The Nicene Creed

[Joseph Antley]

Antley,

I believe if you study the early church writings the doctrine of the Trinity has been taught by the Church and professed by her members from the earliest times. Trinitarianism was an article of faith at a time when the Apostolic tradition was far too recent for any error to have arisen. During the first centuries the Church sought to clarify her Trinitarian faith, both to deepen her own understanding of the faith and to defend it against the errors.

Just how long do you think it takes for error to arise? Fifty years? A hundred years? Two-hundred years?

If it was too soon for error to arise, then where did the heretics come from?

It's also interesting to note that the Israelites began worshipping a false god within only a few years of their miraculous exodus from Egypt.

But like I said, perhaps many, even maybe the majority of early Christians, even during the immediate post-Apostolic times, had a Trinitarian view. I just happen to think they were mistaken.

[livy111us]

Johnny,

That is a silly question, seeing that we have been talking about a translation that answers this very question. Logos can be translated many ways, including spokesman.

[johnny]

Antley,

I find it interesting that LDS members are able to pin point the exact time. I also find it interesting that you say the many early Christians were mistaken about their Trinitarian view. The apostles took care to appoint successors so that the divine mission entrusted by Jesus to them would continue to the end of time. With the deaths of the Twelve Apostles the essential activity of the Twelve Apostles in building up and extending the Church did not entirely disappear and the Apostolic Primacy of Peter did not completely vanish. About the end of the second century, the ministers of the churches were everywhere regarded as legitimate successors of the Apostles. The fact is indisputable: the Bishops of Rome took over Peter's Chair and Peter's office of continuing the work of Christ. There is no other Church linked to St. Peter by an unbroken chain of successors.

I don't find any proof of error creeping into Church doctrine after the apostles died. Apostolicity is the surest indication of the true Church of Christ. The Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, regularly appealed to apostolic succession as a test for whether Catholics or heretics had correct doctrine. For the first Christians the test to determine which doctrines were the true teachings of Christ they simply traced the apostolic succession of the claimants. The role of apostolic succession preserved the true doctrine.

The Christian writers of the first and second centuries had personal relations with some of the Apostles. Chief in importance are the three first-century Bishops: St. Clement of Rome, St. Ignatius of Antioch, and St. Polycarp of Smyrna, of whose intimate personal relations with the Apostles there is no doubt. Clement, Bishop of Rome and third successor of St. Peter in the Papacy, "had seen the blessed Apostles [Peter and Paul] and had been conversant with them". Ignatius was the second successor of St. Peter in the See of Antioch and during his life in that centre of Christian activity may have met with others of the Apostolic band. An accepted tradition, substantiated by the similarity of Ignatius's thought with the ideas of the Johannine writings, declares him a disciple of St. John. Polycarp was "instructed by Apostles" and had been a disciple of St. John whose contemporary he was for nearly twenty years. The period of time covered by these writings extends from the last two decades of the first century through the first half of the second century. The whole system of Catholic doctrine may be discovered in the course of Ignatius seven epistles.

[johnny]

livy111us,

You say that Logos can be translated many ways ... do you think the Apostle John meant it as spokesman?

What meaning does it have for the Apostle John? I believe for John his usage was similiar to that held by the Jewish Tradition, the theology found the Book of Wisdom, the Psalms, and the Prophetical Books.

[Joseph Antley]

I have no reason to doubt that Clement knew Peter and Paul, or that he was ordained a bishop. I believe I've read (perhaps in one of your posts) that Clement was ordained by Peter himself. I have no reason to doubt that.

But I see no reason to believe that Peter passed the keys to the Kingdom to any of the bishops. I believe the bishops had Priesthood authority; but not the authority to lead the Church.

I do not believe that Apostles were a temporary position. As I said, if this were so, there would have been no need to have ordained Matthias as one of the Twelve. When do you believe the point was reached when Apostles were no longer needed?

I did not pin-point the time the apostasy began. But I do believe that many of the early Christians were mistaken in doctrines. This was true even when the Apostles were alive. I think it very possible for men like Clement and Ignatius to have been mistaken as well, despite their authoritative poisition in the Church.

I also do not believe that once a man turns to wickedness and perverts the Lord's Church, he will continue to hold the keys to the Kingdom, if he ever had them.

The Roman Catholic Church may be able to trace a lineage of men back to Peter, but I happen to believe the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can as well.

[johnny]

Antley,

The Bishop of Rome held the keys of the priesthood. The Bishop of Rome is Peter's successor. The Early Church Fathers understood that Peter

[Joseph Antley]

The Bishop of Rome held the keys of the priesthood.  The Bishop of Rome is Peter's successor.  The Early Church Fathers understood that Peter

[johnny]

Antley,

In the quote below Irenaeus writes about the dispute at the Church at Corinth that occured while the Apostle John was still alive. I might add that the Apostle John was physically closer than the church at Rome.

"Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church" (Against Heresies, 3, 1:1 [A.D. 189]). ... "But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the succession of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church [of Rome], because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3, 3, 2). ... "The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the letter to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]. To him succeeded Anacletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. ... To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded . . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherius. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us" (ibid., 3, 3, 3).

Their are "heretics" and their are those whom "the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers" (Acts 20:28) who "watch, and remember" (Acts 20:31).

The Catholic Church teaches that you cannot sell spiritual things. In regards to the Inquisition I would agree with Pope John Paul II who said it was wrong, dead wrong!

Again I reject the LDS apostolicity because the LDS Church came after the time of Christ and the Apostles.

[Joseph Antley]

Ignatius never said the church at Corinth went to the church at Rome rather than the Apostle John. It just says Rome heard about their dissensions and sent them a letter.

The Catholic Church teaches that you cannot sell spiritual things. In regards to the Inquisition I would agree with Pope John Paul II who said it was wrong, dead wrong!

I know the modern Catholic Church believes those things are wrong. But I believe that when men started doing those things, the keys of the Kingdom would have been taken from them.

Again I reject the LDS apostolicity because the LDS Church came after the time of Christ and the Apostles.

I happen to believe the LDS Church was around at the time of Christ and the Apostles. Of course, I suppose it would have simply been called a Church of Saints instead of Latter-day Saints.

[johnny]

Antley,

The letter that the Roman Bishop wrote was an authoritative letter to restore peace. John who was still living at Ephesus did not interfere. My understanding is that the Corinthians had called on Clement of Rome to settle a dispute. See link below for information:

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9612up.asp

Christ never said the Apostle successors would be perfect. In the Old Testament King David clearly was not perfect but yet God call him a man after his own heart.

[Joseph Antley]

Christ never said the Apostle successors would be perfect. In the Old Testament King David clearly was not perfect but yet God call him a man after his own heart.

I'm not expecting them to be perfect. But there is a difference between personal sins and sinning against the Lord's Church.

[johnny]

Antley,

In the LDS church does the President get his powers from those who elect him or does he get them from his position as head of the Church?

[Joseph Antley]

Antley,

In the LDS church does the President get his powers from those who elect him or does he get them from his position as head of the Church?

He is given the keys by others who hold them. He doesn't recieve his Priesthood authority from his position, but rather recieves it because of his position.

[johnny]

Antley,

So in other words the LDS President does not pass the keys to next LDS president ... the LDS Presidency

is not handed on by one LDS President to another through the laying of hands.

I have enjoyed the exchange of ideas but it's my bedtime so I will respond tomorrow ...

[1dc]

You say "Jesus fully represents our One God and would honor Him as such", does this mean that you worship and pray to him as an equal to the Father?

We have One God, Johnny. And Christ as spokesman said we pray to the Father in Christ's name and that the Father is His God and our God.

When we feel we have a valid new "Thus sayeth God" revelation I'd hope we'd both follow God.

Was their a time when the Father was not a Father, for example I am a Father because I have children. Lactantius said that the name of

[1dc]

3 sentient or self-aware "persons" can be "alone" because the three are one divine substance, the three are not three divine substances. For example John 14 reveals that three distinct persons can dwell in a person. When the Spirit dwells in His holy temple the Spirit abides with the Father and the Son.

John 14

[17] Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

[23] Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

The 3 were aware of each other, during creation God conversed with someone distinct from himself.

I agree the Word was God because Christ is God. There is but one eternal being. The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God. There are not three gods; there is but one God. Do you think their were multiple seperate gods during creation like LDS scripture reveals?

The Son was in the bosom of the Father which implies that the Son is "one in being" with the Father. The Son is "consubstantial" with the Father, that is, one only God with him.

If they're sentient Johnny, then they are not alone. They are in agreement, and all made out of "God stuff" as I believe you've previously written, but with 3 sentient beings each person is not alone . . the One God(head) is alone as God.

You rely on implies a lot . . the Bible teaches each divine person is sentient and therefore what was God alone was the Godhead rather than the persons.

[johnny]

1dc,

I agree we have one God. Why did the disciples worship and pray to Christ as an equal to the Father after he was resurrected?

I didn't ask if the Father had a Father, I asked if their was a time when the Father was not a Father because he did not have a firstborn that would define him as a Father.

Do you consider Spirit immaterial? Jesus compared Spirit to the wind. The wind has "material" but does not necessarily have breadth, length, and depth.

You say that intelligence can be organized, what do you mean? Could you further describe the existence of the Son prior to him being born of heavenly parents, for example is intelligence incorporeal, is intelligence immaterial? If intelligence always existed how can their be a father/son relationship?

You say that "The Holy Ghost does not have a body", I thought LDS taught that the Holy Ghost has a spirit body. Doesn't LDS scripture reveal that the pre-incarnate Christ had a spirit body?

I would suggest "the Word" had a different meaning than authority or voice because scripture reveals the Son as "the Word of life ... eternal life" and also says that it by the Son "whom are all things".

It is not that the two different wills are overlappying. Christ, being true God and true man, has a human intellect and will, perfectly attuned and subject to his divine intellect and divine will, which he has in common with the Father and the Holy Spirit. I agree that a fallen man has a single spiritual will, that is why a fallen man is not consider true God and true man like the only begotten Son of God. I would not consider it "extrabiblical interpretation", Phil 2 says Christ is "in the form of God" and "the form of a servant ... the likeness of men".

Could you explain why you think the divine nature is both physical and spiritual.

How can Christ's glorified eternal body be unchangeable nature ... prior to the resurrection it is mortal flesh, after the resurrection it is glorified.

I believe that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God and it is immortal. The human person is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. Man, whole and entire, is willed by God. A human body is animated by a spiritual soul.

The modern Apostolic church uses the apostle John's example of light, the Nicene Creed says:

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten not made, one in being with the Father.

[johnny]

1dc,

It appears you seem to view the three pesons as three seperate beings. I view the three distinct persons as one being because this is what Isaiah reveals. God is one but not solitary.

In LDS theology were their others with the one Godhead during creation?

The LDS Church teaches of a heavenly mother, where was the heavenly mother during creation if the Godhead was alone?

[livy111us]

Johnny,

Because of your blatant mis-representation of scripture, that you continuously take out of context, you lose credibility. You are grasping at straws and trying to make it sound doctrine. I have looked in every commentary I could find, and NONE OF THEM SUPPORT YOUR VIEW. But, I bet you will disregard this as well and continue your nonsense. It is very difficult to have a discussion with you because you ignore what is said and continue in your propoganda. That shows that you are so set in your ways that you are only willing to speak, and not listen, no matter what is said, or how many times you are proven wrong. I haven't seen you listen to anyone, no matter the scholarly level, or evidence given.

I'm not the only one that has said this to you, many more, if not all agree with me. If you want to sound credible, you cannot keep on going the way you are going. Many do not take you seriously anymore because of this. I doubt this will change your mind in any way, but maybe you will at least THINK about it.

[johnny]

livy111us,

You might try reading some Catholic commentaries and Catholic teachings because you will find my view is consistent with the Catholic view. If you like just tell me the topic and I will be glad to point you to these Catholic sources.

[Joseph Antley]

Antley,

So in other words the LDS President does not pass the keys to next LDS president ... the LDS Presidency

is not handed on by one LDS President to another through the laying of hands.

I have enjoyed the exchange of ideas but it's my bedtime so I will respond tomorrow ...

From what I understand, the keys are given to the members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, though no one Apostle holds all the keys. When a person is called as the President of the Church, the Apostles then confer all the keys upon him by the laying on of hands.

So no, the prophet does not recieve the keys from the previous prophet, but he does recieve them from those in authority.

How does this work in the Roman Catholic Church?

[johnny]

Antley,

In some ways it sounds simliar to my understaning of the Catholic Church teaching ... earlier you made the point that the keys of the Kingdom could be taken be taken away from an individual ... the point I am trying to make is that the succession of the keys does not depend on one individuals behavior.

I might also add that Pope has the charism of infallibility which guarantees that the pope will be preserved from error when and if he is led to make a definition. Infallibility is concerned with the interpretation and effective safeguarding of truths already revealed. In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ endowed the Church's shepherds with the charism of infallibility.

[Zakuska]

I might also add that Pope has the charism of infallibility which guarantees that the pope will be preserved from error when and if he is led to make a definition. Infallibility is concerned with the interpretation and effective safeguarding of truths already revealed. In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ endowed the Church's shepherds with the charism of infallibility.

Sure didn't help Judas out any.

And how about all Peter and Pauls debating back and forth.

[Moksha]

the Pope has the charism of infallibility

We sure could have used him playing basketball last week. Our foul shooting stunk.

[Joseph Antley]

In some ways it sounds simliar to my understaning of the Catholic Church teaching ... earlier you made the point that the keys of the Kingdom could be taken be taken away from an individual ... the point I am trying to make is that the succession of the keys does not depend on one individuals behavior.

I agree that the succession doesn't depend upon one person, but I think that the keys can be taken from a person. For example, if a Pope would attempt to sell the papacy to someone, I think he would no longer be worthy to hold the keys and they would be taken from him, along with any authority he had.

I might also add that Pope has the charism of infallibility which guarantees that the pope will be preserved from error when and if he is led to make a definition. Infallibility is concerned with the interpretation and effective safeguarding of truths already revealed.  In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ endowed the Church's shepherds with the charism of infallibility.

If the Pope is infallible, what was up with selling the papacy, instigating and encouraging the Inquisition and Crusades, and unjustly condemning people?