Is Mormonism The New Arianism ?

[blueadept]

With that said, I would be very interested in exactly what you think Tertullian would have rejected in the Nicene Creed.

For myself, I'm not sure I would care how Tertullian exactly rejected the Nicene Creed since he is a known heretic (Montanist??), but is known for his apologist work.

One must tread carefully while studying the ECF, but it has been enlightening for me.

Peace

[Trencher7]

Are Calvinists just modern day Gnostics? Look at the some of the parallels brought up by David Bercot-

"The Group That Preached Salvation by Grace Alone?

As surprising as all of this may be to you, what I'm about to tell you is even more bizarre. There was a religious group, labelled as heretics by the early Christians, who strongly disputed the church's stance on salvation and works. Instead, they taught that man is totally depraved. That we are saved solely by grace. That works play no role in our salvation. And that we cannot lose our salvation once we obtain it.

I know what you're thinking: This group of "heretics" were the real Christians and the "orthodox" Christians were really heretics. But such a conclusion is impossible. I say it's impossible because the group I'm referring to are the Gnostics. The Greek word gnosis means knowledge, and the Gnostics claimed

that God had revealed special knowledge to them that the main body of Christians did not have. Although each Gnostic teacher had his individual version of teachings, they all basically taught that the Creator was a different God than the Father of Jesus. This inferior God had acted without the authority of the Father in creating the material world. This Creator botched things up and man is inherently depraved as a result. The God of the Old Testament is this inferior Creator who possesses different qualities from the God of the New Testament.

Because humans are the flawed work of this inferior God, they are totally unable to do anything toward their own salvation. Fortunately for mankind, the Father of Jesus took pity on humans and sent his Son for our salvation. However, because the flesh is inherently depraved, the Son could not have actually become a man. Rather, the Son of God simply took on the appearance of man. He was not truly man, and He never really died or was resurrected. Since everything about man is inherently flawed, our works can play no part in our salvation, but rather we are saved purely by the grace of the Father."'

In case you have any lingering doubts on whether the Gnostics were true Christians, notice what the Apostle John himself said about them: "Many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh.This is a deceiver and an antichrist" (2 John 7). The Gnostics were the ones who denied that Jesus had come in the flesh, and they are the ones to whom John was referring. He made it clear that they were deceivers and antichrists.

So, if our evangelical doctrine of salvation is true, we are faced with the uncomfortable reality that this doctrine was taught by "deceivers and antichrists" before it was taught by the church."

[BCSpace]

With that said, I would be very interested in exactly what you think Tertullian would have rejected in the Nicene Creed.

Some good references here.

1) While Tertullian had dropped the earlier Jewish-Christian notion that God had a body in human form, he still believed that the "Divine Substance" was a *material* substance, and 2) he believed that there was once a time when the Son and Spirit did not exist as such:

.........

3) Like I said above, the Son and Spirit were considered portions of the "Divine Substance", rather than interpenetrating "centers of consciousness" in a simple, indivisible "Divine Substance". And 4) consequently, the Father was considered first in rank and glory, while the Son and Spirit were considered second and third, respectively. Such "subordinationism" was suppressed by the end of the fourth century.

[David Waltz]

Hello again Sargon,

You responded to my question with:

>>I refer you to my previous post Mr. Waltz.>>

Already read both of your previous posts, and in all honesty, fail to see how either of them even remotely addresses my question. Oh wellâ?¦

Grace and peace,

David

[soren]

Hello again Sargon,

You responded to my question with:

>>I refer you to my previous post Mr. Waltz.>>

Already read both of your previous posts, and in all honesty, fail to see how either of them even remotely addresses my question. Oh wellâ?¦

Grace and peace,

David

Hi David! I was hoping you'd post on this thread. I just started reading Newman "History of the Arians in the Fourth Century" on your recommendation of a few months ago. Still in the first 50 pages, I have already learned a great deal. Thank you.

[David Waltz]

Hi BC,

Thanks for the link. Perhaps you did not know that I reviewed Barryâ??s book, Restoring the Ancient Church: Joseph Smith and Early Christianity, in FARMS Review:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/display.ph...view&id=361

In my review I address some of the issues raised by Barry in his online essay, agreeing with most of what he wrote.

However, in the thread I linked to in my first post directed to Sargon, I clearly demonstrate that the Nicene Creed also understood homoousios in a â??generic senseâ?; and argue that Athanasius probably understood the term the same way, contra Barry.

For me the question that needs to be asked is this: is the â??one substanceâ? (i.e. divinity) that the Son of God shares with God the Father a different substance/divinity, or is it the same?

IMHO, the Scriptures are quite clear on the answer.

Grace and peace,

David

[David Waltz]

Hey Soren,

You said:

>>Hi David! I was hoping you'd post on this thread. I just started reading Newman "History of the Arians in the Fourth Century" on your recommendation of a few months ago. Still in the first 50 pages, I have already learned a great deal. Thank you.>>

Me: Any thread with â??Ariusâ? and/or â??Arianismâ? in the title pretty much always catches my eye!

As for Newman, what a brilliant mind!!! Another recommendation from his pen that pertains to the current discussion is this following essay:

http://www.newmanreader.org/works/tracts/arianism/index.html

Especially this chapter:

http://www.newmanreader.org/works/tracts/a...m/section5.html

Grace and peace,

David

[BCSpace]

However, in the thread I linked to in my first post directed to Sargon, I clearly demonstrate that the Nicene Creed also understood homoousios in a â??generic senseâ?; and argue that Athanasius probably understood the term the same way, contra Barry.

Doesn't matter as we were addressing Tertullian.

For me the question that needs to be asked is this: is the â??one substanceâ? (i.e. divinity) that the Son of God shares with God the Father a different substance/divinity, or is it the same?

IMHO, the Scriptures are quite clear on the answer.

Indeed they are. Hebrews 1:1-2 clearly shows the Godhood of the Son to be an exact copy or replica of the Father's Godhood which precludes any notion of a triune God and answers the question as to why there is no such thing as a creedal 'trinity' in ECF doctrine.

[David Waltz]

Hello again BC,

You said:

>>Indeed they are. Hebrews 1:1-2 clearly shows the Godhood of the Son to be an exact copy or replica of the Father's Godhood which precludes any notion of a triune God and answers the question as to why there is no such thing as a creedal 'trinity' in ECF doctrine.>>

Me: This teaching that the Sonâ??s divinity is â??an exact copyâ?¦of the Fatherâ??s Godhoodâ? is the very essence of â??a creedal â??trinityâ??â?; that whom Godâ??s begets from His divine substance can only be of that substance; hence the phrase: â??God from Godâ?, and â??begotten not madeâ?.

So you see BC, you are a Trinitarian!!!

Grace and peace,

David

[Sargon]

Hello again Sargon,

You responded to my question with:

>>I refer you to my previous post Mr. Waltz.>>

Already read both of your previous posts, and in all honesty, fail to see how either of them even remotely addresses my question. Oh wellâ?¦

Grace and peace,

David

Mr. Waltz,

Didn't you specifically say that you were very interested in knowing what Tertullian would disagree with in the Nicene Creed? This is what you said:

I would be very interested in exactly what you think Tertullian would have rejected in the Nicene Creed.

Do not the quotes I took from Bickmore's book address that which you are very interested in? Perhaps not since you said "Nicene Creed", not "the Trinity". Tertullian believed in a material God. This position that he held rejects the immaterialism of the Father that Trinitarians later declared.

Sargon

[David Waltz]

Hey Sargon,

Thanks for responding; you posted:

>>Do not the quotes I took from Bickmore's book address that which you are very interested in? Perhaps not since you said "Nicene Creed", not "the Trinity". Tertullian believed in a material God. This position that he held rejects the immaterialism of the Father that Trinitarians later declared.>>

Me: The Nicene Creed does not discuss what Godâ??s â??substanceâ? (i.e. the â??one substanceâ? of Tertullian) is. That God has â??substanceâ? is a truism of the Scriptures, Church Fathers, and Catholic theology.

Now, with that said, what Tertullian (and the Stoics) meant by â??materialâ? in reference to the divine substance is not very clear, and scholars are divided over the issue; but one thing is for sure: he did not think of it as matter.

Grace and peace,

David

[Tsuzuki]

As noted, one huge difference is that Arians denied that Jesus had a truly divine nature. Mormons believe everyone has a truly divine nature and God and man are of the same species, although some are developed and progressed and others are not.

But one similarity I see is that Arians were relentless with the theme of "we believe that too". Often when orthodox Trinitarians would articulate their view of the Trinity, Arians would come back and say, "you and me both!" It was understandably frustrating and it was the principle cause of Christians seeking terms of philosophical specificity to declare the dividing lines. I believe this was the real need of the First Council of Nicaea---not to collectively determine whether Jesus was God but to determine how to articulate it in a manner that would definitively draw the dividing line. But even this didn't completely work. Arius even came back and said he agreed with the Nicene Creed.

This Arius seems like my kind of dude.

So, if the LDS church came out and said they agreed completely with mainstream Christendom, you'd still try to find some way to exclude it?

[Sargon]

Hey Sargon,

Thanks for responding; you posted:

>>Do not the quotes I took from Bickmore's book address that which you are very interested in? Perhaps not since you said "Nicene Creed", not "the Trinity". Tertullian believed in a material God. This position that he held rejects the immaterialism of the Father that Trinitarians later declared.>>

Me: The Nicene Creed does not discuss what Godâ??s â??substanceâ? (i.e. the â??one substanceâ? of Tertullian) is. That God has â??substanceâ? is a truism of the Scriptures, Church Fathers, and Catholic theology.

Now, with that said, what Tertullian (and the Stoics) meant by â??materialâ? in reference to the divine substance is not very clear, and scholars are divided over the issue; but one thing is for sure: he did not think of it as matter.

Grace and peace,

David

David,

Let me clarify my statements because I think I have you confused. I believe that Tertullian would have rejected some of the later conclusions formed about God. Instead of naming out the specific councils in which those conclusions were made, I simply have referenced them all by terming them "Nicene Creeds", because that is where it all started.

(Although scholars are divided about what Tertullian thought of 'material', it is clear that he thought it was not matter? Didn't you just say scholars are divided?)

Sargon

[paulhadik]

Trencher:

don't want to derail the thread so will keep it short.

baloney......

[rhinomelon]

As others on this thread have already pointed out, Arianism and Mormonism may have some peripheral similarities, but on the deeper issues they have almost opposite perspectives. Arianism was trying to safeguard monotheism by saying that only the Father was really God, so Christ was a created being. LDS theology simply rejects monotheism entirely, and goes further by saying that God and man are actually members of the same species, albeit in different levels of maturity and glory. The distinction Arius was trying to defend would be rather meaningless in LDS thinking.

Doesn't matter as we were addressing Tertullian.

In addition to David Waltz's excellent points, I would also point out that Sargon's quote points to the fact that most scholars see Tertullian's views on the materiality of spirit as a result of Stoic influence on his thinking. Now, I thought the use of Greek philosophy in the church was a sign, if not a cause, of the Great Apostasy. So are LDS now simply accepting philosophical ideas when they happen to agree with their previously held views?

Take care, everyone

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

In the ealrly Christian Church there was a heresy called Arianism. The emporer Constantine, who made

Christianity the offical religion of the Roman Empire, was an Arian Christian, and so were the Vandals and Visigoths that

sacked Rome and killed many of the orthodox Trinitarian Christians in North Africa led by Saint Augustine.

It is my thesis that Mormonism is the modern day version of this old heresy. Could it be that

Mormonism is nothing more than a recapitulation of this ancient false doctrine?

How long did you spend on this "Rediculous theroy"?

[Tanyan]

What?

Hey DS his comments are fighten word yes ?.

[Tanyan]

I believe that there was a 3rd party there who happened to be the largest in attendence - the Semi Arians.

Also Banashment was the punishment if you did not sighn the document to agree to the creed.

[rhinomelon]

I believe that there was a 3rd party there who happened to be the largest in attendence - the Semi Arians.

Also Banashment was the punishment if you did not sighn the document to agree to the creed.

CFR on both of those statements. To my knowledge, there was no punishment hanging over anyone's head at the council. Constantine did eventually exile those who did not sign the creed, but this was done after the fact. And Constantine later reversed that policy anyway.

And what the heck is a "semi-Arian"? You either believed Christ was God or not, at this point. Arianism was soundly rejected by a vast majority of the bishops in attendance, and the resulting creed, if anything, could be read more modalistically than the writers intended. There was quite a bit of discourse and debate after the fact, defending the conclusion of the council against the charge of modalism/Sabellianism.

So, yeah, CFR. Nice to hear from you, T!

Take care, everyone

[Beowulf]

The original poster got some of the personalities confused...

Constantine was NOT Arian. (Who knows what his Christian ideology was, anyway. Whatever it was, it was fuzzy and hardly orthodox, but then, he was no theologian, and not even baptized until just before his death...)

Later in the same century, there were a few Arian-believing Roman emperors, such as Constantius and Constans, with the result that non-Arian bishops would get thrust out of their positions, until a more orthodox emperor (such as Theodosius) came to the purple.

It was quite similar to the 16C, when unfortunate bishops in England tended to get chopped depending on whether Henry or Mary or Elizabeth were in power.

The peak of Arianism was probably in the 370s, when Arian Christian Goths nearly took over the empire...

As regarding Arianism vs. Mormonism, I find any comparisons to be absurd, since (as one or two other posters have already observed) Arianism is founded on the concept that Jesus was a Creature created out of Nothing, while Mormonism, while accepting that the Son is inferior to the Father, believes that He was never created. In other words, the biggest difference lies in belief in a Pre-Existence, of which the Arians had no clue... It is a yawning gap that forbids equating one with the other.

Beowulf

[Tanyan]

CFR on both of those statements. To my knowledge, there was no punishment hanging over anyone's head at the council. Constantine did eventually exile those who did not sign the creed, but this was done after the fact. And Constantine later reversed that policy anyway.

And what the heck is a "semi-Arian"? You either believed Christ was God or not, at this point. Arianism was soundly rejected by a vast majority of the bishops in attendance, and the resulting creed, if anything, could be read more modalistically than the writers intended. There was quite a bit of discourse and debate after the fact, defending the conclusion of the council against the charge of modalism/Sabellianism.

So, yeah, CFR. Nice to hear from you, T!

Take care, everyone

I read about my above statements from some material I read some time ago . Thanks for the shout out Rhino. In His Debt/Grace, Tanyan.

[rhinomelon]

Constantine was NOT Arian. (Who knows what his Christian ideology was, anyway. Whatever it was, it was fuzzy and hardly orthodox, but then, he was no theologian, and not even baptized until just before his death...)

I think where people can get confused on this issue is the fact that Constantine was baptized on his deathbed by an Arian bishop. At this point, the Arians had long been back from exile, and were now going through more political channels to get Arianism to the top. This is when trinitarian bishops (including Athanasius) were exiled. Unfortunately for the Arians, the people in general stuck with the Nicene Creed and trinitarian thinking, and the Arians never really took hold.

read about my above statements from some material I read some time ago . Thanks for the shout out Rhino. In His Debt/Grace, Tanyan.

I'll post some relevant passages when I get back from some errands later today. Good to see you (especially without that website )

Take care, everyone

[David Waltz]

Hi rhino,

You posted:

>>And what the heck is a "semi-Arian"? You either believed Christ was God or not, at this point. Arianism was soundly rejected by a vast majority of the bishops in attendance, and the resulting creed, if anything, could be read more modalistically than the writers intended. There was quite a bit of discourse and debate after the fact, defending the conclusion of the council against the charge of modalism/Sabellianism.>>

Me: The term â??semi-Arianâ? has been used by many patristic scholars to describe those who held to homoiousios. Athanasius wrote the following about the homoiousians:

Those who deny the Council altogether, are sufficiently exposed by these brief remarks; those, however, who accept everything else that was defined at Nicaea, and doubt only about the Coessential, must not be treated as enemies; nor do we here attack them as Ario-maniacs, nor as opponents of the Fathers, but we discuss the matter with them as brothers with brothers, who mean what we mean, and dispute only about the word. For, confessing that the Son is from the essence of the Father, and not from other subsistence, and that He is not a creature nor work, but His genuine and natural offspring, and that He is eternally with the Father as being His Word and Wisdom they are not far from accepting even the phrase, â??Coessentialâ??â?¦ But since they say that He is â??of the essenceâ?? and â??Like-in-essence,â?? what do they signify by these but â??Coessential?â?? For, while to say only â??Like-in-essence,â?? does not necessarily convey â??of the essence,â?? on the contrary, to say â??Coessential,â?? is to signify the meaning of both terms, â??Like-in-essence,â?? and â??of the essencesâ?? And accordingly they themselves in controversy with those who say that the Word is a creature, instead of allowing Him to be genuine Son, have taken their proofs against them from human illustrations of son and father, with this exception that God is not as man, nor the generation of the Son as issue of man, but such as may be ascribed to God, and is fit for us to think. (Athanasius, De Synodis, 41 â?? NPNF 4.472.)

[For more on this see: http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2007/08/...bookthumbs.html .]

Grace and peace,

David

[rhinomelon]

Thanks for the information, David. In light of Athanasius' quote, would you then say that the "Semi-Arians" basically agreed about the underlying theology of the Nicene Creed, but were not comfortable (at least initially) with the terminology? I know there were those who thought the language veered too close to modalism, so it took a while for the specifics to be hammered out in that regard. This is just the first time (to my knowledge) that I've heard them referred to as "semi-Arians".

Also, would you then agree with Tanyan's earlier assertion that most of the bishops at Nicea were semi-Arians?

Take care, everyone

[PacMan]

Not that it matters to the discussion, but I believe it was Constantine's cousin whom was an Arian Bishop. Moreover, there's speculation of Arian Bishops being detained from the Council. Not that these two issues jointly prove anything...

And don't ask for a CFR (I don't want to turn to wikipedia).

PacMan