Gene Fadness, ex-Mormon, on Catholic Answers

[TheosisM]

Even a 100 years later, when they council of Chalcedon of AD 451 was convened to deal with the Christological controversies that had arisen at that time, the word homoousios, (of one substance) did not mean that they were one and the same being. It meant that they were made of the “same stuff”. This is clearly shown in the statement put out by the council of Chalcedon:

Therefore, following the holy Fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance homoousios] with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance homoousios] with us as regards his manhood …

The way in which the words “of one substance” is used in this context makes clear how they were meant to be understood. Jesus is “of one substance” with the Father with regard to His Godhead in the same way that He is “of one substance” with us with regard to His manhood. In neither case does it mean that they become one and the same people.

Continued … /

You have clearly misunderstood the Trinity. Trinitarians do not believe that the Father and the Son (and the Spirit) “become one and the same people”. They are clearly distinct persons, not the same person. The use of the word “being” is what is important here, and what causes all of this misunderstanding of what the Trinity is actually talking about. “Being” is used interchangeably with “substance” and “essence”. As you said, “substance” refers to the “stuff” they are “made” out of, to put it crudely. What you say the Council taught is exactly what Trinitarians believe, and not that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one and the same Person. Try and understand how Trinitarians use the word “being” (which today is synonymous with “person”, though that is not how we are using it in reference to the Trinity, since it is interchangeable with substance, essence, and divine nature).

 

[TheosisM]

/… Continued

Like I said, the Trinitarian theology of the “three in one and one in three” absurdity was not the original teaching of Christianity, neither does it have any support in the Bible. It was gradual development, and it took many centuries of controversy and debate to be arrived at. The councils of Nicaea and Constantinople and Chalcedon and beyond were stages in that development. And it is a false theology. It is not what Jesus and His Apostles ever taught. Neither is it something that the earliest Christians ever believed. The earliest Christians believed in a Trinity of three separate beings, which is also what the Bible teaches.

What you are saying doesn’t make any sense. Elder Holland has correctly stated the “Trinitarian theology” of present day Christendom. If there is any absurdity in it, it is in Trinitarianism, not in what he teaches.

See above. Simply saying “three in one and one in three” doesn’t mean anything to me. What does that mean? Again, you mistakenly believe that the Trinity teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are “one and the same person”, and are equating “being” with “person” (which is how we use it today, i.e. human being=human person), when Trinitarians are not using that understanding.

 

[dnu]

WHOA!!! DID YOU SEE THAT FLASH OF LIGHT? For a second, I thought it was Kolob, but just then, in the twinkle of an eye, it was gone. DANG IT!!

 

[cthulhubryan]

The Council of Nicaea was held in the early part of the fourth century; it was not an “early council”. There were many earlier councils than that; and the “Tri-Unity of God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit” was not an issue in the council. I am not aware of a council at “Athanasia”. I don’t know what you are referring to here. I think you are confusing the Athanasian Creed with something else. The Athanasian creed was not written by any church councils. Tradition attributes it to Athanasius, but available evidence suggests otherwise; and no one knows for sure who wrote the Athnasian Creed.

The Athanasian Creed: (Regardless of who wrote it, it was accepted by the early Church)

God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the substance of His mother, born into the world. Perfect God and Perfect Man, of a reasonable Soul and human Flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His Manhood. Who, although He be God and Man, yet He is not two, but One Christ. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into Flesh, but by taking of the Manhood into God. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by Unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one Man, so God and Man is one Christ. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into Hell, rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into Heaven, He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire. This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.

The full creed may be found Here

You are very wrong. The fact that the early Christians believed that men can become gods is a well-documented fact, and accepted by many scholars. A good book on the subject is The Divinization of the Christian According to the Greek Fathers which I can recommend you to read. It is not written by “Mormon apologists”. I have also written a couple of posts in my Blog which you can read here and here, in which more quotes from the Early Church Fathers is given.

Here I am uncertain as to whether you have honestly missed the point or are simply trying to build your own straw man.

While it is true that early Christianity talks about Theosis which is the process of being cleansed from sin and thus able to unite with God, no where does the early Church imply any sort of apotheosis which is man becoming a god. Mormonism refers to apotheosis where an individual man (not woman) can become a god. These are two distinct differences.

Sorry to disappoint you, but Joseph Smith did not teach that men become gods “of their own planets”. He taught that men can become gods, just as the early Christians did.

Now you have started to obfuscate the issue. Mormonism teaches that it has a line of prophets each of whom is THE prophet of God. Joseph Smith did not teach apotheosis but Brigham Young did. Therefore Mormonism DOES teach apotheosis which is heretical.

 

[dnu]

Zerinus,

Orthodox Christianity teaches theosis, Mormonism clearly teaches apotheosis, there is a difference.

This link may help you. I trust you’ll recognize some of the bible verses and Patristic quotes on this link.

antiochian.org/node/16916

 

[zerinus]

See above. Simply saying “three in one and one in three” doesn’t mean anything to me. What does that mean? Again, you mistakenly believe that the Trinity teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are “one and the same person”, and are equating “being” with “person” (which is how we use it today, i.e. human being=human person), when Trinitarians are not using that understanding.

Sorry Theosis, your Trinitarian theology is like an optical illusion:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Whichever way you try to describe it, it don’t work.

 

[Marie5890]

Mormonism dogmas to appeal to the finite man’s intellect.

Traditional Christian dogmas see God as incorporating the infinite and that which the human intellect can’t grasp and goes well beyond.

That God is even far more grand than whatever the human intellect could come up with or possibly imagine.

That is why God IS God.

Joseph Smith and those that followed him in the leadership positions try to make God accessible to the meager human intellect.

Traditional Christianity says God is not, but God made Himself accessible to man thru God the Son, the Word made flesh. Jesus Christ.

 

[zerinus]

The Athanasian Creed: (Regardless of who wrote it, it was accepted by the early Church).

Which “early Church”? The Athanasian Creed is dated to around the 7th century. By the “early Church” I understand the Christians of the first century, before the Apostasy of the Christian Church had taken place.

 

[zerinus]

Mormonism dogmas to appeal to the finite man’s intellect.

Traditional Christian dogmas see God as incorporating the infinite and that which the human intellect can’t grasp and goes well beyond.

That God is even far more grand than whatever the human intellect could come up with or possibly imagine.

That is why God IS God.

Joseph Smith and those that followed him in the leadership positions try to make God accessible to the meager human intellect.

Traditional Christianity says God is not, but God made Himself accessible to man thru God the Son, the Word made flesh. Jesus Christ.

Colossians 2:

8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

 

[Marie5890]

Colossians 2:

8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Zerinus,

I stand by what I say.

Mormonism appeals to the finite mind of man’s intellect. It is more accessible in its beliefs to the human intellect than traditional Christianity.

Traditional Christianity admits that God is infinite and beyond the capacity of the human intellect to grasp.

Can the finite created comprehend the Infinite Creator?

You say yes.

And that works for you.

 

[zerinus]

Zerinus,

I stand by what I say.

Mormonism appeals to the finite mind of man’s intellect. It is more accessible in its beliefs to the human intellect than traditional Christianity.

Traditional Christianity admits that God is infinite and beyond the capacity of the human intellect to grasp.

Can the finite created comprehend the Infinite Creator?

You say yes.

And that works for you.

John 17:

3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

1 John 3:

2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

If the God you believe in is incomprehensible and unknowable, then you have not eternal life, because to have eternal life is to know God.

 

[Marie5890]

John 17:

3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

1 John 3:

2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

If the God you believe in is incomprehensible and unknowable, then you have not eternal life, because to have eternal life is to know God.

“The truth is the truth even if no one believes it. I lie is a lie even if everyone believes it”

Archbishop Fulton J Sheen.

Because of the Incarnation, the Word becoming Flesh, God has become accessible

“No one comes to the Father, but thru the Son”

Mormon dogma is such that God would be knowable and understandable even without Christ coming.

Mormon dogma has Christ coming because of the need of atonement.

Traditional Christianity has both the need of atonement and to bring knowledge of the Father to the world thru the Son.

Mormonism appeals to the human intellect, to human logic. I get that.

I find Mormon dogma every elementary in its nature. Very simplistic, which is fine for those who need that.

God has to be so much more than just elementary, more than just a big glorified happy family. With all of it’s Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother and then their heavenly parents and on backward. Something of an eternal ancestry of geneology.

God is eternal, having no beginning and no end. Alpha and Omega.

God is the Creator. Not the Created.

 

[Marie5890]

Zerinus,

You can do all the scripture chasing you want.
You can do all the mental gymnastics you want too.
No sweat off my nose.

Have a party…!!! :flowers:

 

[zerinus]

“The truth is the truth even if no one believes it. I lie is a lie even if everyone believes it”

Archbishop Fulton J Sheen.

How profound, I am truly impressed!

Because of the Incarnation, the Word becoming Flesh, God has become accessible

“No one comes to the Father, but thru the Son”

Amazing! Did you have to work hard to find that out?

Mormon dogma is such that God would be knowable and understandable even without Christ coming.

And pray tell me where you got that “Mormon dogma” from?

Mormon dogma has Christ coming because of the need of atonement.

Mormon dogma has Christ coming for all the reasons that the Bible says He came. Happy inventing Mormon doctrine.

Traditional Christianity has both the need of atonement and to bring knowledge of the Father to the world thru the Son.

Good thing you told me. I might have missed it otherwise!

Mormonism appeals to the human intellect, to human logic. I get that.

You do? I wouldn’t have believed it!

I find Mormon dogma every elementary in its nature. Very simplistic, which is fine for those who need that.

I can quite believe it.

God has to be so much more than just elementary, more than just a big glorified happy family. With all of it’s Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother and then their heavenly parents and on backward. Something of an eternal ancestry of geneology.

LOL!

God is eternal, having no beginning and no end. Alpha and Omega.

Wow! You are really smart, aren’t you! I am impressed. Thanks for your time. Was there anything else you wanted to add to that?

 

[Marie5890]

How profound, I am truly impressed!

Amazing! Did you have to work hard to find that out?

And pray tell me where you got that “Mormon dogma” from?

Mormon dogma has Christ coming for all the reasons that the Bible says He came. Happy inventing Mormon doctrine.

Good thing you told me. I might have missed it otherwise!

You do? I wouldn’t have believed it!

I can quite believe it.

LOL!

Wow! You are really smart, aren’t you! I am impressed. Thanks for your time. Was there anything else you wanted to add to that?

Are you feeling Christ-like Zerinus? Feel worthy of your recommend?
What would Christ think of all of that?
Would Christ be offended?

:flowers:

 

[zerinus]

Are you feeling Christ-like Zerinus? Feel worthy of your recommend?

I think you should let me worry about that.

What would Christ think of all of that?

I think He would say: “Well done, thou good and faithful servant!” (Matthew 25:21)

Would Christ be offended?

More likely He would be amused!

 

[Marie5890]

Ok.

If you really feel that. He knows your heart and attitude. I certainly dont.

Since His biggest commandment is “love on another as I have loved you”, I will give you the benefit of the doubt that your post was written with Christian love, and not something unworthy of your temple recommend.

I’ll leave you to look in the mirror, examine your conscience and reflect in prayer during your evening prayer.



:flowers:

Brotherly love in the greatest hallmark of any Christian, don’t you agree?

I love His Sermon on the Mount. What a wonderful God is our Savior. What a wonderful example of Christian citizenship.

 

[averagejoe84]

I’ve spent the last few days reading through the various mormon related topics on this website because I was interested in how the dialogue would be between two very different faiths.

I was a mormon for a very long time, former missionary, the works and I have to say that I really don’t like the tone of Zerinus. Sorry man but you come across as extremely arrogant to the point of abrasive. If like some of the other mormon posters on here your goal or objective is to de-convert a few catholics then you’re going about it the wrong way.

A few times I’ve read your interpretation of mormon doctrines and thought ‘huh? who is this guy?’ clearly presenting the gospel according to Zerinus rather than anything I ever learned in Seminary, Institute, the MTC or regular church classes…

I’m also amazed at the patience and good nature of the other posters putting up with the snarky passive aggressive **** you seem to love. Oh well! I guess you’re not doing anyone any harm, but learning some manners might be a good idea. No-one likes an arsehole

 

[zerinus]

I’ve spent the last few days reading through the various mormon related topics on this website because I was interested in how the dialogue would be between two very different faiths.

I was a mormon for a very long time, former missionary, the works and I have to say that I really don’t like the tone of Zerinus. Sorry man but you come across as extremely arrogant to the point of abrasive. If like some of the other mormon posters on here your goal or objective is to de-convert a few catholics then you’re going about it the wrong way.

A few times I’ve read your interpretation of mormon doctrines and thought ‘huh? who is this guy?’ clearly presenting the gospel according to Zerinus rather than anything I ever learned in Seminary, Institute, the MTC or regular church classes…

I’m also amazed at the patience and good nature of the other posters putting up with the snarky passive aggressive **** you seem to love. Oh well! I guess you’re not doing anyone any harm, but learning some manners might be a good idea. No-one likes an arsehole

I take abusive language from Mormon apostates as a complement. When the devil hates you, that means you are doing a good job.

 

[averagejoe84]

I take abusive language from Mormon apostates as a complement. When the devil hates you, that means you are doing a good job.

Glib and passive aggressive just what I’d expect.

Funny thing is the word is starred out isn’t a swear word, at least it’s not a swear word here.

Very Christian of you to equate me to the devil and yet in one of the other threads another mormon poster was telling everyone that mormons don’t shun. Well you don’t know the first thing about me or my beliefs but i’m the devil because you assume i’m an apostate. Nice if that’s not shunning I’m not sure what is.