Ante-Nicene Fathers

I see in all three essentials-substance, genus, name. We speak of man, servant, curator (curatorem),-man, by reason of substance; servant, by reason of genus or condition; curator, by reason of denomination. We speak also of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: these, however, are not names which have only supervened at some after period, but they are subsistences. Again, the denomination of man is not in actual fact a denomination, but a substance common to men, and is the denomination proper to all men. Moreover, names are such as these,-Adam, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob: these, I say, are names. But the Divine Persons are names indeed: and the names are still the persons; and the persons then signify that which is and subsists,-which is the essence of God. The name also of the nature signifies subsistence;3 as if we should speak of the man. All (the persons) are one nature, one essence, one will, and are called the Holy Trinity; and these also are haines subsistent, one nature in three persons, and one genus. But the person of the Son is composite in its oneness (unita est), being one made up of two, that is, of divinity and humanity together, which two constitute one. Yet the divinity does not consequently receive any increment, but the Trinity remains as it was. Nor does anything new befall the persons even or the names, but these are eternal and without time. No one, however, was sufficient to know these until the Son being made flesh manifested them, saying: "Father, I have manifested Thy name to men; glorify Thou me also, that they may know me as Thy Son."4 And on the mount the Father spake, and said, "This is my beloved Son."5 And the same sent His Holy Spirit at the Jordan. And thus it was declared to us that there is an Eternal Trinity in equal honour. Besides, the generation of the Son by the Father is incomprehensible and ineffable; and because it is spiritual, its investigation becomes impracticable: for a spiritual object can neither be understood nor traced by a corporeal object, for that is far removed from human nature. We men know indeed the generation proper to us, as also that of other objects; but a spiritual matter is above human condition, neither can it in any manner be understood by the minds of men. Spiritual substance can neither perish nor be dissolved; ours, however, as is easy to understand, perishes and is dissolved. How, indeed, could it be possible for man, who is limited on six sides-by east, west, south, north, deep, and sky-understand a matter which is above the skies, which is beneath the deeps, which stretches beyond the north and south, and which is present in every place, and fills all vacuity? But if, indeed, we are able to scrutinize spiritual substance, its excellence truly would be undone. Let us consider what is done in our body; and, furthermore, let us see whether it is in our power to ascertain in what manner thoughts are born of the heart, and words of the tongue, and the like. Now, if we can by no means apprehend things that are done in ourselves, how could it ever be that we should understand the mystery of the uncreated Creator, which goes beyond every mind? Assuredly, if this mystery were one that could be penetrated by man, the inspired John would by no means have affirmed this: "No man hath seen God at any time."6 He then, whom no man hath seen at any time,-whom can we reckon Him to resemble, so that thereby we should understand His generation? And we, indeed, without ambiguity apprehend that our soul dwells in us in union with the body; but still, who has ever seen his own soul? who has been able to discern its conjunction with his body? This one thing is all we know certainly, that there is a soul within us conjoined with the body. Thus, then, we reason and believe that the Word is begotten by the Father, albeit we neither possess nor know the clear rationale of the fact. The Word Himself is before every creature-eternal froth the Eternal, like spring from spring, and light from light. The vocable Word, indeed, belongs to those three genera of words which are named in Scripture, and which are not substantial,-namely, the word conceived,7 the word uttered,8 and the word articulated.9 The word conceived, certainly, is not substantial. The word uttered, again, is that voice which the prophets hear from God, or the prophetic speech itself; and even this is not substantial. And, lastly, the word articulated is the speech of man formed forth in air (aere efformatus), composed of terms, which also is not substantial.10 But the Word of God is substantial, endowed with an exalted and enduring nature, and is eternal with Himself, and is inseparable from Him, and can never fall away, but shall remain in an everlasting union. This Word created heaven and earth, and in Him were all things made. He is the arm and the power of God, never to be separated from the Father, in virtue of an indivisible nature, and, together with the Father, He is without beginning. This Word took our substance of the Virgin Mary; and in so far as He is spiritual indeed, He is indivisibly equal with the Father; but in so far as He is corporeal, He is in like manner inseparably equal with us. And, again, in so far as He is spiritual, He supplies in the same equality (aequiparat) the Holy Spirit, inseparably and without limit. Neither were there two natures, but only one nature of the Holy Trinity before the incarnation of the Word, the Son; and the nature of the Trinity remained one also after the incarnation of the Son. But if any one, moreover, believes that any increment has been given to the Trinity by reason of the assumption of humanity by the Word, he is an alien from us, and from the ministry of the Catholic and Apostolic Church. This is the perfect, holy, Apostolic faith of the holy God. Praise to the Holy Trinity for ever through the ages of the ages. Amen.

All (the persons) are one nature, one essence, one will, and are called the Holy Trinity; and these also are haines subsistent, one nature in three persons, and one genus. But the person of the Son is composite in its oneness (unita est), being one made up of two, that is, of divinity and humanity together, which two constitute one. Yet the divinity does not consequently receive any increment, but the Trinity remains as it was. Nor does anything new befall the persons even or the names, but these are eternal and without time. No one, however, was sufficient to know these until the Son being made flesh manifested them, saying: "Father, I have manifested Thy name to men; glorify Thou me also, that they may know me as Thy Son."4 And on the mount the Father spake, and said, "This is my beloved Son."5 And the same sent His Holy Spirit at the Jordan. And thus it was declared to us that there is an Eternal Trinity in equal honour. Besides, the generation of the Son by the Father is incomprehensible and ineffable; and because it is spiritual, its investigation becomes impracticable: for a spiritual object can neither be understood nor traced by a corporeal object, for that is far removed from human nature. We men know indeed the generation proper to us, as also that of other objects; but a spiritual matter is above human condition, neither can it in any manner be understood by the minds of men.

All (the persons) are one nature, one essence, one will, and are called the Holy Trinity; and these also are haines subsistent, one nature in three persons, and one genus

3 divine persons, is not 3 in one substance. But the Divine Persons are names indeed: and the names are still the persons; and the persons then signify that which is and subsists,-which is the essence of God. The name also of the nature signifies subsistence;3 as if we should speak of the man. All (the persons) are one nature, one essence, one will, and are called the Holy Trinity; and these also are haines subsistent, one nature in three persons, and one genus (family).

I am sorry, am I missing something? I believe you say in one statement, all persons are one essence? That the three persons are one in essence. Now, are you saying that you adhere to Sabellianism, God is one manifested in three persons?

let me state my view and then you can point out the differences. I believe that there are three distinct persons who have the exact same essence, we know them as the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. They are co-equal and co-eternal. Each is a distinct person, having intellect, sensibility and will. They are one God in that they have the same divine essence, being one in that essence.

Yes, a question to some limited degree about generation.

One area where things get confused is that we do believe that Jesus is literally or generationally, the only Begotten of the Father. Just like men on earth have sons. Where this becomes complicated is that at the very same time we as LDS strongly affirm that Jesus is the literal father of our spirit, the creator of all things spiritual and physical, our advocate to the Father from the beginning.

Basically speaking in the eternal context, for us there has never been a time when Jesus was not fully our God, because we and everthing we see, both physical and spiritual was created by Him. So this generational question, to the LDS, does not diminish The Son in any way, as claimed by the Arian heresy.

The closest relational concept of our belief in a Godhead in the ante-nicene period can be found in Origenism. I have copied an article that discusses this far better than I can:

If you don't accept the Trinity, how is it possible to say that you only worship one God and yet believe in Christ as God, in God the Father and in God the Holy Spirit?

Origen in his dialog with a bishop named Heraclides discusses this issue in much the same way Latter-day Saints do. This early-third-century dialog is from a papyrus first published in 1949, a translation of which is offered in The Early Christian Doctrine of God by Robert M. Grant, professor of New Testament and Early Christianity in the Divinity School of the University of Chicago (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1966, pp. 68-69, as cited by L. Ara Norwood, FARMS Review of Books, No. 1, Vol. 13, 2001, pp. 150-151). Here is an excerpt:

Origen said: "Christ Jesus, who exists in the form of God, though he is distinct from God in the form in which he existed, was he God before he entered a body or not?"
Heraclides said: "He was God before."
Origen said: "He was God before he entered a body, or not?"
Heraclides said: "Yes."
Origen said: "God distinct from this God in whose form he existed?"
Heraclides said: "Obviously distinct from any other, since he is in the form of that one who created everything."
Origen said: "Was there not a God, Son of God, the only-begotten of God, the first-born of all creation, and do we not devoutly say that in one sense there are two God, and in another, one God?"
Heraclides said: "What you say is clear; but we say that there is God, the almighty, without beginning and without end, containing all things but not contained, and there is his Word, Son of the living God, God and man, through whom all things came into existence, God in relation to the Spirit and man in that he was born of Mary."
Origen said: "You do not seem to have answered my question. Make it clear; perhaps I did not follow you. Is the Father God?"
Heraclides said: "Certainly."
Origen said: "Is the Son distinct from the Father?"
Heraclides said: "How can he be the Son if he is also the Father?"
Origen said: "While distinct from the Father, is the Son himself also God?"
Heraclides said: "He himself is also God."
Origen said: "And the two Gods become one?"
Heraclides said: "Yes."
Origen said: "Do we acknowledge two Gods?"
Heraclides said: "Yes; the power is one."
Origen said: "But since our brethren are shocked by the affirmation that there are two Gods, the subject must be examined with care to show in what respect they are two and in what respect the two are one God."

Even though Greek philosophy was strongly affecting the mainstream Christian view of God in the third century when this dialogue apparently was written, Origen is still able to use language fairly consistent with the LDS view, language that would be rejected in the later Athanasian Creed. Origen recognizes that Christ is God and the Father is God and the two are distinct, making, in one sense, TWO GODS (something the Athanasian Creed expressly denies). But yet they are one God, and the issue is understanding in WHAT SENSE they are one. I do not mean to say that Origen subscribed to the LDS view, for he was clearly influenced by Greek philosophy on several critical issues in that age when Apostolic guidance by revelation had been lost. But it's clear that he recognized that in at least one logical sense, the Father and Christ are two Gods, yet in another sense, one.

The Book of Mormon and the Bible affirm that God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are One God. But the son is distinct from the Father, making two persons - and arguably two Gods. The question is HOW are these three persons or three Gods still One God? The doctrine of the Trinity, as formulated in human councils of the fourth century, teaches that there is only One Being somehow having three persons, immaterial and of one substance. But Origen's pre-Nicene dialogue discloses that the distinctness of the Father and the Son makes two Gods - that is, in one sense, they are two, and yet in another sense, one. We accept Christ's statements in John 17 as an excellent explanation of the sense in which the three persons are One: verses 11 and 20-23 teach that Christians are to be one just as God and the Son are one. Ah - that oneness might just mean a oneness of unity, of perfect harmony, of total sharing and common purpose and mind - not a unity of a single individual or being or the immaterial essence so loved by the Greek philosophers.

We definitely believe in Christ as God, the Father as God, and the Holy Ghost as God. Accepting that is not necessarily the same as accepting the metaphysical doctrines of the Trinity. We believe in the unified Godhead, the One Eternal God of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as three distinct Beings. That position seems much more in harmony with the writings of the Bible than, say, the Athanasian Creed.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.