Christian Philosopher of Religion converts?????

[_mfbukowski]

In this particular instance, m, the old one commands near-universal agreement. Outliers are outliers.

It never ends

But agreement with what is the question ;)

[_huckelberry]

BC space observed,
Protestant Christian = Telestial glory
Hinduism = Telestial glory

So no change in destination. One needs to become LDS (or the ancient equivalent) before the Judgement to inherit the Terrestrial or Celestial.

Ck Salmon,
I am puzzled to understand what you are hearing BC space saying. I hear him saying that you are as apostate as you understand this previous Christian philosopher to be. You, like him will be seperated from God for eternity unless your apostasy ends.

[_Samantabhadra]

I'm more interested in what bcspace means by "ancient equivalent." Is this a moment of intellectual honesty where the Mormon finally acknowledges that Mormonism is Hermetic/Esoteric Christianity and not, as it loudly claims to be, genuine mainstream Christianity?

It has long struck me that if there is any historical basis at all for claims of a "Great Apostasy" this historical basis could only have been the First Council of Nicea.

[_bcspace]

I'm more interested in what bcspace means by "ancient equivalent."

The LDS Church is the Restoration of the same Church Jesus organized and that is the same Church offered to the Hebrews and the same religion of Abraham and the more ancient prophets before that.

Some people get caught up in the name "LDS" or Mormon. I'm merely emphasizing that Christ's Church is all the same Church, the LDS Church being the current manifestation of it.

Is this a moment of intellectual honesty where the Mormon finally acknowledges that Mormonism is Hermetic/Esoteric Christianity and not, as it loudly claims to be, genuine mainstream Christianity?

Not at all. We certainly are not traditional Christianity which is the apostate result of the universal apostasy of the early Christian Church. The LDS Church is the only body of Christ.

[_Samantabhadra]

We certainly are not traditional Christianity which is the apostate result of the universal apostasy of the early Christian Church.

So all the Christian Churches in AD 325 were already apostate. Thank you for confirming that LDS is a throwback to pre-Nicene Hermetic sects, this is actually quite valuable for my research.

For the record, you don't get to call yourself "Christian" if you throw out the Council of Nicea. There are rules.

[_bcspace]

We certainly are not traditional Christianity which is the apostate result of the universal apostasy of the early Christian Church.

So all the Christian Churches in AD 325 were already apostate.

Yes. By that date the Bible predicted universal apostasy was in full swing.

For the record, you don't get to call yourself "Christian" if you throw out the Council of Nicea. There are rules.

Who made these rules you speak of? Catholics certainly aren't the same Christians first so-called at Antioch for example. Neither are their Protestant off-shoots. The early orthodox Christians would have considered the trinity a heresy and not even Theophilus or Tertullian can be considered trinitarian. The Bible itself doesn't teach it either.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Sudduth, a well-respected, articulate, oft-cited, and, by all accounts, a genuinely-friendly, formerly-Reformed-Protestant Christian, now presents himself as one who is definitionally in a state of open apostasy vis-à-vis Christianity. He's an apostate, for now.

That is exactly what makes this so interesting, this isn’t just some dude off the street, this was a guy who helped write some pretty strong philosophical criticisms of Natural Theology, and defend Reformed Epistemology from some of the sharpest critics. It’s not often guys like Sudduth make such a drastic turn in their beliefs and when they do and decide to go public with it, it’s fascinating to watch.

I wonder how Hinduism became such a option for him, for me, it’s a religion I could almost care less about and would never dream converting to.

[_Samantabhadra]

The early orthodox Christians would have considered the trinity a heresy

:lol:

Sources please?

I won't bother with sources for Trinitarianism in the Bible since a) I agree with you to an extent, that you have to jump through some exegetical hoops to get there and b) there's no point arguing over the minutiae of scriptural hermeneutics with someone who thinks "horses and chariots" means "tapirs and conveyances-that-are-pulled(/pushed?)-by-tapir."

However I will take exception to this:

Not even Theophilus or Tertullian can be considered trinitarian.

Tertullian invented (or at least was the first Latin author to use) the term Trinitas to refer to the union of the three persons of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. To claim that he "cannot be considered trinitarian" is like claiming that a tapir... oh, never mind.

Also, Theophilus of Antioch used the word "Trinity" in his Apology, just not exactly in the Nicene sense; he used it to refer to "God, His Word, and His Wisdom." However "His Word (Logos)" as a second irreducible person of God is a pretty standard gloss of the Son qua the second person of the Trinity according to the Council of Nicea. This is certainly orthodox if you accept the canonicity of the Gospel of John.

Also, Tertullian and Theophilus are not in the same category. 31 of Tertullian's works survive and there are large fragments of at least fifteen more. Apart from the Apology, none of Theophilus' works survive. None of the Eastern Fathers appear to have quoted him at all, and pretty much the only use the Western Church Fathers had for him (the only citations from his work) are from his attacks on Marcion. Irenaeus, for example, only quotes from Theophilus' attack on Marcion. So in general neither Theophilus' Apology nor his (lost) oeuvre are all that highly regarded as a Patristic source. Theophilus mainly survives as a known quantity thanks to his usage of the Greek trias ("three" = "trinity"), as above.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Tertullian invented (or at least was the first Latin author to use) the term Trinitas to refer to the union of the three persons of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. To claim that he "cannot be considered trinitarian" is like claiming that a tapir... oh, never mind.

He also was the first to use persona to translate the Greek hypostasis. To Space’s credit, he’s just giving the common opinion of the ignorant that the Trinity was some how invented in the 4th century at Nicaea. In my limited understanding of early Church history, there was far more violence due to controversies over Christ’s nature, something far more subtle than Arius/Athanasius dispute (which wasn’t settled at Nicaea anyway).

[_MrStakhanovite]

And the monophysites who didn’t win the conflict over Christ's nature actually survive today in the Coptic Church, and I’m pretty sure if Copts properly understood “Mormon Doctrine”, they’d probably consider it demonic.