Refutation of Mormons objection the the Trinity

[thephilosopher6]

It would also seem that even with your focus on the Trinity, you didn’t address part of what that LDS quote was asserting, “Early Christian views of God were more personal, more anthropomorphic, and less abstract than those that emerged later during Christianity’s creedal stage.” This statement is really not so much commenting on the Trinity as it is commenting on the philosophical controversies that lead to the DEVELOPMENT of the Trinity.
As the Alexandrian school of thought won over against the Antiochian school of thought, the problem of how Christ could be divine became much bigger in the early church.
The absolute oneness of God was only part of the issues that necessitated the development of the Trinity.
Gazelem’s tagline expresses well another part. When Serpion was told that he should no longer think of God as he had for his whole life he like many resisted this CHANGE. But, becoming convinced that his view was wrong Serpion accepted the teaching. When Serpion then tried to pray, he broke down in tears exclaiming, “Woe is me! They have taken my God away from me, and I have none to grasp, and I know not whom to adore or to address.” There are clearly more ancient views than those from Serpion or his new teachers on both sides of this question, but this IMO is a big deal.
Linked with this is the impassibility of God that I find particularly problematic. Here is a thread started by Gazelem:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=13595298&highlight=weinandy#post13595298
If you want to sink your teeth in philosophy and how it relates to theology and the Trinity, the impassibility of God is huge. On the linked thread no Catholics dealt with Father Weinandy’s thesis. Here is a quick quote from Weinandy:

It is my assessment from reading history and philosophy, that a strong case can be made for the idea that the Early Christians held many beliefs LDS hold. I unlike some LDS and some Christians do not believe philosophy is of the devil, but philosophy devoid of guidance from God via revelation can corrupt God’s truth.
Charity, TOm

There is absolutely nothing in the early Church to suggest that early Christians believed God the Father has a body. There has been no change in how Gods describe God from the early Church to now.

The Alexandrian school of thought and the Antiochian school of thought believed in the same thing with difference emphasis. The modern Church today is more of a product of the Antiochian school of thought than it is the Alexandrian. Even today this is acknowledge. Because the non-Chalcedonian Churches adhere to the Alexandrian school of thought and the modern Chalcedonian Churches are more Antiochian. The Chalcedonian Churches accused the non-Chalcedonians of being monophysites. However, it has been shown that we both believe in the same things and there is no heresy, but rather different emphasis. It, like the Filioque, is a misunderstanding of semantics.

There is absolutely nothing that can be made for the LDS position. Your blasphemy has been refuted.

 

[thephilosopher6]

I don’t have time to examine each and every ECF quote listed by the OP, but will say that several of them are in line with LDS belief. I will address the doctrine of how the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one.

Orthodox Christianity says that the Three are “consubstantial”, of the same substance or essence and that is one aspect where LDS disagrees with orthodox Christianity.

LDS believe that the oneness is of purpose, not of substance.

John 10:30 The Father and I are one.

John 17:20, 21 states the nature of the oneness.

I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me.

Jesus is clearly praying for a oneness of the believers that is identical to the oneness of the Father and the Son. Since the believers can’t become consubstantial with each other, the Father and the Son are not consubstantial with each other either.

The Bible gives us good examples of the oneness that is meant.

Genesis 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Even though husband and wife are referred to as “one flesh”, they are still two distinct, non-consubstantial beings.

1 Corinthians 3:8,9 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour. For we are labourers together with God: ye are God’s husbandry, ye are God’s building.

The laborers in God’s kingdom are referred to as “one”, but they are distinct non-consubstantial beings, as are the Father and the Son.

Quoting an ECF, Hippolytus stated:
Understand that He [Jesus] did not say “I and the Father am one, but are one. For the word are is not said of one person, but it refers to two persons, and one power. He has himself made this clear, when He spoke to His Father concerning the disciples, “The glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one.”… Are all one body in respect of substance, or is it that we become one in the power and disposition of unity of mind? (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 5:226)

The doctrine of the Trinity clearly has issues…

You totally just took that Hippolytus quote out of its context. He was correcting the error of Modalism, the belief that God is one substance, one person, but three forms. And that quotes suggest the Trinity *“but it refers to two person, and one power.” *

In the context Jesus is speaking of, it is clear he is referring to his oneness in a Trinitarian way. You have to know the context of the passage. The Gospel of John main theme was to show the Divinity of Christ because certain Gnostic’s denied it. We have internal and external evidence telling us a lot about the historical context of the Gospel of John. It’s main goal was to put forth orthodoxy and refute heresy.

 

[Stephen168]

Mormon Doctrine:

Though each God in the Godhead is a personage separate and distinct from each of the others, yet they are “one God” (Testimony of Three Witnesses in Book of Mormon), meaning that they are united as one in the attributes of perfection. For instance, each has the fulness of truth, knowledge, charity, power, justice, judgment, mercy, and faith. Accordingly they all think, act, speak, and are alike in all things; and yet they are three separate and distinct entities. Each occupies space and is and can be in but one place at one time, but each has power and influence that is everywhere present. The oneness of the Gods is the same unity that should exist among the saints.

The Mormon Godhead is three separate Gods; polytheism. They can only be in one place at a time, so they are not omnipresent. They are one, in the same way the Denver Broncos are one; not one, but several working for the same purpose.

While Mormons may claim they believe something, what they actually believe is not found in the definition of the words they use.

To the subject of the thread, it is clear Mormonism started monotheistic, but became polytheistic. Christianity has always been monotheist, as is a proper understanding of the Trinity.

 

[Stephen168]

Tertullian:

I confess that I call God and His Word — the Father and His Son —two. For the root and the tree are distinctly two things, but correlatively joined; the fountain and the river are also two forms, but indivisible; so likewise the sun and the ray are two forms, but coherent ones. Everything which proceeds from something else must needs be second to that from which it proceeds, without being on that account separated: Where, however, there is a second, there must be two; and where there is a third, there must be three. Now the Spirit indeed is third from God and the Son; just as the fruit of the tree is third from the root, or as the stream out of the river is third from the fountain, or as the apex of the ray is third from the sun. Nothing, however, is alien from that original source whence it derives its own properties. In like manner the Trinity, flowing down from the Father through intertwined and connected steps, does not at all disturb theMonarchy, whilst it at the same time guards the state of the Economy. (Against Praxeas, ch. 8 – ANF 3.603.)

Chapter 8 tells us how the Trinity is not Modalism. Mormons seem to cherry pick the early Church for examples of this and attempt to pass it off as a case against the Trinity.

…, especially in the case of this heresy, which supposes itself to possess the pure truth, in thinking that one cannot believe in One Only God in any other way than by saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are the very selfsame Person. As if in this way also one were not All, in that All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons— the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. How they are susceptible of number without division, will be shown as our treatise proceeds.

 

[gazelam]

Personally, I’d figure the idea that the entire Church in the form of an ecumenical council can get something so important as the nature of God Himself, the very object of worship, wrong.

That’s madness, but that’s just me.

Edwin Hatch said…
The theory [upon which ecumenical councils were based] assumes that God never speaks to men, except through the voice of the majority. It is a large assumption. (Edwin Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the Christian Church (London: Williams and Norgate, 1914), 331)

 

[thephilosopher6]

Edwin Hatch said…
The theory [upon which ecumenical councils were based] assumes that God never speaks to men, except through the voice of the majority. It is a large assumption. (Edwin Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the Christian Church (London: Williams and Norgate, 1914), 331)

Ok… The early Church agrees entirely with the Catholic Church since the early Church is the Catholic Church. Ecumenical Councils are only infallible though when a Pope approves it since the Pope is the leader of the Church and the Holy Spirit have given his doctrinal infallibility ex cathedra.

 

[gazelam]

Ok… The early Church agrees entirely with the Catholic Church since the early Church is the Catholic Church. Ecumenical Councils are only infallible though when a Pope approves it since the Pope is the leader of the Church and the Holy Spirit have given his doctrinal infallibility ex cathedra.

When did the Pope approve the Council of Nicea?

Do you consider all Eastern Orthodox ecumenical councils after 1054 AD invalid?

 

[Stephen168]

Edwin Hatch said…
The theory [upon which ecumenical councils were based] assumes that God never speaks to men, except through the voice of the majority. It is a large assumption. (Edwin Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the Christian Church (London: Williams and Norgate, 1914), 331)

Edwin Hatch believes in the Christian Trinity. This seems to be another case of you not reading the source in total.

 

[thephilosopher6]

When did the Pope approve the Council of Nicea?

Do you consider all Eastern Orthodox ecumenical councils after 1054 AD invalid?

Eastern Orthodox don’t recognize any more than the first 7 ecumenical counculs, all held before the break with Rome. Rome on the other hand declares there to be 21 ecumenical councils (the most recent being Vatican II). The Pope was not present at Nicaea, but he sent legates to represent him and his position. Of course, he being the Pope, was in full agreement with the orthodox doctrine.

 

[gazelam]

Greek Philosophy seems to be a Mormon bogeyman but none have ever been able to give an example of its influence on Christian thought in the first four centuries.

Not hard to do…

Edwin Hatch made this observation.

It is impossible for anyone, whether he be a student of history or no, to fail to notice a difference of both form and content between the Sermon on the Mount and the Nicene Creed. The Sermon on the Mount is the promulgation of a new law of conduct; it assumes beliefs rather than formulates them ; the theological conceptions which underlie it belong to the ethical rather than the speculative side of theology; metaphysics are wholly absent. The Nicene Creed is a statement partly of historical facts and partly of dogmatic inferences ; the metaphysical terms which it contains would probably have been unintelligible to the first disciples; ethics have no place in it. The one belongs to a world of Syrian peasants, the other to a world of Greek philosophers. The contrast is patent. If anyone thinks that it is sufficiently explained by saying that the one is a sermon and the other a creed, it must be pointed out in reply that the question why an ethical sermon stood in the forefront of the teaching of Jesus Christ, and a metaphysical creed in the forefront of the Christianity of the fourth century, is a problem which claims investigation. (Edwin Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the Christian Church (Gloucester, Mass.: Smith, 1970), 1)

Wouldn’t it be better for orthodox Christians to be reciting something each week that would be understood by the first disciples?

Harry Wolfson of Harvard University gives three reasons for the rise of “philosophized Christianity”.

First, it came about through the conversion to Christianity of pagans who had been trained in philosophy… Second, philosophy was used by Christians as a help in their defense against accusations brought against them [by the pagans]… Third, philosophy… was found to be of still greater usefulness as an immunization or an antidote against the heresy of Gnosticism. The Gnostics happen to have done what Paul said he was not going to do: they adorned the faith with “persuasive words of wisdom”… [Therefore, some of the fathers] undertook to set up a new Christian philosophy in opposition to that of the Gnostics… (Wolfson, The Philosophy of the Church Fathers, 1:11-14)

 

[thephilosopher6]

The Nicene Creed is a statement partly of historical facts and partly of dogmatic inferences ; the metaphysical terms which it contains would probably have been unintelligible to the first disciples; ethics have no place in it.

The Church has always believed in the Trinity, over time yes Greek terminology was used to better explain it. They never used Greek philosophy to create the doctrine. The doctrine is not a product of Greek philosophy. Rather, they used philosophy to help explain it. The Trinity was well established in the Church. Nicaea presented nothing new, but rather re-affirmed the doctrine that Christians long held. They used it to explain what Christians had always believed to fight against heresy and help evade any misunderstanding, like the belief that the Trinity is made up of three beings which Mormons believe due to their misunderstanding of the Trinity. The terminology Christians used were used to prevent this kind of misunderstanding that people could have from interpreting the New Testament and those in the Church. The belief that the Trinity is made up of three gods, or three beings as you say, is contrary to what the Church has always believed and meant when it spoke of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Why do you think differentiating opinions on the Trinity were such huge controversy’s in the Church?

 

[Stephen168]

Not hard to do…

I think it is, because you failed at doing it.

Wouldn’t it be better for orthodox Christians to be reciting something each week that would be understood by the first disciples?

If you understood what you cut and pasted, after reading the original document, you would know how silly your question is.

 

[Stephen168]

Greek Philosophy seems to be a Mormon bogeyman but none have ever been able to give an example of its influence on Christian thought in the first four centuries.

Harry Wolfson of Harvard University gives three reasons for the rise of “philosophized Christianity”.

Christians do not deny philosophy is used by Christians. See Post #51.
You have proven my point. You have not shown a change in doctrine caused by philosophy and you showed how just the fact that philosophy is used in Christianity is a Mormon bogeyman.

Mormon history proves Joseph Smith rejected the trinity, it was not part of his original “restoration.” Polytheism is not Christian.

 

[thephilosopher6]

You are correct: there is to polytheism in the Book of Mormon.

You are also correct that understanding of eternal progression was later.

Mormons do not view ourselves as polytheists, holding vast to the idea of the Father, Son, and Spirit being one united God (despite being different individuals not of shared substance).

The problem is, is that you believe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to be different beings. No matter what you say to justify this, three beings = three gods. This is an unfortunate misunderstanding of the Trinity which Christians throughout the ages worked to prevent

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. If, then, the Word was with God, and was also God, what follows? Would one say that he speaks of two Gods? I shall not indeed speak of two Gods, but of one; of two Persons however, and of a third economy (disposition), viz., the grace of the Holy Ghost. For the Father indeed is One, but there are two Persons, because there is also the Son; and then there is the third, the Holy Spirit. The Father decrees, the Word executes, and the Son is manifested, through whom the Father is believed on. The economy of harmony is led back to one God; for God is One.” - Hippolytus of Rome (Against Noetus [200 A.D])

 

[gazelam]

Greek Philosophy seems to be a Mormon bogeyman but none have ever been able to give an example of its influence on Christian thought in the first four centuries.

Christians used concepts that were originally not hebrew, but these concepts had been making there way into Jewish culture through Greek speaking Alexandria, home of the septuagint, for about a century before Christ. Some scholars believe they influenced some of the New Testament writings, including Paul. Considering most of the New Testament was originally written in Greek, I’m inclined to agree. Therefore, evil Greek culture (philosophy/language/scripture) was already part of the Jewish culture of the first Christians.

On the other hand, some scholars have claimed Mormonism is more of a restoration of pagan Greek culture.
Like Mormons the Greek culture believed:
-Gods took human form (flesh and bone)
-There are many Gods
-Godlike beings who used pre-existent matter to make the world.
-the soul pre-existed before it was born mortal.

Christianity started with first century Judaism in a place where Greek was the lingua franca. Where there is one God, who created everything out of nothing. The Word was God. His Word taught us the beatific vision and gave us the Eucharist. By his example and the example of the Apostles we learn that not being married is the best state for the Priesthood and all men are created equal.

The Trinity is the reasoned understanding that the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God, yet there is one God. Over time, Joseph Smith rejected the Christian God, and changed the Book of Mormon to align with his new polytheism.

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.

 

[thephilosopher6]

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.

I just want to note that you’re quoting one man… It seems to me whenever you have a problem you can’t refute on your own you just run to this guy for answers. I’d also like to note that this mans works are not payed much attention to by other scholars or historians.

Also, if it’s primitive simplicity you want, then we ought to throw away some doctrines of Mormonism including your view of God.

Heck, if we really want primitive simplicity why not throw all of Paul’s theology away? Let’s throws Johannine theology away with, after all we want very primitive simplicity.

 

[gazelam]

(lds.org/topics/god-the-father?lang=eng)

This is a common Mormon objection to the Trinity. The funny thing is is that nowhere in these two paragraphs is any credible information or sources given. Not one scholar’s name is given, not one early Church Father is cited, not one Biblical verse is used to back their claims up. It’s nothing more than a claim with absolutely nothing to back it up. Of course, Mormons seem to be really good at making claims with nothing to back it up.

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.

 

[thephilosopher6]

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.

I will read this, and refute it line by line. Give me a few hours, I will destroy your heresy.

 

[LivingWaters7]

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).

 

[thephilosopher6]

“Latter-day Saints are sometimes accused of having an antibiblical theology because they believe that God is a glorified being of flesh and bones—not just a spirit essence. Some who write anti-Mormon pamphlets insist that the LDS concept of Deity is contrary to what is recognized as traditional Christian doctrine. In this they are quite correct. The traditional view about the Trinity is well over a thousand years old, and time has a way of hallowing ideas, whether or not they are true.”

Well, considering the fact that for the first 1800 years of Christianity none of your ideas about God were espoused with the exception of small little sects that would pop up here and there and were quickly suppressed, so I think Christians a extremely justified in in terming your theology ‘unbiblical.’

“One of the most demonstrable truths from the Bible is the physical, bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. When Jesus came forth from the tomb, he showed himself to his Apostles. Even they thought him to be a spirit, but he said: ‘Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.’”

Indeed, at least one of the few things Christians and Mormons can agree on is the resurrection, which is the foundation of our faith.

“Then he showed them his hands and feet, and when they were still skeptical, he asked for meat and honeycomb and ate before them. (Luke 24:36–43.) Then they saw he was no apparition”

“Thomas was not present at the first appearance to the Twelve, so he remained skeptical. He told the others: ‘Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.’ (John 20:24–25.)
“One week later, Jesus again appeared to the disciples. This time, Thomas was among them. The Lord greeted them, then spoke to Thomas: ‘Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.’
“Thomas could only exclaim, ‘My Lord and my God.’ (John 20:26–28.) That day he became a special witness of the Lord’s literal resurrection.”
Indeed, doubting Thomas became a believer. It is another great testimony of the Christian faith.
“After Jesus was resurrected, more than five hundred also saw him and testified of his physical resurrection. (1 Cor. 15:5–8.) The Apostles, too, were witnesses of his ascension into heaven when two angels told them that Jesus would return in like manner as he had ascended. (Acts 1:9–11.)”
We also know that at his second coming, Christ will appear with a physical body. John testified that ‘every eye shall see him.’ (Rev. 1:7.) Zechariah prophesied that ‘his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives’ (Zech. 14:4; italics added), and the beleaguered Israelites ‘shall look upon [him] whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him.’ (Zech. 12:10.) And then ‘one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.’ (Zech. 13:6; italics added.)”

Indeed. I actually don’t think Zechariah 13:6 is a Messianic Prophecy, but that’s a debate for another time and there is nothing wrong with interpreting it as a Messianic Prophecy.

“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 exactly sure what you’re asking regarding “Jesus’ bodily identity was dissolved into spirit essence?” But I think you’re asking why Christians believe Jesus had a glorified body? I always thought Mormons agreed with Christians on this one, I guess not, but I will show why we believe Jesus has a glorified body.

“On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, ‘Peace be with you.’ When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord.” - John 20:19-20

“As they were saying this, Jesus himself stood among them. But they were startled and frightened, and supposed that they saw a spirit. And he said to them, ‘Why are you troubled, and why do questionings rise in your hearts?’” - Luke 24:36-38

Here, we see that Jesus was able to walk through walls, we also see that the disciples believed Jesus to be a ghost and were frightened of him. Jesus had a glorified body, it was the same body he was born with and died with, however it was now glorified. He could now do things no normal person could do. We are not denying the physical resurrection of Christ, of course not! (Luke 24:39) But Jesus had and improved and better body. Christians have always affirmed the glorified body, and in the resurrection we too will receive glorified bodies. Paul says,

“I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.” - 1 Corinthians 15:50

Paul is not denying the physical resurrection, but he is saying that our bodies in their current state cannot inherit the kingdom of God because our bodies are weak and subject to death. Christians in no way deny the resurrection of Christ, but we believe his body was made more perfect. I always thought Mormons agreed with this but… I guess not!