What's Up With The Trinity

[aaron0005]

They all acknowledge that no one can explain the Trinity because it is a "mystery" because no one can explain God.

 

Very sad argument. 

 

Obviously no one can explain God- that is not the question.  That presumes that the Trinity DOES in fact explain God, and we cannot understand the Trinity because the whole theory is an accurate explanation of something not explainable.

 

"To me, it is a mass of confusion".

 

Every word we utter is a collection of symbols and any discussion of God is symbolic to start off with- obviously God cannot be explained in words.  We all acknowledge that.

 

But for Pete's sake give me an explanation at least even stupid me can understand.  Three persons who are one in "being" or "substance" explains nothing.

 

Three people working together and being one in purpose- THAT makes sense.  I can understand that.

 

Social Trinitarianism- that the Trinity is three persons who have a loving relationship making them "one"- THAT I can understand.  But one in "Being"?  No clue what that means.

The thing is though its right in the Bible. They shouldn't have to explain it, but due to the 2nd, 3rd and 4rth centuries of distortion on the Godhead and the councils adding to that, they have been left to defend a tradition that was carried forward by a church that was the only church allowed for sometime and the fact things were so controlled and people were not even allowed Bibles.

 

There is no doctrine in the Bible that supports the Nicene Crede or later councils. It's overwhelming and consistent throughout the New Testament, let alone the abundant evidence everywhere in the NT to support the LDS position. This also supports the position on all out apostasy.

[aaron0005]

The thing is though its right in the Bible. They shouldn't have to explain it, but due to the 2nd, 3rd and 4rth centuries of distortion on the Godhead and the councils adding to that, they have been left to defend a tradition that was carried forward by a church that was the only church allowed for sometime and the fact things were so controlled and people were not even allowed Bibles.

 

There is no doctrine in the Bible that supports the Nicene Crede or later councils. It's overwhelming and consistent throughout the New Testament, let alone the abundant evidence everywhere in the NT to support the LDS position. This also supports the position on all out apostasy.

 

"here is no doctrine in the Bible that supports the Nicene Crede or later councils. It's overwhelming and consistent throughout the New Testament, let alone the abundant evidence everywhere in the NT to support the LDS position. This also supports the position on all out apostasy."

 

I'm referring to the trinity here.

[David Waltz]

Hello again aaron0005,

 

Oooops...my bad; you were quoting Logan, who was quoting Dr. Klink.

 

 

Grace and peace,

 

David

[mfbukowski]

LDS (Mormon) Misconceptions About The Trinity (Part 1): Where Do We Get It From?

Conclusion

From all these passages we see that Paul has affirmed (at least) 5 things:

1. There is only one God.

2. The Father is God.

3. Jesus is God.

4. The Spirit is God.

5. The Father, Jesus and the Spirit somehow go together but are distinguishable.

http://apharepher.wordpress.com/2014/07/03/ldsmisconceptions/

There is nothing here that disagrees with LDS doctrine.

Edited July 6, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

The thing is though its right in the Bible. They shouldn't have to explain it, but due to the 2nd, 3rd and 4rth centuries of distortion on the Godhead and the councils adding to that, they have been left to defend a tradition that was carried forward by a church that was the only church allowed for sometime and the fact things were so controlled and people were not even allowed Bibles.

 

There is no doctrine in the Bible that supports the Nicene Crede or later councils. It's overwhelming and consistent throughout the New Testament, let alone the abundant evidence everywhere in the NT to support the LDS position. This also supports the position on all out apostasy.

Agreed.

[mfbukowski]

Conclusion: It Wasn’t “made up”

If it is not evident from the past two posts, the doctrine of the trinity was a clarifying doctrine that explained the five affirmations about God we see in scripture (at the top of this post). It was not just invented by some church fathers, it comes straight from the Old and New Testaments, and is the appropriate summation of what scripture affirms. This is how we get to the doctrine of the trinity. To quote the name of this post: This is Why “Trinity!”

The next (and final) post will deal with correcting the most common misunderstandings LDS have about the trinity.

This is somewhat funny actually.

"It wasn't made up"  BUT

 

the doctrine of the trinity was a clarifying doctrine that explained the five affirmations about God we see in scripture

 

http://apharepher.wordpress.com/2014/07/03/lds-mormon-misconceptions-about-the-trinity-part-2-why-trinity/

In other words, it was made up.

 

I can't wait to see the "corrections" to LDS doctrine.  I hope some of them include actual LDS doctrine.

Edited July 6, 2014 by mfbukowski

[aaron0005]

I couldn't find it but an LDS guy in this thread seem to agree that the Father and the Son are one substance. I'm not sure what he had in kind by substance,  but that would be one physically or spiritually. Not just in purpose, but literally one. Which I guess would make the three in one God thing more of an idea (there being three) and literally.

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2007/10/the-only-true-god-and-jesus-christ-whom-he-hath-sent?lang=eng#watch=video

 

This is a talk by Elder Holland in which he makes clear to me that they are not one substance, as the Nicene Crede claimed.

 

If I could make one point that is much more on a logical basis.

 

Jesus did not have to resurrect in the exact manner He did. He could have came back as a spirit (I've heard some claim this and that He somehow disposed of His body) and worked mighty signs and miracles. He could have spent those three days in spirit prison and spirit paradise to come back, get His body (resurrect) and then cast it off, but He did not. I suppose there are other crazy theories people could make.

 

He kept His physical body and said "for a spirit hath not flesh and bones," as well as "touch me not for I have not yet ascended to my Father." Keep in mind this is after He had entered paradise as He told the thief-"this day thou shalt be with me in paradise." Clearly that heaven was not the same place the Father was in. It was a temp place before the RESURRECTION.

 

Would it make even the slightest sense if that most crucial aspect of the plan was so diminished by Him resurrecting and forsaking that body? Universal importance has been placed on this. He clearly existed in a spiritual realm after His death and before His resurrection. Then why was it so important for Him in the FATHERS PLAN (at the least initiated by the Father in whom Christ was obedient to) to assume a mortal/physical body and continue to posses an immortal physical body after the spirit world and in the highest heaven? Remember, on the right of God whom Stephen saw?

 

Lets not forget neither that He will still appear on the Mount Of Olives and will no doubt be seen at His 2nd coming with a physical body.

 

We know Satan and 1'3 third were cast down without bodies. As LDS we know they lost that privileged that we got and which Christ Himself assumed-to receive bodies of flesh.

 

I don't think it takes a rocket scientist or a scholar to see that for some reason in this plan having a physical body seems like one of the most important things in the entire plan-based solely on the Bible.

 

So important, that a universal resurrection has been taught and prophesied for centuries. In the gospels and the Book Of Revelation it is refereed to as the resurrection of the just and the resurrection of the unjust.

 

We know Jesus submitted His will to the Father. We know He was the Son and subordinate to His Father. We know he was in the express image of His Father and and that we were created in the image of God. We know that one of the greatest miracles of all time will be (thanks to Christ) when all come forth from the grave-from a spiritual realm. This will be a breathtaking, astonishing and crucial aspect of the entire plan of salvation.

 

My point is it is clear that God has placed unbelievable importance on this-every single one coming back to earth and getting physical bodies back. It seems extremely strange that God our Father would give His  Firstborn a body, all of us bodies, plan it in such a way that there will be a universal resurrection, unless HE HIMSELF placed that kind of importance on it. In other words unless the Father Himself had a body of flesh and bones-though glorified. Clearly, the importance that has been placed on this and breadth and depth of such a doctrine and miracle(universal resurrection) is simply undeniable and I believe says much about the FATHER OF US ALL..

 

Such a sweeping part of the plan as resurrection was not instituted so that in the end we and Christ somehow forsake our physical bodies. Thats not what resurrection means. If that were the case He could have just planned it that rather than us resurrecting as Christ did, we could just come back to this without a resurrection as spirits.

 

Inherent in the plan of salvation, even to the extent it is laid out in the Bible, is the truth God is our Father and has a body of flesh and bone and that we and Christ are in His image and that bodies of flesh and bone are of extreme importance.

[mfbukowski]

Conclusion

From all these passages we see that Paul has affirmed (at least) 5 things:

1. There is only one God.

2. The Father is God.

3. Jesus is God.

4. The Spirit is God.

5. The Father, Jesus and the Spirit somehow go together but are distinguishable.

 

Let me clarify how these do not disagree with Mormon doctrine.  Incidentally, since you capitalize "Christian" please capitalize "Mormon".

 

We do believe that "there is only one God".  It is stated repeatedly in the Book of Mormon.  What this means is that there is only one Godhead- a collective noun which includes three persons who are united in purpose.

 

There is only one Congress of the United States also- which is made up of hundreds of persons.  Just a grammar point.

 

Of course The Father is God- hopefully we have no problem there, or with Jesus or the Holy Spirit being "God".

 

And the way they are all united, is in purpose.  They have one purpose, bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

 

Simple stuff.  No being no substance, no "nature"

 

But if you insist on them being one in nature, we can agree on that too.  In fact we are all - all of humanity one in nature as well with God since we share in His/their Divine nature.

 

So if you want to say they are one in "nature" we are in agreement.  See?  Easy!

[Gohan]

I usually think that many, many bible translations are really good. There are a few that I think are pretty bad (for an absolutely horrible translation, see the Jehovah's witnesses New World Translation and you will see what I mean), or obsolete (the KJV falls into this category for me). The KJV also doesn't use the oldest manuscripts that we have now.

The good ones that I will usually consult are the

NASB (New American Standard Bible) 12th grade reading level

ESV (English Standard Version, probably the most common) 8th grade reading level

NIV 1984 (New International Version, used to be the most common)

NLT (New Living Translation, very easy to read)

ASV (American Standard Version; very old)

HCSB (Holman Christian Standard Bible)

As a clarifying side note for you, I heard from an employee in the Ancestry building at Temple Square that "nobody knows greek or hebrew" and "nobody has any greek and hebrew manuscripts anymore." It was a little awkward when I pulled out my hebrew bible right then and started sight-translating from the hebrew. Then I pulled out my greek bible and started sight translating from the greek. (I also have what is called a "textual apparatus" which lists all differences in manuscripts).

Again, I don't like to spout off my credentials, but I just want to reaffirm to you that this whole "as far as it is translated correctly" is usually an ad hoc smokescreen defense. I have yet to see a translational difference that changes doctrine (of course it changes the meaning of the word, and the sentence around it). Unless of course you are talking about the Jehovah's Witness's NWT, which I already said is horrible.

I would definitely not recommend using the KJV (the version LDS usually use and that Joseph Smith quotes from so often in the BoM), because it uses such old language that you wont be able to understand it (some of the idioms/vocabulary have been completely obsolete for centuries). Part of the tragedy is that I think LDS don't know their OT/NT's very well because the language goes way over their head, as it would for me as well. I recommend the NIV or ESV.

Thanks for the quick reply on that, unfortunately I've been travelling and it's rather monotonous to try and type on my phone, so I've been delayed a bit.

I've been meaning to get a copy of the ESV. I've not heard the best recommendations for the NIV though. I'm aware of the weakness of the KJV, especially as regards its manuscript sources and archaic language. However, I stick with it for my devotional reading for sentimental value. For us, the language of the KJV is the "language of the Restoration" and we Latter-day Saints have an emotional attachment to it. Beyond devotional reading though, I tend to use NRSV.

As to the comments of that employee at Temple Square, I wouldn't take them as representing a broader Latter-day Saint attitude. While some of our past leaders, such as Elder Bruce R. McConkie, have minimized the importance of being able to study in the original Greek and Hebrew, there are LDS scholars who are knowledgeable and respected - such as Donald W. Perry and David Bokovoy - in those areas of study. BYU also has an excellent Near Eastern Studies Program.

In regards to your comments about the strict monotheism of the Hebrew Bible, I wonder what you what you have studied and think about the divine council. Stephen Smoot did a treatment of some of the scholarship on the subject in Studia Antiqua here: http://studiaantiqua.byu.edu/PDF/Studia%2012.2.pdf

For convenience, I've also attached a extracted PDF copy of his article from the issue.

Pages from Studia 12.2.pdf

Edited July 7, 2014 by Gohan

[David Waltz]

Hello mfbukowski,

 

You quoted the following from the website linked to in the opening post of this thread:

 

>>From all these passages we see that Paul has affirmed (at least) 5 things:

 

1. There is only one God.

2. The Father is God.

3. Jesus is God.

4. The Spirit is God.

5. The Father, Jesus and the Spirit somehow go together but are distinguishable.>>

 

You then wrote:

 

>>There is nothing here that disagrees with LDS doctrine.>>

 

I would argue that it is difficult to explicitly define what "LDS doctrine" (specially concerning theology proper—i.e. the doctrine of God), is on this matter, for throughout the history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, there have been a number of proposed models (the proposals by Orson Pratt, Brigham Young, B. H. Roberts, David Paulsen and Blake Ostler are a few that immediately come to mind).

 

Yet, with that said, I would also argue that which ever LDS model is accepted, your assessment would probably hold true.

 

But, such agreement is a bit misleading because of the varying understandings (among LDS and especially non-LDS Christians) of what the phrase "only one God" actually means. As I mentioned earlier, for the Church Fathers prior to Augustine, the phrase "one God" was reserved for God the Father alone (as per the Bible); and for those who have followed Augustine, the phrase is used with reference to either "the Trinity" or the single, divine essence/substance/Godhead (Greek: ousia/theotēs), resulting in the popular dictum: 'three whos, one what' (which I believe to be a poor construct).

 

IMO, a precise definition of "God" (including "one God") in each instance needs to be provided to help avoid misunderstandings.

 

 

Grace and peace,

 

David

Edited July 7, 2014 by David Waltz

[Vance]

I already addressed this above in my paragraph on NT abrogation and Pauline worldview-shift.

Actually you did not address it. you simply dismissed it without valid reasoning.

 

 

 

Klink is saying that Jesus is more than just divine, because John didnt use "theios" but "theos." The issue is that (unless you want to affirm otherwise) LDS generally deny that the Father and Jesus are both equally the same one God.

Who is Klink that I should care what he says.  And for that matter what are those post Biblical councils that I should care what they say?

 

 

Setting aside the canonicity of the Follet Discourse (yes I have heard canon issues, but I have never heard any LDS actually disagree with what he said there), my point was that LDS heavenly father had a father before him. Is this LDS doctrine or not? My point with asking is that you cant have Adonai be "God of gods" and believe that the "God of gods" was created by another god. Colossians 1:16...

Well, since the King Follet discourse was never really fleshed out, or canonized all you have is simple speculation regarding it.  Of course that did not prevent you from creating a straw man to flog.

 

Happy flogging.

 

 

 

 

"the word θεος for Greek-speakers (and its equivalents in other languages spoken in the first century), was not univocal, and the early Christians [the NT writers] made out a fairly thorough case for understanding it in a particular sense." N.T. Wright, New Testament and the People of God, xiv

 

"To begin with, creational monotheism [in Judaism] rules out henotheism, the belief that there are indeed other gods, but that all Israel will worship only her own god... Rejection of henotheism means, in practical terms, that Israel was committed to seeing her god as ontologically (and not merely practically) superior to other gods of the nations, and hence was committed to certain beliefs about her own place and purpose, which we will discuss presently. The gods of the nations are not 'real' gods; they are idols." Wright, NTPG, 249. Chapter on "The Beliefs of Israel"

 

That's the most clear explanation I can have for you, and lines up with what I have been saying. In regards to your comment on pseudo-scholarship, N.T. Wright is considered "The world's leading New Testament scholar" by Newsweek magazine and probably by every other biblical scholar in the world (at least they put him in top 3). Hes an NT prof at St Andrews and he has 5 degrees from oxford and maybe 15 other honorary doctorate degrees.

And who is Wright that I should care what he THINKS?

 

Ever learning and never able to come to the truth.

 

 

He also agrees with my exegesis on Pauline statements in Monotheism and its relation to Jesus. I don't think you can call it pseudo scholarship.

Again, why should I care?

 

 

 

 

Here's one without "besides me" (which is primarily spacial, but is clearly uses a spacial statement to make an ontological one.) Either way, the point is moot because of Isaiah 45:5a.

I am the LORD, and there is no other.

Yes the next verse uses "besides" but the first clause doesn't, which clearly leads into the logic of 45b. "besides him" there is no god. Why? Because there is no other. Something can't be beside you if it doesn't exist.

I already addressed this.

 

Simply put, why should I let your Mis-interpretation over-ride the multiple verses that contradict it?

 

 

John 1:1c "The word was fully God" does not use an article (kai theos en ho logos) so it does not mean "that particular god." Although the previous use in the verse is articular. This was my point in the John 1:1 post.

"The word was fully God" simply means that Jesus was fully divine.   It does not make Him equal with the Father.  Even He recognized the supremacy of the Father.

 

John 14:  28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

 

John 12:49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.

13:16 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.

 

And then we also have this.

 

Matt 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

 

The implications of Jesus being given all power totally DESTROYS your interpretation of John 1:1c.

 

 

 

Again, I'm getting this Paul stuff from N.T. Wright's Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology. He also just came out with a 1700 page book, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, where he argues the same thing but in more depth. http://www.amazon.com/Paul-Faithfulness-God-N-Wright/dp/0800626834. Its not really pseudo-scholarship.

 

Again, who is Wright that I should care?

Edited July 7, 2014 by Vance

[Vance]

Why does this verse,

 

30 I and my Father are one.

 

Necessitate some kind of mysterous and unexplainable union, when this verse,

 

 8 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one:

 

Or this one,

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

 

Ore this one,

 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

 

Does not?

[Gohan]

Vance, NT Wright is a respected and well-recogized biblical scholar. Just because someone disagrees with you - and isn't LDS - doesn't mean you automatically have to gainsay everything they write.

Edited July 7, 2014 by Gohan

[David Waltz]

Hi aaron0005,

 

You posted (I think I got it right this time <grin>):

 

>>I couldn't find it but an LDS guy in this thread seem to agree that the Father and the Son are one substance. I'm not sure what he had in kind by substance,  but that would be one physically or spiritually. Not just in purpose, but literally one. Which I guess would make the three in one God thing more of an idea (there being three) and literally...

 

This is a talk by Elder Holland in which he makes clear to me that they are not one substance, as the Nicene Crede claimed.>>

 

I remember that conference address...Elder Holland is one of my favorite LDS apostles, but I am convinced that he has not accurately understood the original Nicene Creed. The NC states that the Son is "homoousion" with the Father. At this time (325 A.D.), homoousios(n) meant 'same essence/substance/nature', not "one substance" (i.e. monoousios). That this was the meaning of the term is clear from the writings of the Church Fathers of the same period, and is clarified beyond any doubt by it's use in the Chalcedonian Formula of 425 A.D. where we read that the Son is "homoousion" with the Father concerning his Divine nature and "homoousion" with mankind concerning his human nature.

 

It has been my experience that many folk fail to realize that the term "nature" has a simple meaning. Let me clarify: whatever makes humans human (as opposed to a cat, dog, horse, et al.) is the "human nature". The human Jesus had a "human nature", just as all humans have a "human nature".

 

Anyway, sincerely hope I have not been confusing here...

 

 

Grace and peace,

 

David

[aaron0005]

Hello mfbukowski,

 

You quoted the following from the website linked to in the opening post of this thread:

 

>>From all these passages we see that Paul has affirmed (at least) 5 things:

 

1. There is only one God.

2. The Father is God.

3. Jesus is God.

4. The Spirit is God.

5. The Father, Jesus and the Spirit somehow go together but are distinguishable.>>

 

You then wrote:

 

>>There is nothing here that disagrees with LDS doctrine.>>

 

I would argue that it is difficult to explicitly define what "LDS doctrine" (specially concerning theology proper—i.e. the doctrine of God), is on this matter, for throughout the history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, there have been a number of proposed models (the proposals by Orson Pratt, Brigham Young, B. H. Roberts, David Paulsen and Blake Ostler are a few that immediately come to mind).

 

Yet, with that said, I would also argue that which ever LDS model is accepted, your assessment would probably hold true.

 

But, such agreement is a bit misleading because of the varying understandings (among LDS and especially non-LDS Christians) of what the phrase "only one God" actually means. As I mentioned earlier, for the Church Fathers prior to Augustine, the phrase "one God" was reserved for God the Father alone (as per the Bible); and for those who have followed Augustine, the phrase is used with reference to either "the Trinity" or the single, divine essence/substance/Godhead (Greek: ousia/theotēs), resulting in the poplar dictum: 'three whos, one what' (which I believe to be a poor construct).

 

IMO, a precise definition of "God" (including "one God") in each instance needs to be provided to help avoid misunderstandings.

 

 

Grace and peace,

 

David

Hello David,

 

I have always understood "one God" to not only refer to the Godhead (three separate beings and three separate Gods, making up one team or God as mfbukowski pointed in his analogy to congress) but also in the context of a crazy and fallen world that worships false Gods of all kinds. The Israelites were heavily surrounded by this. After all they were slaves in Egypt for 400 years and dealt with it throughout their history.

 

As Mormons we believe Abraham knew of there being more than one God. I am confident that meant Joseph and 400 years later Moses did. Either way, them believing in more than one God and Mormons would not be wrong in such a world to emphasize the God of Israel as the only true God, with paganism and idol worship and threats all around.

 

You say Brigham and later apostles changed had a different view of the Godhead. I've heard the same thing about Joseph Smith and the BOOK OF MORMON and I am simply not seeing it. I do see a bit of a change of emphasis at a time. This should absolutely be expected so critics will not be able to take every little thing and drum up hysteria and fear and build on common ground with Christians having things so built in them. One reason I believe the three degrees of glory was left out the BOM by the Lord-to be more familiar.

 

For example a verse in the BOM says Christ is the Father. Do you see any GA's quoting this verse? It's not that Christ is not a Father (why should He not be, yet Adam and Father Abraham are and everyone else, when Christ paid for us with his blood and then some?) It's a change of emphasis when dealing with people who are not ready to understand it or in giving ammo. We were bought by His blood. This could also easily refer to Jesus doing nothing, save what He seeth the Father do and that He is a God at the right hand of the Father and represents the Father.

 

You would have to show me (excluding the Adam/God) where Brigham and others have a different view than us now and not a change of emphasis. Regarding the Adam doc there  are a lot of theories. One thing that we do know though is Brigham was known to teach stuff completely contrary to that in line with official LDS doctrine.

[Gohan]

For example a verse in the BOM says Christ is the Father. Do you see any GA's quoting this verse? It's not that Christ is not a Father (why should He not be, yet Adam and Father Abraham are and everyone else, when Christ paid for us with his blood and then some?) It's a change of emphasis when dealing with people who are not ready to understand it or in giving ammo. We were bought by His blood. This could also easily refer to Jesus doing nothing, save what He seeth the Father do and that He is a God at the right hand of the Father and represents the Father.

I believe that the verse that you're referencing is referred to here, in "The Father and the Son," which was a doctrinal exposition by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in 1916. Very much worth a read.

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/04/the-father-and-the-son?lang=eng

Edited July 7, 2014 by Gohan

[David Waltz]

Hi aaron0005,

 

I think a good start for your exploration into this topic would be the following essay by Blake Ostler:

 

http://www.smpt.org/docs/ostler_element1-1.html

 

 

Grace and peace,

 

David

[aaron0005]

To my Protestant and Catholic friends,

With the trinity doctrine in mind, can the Father be a God without Christ? I believe He can. Can Christ be a God without the Father? I believe He cannot.
 

Then does not this imply that it is by the Fathers presence, that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are given godhood status?
 

In other words, they are not co-equals.
 

Also, does Jesus Christ have His resurrected body? I am trying to get deeper into what the trinity doctrine is and perhaps stir thoughts.
 

If He does than does the Father just have a body of spirit (you know my belief) and would His spirit be separate from the Holy Ghost which we know descended on Jesus in the form of a dove and cannot be the Father.

 

Do you believe Jesus has a body, the Father does not and Holy Ghost is a spirit separate from the Father? If the Holy Ghost and the Father are separate than what is the Father? Is He everywhere and nowhere at the same time, yet His Son has a body and can only be in one place at a time, though no doubt can travel in miraculous ways incomprehensible.
 

You guys say three in one and I am still puzzled by this. Is it the combining strengths of all three that bring the combined power and create a God? Cause you know we believe all three are easily separate gods and create one presidency or Godhead. All separate, but by the will of the Father. Or can the Father have that power and status aside from Christ?
 

It sounds what is needed is a deep conversation on what a god is. Can the word have different meanings as especially the Mormons indicate? (you know what I believe)  One has reached a high enough level by His divine heritage, atonement, pre-mortal existence, role in creation and most importantly, the approval and blessing from His Father as having that status in the priesthood.
 

It seems this word is really tripping people up, including LDS to a much lesser extent.
 

And if the word god cannot have different meanings than will you be so obliged to tell me everything about God since that answer would indicate you know an awfully lot.

[Logan Alexander]

Hello mfbukowski,

 

You quoted the following from the website linked to in the opening post of this thread:

 

>>From all these passages we see that Paul has affirmed (at least) 5 things:

 

1. There is only one God.

2. The Father is God.

3. Jesus is God.

4. The Spirit is God.

5. The Father, Jesus and the Spirit somehow go together but are distinguishable.>>

 

You then wrote:

 

>>There is nothing here that disagrees with LDS doctrine.>>

 

I would argue that it is difficult to explicitly define what "LDS doctrine" (specially concerning theology proper—i.e. the doctrine of God), is on this matter, for throughout the history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, there have been a number of proposed models (the proposals by Orson Pratt, Brigham Young, B. H. Roberts, David Paulsen and Blake Ostler are a few that immediately come to mind).

 

Yet, with that said, I would also argue that which ever LDS model is accepted, your assessment would probably hold true.

 

But, such agreement is a bit misleading because of the varying understandings (among LDS and especially non-LDS Christians) of what the phrase "only one God" actually means. As I mentioned earlier, for the Church Fathers prior to Augustine, the phrase "one God" was reserved for God the Father alone (as per the Bible); and for those who have followed Augustine, the phrase is used with reference to either "the Trinity" or the single, divine essence/substance/Godhead (Greek: ousia/theotēs), resulting in the popular dictum: 'three whos, one what' (which I believe to be a poor construct).

 

IMO, a precise definition of "God" (including "one God") in each instance needs to be provided to help avoid misunderstandings.

 

 

Grace and peace,

 

David

 

 

I must clarify myself on an earlier point. I don't like using the term "begotten" because I think the correct translation of μονογενης should be "unique" (I am heavily influence by hebrews 11:17 and the use of γινομαι throughout the prologue of john). But, I will readily affirm the immanent subordination of the Son to the Father, as well as his ontological/functional dependency on him. I avoid using words like "generate" in discussions with LDS because it often gives them an impression that the pre-incarnate son was created within some point in time. But if you want to speak about eternal generation, sure, I totally affirm that. Its just the word "begotten" I have an issue with. I definitely think the Father/Son motif gives us more information than just their economic roles, it is also an image (to use Fred Sanders' term here) of what has always been happening between them (Imannently).

 

That being said, I would like to ask you, what is your understanding of the Son's relationship with the Father and how it plays into monotheism? Do you believe there to be two gods? One God, but then Jesus is a lower God? By the way, I love your point about heis theos being applied to the Father - I think its very important to this discussion.

 

Im open to working with the ground up with terminology if you would like. I'm not that attached to historical vocabulary words... 

[mfbukowski]

Hello mfbukowski,

 

You quoted the following from the website linked to in the opening post of this thread:

 

>>From all these passages we see that Paul has affirmed (at least) 5 things:

 

1. There is only one God.

2. The Father is God.

3. Jesus is God.

4. The Spirit is God.

5. The Father, Jesus and the Spirit somehow go together but are distinguishable.>>

 

You then wrote:

 

>>There is nothing here that disagrees with LDS doctrine.>>

 

I would argue that it is difficult to explicitly define what "LDS doctrine" (specially concerning theology proper—i.e. the doctrine of God), is on this matter, for throughout the history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, there have been a number of proposed models (the proposals by Orson Pratt, Brigham Young, B. H. Roberts, David Paulsen and Blake Ostler are a few that immediately come to mind).

 

Yet, with that said, I would also argue that which ever LDS model is accepted, your assessment would probably hold true.

 

But, such agreement is a bit misleading because of the varying understandings (among LDS and especially non-LDS Christians) of what the phrase "only one God" actually means. As I mentioned earlier, for the Church Fathers prior to Augustine, the phrase "one God" was reserved for God the Father alone (as per the Bible); and for those who have followed Augustine, the phrase is used with reference to either "the Trinity" or the single, divine essence/substance/Godhead (Greek: ousia/theotēs), resulting in the popular dictum: 'three whos, one what' (which I believe to be a poor construct).

 

IMO, a precise definition of "God" (including "one God") in each instance needs to be provided to help avoid misunderstandings.

 

 

Grace and peace,

 

David

David, thanks for your reply.

I am glad you have a sufficient understanding of our position to get it mostly right. I don't think I disagree with anything you have said here, really.

The key to understanding Mormonism is to know that as Ostler correctly points out, it is our practice of the faith which counts, not an abstract understanding of some imaginary description of what no one is capable of understanding anyway.

We are therefore left with poetic models which "work" in certain descriptions but not in others. Alma 32 gives a wonderful description of the "Mormon Theory of Truth" which is essentially what Dewey or Rorty or James might call a "Pragmatic" view of Truth.

We are really postmodern theistic humanists but few would accept those labels.

Clearly we are opposed to scholasticism and a correspondence theory of truth, which place us in direct opposition to Creedal Christians who accept substance theology.

And attempts to "correct" that view as found in this thread using scholastic jargon are totally missing the point.

It is like trying to correct baseball using football rules.

We are not even having the same conversation or using the same vocabularies.

Edited July 7, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

David

One cannot precisely define what cannot be precisely limited by vocabularies.

[Vance]

Vance, NT Wright is a respected and well-recogized biblical scholar. Just because someone disagrees with you - and isn't LDS - doesn't mean you automatically have to gainsay everything they write.

Ok, so he isn't a prophet and he doesn't have the spirit of revelation guiding him.  So , again why should I care what he says?  Whether I agree with him or not.

 

Again we have "ever learning and never able to come to a knowledge of the truth" to keep in mind.

[mfbukowski]

I must clarify myself on an earlier point. I don't like using the term "begotten" because I think the correct translation of μονογενης should be "unique" (I am heavily influence by hebrews 11:17 and the use of γινομαι throughout the prologue of john). But, I will readily affirm the immanent subordination of the Son to the Father, as well as his ontological/functional dependency on him. I avoid using words like "generate" in discussions with LDS because it often gives them an impression that the pre-incarnate son was created within some point in time. But if you want to speak about eternal generation, sure, I totally affirm that. Its just the word "begotten" I have an issue with. I definitely think the Father/Son motif gives us more information than just their economic roles, it is also an image (to use Fred Sanders' term here) of what has always been happening between them (Imannently).

 

That being said, I would like to ask you, what is your understanding of the Son's relationship with the Father and how it plays into monotheism? Do you believe there to be two gods? One God, but then Jesus is a lower God? By the way, I love your point about heis theos being applied to the Father - I think its very important to this discussion.

 

Im open to working with the ground up with terminology if you would like. I'm not that attached to historical vocabulary words...

As a Wittgensteinian, I think those vocabularies are the whole problem.

If we were to sit down and talk, you would find that we agree almost perfectly if we just drop the pretentiousness and talk about our understanding of God.

[mfbukowski]

David

Do you like GEM Anscomb?

That might bring some common ground.

[aaron0005]

I would also add that the word god is used in different ways aside from just the Father being greater than the Son-different levels. We refer to the Godhead as God, which includes all three. So I would like to see some LDS really help define this clearly. I think we need to refine our view and messaging and we clearly have so much on our side.

 

By the way, I'm not sure why people quote Brigham or others and some of their guess work or change of emphasis, or their opinions That does not change official LDS doctrine which as humans they to had to grow in understanding.

 

This also brings up something I have wondered much about and could give us more understanding on how flexible the Father is in using the word god. As far as I understand LDS doctrine, Jesus was a God in the pre-mortal. I think the Book Of Moses even says "one like unto God," (and we believe He was God of the OT) when describing the war in heaven and the Saviors stepping forth and as well His creating this world.

 

One thing it appears (I could be wrong) LDS seem to have some holes is in Christ as creating all things. Not a contradiction just some lack of understanding. I seriously doubt He created everything, the Fathers kingdom for one, especially if you believe there are other gods.

 

Yet Jesus did not have a body of flesh and bone yet. He had to come to earth and be persecuted and suffer beyond all comprehension. I think there is indication His memory was even limited and even He had to grow from grace to grace. When on the cross he said 'it is finished."

 

Clearly, Jesus had not done everything that may have been required of Him to be in His position forever. He had to say "nevertheless not My will but Thine be done," in the hardest of circumstances. He had to drink the bitter cup.

 

This can also be used in the discussion on what the word god means. I think its very clear He was divine, yet mortal and frail. It seems there is great flexibility in the way the word god can be used, including if you hold the trinitarian view of three beings (one resurrected, one a spirit and the Father I think a spirit which begs the question why the Holy Ghost is even needed) all making one god and but none independently a god. Which begs the question I asked earlier, not even the Father?

 

So if Christ was a god before this life (even the God Of Israel) and yet still had to descend below all things and carry out the atonement as Savior and grow from grace to grace, then would it not be reasonable and right to conclude His status as a God became much greater.

 

Of course there is the foreknowledge of God as well. The Father knowing His fierce and loyal Son before this life would follow through and giving Him that status even if He had not fully reached it? To my LDS friends if I am wrong then correct me.