Athanasian Creed 390 A.D. (1 views) Subscribe   
  From:  David (DavidABrown)    7/18/2001 3:07 pm  
To:  ALL   (1 of 13)  
 
  136.1  
 
Source 
www.crchurches.net/resources/creeds/AthanasianCreed.html 
This creed is named after Athanasius (A.D. 293-373), the champion of orthodoxy against Arian attacks on the doctrine of the trinity. Although Athanasius did not write this creed and it is improperly named after him, the name persists because until the seventeenth century it was commonly ascribed to him. It is not from Greek (Eastern), but from Latin (Western) origin, and is not recognized by the Eastern Orthodox Church today. Apart from the opening and closing sentences, this creed consists of two parts, the first setting forth the orthodox doctrine of the trinity, and the second dealing chiefly with the incarnation and the two-natures doctrine. 

Source 
www.churchhistory.net/creeds/index.html 

The Athanasian Creed 

We worship one God in trinity, and trinity in unity, neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance. For the person of the Father is one; of the Son, another; of the Holy Spirit, another. But the divinity of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is one, the glory equal, the majesty equal. Such as is the Father, such also is the Son, and such the Holy Spirit. 

The Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated, the Holy Spirit is uncreated. The Father is infinite, the Son is infinite, the Holy Spirit is infinite. The Father is eternal, the Son is eternal, the Holy Spirit is eternal. And yet there are not three eternal Beings, but one eternal Being. So also there are not three uncreated Beings, nor three infinite Beings, but one uncreated and one infinite Being. 

In like manner, the Father is omnipotent, the Son is omnipotent, and the Holy Spirit is omnipotent. And yet there are not three omnipotent Beings, but one omnipotent Being. Thus the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And yet there are not three Gods, but one God only. The Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and the Holy Spirit is Lord. And yet there are not three Lords, but one Lord only. 

For as we are compelled by Christian truth to confess each person distinctively to be both God and Lord, we are prohibited by the Catholic religion to say that there are three Gods or Lords. The Father is made by none, nor created, nor begotten. The Son is from the Father alone, not made, not created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is not created by the Father and the Son, nor begotten, but proceeds. Therefore, there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits. 

And in this Trinity there is nothing prior or posterior, nothing greater or less, but all three persons are coeternal and coequal to themselves. So that through all, as was said above, both unity in trinity and trinity in unity is to be adored. Whoever would be saved, let him thus think concerning the Trinity. 






David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit  
 
From:  David (DavidABrown)    7/18/2001 3:12 pm  
To:  ALL    
 
    
 
Source 
http://elvis.rowan.edu/~kilroy/JEK/05/02.html 
Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, Theologian, Doctor, 
Died 2 May 373 
Outside the pages of the New Testament itself, Athanasius is probably the man to whom we chiefly owe the preservation of the Christian faith. He was born around AD 298, and lived in Alexandria, Egypt, the chief center of learning of the Roman Empire. 

In 313 the Emperor Constantine issued the Edict of Milan, which changed Christianity from a persecuted to an officially favored religion. About six years later, a presbyter (elder, priest) Arius of Alexandria began to teach concerning the Word of God (John 1:1) that "God begat him, and before he was begotten, he did not exist." Athanasius was at that time a newly ordained deacon, secretary to Bishop Alexander of Alexandria, and a member of his household. His reply to Arius was that the begetting, or uttering, of the Word by the Father is an eternal relation between Them, and not a temporal event. Arius was condemned by the bishops of Egypt (with the exceptions of Secundus of Ptolemais and Theonas of Marmorica), and went to Nicomedia, from which he wrote letters to bishops throughout the world, stating his position. 

The Emperor Constantine undertook to resolve the dispute by calling a council of bishops from all over the Christian world. This council met in Nicea, just across the straits from what is now Istanbul, in the year 325, and consisted of 317 bishops. Athanasius accompanied his bishop to the council, and became recognized as a chief spokesman for the view that the Son was fully God, co-equal and co-eternal with the Father. 

The party of Athanasius was overwhelmingly in the majority. (The western, or Latin, half of the Empire was very sparsely represented, but it was solidly Athanasian, so that if its bishops had attended in force, the vote would have been still more lopsided.) It remained to formulate a creedal statement to express the consensus. The initial effort was to find a formula from Holy Scripture that would express the full deity of the Son, equally with the Father. However, the Arians cheerfully agreed to all such formulations, having interpreted them already to fit their own views. (Those of you who have conversed with members of the Watchtower Society, who consider themselves the spiritual heirs of Arius, will know how this works.) Finally, the Greek word "homo-ousios" (meaning "of the same substance, or nature, or essence") was introduced, chiefly because it was one word that could not be understood to mean what the Arians meant. Some of the bishops present, although in complete disagreement with Arius, were reluctant to use a term not found in the Scriptures, but eventually saw that the alternative was a creed that both sides would sign, each understanding it in its own way, and that the Church could not afford to leave the question of whether the Son is truly God (the Arians said "a god") undecided. So the result was that the Council adopted a creed which is a shorter version of what we now call the Nicene Creed, declaring the Son to be "of one substance with the Father." At the end, there were only two holdouts, the aforesaid Secundus and Theonas. 

(For a dramatic but historically accurate account of the Council of Nicea, see the play, The Emperor Constantine, by Dorothy L Sayers, available in book form.) 

No sooner was the council over than its consensus began to fall apart. Constantine had expected that the result would be unity, but found that the Arians would not accept the decision, and that many of the orthodox bishops were prepared to look for a wording a little softer than that of Nicea, something that sounded orthodox, but that the Arians would accept. All sorts of compromise formulas were worked out, with all shades of variation from the formula of Nicea. 

In 328, Alexander died, and Athanasius succeeded him as bishop of Alexandria. He refused to participate in these negotiations, suspecting (correctly as it turned out) that once the orthodox party showed a willingness to make reaching an agreement their highest priority, they would end up giving away the store. He defended the full deity of Christ against emperors, magistrates, bishops, and theologians. For this, he was regarded as a trouble-maker by Constantine and his successors, and was banished from Alexandria a total of five times by various emperors. (Hence the expression "Athanasius contra mundum," or, "Athanasius against the world.") Eventually, Christians who believed in the Deity of Christ came to see that once they were prepared to abandon the Nicene formulation, they were on a slippery slope that led to regarding the Logos as simply a high-ranking angel. The more they experimented with other formulations, the clearer it became that only the Nicene formulation would preserve the Christian faith in any meaningful sense, and so they re-affirmed the Nicene Creed at the Council of Constantinople in 381, a final triumph that Athanasius did not live to see. 

It was a final triumph as far as councils of bishops were concerned, but the situation was complicated by the fact that after Constantine there were several Arian emperors (not counting the Emperor Julian, who was a pagan, but correctly saw that the most effective way to fight Christianity was to throw all his weight on the side of the Arians). Under one of them Arian missionaries were sent to convert the Goths, who became the backbone of the Roman Army (then composed chiefly of foreign mercenaries) with the result that for many years Arianism was considered the mark of a good Army man. The conversion of Clovis, King of the Franks, in 496, to orthodox Christianity either gave the Athanasian party the military power to crush Arianism or denied the Arian Goths the military supremacy that would have enabled them to crush Athanasian Christianity, depending on your point of view. 

Since Alexandria had the best astronomers, it was the duty of the Bishop of Alexandria to write to the other bishops every year and tell them the correct date for Easter. Naturally, his annual letter on this topic contained other material as well. One Easter Letter (or Paschal Letter) of Athanasius is well known for giving a list of the books that ought to be considered part of the canonical Scriptures, with a supplementary list of books suitable for devotional reading. 

For the New Testament, he lists the 27 books that are recognized today. (If you will look at your list of New Testament books, you may note that Matthew through 2 Thessalonians were never in dispute, that the next four were subject to relatively little dispute, and that the remaining books had more trouble being accepted. There were also a few books that looked as if they might make the list, but eventually did not, the most conspicuous being the Epistle of Barnabas, the Epistle of Clement, and the Shepherd of Hermas.) 

For the Old Testament, his list is like that used by most Protestants, except that he omits Esther, and includes Baruch, with the letter of Jeremiah. His supplementary list is Wisdom, Sirach, Tobias, Judith, and Esther. He does not mention Maccabees. 

Two quotations from the writings of Athanasius follow: 

We were made "in the likeness of God." But in course of time that image has become obscured, like a face on a very old portrait, dimmed with dust and dirt. 
When a portrait is spoiled, the only way to renew it is for the subject to come back to the studio and sit for the artist all over again. That is why Christ came--to make it possible for the divine image in man to be recreated. We were made in God's likeness; we are remade in the likeness of his Son. 

To bring about this re-creation, Christ still comes to men and lives among them. In a special way he comes to his Church, his "body", to show us what the "image of God" is really like. 

What a responsibility the Church has, to be Christ's "body," showing him to those who are unwilling or unable to see him in providence, or in creation! Through the Word of God lived out in the Body of Christ they can come to the Father, and themselves be made again "in the likeness of God." 

[ Editor's Note: the biography just breaks off here. I'm working on getting the rest of it and patching this up. Sorry 'bout that . . .] 





David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
From:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   7/18/2001 11:13 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (3 of 13)  
 
  136.3 in reply to 136.2  
 
  To condense this story:  We had two opposing philosophies concerning the nature of God.  The authors of both of these philosophies were well-versed in the scriptures, and based their philosophies on their understanding of these scriptures.  A vote was taken, and one of these philosophies chosen above the other.  Since scripture did not refute either philosophy, and supported both, a Creed was written which was specifally crafted to support the chosen philosophy, and to refute the rejected one.

  Both of these philosophies were the opinions of men, and not the word of God.  The Creed which was written to promote the one man-made philosophy over the other is, itself, not the word of God, but the opinion of men.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 I hate spam, but that isn't really part of my email address.  To email me, remove the string HatesSpam from the email address which appears below.  DO NOT send me any form of advertising, chain letters, or other such garbage.  Spammers will be dealt with very harshly!

BobHatesSpam@blaylock.to  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    7/19/2001 10:12 am  
To:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   (4 of 13)  
 
  136.4 in reply to 136.3  
 
Both Views cannot be Biblical.
Either Jesus is God or He isnt! Either the Father is God or He isnt! Either the Holy Spirit is God or He isnt!

Only one view the Trinity/Triunity is Biblical the other view isnt.

Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and Teach All Nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

We are Baptized (become family) into God not into Angels or into man.

The creeds are what the early Church felt was of paramount importance to properly instruct people in Christianity.

It is interesting that you reject the creeds as philosophy of men, but accept the incoherent ramblings of Joseph Smith as biblical. Cults are the reason the creeds were written and handed down by the church. The creeds are short statements providing the Christian Truths that Cults are most likely to corrupt.






David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   7/19/2001 10:21 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (5 of 13)  
 
  136.5 in reply to 136.4  
 
David (DAVIDABROWN) wrote:
Both Views cannot be Biblical.

Either Jesus is God or He isnt! Either the Father is God or He isnt! Either the Holy Spirit is God or He isnt!
  It's not obvious to me that either of these competing philosophies deny the godhood of any of the three beings.  I say that both philosophies are, however, unbiblical, because both rely on presumptions that are not stated in the Bible.



Only one view the Trinity/Triunity is Biblical the other view isnt.
  But the Trinity, at least as described in the Athansian Creed, is not biblical.  If it were  if the Bible made it clear that this was the true nature of the Godhead  then there would be no purpose in writing such a Creed.  This Creed was written to clarify what the Bible will not.  But the only way to do this is to add man-made doctrines, not found in the Bible.



It is interesting that you reject the creeds as philosophy of men, but accept the incoherent ramblings of Joseph Smith as biblical.
  We don't claim that anything which Joseph Smith wrote is biblical.  I assume that you understand, the same as I do, the word biblical to mean from the Bible, right?  To you, this is a point on which you are vulnerable to criticism, because, unless I've misunderstood you, you claim that the Bible is the only legitimate scripture, and the only legitimate source of theological truth.  I am criticising you, therefore, on your reliance on these Creeds, which I maintain are very much non-biblical.  We LDS do not believe that the Bible is the sole source of truth; we believe that God has revealed much other vital truth to mankind than what is in the Bible, and that he will continue to do so.  We do not believe that something must be biblical in order to be the word of God.

  As far as incoherent ramblings, go back and read the Athanasian Creed again.  I challenge you to produce any authentic writings of Joseph Smith, or of any of our other latter-day prophets, that comes anywhere close to the degree of being incoherent ramblings that the Athanasian Creed achieves. 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 I hate spam, but that isn't really part of my email address.  To email me, remove the string HatesSpam from the email address which appears below.  DO NOT send me any form of advertising, chain letters, or other such garbage.  Spammers will be dealt with very harshly!

BobHatesSpam@blaylock.to  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    7/19/2001 10:41 pm  
To:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   (6 of 13)  
 
  136.6 in reply to 136.5  
 
With all of that, as typical you have no answers or alternatives. 
Why does the Bible instruct us to have one Baptism in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit? 

Do Mormons Baptize in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? 

Can you tell us what Mormons do and say when you baptize or is it confidential? 






David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   7/19/2001 11:24 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (7 of 13)  
 
  136.7 in reply to 136.6  
 
David (DAVIDABROWN) wrote:
Do Mormons Baptize in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit?

Can you tell us what Mormons do and say when you baptize or is it confidential?
  It's all written down in the Doctrine and Covenants Section 20, verses 72-74.
72  Baptism is to be administered in the following manner unto all those who repent

73  The person who is called of God and has authority from Jesus Christ to baptize, shall go down into the water with the person who has presented himself or herself for baptism, and shall say, calling him or her by name: Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

74  Then shall he immerse him or her in the water, and come forth again out of the water.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 I hate spam, but that isn't really part of my email address.  To email me, remove the string HatesSpam from the email address which appears below.  DO NOT send me any form of advertising, chain letters, or other such garbage.  Spammers will be dealt with very harshly!

BobHatesSpam@blaylock.to  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    7/19/2001 11:50 pm  
To:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   (8 of 13)  
 
  136.8 in reply to 136.7  
 
Bob, 
"It's all written down in the Doctrine and Covenants Section 20, verses 72-74." 

This isnt "all written down" 

Is it written down that Mormons are required to be Baptized Only at Mormon Temples, to gain full Mormon benefits? 

Is it written that Mormons are required to wear special garments when baptized? 

The "calling him or her by name" which name? Their common name or a new given baptism name? 

Why can't you be Honest and open about Mormon practices? 

It looks like you are very Accomplished in these Games of word Deception, and no doubt you have led many people astray into the Error and False hope of Mormonism. 






David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   7/20/2001 12:32 am  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (9 of 13)  
 
  136.9 in reply to 136.8  
 
David (DAVIDABROWN) wrote:
[Quoting me]
"It's all written down in the Doctrine and Covenants Section 20, verses 72-74."
This isnt "all written down"

Is it written down that Mormons are required to be Baptized Only at Mormon Temples, to gain full Mormon benefits?

Is it written that Mormons are required to wear special garments when baptized?

The "calling him or her by name" which name? Their common name or a new given baptism name?

Why can't you be Honest and open about Mormon practices?
  Regular baptisms are not performed in our Temples, but in our regular church buildings, and are very much open to the public.  They are done in exactly the manner described in the text which I cited.  There are no special garments involved in baptism, other than that both the person being baptized, and the person performing the baptism, wear all white.  There is no "baptism name".

  You do not have to take my word for this.  As I said, baptisms take place in our regular church buildings, and are open to the public.  If you get in touch with the LDS missionaries in your area, I'm sure that they will be glad to let you know when and where a baptism is going to take place, so that you may attend and see for yourself.

  Baptisms by proxy, on behalf of those who have passed on, are performed in our Temples, but are done in very much the same manner as regular baptisms of the living.  Again, there is no "baptism name", and no special garments, other than the requirement that only white be worn.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 I hate spam, but that isn't really part of my email address.  To email me, remove the string HatesSpam from the email address which appears below.  DO NOT send me any form of advertising, chain letters, or other such garbage.  Spammers will be dealt with very harshly!

BobHatesSpam@blaylock.to  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    7/20/2001 9:40 am  
To:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock) unread  (10 of 13)  
 
  136.10 in reply to 136.9  
 
Bob, 
You are not being truthful, Mormonism does assign a new Secret name to Mormons, and Mormonism has Many rituals and rights that are also secret and not immediately explained to prospective converts. 

Your mention of both the baptizer and the one being baptized both being required to wear white, although you neglect again to mention the necessity of the sacred underwear, is Enough to show Mormonism Unbiblical therefore unchristian. 

Christians Baptize in the name of God, therefore the Baptizer is irrelevant, he is not baptizing in his honor, glory or ability therefore the baptizer can wear anything they want to wear, and likewise the one being baptized can wear anything they desire. I wore a Christian t-shirt when I was baptized. But then I am Baptized into God being baptized into the death and resurrection of Jesus and not into man. 

Since Mormons place their trust in man their religion is man-made and is only another worldly philosophy and only as good as the opinions of men. Mormonism will pass away with the rest of the sinful thoughts of mankind. 





David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit  
 
From:  David (DavidABrown)    7/20/2001 9:46 am  
To:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock) unread   
 
    
 
Following is another source of Christian  Mormon dialogue about the Trinity. 
The discussion vividly show the Indoctrination Mormons undergo and the Constant use of 
Self defined terms and elusive explanations employed to fit the Mormon philosophy. 
Source 
http://www.carm.org/dialogues/numberofgods_lds.htm 

The Mormon has redefined the word "god" to mean two different things: god as an individual and god as an office held by three individual gods. So, when I ask how many gods there are, Mormon says 'one.' In this he is using the term 'god' as referring to the office held by three gods. When I ask if the Father is a god, and he says yes, he is using the word 'god' in the individual sense. This is double-talk and he does not see what he is doing. I am repeating this different ways with them both in an attempt to get them to see their inconsistency. 

This was a very interesting dialogue for me because it is so typical of how Mormons redefine words in order to retain their theological views. Because of their testimony of the truth of Mormonism and that God is an exalted man and has a goddess wife, etc., it is absolutely essential that the Bible be reinterpreted and words redefined. It is difficult to get them to see this is happening, especially when they think I am the one who has done the redefining. 
Nevertheless, I hope that they come to a full and complete saving and personal relationship with Jesus. 

Two Mormons state that 3 Gods is really 1 God. 

This chat began by "Mormon" contacting me on ICQ. I responded, asked him what he believed. He said he was a Mormon and asked me what I like to do. "Debate," I said. He asked me what I liked to debate. I said theology and we were off. I began with a comment on how Mormonism contradicts the Bible. The conversation progressed and later he enlisted the help of a Mormon missionary. 
In my opinion, this dialogue is a good example of how Mormons cannot accept what the Bible plainly teaches. Instead, they must reinterpret the scriptures and change word meanings to get the Bible to agree with their theology. 
In this dialogue, I was a bit direct and tried to stay on one subject attempting to get them to really understand the difference between the Bible and Mormonism. Whether or not I accomplished that, I do not know. I tried to remain polite and hope that I was. We pick the conversation up here.... 

Matt: As I was saying, the Bible teaches that there is only one God in all existence. Therefore, there can be no other god or goddess as Mormonism teaches. 
Mormon: You are taking things out of context...another example of what so many other people do. You start at the end, not bothering to know what comes before 
Matt: The issue is whether or not Mormonism teaches the true god. It does not. The Bible says there are no gods created after God and none created before him. Therefore, no one can become a god. 
Mormon: Give me scripture and verse for this. 

Note: I have the advantage of a computer Bible program, so I simply pasted the verses into our conversation. 

Matt: Isaiah 44:6 says, "Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: I am the first and I am the last, and there is no God besides Me." (The New American Standard Bible). 
Matt: Also, in Isaiah 44:8, it says, "Do not tremble and do not be afraid; Have I not long since announced it to you and declared it? And you are My witnesses. Is there any God besides Me, Or is there any other Rock? I know of none." 
Matt: God says He does not even know of any other god, therefore, there is no goddess wife. He says there is no God besides Him... Period. 
Mormon: Okay, what does it say in the KJV Bible? That is what I study by. I find with all the other versions, there is much bias. 
Matt: Okay, here it is. Isaiah 44:6: "Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God." 
Matt: Isaiah 44:8 says, "Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any." 
Matt: Also, Isaiah 43:10 says, "Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me." 
Mormon: The thing is, there are so many things that people just don't understand because of the fact that they don't start at the beginning. I mean when you think about it, would you go into a grade one class and teach them grade 12 algebra? 
Matt: I understand. But what does the Bible say? Does it say there are no other gods? If so, then there aren't any other gods. 
Mormon: There are certain precepts that you have to understand before that...and I get this all the time from people. They just come in and try to start bashing the church, not taking into consideration what the person thinks, of his feelings. It is just unfair to treat a person's beliefs like that. 
Matt: You asked and I quoted scripture to you that says there is no other God. So how do you answer the challenge of God's word saying there is no other God? 
Mormon: I commend you on the fact that you have studied this out.. I know that I don't have all the answers. I have only been in the church for ten months, and am still learning more everyday. I will get answers, maybe not tonight, but within the next day or so. I am sure of that. May I ask you a question? 
Matt: shoot. 
Mormon: You told me when I asked you what was up that you were looking for a debate...why do that? Why come in just to debate and try to tear down what others believe? 
Matt: I debate both to learn and to teach. If you believe in a false god, then you are in trouble. I am simply trying to help you find the real one. 
Mormon: But is it RIGHT to come in and try to tear them down like that? 
Matt: Yes. It is right to warn people about the danger they are in. 
Mormon: Okay, well, what church do you belong to? 
Matt: I go to a non-denominational church. 
Matt: By the way, you still havent answered my question about there being only one God. Mormonism teaches that there are many many gods, that people can become gods... 
Mormon: Can you give me a standard of belief? 
Matt: The standard is the Bible. 
Mormon: Like I said, could you give me a couple of days to get answers, I haven't studied this topic a lot. 
Mormon: Ok, well, how about the method of baptism, how is it done? 
Matt: Baptism is really immaterial when it comes to the importance of knowing who is the true God. But I'll answer it. Could you be more specific? 
Mormon: What is the method of baptism? Some do it in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, others do it in the name of Jesus Christ. Here is a question: Do you believe baptism is necessary? 
Matt: Those who baptize "in Jesus name" are the United Pentecostal and the United Apostolic churches and they are both cults. 
Mormon: WHAT!? 
Matt: Yes... The proper mode is in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. 
Mormon: Hold on.I am bringing a friend into this chat 
Matt: Okay, 
[LDS Missionary enters the chat] 
Matt: Hi 
Mormon: Hi LDS Missionary. Meet Matt. 
Mormon: LDS served a mission, and has been in the church longer then I and should therefore be able to help. 
Matt: Fine, let's talk then... 
Mormon: Ask LDS some questions. 
LDS Missionary: Hello Matt. Have you two been talking a while? 
Mormon: Yes, for a little while. 
Matt: Ill restate my assertion: The Bible says that there is only one God. Period. Therefore, Mormonism is wrong. 
LDS Missionary: Yes there is only one god. 
Matt: in all existence in all places in all time? 
LDS Missionary: We believe there is only one God 
Matt: LDS, do you believe that there is only one God in all the universe? in all times? in all places? 
Mormon: We believe in God the eternal Father, and in his Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost, that is the first article of faith. 
LDS Missionary: Yes. He is eternal, from everlasting to everlasting 
Matt: Is Jesus a god? 
LDS Missionary: Yes. He is divine. He is the son of God the Eternal Father. 
Matt: So then, the Father is a god, and the Son is a god. That is two gods, right? 
Mormon: Jesus is a part of the Godhead, they together make up one eternal God.... inseparable so to speak 
Matt: I thought you said there was only one? 
Matt: Mormon. Your church teaches that the godhead is three separate gods. 
Mormon: Okay. He is a member of the Godhead.... TOGETHER they make up "God". 
Matt: Your church also teaches that there is a wife to God, a goddess wife. 
LDS Missionary: As Mormon said, there's the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost. They are one in purpose. We know very little about that doctrine or the goddess mother. But yes we believe there is a heavenly mother. 
Matt: LDS, I thought you said there was only one god in all the universe. Now you just admitted there is more than one god. So, you have God the Father, a god the Son, a god the Holy Ghost, and a goddess mother. Thats four gods. 
LDS Missionary: Three separate personages, but one in spirit and purpose. 
Matt: In Isaiah 43:10, it says, "Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me." 
Matt: Isaiah 44:8 says, "Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any." 
LDS Missionary: As a godhead, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are eternal. 
Matt: How do you explain your theology in light of the Bible's teaching that there is only one God, period, none other than God, none before, and none after? 
LDS Missionary: I wouldnt be able to believe the way I did unless I believed in modern revelation. We have modern prophets to reveal God's word to us. 
Matt: Was God, whom you call elohim, once a man? 
LDS Missionary: Again, a doctrine we know very little about. 
Mormon: Amos 3:7 here! "Surely, the Lord God doeth nothing, save it shall be through his servants, his prophets." 
Matt: Luke 16:16 says, "The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it." 
Matt: Prophets were the Old Testament way. Now we have Jesus and no longer need prophets (Heb. 1:1-3). 
Matt: Now please, back to the issue of God. 
LDS Missionary: We don't teach these doctrines to everyone. 
Matt: The Bible says there are no other gods, that God doesn't even know of any other (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6-8). Now, if Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and god's wife are all gods, thats three others. How do you explain God saying he doesn't even know of any others? 
Matt: Don't you see? The Bible contradicts your theology. Which should I trust? 
LDS Missionary: Have you ever read the book of Mormon? 
Matt: Most of it.... 
LDS Missionary: What was your intent in reading it? 
Matt: To study. Mormonism teaches us to read it and pray about it to get a testimony that its true. Were to pray about it with a sincere heart, etc., But it doesn't matter what I feel. The Bible says there is only one God, not more than one. How do you reconcile your beliefs with that? 
Mormon: Like we said, Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost make up ONE eternal God! 
Matt: Mormon? Can I ask you something? 
Mormon: Go ahead 
Matt: How many gods are there in all places, all times, etc.? 
Mormon: There is only God. We believe that with all our hearts. But what you are not comprehending is that we believe that Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost is ONE eternal God, they are separate personages, but they are one in purpose 
Matt: Is the Father a god? 
Mormon: It says in the BIBLE, that God is the same YESTERDAY, TODAY, and FOREVER, 
Matt: Yes I know. Heb. 13:8, yes. Psalm 90:2 is good also. 
LDS Missionary: We actually can't answer that for you. You need to start with the basics. 
Matt: This is the basics! How many gods are there? This is quite basic. 
LDS Missionary: Well, the question is basic. But the understanding of that doctrine is probably beyond what any of us are ready for. Do you really believe that god has finished speaking to us, that the Bible is all there is now? So if he talked to the people then, why wouldn't he do it now? 
Matt: Yes, because he said in Heb. 1:1-3 that now He speaks to use through Jesus, not prophets. Heb. 1:1-3 (incidentally), God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; 3Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; 
Matt: Mormon, is the Father A god? 
Mormon: Yes, they are all members of the Godhead. They combine to make up one eternal God 
Matt: Is Jesus a god? 
Mormon: Okay...let me go through this one more time, they are all members of the Godhead, and the three combined make up one eternal God 
Matt: You are stating that God is an office. The Bible states there is one God, only one. 
Mormon: What do you mean by that? 
Matt: You are stating that the Father is a god, that the Son is a god, and that that Holy Ghost is a god. That is 3 gods. 
Matt: Now, how many gods ARE there? 
Matt: I've already shown you where the Bible says there is only one, period, that's it. 
Matt: Now you have to jump around trying to explain yourselves... it isn't working. There is either more than one god or there isn't. 
Mormon: ok...They are all members of the Godhead.... Together they make up one eternal God!!! 
Matt: So, three gods, make up one eternal god? How is that possible? 
Mormon: No...They are members of the Godhead. They each play a vital role in God. They each have a specific purpose. They together make one eternal God. 

Note: The Mormon has redefined the word "god" to mean two different things: god as an individual and god as an office held by three individual gods. So, when I ask how many gods there are, Mormon says 'one.' In this he is using the term 'god' as referring to the office held by three gods. When I ask if the Father is a god, and he says yes, he is using the word 'god' in the individual sense. This is double-talk and he does not see what he is doing. I am repeating this different ways with them both in an attempt to get them to see their inconsistency. 

Matt: The three separate gods make one god? 
LDS Missionary: You know our beliefs. We've explained them. We believe the Bible coincides with our beliefs perfectly. 
Matt: But that's like saying that the 3 person of Frank, Joe, and Mike, make up one person, not three. It doesn't make sense. 
Mormon: I not only believe that it does, but I KNOW it does...I have a firm testimony of the truthfulness of this church, and nobody, NOBODY will ever take that away from me! 
Matt: But the Bible does not teach that. 
Mormon: Okay...let me use an analogy. You have a family, right? 
Matt: That is plain and simple. So, how can you state that you can become a god, or that god used to be a man, or that there is a goddess mother in heaven? 
Mormon: Will you answer my question. Do you have a family? 
Matt: Yes, I have a family 
Mormon: Okay, Well, each member of your family is a separate individual right? 
Matt: Yes 
Mormon: Well...together they make up ONE FAMILY. That is how it is with the Godhead. Matt: I understand. But I'm trying to get YOU to see the problem. 
Mormon: What problem!? 
Matt: In Mormonism, the Godhead is like an office held by three gods. Each god is not the other god. They are three gods. You say the three separate gods make up on godhead. 
Matt: But the Bible doesn't say there is only one Godhead. It says there is only ONE GOD! 
Mormon: Ok, I am about to give up here... You aren't willing to start with the basics, you aren't willing to LISTEN so there is nothing that I can do. 
LDS Missionary: We may as well give up for now. What church do you go to Matt? 
Matt: I go to a non-denominational church. 
Matt: Mormon? 
Mormon: I am here 
Matt: Does the Bible say there is only one God? 
Mormon: Yes...and together...the Father, Son and Holy Spirit makeup that one God! 
Matt: Amazing.... is the Father a god? Is the Son a god? Is the Holy Ghost a god? How many gods is that? 
Mormon: Okay...together they are God! 
Matt: One plus one plus one equals three. 
Mormon: Key word: TOGETHER!! 
Matt: So three separate gods equals one god? 
Mormon: TOGETHER they make up ONE ETERNAL GOD! 
Matt: So then, the three separate gods is really only one god? 
Mormon: This isn't working. You aren't really listening to what we are saying!!! 
Matt: Yes I am listening. I am listening carefully. 
Matt: You are telling me there are three gods and that the three gods make up one god. 
Mormon: With your ears you are, but not with your heart. Right now your heart is too full of contention and the desire to argue... Well, the things of God are holy, and sacred, and I REFUSE to argue about them 
Matt: That is not logical. You are playing with words... you should be saying that the 3 separate gods equals one godhead (according to Mormon definitions). 
Matt: Don't you see? The Bible says there is only one God, not three gods. Not three gods... just one.... Not one godhead consisting of three gods, but only ONE God. 
Matt: Mormonism disagrees with the Bible. 
Mormon: No, Mormonism does agree with the Bible. You are making it disagree! 
Matt: You mean, that by quoting the Bible plainly, I am making it disagree with Mormonism? Interesting. Want me to quote the verses again, and you please tell me where it is wrong? 
Matt: Isaiah 43:10, "Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me." 
Mormon: No, that isn't what I mean. You are coming in with the attitude that we are wrong, that there is no way we could be right, and therefore you are not really listening, or even thinking about what we are saying. 
Matt: How could I not be right when I agree with the Bible when it says, "Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any" (Isaiah 44:8)? 
Matt: If the Father is a god, and the Son is a god, and the Holy Ghost is a god, and there is a goddess mother, then what is God saying here in Isaiah 44:8? 
LDS Missionary: These scriptures must be understood in the context they're meant for. The Lord had something to teach at that particular time 
Matt: God will not contradict himself later, will he? Will he teach Israel there is only one God when there really is more than one? 
Matt: Will he have Mormon prophets tells us later that we can become gods, when so long ago God said there would be no Gods formed after Him? 
Mormon: Matt will you be online tomorrow? 
Matt: depends... I have a meeting to go to? 
Mormon: I will get some answers and will chat again with you soon 
Mormon: What time can you make it in. 
Matt: Maybe around 9 p.m. 
Mormon: I will have tome to study my scriptures and get some answers. 
Matt: Okay... Let me help you out with some standard verses the Mormons use: 1 Cor. 8:5-6; John 10:30-34 and Psalms 82:6. Mormons like those But dont forget to check out Gal. 4:8; Eph. 4:5; Deut. 6:4. 
Mormon: Okay...until tomorrow then 
Matt: This will help you get your answers... but, context is everything, and I'll be ready.... 
Matt: I'll try tomorrow at 9. Okay? 
Mormon: Okay .bye 
Matt: Cya 

This was a very interesting dialogue for me because it is so typical of how Mormons redefine words in order to retain their theological views. Because of their testimony of the truth of Mormonism and that God is an exalted man and has a goddess wife, etc., it is absolutely essential that the Bible be reinterpreted and words redefined. It is difficult to get them to see this is happening, especially when they think I am the one who has done the redefining. 
Nevertheless, I hope that they come to a full and complete saving and personal relationship with Jesus. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Return to Apologetics Dialogues 
Return to Mormonism 


CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS AND RESEARCH MINISTRY 
Contact CARM by email or at www.carm.org 
Copyright by Matthew J. Slick, 1998. All rights reserved 
Most of this site is assembled in the Apologetics Notebook 






David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
From:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   7/20/2001 11:54 am  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (12 of 13)  
 
  136.12 in reply to 136.10  
 
David (DAVIDABROWN) wrote:
You are not being truthful, Mormonism does assign a new Secret name to Mormons, and Mormonism has Many rituals and rights that are also secret and not immediately explained to prospective converts.

Your mention of both the baptizer and the one being baptized both being required to wear white, although you neglect again to mention the necessity of the sacred underwear, is Enough to show Mormonism Unbiblical therefore unchristian.
  There is no new name given at baptism, nor are the Garments of the Holy Priesthood (the sacred underwear you speak of) relevant in any way to baptism.  I was not being untruthful, therefore, nor omitting anything, in not mentioning these things in connection with baptism.  This just goes to show how ignorant you truly are about Mormonism.  Yes, there is a ceremony in which we receive a new name, and there is a ceremony in which we receive and are thereafter expected to wear the holy garments.  But neither of these things are involved in baptism. The ceremonies in which these things are involved, come much later.

  As I've said, baptisms are performed in our regular church buildings, and are open to the public.  You're entirely welcome to attend one, and to see for yourself how these are carried out.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 I hate spam, but that isn't really part of my email address.  To email me, remove the string HatesSpam from the email address which appears below.  DO NOT send me any form of advertising, chain letters, or other such garbage.  Spammers will be dealt with very harshly!

BobHatesSpam@blaylock.to  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


   From:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   7/20/2001 12:07 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (13 of 13)  
 
  136.13 in reply to 136.11  
 
David (DAVIDABROWN) wrote:
The Mormon has redefined the word "god" to mean two different things: god as an individual and god as an office held by three individual gods. So, when I ask how many gods there are, Mormon says 'one.' In this he is using the term 'god' as referring to the office held by three gods. When I ask if the Father is a god, and he says yes, he is using the word 'god' in the individual sense. This is double-talk and he does not see what he is doing. I am repeating this different ways with them both in an attempt to get them to see their inconsistency.
  What we really have here is more a semantic problem than a doctrinal one.  The Bible clearly refers to one God, but it also seems to make it clear that there are three beings who are, in some way, this one God.  It is difficult, therefore, for us mortals, with the limits of our language, and the limits of our understanding, to describe this in a way that entirely makes sense.  My best understanding of the Mormon doctrine on this matter is this:  God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are three separate, individual beings; each one of them is God, and all three of them are God.  If this seems not to entirely make sense, please go back and read the Athanasian Creed once again, and then try to say, with a straight face, that this Creed makes nearly as much sense as what I have just written.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 I hate spam, but that isn't really part of my email address.  To email me, remove the string HatesSpam from the email address which appears below.  DO NOT send me any form of advertising, chain letters, or other such garbage.  Spammers will be dealt with very harshly!

BobHatesSpam@blaylock.to  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit  
 
