The Mormon creed

[TOmNossor]

That’s the entire point I’ve been making! God is the ultimate author!

How does God make anything infallible in the Catholic Church?
The only Catholic answer I know (other than you LDS are wrong we have revelation too, while simultaneously assuring Protestants, we do not have revelation do not worry):

Catholic Answer:
God prevents error. Somehow, and we do not know how if error is proposed, it is not going to be solidified as truth. When non-error is proposed it might be solidified as truth, but God did not propose and does not inspire the non-error.

I ask:
Why did God change the way he lead His Church?
This position is a product of the denial of continuing revelation. The early church did not originally believe there would be no continuing revelation (after all revelation happened in the Old Testament and in the New Testament). Visions were received and read at church as scripture and folks expected revelation to happen.

As best I can see in response to purported revelation in the third century embraced by Tertullian, the church declared, “we (the other leaders of the church) do not receive revelation, they (the heretics) did not receive revelation, there is no new public revelation.” I can find nothing from before this to suggest that Tertullian and others missed the memo that there would be no new revelation. Revelation disappeared and then it was declared it was all fine that there was no new public revelation.

Those are my thoughts.
Charity, TOm

P.S. I am not talking about Private Revelation. God still speaks to His children if they listen and many individual Catholics (leaders and laymen) have been listening throughout the centuries.

 

[SyroMalankara]

A definition at Nicea that was comprised of scriptural language was proposed, but it was rejected because it would not allow Arians to be excluded from the church.

Please cite, unless you were a first-hand witness.

Your view that Nicea is scriptural relies upon bending scripture to your definition, not letting scripture speak for itself (IMO).

First, what do you mean ‘scriptural’? Does it mean it has to be an exact stand alone quote; that Scripture ‘backs up’ the teaching; that the Scripture and Church teaching are equivalent and non-contradictory; or some other meaning?
Second, what gives you the idea that Scripture should “speak for itself”?

The idea that (cf. 1 John 1:5 & John 1:4, 1:9) means “homoousian” is a HUGE stretch.

How so? The passages refer to God in substance as “Light”, Jesus claims in these to be the same Light. The same substance, cosubstantial, homoousian.

The LDS idea that the however God is one is also a way in which humans (diciples) can be one is IMO the ONLY thing you can get from the Bible on HOW God is one.
Charity, TOm

Clearly it’s not the “ONLY” since there are plenty who disagree with you.

 

[SyroMalankara]

How does God make anything infallible in the Catholic Church?
The only Catholic answer I know (other than you LDS are wrong we have revelation too, while simultaneously assuring Protestants, we do not have revelation do not worry):

Catholic Answer:
God prevents error. Somehow, and we do not know how if error is proposed, it is not going to be solidified as truth. When non-error is proposed it might be solidified as truth, but God did not propose and does not inspire the non-error.

I ask:
Why did God change the way he lead His Church?
This position is a product of the denial of continuing revelation. The early church did not originally believe there would be no continuing revelation (after all revelation happened in the Old Testament and in the New Testament). Visions were received and read at church as scripture and folks expected revelation to happen.

As best I can see in response to purported revelation in the third century embraced by Tertullian, the church declared, “we (the other leaders of the church) do not receive revelation, they (the heretics) did not receive revelation, there is no new public revelation.” I can find nothing from before this to suggest that Tertullian and others missed the memo that there would be no new revelation. Revelation disappeared and then it was declared it was all fine that there was no new public revelation.

Those are my thoughts.
Charity, TOm

P.S. I am not talking about Private Revelation. God still speaks to His children if they listen and many individual Catholics (leaders and laymen) have been listening throughout the centuries.

Continued Revelation is ripe for cultish leadership and splinters. Why would God want that in the Church? Every religion that claims it, from Mormonism to Shiia Islam to Hinduism (and pretty much every religion that claims it) has had the emergence of cult leaders and splits from each other

 

[RebeccaJ]

A definition at Nicea that was comprised of scriptural language was proposed, but it was rejected because it would not allow Arians to be excluded from the church.
Your view that Nicea is scriptural relies upon bending scripture to your definition, not letting scripture speak for itself (IMO).

The idea that (cf. 1 John 1:5 & John 1:4, 1:9) means “homoousian” is a HUGE stretch.
The LDS idea that the however God is one is also a way in which humans (diciples) can be one is IMO the ONLY thing you can get from the Bible on HOW God is one.
Charity, TOm

Gosh, a Mormon using sola scriptura to attack the Nicene creed.

Your sophists arguments have been addressed multiple times by multiple people. I can only assume you are putting on a performance for Jane Doe, who you hope will be enthralled and nod in ignorant bliss.

 

[TOmNossor]

Please cite, unless you were a first-hand witness.

Not a first-hand witness, just read things.
Most recently I read of it in Vol II of Mourret.
I am pretty sure Athanasius preserved the event in his writings as I think I read of it there too.

I may get to the rest and if you need me to I WILL give you a better reference than the above.
Charity, TOm

 

[jane_doe]

Your sophists arguments have been addressed multiple times by multiple people. I can only assume you are putting on a performance for Jane Doe, who you hope will be enthralled and nod in ignorant bliss.

RebeccaJ, such comments are VERY rude and unfit for a Christian, such as yourself.

 

[campeador]

Not a first-hand witness, just read things.
Most recently I read of it in Vol II of Mourret.
I am pretty sure Athanasius preserved the event in his writings as I think I read of it there too.

I may get to the rest and if you need me to I WILL give you a better reference than the above.
Charity, TOm

Found it:

The party of Athanasius was overwhelmingly in the majority. (The western, or Latin, half of the Empire was very sparsely represented, but it was solidly Athanasian, so that if its bishops had attended in force, the vote would have been still more lopsided.) It remained to formulate a creedal statement to express the consensus. The initial effort was to find a formula from Holy Scripture that would express the full deity of the Son, equally with the Father. However, the Arians cheerfully agreed to all such formulations, having interpreted them already to fit their own views. (Those of you who have conversed with members of the Watchtower Society, who consider themselves the spiritual heirs of Arius, will know how this works.) Finally, the Greek word “homo-ousios” (meaning “of the same substance, or nature, or essence”) was introduced, chiefly because it was one word that could not be understood to mean what the Arians meant. Some of the bishops present, although in complete disagreement with Arius, were reluctant to use a term not found in the Scriptures, but eventually saw that the alternative was a creed that both sides would sign, each understanding it in its own way, and that the Church could not afford to leave the question of whether the Son is truly God (the Arians said “a god”) undecided. So the result was that the Council adopted a creed which is a shorter version of what we now call the Nicene Creed, declaring the Son to be “of one substance with the Father.”

justus.anglican.org

 

[SyroMalankara]

Found it:

The party of Athanasius was overwhelmingly in the majority. (The western, or Latin, half of the Empire was very sparsely represented, but it was solidly Athanasian, so that if its bishops had attended in force, the vote would have been still more lopsided.) It remained to formulate a creedal statement to express the consensus. The initial effort was to find a formula from Holy Scripture that would express the full deity of the Son, equally with the Father. However, the Arians cheerfully agreed to all such formulations, having interpreted them already to fit their own views. (Those of you who have conversed with members of the Watchtower Society, who consider themselves the spiritual heirs of Arius, will know how this works.) Finally, the Greek word “homo-ousios” (meaning “of the same substance, or nature, or essence”) was introduced, chiefly because it was one word that could not be understood to mean what the Arians meant. Some of the bishops present, although in complete disagreement with Arius, were reluctant to use a term not found in the Scriptures, but eventually saw that the alternative was a creed that both sides would sign, each understanding it in its own way, and that the Church could not afford to leave the question of whether the Son is truly God (the Arians said “a god”) undecided. So the result was that the Council adopted a creed which is a shorter version of what we now call the Nicene Creed, declaring the Son to be "of one substance with the Father."

justus.anglican.org

You earlier wrote:

A definition at Nicea that was comprised of scriptural language was proposed, but it was rejected because it would not allow Arians to be excluded from the church.
Your view that Nicea is scriptural relies upon bending scripture to your definition, not letting scripture speak for itself (IMO).

Your quote neither shows a rejection of Scriptural language - the only inclusion was a word that encapsulated the Scriptural language in Greek “homoousios” - nor does it show that Arians were theologically orthodox; only that it is easy to be ambiguous to suit either side when relying on “Scripture alone”. This shows why we do not rely on Scripture alone.

By the way, your link was not Athanasius writings, it was an Anglican writer’s biographical sketch about the event, not at all scholarly or even direct.

 

[RebeccaJ]

RebeccaJ, such comments are VERY rude and unfit for a Christian, such as yourself.

Jesus never called us to be doormats. Tom knows what he is doing. We’ve all been patient with his pretending. There comes a point where one must stop pretending with the pretender.

 

[TOmNossor]

You earlier wrote: Your quote neither shows a rejection of Scriptural language - the only inclusion was a word that encapsulated the Scriptural language in Greek “homoousios” - nor does it show that Arians were theologically orthodox; only that it is easy to be ambiguous to suit either side when relying on “Scripture alone”. This shows why we do not rely on Scripture alone.

By the way, your link was not Athanasius writings, it was an Anglican writer’s biographical sketch about the event, not at all scholarly or even direct.

It would seem that you have mistaken Compeador for me.
Do you not believe Compeador’s link because it is from an Anglican (though Compeador is a Catholic).
If I find time I want to devote to this do I need to produce a quote from Vol II of Mourret complete with Imprimtur?
I think Compeador’s link communicates what I hoped to communicate. Do you doubt it is correct?
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

First, what do you mean ‘scriptural’? Does it mean it has to be an exact stand alone quote; that Scripture ‘backs up’ the teaching; that the Scripture and Church teaching are equivalent and non-contradictory; or some other meaning?
Second, what gives you the idea that Scripture should “speak for itself”?

I think I should just say that I am not a) “sola scriptura” believer.
I also should say that the rejection of scriptural language does not make the Nicene definition in opposition to scripture. It is worth noting, but not some type of definitive point that means Nicea is a departure from pre-Nicene orthodoxy or that Nicea is not compatible with scripture.

How so? The passages refer to God in substance as “Light”, Jesus claims in these to be the same Light. The same substance, cosubstantial, homoousian.

I did notice that “connection.” I find it very tenuous. Let me ask you to firm it up a bit.
Is the point that God the Father (presumably) is called light (1 John 1:5). God the Son is called light (John 1:4,9). Light is Light and thus God the Father and God the Son are the same nature, homoousian?
Are we not to be the LIGHT of the world?
I think calling the linkage of light to Father and Son (assuming 1 John 1:5 is unambiguously the Father) is barely worth being called a scriptural defense of “homoousian.” Have I missed the significance of this or misunderstood the connection? Do you think this is the type of exegesis we should use when we declare something is scriptural?

Clearly it’s not the “ONLY” since there are plenty who disagree with you.

You are correct. Perhaps I should say the ONLY place I have currently found in the Bible that provides a strong indication of HOW God the Father and God the Son are ONE is John 17:21. If you disagree why?
I might also say that John 17:21 makes a oneness predicated upon homoousian difficult.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Continued Revelation is ripe for cultish leadership and splinters. Why would God want that in the Church? Every religion that claims it, from Mormonism to Shiia Islam to Hinduism (and pretty much every religion that claims it) has had the emergence of cult leaders and splits from each other

Ciaphus might say, “Continued Revelation is ripe for cultish leadership and splinters, do not follow this Jesus Christ or those writers of “scripture” Peter, James, John, and Paul.”
Or the Old Catholics I attended mass with 6-7 years ago might say, “Councils are ripe for cultish leadership and splinters, do not believe Vatican I.”
The SSPX and SSPV might say the same about Vatican II.
Humans do not like change, but God delivered revelation to His people during the Old Testament, during the New Testament, and as best I can tell Christians expected it to continue.
Was the Vision of the Pastor of Hermas scripture? Irenaeus thought so.
Was the revelation of the Montanist revelation? Tertullian thought so.
I am neither endorsing nor condemning the message of Hermas or Montanus. I am just saying that the idea that Revelation would end because “Christ was the completion of Revelation” is not present before the early third century (I am not sure it is there, but I think in response to Tertullian it is).

So, complete and inerrant truth is less messy than Catholic Development of Doctrine, but Catholics didn’t have complete and inerrant truth without need of continued development, so wishing that they did is pointless.
Catholic Development in the absence of Public Revelation (at least in its post 5th century manifestations) has produced a lot less mess than exists in SOME faiths built upon the acknowledging of continue revelation. But is it God’s way?
And, there was schism in the CoJCoLDS at the death of Joseph Smith, in around 1890, and maybe some in 1978 (though not a lot). But, I would suggest the 200 years post Restoration is a lot less messy and schismatic than the 200 years post Christ’s crucifixion.
Anyway, I am just suggesting that what produced and didn’t produce messiness is debatable, but it is really not much of an indicator of truth.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Jesus never called us to be doormats. Tom knows what he is doing. We’ve all been patient with his pretending. There comes a point where one must stop pretending with the pretender.

How am I lying?
And what am I pretending about?
Charity, TOm

 

[JMM1957]

Ciaphus might say, “Continued Revelation is ripe for cultish leadership and splinters, do not follow this Jesus Christ or those writers of “scripture” Peter, James, John, and Paul.”
Or the Old Catholics I attended mass with 6-7 years ago might say, “Councils are ripe for cultish leadership and splinters, do not believe Vatican I.”
The SSPX and SSPV might say the same about Vatican II.
Humans do not like change, but God delivered revelation to His people during the Old Testament, during the New Testament, and as best I can tell Christians expected it to continue.
Was the Vision of the Pastor of Hermas scripture? Irenaeus thought so.
Was the revelation of the Montanist revelation? Tertullian thought so.
I am neither endorsing nor condemning the message of Hermas or Montanus. ** I am just saying that the idea that Revelation would end because “Christ was the completion of Revelation” is not present before the early third century **(I am not sure it is there, but I think in response to Tertullian it is).

So, complete and inerrant truth is less messy than Catholic Development of Doctrine, but Catholics didn’t have complete and inerrant truth without need of continued development, so wishing that they did is pointless.
Catholic Development in the absence of Public Revelation (at least in its post 5th century manifestations) has produced a lot less mess than exists in SOME faiths built upon the acknowledging of continue revelation. But is it God’s way?
And, there was schism in the CoJCoLDS at the death of Joseph Smith, in around 1890, and maybe some in 1978 (though not a lot). But, I would suggest the 200 years post Restoration is a lot less messy and schismatic than the 200 years post Christ’s crucifixion.
Anyway, I am just suggesting that what produced and didn’t produce messiness is debatable, but it is really not much of an indicator of truth.
Charity, TOm

Paul says in Ephesians 1:7-10 that Christ summed up everything on heaven and on earth. He doesn’t specifically use the words “divine revelation would cease after Jesus”, but it is clear what he is referring to. The coming of the Holy Spirit that Jesus would send in his name is to guide the Church through accurate interpretation of existing Scripture, but not to introduce totally new doctrines.

 

[TOmNossor]

Paul say in Ephesians 1:7-10 that Christ summed up everything on heaven and on earth. He doesn’t specifically use the words “divine revelation would cease after Jesus”, but it is clear what he is referring to. The coming of the Holy Spirit that Jesus would send in his name is to guide the Church through accurate interpretation of existing Scripture, but not to introduce totally new doctrines.

I submit that Ireneus who thought the Pastor of Hermas was scripture did not INTERPRET the Ephesians passages as you have. Same for Tertullian.
I have found no ECF before the 3rd century who believed as MODERN Catholics do concerning the completion of Revelation in Christ, meaning no “public revelation.”

I believe revelation was largely absent (part of the Apostasy) when the explanation of why it was absent was created via human reasoning. What aside MODERN interpretation of ancient scripture do you have to support your view that the church understood revelation would end rather than that it did end within the circle of Catholic Bishops and they then struggled to explain why.

And I think Ephesians 4:11 points to the need for Prophets and Revelation.

LDS recognize the culmination in salvation history associated with Christ declaring, “it is finished” but recognizing God would continue to inspire scripture does not diminish the work done by Christ on the cross.

The fact that until the third century or later the people of God never taught God would lead without revelation is another place where I think the LDS position is incredibly strong.
If Peter can write inspired scripture and the Pope cannot, I submit Joseph Smith is more likely the successor of Peter than the Pius VIII.

Charity, TOm

 

[JMM1957]

I submit that Ireneus who thought the Pastor of Hermas was scripture did not INTERPRET the Ephesians passages as you have. Same for Tertullian.
I have found no ECF before the 3rd century who believed as MODERN Catholics do concerning the completion of Revelation in Christ, meaning no “public revelation.”

I believe revelation was largely absent (part of the Apostasy) when the explanation of why it was absent was created via human reasoning. What aside MODERN interpretation of ancient scripture do you have to support your view that the church understood revelation would end rather than that it did end within the circle of Catholic Bishops and they then struggled to explain why.

**And I think Ephesians 4:11 points to the need for Prophets and Revelation. **

LDS recognize the culmination in salvation history associated with Christ declaring, “it is finished” but recognizing God would continue to inspire scripture does not diminish the work done by Christ on the cross.

The fact that until the third century or later the people of God never taught God would lead without revelation is another place where I think the LDS position is incredibly strong.
If Peter can write inspired scripture and the Pope cannot, I submit Joseph Smith is more likely the successor of Peter than the Pius VIII.

Charity, TOm

Paul wrote this in the first century, Joseph Smith didn’t come along until 1800 yrs. later. You think Paul foresaw an “apostasy” and that it would require another prophet such as Joseph Smith to restore things 1800 yrs. later? Where does Paul or anyone else speak of an apostasy so bad that another prophet would be needed in the future? I think verse 14 of the same chapter tells us why the Spirit is given through various gifts; to build up the Body of Christ, not to restore the gospel, or to set straight the apostasy.

 

[Horton]

RebeccaJ, such comments are VERY rude and unfit for a Christian, such as yourself.

Jesus never called us to be doormats. Tom knows what he is doing. We’ve all been patient with his pretending. There comes a point where one must stop pretending with the pretender.

No Jane, Rebecca is using spiritual works of mercy as called for by Pope Francis in this Jubilee Year of Mercy. Very Christian if you ask me.

Spiritual Works of Mercy

1. Instruct the Ignorant
2. Advise the Sinner
3. Console the Doubtful
4. Comfort the Sorrowful
5. Forgive Injuries
6. Bear Wrongs Patiently

 

[Stephen168]

How am I lying?
And what am I pretending about?

I did notice that “connection.” I find it very tenuous. Let me ask you to firm it up a bit.
Is the point that God the Father (presumably) is called light (1 John 1:5). God the Son is called light (John 1:4,9). Light is Light and thus God the Father and God the Son are the same nature, homoousian?
Are we not to be the LIGHT of the world?

We saw what you did there
Sophistry is action

 

[Hatikvah]

Paul wrote this in the first century, Joseph Smith didn’t come along until 1800 yrs. later. You think Paul foresaw an “apostasy” and that it would require another prophet such as Joseph Smith to restore things 1800 yrs. later? Where does Paul or anyone else speak of an apostasy so bad that another prophet would be needed in the future? I think verse 14 of the same chapter tells us why the Spirit is given through various gifts; to build up the Body of Christ, not to restore the gospel, or to set straight the apostasy.

Didn’t the apostasy already happen by St. Paul’s conversion? Gnostic groups, Adoptionists, Ebionites, perhaps Arians, and others already abounded as opposed to solid orthodoxy. It was a mess.

 

[SyroMalankara]

It would seem that you have mistaken Compeador for me.
Do you not believe Compeador’s link because it is from an Anglican (though Compeador is a Catholic).
If I find time I want to devote to this do I need to produce a quote from Vol II of Mourret complete with Imprimtur?
I think Compeador’s link communicates what I hoped to communicate. Do you doubt it is correct?
Charity, TOm

Tom, whether someone is Catholic or not is immaterial when a direct reference to a Saint’s writing is mentioned and a sketch is produced. That would be like me stating that I had a picture with Elvis and instead I produce a drawing and tell you “what’s the problem - Elvis’ sister drew it”.