Mormons: Henotheists or Polytheists?

[BDawg]

Do you know why we believe subordination in an economic sense but not ontological?

I have my own ideas about why mainstream Christianity adopted this belief, but you won’t like them, so you might as well go ahead and explain your own rationale.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Don’t you mean the reverse?

I already changed it, so as I have it there, is what I meant.

Still working on kicking my brain into gear. :coffeeread:

 

[RebeccaJ]

I have my own ideas about why mainstream Christianity adopted this belief, but you won’t like them, so you might as well go ahead and explain your own rationale.

Yes, I know what Mormons think.

I wouldn’t know where to begin. But the parts in your essay about subordination don’t represent what we believe.

 

[buffgbob]

I think one thing that was missing about the Mystery of Trinity is that God Himself is a Mystery to us. He is also necessarily a Mystery and will always be a Mystery. Why? Simple metaphysics!

We have a finite brain (or capability to know.)
God’s essence is infinite.
You cannot fit something infinite into something finite.
Therefore, we cannot fully comprehend God.

If we were able to fully comprehend God, we would be God. That is why only the Father knows the Son, etc. This is why Aquinas says that whenever we speak of God, we don’t actually speak of Him directly but by analogy. For even if we say, “God is perfect”, the word “perfect” doesn’t accurately represent God; God’s actuality of perfection is beyond the scope that can be comprehended by the word “perfect”.

In this sense, Trinity is a Mystery. Not in the sense that perfection must have a simple essence with necessarily relations within itself (aka Three Persons) is confusing or uncomprehendable, but in the sense that even expressing this idea which we hold true doesn’t accurately characterize God who is unfathomable.

 

[BDawg]

I wouldn’t know where to begin. But the parts in your essay about subordination don’t represent what we believe.

I know they don’t. That was the point. Before about 300 AD, the standard Christian doctrine was that the Son and Spirit are ontologically subordinate to the Father. After the fourth/fifth centuries, the F/S/HS were each viewed as the entire Divine Substance, which was not the case before. And no, I’m not saying that they were all a bunch of Arians. There were some differences.

 

[BDawg]

I found something else relating to the question of how to label Mormon theology. An article on the “Religion Facts” website, for instance, says this about Hinduism.

Hinduism is a decidedly theistic religion; the difficulty lies in determining whether it is a polytheistic, pantheistic, or perhaps even monotheistic religion. It should be noted at the outset, however, that this is chiefly a western difficulty: the Indian mind is much more inclined to regard divergent views as complementary rather than competing. (religionfacts.com/hinduism/beliefs/theism.htm )

That was one of my points about Mormon theology. It doesn’t fit neatly into any of the categories some people want to impose on it.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I know they don’t. That was the point. Before about 300 AD, the standard Christian doctrine was that the Son and Spirit are ontologically subordinate to the Father. After the fourth/fifth centuries, the F/S/HS were each viewed as the entire Divine Substance, which was not the case before. And no, I’m not saying that they were all a bunch of Arians. There were some differences.

So, you want to support your point by misrepresenting what Catholics believe? I know that from your view, we’re wrong, but I see it as the same thing you had going on with the Mystery of the Trinity. That is, it comes across as we believe “stuff” for the sake of believing it, or, just to make it as much in error as we possibly can, in order that Mormonism can be validated…and I see that at the highest level of Mormon leadership, such as the wonderful (sarcasm) talk that Holland gave at general conference.

 

[AirLiner]

well Zerinus, I read your blog about the Isaiah passages. Basically your’e saying that when God says that he is one he is really saying that we should only worship him and not those false idols that were such a problem in Biblical times. You don’t think that God says he is the only deity, you state that he says He is the only deity we should worship. However this conclusion is flawed. You only come to this conclusion because you are biased towards believing in the plurality of gods. I don’t accept Mormon teachings so when passages in the Book of Isaiah state that God is one I understand it as really meaning that God is one, he is the only deity, and because of this idols are fake gods, and they should not be worshiped.

Oh and I also noted how you try to use Isaiah 43:10 to make people think that the book isn’t meant to be taken so literally because if that were true God would be saying that he was “formed”. However, Isaiah 43:10 can in fact be taken literally. In this passage God is helping us avoid the false view. He says that before Him, “there was no God formed”. In the entire context of Isaiah you can see how this states that no god is formed because there is only one God and He is eternal.

 

[BDawg]

So, you want to support your point by misrepresenting what Catholics believe? I know that from your view, we’re wrong, but I see it as the same thing you had going on with the Mystery of the Trinity. That is, it comes across as we believe “stuff” for the sake of believing it, or, just to make it as much in error as we possibly can, in order that Mormonism can be validated…and I see that at the highest level of Mormon leadership, such as the wonderful (sarcasm) talk that Holland gave at general conference.

Hi Rebecca,

I didn’t mean to misrepresent what Catholics believe. I was trying to explain how what the earliest Christians believed is different than what Catholics now believe. I gave examples and quoted noted, non-Mormon scholars to support my point. Maybe I didn’t make the point that I wasn’t talking about modern Christianity clear enough?

I know it annoys you if I re-post one of my “essays,” but since I’m not budging about that, how do you feel about how I have updated it? I took out all the stuff about “laziness,” (which I think is true for mainstream Christians, Mormons, and lots of other people, but probably not productive to say.) I also updated the description of the mainstream doctrine of the Trinity by updating this paragraph.

Note that the word “simple” is a technical philosophical/theological term meaning “completely homogeneous” or “without parts.” If this is what God is, then the Trinity must be a single Being, a single spiritual “substance.” But since the New Testament clearly presents them as three “persons,” the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit must somehow all exist as distinct persons within an spiritual “substance” that has no parts. Exactly HOW a “simple” Being can be Three Persons is supposed to be a mystery that is not accessible by human reason. (Note: I do not mean to say that mainstream Christians think their doctrine is unbelievable or irrational. Rather, they simply assert that there are some things about God that the human mind can’t understand. Mormons also believe that there are things about the eternal worlds that the human mind can’t fathom without experiencing them—see D&C 76:114-116)

Is that more acceptable to you? Honestly, I have every intention of arguing against your beliefs where they conflict with mine, but when I describe your beliefs, I want to do so in a way that you would recognize as fair and accurate.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Hi Rebecca,

I didn’t mean to misrepresent what Catholics believe. I was trying to explain how what the earliest Christians believed is different than what Catholics now believe. I gave examples and quoted noted, non-Mormon scholars to support my point. Maybe I didn’t make the point that I wasn’t talking about modern Christianity clear enough?

Yes, you misrepresent what they believe, as they are Catholic. And in their position of Church Fathers, you misrepresent all of catholicism (little c).

I know it annoys you if I re-post one of my “essays,” but since I’m not budging about that, how do you feel about how I have updated it?

I’ll go through it, just need to work on some other things first.

 

[zerinus]

zerinus,

Maybe you should tell us what you mean by a ‘god’ in the first place. I’m suspicious that you think of it in the way that Arians do that is, God the Father is truly infinite and eternal (as you’ve explained) but Christ is a god of a lesser order, a created being that the God decided to share some divinity with. In that sense, us becoming gods means being like Christ is, lesser yes, but infused with divinity because the God decidest o share. In that case our debate would fruitfully be about trinitarianism, because if that is true you’re really a monotheistic Arian and your talk about ‘gods’ isn’t actually a matter of polytheism. Please correct me if I am mistaken about your position.

I mean by ‘god’ or ‘gods’ whatever those scriptural verses in which they occured meant by it, or whatever those quoted passages from the Early Church Fathers in which they occur meant by it. That is why I quoted them, so you know what they meant by it, which is the same as what I mean by it.

zerinus

 

[nebula]

I mean by ‘god’ or ‘gods’ whatever those scriptural verses in which they occured meant by it, or whatever those quoted passages from the Early Church Fathers in which they occur meant by it. That is why I quoted them, so you know what they meant by it, which is the same as what I mean by it.

zerinus

Maybe you can define it for us in your own words, what is a ‘god’ and is that the same sort of being as God?

 

[zerinus]

Maybe you can define it for us in your own words, what is a ‘god’ and is that the same sort of being as God?

The best way that I can answer that is to suggest that you go back and read the quoted passages from the Early Church Fathers, and tell me in your own words what you think they meant by it, and why you think what you think they meant by it. If you can do that, then maybe we can discuss it further.

zeromis

 

[zerinus]

well Zerinus, I read your blog about the Isaiah passages. Basically your’e saying that when God says that he is one he is really saying that we should only worship him and not those false idols that were such a problem in Biblical times. You don’t think that God says he is the only deity, you state that he says He is the only deity we should worship. However this conclusion is flawed. You only come to this conclusion because you are biased towards believing in the plurality of gods. I don’t accept Mormon teachings so when passages in the Book of Isaiah state that God is one I understand it as really meaning that God is one, he is the only deity, and because of this idols are fake gods, and they should not be worshiped.

That ignores all the quoted passages I had given from the Bible, and from the Early Church Fathers that affirm the plurality of gods. We don’t quote those passages from Isaiah to affirm the plurality of gods. You quote them to affirm (as you think) the absolute one-ness of God. I wrote that article to demonstrate to you that those passages were do not prove the absolute one-ness of God; and that you had misunderstood them. Our proof for the plurality of gods comes from other passages in the Bible, as well as the Early Church Fathers that I had cited.

zerinus

 

[nebula]

The best way that I can answer that is to suggest that you go back and read the quoted passages from the Early Church Fathers, and tell me in your own words what you think they meant by it, and why you think what you think they meant by it. If you can do that, then maybe we can discuss it further.

zeromis

Why are you so reluctant to offer your position in your own words? It’s a little baffling to me, unless you’ve had experience being burned in the past and want to hide under the authority of quotes from church fathers, but what kind of conversation is that?

God is the transcendent, uncreated, infinite, eternal, independent Being who sustains our existence. “gods” can refer to false gods or created angels with high positions who nonetheless are infused with divinity from God, and in the latter sense perhaps we humans can become ‘gods’ if God chooses to infuse us with His divinity (of course, we’d remain completely and utterly dependent on Him as a continual source of our very existence). I don’t have a problem with that position, but for me the essential thing is to recognize the infinite ontological divide between us and God,a nd maintain that God is total unity (since a multiplicity of infinities is nonsense). It seems like you are wanting to agree with that too, but I can’t know until you answer in your own words.

 

[RebeccaJ]

BDawg, you still assert in your essay that the Mystery of the Trinity is not accessible to human reason…this is not true. We can, and have, reasoned it out.

 

[BDawg]

BDawg, you still assert in your essay that the Mystery of the Trinity is not accessible to human reason…this is not true. We can, and have, reasoned it out.

No, I said that HOW a simple Being can be Three Persons is beyond human reason. I thought you said this was true, in post #74. You said, “We don’t understand the how of anything about God. No one does.”

 

[zerinus]

Why are you so reluctant to offer your position in your own words? It’s a little baffling to me, unless you’ve had experience being burned in the past and want to hide under the authority of quotes from church fathers, but what kind of conversation is that?

Everything you say I can turn around and say to you. You are trying to pull a fast one on me. I am a bit smarter than that. Maybe you are not so experienced in debating on the Internet as I am. Those kinds of tricks don’t work with me.

God is the transcendent, uncreated, infinite, eternal, independent Being who sustains our existence. “gods” can refer to false gods or created angels with high positions who nonetheless are infused with divinity from God, and in the latter sense perhaps we humans can become ‘gods’ if God chooses to infuse us with His divinity (of course, we’d remain completely and utterly dependent on Him as a continual source of our very existence).

That don’t work I am afraid. If that is what the ECFs meant by “god” or “gods,” then firstly they were guilty of gross misuse of language. There is a vast lexical difference between the words “god” and “angel”. If they said “gods” when in fact they meant “angels,” then they were being utterly foolish and reckless in the use of language, and misleading all their readers. Secondly, they make it very clear in their writings that men when “deified” can become “gods” in the same way that Jesus is God (and Jesus is God in the same way that the Father is God):

. . . the Word, I say, of God, who became man just that you might learn from a man how it may be that man should become God *. (Clement of Alexandria, p. 244.)

The Son in his kindness generously imparted deification to others . . . who are transformed through him into gods, as images of the prototype* . . . the Word * is the archetype of the many images*. (Origen, p. 274.)

For the Word was not degraded by receiving a body, so that he should seek to “receive” God’s gift. Rather he deified what he put on; and, more than that, he bestowed this gift upon the race of men. (Athanasius, p. 384.)

But he himself that justifies also defies, for by justifying he makes sons of God. “For he has given them power to become the sons of God” [John 1:12]. If then we have been made sons of God, we have also been made gods.” (Augustine, On the psalms, 50.2.)

“Your body shall be immortal and incorruptible as well as your soul. For you have become God. All the things that follow upon the divine nature God has promised to supply to you, for you were deified in being born to immortality” (Philos. x.34).

One of the principal developers of the Nicene Confession was Athanasius. His works are filled with the doctrine of deification. “For He [Christ] was made man that we might be made God” (De Incar. Para. 54). “The Word was made Flesh in order to offer up this body for all, that we might be deified” (De Dec. para. 14). “He was God, and then became man, and that to deify us” (Orat. I…para.39).

Chrysostom said: “Christ came to us, and took upon him our nature and deified it.”

Gregory of Nyssa said that Christ coming in flesh has now “deified everything kindred and related to mankind” (Catechism xxxv).

“The Word of God [Christ] is now God as He had been man, in order to deify mankind together with himself” (Demonst. iv.14). It was clearly understood by Eusebius that mankind is on earth finally to become, through Christ, as divine as Christ Jesus is now Himself divine.

Was that clear enough for you this time?

I don’t have a problem with that position, but for me the essential thing is to recognize the infinite ontological divide between us and God,a nd maintain that God is total unity (since a multiplicity of infinities is nonsense). It seems like you are wanting to agree with that too, but I can’t know until you answer in your own words.

The expressions “infinite ontological divide” or “multiplicities of infinities” do not occur in the Bible, and frankly do not have any theological meaning for me. They sound more philosophical than theological. I am not in the business of philosophy. I am in the business of theology, and the Bible (from which Christian theology is derived). “Infinite ontological divide” and “multiplicities of infinities” don’t make a lot of sense to me in theological terms. I only understand the simple language of the Bible. That is the source from which my theology is derived.

zerinus

 

[RebeccaJ]

No, I said that HOW a simple Being can be Three Persons is beyond human reason. I thought you said this was true, in post #74. You said, “We don’t understand the how of anything about God. No one does.”

Yes, but that is not what your essay says.

 

[nebula]

Everything you say I can turn around and say to you. You are trying to pull a fast one on me. I am a bit smarter than that. Maybe you are not so experienced in debating on the Internet as I am. Those kinds of tricks don’t work with me.

That don’t work I am afraid. If that is what the ECFs meant by “god” or “gods,” then firstly they were guilty of gross misuse of language. There is a vast lexical difference between the words “god” and “angel”. If they said “gods” when in fact they meant “angels,” then they were being utterly foolish and reckless in the use of language, and misleading all their readers. Secondly, they make it very clear in their writings that men when “deified” can become “gods” in the same way that Jesus is God (and Jesus is God in the same way that the Father is God):

. . . the Word, I say, of God, who became man just that you might learn from a man how it may be that man should become God *. (Clement of Alexandria, p. 244.)

The Son in his kindness generously imparted deification to others . . . who are transformed through him into gods, as images of the prototype* . . . the Word * is the archetype of the many images*. (Origen, p. 274.)

For the Word was not degraded by receiving a body, so that he should seek to “receive” God’s gift. Rather he deified what he put on; and, more than that, he bestowed this gift upon the race of men. (Athanasius, p. 384.)

But he himself that justifies also defies, for by justifying he makes sons of God. “For he has given them power to become the sons of God” [John 1:12]. If then we have been made sons of God, we have also been made gods.” (Augustine, On the psalms, 50.2.)

“Your body shall be immortal and incorruptible as well as your soul. For you have become God. All the things that follow upon the divine nature God has promised to supply to you, for you were deified in being born to immortality” (Philos. x.34).

One of the principal developers of the Nicene Confession was Athanasius. His works are filled with the doctrine of deification. “For He [Christ] was made man that we might be made God” (De Incar. Para. 54). “The Word was made Flesh in order to offer up this body for all, that we might be deified” (De Dec. para. 14). “He was God, and then became man, and that to deify us” (Orat. I…para.39).

Chrysostom said: “Christ came to us, and took upon him our nature and deified it.”

Gregory of Nyssa said that Christ coming in flesh has now “deified everything kindred and related to mankind” (Catechism xxxv).

“The Word of God [Christ] is now God as He had been man, in order to deify mankind together with himself” (Demonst. iv.14). It was clearly understood by Eusebius that mankind is on earth finally to become, through Christ, as divine as Christ Jesus is now Himself divine.

Was that clear enough for you this time?

The expressions “infinite ontological divide” or “multiplicities of infinities” do not occur in the Bible, and frankly do not have any theological meaning for me. They sound more philosophical than theological. I am not in the business of philosophy. I am in the business of theology, and the Bible (from which Christian theology is derived). “Infinite ontological divide” and “multiplicities of infinities” don’t make a lot of sense to me in theological terms. I only understand the simple language of the Bible. That is the source from which my theology is derived.

zerinus

zerinus,

That’s just the thing, I’m not trying to pull a fast one on you, but you seem to be devoted to the idea that I am. There aren’t any judges here to say “you are the winner of the debate” so that seems completely pointless. If I bring up a point, ti’s because I sincerely think it’s valid and important, even if you disagree with that judgement before we even get started. That’s why I wondered if you were tired of getting burned, it wasn’t my intention to imply that you are a poor debater.

Anyway, moving on from that, no it’s not clear to me that the ECFs thought that others could become literal ontological equals to God. With all of them, God pre-exists us, and is the ultimate source of creation, and cannot be. In every case, God is offering something to us, we are not growing up into it (as in Mormonism).

I don’t know how you think you can do theology without philosophy, we all employ philosophy, whether we acknowledge it or not, and you’d be better off acknowledging it so that you can figure out what kind of philosophy you employ. Why not use precision of language? We are all stuck with finite human languages, why not do the best we can with it? If you want, I’ll say “different kind of Being” every time I talk about God, but why not talk about an infinite ontological divide since that expresses my thoughts all the more clearer?

By the way, if you really want to understand things in the simple language of the Bible, are you going to learn the biblical languages and study textual criticism to try to derive the earliest and most authentic version? Nothing about this is really simple, but I doubt we should expect that since we are dealign with the infinite God communicating with finite humans.