What's Up With The Trinity

[3DOP]

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.

Okay. Thanks. He did seem earnest and being new, perhaps he got a little too aggressive. I missed it I when I skimmed the thread.

[mfbukowski]

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.

Thanks teddy, as always very thoughtful post. I don't know that it solves the problems of vagueness found in the word "substance".

But in my opinion that still leaves us in very vague territory. The classical LDS response is that what unifies the Godhead is Purpose. What is their purpose? "The immortality and eternal life of man", in other words, "raising the kids", - us- (the Plan of Salvation and Exaltation)

If one wants a scriptural basis for that, there is a very simple one- "God is love".

That accounts for Social Trinitarianism- that what unifies the Godhead is love. Three persons- at least- unified in purpose and love- raising a family- us.

Simple, direct, scriptural, and to the point.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

That accounts for Social Trinitarianism- that what unifies the Godhead is love. Three persons- at least- unified in purpose and love- raising a family- us.

Simple, direct, scriptural, and to the point.

And that really is what the LDS are.

[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 

Just a side note - a quote from the second article.

 

Before addressing your questions, it is important for readers of Modern Reformation to understand that Latter-day Saints have no official theology as such. Our doctrines are based not on rational theologizing, but on what we believe to be divine self-disclosures. Joseph Smith, founding prophet and first President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints once said:

Could we read and comprehend all that has been written from the days of Adam on the relation of man to God ... we should know little about it .... Could you gaze into heaven five minutes, you should know more than you would by reading all that ever was written on the subject. (1)

 

Honest David I am not making this up. 

[mfbukowski]

And that really is what the LDS are.

Well to me the point is, that no one can define God "really", but there should be something comprehensible for humans that we can use to think productively about Him.

 

One of the earlier posts from Logan I believe said that the Trinity was a "description".  This one is as well, but for me, I can understand this description, but not the other.

 

Such it is for simple minded people like me.  Tell me a story in the stained glass windows I can take home with me in my little mind, and live my life in peace, knowing God loves me and that I can pray to my Father, and understand what that means.

 

Since there are no facts, just descriptions, let's at least make the descriptions coherent.

[halconero]

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. 

 

It's why I said in my opening post that I believe that the argument concerning the nature of the Trinity should rest upon the apostolic authority of the Church Fathers and Bishops who wrote about, developed and published Trinitarian doctrine. I believe that to be a much more solid foundation than "because the Bible says so."

[halconero]

I've been busy with golf, hiking, and swimming these past few days. I'll respond more in full later this evening. I'll reiterate what I said in my first post though: neither the Old Testament, nor the New Testament support a strict monotheism or provide a conclusive backing of the Trinity as described by orthodoxy. A more solid foundation for the doctrine by those who claim orthodoxy should rest upon the doctrine of apostolic succession. This is a stumbling rock for those Christians who want preach an orthodox view of the Trinity, yet reject the idea of priesthood or apostolic succession.

[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 

OK David- I have read both articles and agree completely with them- in fact all the way through them I was saying to myself: "That's exactly what I was just saying"!

 

Of course he says it all much more elegantly.  On page 5 of the article, it says:

Stead then elucidates three possible ways in which homoousios could be

viewed.27 He concludes:

Homoousios guarantees very litt le; it can be used of things which resemble

one another merely in belonging to the created order, or to

the category of substance; it can relate collaterals to each other, or

derivatives with their source; it does not exclude inequality of status

or power.28

This states elegantly what I mean when I speak crudely of the ambiguity of "substance" and the problems of "substance theology".  As the paper shows, these issues have been argued through the centuries.

 

Paulsen also affirms the Social Trinitarian position, and speaks of the oneness of God as the oneness of a "community", and the unity of God as "love".

 

I feel like I am in very good company with the things I have said on this thread.

 

But quite frankly- I think there is nothing new in this article- or both of them for that matter.  They perfectly reflect and elegantly state the positions of probably every LDS member on this thread.  Paulsen states the LDS position perfectly, and articulately with profound philosophical acumen, but it is certainly not news to any faithful LDS.

 

Edit:

I enjoyed this so much I thought I would include more from the article immediately following what I quoted above.  I know that not all will read the article- but this just HAD to be posted to fill out my position stated throughout this thread

 

William Alston concurs with Stead, writing, “and because of this ambiguity

the crucial statement of the Nicene creed that the Son is ‘homoousios with

the Father’ is likewise ambiguous.”29 Indeed, for more than fi ft y years aft er

Nicaea, the Church debated exactly what it had affi rmed. Various alternatives

were tried: “Exact image of the Godhead” (Second Creed of Antioch,

341); “Like the Father who begot Him according to the Scriptures” (Dated

Creed, Fourth of Sirmium); “Of like essence with the Father” (Ancyra,

358); “Unlike the Father” (the teaching of Aetius and Eunomius and, by

implication, of the Second Creed of Sirmium, 357).30 Lastly, consider the

uncertainty of Hilary of Poitiers concerning the term homoousion:

“It is a thing,” says Hilary, “equally deplorable and dangerous, that

there are as many creeds as opinions among men, as many doctrines

as inclinations, and as many sources of blasphemy as there

are faults among us; because we make creeds arbitrarily, and explain

them away as arbitrarily. The homoousion is rejected, and received,

and explained away by successive synods. The partial or total resemblance

of the Father and the Son is a subject of dispute for these

unhappy times. Every year, nay, every moon, we make new creeds

to describe invisible mysteries. We repent of what we have done,

we defend those who repent, we anathematize those whom we have

defended. We condemn either the doctrine of others in ourselves, or

our own in that of others; and, reciprocally tearing one another to

pieces, we have been the cause of each other’s ruin.”31

If the originators and those who immediately followed could come to

no consensus concerning the meaning of the creed, it is clear that modern

Christians are not bound to a homogenous interpretation of it.32 Proponents

of ST (including Mormons) can accept the Nicene Creed as a

declaration of the full divinity of Jesus Christ while rejecting the ontological

identity of the three divine persons. This point is important and worth

repeating: the Nicene Creed can be (and was historically) interpreted in

varying ways, by varying groups, with varying theological commitments.

Any number of persons, including modalists and proponents of ST, can

subscribe to the creed, each producing its own studies to show why

homoousios ought to be understood in a particular way.

The other technically critical words in trinitarian discourse, namely

ousia and hypostasis, suff er from the same historical ambiguity as

homoousios.33 Consider Joseph Lienhard’s hesitation to strictly defi ne these

terms, “I do not off er a uniform translation of ousia and hypostasis. Such

a refusal arises not only from cowardice, but also from the recognition

of a fact: fourth-century authors themselves were wary of explaining the

meaning of the two words, and generally resorted to comparisons rather

than defi nitions.”34

And here we are, still arguing the same silly points. 1700 years of confusion out of one phrase created by one council. What a tragedy this has been for Christianity! How can one defend that there was never an apostasy?

Edited July 9, 2014 by mfbukowski

[David Waltz]

Hi mfbukowski,

 

So good to hear that you have taken the time to read both contributions. Dr. Paulsen (with whom I have had a number of extended email exchanges with) is one of my favorite modern LDS authors—not only does he possess a gifted intellect, but he also a charitable and humble man—I consider him a dear brother in Christ.

 

Earlier today, you wrote:

 

>>OK David- I have read both articles and agree completely with them- in fact all the way through them I was saying to myself: "That's exactly what I was just saying"!

 

Of course he says it all much more elegantly.>>

 

This is great news to me, because it will allow me to use Dr. Paulsen's doctrinal reflections to convey my own thoughts on the doctrine of the Trinity (which. btw, shares a good number of common points with Dr. Paulsen's position).

 

>>This states elegantly what I mean when I speak crudely of the ambiguity of "substance" and the problems of "substance theology".  As the paper shows, these issues have been argued through the centuries.>>

 

Indeed, and this is why I have been arguing on my blog (and some message boards) the need to recover the meaning of homoousios in the original Nicene Creed, and why I have grave difficulties with the transformation of the term into monoousios.

 

>>Paulsen also affirms the Social Trinitarian position, and speaks of the oneness of God as the oneness of a "community", and the unity of God as "love".>>

 

He also states that the "oneness of God" also has reference God's "attributes and nature" (p. 54). And goes on the write:

 

>>Along with explaining the concept of “one God” as relating to a unity of will, Smith also taught that there is “one God” in the sense of only one type of “God-nature” or set of attributes, severally necessary and jointly sufficient, for divinity.>> (Page 55, bold emphasis mine.)

 

And a bit later:

 

>> Consistent with his revelations, when Smith declares there are “three Gods,” he means that there are three individual persons, each of whom is divine. When he affirms that there is “one God,” he means that either there is one God the Father, one perfectly united divine community or one generic divine nature.>> (Page 56, bold emphasis mine.)

 

I have argued at length that homoousis in the original Nicene Creed is referring to one generic divine nature shared equally by the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

 

So, in ending (f0r now), I would like to suggest that you back off bit from your castigation of "substance theology" and embrace the "nature theology" (nature is a synonym of essence/substance in my terminology) of Dr. Paulsen, Joseph Smith Jr., and yours truly.

 

 

Grace and peace,

 

David

Edited July 9, 2014 by David Waltz

[mfbukowski]

Hi mfbukowski,

 

So good to hear that you have taken the time to read both contributions. Dr. Paulsen (with whom I have had a number of extended email exchanges with) is one of my favorite modern LDS authors—not only does he possess a gifted intellect, but he also a charitable and humble man—I consider him a dear brother in Christ.

 

Earlier today, you wrote:

 

>>OK David- I have read both articles and agree completely with them- in fact all the way through them I was saying to myself: "That's exactly what I was just saying"!

 

Of course he says it all much more elegantly.>>

 

This is great news to me, because it will allow me to use Dr. Paulsen's doctrinal reflections to convey my own thoughts on the doctrine of the Trinity (which. btw, shares a good number of common points with Dr. Paulsen's position).

 

>>This states elegantly what I mean when I speak crudely of the ambiguity of "substance" and the problems of "substance theology".  As the paper shows, these issues have been argued through the centuries.>>

 

Indeed, and this is why I have been arguing on my blog (and some message boards) the need to recover the meaning of homoousios in the original Nicene Creed, and why I have grave difficulties with the transformation of the term into monoousios.

 

>>Paulsen also affirms the Social Trinitarian position, and speaks of the oneness of God as the oneness of a "community", and the unity of God as "love".>>

 

He also states that the "oneness of God" also has reference God's "attributes and nature" (p. 54). And goes on the write:

 

>>Along with explaining the concept of “one God” as relating to a unity of will, Smith also taught that there is “one God” in the sense of only one type of “God-nature” or set of attributes, severally necessary and jointly sufficient, for divinity.>> (Page 55, bold emphasis mine.)

 

And a bit later:

 

>> Consistent with his revelations, when Smith declares there are “three Gods,” he means that there are three individual persons, each of whom is divine. When he affirms that there is “one God,” he means that either there is one God the Father, one perfectly united divine community or one generic divine nature.>> (Page 56, bold emphasis mine.)

 

I have argued at length that homoousis in the original Nicene Creed is referring to one generic divine nature shared equally by the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

 

So, in ending (f0r now), I would like to suggest that you back off bit from your castigation of "substance theology" and embrace the "nature theology" (nature is a synonym of essence/substance in my terminology) of Dr. Paulsen, Joseph Smith Jr., and yours truly.

 

 

Grace and peace,

 

David

Well said kind sir, and I am the first to admit I am often brash and arrogant,primarily because while writing I am in "debate mode" and have spent too much time in internet religion wars and not enough in the ivory tower. But God hasn't finished with me yet, I hope and pray.

I'm an awfully nice guy one on one, ;)and really need to learn to be more peaceable in my writing. Part of it I think is that I want to make the point quickly and strongly without beating around the bush, but certainly charity is lacking in my posts.

I will think about your suggestion to speak in terms of "natures", and my initial reaction is that I have no problem with the concept whatsoever as long as we acknowledge that Christ's one nature INCLUDES what historically has been called "human nature", that indeed we are one in nature with the Godhead, as tiny gods in embryo. I will even say we are of one "substance" if that helps, with God, as distinct from animals and plants and other non-living things.

But somehow I don't think that will work for you.

I am not sure that is really the best word because defining it in that way is certainly a departure from its ordinary meaning at least in your theological context. But I personally would have no problem with it, and indeed we Mormons say all the time that we participate in the Divine Nature.

So what's wrong with the Social Trinitarian view that the term "God" defines a community of (at least) 3 Divine Persons unified by love?

An interesting twist here might be to discuss the role of Mary and whether or not she would share in the Divine Nature in your schema, and if not Mary, why not us? I suppose that view would do violence to the Catholic view of the Immaculate Conception and Original Sin as well, so I am not sure that would work for you either.

Thanks again for your reply

Mark

[saemo]

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)

Well said, and I agree. The difference we have is that we understand there is an ontological difference between human nature and divine nature. We partake of the divine nature as humans, not as gods. Sharing in all Jesus has. The limitation you perceive is one of the created, us, not being the creator, God. It is not a withholding but a recognition of a difference between us and God.

[mfbukowski]

Hi mfbukowski,

 

So good to hear that you have taken the time to read both contributions. Dr. Paulsen (with whom I have had a number of extended email exchanges with) is one of my favorite modern LDS authors—not only does he possess a gifted intellect, but he also a charitable and humble man—I consider him a dear brother in Christ.

 

Earlier today, you wrote:

 

>>OK David- I have read both articles and agree completely with them- in fact all the way through them I was saying to myself: "That's exactly what I was just saying"!

 

Of course he says it all much more elegantly.>>

 

This is great news to me, because it will allow me to use Dr. Paulsen's doctrinal reflections to convey my own thoughts on the doctrine of the Trinity (which. btw, shares a good number of common points with Dr. Paulsen's position).

 

>>This states elegantly what I mean when I speak crudely of the ambiguity of "substance" and the problems of "substance theology".  As the paper shows, these issues have been argued through the centuries.>>

 

Indeed, and this is why I have been arguing on my blog (and some message boards) the need to recover the meaning of homoousios in the original Nicene Creed, and why I have grave difficulties with the transformation of the term into monoousios.

 

>>Paulsen also affirms the Social Trinitarian position, and speaks of the oneness of God as the oneness of a "community", and the unity of God as "love".>>

 

He also states that the "oneness of God" also has reference God's "attributes and nature" (p. 54). And goes on the write:

 

>>Along with explaining the concept of “one God” as relating to a unity of will, Smith also taught that there is “one God” in the sense of only one type of “God-nature” or set of attributes, severally necessary and jointly sufficient, for divinity.>> (Page 55, bold emphasis mine.)

 

And a bit later:

 

>> Consistent with his revelations, when Smith declares there are “three Gods,” he means that there are three individual persons, each of whom is divine. When he affirms that there is “one God,” he means that either there is one God the Father, one perfectly united divine community or one generic divine nature.>> (Page 56, bold emphasis mine.)

 

I have argued at length that homoousis in the original Nicene Creed is referring to one generic divine nature shared equally by the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

 

So, in ending (f0r now), I would like to suggest that you back off bit from your castigation of "substance theology" and embrace the "nature theology" (nature is a synonym of essence/substance in my terminology) of Dr. Paulsen, Joseph Smith Jr., and yours truly.

 

 

Grace and peace,

 

David

David, one further point here that you may not be aware of, but LDS believe that men and women together share in the divine nature, and that we have a Heavenly Mother as well.

I have not had time to research Paulsen's position in detail, but this article definitely gives clues: http://squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleCasslerPaulsenPulido.html

So make sure you consider these possibilities when talking about a single nature of the Godhead- you may be accepting more than you want to if you think you and Paulsen are on the same page.

Further, from the other article you cited we have this statement of Paulsen:

 

MR: What is the relationship between man (specifically Adam) and God? Is God an exalted man? Is it possible for men to become God? Was God once mortal flesh like we are? DP: We believe that God the Father is, in a literal sense, the father of the human family. ( Men and women are "begotten sons and daughters unto God." We are his children, not mere creatures. In a 1995 official proclamation, the First Presidency and Council of Twelve Apostles of the Church declared: "All human beings-male and female-are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny..." (9) Adam is a "noble and great" spirit son of God our Father. God (the Son) was once mortal flesh like we are (John 1:1-5, 14), though not exactly like we are for he was God incarnate. He is now exalted and resurrected with a body of flesh and bones (Luke 24:36-43). And when we are resurrected we will be like him (I John 3:2). Latter-day Saints thus affirm the teaching of the New Testament and the early church fathers that we, as God's children, through the grace of Christ and the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit, may become partakers of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4). (10) In addition, many Latter-day Saints believe that prior to our creation God (the Father) also was incarnate on an earth in much the same way God (the Son) was incarnate on our earth. (11) This helps us understand why the Father, in both the Old and New Testament, is consistently portrayed as a gloriously exalted embodied person, humanlike in form. (12)

https://byustudies.byu.edu/PDFViewer.aspx?title=8669&linkURL=50.1PaulsenPulidoMother-482bf17d-bbc5-4530-a7cc-c1a1b7e5b079.pdf

The above is the full text of the article cited about Heavenly Mother, and discusses the "Divine Nature of mankind".

Edited July 9, 2014 by mfbukowski

[teddyaware]

Well said, and I agree. The difference we have is that we understand there is an ontological difference between human nature and divine nature. We partake of the divine nature as humans, not as gods. Sharing in all Jesus has. The limitation you perceive is one of the created, us, not being the creator, God. It is not a withholding but a recognition of a difference between us and God.

Hi there,

 

Interestingly, we Latter-day saints believe in and advocate for both of these positions, and do not find them to be mutually exclusive; we hold both positions as equally true and valid. Here's how: First, we believe that as the literal spirit children of God we inherited from Him a divine nature, in much the same way earthly children inherit the human nature of their fathers and mothers. But we also believe that as a consequence of the fall the divine nature we inherited from God becomes totally lost, ineffectual and utterly inaccessible to us without the mitigating effects of the atoning sacrifice of Christ. The Book of Mormon prophet Jacob powerfully and graphically depicts the desperate predicament fallen mortal man would be in, in spite of his inherited divine nature, without the blessed intervention of the Lord Jesus Christ (if you take the time to carefully read Jacob's words, you will go a long way toward gaining an understanding of the theology of the Latter-day Saints).

7 Wherefore, it must needs be an infinite atonement—save it should be an infinite atonement this corruption could not put on incorruption. Wherefore, the first judgment which came upon man must needs have remained to an endless duration. And if so, this flesh must have laid down to rot and to crumble to its mother earth, to rise no more.

8 O the wisdom of God, his mercy and grace! For behold, if the flesh should rise no more our spirits must become subject to that angel who fell from before the presence of the Eternal God, and became the devil, to rise no more.

9 And our spirits must have become like unto him, and we become devils, angels to a devil, to be shut out from the presence of our God, and to remain with the father of lies, in misery, like unto himself; yea, to that being who beguiled our first parents, who transformeth himself nigh unto an angel of light,and stirreth up the children of men unto secret combinations of murder and all manner of secret works of darkness.

10 O how great the goodness of our God, who prepareth a way for our escape from the grasp of this awful monster; yea, that monster, death and hell, which I call the death of the body, and also the death of the spirit. (2 Nephi 9)

 

So here we see that in spite of man's inherited divine nature, the Latter-day Saints believe as a consequence of the fall man is placed in exactly the same dire predicament you believe he is in. In other words, the Latter-day saints believe the inherited divine nature of man is meaningless and powerless without the atoning sacrifice of the Son of God to mitigate the downward pull of the fallen nature. So our positions are closer than you might have realized; for without the infinite and eternal atonement of Christ the inherited divine nature avails us nothing, for the fall renders that divine nature utterly powerless to make a positive and meaningful difference for the better.

 

Edited July 9, 2014 by teddyaware

[webbles]

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 discussion has already gone by this but I just wanted to reply quickly.

 

I don't see how the 8th article of faith states that.  The 8th article of faith is specifically about translation or transmission.  I'm talking about the original intent of the authors.  We know that the apostles contradicted themselves in at least one instance (circumcision) and it apparently took heated discussions and an assembly to come to an agreement.  So I don't see why we must accept that they would use complimentary views of "theos".

[saemo]

Hi there,

 

Interestingly, we Latter-day saints believe in and advocate for both of these positions, and do not find them to be mutually exclusive; we hold both positions as equally true and valid. Here's how: First, we believe that as the literal spirit children of God we inherited from Him a divine nature, in much the same way earthly children inherit the human nature of their fathers and mothers. But we also believe that as a consequence of the fall the divine nature we inherited from God becomes totally lost, ineffectual and utterly inaccessible to us without the mitigating effects of the atoning sacrifice of Christ. The Book of Mormon prophet Jacob powerfully and graphically depicts the desperate predicament fallen mortal man would be in, in spite of his inherited divine nature, without the blessed intervention of the Lord Jesus Christ (if you take the time to carefully read Jacob's words, you will go a long way toward gaining an understanding of the theology of the Latter-day Saints).

7 Wherefore, it must needs be an infinite atonement—save it should be an infinite atonement this corruption could not put on incorruption. Wherefore, the first judgment which came upon man must needs have remained to an endless duration. And if so, this flesh must have laid down to rot and to crumble to its mother earth, to rise no more.

8 O the wisdom of God, his mercy and grace! For behold, if the flesh should rise no more our spirits must become subject to that angel who fell from before the presence of the Eternal God, and became the devil, to rise no more.

9 And our spirits must have become like unto him, and we become devils, angels to a devil, to be shut out from the presence of our God, and to remain with the father of lies, in misery, like unto himself; yea, to that being who beguiled our first parents, who transformeth himself nigh unto an angel of light,and stirreth up the children of men unto secret combinations of murder and all manner of secret works of darkness.

10 O how great the goodness of our God, who prepareth a way for our escape from the grasp of this awful monster; yea, that monster, death and hell, which I call the death of the body, and also the death of the spirit. (2 Nephi 9)

 

So here we see that in spite of man's inherited divine nature, the Latter-day Saints believe as a consequence of the fall man is placed in exactly the same dire predicament you believe he is in. In other words, the Latter-day saints believe the inherited divine nature of man is meaningless and powerless without the atoning sacrifice of the Son of God to mitigate the downward pull of the fallen nature. So our positions are closer than you might have realized; for without the infinite and eternal atonement of Christ the inherited divine nature avails us nothing, for the fall renders that divine nature utterly powerless to make a positive and meaningful difference for the better.

Well, we don't have a divine nature, so your comparison has this foundation that won't hold up the similarities you hope to make.

[3DOP]

I speak of "gods in the bud". bukowski speaks of "god in embryo". How is the one "Catholic" and the other "LDS"? Or put another way, why is the one apostate, and the other okay?

[Storm Rider]

I speak of "gods in the bud". bukowski speaks of "god in embryo". How is the one "Catholic" and the other "LDS"? Or put another way, why is the one apostate, and the other okay?

 

I think it is who is doing the speaking and who is listening.  For one it is divine, holy truths and yet for the other is vile lies.  On the road to discipleship there is a point where it is the pursuit of truth that takes precedence rather than whomever is identified as the teacher.  There is a evolution from zealot to mature disciple.  Being a bit dramatic, the one is prepared to burn his brother at the stake and  the other extends the hand of fellowship while walking together.  

[teddyaware]

Well, we don't have a divine nature, so your comparison has this foundation that won't hold up the similarities you hope to make.

I know for a surety that man has inherited a divine nature from the Father of our spirits, but in this fallen state the divine nature is utterly powerless to save us, only living faith in Christ and His atonement can do that.

 

But believe me, you are going to have a very hard sell around here trying to get the Latter-day Saints to deny their testimonies of the doctrine that God is the literal Father of our spirits -- reason being that it is such an ennobling and powerfully motivating principle to believe that at the core of who we are is something divine. The very thought that God is the literal Father of our spirits thrills the soul and gives us hope for dynamic spiritual growth through our Saviour. Like substances attract and "light cleaveth unto light," and it is a most sublime thought to realize that God is not a total stranger to us, but that we are his dearly beloved children, cherished members of His family (it's important to understand the reason why fallen humans often respond so positively and dynamically to the Gospel message is because even in our fallen state there is a preexisting divine light within us (our spirit) that recognizes the truth when it is presented with power).

 

I'll say it again, you are going to have a very tough sell. For who wouldn't want to believe that God is our literal Father and that He loves us with an undying love because in a very literal sense we are His eternally beloved children?

7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chaste

neth not?

8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.

9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? (Hebrews 12)

 

All the best...

 

Addendum: Is it not true that even you as a Catholic must acknowledge all humans are born with some aspect of the divine nature? I say this because the Bible teaches us that Christ "is the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." So even in the fallen state, before conversion, the light of Christ exists within our consciences, clearly demonstrating that God has not left earthbound man utterly devoid of the divine light, else why in our fallen state do we respond to that light when we se it? If all there is wretched darkness within us, why do we recognize the light?

Edited July 9, 2014 by teddyaware

[mfbukowski]

I speak of "gods in the bud". bukowski speaks of "god in embryo". How is the one "Catholic" and the other "LDS"? Or put another way, why is the one apostate, and the other okay?

Hey if you can pass a temple recommend interview honestly we will be in the same church.

 

There is nothing I would want to see more.  And if you would just stop counting natures and substances (two natures, one substance, bread and flesh having the same substance, essence, being, whatever) I would be in yours.  

 

Oh yeah.  You would also have to make Wittgenstein a saint of course.  

[mfbukowski]

Well, we don't have a divine nature, so your comparison has this foundation that won't hold up the similarities you hope to make.

I pulled out my nature meter and tested 587 people and they all had a divine nature.

 

It's scientifically established now.

[mfbukowski]

I know for a surety that man has inherited a divine nature from the Father of our spirits, but in this fallen state the divine nature is utterly powerless to save us, only living faith in Christ and in His atonement can do that.

 

But believe me, you are going to have a very hard sell around here trying to get the Latter-day Saints to deny their testimonies of the doctrine that God is the literal Father of our spirits -- reason being that it is such an ennobling and powerfully motivating principle to believe that at the core of who we are is something divine. The very thought that God is the literal Father of our spirits thrills the soul and gives us hope for dynamic spiritual growth through our Saviour. Like substances attract and "light cleaveth unto light," and it is a most sublime thought to realize that God is not a total stranger to us, but that we are his dearly beloved children, cherished members of His family (it's important to understand the reason why fallen humans often respond so positively and dynamically to the Gospel message is because even in our fallen state there is a preexisting divine light within us (our spirit) that recognizes the truth when it is presented with power).

 

I'll say it again, you are going to have a very tough sell. For who wouldn't want to believe that God is our literal Father and that He loves us with an undying love because in a very literal sense we are His eternally beloved children?

7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chaste

neth not?

8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.

9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? (Hebrews 12)

 

All the best...

 

Addendum: Is it not true that even you as a Catholic must acknowledge all humans are born with some aspect of the divine nature? I say this because the Bible teaches us that Christ "is the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." So even in the fallen state, before conversion, the light of Christ exists within our consciences, clearly demonstrating that God has not left earthbound man utterly devoid of the divine light, else why in our fallen state do we respond to that light when we se it? If all there is wretched darkness within us, why do we recognize the light?

Well said!

[mfbukowski]

The discussion has already gone by this but I just wanted to reply quickly.

 

I don't see how the 8th article of faith states that.  The 8th article of faith is specifically about translation or transmission.  I'm talking about the original intent of the authors.  We know that the apostles contradicted themselves in at least one instance (circumcision) and it apparently took heated discussions and an assembly to come to an agreement.  So I don't see why we must accept that they would use complimentary views of "theos".

As usual they construct a straw man and demolish it in their minds.  This thread proves they are not interested in real dialogue.

 

They started it, now where are they?

[mfbukowski]

The entire problem is trying to count and define what is uncountable and indefinable.

[3DOP]

Hi mfbukowski,

 

So good to hear that you have taken the time to read both contributions. Dr. Paulsen (with whom I have had a number of extended email exchanges with) is one of my favorite modern LDS authors—not only does he possess a gifted intellect, but he also a charitable and humble man—I consider him a dear brother in Christ.

 

Earlier today, you wrote:

 

>>OK David- I have read both articles and agree completely with them- in fact all the way through them I was saying to myself: "That's exactly what I was just saying"!

 

Of course he says it all much more elegantly.>>

 

This is great news to me, because it will allow me to use Dr. Paulsen's doctrinal reflections to convey my own thoughts on the doctrine of the Trinity (which. btw, shares a good number of common points with Dr. Paulsen's position).

 

>>This states elegantly what I mean when I speak crudely of the ambiguity of "substance" and the problems of "substance theology".  As the paper shows, these issues have been argued through the centuries.>>

 

Indeed, and this is why I have been arguing on my blog (and some message boards) the need to recover the meaning of homoousios in the original Nicene Creed, and why I have grave difficulties with the transformation of the term into monoousios.

 

>>Paulsen also affirms the Social Trinitarian position, and speaks of the oneness of God as the oneness of a "community", and the unity of God as "love".>>

 

He also states that the "oneness of God" also has reference God's "attributes and nature" (p. 54). And goes on the write:

 

>>Along with explaining the concept of “one God” as relating to a unity of will, Smith also taught that there is “one God” in the sense of only one type of “God-nature” or set of attributes, severally necessary and jointly sufficient, for divinity.>> (Page 55, bold emphasis mine.)

 

And a bit later:

 

>> Consistent with his revelations, when Smith declares there are “three Gods,” he means that there are three individual persons, each of whom is divine. When he affirms that there is “one God,” he means that either there is one God the Father, one perfectly united divine community or one generic divine nature.>> (Page 56, bold emphasis mine.)

 

I have argued at length that homoousis in the original Nicene Creed is referring to one generic divine nature shared equally by the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

 

So, in ending (f0r now), I would like to suggest that you back off bit from your castigation of "substance theology" and embrace the "nature theology" (nature is a synonym of essence/substance in my terminology) of Dr. Paulsen, Joseph Smith Jr., and yours truly.

 

 

Grace and peace,

 

David

 

Dave, hi.

 

Excellent post. Thank you for bringing into play prominent LDS scholarship that makes use of the so-called "substance theology" that is regularly dismissed here because it is supposedly so obtuse and meaningless. Logan cites an elegant passage from St. Augustine describing the difference between an adopted son of God and a "natural" Son of God. It spells out a clear and accurate reason of what we believe, for anyone who would wish to understand. But instead of a discussion of why Mormons are unable to agree with a man whose writings have been admired and studied for 1600 years even by those inclined to disagree, all we can get is a bland dismissal of a sublime thought:

"Substance Theology. Nothing is described."

 

 

These discussions break down over an inability to get past a position that refuses to deal with words like "nature" that are used in Scripture and every day life, and synonyms of the word. One of those words, "substance", also has specific meanings that are not synonymous with nature. This is why the strategy of labelling our beliefs as "substance theology" has worked pretty well for the time being. Those who are unfamiliar with the theological terms easily associate substance with something you do not want the sheriff to find in your car, and instead of understanding and disagreeing with what we believe, some are duped into thinking it, if they are kind enough not to say it, that Augustine and the heirs of his "substance theology" simply created "theology for dopes".

 

But it isn't that kind of substance and Mormons would educate themselves about us better if they would willingly see the parallels between the thought of Augustine and those of thinkers like Dr. Paulsen who you cited, who could as easily be accused of being a "substance theologian" for the way he used the word "nature" in his article.  

Edited July 9, 2014 by 3DOP

[David Waltz]

Good morning Mark,

 

In your reply from last night, you wrote:

 

>>I will think about your suggestion to speak in terms of "natures", and my initial reaction is that I have no problem with the concept whatsoever as long as we acknowledge that Christ's one nature INCLUDES what historically has been called "human nature", that indeed we are one in nature with the Godhead, as tiny gods in embryo. I will even say we are of one "substance" if that helps, with God, as distinct from animals and plants and other non-living things.>>

 

My read of the LDS Quad adds a bit more complexity to the issues raised above. IMO, the BoM is quite clear that Jesus Christ was "one God" with the Father and HG before his "condescension" (before his physical birth on Earth to the Virgin Mary—i.e. incarnation). As such, I would argue that he added something to his "God-nature", the "one generic divine nature" (to use Dr. Paulsen's terminology) that made/makes him "one God" with the Father and HG.

>>I am not sure that is really the best word because defining it in that way is certainly a departure from its ordinary meaning at least in your theological context. But I personally would have no problem with it, and indeed we Mormons say all the time that we participate in the Divine Nature.>>

 

So do I, for it is clearly the language/doctrine of Scripture: "Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature..." (2 Peter 1:4a)

>>So what's wrong with the Social Trinitarian view that the term "God" defines a community of (at least) 3 Divine Persons unified by love?>>

 

IMO, nothing, as long as we also speak of the "God-nature", the "one generic divine nature".

>>An interesting twist here might be to discuss the role of Mary and whether or not she would share in the Divine Nature in your schema, and if not Mary, why not us?>>

 

I think the Virgin Mary is already a "partaker of the divine nature"; I also believe that all redeemed mankind will be "partaker of the divine nature". See the following thread for my expanded view on deification:

 

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2010/11/deification-in-bible-part-1.html

 

 

>>I suppose that view would do violence to the Catholic view of the Immaculate Conception and Original Sin as well, so I am not sure that would work for you either.>>

 

I am not a practicing member of the RCC, so the above are currently not issues for me.

 

 

Grace and peace,

 

David