Another attempt at describing the Trinity

[WillowTheWhisp]

I'm sorry you have completely lost me there. False gods yet children of the most High? That doesn't make sense.

Yes I too believe that there are three Gods, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are three separate individual Gods. Isn't that what I have been saying? They are all divine and they are all separate. They are not three parts of one person. That is what I have always believed and what I have always been lead to believe is Church teaching on the subject.

[JonboySquarepants]

willow, i just wanted to see you say it with the big G's. before, it seemed like you were making a difference between the big and little g's. you said to note the small g's.

-----

they are not false gods. they were judges. they were men given the title of god because of their authority over other men and because they were entrusted with the law. the psalm said God gave them that authority. "I have said, ye are gods...", but the whole context of this psalm is that these judges were not being just. read verses 2-4. it's telling them to defend the poor and fatherless and to deliver the poor and needy.

this psalm is referring to an elect few, chosen by God, to judge others according to the law.

[Maureen]

before i finish reading your post, you are really taking that verse in psalm out of context. it is not referring to godness. it is referring to judges. it is not saying we are godly or gods in the literal sense. we can even look at it this way. you were making a difference between upper case G's and lower case g's. the scripture you quoted uses a lower case g. in the bible, that usually refers to false gods or false idols. if you don't believe me that it's referring to the judges of the time who thought of themselves as gods, ask the other people on this board who are more scholarly than i.

-----

...they are not false gods. they were judges. they were men given the title of god because of their authority over other men and because they were entrusted with the law. the psalm said God gave them that authority. "I have said, ye are gods...", but the whole context of this psalm is that these judges were not being just. read verses 2-4. it's telling them to defend the poor and fatherless and to deliver the poor and needy.

this psalm is referring to an elect few, chosen by God, to judge others according to the law.

JonboySquarepants, I am not more scholarly than you, but I do agree with your interpretation of Psalms 82:6.

M. :)

[WillowTheWhisp]

willow, i just wanted to see you say it with the big G's. before, it seemed like you were making a difference between the big and little g's. you said to note the small g's.

-----

they are not false gods. they were judges. they were men given the title of god because of their authority over other men and because they were entrusted with the law. the psalm said God gave them that authority. "I have said, ye are gods...", but the whole context of this psalm is that these judges were not being just. read verses 2-4. it's telling them to defend the poor and fatherless and to deliver the poor and needy.

this psalm is referring to an elect few, chosen by God, to judge others according to the law.

On more than one occasion in Church we have been given this scripture as an illustration that we are gods rather than God's and children of the most High (God) ie actual offspring of Heavenly Father. The footnotes even refer to that. I think I'll stick with what I've been taught in Church and what is in the approved footnotes.

[JonboySquarepants]

haha:). ok. lol, read the whole psalm. the context is obviously referring to people who are placed in a position of judgement. i think you're making a mistake in picking one verse out of a chapter or book and taking it out of the context it was meant. but, if that's what you've been taught to do, then who am i to stop you?

-----

also, when you say "we are gods" what do you mean by that? are you saying that we are mini gods?

[WillowTheWhisp]

Why is it obvious? Do we all not make the mistake of judging others? Are we all not told to 'judge not, that ye be not judged' Matthew 7:1 - or was the Saviour only talking to official judges there too?

I wasn't taking one verse out of context. That is not what I have been taught to do. I have read the whole psalm, and the footnotes too. The footnotes for 6a say: Man, A Spirit Child of Heavenly Father; Man, Potential to Become Like Heavenly Father; Sons and Daughters of God; Spirit Creation.

Mini gods? Odd way of putting it but possibly the answer is yes. We are of the same species. We are his children. Therefore we have the chance to 'grow up' to become just like him.

That's not my interpretation. That's what the footnotes say. But if as you claim the whole psalm is only directed to those people who have the official capacity as judges then is it also saying that only they are children of the most High and only they have the potential to become like him? If you agree, as the Church teaches, that we are all sons and daughters of Heavenly Father then at what point does the psalm stop talking to one elite group of officials and start talking to the whole of humanity?

As you can see - far from taking just one verse out of context I very much take it in context not only in the whole psalm but in the whole of the gospel plan as taught in the church and accompanied by cross referencing to the approved footnotes and other indicated scriptures. That is how I have been taught to study scriptures, how I was taught in Institute. (I was too old for Seminary when I joined the Church) It's basically how I've always approached scripture study anyway though - it's just a lot easier with all the footnotes and cross references we have these days.

[AnthonyB]

The NT authors and as recorded by them Jesus himself at times took verses of the OT seemingly out of context and endowed them with specific meanings, which none of us have any problem with. LDS believe that they still have apostolic authority directing them, and that verses can be still endowed or decoded to give specific meanings that may not be very apparent form the context. Non-LDS believe that the apostolic wisdom was recorded in the NT and that is what we follow. We generally don't see ourselves at liberty to receive revelations that would alter the inherited meaning of the text in a way that could not be clearly seen from the text.

[rameumptom]

People from LDS seem to have a nexus that every individual person must be a seperate being. I think Lewis in "Mere Christianity" p 137-141 does a great job of getting the Trinitarians ideas across. It allows for a God who takes personalhood to the level beyond where we currently are. When the bible says God is love, trinitarian thought allows that attribute to have eternal expression. The one original being was forever 3 person and therefore capable of being in loving realtionship eternally.

If LDS find trinitarianism confusing than it is exactly how I find your views. If some of what I'm about to say is muddled I apologize but after several months reading your posts and articles about LDS you still stump me.

Jesus was eternal God, but I haven't seen anyone describe exactly how that occurred? Was He defied at the council when He laid out His plan or was he already God eternal?

The Holy Spirit is a personage of spirit, who is devine, how did that occurr?

The Father passed through stages of existence as we must to achieve Godhood, but it doesn't appear that either of the other persons in the Godhood did.

We must be in an eternal marriage to reach deification and there is a possibility that the Father is in an eternal marriage but where does that leave the other 2 persons in the godhood, neither of whom is married?

Jesus is our examplar of God, God revealed in flesh to us, yet it is the Father's possible path that we should follow not Jesus?

The problem with your explanation is that C.S. Lewis was not a standard/traditional Trinitarian. He believed more in what is called a "social" trinity, rather than what is taught in the creeds. He saw the Trinity as a relationship between three persons, rather than one person with 3 essences. That becomes a major and key difference between the Trinitarian creed and how most traditional Christians actually view God.

LDS also believe in a social trinity, wherein they are separate beings, but one in purpose and relationship. Now as to your confusion of LDS teachings, let me try and alleviate that problem.

Jesus is the literal son of God in the spirit and flesh. In the premortal existence, he was invited by God the Father to enter into a special relationship, entitled Godhead. At that point, Jesus became one with God the Father, and inherited his abilities as Eternal God. Jesus emptied himself of his divinity and glory in order to come to earth for his ministry. It seems that there are levels of godhood, just as there are levels or kingdoms of glory in the heavens. Jesus was a junior God, prior to his resurrection. Upon receiving a fullness of glory, he became God in all fullness, equal with the Father in the Godhead.

The Holy Ghost is also a "junior" God. There is not a lot of information on the Holy Ghost. There are two roads of speculation with the Holy Spirit. First, that he is one being that will eventually gain a body, just as Jesus did to receive full Godhood. The second is that the Holy Ghost is a title/position that is held by various spirit children (one at a time), wherein when it is time for one individual to go to earth, he is released from the position and another takes his place. If so, then the position could potentially be used for training and preparation for those who would be prophets on the earth.

Jesus has gone through the stages of existence, and has achieved a fullness. D&C 93 explains that Jesus went from one level of grace to a higher level of grace, receiving grace for grace, until he received a fullness. In establishing the path, he showed us how we also can be exalted by going from grace to grace, receiving grace for grace.

While the Holy Ghost is not yet married, why should we think that Jesus is not? Early Christian documents, including the Gospels of John and of Thomas tell of a special relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. Mary was the first to see the resurrected Christ. Jesus kissed her on the lips on at least one occasion, and the apostles marveled at the Savior's special relationship with Mary. There is evidence to show he was married, which became the basis for several theories and even a fictional book, the Da Vinci Code.

One of the problems is you are using the Bible as a complete history of Jesus and the apostles. It isn't. John stated that he didn't record even 100th of the sayings of Jesus. That leaves a lot out that we're missing. You assume that if it isn't clearly stated in the Bible that it didn't happen. LDS teaching is that plain and precious teachings were lost and had to be Restored. This thread shows several clear reasons why a restoration was needed: to understand the Godhead vs Trinity, eternal marriage, Jesus' role, Holy Ghost's role, etc.

Do LDS have all the answers? Of course not. We do not teach that all the truth has been restored or given to us. We teach that many plain and precious things have been restored. And for those individuals who are ready to receive those plain and precious things, it is truly a marvelous work and a wonder.

[rameumptom]

The idea that Psalms was referencing just the judges in stating, "ye are gods" is clearly wrong. Most Biblical scholars today agree that the original meaning was referencing the people, and not just the judges. And Jesus' interpretation of explaining to the Jews of his day that they were gods also shows that he understood it in the same sense.

The scriptures talk about being heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, sitting on the throne of God and ruling the earth, Jesus making us kings and priests unto God and His Father, and we have a divine nature. In Psalms 8, we are told that man is made a little less than the gods (elohim).

And the early Christian writers wrote often about the divine nature and how are goal is to become gods.

The LDS are not parsing the language here. Once one begins to study what the ancients actually believed, without parsing their words, one sees that their belief is very similar to ours today.

[Heather]

I'll have to go with Occam's Razor on this one. All these posts, and I still can't understand how God the father and Jesus Christ can be one in anything other than purpose.

[rameumptom]

before i finish reading your post, you are really taking that verse in psalm out of context. it is not referring to godness. it is referring to judges. it is not saying we are godly or gods in the literal sense. we can even look at it this way. you were making a difference between upper case G's and lower case g's. the scripture you quoted uses a lower case g. in the bible, that usually refers to false gods or false idols. if you don't believe me that it's referring to the judges of the time who thought of themselves as gods, ask the other people on this board who are more scholarly than i.

-----

willow, do you agree with me when i said that maureen was correct in saying 3 Gods(not the big G). the church says they are 3 Gods. The Father is A God, the Son is A God, and the Holy Spirit is A God(note the big G's). i just want to know if we agree on that small point. because if not, i can give you the church's definition of God. it says it there.

While some scholars insisted for years it meant the judges, many scholars are now coming around to the latent fact that it referenced actual people as gods. More scholars are now looking at the Hebrew faith as a polytheism/monolatry that was politically converted into a monotheism during the Josian Reforms.

The term used for gods is "elohim." Current scholars now look at it from the view point of the ancient Semitic divine council, where El Elyon (God most High) has his 70 divine sons that are each given a nation to reign over. Israel is given to Yahweh/Jehovah. With time, political struggles cause all the nations to fall to Yahweh's power. We see this political struggle going on in the Bible, in Job 1, where the sons of god (elohim) and Lucifer all go together to challenge Yahweh for his dominion of Israel.

Psalms is teaching us that we also can become gods/elohim, just as the divine council has it. Isaiah 6 shows Isaiah joining the divine council in its plans, and being called to a special earthly mission (cf Abraham 3 and Jesus' mission). Clearly Isaiah was seen as a member of that divine council.

We see the same thing with the apostle John, who appears before the throne of God and the book with 7 seals is brought forth. He is asked with the others if there are any that can open the sealed book - asking who should accomplish the task/mission at hand. This is another reference to the divine council, carrying over into Christian times! This same John expressed the idea several times of our divine nature: we are made kings and priests unto God and His Father (1:5-6), we shall sit down on his throne and reign over the earth, etc.

I also recommend the following articles that discuss the divine nature and Psalms 82:6.

"I Have Said, 'Ye are Gods'"

Reconsidering Psalms 82:6

[WillowTheWhisp]

The problem with your explanation is that C.S. Lewis was not a standard/traditional Trinitarian. He believed more in what is called a "social" trinity, rather than what is taught in the creeds. He saw the Trinity as a relationship between three persons, rather than one person with 3 essences.

That is what I always used to think people meant when they said 'Trinity' even before I'd ever heard of the LDS church - it wasn't until people started telling me that I was wrong to think they were separate beings that I realised when they said 'trinity' they meant something which just didn't make sense to me.

[Dr T]

Again, it is not one person with three essences it is One essence-God

[rameumptom]

Again, it is not one person with three essences it is One essence-God

Here is a scholarly view on the varying views of Trinitarians on the Trinity. The article is part of a rebuttal to a book written against the LDS Church.

Mormonism 201: Chapter 3

It does discuss also how LDS views fit into a social trinity, where the focus is on one in nature, and not one in personality. It also discusses both the Trinitarian views of oneness of God and the three-essences/persons of God, and how different Biblical scholars and early Christians viewed what it meant.

[Maureen]

The problem with your explanation is that C.S. Lewis was not a standard/traditional Trinitarian. He believed more in what is called a "social" trinity, rather than what is taught in the creeds. He saw the Trinity as a relationship between three persons, rather than one person with 3 essences. That becomes a major and key difference between the Trinitarian creed and how most traditional Christians actually view God.

Here is a scholarly view on the varying views of Trinitarians on the Trinity.

This is a perfect example of a non-believer of the Trinity misrepresent what the Trinity actually is. The reason Lewis believed in a social trinity is because the persons of the Godhead (Trinity) do relate to and with each other. Lewis believed in the Trinity that Trinitarians believe in, because there is only one doctrine of the Trinity, not varying views. What you may interpret as varying views are in reality non-trinitarian doctrines, like Modalism or Arianism.

I find it strange how some LDS complain that anti-mormons are always misunderstanding and accusing LDS of believing in doctrines they do not believe in; but it seems perfectly fine when LDS do the same thing with Protestant/Catholic doctrine. You'd almost think these LDS were being anti-Protestant or anti-Catholic.

I understand that LDS do not believe in the Trinity, but it's only respectful to not misrepresent what Trinitarians believe in.

M.

[rameumptom]

C.S. Lewis believed many things that would shock most traditional Christians. He believed that man would become as God is. He believed in the relational/social Trinity, and not in the Trinity as established in the creeds. He suggested in his writings that those of other faiths that do good things will be blessed and accepted of Jesus, as if those good deeds were done in His name.

Let me quote the Athanasian Creed, which is accepted by all Trinitarians as their view on the Trinity:

1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic (universal) faith;

2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;

4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.

5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.

6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.

7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.

8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.

9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.

11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.

12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.

13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.

14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.

15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;

16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;

18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.

19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;

20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.

21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.

22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.

23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.

25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.

26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.

27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.

29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.

31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.

32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.

33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.

34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.

35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.

36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.

37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;

38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;

39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;

40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;

42. and shall give account of their own works.

43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.

44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved. [/unquote]

So, we have an admission that God/Trinity is incomprehensible. The are three-in-one, and one-in-three. I have explained very clearly in my posts exactly what is taught in the creeds. If the traditional Christians do not believe as it is written here and as I explained, it isn't my fault. Don't get mad at me, as I've studied it for decades so as to understand the Trinity as it is believed by Trinitarian scholars (I've spent weeks discussing it with many Catholic priests, Baptist ministers, and seminarians, so as to ensure I understand how it is). It isn't my fault that the Trinity is incomprehensible, as the creed even announces that it is!

But I have yet to find these ideas clearly spelled out in the Bible, which clearly describes God as being anthropomorphic, with body, parts and passions, etc.

Let me recommend another article on God being anthropomorphic, by my good friend Kerry Shirts:

The God *With* Body, Parts & Passions

He quotes non-Mormon Christian scholars that support the idea of God being more akin to the Godhead and LDS belief, than with the Trinity.

[WillowTheWhisp]

So, we have an admission that God/Trinity is incomprehensible

That whole creed is incomprehensible to me. Three but not three? Trinity in unity and unity in trinity? Does that really make sense to the people who believe it? I know people who say they believe in the Trinity but I don't think they actually believe what they are supposed to believe according to that.

[Dr T]

Reading that makes sense to me. The anthropomorphic things are just that a manly way to describe God. He is incomprehensible because he is omni all-beyond full comprehension. I see that you said you've studied it for years and talked to people and still cannot find it in the Bible that way. Those conclusions come from the Bible. Take one point at a time and show me how that is inconsistent with what the Bible teaches. Scripture says that it will be foolishness to man. I'm not surprised that it seems foolish to you. It is from God not man. Lets work though them and see where you have a problem.

Do you disagree with #1. To be saved you must have faith from the universal truth of God?

[jadams_4040]

Stampede,

Given that historical statements made by LDS people are so often decontextualized and then held to ridicule, I would hope that you out of courtesy wouldn't return the favour.

LDS see a strong nexus between person and being, 1 person to 1 being. The borg example was not in anyway an attempt to describe God but to give examples of other ways of seeing the connection between person and being.

If you read the DrewM post on test proofs for the Trinity and then read my reply, you'll see I have no intention of persuading you from your beliefs, I'd agree that is something best left to the Holy Spirit. However I have seen a number of LDS misrepresent trinitarian belief and whether your belief it true or not, and even if it makes no sense to you, understanding properly someone elses view is a great to decrease the misunderstandings and even antagonizism that has existed between LDS and traditional Christians.

And from what you are saying, you do not understand the trinity, as no body else does either, If your trinity comes from the biblical verses that are vastly outnumbered by non trinty biblical verses,Then how is your point being made? And lets remember just how the trinity theory got hear in the first place, it was an "agreement" between contenteous argueing men whom disagreed on pretty much everything they tryed to agree on, And of course this agreement was during the dark ages, which sheds further doubt as to any "inspirational" knowledge.:)

[AnthonyB]

And from what you are saying, you do not understand the trinity, as no body else does either, If your trinity comes from the biblical verses that are vastly outnumbered by non trinty biblical verses,Then how is your point being made? And lets remember just how the trinity theory got hear in the first place, it was an "agreement" between contenteous argueing men whom disagreed on pretty much everything they tryed to agree on, And of course this agreement was during the dark ages, which sheds further doubt as to any "inspirational" knowledge.:)

jadams,

Firstly the creeds were written during the time of the Roman Empire, the dark ages are generally viewed as having started after the fall of said empire.

As for the verses for and against creedal trinitarianism, which ever creed you pick, I would agree that the evidence is not indisputable, because people have been cearly disputing about for centuries now. I personally don't believe that strict adherence to any creedal formulae is necessary for salvation. The creeds were an attempt to explain the paradox that the bible records. Of how the God became man and dwelt among us, yet this all occurred within the most monothiestic people of the time.

It is incomprehensible to me why God would go and fashion a people to strictly adhere to monotheism and have them lambast their neighbours for polytheism. Only to have God turn around and tell them that infact polytheism is correct. IMHO either the Almighty has one tremendous sense humour or the LDS are wrong.

rameumptom,

Sorry I had to cut and past your name, I presume it is has a meaning cause it is not a easy one to commit to memory to spell properly when replying to you.

All the beliefs that you attributed to Lewis that you seem to think may cause other Christians problems are mostly things that I was taught to believe even before I had read Lewis. As for relational aspect of the trinity, why do you seem to think that any of the creeds say that they are not in relationship? Even the Athanasian Creed still uses "person" when describing the persons of the trinity.

A poll of the non-LDS Christians on this board would be interesting, I think that nearly all of them ascribe to the persons having interpersonal relationship with each other.

The passion statement confuses my somewhat, what do you LDS mean by it, when you accuse us of not believing in a God of passion? The most well known, almost cliched verse in Evanglelicalism is John 3:16. (You must have at least seen the "bannermen" who hold it up at every event known to man.) "God so loved the world..." Odd verse for people to hold so dearly who don't believe God is passionate.

[rameumptom]

jadams,

rameumptom,

Sorry I had to cut and past your name, I presume it is has a meaning cause it is not a easy one to commit to memory to spell properly when replying to you.

All the beliefs that you attributed to Lewis that you seem to think may cause other Christians problems are mostly things that I was taught to believe even before I had read Lewis. As for relational aspect of the trinity, why do you seem to think that any of the creeds say that they are not in relationship? Even the Athanasian Creed still uses "person" when describing the persons of the trinity.

A poll of the non-LDS Christians on this board would be interesting, I think that nearly all of them ascribe to the persons having interpersonal relationship with each other.

The passion statement confuses my somewhat, what do you LDS mean by it, when you accuse us of not believing in a God of passion? The most well known, almost cliched verse in Evanglelicalism is John 3:16. (You must have at least seen the "bannermen" who hold it up at every event known to man.) "God so loved the world..." Odd verse for people to hold so dearly who don't believe God is passionate.

I work for a Christian minister, who used to be a Southern Baptist minister. He tells everyone, he "used to be a Southern baptist, now I'm a Christian." That is because of many of their creeds and requirements to be saved that are not Biblical. We have some very good discussions, where we respectfully consider each other's side. He brought up to me the fact that C.S. Lewis would rankle many of the key beliefs of "conservative" Christians, and mentioned these as example. I was already aware of a couple of them.

I know that the average Christian believes that God is love. However, when the creeds insist on a God without "body, parts or passions", one can only consider that a strict reading of it (and I have known some Christian pastors that do), would insist that God does not love - at least not in the way we do, as it would be incomprehensible for us, as he isn't man-like and doesn't have human passions. Here, we have John imbuing passion on God, when if God is made of non-matter, it is a meaningless statement. Under the concept of TULIP, which many Christians believe, God chooses whom he will save and condemns the rest, and it is all predestinated. Other Christians would condemn babies that were not baptized to hell (a la St Augustine); while more would condemn the Amazonian who never has heard of Jesus to that same hell. And then there is the case for tossing all Mormons into hell, as well. Just where does "God so loved the world" fit into such a limited salvation? If he is so unfeeling as to condemn innocent peoples to hell, who did not have a chance to hear his message, then how can he be so loving in any context (human or non-human)?

For this reason, the God of the creeds is impassable. He is not touched by anything, and whether one of us lives or dies, exalts or perishes, just IS because he is a God without body, parts or passions.

Now, do most Christians believe this? Probably not. Yet the creeds are still there and refuse to budge.

[rameumptom]

Reading that makes sense to me. The anthropomorphic things are just that a manly way to describe God. He is incomprehensible because he is omni all-beyond full comprehension. I see that you said you've studied it for years and talked to people and still cannot find it in the Bible that way. Those conclusions come from the Bible. Take one point at a time and show me how that is inconsistent with what the Bible teaches. Scripture says that it will be foolishness to man. I'm not surprised that it seems foolish to you. It is from God not man. Lets work though them and see where you have a problem.

Do you disagree with #1. To be saved you must have faith from the universal truth of God?

There are some things in the Athanasian Creed that I agree with. I do agree with #1. However, what then is claimed as the catholic/universal faith must be examined by what is in the Bible and perhaps the early Christian Fathers. In the Bible, there is only a requirement to believe and follow Jesus. Nowhere does it state that the Trinity must be believed in. And so while I do not mind if other wish to believe in the Trinity, I do mind when they impose a sanction on me if I do not believe in the exact thing.

I do not see in the Bible where it says Father, Son and Holy Ghost are incomprehensible. I do read in John 17:3 that eternal life means knowing the Father and the Son. How can I know them if they are incomprehensible? Clearly there is a logic problem here, and I don't believe it is with me. If we must know them, yet they are unknowable, then we are all lost.

Now, do most Christians believe that? No. But they haven't spent decades pondering what the Godhead/Trinity is all about, either. Most are too busy wondering who will be voted off the island next.

[AnthonyB]

rameumptom,

I was brought up in a non creedal tradition, so I'm not aware of all the creeds out there, I doubt anyone would know them all. Could you enlighten me as to which creed(s) actually says God is without "passion" and the context. I cannot conceive that someone actually thinks God is without feelings

[rameumptom]

One place it is found is in the Anglican and Episcopelian Churches' Creed, from the common prayer book:

I. Of Faith in the Holy Trinity

There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the Maker, and Preserver of all things both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there are three persons, of one substance, power and eterntity; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.

Official creed of Anglican/Episcopal Church

Kerry Shirts, a good friend of mine, has written an article on why God is a God with body, parts and passion:

The God *With* Body, Parts & Passions

The idea that God is without body, parts and passions is accepted by most (but not all) traditional Christian sects - though once again, many members of those sects do not believe the creed.

This is why you'll see me speak out against creeds, and not against particular religions, as many within those faiths may not believe all the creeds. We've seen that here, where some have told me that their view of the Trinity is a certain way (which is fine for them), but it isn't what the creed their particular sect may actually uphold.

[AnthonyB]

rameumptom,

Ok so I'd see that as not saying God has no feelings but that God doesn't have bodily passions. As in no body parts and no body passions, parts and passions or a description of the word body. That is he doesn't lust, hunger or thirst. It doesn't mean he is not passionate or have passions, just not bodily ones.