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

[MiserereNobis]

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.

 

Good thing we have modern-day revelation to clear things up, right? 

 

(of course, I mean Popes and Ecumenical Councils... ha!)

[mfbukowski]

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.

Yes and I see that as a nod to tradition where indeed he is departing from it.  It is a rejection of substance really, because he is redefining the term.

 

Throughout you see rejection of the "Greek mind" and the Greek concept of unchangeable perfection vs change and relations, which the Greeks would define as "accidents"

 

He defines "substance" as "relation" and then affirms substance after re-defining it.

 

The entire approach is totally post-modern.  By redefining the terms he redefines the alleged "realities" and makes them quite different.  I see that throughout the piece.

 

He is a post-modern thinker.  He is essential deconstructing the use of terms and redefining them.  That is a completely post-modern approach even though he still use traditional words.  He re-defines the old vocabulary to the point where he is talking about something quite different than the Neoplatonists were talking about. 

 

He affirms Teilhard de Chardin for pete's sake!  He is a process thinker - and that strand goes back to Heraclitus, not Plato

 

For Platonists, substance is eternal and unchangeable.  The concept must be "added" to the sensory world of "accidents" to make up an explanation for why the sensory world is an illusion and why Platonic Forms are eternal while appearances are obviously changing continually.  This was the great battle between Plato and Heraclitus- who thought that all was change, and the only thing eternal was change itself.  Ever heard that in a sacrament meeting?    So Platonists had to explain the obvious fact that the world changes all the time, and yet explain why God was eternal and unchanging.  Enter Substance vs Accidents.  Substance never changes, Accidents are mere appearances.  Reality is an illusion- what is real is the eternal and unchanging Forms, and that is the world of God.

 

Man lives in a different world- the world of change.  God is one in substance, essence being, pick your word- and therefore eternal and unchanging.  His nature is fundamentally different from man, who is evil and changes all the time.

 

Enter Christ.  OOPS- he has to be eternal AND a man.  How do we solve that one?  Two natures! of course!  As Aristotle suggested, if you make a distinction you can solve any philosophical problem- change the definition of the word and make a distinction in meaning and you solve the problem.

 

So the three persons are one in Substance- eternal and unchanging substance- but are three persons.  It's a mystery!

 

But wait.  Now we have two entities- Substance and accidents.  Well if there are two things that make up reality, then there must be a relationship between these two things because if we posit two things, there is obviously some relationship to them.

 

I know!  We will make up a third thing- Relations!  Problem solved!  Now we have Substance AND Accidents AND Relations.  All this becomes Medieval philosophy- dividing the world in threes.

 

So here Benedict essentially re-defines Relation as the basis for all of it, and subsumes substance and accidents into relations.  (If I am not mistaken- I could be- this is new to me)

 

They really are still "there" as three, but really not defined the same as they were before.  Substance is no longer eternal and unchanging- it is "really" relational.  And clearly accidents have always been relational anyway, so nothing is lost.  So all "really" becomes relational.

 

Straight Heraclitus, not Plato.  Straight Wittgenstein/Postmodern, not Thomism by a long shot.  It's not that he says these things- it's his ATTITUDE.  He knows his German philosophy obviously and postmodernism/ continental philosophy comes straight out of Kant, Hegel, and the boys- so does Pragmatism and my guy Rorty.

 

He thinks like a German philosopher giving a nod to tradition because he has to.  THAT is my impression.

 

Benedict repeatedly makes the distinction between the early church and what happened after Greek philosophy came in.  I could very well use his very arguments in an apologetic piece in favor of the apostasy as we see it.  That's why I find it so startling.  You could use most of that piece to show how the Godhead became misunderstood and grew into the Trinity- he provides all the ammo, and the AK47 in pieces next to it.  All you would have to do is pick up the pieces and put them together and open fire.

 

He is obviously brilliant, and I think he knows exactly what he is doing. Of course he does!  He is making Catholic dogma compatible with contemporary thinking.  I think that is a good thing.

 

We all have more in common seeing it that way.

[Vance]

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.

Is that one of those mysteries that has NOT been revealed?

It is only a mystery when you succumb to false dichotomy of the human versus the divine.

To me, the very existence of Jesus demonstrates that it is a false dichotomy.

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.

I tried to keep the mocking down.

[MiserereNobis]

Is that one of those mysteries that has NOT been revealed?

No, it is a mystery because it is impossible for our finite mortal minds to comprehend. When we are experiencing it directly in the Beatific Vision, then we'll get it directly, but it is beyond discourse for us now.

I suppose some of the highest mystics got it through direct experience.

 

It is only a mystery when you succumb to false dichotomy of the human versus the divine.

So it goes back to the idea -- is there something different between the human and divine natures? This is one area where the LDS church and the Catholic Church disagree

 

To me, the very existence of Jesus demonstrates that it is a false dichotomy.

Or an amazing example of the fact that God is both transcendent AND immanent. The Incarnation of Christ rather takes the wind out of the sails of the argument that God is only transcendent and therefore could not possibly connect with us immanent folk. God is both.

 

I tried to keep the mocking down.

Thanks!

Edited May 15, 2014 by MiserereNobis

[MiserereNobis]

Yes and I see that as a nod to tradition where indeed he is departing from it.  It is a rejection of substance really, because he is redefining the term

...

We all have more in common seeing it that way.

I appreciate you appreciating the work of Benedict. I think he has done much for the Church, but since he is not charismatic, to say it plainly, most people (Catholics included) simply overlook him.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

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.

 

Well, Lets just say that I cannot really understand this. Call it a weakness on my part if you want. I appreciate the time you took to write it out.

[mfbukowski]

 

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.

 

The only problem is that philosophy has advanced in the last 2000 years, because this is full of problems.

 

Drop Aristotle and stick with Benedict if you must retain the dogmatic language.

[mfbukowski]

Yet more evidence that Rorty is right and that all human thought is based on our personal definitions of words.

[mfbukowski]

Good thing we have modern-day revelation to clear things up, right? 

 

(of course, I mean Popes and Ecumenical Councils... ha!)

Jo'mama!

[mfbukowski]

Ran

Still working on it, haven't forgotten, thanks.

[saemo]

The only problem is that philosophy has advanced in the last 2000 years, because this is full of problems.

 

Drop Aristotle and stick with Benedict if you must retain the dogmatic language.

…and?

 

I see no reason to drop Aristotle in favor of Benedict. I, personally, prefer Pope Benedict, but if a person is going to ask a basic question about philosophy in relation to Trinitarian theology, begin with a basic answer.

 

Certainly, Aristotle was not dropped in my college philosophy course. My understanding is that philosophy is a discipline that is built over time, one on top of the other. It isn't  a science, where a hypothesis is disproven via experimentation and observation.

Edited May 15, 2014 by saemo

[MiserereNobis]

The only problem is that philosophy has advanced in the last 2000 years, because this is full of problems.

 

Drop Aristotle and stick with Benedict if you must retain the dogmatic language.

Somehow I knew you were going to respond to that post

For me, my faith is in the teachings of Holy Mother Church. She uses the language and ideas of Aristotle and Plato (and Plotinus, to a degree) to express the Faith, so I use that language, too. I'm not a dogmatic Platonist -- but I am a faithful Catholic, so I use the expressions the Church uses. If the Church changes her formulations, I suppose I will, too. Of course, having said that, I want it to be clear that the Church wouldn't change the truth (impossible) but the formulations/expressions of it. Perhaps this is one reason why she has clung tenaciously to Platonist explanations, because changes in expression often make people think that a deeper change is also occurring. Just look at the media's coverage of Pope Francis. He has changed the outward expression of some aspects of the Papacy, and they are going on and on about how everything about the Catholic Church is going to change. Hogwash

Anyways, that's one of the reasons I don't really get deep into the Platonist vs. post-modern debates here. I'm attached to the Church, not her philosophy (though I've always been a wee suspicious of the post-modernists, even prior to conversion, but that's just me).

[saemo]

She says, condescendingly.

In the mortal words of teenagers. Whatever.

 

The constant "philosophy of men" quote all over this forum tells me LDS have an aversion to the tools used to understand faith; philosophy and theology. (Bukowski excluded.) Tools that are used in understanding and explaining divine revelation.  I don't have a condescending view of this aversion. It is an aversion that I don't understand, as it is to me like having an aversion to explaining the physical world via math and physics.

 

It is what it is.

Edited May 15, 2014 by saemo

[Vance]

Or an amazing example of the fact that God is both transcendent AND immanent.

Back to the logical contradictions.

[Vance]

In the mortal words of teenagers. Whatever.

 

The constant "philosophy of men" quote all over this forum tells me LDS have an aversion to the tools used to understand faith; philosophy and theology. (Bukowski excluded.) Tools that are used in understanding and explaining divine revelation.  I don't have a condescending view of this aversion. It is an aversion that I don't understand, as it is to me like having an aversion to explaining the physical world via math and physics.

 

It is what it is.

I will take the revealed philosophy of God over your philosophy of men any day of the week. For truly "the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God".

[MiserereNobis]

Back to the logical contradictions.

It wouldn't be a mystery if you could understand logically now, would it. Nor would it be miraculous!

I recommend reading some of the greatest Christian mystics (St. John of the Cross, St. Teresa of Avila) and their take on how far logic can take you. In fact, any great mystic of any religion will do. Pick up some Rumi, if you'd like. Or we can even quote Spock from Star Trek VI: "Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end."

At some point in the spiritual journey we have to realize that God is beyond logic and reason, though logic and reason (together with faith and God's grace), are the way that we get to the beginning of that realization.

In the end, they're all just words, words, words (to quote Hamlet). God is certainly bigger than the box of transcendent and the box of immanence and any other word box. One way to show that is to show that the apparent contradictions of words do not apply to Him. He is perfect justice and mercy. He is perfect transcendence and immanence.

Ok, enough of my mystical ramblings. To get back to the point, yes, it is a logical contradiction, and yes, it is true. There's my testimony

[MiserereNobis]

I will take the revealed philosophy of God over your philosophy of men any day of the week. For truly "the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God".

It's just a matter of picking your philosophy. For us Catholics, we have the revealed philosophy of God and you have the philosophy of men.

The whole "philosophy of men" quote seems rather useless to me, as it can be leveled at any theology anyone dislikes, since all theologies are technically philosophies.

[cdowis]

In the mortal words of teenagers. Whatever.

 

The constant "philosophy of men" quote all over this forum tells me LDS have an aversion to the tools used to understand faith; philosophy and theology. (Bukowski excluded.) Tools that are used in understanding and explaining divine revelation.  I don't have a condescending view of this aversion. It is an aversion that I don't understand, as it is to me like having an aversion to explaining the physical world via math and physics.

 

It is what it is.

 

The historic Christian church has replaced the living prophets with theologians and philosophers.  The scribes and Pharasees used these very same tools to "understand faith, philosophy and theology" and rejected the Christian prophets.  Paul tells us that the church would be lead by prophets and apostles, not philosophers and theologians.

 

The LDS church has records of modern revelations, but in its canon and also witnesses to these visions and revelations (e.g. in the temple at Kirkland, the visitation of Pope Peter, James and John to restore the priesthood, etc.) (pardon the irony).

 

As you say, it is what it is.

 

You don't see the difference between revelation and philosophy?

Edited May 15, 2014 by cdowis

[pogi]

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.

 

It would not be accurate to correspond God with the color "white" in LDS belief.  God is not an attribute, but a divine being. I think we can both agree on that.  Yes, we do view "God" as a title in one aspect, but He is more than just a title.  It is very much like the title "father", which He is.   You would not disagree that your father is more than just a title would you?  So it is with your/my 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.

 

Yes, God is a "thing" that exists in its own right, but it has also become a title.  Because He said "I AM" does not mean that THEY ARE NOT, or that we cannot become as "HE IS".  We will be ONE with Him.  We will be like Him.  That's what he teaches us. 

Edited May 15, 2014 by pogi

[saemo]

I will take the revealed philosophy of God over your philosophy of men any day of the week. For truly "the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God".

 

God created us as rational beings, with the ability to reason. There is no cause to believe God wants us to stop using the gift of reason that comes from Him.

 

Isaiah 1:18

King James Version (KJV)

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord

[saemo]

The historic Christian church has replaced the living prophets with theologians and philosophers.  The scribes and Pharasees used these very same tools to "understand faith, philosophy and theology" and rejected the Christian prophets.  Paul tells us that the church would be lead by prophets and apostles, not philosophers and theologians.

 

As you say, it is what it is.

 

You don't see the difference between revelation and philosophy?

I see the difference. I don't see that LDS members do!

[cdowis]

Let's look at Saul and Paul.

 

Saul was an educated Pharasee, educated in the scriptures and the tools of philosophy, rhetoric and debated on the great issue of religion -- e.g. which was the greatest commandment in the law.  He concluded that the Christians were heretics.

 

Now let's look at Paul.  He had personal revelation and visions.  He was a prophet.

 

Again, I ask if you understand the difference.  We have Saul running the historic Christian church today.

Edited May 15, 2014 by cdowis

[saemo]

It would not be accurate to correspond God with the color "white" in LDS belief.  God is not an attribute, but a divine being. I think we can both agree on that.  Yes, we do view "God" as a title in one aspect, but He is more than just a title.  It is very much like the title "father", which He is.   You would not disagree that your father is more than just a title would you?  So it is with your/my God.

 

Sorry, I don't think we can agree as LDS teach that God is not the divine being. 

 

 

 

 

Yes, God is a "thing" that exists in its own right.  Because He said "I AM" does not mean that we cannot become as "HE IS".  We will be ONE with Him.  We will be like Him.  That's what he teaches us.

 

Well yes, but that is not the disagreement.

Edited May 15, 2014 by saemo

[MiserereNobis]

The historic Christian church has replaced the living prophets with theologians and philosophers.  The scribes and Pharasees used these very same tools to "understand faith, philosophy and theology" and rejected the Christian prophets.  Paul tells us that the church would be lead by prophets and apostles, not philosophers and theologians.

The Catholic Church is still lead by "prophets and apostles" and "modern-day revelation" though we don't use those terms. Please see the other thread on this topic.

 

You don't see the difference between revelation and philosophy?

I believe that difference is unjustly pushed to an extreme in LDS thought, perhaps out of not being familiar with philosophy. For example, the D&C claim that all spirit is matter is considered a revelation. Yet, any philosopher will tell you that that is a statement of philosophy, materialism to be exact. Or the LDS belief that evil exists in the world because of free agency. That is the free-will defense theodicy, also a philosophical claim.

Statements of theology (which would encompass revelation) are almost always statements of philosophy.

Philosophy appears to have an unjustly bad reputation in the LDS world. ETA: which is unfortunate, since LDS theology and worldview is just as full of philosophy as any other religion.

Edited May 15, 2014 by MiserereNobis

[saemo]

Let's look at Saul and Paul.

 

Saul was an educated Pharasee, educated in the scriptures and the tools of philosophy, rhetoric and debate on the great issue of religion.  He judged the Christians as heretics.

 

Now let's look at Paul  He had personal revelation and visions.  He was a prophet.

 

Again, I ask if you understand the difference.

 

Irrelevant.

 

Paul then goes on to use rhetoric and debate to support Christianity, as well as philosophy. As an example, seeing through a glass darkly is a philosophical statement.