The Nicene Creed

[johnny]

Smith,

Eph 4 is talking about spiritual gifts not offices, see 1Cor 12:1. Today's Christian Church has "apostles", "prophets", "teachers" till we all come in the unity of the faith.

Are prophets secondary in the LDS church?

1Cor 12

[1] Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.

[28] And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

[Smith]

Smith,

Eph 4 is talking about spiritual gifts not offices, see 1Cor 12:1. Today's Christian Church has "apostles", "prophets", "teachers" till we all come in the unity of the faith.

Are prophets secondary in the LDS church?

1Cor 12

[1] Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.

[28] And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

What does secondary mean? and are you going to answer my question? At least we have prophets, where are yours?

[johnny]

Smith,

A mystery is a truth which we are not merely incapable of discovering apart from Divine Revelation. In other words, our understanding of it remains only partial, even after we have accepted it as part of the Divine messege.

Man was not given religious truth as though from a Scholastic theologian, nicely laid out and fully indexed. The creeds give the church a ever-deepening understanding of the deposit of faith that had been "once for all delivered" to it by Christ and the apostles (Jude 3). The Church facilitates the development or maturing of doctrines. Disputes arise and formal definitions by the Church became necessary.

The Church does not, indeed cannot, change the doctrines God has given it, nor can it "invent" new ones and add them to the deposit of faith that has been "once for all delivered to the saints." New beliefs are not invented, but obscurities and misunderstandings regarding the deposit of faith are cleared up. Some central doctrines (such as the Trinity and the hypostatic union) were not always understood or as clearly expounded in the Church

[johnny]

Smith,

What question have I not answered, tell me and I will answer it?

The council of Jerusalem shows prophets being secondarily:

Acts 15

[2] When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.

[6] And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.

[7] And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

[15] And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,

[28] For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;

[32] And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them.

The Catholic Church has the living Magisterium which is a prophetic office. Go to the link below for more Catholic Teachings related to this topic:

http://comparing-views.com/book/c01prop.htm

The Magisterium of the Church exercises an essential part of its prophetic office of proclaiming to men what they truly are and reminding them of what they should be before God (CCC2036).

The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him (CCC100).

This Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith (CCC86).

Divine assistance is given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a definitive manner, they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals (CCC892).

The Church's Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes in a definitive way truths having a necessary connection with them (CCC88).

[Smith]

The Church facilitates the development or maturing of doctrines. Disputes arise and formal definitions by the Church became necessary.

The Church does not, indeed cannot, change the doctrines God has given it, nor can it "invent" new ones and add them to the deposit of faith that has been "once for all delivered to the saints."

Johnny,

To me these 2 statements are exclusive, you can have one or the other but not both. To mature something is to change it and as you say you cannot change it. Improvings ones understanding of something is just that, there is no maturing of the doctrine or changing of it. What is maturing or changing (improving) is one's understanding of it.

[johnny]

Smith,

Do you see Joseph Smith teaching of "three Gods" as maturing ... changing ... improving ...

Christ taught "one God" ... the Apostles taught "one God" ... Joseph Smith taught "three Gods" ...

[Smith]

Smith,

Do you see Joseph Smith teaching of "three Gods" as maturing ... changing ... improving ...

Christ taught "one God" ... the Apostles taught "one God" ... Joseph Smith taught "three Gods" ...

I see it as fixing. I dont know if that counts...

[johnny]

Smith,

Could you explain how it can be fixing if neither Christ nor the Apostles taught "three Gods ... neither the Old Testmanet nor the New Testament reveal three Gods.

What is the Mormon Church teaching of "three Gods" fixed too?

[cdowis]

>Joseph Smith taught "three Gods" ...

Could you give us the exact reference.

[rhinomelon]

>Joseph Smith taught "three Gods" ...

Could you give us the exact reference.

One possibility here:

"I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods." (Teachings of Prophet Joseph Smith p. 370).

Not to mention it is a bedrock principle of LDS theology that gets brought up every single time the nature of God is addressed. The above quote merely addresses three Gods; there are others that obviously deal with a plurality of Gods, even Gods who are above the Father. The King Follett Discourse comes to mind here.

Take care

[cdowis]

[rhinomelon]

[cdowis]

>"three Gods" vs. "one God" is a contradiction.

Is "one flesh" vs "two separate individuals" a contradiction?

I realize that you are really struggling with this whole thing. The Nicene Creed is the bedrock of your religion, and you will give it up only with the greatest difficulty. That Christ is separate from the Father, despite the words of Christ Himself on the matter, is going to be very difficult if not impossible for you to accept.

[rhinomelon]

Is "one flesh" vs "two separate individuals" a contradiction?

No, it isn't. Nor is this analogy applied to the Godhead.

I realize that you are really struggling with this whole thing. The Nicene Creed is the bedrock of your religion, and you will give it up only with the greatest difficulty. That Christ is separate from the Father, despite the words of Christ Himself on the matter, is going to be very difficult if not impossible for you to accept.

If you would have hit me with this same stuff a year ago, I probably would have struggled a bit. But I've been reading up on this, because LDS ask excellent, challenging questions. My only struggle on this particular issue at this point is trying to get LDS to at least try to understand what I (and many others) believe on this issue, instead of just dismissing it out of hand as incomprehensible. If it really was impossible to understand, don't you think people like johnny, pantsman, SteubieU and myself would be all over the map with it? To the contrary, there is actually a thread buried in the old threads here in which representatives from the three major branches of Christendom were all defending the exact same thing, and having a blast doing it! Good times

Are you sure you're not struggling a bit here? Take care, everyone

[David Waltz]

Hello Bsix,

I am a bit late to this thread, and am just now reading through it. Early on you posted:

>> Feb 19 2006, 09:13 PM - I actually think that most of the Nicene Creed is reliable doctrine. However, in regards to it's trinitarian teachings, it is evidence of the apostasy -- specifically the heretical concept of the Trinity.>>

Well, I think it is very important to point out that many Latter-day Saints do not believe the concept of the Trinity is so

[cdowis]

>during the incarnation Christ was limited in certain ways, including knowledge.

So Christ was limited in knowledge, and the Father had unlimited knowledge. They had separate wills. They had a different glory, and authority. According to Hebrews, the Father gave the Son the authority for the creation (prior to the incarnation).

The Son eventually had a resurrected body of flesh and bones.

And they were, at the **same time**, one essence/being/substance.

Is that correct?

And does Christ still have that body? Does he still have flesh and bones? And the Father has.... what?

Thanks for the clarification.

[rhinomelon]

Excellent questions. I'll have to get to them tomorrow, so have a good evening!

[johnny]

cdowis,

Even though rhinomelon did a good job of answers your questions I will share my thoughts ...

Below is a link to the quote that rhinomelon quoted where Joseph Smith taught "three Gods".

http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Cur...oly%20ghost.htm

Another place where the Mormon Church teaches "three Gods" indirectly is in the LDS Bible Dictionary where it says that the Father is "a God" ... the Son is "a God" ... the HG is "a God" (see link below).

http://scriptures.lds.org/bdg/god

A man and a woman becoming one flesh is not the same as believing "I and my Father are one" (John 10:30,38).

John 10

[30]I and my Father are one

[38] But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.he Father is in me, and I in him.

John 10 and John 17 describe the concept of homoousia .... "I and my Father are one" (John 10:30). The teaching that God is one in nature, substance and essence is a teaching of the scriptures.

John 10

[30] I and my Father are one

[31] Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

[32] Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?

[33] The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

[36] Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

[38] But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

John 17

[21] That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

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.

On earth the glory of Son is different than the Father's. The Son's glory is equal to the Father's after his ascension.

Heb 1

[2] Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

[3] Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

The Son is distinct from the Father. The Father knows the end time, he put it in his own power (Acts 1:7)

Acts 1

[7] And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

God is Man and Man is God in the Person of Jesus Christ (John 1:1,14). The Divine nature was united with the human nature of Jesus. A union of two substances or natures so as to make One Person Who was at the same time God and Man, that is, had at the same time Divine and human nature.

John 1

[1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

[14] And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

[34] And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.

Jesus, who is God, assumed an earthly body when he was born of the Blessed Virgin, and that Jesus' body, now glorified, continues to exist. But since the Lord only took on human flesh in these "last days," and since God has always existed, without beginning or end, we must still conclude that having a body is not part of God

[Joseph Antley]

Let's talk about Origen. When he taught that Jesus Christ and the Father were two separate Gods, was he being heretical? Unorthodox? Misguided?

Out of curiosity, is Origen considered a Church Father in the Roman Catholic Church? Is he a Saint in Catholicism? (And no, I'm not meaning to imply that if Origen was a church father, everything he said must be true or considered orthodox. I'm just curious.)

[johnny]

Antley,

Origen is not called a Church Father, some of his teachings are tinged with heresy. Some early writers employed expressions that were inaccurate. (see link below)

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06001a.htm

Below is a teaching from Origen on the Trinity (see link below)

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/triune.htm

Regarding Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ... it is the Trinity alone which exceeds the comprehension (Origen 230AD)

[1dc]

. . .

Another place where the Mormon Church teaches "three Gods" indirectly is in the LDS Bible Dictionary where it says that the Father is "a God" ... the Son is "a God" ... the HG is "a God" (see link below).

http://scriptures.lds.org/bdg/god

. . .

Ah, Johnny. What kind of arguments are these deceits? . . . you've been previously shown JS and LDS profess One God. You know both LDS and Catholic profess each member of the Godhead is fully God and distinct and that both profess they are One God. Your argument with knowing omission becomes a willful act of comission against truth.

Otherwise your argument slanders Catholics who also profess each of the three members are distinct and yet each is also God, too.

"the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another

. . . the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God . . . God the Father . . . Jesus Christ is God" (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm) " . . .Holy Ghost . . . being God . . He is God . . . Holy Ghost . . is God" (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm)

It's the same math with the same result . . 3 persons of God, each fully God, each distinct, one unity of the Godhead. LDS teachings are very clear as shown below.

2 Ne. 31: 21

21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.

Mosiah 15: 5

5 And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people.

Alma 14: 5

5 And the people went forth and witnessed against them

[johnny]

1dc,

Do you believe Jesus is "God" or do you believe Jesus is "a god" like the LDS church teaches?

Why do you many LDS members speak of "three Gods"?

Why did Joseph Smith interpret the above passages so as to teach "three Gods" instead of "one God" (see link below)?

http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Cur...oly%20ghost.htm

The word "consubstantial" is not in Bible but "I and my Father are one" (John 10:30) is in the Bible.

Are Joseph Smith words "three Gods" in either the OT or the NT?

Catholics believe Jesus is God, not a god. Jesus is distinct from the Father, but he's not a separate God. There is only one God. When Jesus was incarnated he lived here on Earth as true God and true man. He and the Father aren't separate beings as far as the divine nature is concerned. See link below.

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9001give.asp

For Catholics the Athanasian Creed (Trinitarian Creed) is clear (see link below)

http://www.aboutcatholics.com/faith_belief...hanasian_creed/

Thus the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God. Yet there are not three gods; there is but one God.

Just as Christian truth compels us to confess each person individually as both God and Lord, so catholic religion forbids us to say that there are three gods or lords.

[cdowis]

Johnny,

When the critics attempt to tell us what we believe, they only succeed in making themselves look silly.

We believe and teach "one God". We also teach that they are three distinct entities, as you yourself admit that the Bible teaches.

The difference between us is that we understand what we believe and teach.

And you, dear fellow, do not. You are unwilling to admit that we also teach "one God", despite the citations in the LDS scriptures. We reject homousia, the teachings of man.

[johnny]

cdowis,

Did Joseph Smith teach "three Gods" ... do LDS believe in "a god" and "a god" and "a god" and ...?

Do you believe Jesus is "God" or "a God" ... John 1:1 says the Son is "God" ... John 1:1 does not say the Son is "a God" like the LDS church teaches?

Homousia is Biblical ... "I and my Father are one" (John 10:30)

[Bsix]

As a Latter Day Saint accept and believe the notion of "one God" as described in the Bible.

I also accept that the Bible identifies the three seperate and unique persons of the Godhead as being diety in and of themselves. That is three seperate and distinct dieties...three Gods. It is a concept that must be reconciled with the notion of "one God."

For traditional Christianity, this is seeming contradiction requires some extra biblical interpretation of the scriptures to mesh with the notion of three who are diety who are still somehow "one God." It took hundreds of years doctrinal evolution, schisms within the Church, and the hand a non-Christian secular emporor to finally come to a rather deeply mysterious and unscriptural conclusion.

For Latter Day Saints, this issue is resolved by looking to the Bible as a whole and the blessing of additional revelation from God. A truth that was lost has been restored. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are three seperate and distinct individuals. Each God in their own right. Yet they are one God by means of being a totally unified Godhead of purpose and mission. As such, they are literally spoken of and thought of as one God...and yet understood and identified God unto themselves.

In fact, the Bible perfectly models and predicts the LDS concept of oneness. The oneness of a husband and wife, the oneness of the early belivers, and the oneness of Paul and Apollos are biblical prototypes that completely fulfill and demonstrate "One God."

The Trinitiarian model does not have any scriptural precident or model. Believers of the Nicene notion of one-substance may interpret the Bible to support their conclusion...but it is not directly or explicitly spoken of, or taught in the Bible.

What we have here is dualing interpretations.

Regards,

Six