Petrine Papacy and Apostolic Succession

[Stephen168]

subordinationism –n. Theol: the doctrine that the first person of the Holy Trinity is superior to the second, and the second superior to the third.
Holy Trinity: a Christian doctrine, stating that God exists as three persons, but is one being. The persons are understood to exist as God the Father, God the Son (incarnate as Jesus Christ), and God the Holy Spirit, each of them having the one identical essence or nature, not merely similar natures.

Likewise, the entire pre-Nicene church (sans the Modalists) was subordinationist (like the Mormons). So they could believe that the Father and Son were separate beings, but one in will, power, love, etc. (like the Mormons.)

I didn’t think Mormons believed in the Holy Trinity?

 

[BDawg]

We can’t just skip over John 10, though. It’s part of the discussion.
Jesus claims to BE God.
The Jews considered this blasphemous and were about to stone him for it.

What to do with this claim of Jesus?
Is he lying?
Did the Jews not correctly understand what he was saying?
If the Jews misunderstood, why didn’t Jesus clarify?

Jesus IS God. Jesus said so.

michel

Of course Jesus IS God. Nobody said he wasn’t (except JWs). The issue is what that means. The Bible is clear about Jesus and the Father being separate “persons,” but says nothing about being the same “Being.” So we can rationalize the oneness of God as a oneness of Being, or some other kind of oneness that would be more familiar to humans. I think John 17 supports the second kind of interpretation, and I can’t find anything that supports the first.

 

[BDawg]

I didn’t think Mormons believed in the Holy Trinity?

Well, we believe in the Trinity–just not the standard interpretation of it. In other words, we believe that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are God, and that they are three separate Persons perfectly unified in will, purpose, love, covenant, and action (the list could go on). But we don’t believe they are “one Being.”

That idea is nowhere in the Bible, as far as I can see. I believe it originated because the greek philosophical definitions of God that the Church adopted in the second/third centuries required that God is an eternally unchanging, absolutely “simple” essence. Divine “Simplicity” is the idea that the Divine Essence or “Substance” has no “parts”. It is completely homogeneous. This is the true Achilles heel of the mainstream Trinity doctrine, if you ask me. How could there be three distinct Persons that make up a Being that has no “parts”? When trying to explain this, theologians have had to wave their hands about God being defined as “Relation,” and so forth, but by then we are FAR from anything to do with a Biblical worldview.

 

[cazayoux]

Well, we believe in the Trinity–just not the standard interpretation of it. In other words, we believe that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are God, and that they are three separate Persons perfectly unified in will, purpose, love, covenant, and action (the list could go on). But we don’t believe they are “one Being.”

What to do with Jesus referring to himself as ‘I AM’?
I would think only the primary, the creator of the universe himself would claim this.
Do you see Jesus as subordinate (even though unified) to almighty God, or even a creation of God’s?

michel

 

[Stephen168]

subordinationism –n. Theol: the doctrine that the first person of the Holy Trinity is superior to the second, and the second superior to the third.

Holy Trinity: a Christian doctrine, stating that God exists as three persons, but is one being. The persons are understood to exist as God the Father, God the Son (incarnate as Jesus Christ), and God the Holy Spirit, each of them having the one identical essence or nature, not merely similar natures.

Well, we believe in the Trinity–just not the standard interpretation of it. In other words, we believe that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are God, and that they are three separate Persons perfectly unified in will, purpose, love, covenant, and action (the list could go on). But we don’t believe they are “one Being.”

So you don’t believe in the Holy Trinity. Subordinationism presupposes the Holy Trinity.

Likewise, the entire pre-Nicene church (sans the Modalists) was subordinationist (like the Mormons). So they could believe that the Father and Son were separate beings, but one in will, power, love, etc. (like the Mormons.)

The pre-Nicene Church was not like the mormons.

 

[BDawg]

What to do with Jesus referring to himself as ‘I AM’?
I would think only the primary, the creator of the universe himself would claim this.
Do you see Jesus as subordinate (even though unified) to almighty God, or even a creation of God’s?

michel

Hi Michel,

Click here for an article that will explain the Mormon concept of God, what we do with the issue of the Divine Name, and so on.

 

[BDawg]

So you don’t believe in the Holy Trinity. Subordinationism presupposes the Holy Trinity.

No it doesn’t. Certainly those Jewish Christians who taught an “angel Christology,” like Hermas, were subordinationist, but didn’t presuppose unity of being.

The pre-Nicene Church was not like the mormons.

You don’t seem to know a whole lot about the pre-Nicene Church, so I’ll take your comment in that light.

 

[ryanoneil]

Philip said to him, “Master, show us the Father, and that will be enough for us.” Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you for so long a time and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on my own. The Father who dwells in me is doing his works. (John 14:8-10)

 

[cazayoux]

Hi Michel,

Click here for an article that will explain the Mormon concept of God, what we do with the issue of the Divine Name, and so on.

The article seems to explain with the approach that oneness in purpose with God equals unity with God equals being (at least in part) God.

I see that our difference may (if I understand correctly) lie in the following question.
Is Jesus a created being?

michel

 

[Stephen168]

No it doesn’t. Certainly those Jewish Christians who taught an “angel Christology,” like Hermas, were subordinationist, but didn’t presuppose unity of being.

The very definition of Holy Trinity is unity of being. Subordinationism is how the three persons relate to each other in the one being by definition.

Seems like you NEED to change the definitions to wedge mormonism into the early church. 35 years ago mormons were proud to claim they did not believe in the Trinity, there seems to have been a change along the way.

 

[Matariel]

That idea is nowhere in the Bible, as far as I can see.

You could arguably say the same of the Mormon doctrine. But there’s no need for that here; both Mormons and Catholics believe there are doctrines and dogmas not contained within the confines of the Scriptures.

 

[Snow]

Also, don’t Mormons believe in a Heavenly Mother? Catholics do-- Blessed Mary-- but she is in no way divine and we don’t worship her.

Not trying to start a fight here but some would disagree that Catholics don’t worship Mary. I understand that Catholics would say that they venerate, or pray to and ask for intercession… but some would classify what they do as worship.

I lived in So America and I can tell you that Catholics there were way, way into The Blessed Virgin Mary. On the steps of large colonial churches you could buy pictures of Mary carrying a cross walking on the water. A priest gave us a tour of a grand basilica and his main passion was the Chapel of Mary in the holiest part of the cathedral. In one church at the corner of the city square there was a chapel for Mary and in it was a statue of Mary hung on the cross. I understand from internet discussions that is now gone. I am also reading a book - a novel actually - but it talks about the Middle Ages Cult of Mary that existed among Catholics.

Like I say - I am not trying to start a fight but perhaps one can understand why outsiders see it differently.

If Mormons do, do they believe she (the unnamed Heavenly Mother) is a Creatrix alongside of the Creator?

It’s not a doctrinal (official canonical) belief but it is probably understood/believed widespread in the Church. We kinda don’t talk about it as we view it as sacred and very little is known and practically nothing is taught about it. My understanding however is that since we view marriage as an eternal institution, I’d say that a Heavenly Mother works intimately with the Heavenly Father. Sorry I can’t explain any better.

 

[Snow]

I did not provide a good example. It is more than a one-verse issue. The unity of the communion and the unity of the Godhead are two different things. It was just this sort of question that prompted the heresy of monothelitism. And I don’t even want to START on the matter of “theosis.”

Okay - we can always argue about it later.

 

[Snow]

There is more than just this passage to discuss the divinity of Christ.
Reach John chapter 10 and tell me in your words what Jesus claimed, what these monotheistic Jews were about to do and WHY?

michel

I don’t really respond well to that sort of thing. If you have a point to make, don’t wait for me to set you up. Go ahead and make your point.

 

[Snow]

You could arguably say the same of the Mormon doctrine. But there’s no need for that here; both Mormons and Catholics believe there are doctrines and dogmas not contained within the confines of the Scriptures.

We absolutely have “extra-biblical” beliefs. I also believe that Catholics have extra-biblical beliefs - I just argue with Catholics who say that no Catholic belief ever changes.

I like the way we get our extra beliefs better - via revelation through prophets.

Would it be alright to request a brief explanation of the process whereby new - or expanded belief becomes normative or doctrinal in the RCC?

 

[BDawg]

The very definition of Holy Trinity is unity of being. Subordinationism is how the three persons relate to each other in the one being by definition.

Seems like you NEED to change the definitions to wedge mormonism into the early church. 35 years ago mormons were proud to claim they did not believe in the Trinity, there seems to have been a change along the way.

I provided a link to a site earlier in this thread, in which Catholic David Waltz explains the issue of early Christian subordinationism in considerable detail. You are referring to “economic subordination,” whereas we were talking about “ontological subordination.”

Suffice it to say that Snow and I are not changing any definitions. They are standard definitions that anyone would find in the historical literature about early Christianity.

 

[BDawg]

Philip said to him, “Master, show us the Father, and that will be enough for us.” Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you for so long a time and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on my own. The Father who dwells in me is doing his works. (John 14:8-10)

Hi Ryan,

So, do you believe Jesus actually IS the Father, or do you believe that Jesus was simply referring to the mystical Divine Unity? If you are not a modalist heretic, then I assume you meant the latter. And if you meant the latter, then what does that say about HOW the Father and Son are one? It just says that the Father is “in” Jesus.

What does that mean? Well, Jesus never says, but he does ask that the disciples would be one with each other and one IN the Father and Son, JUST AS the Father and Son are one IN each other.

 

[BDawg]

The article seems to explain with the approach that oneness in purpose with God equals unity with God equals being (at least in part) God.

I see that our difference may (if I understand correctly) lie in the following question.
Is Jesus a created being?

michel

Hi Michel,

It’s more complex than that, because we don’t believe in creatio ex nihilo. So in a sense, we believe that all of us have always existed, in some form. But then, we were “created” by the Father into something more. Jesus is in the same boat, which is why Paul called him “the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature” (Col. 1:15).

Then we believe God created the material world through Jesus.

 

[Stephen168]

I provided a link to a site earlier in this thread, in which Catholic David Waltz explains the issue of early Christian subordinationism in considerable detail. You are referring to “economic subordination,” whereas we were talking about “ontological subordination.”

Suffice it to say that Snow and I are not changing any definitions. They are standard definitions that anyone would find in the historical literature about early Christianity.

The very definition of Holy Trinity is unity of being. Subordinationism is how the three persons relate to each other in the one being by definition; Either how they relate by nature or by function. Saying you are talking about a sub-category does not change the definition of the category. Suffice to say you are changing the very defintion of the Holy Trinity and subordination which I have provided for you; twice.

Is this need to be seen as trinitarian new to the greater mormon church or just among the mormon apologists that come here?

Which Diocese is David Waltz Bishop of?

 

[Snow]

The very definition of Holy Trinity is unity of being.

Not really. The modern definition of the Holy Trinity is found Creeds of the 4th and 5th centuries. You can’t very well leave out everything in the creeds and say that the very definition is unity of being. There’s a whole lot more to it than that.

Subordinationism is how the three persons relate to each other in the one being by definition; Either how they relate by nature or by function. Saying you are talking about a sub-category does not change the definition of the category. Suffice to say you are changing the very defintion of the Holy Trinity and subordination which I have provided for you; twice.

Subordination does not presuppose The Holy Trinity if by Holy Trinity you mean the modern concept defined by the 4th and 5th century councils. Those councils defined the members of the Holy Trinity as co-equal, not subordinate. Trinitarianism and Subordinationism would therefore contradict each other.

If, of course, YOU define Holy Trinity, not according to the 4th and 5th century creeds but according to the definition you provided - “unity of being” nothing more, nothing less, then, okay, subordinationism could presuppose the Trinity - but what’s the point of that? It makes little sense to a real Trinitarian.

Is this need to be seen as trinitarian new to the greater mormon church or just among the mormon apologists that come here?

The definition, or a definition of simply “trinity” is:

trin·i·ty (trn-t)
n. pl. trin·i·ties

1. A group consisting of three closely related members. Also called triunity.
2. Trinity Theology In most Christian faiths, the union of three divine persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in one God.

thefreedictionary.com/trinity

So, we certainly don’t accept “The Holy Trinity” as defined by the councils 1600 years ago, but the definitions of “trinity” or “Trinity” in the dictionary fit our concept of the Godhead.