Evangelical’S Highest Authority Says Mormons Are Christians

[Rob Bowman]

Steve,

You wrote:

I don't have the time or desire to explain all of it right now, but I am confident that there is no contradiction between what is taught in the Book of Mormon and what Joseph taught later in his life.

I have been hearing this a lot lately, on this specific issue. I hope you or someone finds the desire and the time to explain it. So far, the attempted explanations I have heard are all woefully inadequate.

Edited October 18, 2011 by Rob Bowman

[altersteve]

By the way, hope I didn't sound like a jerk when I said I didn't have the desire to explain it. All I meant was that I'm tired, busy, and hungry, and would much prefer to go back to bed, finish what I'm working on, and/or eat, rather than chat on an internet forum.

[zerinus]

So explain it to me.

If you would be more specific, and tell me what was said by whom and were, which contradicted what, I will try.

[CV75]

All of this really misses the point. What you have done right here is theology. That is, you have offered your own uninspired, man-made reflections on the differences between theology and revelation. Whenever someone thinks rationally about what God has revealed, he is doing theology. It is unavoidable. It is inevitable. When Paul "reasoned from the Scriptures" (Acts 17:2), he was doing theology. Taking the position that theology is bad while revelation is good is akin to saying, "It is wrong to use reason to understand revelation." Such a statement is self-contradictory, since the person making the statement is using reason (badly, as it turns out) to try to understand something about revelation.

Not at all. Personal, divine revelation is always more directly reflective of God’s will than any of the imperfect conclusions and interpretations of scientific study that man can come up with. I would think that any humble follower of Christ would at some point have that experience and recognize the superiority of revelation over reason. Why else would we need the Holy Ghost to confirm the truth that we have found?

[Scott Lloyd]

By the way, hope I didn't sound like a jerk when I said I didn't have the desire to explain it. All I meant was that I'm tired, busy, and hungry, and would much prefer to go back to bed, finish what I'm working on, and/or eat, rather than chat on an internet forum.

In this instance, it boils down to a matter of Rob Bowman's semantic quibbling/faulty frame of reference. What he insists is inconsistency in what Joseph Smith taught is merely a matter of his own refusal to recognize that when Book of Mormon or other scripture refers to the Father, Son and Holy Ghost being "one," it means that they are separate beings who are unified in purpose and divinity.

I've always found it singular that dogmatists such as Rob don't find it that difficult to grasp the intended meaning of the similarly figurative language in Genesis 2:24, quoted in several instances in the New Testament:

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

If this has already been explained to Rob, and if he finds the explanation "woefully inadequate," I would suggest that this is more reflective of Rob's own obstinacy on the matter than it is of the reasonableness or plausibility of the explanation itself.

Edited October 18, 2011 by Scott Lloyd

[CV75]

P.S. I think the term and definition “Theological Christian” screams, “I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas.” I think the rest of that chapter (I Corinthians 1) lays out the superiority of doctrine and wisdom (revelation) over theology rather well. Also Chapter 2 which continues this testimony (of particular note, verses 5, 10, 11 and others).

[Vance]

I've always found it singular that dogmatists such as Rob don't find it that difficult to grasp the intended meaning of the similarly figurative language in Genesis 2:24, quoted in several instances in the New Testament:

Or this one, (speaking of 1 Corinthians),

1 Cor 3:6 I (Paul) have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.

7 So then neither is he that planteth (Paul) any thing, neither he that watereth (Apollos); but God that giveth the increase.

8 Now he that planteth (Paul) and he that watereth (Apollos) are one . . .

It follows then that Paul and Apollos are separate persons in one being. Just like the Father and the Son are separate persons in one being.

Edited October 18, 2011 by Vance

[maklelan]

Took longer to load up the page then I realized, only checked the first two pages before......found the extra quote tag, it is right after "you need to some some study" at the end of the third page.

I fixed that one and it still gives me the same error.

[wenglund]

So explain it to me.

I would explain it in much the same way that you would explain how you can believe that God is unchanging from eternity to eternity, and yet you also believe that God went through the following changes: he descended below the angels, took upon himself the nature of man, died on the cross, and was later resurrected.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Scott Lloyd]

Or this one, (speaking of 1 Corinthians),

1 Cor 3:6 I (Paul) have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.

7 So then neither is he that planteth (Paul) any thing, neither he that watereth (Apollos); but God that giveth the increase.

8 Now he that planteth (Paul) and he that watereth (Apollos) are one . . .

It follows then that Paul and Apollos are separate persons in one being. Just like the Father and the Son are separate persons in one being.

Good point.

For that matter, we could go to John 17, where Jesus, in his intercessory prayer, speaks in the same breath of His disciples being one, of He and His Father being one, and of the disciples all being one with Them.

[Anakin7]

Actually many wards and stakes are directly involved (at the leadership level) in interfaith fellowship and discussion -- often to see what can be done in concert to deal with poverty, homelessness, and other problems faced by whole communities. There is a very ecumenical and accepting attitude by most participants. In a ward in southern California, for example, I recall an LDS bishop who had once regularly attended the local Catholic parish and knew one of priests quite well: When the LDS guy became a bishop, his old friend the priest commented to him that he had always wanted to be a bishop, but he was still just a parish priest. They both laughed.

The same kind spirit was exhibited by the religious staff at the local Federal Prison: The Protestant, Catholic, and Muslim clerics who ran the program at the Prison were gracious and very accommodating to Evangelicals, Mormons, Jews, and others who gathered each Sabbath for worship (a couple of visitors from each faith were allowed to come in from outside and participate).

Our Stake is very much involved with interfaith relations by way of giving food to food banks/volunteering in helping other churches in giving out food to homeless/less fortunate and helping them with any needs they have. We have invited them [ Ministers/Pastors/Priests/Reverands to a # of Firesides with Ross Baron as speaker when he had his Firesides responding to a local Fundamentalist Independant Baptist church anti LDS lecture's at there church. All in all we have a good standing with most churches in our area.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

Edited October 19, 2011 by Anakin7

[Robert F. Smith]

Calvary Chapelites

Does Chuck Smith approve of this term?

Your use of the term "Godhead" betrays your LDS theological presuppositions. The early church did not think in terms of a "Godhead" in the sense of a collective of deities that ran the universe. They worshiped God, not three Gods in one Godhead. As Christian thought matured on the subject they realized more clearly and articulated more effectively the fact that the NT explicitly describes Jesus Christ not as a subordinate deity but as God. This was the critical point at Nicea.

English "Godhead" (= Godhood) may be nothing more than a poor and outdated equivalent of German Gottheit, "deity," and is indeed misleading, but I don't know that it is fair to blame the problem on Mormons -- who after all didn't invent the word, and have been casting about for some time (in the absence of systematic theology) for a way to express their special sort of henotheistic or summotheistic array in the Council of the Gods -- all of us potentially being joint heirs with Christ through apotheosis.

Perhaps you have some suggestions as to how Mormons may better express their distinctive theology on this matter.

Edited October 19, 2011 by Robert F. Smith

[Rob Bowman]

Steve,

I am chronically tired and busy, and I get hungry often. No worries.

By the way, hope I didn't sound like a jerk when I said I didn't have the desire to explain it. All I meant was that I'm tired, busy, and hungry, and would much prefer to go back to bed, finish what I'm working on, and/or eat, rather than chat on an internet forum.

[Vance]

I fixed that one and it still gives me the same error.

I think that when the post is "too long" it gives you the same error as it does when the quotes don't match.

May I suggest you try breaking it into 2 or 3 sections then try posting them.

On second thought, I will try it.

Dan,

I wrote: I do not consider myself to be "the arbiter over" anyone else, but to be a Christian who is

responsible for knowing what the theological standards are for genuine Christianity. You replied:

Your question seems so off the wall to me that I hardly know how to respond. I seriously doubt any

further effort to explain it to you would do any good. But I'll make one more effort, and I'll have to

assume in my response that you need the obvious explained to you. Two preliminary points:

The definite article the in the expression "the arbiter" indicates that one person is being assigned

this function to the exclusion of all others. I do not claim any such function as my exclusive

responsibility.

That qualification was not clear in your posts. "I'm not the arbiter over anyone else" and "I'm not

the sole arbiter over anyone else" are two different things. Your previous post stated the following:

No one has been appointed arbiter over everyone else to determine what those standards

are.

This is even less clear in light of your current statement about what you meant.

The word arbiter indicates that the person exercises some decision-making role in determining who

will be allowed to have their way in some matter. I claim no such role.

An arbiter can be used in the technical sense of a person brought in to authoritatively decide a

dispute between two parties, or it can be used generically to refer to any person with power to

render a decision. You said the following:

Yes, I am a judge as to who is a Christian.

"Arbiter" and "judge" are often used synonymously. My concerns with your statements are perfectly

valid. You have claimed to be an arbiter over others.

When I said that I am

"a Christian who is responsible for knowing what the theological standards are for genuine

Christianity," that statement in no way implies that I am an arbiter, let alone the arbiter, of

anything.

So you're a judge but not an arbiter. I fail to see any value in making this distinction, but perhaps

you can explain why one needs to be careful not to confuse these two rather generic terms. After

all, you are not a judge in the technical sense, but only in a generic sense. I don't see why my use

of "arbiter" has to be criticized because you are not an arbiter in the technical sense, but only in a

generic sense.

Christians need to

know what those standards are for a variety of reasons:

because knowing them is a safeguard to the soundness of their own faith

because they need to teach them to their children

because, if they are teachers or leaders in the church, they have a responsibility to make sure that

the members know what sound Christian doctrine is for their own spiritual health and development

because Christians need to have some idea what groups of professing Christians need to be

evangelized due to a lack of sound knowledge of the gospel and its supporting doctrinal truths and

what groups do not need to be evangelized (e.g., Baptists do not need to evangelize Calvary

Chapelites but do need to evangelize Christian Scientists)

I've not once seen any of these concerns expressed in relation to this issue. Every single time I've

ever seen anyone assert their authority to declare another group non-Christian it has been for the

sole purpose of excluding that group from some perceived benefit. Can you point to public

examples of that authority being exercised expressly for each of the purposes above?

You wrote:

If you've never seen teachers caution Christians to stay within the bounds of orthodoxy you have

lived a sheltered life.

I have seen Christians caution others about staying away from heresies, but the consequence is

always just branding as a heretic. I have never seen a Christian warn another that some perceived

heresy will land them outside the boundaries of what has been authoritatively declared to be

Christianity. I have only ever seen that card played for the purpose of declaring a person or group

already outside the boundaries of Christianity. Can you point to any public examples of the former?

I can point to numerous public examples of the latter.

I used the

word authority with deliberate provocation in part because Mormons constantly harp on their

supposed "authority" and our supposed lack of authority, and in part because those with whom I

was engaged in discussion refused to answer a simple question. I don't claim to have any

authority OVER other Christians.

You claimed to be a judge as to who is a Christian.

I certainly don't claim

to have any authority over Mormons.

You claimed to be a judge as to who is a Christian.

Edited October 19, 2011 by Vance

[Vance]

You wrote:

This is ridiculous.

I and a quite large contingent of scholars disagree.

You seem to think you

are free to make all sorts of broad attacks against my beliefs without providing a single reference or

example, and then when I disagree issue a CFR.

My comments refer to broad consensuses in biblical scholarship. I didn't think it would be

necessary for me to provide references, but in the future I will do so.

And then you bring up

the Athanasian Creed, even though your unsubstantiated attack was against the Nicene

Creed.

I see no appreciable difference in terms of post-biblical innovation, and it is my understanding that

you believe both to be based exclusively on sound biblical exegesis.

In fact, this is the first

time anyone has mentioned the Athanasian Creed in this thread. So you are apparently trying to pull

a fast one.

No, this one is just longer.

The Athanasian Creed,

though it is called a "creed," is not a statement produced by any of the ecumenical councils.

Scholars date it ca. 500 and its author and the circumstances of its composition are unknown. It

carries no weight as an official statement of Christian belief, although many denominations in the

past used it among other documents. Most orthodox Christians agree in general with the Trinitarian

theology of the Athanasian Creed but not with its claim that someone who does not accept its

statement in its entirety will surely be eternally condemned.

For that reason, I am going to substitute the Nicene Creed (381) and the Chalcedonian Definition

(451), both of which originated from ecumenical councils. I could include the Apostles Creed but

everything it says is included in these.

Fair enough.

The Nicene

Creed (381)

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible

and invisible. [Matt. 23:9; Acts 4:24; 17:24; 1 Cor. 8:6a; 2 Cor. 6:18; Heb. 11:3; Rev. 21:22]

And in one Lord, Jesus Christ [1 Cor. 8:6b; 12:4; Eph. 4:5],

the only-begotten Son of God [John 1:12, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9],

begotten of the Father before all ages [John 1:14, 18; 5:26; 6:57; 17:5; Gal. 4:4],

God of God [John 1:1, 18; Titus 2:10, 13; 2 Peter 1:1-2],

Light of Light [John 1:4-5; Heb. 1:3],

true God of true God [John 1:1, 18; Col. 2:9; 1 John 5:20],

begotten, not made [John 1:14, 18],

Neither of these scriptures distinguishes between being begotten and being made (these terms

have extensive semantic overlap and are used synonymously in numerous places), nor do they

insist Jesus is not made. The need to insist Christ was not made did not exist until the third and

fourth centuries.

being of one substance

with the Father [John 1:14; Heb. 1:3],

Neither of these texts at all indicates Christ is one substance with the Father. The first simply says

the word was made flesh and the other simply says he was the expressed image of God.

by whom all things

were made [John 1:3, 10; Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:2, 10];

who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven [John 13:3; 16:28],

and was incarnate [John 1:14; Rom. 8:3; 1 John 4:1]

by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary [Matt. 1:18-25; Luke 1:35],

and was made man [Phil. 2:6-7],

and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate [Matt. 27; Mark 15; Luke 23; John 18-19].

He suffered [Matt. 16:21 par.; 17:12 par.; Luke 22:15; 24:26, 46; Acts 1:3; 3:18; 1 Pet. 3:18]

and was buried [Matt. 27:57-66 par.; Acts 13:29; 1 Cor. 15:4],

and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures [Luke 24:44-46; 1 Cor. 15:5],

and ascended into heaven [Acts 1:9-11],

and sits at the right hand of the Father [Mark 14:62; Luke 22:69; Acts 2:33, 34; 5:31; 7:55-56; Rom.

8:34; Eph. 1:20; Col. 3:1; Heb. 1:3, 13; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; 1 Pet. 3:22].

And he shall come again with glory [Matt. 16:27; Heb. 9:26-28; Titus 2:13; etc.]

to judge both the living and the dead [Matt. 25:31-46; John 5:22-23, 28-29; Acts 10:42; 17:31; 2

Cor. 5:10; 2 Thess. 1:7-8; Rev. 2:23];

whose kingdom shall have no end [Luke 1:33; Eph. 1:19b-21; Heb. 1:8; Rev. 11:15].

And we believe in the Holy Spirit [Matt. 28:19],

the Lord [2 Cor. 3:16-17]

and Giver of Life [Ps. 104:30; Ezek. 37:14; John 3:5-8; 6:63; Rom. 8:2, 6, 10-11; 2 Cor. 3:6; Gal.

5:25],

who proceeds from the Father [John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7],

who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified [Matt. 28:19; Phil. 3:3; cf.

Matt. 12:31-32; Mark 3:29],

who spoke by the prophets [Acts 1:16; 28:25-27; Heb. 3:7-11; 10:15-17; 1 Pet. 1:11].

And we believe one holy catholic and apostolic church [Eph. 2:18-22; 3:5-6; 4:4].

We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins [Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Eph. 4:5].

And we look for the resurrection of the dead [John 5:29; 11:24-25; Acts 4:2; 23:6; 24:15; Rom. 8:11;

1 Cor. 15; etc.],

and the life of the world to come [Mark 10:30; Luke 18:30; 20:34-35; etc.].

Amen.

The Definition of Chalcedon (451)

We, now, following the holy Fathers [Matt. 16:18; 28:20; 2 Tim. 2:2; Jude 3]

all with one consent [1 Cor. 1:2; Eph. 4:5, 11-16],

teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ [2 Cor. 11:4; Eph. 4:5],

the same perfect in Godhead [Col. 2:9; Heb. 1:3]

and also perfect in manhood [Phil. 2:7-8; Heb. 5:8-9];

truly God [John 1:1, 18; 20:28; Acts 20:28; Rom. 9:5; ***. 2:13; Heb. 1:8; 2 Pet. 1:1]

God in the sense of a divine being? That's found in those scriptures. God as in identified

ontologically with the Father? No, that's not in there at all.

Edited October 19, 2011 by Vance

[Vance]

and truly man [Acts 2:22; 1 Cor. 15:21; Heb. 2:5-9],

of a reasonable soul [Matt. 26:38-39; John 11:33; 12:27; Acts 2:27, 31]

and body [Matt. 26:12; 27:56-59; John 2:21; Heb. 10:10];

consubstantial [homoousion] with the Father according to the Godhead [theoteti, Grk.; deitate, L.]

[John 1:1; 10:30; 14:9; Col. 1:19, cf. 2:9; Heb. 1:3];

None of these texts at all indicate consubstantiality with the Father. Some simply refer to Jesus as

god and some refer to him as in some way united with God. None make any reference whatsoever

to ontology.

and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood [John 1:14; Acts 2:31; Rom. 1:3; 8:3-8; 1 John 4:2];

in all things like unto us, without sin [Heb. 2:14, 17; 4:15; 5:8-9];

begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead [John 1:14, 18; 5:26; 6:57; Gal.

4:4],

and in these latter days [Heb. 1:1-2],

for us and for our salvation [Luke 2:10-11],

born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God [theotokos], according to the Manhood [Matt. 1:18-25;

Luke 1:27, 31, 34-37, 43; 2:7];

one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-Begotten [Luke 2:11; John 1:14-18],

to be acknowledged in two natures [phuseon] [Rom. 1:3-4; 9:5; Phil. 2:6-8; Col. 2:9],

inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably [Heb. 1:10-12; 13:8; see texts cited above];

the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of

each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person [prosopon] and one Subsistence

[hupostasis] [Luke 8:22-25; John 8:57-58; 1 Cor. 2:8; Gal. 4:4; Phil. 2:6-8; Heb. 2:14-18],

not parted or divided into two persons [Eph. 4:5],

We'll leave these for another day.

but one and the same Son, and only-begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ [John 1:1-3, 14-18];

as the prophets from the beginning have declared concerning him [Heb. 1:1-13];

and the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us [Matt. 28:19-20; John 3:16],

and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us [1 Tim. 3:16; Jude 3].

The only way one finds the concepts to which I responded in the texts you cited is if they

predetermine that they are in there. One simply cannot read those texts and come away from it with

those conclusions. It is simply impossible.

The Biblical Basis of the Doctrine of the Trinity: An Outline StudyYou wrote:

You need to do some study.

Clearly.

In addition to my "The Biblical Basis of the Doctrine of the Trinity: An Outline Study" (I am not allowed to give the link but

I'm sure you can find it),

I began to prepare a response to this some time ago, but I didn't have time to finish it. To be brief:

1 - The notion that there is one God is explicitly rejected in numerous places throughout the Bible,

and Jesus' divinity is universally recognized in biblical scholarship as providing a hermeneutic

challenge to early Christians in light of Jewish "monotheism." Just how he fit into the idea of "one

God" and just what "one God" really meant to early Jews and Christians is something that is hotly

debated these days. What is universally acknowledged, however, is that the Bible does not fully

reconcile the issues, even though it provides multiple and conflicting proposals.

2 - You insist that the fact that the Bible never calls God one "person" is significant, but that fact

held no significance whatsoever until centuries later when a distinction was made between God's

being and his persons for the sole purpose of satisfying the need to have three separate entities

contained in one entity. You can point to no concern for this distinction at any point during the

actual composition of the New Testament.

3 - The notion that Jesus Christ is God, as in ontologically identifiable with the being of God the

Father, is nowhere found in the Bible. All that is found is the appellative (not a personal name) "god"

attributed to Jesus and the notion that the two are somehow united, or "one." John 17 provides the

only actual evidence in all the New Testament that bears on the question of how they are one, and

it indicates their unity is in will. As late as Justin Martyr this is how their oneness was explicitly

understood.

4 - The notion that Jesus is Jehovah because the New Testament uses the word "Lord" in reference

to both God and Jesus is unfounded. "Lord" had many different uses, including substitution for the

Tetragrammaton. The fact that New Testament authors used Old Testament quotations originally in

reference to the Father and attributed them to Jesus via the appellative "Lord" is no more indicative

of their identification as Heb 1:5's use of a text in reference to David as a reference to Jesus

identifies those two.

5 - The notion that titles given to Jesus are titles "belonging only to God" is circular. If it's used in

reference to Jesus then you can't insist that it is a title that only belongs to God.

6 - Regarding honors given only to God, I object to the notion that honor and love are given only to

God. Also, Rev 3:9 clearly states that the Philadelphians will be worshipped. The argument that this

is some secular sense of the word proskuneuo is circuler and is mitigated by the fact that

Revelation uses the word far more than any other text of the Bible, and in no other instance is the

reference to anything other than formal religious worship.

I have many more concerns about many other portions of the argument (for instance, your

responses to objections frequently beg the question or are circular), but this should be good for

now.

The Biblical Basis of the Doctrine of the Trinity: An Outline Studysee also my article “Crux Examinatio: Socinus on the

Doctrine of the Trinity.” Journal of the International Society of Christian Apologetics 1 (2008): 59-77,

which discusses John 17:3 in some detail; my blog series "In What Sense Are Jesus and the Father

One?" which you can find on Parchment and Pen (which deals with John 17:20-23 and related

texts), and the book I co-authored with J. Ed Komoszewski, Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case

for the Deity of Christ (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007).

I'll take a look when I have the time, but if they contain the same kind of hermeneutic utilized in the

first reference, I'm going to have many problems to point out.

PS I found the missing quote mark, I placed one in front of the bolded part above. I hope I got it right.

Edited October 19, 2011 by Vance

[Vance]

You wrote:

Okay. But you're still mistaken.

No, I don't believe I am.

You wrote:

You're already off the trail. The word entities is simply a synonym for beings.

But it doesn't have the baggage that "beings" does. That was the explicit purpose of its use. You

have still left several concerns unaddressed.

You really need to

read Putting Jesus in His Place. The authors of three of the five books you cite here (Hurtado and

Bauckham) endorsed it.

Do you specifically address each of these concerns in your publication? If not, I would appreciate a

response here.

You are assuming that

continued study of the Bible did not play a role in the church abandoning the subordinationism that

Justin Martyr exemplified.

Completely false. As I've pointed out, there is no verse in all of the Bible that in any way, shape, or

form objects to subordinationism or at all suggests that Jesus Christ is the ontological equal of God

the Father. There is simply no evidence for this rather trite idea that a light turned on and Christians

just suddenly understood this concept one day from doing nothing else but reading the Bible; and

there's quite a bit of evidence that specific cultural and ideological influences catalyzed the

development of the idea (one of which I've already indicated). The presence of outside influence is

widely recognized among scholars of the Trinity. For instance, Buzzard and Hunting wrote in The

Doctrine of the Trinity:

It is no longer sufficient to claim the simple equation "Jesus = God" as a valid reflection of

the New Testament. . . . The evidence strongly suggests that the Triune God is foreign to the

biblical revelation. Intelligent Bible study must search for a revised Christology which allows for the

obvious and persistent subordination of Jesus to the One God.

In a review of a 1998 book called The Theology of the Acts of the Apostles," Howard Marshall

wrote, "All New Testament Christology is subordinationist."

Andrew McGowan wrote that certain of Tertullian's contributions to the development of the doctrine

of the Trinity related to subordinationism were actually dependent upon the heresy of the New

Prophecy (Montanism) in Carthage.

Your use of the term

"Godhead" betrays your LDS theological presuppositions.

Utterly immaterial.

The early church did

not think in terms of a "Godhead" in the sense of a collective of deities that ran the universe. They

worshiped God, not three Gods in one Godhead. As Christian thought matured on the subject they

realized more clearly and articulated more effectively the fact that the NT explicitly describes Jesus

Christ not as a subordinate deity but as God. This was the critical point at Nicea.

No, there is no part of the New Testament that identifies Jesus ontologically with God, and there

are numerous parts that describe him as ontologically inferior. As I explained, the need to insist he

was ontologically identified with God arose from the need to satisfy a philosophical ideal that had

nothing whatsoever to do with the Bible. You glossed over that portion of my comments.

You wrote:

No, just clarifying them. Am I permitted to do so?

It's not clarifying if you're contradicting earlier comments.

Naturally, some people

get further along than others do in the process of learning the doctrinal truths on which the gospel

rests. Your criticism ignores this obvious qualification.

My criticism is based on two mutually exclusive claims you have made. You've not actually come

down definitively on one side.

This post is already way

too long and I have already spent far too much time on it.

Me too.

Edited October 19, 2011 by Vance

[maklelan]

Good point.

For that matter, we could go to John 17, where Jesus, in his intercessory prayer, speaks in the same breath of His disciples being one, of He and His Father being one, and of the disciples all being one with Them.

It's not just in the same breath. He explicitly asks that his disciples become one with him in the same way that he is one with the Father. So the apostles are described as one in will, etc., and God and Jesus are one in some way that his disciples are also intended to be one. I don't see any text anywhere that would lead anyone to believe this oneness is ontological unless they had the specific interpretive lenses I described coloring their reading.

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus:

If you would be more specific, and tell me what was said by whom and were, which contradicted what, I will try.

Cool.

1. Statements from 1827-1830 affirming one God as the creator, that this God has been God from all eternity, and specifically that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God:

And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen. (Testimony of Three Witnesses)

And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen. (2 Ne. 31:21b)

1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. 2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son— 3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son— 4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth. 5 And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people. (Mosiah 15:1-5)

And he hath brought to pass the redemption of the world, whereby he that is found guiltless before him at the judgment day hath it given unto him to dwell in the presence of God in his kingdom, to sing ceaseless praises with the choirs above, unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God, in a state of happiness which hath no end. (Mormon 7:7)

For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity. (Moroni 8:18)

By these things we know that there is a God in heaven, who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God, the framer of heaven and earth, and all things which are in them.... Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen. (D&C 20:17, 28)

2. Statements from later in Joseph's life (1835-1844) affirming a plurality of Gods that made the world, that our God has not been God from all eternity, and that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not one God but three Gods:

1 And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth. 2 And the earth, after it was formed, was empty and desolate, because they had not formed anything but the earth; and darkness reigned upon the face of the deep, and the Spirit of the Gods was brooding upon the face of the waters. 3 And they (the Gods) said: Let there be light; and there was light.... [etc.] (Abr. 4:1-3; continues throughout Abr. 4-5)

“In order to understand the subject of the dead, for the consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, it is necessary that we should understand the character and being of God, and how he came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and will take away and do away the veil, so that you may see…. Here, then, is eternal life—to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you,—namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one,—from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power.” Joseph Smith, King Follett Discourse, April 7, 1844; published in Times & Seasons, Aug. 15, 1844; Journal of Discourses 6:3-4; Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, comp. Joseph Fielding Smith, 345-46; Discourses of the Prophet Joseph Smith, comp. Alma P. Burton, 340-41; Messages of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, comp. James R. Clark, 1:213-14; Ensign, April 1971.

“I will preach on the plurality of Gods. I have selected this text for that express purpose. I wish to declare I have always and in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods. It has been preached by the elders for fifteen years.

I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these constitute three distinct personages and three Gods. If this is in accordance with the New Testament, lo and behold! we have three Gods anyhow, and they are plural, and who can contradict it?...

In the very beginning the Bible shows there is a plurality of Gods beyond the power of refutation. It is a great subject I am dwelling on. The word Eloheim ought to be in the plural all the way through—Gods. The head of the Gods appointed one God for us; and when you take that view of the subject, it sets one free to see all the beauty, holiness and perfection of the Gods….

Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are one God. I say that is a strange God anyhow—three in one, and one in three! It is a curious organization…. All are to be crammed into one God, according to sectarianism. It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big God—he would be a giant or a monster.” Joseph Smith, Sermon at the Grove, June 16, 1844; published in History of the Church, 474-76; Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 370-73; Discourses of the Prophet Joseph Smith, comp. Alma P. Burton, 35-38; Messages of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, comp. James R. Clark, 1:226-28.

In review: In the Book of Mormon and in Joseph Smith's earliest revelations, we find statements that explicitly state that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are "one God," whereas later Joseph explicitly states that they are "three Gods" and that the idea of them being "one God" is curious, requires them to be "crammed into one God," making him "a giant or a monster." In the earlier statements, God has been God without change from everlasting, an unchangeable being from all eternity; in the later statements, Joseph argues that we have falsely imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity, and that instead God came to be God.

[Rob Bowman]

Scott,

You wrote:

In this instance, it boils down to a matter of Rob Bowman's semantic quibbling/faulty frame of reference. What he insists is inconsistency in what Joseph Smith taught is merely a matter of his own refusal to recognize that when Book of Mormon or other scripture refers to the Father, Son and Holy Ghost being "one," it means that they are separate beings who are unified in purpose and divinity. I've always found it singular that dogmatists such as Rob don't find it that difficult to grasp the intended meaning of the similarly figurative language in Genesis 2:24, quoted in several instances in the New Testament: If this has already been explained to Rob, and if he finds the explanation "woefully inadequate," I would suggest that this is more reflective of Rob's own obstinacy on the matter than it is of the reasonableness or plausibility of the explanation itself.

Who is the one who is the obstinate dogmatist: the one who deals with the statements in question forthrightly, or the one who obfuscates them?

The issue here is not some vague statement that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are "one" in some unspecified way, which can then be finessed in the way you suggest. The issue here is that Joseph Smith's early revelations and teachings affirmed that they were specifically "one God" while at the end of his life he derided that very description and insisted that they were "three Gods."

Let me emphasize: the issue is not "one" versus "three"; it is ONE GOD versus THREE GODS; ONE GOD versus NOT ONE GOD.

[Rob Bowman]

Robert,

Regarding my use of the term "Calvary Chapelite," you asked:

Does Chuck Smith approve of this term?

No idea.

English "Godhead" (= Godhood) may be nothing more than a poor and outdated equivalent of German Gottheit, "deity," and is indeed misleading, but I don't know that it is fair to blame the problem on Mormons -- who after all didn't invent the word, and have been casting about for some time (in the absence of systematic theology) for a way to express their special sort of henotheistic or summotheistic array in the Council of the Gods -- all of us potentially being joint heirs with Christ through apotheosis. Perhaps you have some suggestions as to how Mormons may better express their distinctive theology on this matter.

The problem is not that Mormons use the word Godhead but that they use it improperly to designate a triumvirate of Gods. I get enough flak here for my efforts to express my understanding of LDS doctrine without trying to propose theological vocabulary for Mormons to use.

[Vance]

Let me emphasize: the issue is not "one" versus "three"; it is ONE GOD versus THREE GODS; ONE GOD versus NOT ONE GOD.

Sorry that you aren't grasping the concept. It isn't "ONE GOD" versus "THREE GODS", but rather "The Father, and The Son and The Holy Ghost being one God in one sense and "The Father, and The Son and The Holy Ghost being one three Gods" in another.

It really isn't that hard to understand, IF you wanted to.

Also, "ONE GOD versus NOT ONE GOD" is a non sequitur.

[altersteve]

The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three "gods" in that they are each a separate divine being, distinct and physically separate from each other, but they are collectively "one God." Joseph was not saying that they are not one in heart, mind, will, and love, which is what the Book of Mormon and the Bible say explicitly; he was clearly preaching against the idea that they are "of one substance," hence the "crammed into one God" statement. Joseph may have misunderstood the Trinity, as many people do, but his intent was clear. You're only twisting his words here. All of his statements must be read with the Holy Ghost and in light of what he has said elsewhere. He is a prophet, and all of the prophets' words must be read in light of what the scriptures say and in light of where you feel the Spirit guiding you.

And I still don't believe Joseph ever taught that God was once not God; this is clear when statements apparently saying so are read in context. He was clearly saying that the Father was not eternally existing as God the Father, and that He had the same experiences Christ had, and was thus God in every sense that Christ has always been God. But he never said He once wasn't God at all. Remember, also, that he was murdered very shortly after making this statements, and was therefore never given a chance to clarify or expand these teachings.

The fact is, though, that there is no contradiction in anything Joseph Smith taught.

Edited October 19, 2011 by altersteve

[Hannah Rebekah]

I found the writings of Origen interesting and very revealing while he was questioning Heraclides on the relationship of Christ to God the Father. I even looked up the original writings where this came from and thought it very interesting and backs up what Mormons believe at least in how it pertains to the Son and the Father. This comes from ChristianityToday:

It Didn't Start with Alexander and Arius

Most historians of the Council of Nicaea begin their story with the fiery exchange of words between Arius and Alexander. But the discussion of the nature of Christ has a much longer history in the church. The great third-century theologian Origen, for example, pressed a bishop named Heraclides to define the relationship of Christ to God the Father. After much careful questioning, Heraclides admitted to believing in two Gods but clarified that "the power is one." Origen reminded Heraclides that some Christians would "take offense at the statement that there are two Gods. We must express the doctrine carefully to show in what sense they are two, and in what sense the two are one God."

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/2005/issue85/debatingjesusdivinitydidyouknow.html

[shalamabobbi]

Let me emphasize: the issue is not "one" versus "three"; it is ONE GOD versus THREE GODS; ONE GOD versus NOT ONE GOD.

The issue is once Humpty Dumpty falls from his comfortable wall of traditional upbringing he'll never be able to put the pieces of his lazy world view back together again..

Stumper..

One nation under God

"Be one or ye are not mine"

If the hand is not the foot, is it not of the body?

We had a great time yesterday (made of many instants)