What's Up With The Trinity

[Logan Alexander]

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?

I think the NT writers argued for a particular definition of "theos" in distinction from their pagan neighbors. I do not find any contradictory uses of "theos" between the NT writers. I think we can use all the books of the NT to clarify the relationship between the Father, Son, and Spirit. we shouldn't take revelation in compartmentalized pieces.

[webbles]

I think the NT writers argued for a particular definition of "theos" in distinction from their pagan neighbors. I do not find any contradictory uses of "theos" between the NT writers. I think we can use all the books of the NT to clarify the relationship between the Father, Son, and Spirit. we shouldn't take revelation in compartmentalized pieces.

But what if each writer argued an individual definition of "theos"?  Do we know that each of their individual definitions of "theos" are identical?  You mentioned earlier how Paul was a very strong Pharisee.  His background before his conversion might influence how he uses the word "theos" and describes "theos".  John and the others had a different background and could use "theos" differently.  This might explain why the only way later theologists felt that they could explain "theos" was by coming up with a complicated definition we call "trinity".

[Logan Alexander]

But what if each writer argued an individual definition of "theos"? Do we know that each of their individual definitions of "theos" are identical? You mentioned earlier how Paul was a very strong Pharisee. His background before his conversion might influence how he uses the word "theos" and describes "theos". John and the others had a different background and could use "theos" differently. This might explain why the only way later theologists felt that they could explain "theos" was by coming up with a complicated definition we call "trinity".

I think you're a bit mixed up here. First of all according to the LDS 8th article of faith, the NT writers will not be using contradictory views of "theos". They are (at a minimum) complimentary.

The trinity was definitely not formulated because of contradictory views of the NT writers. The evidence is in favor of the NT writers each individually hiding to (implicitly) Trinitarian dogma. Consider the verses I cited above and in my article such as 1 cor 8:4-6, phil 2:9-11, Romans 9:5, acts 5;1-5, etc. there is, within each passage, Trinitarian theology. You don't have to compare these authors to come to the conclusion. It's within their own body of literature.

[Logan Alexander]

*holding to

[Logan Alexander]

Quick survey: What does everybody (think they) know about the Johannine Comma (the addition in 1 John 5:7-? I am including a discussion on it it in my 3rd blog post on LDS misconceptions (correcting those misconceptions). I would like to hear what LDS usually hear about the topic.

[saemo]

Hello teddyaware, I agree there are similarities in teaching and belief, there are also large differences and so I do not agree with the ides that orthodox theosis and exaltation are alike. I'll point out a few differences...

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)

Orthodox (little o, as in, "right belief") is reliant and centered on the Eucharist, where we receive Jesus' Body, Blood and full divinity into ourselves. Like all of the seven Sacraments, we understand them as prefiguring the life to come, and even see our communion at the altar described vividly in St. John's Apocalypse. So theosis is the fulfillment of Jesus' promise to us, that we are made heirs to the Father via adoption, and, the fulfillment of the Eucharist. We share in Jesus' divine nature, we don't become that nature.

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.

Jesus' divine Sonship is infinite and eternal, there never was a time where Jesus was not the second Person of the Trinity, and so there was no necessity for Jesus to become. God lowered Himself for a while, took on the form of a slave. This is our Salvation, and it in, through and with Jesus that we are reconcile to the Father and can now call Him Father. God did not become Incarnate for Himself, He did so for us. Jesus does not need redemption, and does not need to perform steps, to become what He already is: God

So, no, LDS do not believe in theosis, but a version of theosis that you call exaltation. Like I said, the two have their similarities, but are also very different.

[Logan Alexander]

So, no, LDS do not believe in theosis, but a version of theosis that you call exaltation. Like I said, the two have their similarities, but are also very different.

 

Beautifully written. I am so tired of theosis in the church fathers being taken horribly out of context... Again it appears that understanding the lexical nuances of "theos" is incredibly important. Early church fathers used language like "becoming god" but would qualify that and deny that we become like God the Father himself. See Augustine On the Psalms 50.2. Daniel Peterson in a recent article takes him horribly out of context.

 

"If we have been made sons of God, we have also been made gods: but this is the effect ofGrace adopting, not of nature generating. For the only Son of God, God and one God with the Father, Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, was in the beginning the Word, and the Word with God, the Word God. The rest that are made gods, are made by His own Grace, are not born of His Substance, that they should be the same as He, but that by favor they should come to Him, and be fellow-heirs with Christ." On the Psalms 50.2.

 

LDS theology asserts that "as man is, god once was; as god is, man may become" (Lorenzo Snow). This is NOT what the church fathers meant by "becoming god."

[Storm Rider]

Beautifully written. I am so tired of theosis in the church fathers being taken horribly out of context... Again it appears that understanding the lexical nuances of "theos" is incredibly important. Early church fathers used language like "becoming god" but would qualify that and deny that we become like God the Father himself. See Augustine On the Psalms 50.2. Daniel Peterson in a recent article takes him horribly out of context.

 

"If we have been made sons of God, we have also been made gods: but this is the effect ofGrace adopting, not of nature generating. For the only Son of God, God and one God with the Father, Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, was in the beginning the Word, and the Word with God, the Word God. The rest that are made gods, are made by His own Grace, are not born of His Substance, that they should be the same as He, but that by favor they should come to Him, and be fellow-heirs with Christ." On the Psalms 50.2.

 

LDS theology asserts that "as man is, god once was; as god is, man may become" (Lorenzo Snow). This is NOT what the church fathers meant by "becoming god."

 

Hello Logan,

 

I agree with you that both Theosis, Deification, and Exaltation are all three nuanced with varying degrees of similarities and difference.  What is absolutely clear is that the Early Church Fathers were far more comfortable with the language of becoming gods than the Roman Catholic Church is today.  At the same time, The Church of Jesus Christ may be far too comfortable with stating that we will become gods.

 

It is interesting that you bring up the Snow couplet.  I am also sure you know that is not doctrine and the prophet Gordon B. Hinckley stated on national television that the Church did not teach the first part of that statement about god being as man now is.  He clarified that we do teach that we may become gods, or joint-heirs with Christ.  Just as important, that couplet has is not what LDS teach about becoming gods.  It would be best if you chose not to attempt to tell us what we believe or teach.  This is more of the tactic of low-caliber anti-Mormon teachings that strive to sensationalize, distort, and deceive.  It is not helpful.

 

What surprises me often with those who believe in Deification and Theosis is that they clearly limit God's ability to make us like him.  Somehow God is incapable of making us like him fully.  All of us, (i.e. Catholic, Orthodox, and LDS) teach that we are only capable of becoming gods through the grace of the Savior so for the purposes of this conversation there is no reason to attempt to distinguish between our beliefs on the process.  What would prevent God from making us like him?  Does God or the Bible teach us that there is a wide range of degrees of being gods?  If God tells us that we will be gods should we understand that he is not really serious and that we may be gods, but not really gods?  

 

The Church of Jesus Christ teaches and believes firmly in the promises of Jesus and the early apostles.  If we are to be joint-heirs with Christ then we accept it fully without reservation or limitation.  If we are to be gods, then we also accept that language and use it as our own.  

 

We have no teachings regarding substance.  This is meaningless term to us and some of us see it only as a philosophical construct to make three one.  Though LDS are comfortable thinking of themselves as monotheists; we are also quite clear that we believe in God the Father, his Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost; all are God, each is distinct, and separate and form one Godhead.  We are just as comfortable with the teaching that they are each God and are each separate.   

[teddyaware]

Hello teddyaware, I agree there are similarities in teaching and belief, there are also large differences and so I do not agree with the ides that orthodox theosis and exaltation are alike. I'll point out a few differences...

Orthodox (little o, as in, "right belief") is reliant and centered on the Eucharist, where we receive Jesus' Body, Blood and full divinity into ourselves. Like all of the seven Sacraments, we understand them as prefiguring the life to come, and even see our communion at the altar described vividly in St. John's Apocalypse. So theosis is the fulfillment of Jesus' promise to us, that we are made heirs to the Father via adoption, and, the fulfillment of the Eucharist. We share in Jesus' divine nature, we don't become that nature.

Jesus' divine Sonship is infinite and eternal, there never was a time where Jesus was not the second Person of the Trinity, and so there was no necessity for Jesus to become. God lowered Himself for a while, took on the form of a slave. This is our Salvation, and it in, through and with Jesus that we are reconcile to the Father and can now call Him Father. God did not become Incarnate for Himself, He did so for us. Jesus does not need redemption, and does not need to perform steps, to become what He already is: God

So, no, LDS do not believe in theosis, but a version of theosis that you call exaltation. Like I said, the two have their similarities, but are also very different.

If God's atoning redemptive power is infinite and eternal, and if God is perfectly good, what could possibly motivate Him to not want to give His children all that Christ possesses? As joint heirs with Christ, isn't the Almighty God fully capable of giving us all that Christ Himself has inherited?

7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. (Revelation 21)

 

In the Book of Revelation it's made perfectly clear that saved beings who "overcome" will be given the divine right to sit on the throne of God (an extremely powerful image and a very serious capital crime in the ancient world!). I'm sure you realize that after the glorious resurrection those who overcome are promised they will rule as kings in heaven. But kings over what? Well the Book of Revelation tells us these mighty heavenly kings will rule over the nations with a rod of iron. To me, this sounds an awful lot like what God does. Doesn't it to you? 

In 1 John 1:5 we are told that "God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all." With this in mind, what could possibly motivate a perfectly just, merciful and loving God to want to hold back in any way on the bestowal of his redemptive power to His children? Is it jealously that motivates Him to desire that all of His children should retain just a little bit inner darkness so that He can say He's the only being who has no darkness at all? Wouldn't a truly loving Father in Heaven want His children to have every possible blessing and advantage, and be filled with the glorious light of truth to the same infinite and eternal degree of fullness that He enjoys? Or are there laws that make it impossible for God -- of whom we are told nothing is impossible -- to be able to pour out the infinite and eternal fullness of His blessings upon His children? We are either partakers of the divine nature or we're not.

The Latter-day Saints believe the atoning sacrifice of Christ was an infinite and eternal sacrifice. Meaning, in part, that out of the wellsprings of His perfect love Christ willingly surrendered to us all that He was in character and attribute, bequeathing to us all the divine gifts and blessings He possessed of as God's Son so that we could be like Him (God is not selfish).This means, for instance, that the divine capacity Christ possessed to be able to love others without measure was surrendered to us as part of His infinite and eternal sacrifice. Therefore there is no cutoff point in the outpouring of that divine capacity to love upon His children -- a cutoff point where God says, "through Christ I have given you the capacity of divine love, but not an infinite and eternal portion of that capacity to love because the ability to love infinitely and eternally is mine and mine alone. I will therefore keep the capacity to perfectly love to myself; I don't want to share it. After all, if you ever did possess the same capacity to love that I possess you would be just as I am and I cannot allow that to happen. And although blessing my children in this manner would be a very great blessing unto them, nevertheless, I can't allow this to occur because I alone am God."

Christ's sacrifice is either infinite and eternal or it isn't. Through the atonement of Christ we have either been

blessed with the hope of eventually obtaining an infinite and eternal capacity to love as God loves, or we haven't; blessed with the hope of eventually obtaining infinite and eternal power, or we haven't; blessed with the hope of eventually obtaining infinite and eternal faith, or we haven't: blessed with the hope of eventually gaining infinite and eternal knowledge and wisdom of all things, or we haven't; blessed with the hope of one day eventually becoming infinitely and eternally humble and meek, or we haven't; etc.

The overriding questions here are these:

 

1) Why would God want to hold back in blessing His children infinitely and eternally with all He possesses?

2) What could possibly be wrong with becoming perfectly good like God since goodness is a good thing?

3) What's the downside for the Father and His children if the children were to become exactly as Christ is in divine attributes and perfections?

 

The Saviour taught us that "with God all things are possible." But according to you, I guess not. Christ also taught us that we should "be perfect, even your Father in which is Heaven is perfect." But according to you, I guess the Saviour spoke those words in vain.

A final question: What could possibly be wrong with someone becoming infinitely and eternally perfect?

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, (Hebrews 2)

Edited July 8, 2014 by teddyaware

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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

It can be hard to want to post when there is an onslaught against your belief. I realized they came here and opened up the thread. And there are more of us than them. But it looks like it is still going.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Quick survey: What does everybody (think they) know about the Johannine Comma (the addition in 1 John 5:7- ? I am including a discussion on it it in my 3rd blog post on LDS misconceptions (correcting those misconceptions). I would like to hear what LDS usually hear about the topic.

It appears to be a mistake as it was added later. How is that?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Beautifully written. I am so tired of theosis in the church fathers being taken horribly out of context...

 

LDS theology asserts that "as man is, god once was; as god is, man may become" (Lorenzo Snow). This is NOT what the church fathers meant by "becoming god."

No one that I know of has ever asserted that the early church fathers taught what Lorenzo Snow stated. So that is a total strawman. But what the LDS do teach is that we can become like God. And that is what the early church fathers state. You guys are simply late to the party.

 

In the late 90's everyone I talked to denied it. Now that there is scholarship and education on the early church fathers the EVies are some what forced to accept it. Catholics on the other hand, it seems, have always believed in a form of theosis. I do agree that most do not see it quite the same way as the LDS.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I think you're a bit mixed up here. First of all according to the LDS 8th article of faith, the NT writers will not be using contradictory views of "theos". They are (at a minimum) complimentary.

The trinity was definitely not formulated because of contradictory views of the NT writers.

Yeah it was. I should add the word perceived difference though. That was the whole point of the Council of Nicea. Was to reconcile all of the differences.

 

 

Anyway this threads always go the rounds. Define the trinity.

They are one in essence or transubstantial.

 

OK

What does that mean?

 

That means they are distinct but not separate.

 

OK

But that does not define how they share one essence or what that even means.

 

They are all share the same nature.

 

OK.

 

That is not really defining anything.

 

But they are 3 in one and we are monotheistic because they share the same nature.

 

 

OK but that still does not help.

 

Its a mystery.

 

 

OK.

 

"Sharing the same nature", when we deconstruct it it is not used in the normal way that the word is used.

 

For instance, those 3 guys in jail all shopped lifted from a store. Ok so it could be said that they share the same nature in regards to breaking the law. But yet they are still 3 people. Or 3 babies that are good natured and easy going, they all share the same nature but they are not one metaphysical being. They are 3 separate, distinct, individuals.

 

Completely separate and distinct. The Trinitarians want those 3 to be one metaphysical being. It just does not work (for me).

 

The last thread that was up, I did concede (Thanks to Rory) that claiming it was a mystery is a valid belief and is one I can respect. The issue I have is that I just don't believe that this is what God is. I don't believe that 3 beings are one God in a monotheistic sense.  And that they are one metaphysical being.

Edited July 8, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[3DOP]

aaron
To my Protestant and Catholic friends,

3DOP
Aaron, Hi. I am a Catholic.

aaron
With the trinity doctrine in mind, can the Father be a God without Christ? I believe He can.

3DOP
Such a Supreme Bring might inspire a sort of dreadful awe. He would not be the God of Christian revelation. I do not believe we could be called to love the Lord with all of our heart, and mind, and soul, and strength if He was not the One God of whom all paternity in heaven and earth is named. So yes, apart from Christ, there could be a sole lone God, a different God, one who never begot anything, and from whom nothing ever proceeded. It is because such a God is interiorly sterile, that I hesitate in this era of God's revelation, to affirm that Muslims and Jews worship the same One God.

aaron
Can Christ be a God without the Father? I believe He cannot.

3DOP
Agreed. Without God as Father, there is no Christ. There is only a Supreme Being, alone for all eternity, making creatures that in some respects resemble It, but for whom the germs of divine union seem remote.
 
aaron
Then does not this imply that it is by the Fathers presence, that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are given godhood status?

3DOP
It is because God is Father, that the Son was begotten, and the Spirit proceeded in an eternal spiration of unified and perfect intimacy. The Father alone is the fount of divinity and this is why in justice, all glory redounds ultimately to the Father. In, from, and through Christ, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, we praise the One God and Father of all.  
 
aaron
In other words, they are not co-equals.

3DOP
In the context of His return to His beloved Father, Jesus tells the Apostles that they should rejoice at His return to God, which is recorded for us at the beginning of the Acts of the Apostles, because "the Father is greater than I" (Jn. 14:28). There has to be a significant sense in which the Son and Father are unequal, and I believe you have touched upon it.
Does this mean that the Father is greater in every respect? Does it necessarily mean that the Divine Love which begot an only Son reserved a portion of His Divinity from His natural Son. When we understand that even we, His adopted sons and daughters may be righty designated as "gods in the bud", how can we think that John 14:28 implies that Christ is some kind of ghastly child of a God who had an offspring that wasn't "after his kind." Unequal does not necessarily imply ontological superiority for the Father. Fatherhood itself hints loudly that the inequality is of a different kind

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

3DOP
Dogmatic affirmative. Jesus Christ wil have His resurrected body for all eternity. Great job aaron stirring up happy thoughts!
 
aaron
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.

3DOP
We hold that a spirit is incorporeal, without a body. Now spirits may take different bodily forms, but they are not permanent. Angels often appear in the form of a man when they show themselves to men.  But just like the Holy Ghost isn't a bird, the angel isn't a man. (I am just explaining our position, not presuming to teach as though I have established it to be so.) As for their spirits being separate? The Life of the Blessed Trinity seems so unified that even when God reveals designated actions for the Holy Ghost, such as indwelling and sanctifying the adopted children of God, there is a sense in which the entire Godhead is participating. For that reason, I probably should refrain from saying that the "spirits" of the Persons of the Trinity are distinct.

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

3DOP
Yes to the first two. I would be uncomfortable with saying that the Father and Holy Ghost have different spirits.

aaron
 If the Holy Ghost and the Father are separate than what is the Father?

3DOP
Give me a few more years. If I make it to heaven I'll try to accumulate some data! Separate or not, what is God the Father? We don't even know, we can't even comprehend what this God has prepared for those who love Him. How can we know what infinite Divinity is? We cannot define God. We can be aware by faith of His greatness and His continuous solicitude for our salvation and well-being. It is a dogma of the Catholic faith that God cannot be defined. We can know that He who the created universe cannot contain dwelt in a Virgin's Womb for one sole purpose, the well-being of creatures who had been alienated from their sole source of happiness. We know the Father sent His Son for us. What more do we need for now?

aaron
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.

3DOP
I think that may be a good way of expressing it aaron. I would agree that the Son, through His Body may ordinarily inhabit only one location. But He would not lose the divine attribute which also permit Him to be "everywhere and nowhere" at he same time by His divine spirit. A tangent if you will: Even we who deny corporeality to the Father must admit some sense in which the Father is more geographically present somewhere, or else how could the Son return? The angels are considered as present according to where their activity can be known. Heaven must be a geographical place, prepared for us, where the angels actively offer their worthy praises and where the Father receives it. But yes, I think I can accept what you say in that the Father is nowhere physically but everywhere in other respects.
 
aaron
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?

3DOP
Dogmatic negative.

aaron
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?

3DOP
If God were finite then it would bring increase to multiply the gods. This brings us nearer to why we insist that the Three are One. Each individually, must, if God is infinite, have the same infinite divinity. There cannot be more than one infinite divinity. That is why I want to limit any distinction between the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to their Personhood. Christ revealed an interior life in the Godhead, to use your term, that is infinitely filled with life and love.  
 
aaron
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.

3DOP
There are gods and there is God at least. We agree on that.

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

3DOP
I think it is essential to know whether we believe God is finite or infinite. If anything is infinite, it would be folly to attempt to define it. There would always be more!

aaron
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.

3DOP
It appears to me that there are different meanings. If I understand you correctly, this relieves me of the obligation to tell you everything about God (fortunately for me!). I would add that we have to be aware of the other's belief about spirit, if we would correctly understand the other. Thanks Aaron for the thoughtful and provocative questions. It has been a most pleasant exercise this morning making a reply. God bless.

Rory

Edited July 8, 2014 by 3DOP

[wenglund]

As an LDS who has for decades studied the varied Christian beliefs about God, it is my humble opinion that the language of the Bible leaves sufficient interpretive room for proof-texting or making reasonable arguments in favor of most any relevant belief. If that weren't so, then we wouldn't have the broad diversity of Bible-based beliefs manifest throughout Christian history and even today.

 

So, while I believe otherwise, I have no problem accepting as reasonable the Evangelical view of God.

 

The issue for me, then, isn't whether Evangelicals and other Christian faiths can find ample support for their respective doctrines within the Bible. They can. Rather how it is that we may determine which, if any of the varied beliefs, is most correct.

 

Since the Bible is the source of the varied beliefs, then I don't see how it, alone, can be the final arbiter for choosing between the varied beliefs.

 

So, what, or whom, ought to be the final arbiter? 

 

Might it be God, himself, through earnest prayer, as well as his chosen and ordained voices on earth today?

 

Could it also be a function of living according to divine precepts and coming to know God by becoming more like him--as intimated by Paul when he declared: "For now we see through a glass, darkly [i.e. as if looking in a mirror]; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."  (1 Cor. 13:12)

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 8, 2014 by wenglund

[3DOP]

As an LDS who has for decades studied the varied Christian beliefs about God, it is my humble opinion that the language of the Bible leaves sufficient interpretive room for proof-texting or making reasonable arguments in favor of most any relevant belief. If that weren't so, then we wouldn't have the broad diversity of Bible-based beliefs manifest throughout Christian history and even today.

 

So, while I believe otherwise, I have no problem accepting as reasonable the Evangelical view of God.

 

The issue for me, then, isn't whether Evangelicals and other Christian faiths can find ample support for their respective doctrines within the Bible, but rather how it is that we may determine which, if any of the varied beliefs, is most correct.

 

Since the Bible is the source of the varied beliefs, then I don't see how it, alone, can be the final arbiter for choosing between the varied beliefs.

 

So, what, or whom, ought to be the final arbiter? 

 

Might it be God, himself, through earnest prayer, as well as his chosen voices on earth today?

 

Could it also be a function of living according to divine precepts and coming to know God by becoming more like him--as intimated by Paul when he declared: "For now we see through a glass, darkly [i.e. as if looking in a mirror]; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."  (1 Cor. 13:12)

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

One of the biggest differences between Christians are those who recognize that alone, without an interpreter, the Scripture can be plausibly understood multiple ways...and those who don't make that acknowledgment. I also appreciate what you said about prayer, increasing in virtue, becoming more like God, as a way to help us know our way. What makes me continue hanging around this board is to hear from Christians like you Wade. Well said. 

Edited July 8, 2014 by 3DOP

[Storm Rider]

One of the biggest differences between Christians are those who recognize that alone, without an interpreter, the Scripture can be plausibly understood multiple ways...and those who don't make that acknowledgment. I also appreciate what you said about prayer, increasing in virtue, becoming more like God, as a way to help us know our way. What makes me continue hanging around this board is to hear from Christians like you Wade. Well said. 

 

I find some of my most rewarding experiences while traveling and living life are the times when I find a fellow follower of Christ that enables the sweet Spirit of union to exist even though I am a LDS and they attend church elsewhere.  No judgment, no preconceptions, no attempt to disprove the beliefs of the other; just a peaceful joy acknowledging that we follow the same Master.  There is so much to learn from one another that enables us to draw all onward to a greater union with our Father in Heaven.  I appreciate you Rory for having that same Spirit about you.

[David Waltz]

The following are 2 excellent (IMO) contributions concerning an LDS concept of the Trinity by BYU professor David Paulsen:

 

 

http://www.andrewmbailey.com/trinity/Joseph%20Smith%20and%20Trinity.pdf

 

http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var1=ArtRead&var2=236&var3=issuedisplay&var4=IssRead&var5=24

 

 

I am very interested in hearing the thoughts of those who have taken the time to read them...

 

 

Grace and peace,

 

David 

[wenglund]

I find some of my most rewarding experiences while traveling and living life are the times when I find a fellow follower of Christ that enables the sweet Spirit of union to exist even though I am a LDS and they attend church elsewhere.  No judgment, no preconceptions, no attempt to disprove the beliefs of the other; just a peaceful joy acknowledging that we follow the same Master.  There is so much to learn from one another that enables us to draw all onward to a greater union with our Father in Heaven.  I appreciate you Rory for having that same Spirit about you.

 

Indeed, for to me, it is by interacting with good Christian people like 3DOP that in no small way I come to better know God. God is manifest, as He should be, in their countenance and in their gospel fruits. To an extent, seeing them is believing in and understand Him.

 

In truth, the gospel isn't about oft counterproductive doctrinal disputations about the exact way in which God may be three in one, but rather about our becoming more like Christ and one with Him. In so doing, the nature of the three-ness and one-ness is increasingly revealed in ways that we can efficaciously comprehend in this life, which comprehensions may or may not hold perfectly true in the transcendent resurrection of the after-life.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

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

And of course the article itself is not doctrinal by its own definition.

[mfbukowski]

Beautifully written. I am so tired of theosis in the church fathers being taken horribly out of context... Again it appears that understanding the lexical nuances of "theos" is incredibly important. Early church fathers used language like "becoming god" but would qualify that and deny that we become like God the Father himself. See Augustine On the Psalms 50.2. Daniel Peterson in a recent article takes him horribly out of context.

 

"If we have been made sons of God, we have also been made gods: but this is the effect ofGrace adopting, not of nature generating. For the only Son of God, God and one God with the Father, Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, was in the beginning the Word, and the Word with God, the Word God. The rest that are made gods, are made by His own Grace, are not born of His Substance, that they should be the same as He, but that by favor they should come to Him, and be fellow-heirs with Christ." On the Psalms 50.2.

 

LDS theology asserts that "as man is, god once was; as god is, man may become" (Lorenzo Snow). This is NOT what the church fathers meant by "becoming god."

Substance theology.  Nothing is described.

[mfbukowski]

aaron

To my Protestant and Catholic friends,

3DOP

Aaron, Hi. I am a Catholic.

aaron

With the trinity doctrine in mind, can the Father be a God without Christ? I believe He can.

3DOP

Such a Supreme Bring might inspire a sort of dreadful awe. He would not be the God of Christian revelation. I do not believe we could be called to love the Lord with all of our heart, and mind, and soul, and strength if He was not the One God of whom all paternity in heaven and earth is named. So yes, apart from Christ, there could be a sole lone God, a different God, one who never begot anything, and from whom nothing ever proceeded. It is because such a God is interiorly sterile, that I hesitate in this era of God's revelation, to affirm that Muslims and Jews worship the same One God.

aaron

Can Christ be a God without the Father? I believe He cannot.

3DOP

Agreed. Without God as Father, there is no Christ. There is only a Supreme Being, alone for all eternity, making creatures that in some respects resemble It, but for whom the germs of divine union seem remote.

 

aaron

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

3DOP

It is because God is Father, that the Son was begotten, and the Spirit proceeded in an eternal spiration of unified and perfect intimacy. The Father alone is the fount of divinity and this is why in justice, all glory redounds ultimately to the Father. In, from, and through Christ, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, we praise the One God and Father of all.  

 

aaron

In other words, they are not co-equals.

3DOP

In the context of His return to His beloved Father, Jesus tells the Apostles that they should rejoice at His return to God, which is recorded for us at the beginning of the Acts of the Apostles, because "the Father is greater than I" (Jn. 14:28). There has to be a significant sense in which the Son and Father are unequal, and I believe you have touched upon it.

Does this mean that the Father is greater in every respect? Does it necessarily mean that the Divine Love which begot an only Son reserved a portion of His Divinity from His natural Son. When we understand that even we, His adopted sons and daughters may be righty designated as "gods in the bud", how can we think that John 14:28 implies that Christ is some kind of ghastly child of a God who had an offspring that wasn't "after his kind." Unequal does not necessarily imply ontological superiority for the Father. Fatherhood itself hints loudly that the inequality is of a different kind

aaron

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

3DOP

Dogmatic affirmative. Jesus Christ wil have His resurrected body for all eternity. Great job aaron stirring up happy thoughts!

 

aaron

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.

3DOP

We hold that a spirit is incorporeal, without a body. Now spirits may take different bodily forms, but they are not permanent. Angels often appear in the form of a man when they show themselves to men.  But just like the Holy Ghost isn't a bird, the angel isn't a man. (I am just explaining our position, not presuming to teach as though I have established it to be so.) As for their spirits being separate? The Life of the Blessed Trinity seems so unified that even when God reveals designated actions for the Holy Ghost, such as indwelling and sanctifying the adopted children of God, there is a sense in which the entire Godhead is participating. For that reason, I probably should refrain from saying that the "spirits" of the Persons of the Trinity are distinct.

aaron    

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

3DOP

Yes to the first two. I would be uncomfortable with saying that the Father and Holy Ghost have different spirits.

aaron

 If the Holy Ghost and the Father are separate than what is the Father?

3DOP

Give me a few more years. If I make it to heaven I'll try to accumulate some data! Separate or not, what is God the Father? We don't even know, we can't even comprehend what this God has prepared for those who love Him. How can we know what infinite Divinity is? We cannot define God. We can be aware by faith of His greatness and His continuous solicitude for our salvation and well-being. It is a dogma of the Catholic faith that God cannot be defined. We can know that He who the created universe cannot contain dwelt in a Virgin's Womb for one sole purpose, the well-being of creatures who had been alienated from their sole source of happiness. We know the Father sent His Son for us. What more do we need for now?

aaron

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.

3DOP

I think that may be a good way of expressing it aaron. I would agree that the Son, through His Body may ordinarily inhabit only one location. But He would not lose the divine attribute which also permit Him to be "everywhere and nowhere" at he same time by His divine spirit. A tangent if you will: Even we who deny corporeality to the Father must admit some sense in which the Father is more geographically present somewhere, or else how could the Son return? The angels are considered as present according to where their activity can be known. Heaven must be a geographical place, prepared for us, where the angels actively offer their worthy praises and where the Father receives it. But yes, I think I can accept what you say in that the Father is nowhere physically but everywhere in other respects.

 

aaron

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?

3DOP

Dogmatic negative.

aaron

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?

3DOP

If God were finite then it would bring increase to multiply the gods. This brings us nearer to why we insist that the Three are One. Each individually, must, if God is infinite, have the same infinite divinity. There cannot be more than one infinite divinity. That is why I want to limit any distinction between the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to their Personhood. Christ revealed an interior life in the Godhead, to use your term, that is infinitely filled with life and love.  

 

aaron

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.

3DOP

There are gods and there is God at least. We agree on that.

aaron

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

3DOP

I think it is essential to know whether we believe God is finite or infinite. If anything is infinite, it would be folly to attempt to define it. There would always be more!

aaron

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.

3DOP

It appears to me that there are different meanings. If I understand you correctly, this relieves me of the obligation to tell you everything about God (fortunately for me!). I would add that we have to be aware of the other's belief about spirit, if we would correctly understand the other. Thanks Aaron for the thoughtful and provocative questions. It has been a most pleasant exercise this morning making a reply. God bless.

Rory

Aaron has been banned from the thread and cannot see this much less reply.  The reason for this is as mysterious as the Trinity itself.

[mfbukowski]

The following are 2 excellent (IMO) contributions concerning an LDS concept of the Trinity by BYU professor David Paulsen:

 

 

http://www.andrewmbailey.com/trinity/Joseph%20Smith%20and%20Trinity.pdf

 

http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var1=ArtRead&var2=236&var3=issuedisplay&var4=IssRead&var5=24

 

 

I am very interested in hearing the thoughts of those who have taken the time to read them...

 

 

Grace and peace,

 

David 

Thanks David, wonderful articles, and I agree that these would be a great basis for further discussion.  I hope our EV friends will read them as well.

 

I will respond after I have finished both and I hope others do as well.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Aaron has been banned from the thread and cannot see this much less reply.  The reason for this is as mysterious as the Trinity itself.

Rofl. That is great bit of wit you got going on here.

[teddyaware]

Substance theology.  Nothing is described.

In reality, am I night right when I say this whole controversy basically boils down to one simple point of disagreement -- what precisely is the nature of the substance that unifies the three separate personages of the Godhead? If I rightly understand the non-LDS Christian point of view on this subject, the precise nature of that unifying substance is left to forever remain as an undefined and incomprehensible mystery. Meanwhile the Latter-day Saints teach that the substance that unifies the Godhead is the eternal, uncreated Spirit of Truth, also known as the Spirit, or Mind, of God (see the Lectures on Faith). Speaking of the Holy Ghost as the conveyer to man of this uncreated Spirit of Truth, the Book of Moses tells us the following about the nature of this eternal Spirit that unifies the Father and the Son:

61 Therefore it is given to abide in you; the record of heaven; the Comforter; the peaceable things of immortal glory; the truth of all things; that which quickeneth all things, which maketh alive all things; that which knoweth all things, and hath all power according to wisdom, mercy, truth, justice, and judgment. (Moses 6)

 

So from this verse we learn the eternal Spirit of Truth:

1) Knows the truth of all things.

2) Energizes all things with the power to act.

3) Gives life to all things.

4) Is the divine repository of all knowledge.

5) Has infinite and eternal power.

6) Exists as a substance that is always in perfect harmony with divine wisdom, mercy, truth, justice and judgment.

 

Now let's face it, if the above described holy substance known as the eternal Spirit of Truth simultaneously exists in eternal fullness within both the Father and the Son, it would most certainly enable them to be one God while remaining separate and distinct personages. As a consequence of the indwelling of that holy substance, and without individual variation both personages would:

 

a) ... know the truth of all things.

b) ... be able to empower and energize all things.

c) ... be able to impart life to all things.

d) ... possess all knowledge.

e) ... possess an endless supply of infinite and eternal power.

f) ...  forever be the living embodiments of divine wisdom, mercy, truth, justice and judgment.

 

By means of this shared holy substance, the Father and the Son will forever be one God while remaining separate and distinct persons.

 

It is by no means coincidental that this uncreated Spirit of Truth is also the same holy substance that unifies the saints with God:

16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.

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

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

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

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

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

And it is by no means coincidental that the uncreated Spirit of Truth is also the same holy substance that unifies the saints with each other.

11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.

13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. (1 Corinthians 12)

 

I have briefly outline the simple LDS answer to the Trinitarian controversy. But it's highly unlikely my scripturally based explanation will hold sway with most because mystification and endless discussions over incomprehensible mysteries are more 'fun' than simple answers that make everything clear and understandable. It's like catching the "big one" and then realizing there's nothing left to look forward to.

 

Edited July 8, 2014 by teddyaware