Comma Johanneum and Mormon double Standard

[_ClarkGoble]

It does no good to say some things are one unless you can establish what is meant by that unity.

The primary problem on traditional formulations of the Trinity is in thinking of unity purely as substance. Which leads to the logical problems of the Trinity. There are of course ways to deal with this. Duns the Supreme Court has my favorite approaches and even though I don't accept an Augustinian Trinity I think some of Duns the Supreme Court' thoughts on substance are likely correct.

It's also important to note that prominent Mormons have accepted a substantial unity to the Godhead. Orson Pratt is the most famous with a rather odd materialist take on it. The more common view, especially in the 20th century, was far more nominalistic of course. But there's really no theological reason to assume the nominalistic views where the unity is just of mental states is correct. I'd actually argue there are compelling reasons within the Mormon tradition to be very skeptical of nominalist takes on divine unity.

[_Mittens]

Substantia

There were two major Latin words involved. The first is substantia, Although the word was idiomatically to mean “goods” or “property” and in a legal sense to denote “ that to which two or more parties could share legal claim,” there never was never much doubt as to what the Church Fathers intended when using substantia was simply the being of God. Thus to say , with the Latin orthodox theologians, that Father,Son, and Spirit were consubstantialis was to say that they shared the same basic “thing” or “what” that they were: namely, they were God.

Godhead, God, substance Essence and Being all synonyms

[_ClarkGoble]

Earnest reply but why would Mormon care what later Latin Fathers thought? Beyond perhaps arguing some Mormon doctrines aren't as far out of the history of Christianity as some present. But from a Mormon perspective most of these figures are already from a period when the nature of God was lost. Many (myself included) would argue that part of the problem was thinking about God through a lens of Greek absolutism about God. (The God or Aristotle or Plato)

I recognize our other Christian friends would disagree with that.

As I said saying God is one (which I believe) means little unless we can explain how they are one. That many of the fathers up to Augustine saw this through the lens of a more Platonic conception seems true but hardly the issue.

[_Mittens]

It does no good to say some things are one unless you can establish what is meant by that unity.

The primary problem on traditional formulations of the Trinity is in thinking of unity purely as substance. Which leads to the logical problems of the Trinity. There are of course ways to deal with this. Duns the Supreme Court has my favorite approaches and even though I don't accept an Augustinian Trinity I think some of Duns the Supreme Court' thoughts on substance are likely correct.

It's also important to note that prominent Mormons have accepted a substantial unity to the Godhead. Orson Pratt is the most famous with a rather odd materialist take on it. The more common view, especially in the 20th century, was far more nominalistic of course. But there's really no theological reason to assume the nominalistic views where the unity is just of mental states is correct. I'd actually argue there are compelling reasons within the Mormon tradition to be very skeptical of nominalist takes on divine unity.

The definition of substance


Substantia
There were two major Latin words involved. The first is substantia, Although the word was idiomatically to mean “goods” or “property” and in a legal sense to denote “ that to which two or more parties could share legal claim,” there never was never much doubt as to what the Church Fathers intended when using substantia was simply the being of God. Thus to say , with the Latin orthodox theologians, that Father,Son, and Spirit were consubstantialis was to say that they shared the same basic “thing” or “what” that they were: namely, they were God.

Godhead, God, substance Essence and Being all synonyms

[_ClarkGoble]

The definition of substance

Again why should someone who doesn't already consider the Latin Fathers as correct assume that the definition of a latin word tells us about the Godhead? Certainly the the New Testament wasn't written in Latin.

But even with the Latin you outline you fully admit that it had different senses and depending upon which Father you are talking of it's not clear they are speaking metaphysically. Further for the Trinity to work and avoid modalism one has to change what the substance means. (Thus the appropriation of certain neoplatonic conceptions along with the metaphysical innovation of rejecting its emanation model)

[_Physics Guy]

...beer!

One word, sir. Trappistenbier.

[_Res Ipsa]

...beer!

One word, sir. Trappistenbier.

Indeed. You are clearly a gentleman of fine upbringing and excellent taste.

[_Physics Guy]

I meant to suggest that the devil might not have all the best beer. But to give fair and balanced treatment, I admit that this diabolical stuff is my favorite: http://www.arrogantbrewing.com/beer/year-round-releases/arrogant-bastard-ale.

Arg, I've probably violated about three different rules of Celestial Forum, now, counting commercial endorsements. D'oh.

[_Fence Sitter]

I meant to suggest that the devil might not have all the best beer. But to give fair and balanced treatment, I admit that this diabolical stuff is my favorite: http://www.arrogantbrewing.com/beer/year-round-releases/arrogant-bastard-ale.

Arg, I've probably violated about three different rules of Celestial Forum, now, counting commercial endorsements. D'oh.

Well you get points for your beer choice.

Bonus points if you know who said

"Whiskey, whiskey, what shall I ever do without my whiskey?"

[_Mittens]

The definition of substance

Again why should someone who doesn't already consider the Latin Fathers as correct assume that the definition of a latin word tells us about the Godhead? Certainly the the New Testament wasn't written in Latin.

But even with the Latin you outline you fully admit that it had different senses and depending upon which Father you are talking of it's not clear they are speaking metaphysically. Further for the Trinity to work and avoid modalism one has to change what the substance means. (Thus the appropriation of certain neoplatonic conceptions along with the metaphysical innovation of rejecting its emanation model)

first used by Theophilus (A.D. 168 A.D. - 183 A.D.), or from the Lat. trinitas, first used by Tertullian (A.D. 220 A.D.), to express this doctrine. The propositions involved in the doctrine are these: 1. That God is one, and that there is but one God (Deut 6:4; 1 Kings 8:60; Isa 44:6; Mark 12:29,32; John 10:30). 2. That the Father is a distinct divine Person (hypostasis, subsistentia, persona, suppositum intellectuale), distinct from the Son and the Holy Spirit. 3. That Jesus Christ was truly God, and yet was a Person distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit. 4. That the Holy Spirit is also a distinct divine Person.
(from Easton's Bible Dictionary, PC Study Bible formatted electronic database Copyright © 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)

John Ankerberg [Everything You Ever Wanted to know about Mormonism]
Page 104-105

1. There is Only One God
2. The Father is God;
3. Jesus Christ, the Son, is God
4. The Holy Spirit is a Person, is eternal and is therefore God
5. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct persons.


God- Godhead- Substance- Essence- Being [ all Synonyms ]