What's Your Analogy Of The Trinity

[3DOP]

I don't think the Catholic Church teaches a Social Trinty.

They take the implications on consubstantiality in a different direction. I am trying to figure how far down the road we could walk until it forks and we must follow one and you guys the other.

I read your post to be saying this happens after consubstantiality and if so, I was examining how one could include it in the Mormon definition. If it doesn't have to exclude immediately a Social Trinity, if there are other reasons that is excluded (or at least is not the only wat the Trinity is one), perhaps this is where the differentiation begins....

 

Cal, thanks for your corrections and your willingness to see where we should agree. For those who that makes unhappy, they can be delighted to discover that the fork doesn't take long to find.

 

Didn't Dave Waltz used to argue that if he was LDS, he could accept the words of the Nicene Creed?

 

As I suggested, where we differ has to do with God answering Moses regarding His name, saying that He could be identified as "I am". There is no question that this revelation from the Pentateuch is critical to our belief that God is affirming that He wishes be identified with the idea of pure and complete existence. I would expect that you have revelation that says otherwise, or you at any rate interpret the passage differently than us. To be consubstantial with a Father who wishes to be identified as pure existence means that such a Person could only have the same pure existence. That is why we identify the Persons of the Trinity as One Being, or one existence. It has to do with "I am". 

 

We think that Jesus repeats and conffirms this doctrine when He oddly enough identifies Himself as "I am" too when he is challenged about his age and Abraham. I say it is odd because it really seems to come out of nowhere in both cases. What's your name? I am. Tell them "I am" hath sent you. You don't disagree with us about consubstantiality. If you believed that God was complete existence as we do, you would be force to say the same things as we do if you would make Jesus a true, equak in kind, and literal as opposed to adopted son of the Father. If we would not place the emphasis on "I am" that we do, we could be free to interpret consubstantiality in a less radical way, as you can, or as the Council of Chalcedon did when it affirmed that Christ is consubstantial with us according to His Sacred Humanity.  

 

I feel like I must issue a disclaimer. Does identification with complete existence complete and perfect the revelation of God. NOOOOO. What is complete existence? I don't know! Nobody knows. Yes. Its a mystery. I started a book last night I should have read long long ago. The Mysteries of Christianity by Matthias Scheeben. The Preface is full of gems regarding why the apostles were "dispensers of the mysteries of God." Revelation doesn't give us all we can know. It only shows us how much more than we could imagine there is to know. What is revealed cannot but be mysterious. I may start a thread and just offer a few thoughts as I go. Maybe not, we'll see how it goes. 

 

Thanks again cal for your consistently earnest attempts now and over the years to understand what an LDS of good will would have to consider as our "successful error." As an error its bad, but as a success, it can't be as ridiculous as some are so determined to believe. Don't feel bad though. Its the same on my side. A lot of Catholics want "non-Catholicism" to be stupid too.

 

Rory 

[mfbukowski]

I don't think the Catholic Church teaches a Social Trinty.

They take the implications on consubstantiality in a different direction. I am trying to figure how far down the road we could walk until it forks and we must follow one and you guys the other.

I read your post to be saying this happens after consubstantiality and if so, I was examining how one could include it in the Mormon definition. If it doesn't have to exclude immediately a Social Trinity, if there are other reasons that is excluded (or at least is not the only wat the Trinity is one), perhaps this is where the differentiation begins....

Agree completely.

 

As I see it, for this to work Catholicism would just have to become Roryism,  where "consubstantial" means the same thing as "of the same kind".  I think Mormons could live with that statement- that the "trinity" consists of three persons of the same kind.

 

Heck, that's what we already believe.   But to do that they would have to pretty much throw out Aquinas, which is not going to happen.

 

I love Aquinas.  He was clearly one of the most brilliant thinkers of all time, perhaps number one.  To be able to craft what he did out of what he had to work with is just a feat of total brilliance.

 

But philosophy and logic, and primarily our understanding of how language works jumped to a new quantum level in the 19th century with the study of philology, and the developments leading to modern linguistics.  Aquinas could not have anticipated that.

 

I would love to see what he thinks about it all now, and hope to sit at his feet at some lecture on the other side in another 50 or 60 years. 

 

Nah, make it 90 years. 

[mfbukowski]

Cal, thanks for your corrections and your willingness to see where we should agree. For those who that makes unhappy, they can be delighted to discover that the fork doesn't take long to find.

 

Didn't Dave Waltz used to argue that if he was LDS, he could accept the words of the Nicene Creed?

 

As I suggested, where we differ has to do with God answering Moses regarding His name, saying that He could be identified as "I am". There is no question that this revelation from the Pentateuch is critical to our belief that God is affirming that He wishes be identified with the idea of pure and complete existence. I would expect that you have revelation that says otherwise, or you at any rate interpret the passage differently than us. To be consubstantial with a Father who wishes to be identified as pure existence means that such a Person could only have the same pure existence. That is why we identify the Persons of the Trinity as One Being, or one existence. It has to do with "I am". 

 

We think that Jesus repeats and conffirms this doctrine when He oddly enough identifies Himself as "I am" too when he is challenged about his age and Abraham. I say it is odd because it really seems to come out of nowhere in both cases. What's your name? I am. Tell them "I am" hath sent you. You don't disagree with us about consubstantiality. If you believed that God was complete existence as we do, you would be force to say the same things as we do if you would make Jesus a true, equak in kind, and literal as opposed to adopted son of the Father. If we would not place the emphasis on "I am" that we do, we could be free to interpret consubstantiality in a less radical way, as you can, or as the Council of Chalcedon did when it affirmed that Christ is consubstantial with us according to His Sacred Humanity.  

 

I feel like I must issue a disclaimer. Does identification with complete existence complete and perfect the revelation of God. NOOOOO. What is complete existence? I don't know! Nobody knows. Yes. Its a mystery. I started a book last night I should have read long long ago. The Mysteries of Christianity by Matthias Scheeben. The Preface is full of gems regarding why the apostles were "dispensers of the mysteries of God." Revelation doesn't give us all we can know. It only shows us how much more than we could imagine there is to know. What is revealed cannot but be mysterious. I may start a thread and just offer a few thoughts as I go. Maybe not, we'll see how it goes. 

 

Thanks again cal for your consistently earnest attempts now and over the years to understand what an LDS of good will would have to consider as our "successful error." As an error its bad, but as a success, it can't be as ridiculous as some are so determined to believe. Don't feel bad though. Its the same on my side. A lot of Catholics want "non-Catholicism" to be stupid too.

 

Rory 

Sorry, genuinely.

 

I have no clue what "complete existence" means.  I exist- do you mean I now just exist partially?  How can one have more "existence" than another?

 

As I see it that just explains one unexplainable phrase with another.

 

We had a thread recently on this very point- the meaning of "I am".

 

Oh and Waltz was wrong.  No way can we accept the Nicene Creed.  I have tried to discuss this with him and he won't engage.

 

I CAN and DO accept the "Apostle's Creed" incidentally, but think something went "terribly wrong" in the years between when both of those were written.

Edited January 27, 2014 by mfbukowski

[3DOP]

bukowski

But consubstantiality is inextricably linked with this discussion of "nature".

 

3DOP

I would not dream of separating them.

[mfbukowski]

Check this out

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/62498-council-of-the-gods-vs-i-am-in-ancient-hebrew-throught/

[3DOP]

Sorry, genuinely.

 

I have no clue what "complete existence" means.  I exist- do you mean I now just exist partially?  How can one have more "existence" than another?

 

As I see it that just explains one unexplainable phrase with another.

 

We had a thread recently on this very point- the meaning of "I am".

 

Oh and Waltz was wrong.  No way can we accept the Nicene Creed.  I have tried to discuss this with him and he won't engage.

 

I CAN and DO accept the "Apostle's Creed" incidentally, but think something went "terribly wrong" in the years between when both of those were written.

 

I guess I missed the thread on "I am." I trust you have it comprehensively figured out? 

 

I didn't expect you to have a "clue" about "complete existence" as I called it. Did you not note that I confessed virtually the same thing?

 

Rory

[3DOP]

Mark hey. I just looked at your thread. Now I remember. You said it was for the scholars so I was pretty shy. As it turned out, it didn't seem right to butt in to a conversation about Greek and Hebrew to interject how Catholics interpret "I am". It was more about how the Bible should be translated if I followed correctly. Maybe this is also an important issue. You guys are much more likely than us to question your own Bible translations. It would seem that you don't accept that it should say "I am." The interesting thing about that to me, is that this should give you a way to have some sympathy with us because apparently, "I am" doesn't support your point of view as well as other ways of translating. If you trusted that the Scripture was more precise as we do, you might find a way to soften your criticism of us.

 

Maybe you guys take for granted that we accept all of your scholarship. We don't. The problem then becomes that we Catholics are simply too gullible about the Bible we have. I don't think any of us ever thought of it being a bad translation. We like the translation. We conformed our theology to fit the translation! If you'll remember that, maybe it will help you see why we draw different conclusions from Scripture than do you. Maybe it all boils down to translations and Greek and Hebrew. "I am becoming" sure sounds a lot different than "I am"! I doubt if we would be talking about existence if Catholics had believed that the real truth is that God said, "I am becoming."

 

I know what the Catholic Church teaches about "I am". I am willing to be corrected by you if it seems like I should, but this seems to me in my Roryism to be the only reason consubstantiality muddies everything up. It all becomes impossible to really get a grip on what it all means when consubstantiality is applied to "I am".

 

Oh by the way...yeah, I think your existence is incomplete! Sorry about that...

 

Rory

Edited January 28, 2014 by 3DOP

[Ahab]

Sorry, genuinely.

I have no clue what "complete existence" means. I exist- do you mean I now just exist partially? How can one have more "existence" than another?

As I see it that just explains one unexplainable phrase with another.

We had a thread recently on this very point- the meaning of "I am".

Oh and Waltz was wrong. No way can we accept the Nicene Creed. I have tried to discuss this with him and he won't engage.

I CAN and DO accept the "Apostle's Creed" incidentally, but think something went "terribly wrong" in the years between when both of those were written.

Interesting. I see a way to harmonize the Nicene creed with LDS doctrine but disagree with the Athanasian creed. And I also see a way to look at all of our Eternal Father's children as part of the same "I am" that our Father is.

I suppose that some of us just don't see what some others of us can see now.

[mfbukowski]

Having participated in several of these threads I just can't make heads or tails of it. I get what people say but when I started to analyze the specifics it is just like you said a "semantics game". Nature= substance = devine attributes. I mean terms that are synonyms get thrown around to try and justify an interpretation that doesn't make sense logically. I mean in the end to each their own. If it works for you great. Maybe this time will be different than all other times?

Hope springs eternal.

 

But then reality sets in.....  

[mfbukowski]

Words will never come close.

That is exactly the issue.  The problem as I see it is that Catholics see the trinity as a "mystery" and not able to be described, and yet spend literally volumes upon volumes trying to do exactly that, to no avail, in my opinion.

 

Rory thinks he does not like Wittgenstein, but I think he doesn't understand the richness of W's position.  Wittgenstein solved the problem of the trinity, by essentially NOT taking it up and showing how this kind of discourse is doomed to failure in the first place.  Merely by showing the limitations of language, he really shows ultimately how Catholicism and Mormonism or any other religion can be seen as each having their own languages ultimately intelligible only to the believers of that faith.  The contexts which define meaning cannot be "translated" from one to the other, so discourses between faiths are like two alien races trying to make sense of what they think is the others jibberish.

 

I highly recommend this book which I am reading right now, and indeed if I could make Rory read it I would!

 

http://www.amazon.com/The-Return-Mystical-Wittgenstein-Christian/dp/1441104445

 

 

The Return to the Mystical: Ludwig Wittgenstein, Teresa of Avila and the Christian Mystical Tradition

Review

Tyler offers a penetrating reading of Wittgenstein. And if that is not enough, he harnesses this to examine both the development of the theologia mystica from Dionysius to the medieval period and specifically the writings of the great Spanish mystic Teresa of Avila. Even more importantly he returns to re-read Wittgenstein. Tyler's elegant and provocative book is a genuine contribution to philosophy, theology and the study of mysticism. (Professor Gavin D’Costa)

Situating his inquiry amidst the debate over mystical language and the 'core experience', Tyler deftly exposes and explores the mystical, transformational element in Wittgenstein's thought and life. In turn, Wittgenstein provides Tyler a clear lens through which he reexamines the mystical theology of seminal figures from Dionysius the Areopagite to Teresa of Àvila. An immensely important contribution to the comparative study of mysticism, The Return of the Mystical also significantly advances our understanding of Wittgenstein. (Professor Richard Woods)

Situating his inquiry amidst the debate over mystical language and the 'core experience', Tyler deftly exposes and explores the mystical, transformational element in Wittgenstein's thought and life. In turn, Wittgenstein provides Tyler a clear lens through which he reexamines the mystical theology of seminal figures from Dionysius the Areopagite to Teresa of Àvila. An immensely important contribution to the comparative study of mysticism, The Return of the Mystical also significantly advances our understanding of Wittgenstein. (Sanford Lakoff)

Mentioned in Fairacres Chronicle Vol. 44 No.1

 

About the Author

Dr Peter Tyler is Director of the Pastoral Theology programme at St Mary's University College, Twickenham, London. His previous writings include John of the Cross: Outstanding Christian Thinker (Continuum 2010), Sources of Transformation — Revitilizing Christian Spirituality (Continuum 2010, edited with Dr Edward Howells) and The Way of Ecstasy — Praying with St Teresa of Avila (Canterbury-SCM 1997).

And yes, it was written by a Catholic!  Who likes Wittgenstein!

 

For less than 15 bucks you can buy the kindle edition, and if you don't have a kindle, download a free kindle reader app for your computer and suddenly you will see how all these problems can be solved.

 

It's only when certain descriptions of God become entrenched in philosophy, thereby creating dogmas, that such conflicts are possible.  In my opinion, one must drop the linguistic dogmatic descriptions and look at these issues in terms of the pragmatic value of religious beliefs in our lives.

 

If we can do that, we can see that Catholicism and Mormonism are not at all far apart- both essentially believe that we receive grace, or "more of the Spirit" for righteous behavior, and the goal of all should be to become more Christlike, and rely on personal communion with God in order to guide our lives.

 

So when we look at the EFFECTS of each sets of beliefs in the lives of the believers of each respective faith, it is hard to see the difference.  The difference manifests itself in the verbal descriptions of how each sees dogmatic theology, and that is how we always get into these tussles about beliefs like the "trinity".

 

THREE is just not ONE and never will be.  We have to get over that and just know how God manifests himself in our hearts-  THAT is what ultimately matters.

 

When I look into my heart, I know that there is ONE person, force, or whatever which knows me and my thoughts and needs and guides and teaches me.  The more I discipline my appetites the closer the ONE becomes to my heart and I receive more guidance.  The kinder I am to others and the more service I do, the closer to the ONE I become.

 

All the rest is handy conceptual descriptions, some of which appeal to me more than others.  Mormonism appeals to me intellectually more than Catholicism because I love the notion that I can become ONE with the ONE and merge into a family structure with that Being forever.  I love the idea that we are little sparks of that ONE and can grow up to be unified and yet independent.  I see Catholicism as making the ONE more ineffable and farther away, and more difficult to relate to.  The transcendence aspect bothers me- but in the final analysis these are all just intellectual descriptions, in my opinion.

 

So for me, I am not bright enough I guess to understand all this talk about essences and Being and Existence and Substance and how this relates to the ONE.

 

Having a Father and being in a Family is something I do understand and find very appealing.

Edited January 28, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Interesting. I see a way to harmonize the Nicene creed with LDS doctrine but disagree with the Athanasian creed. And I also see a way to look at all of our Eternal Father's children as part of the same "I am" that our Father is.

I suppose that some of us just don't see what some others of us can see now.

No sir.

 

I am glad you know you are so far spiritually above me that I cannot understand you at all.  It makes our communications unnecessary.

[mfbukowski]

Oh by the way...yeah, I think your existence is incomplete! Sorry about that...

 

Rory

Seems to be a popular opinion hereabouts.

[Tacenda]

I guess we just choose whatever religion suits us best and go with it in faith. No one really knows God, IMO. Some say they've seen him, I don't believe them. I don't believe JS did. He has so many versions of it. If I saw God the father and his son, I'd not confuse them with one angel. And why would JS join a church after being told they're all wrong? Seems to me he'd take the man upstairs a little more serious than that.

[Storm Rider]

Cal, thanks for your corrections and your willingness to see where we should agree. For those who that makes unhappy, they can be delighted to discover that the fork doesn't take long to find.

 

Didn't Dave Waltz used to argue that if he was LDS, he could accept the words of the Nicene Creed?

 

As I suggested, where we differ has to do with God answering Moses regarding His name, saying that He could be identified as "I am". There is no question that this revelation from the Pentateuch is critical to our belief that God is affirming that He wishes be identified with the idea of pure and complete existence. I would expect that you have revelation that says otherwise, or you at any rate interpret the passage differently than us. To be consubstantial with a Father who wishes to be identified as pure existence means that such a Person could only have the same pure existence. That is why we identify the Persons of the Trinity as One Being, or one existence. It has to do with "I am". 

 

We think that Jesus repeats and conffirms this doctrine when He oddly enough identifies Himself as "I am" too when he is challenged about his age and Abraham. I say it is odd because it really seems to come out of nowhere in both cases. What's your name? I am. Tell them "I am" hath sent you. You don't disagree with us about consubstantiality. If you believed that God was complete existence as we do, you would be force to say the same things as we do if you would make Jesus a true, equak in kind, and literal as opposed to adopted son of the Father. If we would not place the emphasis on "I am" that we do, we could be free to interpret consubstantiality in a less radical way, as you can, or as the Council of Chalcedon did when it affirmed that Christ is consubstantial with us according to His Sacred Humanity.  

 

I feel like I must issue a disclaimer. Does identification with complete existence complete and perfect the revelation of God. NOOOOO. What is complete existence? I don't know! Nobody knows. Yes. Its a mystery. I started a book last night I should have read long long ago. The Mysteries of Christianity by Matthias Scheeben. The Preface is full of gems regarding why the apostles were "dispensers of the mysteries of God." Revelation doesn't give us all we can know. It only shows us how much more than we could imagine there is to know. What is revealed cannot but be mysterious. I may start a thread and just offer a few thoughts as I go. Maybe not, we'll see how it goes. 

 

Thanks again cal for your consistently earnest attempts now and over the years to understand what an LDS of good will would have to consider as our "successful error." As an error its bad, but as a success, it can't be as ridiculous as some are so determined to believe. Don't feel bad though. Its the same on my side. A lot of Catholics want "non-Catholicism" to be stupid too.

 

Rory 

 

Rory, at the end of the day I am always puzzled by the conflict this doctrine has engendered. Somehow it became so infinitely important that individuals were persecuted for not admitting/accepting this belief. Were we to come together and pray as I have done with so many good Catholics during my life I am convinced that God knows exactly who were are praying to and it is the same God. If one believes that three are one with a focus on the One and another believes in three and is focused on the three I am confused as to why it really matters.

 

Having said that I acknowledge the value of knowing truth.  I believe it is the objective of every disciple of Christ to seek after all truth.  However, after two people accept Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God, and Savior of the world, other beliefs pale in comparison. Yet this single doctrine is used to define who is and who is not Christian. It surpasses the importance of the Savior himself; it is the lynch pin doctrine of defining Christianity. I just find it exceeding strange.

 

God bless,

 

Michael

[3DOP]

Rory, at the end of the day I am always puzzled by the conflict this doctrine has engendered. Somehow it became so infinitely important that individuals were persecuted for not admitting/accepting this belief. Were we to come together and pray as I have done with so many good Catholics during my life I am convinced that God knows exactly who were are praying to and it is the same God. If one believes that three are one with a focus on the One and another believes in three and is focused on the three I am confused as to why it really matters.

 

Having said that I acknowledge the value of knowing truth.  I believe it is the objective of every disciple of Christ to seek after all truth.  However, after two people accept Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God, and Savior of the world, other beliefs pale in comparison. Yet this single doctrine is used to define who is and who is not Christian. It surpasses the importance of the Savior himself; it is the lynch pin doctrine of defining Christianity. I just find it exceeding strange.

 

God bless,

 

Michael

 

 

Storm Rider hi. Mola, and others who wonder why this is being discussed again, hi.

 

I never introduce this subject. When I enter into discussion about it, it is because somebody insults my belief as ridiculous, incoherent, or something stronger. I am ready to be silent if someone disagrees. But when mutual disagreement is not satisfactory to the party, when my belief has to be held up as absurd, I do not sit still. It is always wrong to take the successful error and ridicule it as something stupid or incoherent. Whenever you see that happen, wherever you see that happen, whoever does it, be assured that they do not understand what they are criticizing.

 

I am pleased you find this "strange". Strange is a step in the right direction.

 

As for history, if it is persecution to say that you can't be Catholic without accepting this belief then yes, I suppose there was and is persecution. But for the record, in the early going St. Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, and of Athanasian Creed fame, was excommunicated and exiled for retaining the faith of Nicea.

 

Tradition says that Christ was fully God and fully man and brooks no compromise. But it doesn't end with settling on Jesus as fully God. After it was clear that there could be no compromise with the doctrine of Christ as God, heresy arose which attempts to compromise the doctrine of Christ as man. The next major Council occurred at Chalcedon where the same word, consubstantial, is used to affirm that Jesus is fully man. The Monophysite heresy said that Jesus lacked a human nature. Do you wish the Catholic Church would have compromised with that? The Monothelite heresy backed up even more and merely wanted to say that Jesus lacked a human will. Do you think the Catholic Church should have allowed for that?

 

All of this boils down to defending Jesus Christ as fully God and fully man. I do not think Mormons should have negative feelings toward the attempts of the Church to resist doctrines that would obscure or corrupt the teaching that Christ was fully God and fully man. We surely agree on at least that. This is all that I am saying. We have the concept consubstantial. Some of you deny that the word means anything at all. It sure meant a lot to the players at the time! They seemed to have a grip on what it meant. The Arians who wanted to diminish the full sonship and deity of Christ were backed into a corner when this word came into use because they knew that to accept it meant that Jesus Christ was fully, 100% God, and that Fatherhood and Sonship in the Godhead has the same literal implications there as it did in biological reproduction, "after its kind". They wanted to get away from that idea while more or less claiming that the rigid dogmatists were being too hard on them. "There is room for us all under the big tent kind" of sentiment. Some things never change. St. Paul affirms that "there must be heresies among you" in I Corinthians. He doesn't instruct us to compromise with them. I am with the dogmatists when it comes to whether Jesus was fully God.

 

I have given you the reason above about why we need to disagree and it is not about consubstantiality. If you guys would see the utility the word had historically and continues to have in other circles you would be willing to agree that you also think Jesus is consubstantial with the Father. Your objection to this successful error (from your point of view) needs to stop centering around consubstantiality if you would go to the roots. Our difference begins much earlier, with our different translations of the Hebrew and Greek in which God identifies Himself as "I am", according to us, and "I am becoming", according to LDS in a recent thread on the question. THAT is where our difference lies. You guys should stop objecting to a principle with which you inevitably agree. The principle is good and agreeable. The presupposing dogma upon which the principle is used is the error (from your perspective). 

 

Regards,

 

Rory

Edited January 28, 2014 by 3DOP

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Storm Rider hi. Mola, and others who wonder why this is being discussed again, hi.

 

I never introduce this subject. When I enter into discussion about it, it is because somebody insults my belief as ridiculous, incoherent, or something stronger. I am ready to be silent if someone disagrees. But when mutual disagreement is not satisfactory to the party, when my belief has to be held up as absurd, I do not sit still. It is always wrong to take the successful error and ridicule it as something stupid or incoherent. Whenever you see that happen, wherever you see that happen, whoever does it, be assured that they do not understand what they are criticizing.

 

Regards,

 

Rory

I hope you don't think my comments as insulting. I just can't make logic of it. I even gave you and other the benefit of the doubt that if it works for you I genuinly am glad for you. I would never call your beliefs stupid. I really do want to "get it" I just can't. Maybe I am the one with the flaw and I just am incapable of getting it. Anway I appreciate you taking the time once again to lay it all down. I will finish reading your response and see if I can make sense of it.

[Vance]

Tradition says that Christ was fully God and fully man and brooks no compromise. But it doesn't end with settling on Jesus as fully God. After it was clear that there could be no compromise with the doctrine of Christ as God, heresy arose which attempts to compromise the doctrine of Christ as man.

The problem arises when it is accepted that the state of being "God" and that of being "man" are totally incompatible with each other. As in the old "Creator" versus "creature" thingy. Once this is accepted then all sorts of logical gymnastics have to be employed to reconcile this incompatibility.

If it is rejected that the state of being "God" and the state of being "man" are incompatible, then there is no problem to be solved, no logical gymnastics needed.

 

All of this boils down to defending Jesus Christ as fully God and fully man.

If only that were true. Mormons fully accept Jesus Christ is both fully God (or completely divine, if you will) and fully man.

 

I do not think Mormons should have negative feelings toward the attempts of the Church to resist doctrines that would obscure or corrupt the teaching that Christ was fully God and fully man.

We don't, but then again we don't accept the (what we would call) false premise that being "God" and being "man" are totally incompatible.

Is this where the real problem arises?

Edited January 28, 2014 by Vance

[Gervin]

The problem arises when it is accepted that the state of being "God" and that of being "man" are totally incompatible with each other. As in the old "Creator" versus "creature" thingy. Once this is accepted then all sorts of logical gymnastics have to be employed to reconcile this incompatibility.

If it is rejected that the state of being "God" and the state of being "man" are incompatible, then there is no problem to be solved, no logical gymnastics needed.

 

If only that were true. Mormons fully accept Jesus Christ is both fully God (or completely divine, if you will) and fully man.

 

We don't, but then again we don't accept the (what we would call) false premise that being "God" and being "man" are totally incompatible.

Is this where the real problem arises?

 

This, from A. Storm's web pages about Kierkegaard, my emphasis:

 

"Faith is the individual's reaction to the inherent paradox of Christianity. Since essential truth is far beyond our comprehension to the extent that we cannot approach it objectively, it appears to us in the form of a paradox. A paradox is a tension of sorts between at least two focal points. In terms of religious paradox, we may refer to the Christian doctrine of Jesus as fully divine and fully human. No one can comprehend how such a thing could be. However, it is not a flat contradiction. A logical contradiction posits two mutually exclusive premises, such as "James is a man and is not a man", where the term "man" means the same thing on both sides of the statement. This point is frequently misunderstood. Kierkegaard would not have us believe, or come into relation with, the impossible or the contradictory. Furthermore, any attempt to remove the paradoxical is either an attempt to objectify what we cannot know objectively, because we are in the process of becoming, or, to dismiss the role of faith as silliness. This, again, would imply that we can understand something to such a degree that we could dismiss it absolutely, as if we dwelled outside of the system (or the universe)—as if from an objective standpoint."

 

Just as the concept "faith" is an altogether distinctively Christian term, so in turn is "offense" an altogether distinctively Christian term relating to faith. The possibility of offense is the crossroad, or it is like standing at the crossroad. From the possibility of offense, one turns either to offense or to faith, but one never comes to faith except from the possibility of offense.... Offense...relates to the God-man and has two forms. It is either in relation to the loftiness that one is offended, that an individual human being claims to be God, acts or speaks in a manner that manifests God...or the offense is in relation to lowliness, that the one who is God is this lowly human being, suffering as a lowly human being.... The God-man is the paradox, absolutely the paradox. Therefore, it is altogether certain that the understanding must come to a standstill on it (Practice In Christianity, p. 81f.).

Edited January 28, 2014 by Gervin

[Vance]

This, from A. Storm's web pages about Kierkegaard, my emphasis:

 

"Faith is the individual's reaction to the inherent paradox of Christianity. Since essential truth is far beyond our comprehension to the extent that we cannot approach it objectively, it appears to us in the form of a paradox. A paradox is a tension of sorts between at least two focal points. In terms of religious paradox, we may refer to the Christian doctrine of Jesus as fully divine and fully human. No one can comprehend how such a thing could be. However, it is not a flat contradiction. A logical contradiction posits two mutually exclusive premises, such as "James is a man and is not a man", where the term "man" means the same thing on both sides of the statement. This point is frequently misunderstood. Kierkegaard would not have us believe, or come into relation with, the impossible or the contradictory. Furthermore, any attempt to remove the paradoxical is either an attempt to objectify what we cannot know objectively, because we are in the process of becoming, or, to dismiss the role of faith as silliness. This, again, would imply that we can understand something to such a degree that we could dismiss it absolutely, as if we dwelled outside of the system (or the universe)—as if from an objective standpoint."

Just as the concept "faith" is an altogether distinctively Christian term, so in turn is "offense" an altogether distinctively Christian term relating to faith. The possibility of offense is the crossroad, or it is like standing at the crossroad. From the possibility of offense, one turns either to offense or to faith, but one never comes to faith except from the possibility of offense.... Offense...relates to the God-man and has two forms. It is either in relation to the loftiness that one is offended, that an individual human being claims to be God, acts or speaks in a manner that manifests God...or the offense is in relation to lowliness, that the one who is God is this lowly human being, suffering as a lowly human being.... The God-man is the paradox, absolutely the paradox. Therefore, it is altogether certain that the understanding must come to a standstill on it (Practice In Christianity, p. 81f.).

I thank God that we Mormons don't have that problem.

[mfbukowski]

Storm Rider hi. Mola, and others who wonder why this is being discussed again, hi.

 

I never introduce this subject. When I enter into discussion about it, it is because somebody insults my belief as ridiculous, incoherent, or something stronger. I am ready to be silent if someone disagrees. But when mutual disagreement is not satisfactory to the party, when my belief has to be held up as absurd, I do not sit still. It is always wrong to take the successful error and ridicule it as something stupid or incoherent. Whenever you see that happen, wherever you see that happen, whoever does it, be assured that they do not understand what they are criticizing.

 

I am pleased you find this "strange". Strange is a step in the right direction.

 

As for history, if it is persecution to say that you can't be Catholic without accepting this belief then yes, I suppose there was and is persecution. But for the record, in the early going St. Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, and of Athanasian Creed fame, was excommunicated and exiled for retaining the faith of Nicea.

 

Tradition says that Christ was fully God and fully man and brooks no compromise. But it doesn't end with settling on Jesus as fully God. After it was clear that there could be no compromise with the doctrine of Christ as God, heresy arose which attempts to compromise the doctrine of Christ as man. The next major Council occurred at Chalcedon where the same word, consubstantial, is used to affirm that Jesus is fully man. The Monophysite heresy said that Jesus lacked a human nature. Do you wish the Catholic Church would have compromised with that? The Monothelite heresy backed up even more and merely wanted to say that Jesus lacked a human will. Do you think the Catholic Church should have allowed for that?

 

All of this boils down to defending Jesus Christ as fully God and fully man. I do not think Mormons should have negative feelings toward the attempts of the Church to resist doctrines that would obscure or corrupt the teaching that Christ was fully God and fully man. We surely agree on at least that. This is all that I am saying. We have the concept consubstantial. Some of you deny that the word means anything at all. It sure meant a lot to the players at the time! They seemed to have a grip on what it meant. The Arians who wanted to diminish the full sonship and deity of Christ were backed into a corner when this word came into use because they knew that to accept it meant that Jesus Christ was fully, 100% God, and that Fatherhood and Sonship in the Godhead has the same literal implications there as it did in biological reproduction, "after its kind". They wanted to get away from that idea while more or less claiming that the rigid dogmatists were being too hard on them. "There is room for us all under the big tent kind" of sentiment. Some things never change. St. Paul affirms that "there must be heresies among you" in I Corinthians. He doesn't instruct us to compromise with them. I am with the dogmatists when it comes to whether Jesus was fully God.

 

I have given you the reason above about why we need to disagree and it is not about consubstantiality. If you guys would see the utility the word had historically and continues to have in other circles you would be willing to agree that you also think Jesus is consubstantial with the Father. Your objection to this successful error (from your point of view) needs to stop centering around consubstantiality if you would go to the roots. Our difference begins much earlier, with our different translations of the Hebrew and Greek in which God identifies Himself as "I am", according to us, and "I am becoming", according to LDS in a recent thread on the question. THAT is where our difference lies. You guys should stop objecting to a principle with which you inevitably agree. The principle is good and agreeable. The presupposing dogma upon which the principle is used is the error (from your perspective). 

 

Regards,

 

Rory

OK I get the message about calling this belief "incoherent" and for that I apologize deeply.  I did not mean that as an insult to you or Catholicism in general, I was looking strictly at it as a philosophical theory with which I disagreed.  I was wrong to do that- to not see how deeply emotional such a statement could be to one who holds this belief as fundamental to his relationship to God.  Even while I was Catholic, I found the belief confusing, and was never emotionally attached to the idea of the trinity, although I would have died for God in a moment without hesitation if called to do so.  For me it was, and is, a man-made description, and I never understood how deep an issue this can be for you and others.

 

I won't do that again- I get it now, and again apologize.

 

I think the disagreement centers on the Catholic idea that there are TWO natures to begin with- the Divine Nature and human nature.  You repeatedly mention that as why we need the concept of "consubstantiality" in the first place.

 

For us there is no such dichotomy.  There is just one nature from the beginning- human nature, which has within it the potential to become like God.  For us, humans are gods in embryo.  We grow up to be like our Father in heaven just as we grow up to be like our earthly parents.  The same potentiality which exists in a human zygote is able to mature into a being as infinitely above us as our Father is.

 

This is the whole basis of creation for us.  God did not create us to "show forth his goodness" as I learned in catechism- God created us so that we could become like him.

 

That is the essence of the question.  One nature or two?  A God who is transcendent and therefore fundamentally different from us, or a God who is fundamentally like us and therefore progresses?

 

The Greek concept of "perfection" means "completed" and that is where you get the idea that God's existence is more complete than ours.  It is totally a Greek concept.  It is not biblical, it is not Jewish.

 

At least we now have a basis I would hope for discussion after pinpointing our differences, and again I am sorry for offending you or anyone else who sees this.  But that is definitely the point of departure.  The definition of "nature" again becomes crucial.  Is it necessary to have two natures to be BOTH "God and man" or is man by nature a god in embryo.

 

THAT is the point of departure.

 

In my opinion "nature" is just a word.  It does not exist "out there" independent of the person who "has" concept.  Ultimately all we are talking about is definitions-

 

Platonism - pagan Greek philosophy- is at the basis of the belief that Ideas exist independent of the one having the idea.  Plato and Parmenides and Pythagoras literally worshiped Ideas- not God, except in the sense that God was the Form- the Idea of Goodness.   That is not a personal God like the Hebrews worshiped.

 

So in my opinion, the Hebraic concept of a personal God is diametrically opposed to the Platonic idea of worshiping Forms, or Ideas.  THAT is the basis of the disagreement.

 

If God is a person- he has ONE nature from the beginning- His nature whatever you want to call it.  But for us God IS a glorified personage with a body like ours- he is essentially a person in all respects, AS WE ARE PERSONS.  Not two natures- One nature!

 

You define the two natures as separate to begin with- "God AND man"- and then struggle to find a way to combine them again with the notion of "consubstantiality".

 

And that separation comes from Greek philosophy. 

 

For us there is no separation in the first place.  God's nature IS human nature.  We have no need to resolve the separation that we think does not exist in the first place.

[mfbukowski]

This, from A. Storm's web pages about Kierkegaard, my emphasis:

 

"Faith is the individual's reaction to the inherent paradox of Christianity. Since essential truth is far beyond our comprehension to the extent that we cannot approach it objectively, it appears to us in the form of a paradox. A paradox is a tension of sorts between at least two focal points. In terms of religious paradox, we may refer to the Christian doctrine of Jesus as fully divine and fully human. No one can comprehend how such a thing could be. However, it is not a flat contradiction. A logical contradiction posits two mutually exclusive premises, such as "James is a man and is not a man", where the term "man" means the same thing on both sides of the statement. This point is frequently misunderstood. Kierkegaard would not have us believe, or come into relation with, the impossible or the contradictory. Furthermore, any attempt to remove the paradoxical is either an attempt to objectify what we cannot know objectively, because we are in the process of becoming, or, to dismiss the role of faith as silliness. This, again, would imply that we can understand something to such a degree that we could dismiss it absolutely, as if we dwelled outside of the system (or the universe)—as if from an objective standpoint."

 

Just as the concept "faith" is an altogether distinctively Christian term, so in turn is "offense" an altogether distinctively Christian term relating to faith. The possibility of offense is the crossroad, or it is like standing at the crossroad. From the possibility of offense, one turns either to offense or to faith, but one never comes to faith except from the possibility of offense.... Offense...relates to the God-man and has two forms. It is either in relation to the loftiness that one is offended, that an individual human being claims to be God, acts or speaks in a manner that manifests God...or the offense is in relation to lowliness, that the one who is God is this lowly human being, suffering as a lowly human being.... The God-man is the paradox, absolutely the paradox. Therefore, it is altogether certain that the understanding must come to a standstill on it (Practice In Christianity, p. 81f.).

But Kierkegaard didn't try to resolve it.

 

He was fundamentally a fideist and a mystic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fideism

 

Essentially all you are saying is that "it's a mystery".  If you create a contradiction in the first place, of course solving it becomes "mysterious". That's fine, but give up theology because there is no need to reason it out.

[Gervin]

But Kierkegaard didn't try to resolve it.

 

He was fundamentally a fideist and a mystic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fideism

 

Essentially all you are saying is that "it's a mystery".  If you create a contradiction in the first place, of course solving it becomes "mysterious". That's fine, but give up theology because there is no need to reason it out.

the point, in part, was that it's not a contradiction.

Edited January 28, 2014 by Gervin

[Gervin]

I thank God that we Mormons don't have that problem.

whatever "that" is, I'm sure you're being facetious since being blasphemous isn't your style

[mfbukowski]

The problem arises when it is accepted that the state of being "God" and that of being "man" are totally incompatible with each other. As in the old "Creator" versus "creature" thingy. Once this is accepted then all sorts of logical gymnastics have to be employed to reconcile this incompatibility.

If it is rejected that the state of being "God" and the state of being "man" are incompatible, then there is no problem to be solved, no logical gymnastics needed.

 

If only that were true. Mormons fully accept Jesus Christ is both fully God (or completely divine, if you will) and fully man.

 

We don't, but then again we don't accept the (what we would call) false premise that being "God" and being "man" are totally incompatible.

Is this where the real problem arises?

Yes- exactly right.

[mfbukowski]

the point, in part, was that it's not a contradiction.

Please explain how it is not a contradiction.  I guess I missed that.

 

Edit: Nevermind- found it- commenting now see below

Edited January 28, 2014 by mfbukowski