LDS Mormon godhood vs Christian Trinity - Thread Split

[ViaCrucis]

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?

By substance is meant God. As articulated by the ancient fathers the word they employed here was ousia, in Latin it was translated both as substantia and essentia--in English substance and essence respectively. It is, in fact, a grammatical form of the Greek verb eimi, "to be". Which is also why "being" is often used as a translation. The concept of ousia spoke of a thing's concrete thing-ness. A tree is tree, a rock is rock, what a thing is. Greek philosophers had all sorts of fun getting into various discussions about this, from Plato's rather elaborate cosmology involving the ultimately real world of Ideas from which all material instances are shadows and imitations of the Ideas (c.f. the Analogy of the Cave), to Aristotle's perhaps more common sense approach that a thing's thing-ness is intrinsic to the thing--a tree is a tree not because the Ideal Tree exists in a superior world from which we fell, but instead a tree's tree-ness is innate to the tree itself. Those philosophical speculations aside, speaking of God's ousia was to speak of God-as-God. More importantly it was to speak of what the Three are.

Namely that there is the Father, who is rightly and properly called God, indeed the Creed begins, "We believe in one God, the Father". There is no abstract concept of deity independent of the Father, "God" rightly and properly refers to the Father. It is the Father who is God. And so when we then say the Son is God, it is not as though He is yet another god next to or beside the one God (the Father), but rather He is God from the Father. This is why the Creed says, "begotten of the Father before all ages", "God from God, Light from Light, very God of very God", and most importantly that He is homoousios (same-thing, same-being, same-substance) with the Father. It means that what the Father is also applies to the Son, but it's not separate instance of divinity, God didn't make another god. The Son is the same God as the Father. Because the Son never began to be, there was never a time when the Son did not exist as the Son, He has always been and is; His generation of the Father is not an event, something that happens in time or history. He is. Even as the Father is. But He is God because the Father is God. He is God because He is what the Father is. There is only one God, the Father, and the Son is God because He has His eternal being, His existence, being, and reality in and from the Father, having always been and always being. There was never a time when the Father was not Father, because the Son has always been.

Once at this point, that's when we speak of the Holy Spirit, who we say "proceeds from the Father [and the Son]", it is in the Spirit's eternal procession from the Father [and the Son] that He is that very Same as the Father and the Son: God. The one God.

They are not three things merely sharing an agreed will, they are not a triad of powers, a triad of Gods. For there is only one God, God is one thing, one what, one reality, the Father; and the Son who is begotten of the Father is God from the Father, and the Spirit who proceeds from the Father [and the Son] is God from the Father [and the Son]. And so there is both One and Three.

By One we mean the one ousia, the being, the reality, the essential what of God's own Godhead.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Hoghead1]

Thanks for what you think. "Essence" is not used to describe the substance, nor is "nature". As I said repeatedly, These words (substance, essence, nature, being) are used interchangeably. Ultimately it is stating what something is. Two links that I have already provided go into depth in describing what is being discussed when we talk about these words. Please read them.



1) You're using the word "substance" differently than how it is used by Trinitarians.
2) We don't believe there would only be one individual, or person, because we believe there are three distinct Persons.
3) Not sure you're using "separated" appropriately as a Trinitarian would use it.



Which event would that be? Again, you aren't using the word "substance" as a Trinitarian would use it, therefore again, it wouldn't be relevant.



No it doesn't. Again, you have a much different usage of the word "substance" from how Trinitarians use it within the Trinity doctrine. The Father being in Heaven and the Son incarnating does not divide the substance/nature, at least as defined by Trinitarians.

Please read the links provided, they discuss exactly what we believe on this matter, in great detail.

http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2011/fsheed_trinityts_may2011.asp
http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-is-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity

I gather you are presenting the Trinity as representing three separate, unique personalities. So how is this anything other than thrtheism?

 

[Hoghead1]

As a Trinitarian, I can tell you that I don't believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are "made up of this special metaphysical stuff", and I've never seen the doctrine described as such. Perhaps you can point to a reference that makes that claim, or implies it, so I can better understand.



What exactly is confusing. I don't see anything complex in what I said. Quite simply, the way in which the Trinity is "three" is different from the way in which it is "one". They are two different ideas.




They are one God because they are all of the same nature (nature also used interchangeably with essence, being, substance).

It seems you have argued there re three divine personalities. The oneness of God is in the fact that all share the same nature. However, that is basically tritheism. Three men share human nature, but are still three men. Wotan, Flicka, and Friea all are divine, all share 'godhood ," yet we recognize three gods here.



I personally don't see anything highly confusing nor illogical with it, if one takes the time to actually read and understand (not saying you're not doing that) what is being said, and put aside their preconceived notions.

 

[Hoghead1]

In all of my years as a believing Trinitarian, around Trinitarians, participating on various Christian forums, I've never heard anyone use those phrases or imply them. Please provide an example.

Also, I've explained what I believe, and provided two links that explain what we believe. There are plenty of books, articles, and websites on what we believe in relation to the Trinity.



Yes.



And they would be incorrect for doing so.



Both. The Trinity is comprised of two ideas, to put it simply: "who" and "what". The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are "three" in regards to "who", and are "one" in relation to "what". When we understand this, we see that the Trinity is not a contradiction as is often stated, because the oneness and threeness of the Trinity are talking about two different concepts.

In regards to the idea of "relationship", the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct Persons, and they eternally exist as a relationship.



Ok. I don't think what I posted in that paragraph is complicated. Essentially, we don't believe there are degrees of Godhood or that someone can be more or less God than another. The fulness of Godhood dwelled in Jesus.



You're entitled to your opinion. I especially found the first article outstanding, as it explains what we believe as Trinitarians, what we believe on what "substance" (or essence, or nature, or being, all used interchangeably) is, what "person" is, Biblical bases, etc.



Trinitarians believe that the one God eternally exists as three distinct Persons. There would be three chairs.

Another article that I find great is this one:

http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2011/fsheed_trinityts_may2011.asp

It is by Frank Sheed, a Catholic, who wrote the popular book "Theology and Sanity". It includes chapters on the Trinity that explain it so greatly that many buy the book just for that. I believe part or all of it (it's been awhile since I read the book) is reproduced in that link.

If there would be three chairs, then you are proposing three gods, which is polytheism.

 

[fatboys]

By substance is meant God. As articulated by the ancient fathers the word they employed here was ousia, in Latin it was translated both as substantia and essentia--in English substance and essence respectively. It is, in fact, a grammatical form of the Greek verb eimi, "to be". Which is also why "being" is often used as a translation. The concept of ousia spoke of a thing's concrete thing-ness. A tree is tree, a rock is rock, what a thing is. Greek philosophers had all sorts of fun getting into various discussions about this, from Plato's rather elaborate cosmology involving the ultimately real world of Ideas from which all material instances are shadows and imitations of the Ideas (c.f. the Analogy of the Cave), to Aristotle's perhaps more common sense approach that a thing's thing-ness is intrinsic to the thing--a tree is a tree not because the Ideal Tree exists in a superior world from which we fell, but instead a tree's tree-ness is innate to the tree itself. Those philosophical speculations aside, speaking of God's ousia was to speak of God-as-God. More importantly it was to speak of what the Three are.

Namely that there is the Father, who is rightly and properly called God, indeed the Creed begins, "We believe in one God, the Father". There is no abstract concept of deity independent of the Father, "God" rightly and properly refers to the Father. It is the Father who is God. And so when we then say the Son is God, it is not as though He is yet another god next to or beside the one God (the Father), but rather He is God from the Father. This is why the Creed says, "begotten of the Father before all ages", "God from God, Light from Light, very God of very God", and most importantly that He is homoousios (same-thing, same-being, same-substance) with the Father. It means that what the Father is also applies to the Son, but it's not separate instance of divinity, God didn't make another god. The Son is the same God as the Father. Because the Son never began to be, there was never a time when the Son did not exist as the Son, He has always been and is; His generation of the Father is not an event, something that happens in time or history. He is. Even as the Father is. But He is God because the Father is God. He is God because He is what the Father is. There is only one God, the Father, and the Son is God because He has His eternal being, His existence, being, and reality in and from the Father, having always been and always being. There was never a time when the Father was not Father, because the Son has always been.

Once at this point, that's when we speak of the Holy Spirit, who we say "proceeds from the Father [and the Son]", it is in the Spirit's eternal procession from the Father [and the Son] that He is that very Same as the Father and the Son: God. The one God.

They are not three things merely sharing an agreed will, they are not a triad of powers, a triad of Gods. For there is only one God, God is one thing, one what, one reality, the Father; and the Son who is begotten of the Father is God from the Father, and the Spirit who proceeds from the Father [and the Son] is God from the Father [and the Son]. And so there is both One and Three.

By One we mean the one ousia, the being, the reality, the essential what of God's own Godhead.

-CryptoLutheran

Wow my head hurts. How could God have always been the Father before he created?

 

[Hoghead1]

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.

Then how is Christ God, when the Father alone is the Boss of bosses, strictly speaking?

 

[Hoghead1]

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

Before you fault modalism as a heresy, you should look to your own views and explain how they are anything other than polytheism.

 

[Hoghead1]

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

That should be no problem. Quite a number of passages strongly imply a Trinity and have been amply mentioned in previous posts. The problem is that they only imply a Trinity, can be ambiguous here. Hence, they require a metaphysical working out.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Wow my head hurts. How could God have always been the Father before he created?

Because He is called Father not because He creates, but because He has begotten the Son. He never became Father, He is always Father because He is always Father of His eternal, uncreated Son.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Albion]

This is what is quite confusing to Mormons:

Jane_Doe asks:
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).

NYCGuy answers:
Trinitarians believe that the one God eternally exists as three distinct Persons. There would be three chairs.

The answer that there would be 3 chairs, means that 3 separate and distinct persons would be coming to dinner. God the Father would be sitting in chair A, Jesus would be sitting in chair B, and the HS is siting in chair C.
To me this would be "dividing the substance", and there would in reality be 3 persons in the room, and the Trinity doctrine would be false, and JS would be exactly right.

I would have expected for NYCGuy to say, only put out 1 chair. Because even though the 3 Persons are distinct, they share the same substance, and that substance cannot be divided. Therefore there are 3 Persons, but only 1 God, so set out 1 chair for that 1 God.

Tell me where I am wrong?

Peter, I don't understand: 1) why you are asking ME rather than NYCGuy for a clarification or explanation there, or 2) why that which a single person attempting an answer to a trick question writes should be made out to be the definitive position of orthodox Christianity.

That doesn't mean, BTW, that I am unwilling to address this further, but I think you ought to give me your reply to this first.

 

[Peter1000]

Don't know which post you mean, sometimes you have to click on bottom of the post where is says click to expand.
But if you cant see the post how do you know it's silly??

This is in response to post #382. The post would not come up.

 

[Peter1000]

Peter, I don't understand: 1) why you are asking ME rather than NYCGuy for a clarification or explanation there, or 2) why that which a single person attempting an answer to a trick question writes should be made out to be the definitive position of orthodox Christianity.

That doesn't mean, BTW, that I am unwilling to address this further, but I think you ought to give me your reply to this first.

The trick question is a perfectly reasonable, overriding, elephant-in-the-room question. It all boils down to this:

If you invited the Godhead to dinner would you set out 3 chairs or 1 chair? NYCGuy says you should set out 3 chairs.

What do you think, 3 chairs or 1 chair?

 

[mmksparbud]

This is in response to post #382. The post would not come up.

I just clicked to expand and it came up----


"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"---"

 

[drstevej]

The trick question is a perfectly reasonable, overriding, elephant-in-the-room question. It all boils down to this:

If you invited the Godhead to dinner would you set out 3 chairs or 1 chair? NYCGuy says you should set out 3 chairs.

What do you think, 3 chairs or 1 chair?

Where is Heavenly Mom gonna sit? Or does she just do dishes? She gets less respect than the elephant in the room.

 

[Albion]

The trick question is a perfectly reasonable, overriding, elephant-in-the-room question. It all boils down to this:

If you invited the Godhead to dinner would you set out 3 chairs or 1 chair? NYCGuy says you should set out 3 chairs.

What do you think, 3 chairs or 1 chair?

You don't set out chairs for God to plunk down in.

 

[mmksparbud]

Where is Heavenly Mom gonna sit? Or does she just do dishes? She gets less respect than the elephant in the room.

She's busy having babies.

 

[withwonderingawe]

You don't set out chairs for God to plunk down in.

Revelation 3:20
20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

 

[Albion]

Revelation 3:20
20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

You take that exactly literally, then--that Jesus will come through the door of your home, in the flesh, and pull up a chair or three at the table, eh?

 

[Alla27]

Because He is called Father not because He creates, but because He has begotten the Son. He never became Father, He is always Father because He is always Father of His eternal, uncreated Son.

-CryptoLutheran

how did you come up with this very strange idea?
I know it(the idea) is not from the Bible.

 

[Alla27]

Where is Heavenly Mom gonna sit? Or does she just do dishes? She gets less respect than the elephant in the room.

I assume She is designing a new galaxy. She is a great Designer.
I assume She is teaching her children. She is a great Teacher.
I assume She is equal companion with Her Husband, our Heavenly Father.
I have lots of respect for this kind of Woman.