Are Mormons and Unitarians Christians?

[runningdude]

You are using the term brother too strictly.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Doesn’t really matter what you think, right? There is truth and there is fighting against it.

The Church preserved documents of men she calls Fathers, precisely because they explain the Catholic faith. This includes Justin Martyr.

The Church existed before she canonized what we call the NT, and calls these writing scripture precisely because these writings contain the Apostolic faith that she preserves and hands on.

Mormonism adheres to neither, and being a Mormon your argument is that the Church preserved documents and declared a canon that teach Mormonism. What Mormonism does to reason is macabre, and fascinating.

Justin Martyr is of our Catholic Faith. He believed in One God. No one in their right mind would think he was trying to convince a Jew of his time that there is more than one God. His dialogue is centered on convincing Trypho that Jesus is the Christ, and the Son of God.

Only a polytheist would try to extract polytheism out of Justin Martyr. Which only makes the further case that Mormons are not Christian.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Can’t remember the source because I read it at least a decade ago. But the term homousian was used in different descriptions prior to Nicaea. A word used in different descriptions does not mean the same thing was being conveyed, and it wasn’t. What I’m saying is, you’re making a disengenuous point.

Of course the Arians rejected Athanasious, as he used homousian at Niacaea. Lol. The Arians were declared in error, by all the there except Arius and two others. Constantine by all historical accounts was in support of Arius, and was baptized on his deathbed by an Arian Bishop. He wasn’t working, or as Mormons like yourself tend to portray him, conspiring against Arius or Arianism.

Either way you look at it, Arius was excommunicated in the West and went East where he found sympathetic supporters in Constantine and one Arian Bishop, who resided,in Constantine’s court. The Bishops of the East declared Arius in error as well. The entirety of the Apostles successors declared him in error. Trying to make a case that Arianism expressed the Catholic (universal) faith, has no legs to stand on.

 

[Stephen168]

So, I hope you can see that you shouldn’t say the Holy Spirit was BEGOTTEN and you should not reject the idea that a scriptural creed was dismissed at Nicea. These are pretty solid historical points.

You have not defined begotten or proceeding and explained how using one or the other is not consistent with the trinitarian God of Christianity, while then showing how the Mormon plurality of gods of flesh and bone is. Or the Mormon belief that God was once a man.

You are correct that the New Testament canon was not defined until after Nicea,……

That is one historical point, which means there was no Bible. Therefore no-one at Nicaea would have claimed they could “prove it from the Bible” like you and Joseph Smith have done. A second historical point is that you and Joseph Smith failed at your claim to prove the Mormon god(s) from the Bible.

Another historical point. You seem to be suggesting that the Athanasian Creed came out of the Council at Nicaea. It did not.

 

[TOmNossor]

The Church preserved documents of men she calls Fathers, precisely because they explain the Catholic faith. This includes Justin Martyr.

The Church existed before she canonized what we call the NT, and calls these writing scripture precisely because these writings contain the Apostolic faith that she preserves and hands on.

RebeccaJ,
This is some remarkable circular thinking here.

Because the Ancient Church preserved the documents they conformed to the modern Catholic Church. There is no need for you to read them, no need for you to think about what they say (and yet you will throw at a LDS have you read all of the Dialogue? As if that had ANYTHING to do with this question in your mind).

Because the Ancient Church compiled the Bible, it doesn’t matter what it says, it supports the modern Catholic Church. Doesn’t matter what the words say, it is a Catholic document.

Rebecca, if you had this type of BLIND FAITH in the CoJCoLDS you would have never left. I applaud faith in the Catholic Church and the Catholic Church, but this type of reasoning IMO is sorely lacking.

John 17:22 is not a statement that presupposes the modern Catholic position on the Trinity.
St. Justin Martyr did not believe in anything close to the modern Catholic version of the Trinity (Catholic scholars acknowledge this).

The Church preserved documents of men she calls Fathers, precisely because they explain the Catholic faith. This includes Justin Martyr.

Also, you are not remotely correct in this assertion either. Tertullian calls the claims of primacy by the Bishop or Rome “usurpation.” Tertullian believed in continuing revelation and left what you call the Catholic faith to follow Montanist prophets. Origin believed in pre-mortal life and like Justin was no Trintarian. These and many other ECF have their writing preserved and yet in MANY areas they do not “explain the Catholic faith.”

Justin Martyr is of our Catholic Faith. He believed in One God. No one in their right mind would think he was trying to convince a Jew of his time that there is more than one God. His dialogue is centered on convincing Trypho that Jesus is the Christ, and the Son of God.
Only a polytheist would try to extract polytheism out of Justin Martyr

Good. Because I am not a polytheist and I am not claiming Justin Martyr was a polytheist. I am claiming that he was a Monarchical Monotheist and that he was not an Augustinian Trinitarian. I claim this because that is how Justin Martyr presents his theology. But, you go ahead, don’t read him and merely assert that he is a Catholic because the early church must be Catholic and they preserved his writing.

You brought up Justin, I just pointed out that he does not support your position. You might have chosen Augustine and Athanasius and you would have fared better.

Your post evidences a faith against reason and a willingness to accept an understanding without reading texts, this is fine but does not persuade or contribute to dialogue.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Can’t remember the source because I read it at least a decade ago. But the term homousian was used in different descriptions prior to Nicaea. A word used in different descriptions does not mean the same thing was being conveyed, and it wasn’t. What I’m saying is, you’re making a disengenuous point.

I am not lying. I said that the Bishops at Nicea were reluctant to embrace Homoousian because it was connected with the modalist heresy. This is true.

I have also discussed at length on this board that Homoousian has two meanings (it actually has three, but only two are relevant).

Most of the Bishops (unlike the presbyter Athanasius) embraced Homoousian in the “generic” sense when they agreed to the creedal statement of Nicea. Some of the Bishops embraced Homoousian in the “numeric” sense.

That being said Homoousian in the “numeric” sense is the current Catholic position. If the bishops at Nicea who were reluctant to embrace Homoousian were told that they must embrace Homoousian in the “numeric” sense few of them would have accepted this. That is of course speculative, but based on the fact that homoousian was jettisoned by MOST valid Bishops for the next few decades as “the world groaned to find itself Arian,” it is quite a good understanding.

Of course the Arians rejected Athanasious, as he used homousian at Niacaea. Lol. The Arians were declared in error, by all the there except Arius and two others. Constantine by all historical accounts was in support of Arius, and was baptized on his deathbed by an Arian Bishop.

Your history is flawed here. Constantine was the one who proposed the word “homoousian” to rule out the Arians. Constantine was a hero of the Council of Nicea. That being said, it seems unlikely that Constantine was particularly concerned with the technicalities of the position of Arius and the position of Athanasius. As all “the world groaned to find itself Arian,” Constantine’s valid Bishop was an Arian (or to be more technically correct a semi-Arian as ALL of the particulars of the belief of Arius were not embraced by the semi-Arians). At Nicea, Constantine was solidly opposed to the Arian position. Constantine the Great is a Saint Constantine in the Orthodox Church.

Trying to make a case that Arianism expressed the Catholic (universal) faith, has no legs to stand on.

Not only did I not try to suggest this, I don’t believe it AND I believe the position of Arius was absolutely wrong. Arius believed the Christ was created ex nihilo. There were probably less than two to three dozen Bishops at Nicea (and maybe zero as this was a particularly unpopular position held by Arius) who were comfortable with this assertion.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

So, I hope you can see that you shouldn’t say the Holy Spirit was BEGOTTEN and you should not reject the idea that a scriptural creed was dismissed at Nicea. These are pretty solid historical points.

You have not defined begotten or proceeding and explained how using one or the other is not consistent with the trinitarian God of Christianity,

Stephen,

You are the one claiming that the Holy Spirit was “begotten.”

The Athanasian Creed says that the Holy Spirit is “not begotten.”

I am just pointing out the contradiction in what you are claiming relative to what the Catholic Church accepts as documented in the Athanasian Creed and numerous other documents of varying providence. Perhaps you fancy yourself a speculative theologian and you wish to reform Catholic teaching here, but my guess is you go lost in the complexity of the Catholic Church’s (sometimes CONFLICTING) statements over the years.

… while then showing how the Mormon plurality of gods of flesh and bone is. Or the Mormon belief that God was once a man.

That God was embodied we have discussed with Origin and Augustine witnesses that this was a common CHRISTIAN belief during their time. In fact Augustine (whose mother was/is a Catholic Saint) refused to become Christian because Christians believed that God was embodied.

The plurality of gods in LDS thought and in early Jewish scripture and in the ECF doesn’t change their or our conviction that we are monotheists. The only question is HOW are we monotheists. But the council of gods is part of the Hebrew Bible. The idea that men can become gods is present in numerous places in the ECF.

And as you know, I believe with all Christians that Jesus Christ was/is a man. I as a LDS merely suggest that as Christ was a God/man, so was God the Father.

Instead of admitting that you misspoke or misunderstood or … you want others to look away from your lack of understanding of the Catholic faith. In Catholicism orthodox belief separates the Catholic from the non-Catholic. You claimed something that is at odds with the position of the Catholic Church. You then distract from your error by asking how your error relates to the CoJCoLDS. Your error evidences the problems that come when you embrace an organization built upon orthodox belief that has CHANGED and DEVELOPED and REFORMED and RETRENCHED and … for 2000 years. You can admit your error or keep distracting.

cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

You are correct that the New Testament canon was not defined until after Nicea,……

That is one historical point, which means there was no Bible. Therefore no-one at Nicaea would have claimed they could “prove it from the Bible”

I thought this was clear from my last post to you, but I will offer another way of looking at this.

I misspoke. You are correct, Stephen, nobody at the Council of Nicea proposed a creed based on the Bible. I was wrong.

What happened at Nicea was that a creed was proposed based on SCRIPTURE. This creed was rejected when Athanasius or someone observed that it would not be so un-agreeable to the Arian group that they would refuse to accept it. Constantine suggested that the word homoousian could be added to the creed and the expulsion of those who previously were valid Catholic Bishops was accomplished because they refused to accept this creed.

This is what the history (as captured by Athanasius) says. I was wrong to say Biblical, and should have said “scriptural.”

Another historical point. You seem to be suggesting that the Athanasian Creed came out of the Council at Nicaea. It did not.

No, I was not and have never suggested that the Athanasian Creed was composed at Nicea. I was and am suggesting that you claimed you believe something contrary to the Catholic faith. I used the Athanasian Creed to demonstrate what the Catholic faith was in contrast to what you believe.

It is not important to me that you offer heretical words to describe your belief. My point is that the Catholic Church is a church that separates and schisms based upon orthodoxy AND that this orthodoxy develops/changes such that folks cannot keep up. I think this is a problem for the Catholic Church as evidenced by you offering a heretical belief as your own belief.

As a LDS, I do not think God is very concerned that you believe that the Holy Spirit was begotten and Athanasius believed the Holy Spirit was not begotten, but this is a big deal in Catholicism. Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics both agree that the Holy Spirit is proceeding. They schism-ed in part because Roman Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father AND the Son; and Eastern Orthodox believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. It would seem to me the consistent position would be live by orthodoxy, die by orthodoxy. After all these are the technical points and those like them that have regularly ripped apart the church you believe is God’s church on earth.

Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

You are the one claiming that the Holy Spirit was “begotten.”

The Athanasian Creed says that the Holy Spirit is “not begotten.”

I am just pointing out the contradiction in what you are claiming relative to what the Catholic Church accepts as documented in the Athanasian Creed and numerous other documents of varying providence.

So you are not able to define them. Neither could gazelam.

If you don’t know the meaning of the words, you don’t know if you were pointing out a contradiction, a synonym, or something in between.

We have talked in a previous thread where Mormons clearly do not understand the meaning of those words.

Perhaps you fancy yourself a speculative theologian and you wish to reform Catholic teaching here, but my guess is you go lost in the complexity of the Catholic Church’s (sometimes CONFLICTING) statements over the years.

I love theology. I love pondering God and these questions.

Pondering up the meaning of proceeding and begotten.

That God was embodied we have discussed with Origin and Augustine witnesses that this was a common CHRISTIAN belief during their time.

Prove it. Quote the Church Fathers; yes plural. Prove they believed that God has a body of flesh and bone.

As a LDS, I do not think God is very concerned that you believe that the Holy Spirit was begotten and Athanasius believed the Holy Spirit was not begotten, but this is a big deal in Catholicism. Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics both agree that the Holy Spirit is proceeding.

Again, how can you know if you don’t understand the meaning of the words.

 

[Stephen168]

You have probably not read much of the primary literature concerning Nicea (and I have found 2-3 authors who mention precisely what I am saying in the secondary literature, but these authors are scholars not Catholic apologists).

Cool, prove the following from the original documents:

Someone … noted that the Arians were “whispering” and “winking” at the prospect of this scriptural creed. It was unacceptable that the Arians would be able to remain in communion with the orthodox so this creedal definition was rejected.

It was the word homoousian that was the bridge too far for the Arians. This word was proposed by Emperor Constantine. Many of the Bishops knew that homoousian had been condemned as modalist and it was difficult for them to coalesce around this word too, but some willingly and others under threat from the Emperor accepted the creedal statement with homoousian in it (leaving a small number who rejected the creed).

In addition to quotes and references from the original documents:
What do you really mean when you say, “ It was unacceptable that the Arians would be able to remain in communion with the orthodox so this creedal definition was rejected.” Did the Arians hold that point of view or the opposite?

And what is meant by "the bridge too far for the Arians?”

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

You are the one claiming that the Holy Spirit was “begotten.”

The Athanasian Creed says that the Holy Spirit is “not begotten.”

I am just pointing out the contradiction in what you are claiming relative to what the Catholic Church accepts as documented in the Athanasian Creed and numerous other documents of varying providence.

So you are not able to define them. Neither could gazelam.

If you don’t know the meaning of the words, you don’t know if you were pointing out a contradiction, a synonym, or something in between.

We have talked in a previous thread where Mormons clearly do not understand the meaning of those words.

Steven,

Show me were you and I have talked in previous thread and “Mormons clearly do not understand the meaning of those [begotten and proceeding] words.” You made this claim, I am not sure it is true, please show me.

I actually have a definition for “begotten and proceeding” IN THIS CONTEXT, but your reasoning is RADICALLY flawed if you think one needs a definition to know that:

You are the one claiming that the Holy Spirit was “begotten.”

The Athanasian Creed says that the Holy Spirit is “not begotten.”

It is simple logic. You said “begotten” Catholic belief is “not begotten.”

I am about 90% sure if you read some C.S. Lewis, he touches upon why your mistake is theologically significant, but I am not particularly interested in producing a definition of “begotten” for you.

My opinion (shared by scholars) is that the precise definition of “begotten” with respect to the Son in Trinitarian thought is elusive.

That being said, the reason your statement was a theological error is quite discernable.

Your continued defense of this leads me to believe you suffer from at least two problems. One is that you do not know why your error is theologically significant. The second is that you fail to see how “A” and “not A” are unequal (the only possible exception to the pretty well defined rule of logic is “literally” and “not literally” HAHA).

If you do not understand why “A” and “not A” are opposites, I really can do nothing to help. If you would like to admit you misspoke, didn’t know, or …, and want me to explain why your mistake was theologically significant; I can.

But your harping on me defining “begotten” is pure distraction and I think those reading this exchange can see that clearly enough.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Pondering up the meaning of proceeding and begotten.

Stephen,

You either do not know what these words mean or you are only trying to present a “gotcha.” Their definition is not important to show your error as I mentioned above. In addition to this, there definition in this context is elusive. You should read up on it on your own if you think a definition can be provided. They are words in a Catholic Creed, I think the person who claims to represent Catholic beliefs should define them.

You are distracting from the fact that you either misspoke or don’t understand your faith.

TOmNossor:

That God was embodied we have discussed with Origin and Augustine witnesses that this was a common CHRISTIAN belief during their time.

Prove it. Quote the Church Fathers; yes plural. Prove they believed that God has a body of flesh and bone.

I didn’t say what you are asking me to prove. I wasn’t TRYING to confuse you. I truly wasn’t. I said what is true and thus will not show you what you ask for which I did not claim.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

You have probably not read much of the primary literature concerning Nicea (and I have found 2-3 authors who mention precisely what I am saying in the secondary literature, but these authors are scholars not Catholic apologists).

Cool, prove the following from the original documents:

Someone … noted that the Arians were “whispering” and “winking” at the prospect of this scriptural creed. It was unacceptable that the Arians would be able to remain in communion with the orthodox so this creedal definition was rejected.

It was the word homoousian that was the bridge too far for the Arians. This word was proposed by Emperor Constantine. Many of the Bishops knew that homoousian had been condemned as modalist and it was difficult for them to coalesce around this word too, but some willingly and others under threat from the Emperor accepted the creedal statement with homoousian in it (leaving a small number who rejected the creed).

In addition to quotes and references from the original documents:

What do you really mean when you say, “ It was unacceptable that the Arians would be able to remain in communion with the orthodox so this creedal definition was rejected.” Did the Arians hold that point of view or the opposite?

And what is meant by "the bridge too far for the Arians?”

Stephen,

Do you have any knowledge that I made any specific or general error in the above section I quoted? I have offered many responses to your comments on this thread and I am not sure I want to reproduce quotes from books I read long ago so you ignore them.

If you believe I made an error, state it clearly.

Then I will demonstrate why I think what I claimed is supported by the primary and secondary sources at which time you MUST PROMISE ME you will respond with specifics as to what you think about the point of error after I provide specifics.

If you do not have any knowledge of any error, I will recommend some documents that you can read so you can educate yourself. I am reasonably confident that what I have said is solid and I have no desire to dig up a bunch of quotes so you can ignore them. You can disbelieve me because you don’t know the information if you want. I can offer you a short reading list if you prefer too.

The fact that the “orthodox” thought that the Arians would be able to embrace the creedal statement composed of scriptural terms lead to the rejection of this creedal statement because it was unacceptable to the “orthodox” that the Arians be able to embrace the creed.

By “bridge too far” I mean that the Arians refused to accept the creedal definitions with the addition of the non-scriptural word “homoousian.”

I will await your clarification and PROMISE or just a request for reading you could do.

Charity, TOm

 

[SnoopSword]

That God was embodied we have discussed with Origin and Augustine witnesses that this was a common CHRISTIAN belief during their time. In fact Augustine (whose mother was/is a Catholic Saint) refused to become Christian because Christians believed that God was embodied.

When I studied into cults (and I consider almost ALL non-Creedal ‘Christian’ ‘churches/religions/faiths’ to be a cults), I noticed that they all have a common foundation in which they build from; LIES (specifically: false history, fake news, fabricated myths, and various fables).

Your argument seem to rest on these things.

 

[Stephen168]

You have not defined begotten or proceeding and explained how using one or the other is not consistent with the trinitarian God of Christianity, while then showing how the Mormon plurality of gods of flesh and bone is. Or the Mormon belief that God was once a man.

That God was embodied we have discussed with Origin and Augustine witnesses that this was a common CHRISTIAN belief during their time.

Prove it. Quote the Church Fathers; yes plural. Prove they believed that God has a body of flesh and bone.

I didn’t say what you are asking me to prove. I wasn’t TRYING to confuse you. I truly wasn’t. I said what is true and thus will not show you what you ask for which I did not claim.

Yes, you lead people to believe something is true but in fact it is not. You lead people to believe the Mormon god can be found in the early church, but it can not. Origen may have believed in a pre-existnce, but not the Mormon belief in pre-existance. Christians may believe they “become gods” but not a Mormon belief in gods. Some of the early church fathers may have had heretical understands of Christian orthodoxy, but to be a heretic you must get most things right. Mormons are not heretics, there are a different religion. The Mormon god has never been believed by the Christian Church.

It is simple logic. You said “begotten” Catholic belief is “not begotten.”

You don’t know what proceeds or begotten mean, so you are not qualified to know what Catholic belief is.

The flower is wine colored not red.
The flower is wine colored not green.
Unless you know what wine colored, red, and green mean, you don’t really understand what these statements mean.

You either do not know what these words mean or you are only trying to present a “gotcha.”

Yes, I gotcha, Tom. You cherry pick and parrot authors without understanding, then invent conclusions.

I have read all the Dialogue with Trypho and perhaps everything St. Justin has written that survives to today, we know some of it is lost.

But did you understand.

 

[Stephen168]

My opinion (shared by scholars) is that the precise definition of “begotten” with respect to the Son in Trinitarian thought is elusive.

Another appeal to authority. I’m sure true scholars know the meaning of words before they try to make an argument from them.

 

[PJM]

Can I add to that tier Jehovah’s Witnesses?

Then when we conclude that tier ask your thoughts on 7th Day Adventist, Christian Science, and oneness Pentecostalism?

None of whom is the strictest sense are truly Christians

Belief in the Blessed Trinity; Christmas and Easter as “HIGH” Christian Feast Days;

Easter Blessings,
Patrick

 

[Stephen168]

Cool, prove the following from the original documents:

I am not sure I want to reproduce quotes from books

what I claimed is supported by the primary and secondary sources

When I wrote the words “original documents” I meant the documents written by the men who attended the Council. You can use digital reproductions of the original documents, because I’m sure it would be very difficult to get your hands on the “original” documents. Primary sources would be good because that is what I meant when I wrote “original documents.” Most scholars agree that copies of original documents are just as informative as the original documents. I have read many books about stuff, and they were all copies. In fact, I have read everything I’ve ever written. Now that I think about it, much of what I have written, and then read, were original documents, and they were easy to get my hands on. Well, do your best.

 

[lilypadrees]

The Mormon s I have known have been an inspiration.

How so? They aren’t Christians.

 

[TOmNossor]

thanksgiving:

The Mormon s I have known have been an inspiration.

How so? They aren’t Christians.

LDS are Christians of course, just not according to you.
And one of the many reasons impartial observers can know that LDS are Christians and you are merely a critic of God’s church is by following the Biblical exhortation “Ye shall know them by their fruits.”
Charity, TOm