Great Apostasy revisited

[3DOP]

On 8/11/2026 at 11:00 AM, BlipBlap said:

We could potentially take it even further and explore the idea that "creatio ex nihilo" implies that God himself is nothing.  God creating all things would mean that all things are the product of the mind of God.  If God (and therefore his mind) is eternal and he created all things, that would mean that his mind would be the pre-existing material by which all things were given form.

 

No BlipBlap. That does not follow because we reject the absolute materialist precept that if there was a God, God's mind would be material. Your argument begins with a false supposition.

Even our minds are immaterial. Unlike God, we cannot make matter with a word. But like God, our thoughts and words are immaterial. They don't have physical properties. Our rational faculty is unique in creation. Our ability, like God, to entertain immaterial ideas and concepts are Godlike faculties. Thus, we are made in His image, unlike the irrational creation. That is why we, unlike the irrational creation possess the potential by God's grace to partake of His very nature through His Son who is now like us, an amalgam of matter and spirit, the God-Man. What wonderful good news to learn what can become of us!

We cannot help what materialists believe. But we must insist that materialists grant us our own presuppositions if they are trying to disprove our beliefs.

  

Edited Sunday at 01:33 PM by 3DOP

[Calm]

8 hours ago, 3DOP said:

No BlipBlap. That does not follow because we reject the absolute materialist precept that if there was a God, God's mind would be material. Your argument begins with a false supposition.

Even our minds are immaterial. Unlike God, we cannot make matter with a word. But like God, our thoughts and words are immaterial. They don't have physical properties. Our rational faculty is unique in creation. Our ability, like God, to entertain immaterial ideas and concepts are Godlike faculties. Thus, we are made in His image, unlike the irrational creation. That is why we, unlike the irrational creation possess the potential by God's grace to partake of His very nature through His Son who is now like us, an amalgam of matter and spirit, the God-Man. What wonderful good news to learn what can become of us!

We cannot help what materialists believe. But we must insist that materialists grant us our own presuppositions if they are trying to disprove our beliefs.

  

To clarify:  “ex nihilo” simply refers to the physical world of matter and energy, nothing physical?

[3DOP]

58 minutes ago, Calm said:

To clarify:  “ex nihilo” simply refers to the physical world of matter and energy, nothing physical?

Hi calm.

Ex nihilo literally means "ex" out, as in going out of Egypt. Exodus. Nihilo means literaly..."nothing". We profess and believe that God created the world, without any antecedent matter, or spirit, "out" of nothing. No greater accomplishment is conceivable. That is our faith.

It doesn't seem like a loving Father should be too upset with us for overestimating His powers...if we have done so. 

Does that make any sense? We approach these ideas from vastly different paradigms. God love you.

3DOP 

 

Edited Sunday at 10:39 PM by 3DOP

[Calm]

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

Does that make any sense?

In the sense of reason yes, in the sense of being able to visualize or comprehend it…nope.  
The closest I get to it is thinking how I create by first visualizing in my head what I want and then I take what is required to create it.
 

But if I understand correctly, you are saying God simply thinking (or what he does in this process) of something is enough for it to take form.  Nothing else shifts in any way, material or immaterial.  The creation just is.  

Edited Sunday at 11:50 PM by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

It doesn't seem like a loving Father should be too upset with us for overestimating His powers...if we have done so. 

I very much agree with this.  
 

There might be some frustration and sorrow with what some have inferred from this belief, including what follows from God being the only one who existed before he created.  For example, If it leads some to deny we are his literal children and we actually are.

(which belief comes first and which follows?) God is the only one who has always existed or God created everything else out of nothing).

So…..the only thing God could exist within would be God.  Hmmm…

Edited yesterday at 12:17 AM by Calm

[manol]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

if I understand correctly, you are saying God simply thinking (or what he does in this process) of something is enough for it to take form. 

I'm not committed to any particular doctrine of how creation happened, or is happening (maybe it's not over yet?), but as a thought exercise:

Suppose God exists in a realm where thoughts are, or can be, energy.  From there, it's not a huge leap to envision a sufficiently advanced "celestial technology" (for lack of a better term) converting this energy into matter; in fact, down here in the physical we even have an equation describing how much physical-world energy it takes to create matter:  E/C^2 = M

Now down here in the physical world we have conservation of matter and energy, such that the total sum of the two remains constant in the physical universe, but maybe that is not the case for the non-physical universe.  For instance suppose you become filled with the pure love of Christ.  Is there now less of the pure love of Christ somewhere else in the universe(s)?  I don't think so; I think you have actually increased the net amount of the pure love of Christ in the universe(s). 

I'm not saying the above two paragraphs are descriptive of how creation happened; what I'm really saying is, I think it's a good idea to keep an open mind.  If one's paradigm is correct, it will survive open-minded encounters with other paradigms.  And if one's paradigm is incorrect, it will be corrected by open-minded encounters with other paradigms  (assuming one of those is more correct).  Imo this is a topic where there is vastly more we don't know than what little we do "know". 

 

 

Edited yesterday at 12:55 AM by manol

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, 3DOP said:

It doesn't seem like a loving Father should be too upset with us for overestimating His powers...if we have done so. 

I agree, to a point.  Where creation ex-nihilo creates problems (out of nothing?) in my opinion, is that it introduces a total separation between God and man, one that I think contradicts Paul's teachings in Acts 17:28-29.  In doing so it distorts God's relationship to mankind and introduces a boat load of theological problems, such as exacerbating the problems of evil.  It also changes the ideas about monotheism (as I just posted in a separate thread).

Edited yesterday at 12:57 AM by InCognitus

[3DOP]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I very much agree with this.  
 

There might be some frustration and sorrow with what some have inferred from this belief, including what follows from God being the only one who existed before he created.  For example, If it leads some to deny we are his literal children and we actually are.

(which belief comes first and which follows?) God is the only one who has always existed or God created everything else out of nothing).

So…..the only thing God could exist within would be God.  Hmmm…

Hi calm. I don't want to reduce anything to total understanding. We have mystery. So do you. The main thing I was saying is that BlipBlap was presenting a syllogism that was based on a faulty presupposition that nobody pretends to defend...a complete strawman.

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

don't want to reduce anything to total understanding. We have mystery. So do you.

Yes, eventually it all gets down to “it just is” whether it’s God alone or all eternally existent beings and a material something they exist within.

 

[3DOP]

4 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

I agree, to a point.  Where creation ex-nihilo creates problems (out of nothing?) in my opinion, is that it introduces a total separation between God and man, one that I think contradicts Paul's teachings in Acts 17:28-29.  In doing so it distorts God's relationship to mankind and introduces a boat load of theological problems, such as exacerbating the problems of evil.  It also changes the ideas about monotheism (as I just posted in a separate thread).

Maybe so InCognitis. I don't claim that my position is without any problems to be solved. 

[InCognitus]

6 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Maybe so InCognitis. I don't claim that my position is without any problems to be solved. 

I don't think there is any theological view that is free from problems to be solved.  I look forward to the day when we can come face to face with God and get all of our questions answered.  "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." (1 Corinthians 13:12)

[InCognitus]

18 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

"For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." (1 Corinthians 13:12)

Every time I think of this verse it causes me to remember a time when my wife and I were staying at my in-laws on their farm property while helping my father-in-law recover from an injury.  They had a rooster named "Darkly", and he used to come up to the glass sliding door that opened out to the back patio to let us know that the chickens needed to be fed.  And I would say, "For now we see through a glass, Darkly".  

[MiserereNobis]

On 8/3/2026 at 11:29 AM, teddyaware said:

Do you believe in the resurrection that men and women’s resurrected bodies are going to be anatomically correct, with their internal and external male and female reproductive organs fully intact

In the other thread, I pointed out how weird it is that you always focus on getting joy out of seeing other people finding out they are wrong.

Over the years, you have also consistently discussed resurrected genitalia. That is also very weird, especially because you think it is some sort of gotcha. First, you act like Christians over the past 2000 years, including some of the most intelligent and educated minds of western civilization, never considered these things. Second, I’ll say it clearly: resurrected humans have penises and vaginas.

Can we move on? Or do you still want to discuss genitals?

[MiserereNobis]

On 8/10/2026 at 10:56 PM, BlipBlap said:

The argument isn't that "Greek thought is wrong", but the Nicaean conception of God requires one to go to schools of thought that are (more or less) outside the source material.  Neither the Old or New Testament explicitly describe God in the manner in which he is described in the Nicene Creed, with many verses being valid arguments against this conception.  Combine this with the notion that "the church" (i.e. Christendom) requires a monotheistic theology, and you end up with a problem.  How do we maintain monotheism while also dealing with three distinctions, The Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit?

The Hebrews certainly didn't conceive God in the same way, there is very little Jesus himself said (based on the Gospels) that supports the idea, and the idea conflicts with other points of theology found in those churches as well as points presented within the Nicene Creed itself.

 

Do you believe in continuing revelation? or is the primitive Christian Church held to stricter standards than the LDS church when it comes to source material?

[MiserereNobis]

On 8/11/2026 at 10:59 AM, BlipBlap said:

I never said that it did, but considering that the LDS church doesn't believe in a closed canon, that question doesn't really work against us.

Neither does the Catholic Church, as dogma can be, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, refined, understood better, and declared.

[MiserereNobis]

On 8/16/2026 at 6:28 PM, manol said:

I'm not committed to any particular doctrine of how creation happened, or is happening (maybe it's not over yet?)

I absolutely believe it is continual. God is the source of being and creates our being, just as the Son is begotten from the Father continually. He is not the clock maker of the deists. 

[3DOP]

On 8/11/2026 at 11:00 AM, BlipBlap said:

As for "God not being a man", that is also difficult to substantiate given that God created man in his image.  "God the Son" becoming a man likewise contradicts the notion that God is unchanging (in the terms of how Nicaeans present the term "unchanging"), uncreated, etc., as God upon becoming incarnate in flesh would be undergoing an objective change. This would directly mean that "God the Son" is created, as God the Son's existence is predicated upon incarnation in flesh and since you deny that God the Father has a physical body, that means that the body was created at a later time.

 

Well BlipBlap. I am afraid that I can hardly agree with anything you have been saying. (there IS one thing I almost agree with in the paragraph I quote above, except that you think it is some kind of an argument against my position). The problem is that it seems like you have little understanding of what we believe. Let me respectfully try to explain.

1) Your first clause above is about the belief that God is not a man. Do you think that for 1,700 years we "Niceans" haven't given any thought to what it means for a material creature to be made in God's image? When asked whether it was lawful to render tribute to Caesar, Jesus asked for a coin. Then he asked them whose image was on the coin, and the answer of course, was Caesar. The point I am making is that the coin was made in Caesar's image. Does that mean that Caesar is a coin? 

Given that there are Scriptures where God says He is not a man, (you can look them up BlipBlap) we think that just as we believe that Caesar is not a coin, we have reason to believe that God is not necessarily human. Catholic Niceans teach that only the Son is the perfect image of the Father. We privileged creatures, made out of matter, are however also made, to a lesser degree than God's only begotten Son, in God's image, imperfectly. Still, what a magnificent dignity has been bestowed upon every human being! It comes with a weighty responsibility though. Unlike the rest of the material creation, we are free. In God's wisdom and love He has made us alone able to exercise freedom of the will. Every other material creature obeys the law of its nature. Every mineral, vegetable, and animal in material creation "obeys" the law of its own given nature, giving glory to its Creator. It is given to man alone to use his reason to discern the physical actions and mental exercises that befit what we are, created children of the Almighty God of heaven and earth. We use God's image in us reasonably to His glory, and our beatification. But we are capable of misuse too.

 2) Next, you make an assertion that is easily refuted when you say that when the Son becomes man, it means that God changed. No, He who thought it not robbery to be equal with God, condescended to take on Himself the nature of a servant, and for our sakes became man. That does not mean he stopped being God! The divine nature of the Son was neither enhanced nor diminished when he assumed human form in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary. He was still the unchanging God!

It doesn't seem like you are familiar with the way Catholics, at least, see and understand the marvel of the Incarnation. During Advent, just before Christmas, the Church reminds us of the stupendous and sublime inference of the Incarnation of the Son. We are asked to remember that "He who the worlds could not contain was contained within the womb of His Blessed Mother". Just ponder that! As a man, Jesus lived in His mother's belly like any other human child. But He was still God, no change at all! We like it a lot. It is wonderful. It prefigures the Holy Eucharist when we take God into our own flesh, and He really lives in us body and blood, soul and divinity. (what about His Mother who carries Him for NINE MONTHS?) He Who gives us Himself as our food? It is not so we will assimilate Him, like what happens when we have a piece of toast in the morning. Rather, he assimilates us! He doesn't change. We become more and more and more made in the likeness of His perfect image of the Father, so often as we can lawfully receive Him in Holy Communion!

3) I am running out of time today. I'll try to be quick, on what we somewhat agree about. You say that the way we understand the Incarnation would mean that the Son of God is created. We almost agree.. The Son of Man IS created. The 2nd Person of the Blessed Trinity, who becomes man, is and always will be God, uncreated. Regarding the manhood of Christ, we affirm the Scripture where it revealed that the Son is "the firstborn among many creatures". (Not chronologically, but in excellence and dignity) And yeah, the body was created when Mary, the New Eve, agreed to be Mother of God: "Behold the handmaid of the Lord, be it done unto me according to thy word." The faith is so beautiful. It is beyond suitable description. One should only laugh, or cry, (or both!) with tears or shouts of joy at the wonderful truths we say we believe.

I think next up is the hypostatic union. You mention that later on. But its meaning is important here too, especially with the third clause we have discussed.

God bless you BlipBlap. I hope this helps.

 

Edited 2 hours ago by 3DOP