Christians:LDS Members are Christian!

[mormonman]

The creeds are an interpretation of apostolic teachings, and you aren't able to find anything that contradicts the creeds.

Of course I can. Where in the Bible does it say that you must be Catholic to be saved?

 

[SoyLeche]

:biglaugh:Like i said at the start - this thread is pointless.

You can argue it whatever way you want but ultimately you will all return to the same point which is that above.
I am a Christian, but i am not a Morman, a Morman is therefore not a Christian in the sense that i am a Christian, therefore he must follow a different Christ to me. It really is as simple as that.

I've got a lovely Venn Diagram to show you, but I have no idea how to post it.

 

[Green Gaia]

I've got a lovely Venn Diagram to show you, but I have no idea how to post it.

Here you go:

 

[SoyLeche]

Here you go:

Thanks Maize. You're a lifesaver

 

[mormonman]

Alright, I'm am going to have a comentary on the Athanasian Creed bit by bit, because A_E said that I couldn't find anything to contradict the creeds. Here we go. The Athanasian Creed is in bold

1. "Whosoever wishes to be saved must, above all, keep the Catholic faith."-Matthew 24:13 "But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved." Everyone that endures to the end w/ the knowledge of the gospel they have, can be saved.

2. "For unless a person keeps this faith whole and entire, he will undoubtedly be lost forever." No one is perfect. Anyone that tries his best and repents to God will have salvation.

3. "This is what the catholic faith teaches: we worship one God in the Trinity and the Trinity in unity." The Godhead is one in purpose, not body. Acts 7:56 "And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God." How can Christ stand at the right had of Himself? 1 Peter 3:22 "Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him." Again Christ is at the right hand of God. John 17:3 " And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." Know God and Christ? Two different people.

4. "Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the substance." God is all powerful. He can confound the Persons, and divide the substance.

5. "For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit." Yeah, I know. I've been trying to tell you that all along. I thought it just said that they're all one?

6. "But the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit have one divinity, equal glory, and coeternal majesty. What the Father is, the Son is, and the Holy Spirit is." Refer to #3. Again, one in purpose, not body.

7."The Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated, and the Holy Spirit is uncreated." So an uncreated being created the world? An uncreated being also atoned for our sins. Don't need scripture to back this up. All you need is common sense.

8. "The Father is boundless, the Son is boundless, and the Holy Spirit is boundless. The Father is eternal, the Son is eternal, and the Holy Spirit is eternal." Ok, I can agree w/ this.

9."Nevertheless, there are not three eternal beings, but one eternal being. So there are not three uncreated beings, nor three boundless beings, but one uncreated being and one boundless being." Dang, it was doing good. Refer to #3.

10. "Likewise, the Father is omnipotent, the Son is omnipotent, the Holy Spirit is omnipotent." Yea, something good again.

11. "Yet there are not three omnipotent beings, but one omnipotent being. Thus the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. However, there are not three gods, but one God. The Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and the Holy Spirit is Lord. However, there as not three lords, but one Lord." Why does religion have to be that complicated. Refer to #3.

12. "For as we are obliged by Christian truth to acknowledge every Person singly to be God and Lord, so too are we forbidden by the Catholic religion to say that there are three Gods or Lords." Ahhh...They're all one but not??? This is easy-refer to #3.

13. "The Father was not made, nor created, nor generated by anyone. The Son is not made, nor created, but begotten by the Father alone. The Holy Spirit is not made, nor created, nor generated, but proceeds from the Father and the Son." Matthew 1:16 "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." Mary begat Christ too.

14. "There is, then, one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three sons; one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits." Duhh.

15. "In this Trinity, there is nothing before or after, nothing greater or less. The entire three Persons are coeternal and coequal with one another." Uhhh...yeah, sort of. They are coeternal, but not 1 being-refer to #3.

I'm going to skip some stuff, because I'm running out of time. I'll just hit the high points

16. "It is also necessary for eternal salvation that he believes steadfastly in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ." Incarnated from what? Are they talking about the resurrection. I didn't think that Catholics believed in incarnation.

17. "Thus the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is both God and man." Again, that's what I was trying to tell you. Christ is the Son of God not God Himself.

18. "This is the catholic faith. Everyone must believe it, firmly and steadfastly; otherwise He cannot be saved. Amen." Are you kidding me? Everyone that's not Catholic is going to Hell? Refer to #1 and 2.

That's all folks! Can't wait to get responces to this one.

 

[Endless]

Nice diagram - but it ultimately means nothing. Two separate circles of Mormanism and Christianity with a section overlapping in the middle may make a bit more sense. Bit in the middle is nothing, just a few similarities. That represents it better.

 

[Ody]

Correct me if i'm wrong but I thought a key aspect of christianity is that after christ there is no need for a divine prophet, so wouldn't the LDS belief in Joseph Smith's teachings break this rule?

 

[Ody]

No answers... 0.0?

 

[Aqualung]

Nice diagram - but it ultimately means nothing. Two separate circles of Mormanism and Christianity with a section overlapping in the middle may make a bit more sense. Bit in the middle is nothing, just a few similarities. That represents it better.

Either way, you are completely wrong when you say that if mormons are christians then all christians are mormons.

Correct me if i'm wrong but I thought a key aspect of christianity is that after christ there is no need for a divine prophet, so wouldn't the LDS belief in Joseph Smith's teachings break this rule?

I don't know if that is a key aspect, but if it is, it's certainly not biblical. Christ founded his church apon revelation, and Paul especially says that the church is founded on apostles and (get this) prophets.

 

[Garret]

I was at this time in my fifteenth year. My father’s family was proselyted to the Presbyterian faith, and four of them joined that church, namely, my mother, Lucy; my brothers Hyrum and Samuel Harrison; and my sister Sophronia.



During this time of great excitement my mind was called up to serious reflection and great uneasiness; but though my feelings were deep and often poignant, still I kept myself aloof from all these parties, though I attended their several meetings as often as occasion would permit. In process of time my mind became somewhat partial to the Methodist sect, and I felt some desire to be united with them; but so great were the confusion and strife among the different denominations, that it was impossible for a person young as I was, and so unacquainted with men and things, to come to any certain conclusion who was right and who was wrong.



do My mind at times was greatly excited, the cry and tumult were so great and incessant. The Presbyterians were most decided against the Baptists and Methodists, and used all the powers of both reason and sophistry to prove their errors, or, at least, to make the people think they were in error. On the other hand, the Baptists and Methodists in their turn were equally zealous in endeavoring to establish their own tenets and disprove all others.



In the midst of this war of words and tumult of opinions, I often said to myself: What is to be done? Who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together? If any one of them be right, which is it, and how shall I know it?



While I was laboring under the extreme difficulties caused by the contests of these parties of religionists, I was one day reading the Epistle of James, first chapter and fifth verse, which reads: If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.



Never did any passage of scripture come with more power to the heart of man than this did at this time to mine. It seemed to enter with great force into every feeling of my heart. I reflected on it again and again, knowing that if any person needed wisdom from God, I did; for how to act I did not know, and unless I could get more wisdom than I then had, I would never know; for the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible.



At length I came to the conclusion that I must either remain in darkness and confusion, or else I must do as James directs, that is, ask of God. I at length came to the determination to “ask of God,” concluding that if he gave wisdom to them that lacked wisdom, and would give liberally, and not upbraid, I might venture.



So, in accordance with this, my determination to ask of God, I retired to the woods to make the attempt. It was on the morning of a beautiful, clear day, early in the spring of eighteen hundred and twenty. It was the first time in my life that I had made such an attempt, for amidst all my anxieties I had never as yet made the attempt to pray vocally.



After I had retired to the place where I had previously designed to go, having looked around me, and finding myself alone, I kneeled down and began to offer up the desires of my heart to God. I had scarcely done so, when immediately I was seized upon by some power which entirely overcame me, and had such an astonishing influence over me as to bind my tongue so that I could not speak. Thick darkness gathered around me, and it seemed to me for a time as if I were doomed to sudden destruction.



But, exerting all my powers to call upon God to deliver me out of the power of this enemy which had seized upon me, and at the very moment when I was ready to sink into despair and abandon myself to destruction—not to an imaginary ruin, but to the power of some actual being from the unseen world, who had such marvelous power as I had never before felt in any being—just at this moment of great alarm, I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me.



It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!



My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.



I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”



He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. When I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back, looking up into heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength; but soon recovering in some degree, I went home. And as I leaned up to the fireplace, mother inquired what the matter was. I replied, “Never mind, all is well—I am well enough off.” I then said to my mother, “I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true.” It seems as though the adversary was aware, at a very early period of my life, that I was destined to prove a disturber and an annoyer of his kingdom; else why should the powers of darkness combine against me? Why the opposition and persecution that arose against me, almost in my infancy?



Some preachers and other professors of religion reject account of First Vision—Persecution heaped upon Joseph Smith—He testifies of the reality of the vision.

 

[Garret]

Next to the Great Apostasty. Which started when the apostales were killed and with them the authority and key given to them from God were taken from the eart. The First Vision is so key. It vanishes the confusion of what the God head is. A Father and a Son. It is true. I know it is true. The Holy Ghost has born witness to me of God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is Faith, Repentance, Baptism by immersion with the proper authority, recieving the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, and we must endure to the end. This is true. We must first have faith. Pray to know. No matter what religion you are from do not exept the words of leaders without taking the matter to the lord. Praying to the father in the name of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is our mediator to the Father. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the HIS Church. He reigns over it as in the days of his life on this earth. The keys are here, the priesthood is here, devine revelation is here, and the blessings which come with obedience to HIS laws and commandmentts are here. There is not reason to have all this confusion for the truth has been restored. The only way for you to know is to Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts



And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere

 

[Garret]

heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.



And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.



And whatsoever thing is good is just and true; wherefore, nothing that is good denieth the Christ, but acknowledgeth that he is.



And ye may know that he is, by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore I would exhort you that ye deny not the power of God; for he worketh by power, according to the faith of the children of men, the same today and tomorrow, and forever.

IT IS TRUE

 

[SoyLeche]

Either way, you are completely wrong when you say that if mormons are christians then all christians are mormons.

I don't know if that is a key aspect, but if it is, it's certainly not biblical. Christ founded his church apon revelation, and Paul especially says that the church is founded on apostles and (get this) prophets.

Actually, Aqua, the diagram was for this quote:

You can argue it whatever way you want but ultimately you will all return to the same point which is that above.
I am a Christian, but i am not a Morman, a Morman is therefore not a Christian in the sense that i am a Christian, therefore he must follow a different Christ to me. It really is as simple as that.

Oh, and by the way, the diagram explains better than anything else how the relationship actually works. There may be members of the church outside of the Christian circle, but Mormonism is 100% within the Christian realm.

 

[Squirt]

What do you suggest that I use? Definitions have to come from somewhere, and the EoM cites LDS literature and statements from Presidents... it should be authoritative to some degree.

I actually use the Encyclopedia of Mormonism far more often than I use some of the 19th century publications anti-Mormons are so fond of quoting. While the EoM cannot be considered "official doctrine," it does, as you say, quote statements from LDS General Authorities and, more importantly, makes a point of explaining them in the context in which we interpret them. To me, they're far more reliable than most of what is used to backup the LDS perspective. The articles are all short, well-researched and probably about as authoritative as anything else available. Of course, it goes without saying, that on doctrinal matters, the final source of appeal will always be the Standard Works. It doesn't matter who said what, if it contradicts anything in the Standard Works, it's one man's opinion and nothing more.

 

[Squirt]

:biglaugh:Like i said at the start - this thread is pointless.

You can argue it whatever way you want but ultimately you will all return to the same point which is that above.
I am a Christian, but i am not a Morman, a Morman is therefore not a Christian in the sense that i am a Christian, therefore he must follow a different Christ to me. It really is as simple as that.

Well, you don't say what denomination you affiliate with, if any. But if you are a Protestant, you must then follow a different Christ than Victor does and a different Christ than No*s does. Just how many "Christs" do you think there are for us to choose from? And if you're "just a Christian" (i.e. no denomination) you're in an even worse situation. Are you saying that the only "real Christian" are the ones whose views on every point of Christian doctrine are identical to yours? Since when do you have the right to determine who's the genuine article and who's the fraud?

By the way, for somebody who thinks this thread is pointless, you've sure wasted a lot of your valuable time voicing your opinion, don't you think?

 

[SoyLeche]

I actually use the Encyclopedia of Mormonism far more often than I use some of the 19th century publications anti-Mormons are so fond of quoting. While the EoM cannot be considered "official doctrine," it does, as you say, quote statements from LDS General Authorities and, more importantly, makes a point of explaining them in the context in which we interpret them. To me, they're far more reliable than most of what is used to backup the LDS perspective. The articles are all short, well-researched and probably about as authoritative as anything else available. Of course, it goes without saying, that on doctrinal matters, the final source of appeal will always be the Standard Works. It doesn't matter who said what, if it contradicts anything in the Standard Works, it's one man's opinion and nothing more.

Interesting side note: I don't remember where I heard this, but apparently the guy that wrote the article on "Baptism for the Dead" in the EoM was not a member of the church. He had been asked to write it, and turned down the offer because he was not a member. When he read what was later written, though, he thought that our position on that topic was stronger than the article let on, so he rewrote it. Like I said, I don't remember where I heard that, so it may just be a Mormon legend.

 

[No*s]

Alright, I'm am going to have a comentary on the Athanasian Creed bit by bit, because A_E said that I couldn't find anything to contradict the creeds. Here we go. The Athanasian Creed is in bold

For my part, I had to relinquish that point, but I can still defend what correlates to the Orthodox faith (and I apologize for being tardy, but they worked me very late yesterday, so I was too tired).

1. "Whosoever wishes to be saved must, above all, keep the Catholic faith."-Matthew 24:13 "But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved." Everyone that endures to the end w/ the knowledge of the gospel they have, can be saved.

No, that is not so. In Matthew 25, many of those to whom Christ said "I never knew you" believed in Christ, else why would they wait for the bridegroom, perform miracles, etc.? The "knowledge of the gospel" is not sufficient in and of itself. Right there, a lack of works disqualified those who believed. Christ, further, stated that nobody who doesn't eat from His flesh and drink His blood can inherit eternal life (Jn. 6.53). Without a valid Eucharist, it is well-nigh impossible to acheive salvation here, and this is a separate disqualifying attribute from compassion: Christ made no exemption for ones who work compassion but have not the Eucharist. The Apostle Paul admonished us to take heed lest we fall and to work out our salvation with fear and trembling (I Cor. 10.12 and Phil. 2.12). In I John 2.19, the Apostle explains that the schismatics he is speaking against went out from them because they weren't from them, and the physical division was necessary for God to show this. I could multiply such passages, but they amount to a very Catholic view of the importance of the Church: the physical assembly is the Body of Christ, and we need union with it for union with Christ.

2. "For unless a person keeps this faith whole and entire, he will undoubtedly be lost forever." No one is perfect. Anyone that tries his best and repents to God will have salvation.

I suggest, then, that you read the passages that say things like "no good tree can bear bad fruit and no bad tree can bear good fruit" and "be ye perfect even as your Father in heaven is perfect" in the same light. The same hermaneutic that allows for human failings applies here as well: God accounts for our errors.

3. "This is what the catholic faith teaches: we worship one God in the Trinity and the Trinity in unity." The Godhead is one in purpose, not body. Acts 7:56 "And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God." How can Christ stand at the right had of Himself? 1 Peter 3:22 "Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him." Again Christ is at the right hand of God. John 17:3 " And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." Know God and Christ? Two different people.

Not all passages need be interpreted overliterally. You must do so with Isaiah, who says "Thus says LORD, thy Redeemer, and he who formed thee from the womb: I am LORD, who makes all things, who stretches forth the heavens alone, who spreads abroad the earth (who is with me?)" (Is. 44.24) and "ll things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." (Jn. 1.3). The "him" is Christ, the Logos. If one uses the hermeneutic above to interpret these, they are irreconcilable, but they hold no problem for a Trinitarian. For we believe that the Son is begotten from the Father before all ages, that He is fully God and uncreated. He exists "with" God in that He has all the Father's attributes alongside and is fully one with Him (one God).

Coming to the conclusion of "two different people" is no problem: The Trinity is defined as one being with three Persons, not simply revealed in three Persons. The Son is not the Father, and the Father not the Son, but they are both the same God.

4. "Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the substance." God is all powerful. He can confound the Persons, and divide the substance.

This says nothing at all about God "confounding the Persons, nor dividing the substance." It refers solely to the person: Nobody is to confuse the Persons as though it was one Person, Who revealed Himself in three modes, as occurred in Sabellianism. Nor is anyone to "divide the substance," that is to say that Christ and God are two separate beings, either in polytheism or in making Christ a created being. "Substance" is from the Latin word substantia, which here means nature and not material; it is the Latin equivilent of the Greek ousia.

5. "For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit." Yeah, I know. I've been trying to tell you that all along. I thought it just said that they're all one?

One God existing forever in Three Persons, all without beginning and without end. The Father has no body, neither does the Spirit (they are, after all, spirits). The unity is one of nature, not of body, nor simply of prupose.

6. "But the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit have one divinity, equal glory, and coeternal majesty. What the Father is, the Son is, and the Holy Spirit is." Refer to #3. Again, one in purpose, not body.

No, not in body, but also not simply in purpose. This specifically refers to their nature (substance, ousia). To confess this, you must confess that they are one God. Notice that in reading "purpose," you are reading a concept into the early creeds for union that directly contramands their terminology. The union goes far deeper than purpose.

***continued I needed to split the response into two parts

 

[No*s]

****Continued

7."The Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated, and the Holy Spirit is uncreated." So an uncreated being created the world? An uncreated being also atoned for our sins. Don't need scripture to back this up. All you need is common sense.

By all means, use Scripture to back it up in a way that the Creeds cannot handle. I don't believe that it makes any sense any other way. After all, any created being would be part of the universe, and by definition, could not have made the universe (the idea behind "world" in the texts; the ancients had no conept of planets as we do).

8. "The Father is boundless, the Son is boundless, and the Holy Spirit is boundless. The Father is eternal, the Son is eternal, and the Holy Spirit is eternal." Ok, I can agree w/ this.

I thought you just said that the Son being "uncreated" contradicted common sense. Anything that is created is not eternal. It has a beginning. Nothing that is created is boundless, for it is always contained. The Son, to be both eternal and endless, must be uncreated.

9."Nevertheless, there are not three eternal beings, but one eternal being. So there are not three uncreated beings, nor three boundless beings, but one uncreated being and one boundless being." Dang, it was doing good. Refer to #3.

Indeed, refer back to my comments on one nature and three persons.

10. "Likewise, the Father is omnipotent, the Son is omnipotent, the Holy Spirit is omnipotent." Yea, something good again.

Omnipotent refers to having "all power." If the Son is omnipotent, then He is also self-sufficient and all other beings are dependent on Him: He must be the one God, nothing less. If there is one being, then all created beings derive their power from Him, because the one with all power furnishes their power. Conceding omnipotence, again, requires conceding to Christ and the Spirit the status of being the one God. The terminology is very technical and intended to disallow accepting Christ and the Spirit under any circumstance except as the One God.

11. "Yet there are not three omnipotent beings, but one omnipotent being. Thus the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. However, there are not three gods, but one God. The Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and the Holy Spirit is Lord. However, there as not three lords, but one Lord." Why does religion have to be that complicated. Refer to #3.

You didn't address the issue in point #3. I believe you misunderstood it.

12. "For as we are obliged by Christian truth to acknowledge every Person singly to be God and Lord, so too are we forbidden by the Catholic religion to say that there are three Gods or Lords." Ahhh...They're all one but not??? This is easy-refer to #3.

If it was this easy to stomp down Trinitarianism, then Arius, Macedonius, Sabellius, and the others would have easily defeated it. Most of the heretics were brilliant men, skilled in philosophy and rhetoric, but they failed in their purpose and even had to go start their own groups and churches to maintain their faith or face extinction. It must, therefore, not be "easy."

13. "The Father was not made, nor created, nor generated by anyone. The Son is not made, nor created, but begotten by the Father alone. The Holy Spirit is not made, nor created, nor generated, but proceeds from the Father and the Son." Matthew 1:16 "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." Mary begat Christ too.

Orthodoxy has qualms with the "proceeds from the Father and Son" clause; this arose later in Latin theology (this clause showing that the Athanasian Creed is not truly Athanasian). However, you must understand their statement in light of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed these authors confessed also: that Christ is "begotten, not created, being of one essence with the Father."

14. "There is, then, one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three sons; one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits." Duhh.

Yes, indeed.

15. "In this Trinity, there is nothing before or after, nothing greater or less. The entire three Persons are coeternal and coequal with one another." Uhhh...yeah, sort of. They are coeternal, but not 1 being-refer to #3.

See above.

I'm going to skip some stuff, because I'm running out of time. I'll just hit the high points

16. "It is also necessary for eternal salvation that he believes steadfastly in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ." Incarnated from what? Are they talking about the resurrection. I didn't think that Catholics believed in incarnation.

The Incarnation is a technical term referring to the "enfleshment" of Christ (a literal English translation): Christ, God, became fully human, taking His flesh from Mary in a miraculous virginal coneption, that is, one completely without sexual intercourse.

17. "Thus the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is both God and man." Again, that's what I was trying to tell you. Christ is the Son of God not God Himself.

You have not been trying to say what this Creed says here. This Creed says that Christ is God in the sense that He created all things, is without beginning and end, holds all power so that all existence is deriviative of Him, and one of the Persons of the one true God. You contradict this in the post I quote, and thus, contradict the intention of this passage.

18. "This is the catholic faith. Everyone must believe it, firmly and steadfastly; otherwise He cannot be saved. Amen." Are you kidding me? Everyone that's not Catholic is going to Hell? Refer to #1 and 2.

Yes. The issue is more complicated than it seems. After all, Christ founded a Body built on Apostles and Prophets, and to be one with Christ is to be one with that Body. The LDS were founded by Joseph Smith in the ninetenth century. Christ's Body must be two thousand years old.

That's all folks! Can't wait to get responces to this one.

Ask and ye shall receive .

As a closing statement, I don't think you understand the concept of the Trinity (its wording; nobody truly grasps God's nature). Some of your objections...simply don't address the Trinity (Substance being equated with Body being one of them). Reread the creed (or better, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed) with the definitions I gave.

 

[jeffrey]

****Continued



By all means, use Scripture to back it up in a way that the Creeds cannot handle. I don't believe that it makes any sense any other way. After all, any created being would be part of the universe, and by definition, could not have made the universe (the idea behind "world" in the texts; the ancients had no conept of planets as we do).



I thought you just said that the Son being "uncreated" contradicted common sense. Anything that is created is not eternal. It has a beginning. Nothing that is created is boundless, for it is always contained. The Son, to be both eternal and endless, must be uncreated.



Indeed, refer back to my comments on one nature and three persons.



Omnipotent refers to having "all power." If the Son is omnipotent, then He is also self-sufficient and all other beings are dependent on Him: He must be the one God, nothing less. If there is one being, then all created beings derive their power from Him, because the one with all power furnishes their power. Conceding omnipotence, again, requires conceding to Christ and the Spirit the status of being the one God. The terminology is very technical and intended to disallow accepting Christ and the Spirit under any circumstance except as the One God.



You didn't address the issue in point #3. I believe you misunderstood it.



If it was this easy to stomp down Trinitarianism, then Arius, Macedonius, Sabellius, and the others would have easily defeated it. Most of the heretics were brilliant men, skilled in philosophy and rhetoric, but they failed in their purpose and even had to go start their own groups and churches to maintain their faith or face extinction. It must, therefore, not be "easy."



Orthodoxy has qualms with the "proceeds from the Father and Son" clause; this arose later in Latin theology (this clause showing that the Athanasian Creed is not truly Athanasian). However, you must understand their statement in light of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed these authors confessed also: that Christ is "begotten, not created, being of one essence with the Father."



Yes, indeed.



See above.



The Incarnation is a technical term referring to the "enfleshment" of Christ (a literal English translation): Christ, God, became fully human, taking His flesh from Mary in a miraculous virginal coneption, that is, one completely without sexual intercourse.



You have not been trying to say what this Creed says here. This Creed says that Christ is God in the sense that He created all things, is without beginning and end, holds all power so that all existence is deriviative of Him, and one of the Persons of the one true God. You contradict this in the post I quote, and thus, contradict the intention of this passage.



Yes. The issue is more complicated than it seems. After all, Christ founded a Body built on Apostles and Prophets, and to be one with Christ is to be one with that Body. The LDS were founded by Joseph Smith in the ninetenth century. Christ's Body must be two thousand years old.



Ask and ye shall receive .

As a closing statement, I don't think you understand the concept of the Trinity (its wording; nobody truly grasps God's nature). Some of your objections...simply don't address the Trinity (Substance being equated with Body being one of them). Reread the creed (or better, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed) with the definitions I gave.

Most excellent post. Frubals to you, sir!

 

[Squirt]

Interesting side note: I don't remember where I heard this, but apparently the guy that wrote the article on "Baptism for the Dead" in the EoM was not a member of the church. He had been asked to write it, and turned down the offer because he was not a member. When he read what was later written, though, he thought that our position on that topic was stronger than the article let on, so he rewrote it. Like I said, I don't remember where I heard that, so it may just be a Mormon legend.

No, this is not just a "Mormon legend." The article was written by Krister Stendahl, Lutheran Bishop of Stockholm and the former dean of Harvard Divinity School. In his "Easier than Research, More Inflammatory than Truth," Daniel Peterson said this:

You may remember his [Stendahl'] article in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism. In fact, there is a story behind that, which I also got from Truman Madsen. He first approached Stendahl and asked him would he be willing to write an article for the Encyclopedia of Mormonism about baptism for the dead in ancient Christianity. Stendahl said "No." Truman re-approached him and said, "We'd really like to have you involved. Would it be possible, could I maybe write an article on the subject, just a brief little thing, and send it to you and you just make any changes you want to and you can put your name on it?" Stendahl said, "Oh, all right, send me an article."

When Truman wrote the thing up and sent it to him, Stendahl immediately fired back and said, "This is a terrible article; it's not nearly strong enough; your case is much better than you are letting on; don't be so reticent," and wrote the article you now see in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, which is a quite positive thing saying, "Look, the consensus of all informed biblical exegetes is that early Christians did practice baptism for the dead and it was a rite essentially as the Mormons describe it." He didn't say he thought it was right or anything like that, but that the historical evidence was that it was practiced. And he said if it weren't for theological problems that people have with the whole idea, they would all recognize that that's exactly what the text says.