Mormonism - Page 3

triumphguy · #31 Mar 7, '12, 5:10 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Semper Fi

My login name means Always Faithful, in Latin. As in Always Faithful to the Catholic Church.

It's a military term, one that the Marines use, but I thought it would be a cool user-name for a Catholic forum.

Yes I know! I was kinda hinting at something.......

LivingWaters7 · #32 Mar 7, '12, 5:11 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anniejoe

As far as the Nicene Creed, the definitions provided by the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed were of course not held to by many if not most of the early Christians,

Indeed? What is your source for this piece of information?

JND Kelly's Early Christian Doctrines is one historical treatise that demonstrates the landscape found in ancient ante-Nicene Christianity, where Nicene-Constantinopolitan definitions on God (i.e. homoousios, a word that Arians actually used, which was then redefined by the Nicene Christians, an interesting thing in light of some of the comments in this thread) were not found. Indeed, Early Christians that were Arians were not re-baptized, which seems to indicate that they had valid Christian baptism despite being non-Trinitarians.

triumphguy · #33 Mar 7, '12, 5:21 pm

I didn't think that Mormons believe that Jesus died for our sins. They even find the cross to be offensive.

Anniejoe · #34 Mar 7, '12, 5:27 pm

JND Kelly's Early Christian Doctrines is one historical treatise that demonstrates the landscape found in ancient ante-Nicene Christianity,

The mere fact that an Anglican writer has noted there were "anti-Nicene" parties in existence does not support your comment that most Christians held that view. We all know there was an Arian heresy. The fact that some people believed it doesn't make it any more true. It was a heresy then, and it's a heresy now. Only by claiming that the Gospel of John included forged verses can JWs and LDS explain away the Scriptural proof for the Trinity.

LivingWaters7 · #35 Mar 7, '12, 5:30 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by triumphguy

I didn't think that Mormons believe that Jesus died for our sins. They even find the cross to be offensive.

Latter-day Saints firmly believe that Jesus Christ suffered and died for our sins. While we do not use the cross as a religious symbol, we firmly believe that Christ died on the cross at Calvary, and was resurrected on the third day. It is only through His atoning sacrifice that we believe we can be cleansed of our sins and receive eternal life.

TexanKnight · #36 Mar 7, '12, 5:31 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by LivingWaters7

JND Kelly's Early Christian Doctrines is one historical treatise that demonstrates the landscape found in ancient ante-Nicene Christianity, where Nicene-Constantinopolitan definitions on God (i.e. homoousios, a word that Arians actually used, which was then redefined by the Nicene Christians, an interesting thing in light of some of the comments in this thread) were not found. Indeed, Early Christians that were Arians were not re-baptized, which seems to indicate that they had valid Christian baptism despite being non-Trinitarians.

To clarify. The concept of Trinity was always taught. When heresies came about, a Council was needed to clarify the truth.

triumphguy · #37 Mar 7, '12, 5:33 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by LivingWaters7

Latter-day Saints firmly believe that Jesus Christ suffered and died for our sins. While we do not use the cross as a religious symbol, we firmly believe that Christ died on the cross at Calvary, and was resurrected on the third day. It is only through His atoning sacrifice that we believe we can be cleansed of our sins and receive eternal life.

Let's break that down.

Do you believe that Christ died on the cross for our sins? Not suffered and died, but specifically died on the cross for our sins. Not suffered in Gethsemane for our sins, but through his death on the cross saved us from our sins?

AND do you believe that His death was sufficient in and of itself?

Anniejoe · #38 Mar 7, '12, 5:35 pm

To clarify. The concept of Trinity was always taught. When heresies came about, a Council was needed to clarify the truth.

Well-stated, TexasKnight.

LivingWaters7 · #39 Mar 7, '12, 5:37 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anniejoe

JND Kelly's Early Christian Doctrines is one historical treatise that demonstrates the landscape found in ancient ante-Nicene Christianity,

The mere fact that an Anglican writer has noted there were "anti-Nicene" parties in existence does not support your comment that most Christians held that view.

No, I did not state that Kelly (the fact that he is Anglican isn't really relevant to his academic credentials and work, in my opinion) noted that there were "anti-Nicene" parties in existence. I was referring to the "ante-Nicene" landscape, i.e. pre-Nicene.

Quote:

We all know there was an Arian heresy. The fact that some people believed it doesn't make it any more true. It was a heresy then, and it's a heresy now.

I don't believe I ever claimed that the Arian beliefs were/are true. I was specifically referencing that Arian baptisms were accepted as valid Christian baptisms, yet they are not Trinitarian. Latter-day Saints are not Arians.

Quote:

Only by claiming that the Gospel of John included forged verses can JWs and LDS explain away the Scriptural proof for the Trinity.

Are you referring to the Comma Johanneum? If so, that isn't in the Gospel of John, it's in the First Epistle of John. Also, the arguments about the authenticity of those verses is of course subject to academic debate. In and of itself, I find no problem with them as a Latter-day Saint, since, while we reject the Trinity doctrine, we do believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one in purpose, will, love, and intent, and are referred to collectively as "Godhead" or "God" in our scriptures and other writings.

LivingWaters7 · #40 Mar 7, '12, 5:40 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by TexanKnight

To clarify. The concept of Trinity was always taught. When heresies came about, a Council was needed to clarify the truth.

The doctrine of homoousios was not always taught. Indeed, the word had a different meaning and was used by Arians prior to appropriation at the Council of Nicaea (which, as I mentioned, is an interesting occurrence in light of comments on this thread about definitions.

LivingWaters7 · #41 Mar 7, '12, 5:42 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by triumphguy

Let's break that down.

Do you believe that Christ died on the cross for our sins? Not suffered and died, but specifically died on the cross for our sins. Not suffered in Gethsemane for our sins, but through his death on the cross saved us from our sins?

Latter-day Saints believe that the Atonement of Jesus Christ began in the Garden of Gethsemane and was completed on the Cross at Calvary. We do not separate the two events regarding His atoning sacrifice. He suffered and died for us, and both were important parts of His atonement, saving us from our sins.

Quote:

AND do you believe that His death was sufficient in and of itself?

Christ's atonement is the only way that we can receive eternal life.

TexanKnight · #42 Mar 7, '12, 5:44 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by LivingWaters7

The doctrine of homoousios was not always taught. Indeed, the word had a different meaning and was used by Arians prior to appropriation at the Council of Nicaea (which, as I mentioned, is an interesting occurrence in light of comments on this thread about definitions.

The Trinity was always taught.when heresies came about, a council was held to clarify.

triumphguy · #43 Mar 7, '12, 5:45 pm

But is it sufficient? Or is it just a "logic gate?"

BTW Brigam Young doesn;t agree with you about the Cross.

TexanKnight · #44 Mar 7, '12, 5:45 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by LivingWaters7

Latter-day Saints believe that the Atonement of Jesus Christ began in the Garden of Gethsemane and was completed on the Cross at Calvary. We do not separate the two events regarding His atoning sacrifice. He suffered and died for us, and both were important parts of His atonement, saving us from our sins.

Christ's atonement is the only way that we can receive eternal life.

The problem is, the Jesus they refer is NOT the true Jesus

Anniejoe · #45 Mar 7, '12, 5:46 pm

Yes, LivingWaters7, I know that your response referenced "ante-Nicene" beliefs. I was quoting from Kelly, the expert you cited. Kelly discusses "anti-Nicene", that is beliefs in opposition to the Nicene formulations. His comments about views in opposition to the Nicene Creed in no way support your statement that most Christians did not believe in the Trinity.

May you someday come to know God as He is.