Christian Philosopher of Religion converts?????

[_bcspace]

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.

Oh how little you know. I'm quite familiar with the development of the trinity heresy. Tertullian and Theophilus were merely milestones on the road of (wholesale) changing doctrine to it.

However I will take exception to this:

bcspace wrote:
Not even Theophilus or Tertullian can be considered trinitarian.

If you knew anything about Theophilus (or Tertullian), you would know that his version of the trinity was not like that which exists today or by the time of the creeds. What Theophius did not believe:

He didn't believe in the equality of the Trinity. Bettenson admits that "'subordinationism'... was pre-Nicene orthodoxy." (Bettenson, The Early Christian Fathers, p. 330.) Richard Hanson says: "Indeed, until Athanasius began writing, every single theologian, East and West, had postulated some form of Subordinationism. It could, about the year 300, have been described as a fixed part of catholic theology." (Hansen, R., "The Achievement of Orthodoxy in the Fourth Century AD", in Williams, ed., The Making of Orthodoxy, p. 153.)

He didn't believe in the "eternal generation" of the Son. Origen was the first one to come up with that. The apologists of this period generally believed that God's Reason ("Logos") existed eternally within Him, but then, at a certain point in time, Jesus was generated OUT OF the Logos, which is why he is called the Logos, as well. "God, then, having His own Word internal within His own bowels, begat Him, emitting Him along with His own wisdom before all things. He had this Word as a helper in the things that were created by Him, and by Him He made all things." (Theophilus, Ad Autolycum 2:10, in ANF 2:98.)

Similar can be said of Tertullian version of the "trinity" if you'd like.

[_bcspace]

The early orthodox Christians would have considered the trinity a heresy

:lol:

Sources please?

Anthropomorphism:

And Simon said: "I should like to know, Peter, if you really believe that the shape of man has been moulded after the shape of God." And Peter said: "I am really quite certain, Simon, that this is the case . . . . It is the shape of the just God."
Clementine Homilies 16:19, in ANF 8:316

Clementine Recognitions also implies that God is cognizable only through the senses:

Then said Peter: "Give us then, as I have often said, as being yourself a new God, or as having yourself come down from him, some new sense, by means of which we may know that new God of whom you speak; for those five senses, which God our Creator has given us, keep faith to their own Creator, and do not perceive that there is any other God, for so their nature necessitates them."
Peter, in Clementine Recognitions 2:60, in ANF 8:114

For He has shape, and He has every limb primarily and solely for beauty's sake, and not for use. For He has not eyes that He may see with them; for He sees on every side, since He is incomparably more brilliant in His body than the visual spirit which is in us, and He is more splendid than everything, so that in comparison with Him the light of the sun may be reckoned as darkness. Nor has He ears that He may hear; for He hears, perceives, moves, energizes, acts on every side. But He has the most beautiful shape on account of man, that the pure in heart, may be able to see Him, that they may rejoice because they suffered. For He moulded man in His own shape as in the grandest seal, in order that he may be the ruler and lord of all, and that all may be subject to him.
Clementine Homilies 17:7, in ANF 8:319-320

When I abode in the temple of God and received my food from an angel, on a certain day there appeared unto me one in the likeness of an angel, but his face was incomprehensible . . . . I was not able to endure the sight of him . . . . And said unto me: Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the chosen vessel, grace inexhaustible. And he smote his garment upon the right hand and there came a very great loaf, and he set it upon the altar of the temple and did eat of it first himself, and gave unto me also. And again he smote his garment upon the left hand and there came a very great cup full of wine: and he set it upon the altar of the temple and did drink of it first himself, and gave also unto me . . . . And he said unto me: Yet three years, and I will send my word unto thee and thou shalt conceive my . . . son, and through him shall the whole creation be saved.
The Gospel of Bartholomew, in ANT, 172

Etc.

Subordinationism and the plurality of Gods:

Not only did many Christian writers identify Jesus with Yahweh, until the 5th century it was quite common to call Jesus either a "second God", the chief angel, or both. Similarly, it was made clear that the Holy Spirit occupies the third place.
Danielou, The Theology of Jewish Christianity, 146

For example, during the second century Justin Martyr wrote that the "first-begotten", the Logos, "is the first force after the Father": he is "a second God, second numerically but not in will," doing only the Father's pleasure.
Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the Christian Church, 268

Then I replied, "I shall attempt to persuade you, since you have understood the Scriptures, [of the truth] of what I say, that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel..."
Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 56, in ANF 1:223

In the same vein Hermas spoke of the angel of the prophetic Spirit and Jesus as the "glorious...angel" or "most venerable...angel"
The Pastor of Hermas, Commandment 11, in ANF 2:27-28

The Ascension of Isaiah referred to both Jesus and the Spirit as angels as well: "And I saw how my Lord worshipped, and the angel of the Holy Spirit, and how both together praised God."
Ascension of Isaiah, in TOB, 528

Clement of Alexandria referred to Jesus as the "Second Cause".
Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 7:3

Peter called Jesus both God and angel but also identified him with Yahweh, the prince of the Sons of God mentioned in Deut. 32:7-8
Peter, in Clementine Recognitions 2:42, in ANF 8:109

Hippolytus called Jesus "the Angel of [God's] counsel"
Hippolytus, The Apostolic Tradition 4:4, p.7

and Tertullian spoke of Christ as "second" to the Father. However Tertullian stopped short of saying there was a second God because he considered the Father to be the "only true God" and Jesus to be a secondary being. (Note that the creedal trinity is alien to Tertullian)
Tertullian, Against Praxeas 7, in ANF 3:602 and
Tertullian, Against Praxeas 13, in ANF 3:607-608

Well into the third century, Origen could speak of Jesus as a "second God"
Origen, Against Celsus 5:39, in ANF 4:561

but he added a qualification: "We are not afraid to speak, in one sense of two Gods, in another sense of one God." (Very LDS by the way)
Origen, Dail Heracl. 2:3, quoted in Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, 251

In what sense are they one? "And these, while they are two, considered as persons or subsistences, are one in unity of thought, in harmony and in identity of will. (again very LDS)
Origen, Against Celsus, 8:12, in ANF 4:643-644

The presbyter Novatian maintained that Christ was both angel and God.
Novatian, On the Trinity 19, in ANF 5:630, cf. On the Trinity in ANF 5:628

And he equated this God/angel with the Lord (Yahweh) of Hosts.
Novatian, On the Trinity 12 , in ANF 5:621

He also made clear that the Spirit is subject to the Son.
Novatian, On the Trinity 16, in ANF 5:625

He also said that the unity of the Godhead is NOT some metaphysical "oneness", but unity of will. (LDS again)
Novatian, On the Trinity 27, in ANF 5:637-638

Novatian also did not hesitate to name other angels "gods" as well: "If even the angels themselves...as many as are subjected to Christ, are called gods, rightly also Christ is God."
Novatian, On the Trinity 20, in ANF 5:631

Lactantius approvingly quoted a Hermetic text which spoke of a "second God"
Lactantius, Divine Institutes 4:6, in ANF 7:105

Eusebius of Caesarea likewise called Jesus a "secondary being" who is both angel and God.
Eusebius, The Proof of the Gospel 1:5, 2 vols. translated by W. J. Ferrar

Eusebius also compared the hierarchy of beings (The Three) to the sun, moon, and stars as spoken of in 1 Corinthians 15:40-42 (another LDS concept)
Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel 7:15, pp.351-352

In the aftermath of the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D., such language became unpopular, and some theologians tried to sweep its former popularity under the rug. For example, in the late fourth century Basil of Caesarea feigned that such a thing as a "second God" was unheard of in the "orthodox" faith.
Basil of Caesarea, On the Holy Spirit 45, in NPNF Series 2, 8:28

More evidence of the universiality of the Apostasy by the way.

ANF = The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Alexander and Donaldson
NPNF = The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Schaff, Philip, ed.

Adapted from Bickmore, Restoring the Ancient Church

Etc.

The Deification of man:

"Men are Gods and Gods are men."
Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor 3:1

"We have not been made Gods from the beginning, but at first merely men, then at length Gods..."
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4:38:4, in ANF 1:522

"...our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through His transcendent love, became what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself."
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5: Preface, in ANF 1:526

All men are deemed worthy of becoming gods, and even of having power to become sons of the Highest.
Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 124, in ANF 1:262

"we assert that not by their communion merely with Him, but by their unity and intermixture, they received the highest powers, and after participating in His divinity, were changed into God."
Origen, Against Celsus 3:41

God "made man for that purpose, that from men they may become Gods."
Jerome, The Homilies of Saint Jerome, vol. 1 (FC 48), translated by M.L. Ewald, 106

"For as Christ died and was exalted as man, so, as man, is He said to take what, as God, He ever had, that even such a grant of grace might reach to us. For the Word was not impaired in receiving a body, that He should seek to receive a grace, but rather He deified that which He put on, and more than that, gave it graciously to the race of man."
Athanasius, Discourses Against the Arians 1:42, in NPNF Series 2, 4:330-331

Orthodox Christians "taught that the destiny of man was to become like God, and even to become deified"
Prestige, God in Patristic Thought, 73

"One can think what one wants of this doctrine of progressive deification, but one thing is certain: with this anthropology Joseph Smith is closer to the view of man held by the Ancient Church than the precursors of the Augustinian doctrine of original sin were, who considered the thought of such a substantial connection between God and man as the heresy, par excellence."
Benz, E.W., Imago Dei: Man in the Image of God, in Madsen, ed., Reflections on Mormonism, 215-216

Etc.

[_bcspace]

It's also fun to go through how the early Christians believed in degrees of glory in the resurrection and salvation just like LDS do today:

Our understanding of the passage [1 Corinthians 15:40-42] indeed is, that the Apostle, wishing to describe the great difference among those who rise in glory, i.e., of the saints, barrowed a comparison from the heavenly bodies, saying, "One glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, another glory of the stars."
Origen, De Principiis 2:10:2, in ANF 4:294

Origen further taught that the highest of the degrees is associated with the Father, the second highest with the Son:

"And some are connected with the Father, being part of Him, and next to these, those whom our argument now brings into clearer light, those who have come to the Saviour and take their stand entirely with him. And third are those of whom we spoke, who reckon the sun and the moon and the stars to be gods, and take their stand by them. And in the fourth and last place those who submit to soulless and dead idols."
Origen, Commentary on John 2:3, in ANF 10:324-325

"And having said this, he ascends again to the heaven, saying, "There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon." For as in earthly bodies there is a difference, so also in the heavenly; and that difference no ordinary one, but reaching even to the uttermost: there being not only a difference betwen the sun and moon, and stars, but also between stars and stars. For what though they be all in the heaven? yet some have a larger, others a less share of glory. What do we learn from hence? That although they be all in God's kingdom, all shall not enjoy the same reward; and though all sinners be in hell, all shall not endure the same punishment."
John Chrysostom, Homilies on 1 Corinthians 41:4, in NPNF Series 1, 12:251

[Clement of Alexandria] reckons three kinds of actions, the first of which is ...right or perfect action, which is characteristic of the perfect man and Gnostic alone, and raises him to the height of glory. The second is the class of...medium, or intermediate actions, which are done by less perfect believers, and procure a lower grade of glory. In the third place, he reckons sinful actions, which are done by those who fall away from salvation.
Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 6:14, in ANF 2:506

"Conformably, therefore, there are various abodes, according to the worth of those who have believed... These chosen abodes, which are three, are indicated by the numbers in the Gospel--the thirty, the sixty, the hundred. And the perfect inheritance belongs to those who attain to "a perfect man," according to the image of the Lord... To the likeness of God, then, he that is introduced into adoption and the friendship of God, to the just inheritance of the lords and gods is brought; if he be perfected, according to the Gospel, as the Lord Himself taught."
Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 6.14 (ANF 2:506)

"This hidden world includes first of all the heavens. Of these, traditional Judaism knew only three: the heaven of meteors, the heaven of stars and the heaven of God, and this is the scheme employed in the older Jewish apocalyptic. It is this system to which Paul alludes." Some Jewish Christians elaborated the three-heaven system into one of seven or more heavens, but in all cases, beings of various degrees of glory were thought to inhabit them."
Jean Daniélou, The Theology of Jewish Christianity, trans. John A. Baker (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1964), 174.

Etc.

[_bcspace]

We mustn't forget the preaching of the Gospel to and salvation for the dead:

It was for this reason, too, that the Lord descended into the regions beneath the earth, preaching His advent there also, and [declaring] the remission of sins received by those who believe in Him.
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4:27:2

And it has been shown also, in the second book of the Stromata, that the Apostles, following the Lord, preached the Gospel to those in Hades...For it was suitable to the divine administration, that those possessed of greater worth in righteousness, and whose life had been pre-eminent, on repenting of their transgressions, though found in another place, yet being confessedly of the number of the people of God Almighty, should be saved, each one according to his individual knowledge...If, then, the Lord descended to Hades for no other end but to preach the Gospel, as He did descend; it was but to preach the Gospel to all or to the Hebrews only. If, accordingly, to all, then all who believe shall be saved, although they may be of the Gentiles, on making their profession there...
Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 6:6

When He became a soul, without the covering of the body, He dwelt among those souls which were without bodily covering, converting such of them as were willing to Himself, or those whom He saw, for reasons known to Him alone, to be better adapted to such a course.
Origen, Against Celsus, 2:43

These Apostles and teachers who preached the name of the Son of God, after falling asleep in the power and faith of the Son of God, preached it not only to those who were asleep, but themselves also gave them the seal of preaching. Accordingly they descended with them into the water and again ascended.
The Pastor of Hermas, Sim. 9:16

Both this last and the Clement quote show a belief amazingly similar to LDS belief in that Jesus ordained others to preach the gospel to the dead as per D&C 138:30-34.

"We ask you first of all to tell us some of the Scriptures which you allege have been completely cancelled." [Justin quotes some passages which the Jews evidently removed from Esdras and Jeremiah.] And again, from the sayings of some of Jeremiah these have been cut out: "The Lord God remembered His dead people of Israel who lay in the graves; and He descended to preach to them His own salvation."
Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 71-72

Etc.

As for the first Christians practicing baptism for the dead:

The NIV Study Bible admits that (regarding 1 Corinthians 15:29), "The present tense suggests that at Corinth people were currently being baptized for the dead."
The NIV Study Bible, 1757

R.E. DeMaris, "Corinthian Religion and Baptism for the Dead", Journal of Biblical literature 114(1995):661 admits that "despite dozens of proposed interpretations, with our limited knowledge (hence the need for modern revelation), we cannot discern exactly why the saints were baptising for the dead in Corinth and exactly what the rite entailed."

Both the Pastor of Hermas in The Pastor of Hermas, Sim 9:16 and Jesus in Epistle of the Apostles, in ANT, 494 also refer to the dead being baptised.

Of course you can't baptise a spirit in real water, but Clement of Alexandria alludes to an interesting concept in the aforementioned Stromata 6:6 that is the well-known Jewish concept of the "correspondence and simultaneity for the earthly and heavenly ritual".

Hence, although not LDS doctrine, it may be that such ordinances are performed in the spirit world to effectualize the ordinances performed vicariously in the world of the living. After all, a spirit must accept the ordinances done for him for it to be effective.

Some adaptation from Bickmore, Restoring the Ancient Church.

[_mfbukowski]

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.

Of course you wouldn't. You have no understanding of what a spiritual experience is.

[_LDSToronto]

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.

Of course you wouldn't. You have no understanding of what a spiritual experience is.

I am impressed at how often a graduate-level philosopher like yourself misinterprets the context and structure of intelligent inquiry. Mr. Stakhanovite was "wondering" not merely for the sake of wondering, but was creating an entry point to deeper probing, vis-à-vis: "this is different than what I would have done in Sudduth's shoes; that difference is fascinating and warrants exploration."

It makes me wonder if you ever paid attention in class <---- that sentence is *not* intelligent inquiry, that is just plain amazement.

H.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Of course you wouldn't. You have no understanding of what a spiritual experience is.

To bad you are no longer on your William James kick and parading around as a Pragmaticist, because I was borrowing an idea from one of those people you name drop but never read:

Let us give the name of hypothesis to anything that may be proposed to our belief; and just as the electricians speak of live and dead wires, let us speak of any hypothesis as either live or dead A live hypothesis is one which appeals as a real possibility to him to whom it is proposed. If I ask you to believe in the Mahdi, the notion makes no electric connection with your nature,--it refuses to scintillate with any credibility at all. As an hypothesis it is completely dead. To an Arab, however (even if he be not one of the Madhi's followers), the hypothesis is among the mind's possibilities: it is alive. This shows that deadness and liveness in an hypothesis are not intrinsic properties, but relations to the individual thinker. They are measured by his willingness to act. The maximum of liveness in hypothesis means willingness to act irrevocably. Practically, that means belief; but there is some believing tendency wherever there is willingness to act at all.

Asking how a Christian Philosopher jumps over to a religion that makes almost zero impact on American society, Anglophone or Continental Philosophy is an interesting question.

But hey, you missing an obvious nod to the most famous essay of a Philosopher you use to textually fellatio when you thought no one was familiar with him isn’t new for you.

Hawt watah burn baybee?

[_mfbukowski]

Asking how a Christian Philosopher jumps over to a religion that makes almost zero impact on American society, Anglophone or Continental Philosophy is an interesting question.

But hey, you missing an obvious nod to the most famous essay of a Philosopher you use to textually fellatio when you thought no one was familiar with him isn’t new for you.

Hawt watah burn baybee?

Unfortunately you need to read beyond the second paragraph.

[_mfbukowski]

William James- Varieties of Religious Experience- Conclusion and Postcript:

This thoroughly "pragmatic" view of religion has usually been taken as
a matter of course by common men. They have interpolated divine
miracles into the field of nature, they have built a heaven out beyond
the grave. It is only transcendentalist metaphysicians who think that,
without adding any concrete details to Nature, or subtracting any, but
by simply calling it the expression of absolute spirit, you make it
more divine just as it stands. I believe the pragmatic way of taking
religion to be the deeper way. It gives it body as well as soul, it
makes it claim, as everything real must claim, some characteristic
realm of fact as its very own. What the more characteristically divine
facts are, apart from the actual inflow of energy in the faith-state
and the prayer-state, I know not. But the over-belief on which I am
ready to make my personal venture is that they exist. The whole drift
of my education goes to persuade me that the world of our present
consciousness is only one out of many worlds of consciousness that
exist, and that those other worlds must contain experiences which have
a meaning for our life also; and that although in the main their
experiences and those of this world keep discrete, yet the two become
continuous at certain points, and higher energies filter in. By being
faithful in my poor measure to this over-belief, I seem to myself to
keep more sane and true. I CAN, of course, put myself into the
sectarian scientist's attitude, and imagine vividly that the world of
sensations and of scientific laws and objects may be all. But whenever
I do this, I hear that inward monitor of which W. K. Clifford once
wrote, whispering the word "bosh!" Humbug is humbug, even though it
bear the scientific name, and the total expression of human experience,
as I view it objectively, invincibly urges me beyond the narrow
"scientific" bounds. Assuredly, the real world is of a different
temperament--more intricately built than physical science allows.

So my objective and my subjective conscience both hold me to the
over-belief which I express. Who knows whether the faithfulness of
individuals here below to their own poor over-beliefs may not actually
help God in turn to be more effectively faithful to his own greater
tasks?

Postscript

....The ideal power with which we feel ourselves in connection, the "God"
of ordinary men, is, both by ordinary men and by philosophers, endowed
with certain of those metaphysical attributes which in the lecture on
philosophy I treated with such disrespect. He is assumed as a matter
of course to be "one and only" and to be "infinite"; and the notion of
many finite gods is one which hardly any one thinks it worth while to
consider, and still less to uphold. Nevertheless, in the interests of
intellectual clearness, I feel bound to say that religious experience,
as we have studied it, cannot be cited as unequivocally supporting the
infinitist belief. The only thing that it unequivocally testifies to
is that we can experience union with SOMETHING larger than ourselves
and in that union find our greatest peace. Philosophy, with its
passion for unity, and mysticism with its monoideistic bent, both "pass
to the limit" and identify the something with a unique God who is the
all-inclusive soul of the world. Popular opinion, respectful to their
authority, follows the example which they set.

Meanwhile the practical needs and experiences of religion seem to me
sufficiently met by the belief that beyond each man and in a fashion
continuous with him there exists a larger power which is friendly to
him and to his ideals. All that the facts require is that the power
should be both other and larger than our conscious selves. Anything
larger will do, if only it be large enough to trust for the next step.
It need not be infinite, it need not be solitary. It might conceivably
even be only a larger and more godlike self, of which the present self
would then be but the mutilated expression, and the universe might
conceivably be a collection of such selves, of different degrees of
inclusiveness, with no absolute unity realized in it at all.[364] Thus
would a sort of polytheism return upon us--a polytheism which I do not
on this occasion defend, for my only aim at present is to keep the
testimony of religious experience clearly within its proper bounds.
[Compare p. 130 above.]

[364] Such a notion is suggested in my Ingersoll Lecture On Human
Immortality, Boston and London, 1899.



Upholders of the monistic view will say to such a polytheism (which, by
the way, has always been the real religion of common people, and is so
still to-day) that unless there be one all-inclusive God, our guarantee
of security is left imperfect. In the Absolute, and in the Absolute
only, ALL is saved. If there be different gods, each caring for his
part, some portion of some of us might not be covered with divine
protection, and our religious consolation would thus fail to be
complete. It goes back to what was said on pages 129-131, about the
possibility of there being portions of the universe that may
irretrievably be lost. Common sense is less sweeping in its demands
than philosophy or mysticism have been wont to be, and can suffer the
notion of this world being partly saved and partly lost. The ordinary
moralistic state of mind makes the salvation of the world conditional
upon the success with which each unit does its part. Partial and
conditional salvation is in fact a most familiar notion when taken in
the abstract, the only difficulty being to determine the details. Some
men are even disinterested enough to be willing to be in the unsaved
remnant as far as their persons go, if only they can be persuaded that
their cause will prevail--all of us are willing, whenever our
activity-excitement rises sufficiently high. I think, in fact, that a
final philosophy of religion will have to consider the pluralistic
hypothesis more seriously than it has hitherto been willing to consider
it. For practical life at any rate, the CHANCE of salvation is enough.
No fact in human nature is more characteristic than its willingness to
live on a chance. The existence of the chance makes the difference, as
Edmund Gurney says, between a life of which the keynote is resignation
and a life of which the keynote is hope.[365] But all these statements
are unsatisfactory from their brevity, and I can only say that I hope
to return to the same questions in another book.

[_mfbukowski]

http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/pragm ... Mormonism/