The Nicene Creed

[Tanyan]

Colossians 2:8 .

[Programmer]

There are three people (hypostasis in Greek) that 'have' the Divine Essence. Since they are separate people they have different attributes relating to their personhood/hypostasis. For instance the Father is the source of the Trinity. The Son is begotten by, and the Spirit proceeds from Him. The Son became man, and redeemed us etc. So while each person of the Trinity has different attributes relating to who they are (personhood/hypostasis), they are identical in what they are (essence/nature).

I really dislike mixing theology with Platonic language. Probably why the 'ancient church' had to have a great big council in the first place to try to put back what should never have been broken in the first place.

[Teo9969]

SOOOOO, which Model/Form of the Trinity is the correct Biblical one: Western, Eastern, Economic, Essential, Monarch, Social, Modalistic/Sabellian, Tritheistic, ?.

And which Church Authority from the past or present has gotten it 100% correct ?.

Sooooo, which one is it ?.

Depends on who you're asking, obviously, whoever believes in the certain one is going to say that their's is the correct biblical one. But any of them that deny one of the three statements:

1. God is three persons

2. Each person is fully God

3. There is only one God

Is not a true conception of the trinity...so that would knock out Modalism, Arianism, and Tritheism right off the bat. You saw how close the Eastern and Catholic (Western) were.

[1dc]

I will attempt to define essence/nature.

First essence/nature is not a physical thing. Think of it in terms of a way of thinking about something, or a way of defining it. In other words it answers the question "what is something?" Think beyond physical descriptions to answer. For instance, what is the essence of beauty? You could say a human is beautiful. But is a diamond or a waterfall or a star not also beautiful? How can they all be beautiful? What is the essence/nature of beauty? They all share in this essence and yet are completely different things. When we talk about the Divine Essence we are asking what is God, or what makes God God? We answer that He is uncreated, eternal, inconceivable, ineffable, perfect, etc. In this way there are three, and only three people, who fit this description. Thus we say that there are three people who are God, but there is only one God (because there is only one Divine Essence). Does this make sense to you?

Yes, in that while beauty consists of different things and all are fully and validly beautiful they are all at the same time unique to themselves (even while consisting of similar atomic sub-particles). So I don't see the inconsistency with your defninition when comparing the LDS view of the three persons of God as they are all God (Godhood) and at the same time they are unique but with defined relationships to each other.

To follow on, there was a debate in the early church (5th century) regarding the person of Jesus that sought to answer the question of His essence/nature.  I think it may help to give a real world example how essence/nature has played out in Church theology.  One school incorrectly taught that when Jesus was born there two essences, human and divine in Him; yet these essences were completely separate . . . 

Sounds very similar to what some have argued here in that Christ has/had 2 different but united intellects, one of which was able to grow and the other being fixed and already all encompassing the knowledge and experience of the other.

In the stick figure drawing suggestion, the human intelligence was within the God intellect and so if they are united why would the knowledge not be shared between them?

Many have attempted to define the growth as only the human component but scripture suggests the divine component grew. Scripture says the child waxed or grew strong in the spirit . . why would scripture say this if Jesus was already 100% of the essence of the source of the spirit?

[Tanyan]

I will attempt to define essence/nature. 

First essence/nature is not a physical thing.  Think of it in terms of a way of thinking about something, or a way of defining it.  In other words it answers the question "what is something?"  Think beyond physical descriptions to answer.  For instance, what is the essence of beauty?  You could say a human is beautiful.  But is a diamond or a waterfall or a star not also beautiful?  How can they all be beautiful?  What is the essence/nature of beauty?  They all share in this essence and yet are completely different things.  When we talk about the Divine Essence we are asking what is God, or what makes God God?  We answer that He is uncreated, eternal, inconceivable, ineffable, perfect, etc.  In this way there are three, and only three people, who fit this description.  Thus we say that there are three people who are God, but there is only one God (because there is only one Divine Essence).  Does this make sense to you?

Yes, in that while beauty consists of different things and all are fully and validly beautiful they are all at the same time unique to themselves (even while consisting of similar atomic sub-particles). So I don't see the inconsistency with your defninition when comparing the LDS view of the three persons of God as they are all God (Godhood) and at the same time they are unique but with defined relationships to each other.

To follow on, there was a debate in the early church (5th century) regarding the person of Jesus that sought to answer the question of His essence/nature.

[Tanyan]

Catholic and E.O were close but not enough to stay unified.

[Teo9969]

Soooo, which one is the absolute correct Form/Version and who has it correct ?. I await our Catholic Friend [David Waltz] Book on the Topic of the Trinity in respect to the various individuals involved and how the various Models/forms came about and why.

I don't want this to sound snappy, but it could come across like that. But it's defeating to ask which one has the correct form...The point is, is that Whoever has their own definition of the Trinity, they are going to advocate that there's is the true way, and if they back it up biblically (to some extent), then you can't really say anyone has the correct way.

Catholics think they're right, E.O. Think they're right, I mean...they are both backed up scripturally, albiet with different interpretations, so, I don't think any of us are going to advocate our correctness, it would be kind of pointless.

[JLH]

First off, I must admit that I have not been following theis thread. I do not meant to derail it so if I ask my question and am told to set up a separate thread, I will understand.

Question:

The lds church claims that the Nicene Creed is an "abomination in the eyes of God".

Is there anywhere that the lds church will officially explain why this creed is an "abomination"?

Assuming such answer is no (conluding that the lds church rarely explains any of it's claims/history in an "official capacity"), can any members of the lds church give their opinion of why it is "abominable" and WHY?

[mom4life]

can any members of the lds church give their opinion of why it is "abominable" and WHY?

Maybe it's that word, "catholic"?

[1dc]

First off, I must admit that I have not been following theis thread. I do not meant to derail it so if I ask my question and am told to set up a separate thread, I will understand.

I'd like to see this question in a separate thread and with a specific quote and source citation, please.

[1dc]

I don't want this to sound snappy, but it could come across like that. But it's defeating to ask which one has the correct form...The point is, is that Whoever has their own definition of the Trinity, they are going to advocate that there's is the true way, and if they back it up biblically (to some extent), then you can't really say anyone has the correct way.

Catholics think they're right, E.O. Think they're right, I mean...they are both backed up scripturally, albiet with different interpretations, so, I don't think any of us are going to advocate our correctness, it would be kind of pointless.

I tend to agree . . I see it better to try an illuminate rather than label (though collectively agreed labels might help illuminate).

The question still remains for us to ask ourselves . . is our particular interpretation valid or not--and for what purposes?

For example: As the Nicean Creed has been used by some to define authority (including intent, form and other components) for baptisms, then they should apply it fairly and uniformly to all persons. If they are going to say a particular faith's understanding is not consistent, then they should be prepared to fully explain what their understanding is and why the other's is not consistent.

[emaughan]

I believe the only time I know of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ actually appearing visibly together was at the first vision.

You forget the testimony of Stephen right before he was stoned.

Also, Christ testified that the Father is greater than He. Even though God the Father gave His Son the title and authority to act fully in His name, Christ gives all the glory to the Father. The greatest testimony that Jesus gives us that He is not the same being as His Father is when He resurrects and appears before Mary. It is there that the resurrected Christ declares that He has not yet ascended to His God, and Her God. God the Father is a being seperate from the Son.

An earlier poster - not understanding the key to knowing the godhead - tried to use scripts from the BoM to "prove" the Trinity. What that poster failed to comprehend is the nature of what divine investiture entails. The best example of this is at the begining of the book of Moses in the PoGP. The reader at first would believe that the one comunicating with Moses was God the Father - but then it becomes clear that it is the Son speaking for and in behalf of the Father. Another case is where an angelic messanger is teaching John and John kneels to worship the angel who seems to be speaking as Christ. The angel stops and tells John that he (the angel) is but a fellow servant - worship God only. Then the angel continues with the revealation and appears and speaks as God.

The beauty is that through the restoration, these truths have been restored. Everything in the scriptures about the nature of the godhead makes perfect sense once one understands that Christ is invested and called to mediate between man and God the Father.

[emaughan]

Catholics think they're right, E.O. Think they're right, I mean...they are both backed up scripturally, albiet with different interpretations, so, I don't think any of us are going to advocate our correctness, it would be kind of pointless.

I disagree. The doctrine of the trinity has many contradictions found in the scriptures that go strongly against the idea the Jesus and God the Father are one in being. The doctrine that Christ is our mediator who is invested with all authority of the Father has no contradictions in the scriptures and is easy to understand. Their oneness is explained, why Christ is called the Father is explained, why Stephen saw two beings, why Christ noted that there is a God over Him and us, how revealation to man is always directed through Christ our mediator (except in the rare cases where the Father speaks to bare witness of the Son), and why in the garden Christ asked His father to take the cup from Him. If they were the same being, the prayers Christ gave would be like one who suffers from multiple personality disorder. When the Lord cried out on the cross to His Father - He was not talking to Himself.

[Tanyan]

emaughan, thanks for your viewpoint, however remember that when you use the word "Being" it means to our non LDS friends/critics as "Nature" . We believe that the Father/Son/Holy Ghost all have the same true GOD "Nature/Being". Perhaps a better way to say it other than "Being" is "GOD/Entity" which filters out any confusion to anyone. Just a helpful thoughtful observation to you. In His Grace, Tanyan.

[emaughan]

Good point. You're right that vocab differnces can sow confusion.

[Fiat Lux]

Many have attempted to define the growth as only the human component but scripture suggests the divine component grew.  Scripture says the child waxed or grew strong in the spirit . . why would scripture say this if Jesus was already 100% of the essence of the source of the spirit?

Can a human being wax strong in spirit? We believe that Christ was 100% man too, and that his two natures were not mixed. He possessed a human soul.

[1dc]

Can a human being wax strong in spirit? We believe that Christ was 100% man too, and that his two natures were not mixed. He possessed a human soul.

The separate natures comment seems to be at odds with another earlier Catholic post saying that separate was an incorrect teaching (maybe R vs O?).

You are suggesting He was fully of 100% divine spirit and then He added more to another part of Himself as He grew? And this at the same time that God the Father doesn't have a body with the result that the Father then has less spirit than the boy Jesus? Sorry, neither point make sense to me.

[Rtifs]

The two natures are distinct but not separate. Along with the Trinity this can be one of the more difficult aspects of Jesus to understand. When I had left the Mormon Church and began to study the EO I had to do a lot of my own research to learn what was meant by Trinity and such, because the Mormon perception of God (what I was raised with) is so different from the "mainstream" view. I found it useful to read a couple of documents by the main protagonists in the debates. Nestorius was the Patriarch of Constantinople and taught (incorrectly) that the two natures were totally separate. St Cyril was from Alexandria and taught (correctly) that the two natures were united, but still distinct.

Here is a sample of what St Cyril taught:

The holy and great Synod therefore says, that the only begotten Son, born according to nature of God the Father, very God of very God, Light of Light, by whom the Father made all things, came down, and was incarnate, and was made man, suffered, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven. These words and these decrees we ought to follow, considering what is meant by the Word of God being incarnate and made man. For we do not say that the nature of the Word was changed and became flesh, or that it was converted into a whole man consisting of soul and body; but rather that the Word having personally united to himself flesh animated by a rational soul, did in an ineffable and inconceivable manner become man, and was called the Son of Man, not merely as willing or being pleased to be so called, neither on account of taking to himself a person, but because the two natures being brought together in a true union, there is of both one Christ and one Son; for the difference of the natures is not taken away by the union, but rather the divinity and the humanity make perfect for us the one Lord Jesus Christ by their ineffable and inexpressible union....

The two letters can be found here:

Nestorius to Cyril (condemned)

Cyril to Nestorius

The Tome of St Leo is also good on this subject.

[Tanyan]

As a LDS member I embrace the Monarch/Eastern/Economic/Social GODHEAD/TRINITY model. I have briefly examined E.O Doctrines, Teachings, Practices,Beliefs [i love going to those Greek Orthodox Festivals, and those Greek Pastries ROCK !]. From my reading there was a rift in Trinity views in the late 11th century on who sends the Holy Spirit, Father or Father and The Son ?. In His Debt, Tanyan.

[1dc]

The two natures are distinct but not separate.  . .  St Cyril was from Alexandria and taught (correctly) that the two natures were united, but still distinct.

The two letters can be found here:

Nestorius to Cyril (condemned)

Cyril to Nestorius

The Tome of St Leo is also good on this subject.

I read the link to the Epistle of Cyril and found little in his argument that creates any problem for my LDS belief as fitting with his comments on the divine and human nature of Christ. (The possible exceptions noted below but perhaps being a separate discussion.) Nor indeed should I as we both confess the biblical accounts.

Rather, he seems to make my point . . that there was united nature of Christ's divine spirit with his mortal body . . taking us back to some basic questions left unanswered:

- All of the divine spirit was already united with the mortal nature (as Cyril says thinking otherwise would speak of two sons). So how would the united nature of The Son grow in spirit as we are told in Luke?

- The Bible may or may not answer the question depending on interpretations, but logically why would Christ the Son become resurrected eternally as something different than the nature of His Father?

- What was the nature of Christ's Divine spirit (how was His rational soul different from men's souls or spirits) before birth and how is that supported biblically?

I appreciate the link . . just don't see it as answersing any open issues. I do see that the LDS perspective seems to reconcile to scripture and laws of nature (created by God) better than some open-ended questions which may not be answered by the creedal view.

Noted exceptions to comments in the Epistle to Nestorius:

Materially, I accept the Son as coeternal with His Father . . though I would still consider the Firstborn a necessary second generation to fit scripturally.

The statement that the Divine nature is incapable of suffering also seems out of sorts with scripture showing us a God who has passions, yet perhaps the limitation to physical sense was the sole intent of this statement. Assuming the comment is only that a spirit cannot feel physical pain, I don't have a problem with that. Can't think of a biblical support at the moment, but perhaps.