Mr. Wallace is pastor of Christ Presbyterian Church in Salt Lake City. Dr. Tanner is an LDS apologist who has contributed to the FARMS Review of Books and The Encyclopedia of Mormonism. He hosts KSL Radios Religion Today.
Location: University of Utah
University of Utah, Orson Spencer Hall Auditorium
Took place Friday, November 7, 2008
Sorry, I know the audio could be better. I’ll work on getting better audio next time.
I think the Holy Ghosts' job is to reach the individual. Call it what you may, but I have felt the Holy Ghost on many occasions and in many different ways.
One very recent miraculous event took place last week. I had left my house after an argument with my husband. I was determined to drive up north to go shopping even though he had a commitment at the High School that afternoon as a basketball coach. I know, very immature of me. I felt justified at the time. Well, as I approached the freeway I felt a very strong and undeniable impression that was very specific, "go back home". I didn't feel guilty for having left…wasn't even sad about our argument..only determined to enforce my own justice and get on that freeway and go shopping. Again, "go back home, Amanda". I knew that if I got on that freeway, I would be ignoring a very clear directive from the Holy Ghost. This kind of forceful message hardly ever happens…thankfully, I humbled myself and turned back around (another rare attribute of mine).
That night, my husband called- I had been expecting him home for a couple of hours. He told me that a kid at practice had a seizure, fell over, swallowed his tongue and stopped breathing. Aaron, my husband, was the only person there who was able to perform CPR and revived the young boy. The paramedics informed him that if it weren't for his quick thinking and action, the boy would have died.
Had I not listened to that voice, a young man would be dead today. Now, Aaron, you can equivocate…but I KNOW what that was. I know what the Holy Ghost can do, and has done in my life.
I think the Holy Ghosts' job is to reach the individual. Call it what you may, but I have felt the Holy Ghost on many occasions and in many different ways.
One very recent miraculous event took place last week. I had left my house after an argument with my husband. I was determined to drive up north, with our only car, to go shopping even though he had a commitment at the High School that afternoon as a basketball coach. I know, very immature of me. I felt justified at the time. Well, as I approached the freeway I felt a very strong and undeniable impression that was very specific, "go back home". I didn't feel guilty for having left…wasn't even sad about our argument..only determined to enforce my own justice and get on that freeway and go shopping. Again, "go back home, Amanda". I knew that if I got on that freeway, I would be ignoring a very clear directive from the Holy Ghost. This kind of forceful message hardly ever happens…thankfully, I humbled myself and turned back around (another rare attribute of mine).
That night, my husband called- I had been expecting him home for a couple of hours. He told me that a kid at practice had a seizure, fell over, swallowed his tongue and stopped breathing. Aaron, my husband, was the only person there who was able to perform CPR and revived the young boy. The paramedics informed him that if it weren't for his quick thinking and action, the boy would have died.
Had I not listened to that voice, a young man would be dead today. Now, Aaron, you can equivocate…but I KNOW what that was. I know what the Holy Ghost can do, and has done in my life.
I can't really speak for Lautensack, but I think the "finite God" comment came from the LDS belief that there were many gods before God became exalted. If He did not create those other gods, but they in fact were all once men themselves, then God cannot be infinite, because He has not always existed.
Just my take on it, if I'm wrong, let me know 🙂 Not trying to speak for anyone.
Pastor Wallace makes a calculated and deceitful reference to a Book of Mormon Scripture:
2 Nephi 29: and uses it to paint a picture that the Book of Mormon is condescending to the Bible, when in fact the Lord is chastising those who limit His words and purpose to one book only as if He can be limited… along with other important context that Pastor Wallace conveniently ignores.
Read the entire chapter, it's quite prophetic.
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_ne/29/3-4,6,10#3
Amanda,
Really, you believe in an infinite God? Do you qualify that in such a way that he is contained within the space time continuum, or that he is restricted to a body of flesh and bones?
As for our hermeneutic being different I absolutely agree, one of us interprets the bible as though God actually meant what it was He inspired and could actually actively keep his church, the other believes that God went oops… and then 1700 years later a young boy bailed him out. One positions believes God created everything the other holds that God himself was formed by a God prior to him and so on.
You say that the bible is more important to evangelicals than God's hand in modern times and his plan for his children, I will sidestep that loaded language and ask if we are not setting up a false dichotomy here? Are we not playing the word of God against the hand of God? I must also ask if you have mastered all past revelation so that you no longer need to read the Bible? Do you completely comprehend the words of Moses? If you believed Moses, you would believe Jesus. (John 5:46) You seem to think that the continuing revelation is a joy tell me what revelation has been so profound that it has been canonized in the last ten years? Now you will probably play here to personal revelation however to do so is an appeal to subjectivity which at least this christian has experienced outside of the LDS Church.
As for 2 Nephi 4:34 being flattering to men, I agree there are things in the Book of Mormon that are not flattering to men, however when we look at doctrine, when we see the big picture we see that men are simply gods in embryo and God is simply a grown up and exalted man. These things flatter man and dishonor God.
My prayer for you Amanda is 2 Timothy 2:25-26, that "God might perhaps grant you repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to your senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will."
Lautensack
Amanda,
Amanda,
I have never said truth cannot come from people who are not religious or of a different religious affiliation than myself, one because all truth comes from God and two I believe in something called General Revelation. What I was saying is that when a group or organization stands up and sets itself up against the knowledge of God, making untrue statements about Him then we must reject them. We don't see Paul, Peter, or Jesus saying to the people, well you got it almost right, your belief is almost true, rather we see them calling for a rejection of their old ways, turning from them unto the truth of Christ. As for why people reject a Good God it is because they are not good, why they reject a Loving God is because they are not loving. Therefore they establish idols which appear to be good things, yet are done out of their hatred for God. The pharisees were the most "Holy" people in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus, yet they rejected him, why? Not because they knew the truth, though I would submit that they did, rather they rejected him because they Hated the truth and hated a Good God who was beyond their control and set up a far more manageable idol in place of God.
As for my beliefs being heretical, are you not erecting a double standard? Essentially you are saying, while truth can come from anywhere but you're "truth" is wrong. I agree that if one of us is correct then the other must be wrong since our beliefs are, to be frank, utterly opposed to each other. In your view your God restored your church so essentially Historical Christianity must be heretical when it comes to things like God, Jesus, Grace, Faith, Works, etc. Yet if God actually kept his church as he promised then we must say that the Historical Doctrines of the Church are true and the LDS teachings are Heretical, there is not middle ground.
Now you bring up John 3, saying see it is their deeds that condemn them not their religious affiliations. If we define deeds is such a benign way as something done or not done then perhaps this would be true. However if we see our thoughts as deeds, the secret things by which people will be judged also then your analogy fails. (Ecc 12:14; Rom 2:16; Heb 4:12-13)
We see that even great things done in the name of God and for God when they flow from an unregenerate heart are evil. (Isa 64:6; Matt 6:1-4; Mark 12:38-40; Luke 12:42; etc) Remember that "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one. Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive. The venom of asps is under their lips. Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes.”(Rom 3:10-18) Therefore lest God intervene and save men from not only their sins, but also from themselves and their desire for the things that are sinfully evil, none would be saved.
As for being deceived by the devil, would you accept any other "restoration gospel" as of God the Father given that its teachings contradict the LDS position? Are the JW's a true Church? What about Christian Science? Are the people within those religions following God or are they being deceived by the devil? I would submit that they are being deceived as are the LDS. I do not hold this position because of the "moral standards" that they hold to rather because their teachings are contrary to the word of God. "For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths." (2 Timothy 4:3-4)
Lautensack
Amanda,
This is a fancy way of saying God cannot be trusted. First, the Bible is not one book but sixty-six by at least forty different authors, spanning over 1500 years, yes very limiting. The LDS position is that God is a finite being in time and space, the Christian position is that God is an infinite being who created time and space, which position is more limiting to God?
Now we are not saying that God does not speak or that the Bible contains all the words of God, clearly God invented language and knows far more words than are in the bible. (Genesis 11) However the reason we reject non-biblical books as authoritative and scriptural is because they don't agree with scripture, further more according to John, his Gospel is all one would even need to know the truth of the Christian position. Thus we believe in the sufficiency of Scripture. It does seem strange that all "restoration" movements are founded upon extra biblical information rather than the clear command of Jesus to "search the Scriptures." (John 5:39) I believe it is because men do not wish to submit to the Lordship of Christ therefore they recreate God in their image, making him small enough to handle. As C.H. Spurgeon put it: "It is a remarkable fact that all the heresies which have arisen in the Christian Church have had a decided tendency to 'dishonor God and to flatter man.'"
Lautensack
Aaron,
Relax dude, I am just joking.
I wouldn't discount that kind of experience, but neither would I equate it with the kind of responsible decision-making process God calls for when discerning truth from error, particularly when public evidence is available for examination.
For example, I wouldn't pray to God and ask whether adultery is right or wrong, since that would insult him, as he has already revealed the matter publicly in his word. Neither would I pray over a religious book that spoke of George Washington using a cell phone. Neither would I pray over whether Jesus Christ was messiah and resurrected from the dead, when my heart has already been opened to see 1) how the OT points to the coming of the messiah 2) the compelling collection of eye-witness testimony provided by the four gospels and the apostles and 3) the authoritative and beautiful words and deeds of Jesus Christ seen in the apostolic tradition (i.e. NT scripture). Those three things, when brought together, are overwhelming to me. To pray over such a matter as though it were not already clear would be an insult to God, would it not?
If I were engaging a Jew over the person of Christ, would I see any biblical precedent or prescription for encouraging my Jewish friend to pray for a private emotional epiphany? No, I would encourage him rather to pray that God would open his heart to see the truth and beauty of God's compelling revelation in the publicly revealed portrait of Christ in the New Testament. I would encourage him to read one of the four gospels. I would point to the OT's passover lamb story. I would read Isaiah 53 to him. And I would ask him diagnostic questions over whether he thinks he can be right with God without a perfect atonement to cover his sins.
Grace and peace,
Aaron
You would not equate my decision to listen to this prompting, that eventually led to the life of a young boy being saved, responsible decision-making??? Aaron, don't misunderstand my tone here, but do you even pay attention to everything you type?
I do, however, see your point that when it comes to asking the Lord to answer things that He has already revealed, is not necessarily insulting but redundant and unecessary. So I ask you, what if the Book of Mormon IS revealed scripture? I am sure that the NT itself does not condemn the book of mormon…I know this because I use these books interchangeably and find them to compliment each other nicely. When you speak of tradition..I say, yes, it is just that, a tradition that has been passed down from the NT times— yet how can you be sure it is THE fullness of His gospel perfectly preserved? Your tradition of Christianity, that is….or should we more accurately say, BRAND of Christianity is one of hundreds of thousands of brands that won the most political favor throughout the centuries. I think it's pretty darn close, though.
I do laugh when you say "apostolic tradition"…since you clearly do not support the modern day apostles..so maybe you should rethink your use of the word tradition.
Yes, I think you are right…at least that is what I thought when I read it. My reply is still the same…we believe in an infinite God. I see how mortal intellect can see those two teachings as contradictory. I don't have a specific opinion, to be honest. God being an infinite being is the doctrine we are taught. God was once man is more of an obscure teaching. Not saying it wasn't taught or that it isn't true…but it's certainly not something we are taught in Sunday school…or at least I haven't heard it in Sunday school.
Thank you for your response,
"the significance of Judgment day is to determine HOW we'll spend our time in heaven"…
My question again, HOW? floating around as spirits? I don't know, i realize that in order to believe in something doesn't mean you have to have all the answers. I just find the answers through the restored gospel to be more in depth and fulfilling. I believe mainstream Christianity has a lot of big holes with no answers. Another one…Why would Christ need to be resurrected with his body, if he was already God? What is the significance of His resurrected body?
Amanda,
Yes, I am "bonkers" … I must wonder if Jesus was "bonkers" when he told the pharisees were of their father the devil? (John 8:44) They were doing good things, moral, holistic things, how in the world were they doing the devil's bidding? If Satan only did things that appeared immoral and unholy why would Paul write that he masquerades as an angel of light? (2 Corinthians 11:14)
While you may not have heard that specific terminology, I would suggest that every time you heard the Lorenzo Snow couplet that this doctrine was being taught to you. To be sure the terminology is not mine, but President John Taylor from his General Conference Discourse in April of 1882 if I am not mistaken. But feel free to correct me on this. While you might not say that means you will be a god, your prophets and apostles have made it very clear that they did hold to such a position. While your "foundation" may be in Christ and His atonement we must define what that means, and what was actually accomplished upon the cross.
You ask what our purpose here is, I am wondering why you have never gotten a clear answer but I will try to give you the historical answer, in fact why don't I simply let the dead speak for me, the Westminster Catechism puts it this way: Man's chief and highest end [purpose] is to glorify God, and fully to enjoy him forever. (Rom. 11:36; I Cor. 10:31; Psa. 73:24-28)
As for the restoration we must ask what it was the Christ actually completed on the cross, it seems petty and limited in that it didn't actually save anyone, rather it made men savable if they who are in the flesh turn from their flesh and begin to walk in the spirit. If I am wrong in this please correct me.
The reason marriage is important for Christians is because it is an institution ordained by God. Now we must remove the falsehood that relationships will mean nothing after we die. Rather the biblical teaching is that we will still have relationships however they will not be the type that is on earth rather as the angels, glorying in the relationship with God. Now I do feel sorry for your family if they don't seek for something better than a fallen relationship, if they don't think a relationship with God would not be infinitely better than a relationship with man. Wasn't it Jesus who said he would divide families? (Matthew 10:34-39)
Lautensack
I'm guessing by the "floating around as spirits" question you're referring to the fact that we won't receive our glorified bodies until after the judgment? So until then, maybe we'll "float around as spirits" and maybe God has something else in mind. Not entirely sure.
Also, the LDS don't believe that Christ was physically resurrected? I mean with his body? I was not aware of that. Christ was resurrected with his body to SHOW that he was God. People had been brought back to life before, Christ did it with Lazarus, so people were familiar with it being a rare possibility. However, no one had ever resurrected themself. This showed that He had control over His own life, when He would die and that He could rise back from the dead.
If He hadn't risen with His body, it wouldn't have shown the world that He was God, but rather people would have thought Him to be a ghost, or worst yet a God who wasn't infinite and did not have the power to raise up His dead body.
Again, just my take on things. Thanks for giving me a better idea of the LDS beliefs and teachings, Amanda!
No, you misunderstood me, my bad.
We most definitely believe that Christ was resurrected. My question to mainstream Christians is that if he was God, and not the Son of God…(referring to trinity doctrine)…why would he need to be resurrected? If God doesn't have a body etc…God is a spirit? or is he a eing with flesh and bone? And if he isn't a being with flesh and bone, why was He resurrected? (again, referring to your trinity doctrine).
No, you misunderstood me, my bad.
We most definitely believe that Christ was resurrected. My question to mainstream Christians is that if he was God, and not the Son of God…(referring to trinity doctrine)…why would he need to be resurrected? If God doesn't have a body etc…God is a spirit? or is he a being with flesh and bone? And if he isn't a being with flesh and bone, why was He resurrected? (again, referring to your trinity doctrine).
I know that terminology isn't yours. I have certainly heard of it before. The doctrine does not offend me. We don't worship ourselves- we simply believe that what Christ did on the cross and in the garden of gethsemane meant more than to just save a bunch of people with very little potential in the hereafter. We believe we are spirit children of our Father in Heaven who wants to give us all that He has. Why is this so offensive?
I know you find this belief heretical, but you have no leg to stand on other than your own religious biases.
Again, the same old evangelical rhetoric that mormons don't believe Christ accomplished anything on the cross. That is tantamount to playground name-calling. Just not true, and is used because the evangelical brand of Christianity is self-conscious when standing next to the stature of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.
Lautensack, I have tried to remain patient with all of your calling me to repentance- but I must say, you are sounding like a broken record. You honestly have no idea what my relationship with Christ is, regardless of your biases against my faith. You lose me because you're just flat out wrong. You only know me on the internet…you can't honestly make any judgements about my spiritual destination based on my comments here. I know who I am.
Oh, I see, I understand now.
Well, the trinity is a complex thing to explain, but let me give it a try…I apologize in advance if I don't do a very good job.
We believe..(or at least I do) that God the Father is spirit, but that He is capable of doing all things, so He became a man (Jesus…who by the way already existed with God from the beginning) and came to earth to save us from sin. I've heard people ask the question "While Jesus was on earth, how could God have been in heaven?" Well, He was. God can do all things, He can be all places at once. The idea that He could be spirit and have a body is not that strange. God the Father is sinless, He is never even tempted to sin…However, Jesus, being on earth in a fleshly body, was tempted to sin, but never did. He didn't sin because He is God. No human being can go through life without sinning. This is one of the purposes of the Bible…to show us our need for a savior. So, while I admit to you that God and Jesus can exist separately in body, they are always united, not only in purpose but in identity. We don't believe that Jesus and God are two separate Gods because they are the same God. This is hard for us to understand because our minds simply can't comprehend it. As lowly humans we are constantly tempted to humanize God, to make him fallible and limit the power he really has. When we do this we completely miss out on the knowledge of who God really is.
Wow, I hope that makes sense. I'm trying to do too many things at once and I know I've rambled on like crazy.
I like your style, and have to say that you are a good example of a humble Christian. I suspect you have been very successful in bringing friends to Christ.
I can accept that sometimes, doctrines that we are taught, simply cannot be understood with our mortal minds. That goes for a lot of things the restore gospel teaches…so I completely relate there. I've mentioned this on the site before but my grandmother made a great point about the NT…it is Christ testifying of HIS father in Heaven.
A different perspective on this: The priesthood that was restored to the earth is the power of God. When the bible refers to Christ and God the father as being one, they are, as you said, one in purpose, but they are one under the priesthood of God functioning as an organization of sorts, to put it in lay man's terms. So I agree that they are one because the Savior, in his life, submitted His will to the Father. How can you submit your will to yourself? The powerful message that Christ taught was obedience. Not my will, by thine be done. This is a struggle and a choice that Christ made to drink the bitter cup because it was God's plan for mankind. Christ surely was not having this discussion in the garden of gethsemane, and on the cross, with Himself. Father, forgive them for they know not what they do..he was speaking to himself? This directive was given to himself? If they are all one being as the trinity states, how is it that he would need this dialogue with himself? I don't see how that kind of dialogue would be helpful to place so gracefully and deliberately if it was not there to teach us to submit to the Almighty God as our Savior did…? He showed us the way to the Father. I submit to you, that both God the Father is God, and our Savior, a resurrected being following in the footsteps of His Father, is also God.
There are important models all around us that point to familial relationships in Heaven and the principle of obedience. Father/mother raises their children and teaches them correct principles and allows them their agency to be obedient- when we are obedient to true principles, we are rewarded/blessed. Likewise, when we follow the example the Savior set, we will be eternally blessed like He was because of His submitting His will to the Father. Christ showed us the way, and cleared the way through his atonement, so that we might return to our Father in Heaven again if WE submit to His will, which is the will of the Father and of our Savior.
forgive me for not capitalizing all of those He's and His etc..
Amanda,
Why is it offensive to think of God as a man? Maybe because He told us not to? (Numbers 23:19; Zechariah 12:1; Psalm 50:21; Isaiah 29:16; Hosea 11:9) Scripture seems to be a firm leg to stand on, would it not?
As for my rhetoric, please tell me what Christ what was it that Christ actually accomplished on the cross from the LDS prospective. If it differs from my expression, that is rather than actually saving men it makes men savable please inform me of where I am wrong. By saving here of course I mean to the uttermost. (Romans 8:29-30 cf. Hebrews 7:25)
I accept that you do not like being called to repentance, no one does, to repent is to admit that one is wrong. Yes, I do not know what your relationship with Christ is, however I do know what a relationship with Christ is, and I do know that those who have a relationship with him are driven to repentance when they err, yes even in their thinking. (Romans 12:2) Furthermore I know the words of My God and Savior Jesus Christ who said "false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect." (Matthew 24:24) Thus when I see people following a false Christ who do not submit to the authority of His word then I must call them to repentance. You could say that the Spirit compels me for the sake of their soul. As for your spiritual destination I agree I don't know, only God does, and he may yet remove your blindness, "let God be true though every man were a liar".
Please understand I am not saying you are an immoral down right evil person, if that is how I came across then I am truly sorry. What I am saying is that though you have a relationship with a christ, he is not the Christ of scripture. It is that you will meet the Christ of Scripture that I am earnestly praying for you.
Lautensack
I totally get what you're saying and I've wondered about that myself. Why would Jesus pray to God if Jesus was God? Well, I think that everything Christ did on this earth, He did to be an example for us. Of course God would not need to pray to Himself, but He knew that prayer is essential for us, therefore He not only showed us the "right" way to pray, but prayed often Himself. You see, even though Jesus was God, God was still in heaven as well so therefore Jesus was not just talking to himself…although He was…see what I mean about it being a bit complex? Luckily, we don't have to fully understand to be saved.
Oh and thanks for the compliment. I have seen two souls become saved, two of my siblings.
And I didn't notice the capitalization, so don't worry. I know you didn't mean any disrespect.
Amanda,
Ahh I was actually wondering why you would bring up the problem of evil. I am sure you wont accept the answer I provide but hey :-p
Anyways I think the oops argument goes something like:
1) "If God is omnipotent and omniscient" and he is (Psalm 147:5; Job 42:2; Matthew 19:26)
2) "If God is omnibenevolent" and he is (1 John 4:16)
3) "Evil Exists"
How can these three be rectified?
First I would submit that God created the world in full knowledge that it would fall and a plan for it, (Ephesians 1:3-4) since "he works all things according to the council of his will." (Ephesians 1:11) All things includes the fall of sparrows (Matthew 10:29), the rolling of dice (Proverbs 16:33), the slaughter of his people (Psalm 44:11), the decisions of kings (Proverbs 21:1), the failing of sight (Exodus 4:11), the sickness of children (2 Samuel 12:15), the loss and gain of money (1 Samuel 2:7), the suffering of saints (1 Peter 4:19), the completion of travel plans (James 4:15), the persecution of Christians (Hebrews 12:4-7), the repentance of souls (2 Timothy 2:25), the gift of faith (Philippians 1:29), the pursuit of holiness (Philippians 3:12-13), the growth of believers (Hebrews 6:3), the giving of life and the taking in death (1 Samuel 2:6), and the crucifixion of his Son (Acts 4:27-28). This leads me to believe that there is a fourth clause that we have not looked at yet. I would submit the fourth clause is that:
4) "God has a morally sufficient reason for the evil that exists." (Genesis 18:25)
Now do I claim to know the reason, no. (Deuteronomy 29:29) However if we look at the problem for what it is we see that our main objection to God, who would create such a world that exists with these four clauses is a psychological one.
Adam and Even in the garden did not trust in the goodness and truthfulness of God and rather sought to define good and evil by themselves. Thus this "problem" springs from a lack of trust in God.
Lautensack
I'm sorry, but I am not aware of any other Christ. I believe in Christ, the Christ that is spoken of in the NT, the Messiah that is spoken of in the OT…and the Christ that is testified of in the Book of Mormon. Perhaps you should embrace all testimonies of Christ.
Thank you for your prayers, keep 'em coming.
Great. Just keep on keepin on. It is so important to witness to people.
I see your point of view. I agree that Heavenly Father had to show us the way, and provide a way for us to return to Him…I do believe and testify that He sent His only begotten Son to atone for our sins. I think we both agree that they are one in purpose, so whatever Christ says, it is the Father's will…we agree on that- so the importan thing is that we are submitting our will to theirs, no? I think when one submits their will to the Fathers, they are Christian because that is what Christ did.
Just a note on the Trinity and the Orthodox definition. There are three main main premises we need to take into account:
1) There is one and only one God, eternal, immutable. (Deuteronomy 6:4, Isaiah 45:4;14)
2) There are three eternal Persons described in Scripture – the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. (Matthew 3:13-17; 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14) These Persons are never identified with one another – that is, they are carefully differentiated as Persons.
3) The Father, the Son, and the Spirit, are identified as being fully deity, that is, the Bible teaches the Deity of Christ and the Deity of the Holy Spirit. (John 1:1;14; Philippians 2:5-11; Acts 5:3-4, etc)
Hope that helps.
Lautensack
"First I would submit that God created the world in full knowledge that it would fall and a plan for it"
I agree. The difference of opinion would be what that plan was. I have heard different explanations of the garden from different evangelicals. I don't think there is a consensus. But your characterization above is in line with what the restored gospel teaches. God must allow agency, and allow his children to chose good from evil because there must needs be opposition in all things. Opposition improves those who submit their will to God (trust God, as you put it) and destroys those who do not. Repentance is another tier in this discussion, but I'm going to keep it simple this time.
So God allows opposition to sift through the wheat and the tares..if i quoted that right, you get my point.
It wouldn't be a testimony of Christ, if it was false. He would have to be someone else. That's what is so convenient about names. But if you insist that there are testimonies of false Christs', then how can you be so sure it is my testimony, and not yours, that is false? The bible is not the answer, because if there is other scripture, then the bible isn't the only reference you can use. You would have to take into account other scriptures for context. So unless you have iron clad proof that the book of mormon is a fake, we are at a logical impasse regarding the issue of whose testimony of Christ is false, since you insist both of us cannot be Christian at the same time (with our present religious affiliations).
I do not like the term "must", as though God were limited by anything other than himself. While I will agree that man is a moral agent with a will, I do not believe that scripture teaches that man is the reason for creation, rather creation is for the Glory of God. You do raise an interesting point, "opposition improves those who submit their will to God (trust God, as you put it) and destroys those who do not." I must inquire who would be able to submit their will to God?
Lautensack
Funny thing is, Amanda, that there is little credible evidence to suggest the BOM is true. I know you have your testimony, and I know you have faith that the evidence will come (if believing in evidence is important– to some Mormons its not). I also know you like to rely on the literary structure of the book, and of the testimony of the witnesses. But each of those has a very valid rebutal. That the BoM supposedly works well with the Bible is pretty rational to me that the 'creator' of it might create something that would mesh with it. So, really, it is not hard to imagine Smith making it up. And as to the differences in our Christ, do you really need us to go into how, on their very face, they are incompatible?
I agree that describes things a little clearer than I did. Thanks Lautensack!
Not I but Christ himself (Matthew 24:24) As for the argument, "the bible is not the answer, because if there is other scripture, then the bible isn't the only reference you can use.So unless you have iron clad proof that the book of mormon is a fake, we are at a logical impasse regarding the issue of whose testimony of Christ is false" I submit that John seemed to think His Gospel alone was enough to testify of the true Christ. (John 21:24) The Bible and the Book of Mormon present different Christ's, and lets not even get into the Pearl of Great Price or D&C, therefore you are correct in stating that one of us is wrong. I will take the great cloud of witnesses that I find in the Bible rather than the shaky testimony of a single man who contradicted most of God's word, and at times his own.
Lautensack
Not I but Christ himself said there would be false christs. (Matthew 24:24) As for the argument, "the bible is not the answer, because if there is other scripture, then the bible isn't the only reference you can use.So unless you have iron clad proof that the book of mormon is a fake, we are at a logical impasse regarding the issue of whose testimony of Christ is false" I submit that John seemed to think His Gospel alone was enough to testify of the true Christ. (John 21:24) The Bible and the Book of Mormon present different Christ's, and lets not even get into the Pearl of Great Price or D&C, therefore you are correct in stating that one of us is wrong. I will take the great cloud of witnesses that I find in the Bible rather than the shaky testimony of a single man who contradicted most of God's word, and at times his own.
Lautensack
Amanda,
The problem with your theory of apostasy is it makes Christ out to be a liar, (Matthew 16:18), scripture to be fraudulent (Ephesians 3:20-21) and Christ to be a horrific example of a Husband for men to follow (Ephesians 5:25-28). Now I am not saying that God cannot use young boys (1 Samuel 3) what I am saying is that he will not contradict himself. As for the priesthood, please show me from scripture where a priest is necessary in the New Covenant other than our Great High Priest? If we read scripture we find that those in Christ are already priests (1 Peter 2:9) in that they present themselves as living sacrifices(Romans 12:1) directly to God without the need of an earthy mediator, rather they have a High Priest who makes intercession for them since he lives forevermore. (Hebrews 7:25)
Now we can only speculate as to what Luther would have done had he been around during the time of Smith, however I would submit that he would also reject Smith because his doctrines could not be found in scripture rather they were formed by men "that they have erred repeatedly and contradicted themselves." The reasoning for this is most likely because the LDS church is simply a return to Rome with a different Pope and the same disregard for scripture, the main differences being the deification of man, transubstantiation, the lay priest, and the Trinity.
Lautensack
I use the word "must" because God would not be God if He was not Righteous- we can depend on Him to make good on His promises because He is God- eternally Righteous, by choice. So in order for Him to be who He is, He must chose goodness. God would not be God if he chose wickedly- I'm sure there is a more eloquent way to make my point, but that's all you're getting right now 🙂
I'm not sure what your question meant, about who has agency…? Can you rephrase that?
I agree that God is only limited by Himself however I am always suspicious when someone says that God must do something in regard to creation that He has never stated. I am pretty sure scripture never defines God's righteousness being dependent upon His relationship with man, though He does compare our righteousness to His. Anyhow, my question is who is able to choose to submit their will to God? I am not sure how much more plain I can make it.
Lautensack
Hmmm…well, it just seems like an obvious answer. Unless you are trying to trap me in a doctrinal corner, so to speak.
In this life, we all have agency to choose God. Principles of the universe would dictate that anyone who doesn't choose God, chooses damnation, chains, and limitations to their potential. So it might seem offensive or impossible to do anything other than God's will, but the nature of our choices simultaneously produces the will of God (garden of Eden is a good example), or eternal damnation (the war in heaven, Satan being cast out). I submit that God would not make anyone do anything because He is good. Our own choices damn us. And we are capable of learning and growing and choosing good. We will fail in those attempts, but because of the Savior, we can continue to have faith and hope that our continued efforts will produce eternal dividends.
To embrace all testimonies of Christ would be to embrace testimonies of false christs, something I am unable to do. Also to embrace the christ of the Book of Mormon or the testimony of the christ of the Book of Mormon would be to embrace a false christ and a false witness, and as such a false brother. Scripture states if anyone comes bringing false teaching I am not to receive him. (2 John 10)
Lautensack
I agree our own choices damn us, but who can choose God? Perhaps you are misunderstanding the question, can the lame make themselves walk, can the blind make themselves see, can the dead raise themselves? Can a man who's mind is set on the flesh submit to or please God? Or do these things take a supernatural efficacious work of God? Please show me where your position is supported from scripture. I am not trying to trick you I am simply asking you to support your position from scripture.
Lautensacj
I agree our own choices damn us, but who can choose God? Perhaps you are misunderstanding the question, can the lame make themselves walk, can the blind make themselves see, can the dead raise themselves? Can a man who's mind is set on the flesh submit to or please God? Or do these things take a supernatural efficacious work of God? Please show me where your position is supported from scripture. I am not trying to trick you I am simply asking you to support your position from scripture.
Lautensack
I am doing the devil's bidding, am I? Now I know you're bonkers.
Lautensack, my friend in Christ, I appreciate that you sincerely want me to do God's will- I thank you for that. Let me just assure you that I am trying every day to cooperate in the answering of that prayer 🙂 Doing God's will requires constant effort.
Now, you might be surprised to know that I have never been taught in Sunday school that I am a "god in embryo". This is not to say that church leaders in the past have not referred to this doctrine- but your mentioning of it is not actually proportionate to the frequency that is mentioned (I wouldn't even say "taught") in mormon cultural gatherings let alone at church. I will say though, that we are taught quite frequently that we are His children, and we can become like Him and have all that He has…I wouldn't say that means we will be gods. I don't reject that notion either. Bottom line, it isn't important to believe this in order to receive saving ordinances. The simple things are the most important. A foundation built on Christ and His atonement is what we are taught.
On the flip side…I'm not exactly sure what evangelicals think will happen after we die. What is our purpose here? Every time I ask, I never get a clear answer. The God that I know and love is purposeful. We are His children and we have a purpose. The restored gospel answers that question in many important ways. Our family relationships are defined after this life. This teaching makes even more sense in light of what the Father did to spare us so that we might live again by sending His only begotten Son to die for us.
Why is marriage so important to mainstream Christians if those relationships mean nothing after we die?? Do you think maybe the family is a unit that our Heavenly Father designed simply for our earth life? Or is there eternal significance? I doubt that when I die and see my kids, or my husband in heaven that I will be able to think of them in any other role than the role they fill right now…Except, I forget, I guess I'm not going to be in heaven.
Oh, Lautensack, one more thing,
I don't believe God ever goes OOPS…He does allow us our agency though. Sometimes He lifts His hand because he can no longer preserve us in our sins. Babylon, Sodom and Gomorrah ring a bell? The apostasy occurred because of a purpose. Was it akin to Sodom and Gomorrah? In ways, I'm sure…I mean, they did apostatize from Christs' teachings. This can actually be backed up by historical documents. The amount of different Christian philosophies outnumbers by the thousands the different sects we have today. It wasn't until a few hundred years later that Christians got together and said, "hey, we gotta agree on this stuff" and attempted to make sense of everything they had- and did the best they could- and of course, they relied heavily on texts and given their current circumstances, they had no revelation to rely on, or prophets. Nor did they have the priesthood. Martin Luther and others ushered in the restoration. So, Joseph Smith sacrificed his entire life to help with the process, but it is God who is in Charge. And if you are simply too proud to accept that a little boy can be an instrument in God's hands…consider the Savior who was born in a stable.
Maybe you might understand where we are coming from a little more if you applied the Olive tree parable.
Speaking of God going "oops"…what about the garden of Eden? Did God set them up to fail? Why did he ever put them in the Garden? Oops, that dern Eve, gotta bail her out now!
No Christian has ever answered your question on what happens when we die?? That's insane.
Well, let me give it a try. If we are indeed Christians and have accepted Christ as our savior, we go to heaven and await the day of Judgment where we will be judged according to our deeds here on earth. Since we know we'll already spend eternity in heaven, the significance of Judgment day is to determine HOW we'll spend our time in heaven. We will be rewarded according to our deeds.
The family issue: NO, there is no marriage in heaven, but that doesn't mean that we will never see them again. If our spouse is also a Christian they he/she will also go to heaven, and I believe we will still have a very special love for them. However, we will no longer have a need for sex or romantic love , so marriage is a bit unnecessary. We will still love our spouses and our children, but our main focus will be our love for the Lord. No, this is not thoroughly covered in the Bible, so this is more my take on things. If I'm
horribly wrong, let me know.
No Christian has ever answered your question on what happens when we die?? That's insane.
Well, let me give it a try. If we are indeed Christians and have accepted Christ as our savior, we go to heaven and await the day of Judgment where we will be judged according to our deeds here on earth. Since we know we'll already spend eternity in heaven, the significance of Judgment day is to determine HOW we'll spend our time in heaven. We will be rewarded according to our deeds.
The family issue: NO, there is no marriage in heaven, but that doesn't mean that we will never see them again. If our spouse is also a Christian then he/she will also go to heaven, and I believe we will still have a very special love for them. However, we will no longer have a need for sex or romantic love , so marriage is a bit unnecessary. We will still love our spouses and our children, but our main focus will be our love for the Lord. No, this is not thoroughly covered in the Bible, so this is more my take on things. If I'm
horribly wrong, let me know.
support which position? The position I laid out above, or the position you want me to take in answering the question you posed that I still do not understand. I told you before I didn't understand it, and you just said that it was obvious. Well, call me dumb, but I'm not getting you.
I'll try by answering a couple of the questions you laid out, but I don't see how it has to do with the original question you posed about choosing God.
The miracles that we experience in life, of course, are attributed to our Father in Heaven. He has taught us about faith. Faith is what accomplishes everything, and drives the power of the priesthood. We are also commanded to have faith in Him, who is mighty to save. So are you trying to figure out if I believe that any amount of faith that I have actually plays a roll in the miracles around us? Only to the extent that it is congruent with His will. I believe it does as an answer to prayer. Meaning, God commands us to have faith and pray in all things- so if we do that, He will answer our prayers (if they are His will). So basically, again, it is an agency thing. We submit our will to Him even in practicing our faith (faith being an action in this instance)- and He answers by making those things, in His will, come to pass.
Can a man submit to God, and in effect please Him? Your phrasing was certainly a loaded potato of a question…Sure. I believe Heavenly Father is pleased greatly when we obey Him and seek His will. Why wouldn't He be?
Ether 12: 3-4, 6-23, 27-31, 37
Heb. 11: 1, 3-9, 11, 13, 17, 20-24, 27-31, 33, 39
James 2:
17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
• • •
20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
• • •
22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
• • •
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
thanks for the thought-provoking question, I see now what you meant by choosing God.
Amanda wrote: "I believe Heavenly Father is pleased greatly when we obey Him and seek His will. Why wouldn't He be?"
I agree that God is greatly pleased when a single sinner repents. (Luke 15:7;10) However the question wasn't is God happy when people repent, since we all know that to be true and that God "is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." (2 Peter 3:9) However where does faith come from? Is it something that is intrinsic and wells up in ones own soul by their unaided freedom, or if faith is a supernatural work of God in the life of the believer? To borrow from Ezekiel's example (Ezekiel 36:26-27), do we remove our own heart of stone and replace it with a heart of flesh then walk in God's statutes of our own fruition, or does God do that? Or to borrow from Paul's example, as I did earlier, can a man who's mind is set on the flesh submit to God? (Romans 8:7) Since repentance would be pleasing to God can someone who's mind is set on the flesh do this? (Romans 8:8)
While I agree that faith without works is a dead faith, my question had little to do with the nature of what faith looks like and more to do with how faith comes about.
Lautensack
In case you were wondering – I was Martin_from_Brisbane.
I tried to log this before, but got caught out by the new comment system.
The Trinity is one of my favourite subjects. While I was at school, my best freind was a Jehovah's witness who almost convinced me that it was a heresy. Now I think that it is the most important message in the Bible.
One of the most important steps in understanding it is to actually relinquish our post-enlightenment framework of reference and to attempt to allow scripture to formulate our view of what God is. In other words, we ask questions like "If Jesus was God, how can he die?", or "How come he doesn't know what the Father knows?" (Matt 24:36) or "How can he pray to himself?". The Bible asks a different set of questions, but if we address them first, we can get back to our questions. The answer lies in getting to grips with the idea of distinct persons in one Godhead (and I'm not using these terms in the same sense that LDS do – e.g James Talmadge's 'Articles of Faith').
What we do know is;
*There is one God (Isa 44:8), and one creator (Gen 1:1) and worshipping anything else is a grevious sin (Ex 34:34)
*The Gospels consistently describe Jesus as doing all the things God does. This is a big topic but, for example, ask the question 'who has the right to judge Israel?' (Matt 23), or 'what was Jesus doing by walking on the water?' (cf Matt14 and Gen 1:2). We even get examples of the disciples worshipping Jesus (Matt 28:17, Luke 24:52). In fact, I would go as far to say that the Gospels go to great lengths to describe Jesus as doing everything the covenant God of Israel does.
*The doctrinal statements of the NT have an astonishingly high Christology. For example, Paul takes the statement "every knee shall bow and every tongue confess to God" from Isa 43:23 and applies it to Jesus (Romans 14:11, Phil 2:11).
*The logic of some statements leave us nowhere else to go. If Jesus has a name that is higher than all other names (Phil 2:9), he can't be less than God. Likewise, Jesus is described as the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end, so he can't be 'contained' by anything greater than himself, including God (Rev 1:8, 21:6, 22:13).
The Bible is less explicit about the divinity of the Holy Ghost, but that, IMO, is because the folks of Biblical times already understood that God was fully present in the Holy Ghost, so there was less need for corrective teaching on the subject. Certainly, he is described as a person (Eph 4:30) and as the Lord (2 Cor 3:17).
Unfortunately, many Christians' understanding of the Trinity is more aligned with modalism (God appears in different modes at different times) or Pelagianism (God puts on different 'faces' when he appears). My view is that these flawed ideas stem more from our post-enlightenment framework of reference than the semitic viewpoint of the Bible.
I acknowledge that these arguments are parsed and challenged regularly, but the narrative trajectory of the Bible cannot be denied; the Lord has suddenly come to his temple (Mal 3:1) and poured out his judgement. Only he did not pour it out on us, who deserve it, but on himself. In so doing has delivered perfect justice and mercy to the people he loves, and that is a Gospel worth preaching to the ends of the earth.
Martin, this is a great explanation of the Trinity, I think. I'm probably guilty of some of the common errors you list. The Trinity is probably the hardest doctrine to fully 100% grasp in all the Bible. I appreciate this post.
Martin,
I think when you wrote "Pelagianism (God puts on different 'faces' when he appears)" you meant Sabellianism. Pelagianism is essentially Aristotle's Tabula rasa, that men are not born with a sinful nature, but are born neutral (or in some cases good) and has been condemned as heresy by Greek, Roman, and Protestant Churches.
Lautensack