Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

A Different God?


Recommended Posts

I am reading Stephen E. Robinson's "Introduction" in the book How Wide the Divide? (co-authored w/ Craig Blomberg). I am very impressed and, in all honesty, convicted by some of what he writes about evangelicals. That being said, I find the difference of perspective concerning the nature of God between evangelicals and Latter-day Saints to be so significant that it is difficult to see how we can be talking about the same God. Robinson states, "We believe that God and humans are the same species of being..." (18). I cannot think of a more significant difference between evangelicals and Latter-day Saints. For here the most basic of distinctions, the Creator - creature distinction, is erased. Blomberg calls this "the heart of traditional Christianity's disagreement with Mormonism" (96). 

Given that this divide is very wide, would you say that evangelicals and Latter-day Saints believe in, worship, pray to, etc. the same God?

Link to comment
26 minutes ago, Steve Noel said:

I am reading Stephen E. Robinson's "Introduction" in the book How Wide the Divide? (co-authored w/ Craig Blomberg). I am very impressed and, in all honesty, convicted by some of what he writes about evangelicals. That being said, I find the difference of perspective concerning the nature of God between evangelicals and Latter-day Saints to be so significant that it is difficult to see how we can be talking about the same God. Robinson states, "We believe that God and humans are the same species of being..." (18). I cannot think of a more significant difference between evangelicals and Latter-day Saints. For here the most basic of distinctions, the Creator - creature distinction, is erased. Blomberg calls this "the heart of traditional Christianity's disagreement with Mormonism" (96). 

Given that this divide is very wide, would you say that evangelicals and Latter-day Saints believe in, worship, pray to, etc. the same God?

I think we do indeed worship the same God, we just understand him in very different ways.  But we both (in general) recognize that it is the best for us to love and worship him to the best of our abilities (through his grace) and look forward to being with him after death.  I think that recognition is what is essential.

Link to comment
39 minutes ago, Steve Noel said:

I am reading Stephen E. Robinson's "Introduction" in the book How Wide the Divide? (co-authored w/ Craig Blomberg). I am very impressed and, in all honesty, convicted by some of what he writes about evangelicals. That being said, I find the difference of perspective concerning the nature of God between evangelicals and Latter-day Saints to be so significant that it is difficult to see how we can be talking about the same God. Robinson states, "We believe that God and humans are the same species of being..." (18). I cannot think of a more significant difference between evangelicals and Latter-day Saints. For here the most basic of distinctions, the Creator - creature distinction, is erased. Blomberg calls this "the heart of traditional Christianity's disagreement with Mormonism" (96). 

Given that this divide is very wide, would you say that evangelicals and Latter-day Saints believe in, worship, pray to, etc. the same God?

I think we believe in the same being, but disagree about who he is and what makes him God.
The fact that we believe different things about the same being doesn't change that we are talking about one being.

To say we believe in different Gods is to imply there is more than one God of the Bible/Christianity to believe in.
It's not the same as if we believed in Shiva.

Edited by JLHPROF
Link to comment
10 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

I am reading Stephen E. Robinson's "Introduction" in the book How Wide the Divide? (co-authored w/ Craig Blomberg). I am very impressed and, in all honesty, convicted by some of what he writes about evangelicals. That being said, I find the difference of perspective concerning the nature of God between evangelicals and Latter-day Saints to be so significant that it is difficult to see how we can be talking about the same God. Robinson states, "We believe that God and humans are the same species of being..." (18). I cannot think of a more significant difference between evangelicals and Latter-day Saints. For here the most basic of distinctions, the Creator - creature distinction, is erased. Blomberg calls this "the heart of traditional Christianity's disagreement with Mormonism" (96). 

Given that this divide is very wide, would you say that evangelicals and Latter-day Saints believe in, worship, pray to, etc. the same God?

I believe there is only one God that hears and answers prayers regardless if it is an Evangelical, a Mormon, a Catholic, or any other Christian praying.  I would say that if there is a God answering anyone's prayer, regardless of religion, it is God.  There are no other gods answering prayers.  (I am excluding the concept of the devil deceiving people at this point)  

This concept of Creator - creature does not fit well within LDS theology.  On the other hand, simply stating that we are the same species requires clarification.  God has taken us and formed a spirit body for us.  Without him we could not have a spirit body.  Further, God created this world upon which we live and formed our bodies, and placed our spirits into the our bodies.  In this context, one may recognize a high degree of complimentary ideas with the Creator - creature teaching.  

We also believe that we may become joint heirs with Jesus Christ through his Atonement.  In doing so, Jesus will make us like him.  The Early Church Fathers of Catholicism taught a similar concept you have heard of I suspect called Theosis or Divinization.  These are similar concepts, but LDS theology goes further.  Through Christ we become like him, like God.  At this point we part ways with Theosis and other similar concepts of mainstream Christianity.  When we say that we are the same species this is what we are talking about.  

It is similar to a baby child that grows up to be like his parents.  However, where the human child will naturally grow to adulthood, we may only become "adults", or like God, through the grace of Jesus Christ.

Edited by Storm Rider
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Steve Noel said:

I am reading Stephen E. Robinson's "Introduction" in the book How Wide the Divide? (co-authored w/ Craig Blomberg). I am very impressed and, in all honesty, convicted by some of what he writes about evangelicals. That being said, I find the difference of perspective concerning the nature of God between evangelicals and Latter-day Saints to be so significant that it is difficult to see how we can be talking about the same God. Robinson states, "We believe that God and humans are the same species of being..." (18). I cannot think of a more significant difference between evangelicals and Latter-day Saints. For here the most basic of distinctions, the Creator - creature distinction, is erased. Blomberg calls this "the heart of traditional Christianity's disagreement with Mormonism" (96). 

Given that this divide is very wide, would you say that evangelicals and Latter-day Saints believe in, worship, pray to, etc. the same God?

I don't think the divide is very wide at all.

That being said, Evangelicals seem to attach a great deal of importance to being so completely different from God the Father that imagining any kind of real relationship with Him is quite difficult for them.  But the very scriptures that the Evangelicals so treasure make their position completely untenable.  It's a question of believing what the scriptures actually say.

One scripture that seems to support the Evangelical position is Isaiah 55:8,9:

Quote

 

8 ¶For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. 

9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

 

His ways and thoughts are clearly higher than ours, but why?  Because we are fallen beings -- but if we are fallen, this means that we must have fallen from some status that is higher than what we are now.  Indeed, the two verses before 8 and 9 above say this:

Quote

6 ¶Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near: 

7 Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.

It should be clear to anyone with a brain, then, that the only thing that separates us from our Eternal Parent (and why else would He ask us to call Him "Father"), is our mortality and our sins?

He will abundantly pardon because He sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to atone for our sins, (upon condition of faith, repentance, baptism and the Holy Ghost), and to resurrect us into immortality, thus removing the impediments that separate us from Him.

When you read Romans chapter 8 you discover what our true status once was, and can be again (Romans 8:16-19):

Quote

 16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

 17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

 18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.

 19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.

The important point is, of course, "if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ".  How could be possibly be another species from God if we stand to inherit all that the Father has?  There is no other species upon planet earth which can claim the kind of kinship that enables inheritance!  

The contrary position, that of claiming that we are of a different species from God, denies that we could possibly inherit anything, because we are not really His children.  And in denying that relationship, the truth of the scriptures are likewise denied.  

And this seems an odd position, coming from so many denominations who with their mouths proclaim that they believe in the scriptures.  

When Joseph Smith experienced what we refer to as the First Vision, he reported that when he asked the Lord what he should do (he had intended to find out which church he should join, and had not expected a vision), he got an answer:

Quote

 

 18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.

 19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.

Pearl of Great Price: Joseph Smith - History: 18, 19

 

The key phrase here is in the last two clauses: "...having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof."

And what power do they deny?  Well, I'm sure the Lord was referring to many kinds of denials, but the one most pertinent to the matter you bring to our attention is this one: the power to raise us up!

Another place where we are compared, as to kind, with God, is 1 John 3:1,2:

Quote

 

 1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.

 2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

 

I don't know how to say this more clearly that this: if we weren't of the same species, how could God possibly require that we refer to Him as FATHER? 

Link to comment

I thought it would be useful here to share a little from a well respected Baptist theologian Millard J. Erickson. In his systematic theology book he makes a brief biblical case for the transcendence of God.*** He concludes that this is taught "throughout the Bible" (Christian Theology, 3rd ed., 283). A little later he lists some of the implications of this doctrine of transcendence. This will give everyone a taste of how evangelicals understand this. Here is the fourth implication Erickson lists,

"There will always be a difference between God and humans. The gap between us is not merely a moral and spiritual disparity that originated with the fall. It is metaphysical, stemming from creation. Even when redeemed and glorified, we will still be renewed human beings. We will never become God. He will always be God and we will always be humans, so that there will always be a divine transcendence. Salvation consists in God's restoring us to what he intended us to be, not elevating us to what he is" (289).


***Erickson explains what he means by transcendence when he writes, "By this we mean that God is separate from and independent of nature and humanity" (282).

Link to comment

To ask if we are all worshiping the same god is like asking if, when we see someone on the horizon and we shout to them if we are all shouting out to the same person. There is only one God so it is not possible to worship anyone but Him. No matter who someone imagines in their prayers, there is only one God listening, even if they are worshiping a cow, or a stick. 

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I don't think the divide is very wide at all.

That being said, Evangelicals seem to attach a great deal of importance to being so completely different from God the Father that imagining any kind of real relationship with Him is quite difficult for them.  But the very scriptures that the Evangelicals so treasure make their position completely untenable.  It's a question of believing what the scriptures actually say.

For the Evangelical the divide is infinite. The difference between an infinite being (of which there is only one) and a finite being, is an infinite difference. This is why Emmanuel, God with us, is so significant. That the infinite creator God clothed himself with flesh to dwell among us, and further to dwell inside us is the greatest of all miracles in our lives. The denial of this infinite difference is seen by Evangelicals as an attempt by man to raise himself up to God's level. 

Quote

I don't know how to say this more clearly that this: if we weren't of the same species, how could God possibly require that we refer to Him as FATHER? 

God doesn't have a specie. He doesn't have DNA nor was he created. He uses anthropomorphic terms, like Father, Son etc. to communicate his love and relationship with us. 

Link to comment

"Evangelicals seem to attach a great deal of importance to being so completely different from God the Father that imagining any kind of real relationship with Him is quite difficult for them."

I don't see them as not being able to imagine any real relationship.  I know many who have a very vivid image of a relationship with God.

Link to comment
38 minutes ago, Steve Noel said:

I appreciate the replies thus far. It is late here and I need to get to sleep. I will try to interact a bit tomorrow.

You may wish to read two authoritative declarations by the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles on these issues before you make further comments...

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/04/the-father-and-the-son?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/02/the-origin-of-man?lang=eng

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment
39 minutes ago, danielwoods said:

For the Evangelical the divide is infinite. The difference between an infinite being (of which there is only one) and a finite being, is an infinite difference. This is why Emmanuel, God with us, is so significant. That the infinite creator God clothed himself with flesh to dwell among us, and further to dwell inside us is the greatest of all miracles in our lives. The denial of this infinite difference is seen by Evangelicals as an attempt by man to raise himself up to God's level. 

God doesn't have a specie. He doesn't have DNA nor was he created. He uses anthropomorphic terms, like Father, Son etc. to communicate his love and relationship with us. 

 Mormons see it as the plan of God to raise man to his level..."This is my work and my glory: to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." Man cannot do that for himself. As John put it, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Why can't God communicate with us without using anthropomorphic terms? Doesn't that appear deceptive? It seems to me that if we can understand why he uses such terminology to communicate with us, then he really doesn't need that superfluous verbal camouflage. It makes more sense that he uses anthropomorphic terms to describe himself because that is the way he truly is.

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment
31 minutes ago, danielwoods said:

For the Evangelical the divide is infinite. The difference between an infinite being (of which there is only one) and a finite being, is an infinite difference. This is why Emmanuel, God with us, is so significant. That the infinite creator God clothed himself with flesh to dwell among us, and further to dwell inside us is the greatest of all miracles in our lives. The denial of this infinite difference is seen by Evangelicals as an attempt by man to raise himself up to God's level. 

God doesn't have a specie. He doesn't have DNA nor was he created. He uses anthropomorphic terms, like Father, Son etc. to communicate his love and relationship with us. 

And every single principle in your response is taken directly from some theologian's writings.  I referenced scripture, and you reference theology.  I am not impressed.

According to this anthropomorphic theology of God, He's lying to us when He says that He's our Father.  And when Jesus teaches us to address Him as Our Father in our prayers, then by extension, Jesus is asking us to lie in our prayers.  And here all this time I thought God was a God of truth, who cannot lie.  Who knew? 

The problem here, danielwoods, is that you seem to care more for how 1,800 years of theologians have interpreted scripture than for the plain words of the scriptures themselves.  

Link to comment
45 minutes ago, danielwoods said:

For the Evangelical the divide is infinite. The difference between an infinite being (of which there is only one) and a finite being, is an infinite difference. This is why Emmanuel, God with us, is so significant. That the infinite creator God clothed himself with flesh to dwell among us, and further to dwell inside us is the greatest of all miracles in our lives. The denial of this infinite difference is seen by Evangelicals as an attempt by man to raise himself up to God's level. 

God doesn't have a specie. He doesn't have DNA nor was he created. He uses anthropomorphic terms, like Father, Son etc. to communicate his love and relationship with us. 

The Mormon belief is rather that God is both anthropomorphic and immanent, and that these are not metaphors.  Jewish scholar Yohanan Muffs insists that “the biblical God is anthropomorphic.  Whoever strips God of his personal quality distorts the true meaning of Scripture.”  Muffs,  Bible Review, 18/6 (Dec 2002):23.  Non-Mormon biblical scholar Ernst Benz said of the Mormon doctrine of apotheosis:     

Quote

Regardless of how one feels about the doctrine of progressive deification, one thing is certain: Joseph Smith’s anthropology of man is closer to the concept of man in the primitive church than that of the proponents of the Augustinian doctrine of original sin, who considered the idea of such a fundamental and corporeal relationship between God and man as the quintessential heresy.  Benz, “Imago Dei: Man in the Image of God,” in T. Madsen, ed., Reflections on Mormonism (Provo, 1978), 201-219.

The notion of deification as the ultimate objective of the early Christian believer is entirely orthodox, and was also a fundamental belief of the ancient Egyptians.  Both Bible and Book of Mormon appear to contain this doctrine (3 Nephi 28:10), and it was common to the Ante-Nicene Fathers.  Both likewise focus on what Dietrich Wildung suggests are “contemporary events as the setting of God’s ongoing salvation drama.”  Paul Hanson in Harper’s Bible Dictionary, 1062.

Edited by Robert F. Smith
Link to comment
45 minutes ago, Calm said:

"Evangelicals seem to attach a great deal of importance to being so completely different from God the Father that imagining any kind of real relationship with Him is quite difficult for them."

I don't see them as not being able to imagine any real relationship.  I know many who have a very vivid image of a relationship with God.

Yes, but not a familial relationship, and that's my point.  To them, He's the vast unknowable whom they cannot possibly imagine.  Not their Father.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, danielwoods said:

For the Evangelical the divide is infinite. The difference between an infinite being (of which there is only one) and a finite being, is an infinite difference. 

How do you picture your relationship with the Father?  Is it the same as with Jesus?

Link to comment
3 hours ago, danielwoods said:

For the Evangelical the divide is infinite. The difference between an infinite being (of which there is only one) and a finite being, is an infinite difference. This is why Emmanuel, God with us, is so significant. That the infinite creator God clothed himself with flesh to dwell among us, and further to dwell inside us is the greatest of all miracles in our lives. The denial of this infinite difference is seen by Evangelicals as an attempt by man to raise himself up to God's level. 

Which is sad that they choose to lose this connection to Him, and do not believe their scriptures:

 Phillippians 2:Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

What does the title King of kings mean to Evangelicals? Does it mean king of earthly kings? King of fictional kings? 

Quote

God doesn't have a specie. He doesn't have DNA  

How do you know? Did He tell you? How about Jesus. Does He have DNA? When He is called the Father, will He stop having DNA or are u just guessing, and telling God your opinion about Him?

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

I thought it would be useful here to share a little from a well respected Baptist theologian Millard J. Erickson. In his systematic theology book he makes a brief biblical case for the transcendence of God.*** He concludes that this is taught "throughout the Bible" (Christian Theology, 3rd ed., 283). A little later he lists some of the implications of this doctrine of transcendence. This will give everyone a taste of how evangelicals understand this. Here is the fourth implication Erickson lists,

"There will always be a difference between God and humans. The gap between us is not merely a moral and spiritual disparity that originated with the fall. It is metaphysical, stemming from creation. Even when redeemed and glorified, we will still be renewed human beings. We will never become God. He will always be God and we will always be humans, so that there will always be a divine transcendence. Salvation consists in God's restoring us to what he intended us to be, not elevating us to what he is" (289).

***Erickson explains what he means by transcendence when he writes, "By this we mean that God is separate from and independent of nature and humanity" (282).

I prefer getting my theology from God's word about Himself - not man. Men have a way of getting God wrong.

"There will always be a difference between God and humans." Hmm. Was/is Jesus human? What gulf will there be between the Most High El, and Yahoshua when Jesus inherits all the Father has, and is called the Father per Isa 9:6? 

BTW even Athanasius said the goal of a Christian was to become God - if you don't believe me, look it up in the Catholic catechism. I thought Jesus was preparing a place for us in the Father's house? 
 

Link to comment
7 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

I thought it would be useful here to share a little from a well respected Baptist theologian Millard J. Erickson. In his systematic theology book he makes a brief biblical case for the transcendence of God.*** He concludes that this is taught "throughout the Bible" (Christian Theology, 3rd ed., 283). A little later he lists some of the implications of this doctrine of transcendence. This will give everyone a taste of how evangelicals understand this. Here is the fourth implication Erickson lists,

"There will always be a difference between God and humans. The gap between us is not merely a moral and spiritual disparity that originated with the fall. It is metaphysical, stemming from creation. Even when redeemed and glorified, we will still be renewed human beings. We will never become God. He will always be God and we will always be humans, so that there will always be a divine transcendence. Salvation consists in God's restoring us to what he intended us to be, not elevating us to what he is" (289).


***Erickson explains what he means by transcendence when he writes, "By this we mean that God is separate from and independent of nature and humanity" (282).

Erickson is echoing several Catholic theologians in what he has written. I have the same problem for the same reasons - if God says he will make you gods how is he prevented from making us like him?  What stops him from completing sharing his complete nature with those who he has taken into his presence?  Erickson and others gloss over this point by making the assumption that the natures are so different they can never be the same.  This limits God in my opinion.  I don't understand this limitation and it runs contrary to my concept of an all-powerful God. 

Link to comment
7 hours ago, danielwoods said:

For the Evangelical the divide is infinite. The difference between an infinite being (of which there is only one) and a finite being, is an infinite difference. This is why Emmanuel, God with us, is so significant. That the infinite creator God clothed himself with flesh to dwell among us, and further to dwell inside us is the greatest of all miracles in our lives. The denial of this infinite difference is seen by Evangelicals as an attempt by man to raise himself up to God's level. 

God doesn't have a specie. He doesn't have DNA nor was he created. He uses anthropomorphic terms, like Father, Son etc. to communicate his love and relationship with us. 

Daniel, you introduce several ideas.  The doctrine of the Trinity states there are three Gods that are one in essence.  The three are distinct persons.  You seem to speak of God more in like with Modalist thought.  Who created God the Father or God the Son?  God the Son does not use anthropomorphic terms only - Jesus goes beyond anthropomorphic terms - he actually has a body of flesh and bone today.  

LDS see God's objective in creating us is to bring us into his presence eternally.  It is not man making himself God, but God making man gods.  This concept is scriptural and doctrinal.  Orthodoxy and Catholicism continue to teach it in various capacities and with degrees of limitation, but the doctrine has existed since the time of the first apostles and Jesus Christ. 

Link to comment

Thanks for starting this discussion, Steve. I have often wondered why some other Christians believe Mormons worship a different God when it is clear in our theology that we worship the God of Abraham.

I assume you have read the gospel topics essay on becoming like God? Becoming Like God

FWIW, and relative to your other excellent thread, I don't necessarily believe I will become a God, and there is enough wiggle room in the essay to justify my beliefs. I don't think becoming "like God" and becoming a god are the same thing.

Link to comment
10 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

I am reading Stephen E. Robinson's "Introduction" in the book How Wide the Divide? (co-authored w/ Craig Blomberg). I am very impressed and, in all honesty, convicted by some of what he writes about evangelicals. That being said, I find the difference of perspective concerning the nature of God between evangelicals and Latter-day Saints to be so significant that it is difficult to see how we can be talking about the same God. Robinson states, "We believe that God and humans are the same species of being..." (18). I cannot think of a more significant difference between evangelicals and Latter-day Saints. For here the most basic of distinctions, the Creator - creature distinction, is erased. Blomberg calls this "the heart of traditional Christianity's disagreement with Mormonism" (96). 

Given that this divide is very wide, would you say that evangelicals and Latter-day Saints believe in, worship, pray to, etc. the same God?

To help you understand the God of the Latter-day Saints, just image that the personage of God the Father is in every way exactly like the personage of the resurrected Son of God . Since you are, I'm sure, already ready quite comfortable with the idea that all the fullness of the Godhead can dwell in a human body -- as it does in the personage of the Jesus Christ -- just imagine that God the Father is a being who is in every way exactly like his son, Jesus. The personage of the Son amply proves that at least one personage within the Godheadcan can have a glorified resurrected body and not have that body diminish from his eternal power even one iota. As they say, if something happened once before, there's a much better possibility it could happen once again. And if Christ can possessi a body and not have that body detract from his divinity even slightly, why wouldn't God the Father also want have a glorious body? In your thinking, what advantage does the Father have over the Son by not possessing a glorified body?

Link to comment
10 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I think we believe in the same being, but disagree about who he is and what makes him God.
The fact that we believe different things about the same being doesn't change that we are talking about one being.

To say we believe in different Gods is to imply there is more than one God of the Bible/Christianity to believe in.
It's not the same as if we believed in Shiva.

I'm no so sure that this would imply that there is more than one God. Since the Bible teaches that there is one God, wouldn't the implication be that either the LDS or traditional Christians believe in a false god? A god that does not exist? 

Let me be clear that I am not arguing that this is the case here. I am exploring this question with you all.  A similar conversation sometimes takes place within evangelicalism as well. The difference between Calvinists and non-Calvinists on how God expresses his sovereignty is so significant that some conclude that we cannot be speaking about the same God. HERE and HERE are examples from an Arminain, Roger Olson, and HERE and HERE are examples from Calvinists. Now this is not typical. The majority of Calvinists and Arminians would not question that the other believes in the same God. 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...