Clark has been writing on the Trinity and proposing the idea that evangelicals and LDS are not really too far apart from each other on Trinitarian belief. What a topic!
I just bought two books in Grace Community Church’s bookstore related to this topic.
Father, Son, & Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles, Relevance (Crossway Books, 2005)
Communion With the Triune God (Crossway Books, 2007), edited by Kelly M. Kapic and Justin Taylor
In the latter book, Richard J. Mouw, writes,
This is just the right time for a republishing of John Owen’s great work. There is renewed interest in the Trinity these days, and there is also a deep hungering for genuine spirituality. Owen combines the two in a powerful manner, pointing the way to a vital relationship with the triune God. It [is] good to have this classic available again–and to have it introduced by gifted interpreters of Owen’s life and thought.
I am wondering if Richard Mouw would believe that belief in “the triune God” is fundamental to the profession of Christianity.
Secondly, let me go back to the first book. Bruce Ware writes in the opening acknowledgments,
It is the rare pastor’s conference that requests its speaker to devote five one-hour sessions to the doctrine of the Trinity. But such was the case. I am very grateful to the Conservative Baptist Northwest team who invited me out to Sun River, Oregon, March 2004, to speak at their annual meetings, giving me the opportunity to develop the talks that I’ve since rewritten and developed into this book.
Hot dog! I would love to see a conference like this transpire in the LDS I-15 corridor!
May all behold the wonder of our Triune God!
Gregory of Nazianzus once wrote,
No sooner do I conceive of the One that I am illumined by the Splendour of the Three; no sooner do I distinguish Them than I am carried back to the One.
Jesus in Idaho Falls 
“I am wondering if Richard Mouw would believe that belief in “the triune God” is fundamental to the profession of Christianity.”
Good question, and the answer is both yes and no. Does an individual need to have a clear doctrine of the Trinity in order to be saved? I hope not. I professed Christ when I was very young, but I had no clear doctrine of the Trinity. Nor am I sure that the disciple Thomas did when he finally got around to saying to Jesus, “My Lord and my God!”
Does the church need a robust profession of the triune God in order to maintain a solid teaching ministry–and to be judged orthodox? Yes. It is an essential teaching of the historic faith, and it is a doctrine that best captures the sense of the Scriptural teaching about the three Persons who alone are worthy of our worship. A church that denies, or is unclear about, the importance of this profession will eventually drift into all kinds of other confusions and outright heresies.
Dr. Mouw,
I agree with you that the church needs a robust profession of the triune God in order to be judged orthodox. I’m concerned, however, that many of those who advocate a “social Trinity” model either have drifted away from an orthodox Trinity or have put themselves on a dangerous slope towards tri-theism. What do you think?
The kind of social Trininarianism that concerns me is that model which sees the three persons of the Trinity as individual substances each of whom shares the “generic abstract essence” of “godhood” analogous to a community of three humans (as three substances) who share in the “generic abstract essence” of “human nature”.
Scott
Richard, I thank you for your popping in at HI4LDS. In all honesty, I am deeply grieved and highly suspicious in my heart.
Is it alright to say that? (LDS friends already know this.) I heart many dear LDS friends. Even more so, I love fervently many biblical preachers who have given most all of their lives for effective ministry in the Mormon corridor. And most of all, I care deeply for the glory of Christ to be revealed clearly in the profession of Christianity among those in the intermountain West. So I have a huge stake in the matter.
I don’t see how evangelical brothers can accept Robert Millet’s profession of Christianity when he robustly denies the orthodox view of the Trinity. Certainly, he would suggest that the profession of true Christianity is allowable for those embracing the Christ of the synoptic gospels while holding at arm’s length the Christ of John’s gospel. He would pose a question similar to this, “Can a farm hand in the fields become a Christian believing the message of a Mark while never knowing about the message of John?”
For true profession of Christianity, I would do “battle royal” (to borrow that ol’ fundamentalist phrase) for the confessing of Jesus as fully Lord of the one true God. It is essential. Everything is at stake. The triune God is the Object of efficacious faith, the very center of Christianity. Wasn’t this a given in apostolic Christianity?
My little girl (age 9) was recently baptized in front of an audience of brothers and sisters in Christ and unbelievers for the visible demonstrating of her gospel belief. She knows there is one God. She knows Jesus is God. Though she knows the Son is different from the Father (John 3:16). She doesn’t understand the triune God but she believes. All this wasn’t verbally confessed to the audience. But it was there, Richard.
It was there in pure, unadulterated simplicity. Paradox. Trust. Childlike faith. And no indoctrination in church councils and creeds.
Richard, I think Standing Together Ministries ought to be passionately pushing for a full-fledged, loving declaration of the Triune God in the corridor.
I pray for you.
And I pray for the bursting forth of the radiant glory of God in my heart and among those I love.
I just went to the ocean at Zuma Beach, not too far from Malibu.
So excited as an Idahoan, I did the full immersion thing in the waves, over and over.
All the other surfers were wearing wet-suits, but in my simple swim trunks, I couldn’t help myself. So much fun. 🙂
I am headed back to Idaho, tomorrow. But I was thinking to myself, “I need to drive over to Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena and engage with you face to face.”
“Our social teaching is the doctrine of the Holy Trinity.”
“Between the Holy Trinity and hell there lies no third choice.”
Eastern Christian aphorisms.
“God is the eternal, archetypal Community whose very nature is interpersonal and communal.” – Me
Thanks for posting that quote from St. Gregory of Nazianzen. Augustine and a great deal of Western theology, both Protestant and Roman, seems to have lost sight of that, but now, it seems there is a recovery of the importance of Trinitarian theology.
I just don’t get why tri-theism is a heresy.
Sorry.
Seth:
“Hear O Israel: The LORD (YHWH: “I am who am,” “He who is”) our God (Elohim) is ONE LORD (“Being”)” Deuteronomy 6:4
See also Mark 12:29, where Jesus reiterates this.
Monotheism lies at the heart of the religion of Israel.
As you know, to this day Judaism and Islam both reproach all of Christianity for having allegedly abandoned monotheism (which, of course, Christianity has not). If monotheism is false, then the revelation given through Moses and the prophets is false, and millenium of struggle within Israel to remain faithful to the worship of the one and only God is a perverse joke, an ill-informed exercise in futility.
I have no idea why Joseph Smith moved in the direction of tritheism, but a major reason why he was able to do so concerns the fact that Western theology had forgotten, at least on a popular level, the patristic understanding of the Most Holy Trinity who alone is God.
Either pick tri-theism or pick modalism.
One or the other.
You can’t have it both ways and still have a coherent theology.
And no, it is no answer to call it “a mystery.” “Mystery” is no excuse for incoherence. I’ve never had a traditional Christian explain this whole “same-yet-different” nonsense to my satisfaction.
Actually, there is still debate about whether Plantinga’s social Trinity is “tri-theistic”, and I would say many informed LDS usually come close to articulating this view in their descriptions of the Godhead (although, in my judgment, I think there are some differences still). In my judgment, the social Trinity isn’t any more “polytheistic” than the traditional view of the Trinity (a view which, as Seth has noted, wants to “have its cake and eat it to”).
In any case, Mormonism is hardly any more “polytheistic/tri-theistic” than other traditions of Christianity, and certainly not any more “polytheistic” than ancient Israel.
As Baruch Halpern states:
“Monotheism, Yehezkel Kaufman observed, postulates multiple deities, subordinated to the one…Two elements distinguish it from polytheism: a conviction that the one controls the pantheon, and the idea of false gods.”
Unfortunately, Father Greg’s (re)interpretation of the “Shema” (Deut. 6.4) is typical of metaphysical monotheists desire to erase all reference to other real deities in the biblical texts, but simply misrepresents ancient Israelite views on the subject (since “metaphysical monotheism” did not really emerge in the Judeo-Christian tradition until the early-mid 1st millennium CE). As many scholars note, the “Shema” directly implies that there actually are other gods but that only YHWH merits the Israelites’ worship. To say that it says there are no other gods in any sense whatsoever is simply a standard misreading. Father Greg’s anachronistic commentary in parenthesis clearly demonstrates the lack of understanding and the theological baggage that many metaphysical monotheistic readers of the “Shema” (and other biblical texts) have, and which they eisegete into the biblical texts.
We can and should easily cross reference other passages which make other elohim, bene elohim, qdshim, and other members of the heavenly divine council explicit, such as Ps. 82; Deut. 32.8-9; Ps. 29. 1-2; Ps. 89; Hos. 12.1; Zech. 3; Zech. 14.5; 1 Kings 22.19; Is. 6; Is. 14.13; Jer. 23.18, 22; Dan. 3.25, etc. These references are about as clear as one can get that other real divinities existed in the ancient Israelite worldview(s). As biblical archeologist William Dever has said:
“A generation ago, when I was a graduate student, biblical scholars were nearly unanimous in thinking that monotheism had been predominant in ancient Israelite religion from the beginning — not just as an “ideal,” but as the reality. Today all that has changed. Virtually all mainstream scholars (and even a few conservatives) acknowledge that true monotheism emerged only in the period of the exile in Babylon in the 6th century B.C., as the canon of the Hebrew Bible was taking shape.”
—–
Now I want some clear answers from Todd.
Do you agree with Rich Mouw’s reply to your question:
“Does an individual need to have a clear doctrine of the Trinity in order to be saved? I hope not. I professed Christ when I was very young, but I had no clear doctrine of the Trinity. Nor am I sure that the disciple Thomas did when he finally got around to saying to Jesus, “My Lord and my God!””
Yes or no?
I would like to know also: are the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all fully “persons”, having fully separate cognitive and conative capacities, and possessing separate individual wills that do not simply reduce into the will of just one personality?
Yes or no?
—
I would add also, Todd, since you asked whenever a topic you broached is related to something written in Blake’s first volume, that you might like to check out chapters 1, 13 and 14. My last question for you is actually related to something he discusses on pages 7 and 8.
Regarding anachronism: talk to Jesus. Of course Israel’s acceptance of monotheism was gradual and often uncertain, and monotheism in no way implies that other spiritual beings do not exist, and these are sometimes called “gods” (elohim) in the OT. However, what monotheism does state is that there is an infinite ontological gulf between the uncreated God and these created spirits. Therefore, if you are arguing that Israel was wrong in utterly repudiating monotheism, and that before the advent of Christ, which is historically undeniable, then you have to argue that the Great Apostasy itself precedes the coming of Christ and that Christ Himself was an agent of said Apostasy.
Re: Tri-theism vs. modalism. Read Zizioulas’ “Being as Communion” and get back to me. Your dicotomy is based on a faulty understanding of personhood, Divine and human. A person is, fundamentally, an open system constituted of other persons (at all levels: conception normally results from an archetypically interpersonal act). See Jesus’s words in John regarding his being in the Father and the Father being in Him. See Paul applying the same dynamic to members of Christ’s body when he speaks of us as being “members one of another.”
I own an (orthodox) Jewish prayer book. In it, there is a relatively late statement from a Rabbi that humanity is called to be one as God as one. I’m thinking, “But how can humanity be one as God is one if God is not an interpersonal community of persons?” Both Judaism and Islam stumble at this point, but Mormonism, perceiving the Three, stumbles at the One, their inherent, eternal unity because it confuses the concept of individuality with the proper concept of personhood.
Regarding the relevance of the Trinity. Misunderstanding the Trinity distorts our understanding of everything else (Christology, soteriology, anthropology, ecclesiology, etc.) and therefore makes it less likely that we can form a saving relationship with the true Christ, the Eternal Son and Word of God, via His Body, the Church, in the power of the Eternal Holy Spirit, and, precisely through Him, with His Eternal, Unorginate Father.
Father Greg,
You said:
“monotheism in no way implies that other spiritual beings do not exist, and these are sometimes called “gods” (elohim) in the OT.”
Thanks for this clear statement.
You also said:
“However, what monotheism does state is that there is an infinite ontological gulf between the uncreated God and these created spirits.”
Where does any ancient Israelite text talk about this “infinite ontological gulf”? I don’t know which passages you think use these terms, but they don’t exist. This is simply your creative eisegesis again. (But I will agree that creatio ex nihilo and the metaphysical assumptions behind it appear to me to be the largest gap between LDS Christians and Christians of “the tradition”.)
What the texts actually say is that that there are “bene elohim” and “elohim” (sons of god and gods); I don’t know what a clearer usage marking a genus relationship between God and the “(sons of) god(s)” could be than this. What in your view could ever merit the conclusion that the Israelites believed there was a plurality of gods of the same “kind” as the Most High God if calling them “sons (of god)” (or in other places simply calling them “gods”) can’t do it?
Your anachronistic metaphysical assumptions are the baggage I was referring to in my original comment.
I think some of Blake Ostler’s comments to Mike Heiser is appropriate here:
“Now let me comment on the issue of genus identity and your claim that there is a “genus unique” claim for Yahweh. What would suffice as evidence of genus relationship for you if the term “sons of God” won’t do it? Further, why is it always bene elohim or bene elyon and never bene Yahweh? Further, L.S. [LDS] don’t claim that Yahweh is a “created being” so that he is ontologically contingent while Elohim or Elyon is ontologically necessary. Absolutely no L.S. believes that. So you comments on p. 10 regarding “L.S. scholarship” is simply off-base. What we claim is that there is in some sense a filial relationship between Father and Son. Further, no L.S. scholar argues that El is created. I am familiar with the sources you cite — none of them support that claim.”
He continues:
“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 sun, 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.”
Further, Father Greg, your attempted distinctions between “personhood” and “individuality” have me chuckling. It still sounds like wanting to have your cake and eat it to. Blake goes on to say to Mike Heiser:
“First, sharing the same essence isn’t enough — as you acknowledge all humans share a human essence and all living things share the same essence as living things. What you mean by “essence” is the same “individual essence”, what perhaps the medievals would call a haecceity. Yet the claim that the Son and Spirit share the same individual essence with Yahweh (the Father I suppose) and yet are “other hypostatic selves” is sheer unadulterated nonsense. You state that you consider them to be “other selves” and yet also to be the “same [individual] essence” as the one, unique divine person Yahweh. (p. 19) To say that “they share Yahweh’s essence” doesn’t clarify the matter but makes it worse since you cannot mean a kind essence and you cannot mean an individual essence (since you acknowledge that in some sense they are other than Yahweh). You say that they are “independent but not autonomous”. Here words simply lose any meaning. They both are and are not Yahweh, both separate “personal beings” and yet also identical with Yahweh. This is just a vicious contradiction and incoherence beyond description — literally. To compound this error with the claim that there is continuous, single meaning in the Christian texts regarding Jesus and the Spirit being identical to Yahweh is just compounding the problem.”
Have a good night. I will hopefully be back around in a few days. Best wishes.
I think that the supposed “ontological divide” between humanity and God is probably one of the weakest and most unwarranted assertions that traditional Christianity makes from the Bible. There is no ontological divide.
You guys invented that wholesale from Greek philosophical prejudices. The idea that God must be ontologically different in kind from His children on earth is PLATO’S idea, not the Bible’s.
Yellow Dart (and Seth):
You write:
“Where does any ancient Israelite text talk about this “infinite ontological gulf”? I don’t know which passages you think use these terms, but they don’t exist. This is simply your creative eisegesis again. (But I will agree that creatio ex nihilo and the metaphysical assumptions behind it appear to me to be the largest gap between LDS Christians and Christians of “the tradition”.)”
I’m not sure it’s the largest gap, but it certainly is a big one. (But these “gaps” are all related, are they not? If there is no Great Apostasy, there is no justification for the emergence of Joseph Smith and for the “restoration” of a Church which never disappeared.) OF COURSE the OT doesn’t address this. The ancient Israelites did not engage in metaphysical speculation. That really didn’t begin until Judaism got exposed to Hellenism. However, regardless of that, there is no question that by the time of Jesus, Judaism was radically monotheistic, and that He explicitly endorses this, as above, and nowhere denies it. At the same time, He, and the NT in general, identifies Himself with Yahweh, much of the time by implication. Jesus says, “Before Abraham was, I AM.” His hearers knew exactly what He was saying: they wanted to stone Him on the spot. Consider also, for example, that the gospels quote a prophecy from Isaiah, applying it to John the Baptist, stating that John the Baptist will “prepare the way of the Lord.” In Isaiah, it is “prepare the way of Yahweh” and, of course, in the Greek textual tradition, as in the LXX, “Yahweh” is replaced with “Kyrios”. So I stand by what I say concerning the timing of the alleged Great Apostasy.
And yes, I am reading the progressive revelation of the OT in light of the Christ event, the NT, and with the Christian Tradition, the voice of the Holy Spirit in the Apostolic Church, and which gave us, for example, the Nicene Creed and which formally explicates creation ex nihilo. How do I justify this? “Behold,” says Jesus, “I am with you always, even unto the end of the age.” “He who hears you [to the Apostles and by extension, to their successors] hears me” and so. Doesn’t exactly square with an apostasy in which the Church, “the pillar and ground of the truth” and “the fulness of Him who fills all in all”, disappears for a more than a millenium from the face of the earth, does it?
Here’s the deal: you can read Scripture from any number of perspectives, religious or secular, but having a perspective is inescapable. Todd’s is one, yours is another, mine is yet a third, and my perspective is that of the continuous apostolic tradition because I am convinced that this perspective is the one from which the Bible both emerged and is inseparably wedded, sort of like the relationship between the U.S. Constitution and English common law. I am also convinced, based on the words of the New Testament, that this tradition is, in fact, the voice of the Holy Spirit. This is not a question of new general revelation, which ended with Christ and the Apostles, but rather, a deepening understanding of the revelation as given in the Incarnation of the Eternal Son and Word of God.
“Your anachronistic metaphysical assumptions are the baggage I was referring to in my original comment.”
“The baggage of the Tradition,” eh? Happy to carry it. BTW, given the defense of polytheism (or whatever you prefer to call it this week), and an essentially Greek concept of creation, I find it ironic that you object to expressing Christian faith in the language of Greek metaphysics. Actually, Seth, this ontological divide, not only between God and humanity but between God and all of creation, and creation ex nihilo were two ideas coming from Judaism that Greek philosophy couldn’t get its head around. Origen failed at precisely this point to stay within the Tradition, and the Mormon account of creation is basically that of Greek philosophy, for which, in general, matter is eternal.
“What we claim is that there is in some sense a filial relationship between Father and Son.”
Of course there is. It’s called “generation” and it is eternal and unique. At the same time, this is human language, used to describe the indescribable. See below concerning apophaticism.
“Further, Father Greg, your attempted distinctions between “personhood” and “individuality” have me chuckling.”
Okay. Chuckle on. However, you fail to address the statements from Jesus and Paul as cited above as well as the fact that human are undeniably and essentially open systems. “No man is an island”, etc.
The Divine Essence/Nature and the Divine Persons are unique, so while an analogy exists between the Divine Nature and human nature, the Divine Persons and human persons, the analogy is not perfect, and this for two reason. First, while humanity is created “in the image and likeness of God,” humanity IS created. Second, the fall has further eroded the analogy. To the extent that we, as “members of Christ”, “partake of the Divine Nature,” we are persons. To the extent that we do not, we are individuals. No, words here do not lose meaning, but theology, precisely because it is analogical, must also be apophatic, meaning that any positive statement made about God must be balanced by a negative statement. The classic example is the statement, “God exists.” While this is more true than to say that God does not exist, it also must be specified that when it is said that “God exists,” existence here is understood to infinitely transcend anything we might normally mean by the concept of existence.
Actually the Genesis text posits a creation from pre-existing chaotic matter, not creation ex-nihilo. When it talks of “dividing the waters” it is referring to the common ancient Jewish belief that the earth was surrounded by water above, below, and all around. So by “dividing” the waters, God created a space for an earth amidst the chaos of the surrounding waters. This is how the early Israelites would have viewed the account, not creation from nothing – which is a much more recent philosophical innovation.
Creation from nothing is nowhere demanded by the Bible. All verses in the Bible that speak of creation are speaking of “creation” from pre-existing materials (in the same sense that we say an artist “creates” a painting).
You know, Seth, it’s interesting. You are right of course about the division of the waters. However, I think most contemporary exegetes would state that Genesis 1:1 does not unambiguously support either creation ex nihilo or the opposite.
Within the Tradition, some have posited a gap between Genesis 1:1a and 1:1b:
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” [ex nihilo] and “the earth was without form and void…” [the organizing activity of God]. Kinda sounds like the Big Bang and the subsequent emergence of the cosmos, no? It is interesting that the cosmology of the early 19th Century posited a steady-state universe, including, essentially, the eternity of matter and energy. The Big Bang, however, has overturned all that: the universe indeed has a beginning.
Fr. Greg,
I only have a few spare moments at work today, but I will offer a few comments.
You said:
“However, regardless of that, there is no question that by the time of Jesus, Judaism was radically monotheistic”
Firstly, Second Temple Judaism was not “radically” monotheistic in the sense you are proposing. Second Temple Judaism (from which Christianity emerged), as scholars have well noted for a long time, perpetuated the common ANE view/Israelite view of a High God surrounded by divine and semi-divine figures who carry out his will and actions and surround him in his heavenly court. Your proof-texts attempting to equate the God of Israel YHWH with Jesus (see additionally Phil. 2.6-11) as though they simply demonstrate or necessarily lead to post-Nicene theology overlook numerous passages throughout the NT which clearly subordinate Jesus to the Father and which show that Jesus, as God the Father’s chief vizier and mediator/broker of the covenant relationship, is granted, at the deference of and for the glory of God the Father, to possess the honor of the divine name and sit at God’s right hand as his Son and heir acting in his behalf as his agent. You might like to read more concerning honor/shame dimensions in ancient Mediterranean cultures, and Judaism in particular, if you really want to appreciate more fully how honorific titles function in the NT, and how they shape the theological views and presentations of the NT writers. Moreover, the philosophical dimensions necessary to create a Trinitarian/Nicene understanding of the Godhead simply was not available to the biblical writers (especially those of the synoptics and Paul), and it is simply abusive to their writing to foist such anachronistic readings back onto them.
I can give you plenty of references for these issues if you want to look at them more closely before commenting. You may be interested to read a brief summary of such views here:
http://ldsfocuschrist.blogspot.com/2007/07/lds-gods-as-monarchic-monotheism-blake.html
Secondly, there is hardly any real debate amongst mainstream scholars about whether Gen. 1.1 (or any other passage in the Hebrew Bible) refers to creation out of preexisting chaos–it most certainly does. The ancient Israelites shared the ubiquitous view of the ANE that God creates from (preexisting) chaos. The philosophical categories and modes of thinking necessary to formulate such a view as “creatio ex nihilo” simply did not exist. As you said above “OF COURSE the OT doesn’t address this. The ancient Israelites did not engage in metaphysical speculation. That really didn’t begin until Judaism got exposed to Hellenism.” Such a view did not begin to enter Judaism (or Christianity) until the end of the second century CE at the earliest. You apparently are not familiar with biblical scholarship in this area. If you would like, I can again provide you some good references to get you started.
Lastly you said:
“yes, I am reading the progressive revelation of the OT in light of the Christ event, the NT, and with the Christian Tradition, the voice of the Holy Spirit in the Apostolic Church, and which gave us, for example, the Nicene Creed and which formally explicates creation ex nihilo.”
Thanks for being frank that your faith claims and prior theological commitments control the way you read the biblical texts (I have my own as well obviously, though I still attempt as much as I am able to let the texts speak for themselves even when I might not like what it is saying). However, I clearly don’t follow your faith claims, so appealing to your own (later) tradition is hardly going to stand as evidence for me of what the biblical writers were saying.
At any rate, it doesn’t seem to me like we are going to make much more headway here. But thanks for the friendly conversation.
Best wishes.
I have noticed a few grammatical errors in my above comment. My apologies.
“The Big Bang, however, has overturned all that: the universe indeed has a beginning.”
Science has moved-on from this view of the universe. Current models show both collapsing and expanding universes. They also posit multiple Big Bangs.
And now we’ve got all sorts of problems, with quantum physics popping up. The current view among string theorists is that there are multiple dimensions, of which, our localized “Big Bang universe” is just one. I think with the recent advances in physics over the last fifty years, you are on extremely shaky ground trying to argue the Big Bang as evidence for your creation ex nihilo. I think Catholic theologians may be just as mistaken in hanging their hat on the Big Bang as they were in hanging their hats on the earth-at-the-center model of the universe in the days of Copernicus and Galileo.
This is one of the major problems with traditional Christianity as I see it. It’s metaphysics are premised on Newtonian models of physics. What we know now is that Newtons laws are actually localized phenomena. At the macro and micro levels, Newton’s laws break down and seem not to apply. We have a new view of physics now, but Christian theologians, it seems, have not adapted or caught up.
I’d avoid pointing to the Big Bang as proof of creation ex nihilo, or you’re in for a few rude shocks in the coming years.
Seth #18:
This is an interesting read on the subject:
http://www.fairlds.org/New_Mormon_Challenge/TNMC05.html
Lots of comments.
A few thoughts.
First there is actually a wide range of possibilities in Mormon theology simply because we don’t have creeds and thus people have been free to fill in the blanks themselves. Various figures and GAs have had different views on these matters. While Millet’s book has been perhaps the most read by Evangelicals they should recognize that this is a theological view rather than the theological view.
Second the idea that there was a divide between man and God wasn’t an innovation of Plato or the later neoPlatonists. They had an unity between them with man being effectively made out of God. (This is more pronounced in how the neoPlatonists read Plato but arguably is in Plato as well) While the Christians of late antiquity – especially Augustine – used a lot of neoPlatonism the biggest innovation they had was creation ex nihilo which was a huge break with Platonism. It’s unfortunate that some Mormons say it was Hellenism that destroyed Christianity when arguably the biggest difference between Mormons and so-called ‘historic’ Christianity is the very place they differ from Hellenistic philosophy. Arguably Mormons, in certain ways, have a lot more in common with Hellenism. We just don’t think the “god of the philosophers” is God.
It’s interesting that Judaism in its more Hellenized forms doesn’t make the gap between man and God that Christians (especially after Augustine) do.
In any case I think one has to admit that the ontological gap is one of the biggest innovations of Christianity between 200 AD – 500 AD. My point is that while individual Mormons may differ on how to interpret the Godhead’s unity there really is no formal reason to reject a very strong unity not that different from what one finds in mainstream Christianity. The big different is how Mormons view materialism and the rejection of creation ex nihilo. And even materialism within Mormonism is open to many more options than most assume. (Consider B. H. Roberts who adopted a Cartesian dualism not that different from what Moreland promotes)
BTW – the best book on the ancient Israelite view on Creation is Levenson’s Creation and the Persistence of Evil. This is a Jewish scholar but it really is amazingly how similar to Mormon theology it is.
I should add to the above that the second big place of difference between Mormons and mainstream Christians is our notion of pre-existence whereas most Christians (I forget the council that decided it) adopt the view that the body and soul are created at the same time. Although it seems that has even less textual support than creation ex nihilo.
Seth, why do you think one has to pick either tri-theism or modalism? I’d simply point to Orson Pratt who, for all his many philosophical problems, offers an alternative.
(Whoops – sorry. Bad link. Here’s my post on Orson Pratt and the Trinity)
What I mean is, in the end your view of the three is going to tend either primarily modalistic, or primarily tri-theistic – with you fudging on the other end of the spectrum. For example, “social trinitarianism” is predominantly tri-theistic in its approach and it fudges on the biblical verses on oneness to make the word mean something other than literal oneness.
Traditional Christianity takes the opposing approach of going modalist and shoehorning-in the stuff about distinct beings. I think much of traditional Christian theology is so desperate to appear monotheistic in the community of world religions that it ends up being primarily modalistic and creatively fudging the verses on three distinct beings to mean something other than the plain and intuitive meaning.
I mean is that you will be predominantly one at the expense of the other (leaving out other less favored options like subordinationism and such…).
I think this is incorrect Seth. The big deal within Trinitarian doctrines about tri-theism is due to the nature of creation ex nihilo. That is the Godhead has its ontological ground as God (or the ousia) whereas all beings are created ontologically and thus have their ultimate ground in God, albeit with an ontological gap. So within the context of the Trinitarian controversy the debate about tri-theism is really a debate about grounds. To speak of tri-theism is (for them) to make God into a being.
Now while many Trinitarians accuse Mormons of tri-theism the way we conceive of Being is such that I don’t think this argument holds. For instance Duns Scotus talks about the ground of the Trinity being a kind of nothingness or ungroundedness as opposed to all beings. But Mormons given our theology that man is ontologically uncreated and co-eternal with God end up making man also not a being in the sense of the debate.
Thus we are ungrounded as well.
I should note, as I did in my post at M*, that I think many philosophers that Mormon philosophers often embrace, make this move as well. So you can see views similar to Scotus being found in Heidegger, Levinas, Marion, and others being applied to humans. The logic of God as Other becomes the logic of other minds as Other. But that’s a tangental issue but perhaps shows partially why Mormon thinkers see such affinity with these thinkers.
Anyway if you go look at explanations of the hypostasis as persons and the distinction between humans as a person and the Godhead as persons you’ll end up seeing that most of it rests upon creation ex nihilo.
Trinitarians proper have no trouble speaking of the three as three separate beings so long as ‘being’ isn’t taken in the same sense as a human is a being.
Unfortunately the issue of tri-theism often isn’t discussed with the connection to ex nihilo in mind.
I’ve not read enough of the literature about social trinitarianism to know whether these sorts of criticisms are made there.
So the primary problem between us is that they think we are degrading God, while we counter that it is they who are degrading mankind?
I suppose so.
I will at least agree that disputes over the trinity seem rather quibbling and inconsequential compared to our very different views of the eternal or finite nature of the universe.
Todd, in comment # 3 you wrote She knows there is one God. She knows Jesus is God. Though she knows the Son is different from the Father (John 3:16). She doesn’t understand the triune God but she believes.
This sounds like a very good articulation of LDS belief. As you know, Latter-day Saints also believe that there is one God, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that Jesus Christ is different from God the Father.
However, neither John 3:16 nor any other scripture in the Bible, nor any combination of scriptures in the Bible requires as a necessary conclusion the concept of the “one substance” Trinity. It is one interpretation that follows but not the only one that legitimately follows.
It is unclear why an extra-biblical philosophical abstraction should be made the measure of what is and is not heresy. If the Bible is in fact sufficient and inerrant, there is no need for the formulation of such a construct by an extra-biblical committee hundreds of years after the manuscripts that comprise what is now the Bible were written. And, in truth, I found Richard Mouw’s use of the word “heresy” in his comment above to be interesting as well — that a Protestant is judging others to be in heresy when it is the Catholic Church which, to this day, contains the heritage and legacy of those who formulated the founding creeds of creedal Christianity. The Catholic Church created those creeds and still holds to them in the same way they were meant to be understood and invoked at the time they were created hundreds of years after the death of the Apostles. Those among the creedal Christian family who have broken away from the authority of the Catholic Church are the groups who should strongly consider the question of heresy. Protestants such as yourself and Richard Mouw need to invoke Catholic Church Fathers, bishops, scholastics, and philosophers in order to discuss the one substance Trinity at all. On this very blog, in our arguments about the one substance Trinity, you have Latter-day Saints invoking the Bible and Evangelical creedalists invoking Tertullian and Church Fathers and philosophers.
The LDS understanding of the Godhead follows from the Bible. In fact, in light of what is now known about ancient Israelite religion, a good secular argument exists that the LDS understanding more closely resembles that understanding than the overly philosophical and abstract construct of the one substance Trinity. The LDS understanding naturally brings the Old Testament and New Testament together without the artificial bridge of the one substance Trinity. The Old Testament says there is one God but the New Testament Gospels show us the Son of God. The one substance Trinity is a nice and clever way to reconcile the seeming inconsistency. It is not the only way to reconcile the two.
I am back in S.E. Idaho. GREAT TO BE HOME.
Dart, (1) I can empathize with Mouw’s personal story, but because of where I live, I actively promote teaching of the Triune God when proclaiming the gospel. To openly reject the Triune God is to reject the heart of Christianity. I would question anybody’s Christianity who rejects this. If you want me to throw out on the table absolute agreements with Mouw, I need to hear further explanation on his part. (2) Can Jesus display will, emotions, or thoughts that are independent or apart from the Father’s will? Absolutely not. John’s Gospel proclaims this loudly over and over and over again. So far in these early chapters, John’s Gospel is communicating the inter-relationship of One God. There are huge chasms between the person of Todd Wood and the person of Jesus Christ in regards to the Trinity. It is not possible for the person of Jesus Christ to be independent. Never has been throughout eternity. I worship him as fully Yahweh, not simply creaturely elohim (and yes, this is where I am thinking of God as sovereign Creator). My LDS friends do not. (3) I have no respect for the shoddiness of William Dever’s so called “scholarship”. (4) I will read Blake’s three chapters you have mentioned.
Hi Clark. Welcome to the HI4LDS blog.
John f. and the gang, stay tuned. I am adding another new HI4LDS post, today, to supplement this discussion.
It is article of faith #2 in our church constitution on the one, true God.
It is not possible for the person of Jesus Christ to be independent.
What about Jesus’ statement that with God all things are possible? (Matt. 19:26 [“But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.”], Mark 10:27 [“And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.”], Luke 18:27 [“And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.”])
Todd, Latter-day Saints also believe in one true God. What is the problem here? Why aren’t you listening to the Latter-day Saints you are trying to deconvert?
Todd,
(4) I think you will really enjoy those chapters by Blake.
(3) The small quote I selected from Dever has little to do with his own scholarship, so I don’t know what prompted your criticism there.
(2) I don’t think you addressed my question, but changed it into something I didn’t ask. You might like to re-read my question. And, correct me if I am wrong, but the only place where the “oneness” of the relationship of Father and Son is actually discussed is in John 17–however, here their “oneness” is clearly “communicable” to/with humans.
(1) It doesn’t appear that Richard Mouw is engaging the conversation here, so I will modify the question: can one be saved without “a clear understanding” of the Trinity, yes or no?
I don’t think this fair. The doctrine, which I believe pretty much all Mormons share, of the rejection of creation ex nihilo logically entails that we don’t consider him “creaturely elohim.” See my #25 for more information.
The problem, which perhaps is a bit understandable, is that mainstream Christians keep looking at Mormon theology as if we also accepted creation ex nihilo. However in effect by removing that condition what we do is make humans more like God. We don’t properly (at least in the ontological sense) make God more like humans. (At least in terms of how mainstream Christians understand humans ontologically)
The issue of independence is interesting since I’d argue that no Mormon – not even very nominalistic oriented theologians like Bruce R. McConkie – take Jesus as independent of the Father. So I’m curious as to why you think Mormons assert this.
Now of course in some sense there is a kind of difference. But that is demanded by the Trinity as well lest one descend into modalism.
(1) Dart, a clear answer to your last question – Yes. In fact, I don’t understand the Trinity. 🙂 My idea is clearer of what the Trinity is not.
(2) John f., I am reading and listening. Reading and listening. Reading and listening to LDS friends. And I have never heard of LDS friends using those verses to prove Jesus independence from the Father.
Wow. Using those verses, what else can change about the nature of God? Is it possible for Jesus someday to become like Satan? Is there that potential?
Todd, how about this verse:
For with God nothing shall be impossible.
If you don’t like the context of those other verses for Jesus’ statement that with God, nothing is impossible, then perhaps the context of Luke 1 will seem more appropriate to you since that verse comes in the context of Jesus Christ being born as a human child — this bears on his nature, does it not? — and an immaculate conception.
At any rate, Latter-day Saints do not use the verses I cited to prove Jesus’ independence from the Father because we don’t believe that the Bible argues anything else than that he is separate from the Father.
If you would read the Book of Mormon you would see that Latter-day Saints who take its doctrines seriously do not believe that God will ever cease to be God based on a wrong choice — that is what his perfection is: having the will to choose and always choosing good over evil. The LDS view entails the potentiality for God to choose evil over good — because all sentient beings have this potential and, as you know, Latter-day Saints believe that human beings are of the same species as God though separated by the Fall and Mortality — but he is perfect and therefore we can have complete confidence that this will never happen. And since the Bible teaches that we can become joint heirs with Christ, we believe that through the Atonement of Jesus Christ all mankind can be saved and live with God as beings who have been exalted to become like him through his grace and our obedience in receiving the ordinances that he has required by the proper priesthood authority.
Todd: When you say “triune God” that I must accept to be orthodox in your judgment, just what do you mean? Could you be clear? Because I doubt very seriously that you can state it in an orthodox way. So tell me what I must believe to fit this Procrustean bed that has been built to stretch those who don’t measure up and cut of those who measure too large.
If you are going to excommunicate someone for orthodoxy because they don’t get the Trinity right, then it is just simple nonsense to suggest that you cannot formulate such a doctrine. I must believe an I know not what that cannot be stated? How could anyone meet your demand? How could anyone know if they meet such a demand? I know you’re a Calvinist, but could even a Calvinist believe in such a capricious god?
You say: “Can Jesus display will, emotions, or thoughts that are independent or apart from the Father’s will? Absolutely not.” Then what, pray tell, did Jesus mean when he said” “not my, but yours”?
Blake: to your last question, it transports me to holy ground. In the bigger picture (very much over my head)that I see, the Triune God repulsively looks upon evil. Before the foundation of this world, the Triune God would judge evil (Just) and provide the way of escape from evil (Justifier). This statement in Gethsemane by the Son in the Trinity reflects both the holy revulsion of the Son against the sin and the eternal love of the Father for the sinner. The eventual cross reveals the holy revulsion and wrath of the Father against the sin and the eternal love of the Son for the sinner.
Holy, just wrath and merciful, gracious love wedded together in the interpersonal relationship and will of the beautiful and majestic one God.
Todd, that wasn’t Blake’s question.
Are you going to answer it or not?
Sorry Seth. Sure.
The one and only Yahweh is Father, Son, and Spirit.
The Son is just as much Yahweh as the Father.
Does Blake accept this?
Alright. Fine. Now, just pausing for a minute…
What is the real benefit of monotheism in a religion?
I’d say the benefit is that you don’t have multiple conflicting wills governing things. This gives the worshiper confidence in the state of things and where it’s all heading.
Mormonism already offers that benefit. We believe that the Father and the Son are not only perfectly unified in purpose, but we believe they are about as perfectly unified as two individuals can be. The Father’s thoughts are the Son’s thoughts. The Father’s will is the Son’s will.
Mormons are worshiping only one God. Why on earth does it matter that we don’t use the same terminology and concepts as other Christians? The practical result is exactly the same.
Todd: I surely don’t accept the contra-biblical view that the divine person Yahweh is really three divine persons. I discuss these issues at some length in my third volume — but what you suggest is not merely the heresy of modalism, it is the most incoherent nonsense. Is is not remotely consistent with the biblical documents. Is that what you assert must be accepted to be acceptable in your view?
In Yahweh, there is a person with one will who doesn’t do his own will, but does the will of another, the Father. That’s two different wills. Are you suggesting that that the single divine person Yahweh has two distinct will, could disagree with himself, could be incarnated as to one of his persons and could not be as to another of his persons and yet be the same individual identity? If that isn’t simple nonsense that contradicts the biblical view(s), I have no idea what could possibly count as contradictory nonsense.
That said, i agree with Seth — there are not multiple conflicting wills. The Son willingly subordinates his will to the Father’s will. There is a single sovereign will in the universe and there could not be more than one divine will — for reasons I have explained in a number of places. Isn’t that what “monotheism” is really about?
One final shot — note that the term “monotheism” is a non-biblical term. It is now how the Israelites, Jews or earliest Christians expressed their belief in the one God, the Father, the “only true God” who sent Jesus Christ. In other words, “monotheism” is a construct that is not biblical and what it has come to mean is a single being that is sui generis and the only one of the kind possible because this God alone is uncreated and everything else is created ex nihilo. That is definitely not what it meant to the Israelites, Jews and earliest Christians. This construct is not merely non-biblical, it is contra-biblical.
Will someone (Todd, Blake, Seth, YDart, F.Gregg, Richard, and Scott) please comment on john f. 35? The discussion just kind of ended. If possible please keep it concise with simple vocabulary. It is difficult to learn all this jargon at once.
Well Roger, as for #35… I agree with him. What exactly were you looking for?
And for #35, Roger, I strongly disagree.
“Joint heirs with Christ” does not promote that I have or will have all the properties of the great “I AM” as Jesus is Yahweh.
As a joint heir (this phrase is incredibly magnificent), I will never do what God does in Romans 8.
Do we all understand why there will never be any authoritative divine word ever establishing “In Todd” or “In Blake” or “In Seth” or “In YDart” or “In F.Gregg” or “In Richard” or “In Scott” for salvation?
If you downplay the properties of Jehovah and the depravity of man, it is possible for man to be seen as Jehovah species.
But the Bible will never downplay those awesome, soaring properties of God, now matter what kind of script mankind tries to write over the top of it.
A disclaimer: with email it is nearly impossible to tell what tone I am writing in so if it sounds mean or condescending please know I am vocabularily (I think I just created a new word) challenged and mean no ill will to any.
You disagree. That is fine. But in all sincerity you sound like you are not going to let God do what He wants with you. Thats pretty shaky ground.
Todd, You are right! In that third sentence. You will never do what Christ has done (ie, suffer for others sins and resurrect yourself). But you were never asked to do that. However, we all can help those in need strengthen others around us. Christ did do that, and asked us to “go and do likewise” (Luke 10:37)
You are right again! Todd is 2 for 2. Christ is the author of our Salvation.
Todd, this is where things get murky. I am not sure who in mankind you are referring to or what script you are talking about but Paul was the one that wrote Romans 8:16-17 which reads, “We are children of God. And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ.” Since other scriptures and the living prophets back that up I will have to continue to believe, Yes! I am a child of God and Yes, with Christ’s atonement I hope to receive my inheritance.
The Gospel is simple but we have to choose to follow it.
Look at it this way: Who are the parents of your children? You are. What happens to children? They grow up and to a large extent become like their parents. Come on admit it! Just as I grow older I see more of my parents in me and I am sure you are no different. Paul tells us “we are children of God.”
How exciting is that! That is the Gospel, the “Good News!” Christ overcame death and hell for us so we Todd, Roger, and all these other guys can return to our Father!
This for some is not an easy thing to believe. But just as Jesus said the the apostles who thought they would drown, “If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.” The emphasis should be on IF. Didn’t Christ ask us? “Be ye therefore perfect as our Father in Heaven is perfect” (John 5:48). He wouldn’t say it if He didn’t mean it so, I believe it.
Paul seems to have been taught the same thing. I hope you do too. I mean that with all sincerity. This is now my attempt at humor. If you don’t believe, 1. all things are possible through God, 2. we are children of God, and 3. through Christ we can be made perfect, I will have to create a website for called,
heartissuesforheartissuesforlds.org.
Thanks for your time.
This is kind of fun!
Todd, Mormons don’t downplay the divinity of God in the slightest. But we do probably elevate humanity more than you’re comfortable with.