You are on page 1of 28

A Synopsis of the Historical Apostasy

after the death of the early Apostles


By Robert Thompson

(The views expressed in this article are the views of the author and do not
necessarily represent the position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)
The Nicene Creed:
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Son of God, the only-begotten of his Father, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very
God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father. By whom all things were made,
both which be in heaven and in earth. Who for us men and for our salvation came down [from heaven] and was
incarnate and was made man. He suffered and the third day he rose again, and ascended into heaven. And he
shall come again to judge both the quick and the dead. And [we believe] in the Holy Ghost. And whosoever shall
say that there was a time when the Son of God was not, or that before he was begotten he was not, or that he
was made of things that were not, or that he is of a different substance or essence [from the Father] or that he is a
creature, or subject to change or conversion--all that so say, the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes
them.1

The idealistic view: The fine distinctions and extrapolations regarding of the nature of God and Christ, as
codified in the Nicene Creed, matches the original understanding of the original New Testament authors. After
the death of the Apostles, there remained a unity of the faith. The early Christian Fathers retained the pure
theology as handed down from the apostles. They kept it pure while they were forced underground for 250
years due to persecution. When they emerged from hiding in 325 AD, the Council of Nicaea confirmed there
was still a unity of the faith. It was kept pure because of the working of the Holy Spirit and the early Christian
Fathers willingness to die for it as martyrs (for they wouldnt be willing to die for something that they had
knowingly corrupted).
The historical reality: From the latter 1st century through the end of the 2nd century, early Christianity suffered
substantial divisions and apostasy, through the process of post-Apostolic Hellenization (adaptation of Greek
culture). The Apostles knew this would happen and even foretold it. This began with Philo, the Hellenistic
Jewish philosopher who lived in Alexandria, Egypt 20 BC to 50 AD, who used philosophical allegory to
attempt to harmonize Greek philosophy with Jewish philosophy. His allegorical exegesis was important for
several of the Christian Fathers. In the absence of the corrective influence of the living apostles, the early
Christian Fathers gradually assimilated some Greek philosophical assumptions on the nature of the divine, thus
corrupting Christian theology. These philosophical assumptions were codified into Christian theology by the
Nicene Creed. The philosophers reasoning can be roughly described as: 1) Things dont just spontaneously
come into existence, so everything that man can observe must have been created; 2) Material things decay and
die; 3) Therefore, there must exist an uncreated creator who is eternal and does not decay and die; 4) That
creator must be singular and eternal, and therefore not material. Thus came the assumption of an immaterial,
non-plural, non-relational, all alone God. This creates a forced dichotomy, a forced either/or, of being either
created or uncreated. These assumptions impact how the creation, the Trinity, the nature of Christ, deification,
and agency (grace & works & salvation) are understood. These assumptions are non-biblical, yet are the lens
through which the Bible is often interpreted, a classic case of the philosophies of men being mingled with
scripture.
1

Nicene Creed, in NPNF Series 1, 14:3, brackets in original.

At the time of the Council of Nicaea, there were three different understandings of the Trinity that were hotly
debated for 60 days. In Reverend JND Kellys Early Christian Doctrines he states, the attitude of the great
conservative middle party is that there are three divine hypostases [i.e. persons], separate in rank and glory,
but united in harmony of will.2 It was only later that this group was won over to Athanasius and his groups
brand of Trinitarianism, and his group was initially in the minority. As non-LDS scholar, I.F. Bethune-Baker
puts it, in his book An Introduction to the Early History of Christian Doctrine, The victory over Arianism
achieved at the Council was really a victory snatched by the superior energy and decision of a small minority
with the aid of half-hearted allies. The majority did not like the business at all, and strongly disapproved of the
introduction into the Creed . . . of new and untraditional and unscriptural terms.3
The details: Severe divisions arose between the early Christian groups, and these divisions became magnified
following the death of the Apostles. The early Christian church gradually became a chaos of contending
beliefs, each group declaring the other heretical, with successive church fathers mixing in the philosophies of
the time as a way to expound upon the theology they had been given. These division included theology and the
nature of God, not just practices. Many groups who are generally accepted to be heretics, such as the
Montanists, manifest the workings of the Spirit and died as martyrs, thus dispelling the myth that the Holy Spirit
and dying for ones beliefs would lead to the transmission of pure theology. After 250 years of transmission of
knowledge, due to the Greek explanations / rationalizations on how there can be three Gods in one (Father, Son
& Spirit), the theology had become thoroughly Hellenized*. In 325 AD Constantine convened the Council of
Nicaea for the purpose of political unity, not theological purity, for he was the self declared head of the
Christian church while also holding to his claims as being a High Priest to the Sun God. The impetus for the
council was the social unrest within the Christian community being caused by the followers of Arius, who were
singing about controversial religious topics in the streets. The Nicene Creed is a declaration by men who had an
understanding of Christian concepts mixed with Greek philosophy. It would be a critical error to hold the
Nicene Creed which holds the doctrine of men, at the same level as revelations from God, in ancient or modern
dispensations.
The early Christian historian Eusebius (A.D. 270-340) quoted Hegesippus (A.D. 110-180), another early
Christian author in this regard: The church continued until then [shortly after the death of the apostles] as a
pure and uncorrupted virgin; whilst if there were any at all, that attempted to pervert the sound doctrine of the
saving gospel, they were yet skulking in dark retreats; but when the sacred choir of apostles became extinct,
and the generation of those that had been privileged to hear their inspired wisdom had passed away, then
also the combination of impious error arose by fraud and delusions of false teachers. These also, as there
were no of the apostles left, henceforth attempted, without shame, to preach their false doctrine against the
gospel of truth.4 With the loss of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, most of the errors which crept into the
Church arose from placing human reason in competition with revelation. This is why Paul forewarned,
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit (Colossians 2:8).
Severe divisions The groups contending for the title of Orthodoxy were the Jewish-Christian Ebionites, the
anti-Jewish Marcionites, the Docetists (which Docetism spread into other cultic beliefs within the church), the
Gnostics (by 160 A.D. there were more Gnostics than Catholics within the Christian Church. Gnostics had
always called themselves Christians. This fact was upsetting to the Roman Church.), Montanists, Essenes,
2

JND Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, rev. ed. (New York: Harper, 1978), 247248.
IF Bethune-Baker, An Introduction to the Early History of Christian Doctrine, 8th edition, (London: Methuen, 1949), 171. (emphasis
added)
4
Eusebius Pamphilus, The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus. Translated by Chrisitan Frederick Cruse. G rand Rapids,
Mich: Baker Book House, 1955, Vol 32, page 118, emphasis added.
3

Novationists, and the Donatists (Donatists were a protest movement named after the first bishop of Carthage
in 312 A.D. standing for a holy Church and purity of discipline. They believed they were the True Church
and that the Catholics were apostate), to name a few.
The sentinels As stated by Reverend Erickson, a non-LDS bible scholar, We must be aware that many of the
writings of the 1st and 2nd centuries came through the pens on those holding to threads of heretical doctrines.
Even though many of them today are acknowledged as Church fathers, their writings contained teachings that
may or may not support the teachings of Christ and the early apostles.5
Divisions There were many Christian cultic sects that formed from a combination of Hellenism and Christianity
beliefs around the Roman Empire, particularly at the Eastern end of the Empire. These groups fully considered
themselves Christians and believed in Jesus as the Son of God, but carried many false heretical doctrines. Paul
taught against the heresy in Colossia and Ephesus. John spoke against Docetism in his letters titled 1 John and
2 John. Sadly, though, Docetism spread into other cultic beliefs within the Church.
John the revelator taught Ignatius and Polycarp, and Polycarp tutored Iraneus, but they were martyred. Irenaeus
insisted that one could not interpret the Scriptures correctly without the aid of the elders who had passed down
the unwritten tradition from the Apostles: "And then shall every word also seem consistent to him, if he . . .
diligently read the Scriptures in company with those who are presbyters in the Church, among whom is the
Apostolic doctrine ..."6 Unfortunately, they were not successful in mentoring other disciples who could
successfully preserve the unwritten traditions from the Apostles and serve as defenders of the faith, and after
their deaths, the eastern leadership waned while Christians looked toward the Church of Rome as the seat of
power over Christianity
The group that became the Roman Catholic Church attained supremacy in part because it was located in what
was then the center of a vast empire and was first accepted by Constantine, and therefore won the claim for
orthodoxy.
Of the early Christian fathers, some of the most influential in the development of 2 nd century Christianity are
believed to have been Justin Martyr, Clement, Tertullian, & Origen. Most of their writings addressed
heretical problems on specific issues to the Church at large particularly in response to heretics like Marcion
and the Gnostics. However, their own theology had already become corrupted by the adoption of ideas from
Greek philosophies. The Greek philosophical influences include the absolute nature of God and the
impossibility of anything material or physical being eternal. This philosophical adaptation necessitated the
concept of creation from nothing (creatio ex-nihilo) and impacted the understanding of predestination vs. moral
agency, grace vs. works, the necessity and application of the ordinance of baptism, and many other New
Testament teachings. The apostle Paul knew of this existing tendency within the intellectuals of the early New
Testament church and forewarned in a letter to the Colossians, (Colossians 2:8): 8 Beware lest any man spoil
you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not
after Christ (emphasis added) [The prevalent philosophies in Pauls time were Greek and Roman].
Why was Paul so concerned about the effect of Greek philosophy upon the thought leaders of the church? Here
is a case in point: Regarding the question of God having a body in human form or not, Origen admits, circa 225
5

http://theonlinebibleschool.net/mod/resource/view.php?id=163
*Hellenization= imposition of Greek culture, language, and ideas. Etymology: Hellnes = the Greeks.
6
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4:32:1, in ANF 1:506.

A.D.: The Jews indeed, but also some of our people, supposed that God should be understood as a man, that is,
adorned with human members and human appearance. But the philosophers despise these stories as fabulous
and formed in the likeness of poetic fictions (emphasis added) (Origen, Homilies on Genesis 3:1). The Jews,
and early Christians who followed the standard Jewish interpretations, believed that God had a body in human
form. Why did Origen reject this? Simply because the philosophers thought it was silly. The Middle Platonist
philosopher, Plutarch (lived 46-120 AD), wrote:
Socrates and Plato held that (God is) the One, the single self-existent nature, the monadic, the real
Being, the good: and all this variety of names points immediately to mind. God therefore is mind, a
separate species, that is to say what is purely immaterial and unconnected with anything passible [i.e.
changeable]. (Plutarch, quoted in Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel 14:16)
Greek converts to Christianity, partially due to the intense persecutions, wanted to make their faith more
appealing to people in their own culture. They fell to the temptation of making ones faith more popular by
modernizing it, and gradually adopted a definition of God from the Greek philosophers, whose thought was
widely respected at the time.
History indicates that Pauls warning turned out to be a prophecy, as the non-LDS scholar William G.T. Shedd,
with a Doctorate in Divinity, spends over 300 pages to detail in his book, A History of Christian Doctrine:
We shall see that Plato, Aristotle and Cicero exerted more influence than all other philosophical minds united,
upon the greatest of the Christian Fathers. 7
Edwin Hatch, with a Doctorate in Divinity from the University of Oxford, sums it up beautifully in his book,
The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages on Upon the Christian Church:
In the current state of educated opinion, it would have been as impossible for the original communities to ignore the
existence of philosophical elements, either in their own community, or in the new bodies which were growing up
around them, as it would be for the Christian churches of our own day to ignore the physical science. The result of the
conflict was that the extreme wing of the contending parties dropped off from the main body. The old-fashioned
Christians, who would admit of no compromise, and maintained the old usages unchanged, were gradually detached
as Ebionite or Nazarenes. The old orthodoxy became a new heresy. The more philosophical Gnostics also passed
one by one outside the Christian lines.
The struggle ended, as almost all great conflicts end, in a compromise. There was so large an absorption by the
original communities of the principles of their opponents as to destroy the main reason for a separate existence
The absorption was less of speculation than of the tendency to speculate. Certain elements of education in
philosophy had been so widely diffused, and in the course of centuries had become so strongly rooted, as to have
caused an instinctive tendency to throw ideas into a philosophical form, and to test assertions by philosophical
cannon.8

(Each of these two books goes into extreme detail covering the minutiae of the philosophical developments and
how they impacted the writings of the early Christian fathers, which level of detail is beyond the scope of this
summary. Each book can be referenced for free through Google Books.)
Justin Martyr (100-165 AD) opened a school of Christian philosophy at Rome. He believed that the pagan
philosophers had discovered dim shadows of God's cosmic Word. His Christian faith was mixed with pagan
7

William G.T. Shedd, D.D., A History of Christian Doctrine Vol. I, T & T Clark, Eidinburgh, 1865, pg. 52.
Edwin Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages Upon the Christian Church, Fourth Edition, Edited by A.M. Fairbain, DD.,
Williams and Northgate, 1892, pp. 132-133. Available for free through Google Books.
8

philosophy, however, as he explained Christianity as the true philosophy. He believed that Platos God was the
God of the Bible, and that Socrates was a Christian before Christ, just as Abraham was. Justin conformed
biblical concepts to his Greek world-view, and as a result, he carried heretical beliefs. Regardless, he still had a
deep faith in Christ and was familiar with the operations of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. In 165 AD he was
beheaded in Rome for refusing to worship the Roman Gods. Despite the workings of the Spirit and despite his
fierce commitment to his religion, his deep roots in Greek philosophy kept his Christian teaching from being
pure, and his life experience is typical of those responsible for the early Hellenization of Christianity.
Montanus On the Eastern side of the Roman Empire a renewed emphasis on the Holy Spirit and personal
holiness was sweeping through the churches in Asia Minor. One of the leaders was named Montanus, who was
earlier a pagan priest of the Oriental ecstatic cult of Cybele, the mother goddess of fertility, before his
conversion to Christianity in 155 A.D.9 Montanus, mixing his pagan beliefs with Christianity, claimed to be the
voice of the Holy Spirit when he announced that a new age had come - the age of the outpouring of the Holy
Spirit. Montanus, joined by two young women, went around prophesying his beliefs of the outpouring of the
new age. He was concerned about the growing formalism in the Western Roman Catholic Church and the
increasing moral laxity of its members. He stressed the importance of the supernatural ministry of the Holy
Spirit. He claimed the leadership within the Church needed to possess a spiritual gift rather than be appointed
to an ecclesiastical office. Montanus emphasized glossolalia (speaking in tongues) 10 and the gift of prophecy.11
The Roman Catholic Church acknowledged the charismatic gifts and Montanus did not deny the doctrines of
the Church or attack the authority of the bishops. His movement, with the emphasis on the Holy Spirit, spread
throughout Asia Minor. Montanus beliefs centered on holiness, radical self-denial, and he spoke of the
imminent return of Christ. Convinced that the end of the world was at hand, Montanus required rigorous moral
behavior to purify Christians and detachment from their material desires. He banned marriages and commanded
frequent fasts. Martyrdom was not only supported but sought. 12 Followers of Montanus were called the New
Prophets. His claim was that through revelation, the Holy Spirit spoke, and he was the receiver of a fuller
revelation from God. Anyone then who was not a New Prophet was considered carnal in their faith. In time
people began to realize that this behavior differed from the Catholic Church, and when the imminent Second
Coming of Christ did not come, people deserted Montanus' doctrine and many Christian communities were
abandoned. In 177 A.D. it was concluded by the head bishops of Asia Minor synods that the Montanus doctrine
was actually an attack on the Catholic faith. All Montanists were then excommunicated from the Catholic
Church.
Clement Late in the 2nd century AD, Clement traveled to Alexandria to be taught by a mentor. After his teacher
died, Clement took his place as the School in Alexandria as the main Christian instructor. 13 He was known as
the first to present Christianity in the forms of secular literature for the Christian community. 14 His teachings
carried influences of Greek philosophy especially that of Plato. He considered Plato practically a prophet, as
he expounded the doctrine of the trinity. He wanted to show pagans that a good part of the Christian doctrine
could be supported by Platos philosophy. Clement also assimilated the ideas of Xenophanes, another Greek
Philosopher who lived from 570 BC to 475 BC. Xeophanes conceived of God as thought, as presence, as all
9

Gonzalez, Justo L. The Story of Christianity. Harper San Francisco. v. 1.


Walton, Robert C. Chronological and Background Charts of Church History. Zondervan. 1986.
11
Hyatt, Eddie L. 2000 Years of Charismatic Christianity. Hyatt International Ministries, Inc. 1996.
12
Walton, Robert C. Chronological and Background Charts of Church History. Zondervan. 1986.
13
Gonzalez, Justo L. The Story of Christianity. v. 1. Harper San Francisco. 1984
14
Voss, Howard F. Exploring Church History. Thomas Nelson Publishers. 1994.
10

powerful efficacy unborn, eternal, infinite, not moving at all, and beyond human imagination. 15 Clement
headed the school from 190 202 A.D. Clement wrote letters (epistles) to the Corinthians, similar to what Paul
wrote, except his writings were filled with false doctrine. The non-LDS scholar, Rev. Prof. George Christopher
Stead, the last Ely Professor of Divinity at the University of Cambrige, observes: since Clement elsewhere
quotes Xenophanes verbatim, we have good grounds for thinking that Clement's description, and indeed the
theory as a whole, derives from Xenophanes.16
Tertullian (160-240 AD) At about the age of 40 he became a Christian. He was, however, drawn to the
Montanist beliefs - its emphasis on the Holy Spirit and rigid lifestyle. Tertullian returned to Carthage and
became a presbyter at the Church at Carthage. Christianity came to North Africa from Rome and grew more
rapidly there than in any other western province of the Roman Empire. By the third century, Carthage was a
major center for Christianity. As an educated man, Tertullian was able to publish his own writings in both
Greek and Latin, of which he was the first to write his writings in the Latin language, which was now the
predominant language of the western half of the Empire. Because of this, Tertullian was often considered the
founder of Western theology. Tertullian also believed and practiced the gifts of the Spirit. 17 Tertullian left the
Church after the bishop of Rome rejected the New Prophecy of the Montanists movement. He founded his own
sect, which ancient writers called the Tertullianists. In his latter years he became a Montanist. 18 Tertullian
was a fiery champion of orthodoxy against every sort of heresy, but he was blind to his own heretical beliefs.
Origen (185-254) Within two years, after Clement retired, the bishop of Alexandria entrusted Origen the
position of training candidates for baptism. He taught for a number of years, developing a large following. He
later devoted himself entirely to running a school of Christian philosophy, incorporating Christianity and
philosophy together, which was similar to those founded by the great classical philosophers.19 Origens writings
were mixed with philosophy and Scripture, often being more Platonic than Christian. His works number in the
thousands, including letters, articles, apologetics, dogmatics, and practical treatises. 20
He suffered
imprisonment and prolonged torture, which resulted in his death as a martyr, but that doesnt mean his theology
was pure. A papal edict in 543 A.D, called Anathemas Against Origen, labeled Origens teachings as heretical
and forbid them being taught in the church.21
The Novatianists were a small puritanical group who split off from the Church at Rome. Novatian, their
founder, was defeated in the election for bishop in 251 A.D. and set up a rival congregation. Novatianists built
congregations, calling themselves the pure ones. Those who joined their group had to be re-baptized, as if
they were joining the only true church. For Novatians followers, the Holy Spirit was the source of life and
order for the Church. Healing, miracles, and tongues were accepted as normal for the Christian experiences. It

Karl Jaspers, The Great Philosophers, 4 vols. (New York: Harcourt Brace & Company, 1981), 3:13.
Christopher Stead, Divine Substance, 187-188.
17
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, vol. 1 of The Ante-Nicene Christian Library, eds. Rev. Alexander Roberts and James
Donaldson
18
Gonzalez, Justo L. The Story of Christianity. Harper San Francisco. v. 1.
19
Gonzalez, Justo L. The Story of Christianity. Harper San Francisco. v. 1.
20
Jones, Timothy Paul. Christian History Made Easy. Rose Publishing. Torrance CA. 1999
21
Ramsay MacMullen, Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth Centuries (Yale University Press, 1997), 2627
Many records indicate that the anathemas declared against Origen had their roots in political posturing regarding
doctrines of the early church. Regardless, many scholars regard the papal edict in 543 AD as the reason that the concept
of preexistence is generally considered extrabiblical today. It is clear from the record that before this time the concept was
freely taught by many within the church.
15
16

was a vital part of their Christianity. 22 Even so, Novatians followers were treated as heretics until the time of
Constantine.
Donatitsts The Church of Africa had massively expanded during the third century. Division, however, within
the Church came in North Africa through a group called the Donatists. Struggle came with bishops against
bishops in many towns and villages of orthodox Catholicism and Donaticism. Donatists were a protest
movement named after the first bishop of Carthage in 312 A.D. standing for a holy Church and purity of
discipline. They believed they were the True Church and that the Catholics were apostate. They had an
unflinching defiance for godless rulers and frequently suffered martyrdom for their beliefs.
Constantine When he thought he saw a light in the sky and heard the voice of God saying he would defeat
Rome by going under the sign of Jesus Christ, his beliefs were that he had heard it from his sun god, who he
believed was also the God of the Christians. His obedience gave him victory, but his beliefs carried many
aspects of paganism. With Constantines promotion of Christianity, he saw himself as the head of the State, but
also head of the Church. Constantine did not put himself under any Church leadership, but considered himself
the bishop of bishops over the Church, intervening in its life and function. While being head over the Church
he continued to function as the High Priest of paganism, of which was his earlier position, except now he
blended the two positions into one. Constantine considered his pagan sun god and the God of Christianity to
be one and the same. Constantine's title was called Pontifex Maximus. That name continued as the head of
the Church long after Constantines death, and in the 5 th century A.D. it became the official title of the pope
of the Roman Catholic Church. Saints and martyrs took the place of the pagan gods. In place of the pagan
temples, shrines of dead saints were often erected. Eventually people came to believe that the relics of saints
held miraculous powers. It was also a time when the worshipping of saints and martyrs grew rapidly.
Arius There were certain 4th century Christians who did not believe God could experience emotions, due to
certain Platonic assumptions of the nature of God. That then raised a question: "If Jesus was fully divine and
fully human, could God then, through Jesus the Son, feel sorrow and pain?" Most church members up to that
time believed that God, the Son, meaning Jesus, had experienced emotions. The elder presbyter Arius taught,
however, that Jesus was not God. Jesus was, instead, the first being that God created. Once, Arius claimed,
the Son did not exist. Arius proposed that if the Father begat the Son, the latter must have had a beginning,
and that there was a time when He was not, and that His substance was from nothing like the rest of creation.
Because of the forced dichotomy of being created or uncreated, and it implications, to say that Christ was
created was to say that Christ was not of the same uncreated substance at the Father and therefore, not fully
divine. To spread his beliefs, Arius used the power of music. He put his theological ideas to a catchy tune.
Within weeks Alexandrian followers of Arius were singing in the streets, Once the Son did not exist! The
Bishop of Alexandria sent for Arius and questioned him. Arius, however, remained strong in his position and
was finally excommunicated by a council of Egyptian bishops. Arius then went to the capital city of Nicomedia
in northwestern Asia Minor (modern Turkey) where he wrote letters defending his position to various bishops.
This problem became so intense within the churches that it had cause major concerns for the unity of the
Church as a whole.
Council of Nicaea (a move to keep social unity, not theological purity) Constantine did not care whether Jesus
was God, but he did care about a united empire. Constantines intended to use Christianity to unite his empire.
Ironically, it now divided his Empire. Something needed to be done. On July 4, 325 A.D., out of a desire to
create peace in the empire, Constantine invited every known overseer of the Church in the empire, which
22

Hyatt, Eddie L. 2000 Years of Charismatic Christianity. Hyatt International Ministries. 1996.

consisted of 318 church leaders, to settle this Arian dispute. The place for the council was in a little town in
northern Asia Minor, called Nicaea now modern Turkey. Emperor Constantine, having proclaimed himself
the head overseer, directed the council. When the clergy met for the Nicene Council, the disputants were
looking for a formula to exclude Arius and his followers, while being as inclusive as possible to all others. No
scriptural term could be found to do the trick, mainly because the Arian theology had no problem with the
scriptural expressions. How they understood those terms, however, was different from the understanding of the
other parties. The council wrote the first version of the now famous creed proclaiming that the Son was "one in
being with the Father" by use of the Greek word "homoousius," which means "of one substance" 23
(Incidentally, in 264 AD, the Council of Antioch had previously condemned the word homoousia as being
heretical, but times had changed.) 24 After two months of debate, the Council was able to officially condemn the
beliefs of Arius and bring unity to the empire. A new word was thus created Trinity, one that placed God,
His Son, and His Spirit as One being. Constantine then condemned Arius of heresy and excommunicated him
to Illyria, which is todays Albania.
Athanasius (296-373 AD), known as The Father of Orthodoxy was a giant leader within the Church at the
time of the Arian dispute. After the council convened, Athanasius distributed writings throughout the churches
on matters of faith.
Eusebius of Caesarea (263 - 339 AD) was the bishop of Caesarea in Palestine. He played a key role within the
Church during the time of Constantine. Eusebius compiled the scriptural records that now comprise the cannon
of the New Testament. He has been acknowledged as the 2nd Christian historian - the 1st being the Apostle
Luke. His doctrinal views are based on the teachings of Origen and Arius. However, after nearly being
excommunicated for his heresy by Alexander of Alexandria, Eusebius finally submitted to the Nicene Creed
established by the Nicene Council.25
Arius tries again A few years after the Council of Nicea, Arius discovered a new way to interpret the word
"homoousius" that agreed with his doctrines. Arius then asked to be readmitted to communion. Athanasius
refused to restore Arius as a member of the Church because Arius still denied Jesus unique deity. Arius,
assisted by Eusebius, then appealed to Emperor Constantine. Constantine's sister, Constantia, on her deathbed
implored Constantine to support Arius. Constantine abided by his sisters wishes and from that day forward
supported Arius and his beliefs on the Trinity (so much for the quest for theological purity). He believed he
could bring back into the Church the supporters of Arius who had earlier left.
Athanasius and Constantine quickly clashed. True to his desire for political unity, Constantine threatened
Athanasius with the words, If I hear that youve kept anyone from becoming a church member, Ill banish
you. An edict to accept Arius teachings was enacted, and five years later, Constantine exiled Athanasius to
the desert on a charge of treason.
In 337 A.D. Emperor Constantine died. On his deathbed Eusebius baptized him.
And thus we see, in detail, how the 2nd century teachers who were supposed to stand as watchdogs and sentinels,
receiving the responsibility of preserving the truth, ended up embellishing the truth, adding elements of pagan
(Greek) philosophy, though not with malicious intent. Justin, Origen and Montanus died for beliefs that had a
23

Hyatt, Eddie L. 2000 Years of Charismatic Christianity. Hyatt Intl Ministries. 1996.
J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, London, Longmans, 1972, p. 243
25
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusebius
24

form of godliness, but had been corrupted by the philosophy of men. As happens when one plays the telephone
game, the message became corrupted after passing through the first few people. By the time Constantine
convened the Council of Nicaea, 250 years of the telephone game had occurred and despite (or sometimes
because of) their best efforts, the theology had become corrupted with the prevailing rational philosophies of the
time. This has been clearly demonstrated in the cases of Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and
Origen, the thought leaders of their day. They died martyrs for what they though to be true, but other Christians
rejected as heresy. In addition there were groups such as the Gnostics, the Montanists, Novationists and the
Donatists that considered the Catholics to be the heretics.
In the end, as seen with Constantines treatment of Arius and Athanasius, he didnt really care who was the
heretic or the purist; he was simultaneously a High Priest to the Sun God and the head overseer of the Christian
church! But most importantly, he was the Emperor. His main concern was not purity of theology within
Christianity, but unity and political stability. Even though many still enjoyed gifts from the Spirit, due to their
faith in Christ, they had not the fullness of the Holy Ghost, nor guiding revelations from God. Human
speculation substituted for the lack of divine revelation. That continuing revelation which flowed through the
Apostles was replaced by Greek reasoning and rationalizations. And thus the original New Testament Church
gradually deteriorated into Hellenized Christianity, a general shifting away from the original truth; a modified
version of the original teachings and practices. It is the very corruption of these teaching and practices that
continues to cause confusion and contention in general Christianity in the modern era. Instead of there being
the one Lord, one faith, and one baptism that Paul speaks of, there are hundreds of different Christian
denominations who have developed conflicting practices and beliefs while seeking to re-create the New
Testament Church. This includes such basic fundamental teachings and practices as:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Who should be baptized and how


The appropriate forms of church government
Predestination vs. moral agency, which leads to the grace vs. works debate
What happens to people after death and before the final resurrection

Many modern Christian teachings actually have post-Biblical origins:

Creation from nothing (creatio ex nihilo): The first Christian thinker to articulate the rudiments of a
doctrine of creation ex-nihilo was the Gnostic theologian Basilides, who flourished in the second quarter
of the second century.26 Gnosticism is a heretical branch of early Christianity.

Baptism by aspersion: Cyprian was the first to sanction baptism by sprinkling, in about 250 AD.27

Sola Fide & Sola Gratia: (Salvation by faith alone & salvation by grace alone) David Bercot, a nonLDS scholar who wrote a collection of over 7,000 quotations of the early Christian writers, categorized
in over seven hundred topics, wrote: The early Christians universally believed that works or
obedience play an essential role in salvation there is no room for doubt concerning this
matter.28 The one religious group that taught that we are saved solely by grace. That works play no

26

Robert Wilken, The Christians as the Romans Saw Them. Second Edition, page 88. Available through Google Books.
Alendander Roberts and James Donaldson, Editors, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1885;
reprinted 1980-85. Volume 5: page 402
28
David Bercot, Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up: A New Look at Todays Evangelical Church in the Light of Early
Christianity. 3rd ed. Tyler, Texas: Scroll Publishing Company, 1999. Pages 56-57.
27

role in our salvationthe group I am referring to are the Gnostics. 29 In 2 John 1:7, John the Beloved
labels a believer of the Gnostic philosophy a deceiver and an antichrist. This man-made doctrine of
salvation by faith alone and salvation by grace alone were re-introduced by the first protestant reformer,
Martin Luther, in the 1500s. James 2:17-20 reads, Faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone
shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works know, O vain man,
that faith without works is dead. Martin Luthers way to deal with James statement was to call the
book of James an epistle of straw and suggest that it be removed from the cannon of scripture. In
1543 Martin Luther wrote, His [James] authority is not great enough to cause me to abandon the
doctrine of faith [alone]. And on another occasion he wrote I shall make rubble of it [the Book of
James]. I almost feel like throwing Jimmy into the stove.30 It is interesting to note that Hebrews 1:8
confirms James statement on faith combined with works, saying by faith Abraham obeyed. And
Revelation 20:13 reads And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up
the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

Universal Priesthood: The concept of a general priesthood of all believers originated with Martin
Luther, in 1520, in his work To The Christian Nobility of the German Nation. The New Testament
Christians taught, To be a Christian is in our power; but to be an apostle, or a bishop, or in any other
such office, is not in our own power, but at the disposal of God, who bestows the gifts If Christ did
not glorify Himself without the Father, how dare any man thrust himself into the priesthood who has not
received that dignity from his superior a person to whom such an office is not committed, but seizes it
for himself, he shall undergo the punishment of [Uzzah].31

Sola Scriptura: (the doctrine that the Bible is the only infallible or inerrant authority for Christian faith,
and that it contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness. Consequently, it demands that
no doctrine is to be admitted or confessed that is not found directly or logically within the Bible.) This
concept was not taught in the original New Testament church, because the New Testament as we know
it was not compiled into one book until Eusebius in 332 A.D., at the request of Constantine. The early
Christians believed in an open cannon of scripture and in continuing revelation to living prophets and
apostles.

Jesus Christ himself knew of and foretold the coming General Apostasy; not a falling away in the distant future,
but in that very time period, as evidenced by the language in

John 16:2 (2 They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever
killeth you will think that he doeth God service.);

Acts 20:29-31 (29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among
you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse
things, to draw away disciples after them. 31Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space
of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.);

29

Ibid, page 66.


Althaus, Paul. The Theology of Martin Luther. Trans. Robert C. Schultz. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966, p. 81 f.n. 31
31
Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, editors, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 7: pg 410, 480 & 500. Uzzah was struck
dead for attempting to steady the ark of God, which was to be touched only by those holding the priesthood (2 Samuel 6:6-7).
30

10

1 Corinthians 1: 10-11 (10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be
perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. 11 For it hath been
declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are
contentions among you. );

Galatians 1:6-8 (6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace
of Christ unto another gospel: 7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and
would pervert the gospel of Christ.);

2 Thessalonians 2:2-3,7 (2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit,
nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. 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; 7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work:
only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.);

Titus 1:10-16 (10 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the
circumcision: 11 Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things
which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake. 12 One of themselves, even a prophet of their own,
said, the Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. 13 This witness is true. Wherefore
rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; 14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables,
and commandments of men, that turn from the truth. 15 Unto the pure all things are pure: but
unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is
defiled. 16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable,
and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.);

Jude 3-4 (3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was
needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith
which was once delivered unto the saints. 4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who
were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God
into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.)

It would be another 1,500 before Jesus would carry out the promised Restoration, as foretold in

Acts 3:19-21 (19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the
times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord. 20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which
before was preached unto you: 21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all
things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.),

Ephesians 1:10 (That in the dispensation of the fullness of times he might gather together in one all
things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him), and

Revelation 14:6 (6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to
preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people).

11

The Restoration
In the midst of the great Protestant Reformation, Roger Williams, the founder of the first Baptist church in
America in 1639, left his newly formed church, becoming convinced that the practices, having been lost in the
apostasy, could not be validly restored without a special divine commission. He made the following statement
upon his departure:
There is no regularly constituted church of Christ on earth, nor any person qualified to administer any
church ordinances; nor can there be until new apostles are sent by the Great Head of the Church for
whose coming I am seeking. (Picturesque America, or the Land We Live In, ed. William Cullen Bryant,
New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1872, vol. 1, p. 502.)
Williams also said, The apostasy hath so far corrupted all, that there can be no recovery out of that apostasy
until Christ shall send forth new apostles to plant churches anew. (Underhill, Edward, Struggles and
Triumphs of Religious Liberty, cited in William F. Anderson, Apostasy or Succession, Which? pp. 238-239.
Latter-day Saints unabashedly declare that the original New Testament Church has indeed been restored in its
fullness, in these latter-days, with all of its original teachings and practices. By Gods own command it is called
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Restoration was not the work of man, but the work of
God. In order to restore the original New Testament church in these latter days, with its original teachings and
practices, the Lord sent a host of angelic messengers, including John the Baptist, Peter, James, John, Elijah,
Elias, and Moroni. The Lord himself appeared to Joseph Smith Jr and others on multiple occasions. The others
who stand as witnesses to these angelic ministries include Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, Martin Harris, and
Sidney Rigdon.
Date
1820
Spring

Messenger(s)
God the Father
Jesus Christ

1823
Moroni
Sept. 21
1829
May 15
1829
May
1829
June
1832
Feb. 16
1836
April 3

John the Baptist

Recipient(s)
Joseph Smith, Jr.

Joseph Smith, Jr.

Joseph Smith, Jr.


Oliver Cowdery
Peter, James & Joseph Smith, Jr.
John
Oliver Cowdery
Moroni
David Whitmer
Martin Harris
Oliver Cowdery
Jesus Christ
Joseph Smith, Jr.
Sidney Rigdon
Jehovah
Joseph Smith, Jr.
Moses
Oliver Cowdery

Purpose
Open the dispensation of the fullness of times & begin
the process of the restitution of all things. Joseph also
learned the true nature of the trinity, not through
philosophical arguments, but through first hand
experience.
Told Joseph of an ancient sacred religious text containing
the fullness of the everlasting gospel, to be translated into
English and published throughout the whole world: The
Book of Mormon (see Revelation 14:6).
Conferred the Priesthood of Aaron, with keys to
ministering of angels & divine authority to baptize
Conferred the Priesthood of Melchizedek and ordained
them Apostles of the Lord & Savior Jesus Christ
Moroni shows them the plates of gold, the Lord tells them
the record was translated by the gift and power of God
and commands them to bear record of it.
Greater detail on Heaven and the many mansions that
are prepared there
The Lord accepts the Kirtland Temple (c.1 Kings 9:2-3)
Moses: the keys of the gathering of Israel (c. Matt. 17:3)

12

Elias
Elijah

Elias: the dispensation of the gospel of Abraham


Elijah: the keys of this dispensation

With regards to the above referenced first-hand, eye witness references to the angelic ministries through which
the restoration occurred, there are only 3 options: 1) They told the truth, 2) They thought they were telling the
truth, but in reality the angelic ministries were just hallucinations or the devil appearing as an angel of light, 3)
They colluded together to craft a clever lie to deceive the masses.
If one were to discredit their testimonies, one would have to conclude that they were either colluding or they
were hallucinating. While one person can hallucinate, it is not reasonable for so many people to have the exact
same hallucination, so we can rule that out. The devil himself may appear as an angel of light, but not two,
three, or four. Since there were multiple angels ministering at the same time, we can rule that one out, too.
With regards to colluding, that would take continual cooperation in order to successfully execute. However,
there was no continual cooperation, as each of the above mentioned witnesses later left the church, because of
pride. Even though they later left the church, none of them ever spoke against that which they had previously
born solemn testimony, for they knew it was true, and they knew that God knew it. To their credit, many of
them eventually repented and returned to the church in their later years.
Most importantly, however, the Lord himself stands as a witness to the restoration, speaking in Doctrine and
Covenants 1:30 (30 And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the
foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living
church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church
collectively and not individually.
Open Cannon of Scripture: Continuing Revelation
Hellenized Christianity often interprets 2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God to read as
if all scripture had been given of God, meaning that Paul was referring to the compiled Bible as the whole and
only word of God, that what is written in the Bible is wholly sufficient to answer all religious questions.
However, much of the more sacred teaching of Jesus were only taught orally and were not committed to
writing, nor were they intended for public distribution. Note that Jesus gave 53 parables, but we only have the
interpretation of 3 of them, and that only to the apostles behind closed doors. Did Jesus never tell the apostles
what the other 50 parables meant, or did they only convey orally this treasure of highly prized knowledge to
those who were prepared? Cast not your pearls before swine (Matthew 7:6). Luke tells us that Jesus, after his
resurrection, spent 40 days with the apostles, speaking of things pertaining to the kingdom of God (Acts 1:3).
Obviously what he was teaching them was important and would qualify as scripture. Does the Bible contain
a written record of what he taught them? No. John says, And there are also many other things which Jesus did,
which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that not even the world itself could not contain the books
that should be written (John 21:25).
When quoting 2 Timothy 3:16, what people don't remember is that when Paul wrote this to Timothy, the only
canon of scripture that Timothy had at the time was the Hebrew Bible the Old Testament. By using the
verbs is given, instead of has been given or was given, Paul is attesting to the principle of continuing
revelation, not to a closed cannon of scripture! The fact is, it wasn't until after 332 A.D that Eusebius, Bishop
of Caesarea and religious historian, first compiled the apostles letters and scrolls into a single book. It wasn't

13

until 367 A.D. that Bishop Athanasius identified the present 27 books of the New Testament as comprising the
exclusive Christian canon.
Therefore, if in that sentence Paul meant to convey to Timothy that the cannon of scripture was closed, then we
would have to exclude the entire New Testament! The point is, the cannon of scripture is open, not closed.
The New Testament Church believed in continuing revelation and an open cannon of scripture. The concept of
a closed cannon of scripture is a post-Biblical construct. Some also refer to Revelation 22:18 to support their
claim of a closed cannon of scripture, that God has already said it all and will not call any new prophets. If you
read verse 19, it is clear that John is referring to the book of this prophecy only, i.e. the Book of Revelation
that he just finished writing. He didn't have a compiled copy of the New Testament in bound book form, as we
have it today. If the only map to heaven were the "Bible", being the Old and the New Testaments combined,
then none of the early Christians would have made it to heaven because none of them had the "Bible" until after
300 AD!
The Bible is "not an authoritative collection of books, it is a collection of authoritative books." The number of
authoritative books increases as God continues to guide his people through revelation to prophets and apostles.
When critics say that the Book of Mormon contradicts the Bible, that is the same argument the Jews make for
rejecting the New Testament, because by their interpretation, it contradicts the Old Testament. Such a
conclusion is the result of the point of view and assumptions of the person making the analysis. Those that
reject the teachings of modern prophets because they believe the cannon of scripture is closed are making the
same mistake the scribes and Pharisees did when they rejected the modern prophets of their time: John the
Baptist, Jesus, and the apostles, because they thought the cannon of scripture was closed. Woe unto them, for
they reject the word of God. NOWHERE does the New Testament give anyone authority to declare that God
has spoken his final word and that the canon of scripture is closed. To such minded people who summarily
reject the messengers that God sends in their day, Jesus says, in Luke 11:47, "Woe unto you! for ye build the
sepulchers of the prophets, and your fathers killed them."
The Bible was written by the descendants of Judah, and the Book of Mormon was written by the descendants of
Joseph (who was sold into slavery in Egypt), through his sons Ephraim and Manasseh. It was foreseen by the
ancient prophets that the records of both of these tribes of Israel would come together in the latter days (2 Nephi
3:11-12; cf Ezekiel 37:15-19; Deuteronomy 33:13-17), as part of the gathering of Israel. They would serve as
separate, independent witnesses that Jesus is the Messiah, to express in clarity the principles of the gospel and
His points of doctrine. God, in his foreknowledge, knew that the philosophies of men would be mingled with
the interpretation of scripture, creating stumbling blocks for the humble followers of Christ in the latter days,
creating confusion among those who believe in him. Therefore, one early step in the process of the Restoration
was to have the Book of Mormon come forth as a voice from the dust (see Isaiah 29:4-14), to grow together
with the Bible, unto the confounding of false doctrines and laying down of contentions, and establishing
peace (2 Nephi 3:12).
In many instances, the gospel teachings and practices are actually covered in greater clarity in the Book of
Mormon than in the Bible, and when used together, it is absolutely clear exactly "how" Jesus wants men to
come unto Him (for an example, compare Acts 8:38-39 with 3 Nephi 11:23-28). This is critical, because is it
Jesus that sets the terms of how he wants us to come unto Him. It is insufficient to simply follow Him in our
own way. This doctrinal clarity is true for the topics of the atonement, plan of salvation, gathering of Israel,
baptism, gifts of the Spirit, miracles, revelation, faith, charity, the role of moral agency, the nature of the
resurrection, forms of church government, and many other subjects. God, in his infinite wisdom, had ancient

14

prophets keep a record that would come forth in the latter days, the Stick of Joseph (Book of Mormon), to
clarify and reinforce the teachings of the Stick of Judah (the Bible), thus laying to rest the religious confusion
that would arise in the latter days.
Those who want tangible proof of the Restoration of the original New Testament Church have it in form of
the Book of Mormon. It is an independently verifiable fact that the book exists. Any scientific experiment will
prove that. If you were to try to write a book comparable to the Book of Mormon, here are the objective
criterion you would have to meet:
1. Take 60 days to write over 500 pages, with different word prints or writing styles, so as to convince
literary scholars of multiple authors (stylometrists conclude there is a 1 in 15 trillion chance that the
book of Nephi and Alma have the same author, based upon their word prints), all this while working a
full-time job.
2. Must be religious in nature, with about two thirds of the verses referring specifically to Jesus Christ (of
the 6,607 verses in the Book of Mormon, 3,925 refer specifically to Jesus Christ).
3. Must have at least 345 proper names (places or people), with most of those not being found in the Bible
or in the English language, yet having Semitic or Egyptian roots (look on page 532 of the Book of
Mormon for the list).
4. Must accurately describe the ancient Near Eastern geography, trade routes, trade winds, and place
names, from 2,600 years ago, without looking up anything on the internet or asking any Near Eastern
scholars for ideas. This must come from your current knowledge only.
5. Must weave in an ancient form of Hebraic poetry called Chiasmus, which consists of inverted
parallelisms, which range in size from just a couple of verses to covering several chapters. Again, this is
based upon your current knowledge of Chiasmus only, since it wasnt widely known by modern scholars
until the 1960s.
Joseph Smith states that the Book of Mormon is an ancient text translated by the gift and power of God. A
number of studies by LDS scholars have since revealed Hebraic literary techniques, linguistic features, cultural
patterns and other markers which Joseph Smith would not have been capable of fabricating.
Critics of the church have yet to identify a realistic alternative for its origin and most, therefore, simply opt to
ignore it. Ironically, they claim to seek Christ, but blindly reject a work that Christ has reportedly claimed as
his own!
After calling Joseph Smith, Jr. to be the prophet of the Restoration, and the calling of a new quorum of twelve
apostles, God has continued to call prophets and apostles, and God reveals His will to them in real time, just as
he did during New Testament times. Jesus Christ is the head of His church and he leads it through continuing
revelation to living prophets and apostles today, just as he did anciently through Peter, James and John. The
fullness of the gospel has been restored in these latter days and the original New Testament church is again
upon the earth, with all of its original teachings and practices. That is the message of the Restoration.
This concludes the synopsis of the historical apostasy and the historical restoration.
Note #1: For a detailed analysis of when each New Testament precept was changed and by whom, along with
the original quotes from the early Church Fathers, please reference, The Inevitable Apostasy and the Promised
Restoration, by Tad Callister, Deseret Book, 2006, 484 pages, available through Amazon.com.

15

Note 2: Stephen E. Robinson, an associate professor of Ancient Scripture at BYU describes the impact of the
Hellenization of Christianity in this way:
[The first and second centuries A.D.] might be called the blind spot in Christian history, for it is here that the
fewest primary historical sources have been preserved. We have good sources for New Testament
Christianity; then the lights go out, so to speak, and we hear the muffled sounds of a great struggle. When
the lights come on again a hundred or so years later, we find that someone has rearranged all the furniture
and Christianity has become something very different from what it was in the beginning. That different entity
can accurately be described as Hellenized Christianity.
The Hellenization of Christianity is a phenomenon that scholars of Christian history have long recognized.
Hellenization refers to the imposition of Greek culture and philosophy upon the cultures of the East. The
result was a synthesis of East and West, a melting pot of popular culture that was virtually worldwide. In the
realm of religion, however, synthesis means compromise, and when we speak in terms of the gospel,
compromise with popular beliefs means apostasy from the truth.
When Jewish Christianity and Greek culture met head-on in the gentile mission field in the middle of the
first century, a great battle of beliefs and life-styles arose. The Greeks world-view eventually won, and
Jewish Christianity was revised to make it more attractive and appealing to a Greek audience.
Primary prejudices of the Greek world were the absolute nature of God (i.e., he cannot be bound or limited
by anything) and the impossibility of anything material or physical being eternal. In order to satisfy the
Gentiles steeped in Greek philosophy, Christianity had to throw out the doctrines of an anthropomorphic
God and the resurrection of the dead, or reinterpret them drastically. Denying or altering the doctrine of the
resurrection of the dead is precisely what some Greek Christians at Corinth had done, and Paul responded
against them forcefully in 1 Corinthians 15.
The apostate church replaced true Christianity in the first and second centuries, teaching the philosophies
of men mingled with scriptures. It dethroned God in the church and replaced him with man by denying the
principle of revelation and turning instead to human intellect. As the product of human agency, its creeds
were an abomination to the Lord, for they were idolatry: men worshipping the creations, not of their own
hands, but of their own minds.
[The resulting apostasy] during the first and second centuries may even have been a collection of different
movements. Some Jewish Christians couldnt let go of the law of Moses and eventually gave up Christ
instead. The Orthodox Christians adopted Greek philosophy. The Gnostics wallowed in the mysteries and
in unspeakable practices on the one hand or in neurotic asceticism on the other. Second-century compilers
like Tatian and Marcion rewrote the scriptures, the latter boldly chopping out anything he didnt like. And all
of them together forced the virtuous woman, the true church of Jesus Christ, into the wilderness (see
Revelation 12:6 & 14).32

Note #3: For a more in depth picture of the struggle for the title of orthodoxy among the pre-Constantine
Christian sects, refer to Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, by Walter Bauer, a non-LDS scholar.
It can be accessed for free through the UPenn online books: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Resources/Bauer/
The introduction to Bauers book reads:

32

Stephen E. Robinson, Warring against the Saints of God, Ensign, Jan 1988, 34

16

In earliest Christianity, orthodoxy and heresy do not stand in relation to one another as primary to
secondary, but in many regions heresy is the original manifestation of Christianity.

Doctrinal Apostasy regarding the Nature of Christ by the time of the Nicene Creed
The message of the Restoration is that the New Testament church, with all its original teachings and practices,
has been restored in its fullness in these latter days. The early apostles Peter, James and John were sent anew in
these latter-days and there are witnesses to that effect. As such, Latter-day Saints accept all the biblical
teaching on the nature of God and Christ, provided these are stated in their biblical forms rather than in their
extra-biblical, creedal forms.
There is not a verse in the Bible that Latter-day Saints do not accept.
Simultaneously, there is no combination of biblical passages that will yield the complete doctrines and fine
distinctions of Nicaea and Chalcedon. Those are not summaries- they are expansions and extrapolations.i
In which way does the nature of God and Jesus, as experienced by Joseph Smith in the First Visitation, differ
from the concepts delineated in the Nicene Creed? 1) the point of being of one substance [essence] with the
Father, meaning they are the same metaphysical being, eternally co-equal; 2) the concept of the subordination
of Christ; 3) the impact of Greek thought on the formulation of the Nicene Creed will be addressed.
Oneness
Latter-day Saints have believed in the simultaneous oneness and threeness of God since the beginning of their
faith (2 Nephi 31:21), but do not trust the intellectuals of the Hellenistic church to have correctly described how
this is so, nor do they invest their theories and conclusions with the authority of Scripture. ii They believe in the
formula of one God in three persons. They reject the traditional but extra-biblical idea that these three
constitute one metaphysical substance, affirming rather that they constitute one perfectly united, and mutually
in-dwelling, divine community. They use the word God to designate the divine community as well as to
designate each individual divine person. Thus their understanding of the Godhead most closely coincides with
what is known in contemporary Christian theology as social trinitarianism. iii
The Greek Fathers taught a form of social trinitarianism. Social trinitarianism is the view that there is a
community of indwelling but distinct divine persons who are united in a perichoresis. Its formed from peri
which means around, and choreo which means the make room for another. It allows the individuality of
the persons to be maintained while insisting that each person shares in the life of the other two. They live their
lives in each other in such a way that the spirit of one penetrates into the spirit of another and their lives can't
really be divided. Jesus prays, in John 17:22, That they may be one; as thou, Father, are in me, and I in thee,
that they also may be one in us that they may be one, even as we are one. Indwelling means we share our
lives in a sense that we're ultimately open and transparent to each other such that everything that we are is
invited into another's being. It means that what we share with each other is in common. It means that there's
nothing about me that's opaque. It means that we are so intimate with one another that our very lives are the
same life.
Given the plurality of persons, how can there be but one God? (1) There is only one perfectly united, mutually
indwelling, divine community. Latter-day Saints call that community "God" and there is only one such. (2)
There is only one God the Father or fount of divinity. (3) There is only one divine nature or set of properties
severally necessary and jointly sufficient for divinity. iv

17

Co-inherence vs. In-dwelling


The scripture that perhaps most clearly proves that God the Father and God the Son (Jesus) are not the same
being (co-inherent) is Matthew 24:36. When speaking about the timing of the second coming, Jesus clearly
states, but of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. We
know that Jesus was telling the truth, because Jesus is fully divine, and God does not lie. We know that Jesus
does not know the day and hour of his second coming. We also know that the Father does know the day and
hour of Jesus second coming, because God does not lie. So, if we assume that the same being is both Jesus and
the Father, then that being simultaneously knows and does not know something. See the dilemma? Either one
or the other is lying, because they cant both be right unless the starting assumption itself is incorrect and they
are not the same being! If the latter is the case, then both are being truthful. So you can either believe that
Jesus and the Father are different beings, or you can believe that they lie. Take your pick.
Below is a survey of the original biblical concept of oneness or of being one as being one in unity, not one
in number:
Christ says that He and the Father are one (John 10:30; John 14:10-11), and the meaning of this is clarified in
his great intercessory prayer in John 17:21-22: 21That 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. 22 And the glory
which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one (emphasis added).
These passages speak of oneness in mind, purpose, intent, but it cannot be ontological oneness of being or coinherence, since the disciples, who are indisputable separate and individual beings, can also be one in the
Father and the Son in the same way that the Father and Son are one in each other (17:22). And this is not a
philosophical extrapolation from the text using extra-biblical terms formulated centuries later; its what the text
actually says.
Further confirmation that this was the way the New Testament authors understood the concept of oneness
comes from the statement of Stephen in Acts 7:55-56, while being martyred by enemies of the Church, who
unambiguously states that he sees God and Christ, with Christ standing at the right hand of God. He saw two
distinct beings - just as Joseph Smith did in his First Vision.
When a man and a woman join either in marriage, they are still two persons. But Jesus, citing the Old
Testament, pointed out that they become one flesh. In this sense they are no longer two, but one (Matt. 19:6).
Scripture reveals that this kind of oneness is exactly parallel to the oneness of the spirit: Do you not know that
the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says, THE TWO SHALL BECOME
ONE FLESH. But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with him (1 Corinthians 6:16-17).
Clearly, one spirit does not mean one being here.
This description of the biblical concept of oneness is repeated in Romans 12:5 (5So we, being many, are one
body in Christ, and every one members one of another.); 1 Corinthians 12:12-13 (12For as the body is one, and
hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. 13For
by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free;

18

and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.); Galatians 3:28 (28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is
neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.)
A more scholarly explanation of the meaning of oneness in John 10:30 comes from the non-LDS scholar,
David J. Ellis, who gives the following explanation in his commentary on Johnv:
30. I and the Father are one (Gk. hen): The neuter gender rules out any thought of meaning 'one Person.' This is not
a comment on the Godhead. Rather, having spoken of the sheep's security in both Himself and the Father, Jesus
underlines what He has said by indicating that in action the Father and He can be regarded as a single entity, because
their wills are one.

Note that one in this verse is neuter, not masculine. In Greek, the masculine would be used to indicate a
oneness of person or being, and neuter implies a oneness of purpose. So, read literally the verse merely says
that Jesus and the Father are one in purpose or will:
Another non-LDS scholar provides even more clarity:
Note that Jesus is not saying, The Father and I are numerically one (heis), but uses a term meaning we are
together (Greek hen, as used again in v.38: The Father is in me and I am in the Father). The union of the Father
and Son does not blot out the difference and individuality of each. Union rather supposes differentiation.

The word one in John 10:30 does not mean one being, or co-inherence, but rather conveys in-dwelling. The
term one often denotes a composite unity, as it does in 1 Corinthians 12:12-14, which speaks of one body
made of many members. We know this is also the case in John 10:30, because Jesus explained in John 17:1122 just how he and his Father are one. In vs. 22, Jesus said of his disciples And the glory which thou hast
given me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one. Jesus words are very clear. Jesus
followers are to be one in the same way that Jesus and his Father are one. Jesus followers are to be one body,
not one being.
When Philip asked Jesus to show the Father to the disciples, Jesus said to Philip Have I been so long time with
you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? He that hath seen me hath seen the Father. (John 14:9). John
14:9 certainly asserts that Jesus has the same nature as the Father. But does it mean Jesus is the Father? Jesus
used similar expressions elsewhere without meaning that. For instance, in Matthew 10:40, Jesus said to his
disciples He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me. Jesus did
not mean that he was the same being as his disciples. Similarly, when he said and he that receiveth me
receiveth him that sent me, he did not mean that he was the same being as the Father who sent him. Instead,
the meaning is that since Jesus would be in his disciples (John 15:4), whatever people do to the disciples they
do to Jesus. Jesus spoke in this manner often (Matt. 25:40, Mark 9:37, Luke 9:48, John 13:20).
After Jesus said He that hath seen me hath seen the Father, he went on to say and how sayest thou then,
Show us the Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? Not that he really was
the Father, but that the Father was in him, and he in the Father. The Father and the Son are mutually indwelling, not co-inherent. Anyone who has seen the Son has seen the Father, not because the Son is the Father,
but because the Father is in the Son, and the Fathers Name (nature) is manifested in the Son (John 17:6).
Some think that Gods use of the first person singular when coupled with words like alone proves that he is
only one Person. Isaiah 44:24 illustrates the point clearly: I am the LORD that maketh all things; that
stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself. However, the word alone is
19

sometimes used in the Scriptures to refer to a group of persons. In Deuteronomy 33:28-29, Israel is called
alone and addressed as thou (second person singular) even though many people are being addressed. In
Isaiah 49:21, God says that Zion -- which is certainly made up of more than one person -- will speak these
words: Behold, I was left alone. A mere loose gathering of separate people cannot say I, much less I am
alone. However, examples such as Isaiah 49:21 prove that in some cases a single entity that is composed of
more that one person (such as Zion) can say I am alone.
Similarly, in Isaiah 44:6, God says, I am the first and the last; and beside me there is no God. In this context,
the word beside means apart from. Both Isaiah 44:6 and Isaiah 44:24 appear in the midst of passages in
which God, in various and sundry ways, is making the point that there are not other Gods in competition with
him. Look at the context of his audience, the idolatrous Jews who are worshiping false gods of other nations
idols they made with their own hands and pretending that those idols have divine power. In this time period, it
was common for conquering kings to attribute their success to the power of their God, and viewed the defeat of
a foreign nation and their God defeating the other nations God. Thus, in Isaiah 37: 11-12, Behold, thou has
heard what the Kings of Assyria have done to all lands by destroying them utterly; and shalt thou be delivered?
Have the gods of the nations delivered them which my fathers have destroyed, as Goza, and Haran, and Rezeph,
and the children of Eden which were in Telassar? The context of Isaiahs message is that dumb idols created
by man cannot save Israel, only God can save Israel. God the Father is the only fount of Divinity. Apart from
God the Father, no divinity exists. When taken in context, these scriptures are make perfect sense.
The scriptures plainly state that Jesus and the Father are distinct beings. In John 8:16-18, Jesus says . . . If I
judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me. It is also written in your law,
the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth
witness of me. Here Jesus states that his Father is a second witness in addition to himself. If Jesus is the same
being as his Father, this statement would not be true.
When Jesus was about to raise Lazarus from the dead, he lifted his eyes and prayed: Father, I thank thee that
thou hast heard me. And I knew that thou hearest me always: but because of the people which stand by I said it,
that they may believe that thou hast sent me (John 11:41). Jesus indicated that he was praying as he did so that
the people standing by would understand what was going on. If Jesus is the same being as his Father, he would
not talk to himself as if he were talking to someone else. That would have confused the people rather than
enlightening them.
John 15:26: But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of
truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me. This is another passage where three Persons
are indicated. From is the translation of a Greek word that indicates that the place from which the Spirit of
truth starts is alongside of and distinct from the One from whom he was sent -- that he is proceeding from a
place at the Fathers side.
If Jesus, his Father, and the Holy Spirit are all the same being, John 15:26 would really mean something like
this: But when I have come, whom I will send to you from myself, even myself, which proceeds from myself, I
shall testify of me. Such an interpretation doesnt make sense.
Hebrews 1:1-9: God . . . Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son . . . . And of the angels he [God]
saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O
God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved

20

righteousness and hated iniquity; therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy
fellows. (from verses 1, 2, and 7-9). Here we see one Divine Person speaking to another Divine Person.
John 17:5: Jesus prayed And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had
with thee before the world was made. Since Christs human nature did not come into existence until after the
world was made, there is no way John 17:5 can be attributed to Christs human nature speaking to his Divine
nature. Instead, one Divine Person is speaking to another Divine Person.
Matthew 28:19: And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost. The Greek grammar here indicates that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are distinct Persons.
Dr. Robert Morey, a Christian apologist and writer says:
The Granville Sharpe rule states that when two nouns of the same case are separated [and connected] by
the word kai, with the first noun having the article in front of it, but the second noun without the article,
only one person is in view and is, thus, being described by both nouns. In contrast, when both nouns
have a definite article, then two persons are in view.vi
The testimony of the Apostles echo the words of Jesus. For example, in the benediction of 2 Corinthians 13:14
where Paul uses three designations for the members in the Godhead, the three are grammatically treated as
distinct beings. In Romans 15:30, Paul treats the Lord Jesus Christ and the Spirit as distinct beings; and in
passages like 1 Thessalonians 3:11 and 2 Thessalonians 2:16, he treats the Lord Jesus and God the Father as
distinct beings.
John makes a personal distinction between the Father and the Son in 1 John 2:22-23, and in Revelation 11:15,
when the seventh angel sounded the seventh trumpet, great voices in heaven made a personal distinction
between our Lord and his Christ.
Some believe that Jehovah of the Old Testament was God the Father, and that New Testament scriptures which
replace the name of Jehovah with a reference to Jesus when they quote the Old Testament is evidence of God
the Father and God the Son being co-inherent, such as Hebrews 1:8-12 referencing Psalm 45:6-7 & Psalm
102:25-27. This is a case of the tail of human reasoning wagging the dog of scripture, using the Creed to
interpret scripture, not vice-versa.
The Old Testament mentions Elohim (a Hebrew term often translated as "God") and Jehovah (a name often
translated as "Lord" and rendered in capital letters in the King James Version). Latter-day Saints believe that the
terms generally refer to two separate beings, God the Father as the Most High God, and Jesus Christ, known to
the Israelites, before his birth, as the God of Israel or Jehovah. Early Christians also shared this view, as other
serious scholars of Christianity have noted. For example, non-LDS scholar Margaret Barker recognizes that the
early Christians identified Christ with Jehovah in the Old Testament. The following excerpt is taken from her
book, The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God (London: SPCK, 1992, pp. 192-193), as cited by Kevin
Christensen, Paradigms Regained: A Survey of Margaret Barker's Scholarship and Its Significance for
Mormon Studies, FARMS Occasional Papers (Provo: FARMS, 2001), pp. 24-25):
The evidence that the first Christians identified Jesus with the God of the Jews is overwhelming; it was their customary
way of reading the Old Testament. The appearances of Yahweh or the angel of Yahweh were read as manifestations

21

of the pre-existent Christ. The Son of God was their name for Yahweh. This can be seen clearly in the writings of Paul
who applied several 'Lord' texts to Jesus. . . . Now Paul, though completely at home in the Greek world, claimed to
have been the strictest of Jews, educated in Jerusalem and zealous for the traditions of his people. How is it that he,
of all people, could distinguish between God and Lord as he did in 1 Corinthians, if this was not already a part of first
century Jewish belief? He emphasized that this distinction was fundamental to his belief: "there is one God, the
Father . . . and one Lord, Jesus Christ" (1 Corinthians 8:6). This is, to say the least, a remarkable contradiction of
Deuteronomy 6:4 [Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord], if he understood that verse in the way that we do, as
a statement of monotheism. If, on the other hand, it was a statement of the unity of Yahweh as the one inclusive
summing up of all the heavenly powers, the 'elohim, then it would have been compatible with belief in God Most High
also. (emphasis in Barker's original text)

Note that Barker finds the evidence for the identity between Christ and Jehovah in early Christian thought to be
"overwhelming."
In the Old Testament, Jehovah/YHWH and Elohim are not always interchangeable, though they can be (just as
"God" and "Lord" could be interchangeable). McGregor and Shirts point out that there are many examples of
expressions like "sons of God" or "sons of the most High" but apparently none for "sons of the Lord" or "sons
of Jehovah" vii Things get more interesting when we take the New Testament into account, where many Hebrew
passages from the Old Testament have been translated into Greek. Here is the analysis offered by McGregor
and Shirts (p. 140-141):
How does Jehovah appear in the Greek New Testament? As Kyrios. This gets translated as "Lord" in English.
How does Elohim appear in the Greek New Testament? As Theos - especially Ho Theos [The God]. This, of course,
gets translated as "God" in English.
Of course, the same words appear in many places in the New Testament that are not merely quotes from the Old.
And you will find that Lord usually refers to Jesus - especially after his resurrection - while God usually refers to the
Father....
[In Isaiah] the Lord announces that he is the one and only Savior (see Isaiah 43:3, 11; 45:15). And when the angel
appeared to the shepherds in he field outside Bethlehem, he said to them, "For unto you is born this day in the city of
David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord" (Luke 2:11).
Now we may never really know what the angel's words were in the original Aramaic, but it seems reasonable that it
would be something like, "a Savior, who is the anointed Jehovah."
But don't just take Luke's word for it. In John 1:1-2 we read, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with
God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God." ... [T]he first and third "God" in this passage
comes from Greek Ho Theos - the God - while the second occurrence was simply Theos. So this could be rendered,
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with The God, and the Word was God. The same was in the
beginning with The God."

Since these are key verses, here they are in the original Greek:

22

(both sentences have "ton theon", which is the accusative, the nominative of which is "ho theos" = "the
God")
Lutheran scholar R. C. H. Lenski comments:
The preposition [pros], as distinct from [en], [para], and [sun], is of the greatest importance . . . . The
idea is that of presence and communion with a strong note of reciprocity. The Logos, then, is not an
attribute inhering in God, or a power emanating from him, but a person in the presence of God and
turned in loving, inseparable communion toward God and God turned equally toward him.viii
Referring to Lenskis statement, Dr. Morey, says Johns use of the preposition [pros] is also significant
in that it shows he did not view the Logos and the Father as being the same person. {3}ix
John 1:3 reads, All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. This
is described in more detail by Paul in 1 Colossians 1:16-19: For by him were all things created, that are in
heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or
powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead: that in all things
he might have the preeminence. For it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell. Hebrews 1:1-6,
also speaks of the Son, By whom also he [God the Father] made the worlds being made so much better
than the angels, as he [Christ] has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. For unto which of
the angels said he at any time, Thou are my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a
Father, and he shall be to me a Son? And again, when he bringeth the firstbegotten into the world, he saith,
And let all the angels of God worship him [Christ]. The use of the word begotten or Greek genna
intentionally denotes the production through birth. Even when used metaphorically it still means "brought
forth," "produced," "generated" or "caused" (see 2 Timothy 2:23). By intentionally using the word genna, the
author is not making reference to birthright, but to Christ being the first to be born, brought forth,
produced, generated, caused.
All three statement in John and in Colossians are conveying that Jesus was born first and the first born
(birthright), that he was given full divinity [Godhood] right from the beginning and was given instruction and
power to create all things (cross reference with 1 Corinthians 8:6 But unto us there is but one God, the Father,

23

of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
(Notice how Paul makes a careful distinction between the two, and does not convey any assumption that they
are the same being).
The fact that Christ is divine is confirmed in Hebrews 1:8-10 But unto the Son he [the Father] saith, They
throne, O God [the Son], is for ever and ever; a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of thy kingdom. Thou
has loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God [the Father is Christs God], hath
anointed thee with the oil of gladness above they fellows. And Thou, Lord [the Son], in the beginning hast laid
the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works thy hands The Father calls Jesus a God and the
Father makes note to distinguish himself as even thy God, highlighting that there is one Divine Being speaking
to another Divine Being.
The earliest Christians also understood God the Father and God the Son to be separate beings joined together by
in-dwelling unity. The early Christian Father, Origen, referred to God the Father as The God (with the article)
and God the Son as God (without the article), and clearly considered them to be different beings: Origen,
"Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book II, Chapter I," The Ante-Nicene Church Fathers:
God on the one hand is Very God (Autotheos, God of Himself); and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the
Father, "That they may know Thee the only true God; " but that all beyond the Very God is made God by
participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply God (with the article), but rather God (without
article). And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself
divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written,
"The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth." It was by the offices of the first-born that they
became gods, for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made gods, and He communicated
it to them according to His own bounty. The true God, then, is "The God," and those who are formed after Him are
gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype. But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the Word
of God, who was in the beginning, and who by being with God is at all times God, not possessing that of
Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be God, if we should think of this, except by
remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father (emphasis added).

Origen plainly states that God the Son is made God by his participation in the divinity of the God the Father.
Jesus, the first to be with God, was the prototype, the archetypal image. Jesus is fully divine and thus meriting
the title God (without the article), not possessing that of himself, but because of his association with the
Father (The God, with the article), an indwelling relationship. Jesus continues to be divine by remaining always
in this relationship with the Father. As a side note, in the scriptures, we also learn that Jesus wants us to join in
that divine indwelling relationship which he has with the Father, as he stated in John 17:22, and reaffirmed in
Romans 8:6, joint heirs with Christ, and in Revelation 3:21 to him that overcometh with I grant to sit with
me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. That is why the
two great commandments are to love God with all your heart, soul, and mind and to love thy neighbor as
thyself (Matthew 22: 36-40). A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have
loved you, that ye also love one another (John 13:34). We are commanded to develop relationships of
indwelling love.
Stating that Jesus was the first-born of all creation, the first to be with God, might sound like Arianism, but it is
not. The problem with the Arian heresy was that Arius denied the full divinity of Christ. Contrary to Arius, the
early Christian Father, Origen, and Latter-day Saints alike, loudly proclaim that Christ is fully-divine, in whom
all the fullness dwells.

24

Here is a visual chart to describe it:

As the picture above depicts, this is precisely how you disentangle the various "son of God" references in the
Old Testament. Joseph A. Fitzmyer points out that: "the plural expressions in Hebrew, bene ha elohim, "sons of
God" (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7) bene 'elim, "sons of God" (Psalms 29:1; 89:6), and bene 'elyon, "sons of the Most
High" (Psalms 82:6) are found in the Old Testament as names for angelic beings in the heavenly court of
Yahweh."
God the Father is The God. Jesus Christ is God, the same Lord who was with God in the beginning (as in
one of the "us" in Gen. 1:26,27 and 3:22) and who made all things, according to Colossians 1:15-17, John 1:3
and Heb. 1:1-3. Christ makes the case for His pre-mortal role as Jehovah even more clear in John 8:58, where
he says, "Before Abraham was, I am." Remember that in Exodus 3:14, Jehovah told Moses that His name is "I
am." The Jews got the message and sought to stone him for blasphemy.
The term "Jehovah Elohim" does occur sometimes, but can be viewed as a son taking his father's name or acting
as his representative, which is certainly proper with Christ.
The early Christians also held this view, as is evidenced by one of the earliest Christian documents available
after the time of the New Testament, The Epistle of Barnabus, written between about 70 A.D. and 135 A.D.,

25

Genesis 1 is mentioned in a way that shows God the Father was speaking to the pre-mortal Jesus Christ, His
Son:
He being Lord of all the world, to whom God said at the foundation of the world, "Let us make man
after our image, and after our likeness," understand how it was that He endured to suffer at the
hand of men.x
Jesus is Jehovah, as early Christians knew - an important truth that has been restored through the Prophet
Joseph Smith. Though Christ was worshipped under the old covenant in Old Testament times, during his
mortal ministry Christ directed all worship to the Father in the new covenant that he mediated.
The Subordination of Christ
That God the Son is subordinate to God the Father is plainly stated by Jesus himself in John 14:28, where Christ
states that "my Father is greater than I." What biblical passages can the orthodox cite that state in equally
plain and clear language the opposing view as formulated at Nicaea, that the Father and the Son are eternally
co-equal? There are none. This view can only be arrived at by first accepting the Greek concept of deity, and
then working backward to reinterpret the Scriptures.
There are many more statements by Christ of his subordination to the Father. In John 20:21, Christ tells his
apostles that He is sending them just as the Father sent Christ. The apostles went because they were subordinate
to Christ, just as Christ was subordinate to the Father. In John 5:19, Christ states that he does nothing but what
he has seen the Father do. He's following the Father's lead - which points to a subordinate status. In Matt.
28:18, we read that all power is given to Christ. If something is given, it must have had a source. Who? The
Father.
Christ was not the only one explaining that the Father was above Him. In 1 Cor. 11:3, Paul teaches that the
head of Christ is the Father, as the head of man is Christ. In 1 Tim. 2:5, Paul teaches that "there is one God, and
one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." This suggests that Christ plays a role between God
and men - but not identical to the role of the Father. If the Father did not exist, neither would the Son nor the
Holy Ghost would be God, for their divinity comes through their relationship with the Father. Though Christ is
subordinate to the Father, he is also fully-divine and he effected an infinite and substitutionary atonement.
Hellenistic Influences
Rev. Dr. Flint, Professor of Divinity, University of Edinburgh states,
The proposition constitutive of the dogma of the Trinity- the propositions in the symbols of Nice, Constantinople and
Toledo, relative to the imminent distinctions and relations in the Godhead- were not drawn directly from the New
Testament, and could not be expressed in New Testament terms. They were the product of reason speculating on a
revelation to faith the New Testament representation of God as a Father, a Redeemer and a Sanctifier- with a view
to conserve and vindicate, explain and comprehend it. They were only formed through centuries of effort, only
elaborated by the aid of conceptions, and formulated in the terms of Greek and Roman metaphysics (emphasis
added).xi

Thus we see that the LDS understanding of the nature of God is based on revelation, past and modern, and the
Nicene interpretation of the nature of God is based upon a mixture of scripture and the philosophies of men,
which is why God had to reveal himself anew in order to bring about the restoration of the fullness of times,
spoken of in the ancient scriptures.
26

Some Theological Analysis For the theological analysis, see BH Roberts The Mormon Doctrine of Deity,
especially pages 68-169. It can be read for free through Google books: http://books.google.com/books?
id=6lJ8IW6qlAoC&pg=PA44&dq=bh+roberts+%22the+mormon+doctrine+of+deity%22#PPA68,M1

Of particular interest is the section titled, Of the Doctrine of Gods Simplicity Being of Pagan Rather than of
Christian Origin. Pages 114-119, which speaks particularly to the influences of Plato on the Nicene Creed:
http://books.google.com/books?id=6lJ8IW6qlAoC&pg=PA44&dq=bh+roberts+
%22the+mormon+doctrine+of+deity%22#PPA114,M1
Post-Nicene Apostasy Continued In addition, here is the link to a book, also by BH Roberts, that details the
continued apostasy during the Middle Ages:
http://books.google.com/books?id=ZUw4xJ2yW5AC&pg=PA468&dq=bh+roberts&lr=#PPA144,M1
The
latter half of Part II of the book, pages 144-228, is of especial interest.

27

Blomberg & Robinson, How Wide the Divide? A Mormon & an Evangelical in Conversation. InterVarsity Press,
Downers Grove, IL. 1997, p. 133.
ii
Ibid., 130-132.
iii
David Paulson, The God of Abraham, Isaac and Joseph Smith: Defending the Faith. Mesa, AZ: FAIR, August 2004.
iv
Ibid.
v
The International Bible Commentary, ed. F.F. Bruce, Zondervan Publ. House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1986, p. 1249
vi
Robert Morey, The Trinity: Evidence and Issues, (Grand Rapids: Word Publishing, 1996), p. 342. Actually, Dr. Morey is
condensing the Granville Sharpe rule, which is not a single rule but a set of several related rules.
vii
Russell C. McGregor and Kerry A. Shirts, "Letters to an Anti-Mormon," FARMS Review of Books, Vol. 11, No. 1, 1999,
p. 139.
viii
R. C. H. Lenski, St. Johns Gospel, (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1943) pp. 32-33.
ix
Robert Morey, The Trinity: Evidence and Issues, (Grand Rapids: Word Publishing, 1996), p. 322.
x
The Epistle of Barnabus 5:5, in Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1, Buffalo:
The Christian Literature Publishing Company, 1885, p. 139, available online at Early Church Fathers Site at Wheaton
College.
xi
Reverend Dr. Flint, Encyclopedia Brittanica: Theism,

You might also like