Refutation of Mormons objection the the Trinity

[thephilosopher6]

“The early Apostles took the gospel into a Greco-Roman world that espoused Neoplatonism—a philosophy derived from Plato’s teachings on idealism. One idea that came down from Plato was that matter is essentially evil. (James L. Barker, Apostasy from the Divine Church, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1960, pp. 229–35.)”

Are you saying Christians believe matter is evil? Um… yeah I think you got the Gnostics, particularly the Docetism, mixed up with Christianity. LOL!

“As long as Apostles led the Church, they opposed the philosophies of the day. Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians is an example of this. Apparently, some who held to the belief that matter was evil were baptized but had difficulty accepting the physical resurrection of Jesus. They reasoned that since Jesus was perfectly good, he could not have a material body. In his letter, Paul addressed the Greek belief in the body’s corruptibility by bearing testimony that a resurrected body, like Christ’s, is incorruptible. (1 Cor. 15:3–8, 12–20, 35–42.)”

Well, not necessarily. Paul certainly warns us against false Philosophies (Colossians 2:8) but the apostle were never against the use of Philosophy. Indeed, Paul uses Philosophy to convince the Athenians that they worship God.

*“For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: to an unknown god. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship–and this is what I am going to proclaim to you.” - Acts 17:23
*
Furthermore, Paul quotes Greek Philosophers and Poets including in the chapter I just quoted. (Acts 17:28, 1 Corinthians 15:33, Titus 1:12) The Gospel of John also uses Greek Philosophy to explain Jesus. The Concept of the Logos (λόγος) (the Word) is a Greek concept that stretches as far back at Heraclitus and was found as a central Philosophy in the Stoic view of God, and even Philo of Alexandria, a Hellenized Jew, believed the Logos was a being that connect God to the material world. John uses the Greek concept of the Logos to better explain Jesus.

“Likewise the Apostle John asserted in his gospel and epistles that Jesus was a divine being of flesh in mortality to counteract the heresy that he was not or could not have been flesh because matter was evil. (John 1:14; 1 Jn. 1:1–3; 1 Jn. 4:3.)”
Indeed, that is one of the reasons John was written.
“The dilemma of the church after the first century was how to sustain a unified church without a body of general authorities. By the early second century, the church had gone through three major persecutions by the Roman emperors Nero (A.D. 54–68), Domitian (A.D. 81–96), and Trajan (A.D. 98–117), and apostasy and heresy were rampant. The Apostles were gone—all martyred except for John—and church leaders who had known the Apostles but did not have their apostolic keys, like Papias, Clement of Rome, and Polycarp, were dead.”

Well, Polycarp, one of the apostolic Fathers, lived well into the middle of the second century, he was martyred in 155 A.D. Ignatius of Antioch also lived to about 110 A.D.

“The defenders of the church in the late second and third century were Christian apologists and scholars, many of whom were trained in Greek philosophy and in rhetoric and logic.”
“They brought the classical culture of Greece into the church for two reasons: first, to rhetorically and logically “prove” the Christian gospel to a world steeped in Greek culture; second, to make Christianity intellectually respectable. Their efforts were an understandable human reaction to counteract the persecution that the church had suffered for two centuries. But it made the church compatible with the very culture the church had once disdained.”

They used Greek Philosophy to help better explain Christianity, even the apostles did as I have shown in a former paragraph. They were not trying to make Christianity “compatible”, but rather were trying to better explain Christianity to better evangelize. Furthermore, they used it to battle heretics, notably the Gnostics. There really is nothing wrong with the use of Philosophy. After all, it is the love of wisdom.

 

[thephilosopher6]

“The synthesis of Greek philosophy and the Christian gospel is well documented. H. I. Marrou describes how Origen and others caused the church to embrace Hellenistic culture and ideas. (A History of Education in Antiquity, tr. George Lamb, New York: Mentor Book, 1956, pp. 424–29.) Edwin Hatch, in his definitive work on the subject, wrote that the early Christians’ study of Greek philosophy created a certain ‘habit of mind’:
“When Christianity came into contact with the society in which that habit of mind existed, it modified, it reformed, it elevated, the ideas which it contained and the motives which stimulated it to action; but in its turn it was itself profoundly modified by the habit of mind of those who accepted it. It was impossible for Greeks, … with an education which penetrated their whole nature, to receive or to retain Christianity in its primitive simplicity.” (The Influence of Greek Ideas on Christianity, New York: Harper & Row, 1957, p. 49.)”

Much of Origen’s ideas were rejected by the Church at the Second Council of Constantinople (553 A.D). They were declared heretical. One of which was his doctrine of pre-existence, which was a Platonic belief and something Mormons also happen to believe. And man, you guys really like running to Edwin Hatch. He was an orthodox Christian himself. Of course, Edwin Hatch theories are just theories about the early Church. Though it cannot be denied that Christianity adopted Greek ideas to better explain Christianity, no doctrine came solely out of Greek Philosophy besides things like pre-existence which was rejected by the Church as heretical yet Mormons seem to have no trouble accepting. Most of the doctrines that came out of Greek philosophy and were being applied to Christianity were labeled heretical by the Church.

“As the church entered the third century, many ridiculed Christianity because they regarded it as polytheistic—that is, it had a theology of three Gods: the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. By this time the more sophisticated had rejected polytheistic pagan deities and had become monotheistic, accepting but one God. So the issue for the church was how to make Christian theology accord with respectable opinion.”
I’m just going to note that you seem to be making some claims without any evidence, can you please present evidence that the more “sophisticated” had rejected polytheism? Because that seems to be the opposite considering Diocletian’s persecutions in the early 4th century, trying to make Christians sacrifice to the Greek gods. The Christians in the 3rd century defended Christianity because they saw it as the truth, not to make it “compatible with society.” Where do you get these silly claims from?
“Tertullian, a lawyer, offered this solution: The true God was composed of immaterial spiritual substance, and though the three personages that comprised the Godhead were distinct, this was only a material manifestation of an invisible God. As for how three persons could be one, it was explained that the persons were legally conceived entities, “just as a corporation is composed of various people though it is not the people.” (T. Edgar Lyon, Apostasy to Restoration, Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1960, p. 113.)”

By Tertullian’s time, heresy was rampant. He did indeed offer his explanation of the Trinity, but to make it sound like Tertullian created the doctrine of the Trinity is absurd. Multiple Church Fathers, including those from around his time asserted very similar things. Notably, Hippolytus in his “Against Noetus”. He was refuting Modalism, which was heresy that taught the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were all one person but three different forms of God. Notice how he uses a lot of the same terminology as Tertullian. Also notice how he never once refers to God as three different beings, but rather three different persons. The doctrine of the Trinity was well established in the Church, but because of so many heresies popping up, many Christians had to offer better explanations for things. We see this in the second century as well, like in Irenaeus’s “Against Heresies.” And as I repeatedly said, the Church was even doing this in the time of the apostles. No new doctrines were being presented, but rather better explanations were. Sometime it would be through the use of Philosophy. After all, Philosophy is the love of wisdom. And Christian philosophy has been developing throughout the centuries, including new ways of arguing for the existence of God. Surely Mormons couldn’t reject the arguments, oh but according to your logic if we can’t find any sign of it in the apostles then it must not be valid.

 

[thephilosopher6]

“Fusing the ideas of church theologians, such as Irenaeus, Origeu, Tertullian, and Athanasius, the Trinitarian formula of three spirits in one was finally accepted as official doctrine by the council of Nicea inA.D. 325. (Lyon, pp. 144–53; Barker, pp. 249–71.)”

There is no difference between any of these men when it comes to the Trinity. Not at all, these conclusions of your are nonsensical. Honestly, these are claims with no basis. Tertullian wasn’t even the first to use the word Trinity, despite popular belief. Rather, Tatian of Syria was. There is evidence it may have even been used even earlier.

“The key issue through these early centuries was whether Christians would accept a God who was corporeal and material, or one who was pure spirit. Here Greek philosophy prevailed, with its antipathy to materialism, opposition to polytheism, and revulsion to the idea that God had a body.”

Mormons totally ignore the verses:

*“God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth." - John 4:24

“The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.” - Colossians 1:15
*
The thing is, Mormons take verses such as Genesis 1:26-27 too literally. If we are suppose to take this verse literally we might as well take Psalms 91:4 literally where it says “He will cover you with his feathers, and under his wings you will find refuge.” I guess according to Mormons logic, God has wings! There is nothing, absolutely nothing in the early Church Fathers to suggest God had a body. There were small sects that popped up in the 3rd - 6th century who believed this, but they quickly died out. Nothing, absolutely nothing in the early Church shows the Church Fathers believed God had a body. In fact, just the opposite and I will show. Keep in mind, some of these men knew the apostolic fathers and some (notably Irenaeus) were disciples of the apostolic fathers.

• “Our God has no introduction in time. He alone is without beginning, and is himself the beginning of all things. God is a spirit, not attending upon matter, but the maker of material spirits and of the appearances which are in matter. He is invisible, being himself the Father of both sensible and invisible things” - Tatian of Syria (Address to the Greeks 4)

“I have sufficiently demonstrated that we are not atheists, since we acknowledge one God, unbegotten, eternal, invisible, incapable of being acted upon, incomprehensible, unbounded, who is known only by understanding and reason, who is encompassed by light and beauty and spirit and indescribable power, by whom all things, through his Word, have been produced and set in order and are kept in existence” - Athenagoras (Plea for the Christians 10 [A.D. 177]).

“Far removed is the Father of all from those things which operate among men, the affections and passions. He is simple, not composed of parts, without structure, altogether like and equal to himself alone. He is all mind, all spirit, all thought, all intelligence, all reason . . . all light, all fountain of every good, and this is the manner in which the religious and the pious are accustomed to speak of God” - Irenaeus (Against Heresies 2:13:3 [A.D. 189]).

“What is God? ‘God,’ as the Lord says, ‘is a spirit.’ Now spirit is properly substance, incorporeal, and uncircumscribed. And that is incorporeal which does not consist of a body, or whose existence is not according to breadth, length, and depth. And that is uncircumscribed which has no place, which is wholly in all, and in each entire, and the same in itself” - Clement of Alexandria (On Providence 200 A.D).*

Again, there is absolutely nothing in any of the Church Fathers to suggest God has a body. There literally is nothing, but there is just the opposite. The belief that God has a body is reminiscent of Greek paganism which did believe the gods had body’s, especially those who held to Epicurean atomism. The ironic thing is, Mormons claim Christians blended their theology with Greek Philosophy even though it actually seems to be the case with Mormons.

 

[thephilosopher6]

“The unsurpassed intellectual in Christian history was Augustine. He was the one who thoroughly fused the theology of the New Testament with Platonism. In examining Christian doctrine, Augustine confessed to a strong preconception—a repugnance to the idea that God had a body. (The Confessions, V, x:19–20; VII, 1:1. InGreat Books of the Western World, vol. 18, Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952, pp. 32, 43.) He acknowledged that he had labored on the thesis of the Trinity for fifteen years without “ever reaching a satisfactory conclusion.” (Hugh Nibley, The World and the Prophets,Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1954, p. 86.)”
“Finally he rationalized that if one accepts the Platonic idea that spirit essence is the purest manifestation of reality and that matter is the most corrupt, God must therefore be an immaterial being. He was then able to accept the doctrine of the Trinity. (Confessions, IV, xvi:29, 31; V, x:19–20; VI, iii:4–iv:5; The City of God, VIII, ch. 5–6. In Great Books,vol. 18, pp. 26, 32, 36, 267–69.) As Plato had done before him, Augustine decided that since God is the ultimate good, he cannot be associated with anything material.”

Augustine was refuting the heresy of Audianism, which did believe God had a body. It’s began in the 4th century and quickly died out by the 6th century. Also, it’s not as if Augustine’s doctrines are dogmatically accepted by the Church. Some of his views have even been declared heretical such as what he believed about the soul and the spirit which was Platonic. Though, Augustine himself was no heretic. If Augustine was alive today, I would love to have seen the great Saint rival off against Mormons. Mormonism would be destroyed in a heartbeat!

“One explanation likened the Trinity to water, steam, and ice, which are different formations of the same element. Another likened the Trinity to writing a book. The author starts with an idea, then the idea becomes incarnate when the writer converts the idea to words. Then when others read the words of the book, it has an effect on the reader. The Idea is the Father, the Word is the Son, and the Effect is the Holy Ghost.”
“It was hard to fathom a Deity of this nature, let alone love him. But even more significant, the great teaching of Paul that we are God’s literal offspring (Acts 17:28–29) is not even taught in traditional Christian theology. Unfortunately, because of this misunderstanding of God’s true nature, millions of our Heavenly Father’s children have failed to understand their true identity.”

It would be a mistake to take these words literally. In the same speech, Paul makes clear that God is a transcendent Being who “does not dwell in temples made with hands” (verse 24). He also states in this speech that God “made” us (verse 26), which is different from saying that God procreated us as his literal offspring. Mormons fail to take in account the context of this verse, the point in this verse is that God does not need to dwell in our temples, he does not need idols made of him, because he is God and he is transcendent beyond all things. If we are to take this verse literally, why not take it literally when Paul says we are all one body.

 

[thephilosopher6]

“In contrast to the preponderance of scriptural support for the physical body of the Lord, there is meager evidence in the Bible to support belief in a God who is a spirit essence. The most frequently cited passage is a conversation between Jesus and a Samaritan woman. The Samaritans had a corrupted form of Jewish and heathen worship. The Savior said to the woman:”
“Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship. …”
“But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.”
“God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.” (John 4:22–24; italics added.)
“By revelation, the Prophet Joseph Smith translated verse 24 to read ‘For unto such hath God promised his Spirit. And they who worship him, must worship in spirit and in truth.’ (JST, John 4:26.)”

HAHAHAHAHAHA! Lol, it baffles me how anyone can take Joseph Smith seriously. Of course, since I’m a Christian I do not accept Joseph Smith nor his explanation of the verse. You literally have no proof or evidence to refute this so you turn to Joseph Smith which no Christian takes seriousley. Lol! So, the rest is just mainly Mormon stuff to explain things to Mormons using the Book of Mormon which is something Christians don’t believe so I see no need to commentate of that.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Are you saying Christians believe matter is evil? Um… yeah I think you got the Gnostics, particularly the Docetism, mixed up with Christianity. LOL!

Well, not necessarily. Paul certainly warns us against false Philosophies (Colossians 2:8) but the apostle were never against the use of Philosophy. Indeed, Paul uses Philosophy to convince the Athenians that they worship God.

*“For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: to an unknown god. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship–and this is what I am going to proclaim to you.” - Acts 17:23
*
Furthermore, Paul quotes Greek Philosophers and Poets including in the chapter I just quoted. (Acts 17:28, 1 Corinthians 15:33, Titus 1:12) The Gospel of John also uses Greek Philosophy to explain Jesus. The Concept of the Logos (λόγος) (the Word) is a Greek concept that stretches as far back at Heraclitus and was found as a central Philosophy in the Stoic view of God, and even Philo of Alexandria, a Hellenized Jew, believed the Logos was a being that connect God to the material world. John uses the Greek concept of the Logos to better explain Jesus.

Well, Polycarp, one of the apostolic Fathers, lived well into the middle of the second century, he was martyred in 155 A.D. Ignatius of Antioch also lived to about 110 A.D.

They used Greek Philosophy to help better explain Christianity, even the apostles did as I have shown in a former paragraph. They were not trying to make Christianity “compatible”, but rather were trying to better explain Christianity to better evangelize. Furthermore, they used it to battle heretics, notably the Gnostics. There really is nothing wrong with the use of Philosophy. After all, it is the love of wisdom.

St. Paul was highly educated, meaning in his time, mathematics, rhetoric and philosophy. His education shines throughout his writings. My favorite example of this is 1 Cor 13:12

“At present we see indistinctly, as in a mirror, but then face to face. At present I know partially; then I shall know fully, as I am fully known.”

Classic Plato (Allegory of the Cave), well known to the Greek world in which he lived, used to describe Christain discipleship!

If the claim is that using the tool of philosophy, to describe what one believes, is actually building a religion on the “philosophies of men”, then St. Paul is guilty. Rather, one should be skeptical of any individual or organization that instills an irrational fear of rational thinking, into its followers.

 

[thephilosopher6]

Rather, one should be skeptical of any individual or organization that instills an irrational fear of rational thinking, into its followers.

I suppose that’s why Mormons hate Philosophy so much. Lol

 

[Stephen168]

And here’s more from Edwin Hatch…

“When Christianity came into contact with the society in which that habit of mind existed, it modified, it reformed, it elevated, the ideas which it contained and the motives which stimulated it to action; but in its turn it was itself profoundly modified by the habit of mind of those who accepted it. It was impossible for Greeks, … with an education which penetrated their whole nature, to receive or to retain Christianity in its primitive simplicity.” (The Influence of Greek Ideas on Christianity, New York: Harper & Row, 1957, p. 49.)

It’s the primitive simplicity of Christ and the Apostles that we should all be seeking, not the Hellenized outcome resulting from improper thinking of those “Greeks with an education that penetrated their whole nature” who accepted it.

You proved my point again.
You have not shown a change in doctrine, just your Mormon fear of reason/philosophy/education.

While Mormons like to cherry pick Edwin Hatch’s hundred year old writings, he never says what you think he says. In fact, over and over he supports the Christian understanding.

 

[Stephen168]

Here Greek philosophy prevailed, with its antipathy to materialism, opposition to polytheism, and revulsion to the idea that God had a body.”

This must be an older article written before the Mormon Church rejected the idea they are polytheists. Rejecting the Trinity is what makes Mormons polytheists, which is not Christian.

 

[LivingWaters7]

The New Testament itself is far from any doctrine of the Trinity or of a triune God who is three co-equal Persons of One Nature. William J. Hill, The Three-Personed God (Washington DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1982), 27.

*There is no formal doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament writers, if this means an explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. *
Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 44

There is in them [the Apostolic Fathers], of course, no trinitarian doctrine and no awareness of a trinitarian problem. JND Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, revised edition, (New York: Harper, 1978), 95.

You may want to look at these proof-texts in context, not simply copy-pasting from what Fairmormon tells you. When you do, you’ll see that they actually support the Catholic understanding of the Trinity, the Bible, and development of doctrine, not what you’re reading into them.

For example (your proof-text underlined, and italics are in the text):

“The New Testament itself does not make the explicit transfer from “Son of God” to “God the Son.” But it does provide the matrix for the later Church’s doing so-in the sense that an implicit trinitarianism is gradually coming to light in the New Testament itself in function of some of its developing Christologies. Even today it is Christology that provides the way to a confession of the Trinity, and not the other way around. Thus the New Testament itself is far from any doctrine of the Trinity or of a Triune God who is three co-equal Persons of One Nature. There is no question in the New Testament of later contrasting categories of physis, ousia, natura, essentia, or substantia, on one hand-and prosopa, hypostaseis, subsistentiae, or personae, on the other. Nonetheless, the tripartite formulas do emerge in the New Testament as a whole, witnessing to an acceptance early on in the Church.”

Later he says:

“The least that can be said then is that the New Testament provides the data or the raw materials from which the doctrine of the Trinity was developed with some continuity.”

This is exactly what Catholics believe. Catholics do not believe that the Bible is a Catechism or a systematic theology textbook. Further, we don’t believe that Truth is limited to the Bible. We believe, as stated in the context surrounding your proof-text, that the essentials of the Trinity doctrine are indeed found in the Bible. However, as time as gone on, the Church, including when combating heretical doctrines, has come to deeper understandings of her doctrine, including that of the Trinity, through the Spirit, and has proffered formal definitions. Therefore, this proof-text of yours is not problematic, when properly understood in the context the writer provides, and not what Fairmormon wants you to believe.

Nice try.

 

[LivingWaters7]

*There is no formal doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament writers, if this means an explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. *
Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 44

This is essentially the same as the first quote, when we understand how Catholics actually view the Bible (noting again that it certainly is not a Catechism, nor a systematic theology textbook). Lets again look at the context of the Fairmormon proof-text (proof-text underlined):

“There is no formal doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament writers, if this means an explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. But the three are there, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and a triadic ground plan is there, and triadic formulas are there. The three are not considered in and for themselves but rather in terms of their roles and functions in the divine plan of salvation. Even if Christ and not the three is the center of the New Testament message of salvation, unless this Christ and His salvific activity are connected with the salvific activity of the Father and the Holy Spirit, the essence and the fullness of the New Testament message is lacking. This means that a trinitarian schema or ground plan is there and must be there.”

He later goes on to say

“The New Testament writers do not speak in abstract terms of nature, substance, person, relation, circumincession, mission; but they present the ideas that are back of these terms in their own Biblical modes of expression.”

And also this, which utterly destroys what you were trying to imply, and again corroborates exactly how Catholics view the matter:

"In the following centuries when heretics rise up to contest the divinity of the Son or of the Holy Spirit, the Fathers will be forced to reflect more deeply on the Biblical truths and to find more precise terms in which to express them, so that they can present and explain these truths of their faith in a way that will be intelligible and relevant to the men of their day. Their work will be necessary and invaluable, but* it will add nothing essentially new to the Biblical witness to God***. It will only give this witness a new mode of expression."**

Catholics of course believe that the Councils are guided by the Holy Spirit along with the Divine authority given the Church by Jesus Christ.

Nice try.

 

[LivingWaters7]

lds.org/ensign/1987/07/is-the-lds-view-of-god-consistent-with-the-bible?lang=eng

This essay has all of those scholars, bible verses, and ECF quotes you say are lacking elsewhere.

This essay is full of errors and caricatures. This really does not convey any confidence in an accurate dissection of historic Christianity. For example:

With such an abundance of biblical testimony from the ancient Apostles and prophets, how did traditional Christianity come to the idea that somehow Jesus’ bodily identity was dissolved into spirit essence? How did the Christian sects come to accept the idea that though three personages comprise the Godhead, they are one immaterial spirit? Certainly the ideas are not apostolic in origin.

I’m not sure what “traditional Christianity” they are talking about, but it is orthodox Christian belief that Jesus Christ was bodily resurrected, and bodily ascended to Heaven, and retains His glorified body. We certainly do not believe that His bodily identity was “dissolved into spirit essence” (I’m actually laughing at that, as I’ve never heard such a thing said before, and it seems to be bordering on mocking. Further, we do not believe that the three Persons are “one immaterial spirit”. It is foundational Trinitarian belief that the three Persons are distinct from each other.

The dilemma of the church after the first century was how to sustain a unified church without a body of general authorities. By the early second century, the church had gone through three major persecutions by the Roman emperors Nero (A.D. 54–68), Domitian (A.D. 81–96), and Trajan (A.D. 98–117), and apostasy and heresy were rampant. The Apostles were gone—all martyred except for John—and church leaders who had known the Apostles but did not have their apostolic keys, like Papias, Clement of Rome, and Polycarp, were dead.

This is a false dilemma, or a dilemma of Mormonism’s (and other churches positing an apostasy to necessitate the creation of their church) own creation. The Apostles passed on their authority to their successors. The Church combated apostasy and heresy, and still does to this day.

The key issue through these early centuries was whether Christians would accept a God who was corporeal and material, or one who was pure spirit. Here Greek philosophy prevailed, with its antipathy to materialism, opposition to polytheism, and revulsion to the idea that God had a body.

This makes absolutely no sense. Orthodox Traditional Christianity does not abhor the idea that God has a body. Indeed, as already stated, we believe that God the Son incarnated on this earth, was bodily resurrected, and bodily ascended to Heaven, and retains that glorified body. We look to the day where we will all be bodily resurrected, and hopefully live with God for eternity in Heaven. Very odd if we took to the Greek antipathy to materialism and the idea that God has a body.

Unfortunately, the author does not inspire confidence in an accurate understanding of Christian theology nor Christian history.

 

[gazelam]

Mormon ideas (including supposed speculations derivative of the Mormon framework) related to God found nowhere in this purported Christian primitive simplicity:

-that God the Father progressed to/achieved Godhood
-that God the Father is married to a Heavenly Mother
-that God the Father and Heavenly Mother had spirit children
-that Jesus Christ is the literal firstborn spirit offspring of the Father and Mother
-that mankind is co-eternal with God
-that the Father had a Father
that the Father was once a man

Many Mormons will say on the one hand that they restore lost ancient truths, then when it is pointed out all of the innovations not even hinted at anciently, they will claim continuing revelation. It is very interesting to watch the argument change depending on what is being argued (i.e. any development of doctrine in patristic Christianity).

This is clearly a tall order and I being a simple man can only respond to part of it. Perhaps someone smarter than I can do the rest. But there are hints if you know where to look…

-that God the Father progressed to/achieved Godhood

Hebrews 5:8,9 Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered; and when he was made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him

John 5:19 Jesus answered and said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, a son cannot do anything on his own, but only what he sees his father doing; for what he does, his son will do also.

The Father clearly could have shown Jesus in vision how in His own mortal life the Father also learned obedience by the things He suffered and was also made perfect.

-that God the Father is married to a Heavenly Mother

Genesis 1:26, 27 Then God said: Let us make human beings in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, the tame animals, all the wild animals, and all the creatures that crawl on the earth. God created mankind in his image; in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

Who are the male and female “us”?

Also, LDS scholar Truman Madsen interviewed renowned Bible and Hebrew scholar David Noel Freedman in this DVD deseretbook.com/p/ultimate-questions-truman-g-madsen-93522?variant_id=1980-dvd

David Noel Freedman asserts that the Old Testament most definitely refers to a divine female being “Lady Wisdom” in Proverbs 8.

-that God the Father and Heavenly Mother had spirit children

No brainer here - Hebrews 12:9 Besides this, we have had our earthly fathers to discipline us, and we respected them. Should we not [then] submit all the more to the Father of spirits and live?

Psalms 82:6 I declare: “Gods though you be, offspring of the Most High all of you

-that Jesus Christ is the literal firstborn spirit offspring of the Father and Mother

Colossians 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature (Jesus clearly wasn’t firstborn in the flesh.)

-that mankind is co-eternal with God

above my pay grade at this time

-that the Father had a Father

above my pay grade at this time

that the Father was once a man - Christ referred to His Father as a man in Mark 10:17,18

As he was setting out on a journey, a man ran up, knelt down before him, and asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus answered him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. *

In place of “no one” you can clearly substitute “no man or woman” and have the exact same meaning.

 

[Stephen168]

that the Father was once a man - Christ referred to His Father as a man in Mark 10:17,18

Mark 10:18 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? OUDEIS is good except God alone.

oudeís (from 3756 /ou “no, not” and 1520 /heís, “one”) – properly, not one; no one, nothing.

OUDEIS is an adjective which does not mean human being as you try to claim. The Mormon understand of god is not now or has ever been Christian.

You don’t understand the Christian teaching on the trinity. The Mormon understanding of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is clearly polytheistic due to their rejection of Christian teaching.

 

[gazelam]

This is a false dilemma, or a dilemma of Mormonism’s (and other churches positing an apostasy to necessitate the creation of their church) own creation. **The Apostles passed on their authority to their successors. **

I guess the “successors” didn’t get the memo.

“No doubt proving that bishops were the successors of the apostles by divine institution would be easier if the New Testament clearly stated that before they died the apostles had appointed a single bishop to lead each of the churches they had founded. Likewise, it would have been very helpful had Clement, in writing to the Corinthians, said that the apostles had put one bishop in charge of each church and had arranged for a regular succession in that office. We would also be grateful to Ignatius of Antioch if he had spoken of himself not only as bishop, but as a successor to the apostles, and had explained how he understood that succession. Unfortunately, the documents available to us do not provide such help.” (Sullivan, From Apostles to Bishops, pg 223)

Seeing that I love you I thus spare you, though I might write more sharply on his behalf: but I did not think myself competent for this, that being a convict I should order you as though I were an Apostle. (Ignatius of Antioch quoted in The Apostolic Fathers, 73)

The Church combated apostasy and heresy, and still does to this day.

What has the RCC done to correct the invalid ordinances during the time of Pope Adrian VI?

“We know well that for many years things deserving abhorrence have gathered round the Holy See. Sacred things have been misused, ordinances transgressed, so that in everything there has been a change for the worse.” (Pastor, History of the Popes, 14:134, as quoted in Durant and Durant, The Age of Faith, 381)

 

[LivingWaters7]

This is clearly a tall order and I being a simple man can only respond to part of it. Perhaps someone smarter than I can do the rest. But there are hints if you know where to look…

-that God the Father progressed to/achieved Godhood

Hebrews 5:8,9 Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered; and when he was made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him

John 5:19 Jesus answered and said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, a son cannot do anything on his own, but only what he sees his father doing; for what he does, his son will do also.

The Father clearly could have shown Jesus in vision how in His own mortal life the Father also learned obedience by the things He suffered and was also made perfect.

You would first have to demonstrate that the verse is talking about Christ in His Godhood is being perfected. Did He increase in Godliness? Does God suffer? Clearly, this verse is talking about Christ’s humanity.

-that God the Father is married to a Heavenly Mother

Genesis 1:26, 27 Then God said: Let us make human beings in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, the tame animals, all the wild animals, and all the creatures that crawl on the earth. God created mankind in his image; in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

Who are the male and female “us”?

Also, LDS scholar Truman Madsen interviewed renowned Bible and Hebrew scholar David Noel Freedman in this DVD deseretbook.com/p/ultimate-questions-truman-g-madsen-93522?variant_id=1980-dvd

David Noel Freedman asserts that the Old Testament most definitely refers to a divine female being “Lady Wisdom” in Proverbs 8.

Wait, where does it state that it is a male and female “us”? Christians believe that the “us” is referring to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Heck, as I’m sure you know, in the LDS temple endowment, the “us” is portrayed as being Elohim, Jehovah, and Michael, no Heavenly Mother at all. So is the Endowment incorrect, or not completely true if you’re saying the “us” is including the Mother?

-that God the Father and Heavenly Mother had spirit children

No brainer here - Hebrews 12:9 Besides this, we have had our earthly fathers to discipline us, and we respected them. Should we not [then] submit all the more to the Father of spirits and live?

Psalms 82:6 I declare: “Gods though you be, offspring of the Most High all of you

Lets be clear here, my statement is that the Father and the Mother had spirit children. You cannot point out a verse nor any other ancient Christian document that states that the “Father and Mother” had spirit children.

-that Jesus Christ is the literal firstborn spirit offspring of the Father and Mother

Colossians 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature (Jesus clearly wasn’t firstborn in the flesh.)

“Firstborn” comes from the Greek “prototokos”, which usually points to priority or preeminence, and not always a literal birth. See Psalms 89:27, for example, or Jeremiah 31:9. Heck we even read about the “Church of the Firstborn” in Hebrews 12:23.

that the Father was once a man - Christ referred to His Father as a man in Mark 10:17,18

As he was setting out on a journey, a man ran up, knelt down before him, and asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus answered him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone*.

In place of “no one” you can clearly substitute “no man or woman” and have the exact same meaning.

So…what? This does not demonstrate that the Father was once a man.

 

[LivingWaters7]

I guess the “successors” didn’t get the memo.

“No doubt proving that bishops were the successors of the apostles by divine institution would be easier if the New Testament clearly stated that before they died the apostles had appointed a single bishop to lead each of the churches they had founded. Likewise, it would have been very helpful had Clement, in writing to the Corinthians, said that the apostles had put one bishop in charge of each church and had arranged for a regular succession in that office. We would also be grateful to Ignatius of Antioch if he had spoken of himself not only as bishop, but as a successor to the apostles, and had explained how he understood that succession. Unfortunately, the documents available to us do not provide such help.” (Sullivan, From Apostles to Bishops, pg 223)

Seeing that I love you I thus spare you, though I might write more sharply on his behalf: but I did not think myself competent for this, that being a convict I should order you as though I were an Apostle. (Ignatius of Antioch quoted in The Apostolic Fathers, 73)

Catholics don’t believe that Bishops are Apostles per se. We do believe that Bishops have their authority, and that the authority of the Apostles was that of bishops. This can be seen in Acts 1:20-“For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.”

Also see:

calledtocommunion.com/2014/06/the-bishops-of-history-and-the-catholic-faith-a-reply-to-brandon-addison/

What has the RCC done to correct the invalid ordinances during the time of Pope Adrian VI?

“We know well that for many years things deserving abhorrence have gathered round the Holy See. Sacred things have been misused, ordinances transgressed, so that in everything there has been a change for the worse.” (Pastor, History of the Popes, 14:134, as quoted in Durant and Durant, The Age of Faith, 381)

What specifically are you talking about? What do you mean by “invalid ordinances”? What does the author you quote mean? As well, I hope you understand that Catholics do not use the word “ordinances” in the same way Mormons do, and they may very well not even be talking about what you think they are talking about (i.e., we speak of “sacraments”, not “ordinances”, and “ordinances” may be referring to laws or something else). So, what are you talking about, and what is the point?

 

[Stephen168]

I guess the “successors” didn’t get the memo.

“No doubt proving that bishops were the successors of the apostles by divine institution would be easier if the New Testament clearly stated that before they died the apostles had appointed a single bishop to lead each of the churches they had founded. Likewise, it would have been very helpful had Clement, in writing to the Corinthians, said that the apostles had put one bishop in charge of each church and had arranged for a regular succession in that office. We would also be grateful to Ignatius of Antioch if he had spoken of himself not only as bishop, but as a successor to the apostles, and had explained how he understood that succession. Unfortunately, the documents available to us do not provide such help.” (Sullivan, From Apostles to Bishops, pg 223)

The successors did the the memo. Again, you clearly have not read the book that you reference. Sullivan concludes that the biblical and historic records prove apostolic succession from the very beginning of Christianity.

Your cutting and pasting with a lack of understanding is really becoming boring and laughable.

Joseph Smith led Mormonism into apostasy by rejecting the very nature of God.

 

[LivingWaters7]

The successors did the the memo. Again, you clearly have not read the book that you reference. Sullivan concludes that the biblical and historic records prove apostolic succession from the very beginning of Christianity.

Your cutting and pasting with a lack of understanding is really becoming boring and laughable.

Joseph Smith led Mormonism into apostasy by rejecting the very nature of God.

I also own the book and have read it (too lazy to pull it out from storage right now haha), and yes, he does come to the conclusion that apostolic succession is present from the beginning of the Church, and is a valid proposition for the Church to hold. If I remember correctly, Nibley in his book Apostles and Bishops (I believe that’s what it’s called; again, too lazy to pull that one out of storage as well) quotes Sullivan, and also does so out of context (among others).

 

[TOmNossor]

Where in those quote by Tertullian does he say that the Son is a second god? Or the Holy Spirit is third god? What Tertullian say is in full agreement with the doctrine of the Trinity. They believe God is one and three. There is nothing to suggest anything like the Mormon “godhead.”

Hello thephilosopher6,
“those quote by Tertullian?” You did notice that I had 3 quotes, two from Justin Martyr and one from Tertullian? I also reference Origin in my post as it is well known he speaks of “deuteros theos” or the “secondary god.” I used Tertullian to point to him claiming that he speaks of TWO when he speaks of God. His language is much different than most modern Catholic language.
I actually believe Tertullian, Origin, Justin, and basically all pre-Nicene Christians were either obvious subordinationalists based on their writing or consistent with the subordinationalist position.

Here are a couple of assessments from respected non-Mormon scholars:

‘Subordinationism’, it is true, was pre-Nicean orthodoxy. {Henry Bettenson, editor and translator, The Early Christian Fathers:A Selection from the Writings of the Fathers from St. Clement of Rome to St. Athanasius, (Oxford University Press: 1969), 239}

Here are two sources conflated into a single quote. I was looking for Hansen and found both of these:

“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” { RPC Hansen, “The Achievement of Orthodoxy in the Fourth Century AD”, in Rowan Williams, editor, The Making of Orthodoxy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 151–152}

“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.” {FL Cross and EA Livingston, editors, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 2nd edition, (London: Oxford University Press, 1974), 1319, 1394.}

And three more, two more from RPC Hanson and one from Catholic Cardinal John Henry Newman:

Indeed, until Athanasius began writing, every single theologian, East and West, had postulated some form of Subordinationism. It could, about the year 300, have been described as a fixed part of catholic theology.{RPC Hanson, “The Achievement of Orthodoxy in the Fourth Century AD” in Rowan Williams, ed., The Making of Orthodoxy (New York, NY: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1989) p. 153.}

With the exception of Athanasius virtually every theologian, East and West, accepted some form of subordinationism at least up to the year 355
{RPC Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1988, p. xix.}

If we limit our view of the teaching of the Fathers by what they expressly state, St. Ignatius may be considered Patripassian, St. Justin arianizes, and St. Hippolytus is a Photinian…Tertullian is heterodox on the Lord’s divinity…Origen is, at the very least suspected, and must be defended and explained rather than cited as a witness of orthodoxy; and Eusebius was a Semi-Arian.{John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, (6th edition 1989) p. 17.}

cont…