Refutation of Mormons objection the the Trinity

[TOmNossor]

Here are a few more non-developed views of God from pre-Nicea.

Clement of Rome (composed late 1st or early 2nd century): “The apostles received the gospel for us from Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ was sent from God. So Christ is from God, and the apostles are from Christ: thus both came in proper order by the will of God.”[5] Also, “Let all the heathen know that thou [the Father] art God alone, and that Jesus Christ is thy Servant…”

Is the one who is sent equal to the one who sends? Are Apostles equal to Christ?

Justin Martyr (100-165) : “I shall attempt to persuade you, …] that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things …] wishes to announce to them.”[12] "But to the Father of all, who is unbegotten, there is no name given. …] And His Son, …] the Word, who also was with Him and was begotten before the works, when at first He created and arranged all things by Him, is called Christ, in reference to His being anointed and God’s ordering all things through Him; …] But ‘Jesus’, His name as man and Saviour, has …] significance. For He was made man …] having been conceived according to the will of God the Father.”

I already offered this to you, but here it is anyway. Justin thoroughly subordinates. There is no question.

Didache (c. 1st century): “We thank you, our Father, for the holy vine of David your servant, which you have made known unto us through Jesus your Servant.”[14] "We thank you, our Father, for the life and knowledge, which you have made known to us through Jesus your Servant. Glory to you forever!”

I will acknowledge that calling Christ “Servant” is perfectly orthodox even today, but the author of the Didache evidences zero “co-equal” views and offers this very subordinationalist view.

Origin: And although we may call Him a “second” God, let men know that by the term “second God” we mean nothing else than a virtue capable of including all other virtues, and a reason capable of containing all reason whatsoever which exists in all things, which have arisen naturally, directly, and for the general advantage, and which “reason,” we say, dwelt in the soul of Jesus, and was united to Him in a degree far above all other souls, seeing He alone was enabled completely to receive the highest share in the absolute reason, and the absolute wisdom, and the absolute righteousness.

Second God!

Origin: We worship, therefore, the Father of truth, and the Son, who is the truth; and these, while they are two, considered as persons or subsistences, are one in unity of thought, in harmony and in identity of will. So entirely are they one, that he who has seen the Son, “who is the brightness of God’s glory, and the express image of His person,”[9] has seen in Him who is the image of God, God Himself.

They are two, but on in “unity of thought, in harmony and in identity of will.” I as a LDS actual ascribe additional ONENESS to Father and Son so all must be well.

So, let me summarize this bit here. A handful of patristic scholars have surveyed the majority of pre-Nicene literature and concluded (then published) that pre-Nicene orthodoxy subordinated the Son to the Father. We should not confuse this conclusion with the view that no collection of words from before Nicea could be construed as orthodox today, but I think it clear that both DISTINCTION and SUBORDINATION were present in the pre-Nicene Fathers. You are welcome to excuse away the ECF who wrote like this (Origin was condemned as a heretic long after his death). You are welcome to cherry pick quotes that sound orthodox to modern ears, and declare that pre-Nicea was identical to modern orthodoxy. I have probably only read 20-30% of the pre-Nicene literature, but I have NEVER seen the type of “co-equal” language pre-Nicea that I see in Alexander(perhaps), Athanasius (Alexander and Athanasius held their pre-Nicene views in opposition to Arius so technically they could be said to represent what was to become orthodoxy before Nicea), Augustine, Aquinas and others. And in concert with the handful of scholars, I have seen plenty in the ECF to support the idea of SUBORDINATION and DISTINCTION are present in ways that are not orthodox within Catholicism today. And one of those scholars it the CELEBRATED Cardinal Newman!!!
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

The early Church was monotheistic, not polytheistic such as Mormonism.

Actually, I would say that the early Church was monotheistic LIKE Mormonism is monotheistic. As Gazelem and I both pointed out, most of your ECF quotes are not in conflict with LDS thought. If you are moved by the scholars I have sited concerning subordinationalism, I could probably dig up some of my notes on “metaphysical monotheism” as opposed to Biblical, Early Jewish, and Early Christian monotheism. I am a monotheist, just not a monotheist that places emphasis on -ousia and other non-Biblical concepts.

The word ‘Trinity’ may have been used at an earlier date than Theophilus, but if it was the references are lost. Though, it is very possible it was.

I do not believe the word “Trinity” or philosophy are the problems. I like many LDS am a Social Trinitarian. I just suggest that the ONTOLOGICAL unity that is VERY difficult to separate from modalism, is not only DEVELOPED, but problematic.

And the fact that you mentioned the Filioque shows how ignorant you really are. The Filioque is not a doctrine, it was asserted into the western Creed in the 6th century to help further combat Arian heresy. However, due to semantics, the east thought the west was teaching that the Holy Spirit finds it source in the Father and Son. But this is not what the west taught nor has it ever taught this. We, just like the east, believe the Holy Spirit ultimate source is of the Father and he goes through the Son. Some in the east still like to accuse the west of heresy today in regards to the Filioque, but the truth is we believe in the same things as the east. It’s all a problem of semantics. Indeed, Byzantine Christians who recognized this came back into full communion with the Catholic Church, they’re the Byzantine Catholics and they do not use the Filioque.

You telling me that I am ignorant does little to rectify my ignorance if it exists.
What do you mean when you say, “The Filioque is not a doctrine?” It is clearly a teaching. It is even dogmatically asserted in I think Florence and Lyons. That Catholics believe “and the Son” is equivalent to “through the Son” doesn’t change the fact that the Filioque is “and the Son” and most Orthodox theologians (at least before the 19th century) do not believe that is equivalent to “through the Son.”
That being said, the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father “through the Son” or from the Father “and the Son” is a development that was not present in the profession of the 318 and I have never seen such a thing from before Nicea either. As a relation within the Trinity it is such a huge issue thousands of pages have been written.
I was also thinking of Peter Abelard and I think a case could be made that his view of the Trinity was “in the fold” before the 4th Lateran Council and “outside the fold” afterwards, but if you disagree I will cede the point.

The Trinity was so well established in the Church, that is why there was so much controversy with Arianism. This was one of the first sudden and larger break from traditional apostolic doctrine. The Nicene Creed itself shows that Christians believed in the Trinity in its full form. Yes, terminology waas developed over time, but this was mainly to fight heresy introducing other doctrines about the Trinity and the Church had to clarify things. There was no development, but rather clarification against heretics.

The section of your quote I bolded places you outside virtually every scholar Catholic, Protestant, or otherwise who has written in the 20th century with the possible exception of a few folks that deny Vatican II was a council and in some cases claim Pope Francis is not the Vicar of Christ. Despite the invitations I have received from folks sympathetic to the Vatican II deniers, it is the need to recognize development that results in my view that Catholic Answers makes a stronger case than do they.
Are you really going to assert that there is no development? Have you read Newman?
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

“Yet this seeming anomaly is but one instance of a great law which is seen in developments generally, that changes which appear at first sight to contradict that out of which they grew, are really its protection or illustration.”

Which is what we have said about Mormon’s cherry picked quotes of the Early Church Fathers.

They cherry pick quotes defending the Trinity from heretics, usually modalist, and claim they were teaching against the Trinty. Post #44 gives an example of a cherry picked quote from a work that have the very purpose of defending the teaching of the trinity.

 

[Hatikvah]

And the fact that you mentioned the Filioque shows how ignorant you really are. The Filioque is not a doctrine, it was asserted into the western Creed in the 6th century to help further combat Arian heresy. However, due to semantics, the east thought the west was teaching that the Holy Spirit finds it source in the Father and Son. But this is not what the west taught nor has it ever taught this. We, just like the east, believe the Holy Spirit ultimate source is of the Father and he goes through the Son. Some in the east still like to accuse the west of heresy today in regards to the Filioque, but the truth is we believe in the same things as the east. It’s all a problem of semantics. Indeed, Byzantine Christians who recognized this came back into full communion with the Catholic Church, they’re the Byzantine Catholics and they do not use the Filioque.

Philosopher, I’m confused as to this… I thought the Filioque controversy was used as one of many reasons that Eastern Orthodoxy formally separated itself from Catholicism in 1054.

I’m not trying to argue anything here, nor to advocate (if this is as such) heresy, and both Catholics and traditionally Protestants accept the Filioque clause of Western comprehension, but this tract from CA states that the Father gives to His Son all that is His, save for His role as the Father – and that includes having the Holy Spirit proceed from Himself. Taken from the CA link, the Council of Florence’s Decree for the Greeks (1439) says:

“Since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.”

And I can fully agree that semantics is a major issue here, but that is all the more reason for a good explanation.

 

[TOmNossor]

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 own and have read the book.
Have you?
Sullivan takes the same data Nibley does and argues that the idea that Bishops are the successor of the apostles is a logical DEVELOPMENT. I am unsure if he even says that it is the ONLY logical development.
Have you read Nibley’s book?
Based on my reading and my single conversation with Sullivan I doubt very seriously he would say “PROVE.” What makes you think he says, means, believes, “PROVE?”

He clearly supports the view that there was no singular Bishop of Rome until the middle of the second century. This makes Clement of Rome an individual in a college of presbyters not a example of the monepiscopacy (or the papacy). He specifically recommended Robert Eno’s book on the Rise of the Papacy
What Father Sullivan argues is that the development of the monepiscapacy is consistent with the trends in the New Testament, was necessary to combat heresy, and (most difficult for the believer in Biblical Innerancy) was analogous to the acceptance of the New Testament Canon.

From a Catholic perspective after Newman’s development theory was accepted (RELUCTANTLY or through attrition in some corners) one can agree that the monepiscapacy DEVELOPED.
From a LDS perspective it is still clear and simple to say, “Old Testament prophets received revelation for God’s children on earth and wrote scripture, New Testament prophet (those who speak for God, Apostles in our Bibles) received revelation and wrote scripture. This is absent within the post New Testament Church and needs to be restored.”

I sympathize with the Catholic perspective and I could list the objections a Catholic might have to the LDS perspective, but I embrace the LDS perspective.
Charity, TOm

P.S. LivingWaters has read both Nibley’s book and Sullivan’s book (and I think Eno’s book). LivingWaters, would you say Sullivan would claim (or did claim) he PROVED apostolic succession.

 

[TOmNossor]

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).

I am about 99.9% sure that Nibley does not quote Sullivan.
I would suggest it is unfortunate that you remember him quoting “out of context.”
I would be interested to know what you think you have found?

If you think I have frowned in your general direction, you are correct. I am certain you will not wither under my harshness and I still want you to do me a favor .

I hope you can still answer my question to you about if you believe Sullivan would say he PROVED apostolic succession.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

I own and have read the book.
Have you?

Yes, and I stand by my claim: Sullivan concludes that the biblical and historic records prove apostolic succession from the very beginning of Christianity.

Sullivan takes the same data Nibley does and argues that the idea that Bishops are the successor of the apostles is a logical DEVELOPMENT. I am unsure if he even says that it is the ONLY logical development.
Have you read Nibley’s book?
Based on my reading and my single conversation with Sullivan I doubt very seriously he would say “PROVE.” What makes you think he says, means, believes, “PROVE?”

He clearly supports the view that there was no singular Bishop of Rome until the middle of the second century. This makes Clement of Rome an individual in a college of presbyters not a example of the monepiscopacy (or the papacy). He specifically recommended Robert Eno’s book on the Rise of the Papacy
What Father Sullivan argues is that the development of the monepiscapacy is consistent with the trends in the New Testament, was necessary to combat heresy, and (most difficult for the believer in Biblical Innerancy) was analogous to the acceptance of the New Testament Canon.

From a Catholic perspective after Newman’s development theory was accepted (RELUCTANTLY or through attrition in some corners) one can agree that the monepiscapacy DEVELOPED.
From a LDS perspective it is still clear and simple to say, “Old Testament prophets received revelation for God’s children on earth and wrote scripture, New Testament prophet (those who speak for God, Apostles in our Bibles) received revelation and wrote scripture. This is absent within the post New Testament Church and needs to be restored.”

You just tore that straw man to pieces.

I sympathize with the Catholic perspective and I could list the objections a Catholic might have to the LDS perspective, but I embrace the LDS perspective.

The Mormon Church does not have apostolic succession as a historical fact.

 

[Stephen168]

From a Catholic perspective after Newman’s development theory was accepted (RELUCTANTLY or through attrition in some corners) one can agree that the monepiscapacy DEVELOPED.
From a LDS perspective it is still clear and simple to say, “Old Testament prophets received revelation for God’s children on earth and wrote scripture, New Testament prophet (those who speak for God, Apostles in our Bibles) received revelation and wrote scripture. This is absent within the post New Testament Church and needs to be restored.”

A few thoughts:
-Newman’s development theory was accepted? by who? which Pope? which council? reluctantly? Your whole “catholic perspective” seems like a fantasy of yours.
-It has been almost 100 years since Mormonism has added to its scriptures, therefore they are in a state of apostasy and need to be restored.
-After my first reading, it seems like you are claiming the same history happened two different ways at the same time: one for the Catholic Church and one for the Mormon Church.
-Then I remember that Mormonism rejected the Trinity by 1844, so Mormons don’t see Christ as God.
-While your Catholic perspective isn’t necessarily Catholic, it is consistent with Christian thought. Your Mormon perspective would be consistent with polytheistic thought or non-trinitarian thought, which is not Christian.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Don’t fall for it. Practically every thread Tom participates in ends up way off topic into a discussion about Catholicism (and not the actual topic), “continuing public supernatural revelation”, apostolic succession, and development of doctrine. Every few months he emerges to have the same conversation over and over.

 

[Stephen168]

Don’t fall for it. Practically every thread Tom participates in ends up way off topic into a discussion about Catholicism (and not the actual topic), “continuing public supernatural revelation”, apostolic succession, and development of doctrine. Every few months he emerges to have the same conversation over and over.

And I’ve found that any non-Mormon quote or thought he provides has never been what he claimed it to be.

 

[adamhovey1988]

And I’ve found that any non-Mormon quote or thought he provides has never been what he claimed it to be.

I don’t feel like this is going to go anywhere.

 

[TOmNossor]

Don’t fall for it. Practically every thread Tom participates in ends up way off topic into a discussion about Catholicism (and not the actual topic), “continuing public supernatural revelation”, apostolic succession, and development of doctrine. Every few months he emerges to have the same conversation over and over.

Livingwaters7,
I stuck to evidence of DEVELOPMENT in the Trinity.
I quoted scholars who said pre-Nicea ALL ECF were subordinationalists in ways that Athanasius and MODERN Catholicism was/is not.
I quoted Cardinal Newman who claimed that pre-Nicea many of the authors ThePhilospher6 quoted had heretical views of the Trinity.

You brought up authority first I think, but I am sure it was not me.
Then in response to you and Stephen168 mischaracterizing Father Sullivan’s conclusions I responded. Having read the book and having had a very brief exchange with Father Sullivan, I thought I should correct you.
You also incorrectly stated that Nibley misquoted Father Sullivan, which is false and which I challenged. You can respond or not, but your detour makes me more confident that you are not correct and Nibley didn’t misquote Sullivan.

If you do not want to talk about authority and such things, do not bring them up.

I will not suggest that I have not been in the past and will not be in the future the cause of a devolving of some topic into authority (I think this is an important issue and the LDS position is strong). But I was responding to you and Stephen this time. And I invite anyone to read this thread to see that not only did I not initiate this departure, but many of the points I made concerning the development of the Trinity have not been responded to.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

A few thoughts:
-Newman’s development theory was accepted? by who? which Pope? which council? reluctantly? Your whole “catholic perspective” seems like a fantasy of yours.

I offered this assessment based on reading numerous letters from Newman and reading MODERN Catholic thought concerning Newman. It would be very difficult for me to trace this thought process and for you to agree or disagree, you would IMO need to read similar things.
Cardinal Avery Dullas has of course read the Newman letters AND is quite involved in the MODERN Catholic Church. So I will just quote the forward for his book on Newman:

John Henry Newman may be considered the most outstandingly original and creative English religious thinker of the nineteenth century. Avery Dulles is himself one of the most important living Roman Catholic theologians. Therefore the combination of this author and this subject is in itself a matter for celebration. Newman has countless admirers, and since the publication of Geoffrey Faber’s “Oxford Apostles” many debunkers this as an account of Newman that is truly balanced and shows him to be as much a prophet for our times as he was for his own. Though unsuccessful in most of his undertakings in the Catholic Church during his lifetime, his genius has increasingly come to be recognized after his death, and his influence can hardly be exaggerated. While writing this study of Cardinal Newman, Avery Dulles was himself created a Cardinal.
books.google.com/books/about/John_Henry_Newman.html?id=lG1CAQAAIAAJ

If you want me to respond more to your quick list, I can, just ask.
Oh and two more things.
As I said to Livingwaters, if you do not want to talk about authority don’t. There is a lot of material on the Trinity you can do something with if you wish.
And, I am certain I have made errors in quoting folks, I even have at least one memory of a time when I agreed with you that I was WRONG. But, I assure they are errors not intentional. Most of the time I find Cardinal Dullas or some such person and I are much closer in our understanding of particular issues than you and I are.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

Here are a few more non-developed views of God from pre-nivea.

Clement of Rome (composed late 1st or early 2nd century): "The apostles received the gospel for us from Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ was sent from God. So Christ is from God, and the apostles are from Christ: thus both came in proper order by the will of God. Having therefore received a charge, and having been fully assured through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and confirmed in the word of God with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth with the glad tidings that the kingdom of God should come. So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their first fruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons unto them that should believe. And this they did in no new fashion; for indeed it had been written concerning bishops and deacons from very ancient times; for thus saith the scripture in a certain place, I will appoint their bishops in righteousness and their deacons in faith.

While you cut and pasted this quote from wikipedia, it is actually from two different paragraphs which I included and bolded.

The subject of the first paragraph is about the ministry of the Church, The subject of the second paragraph is disobedience which was the main reason for the letter.

Neither paragraph or the letter itself was about the nature of God.

So your question makes no sense in regard to the full understanding of the letter

 

[Stephen168]

You brought up authority first I think, but I am sure it was not me.
Then in response to you and Stephen168 mischaracterizing Father Sullivan’s conclusions I responded. Having read the book and having had a very brief exchange with Father Sullivan, I thought I should correct you.

Authority was first brought up in a response to a link supplied by gazelam. Then gazelam cherry picked a quote of Father Sullivan claiming he claimed something he didn’t, so I corrected him.

You misunderstood my correction and responded with a condescending post about the Papacy. I corrected you in post #87, and you have not responded to it.

You might not have understood my post #87.
Hint: apostolic succession and the Papacy are NOT the same thing.

 

[TOmNossor]

While you cut and pasted this quote from wikipedia, it is actually from two different paragraphs which I included and bolded.

The subject of the first paragraph is about the ministry of the Church, The subject of the second paragraph is disobedience which was the main reason for the letter.

Neither paragraph or the letter itself was about the nature of God.

So your question makes no sense in regard to the full understanding of the letter

The reason the one about the ministry of the church is of value is that it is linking God to Christ in the SAME way it links Christ to the Apostles.
My comment only relied on the first quote.

I should have commented on the second quote by saying, that calling the Father “God alone” and contrasting that with Jesus as “the servant” is specifically excluding Christ from God.

I should have been more careful. You are right for pointing this out. My comment only referenced the first quote.

Do you think my comment was inaccurate with respect to only the first quote?

Do you have any thoughts on my comments regarding the second quote? Isn’t it quite strong evidence of a pre-Trinity view for Clement to say that the Father is “God alone” and Christ is “the servant?”

Charity, TOm

 

[JimmyDFG]

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)

This is Edwin’s opinion, is it not?

 

[Stephen168]

The reason the one about the ministry of the church is of value is that it is linking God to Christ in the SAME way it links Christ to the Apostles.
My comment only relied on the first quote.

I should have commented on the second quote by saying, that calling the Father “God alone” and contrasting that with Jesus as “the servant” is specifically excluding Christ from God.

I should have been more careful. You are right for pointing this out. My comment only referenced the first quote.

Do you think my comment was inaccurate with respect to only the first quote?

Do you have any thoughts on my comments regarding the second quote? Isn’t it quite strong evidence of a pre-Trinity view for Clement to say that the Father is “God alone” and Christ is “the servant?”

The SAME way does not say in WHAT way. The same height, authority, eye color, nature, teaching? It is clear the paragraph is primarily talking about the knowledge of the gospel, good news, with a secondary reference to authority. In no way does this paragraph suggest they are the same in their nature.

The translations I have found for the second sentence you pasted do not have the word’ servant’, they use Son. The later part of the paragraph turns to a Prayer for the Roman Church which starts with "Grant unto us, Lord,……” and includes “Thou art God alone, and Jesus Christ is Thy Son, and we are Thy people and the sheep of Thy pastures” A prayer is not an essay on the nature of God. I know people are not sheep, so I’m sure its not about the nature of human beings or sheep either.

This is the general problem with your cutting and pasting.

 

[TOmNossor]

Authority was first brought up in a response to a link supplied by gazelam. Then gazelam cherry picked a quote of Father Sullivan claiming he claimed something he didn’t, so I corrected him.

You misunderstood my correction and responded with a condescending post about the Papacy. I corrected you in post #87, and you have not responded to it.

You might not have understood my post #87.
Hint: apostolic succession and the Papacy are NOT the same thing.

I took exception to your assessment that Sullivan PROVED apostolic succession. I thought that was clear. I found it so far afield from what I got when I read the book, I didn’t think you had read the book.
I did not misunderstand and think you were speaking about the Papacy. I brought up Eno’s book because Father Sullivan recommended it to me. And I did link the lack of a singular Bishop in Rome with difficulties for the claim that the Bishop of Rome was the Pope.

Your post #87 said that you read the book and that Father Sullivan PROVED (and theoretically would claim that he had PROVED) apostolic succession. I still disagree with you, but I am not sure how to show it so I didn’t say anything.
You are correct, I didn’t understand your strawman accusation. I think you are suggesting that either my brief comments about the difficulties of ascribing the Papacy to the Bishop or Rome when Rome was led by a group of Presbyters, is somehow profoundly misunderstanding what it is for the Peterine authority to be passed to the “universal bishop.”

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

The SAME way does not say in WHAT way. The same height, authority, eye color, nature, teaching? It is clear the paragraph is primarily talking about the knowledge of the gospel, good news, with a secondary reference to authority. In no way does this paragraph suggest they are the same in their nature.

The translations I have found for the second sentence you pasted do not have the word’ servant’, they use Son. The later part of the paragraph turns to a Prayer for the Roman Church which starts with "Grant unto us, Lord,……” and includes “Thou art God alone, and Jesus Christ is Thy Son, and we are Thy people and the sheep of Thy pastures” A prayer is not an essay on the nature of God. I know people are not sheep, so I’m sure its not about the nature of human beings or sheep either.

This is the general problem with your cutting and pasting.

First, let me acknowledge that your response addresses those passages and mitigates their impact.
When Gazlem and I both claimed that most or all of ThePhilospher6’s quotes were consistent with LDS thought on the Trinity, we were trying to mitigate their significance.

Before I continue, let me tell you what I think this “Mormon objections to the Trinity” is about.
I claim that the co-equal formulation of the Trinity present in the writings of Athanasius, Augustine, Aquinas, and modern Catholic writers is absent in its “co-equal” formulation before the 4th century. I further claim that the UNITY of the Trinity includes greater distinctions in the pre-4th century church than exist in Athanasius, Aquinas, and modern Catholics. ThePhilospher6 has claimed that the doctrine of the Trinity did not DEVELOP. By this I think he means that only different words were brought into service, but there was not REFINING or NARROWING or DEFINING of the concepts.
Would you frame this topic as I have (without the rejection of the word “DEVELOP” for your side I presume)?

I think in a message board there are only a few avenues for offering evidence concerning the beliefs of the Early Church.
You or I can assert that our reading of the ECF results in conclusion xyz. This carries very little weight here when “conclusion xyz” is in alignment with our individual faith traditions.
What has been done here by me and by ThePhilospher6 is another avenue. Provide quotes from the ECF that “support” our individual views. I would suggest Origin’s use of “second god” and Justin’s placing of Christ it the “second place” are pretty powerful. I would suggest the unqualified “co-equal” formulations from Athanasius if they existed before the 4th century would be pretty powerful. But, these are isolated quotes and the LDS claim as I have framed it is not that such things existed, but that such was the most prevalent view of the church.
Finally, we can offer the assessment of scholars who have surveyed the data and come to conclusions. One problem with this course is that LDS scholars are more likely to publish LDS conclusions and Catholic/Protestant scholars are more likely to publish Catholic/Protestant conclusions (for a variety of reasons).

Now, in acknowledgement of this problem, I have offered the thoughts of a few scholars who claim the Trinity developed and this is good/divine/true. I thus agree with the first part of the scholar’s conclusions that the Trinity was not believed in the same way in the Early Church and only disagree with the second part. And truth be told, I am not presently arguing for or against the second part.

BTW, this thread as started is not about other aspects of LDS beliefs. It was specifically started claiming that the view espoused by LDS that the early church did not believe in the Trinity (let me add the Trinity as believed today within Catholic and most Protestant circles) is not correct. I think there are two Catholic responses to ThePhilospher6’s thesis. The first, is that he is correct. The second is that he is wrong, but the DEVELOPMENT of the Trinity is in alignment with God’s truth. I think the second option is what most Catholic/Protestant Patristic scholars have choosen.

Do you have a third option? Do you agree with either of these?

Charity, TOm