This brings us to the Trinity. Interestingly, the word "trinity" is found nowhere in the Bible. The doctrine of the Trinity is not found in scripture, but appeared shorty after the Nicene Creed. The following is taken from here, and those who want to learn more about the early church, will find the Nicene Creed quite interesting:
http://www.creeds.net/ancient/Nicene_Intro.htm
NICENE CREED - Historical Note
In the first three centuries, the church found itself in a hostile environment. On the one hand, it grappled with the challenge of relating the language of the gospel, developed in a Hebraic and Jewish-Christian context, to a Graeco-Roman world. On the other hand, it was threatened not only by persecution, but also by ideas that were in conflict with the biblical witness.
In A.D. 312, Constantine won control of the Roman Empire in the battle of Milvian Bridge. Attributing his victory to the intervention of Jesus Christ, he elevated Christianity to favored status in the empire. "One God, one Lord, one faith, one church, one empire, one emperor" became his motto.
The new emperor soon discovered that "one faith and one church" were fractured by theological disputes, especially conflicting understandings of the nature of Christ, long a point of controversy. Arius, a priest of the church in Alexandria, asserted that the divine Christ, the Word through whom all things have their existence, was created by God before the beginning of time. Therefore, the divinity of Christ was similar to the divinity of God, but not of the same essence. Arius was opposed by the bishop, Alexander, together with his associate and successor, Athanasius. They affirmed that the divinity of Christ, the Son, is of the same substance as the divinity of God, the Father. To hold otherwise, they said, was to open the possibility of polytheism, and to imply that knowledge of God in Christ was not final knowledge of God.
To counter a widening rift within the church, Constantine convened a council in Nicaea in A.D. 325. A creed reflecting the position of Alexander and Athanasius was written and signed by a majority of the bishops. Nevertheless, the two parties continued to battle each other. In A.D. 381, a second council met in Constantinople. It adopted a revised and expanded form of the A.D. 325 creed, now known as the Nicene Creed.
The Nicene Creed is the most ecumenical of creeds. The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) joins with Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and most Protestant churches in affirming it.
The anti-Mormons will use predominately the following scriptures to support their concept of the Trinity:
Isaiah 44:6; John 10:30; 1 John 5:7; John 14:5-9
The anti-Mormons adhere literally to these scriptures, but will not accept a literal interpretation of a scripture when it does not fit their needs. And there are a ton of those scriptures that the anti-Mormons won't even discuss.
For example, John 10:30 says "I and my Father are one". The anti-Mormons state that this must be taken literally, as one essence. But a problem arises in the same gospel of John 17:11, when the Jesus "part" of God prays to the Father "part" of God. The anti-Mormons want us to actually believe that God actually prays to himself!
Another example. In Matthew 24:36 and Mark 13:32, Jesus Christ spoke of His coming in glory. He said, "that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." Using the anti-Mormon belief in the Trinity and the all - in - one - God theory, then I have to believe that the anti-Mormon God is not a truthful God......being the same God as the Father, Jesus had to know the timing of His second coming. Sorry anti-Mormons, but my God is not a liar and He is not the Father in essence, being, person, substance, or anything else.
This is such an interesting subject that I will continue with it tomorrow. IMHO
3 comments:
May I ask from which scholarly works you have gleaned this account of the Creeds and understanding of the Trinity and Christian history? I ask because, how can I say this kindly, this is such a bizzare and mutilated account of the facts I can't imagine any reputable history book or theological work lending credence to it. Of course, I might be wrong and, always being ready to learn something new, I await with real curiosity your answer.
Mike, both the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed are both well known and documented works, so I don't understand your question. The links are listed in my postings to both of these creeds, but feel free to "Google" them as there is a ton of information about them.
jp
JP
I see that in trying to be clever I didn't make myself clear. There is a lesson in that - at least for me.
I am familiar enough with the creeds and was not questioning either their existence or their content. I was questioning your understanding of how they came into being and what they meant and mean.
It is a popular game, putting it all down to Constantine, and taking the view that church councils were a development of an apostate Christendom. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is ironic that, as the Mormon Church has grown and become more sophisticated and multi-cutlural, it too has had to consider its doctrines, answer heresy, etc. and Mormon teaching has changed as a result. There are Mormon versions of Athanasius who would argue for a fundamental return to what JS taught.
I recommend you read Gerald Bray's book "Creeds, Councils and Christ" (Mentor Publications)to get a clear view of what the councils were about and how they worked. It isn't the cut-and-dried "Christians couldn't make up their minds so cobbled something together" affair you seem to think it was.
Post a Comment