Clark Goble just started interacting with some of the Trinity papers collected by Nick, referenced in the “2008 Trinity Blogging Summit” post. I am pleased. For all readers, please venture through some of these papers and tell me what you think.
Chiefly, for this thread, I am interested in all sorts of questions that both evangelicals and LDS might ask one another in their respective belief in the Trinity.
May I start with these questions?
Jesus in Idaho Falls 
1. Do LDS friends believe that Jesus is fully and equally God in all the attributes as the Father is God?
2. If Jesus is less than the Father, is he able to atone for sins?
3. And don’t you think that these would be questions penned by Athanasius? 🙂
1. Your use of the word “equal” reminds me of John 5: 18. In that same chapter, doesn’t Jesus state, “The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do; for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel. For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: that all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him”? (John 5: 19-23.) In this scripture Jesus says that he only does the things that he sees his Father do, yet, where has the Son seen the Father raise the dead and quicken them (resurrect them?) And how is it that Jesus judges man having not seen the Father judge man himself, for “the Father judgeth no man.” Jesus here is talking about the attributes of God, but before an LDS can properly answer your question about his belief of whether Jesus is “fully and equally God in all the attributes as the Father is God,” you need to explain what you believe are the attributes of God the Father. In other words, your question is, essentially, “do you believe what I believe?” But before answering it, you must tell us what you believe, because from the above quoted scripture, you will get many differing interpretations of what Jesus is describing are the attributes of the Father.
2. I’m not sure what you mean by “if Jesus is less than the Father.” Is any son less than his earthly father? Is your son or daughter less than you? Are you talking power? Prestige? Ability? Faith? Knowledge? Importance? Didn’t John the Baptist say, “God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him?” (John 3: 34.) If Jesus has a fulness of the Spirit, does not the Father also have a fulness? Or is it possible to have “more than a fulness?” Doesn’t John say that the “Word was God?” (John 1: 1.) I’m not sure where you are getting that Jesus is less than the Father or even what you mean by that. Also, are you serious when you ask LDS if Jesus is able to atone for sins? The core message we preach is the atonement of Jesus Christ and that he rose from the dead, that all men will rise from the dead by the power of his resurrection. That is pretty much the main message of the Book of Mormon.
Todd I think all LDS would agree with (1). One might ask about properties or attributes that aren’t essential to being God. But then that pops up in Christology and the two natures discussion in mainstream Christian history as well. (i.e. let’s say having brown hair is hypothetically an attribute of Jesus but that’s clearly not an essential attribute of God) So Mormons might well disagree over these sorts of non-essential attributes – especially with respect to the Father.
I don’t think Jesus is “less” than the Father. (Although one must always unpack what we mean by less here) I can’t imagine any Mormon feeling Jesus is less than the Father. Although once again one has to be careful since to a Mormon Jesus is under the authority of the Father but I don’t think that makes him lesser.
By the way, the questions I’d have for a Trinitarian would be what there is about the ousia they might feel a Mormon can’t accept. (I can’t think of any but I’m very curious as to what a Trinitarian might come up with)
The second question might be the relationship of the hypostasis and consciousness. That is a Mormon will see the three as having independent centers of consciousness whereas I’ve seen at least a few Trinitarians denying this. To me this tends to imply modalism but clearly some feel it isn’t due to the distinction between the concept of hypostatis and the modern concept of person.
Finally I’d love someone to tell me if they accept Duns Scotus’ view of the Trinity as being orthodox.
“Finally I’d love someone to tell me if they accept Duns Scotus’ view of the Trinity as being orthodox.”
I would ask these guys.
http://lyfaber.blogspot.com/
1. Clark, do LDS embrace that the Father and Son express the same eternal immutability of being?
2. I do ponder quite often the difference between LDS faith and historic evangelical doctrine on “independent centers of consciousness”. Academic LDS seem to stress a soft tri-independence, not hardline. Many LDS on the streets tend to be into hard-core tritheism. So I wonder, where do they get this . . . church hierarchy, past and present?
I see three active distinct wills of Father, Son, and Spirit in scripture. But I see no potentiality of the Three ever shattering into independence of one from another. The blazing climax of this test came at the cross.
In the greatest upheaval of holy revulsion, the Lord Jesus Christ, King of glory, willed to embrace sin.
Unbelievable. As we contemplate the passion during this holy week.
“I see three active distinct wills of Father, Son, and Spirit in scripture. But I see no potentiality of the Three ever shattering into independence of one from another.”
I do. Otherwise, what’s to admire about them staying together? I find it more impressive that they choose to indwell within each other as a free choice.
I’ll be honest, I have no real problem with tri-theism and tend that way myself. It’s a heck of a lot less alien and creepy to me than modalism. But I’m also very-much open to the Social Trinitarian model.
Todd, a question for you.
Would you say that lay Christians on the street tend more toward tri-theism than Christian clergy and academics?
I ask because I’m getting the feeling that Christian “elites” tend to weigh more heavily on the modalistic side of viewing the trinity while the layman weighs more heavily tri-theistic.
My experience is that no one really adheres to the middle ground between modalism and tri-theism – even if they say they do. Understandable since the middle ground is incoherent.
Anarchist, John 5 is HUGE for our discussion on the Trinity.
But first you must type John 5 in the search engine on the sidebar, read all the entries to see where I am coming from, and then jump back into the discussion. 🙂 (Just kidding on the all part.)
But here is one for starters:
https://heartissuesforlds.wordpress.com/2007/08/13/ogden-and-skinner-on-john-521-27-bold-accusation-a-syllogism/
Seth, to answer your question – Yes. Theologian Millard Erickson would second your charge about tri-theism.
The average “Christian” in America dabbles in heresy and does not display wholehearted, singlehearted worship, that the One God rightly deserves. Even going beyond, the average professing “Christian” in America is nothing more than a practical polytheist or atheist.
We are a mess. We need to read our Bibles and be pierced in our hearts by the one God trumpeting His glory through Isaiah.
Some day, when our church family finishes our inductive study in Isaiah, we will begin Jeremiah.
The themes are crucial for Americans to consider.
Seth, and I appreciate Hurtado’s article on monotheism that counters some of the other academic “elites” promoting other.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/5490/Seminar1/Hurtado.htm
take a peek . . .
Todd,
Do you read L. Hurtado often? I have his “Lord Jesus Christ” and have looked at several of his other works. (Interestingly, both he and I lean towards Pauline authorship of 2 Thess., which doesn’t seem to be the majority scholarly opinion these days.)
Anyway…
This quote is interesting to me:
“I propose that Jewish monotheism can be taken as constituting a distinctive version of the commonly-attested belief structure described by Nilsson as involving a “high god” who presides over other deities. The God of Israel presides over a court of heavenly beings who are likened to him (as is reflected in, e.g., the OT term for them “sons of God”). In pagan versions, too, the high god can be described as father and source of the other divine beings, and as utterly superior to them. In this sense, Jewish (and Christian) monotheism, whatever its distinctives, shows its historical links with the larger religious environment of the ancient world.”
Sorry, I will let you guys go back to your discussion.
Oh, I will add in a question or two for Todd.
1. Is it *logically* possible that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit could choose not to be in loving unity if they willed so?
1.B Was it *logically* possible that Christ could have sinned in his mortal life if he so willed?
I am not necessarily opposed to that quote by Hurtado, Dart. The Most High, the one, true God (YHWH) dwarfs all other sons of God. All creaturely elohim will either submit either joyfully or unhappily to the Most High.
But Dart, I think LDS would categorize either the Father or the Son as the Most High. This destroys the equality of being in the Godhead. The Most High is Father, Son, and Spirit.
1. God is love.
Nothing can sever the love of God for the those in Christ. Nothing (Romans 8). As a redeemed son, it both impossible and illogical for me stand once again in condemnation and in the flesh. And though I sinfully trip and stumble on a constant basis, I cannot permanently recant the divine love that throbs in my regenerated heart. It will never be removed.
It is unthinkable for there to be denial of love in the Godhead. Dart, is there such a divine attribute as perfect, unchanging, holy, eternal, all-knowing, all-powerful, unbreakable love? Verily.
1.B God is light.
Ditto. Unthinkable.
Did Jesus need a body to progress as LDS think of progression for all other humans? No
Did Jesus need to experience sin and sorrow to truly know holiness and joy and love? Ridiculous.
The Triune God is fully free to do his holy will.
And this is my prayer, Dart, to God.
“Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.”
Dart, have you read Bauckham’s paper?
Click to access Richard_Bauckham.pdf
Todd,
As I feel happens too frequently in our conversations, I simply can’t tell if you actually responded to my questions; but I’m gonna go out on a limb and assume that your preachy rhetorical “answers” mean “no” to both questions? Is that right? I would like to make sure. Maybe what you said in your responses to my questions is crystal clear to you, but I really don’t know how everything you said is directly related to what I asked.
I think a “yes” or “no” would have sufficed.
Oh, and by the way, where does the bible call the bene elohim (elsewhere simply called elohim) “creaturely elohim”? Is this your gloss again Todd? Where is the creation story of the bene elohim/elohim in the biblical texts? I think you need to stop using your post-biblical metaphysic to read the biblical texts.
I think a “yes” or “no” would have sufficed.
Is this possible for preachers? 🙂
Hey, now you are preaching to me in your last paragraph (Which I don’t mind when people preach to one another, Dart. God calls people to preach. Preach the Word.)
What if I preached that these other bene elohim/elohim are to obey the most High, to worship the most High, to rejoice in the work of the Most High, to glorify the Most High, to not strive and rebel with/against the most High lest He condemn these bene elohim to hell.
Why would anyone be accountable in this fashion?
Because the eternal Triune God is their Creator. From Genesis to Isaiah to John, the bene elohim/elohim are to exalt the Creator.
And if Clark is reading, he will be saying, “Ah, now Todd is getting back to the Creator motif in this Trinitarian discussion.” 🙂
Note that there’s not really a developed LDS theology here. As I’ve tried to be at pains to suggest I’m not saying Mormons are Trinitarians but that Mormon theology is vague and open enough on these points to be compatible with the formal doctrine of the Trinity in the creeds.
As to immutability of being if we’re talking about the ousia or ground then certainly a Mormon could (although need not) embrace such a thing. One has to be careful and unpack what we mean by immutable. As I read Scotus here I certainly don’t find anything I’d object to. Once again I’d just suggest that Mormons would apply this to all spiritual beings.
I think one has to be careful here and ask what one means by independent. Once again Mormon philosophers who tend to come from either the Continental tradition or perhaps even the process theology tradition might suggest that John Donne’s statement of “no man is an island” ought be taken ontologically. (My own text of choice here is Paul Ricoeur’s Oneself as Another)
Certainly though a position more in line with consciousness as more like a Cartesian mind or monad is the dominant view. Primarily because of the writings of Orson Pratt and B. H. Roberts even though both were speculating on these matters. Brigham Young appears to have adopted a more Idealistic perspective where the intelligence we are made from is more holistic and perhaps best not seen as monads of consciousness.
I think we should be careful not to conflate consciousness and will. All Mormons think that the Son, Father, and Spirit have the same will. Bruce R. McConkie tended to interpret that nominalistically and that dominated 20th century thinking. But that’s certainly not the only way to think of it and probably doesn’t reflect many 19th century views. (Although it probably does Pratt’s and I suspect it was his influence that led to McConkie’s views)
Todd, if I were to have talked to the mortal Jesus, do you think he would have said that he was to obey, worship, rejoice in, glorify, and not rebel or strive against his Father, (whom John calls the “only true God” and Jesus’ own “God”)? Does this make him “creaturely elohim” by your count?
And how does doing any of this force us to conclude an ontological chasm between God and the bene elohim?
And I still want your answers to my two questions! You didn’t think I would let it go that easy, did you? Preacher or not, I would like to know.
And I don’t mind God calling people to preach Todd. But there is a difference to me between preaching and being “preachy”.
Seth, if God is in and through all things (D&C 88) in what sense can any existing thing be truly said to be independent? We can alienate ourselves from God and presumably that’s an eternally unchosen option for Christ. But independent? I can’t see how that’s possible.
Now if we mean independent in the sense that could Jesus or the Father choose to cease to be God then that’s a more interesting question. Certainly Blake Ostler puts it like you do. And argues that it’s far greater for God to be God if he could be otherwise. This gets into the issue of what it means for God to be Good.
While it’s not part of the Trinitarian doctrine proper as I see it, the question of the relationship between God and the Good is a very interesting one and one that I think our mainstream Christian friends perhaps have the weaker position on. Blake’s book is quite good here.
Let me note that there is hardly uniform belief here among Mormons. While Blake argues his position well I think it is a definite minority among Mormons.
However let me note that what you claim seems false. After all to claim that “most high” entails greater in equality seems logically unentailed by the term.
You might believe this follows but I think the duty is on you to provide an argument for why it must happen. After all height need not refer to value or ability or anything else. To draw an analogy in traditional Trinitarian formulations the Father begets while the Son is begotten but this doesn’t impugn their equality. To Mormons talking about “most high” this epithet refers to the begetting.
So to us to make the claim you make is to deny your own Trinitarian formula.
Clark, do you believe that Jehovah is the Most High?
The Father is Lord. The Christ is Lord. The Spirit is Lord. There is one Lord.
To draw an analogy in traditional Trinitarian formulations the Father begets while the Son is begotten but this doesn’t impugn their equality.
And I would not deny this. Please eliminate any teaching on my part that would have insinuated this.
And coming back to an earlier topic . . .
Bruce asks,
“Must God be triune for the Messiah to be our atoning Savior and for his atoning death to be efficacious? That is, is it necessary that the God who saves be the trinitarian deity of the Christian faith? Or, yet differently, is there a necessary relationship in Christian theology between the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of atonement? Cur Deus Trinus? Must God be triune for Christ’s identity and his atoning death to be what they are?”
Hey, I missed #19. Sorry Dart.
Nope, Jesus is equal with the Father. Absolutely all will bow the knee to Jesus. Who is worthy of worship? Not me. Ever. Throughout eternity, I will refuse anyone to worship on bended knee to me. Why? Ontological difference between me and my Creator.
To your questions in #12 . . . no . . . no . . . it goes against inspired biblical logic of how God defines himself in essence.
Todd (#22) I would say the Most High is a reference to the person of the Father except to the degree that the Father manifests himself typically on earth via the Son as mediator. Since both are fully God the Son can perform as Most High. (This is the LDS notion of divine investiture of authority)
While not all Mormons think The Most High is the Father (say Brigham Young) I think that especially in the 20th century that is the typical view.
(#23) I honestly don’t see why the Trinitarian form of the unity of the Godhead is necessary for the atonement. On the other hand the Book of Mormon – especially Mosiah 15 can be read as implying a strong unity beyond mere values, intents and ideas is necessary for the atonement.
But it would seem to me that one can’t make the argument that a substantive unity is necessary without a lot of strong evidence and a pre-existing theory of Christology. For those who take a more social trinitarian view while clearly the unity is necessary for the atonement it isn’t a more substantial unity. I think that social trinitarian approach works quite well.
re # 24 Throughout eternity, I will refuse anyone to worship on bended knee to me. Why? Ontological difference between me and my Creator.
This is a straw man you are arguing against.
OK, John f., let me ask you this. Why do you think the King rather than kings, the God rather than gods, the Lord rather than lords is alone to be worshipped forever?
This doesn’t establish any difference in being? And if there no difference in being or kind among the elohim, why is that Yahweh is so jealous that he alone be worshipped?
Clark, pick up this book when you have a chance.
http://www.scriptoriumdaily.com/2007/09/26/jesus-in-trinitarian-perspective/ (B&H Academic, 2007)
Chapter 5 is Bruce Ware’s paper: “Christ’s Atonement – A Work of the Trinity”
He is seeing what I am seeing in Scripture
I. The Trinity and the Identity of Christ as the Atoning Savior
a. The Father and the Identity of Jesus
b. The Spirit and the Identity of Jesus
(John 3:17; Heb. 1:1-3; John 6:38; Ps. 2:6-9; I Cor. 15:27-28; Ps. 2:2, 4, 5-6; Rev. 19; Dan. 7:13-14; I Cor. 11:3; John 3:16-17; John 6:38; John 8:42; John 10:36; Matt. 28:19; Luke 7:8; I Pet. 1:20-21; Col. 1:12-13; I Cor. 8:6; Gen. 1; John 1; I Cor. 15:25-28; Matt. 16:13-17; Luke 1:30-35; John 1:31-34; Luke 4:16-21; Matt. 12:28; Acts 10:36-38; Isa. 11:1-9, 42:1-9, 61:1-3)
II. The Trinity and the Efficacy of Christ’s Atoning Death
a. The Efficacy of Christ’s Atonement and the Father
b. The Efficacy of Christ’s Atonement and the Spirit
(Eph. 1:4-5, 7, Isa. 53:10, John 1:29; Acts 2:23; Rom. 8:32; Eph. 1; Col. 1:12-14, 16, 20; John 8:26-29; 2 Cor. 5:21; Phil. 2:8-9; Rom. 3:23-26; 2 Cor. 5:21; Matt. 27:46; Ps. 22:1, 19-31; Luke 23:34, Is. 11:1-2; Luke 4:1-2, 14, 21; Acts 10:38, 1:8; I Pet. 2:21-22; Luke 2:40, 52; Mark 13:32; Heb. 5:8-9, 12:2, 9:14; John 3:3-8; Ezek 36:26-27; Eph 2:1; Acts 26:18; 2 Cor 4:4, 6; John 3:20-21; Rom. 8:6-8; Eph. 2:8-9)
Tood, realistically I’m so far behind on my reading and so busy with my business that I’ll probably never get to that.
As to your original question I think it almost always an error to move from performance to a question of Being.
“As to your original question I think it almost always an error to move from performance to a question of Being.”
Amen.
As Blake put it in a reply to Mike Heiser:
“You make much of the “incomparability” statements in the Psalms, Dt. and second Isaiah. Well, it is clear that Yahweh was regarded as incomparable to the other gods, supreme and in the sense that he was due devotion and worship, also unique. However, that doesn’t amount to an “ontological” uniqueness. The very term “sons of God” is enough to suggest such a genus relationship. In fact, it is the claim of genus relationship par excellence. You cite Nehemiah 9:6 and Psalm 148:1-5 for the proposition that all elohim are created (formed or organized — ‘asah — in Nehemiah 9). However, what these texts say is that the “hosts” are created — where hosts clearly refers to the sun, moon and stars based on the parallelism of the text. I agree that the Hebrews regarded the sun, moon and stars as sentient beings and that they were formed (I believe on the 4th day as Genesis 1 states); but that doesn’t entail that those higher in the hierarchy of the heavenly councils were also created. The sons of God are never said to be created and there is no theogony story of their creation anywhere in Hebrew literature. Sons of Elyon are different than the “hosts” in this regard. L.S. all agree that there was time when the sum, moon and stars were formed and that there was a time when the hosts of heaven (even angels) were organized and formed (perhaps even birthed). However, there is a part of the sons of God that is not created — though in our present form we are organized and formed.
Now for a very important point. I can match every one of the “incomparability statements” you cite about Yahweh in the OT with identical or similar claims of incomparability either for or by human kings in other ANE texts. The human king claims to be qualitatively superior to his subjects in various texts — even into the Roman texts. Yet the king is not claiming an ontological distinction, but a distinction of power, authority and political priority. So your claim that there is necessarily a claim of ontological uniqueness is unwarranted.”
Now for a very important point. I can match every one of the “incomparability statements” you cite about Yahweh in the OT with identical or similar claims of incomparability either for or by human kings in other ANE texts.
Dart, this is one of my main points of contention. Isaiah blasts the claims of ANE kings. And look what happened to Nebuchadnezzar.
Do we define the “incomparability statements” in Scripture revealing God by the incomparability statements describing pagan kings?
Do we drag the marvelous revelation of God down to this?
Would there be a link in our differences on the Triune God to our differences in position on scriptural infallibility and authority?
Church article of faith #2 . . .
https://heartissuesforlds.wordpress.com/2008/03/11/bereans-second-article-of-faith-the-true-god/
taking us back to Church article of faith #1
https://heartissuesforlds.wordpress.com/2008/02/20/bereans-first-article-of-faith-the-bible/
“Would there be a link in our differences on the Triune God to our differences in position on scriptural infallibility and authority?”
No.
Most debates I’ve seen on this subject have the Mormon apologists arguing from an assumption of correct scripture.
I don’t think we are going to make any headway here, and I am tired of the run around. I am going to disengage now. Have a good one.
TYD
TYD, yes, I am not for the dialogue dance on how revulsive I find that quote by Blake highlighted in #30.
Give me some time to calm down. Can I be honest about that? Remember I have been in the book of Isaiah for over a year, where God has been pounding in my head week after week over how disgusting the Ancient Near Eastern religions and their boasts are outside the worship of Yahweh. The mightiest of earthly monarchs are nothing in the presence of God. He created them. They do nothing outside of Yahweh’s sovereignty.
But I don’t know how much the authority of Isaiah carries with Blake or Bokovoy in the throes of higher textual criticism.
I know I am already the fundamentalist fool to scholars on this one.
I don’t mind you disengaging on this thread. For I am heated. But I will compose later a comment on this thread for you to think about.
Todd
I have stood in the presence of Jesus Christ and I have stood in the presence of Heavenly Father. Let me tell you, of Jesus Christ, that the feelings of love, patience, understanding, joy, power etc are absolutely far beyond description. I wouldn’t belittle him in the least as a wonderful God. BUT Heavenly Father is even greater still.
You can sit around trying to debate interpretation of Scripture till the cows come home. But your opinion is based purely on that – your interpretation. You have absolutely no true evidence to support your opinions.
I personally can’t understand how any grown up can still accept the trinity idea who has read Christ’s pray to Heavenly Father in John. I say that as I believed it when young and so am excusing myself.
The Yellow Dart,
Re: Comment #29 — Are you referring to Blake Ostler? And where was this said? I’d be interested in reading/listening to the whole thing. Thanks.
Nick,
Yes, it was Blake Ostler I was referring to (if you were more familiar with me, you’d see Blake has influenced me considerably). It part of a some correspondence he had with Mike Heiser. You can read more of it at comment 21 at this link:
http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2007/03/can-humans-be-deified/345/
However, you should read his post here at Newcoolthang concerning his new third book (out soon) which will cover the issues in the quote much more thoroughly:
http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2007/09/how-many-gods-are-there/447/
The third volume of his serious looks to be quite interesting.
For a “sneakpeak” at an earlier version of parts of some chapters for the third volume, you can go here:
http://ldsfocuschrist.blogspot.com/2007/09/how-many-gods-are-there-summary-of.html
You may also be interested in his website, which has many of his papers and audio presentations online. You can go to:
http://blakeostler.com/complete_works.html
I will have to browse your website more later Nick. For now, it’s off to school. Have a good one.
TYD
Woah, sorry for the grammar mistakes above.
Todd, while I certainly can understand your not buying into the comparative religion interpretations of ancient Judaism, I do wonder about reading into Isaiah ontological readings given that such ontological concerns only are invented when Plato comes onto the scene. I’m wondering how you can reconcile the two. If you reject higher criticism, redaction and so forth in Isaiah don’t you simultaneously have to exclude there being any ontological assertions in it?
Dart, would you think it possible that an outsider can get very easily tired with Blake’s “run around” with authoritative scriptural text?
And then when I try to get serious with scriptural text and seek to be biblical, people in the corridor either say I am being blinded and corrupted by metaphysics, Greek philosophy, or even dead Constantine himself about what the Bible says about God.
I am going to be in Isaiah 46 tonight with the church family. But just think of the scriptural data in the last 6 chapters preceding this one. Does Blake do justice to these verses about the one true God (43:10; 44:6,8; 45:5, 6, 14, 18, 21, 22)? I find that Blake’s Mormon Philosophy only picks biblical text that is favorable to his theological position on the nature of God.
The one, true God did not have some earlier god in high council instruct Him (40:13-14).
The one, true God has no equal (40:18, 25).
The one, true God considers mighty nations, princes, and judges as nothing (40:17:23).
The one, true God created the host (40:26), the ends of the earth (40:28), the heavens, the earth, breath, and spirit (42:5).
The one, true God is the Creator, Former, Maker (43:7). Was there someone that formed or organized El? (43:10)? And is not El, Jehovah? Is there any other god out there who can make this boast? “I will work, and who shall let it?” (43:13). Are other ANE gods comparable to the God of Isaiah? Not Bel or Nebo (46).
The one, true God “maketh all” (44:24), even in a climactic way, Cyrus, the messiah (44:28).
The one, true God proclaims, “Don’t fight with your Former!” (45:9).
The one, true God is sovereign. The “sons” of God are just as much God’s work (accountable to God) as the dirt in the earth and the stars in the heavens (45:11-12).
I can see why the second part of Isaiah is called Comfort.
And I have not even begun to express the tender love, the wondrous, compassionate goodness of the one, true God for a dumb sheep, a low worm, and a poor and needy sinner like me.
It is obvious that I don’t perform like God. So are God and I of the same kind? If I answered yes, I would have to tear up or critically dissect the book of Isaiah.
Clark, sincerely, Plato’s god is practically just as disgusting to me as Baal.
When LDS friends continue to throw out to me (I think they learned this at BYU-I) that I love Plato’s god, I shudder.
Neo-platonic deity sounds fancier, but equally revolting.
Todd, I would suggest that you read up on the writings of Anthony E. Larson, a LDS researcher into what I call plasma theology. Also, that you also look into the Hebrew language research of Stan Tenen, a non-LDS mathematician. I think that if you learn the research of these two men, you may view the scriptures with even more light than you currently have.
Todd,
I am not going to engage your posts on a consistent basis anymore. As of now your responses have worn my patience out.
Maybe when we meet in person someday we can really get into the issues.
Until then, best wishes.
TYD
To The Yellow Dart,
Here is the display of goodness for all blog readers, certainly not you and me.
It is the forbearance of the one and only God.
Until we meet someday.
et
Well Dart, in all fairness, I imagine we weary Todd on occasion as well.
Seth, I agree; I am sure we all weary each other from time to time. But let me clarify in case it wasn’t clear–I am not angry at Todd in any way. I just don’t think these discussions are very productive.
Best wishes.
Nonetheless, I think they need to be done.
We can’t simply bow out of the world of theological debate and content ourselves to simply “bearing our testimonies.” These debates do not convert our debate partners (usually). But the mere fact that they are taking place strengthens and enriches the position of both religions.
Todd, that’s the irony I see. By reading Isaiah (or any OT passage) ontologically you are introducing Plato’s God even while finding him repugnant. While I think the common LDS criticism of mainstream Christianity in this regard is often unfair. There is a certain correctness to it. We bring in distinctions (ontology) that are alien to the tradition.
I’m not saying you are worshiping the God of Plato. Far from it. Augustine and others created something quite novel and seeing it purely through the prism of Platonism is erroneous.
That’s not my argument though.
The argument is that Plato introduced a way of thinking we call ontology. Before that there was no ontological thinking. To read it into the OT is thus inappropriate in terms of hermeneutics. This is quite different from whether one accepts the historical arguments that Blake makes.
I’ll address your rejoinder to Blake later as I don’t have time right now.
I’d just say that one has to be careful about the reference of God. Are we speaking of the persons or unity?
What about this Clark?
One and only one God who is equally: Father, obedient Son, and obedient Spirit.
Is that better than this jargon: ontological equality yet economic subordination.
(Hey, I just heard tonight in church assembly that T.D. Jakes is a full blown modalist. I am very sad to hear that.)
Clark, here is a question from Kelly M. Kapic (PhD, King’s College, University of London), professor at Covenant College:
“What could be more fundamental than making sure that one’s praise is directed toward the true God and that one’s view of that God is not mere fancy but correspondent with his reality?”
“What could be more fundamental than making sure that one’s praise is directed toward the true God and that one’s view of that God is not mere fancy but correspondent with his reality?”
I don’t know… Actually following God, regardless of how well you understand Him. Correct knowledge of God is only one facet in becoming a true disciple. Unfortunately many evangelicals seem to think correct knowledge is the only aspect of discipleship that matters.
Todd (or Kelly) I think there are two aspects to that question. The first is the question of reference or where our worship is oriented and the second is the question of description or understanding.
Where I think far too many Evangelicals (not all) get twisted around is that they privilege description above reference and worse, tradition above encounter. The only way we ultimately can come to a correct understanding of God is through direct encounter. Scripture can get one only so far simply because it is vague, ambiguous, open to numerous readings, and incomplete. (I recognize some of those are debatable by my Evangelical friends, but surely even they would acknowledge there are predicates we could describe God with that we don’t know if they fit)
The reference/description problem is actually a classic philosophical problem I’ve discussed before. The question becomes to what degree can I reference without knowing a description. Because so many Evangelicals see the basis of reference through descriptions given to them via English translation of scripture combined with historic traditions of how to read them that description is almost always privileged. While Mormons clearly have scriptures and exegesical traditions I do think that fundamentally how we approach God is more phenomenological. That is we ask who answers our prayers? Who is it that comforts us? That is the basis of our approach to scripture is direct contact rather than the inverse.
Hope that helps.
The short answer, of course, is that understanding God is important but that this is always a result of encountering God.
Todd (#49) the problem with that phrase is that it can be read in numerous ways including modalism. i.e. it really says so little that it doesn’t resolve the problems some see. (i.e. social trinitarianism, orthodox trinitarianism, tri-theism, or modalism as all could affirm that statement)
(#53) Unfortunately, you are right, Clark.
Thinking about the Trinity in Mormonism, only when a modern prophet/apostle or Blake Ostler or any Deseret author begins to explain that phrase, do I then begin to run into serious conflict. Councils of gods, corporeality, celestial marriage – just this triad of C’s alone are a quagmire for me in squaring LDS trinitarian belief with the Bible.
Also, interpretations of Joseph Smith’s descriptive vision of the personages appearing to him is a source of great difficulty. Is the written record of the first vision by Joseph fundamental for contemporary LDS in their proper understanding of the Trinity? Can one deny the description of this account and remain a temple-worthy Latter-day Saint?
(Speaking of encounters, it is a huge problem to me when Doug Towers on this thread describes the father/son personages that appear to him, claiming this is the biblical God.)
“Can one deny the description of this account and remain a temple-worthy Latter-day Saint?”
Yes, of course.
We’re not obsessed with vague philosophical stuff like some.
Seth, you must be joshin’ me.
Really?
I am dumbfounded. Of course, I am always learning new things in conversations with my LDS friends.
I thought I read somewhere in Deseret just the other day that the historical accuracy of Joseph’s First Vision is fundamental.
Even using that very word.
Fundamental in what sense?
I think one is equivocating. The First Vision is fundamental in terms of justifying the existence of the Church. It is not fundamental in other aspects. Just as an encounter with God is fundamental in terms of learning about God or ones personal religious beliefs.
Regarding your other points I’d simply note that I never asserted and do not believe that there are no points of problems between Protestantism and Mormonism. Certainly there are. I just don’t think the formal doctrine of the Trinity is one of those. As I’ve often said, the ontology of creation ex nihilo is an irreducible difference.
Now my curiosity is peaked over the need to go back to Deseret and work through this with some of the written statements of current authorities. I am sure I read this somewhere in a book just published.
You mentioned, The First Vision is fundamental in terms of justifying the existence of the Church. This does seem to be the gist of John C. Lefgren’s words in 2002: “The First Vision is fundamental to our religion” (which I just googled).
Maybe, sometime in the future, I might try to collect and type out a composite from a variety of contemporary LDS authorities and profs on Trinitarian musings in seeking to confirm your thesis, Clark.
Presently, in my mind, the formal doctrine of plurality seems an easily thing grasped after for agreement. The formal doctrine of the one, singular God is a difference still in my mind. I encountered just one God. Joseph Smith seems to claim an enounter with two independent beings.
I have met only one God. Just one God speaks to me. I speak to only one God. I sing to only one personal, living God. I worship just One.
When LDS encounter their one God, do they yet acknowledge Jesus as another?
I simply believe that even our typical, weekly, daily encounterings with our respective God(s) shows difference among me and my peers, Clark.
Of course, hearing two voices . . . what a boggling of the mind.
A Mormon’s private beliefs are between him/her and God and no one else. It’s none of my bishop’s business what I think about the separateness of the Father and the Son. To get a temple recommend, you need to be able to answer a few questions in the affirmative for your bishop. I don’t think notions of trinity are addressed in those questions at all really.
But Seth,
both of our religions would publicly esteem the book of Isaiah.
Right?
“Worthiness” hinges completely on the righteousness of the one God for Israel (see last couple of verses Isaiah 46).
I don’t know if it can be properly charged that one is being simply philosophical or butting into that which is not one’s own business. People must think about this. People must test the spirits (for there are a lot of them).
For the one way to celestial exaltation, there is the imputation of perfect righteousness by the one, gracious God to the wayward, “stouthearted” sinner. Is there any other path to be walked in order to stand in the presence of the Holy One of Israel?
I think notions of the Triune God are far, far more important than general questions related to caffeine consumption or meeting tithing requirements.
Clark, for every description on the Trinity that I have read in LDS publications, I sit back and say, “Ok, I can in a much better way logically understand this conception of God.”
So here is the problem for me, the mysterious has been removed. And when I don’t see the mysterious, I have not nearly the full surging upward and inward cravings of worshipful awe to God.
The Bible text is mysterious, unfolding paradox in the presentation of Jehovah. As you mentioned in different words, “Scripture can get one only so far simply because it is vague, ambiguous, open to numerous readings, and incomplete.”
I wouldn’t use those descriptive words at all to describe the glorious paradoxes. It is the paradox of God – plurality and unity – that make me think about Him constantly.
My mind is like a tennis court. I am wowed by God when I think about his bold declaration that he is it. He alone is God. And my mind dwells on all the ramifications and implications of this, a oneness of theology cascading down through all the religious practice and worship in our corridor.
And then my thoughts bounce to the other side of the court to a loving, eternal plurity of three more beautiful and indescribable than any loving earthly husband/wife relationship of two. I revel in the plural, loving unity of Father, Son, and Spirit as all of us in this world are starving for such relationship.
It is these intriguing and mysterious aspects of the Triune God that draw my thoughts to him over and over and over and over again. I think the details of God’s words and works in Scripture are purposefully laid out this way to foster the creaturely intrigue and adventure into the heart of the one, true God, bouncing back and forth from one weighty truth to the other on who God is.
God is awesome (shattering all boundaries of that descriptive word).
Seth, just one more quick question(s) that comes to my mind. If one does not tithe, which God(s) does one rob? In an absolute sense, is it only one God to worship in our financial giving back what is already his?
If you rob my wife, you have robbed me. I’m not sure it makes a difference Todd.
“I think notions of the Triune God are far, far more important than general questions related to caffeine consumption or meeting tithing requirements.”
Are they?
Good question, Seth. My answer is absolutely.
Please don’t misunderstand me. I don’t downplay a bishop’s right to question drinking and giving activities in people’s personal lives. As a bishop/pastor, I ask questions on these main themes to those I know and love. And people should keep me accountable and ask me.
Yet there are heart issues to explore with people behind eating and giving questions. For instance, what do people think is necessary to get them through the day? That cup of coffee? Do they relish it more than God? Or what brings the most security and happiness to the young couple? The new house?
Our drinking and giving habits do reflect our core heart cravings and treasures.
Sadly, our hearts are constantly falling short of the glory of God. We struggle with idols (caffeine, money, etc.) in a pursuit outside of God to make us content when we feel unloved, lustful, grumpy, discontent, or restless on any given day. May all of our drinking and doing be to the glory of the one God.
But there are other idols close to the heart. It could be a spouse. Husbands and wives are looking to their spouses to fulfill that heart joy and satisfaction which only the one, true God can fulfill. The love for this one God should be so intense that the needful love for precious family almost looks like hate.
Anything (drink, food, possessions, etc.) or anyone (supernatural spirits, family members, religious leaders) is an idol when it or he or she stands between you and the one, true God.
This discussion makes me think of C.S. Lewis’ The Last Battle, which was the last of his Chronicles of Narnia series. I remember that I was struck by the fact that Lewis made it so that the southern race (I forget the name of their race) who worshiped their own god faithfully ((I forget the name of their god) were found saved equally in the new Narnia as were the Narnians who worshiped Aslan faithfully. Aslan said something like, “Those who worshiped (name of god) faithfully have only done it to me and receive the same reward as if they had worshiped me directly.” It caught my eye that Lewis, a professed Christian, was putting such “doctrine” in his fictional book.
I’m not even sure how to take that.
I’d say we learn line upon line. Let me turn the question around. Did Isaiah recognize Jesus and the Father as different persons? Was it necessary for Israel from 2000 BC – 30 AD to be able to make the distinction. (Personally I think many in that span did understand – as I think the Book of Mormon teaches)
The question is whether our encounters with God teach there to be a unity among the divine. I think it does. The further question is whether it teaches the ontological properties of that unity in a way that we can explain in propositional form to the satisfaction of philosophers. I don’t think it does. I think that the Church that followed in the path of Nicene went astray by making that ontological question their concern.
I think you’d find that overall paradox drives far more people away than it causes to turn to God.
If it works for you, that’s fine. But I think it’s a huge problem which is why even among your own religious tradition so few people actually believe in or understand the Trinity.
I have a question for you, Todd.
Here is a recent blog post that talks about the Trinity:
http://mormonmatters.org/2008/04/06/mormons-as-trinitarians/
What I’d like to know is if it is an accurate description of your view of the Trinity?