Are Mormons and Unitarians Christians?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maximilian75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Stephen168 said:
40.png
gazelam:
Really all I see is a statement (lacking several Trinitarian elements) saying that God begot the Son and God is not diminished by doing so.
Click to expand...
What are the “elements of the Trinity” that you think are required?
Click to expand...
My best understand of how the Trinity is defined goes as follows:
  1. There is numerically one God.
  2. The Father is God.
  3. The Son is God.
  4. The Holy Spirit is God.
  5. The Father is not The Son.
  6. The Father is not the Holy Spirit.
  7. The Son is not the Holy Spirit.
  8. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have existed co-eternally as God.
  9. The Son is both fully God and fully Human.
  10. The Father is composed of something immaterial known as “Spirit”.
That’s about the limit of my understanding of the Trinity. Additional insights are welcome. One thing I don’t know is how the incorporeal aspects of the Son and the Holy Spirit relate to the incorporeal nature of The Father.
 
Gosh, I said that Justin Martyr used metaphor to explain the Trinity. I didn’t say he wrote a theological work that is focused on the Trinity. You can refer to the Bible to get your answers, anyway. And use a dictionary for hard words.

Beyond that, maybe you and TOm should get together, as you’re making contradictory points, regarding the same source. 😂
 
Last edited:
The Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, well, since they are teaching faith and morals with the approval of the Pope, yes, it requires “intellectual assent”.
 
Last edited:
TOmNossor said:
didn’t believe that Christ was created ex nihilo,
Click to expand...
Getting back to this statement…say what and huh? You tend to build straw men but this one takes the cake.

In speaking of God, the Son is God and was therefore not created.

If you’re mixing in the Incarnation with a discussion of the Trinity, for whatever reason, yes, Jesus’ humanity is created.
 
Last edited:
gazelam said:
My best understand of how the Trinity is defined goes as follows:

There is numerically one God.
The Father is God.
The Son is God.
The Holy Spirit is God.
The Father is not The Son.
The Father is not the Holy Spirit.
The Son is not the Holy Spirit.
The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have existed co-eternally as God.
The Son is both fully God and fully Human.
The Father is composed of something immaterial known as “Spirit”.

That’s about the limit of my understanding of the Trinity. Additional insights are welcome. One thing I don’t know is how the incorporeal aspects of the Son and the Holy Spirit relate to the incorporeal nature of The Father.
Click to expand...
The Son and the Spirit were caused to be (begotten) before creation or before time by the Father; therefore they are eternal with the Father. They are begotten not made; uncreated. They are one God consubstantial with the Father.

I think of the Trinity as a ‘who’ (Father, Son, Spirit) and a ‘what’ (one divine Being). Each ‘who’ is fully God which is what I think Justin Martyr means when using the word abscission. Using the word begotten in reference to the One God assumes consubstantial.
Stephen168 said:
The Christian deity is a Trinity. Along with a belief in the Trinity, Christians believe that a Christian baptism is required.(Genesis 1:1-3)(Deuteronomy 6:4)(John 1:1-14)(John 10:30) (Matthew 28:16-20)
Click to expand...
The first four elements on your list have always been believed by Christians. The Old and New Testaments are clear about #1, #2, and #4. The first 16 verses or so of the Gospel of John is clear in regard to #3.

Your #5-#7 is a rejection of modalism, so I see them as clarifying not necessary trinitarian elements.

Your #9 seems to me to be more about the natures of the Son and not trinitarian elements.

Your #10 is an ancient Judeo-Christian belief about the nature of God but not a trinitarian element.

Yet, it is a mystery.
 
As to the OP, “Are Mormons and Unitarians Christians?”

Some are, some aren’t. I was a Mormon for decades and I believed that I was a Christian then and I still believe that I was. I loved my Lord and Savior and wanted to follow Him. Because of the sins of my fathers, I unfortunately did not understand the Jesus who I professed to follow. But I always wanted to be His follower. What matters is that He knew me and He knew my heart. Through His mercy, I was saved. He reached down to me and guided me from the cesspool I was in, into His arms. I have always worshiped Him. I just needed a little change in direction. I needed to feel His gentle hand. I just needed to know who He really was. I got it.

I have been blessed to break the sins of my fathers that have been visited upon my family for six generations. All of my kids have left the Mormon church except for one, who, in fact, is planning on a Mormon temple wedding this summer. I’m a little sad about it, but he’s a good kid and I have faith that he will eventually find his way. I only have myself to blame for his spiritual darkness.

Asking if Mormons are Christian is the same thing as asking if Catholics are Christian. Some are, some aren’t. The better question is to ask whether or not Mormonism is Christianity. It is not. It is evil at its core. I don’t say that to be unkind or uncharitable. It’s just how it is. However, I see this theological debate as going absolutely nowhere. In the end, we will be more convinced that we are right and the Mormons will be more convinced that they are right, and to what end? Occasionally, you get someone who will see the light, but not often. Arguments don’t convert. Just my two cents worth.
 
RebeccaJ said:
Perhaps you should take the time to read the entire Dialogue. Doing so will make it self evident that the man you’re quoting, is just plain wrong.
Click to expand...
Rebecca,
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. Have you read the entire Dialogue? What about the rest of his works.

Justin Martyr is trying to convince Trypho that Christ is God. Justin calls Christ "another God.” Trypho asks three times for Justin to prove/clarify/show this “another God” truth. Justin then does. Justin is not an Augustinian Trinitarian. The most monotheistic thing we can say about Justin would be that he subordinates Christ to God the Father, thus he could be called a “Monarchical Monotheism” (which of course I have already claimed is part of how LDS are monotheists). In his dialogue he subordinates Christ to the Father, but it is in his First Apology that he says Christ is in the “second place.” Justin even says that Christ is distinct numerically but not distinct in will (which is another common LDS construction).

I do not consider Justin a polytheist, but if the LDS concept of Trinity I embrace is polytheistic, then Justin is surely a polytheist.

In fact, if I said what Justin said was my believe 99% of anti-Mormons would label me a Polytheist and many of those folks would call Justin a saint.

You brought St. Justin up, but reading him (which I have done) makes it clear he is not a believer in the Trinity modern Catholics embrace.

And your asking if a LDS quoting him has read the entire dialogue is either a product of you believing some Catholic who told you that would matter OR a distractions from the real theological issues Justin embraces (assuming Augustine’s view is the measure of truth).

Charity, TOm
 
Last edited:
RebeccaJ said:
40.png
TOmNossor:
didn’t believe that Christ was created ex nihilo,
Click to expand...
Getting back to this statement…say what and huh? You tend to build straw men but this one takes the cake.

In speaking of God, the Son is God and was therefore not created.

If you’re mixing in the Incarnation with a discussion of the Trinity, for whatever reason, yes, Jesus’ humanity is created.
Click to expand...
RebeccaJ,
I was actually just bringing in another great thing from St. Justin that aligns with LDS thought. It was also not totally disconnected as I will explain below, but it was mostly disconnected and I was relying upon you being familiar with all the writings of St. Justin and the LDS vs. Catholic debates. I could have been more clear, sorry.
You imply you have read Dialogue with Trypho which is where we get his “another God” words describing Christ. Have you read Justin’s First Apology?
From his First Apology, we get that Christ is in “the second place.”
BUT, from his First Apology, we also get that St. Justin does not believe in creation ex nihilo.
So my point is that St. Justin teaches that Christ is “another God;” Christ is in the “second place,” and God did not create ex nihilo. All three of these are things Augustine would NEVER say.
That was my main point.

That being said, Arius and Athanasius (and their cheerleaders) all agreed that there was God and things created ex nihilo. Arius’s cases was over as soon as he said that Christ was created ex nihilo. That was unacceptable to virtually everyone their even his cheerleaders. It is my position that the definition of the Trinity that is so radically difficult to express without making a mistake is in many ways a product of the acceptance of creation ex nihilo and the RADICAL Creator vs. Creature dichotomy that everyone at Nicea took for granted.
This is also why everything Aquinas wrote is straw.
(There is another obscure statement, I can explain it if you like!)
Charity, TOm
 
Last edited:
Stephen168 said:
The Son and the Spirit were caused to be (begotten) before creation or before time by the Father; therefore they are eternal with the Father.
Click to expand...
Stephen,
The Athanasian Creed states:
“The Holy Spirit is of the Father and the Son, not made nor created nor begotten but proceeding.”
So you shouldn’t say that the Spirit was begotten.
I don’t point to this just to poke you. And I would not be surprised if what you meant wasn’t even heretical; it was only that your words were poorly chosen and conflict with the Athanasian Creed. That being said, one of the things that I regularly point to is that the Trinity is so radically complex that Catholics cannot even express it. Because they cannot express what it is they frequently make mistakes in what they do say. I think we can say two things about this:
  1. The emphasis upon orthodoxy and the regular declaration that this or that part of the church either must change their belief or be separated from the church strongly suggests errors like yours are salvifically concerning. And yet nobody today in or out of the Catholic Church would suggest you have put your salvation at risk because you made a theological error of this sort. This IMO is inconsistent.
  2. Those who beat their chest and attempt to make big deals about the theological errors of others probably have things wrong, especially when they cannot keep the theology straight they beat their chest about.
Now that you have been quoted, you should not edit your post, but respond to what I have said.
I have not evaluated all that you and Gazelam are saying and my evaluation wouldn’t move you much anyway. I just think we can see that the theological hairsplitting that has been a staple of “orthodoxy” is perhaps misguided.
Charity, TOm
 
Last edited:
RebeccaJ said:
Gosh, I said that Justin Martyr used metaphor to explain the Trinity. I didn’t say he wrote a theological work that is focused on the Trinity. You can refer to the Bible to get your answers, anyway. And use a dictionary for hard words.

Beyond that, maybe you and TOm should get together, as you’re making contradictory points, regarding the same source. 😂
Click to expand...
I am not sure where Gazelam and I are not on the same page. Within seconds we both pointed to your utilization of St. Justin as if Justin believed in the Trinity in an “orthodox” way, he did not.
And the Bible is not sufficient according to the Council of Nicea. Athanasius describes how he and those who agreed with him rejected a creed composed purely of “biblical” words and phrases. They rejected it because the Arian party gave some visual clues they would be willing to accept this creed. This was not acceptable to Athanasius (he sound quite proud as he describes this). The outcome of Nicea MUST be the cutting off all who believed like Arius and would not CHANGE their beliefs. Turns out this CHANGE was under threats from the Emperor too and the whole world groaned to find itself Arian for many decades after Nicea.

I love theology. I love pondering God and these questions. I do not agree with the decisions made by the first seven (and probably more) Ecumenical Councils, but furthermore, I do not believe the whole endeavor was God’s way. Infallibly declaring “truth” and excluding folks who previously were your brothers in Christ is not IMO how God wishes His church to be run. I think my church has made a few mistakes in this area, but does much better than the early church.
All that being said, this idea that truth is infallibily defined by the Catholic Church is part of the Catholic Church. I think the Catholic Church suffers many wounds because of this way of understanding itself.
Charity, TOm
 
Last edited:
No, Baptism is what makes one a brother in Christ–it’s what incorporates us into Christ (ie makes us “in Christ”) and adopted sons of the Father (ie brothers):
CCC 818 All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
TOmNossor said:
And the Bible is not sufficient according to the Council of Nicea.
Click to expand...
Stephen168 said:
The Trinity was defined by the Church before the New Testament was defined by the Church. Therefore, it would not include writings which contradict its beliefs. Reason would tell us that when a Mormon claims their deity is more biblical than the Christian deity we could reject that claim without even opening the Bible.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
gazelam said:
TOm is light years ahead of me in this stuff…
Click to expand...
I would not say that.
 
TOmNossor said:
And the Bible is not sufficient according to the Council of Nicea.
Click to expand...
Stephen168 said:
The Trinity was defined by the Church before the New Testament was defined by the Church. Therefore, it would not include writings which contradict its beliefs. Reason would tell us that when a Mormon claims their deity is more biblical than the Christian deity we could reject that claim without even opening the Bible.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Stephen,

Your beef is not with me here either. I already showed where you claimed something about the Holy Spirit that Athanasius (and all of Catholicism) reject. You ignored your error and now question me here?

You question my claim that the Bible was not sufficient according to the Council of Nicea. I was using Bible synonymously with Scripture, but we are talking primarily about the books in the New Testament (not the Old Testament).

You are correct that the New Testament canon was not defined until after Nicea, but you evidently do not recognize that there was broad agreement in general as to most of the books of the New Testament before Nicea.

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). Your beef is with Athanasius who reported that there was a creedal statement drawn up based on scripture. Someone (many scholars think it was Athanasius based on how Athanasius reports the incident) 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).

At Nicea, they also condemned the ideas that the Father and the Son were two hypostasis, but that is the modern Catholic position now.

There is a lot in the primary (in translation) and scholarly secondary sources that you will not find in Catholic apologetic works.

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.

Charity, TOm
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top