M&C Question: Baptism and Dialogue
Posted by Dave Keller on July 17th, 2006
Adrian asks:
I would like to know if you agree on the following: a couple of years ago, an official document from the Vatican established that the baptism performed but the LDS Church is not considered valid by the Catholic Church. Also, generally speaking, the Catholic Church considers valid the baptism of the main Protestant Denominations and of the Orthodox Church. The Catholic Church is having Ecumenical dialogue with this last churches, while with the LDS Church can only have inter-religious dialogue.
I respond:
I can give you a Mormon reaction to what I understand the range of Catholic perspectives to be. Perhaps I can get one of my Catholic co-bloggers to respond as well. Let me give you a fact check on the last claim first. “The Catholic Church is having Ecumenical dialogue with this last churches, while with the LDS Church can only have inter-religious dialogue.”
I have heard this sentiment expressed unofficially by some Catholics. For example John Richard Neuhaus [1], a Catholic priest I have much respect for, said “Ecumenical dialogue is dialogue between Christians. Dialogue with Mormons who represent official LDS teaching is interreligious dialogue.” Father Neuhaus’s position is that Mormons are not Christians, which is the vibe I get from many if not most Catholics I communicate with these days. From the Mormon perspective of course we are Christians. The Mormon church does not appear to be very big on having Ecumenical talks to get feedback on how to teach their own doctrine like other Christian denominations like to do. That doesn’t mean Christians aren’t being influenced to become more Mormon-like in their doctrines over time as an article in the most recent BYU Studies, “Are Christians Mormon?” by David Paulsen explores [2]. Some people like Dr. Millet, a former Religion dean at BYU engage in talks with evangelists to help EVs and Mormons understand one another better.
For dialogue between Mormons and Catholics, Catholic Brad Haas should be given credit for pioneering a sustained, visible effort to explore “ways to call the Mormon people home to the one Body of Christ. He runs the Defensor Veritatis blog and had a hand in getting this blog up and running. Before Brad, some very thoughtful discussions between a handful of Catholics and Mormons occurred on ZLMB message boards, but they exist in mostly in hard-to-search archives. Every now and then one can find an occasionally good topic on the FAIR-LDS boards, the Catholic Answers boards, and in the blogs; but one can expect a lop-sided amount of participants of one faith or another and for debate to frequently get heated. Academically, we are seeing a gradual increase in Mormons studying topics relevant to Catholicism and vice versa.
Now I will switch gears and talk about the relatively recent rejection of Mormon baptisms by the Catholic church. As my ability to describe Catholic position is somewhat limited, I hope my readers will help make sure I get my facts straight. When the decision came out some prominent Mormon and Catholic reps supported the notion that no offense was meant or taken. The Catholic Bishop of Salt Lake said the decision wouldn’t affect his working relationship with the LDS church. Mormons can understand other Christian denominations rejecting Mormon baptisms because we do theirs. Jordan Vajda, then a Catholic priest comparing some Mormon teachings to patristic writings in a Master’s thesis that FARMS has reprinted, makes some interesting remarks:
Given the nature of the project undertaken in this thesis, it is worth noting that religious dialogue between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Catholic Church was explicitly encouraged in the 1 August 2001 (English) issue of the Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano. In a commentary explaining the decision of the Catholic Church to not recognize as valid the baptism of the Latter-day Saints, Fr. Luis Ladaria, S.J. concludes by stating “. . . Catholics and Mormons often find themselves working together in a range of problems regarding the common good of the human race. It can be hoped therefore that through further studies, dialogue and good will, there can be progress in reciprocal understanding and mutual respect.” Of course, the content of the article itself, an explanation of the invalidity—from a Catholic perspective —of LDS baptism,could be interpreted as hindering, not helping, a new quest for religious dialogue and understanding.
Mormon teachings are that baptisms are invalid when they are not done by one holding the proper authority. This is not as big an issue in Catholicism as they sometimes accept baptism even if the administrator is not a Catholic priest. In Mormonism, baptisms are made invalid when a member is excommunicated; there is no counterpart to this in Catholic theology. [A good resource that can clarify this can be found on the Catholic Answers site.] In fact, Catholics will consider one, at most, baptism valid. If there is doubt that a previous baptism is valid, a conditional baptism is performed. The prayer is modified so as to avoid a re-baptism and has the form “. . . if you are not already baptized, I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” In Mormonism, if there is any doubt that whether a prior baptism is valid, a rebaptism is done without a change in the prayer. I understand Catholics do not consider a baptism valid that does not use water or invoke the Trinitarian formula. Mormons have a similar but more demanding requirements (e.g., proper age, follow a set prayer, complete immersion). A Mormon baptism meets these particular Catholic requirements, but not others as will be explained below.
As an interesting aside, in the Book of Mormon rebaptisms occur without much discussion on whether prior baptisms, if any, were valid. For example, Daniel Peterson [3] in “Priesthood in Mosiah” notes the Alma’s baptism may have differed from prior Nephite baptisms because Alma was establishing a new church community. In other words, the purpose of Alma’s baptism can be divided into two, for the remission of sins and for initiation into the church. The prior Nephite baptism served the purpose to bring about a remission of sins, but not entrance into the church. Before Alma there was no real separation of church and state, and being a Nephite by birth made one a member/subject of the church/state. Likewise when Jesus appeared to the Nephites, even Nephi was rebaptized. Jesus organized a new, more complete church, fulfilling the old covenant and setting up the a new one. Therefore it makes sense that baptism would be a way for Nephi to demonstrate his acceptance of the new covenant and new organization of the church. I made these kind of observations on my Mormon mission to an investigator struggling with the insistence that she be re-baptized merely because LDS authority is valid and non-LDS Christian authority isn’t. Couched in the Nephite terms, perhaps the faith commitments associated with a previous baptism can be respected at some level; but humble obedience to undergoing a baptism is necessary when one accepts the “more” that comes with being a member of the LDS church.
Back from that long aside, it appears that a Mormon baptism meets all the outward requirements for the Catholic Church to accept it as a Christian baptism. So why don’t they accept Mormon baptisms? I think for two reasons, neither one in which is sufficient by itself. Both combine to establish that Mormons don’t intend to do what Catholics do when they baptise. When Mormons baptise in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, they don’t subscribe the same meaning to those names that orthodox Christian creeds do. A FARMS Review of the Vatican decision and commentary does a fair job showing that this reason appears from a Mormon perspective to be inadequate, by itself. Jordan Vajda, who has since converted to Mormonism, has argued for a second reason:
The Catholic Church, albeit a bit inarticulately, has now recognized that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints represents not just another development of Protestantism, but is truly a “new religious tradition” (as also noted by Professor Jan Shipps in her landmark study Mormonism: The Story of a New Religious Tradition). Thus, the Catholic Church has recognized that the baptism of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the baptism of a different gospel dispensation; and if a person wants to “cross-over” from one gospel dispensation to another, the baptism of the other dispensation will not and cannot be regarded as valid.
To summarize: from an LDS perspective, LDS baptism is given to a “previously baptized” convert precisely because the previous (invalid) baptism lacked priesthood authority: it was administered by those who still cling to the apostate institutions that survive from the (previous) dispensation of the meridian of time; but, from a Catholic perspective, an LDS convert to Catholicism will be given a Catholic baptism precisely because the LDS baptism is an ordinance of a gospel dispensation different from that in which the Catholic Church locates itself (and also locates Protestants and Orthodox Christians) which dispensation the Catholic Church regards as permanently valid —and thus, the different LDS gospel dispensation, along with its ordinances, the Catholic Church does not regard as true or valid.
However, this reasoning would be insufficient to explain why RLDS/CoC–a splinter group from the LDS church that supports a more orthodox Trinity yet still make claims to a belonging to a new dispensation–have valid baptisms and LDS members do not. Perhaps a combination of the two reasons is sufficient to establish that LDS baptism doesn’t intend to do what Catholic baptism do even though there is a liberal acceptance of nuances among Protestant intentions.
Notes
1. My quote from Rev. Neuhaus is found in Is Mormonism Christian? , which is a charitable article even if it answers the question in the negative. As a warning to Mormon readers, he does introduce some criticisms against Mormonism from his reading of the Ostlings’ Mormon America while apparently being unaware of some of the scholarly literature that responds to such. However this quibble does not detract from the overall, fresh air the article provides. Neuhaus was gracious enough to appear on another Mormon/Christian interreligious blog recently.
2. David Paulsen is a professor of philosophy at BYU. He participated as a speaker in the Library of Congress seminar in honor of Joseph Smith, which can be seen here. I know him best for his article “Early Christian Belief in a Corporeal Deity: Origen and Augustine as Reluctant Witnesses,” Harvard Theological Review 83/2 (1990) . His BYU Studies articles is being critiqued in a FAIR message board thread.
3. Daniel Peterson is the editor of the FARMS Review, the premier Mormon apologetic publication. His essay “Priesthood in Mosiah” appeared is from a 1989 Book of Mormon symposium that was compiled into Mosiah, Salvation Only Through Christ. This essay has some bearing on Mormon understanding of authority and I will cover it better in a future blog entry. Some of my readers may not be familiar with the Book of Mormon narrative. To get the drift quickly, I recommend reading Mosiah 15 and 3 Nephi 11. Brant Gardner, a Mormon mesoamerican specialist has a useful commentary on these chapters here and here. I think the concepts I illustrate with the Book of Mormon can also be brought to the forefront from the Bible where a version of John’s baptism lacking something wasn’t seen as sufficient so Paul rebaptises in Acts 19.
July 17th, 2006 at 11:17 am
Dave, I would respectfully argue with that characterization. From that review:
This is truly un-”fair” for two reasons. 1) While it may be a firm Mormon position that the doctrine of the Trinity is nowhere to be found in the Bible, Catholic scholarship throughout the centuries, and even before the Arian heresy, have pointed to the Bible to confirm the doctrine of the Trinity. It is implicit in the Bible, and Catholic scholars can readily support that. Therefore, the author really needs to meet more Catholic scholars. 2) Even if this supposition was correct, Catholics can and do point to Tradition to support doctrine. Thus, even if one accepts the Mormon position on Biblical support for the Trinity, it would not make the Catholic position on Mormon baptism, “misrepresentative and arguably moot.”
While this may represent the Mormon position, it truly does disservice to the Catholic position. In this light for Mormon scholarship, Mormon confusion on the matter is understandable.
July 17th, 2006 at 3:01 pm
I’m of two minds about being accepted into the “Christian club.”
On the one hand, it’s easy to see it as “the in-crowd” engaging in name-calling in order to exclude the newcomer. One starts to wonder if mainline Christianity is just trying to hamstring our missionary efforts by instilling predjudices in minds of the Christian layperson. Some people are more likely to shut the door on a missionary, when they see a larger gulf of difference between themselves and the new religion.
You can either resent this social rejection, or wear it as a badge of honor - “we must have them REALLY scared for them to be demagoguing like this…”
On the other hand, I’m not sure I want the “Christian” designation. Because I agree, mainline Christianity seems to define the Godhead and Christ quite differently than my religion does.
The idea of belonging to an “entirely new world religion” also appeals to my vanity as well. We don’t have to be “just another Protestant church.” We get to be a whole new world phenomenom!
Besides, “mailine Christianity” carries an awful lot of baggage that I’m not sure I want to lay claim to as part of my own heritage.
But on the other hand, there’s a lot that I respect in the general Christian tradition. I’d like to be able to make a claim to a lot of that …
But on the other hand, perhaps being distanced from mainline Christianity uniquely positions Mormonism to bridge the gaps between believers in Christ and other religions such as Judaism and Islam. Perhaps our new status gives us a singular position in the world religious debate.
I’ll have to check the “undecided” box for now.
July 17th, 2006 at 6:19 pm
The 2001 CDF proclamation stating that Mormon baptism is invalid contains adequate explanation about why the Catholic Church takes this position based on how it views the beliefs of Latter-day Saints and based on the Catholic belief in the Trinity.
July 17th, 2006 at 7:13 pm
John in MN,
It was a bad choice of the word “fair” on my part. I originally wrote the word “good” but I knew that would be an overstatement. In other words I was thinking of the article in terms of quality (fair as in being better than average, or adequatelly representational of Mormon perspective, but not exceptionally so) and not necessarily how fair it is in how it represents Catholic thought or is balanced it was towards Catholicism. I think it has problems in the latter area.
The argument Gaskill uses is one I have seen many places in Mormon literature, for example Stephen Robinson and Barry Bickmore both refer to variations of the following themes that seem either to be consensus scholarly positions OR scholarship is divided and Mormons are selectively working with the more convenient position: 1) The Trinity is not explicitly found in the Bible. 2) the councils were necessary because the Arian controversy could not be resolved by appealing to the Bible alone. 3) Subordinationalism was pre-Nicene orthodoxy. 4) Hellenistic philosophy was key in developing the current understanding of the orthodox Trinity.
I would be interested in learning who the scholars are that take issue with 1-4 and who take on the arguments of other Christian scholars that support 1-4 head on. Obviously some different conclusions can be drawn from 1-4 and at some point Mormon use of them is going to have some tension with other analysis.
I can accept your point number one, with the caveat that sometimes it is hard to know where the revelation of the scripture ends and where interpretations through reasoning ability (with the possibility of multiple readings) begin.
For point two, I can respect as a summary of Catholic faith, and that tradition is the source of much resistance to accepting the conclusions drawn by Mormons in 1-4. As I understand it, Catholics appeal to tradition to authoratatively interpret scripture and safegaurd doctrinal purity. As you can tell I still need to do some remedial reading you gave me in the other post. However Mormons tend to look at Christian history, notice the bumpy ride and wonder things such as why some pretty radical heretics had valid baptisms in the past and what makes Mormons so special. I think the different dispensation answer is one Mormons will have an easier time accepting, given that when both Alma and Christ brought new dispensations faithful Christians were re-baptised because baptism became more expansive.
July 17th, 2006 at 7:42 pm
John F.
I can agree with you on the grounds that the Vatican commentary does hint at both reasons: the dispensation argument and the unorthodox understanding of the Trinity. Actually it does more than hint at the Trinity based arguments.
Would you agree with me that Trinity based arguments are insufficient by themselves, (given heretical history)?
The other issue is whether the CDC actually gets LDS teachings or range of allowable beliefs correct and whether an improved understanding of such would alter the arguments used to reach a conclusion. Maybe I should parse the Ladaria commentary out so people see what I mean. Over-parsing might be a problem though, as the document refers to a matrix of LDS belief as a whole.
July 17th, 2006 at 9:13 pm
Dave,
You are not going to find too many argue with 1) if you set the bar as high as I think you plan to. Some would claim that John 1:1 is explicit. I wouldn’t. I would readily admit that the Trinity is implicit but completely supportable from the Bible in its entirety. Tritheism, on the other hand, is explicitly excluded as a possible explanation of the Godhead. On 2) though, no one had a Bible at the time. The canon of scripture was still being debated. One could only recognize heresy by teaching something opposed to the rest of the church. On 3), I’m sure most will argue against that based on the vote at the council. Arius lost in a landslide. On 4), I think you would see much debate in this area. Hellinistic philosophy is highly regarded in Christian scholarly circles. But specifically how it relates to the Trinity, I haven’t a clue.
I know that there is a need to find an apostacy whether it exists or not, but still it was a little odd of the author to make such a sweeping and untrue claim about Catholic scholars.
There is plenty of great scholarship out there on the Doctrine of the Trinity. I don’t see that argued against. What I see instead are strawmen. Any unscholared lay person could say that the Trinity is in the Bible, and whether or not they could show it, they are still correct to believe it.
Hence the need for a church.
I hate to burst your bubble here, but Mormons aren’t special in this regard. For nearly 200 years, it was up to the local bishop on whether or not to accept a Mormon baptism. That’s how it’s normally dealt with. And that’s techinically okay since a baptism of desire is just as valid as a water baptism. But this issue has grown in importance over the years, and the lack of uniformity certainly needed addressing. Mistakes can and are often made at the bishop level when it comes to matters of orthodoxy. To claim a special case here, I’d need to see an example of a positive Vatican ruling on another heresy where the nature of God is radically redefined. While Protestantism is a heresy, no such redefinition took place.
July 18th, 2006 at 12:10 am
John,
You are right that I do indeed set the bar high for #1, but I would be interested in a citation of any Catholic scholar who has been trained to Biblical exegesis sees explicit references to the sophisticated formulation of the Anthanasian or Nicene creed. Until then in my mind I should be able to tout a scholarly consensus for #1 (whatever that means). Not that I won’t look for opposing viewpoints or welcome new information and adjust my thought process accordingly when it comes in.
For #2 I have obviously overstated the insufficiency of the Bible in resolving the Arian dispute as that would be anachronistic. Thanks for nailing me on this one. The canon didn’t really settle until 400 AD (and even then . . .), but by 300 AD Eusebius was already writing about universally accepted texts along with disputed ones. Perhaps I should re-word #2 as The Arian controversy was not resolved by an appeal to valued texts(some of which would later be formally canonized) alone.
#3 rests on solid ground. Even after Nicea, semi-arianism subordinationalism still flourished. A vote for the 325 AD creed was an innovative compromise that precipitated a move from the prior subordinationalism orthodoxy. Eastern Orthodox still retain a version of subordinationalism. Newman, Hanson, and Bettenson were all cited to support this notion by FARMS reviewer and now Catholic, David Waltz. (Hi, Mr. Waltz if your ears are burning.
) I will admit to taking this point for granted, making too much of it, and not really having the research skills to prove it.
For #4 I haven’t seen much debate in whether Hellenistic philosophy provided both the terms and the philosophical framework in which the Trinity doctrine emerged. Rather I see debate over whether the doctrine is correct, independent of such developmental tools. Another debate is why Mormons should make a big deal of Hellenism, because sometimes Hellenistic thought is the good guy in fending off heresies that Mormons have even less sympathy for.
July 18th, 2006 at 12:53 am
I don’t see Gaskill as being sweeping. He hasn’t meet a Catholic scholar can be just as much an indictment of Gaskill’s (and my ongoing) ignorance as it is a lack of scholars who will endorse the one God, three persons, one substance formula can explicitly be found in the Bible. It would be helpful to find such a scholar.
Gaskill is not sweeping when he refers to “a Catholic position” instead of “the … position” . Perhaps he is just creating a straw man and no Catholic scholar would ever regard a distinction between the LDS Godhead and the creedal Trinity as moot because they understand the creeds depend on extra-Biblical concepts and Mormonism should be cut some slack for their extra-Biblical concepts as well.
July 18th, 2006 at 1:14 am
By the way, there appears to be no need for Mormons to prove an apostasy exists, in the debate of whether Trinity arguments are sufficient (in and of themselves) or not to treat Mormon baptisms as invalid. The only thing that needs to be established is that relying on creedal standards to invalidate Mormon baptisms would also invalidate pre-Nicene baptisms, which has to be considered an unacceptable position.
And I didn’t mean that Mormonism is special in the sense that it stands out from other ambiguous cases that the local bishop has to decide. What I mean is why is Mormonism special from other groups whose baptisms are unambiguously accepted?
July 18th, 2006 at 6:16 am
I was looking for a hard case to show mormons aren’t all that special. One such seems a 385 AD approval of prior Arian baptisms by a pope. Some apologetics appear on the catholic blog below but I haven’t had time to review the arguments to see how much they apply. In my opinion Arian views on the Trinity are more unorthodox than LDS ones.
http://tinyurl.com/qblbw
July 18th, 2006 at 6:34 am
Mormons tend to be suspicious of a lot of human scholarship.
ESPECIALLY when that scholarship has the presumption to attempt to define “what is and isn’t” in matters that are spiritual.
We consider it to be “relying on the arm of the flesh” to try and define core doctrine through mere scholarly pursuit.
In past times, this resulted in a rather knee-jerk reaction to all intellectual pursuit among Mormons. All philosophical scholarship was branded as arrogant and presumptuous, and its practitioners were regarded with suspicion.
That’s changing (though remenants remain here and there). I think we’ve gotten to the point were we can recognize the value of human endeavor. And I don’t know many Mormons anymore who really have anything against Hellenistic philosophy per se.
But we still reject the notion that any human system of logic or historical inquiry has the right to define doctrinal matters.
Such definition belongs to God alone. We do not add to what He says, nor do we detract from it (admittedly, our efforts at orthodoxy are at times flawed). Revelation first and foremost. Scholarship can never be anything more in Mormonism than “icing on the cake.” It’s something that we never take THAT seriously.
Yet mainline Christianity’s conception of the Trinity is SOLELY based on human endeavor, and not revelation.
You might protest, as Dave MN does, that the Bible supports mainline Christianity’s take on the Trinity.
Supports yes. Proves? Absolutely not.
Whatever others may say, the Bible simply does not prove the idea of a God with no body. It does not prove that Christ, God the Father and the Holy Spirit are not seperate entities (as Mormons claim). It does not prove that we are not literal spirit children of God the Father.
Of course, the Bible does not “prove” the Mormon position either. It’s simply ambiguous on these points.
Mormons have never claimed that their unique theological position is based on the Bible. It isn’t. It’s based in modern revelation. Direct communication from God the Father with Joseph Smith. Period. End of story.
The attack on Hellenistic thinking in Christian history is simply Mormons’ way of saying:
Look, you aren’t attacking us for things that are proven in the Bible. You are attacking us because we disagree with dogmas that you came up with entirely on your own brainpower, which you seem to want to EQUATE with scripture. If you want to shake a disapproving finger at us, fine. Just make sure you acknowlege that it is your own finger you are shaking and not a Bible and certainly not God’s finger.
July 18th, 2006 at 8:37 am
So this means that at some time prior to 325, subordinationalism was the universal Christian norm. Can you briefly explain how that is substanciated?
July 18th, 2006 at 5:21 pm
Let me then refresh a portion of the quote that I bolded above.
That doesn’t say “explicit”. Nor does it imply “explicit” if I may make a play on words. The holy scriptures which would become the Bible were in fact the basis for the dogma of the Trinity. You will not have any trouble finding a Christian scholar validating the dogma of the Trinity using the Bible.
So the FARMS scholar did in fact overstate the case. When you qualify your point with the word “explicit”, I have no quibble. The FARMS scholar did not do that, and he is providing his readers with a false point.
And I don’t think I’m off point, here. This is a Trinity vs. Eternal Progression divide. If it were not for that, Mormon baptisms would not be invalid.
The author’s remarks on the Trinity were key to his objection to the Catholic decision on Mormon baptism. Your remarks to diminish the Trinity may have been gratuitous, but they were made. So in either case, they seem relevant to the issue. Therefore, can Eternal Progression stand up to the same test? Is Eternal Progression explicit in the Book of Mormon, a scripture untouched by Catholic hands? Where more “orthodox” views of God accepted by the Mormon faithful pre-King Folley?
Could a Catholic, therefore, object to the Mormon policy on Catholic baptism and provide the same arguments? Of course we wouldn’t even bother since we all know Mormon and Catholic baptisms are not the same thing. And isn’t that fact enough to end the question?
July 18th, 2006 at 5:56 pm
John In MN,
If I were to go about substantiating that claim, it would mean surveying all Christian texts prior to 300 AD and look for clues that God the Father is given a higher status. Even heresies give clues because heretics are either trying to incorporate ideas they have brought in from non-Christian schools of thought or they are innovating from a common ground Christianity in a different way than the orthodox branch was. (Orthodoxy is a convenient label that often can only be given well after the fact.) I would try to reconstruct the intellectual history of ideas and look for trends to fill in gaps of silence in the record. I would even accept analysis of later events to help reconstruct those trends, so you are on the right track when you bring up the Nicene vote as a clue to belief prior to it. It is all about trying to make sense of all the data. And I can’t claim to have my head in the era to really make such a judgement, so my lame, fallacious appeal to authority must be frustrating. Any attempt for me to proof-text subordinationalism from the pre-Nicene Fathers would rightly be looked at as selective and me not understanding the overall context.
The same kinds of analysis can be done with Mormon schisms, heresies, doctrinal development, ecletic burrowing from other religions (mostly due to flow of converts, but more and more because born-and-raised Mormons are beginning to do comparative religion and dialoguing) with interesting results. For me being able to answer for Mormonism’s past thought which is very different from Mormon thought now, is my control for not being over-judgmental of Catholic development. Notwithstanding my lack of knowledge in Newman’s framework for understanding doctrinal formation, I would like to be able to say that if Newman is OK with the bumpy ride of Christianity than I am, too. Mere change and extra-Biblical innovations are not sufficient to demonstrate an apostasy occurred. In fact I could go as far as saying the lack of change over a prolonged period would be hard for me to take. Every era faces different challenges and the lack of adaptive solutions would make me question whether an active God was influencing the shots being called.
July 19th, 2006 at 9:15 am
You can take modern Christian writings to show that the Son was subordinate to the Father. And I think that’s the problem with the claim, or at least the substanciation of the claim. Jesus did do His Father’s will in complete obedience. That can in itself be enough to declare subordination. And it is, in fact, to some degree. I’m sure concepts like consubstanciation and hypostatic union did not spring-forth completely from the start of the Church. But I don’t think anything Mormon-like sprung-forth or developed early-on either. The Son’s subjection to the holy will of the Father is accepted then and now. The idea of a created Son, not co-eternal with the Father, is truly the key to establish the claim.
As far as the bumpy ride of Christianity goes, there are two things to consider. First, the modern version of Western Civilization, though it borrows heavily upon Catholic scholarship, was in fact written by Protestants and secularists, particularly when it comes to the Church. Thus the Church is treated quite uncharitably. But that only will only smooth-out about half of the bumps. With the rest of the bumps, I always remember one thing. When the original twelve were called, the Son of God called Judas Iscariot. In that context, it’s easy to explain a corrupt pope or an inquisition gone bad.
July 19th, 2006 at 7:07 pm
John in MN,
I will agree with you the FARMS writer could have been more clear about what he meant. I will concede that the way you interpret the statement you are correct in the conclusion you draw from it. And if you interpret that statement that way, we can bet some Mormons will do as well and hence it was a mistake for Gaskill to write so unclearly.
I do think these types of mistakes can be attributed to not considering his audience carefully. They say FARMS apologetics are sometimes written for peers and there isn’t enough consideration of less technical readers or how things might sound to people in other faiths.
If I had been him I would have made some concessions so a reader wouldn’t get the wrong impression that no part of creedal trinity can be found in the Bible or that the Bible didn’t contain a seed from which the creedal Trinity could be deduced from in light of other reasonable, though extra-Biblical assumptions.
However, interpreting it like you do seems to not give the writer the benefit of the doubt. I think a sophisticated reader would implicitly see from the context that he is saying a fully developed dogma of creedal trinity can not be found in total in the Bible. He is probably channeling language from Catholic scholars, in other words, to disagree with what Gaskill means is to disagree with, for example, Jesuit scholar Edmund Fortman:
“there is no trinitarian doctrine in the Synoptics or Acts.”
“[Paul] has no formal trinitarian doctrine and no clear-cut realization of a trinitarian problem, but he furnishes much material for the later development of a trinitarian doctrine.”
“There is no formal doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament writers, if this means an explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons.”
These quotes show that, if we isolate sentences, even a Catholic scholar’s language isn’t always explicit. I know I have belabored the point too much already but Gaskill’s language follows a variety of Catholic scholarly language as quoted in Stephen Robinson’s “Are Mormons Christians” online (as are Fortman’s quotes in fuller context) at:
http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/general/christians/ser7.htm
July 19th, 2006 at 8:08 pm
I have to snicker a bit, since I’m a scholarly bumpkin, but I can show Jesuit scholar Edmund Fortman some Trinitarian evidence in both Matthew and Luke off the top of my head. I can even show him the Trinity in Genesis.
For FARMS scholars, their audience is Mormon and their job is apologetics. I’m very picky when it comes to apologetics, because it is often not subject to open criticism. Thus, apologists can grow lazy and fudge their statements a bit. I’ve found this in Catholic apologists too, and it drives me nuts. Apologetic arguments do filter down to the lay-people and they run with them, right or wrong. As lay-people, we should expect our apologists not to overstate their case. I mean, really, truth need not be exaggerated.
July 19th, 2006 at 10:49 pm
On subordinationalism:
There does seems to be a way of maintaining a “The Father is greater than I” relational subordinationalism. However subordinationalism as had by pre-Nicene Fathers is defined by Robinson as the:
“conce[ption] of the Son and the Spirit not as coequal, coeternal and consubstantial, but as subordinate Gods, contingent Gods, or even as creatures of God whose divinity is dependent upon the Father.”
So some Catholic innovations beyond where the Bible is non-controversially explicit would be:
1. rejection of contingent Gods in the Trinity
2. rejection of created Gods in the Trinity
3. affirmation of co-equality and co-eternal persons
4. affirmation of consubtantial
The Mormon stance on these innovations are:
1. affirmation of contingent Gods in the Trinity
2. affirmation of created Gods in the Trinity
3. equivocation on co-equality and co-eternal persons
4. mostly suspicion, rejection, or lack of knowledge/concern over consubtantial concepts.
Isolating focus on these 4 points, the early Christian trajectory appears to have moved from the Mormon stance to the creedal one. To prove this I would have to make sharper definitions and ignore a lot of other data.
For the larger problem of the Trinity besides subordinationalist considerations I would count Mormon extra-biblical innovations as (not all these beliefs exist on the same level of the doctrinal hierarchy):
5. affirmation God the Father has a physical body.
6. affirmation that man and God are the same species.
7. rejection of creation ex nihilo.
8. belief that man can become gods.
9. Explanation of “oneness” as that of one in purpose.
10. using the “divine investure of authority” explanation to solve naming and terminology ambiguities.
11. belief that God the Father created our spirits.
12. belief that Heavenly parents created our spirits.
13. belief in a Heavenly Mother.
14. speculation that “eternal increase” means a forward generational progression of gods.
15. belief in a council of gods.
16. speculation that God the Father had a mortal experience in the past.
17. even wilder speculation on a backwards regression of gods.
Of these, I would guess the current Catholic stance rejects (5-7,12-14,16-17) and any acceptance #8 and #11 must be understood in that light. #9 and #10 might be acceptable to Catholics but don’t nearly make a strong enough statement as consubstantial in #4 does. #15 is an uneasy biblical motif with an array of interpretations possible.
But looked at from an early Christian perspective 5-8 were solidly accepted, for 9-10 I would have to do more comparative research, I assume 11 is solid, I haven’t seen anything on 12-13 (but one wonders if Mary as the Queen of Heaven filled the same kind of void Heavenly Mother does for Mormons), for 14 I haven’t seen much explicit speculation on but perhaps it could be pieced together by beliefs in the continuation of marriage and beliefs in deification in Early Christianity, for 15 I think it was discussed by commentators of Psalms 82 and like Biblical pasages, I haven’t seen 16 discussed anywhere, but speculating on 17 was frowned on by Irenaeus in response to gnostics christians.
So for the things that are probably not found explicitly in the Bible or in Early Christianity the Mormon stance can be dinged on 12-17 (not counting 15). And 9-10 might not be seen as sufficient to solve the same problems consubstantial does.
But if the score is kept from the perspective of the Early Christian baseline, throwing out (8,11,15) Mormonism chould get partial credit for being more on the same page with early Christianity to some degree on issues 1-7 than modern Catholicism. Mormonism 9-10 solves the oneness/threeness problem, as does the Catholic 1-4. But the Catholic 1-4 has to solve a harder problem because of a rejection of 5-7, which in turn makes Mormon innovations 12-4,16-17 unreconcilable. But my estimation would be that Mormon affinity with Early Christianity on 1-7 should buy it some leeway on 9,12-14,16-17.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:07 am
Dave,
It seems you have successfully undermind the basis for Catholicism. Yet if I had to explain it to my priest, I wouldn’t have a clue what to say.
Why not just explain #1 to me. Oh, heck, you go ahead and pick the number. Just show me the substance of the claims.
July 20th, 2006 at 1:13 am
I have been wanting to critique Father Ladaria’s commentary on the Mormon Trinity. In some places I can’t say that I agree with his interpretation of Mormonism. He may just be translating Mormon belief into Catholic terms so I don’t recognize the underlying Mormon belief. The other problem is there may be a range of Mormon belief on the subject. I am not sure the nitpicks I make would make any difference in his conclusions. He is obviously very bright and I will try to make the most charitable read possible.
I don’t see why Mormonism can’t affirm both sides of the “but” conjunction. Perhaps the two statements are seen as mutually exclusive? In Mormonism three persons can equal three gods and the one Godhead could be said to share a common divinity.
Which is a restatement of my #9 above.
I am guessing that most Mormons would have little problem deferring to the texts cited here, the EoM and two sermons by Joseph Smith. While the King Follett Discourse has been given some play in correlated era doctrinal publications, I think it would be safe to say that the component of infinite regression of gods would be more on the margins of speculation. Regardless the texts could be read to come up with different conclusions. God the Father could have gained his divinity and experienced a mortality (not necessarily on another planet) in a manner like Jesus did, ie, prior to any mortality.
I suppose it is correct to say divinity (whatever God has that man lacks) in Mormonism is more a functional than substantial. I wouldn’t go as far as saying there is no difference in human nature and divine nature (substance) when comparing say me and God the Father. I have a propensity to sin; my possesion of Godly virtues like charity, intelligence, and knowledge are not possessed in perfection; and the less glorified state of my body and spirit are just examples of how I differ substantially from God. Mormons resist the notion that the members of the Godhead are of the same metaphysical substance, so you can imagine my confusion at man and God being substantially equal.
Here is how David Paulsen describes the LDS Godhead:
I usually think in terms of all three of these things and when I explore possibilities for the Mormon Godhead and these conditions or combination of them can exist at the exclusion of other gods. I have to think Father Ladaria is taking one strand of Mormon thought and overstating its conclusions. Especially since some Mormons thought bears resemblance to that of social trinitarians and open thiests.
Presumably more gods were/are involved in resposibilities in the Universe, considering men can become gods and being on the council of gods should be sufficient to counted as a god (via divine investure of authority), but who is counting?
This does seem to go back to not accepting #9-10 as making a strong enough statement that can reserve a divine substance for the Godhead and give a different substance to man. And being against speculation in 12-17 minus 15. But I wonder if 8 and 15 can be accounted for by the same time complaints against Mormon views on divinity can be upheld.
July 20th, 2006 at 1:43 am
John #19
I didn’t mean to undermine Catholicism, which will survive and flourish even if pre-Nicene Christianity had erroneous views in hindsight.
Getting at the substance of subordinationism is difficult even for me. Perhaps when I get more time I will illustrate different versions of it with different examples. Arians, by denying Jesus’ divinity are clearly so. Maybe when I get time I will take a look at Justin Martyr and compare his views against Robinson’s checklist.
July 20th, 2006 at 9:01 am
Dave,
No problem, take your time with that. You’re quote from before…
was what piqued my interest.
Justin Martyr would be an interesting choice of Early Church Fathers, for if Helenistic influence is bad for theology, Justin clearly admits his bias here.
July 20th, 2006 at 1:18 pm
Latter-day Saints like the idea that humans and God are of the same species such that God is not eternally alienated from man. We enjoy the familial feel this gives us with regard to eternal existence.
Catholics, on the other hand (from what I have observed), like having the ontological difference between God and man.
Latter-day Saints argue that the earliest Christians shared a view similar to ours. Catholics argue that the Nicene view is the apostolic view and therefore the view of the earliest Christians.
It is an entrenchment of sorts that in many ways seems insurmountable. Both sides simply like their way better and both claim that it is the original position. I will note that Latter-day Saints can point to pre-Nicene Creed statements very similar to the infamous Lorenzo Snow couplet from Irenaus (130-200 A.D.), Clement of Alexandria (150-215 A.D.), Justin Martyr (100-165 A.D.), Athanasius of Alexandria (296-373 A.D.). Whether this view is necessarily inconsistent with the view of the Trinity crystalized in the Nicene Creed is another question. I am not sure that it has to be.
July 23rd, 2006 at 2:34 pm
The Apostles’ Creed
The basic Creed of the Catholic Church, as most familiarly known, is called the Apostles’ Creed. It has received this title because of its great antiquity; it dates from very early times in the Church, a half century or so from the last writings of the New Testament. In order to make certain that each apostle taught the same message, they jointly composed the Apostles’ Creed before their departure to teach all nations. The creed thus was created in the early 1st century
I believe in God, the Father Almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord: Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into hell. The third day He arose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty, whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting. Amen.
This Creed has been adequate to the ordinary needs of the Church, as is witnessed by its constant use down to our time. As special needs arose, however, various articles in the Creed have been expanded for greater clarification. The most noteworthy of these clarifications was made during the general council of the Church at Nicaea in the year 325 A.D., and in the council of Constantinople in 381. Each of these councils gave unequivocal answers defining the belief of true Christians against movements which threatened Christ’s teaching. For example, the Council of Nicaea had to make clear the truth of the eternity of Christ’s existence, as taught in the Gospel of John 1:1, against the Arian heresy which held that there was a time before which the Word was not. This clarification was in the form of a longer version of the Creed, which is recited during the Catholic Mass. It is called the Nicene Creed.
Two Fundamental Principles
The Creed consists of two essential themes–one is concerned with belief in the Holy Trinity, and the other deals with our profession of faith in Christ. These are the two fundamental principles of Christianity, upon which all the rest of our doctrines are based. For the sake of convenience, we generally divide the Creed into “articles.”
In the first article we say, “I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth.” We say what every reasoning man must say, if he is faithful to his reason. “Since the creation of the world God’s invisible attributes are clearly seen–especially His everlasting power and divinity, which are understood through the things that are made” (Rom 5:20). As Paul rightly says, reason itself tells us that there must be a Cause of what we see about us in the world, and that if we see goodness and beauty in the world, then its Cause must be Good and most supreme Beauty.
But we believe much more about God than mere reason tells us. Our faith is founded on reason, but it goes far beyond what reason unaided can know. Our faith depends upon God’s own revelation of Himself. Faith, in a sense, means sharing God’s own thoughts; for what God alone can know of Himself He has made known to us. We know His own intimate nature–that He exists in three divine Persons Who possess the one divine nature: the fact that we call the Trinity. There is no possible way that we could know this unless He had told us. We have it from the lips of God’s own Son that the relation that exists between the divine Persons is mirrored in the relation which He permits us to share with Him. If we keep faith with Him, we share somehow in His own life.
“You will come to understand (says our Lord) that I am in the Father, and you are in me, and I in you. He who accepts my commandments and treasures them–he is the one that loves me. And he that loves me will, in turn, be loved by my Father; and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him” (John 14:20f.). For how many centuries did the greatest philosophers and thinkers of the world before Christ yearn for just this knowledge, that there is a God Who cares for His creatures, Who wants to love them and be loved by them!
When we say, “I believe … in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord: Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary,” we testify to our belief in the greatest single event of the world’s history, the Incarnation. The Incarnation means, literally, “the taking-on-of-flesh.” The eternal Son of God, the only Son of God to whom this word may be properly applied, took on human nature and became the man Whom history knows as Jesus. Without ceasing to be God, this divine Person became also one of us, like us “in all things, except sin” (Heb. 4:15). Already bound to us as Creator, He assumed a perfect unity with mankind through the Incarnation, and by His death was able to free us from sin. In His glorious existence in heaven He gave us a share in His own life: “He was delivered up for our sins, and rose again for our sanctification” (Rom. 4:25).
As a divine Person, Jesus could in no way be begotten by man. His Virgin Mother Mary conceived Him through the divine power. Because He is divine, she is the Mother of God–not the Mother of God the Father, or of God the Holy Spirit, but the Mother of God’s eternal Son Who is also God. This title, “Mother of God,” is Mary’s chief glory, of which she may not be deprived by any true Christian.
Jesus, we say, “suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried. He descended into hell. The third day He arose again from the dead: He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty, whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.” In this we say that He redeemed us, that His suffering and death have freed us from sin. “There is but one God and one Mediator between God and men, Christ Jesus, himself man, who gave himself a ransom for all” (1 Tim. 2:5). In Christ and in Christ only do we have a certain refuge of hope–apart from Him there is none. He is our judge now and in our final accounting.
“I believe in the Holy Spirit” professes our belief in the third Person of the Trinity, the Spirit of the Father and Son, Whom Christ promised to send to watch over His Church, to guide and strengthen it, to keep it in the ways of truth. “I will ask the Father and he will grant you another Advocate to be with you for all time to come, the Spirit of Truth!” (John 14:16).
Therefore the article “I believe in … the Holy Catholic Church,” is already half-explained. The Church is holy because it exists for a holy purpose, to make men holy. It is holy because it is directed by the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth. It is the projection of Christ into all time, which is why St. Paul so frequently refers to it as Christ’s Body. Christ, after His death and resurrection, has returned to the Father from Whom He came. But Christ’s work goes on. The salvation which He made possible to all men must be brought into contact with all human lives between Christ’s going away and His glorious return at the end of time. This is the function of the Church.
Allegiance to the Church
The Church is Catholic because it is universal, independent of time and of place. Being a Catholic, of course, does not erase one’s nationality. Allegiance to the Church is entirely different from the allegiance we owe our country or our people, an allegiance which does not conflict with these but which is superior to them. It is our allegiance to God, which we share with all other Catholics throughout the world, and which binds us together with them in the one Body of Christ. The Church is essentially the same everywhere in the world today, and is the same as it was in the days of the Apostles.
There is even a larger unity that we share in the Church. “I believe in … the communion of saints” states that we participate in the union of the faithful on earth, the blessed in heaven, and the souls in purgatory–with all those who have been redeemed by the blood of Christ. We believe that we can help one another, that the prayers of the faithful on earth can assist the souls in purgatory and that the prayers of those in heaven can assist both those in purgatory and us on earth. Thus we pray to the saints in heaven for their help, just as we ask one another on earth for their prayers and good works from which we can all benefit
.”The forgiveness of sin” we shall see more fully in the consideration of the sacraments of the Church. “The resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting” are the two final articles of the Creed. We profess the Biblical teachings of a physical resurrection, at the end of time. For all eternity, united as they were on earth, the body and soul of each person will rejoice in eternal life with God or suffer in eternal punishment in hell
-Courtesy of Catholic Information Network
Used with Permission
http://www.catholic-rcia.com
July 23rd, 2006 at 3:53 pm
Mutatis mutandis, the Apostle’s Creed is one we can agree with. It is similar to our Articles of Faith.
Of course, we believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the visible Holy “catholic” (universal) Church. We just do not use the term to avoid confusion.
I mentioned on the other thread that all creeds are not created equal - it is the ones we believe are based on uninspired and unwarranted conclusions of men that are “abominations” in our eyes - abominations as in they set a bar to spiritual understanding, generally locking in an analytical semantic contrary to what the Lord intended due to weaknesses in mortal philosophy and metaphysics.
July 24th, 2006 at 6:43 am
We Believe……
in one God, (Deut 6:4-5, Is 40:25-28, Ex 20:2-3, Is 45:5, 1 Cor 8:4, 1 Chron 17:20, Is 41:4, Is 43:10-13) the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, (Gen 14:19, Ex 20:2-3) of all that is seen and unseen. (Col 1:16)
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, (Col 1:1-15, Luke 1:35) begotten of the Father, God from God (Deut 5:11, Mt 4:10-11, Lk 4:8, Acts 10:25-26, Jn 1:1-18, Jn 10:24-42, Jn 20: 26-28, Titus 2:11-14) Light from Light, true God from true God. Begotten not made, one in Being with the Father. (Heb 1:3, Mt 3:16-17, Mt 28:18-19, Jn 10:38, Jn 14:9 -21,26, Jn 17:10, I Tim 2:5) Through Him all things were made. (John 1:2-3, Col 1:15-17))
For us men and for our salvation He came down from heaven: (John 3:13) by the power of the Holy Spirit (Jn 14:16-17, Jn 14:25-26, Acts 5:3-4, Acts 13:2-4, Acts 15:28-29, Acts 21:11) He was born of the Virgin Mary, (Matt 1:18) and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; (John 19:16) he suffered, died, and was buried. On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures; (1Cor 15:3-4) he ascended into heaven (Luke 24:51) and is seated at the right hand of the Father. (Col 3:1) He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, (2 Tim 4:1) and his Kingdom will have no end. (Luke 1:33)
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, (Acts 2:17) who proceeds from the Father and the Son. (John 14:16) With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. (1 Peter 1:10-11)
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. (Rom 12:5, Acts 1:15-26, Acts 14:23, Acts 20:28, 1 Cor 12:27-31, Eph 4:11, Eph 2:19-21, 1 Tim 3:1-13, 1 Tim 4:13-14, 1 Tim 5:17-22 2 Tim 2:1-2) We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.(Acts 2:38) We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the life of the world to come. (Rom 6:5) Amen
July 24th, 2006 at 2:15 pm
Rich,
I don’t know who you are trying to convince. I said that the Apostle’s Creed is one we can agree with. We believe and credit all those scriptures very seriously, though we might interpret some of them differently than you do.
Now if you want to talk about a specific precept or scripture where you think we depart from the true faith as revealed in the Old and New Testaments, please give a specific example.
July 24th, 2006 at 4:01 pm
Mark,
I believe that’s the Nicene Creed that Rich provides in #26. Do you believe that one to be derived through philosophy?
July 24th, 2006 at 4:56 pm
Yes the Nicene Creed. Do you believe that one to be derived through philosophy, tradtions of men?
What does the New Testement say about Apostolic Tradition vs Traditions of men? Here is some of what I have found.
http://catholic-rcia.com/pages/Fathers_Succession.html
Mark Wrote:
“We believe and credit all those scriptures very seriously, though we might interpret some of them differently than you do.â€
Hi Mark
I think it would be a good thing for us to discuss how Holy Scripture is interpreted by each of our faiths. Let’s keep it short and to the point.
1. How would / does a catholic interpret scripture from the Holy Bible?
2. How would / does a Mormon interpret scripture from the Holy Bible?
Then we can discuss the Nicene Creed in better light.
Note#
If I kept a diary about my life, what would be the best source to help you understand what was written in this diary?
God Bless
Rich
July 24th, 2006 at 9:44 pm
Steve - sorry my mistake. We definitely would not agree with many of the standard metaphysical interpretations that were reflected in the Nicene creed.
However, with a little bit of metaphysical flexibility we could probably explain that we generally agree with virtually everything therein.
For example we believe that there is only one true and living God, that is not of the same substance in the material sense, but is in a extremely criticial manner of one substance in the spiritual sense. Not that different from social trinitarianism, a conception that was rather more prominent in the Eastern tradition.
You may also remember my link to Blake Ostler’s paper about the advent of the ex nihilo creation doctrine, the difference between formed and unformed being. We can agree that God created all being in the original sense of being, although we disagree about chaotic, unformed matter and (the “waters” in Genesis 1:2) and intelligences as such as well.
Now I could keep going down the line of what we would say about the Nicene creed if someone will give me an invitation to do so.
I will mention our conception of the problem of creeds was that there was a gradual divergence, and that some people have over-read the Nicene creed from a relatively unsophisticated perpective, looking for a smoking gun, when many of the more serious problems did not manifest themselves in any of the classical Catholic creeds. Ben Huff has written about this in a rather interesting book review here:
http://farms.byu.edu/display-print.php?table=review&id=476
As I said, we would probably disagree much more extensively with a large creed, like the Westminister Confession, especially about pre-destination and theological determinism in general.
July 25th, 2006 at 8:02 am
The Apostles’ Creed
This is a simple format for Christian belief. It
is not complicated at all. Out of this comes service for others, love of others. To do Gods will and not my own. Not for gain of any kind, rather to simply do what God asks for Him alone. To be nothing more than a simple servant who knows his place well. Through honest confession
I can stay humble and on the path to the Cross. As a Catholic Christian the following is not only my beleif, it is at the very center of my life and salvation. Where could I go wrong in this?
‘I believe in God the Father Almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth’
Who is God?
God is the Supreme Being, the only being who exists of himself, the uncreated Creator. He is all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing and perfect in every way. He is a spiritual being, free from the limitations of a material body.
Where is God?
God is everywhere in all that he creates, but is not limited to his Creation.
Did God have a beginning?
No, God had no beginning; he always was, he is, and he always will be.
Does God know and see all things?
God does know and see all things - even our secret thoughts and actions.
Is there only one God?
There is only one God from whom everything else comes.
Are there three persons in God?
There are three persons in the one God: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
Are these three persons three Gods?
These three persons are not three Gods; the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are all one and the same God.
(All of Johns Gospel)
What is the mystery of three persons in One God called?
The Mystery of three persons in One God is called the Mystery of the Holy Trinity, and is the central Mystery of the Christian Faith.
What do we mean by a ‘Mystery of Faith’?
By a ‘Mystery of Faith’ we mean a Truth which we cannot fully understand on our own, but which is revealed to us by God through the Holy Spirit.
Why do we call God ‘Father’?
We call God ‘Father’ because he cares for us and provides for us like a human father. As Christians we call God our ‘Father’ because Jesus himself taught us to do so (Mt 19:26)
Why do we call God ‘Almighty’?
We call God ‘Almighty’ because God has the power to do anything. ‘With God all things are possible.’ (Mt 19:26)
Why do we call God ‘Creator’?
We call God ‘Creator’ because he made heaven and earth and all that is in them, out of nothing, by his Word.
July 25th, 2006 at 10:59 am
Rich H.,
Your question is sufficiently open ended that there it is difficult to properly address it here.
All I can say is that we agree, in theologically critical senses, with much of what you have said, at least insofar as it can be found in the Bible.
First of all, we can agree that there is only one true and living uppercase ‘G’ God. To pluralize God with an uppercase G is to make a very serious error.
We can also agree that there are more than divine person, sometimes known in the Old Testament (as translated) as lowercase G ‘gods’ (cf. Psalms 82).
We agree that the three pre-eminent divine persons are God the Father, God the Son, and GOd the Holy Ghost, and that together they form one uppercase ‘G’, God, not three. We are not polytheists in the modern sense of the term, there is and can be only one true and living God.
We also agree that the way the three members of the God-head (or trinity) relate to each other as members or agencies of the one true God is one of the primary mysteries of the Christian Faith.
However, we also believe that mystery properly extends, in the process of time, to the greatest of the Saints, who will be exalted and become joint-heirs with Christ in part by suffering with him. Thus the Trinity or God-head as we understand it, in the eternities consists of more than three divine persons, but rather many sanctified and exalted divine persons, using divine persons in the same sense that the Old Testament (as translated in the KJV) uses the term lower-case G ‘gods’ (Hebrew: elohim) - Frankly I do not like that choice of terms, but there it is.
(cf. Col 3:20-21, Heb 2:11, anything about the body of Christ, etc.)
Another characteristic difference is that we do not believe that any person had a beginning - that all, including the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost existed in some sense from all eternity. Jeremiah is the best example in the scriptures (cf. Jer 1:5).
We believe that each divine personage has a body of some type that is located in a particular place at any given time - Jesus Christ is a good example, even after his ascension. However we believe that his spiritual influence pervades the immensity of space. We call this the ‘Light of Christ’. Similarly with the Holy Ghost, except manifest in a somewhat different manner that is hard to describe - i.e. the Holy Ghost is both a person, and his influence, which we usually call the “Spirit”.
We also agree that God knows all things that exist, including the secret thoughts and intents of the heart, and has power unto the fulfilment of all his words.
We can agree with that definition of the gospel term ‘mystery’.
We also agree that with God all (righteous) things are possible, in the process of time. God cannot lie nor do evil, for example. God is good, by definition.
July 25th, 2006 at 11:06 am
That is Phil 3:20-21 not Col 3:20-21, by the way. I really like the automatic links - I wish other religious web logs would do that.
July 25th, 2006 at 11:07 am
Phil. 3:20-21
July 25th, 2006 at 12:55 pm
For the LDS site, you’ll need either “Philip.” or “Philem.”
But yeah, that’s nifty. Maybe I can find or write one for my blog.
July 27th, 2006 at 6:27 am
Mark Butler Says:
July 25th, 2006 at 10:59 am
Rich H.,
Your question is sufficiently open ended that there it is difficult to properly address it here.
I understand Mark, let me put it this way. My Creator is God, God created me to find him and to love Him the way the Son always has. I get to be included into the Trinity as a created being. To me this is a gift that is the biggest miracle that ever could exist, the miracle of existence itself, and to be loved by God. Those that I have loved because of God will be with me in heaven praising God forever and without end. The closest you will ever get to being in heaven here is at the foot of the cross, the daily Mass.
What I speak of has been found in my heart, it is the revelation that has been given to me. I do not have to find it in the Bible as I know it is there. I would point to all of John’s gospel as he had the same revelations as I. This revelation is nothing new, the Apostles had it as well, all the Saints and angels who give praise to God. By the Church proclaiming His death and resurrection throughout time this soul has been gifted this revelation just as it has occurred over and over again each day, each year since Pentecost by way of the Holy Spirit, the Holy Mass, the sign given in John chapter 6. Saint Augustine sums it up well here:
When I was just twenty it gave me great satisfaction that I managed to read, and understand, the Ten Categories of Aristotle without a teacher. I would mention the book at every opportunity, slipping the title in with a touch of awe, smiling to myself when lecturers would comment how difficult it had been for them to answer it.
And much good it did me! Indeed, it was harmful, because it encouraged me to think of You, O Lord, as if you were part of what you had made, instead of being its essence and origin. Sadly, I had my back toward the light and my eyes fixed on the darkness. I could understand without difficulty logic, rhetoric, geometry, music, and arithmetic, but I did not see that my intelligence itself was a gift of God and that all the true things I learned came from him, their source. I found that humility is a supernatural virtue whereby one is enabled to make a true and just estimate of himself and is inclined to hold himself and his accomplishments in contempt in recognition that all good arises from God alone. It is said “dependence on God gives wings to prayer” I term it a relinquishment of “self-will, self-love, and self-interests.” It is positive in not seeking honors and esteem of others, and self-condemning because man knows evil is his own doing. Humility is exercised toward God and neighbors: toward God who as the Creator gives man whatever he possesses, and toward one’s neighbors by recognizing their worth in the eye’s of God. This virtue is the opposite of pride and self progression, which is the root of all evil; hence humility is basic to the practice of all the virtues. It is fundamental of prayer, notably the prayer of simplicity, for Christ rewarded the Syro-phoenician women for her humility (Mk 7:26-30); it is likewise to be found in Christ’s example (Phil 2:1-11) ……….
And once more…There will true Glory be, where no one will be praised by mistake or flattery; true honor will not be refused to the worthy, nor granted to the unworthy; likewise, no one unworthy will pretend to be worthy, where only those who are worthy will be admitted. Their true peace will reign, where no one will experience opposition either from self or others. God himself will be virtue’s reward; he gives virtue and has promised to give “Himself” as the best and greatest reward that could exist…”I shall be their God and they will be my people…” This is also the meaning of the Apostle’s words: “So that God may be all in all.” God himself will be the goal of our desires; we shall contemplate him without end, love him without end, and praise him without weariness. This gift, this state, this act, like eternal life itself, will assuredly be common in all…
So my Lord, you are not pleased with someone simply because that person is knowledgeable. In fact, it would be possible for one to know everything there is to know in the whole wide world, except for knowing you, and consequently know nothing. Just as another person could live in blissful ignorance of the great sum of human knowledge, but know you, and be both happy and content. After all, who is better placed - the person who owns a tree and gives You thanks for all the good things it provides; or the one who owns a similar tree and knows its weight and dimensions down to the least leaf, but does not realize that You are its sole Creator and that it is through You that he or she has use of it? In essence, the latter person is ignorant, though full of facts, and the former person wise, though bit short on details.
So in general we can say that the most important knowledge is knowledge of You, O Lord.”…all from St. Augustine
July 27th, 2006 at 6:38 am
Phil. 3:17-21 Note# Colossians 1:15-29
17
Join with others in being imitators of me, brothers, and observe those who thus conduct themselves according to the model you have in us.
18
For many, as I have often told you and now tell you even in tears, conduct themselves as enemies of the cross of Christ.
19
Their end is destruction. Their God is their stomach; their glory is in their “shame.” Their minds are occupied with earthly things.
20
But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we also await a savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.
(Christians constitute a colony of heaven, as Philippi was a colonia of Rome. The hope Paul expresses involves the final coming of Christ, not a status already attained.)
21
He will change our lowly body to conform with his glorified body by the power that enables him also to bring all things into subjection to himself.
July 28th, 2006 at 1:08 pm
Rich,
You have quoted one of my favorite scriptures, particularly verse 21. I would also have hard time disagreeing with much of what you have said. I do not doubt that you feel the spirit of Christ.
All I can say it that it is difficult for you to understand the way we appreciate the very same principles you have testified of, without making an extensive, full-hearted investigation into the same. Such an investigation is difficult to capture over a written medium. Ultimately the testimony only comes by the Spirit through an experiment upon the word, and not by man’s intellect alone.