Was the Pre-Nicene Church Orthodox?

NYCGuy

Newbie
Mar 9, 2011
839
162
New York
✟33,519.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
I pulled this from your citation:




This is an example of a biblical allegory - a usage of people to prophesy the future. It is not saying Eliakim himself would be the Father. In his role as the son of the High Priest, He said:
Isaiah 22:23
23 And I will fasten him as a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a glorious throne to his father’s house.

Obviously, Eliakim himself was not crucified.
It appears the Catholics quite misunderstand this scripture.

What are you talking about? Who said anything about being "the Father", as in God? That's not what the reference is about, nor is the quote from the Catholic website stating or implying that. The verse, amongst many others, demonstrates a paternal or fatherly role, which is exactly one of the roles of the priest. Funny how I've seen LDS leaders refer to Adam as "Father Adam"...does that mean that he's replacing God the Father?

You seem to have a misunderstanding of LDS belief. I know you may have heard such things, but they are not taught as doctrine. I do not believe God is married to a "heavenly mother" or that the Holy Ghost is a spirit offspring anymore than the rest of us are his children.
As for your statement about the progression of the Father - no, we do not see the Father progressing further, but the gospel does contain many statements about the exaltation of the Son, and even followers such as king David. And things about the Father are contained in the scriptures for those who care to understand. For instance did you know the letters of His very name YHWH, mean: behold the nail, behold the hand?

Sorry, your leaders have taught about Heavenly Mother, as well as the Holy Ghost being one of the many begotten spirit children of the Father (and the Mother). Your leaders today even talk of "heavenly parents"...who might that be? You personally may not believe these things, but they are taught. Further, various LDS Church manuals have taught the progression of the Father.

No, this is not a "LDS innovation." Many Protestants have rejected the Catholic view regarding the sacrament.

Indeed. However LDS most likely are unique in necessitating the priesthood to perform said ordinance, as well as what it does. Again, innovation. The ancient Church (whether in Jerusalem, Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, Ethiopia, Armenia, etc) knew nothing of it. This is one reason why I left the LDS Church. The Real Presence is readily demonstrable, not only from the Bible and connections to ancient Jewish ideas and practices, but also to the clear teachings of ancient Christianity.
 
Upvote 0

NYCGuy

Newbie
Mar 9, 2011
839
162
New York
✟33,519.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
And I wasn't just pointing out "various words" but our actual practice which is the same or similar such as the sacrament being blessed by priests and passed by deacons who are in a quorem led by a president. Yet, somehow you allege your church is the one who practices this every day. I know a little of Catholicism, and know you do not have any priests who serve as "president." Clearly, Justin Martyr was not speaking of a bishop. So your point is not taken. Basically, with the exception of the transmutation doctrine, the sacrament performed by the LDS church is the same or similar in every particular described by Justin Martyr in your quote - perhaps even more so than the Catholic church which has no president in charge of the sacrament.

Justin Martyr says nothing about deacons who are in a quorum led by a president. You're reading that into his words. Also, what is the word he used that is translated as "president"? The word "president" means "one who presides". That would be the priest at each Mass. Indeed, at the beginning of the Mass, the cantor will say "The Presider at this Mass is Father ____". Presider=President.

Preside - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

So aside from "transmutation" (I assume you mean the Real Presence, or "transubstantiation"?), the LDS sacrament is the same or similar in every particular? Let's look at some:

But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to γένοιτο [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.

and also:
Chapter 67. Weekly worship of the Christians

And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things. And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.

CHURCH FATHERS: The First Apology (St. Justin Martyr)

-"we salute one another with a kiss"-LDS don't do this. Catholics do (today, some will give a handshake instead of a kiss as well).

-"bread and a cup of wine mixed with water"-LDS don't have a cup of wine mixed with water. Catholics do.

-"offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands."-Catholics do this, LDS don't.

-"And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things."-Catholics do this (we read the scriptures, then the president (or presider) instructs us on the things we just read, then teaches us how to live the principles learned. LDS don't have regular scripture readings in Sacrament Meeting as a rule.

-"Then we all rise together and pray"-Catholics rise and pray during Mass. LDS don't, and stay seated for all of Sacrament Meeting.

Sorry, Catholics are much closer to what was done anciently than LDS, whether or not we ignore the Real Presence (which there is no need to).
 
Upvote 0

RevelationTestament

Our God is a consuming fire.
Apr 26, 2013
3,727
46
United States
✟19,404.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
What are you talking about? Who said anything about being "the Father", as in God? That's not what the reference is about, nor is the quote from the Catholic website stating or implying that. The verse, amongst many others, demonstrates a paternal or fatherly role, which is exactly one of the roles of the priest. Funny how I've seen LDS leaders refer to Adam as "Father Adam"...does that mean that he's replacing God the Father?
Adam represents the earthly father of us all, not holy Father. You still are not getting it. The verse is not talking about Eliakim as an earthly father, but is prophecying a spiritual father to the people through the "character" of Eliakim. Eliakim himself was no more a father to the people than he was fastened as a nail in a sure place.

Sorry, your leaders have taught about Heavenly Mother, as well as the Holy Ghost being one of the many begotten spirit children of the Father (and the Mother). Your leaders today even talk of "heavenly parents"...who might that be? You personally may not believe these things, but they are taught.
No, heavenly mother is not taught. I have been in the church over a 38 year period, and have heard the idea, but it is not taught. Our heavenly mother is represented by the woman with 12 stars in Revelation 12.
Further, various LDS Church manuals have taught the progression of the Father.
Not currently, no.
But doesn't Jesus say
John 5:19
19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.


Indeed. However LDS most likely are unique in necessitating the priesthood to perform said ordinance, as well as what it does. Again, innovation. The ancient Church (whether in Jerusalem, Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, Ethiopia, Armenia, etc) knew nothing of it. This is one reason why I left the LDS Church.
No we aren't. In the Catholic church the sacrament is "blessed" by the Catholic priesthood. The priesthood gives that prayer - no lay person has that authority.
The Real Presence is readily demonstrable, not only from the Bible and connections to ancient Jewish ideas and practices, but also to the clear teachings of ancient Christianity.
Such is your contention. You also contend the doctrine of the trinity is when it is not.
 
Upvote 0

lesliedellow

Member
Sep 20, 2010
9,652
2,582
United Kingdom
Visit site
✟104,175.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
No doctrine of the trinity.

Rubbish. A row over the doctrine of the Trinity is precisely what the Council of Nicea was called to settle, and you can't have a row about a doctrine which doesn't yet exist.

The doctrine of the Trinity has been around at least since the second century (Theophilus of Antioch), and the trinitarian formulae in the Didache and Matt 28.19 strongly suggest that it was around before that.
 
Upvote 0

RevelationTestament

Our God is a consuming fire.
Apr 26, 2013
3,727
46
United States
✟19,404.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
Rubbish. A row over the doctrine of the Trinity is precisely what the Council of Nicea was called to settle, and you can't have a row about a doctrine which doesn't yet exist.

The doctrine of the Trinity has been around at least since the second century (Theophilus of Antioch), and the trinitarian formulae in the Didache and Matt 28.19 strongly suggest that it was around before that.

Matt 28:19 teaches of the Godhead. It teaches nothing else concerning the "doctrine of the trinity."
It's comparable to trinitarians trying to teach us that this:
2 Nephi 31:21
21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.

teaches that the LDS are trinitarian. But somehow they then say we are not.
 
Upvote 0

lesliedellow

Member
Sep 20, 2010
9,652
2,582
United Kingdom
Visit site
✟104,175.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Matt 28:19 teaches of the Godhead. It teaches nothing else concerning the "doctrine of the trinity."

I didn't say teaches. I said suggests. They may not have got around to quarreling over the filoque clause yet, but the concept is definitely there. In any case, there is no doubt about Theophilus of Antioch's use of the word Trinity.
 
Upvote 0

NYCGuy

Newbie
Mar 9, 2011
839
162
New York
✟33,519.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Adam represents the earthly father of us all, not holy Father. You still are not getting it. The verse is not talking about Eliakim as an earthly father, but is prophecying a spiritual father to the people through the "character" of Eliakim. Eliakim himself was no more a father to the people than he was fastened as a nail in a sure place.

No, you're still not getting it. The point is that in Catholic teaching, neither priests nor the Pope, referred to as "fathers", replace God our Father in Heaven, which is what you were trying to imply earlier. As we see in the link I gave earlier, the Bible actually supports the Catholic usage, and gives multiple instances of "fatherhood" being applied to somewhat not in a biological/physical sense, but in a spiritual one. Therefore, this criticism has no Biblical basis, as is clearly and soundly argued in the article.

No, heavenly mother is not taught. I have been in the church over a 38 year period, and have heard the idea, but it is not taught. Our heavenly mother is represented by the woman with 12 stars in Revelation 12.

Wait, you've heard the idea, but it isn't taught? :D Let's be clear, multiple LDS documents, manuals, etc refer to "heavenly parents", including the Gospel Principles manual taught to new members and investigators (besides attending that class as an investigator and a new Mormon, I taught it as a ward missionary). It is found in multiple places, and is taught. Various LDS leaders have referred to "heavenly parents" in General Conference talks, yes, the latest ones I'm talking about. What on earth could "heavenly parents" be referring to? Why, that would be Heavenly Father + Heavenly Mother!

Not currently, no.

:D Not currently, haha.

But doesn't Jesus say
John 5:19
19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

There is no ancient precedent for the interpretation of this verse meaning that the Father was once a man. Further, I am not talking merely about an incarnation of the Father, but that the Father progressed to/achieved Godhood, as has been taught in various LDS magazines, manuals, etc.

No we aren't. In the Catholic church the sacrament is "blessed" by the Catholic priesthood. The priesthood gives that prayer - no lay person has that authority.

You misunderstood what I was saying. You said "No, this is not a "LDS innovation." Many Protestants have rejected the Catholic view regarding the sacrament.". My response meant that yes, various Protestant churches embrace a symbolic understanding of the Eucharist, however it is only the LDS Church that, in addition to a rejection of Real Presence, also necessitates the priesthood to bless the sacrament. Evangelicals and others that hold to a symbolic understanding of the sacrament reject the notion of a priesthood (outside of a priesthood of all believers). That is what I was talking about.

Such is your contention. You also contend the doctrine of the trinity is when it is not.

Again, history supports me, not you. The Trinity is quite clear in ancient Christianity, as is the Real Presence. The LDS inventions are not found there.
 
Upvote 0

RevelationTestament

Our God is a consuming fire.
Apr 26, 2013
3,727
46
United States
✟19,404.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
No, you're still not getting it. The point is that in Catholic teaching, neither priests nor the Pope, referred to as "fathers", replace God our Father in Heaven, which is what you were trying to imply earlier. As we see in the link I gave earlier, the Bible actually supports the Catholic usage, and gives multiple instances of "fatherhood" being applied to somewhat not in a biological/physical sense, but in a spiritual one. Therefore, this criticism has no Biblical basis, as is clearly and soundly argued in the article.
And you are not listening. The Bible does not support such usage. Although certain of the apostles may have addressed disciples as sons, there is nothing to suggest that they were called "holy father" or desired any such thing. I also addressed the passage in Isaiah, which you finally seem to concede does not support a usage of spiritual father to those on earth.

Wait, you've heard the idea, but it isn't taught? :D Let's be clear, multiple LDS documents, manuals, etc refer to "heavenly parents", including the Gospel Principles manual taught to new members and investigators (besides attending that class as an investigator and a new Mormon, I taught it as a ward missionary). It is found in multiple places, and is taught. Various LDS leaders have referred to "heavenly parents" in General Conference talks, yes, the latest ones I'm talking about. What on earth could "heavenly parents" be referring to? Why, that would be Heavenly Father + Heavenly Mother!
And as I have already stated there is no scriptural support for a heavenly mother other than she who birthed our Savior as referenced in Revelation 12. Those who follow God are also birthed by her.

Isaiah 66:7 Before she travailed, she brought forth; before her pain came, she was delivered of a man child.

8 Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? or shall a nation be born at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children.

9 Shall I bring to the birth, and not cause to bring forth? saith the Lord: shall I cause to bring forth, and shut the womb? saith thy God.

10 Rejoice ye with Jerusalem, and be glad with her, all ye that love her: rejoice for joy with her, all ye that mourn for her:

11 That ye may suck, and be satisfied with the breasts of her consolations; that ye may milk out, and be delighted with the abundance of her glory.

12 For thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will extend peace to her like a river, and the glory of the Gentiles like a flowing stream: then shall ye suck, ye shall be borne upon her sides, and be dandled upon her knees.


:D Not currently, haha.
Let's be clear sir. I am not denying the teaching. You have avoided some of my points. The Father's own name YHWH is highly suggestive letter by letter: Behold the nail, behold the hand. Jesus too said it more than one way for those with ears to hear - that the hour was at hand when He would show the Father, and that He did what He saw the Father do.

What I meant was that the church does not teach that the Father currently progresses. For a time reference to the Snow couplet was also apparently removed from certain manuals. I, however, affirm the Snow couplet in every particular.

There is no ancient precedent for the interpretation of this verse meaning that the Father was once a man.
So? I can read, and I can understand what Jesus was saying. I don't really care if Tertullian for instance missed it.
Further, I am not talking merely about an incarnation of the Father, but that the Father progressed to/achieved Godhood, as has been taught in various LDS magazines, manuals, etc.
I don't speak in terms of "incarnation." I believe Heavenly Father resides in some type of material body, and that we were created in that physical image or similitude as the scriptures teach us.


You misunderstood what I was saying. You said "No, this is not a "LDS innovation." Many Protestants have rejected the Catholic view regarding the sacrament.". My response meant that yes, various Protestant churches embrace a symbolic understanding of the Eucharist, however it is only the LDS Church that, in addition to a rejection of Real Presence, also necessitates the priesthood to bless the sacrament. Evangelicals and others that hold to a symbolic understanding of the sacrament reject the notion of a priesthood (outside of a priesthood of all believers). That is what I was talking about.
OK. This is probably true.


Again, history supports me, not you.
No, one or two opinions does not a practice make.

The Trinity is quite clear in ancient Christianity, as is the Real Presence.
This is demonstrably untrue and simply shows you have not really read the earliest treatises available. Indeed, there was nothing of "one substance" or other creedal ideas for the first two centuries. Indeed a council of bishops in Antioch before Nicaea found the use of "homoousious" or "one substance" by a bishop was heretical and excommunicated him. Then only approx 50 years later under emperor Constantine we find a complete reversal exactly because there were questions regarding the nature of God - some saying men had the potential to be like Jesus, notably the Arians. Hence the feeling of a "need" to address the begotten nature of the Son as well. The creed says that the Son was begotten before all worlds, while the scriptures state that He was begotten when the Father said unto Him, "thou art my Son, this day I have begotten thee."
The early church writers were all over the map - some being monarchists, some modalists, etc. Even Tertullian - the so called father of Latin orthodoxy, wrote of a time when the Son was not.
 
Upvote 0

RevelationTestament

Our God is a consuming fire.
Apr 26, 2013
3,727
46
United States
✟19,404.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
I didn't say teaches. I said suggests. They may not have got around to quarreling over the filoque clause yet, but the concept is definitely there. In any case, there is no doubt about Theophilus of Antioch's use of the word Trinity.

Hmm. Please provide a reference. I always believe Tertullian coined the word, and then later stated that there was a time when the Son was not.
 
Upvote 0

NYCGuy

Newbie
Mar 9, 2011
839
162
New York
✟33,519.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
And you are not listening. The Bible does not support such usage. Although certain of the apostles may have addressed disciples as sons, there is nothing to suggest that they were called "holy father" or desired any such thing. I also addressed the passage in Isaiah, which you finally seem to concede does not support a usage of spiritual father to those on earth.

No, you're not listening. The Bible explicitly supports such usage (Father Abraham?). If certain of the apostles addressed disciples as sons (or children), what does that make them if not fathers, not in a biological sense? The paternal role of the priest (among others) is clear. Calling the Pope "Holy" Father has nothing to do with God the Father, nor does it take away from Him. Indeed, as we see in the Bible, various people are referred to as fathers in a non-physical/biological sense (as Catholic/Orthodox/etc priests are), and we are all called to be "saints", or "holy ones".

Sorry, the Bible supports it, and you are reading things into "holy father" that Catholics simply don't into our own doctrine, creating a straw man. The Bible instead supports the use of the word "father" outside of a biological context (or referring to God our Father in Heaven), as well as God's people being called to be a holy nation, holy ones, or saints.

And as I have already stated there is no scriptural support for a heavenly mother other than she who birthed our Savior as referenced in Revelation 12. Those who follow God are also birthed by her.
I'm not concerned with your scriptural interpretations. What is clear, as I have already stated, is that your church teaches the idea of "heavenly parents". It's in your current magazines, manuals, publications, etc. It's taught in the latest General Conferences. It's in The Family: A Proclamation to the World. What is "heavenly parents" referring to? Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother. If it isn't, then what is it talking about? Sorry, whether or not you think there is scriptural support for a heavenly mother doesn't change the fact that your church refers to "heavenly parents" in its current teachings.


Let's be clear sir. I am not denying the teaching. You have avoided some of my points. The Father's own name YHWH is highly suggestive letter by letter: Behold the nail, behold the hand. Jesus too said it more than one way for those with ears to hear - that the hour was at hand when He would show the Father, and that He did what He saw the Father do.

I have avoided some of your points that have no relevance to what I'm talking about, nor are they teachings of the LDS Church, such as the above. Your personal interpretations are not my concern.

What I meant was that the church does not teach that the Father currently progresses. For a time reference to the Snow couplet was also apparently removed from certain manuals. I, however, affirm the Snow couplet in every particular.
I'm not talking about the Father currently progressing. I'm talking about the belief that the Father progressed to/achieved Godhood, as taught in multiple LDS magazines, manuals, etc.

So? I can read, and I can understand what Jesus was saying. I don't really care if Tertullian for instance missed it.
I'm sure we can all read, and we all can understand what Jesus was saying. People have been doing that long before the LDS Church was invented in the 1800s. I'm not concerned with Tertullian (you seem very interested/focused on him). The fact is, neither the ancient Church, nor the ancient Jews, knew anything about the Father having once been a man, let alone progressing to/achieving Godhood. This is an 1800s LDS invention.

I don't speak in terms of "incarnation." I believe Heavenly Father resides in some type of material body, and that we were created in that physical image or similitude as the scriptures teach us.
See above.


OK. This is probably true.
It is definitely true.:)


No, one or two opinions does not a practice make.
:D. Clearly you have no familiarity with the ancient Church. There are multiple historical and apologetic works documenting the fact that the ancient Christians believed in the Real Presence doctrine. This isn't about one or two opinions. That is laughable.

This is demonstrably untrue and simply shows you have not really read the earliest treatises available. Indeed, there was nothing of "one substance" or other creedal ideas for the first two centuries. Indeed a council of bishops in Antioch before Nicaea found the use of "homoousious" or "one substance" by a bishop was heretical and excommunicated him. Then only approx 50 years later under emperor Constantine we find a complete reversal exactly because there were questions regarding the nature of God - some saying men had the potential to be like Jesus, notably the Arians. Hence the feeling of a "need" to address the begotten nature of the Son as well. The creed says that the Son was begotten before all worlds, while the scriptures state that He was begotten when the Father said unto Him, "thou art my Son, this day I have begotten thee."
The early church writers were all over the map - some being monarchists, some modalists, etc. Even Tertullian - the so called father of Latin orthodoxy, wrote of a time when the Son was not.
Most of this demonstrates an unfamiliarity not only with the historical context of the ancient Holy Councils of the Church of Christ, but also with the Trinity as well. I'm not concerned with "homoousios" or "one substance". Such formal terminology is not necessary for the Trinity doctrine to be understood. The fact of the matter is that, from the beginning, we see the essentials of what the Trinity teaches: that there is only one God, and that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (all being God), are three distinct Persons. The various ancient heresies such as Modalism are not relevant, anymore than the modern heresies surrounding the nature of God found in Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc, are relevant. It's nothing new, and the Church Christ established has been dealing with them for 2000 years.
 
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

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,575
6,063
EST
✟991,946.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Hmm. Please provide a reference. I always believe Tertullian coined the word, and then later stated that there was a time when the Son was not.

Wrong on both accounts. Tertullian [A.D. 145-220.] did not coin the word Trinity and he did not say there was a time when the son was not. Had you actually read Tertullian, Against Hermogenes, you would know that Tertullian was quoting a heretical view.

Theophilus [A.D. 115-168-181] To Autolycus, Book 2, Chapter 15

In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity, of God, and His Word, and His wisdom.​
 
Upvote 0

RevelationTestament

Our God is a consuming fire.
Apr 26, 2013
3,727
46
United States
✟19,404.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
No, you're not listening. The Bible explicitly supports such usage (Father Abraham?). If certain of the apostles addressed disciples as sons (or children), what does that make them if not fathers, not in a biological sense? The paternal role of the priest (among others) is clear. Calling the Pope "Holy" Father has nothing to do with God the Father, nor does it take away from Him. Indeed, as we see in the Bible, various people are referred to as fathers in a non-physical/biological sense (as Catholic/Orthodox/etc priests are), and we are all called to be "saints", or "holy ones".
We are obviously going to disagree here. Even by your own admission they aren't called to be "Holy Father" in this world. This inheritance is only the prerogative of Jesus our Savior whom scripture teaches is the Father's only inheritor, Isa 42, and shall be called the Eternal Father. Isa 9:6.

Sorry, the Bible supports it, and you are reading things into "holy father" that Catholics simply don't into our own doctrine, creating a straw man. The Bible instead supports the use of the word "father" outside of a biological context (or referring to God our Father in Heaven), as well as God's people being called to be a holy nation, holy ones, or saints.
If you don't really mean it, then don't say it.

I'm not concerned with your scriptural interpretations.
I can see that you continue to avoid them, since their implication is quite obvious and don't support your beliefs that God is "immutable".

What is clear, as I have already stated, is that your church teaches the idea of "heavenly parents". It's in your current magazines, manuals, publications, etc. It's taught in the latest General Conferences. It's in The Family: A Proclamation to the World. What is "heavenly parents" referring to? Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother. If it isn't, then what is it talking about? Sorry, whether or not you think there is scriptural support for a heavenly mother doesn't change the fact that your church refers to "heavenly parents" in its current teachings.
I have heard the explanation that heavenly parents beget spiritual children. Let's be clear. I have stated my beliefs. We are begotten spiritually through the Word to "heavenly parents" - the Father and the church. These are the same scriptural references you point to insisting that the scriptures support your usage of holy father in addressing earthly men. I, however, believe that our spirits preexisted this world, and as far as I know, have existed with the Father since His existence. Indeed the scriptures state that although our body is created from the dust, our spirits return to Him. They cannot return unless they came from Him rather than the dust. I do not believe and I reject any belief that pre-existing spirits somehow beget spirit children that theretofore did not exist.

I have avoided some of your points that have no relevance to what I'm talking about, nor are they teachings of the LDS Church, such as the above. Your personal interpretations are not my concern.
Yes. I can see that you continue to avoid them.... Maybe you should reconsider what Jesus was saying. You have probably never considered it before. Jesus came in the name of the Father, YHWH, Behold the nail, Behold the hand, and did everything He had seen the Father do, and did likewise.... There you have it.

I'm not talking about the Father currently progressing. I'm talking about the belief that the Father progressed to/achieved Godhood, as taught in multiple LDS magazines, manuals, etc.
Well, I would put it differently like He says. He is an Elohim of elohim. He is El Elyon, the Most High El. Jesus said He is the only true El although I cannot be certain from the Greek interpretation.

I'm sure we can all read, and we all can understand what Jesus was saying. People have been doing that long before the LDS Church was invented in the 1800s.
I'm glad. I suggest you prayerfully consider it - that Jesus was simply doing that which the Father had taught Him by example, and indeed had begotten Him by His word, when He said to Him, "thou art my Son, this day I have begotten thee."
I'm not concerned with Tertullian (you seem very interested/focused on him). The fact is, neither the ancient Church, nor the ancient Jews, knew anything about the Father having once been a man, let alone progressing to/achieving Godhood....
This is probably true. However, many did interpret the scriptures to the effect that we could progress as Jesus did, and inherit the name Jesus did. The scriptures do support this interpretation in more than one place. He is the Way.

:D. Clearly you have no familiarity with the ancient Church. There are multiple historical and apologetic works documenting the fact that the ancient Christians believed in the Real Presence doctrine. This isn't about one or two opinions. That is laughable.
OK, I may accept that there is more than one. Provide your Ante-Nicene sources.

Most of this demonstrates an unfamiliarity not only with the historical context of the ancient Holy Councils of the Church of Christ, but also with the Trinity as well. I'm not concerned with "homoousios" or "one substance". Such formal terminology is not necessary for the Trinity doctrine to be understood.
This is where you are gravely mistaken. God is His word, and the doctrine of the trinity changes and substitutes words thereby changing the meaning of what God teaches about Himself and substituting the understanding of someone else - man or Satan. The doctrine of the Trinity does this with almost every particular of what the scriptures state about Him. This should concern you, yet you have been indoctrinated by the creeds.
The fact of the matter is that, from the beginning, we see the essentials of what the Trinity teaches: that there is only one God, and that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (all being God), are three distinct Persons.
I believe these things too, and yet I am firmly NOT trinitarian. Why? Because I do not believe God ever says He/they are one "being" or "one substance" or that the Son is or has always been "co-equal" or that the Son is "eternally begotten" etc, etc. All these things cover scriptural truth.
The various ancient heresies such as Modalism are not relevant, anymore than the modern heresies surrounding the nature of God found in Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc, are relevant. It's nothing new, and the Church Christ established has been dealing with them for 2000 years.
Dealing with them by persecuting all the other followers of Jesus with the sword, and torture, and beheading, and burning at the stake, and forbidding scriptural translation to suppress scriptural truth etc - no thanks.
The truth should not fear the beliefs of others. Perfect love casts out fear. Your church feared the truth because it did not and does not possess it but was ruled by another spirit - one of fear and persecution - tools of the adversary who used these unscriptural doctrines to divide and conquer.
God bless.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Phantasman

Newbie
May 12, 2012
4,953
226
Tennessee
✟34,626.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Wrong on both accounts. Tertullian [A.D. 145-220.] did not coin the word Trinity and he did not say there was a time when the son was not. Had you actually read Tertullian, Against Hermogenes, you would know that Tertullian was quoting a heretical view.
Theophilus [A.D. 115-168-181] To Autolycus, Book 2, Chapter 15

In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity, of God, and His Word, and His wisdom.​

Theophilus was a nut, IMO. He reverted back to OT theology, being one of the first to condemn Marcion.

He understood the Logos and Sophia (Word and wisdom), yet as Bishop changed the meanings.

We gather from his writings (the only remaining being his apology to Autolycus) that he was born a pagan, not far from the Tigris and Euphrates, and was led to embrace Christianity by studying the Holy Scriptures, especially the prophetical books-Apologia ad Autolycum i. 14, ii. 24.


And about your laughing at me and calling me Christian, you know not what you are saying. First, because that which is anointed is sweet and serviceable, and far from contemptible. For what ship can be serviceable and seaworthy, unless it be first anointed? Or what castle or house is beautiful and serviceable when it has not been anointed? And what man, when he enters into this life or into the gymnasium, is not anointed with oil? And what work has either ornament or beauty unless it be anointed and burnished? Then the air and all that is under heaven is in a certain sort anointed by light and spirit; and are you unwilling to be anointed with the oil of God? Wherefore we are called Christians on this account, because we are anointed with the oil of God.- Theophilus on what is a Christian


Anointing houses? Castles? Ships? A nut in OT physical thought.
 
Upvote 0

NYCGuy

Newbie
Mar 9, 2011
839
162
New York
✟33,519.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
We are obviously going to disagree here. Even by your own admission they aren't called to be "Holy Father" in this world. This inheritance is only the prerogative of Jesus our Savior whom scripture teaches is the Father's only inheritor, Isa 42, and shall be called the Eternal Father. Isa 9:6.

By my own admission? Cite where I said that. I didn't.

Anyway, I believe the Biblical evidence is clear on the matter, and the Catholic/Orthodox/Anglican/Lutheran/etc practice is Biblical.

If you don't really mean it, then don't say it.

What? We really mean what we say.

I can see that you continue to avoid them, since their implication is quite obvious and don't support your beliefs that God is "immutable".

As stated, I avoid them because they are irrelevant to the issue. Your private interpretations of scripture, many/most of which other LDS wouldn't have a clue what you're talking about, are not what I'm discussing.

I have heard the explanation that heavenly parents beget spiritual children. Let's be clear. I have stated my beliefs. We are begotten spiritually through the Word to "heavenly parents" - the Father and the church. These are the same scriptural references you point to insisting that the scriptures support your usage of holy father in addressing earthly men. I, however, believe that our spirits preexisted this world, and as far as I know, have existed with the Father since His existence. Indeed the scriptures state that although our body is created from the dust, our spirits return to Him. They cannot return unless they came from Him rather than the dust. I do not believe and I reject any belief that pre-existing spirits somehow beget spirit children that theretofore did not exist.

Again, this is your private interpretation. When your church speaks of "heavenly parents", it is clear to all (except you it seems), that it is talking about Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother, not the Father and the Church (really?).

Yes. I can see that you continue to avoid them.... Maybe you should reconsider what Jesus was saying. You have probably never considered it before. Jesus came in the name of the Father, YHWH, Behold the nail, Behold the hand, and did everything He had seen the Father do, and did likewise.... There you have it.

See above. Not relevant to what I'm talking about.

Well, I would put it differently like He says. He is an Elohim of elohim. He is El Elyon, the Most High El. Jesus said He is the only true El although I cannot be certain from the Greek interpretation.

Ooookayyy...Again, I'm talking about your church teaching the idea/innovation that the Father progressed to/achieved Godhood, in magazines, manuals, talks, etc.

I'm glad. I suggest you prayerfully consider it - that Jesus was simply doing that which the Father had taught Him by example, and indeed had begotten Him by His word, when He said to Him, "thou art my Son, this day I have begotten thee."

Thanks for your interpretation of that. I will stick to the view of the Church Christ established on the matter.

This is probably true. However, many did interpret the scriptures to the effect that we could progress as Jesus did, and inherit the name Jesus did. The scriptures do support this interpretation in more than one place. He is the Way.

It is definitely true. Catholicism has always embraced the doctrine of deification/theosis.

OK, I may accept that there is more than one. Provide your Ante-Nicene sources.

The Church Fathers on Transubstantiation | Called to Communion

Early Christians Believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist

The Eucharistic Theology of Early Church Fathers | St. Paul Center For Biblical Theology

What the Earliest Christians Wrote About the Eucharist

For the connection between the Real Presence and ancient Judaism, see Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist by Brant Pitre, PhD. The connections to the ancient tabernacle and temple are especially important. This convinced me even more that the LDS view is simply an innovation with no connection to the Jewish world that Christianity came out from.

This is where you are gravely mistaken. God is His word, and the doctrine of the trinity changes and substitutes words thereby changing the meaning of what God teaches about Himself and substituting the understanding of someone else - man or Satan. The doctrine of the Trinity does this with almost every particular of what the scriptures state about Him. This should concern you, yet you have been indoctrinated by the creeds.

Sorry, you've been indoctrinated by your heresies. The doctrine of the Trinity is not only Biblical, but is taught in the ancient Church, prior to the formal definitions of the Councils of the Church.

I believe these things too, and yet I am firmly NOT trinitarian. Why? Because I do not believe God ever says He/they are one "being" or "one substance" or that the Son is or has always been "co-equal" or that the Son is "eternally begotten" etc, etc. All these things cover scriptural truth.

Sorry again, but you're wrong. Again, it is not necessary to talk of a oneness of being or substance to talk of the Trinity. As the Bible teaches, we believe there is one God. If these three distinct Persons are God, and God has eternally existed, then it stands to reason that the Son and Holy Ghost have always existed (since they are God), and are therefore "co-equal" with the Father, meaning that they are all fully God. Unless you're now claiming that they are less God than the Father? That's what you seem to be implying by rejecting "co-equal". The Trinity doctrine does not reject any hierarchy within the Trinity, however it does reject any notion that one Person is more or less God than another, or that one Person had to be created at some point.

Dealing with them by persecuting all the other followers of Jesus with the sword, and torture, and beheading, and burning at the stake, and forbidding scriptural translation to suppress scriptural truth etc - no thanks.
The truth should not fear the beliefs of others. Perfect love casts out fear. Your church feared the truth because it did not and does not possess it but was ruled by another spirit - one of fear and persecution - tools of the adversary who used these unscriptural doctrines to divide and conquer.
God bless.

:D

Yawn. These caricatures of Catholic history have been dealt with for centuries.

Fortunately, the Catholic Church has never feared the truth. Indeed, it possesses the fulness of the Truth, as given her by Jesus Christ, as it is His Bride, His Body, and He is at the Head of the Church, with the Spirit leading it into all Truth. Mormonism is yet one more heresy of many that the Church has guarded the Truth against since it was established by Jesus Christ. :crossrc:
 
Upvote 0

RevelationTestament

Our God is a consuming fire.
Apr 26, 2013
3,727
46
United States
✟19,404.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
Wrong on both accounts. Tertullian [A.D. 145-220.] did not coin the word Trinity and he did not say there was a time when the son was not. Had you actually read Tertullian, Against Hermogenes, you would know that Tertullian was quoting a heretical view.

Theophilus [A.D. 115-168-181] To Autolycus, Book 2, Chapter 15
OK I will look up Theophilus.
I have read Tertullian. Perhaps you need to read him more carefully. He says it more than once in more than one way.

In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity, of God, and His Word, and His wisdom.
Uh huh....
 
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

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,575
6,063
EST
✟991,946.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Theophilus was a nut, IMO. He reverted back to OT theology, being one of the first to condemn Marcion.

Thank you for your unsolicited opinion.

He understood the Logos and Sophia (Word and wisdom), yet as Bishop changed the meanings.

Evidence? Substantiation? Documentation?

We gather from his writings (the only remaining being his apology to Autolycus) that he was born a pagan, not far from the Tigris and Euphrates, and was led to embrace Christianity by studying the Holy Scriptures, especially the prophetical books-Apologia ad Autolycum i. 14, ii. 24.

Source?

And about your laughing at me and calling me Christian, you know not what you are saying. First, because that which is anointed is sweet and serviceable, and far from contemptible. For what ship can be serviceable and seaworthy, unless it be first anointed? Or what castle or house is beautiful and serviceable when it has not been anointed? And what man, when he enters into this life or into the gymnasium, is not anointed with oil? And what work has either ornament or beauty unless it be anointed and burnished? Then the air and all that is under heaven is in a certain sort anointed by light and spirit; and are you unwilling to be anointed with the oil of God? Wherefore we are called Christians on this account, because we are anointed with the oil of God.- Theophilus on what is a Christian

Anointing houses? Castles? Ships? A nut in OT physical thought.

Again, thank you for your unsolicited opinion. What's wrong with "anointing" those things? That simply means to pour oil or some other liquid on something. Notice one sentence says objects are anointed to make them beautiful. I think we paint things for the same purpose. Another says anointed then burnished, i.e. polished.
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,575
6,063
EST
✟991,946.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
OK I will look up Theophilus.
I have read Tertullian. Perhaps you need to read him more carefully. He says it more than once in more than one way.

Evidence? Documentation? Substantiation?
 
Upvote 0

RevelationTestament

Our God is a consuming fire.
Apr 26, 2013
3,727
46
United States
✟19,404.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
Evidence? Documentation? Substantiation?
After speaking of Hermogenes as "he", he says:

ANF03. Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

I maintain that the substance existed always with its own name, which is God; the title Lord was afterwards added, as the indication indeed6156 of something accruing. For from the moment when those things began to exist, over which the power of a Lord was to act, God, by the accession of that power, both became Lord and received the name thereof. Because God is in like manner a Father, and He is also a Judge; but He has not always been Father and Judge, merely on the ground of His having always been God. For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a Judge previous to sin. There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son; the former of which was to constitute the Lord a Judge, and the latter a Father. In this way He was not Lord previous to those things of which He was to be the Lord. But He was only to become Lord at some future time: just as He became the Father by the Son, and a Judge by sin, so also did He become Lord by means of those things which He had made, in order that they might serve Him.

Tertullian says something like this elsewhere:
In disharmony with the present Catholic church, according to Tertullian the Son's beginning was when God said "Let there be light."[Klotsche, E.H. The History of Christian Doctrine (Baker Book House; GR, Mi. 1949), p.54.]
 
Upvote 0

Phantasman

Newbie
May 12, 2012
4,953
226
Tennessee
✟34,626.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Thank you for your unsolicited opinion.

Anytime. (Like you don't?)

Evidence? Substantiation? Documentation?

Proof? It's in the reading of him from his books.


Source?

His books, Apologia ad Autolycum

Again, thank you for your unsolicited opinion. What's wrong with "anointing" those things? That simply means to pour oil or some other liquid on something. Notice one sentence says objects are anointed to make them beautiful. I think we paint things for the same purpose. Another says anointed then burnished, i.e. polished.

When Christ was anointed with the spirit, a voice seemed to come from heaven, and a dove to appear. There was no oil used. The Chrism is fire (light). Rituals doesn't bring it. Nor does oil. Or a priest.

Anointing is spiritual and you give me physical things that are anointed and used in the Chrism. I don't believe it.
 
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

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,575
6,063
EST
✟991,946.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Thank you for your unsolicited opinion.

Anytime. (Like you don't?)

Next time you see me do that, let me know.

Evidence? Substantiation? Documentation?

Proof? It's in the reading of him from his books.

Book, chapter, subchapter, etc?


His books, Apologia ad Autolycum

Book, chapter, subchaper, etc?

Again, thank you for your unsolicited opinion. What's wrong with "anointing" those things? That [anointing] simply means to pour oil or some other liquid on something. Notice one sentence says objects are anointed to make them beautiful. I think we paint things for the same purpose. Another says anointed then burnished, i.e. polished.

When Christ was anointed with the spirit, a voice seemed to come from heaven, and a dove to appear. There was no oil used. The Chrism is fire (light). Rituals doesn't bring it. Nor does oil. Or a priest.

The Greeks were anointing long before Christ. Read my post again

Anointing is spiritual and you give me physical things that are anointed and used in the Chrism. I don't believe it.

Christians did not invent anointing. Anointing can be but is not necessarily spiritual. See the explanation that Theophilus himself gave. I highlighted it for you.
 
Upvote 0