Always Singular God Plural Persons

[_maklelan]

Nothing you have presented changes my premise that it is the vast difference between Mormon theology and the theology accepted by the majority of Christian churches that is responsible for the perception that the Mormon Church is not a Christian church. I repeat, that is the premise of my original post.

I understand your premise. What I am challenging is the assertion you've repeatedly made that that perception is the majority view. It is not. It is the view of a minority of mainstream Christianity, and particularly the more sectarian segments of each denomination. This has been my point for some time now as well, and you've been unable to do anything but insist the people who accept Mormonism as Christian just don't know enough about it, as if that magically makes your claim true.

If you would actually put forward any kind of argument for what theological tenets determine identity as a Christian I would be more than happy to challenge that as well, since it cannot be based on anything but begging the question and misrepresentation. However, you appear unwilling or unable to show me just where you put the threshold of theological disparity for identification as a Christian. You have only insisted that there's a difference, and because of that difference, some Christians don't believe Mormons are Christians. That's not particularly groundbreaking.

[_Albion]

I am using as my definition those doctrines essential to Christian salvation as espoused traditionally by the collective church. However, since you are the one pressing the discussion perhaps it would be easier if you were to declare why you think that the Mormon Church shares any kind of spiritual communion with that collective church.

[_maklelan]

I am using as my definition those doctrines essential to Christian salvation as espoused traditionally by the collective church.

Which would mean, by your definition, there were no Christians until around the time of Nicea.

However, since you are the one pressing the discussion perhaps it would be easier if you were to declare why you think that the Mormon Church shares any kind of spiritual communion with that collective church.

Since the New Testament, Christians have been fundamentally defined by a belief that Jesus is the Son of God and the Savior of humanity. Other additions to, or elaborations on, this did not exist until after the apologists of the second century CE intellectualized the gospel for the sake of proselytization among the Greco-Roman intelligentsia. Current Evangelical attempts to draw lines of exclusion around Christianity focus primarily on ideologies that did not exist until many centuries after the death of Christ.

[_Mittens]

I am using as my definition those doctrines essential to Christian salvation as espoused traditionally by the collective church.

Which would mean, by your definition, there were no Christians until around the time of Nicea.

However, since you are the one pressing the discussion perhaps it would be easier if you were to declare why you think that the Mormon Church shares any kind of spiritual communion with that collective church.

Since the New Testament, Christians have been fundamentally defined by a belief that Jesus is the Son of God and the Savior of humanity. Other additions to, or elaborations on, this did not exist until after the apologists of the second century CE intellectualized the gospel for the sake of proselytization among the Greco-Roman intelligentsia. Current Evangelical attempts to draw lines of exclusion around Christianity focus primarily on ideologies that did not exist until many centuries after the death of Christ.

There is plenty of Christian writers in first century like Didache and Clement of Rome { A.D. 75 } and Hermas { A.D. 78-85 } teaching the Trinity. 2nd century Ignatius { A.D. 110-120 } Justin Martr { A.D. 114-168 } Irenaeus [ A.D. 115-190 } a disciple of Polycarp. Theophilus { A.D. 116-181 } said” In like manner also the three days which were luminaries, are types of the Trinity, of God, and his Word, and his wisdom.” 3rd century we have Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Novatian, etc. all these Church leaders taught the Trinity, way before the Creeds were developed

[_Mittens]

The Iceberg Principle is the reason Christians know little about Mormonism, Mormons try to conceal there theology

Public Relation message of Mormonism is designed to attract the general public by offering "everlasting happiness and fulfillment." Then the missionaries are sent to ask, "do you want to know more about the gospel of Jesus Christ?" But just as the iceberg is about 10% visible to the eye, so the Mormon missionary lessons represent only a small, visible part of Mormon doctrine.
The missionary stratagem of withholding information is exposed by quoting page 9 of the "stake mission handbook" published by the Mormons:
"The standard missionary discussions, when they are taught by the spirit, lead investigators carefully and systematically to a knowledge of these truths. Other portions of the gospel should generally be left to instruction and study after baptism. The Lord has instructed ,'And of tenets thou shall not talk, but thou shalt declare repentance and faith on the Savior, and remission of sins by baptism, and by fire, yea , even the Holy Ghost' ( Doctrine and Covenants 19:31 )
It is evident that Mormon authorities are commanding an inadequate representation of Mormonism by intentional concealment of their beliefs. this designed omission acts as a virtual fraud on the individual, manipulating then into the waters of baptism and membership into Mormonism. Mormon authorities feel justified in this deception because they believe they are "legal administrators" of the "only true church on the face of the earth" and, therefore, know what is best for all mankind.
After baptism, new members are scheduled into investigators' Sunday School class where the lessions are carefully presented. In this "Intial Indoctrination" phase they are taken through the "gospel Principle Manual." Mormon doctrine is explained in Christian-sounding words and phrases; differences in perspective are introduced gradually. When local LDS authorities decide they are ready,new members are moved into regular where they study "Doctrines in the Curriculum" from standard lesson manuals published at Mormon headquarters. Teachers are admonished not to deviate from lesson manuals or supplement with outside materials.
Within the first year most members will begin preparations to go to the temple. Now they are moved into a "temple preparation class" where emphasis is the doctrine of eternal progression and living the gospel law. Brief statements made about temple endowments include the same scanty information that is available to the public.. After a worthiness interview, Mormons go the temple to be sealed for time and all eternity.
Joseph Smith Jr. claimed that God reveals the "Deep and Hidden Mysteries of the Kingdom" in the temple ceremonies. In these rituals, patrons are bombarded with symbolism, rites, gestures, and a variety of stimuli which are entirely out of context with any religious experience they have heretofore known. They are assured that everything is uplifting and that their understanding of temple ritual will increase through participation and indirect proportion to their level of personal righteousness. Only the very inquisitive ever read the wide variety of historical data and revealing doctrinal statements written by earlier Mormon leaders. These "obscure Doctrines" are often dismissed with the statement, "The voice of the living prophet is more important to us than the voice of a dead prophet." Understanding varies from person to person depending on their level of personal study and exposure. This is true, even among those in leadership positions.
"end justifies the means" mentioned earlier psychology- an idea that all men must be led ' into the kingdom' gently, as they are ready. Mormons are taught to justify this practice with two scriptures: "line upon line, precept upon precept" (Isa. 28:10,18) and the concept of "milk to meat" ( 1 Peter 2:2; Heb 5:12) This interpretation is not scriptural. Jesus said there is nothing hidden (Matt. 10:26): but we gain understanding line upon line, as we are enabled by the Spirit to comprehend what has revealed.
The Lord said, "I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth... (Isa 45:19) Deep and hidden things need to be brought to the light of God's word. ( 1 Cor 4:5; Eph 5:8)

page 8 Understanding Mormonism Sandra and Conrad Sundholm


As a Mormon, accepting the gospel can be like trying to assemble an intricate jigsaw puzzle. An attractive picture with much attention to detail is glued to the surface. Because great numbers of small pieces are carved out of the whole, re-assembling them is difficult. Some of the pieces must be manipulated, others placed just-so, before the picture can begin to take form again. But piece or two pops out of position. It is so difficult that you let it lie and wait until to try and figure it out. It never occurs to you that, if you turn the puzzle over, there is another picture on the back - one you had not been aware of. If you decide to go through the agony of turning it all over section by section - sometimes piece by piece-you can now match colors and shapes. It is possible to use some of the pieces with beautiful picture; but it is alarming to find that you must use many of the pieces with dark, ugly. Symbolism. Strange unfamiliar images begin to emerge. It is devastating to find that the beautiful picture on the front was only a facade: in actuality, the puzzle only fits with both light and dark pieces. This is the over-whelming experence of a Mormon who discovers they have mixed truth with error and in so, have believed a lie.

appendix 1 Understanding Mormonism Sandra and Conrad Sundholm

http://sacredgrovesonline.org/videos/un ... _grace.htm

True that's why Our Prophet, Priest an Apostle is accessible to us every second

Hebrews 1

1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son,

Hebrews 3

1 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;

[_maklelan]

The Iceberg Principle is the reason Christians know little about Mormonism, Mormons try to conceal there theology

Public Relation message of Mormonism is designed to attract the general public by offering "everlasting happiness and fulfillment." Then the missionaries are sent to ask, "do you want to know more about the gospel of Jesus Christ?" But just as the iceberg is about 10% visible to the eye, so the Mormon missionary lessons represent only a small, visible part of Mormon doctrine.

As far as actual doctrine goes, it covers all the bases. As far as traditions and history goes, I don't think you really want missionaries teaching four-year courses on the church.

The missionary stratagem of withholding information is exposed by quoting page 9 of the "stake mission handbook" published by the Mormons:
"The standard missionary discussions, when they are taught by the spirit, lead investigators carefully and systematically to a knowledge of these truths. Other portions of the gospel should generally be left to instruction and study after baptism. The Lord has instructed ,'And of tenets thou shall not talk, but thou shalt declare repentance and faith on the Savior, and remission of sins by baptism, and by fire, yea , even the Holy Ghost' ( Doctrine and Covenants 19:31 )
It is evident that Mormon authorities are commanding an inadequate representation of Mormonism by intentional concealment of their beliefs. this designed omission acts as a virtual fraud on the individual, manipulating then into the waters of baptism and membership into Mormonism. Mormon authorities feel justified in this deception because they believe they are "legal administrators" of the "only true church on the face of the earth" and, therefore, know what is best for all mankind.

A rathe goofy mischaracterization of the Church and its motivations, but could you give an example of the kind of "portions of the gospel" that will never hear about during missionary discussions that concerns you?

After baptism, new members are scheduled into investigators' Sunday School class where the lessions are carefully presented. In this "Intial Indoctrination" phase they are taken through the "gospel Principle Manual."

Way to put "intial [sic] indoctrination" in scare quotes, as if to suggest it's a technical term that we use to describe an actual formal process.

Mormon doctrine is explained in Christian-sounding words and phrases;

'Cuz we never use those words and phrases ourselves.

differences in perspective are introduced gradually. When local LDS authorities decide they are ready,new members are moved into regular where they study "Doctrines in the Curriculum" from standard lesson manuals published at Mormon headquarters. Teachers are admonished not to deviate from lesson manuals or supplement with outside materials.

You think the Church's slavish reliance on correlated teaching material is in an effort not to disclose doctrine at the wrong time? Oh, good grief, you really haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about.

Within the first year most members will begin preparations to go to the temple. Now they are moved into a "temple preparation class" where emphasis is the doctrine of eternal progression and living the gospel law. Brief statements made about temple endowments include the same scanty information that is available to the public.. After a worthiness interview, Mormons go the temple to be sealed for time and all eternity.
Joseph Smith Jr. claimed that God reveals the "Deep and Hidden Mysteries of the Kingdom" in the temple ceremonies. In these rituals, patrons are bombarded with symbolism, rites, gestures, and a variety of stimuli which are entirely out of context with any religious experience they have heretofore known. They are assured that everything is uplifting and that their understanding of temple ritual will increase through participation and indirect proportion to their level of personal righteousness. Only the very inquisitive ever read the wide variety of historical data and revealing doctrinal statements written by earlier Mormon leaders. These "obscure Doctrines" are often dismissed with the statement, "The voice of the living prophet is more important to us than the voice of a dead prophet." Understanding varies from person to person depending on their level of personal study and exposure. This is true, even among those in leadership positions.

Could you give examples of these "obscure Doctrines"?

"end justifies the means" mentioned earlier psychology- an idea that all men must be led ' into the kingdom' gently, as they are ready. Mormons are taught to justify this practice with two scriptures: "line upon line, precept upon precept" (Isa. 28:10,18) and the concept of "milk to meat" ( 1 Peter 2:2; Heb 5:12) This interpretation is not scriptural. Jesus said there is nothing hidden (Matt. 10:26):

Except for all the times he told people not to tell anyone else about this or that event until he said it was ok.

but we gain understanding line upon line, as we are enabled by the Spirit to comprehend what has revealed.
The Lord said, "I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth... (Isa 45:19) Deep and hidden things need to be brought to the light of God's word. ( 1 Cor 4:5; Eph 5:8)

page 8 Understanding Mormonism Sandra and Conrad Sundholm

As a Mormon, accepting the gospel can be like trying to assemble an intricate jigsaw puzzle. An attractive picture with much attention to detail is glued to the surface. Because great numbers of small pieces are carved out of the whole, re-assembling them is difficult. Some of the pieces must be manipulated, others placed just-so, before the picture can begin to take form again. But piece or two pops out of position. It is so difficult that you let it lie and wait until to try and figure it out. It never occurs to you that, if you turn the puzzle over, there is another picture on the back - one you had not been aware of. If you decide to go through the agony of turning it all over section by section - sometimes piece by piece-you can now match colors and shapes. It is possible to use some of the pieces with beautiful picture; but it is alarming to find that you must use many of the pieces with dark, ugly. Symbolism. Strange unfamiliar images begin to emerge. It is devastating to find that the beautiful picture on the front was only a façade: in actuality, the puzzle only fits with both light and dark pieces. This is the over-whelming experence of a Mormon who discovers they have mixed truth with error and in so, have believed a lie.

appendix 1 Understanding Mormonism Sandra and Conrad Sundholm

http://sacredgrovesonline.org/videos/un ... _grace.htm

True that's why Our Prophet, Priest an Apostle is accessible to us every second

Hebrews 1

1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son,

Hebrews 3

1 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;

A very convoluted and awkward attempt to present what might have otherwise been an interesting point.

[_maklelan]

There is plenty of Christian writers in first century like Didache and Clement of Rome { A.D. 75 } and Hermas { A.D. 78-85 } teaching the Trinity.

Chapter and verse, please.

2nd century Ignatius { A.D. 110-120 }

Chapter and verse, please.

Justin Martr { A.D. 114-168 }

Actually Martyr calls Jesus "another god" (Dialogue 56) and he nowhere promotes anything trinitarian in his writings.

Irenaeus [ A.D. 115-190 } a disciple of Polycarp.

Chapter and verse, please.

Theophilus { A.D. 116-181 } said” In like manner also the three days which were luminaries, are types of the Trinity, of God, and his Word, and his wisdom.”

Just the word "trinity" doesn't get the job done, and you'll notice Jesus is always identified as God's wisdom by early Christians, so "God, his Word, and his Wisdom" is not the trinity. You'll notice Theophilus also repeats the formula as "God, the Word, Wisdom, man."

3rd century we have Tertullian,

Who was a subordinationist. Don't know if you remember, but that was explicitly and vehemently rejected by the actual trinitarian creeds.

Hippolytus,

Now we're getting a little closer, but this is still emanation, not trinitarianism. His ideas were closer to middle Platonism than to Nicea.

Origen,

Yes, good old Origen, who was anathemized and whose teachings were universally condemned by the church.

Novatian, etc. all these Church leaders taught the Trinity, way before the Creeds were developed

I think you need to go reread those authors. Just using the word "trinity" doesn't really mean much. The word meant different things at different times. After all, the church fathers condemned the use of the term homoousios as heretical only a century before it was institutionalized in the Nicean Creed.

[_LittleNipper]

God is Triune and the proof is the Lord Jesus Christ. This revelation is the thrust of the New Testament

"He is the head of the church, and He is the beginning, the first-born from the dead; so that He Himself might come to have first place in everything." (Colossians 1:18).

The word "first-born" does not necessarily refer to chronology at all. Those who insist that the phrase "first-born of all creation" means that Jesus was chronologically the first being God created need to reconsider how this word is used. For example, does the phrase "first-born from the dead" mean that Jesus was the first one to be raised from the dead? Obviously not, because Jesus Himself had raised Lazarus; the widow's son; Jairus' daughter and others before He Himself was raised.

The passage above tells us the true meaning of "first-born". It is a term used to convey pre-eminence. Being "the first-born of all creation" means that Jesus is above all creation, not that He was created first, just as His being "first-born from the dead" does not mean He was raised first chronologically.

We can find other examples which show us this same principle as well. God said concerning David, "I also shall make him my first-born, the highest of the kings of the earth." (Psalm 89:27). In what sense was David made God's "first-born"? Not in the sense that He was born before his brothers. The Scriptures are quite plain that David had older brothers. Nor was this just an indication of God's intention to make sure all the other kings of the earth were born after David. But, as the Psalm itself states, it was an announcement of God's intention to exalt David higher than all the kings of the earth.

When the text says that Jesus is "the first-born of all creation" it means that He is above all creation; that He is God's beloved. Reading the context bears this out as well. The context shows conclusively that the Son was not created, but rather was Himself the Creator of all things: "For by Him were all things created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities - all things were created by Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together." (Colossians 1:16-18).

And then comes an added clincher; "For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him" (Colossians 1:19). All the fullness of Deity dwelt in Jesus. Jesus was nothing less than God in the flesh. There was nothing lacking in the Deity of Christ. Nothing at all.

[_maklelan]

God is Triune and the proof is the Lord Jesus Christ. This revelation is the thrust of the New Testament

No, that Jesus is the Son of God and Savior of the world is the thrust of the New Testament.

"He is the head of the church, and He is the beginning, the first-born from the dead; so that He Himself might come to have first place in everything." (Colossians 1:18).

The word "first-born" does not necessarily refer to chronology at all. Those who insist that the phrase "first-born of all creation" means that Jesus was chronologically the first being God created need to reconsider how this word is used. For example, does the phrase "first-born from the dead" mean that Jesus was the first one to be raised from the dead? Obviously not, because Jesus Himself had raised Lazarus; the widow's son; Jairus' daughter and others before He Himself was raised.

The passage above tells us the true meaning of "first-born". It is a term used to convey pre-eminence. Being "the first-born of all creation" means that Jesus is above all creation, not that He was created first, just as His being "first-born from the dead" does not mean He was raised first chronologically.

We can find other examples which show us this same principle as well. God said concerning David, "I also shall make him my first-born, the highest of the kings of the earth." (Psalm 89:27). In what sense was David made God's "first-born"? Not in the sense that He was born before his brothers. The Scriptures are quite plain that David had older brothers. Nor was this just an indication of God's intention to make sure all the other kings of the earth were born after David. But, as the Psalm itself states, it was an announcement of God's intention to exalt David higher than all the kings of the earth.

When the text says that Jesus is "the first-born of all creation" it means that He is above all creation; that He is God's beloved. Reading the context bears this out as well. The context shows conclusively that the Son was not created, but rather was Himself the Creator of all things: "For by Him were all things created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities - all things were created by Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together." (Colossians 1:16-18).

And then comes an added clincher; "For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him" (Colossians 1:19). All the fullness of Deity dwelt in Jesus. Jesus was nothing less than God in the flesh. There was nothing lacking in the Deity of Christ. Nothing at all.

See my reply to this copied and pasted post here.

[_Mittens]

E. Calvin Beisner

God in Three Persons

The Christian Church throughout history has found in order to remain faithful to the teachings of the New Testament regarding the person and work of Christ, it had to affirm at least the following doctrines:
The doctrine of the Trinity----that in the nature of the One True God, there are three distinct persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, each fully God, Coequal and Coeternal
The doctrine of the incarnation----- that the Son of God, the Word ( John 1:1 ) became man ( John ; Rom. 1:3 ) uniting in the single person of the Son two distinct and complete natures, diety and humanity.
The sinless of Christ---- that he lived as the perfect man to fulfill God’s plan for all humanity. ( Heb 2:6-18; 4:14, 15 )
The sacrificial death of Christ---- to atone for sins of all men ( 1 John 2:2; 1 Peter 2:; Matt 20:28; 1 Cor 6:20 )
The resurrection of Christ---- that after his death, Christ rose bodily from the grave, showing his triumph over sin and death, as the first fruit, and hence the promise, of resurrection to all who have faith in him ( 1 ; Rom 6:3-11 )
Salvation by Grace through Faith--- that justification before God, and hence salvation from punishment and life with God, are available only as a gift from God through faith in Jesus Christ ( John 14:6; 3:16 Acts 4:10; John 8:24 ) pp 19-20
When we have said these three things, then—that there is but one God, that the Father and the Son and the Spirit is each a distinct person—we have enunciated the doctrine of the Trinity in its completeness.
We may condense this into a somewhat shorter statement, one which is more precise: In the nature of the God, there are three distinct persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit ( or substance ) of the one true God, there are three distinct persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit p 24

“The Nicene Creed, then, with centuries of theological discussion and controversy behind it, still teaches of the Trinity as the New Testament does: that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, while distinct from each other personally, are the same God” p 153

More excerpts from Calvin Beisner’s book “God in three Persons”

It is this relation of Christ to the Father and the Spirit which Dr John Robinson takes as one of the strong-est indications of triunity in the Godhead:
At the Incarnation… the Godhead is revealed for the first time as existing in three distinct relationships. It is these differences of relation that make necessary a doctrine of the Trinity, not differences of “character” or modes working. The Old Testament, too knew God in different “characters” but it was not forced to a Trinity Theology…We cannot begin with God creating, God redeeming, God sanctifying, or any such collection of attributes, and proceed to identify these with Father, Son, and Holy Spirit…Rather, one must start with the three Persons, no more and no less, which are required by the three relations at the Incarnation
When we have said these three things, then---that there is but one God, that the Father and the son and the spirit is each God, that the Father and the Son and the Spirit is each a distinct person---We have enunciated the doctrine of the Trinity in its completeness.
God in Three Persons
Page 40

Perhaps the most famous Trinitarian reference from the second century is the statement of Theophilus [ 116-181], another writer who is only shortly removed from the last of the apostles. His is the first use of the word “trinity” in Christian literature which is extant:
In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity, of God, and His Word, and His Wisdoms.” Vol 2 pp 100 101 Epistles to Autolycus,II WV
Page 53

The concept of Trinity in unity, three distinct persons who are the one God, is then firmly entrenched in Christian thought by the middle to second century
Page 54

Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three Co-herent 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 “ in respect of unity of substance, not singularity of number. Roberts and Donaldson, anti-Nicene Fathers Vol. 3, p. 621, against Praxeas, xxv
Page 57 God in three Persons

Conclusion
The New Testament teaches us that there is one God and that this God is three distinct persons, the Father the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and that these persons are co-equal and co-eternal. This is also the only possible interpretation of the Nicene Creed as it was intended by its authors. Therefore, the doctrine of the Trinity as taught in the Nicene Creed is an accurate representation of the teachings of the New Testament” pp 155-156
E. Calvin Beisner
God in Three Persons