Are Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses Christian?

[Stephen168]

And your accusation is not correct.
I am not “being dishonest.”

So you now admit the Catholic Church has a clear understanding of the word consubstantial or are you continuing in your sophistry?

 

[TOmNossor]

So you now admit the Catholic Church has a clear understanding of the word consubstantial or are you continuing in your sophistry?

I am saying that the word consubstantial when applied to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by Athanasius, Father Davis, Dr. Cross, and most modern Catholics means “numerically one substance.”
You are saying that to say Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are “numerically one substance” is to be a modalist. I agree with this, but you have never commented on the fact that you are calling most Catholic scholars modalist.
Dr. Cross says that this truth is “incomprehensible to us” and IMO this is the BEST a Catholic can do (without abandoning the DEVELOPMENT from about 330AD to today). So if it is “incomprehensible to us” it is not “clear.”
Furthermore, I say that consubstantial when applied to humans in the second half of a phrase at Chalcedon is interpreted by MODERN Catholics as advocating “generic one substance.” This is a second meaning.
And, I am saying that you edited a quote from me to try to make it sound like I was not making sense. Then you claimed I was lying. I think you should stop that.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14189603&postcount=874

Do you understand what I am suggesting? Do you see why I am suggesting it? Is there something that you can provide that will align your thought with Dr. Cross, Father Davis, Athanasius, and …?

At this point in time, I have all but given up on the idea that you might deal with this in any way other than calling me “dishonest,” but I still think it worth pointing out.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

Greek was the lingua franca of Christianity. The Church used the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament and, except for maybe Matthew, the New Testament was written in Greek. The language of the Church was Greek. Homoousios is a greek word, consubstantiálem is not. Almost 1700 years ago, there was uncertainty about what a theologian meant when they used the word homoousios, but theologians did not use the word consubstantiálem because it was not a word used in the language of the Church.

Athanasius was the champion of the orthodox Christian understanding of God as defined at Nicaea. He was not consistent in his acceptance of the word hoomousios, but he was consistent in his understanding of the Trinity.

This “generic” sense is the sense all Catholic scholars take when claiming that Christ is consubstantial with mankind

It means one substance NUMERIC to the majority of Catholic scholars when applied to Christ and mankind.

"Tom Post 476:

I made a mistake!!!
NUMERIC for God Father and Son.
GENERIC for Christ and mankind.

I don’t think you made a mistake. I don’t think you understand. You still have not defined these “senses” in your own words.

Stephen,
I suspect you do not understand well (despite you claiming I do not understand).
You and I agree that homoousian in the numeric sense is the modalist heresy.
Father Davis, you, and I all agree that many (most probably) of the Father’s at Nicea used homoousian in the generic sense.

While you claim I don’t understand, you say we agree. We agree that the word homoousios as defined and understood at Nicaea was used in a “generic” sense because if it was used in a “numeric” sense it would include the heresy of sabellianism (modalism).

Father Davis and I agree that Athanasius after the council brought forth homoousian in the numeric sense (when referring to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) and that this is integral to the Catholic teaching on the matter. Catholic scholar Dr. Bryan Cross agrees.

No, Father Davis does not agree because Athanasius was the champion of meaning of the creed of Nicaea. And as we have already established Father agrees “that many (most probably) of the Father’s at Nicea used homoousian in the generic sense.”
This is why I question your understanding of the “senses” you ramble on about and why you can’t define them in your own words

I am not sure if you have read Father Davis, but I am quite convinced you do not understand what you are talking about. Actually, you understand well when you claim when/if homoousian is used of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the numeric sense; that is modalist. You are right there.

Again you start by claiming I don’t understand and finish with how I am right, more sophistry perhaps? Again you affirm the “numeric” sense is modalist but seem to forgotten Athanasius was orthodox.

I suspect Father Davis disagrees with TOm and Stephen on this.

If Father Davis, Tom, and Stephen ALL agree on the same claims at the beginning of your post, then there is still no conflict, unless you don’t understand the meaning of “generic” and numeric” sense.

Concerning your “conflate” comment, are you suggesting that “consubstantial” ALWAYS has mean “homoousian in the numeric sense” and that this is modalism?

We are not talking about the word consubstantial in this post, because it is not a word used by the language of the Church at the time of the council. The word we are talking about is homoousios. By your insistence on doing so, it is the dishonest conflating I have been pointing out to you over, and over, and over, and over again, and you continue to ignore it.
Therefore, your question makes no sense.

Perhaps I misunderstand you. Maybe this is because I am too stupid or maybe it is because you are not trying to help me understand.

I don’t think you “misunderstand.” I think you avoid the subject of this thread on purpose; you conflate consubstantial and homoousios on purpose to cause confusion that isn’t there,

But, the majority of Catholic scholars believe that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are homoousian/consubstantial in the numeric sense. You, me, and David Kembal –Cook agree that such is modalism.

The majority of Catholic scholars believe in the Trinity as defined at Nicaea; in the generic sense, as you stated earlier. Therefore, me and all Catholics understand the meaning of “same” in the generic sense.
And we all agree that to understand it in the numeric sense is modalism; a heresy. And heresies are not what we believe.

Do you understand what I am suggesting? Do you see why I am suggesting it?

You seem to be suggesting you would rather talk about a word on a subject that has nothing to do with this thread, so you can avoid dealing with the conclusion that the God of Mormonism have never been the God of Christianity, as I pointed out most recently in post #875.
It has been suggested by ex-Mormons that a proselytizing tool used by Mormons is to create doubt and confusion. I think this could also be what you are suggesting.

 

[TOmNossor]

Greek was the lingua franca of Christianity. The Church used the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament and, except for maybe Matthew, the New Testament was written in Greek. The language of the Church was Greek. Homoousios is a greek word, consubstantiálem is not. Almost 1700 years ago, there was uncertainty about what a theologian meant when they used the word homoousios, but theologians did not use the word consubstantiálem because it was not a word used in the language of the Church.

Athanasius was the champion of the orthodox Christian understanding of God as defined at Nicaea. He was not consistent in his acceptance of the word hoomousios, but he was consistent in his understanding of the Trinity.

I don’t think you made a mistake. I don’t think you understand. You still have not defined these “senses” in your own words.

While you claim I don’t understand, you say we agree. We agree that the word homoousios as defined and understood at Nicaea was used in a “generic” sense because if it was used in a “numeric” sense it would include the heresy of sabellianism (modalism).

No, Father Davis does not agree because Athanasius was the champion of meaning of the creed of Nicaea. And as we have already established Father agrees “that many (most probably) of the Father’s at Nicea used homoousian in the generic sense.”
This is why I question your understanding of the “senses” you ramble on about and why you can’t define them in your own words

Again you start by claiming I don’t understand and finish with how I am right, more sophistry perhaps? Again you affirm the “numeric” sense is modalist but seem to forgotten Athanasius was orthodox.
If Father Davis, Tom, and Stephen ALL agree on the same claims at the beginning of your post, then there is still no conflict, unless you don’t understand the meaning of “generic” and numeric” sense.

We are not talking about the word consubstantial in this post, because it is not a word used by the language of the Church at the time of the council. The word we are talking about is homoousios. By your insistence on doing so, it is the dishonest conflating I have been pointing out to you over, and over, and over, and over again, and you continue to ignore it.
Therefore, your question makes no sense.

I don’t think you “misunderstand.” I think you avoid the subject of this thread on purpose; you conflate consubstantial and homoousios on purpose to cause confusion that isn’t there,

The majority of Catholic scholars believe in the Trinity as defined at Nicaea; in the generic sense, as you stated earlier. Therefore, me and all Catholics understand the meaning of “same” in the generic sense.
And we all agree that to understand it in the numeric sense is modalism; a heresy. And heresies are not what we believe. I

You seem to be suggesting you would rather talk about a word on a subject that has nothing to do with this thread, so you can avoid dealing with the conclusion that the God of Mormonism have never been the God of Christianity, as I pointed out most recently in post #875.
It has been suggested by ex-Mormons that a proselytizing tool used by Mormons is to create doubt and confusion. I think this could also be what you are suggesting.

On my phone now. But, I think this is the first post where I am understanding your point.
Your error is that Catholici scholars believe consubstantial in the generic sense is tritheism so they NOW demand it is taken in the numeric sense. This is clear for Dr. Cross and Father Davis.
Your position was condemned as Semi-Arianism over the decades that followed Nicea.
Athanasius was only barely inconsistent, but Augustine was more clear. Aquinas as well. So Catholic scholars sometimes acknowledge the difficient understanding at Nicea, but they celebrate the corrections made and the exclusion of tritheism.
I am familiar with a few Social Trinidadian Catholic scholars who embrace your view, but they are criticized as Tritheistic.
You who celebrate “reason” need to understand what Dr. CRoss is saying. He condemns your view not as “unintelligible to us” but as Tritheistic. He then advocates for.the prevalent Catholic view which he calls “unintelligible to us.”
If you understand this issue you can embrace the Trinity of Eusebius of Cesarea and celebrate rationality. Or you can embrace the view of.Augustine and acknowledge mystery. That you have not done this leads me to believe you just don’t understand. But thank you for clarifying your postion. I hope I am clear now and we can dismiss with you calling me dishonest.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

Your error is that Catholici scholars believe consubstantial in the generic sense is tritheism so they NOW demand it is taken in the numeric sense.

I have no error. The generic sense is not necessarily Tritheism, and Tritheism was not how homoousios was defined in the Creed as you said earlier in the thread. You agree until your agreement no long serves you then you shift your position while engaging in more sophistry. You again engage in the same dishonesty by using the word consubstantial when WE was talking about homoousios.

Because you clearly do not understand what Father Davis wrote in his book, or more likely you change his meaning at your pleasure when it suited you, I can only assume you are doing the same with Bryan Cross. Because you are confused/dishonest about the “senses” of the word homoousios, I see why you make strange claims: Like “Catholics understand the Creed to mean Semi-Arianism but it was condemned after the Council.” Yet, the Creed is what Catholics believe and it was the Catholic Church who condemned Semi-Arianism. I just have to shake my head at how laughable your sophistry has become.

The definition of consubstantial is clear and homoousios has been clear for over 1600 years. But most important to the subject of the thread. The God of Mormonism has never been the God of Christianity. Christians have never believes that God was homoousios with humanity. This is the fact you have and must avoid.

 

[TOmNossor]

I have no error. The generic sense is not necessarily Tritheism, and Tritheism was not how homoousios was defined in the Creed as you said earlier in the thread. You agree until your agreement no long serves you then you shift your position while engaging in more sophistry. You again engage in the same dishonesty by using the word consubstantial when WE was talking about homoousios.

Because you clearly do not understand what Father Davis wrote in his book, or more likely you change his meaning at your pleasure when it suited you, I can only assume you are doing the same with Bryan Cross. Because you are confused/dishonest about the “senses” of the word homoousios, I see why you make strange claims: Like “Catholics understand the Creed to mean Semi-Arianism but it was condemned after the Council.” Yet, the Creed is what Catholics believe and it was the Catholic Church who condemned Semi-Arianism. I just have to shake my head at how laughable your sophistry has become.

The definition of consubstantial is clear and homoousios has been clear for over 1600 years. But most important to the subject of the thread. The God of Mormonism has never been the God of Christianity. Christians have never believes that God was homoousios with humanity. This is the fact you have and must avoid.

I will attempt to show with great clarity what Dr. Cross and Father Davis have said.
It might help for you to recognize that the ONENESS of God was not the primary concern at Nicea. Nicea was concerned with the divinity of Christ. Homoousian/Consubstantial in the generic or numeric sense preserved the divinity of Christ in the minds of the Father’s at Nicea. They did not all understand the word the same, but those who embraced the definition understood that Christ was divine.

Over time, Catholic scholars like Athanasius, Augustine, Aquinas, Father Davis, and Dr. Cross have made it clear that homoousian/consubstantial in the generic sense is tritheism. Thus, they claim that when consubstantial is used of Father and Son, it is used in the numeric sense.

When I have time, I will show that Father Davis and Dr. Cross embrace consubstantial/homoousian in the numeric sense. You probably can look at the quotes and links I have offered already in this thread. If you do and you disagree with me, please provide your quotes and thoughts. Or better yet if you agree, then we can move from there (maybe we will agree before I have time to collect the quotes).
Charity, TOm

P.S. I have no idea why you want me to define generic and numeric in my own words. My words would be,
Homoousian/consubstantial in the numeric sense is ONE Being. It is modalism (or it is “incomprehensible to us” how it is not modalism).
Homoousian/consubstantial in the generic sense is one nature/species. Eusebius of Caesarea after Nicea wrote his church and explained that human fathers and sons were homoousian with one another. This is the generic sense. Catholic scholars (other than the minority who are Social Trinitarians like me) call this tritheism.

 

[Stephen168]

My words would be,
Homoousian/consubstantial in the numeric sense is ONE Being. It is modalism (or it is “incomprehensible to us” how it is not modalism).
Homoousian/consubstantial in the generic sense is one nature/species.

Therefore, Mormons are no longer Christian.

 

[HojaVerde]

Continued from post #870.

I have no problem with God being “deeper.” I actually believe that we make idols of anything we love if we think we can reduce them to “true propositions.” God most of all.
But we can say untrue things about God, we can say true things about God. And, I maintain that one way in which we are “made in the image of God” is that we can reason. I maintain that we should not postulate the irrational and declare all is well because the subject of the irrational is God.

Hi Tom! I never meant God to be irrational. In my personal view God is not irrational, but He is beyond our understanding. It’s quite different. For example, I cannot fully understand the Theory of Relativity, but that doesn’t mean it is irrational. Maybe there are others who understand. Imagine if not. God is beyond our understanding.

And most importantly, as I have said a few times in this thread, I think it inappropriate to declare that the tools of reason destroy my faith when the law of non-contradiction is violated by the most prevalent conception of the Trinity held by Catholic scholars. Add this, while I cannot perfectly draw the lines between Social and Monarchical forms within the Trinity, I see nothing that contradicts the reason God gave us, so I spend a lot of time REASONING as best I am capable of reasoning. I imagine my reasoning about God may be sinful. I turn the one I should love into an object I analyze. This works great when dialoguing with anti-Mormons, but it can leave me farther from God. I need to guard against this (but of course that too is prescriptive and intellectual, I think I will pray)!

We always can reason to understand better, and that is good. But as I said before, I cannot put inifinity as a whole inside my head. The only thing I can do it is to be humble to accept these things.

I am somewhat sympathetic to this. I am not sure how to respond. I think this is reasonable Catholic self-understanding.
I do not believe this is what the apostles did. LDS send out 18-22 year olds because our message is “come and see.” I personally spend a lot of time with “let us reason together,” and I lean toward believing this is something that it is appropriate for me to do.
I do not believe that asking someone to define consubstantial when they make a good point about John 17:21 is either “come and see” or “let us reason together.” And if reason is not on the side of the believer in consubstantial (and Catholics will deny dogma because they do not understand the word), I thought I would point it out.
Oh, and I strenuously object to the idea that LDS send out 18-22 year olds and say, “come and see” because reason is not on our side. I think reason is on our side, TOO. I just think God is more about “come and see” than “let us reason together.”

I think the “come and see” and the “let us reason together” are not incompatible approaches. From “seeing” (contemplation) comes understanding (reason). God desires man to know the truth and to reach truly life.

I am not sure if being between Scylla and Charybdis had progressed from its original Greek context of an IMPOSSIBLE middle way to its more modern context (lost from American education only a few decades ago) of a difficult choice, when Augustine used it (Augustine is known for not being good with the Greek language, he might have been poor with its mythology too) or not. I see in Augustine’s writings assertions that he is not a modalist, not Arian, and not a Trithiest. I see no definition of a “middle way” in his writings or in your writings above. Claiming that God is one being and three persons does not educate. There is no four dimensional math that enables us to “reason together” to a non-contradictory position. I just do not see it working.
I agree with the Catholic scholar I quoted before, it is “unintelligible to us.”
I assert,

1. Christ is fully God.
2. There is One God.
3. I cannot perfectly explain how the above two things are true. There is mystery there.
   Am I a Christian?
   Perhaps my intellect is not up to the task. Perhaps it is just me and Dr. Cross who consider it “unintelligible to us,” but at least I am in good company.
   Charity, TOm

I do not see a contradiction in the definition of the Trinity, and I understand that definition.
The same happens to infinity, for example. I can understand the definition, I know there are, at least, two different types of infinities, the first one, with a numerable cardinality (example, natural numbers), and the second one, with a continuous cardinality (example, real numbers). The second infinite has infinitely many more numbers than the first infinity! Indeed, they all cannot be numbered, there are more and more! And this is not irrational.

What it is beyond my understanding is how God is possible (even if I can reason to reach the conclusion to his existence, by contemplating the nature, for example), and how the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are three persons in God, instead he being one only person. This is not irrational.

 

[HojaVerde]

Do you agree with the Catholic scholar I quoted:
“But the three divine persons are numerically the same being and essence. This is a unity that we cannot even comprehend. It is not only a unity than which none greater can be conceived; this unity itself cannot even be conceived. We grasp things intellectually by dividing them (into genus and species). So a Being that cannot be divided even formally is unintelligible to us. Before we seek to understand the doctrine of the Trinity, we first have to recognize the incomprehensible unity within which the Son and Spirit process.”

I agree that God is beyond our understanding, not only about the Trinity, but also on other aspects.

What you say is true when we project three dimensions into two, but the lost information is rational. It is even true that 4 dimensional space is virtually impossible for us who live in a three special dimensions to physically perceive. That being said, it can be mathematically represented and there is no violation of the law of non-contradiction. If I say that I stand at point w,x,y,z and I shoot 4 bullets at all 90 degree angles to one another in 4 different directions, you might think, “impossible,” but in 4 dimensional space it is just the way things work. It is not a violation of the law of non-contradiction.

I agree the Trinity is unique. I also agree that there is no PERFECT analogy.
cont…

The example I provided it is a “surface of a sphere”, and that in math is a differential variaty of two dimensions (not three). Thus some people could think Earth is flat. However, even having the same number of dimensions as a map or flat surface (two, as well), we cannot find a projection that works good, preserving the angle, the shapes and the areas of the countries (it is demonstrated). The two objects are not isomorphical. I used this example as an analogy. The maps would be every approach we have to reach God. The sphere would be God as the supreme being or God as the Trinity, that cannot be **fully **represented/understood, no matter the projection used.

I think it is Catholic doctrine that we can conlude the existence of God by the way of reason. But it is impossible to reach God as a Trinity only by reason, if God doesn’t reveal it, as we believe he did.

36 "Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason."11 Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God’s revelation. Man has this capacity because he is created “in the image of God”.12
…
237 The Trinity is a mystery of faith in the strict sense, one of the “mysteries that are hidden in God, which can never be known unless they are revealed by God”.58 To be sure, God has left traces of his Trinitarian being in his work of creation and in his Revelation throughout the Old Testament. But his inmost Being as Holy Trinity is a mystery that is inaccessible to reason alone or even to Israel’s faith before the Incarnation of God’s Son and the sending of the Holy Spirit.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Was looking at older posts and stumbled upon this, in the Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young manual:

"God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost constitute the Godhead. President Brigham Young taught the Latter-day Saints to worship God the Father and address prayers to Him in the name of Jesus Christ. He taught further that God the Father was once a man on another planet who “passed the ordeals we are now passing through; he has received an experience, has suffered and enjoyed, and knows all that we know regarding the toils, sufferings, life and death of this mortality” (DBY, 22)."**

and

"The doctrine that God was once a man and has progressed to become a God is unique to this Church. How do you feel, knowing that God, through His own experience, “knows all that we know regarding the toils [and] sufferings” of mortality?"
lds.org/manual/teachings-brigham-young/chapter-4?lang=eng

 

[eddie_too]

of course i may have this wrong, but i was told by a mormon that they do not believe that God is infinite and eternal.

instead they believe that matter is infinite and eternal and that the god of this world was procreated by its heavenly father who also was procreated by an earlier heavenly father, ad inifinitum, one previous father procreating the next.

if there is an mormon voice of authority who has addressed this issue, the differences between the infinite, eternal and one God of the Roman Catholic Church and the mormon doctrine i was taught above, i would appreciate hearing from that mormon authority. i am not interested in what and individual mormon might think or say about these differences. i am interested in what the people who speak for the mormon church with the highest authority say about it.

 

[TOmNossor]

Stephen,
It is my position Father Davis and Dr. Cross embrace the Catholic and Protestant view that goes beyond the “generic homoousian/consubstantial” embraced by most Nicene Bishops to the “numeric homoousian/consubstantial.” You have claimed

The majority of Catholic scholars believe in the Trinity as defined at Nicaea; in the generic sense, as you stated earlier. Therefore, me and all Catholics understand the meaning of “same” in the generic sense.
And we all agree that to understand it in the numeric sense is modalism; a heresy. And heresies are not what we believe.

It is a little complex to flesh out, but the Fourth Lateran council formalized the “numeric” sense making your view at odds with Catholicism. That being said, I will leave that you to reject or investigate as I do not think there is sufficient trust between you and I for you to respect my points on this.
What I did say was that I would show that Father Davis and Dr. Cross embrace “numeric homoousian/consubstantial.
You said:

We agree that the word homoousios as defined and understood at Nicaea was used in a “generic” sense because if it was used in a “numeric” sense it would include the heresy of sabellianism (modalism).
No, Father Davis does not agree because Athanasius was the champion of meaning of the creed of Nicaea. And as we have already established Father agrees “that many (most probably)

Here is what I already offered you from Father Davis (I think):

However, homoousios was at the time a notoriously slippery word and could have three principal meanings. First, it could be generic; of one substance could be said of two individual men, both of whom share human nature while remaining individuals. Secondly, it could signify numerical identity, that is, that the Father and the Son are identical in concrete being. Finally, it could refer to material things, as two pots are of the same substance because both are made of the same clay. Constantine himself explained that “homoousios was not used in the sense of bodily affections, for the Son did not derive His existence from the Father by means of division or severance, since an immaterial, intellectual and incorporeal nature could not be subject to any bodily affection. These things must be understood as bearing a divine and ineffable signification.” The point was that the third meaning of homoousios, with its connotations of materiality was not the meaning used in the creed. That left the two previous meanings. It seems that the Council, intent on stressing the equality of the Son with the Father, had the first meaning explicitly in mind. Father and Son are homoousioi in that they are equally divine. But implicit in their statement was numerical identity, that Father and Son are of a single divine substance, an aspect brought out by Athanasius in the course of the long struggle following the Council. Leo Davis, The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787), Their History and Theology.

I think you missed the last part of the above quote the first time I posted it, but here it is again:

But implicit in their statement was numerical identity, that Father and Son are of a single divine substance, an aspect brought out by Athanasius in the course of the long struggle following the Council. Leo Davis, The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787), Their History and Theology.

Father Davis embraces “numerical identity” after he explains “numeric” and “generic.” So, yes the Father’s at Nicea probably mostly mean “generic homoousian/consubstantial” BUT Athanasius brings out the implicit truth of “numeric homoousian/consubstantial.”
Father Davis will go on to talk about this a little more. At the Council of Sardica (local council were Eastern Bishops left likely over protest because Athanasius and Marcellus were included). Davis tells us:

The bishops declared that the substance of Father and Son is identical, making fully explicit something only implicit in the Nicene Creed. Although stressing against the Origenists the unity of the Godhead in uncompromising fashion, their explanation failed to state the way in which Father, Son and Holy Spirit are separate in any comprehensible sense. Leo Davis, The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787), Their History and Theology. P. 86

Here is what Dr. Cross says (bolding mine):

I agree completely. Three human persons are united by unity of type and/or by functional unity (e.g. team), or organic unity (e.g. a lineage), or by hierarchical unity (e.g. a family), or in an even greater way in the Mystical Body (which includes all the unities I just mentioned). But the three divine persons are numerically the same being and essence. This is a unity that we cannot even comprehend. It is not only a unity than which none greater can be conceived; this unity itself cannot even be conceived. We grasp things intellectually by dividing them (into genus and species). So a Being that cannot be divided even formally is unintelligible to us. Before we seek to understand the doctrine of the Trinity, we first have to recognize the incomprehensible unity within which the Son and Spirit process.

.
Dr. Cross embraces “numeric homoousian/consubstantial.”
cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

Here is what Protestant Scholar JND Kelly (a respected non-Catholic patristic scholar) said:

But if this is granted, a further question at once arises: are we to understand ‘of the same nature’ in the ‘generic’ sense in which Origen, for example, had employed ὁμοούσιος, or are we to take it as having the meaning accepted by later Catholic * theology, viz. numerical identity of substance? - JND Kelley, Early Christians Doctrines*
Kelly is correct only a handful of decades after Nicea, the entire church (at least the western church) embraced numeric homoousian/consubstantial. There were brief conflicts, but no large scale dissention. The 4th Lateran conference solidified the numeric meaning.

Stephen,
Let me say again. Dr. Cross and Father Davis and most Catholic scholars (except for the small minority of Social Trinitarian Catholic scholars) believe that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are numerically homoousian/consubstantial.
You and I agree that to believe God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are numerically homoousian/consubstantial is to embrace modalism.

I would say in concert with Dr. Cross the avoidance of modalism while maintaining that Father, Son, and Spirit are numerical homoousian/consubstantial is “unintelligible to us.” It is an “incomprehensible unity.”

If it is modalism, we understand. If it is generic homoousian/consubstantial ONLY, we understand. But if it is numeric homoousian/consubstantial and somehow not modalism, it is unintelligent to us.

I think God asks us to use reason while humbly recognizing that we cannot be omniscient. I do not believe this means embracing contradictions.

You will need to choose, do you:

1. reject “numeric homoousian/consubstatial,”
2. embrace “numeric homoousian/consubstantial” AND modalism,
   or
3. embrace “numeric homoousian/consubstantial” AND reject comprehension/intelligibility.

I reject numeric homoousian/consubstantial, but have no problem with (embrace even) generic homoousian/consubstantial.

Charity, TOm

 

[jane_doe]

of course i may have this wrong, but i was told by a mormon that they do not believe that God is infinite and eternal.

Incorrect.

instead they believe that matter is infinite and eternal and that the god of this world was procreated by its heavenly father who also was procreated by an earlier heavenly father, ad inifinitum, one previous father procreating the next.

matter is infinite and eternal: this is correct. It does not have any bearing on God being infinite and eternal.
Rest of your statements are speculation, not scripture. They also have no bearing on God being infinite and eternal.

if there is an mormon voice of authority who has addressed this issue, the differences between the infinite, eternal and one God of the Roman Catholic Church and the mormon doctrine i was taught above, i would appreciate hearing from that mormon authority. i am not interested in what and individual mormon might think or say about these differences. i am interested in what the people who speak for the mormon church with the highest authority say about it.

The highest authority is God Himself. You’re welcome to ask Him directly for private answers.
The second greatest authority is scripture, which contains only a fraction of God’s marvels and knowledge. Scripture will continue to be revealed as God deems fit to share it with the world. Until then, you’ll have to wait.

 

[TOmNossor]

Incorrect.

matter is infinite and eternal: this is correct. It does not have any bearing on God being infinite and eternal.
Rest of your statements are speculation, not scripture. They also have no bearing on God being infinite and eternal.

The highest authority is God Himself. You’re welcome to ask Him directly for private answers.
The second greatest authority is scripture, which contains only a fraction of God’s marvels and knowledge. Scripture will continue to be revealed as God deems fit to share it with the world. Until then, you’ll have to wait.

Jane beat me to it. Let me add a scriptural passage from uniquely LDS scripture that I have almost never seen mentioned by an anti-Mormon:

D&C 20:17

By these things we know that there is a God in heaven, who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God, the framer of heaven and earth, and all things which are in them;

Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

of course i may have this wrong, but i was told by a mormon that they do not believe that God is infinite and eternal.

instead they believe that matter is infinite and eternal and that the god of this world was procreated by its heavenly father who also was procreated by an earlier heavenly father, ad inifinitum, one previous father procreating the next.

if there is an mormon voice of authority who has addressed this issue, the differences between the infinite, eternal and one God of the Roman Catholic Church and the mormon doctrine i was taught above, i would appreciate hearing from that mormon authority. i am not interested in what and individual mormon might think or say about these differences. i am interested in what the people who speak for the mormon church with the highest authority say about it.

It depends on what you and the Mormon mean by infinite. And what you and the Mormon mean by eternal. Posts 849 and 851 have quotes from the Mormon Church.

To a Christian, a God of flesh and bone would not be infinite.

 

[TOmNossor]

It depends on what you and the Mormon mean by infinite. And what you and the Mormon mean by eternal. Posts 849 and 851 have quotes from the Mormon Church.

To a Christian, a God of flesh and bone would not be infinite.

Did the man Jesus Christ have a body of flesh and bones?
Was He infinite?
Does He still have a body of flesh and bones?
Oh, and please don’t miss my above posts from 12:43 and 12:44.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

Oh, and please don’t miss my above posts from 12:43 and 12:44.

I saw them

 

[mackbrislawn]

Did the man Jesus Christ have a body of flesh and bones?
Was He infinite?
Does He still have a body of flesh and bones?
Oh, and please don’t miss my above posts from 12:43 and 12:44.
Charity, TOm

Well, the man Jesus had a human body of flesh and blood, which was finite. His divine nature was infinite.

The resurrected Jesus has a glorified body, which can be distributed without end to all who take communion with Him in the Eucharist. His divine nature is still infinite.

 

[TOmNossor]

I saw them

This is ominous.
Charity, TOm