The Substance of G-d.

[Traveler]

There is notion that the "substance" of G-d is different than the "substance" of G-d's creations. There is also the notion that G-d is omnipotent. I am confused that G-d cannot replicate or increase his own "substance" even though he is omnipotent.

One of the only reason I can think that G-d would not replicate and increase his own "substance" is because it is not "good stuff" and by replicating and increasing it - would cause bad things. This seems to be rather flawed logic to me

The only other possible reason - that I can think of is that it is a disqualified paradox. Like making a stone he cannot lift. Being his "substance" is eternal and everything else is his creation. But is not man through G-d an "eternal" creature? Does not G-d somehow grant "eternal life" to those that believe on him? Therefor an eternal nature for a created being is not a disqualified paradox?

The Traveler

Edited March 5, 2013 by Traveler

[SteveVH]

There is notion that the "substance" of G-d is different than the "substance" of G-d's creations. There is also the notion that G-d is omnipotent. I am confused that G-d cannot replicate or increase his own "substance" even though he is omnipotent.

We must be very careful here. We are speaking in philosophical terms when we use the word "substance". Another word for "substance" is "being". God cannot replicate his substance because, by his very nature, only he is God. God is his being; God is his substance. But we are not God because we are created. Through Jesus Christ, who became man so that man might be united once again with God, we are given the grace to share in God's divinity, not of our own nature, but as a gift from God. Does that mean that God is somehow less than omnipotent?

One of the only reason I can think that G-d would not replicate and increase his own "substance" is because it is not "good stuff" and by replicating and increasing it - would cause bad things. This seems to be rather flawed logic to me

Yes, that is completley flawed logic. The reason he cannot replicate is that there is only One God and there will only ever be one God. There can only be one God. This is like asking God to make 1+1 = 3 instead of 2 and then saying that he cannot be omnipotent unless he makes it happen. These are nothing more than screwy human mind games.

But is not man through G-d an "eternal" creature?

Is that, in fact, what you believe? It is my understanding that instead you believe that we began as eternal intelligences, existing from eternity apart from any action on the part of God, so that we are eternal, not through God, but from our own nature.

But to answer your question from my particular perspective, no, man is not an eternal being because he was created. From this point forward we will live in eternity with God, but we began at a point in time. God did not.

It is the difference between the Mormon doctrine of "exaltation" and the Catholic doctrine of "theosis". Exaltation assume that we, as humans, contain the divine nature as part of our own and must only progress in order to realize our full divine potential. Theosis assumes that mankind does not possess the divine nature as part of his own, rather it is given to us by God as a gift; in other words it it comes from outside of us rather than from within.

Does not G-d somehow grant "eternal life" to those that believe on him? Therefor an eternal nature for a created being is not a disqualified paradox?

To be eternal implies that one does not have a beginning, therefore nothing created, by the very definition of the word, can be eternal. But yes, God grants "eternal life" to those he chooses from the aspect that they will live forever, from the point they entered into existence forward. It cannot be applied in the same way to God who has always existed without beginning or end. We have a beginning, but no end if we are fortunate enough to attain "eternal life".

Edited May 27, 2013 by StephenVH

[Vort]

The reason he cannot replicate is that there is only One God and there will only ever be one God.

The problem with this is that it's not an observation or a deduction, but an assertion. Nowhere does scripture teach that God is unable to replicate himself. Nowhere does it state that his is unwilling to do so. Or if such is taught in scripture, I have somehow missed it for all these years (which I concede is possible).

[SteveVH]

The problem with this is that it's not an observation or a deduction, but an assertion. Nowhere does scripture teach that God is unable to replicate himself. Nowhere does it state that his is unwilling to do so. Or if such is taught in scripture, I have somehow missed it for all these years (which I concede is possible).

Point taken. Does scripture anywhere teach that God does replicate or is willing to do so?

My conclusion comes from the fundamental Christian belief in one God and that there is and can be no other. The entire argument is based upon a flawed logic, such as requiring God to make 1+1 = 3 in order to prove his omnipotence. God deals only in truth, not imagination. For God to replicate would require his division. There is no division and can be no division in God. I will say, however, that in a sense, God does replicate himself in each one of us when we become one with him through Christ. But not in the sense of somehow dividing into two or more gods. For God to replicate would require that he deny his very essence.

[Vort]

Point taken. Does scripture anywhere teach that God does replicate or is willing to do so?

Certainly. We are co-heirs with Christ of "all that the Father hath."

For God to replicate would require his division.

Not so. I can replicate without requiring my own division, a perhaps mixed blessing considering that I've put on 50 pounds since before I started my self-replication.

I will say, however, that in a sense, God does replicate himself in each one of us when we become one with him through Christ.

Agreed, which confirms the point I first made in this post.

But not in the sense of somehow dividing into two or more gods. For God to replicate would require that he deny his very essence.

I don't understand how self-replication would "deny his very essence". How would replicating change his omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, or uniqueness?

[prisonchaplain]

Certainly. We are co-heirs with Christ of "all that the Father hath."

There is much of my mother and father in myself. If I were the only surviving heir, then, when they die, I suppose the will would grant me "all that the parents hath." Yet, I would not be their clone, would not have the entirity of their memories or experiences.

Likewise, it is not necessary to interpret our gaining all that Christ hath to mean that we can somehow become joined in his deity.

Not so. I can replicate without requiring my own division, a perhaps mixed blessing considering that I've put on 50 pounds since before I started my self-replication.

You may be reproducing, but you are not cloning. I'll admit to assuming that the line between creating and birthing is rather thick.

I don't understand how self-replication would "deny his very essence". How would replicating change his omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, or uniqueness?

If God is parted out to plural entities, would each entity not have distinctness? If so, how could the original being be "all in all?" Would he not be a part in the all?

[Vort]

There is much of my mother and father in myself. If I were the only surviving heir, then, when they die, I suppose the will would grant me "all that the parents hath." Yet, I would not be their clone, would not have the entirity of their memories or experiences.

Reproduction does not imply cloning. If God replicated himself, that does not imply (at least I do not mean it to imply) that he makes an exact copy, or divides by mitosis to form two exact replica daughter Gods. Likewise, I see no imperative to impute exact sameness to "all that the Father hath".

Likewise, it is not necessary to interpret our gaining all that Christ hath to mean that we can somehow become joined in his deity.

It may not be necessary, but it is certainly a reasonable interpretation, which is all I was trying to show. Stephen wanted to know where scripture suggested such an idea, and I provided an example.

If God is parted out to plural entities, would each entity not have distinctness? If so, how could the original being be "all in all?" Would he not be a part in the all?

This is purely a matter of definition. I am my children's father. I am their only father. They have no other father but me. If they try to pretend that another man is their father, they are wrong. They are in denial of their actual nature. They are deceived.

But that does not suggest that no other fathers exist anywhere. There are fathers many and sires many, but for me, there is but one father and one sire, and I call him Dad.

[Traveler]

Interesting discussion.

As we talk about substance and being - we know that G-d can create beings and beings of substance. We also know that G-d has seen fit to add differentiation to his being. This differentiation is "The Father", "The Son" and "The Holy Ghost".

The scripture say that this differentiation is "one" G-d. But the interesting thing is that in Hebrew there are two words for "one" that are translated into the single English word one. In our case English is the only common means to communicate our ideas and understanding. If we study the ancient Hebrew word that is use to describe "one" G-d we find it is the exact same word to describe a man and a woman being "one" in marriage. The poetic symbolic term is "one flesh".

We also know from scripture that G-d intends for man to be "one" with the Father - in the same manner or way that Jesus is "one" with the Father. I purport that there are two way to look at this. The first is in understanding the "oneness" of Jesus (the Son) with the Father. Thus if their "substance" or "being" is the same G-d then our "substance" or "being" becomes the same G-d with them.

The other possibility in view is that G-d created man as "like" "substance" or "being" to start with and that we become "one" with The Father and The Son and The Holy Ghost - of the same substance the same as a husband and wife become one through marriage.

If there is another possibility for the meaning of "one" with G-d it would interest me - but I do believe it should be consistent with how Jesus responded when he told the Jews that he and The Father are one - and the Jews understood that to mean that Jesus was declaring himself G-d.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Here's a Jewish take on the conversation. It does suggest that in heaven we return to God in a way that is a oneness of the type Traveler highlights.

Belief in Heaven is Fundamental to Judaism

[helena330]

If I may butt in and ask a question...

It was explained to me by an LDS friend that when the LDS church thinks of Jesus and God as being "one" they mean that the Godhead is not one in being, but one in purpose. So, could the verse about us as humans being one with God not then be interpreted as us being "one in purpose" with God, and not necessarily "one in being" or "one in substance" (as in, of the same substance) with God?

Also, a small point: many Christians believe in things not expressly stated in the Bible. All Trinitarians believe in the Trinity even though the word is never used in Scripture (yes, it is implied but not outright stated). So it makes little difference if it is expressly stated that God can duplicate himself or not. We believe that it can be implied through other Scriptures that God is one in being, and the only Being made up of a divine substance.

This is a difference between the LDS church and Nicene Creed-based churches that I have always been interested in, and I'm interested to see where this conversation goes.

[prisonchaplain]

Helena, your observations are spot on. It would have been easy to fall into a debate type conversation in this string. I read a little more carefully, and realized that Traveler and Vort were not so much arguing for the necessity of our sharing in God's substance, but rather that the idea is plausible. On the surface, it is. So I decided to look into Jewish understanding, and found acceptance of the idea of us sharing in God in some way deeper than our thoughts.

Of course I also believe that our doctrine that God is wholly separate from his creation is both plausible and scriptural. I imagine that this conversation can be rich in explanations of how are different perspectives play out for us today and into eternity.

[Dravin]

Certainly. We are co-heirs with Christ of "all that the Father hath."

There is also:

20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.

I realize that Stephen doesn't find the Doctrine and Covenants to be scripture, but if talking about our (LDS) beliefs then scriptures like the above influence our interpretation of Biblical scriptures concerning being heirs.

[Traveler]

Certainly. We are co-heirs with Christ of "all that the Father hath."

.....

I find this statement very interesting - very interesting indeed. Is not the substance of the Father something that The Father has?

I do not know of any scripture that says that he will hold back anything from those that become one with him. So I wonder where the notion that he will do such a thing.

The only possible answers as I see it are:

1. he does not want to let us become G-ds. That seems rather selfish.

2. he cannot let anyone else be a G-d.

The Traveler

[Tough Grits]

This is purely a matter of definition. I am my children's father. I am their only father. They have no other father but me. If they try to pretend that another man is their father, they are wrong. They are in denial of their actual nature. They are deceived.

But that does not suggest that no other fathers exist anywhere. There are fathers many and sires many, but for me, there is but one father and one sire, and I call him Dad.

Good example.

I like patterns. If we are modeled after Heavenly Father, then why would he send us to earth, born into "families" if we didn't have that in the first estate as well?

We create children. They are very different from us in the beginning: small, can't talk, can't walk, can't feed themselves, can't see very well, can't survive without our assistance and nurturing. To me, this is like our time in the first estate with our Father in Heaven. We were taught. We were nurtured. We were spirit children of our Father, but we were not exactly like Him (just like a newborn babe is not exactly like the full-grown adults that created it).

Then, after much nurturing, teaching, and growing, we send our children off into the world to find their own way, while hopefully keeping to the standards and truth that we were supposed to have taught them. This reminds me of Heavenly Father sending us to earth to "find our own way" while still holding to the standards and truth that we were taught in the first estate.

Our doctrine is centered on family. Mistakenly, some think our earthly family is the center of all we hold dear as Latter-day Saints. I would say, that the real reason we hold families so sacred, is because we have a perfect, Heavenly template of family that is hard-wired into our very being, our very essence. We know families are sacred, because every sinew, every particle of our bodies and spirits reminds of us a greater, eternal family that we belong to.

For me, my Father in Heaven is who I am striving to return to. How can I return to something that I wasn't part of to begin with?

Not only am I striving to return to Him, but I want as many of the people that I know and love to return to Him as well. Family. It is the center of everything. Our Heavenly Family. I know who I am. I know whose I am. I wouldn't trade what I know and believe for anything else the world has to offer. Knowing that I am a daughter of God fills me with purpose, with peace, and with courage.

How else could I battle the demons of the world on a daily basis, if not for the sole purpose of knowing that if I endure well, and remain steadfast and immovable in my discipleship, that I will have the opportunity to return to my Father in Heaven?

[SteveVH]

Helena, your observations are spot on. It would have been easy to fall into a debate type conversation in this string. I read a little more carefully, and realized that Traveler and Vort were not so much arguing for the necessity of our sharing in God's substance, but rather that the idea is plausible. On the surface, it is. So I decided to look into Jewish understanding, and found acceptance of the idea of us sharing in God in some way deeper than our thoughts.

Of course I also believe that our doctrine that God is wholly separate from his creation is both plausible and scriptural. I imagine that this conversation can be rich in explanations of how are different perspectives play out for us today and into eternity.

The Catholic faith maintains that we will share in God's divinity by sharing in the very life of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as adopted sons and daughters of God. So we very much believe that we are incorporated into God's being insofar as we share in his divinity. But the point is we will always be sons and daughters of God; we will never be God. What this means is really beyond the grasp of any of us; Love beyond all telling. In any event, we do not believe that we replicate into many gods. We simply and wonderfully share in the life of the one, true God. That is the Catholic understanding as far as I am aware.

I agree that this can be a very interesting discussion, considering the different perspectives and it will be very interesting to see where it goes. It sounds as if we do have some comon ground. What I have found is that the two different perspectives result many times in speaking past one another with both sides shaking their heads. In this case I think we agree that we do take on divinity, but not in the same way or with the same result.

Edited March 7, 2013 by StephenVH

[SteveVH]

There is also:

I realize that Stephen doesn't find the Doctrine and Covenants to be scripture, but if talking about our (LDS) beliefs then scriptures like the above influence our interpretation of Biblical scriptures concerning being heirs.

Absolutely, it would have to influence your interpretation. One has to take their faith as a whole. We hold Sacred Tradition equal to Sacred Scripture, so I am certainly influenced by what I believe to be revealed truth which lies outside of the Bible. As such, I certainly respect your belief in the Doctrine and Covenants as well as the rest of your Scriptures.

[Jason_J]

Catechism of the Catholic Church-

460 The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":"For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God." "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God." "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."

Very interesting indeed! Always interesting to compare LDS exaltation with Catholic/Orthodox theosis, and how our differing understandings of the nature of God and man affect those doctrinal differences.

[SteveVH]

Catechism of the Catholic Church-

460 The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":"For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God." "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God." "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."

Very interesting indeed! Always interesting to compare LDS exaltation with Catholic/Orthodox theosis, and how our differing understandings of the nature of God and man affect those doctrinal differences.

In my opinion this is the source of all doctrinal differences, or it at least provides the lens through which we view most aspects of our respective faiths and even our world.

[SteveVH]

Interesting discussion.

As we talk about substance and being - we know that G-d can create beings and beings of substance.

In the philosophical sense, all beings have "substance", whether divine, in the case of God, angelic in the case of angels, or human in the case of mankind. The Father, Son and Holy spirit share the same divine substance which is unique only to God. My position is that no other being possesses divinity as part of its nature other than God.

We also know that G-d has seen fit to add differentiation to his being. This differentiation is "The Father", "The Son" and "The Holy Ghost".

From the Catholic position we would say that there is no differentiation in God's being. Each person of the Godhead shares in the divine substance. The distinction between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is not one of differentiation in being but distinction according to relationship only, between Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Jesus, first being God, humbled himself to become man as well. He "assumed" flesh which means that his divine nature was separate and apart from the human nature he later took on.

The scripture say that this differentiation is "one" G-d. But the interesting thing is that in Hebrew there are two words for "one" that are translated into the single English word one. In our case English is the only common means to communicate our ideas and understanding. If we study the ancient Hebrew word that is use to describe "one" G-d we find it is the exact same word to describe a man and a woman being "one" in marriage. The poetic symbolic term is "one flesh".

When a man and woman "become one" it is, in a essense, so real that nine months later you have to give it a name. The love between a man and a woman, that incredible intimacy that results in life, is a foreshadowing of the relationship we will have with God. So I would say that we are certainly hunting in the same direction. The union we will have with God, however is a spiritual union and is beyond our comprehension. Heaven is described as a wedding feast. Christ refers to his Church as his spouse. So all of the language of marriage is used to describe this union with God. That is a great observation, Traveler.

We also know from scripture that G-d intends for man to be "one" with the Father - in the same manner or way that Jesus is "one" with the Father. I purport that there are two way to look at this. The first is in understanding the "oneness" of Jesus (the Son) with the Father. Thus if their "substance" or "being" is the same G-d then our "substance" or "being" becomes the same G-d with them.

And this is where we have common ground, as long as we also recognize our differences as to how we obtain divinity and what that really means. As I have said before, as a Catholic I believe that we will share in God's divinity which we receive from outside of ourselves as a gift. As adopted sons and daughters of God we share in the life of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. However, we can and do become one with God in this life time through the Eucharist. Jesus becomes one with us and we with him and each other. Thus, the importance of believing in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. If anyone is interested, this belief is so important that if we did not have the Eucharist, there would be no Catholic Church. It is the source and summit of our faith.

The other possibility in view is that G-d created man as "like" "substance" or "being" to start with and that we become "one" with The Father and The Son and The Holy Ghost - of the same substance the same as a husband and wife become one through marriage.

If there is another possibility for the meaning of "one" with G-d it would interest me - but I do believe it should be consistent with how Jesus responded when he told the Jews that he and The Father are one - and the Jews understood that to mean that Jesus was declaring himself G-d.

The Traveler

Where we can agree is that we become one with God and share in his divinity. The conversation now would have to shift to the differences between "exaltation" and "theosis" in order to explore the two options you have set forth. Catholic theology would oppose the second option; that we are made of the same divine substance as God.

Edited March 7, 2013 by StephenVH