Are Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses Christian?

[PJM]

Hello again

Tom: FYI my reply will be in 3 consecutive post.

Pt 1 of 3

Are Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses Christian? Post #420

Hi Tom, I’m going to try to respond to your thoughtful post. Are you aware that CAF wisely imposes SPACE limits? It may require 2 consecutive post? As a FYI

I will tell you what I see in the summary offered on this post. You can tell me what I misunderstand about this summary. I think that will show what I am saying well enough (but you need to read LW7’s summary of the conversation)

.
So let’s begin by defining the Trinity: {from Fr. Hardon’s Catholic Dictionary}

TRINITY, THE HOLY. A term used since A.D. 200 to denote the central doctrine of the Christian religion. God, who is one and unique in his infinite substance or nature, is three really distinct persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The one and only God Is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Yet God the Father is not God the Son, but generates the Son eternally, as the Son is eternally begotten. The Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son, but a distinct person having his divine nature from the Father and the Son by eternal procession. The three divine persons are co-equal, co-eternal, and consubstantial and deserve co-equal glory and adoration. End Quote
They share the same ONE “substance”

“The Holy Trinity

by Rev. William G. Most: ewtn.com/faith/teachings/GODA22.htm
“Perhaps the deepest, the most profound of all mysteries is the mystery of the Trinity. The Church teaches us that although there is only one God, yet, somehow, there are three Persons in God. The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God, yet we do not speak of three Gods, but only one God. They have the same nature, substance, and being”

Jane suggest that in John 17:21 we have a piece of Biblical text that can help us know HOW God the Father and God the Son are one. I will say that I know of no other text in the Bible that lends itself as well to answer HOW God the Father and God the Son are ONE than this scripture.

Jesus in what is called the “High Priestly prayer” says:

John 17:21 KJV: That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.”

Consider these also:

Jn 4:23-24 “But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true adorers shall adore the Father in spirit and in truth. For the Father also seeketh such to adore him. God is a spirit; and they that adore him, must adore him in spirit and in truth”

If you wonder how Gen. 1:26-27{created in the image and likeness of GOD} can exist as a reality in light of the above, please send me a private message, and I will explain it to you

Jn. 17:21 is a metaphorical teaching that address the “Mystical BODY” {the Church} that Jesus choose to establish {today’s RCC}. It is NOT speaking of the Trinity, or for that matter US, {outside of being the “MB”}.

She asks then, “Are we to be one with the Father through co-substantiation. That doesn’t make any sense.”

That gets to my point of just How we can,& we Do emulate our GOD, who as John teaches is ‘Spirit & Truth.”… again send me a private message so we don’t get too far off track here.

LW7 does not reply to the spirit of her question which IMO is quite obvious. He sees that she has used the term “co-substantiation” which of course is not the word “consubstantiation.” I have no idea what point he wants to make, but he suggests that if Jane doesn’t understand what “co-substantiation” or “consubstantiation” (to LW7’s credit he does not seem to fixated on the incorrect term like other posters) then of course it will not make sense. He asks her to define the word

CONSUBSTANTIATION. The belief, contrary to Catholic doctrine, that in the Eucharist the body and blood of Christ coexist with the bread and wine after the Consecration of the Mass. John Wyclif (1324-84) and Martin Luther (1483-1546) professed consubstantiation because they denied transubstantiation {Fr. Hardon’s Catholic Dict.}

Please see next POST

 

[PJM]

Cont. Post REPLY @ 2 0f 3

So, you have suggested that “consubstantial” means “same nature.” Alcstr understands what you say to mean “like: same species.”

I have offered something I have learned from Protestant and/or Catholic scholars that ONE meaning of Homoousian (Consubstantial) is “of one substance in the generic sense.” This “generic” sense is the sense all Catholic scholars take when claiming that Christ is consubstantial with mankind. It is reasonably explained as “same species.” (even though Stephen168 says that “Nobody said species.”) But, the high priestly prayer doesn’t work with this meaning.

Once again this leads to just how “God is SPIRIT” {Immortal} & man is mortal body; seemingly contradicting Gen. 2:26-27 {created in the Image of God}… Please send me a PM

“That they (the disciples) may be one (species) as thou, Father, art in me and I in thee, that they also may be one (species)”

John 17:11 “And now I am not in the world, and these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name whom thou has given me; that they may be one, as we also are”

Haydock’s Commentary explanation:

Ver. 11. And now I am no more in the world: that is, I am now leaving the world, as to a corporeal and visible presence: yet St. Augustine takes notice, that Christ saith afterwards, (ver. 13.) these things I speak in the world: therefore he was still for some short time in the world. And as to his true invisible presence with his Church, he gave us this promise, (Matthew xxviii. 20.) Behold I am with you all days, even to the end of the world. — Keep them in thy name, whom thou hast given me.[4] Christ, as man, says St. Augustine, asks of his Father, to preserve those disciples whom he had given him, who were to preach the gospel to the world. — That they may be one, as we also are. These words cannot signify an equality, nor to be one in nature and substance, as the divine persons are one, but only that they may imitate, as much as they are able, that union of love and affection. See St. Chrysostom, St. Cyril, and St. Augustine on these words. (Witham) — Here Jesus Christ prays especially, that the apostles and his Church may be kept in unity of religion, and free from schism. END QUOTE

John 17:21 “That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
Haydock’s Commentary:

Ver. 21. Christ does pray that his disciples may be one, as he and his heavenly Father are one; not that the unity may resemble the unity of persons in the divinity, by a perfect and exact likeness; but only as far as it is possible for men to imitate the perfections of God, as when he says, “Be ye merciful as your heavenly Father is merciful.” (St. Chrysostom, hom. lxxxi. in Joan.) END QUOTE

1 Corinthians 1:10 “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you; but that you be perfect in the samemind, and in the same judgment.”
THIS then is the true meaning on the above John passages.
One God {the 1st Commandment}

Can logically and MORALLY have but ONE set of Faith beliefs. Nothing else is even a possibility; and clearly NOT in the Bible.

In and through One “Chosen people” {Exo. 6:7} which Jesus follows with JUST One Church: Mt. 16:18 “ [18] And I say to THEE {singular}: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, [SINGULAR & a “church” cannot be separated from the ONE set of Faith beliefs of THAT singular church} and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

The disciples are already one species. If the oneness of Father and Son is consubstantial in this meaning then it makes no sense for Christ to ask that the disciples become one (with themselves concerning their species) when they are already one with themselves concerning their species

This whole TOPIC as expressed is seriously misdirected.

HOMOOUSIOS. A term first defined by the first general council of the Church to identify Christ’s relationship to the Father. It was chosen by the council to clarify the Church’s infallible teaching that the second Person of the Trinity, who became man, is of one and the same substance, or essence, or nature as God the Father. The Arians, who were condemned at Nicaea, held that Christ was “divine” only in the sense that he was from God, and therefore like God, but not that he was literally “God from God, one in being with the Father.” (Etym. Greek homousios, of one essence, consubstantial.) End Quote {Fr. Hardon’s Catholic Dictionary}

So, if we use homoousian in the numeric sense, we have.

“That they (the disciples) may be one (numerically in substance, a single being) as thou, Father, art in me and I in thee, that they also may be one (numerically in substance, a single being)”

I think this is a particularly difficult read here.

The third sense of homoousian was specifically denied (by Constantine interestingly enough).

So, I suggest that you can say “co-substantiation” and have little understanding of the nuance of this word homoousian and still know that John 17:21 militates against believing that the Father and the Son are one due to their homoousian. And I further suggest that insisting on a thorough exploration of the definition of the word homoousian is a distraction from Jane’s point which was quite good.

Hope that makes sense

.

 

[PJM]

REPLY pt 3 of 3

Thanks for hanging in there:thumbsup:

REPLY Pt 3 of 3

Friends this dialog as herein expressed is not even close to what the bible IS TEACHNG>>>>> Which IS this:

1 Corinthians 1:10 “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you; but that you be perfect in the samemind, and in the same judgment.”

Let me say that I do not believe complexity equals falsity. I do believe that Catholicism DEVELOPED into positions that are unlikely to be what original Christianity believed. The idea that the Fathers at Chalcedon meant,

Excuse me  BUT Catholicism IS the early Christianity. NO OTHER “Christian church & Faith” would exist UNTIL AD 1084 and the GREAT Eastern Schism.

CATHOLIC. Its original meaning of “general” or “universal” has taken on a variety of applications in the course of Christian history. First used by St. Ignatius of Antioch (A.D. 35-107) (Letter to the Smyrneans, 8, 2), it is now mainly used in five recognized senses: 1. the Catholic Church as distinct from Christian ecclesiastical bodies that do not recognize the papal primacy; 2. the Catholic faith as the belief of the universal body of the faithful, namely that which is believed “everywhere, always, and by all” (Vincentian Canon); 3. orthodoxy as distinguished from what is heretical or schismatical; 4. the undivided Church before the Eastern Schism of 1054; thereafter the Eastern Church has called itself orthodox, in contrast with those Christian bodies which did not accept the definitions of Ephesus and Chalcedon on the divinity of Christ.

WHENEVER THE BIBLE SPEAKS OF “THE CHURCH” OR REFERENCES “THE CHURCHES”

“Christ is homoousian (in the numeric sense) with God the Father in His divinity, and Christ is homoousian (in the generic sense) with mankind in His humanity” IMO makes the Chalcedon Fathers either jokesters or schizophrenic and I think they were neither.

My friends, you have veered off-track here. Your position sounds good but has no theological, moral or biblical underpinning.

2nd. Timothy 3:16-17 {Is either true or the bible is worthless} “16] All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, [17] That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.” Because it’s the best read book in the history of humanity and is some 4,000 {OT} 2,000 {NT} years old we can accept it as being true.

John 10:30 “I and the Father are one.”

Again Haydock’s

Ver. 30. I and the Father are one,[2] or one being, not one-person, nor one by an union of affection only, but in nature, substance, power, and other perfections, as appears by the whole text: for Christ here tells them that none of his elect shall perish, because no one can snatch them out of his hands, no more than out of the hands of his Father: and then adds, that he and his Father are one, or have one equal power: and if their power, says St. Chrysostom, is the same, so is their substance. Christ adds, (ver. 38.) that the Father is in him, and he in the Father; which also shews an union of nature and substance, and not only of love and affection, especially when taken with other words of our Saviour Christ. (Witham} END QUOTE

John 17:22 “And the glory which thou hast given me, I have given to them; that they may be one, as we also are one”

Again Haydock

Ver. 22. The glory which thou gavest me, I have given to them. St. Chrysostom expounds this of the power of working miracles: St. Augustine rather understands the glory of heaven, which he had given, prepared, and designed to give them in heaven. This seems to be the sense by the 24th verse, where he says, Father, I will that where I am, they also whom thou hast given me, may be with me. (Witham) End Quote

Similarly the exchange formula: “Christ become what we are so that we might become what He is.” Is interpreted in a way that makes Irenaeus either a jokester of schizophrenic. Discussed by Catholic scholar Daniel Keating.

The above quotes have multiple meanings:

1. “as we are” here is both literal {send me a PM please}, and metaphysical: meaning of the same “mind/ same faith}
2. This has been amply, and precisely certified by the above shared teachings.

IMO these are both symptoms of a radical creator/creature dichotomy that DEVELOPED in early Christianity. It is IMO quite possible to adequately elevate and respect Christ and His divinity without defining divinity as that which is totally and completely incompatible with humanity. God’s absolute immutability is another development in these areas discussed by Eastern Orthodox scholar Jaroslav Pelikan.

Your opinion misses the actual teaching for a number of reasons. Each error in understanding, increases the present likelihood of leading too further errors. One failure of right understanding leads quite naturally to others as I hope I have with charity annunciated above.

I Do truly appreciate the time and effort you have expended here, and hope to hear from you in a private message, {PJM} here on CAF.

I see fingerprints in many places, but perhaps I see wrongly.
Charity, Tom

God Bless you and THANKS for readin this

Patrick

 

[TOmNossor]

Stephen168;14151306:

Consubstantial has the same meaning whether you apply it to humanity (generic to use your term) or to the Trinity (numeric to use your term). God has one nature and humanity has one nature.
“That they (the disciples) may be one (generically in substance, a single nature) as thou, Father, art in me I in thee, that they also may be one (numerically in substance, a single nature)”

I do not understand.
I claimed that “homoousian” has two meanings.
When applied humanity, it means “one generically in substance, a single nature” when applied to God it means “one numerically in substance, a single nature.”
You say, “homoousian” has one meaning, but then say:
Stephen168;14151306:

“That they (the disciples) may be one (generically in substance, a single nature) as thou, Father, art in me I in thee, that they also may be one (numerically in substance, a single nature)”

You are giving it two meaning and claiming it has one???
Clearly I said Consubstantial has one meaning.

This is just not clear at all.
The modifier “numeric” is not equal to the modifier “generic.”
The scholars who have studied this applied the modifier precisely because there are multiple meanings for the word “homoousian.”

You have ignored what I produced from Father Don Davis, a respected Catholic scholar. This is not only about 1600 year old debates it is about the fact that the word means for the majority of Catholic scholars one substance GENERIC when applied to God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. It means one substance NUMERIC to the majority of Catholic scholars when applied to Christ and mankind.
You also seem to have missed that I am saying that it is equivalent to saying it has two meaning when you introduced different words to define it. If you mean that this is true “numeric”=”generic” then you have given one definition, but I cannot imagine you mean to say that “numeric”=”generic.” Is that what you mean?
I do not believe you understand these terms and unless you can explain to me how you align what you say with what scholarship has discussed for YEARS, I will just believe you are wrong.
If you cannot make sense of what Father Davis says and just IGNORE it, then I believe you do not understand.
And, I am not lying when I say you do not understand, I truly believe you do not understand.
Your understanding sweeps huge debates under the rug that still are discussed. And NO SCHOLAR claims that Homoousian has only one meaning.
Some scholars who claim to recognize the Catholic Papacy also claim to be Social Trinitarians.
Of course if homoousian is merely used in the generic sense (like Catholic Social Trinitarians do), then I am orthodox in my understanding. I along with a volume of LDS scholars have been claiming to be Social Trinitarians for a long time.
Again, I am not lying, I truly believe you do not understand. You may attempt to explain how your understanding aligns with Davis and Harnack and …. This might help me to choose from your view and their view, but if you just ignore their view it seems far more likely that published Catholic and celebrated and published Lutheran scholars are more likely to know what they are talking about than posters on Catholic Answer message board.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Tom: FYI my reply will be in 3 consecutive post.

Pt 1 of 3

Are Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses Christian? Post #420

Hi Tom, I’m going to try to respond to your thoughtful post. Are you aware that CAF wisely imposes SPACE limits? It may require 2 consecutive post? As a FYI

PJM,
I have read through your posts. Thank you for taking the time.
I need to read in more detail and then I will response.
If you would like to review contribution from Father Don Davis and Lutheran scholar Harnack that seems likely to be important to me.
Charity, TOm

P.S. I still need to dig up some quote from Mourett on another thread so I hope to get to that eventually then this.

 

[SyroMalankara]

You are discussing the “economic Trinity” and “immanent Trinity”, a different discussion than homoousion. Social Trinitarian theology discusses the relationship of the Persons of the Trinity with each other, its a subject within “immanent Trinity”.

 

[TOmNossor]

You are discussing the “economic Trinity” and “immanent Trinity”, a different discussion than homoousion. Social Trinitarian theology discusses the relationship of the Persons of the Trinity with each other, its a subject within “immanent Trinity”.

I could be missing some of what you are saying as I do not frequently use the terms, “economic Trinity” and “immanent Trinity.”
Let me try.

Economic Trinity refers to how God interacts with us and all that is “not God.”

Immanent Trinity refers to how God exists within God. I would think it appropriate to say that the “Immanent Trinity” is the ontological Trinity. As such, I would have thought that homoousian was directly related to the topic of the ontological or “Immanent Trinity.”

I agree that Social Trinitarian discussions are discussing how God exists within God and are thus “Immanent Trinity” discussions.

I mentioned “Social Trinitarian” because it is clear from Catholic and Protestant Social Trinitarians that they believe God the Father and God the Son are homoousian in the “generic” sense and are not homoousian in the “numeric” sense. I agree with the position, but I do not believe Athanasius or Augustine would.

As a LDS who believes God is very connected with His people and His church, I find very little need to separate the “Immanent Trinity” from the “Economic Trinity.” There are things about God that are beyond our knowledge, but there are not thinks about God that are so Unknowable it is impossible for God to ultimately (likely post mortally) communicate them to us. One day we will “see Him as He is.” Eastern Orthodox Christians believe that God’s Essence is so beyond us we will never experience it and we ONLY experience his Energies. Aquinas rejected this and claimed that the Beautific Vision was Essence and Energies. (I hope this is related to what we you brought up).

I doubt I understand it completely, but I would echo Rahner in saying that the “economic Trinity” is the “immanent Trinity.”
I believe God communicates Himself fully to us. There is no hidden unknowable divine life. There is such immensity of love and glory that we cannot hope to grasp it all with our finite minds, but God seeks to lift us to the place where we can and will grasp it all and “see Him as He is.”

Hope some of that makes sense.
Charity, TOm

 

[PJM]

PJM,
I have read through your posts. Thank you for taking the time.
I need to read in more detail and then I will response.
If you would like to review contribution from Father Don Davis and Lutheran scholar Harnack that seems likely to be important to me.
Charity, TOm

P.S. I still need to dig up some quote from Mourett on another thread so I hope to get to that eventually then this.

Sure send me the information or SITE information and I’ll read it.

Thank you and God Bless you!

Patrick

 

[Stephen168]

You have ignored what I produced from Father Don Davis, a respected Catholic scholar.

Yes, because it is irrelevant to the subject of this thread or the first tangent you used to highjack the thread.

To the subject of thread:
Christians believe in God, the Father, who is uncreated.
Christians believe God, the Son, who is begotten, not created, of the same substance as the Father.
Christians are monotheists.
Mormons believe in God, the Father, who is created.
Mormons believe in God, the Son, who is created, a separate being from the Father
Mormons are polytheists.
Therefore Mormons are not Christians

 

[jane_doe]

Yes, because it is irrelevant to the subject of this thread or the first tangent you used to highjack the thread.

To the subject of thread:
Christians believe in God, the Father, who is uncreated.
Christians believe God, the Son, who is begotten, not created, of the same substance as the Father.
Christians are monotheists.
Mormons believe in God, the Father, who is created.
Mormons believe in God, the Son, who is created, a separate being from the Father
Mormons are polytheists.
Therefore Mormons are not Christians

Except your facts here are very incorrect.

LDS believe in God, the Father, who is uncreated.
LDS believe God, the Son, who is begotten, not created. In occurrence with the Scripture, there is not mention of His substance.
LDS are monotheists.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Except your facts here are very incorrect.

LDS believe in God, the Father, who is uncreated.
LDS believe God, the Son, who is begotten, not created. In occurrence with the Scripture, there is not mention of His substance.
LDS are monotheists.

LDS believe that we are all, in some way, uncreated, i.e. eternal, right? This isn’t a quality unique to God, right? Also, don’t LDS believe that the Son is the literal firstborn offspring of the Father and Heavenly Mother?

LDS believe that Jesus is the only begotten Son of the Father in the flesh, i.e. referring to His mortal origin. While Catholics believe that He is the begotten of the Father in the flesh, we also believe that the Son is eternally begotten of the Father. LDS do not share that understanding, again believing that the Son is the literal firstborn of the Father and Mother, as we are all spirit children of them. Yes, there is an eternal intelligence for all, however there was some sort of “creating” or “organizing” aspect in relation to the Father and Mother being our heavenly parents and we their spirit children, with Jesus being the first one.

 

[Stephen168]

Except your facts here are very incorrect.

LDS believe in God, the Father, who is uncreated.
LDS believe God, the Son, who is begotten, not created. In occurrence with the Scripture, there is not mention of His substance.
LDS are monotheists.

Human beings are created.
Mormons believe the Father and Son are separate beings.
Therefore Mormons are polytheists.

 

[JMM1957]

Except your facts here are very incorrect.

LDS believe in God, the Father, who is uncreated.
LDS believe God, the Son, who is begotten, not created. In occurrence with the Scripture, there is not mention of His substance.
LDS are monotheists.

I’m having a hard time understanding how the Father and Son are equal Gods, but separate beings, but yet you say you are monotheist?

Can you please either explain in detail here, or provide a link where I can see where you are coming from concerning the above statements of yours? Thanks.

 

[HojaVerde]

LDS are monotheists.

Hi Jane_doe, Could you elaborate more on this? May be you meant LDS are henotheists?

 

[Stephen168]

This “generic” sense is the sense all Catholic scholars take when claiming that Christ is consubstantial with mankind.

It means one substance **NUMERIC **to the majority of Catholic scholars when applied to Christ and mankind.

 

[TOmNossor]

Stephen168:
I made a mistake!!!
NUMERIC for God Father and Son.
GENERIC for Christ and mankind.
Charity, TOm

 

[jane_doe]

I’m having a hard time understanding how the Father and Son are equal Gods, but separate beings, but yet you say you are monotheist?

Mormons ARE monotheists: we believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, 3 individuals whom are 1 God united in will/purpose/perfection (as opposed the Trinitarian united via co-substantiation). In the Mormon view, this is still completely monotheistic because to worship the Father is to worship the Son because they are completely united. To follow the Son’s commandments is to follow the Father’s commandments. This view is supported in scripture: where husbands and wives are commanded to be one, we are also commanded to one with each other, and Jesus sacrifice enables us to (after repentance and perfection) be one with God.

 

[jane_doe]

May be you meant LDS are henotheists?

No.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Mormons ARE monotheists: we believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, 3 individuals whom are 1 God united in will/purpose/perfection (as opposed the Trinitarian united via co-substantiation). In the Mormon view, this is still completely monotheistic because to worship the Father is to worship the Son because they are completely united. To follow the Son’s commandments is to follow the Father’s commandments. This view is supported in scripture: where husbands and wives are commanded to be one, we are also commanded to one with each other, and Jesus sacrifice enables us to (after repentance and perfection) be one with God.

What of your goddess, Heavenly Mother, who is presumably one with your Heavenly Father?

 

[Stephen168]

Mormons ARE monotheists: we believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, 3 individuals whom are 1 God united in will/purpose/perfection (as opposed the Trinitarian united via co-substantiation). In the Mormon view, this is still completely monotheistic because to worship the Father is to worship the Son because they are completely united. To follow the Son’s commandments is to follow the Father’s commandments. This view is supported in scripture: where husbands and wives are commanded to be one, we are also commanded to one with each other, and Jesus sacrifice enables us to (after repentance and perfection) be one with God.

Husbands and wives are called to be one, but they are still two beings. It is irrational to just say Mormons are monotheist and at the same time believe in three to an infinite number of Gods.
In 1835, Joseph Smith “translated” some Egyptian papyrus into the Book of Abraham, which is now Mormon scripture.
Book of Abraham Chapter 4:

And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth.
And the earth, after it was formed, was empty and desolate, because they had not formed anything but the earth; and darkness reigned upon the face of the deep, and the Spirit of the Gods was brooding upon the face of the waters.
And they (the Gods) said: Let there be light; and there was light.

By rejecting the Holy Trinity, teaching that God was once a man (created), and human beings (created beings) can be Gods, Joseph Smith taught polytheism as indicated in his “translation."

As long as Mormons believe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are separate beings, and believe that human beings can become Gods, they are not monotheists. Because Mormons worship one God, but believe there are many Gods, there are henotheists.