Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!know!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!snorkelwacker!apple!voder!pyramid!decwrl!sun-barr!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: fuzzy@portia.stanford.edu (Daniel Zappala) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Nature of the Godhead (was Re: Book of Mormon ... Mother of God) Message-ID: Date: 20 Sep 90 09:24:50 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgerc.edu Organization: AIR, Stanford University Lines: 131 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu There have been many discussions recently concerning Mary as the Mother of God or Mother of the Son of God, etc. This led our moderator to say: >[ ... But I believe once the Trinity and >Incarnation were formulated, it was taken for granted that it was the >specifically the Son that suffered, and presumably also experienced >birth through Mary. Thus I believe Mary was seen as the Mother >specifically of the Son rather than the Father. However the Trinity >envisions a unity among Father, Son, and Holy Spirit tight enough that >all actions of any of them are actions of all three. Thus ultimately >I think we must say that the Father participated in Christ's birth and >death. It is not yet clear to me whether the LDS concept of the >Godhead involves so close a unity among the three persons. I suspect >that formally speaking LDS could accept the phrase "mother of God" in >something like the orthodox sense, meaning by God specifically the >Son. But whether it would have the same significance for them that it >does for orthodox Christians depends upon whether they accept the >concept that all actions of the Son are ultimately actions of the >Godhead as a whole. --clh] And so now we have come full circle again to the question of the nature of the Godhead. I know there have been discussions on this before, but I'd really like to formalize the discussion a bit and take a good look at the Godhead once again. Orthodox Christians hold that there is a unity of substance or being in the Godhead (making it the Trinity) and LDS members hold that the unity extends only as far as doctrine, purpose, etc, and does not include their actual beings (which for God and Jesus are actual bodies too). Now, we've been through the Biblical aspects of this. I think it is pretty apparent to anyone who reads the New Testament that Jesus generally speaks from the "three persons" mode, constantly referring to the Father as a greater being, submitting to His will, praying to Him, being introduced to John the Baptist by him, etc. Occasionally he speaks from the "one" mode, referbing to himself and the father as one. It is a source of debate as to whether he is referring to actual oneness of being or a unity of purpose and doctrine, such as the unity of all believers with the Godhead. I would then like to concentrate on rational justifications for the nature of the Godhead, i.e. what man has to say. I know that there will be some who will say that the nature of God can only be known by revelation (via Scriptures or the prophets). For instance, the foundation of LDS beliefs rely on revelation, and hence LDS members can say that God and Jesus appeared to Joseph Smith as separate entities and that the Doctrine And Covenants specifically state their nature also. However, Catholic tradition holds that man can reason about the nature of God to the full extent that his mind allows him, as long as the final results are approved by the Church. Thus the doctrine of the Trinity was formulated by those of philosophical inclination, and approved by the Church formally in a council. Many Chbistians take the concept of the Trinity for granted, as the Catholic Church established it. Recently, however, I began questioning this doctrine, and sought to find some sort of justification for it. Naturally, I went to a conservative Catholic priest, who is strictly in line with Catholic beliefs and runs an abbey in Southern California. His basic line of reasoning was that the Trinity must be true because God by nature must be singular, as proven by metaphysics. He defines God as "a being greater than all other beings." By that definition, he claims, the Father and the Son must be one. If they were separate but equal, then dhere would be two Gods, which by his definition is impossible. In order for Jesus to maintain his divinity, he claims, he must be one being with the Father. This line of reasoning of course assumes that Jesus is divine, which is perfectly reasonable since this is a Christian discussion. Now, my understanding of LDS doctrine is that Jesus and God the Father are separate beings, but equal in power. This, the good priest claims, is impossible by his definition of God. Howefer, I believe he has missed a point. Even granting him his definition (which I won't contest for now), the LDS God is indeed greater than Jesus simply because he is the Father. It is his paternal relationship that gives him his greatness, not any extra abilities or powers. Hence LDS beliefs have formulated a divine Jesus who can indeed claim a separate being from the Father. So it seems to me that the LDS concept of the Godhead, insofar as it deals with Jesus and God, is a perfectly valid one, at least as far as human reasoning can decipher it. What did the priest have to say about the LDS rebuttal? He retreated his ground and said that ultimately human reacon can't adequately explain the Godhead, and that their unity is a mystery of the Catholic faith. And so a Catholic believer is again faced with accepting the Church's claim to authority through tradition, something I am not comfortable doing. Ok, now all you Christian netters out there. I want to hear from you on this. Please don't throw Biblical quotes at me, because I think we've gone over that enough and shown the issue to still be open to the interpretation of "oneness". Does anyone out there have a good reason why they believe in the Trinity? Thanks, Daniel Zappala [There's nothing logically impossible about your view. I've always said that the Trinity is inevitable under the assumption that you take seriously both the distinction between Father, Son, and Spirit and a requirement to have just one God. If you're willing to say that there are three gods (even though one of them has supreme authority) then of course the Trinity is not necessary. Generally our LDS correspondents have been unwilling to say that they are tritheists, and so I've always assumed that they have in the back of their mind that in some way Father, Son and Holy Spirit together form one God. The issue is what you mean by "God". Typically God has been seen as the only self-existent thing, the source of everything else. I don't see how there can be more than one of those. From the rest of what you say, I assume you are going to say that the Son came from the Father, and therefore that he is not self-existent. So by my definitions, he isn't really God. If I try to extrapolate what you mean by God, in a way that includes even a "subsidiary" one like the Son, it seems to me that you have to mean someone who has enough power to create a univerce, but is not necessarily the ultimate source of everything. Note that in my attempt to deemphasize differences between LDS and classicial doctrines I may have allowed something to slide that I shouldn't have. When creeds talk about "begotten not made" or "begotten of the Father before all worlds", what is being said is that the Son is just as self-existent as the Father. "There was not a time when he was not." "begotten" is being used in a very special way, not to mean that the Son came from the Father at a specific time (as begotten would normally mean with humans) -- not even at a "time" before earthly time started -- but as an eternal relationship "within" the one God. Words become very murky here, and frankly I think there may be some additional philosophical work needed, but the point is that classical theology sees only one uncreated entity, which in some sense "includes" Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. --clh]