Do We Need to Become Children of God?
He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him.
But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name,
he gave the right to become children of God, who were born,
not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man,
but of God. –John 1:12-13
Brigham Young taught,
“The scriptures made use of by Elder George A. Smith this morning, show the way in which the former Saints became the sons of God. ‘But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name.’…
“I think, however, that the rendering of this Scripture is not so true as the following, namely: ‘But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to continue to be the sons of God.’ Instead of receiving the gospel to become the sons of God, my language would be—to receive the gospel that we may continue to be the sons of God. Are we not all sons of God when we are born into this world? Old Pharaoh, King of Egypt, was just as much a son of God as Moses and Aaron were His sons, with this difference—he rejected the word of the Lord, the true light, and they received it. For ‘this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men love darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil.’ [John 3:19] Then we receive not the gospel that we may become the sons of God, but that we may remain the sons of God without rebuke. …My doctrine is—that there never was a son and daughter of Adam and Eve born on this earth whose names were not already written in the Lamb’s book of life, and there they will remain until their conduct is such that the angel who keeps the record is authorized to blot them out and record them elsewhere.” (Brigham Young, November 17, 1867, Journal of Discourses, 12:100-101)
Brigham Young’s interpretation of the passage from John 1 doesn’t make sense if we look at the broader context. Young says all human beings are already sons of God when born into this world; that receiving Christ gives people the power to continue as or remain sons of God. But John says those who receive Christ become children of God, born not by any human endeavor, but born of God (John 1:13).
In chapter 3 John talks more about being born of God, this new birth: You must be born again, born of the Spirit, that “Whoever believes in Him may have eternal life.” (John 3:15).
In chapter 8 John records Jesus saying,
“If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God…You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. …Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.” (John 8:42-47)
Brigham Young contradicts Jesus. Jesus says sons do what their fathers desire; that those who belong to God hear His words. Brigham Young says those who are sons of God instead do what is evil, thereby casting themselves out of the family.
Our problem with sin is so much greater than Brigham Young ever imagined. Christian theologian R.C. Sproul explains:
“Our problem with sin is that it is rooted in the core of our being. It permeates our hearts. It is because sin is at our core and not merely at the exterior of our lives that the Bible says: ‘There is none righteous, no, not one; there is none who understands; there is none who seeks after God. They have all turned aside; they have together become unprofitable; there is none who does good, no, not one.’ (Romans 3:10-12)
“It is because of this condition that the verdict of Scripture is heard: we are ‘dead in trespasses and sins’ (Ephesians 2:1); we are ’sold under sin’ (Romans 7:14); we are in ‘captivity to the law of sin’ (Romans 7:23); and are ‘by nature children of wrath’ (Ephesians 2:3). Only by the quickening of the power of the Holy Spirit may we be brought out of this state of spiritual death. It is God who makes us alive as we become His craftsmanship (Ephesians 2:1-10).”
Comments (136)
Great post, Sharon. I had never read that quote from Brigham Young before and am once more amazed by the differences between Mormonism and Christianity. I thank you for all this education on the subject!
Sharon, an interesting topic with much doctrinal substance to discuss.
What is the difference between a prophet and a theologian? A prophet knows spiritual truth from direct personal experience gained from divine revelation whereas a theologian can only hope to postulate his theological position surmised from an imperfect understanding of the written words of prophets. In other words a prophet speaks from first-hand knowledge whereas a theologian speaks from speculation. This is the great strength of the LDS Church – we are led by living prophets and not by theologians who can only misconstrue the words of dead prophets.
The subject of the familial relationship between man and God the Father is an interesting one to consider. The LDS Church affirms that we (the whole of humanity) are the literal descendants of our Heavenly Father that we are indeed Children of God. This is a very radical theological statement that is in sum and substance a marked contrast to the position held by other Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, the various forms of contemporary Christianity and Islam). Notwithstanding the abundance of scriptures affirming that we are the Children of God, other Abrahamic faiths contend that this phraseology is only allegorical or metaphysical and is not to be taken literally – hence the confusion regarding the interpretation of the biblical passages cited in the opening post.
The primary song "I am a Child of God" is my personal favorite. It reveals profound truths regarding the familial relationship between our Heavenly Father and us, His Children. These great truths have been repeatedly revealed to us by the Lord's prophets yet mankind fails to understand the simplicity of these truths.
Knowing that I am a Child of God has a profound bearing on my outlook. I do not consider myself to be a "totally depraved creature" as depicted by neo-Calvinist theology but rather I have a much more optimistic self-image knowing my divine parentage. As a Child of God I seek to return to my Heavenly Father and I strive to "learn all that I must do to live with Him some day".
Food for thought.
One thing that stood out to me is when Young said, "My doctrine is…" Shouldn't we follow "Gods Doctrine" and not man's? Anything he said after that phrase should be thrown out of their theology based on the fact that it is the "philosophy of men mingled with scripture".
This is a fine article you'd written, Sharon. For some years, I've noticed this difference you describe between Biblical and LDS doctrine:
A. We are adopted into God's family, becoming His child at the point of salvation,
vs.
B. Everyone is a child of God.
As I understand it, the reason for the discrepancy is the LDS belief, fairly commonly held, that they (and everyone else) have lived earlier lives or existences. During this earlier existence a glorified man and woman gave birth to their spirits. They regard this man as their God; hence, they are a child of a God and Goddess; children of God. (An interesting side-note: the Book of Mormon does not teach this and in fact contains passages supporting the Biblical teaching that man becomes a child of God through faith. Unfortunately, this was abandoned in favor of Young's un-Biblical (and for that matter, un-Book of Mormon) teachings.
I am especially fond of this topic today, of becoming children of God and being adopted into God's family. The adoption of our daughter was finalized just hours ago! Our daughter has been ours for six months, but now it is official! We took a picture with the judge just a big ago, smiling, and Stacia cried with joy. Usually people cry in a court room because they're paying a fine or going to jail! But we were happy to be there!
<img src="http://farm4.static.flick…
One of my most treasured approaches to God when I am in sin and when I feel unworthy is being reminded of a loving Father who adopted me unto permanent sonship. I may run out the back door, but the front door is always unlocked, and I will always belong to Him, and my heart is ultimately in his hands unto eternal life. This has provided tremendous encouragement and absolution over sin and motivation to, so to speak, come back through the front door.
Sadly, this way of thinking seems foreign to a worldview that practically suppresses the beauty of spiritual adoption by accentuating the non-biblical notion of naturally being children of God. In Christianity, all the children of God have eternal life and spend eternity with Him. In Mormonism, you can be saved as a child of God unto damnation and torment and eternal regret. This also practically abridges the glory of Jesus as the only begotten Son of God, since although Mormonism ascribes to him this title with respect to incarnation-identity, it seems less significant in a worldview where we are all pre-mortal spirit sons and spirit daughters.
Enjoy a day of celebration,
Aaron
I totally agree, Soy Yo!!
SteveH,
First I am wondering exactly what a neo-Calvinist is? Could you please explain this term. Also could you please show me the Judaic scriptures, that is the Old Testament passages, which create this framework that we are literally Children of Elohim. I will submit that there are Old Testament passages which state the people of Israel are Children of the LORD, (eg. Exodus 4:22; Deuteronomy 14:1; etc) that is of YHWH however when we deal with LDS theology that would make them Children of Jesus not Elohim. One could come to this from a literal translation of Hosea 1 and 11 however when the same hermeneutic is applied to chapter 2 not only would God be the Literal father of Israel but also the Literal husband. I don't know about you but I'm not going to pull a Song of Solomon 2:3 with my father that's for sure.
Lautensack
Even the Book of Mormon borrows from the Protestant framework of total depravity (albeit the Arminian viewpoint on it specifically, but this is nonetheless striking considering the now-Pelagian optimism of Mormonism). Alma 42:10 calls us "carnal, sensual, and devilish, by nature,", and 2 Nephi 4:17 among other BofM passages calls us "wretched". Mosiah 3:19 says "the natural man is an enemy to God", and Ether 3:2 says, "we are unworthy before thee; because of the fall our natures have become evil continually". Smith obviously loved borrowing phraseology from Paul. And you can see how he borrowed language from Genesis 6:5, "every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." The BofM's optimism is not in our being deities in species or Gods-in-embryo, but rather in the salvation provided via yielding to the enticing of the Spirit and the atonement. I'd be happy if Mormons truly returned to a plain historical-grammatical reading of the BofM, but that would require chucking institutionally promoted LDS teachings that have been going on for decades, and doing that with integrity would require publicly ruffling some institutional feathers.
Congratulations Aaron!
What wonderful news!
Aaron,
The notion that "the Book of Mormon borrows from the Protestant framework of total depravity" is total nonsense. The authors of the passages cited (Nephi, Mosiah, Alma) lived and died some 1,500 to 2,000 years prior to the Protestant Reformation. You might as well claim that the author of Proverbs was an Arminian. One can easily find phraseological parallels in many of the 66 Books of the canon.
I stand by my assertion that it is better to follow the counsel of a living prophet of God than to be swayed in every which direction by the misguided postulation of theologians. Jean Calvin's erroneous notions of grace, the total depravity of man, etc. have produced a very distorted theology which bedevils us to this day.
Steve, if you register a username at the commenting service, you won't have to be moderated every time you submit a comment.
I absolutely agree that it is nonsense that ancient authors were able to anachronistically borrow from Paul. It is this kind of thing that seems to have driven Mormon Blake Ostler to argue for his "expansion theory" of the BofM, which asserts that Smith expanded (added to) ancient material with his own mixture of things.
For outsiders, it is part of the evidence that points to the BofM being fraudulent.
I am especially fond of this topic today, of becoming children of God and being adopted into God's family. The adoption of our daughter was finalized just hours ago! Our daughter has been ours for six months, but now it is official! We took a picture with the judge just a bit ago, smiling, and Stacia cried with joy. Usually people cry in a court room because they're paying a fine or going to jail! But we were happy to be there!
<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3221/3056234453_99e0d6a13f.jpg?v=0">
One of my most treasured approaches to God when I am in sin and when I feel unworthy is being reminded of a loving Father who adopted me unto permanent sonship. I may run out the back door, but the front door is always unlocked, and I will always belong to Him, and my heart is ultimately in his hands unto eternal life. This has provided tremendous encouragement and absolution over sin and motivation to, so to speak, come back through the front door.
Sadly, this way of thinking seems foreign to a worldview that practically suppresses the beauty of spiritual adoption by accentuating the non-biblical notion of naturally being children of God. In Christianity, all the children of God have eternal life and spend eternity with Him. In Mormonism, you can be saved as a child of God unto damnation and torment and eternal regret. This also practically abridges the glory of Jesus as the only begotten Son of God, since although Mormonism ascribes to him this title with respect to incarnation-identity, it seems less significant in a worldview where we are all pre-mortal begotten spirit sons and spirit daughters.
A particularly concerning issue regarding adoption is the Fall. When I have pressed the context of Romans 8:16 to some intelligent Mormons (including professors), they will sometimes agree that the passage does not speak of 1) being children of Christ or 2) being natural born children of the Father. It rather speaks of 3) being adopted unto the Father as children. But the obvious question is, why do children have to be adopted if they are already children of the parent doing the adopting? The primary response I have received is that at the Fall (and through the individual fall of each man) the children of God lost/lose their inheritance and consequently have to, with God's necessary gracious help, prove themselves worthy achieving it back. Think about it, the Fall was good and praiseworthy and worth imitating according to Mormon leaders, but according to professors I have talked to, that was the reason and event for the children losing their inheritance and having to prove themselves worthy to achieve it back. It seems perverted for a Father to disinherit his children in response to them obeying the spirit of his law (i.e. pursuing progression and experience via fallen mortality).
All that said, I would encourage any Mormon to do a survey of the NT doctrine of spiritual adoption, and to know that your Creator loves you, but he supremely loves his Only Begotten Son. He is willing and ready to adopt you permanently into his family unto eternal life and kingdom-enjoyment and everlasting intimate fellowship. And you don't have to prove yourself worthy of this. Rather, as Sharon quoted, "But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God." (John 1:12-13)
Enjoying a day of celebration,
Aaron
Even the Book of Mormon borrows from the Protestant framework of total depravity (albeit the Arminian viewpoint on it specifically, but this is nonetheless striking considering the now-Pelagian optimism of Mormonism). Alma 42:10 calls us "carnal, sensual, and devilish, by nature,", and 2 Nephi 4:17 among other BofM passages calls us "wretched". Mosiah 3:19 says "the natural man is an enemy to God", and Ether 3:2 says, "we are unworthy before thee; because of the fall our natures have become evil continually". Smith obviously loved borrowing phraseology from Paul. And you can see how he borrowed language from Genesis 6:5, "every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." The BofM's optimism is not in our being deities in species or Gods-in-embryo, but rather in the salvation provided via yielding to the enticing of the Spirit and the infinite atonement. I'd be happy if Mormons truly returned to a plain historical-grammatical reading of (much of) the BofM, but that would require chucking institutionally promoted LDS teachings that have been going on for decades, and doing that with integrity would require publicly ruffling some institutional feathers.
Aaron you clearly married way above yourself. Congrats!
SteveH,
"The authors of the passages cited (Nephi, Mosiah, Alma) lived and died some 1,500 to 2,000 years prior to the Protestant Reformation."
The doctrine of total depravity is not a product of the Protestant Reformation, it is integral to the Bible all the way back into Genesis.
Read this post I wrote on the subject just after being born again last year. It begins with the idea that man can become like God in that we can possess and cultivate godly attributes, but we cannot become those attributes as God is attributes. But more in line with Sharon's post here, it also refers to C.S. Lewis' discussion about creation versus begetting:
"What God begets is God; just as what man begets is man. What God creates is not God; just as what man makes is not man. That is why men are not Sons of God in the sense that Christ is [Matthew 5:9; Romans 8:14; Galatians 3:26; Revelations 21:7]. "
How is it then that they are referred to as angels? (Revelation 12:7-12) Did they already evolve past manhood when they were cast out?
As for your other questions.
Hebrews 12:9 – Who is the writer addressing? He is addressing believers, that is those who are born of God (John 1:13; 3:3) This in no way insinuates that God is the literal father of our spirits.
Job 38:7 – It would be safe to say that the "sons of God" in this passage are angels. (cf Job 1:6; Isaiah 6:1-6; Luke 1:23-24; Rev 12:9) If this were speaking about men then Job could answer YHWH when he asked "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?" saying "I was there and shouted for Joy."
Jeremiah 1:5 – Does not say that Jeremiah knew God rather that God knew Jeremiah. Are we going to limit God's omniscience in such a way that he cannot know all creatures he will ever make?
Ecclesiastes 12:7 – Who here is denying that God gave man his spirit, would not the spirit be a good and perfect gift from above, coming down from the Father of lights?
2 Timothy 1:9/Titus 1:2 – These are just silly. First God made the promise to the promise to God's elect before the foundation of the world. (Ephesians 1:3-4) In my church we have a program called true love waits where the students make a promise to their future spouse to be faithful. Does their not knowing whom they shall marry negate the promise? Not at all for one to promise something to someone does not mean they know to whom they are promising, I am speaking in human terms since God has infinite foreknowledge therefore it is not as though He was promising to someone He was unaware of. This in no way means that prior to the foundation of the earth humans were alive.
Lautensack
DOF: welcome back; hope you are seeing God's hand in all your realm. simple question: are you comforted by the gospel as presented and understood by today's evengelicals??
I liked the following in your post:
Prophets spoke forth the truth of God's plan in plain language – if prophets need prophets to interpret prophets, where does it end? It will become a string of interpretations contradicting one another and changing over time. This is the clear pattern of the "latter day prophets" – always interpreting, always changing, never firm or clear.
To me the irony of this is : the LDS have been able to sell large numbers of people on the ideas that 1) God 's word in the Bible is NOT that clear and understandable (or consistent) and that 2) the word given to us who would acccept it by todays modern prophet is a huge upgrade, and so much easier to understand, etx…. my experience on this blog tells me different, the words or BOTH the modern prophets AND the MORMONS who follow them are anything but consistent and clear. Give me that old time religion, and the old book any ol' day: controversies and hard to get parts included..
GOOD POST, MO'
Excellent post, Sharon! This doctrine is one of the more damaging, in my opinion, in terms of preventing people from believing and receiving what God has said concerning their sin, the hopelessness of their human condition, and the real reason Christ died for them. God says we must receive His only begotten Son, the Word who was made flesh, in order to become His adopted children (not his begotten children – there is only one of those). It's the pattern of Satan to question what God has said (Gen. 3:1), to twist it, and to set forth doctrines that whitewash man's deplorable, wretched condition, exalt man, and teach a different means of reconciliation than what is set forth in Scripture.
Soy Yo!! Love your comments. Welcome back to the blogosphere!
I read your post today on your blog and was glad to see you back at it.
Aaron, Congratulations on the adoption of your little girl – what a blessing!
Excellent post, Sharon! This doctrine is one of the more damaging, in my opinion, in terms of preventing people from believing and receiving what God has said concerning their sin, the hopelessness of their human condition, and the real reason Christ died for them. God says we must receive His only begotten Son, the Word who was made flesh, in order to become His adopted children (not his begotten children – there is only One of those). It's the pattern of Satan to question what God has said (Gen. 3:1), to twist it, and to set forth doctrines that whitewash man's deplorable, wretched condition, exalt man, and teach a different means of reconciliation than what is set forth in Scripture.
Soy Yo!! Love your comments. Welcome back to the blogosphere!
I read your post today on your blog and was glad to see you back at it.
Aaron, Congratulations on the adoption of your little girl – what a blessing!
The distinction of how we define ourselves as children of god is another key difference between Mormons and Christians. To Christians, while everyone is created by God, not everyone is a child of God. Mormons think everyone is a child of God. This was established above, but SteveH represents well when he describes the positive self-image of automatically being a child of God. That's nice, but kind of Stuart Smalley-ish. I don't view the issue as one of self-esteem, for when I accepted Christ, I was given the assurance to know I am a child of God. I realized how hopeless I was on my own, and that I needed God to help me be all I can be, all I was created for in the first place.
SteveH was reminded of a hymn. So am I. I am reminded of Blessed Assurance. The words as penned by Fanny Crosby go as such:
Blessed assurance, Jesus is mine!
O what a foretaste of glory divine!
Heir of salvation, purchase of God,
born of his Spirit, washed in his blood.
(Ref)This is my story, this is my song,
praising my Savior all the day long;
this is my story, this is my song,
praising my Savior all the day long.
2.Perfect submission, perfect delight,
visions of rapture now burst on my sight;
angels descending bring from above
echoes of mercy, whispers of love.
3.Perfect submission, all is at rest;
I in my Savior am happy and blest,
watching and waiting, looking above,
filled with his goodness, lost in his love.
"I in my savior am happy and blest…" What wonderful words, and it raises a question of what true confidence is. Is it in myself, as a natural born child of God, as the Mormons think, or does it come when one accepts the Son of the Living God into his heart, as Christians think?
Congrats on the adoption Aaron!
Sharon's comments do not make sense with Matthew 5. I will quote with caps for emphasis.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45 That ye MAY be the CHILDREN of your FATHER which is in heaven:
47Be ye therefore perfect, even as YOUR FATHER which is in heaven is perfect
The Savior is explaining how TO BECOME the CHILDREN of God, all the while referring to God as their Father. If He is their Father then they must already be His children.
So, are we to assume that they are His children but not His children? It doesn't make sense the way Sharon has explained it. Only in the context that they are already His Children (premortal) but have come to earth and sinned that they have seperated themselves from the family. This, the Jews clearly understood. Therefore, the Savior is explaining to them how to gain a Child of God status by being spiritually reborn through the Atonement (becoming Perfect).
I rather like BY explanation. Make much more sense to me
Aaron,
The BoM doesn't borrow from a Protestant platform, it is simply a continuation of the same gospel that has been preached since the world began. My Sunday School topic last Sunday: Mosiah 3/Ether 12. It is alive and kicking, same old gospel of repentance. Why preach this? Because the worth of souls is great! Why? They are the Children of God.
Thus this is not a day "of many words". "Say nothing but repentance unto this generation" That is what the Lord has said in our day and I would think would sound comforting to the evangelical.
that would depend on what they are preaching. When they testify of Jesus Christ I feel a kinship with them (sons of God).
For those who know little about the LDS faith (thus feel no "duty" to tear it down) I tend to feel comforted when I am with them. I am not comforted by the discussions here. Because the thrust is "speaking evil of the Lord's anointed". I realize that this group does not see it that way. But the Lord has revealed to me the reality of living prophets and it "becometh every man who hath been warned to warn his neighbor". So whatever the topic may be, if the "gospel" presented it designed to build faith in Jesus Christ, then I am comforted.
However, I cannot accept someone elses intereptation of the scriptures over the revelation I have received.
I will say that I am usually ok with what you (Germit) have to say.
Mobaby and Germit,
The prophets did indeed speak forth the truth of God's plan in plain language. However, it is the religionists and theologians who have removed much of that which is plain and precious from the word of God and substituted their own ideas. Hence that is why today there are over 5,000 different Protestant sects with each vying for what they consider to be God's truth yet disagreeing on every imaginable topic. Clearly, the world of Protestant theology is anything but clear, consistent, and unambiguous and indeed is morphing into something different everyday. Protestant theology is rudderless and shifting with every change of doctrine.
In contrast, LDS doctrine is guided by prophets of God who speak from first hand experience revealed directly to them. Critics like to harp on the vagaries of some extraneous and peripheral opinions of some church leaders like Brigham Young yet ignore the remarkable consistency of the body of LDS doctrine.
SteveH
You stated above "theologians who can only misconstrue the words of dead prophets." I have not found this to be true. Theologians can misconstrue, or they can elucidate the plain meaning of the text. God has revealed Himself in scripture in a clear manner that can be understood by anyone without the interpretation of theologians or prophets. Theologians who love God and proclaim the truth of Christ can help expound on the meaning of the Bible being all about the Messiah Jesus and his redemption of man through His crucifixion and resurrection. Prophets spoke forth the truth of God's plan in plain language – if prophets need prophets to interpret prophets, where does it end? It will become a string of interpretations contradicting one another and changing over time. This is the clear pattern of the "latter day prophets" – always interpreting, always changing, never firm or clear. God has spoken to prophets, the Bible was recorded in plain language easily understood pointing us to Christ crucified. In the context of the Bible, the plain meaning of the scripture quoted here is that we become children of God when we come to God through Christ's redemptive sacrifice – we are adopted as God's children through Christ. Children of wrath, children of the devil become a new creation and children of God the Father. I am a child of wrath by nature, and now, a child of God by divine intervention through Christ. I am clothed in the righteousness of Christ by God's grace and Christ has taken my sin and depravity upon Himself. I cannot think of a more glorious or wonderful gift. – God's unmerited favor for a depraved sinner like me.
Arthur,
It is clear that the "doctrine of total depravity" wherein mankind is deemed to be a totally decrepit creature is indeed a product of the Protestant Reformation, specifically the product of Jean Calvin's rather perverted and bleak theological viewpoint. This complete and utter negativity of man's condition is not present in Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, or Coptic theological traditions.
Aaron,
The fact of the matter is that the Book of Mormon has been relentlessly attacked since it was first published in 1830 yet it still stands undiminished as a witness of Jesus Christ.
Notwithstanding the numerous shop-worn arguments repeatedly made against the BoM by various "critics" over the past 180 years this witness of Jesus Christ continues to triumphantly go forth into the world. Millions of individuals have put the Book of Mormon to the test of faith and prayer and have discovered for themselves the authenticity of this scared volume of holy scripture and testify that it is indeed the Word of God.
If you say so, Steve.
It would be helpful to point out a distinction:
"We must be careful to note the difference between total depravity and "utter" depravity. To be utterly depraved is to be as wicked as one could possibly be. Hitler was extremely depraved, but he could have been worse than he was. I am sinner. Yet I could sin more often and more severely than I actually do. I am not utterly depraved, but I am totally depraved. For total depravity means that I and everyone else are
depraved or corrupt in the totality of our being. There is no part of us that is left untouched by sin. Our minds, our wills, and our bodies are affected by evil. We speak sinful words, do sinful deeds, have impure thoughts. Our very bodies suffer from the ravages of sin." (>>)
According to Paul we are not children of God by nature, but rather "by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind." (Ephesians 2:3)
Thankful that God regenerated my heart from its state of total depravity,
Aaron
If you say so, Steve.
It would be helpful to point out a distinction:
"We must be careful to note the difference between total depravity and "utter" depravity. To be utterly depraved is to be as wicked as one could possibly be. Hitler was extremely depraved, but he could have been worse than he was. I am sinner. Yet I could sin more often and more severely than I actually do. I am not utterly depraved, but I am totally depraved. For total depravity means that I and everyone else are depraved or corrupt in the totality of our being. There is no part of us that is left untouched by sin. Our minds, our wills, and our bodies are affected by evil. We speak sinful words, do sinful deeds, have impure thoughts. Our very bodies suffer from the ravages of sin." (>>)
According to Paul we are not children of God by nature, but rather "by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind." (Ephesians 2:3)
Thankful that God regenerated my heart from its state of total depravity,
Aaron
If you say so, Steve.
It would be helpful to point out a distinction:
"We must be careful to note the difference between total depravity and "utter" depravity. To be utterly depraved is to be as wicked as one could possibly be. Hitler was extremely depraved, but he could have been worse than he was. I am sinner. Yet I could sin more often and more severely than I actually do. I am not utterly depraved, but I am totally depraved. For total depravity means that I and everyone else are depraved or corrupt in the totality of our being. There is no part of us that is left untouched by sin. Our minds, our wills, and our bodies are affected by evil. We speak sinful words, do sinful deeds, have impure thoughts. Our very bodies suffer from the ravages of sin." (source)
According to Paul we are not children of God by nature, but rather "by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind." (Ephesians 2:3)
Thankful that God regenerated my heart from its state of total depravity,
Aaron
Steve, do you consider Blake's theory a relentless attack?
MichaelP,
True confidence comes from knowing the eternal and sublime truth that we are part of God's family: we are his children and He is our loving Father and Jesus Christ is our Brother. There is a powerful and eternal bond of love and reassurance there.
This differs profoundly from the incredibly bleak theological outlook of the Protestant (Calvinist) theology which spouts the perverted notion that we are merely depraved lumps of clay deserving of nothing but the scorn of a wrathful god. With such a perverted theology it is no wonder that evangelicals are so sour.
Aaron,
Have you ever read the various articles written by Blake Ostler? Mr. Ostler is a very scholarly defender of the LDS Church and its doctrines. His work (specifically the one you cited) defends the authenticity of the Book of Mormon and its claim of divine origin.
To suggest that Blake's writings are somehow an attack on the Book of Mormon or the LDS Church reveals that you either have not read Mr. Ostler's work or you have completely misunderstood his words.
Are you sure it is bleak? It is kind of a harsh outlook, if you stop there. But don't forget that we were created so that we might be in relation to him. That's an awesome thought that deserves his praise! You also ignore the change in our status when we do realize our true state, and the power of his redeeming love.
While much criticized, the book the Power of Positive thinking bases its entire positive message on the verse that says that "I can do all things" with Jesus. While the book has its problems, that aspect is accurate. Why should one be down when you've got Christ on your side?
I think your focus, though, is our depraved nature before we accept Christ, and not our relation to him after we accept him in our hearts. But, can you point to a Biblical message that states anything other than our depraved nature? In other words, is your notion of happy people Biblical?
When I read the Bible, I get a very different message than that.
The source of this disconnect, is clearly the belief in the pre-existance of our spirits. If you accept that concept, as we LDS do, then the "become sons of God" phrase refers to our born-again event. The symbolism of baptism occurs twice, first with the baptism of water, then the baptism of spirt. The first symbolizes death and rebirth of the flesh, the second death and rebirth of the Spirit. The baptism of the Holy Ghost is a full immersion event when the Holy Spirit fills our hearts and our whole souls with testimony.
Just because we are reborn as sons of God doesn't mean we never existed as spirits before. It would be rediculous to say that our flesh did not exist before we were baptised by water. Do you see my point? Catch the parallelism involved?
The source of this disconnect, is clearly the belief in the pre-existance of our spirits. If you accept that concept, as we LDS do, then the "become sons of God" phrase refers to our born-again event. The symbolism of baptism occurs twice, first with the baptism of water, then the baptism of spirit. The first symbolizes death and rebirth of the flesh, the second death and rebirth of the Spirit. The baptism of the Holy Ghost is a full immersion event when the Holy Spirit fills our hearts and our whole souls with testimony.
Just because we are reborn as sons of God doesn't mean we never existed as spirits before. It would be rediculous to say that our flesh did not exist before we were baptised by water. Do you see my point? Catch the parallelism involved?
If we were NOT children of God before we were born then please, answer me these quesitons:
Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?
38:7 …and all the sons of God shouted for joy.
Who where the sons of God who shouted for joy when the world was created?
Jer 1:5 5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee…
How could this be?
Titus 1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;
God promised us eternal life WHEN?
Eccl 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.
How can your spirit return to a place it has never been?
5. 2 Tim 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
When was this promise made? To whom was it made?
Hebrews 12:9
Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?
Why does Paul compare and contrast the father of our spirit with the father of our flesh? Answer; because we are dual beings, and as such we have two different fathers.
Steve, I understand that Ostler defends the BofM, but he nevertheless believes in his expansion theory, that Smith added to an ancient text with a mixture of his own contemporary knowledge. How do you feel about that?
Steve, I understand that Ostler defends the BofM, but he nevertheless believes in his expansion theory, that Smith expanded / added to an ancient text with a mixture of his own contemporary knowledge. How do you feel about that?
Aaron,
You are mincing words. In the English language "total" is synonymous with "utter".
According to Paul, Jesus Christ, the Prophets of the Old testament and the Apostles of the New Testament, and the Prophets and Apostles of this Dispensation we are the direct children of our Heavenly Father – but heck, why should we listen to them?
It is the vain philosophies of men that try to deny this eternal and sublime truth.
Logical question from this post: are there spirits that never make it to human form? Where did they come from and do they have a second chance like us humans do (ie, baptism for the dead)?
SteveH: thanks for the dialogue.
Well, on occaision, your prophets have indeed spoken very clearly. First polygamy was out, then in, and since 1890 , out for now. First the blacks were cursed and not worthy, then cursed but now the curse is lifted (for now ??) and considered worthy or potentially worthy. I could add to this list…… Add to the flip flop the strangely cautious (some would say "deceptively so") language of Hinckley regarding the exaltation of man to godhood, a theme VERY clearly taught by prior prophets. "Well…..not sure we really teach that….." "we don't know much about that……" you get my point ?? What WAS clear for JS and Brigham apparently isn't so clear any more . Why is that ?? Oh, yeah, changing revelation to each generation….Whatever..
You can EASILY make a case that Protestants are 'all over the board', but it seems you are living in a rather large glass house yourself, looking for another rock….
GERmIT
MichaelP,
I think that you have answered your own question. The Bible is replete with examples of individuals who have found spiritual joy and happiness by seeking God and striving to do His will.
If you're not willing to listen to important historical nuances to doctrine, then I'm not sure we can have a constructive conversation, Steve.
Germit,
As I stated in my post "critics" of the LDS Church and its doctrines love to attack peripheral issues such as polygamy. It is understandable that President Hinckley was reluctant to respond to hypothetical questions regarding speculation on the nature and origin of God the Father. We really do not know much about that subject nor is it taught to any great degree in LDS chapels. Such matters are in the realm of speculation and conjecture and are at best peripheral to our main concern and focus which is the atonement of Jesus Christ.
It seems to me that "critics" of Mormonism are forever mired in the 19th century and are obsessed by their gross caricature the LDS Church, its doctrines and its people. Such "critics" really do not know or wish to know the contemporary LDS Church.
> "That ye MAY be the CHILDREN of your FATHER which is in heaven"
I'm not sure how this points to the Mormon doctrine of already being children of God by nature. It seems Jesus is simply using the sonship language of similarity. In the language of Matthew 5, if you're not a peacemaker and you're not blessing your enemies, you're not fulfilling the "that you may be the children of your father" concept.
SteveH: my point, and I think Mobaby's as well, is simply this: it seems every bit as easy to become "mired" in what that prphets say and have said, as it is "mired in the interpretations of theologians". There seems to be ample ambiguity to go around , you choose to see the protestant situation as weighty orj consequential, and your LDS issues as either 'peripheral' or some other excuse. To think that the 'word from the prophet' is more consistent or 'sure' seems like smoke and mirrors to me. How is trusting that a theologian/preacher/teacher heard from God so different than trusting that a prophet heard from God ?? Either may be 'sure', and seemingly either may be garbled. And course, knowing what I do of JS and Brigham's respective lives, I'll stay with the theologians, thank you. GERMIT
Your question: How is it then that they are referred to as angels? (Revelation 12:7-12) Did they already evolve past manhood when they were cast out?
Because evangelicals have defined angels incorrectly. It is not a post earth life role, but a pre-earth life role.
The better question is, why does the Bible refer to Lucifer's followers as "his angels"? What exactly is an angel to Lucifer? Do they have wings or horns?
What if I told you that the angel Gabriel was none other that the prophet Noah?
An angel is a disembodied spirit on special assignment with power and authority from God. In some cases an angel has a physical body, but still, on special assignment with power and authority from God.
The wings are, and always have been a symbol of the power and authority from God.
SteveH,
I am persuaded that God has kept the Bible free from doctrinal corruption. We have many existing ancient copies from different sources and the discrepancies between the various copies come down to a few words out of hundreds of thousands. None affects any major Christian doctrine. It's easy to say "it's been corrupted" without paying attention to the overwhelming evidence that supports Biblical authenticity.
You are right, there is much falsehood that goes on in the name of Christ, just as Jesus told us it would be. Jesus said there would be wheat and tares, saved and unsaved in the Church (universal). Today we see Churches that deny the truth of the gospel of Christ crucified, and those that hold fast to the truth – just as Christ told us it would be. Those who deny the centrality of Jesus death and resurrection are actually a fulfillment of the words of Christ. Those who do not hold fast to the truth twist and turn to deny the plain truth of the Bible, pulling verses out of context, denying the reliability of the Bible, and distorting what God has plainly revealed.
On another note, Joseph Smith in seeking to establish a new religion did not establish just one – but countless splinter groups all claiming to bear the truth of Joseph Smith. The "sharp clarity" brought about by "the prophet" was apparently not so clear to many after he died, and still many more today who claim to follow Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. There are a multiplicity of "prophets" interpreting "prophets" and coming to different conclusions. When your faith is based on the word of one man and not the Word of God you can be lead in any direction and into multiple contradictions – present revelation undoing past revelation and denying what is plainly revealed in scripture.
God's word is not complicated, nor has it been corrupted. God has given us everything we need in Christ for a right relationship with Him.
Then, Steve, what is the issue?
GRCluff wrote: "Because evangelicals have defined angels incorrectly. It is not a post earth life role, but a pre-earth life role."
First Christians don't believe men become angels, nor do we believe that we are the same species as angels, and you will not find anywhere in scripture that states differently.
As to Lucifer why should we believe he "appears" any different than an angel of Light? Scripture doesn't give us a reason to, (2 Corinthians 11:14) rather it tells us to beware angels lest they preach a Gospel that Paul did not preach. (Galatians 1:6-9)
In the loose description of angels that the LDS use, I can see how they would call Satan an angel, but I don't think you could find such thinking in the biblical writ.
Lautensack
SteveH: my point, and I think Mobaby's as well, is simply this: it seems every bit as easy to become "mired" in what that prphets say and have said, as it is "mired in the interpretations of theologians". And as Mobababy noted above: first you'd have to decide WHICH MORMON prophet it is you're talking about, seems there are several to pick from.
There seems to be ample ambiguity to go around , you choose to see the protestant situation as weighty orj consequential, and your LDS issues as either 'peripheral' or some other excuse. To think that the 'word from the prophet' is more consistent or 'sure' seems like smoke and mirrors to me. How is trusting what a theologian/preacher/teacher heard from God so different than trusting what a prophet heard from God ?? Either may be 'sure', and seemingly either may be garbled. And course, knowing what I do of JS and Brigham's respective lives, I'll stay with the theologians, thank you
SteveH wrote: "This complete and utter negativity of man's condition is not present in Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, or Coptic theological traditions."
This is simply false. I submit to you Canons one through three of the Second Council of Orange 529, a church council that was deemed orthodox prior to the East/West schism of 1054.
Martin Luther, John Calvin, Ulrich Zwilgli, etc. were simply picking up on the historical Christian tradition that had been corrupted through medieval speculation. Thus while the Roman and Greek traditions may have returned to Pelagianism or semi-Pelagianism, to say that they never affirmed man's fallen state is simply false.
Lautensack
The scriptures cited in the original post show conditional terms to becoming "Children of God" ie Believing and Receiving the Savior. Spiritually begotten. I'm sure all of us would agree that Becoming the Children of God (Sons of Christ) occurs through the Atonement. That certainly does not prove that we did or did not exist as the "offspring of God" prior to this life.
(CONT)
The real issue here is the doctrine of antemortal existence of man. "Who sinned this man or his parents that he was born blind". John 9:2
Sons of God in existence before the foundation of the world Job 38:7
If Man existed before he came to earth, where did he come from?
Without the restoration scriptures issues such as these go unanswered, in my opinion.
P.S. just curious you mentioned "your prophet" in an earlier post. Who is that?
IntenseDebate Notification <DIV>The spirits that don't make human form are Lucifer and his angels:</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>
They arethe unclean spirits who called themselves Legion in Mark 5:8-9. Unclean because they followed Lucifer. They recognized Christ from the pre-existance.
They were cast out of heaven in Isaiah 14:12-15 and Rev 12:7-9.
</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV style=”FONT: 10pt arial”>
Notice Brigham Young said
BY Thinks himself into a lie, He did not search the Scriptures to know if these things are true, as ACTS 17:11. And the Bible does speak of Earthly human Wisdom, Which it seems BY was using. Rick b
I am willing to bet that BY would agree with you (I am sure to your surprise). In fact that is probably why he stated "My doctrine" to begin with. Having said that, unless anyone here is willing to say "Thus sayeth the Lord" then every comment on this blog is, or at least has a strong tendency, toward "philosophy of men…." The irony of the whole thing is if anyone has authority to speak for the Lord, it was BY in his time. If it was binding doctrine he would have said, "Thus sayeth the Lord". but he didn't. He is offering his opinion, but it makes much more sense to me than many of the comments I have heard here.
PS. All of God's doctrine is at some point the Doctrine of the Prophet who spoke. You have nothing in scripture where God himself penned His doctrine. He always speaks through prophets. Where do you draw the line?
Lautensack,
Thanks for looking up some of the historical foundation of our faith. It is amazing to basically see the faith of the reformers confirmed by this early Church council. This shows that the reformers were indeed just that, reformers, working to revitalize and "reform" true Christianity and free it from the false doctrines that always creep in. I especially find Canon 3 interesting – "it is grace itself which makes us pray to God." This confirms even more that the gospel centered on the redemptive power of God through Christ that the reformers preached was a truth that has been understood throughout the history of the Church. Man being a child of wrath and rebellion (NOT a child of God by nature) has been clearly understood by believers since Christ died and rose and the gospel was first proclaimed. God in his mercy has reached down and saved unworthy sinners and made us joint heirs with Christ, adopted sons and daughters.
Where is it ever stated in scripture that "God promised to keep His church from falling away," or that "He would keep the scriptures in pristine condition and all in one?" There is no such statement or promise. In fact, the apostasy was consistent with man's entire history. The opinion that God "preserved" scripture in whole and perfect form in just that- an opinion.
To say we have all the scripture God has given is an even bigger jump.
Germit,
As I stated in my post, "critics" of the LDS Church and its doctrines love to attack peripheral issues such as polygamy. It is understandable that President Hinckley was reluctant to respond to hypothetical questions regarding speculation on the nature and origin of God the Father. We really do not know much about that subject nor is it taught to any great degree in LDS chapels. Such matters are in the realm of speculation and conjecture and are at best peripheral to our main concern and focus which is the atonement of Jesus Christ.
It seems to me that "critics" of Mormonism are forever mired in the 19th century and are obsessed by their gross caricature of the LDS Church, its doctrines and its people. Such "critics" really do not know or wish to know the contemporary LDS Church.
Germit,
As I stated in my post, "critics" of the LDS Church and its doctrines love to attack peripheral issues such as polygamy. It is understandable that President Hinckley was reluctant to respond to hypothetical questions regarding speculation on the origin of God the Father. As President Hinckley stated, we really do not know much about that subject nor is it taught to any great degree in LDS chapels. Such matters are in the realm of speculation and conjecture and are at best peripheral to our main concern and focus which is the atonement of Jesus Christ.
It seems to me that "critics" of Mormonism are forever mired in the 19th century and are obsessed by their gross caricature of the LDS Church, its doctrines and its people. Such "critics" really do not know or wish to know the contemporary LDS Church.
Aaron,
I appreciate the writings of Blake Ostler and would enjoy the opportunity to discuss them further. However, that is getting off topic.
Which is exactly why the King Follett Discourse was again quoted from in the second chapter of the currently used church curriculum, Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, right? Because the correlation committee is still mired in the 19th century and is bent on caricaturing the Church?
Steve, I recommend reading the first few chapters of Odds Are, You're Going to Be Exalted: Evidence That the Plan of Salvation Works, by Alonzo L. Gaskill. You can still get it like I did at the BYU bookstore.
Soy,
If you draw the line at Hebrews 1, then why not end the book there. End of story. Everything that needs to be said or done is complete. Why the need for Peter, James, John, Revelation. If you accept those books, on what basis do you have to reject anything additional. If the prophets felt justified in continuing to produce scripture why not now?
Prophets are obedient to the core. The do what the Lord tells them. That is why scripture did not end at Hebrews 1. They were commanded to testify.
If the Lord spake unto you from heaven and commanded you to do something wouldn't you do it? "…I the Lord called upon my servant Joseph Smith, Jr. and spake unto him from heaven" D&C 1
4 And the voice of warning shall be unto all people, by the mouths of my disciples, whom I have chosen in these last days.
5 And they shall ago forth and none shall stay them, for I the Lord have commanded them.
GRCluff,
In Job, I think sons refers to the angelic hosts or heavenly beings. It's an idiom. I see no indication that they are the product of a sexual or some kind of natural copulative relationship between Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother.
In context, Jeremiah is referring to God's appointing and setting aside Jeremiah. As the Hebrew word for "know" is the same for "choose", this has to do with God's decree and foreordination and foreknowledge.
In Titus and 2 Timothy, again, it is referring to decree and foreknowledge. Paul's view of this is expounded more in parts of other letters, like Ephesians 1. Your usage of this passage is odd. Do you really think God literally gave us the atoning grace and forgiveness that Paul speaks of in some pre-existence spirit-child state? I wasn't aware you believed that you were a sinner in pre-mortality, already in need of sacrificial mercy from your Elder Brother?
The passage in Ecclesiastes is a manner of speaking, and more importantly I think it has to do with the OT emphasis that our inner-life is the result of God's sustaining "breath".
GRCluff,
In Job, I think sons refers to the angelic hosts or heavenly beings. It's an idiom. I see no indication that they are the product of a sexual relationship or some other kind of natural copulative relationship between Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother.
In context, Jeremiah is referring to God's appointing and setting aside Jeremiah. As the Hebrew word for "know" is the same for "choose", this has to do with God's decree and foreordination and foreknowledge.
In Titus and 2 Timothy, again, it is referring to decree and foreknowledge. Paul's view of this is expounded more in parts of other letters, like Ephesians 1. Your usage of this passage is odd. Do you really think God literally gave us the atoning grace and forgiveness that Paul speaks of in some pre-existence spirit-child state? I wasn't aware you believed that you were a sinner in pre-mortality, already in need of sacrificial mercy from your Elder Brother?
The passage in Ecclesiastes is a manner of speaking, and more importantly I think it has to do with the OT emphasis that our inner-life is the result of God's sustaining "breath".
GRCluff,
In Job, I think sons refers to the angelic hosts or heavenly beings. It's an idiom. I see no indication that they are the product of a sexual relationship or some other kind of natural copulative relationship between Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother.
In context, Jeremiah is referring to God's appointing and setting aside Jeremiah. As the Hebrew word for "know" is the same for "choose", this has to do with God's decree and foreordination and foreknowledge.
In Titus and 2 Timothy, again, it is referring to decree and foreknowledge. Paul's view of this is expounded more in parts of other letters, like Ephesians 1. Your usage of Paul is odd. Do you really think God literally gave us the atoning grace and forgiveness that Paul speaks of in some pre-existence spirit-child state? I wasn't aware you believed that you were a sinner in pre-mortality, already in need of sacrificial mercy from your Elder Brother?
The passage in Ecclesiastes is a manner of speaking, and more importantly I think it has to do with the OT emphasis that our inner-life is the result of God's sustaining "breath".
By calling it "utter depravity", you are intentionally using a phrase we use for an idea distinct from "total depravity. And since you have already been informed on this, it gives the impression you are being malevolent.
As for whether the historical context of the Council of Orange, remember that it follows the debates between Pelagius and Augustine. If you don't think that debate has anything to do with the doctrine of total depravity then you need to read some Augustinian and Pelagian literature (especially primary sources). Try "Confessions" for a start.
By calling it "utter depravity", you are intentionally using a phrase we use for an idea distinct from "total depravity. And since you have already been informed on this, it gives the impression you are being malevolent.
As for the historical context of the Council of Orange, remember that it follows the debates between Pelagius and Augustine. If you don't think that debate has anything to do with the doctrine of total depravity then you need to read some Augustinian and Pelagian literature (especially primary sources). Try "Confessions" for a start.
Job 38:7 has already been dealt with. John 9:2 doesn't help your cause, because Jesus didn't even affirm what they asked (whether or not the question echoed what you think it did).
Regarding early Jewish assumptions, George R. Beasley-Murray writes,
"The possibility of a child sinning before birth was discussed by the rabbis, not in respect of a pre-existent life (Wisd Sol 8:19-20 reflects Alexandrian, not Palestinian Judaism), but of life in the womb, Gen. 25:22, telling of the twins Jacob and Esau struggling in Rebecca’s womb, provoked some interesting explanations." (see more on this here)
Job 38:7 has already been dealt with. John 9:2 doesn't help your cause, because Jesus didn't even affirm what they asked (whether or not the question echoed what you think it did).
Regarding early Palestinian Jewish assumptions, George R. Beasley-Murray writes,
"The possibility of a child sinning before birth was discussed by the rabbis, not in respect of a pre-existent life (Wisd Sol 8:19-20 reflects Alexandrian, not Palestinian Judaism), but of life in the womb, Gen. 25:22, telling of the twins Jacob and Esau struggling in Rebecca’s womb, provoked some interesting explanations." (see more on this here)
FaithofFathers wrote: "Where is it ever stated in scripture that "God promised to keep His church from falling away," or that "He would keep the scriptures in pristine condition and all in one?" There is no such statement or promise."
Matthew 16:18 – And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Jesus seems to state that the gates of hell will never prevail against his church however if the church did cease to exist for roughly 1700 years then the Gates of Hell did prevail against the church for those 1700 years. So we either have to say that Jesus was a liar or the church did not fall away.
Ephesians 3:20-21 – Now to him who is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, according to the power at work within us, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever. Amen.
Here it is plain that Paul thought that the Father would be glorified in the church "throughout all generations, forever and ever." If the church failed and ceased to exist for roughly 1700 years then how exactly was God glorified in it?
Now the God's keeping of the scriptures could get into textual criticism which even Bart Ehrman says 99% of the textual variants don't make any difference at all. But I prefer using Scripture.
Psalm 12:6-7 The words of the LORD are pure words, like silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times. You, O LORD, will keep them; you will guard us from this generation forever.
Psalm 119:160 – The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever.
Isaiah 40:8 – The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever.
Matthew 24:35/Mark 13:31 – Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.
1 Peter 1:23-25 – since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God; for "All flesh is like grass and all its glory like the flower of grass. The grass withers, and the flower falls, but the word of the Lord remains forever." And this word is the good news that was preached to you.
The Psalmists, Isaiah, Jesus, and Peter all seemed to think that God's word would never pass away.
Now I will agree to say that the Bible is all the scripture God has given is an act of faith. However faith alone is not needed, Jesus makes it clear that the Pentateuch is all one needs to come to a saving faith.
Luke 16:29-31 But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.' And he said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.' He said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.'"
John 5:46 – For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me.
John also seems to believe his Gospel was enough to warrant true belief.
John 21:24 – This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true.
The problem comes when someone says they have new revelation that is contradictory to previous revelation, thus we test their prophecy by the formula given in Deuteronomy 13 and 18.
Lautensack
FaithofFathers wrote: "Where is it ever stated in scripture that "God promised to keep His church from falling away," or that "He would keep the scriptures in pristine condition and all in one?" There is no such statement or promise."
Matthew 16:18 – And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Jesus seems to state that the gates of hell will never prevail against his church however if the church did cease to exist for roughly 1700 years then the Gates of Hell did prevail against the church for those 1700 years. So we either have to say that Jesus was a liar or the church did not fall away.
Ephesians 3:20-21 – Now to him who is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, according to the power at work within us, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever. Amen.
Here it is plain to see that Paul thought that the Father would be glorified in the church "throughout all generations, forever and ever." If the church failed and ceased to exist for roughly 1700 years then how exactly was God glorified in it?
Now the God's keeping of the scriptures could get into textual criticism which even Bart Ehrman says 99% of the textual variants don't make any difference at all. But I prefer using Scripture.
Psalm 12:6-7 The words of the LORD are pure words, like silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times. You, O LORD, will keep them; you will guard us from this generation forever.
Psalm 119:160 – The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever.
Isaiah 40:8 – The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever.
Matthew 24:35/Mark 13:31 – Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.
1 Peter 1:23-25 – since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God; for "All flesh is like grass and all its glory like the flower of grass. The grass withers, and the flower falls, but the word of the Lord remains forever." And this word is the good news that was preached to you.
The Psalmists, Isaiah, Jesus, and Peter all seemed to think that God's word would never pass away.
Now I will agree to say that the Bible is all the scripture God has given is an act of faith. However faith alone is not needed, Jesus makes it clear that the Pentateuch is all one needs to come to a saving faith.
Luke 16:29-31 But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.' And he said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.' He said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.'"
John 5:46 – For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me.
John also seems to believe his Gospel was enough to warrant true belief.
John 21:24 – This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true.
The problem comes when someone says they have new revelation that is contradictory to previous revelation, thus we test their prophecy by the formula given in Deuteronomy 13 and 18.
Lautensack
AMEN to both points!
I draw the line with Hebrews 1:1-2 which says
1In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.
The prophets in the Bible prophesied about Christ and what he would do when he came. That was their purpose, to speak for him and prepare the world for His arrival. When Jesus came to the earth, there was no longer a need for them since He could speak to everyone directly and cut out the middle man. When it was time for Christ to leave this earth, He sent his apostles to teach the very things he taught them. God did not call another prophet because Jesus was the last prophet.
I do not believe that Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, or any other prophet after Christ, had or has the authority to speak for the Lord. The New Testament is full of warnings about false prophets who teach “another gospel”. I think this is a perfect example as to why all those warnings exist.
I’m sure if I looked, it would not be too hard to find a number of "Thus sayeth the Lord” statements from Mormon prophets that have since been reversed or explained away so by no means is that a definitive way to look for concrete doctrine in the LDS church today.
Aaron,
You are correct in that the proper terminology as originally espoused by Calvin should be "Total Depravity" and not "Utter Depravity". Nevertheless, it should be noted that the theological positions taken by the Reformist Protestants in the 16th century differ substantially from those promulgated in the 4th and 5th centuries by the early Roman Catholic Church.
As I stated previously there is a thousand year gap between the early Church Fathers (Augustine et. al.) and the Protestant reformers (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli etc.). Granted that Augustine discussed the theological notions of Original Sin and the nature of man but that does not mean that he was postulating the same notions of Jean Calvin whose idea of Total Depravity is considerably more austere than that of the early Catholic theologians. As an analogy, consider that of a spectrum concerning the nature of man where Calvin's views would be held at the extreme end of the spectrum.
Catholic theologians would strongly disagree with the assertion that Augustine and company were espousing the Calvinist notion of Total Depravity and would reject this appropriation of one of their foundational theologians by the Protestant movement. As I have stated a number of times Protestant theology is quite distinct from that of Roman Catholicism.
Again this thread seems to be drifting off Sharon's original topic which is concerned with the notion of mankind being the children of God. I guess that is a hazard of this "IntenseDebate" format where multiple threads can be debated simultaneously.
Aaron,
The point that I was making regarding President Hinckley's interview with Time Magazine (wherein the Lorenzo Snow couplet was brought up: "As Man is God once was, As God is Man may become") is that he was correct in stating that our knowledge of the origin of our Heavenly Father is very limited and that we do not dwell on the subject. Rather the focus of the LDS Church has always been and will always be on the Atonement of Jesus Christ.
To quote Joseph Smith:
"The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and arose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it."
The second chapter (out of 43) in the Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith is entitled God the Eternal Father and briefly quotes from the King Follett Discourse wherein it is asserted the Heavenly Father (like Jesus Christ) is an exalted man. This revealed truth stands in stark contrast to the ill-founded notion that God the Father is without "body, parts, or passions" and is some vengeful, amorphous galactic entity that fills the cosmos.
It is clear that the evangelical view of God is completely erroneous and at variance with Biblical descriptions of Heavenly Father provided by eyewitnesses such as Moses and other prophets.
Steve H,
I agree current catholic theologians would disagree with Augustine, Francis, some of Anselm. However since you insist total depravity was "made up" by John Calvin allow me to also add Canons 4 – 8 of the second council of Orange:
Lautensack
Heb 1:5 To which of the angels did (God) ever say, "You are my son, today I have begotten you"? And again, "I will be a Father to him and he shall be a son to me"?
This verse tells me that angels do not become men. Angels are totally different from humans, a completely different species and cannot substantiate from one species to another.
Steve H,
I agree current catholic theologians would disagree with Augustine, Francis, some of Anselm. However since you insist total depravity was "made up" by John Calvin allow me to also add Canons 4 – 8 of the second council of Orange:
The Doctrine of Total Depravity – 529AD
Lautensack
Cluff said The baptism of the Holy Ghost is a full immersion event when the Holy Spirit fills our hearts and our whole souls with testimony.
On the evangelical side, I sort of agree with this. Our re-birth as a Christian comes when the HS fills us with testimony that Jesus is the Christ. However, your statement bothers me. In LDS tradition, 8 yr olds are baptised and then through guys laying their hands on the child's head they receive the Holy Ghost. First of all, no one but the LORD can give someone the HS; secondly, if you truly believe your statement, then how can you know that an 8 yr old is ready to receive that? Baptism isn't magic. It's not a magical event where a bunch of guys channel their holiness and tell the HS to start dwelling in a child. Baptism is a symbol. It's a physical sign of what has ALREADY happened internally -we have died to our old selves and been reborn, raised to a new life in Christ. This is a decision that every person must make on their own, it should not automatically happen because one is a certain age and is subject to the influence of family and friends.
I guess my point is something along the lines of: that moment when the Spirit fills us and we know we are saved is so tremendous, how can we "force" that onto children so young?
Cluff said The baptism of the Holy Ghost is a full immersion event when the Holy Spirit fills our hearts and our whole souls with testimony.
On the evangelical side, I sort of agree with this. Our re-birth as a Christian comes when the HS fills us with testimony that Jesus is the Christ (to simplify it a bit). However, your statement bothers me. In LDS tradition, 8 yr olds are baptised and then through guys laying their hands on the child's head they receive the Holy Ghost. First of all, no one but the LORD can give someone the HS; secondly, if you truly believe your statement, then how can you know that an 8 yr old is ready to receive that? Baptism isn't magic. It's not a magical event where a bunch of guys channel their holiness and tell the HS to start dwelling in a child. Baptism is a symbol. It's a physical sign of what has ALREADY happened internally -we have died to our old selves and been reborn, raised to a new life in Christ. This is a decision that every person must make on their own, it should not automatically happen because one is a certain age and is subject to the influence of family and friends.
I guess my point is something along the lines of: that moment when the Spirit fills us and we know we are saved is so tremendous, how can we "force" that onto children so young?
Which is exactly why the King Follett Discourse was again quoted from in the second chapter of the currently used church curriculum, Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, right? Because the correlation committee is still mired in the 19th century and is bent on caricaturing the Church, and loves delving into speculation and conjecture?
Steve, I recommend reading the first few chapters of Odds Are, You're Going to Be Exalted: Evidence That the Plan of Salvation Works, by Alonzo L. Gaskill. You can still get it like I did at the BYU bookstore. It's yet more evidence that your institution's teachings have a real adverse affect on people's view of God.
Lautebsack,
Doctrines of Predestination, Utter Depravity, Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, etc. are clear and distinct doctrines of the Protestant Reformation and are the domain of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli et al. Most Biblical scholars (Catholic or Protestant) would take strong exception to your assertion that the Canons of the Second Council of Orange of 529 are in anyway related to Jean Calvin's doctrine of Utter Depravity. There is a thousand year interlude between the two.
The fact of the matter is that Protestant theology differs substantially from that of Roman Catholicism or that of the Greek Orthodox church.
GRCluff,
In Job 38:4 I think you're getting the message backwards. It is a rhetorical question. It is significant because you weren't around.
In Job 38:7, I think "sons" refers to the angelic hosts or awesome heavenly beings (you could even call them "gods" in a lesser sense). It's an idiom. I see no indication that they are the product of a sexual relationship or some other kind of natural copulative relationship between Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother.
In context, Jeremiah is referring to God's appointing and setting aside Jeremiah. As the Hebrew word for "know" is the same for "choose", this has to do with God's decree and foreordination and foreknowledge.
In Titus and 2 Timothy, again, it is referring to decree and foreknowledge. Paul's view of this is expounded more in parts of other letters, like Ephesians 1. Your usage of Paul is odd. Do you really think God literally gave us (the "elect" in Titus 1:1) the atoning grace and forgiveness that Paul speaks of in some pre-existence spirit-child state? I wasn't aware you believed that you were a sinner in pre-mortality, already in need of sacrificial mercy from your Elder Brother?
The passage in Ecclesiastes is a manner of speaking, and more importantly I think it has to do with the OT emphasis that our inner-life is the result of God's sustaining "breath".
I ask the Mormons here, what do you do with the clear and consistent theme in the Gospel of John of Jesus as the uniquely preexisting one? John the Baptist testified, "After me comes a man who ranks before me, because he was before me." (1:30) In 1:1 it is notable that the Word was "in the beginning" with God. In 1:18 we hear, "No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." In 3:13 we hear, "No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man." In 6:38 we hear, "For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me." In chapter 8 Jesus is almost stoned for claiming to have pre-existed Abraham. And of course, Jesus is referred to as the only begotten Son, but there is no indication that all humans are in any sexual or copulative spirit-baby sense begotten sons and daughters of God. Jesus prays in 17:5, "Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed."
Worshiping the uniquely pre-existent Son of God,
Aaron
Job 38:7 has already been dealt with. John 9:2 doesn't help your cause, because Jesus didn't even affirm what they asked (whether or not the question echoed what you think it did).
Regarding early Palestinian Jewish assumptions, George R. Beasley-Murray writes,
"The possibility of a child sinning before birth was discussed by the rabbis, not in respect of a pre-existent life (Wisd Sol 8:19-20 reflects Alexandrian, not Palestinian Judaism), but of life in the womb, Gen. 25:22, telling of the twins Jacob and Esau struggling in Rebecca’s womb, provoked some interesting explanations." (see more on this here)
Grace and peace,
Aaron
Those who take Hebrews 12:9 to support the notion of us all being natural children of God via a sexual union between Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother should read the preceding two verses (7-8),
"It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline? If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons."
If we take verse 9 as woodenly as Mormonism insists, then we have to assume according to 7-8 there are people here on earth who are illegitimate children of God, who are "not sons". How would that work? Would they be the result of an adulterous affair of the Mormon Heavenly Mother, or would they simply come from another Father-Mother union unknown to us?
I would say angels become men, because that is what spirits do–that is the nature of life.
Here is a biblical definition of angels, since you asked. It seems to fit my definition a little better than yours.
Heb 1:13
But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?
14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?
Like I said. A spirit is the offspring of God, not yet born or still not resurrected from the dead. The ONLY difference between a spirit and an angel is the power and authority from God. They minister to mankind on assignment from God.
The fact that Satan has power to mimic their appearance doesn't mean they don't exist, or that God has changed his means to minister to mankind.
The only reason you don't have more experience with these things is –God restored the keys of the ministering of angels to Joseph Smith, not to biblical scholars. You really need the power of the restored priesthood to participate.
Why can I only post very short comments? I am afraid I am not using this sytems correctly.
Try pushing the up and down arrows, sometimes that'll help the comment box expand. Otherwise, write your comment in wordpad or textpad, and then paste it into the comment box and click "submit comment". Sorry for any confusion.
Not to be too pointed but it is difficult enough to attempt to educate evangelicals about the basics of LDS doctrine – but is it really necessary to instruct you about the basics of Protestant and Catholic theology?
Notwithstanding that these passages touch upon such topics as Grace and the wickedness of men, as any Catholic or Protestant scholar would affirm, the canons from the Second Council of Orange of 529 AD that you have cited do not resemble or correspond to the Doctrine of Total Depravity as originally formulated by Jean Calvin in the 16th century. The Doctrine of Total Depravity is really far more bleak than anything postulated by the Council of Orange.
You would certainly benefit from investigating the writings of Jean Calvin and studying the history of Christian theology.
I don't get your insistence that Calvin is radically different from the historical Council of Orange presented here. I have read Calvin, now I am familiar with these Canons issued at this council. I see no disagreement between them. Actually, I find them very affirming of one another. Your insistence that there is some bleakness in Calvin's view of man's inability to save himself that is not also affirmed in this early Church council seems completely off base to me. I get the same meaning out of both – it does show that the reformers were getting back to the historical Biblical roots of the Church and salvation through and by Christ alone – with man being completely without hope or ability to save himself apart from Christ's sacrifice on the cross and the Holy Spirit drawing us to God. Calvin is full of hope – hope and joy in Christ, not man.
SteveH,
I do have to wonder if we are speaking of the same John Calvin, the 16th Century French Theologian who took up residence in Geneva? He also wrote the Institutes of the Christian Religion, because if that is not the John Calvin you were referring to then I can see our disconnect.
However if this is the Jean Calvin you are referring to I suggest you look up his work The Bondage and Liberation of the Will where he cites this Council extensively against Roman theologians who rejected the total depravity of man. Maybe I am not understanding what you think the Doctrine of Total Depravity is. Since you have already confused total and utter it seems as though you don't understand the position. Perhaps if you give your understanding of Calvin's view total depravity we might be able to see where it differs from the council's and perhaps Calvin's own understanding.
Now I will agree that the Council of Orange didn't use language such as "Total Depravity" "Total Inability" "Bondage of the Will" however if you don't see those concepts being taught in the council then how do you understand the Canons taught there?
Lautensack
God did promise in the scriptures that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church. And I believe the Church universal, the redeemed of Christ, has been here on earth since Christ established the Church. God revealed His word in time and space, in real places to real people with the intent that it would serve to point people to Christ crucified – that's essentially the whole message and intent of the Bible – God's redemption of man. If God established His Church, and the Bible, it makes sense He would preserve it as He promised. Otherwise why bother? If God did not preserve His word it might as well be immediately consumed in a house fire after being written down – what's the point?
Since God is in sovereign control of everything, one would have to question why would He establish His Church only to have it snuffed out before it really began, so He could restore it in upstate New York almost 2 thousand years later with a book about a people never mentioned before in any scripture? It seems odd that the Book of Mormon seems to know about the land of Israel, but the Bible knows nothing of the land of the Nephites and Lamanites. Archeologists know nothing of these people either.
Mo
I need some definitions. Church=redeemed of Christ? Does that encompass any specific entity (ie Catholic or universal). How does one reconcile the fact that having access to the scriptures did not exist for over 1500 years after Christ?How would one come to the knowledge of Christ if they did not have the scriptures. And if God was in control why would he let access to the Word be "snuffed out" for centuries only to enable that in our time with the printing press? Doesn't that seem odd to you? Seems no different than the Restoration.
Aaron, many congratulations to you and your family
You are placing limits on God, saying he must procreate like mankind, using sexual means. Those limits have never been part of Mormon Doctrine.
To make that point, you can reference the PoGP:
Abr 3:22 Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones;
Note the word used is "organized" not born. Is that not what happens on earth when we have children. The child is "organized" in the womb.
You can also note that these "intelligences" were NOT created beings, but rather "organized" from intelligence to spirit form, then when born, from spirit to flesh. On resurrection we have all 3, intelligence which was NOT created, spirit which God organized in the pre-existance, and birth which organized our flesh.
You are placing limits on God, saying he must procreate like mankind, using sexual means. Those limits have never been part of Mormon Doctrine.
To make that point, you can reference the PoGP:
Abr 3:22 Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones;
Note the word used is "organized" not born. Is that not what happens on earth when we have children. The child is "organized" in the womb.
You can also note that these "intelligences" were NOT created beings, but rather "organized" from intelligence to spirit form, then when born, from spirit to flesh. On resurrection we have all 3, intelligence which was NOT created, spirit which God organized in the pre-existance, and birth which organized our flesh.
Here's a new angle: We can change our forefathers.
Going in the right direction…"You are [Sarah's] daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear." 1 Peter 3:6 (NIV)
Going in the wrong direction…"Abraham is our father," they answered. "If you were Abraham's children," said Jesus, "then you would do the things Abraham did. …You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies." John 8:39-44.
So, the issue of us being sons of God is less about our ancestry and more about which house we choose to live in. Its certainly not about the pre-existence of human souls before our earthly birth.
In our 21st Century culture, we miss the impact of the Bible's revolutionary teaching on this matter. In Biblical times, and in current cultures such as Hindu society, if you were born into a certain house, that was your lot. Your fortunes rose and fell with the fortunes of your house. The Christian Gospel turns this over by saying that we can be born again into a new house -into the house of God. No wonder the BJP in India (which wants to maintain the status quo) takes such offense at the Dalits converting to Christianity and, by so doing, extracating themselves from a live of predestined servitude.
If you want to 'translate' sons of God correctly, you don't need to get into fanciful speculations; just compare the phrase to our modern perjorative 'son of a b*#!'. Someone will call someone else this because of his (or her) offensive behaviour. According the Matt 5, people will be called 'sons of God' because of their peace-making efforts, though perhaps the term might not be used today in the same sense.
I don't see why this is such a hard concept to grasp. The LIVING word of God trump all else. That is Biblical.. Prophets change thing as they are commanded by God. Moses receives the Law. Change. God commands to kill the Midianites, contrary to the Law just given. Change. Abraham offering his son as a sacrifice (shows the extreme of what a prophet is WILLING to do if God commands.
The whole Sermon of the Mount is a "It doesn't matter what the old prophets have said" discourse
21 ¶ Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be cin danger of the judgment:
22 But I say unto you…
Prophets are the only ones authorized to interept other prophetic teachings. The message is clear and firm. What that prophet said was right during his time. Now this is what God is saying….ie But I say unto you… Is that not the entire OT and NT pattern?
DOF –
The universal Church are those whom God has called and are children of God, accepting Christ's sacrifice on the cross. Christ took my sins and unrighteousness upon Himself on the cross, and clothed me in His righteousness. He paid the price for my sins – a price I don't even have the ability to pay. True followers of Christ have been called Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, Reformed, Catholic, etc., etc. Those who are not (or not yet) redeemed have also been and are presently in these communities of believers as well- the wheat and tares growing together.
Copies of the Bible existed before the printing press. People would memorize sections of scripture and scripture was used to formulate catechism and teaching. If you look at the Council of Orange referenced on this blog you will see how scripture informed the beliefs and teaching of early Christians – they were not ignorant of the Bible. I have heard some of the songs they would teach, so that people could memorize scripture and learn God's truth well before the printing press. Certainly today in the Western world, we will be accountable to God much more for searching the scriptures and making sure what we are taught is Biblical than they were in ancient times, since we have easy access to the Bible – written and spoken.
Doing two things at once (nulti-tasking to work off the turkey…)
I've had a hard time getting my posts to go thru so I'm checking that and 2) wanted to give LAUTENSACK a big shout out for doing a LOT of heavy lifting with his posts the last two months or so. Lautensack: I will make it a point over the next month or so to REREAD your posts: your HISTORY and THEOLOGY are first rate. thot I'd pass that along……now to see if this new system let's this entry fly DaveyMike: I like your blog also: this should be the best holiday……make that HOLY-day season ever, praise God for all He has done. GERMIT
I don't want to distract from Lautensack's response, but I too have some confusion. Are you saying that Jesus was not created but was organized? What's the difference?
DOF, actually, people did have access to the scriptures. Don't forget how long it took and how expensive it was to create the Bible back then. The Catholic church would provide free access to the scriptures at the local churches. People could indeed go read it there. Of course, it was typical that they were written in Latin, which is another reason to not have everyone have a copy. But even with that, the clergy would help others understand what was written.
While I grant there were some problems inherent in the access in comparison to today, but to say the word was "snuffed out" is a gross overstatement.
GRCluff,
Could you explain this in a bit more detail providing Prophetic interpretations of that text, because the way you express it it seems as though you are explaining a form of platonic theistic evolution on an epic scale. I don't think that is what you are going for, so please help me understand this better. Also are you asserting that God not actually our actual father, who fathered us the same way mortal men father children, that is by sexual, though perhaps spiritual, reproduction?
Lautensack
GRCluff,
Could you explain this in a bit more detail providing Prophetic interpretations of that text, because the way you express it it seems as though you are explaining a form of platonic theistic evolution on an epic scale. I don't think that is what you are going for, so please help me understand this better. Also are you asserting that God not actually our actual father, who fathered us the same way mortal men father children, that is by sexual reproduction, though perhaps spiritual in nature rather than physical?
Lautensack
GRCluff,
Could you explain this in a bit more detail providing Prophetic interpretations of that text, because the way you express it it seems as though you are explaining a form of platonic theistic evolution on an epic scale. I don't think that is what you are going for, so please help me understand this better. Also are you asserting that God not actually our actual father, who fathered us the same way mortal men father children, that is by sexual reproduction, though perhaps in a spiritual sense rather than physical one?
Lautensack
The lie that many endorse is that Christ was a created being. That is NOT what Mormonism teaches. He was organized by God from a pre-existing intelligence. Many evangelicals would reduce him (God) back to his form as intelligence only. I don't think he will go for that.
Each form is progression. Each estate is an improvement on our prior condition.
GR, call me dumb, but there are still loads of unanswered questions. And forgive me for the rough analogy here, but somehow reading through your explanations, I get the image of a group of school kids picking teams to play kickball. "Organized" is still a very rough word for me in this context, and it doesn't make sense. It is rough because what you are saying is that we are all here to begin with, and somehow we are chosen to recieve earthly bodies, or something like that. Jesus was somehow chosen above us all to be organized into a god. And if I understand the premise of your theology closely enough, we all can get organized in the same way, then.
How far am I off?
You may be interested in part of the answer as well:
Answer: First let us consider the question of intelligences. There are many things that the Lord, for a wise purpose, has not revealed to mortal man, evidently because in mortality man is unable to comprehend them. In The Progress of Man, by Joseph Fielding Smith, page eleven, the following is quoted:
"Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created nor made, neither indeed can be. . . . For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy; and when separated, man cannot receive a fulness of joy." [D. & C. 93:29, 33-34.]
So you are espousing a form of Platonic semi-Theistic Evolution. So if we are as eternal as Elohim, how is Elohim literally our father if he didn't actually create us? Wouldn't he be more like Dr. Frankenstein putting us together in his divine test tubes from a little bit of intelligences mixed with a little bit of spirit matter?
Also if all spirits were intelligences from eternity past how did any of the intelligences become intelligent enough to progress to manhood then godhood without a prior god helping him? Are we basically the stupid intelligences since it has taken us this long to evolve and we've yet to even progress past manhood?
Lautensack
Still seems a bit confusing. Sounds like a gap filler.
I'll be honest, the idea that we are created beings seems much more consistent with a just God. God created us all to commune with him, and because he loved us. However, due to Adams falling, we can choose to reject him. When we accept him, though, he adopts us back into his family, and we are free. It is not a matter of who does what or marries whom as to who decides gets to the greatest of heavens or to be organized into the next god. It is simply a matter of seeing God for who he really is, and giving everything we have to him. God created us, and thus everything we have and everthing that we are are all his. Thus God admisters his justice when we acknowledge this and our reward is to be reunited, in all its glory, to him who created us.
Lautensack: God bless you, you unintentionally crack me up. You are applying your solid, rational senses to an idea that JS cooked up after a bad lunch, or a fitfull sleepless night. Godpseed in making a lick of sense from this, you get the wreath of olive for even trying. I watch with bemused interest. I dig mythology. GERMIT
Just curious of the other LDS out there see this cosmology of intelligence the same way as Cluff. I'm interested in knowing if there is anything approaching an LDS consensus, or if it's 'every man/woman for themselves ' in this issue. thanks GERMIT
I will provide a reference from Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, 5 vols. [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1957-1966], 4: 126.)
The question asked was:
Question: "Within the Church we are taught that there was life before mortality and that there will be a life hereafter. Also that before we were spirits we were 'intelligences.' The scriptures declare that we are also 'begotten sons and daughters unto God in the spirit (D. & C. 76:24), and Paul speaking to the Greeks declared that we are the 'offspring of God' and ought not to think of the Godhead as gold, silver, or stone graven by the art of man's device. We are also told that intelligences have always existed and can neither be created nor destroyed.
The question itself should tell you what Mormons believe on the subject. If the intelligence of men is not created, then how can God be a created being? Are we more eternal than He?
I was hoping my quote from JFS could begin to address these kind of questions:
There are many things that the Lord, for a wise purpose, has not revealed to mortal man, evidently because in mortality man is unable to comprehend them.
You could ask me the same question about my sons. (I have 3) It would go like this:
If you and your wife did not create your sons, but merely organized a physical body for a pre-existent spirit, how are you the literal father of your children?
Do you see the flaw in the question? Is it the same question found in Heb 12:9? You are ignoring the dual nature of mankind.
When Christ created the world, did He create something out of nothing, or did he merely organize matter that was already here into useful form?
The same concept?
God created the world out of nothing.
Does that help see where our confusion comes from when you see that we do not share your assumption about 'organizing'?
The question, then, is was there a literal creation or not?
I knew someone was going to say that- just for the record, where is your Bible reference?
IF God did create the world from existing matter, it helps explain the dinosaur bones–
Please, lets not start a discussion on evolution. We already have enough meat on the table.
Funny, you do not provide one yourself, and the dinosaurs have nothing to do with it.
And you are familiar with the creation story in Genesis, aren't you?
It starts out with this senance: "1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
GRCluff,
I agree there are somethings that we do not know, "the secret things belong to the LORD our God" and while "It is the glory of God to conceal things," it is "the glory of kings is to search things out."
Your first question assumes a Mormon cosmology, and if such were we should say that my wife and I would simply simply be surrogates for our actual parents, birthing our brother or sister. However I would not be such a person's literal father, though I may take a fatherly role while on earth.
As for God being the father of our spirits in Hebrews 12:9 we must first understand that the writer is writing to people already born again from above (John 3:1-8) people that have been adopted by the Father (Rom 8:15; Eph 1:5)
I'm not sure if your last two questions are linked, but if they are then I must state that creating out of nothing and organizing matter are not the same thing. If you were trying to ask something else would you please be more specific.
You still have yet to even attempt to explain the first god's evolution without the aid of another god, which is a key, if not the key, concept in the question of origins.
Lautensack
GRCluff,
While it's good to know my jade can't become a god in its next life and kill me for letting it die, you still haven't addressed the literal fatherhood of Elohim, nor have you even made an attempt at how the first "higher intelligence" evolved into a spirit, angel/man, god.
Thus the two questions from my previous post remain unanswered, I'll try to restate them in layman's terms, mainly – If God did not create us and merely organized us how is he our literal father? And, How was the first god organized without the help of a prior god?
Also how can "every good and perfect gift come down from the Father of lights" if the Father of lights has to go searching the universe to find the good gifts?
Lautensack
This is just a layman's concept, but here's how I see it.
God, being the giver of all good gifts, searches the heavens and stars for intelligence. When he finds some, he gives it spirit matter, identity and form. Lesser (or stupid) intelligences become plants and animals. I think you passed that judgement. Higher intelligences become human spirits. The highest intelligence becomes God (like Christ did) or angels to a God(who become prophets like Noah or Abraham)
All, animals, plants, spirits, angels, and yes even God (in Christ Jesus) come to earth to take their spirit entity to the next level. They take on matter.
Those with potential capacity to eventually become like God are given free agency, then tested to see what they do with it.
Thats where we are now, in the test. If your intelligence didn't have the capacity to become like God you would have been born a monkey. Only a portion of us born as humans will still be reaching for that goal after judgement.
Christ made it before he was even born, but he was the only one.
Lautensack asked:
You still have yet to even attempt to explain the first god's evolution without the aid of another god, which is a key, if not the key, concept in the question of origins.
Can I consider questions that I have an idea on first? This one has me stumped. Another chicken and the egg question.
Christ became God before taking on flesh. Does that put him ahead of the curve a little? He is equal with God the father now. At what point did he get there? Was he always equal? What did spirit and physical form add to his being? Those are the questions we will need to answer first. All I can tell you is that God the Father, Elohim, has a body of flesh and bone. He has both spirit matter and flesh, as does Christ, since the first Easter.
Actually I was. But did you know that the plural you like to think is plural is also understood to be the name of the singular God? Of course, but that doesn't matter, and ultimately that is a distraction.
Funny also how in your verse, I see the idea that "All things were made by him; and without him not anything made that was made." Sure sounds to me like he made everything.
But let me pause for a second, do you think we beleive that Jesus was made? If so, think about who we think Jesus is, and your last comment will purty well describe our thoughts, especially that line about Jesus was God.
Oh well.
DOF –
I need clarify one thing from my last post – those who are redeemed are the universal "invisible" Church of God. However, that's not all the story. We also need to be part of the local church – and those can be true or false Churches as well – just like some believers are not wheat but tares, some "churches" are not preaching the gospel (sin and redemption through Christ crucified, not by man or self effort) or they may not be administering the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper – God's special means of grace. Can someone be a true believer and be part of a Church that is not truly following God, or not perfect – absolutely! But everyone should search the scriptures to make sure the faith/teachings of their body of believers is actually preaching and teaching the truth – if not, find a body of believers where the truth is taught. I know people in Church who came to trust in Christ while in a Church that has many false beliefs, God continued to work with them as their eyes were opened by reading the Bible.
Hey Laut, I think the term Neo-Calvinist refers to someone with a predeliction to address theology in terms of abstract principles, much like Calvin did in his Institutes of Religion.
I've posted this before, but I actually like Calvinism as a systematic theology. My problem with it is that, with the exception of the Epistles, the Bible presents its theology not as a system of abstract principles, but as story and metaphor.
I would even agree, in part, with LDS criticism of Neo-Calvinism to the extent that the rigid application of this systematic, abstract theology breaks down when it is applied too rigidly to the text.
The term "Sons of God" is a case in point. A quick survey of the Bible will show that the term can have different connotations, according to context, though, in broad terms, a "Son of God" is a person who represents the divine.
In one sense, we are all sons of God because, being made in God's image, we are his representatives in the created order (Gen 1:27). Of course we don't all fulfil the reason why we were created, but our failure doesn't change the ultimate intent and purpose of our lives.
A possible example of where the abstract principle Neo-Calvinist approach breaks down is Gen 6:4. We could get into some speculative arrangements concerning angels, though I prefer to think that the writer is referring to the "superheroes" of mid-eastern mythologies. I hasten to acknowledge that my speculation is as tenuous as any else's on this matter.
Curiously, the group that most used the term "Son of God" (and its cognates) in the Gospels was the demons (Matt 4:3, Matt 8:29 etc). They seemed to acknowledge that they were dealing with someone of high authority, though they had no capability of submitting to it. This title was used previously of 'secular rulers', for example the recently discovered Temple in Ceasaria Phillipi bore the inscription "Tiberias, Son of God", which provides an important backdrop to Jesus' discussion in Matt 16:13-16. To the demons, then, the term carried the connotation of someone who had come to them to 'clean house' and, to them, the announcement of the arrival of the Son of God was an announcement that the party was over.
In speaking of himself, Jesus uses the term "Son of Man" most often (Matt 17:22, Mark 2:28 etc), which, I think., speaks of his role as mediator of the New Covenant between God and man.
Do we need to become Sons of God? Yes! We need to step into the role for which we were created.
My advice to Neo-Calvinists is to stick with the theology, but allow some room to interpret the Bible as story and metaphor, with its literary devices and idioms. After all, that is how God has presented it to us in the first place.
DOF wrote "Prophets are obedient to the core"
….so what do we make of a man who had 30+ wives (see LDS records), lied about his ability to translate ancient documents (see Book of Abraham), gave his followers instructions that he didn't follow himself (drinking of coffee and liquor), spent his youth scrying for gold and got himself killed in a gunfight at Carthage Jail?…
…or John Taylor lying about his polygamy…
…or Brigham Young and the Adam-God theory…
…or the revisions to BOM, D&C, and core doctrine…
Whatever you think these prophets were obedient to, the evidence is that they were obedient only unto themselves. The funny thing is that they weren't even obedient to each other.
No wonder that D&C speaks of Joseph Smith and his followers; he fabricated it to give himself the credentials he wanted.
Martin J,
I guess I am simply wondering what the difference between a Neo-Calvinist and a Calvinist is if there is any since you seemed to suggest that Calvin himself would fall into the category of Neo-Calvinist.
Also you say you like Calvinism as a Systematic Theology, does this mean you don't like it as a Biblical Theology, an Exegetical Theology, Pastoral Theology, Apologetic Theology, Practical, Historic Theology, or Philosophical Theology? I assumed that all these were interwoven such that each affected the other. Henri Blocher is a French Reformed Baptist who does excellent work in the field of biblical theology. Geerhardus Vos was also a biblical theologian who put to words the distinction between it and systematics. (His Line-Circle analogy.) However if we were able to ask John Calvin, Thomas Aquinas, Anselm of Canterbury, Augustine of Hippo et cetera, if they were engaging in biblical, pastoral, practical, apologetic, exegetical, philosophical, or systematic theology I'm betting we'd get some blank stares followed by something a bit like this, "I'm just trying to make sense of the bible" as such distinctions are products of the enlightenment.
Lautensack
Were you aware that the word God in that verse (Genesis) in the original Hebrew has a plural interpretation? It literally means Gods (plural).
My reference would be the first chapter of John.
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Just replace Word with Jesus and it works for me.
Neo-Calvinist is commonly defined in Reformed circles as the new Calvinism of Abraham Kuyper and his followers in the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands. Centering on a new definition of common and particular grace It has more to do with how and why a Christian interacts with the world and does not have anything to do with a "predilection to address theology in terms of abstract principles." Critics of Kuyper claim that his theology has resulted in an over emphasis on culture and engaging the world at the expense of the salvation (particularly regeneration and sanctification).
SteveH, Thank you for educating me concerning Protestant theology, but there are a few details that you seemed to have missed. The doctrine of total depravity comes from the Synod of Dort (1618-19) after Calvins death. Calvin did teach about the Fall of Adam and its effect on man (Institutes in Book 1 Chapter 15 and Book 2 Chapters 1-4.) Calvin credits Augustin on the subject (2.3.5) Dr Horton points out that Calvin was "simply echoing Erasmus, Lefevre, Valla…"
A reading of Calvin will show that he had a higher view of man after the fall than many of the first generation Reformers, particularly Luther. Calvin held that God's image was not "totally annihilated" but was corrupted (1.15.4). Luther taught that man no longer held the image of God.
While you may call Calvin's teaching bleak I would point out the following quote from Calvin "…We cannot have a clear and complete knowledge of God unless it is accompanied by a corresponding knowledge of ourselves." The fact is that Total Depravity has a cure. As J. Gresham Machen put it, "Thank God for the righteousness of Christ. No hope without it."
Fair enough, maybe I should have used the term "doctrinaire".