Storm Rider Posted June 4, 2012 Author Posted June 4, 2012 "Sons of God" could be anyone who follows God. Israel at times was called "Sons of God" (bene elohim). As to a literal Son of God there is some discussion since it is in referenced to a carnal relationship which the Bible doesn't speak. It does speak of Jesus being called begotten at two points in the New Testament. One, at his baptism and two, at his death. Later, during the Patristic period Jesus was considered the "literal" Son of God.It can become an issue of semantics when we begin to look at how scripture identifies all who follow God becomes his sons, but this would take us down another path into another thread. I suspect that there has always been degrees of confusion when "Only Begotten" Son was used, but I recall that they have used that language as eternally begotten of the Father. As Maureen stated above in edit #3, the Son was with the Father in the beginning. LDS don't disagree with that point; the Godhead has always existed as such. There was not a time when a contest was held to identify who the Son of God would be; it was always Jehovah. That is the incredible gall of Lucifer to think that he could become like the Son. Back to the point.I do read things in Protestant and orthodox writings where they use very clear language at one point only to later move away from it and bring back confusion. It is very strange; a mystery as they say.
Storm Rider Posted June 4, 2012 Author Posted June 4, 2012 Hi Storm Rider,Ordinarily, that which is not to be understood literally in the Scriptures, is understood symbolically or figuratively. When Jesus says He is the door in John 10, few confuse His saying to mean that He is made out of wood and has hinges. Other sayings of Scripture are more controversial.With regard to whether as a Catholic I believe Jesus is literally God's Son, I answer most emphatically in the affirmative. We deny that He is speaking in symbols or figures when He claims to be the Son of the Father. When it comes to fatherhood and sonhood, Christ and the Father are the model and biological creation is a shadow of that literal reality. I could sooner say my boy is a symbol of me than that Jesus is symbolic of the Father.My Good Friend, always good to hear from you. There are so many ways that Catholics and Latter-day Saints can rejoice in the glory that is our God. When I read the Patristic Fathers I am so often inspired and come to value their words. I think you are also aware of my deep appreciation for John Paul II; I believe he was a prophet in a very real sense for the people of the world. Too many of his writings hold too much truth for it to be otherwise. I think you can appreciate how confusing it is for LDS to hear you say that you believe in the literal Sonship of Jesus Christ and yet still maintain an orthodox belief in the Trinity. I guess for LDS the concept of essence or substance is a nonstarter. Some will say we just need faith to accept a mystery. For us, it is just to easy to say that the three are three, but one in purpose, love, and godhood. When I am asked if I am monotheistic I more often then not reply, yes. I pray to the same God that Jesus prayed to without fail. The Father is my God and only God. Of course, the Father has glorified the Son as Jesus said he would and the Holy Spirit is Second Comforter and part of the Godhead as the NT tells us. To be so close and yet viewed as so far apart is unfortunate. What is one of our great blessings is for all followers of Jesus Christ to recognize that he is the Son of God and it is through the Son that we may return to the Father. May the Holy Spirit guide us to that great day of deliverance.
Maureen Posted June 4, 2012 Posted June 4, 2012 Do I remember you from CAF?I don't think so, I don't even know what CAF is?M.
Maureen Posted June 4, 2012 Posted June 4, 2012 ...As Maureen stated above in edit #3, the Son was with the Father in the beginning.Actually I said the Son was with the Father before the beginning. Since trinitarians do not believe in a pre-existence for mankind, the beginning is when God created mankind.LDS don't disagree with that point; the Godhead has always existed as such. There was not a time when a contest was held to identify who the Son of God would be; it was always Jehovah. That is the incredible gall of Lucifer to think that he could become like the Son. Back to the point.But LDS do believe that Jesus, Lucifer and all mankind are literal sons and daughters of God the Father. Intelligence has always existed but spirit beings were organized/created by God the Father. LDS believe that Jesus was once a spirit being. This is quite different for trinitarians, we believe that none of the persons of the trinity were created or organized, they have always existed as God. God is the only being that has ever had a pre-existence in relation to mankind because mankind has always had a beginning.I do read things in Protestant and orthodox writings where they use very clear language at one point only to later move away from it and bring back confusion. It is very strange; a mystery as they say.Storm, could you elaborate about what you've read that shows this difference?M.
Storm Rider Posted June 4, 2012 Author Posted June 4, 2012 Storm, could you elaborate about what you've read that shows this difference?M.Yes, one thing I thought of when writing this is the Catholic Catechism #460:460 The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":"For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God." "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God." "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."Here is a wonderful teaching about men becoming gods. There is nothing in this teaching that disagrees with LDS teaching on the same topic. However, Catholics and most orthodox believers are highly uncomfortable with using the language of their own Cathechism when it comes to man becoming gods. For example, let's compare this simple teaching above with the following:Nowhere does the Bible say or imply that God was ever a man, or that man can become God! Each Mormon man believes he too can become a god and have his own universe. (This is terrible anti-Mormon tripe, but typical distortion of LDS doctrine)"...eventually become gods themselves"Besides being a good selection of typical anti-Mormon distortion, they all demonstrate backpeddling on a standard teaching of orthodoxy (both Eastern and Western). Does the Bible teach that God was every man? I hope to shout! Jesus was that God made man. Why deride the fact that man can become gods when the Cathechism teachings it plainly, clearly, and unequivically? This is how orthdoxy comes out and admits, defines truth and then quickly distances themselves from it.
Maureen Posted June 4, 2012 Posted June 4, 2012 (edited) Yes, one thing I thought of when writing this is the Catholic Catechism #460:460 The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":"For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God." "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God." "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."Here is a wonderful teaching about men becoming gods. There is nothing in this teaching that disagrees with LDS teaching on the same topic. However, Catholics and most orthodox believers are highly uncomfortable with using the language of their own Cathechism when it comes to man becoming gods. For example, let's compare this simple teaching above with the following:Nowhere does the Bible say or imply that God was ever a man, or that man can become God!Each Mormon man believes he too can become a god and have his own universe. (This is terrible anti-Mormon tripe, but typical distortion of LDS doctrine)"...eventually become gods themselves"Besides being a good selection of typical anti-Mormon distortion, they all demonstrate backpeddling on a standard teaching of orthodoxy (both Eastern and Western). Does the Bible teach that God was every man? I hope to shout! Jesus was that God made man. Why deride the fact that man can become gods when the Cathechism teachings it plainly, clearly, and unequivically?This is how orthdoxy comes out and admits, defines truth and then quickly distances themselves from it.Storm, since I'm not Catholic I went searching for how Catholics interpret their doctrine and I found the explanation below. I think you're trying to understand Catholic doctrine with an LDS mindset. Here's just an excerpt, I left the link so you can read the whole explanation.Issue: What is meant by the quote from St. Athanasius that is found in theCatechism of the Catholic Church: "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God" (no. 460)?Response: When God created Adam and Eve, He gave them supernatural grace that allowed them to participate in His divine nature. Christ became man in order to restore this grace, which was forfeited when Adam and Eve sinned. We are united to the Son of God in Baptism, whereby we share in his Passion, Death, and Resurrection. We are thus "sons in the Son" and, by grace, "partakers of the divine nature."Discussion: While St. Athanasius’s quote might be easily misunderstood, the previous line in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Catechism), from St. Irenaeus, provides the appropriate context: "The Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God" (no. 460). To bethe Son of God and to be a son of God are therefore two very different things: Christ is Son by nature (the "only Son" in John 3:16), while we are sons by grace ("sons in the Son" according to Gaudium et Spes, 22). Further, since man is a creature and there is only one God, man can never be God in the proper sense. Within the context of this paragraph, we see that St. Athanasius’s statement means something other than a man becoming the one God.http://www.cuf.org/f...ew.asp?ffID=257M. Edited June 4, 2012 by Maureen
David T Posted June 4, 2012 Posted June 4, 2012 (edited) My feelings are that Jesus is the Son of God in the same way we all are - his unique monogenes status coming from his mission as supreme pattern/exemplar, not of anything uniquely physical or metaphysical. IE, I don't feel Jesus needs to be a demigod. He was fully human, with his exemplary and essential divine nature being expressly clear - and in control- as seen in his actions and persona. Edited June 4, 2012 by David T
mfbukowski Posted June 4, 2012 Posted June 4, 2012 I believe you meant this one: http://www.newadvent...then/07449a.htmThey both work just fine- two sides of the same coin!
Log Posted June 4, 2012 Posted June 4, 2012 (edited) Issue:What is meant by the quote from St. Athanasius that is found in theCatechism of the Catholic Church: "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God" (no. 460)?... Discussion: While St. Athanasius’s quote might be easily misunderstood, the previous line in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Catechism), from St. Irenaeus, provides the appropriate context: "The Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God" (no. 460). To bethe Son of God and to be a son of God are therefore two very different things: Christ is Son by nature (the "only Son" in John 3:16), while we are sons by grace ("sons in the Son" according to Gaudium et Spes, 22). Further, since man is a creature and there is only one God, man can never be God in the proper sense. Within the context of this paragraph, we see that St. Athanasius’s statement means something other than a man becoming the one God.I would like to point out that this is the narrative of unbelief. This is the type of rhetorical analysis one engages in when one does not believe what is being taught, but has to account the teaching as true, in some sense.You can observe it on this board daily by members and non-members alike.Note well the subtle change of subject within the "discussion" - from "God" to "the one God." In other contexts, we might call that equivocation. Edited June 4, 2012 by Log
Storm Rider Posted June 4, 2012 Author Posted June 4, 2012 Storm, since I'm not Catholic I went searching for how Catholics interpret their doctrine and I found the explanation below. I think you're trying to understand Catholic doctrine with an LDS mindset. Here's just an excerpt, I left the link so you can read the whole explanation.Issue: What is meant by the quote from St. Athanasius that is found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God" (no. 460)?Response: When God created Adam and Eve, He gave them supernatural grace that allowed them to participate in His divine nature. Christ became man in order to restore this grace, which was forfeited when Adam and Eve sinned. We are united to the Son of God in Baptism, whereby we share in his Passion, Death, and Resurrection. We are thus "sons in the Son" and, by grace, "partakers of the divine nature."Discussion: While St. Athanasius’s quote might be easily misunderstood, the previous line in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Catechism), from St. Irenaeus, provides the appropriate context: "The Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God" (no. 460). To bethe Son of God and to be a son of God are therefore two very different things: Christ is Son by nature (the "only Son" in John 3:16), while we are sons by grace ("sons in the Son" according to Gaudium et Spes, 22). Further, since man is a creature and there is only one God, man can never be God in the proper sense. Within the context of this paragraph, we see that St. Athanasius’s statement means something other than a man becoming the one God.http://www.cuf.org/f...ew.asp?ffID=257M.No, I conversant with the explanation of St. Athanasius' statement; however, that is not what the #460 is talking about. It is not saying that we will become the Son of God; LDS don't believe that either. What LDS teach is that we may become joint-heirs with Jesus Christ as stated in Romans 8:17. In the words of Athanasius, that we become gods. You actually bring up exactly what I am talking about. #460 states is clearly and simply; yet, biblical scholars will back peddle madly to get away from the simple phrase, "man will become gods" through Jesus Christ. What is so difficult with that simple statement? It is stated in several locations in the Bible and yet almost every Christian church falls all over themselves denying it twelve ways to Sunday. Most of the early Church Father up to about 800 AD were clear on this teaching. The Eastern Fathers continued and to this day it is taught relatively cleanly. At no time does LDS scripture say we will become God the Father. We don't believe we will ever become Him; he will and has always been our God. There is no other God before him and there will be no God after him. Again, they do teach truths, but then they become so uncomfortable with the truth they then water it down until it is a mere shadow of what the scriptures state and whey they originally taught.
mfbukowski Posted June 4, 2012 Posted June 4, 2012 Hey bukowski.Doing good? I can always count on you. Thanks for your reply. Log...nod out to you too. You've been watching over the years I guess.I did not even give my own definition. Where do you even find MY definition that supposedly differs from St. Thomas specifically, or the Catholic Church in general? Give us the Catholic defintion of substance that will not fit into how I explain consubstantiality.All I argued was that we need to agree on what consubstantial means and we have to use the word the way the early church used it. You'll have to look at how the word would apply outside of the divine nature if you want any kind of comprehensive understanding of it. All I can think of is that the refusal to do so stems from a convenient dismissal of Catholic claims. But wait. It is NOT necessary. Have no fear. As I suggested, there is ample material for us to disagree about. Never worry about whether you can claim we are apostate. I promise to leave that intact for you!Okay. We have to use all of the data to understand what the word means. Right? Do we not gain understanding of the meaning of a word by seeing it used in a variety ways? Unfortuantely, the word is ordinarily applied theologically in reference to the divine nature. But there is more, and that is why said I am unconvinced that you deny consubstantiality as the Catholic Church has used the word. To be specific, I reference the Council of Chalcedon where in addition to teaching that Christ is consubstantial with the Father according to His divinity, we are told that Christ is consubstantial with us according to His humanity. Surely you see the significance? How do you understand that? This shows that I am consubstantial with my children. And for that matter, I am consubstantial with you. We have the same whatness. If Mormons would look at the implications of the use of the word as applied to Christ and us, they would see that consubstantiality applies to any two things that have the same essence wheter it be mineral, vegetable, or animal.OK- well I like that, bottom line.Sounds a bit like the old sensus fidelium creeping in but we all have that phenomenon. As the old guard dies off and kids educated to believe differently become the old men, beliefs are bound to change in all churches. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14322c.htmOn the other hand, I think we are ahead of the curve on this argument since we believe in ongoing revelation, and it is my belief that we are on a collision course with what everyone will believe in about a hundred years anyway, at least those few left who have any religious inclinations whatsoever.As a philosophical follower of William James et al, and Wittgenstein, as the world turns more in the direction they foresaw, I think it is pretty inevitable that we believers will all end up in the same place anyway.Only time will tell!But good post- thanks- I hadn't looked at it that way, that modern Catholics do not understand things as Aquinas did, and that time marches on. Of course we don't see things quite like Brigham Young and Wilford Woodruff either. (But we have doctrine to cover it- perhaps this idea of sensus fidelium covers you as well)
mfbukowski Posted June 4, 2012 Posted June 4, 2012 Wouldn't it be interesting if we never made any historical references at all, and pretended that none of our faiths had "history" to quote but just talked about our own personal faiths, as we understood them, person to person, putting away dogma for awhile??No talk about "substance" or "Christianity" or history at all- no "Trinity" or "Godhead" or any of that?Nah, it would never work. We might all find out we are all the same under all the labels, and what would happen then???
Log Posted June 4, 2012 Posted June 4, 2012 That would turn the board into a testimony-bearing fest. 1
mfbukowski Posted June 4, 2012 Posted June 4, 2012 Actually I said the Son was with the Father before the beginning. Since trinitarians do not believe in a pre-existence for mankind, the beginning is when God created mankind.Could you give me a date on that?Since we are not all sitting down singing Kumbaya yet, we might as well go for it.
mfbukowski Posted June 4, 2012 Posted June 4, 2012 That would turn the board into a testimony-bearing fest.I know- that would be the most terrible thing possible!Hey man- I love your new avatar- you crack me up!!
Nominee Posted June 4, 2012 Posted June 4, 2012 (edited) and what would happen then???We would be living as God has commanded us and Zion would be our address.Matthew 22:36-40 (straight out of this month's visiting teaching lesson):Master, which is the great commandment in the law?Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.This is the first and great commandment.And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.edit: Had to type the scripture out myself. WORST COPY/PASTE EVER! Edited June 4, 2012 by Nominee
Log Posted June 4, 2012 Posted June 4, 2012 Here's where I think the board rules are rather interesting - you're not allowed to do what MFB suggests. I can cite someone else witnessing or preaching, which constitutes an argument from authority. I am just not allowed to cite myself as a witness, because that would be witnessing or preaching
mfbukowski Posted June 4, 2012 Posted June 4, 2012 (edited) We would be living as God has commanded us and Zion would be our address.Matthew 22:36-40 (straight out of this month's visiting teaching lesson)36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?love the Lord thy God with all thy bheart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy cmind.commandment.love thy neighbour as thyself.law and the prophets.Aww man- no more arguing on the boards? What would we do for fun? Get a life?? No way! Actually do our home teaching? Go out and visit people who are sick and lonely, and stuff like that??Oh man, that's taking it too far!Forgetabout it! Edited June 4, 2012 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted June 4, 2012 Posted June 4, 2012 (edited) Gorsh, what if there was a board that actually encouraged that? Nah, it would never work Edited June 4, 2012 by mfbukowski
Nominee Posted June 4, 2012 Posted June 4, 2012 Aww man- no more arguing on the boards? What would we do for fun? Get a life?? No way! Actually do our home teaching? Go out and visit people who are sick and lonely, and stuff like that??Oh man, that's taking it too far!Forgetabout it!I go and do my visit teaching and during our visit we talk about the debates that take place on this board. I visit those that are sick and lonely; I recommend they check out this board!
Log Posted June 4, 2012 Posted June 4, 2012 Gorsh, what if there was a board that actually encouraged that? As you pointed out - that would be boring. If I make enough money, though, to pay for the hosting and software, I'll start one just to see what happens. Thanks for the input on the board's proposed rules!
Maureen Posted June 4, 2012 Posted June 4, 2012 You actually bring up exactly what I am talking about. #460 states is clearly and simply; yet, biblical scholars will back peddle madly to get away from the simple phrase, "man will become gods" through Jesus Christ. What is so difficult with that simple statement? It is stated in several locations in the Bible and yet almost every Christian church falls all over themselves denying it twelve ways to Sunday. Most of the early Church Father up to about 800 AD were clear on this teaching. The Eastern Fathers continued and to this day it is taught relatively cleanly....Again, they do teach truths, but then they become so uncomfortable with the truth they then water it down until it is a mere shadow of what the scriptures state and whey they originally taught.Do you mean back peddling and watering down truths like Mr. Hinckley did when asked about the Lorenzo Snow couplet? Is that example of back peddling acceptable compared to how you see the Catholic church's back peddling explanation?M.
Darren10 Posted June 4, 2012 Posted June 4, 2012 Do you mean back peddling and watering down truths like Mr. Hinckley did when asked about the Lorenzo Snow couplet? Is that example of back peddling acceptable compared to how you see the Catholic church's back peddling explanation?M.Huh???
Maureen Posted June 4, 2012 Posted June 4, 2012 Huh??? You're not familiar with how Mr. Hinckley answered questions about the LDS church's belief regarding Lorenzo Snow's couplet?M.
altersteve Posted June 4, 2012 Posted June 4, 2012 You're not familiar with how Mr. Hinckley answered questions about the LDS church's belief regarding Lorenzo Snow's couplet?M.President Hinckley said nothing but the truth. The "couplet" is not emphasized, it's not taught in church, and we don't fully understand it. There was no "watering down."
Recommended Posts