Mormon Trinity

[Bill the Cat]

In a basic LDS gospel principles class, you will often get an analogy similar to this, often in reference to the Holy Spirit:

"The Sun itself may be very far away, but its light, heat, and influence can be felt by many here on Earth."

So Bill, if a satellite or radio transmitter can communicate and influence many things from long distances, why do you think that God, as LDS view Him, would be limited in that sense?

Even in mortality, Jesus Christ had power over the stormy seas without literally having to touch it all with his physical hands.

Did Jesus say He dwelled in the stormy seas? Or that He had authority over them?

He is present with all his creations through his influence, through his government, spirit and power, but he himself is a personage of tabernacle, and we are made after his likeness (DBY, 22- 24).

BY's quote does not address the separate god called "the Holy Ghost", so it is a red herring.

[Bill the Cat]

I will be gone for the next 4 days. Will get back to it once I return.

[seven7up]

Well, the initial post you made mentioning Cherbonnier was here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ll=1#post54389

I did not quote from Cherbonnier on that post at all. And when I did quote from Cherbonnier, it was starting in post #146 and I clearly did my own quoting from the original article, and nothing from any LDS websites was comparable to the sections I quoted, as you just certainly realized while performing your thorough investigation.

The entirety of the list from Thales to Plotinus you stole was verbatim from here:

http://www.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/whothe.htm

So, unless you are Kerry Shirts, you stole from him.

Actually, my list is not the same. I just checked it against Shirts' list. Mine has fewer philosophers listed and mine contains more brief quotes. That list was actually on my hard drive. Furthermore, even that list on the site you gave does not belong to Kerry Shirts. There is an old list compiled and passed on from unknown students, I believe from a philosophy class at BYU from years and years ago. Also note that I did not refer to anything close to Kerry Shirts' commentary on that page.

Then you add a brief piece of commentary reminiscent of J.Reuben Clark's speech in One Hundred Sixteenth Semi-annual Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [Conference Report, October 1945]

Really? My commentary was "reminiscent" of it? Good grief Bill.

http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content...ristianity.pdf

"The Jews indeed, but also some of our people, supposed that God should be understood as a man, that is, adorned with human members and human appearance. But the philosophers despise these stories as fabulous and formed in the likeness of poetic fictions."

The original quote, which is often cited by many LDS authors, like John A. Tvedtnes in Is God Only a Spirit, is from Ronald E. Heine, Origin Homilies on Genesis (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America, 1982), 89.

No intention to be sloppy, but I am involved with 12 different discussions with several different people per thread, on this forum alone. The reality of how I got to that particular quote is that I remembered what Origen said, or at least a part of it, and it supports the point that I was making at that moment, then I put what I remember in the search engine because I did not want to misquote it. I have no problem citing sources, and if you like I can provide every single one, especially if it means that you will perhaps concentrate more on the points being made, rather than attempting to distract from the discussion and the arguments being made.

Another common quote on this topic from Origen is from http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.vi.v.i.html, which indicates that Origen, among other early Christians, did not have any knowledge about the nature of God as being corporeal or not:



This absence of a stance on the corporeality of God among these Christians allowed for the "mystic" or the Greek Philosophical Monotheism concept of God taking over as the popular viewpoint, and thus Christianity eventually embraced this idea of God being outside time and space altogether, and not of any corporeal nature or shape.

Uh oh, this paragraph just above might be "reminiscent" of an LDS article concerning the apostasy. I'm sure you can find a paragraph similar to it. Perhaps not the same words or phrases, but a similar theme.

You then make a simple reference to Cherbonnier's article. This piece is cited by both of them in other works, a host of other articles on FAIR, Jeff Lindsey, Kerry Shirts, and dozens of other sites. So I was wrong on that part for claiming that you stole "the Cherbonnier quotes" from somewhere else, since you did not actually quote him in your original post.

You are wrong about a lot of things Bill. Look at the quotes from Cherbonnier starting in post 146. I did not take the Cherbonnier quotes from anywhere but the original article.

-7up

[seven7up]

Allow me to open this post with an excerpt from one of the more well known Christian creeds, the Westminster Confession of Faith, which states:

"God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible,..." (emphasis added)

In the article on anthropomorphism, Cherbonnier uses specific terms and specific definitions, which I have cited several times now. You and other LDS are using the same terms with different definitions, yet claiming they mean the same thing. What he means is not what you mean.

He specifically describes LDS ideas, and quotes LDS leaders. He does so in an entirely positive light, and explains why many of the LDS viewpoints are valid according to the scriptural text. That is obvious to anybody who simply reads the entire article.

7up wrote: He never criticized (the LDS view), he defended it, and he even argues that it is consistent with the Bible:
- -- - - - -- - -
"Mormons do not hesitate to speak of God as having a body. Nor is this any cause for embarrassment, because for them, as for the Bible, matter is not evil but good. A disembodied spirit is a thing to be pitied, as it is in the Bible. Hence the assertion of Joseph Smith, "All beings who have bodies have power over those who have not."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --

No, he never defended it. He merely called it consistent. He never once said, yes God is an exalted human being, and that His "person" is one of flesh and bone.

You and I both know that Deity can be BOTH Divine AND human (a person of flesh and bone). That is an essential premise of Christianity. The only difference is that LDS apply that concept to God the Father as well as to God the Son, because Jesus Christ is the "express image of the Father's person" (Heb 1). You are correct that Cherbonnier does not come out and agree with LDS on this specific point, but he certainly defends the theological framework which would allow for that possibility, as I discuss below.

Now back to the article. In the quote above, Cherbonnier defended two specific aspects of the LDS viewpoint, by saying that these two concepts are "Biblical". 1) Matter is good - thus the LDS viewpoint cannot be attacked from that position. 2) A disembodied being (a spirit only) would be better off if it had a body. Not only are these two LDS perspectives consistent with its own theology, but Cherbonnier clearly says they are consistent with the Bible. Please admit that Cherbonnier is calling the LDS views on these two things as being Biblical, for the sake of your dwindling credibility.

7UP: So explain where mainstream Christianity describes God as existing within time and space.

Omnipresence makes no sense if God is not existing within space right now.

But in a recent post to me, you denied the "mystic" view that God is diffused throughout all of space and time. So, do you claim that God exists in space in time, but God is not omnipresent in space and time?

Furthermore, when it comes to theophanies, you claimed that God must be creating some kind of localized puppet manifestations, supposed apparitions of God's presence (while God is at the same time literally omnipresent). Then this temporary things just disappear from time and space when the event is over. So that doesn't really count as God actually existing in time and space either. You see, you are forced to take these "schizophrenic" and contradictory viewpoints, just as Cherbonnier described it. You said:

And your Biblical support of this concept is found where? And how can God have a local "presence", if God is literally "omnipresent"?

7up wrote: Only because the man allowed it, due to his spiritual weakness. But at least you are to the point of admitting that you are at odds with the perspective of Cherbonnier.

On this matter, yes. And he is absolutely wrong in this matter. I do not expect to agree 100% with everyone, nor do I expect anyone to be 100% correct,...

And you scoffed when I said, "I never said that Cherbonnier agrees with every aspect of Mormon theology...." So, you demonstrate your hypocrisy.

Nevertheless, it is obvious that Cherbonnier is describing the superior existence of spirit combined with physicality as the "Biblical" point of view, a concept which is closer to the LDS perspective compared to your contradictory viewpoint. A disembodied spirit is to be pitied.

As this conversation develops, you will see that Cherbonnier and the mainstream Christian view, including yours, do not agree in many places. Look at all the twisting you will have to do to the Westminster Confession of Faith , or twisting Cherbonnier, in order to try and pretend that they are meaning the same things.

Did I say he said it? Did I cite him anywhere saying it?

Right, so just admit that Cherbonnier is taking a position closer to the LDS position than yours when it comes to that topic.

7up wrote: Demonstrate where mainstream Christianity denies that God... is "invisible" as part of his nature.

I've already cited Augustine's response to that, and I believe it suffices.

You HAD to quote Augustine. You certainly couldn't quote Cherbonnier, because you must admit that there are different perspectives between them. Concerning God being "invisible", Cherbonnier argues that God should not be understood as "invisible" as a matter of principle. He quotes Rudolf Bultmann who said,

It is Augustine's belief, as Cherbonnier notes as well, that God is invisible as a matter of principle,...

Cherbonnier notes it, and disagrees with it. So, on this concept, as well as others, you are agreeing with Augustine, while Cherbonnier is agreeing with the LDS. Cherbonnier expands on the concept:

"For the mystic, God so completely transcends the spatio-temporal world ... Such a God is invisible in principle ... The biblical God, on the contrary, is invisible simply as a matter of tactics. De facto, men seldom do see Him. Upon occasion, however, he does show himself... Perhaps one reason why God chooses to remain invisible for the time being is that He cannot yet trust men not to stare at him.... In the meantime, we may well think twice before assuming that just because He has not shown himself to us, He is invisible "by nature."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
7up wrote: Do you agree with this explanation concerning God being "invisible"?

For the latter (the biblical God), Augustine describes similarly as Cherbonnier in refuting the Homoians. At the beginning of De Trinitate, Augustine explains Mt. 5:8:

For the most part. For the former (the mystic god), Cherbonnier refers to their god who is wholly incapable of manifestation, vision, or experience, ever. He simply is wholly unable to be seen by anything as a matter of his existence.

That is NOT what Cherbonnier said. Read his argument again. It is right there. Cherbonnier disagrees that God is invisible as a matter of principle (or as a part of God's nature.)

And what? Only to disappear again and return to God's original "invisible" state?

7up wrote: the true God can exist outside time and space as we know and understand it.

That is William Lane Craig's understanding as well. I hold to the belief of classical theologians who declare the eternal "Now" that God exists in. But, I do realize this causes some other issues that I don't feel able to respond to from a philosophic standpoint.

So, when it comes to this, yet another specific topic related to the articles, you and other "classical theologians" are at odds with myself, with Cherbonnier, and with William Lane Craig. Again Cherbonnier explains this as follows:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
"Transcendent," as generally used, means "beyond space and time." From what has been said about the mystical God, it is obvious that He is transcendent in this sense...., a spatio-temporal God would be "a Being besides other beings," and therefore incompatible with the mystical definition of unity. ...The God of the Bible is neither transcendent nor immanent in the mystical sense. Being anthropomorphic, He is quite compatible with spatio-temporal existence. If he can be called "transcendent" at all, it is only in the sense that he is sovereign over his entire creation...."

Then from the second article, Cherbonnier disagrees with your God existing in the "eternal now":

The idea of a timeless eternity is incompatible with an acting God, for it would be static, lifeless, impotent. If God is an agent, then he must be temporal, for timeless action is a contradiction in terms. Hence the Mormon theologian, Orson Pratt, can say, "The true God exists both in time and in space, and has as much relation to them as man or any other being."
- - - - - - - - - -

7up wrote : (Cherbonnier) praised the consistency of LDS beliefs, AND criticized the inconsistency of believing in an anthropomorphic God who is also, and in contradiction, supposedly outside time and space, supposedly literally omnipresent, etc.

AS DEFINED BY THE MYSTICS AND PANTHEISTS

As we can see again, on yet another topic, your view and the mystical view are difficult to distinguish from one another.

7up wrote: He barely stopped short of it, but existing in time and space implies having a corporeal existence.

No it doesn't. Spirits are non-corporeal, yet they exist in time and space.

Again, I would not claim to know that spirits exist in time and space in the same way that we do, or in time and space as we understand it.

Even Talmage agreed that the spirit-man was not corporeal:

Source: Section 88 The Olive Leaf, Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual, (2002), retrieved from lds.org

It is quite the rule to regard the soul as that incorporeal part of men, that immortal part which existed before the body was framed and which shall continue to exist after that body has gone to decay; nevertheless, that is not the soul; that is only a part of the soul; that is the spirit-man, the form in which every individual of us, and every individual human being, existed before called to take tabernacle in the flesh.

© Copyright Original Source

You are misunderstanding Talmage here, who used the term "incorporeal" to refer to how other religions think of the soul, and how they use the term to refer the non-physical aspect of our being. In an unrelated topic to what Talmage was addressing specifically here, is that it is very clear that LDS teaches about a "spirit body" (like seen by the Brother of Jared in the Book of Mormon) and a "physical body", which are both ultimately corporeal, because in LDS theology "all spirit is matter, only more refined or pure". That is why Talmage says that the spirit body is the "form" we existed in before being born n the flesh.

And laypersons too agree that spirits are not corporeal:

Source: http://mormonfaq.com/faqs-part-2/why-do-mormons-baptize-for-the-dead

However, spirits cannot perform ordinances that can only be performed by corporeal beings

© Copyright Original Source

These "lay persons" were not being clear about the idea of spirit being a different kind of matter, in LDS theology, but still is matter nontheless. So, technically, by definition, if it is a form of it can be called "corporeal." That is why when the Holy Spirit was seen descending upon the Savior at his baptism, it was seen to have descended "like a dove", in bodily form.

This Greek term for 'bodily form' is somatikos, meaning: corporeal, bodily, having a bodily form or nature, pertaining to the body

Matt also says

Source: http://carm.org/how-does-christianity-define-god-essence

He is "wholly other". This means he is not physical like we are.

© Copyright Original Source

We are not ONLY physical. We are spirit AND matter. Like Jesus.

Source: http://carm.org/how-does-christianity-define-god-essence

He is "wholly other". This means he is not physical like we are. He is not limited to space and time as we are. He's different--not the same as us.

© Copyright Original Source

Notice, Matt does not say that He is not personal, like Cherbonnier is using the term "wholly other" to describe mystic views.

Where does Cherbonnier claim that Deity exists outside space or time? Furthermore, the resurrected Jesus demonstrated amazing abilities, which appear to be outside space and time as we know it, but the Lord still had a physical/corporeal body, and ascends and descends and has true physical and locational presence.

And, where does Cherbonnier claim that God is a different kind of being from what we are?

I already quoted Cherbonnier's definition of what he meant by "wholly other". You, again, are using his words to mean something he is not saying.

Source: http://www.philosophy-religion.org/cherbonnier/pdfs/elc-charts_logic-Bib-Anthr.pdf

"God can not be known: He or it is "wholly other" and beyond words. When man becomes one with God, even this is unknowable, because there is nothing and no one to be known

© Copyright Original Source

Cherbonnier is saying that God is the same kind of being that we are. Certainly he isn't arguing for the "incomprehisible" God of the creeds. This statement by Cherbonnier is quite opposed to the kind of "ontological divide" that you espouse Bill.

- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The doctrine of creation does not, as is sometimes held, fix a great gulf between two realms of being, the divine and the human. On the contrary, the existence which God bestows upon Adam does not differ in kind from his own. It is therefore misleading to speak of "discontinuity" between the Creator and his creation. Opposition between men and God there surely is, but it is volitional, not metaphysical.... It preserves neither the mystery of God nor the humility of man to insist a priori that God must be "wholly other"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Emphasis mine

Do you get that Bill? He is saying there is not a metaphysical difference between God and man. And you say?

Now, if you honestly can sit there with a straight face and say that traditional Christians believe God is "nothing and no one", then there is no further hope for this conversation.

I am not saying that is the traditional Christian viewpoint. You are quoting a completely different article which addresses full fledged mysticism. In these two articles that we are discussing, Cherbonnier opposes some of the merged manifestations of mysticism within Christianity, where mystic perspectives were attempted to be injected into the interpretation of Biblical texts, but are at their core contradictory.

-7up

[seven7up]

On this, Cherbonnier and I disagree. For being somewhere, "wherever He wants to be" implies that He is not anywhere else at that time. This would mean that the person of God the Spirit could only indwell one person at a time, and thus have to leave everyone else. However, I've not come across where Cherbonnier ever explained what he meant by "wherever He wants to be" if God wanted to be in 2 places at the same time.

He is present with all his creations through his influence, through his government, spirit and power, but he himself is a personage of tabernacle, and we are made after his likeness (DBY, 22- 24).


-7up

[Bill the Cat]

You made the accusation. Now back it up. (It should be easy, all you have to do is take the quotes as they appear on the FAIR websites, and see how it corresponds to the quotes that I provided on this forum. If they are a perfect match ... then , well , you got me.)

Well, the initial post you made mentioning Cherbonnier was here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ll=1#post54389

The entirety of the list from Thales to Plotinus you stole was verbatim from here:

http://www.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/whothe.htmhttp://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content...ristianity.pdf

You then make a simple reference to Cherbonnier's article. This piece is cited by both of them in other works, a host of other articles on FAIR, Jeff Lindsey, Kerry Shirts, and dozens of other sites. So I was wrong on that part for claiming that you stole "the Cherbonnier quotes" from somewhere else, since you did not actually quote him in your original post. But you did steal almost the entirety of the rest of your post without citing where you got them from, and that is against the rules.

[Bill the Cat]

Would you please stop breaking up my posts!!!???

Arguably, a God creating from absolutely nothing, creating an existence which is exactly what God himself has pre-imagined it to be, and thus is an extension of God's own imagination, is a form of pantheism, very similar to "PanENtheism".

You again have to redefine terms to force this "form". It plainly is not pantheism at its very core.

But again, it isn't just about God being impersonal, because Cherbonnier goes well beyond that in these two articles. He speaks against the idea that the Biblical God is literally omnipresent, against the idea that the Biblical God is immanent and transcendent, against the idea that the Biblical God has a supposed inherent characteristic of being "invisible", against the idea that the Biblical God exists outside of time and space. These are the same arguments that LDS make, and the same ideas that are criticized by non-LDS Christians.

No he does not!! In the article on anthropomorphism, Cherbonnier uses specific terms and specific definitions, which I have cited several times now. You and other LDS are using the same terms with different definitions, yet claiming they mean the same thing. What he means is not what you mean.

He never criticized it, he defended it, and he even argues that it is consistent with the Bible:

"Mormons do not hesitate to speak of God as having a body. Nor is this any cause for embarrassment, because for them, as for the Bible, matter is not evil but good. A disembodied spirit is a thing to be pitied, as it is in the Bible. Hence the assertion of Joseph Smith, "All beings who have bodies have power over those who have not."

No, he never defended it. He merely called it consistent. He never once said, yes God is an exalted human being, and that His "person" is one of flesh and bone.

Where did Cherbonnier say that?

Did I say he siad it? Did I cite him anywhere saying it?

I myself would not go beyond saying that the true God can exist outside time and space as we know and understand it.

That is William Lane Craig's understanding as well. I hold to the belief of classical theologians who declare the eternal "Now" that God exists in. But, I do realize this causes some other issues that I don't feel able to respond to from a philosophic standpoint.

He praised the consistency of LDS beliefs, AND criticized the inconsistency of believing in an anthropomorphic God who is also, and in contradiction, supposedly outside time and space, supposedly literally omnipresent, etc.

AS DEFINED BY THE MYSTICS AND PANTHEISTS

Only because the man allowed it, due to his spiritual weakness. But at least you are to the point of admitting that you are at odds with the perspective of Cherbonnier.

On this matter, yes. And he is absolutely wrong in this matter. I do not expect to agree 100% with everyone, nor do I expect anyone to be 100% correct, except Jesus Christ Himself. The Bible declares that

He barely stopped short of it, but existing in time and space implies having a corporeal existence.

No it doesn't. Spirits are non-corporeal, yet they exist in time and space. Even Talmage agreed that the spirit-man was not corporeal:

Source: Section 88 The Olive Leaf, Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual, (2002), retrieved from lds.org

It is quite the rule to regard the soul as that incorporeal part of men, that immortal part which existed before the body was framed and which shall continue to exist after that body has gone to decay; nevertheless, that is not the soul; that is only a part of the soul; that is the spirit-man, the form in which every individual of us, and every individual human being, existed before called to take tabernacle in the flesh.

© Copyright Original Source

And laypersons too agree that spirits are not corporeal:

Source: http://mormonfaq.com/faqs-part-2/why-do-mormons-baptize-for-the-dead

However, spirits cannot perform ordinances that can only be performed by corporeal beings

© Copyright Original Source

So explain where mainstream Christianity describes God as existing within time and space.

Omnipresence makes no sense if God is not existing within space right now.

Demonstrate where mainstream Christianity denies that God (referring to the Father) is "invisible" as part of his nature.

I've already cited Augustine's response to that, and I believe it suffices.

Allow me to quote from CARM, the "Christian Apologetic Research Ministry", who are meant to be the mainstream Christians who oppose the LDS viewpoint.

Wholly Other:
"The term "wholly other" is used in Christain theology to describe the difference between God and everything else. God, the Christian God, is completely different than all other things that exist. God can be described by essential properties such as holiness, immutability, etc. But we have to ask how we, as finite creatures, can relate to the infinite God. It is difficult when he is "wholly other" than we are." http://carm.org/dictionary-wholly-other

Matt also says

Source: http://carm.org/how-does-christianity-define-god-essence

He is "wholly other". This means he is not physical like we are. He is not limited to space and time as we are. He's different--not the same as us.

© Copyright Original Source

Notice, Matt does not say that He is not personal, like Cherbonnier is using the term "wholly other" to describe mystic views. So, again, you are trying to shoehorn Cherbonnier's arguments where he had no intention of using them, and you are trying to mischaracterize Matt's beliefs.

Now let's see what Cherbonnier says about the idea of God being "wholly other":
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The doctrine of creation does not, as is sometimes held, fix a great gulf between two realms of being, the divine and the human. On the contrary, the existence which God bestows upon Adam does not differ in kind from his own. It is therefore misleading to speak of "discontinuity" between the Creator and his creation. Opposition between men and God there surely is, but it is volitional, not metaphysical.... It preserves neither the mystery of God nor the humility of man to insist a priori that God must be "wholly other"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I already quoted Cherbonnier's definition of what he meant by "wholly other". You, again, are using his words to mean something he is not saying.

Source: http://www.philosophy-religion.org/cherbonnier/pdfs/elc-charts_logic-Bib-Anthr.pdf

"God can not be known: He or it is "wholly other" and beyond words. When man becomes one with God, even this is unknowable, because there is nothing and no one to be known

© Copyright Original Source

Emphasis mine

Now, if you honestly can sit there with a straight face and say that traditional Christians believe God is "nothing and no one", then there is no further hope for this conversation.

Which side are you going to take Bill?

-7up

Both, considering they both say essentially the same thing.

[seven7up]

I'll do better than that. Since you refuse to admit that you both 1) stole the Cherbonnier quotes from FAIR,

You made the accusation. Now back it up. (It should be easy, all you have to do is take the quotes as they appear on the FAIR websites, and see how it corresponds to the quotes that I provided on this forum. If they are a perfect match ... then , well , you got me.)

First, we must see what Cherbonnier is refuting. I cite his piece "A. J. HESCHEL AND THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE BIBLE" to see what he is arguing AGAINST, and the definition of "omnipresent" he is using:

Source: philosophy-religion.org/cherbonnier

on the one hand, the "god of the philosophers," the "one beyond all duality," an all-pervasive "something" which permeates the multiplicity of things in space and time; on the other hand, the God of the prophets, whose unity, in contrast to the fabrications of mythology, consists in continuity of personal identity, but who, unlike the philosopher's god, can create a world outside himself.

© Copyright Original Source

Notice he contrasts the "omnipresent" god of the philosophers as one who is contained in the "everything" of the existence, and that everything in existence is inside of him, with the "God of the Prophets" who created existence apart from Himself (just as trinitarians believe).

I noticed how he addresses the "schizophrenia" and the contradiction of God being supposedly existing literally everywhere at once, yet creating something outside of Himself and also being literally omnipresent in that as well.

Again I quote CARM, the "Christian Apologetic and Research Ministry", who frequently criticize the LDS perspective:

Omnipresence:
Omnipresence is an attribute of God alone. It is the quality of being present in all places at all times (Jer. 23:23.4). He is not bound by time and space.

What did Cherbonnier say about the idea of God being in time and space?

From the first article I mentioned:

"Transcendent," as generally used, means "beyond space and time." From what has been said about the mystical God, it is obvious that He is transcendent in this sense...., a spatio-temporal God would be "a Being besides other beings," and therefore incompatible with the mystical definition of unity. ...The God of the Bible is neither transcendent nor immanent in the mystical sense. Being anthropomorphic, He is quite compatible with spatio-temporal existence. If he can be called "transcendent" at all, it is only in the sense that he is sovereign over his entire creation...."

Then from the second article:

The idea of a timeless eternity is incompatible with an acting God, for it would be static, lifeless, impotent. If God is an agent, then he must be temporal, for timeless action is a contradiction in terms. Hence the Mormon theologian, Orson Pratt, can say, "The true God exists both in time and in space, and has as much relation to them as man or any other being."

So, in my last post to you, Cherbonnier indicates that we are the same kind of being that God is, as God is not "wholly other", and here above we see God being described as a "being among other beings". Please explain how you agree with these concepts, and please explain how you feel that Cherbonnier is disagreeing with the LDS point of view.

Nice try Bill. None of those references you just gave were actual theophanies. The real theophanies occured often in the Old Testament, for example, after Adam and Eve sinned and sewed fig leaves together, they "heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden(Genesis 3:8, God is literally walking in the garden). The implication is that God appeared in physical form since they heard Him walking in the garden prior to confronting Adam and Eve. Or when God appeared to Abram, such as Genesis 12:7, 17:1. The Shekinah glory was not a manifestation of God himself, but something that was cloaking God's actual physical appearance which was reserved for a chosen few, and only at certain specific times. For example, Jehovah did leave the pillar / cloud and did allow Himself to be seen within the Shekinah on certain occasions, "And the LORD appeared in the tabernacle in a pillar of a cloud: and the pillar of the cloud stood over the door of the tabernacle." (Deut 31:15) More notably, was when the elders of Israel saw God, . And of course, we know that when God transfigured Moses, "The LORD would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend." However, when not transfigured, Moses was not permitted to see God's face and God either covered his eyes with his hand or had Moses hid behind the cleft of a rock. Regardless, the presence of the Lord as a literal person in spacio-temporal reality is described, and there is no indication that such an existence was only for a moment and then destroyed.

So, you are forced in your mystic and Greek philosopher influenced theology to insist that these were just temporary manifestations, and the personage of God that was seen by witnesses just disappeared after the event took place. Likewise, you must imagine that angels appear in human form, temporarily, but then such form just evaporates afterwards. There is poor Biblical support for such a position, but that is the position you take, because as Cherbonnier explains, your per-conceived dogma influences how you interpret the text.

"...persons who interpret the Bible symbolically have made up their minds in advance in favor of the philosophers' God. They are therefore not prepared to hear what the Bible actually says, but only what they think it should say. By interpreting it symbolically, they subtly substitute the philosophers' God for the Bible's own, not after a fair hearing, but without one. Though the results may be convincing to the believer, the secular critic detects it for what it is..."

For the most part. For the former (the mystic god), Cherbonnier refers to their god who is wholly incapable of manifestation, vision, or experience, ever. He simply is wholly unable to be seen by anything as a matter of his existence. For the latter (the biblical God), Augustine describes similarly as Cherbonnier in refuting the Homoians. At the beginning of De Trinitate, Augustine explains Mt. 5:8:

Cherbonnier clearly argued that the Biblical God is NOT "invisible as a matter of principle" , but instead God can be seen, but chooses not reveal Himself fully at this time. Let's see it again shall we?

"For the mystic, God so completely transcends the spatio-temporal world that the "finite" categories of seeing, hearing, and touching simply do not apply (except, perhaps, in some highly metaphorical sense). Such a God is invisible in principle.
The biblical God, on the contrary, is invisible simply as a matter of tactics. De facto, men seldom do see Him. Upon occasion, however, he does show himself ... That is, God retains the freedom to show himself or to withhold his face at will. As Rudolf Bultmann observes,



Perhaps one reason why God chooses to remain invisible for the time being is that He cannot yet trust men not to stare at him. The tendency to dissociate, to become a voyeur, is overcome only when men are as trustworthy as God. For most men, the vision of God will be postponed until we are perfected in love. In the meantime, we may well think twice before assuming that just because He has not shown himself to us, He is invisible "by nature."

So, the view he is criticizing is the idea that God is invisible as a matter of principle, or by nature, or as an eternal characteristic, or however you want to put it. In that view, as you just expressed, God creates some kind of transient puppet manifestation which will appear to men, but it is not truly God appearing, and then it dissipates. Meanwhile, Cherbonnier argues that God is spacio-temporal and has a visible appearance, but is "unseen" simply because God chooses not to be seen or revealed to the whole of humanity at this time.

However I, 7up, declare that God the Father DID reveal himself to the world in the sense that Jesus Christ is an exact replica/copy/duplicate of who and what God the Father is. If you see Jesus Christ, the resurrected Lord, then you have seen God the Father. Not because they are literally the same being or person, but instead because Jesus is the exact same kind of being as God the Father, and is also "one" with the Father in will and purpose.

When I understand what Cherbonnier means by both of those words, yes. When he refers to "transcendent in the mystical sense", he means one who is unable to interact with his creation.

He goes well beyond that. He says that an immutable/unchanging/immanent God who exists outside space and time would not be one who interacts with spacio-temporal reality:

The idea of a timeless eternity is incompatible with an acting God, for it would be static, lifeless, impotent. If God is an agent, then he must be temporal, for timeless action is a contradiction in terms. Hence the Mormon theologian, Orson Pratt, can say, "The true God exists both in time and in space, and has as much relation to them as man or any other being."

When he mentions mystic "immanence", he means one who is diffused throughout the universe, meaning parts are here and parts are there (sort of like dumping a cup of sugar in a swimming pool), while wholly being unable to interact with it. He remains "wholly other", amongst creation but not actually in creation.

And then you come back to the schizophrenic viewpoint that you must hold. God is literally omnipresent, but at the same time is not literally everywhere in creation within the creation. All of this is unbiblical. As I said long ago, even the opening passages of the Bible describe the spirit of God as "hovering" over the primordial "waters" and moving across them when preparing to create from it. If God is literally omnipresent, there is no "moving" about it. And it would make no sense for Jesus to say, "hold me not, for I have not yet ascended unto my Father", because supposedly God is everywhere (literally omnipresent).

It differs slightly from my view in that His transcendence is far more than simply His sovereignty over it. He is both amongst creation and able to be in creation.

Again you fall back on saying that God is "both amongst creation and ... in creation" in some kind of literal omnipresence, which is a rather "mystic" viewpoint.

Had creation never occurred, God would still exist.

LDS agree that God existed before He created the Universe.

-7up

[seven7up]

Allow me to quote from CARM, the "Christian Apologetic Research Ministry", who are meant to be the mainstream Christians who oppose the LDS viewpoint.

Wholly Other:
"The term "wholly other" is used in Christain theology to describe the difference between God and everything else. God, the Christian God, is completely different than all other things that exist. God can be described by essential properties such as holiness, immutability, etc. But we have to ask how we, as finite creatures, can relate to the infinite God. It is difficult when he is "wholly other" than we are." http://carm.org/dictionary-wholly-other


Now let's see what Cherbonnier says about the idea of God being "wholly other":
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The doctrine of creation does not, as is sometimes held, fix a great gulf between two realms of being, the divine and the human. On the contrary, the existence which God bestows upon Adam does not differ in kind from his own. It is therefore misleading to speak of "discontinuity" between the Creator and his creation. Opposition between men and God there surely is, but it is volitional, not metaphysical.... It preserves neither the mystery of God nor the humility of man to insist a priori that God must be "wholly other"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Which side are you going to take Bill?

-7up

[seven7up]

He cites the likes of Paul Tillich, who often declared that God is being itself (pantheism, not biblical Christian beliefs).

Arguably, a God creating from absolutely nothing, creating an existence which is exactly what God himself has pre-imagined it to be, and thus is an extension of God's own imagination, is a form of pantheism, very similar to "PanENtheism".

So, as we can see, his passing comment was about Mormon beliefs, as I said, being closer to correct than what the mystics of his time believed about an impersonal "God" who is merely absent from interacting with His creation.

But again, it isn't just about God being impersonal, because Cherbonnier goes well beyond that in these two articles. He speaks against the idea that the Biblical God is literally omnipresent, against the idea that the Biblical God is immanent and transcendent, against the idea that the Biblical God has a supposed inherent characteristic of being "invisible", against the idea that the Biblical God exists outside of time and space. These are the same arguments that LDS make, and the same ideas that are criticized by non-LDS Christians.

Cherbonnier never defended the Mormon view of God having a body, nor did he bother to take the time to refute it, mentioning his limited time and scope later in the piece. He only mentioned the Mormon belief was consistent with a personal God.

He never criticized it, he defended it, and he even argues that it is consistent with the Bible:

"Mormons do not hesitate to speak of God as having a body. Nor is this any cause for embarrassment, because for them, as for the Bible, matter is not evil but good. A disembodied spirit is a thing to be pitied, as it is in the Bible. Hence the assertion of Joseph Smith, "All beings who have bodies have power over those who have not."

The true God exists whether or not time and space do.

Where did Cherbonnier say that?

I myself would not go beyond saying that the true God can exist outside time and space as we know and understand it.

First, he is simply noting the consistency of your beliefs, not validating them.

He praised the consistency of LDS beliefs, AND criticized the inconsistency of believing in an anthropomorphic God who is also, and in contradiction, supposedly outside time and space, supposedly literally omnipresent, etc.

Two things here. First, he is simply noting the consistency of your beliefs, not validating them. Second, Cherbonnier and Smith are both wrong in that demons had power over the man in the cemetery at Gerasenes, as did the demon who attacked the 7 sons of Sceva from Acts 19.

Only because the man allowed it, due to his spiritual weakness. But at least you are to the point of admitting that you are at odds with the perspective of Cherbonnier.

Notice he does not say anything about having a human body. Trinitarians also believe in a God who is speaking, caring, planning, judging, and taking action.

He barely stopped short of it, but existing in time and space implies having a corporeal existence.

And then he goes on to cite unorthodox claims from theologians. So, no, he was not addressing mainstream Christianity because mainstream Christianity has never believed the things he is attributing to these "thinkers".

So explain where mainstream Christianity describes God as existing within time and space. Demonstrate where mainstream Christianity denies that God (referring to the Father) is "invisible" as part of his nature.

-7up

[seven7up]

If Joseph Smith were truly "the Prophet of the Restoration" -- he sure got a lot of things wrong, and muddied rather than clarified.

If anything was unclear early on, it became clear as he learned and as revelations were given. By the time his mission and life was complete, many things were clarified, not muddled.

He totally threw away this alleged opportunity by following the lusts of his own heart.

You are assuming that.

He may very well have been simply following very difficult commands, which indeed were given by God, and were given in order to fulfill God's purposes.

-7up

[Bill the Cat]

As you will see, this is going to be interesting. While Bill accuses me of supposedly "twisting Cherbonnier's" perspective, ... he is in for a rude awakening. He accuses me of not reading the entire articles, and then, a few posts ago, Bill said this ...



Right ... a "passing comment" Bill. Did anybody bother to read THAT article? He is not just talking about "mystics" in the article, he is talking about Christian theologians as well.

He says "A God who can communicate with mankind, and play a part in human events, is no doubt adapted to the mental level of children and of the uneducated, but is hardly taken seriously by the sophisticated". This is not talking about any Christian belief. He cites the likes of Paul Tillich, who often declared that God is being itself (pantheism, not biblical Christian beliefs). So, as we can see, his passing comment was about Mormon beliefs, as I said, being closer to correct than what the mystics of his time believed about an impersonal "God" who is merely absent from interacting with His creation. He also mentioned some Christian scholars who were well off the reservation, like Tillich.

Let's see what else Cherbonnier said in this article which is introduced by this sentence: "In the present paper Edmond LaB. Cherbonnier argues that the biblical and the Mormon understanding of God are indistinguishable." Thus, Cherbonnier specifically defends the LDS view of God as being Biblical.

What a joke! That was an introduction to Cherbonnier's article by a MORMON! Cherbonnier never defended the Mormon view of God having a body, nor did he bother to take the time to refute it, mentioning his limited time and scope later in the piece. He only mentioned the Mormon belief was consistent with a personal God. He NEVER agreed that God was an exalted human, which is the implication that Madsen so falsely claimed in the introduction.

Please read it all, but I will provide some snippets, including some which specifically defend Mormon/LDS perspectives and even quote LDS leaders:

1) The idea of a timeless eternity is incompatible with an acting God, for it would be static, lifeless, impotent. If God is an agent, then he must be temporal, for timeless action is a contradiction in terms. Hence the Mormon theologian, Orson Pratt, can say, "The true God exists both in time and in space, and has as much relation to them as man or any other being."

The true God exists whether or not time and space do.

2) Mormons do not hesitate to speak of God as having a body. Nor is this any cause for embarrassment, because for them, as for the Bible, matter is not evil but good. A disembodied spirit is a thing to be pitied, as it is in the Bible. Hence the assertion of Joseph Smith, "All beings who have bodies have power over those who have not."

Two things here. First, he is simply noting the consistency of your beliefs, not validating them. Second, Cherbonnier and Smith are both wrong in that demons had power over the man in the cemetery at Gerasenes, as did the demon who attacked the 7 sons of Sceva from Acts 19.

3) What then do the biblical authors mean when they speak of God? Are they speaking literally or not? Thanks to two centuries of scholarship, this is no longer a matter of guesswork, nor is it a question which anyone is free to answer as he pleases - anyone, that is, who respects the results of critical investigation. For biblical scholarship is unanimous in confirming what the Mormons have always held: that the God of the Bible is a personal Agent with a proper name. This conception might or might not be valid; that is a separate issue. But from Genesis to Revelation, the Bible conceives of God in the same terms that are peculiar to human beings, such as speaking, caring, planning, judging, and taking action.

Notice he does not say anything about having a human body. Trinitarians also believe in a God who is speaking, caring, planning, judging, and taking action.

As this other article clearly demonstrates, Cherbonnier is was not just making arguments against a mystic or philosophical God of the Greeks, but often is addressing mainstream Christianity:

4) When Christian thinkers have tried to judge themselves and their religion by the rules of rational argument, they have generally found the God of popular piety to be a source of embarrassment.... Hence the tendency, in both Roman Catholic and Protestant theology, to distinguish between those beliefs which are suitable for mass consumption and those which are intelligible only to an elite. And hence also the tendency to look with condescension upon those branches of Christianity, often referred to as fringe groups... What are the reasons why this conception of God has not been taken seriously by intellectuals, Christian or otherwise?

And then he goes on to cite unorthodox claims from theologians. So, no, he was not addressing mainstream Christianity because mainstream Christianity has never believed the things he is attributing to these "thinkers".

5) For to say anything at all about what God has done implies a Doer; to say anything about his purpose implies a Purposer; to say anything about the word of God implies a Speaker. Abandon the premise that God is a Person and you undercut with a stroke everything else that is said about him, whether in the Bible or the Book of Mormon. In short, to use the forbidden word, the biblical God is clearly anthropomorphic - not apologetically so, but proudly, even militantly. As another biblical scholar, G. Ernest Wright, puts it: "Anthropomorphism thus indicates God's personal relation to history, and to assume that we can dispense with it as belonging to a primitive stage in our religious ~ development, is to separate ourselves not only from the Bible, but from the biblical conception of the true meaning of history."12

And as Cherbonnier, and Wright, consistently delcare - anthropomorphism simply means having human-like responses and abilities. It has nothing to do with having a human body.

Again, you have to understand what Cherbonnier was refuting, which was the views of the mystics, like Tilich.

7) In short, theology as traditionally practiced is a prescription for schizophrenia. Like other schizophrenics, its practitioners have developed strategies for rationalizing their problem. These include such technical devices as paradox, analogy, the via negativa, and two-level thinking. The most successful, however, has been the one already mentioned, the symbolic interpretation of the Bible. It is based upon the fact that the philosophers' God can never be described in words. For language only functions on the finite level; when applied to the Infinite, it breaks down. Hence, all statements about "the divine" are necessarily metaphorical and symbolic.

Again, this is Cherbonnier arguing against beliefs like Tilich.

8) As was pointed out above, persons who interpret the Bible symbolically have made up their minds in advance in favor of the philosophers' God. They are therefore not prepared to hear what the Bible actually says, but only what they think it should say. By interpreting it symbolically, they subtly substitute the philosophers' God for the Bible's own, not after a fair hearing, but without one. Though the results may be convincing to the believer, the secular critic detects it for what it is...

And when we understand what Cherbonnier means by "the philosopher's god", which I have repeatedly defined, we will see that using it in an attempted rebuttal to trinitarianism is wrong.

9)The conclusion is that neither Jews, nor Mormons, nor other Christians need be embarrassed by the idea that God is a Person. They need not apologize for literal interpretation, for that does most justice to what the biblical authors meant. Nor need they apologize to traditional theology, for it has finally come to the end of a blind alley. Where then is the vitality in Christianity today? Where is it growing instead of shrinking? Among the so-called fringe groups who frankly do acknowledge that God is a Person. Is there perhaps a message in that for theology? Might it too be rejuvenated if it stopped deifying the subhuman and the impersonal? If it were based solidly upon the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, might it achieve the consistency that has eluded it? In the past this God has characteristically started from small and improbable beginnings. Mormons hardly need to be reminded of that. Would it be out of character for him to do the same in the realm of thought as well? It would not be the first time that he has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise.

He noted that your view is consistent. Big whoop. So is mine. I believe that God is a person. 3 in fact. As does the history of trinitarian belief.

He doesn't come out and say it explicitly, (although reading both quotes 1 and 2 above come close as he describes Joseph Smith's point of view as "Biblical").

Only in the fact that God is a person, not an impersonal "it".

In fact, existing in spacio-temporal reality, as Cherbonnier argues for, implies the idea as a definite possibility. Any honest person must concede that. And certainly we can say that Jesus Christ is fully Deity, and He IS an exalted human being with a human body.

He was deity before becoming human, so no. We can not say He is an exalted human. to say so would imply that He had to be human before becoming exalted.

You add that to the fact that the Bible says that we are made in "the image and likeness of God". Cherbonner criticizes those who attempt to take such Biblical declarations as symbolic rather than reading the text plainly.

He never mentions this verse at all. In fact, in another piece, he claims the image of God is freedom to choose:



He also explains that being made in the image and likeness of God relates to God's character, not His physical appearance:

Am I?

I have no doubt in my mind.

Or are you attempting to change the pillars of the classic Christian theology,

No

which describe a god who is literally omnipresent,

On this, Cherbonnier and I disagree. For being somewhere, "wherever He wants to be" implies that He is not anywhere else at that time. This would mean that the person of God the Spirit could only indwell one person at a time, and thus have to leave everyone else. However, I've not come across where Cherbonnier ever explained what he meant by "wherever He wants to be" if God wanted to be in 2 places at the same time.

literally invisible

No classic theologian I know claims that God is solely invisible by nature, and unable to ever be seen. Grudem explains that He can ALLOW Himself to be seen, thus He is not solely invisible by nature. Something that IS NOT seen is not the same as something that CAN NOT be seen.

, unknowable, "wholly other", transcendent, immanent, etc.

-7up

I've already dismantled your objections to these as your plain lack of understanding of what Cherbonnier was talking about.

[Bill the Cat]

I gave the link for the original article. I myself quoted these sections from the original article, which required a detailed reading of the entire text. This accusation of yours is just another attempt to distract from the fact that you are dodging the questions I asked you.

Bull crap. It is blatantly obvious that you have no idea what Cherbonnier is saying, and you are importing Mormon theology into his philosophical discussion. You assume that when he says "anthropomorphism", he means a body similar to man's. He intends no such thing. He claims a "personal" God, meaning a localized center of consciousness that is capable of emotion, reaction, and concern for mankind.

I never said that the Trinitarian view is an "impersonal force".

That is the view of "god" that Cherbonnier is refuting.

The sections of the text I referenced did not refer to the personal/impersonal aspect of the discussion at all. I was much more specific than that.

You imported Mormon meanings into his words, which had no such baggage. I will discuss this as I go along in my reply.

He was not just arguing against God being an impersonal force, but he is discussing in what sense God should be considered "invisible". Is God literally omnipresent? Is God "wholly other"? How is God considered to be transcendent and immanent? So, quit side stepping and just answer the questions Bill.

I'll do better than that. Since you refuse to admit that you both 1) stole the Cherbonnier quotes from FAIR, and 2) import your own philosophical definitions to words he is using, I will cite where he is more distinct, just as I cited HIS definition of anthropomorphism, which refutes the Mormon one.

I gave you the opportunity to explain how your views differ from the "mystic" perspective in relation to the three topics I mentioned in the last two posts.

One step at a time. It is imperative first to show how you are misusing his ideas before I defend my own.

Yet you have refrained from doing so. Why is that?

Because I am not going to let you weasel out of admitting that you stole a quote that you simply do not understand. THAT is my priority right now. I will get to trinitarianism and Cherbonnier later. One thing at a time.

For example, if you think that Cherbonnier is arguing for the literal omnipresence of God, then post the section of text where you think he makes that argument OR you can argue that Trinitarians do not believe in the literal omnipresence of God.

No. First, we must see what Cherbonnier is refuting. I cite his piece "A. J. HESCHEL AND THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE BIBLE" to see what he is arguing AGAINST, and the definition of "omnipresent" he is using:

Source: philosophy-religion.org/cherbonnier

on the one hand, the "god of the philosophers," the "one beyond all duality," an all-pervasive "something" which permeates the multiplicity of things in space and time; on the other hand, the God of the prophets, whose unity, in contrast to the fabrications of mythology, consists in continuity of personal identity, but who, unlike the philosopher's god, can create a world outside himself.

© Copyright Original Source

Notice he contrasts the "omnipresent" god of the philosophers as one who is contained in the "everything" of the existence, and that everything in existence is inside of him, with the "God of the Prophets" who created existence apart from Himself (just as trinitarians believe). So, this is another area where you fail to understand what he is arguing for and against.

Since you dodged the actual perspectives given in my previous two posts, I suppose I will just rephrase them and hope against odds that you will actually address these issues:

I didn't dodge anything. You don't even remotely grasp what it is he is saying.

I brought up 3 ideas raised Cherbonnier:

1) How is God "invisible"
2) God in relation to "spatio-temporal" existence (transcendence and immanence)
3) God supposedly being "wholly other" compared to man

I gave an example, like Trinitarians believing God the Father is "invisible" as a matter of principle, or in a metaphysical sense. Cherbonnier argues against that:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Do you agree with this explanation concerning God being "invisible"?

For the most part. For the former (the mystic god), Cherbonnier refers to their god who is wholly incapable of manifestation, vision, or experience, ever. He simply is wholly unable to be seen by anything as a matter of his existence. For the latter (the biblical God), Augustine describes similarly as Cherbonnier in refuting the Homoians. At the beginning of De Trinitate, Augustine explains Mt. 5:8:

If not, how does it contrast to your view?

This next one was in relation to the second idea:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
7) In what sense is God transcendent and/or immanent?

"Transcendent," as generally used, means "beyond space and time." From what has been said about the mystical God, it is obvious that He is transcendent in this sense.

..., a spatio-temporal God would be "a Being besides other beings," and therefore incompatible with the mystical definition of unity. ...

The God of the Bible is neither transcendent nor immanent in the mystical sense. Being anthropomorphic, He is quite compatible with spatio-temporal existence. If he can be called "transcendent" at all, it is only in the sense that he is sovereign over his entire creation....

Neither is the biblical God immanent, in the sense that He is diffused throughout the universe. To insist that He is omnipresent would be to imprison Him. The biblical God can be wherever He wants to be. If He is "immanent," it is only in the sense that He takes an active role in his creation, and particularly in human history, guiding the destiny of nations in ways they little suspect.

In the biblical context, the meaning of "immanent" is thus not very different from "transcendent." God is immanent insofar as He acts in history. He is transcendent insofar as He acts triumphantly.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -

Do you agree with this explanation of transcendent and immanent?

When I understand what Cherbonnier means by both of those words, yes. When he refers to "transcendent in the mystical sense", he means one who is unable to interact with his creation. When he mentions mystic "immanence", he means one who is diffused throughout the universe, meaning parts are here and parts are there (sort of like dumping a cup of sugar in a swimming pool), while wholly being unable to interact with it. He remains "wholly other", amongst creation but not actually in creation.

If not, how does it contrast to your view?

It differs slightly from my view in that His transcendence is far more than simpy His sovereignty over it. He is both amongst creation and able to be in creation. Had creation never occurred, God would still exist.

Finally, we have the concept of whether or not God is "wholly other". This is a common phrase used by classic theists, and Cherbonnier appears to disagree with it.

- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The doctrine of creation does not, as is sometimes held, fix a great gulf between two realms of being, the divine and the human. On the contrary, the existence which God bestows upon Adam does not differ in kind from his own. It is therefore misleading to speak of "discontinuity" between the Creator and his creation. Opposition between men and God there surely is, but it is volitional, not metaphysical.... It preserves neither the mystery of God nor the humility of man to insist a priori that God must be "wholly other"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Do you agree with this idea of God not being "wholly other"?

Yes. God's existence is a personal one, not a metaphysical "otherness", incapable of speech or action. That is what Cherbonnier means by "wholly other". He is not referring to an ontological likeness. Cherbonnier differentiates what he means in his essay "THE THEOLOGY OF THE WORD OF GOD"

Source: above

Is God "wholly other" than man? If so, then only negatives may be applied to him. Or is he the most universal, the most all-embracing essence? If so, we must call him "Being-itself," the "Absolute." Or is he a God who speaks? In that case, the truest words which can be applied to him, by analogy, derive from the only other realm of our experience in which we encounter true speech.

© Copyright Original Source

When Cherbonnier mentions a "wholly other" god, he is referring to something that is not personal in any way, shape, or form.

Then please explain how these views above are actually describing Trinitarian views.

1) Cherbonnier says God is not invisible by His nature, meaning He is absolutely impossible to behold by anything or anyone. Trinitarians agree with that. We believe that we will behold Him in the eternities as he is.

2) Cherbonnier says God is not transcendent in that He is unable to interact with his creation. Trinitarians agree with that. We believe that God interacts with His creation

3) Cherbonnier says God is not "wholly other" in that He is personal. Trinitarians believe that too.

If you think that these perspectives given above by Cherbonnier are reflective of the Trinitarian viewpoints, then feel free to explain it. Until then, you cannot claim that I "bastardized his arguments" with any credibility.

You did. You are importing Mormon definitions where they are unwarranted instead of finding out what Cherbonnier actually means.

I think that most Trinitarians would disagree with you.

I don't.

But you had your opportunity to explain, and refused to do so. Will you continue to just ignore the concepts being presented here?


-7up

As I said, I have to show how you are misusing him first before I could explain how to properly use him. AN\nd misuse him, you did, although I suspect FAIR is really to blame. You think he supports your view over mine, when it simply isn't true.

[Cow Poke]

If Joseph Smith were truly "the Prophet of the Restoration" -- he sure got a lot of things wrong, and muddied rather than clarified. He totally threw away this alleged opportunity by following the lusts of his own heart.

[seven7up]

Oh, the irony!

As you will see, this is going to be interesting. While Bill accuses me of supposedly "twisting Cherbonnier's" perspective, ... he is in for a rude awakening. He accuses me of not reading the entire articles, and then, a few posts ago, Bill said this ...

Cherbonnier makes a passing comment that Mormon belief in God being an exalted human is closer to correct than what the mystics of his time believed about an impersonal "God" who is merely absent from interacting with His creation. He concludes " The conclusion is that neither Jews, nor Mormons, nor other Christians need be embarrassed by the idea that God is a Person." ...

http://www.philosophy-religion.org/c...er/defense.htm

Right ... a "passing comment" Bill. Did anybody bother to read THAT article? He is not just talking about "mystics" in the article, he is talking about Christian theologians as well.

Let's see what else Cherbonnier said in this article which is introduced by this sentence: "In the present paper Edmond LaB. Cherbonnier argues that the biblical and the Mormon understanding of God are indistinguishable." Thus, Cherbonnier specifically defends the LDS view of God as being Biblical.

Please read it all, but I will provide some snippets, including some which specifically defend Mormon/LDS perspectives and even quote LDS leaders:

1) The idea of a timeless eternity is incompatible with an acting God, for it would be static, lifeless, impotent. If God is an agent, then he must be temporal, for timeless action is a contradiction in terms. Hence the Mormon theologian, Orson Pratt, can say, "The true God exists both in time and in space, and has as much relation to them as man or any other being."

2) Mormons do not hesitate to speak of God as having a body. Nor is this any cause for embarrassment, because for them, as for the Bible, matter is not evil but good. A disembodied spirit is a thing to be pitied, as it is in the Bible. Hence the assertion of Joseph Smith, "All beings who have bodies have power over those who have not."

3) What then do the biblical authors mean when they speak of God? Are they speaking literally or not? Thanks to two centuries of scholarship, this is no longer a matter of guesswork, nor is it a question which anyone is free to answer as he pleases - anyone, that is, who respects the results of critical investigation. For biblical scholarship is unanimous in confirming what the Mormons have always held: that the God of the Bible is a personal Agent with a proper name. This conception might or might not be valid; that is a separate issue. But from Genesis to Revelation, the Bible conceives of God in the same terms that are peculiar to human beings, such as speaking, caring, planning, judging, and taking action.

Cherbonnier's arguments are not valid critiques of trinitarian views.

As this other article clearly demonstrates, Cherbonnier is was not just making arguments against a mystic or philosophical God of the Greeks, but often is addressing mainstream Christianity:



7) In short, theology as traditionally practiced is a prescription for schizophrenia. Like other schizophrenics, its practitioners have developed strategies for rationalizing their problem. These include such technical devices as paradox, analogy, the via negativa, and two-level thinking. The most successful, however, has been the one already mentioned, the symbolic interpretation of the Bible. It is based upon the fact that the philosophers' God can never be described in words. For language only functions on the finite level; when applied to the Infinite, it breaks down. Hence, all statements about "the divine" are necessarily metaphorical and symbolic.

8) As was pointed out above, persons who interpret the Bible symbolically have made up their minds in advance in favor of the philosophers' God. They are therefore not prepared to hear what the Bible actually says, but only what they think it should say. By interpreting it symbolically, they subtly substitute the philosophers' God for the Bible's own, not after a fair hearing, but without one. Though the results may be convincing to the believer, the secular critic detects it for what it is...

9)The conclusion is that neither Jews, nor Mormons, nor other Christians need be embarrassed by the idea that God is a Person. They need not apologize for literal interpretation, for that does most justice to what the biblical authors meant. Nor need they apologize to traditional theology, for it has finally come to the end of a blind alley. Where then is the vitality in Christianity today? Where is it growing instead of shrinking? Among the so-called fringe groups who frankly do acknowledge that God is a Person. Is there perhaps a message in that for theology? Might it too be rejuvenated if it stopped deifying the subhuman and the impersonal? If it were based solidly upon the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, might it achieve the consistency that has eluded it? In the past this God has characteristically started from small and improbable beginnings. Mormons hardly need to be reminded of that. Would it be out of character for him to do the same in the realm of thought as well? It would not be the first time that he has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise.

But NOWHERE does Cherbonnier agree with you that God is an exalted human being with a human body.

He doesn't come out and say it explicitly, (although reading both quotes 1 and 2 above come close as he describes Joseph Smith's point of view as "Biblical"). In fact, existing in spacio-temporal reality, as Cherbonnier argues for, implies the idea as a definite possibility. Any honest person must concede that. And certainly we can say that Jesus Christ is fully Deity, and He IS an exalted human being with a human body. You add that to the fact that the Bible says that we are made in "the image and likeness of God". Cherbonner criticizes those who attempt to take such Biblical declarations as symbolic rather than reading the text plainly.

YOU changed HIS subject, and now you are moving the goal posts.

Am I? Or are you attempting to change the pillars of the classic Christian theology, which describe a god who is literally omnipresent, literally invisible, unknowable, "wholly other", transcendent, immanent, etc.

-7up