On MRM’s February, 2013 trip to Turkey we stopped in Iznik – ancient Nicaea. Standing near the very spot where (it is believed) the Council of Nicaea was held in 325 AD, Pastor Cory Anderson (Shadow Mountain Church, West Jordan, Utah) explained the historical context of the Council and the importance of the Trinitarian doctrine it affirmed.
Pastor Anderson’s teaching in Nicaea (Iznik) is presented in the following 21-minute video. Because of wind and technical issues, the quality is not always the best, but the quality of the teaching is well worth the cost of putting up with the video’s mildly annoying imperfections.
Please watch the full video before joining the conversation on this thread.
Mormons have no clue about what happened at these councils. To them the Emperor at the time made some apostate Christians invent the Doctrine of the Trinity. The problem is that the average Mormon simply repeats what they have been told and are not inclined to question the “one true and perfect church” nor its apostles and prophets.
I remember Andy Watson taking our Aussie friend Ralph all the way back to the second century proving to him that the Church Fathers taught this doctrine well before any of the Councils took place. The challenge for Ralph was than to admit that his church was wrong regarding what it taught. I don’t know if he was ever able to give-up his LDS mind-set and deal with the facts.
The question the Council really answered was “Who is Jesus?”. It’s really that simple. For a faithful Mormon, to find out who Jesus is, will lead them out of the LDS church.
There isn’t any evidence any where that the Lord Jesus Christ was the spirit offspring of one of the pantheon of Mormon gods and one of his plural wives living in the Celestial Kingdom which is near the planet Kolob. That’s not even very good science fiction writing.
Jesus is God incarnate. He alone is the qualified Savior. It’s because He is God that allows Him to be the spotless Lamb, the perfect sacrifice for sin. God died for us but we can only be saved if we are willing to acknowledge who Jesus is and receive the gift of eternal life that the Father is offering.
There’s a lot at stake here. Mormons have to pick which Jesus they will count on for eternal life. Their church has chosen wrong. The individual Mormon needs to choose the right and narrow path that leads to eternal life. Not just any savior will do.
OK, now just to tip you all off, I know what’s coming from our Mormon posters. In order to support what they want to believe in, they will either go to atheist sources or very liberal theologian types. Mormons clearly identify with any source that will deny who Jesus is, as taught by the Church from the beginning. We will get all of the Mormon slogans about a corrupted Biblical text. In the process, the Mormons end up denying the Lord Jesus Christ.
This is why “revelation” is so important to Mormons. Revelation supersedes evidence as the driving force in their faith.
BTW, I’ve never had a Mormon show me any evidence that what is taught and practiced in the modern day LDS church or the LDS church of any era, was what was believed, taught and practiced in the first century Christian Church.
Mormonism is an invention, not a revelation. To know the Father and His Christ personally is the only pathway to salvation.
The council of Nicea was organized by the Roman Emperor, Constantine, who was well known for his involvement in sun worship. At the time of the council, there were about 1800 bishops in the church. Between 250 and 350 bishops attended the council. Debate was quite heated. Arius was struck in the face by another bishop during the arguments.
I have two basic questions.
1. What authority did Constantine or the bishops have to declare any type of official doctrine? Was it OK for a minority of bishops in the church to speak for all of the bishops? This is very relevant considering the fact that there was considerable debate on these topics among the bishops. Further, even if all the bishops were present and agreed perfectly, did they possess the authority to create such declarations or speak authoritatively in these matters?
2. When has God ever spoken, acted, or revealed truth through such means (Gentile/Pagan Government organized/sponsored meeting seeking consensus)? This is the equivalent of the European Union calling for all Christian leaders to meet to decide the nature of God. Believing that the Council of Nicea spoke for God is like believing President Obama and the Democrats in the Senate and House interpret the Constitution in an accurate way that represents the thoughts and intent of the founders and those who ratified that Constitution. (That is a generous comparison given the fact that there is a direct relationship, at least in theory, between the Constitution and our current president and political leaders).
These are huge issues I have personally with the councils. And I think any truth seeker who is honest should have these questions.
FOF said,
What authority did Constantine or the bishops have to declare any type of official doctrine?
I say,
Did you watch the video? The Bishops were not doing anything but expressing the teaching of Scripture that had always been believed by Christians. Of course no man can declare a doctrine “official”. The whole point is that anyone who reads the Scripture can easily see that God declared this doctrine to be “official” in his revelation to us. That is what the council was all about
You say,
When has God ever spoken, acted, or revealed truth through such means
I say,
It always happens this way. Nicaea is just one example of many.
1) A false teacher arises making unbibilical claims
2) This causes the Church to diligently search the scriptures
3) Eventually by one means or another consensus is achieved and the false teacher is condemned
It still happens that way even today
It happened just like that in the 80’s and 90’s with “Open Theism”. It’s happening right now with the “prosperity gospel”.
You say,
(Gentile/Pagan Government organized/sponsored meeting seeking consensus)?
I say,
I’m amazed at the Providence of this meeting. Only a few years earlier such a meeting would have been impossible because Christianity was illegal in the empire. The emperor was not concerned about what decision was reached in the end. This allowed the bishops the time and space to discuss the issue not under any sort of compulsion as to the outcome.
That sort of meeting could not even happen today.
peace
FOF said,
Debate was quite heated. Arius was struck in the face by another bishop during the arguments.
I say,
I’m grateful that the bishops took the matter seriously. Eternal souls were at stake. Although I would not condone violence it is good to know that folks recognized that it was not a trivial thing to lead people astray and belittle my Lord and Savior.
You need to remember that many of these guys had recently been tortured for Christ and perhaps cut them a little slack.
peace
FOF said,
At the time of the council, there were about 1800 bishops in the church. Between 250 and 350 bishops attended the council.
I say,
If you could get a near unanimous consensus of a meeting with 20 percent of christian pastors attending today it would be pretty safe to conclude that you had the “sense” of the church.
peace
Here is what happened at Nicaea. This is a good account, with links to the relevant data and historical accounts. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm
FoF,
Your a funny guy.
You cry and complain when we say you cannot be trust, are a liar and have no integrity. Yet as usual you jump ship and run from the hard questions. You were asked many questions from Us on the last topic, I flat out asked you about the use of the J.S.T And Oldman asked you a few questions.
Typial fasion from you, you ran away, never answered us and just dropped the entire topic at hand, now your here, how can we even trust you to know what your talking about if you avoid questions and jump ship when things get tough.
Don’t the LDS apostles pretty much vote on everything? Why would they even vote if everyone was always on the same page? That tells me that even with “revelation,” there is still some disagreement in high places.
Fof F said :
” The council of Nicea was organized by the Roman Emperor Constantine , who was well
known for his involvement in sun worship. ”
I’ve never considered Constantine a true believer , but that is really beside the point .
He assumed the office/position of authority over the religious and secular in his
empire as a way to insure security of his empire against in fighting by any of these
groups which could fracture his empire , etc . At this time there was disagreements
about God/ Jesus among the “christian ” leaders so he chose to allow them to come
together in a large council to hopefully work out their differences .
Neither all this activity nor the “heated debate ” , nor the fact that Arius was struck by
another Bishop , is not the argument . Did the Nicean creed accurately reflect what
the scriptures reveal about God/Jesus ? That is that really counts here .
The Nicean creed is not scripture , and those that drafted it were not apostles .
I don’t know anyone became a born again believer in Jesus because someone read the
Nicean creed to them . ( That’s not to say that it contains false doctrine , it does’nt .)
Authority ? Both Constantine and Mormon leaders have one thing in common : both
have no true authority( spiritual ) to preside over the Body of Christ , in either of
their empires /kingdoms .
fifth monarchy man (and others),
I think there is a significant degree of circular reasoning in your answers and explanations. It had always been that way? Nam e one instance where that happened before 325. It had never happened. And to say that the attendees were simply articulating what was clearly said in the scriptures strains credulity. From my perspective, the doctrine of the trinity is in no way obvious from the scriptures. But my main point is that there are so many different interpretations of any given verse, it is really impossible to claim such a thing- that it is obvious what the scriptures are meaning.
You say, “I am amazed at the providence of this meeting.” In my opinion, there is a generous portion of naivete in that statement. I hope you don’t take offense at that. Your answers really leave those fundamental questions unanswered- did they have the authority to do what they did, and had such a council ever happened before in a way that was commissioned or condoned by God?
And by the way, can you name one attendee of the council who had been tortured as you claim? This council was held in 325 A.D.
Merrick- the LDS apostles, as I understand the quorum, do not take action or move forward on decisions until there is unanimity among them. The problem with your point is that the LDS apostles have a clearly articulated process by which the Priesthood was restored and transmitted from Christ to today’s apostles. And according to our claims, the decisions they make and move on fall within the well described mechanism by which they have received authority. I understand that you do not believe in the process by which we claim authority was restored. The point is that we at least have an explanation for how that body of leaders possess authority from Christ. The problem with the Council at Nicea, as I see it, is that there is not a clearly explained mechanism by which they had authority to do what they did. I suppose the default position from your perspective is that in general terms, some of the leaders of the various Christian churches 300 years after Christ met and decided what was the true doctrine. And maybe that is enough for you. In my opinion, that is not well thought out or explained. And coming from people who tend to have enormous difficulty accepting what I would consider minutia within what I believe is the restored church, that seems very incongruent or like a double standard. Does that make sense? In other words, it seems to me like you guys are very willing and eager to overlook some very big and fundamental issues with the council while straining with details of the restoration that are relatively minor in comparison.
MikeR,
The problem with your argument is that the council of Nicea had very significant influence on the direction and doctrine of Christianity. And you have been taught the doctrines within that influence. So I think you are in a position and are articulating an argument that looks like circular reasoning. In other words, the obvious response to your post is that you think the scriptures agree with the conclusions of the Council of Nicea because you have been heavily influenced by that council. Does that make sense?
My main problem with the council is authority. I see them as extremely contradictory to the way God worked within the history and tradition of the Bible. And I see no reasonable mechanism by which such a body would have possessed the authority to do what they did. (And in addition, my perspective on man-made governments that accumulate tremendous power and control leads me to tremendous doubts about such a state sponsored endeavor could possibly lead to a God endorsed or divine result).
Hey everyone – you will be proud to know that the face slapping, heresy-hating, gospel defending, truth-defending, bishop of righteous intolerance that FOF referred to was none other than Merry Old St. Nicholas or Santa Claus! Legend has it that he had it with Arius and let him have it!!! Of course this may not be accurate, but it made it into Church artwork:
http://mesamike.org/misc/nicholas-arius.jpg
Here’s more on the story:
http://witness.lcms.org/pages/wPage.asp?ContentID=1153&IssueID=61
Next St. Nicolas day, December 6th, 2014, you might just think about going to an online forum and giving a virtual slap with the truth to all the heretics!!! Enjoy!
Actually the Council of Nicaea only AFFIRMED the doctrine of the Trinity that had been taught since the beginning. The ECF’s of the 1st and 2nd Centuries taught it. They used it as an argument against Heresy, especially that of Marcion. There are actually no real accounts of Arius being slapped, only paintings made long after the event. And St. Nick isn’t even on most of the contemporary lists that place him at the Council. As for Mormon “apostles”, they do not choose apostles in the same way that they chose Matthias in the Bible. They Vote, and then stay in quorum until they all agree, and the younger apostles have no real say in the matter, they must bend to the senior “apostles.” This is all well documented in diaries from when they were still writing about it, before Joseph F. Smith “commanded” them to stop keeping minutes in their diaries because he was terrified that the info would be used against them (rightfully so, there is a wealth of things that we now know that they did – like bribing supreme court judges and the like.)
Fof F ,
In your first post in the first paragraph you mentioned some points eventually you feel
are important to this thread topic . But each one of those is beside the point . Things
like this tend to divert away from the main point here . Your reasoning sounds like:
Arius was struck in the face by another bishop —-so the Trinity can’t be true since it
was crafted by violent bishops ! Then you said that ” debate was heated ” . What does
that prove ? Are you sure that when your leadership meets to discuss doctrinal
matters that there is no ” heated discussions ” between some of them ? This appears to
be your attempt to set the stage for your opinion of the council of Nicea .
Concerning the two questions you asked :
1. you asked , ” What authority did Constantine or the bishops have to declare any type
of official doctrine ? ”
I mentioned to you the kind of authority Constantine had in his empire . As for the
Bishops , I imagine they were looked upon by their flocks to be authorities to a point,
they were not apostles and any declaration they introduced needs to be in line with
what the scriptures reveal . That’s the way I view what my Pastor’s teachings . As for
“official doctrine” is concerned , sounds like you’re trying to look at this whole issue
here through Mormon glasses , and that’s not going to allow you to understand what
I believe about this council or it’s Bishops as far as ” authority ” or ” official doctrine ”
is concerned . Interestingly , there is not a perfect concession among influencial
Mormons as to what exactly is official doctrine of their church . Furthermore , what
authority did Brigham Young cite to declare the denying of full blessings/privleges
of the gospel of Jesus to Negroes ? was that official church doctrine ? Or mere theory?
You keep mentioning ” authority ” , but the authority your leaders claim to have springs
from their faulty belief in a total/universal apostasy from the gospel and of Jesus’
church took place after the original apostles were gone . But that did’nt happen .
Mormon leaders in their councils /conferences have no better authority than these
Bishops at Nicea . The authority resides in Jesus’ apostles teachings together with the
Holy Ghost’s ministry with that record in the Bible .
you asked , ” Was it ok for a minority of bishops in the church to speak for all of the
bishops ? ”
Could be . Do we know all the particulars about why not all attended ? Are you infering
that those who were there lied about the others beliefs in order to swing a vote ?
Besides , you went on to say , ” even if all the bishops were present and agreed perfectly
did they possess the authority to create such declarations or speak authoritatively in
these matters ? ” So the whole issue really is authority and declarations , right? Great .
What do we find out about the two ” Declarations ” in the D&C ( 1890 and 1978 ) ?
I think I’ll stick with the Bible as my written standard for gospel truth .
This reply is way longer than I had planned , it’s to late to go on , so perhaps more later .
How are you doing FOF?,
You said,
It had always been that way? Nam e one instance where that happened before 325. It had never happened
I say,
I can think of a couple off the top of my head. The Judiziers in the first century and the Gnostics in the second century. In both cases
1)false teaching arose….
2)This forced the Church to diligently search the scriptures…..
3)Eventually consensus was reached and the false teaching was condemned……
We have the record of the judizer controversy in the very pages of Scripture (Paul’s letters and Acts). Where do you think the bishops got the idea for councils as a method for gaining consensus in the first place?
You said:
And by the way, can you name one attendee of the council who had been tortured as you claim? This council was held in 325 A.D.
I say,
Persecution only ended about 10 years before the council it was rampant in the empire before then. The very guy who supposedly did the slapping (Nicholas) is believed to have been imprisoned for his faith under Diocletian and Maximian.
you say,
Your answers really leave those fundamental questions unanswered- did they have the authority to do what they did, and had such a council ever happened before in a way that was commissioned or condoned by God?
I say,
I would say that any christian has the authority to restate what the scriptures say in there own words and withhold fellowship from those who teach unbibical doctrines. I would say that God always condones separation from heresy full stop.
quote:
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.
(Galatians 1:8-9)
end quote:
peace
peace
Well I suppose I’m going to be forced to go down to the basement and haul out my two issues of “Christian History” that take up all of the issues related to this topic.
Off the top of my head, however, let me answer the “authority” question. In the early Church the saying was, “Where the Bishops are, there is the Church.” In-other-words, the Bishops had the ecclesiastical authority to make decisions related to doctrine. These men were not that many generations removed from the first century Church. They knew what the apostles taught, what the Scriptures said and it was their job to defend it.
If FOF really is interested in being enlightened, he can go and read what these men wrote. Then put it up along side what Mormon “apostles and prophets” have written and it’s obvious that the McConkie’s et al are fools, idiots and rank religious amateurs.
I’m going out of town to do my retirement gig so I’m not going to be able to really post like I would like to on this topic. But I’d like to provide a few quotes from the Christian History periodical I mentioned above (Issue 85).
“The Council of Nicaea is often misrepresented. Jehovah’s Witnesses and modern critics of the divinity of Christ allege that the council was merely a tool of imperial manipulation………But did Constantine really run the show at Nicaea? The relationship between the church and the emperors starting with Constantine to the end of the Roman Empire in the East worked much like a marriage. Much of it was improvised, and the lovers quarreled at times and manipulated each other to get what they wanted. When it came to matters of faith, however, the boundaries of their relationship left no uncertainty about where the power of one left off and the other began.”
“…….the ecumenical councils were viewed as Spirit-inspired events, not as legal institutions that would guarantee the truthfulness of their decisions. This view limited imperial power. Constantine and his successors learned from the church’s response that there was no guarantee a council’s decisions would be accepted as representing the mind of the universal church. under the guidance of the Holy spirit, Nicaea was a witness to the truth, in conformity with the Scripture as handed down in apostolic tradition. But its ecumenicity and authority would be determined only by whether the church received it. The ultimate authority of all the ecumenical councils was not the emperor, but the witness of the Holy Spirit among the faithful and their bishops.”
So, as concerns the question of authority, it came from the witness of the Holy Spirit among the faithful and their bishops. Now I’d think that would really appeal to a Mormon.
In essence, you guys are arguing that the Nicean Council only stated what was clearly taught in the church before the council. If that is the case, why was the council needed? There was very clearly disagreement within the church about the nature of God and Christ, and this should not be overlooked. This is a hand-waving maneuver intended to gloss over this fact.
The council has held as a result of the disagreement and lack of consensus within the church about the nature of God. The trinity is not self-evident from the scriptures. LDS are not the only ones who argue that the scriptures do not convey the trinitarian doctrine.
The claim that the early church fathers taught the trinity is very problematic. Yes- they used the words “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,” but it was not until later that the explanation that resembles the trinity doctrine was articulated. The scripture use those same words, yet millions of people do not read them and come away with the Trinity concept.
fifth monarchy man,
I am well, thank you.
The problem with your answer is that those false teachings were not handled previously in the manner that the council handled them. Previously, there were the apostles who were constantly correcting false teachings. But those apostles were not around during this later period. And that is my very point. The apostles had authority directly from Christ to correct those false teachings. That same authority was not present in the council (there were no apostles). Make sense?
MikeR- my point about one person slapping another at the council is merely to demonstrate the confrontational and argumentative nature of that gathering. And in my opinion, such a gathering organized by a powerful pagan emperor and noted for its confrontational spirit does not reflect the way God does things. Combine that with the utter lack of clear authority, and you get something that I could never trust in a million years. It is like trusting Obama and the liberal congressional leaders to faithfully lead in a constitutional manner.
It really is surprising how much “blind faith” many people have in trusting such a council where there was absolutely no clearly defined authority at the helm. And claims that the 1st and 2nd century patristic fathers taught the trinity as defined by the council is really inaccurate. That simply was not the case. If you think otherwise, please show us where they taught clearly the doctrine of the trinity. And that does not mean simply references to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. I believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, but I absolutely do not believe in the Trinity as defined by the council.
Actually FoF,
I discovered I believed in the Trinity before I learned about the council of Niceaea. I learned from scripture and from the early Church Fathers, pre Council. I focused on all Christian writings before the council because I wanted to find the truth of what was believed before that time period. I believed in the Trinity before I knew what the doctrine of the Trinity even was, So there goes your blind faith in the council arguments. I can’t even see how it benefits you to argue against the outcome of the council. Mormonism wasn’t even on the table. And never was for that matter. It never existed. Arguing against the Council of Nicaea benefits JW’s not Mormonism, as they are the modern day Arianism. Every argument you give has no ultimate point because even attempting to disprove traditional Christianity does not leave Mormonism. You want to make a good argument? Show me Mormonism pre Council of Nicaea. I asked my Stake President the same question. He had a huge collection of early Christian writings. He knew the truth. That’s why he said, “That’s because Christ secretly taught his Apsotles to purposely remove the Church from the earth.” He said that because any mormon that takes history seriously is only left with that argument.
Jaxi,
Thanks for the response. So you focused exclusively on the fathers before the councils and the scriptures? Any influence from sources dating to after the councils? Sort of hard to believe, but I will take you at your word.
Can you provide statements from any church fathers in the 1st or 2nd century A.D. that articulate the doctrine of the trinity as defined by the Council of Nicea? Because my own reading of the New Testament before I believed in the restoration led me to conclusions that were very contradictory to the trinity.
By the way, I am approaching this topic independent of the claims of the restored gospel. I am trying to approach it as a believer in the New Testament and somebody who understands man’s nature and propensity for corruption and apostasy.
FOF,
Well congratulations to you! This is a huge step. You’ve decided to answer for yourself the question that the Council at Nicea reaffirmed regarding the Lord Jesus Christ. So let me pose the question for you that needs to be answered and which you have pledged to answer without the lens of Mormonism influencing you. That question is: “Who is Jesus?”
I for one am pretty excited that you have decided to take this step forward. I’m going to pray for you right now.
Heavenly Father, I thank you that you continue to bring FOF back to this blog that he may hear the words that will lead him to eternal life through Your Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ. Let him see who Jesus is and that in coming to that understanding, will receive Him by faith and in so doing be spiritually born again.
falcon,
I have never arrived at any conclusions after reading the New Testament but that Jesus Christ is and was the Son of Almighty God. He lived a perfect life of obedience and service. His sacrifice is the only means of salvation for all of mankind. He is subordinate to the Father. He has a physical body, just as the Father does. He is the Creator. He is the Savior. He is the Judge.
He has the very same motives, desires, intelligence, and greatness as His Father. But they are two people, both with physical bodies.
In my view, the most powerful statement from Christ regarding the nature of His “oneness” with the Father is found in His great Intercessary Prayer, specifically in John 17. He stated:
“And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are….Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.” John 17:11,20-23
It could not be made more clear than it is in these verses how the Father and Son are ‘one.’ That very same oneness is possible for mortal, physical beings (either in this life or the next). Christ was very clear that He desired His apostles to be ‘one’ in the very same way the Father and Son were one. And that absolutely does not allow for the trinitarian concept of oneness to be possible. The Council of Nicea completely contradicted this simple concept and statement from Christ. There is no room for the trinity concept in this passage of scripture.
Foff made a couple of points that I’ll briefly respond to.
First he said
“The trinity is not self-evident from the scriptures. LDS are not the only ones who argue that the scriptures do not convey the trinitarian doctrine.”
Actually the Trinity is self evident from Scripture, one only has to read the New Testament without ANY pre-conceived idea to come to that conclusion. Just like Jaxi, I knew about the Trinity but not the doctrine long before I knew anything about the council of Nicaea, how? Because it is self-evident when the Bible is read with a view to understanding Gods word.
I will agree with you on one point though, there are many besides LDS who do not believe in that doctrine, but NONE of them are Christians.
“The apostles had authority directly from Christ to correct those false teachings. That same authority was not present in the council (there were no apostles).”
Let me ask you this, you correctly say there were no Apostles at that time & yet you now have apostles (so called) in the LDS, from whom did they get their authority? If you intend answering this then please do so using a book with genuine authority, the Bible.
FoF, I also knew the Trinity existed from just reading the Bible, I just never knew it was called that.
The trinity is all through the Bible and I for one dont believe you really care to know the truth. You ran away from many pointed questions in the last topic, others have claimed you refuse to answer hard questions you dont like. That was so well expoused in the last topic, jump ship like it’s on fire when you dont like the questions.
Then the issue of the Trinity has been answered over and over on this blog many times over the years. So something tells me, you wont care and dont care what we say or even show you for evidence. You give me know reason to believe your honestly seeking the truth when you run from the hard questions and when you try and quote scripture, you purposly leave info out, then make excuses claiming that it’s to hard to give it all.
If you really are seeking the truth, then prove it.
So, the topic of every thread here is how I don’t answer questions? That seems a pretty unsatisfying topic, in my opinion. Deal with it. Seriously.
Any response to my comments on John 17? The trinity doctrine completely contradicts the words of Christ Himself from that Intercessary prayer.
Old man and RickB,
I think both of you have been heavily influenced by modern Christendom in your interpretation of the scriptures. Could I be wrong? Sure. But the claim that you read the New Testament and came away with a trinitarian idea prove no more than the fact that I did the same thing and came away with a Godhead concept.
Old man- the modern apostles in my church received the authority they possess from a chain of apostles and prophets who ultimately received that authority and the keys of the Priesthood from John the Baptist and Peter, James, and John. I get that you do not also believe that. And that is perfectly fine. The relevant point is that I can explain the means by which, according to my belief, those I follow have authority from God. I do not think the same can be said of those who follow the councils, including the Council of Nicea. Instead, it is a vague trust that God’s will was done by a very poorly defined mechanism and through very unclear authority. That is the difference I see.
RickB- the purpose of me being here is not to prove to you that I am sincere in my search for truth. If you cannot respond to the points and questions I bring up and articulate an argument equal to the opposing argument, shifting to personal attacks or gripes about past deficits you perceive in me does not help your position. I hope you see that.
FOF
I also believed the doctrine of the Trinity before I ever heard the word or knew of the council. The doctrine of the Trinity is not difficult or confusing it’s simply short hand for three truths that are clearly and plainly taught in scripture.
1) There is only one God
2) The Father, the Son and the Spirit are each God
3) The Father The Son and the Spirit are not the same person.
I could literally bury you in scriptures proclaiming anyone of those points. Even a child reading the Bible for the first time would recognize the truth of these statements. I know because i was such a child.
In order to deny the Trinity you must deny the plain teaching of Scripture in one of those points. As you do with the first one.
you say,
Can you provide statements from any church fathers in the 1st or 2nd century A.D. that articulate the doctrine of the trinity as defined by the Council of Nicea?
I say,
I can do better than that I can provide many Scripture texts that articulate the three points that constitute the doctrine of the Trinity. Of course they don’t use exactly the same wording if they did the creed would not be a restatement of Scripture in the language of the bishops it would be Scripture.
you say,
In essence, you guys are arguing that the Nicean Council only stated what was clearly taught in the church before the council. If that is the case, why was the council needed?
I say,
Because a new false teacher had arose. When false teaching arises it must be addressed. The Bishops were doing exactly what scripture commanded them to do.
Quote:
For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach…………..He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.
(Titus 1:7-9)
end quote
The church has always proclaimed that God knows the future yet overseers (bishops) needed to clarify what that meant when the Open Theists arrived on the scene. The church has always proclaimed that faith does not guarantee materiel blessings but local overseers now need to clearly articulate this belief in response to the prosperity Gospel. It’s what Bishops do
you say,
The problem with your answer is that those false teachings were not handled previously in the manner that the council handled them.
I say,
As I have repeatedly demonstrated false teaching is always handled in the following way
1. False teaching arises
2. This cause the Church to diligently search the scriptures
3. Eventually consensus is reached and the false teaching is condemned.
the exact manner varies each time with circumstances but the same three steps always occur every time I could give you many examples from the history of the church
you say,
Previously, there were the apostles who were constantly correcting false teachings. But those apostles were not around during this later period.
I say,
The apostles were around yet when the false teaching of the Judizers needed to be addressed the Jerusalem council was called. The authority of the apostles was not enough to silence the false teachers in that case. Do you not understand.
peace
FoF said
FoF, what it realy comes down to is this,
LDS claim to have the truth and we are all wrong in are views of God and the Bible and you (LDS) are correct. So if your claims are true, then why do you avoid hard questions and run from topics and leave out information that leads people to believe things that are not true?
It is a big deal becasue the Bible warns us to beware wolves in sheeps clothing and false teachers.
Your both and people need to be warned. This is serious bussiness, were talking eternal matters that mean eternal life or death.
If you claim your god, church or scripture says something and telling people it’s gospel truth, then claiming your a christian, theirfore leading people to believe that we both believe the same things, becasue they dont know the differance, then these issues need to be corrected, and the Bible tells me, Commands me, to rebuke and correct these issues, so in your words, Deal With It.
FoF, as far as teh trinity goes, It is not just a New Testment Idea, it’s all throught the OT as well.
FOF
Any response to my comments on John 17? The trinity doctrine completely contradicts the words of Christ Himself from that Intercessary prayer.
I say,
Do you honestly think the belief in one God somehow relies on the exact meaning of the word “one” in John 17? You could be completely correct in your interpretation and the doctrine of the Trinity would not change in the slightest
You said
But the claim that you read the New Testament and came away with a trinitarian idea prove no more than the fact that I did the same thing and came away with a Godhead concept.
I say,
No offense but your judgement is not to be trusted on this issue.
You belong to a tradition that has an authority other than scripture and your exaltation depends on your submission to that authority is it is little wonder that you come away believing what that authority teaches .
When you look to folks who hold scripture as the final authority the Trinity is almost universally accepted. Our eternal destiny does not in any way depend on accepting the opinions of of any men yet we agree with the council. This is clear evidence that this is what the Bible actually teaches
peace
“Old man- the modern apostles in my church received the authority they possess from a chain of apostles and prophets who ultimately received that authority and the keys of the Priesthood from John the Baptist and Peter, James, and John. ……… I do not think the same can be said of those who follow the councils, including the Council of Nicea.”
Sorry to say this FofF but you’re like a man who expects his opponent to fight a duel with his arms in a straightjacket. There really is little point in trying to have an honest debate with you. You feel free to quote from extra-biblical sources & when we demonstrate that those sources are wrong by using the Bible, a book incidentally that you claim to know & use, you have no compunction telling us that it’s corrupt. In that case why use it at all?
So what can we do about this, should we accept your claim that God allowed His Church, the body of believers also called ‘The Bride of Christ’ to be corrupted for nearly 2000 years before calling a mere man to do what His own Son could not do?
Or should we use the knowledge we have of God & listen to the Spirit who indwells every believer. Should we say to you that if Christ could keep His bride pure for only one generation then why on earth should we believe that a group of men KNOWN to practice deception could keep a church intact for three times as long?
You read the writings of a deranged con-man, you believe what you read & then present it as evidence in opposition to the message of the Gospel.
Apologies for wandering a little off topic but after FofF statement above I felt it needed to be said.
FoF,
when you mention verses in the Bible then try and tell us what they mean, how can we trust you and to know that you understand what you read?
I ask/say that becasue you kept talking about the sermon on the Mount. Yet you were using the Bible and according to your church, the Bible is missing many plain and presious truths, and has not been translated correctly. So since your church feels that way, why should we trust/believe what you say about the trinity is not in the Bible?
Then add to that, I showed you quotes from your Church’s website saying the J.S.T was from the prophet JS and by him “creating’ that book, proved he was a prophet. Then the same website claimed the Sermon on the mount was missing many plain and presious truth, but they were restored BY JS in his J.S.T.
So you were using a corrput Bible and ignoring the scripture laid out and “corrected” by your prophet. So if you rejected Your prophets Version and used a “corrput Bible” How can we trust you on the trinity issue?
A few brief comments might be in order here, I suppose. First, FoF complains about John 17 allegedly being an obstacle for Trinitarianism, but this only shows how poorly he grasps the Jewish background underlying the chapter. In brief: In Second Temple Jewish writings, it was not uncommon for the divine unity of God to be connected in strict correspondence to the oneness of some other entity. For instance, both Philo and Josephus stress that, because there is only one God, therefore there can only be one temple to correspond to that one God. Similarly, Philo, Josephus, and other Jewish authors of that era argued frequently that, because there is only one God, so there ought only be one people, who by their astonishing unity would bear witness to the oneness of God. Even Paul uses this motif (see Ephesians 4:4-6). And that is precisely what Jesus is alluding to in John 17. But note: now the divine unity is fleshed out precisely as Father-and-Son unity, which entails (contrary to erroneous Mormon teaching) that the Father and the Son are one God, not two Gods. Jesus’ further comments about social embeddedness do not contravene this: just as the Father’s identity is embedded in that of the Son, and the Son’s identity is embedded in that of the Father, so the presence of the Father and Son dwell in the people through their unity-giving Spirit, and so the people find their identity embedded in that of the Father and the Son. So far from rendering the doctrine of the Trinity impossible, as FoF uninformedly contends, John 17 points to it quite strongly, as a survey of some of the latest Johannine scholarship bears out. (If FoF is in a reading mood, I can provide some recommended books and essays.)
Second, even assuming a dim view of Constantine as a person (and I withhold judgment on that until I have opportunity to peruse my copy of Peter J. Leithart’s Defending Constantine), FoF’s arguments against the Council of Nicaea fall quite flat. Had Gov. Lilburn Boggs successfully prevented the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles from meeting while the Mormons were in Missouri, and had they only been permitted to reconvene once the Mormons had been granted refuge in Illinois, and had the Illinois state legislature actually volunteered to contribute funds to ease Mormon travel to Nauvoo (including that of the Q12), does anyone seriously believe that FoF would be complaining now about Illinois influence over the very next meeting of the Quorum of the Twelve? Hardly. Not even if the Illinois governor had happened to be sitting in. But as Constantine had no particular role in the actual course of the Council of Nicaea’s decision-making, the cases are sufficiently analogous to undercut FoF’s complaint. Furthermore, as to allegations of disunity at the Council of Nicaea, it is worth noting that, however vigorous the debate was, the result of the vote to support the Nicene Creed was virtually unanimous. By way of percentage, I note, it had much greater unanimity in spirit than many nineteenth-century meetings of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, particularly those in which Orson Pratt stood as quite an outlier. (FoF would do well to read some of the records on these matters.) There is nothing that prevents God from achieving his will through a fractious, raucous assembly. Nothing about the conduct of participants at the Council of Nicaea invalidates the results. Only an actual engagement with the content of the Nicene Creed will do that – and I’m not sure that FoF has even taken the time to understand it, let alone to sufficiently study out in his mind any truly serious arguments against it.
John,
great comments .
I’ll comment on some of Fof F ‘s statements :
He said to Jaxi , ” Can you provide statements from any church fathers in the 1st or
2nd century A.D. that articulate the doctrine of the trinity as defined by the Council of
Nicea ? ”
If you mean did christian leaders teach that there was only one God and that somehow
the persons of the Father,Son and Holy Spirit are not three Gods but are the one God,
then yes . But if you are looking for the same language and terms used in the Nicean
Creed in that time frame , then I no . Even the apostles creed ( which if I remember
correctly was a fore runner of the Nicean Creed ) was’nt as descriptive as the wording
in the Nicea creed . The reason was that the more sophisticated the attacks on the
doctrine of God became upon the early church , it was necessary to respond by being
more descriptive/ articulate about the truth of God to defend the truth about Him .
The simple faith professed and lived by early believers was becoming more and more
challenged the more the church grew and expanded into a non -christian world .
It’s perfectly understandable why the Nicean creed had to be worded the way it was
at that time .
Like Jaxi I also learned about the Trinity without ever even hearing of the Nicean creed.
It’s really of little use to me , it does provide some value because it explains the truth
about our Creator in a way that might benefit someone who wants to go deeper into
christian theology to answer some questions that some people might bring up etc .
you said to me , ” It really is surprising how much ‘ blind faith ‘ many people have in
trusting such a council where there was absolutely no clearly defined authority at
the helm .”
Fact is , even if one of these men at the council of Nicea would have been elected as
God’s sole mouthpiece to mankind , you still would not accept what the creed states .
You keep bringing up what you call ” a clearly described mechanism ” by which these
men had authority to do what they did , therefore it’s no wonder they produced a
declaration that did not contain sound doctrine about God . You also want to factor
in to your theory about Nicea that there were conflicting views among some of these
men , many were argumentative , and let’s don’t forget that the man who wanted this
council to get together was a pagan — presto the creed was a abomination in God’s
sight ! Sorry , but you are’nt going to see what God wants for you do see if you keep
maintaining a mind set like that . The important thing about all this is that the Mormon
leadership , despite their claims to exclusive authority from Jesus to teach His gospel
and correct alleged distortions about Him and His Father’s identity introduced by
non-Mormons , have not been consistently reliable as guides in teaching gospel truths.
One example :
In a Conference sermon in april of 1852 Brigham Young stated that the Elders of Israel
( Mormon Elders ) had conflicting views about Jesus , apparently about Jesus’ birth .
The Mormon prophet vested with the authority of God proceeded to provide the true
doctrine about Jesus’ parternity —He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost , rather the
Father as a man came down and found Mary and begot Jesus . This was the correct
teaching , and it was taught repeatedly in other sermons in the years to come .
Yes, the Father came down from heaven and had sex with Mary to produce a body
on earth for His spirit Son to begin His ministry as the Savior .
Try sharing that ” gospel teaching ” with Mormons today and watch their faces.
Authority ? but not of men who run a massive financial empire from Salt Lake City
who claim to be Jesus’ modern day spokesmen .
FoF,
“Can you provide statements from any church fathers in the 1st or 2nd century A.D. that articulate the doctrine of the trinity as defined by the Council of Nicea? Because my own reading of the New Testament before I believed in the restoration led me to conclusions that were very contradictory to the trinity.”
I second what Mike R said in response to the question. I can provide statements from the early Church Fathers that speak about the nature of God and the identity of Christ. I’m having a busy week so I don’t know if I will have time to look them up. I have stated this before on Mormon coffee though it was in the summertime and I can’t remember the post. I think I quoted iranaeus. When I was searching for my own beliefs, I studied the early Church fathers because they learned from the Apostles, and their interpretation of scripture I felt would have been the most accurate. I found quotes about the nature of God and Christ that supported the Trinitarian concept of the nature of God, though at the time I did not know what the Trinity was. The quotes also contradict Mormonism teachings on the Godhead.
I am interested in what scriptures you read that contradicted the Trinity. I read the New Testament daily and have yet to find a contradiction.
I made a comment above this one. I’m just stating that just in case this one posts before the other one.
Some quotes requested by FOF. I can look for more later if need be as I am only quoting Iraneaus right now.
“It is proper, then, that I should begin with the first and most important head, that is, God the Creator, who made the heaven and the earth, and all things that are therein (whom these men blasphemously style the fruit of a defect), and to demonstrate that there is nothing either above Him or after Him; nor that, influenced by any one, but of His own free will, He created all things, since He is the only God, the only Lord, the only Creator, the only Father, alone containing all things, and Himself commanding all things into existence.”
Everything here is square with the Trinity. however, with Mormonism it is not. “There is nothing before Him or after Him.” And the quote, “the only Father, alone containing all things.”
“For how can there be any other Fulness, or Principle, or Power, or God, above Him, since it is matter of necessity that God, the Pleroma (Fulness) of all these, should contain all things in His immensity, and should be contained by no one? But if there is anything beyond Him, He is not then the Pleroma of all, nor does He contain all. For that which they declare to be beyond Him will be wanting to the Pleroma, or, [in other words,] to that God who is above all things. But that which is wanting, and falls in any way short, is not the Pleroma of all things. In such a case, He would have both beginning, middle, and end, with respect to those who are beyond Him. And if He has an end in regard to those things which are below, He has also a beginning with respect to those things which are above. In like manner, there is an absolute necessity that He should experience the very same thing at all other points, and should be held in, bounded, and enclosed by those existences that are outside of Him. For that being who is the end downwards, necessarily circumscribes and surrounds him who finds his end in it. And thus, according to them, the Father of all (that is, He whom they call Proön and Proarche), with their Pleroma, and the good God of Marcion, is established and enclosed in some other, and is surrounded from without by another mighty Being, who must of necessity be greater, inasmuch as that which contains is greater than that which is contained. But then that which is greater is also stronger, and in a greater degree Lord; and that which is greater, and stronger, and in a greater degree Lord— must be God.”
Again everything square with the Trinity. But this directly refutes the idea of God the Father obtaining Godhood. And the idea of a genealogy of Gods.
“For it was for this end that the Word of God was made man, and He who was the Son of God became the Son of man, that man, having been taken into the Word, and receiving the adoption, might become the son of God. For by no other means could we have attained to incorruptibility and immortality, unless we had been united to incorruptibility and immortality. But how could we be joined to incorruptibility and immortality, unless, first, incorruptibility and immortality had become that which we also are, so that the corruptible might be swallowed up by incorruptibility, and the mortal by immortality, that we might receive the adoption of sons?”
this describes the incarnation. Part of the nature of God in the trinity. the incarnation is described, or even called “the Incarnate Word” also the doctrine of adopted as son of god doesn’t go with Mormonism.
“For no one can know the Father, unless through the Word of God, that is, unless by the Son revealing [Him]; neither can he have knowledge of the Son, unless through the good pleasure of the Father. But the Son performs the good pleasure of the Father; for the Father sends, and the Son is sent, and comes. And His Word knows that His Father is, as far as regards us, invisible and infinite; and since He cannot be declared [by any one else], He does Himself declare Him to us; and, on the other hand, it is the Father alone who knows His own Word. And both these truths has our Lord declared. Wherefore the Son reveals the knowledge of the Father through His own manifestation. For the manifestation of the Son is the knowledge of the Father; for all things are manifested through the Word. In order, therefore, that we might know that the Son who came is He who imparts to those believing on Him a knowledge of the Father, He said to His disciples: No man knows the Son but the Father, nor the Father but the Son, and those to whomsoever the Son shall reveal Him; thus setting Himself forth and the Father as He [really] is, that we may not receive any other Father, except Him who is revealed by the Son.”
Notice the quote “Invisible and infinite.” And “he cannot be declared by anyone else.” doesn’t square with the “official” first vision. But everything in this is included in the Trinity doctrine. This verse in john, was actually given to me during prayer and was one of the reasons I left Mormonism. It all had to do with the concept of the nature of God.
“As regards His greatness, therefore, it is not possible to know God, for it is impossible that the Father can be measured; but as regards His love (for this it is which leads us to God by His Word), when we obey Him, we do always learn that there is so great a God, and that it is He who by Himself has established, and selected, and adorned, and contains all things; and among the all things, both ourselves and this our world. We also then were made, along with those things which are contained by Him. And this is He of whom the Scripture says, And God formed man, taking clay of the earth, and breathed into his face the breath of life. Genesis 2:7 It was not angels, therefore, who made us, nor who formed us, neither had angels power to make an image of God, nor any one else, except the Word of the Lord, nor any Power remotely distant from the Father of all things. For God did not stand in need of these [beings], in order to the accomplishing 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; Genesis 1:26 He taking from Himself the substance of the creatures [formed], and the pattern of things made, and the type of all the adornments in the world.”
This verse includes all Trinitarian concepts. God the Father as unknowable, immeasurable, contains all things, that we are created, that the Spirit and Son were always present. Not Mormonism.
I’m going to stop there because I got stuff to do. But I could give plenty more quote. now you will not find the phrase “one essence with the Father.” Or the word Trinity. But the Trinity is a bunch of biblical concepts tied together. The early Church Fathers teach these concepts. These teachings do not square with Mormonism. There is no Mormonism that can be found at all in early Christianity.
Ill-informed and simply blind to what is out there. ^^^
Justin Martyr, [103 -165 A.D.]
This squares precisely with the Nicene Creed, which declares God the Son to be “begotten, not made.” Justin explains further that “this power is indivisible and inseparable from the Father,” [2] and that the Son was “begotten from the Father, by His power and will, but not by abscission, as if the essence of the Father were divided”:
This, of course, means that the Son is begotten from the very same essence which the Father himself possesses – not dividing the Godhead into parts, but rather allowing each divine person a full sharing in the Godhead – which is exactly what the doctrine of the Trinity maintains. We can move on then, to others, one of which is Irenaeus [Died circa 202 A.D.] and perhaps the foremost apologist of that time. He was battling the heresies of Marcion and the Gnostics. He writes,
In his greatest work, Against Heresies, Irenaeus teaches the TRINITY plain as day:
In this same work, Against Heresies, Book II, Chapter 1, Irenaeus goes to great length to explain why there could not be more than ONE GOD, ever. I advise reading the whole chapter because it teaches exactly the opposite of what Mormonism teaches, and perhaps we won’t be having to answer these kinds of questions over and over again (since I’ve posted this material in discussions with FOF at least 3 times now).
Clement of Alexandria [153-217 A.D.] taught,
Tertullian [160-220 A.D.] coined the word “Trinity”. He taught,
I advise reading the whole of this, because it answers all the questions that have been asked SINCE THAT TIME, like how could God talk to himself, etc. etc. if he were three persons and only ONE GOD. I have lots more of these quotes, many, many more, which I’ve given in this forum but that seem to get ignored by the Mormons over and over again, and many are taken out of context because they are partially quoted by Mormon Apologists who cannot fail to know that they are doing so, if they simply read the ENTIRETY of these early apologia, which were given just because of heresies by Praxeas, Marcion, the Gnostics and others, who sprang up in the 1st and 2nd centuries, and led these men to have to define the TRINITY, which Tertullian does nicely in this piece, over a hundred years before Nicaea. These heretics continued to plague the church, like Arius, which culminated in the Ecumenical Councils of the Fourth Century to once and for all define who God was according to the Scriptures and Tradition, which stretched back to the time of the first Apostles.
I also highly recommend this apologia, written by Hippolytus [170-235] It is called Against All Heresies. After listing all of the Heretic’s doctrines, he writes,
Chapter 28. The Doctrine of the Truth.
The first and only (one God), both Creator and Lord of all, had nothing coeval with Himself; not infinite chaos, nor measureless water, nor solid earth, nor dense air, not warm fire, nor refined spirit, nor the azure canopy of the stupendous firmament. But He was One, alone in Himself. By an exercise of His will He created things that are, which antecedently had no existence, except that He willed to make them. For He is fully acquainted with whatever is about to take place, for foreknowledge also is present to Him. The different principles, however, of what will come into existence, He first fabricated, viz., fire and spirit, water and earth, from which diverse elements He proceeded to form His own creation. And some objects He formed of one essence, but others He compounded from two, and others from three, and others from four. And those formed of one substance were immortal, for in their case dissolution does not follow, for what is one will never be dissolved. Those, on the other hand, which are formed out of two, or three, or four substances, are dissoluble; wherefore also are they named mortal. For this has been denominated death; namely, the dissolution of substances connected. I now therefore think that I have sufficiently answered those endued with a sound mind, who, if they are desirous of additional instruction, and are disposed accurately to investigate the substances of these things, and the causes of the entire creation, will become acquainted with these points should they peruse a work of ours comprised (under the title), Concerning the Substance of the Universe. I consider, however, that at present it is enough to elucidate those causes of which the Greeks, not being aware, glorified, in pompous phraseology, the parts of creation, while they remained ignorant of the Creator. And from these the heresiarchs have taken occasion, and have transformed the statements previously made by those Greeks into similar doctrines, and thus have framed ridiculous heresies.
Chapter 29. The Doctrine of the Truth Continued.
Therefore this solitary and supreme Deity, by an exercise of reflection, brought forth the Logos first; not the word in the sense of being articulated by voice, but as a ratiocination of the universe, conceived and residing in the divine mind. Him alone He produced from existing things; for the Father Himself constituted existence, and the being born from Him was the cause of all things that are produced. The Logos was in the Father Himself, bearing the will of His progenitor, and not being unacquainted with the mind of the Father. For simultaneously with His procession from His Progenitor, inasmuch as He is this Progenitor’s first-born, He has, as a voice in Himself, the ideas conceived in the Father. And so it was, that when the Father ordered the world to come into existence, the Logos one by one completed each object of creation, thus pleasing God. And some things which multiply by generation He formed male and female; but whatsoever beings were designed for service and ministration He made either male, or not requiring females, or neither male nor female. For even the primary substances of these, which were formed out of nonentities, viz., fire and spirit, water and earth, are neither male nor female; nor could male or female proceed from any one of these, were it not that God, who is the source of all authority, wished that the Logos might render assistance in accomplishing a production of this kind. I confess that angels are of fire, and I maintain that female spirits are not present with them. And I am of opinion that sun and moon and stars, in like manner, are produced from fire and spirit, and are neither male nor female. And the will of the Creator is, that swimming and winged animals are from water, male and female. For so God, whose will it was, ordered that there should exist a moist substance, endued with productive power. And in like manner God commanded, that from earth should arise reptiles and beasts, as well males and females of all sorts of animals; for so the nature of the things produced admitted. For as many things as He willed, God made from time to time. These things He created through the Logos, it not being possible for things to be generated otherwise than as they were produced. But when, according as He willed, He also formed (objects), He called them by names, and thus notified His creative effort. And making these, He formed the ruler of all, and fashioned him out of all composite substances. The Creator did not wish to make him a god, and failed in His aim; nor an angel—be not deceived,— but a man. For if He had willed to make you a god, He could have done so. You have the example of the Logos. His will, however, was, that you should be a man, and He has made you a man. But if you are desirous of also becoming a god, obey Him that has created you, and resist not now, in order that, being found faithful in that which is small, you may be enabled to have entrusted to you also that which is great. The Logos alone of this God is from God himself; wherefore also the Logos is God, being the substance of God. Now the world was made from nothing; wherefore it is not God; as also because this world admits of dissolution whenever the Creator so wishes it. But God, who created it, did not, nor does not, make evil. He makes what is glorious and excellent; for He who makes it is good. Now man, that was brought into existence, was a creature endued with a capacity of self-determination, yet not possessing a sovereign intellect, nor holding sway over all things by reflection, and authority, and power, but a slave to his passions, and comprising all sorts of contrarieties in himself. But man, from the fact of his possessing a capacity of self-determination, brings forth what is evil, that is, accidentally; which evil is not consummated unless you actually commit some piece of wickedness. For it is in regard of our desiring anything that is wicked, or our meditating upon it, that what is evil is so denominated. Evil had no existence from the beginning, but came into being subsequently. Since man has free will, a law has been defined for his guidance by the Deity, not without answering a good purpose. For if man did not possess the power to will and not to will, why should a law be established? For a law will not be laid down for an animal devoid of reason, but a bridle and a whip; whereas to man has been given a precept and penalty to perform, or for not carrying into execution what has been enjoined. For man thus constituted has a law been enacted by just men in primitive ages. Nearer our own day was there established a law, full of gravity and justice, by Moses, to whom allusion has been already made, a devout man, and one beloved of God.
Now the Logos of God controls all these; the first begotten Child of the Father, the voice of the Dawn antecedent to the Morning Star. Afterwards just men were born, friends of God; and these have been styled prophets, on account of their foreshowing future events. And the word of prophecy was committed unto them, not for one age only; but also the utterances of events predicted throughout all generations, were vouchsafed in perfect clearness. And this, too, not at the time merely when seers furnished a reply to those present; but also events that would happen throughout all ages, have been manifested beforehand; because, in speaking of incidents gone by, the prophets brought them back to the recollection of humanity; whereas, in showing forth present occurrences, they endeavoured to persuade men not to be remiss; while, by foretelling future events, they have rendered each one of us terrified on beholding events that had been predicted long before, and on expecting likewise those events predicted as still future. Such is our faith, O all you men,— ours, I say, who are not persuaded by empty expressions, nor caught away by sudden impulses of the heart, nor beguiled by the plausibility of eloquent discourses, yet who do not refuse to obey words that have been uttered by divine power. And these injunctions has God given to the Word. But the Word, by declaring them, promulgated the divine commandments, thereby turning man from disobedience, not bringing him into servitude by force of necessity, but summoning him to liberty through a choice involving spontaneity.
This Logos the Father in the latter days sent forth, no longer to speak by a prophet, and not wishing that the Word, being obscurely proclaimed, should be made the subject of mere conjecture, but that He should be manifested, so that we could see Him with our own eyes. This Logos, I say, the Father sent forth, in order that the world, on beholding Him, might reverence Him who was delivering precepts not by the person of prophets, nor terrifying the soul by an angel, but who was Himself— He that had spoken— corporally present among us. This Logos we know to have received a body from a virgin, and to have remodelled the old man by a new creation. And we believe the Logos to have passed through every period in this life, in order that He Himself might serve as a law for every age, and that, by being present (among) us, He might exhibit His own manhood as an aim for all men. And that by Himself in person He might prove that God made nothing evil, and that man possesses the capacity of self-determination, inasmuch as he is able to will and not to will, and is endued with power to do both. This Man we know to have been made out of the compound of our humanity. For if He were not of the same nature with ourselves, in vain does He ordain that we should imitate the Teacher. For if that Man happened to be of a different substance from us, why does He lay injunctions similar to those He has received on myself, who am born weak; and how is this the act of one that is good and just? In order, however, that He might not be supposed to be different from us, He even underwent toil, and was willing to endure hunger, and did not refuse to feel thirst, and sunk into the quietude of slumber. He did not protest against His Passion, but became obedient unto death, and manifested His resurrection. Now in all these acts He offered up, as the first-fruits, His own manhood, in order that you, when you are in tribulation, may not be disheartened, but, confessing yourself to be a man (of like nature with the Redeemer), may dwell in expectation of also receiving what the Father has granted unto this Son.
This misses the point entirely. No one here (that I know of) is TRUSTING in the Council of Nicaea IN AND OF ITSELF. Because the CON was only convened to AFFIRM what had been taught from the beginning. There were only a handful (at most) who agreed with Arius. The almost total majority of Bishops understood that what had been taught by Clement, Hippolytus, Iraneaus, Tertullian, Polycarp, Justin Martyr and many, many others was that there was only ONE GOD, defined as a “Trinity”. This teaching of ONLY ONE GOD, EVER, had been handed down through the apostles to those like Polycarp, to Iraneaus and others in an unbroken line. Mormons and others get stuck on this notion that this all SPRANG into existence at the time of the Nicaean Council. That is simply untrue, although they keep repeating it over and over to themselves until they believe it. (And I guarantee that FOF and others will do so again in the future because he/they can’t help himself/themselves, he/they simply REFUSE/S to see the truth, let alone admit it). I have shown (in detail) that he is wrong, (more than once) and yet he can’t accept it, and continues to repeat the same mantra over and over again that the CON “invented” the TRINITY.
The “authority” of this teaching came from CHRIST HIMSELF, was handed down through the church, and anyone who takes upon themselves the NAME OF CHRIST, has his authority. But this is much too simple for Mormonism, whose members have to feel “special”, and apart from all others, and would rather believe a made up story of “angels” restoring the “priesthood” (which had been proven by documents to have been added years after the supposed event) rather than the ECF’s who taught what Christ handed down through his Apostles to the body of believers.
This is exactly what the ECF’s stressed to the heretics of their day. There was only ONE GOD. Period. There never could be another one. What the heretics would do, is try and disembowel the TRINITY. They would say (like Praxeas) that the FATHER HIMSELF was born of Mary, or like Marcion, that there were actually TWO Fathers, one good and one evil, or like the Gnostics that Jesus did not come in the flesh, or like Arius that Jesus was somehow subordinate to the Father. All of these were classed as heresy because they did not affirm either ONE GOD, or that the THREE PERSONAGES of the TRINITY were each GOD and EQUAL and of the same substance. This is exactly what the New Testament teaches:
The anti-Trinitarian view was refuted again and again by the ECF’s. Take this exhortation Dionysius made in 262 AD against the Sabellius (60 years before Nicaea) who popularized the Oneness/Modalistic view that Mormonism evolved into. He responded to the argument that Oneness believers use today – that the Trinity equals three gods. He called the argument blasphemy and the idea that the Son is the Father and Father is the Son is also blasphemy:
This heresy is exactly what Joseph Smith taught when he revised the New Testament:
That is why early Mormons affirmed the doctrine of the TRINITY, (even though Jo did not understand it fully – but taught it as a form of Modalism):
Yesterday was a crazy and, and I did not have time to respond.
None of those quotations from the patristic fathers is equivalent to the Nicean doctrine. Yes- Christ came from God and possessed the power of God. Yes- Christ created the earth and all things and has all power over those things. And yes- God and Christ were ‘one.’ But all those things are in the scriptures. The earlier statements form the fathers did not believe in the trinity as you guys do.
But back up and consider the period immediately after the apostles- why no record? Why the silence? Historian Jesse Hurlbut wrote, ” “We name the last generation of the first century, from 68 to 100 A.D., ‘The Age of Shadows,’ partly because the gloom of persecution was over the church, but more especially because of all the periods in the [church’s] history, it is the one about which we know the least. We have no longer the clear light of the Book of Acts to guide us; and no author of that age has filled the blank in the history . . .For fifty years after St. Paul’s life a curtain hangs over the church, through which we strive vainly to look; and when at last it rises, about 120 A.D. with the writings of the earliest church fathers, we find a church in many aspects very different from that in the days of St. Peter and St. Paul” ( The Story of the Christian Church, 1970, p. 33). This was all predicted by the apostles and Christ Himself.
The earliest theology of the Christian church was initially one of the Godhead- the Father, Son,
and Holy Ghost being separate, distinct individuals, with the Son and Holy Ghost being
subordinate to and creations of the Father. The earliest writing of the patristic fathers are almost all subordinationist. In time, the theology changed and morphed into modalism, then binitarianism, and finally after the Council of Nicea, Trinitarianism. Sun worship, or Mithraism gained tremendous influence and acceptance within the Roman empire just prior to the Nicean Council. It is this religion that Constantine was heavily involved in. And at the very core of this religion was a doctrine very similar to the trinity doctrine- metaphysical oneness and inclusion of all deities in one. Remove the names, and there is not much difference between the trinity in Mithraism and the trinity of apostate Christianity. The point though is that this was an outside influence on the church that enormously changed the doctrine through syncretism. Well did Martin Luther say “It is indeed true that the name “Trinity” is nowhere to be found in the Holy Scriptures, but has been conceived and invented by man. (Luther Martin. The Sermons of Martin Luther, Church Postil, 1522; III:406-421, PC Study Bible formatted electronic database Copyright © 2003, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.) The Catholic church itself admits that the trinity doctrine is not to be found in the Bible, but was a doctrine revealed after the closing of the canon. The first time the term trias was used was not until 160 A.C, 130 years after the crucifixion of Christ.
The fact that somebody introduced the Comma Johanneum into 1 John 5:7-8 is quite telling. Some body of persons within the church was willing to alter the scriptures to influence doctrine toward the trinity. Even thought the alteration of this passage occurred later, what does that say of those who supported that doctrine?
Look closer at many of the quotations from the church fathers:
Justin: “Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who also was born for this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea, in the times of Tiberius Caesar; and that we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we will prove. For they proclaim our madness to consist in this, that we give to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all; for they do not discern the mystery that is therein, to which, as we make it plain to you, we pray you to give heed. (Apol., I, xiii)
And the first power after God the Father and Lord of all is the Word [8@(@H or logos], who is also the Son. (Apol., I, xxxii).
It is wrong, therefore, to understand the Spirit and the power of God, as anything else than the Word [8@(@H or logos], who is also the firstborn of God. (Apol., I, xxxiii).
But both Him [God] and the Son (who came forth from Him and taught us these things, and the host of the other good angels who follow and are made like to Him), and the prophetic Spirit, knowing them in reason and in truth, and declaring without grudging to every one who wishes to learn, as we have been taught.
Justin speaks of Christ as subordinate and “second” to the “only God.” He also speaks of Christ as one of the “good angels.”
Hippolytus says:
Now, that Noetus affirms that the Son and Father are the same, no one is ignorant. But he makes his statement thus: “When indeed, then, the Father had not been born, He yet was justly styled Father; and when it pleased Him to undergo generation, having been begotten, He Himself became His own Son, not another’s.” For in this manner he thinks to establish the sovereignty of God, alleging that the Father and Son, so called, are one and the same (substance), not one individual produced from a different one, but Himself from Himself; and that He is styled by name Father and Son, according to vicissitude of times. (Hippolytus repeats this opinion in his summary, Book X.) (Con. Noet, n. 14, “The Refutation of All Heresies”, Bk. IX, Ch. V, ANF, Vol. V, pp. 127-128);
The first and only (One God), both Creator and Lord of all, had nothing coeval with Himself, … But He was One, alone in Himself. By an exercise of His will He created things that are, which antecedently had no existence, except that He willed to make them. For He is fully acquainted with whatever is about to take place, for foreknowledge also is present to Him.(Hippolytus, ibid., X, XXVIII, p. 150)
Therefore this solitary and supreme Deity, by an exercise of reflection, brought forth the Logos first; not the word in the sense of being articulated by voice, but as a ratiocination of the universe, conceived and residing in the divine mind. Him alone He produced from existing things; for the Father Himself constituted existence, and the being born from Him was the cause of all things that are produced. The Logos was in the Father Himself, bearing the will of His progenitor, and not being unacquainted with the mind of the Father.
For simultaneously with His procession from His progenitor, inasmuch as He is this Progenitor’s firstborn, He has as a voice in Himself, the ideas conceived in the Father. And so itwas, that when the Father ordered the world to come into existence, the Logos one by one completed each object of creation thus pleasing God. (Hippolytus, ibid., X, XXIX)
He is arguing against God the Father being His own Son. The Father “brought forth the Logos first.” Hmm. The Father brought forth many things, and the first was the Logos.
I respectfully and completely disagree with your assessment of the scriptures and the earliest of the church fathers statements.
I note the peculiarity, again, of the fact that the scriptures themselves are not the source for your argument. I challenge anybody to show me how John 17 does not contradict the trinity. No appeal to Josephus or Philo should satisfy anybody that the words of Christ themselves do not mean what they say. He asked the Father that the apostles could be ‘one’ in the very same way that the Father and Son were ‘one.’ It could not be more clear.
Fof,
Where are you?
Tons of evidence for you, none provide by you, again.
Your not replying, again.
That’s right Rick ignore the Guy.
I’ll respond to just one comment from FofF. It will prove to everyone reading this that, & I hate to say it, he cannot be trusted.
He said
“Well did Martin Luther say “It is indeed true that the name “Trinity” is nowhere to be found in the Holy Scriptures, but has been conceived and invented by man. (Luther Martin. The Sermons of Martin Luther, Church Postil, 1522; III:406-421”
Luther was not denying the doctrine of the Trinity, he was merely commenting on the various means & words used to describe the doctrine. Here’s a few quotes from his sermons, those reading these quotes can decide who is being honest.
“True [Trinity] is not choice German, nor has it a pleasing sound, when we designate God by the word ‘Dreifaltigkeit’ (nor is the Latin, Trinitas, more elegant): but since we have no better term, we must employee these” [Complete Sermons of Martin Luther Volume 4.2, pp. 7-8]”
Would you like to see more FofF?
“The great universities have invented manifold distinctions, dreams and fictions by means of which they would explain the Holy Trinity, and have made fools of themselves. We shall therefore quote only passages from the Scriptures in order to determine and establish the divinity of Christ. In the first place, we quote from the New Testament, where we find many proof texts; for instance, John I, I-3 : “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made.” Now if he is not made, but is himself the Maker, he must indeed be God. John also says afterwards: “And the Word became flesh.” ……..Therefore we cling to the Scriptures, those passages which testify of the TRINITY OF GOD, and we say: I know very well that in God there are the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit; but how they can be one I do not know, neither should I know it.”
[Sermons of Martin Luther 2.1 p. 407].
And more
“That Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, three distinct persons in one divine essence and nature, ARE ONE GOD, who has created heaven and earth…Concerning these articles there is no contention or dispute, since we on both sides confess them. Therefore it is not necessary now to treat further of them.”
The spirit of deception, Joseph Smiths guide, is strong in you FofF
Thats right Clyde,
Ignore all topics and all questions and then say dumb things. LoL.
FoF said this
Yet the fact that JS created his own bible, went and changed entire passages and books of the Bible, and removed massive parts of the Bible, then JS claims God told himto, and FoF churchs uses it and says it’s evidence of JS being a real prophet, and that does not bother him, yet this does. What does that say ofthose who support that doctrine?
By the way clyde, First off, My post to FoF went up before His did, his must have been in mod jail.
2nd, FoF as well as you are famous for avoiding questions and running away. Sadly though, when you stand before God and get judged, you wont be able to run away and ignore what he says or asks of you.
I’m in my usual hang out as well, mod jail, please be patient 😉
RickB,
The issue here is the doctrine of the Nicean Creed and the history of that doctrine and its relation to the scriptural record. I may not answer every question the dozen or so critics throw at me, but you sure do jump to different topic quite easily.
Once again- the words of Christ could not be more clear. He prayed that His apostles would be ‘one’ as Christ and the Father were ‘one.’ I see no reasonable way around that clear declaration from Christ Himself. Unless you can explain how multiple human beings can somehow take upon them a relationship as the Trinity doctrine maintains exists between the Father and Son, it is a lost argument.
Old man,
I never said that Luther did not believe in the trinity doctrine. He was referring to the term and its invention. But along with the invention of the term, the doctrine changed significantly over time in the early church. Do you have any response to the other 50 or so sentences in my post? Or am I simply not to be trusted, therefore in no need of engagement or response? If so, that is very convenient.
I should have replied to this in my previous post but better late than never,
“Historian Jesse Hurlbut wrote, ” “We name the last generation of the first century, from 68 to 100 A.D., ‘The Age of Shadows,’ partly because the gloom of persecution was over the church, but more especially because of all the periods in the [church’s] history, it is the one about which we know the least. We have no longer the clear light of the Book of Acts to guide us; and no author of that age has filled the blank in the history”
Once again you’re less than honest, Hurlbut was NOT A HISTORIAN, he was an amateur who dabbled in history. Let’s see what REAL church historians have to say on the subject.
“Hurlbut was perfectly entitled to popularize the story of the church. It is just that his concept of a “lost century” in his Story of the Christian Church(1918) — when accepted without critique and careful comparison with other more careful sources — can offer a one-sided, simplified, slightly conspiratorial view of what was a complicated historical process. The phrase “the lost century” is journalistically appealing, but is it sober history? It is easy to mistake a colorful phrase for a true one. The concept of a missing epoch must be set against such simple facts as the existence of a set of volumes titled The Ante-Nicene Fathers. To stress one obvious fact: There is a wider body of pre-Nicene writing available than is usually thought. This includes the Didache (a manual of churchly life composed around A.D. 90), Clement’s letter to the Corinthians (c. A.D. 95), the seven letters of Ignatius of Antioch (c. A.D. 110), the insights recorded from Papias on the background to the four Gospel writers (c. A.D. 130), the Epistle of Barnabas (c. A.D. 130) and the martyrology of Polycarp (c. A.D. 155). These documents bridge many of the gaps between the apostolic age and the time of Polycarp.”
Of course, Since FOF has no real answers of his own, he has to plagiarize others arguments about the Trinity Doctrine, (Others that obviously don’t understand how to translate Greek)Here and here, are where he lifts his from. He (as many Mormons do) just takes the quotes given, without reading the context of what those (like Justin and others) write. Too lazy to even read the ECF’s himself, (as he is with the Bible) FOF would rather plagiarize others who have an axe to grind, rather than giving us a coherent argument that he himself has researched. When you see Mormons giving quotes about things they don’t understand and obviously haven’t read, this is a good indicator that they are doing this. This is not honest investigation, this is desperation, trying to find ANY reason that ANYONE has given (regardless of who they are) that agrees with what you think the answer is. This is who FOF is folks. This is why he can’t be trusted to represent Mormonism, because all he does is cherry pick.
So FOF, do you agree with EVERYTHING that the Christian Churches of God say? Or only what you can “use” against those that teach what the Bible really says (That GOD is ONE GOD – A TRINITY)? The Christian Churches of God believe that Christ is A MAN/ANGEL. (Not GOD and NOT DIVINE). Of course they are going to CHERRY PICK the ECF’s. Here is what they actually believe about GOD. DO YOU AGREE WITH ALL OF THIS FOF? Cox actually has to BUTCHER THE GREEK to get a coherent argument about why Christ was not God (see his butchering of John 1:1) Here is what is written about WADE COX, and his heresies, who founded the so called “Christian Churches of God”.
There was no “silence” in the period right after the Apostles died. We have many teachings from that era, some of which I quoted above. FOF just takes for granted what Wade Cox cherrypicked by someone that does not believe in the Trinity.
I have given the actual statements of the ECF’s IN CONTEXT. FOF has not. He has quoted them out of context, by someone with an agenda to discredit the Trinity, because they believe Christ was not God (or even DIVINE for that matter “Christ is not divine and by nature he was just a man.”). This is EXACTLY in opposition to what the ECF’s taught. For example the Hippolytus quote that FOF gives, is a bad translation and cherry picked. I gave the EXACT same quote in my list from a reliable translation. FOF uses the COX snippet, then quotes a SUMMARY written by Cox (This and his mis-copied Greek tipped me off that he was copying from someone else). He doesn’t even know what he is quoting. Hippolytus actually says that the Word (Logos) Christ, was of the same substance as the Father, and he is preaching the Trinity. As Matt Slick writes,
There is, apparently, a subordination within the Trinity in regard to order but not substance or essence. We can see that the Father is first, the Son is second, and the Holy Spirit is third. The Father is not begotten, but the Son is (John 3:16). The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (John 15:26). The Father sent the Son (1 John 4:10). The Son and the Father send the Holy Spirit (John 14:26; 15:26). The Father creates (Isaiah 44:24), the Son redeems (Gal. 3:13), and the Holy Spirit sanctifies (Rom. 15:16).
This is exactly what Hippolytus teaches: “The Logos alone of this God is from God himself; wherefore also the Logos is God, being the substance of God.” (see my entire quote above).
It is obvious that FOF didn’t bother to read the quotes, he just searched for anything to try and discredit them. He looked in the wrong place and made himself look foolish. Again.