For the LDS - Please Define the Great Apostacy

[mackbrislawn]

In regards to apostasy, there are those who regarded the apostle Paul as the first great apostate. Or, rather, he himself was not apostate, but led the entire church after him into apostasy. If this is true, it certainly would be the Great Apostasy!

In this view, the Judaizers that he was always fighting against were really the true Christians, but he won the battle against them for dominance and the church that emerged from that was false.

Hence, true Christianity was lost even before it had hardly begun. Even before the death of the last of the apostles, as many claim for the beginning of the “apostasy.”

 

[PaulDupre]

In regards to apostasy, there are those who regarded the apostle Paul as the first great apostate. Or, rather, he himself was not apostate, but led the entire church after him into apostasy. If this is true, it certainly would be the Great Apostasy!

In this view, the Judaizers that he was always fighting against were really the true Christians, but he won the battle against them for dominance and the church that emerged from that was false.

Hence, true Christianity was lost even before it had hardly begun. Even before the death of the last of the apostles, as many claim for the beginning of the “apostasy.”

Yeah, I saw that episode of “The Naked Archaeologist”, too. It holds about as much water as his other theories (not much). He is fun to watch, though.

 

[PaulDupre]

Where I Catholic I would embrace the following things:

*]God the Son is homoousian with God the Father in His divinity.

Agreed. God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit share one and the same essence and being. The three persons are one God.

*]God the Son is homoousian in His humanity with mankind.

No. Homoousian means “same essence” or “same being”. If you think that Jesus could be “homoousian with mankind”, then you do not understand the meaning of the word. We humans do not share essence or being with one another or with Jesus. Each man is a single being with his own essence.

Perhaps you meant that Jesus is “homoiousios” (“of like substance”) with mankind in His humanity. In that case I would agree with you. Jesus is fully God and fully man, and therefore shares with us a like substance (humanity).

*]Mankind may become homoousian with God (Father and Son) in his future deified state becoming gods via grace. This will result in man having a duel nature like Christ.

No. God the Father will always have a God nature (and Jesus has a dual nature), and man will always have a human nature. One’s nature does not change. Before you say it, let me answer that yes, Jesus took on a second nature, but He is God and we are not.

That being said, the nature of man in the presence of God following the resurrection will be perfected, purified and glorified. We will become partakers of the divine nature, not by becoming a different nature, but by sharing in the nature of God.

I think of it like a poker placed in a hot fire. Outside the presence of the fire, the poker has no light and heat but is just a cold, black poker. But in the presence of the fire, the poker takes on the heat of the fire until the poker itself begins to give off light and heat. The poker is not the source of the light and heat and never could be, but has become a partaker in the nature of the fire and therefore possesses some of its characteristics.

No analogy is perfect, but I like this one.

 

[mfbukowski]

Mfbukowski,
I think we are very close. Especially if you are not overly hung up on what being an “orthodox LDS” means. I think it is difficult to have these discussions because “orthodoxy” is so important for most non-LDS Christians and much less important for LDS Christians.

Since non-LDS who insist on one-substance positions that go beyond “father-son” type of one-substance are unable to define terms like “being” and “substance” sufficiently, I see the Social Trinity as satisfying this requirement (as does Alvin Plantinga a Protestant philosopher).
I also believe the scriptures, LDS only and the Bible, are quite clear that God is one and there is one God. I agree with Elder Holland when he says:

Now, I am not sure we should make allowances that the “orthodox” Trinity is not a perversion of the Bible. In fact, I believe the underlying assumptions that lead to the decisions of the first 4 councils are quite problematic. But I am quite convinced the inability to define “being” and what “one substance” means allows the belief espoused by Elder Holland to be termed salvific within a Catholic or Protestant framework. One of the things that leads me to this belief is the inability of virtually every non-LDS Christian I meet IRL to decide I am unorthodox in my Trinity UNTIL they discover I am a LDS. And, I am quite precise in my language so this is not a vocabulary problem.

So, I do not usually speak of “me-me-oneness” of substance. I believe that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are three persons who form one God through indwelling love and perfect communion. I have no problem saying that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are three beings who form on God through indwelling love and perfect communion. When I do so I use the term “being” as is more common within English in opposition to the vague and less well defined way Christian theologians frequently do. I think the oneness of God is in many ways a starting point (the Old Testament proceeds the New – though I believe Old Testament saints knew more about the Trinity than is evidenced in the canonized LDS scriptures). I think that the distinctions between the persons of the Godhead have been blurred by non-biblical ideas like “divine simplicity” and foundationally by “creation ex nihilo.” And I think those who wish to declare LDS are not Christians because our oneness is not sufficient, do not have a solid foundation from which to do so. While there are surely tri-theist LDS and I had a former Bishop who was a modalist, I find these folks among non-LDS Christian congregations. If not having a philosophically mature view of the Trinity is not damning for the little old Italian Catholic lady, I do not see how it could be for the LDS in the pew either.

Charity, TOm

I ultimately do not have a problem with what you are saying. If I were your bishop, I would still sign the recommend!

I think our affirmation of personal revelation is what gives us that openess about orthodoxy, combined with a healthy suspicion for “blind obedience”. We are still a very American, frontier church and I hope we never lose that.

Speaking of bishops-- one who was a modalist? Wow!

I recognize that there is ambiguity built into this whole question. Even when you look at Holland’s talk, there is the distinction between “Godhead” and “God”. When LDS want to talk about “one God” they are thinking “godhead” but when they are talking about persons they use the world “God” differently, or at least meaning something different.

I think your solution sounds good to me, so far!

I left academic philosophy because I did not want to have to be academically “politically correct” and it sounds as if you have some of those concerns about where you “fit” in your theological positions.

I am glad I don’t have to worry about that and can be as grumpy and independent as I like!

I like what you said about the “communion” of the Godhead – that is the way pretty much I envisioned it.

So if you are close to Paul, and I am close to you, does that mean I am close to Paul?

Now that is too weird to fathom!

But not on theosis!

 

[mfbukowski]

Agreed. God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit share one and the same essence and being. The three persons are one God.

No. Homoousian means “same essence” or “same being”. If you think that Jesus could be “homoousian with mankind”, then you do not understand the meaning of the word. We humans do not share essence or being with one another or with Jesus. Each man is a single being with his own essence.

Perhaps you meant that Jesus is “homoiousios” (“of like substance”) with mankind in His humanity. In that case I would agree with you. Jesus is fully God and fully man, and therefore shares with us a like substance (humanity).

No. God the Father will always have a God nature (and Jesus has a dual nature), and man will always have a human nature. One’s nature does not change. Before you say it, let me answer that yes, Jesus took on a second nature, but He is God and we are not.

That being said, the nature of man in the presence of God following the resurrection will be perfected, purified and glorified. We will become partakers of the divine nature, not by becoming a different nature, but by sharing in the nature of God.

I think of it like a poker placed in a hot fire. Outside the presence of the fire, the poker has no light and heat but is just a cold, black poker. But in the presence of the fire, the poker takes on the heat of the fire until the poker itself begins to give off light and heat. The poker is not the source of the light and heat and never could be, but has become a partaker in the nature of the fire and therefore possesses some of its characteristics.

No analogy is perfect, but I like this one.

Give me a break. Can’t we just speak english? I am duly impressed with everyones command of several Greek words. Now can’t we just get over it? I know the terms define what side you’re on, but holy cow! See I told you I got to be grumpy!

 

[PaulDupre]

Give me a break. Can’t we just speak english? I am duly impressed with everyones command of several Greek words. Now can’t we just get over it? I know the terms define what side you’re on, but holy cow! See I told you I got to be grumpy!

Hey kids, you’d better get off Mr. Bukowski’s lawn!

 

[mfbukowski]

Hey kids, you’d better get off Mr. Bukowski’s lawn!

You mean weed patch. I spend too much time here to take care of it. It’s all your fault!

 

[TOmNossor]

Agreed. God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit share one and the same essence and being. The three persons are one God.

No. Homoousian means “same essence” or “same being”. If you think that Jesus could be “homoousian with mankind”, then you do not understand the meaning of the word. We humans do not share essence or being with one another or with Jesus. Each man is a single being with his own essence.

Perhaps you meant that Jesus is “homoiousios” (“of like substance”) with mankind in His humanity. In that case I would agree with you. Jesus is fully God and fully man, and therefore shares with us a like substance (humanity).

No. God the Father will always have a God nature (and Jesus has a dual nature), and man will always have a human nature. One’s nature does not change. Before you say it, let me answer that yes, Jesus took on a second nature, but He is God and we are not.

That being said, the nature of man in the presence of God following the resurrection will be perfected, purified and glorified. We will become partakers of the divine nature, not by becoming a different nature, but by sharing in the nature of God.

I think of it like a poker placed in a hot fire. Outside the presence of the fire, the poker has no light and heat but is just a cold, black poker. But in the presence of the fire, the poker takes on the heat of the fire until the poker itself begins to give off light and heat. The poker is not the source of the light and heat and never could be, but has become a partaker in the nature of the fire and therefore possesses some of its characteristics.

No analogy is perfect, but I like this one.
Paul,
The first two statements are Catholic DOGMA. They are irreformable and infallible truth according to Catholicism. Jesus Christ is truly man, not like man. I suspect you did not intend to deny dogma, but you did.

Since, the first two are Catholic dogma, I do not think it outside the scope of reason for the Catholic to embrace the 3rd. That being said, those who limit the final state of deified men do just as you have done. This IMO is placing a limit upon the final state of deified man. And because so few people are willing to reason from 1&2 to #3 is the reason that I asked. As a Catholic, I would find the marriage of 1 & 2 difficult in some ways, but having accepted this dogmatic truth I would step out with little fear to #3.
Perhaps after regrouping and accepting #2 you can reconsider #3? I maintain that upon letting #1 and #2 really sink in, #3 is the most clear patristic statement of deification. Of course those who used the patristic language unlike their predecessors place limits upon men’s final deified state.
Charity, TOm

 

[PaulDupre]

Paul,
The first two statements are Catholic DOGMA. They are irreformable and infallible truth according to Catholicism. Jesus Christ is truly man, not like man. I suspect you did not intend to deny dogma, but you did.

I did not deny the dogma, I merely pointed out that you misstated it. You’re doing like Bukowski, not reading before you answer.

Did you miss this statement:
"PaulDupre:

Jesus is fully God and fully man, and therefore shares with us a like substance (humanity).

So I did not deny the dogma. You stated that Jesus is Homoousian with mankind. That is impossible, because Homoousian means “the same being”. Jesus and the Father are the same being. Jesus and I are not the same being. I am I and he is he. What you meant to say is that Jesus and mankind share the same nature, not the same being. Like other Mormons, you seem to misunderstand the meaning of the word “being”.

Since, the first two are Catholic dogma, I do not think it outside the scope of reason for the Catholic to embrace the 3rd.

The second is not Catholic dogma. So your logic is based on a flawed premise. Please read my posts before you answer them. And please look up the meanings of homoousian and homoiousios (two different words, two different meanings); you are conflating the two.

 

[peary]

It is my opinion that, with regard to the Catholic Church, the Great Apostasy began with the Protestant Revolt and has continued during the last 5-600 years.

 

[TOmNossor]

So I did not deny the dogma. You stated that Jesus is Homoousian with mankind. That is impossible, because Homoousian means “the same being”. Jesus and the Father are the same being. Jesus and I are not the same being. I am I and he is he. What you meant to say is that Jesus and mankind share the same nature, not the same being. Like other Mormons, you seem to misunderstand the meaning of the word “being”.

Ok, you do not understand the word Homoousian and then you accuse me of not understanding it.
Look up the Creedal statement of Chalcedon.
It is your problem with understaning Homoousain that leads you into heresy too it would seem.
Charity, TOm

 

[PaulDupre]

Ok, you do not understand the word Homoousian and then you accuse me of not understanding it.
Look up the Creedal statement of Chalcedon.
It is your problem with understaning Homoousain that leads you into heresy too it would seem.
Charity, TOm

Okay then, explain to me what you think Homoousain means and then maybe we can discuss it.

As to Chalcedon, you mean this line in the Definition of Chalcedon (English translation - the word homoousain is not used):

consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood;

Sounds like a translation problem. Do you really think that the bishops were saying that we are consubstantial with Jesus in the same way that Jesus is consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father?? I don’t think so, since that goes against everything the Catholic Church has taught before and since.

Any other Catholics want to weigh in on this?

 

[TOmNossor]

Paul,
Truth be told, homoousian is quite a problematic concept. You have found the passage from Chalcedon that I referred you to. In addition to that, I provided earlier today a little of the history of this term.

The Council of Nicea IMO had a difficult problem. God created ex Nihilo and before this there was only God. Jesus spoke to His Father. So was Jesus created by God out of nothing? Was Jesus really the Father (this was condemned long before and interestingly enough the heretical word condemned with the Sabellian heresy was “homoousian!”)

Well, most of the Bishops at Nicea embraced a view of the Nicene word “homoousian” that would fall out of favor later. Eusebius (the historian Bishop who signed at Nicea not the other one) sent a letter to his church that said that Nicea decided that God the Father and God the Son where homoousian just like a human father and a human son are homoousian. When dialoguing with Richard many years ago, I called this “me-you-one-substance-ness.” I think a LDS can very easily embrace Nicea with this understanding of “homoousian.” We reject some of the underlying ideas that made this such a big deal, but this “homoousian” is quite fine.
Athanasius embraced Eusebius and those who thought like him as his brothers in Christ. Unfortunately as Athanasius and then Augustine more precisely addressed these issues “homoousian” shifted in meaning (though there are remnants of the older meaning in dogmatic Catholic pronouncement much after Nicea too). Today folks here usually insist upon a meaning that I call “me-me-one-substance-ness.” There is much that becomes incomprehensible when attempting to assert this definition of homoousian.

Homoousian is simply same-substance. However when you see that it was part of the condemned modalist definition, it had different senses for the different bishops at Nicea, and the difficult passage from Chalcedon; things become more complex. I personally adopt the view of Eusebius (the historian, not the one who refused to sign at Nicea) and where I a Catholic I would as well. I think that Augustine and Athanasius use the term in a way that can be called neo-modalist (I know you will not like this term, but I am not the first to use it. I use it for is descriptive value MOSTLY). I think Chalcedon does not allow for Augustine’s and Athanasius’s usage.

I have seen a Catholic make a remarkable statement about the word / words for partake/participate. He claimed that in one half of a sentence these words meant one thing and in the other half of the sentence these words meant a related but very different thing. This same Catholic author made no such equivocations when he spoke of the Chalcedon confession, but IMO it would be no more unreasonable than the position he espoused. In other words, while I condemn the idea that a word can be used in such a parallel construction and be assigned divergent meanings (at least not assigned by those who attempt to assign a developed orthodoxy to authors from >1000 years ago); if Catholicism requires this structure in one place perhaps it does in the confession of Chalcedon. So perhaps you might want to say that the confession at Chalcedon says, Christ is “homoousian (in the neo-modalist way) with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial (in the non-neo-modalist way) with us according to the Manhood.” If you can find me a Catholic author who is willing to do this with Chalcedon, I will criticize that as a horrid argument (and if you adopt this I will also suggest it is a horrid argument, but you are welcome to it).

I sincerely believe that if one allows the first two statements (which are the ones from Chalcedon) there is nothing irreformable that precludes the 3rd statement. That being said, when you claimed that Catholicism did not limit the deified state of man, I thought you might be embracing what I consider to be the most REASONED read of the ECF and Chalcedon. But alas you were not.

I believe there are quite a number of examples of Catholic theology doing what I would call in a Chess metaphor, “moving into check.”
I am quite critical of the simplistic view of apostolic succession, but I could embrace strong development theories as a Catholic. I however cannot make developed theology obey the law on non-contradiction. Many very intelligent EO theologians agree with me, but they basically reject the “law on non-contradiction.” I do not think I should do this. So, remarkable as it sounds (to those who think Mormonism is the epitome of ridiculous) , the biggest Catholic barrier to me becoming a Catholic (again) is now what I perceive to be violations of the “law on non-contradiction” that I cannot get around.

Charity, TOm

PaulDupre:

Any other Catholics want to weigh in on this?

 

[Jerusha]

I however cannot make developed theology obey the law on non-contradiction. Many very intelligent EO theologians agree with me, but they basically reject the “law on non-contradiction.” I do not think I should do this. So, remarkable as it sounds (to those who think Mormonism is the epitome of ridiculous) , the biggest Catholic barrier to me becoming a Catholic (again) is now what I perceive to be violations of the “law on non-contradiction” that I cannot get around.

Charity, TOm

I would challenge people here–particularly Mormons and Catholics, to each make a list of contradictions within the other, and attempt to reconcile the contradictions that each finds.

I will start a new thread for that purpose.

 

[TOmNossor]

Paul,
Previously I said:

So perhaps you might want to say that the confession at Chalcedon says, Christ is “homoousian (in the neo-modalist way) with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial (in the non-neo-modalist way) with us according to the Manhood.”

If you can find me a Catholic author who is willing to do this with Chalcedon, I will criticize that as a horrid argument (and if you adopt this I will also suggest it is a horrid argument, but you are welcome to it).
I did not mean to create confusion by switching between Greek-ish and Latin-ish terms abruptly.
This is what I meant to say:
So perhaps you might want to say that the confession at Chalcedon says, Christ is “homoousian / consubstantial (in the neo-modalist way) with the Father according to the Godhead, and homoousian / consubstantial (in the non-neo-modalist way) with us according to the Manhood.”

Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

Paul,
Previously I said:

I did not mean to create confusion by switching between Greek-ish and Latin-ish terms abruptly.
This is what I meant to say:
So perhaps you might want to say that the confession at Chalcedon says, Christ is “homoousian / consubstantial (in the neo-modalist way) with the Father according to the Godhead, and homoousian / consubstantial (in the non-neo-modalist way) with us according to the Manhood.”

Charity, TOm

What is the neo-modalist use of homoousian?
What is neo-modalist in general?

 

[Chris-WA]

The Eucharist IMO is a strong point for Catholicism. I am actually encouraged by some words from Brigham Young. I do not think we as LDS recognize just how powerful the presence of Christ is in the sacrament. Still Catholics have a better understanding of the early church position on the Eucharist than do LDS.

But Tom, the problem is that the real presence of Christ is not part of LDS belief. It is only a symbol, something meant only to *remind *you of Christ’s sacrifice. The LDS Church does not teach that Christ is present in the sacrament. The LDS Church rejects this uniquely Catholic teaching. I know, because my LDS wife rejects it. But in your studies you have come to believe differently, haven’t you? You’ve read John Chapter 6 over and over, and St. Paul’s teaching that the Eucharist is a real participation, and the ECF’s various commentaries on the Eucharist. But no matter how much you may want it to be there in Mormonism, it’s not. As Pope John Paul II taught, the Eucharist is the “source and summit” of our lives. It is a critical doctrine that separates Catholic from Mormon. And you believe in it. No matter how much you try to intellectualize the rest of your arguments to remain LDS, God has been knocking at your door to see the Eucharist for what it really is—Christ. Body, blood, soul, and divinity. And there is only one place on earth where you can find it.

 

[Stephen168]

Any other Catholics want to weigh in on this?

Paul,
I’d like to weigh in but I’m not real sure what ‘this’ is. From what I can tell ‘this’ is a Mormon claiming that eternal progression and Theosis are the same thing. Am I close?
Also can you shed some light on the term ‘neo-modalist?’ I see Tom likes to use the word in a sentence but has never taken the time to define it. Is it a common mormon term?

Thanks

 

[Chris-WA]

Don’t presume to tell me that my “god is some guy like us”

How dare you?

My God is the God of the universe who is infinite in majesty and perfection, and whos Son came to earth to redeem all who have ever lived and ever will live

You really shouldn’t be offended by this. This was, after all, the teaching of Joseph Smith to the LDS Church. Joseph didn’t put it so crudely, but he did teach that God was once a man like us who progressed to godhood. That’s all the poster was trying to say. Later prophets taught the same. This teaching has never been repudiated. Modern prophets have simply gone silent on the subject.

He has been gracious enough to give us the greatest gift he ever could- the opportunity to share in his infinite majesty, which you scorn with your insolent attitude. You should be honoring Him for his willingness to offer you such a blessing.

If your God cannot or would not do that, what kind of God is that?

This argument, the “your god is lesser because he doesn’t offer you godhood” argument, is really a bunch of nonsense. It’s a way Mormons try to make non-Mormons feel bad because we are somehow limiting God and/or our potential blessings. I honor God because He is the creator, and I am created. Catholics believe that we will share in His divine life, but not by becoming gods ourselves. In Heaven, we will eternally be creatures (as in created beings of God), not creators. Having eternal life is sharing in God’s divine life.

If you want to believe that he is incapable of giving us such a gift go ahead and believe what you will, and I will guarantee that such a supernal blessing will never be yours because you have rejected it.

It’s up to you and you have already chosen your path by leaving his church.

Here you go again with that same tactic. No one is saying God is incapable of anything. If He wanted to, he could make me a god of my own world. But that is not the true plan of salvation. It’s not a matter of anyone limiting God. It’s a matter of truth and untruth.

 

[mfbukowski]

No one is saying God is incapable of anything. If He wanted to, he could make me a god of my own world. But that is not the true plan of salvation. It’s not a matter of anyone limiting God. It’s a matter of truth and untruth.

Why would he want to keep you as a servent angel who sat around and praised him all “day”?

Why would he NOT want you to be the best you could be, and the best he was capable of making you ?

Why is that not part of the “true plan of salvation”?