Heresies and the Bible

[font=Times New Roman][size=3]The title of this thread is “A response to a specific recent thread.”

The purpose of this thread is solely for TOmNossor to post a response to a recent post. Those in the know might note that this response is not a reply to the most recent post, but this is a product of my not getting to that post before I became unable to find it.

Enjoy.

[quote=Catholic Dude]I think I am up to date on this. I remarked that the “centuries old” comments were not a good choice of words to use and that I did not intend for it to be interpreted that way. As for the “witnesses” stuff, I admit you have me on a battlefield that I am not used to. But to finish this thought, it wouldnt be fair to say that the Bible (which is a great witness) wasnt used the whole time, in all these heresies the Bible (our most important guide) has been used as a tool to help show the truth.
[/quote]

I totally disagree that the Bible helps us to decide the 1 will 2 will debate. It just does not. The same is true of the Augustinian Trinity or the Social Trinity, creation ex nihilo or creation ex materia, and the primacy of Rome. The Bible is compatible with all of these ideas.

[quote=Catholic Dude]Now I must go carefully here because I am nowhere near an expert on this. First of all that quote is very weak from what I see. I dont know who that guy is, what church he goes to?, or if he is even Christian?, just because it says “scholar” doesnt mean anything. It says "some form
[/quote]

of subordination", this is so open to personal interpretation I dont know what more to say. From the Bible we see that Christ was subordinate in a way, but that doesnt diminsh Him. The bottom line is that quote does not hold water.

Hansen is not just some scholar, he is very well respected. I can show were the term “second god” was used by multiple pre-Nicea fathers. I can show were Jesus was claimed to be in the second place by a pre-Nicea father. I agree that the Bible points to subordination of Jesus Christ to God the Father. I do not see evidence of this subordination in the writings of Athanasius. I see very little evidence of this subordination in most Catholic thought including and post-Augustine. And, except for those who were declared heretics because of modalism, I do not think you will find folks pre-nicea (other than Athanasius) who speak of a co-equal formation as Athanasius did.

My position is that the preserving of tradition is not near so simple as the Maxim of St. Vincent de Lerins would suggest. Cardinal Newman is a tremendously respected Catholic scholar and he agrees.

cont…[/size][/font]

[quote=Catholic Dude]This seems wrong what you are saying, but I dont know if I can put my finger on it. First off, the last phrase “not understood”, it seems like your jumping to conclusions here. Jesus made some profound statements claiming to be God, and there are many more Scriptural references that support this. The apostles didnt miss that important fact. I would have to look into a fair amount of pre-N writings to verify the other stuff for myself, but to argue that they more or less invented it on the spot is amazing (and unlikely) considering it fits so well with Scripture. In terms of the truth coming about, it seems you are arguing it was more or less “made up” under the cloak of “revelation”. I would say otherwise and claim that it had a firm foundation in the Scriptures and was built upon as more info got around AND authorized with the “seal of God’s authority”.
[/quote]

I am not arguing that that the Trinity is “more or less invented,” or that it is a contradiction of the Bible. To embrace the Augustinian Trinity and reject the Social Trinity or even the Arian formation embraced by JWs is beyond Biblical. I am suggesting that Newman speaks of the development of doctrine. He talks of how this development has inexplicably (through human means) followed his seven principles. He suggest that God has guided it. AND he suggest that with God’s guidance Christianity could not have developed as it did. Men can follow the Maxim of St. Vincent de Lerins by studying history. This is not how Catholic (or Western Christian) doctrine developed. The leaps are unexplainable through the human review of the data. If the developments are all true God inspired the Bishops to develop correct formulas. The chance that the developments are both all true and not a product of God’s guidance is prohibitively small. This is why I could not be a Protestant or an Eastern Orthodox, and it is a good thing for the truth claims of the Catholic Church relative to these groups. But, you seem to be arguing that the pre-Nicea witness and/or the Biblical witness was such that the Augustinian Trinity was the only logical conclusion. This is not true, in fact the logical conclusion from the pre-Nicea and Biblical witness would include greater subordination than was included ultimately.

[quote=Catholic Dude]What do you mean by “witness available”? I must have missed something. I believe that both Scripture and Tradition were used not only at the formal statment at the Coucil, but some also long before. This was too huge to be an invention, I dont believe that right after the last apostle died there was a total or even significant “apostacy” and such a doctrine invented.
[/quote]

I do not suggest that the Augustinian Trinity was some kind of invention. I suggest that good men did the best they could to right the concept of creation ex nihilo with the Biblical and pre-Nicea witness. In doing this they created the Augustinian Trinity which allowed for creation ex nihilo, the divinity of Christ, the three personness of the Godhead, and the singularity of God. I believe without the error of creation ex nihilo, the Social Trinity is a much better read of the data and it allows for the divinity of Christ, the three personness of the Godhead, and the singularity of God.

Again if the Catholic Church is God’s authority, the co-equality evidenced in the post 380AD Trinity is not similar to the subordination evidence in the pre-Nicea writings (including those writings which were ultimately canonized). But if it is truth (and all the other developments for the first 4 or 7 councils are truth), then the only explanation is God’s guidance. And the only reasonable conclusion IMO is that God continues to guide the Catholic Church.

So I say that after the apostles died there was not present a valid authority to define these truths. Creation ex Nihilo was introduced contrary to the teachings of Justin Martyr and Clement of Rome (and not supported by the Bible either). No valid authority stood up to reject this development. Tertullian seems to be the only one to take notice and argue for Creation ex Nihilo against Creation ex Materia. Had valid authority existed to answer critical questions through supernatural public revelation, these errors (somewhat minor towards our salvations, but still errors) would not have taken hold.

cont …

[quote=Catholic Dude] On three grounds, first the Bible talks about each person yet maintains strongly that there is one and only one God
[/quote]

As do Social Trinitarians.

[quote=Catholic Dude] second it wouldnt be in God’s divine plan to have His chosen apostles and Church flop that early in the game
[/quote]

Who are you to tell God what his plan would and would not include? Christ was born, died, and resurrected. His bride was formed, apostatized, and was restored. Did Christ prevail over death? Yes he was resurrected. Did the church prevail over the gates of hades? Yes it was restored. I might say that God would only do things this way, but who am I to tell God what his plan would and would not include? Perhaps you should be more cautious when you tell God what to do.

[quote=Catholic Dude] (the Lds accept this via the fact they accept the Bible as we know it today was compiled long after the original 12 were dead.)
[/quote]

I have dealt with this many times and quite recently on this thread in a response to YOU. Do you read my responses? If you do not think they are sufficient then please comment on them, but if we are dialoguing I would think you could at least acknowledge that you are repeating yourself and/or rejecting my responses. See post #317.

[quote=Catholic Dude] third the fact that there was a heresy means that something there was an original truth that was being attacked.
[/quote]

God’s truth is truth. We both agree that the Jews of Jesus’ day taught heresy that preceded the truths taught by Jesus. The only “something there” that is important is God’s truth. The rest is just men doing the best they can or worse.

[quote=Catholic Dude]To conclude, I have seen comments on this thread that nothing in the LDS doctrine is contrary to the Bible, this has probably been talked about ad nauseum, but what posts do I look at or where do I go for LDS official doctrine
[/quote]

concerning the 3 in 1? It comes down to this, either the CC is in unforgiveable heresy over the nature of God or the LDS are, with such contrasting views we both cant be right.
“Official doctrine concerning the 3 in 1” is contained solely in the 4 standard works (which include the Bible).
As an aid I can offer my interpretation of the witness of these scriptures. Blake Ostler has done an extensive review of canonical and non-canonical sources and much of my ideas are drawn from him.
Social Trinitarianism LDS: God is one and GOD is three. (much of the below is from Ostler)
a. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three distinct divine persons and one Godhead in virtue of oneness of indwelling unity of presence, glory, and oneness of mind purpose, power and intent. Three wills exist, but the Son and the Holy Ghost freely, perfectly, and always choose to submit their will to the Father’s (the Son and Holy Ghost are subordinate to the Father, but they are fully divine).

b. The Father is the fount of divinity. The Son and the Holy Ghost exist, but through the indwelling love of the Father are divine. Also, part of divinity is the love of the Father for the Son and Holy Ghost (and of course their love of Him and eachother). Divinity is expressed through the relation of the three, thus one divinity exists.

c. The unity of the divine persons falls short of identity, but is much more intimate than merely belonging to the same class. There are distinct divine persons, but hardly separated or independent divine persons.

I do not believe that the differences between the above and the Augustinian Trinity amount to “unforgivable heresy.” I agree that we are not both right, but I hardly think either one of is perfectly right anyway. God is beyond our comprehension, so if as I believe I am closer to the truth than you, I hardly think God will be overly concerned. If you are right perhaps your concept of God demands that I am damned for my “unforgivable heresy,” but this is not how I understand Catholic teachings.

Charity, TOm

Hmmm…I have yet to read a Father who said there were many Gods on many planets. Ours happens to live on the planet Kolob. He has intercourse with his mulitiple wives to produce spirit children who can become Gods of their own planet someday. So we have 3 Gods, sort of kind of, with physical bodies (except for the Holy Spirit and how that came about we don’t really know). We know this because Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham off some Egyptian papyri. Now of course those papyri have been found and can now be read. They are funerary texts with no connection to anything that Smith claimed.

Maybe I missed all that in some pre-Nicene Father? I accept development of dogma, but not wholesale invention as per Smith. This all may sound harsh, but really…think about it.

[quote=cestusdei]Hmmm…I have yet to read a Father who said there were many Gods on many planets. Ours happens to live on the planet Kolob. He has intercourse with his mulitiple wives to produce spirit children who can become Gods of their own planet someday. So we have 3 Gods, sort of kind of, with physical bodies (except for the Holy Spirit and how that came about we don’t really know). We know this because Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham off some Egyptian papyri. Now of course those papyri have been found and can now be read. They are funerary texts with no connection to anything that Smith claimed.

Maybe I missed all that in some pre-Nicene Father? I accept development of dogma, but not wholesale invention as per Smith. This all may sound harsh, but really…think about it.
[/quote]

It seems to me that this post does not speak about “Heresies and the Bible” nor does it specifically address anything in the preceding three posts. In addition to this while one could characterize my faith as you have (and frequently do) through a selective reading of our earlier authorities; there are many better ways of describing my beliefs than you have chosen. I continually attempt to describe my beliefs in different ways and explain why what you have presented here is not useful for understanding the CoJCoLDS. I can only guess why it seems so necessary to revert back to this type of presentation.

At this time, I do not desire to address what you have brought up in your post other than to say there are much better ways of presenting my faith. If you desire to continue discussing these topics I respectfully request that you start another thread.

Charity, TOm

[quote=cestusdei]Hmmm…I have yet to read a Father who said there were many Gods on many planets. Ours happens to live on the planet Kolob. He has intercourse with his mulitiple wives to produce spirit children who can become Gods of their own planet someday. So we have 3 Gods, sort of kind of, with physical bodies (except for the Holy Spirit and how that came about we don’t really know). We know this because Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham off some Egyptian papyri. Now of course those papyri have been found and can now be read. They are funerary texts with no connection to anything that Smith claimed.

Maybe I missed all that in some pre-Nicene Father? I accept development of dogma, but not wholesale invention as per Smith. This all may sound harsh, but really…think about it.
[/quote]

If you watch the South Park episode about Joseph Smith, it will all make sense.

Usefull or not, diplomatic or not, what Cestus has said is true concerning the ideas of the mormon cult.

Tom is a typical momon, deceitful and slippery as an eel.

And no Tom. I don’t consider the Catholic church and the mormon cult to be in any way equivalent or peer churches.

I will leave the opening stuff where it is, and will try to concentrate on the Trinity parts, I read that Ostler stuff but Im not sure I understand it. I am looking on lds.com to see if I can get a better idea.
Here is the page I am at now,
scriptures.lds.org/tgg/godhead?sr=1
I know there is a lot more concerning the Godhead than what this page gives, for one its missing the classic John1:1-5 verses.
I will get back on this as soon as I can.

Tom,
If what I wrote was not what Mormons believe then please inform us. If you need to repudiate what your early prophets, including Smith, said then explain how the restored truth needed to be restored and restored and restored…

Frankly I don’t think you could respond, so you choose to avoid the issue. If your faith can’t take that kind of questioning then perhaps something is wrong with your church.

I looked through D&C for about 1.5 hours and couldnt find anything relating to the Trinity. I read through all the summaries, but I didnt see what I was looking for. However it did talk alot about “the keys” being given to JS a lot, and many other references to Matt16:18-19 all referring to the Mormon church and the Mormon Presidency only.

I later found this, scriptures.lds.org/gsg/gdgdhd
It is the closest thing I can find, the stuff I am listing is way out
of line in terms of the Biblical One True God:
1)…the Father and the Son have tangible bodies of flesh and bone
2)…Jesus works under the direction of the Father and is in complete harmony with him. All mankind are his brothers and sisters, for he is the eldest of the spirit children of Elohim. Some scripture references refer to him by the word God. For example, the scripture says that “God created the heaven and the earth”, but it was actually Jesus who was the Creator under the direction of God the Father
3)The Holy Ghost is also a God…

Here is another big one I found:
The God of the scriptures is a holy being. Man is commanded to be holy because God is holy (Lev. 11: 44-45; Lev. 19: 2). God can be known only by revelation. He must be revealed, or remain forever unknown (cf. Mosiah 4: 9). God first revealed himself to Adam (Moses 5; 6) and has repeatedly made himself known by revelation to chosen patriarchs and prophets since that time. The present translation of John 1: 18 and 1 Jn. 4: 12 is misleading, for these say that no man has ever seen God. However, the scriptures state that there have been
many who have seen him. The JST corrects these items to show that no sinful man has ever seen God, and also that Jesus Christ is the only Way to God. God the Father and his Son have been manifested by voice, sight, or otherwise at various times, as at the baptism of Jesus (Matt. 3: 16-17); the Transfiguration (Matt. 17: 1-8); to Stephen (Acts 7: 55-56); and to the Nephites (3 Ne. 11: 7). The Father and the Son personally visited Joseph Smith in the Sacred Grove, in the spring of 1820, near Manchester, New York, in the opening of the dispensation of the fulness of times (JS-H 1: 11-20).

Latter-day revelation confirms the biblical account of God as the
literal father of the human family; as a being who is concerned for the welfare of mankind, and a Personage who hears and answers prayers.
(scriptures.lds.org/bdg/god)

14 Behold, I am he who was aprepared from the foundation of the world to bredeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son.
(scriptures.lds.org/ether/3/14#14)

This stuff is not in line in any way to the Bible or historical Jewish AND Christian belief.

If I missed something then tell me, I tried as hard as I could on the official Mormon page to find info on the Trinity, but I couldnt.

TomNossor,

Please respond to cestusdei.

[quote=Exporter]TomNossor,

**Please respond to **cestusdei.
[/quote]

I think TOmN already has:

If you desire to continue discussing these topics I respectfully request that you start another thread.

Since when do non-Catholics get to lay down the rules in a Catholic site (respectfully or not) and then take their ball and go home when their rules are not obeyed?

This Thread has wandered and is now closed.

God Bless,

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.