I do believe the faith of orthodox, traditional Christianity holds in judgment anything heterodox on the nature of God. Likewise, traditional LDS doctrine carries the same threads of judgment. Of course, I wouldn’t expect anything otherwise.

For the past week, because of Mark B.’s assertions of Christians being deceived by neo-platonic philosophy, I am hoping to see how substantial or conclusive this verdict ought to be.

So, can a person studying biblical scripture come to these conclusions?

1) Man can never reach to the level where God is essentially.

2) God never changes in essential properties.

3) And where we don’t understand, where we throw up our hands and cry in worship, “There are attributes of God which are incomprehensible”, would this be any different from emotional reactions surfacing in biblical characters from Job to the apostle Paul.

And for any of the guys here at NCT, this very thread (I am certainly not shutting off my brain in the conversation) has provoked me to pick up a book several years old for reading.

The Holy Trinity: In Scripture, History, Theology, and Worship (P & R Publishing, 2004) by Robert Letham

Anybody read this book? I am very curious.

I just read the introduction.

Here are some teaser quotes that have me pondering for the moment:

“Part of the problem for the ordinary Christian may be that in its debates and struggles, the ancient church was forced to use extrabiblical terms to defend biblical concepts.”

“Biblical language could not resolve the issue, for the conflict was over the meaning of biblical language in the first place.”

“Opposition to the orthodox doctrine has often tended to come from those who stress the Bible at the expense of the teachings of the church. These people forget that the church was forced to use extrabiblical language becasuse biblical language itself was open to a variety of interpretations–some faithful, others not.”

Hmmmm. (1) I think a sincere belief in a Triune God in Scripture can originate without the use of extrabiblical Greek language . . . (2) in reading Scripture, one can arrive at the fact that God is different then me . . . and for instance, to share one contrast — I change (from condemned sinner to child of God with full rights of adoption); God doesn’t change/has never changed in Who God essentially is (except for the incarnation, which is just as mysterious as the truths that Jesus is distinct from the Father and yet there is one God).

Mark Butler, in this book when I arrive at the section on Augustine, I will be interested if the author connects Augustine with Plato. In the introduction, the author has warned about Augustine’s modalism (which if Augustine’s modalism is proven fact, I would resist as well and try to break free of such doctrinal shackles.)

Thanks for letting me pop on NCT, today.

I apologize if I have offended you. I do not contest the fact that classic theism considers God to be a person, nor do I accuse anyone of believing that He is not. I am just trying to explain the theological difficulty with the proposition of divine immutability.

There are scholars in many traditions who have long concluded that God is beyond human understanding, and so we shouldn’t let apparent contradictions of this sort bother us. Traditionally, however, the LDS have felt otherwise.

I am accused of believing propositions rooted in Greek philosophy rather than Scripture, but which of the local bishops or the apostles or the prophet (who condemn me) in the corridor is teaching line upon line, precept upon precept through a biblical book?

I don’t think anyone is condemning you here, certainly I am not. I can tell you are a sincere and believing Christian, which means we have more in common than I do with most of my good friends at work. I am not in a position to condemn anyone.

In answer to your last question of #35, I think it is apparent that many ideas with origins in Greek philosophy are alive and well in LDS theology. If you are paying attention you will have noticed that those issues are debated here frequently amongst believing Mormons. Many teachings of Bruce R. McConkie (not the man, mind you) come under criticism here precisely because they seem to be a return to conceptions of God that many of us feel Joseph Smith rejected. We derive a lot of theology from our roots in Protestantism, and we have a large contingent in our church who grew up as members of that tradition, so yes, there is plenty of Greek thought that exists in the minds of various Mormons.

In answer to your question in #34 (which Mark already said something about), we often use the words omnipotent, omniscient, and even omnipresent because they have become part of the religious discourse. As we are often criticized for by Protestants, we generally mean something less metaphysically strict by those terms than do our Christian brothers and sisters. For example, many who participate here believe God is omniscient, meaning that he knows everything that can be known, but hasten to add that the future does not yet exist and will be decided by freely made choices such that it cannot be known. That is not necessarily the view of Elder Scott (I don’t frankly know his view on this issue), but it is an example of the fact that these words need a lot of unpacking before they can be construed to represent a specific view about the nature of God. In point of fact, many others in the bloggernacle use the same word (omniscient) and believe that God does know the future.

Wait a minute. I don’t believe that God is a very real Person?

The question, of course, depends on what it means to be a person. I don’t know what you believe, so I can’t comment on that. But generally, the strategy in classic theology has been to redefine the word “person” until it could fit with a certain idea about the nature of God. I believe this is an abuse of language, since the word person derives its meaning from our interaction with other people. I don’t see God can be described as a “person” if it is logically impossible for there to be two such beings (one of the problems that led to the concept of the Trinity if I am not mistaken). I don’t see how God can be a person if he does not have emotions. I don’t see how God can be a person if he does not live in time where he can interact with us as people do.

Catholics who studied Scriptural texts speak of a mysterious God. Catholics who didn’t, had other views.

So when you speak of God’s immutablity in faithfulness, I accept that you in fact believe that. However, I have a hard time believing that you don’t mean a lot more than any LDS would accept — like God is immutable in his complete divinity and omniscience and omnipotence as well. So when Jesus was both human and God he was also omniscient and omnipotent in some respect — and impeccable. God is immutable in the divine nature and doesn’t change at all in his (its) feelings and emotional life and so forth. Just how that can be squared with the things said about Jesus in the bible is the challenge of traditional thought.

I am the same Mark as earlier in this thread. There is another Mark Butler who posts as “Mark B.” on several other LDS web logs with whom I have occasionally been confused, so I changed my handle to “Mark D.”, after my middle initial.

I am certainly not going to tell you what you can and can’t believe. However, explaining why I or others cannot understand why you or others believe as you believe is another story.

“Immutable” is not a scriptural term, but a philosophical and technical term of art. Immutability is such a strict metaphysical constraint that I do not see how any living being can be said to be immutable in virtually any (let alone every) respect.

I mentioned earlier that the scriptural evidence has been well covered by evangelical scholars such as John Sanders, Clark Pinnock, and Gregory Boyd, to some considerable controversy of course. One of the scriptures they quote ought to be a classic with regard to understanding the nature of prophecy:

At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.

And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.
(Jer 18:7-10)

That is one of several scriptures that describe the Lord changing his mind. Immutable beings cannot change anything by definition.

Compare Ex 32:14; 33:1-3,14; Deut 9:13-29; 1 Sam 2:27-31; 1 Kings 21:21-29; 1 Chron 21:15; 2 Chron 12:5-8; Jer 26:2-3,19; Jonah 3:10; etc. I pulled that list from pp. 82-85 of Gregory Boyd’s God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God.

He highlights almost all the biblical verses that Blake and Mark B. have presented to me earlier in this thread, while exploring none of the verses that would give me indicators of a God completely different in nature, to where I can not be deified as God is.

Mark D., I am accused of believing propositions rooted in Greek philosophy rather than Scripture, but which of the local bishops or the apostles or the prophet (who condemn me) in the corridor is teaching line upon line, precept upon precept through a biblical book? This is all ironic. I am not the person in the corridor, praising unbelieving Greek philosophers. My only affinity to Augustine is where he shows love for the God of Scripture, not his analytical reasonings.

Brad Brase writes, “Latter-day Saints are not ashamed of their unphilosophical belief in a loving, personal Heavenly Father . . . Latter-day Saints do not believe that God is some abstract or metaphysical essence or power. They believe He is a very real person. Likewise, He is more than our Creator, as we are more than His creatures. He is the literal Father of our spirits and we are His children (John 20:17; Romans 8:16; Hebrews 12:9).

Wait a minute. I don’t believe that God is a very real Person?

And when Brad quotes verses, I am wondering how much time he gives to the full biblical exposition of any one of those books (John, Romans, or Hebrews) on the nature of God. In any one of them, I see supremacy of Christ over His creatures who are rebellious and fallen. Thank the Father that His Son can give spiritual life, where we can’t and never will.

So getting back to immutability, I do believe that “God is unchangeable in his faithfulness and fidelity”. I believe the reason we saw the descriptions of His “repenting” in Exodus with His people is because of His immutable love. You see that Exodus story further unfolding in Psalms. This passage should not obscure or diminish the fact that God is all-knowing.

Mark would you say an all-powerful God with no variableness is completely compatible with Him being all-loving?

Also, does God display immutable wrath?

Greek thought is diverse enough that of course LDS theology agrees with some thinkers in some respects. No one is criticizing classic theism for an incidental similarity with Greek philosophy, but rather for being stuck on prominent propositions derived therefrom that are enormously foreign and contradictory to the basic attributes of God as described in the scriptures.

Unless such extra-scriptural propositions can be shown to be necessary pre-requisites for rational thought, they should hardly be allowed to rise to the level of articles of faith. And yet that is exactly what appears has happened.

The LDS generally believe that God is unchangeable in his faithfulness and fidelity, not that he is incapable of changing his emotional state from one monent to the next, or taking action in response to human contingencies (such as the Fall), or moving from place to place, etc.

Applying a strict constraint of immutability seems rather to imply that God is not a person at all, but rather a singular abstraction somewhere between an iron pillar and a soft glow.

I can see some connection through the philosophical muck, but the Greek clouds are pretty much dark. Thank God for the Scriptures.

Mark, in a footnote, Wolterstorff is trying to trap me with his logic . . . if you don’t believe in impassibility, then you must reject that God is unchangeable or eternal.

Yet there are two attributes of God, I hold side-by-side each other: God is love, God does not change. How do you explain those two logically.

In the doctrine of salvation, I believe (1) In His love, God graciously elects some to salvation. (2) Christ died on the cross for everyone’s sin (universal atonement). So can these two truths be friends?

Guys, from what links you have sent me, would you say that LDS theology reflects no aspects of Greek philosophy or metaphysics?

I will read through these links in hopes of some better connection.

After looking them over, I will be back.

Quick question. If it is alright for me to ask, how would you interpret this quote?