Caesarea Philippi by See The Holy Land
In an article for Tabletalk magazine author and pastor Kevin DeYoung wrote,
“There is one foundational question each of us must face…This question is so important that if you get this one wrong, you are going to get most everything else that really matters wrong. The foundational question is the famous query Jesus posed to the disciples at Caesarea Philippi: ‘Who do you say that I am?’ (Mark 8:29).”
Rev. De Young remarked on the surprising content of Jesus’ foundational question. Jesus didn’t ask about the disciples’ tolerance (i.e., “Are you open-minded?”) or their intentions (i.e., “What will you do for Me?”), but rather about what they believed. “Jesus is interested in faith,” Rev. DeYoung wrote, “He begins with doctrine.” This is because Christian faith begins with a right understanding of Jesus, “not just what He taught or what He did, but who He is.”
In the exchange at Caesarea Philippi, Jesus first asked what the general public thought – “Who do people say that I am?” He asked His disciples (Mark 8:27). Various opinions were offered: Jesus was John the Baptist, Elijah, or maybe one of the prophets. But the disciples had a different answer. “You are the Christ,” Peter declared.
Rev. De Young pointed out a foundational difference between the opinions of the masses and the belief of the disciples: For the general public, Jesus was “one of;” for the disciples, Jesus was “the One.”
Though the people elevated Jesus and put Him in very good company, they were wrong. Rev. De Young wrote,
“It sounds very lofty to call Jesus a prophet, a popular teacher, a wonder worker, a good man, a brilliant example, or part of a long line of enlightened figures. But all of these descriptions miss the point. In all of them, you are saying Jesus is one of (see v. 28). And if you say Jesus is only one of and not the One, you haven’t understood Him. You don’t see who He really is. He is the Christ, the Son of the living God (Matt 16:16).”
I can’t help but think of how Mormon doctrines make Jesus “one of” rather than “the One.” For according to Mormon leaders, Jesus is not the Christ, the Son of the living God; He is a Christ, a Son of a living God.
A Christ: “Sin is upon every earth that ever was created … Consequently every earth has its redeemer, and every earth has its tempter; and the people thereof, in their turn and time, receive all that we receive, and pass through all the ordeals that we are passing through” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 14:71-72).
A Son: “Jesus Christ is not the Father of the spirits who have taken or yet shall take bodies upon this earth, for He is one of them. He is The Son, as they are sons or daughters of Elohim…Among the spirit children of Elohim the firstborn was and is Jehovah or Jesus Christ to whom all others are juniors.” (The First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Salt Lake City, Utah, 30 June 1916, quoted in Ensign, 4/2002)
A God: “But if God the Father was not always God, but came to his present exalted position by degrees of progress as indicated in the teachings of the prophet, how has there been a God from all eternity? The answer is that there has been and there now exists an endless line of Divine Intelligences—Deities, stretching back into the eternities, that had no beginning and will have no end.” (B.H. Roberts, New Witness for God 1:466).
Indeed, President Gordon B. Hinckley was right when he said that the Christ of whom Christians speak is not the Christ of Mormonism. The Jesus of Mormonism is merely “one of.” But, as Rev. De Young noted about the Christ of Christianity, He is the One.
Sharon, would’nt it be great if Mormon Missionaries would read quotes like the three above
to those they are giving the Missionary Lessons to ? Perhaps then people would see exactly
what they’re getting into .
Sharon,
Simply a wonderful article! Thanks. “One of” vs. “the One.” You have brought such clarity to this most important question. I like how you contrasted “the One” with a Christ, a Son, a God, and provided a citation for each.
When people proclaim a Jesus who is not God, they are proclaiming another Jesus (2 Corinthians 11:3-4).
Mormons are known to appropriate Christian sounding language and terms in order to appear as main stream (Christians). That’s why we hear such phrases from Mormons as “I have accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior……..”
Sounds really good but as far as I’m concerned it is a purposeful and deceitful way of muddying the waters and making Mormonism appear as something it is clearly not. The point is to fool people. That’s just one reason Mormons are seen as deceitful and dishonest, besides the fact that they white wash their religious history and their founder.
I don’t care how sincere, devout and moral a person is, if they get Jesus wrong all that they hold dear is nothing but dirty rags.
Mormons need to make a careful study of the first 400 years of the Church and appreciate the battle that the Church Fathers went through as they (heretics) attempted to make Jesus less than God incarnate.
Church historians haven’t hidden anything regarding the battle and debate that went on in the early Church as orthodoxy was clarified and defined. What’s interesting is that there is no Mormonism any where in regards to the nature of Jesus.
I guess if Mormons think that Jesus is the offspring of a mother-father god and that he is one of many gods that’s their prerogative. What they need to know, however, is that the basis of Mormonism comes through the imagination of Joseph Smith. Anyone who thinks that Joseph Smith was getting revelation needs to check out all of the other false prophets of his era. He was just part of the tangled mess.
Joseph Smith is one guy I wouldn’t put any trust in when it comes to the Lord Jesus Christ and the meaning of the atonement.
What was the answer that Peter gave? “You are the Christ; The Son of the living God.” That is exactly what we LDS confess. So what is different there? As the article states, for the general populace Jesus was ‘one of’ the good teachers and/or prophets that were sent by God – that is not in any way shape or form what the LDS believe.
The rest of the article is just a person’s opinion. Peter did not say that Jesus was ‘The One’ and meant it as the only ‘Messiah’ in existence throughout all time and eternity. All Peter acknowledged was that Jesus was the Christ, which can be interpreted as The Christ for this world.
We believe that Jesus is The One and Only Christ (ie Messiah/Anointed One) for this earth and all of the creations around it. That His Atonement is for everything that He created –
(continued)
Although we acknowledge the existence of other Gods out there creating their own worlds, because they have no bearing what-so-ever on this creation and its existence, this means that Jesus is The One for us. He is unique (ie means ‘ONE of a kind’) amongst all of Heavenly Father’s children and this is also what we teach.
NOTE, Peter acknowledged that Jesus was The Son of the living God; he did not acknowledge Jesus as The God and Jesus did not correct him with that either. This does not support the Trinity.
Ralph,
The Mormon Jesus is the spirit child of the Mormon god and one of his goddess wives who live on the planet Kolob. The Mormon Jesus was conceived by the Mormon god having actual physical sex with one of his other spirit children, the Virgin Mary. This fits in well with Smith’s and company other weird, preposterous and blasphemous claims. Mormons know all of this because a man with a magic rock, who claimed to be a prophet, told them so.
I think that’s about all anyone really knows to make a judgement about Mormonism.
When you’re ready to acknowledge Jesus, as He has been revealed by His prophets, He’s ready to receive you. Until then, you’re just a poor sap who thinks he’s going to become a god and rule his own planetary system.
I pray that the Holy Spirit leads you to Jesus who will justify you before the Father.
I must admit, I have to believe in miracles to think that the fog of Mormonism would lift off of your mind and spirit and you’d come to Christ, be born again and saved.
What you say about Peter’s acknowledgment of Jesus as the Son of God shows your limited understanding of the nature of God Ralph. Mormonism has made it impossible for you to see God for who He is. Your open acknowledgment of many gods demonstrates your pagan beliefs and your pagan religion. You may as well be worshiping a golden calf, an eagle or a tree.
Does it really make a difference as long as one can claim they Know that Jesus is the Christ.
Who and what is the Christ. Lord and Savior to all mankind. He who scarified His own life for the redemption of man. Purpose?
“to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses 1:39).
That the Church haggled over who Jesus is during the first four hundred years of its existence is well documented. What is apparent when reading the opinions of the major and minor players in this discussion is that none of them said that Jesus was the spirit offspring of a mother-father god tandem living on the planet Kolob.
That Mormons claim a restoration of the first century gospel is pretty funny in that there is no record of Mormonism even existing in the first century. Mormonism and its view on the nature of God and specifically Jesus, is a nineteenth century invention of a religious entrepreneur who was not only an amateur when it came to theological matters but a dizzy light-weight who was at the same time childish and immature in his pronouncements.
Joseph Smith birthed followers who were cut from the same cloth and even today the speculative nonsense continues within Mormonism. Joseph Smith doesn’t even rise to the level of false prophet status.
Smith and his cronies did not think big thoughts. They never got beyond their previous stage of amateur treasurer hunting sleuths roaming about the countryside at night with magic rocks trying to see buried treasure in the ground. This was the level of maturity, depth of knowledge, intelligence and spiritual development that they brought to their attempts to form a religion.
All one has to do is read what the Church Fathers wrote and then examine the writings and pronouncements of Mormon leaders past and present and it’s apparent that in sheer spiritual and intellectual horsepower, the Mormon leaders are in kindergarten and the Church Fathers were Ph.D. candidates by comparison.
That Mormons settle for less when it comes to their demands for some intellectual and spiritual gravitas in their leaders is sad.
Ralph, you’ve just given us a good example of what Paul counseled followers of Jesus
not to fall for , namely , embracing speculation as wholesome spiritual food— Titus 3:9;
because it does not benefit anyone– 2Tim.2:14. Yet this is a common trait with false prophets.
False prophets love to claim a special insight into hidden spiritual truths that God has kept
hidden from everyone. These prophets claim to be guides to understanding God’s ways.
” The living prophets words serve as guides for each of us in Scriptural interpretation.”
[ Mormon apostle Dallin Oakes] . Have they offered valuable guidance on who Jesus is
that the N.T. does’nt ? Hardly. You said that , “the rest of the article is just a person’s opinion”.
Then you proceed to share what Mormon believe, and naturally you rely on Mormon
authorities for this but what we get from them is exactly what Paul counseled against !
Sadly your view on how Jesus/God are unique is wholly unacceptable , you need to set your
sights higher. Gods , Goddesses, millions of spirit infants , other earths ? Sounds more
like the product of a science fiction writer rather than the writers of the N.T. The Bible
presents to us a Creator who is so unique , He is Majestic enough to be all there is anywhere.
We are wise to avoid the guidance that certain the prophets advertise ,the prophets who seek
to enlighten us on who Jesus is , but then proceed to go way beyond what He revealed about
Himself to His original apostles. We are blessed to have their written testimony , and unlike
what Mormon prophets serve, it is healthy spiritual food.
Solid LDS, welcome. I think you’ve touched on a very important issue . Believing in
Jesus Christ as Savior is foundational . This is in accord with the N.T. which reveals
the spiritual truths about Jesus . Paul understood this, he also understood that certain
men would come claiming to be religious teachers with the intent of enlightening people
with spiritual truths , truths that were not in accord with what Paul had received from Jesus.
In 2Tim 2:15-18 we see Paul’ s concern for people being misled by such false teachers. If the
scriptures are not ” handled correctly” [vr15] then this can lead into embracing error– vr.18.
This is why those claiming to be prophets need to be tested [ 1 Jn 4:1 ] . When we test Mormon
prophets and apostles about what they have taught about Jesus what do we find ? Do their
claims to be the sole channel which God uses to reveal His saving truths through hold up under
such a testing . Do they accurately handle the Word concerning Jesus , as Paul counseled ? No.
You may have heard of another “modern day ” spokesman for God, his name is Christopher
Nemelka. He claims to be directed not only by God, but by Joseph Smith as well . His spiritual
guidance concerning who Jesus is : ” When you understand who He really is , you’ll learn to love
Him , and understand Him. He does’nt want us worshiping at His feet . ” So what do we do with
his message ? Should’nt we test it —1Jn 4:1 ? Yes. Does the N.T. teach it is proper to worship
Jesus ? Yes . Hence- Matt7:15
Since the trinity has come up I would like to ask a few questions:
Didn’t belief in the trinity mean no christian is monotheistic?
Does anyone have suggestions for books or articals about the history of nicene creed
and/or trinitarian belief in the early
christian church (or lack thereof if that’s your view)?
I’ve never really heard a good explanation for the proof non-trinitarian’s use (the events at Christ’s baptism, that Christ says he’s lesser than the father, that Christ had a body at the time he ascended to the Father, that he said God was his father etc.) Can anyone point me toward answers to these and any others I may have missed?
TJayT,
This is what I’d do if I were you. I’d google “Christian History Magazine” and access their website. They have all of the back issues and you can get them in a DVD format. What you want to look for are issues #51 and #85.
Issue #51 has as it’s subject “Heresy in the Early Church”. The subtitles for this issue are: “Quarreling bishops at Nicea, Mixed motives of notorious heretics, The search for the biblical Jesus.”
Issue #85 is titled, “Debating Jesus’ Divinity; The Council of Nicaea and its bitter aftermath.”
What I appreciate about this publication is that it gets right to the heart of the subject providing a good overview with details and gives recommendations for further reading and study. There isn’t any attempt by the authors to hide anything or to shade it. A person gets the straight skinny on the topics.
You asked if accepting the doctrine of the Trinity necessarily means that Christians aren’t monotheistic. Good question.
“The basic problem was that Christians began, as Jews, with the belief that God is one. On the basis of his teachings and miracles, the kind of person Jesus was, and because he rose from the dead, Christians said, ‘This man is not like any other man’-he is in some sense divine, or God. But how do you say that God is one when you’ve got two identifiable realities-God the Father and God the Son-and claim they’re God? That’s the problem. And it;s not an easy problem to solve.” (Robert Lewis Wilken)
That’s the starting point and what the Church hashed-out during the first 400 years of it’s existence. There were various competing ideas but the Church Fathers kept coming back to the meaning of Scripture and the traditional teachings of the Church which flowed from the Apostles.
I’ve got a chart here with the heading “Sifting Through the Christ Controversy”. One of the questions posed is, “Is Jesus Divine or Human?” So, is Jesus fully divine or is He special but not divine? I think we can say that most of the folks had the conviction that only God can save humankind. So some were willing to protect the deity of Jesus, even at the expense of his humanity.
The Gnostics said that Jesus only seemed human and only appeared to die, for God cannot die. Another version of this is that “Christ” left “Jesus” before the Crucifixion.
The Apollinarians said that Jesus is not equally human and divine but one person with one nature. In Jesus’ human flesh resided a divine mind and will-He didn’t have a human mind or spirit. Jesus’ divinity controlled or sanctified his humanity.
The Modalists said that God’s names, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, change with his roles or “modes”. According to this view when God is the Son, he isn’t the Father. There is no permanent distinction between the three “persons” of the Trinity.
The Ebionites were conservative Jewish Christians who said that God is one. Jesus was merely a specially blessed prophet.
The Adoptonists said that Jesus was special but God “adopted” the human Jesus as his special son and gave him an extra measure of divine power.
The Arians believed that the Son as Word, Logos, was created by God before time. He is not eternal or perfect like God, though he was God’s agent in creating everything else. This is the basic view of Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses.
The orthodox Christian view is that Jesus is fully human and fully divine, having two natures in one person-“without confusion, without change, without division, without separation”. (Phillipians 2:5-11)
*Correction, my post should have said “I’ve never heard a good explanation for the proofs non-trinitarians use… From those that believe the trinity.
So is it important to get Jesus right? I’d say so. But consider what happens when people head down the road after embracing a view of Jesus different than the orthodox view.
In Mormonism we have Joseph Smith and those who followed him, engaged in all sorts of additional speculation. They didn’t stop at saying that Jesus was a created being. We have Joseph Smith and the others totally spinning out of control and pretty soon we have a father god who progressed from being a man, he lives on a planet called Kolob with his many goddess wives, they give birth to spirit children who eventually come to inhabit this god’s earth as born of other humans and we have these human males then striving to become gods themselves.
I guess I could find some value, for lack of a better word, if Mormons were straight Arians. It’s understandable. But then they get into this bizarre world of multiplicity of gods, men becoming gods and on and on.
The problem that Mormons face is that the Mormon Jesus can’t save them. The reason for this is that Mormon salvation isn’t as it’s presented in the Bible. Mormon salvation consists of two parts. One part is general salvation provided for all of mankind and the other is a specific sort of salvation that encompasses that god-maker tract.
Mormons have a different god, Jesus, Holy Spirit, Holy Ghost, atonement, salvation and scripture. So how can they expect to receive the salvation revealed in God’s Word? Mormonism is an entirely different religion with a Jesus that isn’t the pathway to the Father and eternal life.
So it’s one or the other for Mormons. They can go with Joseph Smith and his religion and his polytheistic god, or they can choose the Jesus who provides salvation.
My last post seems to have gotten lost and I cannot repost it
fred
TjayT I don’t have time to post a lengthy response, but there are many online resources available. One of my favorite explanations of Christian systematic theology was written by Dr. Charles Hodge who taught at Princeton seminary for 50 years. His explanation of the doctrine of the Trinity is available free of charge at this link http://www.ccel.org/ccel/hodge/theology1.iv.vi.html unfortunately nobody has taken the time to translate many of the Greek and Latin quotations of the early church fathers into English, but it is clear enough even to those who do not read Greek or Latin.
Another resource by James Boyce can be found here http://www.founders.org/library/boyce1/toc.html
this is one that you will have to work through because it contains an extremely thorough explanation of the relevant scriptural passages. Don’t attempt to read it late at night or you’ll fall asleep!
iTunes U also has many lecture series from Christian universities available free of charge. One of my favorites is Wayne Grudem’s four part teaching on the Trinity in the the form of Sunday school lessons he taught from his systematic theology textbook. Just search for Wayne Grudem or Systematic Theology in the iTunes store and find the “The Trinity” lessons. He is very easy and enjoyable to listen to. Each session is about an hour long.
If you want an an in-depth explanation from Biblical texts James White’s The Forgotten Trinity is also a great resource.
I hope this helps.
falcon
[Mormons need to make a careful study of the first 400 years of the Church and appreciate the battle that the Church Fathers went through as they (heretics) attempted to make Jesus less than God incarnate.]
============================================================
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
(9Mat16:16-17)
It is plain that Peter’s knowledge and testimony come from Father through revelation. Heavenly Father teaches us through His Prophets, even today.
You seem to believe that these men, who voted on what the gospel should be, were given authority from God as if they were prophets. Since you say they prove my beliefs wrong, this is an important question.
Please explain why you think these men had authority from God to speak for Him.
thanks
fred
fproy,
You’re making a fundamental error with your “voted on” assumption as opposed to a “revelation” of the nature of God and Jesus specifically.
What do you think Peter was testifying to? Do you think it was that Jesus was the spirit offspring of one of the many gods of the universe and one of his many goddess wives who live on the planet Kolob?
I don’t think so. As far as prophets go, I don’t believe that Joseph Smith and his band of merry men were any more prophets than I am the quarterback of the Green Bay Packers.
And see that’s where the problem lies with Mormons. They suppose these guys that bill themselves as prophets really had/have a clue. I know Mormons are really into revelation as a means of receiving God’s truth but the problem is that upon further review, Mormon prophets are nothing of the sort.
I’ve had that revealed to me, BTW.
I believe that Peter’s revelation was that Jesus was God incarnate.
The Spirit that lead the Church Fathers and the community of believers into revealed truth, is the Spirit of truth (John 14:17-26).
“The story of the fourth century is one of the most important examples of this leading. The emergence of classical Trinitarian theology was a slow and complex process, the culmination of Christian reflection and argument that had begun at Pentecost. But we should not hide from the messiness of this process; it is always real human beings that the Spirit leads. Thus the faith of Nicaea is the true faith of Christians, but it was drawn out of the community’s reading of Scripture not only by human effort but by the inspiration of the Spirit shaping and guiding, leading a real human community into the truth.” (Lewis Aryes)
Call it “progressive revelation”.
falcon –November 1, 2011 at 3:58 pm–[Call it “progressive revelation”]
Back to my question, how do you know that the teachings of all these men was from God?
Also, how do you know the teaching of the other men who came up with different creeds were not of God?
And, who are prophets you say Jesus speak thru today?
All I have seen so far from you is that those who you agree with are of God and the ones you disagree with are not of God.
fred
fproy,
Are you trying to put the falcon on the defensive? Is that your game? You want me to give a defense of the hope that is within me, OK. But I know the Mormon game. It’s called deflection. Just so you know I know what you’re up to.
As to your question regarding how I know the teaching of these men was from God? That’s easy. It’s been revealed to me. You see, when Jesus set me apart and revealed Himself to me He was the One who is eternal with the Father. No beginning. There never was a time that He was not. I know this from the Scriptures and from personal revelation. I could give you the story, the testimony of the miraculous occurrence that led me to conclude who Jesus is, but what’s the point?
It’s not a matter of who I agree with being from God. It’s through the gift of discernment that I’m able to tell who’s from God and who isn’t. That and a little common sense, intuition and observation.
Who are the prophets today? There’s all kinds of them. Folks who are born again by the Spirit of God are the Bride of Christ, the Mystical Body of Christ; the Church. God distributes the Gifts of the Holy Spirit as he wills within His Body, the Church. One of these gifts is the gift of prophesy and one of the offices within the Church is that of prophet. The Gifts of the Spirit and the callings/offices are done for the purpose of building up the members to the fullness that is Jesus Christ.
For references take a look at First Corinthians 12, 13 and 14 and Ephesians 4:11-16.
The Father calls you even now to come to know Him as He is. Will you surrender to Him?
falcon, Thanks for suggesting Christian History Magazine. I’ve only gotten a few articles into Issue 51 I can already see why you like them so much. They appear to be straight shooters indeed, and I’m sure I’ll be reading allot more of them.
I didn’t ask the “monotheism” question to put anyone on the defensive (not that I thought you where, I’m just clarifying). I’m just imagining what all the Jews and Muslims would be saying if they where reading our discussion. “Wow look at the two polytheists arguing over who is less pagan!” Again not saying anyone’s right or wrong, just an observation 🙂 Also the condensed version of Christian heresies was good info and easy to understand. Your comment about Mormons vs. Arians makes sense and I can more then see where your coming from.
Falcon said: “…I don’t believe that Joseph Smith and his band of merry men were any more prophets than I am the quarterback of the Green Bay Packers.”
Of course I disagree with you about JS, but this made me laugh so hard I spit our my Mountain Dew everywhere. JS , BY and Sidney Rigdon dressed up in green tights and feathered caps? Classic.
liv4jc; Nice to meet you and thanks for the info. I’ll be sure to look it over. Hope to see you around 🙂
I mean I’ll be reading a lot more of CHM. Stupid spell check.
Mike R. “Believing in Jesus Christ as Savior is foundational.
Foundational?? strange principle for a believer to use. How about a testimony given by revelation that Jesus is the Christ, Lord and Savior. I’m quite sure that a belief is one thing, but a testimony is of a more sure nature since it comes by revelation.
When I see that our LDS prophets and apostles testify of Christ, preach of Christ, I know they are more than just foundationalist that have a belief, these men are witnesses of Christ.
Solid,
Here’s the problem with a testimony and a claim of revelation. It can be wrong! Sorry to burst your bubble but a revelation has to be based on an established reality. A god who progressed from a sinful man living on the planet Kolob with his many goddess wives is not within the realm of Christian reality as it is revealed in the Word of God.
Everyone who belongs to a “religion” has a revelation and a testimony. David Koresh had a testimony and a revelation. He was totally off the bubble. I can tell you with absolute certainty that countless people think they are hearing from God and have feelings that accompany the revelation/thoughts that make them feel certain emotions that they think confirm their revelation/thoughts.
Their certainty in their revelation is totally different from the next Joe Doakes who thinks he’s got the revelation. I have a revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ as One with the Father from eternity. He is the qualified Savior based on His status as “God” not a sub-god. I know this without doubt.
So there you have it. How will you and I settle our dispute regarding which of our revelations is the correct one? I’ve got feelings and manifestations of the Spirit of God confirming what the Bible tells me. I have the traditions of the Church going back to the Apostles. So how do you suggest we fight this duel? King James Versions of the Bible at twenty paces?
One of the things I’d suggest is that you spend some quality time researching the history of the early Church, say the first 500 years and get a firm grasp on what the Church Fathers taught and the doctrinal controversies they encountered. Guided by the Spirit, knowledge is power.
The basic “order of the day” at Nicaea was to resolve the question about the eternity and divine status of the Son of God. That’s it in a nutshell. In what way is Jesus divine, to put it another way.
There were two competing schools of thought one represented by Arius and the other by Alexander the archbishop of Alexandria.
What Alexander argued was that just as the Father had always existed, so too the Son had always existed and was thus known to be ‘God from God’. The Christological confessions about the Son, ‘Born not created, God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God,; made this clear. So Christians could be monotheists even as they worshiped the Son along with the Father.
Where Mormons would get confused on this would be the statement “born not created”. From that they would take off on a nefarious journey of misguided understanding of the meaning of the statement.
Alexander wanted to make the point that their were no “degrees” of divinity. In-other-words, it can’t be said that the Son is half God or part God without making deity into a mythical conception much like the pagans do.
The point of view in opposition to Alexander came from Origen of the third century who believed in the absolute primacy of God over all other beings. So that the Father was superior to the Son in all ways, essence, attributes, power, and quality.
The Son could be called divine because he represented the Father. The Son did this as he represented the Father to the created world as the supreme agent of the creation. So the bottom line in this thinking is the idea that the Son did not possess absolute timelessness, which was a sole attribute of God the Father.
For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.
Revelation is not just one Religion, one sect, one doctrine etc. Revelation is gift to all mankind even those who are just beginning the process of studying Gods Word. One does not have to be a member of any religion or doctrine to receive pure revelation that Jesus is the Christ.
Some seem to think it comes from the Spirit or the Spirit’s confirmation of the Bible, some claim manifestations, both are correct. Problems arise with those who claim that one must belong to a religion, this is in itself not scriptural for the Testimony of God or Christ comes through prophesy.
“For the testimony of Jesus is (by definition) the spirit of prophecy.”
(Revelation 19:10.)
10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.
So the theology of Arius would contend that the Son-Logus might have pre-dated the rest of creation, but He did not share the divine pre-existence (of the Father).
So the argument could be made back, if Jesus is not fully God, he is not God at all. To worship Him would be idolatry. Arius could counter that if the Son is elevated to the same status of God the Father, Christianity would be compromised in the claim to be monotheistic.
So back and forth the argument could go and back then to the same question which is, “How does the Son of God relate to the divine Father?”
So out of the discussion emerges the word “homoousios” which means “of the same substance as”. When the term is applied to the Son it means that the Logos was divine in the same way as the Father and not inferior, different, or nominal. The Logos is, in short, “homoousios” with the Father. He is truly God alongside the Father.
This gives the Son equality with the Father. It should be noted that it took another 60 years before the doctrine of the Trinity was successfully articulated.
The majority of the bishops in attendance endorsed the concept of “homoousios”.
It should be added that the bishops believed that they were the direct continuance of the first apostolic gathering at Jerusalem. This is when the Holy Spirit led the apostles to the realization of the gospel truth. The result was that few bishops dissented and refused their affirmation or “vote”.
The Christian Church has had at least 1600 years to consider and study carefully the concept of the Son being “homoousios” with the Father. It has never wavered in its conviction that Jesus is of one substance with the Father and that He is eternal like the Father.
When we examine the pro-Nicene theologians we see two basic themes. The first theme, and the one that is most important, is that God’s being is not divided, and that the persons of the Godhead were truly distinct from each other. In short, God is undividedly one and yet irreducibly three. It’s a mystery, the how of it.
So they spoke of the Father and Son as one in “essence” or “being”. This was done without implying that God was material or that Father and Son were parts of God.
So the Nicene insistence that the Son was eternally begotten of the Father was the context in which they understood as the Spirit proceeding eternally from the Father and Son. This was in contrast to those who believed that the Spirit was subordinate to the Father and Son.
So comes the doctrine of inseparable operation. That is that all three persons are present in each and every divine action.
The second point that the pro-Nicenes emphasized was that human beings would be unable to fully comprehend God. A person, in their view could make progress in the knowledge and love of God through discipline and such practices that would cause the imagination to be reshaped.
They emphasized the purification of the soul and the body as a precursor for contemplating the divine mystery. So the “fallen mind” was obsessed with material imagery and lost its pre-fallen natural attention to God.
The human intellect needed to be purified. This was necessary for understanding Scripture as a divinely revealed and trustworthy resource for the Christian imagination.
Their view was that Scripture was the result of God’s divine act of love. Although God “spoke” in human words, the realities He spoke of lie beyond human comprehension.
Solid LDS, It was interesting how you had to correct me on ” Believing in Jesus as Savior”
is “foundational” to the life of a Christian. I understand where you’re coming from with your
position on a testimony etc, but I made a simple statement that is’nt so strange at all. I could
say ” basic tenet ” or anything similar . I was recently looking thru a pamphlet ( with the
Mormon Church Logo on it ) that was about the Osmond Family. They answer questions on
the fundamental principles of their faith. The Title of this pamphlet is , ” This We Believe”.
One “foundational ” principle they discuss is that of Jesus as Savior, to which they respond ,
“This we definitely believe”. I certainly did’nt think that this was strange of them , I’m sure
you agree. You said that you have a testimony on the preaching of your prophets and apostles.
I also rely on a testimony concerning these men. But my testimony aligns with the testimony of
Jesus’ original apostles concerning their preaching on who Jesus is and how we can receive
eternal life, therefore I have dismissed Mormon apostles as misled religious leaders. You
stated that , ” One does not have to be a member of any religion or doctrine to receive pure
revelation that Jesus is the Christ” , I agree that God can reveal His truth to anyone, anywhere.
But this “revelation that Jesus is the Christ” can be quickly tainted by false prophets who are
quick to heap more “revelation” upon this simple revelation, such as belonging to the religion
of Mormonism in order for this to lead to God’s presence above.
Mike R
I’d like to summarize your point by saying, “Mormons prophets are not so hot.” In fact they are mindless speculators that entertain themselves with proclamations that are founded on nothing. If this weren’t so, Mormons wouldn’t have to spend so much time back-filling, messaging, and offering mindless explanations by filling up the prophets’ words with their own meaning. That’s when we get into this endless game of “counts, doesn’t count” with Mormons regarding what is a real revelation and what is just the mental meanderings of the prophet in search of a cogent thought.
For some reason Mormons think there has to be “a prophet” that speaks to the people for the Mormon god. This is based on the OT pattern and most clearly exhibited by prophets such as Moses.
The idea that the Church met at Nicaea to clarify and answer questions concerning Jesus is to Mormons unfathomable and unacceptable because God didn’t speak through one prophet. That’s not the NT pattern, In fact Mormons need to take a look in the Book of Acts regarding the pattern established in the Church for answering questions of concern.
For example, in Acts 6:1-6 we see an example of how the apostles dealt with a pressing issue. In Acts 15: 1-31 we see the Council at Jerusalem which addressed a pressing doctrinal issue in the early Church. A pattern of NT governance and decision making can be seen in these two events.
While this Mormon idea that there has to be “a prophet” at the head of the Church may sound impressive, the fact of the matter is that this isn’t a NT pattern. Secondly, if someone is going to be billed as “a prophet” they have to actually be one and not just a religious lackey.
One of the greatest concerns that Jesus’ original apostles had was the fact that new or young
believers were vulnerable to false teachers . The most successful of these false prophets would
be those who claimed to be Christians also, who might even preach about a moral lifestyle
consistent with what the Apostles preached, yet these men were dangerous because they led
people astray by preaching “another Jesus” , teachings about who Jesus was that were not in
accord with what the apostles taught. Through revelation God can draw a person to consider
the sacrafice that His Son made for mankind. Directing that person to His Word , or to His
body of believers for subsequent spiritual growth. Sadly false prophets can lure such “babes”
away from the true gospel , and even the true Savior , to a substitute . Not all false prophets
or apostles are immoral or violent men, as these would be easy to spot. Jesus said to Beware
of false prophets . These religious leaders would claim an authority from Jesus as His personal
appointees to reveal His truth . In our day we see this played out as many prophets claim to
be His modern day spokesmen . We can look back to see what Jesus’ original apostles testified
to as correct descriptions about their Savior, and evaluate any Modern day prophets testimony
by those testimonies. Not all testimonies are true. Even one such modern day prophet is
purported to have said that some revelations are of God , some revelations are of man, and
some revelations are of the devil. Good sincere people can be misled by the personal
revelation of prophets whose revelation is only that “of man”.
,
Sharon
In ‘Comment Policy’ you say I cannot use the word that sounds like aunt eye Mormon to describe people who knowingly lie about us. Because I used this term, some of my posts were removed.
“Rule #2: Use of the pejorative term “(that word)” is not allowed, nor any other personal accusations of hatred.”
At this time I will not show examples, but you might want to read back through the last few days to see where we Mormons have been referred to in pejorative ways.
fred
[Fred, please read “A***-Mormon: The Mormon N-Word” on the MRM website to understand the reason we have banned the use of the term here on Mormon Coffee. Please direct any specific moderation concerns you may have to me via private email. Thanks. -Sharon]
falcon
“Are you trying to put the falcon on the defensive? Is that your game? You want me to give a defense of the hope that is within me, OK. But I know the Mormon game. It’s called deflection. ”
I get this kind of answer often when I ask someone where they think I should go to really find God’s Gospel. I have never understood why you and many are very willing to tell me I am wrong, and then tell me it is wrong to ask which of all the nonMormon Christian teachings is the truth.
But after saying that, you have been more open about your beliefs then others. I thank you for that.
Here are some of the reasons I cannot follow what you believe to be God’s way.
—
“That the Church haggled over who Jesus is during the first four hundred years of its existence is well documented.”
You folks are still haggling today, and I can not see this confusion as being how God teaches His Children.
—
“The Christian Church has had at least 1600 years to consider and study carefully the concept of the Son being “homoousios” with the Father. It has never wavered in its conviction that Jesus is of one substance with the Father and that He is eternal like the Father.”
The only way this idea can be correct is if there were only one denomination. Too many nonMormon Christian denominations and groups disagree with you.
You even demonstrate this by showing that not all Christians believe like you: “The majority of the bishops in attendance endorsed”
fred
fprox,
Wrong, wrong, wrong on your charge of more than one denomination. All of the orthodox Christian churches agree on the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith especially that dealing with the nature of God. Nice try, no cigar.
The bishops that did not endorse the concept of “homoousios” were discharged as heretics. There weren’t that many. Have there ever been any Mormons excommunicated because of a disagreement regarding doctrine? I think your whole sect should be excommunicated because you went into apostasy when you rejected polygamy. According to the prophet Joseph Smith, that you’re so enamored with, that’s the only way you’re going to become a god.
OK so you believe that Jesus is the spirit offspring of a former man, now a god who lives with his many goddess wives on the planet Kolob. And there’s millions if not billions of these gods floating around the vast universe.
Give me a break!
And you know this how? I repeat, a man with a magic rock told you so.
Yup, that’s something a person can really get their teeth into.
And you’re willing to reject Jesus for this?
falcon November 2, 2011 at 11:03 am—[The idea that the Church met at Nicaea to clarify and answer questions concerning Jesus is to Mormons unfathomable and unacceptable because God didn’t speak through one prophet. That’s not the NT pattern, In fact Mormons need to take a look in the Book of Acts regarding the pattern established in the Church for answering questions of concern.
For example, in Acts 6:1-6 we see an example of how the apostles dealt with a pressing issue. In Acts 15: 1-31 we see the Council at Jerusalem which addressed a pressing doctrinal issue in the early Church. A pattern of NT governance and decision making can be seen in these two events.]
When I go to the scriptures you site, I see something different from the group of men coming together to fight over and vote on what God’s Word means, as they did at Nicaea.
What I see is a group of men, known to be ordained of God, to function on earth as His reprehensive, coming together to correct miss teachings and to give God’s authority to other men to teach God’s word. Like is done in the LDS Church today.
So the question is, did the men at Nicaea have the authority to define what God said in His Word? Did they have the same authority given to Peter, James and John, and the other Apostles.
fred
The greatest problem in relying upon revelation in an LDS sense is that there is no standard by which to judge whether or not the perceived revelation from God is true or false. LDS prophets, apostles, or anyone else that the LDS GA’s give the nod to can speak as if from God, but nobody checks the revelation to see if it contradicts any other previous statements, and the problems caused by that. You are left with a system with no hope of consistency. The LDS church could decide tomorrow that their god gave revelation that completely rejects everything that has been taught over the past century and it would have to be by the very nature of LDS theology taken at face value.
As regards the discussion of Jesus as a God verses one person of a Triune God let’s just see the contradictions arrived at by the doctrine of continuous revelation in LDS theology (side note: this is a why a unified systematic theology like the Christian church has developed is so important).
cont: Modern LDS teaching is that the “one God” is actually three distinct beings. The second person, Jehovah, is the offspring of the literal Father, Elohim. This Jehovah is Jesus, the Redeemer, and the God of the OT who LDS do not worship, but apparently the Jews that Jesus came to were supposed to based upon a quotation of John 8:58 in the discussion of the Godhead in Guide to the Scriptures. He is the creator of the Earth (along with the pre-incarnate John the Baptist and Michael the Archangel if I’m not mistaken) who somehow became a God without having to live on the earth like the rest of Elohim’s sons and daughters. The Holy Spirit is somehow a god that never even obtained a body by coming to earth. This teaching has evolved in the LDS church based upon later revelations that contradict JS’s first revelation, the BOM, which is easily demonstrated.
If you were to take the BoM as the unified Word of God like the Bible you would be left with a Unitarian God who is one God, manifesting himself in different modes in different dispensations based upon a very clear modalist statement made in Mosiah 15:1-4
falcon –November 2, 2011 at 1:05 pm — [All of the orthodox Christian churches agree on the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith especially that dealing with the nature of God.]
You have a point, by choosing which Christian denominations to accept in your hole of Christianity, and by not including the other Christians, you can make that kind of statement about your “hole” Christian faith. Your next statement shows how you can dismiss the other Christians that do not agree with you as if they were not Christians. “The bishops that did not endorse the concept of “homoousios” were discharged as heretics.”
Your idea of the hole of Christianity is not the whole of Christianity.
fred
DO THE OTHER NONMORMON CHRISTIANS POSTING HERE AGREE WITH THIS NARROW DEFINITION OF CHRISTIANITY?
cont: Using standard hermeneutics we interpret unclear passages from clear so when we have passages like Mosiah 14, which is a plagiarism of the King James Version of Isaiah 53, we have God sending the Messiah, who dies for the iniquity of man. Now, if Jehovah/Jesus is the God of the OT, then once again he is sending himself in a different mode, that of the fleshly Son of God who is also the Father. This leaves Jesus praying to himself in John 17.
On the other hand we have the BoM making clear Trinitarian statements that contradict the modalist verses above. The Bible, which is also considered a less reliable Word of God by the LDS church, never makes any statements as to the Triune nature of God as clear as the statements made in 2 Nephi 31:21, 3 Nephi 11:27,36 and Alma 11:44 which is that Christ the Son, God the Father, and the Holy Spirit are one eternal God. Words have meaning. “Eternal” and “one” reflect Nicean/Athanasian creedal statements familiar to JS. The doctrine of the Trinity developed based upon a study of the writing of the NT which recorded Jesus’ words and teachings, not by continuing revelation, which has left the modern LDS doctrine of the nature of God at odds with both the BoM and the Bible. This is why Christians do not believe in continuing revelation in the LDS sense. We judge every teaching by what is recorded in the earliest revelation, the only record we have of God’s message to us, which is the Bible alone. LDS revelation is allowed to go unchecked by any standard. What the prophet says is the final word, no matter what it is. That is very dangerous.
Notes on Falcon’s 9:22 blog
Amazing article falcon but It raises question because of what happened to the heretics. Anybody who disagreed with orthodoxy-what happened to them? I know that Arian sent missionary to the germanic tribes that over ran Rome so they were arian christians. Was the Questions of Arianism settled other than forcefully?
Foundational: The basis on which a thing stands, is founded, or is supported.
Fundamental: Of central importance.
Mike, you are the Foundationalist: by saying it is a belief.
Osmonds, are only stating it is of central importance.
Its strange you say you align your beliefs with that of the Apostles, yet you don’t state that it has been revealed to you by prophesy that Jesus is the Christ. Revelation is prophesy. You can’t get your testimony from the Apostles, that would be impossible, each individual person must find out for themselves what their testimony is, or is not. Jesus is the Christ, not by believing that the Word of God is true, but by personal revelation directed to you by the Holy Spirit. Christians are afraid of the word personal revelation it seems. They often connect this with Mormons seemingly having a fuzzy warm feeling, or a burning in their bosom, but this is something that is much more, this is the whispering of the Holy Ghost or Spirit of God in answer to a desire to know. Big difference.
SolidLDS, I was shaking my head in bewilderment before I even finished reading your reply.
What begin as a simple dialogue you have started to it turn into something else. “Foundational ”
“fundamental ” “revelation” “prophesy ” ??? My testimony concerning what Mormon prophets
and apostles have taught on some very “fundamental ” doctrines is that they are not in accord
with what Jesus’ original apostles taught. I did’nt get my testimony from these men , rather
the scripture and it’s author, the Holy Spirit . I offer this following short list : John 12:48
17:20;20:31; Rom 8:16; 10:9-13,17; Heb 4:12 ; 1Jn 1:1-4; 4:1-6; 2Jn.1:7-10
That’s what I have to share on this so let’s give it a rest.
Sharon–[Fred, please read “A***-Mormon: The Mormon N-Word” on the MRM website to understand the reason we have banned the use of the term here on Mormon Coffee. ]
What I see in the link you gave is just another outsider teaching things about my Church that are not true. The author is a master of words, and of painting a distorted picture.
I grew up a Jim Crow Protestant and I can tell you that there is no comparison between the meaning of “n—-” and the meaning of “a—-Mormon“.
But since you do not like the word, what words can I use to describe the people who knowingly create falsehoods about my church and what words can I use to describe those who reteach these lies as if they were true?
fred
[Fred, I already responded to these questions when I answered an email you sent me last week. Re-asking the same questions here is inappropriate; it seems to me to be rather disingenuous. I repeat what I said earlier today: please direct any specific moderation concerns you may have to me via private email. Thanks. -Sharon]
Fred, you asked this question: ” Do other non-Mormon Christians posting here agree with
this narrow definition of Christianity ? ” The following I offer for your consideration . From
popular Mormon general Authority whose doctrinal teachings were featured in many Church
curriculum : ” Orthodoxy, In the true sense orthodoxy consists in believing that which is in
harmony with the scriptures . Thus gospel orthodoxy requires belief in the truths of salvation
as they have been revealed in this dispensation through Joseph Smith, AND AS THEY ARE
UNDERSTOOD AND INTERPRETED BY THE LIVING ORACLES WHO WEAR THE MANTLE
OF THE PROPHET . ”
“Heresy : In the true gospel sense , any opinion or doctrine in opposition to the revealed word
of the Lord as recorded in the Standard Works of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
is an heresy. ” He gives an example : ” The whole Christian world in the days of the prophet ,
believed falsely that God was a mystical spirit essence……all of which proved only that they
were all heretics , that apostasy was universal. Hersey is false doctrine…..there is no salvation
in false doctrine. ”
” Christianity : Christianity is the religion of the Christians . Hence, true and acceptable
Christianity is found among the saints who have the fullness of the gospel, and a perverted
Christianity holds sway among the so-called Christians of apostate Christendom. ”
[ Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce McConkie , p.132,352,550 ; 1966 ed ].
You might be surprised at what some very devoted Mormons were ex-communicated for in the
recent past, hint : it was’nt for immorality.
Falcon; great explanations. Do you happen to be a teacher in RL? Because your pretty good at it 🙂
That said if I understand what you and others have told me of the trinity then God and Christ are two beings, yet one substance. The idea is impossible to understand, but since we can’t truly fathom God it’s ok that we don’t get it. And all those scriptures that sound like Christ is saying he’s separate from God are just him trying not to confuse us. This has always felt like a cop out to me. I agree with the fact that we’ll never be able to understand God or his ways (in this life anyway) but to me just saying “Well, we can’t really explain how or why this works, but it can fit and seems more monotheistic then any other idea. So we’ll go with that” never made any sense. I don’t believe these men where trying to subvert Christianity or anything like that. I know that there intensions where pure, but I also feel that they where fallible men doing the very best they could. This isn’t a comment on you believing it. As you said you have sixteen hundred years of tradition on your side. But this is what I always thought about it. [cont.]
[cont]When I ask myself if Mormons believe in “the Jesus” or just “a Jesus” I agree with Ralph that he’s the one for me. The fact that there may be other saviors for other beings on other worlds makes as much difference to me as whether or not dogs have a soul. It holds no relevance to my personal salvation or the salvation of any other human on the planet (unless of course I am following the wrong Jesus. Then I’m rooting for the Buddhists ;)).
As people here have said, knowing Jesus is the key. When I truly sat down and read the bible for the first time after leaving the Lds church for years I saw a Jesus that constantly spoke of himself as a man, who believed that God was truly his father and that his father was greater then him. I see a Jesus that had his own will but chose to do the will of God instead, that could be tempted but always chose to rise above it. A Jesus that was a separate being from the father and the holy spirit. A Jesus that said we could take on the divine nature just as he had, that can inherited along with him the holiness of God. That in the end is what started me looking at Mormonism again, because I can’t accept anything less then the Christ that I read of in the N.T.
Mike, ” Orthodoxy, In the true sense orthodoxy consists in believing that which is in
harmony with the scriptures .
That may be your interpretation but in reality its actually based on a belief of the Christian Creeds.
So in a sense what your saying is that you belief that all Creeds are in harmony with Scripture which defines your own personal theology.
Orthodoxy is the genuine teaching of Christ in all its purity and fullness with a small disclaimer, its been taught or interpreted by man. One can say they follow the true teaching of the Apostles, but that teaching is Orthodox in nature because it has too bend according to written Creeds voted on by a group of Bishops and a Sun Worshiper.
This has been a great conversation. As a Mormon, I couldn’t understand the Trinity either. I’d had it pounded into my head that it was a heretical teaching and wrong. I couldn’t understand how there could be 3 persons in one God. Are we not made in God’s image? I have a body, soul, and spirit, yet there are not 3 of me standing here. How can I have those 3 parts to me and yet they are all IN me? I had a wonderful Christian woman explain the Trinity like this: It’s like the sun, you have the warmth, the energy, and the light, but it’s all the sun. As I become more familiar with the Bible, the Trinity is not all that complicated. Men make it complicated.
How does that relate to God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost? Most Evangelicals agree three separate personages, one God, how do you explain that? What, warmth, energy and light?
No one seems to be able to unfold this mystery yet it is considered the main stay of Orthodoxy.