Mattew 16:18

[MannyPaquio]

Matt. 16: 18

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this arock I will build my bchurch; and the gates of chell shall not dprevail against it.

Was this the catholic church or another denomination?

[David T]

c) none of the Above

It was His Church. The Church of Jesus Christ.

[SeattleGhostWriter]

Matt. 16: 18

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this arock I will build my bchurch; and the gates of chell shall not dprevail against it.

Was this the catholic church or another denomination?

Actually, contrary to any Catholic, Protestant, modern Evangelical, or LDS doctrinal insertion of this text, Matthew 16:18 is not referring to a specific Church, but on a specific aspect that he will build His Church upon.

Here is a snippet of my explanation in a blog article entitled Gospel Principle: Faith in Jesus Christ

Who do Men Say that I am?

One of the greatest questions of all time is that question Christ himself asked of his disciples. According to Matthew 16:13-18, we read the following:

When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea, Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou aret John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said. Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

Today, if one were to ask the same question, the answers would most likely vary from an embellished figure of the First Century, a good teacher and prophet, a mage, a nonhistorical person. Those of a variety of Christian faiths would say that he is the Savior of those who accept him as their Lord and Redeemer.

No matter what oneâ??s position is, ideas are, thoughts pertaining to who Christ is, we must notice a more personal question that we all must ask. Who do we say that Christ is? It is this question we must answer. A question that is central to our faith and testimony in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The reason behind this is that when we look at the remaining passages of Matthew 16, we find something very important: And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

When we carefully look at the passage of Matthew 16, we find three important teachings here. The first is divine revelation. Divine revelation is the very foundation of the Gospel of Christ. It is through divine revelation that truths are revealed. It is through this concept that Faith in Jesus Christ is the first experience in a persons experience as to recieving a testimony. This truth does not come through teaching. It does not come through argumentation. It does not come through proving which doctrine is true or false. The reality is this, revelation comes from the Father which is in heaven, by and through the power of the Holy Spirit.

You are the Christ, Son of the Living God

The second important teaching here is that Christ distinguishes himself from the Father. My Father which is in Heaven. While we will not get too involved in this aspect, the reality is that Christ always distinguished himself from the Father. Even when it concerned his ministry and purpose in this life, he distinguished himself distinctly from the Father.

Finally, the third teaching that we find in these passages of Holy Writ is the very foundation of what Christâ??s church will be built upon. The very rock that the Savior says that the gates of hell will not even prevail against it. The context only defines it and no other interpretation can be taken from this. The rock that the gates of hell can in no way prevail against is the testimony and faith as to who Jesus Christ is. His Church will be based upon revelation. And not just any revelation, but the revelation that Jesus is the Christ, son of the Living God. It is this revealed testimony that the gates of Hell would not be able to prevail against.

Many people have attempted to interpret this passage as to meaning that the Church refers to Christianity. Those of the Evangelical and Protestant movement claim that the First Century Christian church could not have fallen into a state of apostasy, because if it had, then that would mean that the gates of hell prevailed against the Church. And, many members of the Latter-day Saint Faith proclaim that this scripture passage refers to the priesthood authority (because verse 19 has Christ pronouncing divine authority upon Peterâ??s head) and that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the priesthood authority established by Christ.

I disagree with both. Why? As explained, the foundation that the Church will be built upon is the rock of revelation. Specifically, the revelation as to whom Christ truly is as revealed unto men by our divine Heavenly Father, the Living God.

*******************

The rock that Christ's church will be built upon is that of Divine Revelation. Which Church, of all Christiandom, can proclaim that they are a Church based upon Divine Revelation?

[Obiwan]

It is best to read the verse in it's actual "context" to see what the actual SUBJECT of the statement was.

15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

The subject matter Christ was talking about was "Revelation", and that Christ was giving Peter the "KEY'S" thereof, to bind Heaven and Earth. In other words, the Power of God given unto man, that the Church is to be led according to Revelation through the Keys given.

I should also ask while addressing this point of our "Evangelical" type folks, please tell us how some "priesthood of all believers" can actually BE God's Authority if Christ is clearly giving MORE authority to Peter here, if there is really "no need" for any sort of ACTUAL Priesthood, but that a "priesthood of all belivers" concept covers all believers and actually gives YOU the authority to speak and act according to "Gods Will" in doing religious things, claiming doctrine, etc., it thus not being your own? To us LDS this verse and MANY other's make is clear that there is a Priesthood well beyond the "Spirit of God" (which is what you are actually claiming to be this "priesthood of all believers") that is God's ACTUAL authority on earth.

Remember the verse, "no man taketh this HONOR UNTO HIMSELF save he be called of God as was Aaron"??? Heb 5:4

Look closely at all the related verses on how Aaron got that Priesthood. To give you a clue it wasn't simply by feeling inspired by "the Spirit" to be God's authority.

And the book of Hebrews is in the NEW TESTAMENT folks.....

Clearly then, if God's "actual" Priesthood was to be done away by this "priesthood of all believers", then none of these verses related to giving a "separate" Priesthood would be in the New Testament. The priesthood of all believers idea is entirely a "strain" ripped from one verse to try and justify Evangelical separation from the Catholic Church. The idea never existed before that time. So, who's believing in "man-made" doctrines and religion again???

[SeattleGhostWriter]

It is best to read the verse in it's actual "context" to see what the actual SUBJECT of the statement was.

The subject matter Christ was talking about was "Revelation", and that Christ was giving Peter the "KEY'S" thereof, to bind Heaven and Earth. In other words, the Power of God given unto man, that the Church is to be led according to Revelation through the Keys given.

I should also ask while addressing this point of our "Evangelical" type folks, please tell us how some "priesthood of all believers" can actually BE God's Authority if Christ is clearly giving MORE authority to Peter here, if there is really "no need" for any sort of ACTUAL Priesthood, but that a "priesthood of all belivers" concept covers all believers and actually gives YOU the authority to speak and act according to "Gods Will" in doing religious things, claiming doctrine, etc., it thus not being your own? To us LDS this verse and MANY other's make is clear that there is a Priesthood well beyond the "Spirit of God" that is God's authority on earth.

Obiwan,

Very good point on the Priesthood and Keys of the Priesthood. Thank you for pointing that one out. I had failed to see that in the passage as well. I may have to edit my blog article to reflect that here.

[Hoops22]

Obiwan,

Very good point on the Priesthood and Keys of the Priesthood. Thank you for pointing that one out. I had failed to see that in the passage as well. I may have to edit my blog article to reflect that here.

SeattleWriter has got it pretty close. doctrine is important, specifically, the doctrine of who Jesus is. It's not enough to say one worship's Jesus of Nazareth (or even Jerusalem) who was born of a virgin.

Don't quite have the keys correct, but hang in there.

[BCSpace]

Was this the catholic church or another denomination?

The Catholic church did not exist until about the 4th century. You can trace this in doctrines such as the Godhead which were very LDS-like in the 1st and second centuries. Such change in doctrine is evidence for the predicted universal apostasy.

[ChristKnight]

The Catholic church did not exist until about the 4th century. You can trace this in doctrines such as the Godhead which were very LDS-like in the 1st and second centuries. Such change in doctrine is evidence for the predicted universal apostasy.

Um, that is debatable. Catholics believe in and put forth many writings pre-4th Century that point to our beliefs. If a doctrine was not explicitly stated, there were implicit prefigurations.

Interestingly, the Orthodox Church also holds many if not most of the same beliefs as the Catholic Church, including the Trinity, and those that discuss the Catholic Church typically forget about the Orthodox Church, or simply lump it in with the Catholic Church, which Orthodox of course would protest, especially when we acknowledge the various Patriarchates that were found anciently (and still exist today). It would be interesting to see what Antiochian Orthodox, or the Coptic Orthodox (Alexandrian Patriarchate) have to say on this.

[SeattleGhostWriter]

Um, that is debatable. Catholics believe in and put forth many writings pre-4th Century that point to our beliefs. If a doctrine was not explicitly stated, there were implicit prefigurations.

Interestingly, the Orthodox Church also holds many if not most of the same beliefs as the Catholic Church, including the Trinity, and those that discuss the Catholic Church typically forget about the Orthodox Church, or simply lump it in with the Catholic Church, which Orthodox of course would protest, especially when we acknowledge the various Patriarchates that were found anciently (and still exist today). It would be interesting to see what Antiochian Orthodox, or the Coptic Orthodox (Alexandrian Patriarchate) have to say on this.

Yet you are missing the context of the passage. Christ was not talking about a physical organization in the sense that we understand it today. He was talking about the very foundation of what that organization will be built upon. This foundation is Divine Revelation and the Keys of the Kingdom of God. With this comes the power and authority to bind and loose. The very authority that Christ and the Father Possess. It is the Priesthood (as Obiwan stated).

Of all the Churches, which one is built upon the foundation of Divine Revelation and the Keys of the Kingdom - Priesthood Authority?

[BCSpace]

The Catholic church did not exist until about the 4th century. You can trace this in doctrines such as the Godhead which were very LDS-like in the 1st and second centuries. Such change in doctrine is evidence for the predicted universal apostasy.

Um, that is debatable. Catholics believe in and put forth many writings pre-4th Century that point to our beliefs. If a doctrine was not explicitly stated, there were implicit prefigurations.

There certainly were statements that were harbingers of the wholesale change in doctrines. They are how the Bible predicted universal is traced. But does the Catholic church claim to have once believed in:

An anthropomorphic God that has a physical body

A plurality of Gods

Theosis (man becomes one of those Gods)

etc.etc.?

I don't think so. Therefore, the Catholic church did not exist prior to that time. Not even Tertuallian or Theophilus would recognize and accept the creedal trinity.

Interestingly, the Orthodox Church also holds many if not most of the same beliefs as the Catholic Church, including the Trinity,

No it doesn't.

and those that discuss the Catholic Church typically forget about the Orthodox Church, or simply lump it in with the Catholic Church, which Orthodox of course would protest, especially when we acknowledge the various Patriarchates that were found anciently (and still exist today). It would be interesting to see what Antiochian Orthodox, or the Coptic Orthodox (Alexandrian Patriarchate) have to say on this.

You are looking too far ahead in history. The Catholic church is not old enough to claim to be the original church unless it also claims to be a restoration of the original church. In that case, please specify the doctrines restored.

[ChristKnight]

Yet you are missing the context of the passage. Christ was not talking about a physical organization in the sense that we understand it today. He was talking about the very foundation of what that organization will be built upon. This foundation is Divine Revelation and the Keys of the Kingdom of God. With this comes the power and authority to bind and loose. The very authority that Christ and the Father Possess. It is the Priesthood (as Obiwan stated).

Of all the Churches, which one is built upon the foundation of Divine Revelation and the Keys of the Kingdom - Priesthood Authority?

That is debatable. I'm curious as to what others believe is the reason why Simon is called Peter, if the rock is revelation and the keys of the Kingdom?

As for which one is built on Divine Revelation and has priesthood authority, for me, that is the Catholic Church.

[ChristKnight]

There certainly were statements that were harbingers of the wholesale change in doctrines. They are how the Bible predicted universal is traced. But does the Catholic church claim to have once believed in:

An anthropomorphic God that has a physical body

A plurality of Gods

Theosis (man becomes one of those Gods)

etc.etc.?

The Catholic Church has never believed that The Father has a physical body of flesh and bones, nor do we see that the early Christians believed this. We do believe that Jesus Christ was bodily resurrected, and still is fully human and fully God. I also see no evidence of the implied belief of God the Father having a body of flesh and bones, namely, that He incarnated on another world. Catholics believe in Theosis, as we fully believe that we become co-heirs in Christ, partakers in the Divine nature, becoming by grace what God is by nature.

I don't think so. Therefore, the Catholic church did not exist prior to that time. Not even Tertuallian or Theophilus would recognize and accept the creedal trinity.

Again, one would have to evidence such beliefs in the documents of early Christians to make such claims. And I believe Tertullian fully believed that the Trinity is one in essence, yet fully distinct Persons, as Catholics believe.

No it doesn't.

We agree on most doctrines. Especially on the topic of the Trinity. Today, we now know that the Filioque controversy was related to semantics, and that the formula "proceeds from the Father and the Son" is equivalent to "proceeds from the Father through the Son", and is accepted by many Orthodox. Indeed, the Eastern Catholic churches are called to be fully Orthodox, yet maintaining communion with the Bishop of Rome.

You are looking too far ahead in history. The Catholic church is not old enough to claim to be the original church unless it also claims to be a restoration of the original church. In that case, please specify the doctrines restored.

I'm wondering why you are saying that the Catholic Church must also claim to be a restoration of the original church to be the original church. Of course this is going off topic in reference to doctrines that may or may not have existed that are now restored in the LDS Church, however for Catholics (and for Orthodox that also claim to be the original Church), there has been no change in doctrine from the Father having a body of flesh and bones (with the necessary question of how that body came into being), God the Father's spouse the Heavenly Mother, etc.

It is interesting though, that you see evidences of LDS beliefs in the early 1-2 centuries of Christianity, and Catholics see evidences of our beliefs in the early 1-2 centuries of Christianity.

[BCSpace]

I'm wondering why you are saying that the Catholic Church must also claim to be a restoration of the original church to be the original church

Because the Catholic church does not beleive the same doctrines that the original Church did. We can start with the creedal trinity. There is no evidence of it in the Bible and it was developed in opposition to an entirely different doctrine. For example. The early Christians believed that Jesus is a second God:

Many Christian writers identified Jesus with Yahweh. And until the 5th century, it was quite common to call Jesus either a "second God", the chief angel, or both. It was also made clear that the Holy Spirit occupies the third place.

Danielou, The Theology of Jewish Christianity, 146

During the second century Justin Martyr wrote that the "first-begotten", the Logos, "is the first force after the Father": he is "a second God, second numerically but not in will," doing only the Father's pleasure.

Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the Christian Church, 268

Then I replied, "I shall attempt to persuade you, since you have understood the Scriptures, [of the truth] of what I say, that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel..."

Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 56, in ANF 1:223

Hermas spoke of the angel of the prophetic Spirit and Jesus as the "glorious...angel" or "most venerable...angel"

The Pastor of Hermas, Commandment 11, in ANF 2:27-28

The Ascension of Isaiah referred to both Jesus and the Spirit as angels as well: "And I saw how my Lord worshipped, and the angel of the Holy Spirit, and how both together praised God."

Ascension of Isaiah, in TOB, 528

Clement of Alexandria referred to Jesus as the "Second Cause".

Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 7:3

Peter not only called Jesus both God and angel but also identified him with Yahweh, the prince of the Sons of God mentioned in Deut. 32:7-8

Peter, in Clementine Recognitions 2:42, in ANF 8:109

At the turn of the third century, Hippolytus called Jesus "the Angel of [God's] counsel"

Hippolytus, The Apostolic Tradition 4:4, p.7

Tertullian spoke of Christ as "second" to the Father. However Tertullian stopped short of saying there was a second God because he considered the Father to be the "only true God" and Jesus to be a secondary being. (Note that the creedal trinity is alien to Tertullian)

Tertullian, Against Praxeas 7, in ANF 3:602 and

Tertullian, Against Praxeas 13, in ANF 3:607-608

Origen could speak of Jesus as a "second God"

Origen, Against Celsus 5:39, in ANF 4:561

Origen added a qualification: "We are not afraid to speak, in one sense of two Gods, in another sense of one God." (Very LDS btw)

Origen, Dail Heracl. 2:3, quoted in Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, 251

In what sense are they one? "And these, while they are two, considered as persons or subsistences, are one in unity of thought, in harmony and in identity of will. (again very LDS)

Origen, Against Celsus, 8:12, in ANF 4:643-644

Novatian maintained that Christ was both angel and God.

Novatian, On the Trinity 19, in ANF 5:630, cf. On the Trinity in ANF 5:628

And he equated this God/angel with the Lord (Yahweh) of Hosts.

Novatian, On the Trinity 12 , in ANF 5:621

He also made clear that the Spirit is subject to the Son.

Novatian, On the Trinity 16, in ANF 5:625

He also said that the unity of the Godhead is NOT some metaphysical "oneness", but unity of will. (LDS again)

Novatian, On the Trinity 27, in ANF 5:637-638

Novatian also did not hesitate to name other angels "gods" as well: "If even the angels themselves...as many as are subjected to Christ, are called gods, rightly also Christ is God."

Novatian, On the Trinity 20, in ANF 5:631

Lactantius approvingly quoted a Hermetic text which spoke of a "second God"

Lactantius, Divine Institutes 4:6, in ANF 7:105

Eusebius of Caesarea likewise called Jesus a "secondary being" who is both angel and God.

Eusebius, The Proof of the Gospel 1:5, 2 vols. translated by W. J. Ferrar

Eusebius also compared the hierarchy of beings (The Three) to the sun, moon, and stars as spoken of in 1 Corinthians 15:40-42 (another LDS concept)

Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel 7:15, pp.351-352

However, after the Council of Nicea, such language became unpopular, and some theologians tried to sweep its former popularity under the rug. For example, in the late fourth century Basil of Caesarea feigned that such a thing as a "second God" was unheard of in the "orthodox" faith.

Basil of Caesarea, On the Holy Spirit 45, in NPNF Series 2, 8:28

[BCSpace]

It is interesting though, that you see evidences of LDS beliefs in the early 1-2 centuries of Christianity, and Catholics see evidences of our beliefs in the early 1-2 centuries of Christianity.

Only in that there are similarities between the Catholics and LDS. Major Catholic doctrines such as the trinity (not really seen until after Tertullian and Theophilus) and creation ex nihilo [late second century Basilides, a Gnostic philosopher] did not exist until the 3rd and 4th centuries.

Catholics believe in Theosis, as we fully believe that we become co-heirs in Christ, partakers in the Divine nature, becoming by grace what God is by nature.

Yet you seem to stop short.

"Heraclitus rightly said, men are gods and gods are men." Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor 3:1

"We have not been made Gods from the beginning, but at first merely men, then at length Gods..." Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4:38:4, in ANF 1:522

"...our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through His transcendent love, became what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself." Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5: Preface, in ANF 1:526

All men are deemed worthy of becoming gods, and even of having power to become sons of the Highest. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 124, in ANF 1:262

"we assert that not by their communion merely with Him, but by their unity and intermixture, they received the highest powers, and after participating in His divinity, were changed into God." Origen, Against Celsus 3:41

God "made man for that purpose, that from men they may become Gods." Jerome, The Homilies of Saint Jerome, vol. 1 (FC 48), translated by M.L. Ewald, 106

"For as Christ died and was exalted as man, so, as man, is He said to take what, as God, He ever had, that even such a grant of grace might reach to us. For the Word was not impaired in receiving a body, that He should seek to receive a grace, but rather He deified that which He put on, and more than that, gave it graciously to the race of man." Athanasius, Discourses Against the Arians 1:42, in NPNF Series 2, 4:330-331

Orthodox Christians "taught that the destiny of man was to become like God, and even to become deified" Prestige, God in Patristic Thought, 73

"One can think what one wants of this doctrine of progressive deification, but one thing is certain: with this anthropology Joseph Smith is closer to the view of man held by the Ancient Church than the precursors of the Augustinian doctrine of original sin were, who considered the thought of such a substantial connection between God and man as the heresy, par excellence." Benz, E.W., Imago Dei: Man in the Image of God, in Madsen, ed., Reflections on Mormonism, 215-216

Again, one would have to evidence such beliefs in the documents of early Christians to make such claims. And I believe Tertullian fully believed that the Trinity is one in essence, yet fully distinct Persons, as Catholics believe.

One has such evidence. For example; Tertullian:

1) Tertullian 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:

"Writers who are usually reckoned orthodox but who lived a century or two centuries before the outbreak of the Arian Controversy, such as Irenaeus and Tertullian and Novatian and Justin Martyr, held some views which would later, in the fourth century, have been branded heretical.... Irenaeus and Tertullian both believed that God had not always been a Trinity but had at some point put forth the Son and the Spirit so as to be distinct from him. Tertullian, borrowing from Stoicism, believed that God was material (though only of a very refined material, a kind of thinking gas), so that his statement that Father, Son and Spirit were 'of one substance', beautifully orthodox though it sounds, was of a corporeality which would have profoundly shocked Origen, Athanasius and the Cappadocian theologians, had they known of it." [Hansen, R., "The Achievement of Orthodoxy in the Fourth Century AD", in Williams, ed., The Making of Orthodoxy, pp. 151-152.]

"For from the moment when those things began to exist, over which the power of a Lord was to act, God, by the accession of that power, both became Lord and received the name thereof. Because God is in like manner a Father, and He is also a Judge; but He has not always been Father and Judge, merely on the ground of His having always been God. For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a Judge previous to sin. There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son; the former of which was to constitute the Lord a Judge, and the latter a Father." [Tertullian, Against Hermogenes 3, in ANF 3:478.]

3) 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.

"For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole, as He Himself acknowledges: "My Father is greater than I." [T]he Paraclete [is] distinct from Himself, even as we say that the Son is also distinct from the Father; so that He showed a third degree in the Paraclete, as we believe the second degree is in the Son, by reason of the order observed in the Economy." [Tertullian, Against Praxeas 9, in ANF 3:603-604.]

"Whatever, therefore, was the substance of the Word that I designate a Person, I claim for it the name of Son; and while I recognize the Son, I assert His distinction as second to the Father." [Tertullian, Against Praxeas 7, in ANF 3:602.]

Adapted from Barry Bickmore "Tertullian on the Trinity"

So Tertullian is certianly no creedal trinitarian, but it is also true that he is a stepping stone on the way to the development of the trinity heresy.

[ChristKnight]

Because the Catholic church does not beleive the same doctrines that the original Church did. We can start with the creedal trinity. There is no evidence of it in the Bible and it was developed in opposition to an entirely different doctrine. For example. The early Christians believed that Jesus is a second God:

Many Christian writers identified Jesus with Yahweh. And until the 5th century, it was quite common to call Jesus either a "second God", the chief angel, or both. It was also made clear that the Holy Spirit occupies the third place.

Danielou, The Theology of Jewish Christianity, 146

During the second century Justin Martyr wrote that the "first-begotten", the Logos, "is the first force after the Father": he is "a second God, second numerically but not in will," doing only the Father's pleasure.

Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the Christian Church, 268

Then I replied, "I shall attempt to persuade you, since you have understood the Scriptures, [of the truth] of what I say, that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel..."

Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 56, in ANF 1:223

Hermas spoke of the angel of the prophetic Spirit and Jesus as the "glorious...angel" or "most venerable...angel"

The Pastor of Hermas, Commandment 11, in ANF 2:27-28

The Ascension of Isaiah referred to both Jesus and the Spirit as angels as well: "And I saw how my Lord worshipped, and the angel of the Holy Spirit, and how both together praised God."

Ascension of Isaiah, in TOB, 528

Clement of Alexandria referred to Jesus as the "Second Cause".

Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 7:3

Peter not only called Jesus both God and angel but also identified him with Yahweh, the prince of the Sons of God mentioned in Deut. 32:7-8

Peter, in Clementine Recognitions 2:42, in ANF 8:109

At the turn of the third century, Hippolytus called Jesus "the Angel of [God's] counsel"

Hippolytus, The Apostolic Tradition 4:4, p.7

Tertullian spoke of Christ as "second" to the Father. However Tertullian stopped short of saying there was a second God because he considered the Father to be the "only true God" and Jesus to be a secondary being. (Note that the creedal trinity is alien to Tertullian)

Tertullian, Against Praxeas 7, in ANF 3:602 and

Tertullian, Against Praxeas 13, in ANF 3:607-608

Origen could speak of Jesus as a "second God"

Origen, Against Celsus 5:39, in ANF 4:561

Origen added a qualification: "We are not afraid to speak, in one sense of two Gods, in another sense of one God." (Very LDS btw)

Origen, Dail Heracl. 2:3, quoted in Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, 251

In what sense are they one? "And these, while they are two, considered as persons or subsistences, are one in unity of thought, in harmony and in identity of will. (again very LDS)

Origen, Against Celsus, 8:12, in ANF 4:643-644

Novatian maintained that Christ was both angel and God.

Novatian, On the Trinity 19, in ANF 5:630, cf. On the Trinity in ANF 5:628

And he equated this God/angel with the Lord (Yahweh) of Hosts.

Novatian, On the Trinity 12 , in ANF 5:621

He also made clear that the Spirit is subject to the Son.

Novatian, On the Trinity 16, in ANF 5:625

He also said that the unity of the Godhead is NOT some metaphysical "oneness", but unity of will. (LDS again)

Novatian, On the Trinity 27, in ANF 5:637-638

Novatian also did not hesitate to name other angels "gods" as well: "If even the angels themselves...as many as are subjected to Christ, are called gods, rightly also Christ is God."

Novatian, On the Trinity 20, in ANF 5:631

Lactantius approvingly quoted a Hermetic text which spoke of a "second God"

Lactantius, Divine Institutes 4:6, in ANF 7:105

Eusebius of Caesarea likewise called Jesus a "secondary being" who is both angel and God.

Eusebius, The Proof of the Gospel 1:5, 2 vols. translated by W. J. Ferrar

Eusebius also compared the hierarchy of beings (The Three) to the sun, moon, and stars as spoken of in 1 Corinthians 15:40-42 (another LDS concept)

Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel 7:15, pp.351-352

However, after the Council of Nicea, such language became unpopular, and some theologians tried to sweep its former popularity under the rug. For example, in the late fourth century Basil of Caesarea feigned that such a thing as a "second God" was unheard of in the "orthodox" faith.

Basil of Caesarea, On the Holy Spirit 45, in NPNF Series 2, 8:28

Thank you for your views. Catholics, and other "traditional Christians" see much evidence for the Trinity in the Bible. Further, Catholics are not sola scriptura, and do not believe that the Bible alone is authoritative, or that all doctrine must be found in it. Similarly, we believe that doctrine cannot contradict the Bible. In that, we not only see evidence for the Trinity, but none of our beliefs on the Trinity contradict Scripture.

I think it would also be helpful to see quotes from the Church Fathers to see what they actually said as well.

"Angel" is an interesting word. Christ certainly was an angel of the Father. Christ was the messenger of God the Father in His incarnation. He literally brought the message of God on this earth.

Yes, Jesus is indeed "second", as He is the second Person of the Trinity. The Father's uniqueness in the Trinity is seen in the eternal relationships between the Father and the Son and Holy Spirit. For example, the Father is neither begotten nor made. The Son is begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. The Son sends forth the Holy Spirit. So yes, Trinitarians can indeed see the "second" role of Jesus Christ in the Trinity.

Tertullian fully believed in the Trinitarian notion of God, in that they are one in being (homoousios, variously translated as "one in substance", "one in essence", etc. Tertullian said this:

"Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent persons, who are yet distinct one from another. These three are, one essence, not one person, as it is said, I and my Father are one [John 10:30], in respect of unity of being not singularity of number" Against Praxeas

Tertullian's "Against Praxeas" speaks extensively on "essence".

Origen too similarly believed as Trinitarians do:

"No, rejecting every suggestion of corporeality, we hold that the Word and the Wisdom was begotten out of the invisible and incorporeal God, without anything corporal being acted upon . . . the expression which we employ, however that there was never a time when he did not exist is to be taken with a certain allowance. For these very words when and never are terms of temporal significance, while whatever is said of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, is to be understood as transcending all time, all ages" The Fundamental Doctrines

In reading the early Church Fathers, we see an emphasis in Catholic Trinitarianism, namely, that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are separate, distinct Persons (we see this at Christ's baptism, and we also know that Jesus was not praying to Himself), yet they are one in purpose, will, intent, and essence. Also, God the Father is seen to be the "source" of the other Persons of the Trinity, as the Son is begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, then through the Son secondarily. Also, Jesus Christ was an "angel" of course, in that He brought the message of the Gospel to earth, and can even be seen as the representative of the Trinity on earth.

I find the Church Fathers very interesting, and since we are going off topic (sorry it's partly my fault!), I'd be happy to discuss the Trinity and the Church Fathers in another thread, or through PM.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/

Good night!

[BCSpace]

Thank you for your views.

You're welome.

Catholics, and other "traditional Christians" see much evidence for the Trinity in the Bible.

I know. But they see what does not exist. This is why the early Christians did not believe in anything like the trinity.

Further, Catholics are not sola scriptura, and do not believe that the Bible alone is authoritative, or that all doctrine must be found in it.

I am well aware.

Similarly, we believe that doctrine cannot contradict the Bible. In that, we not only see evidence for the Trinity, but none of our beliefs on the Trinity contradict Scripture.

It is quite easy to show that they do.

I think it would also be helpful to see quotes from the Church Fathers to see what they actually said as well.

I've provided quite a few already.

"Angel" is an interesting word. Christ certainly was an angel of the Father. Christ was the messenger of God the Father in His incarnation. He literally brought the message of God on this earth.

It's part and parcel of the subordinationism extant in early Christian doctrine. Something contradictory to the trinity.

So yes, Trinitarians can indeed see the "second" role of Jesus Christ in the Trinity.

But not the second God or second cause as the early Christians believed.

Tertullian fully believed in the Trinitarian notion of God,

I notice you have not explained the discrepancy between this and what I quoted above regarding Tertullian specifically. The same can be done with Theophilus and a host of others.

Origen too similarly believed as Trinitarians do

I've already shown at least one aspect in which he doesn't in the "second God" quotes above.

[ChristKnight]

Only in that there are similarities between the Catholics and LDS. Major Catholic doctrines such as the trinity (not really seen until after Tertullian and Theophilus) and creation ex nihilo [late second century Basilides, a Gnostic philosopher] did not exist until the 3rd and 4th centuries.

Sorry, snipped out the quotes to make the post shorter. Again, the Catholic Church fully believes all of those quotes, and we see this throughout its doctrines related to sanctification, and made even more explicit in her Eastern Catholic churches with theosis. Indeed, the Catechism makes it clear that through a live long process, beginning with baptism, we become partakers of the Divine nature, as co-heirs in Christ. (I was actually having an argument over at CARM on this belief, and one evangelical, said, ironically enough, "how Mormon"). In fact, we fully agree with this statement:

"We have not been made Gods from the beginning, but at first merely men, then at length Gods..." Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4:38:4, in ANF 1:522"

For Catholics, we are not gods by nature. We become gods by grace. Do LDS believe that we are literally the sons and daughters of God, and thus, divine by nature (even if that nature is not always fully realized)?

One has such evidence. For example; Tertullian:

1) Tertullian 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:

"Writers who are usually reckoned orthodox but who lived a century or two centuries before the outbreak of the Arian Controversy, such as Irenaeus and Tertullian and Novatian and Justin Martyr, held some views which would later, in the fourth century, have been branded heretical.... Irenaeus and Tertullian both believed that God had not always been a Trinity but had at some point put forth the Son and the Spirit so as to be distinct from him. Tertullian, borrowing from Stoicism, believed that God was material (though only of a very refined material, a kind of thinking gas), so that his statement that Father, Son and Spirit were 'of one substance', beautifully orthodox though it sounds, was of a corporeality which would have profoundly shocked Origen, Athanasius and the Cappadocian theologians, had they known of it." [Hansen, R., "The Achievement of Orthodoxy in the Fourth Century AD", in Williams, ed., The Making of Orthodoxy, pp. 151-152.]

"For from the moment when those things began to exist, over which the power of a Lord was to act, God, by the accession of that power, both became Lord and received the name thereof. Because God is in like manner a Father, and He is also a Judge; but He has not always been Father and Judge, merely on the ground of His having always been God. For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a Judge previous to sin. There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son; the former of which was to constitute the Lord a Judge, and the latter a Father." [Tertullian, Against Hermogenes 3, in ANF 3:478.]

3) 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.

"For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole, as He Himself acknowledges: "My Father is greater than I." [T]he Paraclete [is] distinct from Himself, even as we say that the Son is also distinct from the Father; so that He showed a third degree in the Paraclete, as we believe the second degree is in the Son, by reason of the order observed in the Economy." [Tertullian, Against Praxeas 9, in ANF 3:603-604.]

"Whatever, therefore, was the substance of the Word that I designate a Person, I claim for it the name of Son; and while I recognize the Son, I assert His distinction as second to the Father." [Tertullian, Against Praxeas 7, in ANF 3:602.]

Adapted from Barry Bickmore "Tertullian on the Trinity"

So Tertullian is certianly no creedal trinitarian, but it is also true that he is a stepping stone on the way to the development of the trinity heresy.

I think the sentences right about the "For the Father is the entire substance" are also important:

"Bear always in mind that this is the rule of faith which I profess; by it I testify that the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit are inseparable from each other, and so will you know in what sense this is said. Now, observe, my assertion is that the Father is one, and the Son one, and the Spirit one, and that They are distinct from Each Other. This statement is taken in a wrong sense by every uneducated as well as every perversely disposedperson, as if it predicated a diversity, in such a sense as to imply a separation among the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit. I am, moreover, obliged to say this, when (extolling the Monarchy at the expense of the Economy) they contend for the identity of the Father and Son and Spirit, that it is not by way of diversity that the Son differs from the Father, but by distribution: it is not by division that He is different, but by distinction; because the Father is not the same as the Son, since they differ one from the other in the mode of their being." Against Praxeas

Tertullian is certainly interesting, and I will continue to read his works, as well as the other Fathers.

Interestingly, Tertullian did not believe in creation out of pre-existing matter in "Against Hermogenes".

Good night again!

[ChristKnight]

quickly, here is one more quote from Theophilus, which points to the ultimate incomprehensiblity of God, at least in this life:

"The appearance of God is ineffable and indescribable, and cannot be seen by eyes of flesh. For in glory He is incomprehensible, in greatness unfathomable, in height inconceivable, in power incomparable, in wisdom unrivalled, in goodness inimitable, in kindness unutterable." To Autolycus, Book I

This seems very Trinitarian (at least in how we view God), and something that I have seen LDS dispute at various times.

Also, I have seen a number of arguments in reference to Tertullian and his statements about Jesus not existing always, saying that he was not making a doctrinal statement, but was going from a point of argument against Hermogenes. I will fully read those arguments and come back later.

Also, while I understand your point that you believe that Trinitarianism and other doctrines were not believed in the ancient Church, we do believe that there is much evidence there. Similarly, we do not see any evidence for God the Father having a body of flesh and bones (and the derivative theory that the Father incarnated on another world), that the Father is married to a Heavenly Mother, and that in the distinctness of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, there is only a oneness in will and intent, and not also essence. As you believe that we are looking at evidence where there is not, so too do we believe similarly on LDS doctrines that differ from ours.

OK, I mean it this time, good night, God bless!

[BCSpace]

(I was actually having an argument over at CARM on this belief, and one evangelical, said, ironically enough, "how Mormon").

LOL! I was given so many demerits and temporarily suspended so many times for always winning the debate at CARM that it became pointless for me to post there often.

In fact, we fully agree with this statement:

"We have not been made Gods from the beginning, but at first merely men, then at length Gods..." Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4:38:4, in ANF 1:522"

It is often more difficult to debate a Catholic because we do agree so much on the surface.

For Catholics, we are not gods by nature. We become gods by grace. Do LDS believe that we are literally the sons and daughters of God, and thus, divine by nature (even if that nature is not always fully realized)?

Yes, we do believe that we are the literal spirit sons and daughters of God and thus divine by nature (Ps 82:6, Acts 17:21, Hebrews 12:9 etc.). It does take grace to realize our full potential. And yes, we become literal Gods subordinate to God the Father who is always our God.

Interestingly, Tertullian did not believe in creation out of pre-existing matter in "Against Hermogenes".

Indeed Tertullian was no Mormon either. But the universal apostasy had already started by Paul's time (Acts 20:29, 2 Tim 1:15, etc.) So what one would expect from the LDS pov is to see more LDS doctrine the closer you get to NT times in early Christian history and this is indeed what you see. What one also sees is that there were no Catholics either.

You know, the Pastor of Hermas was shown a vision in which the Church was represented as a tower and individual Christians were the stones in it's construction. The angel told him that the tower was almost complete but that the tower to come would be inferior with regards to salvation. Most early Christians considered the Pastor to be scripture. This was part of their knowledge of the impending universal apostasy. The Catholic church cannot possibly be the almost completed tower.

[David T]

That is debatable. I'm curious as to what others believe is the reason why Simon is called Peter, if the rock is revelation and the keys of the Kingdom?

An example of something being 'lost in translation'. The original greek would read, more accurately:

"For you are a little stone (peter), but upon this foundation rock I will build by Church." It makes very clear that the Church isn't based on a person - a veritable pebble. I think it was a reminder clarification for Peter: although he would be the presiding leader of the Church, it did not depend upon him.

[ChristKnight]

LOL! I was given so many demerits and temporarily suspended so many times for always winning the debate at CARM that it became pointless for me to post there often.

Me too! I've been suspended twice, don't know why I still go back there, lol.

It is often more difficult to debate a Catholic because we do agree so much on the surface.

I agree. I find LDS Christianity very interesting and can see where many of your arguments come from.

Yes, we do believe that we are the literal spirit sons and daughters of God and thus divine by nature (Ps 82:6, Acts 17:21, Hebrews 12:9 etc.). It does take grace to realize our full potential. And yes, we become literal Gods subordinate to God the Father who is always our God.

Thanks for explaining.

Indeed Tertullian was no Mormon either. But the universal apostasy had already started by Paul's time (Acts 20:29, 2 Tim 1:15, etc.) So what one would expect from the LDS pov is to see more LDS doctrine the closer you get to NT times in early Christian history and this is indeed what you see. What one also sees is that there were no Catholics either.

You know, the Pastor of Hermas was shown a vision in which the Church was represented as a tower and individual Christians were the stones in it's construction. The angel told him that the tower was almost complete but that the tower to come would be inferior with regards to salvation. Most early Christians considered the Pastor to be scripture. This was part of their knowledge of the impending universal apostasy. The Catholic church cannot possibly be the almost completed tower.

I'll check out the Similitude 9 of the Shepherd of Hermas. I've also bookmarked Barry Bickmore's site. For me (and I"m sure for you and everyone else that studies Christianity), I like to go back to the writings of the Fathers to see the quotes in context, as of course that's always important to understanding what they were saying. I'm also interested in the Desert Fathers and the Eastern Fathers, since it would also be interesting to see the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox positions on these issues. And of course for them, the Church developed separately from Rome, and was still "traditional".

[BCSpace]

I'll check out the Similitude 9 of the Shepherd of Hermas. I've also bookmarked Barry Bickmore's site. For me (and I"m sure for you and everyone else that studies Christianity), I like to go back to the writings of the Fathers to see the quotes in context, as of course that's always important to understanding what they were saying. I'm also interested in the Desert Fathers and the Eastern Fathers, since it would also be interesting to see the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox positions on these issues. And of course for them, the Church developed separately from Rome, and was still "traditional".

All right by me. I have access to all (I think all) the early Christian fathers and have read many of them. Bickmore turned me onto it long ago. Much of what I've been able to follow up on tells me that he's usually spot on in context. Of course his work is just a primer.

[ChristKnight]

An example of something being 'lost in translation'. The original greek would read, more accurately:

"For you are a little stone (peter), but upon this foundation rock I will build by Church." It makes very clear that the Church isn't based on a person - a veritable pebble. I think it was a reminder clarification for Peter: although he would be the presiding leader of the Church, it did not depend upon him.

Ah, back on topic, haha. Here is the Catholic view of Matt 16:18.

In Matt 16:18, The Greek "Petros" is translated as Peter and "petra" is translated as "rock". Now, some have said that "petros" means little rock, and therefore it could not have meant that Peter is the rock that the Church is built on. However, Greek is similar to Spanish (I took Spanish so it's the only comparison I can think of), in that words have masculine and feminine forms, where these forms are not only used depending on the context (the endings must generally agree with other words in the sentence), but also in relation to the person using them (i.e. if they are male or female). Therefore, "petra" could not be used for Simon, since he is of course a male. Therefore, the same word in masculine form is Petros. This is the same in Latin, where the nouns also have gender, where Peter is Petrus and the rock is petra. In Aramaic, this becomes even more clear, where "kepha" is used for both Peter and the rock (which is important because the conversation would have been in Aramaic, even if the Gospel was written in Greek), so the "little rock/stone" translation is not accurate when we not only take the Aramaic into consideration but also the Noun-Gender issue found in many non-English langauges, including Greek and Latin. And even then, "petra" is found to be used to denote small rocks in other places, such as Isaiah 8. So the "size" argument does not really work, in our opinion.

I'm reading a book called "His Broken Body" that gives the Eastern Orthodox interpretation of Matt 16:18. Here is an excerpt:

"In an instrumental sense, Peter is 'the rock' or 'rock': grafted by the power of God onto the divine Rock, in order to become the first stone of Christ's edifice. How did Simon (Peter) become 'rock'? By confessing Jesus as Messiah and Son of the Living God. And after him, al who confess Jesus with the same faith also become rocks and stones like Peter. Hence, the double interpretation Rock=Peter and Rock=Faith are not mutually exclusive. This is the conclusion presented by two foremost Orthodox scholars in "The Primacy of Peter":

We may conclude that the early Church Fathers and Christian writers recognized Peter's position of honor and preeminence in the New Testament period...Their interpretations of Jesus' promise to Peter-'You are Petros and on this petra I will build my Church'-converge with those modern exegetes: the rock is Peter. But they also interpreted the rock as Peter's confession. The Church is built on Peter, or the Church is built upon the rock, which is Peter's confession. We cannot find two distinct groups of exegetes, one with whom states that 'the rock is Peter' while the other concludes that 'the rock is Peter's confession.' In the writings of any given author, one can find both interpretations simultaneously (Kesich)...[T]he great Cappadocians, St. John Chrysostom, and St. Augustine all concur in affirming that the Faith of Simon made it possible for him to become the Rock on which the Church is founded.

So, it is important to see that Peter is the rock, but not just because he is, but because of his Faith, his confession prior to that verse. So, the interpretation of the "rock" is at least 2-3 views that can and do occur simultaneously, if we understand "why" Peter is "rock".

Hope that helps give our position!

[ChristKnight]

All right by me. I have access to all (I think all) the early Christian fathers and have read many of them. Bickmore turned me onto it long ago. Much of what I've been able to follow up on tells me that he's usually spot on in context. Of course his work is just a primer.

Nice. Yes, Bickmore's website seems like a very good primer on the LDS view of the Church Fathers. If Bickmore turned me onto them for you, I can say that you have turned me onto them now, as, though I have randomly browsed them and of course seen them quoted in Catholic/Orthodox apologetics, I've never actually studied them. Thanks!

[BCSpace]

Nice. Yes, Bickmore's website seems like a very good primer on the LDS view of the Church Fathers. If Bickmore turned me onto them for you, I can say that you have turned me onto them now, as, though I have randomly browsed them and of course seen them quoted in Catholic/Orthodox apologetics, I've never actually studied them. Thanks!

The geocities website is good, and his book can be viewed online here.

I hope you can appreciate the trinity joke.