Non-LDS view of God

[robby0024]

Basically, most believe God to be all powerful, all knowing, without beginning or end. I don't think most of the denominations teach or even know why God created us. Mostly, I think it's up to the individual to freely believe why he or she thinks they are here.

They also teach of a trinity. Very confusing doctrine and I think many of the denominations teach slightly differently about it. But basically it's understood as God is one revealed as three person's. Only one God, one substance but revealed as three. An example given to me by a friend was, there is time (God) and time has three principles; past,present and future (father,son and spirit) all time but different aspects. So that's the best I can understand it and explain it. Its a very difficult doctrine to grasp. As God is beyond human comprehension and we are not made to fully understand him, as many Christians would say.

[PolarVortex]

They also teach of a trinity. Very confusing doctrine and I think many of the denominations teach slightly differently about it.

 

I was always taught that the Trinity was like our sun, which is one heavenly body that comes to us in three benevolent forms: light, heat, and gravity.  That was the Lutheran explanation I heard, anyway. 

 

But I've never understood why people regard the Trinity as a confusing doctrine, nor have I understood why Trinitarian denominations are ridiculed over this belief.  I remember reading Count Belisarius by Robert Graves and being amazed that people of that time (AD 500 or so) could fight over something so fiercely.  People then fought over the Trinity the way people now bicker over abortion, gun control, capital punishment, and knitting in church.

[Guest]

Basically, most believe God to be all powerful, all knowing, without beginning or end. I don't think most of the denominations teach or even know why God created us. Mostly, I think it's up to the individual to freely believe why he or she thinks they are here.

 

All the major denominations not only know but teach why God created us.  It is very central to their faith.  A member of such denomination might not know or understand why, but that doesn't have anything to do with what the Church knows/teaches.

 

 

They also teach of a trinity. Very confusing doctrine and I think many of the denominations teach slightly differently about it. But basically it's understood as God is one revealed as three person's. Only one God, one substance but revealed as three. An example given to me by a friend was, there is time (God) and time has three principles; past,present and future (father,son and spirit) all time but different aspects. So that's the best I can understand it and explain it. Its a very difficult doctrine to grasp. As God is beyond human comprehension and we are not made to fully understand him, as many Christians would say.

 

It's not a more difficult concept relative to the Godhead and every denomination that is Trinitarian agree with the definition of Trinitarian (otherwise, you're not going to be considered Trinitarian, let alone Christian).

 

But yes, it is relatively more difficult for a layman to explain than the Godhead because the Trinitarians always need to explain that the God substance is not something that can be experienced in human experience.  In the Godhead, we can just say - it's the same substance as us and somehow this is sufficient.  We don't know the exalted substance of God either, so it is not something that can be experienced either - but, LDS folks are satisfied with saying we don't know it but it's not confusing at all... which, basically, is the exact same thing that the Trinitarians say about the God substance yet it's considered confusing to non-Trinitarians.

Edited February 3, 2015 by anatess

[Vort]

The "problem" with the doctrine of the Trinity from a non-Trinitarian perspective is that it's based on neoPlatonic philosophical ideas. Plato famously talked about the "tripartate soul", which doubtless formed a basis for Trinitarian ideas. His concept of two horses, one mortal, fallible, ugly, and misbegotten of the corrupt elements of the earth, the other pure, strong, beautiful, perfect, and made of a conceptual substance introduces an absolute divide between the corruption of anything and everything on the earth and the utter perfection of the heavens, and never the twain shall meet.

 

I believe it was to this background of thought that Joseph Smith revealed that there is no such thing as "immaterial matter", that the elements themselves are refinable, and that they are in fact eternal. In order to accept the Trinity, you really have to buy into the whole Platonic metaphysics. Those of us who do not are doomed never to understand the Trinity in the same way as those who do embrace Platonic (or neoPlatonic) philosophy and cosmology.

[MrShorty]

An example given to me by a friend was, there is time (God) and time has three principles; past,present and future (father,son and spirit) all time but different aspects.

 

 

I was always taught that the Trinity was like our sun, which is one heavenly body that comes to us in three benevolent forms: light, heat, and gravity.

Not that I can claim to understand the Trinity any better than others, but aren't these descriptions more like Modalism (one entity with three "faces" or "modes" that He presents to humanity) than Trinitarianism?

[Jane_Doe]

I was the OP on this way back, and have asked many trinitarians to try to explain their view to me.   Ultimately I've decided that this is an issue I'm only going to 'get' after taking off my "Jane thinking shoes" and putting on someone else's.  While in my "Jane thinking shoes", explainations like this one--

 

I was always taught that the Trinity was like our sun, which is one heavenly body that comes to us in three benevolent forms: light, heat, and gravity.  That was the Lutheran explanation I heard, anyway. 

 

 

Are confusing because light/heat/gravity are the darn same thing, perceived with different instruments.  Hence this statement is not trinitarian but modulistic, similar to saying my "Mommy" persona is a different person than my "work phD candidate" persona....

 

I gotta ditch the "Jane thinking shoes" to understand how a trinitarian thinks... something I've had mediocre success with...(Anatass helps a lot).

Edited February 3, 2015 by Jane_Doe

[PolarVortex]

Are confusing because light/heat/gravity are the darn same thing, perceived with different instruments.  Hence this statement is not trinitarian but modulistic, similar to saying my "Mommy" persona is a different person than my "work phD candidate" persona....

 

Are you really claiming that light, heat, and gravity are the same thing, like a "bachelor" and an "unmarried man" are the same thing?  If so, I'm puzzled why my mattress seems so lumpy at night when I turn all the lights off.

 

In any case, try explaining the LDS view of God to a Protestant, Catholic, or Jew.  It's very hard for them not to regard it as polytheism.  One of my favorite writers, William Lane Craig, has gone so far as to say that Mormons aren't that different from the Greeks and Romans, who had many gods at various stages of progression. 

[Jane_Doe]

 

In any case, try explaining the LDS view of God to a Protestant, Catholic, or Jew.  It's very hard for them not to regard it as polytheism.  One of my favorite writers, William Lane Craig, has gone so far as to say that Mormons aren't that different from the Greeks and Romans, who had many gods at various stages of progression. 

 

I get your point, which is one reason why I've tried so hard to put on other people's shoes.

[prisonchaplain]

I believe I've presented this before, but I'll repeat it here.  The Trinity declares:

 

1.  The Father is God

2.  The Son is God

3.  The Holy Spirit is God

4.  There is only one God

 

That's really it.  Everything else is explanation.  Trying to explain how these three distinct persons can be truly one God (not merely one in purpose) is the difficulty.  Analogies are used--the sun, the forms of H2O (water, ice, gas), the egg, the triangle, etc.  They prove somewhat helpful for believers in the doctrine.  However, these examples of how it works fail when presented to those who question the doctrine.

 

Trinitarians reject modalism as denying the distinct personhood of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  The LDS Godhead, on the other hand, seems polytheistic to us.  A few LDS scholars grant the impression, and will suggest the term "henotheism" instead (belief on worshipping one God, though there be others).

[MrShorty]

A few additional thoughts:

 

The Trinity declares:

 

1.  The Father is God

2.  The Son is God

3.  The Holy Spirit is God

4.  There is only one God

 

That's really it.  Everything else is explanation.

Part of my own frustration is, if this is truly ALL that can really be said about what the Trinity is, why do other Christians insist that LDS do not believe in the Trinity? Why do LDS insist that we do not believe in the Trinity? (This essay might be interesting at this point: http://bycommonconsent.com/2014/12/13/mormons-and-the-trinity/ )

 

I have seen the arguments for henotheism, and. while I think I kind of understand them, I am not entirely convinced. Others have argued for a "social trinitarian" interpretation of the LDS godhead, and that makes more sense to me, though I struggle to understand the difference between Trinitarianism (capital T) and social trinitarianism.

 

(That sounds more antagonistic than I meant it to.) In the end, I think my finite, mortal mind just has difficulty grasping and conceiving the exact nature of God. I can "see through a glass darkly" and make out some vague idea of what God looks like, but I have trouble truly understanding what I see. Add to that the added difficulty of trying to express what I see vaguely into mortal, human language, and I'm not sure I expect to ever really understand the nature of God, until God chooses to reveal Himself to me more clearly.

 

Which isn't to say that I am discontent. I believe that what has been revealed is enough for where I am at in my spiritual development right now. I am not sure if it is clear enough for me to make any definitive statement for or against some of these different ways of describing God.

[Guest]

A few additional thoughts:

 

 

 

Part of my own frustration is, if this is truly ALL that can really be said about what the Trinity is, why do other Christians insist that LDS do not believe in the Trinity? Why do LDS insist that we do not believe in the Trinity?

 

The answer to those questions is simple.  Trinitarians believe that what makes God god is his substance - his essence - his material - everything that he is physically as well as spiritually.  We do not have that substance - we're not going to have that substance - we're not going to be transformed to that substance even if we end up perfected.  And there is only ONE entity that has the substance - and that is God.  LDS do not believe that, therefore, they are neither Trinitarians nor Christians.

[prisonchaplain]

I agree with Anatess that the doctrine of Exaltation plays into this.  If we can become Gods how can we be monotheistic?  Also, to say that God is essentially one is vastly different than to say He is one in purpose.  To be over-simple, is the one God of the LDS Godhead their shared purpose?  Is it their united goals that put the capital in the G?  And, if the Father, Son, and Spirit are absolute in their separateness, are they gods individually?  You begin to see from my wonderings why some LDS profer the idea of henotheism... 

[Guest]

I agree with Anatess that the doctrine of Exaltation plays into this.  If we can become Gods how can we be monotheistic?  Also, to say that God is essentially one is vastly different than to say He is one in purpose.  To be over-simple, is the one God of the LDS Godhead their shared purpose?  Is it their united goals that put the capital in the G?  And, if the Father, Son, and Spirit are absolute in their separateness, are they gods individually?  You begin to see from my wonderings why some LDS profer the idea of henotheism... 

 

PC... the LDS fundamental belief is that Intelligence is Eternal.  It is this Intelligence that makes us individuals - separate personages - and gives us consciousness.  So, what puts the capital G in God is not his Intelligence (separate personages) but the state of his Intelligence.  The material that encompasses this Intelligence is simply a manifestation of his abilities/powers at that state of progression (what he can act on).  Hence, his Godliness comes with the exalted body that gives him power.  So the physical body comes with the Intelligence that is God.

 

Do you see how the body and the spirit comprises the capital G here and how it is that specific state that is God?  So that, what is ONE is that state (there is only one of that state that is God - if you're of any other state, you're not God).  Any reference to any Intelligence that is in that state of Godhood is a person in the Godhead.

 

So that.. when we say, God - we can refer to the persons (many), or we can refer to the state of intelligence (one)... in the same manner that Trinitarians do... except that Trinitarians believe in substance as one instead of state of intelligence.  So Trinitarians, in the same manner as LDS, talk about personages when they specifically address a person in the Godhead and substance/state when referring to them collectively as one.

 

What always confuses the label is that Trinitarians (well, most people really - I know LDS does this too), can't remove their thinking of God as a substance instead of a state of progression.  So that LDS don't really say God to refer to the state but rather, the substance - in which case they refer to the person of God the Father.  This is really not a problem because God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the same in Will - so referring to one speaking/doing/acting/willing also applies to the others.

Edited February 3, 2015 by anatess

[Vort]

This argument is over a hyperliteral interpretation of the term "monotheism". When most cultures revere a pantheon of gods and you have to have an "unknown god" to fill in just in case you missed someone. any Abrahamic religion will stand out because of its insistence that (1) there is only one true God and (2) there are no other gods beside that one.

 

But once that is established and people quit believing in pantheons of gods including the god of the hearth, the god of the plow, and the god of morning breath, attention turns to the actual nature of the one true God. So finding out that that God consists of three individuals or entities is not a regression to polytheism, but a refinement of understanding.

 

In the same hyperliteral vein, note that the "Trinity" is without doubt a polytheistic belief. Don't believe me? Ask any Muslim (or Jew). For Trinitarian Christians to draw a definitional line between the "Trinity" as monotheistic and the LDS "Godhead" as polytheistic is Pharisaical gnat-straining of the most obvious kind.

[prisonchaplain]

If the distinction between God as one essential been, eternally distinct from creation, were really so minor in comparison to the belief in a God who is one in purpose, but shares a unique nature within three absolutely separate beings, and a general eternal nature with all of us, then wouldn't the COJCOLDS be just another restorationist denomination? 

Edited February 4, 2015 by prisonchaplain

[The Folk Prophet]

COJCOLDS

 

I really haven't truly followed this thread...but had to comment on this. First time I've seen it. I like. :)

 

edit: Though to be thorough, it really should be TCOJCOLDS.

Edited February 4, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[prisonchaplain]

Yeah, sorta makes me feel kinda simple, being from a group that just goes by AG...

[PolarVortex]

 

edit: Though to be thorough, it really should be TCOJCOLDS.

 

Or TCOJCOLdS?  I can't count the times I've been corrected for miscapitalizing that D.

[pugiofidei]

In traditional Catholic thought, God is that being of which the essence is, "to be". He is not a "thing", as such; it isn't as though one can say, "There's the cat, there's the cloud, there's the moon, and there's God." He is, rather, the necessary precondition without which nothing exists. He is immutable--which is to say, he does not change, and cannot, since change is possible only with things that lack something.

E.g., if I move from where I am now to a location two yards away, it is because I do not now have that location, and must change to gain it. Likewise, I must lose my present location in order to gain the other. I am, therefore, mutable; there is within me the capacity to change.

I ought to note, though, that within my own communion the view of Duns Scotus exists, which posits a single category, "being", and makes God the highest instance of that category. This is called the "univocivity of being", and is the first part of the "Via Moderna" that began taking shape in the late 13th century. Scotus' view is not widely held today, though; the "Via Antiqua" is far more prevelant, which sees all created being as participated being, sharing somewhat in the great "to be" that is God, though not pantheistically. God is God, creation is creation, and these are two fundamentally distinct ways of existing. 

Another way to put it--which is rather close to the way God Himself put it to Moses--is that God simply and plainly "is". He is "isness".

Taken by itself, I acknowledge that this view seems to make God seem a bit distant and alien. Having said that, a full theological description of man would likely make man himself seem distant and alien. The above really implies more than it says; it implies God is a singular Act of Knowledge, Love, and Power. We finite beings encounter this Act as it relates to us in a particular slice of time, making us experience it as an unfolding series of individual acts.

For instance, once my son had not yet been born. Now he is. From my finite standpoint, I experience this a change in God's activity; at this one time, God had not yet created my son. Then he changed to the state of having created my son. This isn't the truth as it exists in and of itself, though. It is merely the way in which I, a time-bound soul, encounter the truth.  God hasn't changed; His created reality has merely changed its particular relationship to him.

Edited July 26, 2015 by pugiofidei

[Jane_Doe]

In traditional Catholic thought, God is that being of which the essence is, "to be". He is not a "thing", as such; it isn't as though one can say, "There's the cat, there's the cloud, there's the moon, and there's God." He is, rather, the necessary precondition without which nothing exists. He is immutable--which is to say, he does not change, and cannot, since change is possible only with things that lack something.

E.g., if I move from where I am now to a location two yards away, it is because I do not now have that location, and must change to gain it. Likewise, I must lose my present location in order to gain the other. I am, therefore, mutable; there is within me the capacity to change.

I ought to note, though, that within my own communion the view of Duns Scotus exists, which posits a single category, "being", and makes God the highest instance of that category. This is called the "univocivity of being", and is the first part of the "Via Moderna" that began taking shape in the late 13th century. Scotus' view is not widely held today, though; the "Via Antiqua" is far more prevelant, which sees all created being as participated being, sharing somewhat in the great "to be" that is God, though not pantheistically. God is God, creation is creation, and these are two fundamentally distinct ways of existing. 

Another way to put it--which is rather close to the way God Himself put it to Moses--is that God simply and plainly "is". He is "isness".

Taken by itself, I acknowledge that this view seems to make God seem a bit distant and alien. Having said that, a full theological description of man would likely make man himself seem distant and alien. The above really implies more than it says; it implies God is a singular Act of Knowledge, Love, and Power. We finite beings encounter this Act as it relates to us in a particular slice of time, making us experience it as an unfolding series of individual acts.

For instance, once my son had not yet been born. Now he is. From my finite standpoint, I experience this a change in God's activity; at this one time, God had not yet created my son. Then he changed to the state of having created my son. This isn't the truth as it exists in and of itself, though. It is merely the way in which I, a time-bound soul, encounter the truth.  God hasn't changed; His created reality has merely changed its particular relationship to him.

 

Your ways of thinking are... very different than what I am used to.  I wish to understand your thoughts better (if you don't mind).  Disclaimer-- I mean no offense in any of this, and apologize for any sub-optimal word choices.

 

Your explanation is strange to me, but does it make sense to you?  Or do you feel that God is simply 200% unknowable and you'll never get it?  

How did you come to these thoughts?

How does this understanding impact your life today?

[pugiofidei]

Your ways of thinking are... very different than what I am used to.  I wish to understand your thoughts better (if you don't mind).  Disclaimer-- I mean no offense in any of this, and apologize for any sub-optimal word choices.

 

Your explanation is strange to me, but does it make sense to you?  Or do you feel that God is simply 200% unknowable and you'll never get it?  

The former. :) There is a limit to knowledge, but that which can be known, can really be known. I admit I don't know the exact mechanism by which eternity and time interact. Time, however, is a measure of movement and change, which are themselves the processes of a thing stopping its act of being what it is (for example, sitting) to become what it can be (for example, standing up). It is concomittant with matter/energy, and cannot be split off from it. Destroy matter and time goes with it. We have it on God's own word that he doesn't change, which necessarily implies that he is atemporal.  

 

How did you come to these thoughts?

 

Well, first and foremost they are what my faith teaches me. On the other hand, I think I'd hold the same opinions even if I weren't a Christian, since they can be deduced "by the things that are made", if I may invoke St. Paul.

 

How does this understanding impact your life today?

It informs my prayer, keeps me in a state of holy awe, and (I believe) shields me against heresy. Having said that, valuing knowledge because it has a practical application is veerrrry much an effect of the Via Moderna and its sister, the scientific revolution.  No worries; I'm not being critical. However, my own approach to gaining knowledge has been from the standpoint of contemplation. I want to know, because existence is the object of knowledge, and existence comes from God. One cannot love what one does not know, and knowing is ordered to loving. Outside of the cheer of a richer experience of God and the world which He by His cunning and craft has made, I seek no usefulness from knowledge. It is not a tool to wield. It a greenyard full of golden blooms to bask in. 

Edited July 26, 2015 by pugiofidei

[Jane_Doe]

Again, I apologize for any sub-optimal word choices.

 

 

The former.  :) There is a limit to knowledge, but that which can be known, can really be known. I admit I don't know the exact mechanism by which eternity and time interact. Time, however, is a measure of movement and change, which are themselves the processes of a thing stopping its act of being what it is (for example, sitting) to become what it can be (for example, standing up). It is concomittant with matter/energy, and cannot be split off from it. Destroy matter and time goes with it. We have it on God's own word that he doesn't change, which necessarily implies that he is atemporal.   

 

 

So do not see God so much as a person or Father, but more as a wellspring of time/matter/etc?  

 

 

 

 

Well, first and foremost they are what my faith teaches me. On the other hand, I think I'd hold the same opinions even if I weren't a Christian, since they can be deduced "by the things that are made", if I may invoke St. Paul. 

 

 

 

By what mechanism were such things taught to you by your faith?  Were there any particular "light bulb" moments?  

 

 

 

It informs my prayer, keeps me in a state of holy awe, and (I believe) shields me against heresy. 

 

Can you elaborate on "holy awe"?  And how it would protect you against heresy?

 

 

 

 

 One cannot love what one does not know, and knowing is ordered to loving. Outside of the cheer of a richer experience of God and the world which He by His cunning and craft has made, I seek no usefulness from knowledge. It is not a tool to wield. It a greenyard full of golden blooms to bask in.  

 

Amen!

 

 

 

 

It informs my prayer, keeps me in a state of holy awe, and (I believe) shields me against heresy. Having said that, valuing knowledge because it has a practical application is veerrrry much an effect of the Via Moderna and its sister, the scientific revolution.    No worries; I'm not being critical. However, my own approach to gaining knowledge has been from the standpoint of contemplation. I want to know, because existence is the object of knowledge, and existence comes from God. One cannot love what one does not know, and knowing is ordered to loving. Outside of the cheer of a richer experience of God and the world which He by His cunning and craft has made, I seek no usefulness from knowledge. It is not a tool to wield. It a greenyard full of golden blooms to bask in.  

 

[pugiofidei]

 

Again, I apologize for any sub-optimal word choices.

Thou besorrowest yon quethes thou pickest nether-best?  No fear! You speak mighty well, especially as judged by internet standards. Never mind. Nothing should be judged by internet standards.

 

So do not see God so much as a person or Father, but more as a wellspring of time/matter/etc?  

 

The two, I would say, are not mutually exclusive. No, in truth, I should go further: the life of God consists in Fatherhood. Any created fatherhood, such as exists among the children of men, is more or less analogical to God's eternal fatherhood. God cannot not be father, any more than he can know less than all things.The question arises as to why, and that is certainly worth looking into. Consider, first, the two main workings of "gast", or "spirit"; "God is spirit", as we learn at the feet of old John the Gospelman.  What deeds do a spirit do? The nature of spirit is to love and to know.

Love is to will the good of another as other, and also has the characteristic of being an act of self-donation--lover gives himself over to the beloved one. Now, God has no bounds on his power of love. And what does he love? "Man" might be a good answer, and it would be true. Aye, thanks be to God, it is true. However, God is infinite, and man is finite. The most seemly object of infinite love is not a finite thing, but an infinite thing. The conclusion we must reach is that God loves his infinite self infinitely. But in order to do so, he must know himself, and again, this must be infinitely. This perfect self-knowledge we call "Logos", or "Word". This word is "with God", and therefore does not, as a human word does, pass from utterance.

The idea of having a son and of having a word (or mental word, i.e., "idea") of oneself are related in this aspect of passing on a likeness. You now are sitting in a chair, I assume. You have a certain "word" in your mind, a certain "idea" of what it is for a thing to be a chair. More specifically, you have an idea of what it means for a thing to be the very chair upon which you are sat. That idea, that "word", falls somewhat short of the thing itself. It allows you to identify it, but it is not identical to the thing. With God this cannot be; his Act of Knowing is perfect. What he knows cannot fall short in any way from the thing itself. What, then, do we say of God's mental word of Himself? To wit: it is everything that God is, everlasting, almighty, all-knowing, filling every place everywhere. We therefore must call "it" he; he, the Word, is God.

By eternally speaking the Word that is himself, God eternally passes his likeness onto another. What is the name of the act of passing one's likeness onto another? Fatherhood. What is the act of receiving said likeness? Sonship.  We therefore call this other "the Son". God is an everlasting Father.    

 

By what mechanism were such things taught to you by your faith?  Were there any particular "light bulb" moments?  

 

Well, I went through a rather stellar RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation For Adults) program. Beyond that, the Church has seen to it that her catechisms and the works of her doctors have stayed in print. As for "light bulb" moments, I'd say the first time Fr. Rollie described the Blessed Trinity to me was one of those.

 

Can you elaborate on "holy awe"?  And how it would protect you against heresy?

 

Imagine you were walking in the park and a herd of Mammoths stormed by in front of you, trumpeting and being otherwise majestic and whatnot. Now, my first reaction would, I think, be dumbfounded silence. I mean, what could one possibly say that would add anything to what was going on? Maybe you'd react the same way. On the other hand, maybe you'd be more vocal. In the final analysis, the effect of the event on your emotional state would likely be one of awe. Holy awe, or reverence, is like this, but dialled up to 11.

 

Heresy, if we take the word back to its root, is the act of pulling out a single thread from the tapestry of the faith, and holding it up as though it were the entire tapestry. It is, to quote Chesterton, the tyranny of one idea. Broad knowledge of the Godhead allows a man to step back and see the tapestry as a whole, or at least to see enough of it that a single beautiful thread will no longer be an adequate snare.

 

 

 

Edited July 30, 2015 by pugiofidei

[Finrock]

 

 

Again, I apologize for any sub-optimal word choices.

Thou besorrowest yon quethes thou pickest nether-best?  No fear! You speak mighty well, especially as judged by internet standards. Never mind. Nothing should be judged by internet standards.

 

So do not see God so much as a person or Father, but more as a wellspring of time/matter/etc?  

 

The two, I would say, are not mutually exclusive. No, in truth, I should go further: the life of God consists in Fatherhood. Any created fatherhood, such as exists among the children of men, is more or less analogical to God's eternal fatherhood. God cannot not be father, any more than he can know less than all things.The question arises as to why, and that is certainly worth looking into. Consider, first, the two main workings of "gast", or "spirit"; "God is spirit", as we learn at the feet of old John the Gospelman.  What deeds do a spirit do? The nature of spirit is to love and to know.

Love is to will the good of another as other, and also has the characteristic of being an act of self-donation--lover gives himself over to the beloved one. Now, God has no bounds on his power of love. And what does he love? "Man" might be a good answer, and it would be true. Aye, thanks be to God, it is true. However, God is infinite, and man is finite. The most seemly object of infinite love is not a finite thing, but an infinite thing. The conclusion we must reach is that God loves his infinite self infinitely. But in order to do so, he must know himself, and again, this must be infinitely. This perfect self-knowledge we call "Logos", or "Word". This word is "with God", and therefore does not, as a human word does, pass from utterance.

The idea of having a son and of having a word (or mental word, i.e., "idea") of oneself are related in this aspect of passing on a likeness. You now are sitting in a chair, I assume. You have a certain "word" in your mind, a certain "idea" of what it is for a thing to be a chair. More specifically, you have an idea of what it means for a thing to be the very chair upon which you are sat. That idea, that "word", falls somewhat short of the thing itself. It allows you to identify it, but it is not identical to the thing. With God this cannot be; his Act of Knowing is perfect. What he knows cannot fall short in any way from the thing itself. What, then, do we say of God's mental word of Himself? To wit: it is everything that God is, everlasting, almighty, all-knowing, filling every place everywhere. We therefore must call "it" he; he, the Word, is God.

By eternally speaking the Word that is himself, God eternally passes his likeness onto another. What is the name of the act of passing one's likeness onto another? Fatherhood. What is the act of receiving said likeness? Sonship.  We therefore call this other "the Son". God is an everlasting Father.    

 

By what mechanism were such things taught to you by your faith?  Were there any particular "light bulb" moments?  

 

Well, I went through a rather stellar RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation For Adults) program. Beyond that, the Church has seen to it that her catechisms and the works of her doctors have stayed in print. As for "light bulb" moments, I'd say the first time Fr. Rollie described the Blessed Trinity to me was one of those.

 

Can you elaborate on "holy awe"?  And how it would protect you against heresy?

 

Imagine you were walking in the park and a herd of Mammoths stormed by in front of you, trumpeting and being otherwise majestic and whatnot. Now, my first reaction would, I think, be dumbfounded silence. I mean, what could one possibly say that would add anything to what was going on? Maybe you'd react the same way. On the other hand, maybe you'd be more vocal. In the final analysis, the effect of the event on your emotional state would likely be one of awe. Holy awe, or reverence, is like this, but dialled up to 11.

 

Heresy, if we take the word back to its root, is the act of pulling out a single thread from the tapestry of the faith, and holding it up as though it were the entire tapestry. It is, to quote Chesterton, the tyranny of one idea. Broad knowledge of the Godhead allows a man to step back and see the tapestry as a whole, or at least to see enough of it that a single beautiful thread will no longer be an adequate snare.

 

 

 

 

 

Good Afternoon pugiofidei! =)

 

This is what I understand you to be saying:

 

God, who is not a thing, has an idea of Himself that is perfect, this perfect, infinite idea of God's self is the Son, Jesus Christ?

 

-Finrock

Edited August 4, 2015 by Finrock

[pugiofidei]

Good Afternoon pugiofidei! =)

 

This is what I understand you to be saying:

 

God, who is not a thing, has an idea of Himself that is perfect, this perfect, infinite idea of God's self is the Son, Jesus Christ?

 

-Finrock

Provided we are working from mutually understood definitions, yes on all counts.

A "thing" is participated being--a thing which has a part in being, but does not have the essence "being". For instance, a horse is, it exists, but its existence is not the same as its essence, which might be roughly stated as, "A four-legged, plant-eating maned beast, with a straight-haired tail, one hoof to each foot, and a staggering power to run swiftly." Its essence is not, "The act of self-standing being". The essence of the horse and its existence are two different things. This can further be ably demonstrated by removing a horse's leg. This one horse becomes three-legged, but that does not make a horse a three-legged thing. A horse, being made of matter, is able to exist in a state other than its essence. 

But then, this is fairly close to the definition of matter: matter is something that can become something else. A green apple can become a red one. A red one can (with some loss) become a human, should a human come along and eat it.

And, of course, God cannot have an imperfect idea. For God to know himself is for him to pass on His entire nature to the Logos. What's more, since God is an everlasting Father, there was never a time in which the Son was not. The Son, as the Logos of the Father, is perfect, and therefore exhausts, so to speak, the entire mind of God. Nothing more can be said--which is why there is only one Logos.

What's more, because both Father and Son are perfect, and it is the nature of perfection to love goodness, they each love one another infinitely. The common Will of both sighs, with a great heaving sigh of reckless love, the divine being. Love is, remember, the act of gifting oneself for the sake of the Other's good. When Father and Son yield to one another their common Being, they hold nothing back--otherwise it would be imperfect love. This Love, therefore, is all that each of them is--omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal, utterly infinite, falling short in nothing. This Third, this mutual spiration of Father and Son is, therefore, also God--the Holy Ghost. 

 

Edited August 5, 2015 by pugiofidei