LDS 2 Peter 1 Divine Nature

NYCGuy

Newbie
Mar 9, 2011
839
162
New York
✟33,519.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
For anyone interested in understanding what Catholics/Orthodox mean by big-T Tradition, the wikipedia article is a good start:

Sacred tradition - Wikipedia

Also, the Catechism of the Catholic Church section on The Transmission of Divine Revelation is particularly detailed on the Catholic view. Well worth the read.
Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 1 SECTION 1 CHAPTER 2 ARTICLE 2

Especially relevant excerpts:

76 In keeping with the Lord's command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:

- orally "by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit";33

- in writing "by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing".34

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the age".41

81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42

"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44

83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus' teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.

Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church's Magisterium.

In particular, it is important to note that Catholics and Orthodox do not hold to a belief that God's Word is limited to the Bible/scripture/the written word.

From this, we see why Catholics and Orthodox (and perhaps others) are always dismayed by this "where is that in the Bible" argumentation, since for us, God' Word is not limited to the Bible/scripture/the written word (indeed, nowhere in the Bible does it say such a thing anyway). And further, we certainly don't hold to a view that the ancient Creeds or Professions of Faith are mere "man-made" documents.
 
Upvote 0

com7fy8

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2013
13,650
6,107
Massachusetts
✟583,319.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
In the first post of this thread . . . we have the quote saying it is God's will that we become

"partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust" (in 2 Peter 1:4)

It looks to me like the main interest of God, here, is - - not that we make theories about how we explain God, but most of all He desires how we share with Him in His own "divine nature" and we escape "the corruption that is in the world through lust".

His almighty power is easily able to change our nature so we are sharing with Him in His own nature . . . of His love. This effects how we become loving, and how we become pleasing to Him, by being like Jesus who is so pleasing to our Father.

So, our God and Father does so desire to so share with us, sharing His own divine nature with us > Ephesians 1:3 < and Jesus and the Holy Spirit have been with us, in order to minister this to us . . . not to minister some second-best blessing. So, in order to minister God's very own, They need to be how God is in divinity, so They minister no less. So, I can see why it is important that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are God and not second-best beings.

What matters is not only if we believe our Father and Jesus and the Holy Spirit are equal. But are They effecting our nature so now we are being changed . . . cured . . . so our nature becomes holy like God is in His love?

1 Corinthians 6:17

Romans 5:5

1 John 4:17

Philippians 2:13-16
 
Upvote 0

dzheremi

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
Aug 27, 2014
13,500
13,648
✟426,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
You can't read the things that Jesus said and escape an implied hierarchy there. He clearly made it sound like He deferred to His Father in some areas, and it seemed to be implied that the Holy Spirit deferred to His Father too, or at least that has been my impression.

The distinction to be made here is one of origin, and perhaps procession if you want to get into the labyrinthine abyss surrounding the filioque (I don't, and since I'm Oriental Orthodox, I don't have to -- yay!), not of essence. Who is Christ but the incarnate Logos (Word/Wisdom -- these are both translations of the Greek Logos) of God the Father, and hence never something separate and created, as God is never without His Wisdom? This is why we say in the Creed, in speaking of the Son, that He is "begotten, not made".

And the Holy Spirit, likewise, is not anything or anyone separate from the Father, and we find His ultimate origin in Him, as Christ our Lord teaches us that He is Who the Father will send in His name (John 14:26).

There were and continue to be those who advance a monarchian position, claiming that in order to recognize the Father as the origin of Son and the Holy Spirit, the Father must therefore be a "greater" God, and the other two "lesser", since the latter two in some sense 'come from' Him. This is hogwash, and is condemned by Christian writers both before and after the Councils which clarified the Christian theology concerning their relationship to one another.

The early Christian writer from Roman North Africa, Tertullian (d. 240), for instance, wrote that even as nothing was yet external to God Himself before the creation, and thus in that sense He was 'alone', in actuality He always had His logos/wisdom within Him, and so there was never a time when the Logos, the Son of God, was not. From his work Against Praxeas (Praxeas being a Monarchian from the late second century), we read:

Before all things God was alone […] He was alone because there was nothing external to him but himself. Yet even then was he not alone, for he had with him that which he possessed in himself—that is to say, his own Reason. […] Although God had not yet sent out his Word, he still had him within himself […] I may therefore without rashness establish that even then, before the creation of the universe, God was not alone, since he had within himself both Reason, and, inherent in Reason, his Word, which he made second to himself by agitating it within Himself.

(You may read the whole work, without ellipses, at the Tertullian Project; I have only excised enough to make this point, though the whole thing is worth reading. Tertullian is not regarded as a saint in any church that I am aware of, as later in his life he became a follower of Montanism, which was rejected by the Church as early as the 170s, but his corpus is still worth serious and careful study if for no other reason than the impact it had on the Church and generations of Christians down to this day, regardless of his personal missteps in theology. The same can be said of other officially condemned but still important writers such as Origen of Alexandria.)

Even earlier writers such as St. Clement of Alexandria (d. 215) disagreed with Tertullian's stance that God was ever alone, even before the creation, though by the time of the Council of Nicaea in 325 which set to permanence an answer to this question, what was agreed upon by the bishops of all the churches was that though there was a time when Christ, the Person, was not incarnate (i.e., He was not yet separate from the Father, walking about on earth as the God-man Jesus), there was never a time when He did not exist. The Arian party of the council maintained, in part based on a reading of works like those of Tertullian above, that Christ was 'created'/that there was a time when He did not exist.

Thus we read in the original 325 version of the Nicene Creed (and not in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381, which took the original Creed of Nicaea and expanded the teachings on the Holy Spirit, in response to the Pneumatomachoi -- "spirit-fighters" -- who had arisen around the idea that the Holy Spirit is not divine) the following passage:

Τοὺς δὲ λέγοντας, ὅτι ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, καὶ πρὶν γεννηθῆναι οὐκ ἦν, καὶ ὅτι ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐγένετο, ἢ ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως ἢ οὐσίας φάσκοντας εἶναι, [ἢ κτιστόν,] τρεπτὸν ἢ ἀλλοιωτὸν τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, [τούτους] ἀναθεματίζει ἡ καθολικὴ [καὶ ἀποστολικὴ] Ἐκκλησία.

But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'— they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.
 
Upvote 0

Ironhold

Member
Feb 14, 2014
7,625
1,463
✟201,967.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Single
"And virtually all the millions of apostate Christendom have abased themselves before the mythical throne of a mythical Christ whom they vainly suppose to be a spirit essence who is incorporeal uncreated, immaterial and three-in-one with the Father and Holy Spirit."
Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p.269

1. This work isn't canon.
2. There is no specified edition for this work, meaning we don't know which edition it came from.

Doctrine and Covenants 1
30 And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually—

...in that we claim to be the only one with the correct priesthood authority and living prophets.

1 Nephi 14
10 And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the harlot of all the earth.

We've already gone over how this one doesn't deal with any one religion but rather those who side with God and those who don't.
 
Upvote 0

Rescued One

...yet not I, but the grace of God that is with me
Dec 12, 2002
35,503
6,392
Midwest
✟78,404.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
There is no difference between how divine Jesus is and how divine His Father and the Holy Spirit is. They are in a very real sense one God.

The Mormon godhead is three separate gods who can be in only one place at a time. They mock Christianity.

I don't think I would ever say that. Joseph Smith understood perfectly well who Latter-day Saints worship. What I don't understand is how he concluded that the Trinity could not be that God. I still have not had the Trinity defined for me well enough that I can be sure the Trinity doesn't fit God as I understand Him.

Joseph Smith didn't know because the religion he invented mocked God.

God does the revealing of truth because he is the one Who is God. Are you ready to abandon Mormonism? If not, you don't have faith in the Triune God.

My bad. I should not have left out the Holy Spirit. I see no reason to believe he has a different essence.

Mormons have left out the Holy Spirit for decades.

You can't read the things that Jesus said and escape an implied hierarchy there. He clearly made it sound like He deferred to His Father in some areas, and it seemed to be implied that the Holy Spirit deferred to His Father too, or at least that has been my impression. Still, I believe that each of the three are completely divine.

Jesus lowered Himself to become subservient to the Father. Once again He is as great as the Father.

Doctrine and Covenants 88
106 The Lamb of God hath overcome and trodden the wine-press alone, even the wine-press of the fierceness of the wrath of Almighty God.

107 And then shall the angels be crowned with the glory of his might, and the saints shall be filled with his glory, and receive their inheritance and be made equal with him.

1 God Was Once a Man
As We Are Now

When he was a young man, Lorenzo Snow was promised by the Lord through the Patriarch to the Church that through obedience to the gospel he could become as great as God, “and you cannot wish to be greater”(Eliza R. Snow, Biography and Family Record of Lorenzo Snow, pp. 9-10).

Search These Commandments, Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide, Copyright 1984, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, p. 151
 
Upvote 0

outlawState

Active Member
Apr 14, 2016
158
55
63
Hampshire, UK
✟12,970.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The distinction to be made here is one of origin....
The distinction is profoundly one of spiritual hierarchy. Col 1:19 "For God was pleased to have all His fullness dwell in Him."

Note that the fulness of Christ is not said to dwell in God, but the fullness of God dwells in Christ. That implies an inviolable hierarchical distinction.


There were and continue to be those who advance a monarchian position, claiming that in order to recognize the Father as the origin of Son and the Holy Spirit, the Father must therefore be a "greater" God, and the other two "lesser", since the latter two in some sense 'come from' Him.
First the Son and the Holy Spirit cannot be treated as analogous.

The Father may be the origin, as in the source, of the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit clearly obeys the Father's direction; but of Jesus himself, he said "I AM." The son did not have any "origin" separate or distinquished from the Father. The supremacy of the Father over Christ has nothing to do with "origin."

The need to defeat "Monarchianism" is a straw man argument as it posits God in terms of a single "person," whereas the whole biblical concept of God is that he has no conception as a person but only as an eternal spiritual unity. That is where Tertullian went wrong, I opine. He should have addressed the conception of God as a non-person in order to defeat the erroneous concept of God as one person.


This is hogwash, and is condemned by Christian writers both before and after the Councils which clarified the Christian theology concerning their relationship to one another.
And all those places are now under the control of Islam? These councils would have done better to reject the notion of God as a person. If there is just one thing that Islam has going for it, it is non-indulgence in the heresy of denoting God as a "person." God has made it known that he is not like men.


The early Christian writer from Roman North Africa, Tertullian (d. 240), for instance, wrote that even as nothing was yet external to God Himself before the creation, and thus in that sense He was 'alone', in actuality He always had His logos/wisdom within Him, and so there was never a time when the Logos, the Son of God, was not. From his work Against Praxeas (Praxeas being a Monarchian from the late second century), we read:

Before all things God was alone […] He was alone because there was nothing external to him but himself. Yet even then was he not alone, for he had with him that which he possessed in himself—that is to say, his own Reason. […] Although God had not yet sent out his Word, he still had him within himself […] I may therefore without rashness establish that even then, before the creation of the universe, God was not alone, since he had within himself both Reason, and, inherent in Reason, his Word, which he made second to himself by agitating it within Himself.
Tertullian was possibly a heretic of the highest order of magnitude, and in that sense followed by Augustine, in relegating God to being in the image of man., i.e. one or more "persons." God is outside the vocabulary of human philosophy.

The Arian party of the council maintained, in part based on a reading of works like those of Tertullian above, that Christ was 'created'/that there was a time when He did not exist.

Thus we read in the original 325 version of the Nicene Creed (and not in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381, which took the original Creed of Nicaea and expanded the teachings on the Holy Spirit, in response to the Pneumatomachoi -- "spirit-fighters" -- who had arisen around the idea that the Holy Spirit is not divine) the following passage:

Τοὺς δὲ λέγοντας, ὅτι ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, καὶ πρὶν γεννηθῆναι οὐκ ἦν, καὶ ὅτι ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐγένετο, ἢ ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως ἢ οὐσίας φάσκοντας εἶναι, [ἢ κτιστόν,] τρεπτὸν ἢ ἀλλοιωτὸν τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, [τούτους] ἀναθεματίζει ἡ καθολικὴ [καὶ ἀποστολικὴ] Ἐκκλησία.

But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'— they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.
I think that the Word did change, or alter, form when he became a man. Philippians 2:6-8, so that it cannot be heretical to denote that Jesus was a "man sent from God." The idea that we have to treat Jesus as "God on earth" is wrong, even if he was always possessed with the identity of God, as having come from God, and re-assumed the throne of God on his resurrection.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

dzheremi

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
Aug 27, 2014
13,500
13,648
✟426,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
The distinction is profoundly one of spiritual hierarchy. Col 1:19 "For God was pleased to have all His fullness dwell in Him."

Yes, and...?

Note that the fulness of Christ is not said to dwell in God

What? That's precisely what the earlier quoted portion of Tertullian says. That's what all the fathers say. That's what the Bible says. "For God so loved the world that He sent His only-begotten Son...", remember?

Again, there was a time before He was incarnate, but there was never a time when He was not existing. Christ Has always existed, as the logos of the Father. He did not dwell anywhere else before His incarnation but in God the Father, the Pantocrator.

but the fullness of God dwells in Christ.

Naturally!

That implies an inviolable hierarchical distinction.

Yes. A hierarchy of origin, rather than of Godliness.

First the Son and the Holy Spirit cannot be treated as analogous.

In no way did I claim them to be analogous. The Persons of the Trinity are unconfused. Again, we are not modalists.

The Father may be the origin, as in the source, of the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit clearly obeys the Father's direction; but of Jesus himself, he said "I AM." The son did not have any "origin" separate or distinquished from the Father.

Of course not. The entire point of even discussing His origin in the first place is that it is in the Father. That is how we can and do say that He is "true God of true God" in the Nicene Creed.

The need to defeat "Monarchianism" is a straw man argument as it posits God in terms of a single "person," whereas the whole biblical concept of God is that he has no conception as a person but only as an eternal spiritual unity.

And yet, we very much do talk about "God in three Persons", or hypostases, such that God is three hypostases in one ousia. To quote our father St. Basil of Caesarea (330-379) on the subject:

The distinction between ousia and hypostases is the same as that between the general and the particular; as, for instance, between the animal and the particular man. Wherefore, in the case of the Godhead, we confess one essence or substance so as not to give variant definition of existence, but we confess a particular hypostasis, in order that our conception of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit may be without confusion and clear. If we have no distinct perception of the separate characteristics, namely, fatherhood, sonship, and sanctification, but form our conception of God from the general idea of existence, we cannot possibly give a sound account of our faith. We must, therefore, confess the faith by adding the particular to the common. The Godhead is common; the fatherhood particular. We must therefore combine the two and say, “I believe in God the Father.” The like course must be pursued in the confession of the Son; we must combine the particular with the common and say “I believe in God the Son,” so in the case of the Holy Ghost we must make our utterance conform to the appellation and say “in God the Holy Ghost.” Hence it results that there is a satisfactory preservation of the unity by the confession of the one Godhead, while in the distinction of the individual properties regarded in each there is the confession of the peculiar properties of the Persons. On the other hand those who identify essence or substance and hypostasis are compelled to confess only three Persons, and, in their hesitation to speak of three hypostases, are convicted of failure to avoid the error of Sabellius, for even Sabellius himself, who in many places confuses the conception, yet, by asserting that the same hypostasis changed its form to meet the needs of the moment, does endeavour to distinguish persons." (Letters 236, 6)

So, yes, God is conceived of in terms of Persons, and it is essential that we do so.

That is where Tertullian went wrong, I opine. He should have addressed the conception of God as a non-person in order to defeat the erroneous concept of God as one person.

Er...okay. I mean, that's how you feel, but it does not escape my notice that what St. Basil is essentially saying above is that it is the failure to distinguish God in three Persons that gave birth to the error of Sabellius (as he tried to do so by saying instead that the form of the one God changed to suit the particular needs of the moment, rather than that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are different hypostases of the same ousia, as orthodox Trinitarians do). So I can't help but think that you are reproducing the error that you are trying to avoid by similarly advocating that we (or Tertullian) not think of God in terms of Persons.

And all those places are now under the control of Islam?

What? What does that have to do with anything?

These councils would have done better to reject the notion of God as a person.

Why? What does this have to do with the previous sentence? The last council recognized by my own communion occurred 139 years before Muhammad was even born. Islam is the latecomer on the scene and has nothing to do with the core doctrines of Christianity, all of which were established long before it and continue to be adhered to long after it. This seems like a very bizarre diversion coming out of nowhere.

If there is just one thing that Islam has going for it, it is non-indulgence in the heresy of denoting God as a "person." God has made it known that he is not like men.

Ohhhh...I see now. You are wishing to append your heretical view to some wider theological tradition, as it is thoroughly rejected by the religion which you are claiming in your profile. Well, have fun with that.

Do me a favor and get your heresy away from me, though. I believe in the Holy Trinity -- God in three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit -- and have absolutely no trouble affirming this or using this language. It is of the very essence of the Christian faith, and no one may claim to worship God without affirming it, as he who denies the Son does not have the Father either. (1 John 2:23)

Tertullian was possibly a heretic of the highest order of magnitude, and in that sense followed by Augustine, in relegating God to being in the image of man., i.e. one or more "persons." God is outside the vocabulary of human philosophy.

Historically speaking, Tertullian's heresy was in falling prey to Montanism. I agree emphatically with your last sentence here, but the rest of this section is nonsense. No one is 'relegating' God to anything by using words to describe Him. All of the fathers recognize the limitations of human cognition and language in describing God, and do not endeavor to not do so as a result. Read St. Gregory Nazianzen sometime.

I think that the Word did change, or alter, form when he became a man.

Okay.

Philippians 2:6-8, so that it cannot be heretical to denote that Jesus was a "man sent from God."

I'm sorry, but is anyone denying Christ's humanity? Because that's as big a heresy as anything you have written so far, but I don't recall anyone advocating it here. I certainly have not. My own Church is very big on this, as our prayers testify, even in the same form as the verses you have just alluded to.

At the Nativity, we pray the following:


"...You the infinite, being God, did not consider equality with God a thing to be held onto, but released it and emptied Yourself, and took the form of a servant, and blessed my nature in Yourself, and fulfilled Your law on my behalf."

That is an explicit affirmation of His humanity right there.

The idea that we have to treat Jesus as "God on earth" is wrong, even if he was always possessed with the identity of God, as having come from God, and re-assumed the throne of God on his resurrection.

No. It is your heretical and blasphemous idea that Jesus is not God on earth that is wrong. Jesus Christ is Emmanuel (see the Gospel of St. Matthew), "God with us".

Jesus Christ is God on earth. This is Christianity. What you are preaching is not.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

outlawState

Active Member
Apr 14, 2016
158
55
63
Hampshire, UK
✟12,970.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No. It is your heretical and blasphemous idea that Jesus is not God on earth that is wrong. Jesus Christ is Emmanuel (see the Gospel of St. Matthew), "God with us".

Jesus Christ is God on earth. This is Christianity. What you are preaching is not.
Spoken like a true inquisitor. The current state of the world is due to apostate Trinitarianism. Let's see, Trinitarianism has had about 18 centuries since Tertullian to save the world, but failed completely and utterly. In fact the church spread far faster and far wider before Tertullian than it ever did afterwards. There is more apostasy from Christ now than at any time in the history of Christendom. What went wrong? Obviously something. May be Trinitarianism did not politically triumph? Yes, I think it did. It had every chance to prove itself the true faith, but failed, but no possibility of success now, because the entire western world is now mostly completely apostate, bar the odd few percent in each country. Most Trinitarian churches are strangely bastions of liberalism, which derives from philosophy being a pretty liberal enterprise, as I know from my experience of philosophers.

Jesus referred to himself as the son of Man and conceded that he was the "son of God." By asserting that he was the son of God, he claimed parity with God, and so Immanuel derives fom the son being always regarded as equal to God himself (.John 5;18). Nothing is simpler, but Trinitarianism rejected the simplicity of faith for the complexity of human philosophy. May be it was a bad, if not fatal, move.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

dzheremi

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
Aug 27, 2014
13,500
13,648
✟426,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Spoken like a true inquisitor.

So you'd have it, but there's no mixing up the Coptic Orthodox Church with the Roman Catholic Church, so meh. There are no inquisitions here -- only the faith once delivered to the saints.

The current state of the world is due to apostate Trinitarianism.

How do you figure?

Is that why the Muslim-majority nations are renowned for being such peaceful places? ^_^

Let's see, Trinitarianism has had about 18 centuries since Tertullian to save the world, but failed completely and utterly.

This is a nonsense statement if I've ever read one. Trinitarianism is a theological position.We are saved and redeemed through the blood of Christ, regardless of what anyone thinks about Christ and His relation to the Father and the Holy Spirit, or any other matter.

In fact the church spread far faster and far wider before Tertullian than it ever did afterwards.

This is plainly false. Tertullian died in 220. The Church of the East, a thoroughly Trinitarian Church which at one time enjoyed the largest geographical spread of any Church in the world, reached its zenith in those terms between the 9th and 14th centuries, during which time it had dioceses stretching from the Mediterranean to China and India.

the-lost-history-of-christianity-theres-so-much-more-than-thought-4-638.jpg


There is more apostasy from Christ now than at any time in the history of Christendom.

What are you basing this statement on? Your own subjective feeling that this is the case because Christianity is Trinitarian? That's not a source, and the correlation between the two is not proven by anything you have written (nor is it even provable).

May be Trinitarianism did not politically triumph? Yes, I think it did. It had every chance to prove itself the true faith, but failed, but no possibility of success now, because the entire western world is now mostly completely apostate, bar the odd few percent in each country.

Again, what are you basing this on and what does it have to do with anything? Are you saying that if Trinitarian Christianity were true, it would maintain the same number of followers or greater than it had during its greatest eras of success in the past? That's not a very good argument to make, as pure numbers or retention do not equal truth, and it flies in the face of your earlier argument re: the spread of the Church, because the Church was in fewer places in the past and had less adherents than it does now, so by your logic it is therefore more true now than it was in the past.

Most Trinitarian churches are strangely bastions of liberalism, which derives from philosophy being a pretty liberal enterprise, as I know from my experience of philosophers.

Oh, well that settles it, then. You have personal experience with philosophers, therefore...something something something Trinitarianism is the cause of all the evil in the world. Got it. :rolleyes:

Jesus referred to himself as the son of Man and conceded that he was the "son of God." By asserting that he was the son of God, he claimed parity with God, and so Immanuel derives fom the son being always regarded as equal to God himself (.John 5;18). Nothing is simpler, but Trinitarianism rejected the simplicity of faith for the complexity of human philosophy. May be it was a bad, if not fatal, move.

Or maybe, just maybe, you're writing a bunch of nonsense that reveals a bad, if not fatal, grasp on history, doctrine, theology, and Christianity itself.
 
Upvote 0

BigDaddy4

It's a new season...
Sep 4, 2008
7,442
1,983
Washington
✟217,619.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
1. This work isn't canon.
2. There is no specified edition for this work, meaning we don't know which edition it came from.

Typical lds avoidance. Why hasn't the lds disavowed this book and/or the teachings of Bruce McConkie? A search for his name on lds.org results in pages and pages of results (I stopped at 21 pages). If his views are not in alignment with the lds think tank, why is the now deceased former Quorum of 12 apostle still being quoted?

Your objections are easily dismissed.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ironhold

Member
Feb 14, 2014
7,625
1,463
✟201,967.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Single
Typical lds avoidance. Why hasn't the lds disavowed this book and/or the teachings of Bruce McConkie? A search for his name on lds.org results in pages and pages of results (I stopped at 21 pages). If his views are not in alignment with the lds think tank, why is the now deceased former Quorum of 12 apostle still being quoted?

Your objections are easily dismissed.

We've explained the situation in the past.

The first edition of the work was a private effort without oversight, and so contained much of his own personal beliefs instead of church doctrine.

Later, more revised editions are in keeping with church doctrine, but the incident with the first edition means the book will likely never get 100% official backing.
 
Upvote 0

Rescued One

...yet not I, but the grace of God that is with me
Dec 12, 2002
35,503
6,392
Midwest
✟78,404.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
...The idea that we have to treat Jesus as "God on earth" is wrong, even if he was always possessed with the identity of God, as having come from God, and re-assumed the throne of God on his resurrection.

DISAGREE
 
Upvote 0

Rescued One

...yet not I, but the grace of God that is with me
Dec 12, 2002
35,503
6,392
Midwest
✟78,404.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
'Chosen' to be the Son of God? Like via adoption? Are Mormonism adoptionists? That is another ancient heresy (condemned as a heresy by the end of the second century, even before the Council of Nicaea) which I had never before now seen advanced by a Mormon, but now I can't help but wonder. What do you mean by saying He was 'chosen'?
Chapter 3: Jesus Christ, Our Chosen Leader and Savior
Gospel Principles, (2011)

...We understood that we would have to leave our heavenly home for a time. We would not live in the presence of our Heavenly Father. While we were away from Him, all of us would sin and some of us would lose our way. Our Heavenly Father knew and loved each one of us. He knew we would need help, so He planned a way to help us.

We needed a Savior to pay for our sins and teach us how to return to our Heavenly Father. Our Father said, “Whom shall I send?” (Abraham 3:27). Jesus Christ, who was called Jehovah, said, “Here am I, send me” (Abraham 3:27; see also Moses 4:1–4).

Jesus was willing to come to the earth, give His life for us, and take upon Himself our sins. He, like our Heavenly Father, wanted us to choose whether we would obey Heavenly Father’s commandments. He knew we must be free to choose in order to prove ourselves worthy of exaltation. Jesus said, “Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever” (Moses 4:2).

Satan, who was called Lucifer, also came, saying, “Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor” (Moses 4:1). Satan wanted to force us all to do his will. Under his plan, we would not be allowed to choose. He would take away the freedom of choice that our Father had given us. Satan wanted to have all the honor for our salvation. Under his proposal, our purpose in coming to earth would have been frustrated (see Teachings of Presidents of the Church: David O. McKay [2003], 207).

Jesus Christ Became Our Chosen Leader ...
Gospel Principles Chapter 3: Jesus Christ, Our Chosen Leader and Savior

Keep in mind the teaching that everyone is the same species as the Father with divinity within us. Satan was another spirit child of the same "Heavenly Parents."
 
  • Informative
Reactions: dzheremi
Upvote 0

robert skynner

I respect the Bible but religion is damaging
Jun 29, 2016
324
56
Plymouth, UK
✟24,208.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Clarifying actual LDS beliefs--


LDS only believe in ONE God. This ONE God consists of multiple persons, just like Trinitarian beliefs.

You are sadly mistaken. Mormons are honotheists, which means that they teach many Gods, that men can and will also become additional Gods, yet they only worship one of those Gods (this is henotheism - a plurality of God, but only worship one of these).
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

robert skynner

I respect the Bible but religion is damaging
Jun 29, 2016
324
56
Plymouth, UK
✟24,208.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Sometimes we have the discernment to know that a person doesn't even want to believe what we do. A person can have his mind made up that those who are in apostacy (non-Mormons) believe the teachings of men. All explanations and testimonies fall on the deaf ears of Mormons.

Mormons know the difference but just want endless explanations.

"And virtually all the millions of apostate Christendom have abased themselves before the mythical throne of a mythical Christ whom they vainly suppose to be a spirit essence who is incorporeal uncreated, immaterial and three-in-one with the Father and Holy Spirit."
Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p.269

Doctrine and Covenants 1
30 And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually—

1 Nephi 14
10 And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the harlot of all the earth.

Excellent post, thank you.
 
Upvote 0

robert skynner

I respect the Bible but religion is damaging
Jun 29, 2016
324
56
Plymouth, UK
✟24,208.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
The Father and the Son are different persons, both in LDS beliefs and Trinitarian. For a Trinitarian reference on this, I refer you to the Athanasian Creed: "For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost."

Christ's words are: "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne." (Rev 3:21)

If the Son sits down WITH the Father, then the Son (Jesus) is not the Father.
 
Upvote 0

Jane_Doe

Well-Known Member
Jun 12, 2015
6,658
1,043
115
✟100,321.00
Faith
Mormon
You are sadly mistaken. Mormons are honotheists, which means that they teach many Gods, that men can and will also become additional Gods, yet they only worship one of those Gods (this is henotheism - a plurality of God, but only worship one of these).
I'm sorry, but your attempt to "inform" an LDS person what they believe is laughable and disrespectful. You are incorrect here. If you're interested in the matter, there was an entire thread about it not too long ago.
If the Son sits down WITH the Father, then the Son (Jesus) is not the Father.
Which both Trinitarians and LDS believe.
 
Upvote 0

outlawState

Active Member
Apr 14, 2016
158
55
63
Hampshire, UK
✟12,970.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Obviously, as you are "Trinitarian."

However as the Jews believed that the son of God was pari passu with God, there was no need to speculate on Jesus being God, because the son, although not God, had the standing of God. Indeed the very idea that Jesus, a man, was God himself would have seemed ludicrous to the Jews, and we must recall that Jesus called the Father his God.

Everything you believe about the Trinty came, by my understanding, by Greek philosophy and by Tertullian. Tertullian, the very first Trinitarian was an Arian. He did not believe the Son to be co-existent with the Father. In fact it was Trinitarianism that gave birth to Arianism (i.e. JWs), rather than the other way round. Every Arian idea came by the first expositor of the Trinity.

Trinitarianism means different things to different people. A trinity of revelation is entirely biblical, and even a trinity in the godhead, but Trinitarianism goes way beyond such elementary concepts to posit heavenly concepts in terms of rude philosophical words, such as "persons." Nowhere in the Old Testament does God claim that he is a person.

The closest that God gets to being called a person is in Heb 1;3 via the phrase "the hypostasis of God." (hypostasis means underlying reality or substance). The Greek word hypostasis is singular.

Yet in Trinitarianism God is said to have three hypostases. Makes no sense.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

dzheremi

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
Aug 27, 2014
13,500
13,648
✟426,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Obviously, as you are "Trinitarian."

Why is Trinitarian in quotes here?

However as the Jews believed that the son of God was pari passu with God, there was no need to speculate on Jesus being God, because the son, although not God, had the standing of God. Indeed the very idea that Jesus, a man, was God himself would have seemed ludicrous to the Jews, and we must recall that Jesus called the Father his God.

Christians are not Jews, and Christianity is not Judaism. The Judaizers lost at the Apostolic Council in Jerusalem c. AD 50. Catch up, please, if you are going to be writing on these matters.

Everything you believe about the Trinty came, by my understanding, by Greek philosophy and by Tertullian.

Wrong.

Tertullian, the very first Trinitarian was an Arian.

Way wrong. Arius wasn't even born until 20 years after Tertullian died. Tertullian actually taught something much more like what you are advancing by denying Christ full divinity, as his trinity was God the Father and the two others who each shared part of the substance (to use the Latin word that he used) of God the Father, who was hence the only fully divine member of the three. This kind of thinking obviously laid the groundwork for Arius and company later on, but shouldn't be confused with Arianism proper, as the Arians denied that the Father and the Son were of the same substance in the first place, whereas Tertullian clearly writes that they are in the earlier referenced Against Praxeas (he just didn't view them to be equal; he only wrote his exposition of the Trinity in these terms after becoming a Montanist, anyway, so he was by that time quite removed from Christianity, the Montanists having been condemned by the Church as early as the 170s, when Tertullian was still alive).

In fact it was Trinitarianism that gave birth to Arianism (i.e. JWs), rather than the other way round.

Well duh. Of course the heretics are always later. There has be something already established from which they dissent in order to be heretical in the first place, since that's what heresy means/is (from the Greek αἵρεσις 'choice').


Trinitarianism means different things to different people.

No it doesn't. As a theological principle, it means one thing, in comformity with the teachings of the early Church itself: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God, homoousios, eternal, uncreated, and undivided.

Nowhere in the Old Testament does God claim that he is a person.

You do recognize that Christianity regards both the Old Testament and the New Testament as sacred scripture, right? Our fathers read the Old in light of the New, as the coming of Christ demands. As Christians, we live in a post-incarnational world. If you are a Christian, you should join the rest of us there. It is by no means a dismissal of the Old Testament or its prophets and patriarchs, but in full recognition of the coming of the One they had written in prophecy of.


Again, this ^ is Christianity. What you are preaching is not.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: BigDaddy4
Upvote 0