Was the Ante-Nicene Church "Orthodox?"

[Atheist Mormon]

12 hours ago, BCSpace said:

What's being twisted in your opinion?

43 minutes ago, saemo said:

John 1:1

Nope, John 1:1 was way later addition. Put 30-40 years after synoptic Gospels.

 

[saemo]

Just now, Atheist Mormon said:

 

Lol, ok.

Even if you believe it is a later addition, which I don't, it is still dated  300 years or so before the First Council of Nicaea.

[RevTestament]

16 minutes ago, saemo said:

Hello, John 1:1 says Jesus is God.  God is the Most High. If you don't believe God is the Most High, not much I can help you with there.

 

Does that mean your creeds are wrong where they made the Father El Shaddai "the Almighty God?" Perhaps they should reword that creed of the Apostles. BTW El Gibbor means The Mighty/Almighty God - not El Shaddai. The confusing thing about the greek NT is the way the Hebrew names for God got confounded. In the Tanakh, even the Hebrews got called Elohim - that doesn't make them El Elyon, the Most High El. While I agree Jesus is Elohim, nowhere does the Bible refer to Him as the Most High El - a fact Jesus alludes to when He acknowledges the one "true" "God" who He says is greater than me.

Quote

Ditch it?

Sorry, I won't be ditching the Bible for your creeds...

 

[saemo]

11 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Does that mean your creeds are wrong where they made the Father El Shaddai "the Almighty God?" Perhaps they should reword that creed of the Apostles. BTW El Gibbor means The Mighty/Almighty God - not El Shaddai. The confusing thing about the greek NT is the way the Hebrew names for God got confounded. In the Tanakh, even the Hebrews got called Elohim - that doesn't make them El Elyon, the Most High El. While I agree Jesus is Elohim, nowhere does the Bible refer to Him as the Most High El - a fact Jesus alludes to when He acknowledges the one "true" "God" who He says is greater than me.

Sorry, I won't be ditching the Bible for your creeds...

 

Ditch your list not the Bible!

God is the Most High. Christians believe in a triune God. Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We see in scripture descriptions of the relationship between the three Persons, and the interactions of God in human history. 

I read a Hebrew Christian exposé on El Elyon at one time, where the root of the word Elyon was shown to be from the word that means "to ascend". The hypothesis of the writing is that Jesus is God Ascended. 

Other than that, certainly we understand the three Persons as distinct, but also understand Jesus is fully divine, and therefore has all the attributes of the divine. Including Most High. Alpha and Omega. Etc.

[Spammer]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

Hmm. Well, that depends I think. I believe the "main doctrines" of salvation are the same. That means the church is still possesses the true path to exaltation. There have been various statements/opinions/"revelations" about God made by various GAs over the years since JS, and I seek confirmation from the HS on those I have doubt about. For instance if the missionaries had told me the church believes God was "married" to Mary as BY seemed to teach, I think that would have given me pause. But to my knowledge no subsequent Presidents have taught that, and it is not accepted as doctrine - for that I am relieved. The fact that various Presidents have taught various and sometimes disagreeing things doesn't change the fact that the Lord set up this church as the restoration of His gospel. I believe man has always struggled to understand God - I think somewhat by design - and the fact that the church continues to do so merely makes us like everyone else in that regard.

So, despite the presence of varying statements/opinions about God and prophets and apostles who contradict each other, the LDS Church is not in Apostasy.  Even if prophets contradict each other and doctrinal disputes lead to factionalism and departures (Bickertonites, Strangites, Community of Christ, fundamentalist LDS, etc.), the LDS Church is still true and not in Apostasy.  The living prophet provides correction as needed, whenever disputes arise.  What once was declared to be doctrinal is now deemed opinion, because the living prophet has spoken - and the Church is still true.  Contradiction and doctrinal dispute is not evidence of Apostasy.

This dynamic fits ante-Nicene Orthodoxy well.  There were varying statements and opinions about God made by different bishops over the years.  Certain ante-Nicene Catholic church fathers were in disagreement about this or that point regarding the nature of God or the nature of reality (Tertullian, Athanasius, Irenaeus, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Justin Martyr, etc.). There was factionalism and internal dispute, the same as in early Mormonism and in Mormonism today.   No matter.  This doesn't change the fact that the Lord set up the Catholic Church. Holy Spirit-led church councils provide correction as needed, whenever disputes arise.  Contradiction and doctrinal dispute is not evidence of Apostasy.  

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 16, 2016 by Spammer

[mfbukowski]

Straight up, "orthodox" is in the eye of the beholder, so I am out.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Spammer said:

So, despite the presence of varying statements/opinions about God and prophets and apostles who contradict each other, the LDS Church is not in Apostasy.  Even if prophets contradict each other and doctrinal disputes lead to factionalism and departures (Bickertonites, Strangites, Community of Christ, fundamentalist LDS, etc.), the LDS Church is still true and not in Apostasy.  The living prophet provides correction as needed, whenever disputes arise.  What once was declared to be doctrinal is now deemed opinion, because the living prophet has spoken - and the Church is still true.  Contradiction and doctrinal dispute is not evidence of Apostasy.

This dynamic fits ante-Nicene Orthodoxy well.  There were varying statements and opinions about God made by different bishops over the years.  Certain ante-Nicene Catholic church fathers were in disagreement about this or that point regarding the nature of God or the nature of reality (Tertullian, Athanasius, Irenaeus, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Justin Martyr, etc.). There was factionalism and internal dispute, the same as in early Mormonism and in Mormonism today.   No matter.  This doesn't change the fact that the Lord set up the Catholic Church. Holy Spirit-led church councils provide correction as needed, whenever disputes arise.  Contradiction and doctrinal dispute is not evidence of Apostasy.  

Honestly I can't see how this is disputable, which is one of the reasons I am out.

We all need to live by testimony and forget the words and take the aggregate of present teachings and see if they fit with what the Lord tells us is right for us, and go with that.

Definitions are semantics and pretty worthless in real life.  I could list all the ideas I like as a Mormon which are exclusive to Mormonism but even though I am totally certain they are right, others will disagree with me.  So I bow to freedom of religion and say "have a nice day"- and that's about all we can do with others who disagree.  No one has any basis whatsoever for trying to show that their religion is "more true" than any other.

Either you see it and know for yourself, or you don't.   I mean people fought wars about this stuff after the Reformation.

For those who have forgotten, 

Quote

The Thirty Years' War was a series of wars in Central Europe between 1618 and 1648. It was one of the longest, most destructive conflicts in European history.[14] Initially a war between Protestant and Catholic states in the fragmenting Holy Roman Empire, it gradually developed into a more general conflict involving most of the great powers of Europe, becoming less about religion and more a continuation of the France–Habsburg rivalry for European political pre-eminence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War

[RevTestament]

59 minutes ago, saemo said:

Ditch your list not the Bible!

God is the Most High. Christians believe in a triune God. Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We see in scripture descriptions of the relationship between the three Persons, and the interactions of God in human history. 

I read a Hebrew Christian exposé on El Elyon at one time, where the root of the word Elyon was shown to be from the word that means "to ascend". The hypothesis of the writing is that Jesus is God Ascended. 

Other than that, certainly we understand the three Persons as distinct, but also understand Jesus is fully divine, and therefore has all the attributes of the divine. Including Most High. Alpha and Omega. Etc.

Sorry, but you do not understand why He is the first and the last.

Even trinitarians say the Son is not the Father. Only the Father is identified as the Most High El in scripture. The angel of the Lord says Jesus shall be called the Son of the Highest, see Luke  1:32  - not the Most High. Jesus is "divine" in that He is YHWH Elohim with the Father, see Gen 3:22, but "Orthodoxy" has confounded the names of El Shaddai with "the Almighty God" and the Father, when Christ refers to Himself as El Shaddai in John 8:58, see Genesis 17:1

1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the Lord appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God[El Shaddai]; walk before me, and be thou perfect.

Trinitarian doctrine declares the Son shall be the Son forever, when Isa 9:6 declares He shall be called the Everlasting Father. Therefore trinitarianism denies His inheritance as our Father - as an unchanging, immutable God who will not receive a greater office nor inherit the mountains of the Father. Trinitarianism denies the Way to the Holiest of All - in denying the begottenness of the Son the very first creed says that the Son was begotten before all ages/worlds which is directly contrary to the Bible which says the Son was actually begotten by the oath of the Father when the Father said to Him: "thou art my Son, this day I have begotten thee." This truth troubles orthodoxy which wants us to believe the Son is the same being as the Father before this world, and was always the Son and will always be the Son. The scriptures teach us that Jesus is our "fellow." He is one of us, who was begotten as the Son - in other words it is a covenantal relationship with the Father - a relationship that had a beginning with this oath. Orthodoxy hides this truth with its made-up creeds.

[Jim Stiles]

5 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Yep, they don't believe it:

ANF03. Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian

He says it in another way in another of his papers.

After I posted the CFR, I saw something similar on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

It is important to note the evidence that the Ante-Nicene church believed anything but what the modern LDS church believes with respect to the Trinity.

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, Spammer said:

So, despite the presence of varying statements/opinions about God and prophets and apostles who contradict each other, the LDS Church is not in Apostasy.  Even if prophets contradict each other and doctrinal disputes lead to factionalism and departures (Bickertonites, Strangites, Community of Christ, fundamentalist LDS, etc.), the LDS Church is still true and not in Apostasy.  The living prophet provides correction as needed, whenever disputes arise.  What once was declared to be doctrinal is now deemed opinion, because the living prophet has spoken - and the Church is still true.  Contradiction and doctrinal dispute is not evidence of Apostasy.

This dynamic fits ante-Nicene Orthodoxy well.  There were varying statements and opinions about God made by different bishops over the years.  Certain ante-Nicene Catholic church fathers were in disagreement about this or that point regarding the nature of God or the nature of reality (Tertullian, Athanasius, Irenaeus, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Justin Martyr, etc.). There was factionalism and internal dispute, the same as in early Mormonism and in Mormonism today.   No matter.  This doesn't change the fact that the Lord set up the Catholic Church. Holy Spirit-led church councils provide correction as needed, whenever disputes arise.  Contradiction and doctrinal dispute is not evidence of Apostasy.  

I suppose this depends on your definition of apostasy. The principles of the gospel are fairly easily understood - faith, repentance, baptism, etc. Completely understanding God is not one of these principles. The fact that man still struggles to see the order of heaven and to fully understand God, doesn't make him apostate. People who disbelieve in salvation, begin to deny the saving grace of Jesus, etc can be called apostate. People who change these principles in creeds can also be called apostate which is what the Nicene Creed does - it made anyone who didn't believe Christ was begotten before all worlds subject to excommunication or made the "anathema." That is not a biblical principle nor a necessary belief for salvation yet they got the boot. Prophets have various opinions about the nature of God - mere disagreement is not apostasy. Denying the Father has a Son is apostasy as it is clearly spelled out in the gospel. If by apostasy you mean no one can have a different belief about the scriptures, then my guess is everyone is apostate.

The Lord did not set up the "catholic church" per se as His church. The Bishop of Rome was only one of dozens of Apostolic "sees" and one of approx 1200 bishops in the Roman Empire at the time of Constantine. The Nicene Council did not grant any authority of the bishop of Rome over the other large bishoprics, but instead declared they each had authority in their own areas. Of course your church history conveniently leaves out all the bishops in the eastern church ie in the Parthian Empire, because Rome was never able to defeat the Parthians, and conveniently leave them out of Roman history. History does not tell us how many bishops were in the eastern church. They never felt Rome was their head, and the Roman Church eventually kicked out the Syrian bishops because they would not agree to the new doctrine of the two natures of Christ - boy, those bishops must have forgotten everything they had learned about Christianity even though that is where Christians were first so-called.

[3DOP]

32 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Honestly I can't see how this is disputable, which is one of the reasons I am out.

We all need to live by testimony and forget the words and take the aggregate of present teachings and see if they fit with what the Lord tells us is right for us, and go with that.

Definitions are semantics and pretty worthless in real life.  I could list all the ideas I like as a Mormon which are exclusive to Mormonism but even though I am totally certain they are right, others will disagree with me.  So I bow to freedom of religion and say "have a nice day"- and that's about all we can do with others who disagree.  No one has any basis whatsoever for trying to show that their religion is "more true" than any other.

Either you see it and know for yourself, or you don't.   I mean people fought wars about this stuff after the Reformation.

For those who have forgotten, 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War

I am also "out". It is my opinion that it is debatable whether it is disputable. Heh. But it is not a debate or dispute for which I have any energy.

[Jim Stiles]

4 hours ago, RevTestament said:

LDS also believe in the Godhead of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and we baptize with the biblical words. 

Contrary to the Catholic assertions, however, that does not in any way prove the doctrines of the trinity are true or else Protestants would have no problem with LDS beliefs.

The problems with the doctrines of the trinity are many: here I will post my summary of them:

..................................................Bible vs Roman Creeds/Trinitarianism

Invites men to come freely (godly   love)...................................Use of fear, compulsion, & persecution (adversary)
Bible - Covenant with God, Isaiah 61:6-8.........................................Roman Creeds - words from where?
"man shall live by every word of God"  Luke 4:4.................promulgated under the maximum priest of Roman gods 
Rome is the Beast of Daniel 7:19-20..........................(pontifex = builder of the way/roads) Pontifex Maximus office 
and Rev 13, Rev 17 Woman on beast   ...............................of  Constantine and later Bishop of Rome  (Roman Church)
Mystery, Babylon 1 Peter 5:13, Rev   17:5..........................Babylon was beast of Dan 7:4 and head of image Dan 2

Apostles and Christians had no   ..................................................................  none 33 A.D - 325 A.D.
creeds for 3 centuries and were persecuted   .............................approx 325 Nicea 1st Creed - required by Roman law   ............................................................................................to be read in churches - persecution stops

Elohim - a plural Hebrew noun ex. Family...................Deity(Latin) - a singular "god" idea/word from Rome & Greece 
Gen 1:26 "And Eloheim said let   US.......................................Rome is beast of Dan 7:19-20, Dan 2 kingdom of iron
make man in OUR image." (includes Father &   Son)...............Greece is beast of Dan 7:6, Dan 2 kingdom of brass
God created the world through Jesus Christ Eph   3:9................Persia is beast of Dan 7:5, Dan 2 kingdom of silver
 . . . . .  .  . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . .. . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Babylon is beast of Dan 7:4, Dan 2 head of gold

Godhead Acts 17:29 KJV, Col   2:9, Ps 82:1.................Trinity - coined by Tertullian who also said the Son had a ........................................................................................beginning - sorry Trins
https://www.lds.org/topics/godhead?lang=eng.......................... ANF03. Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian

"The Father and I are one"
Father - Most High(El Elyon) - Psalms   47:2-3, Psalms   110:1, Acts 7:55.............Father "co-equal, one substance,

............................................................. .........................................................one being" the Almighty
 
Son - Holy One of Israel - Isaiah 54:5 KJV, Acts   13:35....................Son "co-equal, co-substantial, one being"
Son of the Most High, servant - Isaiah 42:1, 6, 8, .................................... Son of the Almighty God  
"Enough Breast" (El Shaddai) - Rev 1:8, 4:8, Jn 8:58, Gen 17:1  ...................per Apostles Creed and others
YHWH Elohim with the Father
Gen 3:22; Isa. 47:4
"The Father is greater than I."
"Who hath seen me, hath seen the Father."
"Whatsoever the Father doeth the Son doeth likewise." "I am the way." Jn 14:6
Inheritor - now on right hand, but will sit in Father's stead & be   called Father .......... immutable - Son forever   ................................................................................................Platonic/Aristotlian(Greece again) concept
Isaiah 9:6, "inheritor of my mountains" Isaiah 65:9; Heb 1:4.......................but already "co-equal"; denies ...........................................................................................................inheritance; enemy to Christ
Under the Hebraic law, the firstborn or begotten inherited all his father had.

only begotten ..................................................   ........................325 creed -   "begotten before all worlds"
Heb 7:28 Oath of the Father -   .........................................................under   Bishop of Rome as Pontifex maximus
"Thou art my Son, this day I have begotten thee."   ............................... became   "eternally begotten"

John 15:16 Pray/ask the Father in the name of Jesus Christ   .......................... Pray to Son or Mary

Holy Ghost ...................................................................................... Holy Ghost - not declared
Matt 12:32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man,   ...... co-substantial in Nicean Creed - oops!
it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost,   .............Constantinople 381 A.D.- ................................................................................................declared as co-equal & one substance
it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come............... with the Son

.....................................................................................................(blasphemy against HG or Christ?)

Baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
Descended upon Jesus in form of dove in River Jordan   ...............sprinkle sinless infants with "holy water" salted   ...............................................................................................like in pagan roman holy water

Copyright RevelationTestament.net - license granted for one copy, no reproduction

Infants are sinful.  How do I know that infants are sinful?  Infants can die.  Only sinful humans can die.  Jesus did not die until he took upon himself the sin of the elect.

The very early church did not have many creeds because the early church was struggling to survive.  The Apostles' Creed dates back to the period of persecution.

Tertullian would have pointed and laughed at the LDS henotheism.

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Straight up, "orthodox" is in the eye of the beholder, so I am out.

Yep, to the extent that "orthodox" just means "true" you are right. I have recently started calling it "Athanasian Christianity" since I feel that is more descriptive and accurate for what I am talking about.

[Jim Stiles]

22 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I thought this might make a worthwhile discussion about why Christianity needed to be restored.

Did the earliest Christians have any creeds? Were they saved without such beliefs about God?

In other words did they believe that Christ was begotten before all ages or worlds or was that a reactionary belief to Christians such as Arius who believed it was possible for men to follow Jesus and become like him?

Did the earliest Christians even have any beliefs like the doctrine of the trinity or did that develop/evolve as well?

The earliest Christians were saved by believing the message of Jesus.  Public profession of faith was made using certain key passages of scripture known orally before it was written down.  Baptism was performed on all believers and their children using the Trinitarian formula.  Sometimes babies peed in the baptismal fount.

Quote

Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Quote

1 Corinthians 12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

Quote

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

 

[Jim Stiles]

21 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

"did that develop/evolve as well?"

You know it! The best source/author on this subject is Bart Ehrman, even then you don't need him to arrive this conclusion if you read Early Christian/Byzantium History, which is very much tied up with Emperor Constantine and Nicene Creed.

One of the reasons I still hold Mormonism in such high esteem is it came down to Josep to expose the whoredom of Catholicism. In Nicene Creed Arinaism was thrown under the bus, we ended up with mumbo jumbo of Athanasian Creed, Joseph came and threw that nonsense asunder, I was so happy in my believing days that I could deal with a God Joseph materialized for me.......

 

[RevTestament]

30 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said:

After I posted the CFR, I saw something similar on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

It is important to note the evidence that the Ante-Nicene church believed anything but what the modern LDS church believes with respect to the Trinity.

TBH there is simply not that much textual evidence about the beliefs of the ante-nicene church on the nature of the Godhead. However, what there is does not support any consensus view on the nature of the Godhead, and certainly nothing like the doctrines of the trinity taught in the later creeds. If you believe there is please post it for the reader. Perhaps you will finally be forced to the same conclusion as me - that the doctrines of the trinity evolved over time with additional creeds and councils. These doctrines are not found in the Bible. Simply stating the the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one Elohim, does basically nothing to support all the doctrines which came to be associated with the idea of trinitarianism. Essentially all this confusion is because Gentiles did not understand the titles/offices of God and Jesus. English Bibles regularly substitute "God" for the Hebrew El, Eloah, and Elohim. The plural of El, Elim, is rarely used in the Bible. I respectfully submit Gentiles do not understand what YHWH means, and they do not understand what it means that the Father also bears this name per Deut. They do not understand that Christ was the revelation of the Father to us, and that He laid down His life as He had seen the Father do.

[3DOP]

10 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Yep, to the extent that "orthodox" just means "true" you are right. I have recently started calling it "Athanasian Christianity" since I feel that is more descriptive and accurate for what I am talking about.

So you are asking if the ante-Nicene Church was Athanasian? No it was not. I agree with the Mormons who deny that the Ante-Nicene Church was "Athanasian."

[Jim Stiles]

17 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said:

...Sometimes babies peed in the baptismal fount.

 

Sometimes they do more than pee:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_V

[mfbukowski]

45 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Yep, to the extent that "orthodox" just means "true" you are right. I have recently started calling it "Athanasian Christianity" since I feel that is more descriptive and accurate for what I am talking about.

But we are not Athanasian

[3DOP]

1 minute ago, Jim Stiles said:

Sometimes they do more than pee:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_V

Hi Jim Stiles,

I think we need to concede that the early Fathers are silent about infant baptism as the Scriptures are silent, at least with regards to any certain description of an infant baptism. Tertullian mentions that he is against the practice, so all can be certain that it was occurring by his time. But the historical evidence by no means tells us whether it is a corruption or an apostolic practice.

[Jim Stiles]

9 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Hi Jim Stiles,

I think we need to concede that the early Fathers are silent about infant baptism as the Scriptures are silent, at least with regards to any certain description of an infant baptism. Tertullian mentions that he is against the practice, so all can be certain that it was occurring by his time. But the historical evidence by no means tells us whether it is a corruption or an apostolic practice.

This fellow agrees with me (and backs it up):

 

[Jim Stiles]

16 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Hi Jim Stiles,

I think we need to concede that the early Fathers are silent about infant baptism as the Scriptures are silent, at least with regards to any certain description of an infant baptism. Tertullian mentions that he is against the practice, so all can be certain that it was occurring by his time. But the historical evidence by no means tells us whether it is a corruption or an apostolic practice.

Two books on the topic:

http://www.amazon.com/Infant-Baptism-First-Four-Centuries/dp/1592447570/

http://www.amazon.com/The-Origins-Infant-Baptism-Further/dp/1592445403/

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, Jim Stiles said:

Infants are sinful.  How do I know that infants are sinful?  Infants can die.  Only sinful humans can die.  Jesus did not die until he took upon himself the sin of the elect.

You must be Calvinist/Presbyterian/Reformed. The sin of the elect is a fictitious phrase. He took upon Himself the sin of all that whoso would believe on Him might be saved. it is mere lunacy to believe in an unjust God who doesn't give all the chance to be saved even if He knows some will not accept their Savior. Therefore, Christ was sacrificed for the sin of the wicked as well as the righteous. I do not believe in a God who creates people wicked with no chance at salvation to be part of a puppet game...that sounds like an idea that Satan might promote tho. 

The sin of the world did not kill Jesus - it made Him bleed from every pore. The wickedness of the ruling Levites and Jews killed Jesus - they committed sin by killing an innocent man for telling the truth. "Only sinful humans can die." If we didn't die, all of us who needed too come to this world would never make it. We die because that is/was part of the plan - to be tested as mortals. For Adam and Eve to be like YHWH Elohim, they had to experience wickedness to have knowledge of good and evil. Athanasian Christianity has that all wrong too. They teach that was an evil whispering of Satan. Infants are born "holy" to the Lord. 

Luke 2:23 (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;)

Being born is not breaking the Law. Breaking the law is sin. Being born is a completion of the creation process, and therefore you are accusing the Lord of sinning by creating us.

Quote

The very early church did not have many creeds because the early church was struggling to survive.  The Apostles' Creed dates back to the period of persecution.

Tertullian would have pointed and laughed at the LDS henotheism.

The creeds were created by Constantine's desire to have a unified state church which would praise him as the thirteenth apostle. He really didn't realize what he was getting into - that he was fooled by Athanasius who saw this as an opportunity to impose his ideas on Arius. The subsequent large councils which deposed Athanasius bare the truth of this. Athanasianism simply did not represent the whole or even majority of the church. 

I do not consider myself "henotheistic." I believe in one El Elyon, the Most High El, and in his house of Elohim. Without El Elyon, there would be no Elohim. Elohim are not independent gods. They are the family of God. They make up the house of immovable force/stone of His gospel through which He reveals Himself to the world. Thus, they are subject to the will of the Father, and are not "independent" but are one with Him.

Edited May 16, 2016 by RevTestament

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, Jim Stiles said:

The earliest Christians were saved by believing the message of Jesus.  Public profession of faith was made using certain key passages of scripture known orally before it was written down.  Baptism was performed on all believers and their children using the Trinitarian formula.  Sometimes babies peed in the baptismal fount.

Um, sorry no. Babies were not baptized until quite late - around the turn of the millennium. And at that time baptism by sprinkling was introduced - so no peeing in the font....

Salvation is not really by profession of faith, but by repentance. Unless one repents of their sins, they will have to pay for them, and will remain unsaved. Having a testimony and manifesting a belief in our Savior is only part of the process. If you want to call baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit the "trinitarian formula" then I would think you would consider LDS to be trinitarian...

[Jim Stiles]

This is a much longer video on the topic of infant baptism that you may find enlightening: