Incoherency of Mainstream Christology

[3DOP]

Blake Ostler writes in the FARMS Review 11/2 1999, regarding "How Wide the Divide":

http://mi.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=11&num=2&id=319

Ostler then lists 5 essential attributes of God and of Man, according to traditional orthodox views:

Essential Attributes of God

1.Uncaused Being or ontologically necessary

2. Incorporeal(immaterial)

3. Omniscient

4. Omnipotent

5. Omnipresent

Essential Attributes of Humans

1'. Created or ontologically contingent

2'. Corporeal(material)

3'. Not omniscient

4'. Not omnipotent

5'. Not omnipresent

Ostler concludes:

Thoughts?

This is not to argue but to agree that the attributes are incompatible with one nature, as Ostler points out. However, has Christ combined all of these incompatible and opposite attributes in one nature? Never! Whoever represents mainstream Christianity, and whatever they believe, Catholics don't believe this. I don't believe this.

According to the teaching of the Catholic Church, the Son has had two natures for over 2,000 years now. The divine nature corresponding to the attributes of God as and the human nature to the attributes of humans.

[ChristKnight]

Ok. With no offense intended to yourself or your beliefs I will explain:

1- Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father.

In my oppinion it is mutually exclusive to be begotten of and consubstantial with the father. He is either a seperate personage or he is not. There is no in-between.

Yes, Jesus is consubstantial with the Father. This means that He is of the same substance of the Father. Trinitarians also believe that Jesus is consubstantial with us humans, due to his Incarnation. How is this possible if He is a separate Person from all of us? Consubstantial means that the stuff that makes God "God" (we'll call this the God material, or the God substance) makes up Jesus and the Father, as well as the Holy Spirit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consubstantiality for a simple explanation.

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are fully separate Persons. Yet they are all are "made" of the same substance. We know that they are separate from Jesus' baptism, and we know that Jesus did not pray to Himself. They are not one Person, or states or "faces" of one Person.

2- And (I believe) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets.

How can the Holy Ghost proceed from the father and the son? The HG can only (again, respectfully, from my point of view) proceed from one or the other (or neither if it is a self existant, seperate personage as we LDS would explain it) Either way it cannot proceed from both.

Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and the Son sends forth the Holy Spirit. Therefore, we say "proceeds from the Father and the Son". The Catholic Church also accepts "proceeds from the Father through the Son", which further emphasizes our belief, and this is used or at least accepted in the Eastern Catholic churches (which are the Eastern Orthodox that have come into communion with Rome).

Are you sure that LDS do not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and the Son sends Him forth? This is Biblical.

John 15:26-27

26But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

27And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.

Clearly, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and the Son sends the Spirit unto us.

There are a few other places which I find confusing, but as they technically don't self contradict I won't include them.

I will admit however that I may be missing something as the line I originally thought of is nowhere to be found here. Thus I must in fairness admit I was not thinking of the same document when I made my post to which you replied. I will have to research into which document contains the writing I was originally thinking of.

Okay, I look forward to that. The above are not contradictions.

[Anticas]

If I chose to look at it from your point of view I would concede that they are not contradictions. I am still not in total agreement with the way you put it forth. (but I suppose I would be catholic if I were wouldn't I)

As to what the LDS believe as to the holy ghost let me state that I hesitate to represent the church. I do feel comfortable in quoting our bible dictionary as having church aproval however. I do not see any of this to mean that the Holy Ghost proceeds from either the father or the son. Indeed nothing we have tells us just who the Holy Ghost is (we do not see him as an it) and what his origins are. There are oppinions but no official doctrine on the matter. (that I know of) The following is what our Bible dictionary says of the Holy Ghost:

The third member of the Godhead and, as the name implies, a personage of Spirit, not possessing a body of flesh and bones (D&C 130: 21-22). The Holy Ghost is manifested in every dispensation of the gospel since the beginning, being first made known to Adam (1 Ne. 10: 17-22; Moses 6: 51-68). The Holy Ghost is manifested to men on the earth both as the power of the Holy Ghost and as the gift of the Holy Ghost. The power can come upon one before baptism, and is the convincing witness that the gospel is true. It gives one a testimony of Jesus Christ and of his work and the work of his servants upon the earth. The gift can come only after proper and authorized baptism, and is conferred by the laying on of hands, as in Acts 8: 12-25 and Moroni 2: 1-3. The gift of the Holy Ghost is the right to have, whenever one is worthy, the companionship of the Holy Ghost. More powerful than that which is available before baptism, it acts as a cleansing agent to purify a person and sanctify him from all sin. Thus it is often spoken of as â??fireâ? (Matt. 3: 11; 2 Ne. 31: 17; D&C 19: 31). The manifestation on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) was the gift of the Holy Ghost that came upon the Twelve, without which they were not ready for their ministries to the world.

For some reason not fully explained in the scriptures, the Holy Ghost did not operate in the fulness among the Jews during the years of Jesusâ?? mortal sojourn (John 7: 39; John 16: 7). Statements to the effect that the Holy Ghost did not come until after Jesus was resurrected must of necessity refer to that particular dispensation only, for it is abundantly clear that the Holy Ghost was operative in earlier dispensations. Furthermore, it has reference only to the gift of the Holy Ghost not being present, since the power of the Holy Ghost was operative during the ministries of John the Baptist and Jesus; otherwise no one would have received a testimony of the truths that these men taught (cf. Matt. 16: 16-17; 1 Cor. 12: 3). When a person speaks by the power of the Holy Ghost that same power carries a conviction of the truth into the heart of the hearer (2 Ne. 33: 1). The Holy Ghost knows all things (D&C 35: 19) and can lead one to know of future events (2 Pet. 1: 21).

Other names that sometimes refer to the Holy Ghost are Holy Spirit, Spirit of god, Spirit of the Lord, Comforter, and Spirit.

[ChristKnight]

If I chose to look at it from your point of view I would concede that they are not contradictions. I am still not in total agreement with the way you put it forth. (but I suppose I would be catholic if I were wouldn't I)

Haha, that is true.

As to what the LDS believe as to the holy ghost let me state that I hesitate to represent the church. I do feel comfortable in quoting our bible dictionary as having church aproval however. I do not see any of this to mean that the Holy Ghost proceeds from either the father or the son. Indeed nothing we have tells us just who the Holy Ghost is (we do not see him as an it) and what his origins are. There are oppinions but no official doctrine on the matter. (that I know of) The following is what our Bible dictionary says of the Holy Ghost:

The third member of the Godhead and, as the name implies, a personage of Spirit, not possessing a body of flesh and bones (D&C 130: 21-22). The Holy Ghost is manifested in every dispensation of the gospel since the beginning, being first made known to Adam (1 Ne. 10: 17-22; Moses 6: 51-68). The Holy Ghost is manifested to men on the earth both as the power of the Holy Ghost and as the gift of the Holy Ghost. The power can come upon one before baptism, and is the convincing witness that the gospel is true. It gives one a testimony of Jesus Christ and of his work and the work of his servants upon the earth. The gift can come only after proper and authorized baptism, and is conferred by the laying on of hands, as in Acts 8: 12-25 and Moroni 2: 1-3. The gift of the Holy Ghost is the right to have, whenever one is worthy, the companionship of the Holy Ghost. More powerful than that which is available before baptism, it acts as a cleansing agent to purify a person and sanctify him from all sin. Thus it is often spoken of as â??fireâ? (Matt. 3: 11; 2 Ne. 31: 17; D&C 19: 31). The manifestation on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) was the gift of the Holy Ghost that came upon the Twelve, without which they were not ready for their ministries to the world.

For some reason not fully explained in the scriptures, the Holy Ghost did not operate in the fulness among the Jews during the years of Jesusâ?? mortal sojourn (John 7: 39; John 16: 7). Statements to the effect that the Holy Ghost did not come until after Jesus was resurrected must of necessity refer to that particular dispensation only, for it is abundantly clear that the Holy Ghost was operative in earlier dispensations. Furthermore, it has reference only to the gift of the Holy Ghost not being present, since the power of the Holy Ghost was operative during the ministries of John the Baptist and Jesus; otherwise no one would have received a testimony of the truths that these men taught (cf. Matt. 16: 16-17; 1 Cor. 12: 3). When a person speaks by the power of the Holy Ghost that same power carries a conviction of the truth into the heart of the hearer (2 Ne. 33: 1). The Holy Ghost knows all things (D&C 35: 19) and can lead one to know of future events (2 Pet. 1: 21).

Other names that sometimes refer to the Holy Ghost are Holy Spirit, Spirit of god, Spirit of the Lord, Comforter, and Spirit.

Thanks for showing your beliefs. Catholics would agree with much of that, including the Holy Spirit being a separate Person from the Father and the Son, Him not having a body of flesh and bones (then again, we don't believe the Father does either), confirmation and the Gift of the Holy Spirit, and the operations of the Holy Spirit in the world.

So at least for the Nicene Creed saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, Catholics (and others that believe what is said in the Creed) see John 15:26 as supporting this, since it explicitly states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and that the Son sends the Spirit unto us from the Father. I think this also emphasizes the role of the Father in the Trinity, since the Son is begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and the Son secondarily.

[David Waltz]

Hello Daniel,

You posted:

>>If something is logically incoherent, as Blake Ostler argues mainstream Christology to be -- and I agree with him on this point -- it will never be comprehensible.>>

Me: I think that both you and Blake are not fully understanding the implications of Chalcedonian Christology. In order to present my concerns, I need to present LDS theology/christology firstâ?¦

â??And as I spake concerning the convincing of the Jews, that Jesus is the very Christ, it must needs be that the Gentiles be convinced also that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal Godâ? (2 Nephi 26:12.)

â??Now, this restoration shall come to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, both the wicked and the righteous; and even there shall not so much as a hair of their heads be lost; but every thing shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God, to be judged according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil.â? (Alma 11:44.)

â??AND now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.

2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son--

3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son--

4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.

5 And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people.â? (Mosiah 15:1-5.)

There are also the verses in the BoM concerning the â??the condescension of Godâ?â?¦

To make a very â??long storyâ? somewhat â??shortâ?, the BoM depicts â??the Eternal Godâ? becoming man (i.e. becoming human). The whole scenario of the BoM Christology is a solid fit (IMHO) with the Chalcedonian Christology.

Grace and peace,

David

[Helmuth]

I just wish that at least once, I could hear an understandable definition of the Mainstream Christian's version of Christ/God.

If it is understandable, it is heretical. Mainstream Christianity's clearly staked-out position is that their version of Christ/God is not understandable.

[ChristKnight]

If it is understandable, it is heretical. Mainstream Christianity's clearly staked-out position is that their version of Christ/God is not understandable.

And where do you get that from, since that is not the position. The real position (at least for Catholics) is that we cannot fully understand or comprehend God, the Eternal, with our human minds. However, it will be possible to do so in the afterlife. A spider cannot fully understand a human, and I don't expect to fully understand the Eternal with my limited human brain.

Do you fully understand God?

[Helmuth]

And where do you get that from, since that is not the position?

From speaking with and reading the writings of "mainstream" Christians. That is the position I have repeatedly encountered.

The real position (at least for Catholics)

I would not necessarily include Catholics in "mainstream" Christianity, so-called. That's ridiculous, I know, Catholics being the biggest stream, but I was thinking of Protestants. Some Protestants do not even consider Catholics to be Christian, and certainly would not welcome them under the "mainstream" umbrella.

Do you fully understand God?

I can say things about God which are fully understandable. That those do not comprise the full set of things which could be said or known about God does not make them less understandable.

[ChristKnight]

From speaking with and reading the writings of "mainstream" Christians. That is the position I have repeatedly encountered.

I would not necessarily include Catholics in "mainstream" Christianity, so-called. That's ridiculous, I know, Catholics being the biggest stream, but I was thinking of Protestants. Some Protestants do not even consider Catholics to be Christian, and certainly would not welcome them under the "mainstream" umbrella.

Ok, then I think everyone should define terms, since I, and probably most others in this thread assumed that "mainstream Christianity" referred to Trinitarians in general. It is true that some Protestants do not consider Catholics Christian. There are also Protestants that are not Trinitarian either. However the largest Protestant churches consider the Catholic Church Christian, so it seems that everyone needs to define who or what "mainstream Christianity" is.

I can say things about God which are fully understandable. That those do not comprise the full set of things which could be said or known about God does not make them less understandable.

Yes, we can say much on God that is fully understandable. However we don't know everything about God. Catholics agree with that.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Ok, then I think everyone should define terms, since I, and probably most others in this thread assumed that "mainstream Christianity" referred to Trinitarians in general. It is true that some Protestants do not consider Catholics Christian. There are also Protestants that are not Trinitarian either. However the largest Protestant churches consider the Catholic Church Christian, so it seems that everyone needs to define who or what "mainstream Christianity" is.

Yes, we can say much on God that is fully understandable. However we don't know everything about God. Catholics agree with that.

I think it is a good idea to define MC. I always consider Catholics part of the main stream. Not every one that is MC is a trinitarian in the classic (nicean) sence. Most are but not all. LDS and JW and other groups like us and them are not MC how ever we are Christains.

It might be easier to define who is not mc instead of those that are. Those that are not mc are in the minority for obvious reasons. Lol.

[ChristKnight]

I think it is a good idea to define MC. I always consider Catholics part of the main stream. Not every one that is MC is a trinitarian in the classic (nicean) sence. Most are but not all. LDS and JW and other groups like us and them are not MC how ever we are Christains.

It might be easier to define who is not mc instead of those that are. Those that are not mc are in the minority for obvious reasons. Lol.

Haha yes I agree with this. There are apparently many definitions of "mainstream Christianity", or even just plain "Christianity". For this thread, I just assumed that "mainstream" meant those that believe in the traditional Trinity, and left it at that. The Protestants that call Catholics non-Christian add to that definition to get to that conclusion.

[Helmuth]

Perhaps I retreated a little when I shouldn't have. Catholics do believe Jesus was fully 100% God and fully 100% man, just like Protestants, right? If so, Ostler's comments would apply. And you Catholics can rejoin the mainstream!

Yes, we can say much on God that is fully understandable. However we don't know everything about God. Catholics agree with that.

What you write above LDS would agree with. We both say we don't know everything and perhaps can't fully understand in mortality. Fine. But I don't think that's all there is to it. Catholics know things about God which are non-understandable. You know things which are, to our mortal mind, impossible, nonsensical, contradictory, whatever you want to call it. Jesus cannot know everything and simultaneously not know everything, in the same sense in which He does know everything. Saying He has two natures, as 3DOP says, doesn't seem to solve this dilemma. Possessing two contradictory natures simultaneously is just as impossible as possessing two contradictory attributes within one nature. What is the practical difference between those two possibilities? He could be switching back and forth between the two, that would be logically possible, but that is not your belief, is it? He holds both simultaneously. And that is logically impossible.

This is where the answer usually becomes: "We can't understand such mysteries. God is incomprehensible and mysterious. Logic is a human concept. God can transcend such limitations. We are just like ants crawling around Newton's dorm room trying to understand the calculus."

In contrast, the things LDS claim to know about God do not seem to me to be self-contradictory / incoherent.

[ChristKnight]

Perhaps I retreated a little when I shouldn't have. Catholics do believe Jesus was fully 100% God and fully 100% man, just like Protestants, right? If so, Ostler's comments would apply. And you Catholics can rejoin the mainstream!

Yes, we do believe that. YAY

What you write above LDS would agree with. We both say we don't know everything and perhaps can't fully understand in mortality. Fine. But I don't think that's all there is to it. Catholics know things about God which are non-understandable. You know things which are, to our mortal mind, impossible, nonsensical, contradictory, whatever you want to call it. Jesus cannot know everything and simultaneously not know everything, in the same sense in which He does know everything. Saying He has two natures, as 3DOP says, doesn't seem to solve this dilemma. Possessing two contradictory natures simultaneously is just as impossible as possessing two contradictory attributes within one nature. What is the practical difference between those two possibilities? He could be switching back and forth between the two, that would be logically possible, but that is not your belief, is it? He holds both simultaneously. And that is logically impossible.

This is where the answer usually becomes: "We can't understand such mysteries. God is incomprehensible and mysterious. Logic is a human concept. God can transcend such limitations. We are just like ants crawling around Newton's dorm room trying to understand the calculus."

In contrast, the things LDS claim to know about God do not seem to me to be self-contradictory / incoherent.

How do LDS view Jesus when He incarnated?

You are right, we don't believe that when Jesus incarnated that He was "switching back and forth". In Catholic belief, there has been no time ever that Jesus stopped being Divine. And yes, I do believe that some of what we know about God makes perfect sense, and some of what we know about God we just don't fully understand. How Jesus Christ was fully God and fully man is one of them. We can't completely understand that. I'm okay with not fully understanding the Eternal and His ways.

I've seen some anti-Mormons make a big deal out of the following, and I was wondering if you could address it, though you'll probably cover it in what I was wondering in the beginning of this post (how do LDS view Jesus when He incarnated). It comes from "The Life and Teachings of Jesus and His Apostles", published by CES and found here:

http://institute.lds.org/manuals/new-testament-institute-student-manual/index.asp

It says on page 10:

"There was in Palestine a couple, Joseph and Mary. They lived in Nazareth. They had traveled, evidently, from Nazareth to Bethlehem in order to pay a tax that had been decreed by the Roman Emperor. That was the ostensible purpose. She, heavy with child, traveled all that distance on mule-back, guarded and protected as one about to give birth to a half-Deity."

"He lived in a lowly home, the only man born to this earth half-Divine and half-mortal."

Thanks!

[3DOP]

Helmuth

Jesus cannot know everything and simultaneously not know everything, in the same sense in which He does know everything. Saying He has two natures, as 3DOP says, doesn't seem to solve this dilemma. Possessing two contradictory natures simultaneously is just as impossible as possessing two contradictory attributes within one nature.

3DOP

It is correct that Jesus cannot at the same time be both omniscient and ignorant. When humans partake of the divine nature it involves the reception of attributes that are not attributes of human nature. That is what it means to be supernatural, or deified. We are elevated by this action. Contrarily when the Incarnation occurred, and Jesus was humanized, He partook of a nature that did not elevate Him beyond the divine attributes. But He still retained His divine attributes while condescending to assume the form of a servant, a human. It is still true that His human nature was created in time, while the Second Person, is eternal. Christ's divine knowledge isn't enhanced by His human knowledge or lack thereof, and so on.

Muhammad argued in the Koran that Jesus was not God because He was hungry. Can God be starved to death? No. We attribute that which belongs to humanity to the human nature, while affirming that Jesus remains God. As God, Jesus was not hungry.

[Helmuth]

How do LDS view Jesus when He incarnated?

Thank you for your patience! Let me try to answer, and I pray I will not spout false doctrine -- if I do, someone LDS correct me. Jesus condescended to become mortal. While mortal, He was *not* omniscient. He was born ignorant and helpless, like other babies. He learned and grew from grace to grace, as the Bible says. He behaved perfectly (no sin), and thus progressed as fast and as far towards Godhood as one can in mortality.

So Jesus was not both ignorant and omniscient. We believe He was not omniscient, at least certainly not for His whole life. One could speculate that He attained omniscience by the end of His life, but such speculation would be on the fringes of Mormon thought, I think.

You are right, we don't believe that when Jesus incarnated that He was "switching back and forth". In Catholic belief, there has been no time ever that Jesus stopped being Divine. And yes, I do believe that some of what we know about God makes perfect sense, and some of what we know about God we just don't fully understand. How Jesus Christ was fully God and fully man is one of them. We can't completely understand that. I'm okay with not fully understanding the Eternal and His ways.

OK, then I think we agree with each other, and with Ostler essentially, excluding any negative connotation he gives to the idea of your belief being incomprehensible/incoherent.

I've seen some anti-Mormons make a big deal out of the following, and I was wondering if you could address it, though you'll probably cover it in what I was wondering in the beginning of this post (how do LDS view Jesus when He incarnated). It comes from "The Life and Teachings of Jesus and His Apostles", published by CES and found here:

http://institute.lds.org/manuals/new-testament-institute-student-manual/index.asp

It says on page 10:

"There was in Palestine a couple, Joseph and Mary. They lived in Nazareth. They had traveled, evidently, from Nazareth to Bethlehem in order to pay a tax that had been decreed by the Roman Emperor. That was the ostensible purpose. She, heavy with child, traveled all that distance on mule-back, guarded and protected as one about to give birth to a half-Deity."

"He lived in a lowly home, the only man born to this earth half-Divine and half-mortal."

Thanks!

Saying "half-divine, half mortal" would be much more correct formulation of the Mormon view than "fully divine, fully mortal". Jesus willingly set aside His divinity for a time, in order to fulfill the Father's great plan. At the same time, His spirit was still the Great Jehovah, and He was conceived miraculously, so He wasn't just an ordinary 100% run-of-the-mill mortal either. I don't really have a problem with the CES formulation, though there are other ways to express it, which are also accurate.