[poll id=”2″]
Read the question carefully. Hopefully we can deal with the spirit of the question instead of appealing to rhetorical loopholes?
Update (8:43am): This is not an anonymous poll (I can see the logs). Be prepared to explain your position!
2nd Update (10:50am): To clear up some apparent confusion, let me clarify. The question assumes that you believe that some kind of formal church membership should be practiced which at least requires agreeing to a basic set of beliefs. Also, not being formal “member” doesn’t mean you can’t attend a church and benefit from its preaching, teaching, etc.
See also: GodNeverSinned.com
faithoffathers, since you voted “yes”, please elaborate for us. Do you realize the implications of what you’ve voted? A member who privately admits to his bishop that he believes God was either possibly or probably a sinner, or that we “can’t really know”, should lose his membership if he sticks with his position (or lack thereof). A lot of Mormons by that standard would be excommunicated, including BYU professors like Robert Millet and Alonzo Gaskill.
Excommunication doesn’t happen because a member of the church questions a doctrine or admits that he believes God possibly was a sinner during his earthly experience. Your question is obviously posed to point out a misconception of the LDS faith. Yes, we believe that God the Father went through a mortal state as we are going through. We know much about that mortal state. Sure, BYU professors/JS/etc. have said things, but the fact is… we don’t know much of anything about his mortal existence (pre – our earth). So to ask the question “Should it be required to believe… in order to join and continue in membership?”…intersting. FIsrt of all, most of the discussions I’ve had on this website with the non-mormon crowd say that it doesn’t matter what Church you’re a part of, as long as you’re christian (whoops, I’ll capitalize that for Andrea) Christian. So the fact that many evangelicals are voting that certain beliefs should be required to maintain membership in a church is a bit confusing to me. I thought all you had to do was say “I believe” and then it would all be well? Who cares if you believe in anything else, don’t you just have to profess your faith… and say I believe? If there are other “requirements” now for believing…please share with me. This one in particular… is it “required” to believe in the sinlessness of God (pre – our earth) to participate in an evangelical church? And please be specific on which churches require it, and which don’t. My follow up question would then be this… is it “required” to believe in the sinlessness of God(pre – our earth) to be saved? And finally, is your salvation dependent on having membership in a church? These questions I ask of the Evangelicals who voted “Yes”.
Just for the record, I voted “No”. I believe that our church leaders are cogniscent of different thoughts and beliefs, and aren’t going to force action if someone has questions, doubts or misunderstandings. That would be silly and hasty
I would like to see the “evangelicals” explanation as to why they answered the way they did, and also some responses to the questions I posed. These explanations will help me understand your thoughts on Faith, Grace, Works, and the nature of God, as these things have always been a point of confusion for me in all religions. (confusion – why do we have so many different religions that say so many different things about these basic principles? And i don’t just mean Christian churches… I mean all churches. And I know the devil has something to do with it, so those types of answers won’t enlighten me.) I appreciate your assistance in helping me understand.
Hate to burn a post on this- wouldn’t it be great if we had more posts. That might result in more complete discusssions- maybe not.
I should have read more carefully. I don’t think somebody should be excommunicated for believing such a thing either. But I don’t know anybody that does, and I have never heard it even suggested other than by LDS critics claiming we believe such a thing. What I have heard and read is that the Father did pass through a mortal experience, but that it was similar to the Savior’s “mortal” experience. “Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.” John 5:19.
I personally believe it is totally inappropriate to suggest that God was once a sinner, and I think other LDS would agree. But excommunication is a bit drastic. I don’t think Robert Millet or Alonzo Gaskill have suggested this concept- correct me if I’m wrong.
More posts! More posts!
I would be the first to admit that Mormonism doesn’t have an official institutional position on whether God the Father was a sinner in a past mortal experience. That’s the problem.
It isn’t always a dichotomy, i.e. professors like Millet have publicly stated that we “don’t know” if God was a sinner in the past.
Not even professing your belief saves you. It is faith “apart from works” that justifies an ungodly person who has stopped trying to work to qualify for God’s approval or forgiveness (Romans 4:4-8). But that faith does have content. It is not a faith in Baal, or Zeus, or Ahman, but of the God of the Bible who has an identity. He is the great I AM. If you call him Jehovah but give him the description of the God of Baal, Zeus, or Ahman, you don’t know him. In the ultimate sense,, it isn’t faith that saves. It is God who saves, and he decided to do it by faith alone, but that faith is not divorced from a knowledge of who God really is.
The standard Christian position is also that obedience, fruit, holiness, etc. will evidence the reality of saving faith. So works are not necessary as a means to prove ourselves worthy or meritorious of eternal life or forgiveness, but they are necessary to vindicate the reality of saving faith.
But with that said, let me warn all: this thread is not about the larger faith/grace/works/ issue. Be careful of expanding the conversation so large as to distract from the original post/poll.
All evangelical statements of faith that I know of either explicitly state or implicitly assume the eternality of God, and in the context of traditional theism (which encompasses traditional Christianity) eternality means that God was always fully God in the eternal past, was never less than fully holy, sinless, etc.
Yes, absolutely, or you don’t know who God really is. I can’t conceive of any exceptions to this. If you have encountered the God of Israel and the eyes of your heart have seen him for who he really is, and if you humble yourself before Him, you will shudder to even suggest God could have been a sinner. And, by the Holy Spirit, you will feel spiritually alienated from those who say they believe God either was probably a sinner, possibly a sinner, or who say that God never sinned but that it “doesn’t matter” or “doesn’t pertain” to a vibrant relationship with God.
Absolutely everyone saved (which in our worldview is equivalent to “absolutely everyone who is a true Christian”) is a member of the universal, organic church of Christ. Simply believing in the simple gospel of the free gift of eternal life with a humbled, surrendered, and trusting heart makes you a member of that church. Local churches are expressions of the “universal church”. You can be saved and not be in a local church, and you can be in a local church and not be saved. I personally think all Christians should formally join a local church, but that to me is secondary to the more important issue of being a functional member (in one sense, to be a member is to be plugged in to an organic body) who participates in fellowship with other believers. This could be an informal house fellowship or a “birthday party” (Christians in restricted countries find creative ways to meet) in Iran or Turkey or a weekly formal meeting in an American building. Church is so much more about Christian fellowship than it is about being on a roster or in a building or in a denomination.
But with that said, let me warn all: Be careful of expanding the conversation so large as to distract from the original post/poll. The main issue is whether believing in God’s eternally past sinlessness should be necessary for joining a church and continuing in membership..
Grace and peace!
Aaron
I think I may have been a little confused on this question. I’m the evangelical that voted No.
The reason why is because even though I think that having the belief God the Father had sinned in a past mortal probation is false, I don’t think that should stop someone from being able to join a church and hopefully they eventually learn that the belief is heretical and wrong. As far as continuing to maintain that belief while continuing to be a member, there is a line that should not be crossed. Which is he should never be given the position to teach such a belief, but I don’t see why he can’t discuss it with members of the church – he might learn something!
If he holds views in opposition to the doctrine that the church holds to be true, he might want to reconsider his membership.
I don’t go to a Mormon church anymore because I’m not mormon. Their doctrine is in direct contradiction of the doctrine that Christians maintain.
Morning all…I second the gripe about more posts. I can understand the limit on word length. I also STRONGLY think multiple posts should not be allowed (doesn’t contribute to back-and-forth conversation). However, I have never seen another blog where a person was limited to 3 comments a day. Just my 2 cents.
I voted NO-EV because I have enough experience in churches to know that not everyone believes the same things at any given point in time or ever for that matter. I have also never encountered a church (other than cults) that REQUIRED everyone to believe all the same things in order to join.
That said, I think the alot of the ways we have gone about “doing” church our misguided. I like the way the Church of God (Anderson, IN) handles this issue. Quite simply…you can’t join. They don’t do “membership.” They teach (and I believe Scripture backs this up) that God adds those who are saved to the Church. The Spirit baptizes us into the Body.
Interesting question tho…Blessings!!
Just to clear up any confusion, most people in America attend a church without being a formal member. Not being a member of a church doesn’t mean you can’t benefit from the preaching and teaching, etc. The poll refers to formal membership.
Jeffrey, do you believe people should have to sign a statement of faith to become a member of a Christian church?
BYU professor Alonzo Gaskill admitted to me in e-mail correspondence that he believes God was “probably” a sinner. Keeping this in mind sheds a lot of light on his new book, Odds Are You Are Going To Be Exalted, as part of the basis for optimism is our being able to parallel/model our mortal experience and progression with the Father’s mortal experience and progression.
I asked Robert Millet publicly in front of hundreds of people at a SLC dialog about the issue and he explicitly stated he didn’t know if God was a sinner in the past. Notably, he has also said multiple times in writing we “don’t know much” about God the Father’s past.
The idea that the Father’s mortal experience was a redemptive, sinless experience like Christ’s in one position among others in Mormonism. John 5:19 is the staple text used for this, and it is precisely the kind of thing I asked Alonzo Gaskill about. He obviously has a different take on the passage.
Some in Mormon history have apparently even suggested that Christ and the Father are part of a line of Savior-Gods, but Bruce McConkie criticized this:
The simple fact is that Mormonism has no institutional official position on whether God the Father was a sinner in the past, and Mormon members are allowed to hold a variety of positions.
FoF, I’m aware that such things are rarely explicitly discussed between Mormons, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t an issue. I would challenge Mormon readers here to think outside the box, to eliminate any tunnel vision on the matter. Religion and worldviews and belief systems aren’t narrowly about what we explicitly talk in normal religious conversations. In fact, sometimes, not talking about an issue is a colossal problem. I think Latter-day Saints should stop everything they are doing and go on a long fast. They should demand of their leaders to take an explicitly official position that God never sinned in the past, and the issue should be aired publicly and openly so that all members clearly know they are expected to believe that God never sinned. The tragic, jaw-dropping, angel-shocking fact is that mainstream Mormonism has essentially told the world that it really doesn’t matter whether God was a sinner, and that people can believe whatever they want on the matter without any spiritual or ecclesiastical repercussions.
Grace and peace,
Aaron
I voted no because of the requirement issue. I have a hard time pinning one down for membership on such issues. I think it better to allow some leeway and allow the person to learn. However, having said that, I think it important that the person who might not completely agree should not think so fervently in his beliefs that he disrupts the direction of the church.
Peronally, I think it pretty clear that there is no way God could have sinned, ever. I also think in an evangelical church, this situation would be quite rare. People whop would want to join such a church would be much beyond this question. SO, I think it would apply more to those who would want to attend the church.
I am reminded of a story my old pastor told. He tells the story of a man who would come to church, and one day he talked to Lon after the service. He told him that he was an atheist, and didn’t believe a word he said. Lon said, well, ok. That’s fine. This went on for some time, and each time the guy progressively became more open to the idea that Christ was real. Lon never once told him he was wrong, but only listened to him speak. Eventually, the man came to Christ.
The point is that despite differences and objections, there are sometimes when it is better to accept than to reject.
Now, all of that said, if the fellow is completely outside of what the church believes, he should not be allowed in.
To AARON: interesting thread and poll idea; I’m not going to have time to ‘digest’ all this for 4-6 hrs, if that (some days I actually have to WORK at work, instead of blogging with LDS friends)
While I’m burning a post, let me throw in my vote for more posts, ESPECIALLY FOR THE LDS CONTRIBUTORS. I would be happy to see the LDS ‘limit’ go up to 5 per day for no other reason than they are (and likely will be) outnumbered 3 to 1 or worse/better. Don’t want to hijack the thread on this ‘number of post’ thing, but if that # could get bumped up, with maybe a ‘no triple-post rule’ or something, I’d be a happier GERMIT.
ps: from what little I’ve ‘digested’, I like your last paragraph, AARON, about the world being told ‘hey, it just doesn’t matter…’ I would beg to differ…. more later
I bumped up the comment limit to 5.
No offense, but this is entirely irrelevant. No one is proposing that members must comprehensively believe everything the same.
The assumption of the poll is that you believe in some kind of formal church membership. Of course God is the one who ultimately adds to his church, but that doesn’t mean local church bodies can’t have a formal list of members. See Acts 2 and 4 for evidence that the people were counted, etc.
There are two basic ideas in Christendom that I know of on formal church membership. One requires signing off on a small (but important) set of basic unifying beliefs expected of all believers. The other requires signing off on a thicker confessional statement (OPC, PCA, etc.). The basic question of the poll is not whether church members should be required to believe everything the same, but rather is: Should the statement of faith (or confession) required for church membership include the belief that God the Father absolutely never sinned? The question is pertinent whether you take either of the aforementioned views on membership.
But, LDSSTITANIC, if you don’t believe people should have to agree with any statement of faith to be a formal member, and if you indeed don’t believe formal church membership should even be practiced at all, then your vote isn’t really meaningful since it rejects the assumption of the question (that formal membership should be practiced).
Grace and peace!
Aaron
Aaron,
Some tough questions – probably because I have never really taken the time to think about these types of things thoroughly..
If I had to say yes or no to someone having to sign a statement of faith to join a Christian Church, my answer sways more towards “no”.
Why do I think that?
Because in my mind there are two “church’s”. One is God’s (the universal body of believers who first put all faith in Christ Jesus, and second maintain the core doctrinal beliefs in ONE God, Saved by the grace of God through faith and faith alone, and repentence for sin) – All of which are expressed from your heart and soul. (There is no 5 step repentance process). God wants your heart above all.
The other Church is to help you become part of God’s church. A place to worship and grow spiritually, and to help others who are in need of God’s uncensored grace.
But thinking here for a minute – what would happen if massive numbers of people who believed that God was once a man and a sinner like the rest of us ended up joining a Christian Church. It very well may change the DNA of that church and accept that as true doctrine? That would be a huge problem because if they keep getting bigger, they would blur the lines of orthodox Christianity (which the LDS church is guilty of). It’s obvious to the rest of orthodox Christianity that those beliefs are not found in the Word of God, and is false doctrine.
That is why I would have a problem someone being a member and being put into a position of teaching if they held that belief about God. If a pastor developed that belief, he needs to be rebuked with the Word of God and taken out of his position.
He can run into the forest and find some extra-biblical golden plates and start his own religion.
Jeffrey, if I’m reading you correctly (and that may not be the case), I think this is where we disagree. In fact, I think nearly all of Christendom disagrees with you here. The visible church is meant to be an attempted expression of the invisible church. If someone isn’t a member of God’s invisible church, they shouldn’t formally join a visible church. Becoming a formal member of a Christian church but yet not being a spiritual member of God’s invisible church is essentially living a lie, because being a member of a visible church is an implicit way of saying you are a part of God’s invisible church. Church was never meant to be a kind of fraternity or club. It is meant to be a fellowship of people who share the same basic beliefs.
So visible churches should not accept members with the motive of helping them become a part of the invisible church. Rather, they should at the very least, only accept people as members who exhibit the marks (faith and repentance) of already being members of God’s invisible church.
Does that make sense? Church membership in the visible church is not in an of itself meant to be evangelistic. It is exclusively for those who have already received the gospel and have come to know the God of the Bible. God has ordained other methods (which are indeed meant to be primarily done through the church) of evangelizing those who are not yet members of the invisible church.
It seems to me that Mormon critics love to delve into speculative and tangential issues which really have no bearing whatsoever on our LDS faith.
The natural assumption is that like Christ, our Father in Heaven has led a sinless existence. Can this be definitively proved one way or the other – I doubt it. Is such a belief essential for our salvation – definitively No.
This argument is comparable to asking whether an omnipotent being is incapable of committing a sin. If such a being is indeed incapable of committing a sin is that being really omnipotent? You might as well speculate as to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin or can God create a rock so large that He cannot lift it. Pointless speculation.
Now the point of whether or not a belief in such a speculative issue should become some sort of Shibboleth or criterion for membership in a particular church obviously goes against the grain of our religion. I think that it is appropriate to quote Joseph Smith Jr.:
“The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the apostles and prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.”
Vain speculations on the concerning such issues as the origin of God are interesting to debate but really resolve nothing. Why is it that Evangelicals are so insecure in their faith that they cannot accept the fact that they do not know everything?
Steve, the very fact that Mormonism treats the issue of whether God was sinless in the eternal past as a “vain speculation” bothers Christians. It is not a “speculative and tangential [issue] which really [has] no bearing whatsoever” to us. That it has “no bearing whatsoever” in the minds of Mormons is shocking. That it doesn’t shock you shows us that we need to pray that God would save you from demonic spirits and evil dominion and give you the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
It’s like saying, “God, I don’t care whether you were a sinner, and I can’t conclusively say one way or the other whether you were, but I’ll worship you just the same.”
That kind of talk is insane to us, because part of the very content of worship is over God having never sinned. It is part of the flavor and foundation of the worship Christians experience of the awesome God who was always fully God.
On a related note, Mormons I talk to on the street far more often tell me they think that God the Father either probably or possibly sinned, where as “internet Mormons” seem to be far more inclined to take the position that God the Father’s mortal experience was a sinless, redemptive endeavor to atone for the sins of people on another planet.
Grace and peace,
Aaron
Per his request, I reversed faithoffathers’s vote.
Aaron…feel free to delete the vote I cast. Perhaps my background is what makes me irrelevant to your point. I have never been a member of a church where I had to sign a statement (like you describe) as to what my doctrinal positions were and whether they matched the church’s I was joining. I was saved in a Southern Baptist church. I am now a member of the Episcopal Church. Neither of those bodies enforced a doctrinal confession upon me.
However in my current church, we stand together most every time we meet and affirm our faith in the words of the Nicene creed. But written statemens I have never encountered…not that I can remember anyway.
My comments were probably an “emergent” musing on the sillyness of our human institutions rather than a dogmatic statement. The question posed was “Should people in YOUR church etc.” That was the question upon which I placed my vote. I assumed it was a poll for all participants on this board. Perhaps in the future you should be more specific if you wish to exclude some of us.
I do offer thanks for the comment upgrade…Blessings!!
LDSSTITANIC, I’m definitely not trying to exclude you, so I’ll add more options to the poll to account for what I didn’t expect.
I love you man, I’m sorry if I’m a big bully. I do think the emergent crowd has taken the anti-institutional theme too far, even to the degree of overlooking the NT’s teachings on church government.
But is this really true, even though there wasn’t anything written to be signed? Would your church still accept you as a member if you said you didn’t believe in Christ? If not, then aren’t they in some implicit sense still being confessional?
The corporate recitation/affirmation (which I really like) of the Nicene Creed adds a new angle on this issue. If one doesn’t believe in the Nicene Creed, then he or she can’t meaningfully affirm it. Since the Nicene Creed affirms the sinlessness of the Father’s eternal past (by speaking of his full eternal relationship with the eternally begotten Son) it in a way excludes some people from a degree of functional membership (meaningful participation).
Grace and peace!
Aaron
AARON: first of all, THANKS for bumping up the post ##. I think that will only help.
AARON, your comment about the Nicene Creed is interesting: what if more churches went back to a group ‘confessional’ of (one of ) a creed ?? I am pretty sure that is skin crawling I hear from some quarters, but that sounds more ‘do-able’ than some kind of formal written statement to be signed. Also it is organic, inasmuch as it is affirmed (or not) weekly. I think that idea has a lot of upside. Well, back to working at work. GERMIT
Just to clarify, the poll’s question doesn’t necessarily require that the belief be expressed in writing or via signature.
And, for the record, I think it is silly (to use a euphemism) to let just anyone join a Christian church regardless of whether they believe in Christ. Not requiring some sort of basic unity in belief seems to dishonor Christ, as his people are meant to be basically united in their faith.
I can, however, to a degree understand if someone believes that the means of participating at their church naturally includes and excludes people in a way that renders formal church membership and statements of faith unnecessary. I personally think that still operates on a good understanding of the invisible and visible church, and it seems to be where LDSSTITANIC is coming from.
Aaron…hope I didn’t imply I was one of those emergers. I do think they ask some good questions and challenge things that might need to be shaken up a bit. Theologically I think they are adrift most of the time.
Well…in the Baptist church you profess a belief in Jesus as your Savior. You are baptized and then accepted as a member of the church. My baptism was accepted by the Episcopal church and I reaffirmed a baptismal covenant (which includes the Apostle’s Creed). The bishop laid hands on my head and I was confirmed an Episcopalian. I see where you are coming from on principle…but as far as any kind of official written statement of faith I have not experienced that for membership in a church.
That said…my vote wouldn’t change. I’m not a member of a “confessional” church and I wouldn’t choose to be one. Call me a rebel but I believe every believer needs to dig into the Scriptures for themselves and learn. I think you could get to the point where only someone with an advanced degree in philosophy and theology could join your church.
Hope I’m not being to contrarian…maybe I had too much coffee this morning 🙂
Oh Aaron, Aaron, Aaron,
You poor lost soul.
I can understand you lashing out at the truth. Sadly, it is you who needs to be saved from “demonic spirits and evil domination”. I would bid you to Come Unto Christ.
The fact is that you cannot definitively “prove” that Christ or Heavenly Father are sinless any more than you can “prove” that God exists. This is a matter that must be accepted on the basis of faith.
I will pray for you.
LDSSTITANIC, no worries, and in any case, “emergent” has a wide range of meaning and one can be hardly pegged as a postmodern liberal for sympathizing with aspects of the “emergent” movement.
It sounds like your church is still confessional in principle, but just not in the thicker, traditional Protestant sense. Your baptism was a kind of confession.
I agree with you here. I don’t think everyone has to agree on everything to be in the same church together. My particular local church has people with varying positions on Calvinism, Arminianism, etc.
But would you say that an Arian should be able to your church while believing that Christ was created out of nothing and was once not even in existence? Isn’t that the very kind of situation that brought about the Nicene Creed? Or how about someone who believes that God still goofs up sometimes, makes unwise choices, and needs to keep learning?
Of course Christians should be given breathing room, but the question is: Are there not red flags that call someone’s spiritual condition into question, and is the issue of God not absolutely being sinless in the past one of them?
Steve, if you’re referring to a kind of empirical proof that is sought in the laboratory of science, then of course.
But if one assumes that the Bible is reliable and can be properly used to show things about the nature of God, then you are wrong. Something can be “proven” in that sense and still be a matter of faith.
LDSSTITANIC, I’m still thinking over this…
Are you on a church roster or some kind of written or electronic list of members? If so, then how is that not a formal membership? And if there were basic beliefs required to be affirmed to become a formal member, then would you still be able vote for, “I am an evangelical and I don’t believe in formal church membership that requires agreeing to a statement of faith”?
It seems a distinction here worth making is between “believing something” and “explicitly stating that you believe something”. A church can implicitly require that you believe something in order to be a member without having you sign off on a thick confession, etc.
I thought I read Aaron’s last post incorrectly – “This is my website and I’ll post if I want to…”! Just kidding aaron… I wish I could have a post to comment on every individual post as well, so I’m jealous, not bitter 🙂
Three things: First, I think Steve H said it well, that these ideas/principles/beliefs are for the most part, things that we can’t prove… we have to accept them on a basis of Faith. So the fact that “Mormons” are criticized for these types of ideas/principles/beliefs is a question of faith, not fact.
Second, I asked if it is a requirement to be a member of an evangelical church to be saved. Aaron said that becoming a member of a univeral, organic church is our goal. I have a significant problem with that idea… and it goes like this. THere are many Christian sects/churches/organizations. They all, to some degree, teach different things pertaining to God and Jesus Christ. Is God a god of confusion? Would he allow His church to have different teachings (however basic and irrelevant they may be)? If your beliefs don’t include those truths that God teaches, do you know God? The basis of the idea of being Christian is flawed if you argue that ALL Christians know and believe in the true GOd, and that they will be saved. Inherently, not all Christians (sects/churches/etc.) know God.
THird, you bring up hthe Nicene Creed… can we start a thread dicsussing the way the Nicene creed came about, who wrote it, the debates that ensued, the reason for it’s creation, the timing, where the original script is kept, the importance to the Christian world, the authority to make such a creed, etc.? We could have some interesting discussions on that, and truly understand the origins of what most people call “christianity”. Did Christianity start with Christ or with the Nicene Creed? (Rhetorical, please don’t answer, but that’s the discussion that I would benefit from.)
Aaron…I am a formal member. Like I said…I was just kind of musing about the idea that maybe we put too much “stock” in that sort of thing and I was illustrating it with a denomination that doesn’t keep memberships. I couldn’t say I don’t “believe” in formal memberships. Sorry if I have created chaos in your poll.
I guess what I come back to is the core doctrines of the historic Christian faith being a barometer of Orthodoxy. I think the Apostle’s Creed is a good summary of those. So…maybe I should have abstained from the poll and done some work instead. I guess I would hope that someone would ask what I believe rather than assuming from my church affiliation.
LDSSTITANIC, it seems clear to me that if you use either the Apostle’s Creed or the Nicene Creed as a barometer of orthodoxy or a criteria for formal church membership, you exclude people who believe God the Father may possibly have been a sinner. Why? Because of what the creeds basically meant in their historical context. So my question to you still stands:
“Are there not red flags that call someone’s spiritual condition into question, and is the issue of God not absolutely being sinless in the past one of them?”
The confusion for me comes from you having used your own denomination as the illustration of not keeping memberships, but yet your denomination keeps formal membership roles? Am I misreading?
That God absolutely never sinned is certainly a “core doctrine of the historic Christian faith”, so you confuse me even more, since it seems obvious it would be a “barometer of Orthodoxy”.
Remember, the Nicene Creed was largely designed to use watershed language that would exclude the Arians. People should at least be able to reasonably assume what you basically believe about the Trinity if you belong to a church that recites the Nicene Creed. Church affiliation shouldn’t say everything about its members, but it should say something meaningful about your beliefs. Otherwise a group becomes a more like a club or fraternity than a Christian church.
Grace and peace,
Aaron
I am an Evangelical that voted yes. I believe a local, visible Christian church body needs to be united in fundamental doctrines. Who God is fits into that category. When I sought membership in my local church I was asked (as expected) some questions about my faith, as well as Who I placed my faith in. I was asked if I could affirm certain biblical truths. (The denomination’s positions on certain non-essential doctrines were also explained to me [e.g., the timing of Christ’s future return], but I was told, based on my profession of faith, I was welcome to become a member of that church even if I held to a different position on those sorts of issues.)
The bedrock of true faith and worship is God, Who and what He is is important. The visible church has a responsibility to reflect God and His truth. All people should be welcome to attend any church, but membership should require certain standards. Recognizing and affirming the absolute eternal holiness of God, past, present and future, must be the starting place.
Having said that, I don’t necessarily believe a question about God’s sinlessness should be required for people seeking church membership. Honestly, the sinlessness of God, in historic Christianity, has been a given. But if it became clear at some point that a church member was embracing heresy, and would not relinquish it even in the face of clear biblical teaching, his or her formal relationship with the church would need to be severed.
Woohoo…4th comment for the day 🙂
Aaron…no the denomination I used was the Church of God (Anderson, Indiana). I don’t believe they use creeds.
I understand what you are saying but I still struggle with getting into all the technicalities as far as “how far is far enough?” to be Orthodox let alone be a church member.
It sounds like you would be a fan of reciting the Athanasian creed in worship. It is definitely more technical than the Nicene. Joking there…
As a Trinitarian I would agree with the premise you are stating. Maybe I should leave it at that and be thankful I don’t have to worry about getting tested on my theological prowess at church!!
Reggie, the short answer is that there is no reason to believe God wouldn’t allow for some doctrinal diversity within the universal, organic Christian church. Unity over the fundamentals is what brings Christians together. Our unity is not ultimately in an institutional organization or hierarchy. Heck, when I meet and work with evangelical Christians from around Utah we usually forget to even ask each other what particular church institution or building or denomination we go to. The Mormon worldview is so pervaded with an importance of priesthood hierarchy and the official institutional system that you will honestly have to make a big effort to think outside of the box in order to understand how us evaneglical Christian foreigners think organically about “church” and fellowship.
I find it odd for Mormons to criticially bring up the issue of doctrinal diversity, because Mormonism is shot through with disparate, widely different doctrinal positions on a number of basic things. There are varying positions in Mormonism on grace, faith, works, eternal progression, priesthood authority, the nature of God, etc. The Church hierarchy is anything but clear on a number of issues and a big response I have received on this matter is that leaders are simply “too busy” doing administrative things to deal with the doctrinal issues. Over the course of Mormon history LDS prophets have essentially call the positions of other LDS prophets heretical and damning. That seems inherently harder to account for since Mormon prophets are supposed to be oracles of God as a part of a continuous stream of divine guidance that will never lead people astray.
I distinguish between professing Christians and true Christians. Mormons are professing Christians, but I do not believe they are generally true Christians since they maintain an allegiance to a false prophet and hold to destructive, heretical teachings. All true Christians know the true God, but not all professing Christians or professing Christian sects do.
This thread is not mean to be expanded to a fully-orbed discussion on the background of the Nicene Creed, although I would be glad to bring that up again in a future post as the main topic.
Grace and peace!
Aaron
Aaron,
as per your last post, I would state the converse and say that Evangelicals are professing Christians but not True Christians since they reject Jesus Christ, deny the power of God, revile His prophets, fight against His Church, and hold destructive and heretical teachings. It is obvious that evangelicals do not know the True God but rather follow the vain philosophies of men mingled with the scriptures.
Contrary to the common misconception of Evangelicals, they do not own the copyright of Christianity nor do they have the patented trade mark of Christ. In fact Evangelical theology is radically different from that of the vast majority of orthodox Christendom (the concept of priesthood, sacraments, ordinances, hierarchy, Christology, etc. etc.) Indeed, Evangelical doctrine would be considered heretical by most Christians.
Nevertheless, that does not stop Evangelicals from pushing their warped theology on the rest of the world – as this thread so amply demonstrates.
I voted “Neither; I am an evangelical and I don’t believe in formal church membership that requires agreeing to a statement of faith ”
First, while I am a member in a local church and I hold to the 1689 London Baptist Confession, I don’t recognize any Biblical mandate for either subscription to a particular creed nor formal church membership. One can be a member of the church of Christ and not be a member of a local congregation and one can be a member of a local congregation and not be a member of the church of Christ.
Second, as God is eternal and uncreated and sin is a violation of His law, it is logically impossible for God to sin as it is impossible for Him to act against His nature, so I find the question on it’s face problematic.
Just to be difficult.
My 5th
Aaron- I find your response hard to swallow. If God is an unwavering God, then I don’t believe he is happy to see his truths “diversified”. There’s one truth. So there are some things that we don’t know, but some things that we do know. If one mormon said, “I know the word of wisdom is a true commandment of God” and another said “I know that coffee is perfectly fine to drink”, wouldn’t you raise an eyebrow? I would do the same if a CHristian said that the Sacrament is literally Christ’s corpo and sangue, and another said that they don’t even believe in a sacrament. There would be many examples that I could expand on, but I only have 200. The logic follows, Not all “true christians” share the same beliefs about God, his teachings, and his gospel. So not all “true christians” know god, and thus not all “true christians” are actually “true christians” and will not be saved. So I would argue that your definition of all True Christians is a self defined term, and includes whoever you think it should.
I believe in one truth, and as truth pertains to mormons, you can go anywhere in the world on any given sunday, and the same truth is being taught. There may be differing thoughts and opinions by individuals, but the organization as a whole shares the same beliefs. You can’t compare that to your grouping of all True Christians… unless there’s a church that i don’t know of called True Christians. You could go to different Christian sects in the same neighborhood, on the same day, and hear very different teachings.
So, “in short” God is not a god of confusion, and would not be pleased that his truths be taught differently. Not all christian sects share the same beliefs and do not follow the same “truths” (even though you say they share unity over fundamentals). SInce not all christian sects follow the same “truths”, they all can’t be true and thus, they are misleading the people who claim to be christian, and lead them away from salvation.
The spirit of the question had nothing to do with whether formal church membership is a biblical mandate, and it had nothing in it that discounted the reality that “One can be a member of the church of Christ and not be a member of a local congregation and one can be a member of a local congregation and not be a member of the church of Christ.” I have already affirmed and clarified that.
This kind of language can be really misleading. Any Christian should be willing to agree with a Biblically true statement about the basic nature of God and the gospel, whether or not it uses biblical or extrabiblical language. If I had a creed that said, “God is not a dog, nor a cat. He is the great I AM who never lies and always does what is holy”, Christians should in principle be willing to affirm it, not because the Bible strings together the exact particular linguistic formula, but because in principle and in content the statement is biblically true.
Now, if you lived in a culture where the syncretistic folk religion taught that God was a dog by nature who manifested himself simultaneously as all dogs, would you be willing to affirm a local Christian statement of faith that asserted “God is not a dog”? Or would you say, “The Bible never tells me to affirm that God is not a dog”? Do you understand how silly that sounds?
Sometimes, when people like Arians use Biblical language to promote not-biblical concepts, Christians are driven for the sake of meaningful unity and protection of identity to resort to creeds that use extra-biblical language. As Piper writes, “The truth of biblical language must be vigorously protected with non-biblical language.” (>>)
If a Christian isn’t willing to affirm a creed that states, “God never sinned” or “God is not a dog”, he or she needs to take a long walk in the beautiful Uinta Mountains with their Bible, go deep in prayer, and examine themselves.
I believe that “God is not a dog”,
Aaron
SteveH,
as per your last post, I would state the converse and say that Mormons are professing Christians but not True Christians since they reject Jesus Christ, deny the power of God, fight against His Church, and hold destructive and heretical teachings. It is obvious that Mormons do not know the True God but rather follow the vain philosophies of men mingled with the scriptures.
Contrary to the common misconception of Mormons, they do not own the copyright of Christianity nor do they have the patented trade mark of Christ. In fact Mormon theology is radically different from that of the vast majority of orthodox Christendom (the concept of priesthood, sacraments, ordinances, hierarchy, Christology, etc. etc.) Indeed, Mormon doctrine would be considered heretical by most Christians.
Nevertheless, that does not stop Mormons from pushing their warped theology on the rest of the world – as this thread so amply demonstrates.
Funny how the same exact thing could be said about one another’s faith using the same words. Your post proves nothing but thanks for sharing your opinion.
One thing I would note though is that Evangelical theology more closely resembles what is found in the Bible. LDS theology doesn’t even mingle with the scripture, but contradicts much of it, and even seemingly important things aren’t even found in them.
I would submit that Christians follow the word of God, and it is Mormons who follow vain philosophies of so called prophets, and loony ones at that (crazy old uncle Brigham!).
Sorry to be off topic but I didn’t want to leave SteveH’s post unanswered.
reggie said,
That is a non sequitur, or at the very least it is circular if you are defining “know God” as “understand him equally and exactly and comprehensively the same in all respects”. If that is the criteria for “knowing God”, then do you really think Mormons know God?
You seem to be begging the question here with the phrase “as a whole”. What does that mean? Does it mean “mainly” or “entirely”? Also, why are you all the sudden limiting the scope of beliefs in question to Sunday curriculum? I know a lot of Mormons who groan and shake their heads and say there is much more to Mormonism than what they hear on Sunday.
Subscribing to the “God never sinned” and “God is not a dog” creeds till the day I die,
Aaron
Call me dumb, but I can’t answer the question because its not a question at all. How can God “sin” against himself?
I can see how much of a problem this is to the doctrine of eternal progression, but I think that the doctrine is a pile of rubbish for precisely the reason the question poses.
I voted ‘yes’ because it more closely aligns with the requirement for an agreed position on formational doctrine.
Reading through these posts is interesting. Its an interesting and tough topic– allowing membership to someone with a belief not in-line with everything the organization stands for is not necessarilly straight forward.
I think it is clear that the church holds the right to deny anyone membership for believing that God may have been sinful. But I don’t think its very likely in Christian circles. The question itself assumes that God was not always God. As Martin asks– how can God sin against himself? After all, isn’t a sin to go against God? If God is going against himself, he could not have been God.
The question, I don’t think is likely to come to fruition in traditional Christian circles very often. Although one situation might be to admit ex-Mormons who hadn’t dumped this view. (Perhaps others…)
What is the church supposed to do then? I answered no, it should not be a requirement because I am assuming that such a person is sincerely looking for the truth. If the belief is steadfast and unchangeable, I would change that to a yes. But under my assumption (that somoene in membership or seeking membership ought to be willing to learn what the church is about) will change their position with proper instruction. If they don’t, then I’d hope the thing they’d do is leave of their own accord, before the church would have to act.
Hope this adds to the discussion appropriately.
I voted no as a Mormon, but I have a couple reservations to make.
I believe that Christ lived his live without sin, and today He is like God the Father in every way. His sinless life was necessary for him to perform the vicarious work of the atonement for each of us.
It wouldn’t be out of the realm of possiblity to say that God the Father has always been sinless in the same sense. That would be quite compatible with Mormon belief structures.
Should that particular belief be required to become a Mormon? No way.
We couldn’t profess a belief in eternal progression if we answered otherwise.
Bottom line on the sinlessness of God. Quite possible, but not required, otherwise none of us could ever hope to progress towards perfection.
I voted “yes” even though I’m not sure this kind of a statement would be found on a statement of faith for any evangelical church I’ve ever been a part of. It’s just assumed that a Christian believes God never sinned.
Aaron, I love your comments, especially your analogy about the syncretistic folk religion!
Here’s the dilemma with eternal progression;
If God never sinned, then he wouldn’t need a saviour. As it is our destiny to follow God on his journey of eternal progression, we shouldn’t need a saviour either. But we’ve sinned, so we do. Either God is an entirely different animal to us, or he sinned too. Or this whole eternal progression thing applies to everyone in the universe except God. Or God’s journey to eternal progression was different to ours. But then we can’t follow in the footsteps that God has trod, as Lorenzo Snow famously asserted.
The only conclusion is that God sinned. Either he had too have sinned, or the idea of a saviour is absurd, in which case Jesus was an idiot to get himself killed the way he did. Why didn’t Jesus stick around and start up an organization, or a dynastical priesthood for example?
But if God sinned, who did he sin against? There must have been someone greater than God to sin against (someone else setting the rules on what is and is not sin). So God is not God because someone greater than God is around.
C’mon LDS, time to ‘fess up. You worship a god who sinned, and you’re committing idolatry because he isn’t the Big Guy anyway.
Aaron said, “Also, why are you all the sudden limiting the scope of beliefs in question to Sunday curriculum?”
No Aaron, that was a simple example of how one truth is being taught in all LDS churches, not many “different truths” being taught in many Christian sects. One Truth vs. Many.
My response to you about Knowing God, was exactly that, a response. You claimed that “all true christians know the true God”. So, now back to my previous post, you all can’t be true christians, because you believe fundamentally different things. If you didn’t believe fundamentally different things, then you would all participate in the same church. You can argue until the end of time that it doesn’t matter what church you go to, but that makes no sense. If you attend a church that teaches something different that what “true christians” teach, then you are not a “true christian”. So which church teaches the truths of “true christians”? (The invisible church will be his answer) I believe it’s the LDS church. You believe it’s the Invisible church. The Pope thinks it’s the Catholic Church, and Tom Cruise is crazy. (Scientology… joke…).
To answer your question, by the definition you gave of Knowing God, No… I don’t think anyone can know God comprehensively. Do I think the LDS church leads people towards knowing God more than other churches… yes, and if I didn’t, then I would be guilty of participating in a church and following a god that I don’t truly believe in.
Martin- Good point. Do you know God’s history? I mean, do you know what God did before he created this world? What about what he did before he governed the universe? (he’s always governed the universe?) If you have any idea what he did before this earth, then you can have a leg to stand on. The LDS faith at least gives some insight into it. Just because it’s not revealed in the Bible, does that mean it didn’t exist?
deep stuff
Aaron, you are doing an awesome job of apologetics!!
I believe this question and discussion to be generated by the Mormon saying (Pres. Lorenzo Snow, I believe): “As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may become.”
So, to understand what Mormonism is actually saying with this, we have to understand the condition of man: sinful and in need of a Savior. Therefore, God had to be in need of a Savior, as well. This logic leads me to conclude that the only reason God was in need of a Savior was because He was born with sin nature (as man is) and committed sin Himself (as man does)–unless He was the Savior on His earth as Jesus is for us. Now, sin nature came from Adam. Jesus did not come from Adam (and Adam is not our God as BY taught), but is the only begotten of the Father; therefore, I must conclude that Jesus did not have sin nature as I have. Does this mean that Jesus is to be more esteemed than His Father? That’s a crazy thought, isn’t it? I could take this further, but I’m tired–and it’s pointless. I think that the fact that we are having such a discussion about whether or not God could have sinned displeases the God who created us out of nothing, and Who has always existed because He is not governed by His own creation that we call time. To claim that God was not always God should be such an abhorrent thought to a true lover of God that it would bring them to their knees in repentance! Yes, I feel that strongly about it.
Grace and Peace!
Jack g- You need to slow down and realize that mormons are not saying that God sinned. According to this poll, Mormons are saying that it (the belief that God absolutely never sinned) shouldn’t be a requirement to initiate or maintain membership in a church. You should be careful in assuming that this means we believe God sinned… because that’s not what we believe. Our doctrines are predicated on a perfect God, and his perfect Son. Do we claim to know what God did before he created this earth… not really.
I believe, as you do, that God is/was/always will be Sinless. You do believe that right? Yes, I feel strongly about it.
I’m a Mormon and I voted no, too. I agree with you, Reggie, because I don’t believe God sinned, yet I don’t think this belief should be a requirement to be a member of the Church. In the original poll, why did you include a middle-of-the-way position for evangelicals:
Neither; I am an evangelical and I don’t believe in formal church membership that requires agreeing to a statement of faith.
but you didn’t include one for Mormons? I would venture that most Mormons would vote for a statement like this:
Neither; I am a Mormon and I don’t believe this question is essential for my membership or my salvation.
I have been a Mormon for 30 years of my adult life, and I have never heard this question addressed in regular Church meetings.
Speak for yourself, oh ye Mormon low on the priesthood totem poll. Mormonism has a variety of positions on the matter, and pushes no institutionally official teaching on it. I know plenty of Mormons who are all over the map on the question of whether God definitely sinned, probably sinned, possibly sinned, or probably didn’t sin, or definitely didn’t sin. “Internet Mormons” and Osterians are just one slice of the green Jello pie people call Mormonism.
Reggie said “Martin- Good point. Do you know God’s history? I mean, do you know what God did before he created this world? What about what he did before he governed the universe? (he’s always governed the universe?) If you have any idea what he did before this earth, then you can have a leg to stand on.”
Err.., not to sound presumptuous but yes. Have yo actually read Colossians 1:16 or Hebrews 1:3 or John 1:1? What was God doing before the creation of this world? He was doing exactly what he is doing now. Do I have a leg? If the Bible is wrong, then, no I don’t. But you state that it is the Word of God (Articles of Faith), so I guess I’m OK.
Seriously, though, will LDS introduce some honesty and train their missionaries to teach that God was once a sinner? Maybe a very long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, but a sinner nonetheless. Any denial would be a clear contravention of the inescapable conclusion of the teachings of their prophets.
Even if you ‘come clean’, reach a consensus and actually unequivocally and publicly affirm this ‘doctrine’, you’re not out of the woods. Your next difficulty would be reconciling this ‘revelation’ with a coherent theory of sin. What I mean is; if God can sin, then he is not God. Its not simply a case of God saying to himself “I’d better not do such-and-such because its bad”. Its because everything God does is, by definition, not sinful. Turn that equation around and you’ll see that the definition of sin is that it is not what God does.
As in all things, we define the creation by God, we do not define God by the created order, though your theology plainly asserts the latter. A god who sins is not God; never was, never can be. A god who is defined by, or who is constrained by, or who emerges from the created order is not God. The true God, who is perfect now, always has been and always will be, never changes because he doesn’t need to (see Rev 4:8, for example).
Aaron – Speak for yourself, oh ye CHristain low on the totem poll. CHristianity has a variety of positions on this matter, and HAS no institutionally official teaching on it. I know plenty of Christians who are all over the map on the question of whether God definitely sinned, probably sinned, possibly sinned, or probably didn’t sin, or definitely didn’t sin. “Internet CHristians” are just one slice of the COffee Drinking people call Christianity.
Martin – You have no knowledge of what God did before he created our earth. The Bible reveals nothing specific as to what GOd was doing before he created the heavens and the earth. The scriptures you used… sorry to say it… don’t prove your point. As for the rest of your post, please see my previous post.
Nobody is saying GOd sinned. TO add to your final point, I ask… Can God worship satan? And if he can, what does that mean? Does that mean that it would be okay to worship Satan? If God CAN’T worship satan, then what does that mean? Does that mean that God is bound by something (possibly eternal law)?
I’ve been participating in this website for around a month… give or take a week… and it seems to me as though everyone wants to take an EXTREME position on Mormonism. Meaning, you want to either hear us say what you think we believe so that you can call us Heretical, or blasphemous… or you won’t take what we say to heart. Also, you focus on the EXTREME ends of the gambit. You don’t want to talk about the core, you want to talk about the satelite. You want to find some backwoods, he said she said, quote from Joseph Smith that implicates some principle of our religion. I think you need to take a step back and think about what our religion is predicated upon, and focus on those issues… not what ONE BYU professor said, or what ONE apostle once said, and not what you ONCE heard from ONE mormon, and not what YOU THINK we believe, but rather focus on the fundamentals of what we DO believe.