The Christian Discussion thread IX: Pelagius Rising.

[Stonok]

You have yet to address the verses which plainly state that there are no other gods.

Sigh. Which verses specifically?

Isaiah 43:10

[Northern Davincia]

Calling the Apostles liars won't get you very far.

You are the one calling God's apostles false prophets.

Smith and his ilk are false prophets. If they are willing to teach that which is against the bible, they are not with God.

[Diopolis]

What do we all think about indulgences? How about pelagianism? *grasps for other topics that aren't endless "LDS! No, yall are a bunch of heretics. But Joseph Smith! Muh Holy Trinity! I'm going to ignore your arguments for it!"* What do we all think of donatism? Do we have opinions on the Alexandrian canon?

[United Muscovite Nations]

What do we all think about indulgences? How about pelagianism? *grasps for other topics that aren't endless "LDS! No, yall are a bunch of heretics. But Joseph Smith! Muh Holy Trinity! I'm going to ignore your arguments for it!"* What do we all think of donatism? Do we have opinions on the Alexandrian canon?

I leave all my stuff to the monastery next door so that the monks will pray really hard for me and get me out of purgatory.

[Diopolis]

What do we all think about indulgences? How about pelagianism? *grasps for other topics that aren't endless "LDS! No, yall are a bunch of heretics. But Joseph Smith! Muh Holy Trinity! I'm going to ignore your arguments for it!"* What do we all think of donatism? Do we have opinions on the Alexandrian canon?

I leave all my stuff to the monastery next door so that the monks will pray really hard for me and get me out of purgatory.

Good plan.

[Northern Davincia]

What do we all think about indulgences? How about pelagianism? *grasps for other topics that aren't endless "LDS! No, yall are a bunch of heretics. But Joseph Smith! Muh Holy Trinity! I'm going to ignore your arguments for it!"* What do we all think of donatism? Do we have opinions on the Alexandrian canon?

Indulgences are sometimes necessary, but they should never be relied upon, and creates the idea that the church is racketeering the living and dead.

[Tarsonis]

Calling the Apostles liars won't get you very far.

You are the one calling God's apostles false prophets.

Joseph smith was not an apostle,
Nor were the Apostles Prophets.

[Salus Maior]

What do we all think about indulgences? How about pelagianism? *grasps for other topics that aren't endless "LDS! No, yall are a bunch of heretics. But Joseph Smith! Muh Holy Trinity! I'm going to ignore your arguments for it!"* What do we all think of donatism? Do we have opinions on the Alexandrian canon?

I don't really know all that much about indulgences tbh. At least how they're supposed to function.

[War Gears]

Traducianism or creationism?

[Constantinopolis]

The creed became the doctrine of many Christian churches because Constantine decided it was the official stance. No revelation from God led to the creation of the creed, nor am I aware of any of the creators of the Nicene Creed claiming divine revelation led to its composition.

You need to seriously improve your knowledge of Christian history.

The first version of the Creed was formulated by the First Ecumenical Council in the year 325, and was supported by the Emperor Constantine. So far so good, this is the part you're familiar with. But then Constantine died 12 years later, in the year 337. After that, for the next 42 years, the Roman Empire was ruled by Emperors who rejected the Creed and denied the Holy Trinity. Most of them were Arians. One was actually a pagan (Emperor Julian "the Apostate").

So no, the Creed of Nicaea did NOT triumph because of imperial support. It triumphed in spite of 42 years of imperial opposition and suppression.

When the tables finally turned, after the year 379, Arianism quickly vanished almost completely from among the Roman population (it persisted only among the Germanic tribes who had been converted specifically to Arianism by missionaries sent by the Arian Roman Emperors during the middle of the 4th century).

So, both dogmas were tested by the trials of this world. When Trinitarianism was persecuted, it endured in the face of all adversity. When Arianism was persecuted, it withered and died. That, in a nutshell, is why Trinitarianism won.

I believe you are misinterpreting our beliefs. We do not believe that Christ is not a god.

Right, you simply believe there are multiple gods, in spite of the fact that God's #1 point that He wanted to get across in the Old Testament - and which He had to hammer home again and again and again - was the point that there is only One God.

The existence of the Mormonism is the best answer to the people who wonder why God had to spend all that time insisting that HE IS ONE before revealing the full nature of the Trinity. Because if He had revealed the Trinity from the beginning, people would have just interpreted it as "three gods".

God had to spend over a thousand years hammering the point that HE IS ONE into a specific culture, before it was safe to reveal the Holy Trinity without a serious danger that His worshipers would slip into polytheism. And even so, 1800 years later, a few of His worshipers slipped into polytheism anyway. It would have been a lot worse if we didn't build the Church upon the foundation of over a thousand years of Judaism, which rooted us deeply in the worship of One God.

- you yourselves do not believe in the existence of prophets, nor in the existence of revelation or scripture outside of the Bible! -

Point of order: You are arguing only against Protestantism here, not against Apostolic Christianity (Orthodox and Catholic).

Apostolic Christianity has always believed that there is revelation outside of the Bible - indeed, we relied upon such revelation to compile the New Testament in the first place. We may not use the word "prophets", but we do believe that people (typically saints) do occasionally receive visions and direct guidance from God. Both Orthodox and Catholics place a great deal of importance on the writings of the saints and the records of their lives (with the Orthodox perhaps elevating these testimonies higher than the Catholics do). We also believe that there is a form of institutional guidance provided by God to the Church. Catholics believe that the Pope is divinely guided, and Orthodox believe that Ecumenical Councils are divinely guided.

As I stated earlier, we do not deny Christ's divinity. We do, however, deny many of the teachings dispensed during the Apostasy - which began immediately after and even just before the Apostles' deaths, such as the belief that Jesus Christ and God the Father are the same God. The Nicene Creed was formulated because of the Apostasy, because Christians had fallen away from Christ and were relying on their own minds rather than divine revelation from heaven, as predicted by Paul. This is why so many of what you call heresies exist and have existed: because divine revelation had ceased for the time being - you yourselves do not believe in the existence of prophets, nor in the existence of revelation or scripture outside of the Bible! - and Christians did not have the gospel on their side, instead understandably turning to the teachings of men and not God. By saying the first Christians, I mean those who lived during the time of Christ and his Apostles, not intelligent but misled individuals from later times.

An apostasy was predicted by the Bible:

2 Thessalonians 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Acts 20:29-30 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

2 Timothy 4:3-4 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

2 Peter 2:1-2 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.

And an apostasy did happen. There were many heretical sects that broke away from Orthodox Christianity in antiquity. Gnostics, Docetists, Ebionites, Apollinarians, Pelagians, and Arians - to name a few.

But to believe in a universal apostasy that began about 60 years after Christ and lasted 1700 years after that?? This makes the entire coming of Christ basically irrelevant. For all intents and purposes, if your view is correct, Christian history began with Joseph Smith. The short-lived episode in the 1st century AD that maybe touched a few tens of thousands of people and ended within two generations was insignificant and frankly quite pathetic compared to the much larger and much longer-lasting LDS Church of modern times. Jesus Christ failed, and Joseph Smith succeeded where Christ failed. That is the logical implication of your beliefs. And that is the first and most important reason why they are so ridiculous (along with all other restorationist sects):

If a Great Apostasy happened, then Jesus Christ was a Failed Messiah. And why should anyone follow a Failed Messiah? How could a failed Messiah be God, or a god, or any kind of divine being? Couldn't God have arranged things so that His followers DIDN'T lose the faith almost immediately after they were given the faith? What kind of God looks down upon the total extinction of His religion a mere 60 years after He established it, then says "oh well, so much for that", and goes on vacation for 1700 years?

Look, brother, I'm not saying this to attack you. I've already mentioned before that I have the greatest admiration for the moral behavior of Mormons. But you have been led astray by a false prophet, one of those that St. Peter and St. Paul warned about in the very quotes which you posted. There was no universal apostasy. Jesus Christ did not fail. He picked reliable men to be His Apostles, knowing that they would pick reliable followers to succeed them in turn. The Church of Christ has never fallen. She cannot fall. For twenty centuries she has stood strong in the face of all adversity. Empires rise and fall, nations are born and they vanish, entire languages appear and disappear, but the Church remains. The tides of history have not prevailed against her, the winds of time have not prevailed against her, the power of the princes of this world was broken against her walls, the forces of hell have no strength against her. The Church was always here and is here still.

Join her.

[Luminesa]

What do we all think about indulgences? How about pelagianism? *grasps for other topics that aren't endless "LDS! No, yall are a bunch of heretics. But Joseph Smith! Muh Holy Trinity! I'm going to ignore your arguments for it!"* What do we all think of donatism? Do we have opinions on the Alexandrian canon?

I leave all my stuff to the monastery next door so that the monks will pray really hard for me and get me out of purgatory.

Um...Are you okay?

[United Muscovite Nations]

I leave all my stuff to the monastery next door so that the monks will pray really hard for me and get me out of purgatory.

Um...Are you okay?

Yes, it's a history joke.

[Corpus Magnus]

Join her.

What makes the Orthodox Church female?

[Dylar]

Join her.

What makes the Orthodox Church female?

The fact that the Christ's bride is the Church.

...I don't think Christ was gay...

[Tarsonis]

Join her.

What makes the Orthodox Church female?

Never heard of Mater Ecclesia?

Also the depiction of God's people through feminine imagery is pre-Christian.

[Salus Maior]

What makes the Orthodox Church female?

Never heard of Mater Ecclesia?

Also the depiction of God's people through feminine imagery is pre-Christian.

Jerusalem is a woman, Wisdom is a woman....And people say that Christianity is anti-woman

[Northern Davincia]

Never heard of Mater Ecclesia?

Also the depiction of God's people through feminine imagery is pre-Christian.

Jerusalem is a woman, Wisdom is a woman....And people say that Christianity is anti-woman

*screeches in Marian*

[Hakons]

Never heard of Mater Ecclesia?

Also the depiction of God's people through feminine imagery is pre-Christian.

Jerusalem is a woman, Wisdom is a woman....And people say that Christianity is anti-woman

There's also Mary, the Mother of God, and the most important saint.

[Auze]

The creed became the doctrine of many Christian churches because Constantine decided it was the official stance. No revelation from God led to the creation of the creed, nor am I aware of any of the creators of the Nicene Creed claiming divine revelation led to its composition.

You need to seriously improve your knowledge of Christian history.

The first version of the Creed was formulated by the First Ecumenical Council in the year 325, and was supported by the Emperor Constantine. So far so good, this is the part you're familiar with. But then Constantine died 12 years later, in the year 337. After that, for the next 42 years, the Roman Empire was ruled by Emperors who rejected the Creed and denied the Holy Trinity. Most of them were Arians. One was actually a pagan (Emperor Julian "the Apostate").

So no, the Creed of Nicaea did NOT triumph because of imperial support. It triumphed in spite of 42 years of imperial opposition and suppression.

Emperor Constans and Valetinian were Nicene Christians, Constantius II was in the middle and supported Semi-Arianism but by then the Nicene Creed was to deeply rooted, no information on Constantine II, Jovian was buried in the church of holy apostles (making me think he probably wasn't Arian), Gratian outright banned Arianism and supported Nicene Christianity, and Theodosius made it the state religion and ended any chance of Arianism coming back. So I would say, no, Nicene Christianity didn't have to deal with much suppression at all, and was boosted by several emperors.

[Hakons]

You need to seriously improve your knowledge of Christian history.

The first version of the Creed was formulated by the First Ecumenical Council in the year 325, and was supported by the Emperor Constantine. So far so good, this is the part you're familiar with. But then Constantine died 12 years later, in the year 337. After that, for the next 42 years, the Roman Empire was ruled by Emperors who rejected the Creed and denied the Holy Trinity. Most of them were Arians. One was actually a pagan (Emperor Julian "the Apostate").

So no, the Creed of Nicaea did NOT triumph because of imperial support. It triumphed in spite of 42 years of imperial opposition and suppression.
/quote]
Emperor Constans and Valetinian were Nicene Christians, Constantius II was in the middle and supported Semi-Arianism but by then the Nicene Creed was to deeply rooted, no information on Constantine II, Jovian was buried in the church of holy apostles (making me think he probably wasn't Arian), Gratian outright banned Arianism and supported Nicene Christianity, and Theodosius made it the state religion and ended any chance of Arianism coming back. So I would say, no, Nicene Christianity didn't have to deal with much suppression at all, and was boosted by several emperors.

The emperors never set religious theology. They called for Church Councils as a way to end disputes, but it was always the Bishops that agreed on the clarifications and wrote the Creeds.

[Auze]

You need to seriously improve your knowledge of Christian history.

The first version of the Creed was formulated by the First Ecumenical Council in the year 325, and was supported by the Emperor Constantine. So far so good, this is the part you're familiar with. But then Constantine died 12 years later, in the year 337. After that, for the next 42 years, the Roman Empire was ruled by Emperors who rejected the Creed and denied the Holy Trinity. Most of them were Arians. One was actually a pagan (Emperor Julian "the Apostate").

So no, the Creed of Nicaea did NOT triumph because of imperial support. It triumphed in spite of 42 years of imperial opposition and suppression.
/quote]
Emperor Constans and Valetinian were Nicene Christians, Constantius II was in the middle and supported Semi-Arianism but by then the Nicene Creed was to deeply rooted, no information on Constantine II, Jovian was buried in the church of holy apostles (making me think he probably wasn't Arian), Gratian outright banned Arianism and supported Nicene Christianity, and Theodosius made it the state religion and ended any chance of Arianism coming back. So I would say, no, Nicene Christianity didn't have to deal with much suppression at all, and was boosted by several emperors.

The emperors never set religious theology. They called for Church Councils as a way to end disputes, but it was always the Bishops that agreed on the clarifications and wrote the Creeds.

I didn't say that, I said that many of them post Constantine backed Nicene Christianity and didn't "suppress" it like Constantinopolis claimed.

[Hakons]

The emperors never set religious theology. They called for Church Councils as a way to end disputes, but it was always the Bishops that agreed on the clarifications and wrote the Creeds.

I didn't say that, I said that many of them post Constantine backed Nicene Christianity and didn't "suppress" it like Constantinopolis claimed.

Ah, ok. My objection was to Corpus', which claimed Constantine forced the council to accept the Trinity.

[Tarsonis]

You need to seriously improve your knowledge of Christian history.

The first version of the Creed was formulated by the First Ecumenical Council in the year 325, and was supported by the Emperor Constantine. So far so good, this is the part you're familiar with. But then Constantine died 12 years later, in the year 337. After that, for the next 42 years, the Roman Empire was ruled by Emperors who rejected the Creed and denied the Holy Trinity. Most of them were Arians. One was actually a pagan (Emperor Julian "the Apostate").

So no, the Creed of Nicaea did NOT triumph because of imperial support. It triumphed in spite of 42 years of imperial opposition and suppression.

Emperor Constans and Valetinian were Nicene Christians, Constantius II was in the middle and supported Semi-Arianism but by then the Nicene Creed was to deeply rooted, no information on Constantine II, Jovian was buried in the church of holy apostles (making me think he probably wasn't Arian), Gratian outright banned Arianism and supported Nicene Christianity, and Theodosius made it the state religion and ended any chance of Arianism coming back. So I would say, no, Nicene Christianity didn't have to deal with much suppression at all, and was boosted by several emperors.

That's not correct. 1. Constantine was not a Nicene Christian, he wasn't baptized until is deathbed. He was a pagan. Constantine the II wasn't an emperor long enough to have any real effect though he was part of the Nicene West. Constantious II and Constans were Arian and Nicene respectively and almost went to war over the subject.

Jovian only ruled for 8 months but in that 8 months restored Christianity as the state religion, Arianism vs Nicene was never really specified in his short reign thus he gets buried, what he actually believed we'll never know.
The Valentinians were too busy squabbling to make any real proclamations, it wasn't until Theodoseus I until Nicene became the official orthodoxy of the Roman State, stamping out Arianism. While it's not as bleak as const made it out to be, that's 42 years of Trinitarianism vs Arianism conflict. Trinitarianism won.

None of the emperors between Constantine and Thedoseus "backed" Nicene Christianity, and most worked against it.

[The Archregimancy]

Jovian only ruled for 8 months but in that 8 months restored Christianity as the state religion, Arianism vs Nicene was never really specified in his short reign thus he gets buried, what he actually believed we'll never know.

The Valentinians were too busy squabbling to make any real proclamations, it wasn't until Theodoseus I until Nicene became the official orthodoxy of the Roman State, stamping out Arianism. While it's not as bleak as const made it out to be, that's 42 years of Trinitarianism vs Arianism conflict. Trinitarianism won.

None of the emperors between Constantine and Thedoseus "backed" Nicene Christianity, and most worked against it.

I regret that this isn't wholly correct. Jovian supported Nicene Christianity, though it would be fair to note that his reign was too short to accomplish anything of significance theologically other than restore Christianity as the state religion.

The situation with the Valentinians is more complicated. Valentinian I and Gratian were Nicene Christians, so much of the Western Empire was under the control of Nicene emperors from 363 AD through Gratian's death in 383. However, the child co-emperor Valentinian II was initially dominated by his Arian mother Justina, which led to a complex dispute with St Ambrose in Milan. The usurper Magnus Maximus presented himself as a champion of Nicene orthodoxy against the Arian heterodoxy of Valentinian II and Justina Valentinian I's brother and Gratians uncle Valens favoured Arianism, so the (by this period) more important Eastern Empire was under the sole control of an Arian emperor until the accession of Theodosius I in 378. None of which stopped the Nicene Magnus Maximus from killing the Nicene Gratian, or the Nicene Theodosius protecting the Arian Valentinian II from the Nicene Magnus Maximus.

The relative toleration of the Nicene Valentinians towards Arianism and vice versa is likely down to the close family links within the family; Valentinian I and Valens seem to have placed family over theology. Once Theodosius was senior emperor, however, he felt free to make Nicene Christianity the official state version of Christianity (ignoring whatever objections the young Valentinian II might have had).

The short version is that it's certainly true that Nicene Christianity wasn't definitively established with Imperial support until 378, and that up until Jovian's accession in 363, most emperors following the death of Constantine were actively opposed to the Nicene definition. However, this wasn't true of all emperors.

However, even Theodosius I wasn't the end of the story. The defeat of Arianism (which would in any case flourish under the Ostrogothic, Vandal, and Visigothic states following the disintegration of the Western Empire) didn't mean the final triumph of what we would consider small-o orthodox christology. Several later Eastern emperors - most notably Anastasius I - were open monophysites. It's only the loss of Syria and Egypt to the Arabs in the 7th century that lances the monophysite theological boil; by removing the provinces where monophysitism (or, if you prefer, miaphysitism) was prevalent, there was no longer the need to come up with compromises along the lines of Heraclius's monoenergism or monothelitism.

So what the Orthodox, Catholics, and most protestants understand as small-o orthodox christology by no means enjoyed universal support by Roman Emperors until the transformation of the late classical Eastern Empire into the medieval Byzantine Empire was more or less complete.

[Tarsonis]

Jovian only ruled for 8 months but in that 8 months restored Christianity as the state religion, Arianism vs Nicene was never really specified in his short reign thus he gets buried, what he actually believed we'll never know.

The Valentinians were too busy squabbling to make any real proclamations, it wasn't until Theodoseus I until Nicene became the official orthodoxy of the Roman State, stamping out Arianism. While it's not as bleak as const made it out to be, that's 42 years of Trinitarianism vs Arianism conflict. Trinitarianism won.

None of the emperors between Constantine and Thedoseus "backed" Nicene Christianity, and most worked against it.

I regret that this isn't wholly correct. Jovian supported Nicene Christianity, though it would be fair to note that his reign was too short to accomplish anything of significance theologically other than restore Christianity as the state religion.

The situation with the Valentinians is more complicated. Valentinian I and Gratian were Nicene Christians, so much of the Western Empire was under the control of Nicene emperors from 363 AD through Gratian's death in 383. However, the child co-emperor Valentinian II was initially dominated by his Arian mother Justina, which led to a complex dispute with St Ambrose in Milan. The usurper Magnus Maximus presented himself as a champion of Nicene orthodoxy against the Arian heterodoxy of Valentinian II and Justina Valentinian I's brother and Gratians uncle Valens favoured Arianism, so the (by this period) more important Eastern Empire was under the sole control of an Arian emperor until the accession of Theodosius I in 378. None of which stopped the Nicene Magnus Maximus from killing the Nicene Gratian, or the Nicene Theodosius protecting the Arian Valentinian II from the Nicene Magnus Maximus.

The relative toleration of the Nicene Valentinians towards Arianism and vice versa is likely down to the close family links within the family; Valentinian I and Valens seem to have placed family over theology. Once Theodosius was senior emperor, however, he felt free to make Nicene Christianity the official state version of Christianity (ignoring whatever objections the young Valentinian II might have had).

The short version is that it's certainly true that Nicene Christianity wasn't definitively established with Imperial support until 378, and that up until Jovian's accession in 363, most emperors following the death of Constantine were actively opposed to the Nicene definition. However, this wasn't true of all emperors.

However, even Theodosius I wasn't the end of the story. The defeat of Arianism (which would in any case flourish under the Ostrogothic, Vandal, and Visigothic states following the disintegration of the Western Empire) didn't mean the final triumph of what we would consider small-o orthodox christology. Several later Eastern emperors - most notably Anastasius I - were open monophysites. It's only the loss of Syria and Egypt to the Arabs in the 7th century that lances the monophysite theological boil; by removing the provinces where monophysitism (or, if you prefer, miaphysitism) was prevalent, there was no longer the need to come up with compromises along the lines of Heraclius's monoenergism or monothelitism.

So what the Orthodox, Catholics, and most protestants understand as small-o orthodox christology by no means enjoyed universal support by Roman Emperors until the transformation of the late classical Eastern Empire into the medieval Byzantine Empire was more or less complete.

We need to get you a bat signal, for when these types of disputes crop up.