Ante-Nicene Fathers

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.

CTR

Trinity

All (the persons) are one nature, one essence, one will, and are called the Holy Trinity;

Three persons who are one nature,(same) essence and will, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. So, what is the disagreement?

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).

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.

Fundamentally, the difference to this same day is the same battle fought at the Council of Nicea. The real battle was not against Arianism, the LDS church rejects Arianism. The battle is in the words "of the same substance" and "are the same substance".

Constantine thought "are the same substance" was a more forceful stand against Arianism. Of course in that respect, he was right.

Fundamentally, the difference to this same day is the same battle fought at the Council of Nicea. The real battle was not against Arianism, the LDS church rejects Arianism. The battle is in the words "of the same substance" and "are the same substance". Constantine thought "are the same substance" was a more forceful stand against Arianism. Of course in that respect, he was right.

Oh, so the real issue is the generation question?

The generation properly speaking, has no reference at all to the essence, but only to the hypostatical distinction. The Son is begotten not as God, but as Son, not as to his natura but to his idotnes his peculiar property and his relation to the Father. The divine essence neither begets nor is begotten. (Schaff, History of Christian Church, Vol.2, p.659)

Thanks for the information on what the real question was!

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.

Trinity:)

Got ya!:)

Trinity

hi

Got ya!:)

Slow night:)

Diggin up the left overs!

More left overs:)

There are a lot of left overs:)

the more the merrier:)

Cleaning house

my feelings are hurt...

Why?

You did not flag me did you?? Or did I miss it??:>) How are ya rest?..BTW take Drot off you flag list..he is long gone!

Those from #11 on are long gone/new name?

Now is dort still here on the planet or hovering?

drot left FR some time ago..WM still is in touch with him I believe..I do not think he is hovering

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.

You are exactly right, and Origen was a heretic. Moreover, the reading in the NAS, Only begotten God(Jn.1:18) as opposed to Son is Origens reading. Thus, the NAS has a reading with two gods in it!

I had a real knock down fight with a Calvinist brother over that verse. God is not begotten (created), Christs Humanity was begotten Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten have I begotten thee (Ps.2:7)

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.

It does not teach one being, but one essence that are shared equally by three beings (Persons). Again I repeat what I quoted before,

The generation properly speaking, has no reference at all to the essence, but only to the hypostatical distinction. The Son is begotten not as God, but as Son, not as to his natura but to his idotnes his peculiar property and his relation to the Father. The divine essence neither begets nor is begotten. (Schaff, History of Christian Church, Vol.2, p.659)

One last point, Constance was not responsible for the Trinity formulation. He accepted it in the name of peace for the empire. The Arian fraction had collapsed and the compromisers (including,Constances 'court jester', Eusebius) failed to budge the Trinitarian party.

1 Tim. 3: 16
16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh,

What part of the mystery of godliness don't you understand?

justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

The issue is whether Arius or Athanatius was right. Scripture is the arbiter not Constantine. Had Constantine sided with Arius and persecuted Athanatians (Trinitarians) it would not have made Arius right.

1.The Issue is that the Apostles had no trouble with it as it was originally before all of the heathens show up to content over the Nature of the Godhead!

The Apostles had no difficulty understanding the nature of God. They had personally interacted with Jesus and he had appeared to them after his resurrection. They knew he had a body before he died and they knew that he had a body after his resurrection. Nowhere does the scriptures suggest that he would ever discard his body. On the contrary, when Christ returns the scriptures say that he will be questioned, "What are these wounds in thine hands?" (Zech. 13:6) Therefore we know that he will still have his body. The doctrine that Jesus and his father were "one" caused some of the confusion. But Christ prayed in that garden that we all should be one, "neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me." (John 17:20-21) Therefor in whatever way Jesus and his Father are one, we are also to become one. He is not praying that we all lose our identity and become of one substance.

2.Originally the term "trinity" did not imply a single God but it was meant to imply the 3 distinct persons of the Godhead.

3.It turns out that this compromise position was imposed by Constantine. "At the beginning of the council, the party of moderate Arian views, of which Eusebius of Nicomedia was the most influential member, was in the majority, and '(h)omoousios' (one substance) had some difficulty in securing acceptance; it was imposed rather than accepted. Hosius supported it energetically; the same was true of the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch. The Emperor made it known that he desired the use of the word. This was, for many, a capital argument." (Duchesne, Histoire ancienne de l'Eglise, vol. II, pp. 154, 155)

4.So here we have Constantine who is not a Christian organizing councils and as we shall see, deciding the outcome

5.When they placed before the Emperor the formula of the synod, he regarded it as inspired by God, as revealed by the Holy Spirit speaking through the saints, and threatened to exile anyone who would not sign. 6.And so the doctrine of the Trinity was started. It was absent from the scriptures but is now accepted as the "orthodox" doctrine of the Christian church. There was no church leadership, apostles or prophets that decided the issue. Instead it was a pagan ruler that organized and declared his support for this new doctrine. It was his support that shifted the foundation doctrine of Christianity and established it by the force of his power as the basis of faith in the newly adopted religion of the realm.

The invitations for the first Nicean council came from the more than one century established Romish Papacy. Yes, many bishops that favored Arian were invited but many declined. At this time period however, Bishops that favored Origen may have outnumbered the Romish Papacy, these Bishops were not represented in Nicea.

What this means is that this original council did not completely represent the Christian population at that time. To be honest about it, that was also not their intention. The goal was to settle the growing influence that Arian had been gaining in the Roman churches, one aspect of that had to do with the generation spoken by Arian that made the Son secondary and thus inferior to The Father.

Origen would be considered heretic by LDS standards as well. He placed the Father and Son in equal authority, but the Holy Ghost clearly was not equal with them. In addition, Origen accepted an Ex Nihilio creation and taught that godly perfection was only possible in a formless spiritual body which the Father and Son had.

But examining Origen with respect to the Godhead and the Father and Son being co-equal, with the son generating from the Father, was different from Arian and Athanatius. This differerence in particular, states a portion of the LDS postition.

Your quote that you have posted twice, is in my opinion a very factual summary of the council:

The generation properly speaking, has no reference at all to the essence, but only to the hypostatical distinction. The Son is begotten not as God, but as Son, not as to his natura but to his idotnes his peculiar property and his relation to the Father. The divine essence neither begets nor is begotten. (Schaff, History of Christian Church, Vol.2, p.659)

Again, the LDS church is different only in the respect that we claim that each being does have it's own essence that cannot be multiplied or divided. Exactly similar to the distinct essence that both you and your children share, similar, different, not divided, not multiplied.

The largest area of confusion comes from thinking that be believe therefore that one member of the Godhead is inferior to the other. This claim makes no sense to the LDS. Since the period of time in which or Godhead became perfected or became Gods, pre-dates our Creation. Therefore there has never been a time in our creation, whether here on earth or in heaven, when The Father was not wholly God, The Son was not wholly God, or the Holy Ghost was not wholly God. Projecting this belief into our exhaltation, even to the time when we receive all that The Father has, there will never be a time when The Godhead ceases to be our God.

This belief of Jesus being God, even in his mortality is also understood by LDS:

"Although the term "Christology" is not frequently used by Latter-day Saints, the doctrine of the Church can be described in the following manner: Jesus Christ descended from his high pre-existent station as a God when he came to earth to die for mankind's. He was Jehovah come to earth in a physical body as the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh. While on earth he was still God, but he received from his Father "grace for grace," as do God's other children." (by Gary P. Gillum, from, Christology)

Correction in bold

This belief of Jesus being God, even in his mortality is also understood by LDS:

"Although the term "Christology" is not frequently used by Latter-day Saints, the doctrine of the Church can be described in the following manner: Jesus Christ descended from his high pre-existent station as a God when he came to earth to die for mankind's sin. He was Jehovah come to earth in a physical body as the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh. While on earth he was still God, but he received from his Father "grace for grace," as do God's other children." (by Gary P. Gillum, from, Christology)

The invitations for the first Nicean council came from the more than one century established Romish Papacy. Yes, many bishops that favored Arian were invited but many declined. At this time period however, Bishops that favored Origen may have outnumbered the Romish Papacy, these Bishops were not represented in Nicea. What this means is that this original council did not completely represent the Christian population at that time. To be honest about it, that was also not their intention. The goal was to settle the growing influence that Arian had been gaining in the Roman churches, one aspect of that had to do with the generation spoken by Arian that made the Son secondary and thus inferior to The Father.

Actually, it was the Arians who had gained control of the political machinary

In close connection with this stood another distinction, Arianism associated itself with the secular political power and the court party; it represented the imperio-papal principle, and the time of its prevalance under Constantius was uninterrupted season of the most arbitrary and violent encrouchments of the state on the rights of the church. Athanasius, on the contrary, who was so often deposed by the emperor, and who uttered himself so boldly respecting Constantius, is the personal representative not only of orthodoxy, but also the independence of the church with reference to the secular power....While the Arianism bent to the changing politics of the court party and fell into divise schools and sects the moment it lost imperial support, the Nicine faith, like its great champion, Athanasius, remained under all outward changes of fortune true to iteself, and made its mighty advance only by legitimate growth from within. Athanasius makes no distinction at all between the various shades of Arians and Semi-Arians... (Schaff, Vol.2,p.643-44)

Origen would be considered heretic by LDS standards as well. He placed the Father and Son in equal authority, but the Holy Ghost clearly was not equal with them. In addition, Origen accepted an Ex Nihilio creation and taught that godly perfection was only possible in a formless spiritual body which the Father and Son had.

Well, Origen got the Ex Nihilo creation right!

But examining Origen with respect to the Godhead and the Father and Son being co-equal, with the son generating from the Father, was different from Arian and Athanatius. This differerence in particular, states a portion of the LDS postition. Your quote that you have posted twice, is in my opinion a very factual summary of the council: The generation properly speaking, has no reference at all to the essence, but only to the hypostatical distinction. The Son is begotten not as God, but as Son, not as to his natura but to his idotnes his peculiar property and his relation to the Father. The divine essence neither begets nor is begotten. (Schaff, History of Christian Church, Vol.2, p.659) Again, the LDS church is different only in the respect that we claim that each being does have it's own essence that cannot be multiplied or divided. Exactly similar to the distinct essence that both you and your children share, similar, different, not divided, not multiplied.

And that 'mediate' view was rejected (rightfully so) by the Trinitarians. Eusebius took Origens positon and attempted to water down the Trinitarian formula,(Origen was the great diluter having corrupted the correct Greek manuscripts as well)

Then the church historian Eusebius, in the name of the middle party, proposed an ancient, Palestinian Confession, which was very familiar to the Nicene and acknowledged the divine nature of Christ in general biblical terms, but avoided the term in question, consubstantialis of the same essence . The emperor had already seen and approved this confession and even the Arian minority were ready to accept it. But this last circumstance itself was very suspicious to the extreme right. They wished a creed which no Arian could honestly subscribe, and espically insisted on inserting the expression homo-usious, which the Arians hated and declared to be unscriptural and Sabellian and materialistic. The emperor saw clearly that the Eusebian formuala would not pass, and as he had, for the sake of peace, the most nearly unanimous decision which was possible, he gave his voice for the disputed word (Schaff, ibid,p.628)

The largest area of confusion comes from thinking that be believe therefore that one member of the Godhead is inferior to the other. This claim makes no sense to the LDS. Since the period of time in which or Godhead became perfected or became Gods, pre-dates our Creation.

The amount of Time is not the issue. Satan predates our history also. The issue is that a created god is an inferior god, no matter how you word it.

Therefore there has never been a time in our creation, whether here on earth or in heaven, when The Father was not wholly God, The Son was not wholly God, or the Holy Ghost was not wholly God.

Note how you state it, a time on our creation, there was however a time when the Word (according to your view) did not exist and had to be begotten or created. One of the attributes of God is eternal nature

but thou Bethehelm Ephratah though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet of thee shall he come forth that is to be ruler in Israel whose goings forth have been from of old from everlasting (Micah.5:2)

(this verse by the way, my non-King James brethren has been changed from everlasting to ancient timesin the NIV). Thus, according to your system neither the Son nor Holy Ghost are truely eternal in the infinite sense.

Projecting this belief into our exhaltation, even to the time when we receive all that The Father has, there will never be a time when The Godhead ceases to be our God.

The problem is that you have a created Godhead, not an eternal one. Thus, one member is superior to the rest since He did the creating.

This belief of Jesus being God, even in his mortality is also understood by LDS: "Although the term "Christology" is not frequently used by Latter-day Saints, the doctrine of the Church can be described in the following manner: Jesus Christ descended from his high pre-existent station as a God when he came to earth to die for mankind's. He was Jehovah come to earth in a physical body as the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh. While on earth he was still God, but he received from his Father "grace for grace," as do God's other children." (by Gary P. Gillum, from, Christology)

Note the indefinite article you put next to Christ. Christ is not a God, He is The God, co-equal and co-eternal with the Father.

To meet the demands of perfect justice and serve as Kinsmen-redeemer Christ would have to equal to both parties.(Ruth) In Gen.22:8, Abraham states that God will provide Himself as the lamb,

And Abraham said, my son, God will provide himself a lamb...

By the way both, the NIV and the NAS mess up that great truth depicted in the KJV, the NIV states God himself will provide the lamb while the NAS states God will provide for for Himself (LOL!)

One other point, the LDS also teaches a works system of salvation, which is another Gospel,

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ into another gospel; which is not another, but there be some that trouble you, and would prevert the gospel of Christ, But though we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you let him be accursed (Gal.1:6-8)

That Gospel is found in 1Cor. 15:3-4, Acts. 16:31 and Eph.2:8-9.

A very excellent and well written post! I does deserve and asks for my attention. I will answer it at length tomorrow.

A very excellent and well written post! I does deserve and asks for my attention. I will answer it at length tomorrow.

Thank you. I look forward to seeing your reply tomorrow.

I thank you for your well thought out statements that truly do reflect that we have a dialog here. Often you only gain a repetition of key points that leaves the other wondering if you even read what the other person said. I have summarized your points presented in that post thusly:

1.Arians gained control of political machinery.
2. Origen got Ex Nihilio creation right.
3. The 'mediate' view of separate essences was rejected by the council.
4. Eusebius took Origen's position and attempted to water down the Trinitarian formula.
5. Time is not relevant, a created god is an inferior god.
6. Micah 5:2 and commentary.
7. Parsing the indefinite article "a" in my quote to justify we worship a created god.
8. Genesis 22:8 and commentary
9. LDS teaches a works system, which is another gospel.(Galatians 1:6-8)

1.Arians gained control of political machinery.

Yes, it is true that the teachings of Arius were developed by and defended by political factions. Over one hundred Bishops declared Arius, an anathema just a few years before. Some, like Eusebius of Nicomedia, sought political leverage before, during, and after the first Nicean Council in defense of Arian. Even your quote admits that the favor of government was solicited most fiercely after the Nicene council. It seems obvious to me that the Arian appeal to government, was because of rejection within the Roman Church, both before and after the council, and at neither time did they actually "gain control".

Any of the political leverage that Arius petitioned was certainly negligible at the Nicean Council because one of the main purposes was to settle the Arian heresy once and for all:

"Rufinus tells us only that daily sessions were held and that Arius was often summoned before the assembly; his opinions were seriously discussed and the opposing arguments attentively considered. The majority, especially those who were confessors of the Faith, energetically declared themselves against the impious doctrines of Arius." from Catholic Encylopedia

2. Origen got Ex Nihilio creation right.

LOL! A worthy subject on another thread. Kinda shows how fluid the writings of the ancient apologists are. Truth is that you can find just about anything in them, which at the end of the day, supports the idea of an apostacy. That you and I can find agreement in the words of a man that is a heretic to us both, Origen, only shows that much was written and does not by itself prove a single doctrinal point.

3. The 'mediate' view of separate essences was rejected by the council.

Exactly! There was some lively discussion about the generational position of The Son to The Father, but yes "are the same essence" won the council. But this did not end the debate, in fact the debate went on for centuries in dozens of subsequent councils.

What I find interesting is the careful documentation and clear admission of the Catholic Church that the introduction of “homoousion” was a spontaneous secular creation:

The great council convoked at this juncture was something more than a pivotal event in the history of Christianity. Its sudden, and, in one sense, almost unpremeditated adoption of a quasi-philosophic and non-Scriptural term -- homoousion -- to express the character of orthodox belief in the Person of the historic Christ, by defining Him to be identical in substance, or co-essential, with the Father, together with its confident appeal to the emperor to lend the sanction of his authority to the decrees and pronouncements by which it hoped to safeguard this more explicit profession of the ancient Faith, had consequences of the gravest import, not only to the world of ideas, but to the world of politics as well. By the official promulgation to the term homoöusion, theological speculation received a fresh but subtle impetus which made itself felt long after Athanasius and his supporters had passed away; while the appeal to the secular arm inaugurated a policy which endured practically without change of scope down to the publication of the Vatican decrees in our own time. Catholic Encylopedia

4. Eusebius took Origen's positon and attempted to water down the Trinitarian formula.

Yes, Eusebius of Ceasarea, watered down just about everything. He was the eternal “why can’t we all just get along” advocate. At the second Nicean Council he was accused of being a heretic for his defense of Arius. Eusebius also participated in a synod of Syrian bishops who decided that Arius should be restored to his former position.

5. Time is not relevant, a created god is an inferior god.

It all depends on how you characterize the word “create” and the word “time”. For the LDS the nature of God is Eternal and the nature of man is Eternal. Both have always existed. There has never been a time when God did not exist. “Create” involves the organization of eternal matter. It is the act of creating or organizing that makes God, God. Without creation there is no God. Since God is justified by His creation, it is also logical to assert that a God uncreated is inferior, since creation is the essence of God. We do not need to know how God was created, we just know that He Is. We do know however that we are His creation, obedient to His election, that we may become like Him, for we are eternally His Offspring.

6. Micah 5:2 and commentary

”but thou Bethehelm Ephratah though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet of thee shall he come forth that is to be ruler in Israel whose goings forth have been from of old from everlasting.” (Micah.5:2)

Yes the nature of God is eternal. The LDS see affirmation of this in this scripture. In addition we see a time being measured in the words “from of old from everlasting”. Just as the days of creation represent times, so also are all things measured by times of creation. Yet we claim without controversy that God The Father, His Son, and the Holy Ghost have always been our God because they created our eternal substance. Never in any time, with relation to us, was God not God.

7. Parsing the indefinite article "a" in my quote to justify we worship a created god.

My quote in italics, your commentary and emphasis in bold:

This belief of Jesus being God, even in his mortality is also understood by LDS: "Although the term "Christology" is not frequently used by Latter-day Saints, the doctrine of the Church can be described in the following manner: Jesus Christ descended from his high pre-existent station as a God when he came to earth to die for mankind's sin. He was Jehovah come to earth in a physical body as the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh. While on earth he was still God, but he received from his Father "grace for grace," as do God's other children." (by Gary P. Gillum, from, Christology)
Note the indefinite article you put next to Christ. Christ is not a God, He is The God, co-equal and co-eternal with the Father.

Again, I do understand your opinion, when you state that, "He is The God."

Yet one conflict in justifying this statement is the actual incarnation of God. You justify Christ in mortality as having two natures, being wholly man by flesh and Wholly God by spirit. This is problematic since in some forms it compromises "He is The God." The man nature of Jesus shows God expressed you our human understanding, which if He being Both Human and God, compromises the entire essence. The only clear fiber of reasoning is that we as humans cannot comprehend this condescension of God.

To the LDS this is not a conflict:

Christology is the theological study of the human and divine natures and roles of Jesus Christ.
It developed soon after the death of the apostles in the first century, as conflicting teachings arose over the proper understanding of Christ. Christology served both as a response to heresies and as a development of a systematic theology that orthodox Christians could accept. Eventually these teachings were discussed in councils and formulated into creeds, for instance, at Nicaea (A.D. 325), Constantinople (A.D. 381), and Chalcedon (A.D. 451). These creeds insisted upon a full communion of Christ's divine and human natures, as opposed to the teaching that he was either divine or human, or part one and part the other. In every sense, the councils concluded, Christ is God and of the same substance (homoousios).
Various Christologies competed in the early Christian church. Docetists taught that Jesus Christ only seemed to suffer on the cross, since he only appeared to have a body. Modalists taught that there is only one God in three modes; Arianism, that there are three persons united in purpose. Nestorianism insisted upon two separate wills in a dyadic unity, while Apollonarianism taught that Jesus' human body was inhabited by a divine soul.
Over the years, others have insisted that Jesus Christ is merely the ideal man for humanity, since Jesus often called himself "the Son of man." They have felt that he seldom drew attention to his divinity, as Albert Schweitzer argues in his famous Quest of the Historical Jesus (1911).
Some modern Lutheran theologians believe that Jesus was not simultaneously on the earth as a human and in heaven as God. Under this view, Jesus was divine in the Pre-existence but gave up his godly status and divine properties, except moral attributes, and took upon himself flesh and became a man. This is called the "kenotic" theory.
John Hick, a British philosopher-theologian, feels that Christianity should return to the earliest Christology, the "grace" theory, which teaches that Christ was transformed into a being sharing the divine properties by being infused with his Father's grace.
Although the term "Christology" is not frequently used by Latter-day Saints, the doctrine of the Church can be described in the following manner: Jesus Christ descended from his high pre-existent station as a God when he came to earth to die for mankind's sins (see Jesus Christ: First Born in the Spirit; Condescension of God). He was Jehovah come to earth in a physical body as the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh (see Jesus Christ: Only Begotten in the Flesh). While on earth he was still God, but he received from his Father "grace for grace," as do God's other children (D&C 93:12; see Jesus Christ: Ministry of). The Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants speak forcefully of the divine sonship of Christ and also of his humanity (Mosiah 15:2-3; Alma 6:8; 11:38; 13:16; 34:2; 3 Ne. 11:7, 28:10; D&C 93; see Jesus Christ, Fatherhood and Sonship).
Like Jesus Christ, all mortals live in a state of humiliation, but through the mediation of the Christ they may progress to a state of exaltation (see Deification; Godhood). There is no ultimate disparity between the divine and human natures; Joseph Smith asserted that mankind is of the same species as God, having been made in God's image (theomorphism) and being eternal, with unlimited capacity (TPJS, pp. 345-46). One early LDS leader proclaimed, "As man now is, God once was. As God now is, man may be" (Lorenzo Snow). Latter-day Saints speak of man as a God in embryo and of Jesus Christ as mankind's elder brother. A favorite LDS children's hymn is titled "I Am a Child of God"
Latter-day Saint doctrine can be understood to have appreciation for Christ and applications for man that go beyond traditional Christology. It is LDS teaching that all the Father's children possess the potential to strive toward the same godhood that the Godhead already has; because in their humanity there is a divinity that is progressing and growing according to the faith, intelligence, and love that abound in their souls. Like the attribute of perfection, divinity is not a static absolute but a dynamic progression (see Eternal Progression).

8. Genesis 22:8 and commentary

"And Abraham said, my son, God will provide himself a lamb..."

I must say that I do like your interpretation here! We as LDS find harmony with this verse on two levels of understanding. First there is the oneness nature of the Godhead that you understand. Second, the God of Abraham was Jehovah, the pre-mortal name for Jesus Christ. So yes, in the literal sense, Jehovah did provide Himself as The Lamb.

9. LDS teaches a works system, which is another gospel.(Galatians 1:6-8)

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ into another gospel; which is not another, but there be some that trouble you, and would prevert the gospel of Christ, But though we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you let him be accursed (Gal.1:6-8)

I thank you for ending with this scripture. Within it is the very theme that was the intention of this post in the first place. With Galatians being one of the earliest letters written, about 55AD, it is important to realize what is being said here to the saints in Galatia, "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ into another gospel...".

First of all notice that Paul could not be speaking about any other time than that period of around 55AD. For Paul was not looking upon a time far off, he was looking at false doctrine being preached in his time.

What was that false doctrine that Paul was correcting? There were some who were Jews, telling the Gentiles that upon conversion to Christ they needed to live the Law of Moses, as do the Jews! Clearly false doctrine!

"16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.
18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.
19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.(Galatians chapter 2)

Now, last time I checked we as Latter-day Saints, do not preach that we should live the Law of Moses. Instead we do preach that the atonement of Christ(grace) fulfilled the Law of Moses and we are no longer subject to it. We do preach that none of the works of the Law of Moses do anything to sanctify us. We preach that the grace of Christ freely given to all men, accepted in faith, lives in us as we live the Law of the Gospel.

As we continue in this letter Paul explains clearly the need for all the churches to be obedient to the Law of the Gospel or the Law of Christ. All the dead works of Moses being fulfilled we now have a new law.

2 Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.
3 For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself.
4 But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another.
5 For every man shall bear his own burden.
6 Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things.
7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.
9 And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.(
So now we sow to the Spirit good works, the works of Christ that we be not weary in well doing, and faint not.
10 As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.(Galatians Chapter Six)

What is interesting is that your preaching of faith only without works is indeed "another gospel". For such a gospel was born out of the protestant reformation, in the works of Luther, Calvin, and others. Such a gospel was not preached by Christ, nor his Apostles.

Diligence, patience, and enduring to the end is required to ensure our salvation: 2 Peter 1:4-10; 2 Peter 3:14-18; Heb. 12:1,7,14,15; Heb. 10:36; James 1:12; Mark 13:13; Heb. 6:15; Heb. 3:14; Rev. 2:7,10,11; Col. 1:22-29; James 5:7-12; 1 John 2:24-25. Why? Rom. 8:16-18; Rev. 3:19-21; Rev. 21:7; Heb.12:9,10; Acts 17:28,29 The words of Christ himself: His teachings show that obedience is required to obtain eternal life; there is no hint of "once saved, always saved" or instant salvation without works: Matt. 19: 16-23 (point blank: to obtain eternal life, keep the commandments); see also Mark 10:17-30; Luke 18:18-30 Luke 10:25-28 (again: keep the commandments to be saved) Mark 12: 28-34 (Christ teaches the two greatest commandments, and tells one who understands them that he is "not far from the kingdom of God") Luke 11:28 (blessed are they that DO the word of God) Sermon on the Mount Matt. chapters 5 to 7 (focuses on works, behavior) Matt. 5:19-21 (must keep commandments) Matt 5:48 (must seek to be perfect) Matt. 7:13,14 (the gate is straight and narrow) Matt. 7:21-23 (Must DO God's will; Christians who did evil will not go to heaven) Matt. 7:24-28 (those who do what Christ says are built on a sure foundation) Matt. 24:13 (endure to the end to be saved) - see also Matt. 10:22 and Mark 13:13 Matt. 12:35-37 (will be judged by our words, to be condemned or justified) Matt. 16:24-27 (we'll be judged by our works) John 8:31-32 (we must continue in the word of Christ) Luke 21:19 (patience is required to preserve our souls) Luke 21:34-36 (be cautious, avoid sin, to be counted worthy to stand before God) Mark 11:25-26 (we must forgive others to be forgiven ourselves) John 5: 28,29 (those that do good obtain life) John 14:15,21,23 (Christ teaches us to keep his commandments) John 15: 1-14 (we must bear fruit, keep commandments) Matt. 13:3-23 (parable of the sower: He warns that some receive the word and believe, but do not endure: will they be in God's kingdom? See Luke 9:24-26) Matt. 12:50 (must do his will to have a close relationship with Christ) Matt. 13:40-43 (parable of the tares: those in his kingdom who do evil are damned) John 12:50 (The Father's commandment is life everlasting) See also Luke 21: 19,34-36; Matt. 25 (esp. v. 31-46); John 3:5 Judged by works: Rom. 2: 4-11; Rev. 20: 12-15; Matt. 16:27; Gal. 6: 7-9; Rev. 22:12-14; 2 Cor. 5:9,10; Col. 3:24-25; John 5:28,29; Eccl. 12:13,14; 1 Peter 1:17; Psalm 62:12; Prov. 24:12; Rev. 2:23; 1 Peter 4:17-19. Repentance and obedience are required for salvation: Acts 2:37-38; Matt. 4:17; Acts 17:30,31; 2 Peter 3:9; 2 Cor. 7:9-11; Ezekiel 18:4,5,9,20-27,30-32; Ezekiel 33:11-20; Acts 26:20; Mark 6:12; Luke 24:47; Heb. 5:8,9; Rom. 2: 4-11; Prov. 4:4; Prov. 19:16; Deut. 6:17; Eccl. 12:13,14; Matt. 4:4; Deut. 8:3; 1 Sam. 15:22; Jerem. 7:23; 2 Cor. 10:5,6; Exo. 19:5; Deut. 29:9-15; John 7:17; Rom. 6:16; James 4:6-10; 2 Thess. 1:4-9; 1 Pet. 1:14-16; Matt. 5:48; Lev. 11:45; Lev. 19:2; Lev. 20:7,26; Matt. 5:19-20; Rev. 3:5,19-21; Joel 2:12,13; 2 Cor. 10:5,6; 2 Cor. 7:15; Phil. 2:8. Saved by Grace - but we access that Grace by obedience: Eph. 2:8; Rev. 22:12-14; Philippians 3:12-14; Heb. 5:8,9; Exodus 20:6; James 4:6-10; Matt. 5:7; 1 Peter 1:13-22. We must do, not just believe: James, Chapters 1 and 2; 1 John 3:18,19; Matt. 7:21-27; Matt. 25:31-46; 2 Cor. 5:9,10; Titus 2; 1 Peter 1:22; Matt. 12:50; 1 Tim. 6:17-19. Christians can fall from grace, so be cautious: Heb. 12:15; 1 Cor. 10:12; 2 Pet. 1:4-10; Heb. 3: 12-14; Heb. 4:1,11; Matt. 7:21-23; Luke 21:34-36; Phil. 2:12; Gal. 5:4; Heb. 6:4-6; Heb. 10:26-31; 2 Cor. 6:1; Jude 1:3-13; Col. 1:23; James 5:12,19,20. Sin can keep you out of heaven: 1 Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 5:16-26; Eph. 5:3-7; 1 Thess. 4:1-7; Col. 3:5-25; Jude 1:14-25; Heb. 12:1-17; James 4:4; Matt. 5:22; Matt. 25: 31-46; Ezek. 18. We must grow and progress through obedience to be saved: 2 Peter 1:3-10 (heavy!); 1 John 2:4,5; Phil. 3:12-15.

I thank you for your well thought out statements that truly do reflect that we have a dialog here. Often you only gain a repetition of key points that leaves the other wondering if you even read what the other person said. I have summarized your points presented in that post thusly: 1.Arians gained control of political machinery. 2. Origen got Ex Nihilio creation right. 3. The 'mediate' view of separate essences was rejected by the council. 4. Eusebius took Origen's position and attempted to water down the Trinitarian formula. 5. Time is not relevant, a created god is an inferior god. 6. Micah 5:2 and commentary. 7. Parsing the indefinite article "a" in my quote to justify we worship a created god. 8. Genesis 22:8 and commentary 9. LDS teaches a works system, which is another gospel.(Galatians 1:6-8)

Yes, you have what I said correct.

1.Arians gained control of political machinery. Yes, it is true that the teachings of Arius were developed by and defended by political factions. Over one hundred Bishops declared Arius, an anathema just a few years before. Some, like Eusebius of Nicomedia, sought political leverage before, during, and after the first Nicean Council in defense of Arian. Even your quote admits that the favor of government was solicited most fiercely after the Nicene council. It seems obvious to me that the Arian appeal to government, was because of rejection within the Roman Church, both before and after the council, and at neither time did they actually "gain control".

Well, I am sorry to say that you are mistaken in that view. After the Orthodox victory at Nicea there was an immediate backlash. At first the East and West split over the issue. Finally, the Arians/semi-Arians gained control of the entire empire.

Thus, Arianism gained the ascendency in the whole Roman empire, though not in its original rigorous form, but in the milder for of the homoi-ousianism or the doctrine of the similarity of essence, as opposed to the one one hand, the Nicene homo-ousianism (sameness of essence) and on the other hand, to the Arian hetro-ousianism (difference of essence). Even the papal chair was desecrated by heresy during the Arian interregnum...The Nicene orthodoxy was thus apparently put down. But now the heretical majority, having overcome their common enemy, made ready their own dissolution by divisions among themselves. They separated into two fractions. The right wing, the Eusebians or semi-Arians...The left wing or the decided Arians...The raging fanaticism of the Arian emperor Valens (364-378) against both semi-Arians and Athansians wrought an approach of the former party to the latter...Thus, the heretical party was alreadin in reality intellectualy and morally broken, when the emperor Theodosius 1 or the The Great, a Spaniard by birth and educated in the Nicene faith, ascended to the throne and n his long and powerful reign externally completed the trumph of orthodoxy in the Roman empire. Soon after his accession he issued in 380, the celebrated edict, in which he required all his subjects to confess the orthodox faith, and threatened the heretics with punishment. After his entrance in Constantinople, he raised Gregory Nazianzen to the patriachal chair in place of Demophilius... and drove the Arians, after their forty years reign, out of the churches of the captial (Schaff, History of the Christian Church, p.635,638-39)

Now, it is clear that the Arians did gain control of the Religious as well as the political centers of power. They just overplayed their hand.

Any of the political leverage that Arius petitioned was certainly negligible at the Nicean Council because one of the main purposes was to settle the Arian heresy once and for all: "Rufinus tells us only that daily sessions were held and that Arius was often summoned before the assembly; his opinions were seriously discussed and the opposing arguments attentively considered. The majority, especially those who were confessors of the Faith, energetically declared themselves against the impious doctrines of Arius." from Catholic Encylopedia

Schaff notes,

The Arians first proposed a creed, which, however was rejected with tumultuous disapproval and torn to pieces; whereupon all the 18 signers of it, excepting Theonas and Secundus, both of Egypt, abandoned the cause of Arius (Ibid,p.628)

2. Origen got Ex Nihilio creation right. LOL! A worthy subject on another thread. Kinda shows how fluid the writings of the ancient apologists are. Truth is that you can find just about anything in them, which at the end of the day, supports the idea of an apostacy. That you and I can find agreement in the words of a man that is a heretic to us both, Origen, only shows that much was written and does not by itself prove a single doctrinal point.

Very true. Even a broken clock is right twice a day! :>)

3. The 'mediate' view of separate essences was rejected by the council. Exactly! There was some lively discussion about the generational position of The Son to The Father, but yes "are the same essence" won the council. But this did not end the debate, in fact the debate went on for centuries in dozens of subsequent councils. What I find interesting is the careful documentation and clear admission of the Catholic Church that the introduction of “homoousion” was a spontaneous secular creation: The great council convoked at this juncture was something more than a pivotal event in the history of Christianity. Its sudden, and, in one sense, almost unpremeditated adoption of a quasi-philosophic and non-Scriptural term -- homoousion -- to express the character of orthodox belief in the Person of the historic Christ, by defining Him to be identical in substance, or co-essential, with the Father, together with its confident appeal to the emperor to lend the sanction of his authority to the decrees and pronouncements by which it hoped to safeguard this more explicit profession of the ancient Faith, had consequences of the gravest import, not only to the world of ideas, but to the world of politics as well. By the official promulgation to the term homoöusion, theological speculation received a fresh but subtle impetus which made itself felt long after Athanasius and his supporters had passed away; while the appeal to the secular arm inaugurated a policy which endured practically without change of scope down to the publication of the Vatican decrees in our own time. Catholic Encylopedia

It was a compromise position that attempted to resolve the debate, but as most compromise positions pleased neither side.

4. Eusebius took Origen's positon and attempted to water down the Trinitarian formula. Yes, Eusebius of Ceasarea, watered down just about everything. He was the eternal “why can’t we all just get along” advocate. At the second Nicean Council he was accused of being a heretic for his defense of Arius. Eusebius also participated in a synod of Syrian bishops who decided that Arius should be restored to his former position.

Amen! He was Constance's 'Court jester'

5. Time is not relevant, a created god is an inferior god. It all depends on how you characterize the word “create” and the word “time”. For the LDS the nature of God is Eternal and the nature of man is Eternal. Both have always existed. There has never been a time when God did not exist. “Create” involves the organization of eternal matter. It is the act of creating or organizing that makes God, God.

exactly and if one God creates another god who is the real God?

Without creation there is no God.

True

Since God is justified by His creation, it is also logical to assert that a God uncreated is inferior, since creation is the essence of God.

This I do not understand. an uncreated God is inferior? Inferior to whom?

We do not need to know how God was created, we just know that He Is. We do know however that we are His creation, obedient to His election, that we may become like Him, for we are eternally His Offspring.

God was not created, since, as you already stated, creation is the pregorative of God.

6. Micah 5:2 and commentary ”but thou Bethehelm Ephratah though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet of thee shall he come forth that is to be ruler in Israel whose goings forth have been from of old from everlasting.” (Micah.5:2) Yes the nature of God is eternal. The LDS see affirmation of this in this scripture. In addition we see a time being measured in the words “from of old from everlasting”. Just as the days of creation represent times, so also are all things measured by times of creation. Yet we claim without controversy that God The Father, His Son, and the Holy Ghost have always been our God because they created our eternal substance. Never in any time, with relation to us, was God not God.

Now, that is not the question is it? The question is was the Word created (begotten) by the Father. That passage is saying that the Word is from everlasting as is the Father and Holy Spirit.

7. Parsing the indefinite article "a" in my quote to justify we worship a created god. My quote in italics, your commentary and emphasis in bold: This belief of Jesus being God, even in his mortality is also understood by LDS: "Although the term "Christology" is not frequently used by Latter-day Saints, the doctrine of the Church can be described in the following manner: Jesus Christ descended from his high pre-existent station as a God when he came to earth to die for mankind's sin. He was Jehovah come to earth in a physical body as the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh. While on earth he was still God, but he received from his Father "grace for grace," as do God's other children." (by Gary P. Gillum, from, Christology) Note the indefinite article you put next to Christ. Christ is not a God, He is The God, co-equal and co-eternal with the Father. Again, I do understand your opinion, when you state that, "He is The God." Yet one conflict in justifying this statement is the actual incarnation of God. You justify Christ in mortality as having two natures, being wholly man by flesh and Wholly God by spirit.

He is flesh by being born of a woman, He is God by his own nature.

This is problematic since in some forms it compromises "He is The God." The man nature of Jesus shows God expressed you our human understanding, which if He being Both Human and God, compromises the entire essence. The only clear fiber of reasoning is that we as humans cannot comprehend this condescension of God.

We cannot grasp the wonder of it (1Tim.3:16) but we can understand that both are true, Christ was both perfect man and perfect, eternal God.

To the LDS this is not a conflict: Christology is the theological study of the human and divine natures and roles of Jesus Christ. It developed soon after the death of the apostles in the first century, as conflicting teachings arose over the proper understanding of Christ. Christology served both as a response to heresies and as a development of a systematic theology that orthodox Christians could accept. Eventually these teachings were discussed in councils and formulated into creeds, for instance, at Nicaea (A.D. 325), Constantinople (A.D. 381), and Chalcedon (A.D. 451). These creeds insisted upon a full communion of Christ's divine and human natures, as opposed to the teaching that he was either divine or human, or part one and part the other. In every sense, the councils concluded, Christ is God and of the same substance (homoousios).

It is not a problem to your system if you accept your own (Origens) definition of what constitutes God. You really have two God's in your system,like the JW's (how do you regard the Holy Spirit?)

Various Christologies competed in the early Christian church. Docetists taught that Jesus Christ only seemed to suffer on the cross, since he only appeared to have a body. Modalists taught that there is only one God in three modes; Arianism, that there are three persons united in purpose. Nestorianism insisted upon two separate wills in a dyadic unity, while Apollonarianism taught that Jesus' human body was inhabited by a divine soul.

True.

Over the years, others have insisted that Jesus Christ is merely the ideal man for humanity, since Jesus often called himself "the Son of man." They have felt that he seldom drew attention to his divinity, as Albert Schweitzer argues in his famous Quest of the Historical Jesus (1911). Some modern Lutheran theologians believe that Jesus was not simultaneously on the earth as a human and in heaven as God. Under this view, Jesus was divine in the Pre-existence but gave up his godly status and divine properties, except moral attributes, and took upon himself flesh and became a man. This is called the "kenotic" theory. John Hick, a British philosopher-theologian, feels that Christianity should return to the earliest Christology, the "grace" theory, which teaches that Christ was transformed into a being sharing the divine properties by being infused with his Father's grace.

That is a heresy. And no man hath ascended up to heaven, gut he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man, which is in heaven (Jn.3:13) In that passage, Christ is showing that he is omnipresent.

Although the term "Christology" is not frequently used by Latter-day Saints, the doctrine of the Church can be described in the following manner: Jesus Christ descended from his high pre-existent station as a God when he came to earth to die for mankind's sins (see Jesus Christ: First Born in the Spirit; Condescension of God). He was Jehovah come to earth in a physical body as the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh (see Jesus Christ: Only Begotten in the Flesh). While on earth he was still God, but he received from his Father "grace for grace," as do God's other children (D&C 93:12; see Jesus Christ: Ministry of). The Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants speak forcefully of the divine sonship of Christ and also of his humanity (Mosiah 15:2-3; Alma 6:8; 11:38; 13:16; 34:2; 3 Ne. 11:7, 28:10; D&C 93; see Jesus Christ, Fatherhood and Sonship).

The Kenosis view is that while on earth Christ did not use his own Deity but humbled Himself as a perfect man. He never stopped being God, but chose not to use His own power, placing himself under the authority of the Father (Phil.2:6-8)

Like Jesus Christ, all mortals live in a state of humiliation, but through the mediation of the Christ they may progress to a state of exaltation (see Deification; Godhood). There is no ultimate disparity between the divine and human natures; Joseph Smith asserted that mankind is of the same species as God, having been made in God's image (theomorphism) and being eternal, with unlimited capacity (TPJS, pp. 345-46). One early LDS leader proclaimed, "As man now is, God once was. As God now is, man may be" (Lorenzo Snow). Latter-day Saints speak of man as a God in embryo and of Jesus Christ as mankind's elder brother. A favorite LDS children's hymn is titled "I Am a Child of God"

Sounds like Genesis 3:5 to me! Now, due to imputation of eternal life to the Church and the being conformed to his image, we do take on a close intimate relationship with God, through Christ. However, we will always be creatures who were brought into union with God, not God, who is uncreated and the sourceof all life.

Latter-day Saint doctrine can be understood to have appreciation for Christ and applications for man that go beyond traditional Christology. It is LDS teaching that all the Father's children possess the potential to strive toward the same godhood that the Godhead already has; because in their humanity there is a divinity that is progressing and growing according to the faith, intelligence, and love that abound in their souls. Like the attribute of perfection, divinity is not a static absolute but a dynamic progression (see Eternal Progression).

God is perfect, and the dynamic aspect of His creation refers not to his increasing in perfection, but in His creation that He is in process of being about (an eternal Kingdom)

8. Genesis 22:8 and commentary "And Abraham said, my son, God will provide himself a lamb..." I must say that I do like your interpretation here! We as LDS find harmony with this verse on two levels of understanding. First there is the oneness nature of the Godhead that you understand. Second, the God of Abraham was Jehovah, the pre-mortal name for Jesus Christ. So yes, in the literal sense, Jehovah did provide Himself as The Lamb. 9. LDS teaches a works system, which is another gospel.(Galatians 1:6-8) I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ into another gospel; which is not another, but there be some that trouble you, and would prevert the gospel of Christ, But though we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you let him be accursed (Gal.1:6-8) I thank you for ending with this scripture. Within it is the very theme that was the intention of this post in the first place. With Galatians being one of the earliest letters written, about 55AD, it is important to realize what is being said here to the saints in Galatia, "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ into another gospel...". First of all notice that Paul could not be speaking about any other time than that period of around 55AD. For Paul was not looking upon a time far off, he was looking at false doctrine being preached in his time. What was that false doctrine that Paul was correcting? There were some who were Jews, telling the Gentiles that upon conversion to Christ they needed to live the Law of Moses, as do the Jews! Clearly false doctrine! "16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. 17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. 18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. 19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. 21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.(Galatians chapter 2) Now, last time I checked we as Latter-day Saints, do not preach that we should live the Law of Moses. Instead we do preach that the atonement of Christ(grace) fulfilled the Law of Moses and we are no longer subject to it. We do preach that none of the works of the Law of Moses do anything to sanctify us. We preach that the grace of Christ freely given to all men, accepted in faith, lives in us as we live the Law of the Gospel.

So, good works are not part of the salvation process of the LDS?

As we continue in this letter Paul explains clearly the need for all the churches to be obedient to the Law of the Gospel or the Law of Christ. All the dead works of Moses being fulfilled we now have a new law. 2 Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ. 3 For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself.4 But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another. 5 For every man shall bear his own burden. 6 Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things. 7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. 8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. 9 And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.( So now we sow to the Spirit good works, the works of Christ that we be not weary in well doing, and faint not. 10 As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.(Galatians Chapter Six) What is interesting is that your preaching of faith only without works is indeed "another gospel". For such a gospel was born out of the protestant reformation, in the works of Luther, Calvin, and others. Such a gospel was not preached by Christ, nor his Apostles.

It was preached by Paul, after the Kingdom of heaven was rejected by the Jews. (1Cor.15:3-5)

Diligence, patience, and enduring to the end is required to ensure our salvation: 2 Peter 1:4-10; 2 Peter 3:14-18; Heb. 12:1,7,14,15; Heb. 10:36; James 1:12; Mark 13:13; Heb. 6:15; Heb. 3:14; Rev. 2:7,10,11; Col. 1:22-29; James 5:7-12; 1 John 2:24-25. Why? Rom. 8:16-18; Rev. 3:19-21; Rev. 21:7; Heb.12:9,10; Acts 17:28,29 The words of Christ himself: His teachings show that obedience is required to obtain eternal life; there is no hint of "once saved, always saved" or instant salvation without works: Matt. 19: 16-23 (point blank: to obtain eternal life, keep the commandments); see also Mark 10:17-30; Luke 18:18-30 Luke 10:25-28 (again: keep the commandments to be saved) Mark 12: 28-34 (Christ teaches the two greatest commandments, and tells one who understands them that he is "not far from the kingdom of God") Luke 11:28 (blessed are they that DO the word of God) Sermon on the Mount Matt. chapters 5 to 7 (focuses on works, behavior) Matt. 5:19-21 (must keep commandments) Matt 5:48 (must seek to be perfect) Matt. 7:13,14 (the gate is straight and narrow) Matt. 7:21-23 (Must DO God's will; Christians who did evil will not go to heaven) Matt. 7:24-28 (those who do what Christ says are built on a sure foundation) Matt. 24:13 (endure to the end to be saved) - see also Matt. 10:22 and Mark 13:13 Matt. 12:35-37 (will be judged by our words, to be condemned or justified) Matt. 16:24-27 (we'll be judged by our works) John 8:31-32 (we must continue in the word of Christ) Luke 21:19 (patience is required to preserve our souls) Luke 21:34-36 (be cautious, avoid sin, to be counted worthy to stand before God) Mark 11:25-26 (we must forgive others to be forgiven ourselves) John 5: 28,29 (those that do good obtain life) John 14:15,21,23 (Christ teaches us to keep his commandments) John 15: 1-14 (we must bear fruit, keep commandments) Matt. 13:3-23 (parable of the sower: He warns that some receive the word and believe, but do not endure: will they be in God's kingdom? See Luke 9:24-26) Matt. 12:50 (must do his will to have a close relationship with Christ) Matt. 13:40-43 (parable of the tares: those in his kingdom who do evil are damned) John 12:50 (The Father's commandment is life everlasting) See also Luke 21: 19,34-36; Matt. 25 (esp. v. 31-46); John 3:5 Judged by works: Rom. 2: 4-11; Rev. 20: 12-15; Matt. 16:27; Gal. 6: 7-9; Rev. 22:12-14; 2 Cor. 5:9,10; Col. 3:24-25; John 5:28,29; Eccl. 12:13,14; 1 Peter 1:17; Psalm 62:12; Prov. 24:12; Rev. 2:23; 1 Peter 4:17-19. Repentance and obedience are required for salvation: Acts 2:37-38; Matt. 4:17; Acts 17:30,31; 2 Peter 3:9; 2 Cor. 7:9-11; Ezekiel 18:4,5,9,20-27,30-32; Ezekiel 33:11-20; Acts 26:20; Mark 6:12; Luke 24:47; Heb. 5:8,9; Rom. 2: 4-11; Prov. 4:4; Prov. 19:16; Deut. 6:17; Eccl. 12:13,14; Matt. 4:4; Deut. 8:3; 1 Sam. 15:22; Jerem. 7:23; 2 Cor. 10:5,6; Exo. 19:5; Deut. 29:9-15; John 7:17; Rom. 6:16; James 4:6-10; 2 Thess. 1:4-9; 1 Pet. 1:14-16; Matt. 5:48; Lev. 11:45; Lev. 19:2; Lev. 20:7,26; Matt. 5:19-20; Rev. 3:5,19-21; Joel 2:12,13; 2 Cor. 10:5,6; 2 Cor. 7:15; Phil. 2:8. Saved by Grace - but we access that Grace by obedience: Eph. 2:8; Rev. 22:12-14; Philippians 3:12-14; Heb. 5:8,9; Exodus 20:6; James 4:6-10; Matt. 5:7; 1 Peter 1:13-22. We must do, not just believe: James, Chapters 1 and 2; 1 John 3:18,19; Matt. 7:21-27; Matt. 25:31-46; 2 Cor. 5:9,10; Titus 2; 1 Peter 1:22; Matt. 12:50; 1 Tim. 6:17-19. Christians can fall from grace, so be cautious: Heb. 12:15; 1 Cor. 10:12; 2 Pet. 1:4-10; Heb. 3: 12-14; Heb. 4:1,11; Matt. 7:21-23; Luke 21:34-36; Phil. 2:12; Gal. 5:4; Heb. 6:4-6; Heb. 10:26-31; 2 Cor. 6:1; Jude 1:3-13; Col. 1:23; James 5:12,19,20. Sin can keep you out of heaven: 1 Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 5:16-26; Eph. 5:3-7; 1 Thess. 4:1-7; Col. 3:5-25; Jude 1:14-25; Heb. 12:1-17; James 4:4; Matt. 5:22; Matt. 25: 31-46; Ezek. 18. We must grow and progress through obedience to be saved: 2 Peter 1:3-10 (heavy!); 1 John 2:4,5; Phil. 3:12-15.

The scripture is clear that man is saved without works (in this dispensation) (Eph.2:8-9) by faith (Acts.16:31) and one cannot lose his salvation once one has accepted Christ (Rom.8:38-39)

FTD our understanding of works is-

Matt 7
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

21 ¶ Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the dwill of my Father which is in heaven.(

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

24 ¶ Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a dwise man, which built his house upon a rock:

*********************************

2Ne.
13 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, I know that if ye shall follow the Son, with full purpose of heart, acting no hypocrisy and no deception before God, but with real intent, repenting of your sins, witnessing unto the Father that ye are willing to take upon you the name of Christ, by baptism—yea, by following your Lord and your Savior down into the water, according to his word, behold, then shall ye receive the Holy Ghost; yea, then cometh the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost; and then can ye speak with the tongue of angels, and shout praises unto the Holy One of Israel.

***********************************

1 Tim.6
14 That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:

Some will say-[The scripture is clear that man is saved without works (in this dispensation) (Eph.2:8-9) by faith (Acts.16:31) and one cannot lose his salvation once one has accepted Christ (Rom.8:38-39)]

*********************

Yet the Lord also reminds us- are you sure your not caught up into someone traditions?

Mark 7: 9
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

John 14: 15 (The Lord commandments is Matt. 7 & baptism )
15 ¶ If ye alove me, keep my commandments.

FTD our understanding of works is- Matt 7 20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. 21 ¶ Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the dwill of my Father which is in heaven.( 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. 24 ¶ Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a dwise man, which built his house upon a rock: ********************************* 2Ne. 13 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, I know that if ye shall follow the Son, with full purpose of heart, acting no hypocrisy and no deception before God, but with real intent, repenting of your sins, witnessing unto the Father that ye are willing to take upon you the name of Christ, by baptism—yea, by following your Lord and your Savior down into the water, according to his word, behold, then shall ye receive the Holy Ghost; yea, then cometh the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost; and then can ye speak with the tongue of angels, and shout praises unto the Holy One of Israel. 1 Tim.6 14 That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: Some will say-[The scripture is clear that man is saved without works (in this dispensation) (Eph.2:8-9) by faith (Acts.16:31) and one cannot lose his salvation once one has accepted Christ (Rom.8:38-39)] Yet the Lord also reminds us- are you sure your not caught up into someone traditions? Mark 7: 9 9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. John 14: 15 (The Lord commandments is Matt. 7 & baptism ) 15 ¶ If ye alove me, keep my commandments.

The Christian does not do good works to be saved or to stay saved, but because he is saved.

Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour, That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. This is a faithful saying and these things thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men. (TiT.3:5-8)

And again,

But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness (Rom.4:5)

You need to do no will/work of the Lord [for your saved,] it matters not that Jesus who was perfect did the Will/Work of his Father, that he Taught his followers, to do the same, and he who was perfect was baptised, to show everyone needed to keep the commandments etc, but you are saved so it does not applied to you. Very Well!

I love my Lord for inspite of His calling he was humble, loving and endure to the end for all of us who too need to be humble-

You need to do no will/work of the Lord [for your saved,] it matters not that Jesus who was perfect did the Will/Work of his Father, that he Taught his followers, to do the same, and he who was perfect was baptised, to show everyone needed to keep the commandments etc, but you are saved so it does not applied to you. Very Well!

what applies to me is that since I am saved I need to do good works since I want rewards at the judgment seat of Christ. (1Cor.3:11-13)

I love my Lord for inspite of His calling he was humble, loving and endure to the end for all of us who too need to be humble-

I tell you honestly (based on what scripture says) if you are adding anything to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, for your salvation, you are not saved, no matter how you feel

The just shall live by faith (Gal.4:11)

I tell you honestly (based on what scripture says) if you are adding anything to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, for your salvation, you are not saved, no matter how you feel The just shall live by faith (Gal.4:11)

GAl.1
6 I marvel that ye are so soon REMOVED from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
(Now this happen during the Early Church time, Its not about the latter-day. As one can witness Paul was having a hard time keeping the scriptures pure.)

I tell you honestly (based on what scripture says) if you are adding anything to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, for your salvation, you are not saved, no matter how you feel The just shall live by faith (Gal.4:11) GAl.1 6 I marvel that ye are so soon REMOVED from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: (Now this happen during the Early Church time, Its not about the latter-day. As one can witness Paul was having a hard time keeping the scriptures pure.

The issue of faith vs works is as much for today as it was for Paul's today. If you add anything to faith it is a work and you have nullified grace. Works will not save you, only faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts.16:31)

perhaps off the cuff, if one adds to faith in order for salvation, then one really is manifesting a work lacking in faith. Do you think this is consistent with the doctrine and Gospel?

You know that is not what the reply means! "Squirmy" especially when I highlighted the word REMOVED Paul was talking about HIS time!(I will also highlight SOON so there is no mistake!)

GAl.1 6
I marvel that ye are so SOON REMOVED from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: (Now this happen during the Early Church time, Its not about the latter-day. As one can witness Paul was having a hard time keeping the scriptures pure.

Works are dead if you don't do them in the name of Jesus and also called as Aaron was. to take upon the elements with out the Lords anointing it is meaningless.

IN THE FUTURE THAT CHANGING MY WORDS TO SUIT YOU!

what applies to me is that since I am saved I need to do good works since I want rewards at the judgment seat of Christ. (1Cor.3:11-13) [Now your saying this after my post # 37]
I feel like you are toying with my words-as in # 36

The Christian does not do good works to be saved or to stay saved, but because he is saved.

Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost; which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour, That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. This is a faithful saying and these things thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men. (TiT.3:5-8)

And again,

But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness (Rom.4:5) ed.

********************************************************************************

Matt 7 [my post #35]
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the dwill of my Father which is in heaven.

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a dwise man, which built his house upon a rock:

*********************************

I tell you honestly (based on what scripture says) if you are adding anything to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, for your salvation, you are not saved, no matter how you feel[your post # 38]

Than implying I might be adding words (the Lord knows your mind and actions).

When you truly feel the Love of the Lord, your silly squirmy implies will never cross your mind!

GAl.1
6 I marvel that ye are so SOON REMOVED from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

(Now this happen during the Early Church time, Its not about the latter-day. As one can witness Paul was having a hard time keeping the scriptures pure.)

perhaps off the cuff, if one adds to faith in order for salvation, then one really is manifesting a work lacking in faith. Do you think this is consistent with the doctrine and Gospel?

Yes, in salvation anything we add to faith is a work. After salvation we are commanded to work but not in our flesh, but in the spirit.

Instead of a lengthy cut and paste here, I will respond to only some of your comments and hopefully answer your questions. It seems that a majority of our dialog has run it's course and I see no need to continue many of the points well stated by us both.

Here is what I have chosen to respond to. If I have ignored something let me know.

Now, it is clear that the Arians did gain control of the Religious as well as the political centers of power. They just overplayed their hand.

I stand corrected! I can live with this statement of yours. You and I also agree that Arianism required centuries of correction after the first council of Nicea.

It is the act of creating or organizing that makes God, God. Exactly and if one God creates another god who is the real God?(Scottie in italics, FTD in bold)

Well, there you go asking that million dollar question! Truthfully the answer has a simple complexity.(if that is possible)

First of all, contrary to what others may say about LDS doctrine and contrary to the speculation of leaders recorded in the Journal of Discourses, we do not know how our Godhead became God. We only know that they were God before we were created. The stasis of the word "eternity" also indicates that even if we did know, it does not matter. For if we are elected to be gods, it does not matter that we now are not gods, "eternity" by principle defines that, if it be our election, we are gods. Of course sure knowlege of our election is not with us, but with God that created us, our only God.

Here is the simplicity. The relationship of Father and Son. At the baptism of Jesus the Godhead was present. We hear a voice from heaven stating, "This is my Beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased". We have the Holy Ghost descending as a dove. In this moment we have full representation of the Godhead. It does not matter, that Father was before the Son. It does not matter that we know nothing of history of the Holy Ghost. What does matter is that unity and authority are declared. They are one united in purpose and they comprehend that purpose.

Who is the real God? I Am that I Am, or I declare myself there is no other.

Here is the complexity. The three in perfect union, have by their election defined the way that we are to worship them. We do not understand why it is so. We only know that the union is reflected in all creation. We worship God the Father, through His Son Jesus The Christ, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

Who is the real God? Who is your Father that you may worship Him? "Show us the Father, that we may worship Him", asked the disciples. Jesus answered, "I am the way, the truth, and the light, no man cometh unto the Father but by me.

Since God is justified by His creation, it is also logical to assert that a God uncreated is inferior, since creation is the essence of God. This I do not understand. an uncreated God is inferior? Inferior to whom?(Scottie italics, FTD bold)

Actually, I understated it. Uncreated is chaos, the ether, matter without form or void, so an uncreated god is not inferior, it is not god.

Platonism teaches that if you were able to jump in a car and drive to find the cause of all good, eventually you will hit a wall and there you are, you found it. The Platonist god is finite, since there was nothing before it. We are taught that God is infinite in creation and therefore infinitely created. God's creations are eternal, therefore God is creation(created) and eternal.

Now, that is not the question is it? The question is was the Word created (begotten) by the Father. That passage is saying that the Word is from everlasting as is the Father and Holy Spirit.

Yes, the passage in Micah does say that the Word is from everlasting and that is true. But your everlasting and your beginning are not Gods. The phrase "from of old from everlasting" is a period of time we understand, not God's time. If the Word was begotten of flesh, why is it not possible that in God's everlasting that the Word was also begotten of spirit?

It is not a problem to your system if you accept your own... definition of what constitutes God. You really have two God's in your system...(how do you regard the Holy Spirit?) (editing mine)

Actually three Gods. The Holy Ghost being perfect, glorified, and divine, is also God. Sorry about the editing, but certainly when it comes to deity we have many remarkable differences with Origen and the Jehovah's Witnessses.

God is perfect, and the dynamic aspect of His creation refers not to his increasing in perfection, but in His creation that He is in process of being about (an eternal Kingdom)

True! (see eternal progression)-- yes, this link does work.

The scripture is clear that man is saved without works (in this dispensation) (Eph.2:8-9) by faith (Acts.16:31) and one cannot lose his salvation once one has accepted Christ (Rom.8:38-39)

I certainly did give you plenty of scripture to demonstrate that both grace and works are dynamic requirements of salvation. We really are not that far off in understanding how both work together. "By grace ye are saved, in faith, and not of works" is true. But, "faith without works is dead", is also true. I think this also could be best served on another thread.

Thanks again for you comments and dialog. I have enjoyed it, I hope you have too.

Instead of a lengthy cut and paste here, I will respond to only some of your comments and hopefully answer your questions. It seems that a majority of our dialog has run it's course and I see no need to continue many of the points well stated by us both. Here is what I have chosen to respond to. If I have ignored something let me know. Now, it is clear that the Arians did gain control of the Religious as well as the political centers of power. They just overplayed their hand. I stand corrected! I can live with this statement of yours. You and I also agree that Arianism required centuries of correction after the first council of Nicea.

Agreed

It is the act of creating or organizing that makes God, God. Exactly and if one God creates another god who is the real God?(Scottie in italics, FTD in bold) Well, there you go asking that million dollar question! Truthfully the answer has a simple complexity.(if that is possible) First of all, contrary to what others may say about LDS doctrine and contrary to the speculation of leaders recorded in the Journal of Discourses, we do not know how our Godhead became God. We only know that they were God before we were created. The stasis of the word "eternity" also indicates that even if we did know, it does not matter. For if we are elected to be gods, it does not matter that we now are not gods, "eternity" by principle defines that, if it be our election, we are gods. Of course sure knowlege of our election is not with us, but with God that created us, our only God.

Aren't you begging the question ? You are assuming that God became when in fact the Trinity always was! Moreover, your view of the eternal election to Godhood sounds like Platonic archtypes.

Here is the simplicity. The relationship of Father and Son. At the baptism of Jesus the Godhead was present. We hear a voice from heaven stating, "This is my Beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased". We have the Holy Ghost descending as a dove. In this moment we have full representation of the Godhead. It does not matter, that Father was before the Son.

Ah, but it does, as you have admitted since it raises the issue of two Gods! Now, the Mormons may not be bothered by that since they believe they are destined to become gods but those of us who believe that there is only one Godhead, are very much disturbed by it.

It does not matter that we know nothing of history of the Holy Ghost. What does matter is that unity and authority are declared. They are one united in purpose and they comprehend that purpose.

They are united in essence that was what the entire Trintarian discussion was about! Was it not?

Who is the real God? I Am that I Am, or I declare myself there is no other.

That is the real God as is the Father/Son/Holy Spirt, three persons having the same essence.

Here is the complexity. The three in perfect union, have by their election defined the way that we are to worship them. We do not understand why it is so. We only know that the union is reflected in all creation. We worship God the Father, through His Son Jesus The Christ, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

Agreed

Who is the real God? Who is your Father that you may worship Him? "Show us the Father, that we may worship Him", asked the disciples. Jesus answered, "I am the way, the truth, and the light, no man cometh unto the Father but by me.

Again, it is not the real God vs the lesser god, it is the Revealed God vs the other two members of the Trinity who are revealed through the Son, since the Son is the Image of God (2Cor.4:4)

Since God is justified by His creation, it is also logical to assert that a God uncreated is inferior, since creation is the essence of God. This I do not understand. an uncreated God is inferior? Inferior to whom?(Scottie italics, FTD bold) Actually, I understated it. Uncreated is chaos, the ether, matter without form or void, so an uncreated god is not inferior, it is not god.

Agreed

Platonism teaches that if you were able to jump in a car and drive to find the cause of all good, eventually you will hit a wall and there you are, you found it. The Platonist god is finite, since there was nothing before it. We are taught that God is infinite in creation and therefore infinitely created. God's creations are eternal, therefore God is creation(created) and eternal.

Again, I think you are confusing what God thought and the reality of creation. Now, just because all knowledge always existed in God's mind, it doesn't make creation equal with God. Time has a definite beginning and God is outside of it, therefore He is outside and above His creation (as well involved in it)

Now, that is not the question is it? The question is was the Word created (begotten) by the Father. That passage is saying that the Word is from everlasting as is the Father and Holy Spirit. Yes, the passage in Micah does say that the Word is from everlasting and that is true. But your everlasting and your beginning are not Gods. The phrase "from of old from everlasting" is a period of time we understand, not God's time. If the Word was begotten of flesh, why is it not possible that in God's everlasting that the Word was also begotten of spirit?

that god would not be equal to the one that begot him.

It is not a problem to your system if you accept your own... definition of what constitutes God. You really have two God's in your system...(how do you regard the Holy Spirit?) (editing mine) Actually three Gods. The Holy Ghost being perfect, glorified, and divine, is also God. Sorry about the editing, but certainly when it comes to deity we have many remarkable differences with Origen and the Jehovah's Witnessses.

Really? You were using Origen's view as the basis for your defense of a begotten god and when referring to the Lord Jesus Christ, used a God as would the JW's. I do not say that as a criticism, but only to point out the impression I received.

God is perfect, and the dynamic aspect of His creation refers not to his increasing in perfection, but in His creation that He is in process of being about (an eternal Kingdom) True! (see eternal progression)-- yes, this link does work. The scripture is clear that man is saved without works (in this dispensation) (Eph.2:8-9) by faith (Acts.16:31) and one cannot lose his salvation once one has accepted Christ (Rom.8:38-39) I certainly did give you plenty of scripture to demonstrate that both grace and works are dynamic requirements of salvation. We really are not that far off in understanding how both work together. "By grace ye are saved, in faith, and not of works" is true. But, "faith without works is dead", is also true. I think this also could be best served on another thread.

Agreed. I would be happy to discuss the issue of faith vs works and the passages you cited.

Thanks again for you comments and dialog. I have enjoyed it, I hope you have too.

Thank you, I did and learned about some of the views of the LDS. I look forward to future discussions (disagreements) :>)