The Nature of God in Mormonism.

[BDawg]

Why not also mention that the Jews also saw God as one as evidenced by their Shema, “Hear O Israel, our God is one Lord” (Deut 6:4)? And you surely cannot claim that they were Greek pagans too!

Hi A,

This is one of the similarities that I mentioned. I also have repeatedly mentioned that Mormons believe that God is ONE, as the Bible says.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Hello BDawg, God the Son is eternally Incarnate. When we speak of the Incarnation, we mean it has always been. This goes to our belief that God created time, therefore, He exists outside of time. Even though we see a straight time-line, God does not.

You have to remember that Jesus proclaimed a lot of unheard ideas. Pushing our understanding of God. I think it is clear that the Apostles understood His nature. All of the Apostles understood that Jesus was a man. They walked and talked and were with Him daily. They saw His joy, sorrows, love, anger, all the emotions of a man.

Christ asked St. Peter, “who do you believe I am”, and Peter answered you are the Son of God. Do you see how incredibly profound this is? Also, Jesus Himself proclaimed to the Jews I AM. Clearly telling them that He is God.

He Himself revealed to us that He is simultaneously Man and God.

So no, it is not a new invention. It was understood by St.Peter and the other Apostles. It was understood by the earliest Christians. That you find doubt and heresies, such as the Gnostics, is no surprise. This was an unheard of doctrine, a new claim about God, that people keep trying to make into something else.

Again, when something is addressed specifically in a council or synod, the purpose is not to create new doctrine. Quite the contrary, the purpose is to ensure that doctrines do NOT change. As time goes by, people question what Christ’s Church has always taught and believed. They wander into their own speculations, and fall into error. When the Church addresses these, the definitions of the doctrine are clearly and precisely laid out, in order to counter the error.

 

[BDawg]

Hello BDawg, God the Son is eternally Incarnate. When we speak of the Incarnation, we mean it has always been. This goes to our belief that God created time, therefore, He exists outside of time. Even though we see a straight time-line, God does not.

Hi Beccs,

I’m sorry if I was unclear. Mormons believe that God became Incarnate, too. We believe that “human nature” and the Divine Nature are at least generically similar, however, so the idea that the Word inhabited a human body just like a human soul is no problem for us. This could happen, and Jesus would still REALLY be a man.

My point was that 1) the Catholic idea of what God is and 2) the earliest Christian definition of the Incarnation are incompatible. That’s why you now have a different definition of the Incarnation.

I had never heard that the Word was believed always to have been Incarnate, though. Can you give me a source? (The CCC, or whatever, is fine.) I’d like to read more about that.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Hi Beccs,

I’m sorry if I was unclear. Mormons believe that God became Incarnate, too. We believe that “human nature” and the Divine Nature are at least generically similar, however, so the idea that the Word inhabited a human body just like a human soul is no problem for us. This could happen, and Jesus would still REALLY be a man.

We don’t believe Jesus’ divine nature was an inhabitation, like a soul. We believe it IS His nature. True God and True Man.

My point was that 1) the Catholic idea of what God is and 2) the earliest Christian definition of the Incarnation are incompatible. That’s why you now have a different definition of the Incarnation.

Ah, I don’t see this. Probably why I didn’t understand what you are asking, and still don’t.

I had never heard that the Word was believed always to have been Incarnate, though. Can you give me a source? (The CCC, or whatever, is fine.) I’d like to read more about that.

First, a definition of eternal:

"By saying that God is eternal we mean that in essence, life, and action He is altogether beyond temporal limits and relations. He has neither beginning, nor end, nor duration by way of sequence or succession of moments. There is no past or future for God – but only an eternal present. If we say that He was or that He acted , or that He will be or will act , we mean in strictness that He is or that He acts ; and this truth is well expressed by Christ when He says ( John 8:58 – A.V.): “**Before Abraham was , I am **.” Eternity, therefore, as predicated of God, does not mean indefinite duration in time – a meaning in which the term is sometimes used in other connections – but it means the total exclusion of the finiteness which time implies. We are obliged to use negative language in describing it, but in itself eternity is a positive perfection, and as such may be best defined in the words of Boethius as being “interminabilis vitae tota simul et perfecta possessio,” i.e. possession in full entirety and perfection of life without beginning, end, or succession.

The eternity of God is a corollary from His self-existence and infinity. Time being a measure of finite existence, the infinite must transcend it. God, it is true, coexists with time, as He coexists with creatures, but He does not exist in time, so as to be subject to temporal relations: His self-existence is timeless. Yet the positive perfection expressed by duration as such, i.e. persistence and permanence of being, belongs to God and is truly predicated of Him, as when He is spoken of, for example, as “Him that is, and that was and that is to come” ( Revelation 1:4 ); but the strictly temporal connotation of such predicates must always be corrected by recalling the true notion of eternity." (The Nature and Attributes of God, Catholic Encyclopedia)

From the CCC:

“God Reveals His Name”

The Nicene Creed

I believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

I believe one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
** eternally begotten** of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
one in Being with the Father.
Through Him all things were made.

For us men and for our salvation,
He came down from heaven: by the
power of the Holy Spirit He was
born of the Virgin Mary,
and became Man.

For our sake He was crucified
under Pontius Pilate;
He suffered, died, and was buried.

On the third day He rose again
in fulfillment of the Scriptures;

He ascended into heaven,
and is seated at the right hand of the
Father. He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead,
and His kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord, the Giver of life,
Who proceeds from the Father and
the Son. With the Father and the Son
He is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the prophets.

I believe in one, holy, catholic,
and apostolic Church.

I acknowledge one Baptism
for the forgiveness of sins.
I look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come.

Amen.

edit to add: there are many books on and about this. If you are interested I’ll find some references for you that you can pick up.

 

[BDawg]

Thanks, Beccs,

It has been my understanding, however, that when Catholics say Jesus is “eternally begotten,” they mean that this is something that happens within the Divine Nature. This “begetting” is not what made him a man. Rather, the Virgin Birth and the Incarnation are what made him a man.

 

[PaulDupre]

Thanks, Paul. Let’s say it again.

The LDS definition of “omnipotence” is more limited than the Catholic definition, because we don’t think certain things (like creating/destroying matter or spirit) are possible for anyone.

I don’t think this is “admitting” anything. It’s just the way we see the universe. Feel free to disagree with it, but for Pete’s sake, don’t act like anyone is trying to hide it.

I wasn’t implying that you were trying to hide anything. I was just answering CDude’s question.

Now that you mention it, though, most LDS will try to deny that they place any limits on God’s power. Perhaps this is just ignorance, but in some cases I doubt it.

 

[majick275]

Thanks, Beccs,

It has been my understanding, however, that when Catholics say Jesus is “eternally begotten,” they mean that this is something that happens within the Divine Nature. This “begetting” is not what made him a man. Rather, the Virgin Birth and the Incarnation are what made him a man.

let me take a swing:

This same doctrine was set forth by our predecessor Leo the Great in these words: ‘What principally contributed to the justification of mankind was that the only Begotten Son of God deigned to become the Son of Man, so that being God smoousios to the Father, that is of the same substance, the same [person] should exist as true man consubstantial with his mother in the flesh; we rejoice over both these things, since only by both are we saved; we admit no division of the visible from the invisible, the corporeal from the incorporeal, the passible from the impassible, the palpable from the impalpable, the form of the servant from the form of God. For although he remains the one from eternity, he began to be the other in time; these two have met in unity and can have neither separation nor end’ (St. Leo. Serm. 30, 6. PL. Liv, 233S).

and i’ll refer to you this excellent anglican refutation of arianism because it brings up some very relevant points in describing both the trinity and the incarnation in great detail:

philorthodox.blogspot.com/2008/03/arianism-and-only-begotten.html

for a more “official” catholic position this is form the US council of bishops and i would recommend it in it’s entirety for best understanding but paragraph 10 would be the most relevant if you insist on skipping:

usccb.org/pope/doctrineoffaith.htm

finally i leave you a link to an interesting individual opinion on the history of trinitarian doctrinal development. i don’t completely agree with the author but he provides a wealth of references that are worthy of consideration and overall provides good food for thought that you might enjoy.

apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/trinhistory.htm

 

[BDawg]

I wasn’t implying that you were trying to hide anything. I was just answering CDude’s question.

Now that you mention it, though, most LDS will try to deny that they place any limits on God’s power. Perhaps this is just ignorance, but in some cases I doubt it.

I’m sorry, Paul. I noticed after it was too late to edit that I was complaining to the wrong person. I think it was CDude who was implying that we were hiding something.

 

[PaulDupre]

No worries, my friend.

 

[BDawg]

For although he remains the one from eternity, he began to be the other in time; these two have met in unity and can have neither separation nor end’ (St. Leo. Serm. 30, 6. PL. Liv, 233S).

Hi Maj,

You see, this part above is what I was talking about. My understanding is that Catholic doctrine says that Jesus is “eternally begotten” of the Father, so that he always has been “the Son.” However, he became a man (i.e., became Incarnate) at a specific point in time. Isn’t that what Leo was saying? I think maybe Rebecca was confusing the two issues–Sonship and Incarnation–in her explanation, so I’m trying to get a handle on who is right, here.

So what I’m asking for is some source that says Jesus was a Man before the Incarnation. Or if that’s not what Rebecca meant, maybe she can explain that.

Thanks for the links. I did read some of them.

 

[PaulDupre]

I doubt you’ll find anything that says that Jesus was a man before the incarnation, at least from our human perspective. But since everything is eternally present to God (as in “Jesus is the lamb slain from the foundations of the world”), the incarnation is eternally present to Him also.

I saw something once (help me here) that said that Jesus was born in the image of that incarnation which is eternally present to God. That is a time paradox worthy of Star Trek (though not paradoxical in eternity), but I like it.

Paul

 

[RebeccaJ]

ok, seems I am confused and so I apologize for puking that confusion all over…and I’m going back to school… I have read “Mere Christianity”, so I will go back and read it again…From a mentor (deacon):

“Are you asking about eternal begottenness or Incarnation? Jesus is not eternally incarnate, he is eternally begotten. like begets like, thus, God begets God. C.S. Lewis ‘Mere Christianity,’ is a good place to start as it has a great section on the Trinity. Another book I highy recommend, especially for you, is Berard Marthaler’s 'The Creed: The Apostolic Faith in Contemporary Theology, which he recently updated.”

 

[majick275]

Hi Maj,

You see, this part above is what I was talking about. My understanding is that Catholic doctrine says that Jesus is “eternally begotten” of the Father, so that he always has been “the Son.” However, he became a man (i.e., became Incarnate) at a specific point in time. Isn’t that what Leo was saying? I think maybe Rebecca was confusing the two issues–Sonship and Incarnation–in her explanation, so I’m trying to get a handle on who is right, here.

So what I’m asking for is some source that says Jesus was a Man before the Incarnation. Or if that’s not what Rebecca meant, maybe she can explain that.

Thanks for the links. I did read some of them.

it is a paradox. because God exists outside the boundaries of time he can be and do once and forever. so Leo tells us that even though there was a moment in time from our perspective that the incarnation occurred, we still can’t separate Jesus into God and Man. he is eternally both. now that is different than his sonship and the eternally begotten piece. he has always existed with the father but he proceeds from him so he is always “begotten” in that this process never ends.

 

[PaulDupre]

it is a paradox. because God exists outside the boundaries of time he can be and do once and forever. so Leo tells us that even though there was a moment in time from our perspective that the incarnation occurred, we still can’t separate Jesus into God and Man. he is eternally both. now that is different than his sonship and the eternally begotten piece. he has always existed with the father but he proceeds from him so he is always “begotten” in that this process never ends.

Exactly. Note that we do not say that Jesus was eternally begotten of the Father; we say that Jesus is eternally begotten of the Father.

God bless,
Paul

 

[Nan_S]

it is a paradox. because God exists outside the boundaries of time he can be and do once and forever. so Leo tells us that even though there was a moment in time from our perspective that the incarnation occurred, we still can’t separate Jesus into God and Man. he is eternally both. now that is different than his sonship and the eternally begotten piece. he has always existed with the father but he proceeds from him so he is always “begotten” in that this process never ends.

I think this quote from Philippians is particularly relevant here when clarifying the paradox.

Phil 2:5-8 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross!

Jesus, being fully God from the before the beginning, chose to enter the realm of time where humans dwell and walk with us. He chose to do this by living in completely human form, and by direct example showing us all what we are truly capable of becoming. For this action to be 100% credible, he set aside the abilities of His divinity temporarily and came into the world exactly the same as us, born of a woman. He laughed, cried, hungered, and grew tired, and when He was still a baby he had to have his butt wiped clean by his mama. 100% human in every way.

Some things to keep in mind when dwelling on God’s existence outside of time are these:
– Where time does not exist, everything is Now. There is no distinction between that which was, that which is, and that which will/could be. All are simultaneous.
– The terms “Past, Present, and Future” only make sense within the context of time.
– God is greater than everything. God created everything. God created time. Time had a beginning and will have an end. God has neither beginning nor end.
– God created time so that we could freely choose whether to be forever with him, or forever apart from him.
– Although God dwells eternally outside of time, He can also enter our time-ruled world as he chooses and walk alongside us.
– For choices to exist, change must exist. We must be able to consider the options, then be able to move this way, move that way, or consciously stay put.
– For change to exist, time must exist. We must be able to both move from one place to another, and also be able understand that a change has happened. “I was there, but now am here. Later I may be somewhere else.”

There’s more, but I don’t want to hijack the thread completely.

 

[BDawg]

it is a paradox. because God exists outside the boundaries of time he can be and do once and forever. so Leo tells us that even though there was a moment in time from our perspective that the incarnation occurred, we still can’t separate Jesus into God and Man. he is eternally both. now that is different than his sonship and the eternally begotten piece. he has always existed with the father but he proceeds from him so he is always “begotten” in that this process never ends.

I’m sorry, but this just kills me, guys. We always get hammered here about how the Book of Mormon calls Jesus “the Eternal God,” or the Father has been God “from eternity to eternity,” but we believe the Father was once a man, etc. I don’t completely understand all that, and I try to defend it by saying that we don’t understand how God sees time, and it might be that the eternities are like one, eternal NOW, but that kind of explanation gets pretty much ignored. And yet, you guys use the exact same explanation for some things in your own theology!

If I had a nickel for every time (just in the last few days) I’ve seen someone here fret about how “illogical” this aspect of Mormon theology is, I’d be a rich man. The truth is that both Mormons and Catholics have points at the edge of their theologies where it gets very hard to talk about what it all means in human terms, because it is totally outside human experience.

 

[majick275]

I’m sorry, but this just kills me, guys. We always get hammered here about how the Book of Mormon calls Jesus “the Eternal God,” or the Father has been God “from eternity to eternity,” but we believe the Father was once a man, etc. I don’t completely understand all that, and I try to defend it by saying that we don’t understand how God sees time, and it might be that the eternities are like one, eternal NOW, but that kind of explanation gets pretty much ignored. And yet, you guys use the exact same explanation for some things in your own theology!

If I had a nickel for every time (just in the last few days) I’ve seen someone here fret about how “illogical” this aspect of Mormon theology is, I’d be a rich man. The truth is that both Mormons and Catholics have points at the edge of their theologies where it gets very hard to talk about what it all means in human terms, because it is totally outside human experience.

then i have done a poor job of communicating this to you. the two situations are very different. in LDS theology God follows hawkings arrow of time. eternal progression is linear and “eternal God” is redefined as A) always EXTANT due to intelligences doctrine and B) Forever God from the moment of his exaltation forward.

Catholic teaching is that even from a human point looking at linear progression of time there never was a time that Jesus and the Holy Spirit did not exist AS GOD. the Trinity always existed. the son proceeds from the father and the holy spirit from both. this is not a genesis type “event” but an ongoing, eternal “process”. i would describe it as the flow of an energy field. they didn’t at some point “spring forth” from the father, they continuously “flow” from him. remember they are consubstantial so it’s the same divine essence.

i think the confusion is not the eternally begotten so much as the incarnation. that DID happen at a finite point in time. however, because of God’s existence outside of temporal restrictions the nature of Jesus as both man and God is more inline with LDS view of “Eternal God”. so in catholic terms he was really always God but at a point recognizable to humans he BECAME man. theologically we believe that you shouldn’t seek to separate the two natures in understanding Jesus but it’s very different from the mormon approach. the time paradox is significant to us in the mass. because of God’s existence regarding time we can literally participate in the last supper during the sacrament of the Eucharist. this is similar to the once for all sacrifice for sin. jesus died once but that sacrifice is eternal in that it continues to pay the price of sin forever. in the sacrament of reconciliation we are given the grace that continually “emanates” from that event.

i am not a theologian so my words are very inadequate for the deep doctrines but i won’t shy away from tehm because i believe in them. i just hope my lack of ability doesn’t hamper your efforts to gain insight into catholicism even if it’s only out of curiosity that you are seeking answers.

 

[RebeccaJ]

OK, now that I am un-confused. And have been having an offline conversation with a deacon (same mentor) who explained something that I think would be useful to BDawg. And using my own words because then I know if I got it.

The Incarnation is a paradox, a mystery, but it is not an unknown. It is known because God revealed it. Nan S posted a scripture that describes this revelation well. Jesus’ life, in its entirety, is this revelation, and this revelation is never ending (as majick describes).

First, to make definitions clear, infinity=time and eternal=space.

What doesn’t make sense is a God who exists inside time and space. Such a God is neither eternal or infinite. If you think of time, as plotted on a graph, the infinite arrow of a linear plot goes in both directions. If you have a third plane, the eternal aspects of this are shown to be as real as the infinite aspects.

What Mormons postulate, is that infinity has a beginning. Which, this is what we are telling you does not make sense. You cannot have a beginning and be called “infinite”. You are in fact, finite. You cannot be the creator of ALL things and be at the same time created.

This is why when you say, “God created the earth out of existing matter”, we ask, “Who created the matter?”. God is infinite, and eternal, The Creator. There is nothing that exists that is not by His hand. All things great and small, the Lord God created them all. There is no Other Who Creates. If “existing matter” exists, then Who Created it? What god did this?

 

[majick275]

OK, now that I am un-confused. And have been having an offline conversation with a deacon (same mentor) who explained something that I think would be useful to BDawg. And using my own words because then I know if I got it.

The Incarnation is a paradox, a mystery, but it is not an unknown. It is known because God revealed it. Nan S posted a scripture that describes this revelation well. Jesus’ life, in its entirety, is this revelation, and this revelation is never ending (as majick describes).

First, to make definitions clear, infinity=time and eternal=space.

What doesn’t make sense is a God who exists inside time and space. Such a God is neither eternal or infinite. If you think of time, as plotted on a graph, the infinite arrow of a linear plot goes in both directions. If you have a third plane, the eternal aspects of this are shown to be as real as the infinite aspects.

What Mormons postulate, is that infinity has a beginning. Which, this is what we are telling you does not make sense. You cannot have a beginning and be called “infinite”. You are in fact, finite. You cannot be the creator of ALL things and be at the same time created.

This is why when you say, “God created the earth out of existing matter”, we ask, “Who created the matter?”. God is infinite, and eternal, The Creator. There is nothing that exists that is not by His hand. All things great and small, the Lord God created them all. There is no Other Who Creates. If “existing matter” exists, then Who Created it? What god did this?

i would swap definitions in your model. infinite=space, eternal=time

 

[RebeccaJ]

Yes, that would be better, and correct.