What's Up With The Trinity

[Logan Alexander]

Mfbukowski,

If you click on my blog link from the first post, then click "about" you can find my email address. Send me and email and we can hang out for sure.

[mfbukowski]

Mfbukowski,

If you click on my blog link from the first post, then click "about" you can find my email address. Send me and email and we can hang out for sure.

Excelllent!!!

 

Edit:  You've got mail!

Edited July 7, 2014 by mfbukowski

[aaron0005]

 

Hello mfbukowski,

I'm hoping you can explain this to me and if there is any of my views that is not line with LDS doctrine I hope you'll help me to understand, as well as on the supposed misunderstanding LDS have on the Nicene Crede and the trinity.

"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."

 

I'm partly curious for one what you mean by "substance theology."

Aaron

 

[mfbukowski]

 

Hello mfbukowski,

I'm hoping you can explain this to me and if there is any of my views that is not line with LDS doctrine I hope you'll help me to understand, as well as on the supposed misunderstanding LDS have on the Nicene Crede and the trinity.

"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."

 

I'm partly curious for one what you mean by "substance theology."

Aaron

 

 

Substance theology is theology based on the pagan Greek philosophy of "substance" as espoused in Neoplatonism and the Nicene Creed in the phrase "of one substance with the Father".

 

Substance theory, or substance attribute theory, is an ontological theory about objecthood,

Substance is a key concept in ontology and metaphysics, which may be classified into monist, dualist or pluralist varieties according to how many substances or individuals are said to populate, furnish or exist in the world. According to Monistic views, such as those of stoicism and Spinoza, there is only one substance, pneuma or God, respectively. These modes of thinking are sometimes associated with the idea of immanence. Dualism sees the world as being composed of two fundamental substances, for example, the Cartesian substance dualism of mind and matter. Pluralist philosophies include Plato's Theory of Forms and Aristotle's hylomorphic categories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory

 

It entered Christianity through Plotinus and ultimately came from Plato through Aristotle.

 

It was amplified by Aquinas and is the basis for the Catholic idea of  transubstantiation and the Trinity.

Edited July 7, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

 

Hello mfbukowski,

I'm hoping you can explain this to me and if there is any of my views that is not line with LDS doctrine I hope you'll help me to understand, as well as on the supposed misunderstanding LDS have on the Nicene Crede and the trinity.

"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."

 

I'm partly curious for one what you mean by "substance theology."

Aaron

 

 

The correspondence theory of truth is the idea that true statements "correspond" in some undefinable way to states of "reality" in the world and derives mostly from Descartes.

 

It has largely been discarded by contemporary philosophy.  In other words, truth has little to do with "reality" but is simply a linguistic usage used to convey agreement in many cases.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-correspondence/

 

 

The correspondence theory of truth is often associated with metaphysical realism. Its traditional competitors, coherentist, pragmatist, and verificationist theories of truth, are often associated with idealism, anti-realism, or relativism. In recent years, the traditional competitors have been virtually replaced (at least from publication-space) by deflationary theories of truth and, to a lesser extent, by the identity theory: they now lead the attack against correspondence theories.

Metaphysical realism is the view that metaphysical categories like "substance" are in some sense "real" things.

 

Virtually no one believes that any more.

Edited July 7, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

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.

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ² He was with God in the beginning. ³ Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

 

John 1

[saemo]

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.

 

It is an illogical question, like asking, can you be aaron0005 without being aaron0005.

 

 

 

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

 

I don't believe godhood is a status.

 

 

 

In other words, they are not co-equals.

 

Of course they are, as God is God, and does not have parts, let alone, unequal parts. 

 

 

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

 

Of course.

 

 

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.

 

God is Spirit. Jesus is God Incarnate. Fully God, and Fully Man. The Father and Holy Spirit, are Spirit.

 

 

Do you believe Jesus has a body, the Father does not and Holy Ghost is a spirit separate from the Father?

 

God is Spirit, not Spirits.

 

 

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.

 

God does not exist in time or space, so, ideas of everywhere, nowhere, different places at the same time, etc....any expression of time and space...are irrelevant when speaking of "where" God is.

 

 

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?

 

God IS ONE. God IS. God is not created.

 

 

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?

 

You keep trying to separate the three persons of the Trinity, they are distinct, but not separate.

 

 

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)

 

Oh absolutely. It is one of the difficult things of discussing God with a LDS person. You can't stop thinking that God is exactly the same same as you think about yourself: Created, one person/one being, made into a God. When I speak of God, I am speaking of a God, the only God, who has always existed, has always been fully God, is not made, and is not created.

 

 

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.

Totally unique Mormon beliefs that no one has ever believed or taught, before Joseph Smith.

 

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

 

I'd say, LDS are more tripped up than any group. :-D

 

 

 

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.

 

God is love.

Edited July 7, 2014 by saemo

[aaron0005]

John 1

Hello again

 

You can't believe that to include the Celestial Kingdom? My point is there is more to it and room for interpretation. He created all things. OK what in what context?

[juliann]

Hello again Logan,

 

I discuss monogenes and eternal generation at length in the following thread:

 

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2010/03/eternal-generation-of-son.html

 

The denial that the pre-existent Jesus was begotten by God the Father (among those who affirm some form of Trinitarianism), is a very late development (post-Reformation). This, coupled with the belief held by many scholars that it diminishes the Father-Son motif to near meaninglessness, raises some serious 'red-flags' for me.

 

 

Grace and peace,

 

David 

 

So good to have you back!!

[aaron0005]

Hey Saemo,

Here it is some quotes by ancient Christian leaders showing clearly Smith was not the first to teach that. Courtesy of FAIR.

  Irenaeus (ca. AD 115-202)

Saint Irenaeus, who may justly be called the first Biblical theologian among the ancient Christians, was a disciple of the great Polycarp, who was a direct disciple of John the Revelator. ^[5] Irenaeus is not a heretic or unorthodox in traditional Christian circles, yet he shares a belief in theosis:

While man gradually advances and mounts towards perfection; that is, he approaches the eternal. The eternal is perfect; and this is God. Man has first to come into being, then to progress, and by progressing come to manhood, and having reached manhood to increase, and thus increasing to persevere, and persevering to be glorified, and thus see his Lord. ^[6]

Like the LDS, Irenaeus did not believe that this belief in any way displaced God, Christ, or the Holy Ghost:

there is none other called God by the Scriptures except the Father of all, and the Son, and those who possess the adoption....Since, therefore, this is sure and stedfast, that no other God or Lord was announced by the Spirit, except Him who, as God, rules over all, together with His Word, and those who receive the Spirit of adoption. ^[7]

Yet, Irenaeus—whom it would be perverse to exclude from the ranks of orthodox Christians—believed in theosis in terms which agree with LDS thinking on the matter:

We were not made gods at our beginning, but first we were made men, then, in the end, gods. ^[8]

Also:

How then will any be a god, if he has not first been made a man? How can any be perfect when he has only lately been made man? How immortal, if he has not in his mortal nature obeyed his maker? For one's duty is first to observe the discipline of man and thereafter to share in the glory of God. ^[9]

And:

Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, of his boundless love, became what we are that he might make us what he himself is.” ^[10]

And:

But of what gods [does he speak]? [Of those] to whom He says, "I have said, Ye are gods, and all sons of the Most High." To those, no doubt, who have received the grace of the "adoption, by which we cry, Abba Father."” Cite error: Closing </ref> missing for <ref> tag

Further quotes from Irenaeus available here.

Said one Protestant theologian of Irenaeus:

Participation in God was carried so far by Irenaeus as to amount to deification. 'We were not made gods in the beginning,' he says, 'but at first men, then at length gods.' This is not to be understood as mere rhetorical exaggeration on Irenaeus' part. He meant the statement to be taken literally. ^[11]Clement of Alexandria (AD 150-215)

Clement, an early Christian leader in Alexandria, also taught the doctrine of deification:

yea, I say, the Word of God became a man so that you might learn from a man how to become a god. ^[12]

And:

...if one knows himself, he will know God, and knowing God will become like God...His is beauty, true beauty, for it is God, and that man becomes god, since God wills it. So Heraclitus was right when he said, "Men are gods, and gods are men." ^[13] Those who have been perfected are given their reward and their honors. They have done with their purification, they have done with the rest of their service, though it be a holy service, with the holy; now they become pure in heart, and because of their close intimacy with the Lord there awaits them a restoration to eternal contemplation; and they have received the title of "gods" since they are destined to be enthroned with the other "gods" who are ranked next below the savior. ^[14]Origen (ca. AD 185-251) And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, "The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth." It was by the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true God, then, is "The God," and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype. ^[15] The Father, then, is proclaimed as the one true God; but besides the true God are many who become gods by participating in God. </ref>Origen in Bettensen, Henry. The Early Christian Fathers, 324.</ref>

Origen also defined what it means to "participate" in something:

Every one who participates in anything, is unquestionably of one essence and nature with him who is partaker of the same thing. ^[16]Justin Martyr (d. ca. AD 163)

Justin the Martyr said in 150 A.D. that he wishes

to prove to you that the Holy Ghost reproaches men because they were made like God, free from suffering and death, provided that they kept His commandments, and were deemed deserving of the name of His sons... in the beginning men were made like God, free from suffering and death, and that they are thus deemed worthy of becoming gods and of having power to become sons of the highest... ^[17]

Also,

[by Psalm 82] it is demonstrated that all men are deemed worthy of becoming “gods,” and even of having power to become sons of the Highest. ^[18]Hippolytus (AD 170-236) Now in all these acts He offered up, as the first-fruits, His own manhood, in order that thou, when thou art in tribulation, mayest not be disheartened, but, confessing thyself to be a man (of like nature with the Redeemer,) mayest dwell in expectation of also receiving what the Father has granted unto this Son...The Deity (by condescension) does not diminish anything of the dignity of His divine perfection having made you even God unto his glory. ^[19]Athanasius

In 347, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria and participant in the council of Nicea, said:

the Word was made flesh in order that we might be enabled to be made gods....just as the Lord, putting on the body, became a man, so also we men are both deified through His flesh, and henceforth inherit everlasting life...[we are] sons and gods by reason of the word in us. ^[20] For as Christ died and was exalted as man, so, as man, is He said to take what, as God, He ever had, that even such a grant of grace might reach to us. For the Word was not impaired in receiving a body, that He should seek to receive a grace, but rather He deified that which He put on, and more than that, gave it graciously to the race of man. ^[21]

He also states that Christ "became man that we might be made divine." ^[22]

Augustine (AD 354-430)

Augustine, considered one of the greatest Christian Fathers, said

but He himself that justifies also deifies, for by justifying He makes sons of God. For He has given them power to become the sons of God, (John 1:12). If then we have been made sons of God, we have also been made gods. ^[23]Jerome (AD 340-420)

Jerome also described the deification of believers as an act of grace, which matches the LDS understanding precisely:

“I said 'you are gods, all of you sons of the most high.’" let Eunomius hear this, let Arius, who say that the son of God is son in the same way we are. That we are gods is not so by nature, but by grace. “but to as many as receive Him he gave power to becoming sons of God” I made man for that purpose, that from men they may become gods. We are called gods and sons!...[Christ said] "all of you sons of the Most High," it is not possible to be the son of the Most High, unless He Himself is the Most High. I said that all of you would be exalted as I am exalted. ^[24]

Jerome goes on to say that we should

give thanks to the God of gods. The prophet is referring to those gods of whom it is written: I said ‘you are gods’ and again ‘god arises in the divine assembly’ they who cease to be mere men, abandon the ways of vice an are become perfect, are gods and the sons of the most high... ^[25]  

[saemo]

Hey Saemo,

Here it is some quotes by ancient Christian leaders showing clearly Smith was not the first to teach that. Courtesy of FAIR.

  Irenaeus (ca. AD 115-202)

Saint Irenaeus, who may justly be called the first Biblical theologian among the ancient Christians, was a disciple of the great Polycarp, who was a direct disciple of John the Revelator. ^%5B5%5D Irenaeus is not a heretic or unorthodox in traditional Christian circles, yet he shares a belief in theosis:

While man gradually advances and mounts towards perfection; that is, he approaches the eternal. The eternal is perfect; and this is God. Man has first to come into being, then to progress, and by progressing come to manhood, and having reached manhood to increase, and thus increasing to persevere, and persevering to be glorified, and thus see his Lord. ^%5B6%5D

Case in point, we are talking about God, who you believe progressed, and you switch to talking about yourself (or us if you like). Ireaneus never taught that God progressed.

Also, LDS sources take Irenaeus out of context. He understood what you have pulled out of context here, in context of the Eucharist. Then there is "man had to first come into being", which is reference to our birth. LDS believe our being existed before birth. So in short, youare trying to form Irenaeus to fit your preconceived ideas rather than reading what he actually wrote, in context of his Catholic faith.

 

Like the LDS, Irenaeus did not believe that this belief in any way displaced God, Christ, or the Holy Ghost:

Of course he didn't because he understood that we don't become God or gods, we share in the divine nature.

 

there is none other called God by the Scriptures except the Father of all, and the Son, and those who possess the adoption....Since, therefore, this is sure and stedfast, that no other God or Lord was announced by the Spirit, except Him who, as God, rules over all, together with His Word, and those who receive the Spirit of adoption. ^%5B7%5D

Yet, Irenaeus—whom it would be perverse to exclude from the ranks of orthodox Christians—believed in theosis in terms which agree with LDS thinking on the matter:

We were not made gods at our beginning, but first we were made men, then, in the end, gods. ^%5B8%5D

Like I said, you take Ireneus out context of his Catholic faith, seeking to make him believe something he never espoused. I call this sophistry. :-)

 

Also:

How then will any be a god, if he has not first been made a man? How can any be perfect when he has only lately been made man? How immortal, if he has not in his mortal nature obeyed his maker? For one's duty is first to observe the discipline of man and thereafter to share in the glory of God. ^%5B9%5D

And:

Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, of his boundless love, became what we are that he might make us what he himself is.” ^%5B10%5D

And:

But of what gods [does he speak]? [Of those] to whom He says, "I have said, Ye are gods, and all sons of the Most High." To those, no doubt, who have received the grace of the "adoption, by which we cry, Abba Father."” Cite error: Closing </ref> missing for <ref> tag

Further quotes from Irenaeus available here.

Said one Protestant theologian of Irenaeus:

Participation in God was carried so far by Irenaeus as to amount to deification. 'We were not made gods in the beginning,' he says, 'but at first men, then at length gods.' This is not to be understood as mere rhetorical exaggeration on Irenaeus' part. He meant the statement to be taken literally. ^%5B11%5D Clement of Alexandria (AD 150-215)

Clement, an early Christian leader in Alexandria, also taught the doctrine of deification:

yea, I say, the Word of God became a man so that you might learn from a man how to become a god. ^%5B12%5D

And:

...if one knows himself, he will know God, and knowing God will become like God...His is beauty, true beauty, for it is God, and that man becomes god, since God wills it. So Heraclitus was right when he said, "Men are gods, and gods are men." ^%5B13%5D Those who have been perfected are given their reward and their honors. They have done with their purification, they have done with the rest of their service, though it be a holy service, with the holy; now they become pure in heart, and because of their close intimacy with the Lord there awaits them a restoration to eternal contemplation; and they have received the title of "gods" since they are destined to be enthroned with the other "gods" who are ranked next below the savior. ^%5B14%5D Origen (ca. AD 185-251) And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, "The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth." It was by the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true God, then, is "The God," and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype. ^%5B15%5D The Father, then, is proclaimed as the one true God; but besides the true God are many who become gods by participating in God. </ref>Origen in Bettensen, Henry. The Early Christian Fathers, 324.</ref>

Origen also defined what it means to "participate" in something:

Every one who participates in anything, is unquestionably of one essence and nature with him who is partaker of the same thing. ^%5B16%5D Justin Martyr (d. ca. AD 163)

Justin the Martyr said in 150 A.D. that he wishes

to prove to you that the Holy Ghost reproaches men because they were made like God, free from suffering and death, provided that they kept His commandments, and were deemed deserving of the name of His sons... in the beginning men were made like God, free from suffering and death, and that they are thus deemed worthy of becoming gods and of having power to become sons of the highest... ^%5B17%5D

Also,

[by Psalm 82] it is demonstrated that all men are deemed worthy of becoming “gods,” and even of having power to become sons of the Highest. ^%5B18%5D Hippolytus (AD 170-236) Now in all these acts He offered up, as the first-fruits, His own manhood, in order that thou, when thou art in tribulation, mayest not be disheartened, but, confessing thyself to be a man (of like nature with the Redeemer,) mayest dwell in expectation of also receiving what the Father has granted unto this Son...The Deity (by condescension) does not diminish anything of the dignity of His divine perfection having made you even God unto his glory. ^%5B19%5D Athanasius

In 347, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria and participant in the council of Nicea, said:

the Word was made flesh in order that we might be enabled to be made gods....just as the Lord, putting on the body, became a man, so also we men are both deified through His flesh, and henceforth inherit everlasting life...[we are] sons and gods by reason of the word in us. ^%5B20%5D For as Christ died and was exalted as man, so, as man, is He said to take what, as God, He ever had, that even such a grant of grace might reach to us. For the Word was not impaired in receiving a body, that He should seek to receive a grace, but rather He deified that which He put on, and more than that, gave it graciously to the race of man. ^%5B21%5D

He also states that Christ "became man that we might be made divine." ^%5B22%5D

Augustine (AD 354-430)

Augustine, considered one of the greatest Christian Fathers, said

but He himself that justifies also deifies, for by justifying He makes sons of God. For He has given them power to become the sons of God, (John 1:12). If then we have been made sons of God, we have also been made gods. ^%5B23%5D Jerome (AD 340-420)

Jerome also described the deification of believers as an act of grace, which matches the LDS understanding precisely:

“I said 'you are gods, all of you sons of the most high.’" let Eunomius hear this, let Arius, who say that the son of God is son in the same way we are. That we are gods is not so by nature, but by grace. “but to as many as receive Him he gave power to becoming sons of God” I made man for that purpose, that from men they may become gods. We are called gods and sons!...[Christ said] "all of you sons of the Most High," it is not possible to be the son of the Most High, unless He Himself is the Most High. I said that all of you would be exalted as I am exalted. ^%5B24%5D

Jerome goes on to say that we should

give thanks to the God of gods. The prophet is referring to those gods of whom it is written: I said ‘you are gods’ and again ‘god arises in the divine assembly’ they who cease to be mere men, abandon the ways of vice an are become perfect, are gods and the sons of the most high... ^%5B25%5D

Please, please, please, study Irenaeus in context of his Catholic faith, rather than trying to make him a Mormon.

Justin Martyr, is speaking of the fall, and referencing immortality which is an attribute of God, which He shares with us. We DO NOT HAVE A DIVINE NATURE AND NEVER WILL, we share in the divine nature of Jesus Christ, who unites us as adopted children to the Father. This is solid, Catholic, belief and thought that has always been.

And really, you're going to claim Jerome had Mormon beliefs? You're killing me. Jerome was as Catholic as they come, and no Catholic has ever believed we become gods as Mormons believe we become gods. Maybe study what he was saying in context of his Catholic faith?

I swear, FAIR does more damage to truth, and I pray God forgives them.

Edited July 7, 2014 by saemo

[EllenMaksoud]

Hey guys! I'm a student at Biola University that is part of an on-campus group called EMI (Evangelical-Mormon Interaction). We love talking to Mormons about the Bible and what we believe in! We take trips to Utah frequently and have dialogues with students at universities like BYU - Provo, BYU - Idaho, and Utah State.

 

We get a lot of questions about what we believe as evangelical Christians (not members of the LDS church) and why that makes sense to us. My friend recently wrote a great article about why the trinity makes sense to us and I want to engage with you guys about how you understand Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.

 

Check out the article HERE.

 

Hope to be hearing from you guys!!

Think, just one moment. You said,"We love talking to Mormons about what WE believe". Do you talk to them about what they believe? I was an Evangelical for 32 years and was throughly inured to "Attack Christianity". I finally left because I never believed in the Trinity, and listening to the hateful speech of those in my denomination in regard to Catholics, Mormons, and Muslims.finally made me leave Christianity and become a Mormon for almost 3 years.

 

I am done with them and returned to Islam.

 

I tutor a Saudi man in English and we talk about everything you can think of. We talked about the Muslim view of Jesus Christ the other day, and then he had questions about the Christian view of Jesus Christ. After we talked a while, I realized that our views about him were very similar.

 

In Evangelical thought, the trinity is represented by three overlapping circles or by three attached circles. What would it be like if God were represented as a large circle, and Jesus, Abraham, Muhammad, and the other prophets were smaller circles contained within the large circle. None of those in small circles do anything with out the approval of God. That is the essence of Muslim belief.

 

If you would like we can talk further, but if you start with the Attack Christian attitude, the conversation will be over.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Excelllent!!!

 

Edit:  You've got mail!

To bad this shindig is not closer to Utah. I am all for the interfaith luncheon.

[mfbukowski]

 

 

God is love.

Thanks for the statement of pure Mormon belief.  The Godhead, or "God" for short, is unified by loving relationships, therefore yes, God is love.  What makes up the "Committee" called "God" is love.-- That is the unifying factor, not substance or being or some other bit of nonsense.

Edited July 7, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

 

In Evangelical thought, the trinity is represented by three overlapping circles or by three attached circles. What would it be like if God were represented as a large circle, and Jesus, Abraham, Muhammad, and the other prophets were smaller circles contained within the large circle. None of those in small circles do anything with out the approval of God. That is the essence of Muslim belief.

That's pretty much what we believe- I don't know why you left.

 

If you are right then we are quite close to Muslims after all.

 

But all of these are man-made descriptions of what cannot be described anyway.  The quicker we figure that out and quit arguing about it, the better.

Edited July 7, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Hello again

 

You can't believe that to include the Celestial Kingdom? My point is there is more to it and room for interpretation. He created all things. OK what in what context?

Everything is open to interpretation.  Pick one and go with it. If it is consistent with Mormon practice and belief- ie: if you can still qualify for a temple recommend, you are fine.

[mnn727]

The problem with "the Trinity' is that if you ask 4 different Christians to define 'the Trinity' you'll get at least 4 different answers (possible more). To further add to the confusion a persons definition may or may not match their Churches official definition.

[David Waltz]

Good morning mfbukowski,

 

Last night, you wrote:

 

>>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.>>

 

And yet, he has written three in depth, scholarly books which are essentially "an abstract understanding" of LDS theology.

>>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.>>

 

I think the LDS Quad contains more than enough theological propositions to form a comprehensive theology, and would argue that in addition to Ostler's masterful volumes, there are a number theological works authored by LDS writers which attempt to form a comprehensive theology.

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

 

I sincerely wonder if B. H. Roberts, Joseph Fielding Smith, Bruce R. McConkie, Robert Millet and a host of other prominent LDS authors would agree with you on this matter.

>>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.>>

 

Scholasticism for sure, but I am not convinced that the LDS theology opposes "substance theology". Lord willing, I will repost a comprehensive thread at Articuli Fidei which argues at length that the LDS Quad shares a good deal of commonality with the early Christian creeds.

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

 

In future dialogue with you, I will attempt confine myself to the jargon used in the LDS Quad, with occasional reference to the Hebrew and/or Greek which preceded the English translation.

 

 

Grace and peace,

 

David

[teddyaware]

Case in point, we are talking about God, who you believe progressed, and you switch to talking about yourself (or us if you like). Ireaneus never taught that God progressed.

Also, LDS sources take Irenaeus out of context. He understood what you have pulled out of context here, in context of the Eucharist. Then there is "man had to first come into being", which is reference to our birth. LDS believe our being existed before birth. So in short, youare trying to form Irenaeus to fit your preconceived ideas rather than reading what he actually wrote, in context of his Catholic faith.

 

Of course he didn't because he understood that we don't become God or gods, we share in the divine nature.

 

Like I said, you take Ireneus out context of his Catholic faith, seeking to make him believe something he never espoused. I call this sophistry. :-)

 

Please, please, please, study Irenaeus in context of his Catholic faith, rather than trying to make him a Mormon.

Justin Martyr, is speaking of the fall, and referencing immortality which is an attribute of God, which He shares with us. We DO NOT HAVE A DIVINE NATURE AND NEVER WILL, we share in the divine nature of Jesus Christ, who unites us as adopted children to the Father. This is solid, Catholic, belief and thought that has always been.

And really, you're going to claim Jerome had Mormon beliefs? You're killing me. Jerome was as Catholic as they come, and no Catholic has ever believed we become gods as Mormons believe we become gods. Maybe study what he was saying in context of his Catholic faith?

I swear, FAIR does more damage to truth, and I pray God forgives them.

Jesus progressed. He started on earth as a helpless little baby boy who couldn't walk, talk, feed himself, or take care of any of His basic needs. He then proceeded to grow, learn and progress in knowledge and wisdom, just like other earthly children do...

52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man. (Luke 2)

Then after reaching adulthood we are told that He "learned obedience" (by very definition, one cannot learn something unless he or she has something to learn), thereby asserting Jesus progressed in obedience. We are also informed that He was made perfect, and by virtue of this achieved perfection He became the author of eternal salvation (one cannot become something he already is), thereby asserting that Jesus progressed toward the perfection He ultimately obtained.

8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;

9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; (Hebrews 5)

So here we have the irony of ironies: The uncreated eternally perfect God progressed in wisdom and eminence, progressed as He learned obedience, and progressed toward perfection to thus become the author of eternal salvation (the author of salvation being something we are told God already was long before He took upon Himself flesh and blood in the mortal realm). It is remarkable that this scripturally testified to progression of God is one of the very things non-LDS Christians so decry about the LDS faith.

 

Doctrine and Covenants 93 well encapsulates the above-stated sacred Biblical principles thusly:

11 And I, John, bear record that I beheld his glory, as the glory of the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, even the Spirit of truth, which came and dwelt in the flesh, and dwelt among us.

12 And I, John, saw that he received not of the fulness at the first, but received grace for grace;

13 And he received not of the fulness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness;

Edited July 7, 2014 by teddyaware

[saemo]

Jesus progressed. He started on earth as a helpless little baby boy who couldn't walk, talk, feed himself, or take care of any of His basic needs. He then proceeded to grow, learn and progress in knowledge and wisdom, just like other earthly children do...

52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man. (Luke 2)

Then after reaching adulthood we are told that He "learned obedience" (by very definition, one cannot learn something unless he or she has something to learn), thereby asserting Jesus progressed in obedience. We are also informed that He was made perfect, and by virtue of this achieved perfection He became the author of eternal salvation (one cannot become something he already is), thereby asserting that Jesus progressed toward the perfection He ultimately obtained.

8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;

9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; (Hebrews 5)

So here we have the irony of ironies: The uncreated eternally perfect God progressed in wisdom and eminence, progressed as He learned obedience, and progressed toward perfection to thus become the author of eternal salvation (the author of salvation being something we are told God already was long before He took upon Himself flesh and blood in the mortal realm). It is remarkable that this scripturally testified to progression of God is one of the very things non-LDS Christians so decry about the LDS faith.

 

Jesus is fully God and fully Man, you reference his humanity not is divinity.

[David Waltz]

Hi Logan,

 

Last night, you posted:

 

>>I would like to ask you, what is your understanding of the Son's relationship with the Father and how it plays into monotheism?>>

 

The following 5 propositions (which I originally published back on 03/27/12 - http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2012/03/5-propositions-concerning-god-and.html), should help clarify my position:

 

 

==I. There is but one God, the Father.

II. There are in the Godhead three (not mere names or modes) truly distinct persons (hypostases)—the Father, the Son/Word of God and the Holy Ghost.

III. These three Persons are 'one' in ousia, essence ('one' used here in a generic sense)—i.e. the three Persons are ὁμοούσιος (homoousios), not μονοούσιος (monoousios).

IV. There is but one beginning/cause (μοναρχία, monarchia), one font/fountain or principle of Divinity (πηγὴ θεότητος), God the Father, Who alone is aὐτόθεος, God of and from Himself; the Son and Holy Spirit deriving their Divinity (ousia, essence) and personhood from Him; the Son by generation, and the Holy Spirit by procession.

V. Because the Son and Holy Spirit derive both their Divinity (ousia, essence) and personhood (hypostasis), from God the Father, this derivation is not limited only to the person of the Father, or the Divinity of the Father; but rather, from both the person and Divinity of the Father.==

 

 

>>Do you believe there to be two gods?>>

 

Depends on which sense one is using. In one sense, there is but, "one God, the Father"; but in another sense, there are many gods (see John 10:30-35; Pslam 82:6)

 

 >>One God, but then Jesus is a lower God?>>

 

If God is used in the sense of that nature which makes God God, I would argue that Jesus is God from God.

 

 

Grace and peace,

 

David

[teddyaware]

Jesus is fully God and fully Man, you reference his humanity not is divinity.

Is Jesus' humanity, in his present glorified resurrected state, still considered separate and distinct from His divinity, or do you consider Him to now also be eternally perfect in His humanity as well? In other words, is Jesus' humanity now divine humanity?

Edited July 7, 2014 by teddyaware

[David Waltz]

Hi Ellen,

 

So good to see a Muslim participating in this discussion.

 

A few months ago, I published a series of threads that I think you might find interesting:

 

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2013/07/god-is-light-profound-convergence-of.html

 

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2014/01/do-muslims-and-christians-worship-same.html

 

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2014/02/do-muslims-and-christians-worship-same.html

 

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2014/02/do-christians-and-muslims-worship-same.html

 

 

Grace and peace,

 

David

[aaron0005]

Jesus progressed. He started on earth as a helpless little baby boy who couldn't walk, talk, feed himself, or take care of any of His basic needs. He then proceeded to grow, learn and progress in knowledge and wisdom, just like other earthly children do...

52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man. (Luke 2)

Then after reaching adulthood we are told that He "learned obedience" (by very definition, one cannot learn something unless he or she has something to learn), thereby asserting Jesus progressed in obedience. We are also informed that He was made perfect, and by virtue of this achieved perfection He became the author of eternal salvation (one cannot become something he already is), thereby asserting that Jesus progressed toward the perfection He ultimately obtained.

8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;

9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; (Hebrews 5)

So here we have the irony of ironies: The uncreated eternally perfect God progressed in wisdom and eminence, progressed as He learned obedience, and progressed toward perfection to thus become the author of eternal salvation (the author of salvation being something we are told God already was long before He took upon Himself flesh and blood in the mortal realm). It is remarkable that this scripturally testified to progression of God is one of the very things non-LDS Christians so decry about the LDS faith.

 

Doctrine and Covenants 93 well encapsulates the above-stated sacred Biblical principles thusly:

11 And I, John, bear record that I beheld his glory, as the glory of the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, even the Spirit of truth, which came and dwelt in the flesh, and dwelt among us.

12 And I, John, saw that he received not of the fulness at the first, but received grace for grace;

13 And he received not of the fulness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness;

Hello Teddy aware,

 

You made a lot of good points. I think its important LDS people understand this better. To often we get tripped up in not understanding what we believe or in not understanding what others believe, which is why I'm on here-to learn and share my own thoughts.

 

You said "one cannot learn something unless he or she has something to learn" in regards to Jesus. I would agree with that. He could not become Savior and reach that status without succeeding here on earth in His mission.

 

The point I would like to make is how loosely we use the word god. Was not Christ a god before this life and therefor He reached a greater level as a God once He finished His earthly mission? He was the creator after all and god of the OT after all. While Him growing from grace to grace and not having a fullness would certainly refer to His eternal growth, I think it is more used in a mortal sense.

 

Then again one cannot progress without a body, etc, etc. It still seems like the word god is used loosely. Another thought is could it be He was not a god yet and was only acting on behalf of the Father as god of the OT and creator? Thus representing the Father as god to the Israelites.

 

It is fascinating how one so high could descend from His position above and be mocked and tortured by a people He had guided, made and on a earth He created and still have to loose His former memory (as we did) suffer beyond comprehension.

 

I see LDS people get mixed up (including myself) in describing the Godhead and in the process cause more confusion. I think a huge discussion should be had on what is a god and how loosely the word is used and yes, others are right, words cannot fully describe god, especially when used so rigidly, but we can understand better by knowing how those words are used. I would point out that we have scriptures on our side and in so many ways our view makes way more sense.

[mfbukowski]

To bad this shindig is not closer to Utah. I am all for the interfaith luncheon.

We will see if it materializes.