The gospel in words: 'Worship' [Worship Christ? Lds

The Orthodox have prayers addressed to the All-Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit (for example the final prayer of the Third Hour, which begins, “O Master God, the Father Almighty, the Only-Begotten Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit, one Godhead and one Power. . .”); and to each person of the Trinity, obviously the Our Father (a.k.a. the Lord’s Prayer) is addressed to the Father; many prayers are addressed to Christ (as an example, the Prayer of the Hours, “Thou, who at all times and every hour both in heaven and on earth are worshipped and glorified, Christ God. . .) and more importantly the Jesus Prayer “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner,” which is central to the prayer life of hesychasts; and a few, notably the prayer “O Heavenly King” which begins most services of the Orthodox Church after a priestly benediction and begins “O Heavenly King, O Comforter, the Spirit of Truth, who art in all places. . .” are addressed to the Holy Spirit.

Remember that Christ said “I and the Father are one”, that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, and commanded his disciples to baptize all nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. It is right to pray to the Holy Trinity. It is right to address any of the Persons of the One Godhead in prayer.

(And somewhat controversially among those who have strayed too far from Holy Orthodoxy, it is also right to ask the saints to pray with us or intercede for us.)

Say it ain't so.

One day I mat vasnish without a trace, and I doubt that my widow would be able to report the facts to you guys.

(Maybe I should write a Closure List...)

Good answer!

If Jesus has a “Father” who is separate from him as he says in John 17:21-23, then in order to be in the express image of God Hebrews 1:1-3 God must have an image.

Was Jesus misleading us when he prayed to and spoke of God his father in the third person?

Was God deceiving men when at Jesus’ baptism spoke from the heavens, descended from the dove and was being baptized all at the same time?

Mormons Do more than just believe in Jesus, we “Believe Jesus” we actually believe what he had to say, he speaks of God as his Father, so that’s who God is. He speaks of God in the third person, so they are not the same person, Jesus Gives an analogy that compares his oneness to that which is to be had by the apostles, so that is the oneness that he has with the father. Throughout the Bible, God marries men and women declaring that they should be “one flesh, telling the church that they should be one

Many here tell me that I am mistaken, I respect their opinion, but I know that my salvation depends on actually understanding Jesus and his relationship with God. I know this, Because Jesus Said:

3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Let’s talk about What it means to be “one” in the Bible.

Genesis 2:24
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
Romans 15:6
6 That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Galations 3:28
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Romans 12:5
5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.

first Corinthians 12:11-14
11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.
12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.
13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
14 For the body is not one member, but many.

John 14:28 “Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I”. How about John 20:17 “Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God”. And of course there are all the scriptures where the Lord is praying to the Father (or to himself, according to you?)or where the Father is speaking of the Son (the Lord’s baptism by John the Baptist). And of course where the Lord gives a definition of “one” in John 17:11 “And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are”, & John 17:22-23 “22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: 23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

But doesn’t John 17:11, 22-23 tend to describe John 10:38 & perhaps a little more clearly? Especially when taken in context of the synoptics like Matt. 26:39 “And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt”. Now if they’re both the same God, why the contrast in will’s as Christ is asking for the cup to pass but is willing to do the will of the Father?

How about Mark 15:34 “And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me”? Again, if they’re the same being, why ask about being forsaken?

I mean, why does the Son continually refer to the Father as someone different than himself? The gospel just shouldn’t be that complicated. It’s meant for us to understand. In John 20:17 “Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God”. If they’re the same being, why not say, touch Me not, for I go to heaven, go to My brethren & tell them I’ll meet them in the upper chamber. Why the unnecessary references to the Father? If he was the Father, why not simply speak in those terms instead of all the references to the Father?

All these references I cite & many more I could cite seem to point towards the Lord’s description of “one” as found in John 17:22-23. That makes sense to me! The Lord praying to Himself (& asking for relief), speaking to Himself, & asking questions to Himself, makes no sense to me at all. It’s redundancy that accomplishes nothing. Is there a scripture that talks about the need for redundancy? I can’t find it.

Doesn’t it seem more probable “one” means in purpose, goal, thought, etc. as He wanted the disciples to be as spoken of in John 17:22-23?

John 5:22 “For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son”.
If they’re one God, why would the Father commit all judgment to the Son? Why not just say, I the Lord Judge. Period!

Isaiah 48:16 - “Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me.” Notice that passage in its context is God speaking. He says there am I, then qualifies it with 3 distinct personages, Lord God, Spirit, and then Me.
Now look at Genesis 1:26 - “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” Yet in Deuteronomy 6:4 God says, “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:” In this passage the Hebrew word Elohim is used where it is translated LORD. Elohim is a plural noun. More precisely it is the plural of the Hebrew El....Elohim. God is here stating, ONE Lord, but yet plural.

You see this again in Genesis 11:7 - “Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech..”Now, why wouldn’t He just say, I the Lord........, instead of “let Us.......”? He did several times elsewhere in the Bible

Since the Nicene Creed was first adopted in A.D. 325, it seems clear that there were many Christians in the first centuries following the resurrection of Christ who did not use it. Those who oppose calling the Latter-day Saints “Christians” need to explain whether Peter and Paul are “Christians,” since they lived and practiced Christianity at a time when there was no Nicene Creed, and no Trinitarianism in the current sense.

Critics may try to argue that the Nicene Creed is merely a statement of Biblical principles, but Bible scholarship is very clear that the Nicene Creed was an innovation.
Was Nicean Trinitarianism always a key part of Christian belief?

There is abundant evidence that “Trinitarianism”, as now understood by the majority of Protestants and Catholics was not present in the Early Christian Church.
When we turn to the problem of the doctrine of the Trinity, we are confronted by a peculiarly contradictory situation. On the one hand, the history of Christian theology and of dogma teaches us to regard the dogma of the Trinity as the distinctive element in the Christian idea of God, that which distinguishes it from the idea of God in Judaism and in Islam, and indeed, in all forms of rational Theism. Judaism, Islam, and rational Theism are Unitarian. On the other hand, we must honestly admit that the doctrine of the Trinity did not form part of the early Christian-New Testament-message. Certainly, it cannot be denied that not only the word “Trinity”, but even the explicit idea of the Trinity is absent from the apostolic witness of the faith. The doctrine of the Trinity itself, however, is not a Biblical Doctrine...[1]

What were early Christian beliefs on the nature of God?
We do know that Christian orthodoxy before Nicaea was not the Trinitarian creeds now popular:
‘Subordinationism’, it is true, was pre-Nicean orthodoxy.[2]
‘Subordinationism’ is a doctrine which means that Jesus and/or the Holy Ghost are ‘subordinate’ or ‘subject’ to God the Father. In subordinationism, Jesus must be a separate being from the Father, because you can’t be subject to yourself! This was the orthodox position before the Nicean council. Ideas that were once orthodox were later considered unacceptable after the councils altered and added to the doctrine.

Writers who are usually reckoned orthodox but who lived a century or two centuries before the outbreak of the Arian Controversy, such as Irenaeus and Tertullian and Novatian and Justin Martyr, held some views which would later, in the fourth century, have been branded heretical...Irenaeus and Tertullian both believed that God had not always been a Trinity but had at some point put forth the Son and the Spirit so as to be distinct from him. Tertullian, borrowing from Stoicism, believed that God was material (though only of a very refined material, a kind of thinking gas), so that his statement that Father, Son and Spirit were ‘of one substance’, beautifully orthodox though it sounds, was of a corporeality which would have profoundly shocked Origen, Athanasius and the Cappadocian theologians, had they known of it.[3]

And:
It [subordinationism] is a characteristic tendency in much Christian teaching of the first three centuries, and is a marked feature of such otherwise orthodox Fathers as St. Justin and Origen…Where the doctrine [of the Trinity] was elaborated, as e.g. in the writing of the Apologists, the language remained on the whole indefinite, and, from a later standpoint, was even partly unorthodox. Sometimes it was not free from a certain subordinationism.[4]
So, Christians whose ideas were completely orthodox earlier would have been considered ‘heretics’ (i.e. going against the accepted doctrine) after the Nicean councils. This seems to be clear evidence that the doctrine was radically changed.

One also notes that Paul and the other New Testament writers would have been likewise ‘unorthodox’. Eusebius, an early Church historian, was even termed “blatantly subordinationist” by a Catholic author.[5]
Even after the Trinitarian ideas were formed, there were three ‘camps’ of believers that understood the matter in very different ways:

If such was the teaching of Athanasius and his allies [i.e. homousis as numerical unity of substance, rather than ‘the same kind of being’ in the three persons of the Godhead] , at least three types of theology found shelter at different times in the anti-Nicean camp. The first, indefinite, on occasion ambiguous on the crucial issues, but on the whole conciliatory, reflects the attitude of the great conservative ‘middle party’.... It’s positive doctrine is that there are three divine hypostases [i.e. persons], separate in rank and glory but united in harmony of will.[6]
Thus, most believers initially believed that there were three persons with a united will. It was only later that this group was “won over” to Athanasius and his group’s brand of Trinitarianism, which is the basis for today’s understanding in most of Christianity. Indeed, Athanasius and his cadre were decidedly in the minority:

The victory over Arianism achieved at the Council was really a victory snatched by the superior energy and decision of a small minority with the aid of half-hearted allies. The majority did not like the business at all, and strongly disapproved of the introduction into the Creed . . . of new and untraditional and unscriptural terms.[7]
And, there is a noted tendency for some Christian writers to assume that the way they understand the nature of God is the only way in which anyone could have understood it. An evangelical scholar notes:

The view of God worked out in the early [postapostolic] church, the “biblical-classical synthesis,” has become so commonplace that even today most conservative [Protestant and Catholic] theologians simply assume that it is the correct scriptural concept of God and thus that any other alleged biblical understanding of God . . . must be rejected. The classical view is so taken for granted that it functions as a preunderstanding that rules out certain interpretations of Scripture that do not “fit” with the conception of what is “appropriate” for God to be like, as derived from Greek metaphysics.[8]
Does the Bible contain also the necessary elements for Trinitarianism?

In order to argue successfully for the unconditionally and permanence of the ancient Trinitarian Creeds, it is necessary to make a distinction between doctrines, on the one hand, and on the terminology and conceptuality in which they were formulated on the other... Some of the crucial concepts employed by these creeds, such as “substance”, “person”, and “in two natures” are post-biblical novelties. If these particular notions are essential, the doctrines of these creeds are clearly conditional, dependent on the late Hellenistic milieu.[9]

Note that this author says that many of “the crucial concepts” are “post-biblical novelties”: that is, they are new ideas that arrived on the scene after the Bible was written. If the crucial concepts weren’t around until later, then the doctrine wasn’t around until later either. As the author notes, these ideas arose out of the “Hellenistic milieu”, that is: Greek philosophy.
It is clearly impossible (if one accepts historical evidence as relevant at all) to escape the claim that the later formulations of dogma cannot be reached by a process of deductive logic from the original propositions and must contain an element of novelty...The emergence of the full trinitarian doctrine was not possible without significant modification of previously accepted ideas.[10]

Said David Noel Freedman:
So in many was the Bible remains true to its “primitive” past [by accepting the strongly anthropomorphic understanding of God/Yahweh] and is less compatible with philosophical notions of an abstract being, or ultimate reality or ground of being. Just as there is an important and unbridgeable distance between Yahweh and the gods of Canaan, or those of Mesopotamia or Egypt or Greece or Rome, so there is at least an equal or greater distance from an Aristotelian unmoved mover, or even a Platonic Idea or Ideal. The biblical God is always and uncompromisingly personal: he is above all a person, neither more nor less.[11]

New ideas and concepts were required.
The formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the 4th and 5th centuries is not to be found in the New Testament.[12]

A Catholic encyclopedia notes that Trinitarianism doesn’t really appear until the last 25 years of the 4th century:
Trinitarian discussion, Roman Catholic as well as others, presents a somewhat unsteady silhouette. Two things have happened. There is the recognition on the part of exegetes and Biblical theologians, including a constantly growing number of Roman Catholics, that one should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious qualification. There is also the closely parallel recognition on the part of historians of dogma and systematic theologians that when one does speak of an unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to, say, the last quadrant of the 4th century.[13]

A Jesuit [Catholic] scholar says this:
There is no formal doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament writers, if this means an explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. But the three are there, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and a triadic ground plan is there, and triadic formulas are there...The Biblical witness to God, as we have seen, did not contain any formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, any explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons.[14]

The idea of “three” is present: but not as ‘three co-equal divine persons’ that are one being. An idea about the nature of God (or the Godhead) is present, but it is different from that which is taught as Trinitarianism.
Two authors even assert that the Apostle Paul, the four gospels, and Acts have no Trinitarian understanding:
...there is no trinitarian doctrine in the Synoptics or Acts...nowhere do we find any trinitarian doctrine [in the New Testament] of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same God head...These passages [i.e. the Pauline epistles] give no doctrine of the Trinity, but they show that Paul linked together Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They give no trinitarian formula...but they offer material for the later development of trinitarian doctrine...[Paul] has no formal Trinitarian doctrine and no clear-cut realization of a Trinitarian problem…in John there is no trinitarian formula.[15]

And:
This double series of texts manifests Paul’s lack of clarity in his conception of the relation of the Spirit to the Son. Paul shares with the Old Testament a more fluid notion of personality than the later theological refinements of nature, substance, and person. His lack of clarity should be respected for what it is and be regarded only as the starting point of the later development.[16]
So, Paul doesn’t even ‘realize’ that there is a ‘Trinitarian problem’. Could this be because for Paul there was no such problem, because the doctrine was unknown to him? It was not an issue in his era, because it was not taught by Jesus or the Apostles, and no one felt the need to reconcile divine revelation with Greek philosophy.
One author asserts that the Trinity is correct, but readily admits that:

The God whom we experience as triune is, in fact, triune. But we cannot read back into the New Testament, much less the Old Testament, the more sophisticated trinitarian theology and doctrine which slowly and often unevenly developed over the course of some fifteen centuries.[17]
Are there new ideas necessary for creedal Trinitarianism?
Robert Casey wrote long ago that “Origen’s development of Clement [of Alexandria’s] thought is characteristically thorough and systematic. He acknowledges that the doctrine of God’s immateriality is, at least formally, new, and asserts that the word asomatos [”no body” in Greek] had been unknown alike to biblical writers and to Christian theologians before his time.”[18]

Casey also wrote that
“the Christian doctrine of God was becoming inextricably involved in a trinitarian theory, the substance and form of which would have been impossible but for Clement and Origen, whose immaterialist teaching it presupposed.”[19]
Jesuit Roland Teske states that Augustine turned to Manichaeism because he thought that all Christians believed in an anthropomorphic God, which he could not accept on philosophical grounds. Teske reports that Augustine believed that in accepting the Manichee doctrine he was joining a Christian sect which rejected the “anthropomorphic interpretation of the scriptural claim that man was made in the image of God” as taught in Gen. 1:26.[20]

In a footnote to the above statement Teske writes that “prior to Augustine…the Western Church was simply without a concept of God as a spiritual substance.” Augustine apparently believed that the Catholic Church taught that God had a body similar to that of a mortal, and that belief prevented him from seeking truth within the Church.[21] Augustine tells us in another work that it was the preaching of Ambrose of Milan who helped him see that there was another way to view God, which ‘spirituals’ alone could decipher.[22]

What about John 10:30?
John 10:30 was an important scripture in the early debates discussed above.
One author wrote of it:

[John 10:30] was a key verse in the early Trinitarian controversies. On the one extreme, the onarchians (Sabellians) interpreted it to mean “one person”, although the “one” is neuter, not masculine. On the other extreme, the Arians interpreted this text, which was often used against them, in terms of moral unity of will. The Protestant commentator Engel, following Augustine, sums up the Orthodox position: “Through the word “are” Sabellius is refuted; through the word one” so is Arius..” [In the Gospel of] John... all these relationships between Father and Son are described in function of the one’s dealings with men. It would be up to the work of later theologians to take this gospel material pertaining to the mission of the Son add extra and draw from it a theology of the inner life of the Trinity.[23]

Note that “one” in this verse is neuter, not masculine. In Greek, the masculine would be used to indicate a oneness of person or being, and neuter implies a oneness of purpose. So, read literally the verse merely says that Jesus and the Father are one in purpose or will: only a belief in the Trinity at the outset would lead one to read this as a Trinitarian passage.
Note also that later theologians had to contribute ‘extra’ information to solve the problem. This extra eventually resulted in the Trinitarian formulae of today.

What about 1 John 5:7–8?
1 John 5:7-8 reads:
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
These verses are considered to have been added to the Bible text. Said one conservative reference work:
...the acceptance of this verse [i.e. the Johannine comma: 1 John 5:7-8] as genuine breaks almost every major canon of textual [criticism][24]

Historian Paul Johnson notes:
Altogether there are about 4,700 relevant manuscripts, and at least 100,000 quotations or allusions in the early fathers . . .Thus, the Trinitarian texts in the first Epistle of John, which make explicit what other texts merely hint at, originally read simply: ‘There are three which bear witness, the spirit and the water and the blood, and the three are one.’ This was altered in the fourth century to read: ‘There are three which bear witness on earth, the spirit and the water and the blood, and these three are one in Christ Jesus; and there are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Spirit, and these three are one.’[25]

So, the early Christians never referred to these verses in their writings. The verse in the early Greek manuscripts simply says:
There are three which bear witness, the spirit and the water and the blood, and the three are one.
But, in the 4th century, the verse had words added to it to support the ‘new’ orthodox doctrine of the Trinity:
There are three which bear witness on earth, the spirit and the water and the blood, and these three are one in Christ Jesus; and there are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Spirit, and these three are one.
Why is 1 John 5:7–8 still in the Bible, then?
The writer Erasmus noted the problem with these verses in the 1500s, and did not include the addition change in his Greek New Testament:

On the basis of the manuscript evidence available to him, Erasmus had eliminated the passage [1 John 5:7] from his first edition of the Greek New Testament in 1516, but had restored it in later editions, responding to a storm of protest and to further textual evidence that was produced—quite literally produced—in support of the text. Luther’s translation of the New Testament into German, being based on the 1516 edition of Erasmus, did not contain the passage. Although the weight of textual evidence against it was seemingly overwhelming, the proof it supplied for the Trinity made an attack on its authenticity seemed to be an attack on the dogma [thus orthodoxy sought to wrongly restore the Johannine Comma].[26]

This author explains that people were outraged that the verse was taken out. Erasmus replied that he would include it if they could show him a single Greek manuscript that contained it. Scholars believe that a forgery was produced, and (good to his word) Erasmus included the change in his next editions. People cared more about what their dogma, creeds, and councils had taught than what the word of God actually said. The above author continues:
The most pertinacious and conservative in various communions were still holding out for the authenticity of the “Johannine Comma” in 1 John 5:7, despite all the textual and patristic evidence [evidence from the Early Christian Fathers before Nicea] against it, but there was an all but unanimous consensus among textual critics that it represented a later interpolation.[27]

Many Bible translations today omit this part of the text, since it is not considered to be authentic:
New American Bible:So there are three that testify, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and the three are of one accord.[28]

New American Standard Bible:For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.[29]

New Revised Standard Version: There are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three agree.[30]

Why, then, was Nicean Trinitarian introduced at all?
Let us return to the second century, when it was first sensed that the formulations of the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers were not sufficient to describe the nature of the divinity. A new way of doing this was attempted. Thus the so-called Monarchian controversy occurred... In addition to the Modalists (such as Sabellius), for whom Christ and the Holy Spirit were modes in which one Godhead appeared, there the Dynamists or Adoptionists, who conceived of Christ either as a man who was raised up by being adopted by God, or as a man filled with God’s power.[31]

Simply put, people tried a ‘new’ way of talking about God because of disputes about the nature and mission of Christ. In the LDS view, this is because the loss of revelation to the Apostles (due to the apostasy) meant that Christianity was divided about key issues. No one had a good way to resolve the questions, and so they turned to the best intellectual tools they had—they merged Christian theology with Greek philosophy.

Father Charles Curran, a Roman Catholic priest, said,
We [the Christians] went through the problem of appropriating the word in the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries with the great trinitarian and Christalogical councils where we finally came to the conclusion of three persons in God and two natures in Jesus. Many people at the time said, ‘Well, you can’t say that because those words aren’t in the scriptures.’ That’s right, they aren’t in the scriptures, they are borrowed from Greek philosophy, but they are the on-going account of the believing community to understand, appropriate and live the word of God in its own circumstances.[32]

Is modern Trinitarianism all understood in the same sense?
Owen Thomas, a professor of systemic theology, noted that:
...our survey of the history of the [Trinity] doctrine in the text has indicated that there are several doctrines of the trinity: Eastern, Western, social analogy, modal, so forth. There is one doctrine in the sense of the threefold name of God of the rule of faith as found, for example, in the Apostle’s Creed. This, however, is not yet a doctrine. It is ambiguous and can be interpreted in a number of ways. There is one doctrine in the sense of the Western formula of “three persons in one substance.” However, this formula is also ambiguous if not misleading and can be interpreted in a number of ways. A doctrine of the trinity would presumably be one interpretation of this formula . . . let us assume that the phrase “doctrine of the trinity” in the question refers to any of a number of widely accepted interpretations of the threefold name of God in the role of faith.[33]

So, there is ambiguity and disagreement still. This is not characteristic of revelation, but rather of man’s imperfect intellectual efforts to define God according to philosophical criteria. Proponents of this view have even added text to the Bible and opposed the correcting of such errors when it was discovered.

As one current thinker about the Trinity writes:
The notion that in the Trinity one Person may be the font or source of being or Godhead for another lingered on to be a cause of friction and controversy between the East and the West, and still persists today. The main thesis of these lectures, I have said, is that the act of faith required for acceptance of the doctrine of the Trinity is faith that the Divine unity is a dynamic unity actively unifying in the one divine life the lives of the three divine persons. I now wish to add that in this unity there is no room for any trace of subordinationism, and that the thought of the Father as the source or fount of God-head is a relic of pre Christian theology which has not fully assimilated the Christian revelation.[34]

There is no room in his doctrine for ‘subordinationism’, but remember (already quoted above) that: “’Subordinationism’, it is true, was pre-Nicean orthodoxy.”
It is interesting that ideas that were once perfectly orthodox within early Christianity (like subordinationism) are now classed as “pre-Christian theology” which hasn’t yet “assimilated the Christian revelation”. If anything, this looks like a ‘post-Christian theology’ that has ‘altered the Christian revelation’. This observation is not intended to argue that subordinationism is correct in all particulars, but merely to point out that current creedal ideas are not what all Christians have always believed.

Conclusion
Some modern Christians wish to apply a “doctrinal exclusion” to declare who is or isn’t Christian. Such definitions are generally self-serving, and not very helpful. With the Nicene Creed, critics are ironically in the position of using a definition that would exclude all Christians for more than two centuries after Christ from the Christian fold.
Thus the New Testament itself is far from any doctrine of the Trinity or of a triune God who is three co-equal Persons of One Nature.[35]

The New Testament does not contain the developed doctrine of the Trinity.[36]

There is in them [the Apostolic Fathers], of course, no trinitarian doctrine and no awareness of a trinitarian problem.”[37]

The Church had to wait for more than three hundred years for a final synthesis, for not until the Council of Constantinople [AD 381] was the formula of one God existing in three coequal Persons formally ratified.[38]
These passages are succinct summaries. If a critic wishes to justify his or her belief in the creedal Trinity, they must rely on tradition and the creeds of the 4th century, and abandon claims of scriptural or historical support for such a belief in early Christianity, including among the apostles and those they taught.
Since the LDS believe in an apostasy from true doctrine, they see the creedal Trinitarianism—which is an admitted novelty in the centuries after Christ—as evidence of it.

Endnotes
1. Emil Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of God (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1949), 205, 236.
2. Henry Bettenson, editor and translator, The Early Christian Fathers:A Selection from the Writings of the Fathers from St. Clement of Rome to St. Athanasius, (Oxford University Press: 1969), 239. ISBN 0192830090.
3. RPC Hansen, “The Achievement of Orthodoxy in the Fourth Century AD”, in Rowan Williams, editor, The Making of Orthodoxy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 151–152.
4. FL Cross and EA Livingston, editors, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 2nd edition, (London: Oxford University Press, 1974), 1319, 1394.
5. RL Richard, “Trinity, Holy”, in New Catholic Encyclopedia, 15 vols., (New York:McGraw-Hill, 1967) 14:298.
6. JND Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, rev. ed. (New York: Harper, 1978), 247–248.
7. IF Bethune-Baker, An Introduction to the Early History of Christian Doctrine, 8th edition, (London: Methuen, 1949), 171. (emphasis added)
8. John Sanders; cited in Clark Pinnock, Richard Rice, John Sanders, William Hasker, and David Basinger, The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 60.
9. George A. Lindbeck, The Nature of Doctrine (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1984), 92.
10. Maurice Wiles, The Making of Christian Doctrine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), 4, 144.
11. David Noel Freedman, “When God Repents,” in Divine Commitment and Human Obligation: Selected Writings of David Noel Freedman, Volume One: History and Religion (William B. Eerdmans, 1997), 414.
12. P Achtemeier, editor, Harper’s Bible Dictionary (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1985), 1099.
13. RL Richard, “Trinity, Holy”, in New Catholic Encyclopedia, 15 vols. (New York:McGraw-Hill, 1967), 14:295.
14. Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 32,35.
15. Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 14,16, 22-23, 29.
16. J Fitzmyer, Pauline Theology: A Brief Sketch (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey): Prentice-Hall, 1967), 42.
17. Richard P. McBrian, Catholicism (Minneapolis: Winston Press, 1980), 347.
18. Robert P. Casey, “Clement of Alexandria and the Beginnings of Christian Platonism,” Harvard Theological Review 18 (1925): 39–101, at page 82, referring to Contra Celsum 7.27, and Commentary on John 13.22.
19. Ibid., 100.
20. Roland Teske, S.J., “Divine Immutability in St. Augustine,” Modern Schoolman 63 (1986): 233–249, at page 236–237.
21. Ibid., 237–238, with notes 25 and 34, citing Confessions 5.10.19 (Pusey translation, page 77).
22. Ibid., 238–239, quoting De beata vita 1.4.
23. Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John I–XII (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Co. Inc.), 403, 407.
24. Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible (Chicago, Moody Press, 1968), 370.
25. Paul Johnson, A History of Christianity (New York: Touchstone, 1976), 26–27. ISBN 684815036.
26. Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Volume 4 : Reformation of Church and Dogma (1300-1700) (University Of Chicago Press, 1985), 4:346, comments in bracket A1. ISBN 0226653773.
27. Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Volume 5 : Christian Doctrine and Modern Culture (since 1700) (University Of Chicago Press, 1991), 193. ISBN 0226653803.
28. Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, The New American Bible (World Bible Publishers, Iowa Falls, 1991), 1363.
29. New American Standard Bible (La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation), 1 John 5:7–8.
30. New Revised Standard Version (Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America, 1995), 1 John 5:7–8.
31. Kurt Aland, A History of Christianity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1985), 1:190.
32. Charles Curran, “Creative Fidelity: Keeping the Religion a Living Tradition,” Sunstone (Issue #{{{num}}}) (July 1987): 45. off-site Cited in Robert L. Millet, “Joseph Smith and Modern Mormonism: Orthodoxy, Neoorthodoxy, Tension, and Tradition,” Brigham Young University Studies 29:3 (1989): footnote 14.
33. Owen C. Thomas, Theological Questions: Analysis and Argument (Wilton, Conn.: Morehouse-Barlow, 1983), 34.
34. Leonard Hodgson, Doctrine of the Trinity (London: Nisbet & Co. Ltd., 1944), 102.
35. William J. Hill, The Three-Personed God (Washington DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1982), 27.
36. New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids MI, Zondervan, 1967), 1:84.
37. JND Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, revised edition, (New York: Harper, 1978), 95.
38. Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 44.

Perhaps a review of Hippolytus & his writings would be helpful. He was certainly not a Trinitarian as shown in his writings, see http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0521.htm. So, what happened between the time Hippolytus died in 236 & 325 AD when the view of the church swung from 3 entities acting as one God to one God made up of 3 manifestations?
Against the Heresy of One Noetus.

1. Some others are secretly introducing another doctrine, who have become disciples of one Noetus, who was a native of Smyrna, (and) lived not very long ago. This person was greatly puffed up and inflated with pride, being inspired by the conceit of a strange spirit. He alleged that Christ was the Father Himself, and that the Father Himself was born, and suffered, and died. You see what pride of heart and what a strange inflated spirit had insinuated themselves into him. From his other actions, then, the proof is already given us that he spoke not with a pure spirit; for he who blasphemes against the Holy Ghost is cast out from the holy inheritance. He alleged that he was himself Moses, and that Aaron was his brother. When the blessed presbyters heard this, they summoned him before the Church, and examined him. But he denied at first that he held such opinions. Afterwards, however, taking shelter among some, and having gathered round him some others who had embraced the same error, he wished thereafter to uphold his dogma openly as correct. And the blessed presbyters called him again before them, and examined him. But he stood out against them, saying, What evil, then, am I doing in glorifying Christ? And the presbyters replied to him, We too know in truth one God; we know Christ; we know that the Son suffered even as He suffered, and died even as He died, and rose again on the third day, and is at the right hand of the Father, and comes to judge the living and the dead. And these things which we have learned we allege. Then, after examining him, they expelled him from the Church. And he was carried to such a pitch of pride, that he established a school.

2. Now they seek to exhibit the foundation for their dogma by citing the word in the law, I am the God of your fathers: you shall have no other gods beside me; and again in another passage, I am the first, He says, and the last; and beside me there is none other. Thus they say they prove that God is one. And then they answer in this manner: If therefore I acknowledge Christ to be God, He is the Father Himself, if He is indeed God; and Christ suffered, being Himself God; and consequently the Father suffered, for He was the Father Himself. But the case stands not thus; for the Scriptures do not set forth the matter in this manner. But they make use also of other testimonies, and say, Thus it is written: This is our God, and there shall none other be accounted of in comparison of Him. He has found out all the way of knowledge, and has given it unto Jacob His servant (son), and to Israel His beloved. Afterward did He show Himself upon earth, and conversed with men. You see, then, he says, that this is God, who is the only One, and who afterwards did show Himself, and con-versed with men. And in another place he says, Egypt has laboured; and the merchandise of Ethiopia and the Sabeans, men of stature, shall come over unto you, (and they shall be slaves to you); and they shall come after you bound with manacles, and they shall fall down unto you, because God is in you; and they shall make supplication unto you: and there is no God beside you. For You are God, and we knew not; God of Israel, the Saviour. Do you see, he says, how the Scriptures proclaim one God? And as this is clearly exhibited, and these passages are testimonies to it, I am under necessity, he says, since one is acknowledged, to make this One the subject of suffering. For Christ was God, and suffered on account of us, being Himself the Father, that He might be able also to save us. And we cannot express ourselves otherwise, he says; for the apostle also acknowledges one God, when he says, Whose are the fathers, (and) of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever.

3. In this way, then, they choose to set forth these things, and they make use only of one class of passages; just in the same one-sided manner that Theodotus employed when he sought to prove that Christ was a mere man. But neither has the one party nor the other understood the matter rightly, as the Scriptures themselves confute their senselessness, and attest the truth. See, brethren, what a rash and audacious dogma they have introduced, when they say without shame, the Father is Himself Christ, Himself the Son, Himself was born, Himself suffered, Himself raised Himself. But it is not so. The Scriptures speak what is right; but Noetus is of a different mind from them. Yet, though Noetus does not understand the truth, the Scriptures are not at once to be repudiated. For who will not say that there is one God? Yet he will not on that account deny the economy (i.e., the number and disposition of persons in the Trinity). The proper way, therefore, to deal with the question is first of all to refute the interpretation put upon these passages by these men, and then to explain their real meaning. For it is right, in the first place, to expound the truth that the Father is one God, of whom is every family, by whom are all things, of whom are all things, and we in Him.

4. Let us, as I said, see how he is confuted, and then let us set forth the truth. Now he quotes the words, Egypt has laboured, and the merchandise of Ethiopia and the Sabeans, and so forth on to the words, For You are the God of Israel, the Saviour. And these words he cites without understanding what precedes them. For whenever they wish to attempt anything underhand, they mutilate the Scriptures. But let him quote the passage as a whole, and he will discover the reason kept in view in writing it. For we have the beginning of the section a little above; and we ought, of course, to commence there in showing to whom and about whom the passage speaks. For above, the beginning of the section stands thus: Ask me concerning my sons and my daughters, and concerning the work of my hands command ye me. I have made the earth, and man upon it: I with my hand have established the heaven; I have commanded all the stars. I have raised him up, and all his ways are straight. He shall build my city, and he shall turn back the captivity; not for price nor reward, said the Lord of hosts. Thus said the Lord of hosts, Egypt has laboured, and the merchandise of Ethiopia and the Sabeans, men of stature, shall come over unto you, and they shall be slaves to you: and they shall come after you bound with manacles, and they shall fall down unto you; and they shall make supplication unto you, because God is in you; and there is no God beside you. For You are God, and we knew not; the God of Israel, the Saviour, In you, therefore, says he, God is. But in whom is God except in Christ Jesus, the Father’s Word, and the mystery of the economy? And again, exhibiting the truth regarding Him, he points to the fact of His being in the flesh when He says, I have raised Him up in righteousness, and all His ways are straight. For what is this? Of whom does the Father thus testify? It is of the Son that the Father says, I have raised Him up in righteousness. And that the Father did raise up His Son in righteousness, the Apostle Paul bears witness, saying, But if the Spirit of Him that raised up Christ Jesus from the dead dwell in you, He that raised up Christ Jesus from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by His Spirit that dwells in you. Behold, the word spoken by the prophet is thus made good, I have raised Him up in righteousness. And in saying, God is in you, he referred to the mystery of the economy, because when the Word was made incarnate and became man, the Father was in the Son, and the Son in the Father, while the Son was living among men. This, therefore, was signified, brethren, that in reality the mystery of the economy by the Holy Ghost and the Virgin was this Word, constituting yet one Son to God. And it is not simply that I say this, but He Himself attests it who came down from heaven; for He speaks thus: No man has ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. What then can he seek beside what is thus written? Will he say, forsooth, that flesh was in heaven? Yet there is the flesh which was presented by the Father’s Word as an offering,— the flesh that came by the Spirit and the Virgin, (and was) demonstrated to be the perfect Son of God. It is evident, therefore, that He offered Himself to the Father. And before this there was no flesh in heaven. Who, then, was in heaven but the Word unincarnate, who was despatched to show that He was upon earth and was also in heaven? For He was Word, He was Spirit, He was Power. The same took to Himself the name common and current among men, and was called from the beginning the Son of man on account of what He was to be, although He was not yet man, as Daniel testifies when he says, I saw, and behold one like the Son of man came on the clouds of heaven. Rightly, then, did he say that He who was in heaven was called from the beginning by this name, the Word of God, as being that from the beginning.

5. But what is meant, says he, in the other passage: This is God, and there shall none other be accounted of in comparison of Him? That said he rightly. For in comparison of the Father who shall be accounted of? But he says: This is our God; there shall none other be accounted of in comparison of Him. He has found out all the way of knowledge, and has given it unto Jacob His servant, and to Israel His beloved. He says well. For who is Jacob His servant, Israel His beloved, but He of whom He cries, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased: hear ye Him? Having received, then, all knowledge from the Father, the perfect Israel, the true Jacob, afterward did show Himself upon earth, and conversed with men. And who, again, is meant by Israel but a man who sees God? and there is no one who sees God except the Son alone, the perfect man who alone declares the will of the Father. For John also says, No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him. And again: He who came down from heaven testifies what He has heard and seen. This, then, is He to whom the Father has given all knowledge, who did show Himself upon earth, and conversed with men.

6. Let us look next at the apostle’s word: Whose are the fathers, of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. This word declares the mystery of the truth rightly and clearly. He who is over all is God; for thus He speaks boldly, All things are delivered unto me of my Father. He who is over all, God blessed, has been born; and having been made man, He is (yet) God for ever. For to this effect John also has said, Which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. And well has he named Christ the Almighty. For in this he has said only what Christ testifies of Himself. For Christ gave this testimony, and said, All things are delivered unto me of my Father; and Christ rules all things, and has been appointed Almighty by the Father. And in like manner Paul also, in setting forth the truth that all things are delivered unto Him, said, Christ the first-fruits; afterwards they that are Christ’s at His coming. Then comes the end, when He shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when He shall have put down all rule, and all authority, and power. For He must reign, till He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For all things are put under Him. But when He says, All things are put under Him, it is manifest that He is excepted which did put all things under Him. Then shall He also Himself be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all. If, therefore, all things are put under Him with the exception of Him who put them under Him, He is Lord of all, and the Father is Lord of Him, that in all there might be manifested one God, to whom all things are made subject together with Christ, to whom the Father has made all things subject, with the exception of Himself. And this, indeed, is said by Christ Himself, as when in the Gospel He confessed Him to be His Father and His God. For He speaks thus: I go to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God. If then, Noetus ventures to say that He is the Father Himself, to what father will he say Christ goes away according to the word of the Gospel? But if he will have us abandon the Gospel and give credence to his senselessness, he expends his labour in vain; for we ought to obey God rather than men.

7. If, again, he allege His own word when He said, I and the Father are one, let him attend to the fact, and understand that He did not say, I and the Father am one, but are one. For the word are is not said of one person, but it refers to two persons, and one power. He has Himself made this clear, when He spoke to His Father concerning the disciples, The glory which You gave me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and You in me, that they may be made perfect in one; that the world may know that You have sent me. What have the Noetians to say to these things? Are all one body in respect of substance, or is it that we become one in the power and disposition of unity of mind? In the same manner the Son, who was sent and was not known of those who are in the world, confessed that He was in the Father in power and disposition. For the Son is the one mind of the Father. We who have the Father’s mind believe so (in Him); but they who have it not have denied the Son. And if, again, they choose to allege the fact that Philip inquired about the Father, saying, Show us the Father, and it suffices us, to whom the Lord made answer in these terms: Have I been so long time with you, and yet have you not known me, Philip? He that has seen me has seen the Father. Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? and if they choose to maintain that their dogma is ratified by this passage, as if He owned Himself to be the Father, let them know that it is decidedly against them, and that they are confuted by this very word. For though Christ had spoken of Himself, and showed Himself among all as the Son, they had not yet recognised Him to be such, neither had they been able to apprehend or contemplate His real power. And Philip, not having been able to receive this, as far as it was possible to see it, requested to behold the Father. To whom then the Lord said, Philip, have I been so long time with you, and yet have you not known me? He that has seen me has seen the Father. By which He means, If you have seen me, you may know the Father through me. For through the image, which is like (the original), the Father is made readily known. But if you have not known the image, which is the Son, how do you seek to see the Father? And that this is the case is made clear by the rest of the chapter, which signifies that the Son who has been set forth was sent from the Father, and goes to the Father.

8. Many other passages, or rather all of them, attest the truth. A man, therefore, even though he will it not, is compelled to acknowledge God the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus the Son of God, who, being God, became man, to whom also the Father made all things subject, Himself excepted, and the Holy Spirit; and that these, therefore, are three. But if he desires to learn how it is shown still that there is one God, let him know that His power is one. As far as regards the power, therefore, God is one. But as far as regards the economy there is a threefold manifestation, as shall be proved afterwards when we give account of the true doctrine. In these things, however, which are thus set forth by us, we are at one. For there is one God in whom we must believe, but unoriginated, impassible, immortal, doing all things as He wills, in the way He wills, and when He wills. What, then, will this Noetus, who knows nothing of the truth, dare to say to these things? And now, as Noetus has been confuted, let us turn to the exhibition of the truth itself, that we may establish the truth, against which all these mighty heresies have arisen without being able to state anything to the purpose.

9. There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source. For just as a man, if he wishes to be skilled in the wisdom of this world, will find himself unable to get at it in any other way than by mastering the dogmas of philosophers, so all of us who wish to practise piety will be unable to learn its practice from any other quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things, then, the Holy Scriptures declare, at these let us took; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn; and as the Father wills our belief to be, let us believe; and as He wills the Son to be glorified, let us glorify Him; and as He wills the Holy Spirit to be bestowed, let us receive Him. Not according to our own will, nor according to our own mind, nor yet as using violently those things which are given by God, but even as He has chosen to teach them by the Holy Scriptures, so let us discern them.

10. God, subsisting alone, and having nothing contemporaneous with Himself, determined to create the world. And conceiving the world in mind, and willing and uttering the word, He made it; and straightway it appeared, formed as it had pleased Him. For us, then, it is sufficient simply to know that there was nothing contemporaneous with God. Beside Him there was nothing; but He, while existing alone, yet existed in plurality. For He was neither without reason, nor wisdom, nor power, nor counsel And all things were in Him, and He was the All. When He willed, and as He willed, He manifested His word in the times determined by Him, and by Him He made all things. When He wills, He does; and when He thinks, He executes; and when He speaks, He manifests; when He fashions, He contrives in wisdom. For all things that are made He forms by reason and wisdom— creating them in reason, and arranging them in wisdom. He made them, then, as He pleased, for He was God. And as the Author, and fellow-Counsellor, and Framer of the things that are in formation, He begat the Word; and as He bears this Word in Himself, and that, too, as (yet) invisible to the world which is created, He makes Him visible; (and) uttering the voice first, and begetting Him as Light of Light, He set Him forth to the world as its Lord, (and) His own mind; and whereas He was visible formerly to Himself alone, and invisible to the world which is made, He makes Him visible in order that the world might see Him in His manifestation, and be capable of being saved.

11. And thus there appeared another beside Himself. But when I say another, I do not mean that there are two Gods, but that it is only as light of light, or as water from a fountain, or as a ray from the sun. For there is but one power, which is from the All; and the Father is the All, from whom comes this Power, the Word. And this is the mind which came forth into the world, and was manifested as the Son of God. All things, then, are by Him, and He alone is of the Father. Who then adduces a multitude of gods brought in, time after time? For all are shut up, however unwillingly, to admit this fact, that the All runs up into one. If, then, all things run up into one, even according to Valentinus, and Marcion, and Cerinthus, and all their fooleries, they are also reduced, however unwillingly, to this position, that they must acknowledge that the One is the cause of all things. Thus, then, these too, though they wish it not, fall in with the truth, and admit that one God made all things according to His good pleasure. And He gave the law and the prophets; and in giving them, He made them speak by the Holy Ghost, in order that, being gifted with the inspiration of the Father’s power, they might declare the Father’s counsel and will.

12. Acting then in these (prophets), the Word spoke of Himself. For already He became His own herald, and showed that the Word would be manifested among men. And for this reason He cried thus: I am made manifest to them that sought me not; I am found of them that asked not for me. And who is He that is made manifest but the Word of the Father?— whom the Father sent, and in whom He showed to men the power proceeding from Him. Thus, then, was the Word made manifest, even as the blessed John says. For he sums up the things that were said by the prophets, and shows that this is the Word, by whom all things were made. For he speaks to this effect: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made. And beneath He says, The world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not; He came unto His own, and His own received Him not. If, then, said he, the world was made by Him, according to the word of the prophet, By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made, then this is the Word that was also made manifest. We accordingly see the Word incarnate, and we know the Father by Him, and we believe in the Son, (and) we worship the Holy Spirit. Let us then look at the testimony of Scripture. with respect to the announcement of the future manifestation of the Word.

13. Now Jeremiah says, Who has stood in the counsel of the Lord, and has perceived His Word? But the Word of God alone is visible, while the word of man is audible. When he speaks of seeing the Word, I must believe that this visible (Word) has been sent. And there was none other (sent) but the Word. And that He was sent Peter testifies, when he says to the centurion Cornelius: God sent His Word unto the children of Israel by the preaching of Jesus Christ. This is the God who is Lord of all. If, then, the Word is sent by Jesus Christ, the will of the Father is Jesus Christ.

14. These things then, brethren, are declared by the Scriptures. And the blessed John, in the testimony of his Gospel, gives us an account of this economy (disposition) and acknowledges this Word as God, when he says, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. If, then, the Word was with God, and was also God, what follows? Would one say that he speaks of two Gods? I shall not indeed speak of two Gods, but of one; of two Persons however, and of a third economy (disposition), viz., the grace of the Holy Ghost. For the Father indeed is One, but there are two Persons, because there is also the Son; and then there is the third, the Holy Spirit. The Father decrees, the Word executes, and the Son is manifested, through whom the Father is believed on. The economy of harmony is led back to one God; for God is One. It is the Father who commands, and the Son who obeys, and the Holy Spirit who gives understanding: the Father who is above all, and the Son who is through all, and the Holy Spirit who is in all. And we cannot otherwise think of one God, but by believing in truth in Father and Son and Holy Spirit. For the Jews glorified (or gloried in) the Father, but gave Him not thanks, for they did not recognise the Son. The disciples recognised the Son, but not in the Holy Ghost; wherefore they also denied Him. The Father’s Word, therefore, knowing the economy (disposition) and the will of the Father, to wit, that the Father seeks to be worshipped in none other way than this, gave this charge to the disciples after He rose from the dead: Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. And by this He showed, that whosoever omitted any one of these, failed in glorifying God perfectly. For it is through this Trinity that the Father is glorified. For the Father willed, the Son did, the Spirit manifested. The whole Scriptures, then, proclaim this truth

15. But some one will say to me, You adduce a thing strange to me, when you call the Son the Word. For John indeed speaks of the Word, but it is by a figure of speech. Nay, it is by no figure of speech. For while thus presenting this Word that was from the beginning, and has now been sent forth, he said below in the Apocalypse, And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and He that sat upon him (was) Faithful and True; and in righteousness He does judge and make war. And His eyes (were) as flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns; and He had a name written that no man knew but He Himself. And He (was) clothed in a vesture dipped in blood: and His name is called the Word of God. See then, brethren, how the vesture sprinkled with blood denoted in symbol the flesh, through which the impassible Word of God came under suffering, as also the prophets testify to me. For thus speaks the blessed Micah: The house of Jacob provoked the Spirit of the Lord to anger. These are their pursuits. Are not His words good with them, and do they walk rightly? And they have risen up in enmity against His countenance of peace, and they have stripped off His glory. That means His suffering in the flesh. And in like manner also the blessed Paul says, For what the law could not do, in that it was weak, God, sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be shown in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. What Son of His own, then, did God send through the flesh but the Word, whom He addressed as Son because He was to become such (or be begotten) in the future? And He takes the common name for tender affection among men in being called the Son. For neither was the Word, prior to incarnation and when by Himself, yet perfect Son, although He was perfect Word, only-begotten. Nor could the flesh subsist by itself apart from the Word, because it has its subsistence in the Word. Thus, then, one perfect Son of God was manifested.

16. And these indeed are testimonies bearing on the incarnation of the Word; and there are also very many others. But let us also look at the subject in hand,— namely, the question, brethren, that in reality the Father’s power, which is the Word, came down from heaven, and not the Father Himself. For thus He speaks: I came forth from the Father, and have come. Now what subject is meant in this sentence, I came forth from the Father, but just the Word? And what is it that is begotten of Him, but just the Spirit, that is to say, the Word? But you will say to me, How is He begotten? In your own case you can give no explanation of the way in which you were begotten, although you see every day the cause according to man; neither can you tell with accuracy the economy in His case. For you have it not in your power to acquaint yourself with the practised and indescribable art (method) of the Maker, but only to see, and understand, and believe that man is God’s work. Moreover, you are asking an account of the generation of the Word, whom God the Father in His good pleasure begat as He willed. Is it not enough for you to learn that God made the world, but do you also venture to ask whence He made it? Is it not enough for you to learn that the Son of God has been manifested to you for salvation if you believe, but do you also inquire curiously how He was begotten after the Spirit? No more than two, in sooth, have been put in trust to give the account of His generation after the flesh; and are you then so bold as to seek the account (of His generation) after the Spirit, which the Father keeps with Himself, intending to reveal it then to the holy ones and those worthy of seeing His face? Rest satisfied with the word spoken by Christ, viz., That which is born of the Spirit is spirit, just as, speaking by the prophet of the generation of the Word, He shows the fact that He is begotten, but reserves the question of the manner and means, to reveal it only in the time determined by Himself. For He speaks thus: From the womb, before the morning star, I have begotten You.

17. These testimonies are sufficient for the believing who study truth, and the unbelieving credit no testimony. For the Holy Spirit, indeed, in the person of the apostles, has testified to this, saying, And who has believed our report? Therefore let us not prove ourselves unbelieving, lest the word spoken be fulfilled in us. Let us believe then, dear brethren, according to the tradition of the apostles, that God the Word came down from heaven, (and entered) into the holy Virgin Mary, in order that, taking the flesh from her, and assuming also a human, by which I mean a rational soul, and becoming thus all that man is with the exception of sin, He might save fallen man, and confer immortality on men who believe in His name. In all, therefore, the word of truth is demonstrated to us, to wit, that the Father is One, whose word is present (with Him), by whom He made all things; whom also, as we have said above, the Father sent forth in later times for the salvation of men. This (Word) was preached by the law and the prophets as destined to come into the world. And even as He was preached then, in the same manner also did He come and manifest Himself, being by the Virgin and the Holy Spirit made a new man; for in that He had the heavenly (nature) of the Father, as the Word and the earthly (nature), as taking to Himself the flesh from the old Adam by the medium of the Virgin, He now, coming forth into the world, was manifested as God in a body, coming forth too as a perfect man. For it was not in mere appearance or by conversion, but in truth, that He became man.

18. Thus then, too, though demonstrated as God, He does not refuse the conditions proper to Him as man, since He hungers and toils and thirsts in weariness, and flees in fear, and prays in trouble. And He who as God has a sleepless nature, slumbers on a pillow. And He who for this end came into the world, begs off from the cup of suffering. And in an agony He sweats blood, and is strengthened by an angel, who Himself strengthens those who believe in Him, and taught men to despise death by His work. And He who knew what manner of man Judas was, is betrayed by Judas. And He, who formerly was honoured by him as God, is contemned by Caiaphas. And He is set at nought by Herod, who is Himself to judge the whole earth. And He is scourged by Pilate, who took upon Himself our infirmities. And by the soldiers He is mocked, at whose behest stand thousands of thousands and myriads of myriads of angels and archangels. And He who fixed the heavens like a vault is fastened to the cross by the Jews. And He who is inseparable from the Father cries to the Father, and commends to Him His spirit; and bowing His head, He gives up the ghost, who said, I have power to lay down my life, and I have power to take it again; and because He was not overmastered by death, as being Himself Life, He said this: I lay it down of myself. And He who gives life bountifully to all, has His side pierced with a spear. And He who raises the dead is wrapped in linen and laid in a sepulchre, and on the third day He is raised again by the Father, though Himself the Resurrection and the Life. For all these things has He finished for us, who for our sakes was made as we are. For Himself has borne our infirmities, and carried our diseases; and for our sakes He was afflicted, as Isaiah the prophet has said. This is He who was hymned by the angels, and seen by the shepherds, and waited for by Simeon, and witnessed to by Anna. This is He who was inquired after by the wise men, and indicated by the star; He who was engaged in His Father’s house, and pointed to by John, and witnessed to by the Father from above in the voice, This is my beloved Son; hear ye Him. He is crowned victor against the devil. This is Jesus of Nazareth, who was invited to the marriage-feast in Cana, and turned the water into wine, and rebuked the sea when agitated by the violence of the winds, and walked on the deep as on dry land, and caused the blind man from birth to see, and raised Lazarus to life after he had been dead four days, and did many mighty works, and forgave sins, and conferred power on the disciples, and had blood and water flowing from His sacred side when pierced with the spear. For His sake the sun is darkened, the day has no light, the rocks are shattered, the veil is rent, the foundations of the earth are shaken, the graves are opened, and the dead are raised, and the rulers are ashamed when they see the Director of the universe upon the cross closing His eye and giving up the ghost. Creation saw, and was troubled; and, unable to bear the sight of His exceeding glory, shrouded itself in darkness. This (is He who) breathes upon the disciples, and gives them the Spirit, and comes in among them when the doors are shut, and is taken up by a cloud into the heavens while the disciples gaze at Him, and is set down on the right hand of the Father, and comes again as the Judge of the living and the dead. This is the God who for our sakes became man, to whom also the Father has put all things in subjection. To Him be the glory and the power, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, in the holy Church both now and ever, and even for evermore. Amen.

Also, The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia; Book X

“Such is the true doctrine in regard of the divine nature, O you men, Greeks and Barbarians, Chaldeans and Assyrians, Egyptians and Libyans, Indians and Ethiopians, Celts, and you Latins, who lead armies, and all you that inhabit Europe, and Asia, and Libya. And to you I am become an adviser, inasmuch as I am a disciple of the benevolent Logos, and hence humane, in order that you may hasten and by us may be taught who the true God is, and what is His well-ordered creation. Do not devote your attention to the fallacies of artificial discourses, nor the vain promises of plagiarizing heretics, but to the venerable simplicity of unassuming truth. And by means of this knowledge you shall escape the approaching threat of the fire of judgment, and the rayless scenery of gloomy Tartarus, where never shines a beam from the irradiating voice of the Word!

You shall escape the boiling flood of hell’s eternal lake of fire and the eye ever fixed in menacing glare of fallen angels chained in Tartarus as punishment for their sins; and you shall escape the worm that ceaselessly coils for food around the body whose scum has bred it. Now such (torments) as these shall you avoid by being instructed in a knowledge of the true God. And you shall possess an immortal body, even one placed beyond the possibility of corruption, just like the soul. And you shall receive the kingdom of heaven, you who, while you sojourned in this life, knew the Celestial King. And you shall be a companion of the Deity, and a co-heir with Christ, no longer enslaved by lusts or passions, and never again wasted by disease. For you have become God: for whatever sufferings you underwent while being a man, these He gave to you, because you were of mortal mould, but whatever it is consistent with God to impart, these God has promised to bestow upon you, because you have been deified, and begotten unto immortality. This constitutes the import of the proverb, “Know yourself” i.e., discover God within yourself, for He has formed you after His own image. For with the knowledge of self is conjoined the being an object of God’s knowledge, for you are called by the Deity Himself. Be not therefore inflamed, O you men, with enmity one towards another, nor hesitate to retrace with all speed your steps. For Christ is the God above all, and He has arranged to wash away sin from human beings, rendering regenerate the old man. And God called man His likeness from the beginning, and has evinced in a figure His love towards you. And provided you obey His solemn injunctions, and becomest a faithful follower of Him who is good, you shall resemble Him, inasmuch as you shall have honour conferred upon you by Him. For the Deity, (by condescension,) does not diminish anything of the divinity of His divine perfection; having made you even God unto His glory!”

Good study material. Hippolytus was reportedly the great grandson of John the Beloved. Hippolytus died in 236 ad, years before the Nicene Creed in 325. He was probably the most prominent theologian of his time. He thought the whole THEORY of the Trinity was heresy. Interesting.

Paragraph 14 of what you quote from Hippolytus is an exposition of a Trinitarian theology.

I know that St. Photius the Great considered St. Hippolytus (yes, he is venerated East and West) as one of the great opponents of Sabellius, whose modalist heresy—denying the reality of the hypostases, and seeing Father, Son and Holy Spirit as modes of expression of the One God—St. Photius saw as revived in the heresy of the filioque.

I think you confuse the Latin understanding of the Trinity with the doctrine of the Trinity per se. The Latins locate the unity of the Godhead in a common abstract Divine Essence. The Orthodox regard there as being One God because there if One Father from whom the Son is begotten and the Spirit proceeds. The Cappadocian Fathers, and the Greek Fathers, began their triadology with the experience of the Church from the Apostles onward: that Christ is God, that the Spirit is God, and that the Father whom they make known is God, rather than with speculation about unknowable essences.

Your characterization “one God made up of 3 manifestations” is Sabellius’ heresy, not the teaching of the Church, neither Orthodox nor Latin, and thus rightly criticized as heresy by Hippolytus. And “entities” is too imprecise.
It is not merely that God is manifested as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but that He *is* Father, Son and Holy Spirit, subsisting always and from before eternity in three hypostases. God is love, not God became love when He created something to love. Love is necessarily interpersonal. And, yes, there is but one Divine Nature, in which the three hypostases subsist, and which they make manifest.

Oh, and I will not answer your massive cut-and-paste from whoever’s commentary on triadology it was. Post it as a new thread if you want it discussed.

Thanks for your reply. I think part of the point Hippolytus was making is that the Trinity argument isn’t backed by scripture, the early teachings of the church (pre-Nicene Creed), nor by reasoned logic.

Surely you’ve read the events leading up to, & including the formulation of the creed. Constantine was hardly found to noble in his actions. The authorities claimed no direct divine intervention, thus leaving the “wise & learned” to their own devices. Hardly what the apostles taught nor envisioned.

Your mention of nothing but # 14 is somewhat conspicuous. There are many other important points, ones that frankly are hard to argue against.

I do understand your reluctance to tackle the other post as well. Others here have demurred likewise. It’s a salient argument & one that’s very difficult to refute. I cited scripture from the New Testament, as well as cogent arguments from noted theologians. You called someone out for their statement on the Trinity. I thought I would give another point of view, one that folks like Hippolytus, Origen, et al seemed to have shared.

I respect your opinion on the subject. However, yours is not the only viable option in the argument, nor necessarily the right one. After centuries, man found that the “wise’ weren’t correct about the world being flat either. It happens. What we do when it “happens” is how we will account for our stewardship in the end.

It’s an interesting topic, one that is not as cut & dry as many think. Traditions, not logic, or truth for that matter, would lead many to think otherwise.

Best wishes for a great week.

Since you seem to expect me to have time to wade through pages of patristics, I gather you have time to do the same. I commend to your attention the Catechetical Homilies of St. Cyril of Jerusalem. The baptismal creed at Jerusalem at that time (sometime between the Edict of Milan and the First Ecumenical Council) is virtually identical to the Nicene Creed, and St. Cyril does a masterful job of supporting every clause on the basis of the Scriptures.

Besides pointing out paragraph 14 of the excerpt you posted form Hippolytus, I refuted your own interpretation. You seem to be mistaking Sabellianism for Orthodox triadology: your own rephrasing of the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity was Sabellian, not Orthodox, while your phrasing of your purported ur-Christian doctrine was tri-theism.

Of course St. Hippolytus regarded Sabellianism as a heresy, the Church, East and West, regards Sabellianism as a heresy.

Your notion that the Nicene Creed is a Constantinian invention simply because St. Constantine called the council is quite unsupportable. It is fairly clear that Constantine himself had Arian sympathies, but was obedient to the decision of the Council.

As to the other post, it has nothing to do with ease or difficulty of refutation. I simply make it a point not to argue with canned presentations cut and pasted into threads.

Present the argument briefly in your own words, and if it is contrary to the Orthodox Faith, I will do my best to refute it and defend the Faith Once Delivered to the Saints.

So, am I correct that you don’t dispute the rest of Hippolytus’ argument? Regardless of your claim that Hippolytus regarded Sabellianism as heresy, his words I provided do nothing towards the argument regarding the Trinty. In fact, it rather destroys the argument. In fact, he calls the theory of the Trinity, heresy.

Frankly, it doesn’t matter to me who thought what of who. The question I posed is what did you think of Hippolytus’ argument provided against the Trinity? I think his argument is well thought out & presented. Unlike the Trinity, IMHO, it makes sense.

In regards to Constantine, do you feel the threat of death, exhile, etc., to some of those involved had any sway in the proceedings? Do you feel it had any affect in making sure the final decision reached was actually truth, & what the Lord actually wanted?

As far as my other post is concerned, w/ the exception of the noted citations, those were my words for the better part. When making an argument, I have found it beneficial to bring expert opinion in to give validity & context to the argument. I’m honored that you would feel my feelings solely would be sufficient, however something tells me that if I had done that, your retort might have been to exclaim I had no evidence to buttress my argument.

But, I’ll play by your rules for a bit.

I will use some of my words from the post.

Was Jesus misleading us when he prayed to and spoke of God his father in the third person?

Was God deceiving men when at Jesus’ baptism spoke from the heavens, descended from the dove and was being baptized all at the same time?

Mormons do more than just believe in Jesus, we “Believe Jesus”. We actually believe what he had to say. He speaks of God as his Father, so that’s who God is. He speaks of God in the third person, so they are not the same person. Jesus gives an analogy that compares his oneness to that which is to be had by the apostles, so that is the oneness that he has with the Father. Throughout the Bible, God marries men and women declaring that they should be “one flesh, telling the church that they should be one

Some here tell me that I am mistaken, I respect their opinion, but I know that my salvation depends on actually understanding Jesus and his relationship with God. I know this, Because Jesus Said:

3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Shall we talk about what it means to be “one” in the Bible?

Genesis 2:24
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
Romans 15:6
6 That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Galations 3:28
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Romans 12:5
5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.

First Corinthians 12:11-14
11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.
12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.
13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
14 For the body is not one member, but many.

John 14:28 “Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I”. How about John 20:17 “Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God”. And of course there are all the scriptures where the Lord is praying to the Father (or to himself, according to you?)or where the Father is speaking of the Son (the Lord’s baptism by John the Baptist). And of course where the Lord gives a definition of “one” in John 17:11 “And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are”, & John 17:22-23 “22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: 23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

So, doesn’t John 17:11, 22-23 tend to describe John 10:38 & perhaps a little more clearly? Especially when taken in context of the Synoptics like Matt. 26:39 “And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt”. Now if they’re both the same God, why the contrast in will’s as Christ is asking for the cup to pass but is willing to do the will of the Father?

Let’s talk about Mark 15:34 “And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me”? Again, if they’re the same being, why ask about being forsaken?

I mean, why does the Son continually refer to the Father as someone different than himself? The gospel just shouldn’t be that complicated. It’s meant for us to understand. In John 20:17 “Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God”. If they’re the same being, why not say, touch Me not, for I go to heaven, go to My brethren & tell them I’ll meet them in the upper chamber. Why the unnecessary references to the Father? If he was the Father, why not simply speak in those terms instead of all the references to the Father?

All these references I cite & MANY more I could cite seem to point towards the Lord’s description of “one” as found in John 17:22-23. That makes sense to me! The Lord praying to Himself (& asking for relief), speaking to Himself, & asking questions to Himself, makes no sense to me at all. It’s redundancy that accomplishes nothing. Is there a scripture that talks about the need for redundancy? I can’t find it.

Doesn’t it seem more probable “one” means in purpose, goal, thought, etc. as He wanted the disciples to be as spoken of in John 17:22-23?

John 5:22 “For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son”.
If they’re one God, why would the Father commit all judgment to the Son? Why not just say, I the Lord Judge. Period!

Isaiah 48:16 - “Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me.” Notice that passage in its context is God speaking. He says there am I, then qualifies it with 3 distinct personages, Lord God, Spirit, and then Me.
Now look at Genesis 1:26 - “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” Yet in Deuteronomy 6:4 God says, “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:” In this passage the Hebrew word Elohim is used where it is translated LORD. Elohim is a plural noun. More precisely it is the plural of the Hebrew El....Elohim. God is here stating, ONE Lord, but yet plural.

You see this again in Genesis 11:7 - “Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one anothers speech..”Now, why wouldn’t He just say, I the Lord........, instead of “let Us.......”? He did several times elsewhere in the Bible

What about John 10:30?
John 10:30 was an important scripture in the early debates discussed above.

Note that “one” in this verse is neuter, not masculine. In Greek, the masculine would be used to indicate a oneness of person or being, and neuter implies a oneness of purpose. So, read literally the verse merely says that Jesus and the Father are one in purpose or will: only a belief in the Trinity at the outset would lead one to read this as a Trinitarian passage.

Note also that later theologians had to contribute ‘extra’ information to solve the problem. This extra eventually resulted in the Trinitarian formulae of today.

What about 1 John 5:7–8? Ever heard of the “Johannine Comma”? Seems to ample evidence that this was “added” scripture to make the case for the Trinity argument after the fact. Does that seem right to you?

Now, if you would like background, context, & evidence to what I’ve laid out, please refer to my previous post which is complete w/ citations.

Otherwise, I would look forward to you response. You seem like a decent guy & I truly respect your views even though I may disagree. My intent is to have a civil, reasoned discussion if you’re up to it, realizing already that we may have to agree to disagree. It should be a good exercise none the less.

I’m afraid it is clear that you do not understand the patristic distinction between hypostasis and ousia.

Your extended quotation form Hippolytus begins very explicitly with what he is arguing against: not the doctrine of the Trinity, but the heresy of patripasianism, which conflates the hypostases of the Holy Trinity so that it asserts that the Father suffered and died, making no distinction between Father and Son.

There is a general principle that one ought not expound one part of Scripture so as to be repugnant to another. Christ’s remark that “I and the Father are one”, and the opening of John’s Gospel make it clear that the naive separation of Father and Son you (and, indeed, Mormons since Smith) propose is not the truth. To these I would add an easy to overlook saying of Our Lord, “Before Abraham was I am”. The Jews took up stone to stone Him in reply because the last phrase “I am” is the name of God.

What then, given all of the passages you quoted? Read the last three paragraphs of your quotation from Hippolytus. In his conclusion, he is upholding the doctrine of the Trinity, which is hardly surprising, since he was arguing throughout against a particular form of its denial, to wit, patripasianism.

The resolution to the problem lies in something Mormons, it seems to me, at worst deny, and at best do not understand: the absolute transcendence of God. No created categories or distinctions properly apply to God, we use them, indeed in speaking to us in human language Christ Himself used them, only by way of analogy—and a weak and improper analogy at that (the Orthodox uniformly deny the appropriateness of the Latin church’s use of analogia entis as a theological method, some even go so far as to deny analogia fidei as a ward against misuse of the Scriptures).

You misunderstand Hippolytus, quote portions of Scripture against the plain sense of other portions of Scripture, and fancy that you are arguing against the Orthodox doctrine of the Trinity when you are arguing against heretical triadologies that the Orthodox have already condemned, because you are bound to the naive, created, categories of unity and multiplicity. Naturally trying to make sense of the transcendent through such reasoning doesn’t work. A God of whom we in our poor created reasoning can make sense is not God.

It was precisely because of this that the Fathers were obliged to separate hypostasis and ousia, which in much of Greek philosophy were used interchangably, both to give some weak account of the Trinity and of the mystery of Christ’s Incarnation, in the one case accounting for the experience of the Church that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are God, but not three Gods, but one God (to borrow a phrase from the exposition attributed to St. Athanasius), and again, feebly, to express how it is that Jesus is both God and Man.

It is precisely this transcendence of the divide between unity and multiplicity that the otherwise strange alternation between singular and plural forms in reference to God in the account of creation shows, that the opening of John’s Gospel, and indeed the whole of John’s Gospel proclaims (along with teaching us many other things about Christ).

You also fall into the error, common among non-Christians and Western Christians except the most knowledgable among the Latins, of identifying the God of the Old Testament with the Father alone. Christ Himself takes the name revealed to Moses in the exchange with the Jews I just noted. He also tells us “No man has seen the Father”, He also tells us that only the Son, and those to whom the Son reveals Him know the Father. Whom then did Moses see? He saw God, but he did not see the Father. The consensus patrum is that all visible theophanies in the Old Testament are manifestations of the Pre-Incarnate Word, the Son, who has mase known the Father. Likewise the prophets speak “in the Spirit”. Reading the Old Testament in light of the New, it is clear that the God of the Old Covenant is the All-Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, One God.

It is hardly surprising that you want to vilify the Council of Nicea. After all, Mormon doctrine clearly agrees with Arius’ dictum “there was when the Son was not”. Though you are very clear on the begottenness of the Son, you do not teach an eternal begetting. Given that St. Constantine (in the East we venerate him and title him along with his mother “Equals-to-the-Apostles” for their role in the Christianization of the Empire, oddly the Latin church against which most anti-Constantinian polemics are directed does not) seems to have had Arian sympathies before accepting the decision of the Council (he was baptized on his deathbed by an Arian), I am curious who in your account was threatened with death or exile? If it had been Constantine, rather than the Holy Spirit leading the 318 Fathers, by threat, rather than inspiration, the iota would have been in the Creed, and Arius, rather than Athanasius would be held in honor.

Keeping in mind what I have said about unity and multiplicity being created categories and thus not applicable to the Uncreated, try rereading the so-called Athanasian Creed and see if it doesn’t make more sense than you thought it did.

It is very clear in the writings of Hippolytus in Book X that he is calling out Noetus for his theory of the Father, Son, & Holy Ghost being one person. Hippolytus’ defintion of the Trinity was that of one God in purpose by virtue of three separate & distinct beings. He uses light as one example. I’m not sure how one can possibly come away from reading that discourse & believe that Hippolytus was constructing an argument that they were one person.

In regards to Christ’s remark that “I and the Father are one”, in John 10:30 the word “one” was is neuter, not masculine. In Greek, the masculine would be used to indicate a oneness of person or being, and neuter implies a oneness of purpose. So, read literally the verse merely says that Jesus and the Father are one in purpose or will.

The Johannine comma in 1 John 5:7-8 is now a commonly understood problem by theologians & experts alike. As mentioned previously, many have omitted that passage due to a lack of authority.

And then there are of course all the scriptures I cited that explain very plainly the definition of one, i.e. John 17:11, 22-23. Was Christ indicating in those passages that the apostles were part of the Godhead as well?

As far as the council at Nicea is concerned, you do realize that the Emporer Constantine was an unbaptized pagan at the time of the council. He saw Christianity as a useful tool to unite his rather diverse empire. I’m not stating that he didn’t perhaps have some religious motives as well, but the fact that he was never baptized until late leads one to believe that the politics of the situation were far more prevalent upon his mind.

You seem to have a problem w/ long posts, so I’ll advise you look into the historical accounts as to Constantine’s threats & the like.

At the time there was a nagging dispute over the divinity of Jesus Christ, one that the Emperor felt wasn’t worth fighting over, so he called for a council of bishops to resolve the dispute. While Constantine leaned against Arius’ position, even he oscillated over the course of the next five years despite having manipulated an anti-Arian statement of faith at Nicaea.

Though the Council of Nicaea, which gave us the Nicene Creed, is generally regarded as the first ecumenical (or universal) council, it was not, in fact, universal at all. The council was attended by approx. 250 bishops, the largest gathering to date, however, only a handful of Western bishops attended. More representative, attended by over 500 bishops from both East and West, was the joint council of Rimini-Seleucia 25 years later, which adopted a pro-Arian creed only to have it repudiated by the church. So you can see, even just 25 years later, there was hardly unanimity, w/ in fact, the majority taking a pro-Arian stance.

The political machinations and doctrinal swings that ensued over the last half of the century are too numerous to mention here but would be worth your investigation. They do, indeed, include murder and mayhem all in the name of Jesus — true Son of God or adopted heir of the kingdom.

Basil of Caesarea (Basil the Great), his brother Gregory of Nyssa and their best friend Gregory of Nazainzus developed the ideas that would make it possible for conservative Arians and Nicene Christians eventually to fuse. Oddly, what triggered this burst of creative thinking was a new issue that threatened to make divisions within the Christian community even more contentious and complex: the nature of the Holy Spirit. New theological terminology was necessary, therefore the drafting of the doctrine of the Trinity.

Both sides were eventually won over to this new thinking, doctrinally, the Trinity was the point at which Christianity broke definitively with its parent faith, Judasim, and other forms of monotheism.

Eventually, Ariansim was made a crime punishable by death, & anti-Semitism a practice sanctioned by the church.

Finally, and perhaps most interestingly, the doctrine that “healed” one division, a few centuries later caused an even greater one. The Western and Eastern factions of the church split in the Great Schism over the Filioque, that is, whether a line in the Nicene Creed would affirm that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father and the son (Rome) or just the father (Constantinople).

Ah, the wisdom of man & his insatiable desire to figure things out through his own wisdom & interpretation of the scriptures, rather than rely on revelation from God. The apostles understood the importance not relying on the arm of the flesh, but rather revelation from the Lord. They not only understood it, they taught it. The post-apostolic period saw man wane from those teachings. Thus, the war over who God was. Those involved in the council believed the heavens to be shut to direct revelation. That one flawed belief changed “Christianity” forever. A shame really.

Just one other question. If the Father, Son, & Holy Ghost are one person, why even have three named? Why not just God? Period. There seems to be no logical reason for the redundancy. If God came down, He came down. Why cloud the issue by naming another person? Why not simply say Father came down among man? Why not just say His Spirit rests upon the children of men, rather than introducing another name (Holy Ghost) into the equation?

I find absolutely no explanation for that in the scriptures. Could that be because there was a reason, & that reason being that they are indeed three distinct personages (as ratified by the joint council of Rimini-Seleucia)? Only traditions would overcome that logic IMHO.

Thanks for the friendly banter. It’s a fascinating subject to say the least.

Oh, and I will not answer your massive cut-and-paste from whoever’s commentary on triadology it was. Post it as a new thread if you want it discussed.

FWIW, the massive uncited/sourced cut and past came from a mormon apologetic web site.

Person is usually used by English speaking Christians in theological discourse as equivalent to the technical Greek work hypostasis. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are the three hypostases of the One God, they are named because this is how God revealed Himself, and for us in the East it is with that fact that we begin our contemplation of God.

As far as my other post is concerned, w/ the exception of the noted citations, those were my words for the better part.

Reno - the bulk of your first post came from

http://en.fairmormon.org/Nature_of_God/Trinity/Nicene_creed

Failure to cite bulk cut and past - then attributing it to your own word is to say the least some what less than honest.

I actually cut & pasted from my archive. I must have missed the link at the bottom. I’m sure you noticed that I claimed only a portion of my post to be my own. Straining at gnats? Rather than worrying about technicalities, care to refute the message?

Never mind. History would tell me where you will head. A place I refereed to in the other thread.

Best wishes none the less.

actually cut & pasted from my archive. I must have missed the link at the bottom. I’m sure you noticed that I claimed only a portion of my post to be my own. Straining at gnats?

Strain at gnats - not. Your authorship 'claim' is ambigous at best. The vast majority of just that one post was cut and paste - and heaven knows that if I had done the same you'd be on me like white on rice.

Rather than worrying about technicalities, care to refute the message?

TRD did an excellent job - expecially in blowing your Hippolitus claims out of the water. Your not the first to misrepresent the doctrine of the Trinity with sabellianism/modalism. The rest is standard lds bilge. But then you never stick around long enough to finsh anything. You want to pick a specific to start with, help yourself - I have a long weekend coming and it wouldn't be the first time I've had to refute FARMS/FAIR cuts and paste arguements. But surprise me and be origional.

Never mind. History would tell me where you will head. A place I refereed to in the other thread.

Oh, all knowing - how comforting. You otoh, face a much grimmer future should you continue your path.

Best wishes for a great weekend Godzilla

You misunderstand Hippolytus, quote portions of Scripture against the plain sense of other portions of Scripture, and fancy that you are arguing against the Orthodox doctrine of the Trinity when you are arguing against heretical triadologies that the Orthodox have already condemned, because you are bound to the naive, created, categories of unity and multiplicity.

That really condenses the massive posts into the final point. I've throughly enjoyed your explanations and your insight to Hippolytus and early understanding of the Trinity.