J
JB_Brother_4446
Guest
I guess saying Truth is bashing then.
- Status
M
Michael68
Guest
By the 55th page its bashing IMHO
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
I don’t see bashing. I see a discussion.
As to the OP, from a view of the Catholic Church the LDS and its Restorationist relatives are not Christian religions. This isn’t arbitrary, based on feelings, but well thought out according to what each Church teaches.
Individual members of these churches have people who desire and live according to their understanding. They seek to be disciples of Jesus Christ, which counts for a lot in my book. There are many people of good will who are not by definition Christian, and some of them are my friends and family.
As to the OP, from a view of the Catholic Church the LDS and its Restorationist relatives are not Christian religions. This isn’t arbitrary, based on feelings, but well thought out according to what each Church teaches.
Individual members of these churches have people who desire and live according to their understanding. They seek to be disciples of Jesus Christ, which counts for a lot in my book. There are many people of good will who are not by definition Christian, and some of them are my friends and family.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Synonyms in LDS teaching.
P
PJM
Guest
lds.org/scriptures/bd/christ?lang=eng
“Christ
The anointed (Greek) or Messiah (Hebrew). Jesus, who is called Christ, is the firstborn of the Father in the spirit and the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh. He is Jehovah and was foreordained to His great calling in the Grand Councils before the world was. He was born of Mary at Bethlehem, lived a sinless life, and wrought out a perfect atonement for all mankind by the shedding of His blood and His death on the cross. He rose from the grave and brought to pass the bodily resurrection of every living thing and the salvation and exaltation of the faithful.
He is the greatest Being to be born on this earth—the perfect example—and all religious things should be done in His name. He is Lord of lords, King of kings, the Creator, the Savior, the God of the whole earth, the Captain of our salvation, the Bright and Morning Star. He is in all things, above all things, through all things, and round about all things; He is Alpha and Omega, the first and the last; His name is above every name and is the only name under heaven by which we can be saved.
He will come again in power and glory to dwell on the earth and will stand as Judge of all mankind at the last day.” See also Anointed One; Christ, names of; Jesus.”
So are JW’s a LDS the same?
THANKS for sahring
Patrick
P
PJM
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMM1957 View Post
But they also believe that Jesus was a created spirit being
Originally Posted by JMM1957 View Post
But they also believe that Jesus was a created spirit being
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
English needs more pronouns.
Stephen168
New member
It also seems that Mormons use the words “begotten” and “created/born” as synonyms, which causes some confusion when they claim to have Christian beliefs.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Every Christian word and phrase that Mormons use has been redefined to mean something that a Christian would not recognize. Starting with the word God.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
The LDS Church teaches that Jesus became 100% divine, meaning that it teaches that he was not always 100% divine. Plus, what “divine” means in LDS teaching is kind of fuzzy. By this I mean, teachings that “God” is a title, that one aspires to. More of a priesthood office. The title/office comes with privileges, such as being divine…whatever divine means.
J
JMM1957
Guest
I seem to remember you being a part of this conversation a while back also, and now you are pointing fingers?
For me, I’m just trying to wrap my head around LDS theology, so I can ask questions of them that are somewhat sensible and not coming from total ignorance. My intent isn’t to be condescending or bash anyone, if any LDS interpreted something I said as being that way, I apologize. Everyone here realizes that emotions can get high at times when discussing opposing beliefs, that’s just the way these forums are.
Stephen168
New member
It seems Mormons believe Christ was “created” and due to their understanding of God, “begotten” has no meaning.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Or reversed. Everyone is begotten in Mormon teaching and no one is created.
J
JMM1957
Guest
I have to agree. Because of Joseph Smith, existing Christianity was reworked. The most fundamental beliefs about the Godhead that were held for 1800 yrs. were incorrect.
T
TOmNossor
Guest
Hello HojaVerde,
I wanted to respond to your post and to PJM’s (I have done the later elsewhere).
I am still of the opinion that the definition of “consubstantial” in any of its acknowledge three senses has anything to do with an excellent point made by a LDS in this thread concerning John 17:21. BIASED as I am, I have not waivered from my initial assessment that John 17:21 is powerful for helping us to know HOW Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God AND that it witnesses against the Trinity as advocated by Augustine and Aquinas.
I hope to carry on this conversation with PJM elsewhere, but I thought your post addressed some things I said and should get a response. It also seems that there is still questions concerning the multiple meanings of homoousian/constubstantial. I am not able to reproduce all the sources that have guided me to my understanding of this term. Most are Catholic or Protestant sources. In searching for a good summary I offered a Unitarians perspective as I thought he explained what I see as a dilemma well.
I will say that how the Monarchical Monotheism and the Social Trinity interplay exactly is mysterious to me (in that I do not know). How my free will and God’s sovereign will interplays precisely is mysterious to me (in that I do not know). I think how the twin dangers of modalism and tritheism is avoided by Catholic theology is a mystery. For any reader who does not feel the need to beat my church with a philosophical stick, and wishes to stop here, that is fine with me. If you however feel the need to provide intellectual arguments (flawed in most cases IMO) against my faith, please read on.
Now, no LDS IMO should say that there are any other gods APART from the Father. I do not believe many LDS say this today either. This is because another aspect of divinity is the Social aspect. So there is One God not just because God the Father is “more intelligent than they all (Abraham 3:19),” but also because there is one divine communion outside of which there is no divinity. We are invited into this divine community. When the ECF said that Christ became what we are so that we might become what He is, they meant it.
There is more here of course, and I generally follow Blake Ostler, Exploring Mormon Thought in his explanations. But, there are differences of opinions too. I doubt we will have a council (and I would say we should not) and exclude those folks who disagree with me though.
I believe there is ONE God. I believe God is ONE. I just do not believe the ONENESS of God is because God the Father and God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are homoousian (in the numeric sense). I also do not believe that God is ONE in a way that precludes the divinity of Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit. I also do not believe that God is ONE in a way that prevents God’s stated plan to “make men gods.”
Scripture must be taken as a whole. If all scripture said was in your Isaiah passage, then it would be hard to align the three persons within God with Isaiah.
cont…
I wanted to respond to your post and to PJM’s (I have done the later elsewhere).
I am still of the opinion that the definition of “consubstantial” in any of its acknowledge three senses has anything to do with an excellent point made by a LDS in this thread concerning John 17:21. BIASED as I am, I have not waivered from my initial assessment that John 17:21 is powerful for helping us to know HOW Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God AND that it witnesses against the Trinity as advocated by Augustine and Aquinas.
I hope to carry on this conversation with PJM elsewhere, but I thought your post addressed some things I said and should get a response. It also seems that there is still questions concerning the multiple meanings of homoousian/constubstantial. I am not able to reproduce all the sources that have guided me to my understanding of this term. Most are Catholic or Protestant sources. In searching for a good summary I offered a Unitarians perspective as I thought he explained what I see as a dilemma well.
I will say that how the Monarchical Monotheism and the Social Trinity interplay exactly is mysterious to me (in that I do not know). How my free will and God’s sovereign will interplays precisely is mysterious to me (in that I do not know). I think how the twin dangers of modalism and tritheism is avoided by Catholic theology is a mystery. For any reader who does not feel the need to beat my church with a philosophical stick, and wishes to stop here, that is fine with me. If you however feel the need to provide intellectual arguments (flawed in most cases IMO) against my faith, please read on.
The scripture you quoted puts Christ into a different category than “the one God.” By itself, it would be perfectly compatible with a “Monarchical Monotheism.” LDS, myself included, have significant “Monarchical Monotheism” within their/our thoughts. Catholics have purged most of this, but in concert with the increased discussion of Trinity, there are discussions of this Monarchical view. And Catholics do not go so far as John Calvin did. No Catholic scholar I know of claims Christ is “Auto-Theos.” Catholics simply must admit there is one God who is non-begotten and non-proceeding. LDS, myself included, are quite clear that Jesus Christ is subordinate to God the Father. LDS would not say Jesus Christ is “co-equal” with God the Father. All pre-Nicene Father’s were subordinationalists and I do not think you will find the term “co-equal” until Athanasius (I might be wrong about this).
Now, no LDS IMO should say that there are any other gods APART from the Father. I do not believe many LDS say this today either. This is because another aspect of divinity is the Social aspect. So there is One God not just because God the Father is “more intelligent than they all (Abraham 3:19),” but also because there is one divine communion outside of which there is no divinity. We are invited into this divine community. When the ECF said that Christ became what we are so that we might become what He is, they meant it.
There is more here of course, and I generally follow Blake Ostler, Exploring Mormon Thought in his explanations. But, there are differences of opinions too. I doubt we will have a council (and I would say we should not) and exclude those folks who disagree with me though.
Why did Isaiah and the Deuteronomists not mention the Triune nature of God? Why did they not mention the Council of Gods in Psalms (and less clearer in Kings or Job). Why did they not say a lot of things?
I believe there is ONE God. I believe God is ONE. I just do not believe the ONENESS of God is because God the Father and God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are homoousian (in the numeric sense). I also do not believe that God is ONE in a way that precludes the divinity of Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit. I also do not believe that God is ONE in a way that prevents God’s stated plan to “make men gods.”
Scripture must be taken as a whole. If all scripture said was in your Isaiah passage, then it would be hard to align the three persons within God with Isaiah.
cont…
T
TOmNossor
Guest
I think your Isaiah passage aligns well with Islamic, modern Jewish, and Bahai monotheism. I think it aligns better with Oneness Pentecostals (modern modalists) than with Catholicism. And, if God is Triune, and Isaiah had such a truth in his mind as he wrote his inspired words (or words that came from His inspiration), Isaiah would have said something different than he did. So I reject that it is some plain definition of Catholic monotheism and I considered it compatible with LDS monotheism! If you want to isolate this passage from the rest of the Bible, your Trinity is farther from truth than Monarchical Monotheism within my tradition, but neither of us take our theology from a single Biblical passage.
I think your “idols or false gods” is just a MODERN and flawed understanding. Psalm 82 is discussed by the ECF. From St. Justin to St. Augustine, I do not believe you will find a single ECF who believes your “idols or false gods.” I suspect this is because they know that Jesus spoke positively of Psalm 82 and to dismiss the “gods” mentioned in Psalm 82 as “idols or false gods” would make Jesus’s words silly. Daniel Keating a Catholic scholar in Deification and Grace specifically speaks against your view concerning this scripture. Your view is more Protestant anti-cultist than it is Catholic precisely because so many ECF spoke positively of Psalm 82 as they advocated deification.
Second, “infinitely inferior” doesn’t mean much to me. But, I recognize that all gods are inferior to God the Father, so we agree about inferior at least. Most scholars who have read and commented on pre-Nicene ECF acknowledge that they are thoroughly subordinationalist. God the Father is supreme.
I have read a great deal about the dual nature of Christ. I do not think it is Biblical until you ascribe Immutability to God. Pelikan was quite clear that the Biblical authors and early Christians didn’t believe God’s unchangingness was immutability. This was a development. “Immutability became axiomatic.” I believe it was a false development. 1 Tim 2:5 can be explained by some dual nature theory, but it certainly does not demand a dual nature theory. I know of nothing that suggests a dual nature theory unless you bring Immutability into your conception of God and the earliest Christians often didn’t. It together with many scriptures are easier to explain via some subordinationalism. Why did Christ speak of being inferior to God? Because Christ meant that the nature of the single person Christ that was human was inferior to God the Father, but the nature of the single person Christ that was divine was not mentioned? This is laid over scripture as centuries passed without God’s revelation guiding the church. It is not in scripture. I find the attempt to remove all subordinationism to be non-Biblical also.
cont …
T
TOmNossor
Guest
Justin speaks like this because he was thoroughly a subordinationalist. The Monarchal Monotheist present within the Bible and St. Justin recognizes the unity associate with God the Father as FOUNT of Divinity. Christ is distinct and subordinate.
The ECF (before Nicea) are VERY, VERY clear. Christ is subordinate to God the Father. And Christ became what we are so that men may become what Christ is. The Catholic is in a bind. Did Christ become fully man or not? If so, shouldn’t that mean we are to become fully God? I think Christianity absent divine revelation, absence some charism of infallibility could have subordinated Christ eternally to God the Father and said we are to become what Christ is OR it could have elevated Christ to be fully divine and co-equal and then acknowledged we would also become fully divine and co-equal. But, the commitments to divine immutability, metaphysical monotheism, and Christ’s divinity created HUGE problems that are still debated today within scholarly circles. As a result of the first two errors, Catholics must interpret words in very prominent Early Church statements in different ways across the same sentence. Chalcedon’s statement on homoousian and the exchange formula are the two that come to mind.
I remember discussing what I saw in history with Blake Ostler. He saw all the historical developments as philosophical developments. It was remarkable to integrate both ideas. The data was the same. I have yet to see a reason to not view these as developments absent God’s hand, as corruptions.
I find the union of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to be a remarkable truth. I subordinate the Son to the Father and the Spirit to both. I do not think Tertullian was an inspired author, but I am not convinced any of these analogies should be rejected by me. Also, you do know that the Filoque clause, “from the Father and the Son” is rejected as a perversion of the Western church by the Eastern church.
I will post on “numeric sense” and the “generic sense” later.
Charity, TOm
T
TOmNossor
Guest
There are numerous authors who utilize these terms. Catholics, Trinitarian believing Protestants, and rejecters of the Trinity.
Earlier in this thread someone called the Trinity a mystery. To this person and those who wish to glory in the beauty of their Catholicism, I say, “and what a beautiful concept it is.” I invite folks who have no need to tear down my beliefs to stop reading here.
For those on this thread who celebrate “metaphysical monotheism” or “ontological monotheism” and who bash my church because we reject it, please read on. If you celebrate the rationality of your beliefs and the irrationality of my beliefs and attack my faith, please read on.
I believe the concept I embrace of “Monarchical Monotheism” (God the Father is the only God who is unbegotten and non-proceeding) together with “Social Trinitarianism” (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God in their communion where they are united in indwelling love, and as Elder Holland says, “Are one in almost any sense you can think of other than being one being.”) explains well the Biblical data and much or the comments put forth by the ECFs. These concepts are not mutually exclusive and contain no contradictions of reason. The eternality of this TRUTH is not something I can explain, but I have ideas that do not violate the law of non-contradiction. The inner workings of this TRUTH are also mysterious to me, but again there is no hint IMO of violating the law of non-contradiction. God is one and God is three, but God is not one and three in the SAME way. God is not identically one and identically three because then one is identically three and that is gibberish.
Concerning the definition requested. Here are the words of a Catholic scholar.
The whole article is good and explains why “metaphysical monotheism” is not something “Social Trinitarians” can embrace.
…
H
HojaVerde
Guest
Hi Tom!
Thank you for haveing the time to answer. I thought I had been freed to continue debating with you… Just joking! Huge effort made.
Subordinationism
Some considerations:
I doubt that Justine is a follower of subordinationism according to the nature, otherwise he would be an Arian. Rather, his “subordinationism” is based in the idea of the order of the divine persons (their precedencies, according to their relationship among them) and according to the relation with creation and salvation of men (as they act to sustain the world and to save the men).
When you speak about subordinationism, you aren’t taking into account the distinctions I’m considering here. Thus your error.
One God and Trinity
By the data provided by the Christian revelation, I think there aren’t no more possibilities than these:
If, on the contrary, you think the Son has the same divinity as the Father, but that they are different beings, then the cost you pay is that of being polytheist (another irreparable error).
continues…
Thank you for haveing the time to answer. I thought I had been freed to continue debating with you… Just joking! Huge effort made.
Subordinationism
Some considerations:
- If I am son of my father, this doesn’t imply I am inferior to him. On the contrary, for being of the same category, i.e., same nature, we are, in this regard, equals.
- However, for being me the son and him the father, I owe my origin to hum, and besides, I have to be subject to him. For example, obedience. Another example, in our relation to other people, the society, the state/government, etc. This doesn’t make me inferior, in what I am, my nature, because we two are human beings. Simply, there is an order between my father and me.
- The Son is eternally begotten by the Father; he has his being for the Father.
- By the fact of being Son, he is not inferior to the Father, on the contrary, they are equal, because the nature of a son is always the same of the father. Both are exactly of the same category, the same nature. There is no difference on this regard. We see this relationship in Scripture when the Verb is called God, and to him is applied all that is unique and proper to the Nature of God. The Verb couldn’t have these unless he is God, the same nature of the Father.
- However, for the fact of being son, the Son is subject to the Father. Again, this doesn’t make him inferior, because both are equal in nature, in what they actually are. Simply, there is an order between the Father, first, and the Son, second. We see this relationship when the Scripture affirms that the Father has sent the Son, that the Son will submit everything to the Father, etc.
- Analogously, the same can be said to the Holy Spirit, but the relationship is not of generation, but of “espiration” (don’t know the word in English), and thus he isn’t inferior to them, although, by order of precedence, he is the third.
Subordinationism is heretic when affirms that the Holy Spirit is inferior to the Son, and Son inferior to the Father, regarding what they are per se, i.e., in their nature. For example, Arianism is a famous way of heretic subordinationism, because it affirms the Father is God, and the Son is a minor god, even a created god, of another and inferior category of the Father’s.
I doubt that Justine is a follower of subordinationism according to the nature, otherwise he would be an Arian. Rather, his “subordinationism” is based in the idea of the order of the divine persons (their precedencies, according to their relationship among them) and according to the relation with creation and salvation of men (as they act to sustain the world and to save the men).
When you speak about subordinationism, you aren’t taking into account the distinctions I’m considering here. Thus your error.
One God and Trinity
By the data provided by the Christian revelation, I think there aren’t no more possibilities than these:
- Arianism: Father greater than the Son in nature, one God, and other god/s inferior in nature (no true gods as the Father).
- Tritheism: Father and Son equal in nature, but different beings, several Gods.
- Trinity: Father and Son equal in nature, but same being, and then, one God.
- Modalism: Father and Son, modalities of the same person, one God.
If, on the contrary, you think the Son has the same divinity as the Father, but that they are different beings, then the cost you pay is that of being polytheist (another irreparable error).
continues…
- Status