Are Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses Christian?

[HojaVerde]

Consubstantial

Thus, the term used at Nicea: homoousian/consubstantial. It is useful to explain this reality. The etymology of that word means, literally: equal-substance (homo=equal; ousian=substance) (con=same; substantial=substance).

Why? Because consubstantial applied to the Father and the Son mean they share the same substance and it implies they have the same nature. Then, they are equal on nature, one is not inferior or superior to the other. And furthermore, by having the same divine substance (notice I do not say human substance) they are the same being; as I explain below.

I quoted in a previous post how the Chalcedon’s council taught, by the incarnation of the Verb, Jesus is consubstantial to the Father as his divinity, and consubstantial with us as our humanity.

This means Jesus shares the same human substance with us. He has our nature. Why we all aren’t the same being? Because our nature is material and spiritual, and it allows a graduation in the diversity of each one of us.
Thus, we’re different respect we occupy a different place in the world, have different wills and understandings, some are men, other are women, each free will is individual and distinct, some are wiser, some stronger, some more saint than others.
Potentially, there can be infinite instances of human beings. Allow me the expression: they don’t fill the human nature. For all this, despite you and me have the same nature, we are different beings.

And Jesus shares the same divine substance with the Father, same nature. Why are they the same nature. Because God is a spiritual being, totally full in what he is, there is no room for graduation in him. God is unique, as Scripture reveals, not created, invisible, immutable, there is no other like him. Could there be two Gods, one more saint, one more powerful than the other, …, distinct?
Thinking there can be others alike, leads to a contradiction. For that, the Son receives the nature of the Father, his own and full being from him, he is the same being as him. The Father and the Son have only one divine will and understanding. They are only different in their reciprocal relationship of beget/being begotten, i.e. for being Father and Son.

I will answer about the discussed quotes later on, if I can.

See you!

 

[TOmNossor]

Now for a Protestant believer who defines “numeric” and “generic” for us:

But the word that has continued to stand out most of all is the word consubstantial or homoousios. What does it mean in the Nicene Creed? Before Nicea it generally meant 'of generically the same substance. For later Catholic theologians it means ‘of identically the same substance.’ For a long time it had been widely assumed that the specific teaching of Nicea was that the Son as consubstantial with the Father had identically the same substance as the Father, and that the Council had thus taught not only the divinity of the Son but also His numerical identity of substance with the Father. But in recent years there has developed a growing tendency to question and reject this assumption. It is clear that the Council did not explicitly affirm that the Son was ‘consubstantial with the Father’ had the one same identical divine substance as the Father, and hence this was not its specific or formal teaching. But when it said the Son was ‘consubstantial with the Father,’ it meant at least that He is ‘utterly like the Father in substance,’ ‘utterly unlike creatures in substance,’ that He is ‘of the Father’s substance’ and 'of no other substance."" But if the Council did not explicitly affirm numerical consubstantiality of Son and Father, was the idea of numerical consubstantiality prominent in the minds of the Nicene Fathers? Today there is a tendency to doubt or deny this also, and for a variety of reasons . It is urged that if the word consubstantial up to Nicea had only meant generic identity or likeness of substance, it would not suddenly be accepted as meaning numerical identity of substance. and if it had been so understood then the Eusebians would have cried out ‘Sabellanism.’ Further, it is argued that since the great issue at Nicea was the Son’s full divinity and coeternity and not the unity of the Godhead, the word consubstantial would have been understood to signify the Son’s full divinity, His total likeness in substance to the Father and total unlikeness to creatures in substance. It is pointed out also that later on when the numerical identity of substance was fully acknowledged, some orthodox theologians still used the word consubstantial in the sense of generic unity. All this seems to make an impressive case for the view that the Nicene Fathers generally understood ‘consubstantiality’ as likeness in substance. The Triune God, Edmund J. Fortman, p 66-70

Fortman will go on to defend the idea that the Nicene Fathers must have meant “numeric identity.” I am sure you can find this online, so you can read his continuation. I along with many scholars do not agree (I also have no idea how he can claim that “homoousian” meant solely “generic identity” before Nicea as this is at odds with the historical record, but his fleshing out of the terms is still quite good). Eusebius meant “generic identity.” Athanasius likely meant “numeric identity,” but he accepted as his brothers in Christ those who meant “generic identity.”
Now, for a more thorough definition that expresses much of what I think is there, I turn to a rejecter of the Trinity. We have seen on this very thread the problem this author mentions when folks deny there are two meanings/senses in which homoousian is used. It would be fair to say that this author focuses on the “is” in “is homoousian.” I have seen this done by some scholars. I am not a Greek scholar, but the point is the same. Father Don Davis who I quoted in post #456 points to the WORD “homoousian” as having multiple meanings. Precisely how the Greek conjunction works IMO is of much less important. The presentation below does a good job of explaining how “is homoousian” in the numeric and “is homoousian” in the generic sense create/creates problems and defining the senses.

1. The conflation of numerical identity and generic identity
   The second confusion is over what it means to say that some individual ‘is God’. In the definition given above, (D) Each Person is God is understood to mean:

(D1) ‘God the Father’ is God
and
(D2) ‘God the Son’ is God (or Jesus is God)
and
(D3) ‘God the Spirit’ is God

In these statements there are two possible different senses of ‘is’: the ‘is’ of numerical identity and the ‘is’ of generic identity.
4.1 The ‘is’ of numerical identity
This joins together two proper names and asserts that the individuals identified by those names are one and the same. For example ‘Clark Kent is Superman’ tells us that the individual known as Clark Kent is one and the same as the one known as Superman.

The ‘is’ of identity demands that the entity referenced by each side of the ‘is’ is the same kind of thing. If we say that ‘the Father is Yahweh’ and ‘the Son is Yahweh’, then the Father must be (the same individual as) the Son. If Clark Kent is Superman and Kal-el is Superman then Clark Kent must be Kal-el (as indeed he is).

If (D2), for example, claims numerical identity, it should read
(D2) Jesus is Yahweh
because Yahweh is the proper name for the one God of Israel and Christianity. Sometimes trinitarian apologists try to claim that Jesus is God in this sense. For instance it is a standard of trinitarian apologetics that that in the ‘I am’ statements in John (e.g. John 8.58), Jesus is claiming to be Yahweh. But most of the time trinitarian proof tends to use the ‘is’ of predication.

quote and post cont …

 

[TOmNossor]

4.2 The ‘is’ of generic identity
The ‘is’ of generic identity (or predication or qualitative identity) joins a proper name with some sort of description, like an adjective or a descriptive noun, and states that the individual with that name has the property described. Thus, ‘Clark Kent is clumsy’ means that the individual with the name of Clark Kent often bumps into things, and ‘Clark Kent is a journalist’ means that this named individual writes newspaper articles for a living.

If (D2) (for example) claims generic identity with the ‘is’ of predication, it should read
(D2) Jesus is divine
or
(D2) Jesus is a divine being
or
(D2) Jesus is a god

Most trinitarian apologetics consists in trying to prove the first version, that each Person is divine (Jehovah’s Witnesses would tend to focus more on the other two versions). The general argument is that these hypothetical Persons must indeed be truly divine, because the Bible describes them as doing the things that God alone can do. Thus, in the case of Jesus, the trinitarian task is to prove that Jesus is God in the generic sense of being divine. This is done by pointing out the miracles he did, the sins he forgave etc. and saying “Only God could do that”.
A major problem with generic identity is that the Bible really only uses numerical identity when applied to God. When somebody says (truthfully) ‘I am God’, it would have to be Yahweh talking. When it is said of someone that he is God, it is that he is Yahweh. There is no talk in scripture about Godhead or divinity as a nature that could be shared between three distinct Persons. There is no talk of divine nature at all, unless it is that divine nature which adopted children of God can also partake of (Colossians 2.10, 2 Peter 1.4).
The fourth century Nicene theologians who attempted to define the Trinity used the ‘is’ of predication when they said that the Son is of the same ‘substance’ (Greek homoousios) with God (meaning a supposed First Person ‘God the Father’). They were keenly aware of the hazards. On one side was the danger of Sabellianism (modalism), where the distinctness of the Persons is lost, and all three are seen as just appearances of the one God. On the other side was the danger of tritheism, where the unity of the Persons is sacrificed, and all that is left is three separate gods. They hoped to steer a course between these two dangers. They decided hypostasis, meaning ‘person’ or ‘property-bearer’, was the term needed to express the idea that the Persons were distinct. The Persons were to be different hypostases while sharing the same ousia, giving the famous formula ‘three persons in one essence’ (eis ousia, tres hypostases).

            A common analogy used at the time and later is of three men, Peter, Paul and John, sharing the same human nature.  This seems plausible enough at first glance. Yet Peter, Paul and John are three separate humans and their common nature of humanity is not enough to provide any principle of unity which enables us to say that they are really ‘one’ anything.  They are just three distinct human beings.
           
            Likewise, if one tries to explain the Trinity by saying that it (or they) are three divine individuals sharing the common nature of divinity, then they are three gods.  It is really no different from talking about the mythical Greek gods Zeus, Apollo and Hermes.  Just as Peter, Paul and John are three separate persons, so Zeus, Apollo and Hermes are three separate gods.  They are not ‘one’ anything, because there is no principle of unity that binds them together aside from their common divinity. Furthermore there is no reason why Zeus, Apollo and Hermes could not be joined by Hera, to make four gods, just as the three men could be joined by another man, James. A property cannot include in its meaning how many individuals possess that property!
           
            Claims of generic identity mean something quite different from numerical identity, but each on its own is equally unpalatable for the Trinity, as follows:
           
            If each Person were numerically identical with God, i.e. identical to Yahweh, then each Person would be the whole Trinity (because Yahweh is identical to the Trinity).
           
            If each Person were generically identical with God, i.e. each Person is divine, then there are three gods.
           
            It is perhaps only the mixture of numerical and generic identity in trinitarian definitions and ‘proofs’  that tends to hide this problem.  Neither numerical nor generic identity can make a trinitarian definition work in the way that a trinitarian would like.

THE PROBLEM OF THE TRINITY: Is there a middle way between modalism and tritheism? David Kemball-Cook

I think this expresses fairly well what believing scholars are talking about when they point to generic and numeric sense. I hope I have satisfied the request to define these two senses of homoousian. I find it unlikely that I will just accept the bald assertion, “it has only one meeting.”
Charity, TOm

 

[JMM1957]

Justin speaks like this because he was thoroughly a subordinationalist. The Monarchal Monotheist present within the Bible and St. Justin recognizes the unity associate with God the Father as FOUNT of Divinity. Christ is distinct and subordinate.
The ECF (before Nicea) are VERY, VERY clear. Christ is subordinate to God the Father. And Christ became what we are so that men may become what Christ is. The Catholic is in a bind. Did Christ become fully man or not? If so, shouldn’t that mean we are to become fully God? I think Christianity absent divine revelation, absence some charism of infallibility could have subordinated Christ eternally to God the Father and said we are to become what Christ is OR it could have elevated Christ to be fully divine and co-equal and then acknowledged we would also become fully divine and co-equal. But, the commitments to divine immutability, metaphysical monotheism, and Christ’s divinity created HUGE problems that are still debated today within scholarly circles. As a result of the first two errors, Catholics must interpret words in very prominent Early Church statements in different ways across the same sentence. Chalcedon’s statement on homoousian and the exchange formula are the two that come to mind.
I remember discussing what I saw in history with Blake Ostler. He saw all the historical developments as philosophical developments. It was remarkable to integrate both ideas. The data was the same. I have yet to see a reason to not view these as developments absent God’s hand, as corruptions.

I find the union of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to be a remarkable truth. I subordinate the Son to the Father and the Spirit to both. I do not think Tertullian was an inspired author, but I am not convinced any of these analogies should be rejected by me. Also, you do know that the Filoque clause, “from the Father and the Son” is rejected as a perversion of the Western church by the Eastern church.
I will post on “numeric sense” and the “generic sense” later.
Charity, TOm

Let me just ask you a simple question TOm, do you think that the Apostles understood the Godhead to be just as the LDS understand it? Yes or no.

 

[HojaVerde]

I think this expresses fairly well what believing scholars are talking about when they point to generic and numeric sense. I hope I have satisfied the request to define these two senses of homoousian. I find it unlikely that I will just accept the bald assertion, “it has only one meeting.”
Charity, TOm

Now, I understand what you mean when using numerical and generic identity.

I think you are right that “numerical identity”, as explained that way, leads to modalism, and we consider that a heresy. And that you are right that “generic identity”, explained in that way, leads to tritheism, and we, as well, consider that a heresy.

But the two are incorrect to the catholic understanding of the Trinity, so that, I refuse both of them.

The example you provide of Peter, John and Paul is incorrect to reflect all the aspects of the Trinity. Indeed, you cannot find an example in the whole reality that exists that reflects ALL the aspects of the Trinity. Every example will fail in one aspect or another.

It is like trying to project the surface of our Planet inside a paper map. You cannot project it preserving all the characteristics, the angles, the areas and the shapes of the countries and oceans. No matter the projection you use, it always fails to preserve one of the three.

The only example of the Trinity is the Trinity itself. Nothing in reality is like God. No matter the projection, it always will fail on something. The example of:

• Superman: fails to preserve the distinctions of the persons.
• Jehovah’s Witnesses: fails to preserve the same nature of the three persons.
• The three Greek gods: fails to preserve the oneness of God.
• The ice, water and vapour: fails, at least, to preserve the concurrent presence of the Three Persons in God.
• The clover: it fails to preserve the idea that God has no parts, and that each Person if fully God (each leaf of the clover is not the whole clover).
• Etc.

I’m not saying examples cannot be used to explain the Trinity, I’m saying they cannot fully represent it. I’m neither saying that the Trinity is contradictory for cannot being fully represented. God is unique, and is above our understanding. If you fully understand God, then that is not God, it’s your idol, your creature made by you (let me the expression). God will always be deeper.

But God has revealed to us how he is, in Jesus Christ. And the Church has the right and the duty to correct the errors when talking about God (heresies), and to explain the truth, little by little, as necesary, as she is getting more and more understanding when contemplating Jesus, the revelation given to us. Like the one who has a precious treasure and extracts from it the new and the old things (Matthew 13,44).

When it is stated that the Son is consubstantial with the Father doesn’t mean the Son is the Father, like your option 4.1. Otherwise, the Council fathers would have said: “the Son is the Father”. Easier impossible. So the numerical identity is discarded.

It doesn’t mean they are two different gods of the same type (option 4.2), because it is said in the same creed, that the Son is God from God, Light from Light, very God from very God. Light which proceeds from Light doesn’t divide itself. So the generic identity is also discarded.

The Holy Spirit is fully God (not one third), YHVH, the Son is fully God, YHVH and the Father is fully God, YHVH. They are exactly the same in everything you can say about God. Only they differ in one thing: the relationships they have among them. Without these relations that happen in God (by his nature), God would be one being, and one person. But revelation says these relationships are in God, then there are three persons, one being.

If I’m wrong in something, other posters, feel free to correct me.

See you!

 

[CourtingTex]

I will continue to pray for tolerance and understanding (religious freedom or those who have no interest in that, which I will respect when others differ or have no interest in God and Jesus Christ), with all due to respect on all sides of this thread. All the doctrine(s) source(s), academic theories, positions, etc will not stop to these faiths or movements from doing what is happening, which I submit is a immoral/irreligious faith or should I just walk away from religious everything and become nonbeliever or agnostic?

The potential of what of I seek to become — a better person with gratitude of the good news and the love and admiration for Jesus Christ and his Atonement for everyone so desiring and faithful to his Example and Advocacy for us today and forever.

Make it a wonderful day.

 

[TOmNossor]

One God and Trinity
By the data provided by the Christian revelation, I think there aren’t no more possibilities than these:

• Arianism: Father greater than the Son in nature, one God, and other god/s inferior in nature (no true gods as the Father).
• Tritheism: Father and Son equal in nature, but different beings, several Gods.
• Trinity: Father and Son equal in nature, but same being, and then, one God.
• Modalism: Father and Son, modalities of the same person, one God.

I thought you were in the category of tritheism (or polytheists), but in your post you’ve explained that you believe in several gods, but in the Father, as God above all others, including the Son. In this case, you are an Arian. Well, you would be monotheist, but paying an irreparable cost, that of reduce the divinity of Christ to one inferior to the Father.
If, on the contrary, you think the Son has the same divinity as the Father, but that they are different beings, then the cost you pay is that of being polytheist (another irreparable error).

continues…

HojaVerde,

Thank you for another thoughtful response.* I will probably need to leave something without a response at some point in time.* Then your celebration and my celebration will be complete.* I know well the “perhaps I do not need to respond” sense of relief.* I attempted to rebuild 2 computers and could not post well until I succeeded with one!

As you lamented before, there is a great multiplying of concepts.* In order to respond to your post, I will hint at numerous different directions we can go, but I do not see how to respond without doing this.

Historically, there are volumes of different positions within Christian history concerning the Trinity.* You cannot simplify to the three you mention and then put me in one.* I do not fit.* It is unlikely that many of the historical figures fit in the categories either as we have little information about what these “heretics” actually believed.* All we have is what critics claim they believed.* If you have ever read anti-Catholic websites, you know how poorly critics often represent the claims with which they disagree.

It is likely the Modalist and certain the Arians, Semi-Arians, and believers in Augustinian Trinitarianism; accepted both creation ex nihilo AND the immutability/impassibility of God.* I reject these and consider them to be foundational to the Trinitarian controversy in the early church.* In Early Arianism Gregg and Groh suggest that Trinitarian controversies were more about immutability/impassibility than about monotheism.* If God is impassible/immutable as the Arians and Athanasians believed, how can Christ who hungered and felt and … be God?* I reject this foundational principle because I reject the idea that God is immutable/impassible.

When I say God the Son is divine, I do not mean that God the Son is immutable/impassible (it has been my experience at Catholic Answers that anti-Mormons here refuse to accept the historical concept that God is immutable/impassible, but I am unable to see how this is valid).* I do not mean God the Son is homoousian with God the Father in the numeric sense.* I do mean that God the Son is in full communion with God the Father (unity of purpose, indwelling love, …), that God the Son freely and perfectly aligns His will with the will of the Father, that God the Son is omnibenevolent, that God the Son possesses an omniscience.* When I say God the Father is divine, I mean all those things except for the additional truth that God the Father is the “fount of divinity.”* When I say that we are called to be divine, I mean that through the atonement wrought by Christ and through an individual progression guided by the Holy Spirit, we are to become a fully divine member of the communion of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. We will shed / discard our prideful, individualistic, fallen nature and perfectly align ourselves with God in the divine community.

Concerning homoousian, I accept what Eusebius of Caesarea believed (God the Father and God the Son have the same generic nature).* I reject what Arius likely believed (God the Father and God the Son do not have the same generic nature.* And I reject what Augustine/Aquinas/ (and likely) Athanasius believed (God the Father and God the Son have the same numeric nature).* That being said, divinity is about communion not constitution.
Charity, TOm

P.S.
There is a lot more to subordinatism. What you claim is still present is not all that was present in St. Justine, other ECF, or the Bible. I will move on though.

 

[TOmNossor]

This means Jesus shares the same human substance with us. He has our nature. Why we all aren’t the same being? Because our nature is material and spiritual, and it allows a graduation in the diversity of each one of us.

Thus, we’re different respect we occupy a different place in the world, have different wills and understandings, some are men, other are women, each free will is individual and distinct, some are wiser, some stronger, some more saint than others.

Potentially, there can be infinite instances of human beings. Allow me the expression: they don’t fill the human nature. For all this, despite you and me have the same nature, we are different beings.
And Jesus shares the same divine substance with the Father, same nature. Why are they the same nature. Because God is a spiritual being, totally full in what he is, there is no room for graduation in him. God is unique, as Scripture reveals, not created, invisible, immutable, there is no other like him. Could there be two Gods, one more saint, one more powerful than the other, …, distinct?

Thinking there can be others alike, leads to a contradiction. For that, the Son receives the nature of the Father, his own and full being from him, he is the same being as him. The Father and the Son have only one divine will and understanding. They are only different in their reciprocal relationship of beget/being begotten, i.e. for being Father and Son.

What you say above is very similar to Aquinas.* Angels are not consubstantial with other angels.* Every angel is a different species.* If they were the same species, they would be one because they cannot be differentiated physically.

If you will add that for God to be one being, numerically consubstantial, and yet be three persons, is not something we can conceive of with our minds; we can call it a mystery.

I will still maintain that the Fathers at Chalcedon did not have in mind your ideas here.* I will still maintain that the Fathers at Nicea held different views.* I will still maintain that homoousian in the generic sense was much of the semi-Arian controversy that raged for decades and that homoousian in the numeric sense is now the orthodox position.* I will still maintain that all this is evidence that Catholicism DEVELOPED.* And truth be told in response to those who bash my faith, I will say that God as three and God is one homoousian (numerically) when embraced by rationalist demanding human reason be brought to bear absolutely is not just mysterious, but a violation of the law on non-contradiction (because I believe if you move past “mystery” you can in fact bring to bear human reason and show contradiction, some theologians claim “God can make a square circle or a married bachelor because He is omniscient,” but I believe God desires we use reason and a sentence that makes no sense does not make sense merely because God becomes part of this sentence).

Hope all that makes sense.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

My last post has "because He is omniscient, " it should be “because He is omnipotent. "
Also the random “”*” come from me posting on my phone. Don’t know why.
Charity, TOm

 

[PJM]

Hello HojaVerde,
I wanted to respond to your post and to PJM’s (I have done the later elsewhere).
I am still of the opinion that the definition of “consubstantial” in any of its acknowledge three senses has anything to do with an excellent point made by a LDS in this thread concerning John 17:21. BIASED as I am, I have not waivered from my initial assessment that John 17:21 is powerful for helping us to know HOW Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God AND that it witnesses against the Trinity as advocated by Augustine and Aquinas.
I hope to carry on this conversation with PJM elsewhere, but I thought your post addressed some things I said and should get a response. It also seems that there is still questions concerning the multiple meanings of homoousian/constubstantial. I am not able to reproduce all the sources that have guided me to my understanding of this term. Most are Catholic or Protestant sources. In searching for a good summary I offered a Unitarians perspective as I thought he explained what I see as a dilemma well.
I will say that how the Monarchical Monotheism and the Social Trinity interplay exactly is mysterious to me (in that I do not know). How my free will and God’s sovereign will interplays precisely is mysterious to me (in that I do not know). I think how the twin dangers of modalism and tritheism is avoided by Catholic theology is a mystery. For any reader who does not feel the need to beat my church with a philosophical stick, and wishes to stop here, that is fine with me. If you however feel the need to provide intellectual arguments (flawed in most cases IMO) against my faith, please read on.

The scripture you quoted puts Christ into a different category than “the one God.” By itself, it would be perfectly compatible with a “Monarchical Monotheism.” LDS, myself included, have significant “Monarchical Monotheism” within their/our thoughts. Catholics have purged most of this, but in concert with the increased discussion of Trinity, there are discussions of this Monarchical view. And Catholics do not go so far as John Calvin did. No Catholic scholar I know of claims Christ is “Auto-Theos.” Catholics simply must admit there is one God who is non-begotten and non-proceeding. LDS, myself included, are quite clear that Jesus Christ is subordinate to God the Father. LDS would not say Jesus Christ is “co-equal” with God the Father. All pre-Nicene Father’s were subordinationalists and I do not think you will find the term “co-equal” until Athanasius (I might be wrong about this).
Now, no LDS IMO should say that there are any other gods APART from the Father. I do not believe many LDS say this today either. This is because another aspect of divinity is the Social aspect. So there is One God not just because God the Father is “more intelligent than they all (Abraham 3:19),” but also because there is one divine communion outside of which there is no divinity. We are invited into this divine community. When the ECF said that Christ became what we are so that we might become what He is, they meant it.
There is more here of course, and I generally follow Blake Ostler, Exploring Mormon Thought in his explanations. But, there are differences of opinions too. I doubt we will have a council (and I would say we should not) and exclude those folks who disagree with me though.

Why did Isaiah and the Deuteronomists not mention the Triune nature of God? Why did they not mention the Council of Gods in Psalms (and less clearer in Kings or Job). Why did they not say a lot of things?
I believe there is ONE God. I believe God is ONE. I just do not believe the ONENESS of God is because God the Father and God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are homoousian (in the numeric sense). I also do not believe that God is ONE in a way that precludes the divinity of Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit. I also do not believe that God is ONE in a way that prevents God’s stated plan to “make men gods.”
Scripture must be taken as a whole. If all scripture said was in your Isaiah passage, then it would be hard to align the three persons within God with Isaiah.
cont…

WHY INDEED!

1. It was NOT in God’s Plan to do so
2. Neither Isaiah NOR the Hebrew Nation were either ready OR equipped to understand SUCH a profound teaching.

Keep in mind the level of illiteracy, their somatic nature, the proliferation of PAGANS and their many gods

1. That Yahweh was STILL in the process of Teaching the; convincing them of Just ONE TRUE GOD

This still was about 700 YEARS before Christ; whom Isiah DID teach about as the future as the Messiah; and as SUCH was an introduction to the Trinity:thumbsup:

God Bless you my friend

Patrick

 

[TOmNossor]

Let me just ask you a simple question TOm, do you think that the Apostles understood the Godhead to be just as the LDS understand it? Yes or no.

I wish I could simply say, “no,” but I believe such a reply would then …
I wish I could simply say, “yes,” but I believe such a reply would then …
I think inspired Apostles, ancient and modern, know God through their contact with God. I believe 3rd Isaiah was just as inspired as Paul. They both KNEW God, but I doubt they would explain the Trinity identically. And I also doubt they would explain the Trinity as I do or as Aquinas did. Of course I firmly believe when Aquinas met God, he knew that he could not explain God as he (Aquinas) previously did. Summa Theologica is straw, but thousands of modern Thomists do not recognize this.
I believe Catholicism is wrong to expect the guiding towards “all truth” to be an irreformable, infalliable march towards “all true propositions the subject of which is faith and/or morals.” Instead, I think we look to inspired leaders for guidance so we can KNOW God and have an interpersonal relationship with Him. Inspired leaders write scripture and deliver general conference talks to help us in developing our own relationships with God, not so we might have a collections of “true propositions.”
All this does not mean there are not “true propositions,” just that they are of secondary value.
I doubt all the things I think are “true propositions” about God are absolutely correct. I think it is LIKELY that the Apostles believed some “true propositions” that Catholics no longer believe. If there is CHANGE, then Catholicism’s self-understanding is flawed. In response to a clear argument based on John 17:21 offered by a LDS, I saw the argument dismissed due to a word. I felt like responding and I did.
I think that is mostly a “no.” I however believe Peter, James, and John knew that their purpose was not to guide the church to “true propositions.” If they thought that was their purpose, they would have written systematic theology instead of scripture. Did they understood the purpose of scripture, teachings, and their inspired ministry “just as the LDS” leaders understand the purpose of scripture, teachings, and their inspired ministry,” YES!
Charity, TOm

 

[RebeccaJ]

I will continue to pray for tolerance and understanding (religious freedom or those who have no interest in that, which I will respect when others differ or have no interest in God and Jesus Christ), with all due to respect on all sides of this thread. All the doctrine(s) source(s), academic theories, positions, etc will not stop to these faiths or movements from doing what is happening, which I submit is a immoral/irreligious faith or should I just walk away from religious everything and become nonbeliever or agnostic?

The potential of what of I seek to become — a better person with gratitude of the good news and the love and admiration for Jesus Christ and his Atonement for everyone so desiring and faithful to his Example and Advocacy for us today and forever.

Make it a wonderful day.

Consciousness… does not appear to itself chopped up in bits. Such words as ‘chain’ or ‘train’ do not describe it fitly as it presents itself in the first instance. It is nothing jointed; it flows. A ‘river’ or a ‘stream’ are the metaphors by which it is most naturally described. In talking of it hereafter, let us call it the stream of thought, of consciousness, or of subjective life. --William James

 

[Stephen168]

Let me just ask you a simple question TOm, do you think that the Apostles understood the Godhead to be just as the LDS understand it? Yes or no.

While only Tom can say what he thinks, here are a few thoughts from Mormon publications.
The Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

The principle of eternal progression cannot be precisely defined or comprehended, yet it is fundamental to the LDS worldview. The phrase “eternal progression” first occurs in the discourses of Brigham Young. It embodies many concepts taught by Joseph Smith, especially in his king follett discourse.

Joseph Smith:

God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!

Gospel Principles:

God is not only our Ruler and Creator; He is also our Heavenly Father. All men and women are literally the sons and daughters of God. “Man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal [physical] body” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith[1998], 335).

Every person who was ever born on earth is our spirit brother or sister. Because we are the spirit children of God, we have inherited the potential to develop His divine qualities. Through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, we can become like our Heavenly Father and receive a fulness of joy.

Gospel Principles:

Exaltation
• What is exaltation?
Exaltation is eternal life, the kind of life God lives. He lives in great glory. He is perfect. He possesses all knowledge and all wisdom. He is the Father of spirit children. He is a creator. We can become like our Heavenly Father. This is exaltation.

If we prove faithful to the Lord, we will live in the highest degree of the celestial kingdom of heaven. We will become exalted, to live with our Heavenly Father in eternal families. Exaltation is the greatest gift that Heavenly Father can give His children (see D&C 14:7).

Blessings of Exaltation
• What are some blessings that will be given to those who are exalted?
Our Heavenly Father is perfect, and He glories in the fact that it is possible for His children to become like Him. His work and glory is “to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses 1:39).

Those who receive exaltation in the celestial kingdom through faith in Jesus Christ will receive special blessings. The Lord has promised, “All things are theirs” (D&C 76:59). These are some of the blessings given to exalted people:

1. They will live eternally in the presence of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ (see D&C 76:62).
2. They will become gods (see D&C 132:20–23).
3. They will be united eternally with their righteous family members and will be able to have eternal increase.
4. They will receive a fulness of joy.
5. They will have everything that our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have—all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge (see D&C 132:19–20). President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote: “The Father has promised through the Son that all that he has shall be given to those who are obedient to His commandments. They shall increase in knowledge, wisdom, and power, going from grace to grace, until the fulness of the perfect day shall burst upon them” (Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols. [1954–56], 2:36; italics in original).

Doctrine and Covenants 132:

20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.

21 Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye abide my law ye cannot attain to this glory.

22 For strait is the gate, and narrow the way that leadeth unto the exaltation and continuation of the lives, and few there be that find it, because ye receive me not in the world neither do ye know me.

23 But if ye receive me in the world, then shall ye know me, and shall receive your exaltation; that where I am ye shall be also.

I think it is clear the Mormon understanding of God is not monotheist; therefore not even close to what the Apostles thought of the Godhead.

The Social Trinity is not Mormon teaching. If it was, it still has problems.

'Social’ trinitarianism
Various theories of ‘social’ trinitarianism have been proposed. These face up to the fact that that the Trinity is some kind of collective made up of three divine individuals. Some theories are more or less tritheistic and other theories (‘Trinity Monotheism’) claim they are monotheistic because, even though there are three divine individuals there is still only one Trinity. The main problems with these views are that:

1. It is polytheistic at root (‘Trinity monotheism’ has to admit not three but four divine beings!).
2. The Bible has to be rewritten to change God from an ‘I’ to a ‘We’.
3. No longer could we say (e.g.) that God created the world. Actions the Bible attributes to God would now have to be delegated to one of the three Persons, again prompting a rewrite of the Bible.
4. There is the problem of ‘diminished divinity’. The Persons are not fully God, but only divine in the sense in which any property or plan of God is divine. Thus, for instance, they are hardly worthy of worship.

 

[Stephen168]

I think this expresses fairly well what believing scholars are talking about when they point to generic and numeric sense. I hope I have satisfied the request to** define these two senses of homoousian.** I find it unlikely that I will just accept the bald assertion, “it has only one meeting.”

No one has claimed anything different.

Kyrie Eleison
Christe Eleison
Kyrie Eleison

see post #460 and #552

 

[LivingWaters7]

The Gospel Fundamentals Manual, in the chapter on Eternal Life also has some interesting things to say in relation to the Father:

"It will help us to remember that our Father in Heaven was once a man who lived on an earth, the same as we do. He became our Father in Heaven by overcoming problems, just as we have to do on this earth."

lds.org/manual/gospel-fundamentals/chapter-36-eternal-life?lang=eng

 

[JMM1957]

The Gospel Fundamentals Manual, in the chapter on Eternal Life also has some interesting things to say in relation to the Father:

"It will help us to remember that our Father in Heaven was once a man who lived on an earth, the same as we do. He became our Father in Heaven by overcoming problems, just as we have to do on this earth."

lds.org/manual/gospel-fundamentals/chapter-36-eternal-life?lang=eng

Thank you for sharing this quote. It is very hard to comprehend how anyone can say that God the Father had to “overcome His own problems” just as we do here on earth. LDS should be able to show us from the BIBLE where it indicates this teaching is correct.

 

[gazelam]

Thank you for sharing this quote. It is very hard to comprehend how anyone can say that God the Father had to “overcome His own problems” just as we do here on earth.

Actually, it’s not hard at all. I assume you’ll accept that Jesus had to overcome problems on Earth (i.e., fasted 40 days, tempted of Satan, healed the lame, non-believing disciples, raised the dead, crucified, etc.)

John 5:19, 20 Jesus answered and said to them, Amen, amen, I say to you, a son cannot do anything on his own, but only what he sees his father doing; for what he does, his son will do also. For the Father loves his Son and shows him everything that he himself does, and he will show him greater works than these, so that you may be amazed.

These verses clearly state that Jesus only did what he saw His Father do.

LDS should be able to show us from the BIBLE where it indicates this teaching is correct.

Done!!

 

[JMM1957]

Actually, it’s not hard at all. I assume you’ll accept that Jesus had to overcome problems on Earth (i.e., fasted 40 days, tempted of Satan, healed the lame, non-believing disciples, raised the dead, crucified, etc.)

John 5:19, 20 Jesus answered and said to them, Amen, amen, I say to you, a son cannot do anything on his own, but only what he sees his father doing; for what he does, his son will do also. For the Father loves his Son and shows him everything that he himself does, and he will show him greater works than these, so that you may be amazed.

These verses clearly state that Jesus only did what he saw His Father do.

Done!!

What does that verse you quoted have to do with answering my questions? So, Jesus see’s his Father “having problems”, so Jesus has problems too? And according to LDS sites, they say the Father could possibly have sinned at one time during his human existence, but it doesn’t say that he did, nobody knows. The suggestion by LDS that God the Father had a human existence before he became God of this universe, and the suggestion that he may have had problems, or even sinned, in his human existence is very sad.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Actually, it’s not hard at all. I assume you’ll accept that Jesus had to overcome problems on Earth (i.e., fasted 40 days, tempted of Satan, healed the lame, non-believing disciples, raised the dead, crucified, etc.)

John 5:19, 20 Jesus answered and said to them, Amen, amen, I say to you, a son cannot do anything on his own, but only what he sees his father doing; for what he does, his son will do also. For the Father loves his Son and shows him everything that he himself does, and he will show him greater works than these, so that you may be amazed.

These verses clearly state that Jesus only did what he saw His Father do.

Done!!

Let us be clear here. The issue isn’t merely overcoming “problems”. The exact statement from the church manual is this:

"It will help us to remember that our Father in Heaven was once a man who lived on an earth, the same as we do. He became our Father in Heaven by overcoming problems, just as we have to do on this earth."

lds.org/manual/gospel-fundamentals/chapter-36-eternal-life?lang=eng

The underlined sentence is the one in question. It is teaching that the Father “became” the Father (implying that He wasn’t always the Father), and that He did so by “overcoming problems”, just like we do (providing a corollary to our own path to exaltation).

That is the issue at hand. This of course goes along with the teachings of Joseph Smith in the King Follett Discourse, where he teaches that God wasn’t always God from all eternity. You will not find such an idea anywhere in the Bible nor any other ancient Christian writings, nor anywhere in the ancient Christian Church.

**“In order to understand the subject of the dead, for consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how He came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see.” **
lds.org/ensign/1971/04/the-king-follett-sermon?lang=eng

Latter-day Saints believe that God achieved his exalted rank by progressing much as man must progress and that God is a perfected and exalted man: “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by his power, was to make himself visible,-I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form-like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with him, as one man talks and communes with another” (TPJS, p. 345).
eom.byu.edu/index.php/Godhood

 

[gazelam]

What does that verse you quoted have to do with answering my questions? So, Jesus see’s his Father “having problems”, so Jesus has problems too?

Now you’re changing the question. Previously it was about overcoming problems, which is a positive thing. Now it’s about having problems, which sounds like someone who needs counseling, or something.

And according to LDS sites, they say the Father could possibly have sinned at one time during his human existence, but it doesn’t say that he did, nobody knows.

Are you asking a new question? What’s the point here? There are many things about God that LDS don’t claim to know. Has your question changed from problems to sins?

The suggestion by LDS that God the Father had a human existence before he became God of this universe, and the suggestion that he may have had problems, or even sinned, in his human existence is very sad.

You asked about overcoming problems and asked for a scripture. I provided one. You don’t have to take the verse at its word, of course.