In Part 1 of this series we briefly examined what the doctrine of the Trinity is by definition and specific distinctions, which also included Mormonism’s rejection of the doctrine. The primary reasons why the Mormons reject this Christian teaching was also briefly discussed. The LDS Church claims the early church had no Trinitarian theology prior to the Councils of Nicea in A.D. 325 and Constantinople in A.D. 381, which also included the word Trinity itself coming out of these councils. Because of these historical inaccuracies by the LDS Church, we will explore what was taking place in the primitive church prior to these councils as it relates to Trinitarian theology.
How early in the Christian church was the word Trinity first used as a common term among the fathers prior to the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople? The first mention of Trinitas (Trinity) was by Theophilus who became the bishop of Antioch in A.D. 168. Regarding the creation of the world he stated:
CHAP. XV. – OF THE FOURTH DAY…In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity, of God, and His Word, and His wisdom. And the fourth is the type of man, who needs light, that so there may be God, the Word, wisdom, man. (Theophilus to Autolycus, Book II, chapter XV)
The translator for this work had this footnote at the bottom of the page:
[The earliest use of this word “Trinity.”] It seems to have been used by this writer in his lost works, also; and, as a learned friend suggests, the use he makes of it is familiar. He does not lug it in as something novel: “types of Trinity,” he says, illustrating an accepted word, not introducing a new one. It is certain that, according to the notions of Theophilus, God, His Word, and His wisdom constitute a Trinity; and it should seem a Trinity of persons.” He notes that the title σοφια is here assigned to the Holy Spirit.
Early church father Irenaeus commented on God creating ex nihilo:
For God did not stand in need of these [beings], in order to the accomplishment of what He had Himself determined with Himself beforehand should be done, as if He did not possess His own hands. For with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things, to whom also He speaks, saying, “Let us make man after Our image and likeness” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4.20.1)
These two hands, according to Irenaeus, are the Son and the Spirit in which the Father accomplishes creation. What do some of the other early church fathers who predate the Council of Nicea by 100 years have to say regarding the Trinity? Here is small sampler:
I understand nothing else than the Trinity to be meant for the third person is the Holy Spirit, and the Son is the second, by whom all things were made according to the will of the Father. (Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, Book 5, Chapter 14)
All are One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons – the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God. (Tertullian, Against Praxeus, Chapter 2)
‘Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.’ And by this He showed, that whosoever omitted any one of these, failed in glorifying God perfectly. For it is through this Trinity that the Father is glorified. (Hippolytus, Against the Heresy of One Noetus, Section 14)
…the divine benefits [are] bestowed upon us by the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which Trinity is the fountain of all holiness. (Origen, De Principiis 1:4:2)
For it is one and the same thing to share in the Holy Spirit, which is (the Spirit) of the Father and the Son, since the nature of the Trinity is one and incorporeal. (Origen, De Principiis 4:35)
For as we acknowledge a God, and a Son, his Logos, and a Holy Spirit, united in essence, – the Father, the Son, the Spirit, because the Son is the Intelligence, Reason, Wisdom of the Father, and the Spirit an effluence, as light from fire. (Athenagoras, A Plea for the Christians, Chapter 24)
The Bible is very clear that there is only one God (Deut 6:4; Mark 12:29) meaning singular in name, yet in three Persons as stated in the Great Commission by the Lord Himself in Matthew 28:18-20. The early church understood this and rightfully required this in the baptism of converts as was stated in the early church manual entitled The Didache in Chapter VII:
And concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water…pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit.
The formal theological formations and wording would come later in time when the church was no longer being persecuted and could reflect on theological matters. It’s puzzling to Christians why this is difficult for non-Christian sects to understand. Critics oppose the doctrine of the Trinity on the charge that the doctrine was formalized at the church councils, yet Christianity was outlawed until the Edict of Milan in A.D. 313. Just a little over ten years later the first Council was held in A.D. 325 (Nicea) to deal with the first major heresy (Arianism) coming from within the Church. . Before that time, Christians were running for their very lives, some being thrown as food for wild beasts to devour or were placed in the roasting seat to be cooked to death. It was not a time when Christians could formally gather to carefully reflect on and define theological matters.
The early church always believed in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as one God; they never believed in three gods; they also believed that Jesus Christ was fully God. An untold number of these Christian martyrs eagerly went to their deaths proclaiming their faith and belief in only one God, and Jesus Christ being fully God. It is for these very reasons that professing Christians today will not compromise on the doctrine of the Trinity and the deity of Jesus Christ. As was stated in the conclusion of Part 1, this fundamental point marks a clear and sharp distinction between Christians and Mormons, thus eliminating any glimmer of fanciful hope held by the LDS Church that it would ever be accepted into the Christian community of faith.
One thing that should be mentioned is the bias of the winners. The winners write the history. The terms that were used in the past might not mean what they do today but we place that definition on them. People also want to see victory for God in past events.
We are looking at events in the past through the murkiness of time. Even though the writing is biased he is presenting some good documentation.
Clyde, you need more sleep .
Clyde,
Using your logic, why even study history? Why have historians, Why read books or doing any of that, for according to you none of it can be trusted, that is unless Mormonism is proved right, then who cares. Your crazy.
clyde,
What a wonderful way to dismiss evidence without having to do any work. You are intellectually lazy. So then, the Utah Mormon sect are the “winners” among all of the Mormon sects, right? They get to write the Mormon history? Go and read Mormon history from the perspective of the other Mormon sects that reject the Utah church.
We have information on who the heretics of the first hundred years of the Christian Church were. We have their writings. We know what they thought and proposed regarding, specifically, the nature of Jesus. There’s nothing hidden.
Your idea that the latter Church Fathers imposed or shoehorned their beliefs regarding the use of the term “trinity” into the writings of the early Church Fathers is also more than a stretch.
Your hold on Mormonism is very tenuous.
Rick
History is Interesting because of what you don’t know about it. Never give up on learning more and remember there are two sides to any event. I hope I have said enough to make you understand and that you don’t read into it more than what I have said because tend to do that with others.
Gee Falcon you’re already putting in your own biases into my comments. What an ingenius way to prove my point. Whatever you write is your point of view. What we see of it is ours. If you don’t understand I
will try
to
write
slower.
So Clyde,
Can I then safely say, From looking over the history of your responses, your a clueless, ignorant person that only believes what he wants? We have History of things said by former LDS prophets, presidents and even LDS in general, but sadly it seems you guys believe what you want and reject the rest. Funny how that works.
Clyde, when you stated that ” history is written by the winners” it was nothing new
and I’m willing to bet that everyone here has heard of it before , it does’nt really add
to the conversation because it’s like ” what if , what if ? ” We take the historical
sources that are available and try to understand this issue of the Trinity, which
is a complex issue in some respects and as such there are some questions that we
may never receive a clear answer to . But what we see in the Bible in how it
describes God we can appreciate how those early christians sought to express and
defend what the scriptures reveal , with the scriptures being the final authority .
I appreciate their efforts and I also feel that the early creeds were a much needed
offering in safe guarding the doctrine of God as revealed in the New Testament by
Jesus apostles. In these latter days that’s my anchor . May you accept John’s
counsel and test your apostles —1 Jn 4:1
You know there are so many really good heretics and false prophets available it’s too bad these Mormons have to settle for one who’s major claim to fame was the ability to put a rock in a hat and by pressing his face in the hat, receives secret messages. Can you imagine what the guy could have done with a genuine decoder ring?
I would suggest that our Mormon friends get a hold of some of the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers and read what they wrote concerning the nature of God. Then compare it to those early Mormon all-stars and even throw McConkie into the mix. It would be like the difference between listening to Einstein and Mr. Ed.
I know it’s very difficult for those who are just absolutely totally convinced that their brand of Mormonism is true and that Christians are a bunch of deceived infidels, to snap out of it. I keep wondering why these folks would trade God for a god. It’s not only that but it’s the fantastic story and the unbelievable explanations they have to come up with to make it work.
Andy has presented a clear picture of the doctrine of the Trinity and the historical and Biblical basis for the revelation of God to mankind. It astounds me that anyone, having gained this knowledge, would stick with polytheism and reject the Lord.
I think at times our comments are shooting past each other. This makes for an odd and misunderstood conversation. I would like to see what Andy has to say about this subject. So far he has only proven that the word trinity was used around 168 A.D.
I would like to see what Andy has to say about this subject.
Clyde,
When you say “this subject” I’m not sure what you are referring to. I’m not sure what else I can say regarding the early history of the word Trinity other than what I just presented in my article above. If you could clarify what you mean, then I’ll be happy to address and hopefully answer any question that you have.
The information that I presented in my article proved much more than just the word Trinity being used around A.D. 168. First, it demonstrated that not only the word itself but also the doctrine as it was understood at that point in time (one God in three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) was commonly used and understood by professing Christians. Second, this time period is just shortly after the death of the apostle John. Think about the ramifications of that in light of what Mormonism says about John. Third, the information presented above completely destroys the LDS conspiracy theory and talking point that the word Trinity and the general understanding of the triune nature of God came out of Nicea and later councils from the 4th century!
I’ll leave you with these three even though more could be listed. These three reasons alone I would like to think would cause you to pause and consider the historical facts that are well documented against LDS General Conference lectures given in Salt Lake City. I guess you have to decide what history you want to believe: the writings of those people who were actually saying and believing these things in the 2nd century or the LDS Church version given in the 21st century. I supplied the references after the quotes. The resources are easy to obtain. Let me know if you want more information.
Andy
I knew that trinity, the triunity, and the triune nature of God were all used in the past, before the council of nicea. What bothers me is when Theodosius proclaimed it the law of the land and other ideas of the nature of God were expunged. When this is done there is nothing to compare the trinity with and there is no idea how good it is. You’re just told to accept it as it is and leave it at that.
clyde,
Let me ask you something. Have there been people who have been excommunicated from your Utah Mormon church for teaching heresy? Have there been teachings of the Utah Mormon church that have been “expunged” from the Mormon cannon that were not only proclaimed but accepted at one time. Finally, did a government entity support Mormonism and attempt to construct a Mormon theocracy. I think you need to delve into these questions.
So Theodosius and his proclamation are now your stumbling block? Whether he made a proclamation is immaterial to the truth of the nature of God which is expressed in the doctrine that has become known as the Trinity.
Please consider this. The Bible tells us that the heart of the king is like channels of water in the hands of God. He directs it where ever He pleases. Did you ever stop to think that God moved upon the “king” to make that proclamation to give the Church some peace and a rest from its persecution? Did you ever stop to think that God moved on the king to make the proclamation and vanquish the heretics because what the heretics were teaching was contrary to what God wanted? This is speculation on my part of course but it’s not outside the realm of possibility especially as we read the Bible and the accounts of God’s hand in the affairs of men. See the Book of Nehemiah as one example.
Clyde you need to come to know God for who He is. It’s the only pathway to salvation. It’s a difficult thing for a Mormon to do, come to the conclusion that the Mormon church, in any of its forms, is not “true”. However it’s a necessity in gaining Christ.
Andy is providing some very solid information here that any Mormon with an once of integrity is going to have to consider. It blows away one of the narratives told by the LDS church to substantiate their claim that there was a great apostasy in the early Christian Church. At least some of the support for the Mormon narrative is that the “councils” invented the doctrine of the Trinity at the behest of the Emperor and that the Emperor then vanquished all those who had contrary views.
It’s interesting because I san Andy a few years ago walk a couple of Mormons right back to the primitive Church and demonstrate that the LDS claim isn’t factual/true. So what happens when the Mormons run out of “yes but(s)”. They, at that point, have only a couple of options. One is just to throw up their hands and bear their testimony. This method allows them to play their trump card which is that they have heard from and confirmed from the Mormon god, the Mormon prophet. BoM and on-and-on.
Another attempt that some Mormons will make is to actually come up with some explanation to satisfy their emotional and intellectual needs. The problem is that the facts aren’t on their side so they have to develop some fantastic explanation that satisfies their need but wouldn’t stand up for two seconds under real scrutiny.
Now here’s the shame of it. These devout, pious, sincere, well-meaning and spiritually interested Mormons could have what they seek, but have chosen a fraud. A fraud, none-the-less, that evokes emotions that they suppose are spiritual in origin i.e. they come from God.
Once the veil of understanding is pulled back and the Mormon sees the fake behind the curtain, it’s both liberating and depressing.
Andy, I never knew there was so much documentation of early Church Fathers referring to the Trinity well before Nicea. Thank you for putting this together – this kind of evidence really builds up my faith. It makes sense that the early Church understood God’s revealed nature – because that is just what it is, a doctrine based on God’s revelation of Himself and His nature in Scripture. It is not an invention of man, but rather God’s revalation of who He is.
What bothers me is when Theodosius proclaimed it the law of the land and other ideas of the nature of God were expunged. When this is done there is nothing to compare the trinity with and there is no idea how good it is. You’re just told to accept it as it is and leave it at that.
Clyde,
I’m not sure why you keep referencing Theodosius I in many of your posts the last few weeks. Let’s talk about Theodosius dealing with history and try to tie it in with our Trinity discussion here. Theodosius was a political ruler – the Roman Emperor – a politician. He was not a bishop, presbyter or a churchman of any sort. Theodosius didn’t decide what was or was not orthodox doctrine or heresy. He simply ruled after the fact based on what had been decided by the leaders of the church. You are going to have to understand the way things were back then and not impose our modern society and governments back into the 4th century. Those were very different times. The church and state were one entity in most cases. The Roman Empire was in control of things during the time of Christ and all the way through the next several centuries. The religion of the Roman Emperor was going to be the religion of the people. Many times this meant looking to the Caesar as a god and worshipping him as such.
The Roman Empire was predominately a pagan society because paganism was the religion of the emperor. This changed when Constantine became the emperor early in the 4th century. He reversed the pagan trend and pushed the empire into Christianity mainly by ending the persecution and giving Christians religious freedom. Constantine, like Theodosius, was also not a theologian, bishop, or a presbyter. When doctrinal decisions had to be made Constantine summoned the churchmen together for them to decide what would and would not be classified as orthodoxy or heresy. The Roman Emperor was after peace and stability in the empire. Anything that threatened that was a threat to him and had to be dealt with politically. It’s in the emperor’s best interest. Again, church and state were very closely associated. When the religion of the emperor changed so did the rest of the country. For example, after Constantine died the Roman Empire embraced paganism once again and started to persecute the Christians under the rule of Julian the Apostate. He wasn’t around very long and then the empire went back to Christianity, thus the back and forth.
Theodosius I issued the Edict of Thessalonica (A.D. 380)which made Christianity the religion of the Roman Empire because this was the religion of Theodosius – completely normal, well understood and accepted by society in the empire. There were always going to be losers and winners. The victory at the Council of Nicea was short-lived because the heresy of Arianism quickly came back in full force within the empire. Supporters of Arianism were starting to infiltrate and take over the churches. There were serious factions erupting within the empire that began to affect the political realm. This became a concern for Theodosius. Yes, he was a Christian and believed in the doctrine and creed that came out of the Nicea Council. He wanted to rid the churches of Arianism and have them on the same page of music doctrinally, theologically, and in creedal form.
The Edict of Thessalonica was declared by making an official announcement that Arianism would not be tolerated or allowed to exist in the churches or in the empire. Theodosius was merely enforcing and declaring politically what had been declared orthodox doctrine decades earlier by the bishops. From what I understand this edict did not jail or execute heretics. There were no forced conversions upon penalty of imprisonment or death. Pagans lost their temples of worship and could not practice their false religion with government approval. Now the persecution was reversed. Christianity was the religion of the empire and the Arian heresy would not be tolerated either. Here is what the edict said:
EMPERORS GRATIAN, VALENTINIAN AND THEODOSIUS AUGUSTI. EDICT TO THE PEOPLE OF CONSTANTINOPLE.
It is our desire that all the various nations which are subject to our Clemency and Moderation, should continue to profess that religion which was delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter, as it has been preserved by faithful tradition, and which is now professed by the Pontiff Damasus and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic holiness. According to the apostolic teaching and the doctrine of the Gospel, let us believe in the one deity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, in equal majesty and in a holy Trinity. We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title of Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since, in our judgment they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give to their conventicles the name of churches. They will suffer in the first place the chastisement of the divine condemnation and in the second the punishment of our authority which in accordance with the will of Heaven we shall decide to inflict.
GIVEN IN THESSALONICA ON THE THIRD DAY FROM THE CALENDS OF MARCH, DURING THE FIFTH CONSULATE OF GRATIAN AUGUSTUS AND FIRST OF THEODOSIUS AUGUSTUS
—Codex Theodosianus, xvi.1.2
Clyde, Theodosius didn’t expunge other ideas on the nature of God. The edict didn’t stop people from being heretics. There have always been supporters and believers in the Arian heresy since the time of Arius all the way until the present. Mormonism and the Jehovah’s Witnesses are living proof that the Arian heresy is still alive and well today all these many centuries later. What was expunged was the outward religious freedom these heretics had in practicing their religious beliefs. These heretics were going to be removed from church office and their supporters would also be put out of the church. It’s called excommunication. The LDS Church excommunicates people on a daily basis.
What took place shortly after this edict was the second ecumenical council – the Council of Constantinople in A.D. 381. It was at this council where the Nicene Creed was strengthened and the Person of the Holy Spirit within the Trinity was discussed by the bishops. All the focus was primarily on the Holy Spirit whereas the Council of Nicea had been on the relationship of the Father and the Son.
Theodosius I was the Roman Emperor, but he quickly found out where his place was in the church when he went into error and sinned against God. The people of Thessalonica killed the governor, which in turn angered Theodosius. He ordered the military to massacre almost 7,000 people in this city. When Theodosius came to church to take communion, he was met by the fearless church leader named Ambrose. Ambrose refused Theodosius communion (The Lord’s Supper) until Theodosius humbly and publicly repented of the massacre. Ambrose wanted to make the state and its rulers respect the church so that they would not transgress on the rightful claims of the church in the spiritual realm.
Clyde, you seem to have a problem with Theodosius’ rule and power. You say that people had to accept the doctrine of the Trinity and “leave it at that.” Yes, those that wanted to be part of the Christian church and especially lead that church had to be in line with the orthodox declarations that came out of the ecumenical councils. If they didn’t want to, then they would have to leave. Accept it and stay, or reject it and leave. It was that simple. The same holds true today in a sense. Those that embrace the Arian heresy (the Mormons) refuse to accept the orthodox doctrines, teachings, and creeds that came out of the councils. Therefore, they are not allowed to be in the Christian churches or they are put out altogether. So, don’t look for Mormonism to be welcomed in as long as the leaders in Salt Lake City stand with heresy.
Getting back to rule and power…Clyde, I wonder if you are consistent and are equally bothered by the theocratic rule and power of LDS leaders in the past. Would you have had a problem living in the Utah Territory under the governorship of Brigham Young? The Utah Territory was a theocratic society if there ever was one. There was no tolerance. It was Young’s way or the highway or six feet under for some people. What about Joseph Smith’s sole rule and power as the mayor of Nauvoo and most importantly as the general of the Nauvoo Militia? Those that disagreed with Smith were not tolerated. Both of these men and their orders/decrees had to be accepted with no questions asked. Young and Smith both found out that there was authority above them. The Union Army came to the Utah Territory and dealt with Young. Governor Ford of Illinois had Smith arrested for treason. Just something for you to think about since you want to focus on Theodosius.
Bottom line: Theodosius’ reign as emperor was ordained by God to accomplish the purposes that God wanted, which was the Council of Constantinople taking place that gave the Christian people their definitive orthodox and theological teaching and creed in a formal statement on the Trinity. It’s all about God – not Theodosius. He was merely the tool that God used – like all political rulers then and today. They have no power or authority unless it is given to them by God (Psalm 135:6; Proverbs 21:1; Daniel 4:35; John 19:10-11).
Fivesolas,
The quotes above also strengthened my faith. This was just a small sampler. It was difficult picking out which ones I wanted to use for this article; there were so many to choose from. The amount of historical references on this subject left me more puzzled than ever how or why heretical movements such as Mormonism and others could possibly try to deny the obvious.
Andy,
Great presentation! Be prepared for our Mormon posters to drive by and fire off a one or two line shot and speed on their way back to the wards under the cover of darkness.
Truth is the enemy of Mormonism. That’s why the leadership gets so into historical matters that are not “faith building”. It’s another way of saying, “Stay away from the facts because it’s going to ruin the fantasy we’ve created.” Mormonism is the home of that malady termed “shaken faith syndrome”.
We’ve had many former Mormons post here over the years and what typically drives them out of Mormonism is discovering the truth and realizing that the Mormon church is not only not forthcoming with the truth, but actually shades the truth with the result that they’re lying.
We see it very clearly with the lie that the Council of Nicea, at the behest of the Emperor, invented the doctrine of the Trinity.
Now you’ve clearly shown that the doctrine of the nature of God that became known as the Trinity was part of the very early Church pressing right back on the apostles who walked with Jesus. So what does a Mormon do with that kind of information? Well it depends on what length of the Voyage of Discovery that particular Mormon is on. Jack Garcia always called it the “contemplative” stage. That means that they’re actually thinking and not just trying to come up with some sort of straw to hold on to reinforcing what they want to believe.
I don’t know why the hard core Mormons just don’t say that they believe in Mormonism because they like it and leave it at that. They look foolish trying to stand before the tidal wave of truthful information with their hands extended as if they could stop it.
Andy,
I’ve posted a bit of this in the past but I thought it might be a good idea to provide all of the information at this juncture of our study on the doctrine of the Trinity. This comes directly from the website of the Community of Christ-Mormon sect. The reason I think it’s important to review this is because this group, I believe, reflects Mormon belief on this topic from its founding. Instead of making up tales about the Council of Nicea, perhaps it would be a good idea for our Mormon friends to trace Joseph Smith’s ever changing views on everything from heaven, salvation, polygamy and most importantly, the nature of God.
(from the statement of faith, Community of Christ)
God
We believe in one living God who meets us in the testimony of Israel, is revealed in Jesus Christ, and moves through all creation as the Holy Spirit. We affirm the Trinity—God who is a community of three persons. All things that exist owe their being to God: mystery beyond understanding and love beyond imagination. This God alone is worthy of our worship.
Jesus Christ
We believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God, the Word made flesh, the Savior of the world, fully human and fully divine. Through Jesus’ life and ministry, death and resurrection, God reconciles the world and breaks down the walls that divide. Christ is our peace.
The Holy Spirit
We believe in the Holy Spirit, Giver of Life, holy Wisdom, true God. The Spirit moves through and sustains creation; endows the church for mission; frees the world from sin, injustice, and death; and transforms disciples. Wherever we find love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, or self-control, there the Holy Spirit is working.
I can honeslty say, I am not one bit surprised that the farther we get into this topic, the less Mormons reply. Makes me wonder if they even read this topic. Just look at Shem for example. He spends more time debating of if Moses murdered someone or if it was self defence. But when it comes to the real topic, we dont hear as much.
Falcon, if your right as I believe you are, and the Mormons go away, thats fine. As it stands, to me the lack of honest replys from them should speak volumes to the Lurkers wondering if mormons are the true church since they keep saying so.
rick,
Here’s the problem the Mormons face. They have to convince us that what they, the Utah Mormon sect, believe regarding the nature of God, is what the early Church believed. They can’t do it. Not only is there not any evidence concerning Joseph Smith’s tale portrayed in the BoM, there is zero evidence that his ever changing ideas were what the early Church believed and practiced.
Think about it. Smith and his boys would get an idea and call it revelation. It doesn’t seem to dawn on our current Utah Mormon posters, that these guys were in total free-fall mode. That’s why there are so many Mormon sects of various sizes and varieties all claiming that they have the real “revelation”.
I watched/listened to Ann Wilde (search on YouTube) give an explanation of Adam-God which she believes in. It blew my hair back! It will leave you dumb-founded and wide-eyed. The interesting thing is she presents it with all sincerity and conviction and without an emotional appeal. She also talks about entering a polygamous marriage with a man and reveals that she did so after much prayer and with the conviction that this is what God wanted her to do.
My point is that Mormons are walking a high wire without a net underneath them. When they enter into these types of discussions (i.e. Trinity) and all of their presuppositions are blown apart, what can they do but retreat to the security of the wards and talk to each other about the wonderment of heavenly father and heavenly mother and forever families and how all of this is so deep that the average person can’t really grasp or understand it.
It’s a defense mechanism that allows them to continue in the fantasy while ignoring reality.
I as a Mormon didn’t study the first 400 years of Christian history. Why would I? I had a prophet today to tell me what God wanted me to know. It was all right there in church manuals, the Ensign, general conference and talks at church. I highly doubt most lay Mormons have studied the last 2,000 years of Christian history. I’m sure there are exceptions, but most Mormons I know just bustle along day to day doing the work of the LDS church, not worried about Christian doctrines or history. I didn’t realize there was so much evidence from the early church fathers and the early Christian church. I think my goal for the up coming New Year is to further study the first 400 years of the church!
Kate,
There are a lot of good books out there that present a clear picture of early Church history. For years I received a periodical called “Christian History”. I still have all of the back copies and I refer to them often. It’s a nice place to start because the scholarship is excellent and it’s presented in a manner that a person not familiar with the topics, can understand. You can get various copies of the magazine and I think all of them are available on CD/DVD format.
A couple I keep on the top of my stack are Issue 85 “Debating Jesus’ Divinity: The Council of Nicaea and its bitter aftermath”; and Issue 51, “Heresy in the Early Church: Quarreling bishops at Nicea, mixed motives of the notorious heretics, the search for the biblical Jesus”.
I like the final article in Issue 85 by Thomas C. Oden who talks about having gotten a Ph.D at Yale and after teaching at two seminaries, was confronted by a Jewish intellectual friend who told him, “Tom, you have not yet met the great minds of your own tradition. …..you will have to sit at the feet of the ancient Christian writers to discover who you are as a possible person of faith. Without solid textual grounding, you will become lost in supposed relevance. if you are going to deepen to become a working theologian instead of a know-it-all contemporary pundit, you had best get at it.”
Oden goes on to say, “As I worked my way through the beautiful texts of classic Christianity, I re-emerged out of the secularizing maze to delight in the holy mysteries of the faith and in the recurrent puzzles of human existence…….every question I thought was new I found had been already much investigated….”
The shame of Mormonism is its ignorance.
To Kate,
I like to pause and think about where this subject is going. What I like about history is what I don’t know about it. Hope you find lot of good books on the subject.
Falcon
Think about this, once the Emperor has spoken the thinking has been done for you. Theodosius was no bishop, arch bishop or member of the clergy as I see it.
Can you get christian history online or some of the article off the internet? I believe I once read some articles from the magazine but at the time they did not catch my interest.
Actually clyde,
I think you better read a little closer what Andy has written. He talked at length in one of his posts to you about how the Emperor really had nothing to say about the various doctrines. That wasn’t his interest. His interest was that there be peace and tranquility and that the matter be settled. Read Andy’s post……carefully. In 2,000 years, Christianity has been sliced, diced and put under the microscope endlessly. The thinking was never done in the sense that people continue to study the topics. In Mormonism, you have to accept what the leadership tells you. Once you confessed to getting the burning in the bosom, you bought the whole program. You out sourced your thinking to a bunch of guys who are basically really good at LDS church politics.
If you’re really interested in “Christian History” magazine, go here:
http://www.christianhistorymagazine.org/
Be careful clyde. I don’t think you really want to do this. You’re going to have to adapt the attitude of many Mormons which is, “I don’t care about the evidence, the (LDS) church is true.”
“Using your logic, why even study history? Why have historians, Why read books or doing any of that, for according to you none of it can be trusted, that is unless Mormonism is proved right, then who cares.”
You are correct in that you study history with an eye to Mormonism being wrong and the definition Trinity being right. All else you reject.
Wow,
What do you know? The Troll finally rises from the darkness, says something thats amounts to nothings, cannot refute all the info on the trinity, then goes back to the darkness from once it came.
Rick
You seem to be following two rules. 1. The trinity is right. 2. If the trinity is wrong see rule no. 1.
There are people who read the Koran. They see it as a holy book and give it more respect than we give our Bible. So what would you say to them if they see you as polytheist. This is off subject so you might think of it in your spare time.
Clyde, Here is the problem with you LDS. You claim we are wrong, then you base that claim on what your prophets tell you and outside of that, you have no evidence.
You speak of people believing the Koran, well I hate to tell you, but you also believe they are wrong, your Church says so. Then when it comes to topics like, JS shot and killed 3 people, or Adam God, or other goofy issues, you LDS come out of the wood work, and tell us it is mere opinion, or we dont fully understand what was said, Etc. Parkman even would try and change the topic and ask on every topic and almost every reply by him was, How can we know the Trinity is correct? Now thats a 4 part topic and Parkman has nothing to say, even you at the very top said
Shem who never seems to be at a loss for words, is strangly silent, He spent more time debating is Moses murder a man or if it was self defence, than telling us the hard core evidence for the trinity was and is wrong, and showing us how.
Dont sit here and tell us were wrong, then provide no evidence, We knew this would happen and we even said so. We said, Mormons will avoid this subject, run and hide back at the ward, really offer nothing of substance. It is happening.
clyde,
Instead of talking about people of other religions who don’t believe in the Christian God of the Bible, why don’t you talk about your own religion and give evidence of why YOU don’t believe in the Trinity? It’s like saying “Hey, Athiests don’t believe in your God!” or “Buddists just don’t believe in your Holy Trinity!” I don’t get why you keep throwing other religion’s beliefs into the conversation. What is funny is, the LDS don’t believe that the people who read the Koran have it right either, they don’t belong to the ‘ONE TRUE CHURCH” so why use them to try and make your case?
Kate,
Whats really sad is, we both know the LDS really have nothing to say, So they really dont say much of anything. They only complain about us and as you said, throw other religions under the bus. Yet again they offer nothing in the form of evidence that we are wrong, or that Andy is wrong in what he said.
You would think this would open their eyes, But sadly I think they sew them shut in refusal to have them open.
Here is something to think about?
We read in the OT that God provided Mana for the people to eat, It came to them everyday, they took just what they needed, no more, no less. It was know as Bread from Heaven. The Jews had nothing to do with it, it was all God who provided it.
Well we read in Numbers 21:5
Notice it says the people spoke against God and their souls loatheth this light bread. These despised God and His provisions.
Now the NT says that Jesus is the bread of Life and God provided Him for us. Yet Cults despise God and the “Bread” He provided for them, and us. So if you read further in Numbers, God severely punished them for despising them. Just something to think about for the Mormons who despise what God did for them.
Thank you, Andy, for putting this together! I didn’t realize there was so much documentation about the Trinity before the councils either! You have perfect timing as well. My husband recently left (in his heart, not yet official) the LDS Church, but this is one area that he still struggles with. He’s still not clear on the doctrine of the Trinity, so this is very helpful.
MaM,
God’s timing is always amazing; He is always on time! It’s a blessing and a tremendous privilege in giving glory to the triune God by sharing this teaching and documentation. I was confident that God would use this series on the Trinity to accomplish His purposes in the lives that He wanted to reach and give Him all the glory in the end. It’s my prayer that your husband will make his exit out of Mormonism and come to saving faith and repentance in the true God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The next installment in this series should come out tomorrow. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Soli Deo gloria!
So far this has all just proven that there were many theologies about God and Jesus after the apostles died, it does not prove that the Trinity as now formulated was the only true ideology, nor that it existed then, nor that it was the predominant ideology of the time. As said above, history is written by the winners, they can make it look like these things are true, but it does not prove it.
For instance, you use Irenaeus as one of your quotes. He was a third generation convert; ie he learned from Polycarp, who was supposedly a convert of John the Beloved. He was writing to address what he saw as heresies/errors in the belief of others – this indicates/proves the existence of other ideologies even there at the third generation. Just because his writings support the Trinity that won the Nicaea council does not prove that he was correct, just that his ideology was similar to what the council decided was the description of God. Many of the epistles in the NT were written because of wrong ideologies and that involved the first generation of converts. If we look at the LDS church’s beginnings, even the first and second generation converts had errors creeping in causing them to split and form offshoots.
Tertullian is another you quoted. He started as an adherent to the Roman Catholic church but then declared them wrong and became a Montanist. The RC church declared him an heretic. They also state in their new encyclopaedia that his view of the Trinity was incorrect as he believed in a subordination of Jesus to God which was part of the Arian heresy that was dispelled at the Nicaea council.
According to the online RC encyclopaedia, Clement of Alexandria’s theology was all over the place from close to Modalism to close to Subordination and can’t really be pinned down as to what exactly he believed in when he discusses the Trinity.
Again from the online RCE “Hippolytus, on the contrary, stood uncompromisingly for a real difference between the Son (Logos) and the Father, but so as to represent the Former as a Divine Person almost completely separate from God (Ditheism) and at the same time altogether subordinate to the Father (Subordinationism).” Again, different to the now formalised creed.
Then there is the fact that all of the people you referenced believed in, supported and taught the Roman Catholic church and its doctrines, until some of them, like Irenaeus, left it for another Christian sect. However, very few on this website support the RC church as a Christian church, so you are using sources from people that you believe are non-Christian to prove your Christian view as being the only true way. That’s exactly what many here complain about when we LDS use non-Christian sources to show you wrong.
But as I said in part 1, Jesus taught the God of Israel – He states the Shema Israel and does not clarify that it is a triune God, but a unitary God as the Jews then (and the ancient Israelites) would have understood Him to mean. There is nothing explicit in Jesus teachings that show He supports a Trinity. There is nothing in the NT that explicitly teaches a Trinity. If faith in the right God is so paramount, one would expect this to be clearly outlined in the one source book of that faith, but it isn’t.
Then if we look at the Apostles’ Creed, which predates the other Trinitarian creeds and is based on the Bible and is accepted by most Christians, there is nothing about a Trinity there either. So before the Nicaea council, yes there were theologies about different trinities or different Godheads going round, but what we have now was formalised in the 4th century at the council of Nicaea. That, so far, is all you’ve proved.
Another thing you need to prove is that the word ‘Trinity’ means then as to what it meant at the Council in Nicaea and what you take it to mean now. As you know, the meaning of words evolves so there could be a difference in all three points in time.
Ralph,
Get serious. You wrote:
“So far this has all just proven that there were many theologies about God and Jesus after the apostles died, it does not prove that the Trinity as now formulated was the only true ideology, nor that it existed then, nor that it was the predominant ideology of the time.”
Think man! Who are the sources of the information. Who are the credentialed individuals who walked with, knew and learned from the disciples of Jesus?
In reading my Christian History, your reasoning sounds just like the early heretics. The Church Fathers, the Bishops, in dealing with the heretics had to walk them right back through the lineage of authority in order to make their case.
“History is written by the winners.”
Real weak Ralph. We have all of the information available. There’s nothing hidden or that has disappeared from the earth as the false prophets of Mormonism claim. Your attempt to apply this little motto shows a real lack of depth and ability to grasp and process information. It’s cult thinking 101.
Ralph,
I’m going to apply the Mormon form of thinking and test of the truth here.
I’ve read the Apostles’ Creed and when doing so I got a burning in my bosom. I KNOW that it is true.
Boy you are so messed-up when it comes to the Catholic Church I can’t believe it. On the one hand you want to quote it as an authoritative source and on the other hand you seek to discredit it. If you’re going to jump on board with Catholicism then see it all the way through.
You’re fighting a losing battle Ralph. You battle against the Trinity but are whole hog on board with the Mormon ever changing view on the nature of God which was formulated by a man with a magic rock. S
Ralph also wrote:
“If we look at the LDS church’s beginnings, even the first and second generation converts had errors creeping in causing them to split and form offshoots.”
So Ralph who are the LDS heretics? Maybe it was Joseph Smith. After all, he changed his original revelation. In fact, as Kate pointed out, there have been significant changes in the BoM which effect doctrine. Maybe the Community of Christ has the Mormon truth. Maybe the Temple Lot group has the truth. Maybe the FLDS has the truth. Maybe Brigham Young was a heretic. Maybe Brigham Young had the truth. Do you really want to play this game Ralph. Mormonism is based on continuous revelation. Who’s to say who is hearing from the Mormon god?
Ralph also wrote:
“…….very few on this website support the RC church as a Christian church”. Really, you know that? It’s a good “take us off the topic” statement but I’m not going to bite. Since you use Catholicism as an authoritative source, maybe you ought to look into the basic doctrines of orthodox Christianity and see where the Catholic Church lines up.
AND Ralph also wrote:
” There is nothing explicit in Jesus teachings that show He supports a Trinity. There is nothing in the NT that explicitly teaches a Trinity.”
Source please Ralph. You didn’t come up with that on your own. You copied it from some place. Again, you really haven’t been reading Andy’s articles very closely. I’m not going to plow that ground again. Go back and read.
I pray for you and your family almost daily Ralph. May the Lord melt your heart and that it flow from you like liquid love bringing your whole family to belief in God. Might the Holy Spirit descend upon you and lead you to all truth.
Ralph, it was explained to you that Jesus did’nt reveal some doctrines fully or “explicitly ”
while He taught as He walked among the people—the Gospels . The full revealment of
the Godhead/Trinity was one such doctrine. Can you understand this fact ? When you
say things like Jesus only teaching the Shema ( Deut 6:4) and that therefore this proves
there is no Trinity etc , that is so missing the mark about trying to understand the topic
of this thread . Did you ever ask yourself if Jesus did in fact start to reveal more about
God than the O.T. prophets taught ? If Jesus never taught anything more than the Shema
then explain Jn 8:58 ; 20:28 . The fact of the matter Ralph is that the Gospels start to reveal
the glorious truth of the Godhead/Trinity , something that Acts through Revelation reveal
more fully .You seemed stuck on not being able to understand this because perhaps you
don’t see the word “Trinity” in the N.T. , or perhaps because some other terms were used in
the later debates ( 3rd-4th century ) to counter the more sophisticated attacks are also not
present in the N.T. Just remember it’s the scriptures that are the final authority here , the
teachings of Jesus’ apostles. The question for us today because we live in the latter days is :
do we base our faith about God —Father, Son , Holy Ghost —on what the Bible reveals about
each of these or do we accept those prophets in these latter days who come claiming they
have the long lost truth about Father,Son, Holy Ghost which is necessary for salvation?
““…….very few on this website support the RC church as a Christian church”. Really, you know that? It’s a good “take us off the topic” statement but I’m not going to bite. Since you use Catholicism as an authoritative source, maybe you ought to look into the basic doctrines of orthodox Christianity and see where the Catholic Church lines up.”
If you go by the ‘true teachers’ listed by mrm the Catholic Church has been taken over by the devil.
Brother Andy,
Since the subject of the Catholic church has come up;
How many years before or after the Council of Nicea did the Catholic Church lose the authority given to Peter by Jesus? (Mat 16:17-19)
Thank the Lord that He appointed apostles like Peter to preach His truth , we are blessed
to have their teachings available that we too can come to know about God , the Creator of
heaven and earth who is revealed in scripture as Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Matt 16:17-19
So Parkman,
You wouldn’t be trying to get a Protestant vs. Catholic debate going here would you? I don’t think you’re going to get anyone to take the bait. I will just say I have, and do, live in both of these worlds. After I got saved I remember asking my mother, who was a very devout Catholic, what she would say if she were standing before Jesus and He were to ask her, “Why should I let you into My heaven.” My mother said that she would tell Jesus, “………because of what you did for me.” BINGO right answer.
Can our Mormon friends give the same answer? Are Mormons depending totally on Jesus for their salvation? No! In fact as we have seen from this series of excellent articles, Mormons don’t know who God is. The Mormon Jesus is not, by the admission of one of the Mormon late prophets, not the Jesus of traditional Christianity.
The whole point of the Church Fathers battling the heretics, was because of the aberrant views regarding our Lord and Savior. Mormons are in the same boat as the heretics and that boat is sinking or better yet, has sunk.
The Scriptures clearly show that God is One. He isn’t three, but One God. There aren’t millions or billions of gods. There aren’t father and mother gods. There is no planet Kolob. The Mormon revelation concerning who God is is inconsistent through out Mormonism.
I invite Mormons to read even excerpts of what the Church Fathers wrote and compare it to the Mormon prophets. The Church Fathers were deep thinkers and devoted to God. The Mormon false prophets were clueless, intent on developing their own false religious system.
“You wouldn’t be trying to get a Protestant vs. Catholic debate going here would you?”
f-man, I notice that you are good at sidestepping the real question by telling us why you think the LDS Church is wrong.
You completely walked around answering why you think the men at the C.O.N. had the authority to answer the questions they answered.
“Thank the Lord that He appointed apostles like Peter to preach His truth , we are blessed to have their teachings available that we too can come to know about God…”
At what point in time did God stop speaking through the people who held the position that the Lord started with Peter, and how does it fit into the timeline with the C.O.N.
God has never stopped utilizing the testimonies of the apostles that were discipled by Jesus .
Their testimony of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection is still available for anyone to hear —
Jn 17:20 ; 20:30-31 , and as such anyone who follows the Jesus they followed can receive
new life .
Peter knew who Jesus was and accordingly worshiped Him . Yet Mormon apostles , while
mentioning that they possess the same authority Peter possessed , have taught that the
Father is the sole object of worship for all believers, Peter included. This appears to be a
good example of being aware of those who come claiming to be latter days apostles and
who might use terms like Trinity or Godhead as a means to identify themselves as being
men who have been personally appointed by Jesus to teach the long lost truths about
Him . 2 Cor 11:13 ; Rev 2:2
Parkman said
I really wonder, do you just make stuff up out of the Blue, because if you dont, where do you get your facts?
The Verse you gave does not show or speak of Peter giving the Catholic Church anything. The Catholic Church is not mentioned in the Bible, and the catholic Church claims Peter as their first pope.
Problems with that is, 1. No pope or the word pope is ever mentioned in the Bible.
2. Pope are not allowed to be married and neither are priests, Yet we know Peter was married since the Bible tells us, Jesus healed Peters mother in law. You cannot have a mother in law unless you are or were married. So if Peter was the First pope, we have a problem.
Since the subject of the Catholic church has come up; How many years before or after the Council of Nicea did the Catholic Church lose the authority given to Peter by Jesus? (Mat 16:17-19)
Parkman, this isn’t the topic. The Protestant/Roman Catholic debate has nothing to do with Mormons since they are neither Protestant nor Catholic and are viewed as heretics by both groups. I sense you are trying to set me up in some type of bait and trap, which I will gladly partake for the reasons forthcoming. I will answer your question as it relates to the Council of Nicea since this council has been brought up regarding the Trinity and the deity of Jesus. This is all I’m going to say about this issue. I’m guessing the mods will start flagging and deleting comments that are off-topic.
Parkman, your question is flawed by several faulty presuppositions:
1. There was a loss of authority.
2. The Catholic Church had authority by means of Peter.
3. Jesus gave Peter authority that he didn’t give others.
4. Peter was the leader of the Catholic Church.
5. All of this has something to do someway/somehow with the outcome at the Council of Nicea, thus the doctrine of the Trinity.
6. Catholic Church means Roman Catholic Church
Here’s the answer to your question: The Catholic Church never lost its authority and never will leading up to the Second Advent. What you call “authority” is the same things as “the keys” (Matthew 16:19). Jesus is the one who has full authority that was given to Him by the Father (Matthew 28:18). What you know today as the Roman Catholic Church is a distinctive that wasn’t around before the Council of Nicea. The “Roman” distinction came about primarily at the Council of Trent in 1546 with the Counter Reformation as the church based in Rome set itself apart from the Protestant Reformation attempts at reforming the church and forming their church separate from Rome. “Catholic” means universal. The first time in church history where the term “Catholic Church” is used comes from Ignatius in his Epistle to Smyrna in A.D. 170. The body of Christ, the church, is universal. In some theological circles it is seen as the invisible church (made up of believers throughout the world that are unseen) and visible church (a local body of believers gathered together for worship). This church, which is the body of Christ, cannot be destroyed are overtaken (Matthew 16:18).
The church wasn’t built upon Peter. It was built on Christ because He is the rock (1 Cor 10:4). “This rock” is the confession that Peter made in Matthew 16:16. If Jesus was going to build the church upon Peter, then Jesus would have said, “And on you, Peter, I will build my church.” It’s Christ’s church – not Peter’s. Peter made it abundantly clear that not he but Christ was the foundation of the church (1 Peter 2:6-8). Jesus is going to build His church, and the birth of the church took place at Pentecost. The church was being added to daily as it is today (Acts 2:47). There is only one foundation, and that is Jesus – not Peter (1 Cor 3:11). Peter and the other disciples are part of that foundation. Believers are also part of this body of Christ (Eph 2:20). Foundations are laid at the beginning. The apostles and prophets already did this. Believers are still building the church on it by basing our beliefs on their inspired words. Jesus purchased his church with his own blood (Acts 20:28).
Regarding Peter, he ceased to be the head of the Jerusalem church, and James “the Just,” the half-brother of Jesus, assumed leadership (Acts 15). Paul identifies James, Peter, and John as pillars of the New Testament church (Gal 2:9). Peter did spend the latter part of his life in Rome and died a martyr’s death there. There was no papacy at this time. Monarchial bishops did come about later with Rome being seen as the church due special honor out of the five. The first 12 chapters of Acts prove Christ’s prophecy regarding Peter was fulfilled. Peter was Christ’s instrument for the establishment of his church in its New Testament manifestation, and taking his stand as one of the Twelve. Powers similar to those mentioned in connection with Peter were also given to other apostles (John 20:19-23). The body of Christ, the universal/Catholic Church will always be victorious over the forces of evil. His people will always triumph over the devil and his army.
What are “the keys” mentioned in Matthew 16:19? These are the preaching of the gospel and the exercise of church discipline. The Reformers stated that there are three marks of a true church:
1. Pure preaching of the Word of God
2. Proper administration of the sacraments
3. Enforcing church discipline
If these marks are evident in a church, then this points to a true church that is part of the body of Christ. That church has the authority/keys given to it by Christ. We know these types of churches have always existed and have never been overtaken because Christ said His church, His body, would not be destroyed or be taken away. This church was present leading up to the Council of Nicea and was present afterwards all the way through the medieval ages through the Reformation. There were people continually trying to reform the church at Rome. There have always been God’s people on the earth even through the darkest of times attesting to the gospel of Christ (Wycliffe, Hus, and many others). There was no apostasy where Christianity ceased to exist as the Mormon conspiracy claims. It’s not possible because Christ said it wouldn’t happen. Christ can’t cease to exist; therefore, His body/the bride cannot cease to exist.
The Council of Nicea was led by bishops who were part of this body. They came together in a formal council after the persecution ended to deal with heresy and completed the Council by declaring emphatically the deity of Jesus Christ. This Council played an important role in defining the relationship between the Father and the Son (same substance – homoousius). They exercised church discipline upon Arius and his followers, thus removing them from the church. This was using the keys/authority given to them by Christ. The decision of the bishops as leaders within the body of Christ was then bound in heaven (Matthew 16:19).
I’ll end with this. Arius sought for a church somewhere/anywhere that would take him in and give him ecclesiastical fellowship. He found one in the East. Arius died the night before he was to be received back into the church the following morning. The Eastern Church said this was divine judgment. In light of Matthew 16:19 and the ruling of the Council of Nicea, I’ll let you be the judge. Did this Council have authority/keys? I say that they did. That also means that their theological conclusions are correct and binding upon the Christian community. That means that Jesus Christ is fully God; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; there is only one God; Jesus is begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father. Mormonism rejects this; therefore, they are excluded from Christian fellowship.
Everyone,
It was especially joyful and meaningful to recite the Nicene Creed last Sunday Lord’s Day with other believers gathered into a true church to give worship to the triune God. If your Christian church doesn’t do this I would encourage you to speak with your pastor about possibly doing this. This is one of our great links with those have proceeded us in the foundation on which we are built upon.
Parkman, in two comments that I have deleted you have asked (again) why Christians believe the men at the Council of Nicea had God-given authority/keys. Because Andy has answered this question more than once I see your continued posing of the question to be diversionary. If you have missed Andy’s clear explanation, please reread what he has written and kindly refrain from repeatedly asking a question that has already been answered. Thank you.