LDS Mormon godhood vs Christian Trinity - Thread Split

[Jane_Doe]

If they are three different personalities, how is this any different from tritheism?

Good question. This is not my belief, so I Cannot answer it

 

[mmksparbud]

But he's God and there is only one of those

Not to you guys---- to you there are many of those gods = out there on other worlds. Why do you cloak your actual believes with what sounds like Christianity when it is not? You do not believe in one God, you believe that are many and you believe He was human before He was God and there is not one word in the bible to indicate such an outrageous concept. He is only the God of this world to you, along with his heavenly mother goddesses, with whom he is having children "in the natural manner as us"---

 

[withwonderingawe]

You left my question mark off, I was asking a question!!

 

[mmksparbud]

You left my question mark off, I was asking a question!!

But he's God and there is only one of those

I just quoted---What question mark??


Are you really asking if there is only One God-----that is what the bible says, that is what the verses that have been quoted over and over say----but I forgot---you don't believe what the bible says is correct, you believe what JS says. That is what is said throughout the bible. The fact that Jesus is also God and so is the Holy Spirit has nothing to do with any theories devised by man---the bible says it. Period. Any theories about this is just that. That is called faith. But you have to have anwers to everythinbg singke thing tha God has hoenb to not give explicit answers to. Again, that is faith. I prefer to simply take Him at His word and leave the details to Him. The bible says God the Fther is God, it ays Jesius Christ is His son who crested ALL things through Him and the Holy Spirit. The bible says nothing about what this entails or what they are made of and I do not need to know. I just need to accept what the bible says. I'll wait till after the resurrection for any further info.

 

[withwonderingawe]

I just quoted---What question mark??


Are you really asking if there is only One God-----that is what the bible says, that is what the verses that have been quoted over and over say----but I forgot---you don't believe what the bible says is correct, you believe what JS says. That is what is said throughout the bible. The fact that Jesus is also God and so is the Holy Spirit has nothing to do with any theories devised by man---the bible says it. Period. Any theories about this is just that. That is called faith. But you have to have anwers to everythinbg singke thing tha God has hoenb to not give explicit answers to. Again, that is faith. I prefer to simply take Him at His word and leave the details to Him. The bible says God the Fther is God, it ays Jesius Christ is His son who crested ALL things through Him and the Holy Spirit. The bible says nothing about what this entails or what they are made of and I do not need to know. I just need to accept what the bible says. I'll wait till after the resurrection for any further info.

You walked into the middle of a conversation;

I said to NYC; It just does not make any sense to me at all, Jesus call God/El his father and God. You can't be your own Father, you can not be your own God.


NYC said to me; Your last sentence above demonstrates that you do not understand the Trinity. We do not believe that Jesus is His own Father.

And I asked his; But he's God and there is only one of those

And you are right I left off the ?

My intent is, how can Jesus call God his Father if Jesus is God? He can’t be his own God.

 

[mmksparbud]

You walked into the middle of a conversation;

I said to NYC; It just does not make any sense to me at all, Jesus call God/El his father and God. You can't be your own Father, you can not be your own God.


NYC said to me; Your last sentence above demonstrates that you do not understand the Trinity. We do not believe that Jesus is His own Father.

And I asked his; But he's God and there is only one of those

And you are right I left off the ?

My intent is, how can Jesus call God his Father if Jesus is God? He can’t be his own God.

Yah, I know--my answer still stands.

 

[Albion]

The Nicene Creed says nothing abut "persona." Where did you get that idea?

Brain freeze, I guess. I was thinking of the Athanasian Creed there.

Also, Sabellius thought the Trinity represented different roles God plays, so yes, there was a difference between them.

Indeed. That's what I said, so no problem there.

 

[Albion]

Yes, but that is not the immediate issue. The immediate issue is how to provide a metaphysical framework to explicate and express all three as one God.

That's not the issue when the challenge is to find in the Bible something that proves the Trinity.

 

[NYCGuy]

But he's God and there is only one of those

Yes, there is only one God, and the Trinity teaches that there are three distinct Persons, who are not each other. Therefore, again, no, the Trinity does not teach that the Son is His own Father.

 

[NYCGuy]

"nor dividing the substance" & 'One being with the Father'

It just does not make any sense to me at all, Jesus call God/El his father and God. You can't be your own Father, you can not be your own God.

What does "not dividing the substance" mean to you, to lead you to say that it doesn't make any sense to you at all?

 

[NYCGuy]

Those are excellent questions, and I'm asked them many times myself, and never really gotten a straight answer from Nicene believers.

So then if you don't know since you apparently haven't gotten a "straight answer", how can you possibly say that the idea is not in the Bible, when you don't know what "idea" you're looking for anyway?

I did not see this question earlier, my apologies. The Word (referencing John 1:1) = Christ.

Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear. I wasn't asking about your understanding of "The Word", I was asking your understanding of the word that we are discussing, "substance", which is what I had originally asked.

 

[NYCGuy]

Thanks for this post. It is difficult to explain the idea of "neither confounding the person, nor dividing the substance". Especially "nor dividing the substance".

If the substance cannot be divided, then God the Father and Jesus and the HS are all in one substance. The 3 persons are separate, but not their substance. Where the Father goes, there goes the Son, there goes the HS. If their substance is ever separated, it is the end of the trinity doctrine.

Can I say that? Where the Father is, there is Jesus, there is also the HS. Where the Father goes, Jesus goes, also the HS goes. They are always together, because if they are separated, the trinity doctrine is false.

What do you mean by saying they are all "in" one substance? What does that mean? You say that the 3 persons are separate, but not their substance...what does that actually mean? Note I'm not looking for the implication (i.e. what you seem to be saying about where one Person goes the other goes-an idea I'm not necessarily supporting or denying), but what it actually is referring to.

 

[Albion]

NYCGuy, I think what we have here are several people whose main interest is in defending, in anyway possible, the position of their own church on this matter, even to the point of "playing dumb" when explanations are given by us. It's not about participating in an open exchange of ideas concerning the nature of God or of Joseph Smith's rejection of the standard Christian POV.

 

[Jane_Doe]

So then if you don't know since you apparently haven't gotten a "straight answer", how can you possibly say that the idea is not in the Bible, when you don't know what "idea" you're looking for anyway?



Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear. I wasn't asking about your understanding of "The Word", I was asking your understanding of the word that we are discussing, "substance", which is what I had originally asked.

NYC, with respect to you and Socratic learning, I've answered lots of your questions thus far, and would now appreciate it if you actually explained what you believe.

(Note: I'm not angry or frustrated or anything like that, so I hope this post doesn't sound that way)

 

[withwonderingawe]

I'm sorry but what I see here is call circular reasoning. The assumptions is there is one God -> but there are three Gods-> but there is only one God so of course the three Gods are one God which is made up of three Gods.

And not one of you can explain what the substance is!

 

[NYCGuy]

NYC, with respect to you and Socratic learning, I've answered lots of your questions thus far, and would now appreciate it if you actually explained what you believe.

(Note: I'm not angry or frustrated or anything like that, so I hope this post doesn't sound that way)

Well, I've only really had one question, and that is, what, in your view, does "substance", or "co-substantiation", mean to you, which leads to you saying that the "idea" is not found in the Bible? I don't believe that question has been answered. Instead, you said that "The way in which the Father/Son/Spirit are all 1 God but 3 different persons is because they all share a common super-meta-physical substance which makes them 1 super-meta-phyiscial being." That doesn't explain what "substance" is referring to, which was my question. Further, as I mentioned, Trinitarians do not say anything about a "super-meta-physical substance" nor "super-meta-physical being", so I'm not even sure what that is referring to.

So, while still waiting for that answer, I will provide what I believe, as a Catholic (which may differ a little from some of my Protestant brethren).

Firstly, it must be remembered that the Catholic Church believes that Divine Revelation is found in both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. We do not believe that everything must be found in the Bible, because the Bible itself does not state such an idea, and also, the Church, as established by Jesus Christ, came before the Bible was compiled (and it was compiled by the Church). Catholics also believe that Councils have always been a part of the Church, as we seen in the New Testament. We believe that Church Councils (sometimes referred to as Ecumenical Councils) are authoritative meetings of Church leaders, and that the decisions reached at these Councils are inspired of the Holy Spirit and binding on the faithful.

Catholics believe that there is only one God. We also believe that the one God eternally exists as three distinct Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They are distinct Persons who are not each other (i.e. the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Father, the Holy Spirit is not the Father nor the Son, etc). This distinguishes the Trinity doctrine from heresies such as modalism. I have noticed over the years that quite often, Mormons criticizing the Trinity doctrine will actually argue against the heresy of modalism, and not what Trinitarians actually believe (you see this right in this thread, as well as in various LDS-related books, and even in General Conference, i.e. Holland's somewhat recent talk on the purported restoration of the true idea of the Godhead). You see this when they ask questions like "how can Jesus pray to Himself?" or "how can Jesus be His own Father?" Trinitarians do not believe such ideas.

Now the issue here is what is "substance" referring to. We must remember that the Catholic Church, and Christianity in general, is 2000+ years old. It originated and developed in a non-English speaking word, and therefore, as we all agree, the Bible, as well as many other ancient Christian documents that we have today, are English translations from Hebrew, Greek, Latin, etc.

This becomes readily apparent when we realize that "substance" is often used interchangeably with other words, such as "essence", "being", and "nature". To me, these words point more to what the word is actually talking about. We see this in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

" In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), "Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature."85"

and

"While they are called three persons in view of their relations, we believe in one nature or substance."

So, "substance", "essence", "nature", "being" all refer to the same idea, and to me, this is most obviously reflected, at least in English, in the word "nature". There are three distinct Persons of the Trinity, who have eternally existed as three distinct Persons, in their eternal relationship with each other. They are all of the same, one, Divine nature, or what makes God, God. Therefore, it is their nature to exist as the Persons they are, and to exist in the relationship they are in.

One verse that we believe points to this idea is Colossians 2:9. In this verse we see that in Jesus, the fulness of Deity dwells in bodily form. Here, we see that Deity, that essence/substance/divine nature, is fully in Jesus. We don't believe that any one Person is more or less God, or progressed in or to Godhood, but that each Person is, and always has been, fully God. "Essence"/"Substance"/whatever all refer to what someone is.

Excellent articles on the Trinity that I like are:

http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-is-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity (at least read this one, as it addresses the Trinity, the Biblical nature of the doctrine, as well as common objections)

http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Trinity.htm

 

[NYCGuy]

I'm sorry but what I see here is call circular reasoning. The assumptions is there is one God -> but there are three Gods-> but there is only one God so of course the three Gods are one God which is made up of three Gods.

And not one of you can explain what the substance is!

No, we do not say that there is only one God but there are three Gods. No Trinitarian ever claims such a thing. However, I have heard Mormons say that there is one God, and I have heard them say there are three Gods.

 

[Peter1000]

What do you mean by saying they are all "in" one substance? What does that mean? You say that the 3 persons are separate, but not their substance...what does that actually mean? Note I'm not looking for the implication (i.e. what you seem to be saying about where one Person goes the other goes-an idea I'm not necessarily supporting or denying), but what it actually is referring to.

The question is yours to answer. Your belief in the Trinity is that there is "no confounding of the persons", and "no dividing the substance".

We can get a handle on "no confounding of the persons". To me that means They are 3 distinct persons, with their own minds and wills.

Where the creed, and the Trinity doctrine gets into trouble is this interesting statement that "there is no dividing of the substance". To me that means that the 3 distinct persons share the same substance.

Here are 4 problems that I see with the doctrine of "no dividing of the substance":
1) We don't know what the "substance" is? We were hoping you would be able to tell us. Possibly referring to the substance of spirit or flesh and bone, or some essence substance?
2) If 1 of the 3 distinct persons has a different substance from the other 2 does that collapse the Trinity doctrine?
3) If the 3 distinct persons are separated, and do not share the same substance, only for a moment, does that collapse the Trinity doctrine?
4) If the 3 distinct persons all share the same substance (3 persons in 1 God), then the 3 persons will always have to be in the same place at the same time. Always, otherwise the Trinity doctrine collapses. The practical application of this doctrine is: Where God the Father is, His son Jesus Christ has to be there too, and the HS has to be there also. If there are 3 persons in 1 substance(God), where God the Father goes, Jesus must also go, the HS must also go. Always.

I hope that answers your question. If you need to ask more or get more clarification, ask away. This is an important discussion, but it is also a difficult one.

 

[NYCGuy]

The question is yours to answer. Your belief in the Trinity is that there is "no confounding of the persons", and "no dividing the substance".

I'm interested in your thoughts on what it is referring to.

Here are 4 problems that I see with the doctrine of "no dividing of the substance":
1) We don't know what the "substance" is? We were hoping you would be able to tell us. Possibly referring to the substance of spirit or flesh and bone, or some essence substance?

Actually, we do know what "substance" is referring to. See my recent post, as well as the first link I provided in that post.

2) If 1 of the 3 distinct persons has a different substance from the other 2 does that collapse the Trinity doctrine?

Well, they are all of the same substance (see my recent post), so that wouldn't be relevant to the Trinity doctrine.

3) If the 3 distinct persons are separated, and do not share the same substance, only for a moment, does that collapse the Trinity doctrine?

What do you mean by "separated"? Also, we believe that they are al of the same substance, and it has eternally been so, so this question wouldn't be relevant to the Trinity doctrine.

4) If the 3 distinct persons all share the same substance (3 persons in 1 God), then the 3 persons will always have to be in the same place at the same time. Always, otherwise the Trinity doctrine collapses. The practical application of this doctrine is: Where God the Father is, His son Jesus Christ has to be there too, and the HS has to be there also. If there are 3 persons in 1 substance(God), where God the Father goes, Jesus must also go, the HS must also go. Always.

No, this is an incorrect understanding of the Trinity. Foundational to the doctrine of the Trinity is that the three Persons are distinct, and are therefore not each other. Therefore, there is distinction/relation in the Trinity, which would make your question above not relevant to the Trinity. When God the Son was on the earth, it was God the Son, not God the Father, who Incarnated. This is basic Trinity doctrine. Your above question/statement tends towards the heresy of modalism.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Well, I've only really had one question, and that is, what, in your view, does "substance", or "co-substantiation", mean to you, which leads to you saying that the "idea" is not found in the Bible? I don't believe that question has been answered. Instead, you said that "The way in which the Father/Son/Spirit are all 1 God but 3 different persons is because they all share a common super-meta-physical substance which makes them 1 super-meta-phyiscial being." That doesn't explain what "substance" is referring to, which was my question. Further, as I mentioned, Trinitarians do not say anything about a "super-meta-physical substance" nor "super-meta-physical being", so I'm not even sure what that is referring to.

My description of "super-meta-physical substance" is vague because that vagueness is the most I can get out of any Trinitarian believer (and even getting that far takes a lot of patience and bush beating). In my experience, Trinitarians are really fond of claiming this, and condemning you if you don't claim to believe it too, but can't actually tell you WHAT it is they actually believe.

Firstly, it must be remembered that the Catholic Church believes that Divine Revelation is found in both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. We do not believe that everything must be found in the Bible, because the Bible itself does not state such an idea, and also, the Church, as established by Jesus Christ, came before the Bible was compiled (and it was compiled by the Church). Catholics also believe that Councils have always been a part of the Church, as we seen in the New Testament. We believe that Church Councils (sometimes referred to as Ecumenical Councils) are authoritative meetings of Church leaders, and that the decisions reached at these Councils are inspired of the Holy Spirit and binding on the faithful.

So, do you hold the results of the Ecumenical Councils on par of authority with the Bible?

Catholics believe that there is only one God. We also believe that the one God eternally exists as three distinct Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They are distinct Persons who are not each other (i.e. the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Father, the Holy Spirit is not the Father nor the Son, etc).

Following you and agreeing thus far.

This distinguishes the Trinity doctrine from heresies such as modalism. I have noticed over the years that quite often, Mormons criticizing the Trinity doctrine will actually argue against the heresy of modalism, and not what Trinitarians actually believe (you see this right in this thread, as well as in various LDS-related books, and even in General Conference, i.e. Holland's somewhat recent talk on the purported restoration of the true idea of the Godhead). You see this when they ask questions like "how can Jesus pray to Himself?" or "how can Jesus be His own Father?" Trinitarians do not believe such ideas.

I am aware of this. That being said, I've heard many Trinitarian believers (even pastors) errantly promote modalism, which adds to the confusion.

Now the issue here is what is "substance" referring to. We must remember that the Catholic Church, and Christianity in general, is 2000+ years old. It originated and developed in a non-English speaking word, and therefore, as we all agree, the Bible, as well as many other ancient Christian documents that we have today, are English translations from Hebrew, Greek, Latin, etc.

This becomes readily apparent when we realize that "substance" is often used interchangeably with other words, such as "essence", "being", and "nature". To me, these words point more to what the word is actually talking about. We see this in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

" In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), "Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature."85"

and

"While they are called three persons in view of their relations, we believe in one nature or substance."

So, "substance", "essence", "nature", "being" all refer to the same idea, and to me, this is most obviously reflected, at least in English, in the word "nature". There are three distinct Persons of the Trinity, who have eternally existed as three distinct Persons, in their eternal relationship with each other. They are all of the same, one, Divine nature, or what makes God, God. Therefore, it is their nature to exist as the Persons they are, and to exist in the relationship they are in.

Here (specifically this last paragraph) it sounds like your points to a relationship, not something ontological. Is that correct?
I am also starting to get lost in the part your quoting above.

One verse that we believe points to this idea is Colossians 2:9. In this verse we see that in Jesus, the fulness of Deity dwells in bodily form. Here, we see that Deity, that essence/substance/divine nature, is fully in Jesus. We don't believe that any one Person is more or less God, or progressed in or to Godhood, but that each Person is, and always has been, fully God. "Essence"/"Substance"/whatever all refer to what someone is.

You lost me.

Excellent articles on the Trinity that I like are:

http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-is-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity (at least read this one, as it addresses the Trinity, the Biblical nature of the doctrine, as well as common objections)

http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Trinity.htm

I have seem both of these before and find them unhelpful.

Let me try a simple question: if I was to invite God-- all of God-- to dinner, how many chairs do I need? (even if the person is a being of spirit and doesn't actually need a chair, I'll set one anyways).