It it is nigh impossible to be a "non-Nicene Christian." - Edit 1
Before modification by Joel at 04/10/2011 03:33:16 PM
However, let's just take a very simple approach and look at the Nicene Creed, the fundamental affirmation that separates Christians from people who talk about Jesus (like Jehovah's Witnesses). The Creed says (with questions from me interspersed throughout):
Well, as I'm sure you know, we don't believe in the Nicene Creed. We are Christians, but not Nicaeans, or Nicaean Christians. Maybe that does mean we are more different from other Christian sects than is average. Ok.
The Nicene Creed is Christianitys defining catechism, as it was designed to be; Roman Catholics, Orthodox Catholics, Protestants and even non-denominational Christians who differ on so many other basic tenets ALL accept the Nicene Creed. Rejecting it makes one as "Christian" as the Gnostics of the day who claimed Christ to be a purely metaphorical parable of gnosis, or as Unitarians, or Buddhists who consider Jesus one of the Buddhas incaranations. That is "Christianity" as a humanist philosophy in which theology is highly negotiable. If Christianity requires no more than accepting Karmic Law, Wiccans are Christian--but I advise against telling them that.
The Nicene Creed is not an area where "reasonable Christians can differ." Catechisms are funny that way.We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen.
Can you say this? Do you truly believe in ONE GOD? Did ONE GOD create all that is and ever was? If not, you are not Christians (or Jews or Muslims, for that matter).
Can you say this? Do you truly believe in ONE GOD? Did ONE GOD create all that is and ever was? If not, you are not Christians (or Jews or Muslims, for that matter).
We believe in the Godhead. We worship One God. We believe that Christ is a God, but he is united completely with the Father. We do not pray to Christ.
And yet, we have this, from Joseph Smiths own lips and affirmed as such in "History of the Church" Volume 6:
I will show from the Hebrew Bible that I am correct, and the first word shows a plurality of Gods; and I want the apostates and learned men to come here and prove to the contrary, if they can. An unlearned boy must give you a little Hebrew. Berosheit baurau Eloheim ait aushamayeen vehau auraits, rendered by King James' translators, 'In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.' I want to analyze the word Berosheit. Rosh, the head; Sheit, a grammatical termination; the Baith was not originally put there when the inspired man wrote it, but it has been since added by an old Jew. Baurau signifies to bring forth; Eloheim is from the word Eloi, God, in the singular number; and by adding the word heim, it renders it Gods. It read first, 'In the beginning the head of the Gods brought forth the Gods,' or, as others have translated it, 'The head of the Gods called the Gods together.' I want to show a little learning as well as other fools....
The head God organized the heavens and the earth. I defy all the world to refute me. In the beginning the heads of the Gods organized the heavens and the earth. Now the learned priests and the people rage, and the heathen imagine a vain thing. If we pursue the Hebrew text further, it reads, 'The head one of the Gods said, Let us make a man in our own image.' I once asked a learned Jew, 'If the Hebrew language compels us to render all words ending in heim in the plural, why not render the first Eloheim plural?' He replied, 'That is the rule with few exceptions; but in this case it would ruin the Bible.' He acknowledged I was right."--History of the Church, Volume 6 pp. 474, 475
The head God organized the heavens and the earth. I defy all the world to refute me. In the beginning the heads of the Gods organized the heavens and the earth. Now the learned priests and the people rage, and the heathen imagine a vain thing. If we pursue the Hebrew text further, it reads, 'The head one of the Gods said, Let us make a man in our own image.' I once asked a learned Jew, 'If the Hebrew language compels us to render all words ending in heim in the plural, why not render the first Eloheim plural?' He replied, 'That is the rule with few exceptions; but in this case it would ruin the Bible.' He acknowledged I was right."--History of the Church, Volume 6 pp. 474, 475
That is a rather stunning condescending conceit: Joseph Smith claims, despite ignorance he mockingly concedes, to not only know better Hebrew than rabbis, but that one of them admitted just that. And, obviously, he also claims to teach "a plurality of Gods" (prefaced by, "I wish to declare I have always and in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods. It has been preached by the Elders for fifteen years.") Yet "Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one!" (Deut. 6:4) The refutation he ironically demands from "apostates and learned men" is easily provided.
On the following page Smith presumes to lecture his audience about Koine before continuing to an even more stunning "revelation:"
"If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way. Paul says that which is earthly is in the likeness of that which is heavenly, Hence if Jesus had a Father, can we not believe that He had a Father also? I despise the idea of being scared to death at such a doctrine, for the Bible is full of it. I want you to pay particular attention to what I am saying. Jesus said that the Father wrought precisely in the same way as His Father had done before Him. As the Father had done before? He laid down His life, and took it up the same as His Father had done before. He did as He was sent, to lay down His life and take it up again; and then was committed unto Him the keys."--History of the Church, Volume 6, pp. 476, 477
So now Joseph Smith tells us, not just that there are many gods, but that God the Father likewise had a father who ALSO had a father; Jesus is not merely the Son of God but, according to Joseph Smiths doctrine, also the grandson and great-grandon of God. The bible is apparently "full of such a doctrine" yet I can recall no mention of the Fathers father (let alone HIS father) anywhere. Obviously, people are free to believe that doctrine or any other they like; America is still a free country. To call it Christianity, however, is laughable at best and blasphemous slander at worst. Of course, John did not "discover" that Jesus was anyones grandson simply because Joseph Smith says so, any more than the uncredited "testimony" he cites about Abraham proves it. It does not seem too much to ask that if Joseph Smith is affirming that God the Father had a father who also had a father he might also share with us the source of the "testimony" he cites in support of that doctrine.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father. Through him all things were made.
Do you believe that Jesus Christ is GOD, that he is the SAME GOD as God the Father, that he is one in Being with the Father and that he was begotten, not made? That is to say, that he was not created by God the Father, that he is eternally existent (as the Gospel of John states: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" - this is a direct reference to Christ)? If you do not believe that Christ is God, that He is identical to God the Father and that he is eternally existent, you are not a Christian.
Do you believe that Jesus Christ is GOD, that he is the SAME GOD as God the Father, that he is one in Being with the Father and that he was begotten, not made? That is to say, that he was not created by God the Father, that he is eternally existent (as the Gospel of John states: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" - this is a direct reference to Christ)? If you do not believe that Christ is God, that He is identical to God the Father and that he is eternally existent, you are not a Christian.
We believe that Jesus Christ and the Father are two separate beings. He was not created by God the Father. He does the Father's will always. So as completely united as they are, they are not the same.
We are Christian.
I have read that "that is a strange God anyhow--three in one, and one in three! It is a curious organization. All are to be crammed into one God, according to sectarianism. It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big God—he would be a giant or a monster." So says Joseph Smith, who claims a different doctrine. Why? Because "I learned it by translating the papyrus which is now in my house." Ah. Yes. The papyrus he translated. The one no one else has ever seen nor ever can. That seems a good basis for throwing out 2000 years of Jesus and His disciples teaching trinitarianism (which Joseph Smith miscalls "sectarianism.") Given a choice between placing my faith in what God revealed to all men in a papyrus each of us can hold with our own hands and read for ourselves or what one man says God revealed to him in a papyrus no one else can see, that is a very easy call.
For us men and for our salvation He came down from heaven. By the power of the Holy Spirit He was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake He was crucified under Pontius Pilate, He suffered, died, and was buried. On the third day He rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
To be Christian is to accept the miracle of the Incarnation, the miracle of the passion and death and the miracle of the Resurrection of Christ. Key to this acceptance is the concept that Christ has saved us by suffering and dying for us, and that this salvation is a gift that God has bestowed upon people. Though I loath to use Protestant terminology, we have been saved by the grace of God, not by our works.
To be Christian is to accept the miracle of the Incarnation, the miracle of the passion and death and the miracle of the Resurrection of Christ. Key to this acceptance is the concept that Christ has saved us by suffering and dying for us, and that this salvation is a gift that God has bestowed upon people. Though I loath to use Protestant terminology, we have been saved by the grace of God, not by our works.
No arguments here.
Good to hear, but you should be aware there is STRONG EXPLICIT argument from Joseph Smith in his funeral sermon for King Follett, specifically, in the tellingly titled section "The Righteous to Dwell in Everlasting Burnings":
What did Jesus do? Why I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds came rolling into existence. My Father worked out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to my Father, so that he may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take his place, and thereby become exalted myself.
The actual quote that "a little learning" would have "revealed" to the Prophet is, of course, "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" (Philipians 2:12,) but I suppose that language is less suitable for urging people to exalt themselves to Gods throne, probably because man exalting himself to Gods throne is what the serpent preached in the Garden of Eden. I can certainly see how it might lead to "everlasting burnings" though.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and His kingdom will have no end.
Note that implicit in this is the statement that Christ appeared once, and only once, on this Earth, and not to sci-fi white Indians in a North America that had all sorts of technology that real Native Americans never had.
Note that implicit in this is the statement that Christ appeared once, and only once, on this Earth, and not to sci-fi white Indians in a North America that had all sorts of technology that real Native Americans never had.
Wow.
He appeared more than once. Did he not appear to his disciples after his Resurrection? Multiple times, even?
He came once, at one period of time. When he comes next, it will be in glory and triumph.
He did appear to His disciples after the Resurrection on a number of occasions BEFORE He ascended to heaven, so a pre-Colombian ministry to the Americas is not impossible--provided it was entirely covered in the 40 days between the Resurrection and Ascension.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father [Catholics add: and the Son]. With the Father and the Son He is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets.
The Holy Spirit is the third and crucial part of the Trinity of God. It is the expression of God within us and around us. The statement about "the Prophets" should be clarified in the context of the New Testament, which explicitly says that the gift of prophecy has been made unnecessary because Christ is better than, and in place of, any prophets. This is a fundamental dispute between Christians and Muslims because Muhammad is explicitly understood to be a "false prophet". Beware of any angels that purport to speak to you, the Bible says. Either you believe the Bible and Joe Smith was a fraud or agent of evil powers, or you disregard the Bible and are not Christian.
The Holy Spirit is the third and crucial part of the Trinity of God. It is the expression of God within us and around us. The statement about "the Prophets" should be clarified in the context of the New Testament, which explicitly says that the gift of prophecy has been made unnecessary because Christ is better than, and in place of, any prophets. This is a fundamental dispute between Christians and Muslims because Muhammad is explicitly understood to be a "false prophet". Beware of any angels that purport to speak to you, the Bible says. Either you believe the Bible and Joe Smith was a fraud or agent of evil powers, or you disregard the Bible and are not Christian.
I believe in the Holy Ghost. Please give me a reference to where it is "explicitly" stated that the gift of prophecy has been made unnecessary.
Amos 3:7
And to be honest, I had never heard the idea that Christ put an end to Prophecy, or (Dannymac posted it elswhere) that the Day of Pentecost meant Prophets became obsolete. I'm somewhat... relieved. I could never understand why other religions seemed to believe that revelation stopped after Christ. I don't agree with the idea, but I am sincerely glad to have heard of it.
And because of it, I can now already see the logical response to Amos 3:7.
I believe the Bible, and I believe that Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God.
Well, Tom already provided an example of the bible saying prophecy is no longer NECESSARY, but it seems clear to me that, even after Pentecost, the bible continues to affirm prophecy as a gift of the Holy Spirit and eminently POSSIBLE. Setting aside Revelation, Paul, who was still persecuting the Church when Pentecost occurred, prioritizes prophecy above all other gifts. However, invalidated prophecies makes one a false prophet and unworthy of credence; by OT standards you reference such false prophets were to stoned, IIRC, and I believe Tom also provided a few examples of dated prophecies by Joseph Smith that have not come to pass.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
One baptism, and not performed after death.
One baptism, and not performed after death.
You are the one who says it cannot be performed after death. The Creed itself doesn't, at least not that I can see from what you have quoted.
But yes, we believe in one baptism. We are not first baptized here in this life, and then again after we die. If we are baptized in this life, the ordinance is done. If we are not, it can be done for us by proxy.
This is one doctrine that has always seemed so logical to me, I never have quite understood the attention and debate it stirs. Christ came to save all men. What about all the people who have never even heard his name? There are still people today who do not know anything about Christ. They have not been baptized, but it's not because they rejected Christ. Are they just out of luck?
Instead, we believe that they can learn the gospel in the afterlife, and can accept it. We perform their baptism for them, and they can choose to accept it or not. But it means it is their choice, not something beyond their control because of circumstances.
Without getting tangential I think there is an option beside posthumous conversion, based on the Genesis promise of a Savior, given to Adam and Eve (and by extension, all descendants) at their expulsion from Eden. Without getting into conflicting views on Pauls reference to baptism for the dead, John and Jesus both refer to baptism of the Holy Spirit and, outside of strict Baptist doctrine, baptism with water is generally seen as symbolic of ones conversion.
Christianity existed in this framework for over 1800 years until a dim-witted con man who made his money "divining" with a dowsing rod and a stupid rock claimed to have spoken to angels and sought to completely change virtually every statement made in the fundamental Christian profession of faith.
Nope. A few things:
The Nicene Creed did not come until the year 325 AD. So at most, it could only have been the framework for ~1500 years.
Dim-witted? Seriously? I cannot see how you can view Joseph Smith as dim-witted. If you don't believe what he said, you still have to admit the genius it would take to fabricate everything. Don't tell me any farmboy could write the Book of Mormon. It is too complex for that. I would have trouble believing that a group of professors could fabricate anything approaching the Book of Mormon (and obviously, I don't believe they could have. It is Divinely inspired.)
Do you honestly believe his motivation was making money? Why did he continue after all the persecution he went through? Because he was so filthy stinking rich?
I'm not sure what you are referring to with the "dowsing rod" and "stupid rock" comment. Are you speaking generally about con men?
Change virtually every statement? Nope.
It changes, even inverts, the most basic ones, and thus all those dependent on them, and while the Nicene Creed did not iteself exist until the Fourth Century, it formalized what had been core Christian doctrine since the days of the first Apostles.
So please tell me, why should any Christian consider you to be Christian? Christians can accept you as fellow human beings and honest, decent people, but then again they can do that with anyone from any religion. Why should anyone consider you to be Christian?
Because we believe in Christ.
2nd Nephi 2:23
And verse 26
As Tom notes, a lot of people believe in Christ who would never identify themselves as Christian, most notably, Jews and Muslims.
So on the one hand, you say Joseph Smith affirms monotheism (as indeed he does in some of his sermons) while on the other he affirms polytheism in no uncertain terms. In addition, he teaches that Jesus not only has a Father, but a father and grandfather, claims "the bible is full of" that contention, despite its categorical dismissal of the idea. Last but not least, we have the classic teaching that man should achieve his OWN kingdom and thereby exalt himself to the very throne of God, which is not so much "Christianity" as the theology that caused the Fall of Man. That is before even addressing Joseph Smiths explicit teaching that God was once a flawed mortal and BECAME a perfect deity in just the way Joseph Smith taught we should.
If you do not hold such doctrine I, as a Christian, am overjoyed to hear it; nonetheless, that IS the official LDS theology and it does explicitly and fundamentally contradict Christianity at multiple points. It has been my experience that a lot of laity who identify as "Mormon" categorically dismiss non-Christian doctrine: They just do not realize they automatically reject the LDS church in doing so. The LDS leadership suffers no such confusion, yet nonetheless falsely presents Mormonism as Christianity both to the general public and to its own laity, and their perpetuation of that demonstrable (demonstrated) falsehood disturbs me deeply. It makes me wonder what else the LDS hierarchy knows that it does not tell or even explicitly denies, not only to me, but to you as well.