Jump to content

What is the LDS definition of 'Incarnation'


blueadept

Recommended Posts

The LDS bible dictionary uses the term three times-

Once concerning the epistle of John-

"The first epistle emphasizes that Jesus has come in the flesh, and shows its bearing on the life of men. It was probably written after the Gospel, for it assumes in the reader a knowledge of the facts that the Gospel records. It also contains warnings against the dangers that beset a true faith in the literal incarnation of Jesus even before the end of the first century, both from teachers who claimed in authority independent of our Lordâ??s in the revelation of truth and from teachers who refused to acknowledge a real manifestation of the Godhead in human flesh. "

Once talking about Mark-

"His object is to describe our Lord as the incarnate Son of God, living and acting among men."

and once talking about the epistles of Peter-

"The first epistle was written from â??Babylonâ? (i.e., probably Rome) soon after the outbreak of the Neronian persecution, A.D. 64, and is addressed to Christians in the different provinces of what is now called Asia Minor. Its object is to encourage (cf. Luke 22: 32) men who were in danger of being terrified into a denial of their Lord, but it also contains valuable teaching about the incarnation and atonement (1 Pet. 1: 11, 18-19; 1 Pet. 2: 21-25; 1 Pet. 3: 18; 1 Pet. 4: 1, 12-19), and the doctrine of regeneration (1 Pet. 1: 3, 23)."

It's not really a word that LDS use often.

:P

Link to comment

Does the traditional usage of "incarnate" or "incarnation" mean something other than "in the flesh"? Though it isn't a normal word LDS use, it is still a descriptive word that can be used for a number of different circumstances, but is there more to it than that?

For the rest (most) of Christianity......yes. Thus, I'm not wanting to taint any responses by the important definition in our view.

The responses thus far has shown that LDS do not give this much importance where most other faiths give it extreme importance though.

Link to comment

For the rest (most) of Christianity......yes. Thus, I'm not wanting to taint any responses by the important definition in our view.

The responses thus far has shown that LDS do not give this much importance where most other faiths give it extreme importance though.

Well...I think you will find that we may not assign extreme importance to the word, but the concept it describes we hold in high regard...

The birth of Christ being the Son of God incarnate we assign extreme importance to.

The ministry of Christ, being the Word incarnate, we assign extreme importance to.

The atonement of Christ, Christ being the "atonement incarnate", we assign extreme importance to.

These being the things that come to mind first and fastest, though we do not use the label, we still regard with extreme importance.

Link to comment

blueadept:

I said we don't usually use that term. Not that we don't place importance or significance to the ideas behind the term. The LDS believe Jesus the Christ is the only begotten Son of God in the flesh. That He came to earth to save and redeem us. That He was the only one that could do so being fully God, and fully man.

Link to comment

Well...I think you will find that we may not assign extreme importance to the word, but the concept it describes we hold in high regard...

The birth of Christ being the Son of God incarnate we assign extreme importance to.

The ministry of Christ, being the Word incarnate, we assign extreme importance to.

The atonement of Christ, Christ being the "atonement incarnate", we assign extreme importance to.

These being the things that come to mind first and fastest, though we do not use the label, we still regard with extreme importance.

Thanks, that seemed to help a lot. I will admit I've never heard the term "atonement incarnate" before though.

Here's the definition normally used by others when we use "Incarnate."

INCARNATION: The fact that the Son of God assumed human nature and became man in order to accomplish our salvation in that same human nature. Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the second Person of the Trinity, is both true God and true man, not part God and part man (461, 464).

From the Catechism for 461 and 464

461 Taking up St. John's expression, "The Word became flesh,"82 the Church calls "Incarnation" the fact that the Son of God assumed a human nature in order to accomplish our salvation in it. In a hymn cited by St. Paul, the Church sings the mystery of the Incarnation:

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross

464 The unique and altogether singular event of the Incarnation of the Son of God does not mean that Jesus Christ is part God and part man, nor does it imply that he is the result of a confused mixture of the divine and the human. He became truly man while remaining truly God. Jesus Christ is true God and true man. During the first centuries, the Church had to defend and clarify this truth of faith against the heresies that falsified it.

Link to comment

That He was the only one that could do so being fully God, and fully man.

That's an interesting explanation. I've always interpreted that we had different understandings of this especially after Elder Nelson's (?) Conference talk.

Link to comment

Sorry........Elder Holland's Oct. 2007 Conference Talk "The Only True God and Jesus Christ Whom He Hath Sent"

http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-775-15,00.html

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

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

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