Refutation of Mormons objection the the Trinity

[truthseeker32]

I just wanted to jump in and say that historians of Christianity no longer read or take seriously Edwin Hatch’s Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages Upon the Christian Church. It was a poorly researched book that reflected the anti-Catholic, revisionist experimental history in Britain that arose in the late 19th century and continued into the 1920s. Its primary error was failing to emphasize that there were dozens of Greek philosophies and that it was Greek language much more than Greek philosophical concepts that were incorporated into Christian theological discussion because Greek was the language of the time. Most contemporary historians who study the development of the Trinitarian doctrine (Edward Siecienski comes to mind) have actually made compelling arguments that it was actually Arianism which sought to Hellenize Christian doctrine and Athanasian (Trinitarian) Christology that was accused of being too “Jewish” and irrational.

The biggest nail in the coffin for the arguments such as Nicene Christianity being corrupted by Greek philosophy or Constantine hijacking the council is that the council went differently than was expected. Arianism (the real Hellenistic position) was enjoying widespread growth and popularity and it was Constantine’s hope that this Christology would be accepted since he saw it as the best way to unite the empire’s Christians. However, against the wishes and expectations of Constantine and many Arian supporters, it was the minority (Trinitarian) position that eventually won out.

Anyways, the accusation that early Christianity was influenced or corrupted by Greek philosophy isn’t helpful unless one identifies what specific Greek school(s) of thought was or were influencing Christianity.

For further reading:

“Holy Disobedience: Resistance to Secular and Ecclesiastical Authority” by Edward Siecienski

incommunion.org/tag/edward-siecienski/

Retrieving Nicaea: The Development and Meaning of Trinitarian Doctrine by Khaled Anatolios

amazon.com/Retrieving-Nicaea-Development-Trinitarian-Doctrine/dp/080103132X

 

[LivingWaters7]

I just wanted to jump in and say that historians of Christianity no longer read or take seriously Edwin Hatch’s Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages Upon the Christian Church. It was a poorly researched book that reflected the anti-Catholic, revisionist experimental history in Britain that arose in the late 19th century and continued into the 1920s. Its primary error was failing to emphasize that there were dozens of Greek philosophies and that it was Greek language much more than Greek philosophical concepts that were incorporated into Christian theological discussion because Greek was the language of the time. Most contemporary historians who study the development of the Trinitarian doctrine (Edward Siecienski comes to mind) have actually made compelling arguments that it was actually Arianism which sought to Hellenize Christian doctrine and Athanasian (Trinitarian) Christology that was accused of being too “Jewish” and irrational.

The biggest nail in the coffin for the arguments such as Nicene Christianity being corrupted by Greek philosophy or Constantine hijacking the council is that the council went differently than was expected. Arianism (the real Hellenistic position) was enjoying widespread growth and popularity and it was Constantine’s hope that this Christology would be accepted since he saw it as the best way to unite the empire’s Christians. However, against the wishes and expectations of Constantine and many Arian supporters, it was the minority (Trinitarian) position that eventually won out.

Anyways, the accusation that early Christianity was influenced or corrupted by Greek philosophy isn’t helpful unless one identifies what specific Greek school(s) of thought was or were influencing Christianity.

For further reading:

“Holy Disobedience: Resistance to Secular and Ecclesiastical Authority” by Edward Siecienski

incommunion.org/tag/edward-siecienski/

Retrieving Nicaea: The Development and Meaning of Trinitarian Doctrine by Khaled Anatolios

amazon.com/Retrieving-Nicaea-Development-Trinitarian-Doctrine/dp/080103132X

Excellent. :clapping::clapping:

Hatch was pretty much discredited for me when I read that he claimed the Gnostics were the first to believe that the bread and wine turn to the material body and blood of Christ (in that some book). That idea of course goes against foundational Gnostic beliefs about matter and the body of Christ. I don’t think Gazelam realizes that, which is why I’m always amused when he brings out that quote, most likely from Fairmormon or another proof-text bank.

 

[adamhovey1988]

I just wanted to jump in and say that historians of Christianity no longer read or take seriously Edwin Hatch’s Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages Upon the Christian Church. It was a poorly researched book that reflected the anti-Catholic, revisionist experimental history in Britain that arose in the late 19th century and continued into the 1920s. Its primary error was failing to emphasize that there were dozens of Greek philosophies and that it was Greek language much more than Greek philosophical concepts that were incorporated into Christian theological discussion because Greek was the language of the time. Most contemporary historians who study the development of the Trinitarian doctrine (Edward Siecienski comes to mind) have actually made compelling arguments that it was actually Arianism which sought to Hellenize Christian doctrine and Athanasian (Trinitarian) Christology that was accused of being too “Jewish” and irrational.

The biggest nail in the coffin for the arguments such as Nicene Christianity being corrupted by Greek philosophy or Constantine hijacking the council is that the council went differently than was expected. Arianism (the real Hellenistic position) was enjoying widespread growth and popularity and it was Constantine’s hope that this Christology would be accepted since he saw it as the best way to unite the empire’s Christians. However, against the wishes and expectations of Constantine and many Arian supporters, it was the minority (Trinitarian) position that eventually won out.

Anyways, the accusation that early Christianity was influenced or corrupted by Greek philosophy isn’t helpful unless one identifies what specific Greek school(s) of thought was or were influencing Christianity.

For further reading:

“Holy Disobedience: Resistance to Secular and Ecclesiastical Authority” by Edward Siecienski

incommunion.org/tag/edward-siecienski/

Retrieving Nicaea: The Development and Meaning of Trinitarian Doctrine by Khaled Anatolios

amazon.com/Retrieving-Nicaea-Development-Trinitarian-Doctrine/dp/080103132X

I love the fact CAF has people like this

 

[Stephen168]

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.

John Henry Newman in An Essay on Development of Christian Doctrine questions the use of the Canon of St. Vincent, and claimed that doctrine developed.
Vincent of Lérins:

Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense “Catholic,” which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally.

You jump to the assumption that ‘develop’ means ‘change’ which is not what development means to Cardinal Newman. It could mean that 1) a philosophical explanation of an ancient belief developed, 2) the geography of an ancient belief expanded, 3) it started small and expanded in itself, or 4) a combination. I can understand how a person could see #3 as a change, but I would not agree. For example, the New Testament canon developed from including just the Gospel of Luke to its current 27 books. Was this development a change? I don’t think so, but I can see how you might. This also explains why a Catholic when discussing a doctrine that developed by #1, would say it did not develop, because the belief itself did not develop, the explanation did.

The belief that God has a divine nature and that nature is unique to God is Christian and always has been. The teachings of Joseph Smith and Lorenzo Snow have never been taught by anybody, anywhere, at any time by Christians, or Judaism from which Christianity came. The believe that God and man have the same nature; that God was once and man, and, like Christ, man can become God is completely foreign to Christianity and always has been.

It is this Mormon invention about the nature of God which allows them to agree with most of the quotes of the early church fathers, but be completely out of step with what the early Church believed. But there are biblical and other writings of the early church which clearly confirm the doctrine of the trinity.

The Mormon Church first declared the apostasy to have occurred in 570AD, because Revelation 12 said, “And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she had a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.” Mormons said the ‘woman’ was the ‘true’ church and ‘days’ meant ‘years.’ (570+1260=1830!!!) The Mormon Church was also Trinitarian until about 1835 as proven by the 1830 Book of Mormon and the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants. With Joseph Smith’s new invention on the nature of God and eternal progression, the date of the apostasy, the doctrine of the trinity, creation from nothing, and monotheism all had to go. The reason the date of the apostasy had to go was the teachings of 570AD Christianity were clearly Catholic and not Mormon. While 100AD makes Christian claims more difficult, it still makes Mormon claims impossible.

 

[Stephen168]

The biggest nail in the coffin for the arguments such as Nicene Christianity being corrupted by Greek philosophy or Constantine hijacking the council is that the council went differently than was expected. Arianism (the real Hellenistic position) was enjoying widespread growth and popularity and it was Constantine’s hope that this Christology would be accepted since he saw it as the best way to unite the empire’s Christians. However, against the wishes and expectations of Constantine and many Arian supporters, it was the minority (Trinitarian) position that eventually won out.

:thumbsup:This has always been my favorite ‘nail.’

 

[JimmyDFG]

I just wanted to jump in and say that historians of Christianity no longer read or take seriously Edwin Hatch’s Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages Upon the Christian Church. It was a poorly researched book that reflected the anti-Catholic, revisionist experimental history in Britain that arose in the late 19th century and continued into the 1920s. Its primary error was failing to emphasize that there were dozens of Greek philosophies and that it was Greek language much more than Greek philosophical concepts that were incorporated into Christian theological discussion because Greek was the language of the time. Most contemporary historians who study the development of the Trinitarian doctrine (Edward Siecienski comes to mind) have actually made compelling arguments that it was actually Arianism which sought to Hellenize Christian doctrine and Athanasian (Trinitarian) Christology that was accused of being too “Jewish” and irrational.

The biggest nail in the coffin for the arguments such as Nicene Christianity being corrupted by Greek philosophy or Constantine hijacking the council is that the council went differently than was expected. Arianism (the real Hellenistic position) was enjoying widespread growth and popularity and it was Constantine’s hope that this Christology would be accepted since he saw it as the best way to unite the empire’s Christians. However, against the wishes and expectations of Constantine and many Arian supporters, it was the minority (Trinitarian) position that eventually won out.

Anyways, the accusation that early Christianity was influenced or corrupted by Greek philosophy isn’t helpful unless one identifies what specific Greek school(s) of thought was or were influencing Christianity.

For further reading:

“Holy Disobedience: Resistance to Secular and Ecclesiastical Authority” by Edward Siecienski

incommunion.org/tag/edward-siecienski/

Retrieving Nicaea: The Development and Meaning of Trinitarian Doctrine by Khaled Anatolios

amazon.com/Retrieving-Nicaea-Development-Trinitarian-Doctrine/dp/080103132X

You might want to consider
shop.catholic.com/the-apostasy-that-wasn-t.html

 

[TOmNossor]

You jump to the assumption that ‘develop’ means ‘change’ which is not what development means to Cardinal Newman. It could mean that 1) a philosophical explanation of an ancient belief developed, 2) the geography of an ancient belief expanded, 3) it started small and expanded in itself, or 4) a combination. I can understand how a person could see #3 as a change, but I would not agree.

Stephen,
I have claimed that “development” is a “soft word” for “change.” I still believe this and so does Father John O’Malley.
That being said, I have attempted to suggest that the subordination of Christ to the Father AND the distinction this subordination evidences is present within the writings of the ECF before the 4th century. That “co-equal” language is absent before the 4th century AND that the only folks to say thing like (and exactly like) that God the Father and God the Son were homoousian were condemned as heritics before the 4th century.
First, if I have proved this, what form of development is it 1, 2, 3, or some combination and why/how?
Second, do you accept that I have shown that most scholars see this and it is the overarching sweep of the ECF data?

The belief that God has a divine nature and that nature is unique to God is Christian and always has been. The teachings of Joseph Smith and Lorenzo Snow have never been taught by anybody, anywhere, at any time by Christians, or Judaism from which Christianity came. The believe that God and man have the same nature; that God was once and man, and, like Christ, man can become God is completely foreign to Christianity and always has been.

It is this Mormon invention about the nature of God which allows them to agree with most of the quotes of the early church fathers, but be completely out of step with what the early Church believed. But there are biblical and other writings of the early church which clearly confirm the doctrine of the trinity.

I am tempted to dive into this, but I would rather not distract from my above questions. If you like you can start another thread. From the OP, this thread is about the LDS claim that there was a change in the doctrine of the Trinity. Alternatively you can believe that this is the death knell for all LDS truth claims and I am afraid to respond.

The Mormon Church first declared the apostasy to have occurred in 570AD, because Revelation 12 said, “And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she had a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.” Mormons said the ‘woman’ was the ‘true’ church and ‘days’ meant ‘years.’ (570+1260=1830!!!) The Mormon Church was also Trinitarian until about 1835 as proven by the 1830 Book of Mormon and the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants. With Joseph Smith’s new invention on the nature of God and eternal progression, the date of the apostasy, the doctrine of the trinity, creation from nothing, and monotheism all had to go. The reason the date of the apostasy had to go was the teachings of 570AD Christianity were clearly Catholic and not Mormon. While 100AD makes Christian claims more difficult, it still makes Mormon claims impossible.

Same as above!
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

You jump to the assumption that ‘develop’ means ‘change’ which is not what development means to Cardinal Newman. It could mean that 1) a philosophical explanation of an ancient belief developed, 2) the geography of an ancient belief expanded, 3) it started small and expanded in itself, or 4) a combination. I can understand how a person could see #3 as a change, but I would not agree.

Stephen,
I have claimed that “development” is a “soft word” for “change.” I still believe this and so does Father John O’Malley.
That being said, I have attempted to suggest that the subordination of Christ to the Father AND the distinction this subordination evidences is present within the writings of the ECF before the 4th century. That “co-equal” language is absent before the 4th century AND that the only folks to say thing like (and exactly like) that God the Father and God the Son were homoousian were condemned as heritics before the 4th century.
First, if I have proved this, what form of development is it 1, 2, 3, or some combination and why/how?
Second, do you accept that I have shown that most scholars see this and it is the overarching sweep of the ECF data?

The belief that God has a divine nature and that nature is unique to God is Christian and always has been. The teachings of Joseph Smith and Lorenzo Snow have never been taught by anybody, anywhere, at any time by Christians, or Judaism from which Christianity came. The believe that God and man have the same nature; that God was once and man, and, like Christ, man can become God is completely foreign to Christianity and always has been.

It is this Mormon invention about the nature of God which allows them to agree with most of the quotes of the early church fathers, but be completely out of step with what the early Church believed. But there are biblical and other writings of the early church which clearly confirm the doctrine of the trinity.

I am tempted to dive into this, but I would rather not distract from my above questions. If you like you can start another thread. From the OP, this thread is about the LDS claim that there was a change in the doctrine of the Trinity.

The Mormon Church first declared the apostasy to have occurred in 570AD, because Revelation 12 said, “And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she had a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.” Mormons said the ‘woman’ was the ‘true’ church and ‘days’ meant ‘years.’ (570+1260=1830!!!) The Mormon Church was also Trinitarian until about 1835 as proven by the 1830 Book of Mormon and the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants. With Joseph Smith’s new invention on the nature of God and eternal progression, the date of the apostasy, the doctrine of the trinity, creation from nothing, and monotheism all had to go. The reason the date of the apostasy had to go was the teachings of 570AD Christianity were clearly Catholic and not Mormon. While 100AD makes Christian claims more difficult, it still makes Mormon claims impossible.

Same as above!
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

I just wanted to jump in and say that historians of Christianity no longer read or take seriously Edwin Hatch’s Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages Upon the Christian Church. It was a poorly researched book that reflected the anti-Catholic, revisionist experimental history in Britain that arose in the late 19th century and continued into the 1920s. Its primary error was failing to emphasize that there were dozens of Greek philosophies and that it was Greek language much more than Greek philosophical concepts that were incorporated into Christian theological discussion because Greek was the language of the time. Most contemporary historians who study the development of the Trinitarian doctrine (Edward Siecienski comes to mind) have actually made compelling arguments that it was actually Arianism which sought to Hellenize Christian doctrine and Athanasian (Trinitarian) Christology that was accused of being too “Jewish” and irrational.

The biggest nail in the coffin for the arguments such as Nicene Christianity being corrupted by Greek philosophy or Constantine hijacking the council is that the council went differently than was expected. Arianism (the real Hellenistic position) was enjoying widespread growth and popularity and it was Constantine’s hope that this Christology would be accepted since he saw it as the best way to unite the empire’s Christians. However, against the wishes and expectations of Constantine and many Arian supporters, it was the minority (Trinitarian) position that eventually won out.

Anyways, the accusation that early Christianity was influenced or corrupted by Greek philosophy isn’t helpful unless one identifies what specific Greek school(s) of thought was or were influencing Christianity.

For further reading:

“Holy Disobedience: Resistance to Secular and Ecclesiastical Authority” by Edward Siecienski

incommunion.org/tag/edward-siecienski/

Retrieving Nicaea: The Development and Meaning of Trinitarian Doctrine by Khaled Anatolios

amazon.com/Retrieving-Nicaea-Development-Trinitarian-Doctrine/dp/080103132X

Truthseeker32,
Thanks for your post.
I would agree that the Arians were more in alignment with Greek thought than the Athanasians. I have also already said in this thread that philosophy is not in and of itself a boogieman, at least by my assessment.
I would say that both Athanasius and Arius brought philosophical concepts into Nicea.
A good example of this would be the concept of “divine immutability” largely absent in the Biblical data, but accepted by both Arians and Athanasians (and most ECF).
Do you not believe that this concept and a handful of others have much stronger Greek philosophical roots than Biblical roots?

Also, I fail to see how your incommunion.org article has much to do with this.
Your Retrieving-Nicaea link looks very interesting from the pretty substantial previews that I was able to skim.

I have read the book JimmyDFG recommended. Among other things it makes the case that the Arians were the sophisticated thinkers. It is not the same type of book Retrieving-Nicaea is though.

Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

The belief that God has a divine nature and that nature is unique to God is Christian and always has been. The teachings of Joseph Smith and Lorenzo Snow have never been taught by anybody, anywhere, at any time by Christians, or Judaism from which Christianity came. The believe that God and man have the same nature; that God was once and man, and, like Christ, man can become God is completely foreign to Christianity and always has been.

It is this Mormon invention about the nature of God which allows them to agree with most of the quotes of the early church fathers, but be completely out of step with what the early Church believed. But there are biblical and other writings of the early church which clearly confirm the doctrine of the trinity.

, but I would rather not distract from my above questions. If you like you can start another thread. From the OP, this thread is about the LDS claim that there was a change in the doctrine of the Trinity. Alternatively you can believe that this is the death knell for all LDS truth claims and I am afraid to respond.

The Mormon Church first declared the apostasy to have occurred in 570AD, because Revelation 12 said, “And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she had a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.” Mormons said the ‘woman’ was the ‘true’ church and ‘days’ meant ‘years.’ (570+1260=1830!!!) The Mormon Church was also Trinitarian until about 1835 as proven by the 1830 Book of Mormon and the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants. With Joseph Smith’s new invention on the nature of God and eternal progression, the date of the apostasy, the doctrine of the trinity, creation from nothing, and monotheism all had to go. The reason the date of the apostasy had to go was the teachings of 570AD Christianity were clearly Catholic and not Mormon. While 100AD makes Christian claims more difficult, it still makes Mormon claims impossible.

Same as above!

I already answered your questions and explained it in this. The ECF agree with the doctrine of the trinity in spite of your cut and paste quotes and ignoring post #44. The reason you don’t see it is because of the Mormon understanding of the nature of God. It is clear that Christianity has always believed in the doctrine of the trinity and the reason the Mormon Church disagrees is because it was the Mormon Church that walked away from it. I do understand why you might want to avoid defending the Mormon Church.

I believe reason requires the rejection of Joseph Smith’s innovations and it seems that it is slowly happening with the advent of the “social” trinity. Even you seem to be claiming that Mormons are relational subordinationists.

 

[TOmNossor]

Steven,
In your response to my last post, you quoted only the two sections were I said your comments were not about early views of the Trinity and I would respond if you started another thread. You then said the following which did not respond to my questions in post #108.

I already answered your questions and explained it in this.

I was thinking that this would be a link, but it was not. I am not sure what you mean.

The ECF agree with the doctrine of the trinity in spite of your cut and paste quotes and ignoring post #44.

Post #44 includes two quotes from Tertullian. One offered by me and one by you. And this little bit of text from you:

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.

In post #100 I commented on isolated quotes from ECF and suggested that overarching sweeps of the ECFs by numerous non-LDS pro-Trinity scholars supports my thesis. This means your pointing to post #44 addressing isolated quotes does not address the post you were responding to #108 and seems to ignore my post #100. In post #100 I asked you two to three direct questions. Your response #104 didn’t respond to the direct questions, but offer thoughts on DEVELOPMENT and Mormon belief. I responded in #108 concerning your DEVELOPMENT comments, asked direct questions, and you have gone back to criticizing isolated quotes. I do not see how these connect and do not see you answering the direct questions.

The reason you don’t see it is because of the Mormon understanding of the nature of God. It is clear that Christianity has always believed in the doctrine of the trinity and the reason the Mormon Church disagrees is because it was the Mormon Church that walked away from it. I do understand why you might want to avoid defending the Mormon Church.

I am not sure what the reason is I don’t see it, you will need to simply this for me.
I am defending the view that is prevalent within the CoJCoLDS namely, “the metaphysical, co-equal Trinity was not believed by the early church like is believed by Creedal Christianity.”
If I am right, that is a LDS view I have defended. That I think is much of what this thread is about. I do not see you responding to this.

I believe reason requires the rejection of Joseph Smith’s innovations and it seems that it is slowly happening with the advent of the “social” trinity. Even you seem to be claiming that Mormons are relational subordinationists.

This thread is not about whether LDS thought has developed/changed. This thread is about the LDS claim that Catholicism has developed/changed. As I said to you before, you may start new threads, but I hope to not distract from this line of discussion.

This post (the one I have just posted and that has this last section, Post #111 I would guess) has nothing in it other than a request that you clarify what you meant. If what you meant does not respond to the questions I have asked in #100 and #108, I do not need this clarification. I will repeat the questions from #100 and #108 so you can just respond there.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Stephen168,
From post #100, questions bolded:

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 no 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)?

…
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 chosen.

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

I might add that you have tried to embrace the term DEVELOPMENT and explain why it is not in any way CHANGE. In post #108 I address much of your comments that go down this path. But, whatever you call this move from subordination of Christ to the Father and greater distinction between Christ and the Father to “co-equal” and less distinction; I call this alignment with LDS claims.

From post #108, questions bolded:

Stephen168;14020497:

You jump to the assumption that ‘develop’ means ‘change’ which is not what development means to Cardinal Newman. It could mean that 1) a philosophical explanation of an ancient belief developed, 2) the geography of an ancient belief expanded, 3) it started small and expanded in itself, or 4) a combination. I can understand how a person could see #3 as a change, but I would not agree.

Stephen,
I have claimed that “development” is a “soft word” for “change.” I still believe this and so does Father John O’Malley.
That being said, I have attempted to suggest that the subordination of Christ to the Father AND the distinction this subordination evidences is present within the writings of the ECF before the 4th century. That “co-equal” language is absent before the 4th century AND that the only folks to say thing like (and exactly like) that God the Father and God the Son were homoousian were condemned as heritics before the 4th century.
First, if I have proved this, what form of development is it 1, 2, 3, or some combination and why/how?
Second, do you accept that I have shown that most scholars see this and it is the overarching sweep of the ECF data?

I am hoping you can respond to the question. It might help me to understand if you respond rather directly to them as I have so far been unable to link your response to my questions in my muddled Mormon brain.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

I am hoping you can respond to the question. It might help me to understand if you respond rather directly to them as I have so far been unable to link your response to my questions in my muddled Mormon brain.

Yes, your mind might be too muddled by Mormonism.
You can’t comprehend that apostolic succession has nothing to do with the Papacy. You can’t comprehend that ideas can spread without changing or be more precisely explained without changing. You can’t comprehend that giving something a name or referring to it by a name doesn’t tell us much about it.
These are very simple types of reasoning.
Not being able to comprehend what seems to me are simple ideas, gives me no hope for a Mormon to understand that the Mormon understanding about the nature of God is contrary to ancient and current Christianity. And it is this difference in the understanding of the nature of God which causes Mormons to not understand the ancient writings of the Church.
The OP proved the ancient Church is not the Mormon Church as claimed by the author of the provided link. God was never human as Mormons believe.

PS: Actual I think you can comprehend, you just refuse to because as a Mormon you must.

 

[Stephen168]

First, if I have proved this, what form of development is it 1, 2, 3, or some combination and why/how?

First, if I have proved this, what form of development is it 1, 2, 3, or some combination and why/how?

If you realized the Catholic Church is the true Church of Christ, did you do it by testimony or reason?

 

[TOmNossor]

Yes, your mind might be too muddled by Mormonism.

Perhaps, but I think you are not answering my questions.

You can’t comprehend that apostolic succession has nothing to do with the Papacy.

This has very little to do with the topic of this thread. We can talk about it in another thread if you like.

You can’t comprehend that ideas can spread without changing or be more precisely explained without changing.

I can comprehend this just fine, I have merely said I do not think it applies here. I asked you rather directly which of your 1-4 “developments that are not changes” apply, and you have not answered. But, if your 1-4 obviously applies to what I call CHANGE then I do not see it. I could perhaps use a little more fleshing out of what #3 means to you, but as best I can tell it does not apply to what I think I have convincingly demonstrated is CHANGE.

You can’t comprehend that giving something a name or referring to it by a name doesn’t tell us much about it.

Where am I talking about names? What specifically are you talking about?

These are very simple types of reasoning.

Some seems quite simple, but the trouble I have is seeing how it answers the questions I am asking you. I have been working under the assumption that when I ask you questions, you are theoretically responding, but I cannot see it at the moment. Perhaps someone else can help if you are tired.

Not being able to comprehend what seems to me are simple ideas, gives me no hope for a Mormon to understand that the Mormon understanding about the nature of God is contrary to ancient and current Christianity. And it is this difference in the understanding of the nature of God which causes Mormons to not understand the ancient writings of the Church.
The OP proved the ancient Church is not the Mormon Church as claimed by the author of the provided link. God was never human as Mormons believe.

PS: Actual I think you can comprehend, you just refuse to because as a Mormon you must.

Stephen, I am not being intentionally obtuse. I think you are not answering of if you are, I cannot even link your answers to my questions such that I can agree or disagree.
You can try again or whatever.
I will post my questions again for you.
If anyone else would like to explain how Stephen’s answers respond to my questions, that would be great.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

If you realized the Catholic Church is the true Church of Christ, did you do it by testimony or reason?

I do not know what I am to discern from this other than the derision you feel toward me and/or Mormonism.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

Now, it is claimed that by the second century, Christianity lost its apostolic authority and began merging Christianity with Greek philosophy.

The Church has always taught the Trinity. She has never lost apostolic authority. Irenaeus has a lot to say about apostolic tradition.

You can’t comprehend that apostolic succession has nothing to do with the Papacy.

This has very little to do with the topic of this thread. We can talk about it in another thread if you like.

 

[Stephen168]

I do not know what I am to discern from this other than the derision you feel toward me and/or Mormonism.

Just answer my question.
As you ponder for an answer, I hope you realize you are asking me to answer the same kind of question.

 

[Stephen168]

John Henry Newman in An Essay on Development of Christian Doctrine questions the use of the Canon of St. Vincent, and claimed that doctrine developed.

You jump to the assumption that ‘develop’ means ‘change’ which is not what development means to Cardinal Newman. It could mean that 1) a philosophical explanation of an ancient belief developed, 2) the geography of an ancient belief expanded, 3) it started small and expanded in itself, or 4) a combination. I can understand how a person could see #3 as a change, but I would not agree. For example, the New Testament canon developed from including just the Gospel of Luke to its current 27 books. Was this development a change? I don’t think so, but I can see how you might. This also explains why a Catholic when discussing a doctrine that developed by #1, would say it did not develop, because the belief itself did not develop, the explanation did.

I have claimed that “development” is a “soft word” for “change.” I still believe this and so does Father John O’Malley.

This is a blanket ALL development is CHANGE statement plus name dropping, therefore:

You can’t comprehend that ideas can spread without changing or be more precisely explained without changing.

I can comprehend this just fine, I have merely said I do not think it applies here.

No, you said ALL development is CHANGE; plus name dropping.

 

[TOmNossor]

If you realized the Catholic Church is the true Church of Christ, did you do it by testimony or reason?

I will surely try to answer.

If I realized the Catholic Church was the true Church of Christ, I do not know what would come first testimony (Spiritual confirmation) or reason.
The truth is I try to read the BEST books and follow arguments here.
I also once prayed specifically to know if God was calling me back to Catholicism, but I no longer do this. I still generically pray to be shown God’s will and that I might have the courage to follow.

I also hope that I would not be left with conflicting spiritual and intellectual conclusions (that is why I just assumed one might precede I reckon).

…

Now, I can only guess how your question is analogous to my questions to you.

I will try to make my questions more explicit and then you can explain to me.
Charity, TOm