Smithsonian statement on Book of Mormon

[TOmNossor]

Frances:

If you bother to read the real history, you would know that, after the Council of Nicaea, the semi-Arians continued to influence the imperial court. Constantine the Great presumably died an Arian, having been Baptized on his death-bed by Eusebius of Nicomedia, whom, with Arius himself, he recalled from exile. Constantine’s son and Eastern successor, Constantius II, was an Arian and called the councils of Antioch (341) and Sirmium (351) to overturn Nicaea and establish Arianism as the official religion of the Empire. This Arian resurgence (which was political in nature) was not quelled until the Council of Constantinople I in 381-82. But, during this whole movement, Eusebius of Caesarea (whom I presume you’ve been referring to) was the champion of the compromise, semi-Arian formula of “homoiosios” - “of like essence with the Father,” and so clearly did not believe anything close to “homoousios” (“of the same essence” - “One in Being”), as you try to argue above. So, please get your history straight.

TOm:

What makes you believe that I was not aware of much of what you just highlighted? I have read real history. Real Catholic, real Protestant, and real LDS versions. So far it is you who have erred.

I am suggesting that not only was the Trinity not formulated pre-nicea, it was also not fully formulated post Nicea. While it is true that the semi-Arians favored the word homoiousian (these are transliterated words, I prefer this term) and the council of Nicea embraced homoousian. Eusebius of Ceasarea who as you said would have preferred homoiousian was able to write a letter to his church stating that homoousian meant that the Father and the Son were of the same substance just as a man and his son are the same substance. It was many years later that the meaning of homoousian demanded a “same substance-ness” beyond this. Athanasius called such folks as Eusebius of Ceasarea his brother, knowing that Athanasius meant more by homoousian than Eusebius.

If we are to explore this, I would propose that we use some terms I have used in the past. A father and a son are “of one substance” in what I call a me-you-substanceness. As man’s blood stream as it flows through the left and as it flows through the right ventricle are “of one substance” in what I call a me-me-substanceness. If you wish to understand in what ways I embrace one me-you-substancness and in what ways I embrace one me-me-substanceness with respect to God, I hope we can use these terms. I also might learn what you mean as I have spoke with a very articulate and knowledgable former Protestant minister, current Catholic, who embraced one me-you-substanceness with respect to God (but I doubt that is your position).

Frances:

Nor have I. There is no such thing as the “Augustinian Trinity.” St. Augustine and everyone associated with him was a Nicene / Athanasian Christian.

TOm:

Actually the term “Augustinian Trinity” and the term “Athanasian Trinity” are used about the same amount. However, “Augustinian Trinity” denotes the Trinity with the filoque clause added and the “Athanasian Trinity” certainly cannot exclude the non-filoque Trinity. I hope you understand why I use the term “Augustinian Trinity” when I speak to Catholic’s. It of course would not be appropriate were I speaking to the Eastern Orthodox, but Augustine was probably the most powerful defender of the filoque and this controversy was not solved (if one can call the great schism a solution) until long after Athanasius was dead.

cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

Frances:

The Father and the Son (and the Spirit) share the very same Divine nature and essence - all three Persons are One and the SAME God (i.e., “Hear, O Israel, the Lord is GOD, the Lord is ONE.” - this applies to Father, Son, and Spirit co-equally and consubstantially

TOm:

I am very comfortable with the above statement as long as we acknowledge that the Father and the Son and the Spirit are equally divine, but that there is subordination within the Godhead at least to the extent that the Son and the Holy Ghost subordinate their (distinct) wills to the will of the Father.

I have already said that I do not have an objection to the term “Eternally Begotten.”

And as we have noted above the “one being” statement from the Nicene Creed uses the word homoousian so we may discuss that. All LDS embrace one me-you-substanceness, and I personally see many components of one me-me substanceness in LDS thought.

Frances:

This is what all Christians believe. Do you believe it?

TOm:

Yes, yes I do!

Frances:

Au contraire. It is of utmost importance, since it intimately affects the very nature and purpose of the Christian Covenant, and distinguishes between what salvation and deification in Jesus Christ actually is vs. the made-up fantasies of Mormon imagination.

TOm:

“Made-up fantasies of Mormon imagination” is another example of uncharitable interaction. I will try to refrain from such things, but I will point out that this is a technique that adds no merit to your position and in fact is usually employed by those who think they must bolster their position.

cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

Frances:

In Christ, we come to share in the very same Sonship that Christ Himself enjoys UNIQUELY with the Father. If that sonship is what you Mormons present it to be, then it is meaningless and merely a kind of restoration to the status of an unfallen creation - the same kind of relationship that God originally had with Satan and with Adam and Eve. However, if Christ’s Sonship is what we say it is, then mankind is (as Scripture says) elevated above the status of the angels and enters into an intimacy with God that is beyond, and superior to, the state in which we were originally created, thus fulfilling the originally purpose for which we were created.

TOm:

This is a very good statement. I think you drawing an important line between what you believe and what you think I believe. I however do not believe exactly as you claim.

Jesus Christ is UNIQUE in his relation with the Father. He is co-eternal (and I do not strictly have a problem with the term “eternally begotten”). He of Himself is united with God the Father. No mere man has done this nor can we. Jesus Christ was, is, and will always be God (what it meant when the Father withdrew Himself from Christ during the last seconds on the cross, neither I nor any LDS know). Men are not called to be equal to the Father, to be equal to Jesus Christ or to be equal to the Holy Spirit. We are called to unite with God and be fully divine, but eternally subordinate to the Trinity.

In the interest of clarity and being upfront, I will mention the greatest difference we have as I see it and perhaps the only one of consequence. I believe that men are of one me-you-substance with God. Catholics believe in the creator/creature dichotomy. This is a very real difference. I suggest it stems from the second century developments of creation ex nihilo, but I am sure you disagree. Do not misunderstand me, the gulf between God and man is infinite beyond measure. We cannot bridge this gap only God can. But the gap is not as is formulated by the creator/creature dichotomy.

Frances:

What’s more, when it comes to the salvation of Christ Himself, and the offering of Himself to the Father upon the Cross, your system blasphemes the true meaning and significance of this Divine Act, because you make it the act of a “lesser god,” as opposed to a all-loving Sacriifce on the part of God Himself - the ONE Divine nature experiencing a solidarity with sinful man in the Person of Christ and His Passion. Your “God the Father” does not experience or participate in the Sacrifice Himself - this ultimate act of Love (a total submission to His own law of righteousness), since His nature is not one and the same with the Person of the Son, Who literally offers the Sacrifce. Rather, your “God the Father” stands aloof of this act, receiving it, but not participating in it via the solidarity of nature (“One in being-ness”) with the Son. Ergo, you do not understand the Cross or its actual significance. You have no realistic appreciation why Jesus died.

TOm:

I think this is another great statement.

While I would not declarer Mary a coredemptrix, I recognize that she suffered when Christ was crucified. This is not comparable to the suffering of God the Father on the cross. Again, with the exception of the statement that God the Father withdrew from the Son which I do not understand, my beliefs in the unity of God the Father and God the Son go so far as to recognize that the pain of the Son was the pain of the Father. I have expressed in Sunday School that we who think we end at our forehead cannot understand the unity of God the Father and God the Son. Their unity is far more than the unity of purpose enjoyed by the First Presidency. After this statement the Stake Patriarch backed me up and spoke of Christ and God the Father being of one mind. The unity I embrace is greater than the unity embraced by the average LDS in all likelihood, but it is well within what we as LDS look to as orthodoxy.

I will need to wait for a while to respond more. Hopefully latter tonight.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Frances:

We know what God revealed to us about Himself via the Apostolic Deposit; and what He revealed to us is what Catholicism teaches. Further, if it is pointless to a former Catholic turned LDS, then was it only a seeking after “good-fellowship” that attracted one to the LDS rather than a desire to worship in spirit and in truth with all the *hoi-polloi *that surrounds one in Catholicism?

TOm:

The first part of your above statement is a conclusion not an argument. When I say “pointless,” I mean to suggest that the Bible does not solve the question for us. And the pre-Nicene Fathers do not solve the question for us. And that while we have differences they are far beyond the basics. Also, my opinion is that the differences embraced across the spectrum of Christianity (which are greater than our differences) do not result in beliefs that make the grace of Christ inactive in the lives of anyone. You may not agree with this.

I left the Catholic Church for no good reason. I became a LDS for good reasons, but not great reasons perhaps. I later realized this truth and began to try to know where God would have me learn of Him. My intellectual and spiritual conclusion is that the CoJCoLDS is where God has directed me. My intellectual conclusion tells me that the CoJCoLDS properly understood has a better logical claim to be God’s church. “Good Fellowship” of itself has no place in this decision.

BTW, “hoi-polloi” is actually the common people not “the elite.” It is possible that you meant it this way, but I read it as you were trying to contrast the lack of clergy within the CoJCoLDS with the clergy in the Catholic Church.

Frances:

You don’t know because you are cut off from Sacred Apostolic Tradition and from the systematic language developed by the fathers - first to refute Sabellianism (in the 3rd Century), and then to condemn Arianism in the 4th. In Greek usage, the term “person” refers to a “who”. The terms “nature” and/or “essence” refer to a “what.” What we teach and believe (because this is what has been revealed to the Church from the beginning) is that God is One “What” in three distinct but equal “Who’s”.

TOm:

I am comfortable with this. I would be happy to say that God is one “what” in that there is a single divinity. God is three who’s in that there are three divine wills united through the subordination of the will of the Son and the will of the Holy Spirit to the will of the Father. There are other aspects of oneness and other aspects of threeness, but these are among the most important. And there are more aspects of God, that are not directly related to the divinity of the Trinity.

Frances:

What makes it “the truth”? - Especially when these errors (or ones very similar to them, I should say) were soundly condemned before.

TOm:

I find it unlikely that you have studied LDS concepts of deification enough to point to places where they have been condemned. In 2002 there existed two Catholics (that I am aware of) who I believe very effectively interacted with the LDS and ECF position. Both of those Catholics concluded that the CoJCoLDS position was not identical to that of the ECF, but was close. One became a LDS 5 years after writing his master’s thesis on this subject. The other has demonstrated to me in a way that no other non-LDS has that he understands what I believe and the strengths/weakness for the CoJCoLDS position. He is solidly Catholic and as a result I recognize that despite the clarity that I think I see in this debate, there can be different positions. So far you have not tried to look at my religion as I see it and are just one of the folks who doesn’t get it.

cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

Frances:

A great pity. However, one dissindent heretical priest does not amount to sound doctrine.

TOm:

It took 5 years for Father Vajda to become a LDS. I suggest that to only look at what you say I believe, and to only compare the best of the Catholic Church to the worst of the CoJCoLDS is to keep yourself safely away from following Vajda’s path.

Frances:

Not for us it’s not. We understand this as partaking of the Divine nature by association with Christ - of coming, by adoption into Him, to share in the very same Sonship which Christ Himself enjoys with the Father (e.g. Romans 8:15-17).

TOm:

Same as for the CoJCoLDS!

Frances:

Ummmm. But, what you’re overlooking here is that we have been aided by the Divine mind insofar that God revealed certain truths about Himself to the Apostles, and this Apostolic Tradition (via the promised stewardship of the Holy Spirit) has been maintained within the Catholic Church. We do not claim to know everything about God. That would be impious and foolish. However, we do know what has been revevealed to us, and we are obliged to defend that against Johnny-come-latelies who are contradicting the Apostolic Deposit and making up their own doctrines to replace them.

TOm:

Aided by the Divine mind, yes. Able to comprehend the completeness of truth, no.

And when I referred to “the incomplete set I embrace,” you replied as if you were surprised (you can see this in post #438). Now you claim you “don’t know everything about God.” This is an answer to a question I specifically asked you but you had seemed to not answer. Is this in fact your answer?

Frances:

The text demands that the power of hell cannot prevail against the Church Christ founded. You say that it can, and has. We deny that it can. We hold fast to the Word of Scripture, and you distort it.

TOm:

To prevail and to triumph are not to never suffer a set-back they are to win in the end. Catholic scholar Michael M. Winter tells you that this does not mean that the church would be “immortal” (incapable of some form of death), but instead it means a triumph over evil. The church did triumph over evil. One of the components of the triumph is the restoration.

It is you who distort scripture so that you can hold tight to your preconceived notions. Matthew 16:18 does not tell you that the Catholic Church will never fall away, if it did then this discussion would be over, but that is not what is says.

cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

Frances:

First of all, you presume that the “Shepherd of Hermas” represents a true and binding revelation. That’s a big presumption. Needless to say, neither Catholics nor Protestants are bound by the content of Hermas, and so whether or not it is a true revelation from God is very much up for grabs. Yet, even assuming its validity, the passage you refer to has to do with the consummation of the Church in glory, per the return of Christ …something which the author of the Shepherd (like the Gospels) presents as imminent. In this, Hermas is a work of apocalyptic literature; and so, like the Revelation of John, speaks in stylistic imagery, not in literal terms.

TOm:

We will talk a little more about the importance of Hermas in a minute, but Hermas does not speak of the end of the world. It speaks of a lesser organization that would be built up AFTER the completion of the church. Hermas is claiming that God revealed that Christians must become right with the church because shortly there would be no more members of the church. Instead those who repented would become part of the lesser organization. This could not be the end of the world unless you the Gnostic church or something will continue beyond the second coming of Christ.

Frances:

A reference to the Gnostics and other dissident heretics - not a big deal.

TOm:

Yes, it is a reference to a group whose doctrines become heretical due to lack of apostolic authority to prevent this. However, the Gnostics existed side by side with the Early Church. The Pastor speaks of an organization that those who repent late will be part of AFTER the ending of the church built upon the Apostles. Your exegesis does not fit the text (and neither does the idea that it is strictly apocalyptic concerning the end of the world).

Frances:

Apocalyptic literature. According to John’s Revelation, Christ Second Coming was immediately at hand too. So, did we fail to notice it??

TOm:

I am aware that scarcely a generation has past since Christ walked the Earth that some fairly influential group or subgroup has not proclaimed the second coming was at hand, but Hermas is not speaking of this in Vision 3.

Frances:

It was never canonical, never read at the Liturgy, and so never seen as binding among the city-churches. Both Eusebius and the 2nd Century Muratorian fragment go to great lengths to distinguish it from Scripture.

TOm:

Unless I misunderstand what you are saying you are in fact mistaken. Eusebius say that the Shepard was in fact read in church (your mistake). He also does not to my knowledge go to “great lengths,” but merely mention that some challenge its authenticity (your exaggeration). Eusebius however suggests that Hermas is the same person mentioned in Romans which is the earliest of all datings for this writing. Here is what Eusebius says

Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History - Chapter 3 The Epistles of the Apostles:

“But as the same apostle, in the salutations at the end of the Epistle to the Romans, has made mention among others of Hermas, to whom the book called The Shepherd is ascribed, it should be observed that this too has been disputed by some, and on their account cannot be placed among the acknowledged books; while by others it is considered quite indispensable, especially to those who need instruction in the elements of the faith. Hence, as we know, it has been publicly read in churches, and I have found that some of the most ancient writers used it.”

TOm:

So perhaps you can explain were Eusebius goes to “great lengths.” I acknowledge it is possible he does so in another place, but I do not know were it is. However, Hermas was publically read during church and thus at one point in time at many Roman churches did have a place in the liturgy.

cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

Concerning the Muratorian fragment you are correct it says that Hermas is not to be read anywhere but not in the divine service. The construction of the Latin at this point (and throughout the entire fragment) is confusing. But I suspect that while I think it is an exaggeration to say that it goes to great lengths, I do agree it excludes Hermas from the liturgy. That being said, the Muratorian fragment is contemporary (180-200AD) with St. Irenaeus who calls Hermas scripture.

Frances:

“Lesser organization” remains to be shown …especially when that “lesser organization” is CATHOLIC (universal) in nature. What’s more, Hermas never says that the Church of Christ will be “taken from the earth” and need to be "restored

TOm:

He says the Church of Christ will soon be complete and that those who repent too late will become part of the lesser organization.

Frances:

You are “borrowing” Catholic terminology there. You do not believe that you are merely the “fullness” of the Church. Rather, you believe that you ARE the Church, and we are not. In fact, if we are the Church in even the remotest sense, then there would be no need for the “CoJCoLDS.” There would be no need for a “restoration,” but merely a “reFORMAtion.” So, let’s be brutally honest: The two of us believe in different Christs. Either the Christ Who we believe in is false and unable to save a person, or the Christ who you believe in is false and unable to save a person. We Catholics totally reject your “Christ.” Ergo, we cannot be saved, let alone be any “part” of the “Church” as you see it - or do we get a second chance in the next life to reach a lower realm of Heaven?

TOm:

I borrow Catholic terminology frequently. With 2000 years to understand what God and the Bible has communicated, the Catholic Church often has improved ideas and terminology. This is one of the reasons I still study the Catholic Church. That being said, I still consider the CoJCoLDS to be the church with valid apostolic authority.

The Catholic Church was devoid of valid Priesthood when God restored the Priesthood to the earth. No REFORMATION could correct this total absence. No new concept of “priesthood of all believers,” could rectify this deficiency. I do not suggest there is not great truths within the Catholic Church. I just recognize the authority is present in the CoJCoLDS. Your conclusion is flawed.

Also there is no such thing as a post second estate “second chance.” We will become what we will become based upon our second estate. At the completion of this process our eternal destiny will be fixed. After death we may learn things such as a more correct understanding of the nature of God, but what we have become determines the eternal destinies we accept.

Frances:

I do stand corrected; I checked further after my initial posting. But I’m wondering about your “almost universally”.

TOm:

I said “or almost universally” to hedge my bets. Over the last couple of years I have read a pre-published manuscript for an anti-Mormon book. In the first version it did not say what you said, but it made a big production about how important Satan was to us evil LDS. I thought that was a ridiculous component of the book and am glad it is gone, but so many former LDS seem to have left a church to which I have never belonged, I never know what sort of crazy things they may say.

cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

Frances:

Yet, your earlier assertion that Lactantius was a “CATHOLIC” is simply wrong and indefensible.

TOm:

I looked back at what I said. I told Catholic-RCIA that he would call Lactantius a Catholic. I seem to be incorrect, probably with respect to Catholic-RCIA and certainly with respect to you. Sorry. Of course you do not now say he is “Outside the Catholic Church,” do you?

Frances:

In all this, it is plain to see that, like Monophysism against Nestorianism, Arianism developed as an over-reaction against Sabellianism, and was not the pre-existing or ancient Christian Faith.

TOm:

Now here we have something to agree upon. Arianism was in fact a response (an overreaction in some ways) against Sabellianism. It is interesting that the word used to condemn Arius was the word condemned when the modalist were condemned.

What I consider to be the source of Sabellianism and Arianism and ultimately the confusing doctrine of the Trinity was the acceptance of Creation ex Nihilo and the radical otherness, creator/creature dichotomy that came with this. Suddenly Jesus Christ was either God or not God. The modalist said there was one God and 3 modes. This was not acceptable. Arius seems to have said that Jesus was not eternal and thus not God. This was not acceptable. The Semi-Arians tried to preserve Jesus Christ divinity, but eventually it was decided that this too compromised God too much. Thus was ultimately born the mystery of the Trinity. To me this is all quite clear. It is how I think men would solve this question not aided by the divine mind once Creation ex Nihilo was embraced.

Frances:

Hate to break it to you, Tom, but Pope Liberius never signed the document. The belief that he did so was a 16th Century invention (in France …fueled by the Gallican movement), and has been since totally disproven. St. Jerome believed that Liberius caved, but his belief was based on one document (ascribed to Hilary of Poitiers), which turns out to be an Arian forgery. The entire Eastern church remembers Liberius as a saint and a hero against Arianism. It was only because of the statement of Jerome that the Libelus Pontificalis, in the Roman / Western tradition, denies the status of sainthood to Pope Liberius. In other words, it was a medieval mistake, later exploited by the French Gallicans.

TOm:

In truth, I am open to considering this. To my knowledge this has not been decided. Tillemont defended the authenticity of this, and Schiktanz and Duchesne in the early 20th century also suggested that Liberius did in fact embrace an Arian creed and your forgeries were not forgeries. All three of those are Catholic writers (who speak against their bias when they claim this is true). My NON-FIRM conclusion on this matter is a product of the fact that most of Liberius’ defenders are Catholics who have a reason to defend this Pope, but the truth is there is some validity to the position that it is curious that Liberius would suffer exile for a while and then recant.

I really do not want to debate this, but if you think it important I will consider what you say towards changing my mind. This is one of the very interesting historical questions in Catholicism, but I do not think either solution demands only one conclusion on the validity of the Catholic Church.

More later hopefully.

Charity, TOm

 

[catholic-rcia]

From: The Handbook for Today’s Catholic

Copyright 1994 Liguori Publications. Used with permission.

**27 **The desire for God is written in the human heart, because man is created by God and for God; and God never ceases to draw man to himself. Only in God will he find the truth and happiness he never stops searching for.

The dignity of man rests above all on the fact that he is called to communion with God. This invitation to converse with God is addressed to man as soon as he comes into being. For if man exists it is because God has created him through love, and through love continues to hold him in existence. He cannot live fully according to truth unless he freely acknowledges that love and entrusts himself to his creator.

28 In many ways, throughout history down to the present day, men have given expression to their quest for God in their religious beliefs and behavior: in their prayers, sacrifices, rituals, meditations, and so forth. These forms of religious expression, despite the ambiguities they often bring with them, are so universal that one may well call man a religious being:

From one ancestor [God] made all nations to inhabit the whole earth, and he allotted the times of their existence and the boundaries of the places where they would live, so that they would search for God and perhaps grope for him and find him - though indeed he is not far from each one of us. For "in him we live and move and have our being.

By calling God “Father”, the language of faith indicates two main things: that God is the first origin of everything and transcendent authority; and that he is at the same time goodness and loving care for all his children. God’s parental tenderness can also be expressed by the image of motherhood, which emphasizes God’s immanence, the intimacy between Creator and creature. The language of faith thus draws on the human experience of parents, who are in a way the first representatives of God for man. But this experience also tells us that human parents are fallible and can disfigure the face of fatherhood and motherhood. We ought therefore to recall that God transcends the human distinction between the sexes. He is neither man nor woman: he is God. He also transcends human fatherhood and motherhood, although he is their origin and standard:

…no one is father as God is Father of our being.

 

[TOmNossor]

Frances:

As for most bishops being Arian after Nicaea: this only happened in the East, where Constantine’s son and Eastern successor, Constantius II, was an Arian. The West, and St. Athanasius, remained faithful to Nicaea, as did all of the Eastern monastic communities and the vast majority of the laity. Rather, the one and ONLY reason why the bishops turned Arian was because their Eastern Emperor and his entire court was Arian, and so they either kissed up to him to retain their positions; or if they disputed Arianism, they were immediately removed from their episcopal sees and replaced with an Arian anti-bishop (per Athanasius). So, as I said, the resurgence of Arianism after Nicaea was POLITICAL in nature - something forced upon the Eastern Church, and not an organic aspect of it.

TOm:

First, there is ample data to suggest it was almost all political. Constantine convoked the council of Nicea. The Bishop of Rome did not attend and data suggests his representative was not in charge of the council. The expulsion of Bishops was the prerogative of Emperors. The shifts back and forth between Arians, Semi-Arians, and Athanasians seem to also follow the position of the Emperors. While I will grant you that the Emperors may not have really contemplated the various ideas as much as certain Bishops did, they certainly enforced various positions that were in accord with what they personally choose to embrace.

Now, during the latter part of the 350’s it seems that the battle East and WEST had shifted to Arians vs. Semi-Arians. When you say that the Western Bishops somehow held the orthodox fort, you are very mistaken. This is not historically supported by ANYTHING I have read. PLEASE ENLIGHTEN ME.

Athanasius was no longer a Bishop. Hosius, bishop of Cordova subscribed to (was induced to subscribe to) the Arian formula of the second council of Sirmium (357) a council that consisted almost exclusively of WESTERN Bishops. Later, according to Mourret who is relaying information from the historian Sozomen, Pope Liberius showed up at the third council of Sirmium (about 358) and was convinced that the word homoousian was dangerous (because it was associated with Paul of Somosata and had been rejected by two councils, I think anti-modalist councils). The Pope yielded to these reasons and signed the formula (we also know that Liberius was returned by the Arian emperor to his position as Bishop, lending some support to this idea). In fairness thought the formula excluded the term homoousian for the before mentioned reason, it may have been embraceable with an orthodox understanding, but it was clearly designed as a semi-Arian response to the Arian 2nd council of Sirmium. Before the yielding of Bishop Hosius and debatably Bishop Liberius, the WESTERN support of an Arian or a Semi-Arian confession was virtually total. Three western Bishops refused assent to the measures against Athanasius at Milan (355) of the 300 present.

So, yes I grant you that the East turned Arian with political pressure, but so did the WEST with political pressure. There is plenty of examples of Athanasian political conversions too, and that is derived from the records written and preserved by the emerged orthodoxy.

cont …

 

[TOmNossor]

Frances:

Not by the Catholic Church. Tertullian and Origen are called “fathers” by some people too, but both of them were also condemned heretics. Notice how it is not “Saint Lactantius.” Again, you tried to argue that he was a CATHOLIC.

TOm:

I am well aware that Lactantius is not a Saint. Neither is Liberius. But, it is not uncommon for Catholics to call Lactantius, Tertuallian, and Origen “Church Fathers.” The 1918 Catholic encyclopedia was well aware of the errors taught by the latter two, but lists all three as Church Fathers.

And I am sorry that I suggested that Catholic-RCIA would embrace Lactantius as a Catholic. I may very well have been wrong with him, and certainly am wrong with you. I recant my statement.

Father, yes. Christian, yes. Catholic, that is your prerogative and I grant it to you.

Frances:

As for St. Justin Martyr, he does not teach what you think he taught (since you misapply the sense in which *ex nihilo *and *ex materia *relate to each other in the traditional Jewish / Catholic understanding). What’s more, St. Justin was obedient to Church authority and would have, if condemned for a view, submitted to his bishop.

TOm:

I will get to St. Justin Martyr shortly. I would however suggest to you that St. Justin Martyr was in communion with his Bishop. His words were orthodox words pre-ex nihilo. His subordination words were pre-Nicene orthodox as well.

Frances:

Then why quote him? You inferred that he was recounting “the truth.” Yet, how would he have access to this “truth” if he was “solidly indoctrinated in this erroneous development.” You can’t have it both ways.

TOm:

If you follow the thread you will see that I quoted him because I was told that no Christian would ever call Satan Jesus’s brother. This I demonstrated was false. That is what I did. You can see for yourself.

If the apostasy occurred due to lack of authority to decide doctrinal issues, then errors will creep in slowly. LDS expect to see fewer and fewer errors as we approach the Apostles in time. We expect to see more and more errors as we move away from those with authority in time. This is what I observe. This is what Barry Bickmore observed. But of course we are both BIASED (as are you).

cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

Frances:

It does in the sense that God creates the world *ex nihilo *in its “formless and void” state (Genesis 1:1-2), and then produces the rest of Creation from this “matter.” That is all that Fr. Jaki is referring to - the fact that the Six Days of Creation do not describe individual ex nihilo generations, but God merely draws things out of that which existed before (e.g., “Let THE EARTH bring forth vegetation, etc. …”) However, this same “EARTH” is created ex nihilo, along with the heavens (the realm of angels, etc.), in Genesis 1:1-2: “In the Beginning, God CREATED (i.e., ex nihilo) the heavens AND THE EARTH, and THE EARTH was formless and void …” So, your Mormon belief about “eternal matter” is simply wrong. “Matter” comes into being in Genesis 1:1-2, and it comes into being from nothingness.

TOm:

That the Bible does not demand ETERNAL matter I will concede. I am sorry I implied this. That the Bible strongly implies creation from matter that existed before and says NOTHING about how this matter came into being I do strongly maintain. Many if not most Biblical Scholars do not see Creation ex Nihilo in the words of Genesis. You seem to have invented an idea that despite the fact that “bara” does not mean creation from nothing, that whatever was formed must have been created before. This is neither textually appropriate from Genesis nor philosophically necessary.

Your suggestion that one cannot “form” something that is “formless” is interesting. The problem is that it is not so much “In the Beginning God … formed” as it is “When God set about to form the Earth it was formless and void.” Since you are unlikely to accept my exegeses of this (and I can’t blame you because I am pretty clueless) let me quote you from Young’s Literal Translation. I can also provide you with a number of respected scholars who acknowledge that the Bible does not preclude some ex nihilo creation, but it does not demand it either.

Genesis 1:1-3 YLT:

1 In the beginning of God’s preparing the heavens and the earth.

2 The earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness [is] on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters,

3 and God saith, `Let light be;’ and light is.

Frances:

Like a typical Protestant with a Western / Germanic literalist mindset

TOm:

I have perceived that you are demanding the scripture LITERALLY taken demands ex nihilo creation. I have been deconstructing this by appealing to the original Hebrew. Are you now suggesting that you realize that a LITERALIST will recognize that ex nihilo creation is not demanded by scripture. And in the case a LITERALIST will suggest that the Genesis account refers to pre-exiting matter from which creating (forming) occurred. Pre-existing matter that Genesis tells us nothing about its source?

I am very comfortable with the idea that it is the authority of the Catholic Church that demands ex nihilo creation. I already said that despite the fact that I think ex nihilo creation produces significant theodicy problems I would be able to accept it if I became convince that the Catholic Church was guided by God and had valid authority.

As a LDS, I see Biblical and extra biblical reasons to embrace eternal matter.

Also, you have seemed to me to be remarkably dismissive of Protestant scholars (and probably LDS scholars too I presume). I have tried to quote Catholic scholars to you. But when you told me I should read real history, I assumed you were advocating getting perspectives that are not necessarily in line with my preconceived ideas. Your dismissive attitude with respect to Protestant scholars seems to suggest to me that you meant I can only get truth from Catholic scholars. I suggest that this is a pretty silly way to seek the truth.

cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

Frances:

Only after Genesis 1:1-2. Ex materia depends on an initial ex nihilo. That is what the Scripture presents to us; and any other approach is tampering with the Sacred Text.

TOm:

Most scholars disagree with you.

Frances:

Only one problem with this: LDS are not Trinitarians in any realistic sense of the term.

TOm:

Hopefully I have given you enough to reconsider this. Protestant scholar Plantinga introduced what he calls the Social Trinity. I think this is the best read of LDS scriptures.

Here is an excellent essay about LDS ideas on divinity as such. http://www.nd.edu/~rpotter/ostler_element1-1.html

Frances:

Then how did he live “as a man” on it?

TOm:

If you have followed this thread, you would recognize that what you speak of is not binding doctrinally, and whatever truth MAY be represented by this we “do not know much about.” I generally just reject it as an incorrect understanding of LDS beliefs.

Frances:

So, where did the “eternal matter” come from, then?? (Seemingly, then, in LDS theology God and matter are co-equally eternal, whereas the Son (and the Holy Spirit) isn’t.) Clearly, it came from somewhere. So, are you saying that God CREATED it??? If so, then you cannot deny an *ex nihilo *aspect to creation.

TOm:

If God created it in time it would not be eternal. I do not believe God created ex nihilo.

I will be happy to answer your question as soon as you answer this question.

Where did God come from?

Frances:

Tom?I hate to break this to you, but St. Justin Martyr is merely addressing the very thing that I, and Fr. Jaki, have been addressing —namely, that, over the six Biblical days, God formed creation out of an initial, existing matter which He created in Genesis 1-2. But, what you are not addressing is: Where does this “formless and void” (“invisible and unfurnished”) earth (i.e., physical universe), described in Genesis 1:1-2, come from?? Clearly, God made it. The text tells you so. And, since, as with the heavens, there was nothing out of which to MAKE it, He had to create it ex nihilo!

TOm:

You are very far off on this IMO. St. Justin Martyr specifically says that Plato, Moses and he agree. Plato is incredibly clear that he beleives in Eternal matter. Justin Martyr says nothing, not one thing, to indicate he embraces your ideas. I would be interested if you could find any published scholar who has asserted that Justin Martyr embraces ex nihilo creation. I am shocked that you are saying this.

There are debates about Tatian and Theophilus, but Justin Martyr is quite clear.

cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

Frances:

That doesn’t make Satan God’s “son” …and certainly not in the same sense as Jesus. Who knows, maybe Lactantius believed that Satan was just the son of a “Heavenly Mother,” so Jesus’ “half-brother.” The truth, however, is that even the Arians did not believe that the angels were “sons of God” (per Job 1) in the same sense that Jesus was God’s Son.

You said before, Frances:

And this too is all fine and well, but Lactantius himself never says that Satan is Christ’s literal “brother.”

TOm:

I was just saying that Lactantius did say “brother.” Perhaps he meant cousin like the scriptures do according to Jerome. Perhaps he meant half brother as was believed the scriptures said before Jerome.

Surely you do not believe in a “Heavenly Mother.” That is not even binding doctrinal for LDS, but it is heretical for Catholics.

And as I said before Jesus is/was UNIQUE.

Frances:

Taken out of context. Clement is not even addressing theological cosmology here, but is speaking poetically. Elsewhere in the same epistle, Clement speaks about the ultimate destruction of the created elements. Therefore, for Clement, the “fabric of the world” was not “eternal” in the sense that you Mormons wish to use it. What’s more, the Greek does not employ the specific word “eternal.”

TOm:

Clement is conveying truth as he knows it. While you are correct he is not trying to resolve a theological controversy, this is only the case because there is no theological controversy. Everyone accepted Creation ex Materia. It was the 2nd century that saw the controversy. Your position is that it was just lofty language?

All that we experience, in a sense everything that is was created by God. It was just created from eternal matter. To suggest the destruction of the created elements is possible is not a problem for LDS theology.

I do not understand how you can be suggesting that “eternal” is not actually mentioned. I am not a Greek scholar, but “aennaon” is “eternal.” You are mistaken. Why do you disagree with this?

Frances:

Genesis 1:1-2 is not “complex philosophical maneuvering.”

TOm:

I was not saying that. I do not wish to repeat what I have said about Genesis and Justin. I know of no scholars who would back you up on Justin, and my read of Genesis is embraced by many if not most scholars (and it seems the numbers are increasing).

The “complex philosophical maneuvering” I was referring to was the definition of the Trinity. I am sorry I was not more clear. In light of the acceptance of Creation ex Nihilo and the radical otherness, creator/creature dichotomy, the nature of Jesus became an issue. The first proposed solution was modalism, then Arianism, ultimately the Trinity. Without the error of creation ex nihilo this would have been much simpler.

cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

Frances:

So what? Protestants are heretics, and just as divorced from sound Apostolic Tradition (though in less dangerous ways) than you Mormons are. So, it’s no wonder that a Protestant would arrive at some “shaky” views.

TOm:

If you dismiss everyone who makes strong and reasonable arguments because they do not agree with you, you will guarantee that you are in possession of an unexamined faith.

Frances:

Well, those Catholics happen to be correct about that. We can clearly show an unbroken succession of orthodoxy from Apostolic times until today. The reason you and other dissidents do not see this is because you confuse organic orthodoxy with formal academia and dogmatic terminology. The “wording” may not always be consistent, but the meaning behind the words very much is. Yet, to see this, one has to approach the historical record in context and without a pre-existing agenda …something that few persons like yourself do, needless to say. I refer to the need to validate your apostacy.

TOm:

You are here saying that Orthodoxy walked a clear unmolested path. This is not very historical.

Your ideas behind the “wording” suggest to me that you see orthodoxy in the words of everyone you wish to embrace as a Catholic, regardless of what their words say. This is another form of the unexamined faith.

Frances:

I’m sorry, but the maxim of St. Vincent, taken correctly, very much does produce (that is, identify) orthodoxy. Only a cynic or a fool thinks otherwise.

TOm:

You have just called Cardinal John Henry Newman a “CYNIC or a FOOL.” Perhaps you are suggesting he does not know how to take it correctly, which I suppose is slightly better, but who would have taught him, you? Cardinal Newman surely suggests it is not sufficient.

Frances:

Right. Because we can.

TOm:

To note this error you could read Newman, or you could recognize what I said above is true. “Subordinationism was pre-Nicene orthodoxy.” This is the witness of our historical documents.

Frances:

Says who??? This coming from someone who believes in disappearing gold tablets?!

TOm:

Perhaps it would be better if you spent more time looking into your positions and presenting them rather than uncharitably referring to my beliefs like this. In truth, I am not convinced it would make your arguments better, but it would be nicer and more directly related to the issues at hand.

Frances:

Well, there are many things that LDS are mistaken about. If you seek the truth honestly you will see that.

TOm:

So you are suggesting I have not honestly sought the truth?

I will continue tomorrow.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Frances:

I see. But, that being the case, you STILL make Jesus into a liar in John 14:16-17 & 16:13. There He promises that the remaining and always-present Spirit would continue to lead the Church to “ALL truth” - not merely “lesser” or “incomplete” truth. Either 1 Tim. 3:15 is true or it’s not. Either the Church is the “pillar and foundation of truth” - a foundation which the gates of hell cannot prevail against - or it is not. If you say that Christ’s Church was diminished IN ANY WAY after Apostolic times, then you are saying that the gates of hell HAVE prevailed against the Church to some degree …again, making Jesus a liar.

TOm:

Let me go through your list of scriptures. I have typically felt that when speaking with Catholics we can agree that the majority of folks who think they glean their doctrine from the Bible do not find Catholic concepts in the Bible. As a result of this, I usually think the ECF interpretation of the Bible is a more profitable place to concern ourselves. But I certainly do not see any major problems with what I consider to be the Apostasy associated with these scriptures.

John 14:16-17 – NAB:

16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you always,

17 the Spirit of truth, which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you.

TOm:

It is not my position and do I believe the Bible suggests that the Holy Spirit is only available through the valid Priesthood. The Gift of the Holy Ghost (LDS term) which aligns quite well with the sacrament of Confirmation, is only available through valid authority. But, the Holy Spirit is available to all even those who have not received the Gift of the Holy Ghost. I do not think it is the Catholic position that this is not true. And while it may be true that the Catholic Church believes that because it exists the Holy Spirit is available for the guidance of those who are not in visible communion with the church, but I doubt that you can show that from the Bible.

John 16:13 – NAB:

But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming.

TOm:

“All truth” is of interest here. It is my position and your position that the corporate body of the church does not lead its members to all truth. We each claimed that we did not know all truth. It is my position as I have stated earlier in the thread, that extraordinary grace is available even to those without contact with valid authority. As an example of “all truth,” I point to St. Thomas Aquinas. He walked with God. Toward the end of his life, he became aware of truths so profound he said that all he had written was as “straw.” These truths are available through the Holy Spirit and as I said before the Catholic Church can aid in the journey to communion with the Holy Spirit. This does not mean that the corporate church has valid authority. I had hoped that my initial statements where I expressly said that is necessary for the ultimate salvation of individuals was present during the apostasy. LDS (like Catholics) who place importance upon ordinances such as Baptism, know that the ordinances will be preformed for all and the apostasy can only delay (a temporal word that may not apply) the salvation of those who did not receive valid ordinances while living, but did become one who would embrace such ordinances if giving a “fair and just opportunity.”

cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

1 Tim 3:15 – NAB:

But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.

TOm:

Timothy was likely ultimately the Bishop of Ephesus (I cannot say for sure what he was doing at the time of this epistle, but it seem likely that he was an authority over a congregation).

Nothing in 1 Tim 3:15 suggest that there would not be an apostasy. I am not saying that there is no sense in which Timothy’s local church, or even the Catholic Church, remained as “pillar and foundation of truth,” but the verse certainly does not demand that there will be no apostasy. That there will be no errors in doctrine.

It speaks more directly to how one should behave. I do not think these lessons on how to behave from Christ were ever lost from the Catholic Church. Ignored at times as they have been ignored by every church I have ever looked, but not lost.

Anyway, YOUR TEST INVALIDATES CATHOLICISM. Catholics say that the Church has “diminished … after Apostolic times.” So your statement that if the church has “diminished IN ANY WAY after Apostolic times, then you are saying that the gates of hell HAVE prevailed against it.” The authority claimed (regardless of if it is a real claim) by the Pope is a lesser authority than the authority possessed by Peter the chief Apostle. The authority claimed by the LDS Prophet is identical to the authority possessed by Peter. You embrace a structure that falls when your Biblical exegeses is applied to it. The Pope cannot receive new, supernatural, public revelation. This is outside the scope of his authority per the Catholic Church. Peter could and so can the LDS Prophet according to LDS beliefs. According to Catholic beliefs, God no longer interacts with His church the same way He did during the Old and New Testament. And this according to your Biblical exegeses is indicative of not being God’s church.

cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

Frances:

This is a very Protestant perspective (LDS heresy stemming from the Protestant tradition). What you’re saying is that the Bible remained intact, but the Church itself did not - the Bible, therefore, being the actual and ultimate custodian of the Gospel, and not the Church itself. Sorry, but that is a totally unScriptural and unTraditional perspective. The Bible describes the Spirit-guided Church itself as the Christ-established custodian of the Gospel. You cannot have the Gospel without the true Church. Not possible. If the Church was diminished or “removed from the earth,” then so was the Gospel of Christ, along with its saving power. The “truth contained in the Bible” has no power to save anyone apart from the Body of Christ, the Church, the embodiment of the Covenant which Christ established with mankind, and the very thing a believer must join Himself to in order to be saved.

TOm:

I am sorry I gave you the above impression. I do not embrace an inerrant Bible. The Bible is sufficient to lead one to a salvic understanding of God. The Church of Jesus Christ is more effective at doing this utilizing the Bible as one of its tools.

I recognize the Bible as sufficient due to my best understanding of what is necessary for one to BECOME one who embraces the fullness of God’s truth. The ordinances are somehow linked through their COVENANTIAL nature to ultimate salvation, and when available to the process of BECOMING.

One of the reasons that I believe the gifts of the spirit became less prevalent in the Catholic Church (and this is possibly associated with the reason for the Apostasy) is that the COVENANTIAL nature of ordinances gave way to a SACRAMENTAL nature. The two way agreements between God and man were replaced with one-way impositions of Grace through partaking of sacraments.

The salvic aspect of aligning ones will with the will of God was the ultimate basis for the COVENANTIAL nature of ordinances. In the absence of valid ordinances this covenantial agreement could still be had through the witness available in the Catholic Church and in the Bible, and the desire of the penitent to align with God’s will. Without valid ordinances and authority, it is more difficult to know the salvic path, but since the work is God’s and we merely CHOOSE Him, it is not impossible.

Frances:

But, what you’re suggesting (which is VERY Protestant) is that the Covenant people (and thus the Covenant itself) of Christ has been ‘taken from the earth,’ thereby representing a “break” in the continuity of the Covenant of Christ on earth. Rather, men are merely saved, not by the Incarnational Covenant itself (membership in the one Body of Christ), but by “information” recorded in the Bible which can be used, not as a means for entering into an established Covenant people (the Body of Christ), but as a “recipe” for “repeating” and initiating a Covenant with Christ which is singular, distinct, and separate from (not depending upon) the Covenant people that He originally established. However, from both a Scriptural and a Traditional / Apostolic point of view, this is simply poppy-cock.

TOm:

No, salvation is associated with choosing the will of God. There are certainly better understandings associated with what the will of God actually is, but never has there been a person on the earth who did not have sufficient light and knowledge to choose to make God active in their lives. It is not a knowledge thing, but better knowledge can help and will be available before or after death. We may not recognize some of the ways this alignment to the will of God occurs in folks who lived and died without ever hearing about Jesus Christ, but it can occur for all.

cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

Frances:

The Catholic Pope can trace his unbroken succession to St. Peter, who was commissioned by Christ with authority over the Church (Matt 16:18-19, Luke 22:31-32, John 21:15-19). You, on the other hand, can’t even produce your gold tablets. So, what’s the more probable scenario here?

TOm:

While there are those who question if the Pope can trace as you say, I believe he can. If that were all that mattered then the Eastern Orthodox church would be just as valid as you are. The fact is history tells us there are a number of problems with your authority claims. On the whole, despite the need to accept a 19th century miracle, I find LDS claims more reasonable. There are those who deny miracles can occur, but neither you nor I could be one of these folks.

Frances:

Not exactly. We believe that apostasy is turning from Christ, His Gospel, or any truth revealed by His Church.

TOm:

Ok, I accept that correction. This correction is not the apostasy that LDS claim occurred.

Frances:

Well, that’s awfully funny, then, since the “Christ” you believe in is clearly not the one we believe in. We reject your false Christ. Therefore, you should believe that we “turned” from him.

TOm:

You seem to be very hung up on demonstrating that LDS embrace a different Christ. You surely know that we believe Christ:

•     Was born of the Virgin Mary

•     Suffered and died on the Christ

•     Atoned for our sins.

•     Rose on the third day.

•     ...

It seems very important to you to emphasis differences, and I suppose that is fine, but the similarities are far more prevalent. Where there are differences, I suggest it is you who are mistaking, but it is a misunderstanding not the belief in a different God.

Frances:

The Bible says otherwise. Indeed, the only reason that you believe this is,not because of any Biblical tenet, but because of the general disillusionment of Protestantism, which did not lead to some ‘shining city on a hill,’ as the reformers promised it would, but to heterodoxy, disunity, and confusion. This is what Joseph Smith faced during the 19th Century; and, like Mohammad before him, he “solved the problem” via a creative flight of fancy rather than a proper exploration of historical and Catholic truth (which, as a 19th Century American Protestant, he was no doubt culturally unable to relate to).

TOm:

This is another excellent passage in my estimation. As one who rejects the solution proposed by the reformers as being hopelessly flawed, I long ago realized that despite this fact, my church was built in some ways on this error.

I believe that the reformation set the stage for the restoration. I believe it was part of God’s plan. I believe it was integral to the founding of the United States as a place with some guarantee of religious freedom. I believe it was also very important in the distribution of the Bible such that we could read it. While I see a need for valid authority and the “priesthood of all believers” to be a flawed solution, I recognize the foundation provided by the reformation.

cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

Please follow closely here. You have GROSSLY MISQUOTED me. Perhaps this was merely an error and not a desperate attempt to bolster you position, but if not it is really amazing to me that you would do this.

I said, TOm (post #452, end of first paragraph not even broken at the end of the line in an unusual way):

We do not however suggest that these errors result in a loss of truth such that no Catholic today or throughout history is able to align themselves sufficiently with the will of God such that they receive the fullness of blessings available.

You quoted the above by breaking between “truth” and “such,” producing the statement you quote me as saying, “We do not however suggest that these errors result in a loss of truth”

No ellipses no nothing, just a break in the text. I wondered what I could have possibly been saying when I wrote this, but then I noticed what you had done. You replied:

Frances (post #472):

You’re evidently saying that we fell into error, but did not lose truth, which, of course, is a silly thing to say and an unrealistic distinction. If we fell into error, then we DID lose truth; or did we lose some truth while retaining some? John 16:13, otoh, promises that we will be led to all truth by the remaining and ever-present Holy Spirit.

TOm:

Are you so desperate as to misrepresent me so you can finally have a reason to call me “silly?” I really do not understand what you had hoped to accomplish here. If this is an honest mistake, I am sorry for being so shocked, but the place you broke this statement is in the middle of the line on the page with no punctuation or anything.

After quoting the rest of may sentence, you say.

Frances:

If only we had some invisible gold tablets and a hat in which to read them, the Catholic’s worries would be over. The mind boggles at the blessings that St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Teresa of Jesus, St. John of the Cross, St. Damian of Molokai, St. Maximilian Kolbe, St. Therese of the Child Jesus, St. Teresa of Calcutta, etc., etc., etc., missed-out on in their lifetimes!

TOm:

So in the response to a single sentence of mine we see you using two particularly inappropriate tactics. You grossly misquote me, then you attempt to make my beliefs look funny. I will continue to point out that these are things done by people who know the weakness of the position they are defending.

The misquote seems amazing to me.

The references to hats and invisible gold plates could be your attempt to be clever. I believe I have said things I should not in an attempt to be clever. I will continue to point out that making me sound silly is not a solid way of refuting my beliefs, and perhaps you can do this a little less.

More later,

Charity, TOm