What's Up With The Trinity

[Logan Alexander]

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

 

Check the first post. Our group goes to Utah biannualy... If you want to connect with us in Utah, email cfm.emi@biola.edu.

[Logan Alexander]

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

 

loved your post on this issue. I agree with all of it.

 

Where, in your mind, would LDS theology deviate from these statements? 

 

In my mind, the theology behind these statements in your post are denied by LDS, but the statements are often taken and used to mean something they weren't supposed to mean. Here are some areas in which  I believe LDS doctrine does not line up.

 

"God the Father, Who alone is aὐτόθεος, God of and from Himself;"

In LDS theology, God has not been eternally of himself. He is a created man by a father before him. He also progressed into godhood after being a man.

 

 "the Son and Holy Spirit deriving their Divinity (ousia, essence) and personhood from Him; the Son by generation, and the Holy Spirit by procession."

In the nicene creed ("very God of very God") this means that the son has eternally been generated by the Father. In LDS theology, Jesus was a created being, one of many (non-unqiue). But after he proposed a better plan of salvation than satan, he was granted to become the savior of the world. In this sense, Jesus has not been uniquely generated by the father from all eternity past.

[mfbukowski]

David thanks for your reply- I am really glad you are back, I have had some discussions with Catholics here.  I have some dear friends who are Catholics as well as students of theology and would love to get more dialogue going.

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.

Yes well it's all in the definitions isn't it? I probably should have said "abstract metaphysical" descriptions. In fact of course I agree with Ostler himself who says that Mormons don't have doctrine.  It's not like I made that up.  http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2005/04/is-there-any-mormon-doctrine/

>>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.

Well I think that is highly debatable if we want to do that.  But the reality is you will not find any metaphysics or epistemology beyond what is in Moroni 10: 4-5 and Alma 32.  I guess that's a nice way of saying I think you are wrong.   We have a strong prejudice against mixing "the philosophies of men with scripture" so in fact those sorts of things are frowned upon.  I of course take exception with that, because to me scripture itself is "the philosophies of men" as inspired by God.  Indeed that is what we see as prophetic utterance today, regardless of our protestations to the contrary.

 

Sterling McMurrin wrote a book about "Mormon Theology" which was basically a treatise bemoaning the fact that we didn't have any.  As far as I know, which is not very far, BYU doesn't even have a department of theology independent from philosophy.  https://sites.lib.byu.edu/byuorg/index.php/Brigham_Young_University._Dept._of_Theology_and_Philosophy

 

And of course anything you find in the Quad are indeed inspired poetic descriptions and not anything like comprehensive theology.  I mean that is like saying the Bible is "theology" which I suppose in one sense it is- but it is certainly not regarded as academic "Theology"  Theology is usually about hermeneutics as far as I know.
 

>>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.

Uh, yeah, that's what I said, isn't it?  You and I agree on that because these were not trained philosophers, and those are philosophical categories.  Zebras don't know we call them "zebras" either- it is a question of taxonomy. I am certain that if they studied those categories in depth, they would find mirrors of their positions on everything.

>>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.

I don't doubt that.  The classical LDS explanation would be that it is because much truth escaped the apostasy.  But you see why that effort doesn't get to the root of the issue?  We are VERY close to Catholics in many many issues and I am convinced that what separates us is mostly "semantics" and this Trinity issue is central to the discussion.  The other is what constitutes the "Real Presence" in the Eucharist.  Both these issues go back to scholasticism and substance theology.

 

Do away with Aquinas and we would be very much on the same page.  But that ain't gonna happen.
 

>>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.

Not necessary- whatever works for you.  I am not a complete dummy- close but not complete.

 

But sticking to English is fine.  Remember the language of the Restoration is English and we believe that all the scriptures we have to concern ourselves with are the King James and the scriptures of the Restoration which obviously are English and therefore doctrinally "translated correctly".  Remember, Joseph was re-writing the bible anyway, and if he had finished, THAT would be our re-defined bible.  But we are stuck with the King James until something else happens.

 

Understanding what others really thought in translation is impossible and arguing about the translations of Biblical texts is totally irrelevant here because we "believe the Bible insofar as it is translated correctly".

 

You guys see that as a cop-out but miss the importance of that entirely.  You keep going back to your CONCEPTION of what others who lived thousands of years ago in an alien culture "meant" in discussing their God(s)

 

The Restoration has REDEFINED all that.  For us, it is gone- it is history swept away by apostasy. It is RESTORED AND RENEWED in our present quad.  It's not really about being translated "correctly" it's about being "correct LDS belief" regardless of what some scribe wrote several thousand years ago.  Joseph was re-defining it all before he died, but didn't finish.

 

So don't bother with "the original words" because they are irrelevant to us.  If you read our scholarship, you will find it is all based on finding our present re-definitions in the "original" because we have re-invented it all.

 

We are constructing worlds here, out of the "matter unorganized" left behind, taking the usable bricks and assembling them in a different way. Oddly enough, this is a pretty revolutionary church.

 

Edited July 7, 2014 by mfbukowski

[saemo]

Is Jesus' humanity, in his present glorified resurrected state, still considered separate and distinct from His divinity,

I didn't say Jesus' humanity and divinity are separate and distinct, I said, Jesus is fully God and fully Man. His two natures exist simultaneously in one Person. Dividing them is a heresy called Nestorianism. In the Confession Of Faith, from the Council of Chalcedon:

Following, therefore, the holy fathers, we confess one and the same Son, who is our Lord Jesus Christ, and we shall agree in teaching that this very same Son is complete in his deity and complete—the very same—in his humanity, truly God and truly a human being, this very same one being composed of a rational soul and a body, coessential with the Father as to his deity and coessential with us—the very same one—as to his humanity, being like us in every respect apart from sin.

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?

His body has been glorified, which is what we expect for ourselves at the resurrection. We do not become divinized.

“He will change our lowly body to conform with his glorified body by the power that enables him also to bring all things into subjection to himself.” (Philippians 3:21)

We are conformed to Christ, we do not become Christ.

Edited July 7, 2014 by saemo

[mfbukowski]

For those new here, I no longer communicate with saemo, but she has given me a perfect quote to deconstruct:

 

Following, therefore, the holy fathers, we confess one and the same Son, who is our Lord Jesus Christ, and we shall agree in teaching that this very same Son is complete in his deity and complete—the very same—in his humanity, truly God and truly a human being, this very same one being composed of a rational soul and a body, coessential with the Father as to his deity and coessential with us—the very same one—as to his humanity, being like us in every respect apart from sin.

 

Or maybe I won't. 

 

Suffice it to say that "co-essential" doesn't mean a whole lot to me.  I have no clue what that means, and it explains nothing.

 

It reminds me of the logical notion of a "virtus dormitiva"- made up words that sound like they explain something but don't.

 

Why does opium induce sleep?  Because of it's sleep-inducing properties, it's virtus dormitiva.http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dormitive_principle

 

Nothing is explained.  How are God and Jesus one?  Because they are "co-essential". 

 

Sure.  Got it.

[saemo]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/coessential

co·es·sen·tial (k-snshl)

adj.

Having the same essence or nature.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/coessential

co·es·sen·tial (k-snshl)

adj.

Having the same essence or nature.

Here we go again.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Check the first post. Our group goes to Utah biannualy... If you want to connect with us in Utah, email cfm.emi@biola.edu.

Its not just connecting with you guys, though I am for that, but I am some what shy sometimes. But it is funner when there is more than just me. But like last time when I met with Rob Bowman, a few of us from here showed up. It really was quite a nice time and I think you get a better feel for the other person than an internet forum. Funny that.

[mfbukowski]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/coessential

co·es·sen·tial (k-snshl)

adj.

Having the same essence or nature.

Oh- I see.

 

That makes it totally clear.    How does one determine if essences are the "same" or not?  Put them on the essence scale?  The nature of a man is to be manly- of a god to be godly, of a dog to be dogly.

 

In other words, it is a useless word in this context.  It is tautologous.   A=A.  No information whatsoever, it is true by definition.

 

That doesn't get us very far, does it?

 

[mfbukowski]

Here we go again.

yeah, I know.  I'll stop.

 

I hope our EV friends have not disappeared.

[saemo]

Using a word, or phrase, to describe something that is unknown, is normal. As an example, what is dark matter? Science can infer that dark matter exists but what is it? No one yet knows, so, the scientific descriptions of dark matter are of its characteristics, and descriptions of what dark matter is not.

Theological discussions of God are approached in the same way. We describe the characteristics of God: one, spirit, loving, omnipotent, omniscient, etc. We describe what God is not: multiplied, created, sinful, evil, etc. No one, not one single human, can answer HOW God is three and God is one. As I said, we accept what God has revealed about Himself. God has reveled that He is One. God has revealed that He is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. One God means One God, it is not a riddle, that needs to be unraveled by defining One as Many.

We see through a glass darkly, and do not have an immediate knowledge of God because we are not in the immediate presence of God and are not divine ourselves.

Edited July 7, 2014 by saemo

[mfbukowski]

In an interesting development, one of the major posters here has been banned from the thread.

 

Using a word, or phrase, to describe something that is unknown, is normal. As an example, what is dark matter? Science can infer that dark matter exists but what is it? No one yet knows, so, the scientific descriptions of dark matter are of its characteristics, and descriptions of what dark matter is not.

Theological discussions of God are approached in the same way. We describe the characteristics of God: one, spirit, loving, omnipotent, omniscient, etc. We describe what God is not: multiplied, created, sinful, evil, etc. No one, not one single human, can answer HOW God is three and God is one. As I said, we accept what God has revealed about Himself. God has reveled that He is One. God has revealed that He is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. One God means One God, it is not a riddle, that needs to be unraveled by defining One as Many.

We see through a glass darkly, and do not have an immediate knowledge of God because we are not in the immediate presence of God and are not divine ourselves.

Bad analogy.

We know dark matter exists because we have evidence of it.

 

There is no evidence for the existence of immaterial substance.  If you are saying that all this is a poetic analogy, we agree.  I just like my poetry better.

Edited July 7, 2014 by mfbukowski

[saemo]

In an interesting development, one of the major posters here has been banned from the thread.

Bad analogy.

We know dark matter exists because we have evidence of it.

There is no evidence for the existence of immaterial substance.

Did I say there was? This has nothing to do with with your objection to using a word that you have a personal aversion to, which is what I was addressing.

As I said.

God has revealed that He is One. God has revealed that He is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Using a word, or words; coessential, consubstantial, One. These words are descriptors for what God has revealed. You object to words that describe God's oneness, unless of course that word is "purpose". Which of course has its own problems, as there could be a possibility of millions or trillions of Gods for Mormons, but you're going to call them ALL one, as long as they're on the same page.

One means one.

Edited July 7, 2014 by saemo

[teddyaware]

I didn't say Jesus' humanity and divinity are separate and distinct, I said, Jesus is fully God and fully Man. His two natures exist simultaneously in one Person. Dividing them is a heresy called Nestorianism. In the Confession Of Faith, from the Council of Chalcedon:

Following, therefore, the holy fathers, we confess one and the same Son, who is our Lord Jesus Christ, and we shall agree in teaching that this very same Son is complete in his deity and complete—the very same—in his humanity, truly God and truly a human being, this very same one being composed of a rational soul and a body, coessential with the Father as to his deity and coessential with us—the very same one—as to his humanity, being like us in every respect apart from sin.

His body has been glorified, which is what we expect for ourselves at the resurrection. We do not become divinized.

“He will change our lowly body to conform with his glorified body by the power that enables him also to bring all things into subjection to himself.” (Philippians 3:21)

We are conformed to Christ, we do not become Christ.

You appear to acknowledge (perhaps unwittingly) that the example of the Saviour's journey of progress as a human being clearly demonstrates the possibility that other faithful human beings, if endowed with a similar fullness of the Spirit of the God, can indeed become like Him through the redemption of His atoning sacrifice. This is, in fact, pure LDS doctrine: A human being plus the bestowal of "a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory (2 Cor 4:17)" equals theosis;  i.e. man, through the atonement of Christ, and through the implementation of God's divinely ordained blessing of joint heirship with Christ, overcomes the fallen human nature and as one of Christ's human brethren becomes a partaker of the divine nature.

18 But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord. (2 Corinthians 3)

By the way, even though we Latter-day Saints believe in theosis, we also believe that even in exaltation we will be eternally subservient to Christ, as Christ is eternally subservient to the Father. Nevertheless, the saints are promised that if they remain valiant and faithful, as joint heirs with Christ they will inherit all that the Son Himself has inherited except for His everlasting leadership position as our Saviour. This most glorious prospect for man is made perfectly clear in the epistle to the Hebrews:

6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?

7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:

8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.

9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.

11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,

 

So the human being, Jesus Christ, arrives at the place of divine sonship first, making it possible for his human brothers and sisters to also become most glorious and exalted sons and daughters of God, to inherit all He Himself possesses, except for His eternal role as our most heroic Saviour. It is Lucifer who wanted to usurp the role and title of the Most High God to himself. The Saints are content and supremely grateful to forever rule and reign as kings and queens in heaven, but always under the leadership and everlasting authority of Christ the Lord.

Edited July 7, 2014 by teddyaware

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

yeah, I know.  I'll stop.

 

 

No need to do that. There is a certain bit of entertainment value with all of this.

[David Waltz]

Hello again mfbukowski,

 

Thanks for the link to Blake's online article. I think what he is attempting to convey is that there is no "official" body of doctrine that Mormons must believe. But even this is not wholly accurate, for I can think of a number of doctrines embraced by Mormons that sure seem to be non-negotiable. Add the fact that he has produced three substantive volumes on doctrine, I cannot help but think that he is not being entirely consistent.

 

Moving on, the  following contribution by Robert L. Millet, "What Is Our Doctrine ?", raises more than a few questions for me concerning your position on LDS doctrine:

 

http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/study-and-faith-selections-religious-educator/chapter-6-what-our-doctrine

 

I found the following from Millet's pen to be particularly insightful:

 

>>Those of us who are teachers associated with the Church of Jesus Christ are under obligation to learn the doctrines, teach them properly, and bind ourselves to speak and act in harmony with them. Only in this way can we perpetuate truth in a world filled with error, avoid deception, focus on what matters most, and find joy and happiness in the process. “I have spoken before,” President Gordon B. Hinckley stated, “about the importance of keeping the doctrine of the Church pure, and seeing that it is taught in all of our meetings. I worry about this. Small aberrations in doctrinal teaching can lead to large and evil falsehoods.”>>

 

I must say, with all due respect, that I find your take on the issue of LDS doctrine very confusing.

 

Apart from the 'Standard Works', I have gained a good portion of my knowledge of Mormonism from a number of works that are best described as doctrinal; works which include: Bruce R. McConkie's, Mormon Doctrine, A New Witness for the Articles of Faith and Doctrines of the Restoration; B. H. Roberts, The Seventy's Course in Theology and The Truth, The Way and The Life; Joseph Fielding Smith's, Doctrines of Salvation (3 vols.); James Talmage's, Articles of Faith; Duane S. Crowther's, Doctrinal Dimensions and The Godhead; Hyrum Andrus's, God, Man and the Universe, Principles of Perfection, and Doctrines of the Kingdom; and Dennis B. Horne's very informative, Determining Doctrine.

 

With 'tongue-in-check', I shall end this post by mentioning that one of the 'Standard Works' is called, Doctrines and Covenants...

 

 

Grace and peace,

 

David

[mfbukowski]

Hello again mfbukowski,

 

Thanks for the link to Blake's online article. I think what he is attempting to convey is that there is no "official" body of doctrine that Mormons must believe. But even this is not wholly accurate, for I can think of a number of doctrines embraced by Mormons that sure seem to be non-negotiable. Add the fact that he has produced three substantive volumes on doctrine, I cannot help but think that he is not being entirely consistent.

 

Moving on, the  following contribution by Robert L. Millet, "What Is Our Doctrine ?", raises more than a few questions for me concerning your position on LDS doctrine:

 

http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/study-and-faith-selections-religious-educator/chapter-6-what-our-doctrine

 

I found the following from Millet's pen to be particularly insightful:

 

>>Those of us who are teachers associated with the Church of Jesus Christ are under obligation to learn the doctrines, teach them properly, and bind ourselves to speak and act in harmony with them. Only in this way can we perpetuate truth in a world filled with error, avoid deception, focus on what matters most, and find joy and happiness in the process. “I have spoken before,” President Gordon B. Hinckley stated, “about the importance of keeping the doctrine of the Church pure, and seeing that it is taught in all of our meetings. I worry about this. Small aberrations in doctrinal teaching can lead to large and evil falsehoods.”>>

 

I must say, with all due respect, that I find your take on the issue of LDS doctrine very confusing.

 

Apart from the 'Standard Works', I have gained a good portion of my knowledge of Mormonism from a number of works that are best described as doctrinal; works which include: Bruce R. McConkie's, Mormon Doctrine, A New Witness for the Articles of Faith and Doctrines of the Restoration; B. H. Roberts, The Seventy's Course in Theology and The Truth, The Way and The Life; Joseph Fielding Smith's, Doctrines of Salvation (3 vols.); James Talmage's, Articles of Faith; Duane S. Crowther's, Doctrinal Dimensions and The Godhead; Hyrum Andrus's, God, Man and the Universe, Principles of Perfection, and Doctrines of the Kingdom; and Dennis B. Horne's very informative, Determining Doctrine.

 

With 'tongue-in-check', I shall end this post by mentioning that one of the 'Standard Works' is called, Doctrines and Covenants...

 

 

Grace and peace,

 

David

Thanks David.

But if you read that wonderful article you posted you will find that it agrees with what I am saying that doctrine consists of the standard works and the present teachings of the prophets.

Ironically that does not include the other works you have cited. We really don't have any theology regardless of Blake's inconsistencies in titling his books.

McConkie's book was never accepted by the apostles and first presidency.

Edited July 8, 2014 by mfbukowski

[webbles]

Do we know if the apostles used the word "God" in the same way?  It seams a lot of the definition of the trinity hinges around the definition of God.  What if Paul used the word "God" with a different meaning than John?  What if Paul used the word "God" with a different meaning in different epistles?

 

Can the trinity definition depend on a single New Testament book or does it require versus from different epistles and authors?

[David Waltz]

Hi mfbukowski,

 

I think we have arrived at an impasse concerning the issue of LDS doctrine. In your last response, you wrote:

 

>>But if you read that wonderful article you posted you will find that it agrees with what I am saying that doctrine consists of the standard works and the present teachings of the prophets.>>

 

Of course LDS doctrine, "consists of the standard works and the present teachings of the prophets". (All of the doctrinal books I cited concur.) But Dr. Millet did not stop there; he quotes the following from Bruce R. McConkie's, Mormon Doctrine:

 

>>“Gospel doctrine is synonymous with the truths of salvation. It comprises the tenets, teachings, and true theories found in the scriptures; it includes the principles, precepts, and revealed philosophies of pure religion; prophetic dogmas, maxims, and views are embraced within its folds; the Articles of Faith are part and portion of it, as is every inspired utterance of the Lord’s agents.”>>

 

Millet also later adds, "the general handbooks or approved curriculum of the Church today". Guess what is found in those "general handbooks or approved curriculum of the Church today"—quotes from past presidents and apostles, and quotes from some of the very works I cited above, which you rejected, including McConkie's, Mormon Doctrine.

 

I honestly don't know what else to say. Perhaps others can step in and share their thoughts on this matter.

 

 

Grace and peace,

 

David

[mfbukowski]

This subject has had endless threads already and is easily researched.

How about getting back to the Trinity?

It appears that subject has been avoided on this thread by everyone but me and it appears our evangelical friends have abandoned us.

Edited July 8, 2014 by mfbukowski

[MiserereNobis]

This subject has had endless threads already and is easily researched.

How about getting back to the Trinity?

It appears that subject has been avoided on this thread by everyone but me and it appears our evangelical friends have abandoned us.

 

The Doctrine of the Holy Trinity as taught by Holy Mother Church is true.

 

(how's that? )

[mfbukowski]

The Doctrine of the Holy Trinity as taught by Holy Mother Church is true.

 

(how's that? )

You are absolutely great!  

[Logan Alexander]

Aaron,

The texts you cited (far back) do not "completely destroy" my interpretation of John 1:1c. You can still hold to the monarchy of the father and simultaneously affirm that Jesus bears the same essence as the father. See David's post above regarding his affirmations on the trinity.

The early fathers in asserting that Jesus and the Father were cosubstantial did not blatantly ignore such obvious texts in Johns gospel. look at the nicene creed and you will see what I mean. I believe I am very consistent in holding to a qualitative reading of "theos" in John 1:1z

[Logan Alexander]

I'm sorry, I meant Vance, not Aaron.

[Logan Alexander]

Also Vance,

You asked me why you should Care about Wright or Klink. I'm not saying you have to blindly accept what they say, but I am saying that you cannot accuse of pseudo-scholarship when my conclusions come directly from top tier scholars.

Secondly, I think the verses about being "one" in John are kind of moot. Those haven't been the verses being discussed here, nor will I bring them up in this discussion.