What shall we make of God's oneness?

Todd,

Whenever I read John 17, I always wonder what a Bible-loving pastor like you thinks about verses 20-22:

20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

In the never-ending debates over the nature of God, arguments about what is meant by the "oneness" of God abound. The LDS theology is often criticized by trinitarians for not taking the oneness of God seriously enough (or perhaps not literally enough). In one sense, this is a fair characterization since traditional formulations of the doctrine of the trinity make some claims about the oneness of God which are rejected by traditional mormon theology.

However, when I read John 17 and consider the doctrine of deification, I find a sense in which mormon theology takes the oneness of God more seriously than traditional christian theology. In the intercessory prayer quoted above, we find the most important statements about the oneness of God in the scriptures. But, the emphasis in these verses is on a doctrine rejected by traditional Christians--the doctrine that we can eventually be at one with God in the very same way that Jesus is one with God.

This idea (that we can be one with God in the exact same way that Jesus is one with God) has far reaching implications. Firstly, it tells us that if we are not capable of being one with God in some sense, then this is not a sense in which Jesus is one with God. Secondly, it tells us that the doctrine of God's oneness is meant to be shared, indeed, that sharing this oneness is at the heart of Jesus' plan for us. These ideas fit nicely in a mormon theology, but seems to have very little to do with the concept of oneness insisted upon by the trinitarians.

One of the main reasons mormons are not considered "Christians" by evangelicals is that we do not accept a traditional formulation of the trinity. This idea of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost being one is obviously very important to them. But what are we to make of John 17? Do you agree that this is the primary text from which we should interpret the meaning of God's oneness? What do you make of its emphasis on our potential to be brought into the very same oneness currently shared by the Father and the Son?

Do your two eyes expose your disbelief in the Bible?

I have been meaning to post on Biblical literalness for some time, but I was finally inspired to do so when I read Todd's recent post fuming about the LDS supposed irreverence for the Bible. After ranting about the LDS "sly agenda" (I am still not sure what the sly agenda is after reading carefully) toward the scriptures, he quotes the following paragraph from this recent press release on lds.org about the LDS view of the Bible:

There is a broad range of approaches within the vast mosaic of biblical interpretation. For example, biblical inerrancy maintains that the Bible is without error and contradiction; biblical infallibility holds that the Bible is free from errors regarding faith and practice but not necessarily science or history; biblical literalism requires a literal interpretation of events and teachings in the Bible and generally discounts allegory and metaphor; and the “Bible as literature” educational approach extols the literary qualities of the Bible but disregards its miraculous elements.

Todd follows this with some preaching, but I am honestly not sure which parts he is taking issue with. At any rate, this paragraph seems pretty benign to me and serves as a good launching pad for my questions about literalness and inerrancy. It seems to me from talking to Todd (a committed inerrant), that the literalness of the Bible becomes a fundamental componenet of his view of the Bible as inerrant.

When it comes to a story like Noah and his ark, I would argue that a person may legitimately claim to believe in the Bible even if the absolute literalness of the story is in question. Did all animals have to fit on an ark 6 thousand years ago in order for the Bible to be God's word? I say no, since I believe in the Bible and yet maintain that the Noah story is absurd if taken in absolute literalness. However, it seems that the whole point of claiming inerrancy is to say that the story is literally true in every aspect. If inerrants allow for other interpretations, they lose the concreteness that is at the heart of their view of the Bible.

So, it seems to me that inerrancy requires strict literalness. But this is where my questions start to pile up. What are we to make of a scripture like this one from our Lord Jesus Christ:

29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. (Matt 5:29)

If you really take the Bible so literally, why haven't you plucked even a single eye out of its socket? Am I to believe you've never been offended by thine right eye? Or do you simply lack the faith to follow the teachings of Jesus?