Norman Geisler, Evangelical Scholar On The Resurrection Of God

[ghedmondson]

Sorry, but sirens are going off in my little mormon brain. I will quote you:

This is what I understand you to say: Christ has two natures.

1. Divine- Non-corporeal spirit by nature

2. Human- corporeal flesh by nature, not divine

What this suggests is that Christ, as God, possesses a nature which is non-divine, as well as one which is divine. He possesses two natures that would be completely conflicting in anyone else, including the Father and the H.S., not to mention a normal human being. While you claim that God is fully divine, you must also include that he is fully not-divine, since your creed teaches that Christ is fully man, and fully God. Perhaps you are gleefully are shouting, yes that is exactly it!! What I am particularly concerned about is the phrase "so it is not his nature to be embodied, per se", and the reason I am concerned is that it obviously is in his nature to be embodied, otherwise he would not be. Your nature is what you are, and Christ embodied.

According to my understanding of your doctrine, Christ did not have a human nature prior to incarnation, but "assumed" it at that time, and he will forever retain that human nature. Was Christ then only one nature at first, and then became two simultaneously? Or was Christ always a dual natured kind of guy? If he always has had a human nature along with his divine nature, was he male or female prior to coming to earth?

So what we have are three different people,

1 Who has only the divine nature, all spirit, no body

1 Who has both the divine nature, and the corporeal non-divine nature

1 Who apparently is of the same variety as the Father, all divine, no body.

These three people form an eternal union that is not three individual gods, but one Super God, with multiple contradictory natures.

How does this sound when we consider the words of the Savior?

How do we fit the mighty Trinity doctrine into these passages of scripture, which clearly describes the unity of the Godhead by analogy to the unity of individual, separate, men who are composed of different substances, and are not homoousious ?

Furthermore, if Christ has the ability to go from having 1 nature to having 2 natures, why can't man? Does God not have the ability to endow man with an inheritance of two "natures"?

Sargon

The problem of Christology has both historical and logical dimensions. It began when Christ was incorporated into the Trinity Formulation and made â??one substanceâ?? with The Father at The Council of Nicea c.e. 325.

How could a person who walked around in Palestine in the first century be identified with God the Creator? The traditional Christian response is that Christ is one person with 2 natures, one human and other divine â?? was adopted at Chalcedon c.e. 451 and remained orthodoxy until the 19th century when developments in biblical scholarship and logic pointed to numerous problems with the traditional formulation.

Leaving aside the historical problems of Traditional Christianityâ??s Christology, the logical problems are easily stated:

The properties one must possess to be â??Godâ?? are incompatible with the properties possessed by humans. The most basic law of logic, the law of non-contradiction, is violated by asserting that a human was also God. The law of non-contradiction states that nothing can be characterized by a property and its complement at the same time.

In other words the Fightâ??in Texas Aggies Band color canâ??t be maroon and have no color at the same time or be burnt orange

Here is a brief list of the traditional properties of God and humans.

God

1. Living forever

2. Being omnipotent

3. Being omniscient

4. Being incorporeal

5. Being immutable

6. Being omnipresent

7. Being impassible

Humans

1. Living for a finite time

2. Being nonomnipotent

3. Being nonomniscient

4. Being corporeal

5. Being subject to change

6. Being spatially limited

7. Experiencing suffering

Despite the aforementioned above, the theory of Christology adopted at Chalcedon consists of the following:

(1) â??Christ â?? is identified with a single person;

(2) This single person possessed both fully human and fully divine natures; and

(3) These two natures were and are simultaneously present in the one person of Christ.

So how are these apparent contradictions resolved?

Simple you just have to redefine what a substance (â??ousia), a nature (phusis), and a person (hypostases GR. â?? prosopon Latin) are and as long as you can do it in a language to no lay person understands then all contradictions magically disappear.

If something doesnâ??t work just change the definitions!

However, Christ is still on both sides of the great ontological divide, both created and uncreated â?? not because the logic of being human requires that humans are ontologically contingent, but because the creed itself says that God the Son is â??eternally begottenâ?? or generated by the Father and therefore relies ontologically on the Father for existence. Both of Christâ??s â??naturesâ?? are on the wrong side of the ontological divide because they are both dependent on the Father for existence.

The ultimate irony of the situation is that the Nicean creed didnâ??t solve the Arian controversy at all! Because Christ cannot be God in the fullest sense if he is a created or ontologically contingent being. Therefore one must toss out the creed and if the Nicean creed goes then the rest of them must go as well.

So then what are left with? Christianity without any creeds

To be FAIR there are modern responses to the Christology problem but I donâ??t find them very convincing here are just a few.

Thomas Morrisâ??s Two Minds Theory

The Kenotic Theory

The Grace Theory

Blake T. Ostlerâ??s book â??Exploring Mormon Thought â?? The Attributes of Godâ? is an excellent introduction to all this high minded philosophy.

Gigg'em Aggs

[Sargon]

Hi GE, nice to finally see on here!!

The list of contradictions you have listed is not only accurate but somewhat amusing. Of course, we can't expect anyone to have a perfect grasp on the nature of God, since there is always something more to know. But it does seem apparent that the creeds are so full of problems that they provide plenty of room for deserved doubt and skepticism. The usual reply is one about the "mystery" of God, which is ok if it is right, but does not bode well for the usual internet Christian, who injects the supreme importance of logic and reason into his criticisms of mormonism.

So how are these apparent contradictions resolved?

Simple you just have to redefine what a substance (â??ousia), a nature (phusis), and a person (hypostases GR. â?? prosopon Latin) are and as long as you can do it in a language to no lay person understands then all contradictions magically disappear

You hit the nail on the head. Words of course only mean what you want them to mean. The major problems these ancient theologians faced stemmed from the greek idea that God and man could not possibly share the same nature. If they would have gotten that right, none of these wordy discussions would be necessary.

Sargon

[Sargon]

For consideration:

John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Luke 24:39 A spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have.

I always cringe when I see someone quote the verses. LDS and their EV or Catholic coutnerparts always speak past each other when they start quoting these verses. I will avoid the first one, since it deserves a thread of it's own.

Luke 24:39 A spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have.

LDS typically cite this very verse as evidence for a very different argument. From our perspective, Christ appeared to his apostles with a body of not only flesh and bones, but which was housing a spirit, as all physical bodies are meant to do. His apostles were startled by his sudden appearance, and naturally assumed that he was a ghost. This verse is basically Jesus saying "you knuckleheads can't you see that I have a body, and am not just spirit?". We argue that as God, Jesus has a body of flesh and bones which houses a spirit. The possession of a spirit does not mean that a body cannot also be possessed simultaneously, in fact they are meant to be had simultaneously.

So when Jesus says "God is spirit", and then he teaches that spirit can have a physical body, we see this as evidence for our position that God the Father is spirit housed in immortal flesh, just as Christ is.

This argument proposed by EV's just doesn't add up:

God the Father= spirit, no body= infinite&perfect

God the Son=spirit + body= infinite&perfect

1+0=2?

1+1=2

Sargon

[cksalmon]

The Grace Theory

Hi GH--

I'm not familiar with this one. Can you provide a quick summary or suggestions for reading?

Thanks.

CKS

[Zakuska]

For consideration:

John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Luke 24:39 A spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have.

And food for further thought...

2 Cor. 3: 17-18

17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

18 But we all, with open face beholding as in a aglass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.

1 Cor. 6: 11, 17

17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is aone spirit.

1 Cor. 15

45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

This Ressurected Jesus is called a "Spirit" yet he has a "body" of flesh and bones, and all of us are to be changed into what Christ is too.

I suggests that the lower case "spirit" (better rendered ghost) in Luke 24:39 is refereing to something intirely different than the type of Spirit beings with bodies refered to in John 4:24 is.

In other words... modern Christiains are misinterpreting the bible again.

PS. Lord Kerry... Absolutley Loved the last several PodCasts absolutley fasinating. I find the tap dance cksalmon and Rhino are doing Hilarious and quite entertaining.

[cksalmon]

PS. Lord Kerry... Absolutley Loved the last several PodCasts absolutley fasinating. I find the tap dance cksalmon and Rhino are doing Hilarious and quite entertaining.

Heck, I might as well, if I knew what it was. Care to expound on that?

[cksalmon]

Hi Kerry--

I would point out that Dr. Geisler is not the Dean of the Center for Research and Scholarship at

Liberty University, as you state. Certainly, he was at the time of writing, but that was seventeen years ago. He is now on faculty at Southern Evangelical Seminary.

And, no, I'm not trying to nitpick. I'm just trying to instantiate a conversation about your use of this source.

Best.

CKS

[cksalmon]

I suggests that the lower case "spirit" (better rendered ghost) in Luke 24:39 is refereing to something intirely different than the type of Spirit beings with bodies refered to in John 4:24 is.

Actually, Zak, I quite agree with you that the referents are different. I'm glad you can see this as well. Of course, I would deny that John 4.24 has in view "Spirit beings with bodies." I certainly don't see that in the text itself.

Best.

CKS

[cksalmon]

PODCAST COMMENT #3

Geisler: "So, the argument that belief in a physical resurrection is crassly materialistic is mistaken."

Kerry: "So Evangelicals, you've got to quit using that against we Mormons when we teach this also."

Hi Kerry--

Which Evangelical has suggested that Mormons are mistaken (or are being "crassly materialistic") when they affirm the physical resurrection of Jesus? Are there any? I know of none.

Again, LDS belief mirrors traditional Christian belief at this point. No Evangelical that I've ever read would argue that Mormons are wrong in believing in the physical resurrection of Jesus--nor would they argue that Mormons are being "crassly materialistic" by affirming the physical resurrection of Jesus. Who are these Evangelicals who are arguing such?

Best.

CKS

[Zakuska]

Actually, Zak, I quite agree with you that the referents are different. I'm glad you can see this as well. Of course, I would deny that John 4.24 has in view "Spirit beings with bodies." I certainly don't see that in the text itself.

Best.

CKS

Hmmm.... so all us born agains are supposed to drop our bodies when we worship the father ?

We are one spirit joined with the Lord and all of us have our own physical bodies and we make up one metaphorical body of beleivers.

[rhinomelon]

Is there a tap dancing smiley? I was never much good at clogging myself. What kind of tap dancing are you referring to, Zak? (By the way, long time no see! Where ya been?)

And ghedmondson, out of curiosity, what about the kenotic view of the incarnation do you find unconvincing? I find it pretty interesting, although I haven't really studied Christology in depth too much.

Take care, everyone

[ghedmondson]

Hi GH--

I'm not familiar with this one. Can you provide a quick summary or suggestions for reading?

Thanks.

CKS

By 'The Grace Theory' I am referring to the theory that asserts that Christ is transformed into a being sharing the divine properties by being infused with the Father's grace. John Hick in the book 'Encountering Jesus: A Debate on Christology' page 21 states " We see in the life of Jesus a supreme instance of that fusion of divine grace inspiration with creaturely freedom that occurs in all authentic human response and obedience"

I have not looked at it very much but you might find more information about The Grace Theory and many other theories at John Hicks website

I don't like the grace Christology simply because it lowers Christ to being no different any great prophet with the exception that He has the 'indewlling' of the Father's spirit. But that is just my opinion. As a TBM I don't have any problem with raising man but I don't want to lower God

And ghedmondson, out of curiosity, what about the kenotic view of the incarnation do you find unconvincing? I find it pretty interesting, although I haven't really studied Christology in depth too much.

Take care, everyone

Let me start off by saying that I actually kind-of-like The Kenotic Theory. I believe out of all the theories that I have looked at that it seems to have the most parallels to Mormonism. Blake Ostler even goes as far as to say that Mormonism, as expressed in the Standard Works, has a modified Kenotic Theory of Christology.

The classical criticisms of The Kenotic Theory come in 3 forms;

1) Given that the preexistent Christ and God the Father are a single being, one God, the kenotic theory seems to leave the universe with non one in charge while Christ is present on earth as a man. Steven Davis and David Brown have argued that God could have set everything up so that while He was on earth everything would go as planned ie. â??forplanâ??. (Davis â?? â??Encountering Jesusâ?? p. 73, Brown â?? â??The Divine Trinityâ?? p.257 ) but then that causes historical problems as well, in other words, to whom did Christ pray or to whom did he ascend? Brown and Davis have argued that Christ left part His divine properties in the heavens to manage things there while He came to earth and had a mortal existence here.

Me thinks as a TBM, why all the theological tap dancing? Sure sounds like you want 2 gods for the price of 1. Those things donâ??t come cheap even within Mormonism.

2) The second problem then follows: What does it mean for God give up divine properties for a period of time and still remain fully God? In other words, if it possible for God to cease to have divine properties, which are incompatible with human properties, in order to be human then He must still retain some divine properties or He canâ??t be truly be considered divine for that period of time. But then that brings us back to the same problem that exists with the dual nature Christology and the creeds that I mentioned before, unless of course you get rid of creeds . In short it seems a little incoherent to me. How can a being that is less than all-knowing or all powerful be considered God? Or how can a all-knowing and all-powerful being have a mortal experience anywhere close to that of ours? Adherents to The Kenotic Theory then either change the definition of omniscience or say that was He somehow was 'pretending' (my word not theirs) to be less than all-knowing and all-powerful so that he could have a mortal experience .

3) Then the third problem becomes that of God being all-powerful. A being can be omnipotent even if he chooses not to use all of his power. By having God the Son give up his omnipotence to the Father and take upon Himself the limitations of us humans. He also took upon Himself the limitation of not being able to become omnipotent at will (a limitation which we humans all have). This means that Christâ??s will was dependent on the will and power of the Father, which is biblical accurate , but then at what point in all this is God the Son God not equal to God the Father? Remember that they have to be equal at all times also remember that subordination is a heresy donâ??t go there are you might become a Mormon someday

Again there is another branch of the kenotic theory which seeks to answer these questions you check out Micheal Goulderâ??s â??The Debate Continuedâ??

Peace and Grace

Bro. Edmondson

[Zakuska]

Is there a tap dancing smiley? I was never much good at clogging myself. What kind of tap dancing are you referring to, Zak? (By the way, long time no see! Where ya been?)

And ghedmondson, out of curiosity, what about the kenotic view of the incarnation do you find unconvincing? I find it pretty interesting, although I haven't really studied Christology in depth too much.

Take care, everyone

Just taking a sabatical. trying to get a real Life outside the confines of cyber space.