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, Etienne Gilson contends that the problems relative to God should fall under three principle headings:

...first, the unity of the divine essence; secondly, the trinity of divine persons; thirdly, the effects produced by the divinity.

The second of these [the trinity] depends in no way upon philosophical knowledge; although man is not forbidden to apply his mind to this mystery, he cannot pretend, without destroying it as a mystery, to demonstrate it by means of reason.

---p. 96, University of Notre Dame Press, 1994

I am not sure why you are always saying that we don't believe the Trinity to be a mystery. We don't know how or why but God is one and God is Three. If we didn't think the Son and Spirit were God by revelation, we would never believe in the Three Persons and One Nature. We think the oneness occurs because of how they have one divine nature, spoken of in II Peter 1:4. Do you guys think there are multiple divine natures? It doesn't seem like the passage demands that there be multiple divine natures.

Do the Son and the Spirit partake of the divine nature as we have the potential to do, or do they possess that nature in a more perfect fashion? Because we think they have all of the one divine nature, we say that the Son and Spirit, with the Father, have the same nature. Other than our certainty that there is but one, the divine nature remains a mystery. We can't put our finger on it. Or as Gilson puts it, "...all definition of God is impossible." It doesn't seem accurate for you to keep talking about how the 13th Century Catholics supposedly denied the mystery of the Trinity.

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

Do Orthodox and Protestants "tie it all together with transubstantiation"? No.

You do realize that transubstantiation is an expression that wasn't used until the 13th Century, and then only by Catholics, right? This is where the error begins in your opinion, post 1250 AD? So what about the Orthodox and Protestants who reject transubstantiation? How late is it until the error begins for them? You have the right to your opinion, but the formulae for the doctrines of God were not made with any consideration for the doctrines of the Eucharist. The Council of Nicea occurred 900 years before the Dumb Ox was born in 1227. By the way, tomorrow is his feast day. Be as kind as you can to poor St. Thomas.

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

As I mentioned above, St. Peter affirms that we can be partakers of the divine nature.

By whom he hath given us most great and precious promises: that by these you may be made partakers of the divine nature.

---2 Peter 1:4

Catholics, Orthodox, and most Protestants believe that there is one indefinable, mysterious, divine nature. Do all Mormons believe there is more than one divine nature? When we say that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are consubstantial, you don't like it. But I don't think you disagree. Are they not consubstantial according to LDS teaching? Did the Father have a Son with a different nature than Himself? What would account for that? That is what I am asking when I ask if "Mormons believe there is more than one divine nature"? What about Christ? Do you think He has the same human nature as us? Catholics, Orthodox and most Protestants say Christ has the same one human nature as us. The Council of Chalcedon means that when it affirms that Christ is consubstantial with us.

The purpose of these formulae are not so sinister as Mormons have been led to believe. In historical context, it was to affirm the divine nature of the Son at Nicea, and the human nature of the Son at Chalcedon. Was Jesus fully God? We say yes. Fully man? We say yes. How do we believe this? Our philosophy can't help. This doctrine is completely driven by revelation, and that is why we believe things that are not explainable by philosophy as you have pointed out bukowski. If Catholics have tried to explain these things philosophically it is folly. If they have failed it establishes our doctrine as the mystery that it is revealed to be.

This isn't Plato or Aquinas. The Scriptures themselves introduce this concept of nature as applied to God in 2 Peter 1:4. How many divine natures do Mormons think St. Peter was talking about?

3DOP

PS: For you Mormons who have such a low opinion for St. Thomas, tell Dr. Peterson. He named one of his kids after him!

Edited March 7, 2013 by 3DOP

[Questing Beast]

...

God teaches each of us the model which will bring us closest to Him.

But we need to know they are all models and none of them contain it all- because the all cannot be put into language.

So we do the best we can and take on the model He leads us to, and work on it for a lifetime, then the learning goes on, on the other side.

"Each of us" is an individual. It makes no sense to me that God would assign a singular "gate" for every soul to pass through or be damned. So a respect for every individual, genuine religion is required in order to not be guilty of judging all religions other than our own mistaken.

The learning goes on now. You may learn something from adhering to one, unchanging "model". That decision is not binding on anyone else though....

[juliann]

In my early days online, I had a lot of interaction with students of religion. The most memorable was a student preparing for an Orthodox priesthood, what I recall to be more of a monk sort of thing. We talked a lot about theosis. Anyway, that part of my memory is spotty...what I do remember is the realization that I could not possibly explain his theology or reduce it to a few soundbites. I also learned this through our very erudite and patient Protestant posters later. I did not have as many conversations with Evangelicals, Mosser and Owen, perhaps. Again, it would be as irresponsible for me to reduce their beliefs to a sentence or two as it is for others to do it to us. So I cringe every time I hear the "THEY believe......, but WE believe....." in church. Especially when it is prefaced with "I was raised X,Y,Z...." after which they rattle off some stereotype belief that LDS perpetuate about others. We have one guy who likes to get up in testimony meeting and talk about his experiences with Jehovah's Witnesses as a way to express the superiority of his own beliefs. Someday he is going to see a hymn book flying at him.

[Questing Beast]

..

As I mentioned above, St. Peter affirms that we can be partakers of the divine nature.

---2 Peter 1:4

I'd like to include this, hope you don't mind: Peter isn't saying that we can become divine ourselves, he's saying, imho, that by accepting Christ we can recognize our already divine nature. It is impossible for anything to not be part of the "divine nature", but it is manifestly possible, even commonplace, for sapient beings, ironically the most possessed of intelligence of all living things (so far as we have evidence), to not recognize their own divinity. Only by faith in God/Christ can one be awakened to the reality of ones own divinity, and by recognizing, partake of the perfect Joy that is promised.

Catholics, Orthodox, and most Protestants believe that there is one indefinable, mysterious, divine nature. Do all Mormons believe there is more than one divine nature? When we say that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are consubstantial, you don't like it. But I don't think you disagree. Are they not consubstantial according to LDS teaching? Did the Father have a Son with a different nature than Himself? What would account for that? That is what I am asking when I ask if "Mormons believe there is more than one divine nature"? What about Christ? Do you think He has the same human nature as us? Catholics, Orthodox and most Protestants say Christ has the same one human nature as us. The Council of Chalcedon means that when it affirms that Christ is consubstantial with us.

Mormon cosmology says that God the Father is literally the Father of our spirits. We therefore possess our own "nature", which is not necessarily as God the Father's. Mormons accept the "war in heaven" spoken of in the Bible, where Lucifer/Satan was cast out with his followers (a third part of the host of heaven): these do not partake of the "nature" of God the Father or Christ.

The purpose of these formulae are not so sinister as Mormons have been led to believe. In historical context, it was to affirm the divine nature of the Son at Nicea, and the human nature of the Son at Chalcedon. Was Jesus fully God? We say yes. Fully man? We say yes. How do we believe this? Our philosophy can't help. This doctrine is completely driven by revelation, and that is why we believe things that are not explainable by philosophy as you have pointed out bukowski. If Catholics have tried to explain these things philosophically it is folly. If they have failed it establishes our doctrine as the mystery that it is revealed to be.

This isn't Plato or Aquinas. The Scriptures themselves introduce this concept of nature as applied to God in 2 Peter 1:4. How many divine natures do Mormons think St. Peter was talking about?

As I said, Mormons do not believe that God the Father's "nature" is given to his children. We existed before God the Father "organized" the cosmos and gave us our "spirit bodies". By continuing to follow "God's Plan", we get to leave here and enter his presence forever, and become like him in perfected nature, but only through obedience and the grace of God through the atonement of his Son, which atonement "covered a multitude of sins" and weaknesses, otherwise without it we would be forever lost to the Father, being imperfect ourselves and incapable ourselves of attaining to that perfection that can only exist in his presence....

3DOP

PS: For you Mormons who have such a low opinion for St. Thomas, tell Dr. Peterson. He named one of his kids after him!

Edited March 7, 2013 by Questing Beast

[Anakin7]

You really don't have a clue do you?

I DO !

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

[mfbukowski]

In my early days online, I had a lot of interaction with students of religion. The most memorable was a student preparing for an Orthodox priesthood, what I recall to be more of a monk sort of thing. We talked a lot about theosis. Anyway, that part of my memory is spotty...what I do remember is the realization that I could not possibly explain his theology or reduce it to a few soundbites. I also learned this through our very erudite and patient Protestant posters later. I did not have as many conversations with Evangelicals, Mosser and Owen, perhaps. Again, it would be as irresponsible for me to reduce their beliefs to a sentence or two as it is for others to do it to us. So I cringe every time I hear the "THEY believe......, but WE believe....." in church. Especially when it is prefaced with "I was raised X,Y,Z...." after which they rattle off some stereotype belief that LDS perpetuate about others. We have one guy who likes to get up in testimony meeting and talk about his experiences with Jehovah's Witnesses as a way to express the superiority of his own beliefs. Someday he is going to see a hymn book flying at him.

Point made. I even gave you a rep point for it.

[mfbukowski]

Hi bukowski.

According to its proponents, Thomists insist that the Trinity is a mystery.

The Trinity doctrine is a mystery and nothing that Catholics, Protestants, or Orthodox have taught changes that. I know you don't have too much respect for the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas (an opinion shared by many Protestants), and even less so for modern day Thomists who would still see value in his teachings when you are convinced that they are so thoroughly discredited. I am not citing this 20th Century Thomist for any other reason than to ask if you could at least concede that Catholics believe that St. Thomas taught that the Trinity is a mystery.

In his work, The Christian Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, Etienne Gilson contends that the problems relative to God should fall under three principle headings:

---p. 96, University of Notre Dame Press, 1994

I am not sure why you are always saying that we don't believe the Trinity to be a mystery. We don't know how or why but God is one and God is Three. If we didn't think the Son and Spirit were God by revelation, we would never believe in the Three Persons and One Nature. We think the oneness occurs because of how they have one divine nature, spoken of in II Peter 1:4. Do you guys think there are multiple divine natures? It doesn't seem like the passage demands that there be multiple divine natures.

Do the Son and the Spirit partake of the divine nature as we have the potential to do, or do they possess that nature in a more perfect fashion? Because we think they have all of the one divine nature, we say that the Son and Spirit, with the Father, have the same nature. Other than our certainty that there is but one, the divine nature remains a mystery. We can't put our finger on it. Or as Gilson puts it, "...all definition of God is impossible." It doesn't seem accurate for you to keep talking about how the 13th Century Catholics supposedly denied the mystery of the Trinity.

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

Do Orthodox and Protestants "tie it all together with transubstantiation"? No.

You do realize that transubstantiation is an expression that wasn't used until the 13th Century, and then only by Catholics, right? This is where the error begins in your opinion, post 1250 AD? So what about the Orthodox and Protestants who reject transubstantiation? How late is it until the error begins for them? You have the right to your opinion, but the formulae for the doctrines of God were not made with any consideration for the doctrines of the Eucharist. The Council of Nicea occurred 900 years before the Dumb Ox was born in 1227. By the way, tomorrow is his feast day. Be as kind as you can to poor St. Thomas.

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

As I mentioned above, St. Peter affirms that we can be partakers of the divine nature.

---2 Peter 1:4

Catholics, Orthodox, and most Protestants believe that there is one indefinable, mysterious, divine nature. Do all Mormons believe there is more than one divine nature? When we say that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are consubstantial, you don't like it. But I don't think you disagree. Are they not consubstantial according to LDS teaching? Did the Father have a Son with a different nature than Himself? What would account for that? That is what I am asking when I ask if "Mormons believe there is more than one divine nature"? What about Christ? Do you think He has the same human nature as us? Catholics, Orthodox and most Protestants say Christ has the same one human nature as us. The Council of Chalcedon means that when it affirms that Christ is consubstantial with us.

The purpose of these formulae are not so sinister as Mormons have been led to believe. In historical context, it was to affirm the divine nature of the Son at Nicea, and the human nature of the Son at Chalcedon. Was Jesus fully God? We say yes. Fully man? We say yes. How do we believe this? Our philosophy can't help. This doctrine is completely driven by revelation, and that is why we believe things that are not explainable by philosophy as you have pointed out bukowski. If Catholics have tried to explain these things philosophically it is folly. If they have failed it establishes our doctrine as the mystery that it is revealed to be.

This isn't Plato or Aquinas. The Scriptures themselves introduce this concept of nature as applied to God in 2 Peter 1:4. How many divine natures do Mormons think St. Peter was talking about?

3DOP

PS: For you Mormons who have such a low opinion for St. Thomas, tell Dr. Peterson. He named one of his kids after him!

Good post, thanks- I want to respond when I have more time.

I love Thomas- he was one of the most brilliant minds ever. It wasn't his fault he was born when he was. As I have said, I have no problem with those who say it is all a "mystery".

But he sure wrote a lot of pages to say that then. http://www.catholicc...CFY8WMgodZzwA_Q

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/index.htm

I have probably read a few hundred and it didn't seem to me that was what he was saying. Oh well. I am not the brightest bulb on the tree.

Edited March 7, 2013 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Here is a sample of Thomas on the Unity of Godhttp://www.sacred-te...umma/sum014.htm

It sure doesn't seem to me he is saying it is a "mystery". I wish you all luck.

THE UNITY OF GOD (FOUR ARTICLES)

After the foregoing, we consider the divine unity; concerning which there are four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether "one" adds anything to "being"?

(2) Whether "one" and "many" are opposed to each other?

(3) Whether God is one?

(4) Whether He is in the highest degree one?

Whether "one" adds anything to "being"?

Objection 1: It seems that "one" adds something to "being." For everything is in a determinate genus by addition to being, which penetrates all "genera." But "one" is a determinate genus, for it is the principle of number, which is a species of quantity. Therefore "one" adds something to "being."

Objection 2: Further, what divides a thing common to all, is an addition to it. But "being" is divided by "one" and by "many." Therefore "one" is an addition to "being."

Objection 3: Further, if "one" is not an addition to "being," "one" and "being" must have the same meaning. But it would be nugatory to call "being" by the name of "being"; therefore it would be equally so to call being "one." Now this is false. Therefore "one" is an addition to "being."

On the contrary, Dionysius says (Div. Nom. 5, ult.): "Nothing which exists is not in some way one," which would be false if "one" were an addition to "being," in the sense of limiting it. Therefore "one" is not an addition to "being."

I answer that, "One" does not add any reality to "being"; but is only a negation of division; for "one" means undivided "being." This is the very reason why "one" is the same as "being." Now every being is either simple or compound. But what is simple is undivided, both actually and potentially. Whereas what is compound, has not being whilst its parts are divided, but after they make up and compose it. Hence it is manifest that the being of anything consists in undivision; and hence it is that everything guards its unity as it guards its being.

Reply to Objection 1: Some, thinking that the "one" convertible with "being" is the same as the "one" which is the principle of number, were divided into contrary opinions. Pythagoras and Plato, seeing that the "one" convertible with "being" did not add any reality to "being," but signified the substance of "being" as undivided, thought that the same applied to the "one" which is the principle of number. And because number is composed of unities, they thought that numbers were the substances of all things. Avicenna, however, on the contrary, considering that "one" which is the principle of number, added a reality to the substance of "being" (otherwise number made of unities would not be a species of quantity), thought that the "one" convertible with "being" added a reality to the substance of beings; as "white" to "man." This, however, is manifestly false, inasmuch as each thing is "one" by its substance. For if a thing were "one" by anything else but by its substance, since this again would be "one," supposing it were again "one" by another thing, we should be driven on to infinity. Hence we must adhere to the former statement; therefore we must say that the "one" which is convertible with "being," does not add a reality to being; but that the "one" which is the principle of number, does add a reality to "being," belonging to the genus of quantity.

Reply to Objection 2: There is nothing to prevent a thing which in one way is divided, from being another way undivided; as what is divided in number, may be undivided in species; thus it may be that a thing is in one way "one," and in another way "many." Still, if it is absolutely undivided, either because it is so according to what belongs to its essence, though it may be divided as regards what is outside its essence, as what is one in subject may have many accidents; or because it is undivided actually, and divided potentially, as what is "one" in the whole, and is "many" in parts; in such a case a thing will be "one" absolutely and "many" accidentally. On the other hand, if it be undivided accidentally, and divided absolutely, as if it were divided in essence and undivided in idea or in principle or cause, it will be "many" absolutely and "one" accidentally; as what are "many" in number and "one" in species or "one" in principle. Hence in that way, being is divided by "one" and by "many"; as it were by "one" absolutely and by "many" accidentally. For multitude itself would not be contained under "being," unless it were in some way contained under "one." Thus Dionysius says (Div. Nom. cap. ult.) that "there is no kind of multitude that is not in a way one. But what are many in their parts, are one in their whole; and what are many in accidents, are one in subject; and what are many in number, are one in species; and what are many in species, are one in genus; and what are many in processions, are one in principle."

Edited March 7, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Jude2]

I had a hard time understanding it because I did not understand the idea of an immaterial substance. Growing up I was taught a spirit had substance and was the shape of a man. So the idea that God was a spirit made of nothing or pure mind I could not grasp. I thought they met these three spirits jumped in and out of each other.

So yeah I had a fundamental misunderstanding of the traditional doctrine of the Christian Trinity. I still don’t understand it.

[3DOP]

Here is a sample of Thomas on the Unity of Godhttp://www.sacred-te...umma/sum014.htm

It sure doesn't seem to me he is saying it is a "mystery". I wish you all luck.

Hi again bukowski

We are discussing the Trinity.

I agree that St. Thomas denies that God's Unity is a mystery. So did Gilson. Catholics hold that the oneness of God is accessible to human reason without faith. This is common knowledge.

You will note from my quote from Gilson that he posits problems under three headings: 1) Unity, 2) Trinity, 3) Effects of Divinity. I did not claim that the oneness of God is a mystery, and neither did Gilson. He specifically singled out the second heading, which is the subject of this thread as being a mystery:

The second of these [the trinity] depends in no way upon philosophical knowledge; although man is not forbidden to apply his mind to this mystery, he cannot pretend, without destroying it as a mystery, to demonstrate it by means of reason.

---as quoted from post 66

As for the question of whether St. Thomas held that the Trinity was a mystery, lets go to the original source which assuredly informed Gilson. See the Summa Theologica, Part One, q. 32, art. 1. It answers the question, "Whether the Trinity of Divine Persons may be known by natural reason?"

http://www.newadvent.../summa/1032.htm

The following quotes demonstrate vividly what Gilson explained above. Note the striking distinction Aquinas draws between God's unity and the trinity of persons.

Therefore, by natural reason we can know what belongs to the unity of the essence, but not what belongs to the distinction of the persons. Whoever, then, tries to prove the trinity of persons by natural reason, derogates from faith in two ways.

---and---

The philosophers did not know the mystery of the trinity of the divine persons by its proper attributes, such as paternity, filiation, and procession, according to the Apostle's words, "We speak the wisdom of God which none of the princes of the world"--

I need to remind everyone that this thread is not about St. Thomas Aquinas. There were Trinitarians before St. Thomas and after him who never heard of him. Or if they did, like a lot of Protestants and Orthodox, they pay him no heed. Nevertheless, in the interest of properly representing St. Thomas on the mystery of the Trinity of Persons, please consider what he says above about the Trinity when we are talking about the Trinity.

St. Thomas clearly affirms that the trinity of divine persons is a mystery which lies beyond the faculties of natural reason. For the purpose of this thread, which is about LDS misunderstandings of Trinitarian doctrine, Mormons must take care not to confuse doctrine on the three with doctrine on the one.

I do not know about Protestants and Orthodox, but you can take issue with us Catholics for believing that the oneness of God is more easily discerned, even without faith. It is no secret that we believe that the existence of one God can be discerned naturally. But that would be a completely different discussion than what has been started here. I don't know if I would participate much, but I would object if Mormons said that Catholics called God's oneness a mystery, just as I object when Mormons say that we believe that God's threeness is not a mystery.

Edited March 7, 2013 by 3DOP