Some Things Never Change - The Trinity and Tactics

[Snow]

You responded before I amended my response with information on the matter. I suppose I could be wrong about the method of punishment. But proper Christian worship was enforced by the state. I will give you credit though, you are good at using deceptive debating techniques, like trying to embarrass your opponent. Kudos to you.

Well that's a truly curious response:

1. If you can demonstrate that I have been deceptive, please do so. I haven't. I was straight forward in my factual assertions and completely transparent in my disdain for your fabrication of history.

You, on the other hand, fabricated history - that's deceptive and also deceptive, when challenged to support YOUR claims, you said that I bore the burden of proof.

2. As to embarrassing one's opponent... I should think rather that you would be embarrassed by making stuff up than by me pointing it out.

I said that religious diversity or even freedom existed during the 4th century. You said that I was wrong, alledging that non-trinitarians were burnt as heretics. Since you are obviously unfamiliar with the religious landscape in the Roman Empire in the 4th century, I’ll review it for you:

At the start of the 4th century the empire had a varied religious landscape. The population of the empire was about 60 million of which Christians were a small minority - about 15 million (A timeline of the Roman empire).

Of the Christians, there were various movements and divisions. Prior to Nicea, 325 AD. Subordinationism represented the majority or orthodox view. (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)

In 325 the Emperor Constantine called, convoked, presided at and participated in the doctrinal promulgations at the Council of Nicea. It was he, the Emperor, who suggested the concept of consubstantiality, despite its distasteful reputation due to early disputes. (Michael Grant, Constantine the Great, Scbner’s, 1993, p173).

Though Constantine supported the “trinity” he remained a non-Catholic until about 337 CE. Until then, Constantine was a pagan and later an unbaptized supporter.

At the Council, the “trinitarians,” backed by Constantine, prevailed and the chief figure of one brand of subordinationism, Arius, was exciled. However, at the council there were numerous supported of Arianism, including the great Eusebius. In the end, all agreed to the creed, save a few who were exiled along with Arius. The books of Arius were ordered burned and Constantine threaten death to anyone keeping Arius’ books but there is no historical record of any such follow-through.

By the way - The Nicene Creed of 325 said nothing about the Trinity. It only spoke to the relationship between the Father and the Son - so there was, at that time, no official Church position about the “Trinity,”

Post Nicea Constantine realized how little support there was for his consubstantiality formula and so be backtracked and personally received the exiled Arius and reinstated him to his previous eccesiastical position in Alexandria (A.D. 381, Charles Freeman, Overlook, 2008, p54)

For the remainder of the century support of subordinationism or consubstantiality went back and forth. The new leader of the Nicenes was

Emperor Constans succeeded Constantine the Great and supported the Nicene Creed but tolerated Jews and Pagans - he didn’t burn any of them as you contend. He did ban pagan sacrifices however.

At this point there are still plenty of pagans around. Emperor Constantius II made an effort to promote Christianity at the expense of paganism but did not ban paganism - for example the Roman priestly colleges of the Vestal Virgins. Constantius II was not a Nicene follower, but he held a middle ground between Arianism and the Nicene Creed.. (Pelikan, J.J., The Christian Tradition (1989), pp. 209-10)

In 357 a small group of bishops promulated the Sirmium Creed in support of subordinationism - that was the position shared by the Emperor Constantius and which he tried to make the orthodoxy but he died before it permanently established.

During the century there were three main types of Christians:

-The Nicenes - Father and Son same substance

-Homoians - middle ground between Nicenes and subordinationists.

-Eunomians - stressed unlikeness between Father and Son

(Freeman, pp 64-65)

The Emperor Julian tried to revive paganism

The Emperor Valens tried to deal with the wide religious diversity of the empire. He himself was an Arian - subordinationist.

Throughout the century there were powerful bishops on both sides of the isle and down the middle: Arius and Meletius and Athansius and Basil, etc

... and on and on it went. The scholar Charles Freeman sums up the time: "For the time being the freedom to discuss the issues was preserved," (Freeman p75) It wasn't until after 381 that things changed.

If you don’t know something bytebear, instead of making it up, ask. Someone is usually willing to help.

Edited July 29, 2009 by Snow

[MormonGirl02]

So the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes in subordinationism right?

[rameumptom]

Our belief is closer to Origen's subordinationism than Trinity. We believe that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three separate beings, and all are Gods. We believe that the Son and Holy Ghost are subordinate Gods to the Father, but in some ways are also equal, because God gives all He has to them in the Godhead.

Still, when the resurrected and glorified Christ went to the Nephites, he prayed to the Father. A being who was/is of the same substance and equal to the Father in all ways would not have to pray, but just grant his own desire.

[Revelationstoo]

After Church today I had a boring meeting about Girl's Camp which my two little ones are going to this summer. As it was boring I was ignoring it and reading a bit on the nature of God debates that raged in the 4th and 5th centuries AD.

Prior to that time, subordinationism was the de facto orthodoxy but consubstantiality had some very vociferous supporters. What I am referring to is that before that time the most widespread belief was that Christ, the Son, was subordinate to God, the Father. The Council of Nicea in 325 stated that they were co-equal and consubstantial - that they comprised of the exact same substance that the Son was co-equal with the Father.

Though the loud and vocal efforts of a minority and then the weight and power of the Roman Emperor (Constantine in 325 and Theodosius in 381) the trinitarians won out. One one of their tactics in winning the battle can be seen in the efforts of Gregory of Nazianzus. In his Orations he argues point by point for the non-subordinist point of view. - but not very convincingly. For example where Mark 13:32 says that no one except the Father, not even the Son, knows the last day or hour - which seems to preclude beings of the same substance, Gregory simply gets stuck. What does he do instead? He attacks. He basically says that his opponents - those devote Christians who believe differently than he, are not worthy, that they are sinners or not following Christ or kicking against the pricks, etc..

It's a simply and ancient rhetorical device - used much more extremely by other trinitarians such as Ambrose of Milan and the mighty Athanasius.

Some things never change - do they.

You really hit the nail on the head with the above comments. I agree with you completely.

We see their tactic clearly. Do you have any suggestion how one can awaken a trinitarian to recognize the flavor of their tactic in a constructive manner?

[spamlds]

You all might like the article that contains a timeline of the Great Apostasy and citations from some early Church Fathers and Protestant reformers.

Apostasy and restoration: step by step (part 1) - National LDS Church | Examiner.com

I always found the rivalry between Athanasius and Arius fascinating. Athanasius got Arius banished and his writings burned. When Arius was finally given a break by Constantine and invited to celebrate mass, he was murdered and Athanasius' followers were the chief suspects.

[prisonchaplain]

Yup yup...

We still have the "you don't interpret the Bible MY way so you're going to hell"

or my favorite, "you believe in the wrong Jesus"

Actually, just on the surface, both of these are valid. If I were invited to teach a lesson in a Gospel Principals lesson and said that Jesus was of the same substance as Heavenly Father, would I not be accused false doctrine, and of teaching a different Jesus?

[prisonchaplain]

So the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes in subordinationism right?

For full-blown Arian subordinationism, you'd do better to look to the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses. Jehovah (Father) is the God, and Jesus is "a god."

[spamlds]

PrisonChaplain wrote:

"Actually, just on the surface, both of these are valid. If I were invited to teach a lesson in a Gospel Principals lesson and said that Jesus was of the same substance as Heavenly Father, would I not be accused false doctrine, and of teaching a different Jesus?"

Agreed. However, the question is which Jesus was taught by the Church of the 1st century as opposed to the Church of the 3rd and 4th centuries. You and the other readers here might find this article I wrote for the Examiner interesting. The "other gospel" and the "different Jesus" were being taught by apostates even in the time of the ancient apostles. Their comments refer to that "Gnostic Jesus" and the related doctrines that were seeping into the Church even in their time. Here's the link:

Gnostics and Neoplatonists: the 'other gospel' - National LDS Church | Examiner.com

[prisonchaplain]

Ironically, I remember doing a paper for school, and using the Gospel of Thomas as a source for early church teaching and practice. The professor mercifully only docked me a few points. My error? Thomas is indeed a Gnostic gospel... I realized it as soon as I saw the red circle!

[Faded]

Actually, just on the surface, both of these are valid. If I were invited to teach a lesson in a Gospel Principals lesson and said that Jesus was of the same substance as Heavenly Father, would I not be accused false doctrine, and of teaching a different Jesus?

I think the entire room would be full of blank stares if you started in on the whole "they are the same substance" thing. More than anything, you'd have a lot of people trying to sort out what you mean by it.

It's not something commonplace to LDS theology. It's so foreign that some would remain silent and figure you're saying "made from the same stuff, cut from the same cloth, exactly like one another" which wouldn't really contradict our views on the Godhead.

Then there might be those who would ask further probing questions, and they'd probably come out in the same straights as myself: Utterly, completely and thoroughly confused. The Nicaean Trinity does not claim that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are the same person. It also does not claim that they are the same being. It claims they are the same substance. So then you'd have to explain what you mean by substance -- and there's really no notion of what you have in mind within LDS theology, so you'd have a hard time of it there.

You might have them too confused by trying to explain it for them to even bother accusing you of teaching false doctrine. That may come a week or two later after their heads clear a bit.

[Faded]

For full-blown Arian subordinationism, you'd do better to look to the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses. Jehovah (Father) is the God, and Jesus is "a god."

The more important aspect that makes this statement true is that Jehovah-God was, is and always will be greater than Jesus Christ in every way. Jesus becomes more of a demi-god really. Powerful, but nothing quite like Jehovah-God. That is if I understood them correctly.

What we do believe is that while they are equal in power and knowledge, it is God the Father's role to take the lead and the Son and Holy Spirit do as He commands.