Is Mormonism The New Arianism ?

[Programmer]

Tertullian or Theophilus are not the final arbiters of Christian theology. The Early Leaders of the Christian

Church, Holy Fathers or Bishops, assembled at Nicea in 325 A.D. have more intellectual weight than

Tertullian and Theophilus and ten of thier cohorts put together.

Jesus Christ and God the Father trump all EC Fathers, and all the Holy Father's and Bishops from all the church counsels put together. Revelation trumps theology any day of the week. Revelation is superior to philosophy any week of the month, and Revelation saves more souls than ten thousand theological books.

In 1820 God the Father, and Jesus Christ* came to Joseph Smith who said there were "two personages standing above me in the air..."

Now that's real authority.... Who am I going to believe? Theologians and their bickering divisions that have spanned over 1800 years? Or am I going to believe in a God who sends a prophet according to the ancient pattern, and in a God who opens up the path again for direct personal revelation from himself -- allowing us to bypass crotchety old theologians...

To me the 1820 revelation / vision was utterly devastating to the economy of the devil and the philosophies that he mingled in with true religion. That to me is Really cool! For those who choose to believe it, it will prove wise for them, and efficacious for their salvation. For those who choose to disbelieve it, it will prove to be their eternal stumbling block.

We have the testimony of not just Joseph Smith, but of countless other's who have seen miracles in this church. We have had countless miracles and other gifts of the spirit manifest in this church in this dispensation. That is real authority. I count you most arm-chair theologians opinions as utterly worthless and foolish compared with the wisdom and might of God.

*Let's not forget the Holy Ghost. He was there too in 1820, at that transcendent event, transfiguring Joseph Smith so he could see God the Father and live, and not whither before his eternal presence.

[rhinomelon]

Jesus Christ and God the Father trump all EC Fathers, and all the Holy Father's and Bishops from all the church counsels put together. Revelation trumps theology any day of the week. Revelation is superior to philosophy any week of the month, and Revelation saves more souls than ten thousand theological books.

Revelation is superior to philosophy, but cannot be interpreted or acted upon without some kind of philosophy at work. Even among Mormons.

I would also point out that true revelation is great, but false revelation is worse than any kind of philosophy. False revelation tries to claim exemption from examination and reflection, for fear of exposing its hollow nature.

We have the testimony of not just Joseph Smith, but of countless other's who have seen miracles in this church. We have had countless miracles and other gifts of the spirit manifest in this church in this dispensation. That is real authority. I count you most arm-chair theologians opinions as utterly worthless and foolish compared with the wisdom and might of God.

There are more who have seen (and continue to see) miracles within those churches run by the "economy of Satan" and "philosophies". Your opinion is just that: your opinion. I see no special authority at work in the LDS church. And that is my opinion.

Take care, everyone

[David Waltz]

Hi Rhino,

Thanks for responding. You posted:

>>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".>>

Me: Your above assessment is exactly how I see it; the homoiousians (â??Semi-Ariansâ?) had difficulties with the term homoousios, given its somewhat tainted past. History certainly seems to support Athanasiusâ?? view, for the vast majority of the homoiousian party before the end of the 4th century accepted the Catholic/homoousios position.

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

Me: Pretty much, yes; though I would prefer to call the pre-Nicene majority â??proto-homoiousiansâ?? (for the term had not been used yet).

If you are truly interested in this period of Church development, I must recommend R.P.C Hansonâ??s, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy :

http://www.allbookstores.com/book/compare/080103146X

Grace and peace,

David

[Obiwan]

Is Mormonism The New Arianism ?, Similarities between Mormons and Arian Christians

I alway's love it when people (especially anti's) use the most obvious and foolish of falacy's to condemn their imagined foes.

"Mormonism" has more in common with Traditional Christianity than it does with Arianism.

Yet, I don't see the anti's calling us "Christian" any time soon.

[rhinomelon]

I alway's love it when people (especially anti's) use the most obvious and foolish of falacy's to condemn their imagined foes.

Yes, I particularly enjoy it when LDS harp on mainstream Christianity for being so Greek-philosophical in their apostate doctrines, and then turn around and quote the most philosophical church fathers in an attempt to find historical support for their doctrines, and also ignore the very Greek-philosophical concepts in their own doctrine!

Oh wait, you were talking about mainstream Christians...

Take care, everyone

[Zakuska]

Hey thanks David...

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, ‘Coessential’… But since they say that He is ‘of the essence’ and ‘Like-in-essence,’ what do they signify by these but ‘Coessential?’ For, while to say only “Like-in-essence,’ does not necessarily convey ‘of the essence,’ on the contrary, to say ‘Coessential,’ is to signify the meaning of both terms, ‘Like-in-essence,’ and ‘of the essences’ 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 – NPNF 4.472.)

Who's your daddy?!

[Tanyan]

JESUS Loves Proto-Arians, Semi Arians, Not so Proto/Semi Arians and even those darn Athanasions !.

[consiglieri]

Has anybody mentioned that Evangelicalism is just the old Athanasianism?

[rhinomelon]

Has anybody mentioned that Evangelicalism is just the old Athanasianism?

Oh my gosh, that is just offensive. What a obvious and foolish fallacy!