Is There Not An Apparent Problem To The Doctrine Of The Trinity?

[Ran]

Since Ran brought up the article, perhaps he can provide his assessment on whether Pope Benedict XVI is rejecting substance in it.

 

I don't get the sense that Ratzinger's article rejects unity of substance:

 

"In God, person is the pure relativity of being turned toward the other; it does not lie on the level of substance—the substance is one—but on the level of dialogical reality, of relativity toward the other" (italics in the original).

 

I do get the sense that Ratzinger takes issue with the Boethian "anthropological" notion of personhood.  That's conceived in substantialist terms, and it obscures the notion of person as relation when projected back into Trinitarian theology.

[Vance]

I think you're misunderstanding the Catholic perspective.  A "mystery" must be something that is Divinely revealed.  It cannot be reasoned out.  The knowledge of the nature of God is a Divinely revealed belief.

God revealed Himself in Jesus Christ. Also, from the LDS perspective, God revealed Himself to Joseph Smith.

For Catholics, and other traditional Christians, the oneness of the Persons is one of "substance" (or "nature", or "essence").  All three Persons are of the same divine nature, and therefore have the same divine attributes (this is what "consubstantial" means).

A problem I see is the use of the phrase "one substance". It gives a wholly different meaning than the phrase "one nature". The one implies that the Persons are of the same immaterial goo (for lack of a better phrase in my vocabulary) and not the same TYPE of immaterial goo.

Further, Jesus Christ became "consubstantial" with us through His Incarnation, becoming human.

And we would say that Jesus Christ did not need to become human, because He already was human.

So yes, the mystery has been explained, and is not unsolvable.

This is the first time I have heard this.

Catholics further believe that yes, those in Heaven will know God as He truly is (instead of looking through a glass darkly), a belief known as the "beatific vision".

Can you really "know" something without experiencing it? How can you really know God without experiencing BEING God?

[mfbukowski]

As for demystifying God, I have no idea why you think that would be a good thing. At the point you think you have defined God so well, as to be an advanced human, comprehensible as you comprehend yourself, I see you have made God an image of yourself, which I view as a form of idolatry.

My God is smart enough to explain himself in ways even we can understand.  If you are putting words together sense is better than....  well I won't use that word due to previous problems.

[ChristKnight]

I don't get the sense that Ratzinger's article rejects unity of substance:

 

"In God, person is the pure relativity of being turned toward the other; it does not lie on the level of substance—the substance is one—but on the level of dialogical reality, of relativity toward the other" (italics in the original).

 

I do get the sense that Ratzinger takes issue with the Boethian "anthropological" notion of personhood.  That's conceived in substantialist terms, and it obscures the notion of person as relation when projected back into Trinitarian theology.

 

Thanks, yes, that is my understanding as well.  He clearly rejects the Boethian understanding when he says,

 

"Remaining on the level of the Greek mind, Boethius defined 'person' as naturae rationalis individua substantia, as the individual substance of a rational nature.  One sees that the concept of person stands entirely on the level of substance.  This cannot clarify anything about the Trinity or about Christology; it is an affirmation that remains on the level of the Greek mind which thinks in substantialist terms."

 

He therefore rejects that understanding of "substance", but most certainly does not reject the basic Trinitarian dogma that the Persons are of one substance, as you quoted above.

[MiserereNobis]

Trinity= 1 eternal god, manifested in three persons.  They are consubstantial, meaning they share the same essence in a way which neither divides the essence nor creates more than one god.  It is the logical solution to the problem for a strict monotheist trying to harmonize the statements referring to each person of the godhead as a god, while trying to deny that they meant multiple gods.

 

It is the kind of argument that makes LDS issues around polygamy look simple.

 

I favor putting the verses of scripture into play which make such a position impossible:

 

Acts 7:55-56  Jesus standing to the right side of God, thus indicating the resurrected Jesus is not God, and God has location and form.  Further, God is not referenced as the Father, so in Trinitarian speak it could just as easily be the Holy Ghost or, for that matter, the Son standing next to the Son.  He could be moving really fast, like the Flash, creating an optical illusion of being in two places at once.

 

Mark 16:20; Acts 2:33, Romans 8:34; Colossians 3:1; Hebrews 1:3; Hebrews 10:12; 1 Peter 3:22, Matt 26:64; These are all descriptions of Jesus having a physical location to the right side of God.  None of these are symbolic uses where Jesus is representative of God's power by being his "right hand man", or the person enforcing the will of God.  Doesn't matter, he is still described as separate from God.

Matt 22:44-45, Mark 12:36, Luke 20:42 is Jesus quoting the OT where Jehovah says to the Lord, sit at my right hand.

John 17:3  Life eternal is to know the only True God, and Jesus Christ whom He sent.  Does that make Jesus the only untrue god?  In Jesus' own words, Jesus is not the True God.

John 1:1 is most correctly understood as a depiction of God and the Word, who has a nature similar to God, but is a separate divine being.  That makes two divine beings, each correctly characterized as having the nature of God.  But the Word is WITH God.  Logically, a thing cannot be with itself.  It is itself.  It is not just the JW's who assert the correct translation is "and the Word was a god."  Really no effective way to argue only one god is present.  When you couple this with John 1:18, where the Word is described as the "only begotten god" in the bosom of the father.  There are two gods here.  

 

At the very least, there are two divine beings present, which means the doctrine of the Trinity faces not just one tangential circumstance where the text is somewhat squishy, but there are more than a dozen passages directly viewing the presence and nature of God and Jesus, and in each and every instance they are physically and in their being or nature separate and distinct.

 

I present this evidence often to anti-Mormons, and they essentially ignore their own definitions about there being only one God in three persons, since these verses are explicitly stating Jesus/Christ/the Word is distinct from God.  They then redefine God, in these verses, as meaning the Father.  But they don't KNOW it is the Father, since the verses don't state that.  They must turn God, whom to them is an essence, into the Person of the Father, otherwise their Trinity definition fails to explain the divine interaction in these verses.  If there is only one God, and Jesus is next to God, then the definition of any reasonable person would be that Jesus is separate from God.  It is illogical that a thing can be next to itself.  Unless we also can have God make a rock too heavy for him to lift or other such illogical applications of reasoning.

 

Strawman on the Trinitarian view.

 

ETA:  I see others are trying to address your misconceptions of Trinitarianism, so I'll abstain.  Just know that the concept is not as silly as you present it.  I'll reiterate here that those who are anti-Trinitiarian need to realize that it is NOT a stupid doctrine.  You certainly can disagree with it and believe it is wrong, but it is not some stupid thing that a 5 year old can refute.  Remember, some of the greatest minds of Western Civilization formulated and defended the Trinity.  It may be wrong, but it is not stupid, and the seemingly scriptural refutations of the Trinity are not some sort of surprise, but have been well dealt with by Catholic theologians for near 2000 years.

Edited May 15, 2014 by MiserereNobis

[MiserereNobis]

Ran this is an incredible piece- thanks. The Feuerbach mention is fascinating.  Truly startling.

 

Pope Benedict is an incredibly intelligent theologian.

[MiserereNobis]

The Nicene Creed specifically uses the word "homoousia" or one substance, which is contradicted by the Bible and the statements of Christ.

 

You must be right... for nearly 2000 years the greatest intellects of Western Civilization simply missed those Bible verses

 

Obviously, it comes down to interpretation, which comes to down authority.  Did the Catholic Church have the authority to interpret and define Trinitarianism or not?  Any other conversation misses the main issue.  We cannot rely on the Bible alone.

[MiserereNobis]

And I read all of the man generated philosophical mumbo-jumbo written to describe the man designated "unknowable" God and see that you are worshipping a man-made image of God, which I view as a form of idolatry.

Interestingly enough, that's often what people think of the LDS view of God, since God is an exalted man.

If Jesus came to show us the True God, by what He was materially, spiritually, emotionally, and in character, why should we waste our time trying to turn God into something else? Something created in the mind of men and not what Christ revealed to us by His very nature, character and existence.

Obviously, we disagree on what Christ revealed to His Apostles.

Edited to add,

Christ did not reveal God to the learned philosophers of His day, but to the unlearned masses. He did not use or need high fluting mumbo-jumbo to reveal the True nature and character of God. He just had to be himself among the people.

Your anti-intellectualism is startling. Would you prefer your church leaders to be unlearned masses? How many LDS apostles have college degrees? How often are LDS told to study, go to college, etc? What exactly are you advocating here?

[ChristKnight]

God revealed Himself in Jesus Christ. Also, from the LDS perspective, God revealed Himself to Joseph Smith.

 

Yes, Catholics would agree that God revealed Himself in Jesus Christ.

 

 

 

A problem I see is the use of the phrase "one substance". It gives a wholly different meaning than the phrase "one nature". The one implies that the Persons are of the same immaterial goo (for lack of a better phrase in my vocabulary) and not the same TYPE of immaterial goo.

 

I think that stems from how we commonly use the word "substance" in modern English.  Catholics use words like "substance", "nature", "essence", and "being" interchangeably, as we see in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

 

 

 

And we would say that Jesus Christ did not need to become human, because He already was human.[/quote[

 

 

Ok.

 

 

This is the first time I have heard this.

 

This stems from the Catholic understanding of the word "mystery".  It is believed that God is knowable only insofar as what He reveals about Himself, which culminated in the Incarnation of Jesus Christ.  God most certainly isn't fully knowable at the moment, since we look through a glass darkly (Catholics would say we have a "mediated" relationship with God at the moment, while Heaven is an "unmediated" relationship with God).  So, in response to the post I was responding to, it is not correct that Catholics do not know how God is one.  Indeed, the various ancient Councils discussed that very issue, coming to formal definitions of what was believed about that oneness of God (Catholics/Orthodox would claim that such Councils were guided by the Spirit in their decisions).

 

 

Can you really "know" something without experiencing it? How can you really know God without experiencing BEING God?

 

Catholics believe that Heaven is participation in the very life of God.  Deification is very much a part of Catholic belief.

 

Edited May 15, 2014 by ChristKnight

[MiserereNobis]

My God is smart enough to explain himself in ways even we can understand.

So is my God, which is why He uses Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Those terms I can understand, even if they are just a model or analogy.

It's like the model of the atom. I cannot understand the math involved in quantum mechanics, but I can visualize a nucleus with electrons orbiting it, even though the scientists are clear that it is just a model or analogy and that they are not saying there are actual orbits or shells.

The mathematics of quantum mechanics is beyond me, so I'm given models to understand, and that helps. The nature of God is beyond me, so I'm given models to understand, and that helps.

From the Catholic point-of-view, the idea that our minds could fully understand God (finite understanding infinity) seems like gross arrogance.

I'd also point out that I doubt LDS claim that they fully understand God. You just draw your lines and posit your mysteries in a different place than Catholics.

[saemo]

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

So how are we supposed to know God, and thereby gain eternal life, if God is deeply shrouded in unknowable mystery. The New Testament also goes on to say that as we continue to spiritually progress we will one day know Him just as well if He knows us -- something impossible to achieve if He is an unfathomable, unknowable mystery.

And remember, because in Catholicism the oneness of the three person Godhead is a mystery, you can't precisely explain how the three persons are one, so for all you know you may one day discover the LDS explanation will turn out to be the correct one after all! But for now you have no way of knowing because for you the mystery remains unsolved, if not unsolvable.

 

Finally, the oneness of LDS Godhead is not symbolic. In LDS theology, each member of the Godhead possesses the fullness of the Eternal Spirit of Truth, and so by that commonly possessed substance (the Spirit) they are one God while three separate persons. This is the same infinite and eternal oneness with God the Father that is also promised to the saints:

19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.

20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. (John 17)

 

So the oneness of the Godhead, and the oneness of the saints with God, is made possible by each being in possession of the Spirit...

2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love;

3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;

5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. (Eph 4)

 

So there is no mystery about it: It is the same Spirit that makes the Godhead one, makes the Church members in the body of Christ one, and will one day make the saints fully one with God.

We see through a glass darkly.

 

ETA: I see ChristKnight posted the same. :-)

Edited May 15, 2014 by saemo

[saemo]

Pope Benedict is an incredibly intelligent theologian.

With a gift for teaching.

[saemo]

So is my God, which is why He uses Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Those terms I can understand, even if they are just a model or analogy.

It's like the model of the atom. I cannot understand the math involved in quantum mechanics, but I can visualize a nucleus with electrons orbiting it, even though the scientists are clear that it is just a model or analogy and that they are not saying there are actual orbits or shells.

The mathematics of quantum mechanics is beyond me, so I'm given models to understand, and that helps. The nature of God is beyond me, so I'm given models to understand, and that helps.

From the Catholic point-of-view, the idea that our minds could fully understand God (finite understanding infinity) seems like gross arrogance.

I'd also point out that I doubt LDS claim that they fully understand God. You just draw your lines and posit your mysteries in a different place than Catholics.

Two thumbs up. :-)

 

I'll add, getting hung up on the word "Trinity" doesn't need to occur. The word "Trinity" is shorthand, for Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Of course, in all words there is underlying meaning, including the doctrine of the Trinity. There is the fundamental difference with Mormon theology, such as it is with the LDS aversion to the tools of faith that seeks understanding. The meaning underlying all Christian terms and phrases is very different in Mormonism, beginning with the word "God".

Edited May 15, 2014 by saemo

[saemo]

God revealed Himself in Jesus Christ. Also, from the LDS perspective, God revealed Himself to Joseph Smith.

 

 

Isn't one explanation for the multiple versions of Smith's first vision, that he didn't understand at first what was revealed to him?

 

"Joseph's vision was at first an intensely personal experience—an answer to a specific question. Over time, however, illuminated by additional experience and instruction, it became the founding revelation of the Restoration." -- Dennis B. Neuenschwander, "Joseph Smith: An Apostle of Jesus Christ," Ensign, (January 2009) -- taken from fairmormon.org

 

Emphasis mine.

 

The doctrines of the Trinity are no different. By the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we are brought to understanding. For Catholics, Orthodox and all mainline Protestants, the Council at Nicaea cracked open a clearer understanding of the nature of God. This is not for us a mumbo-jumbo of anything, but the Holy Spirit at work in Christ's Church.

Edited May 15, 2014 by saemo

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It's another one of these threads again. What does "One substance" even mean? As MFB has said in other threads if we can't get a consistent definition of "one substance" or "consubstantial" or "one essence" the rest of this is just a waste of time. And really that is were the break down is for me.

 

I know that my Catholic brothers and sisters make it work in their own mind. I am OK with that. After all you guys are the one in charge of your own doctrine and I have learned that I should not try to tell you what your doctrine is. Since I don't like it when others do that to me.

 

Anyway carry on.

[MiserereNobis]

I know that my Catholic brothers and sisters make it work in their own mind. I am OK with that. After all you guys are the one in charge of your own doctrine and I have learned that I should not try to tell you what your doctrine is. Since I don't like it when others do that to me.

Thanks!

[saemo]

It's another one of these threads again. What does "One substance" even mean? As MFB has said in other threads if we can't get a consistent definition of "one substance" or "consubstantial" or "one essence" the rest of this is just a waste of time. And really that is were the break down is for me.

 

I know that my Catholic brothers and sisters make it work in their own mind. I am OK with that. After all you guys are the one in charge of your own doctrine and I have learned that I should not try to tell you what your doctrine is. Since I don't like it when others do that to me.

 

Anyway carry on.

It comes to understanding the philosophical logic of "what is".

 

What the meaning of "IS" is

First, as a kind of preliminary and as tool for philosophical discourse, one should be familiar with the basic distinctions of Aristotle's logic. The basic logical distinction for our purposes is between accident (what exists in and is said of another) and substance (what does not exist in another & not said of another). As an example of what Aristotle means, consider what is named by the word "white." The reality that this word names (a particular color) can be said of some other thing as eg. "This thing is white." "White" is said of "this thing" as though the color belonged to "this thing." Furthermore, it is understood to exist in "this thing;" one does not find any "white" except that is in "this thing" or some other thing. This way of speaking can be contrasted with another, as for example "This thing is Socrates." "Socrates" does not name the same kind of reality that "white" does in the previous example. "Socrates" is not said of "this thing" in the same way as "white" is, and "Socrates" does not exist IN "this thing." Rather, "Socreates" IS "this thing," and the sentence "this thing is Socrates" is understood to assert an identity between the two realities named.

This basic notion of Aristotle's logic reflects the basic distinction in the way reality is stuctured and reflects the basic way that we view reality. The fundamental distinction is between substance and accident. Substance is whatever is a natural kind of thing and exists in its own right. Examples are rocks, trees, animals, etc. What an animal is, a dog for example, is basically the same whether it is black or brown, here or there, etc. A dog is a substance since it exists in its own right; it does not exist in something else, the way a color does.

 

http://www.aquinasonline.com/Topics/substacc.html

 

From what I see, God in LDS belief, corresponds to the description above as the color "white". God does not exist in his own right, but is only found in some other thing. Limited of course in LDS belief to one kind of thing (people). More to the point, I have read here, in this forum, that LDS view the word "God" as a title. A title, like a color, can be exist in many things.

 

Trinitarian view of the reality of God, is that God exists in His own right. Unlike rocks, trees, animals, etc., where there can be many things existing in its own right, God has revealed that He is ONE. There is one "thing" existing in its own right called God.  This is classically taught using the theophany of Moses, where God gives His name as "I AM". He does not say "WE ARE", or that "I BECAME". God says He IS. The God is not a title, but a "thing" that exists in its own right.

 

Personally, the "working out in my own mind" came easy, as I come from a background where I investigated quite intensely the philosophies of the East, in particular the Eastern philosophical concept of being. Western minds do not have a sense of being. "I am who I am", is a statement of being. Westerners have a concept of themselves as doing, rather than being. LDS view "I am who I am" as a statement of doing. When I moved into investigating Christianity, the concept of God being, rather than doing, really stood out to me in a very stark way. I found "I AM", God saying He IS, to be one the most beautiful things I've ever encountered.

Edited May 15, 2014 by saemo

[Vance]

Interestingly enough, that's often what people think of the LDS view of God, since God is an exalted man.

My understanding is that Trinitarians believe that Jesus is "fully man", does that not make Him an exalted man as well?

So, Jesus, who reveals to us what God is, is an exalted man.

Interestingly enough.

Your anti-intellectualism is startling.

So, me stating a historical fact makes me an "anti-intellectual"?

WOW!! You go girl.

[Vance]

. . . , such as it is with the LDS aversion to the tools of faith that seeks understanding.

She says, condescendingly. Edited May 15, 2014 by Vance

[Vance]

Isn't one explanation for the multiple versions of Smith's first vision, that he didn't understand at first what was revealed to him?

 

"Joseph's vision was at first an intensely personal experience—an answer to a specific question. Over time, however, illuminated by additional experience and instruction, it became the founding revelation of the Restoration." -- Dennis B. Neuenschwander, "Joseph Smith: An Apostle of Jesus Christ," Ensign, (January 2009) -- taken from fairmormon.org

LOL!!! Talk about anti-intellectualism.

Additional REVELATION does change ones perspective and understanding. BUT additional revelation has very little, if anything, to do with the different versions. Different audiences is the number one reason for the different versions.

What Joseph learned about God and Jesus Christ in that first vision put your thousand plus years of Trinitarian doctrine on its head.

 

The doctrines of the Trinity are no different. By the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we are brought to understanding. For Catholics, Orthodox and all mainline Protestants, the Council at Nicaea cracked open a clearer understanding of the nature of God.

One that was NOT revealed to the Apostles.

[Vance]

I think that stems from how we commonly use the word "substance" in modern English.

I would prefer an explanation in modern English. Using archaic and arcane Catholic language is not helpful to me at all.

[MiserereNobis]

My understanding is that Trinitarians believe that Jesus is "fully man", does that not make Him an exalted man as well?

So, Jesus, who reveals to us what God is, is an exalted man.

Interestingly enough.

You misunderstand the Catholic position. Jesus Christ is 100% human AND 100% divine. Yes, that adds up to 200%, but that is one of the mysteries of faith, that He is fully human and fully divine. That is different than being a divine human.

I know you'll probably mock this as illogical, but remember, it is one the mysteries of faith, and also remember that there are mysteries in the LDS church, but just in different areas.

[MiserereNobis]

One that was NOT revealed to the Apostles.

Well, obviously we believe that it was revealed to the Apostles, but the Church, under guidance from the Holy Ghost, developed and expanded the idea. It's very similar to the LDS notion of modern-day prophets and divine revelation. Catholics would never use those words (they mean something else in Catholicism), but as I pointed out on a different thread we absolutely believe that the Church is being led by God and that doctrines that were not clear or fully developed at the time of the Apostles are made clear through the action of God and the Church, through Ecumenical Councils and the dogmatic declarations of the Pope.

Surely we can both agree that the Church, through prophets (LDS term) popes/councils of bishops (Catholic term), can clarify and expand on doctrine? If so, then the seeming ambiguity surrounding the nature of God and Christ prior to Nicea shouldn't be a problem...

As I posted earlier, it all goes back to the question of authority. If the Catholics and Orthodox have it directly from the Apostles, as we claim (and as we recognize in each other), then the actions of the Church at Nicea and subsequent councils are clearly the doctrine of God. If we don't have it, then they aren't. Pointing to Nicea to try to prove we don't have it is putting the cart in front of the horse, in my opinion.

[Vance]

Trinitarian view of the reality of God, is that God exists in His own right. Unlike rocks, trees, animals, etc., where there can be many things existing in its own right, God has revealed that He is ONE. There is one "thing" existing in its own right called God.  This is classically taught using the theophany of Moses, where God gives His name as "I AM". He does not say "WE ARE", or that "I BECAME". God says He IS. The God is not a title, but a "thing" that exists in its own right.

Perhaps that is why I prefer this translation.

Ex 3:14 and·he-is-saying Elohim to Moses I-shall-become who I-am-becoming and and·he-is-saying thus you-shall-say to·sons-of Israel I-shall-become he-sent·me to·you.

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/exo3.pdf

Ah, I guess things aren't as cut and dried as you seem to think.

[MiserereNobis]

I would prefer an explanation in modern English. Using archaic and arcane Catholic language is not helpful to me at all.

That's understandable, but it's good to realize on the outset that theology is a distinct field that uses technical terms and language, just like any other field of knowledge. Just because we use specific terms with specific meanings doesn't make them "mumbo-jumbo" any more than physicists using their terms, or mathematicians, or geologists, or whatever.

Theology is the "queen of the sciences" so you shouldn't expect less from it than from other fields