LDS defend the faith as Christian

The Salt Lake Tribune ^ | 10/07/07 | By Peggy Fletcher Stack

[colorcountry]

Not only is Mormonism a Christian faith, it is the truest form of Christianity, said speaker after speaker on the first day of the 177th Semiannual LDS General Conference. LDS authorities were responding to the allegation that Mormonism isn't part of Christianity. Made by different mainline Protestant and Catholic churches and repeated constantly during coverage of Mitt Romney's presidential campaign, the claim is based on Mormonism's beliefs about God, its rejection of ancient ideas about the Trinity still widely accepted, and the LDS Church's extra-biblical scriptures. "It is not our purpose to demean any person's belief nor the doctrine of any religion," said Apostle Jeffrey R. Holland in the afternoon session. "But if one says we are not Christians because we do not hold a fourth- or fifth-century view of the Godhead, then what of those first [Christians], many of whom were eye-witnesses of the living Christ, who did not hold such a view either?"

{snip}

The day's sermons included many familiar themes, including the importance of faith, the need for pure thoughts and actions, avoiding pornography reaching out to neighbors and eliminating spiritual procrastination. Hinckley talked about the destructive nature of anger in marriages, on the road, and in life, urging Mormons to "control your tempers, to put a smile upon your faces, which will erase anger; speak with words of love and peace, appreciation and respect."

[Missey_Lucy_Goosey]

We’ve had some interesting discussions here re: whether man can become like God.

So? I've seen the Mormon arguments, as well as arguments from many other heretics and cultists many times before.

You’ve joined this late so perhaps this wouldn’t make sense to you.

Please hold your condescending remarks. I have seen these arguments many times before.

This was intended towards those arguments w/ those who have been party to this thread that were involved in those discussions.

I AM part of this thread. You do NOT determine who and who does not participate or respond to the arguments you present from Mormonism, which I am quite famliar with, so please refrain from trying to suppress my freedom!

Do you understand?

[Missey_Lucy_Goosey]

We’ve had some interesting discussions here re: whether man can become like God.

So? I've seen the Mormon arguments, as well as arguments from many other heretics and cultists many times before.

You’ve joined this late so perhaps this wouldn’t make sense to you.

Please hold your condescending remarks. I have seen these arguments many times before.

This was intended towards those arguments w/ those who have been party to this thread that were involved in those discussions.

I AM part of this thread. You do NOT determine who and who does not participate or respond to the arguments you present from Mormonism, which I am quite famliar with, so please refrain from trying to suppress my freedom!

Do you understand?

[Missey_Lucy_Goosey]

OK? So what was the beef w/ the pontiff all about?

I'd already noted that the first post concerning Hippolytus and Noetus.

Hippolytus also was opposing Callixtus I, who was a bishop in Rome and was a Monarchian Modalist like Noetus.

[Scotswife]

“Show me where it states they are three persons in one being of one substance.”

well the first thing that comes to mind is “show where it doesn’t”
The writings are taken as a whole.
They obviously worshipped “one” God, and they also worshipped 3 beings, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Yet they claimed these 3 beings were one God.

There certainly isn’t any proof they believed the Father was a human being/become God.

If they had believed in 3 gods, they would have stated they believed in three gods.
But no, it is consistent - they worshipped “one” God, but considered 3 beings worthy of worshipping as God.

The mormon boys informed me that the faith “died out” upon the death of the last apostle. I presumed they were referring to the Apostle John.
I asked them if they knew who Polycarp was? No. they didn’t.
Ignatius? No. Didn’t know him either.
Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle John.

150 AD Polycarp of Smyrna “I praise you for all things, I bless you, I glorify you, along with the everlasting and heavenly Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, with whom, to you and the Holy Spirit, be glory both now and to all coming ages. Amen” (Martyrdom of Polycarp 14).

[Missey_Lucy_Goosey]

“ranking” does not claim being separate in the godhead.

"Ranking" or as the Eastern Orthodox say, "procession", has nothing to do with the ontological Nature of God's Divine Essence or Being, but rather is speaking to the working of the Three Persons in Creation and Redemption, as speaking to the roles of the Three Persons.

Unfortunately, the Mormons and other heretics cherrypick snippets from early church fathers, taking them out of their greater context, and misapply their own misconceptions to them just as they do the Scriptures.

[Reno232]

Hey, there was no offense intended. I didn’t recall you being a party to those discussions that I was active in. My bad if you were & my sincere apologies. You asked me what that quote was all about, I was therefore giving reference. Where in the world did you get that I was trying to stifle your participation in this thread? I welcome your views & a good hearty debate as others here as long as it doesn’t degrade to the sandbox. BTW, are you from Tennessee?

[Scotswife]

“The very fact that this link ascribes quotes from Hippolytus that were really from Noetus is telling. Hyppolytus was stating his case against Noetus & his views re: trinity.”

I will have to go back and re-examine that in more detail (I’ve got a fussy baby on my lap at the moment, so it may be awhile)

I merely posted the link because you inquired about his possible status as a heretic, so I thought a brief biography would clear up that question.

“Also, they say the apostles were replaced by bishops. originally, the apostles upon their deaths, were replaced by apostles. Who made the edict to replace them w/ bishops, man or God?”

The Apostles were also considered bishops as well as being considered priests.
When they founded churches and administered to that area, they were considered the bishop of that particular region (for ex: it is believed Peter was bishop of Antioch prior to becoming bishop of Rome)
John was an Apostle, but also the bishop of the church as Ephesus.
You can see the first act of succession in the book of Acts when a successor for the office of Judas was conducted.
You can read about the practice of succession in early writings.

[Scotswife]

“”Ranking” or as the Eastern Orthodox say, “procession”, has nothing to do with the ontological Nature of God’s Divine Essence or Being, but rather is speaking to the working of the Three Persons in Creation and Redemption, as speaking to the roles of the Three Persons.”

Yes - that is an eloquent way of stating what I was trying to grasp at.
The three beings have their own “role” to play, which in no way indicates they are 3 separate “gods”, but 3 beings of the same divine substance acting in unison with each other.

[Scotswife]

“In reality, you have it backwards. Noetus and his followers were Modalist heretics, which Hippolytus, the Trinitarian, was opposing.”

Oh. OK. It looks like someone else answered that question already.
Thanks Lucy.

[Missey_Lucy_Goosey]

Hey, there was no offense intended.

Very well.

I didn’t recall you being a party to those discussions that I was active in. My bad if you were & my sincere apologies.

Apology accepted.

You asked me what that quote was all about

I think you are mistaken about that. I was responding to your getting what was going on in the Hippolytus citation backwards.

Where in the world did you get that I was trying to stifle your participation in this thread?

I've already explained that.

I welcome your views & a good hearty debate as others here as long as it doesn’t degrade to the sandbox.

Very well, then you keep yourself from going there and I will keep myself, deal?

BTW, are you from Tennessee?

Sorry, I don't answer personal questions like that as a policy, so don't be offended.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Reno911, 

 

"So tell me Ampu, was Hippolytus a heretic?"

 

Yes, after years of faithful opposition to heresies, he fell for the

opposite and his pride did not allow him to repent. Read below.

"Were his writings on this subject completely nonsensical?"

 

He was right to oppose some heresies and wrong to fall for
others. Unlike Mormonism, which is wrong through and through
on more topics than can be posted here. Nonsensical has nothing

to do with it.

 

Some more on Hippolytus... (from Catholic Encyl.)

"Hippolytus was a presbyter of the Church of Rome at the
beginning of the third century. ...  In the reign of Pope
Zephyrinus (198-217) he came into conflict with that pontiff
and with the majority of the Church of Rome, primarily on

account of the christological opinions which for some time

had been causing controversies in Rome. [...decade after

decade after decade of one new heresey after another.

Mormonism isn't even original to Joseph Smith! He stole

all the earlier heresies and combined them into Mormonism

along with his fanciful tales of early America.]

 

Hippolytus had combated the heresy of Theodotion and the Alogi;

in like fashion he opposed the false doctrines of Noetus,

of Epigonus, of Cleomenes, and of Sabellius, who emphasized

the unity of God too one-sidedly (Monarchians) and saw in the

concepts of the Father and the Son merely manifestations (modi)

of the Divine Nature (Modalism, Sabellianism).

[Hippolytus went so far in combatting these first heresies,

he set himself up for falling for the heresey of Ditheism and

Subordinationism. After arguing so strongly against unity that

didn't allow Personhood, he couldn't come back far enough to

the Biblical balance and find the truth.]

 

Hippolytus, on the contrary, stood uncompromisingly for a real

difference between the Son (Logos) and the Father, but so as to

represent the Former as a Divine Person almost completely separate

from God (Ditheism) and at the same time altogether subordinate

to the Father (Subordinationism). [Mormon Error also - Satan's

Fashion Show always brings back old heresies wrapped up in

something to look fresh.]

 

As the heresy in the doctrine of the Modalists was not at first

clearly apparent, Pope Zephyrinus declined to give a decision.

[It took years and decades to work through every single heresey

to hit the early church. I don't blame him for waiting until it was

sorted out by the larger Church before ruling.]

 

For this Hippolytus gravely censured him, representing him as an

incompetent man, unworthy to rule the Church of Rome and as a

tool in the hands of the ambitious and intriguing deacon Callistus,

whose early life is maliciously depicted (Philosophumena, IX, xi-xii).

[sounds like a Mormon here! His anger didn't allow humility to

restore him to truth. ]

 

Consequently when Callistus was elected pope (217-218) on the

death of Zephyrinus, Hippolytus immediately left the communion

of the Roman Church and had himself elected antipope by his

small band of followers. These he calls the Catholic Church and

himself successor to the Apostles..."

[sounds like Joseph Smith, the Mormon false prophet and

founder - right down to the claim of Apostolic Authority for

himself!]

 

Reno, did you ever get a good systematic theology volume

to help sort through Christian theology? To that, I'd suggest

a very good volume on Church history.

 

Best,

AMPU

[Reno232]

So, at the very least, we can agree that there were differing opinions as to the very nature of the Godhead way back then. Now, what makes the creeds the right interpretation, especially in relation to John 17:22-23 & given the fact that no revelation was claimed for the creeds? They relied on their own wisdom. Are you really willing to base your whole beliefs on THEIR interpretation?

[Grig]

“Firstly, you can cut and paste a huge amount of material like so many do to try to drown an opponent in details all you want,”

It was a factual, well referenced article on the single specific topic we were discussing. It establishes a factual basis for our claims.

“will not deter me from addressing the main points which differentiate Mormonism and counterfeit belief systems from true Biblical Christianity.”

Then address the points in the article, or admit by your avoidance that you can’t.

“You replied: And from my POV, it is orthodox Christianity that has a false and confused concept of the Godhead.

I would expect that to be your point of view,”

Of course, but what makes your POV any better than mine? You can’t just declare yourself right because you believe yourself right.

“When Jesus asked the disciples, “Who do YOU say that I AM?”, it was because many had confused and wrong concepts of His Person. Peter’s reply; “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God.”, that means something, and is defined by the Scriptures in the Bible,”

And we Mormons agree that Jesus is ‘the Christ, the Son of the Living God’ and that makes us Christians by definition.

“not the additional works of Joseph Smith and his plagerized BOM, or other works of fiction such as the Pearl of Great Price.”

The BoM quotes from the Bible, so what, it represents a rather small part of the whole. The NT quotes from the OT, do you then call the NT plagiarized too? I hold the BoM, D&C and PoGP to also be the word of God, you opinion of them carries no weight with me.

“The Church from the very beginning, starting with the Apostles, believed and taught that Jesus Christ was and IS eternally Divine, co-eternal, co-equally Divine with the Father and the Holy Spirit, and NOT a created being as the Arians and the modern day Arians such as Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses falsely believe and preach.”

We believe Christ to be the Jehovah of the Old Testament, he was with the Father in the beginning and at his Father’s direction created the material universe we see around us. He is the Great I AM, the God of Israel. You talk of Christ as ‘begotten, not created’ yet when we say that his spirit was begotten by the Father in the beginning, suddenly you jump around saying we teach a created Christ. I find it hard to take such self contradictory posturing as having any serious merit.

Christ was also pretty clear about the Father being greater than he (John 14: 28), and that he learned and grew and progressed, increasing wisdom in favor with God as he did so (Luke 2: 52), that Christ looked to the Father as his God (John 20: 17) that he was exalted after his resurection (Acts 2:32-33).

I feel the Bible is very clear the Christ is subordinate to the Father, and as demonstrated in the article I posted, subordinationalism was orthodox in the early church, not trinity. When you take all the quotes used to claim that the trinity was taught by the early church, and remove all those that are also consistent with subordinationalism you find nothing specifically for the trinity until around 200AD.

“To be a Christian means something. One must believe certain things about God, Christ, Salvation, etc”

Nope, again check the dictionary. Beyond a belief in Christ there is no other requirement to be a Christian, that is also how the term is generally understood and to use it differently is deceptive. Words mean things, and you don’t get to pick the meaning.

“A dictionary does not define what orthodox Christian beliefs are, the Bible does”

First, we don’t claim to be orthodox Christians, we claim to be Christians. Call us unorthodox Christians if you want to distance yourself from us in a truthful way.

Second, what is orthodox and what is not is defined by majority opinion, it has nothing to do with being correct. Whatever interpretations theologians come up with that become accepted by the majority are by definition orthodox. It was once orthodox that the world was flat and the sun went around it. Men interpreted the Bible to justify it, they persecuted someone with proof to the contrary, and they were wrong. They are also wrong about some things that are still part of orthodox Christianity today.

[MHGinTN]

It is almost, almost amusing to read Mormonism apologists impugning the early Church leaders who depended upon the Christian witness of fellow Christians in counsel to make decisions, as compared to Joseph Smith who fabricated the documents of his religion and whose character was decidedly deceitful, adulterous, false prophecy oriented as witnessed with his extensive additions to the King James Bible to fabricate prophsies of his 'coming in these latter days.' And not only does the evidence regarding his fabricated civilizations for North America not support his fabrications, it tends to expose him for what he truly was, a lying fabricator who wanted to be deemed a man of importance with God as his means to dupe people. He has been more successful with the aid of current apologists than he even was during the fabrications like the 'book of abraham' he imagined from an egyptian funerary document!

[Missey_Lucy_Goosey]

Me:“Firstly, you can cut and paste a huge amount of material like so many do to try to drown an opponent in details all you want,”

You: It was a factual, well referenced article on the single specific topic we were discussing.

No it wasn't.

You: It establishes a factual basis for our claims.

Wrong again.

Me: “will not deter me from addressing the main points which differentiate Mormonism and counterfeit belief systems from true Biblical Christianity.”

You: Then address the points in the article

I addressed the pertainent points as I said I would.

, or admit by your avoidance that you can’t.

Arrogant insults will get you nowhere.

“You: And from my POV, it is orthodox Christianity that has a false and confused concept of the Godhead.

Me: I would expect that to be your point of view,”

You: Of course, but what makes your POV any better than mine?

The Bible does.

You can’t just declare yourself right because you believe yourself right.

I declare the Bible to be right.

Me: “When Jesus asked the disciples, “Who do YOU say that I AM?”, it was because many had confused and wrong concepts of His Person. Peter’s reply; “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God.”, that means something, and is defined by the Scriptures in the Bible,”

You: And we Mormons agree that Jesus is ‘the Christ, the Son of the Living God’ and that makes us Christians by definition.

Wrong, the jesus you declare to be the Christ is a false jesus, a created being and not the Eternal Divine Second Person of the Triune God.

Me: “not the additional works of Joseph Smith and his plagerized BOM, or other works of fiction such as the Pearl of Great Price.”

You: The BoM quotes from the Bible, so what, it represents a rather small part of the whole.

Joseph Smith plagerized entire chapters of Isaiah and claimed they were given to him, and you know it.

The NT quotes from the OT, do you then call the NT plagiarized too?
Different situation, the writers of the NT cite the OT, not insert whole chapters claiming they came from them as Joey Smith did.

You: I hold the BoM, D&C and PoGP to also be the word of God, you opinion of them carries no weight with me.

Anyone is free to live in deception by following those false books of Mormonism.

Me: “The Church from the very beginning, starting with the Apostles, believed and taught that Jesus Christ was and IS eternally Divine, co-eternal, co-equally Divine with the Father and the Holy Spirit, and NOT a created being as the Arians and the modern day Arians such as Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses falsely believe and preach.”

We believe Christ to be the Jehovah of the Old Testament, he was with the Father in the beginning and at his Father’s direction created the material universe we see around us. He is the Great I AM, the God of Israel.

As a created spirit being who was created by the Mormon father god having celestial sex with one of his many celestial wives. Wrong jesus, wrong god.

You: You talk of Christ as ‘begotten, not created’ yet when we say that his spirit was begotten by the Father in the beginning, suddenly you jump around saying we teach a created Christ.

Because the Mormon jesus was "begotten" as Mormonism has taught from it's inception, that the Mormon jesus was "begotten" as Bringem Young said, "In the same manner as any man begets any child", by the Mormon god having sex with his celestial wives, and even taught that the Mormon god had sex with Mary too to produce the baby jesus.

In Christianity, "begotten" does not mean, "created" as Mormonism teaches, it refers to the Father sending the Son.

You: Christ was also pretty clear about the Father being greater than he (John 14: 28), and that he learned and grew and progressed, increasing wisdom in favor with God as he did so (Luke 2: 52),

CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT, is the key. Those passages refer to the humanity of Christ, not His Deity. You see, in the One Person of Christ is a unique Person having two distinct Natures, Divine, and human, and the two are not confused. In His humanity God the Father was greater, and Jesus did grow in His humanity, which is what those passages are referring to in context.

that Christ looked to the Father as his God (John 20: 17)

The Father also refers to the Son as God.

Matthew 22:

41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42 saying, “What do you think about the Christ? Whose Son is He?”

They said to Him, “ The Son of David.”
43 He said to them, “How then does David in the Spirit call Him ‘Lord,’ saying:

44 ‘ The LORD said to my Lord,

“ Sit at My right hand,
Till I make Your enemies Your footstool”’?[f](Psalm 110:1)

45 If David then calls Him ‘Lord,’ how is He his Son?” 46 And no one was able to answer Him a word, nor from that day on did anyone dare question Him anymore.

God the Father(Adonai) calls God the Son, Lord(Yahweh--God)

You: I feel the Bible is very clear the Christ is subordinate to the Father

Christ the man submitted His Will to the Will of the Father, which is exactly what those passages refer to.

, and as demonstrated in the article I posted, subordinationalism was orthodox in the early church, not trinity.

Not in the Mormon sense at all. Mormonism takes them out of context as it does the Scriptures and twists them to their own destruction just as Jesus and the Apostles said false teachers and false prophets would do.

When you take all the quotes used to claim that the trinity was taught by the early church, and remove all those that are also consistent with subordinationalism you find nothing specifically for the trinity until around 200AD.

Wrong again. The Apostles taught the Eternal nature of Christ as the Eternal Second Person of the Triune God, as did the early church, specifically, Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Athenagorus and many others who were contemporaries and disciples of John the Beloved and of Saint Paul.

Me: “To be a Christian means something. One must believe certain things about God, Christ, Salvation, etc”

You: Nope, again check the dictionary. Beyond a belief in Christ there is no other requirement to be a Christian, that is also how the term is generally understood and to use it differently is deceptive. Words mean things, and you don’t get to pick the meaning.

Once again, the dictionary does not define who is a Christian, God's Word the Bible does.

Me: “A dictionary does not define what orthodox Christian beliefs are, the Bible does”

You: First, we don’t claim to be orthodox Christians, we claim to be Christians. Call us unorthodox Christians if you want to distance yourself from us in a truthful way.

Mormons are no more Christian than the Docetists, Gnostics or Arians were.

[Missey_Lucy_Goosey]

First, we don’t claim to be orthodox Christians, we claim to be Christians. Call us unorthodox Christians if you want to distance yourself from us in a truthful way.

Just call yourselves what you are, Mormons, period, the followers of a false prophet named Joseph Smith.

Many heretical groups of whom Mormonism is in alignment with tried to call themselves "Christian" too, but found out upon death, just as Mormons will, that they placed their faith in a false god and a false jesus who can neither save nor ever existed.

But for them it was too late, but it is not for you, if you renounce Joseph Smith and the false religion of Mormonism and trust in the True Christ of the Bible and historic Christian faith.

[MHGinTN]

As usual, the supposed complexity of JOhn 17: 22&23 can be understood by taking the verses in their context. Of course, that doesn't serve the desired work to fabricate doubt and sprinkle untruth into the fecal fertilized ground:<p>
John 17:13-26 'And now unto Thee I come, and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy fulfilled in themselves [The Logos speaks something into creation ... something new! Thus all that is or ever shall be is the creative work of The Word Who took upon Himself flesh and dwelt among us. ]

 

 
 I have given to them Thy word, and the world did hate them, because they are not of the world, as I am not of the world; [Clearly, Jesus is speaking of the spiritual since we may be certain His body is still in the world at this point. He is also confirming that He is not a created Being though He has a body ... His Spirit remained within Him so He could not sin in life and thus could become our perfect propitiation and propitiator. ]

 

 
 I do not ask that Thou mayest take them out of the world, but that Thou mayest keep them out of the evil.

 

 
 'Of the world they are not, as I of the world am not;

 

 
 sanctify them in Thy truth, Thy word is truth; [Jesus is naming Himself and telling us via this scripture that it is He, the Word, and the Spirit/Truth that sanctifies the believers. ]

 

 
 as Thou didst send me to the world, I also did send them to the world;

 

 
 and for them do I sanctify myself, that they also themselves may be sanctified in truth. [ Only God can proclaim He sanctifies Himself! Thus He can say He will sanctify the believers. ]

 

 
 'And not in regard to these alone do I ask, but also in regard to those who shall be believing, through their word, in me; ['With mouth confession is made that one believes He is The Christ, and with the heart one believes that God raised Him from the dead' as witness of His Salvational/Sanctification work. ]

 

 
 that they all may be one, as Thou Father [art] in me, and I in Thee; that they also in us may be one, that the world may believe that Thou didst send me. [The 'oneness is achieved via the Spirit of God. ]

 

 
 'And I, the glory that thou hast given to me, have given to them, that they may be one as we are one;

 

 
 I in them, and Thou in me, that they may be perfected into one, and that the world may know that Thou didst send me, and didst love them as Thou didst love me.

 

 
 'Father, those whom Thou hast given to me, I will that where I am they also may be with me, that they may behold my glory that Thou didst give to me, because Thou didst love me before the foundation of the world.

 

 
 'Righteous Father, also the world did not know Thee, and I knew Thee, and these have known that Thou didst send me,

 

 
 and I made known to them Thy name, and will make known, that the love with which Thou lovedst me in them may be, and I in them.'

[Colofornian]

And we Mormons agree that Jesus is ‘the Christ, the Son of the Living God’ and that makes us Christians by definition.

Yeah, right. And we Christians agree that God restores all things (well, at least one day He will), so that makes us "restorationists" as well...therefore, by your logic, I guess you might as well call us true and pure restorationists "Mormons."

(There, you no longer have a monopoly of the word "restoration." And since Mormonism is 100% linked like a trailer to that word, that also means you no longer can so narrowly define "Mormonism." ... You know...kind of like those who redeem the word "Catholic" for its true meaning of "universal" rather than the popular, parochial understanding of "Roman Catholic")

[Grig]

“Mormon Christology relegates Christ to a created being, and not the Eternal Diving Person of the Second Person of the Triune God.”

Oh really? At what point in time do you think that we think Christ was not divine? Christ was there with the Father when he said ‘let US make man in OUR image and in OUR likeness’. It was Christ who was the Jehovah of the OT, who appeared to Moses in the burning bush, who was known to them as Jehovah.

“The Trinity was believed and taught from the beginning.”

That’s not what the historical record shows. The idea of there being 3 persons in one being or one substance is not found in the scriptures or earliest Christian writings. In fact it took several councils and many, many years to actually codify it. If it was clearly taught from the start and so widely accepted, it shouldn’t have taken more than one afternoon. It was a matter of hot debate, controversy, and even violent disagreement.

“You are making the mistake of confusing the coining of the term, “trinity”, which codified the doctrine”

No, I’m looking for evidence in the scriptures of the specific ideas in the creeds unique to trinity and not seeing them.

“We have Ignatius, Athenagorus, Polycarp, Justin Martyr and the Church fathers teaching the Triune Nature of God from the Scriptures just as the Apostles did.”

The apostles and the earliest of church fathers did not teach of three persons in one being of one substance. There is overlap between subordinationalism and trinity in that both hold there to be a Father, Son and Holy Ghost as individual persons, and that they are one God, but how they are one is the difference. Statements asserting the ideas common to both can not legitimately be claimed to be statements in support of the trinity, you need statements asserting the unique aspects of it but such statements don’t show up for some time down the road. The article I posted reference many non-Mormon scholars who evaluated what they said and concluded that subordinationalism, NOT the trinity was initially the orthodox view.

“Greek philosophy holds no such concept at all.”

You are harming your credibility.

“Wikipedia is not credible at all, any idiot and most do, can write anything they want there.”

Look a little closer, that wasn’t Wikipedia. Instead of trying to shoot the messenger, deal with the facts.

[Grig]

“They are ... not three beings ... consisting of one substance.”

Says who? Where is that said? Where, anywhere, is the idea that one being can consist of more than on personage found anywhere in the scriptures? Nowhere. Where do the scriptures even reference their ‘substance’? Nowhere. It is an idea men came up with to try and explain the oneness of the Godhead, but it is a false idea.

“They are ... coequal.”

Christ said his Father was greater than he and there he was not ‘good’ but there was none good but God the Father, Christ said that God the Father was his God. Christ said he did not know the date of the second coming, that only the Father knew. The apostles taught that Christ increased in wisdom and in favor with God and that he was exalted after his resurrection, and that he was an heir of God, inheriting power glory and dominion from the Father. The scriptures are clear that the Son obeys the Father, not the other way around, the Father presides over Christ.

“The chart below should help you to see how the doctrine of the Trinity is systematically derived from Scripture.”

I notice the list has no entry for verses supporting ‘three persons in one being’ or ‘one substance’

“Therefore, the doctrine of the Trinity is arrived at by looking at the whole of scripture, not in a single verse.”

And tossing in some ideas taken from Greek philosophy

All your article does is assert it’s position and provide a list of scriptures that don’t even attempt to address the points in contention between us.

Now, are you going to actually address the substance of the article I posted, or just hide from it.