Sabitlenmiş Tweet
(It's a book, but worth it)
Before I respond to our main topic, I am going to take your first point and reflect it in the same way you did. I'm going to rephrase this purposely from your own words. I am aiming at kindness and respect. I am curious to see if you see what I saw.
Your first paragraph argument could be treated the same way back to you.
***I hear you (skip10), but you keep trying to analyze the past through the lens of "Mainstream Christianity". If you believe that nothing was lost after the death of the apostles, then everything you dwell on will support that worldview. You cannot just view the facts by their merits.***
There is an assumption portrayed in this. You appear to have assumed I have always accepted the Mormon worldview, or have never questioned the Mormon view on these points. It's an easy mistake. I see this often when conversing with people online. It is a mistake.
Also, when you say "you cannot just view the facts by their merits", what other way(s) do you suggest if not following the trail of facts to natural conclusions the merit itself leads?
Now back to the main topic:
"They developed a concept that remained true to the OT, accommodated the NT, and made sense." This is exactly what I said happened earlier in our dialogue. The doctrine "emerged through centuries of theological reflection as church leaders sought to reconcile biblical monotheism, the divinity of Christ, the distinction between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and passages describing Christ in subordinate relation to the Father."
The result was an interpretation. They attempted to logically demonstrate how both monotheism and the divinity of Christ can coexist as true. What they concluded was the doctrine of the Trinity.
Would you agree with this recap? If not, what would you add or change? Fill me in. It may not be elaborate, but it hits the main points.
Here is a brief recap of the before, during, and after of the Council of Nicaea as I understand the historical events.
In the early 300s, Arius taught that Jesus (the Son) was created by God the Father and was not fully equal to Him. This teaching split the church.
To restore unity, Emperor Constantine called the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. About 300 bishops attended.
The main debate: Is Jesus fully God and of the same substance as the Father, or a lesser, created being?
Broadly speaking, three major tendencies emerged:
• Group 1 Strong Anti-Arians
- Small minority (~15–20 persons)
-Full homoousios (“same substance”)
• Group 2 Largest Majority
- A large middle group preferred biblical language, such as ‘like the Father,’ and were cautious about homoousios.
• Group 3 Pro-Arian Small minority (~20 persons)
- Son is created / subordinate
The smaller group of bishops pushed for the word homoousios (“same substance”). Most bishops were uncomfortable with it because it was non-biblical terminology with philosophical and controversial theological baggage.
Constantine strongly favored the term as a means of achieving doctrinal unity and imperial stability. The council adopted the Nicene Creed with homoousios. Those unwilling to sign the creed or condemn Arius faced exile or removal from communion, indicating substantial political and ecclesiastical pressure toward unity.
The controversy did not end in Nicaea. For the next 50+ years, emperors, exiles, and new councils swung back and forth between Arian and Nicene views.
Finally, in 381 AD, the Council of Constantinople reaffirmed and expanded the Nicene Creed, and under Emperor Theodosius, Nicene Christianity became the official imperial orthodoxy.
Summary: Nicaea declared Jesus fully God, but it took over 50 years of debate and political pressure before that belief fully prevailed.
Again, would you agree with this recap? Does this miss anything? What would you add?
Knowing this, as I see it, critics expect Latter-day Saints to accept as essential Christian doctrine a formulation that:
1. Was formalized centuries after the apostles.
2. Relied on philosophical terminology not found in scripture (homoousios).
3. Emerged in a politically charged environment under Constantine, where unity and stability often appear to have taken precedence over arriving at a universally satisfying theological formulation.
4. It was controversial among bishops at the time and not embraced without resistance.
5. Was ultimately enforced through councils, creeds, exile, and ecclesiastical pressure.
Yet Latter-day Saints are criticized for questioning whether this represents the original apostolic faith in its pure form.
On top of all that, if nothing else, the Council of Nicaea evidences a profound shift in how doctrine was established.
In the New Testament, doctrine came through apostles receiving revelation from Jesus Christ. By Nicaea, doctrine was being defined through episcopal debate, philosophical terminology, imperial pressure, and majority agreement rather than new public revelation.
This is what naturally occurs when revelatory apostolic authority is no longer present: theological disputes are settled through councils, argumentation, politics, and consensus rather than prophets receiving revelation from God.
The Old Testament repeatedly shows that when prophetic revelation diminished or was rejected, God’s people did not cease being religious. Rather, authority shifted toward institutional leadership, interpretation, tradition, and political power struggles — precisely the kind of transition many argue became visible in the post-apostolic councils.
Amos 8:11–12 presents a biblical pattern of what happens when revelation withdraws from a people. Religious life may continue, but there is a “famine” of the word of the Lord — people seek divine guidance yet cannot find it.
11 ¶ Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:
12 And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, and shall not find it. Amos 8:11-12
After a thorough study, I have yet to find any period where God is pleased not to have prophets on the earth. Jesus does warn us about the false prophets who would come and lead many astray. Yet, he also armed us how to know the true from the false.
If prophets or apostles were to end forever, Jesus didn't express it.
Historically, many Christians later concluded that public revelation or apostolic office ceased after the apostolic age. But that conclusion is post-biblical theological development rather than a direct statement from Jesus Himself.
The New Testament does not prepare believers for a permanent absence of prophets. Rather, it repeatedly warns them to discern between false and true ones.
Avoiding all prophetic claims because some may be false is not the pattern taught by Christ or His apostles. The New Testament instructs believers to discern, test, and judge prophetic claims — not reject the possibility of prophets altogether.
What did Jesus establish?
Commissioned apostles and prophets. Paul calls the number 1 and 2 parts of the body of Christ. He also calls them the foundation on which everything ties in.
Christ did not establish a church built merely on scholars, councils, or inherited tradition. He established apostles and prophets.
Paul even lists them first in the body of Christ and says the household of God is built upon their foundation, with Jesus Christ as the chief cornerstone.
Through the apostles, bishops and elders were called to lead local communities in the way. They also ordained seventy, deacons, teachers, and evangelists. This was the organization and everything flowed from them as they were guided by revelation from Jesus Christ.
Were the apostles mean to be "foundational only"?
The NT repeatedly presents apostles and prophets as integral to the Church’s structure and unity, yet nowhere clearly outlines a long-term model for a fully post-apostolic Church operating without revelatory leadership.
That silence is telling.
The earliest Christian movement appears structured around living apostolic authority, not around a future model dependent primarily on councils, creeds, and inherited institutional interpretation after apostles disappeared.
That does not prove apostasy or restoration by itself. But it does create historical and theological tension for later models that assume:
- apostles were temporary,
- revelation largely ceased, and institutional succession alone was expected to carry the Church indefinitely.
The silence is especially notable because the NT does prepare believers for many future issues:
- false teachers
- persecution
- apostasy
- division
- wolves entering the flock
- deception
Yet it gives comparatively little direct instruction like:
“After the apostles die, bishops alone will govern universally.”
“Ecumenical councils will define doctrine.”
“Public revelation will cease.”
“Creeds formulated centuries later will become the doctrinal standard.”
Then again, you are asking LDS not to question this, but fall in line when there are obvious flaws to all this history.
LDS and the restoration falls in lock-step with the NT organization, set up with apostles and prophets. It returns the fundamental roots.
Scholars are also finding out that pre-Josiah reform there wasn't a hard monotheism structure like what came after. Which is interesting and leaning toward a council of gods leadership.
Again, I not stating this to convince you. I am giving you a window in the logical process as I see it. You can see it completely different, that's okay. But I cannot ignore these things. Mainstream Christianity has not resolved the tensions in simple terms. I find the LDS argument and position relatable, logical, and defensible.
English
