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).”
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".