Are Mormons and Unitarians Christians?

[TOmNossor]

Again, no. I’ve refuted you and all Mormons on this. Mormonism is blasphemy against God.

I would be happy to see what you have posted in the past concerning your belief that you have proven that pre-Nicene subordination was not “ontological subordination” and the inclusion of a definition of “ontological subordination” that supports your “proof” AND supports the idea that LDS do embrace “ontological subordination.”
I am not sure if you have read any of the ECF documents, but I have. They do not give us a definition for “ontological subordination,” but they do teach subordination.
I would also suggest that the view espoused by LDS and numerous educated LDS is in alignment with the pre-Nicene subordination in a way that the post-Nicene neo-modalism is not, but all that is bound up on how you define “ontological subordination.”

Finally, if you do not think that Augustine and Origin bear strong witness to an embodied God with their criticisms of this belief held by Christians, they you are just not reading well.
Charity, TOm

 

[thephilosopher6]

Literally read up.

 

[TOmNossor]

“For early Christians the logical subordination of Son to Father was processional, a description of the movement of saving grace from the Father through the Son as we may distinguish the light of day from the Sun (“light from light”). Meanwhile, Arius held for an ontological subordinationism whereby the being of the Son is inferior to the Father.” (In Examination of the Problems of Inclusive Language in the Trinitarian Formula of Baptism, Thomas J. Scirghi, p. 65)

The Son was viewed as a principle of the Father (the Logos) that he sent out of himself by command. The Son was thought of as inferior to the Father inasmuch as he was wholly dependent on the Father for his status as well as his being which the Father communicated to him. This might be similarly said of the Holy Spirit, though there are scant details on exactly how this was. In this way, the Father is superior. This is logical subordinationism.

This is in contrast to ontological subordinationism which seeks to distinguish the Son from the Father (and naturally the Holy Spirit) from each others being. Instead, the Son is seen of as being a creature created by the Father rather than as a proceeding principle of the Father (even if that procession is not eternal).

Thank you, I missed it. I thought you were referring to some past post somewhere.
Per your definition of “ontological subordination” LDS do not embrace “ontological subordination.” So this definition is not a problem. LDS do not believe that Christ is ontological inferior to God the Father.
It is only what I would call neo-modalism that I think LDS should reject. Homousian in the “numeric sense” should be rejected. Homousian in the “generic sense” is not a problem for LDS.
That being said, Scirghi and you can read the ECF as if they are modern Catholics, but they were not. It is not clear that some of the celebrated ECF did not embrace an ontological subordination. Arius (who is not a celebrated ECF) does not in fact embrace an ontological subordination. He does not invent this of whole cloth in the 4th century. Most scholars like Arius to Origin’s “second God” teaching. Here are some other things to consider.
1 Tim 2:5 says, “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus.”
This passage does not teach that God the Father and God the Son are the single God. It IN ISOLATION teaches that God the Son is in a different class than God the Father. God the Son is the mediator between God and man and God the Son is a man. LDS view scripture as a whole and do not consider Christ to be in a “different class,” but this is a product of emphasis and interpretation. JWs are not without reason to emphasize aspect so scripture that support “ontological subordination.”
cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

continued…
Now, you offer the rejection of the term “Ontological Subordination” This rejection is not required by scripture. In this thread, your touchstone for Christianity is the rejection of “Ontological Subordination.” Scripture does not witness that ANY inspired author rejected “Ontological Subordination.” In addition to this it is absent in much (if not all) of pre-Nicene ECF writing. Some prominent authors:

St. Justin (another God, in the second place):
Then I replied, “I shall attempt to persuade you, since you have understood the Scriptures, [of the truth] of what I say, that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things — above whom there is no other God — wishes to announce to them.” (Dialogue With Trypho, ch. 56 – ANF 1.223.)
And
Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who also was born for this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judaea, in the times of Tiberius Caesar; and that we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we will prove. For they proclaim our madness to consist in this, that we give to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all; for they do not discern the mystery that is herein, to which, as we make it plain to you, we pray you to give heed. (First Apology, ch. 13 – ANF 1.166, 167; see also ch. 60.)
Tertullian (Christ is made before all, He is formed, He is begotten, The Father is OLDER, Christ is second. There are two. The Monarchy of the Father is not lessened by the divinity of the Son):
Let Hermogenes then confess that the very Wisdom of God is declared to be born and created, for the especial reason that we should not suppose that there is any other being than God alone who is unbegotten and uncreated. For if that, which from its being inherent in the Lord was of Him and in Him, was yet not without a beginning, — I mean His wisdom, which was then born and created, when in the thought of God It began to assume motion for the arrangement of His creative works, — how much more impossible is it that anything should have been without a beginning which was extrinsic to the Lord! But if this same Wisdom is the Word of God, in the capacity of Wisdom, and (as being He) without whom nothing was made, just as also (nothing) was set in order without Wisdom, how can it be that anything, except the Father, should be older, and on this account indeed nobler, than the Son of God, the only-begotten and first-begotten Word? (Against Hermogenes, ch. 18 – ANF 3.487.)
Charity, TOm

 

[thephilosopher6]

Again, you literally have not read anything I’ve posted with any sense.

 

[thephilosopher6]

I have already demonstrated that their nature was seen as one in the same, please just stop, you’re arguing nothing new and just confirming my position.

 

[phil19034]

Mormons and Unitarians are not Christians.

They may love Christ, but they are not Christian.

Regardless of what some people say, there is not such thing as a “non-trintarian Christian”

 

[Darryl_B]

Throw a stone into a pond and the ripples will eventually fill the whole pond each concentric circle another boundary, until we just say lets face it, the entire world is Christian, they just don’t know it, because of their erroneous beliefs.

 

[rmcmullan]

Hilarious. You’ve confused the Encyclopedia of Mormonism with the LDS Scriptures. Intentionally or are you just that big of a noob? RebeccaJ gave a much better answer.

 

[Darryl_B]

Hmmm. Laughter, confusion, ridicule and finally an appeal to someone better. Could I ask your religion, for I will know to avoid it.

 

[Stephen168]

If that’s so, can you show an LDS scripture that supports that?

That question is a subterfuge used by Mormons. All Mormon beliefs are not contained in Mormon scripture and there have been times when Mormon scripture talked about Mormon beliefs they had rejected.

For example:
The Lectures on Faith were Mormon scripture

There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things—by whom all things were created and made, that are created and made, whether visible or invisible: whether in heaven, on earth, or in the earth, under the earth, or throughout the immensity of space—They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory and power: possessing all perfection and fulness: The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made, or fashioned like unto man, … And he being the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, and having overcome, received a fulness of the glory of the Father—possessing the same mind with the Father, which mind is the Holy Spirit, that bears record of the Father and the Son, and these three are one, or in other words, these three constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things:

Clearly the Father is a spirit, and the Father and Son and maybe the Holy Spirit are one.

In 1920, the Lectures on Faith were removed from Mormon scripture, because over 60 years earlier, Mormonism had changed their belief in the nature of God.

 

[rmcmullan]

You make a good point, I am being uncharitable with my post. Many apologies, gazelam.

 

[Stephen168]

This sounds right to me.

 

[rmcmullan]

This is sort of a new topic but I take the view that lds doctrine is found in lds scriptures. Otherwise I would have to account fo r everything ever said by Mormon authorities, commentaries and possibly folklore. It’s a matter of drawing the line and I realize that everyone places it differently but I don’t think Catholic s should be held to that standard either.

 

[Stephen168]

It is well known by scholars that the doctrine of the Trinity was not taught in the early Christian Church for the first 300 years.

The trinity has always been a belief of Christianity from the beginning.

“Indeed, until Athanasius began writing, every single theologian, East and West, had postulated some form of Subordinationism. It could, about the year 300, have been described as a fixed part of catholic theology.” (R. P. C. Hansen)

Some form of subordination? You could read the Nicene Creed and find “some form” of subordination if you wanted to find it.

Mormonism does not believe what Christianity has ever believed about the nature of God. Joseph Smith rejected it in the 1840’s.

 

[gazelam]

The trinity has always been a belief of Christianity from the beginning.

Unless you are using the term “trinity” as simply shorthand for only “Father, Son, Holy Spirit”, you have no leg to stand on.

Even prominent CAFer FrDavid96 disagrees with you on this matter. See his comment here: Mormon baptism validity - #37 by FrDavid96

“Yes, the Arians had a defective view of the Trinity, but the dogma of the Trinity would not be settled until afterwards (and in many ways, ‘because of’ Arianism).”

 

[gazelam]

You make a good point, I am being uncharitable with my post. Many apologies, gazelam.

Apology accepted. Please have a wonderful day!!

 

[EricF]

In answer to the original question, I simply do not know, but one day we will all find out. I suspect heaven will hold many surprises for us.

 

[Stephen168]

Unless you are using the term “trinity” as simply shorthand for only “Father, Son, Holy Spirit”, you have no leg to stand on.

The Father is God, Christ is God, the Holy Spirit is God and there is one being who is God.

But more to the point of this thread; Mormonism does not believe what Christianity has ever believed about the nature of God. Joseph Smith rejected it in the 1840’s.

 

[gazelam]

The Father is God, Christ is God, the Holy Spirit is God and there is one being who is God.

This quote of yours directly contradicts John 17:22.

And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one

Jesus here prays for the disciples to attain the oneness that He has with The Father. A oneness of being is not something the disciples can ever achieve with each other. Jesus clearly is not praying for something unachievable by His disciples. The disciples can only achieve a oneness of unity and purpose. The early Church believed John 17:22.

Zero legs. Zilch. Zip. Nada…