Trinity and Mormon godhead

[Jerusha]

Tom, just go ahead thinking. You will sooner or later realize that you are not God.

 

[AshleyBelle]

Ad hominem and inaccurate.
You should deal with the evidence regardless of it source (rather than trying to divert attention from fact by saying FARMS/FAIR).
That being said, the source is a small part me and my readings and a large part the readings of your favorite (sarcasm) Catholic.
Charity, TOm

 I have been following this thread and I hope you realize that your attempts to "rationalize"  and "reasonably interpret" what the ECF and other theologians have said are only harming your cause.

The main problem I keep seeing repeated, is that you use these writings much the way that many of our Christian brothers and sisters use the Bible.

You read a passage, and you take the idea expressed to reinforce YOUR idea. You have the mormon concept of deification, and so when you find theosis in the ECF, you assume they meant exactly what you mean.

There are some words in the english langue (as I’m sure your’e aware, because you seem to have a great love for words), that can have different meanings. Taking what the first Christians called “theosis” and claiming it to mean what the mormons define as deification/theosis will not change that they are two DISTINCTLY different definitions.

 This is why the Church is such a GIFT from our Lord!  Without the protection of the Holy Spirit through the authority passed down through the apostles, we would be left to figure out for ourselves what the early church fathers were saying.. We would be left to figure out for ourselves what the Bible meant.  We would be left to look for "scholarly" people such as yourself, who have a great way with words and information and philosophy, and have to trust your understanding of ideas.

I will not deny that your assertations are "logical" and "reasonable."  But as I stated early in this thread, "reasonable" is NOT the way that truth opperates.  Truth is absolute, steadfast, and unchanging. It cannot be conformed to the whim of philosophical quandaries and musings.. It doesn't change just because you choose to view it through your own lense.

And that is what the Catholic Church is here to maintain. That through all the tides of culture and society, through the lies, distortions, and veiled falsehoods, and through the heresies of humans who fancy themselves “restorers of truth,” that THE TRUTH, would always prevail. Against all things. Even against the gates of hell.

 

[Richard_Abanes]

**TOM: **You say what you say, and cheer on others; but you do not put forth evidence.

RA: I put forth enough evidence for anyone who wishes to see it. My RC brothers and sisters here can read this thread. The truth is obvious. You have been answered sufficiently regarding the ECF and their view of theosis. And that is evident.

Yet you persist, indeed you insist, on ignoring what has already been offered, and just blow forward with more quotes and quotes and quotes from the ECF in a vain attempt to keep justifying your views. I’m not going to spend my life hunting down a hundred quotes just to show, yet again, where you are abusing such statements. The way you and others misuse the early ECF to push your 1830-onward Mormon beliefs is offensive and, tbh, deceptive.

You demonstrate with your presence on this board, and by the things you say, one of the very earmarks of a cult – deceptive use of information. Sorry. You are not helping the cause of the LDS Church. But you are reflecting a long-seen aspect of your church: i.e., deception through word games, changed definitions, altered history, hidden meanings, and lack of disclosure.

Your initial approach with *theosis *has been gutted. Sorry, I’ll not participate in a time-consuming foray into some other maze of Mormon arguing. Truly, the cliche is true, The Maze of Mormonism (an out-dated book in many ways, but the title remains very relevant). You and other Mormons have now begin using teh ECF to build more maze walls – that’s all.

R.A.

 

[Stephen168]

Before I get into this let me say that Catholic theology developed. I just did. Cardinal Newman makes this quite clear with numerous examples. Development does not make falsity necessarily. If it is your position that a developed theology is not a true theology, you can leave the Catholic Church as soon as you sufficiently study the ECF. Of course there is no church I know of that you could join if development was disqualifying. Few folks abandon their theology when they recognize development. I am just claiming that there is development and that the monotheism of Aquinas is not the monotheism of Irenaeus.

Of course I believe in the development of Doctrine. Develop as to expose; like developing film into a picture or growth as in a bloom develops into an apple. But it seems to me you want to use it as creatio ex nihilo.
The monotheism of Irenaeus and Aquinas are the same. I think Irenaeus might not have the exact same understanding of trinitarianism as Aquinas but it is still the Christian understanding of God.

 

[RebeccaJ]

**REBECCA: **You keep saying this, but the answer is obvious.

**RA: **Let it go. He keeps saying it, and saying it, and saying it, and saying it, and saying it, and saying it, and saying it … because that is his mental hook, so to speak, that he’s latched onto in order to rationalize his view against facts/history.

…]

So, don’t beat your head too much. :banghead:

RA

Yes, I know, I have been having conversations with Mormons for years and also was raised LDS.

It is why I shortcut to the root of the issue with people like Snow…been there, done that, and I lose patience.

The twisting of Catholic doctrine, as LDS have began to do in more recent years, is intolerable. And so I continue the head-banging on the wall. And I ask the very Saints they are abusing to pray with me, that the light will shine through (and to also have mercy on their abuses).

St. Ignatius, pray for us.

Nevertheless, I have heard of some who have passed in among you,
holding the wicked doctrine of the strange and evil spirit; to whom ye
did not allow entrance to sow their tares, but stopped your ears that
ye might not receive that error which was proclaimed by them, as being
persuaded that that spirit which deceives the people does not speak the
things of Christ, but his own, for he is a lying spirit. But the Holy
Spirit does not speak His own things, but those of Christ, and that not
from himself, but from the Lord; even as the Lord also announced to us
the things that He received from the Father. For, says He, “the word
which ye hear is not Mine, but the Father’s, who sent Me.” [545] And
says He of the Holy Spirit, “He shall not speak of Himself, but
whatsoever things He shall hear from Me.” [546] And He says of Himself
to the Father, “I have,” says He, “glorified Thee upon the earth; I
have finished the work which, Thou gavest Me; I have manifested Thy
name to men.” [547] And of the Holy Ghost, “He shall glorify Me, for He
receives of Mine.” [548] But the spirit of deceit preaches himself, and
speaks his own things, for he seeks to please himself. He glorifies
himself, for he is full of arrogance. He is lying, fraudulent,
soothing, flattering, treacherous, rhapsodical, trifling, inharmonious,
verbose, sordid, and timorous. From his power Jesus Christ will deliver
you, who has founded you upon the rock, as being chosen stones, well
fitted for the divine edifice of the Father, and who are raised up on
high by Christ, who was crucified for you, making use of the Holy
Spirit as a rope, and being borne up by faith, while exalted by love
from earth to heaven, walking in company with those that are undefiled.
For, says [the Scripture], “Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who
walk in the law of the Lord.” [549] Now the way is unerring, namely,
Jesus Christ. For, says He, “I am the way and the life.” [550] And this
way leads to the Father. For “no man,” says He, “cometh to the Father
but by Me.” [551] Blessed, then, are ye who are God-bearers,
spirit-bearers, temple-bearers, bearers of holiness, adorned in all
respects with the commandments of Jesus Christ, being “a royal
priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people,” [552] on whose account I
rejoice exceedingly, and have had the privilege, by this Epistle, of
conversing with “the saints which are at Ephesus, the faithful in
Christ Jesus.” [553] I rejoice, therefore, over you, that ye do not
give heed to vanity, and love nothing according to the flesh, but
according to God. (Ignatius Epistle to the Ephesians)

 

[Richard_Abanes]

**Rebecca **-- also was raised LDS.

RA: Ohhh, PTL. God be praised. Blessings to you.

RA

 

[nebula]

I think there is much to what you say. I would say it a little differently because a LDS cannot believe that the natural growth of a human is into a god. Instead, it is through the grace of God, the incarnation and atonement of Christ, and His lifting us up that we might become gods.

So for most non-LDS Christians, God is ontologically different in a way that is unbridgeable or in a way that God refuses to bridge. Thus, the deified in non-LDS thought do not partake fully of God’s nature, but partake partially/derivatively of God’s nature. For those who adopt this limited deification view, it is not that God is selfish with His divinity but that there is a uniqueness associated with the fullness of divinity possessed by God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).

The LDS Christian has seldom answered the question “what is divinity as such?” but whatever the answer is, men can partake of the divine nature in its fullness. This does not mean we do so naturally of our own power because it is by grace that we receive this. This does not mean that we become equal to God, because God is always the one who lifted us up to what He is and we always rightly worship Him.

Now, in my recent posts to Richard (#437 and #438) I offered some of what I thought “divinity as such” is best understood to be in LDS thought. I also suggested that I believe this is far more Biblical then –ousia based divinity present within Catholicism. I also suggested that it is the absence of a solid –ousia based divinity in the Bible that allowed the Bible and the pre-Nicene ECF to speak so BOLDLY of deification (like LDS not like post-Nicene ECF).

So, I agree we have found a difference in what LDS and non-LDS mean when we speak of deification.
I said as much here:

Again, if I am correct in this statement then I think Catholicism and its commitment to tradition has a problem. As a Catholic I would believe that divinity as such was –ousia based, but I would believe that deified humans would become dual natured persons like Christ (this is a minority view within Catholicism though).

No ECF before Nicea when talking about human deification (human theosis / “men becoming gods”) placed any limits on the FINAL state of deified man. Instead, they along with modern LDS boldly stated that through the grace of Christ we would become gods. They did not say “but only in the communicable attributes.” After Nicea it became increasingly popular to state that there were limits upon what it meant for humans to become gods.

Charity, TOm

Tom,

Say the ECF didn’t put a limit to that which God might grant us humans through our derivative participation in his nature, that still doesn’t change the fact that God is qualitatively different than us humans and that is a rather important point in the thinking. In fact, I think that’s what all this hostility from the non LDS side is really about.

I consider it this way. The reason Athanasius was so hell bent on promoting the Trinity is because unless Christ was fully God and human the bridge, the infinite chasm (the qualitative difference) between us and God could not be bridged. One way to view this insistence is to see Athanasius’ concern about promoting the notion of theosis-- but the other side of the coin is his assumption, and the assumption of Arius too, that God is in fact qualitatively different from us so that the problem is posed in the first place.

This is no small matter. If we aren’t talking about the same being when we talk about “God” the rest of our dialogue will break apart.

 

[Richard_Abanes]

**Neb: **This is no small matter. If we aren’t talking about the same being when we talk about “God” the rest of our dialogue will break apart.

RA: Well said. And THAT is a more fundamental issue.

RA

 

[TOmNossor]

Stephen168,
Qualifications like “men can become gods, but they will always possess the human nature and only participated derivatively of the divine nature.” BTW, the preceding was not a direct quote of any Catholic here. I did not intend for it to be. It is the impression that I get from what Catholics are saying. If I am wrong please correct.
For Christ to be subordinate to God the Father to the extent offered in the pre-Nicene Fathers there is a distinction that you will not find in Aquinas’ view of divine simplicity or even in Athanasius. Snow’s post was also informative and unaddressed (quoting three non-LDS scholars:
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4366018&postcount=379

The Aquinas would never say the things I quoted from Irenaeus and Justin Martyr. The scholars Snow quoted acknowledge this. There is a development. The Bible does not teach –ousia based oneness of God.
I am not saying that the development of doctrine is ex nihilo. I am saying it is uninspired and not guided by God’s authority on earth or it is done under / through the authority of God on Earth, the Catholic Chruch. If the latter we should all be Catholics. If the former, then we cannot be Catholic or Protestants.
But, the evidence is the development occurred and the evidence suggests that this development was not merely a consensus of previous thoughts or a middle ground. It was a synthesis of ideas within a Catholic authority structure that choose the Catholic path emerging from controversies. A computer could not have done it. A historian could not predict it.
So, to suggest that the developed doctrine of the Catholic Church can be read into the quotes that I offered is to believe in a faith-based way that whatever those folks meant by their words they simply must be Catholic words OR to totally misread what these folks say.

Let me say this for Richard. Irenaeus was not a LDS. He embraced creation ex nihilo. However, ALL of his writings evidence that he was a robust deifier AND his writings evidence that he did not embrace a view of the Trinity where Christ was divine like God the Father because Christ was homoousian and co-equal with God the Father. And again I should acknowledge that Irenaeus does not evidence the Social Trinity in his thoughts that is part of my view of the oneness of God.

I have told a Catholic here they deny Catholic dogma, but no response. (I am correct BTW). How can this be just ignored?

I have offered quotes from ECF and all I get is “comes from FAIR and FARMS.” Again, they did not come from FAIR and FARMS. The only conclusion one can draw from this thread is that Catholics believe Catholic theology and LDS study what ECF said.

I have quoted Catholic and other non-LDS scholars and all I get is that I am wrong. Scholars have been dealing with these issues for a long time. While non-LDS like Margaret Barker who create a context for Lehi’s Jerusalem are anomalies in their field, things like the absence of creation ex nihilo in the Bible is the majority scholarly view.

I may be quite wrong, but if I am there is nothing on this thread to help me see this. I see Catholics denying Catholic dogma (probably because they do not understand the terms). I see Richard offering one post with some of his thoughts to which I responded in detail and then returning to calling me a deceived cultist rather than engaging the non-LDS info I offer. I cannot imagine that the MYTHICAL unbiased observer newly introduced to this topic on this thread would think it is the LDS here who are hopelessly blinded to evidence.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Nebula,
Thank you again for a thoughtful post.

Say the ECF didn’t put a limit to that which God might grant us humans through our derivative participation in his nature, that still doesn’t change the fact that God is qualitatively different than us humans and that is a rather important point in the thinking. In fact, I think that’s what all this hostility from the non LDS side is really about.

“Derivative participation” is a term NO ECF before Nicea (or after as far as I know) used. It comes from the 2007 or 2008 book Deification and Grace. I first introduced this term to this discussion here:
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4365829&postcount=370
I called this a STILTED argument and I believe it to be quite stilted.

I very much agree that if God is as different from humans as DEVELOPED Catholic theology claims Him to be, that there is an increased difficulty with proposing that humans are fully deified. That being said, I suggest that the most consistent way of stating what developed Catholic theology of God’s nature would mean imposed upon the full deification in the pre-Nicene church is the following 3 statements.

1. God the Son is homoousian with God the Father in His divinity.
2. . atements.ll deification in the pre-Nicene church is the following 3 lieve is in acce deified. d would think it is the LDS hereGod the Son is homoousian in His humanity with mankind.
3. Mankind may become homoousian with God (Father and Son) in his future deified state becoming gods via grace. This will result in man having a duel nature like Christ.

I would also suggest there is nothing irreformable that indicates any of these things are not something a Catholic can embrace.

That being said, Keating rejects #3 and it would seem that all of the Catholics here do as well (and some seem to reject #2).

Of course NO pre-Nicea ECF accepts #1 and #2. There is to my knowledge no patristic scholar who would suggest that before Nicea ANY ECF understood the truth of #1 and #2. With their undeveloped doctrine of God and the Incarnation, they claimed that men could become gods without placing the limits upon this that Keating and you seem want to do. I think this non-refuted truth (or claimed truth since I claim it to be true and nobody has offered evidence it is not) lends considerable strength to my position that the pre-Nicene ECF were “robust deifiers”

cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

I consider it this way. The reason Athanasius was so hell bent on promoting the Trinity is because unless Christ was fully God and human the bridge, the infinite chasm (the qualitative difference) between us and God could not be bridged. One way to view this insistence is to see Athanasius’ concern about promoting the notion of theosis-- but the other side of the coin is his assumption, and the assumption of Arius too, that God is in fact qualitatively different from us so that the problem is posed in the first place.

This is IMO a very well stated outline of Athanasius’s position. That men can become gods through Christ was one of Athanasius’s main arguments for why Christ simply must be fully God. Arius said that Jesus Christ was clearly not impassible and immutable and therefore He could not be fully God (which is pretty solid logic too).
However while ECF before Nicea claimed that Christ was divine they did not remove His subordinate status to the Father to the extent that they would say he was co-equal (or co-essential) with the exception of the modalist heretics who of necessity would (but were condemned as heretics).
Let me repeat 1-3 for ease of reference here (three is what I think Catholics should embrace in order to be consistent with the pre-Nicene ECF):

1. God the Son is homoousian with God the Father in His divinity.
2. . atements.ll deification in the pre-Nicene church is the following 3 lieve is in acce deified. d would think it is the LDS hereGod the Son is homoousian in His humanity with mankind.
3. Mankind may become homoousian with God (Father and Son) in his future deified state becoming gods via grace. This will result in man having a duel nature like Christ.

And it is precisely the possibility (the dogmatic certainty) that Christ bridged the gap that leads me to suggests that the most reasonable position is to assert that man through Christ can bridge the gap. If it is dogmatically certain that Christ is homoousian with God the Father in His divinity and homoousian with us in His humanity, the most consistent way to integrate this developed theology in the Biblical and pre-Nicene witness is that we are to become homoousian with Christ in our deification while retaining our human nature fully. And this “bridging” is precisely what so few Catholic will CONSISTENTLY assert.

It is my position that if it is impossible or too “beyond the pail,” to integrate the developed Catholic theology into the Biblical and pre-Nicene ECF idea of deification, then this development must be a departure.

This is no small matter. If we aren’t talking about the same being when we talk about “God” the rest of our dialogue will break apart.

This is why I have tried to approach this in two ways. I have suggested that statements #1 and #2 are not present nor evidenced in the pre-Nicene dialogue. (Statement #1 was there, but it was condemned as a modalistic heresy). If these are not fully developed reality pre-Nicea, then the “impossibility or beyond_the_pail_ness” of man being FULLY deified should not be read into the pre-Nicene Fathers. That is what everyone is doing when they claim that the pre-Nicene Fathers did not mean full /robust deification because their concept of God was different. The pre-Nicea ECF NEVER limited the final state of deified man because they did not recognize the tension that is so evident in the post Nicene church!

Then I also claim that if the Catholic dogmatically asserts #1 and #2 then there is not much more tension resulting from also asserting #3. The tension of a dual natured person (Christ) is already required if #1 and #2 are true. The impassible suffered. The immutable took upon Himself another nature. God hungered. God died. If a dual natured person is truth through some mystery we cannot quite understand, then there is not much more mystery to be added to this were Catholics to assert that we can become dual natured like Christ. AND this is what would be done to be consistent with the Bible and the pre-Nicene ECF.

Finally, I am quite convinced (an nobody has followed up with me here to dissuade me of this) that the Bible does not teach creation ex nihilo nor –ousia based “divinity as such.” I however believe that there are not two Gods, the God asserted by the CoJCoLDS and the God asserted by the Catholic Church. There are two concepts of God and only one is correct. And since there are so many different ideas present within Catholicism and Mormonism, there are really more than two concepts. Still, our prayers (Catholic and LDS) ascend to the only God who exists. Do you disagree?
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

Give your definition of Robust deification:

Robust deification is the bold declaration that men can become gods like God the Son without the qualifications commonly placed upon these statements today.

What qualifications?

Qualifications like “men can become gods, but they will always possess the human nature and only participated derivatively of the divine nature.” BTW, the preceding was not a direct quote of any Catholic here. I did not intend for it to be. It is the impression that I get from what Catholics are saying. If I am wrong please correct.

Because you don’t have any qualifications, I assume you mean deification, and when mormon writings contain the phrase “man will be like God,” they mean ‘like’ in every way without qualification.

 

[Stephen168]

The early Church were monotheist just like the Church is today, so when I read the writings of the early Church I understand them in that way. Monotheism logically precludes the existence of another God

The monotheism of Irenaeus and Aquinas are the same. I think Irenaeus might not have the exact same understanding of trinitarianism as Aquinas but it is still the Christian understanding of God.

For Christ to be subordinate to God the Father to the extent offered in the pre-Nicene Fathers there is a distinction that you will not find in Aquinas’ view of divine simplicity or even in Athanasius.

They were still monotheists.

How does Judaism understand subordination?

 

[nebula]

Tom,

The last paragraph is my ultimate point. I don’t find the notion of whether or not we could hold dual natures if God so willed it such a problem. If God wills it, it will be done. I believe that God wants to give us good gifts and complete our joy, so whatever steps are necessary for that he will do for us and I don’t worry so much what exact form that may take. Of course it is possible because all things are possible with God. I just have to trust him on what form that will take.

The question is: if the LDS view of God and the Catholic view of God are qualitatively different beings, and only one view is correct (I agree with both points) how much does that actually matter in worship? I think this is an important and interesting question to pursue. Exactly how much about God must we have right for our prayers to be effacacious? Exactly how much should we have right in our creeds (or articles of faith, whatever) to find favor with God?

I’ll be honest here, I don’t know. I imagine some person born and raised in the heart of Southern Utah who never was exposed much to other ideas and is very sincere in his desire to serve God would find his prayers answered and that God would work with what knowledge and language that person has to give him the best idea of how to please God. I imagine the same is true of a person born in the Amazonian jungle. But I think we can both agree that if we are given the means and the exposure necessary to truly understand these divergent views it behooves us to try with our entire capacity to come to the most correct view- because that activity in itself demonstrates a desire to please God. I think we can both agree, Catholic, Protestant or Mormon, that if a person is exposed but just does not care either way that that person’s sincerity is questionable and therefore their relationship with God possibly quite superficial.

But, can any more than that be said? I’m not sure.

 

[mfbukowski]

Tom,

The last paragraph is my ultimate point. I don’t find the notion of whether or not we could hold dual natures if God so willed it such a problem. If God wills it, it will be done. I believe that God wants to give us good gifts and complete our joy, so whatever steps are necessary for that he will do for us and I don’t worry so much what exact form that may take. Of course it is possible because all things are possible with God. I just have to trust him on what form that will take.

The question is: if the LDS view of God and the Catholic view of God are qualitatively different beings, and only one view is correct (I agree with both points) how much does that actually matter in worship? I think this is an important and interesting question to pursue. Exactly how much about God must we have right for our prayers to be effacacious? Exactly how much should we have right in our creeds (or articles of faith, whatever) to find favor with God?

I’ll be honest here, I don’t know. I imagine some person born and raised in the heart of Southern Utah who never was exposed much to other ideas and is very sincere in his desire to serve God would find his prayers answered and that God would work with what knowledge and language that person has to give him the best idea of how to please God. I imagine the same is true of a person born in the Amazonian jungle. But I think we can both agree that if we are given the means and the exposure necessary to truly understand these divergent views it behooves us to try with our entire capacity to come to the most correct view- because that activity in itself demonstrates a desire to please God. I think we can both agree, Catholic, Protestant or Mormon, that if a person is exposed but just does not care either way that that person’s sincerity is questionable and therefore their relationship with God possibly quite superficial.

But, can any more than that be said? I’m not sure.

If you pardon my dos centavos, I think you are definitely right on the money. Another red letter day

And that is why I am a pragmatist. But we have to do our very very best. That’s why I am a Mormon.

 

[TOmNossor]

Stephen168,

Modern Jews do not believe Christ is divine. They are absolute monotheists. Ancient Jews where likely a combination of (1)Monarchical Monotheists that believe there is ONE GOD who is truly God and others are subordinate (in some cases) and false (in other cases) and (2)Communal or Social Monotheist where the subordinate God/Gods are united into a unity that is One God. Some scholars even suggest that Jews embraced Monolotry (there is one God for us and we must be faithful to Him, but there are other gods for other folks).

They were still monotheists.

They were monotheist, but not in the absolute monotheism of modern Jews or Moslems. And they did not use the Nicene and post-Nicene terms.
St. Irenaeus will only say there is ONE GOD when he refers to the Father. There are modern EO scholars today who believe that the ONE GOD is the Father. And yet these EOs and Irenaeus claim that Christ is divine (and the EOs embrace Nicea and the next 6 councils as authoritative).
St. Justin is a monotheist (or so you seem to claim and I would generally), but he speaks of “another God.”

“I shall attempt to persuade you…that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things… (Justin, Dialogue With Trypho, ch. 56)

The Bible IMO (and surely in your opinion) teaches that Christ is divine. And yet Christ is not the same person as the Father. And yet there is one God. How is there one God according to the Bible. IMO the strongest hints are within John. John in a few places relates where Christ said that He and the Father are one. Interestingly, Jesus says that the disciples should be one “just as we are” (John 17:11, NAB) AND that the disciples should be one “as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they may be in us, that the world may believe that you send me.” (John 17:21, NAB). It seems clear to me that if God the Father and God the Son are one in the same way that the disciples are called to be one, the Bible is (Jesus Christ’s words are) not talking about metaphysical monotheism.

So, you are correct that the ECF were monotheists, but modern Jews would not call them monotheist. You claim to be a monotheist, but Moslems would not call you a monotheist. I claim to be a monotheist and (if you understood my views on God’s oneness) you would probably not call me a monotheist, but some Catholic (and Protestant) scholars would as I embrace a Social Trinity like they do.

What I am saying is that monotheism in its absolute manifestations modern Jews and Moslems, in its manifestation in an Augustinian Trinitarian sense, and in its manifestation in a Social Trinitarian sense (or a Monarchical sense or …) are all forms of monotheism. The pre-Nicene ECF were not Augustinian Trinitarians and this is not a clear teaching of the Bible. So yes, monotheist, but how are they monotheists?

Charity, TOm

 

[AshleyBelle]

They were monotheist, but not in the absolute monotheism

I’m sorry…but how can you make statements like that and not just sit back and ???

 

[TOmNossor]

I’m sorry…but how can you make statements like that and not just sit back and ???

The full statement was:

They were monotheist, but not in the absolute monotheism of modern Jews or Moslems.

I do not know how you can even suggest that the statement is not obviously true. It is true.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

Modern Jews do not believe Christ is divine. They are absolute monotheists. Ancient Jews ………

I don’t know your definition of Ancient but the Jews of 200BC to present are monotheists.

Justin is a monotheist (or so you seem to claim and I would generally), but he speaks of “another God.”

“I shall attempt to persuade you…that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things… (Justin, Dialogue With Trypho, ch. 56)

Justin was a monotheist because he speaks of one God and Angels. He uses god and angel as synonyms but clearly one God.
Dialogue with Trypho:

I shall attempt to persuade you, since you have understood the Scriptures, [of the truth] of what I say, that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things—above whom there is no other God—wishes to announce to them.

It is monotheism that is the background of the Church Fathers.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Stephen168,

Modern Jews do not believe Christ is divine. They are absolute monotheists. Ancient Jews where likely a combination of (1)Monarchical Monotheists that believe there is ONE GOD who is truly God and others are subordinate (in some cases) and false (in other cases) and (2)Communal or Social Monotheist where the subordinate God/Gods are united into a unity that is One God. Some scholars even suggest that Jews embraced Monolotry (there is one God for us and we must be faithful to Him, but there are other gods for other folks).

“Likely”? It is clear that the Hebrews struggled with paganism. They believed that pagan gods existed and held powers. They would often fall into worshiping pagan gods.

God kept teaching them that there is only One God, who is Himself. That the Hebrews could not grasp this is not the fault of God.

Your third point, of monolotry, I have seen explained by a Jewish person in this very forum. The belief that gentiles can be any religion they like, which means worship any god they like, but Jews are to only be Jewish.

Does this mean that all the various gods that are worshiped in the world are real? Is Ganesh a real god, just a lesser god than God the Father.

Is this Mormon belief? Because this is what you are saying.

They were monotheist, but not in the absolute monotheism of modern Jews or Moslems.

They kept falling into the worship, or belief, in pagan gods. And kept trying correct their view to that of One God. They erred, not God.

And they did not use the Nicene and post-Nicene terms.

Of course they didn’t! They do not belief God’s revelation of His Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.

Irenaeus will only say there is ONE GOD when he refers to the Father. There are modern EO scholars today who believe that the ONE GOD is the Father. And yet these EOs and Irenaeus claim that Christ is divine (and the EOs embrace Nicea and the next 6 councils as authoritative).

St. Justin is a monotheist (or so you seem to claim and I would generally), but he speaks of “another God.” Again, you have taken this out of context. Justin Martyr is explaing to a Jew how Jesus is found in the OT. And further, all catholics today refer to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

And, you cannot take the words of an ECF out of the context of their entire teachings.

Ignatius:

“give heed to the doctrine of the apostles, and believe boththe law and the prophets: that ye reject every Jewish and Gentileerror, and neither introduce a multiplicity of gods, nor yet denyChrist under the pretence of [maintaining] the unity of God.”

• Do not introduce a multiplicity of gods.
• And do not deny God the Son in order to maintain the unity, or the oneness, of God.

Mormons clearly have fallen into the first error of multiplicity of gods.

The Bible IMO (and surely in your opinion) teaches that Christ is divine. And yet Christ is not the same person as the Father. And yet there is one God. How is there one God according to the Bible. IMO the strongest hints are within John. John in a few places relates where Christ said that He and the Father are one. Interestingly, Jesus says that the disciples should be one “just as we are” (John 17:11, NAB) AND that the disciples should be one “as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they may be in us, that the world may believe that you send me.” (John 17:21, NAB). It seems clear to me that if God the Father and God the Son are one in the same way that the disciples are called to be one, the Bible is (Jesus Christ’s words are) not talking about metaphysical monotheism.

Indeed, unity with God is the goal of all Catholics.

So, you are correct that the ECF were monotheists, but modern Jews would not call them monotheist. You claim to be a monotheist, but Moslems would not call you a monotheist. I claim to be a monotheist and (if you understood my views on God’s oneness) you would probably not call me a monotheist, but some Catholic (and Protestant) scholars would as I embrace a Social Trinity like they do.

This is a non-comparison. You can’t claim to hold to the ECF teaching of unity while ignoring their teachings to not introduce a multiplicity of gods. Which, is what you have done with this entire post (and others).

The pre-Nicene ECF were not Augustinian Trinitarians and this is not a clear teaching of the Bible. So yes, monotheist, but how are they monotheists?

It is a clear teaching of the Bible, it is a clear teaching of the ECF’s. What you are objecting to is the language employed by the later Fathers. The concepts and beliefs did not change. How we can describe, say in words, with our mere human understanding of GOD, changes and improves.