The Nicene Creed

[cdowis]

>The Catholic Church has authority. An ecumenical council has authority. The Catholic Church has revelation.

What role did the Catholic church (pope) play in the Council of Nicea? A representative of the Pope attended and participated along with all the others. His vote was one among others, his voice was one voice among his peers. The Council gave no special acknowledgement nor preference to the Roman representative, except as one among equals.

>Apostles were replaced by bishops. Prophets were replaced by inspired men of God.

Did you read Eph 4:11-14? Apparently you and Paul are in disagreement.

>The emperor did not banish religious leaders.

Do your homework.

>The Catholic Church has not fallen into apostasy. The doctrines and ordinances of the Catholic Church are the same as those in the early Apostolic Church.

It appears that our Lord and Saviour disagrees with you.

[johnny]

Bsix,

You have not identified any Bible verses that reveal "three Gods" like Joseph Smith taught ...

The Creed, like the Bible,

- does not reveal three Gods.

- reveals all three members of the the Godhead (the Father, Son and Holy Spirit) as Diety.

- reveals one God just like Paul teaches in 1Cor 8 as he contrasts one God verses multiple gods.

- reveals one God who is one but not solitary.

- reveals three distinct persons but not three seperate persons.

- reveals that their is a Father/Son relationship.

- reveals that the only Son of God is eternally begotten of the Father and not a creation

- reveals that has a distinct will from the Father

- reveals that Jesus has a Father (God)

- reveals that while on earth the Father is greater than the Son

- reveals that the Son ascended to the Father

- reveals that the Son is seated at the right hand of the Father

The Creed is supported by the Bible. Joseph Smith's teaching of "three Gods" is not supported by the Bible.

[johnny]

Bsix,

Inviting the Catholic Bishops is not demanding that the Church conduct the Council. The Emperor did not play a key role in enforcing the edicts of the council.

Again Constantine took no part in the deliberations of the Council; it was entirely an affair of the Church

[johnny]

cdowis,

The Pope was not present at the council, the Pope did recognize it as an ecumenical council.

Explain how Paul and I are in disagreement, below is Eph 4:11-14.

Eph 4

[11] And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

[12] For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

[13] Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

[14] That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

Eplain how the our Lord and Saviour disagrees with me about the The Catholic Church has not fallen into apostasy.

[Smith]

It is an example of development or maturing doctrines (see link below).

http://www.catholic.com/library/can_dogma_develop.asp

Maturing doctrine?

What that says to me is that which Christ taught was immature, that which the Apostles taught was immature. That cant be.

But on second thoughts I think you are quite right but in order to understand mature better lets use another word - rotten - When butchers cut up a carcass, actually even before they cut it up they let it hang in order for it to "mature", ie the rotting process, and the longer they leave it to hang the more off it gets till it really starts to hum. So yes. The doctrines were maturing. I prefer the fresh stuff.

[Bsix]

Catholic Guy: Your going to tell me that all these ECF's meant nothing before Constantine.

Six: I am not saying that at all. Apparently, the Catholic Church couldn't resolve the schismatic teachings of the EFCs and others. For some reason, the Pope and the Church wasn't inspired enough to call an Acts 15 like synod and resolve those issues. It fell to a non-Christian political emporor to call, influence and enforce a synod.

What I am observing is that Constantine, a non-Christian secular emporor, convoked the council, was involved in the deliberations, to the point of suggesting some of the actual wording of the Creed, and then used his power as emporor to enforce the dictates of the Council.

Given the solid historical evidence to the contrary, I don't know how anyone can claim that Constantine was not an influence on the Nicene Creed.

Regards,

Six

[Nighthawke]

The Creed is supported by the Bible. Joseph Smith's teaching of "three Gods" is not supported by the Bible.

Is the creed supported by the Bible? Then what was Paul's warning about?

"See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ." (Colossians 2:

Maybe you missed David Bokovoy's earlier post, let me re-post it FYI:

"It is impossible for anyone, whether he be a student of history or not, to fail to notice a difference of both form and content between the Sermon on the Mount and the Nicene Creed. The Sermon on the Mount is the promulgation of a new law of conduct; it assumes beliefs rather than formulates them; the theological conceptions which underlie it belong to the ethical rather than the speculative side of theology; metaphysics are wholly absent. The Nicene Creed is a statement partly of historical facts and partly of dogmatic inferences; the metaphysical terms which it contains would probably have been unintelligible to the first disciples; ethics have no place in it. The one belongs to a world of Syrian peasants, the other to a world of Greek philosophers

[johnny]

Smith,

What the Apostle taught was the mystery of Godliness (1Tim 3:16). The Creed helps us to better understand this mystery.

1Tim.2

[5] For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

1Tim.3

[16] And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

[rhinomelon]

Darn, I hate when threads take off when I'm not around. I come back and there is too much to respond to!

Some high points. First, Constantine obviously did have an influence on the council. However, making judgments as to whether he was a Christian or not will not do anyone any good, because we can never know for sure. He was possessed of a keen intellectual mind, as well as a great knowledge of Christian theology. His suggestion of the term "homoousios", however, is largely seen by scholars as originating with Hosius of Cordova, the emperor's Christian advisor who had suffered through persecution under Maximilian.

Second, there was no threat of force held over the head of the bishops when it came time to accept or reject the creed of the council. It wasn't until later that Constantine took matters into his own hands and exiled Arius and several other Arian bishops. They were later accepted back, and gained political power, which led to the persecution of the orthodox Christian population for a while. Athanasius, for example, was exiled several times during this period. However, the orthodox view won out, not because of military or political power, but simply because Arian thought died out; the vast majority of the church simply rejected it, and it had nowhere to go.

The Bible identifies all three members of the Godhead (the Father, Son and Holy Spirit) as dieties.

One correction here. The Bible identifies the members of the Godhead as Deity or God, not "deities" or "Gods". Very important distinction, which LDS tend to ignore, and which led to quite Trinitarian thinking centuries before the Council of Nicea, as Catholic Guy has already pointed out.

I am struck by sort of a foundational double-standard in the statement above. Some traditional Christians are perfectly willing to find fault in every...single...fault...imperfection...process-issue...confusion within Mormonism and declare that these things are proof that Mormonism is false. Yet, there seems to be a vast ability to excuse all manner of doubt-casting shortcomings in their religion -- and even see some of those shortcomings as God's workings.

No double standard at all here, although I can see how you might think this. Some Christians are quite picky in these areas, which I find relatively unimportant compared to matters of truth and doctrine. I don't really care if Joseph Smith was a treasure digger or a womanizer; what matters to me more is what he taught about God and the truth of the gospel. I have little doubt that if Joseph Smith did all he did, and arrived at mainstream Christian teaching, nobody would care much what he was like!

I suspect that if the traditional Christian critics cut Mormonism as much slack as their religion and likewise set aside skepticism...they would have alsmost nothing to object to about Mormonism.

In light of the above, I strongly disagree with this statement. I would still object to many truth claims about Mormonism. God can work through many means, whether councils or little boys in groves, but if it is God working, then He will be consistent with regards to truth. Not only is the LDS system inconsistent with what Christianity has always taught (yes, even way before the "abominable creeds"), I find it internally incoherent as well.

More later, probably. Take care, everyone

[johnny]

Bsix,

Please support your words "involved in the deliberations" ....

[johnny]

Nighthawke,

The creed is supported by the Bible. The creed is not "deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ." ".

The early saints testified of one God ... not three Gods like Joseph Smith taught.

[johnny]

rhinomelon,

Thanks for the correction ... it should be "Deity" insteady of "deities" ... I was cutting and pasting and got sloppy.

[chump&hisparts]

Rhinomelon,

I don't really care if Joseph Smith was a treasure digger or a womanizer; what matters to me more is what he taught about God and the truth of the gospel. I have little doubt that if Joseph Smith did all he did, and arrived at mainstream Christian teaching, nobody would care much what he was like!

True. If JS did do as he is accused, then no one would make mention of it these days. But he is only accused of doing the bad things because people doubt his teachings. We wouldn't be here talking about his bad behavior if those who just don't want to believe his teachings weren't trying to make his bad behavior as proof that his teachings were wrong.

Back to the topic at hand. Has anyone read When Jesus Became God[/] by Richard Rubenstien? I have read it and find it quite good. What are your thoughts? It's about this very subject.

Thanks,

Chump

[rhinomelon]

Okay, one clarifying point that might clear things up: there were two men named Eusebius involved with the council of Nicea. One was the historian who recorded everything, and the other, named Eusebius of Nicodemia (I think), who was an Arian bishop who was later exiled by Constantine, and then welcomed back even later.

Is the creed supported by the Bible? Then what was Paul's warning about?

QUOTE 

"See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ." (Colossians 2:

Obviously this can't apply to "all philosophy", because Paul himself uses Greek philosophers and poets, as well as their technique of open air debate and dialogue. Also, LDS theology owes just as much (if not more) to Platonic thinking than Christianity does. Pot, kettle, black, etc.

You may want to read David W. Bercot's Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up: A New Look at Today's Evangelical Church in the Light of Early Christianity.

The early saints witnessed/testified of Christ, of God and of the Holy Spirit as did Joseph Smith.

Read it, and it doesn't talk much about early Christian views of the Godhead/Trinity at all. In fact, the author is a Trinitarian himself. It mostly focuses on moral and ethical concerns, with some chapters devoted to beliefs about salvation and I believe predestination/freewill. Nothing about Godhead, however. Have you read it?

Also, I believe Bokovoy's earlier post (which you reposted) makes a mistake of boiling down all of Christian teaching to the Sermon on the Mount, or in other words, simple ethical concerns. While this is definitely an indispensable part of Christian theology and life, it is not the only thing that matters. Jesus also taught about the nature and person of God, and then sent apostles out into the world to teach truth in belief as well as actions. The creed was primarily concerned with true belief, so it will obviously be different from the sermon on the mount. That doesn't mean it is automatically "wrong" or "evil".

Consider this quote, in response to Hatch:

"It was actually not Jewish but Greek philosophical categories which made it difficult to attribute true and full divinity to Jesus. A Jewish understanding of divine identity was open to the inclusion of Jesus in the divine identity. But Greek philosophical

[Nighthawke]

The early saints testified of one God ... not three Gods like Joseph Smith taught.

John and Peter: "That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ" (1 John 1:3)

"And we are witnesses of all things in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree: Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly; Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink wit him after he rose from the dead." (Acts 10:39-41)

John and Peter declare they have seen and heard and they bear testimony. I prefer the early apostles' testimonies to philosophical creeds produced in the 5th century--long after the apostles' had all passed away. Thank you.

[johnny]

Nighthawke,

Are you saying that 1 John 1:3 and Acts 10:39-41 is testifying to "three Gods", if so could you explain.

I am not following what your point is ...

[rhinomelon]

Nowhere in those passages is "Gods" or "deities" mentioned. I think this is a vitally important point. I don't see the apostles or the early church ever using the plural in reference to God, certainly not as much as LDS do. It just doesn't fit!

John and Peter declare they have seen and heard and they bear testimony. I prefer the early apostles' testimonies to philosophical creeds produced in the 5th century--long after the apostles' had all passed away. Thank you.

You're quite welcome. However, mainstream Christianity takes those testimonies quite seriously; indeed, according to many LDS we take them TOO seriously! We take them seriously, as did the bishops at the council and the early church fathers.

Take care

[Nighthawke]

Nighthawke,

Are you saying that 1 John 1:3 and Acts 10:39-41 is testifying to "three Gods", if so could you explain.

I am not following what your point is ...

Well John and Peter certainly weren't denying that the Father is God, or that his Son Jesus Christ is God. Do you really need me to do the math?

It also sounds to me like John and Peter didn't believe that Jesus was identical to the Father. That John and Peter believed that there were things about Jesus that were different from the Father and that they recognized Jesus' distinctivenss from the Father ergo we have two different beings.

How about you tell us what you believe? Do you believe that Jesus Christ is identical to the Father? Do you belive that there are things about Jesus that are different from the Father?

[Nighthawke]

However, mainstream Christianity takes those testimonies quite seriously; indeed, according to many LDS we take them TOO seriously! We take them seriously, as did the bishops at the council and the early church fathers.

That's wonderful! You'll be thrilled then to discover that Latter-day Saints take the bearing of testimonies equally seriously. Indeed, they've set aside one Sunday a month to express their testimonies that they know that God lives and that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

[cdowis]

I am puzzled.

If the pope (or his representative) was considered the head of the church, why did not the council recognize his authority to lead the council? Why was he an equal among equals, and Constantine did the invitations, and presided over the council?

It is clear to me that at that time the Bishop of Rome was not considered as the prophet, or anything else except just one of the bishops.

[rhinomelon]

Well John and Peter certainly weren't denying that the Father is God, or that his Son Jesus Christ is God. Do you really need me to do the math?

It also sounds to me like John and Peter didn't believe that Jesus was identical to the Father. That John and Peter believed that there were things about Jesus that were different from the Father and that they recognized Jesus' distinctivenss from the Father ergo we have two different beings.

You are talking about the Trinity here. The Father and the Son are called God, and yet nowhere is mention made of multiple Gods. On the other side of it, the Father and the Son are recognized as different persons who interact with each other. That's the starting point of the Trinity! This is where all the ECF started out, and the wonder of how this could all be true at once is all gathered up in the concept of the Trinity.

How about you tell us what you believe? Do you believe that Jesus Christ is identical to the Father? Do you belive that there are things about Jesus that are different from the Father?

Jesus Christ is identical in nature, glory, and honor to the Father. The differences come in that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit each have the attributes of a personality, i.e. will, knowledge, ability to act, emotion, role, etc. Three Persons in one Being. Or, three Whos in one What, if you prefer. This line of thinking was written down long before the Nicean Creed.

That's wonderful! You'll be thrilled then to discover that Latter-day Saints take the bearing of testimonies equally seriously. Indeed, they've set aside one Sunday a month to express their testimonies that they know that God lives and that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

I don't really understand your wonder at my acceptance of testimonies. Christians take testimony seriously as well, although not in as formal a way as the LDS do. And the testimony of the apostles and prophets is what we have in the Bible, which we obviously take very seriously. Many of the earliest church fathers referred to the writings we now know as the New Testament as "the testimony of the apostles".

Take care, everyone

[Nighthawke]

Jesus Christ is identical in nature, glory, and honor to the Father. The differences come in that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit each have the attributes of a personality, i.e. will, knowledge, ability to act, emotion, role, etc. Three Persons in one Being. Or, three Whos in one What, if you prefer. This line of thinking was written down long before the Nicean Creed.

So you agree then that you believe in three distinct beings "each having the attributes of a personality, i.e. will, knowledge, ability to act, emotion, role, etc."

Or, three Whos in one What...

Right. Well s'okay, we believe that you can believe anything you like.

p.s. This line of thinking is straight out of Greek philosophy after the apostles were long dead--not the scriptures: "See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ." (Colossians 2:

p.p.s. I just can't seem to find hypostasis and homoousia in the scriptures ya know? (ie. book, chapter and verse)

p.p.p.s. And if "this line of thinking was written down long before the Nicean Creed" why the heck did they bother with all these Christian Councils? (ie. The First Council of Nicea (AD 325); the First Council of Constantinople (AD 381); the Council of Ephesus (AD 431); the Council of Chalcedon (AD 451); the Second Council of Constantinople (AD 553); the Third Council of Constantinople (AD 680); the Second Council of Nicea (AD 787); the Council of Trent (AD 1545-1563); the First Vatican Council (AD 1869-1870) and lastly, the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965))

[rhinomelon]

p.p.p.s. And if "this line of thinking was written down long before the Nicean Creed" why the heck did they bother with all these Christian Councils? (ie. The First Council of Nicea (AD 325); the First Council of Constantinople (AD 381); the Council of Ephesus (AD 431); the Council of Chalcedon (AD 451); the Second Council of Constantinople (AD 553); the Third Council of Constantinople (AD 680); the Second Council of Nicea (AD 787); the Council of Trent (AD 1545-1563); the First Vatican Council (AD 1869-1870) and lastly, the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965))

Why does the LDS church need so many editions of "Gospel Principles" or the Book of Mormon? Circumstances and challenges to the faith change over time.

But I am glad you asked the question. Two thoughts here. First, if you look at Greek philosophy and what was being debated at Nicea (and most of the other early councils as well), you will find that what was rejected was the most "Greek" interpretation. This is true with Arius, who (along with Plato) believed that the unity and substance of God could not be shared between the Father and the Son, so Christ must be a different, lower being.

Second, the councils were never arbitrarily called just to debate random doctrine. Each council had a focus, brought on by different ideas and heresies coming into being and challenging the teaching of the Church. As time went on, the heresies became more refined, educated, and philosophical in their makeup. The Church therefore had to answer these complicated challenges in ways that were more nuanced and complicated than what had gone before. If you don't believe me, read Irenaeus. Out of a 5 part work, the first two parts examine the doctrines of the heretics of the day, and it is one of the most confusing, difficult things I've ever read. His point by point rebuttals of those are simpler, but still more complicated than what is written in one New Testament verse.

So you agree then that you believe in three distinct beings "each having the attributes of a personality, i.e. will, knowledge, ability to act, emotion, role, etc."

No, three distinct persons. I think someone was saying earlier about how LDS should understand how mainstream Christianity uses terms like "being", "person" and "substance", in order to make sense of the Trinity.

p.p.s. I just can't seem to find hypostasis and homoousia in the scriptures ya know? (ie. book, chapter and verse)

Oh I know. There are many words found in theological works from both our faiths that are not explicitly found in Scripture. For instance, the phrase "eternal progression" never appears anywhere in the LDS standard works, and yet you probably still believe in it. To limit ourselves to only the words found in Scripture is not only impossible (seeing as how we don't speak Koine Greek), it is insulting to the intellectual gifts God has given us to think about and explore His truth.

p.s. This line of thinking is straight out of Greek philosophy after the apostles were long dead--not the scriptures: "See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ." (Colossians 2:

Perhaps you should address the direct correlation of several aspects of LDS doctrine with Platonic thinking before you indiscriminately throw "Apostasy Bombs" into the conversation. Greek philosophy is impossible to avoid even today, because it informs so much of the way the western world thinks.

Take care, everyone

[Smith]

cdowis,

The Pope was not present at the council, the Pope did recognize it as an ecumenical council.

Explain how Paul and I are in disagreement, below is Eph 4:11-14.

Eph 4

knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

[14] That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

Eplain how the our Lord and Saviour disagrees with me about the The Catholic Church has not fallen into apostasy.

Simple:

[11] And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

[12] For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

[13] Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the .......

So where are your current apostles and prophets as clearly the objective has not yet been reached?

[Smith]

Smith,

What the Apostle taught was the mystery of Godliness (1Tim 3:16). The Creed helps us to better understand this mystery.

I dont see what a mystrey has to do with maturing doctrine. And so how is the creed helping understand what the mystries are if it is only clearing up what is in the bible?