Criticism
Response
Since the Nicene Creed was first adopted in A.D. 325, it seems clear that there were many Christians in the first centuries following the resurrection of Christ who did not use it. Those who oppose calling the Latter-day Saints “Christians” need to explain whether Peter and Paul are “Christians,” since they lived and practiced Christianity at a time when there was no Nicene Creed, and no Trinitarianism in the current sense.
There was no official Trinitarianism creed pre-325 A.D. because it had not yet been defined. Much like Joseph Smith’s development of the teachings on polygamy, it evolved as the need arose. For instance, there were heretics that needed to be addressed, therefore it forced the issue. JS was involved with FA and it therefore forced the issue.
Did Joseph Smith teach about polygamy right away? No, he taught about it once the question about plural wives came up and he had to defend it.
Was there agreement on this? Absolutely not.
Critics may try to argue that the Nicene Creed is merely a statement of Biblical principles, but Bible scholarship is very clear that the Nicene Creed was an innovation.
Who are the critics and the Bible scholarship being referenced here? Absolutely not true. Research Trinitarianism on your own and you will see.
What were early Christian beliefs on the nature of God?
Good question. Read about the early Church fathers to see the discussions on this also references in the Old and New Testaments.
We do know that Christian orthodoxy before Nicaea was not the Trinitarian creeds now popular:
There was no creed until it was developed out of necessity. Mormon example: the teaching on polygamy.
Writers who are usually reckoned orthodox but who lived a century or two centuries before the outbreak of the Arian Controversy, such as Irenaeus and Tertullian and Novatian and Justin Martyr, held some views which would later, in the fourth century, have been branded heretical…Irenaeus and Tertullian both believed that God had not always been a Trinity but had at some point put forth the Son and the Spirit so as to be distinct from him. Tertullian, borrowing from Stoicism, believed that God was material (though only of a very refined material, a kind of thinking gas), so that his statement that Father, Son and Spirit were ‘of one substance’, beautifully orthodox though it sounds, was of a corporeality which would have profoundly shocked Origen, Athanasius and the Cappadocian theologians, had they known of it.[3]
And:
It [subordinationism] is a characteristic tendency in much Christian teaching of the first three centuries, and is a marked feature of such otherwise orthodox Fathers as St. Justin and Origen…Where the doctrine [of the Trinity] was elaborated, as e.g. in the writing of the Apologists, the language remained on the whole indefinite, and, from a later standpoint, was even partly unorthodox. Sometimes it was not free from a certain subordinationism.[4]
So, Christians whose ideas were completely orthodox earlier would have been considered ‘heretics’ (i.e. going against the accepted doctrine) after the Nicean councils. This seems to be clear evidence that the doctrine was radically changed.
Over simplifying. You will dismiss the many writings of the great minds of early Church who discussed and debated this topic but take the word of one man who discussed it with no one?
One also notes that Paul and the other New Testament writers would have been likewise ‘unorthodox’. Eusebius, an early Church historian, was even termed “blatantly subordinationist” by a Catholic author.[5]
Even after the Trinitarian ideas were formed, there were three ‘camps’ of believers that understood the matter in very different ways:
If such was the teaching of Athanasius and his allies * , at least three types of theology found shelter at different times in the anti-Nicean camp… issues, but on the whole conciliatory, reflects the attitude of the great conservative ‘middle party’… Its positive doctrine is that there are three divine hypostases
, separate in rank and glory but united in harmony of will.[6]
Thus, most believers initially believed that there were three persons with a united will. It was only later that this group was “won over”* to Athanasius and his group’s brand of Trinitarianism, which is the basis for today’s understanding in most of Christianity. Indeed, Athanasius and his cadre were decidedly in the minority.
I don’t understand the Mormon aversion to discussion and disagreement?
en.fairmormon.org/Nature_of_God/Trinity/Nicene_creed
The above link gives quite an understanding of why mormons believe what they believe. I only posted an excerpt. I think that when we discuss the trinity we are comparing different kinds of apples. All are apples but they have a different taste. In the end, regardless of what one believes about the trinity, it is not going to get you to heaven.
No it does not give an understanding of why mormons believe what they believe. JS came up with the definition of the Godhead, right? How does that relate to the early Church fathers debate and discussion on this topic? When did JS come up with this? Did he consult with others or was it divine inspiration?
Let us debate and discuss the Mormon view of the Godhead by calling together a Council of great minds, and decide if it is true. Let’s see how easily LDS would win the debate in a room full of opposing opinions.
