Does The Nicene Creed Really Contradict The Bible?

[Paul Ray]

I was responding (with those sources) specifically to Kerry's charge: "See, unless the Father and the Son were literally and mechanically separated individuals, it's inconceivable that they would not share the same knowledge." I've found Morris helpful in this particular regard.

For the benefit of those of us who don't know what you're talking about, what does Morris have to say in that regard???

I'm sincerely curious... but I'd rather have you tell me in a nutshell.

[cksalmon]

For the benefit of those of us who don't know what you're talking about, what does Morris have to say in that regard???

I'm sincerely curious... but I'd rather have you tell me in a nutshell.

Hi Paul--

In a nutshell, Morris argues that Christ's divine mind contained but was not contained by his human mind. Thus, there was an epistemological disparity between the two.

Clear as mud?

Best.

CKS

[Paul Ray]

Hi Paul--

In a nutshell, Morris argues that Christ's divine mind contained but was not contained by his human mind. Thus, there was an epistemological disparity between the two.

Clear as mud?

Best.

CKS

Are you referring to the difference between the brain in Christ's physical body and his spirit inside his physical body... with his spirit being what is defined as his true self, which is separate and distinct from the Holy Ghost?

I believe that is pretty much the same for each of us now. Do you agree?

Do you see any harmony between our (LDS) beliefs and the beliefs that were adopted at Nicea?

[cksalmon]

Are you referring to the difference between the brain in Christ's physical body and his spirit inside his physical body... with his spirit being what is defined as his true self, which is separate and distinct from the Holy Ghost?

I believe that is pretty much the same for each of us now. Do you agree?

Do you see any harmony between our (LDS) beliefs and the beliefs that were adopted at Nicea?

Hi Paul--

Morris argues that Jesus had "something like two distinct ranges of consciousness." While the divine consciousness contained the human consciousness, the reverse is not the case: the human consciousness did not contain the divine. The divine mind had full access to the human mind; but the human mind did not have full access to the divine.

This is not to say that Jesus was two persons in one body, but that he was "one person with two natures, and two ranges of consciousness." This can easily be squared with the creeds, I think.

So, no, we're not really talking about the distinction between brain and spirit, but between two supramaterial "ranges of consciousness."

To my mind, any sense of harmony between the LDS understanding of Trinity and Nicene Christianity would probably be fairly superficial and would depend largely upon equivocation with regard to the term "being."

That's my take, at any rate.

Best.

CKS

[cdowis]

I attended a meeting where a theologian was speaking about the nature of God in time and outside time.

I remember one statement he made, "We (the theologians) now know more about the nature of God than the prophets."

[cksalmon]

I attended a meeting where a theologian was speaking about the nature of God in time and outside time.

I remember one statement he made, "We (the theologians) now know more about the nature of God than the prophets."

Hi Charles--

That's a pretty bold and ludicrous statement. I don't think that's what Morris (a philosopher of religion, by the way) is suggesting at all.

Best.

CKS

[Paul Ray]

Hi Paul--

Morris argues that Jesus had "something like two distinct ranges of consciousness." While the divine consciousness contained the human consciousness, the reverse is not the case: the human consciousness did not contain the divine. The divine mind had full access to the human mind; but the human mind did not have full access to the divine.

Do you believe Morris spoke the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth on that issue?

If so, what makes you think Jesus' human mind didn't have full access to the divine?

This is not to say that Jesus was two persons in one body, but that he was "one person with two natures, and two ranges of consciousness." This can easily be squared with the creeds, I think.

Yeah, okay, but is the creed true concerning that specific issue?

If it is, how do you know? Does your mind have full access to the divine mind on that issue?

If not, how do you know you know the full truth on that issue?

So, no, we're not really talking about the distinction between brain and spirit, but between two supramaterial "ranges of consciousness."

Can you define and explain "supramaterial ranges of consciousness", in other words?

Are you saying there is another range of consciousness beyond that of the brain and/or the spirit?

... including being beyond the range of Jesus Christ's brain and his spirit?

To my mind, any sense of harmony between the LDS understanding of Trinity and Nicene Christianity would probably be fairly superficial and would depend largely upon equivocation with regard to the term "being."

Fortunately, I'm not dependent on your mind, or even my mind, only.

[cksalmon]

Do you believe Morris spoke the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth on that issue?

If so, what makes you think Jesus' human mind didn't have full access to the divine [mind]?

I believe that Morris believes he is speaking the truth. His argument makes sense to me when placed in juxtaposition with others of my beliefs.

Yeah, okay, but is the creed true concerning that specific issue?

On the issue of "one person with two natures?" That's actually the Definition of Chalcedon. I personally believe it to be true. Chalcedon, of course, doesn't speak specifically to the issue Morris raises.

If it is, how do you know? Does your mind have full access to the divine mind on that issue?

To my mind, it has significant explanatory power. I wouldn't state that I know it to be true, only that I believe and am convinced that it is true. Obviously, I don't have full access to the divine mind. No mere human does.

If not, how do you know you know the full truth on that issue?

Paul, I don't know the full truth. I can only say that I'm currently convinced.

Can you define and explain "supramaterial ranges of consciousness", in other words?

Are you saying there is another range of consciousness beyond that of the brain and/or the spirit?

... including being beyond the range of Jesus Christ's brain and his spirit?

A "supramaterial range of consciousness" would be one that not contingent upon matter.

I think we might be missing each other here. I'm saying that (Morris is saying that) Jesus' divine consciousness was not accessible to his human consciousness. I'm not attempting to talk about the physical matter composing the brain. I'm also not necessarily suggesting that Jesus had two "spirits." Here, the concept gets a bit murky. I would also note that, unlike LDS, I believe that Christ had two natures. This is not the LDS position. So, I believe we might be talking past one another at that point.

Best.

CKS

(BTW, I do think Morris's distinction would still work even if one were to adopt a monist framework of human nature [as opposed to a dichotomist or trichotomist framework]. One would simply word it differently.)

Fortunately, I'm not dependent on your mind, or even my mind, only.

I agree wholeheartedly.

[Paul Ray]

I believe that Morris believes he is speaking the truth. His argument makes sense to me when placed in juxtaposition with others of my beliefs.

Is that all your belief is based on?

... the mere fact that his argument makes sense to you and is in agreement with your other beliefs?

How did you learn your other beliefs were true, to begin with?

I think we need something more than mere reasoning... although I do agree that reasoning can help.

On the issue of "one person with two natures?" That's actually the Definition of Chalcedon. I personally believe it to be true. Chalcedon, of course, doesn't speak specifically to the issue Morris raises.

Again, how do you know that those ideas are true?

Are you relying merely upon your own reasoning?

And how would you define "natures". What is a "nature", exactly.

I asked this in another thread and didn't get very many responses.

To my mind, it has significant explanatory power. I wouldn't state that I know it to be true, only that I believe and am convinced that it is true. Obviously, I don't have full access to the divine mind. No mere human does.

First of all, I meant and was thinking about full access to the divine mind on a certain issue, specifically.

I know we can't have full access to what God doesn't tell us.

Secondly, how do you claim to know what you know?

If I explain something well enough will you necessarily believe it just because I explain it really well?

What is the basis of your knowledge, and how can I know what your basis is?

Do you believe I can access the source of your information to acquire my own answer?

... and fully access it until I get the full answer to my question?

Paul, I don't know the full truth. I can only say that I'm currently convinced.

Hmm. Okay. Who convinced you? And why do you trust that source for your answers?

A "supramaterial range of consciousness" would be one that not contingent upon matter.

Hmm. Okay. Thank you for partially explaining that.

What does a range of consciousness not contingent upon matter have to do with being able to find a full truthful answer to a question you are seeking to have answered?

I think we might be missing each other here. I'm saying that (Morris is saying that) Jesus' divine consciousness was not accessible to his human consciousness.

Okay. That makes a lot more sense to me, and I think I do agree with that.

I think you're referring to what we (LDS) refer to as the "veil" that keeps us from remembering everything we once knew... which we can at least gradually regain as we seek to have our questions answered.

I'm not attempting to talk about the physical matter composing the brain.

I think I fully understood that. I thought you were referring to two states of consciousness, or our state of awareness, concerning who we are and how we know what we know.

I'm also not necessarily suggesting that Jesus had two "spirits." Here, the concept gets a bit murky.

Yeah, and I think it's "murky" because our state of consciousness is not connecting with each other.

I think we're both having trouble trying to understand what each one of us is saying and reconciling what we think with God's thoughts.

I would also note that, unlike LDS, I believe that Christ had two natures.

To me, the word "nature" refers to who and what a person is, although it can also sometimes refer to the state of a "thing".

I believe Jesus Christ was who and what Jesus Christ was when he was what Jesus Christ was.

I don't believe Jesus Christ was ever anything that he wasn't.

Ahh!!! Hmm. Here's a thought.

By nature, are you referring to one of the natures of Jesus Christ involving being only a spirit... without a physical body... and another one of his natures involving still being a spirit while then possessing a physical body???

I think the nature of Jesus Christ was always the same. I don't think having a body, like we have, changed his nature.

This is not the LDS position. So, I believe we might be talking past one another at that point.

If I understand you correctly, I think it is mainly one of semantics.

I don't think acquiring a body, like we have, changed his nature.

... although being mortal could have increased his state of consciousness, or awareness!!!

edit: You know, the more I think about this, the more I am learning about our (LDS) own true doctrine.

You are more of an "LDS" than I previously gave you credit for. Congratulations!!!

[cksalmon]

I believe that Morris believes he is speaking the truth. His argument makes sense to me when placed in juxtaposition with others of my beliefs.

Is that all your belief is based on?

That's what my affirmation of Morris's argument is based on, yes.

... the mere fact that his his argument makes sense to you and is in agreement with your other beliefs?

And that it has significant explanatory power. Yes.

How did you learn your other beliefs were true, to begin with?

I don't think I can effectively answer this without knowing what "other beliefs" you have in mind. There are myriad ways in which we come to believe propositions are true.

I think we need something more than mere reasoning... although I do agree that reasoning can help.

My ultimate authority for Christian knowledge is the Holy Spirit, who has communicated the truths of Christian faith most importantly and definitively in the Bible. No beliefs about God should contradict the Bible . Some beliefs about God may be deduced from biblical texts even though the Bible itself is silent on certain specific issues.

Again, how do you know that those ideas are true?

Which "ideas?" Morris's? Again, I don't know that Morris has provided the definitive answer. I do think his argument makes sense of biblical data and does not contradict biblical data. Moreover, it explains some biblical data (e.g., the human Jesus not knowing the future in certain instances) quite well in a way that does not, to my mind, contradict biblical truth.

Are you relying merely upon your own reasoning?

No.

And how would you define "natures". What is a "nature", exactly.

I asked this in another thread and didn't get very many responses.

First of all, I meant and was thinking about full access to the divine mind on a certain issue, specifically.

I know we can't have full access to what God doesn't tell us.

No comment at this time. It's a good question, though.

Secondly, how do you claim to know what you know?

The things I know, I know through the Spirit's communication through the Bible and in myself.

If I explain something well enough will you necessarily believe it just because I explain it really well?

If I'm convinced by your explanation, I surely would, perhaps despite myself, believe your "something."

What is the basis of your knowledge, and how can I know what your basis is?

The Bible properly interpreted by the Spirit of Truth. This is where we will diverge, of course.

Do you believe I can access the source of your information to acquire my own answer?

Yes.

... and fully access it until I get the full answer to my question?

In some cases (e.g., re: monotheism). I don't know that "full" answers are possible for any number of religious questions.

Yeah, and I think it's "murky" because our state of consciousness is not connecting with each other.

Well, these are heady ideas. We probably won't come to perfect understanding on a message board. More's the pity--I spend more than enough time here.

I believe Jesus Christ was who and what Jesus Christ was when he was what Jesus Christ was.

As worded, I don't see how I can disagree with this.

I don't believe Jesus Christ was ever anything that he wasn't.

I believe that Jesus was once not embodied. Now he is.

Ahh!!! Hmm. Here's a thought.

By nature, are you referring to one of the natures of Jesus Christ involving being only a spirit... without a physical body... and another one of his natures involving still being a spirit while then possessing a physical body???

I don't know. No comment at the moment. Let me think about it.

I don't think acquiring a body, like we have, changed his nature.

I don't either. I think acquiring a physical form added a human nature to his person. Again, traditional Christians affirm the dual natures of Christ (divine first, then human).

It's hard to talk about these things on an MB. I appreciate your willingness to dialogue.

Best.

CKS

[David Waltz]

Hello Paul (and CKS),

Forgive me for intruding into your current dialogue, but you have entered into a very interesting topicâ?¦

Paul wrote:

>>To me, the word "nature" refers to who and what a person is, although it can also sometimes refer to the state of a "thing".

I believe Jesus Christ was who and what Jesus Christ was when he was what Jesus Christ was.

I don't believe Jesus Christ was ever anything that he wasn't.

Ahh!!! Hmm. Here's a thought.

By nature, are you referring to one of the natures of Jesus Christ involving being only a spirit... without a physical body... and another one of his natures involving still being a spirit while then possessing a physical body???

I think the nature of Jesus Christ was always the same. I don't think having a body, like we have, changed his nature.>>

Me: The BoM clearly states that Christ was â??the eternal Godâ? (and one God with the Father and HG) before His â??condescensionâ? (i.e. being born to the Virgin Mary and receiving a human body and â??soulâ?).

Now, as I have said in the past, Christâ??s pre-existent, pre-incarnate state was that of full divinityâ??this state I shall call â??nature 1â? (N1). Jesus then added to N1 a human bodyâ??this human body I shall call â??nature 2â? (N2). When N2 was added to N1, N1 did not lose any of the inherent attributes that made Jesus Christ â??the eternal Godâ? (i.e. fully divine). With this in mind, I see it perfectly legitimate to speak of â??two naturesâ? when referring to the now incarnate Jesus Christâ??namely, N1 and N2.

Perhaps I have missed something in my simple analysis, but I think the bases have pretty much been covered in spite of the brevity.

Grace and peace,

David

[cksalmon]

Hi David--

Any tips on how to find this?

Treatise On Grace & other posthumously published writings including Observation on the Trinity

The essay to which you refer is not in my Collected Works. I'm also having some trouble finding the book for purchase online.

Best.

CKS

Hi David--

Any tips on how to find this?

The essay to which you refer is not in my Collected Works. I'm also having some trouble finding the book for purchase online.

Best.

CKS

Nevermind. I found the book with "Addall."

[David Waltz]

Hi CKS,

Quite a few of Edwards writings are not in the 2 volume collected works set (hate the small print!!!).

Here is another option on the Treatise On Grace & other posthumously published writings including Observation on the Trinity:

http://www.allbookstores.com/book/compare/0227679059

This is a paperback reprint of the original hardback that I own.

Grace and peace,

David

[rhinomelon]

David, thanks for the tip on Letham's book. I will order it as soon as I get settled into my new place in Washington DC. Just reading about it online has started my juices flowing!

[Paul Ray]

I think acquiring a physical form added a human nature to his person. Again, traditional Christians affirm the dual natures of Christ (divine first, then human).

I think the reason we do not agree where we do not agree basically boils down to semantics... and I'm referring specifically to the issues we have been discussing.

I think I'm in agreement with what you meant when you said what you just said, that I quoted. I just wouldn't use use the word "nature" like you did because my definition of nature is who and what a person or being really is, essentially.

... OIOW, the "substance" of "essence" of that person or being.

... and I define a "person" as one of the individuals that represent a "being".

For another example, chicken is chicken, by nature.

... it doesn't matter whether the chicken is in the form of an egg, or a chick, or a fully grown chicken... male or female... or all cut up into pieces and fried or cooked for your dinner.

If it's chicken, it's chicken, and it's chicken by its nature.

I believe all men and women are literally God by nature.

... and I'm not referring to being the same person as our Father.

... I'm referring to being the same being as our Father.

I know we're not perfected, yet... or that we're not fully mature to what we can be, yet.

But in essence and/or substance and/or nature, we are already the same being as God.

... by virtue of the fact that we are literally children of God... spiritually.

... and what we are in our spirit is really our true nature.

I believe a lot of us just forget that and/or reject that idea and worship someone other than our Father and/or other persons who are united with him.

It's hard to talk about these things on an MB. I appreciate your willingness to dialogue.

I don't think talking about it is what is hard.

I think what is hard is coming to a mutual understanding of each other by the use of mere words.

... and our words would still be a barrier to our communication efforts if all we had to rely on were our words while we talked face to face.

Best.

Back atcha.

[Paul Ray]

Hello Paul (and CKS),

Forgive me for intruding into your current dialogue, but you have entered into a very interesting topicâ?¦

Paul wrote:

>>To me, the word "nature" refers to who and what a person is, although it can also sometimes refer to the state of a "thing".

I believe Jesus Christ was who and what Jesus Christ was when he was what Jesus Christ was.

I don't believe Jesus Christ was ever anything that he wasn't.

Ahh!!! Hmm. Here's a thought.

By nature, are you referring to one of the natures of Jesus Christ involving being only a spirit... without a physical body... and another one of his natures involving still being a spirit while then possessing a physical body???

I think the nature of Jesus Christ was always the same. I don't think having a body, like we have, changed his nature.>>

Me: The BoM clearly states that Christ was â??the eternal Godâ? (and one God with the Father and HG) before His â??condescensionâ? (i.e. being born to the Virgin Mary and receiving a human body and â??soulâ?).

Now, as I have said in the past, Christâ??s pre-existent, pre-incarnate state was that of full divinityâ??this state I shall call â??nature 1â? (N1). Jesus then added to N1 a human bodyâ??this human body I shall call â??nature 2â? (N2). When N2 was added to N1, N1 did not lose any of the inherent attributes that made Jesus Christ â??the eternal Godâ? (i.e. fully divine). With this in mind, I see it perfectly legitimate to speak of â??two naturesâ? when referring to the now incarnate Jesus Christâ??namely, N1 and N2.

Perhaps I have missed something in my simple analysis, but I think the bases have pretty much been covered in spite of the brevity.

Grace and peace,

David

The only thing I can think of that you might be missing in your analysis is the idea that N1 and N2 share the same nature, which is N.

... and we will still share the same nature as N3.

[e=mc2]

I just wanted to say I have really enjoyed this thread, and am sorry the podcast disappointed ya a bit Dave. I hope the others won't so much. Sorry I haven't contributed much, but others seem so much better at it than I am......

[David Waltz]

Hi Kerry,

Thanks for dropping in; you wrote:

>>I just wanted to say I have really enjoyed this thread, and am sorry the podcast disappointed ya a bit Dave. I hope the others won't so much. Sorry I haven't contributed much, but others seem so much better at it than I am......>>

Me: IMHO, though I think Richard Hopkins book is pretty good overall, chapter 3 â?? â??The Number of Godâ?, has some grave problems; his understanding of the Nicene Creed is flawed, as is his thoughts on the overall terminology involved (including the Biblical components). I would also argue that he has overlooked some important aspects of respected LDS scholars concerning the nature of the Godheadâ??especially Blake Ostler. (Ostlerâ??s essay here: http://tinyurl.com/2e5g5s ; and his two new books, are a must reads IMHO.)

To make a very long story short, I am convinced that the perceived â??divideâ? between what the Nicene Creed actually affirms and certain LDS views concerning the Godhead is not nearly as â??wideâ? as many think it is.

Anyway, I do enjoy your podcasts, and sincerely hope you donâ??t mind if I express my views here at MADB when I am at odds with some of the content.

Grace and peace,

David

[e=mc2]

Oh heavens no, I don't mind at all expressing dissent, and disagreement. Man that is why I throw out the podcasts in the first place, in order to generate discussion and learning.