Stephen168
New member
What is the neo-modalist use of homoousian?
What is the difference in the use of homoousian between Nicea and Chalcedon?
- Status
What is the difference in the use of homoousian between Nicea and Chalcedon?
N
nebula
Guest
Isn’t it a little too early in your progression to have achieved omniscience?
N
nebula
Guest
Tom,
I didn’t impose anything on LDS thought. I made a logical deduction based on things I learned in my very first Gospel Principles class about how heavenly father was once a man on an earth just like us and was exalted to his godhood. That notion requires reinterpreting scriptures about God being eternal to be ‘relatively’ eternal (olam as an indefinite period of time, not strictly eternal), not in the absolute sense. I didn’t say anything novel.
About #5, what you are doing is the same thing people have done for generations when misinterpreting the trinity. Let’s run this down in a formula, it’s easier to see:
God= the Trinity,
God= the Son
implies: the Trinity=the Son
The problem I have with this is that the argument is based on semantics, how we normally use the word ‘God’, in order to make a strict logical deduction and prove a contradiction. How we use words day to day is more messy than allows for logical deductions. So if you go back to my opening post, and see that to be God is to be a being with infinite attributes that yes, the Son is God, the Father is God, and the Trinity is God. It is a categorical mistake to then equate the Trinity and the Son because the Son is talking about a person OF the trinity. You have to keep in mind the distinction between Being and Person in order to keep things straight and avoid the error you just made. So rather than your formula destroying my opening post, my opening post eliminates the ground by which you made #5. Those who accept my opening post would avoid making the category error you just made.
T
TOmNossor
Guest
You said that God in LDS thought was “relatively infinite.” I say that I reject that, and most LDS would. I have little doubt that you might have been taught some things in Gospel Principles that would reasonably result in imposing “relatively infinite” upon the LDS view of God. I doubt very seriously any LDS in your GP class used that term or would be comfortable with it.
All that being said, I support your inference from you starting point and I believe you were taught that starting point in GP class. I reject that starting point for many reasons, one of which is that I believe it has logical consequences that you draw.
Now, we will see if you can reason from Catholic doctrine to the logical consequences or not.
About #5, what you are doing is the same thing people have done for generations when misinterpreting the trinity. Let’s run this down in a formula, it’s easier to see:
God= the Trinity,
God= the Son
implies: the Trinity=the Son
The problem I have with this is that the argument is based on semantics, how we normally use the word ‘God’, in order to make a strict logical deduction and prove a contradiction. How we use words day to day is more messy than allows for logical deductions. So if you go back to my opening post, and see that to be God is to be a being with infinite attributes that yes, the Son is God, the Father is God, and the Trinity is God. It is a categorical mistake to then equate the Trinity and the Son because the Son is talking about a person OF the trinity. You have to keep in mind the distinction between Being and Person in order to keep things straight and avoid the error you just made. So rather than your formula destroying my opening post, my opening post eliminates the ground by which you made #5. Those who accept my opening post would avoid making the category error you just made.
Your formula is precisely using the terms “BEING” and “PERSON” to offer a different meaning for the word “God” in different circumstances.
- God(Being) = The Trinity
- God(Person) = The Son.
Therefore
The Trinity is not equivalent to The Son BECAUSE The Trinity is God (singular) BEING. The Son is God (one of three) PERSON.
Charity, TOm
T
TOmNossor
Guest
I do not know MFBukowski, but I would suggest that you might be careful.
I personally have only infrequently and briefly come in communion with God, but it is my experience that the flow of “pure intelligence” from these encounters should not be under estimated.
I “look through a glass darkly,” but I am quite convinced I stand next to folks on Sunday who have experienced the flow of “pure intelligence” more and much longer than have I (while still having aspects of looking through a glass darkly, but perhaps not in some areas).
Nobody I know would call this omniscience, but I can imagine how they might have little doubt and little confusion.
If you look at the gentle way MFBukowski cautions me, you might recognize that he might in fact have some powerful understandings that he knows but cannot communicate. It is a fairly common idea within LDS thought that this flow of “pure intelligence” (we usually call it “the Spirit”) communicates on a level that we cannot. I have adopted Catholic terms and embraced philosophic reasoning. My LDS brother is a little concerned for me probably because he knows how empty my words are relative to the flights he has taken with God.
Charity, TOm
R
Richard_Abanes
Guest
Tom: I personally have only infrequently and briefly come in communion with God, but it is my experience that the flow of “pure intelligence” from these encounters should not be under estimated.
RA: If you’re interested in that type of occult union and mystical experience, you might want to simply bypass Mormonism and go straight into Hermetic Kabbalah, which is basically the likely source of many of Smith’s views of God, man, power, intelligences, etc., anyway. If I’m not not mistaken, some of your own BYU apologists have often appealed to the occult Kabbalistic Jews of the Medieval era. Might as well go all the way, IMHO.
RA
RA: If you’re interested in that type of occult union and mystical experience, you might want to simply bypass Mormonism and go straight into Hermetic Kabbalah, which is basically the likely source of many of Smith’s views of God, man, power, intelligences, etc., anyway. If I’m not not mistaken, some of your own BYU apologists have often appealed to the occult Kabbalistic Jews of the Medieval era. Might as well go all the way, IMHO.
RA
T
TOmNossor
Guest
I personally have only infrequently and briefly come in communion with God, but it is my experience that the flow of “pure intelligence” from these encounters should not be under estimated.
RA: If you’re interested in that type of occult union and mystical experience, you might want to simply bypass Mormonism and go straight into Hermetic Kabbalah, which is basically the likely source of many of Smith’s views of God, man, power, intelligences, etc., anyway. If I’m not not mistaken, some of your own BYU apologists have often appealed to the occult Kabbalistic Jews of the Medieval era. Might as well go all the way, IMHO.
RA
Or I could become a Charismatic Catholic, follow one or many of the Desert Fathers from the 4th - 6th centuries, an Eastern Orthodox Hesychasts, a devote of St. John of the Cross, or embrace numerous Protestant traditions that have similar aspects (this is off the top of my head, I am positive I could add to this list if necessary).
However, Richard, if you observe the dialogue I am involved in on this thread (or even the post to which you are responding); I find myself regularly embracing God through “reason guided by faith.” It is just my way, but thanks for the invitation!
Charity, TOm
R
Richard_Abanes
Guest
T: It is just my way, but thanks for the invitation!
RA: Always glad to help…
RA
RA: Always glad to help…
RA
B
BJRumph
Guest
LOL.
Careful RA, you might just be mistaken for someone who believes that such ‘occult’ philosophies and practices are an effective means of legitimately attaining such a union with God, and are possibly advocating such.
B
Careful RA, you might just be mistaken for someone who believes that such ‘occult’ philosophies and practices are an effective means of legitimately attaining such a union with God, and are possibly advocating such.
B
T
TOmNossor
Guest
BJRumph,LOL.
Careful RA, you might just be mistaken for someone who believes that such ‘occult’ philosophies and practices are an effective means of legitimately attaining such a union with God, and are possibly advocating such.
B
Would you include the mystical practices of these folks in the potentially danger ones not to be advocated for?
Upon what objective terms do you distinguish between the practice of these folks and the practice of folks you think have crossed the line?
I suggest that the Catholic FOR SURE and even the Protestant must acknowledge that Pagan influences were felt into the church. Cardinal Newman certainly acknowledged this.
St. Maximos the Confessor – Catholic Saint and Doctor of the Church
St. John of the Cross – Catholic Saint.
Here are some others, but I think they are mostly Eastern Saints, not canonized in the west.
St. Nikodimos of the Holy Mountain
St. Makarios of Corinth.
St. Isaiah the Solitary,
St. John Cassian – never canonized in the west
St. Mark the Ascetic,
St. Hesychios the Priest,
St. Neilos the Ascetic,
St. Diadochos of Photiki,
St. John of Karpathos,
St. Theodorus the Great Ascetic,
St. Thalassios the Libyan,
St. John of Damaskos,
St. Theognostos,
St. Philotheos of Sinai
St. Peter of Damaskos,
St. Symeon Metaphrastis,
St. Symeon the New Theologian,
St. Gregory of Sinai
St. Gregory Palamas
Charity, TOm
T
TOmNossor
Guest
Barker mentions the Third Council of Antioch (~265AD) and he is quoting Foakes-Jackson History of the Christian Church.
I do not know if the Roman synod (260AD) dealt with the word homoousian.
Charity, TOm
B
BJRumph
Guest
Actually, TOm, when it comes down to it, I do not think I would agree much with RA on such matters, and have no intention of ‘hashing’ out those differences.
Yes, I agree that there were certainly outside influences that played their parts within the Catholic Church, just as they have played their parts in every religious movement, including your own.
Fr Parente’s writings on the Angels within the Catholic theology is a very good explanation of such influences within a theological perspective, despite only being incidental to the main points of his book. Further, history clearly shows a deliberate assimilationism at certain points of time in different circumstances.
Personally, I cannot find the ‘fact’ of such things in any way debatable; only the effects and other subjective/transitive criteria can be debated.
My humorous point to RA was not to classify or debate those items he terms “occult”, but point out that were someone not familiar with his work, he could be interpreted here as being in support of that same ‘occult’ practice, which I know he does not.
My own views, practices, and experiences of mystical & spiritual import have not been, and will not be, addressed in this thread.
Yes, I agree that there were certainly outside influences that played their parts within the Catholic Church, just as they have played their parts in every religious movement, including your own.
Fr Parente’s writings on the Angels within the Catholic theology is a very good explanation of such influences within a theological perspective, despite only being incidental to the main points of his book. Further, history clearly shows a deliberate assimilationism at certain points of time in different circumstances.
Personally, I cannot find the ‘fact’ of such things in any way debatable; only the effects and other subjective/transitive criteria can be debated.
My humorous point to RA was not to classify or debate those items he terms “occult”, but point out that were someone not familiar with his work, he could be interpreted here as being in support of that same ‘occult’ practice, which I know he does not.
My own views, practices, and experiences of mystical & spiritual import have not been, and will not be, addressed in this thread.
T
TOmNossor
Guest
Eusebius said that God the Father and God the Son were homoousian just like a human father and a human son are. This is homoousian in the non-neo-modalist way. Chalcedon said that Jesus Christ was homoousian with mankind in his humanity. This is also homoousian in the non-neo-modalist way.
Athanasius, Augustine, and others have used homoousian in a way more one than how Eusebius did. Some accuse them of not believing that homoousian was “same substance” but instead believing that homoousian was “the same identical substance.”
Modalism is of course the believe that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are one person, one being. I submit is quite possible to so mute the three person-ness of God that you are being modalist even if you refuse to say or explicitly say there are three persons. I think Aquinas and his doctrine of “divine simplicity” opens himself up to this.
I do not know what you want me to show you. Modern Catholic and non-Catholic authors defend or condemn Augustine for modalism. Clearly, Augustine denied that modalism was accurate, but he left himself quite open to this criticism.
In this thread or the other thread where you asked me this question, Paul was so convinced that Homoousian must be associated with the neo-modalist meaning he denied any Catholic could embrace the creedal statement of Chalcedon.
I personally use Homoousian in the non-neo-modalist way, but if I am doing this and anyone discovers that I am a LDS, then they say this is the reason I am a heretic. Interestingly enough Athanasius specifically embraced those who believed homoousian in the non-neo-modlist way as his brothers in Christ and not Arians. Of course perhaps Catholic theology has developed past this point. Arian baptism (from homoousian deniers, homoiousian folks, and even others) was once valid, but today it is not.
It is virtually impossible to embrace homoousian in the Chalcedon creed in a neo-modalist way. Nicea is less clear and it appears a significant subset of the Bishops (though not a majority) followed Athanasius in their understanding of this term.
Charity, TOm
T
TOmNossor
Guest
Yes, I agree that there were certainly outside influences that played their parts within the Catholic Church, just as they have played their parts in every religious movement, including your own.
Fr Parente’s writings on the Angels within the Catholic theology is a very good explanation of such influences within a theological perspective, despite only being incidental to the main points of his book. Further, history clearly shows a deliberate assimilationism at certain points of time in different circumstances.
Personally, I cannot find the ‘fact’ of such things in any way debatable; only the effects and other subjective/transitive criteria can be debated.
My humorous point to RA was not to classify or debate those items he terms “occult”, but point out that were someone not familiar with his work, he could be interpreted here as being in support of that same ‘occult’ practice, which I know he does not.
My own views, practices, and experiences of mystical & spiritual import have not been, and will not be, addressed in this thread.
Excellent!
Previously I told Richard that his methods even indict the Bible. IMO Richard’s methods must be rejected by all Christians.
Charity, TOm
Stephen168
New member
Cool, but I’m I afraid I assumed you would start with your definition of neo-modalism.
N
nebula
Guest
;Hmm, so who am I debating with, you or what the LDS church publishes as basic doctrine?
As to the last part, the Trinity isn’t a thing, it’s a concept, it’s a label slapped onto the the shared Godhood of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The reality is God the BEing, and the Father, Son and Holy SPirit the Persons who share in that Being.
N
nebula
Guest
Then why even mention it on a public board? You know that I will not respond to that notion, that I do not accept it, so I don’t see how that is supposed to help anything. If anything it sounds nearly demonic. I would imagine true humility would invoke in those who experience it their relative finitude and just how little they really do know when compared to our omniscient God. There’s my thought on the matter.
R
Richard_Abanes
Guest
BJ,
People make stuff up about me all the time no matter what I say or how careful I am, so in a way, it doesn’t matter…:nope:
RA
People make stuff up about me all the time no matter what I say or how careful I am, so in a way, it doesn’t matter…:nope:
RA
M
mfbukowski
Guest
Dang. I sat here for 5 minutes trying to come up with a real good zinger for a comeback, and couldn’t come up with any. That is really disconcerting considering being omniscient and all.Isn’t it a little too early in your progression to have achieved omniscience?
You should ask my wife about my omniscience.
You have to realize that for all my wit charm and good looks, I am not a kid anymore, and one gets to a point in life where the questions really do go away. That definitely doesn’t mean I have the answers that others ask, just that I have been fortunate to be blessed with a pretty calm certitude about how God works and my place in the universe. You also get to a point where you really feel you don’t have to impress anyone, or take a position because others think you should.
I think it’s called being an onery old cuss, or perhaps early onset Alzheimers.
And all this trying to get the language right just comes from too much Wittgenstein, and the lack of patience with talking about stuff that doesn’t make a difference from too much William James.
M
mfbukowski
Guest
Well I appreciate your kind words, but I think that it is impossible to communicate any spiritual experience, because it is impossible to really communicate any experience of any kind at all. And nebula knows how I feel about this because we have discussed it before.
How do you describe the experience of “red” to a blind person who has never seen color?
Would you describe it in terms you might think he would understand? Like perhaps “Seeing red is like a pure note on a french horn”. Well, this might be poetic, but does it convery the experience of red? Of course not.
Describe the taste of chocolate, or the sound of a bell, or the smell of a flower. Yet you also know that there are different kinds of bells that we hear, and that roses smell differently from other flowers and the chocolate does not taste like strawberry. And you would not ever confuse the taste of strawberry with chocolate.
“How do you know it is chocolate? It is just your subjective experience that is chocolate? Can you prove to me how you know it’s chocolate?”
The only possible answer is “well I have tasted chocolate before, and I know what it tastes like”.
“But surely you could be deluded. It was just your mind making up the idea that it was chocolate you were tasting”
You cannot express to anyone else how you know these things, or explain them to others. These very simple experiences are beyond language to express.
But would you ever doubt that you knew “red” when you saw it?
When the holy spirit has told you something, you know it.
And this is how Richard Abanes knows that the bible is true, for all his protestations against mysticism.
- Status