An EV comments on the ongoing struggle between Catholics and LDS.

[dianaiad]

The post of yours that I was responding to did not have anything to do with the inerrancy of scripture, but the relationship between Tradition and Scripture:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7068580&postcount=314
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7068610&postcount=316

(sigh)

I know…I was very tired when I posted that, and was replying to what I thought you were saying, rather than what you actually were saying. I’m still tired—I’m sorry.

 

[Stephen168]

I am not missing any point. It can also be said that Christianity existed before the doctrines had changed by 325 AD. I used three scripture references to difine my understanding of a Christian. Please use bible verses to give your definition of a Christian. If the teachings of the Church did not change between the first century and 325 AD this should be a simple request to fill.

That is your belief. We believe differently. Why can’t you leave it at that?

I’m always frustrated how the Catholic definition of Christian swings on Holy Tradition instead of Holy Scripture.

The Bible teaches that Jesus is God (John 8:58, 10:38, 14:10; Col. 2:9). It also teaches that the Holy Ghost is God (Acts 5:3–4, 28:25–28; 1 Cor. 2:10–13). Everyone agrees the Father is God. Yet there is only one God (Mark 12:29, 1 Cor. 8:4–6, Jas. 2:19). How can we hold all four truths except by saying all three are somehow the one God?
Jesus tells his apostles to baptize “in the name [notice, singular, not plural] of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost” (Matt. 28:19). This is a proof-text: three distinct Persons united in the one divine name. In 2 Corinthians 13:14, Paul writes, “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.” We see this same unity of divine Persons in 1 Corinthians 12:4–11, Ephesians 4:4–6, and 1 Peter 1:2–3. All three have always been and always will be. Rev 1:8, 21:6, 22:13, John 1:1-14, Isaiah 41:4, 1 Timothy 1:17.

Joseph Smith invented the Melchisedech Priesthood, polygamy, and in 1844 started teaching about another god; a god not like the one in the New Testament. Mormons do not worship the God of Christianity, so they are not Christian. Mormons started as Christians until Joseph Smith took them into apostasy.

Scripture is part of Tradition and they do not conflict with each other, except in Mormonism

No you are being silly,
My usage of SS vs ST has been criticized on several occasions. Since poor usage is just a distraction, I’ve been working to clarify my understanding of SS vs ST.

You’ve told me SS is a subset of ST. Since this conflicts the Wiki, i’m suggesting a correction. What is odd about this?
Unless the wiki is actually correct

Now to your deflection, what Joseph Smith doctrine have you raised that i’ve neglected to answer?

This will be the third time I posted a response to your claim that Catholics can not define Christian from scripture and must rely on Tradition. You seem to ignore the scripture proved as a response to your claim and prefer to teach Catholics what they believe Tradition includes. Again, scripture is part of tradition and they do not conflict with each other. The Mormon understanding of God is not Christian, and the Melchisedech Priesthood is not Christian. They were invented by Joseph Smith in the 19th century. Polygamy has never been Christian. Mormonism does conflict with scripture.

 

[Todd520]

This will be the third time I posted a response to your claim that Catholics can not define Christian from scripture and must rely on Tradition. You seem to ignore the scripture proved as a response to your claim and prefer to teach Catholics what they believe Tradition includes. Again, scripture is part of tradition and they do not conflict with each other. The Mormon understanding of God is not Christian, and the Melchisedech Priesthood is not Christian. They were invented by Joseph Smith in the 19th century. Polygamy has never been Christian. Mormonism does conflict with scripture.

Stephen, let’s spell this out since there is confusion.
I accept your word as a Catholic that Scripture is part of Tradition
I ask you to update the Wiki, since it conflicts with your word

I’ve never said Scripture conflicted Tradition
I have said the Catholic definition of Christian comes from Nicean Council (325AD) and is not in the Bible (at least the part that conflicts with LDS views only came from Nicea)

 

[Javl]

Stephen, let’s spell this out since there is confusion.
I accept your word as a Catholic that Scripture is part of Tradition
I ask you to update the Wiki, since it conflicts with your word

You’d be better off next time to go to the Catholic Encyclopedia for definitions instead of Wikipedia. newadvent.org/cathen/

I’ve never said Scripture conflicted Tradition
I have said the Catholic definition of Christian comes from Nicean Council (325AD) and is not in the Bible (at least the part that conflicts with LDS views only came from Nicea)

As I’ve mentioned before, the Catholic definition of Christian DOES NOT come from the Nicean Council. The term and definition were known long before the council. All the council did was to clarify and define the term and definition. In other words it made it official.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Stephen168]

I’ve never said Scripture conflicted Tradition
I have said the Catholic definition of Christian comes from Nicean Council (325AD) and is not in the Bible (at least the part that conflicts with LDS views only came from Nicea)

The Council of Nicea was a response to Arianism which was a 3rd century invention. The Council condemned the invention of Arius as heresy which was contrary to what Christians have believed since the 1st century as shown by the many Bible reference I have provided. The Catholic definition of Christian comes from the Bible which also condemns the 19th century invention of Joseph Smith.

Scripture does not conflict with Tradition in Catholicism but it does in Mormonism.

……what Joseph Smith doctrine have you raised that i’ve neglected to answer?

Joseph Smith invented the Melchisedech Priesthood, polygamy, and in 1844 started teaching about another god; a god not like the one in the New Testament. Mormons do not worship the God of Christianity, so they are not Christian. Mormons started as Christians until Joseph Smith took them into apostasy.

 

[Todd520]

You’d be better off next time to go to the Catholic Encyclopedia for definitions instead of Wikipedia. newadvent.org/cathen/

As I’ve mentioned before, the Catholic definition of Christian DOES NOT come from the Nicean Council. The term and definition were known long before the council. All the council did was to clarify and define the term and definition. In other words it made it official.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

Don’t be foolish
The birth date of the NICEAN CREED was the council in 325AD. This was the date the Bishops met, voted, and agreed on this official doctrine.

I am not disputing there was a gestation period
I am not saying whether this gestation period was 10 yrs or 100 yrs before the council
I am being specific on it’s official date of adoption

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Don’t be foolish
The birth date of the NICEAN CREED was the council in 325AD. This was the date the Bishops met, voted, and agreed on this official doctrine.

I am not disputing there was a gestation period
I am not saying whether this gestation period was 10 yrs or 100 yrs before the council
I am being specific on it’s official date of adoption

Gnostic ideology predated Christianity. Some false teachers wove gnostic ideologies into the Christian message in order to gain legitimacy and popularity.

The Church consistently fought against these heresies from the very beginning, not just the 10-100 years before Nicea.

 

[mtolympus]

Did Hinckley know definition 2?

I don’t know, but don’t think President Hinckley was on the Pope’s e-mail directory.

 

[Javl]

Don’t be foolish
The birth date of the NICEAN CREED was the council in 325AD. This was the date the Bishops met, voted, and agreed on this official doctrine.

I am not disputing there was a gestation period
I am not saying whether this gestation period was 10 yrs or 100 yrs before the council
I am being specific on it’s official date of adoption

You don’t be foolish. Just try to understand that THE TERM CHRISTIAN DID NOT ORIGINATE, NOR WAS IT ADOPTED at the council. It was in use from the beginning but was not officially accepted as a general description. The Council made the term Christian official and TO BE USED BY ALL.. This IS NOT adoption!!!

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Todd520]

You don’t be foolish. Just try to understand that THE TERM CHRISTIAN DID NOT ORIGINATE, NOR WAS IT ADOPTED at the council. It was in use from the beginning but was not officially accepted as a general description. The Council made the term Christian official and TO BE USED BY ALL.. This IS NOT adoption!!!

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

JAVL!
I never said the term christian originated at the Nicean Council, I said the modern Catholic definition for ‘Christian’ was penned at this council.

 

[dianaiad]

You’d be better off next time to go to the Catholic Encyclopedia for definitions instead of Wikipedia. newadvent.org/cathen/

As I’ve mentioned before, the Catholic definition of Christian DOES NOT come from the Nicean Council. The term and definition were known long before the council. All the council did was to clarify and define the term and definition. In other words it made it official.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

Just a note…going there got me in trouble; the version posted on that website is close to a century old; the latest version of the Catholic encyclopedia, evidently, is not available on the internet, and a few things have been…clarified since then; for instance, the information on excommunication.

Given this, perhaps the more updated wiki stuff might be more reliable? I’m not saying it is, of course…just–maybe. If it isn’t, it needs to be updated by someone who knows.

 

[dianaiad]

You don’t be foolish. Just try to understand that THE TERM CHRISTIAN DID NOT ORIGINATE, NOR WAS IT ADOPTED at the council. It was in use from the beginning but was not officially accepted as a general description. The Council made the term Christian official and TO BE USED BY ALL.. This IS NOT adoption!!!

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

You are conflating “Christian” with “Catholic” again. Considering that you are talking to people who think that the church went doctrinally flooey before the Nicean Creed was adopted, you might have a little trouble getting others to agree with you on that.

 

[Stephen168]

JAVL!
I never said the term christian originated at the Nicean Council, I said the modern Catholic definition for ‘Christian’ was penned at this council.

No, it goes back to the 1st century. The Bible teaches that Jesus is God (John 8:58, 10:38, 14:10; Col. 2:9). It also teaches that the Holy Ghost is God (Acts 5:3–4, 28:25–28; 1 Cor. 2:10–13). Everyone agrees the Father is God. Yet there is only one God (Mark 12:29, 1 Cor. 8:4–6, Jas. 2:19). How can we hold all four truths except by saying all three are somehow the one God?
Jesus tells his apostles to baptize “in the name [notice, singular, not plural] of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost” (Matt. 28:19). This is a proof-text: three distinct Persons united in the one divine name. In 2 Corinthians 13:14, Paul writes, “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.” We see this same unity of divine Persons in 1 Corinthians 12:4–11, Ephesians 4:4–6, and 1 Peter 1:2–3. All three have always been and always will be. Rev 1:8, 21:6, 22:13, John 1:1-14, Isaiah 41:4, 1 Timothy 1:17.

The Council of Nicea was a response to Arianism which was a 3rd century invention. The Council condemned the invention of Arius as heresy which was contrary to what Christians have believed since the 1st century as shown by the many Bible reference I have provided. The Catholic definition of Christian comes from the Bible which also condemns the 19th century invention of Joseph Smith.

Joseph Smith invented the Melchisedech Priesthood, polygamy, and in 1844 started teaching about another god; a god not like the one in the New Testament. Mormons do not worship the God of Christianity, so they are not Christian.

 

[JeanMichel]

The Council of Nicea was a response to Arianism which was a 3rd century invention. The Council condemned the invention of Arius as heresy which was contrary to what Christians have believed since the 1st century as shown by the many Bible reference I have provided. The Catholic definition of Christian comes from the Bible which also condemns the 19th century invention of Joseph Smith.

Scripture does not conflict with Tradition in Catholicism but it does in Mormonism.

I am sorry to disagree with you, but attempting to prove the definition of being a Christian is believing in the Trinity is not found in the Bible. It is simply not there unless you stretch the meaning and words of Jesus. At no time did Jesus qualify his words; believe on me, repent, and be baptized and you will be saved. The most you can prove by scripture is if someone believes that Jesus was the Son of God, the Holy Savior and Redeemer of the world, was crucified to atone for the sins of the world, rose again on the third day to sit on the right hand of the Father, and will return again one day, that individual is a follower of Jesus.

The formal doctrine of the Trinity came later; it became the official doctrine of all Christianity in 325. The Church purified itself with the Council of Nicea by purging all conflicting doctrine that was being preached within itself by then. Until that time, there were conflicting teachings that needed to be set right. Unfortunately, we did not start out with a Magisterium that could maintain pure doctrine from the beginning. Even in our own day we see those who kick against the pricks, reject the authority of the Pope and begin to create false teachings.

 

[Stephen168]

I am sorry to disagree with you, but attempting to prove the definition of being a Christian is believing in the Trinity is not found in the Bible.

It seemed like you missed my point. But after reading the rest of your post:

The Church purified itself with the Council of Nicea by purging all conflicting doctrine that was being preached within itself by then. Until that time, there were conflicting teachings that needed to be set right.

I think you might have got my point after all.

 

[Todd520]

Jean, you are right

• The full definition of Catholic Trinity is not in the Bible
• Formal Trinity doctrine came in 325, when it was adopted as official dogma
• Before 325, there were differing views but lack of official doctrine meant no heresy

Stephen, I am not disputing that some factions always had the Trinity definition that exists now, it’s just not well documented and it was not universal (catholic) until the council

I am sorry to disagree with you, but attempting to prove the definition of being a Christian is believing in the Trinity is not found in the Bible. It is simply not there unless you stretch the meaning and words of Jesus. At no time did Jesus qualify his words; believe on me, repent, and be baptized and you will be saved. The most you can prove by scripture is if someone believes that Jesus was the Son of God, the Holy Savior and Redeemer of the world, was crucified to atone for the sins of the world, rose again on the third day to sit on the right hand of the Father, and will return again one day, that individual is a follower of Jesus.

The formal doctrine of the Trinity came later; it became the official doctrine of all Christianity in 325. The Church purified itself with the Council of Nicea by purging all conflicting doctrine that was being preached within itself by then. Until that time, there were conflicting teachings that needed to be set right. Unfortunately, we did not start out with a Magisterium that could maintain pure doctrine from the beginning. Even in our own day we see those who kick against the pricks, reject the authority of the Pope and begin to create false teachings.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Jean, you are right

• The full definition of Catholic Trinity is not in the Bible
• Formal Trinity doctrine came in 325, when it was adopted as official dogma
• Before 325, there were differing views but lack of official doctrine meant no heresy

Stephen, I am not disputing that some factions always had the Trinity definition that exists now, it’s just not well documented and it was not universal (catholic) until the council

The scriptures are clear that Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and God the Father are all considered to be God.

The formal definition came later.

However, the definition concocted by Joseph Smith is unbiblical and was never part of Christianity.

 

[ParkerD]

The scriptures are clear that Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and God the Father are all considered to be God.

Chesterton,
The LDS belief is that they are indeed God.

However, the definition concocted by Joseph Smith is unbiblical

What “definition” are you making reference to in this statement? I would say that Joseph Smith described God and the Godhead in ways that are directly Biblical, and simply so.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

What “definition” are you making reference to in this statement? I would say that Joseph Smith described God and the Godhead in ways that are directly Biblical, and simply so.

Joseph Fielding Smith, the tenth LDS prophet, speaking of the godhead said:

   I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and the Holy Ghost was [sic] a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these constitute three distinct personages and three Gods. If this is in accordance with the New Testament, lo and behold! we have three Gods anyhow, and they are plural, and who can contradict it?

LDS prophet Joseph Fielding Smith taught the Mormon concept of the Holy Spirit teaching:
The Holy Ghost is the third member of the Godhead. He is a Spirit, in the form of a man. The Father and the Son are personages of tabernacle; they have bodies of flesh and bones. The Holy Ghost is a personage of Spirit, and has a spirit body only. As a Spirit personage, the Holy Ghost has size and dimensions. He does not fill the immensity of space, and cannot be everywhere present in person at the same time. . . . President Joseph F. Smith has expressed it thus: "The Holy Ghost as a personage of Spirit can no more be omnipresent in person than can the Father or the Son, but by his intelligence, his knowledge, his power and influence, over and through the laws of nature, he is and can be omnipresent throughout all the works of God.". . . The Holy Ghost should not be confused with the Spirit, which fills the immensity of space and which is everywhere present. This other Spirit is impersonal and has no size, nor dimension; it proceeds forth from the presence of the Father and the Son and is in all things.

 

[Stephen168]

I would say that Joseph Smith described God and the Godhead in ways that are directly Biblical, and simply so.

Could you expand on that with a few examples?