Are Mormons Christians? Witherington Says No.

[Vance]

I find it interesting that Jesus taught this,

Rev 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

So, what would you call someone seated in the throne of God?

[zerinus]

Jesus did not say these things. The apostle Paul did say that believers are joint-heirs with Christ (Rom. 8:17). As I have explained elsewhere, Romans 8:17 in context does not support LDS doctrine. Neither Jesus nor anyone else in the Bible ever says that people would become gods. Before you cite a text in support of this claim, read it carefully; I think you will see that the Bible never actually makes this statement.

But the early Christians took this and other verses such as "partakers of the divine nature" as indicative of divination even if you don't. I kind of trust their interpretation better than yours. They can speak with more authority on the subject than you do.

Also, Evangelicals believe that all of scripture is "God breathed" (their favored terminology), meaning that it is all equally inspired. So the fact that Paul said it is equivalent to Jesus saying it. It is hard to understand "joint heirs with Jesus Christ" in any other way than deification or divination, as the ECFs did.

Edited August 30, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

If you look again at my sentence, you may find that we are in agreement. We only care because labels cause a misrepresentation of our beliefs. The label itself is not the main issue (hence my "per se") but rather the misrepresentation.

For me the label itself is the issue.

What do you mean by "eternity"? And I'm with Robert F. Smith on this one, I don't think Mormonism necessarily teaches that.

See my reply to Robert F. Smith.

[Zeta-Flux]

For me the label itself is the issue.

So if someone calls you a non-protestant Christian, you are offended at the label?

Or is the label only a problem when it conveys incorrect information?

[Vance]

They can speak with more authority on the subject than you do.

Could that be because his authority is ZERO?

[Zeta-Flux]

See my reply to Robert F. Smith.

He asked how you interpret the scripture. You, in turn, cited more scripture.

I asked you what you mean by "eternity". Your response was to cite your response to Br. Smith, where you cited more scripture.

I take it that by the word "eternity" you want to mean what the scriptures mean. The trouble is, the Nicean creed (and other creeds) do not necessarily use the word the way our modern scriptures use it. Furthermore, modern theologians have added even more meaning to the word.

Thus, when you say "Mormonism teaches that the Son was God from all eternity to all eternity" that is correct, but it also presupposes a meaning for the phrase "all eternity to all eternity" which may or may not be compatible with the Protestant meaning.

Let me ask you this. Does Mormonism teach that Christ had a spirit birth? Or that we had a spirit birth?

[zerinus]

Could that be because his authority is ZERO?

Not quite. What I meant was that they are closer to the time, therefore they can speak from a knowledge base that Rob does not have.

Edited August 30, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

So if someone calls you a non-protestant Christian, you are offended at the label?

Yes. I am just a Christian, with nothing added or taken away.

Or is the label only a problem when it conveys incorrect information?

Labels always convey information. You can't separate labels from the information.

[zerinus]

He asked how you interpret the scripture. You, in turn, cited more scripture.

I asked you what you mean by "eternity". Your response was to cite your response to Br. Smith, where you cited more scripture.

I take it that by the word "eternity" you want to mean what the scriptures mean. The trouble is, the Nicean creed (and other creeds) do not necessarily use the word the way our modern scriptures use it. Furthermore, modern theologians have added even more meaning to the word.

Thus, when you say "Mormonism teaches that the Son was God from all eternity to all eternity" that is correct, but it also presupposes a meaning for the phrase "all eternity to all eternity" which may or may not be compatible with the Protestant meaning.

Let me ask you this. Does Mormonism teach that Christ had a spirit birth? Or that we had a spirit birth?

I use the words "eternity" and "eternal" according to their most obvious dictionary meaning, whether they occur in the Book of Mormon or the Nicene Creed. I doubt if the Protestants do otherwise.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Thus, when you say "Mormonism teaches that the Son was God from all eternity to all eternity" that is correct, but it also presupposes a meaning for the phrase "all eternity to all eternity" which may or may not be compatible with the Protestant meaning.

This is worth exploring. Say ing "All eternity to all eternity" is like say Chuck Norris counted to infinity twice.

Ok not really. But what it is is a bit redundant. EVies always told me that God was God for all eternity past. Of course I cannot find a single scripture that says that.

So, exploring this phrase is worth while. What did the ancients mean when they used it?

Let me ask you this. Does Mormonism teach that Christ had a spirit birth? Or that we had a spirit birth?

I am not sure I understand. Which birth are we talking about?

[Zakuska]

I find it interesting that Jesus taught this,

Rev 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

So, what would you call someone seated in the throne of God?

According to Evangelicals... Brutis.

[Ahab]

Let me ask you this. Does Mormonism teach that Christ had a spirit birth?

Yes, and he was/is the first born son of our Father in heaven.

Or that we had a spirit birth?

Yes, we are literally begotten spirits of our Father in heaven.

Thus, intelligence (or life itself) isn't created or made from nothing. Life doesn't begin. It is perpetuated.

Edited August 30, 2012 by Ahab

[Zeta-Flux]

Ahab,

I'm Mormon, but thank you for your answers. :-)

I'm just trying to get zerinus to explain a little more how Christ can be God from all eternity to all eternity, and yet also have become a spirit at some point in time (if that is what he believes).

[Zeta-Flux]

Yes. I am just a Christian, with nothing added or taken away.

While that is true, apparently we will have to agree to disagree that further qualifiers are helpful. I'm okay with someone calling me a non-evangelical Christian even if you are not okay with such a label.

Labels always convey information. You can't separate labels from the information.

But if labels are accurate, and convey useful information, I don't see why you are taking offense. *shrug*

[Ahab]

Ahab,

I'm Mormon, but thank you for your answers. :-)

I'm just trying to get zerinus to explain a little more how Christ can be God from all eternity to all eternity, and yet also have become a spirit at some point in time (if that is what he believes).

I'll chime in again, while I hope you don't mind, since I also happen to believe that.

Can you see how a child is a part of his/her parents even before those parents meet each other? Before the mother even gets pregnant? Before the mother is even a mother, and is instead only a little girl? Or even when she is a baby? Or even when she hasn't been born yet and is still a part of her parents, and her parents before that, and her parents before that, and her parents before that.... etc?

God is the species we are, and our spirits come from our spiritual parents, which came from their spiritual parents, etc... with no beginning to all of it, generally speaking, even though there is a moment when each of us is spiritually born (the first time).

It's all about the birds and the bees. Didn't your parents ever explain that to you?

Edited August 30, 2012 by Ahab

[Zeta-Flux]

I use the words "eternity" and "eternal" according to their most obvious dictionary meaning, whether they occur in the Book of Mormon or the Nicene Creed. I doubt if the Protestants do otherwise.

So, does "eternal punishment" mean "never-ending punishment"? *wink*

[The Grimace]

Grimace,

You asked:

That Jesus Christ rose from the grave with an immortal, glorious, perfect body of flesh and bones is the traditional Christian position, taught in Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant churches. The biblical and historic Christian doctrine is that Jesus Christ is now permanently God incarnate; he will have a physical body for the rest of time. Admittedly, many of the theologically illiterate in many churches do not understand this, but it is the traditional Christian position.

Thanks, Rob. When I ask these questions, I really am being genuine. Prior to Mormonism, I had no idea about anything Christian or religious. Two decades later, I only have a Mormon view of Christianity. Post Mormonism, I am really looking to understand things I'd long considered taboo.

[The Grimace]

Grimace,

You asked:

That Jesus Christ rose from the grave with an immortal, glorious, perfect body of flesh and bones is the traditional Christian position, taught in Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant churches. The biblical and historic Christian doctrine is that Jesus Christ is now permanently God incarnate; he will have a physical body for the rest of time. Admittedly, many of the theologically illiterate in many churches do not understand this, but it is the traditional Christian position.

Is Jesus the same God as God the Father, in traditional Christianity?

[Zeta-Flux]

Is Jesus the same God as God the Father, in traditional Christianity?

I'm sure Rob will give a more complete answer, but the basic answer is "yes". They are distinct persons in one God. They are the same "substance" (a technical term that is hard to grasp).

The best analogy I know is the following (and no disrespect meant). Consider three androids. Each has an antenna, and they all receive the same signal, communicate with each other, and follow the same directives. Thus, there are three persons, but in some sense they are all the same being.

[Ahab]

I'm sure Rob will give a more complete answer, but the basic answer is "yes". They are distinct persons in one God. They are the same "substance" (a technical term that is hard to grasp).

The best analogy I know is the following (and no disrespect meant). Consider three androids. Each has an antenna, and they all receive the same signal, communicate with each other, and follow the same directives. Thus, there are three persons, but in some sense they are all the same being.

Well, that's pretty close, but still a little bit off.

Basically they believe God is one "kind" of being while there are 3 persons who are that kind of being.

... basically the same thing we believe except we know there can be more than 3 persons who are that one kind of being we call God, when referring to a particular kind of a being

It's also important to note that they also use the term/name/title "God" to refer to any one of those 3 persons, although more often our Father in heavne, as well as a term/name/title that applies to all 3 of them, collectively,

[Rob Bowman]

Zakuska,

You wrote:

Technically, this wasn't me. I jumped into the conversation at this point.

I've been a bit off physically and emotionally all week, so silly mistakes like this have been more plentiful than usual. My apologies.

You wrote:

Ah but you miss the fact that it refers to saved human beings as "children of God" who will become exactly "like him".

You're right, I missed it. I still miss it. I cannot find it. There's a reason why your word exactly is not in quotation marks: it isn't part of what John says. We will be like him, yes; like him in all respects, no--that's not something John says.

You wrote:

Either way, present tense, "gods" causes HUGE problems for Evangelical doctrine.

I quoted the verse because it shows that "children of God" are refered to as "gods". Wether, present past or future.... these verses cause HUGE problems for Evangelical understanding of scripture.

The passages cause no problems at all for evangelical doctrine, let alone "HUGE problems." We don't deny that creatures are in some contexts called "gods" in the Bible. We deny that human beings can or will become gods in the sense of becoming all-powerful, all-knowing beings of the same nature, attributes, and abilities as God.

The significance of the tense of the verb in John 10:34 cannot be dismissed so easily. The fact that the text says "Ye ARE gods," not "ye shall become gods," makes all the difference. Whatever the text means, it is not referring to a future exaltation of faithful Christians to godhood. Thus the text is useless for establishing Mormon doctrine and, as explained above, poses no problem for evangelical doctrine.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

See this article.

I find it interesting that Jesus taught this,

Rev 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

So, what would you call someone seated in the throne of God?

[Ahab]

The significance of the tense of the verb in John 10:34 cannot be dismissed so easily. The fact that the text says "Ye ARE gods," not "ye shall become gods," makes all the difference.

The Church teaches that all of us are already the same kind of being as our Father in heaven, by virtue of him being our Father, but because of the "fall" we must be born again otherwise we will not be able to claim an exalted inheritance.

Whatever the text means, it is not referring to a future exaltation of faithful Christians to godhood. Thus the text is useless for establishing Mormon doctrine and, as explained above, poses no problem for evangelical doctrine.

If only you knew how wrong you are you would know that repeating your error doesn't help you.

You're basically saying that what is true is not true, and the reason is simply because you don't believe it.

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

You wrote:

But the early Christians took this and other verses such as "partakers of the divine nature" as indicative of divination even if you don't. I kind of trust their interpretation better than yours. They can speak with more authority on the subject than you do.

Sigh. The "early Christians" who interpreted such texts as teaching divinization (or deification or theosis) are the same Christians who Mormons accuse of Hellenizing Christianity and formulating man-made dogmas too heavily indebted to Greek philosophy. Yet when they say things that sound (in most cases superficially) like something Mormonism says, all of a sudden they are magically transformed into heroic stalwarts of the early church who spoke with authority!

Those patristic authors who interpreted the Bible to teach some form of deification were quite clear that the doctrine did not mean that believers would be of the same order of being, the same ontological status, as God. To be deified meant to become immortal, glorious, morally perfect, and supernaturally powerful beings, not to become all-powerful, all-knowing beings.

For more on this point, see my article on "Early Church Fathers and Joseph Smith's Doctrine of Exaltation."

You wrote:

Also, Evangelicals believe that all of scripture is "God breathed" (their favored terminology), meaning that it is all equally inspired. So the fact that Paul said it is equivalent to Jesus saying it. It is hard to understand "joint heirs with Jesus Christ" in any other way than deification or divination, as the ECFs did.

Your theological point about 2 Timothy 3:16 is well taken, but usually when someone says that "Jesus said X" they are referring to a saying of Jesus directly attributed to him. I have discussed Romans 8:17 in another article in the same series as the one cited above. This one is on "The New Testament and Joseph Smith's Doctrine of Exaltation."

[Rob Bowman]

Ahab,

You wrote:

The Church teaches that all of us are already the same kind of being as our Father in heaven, by virtue of him being our Father, but because of the "fall" we must be born again otherwise we will not be able to claim an exalted inheritance.

This argument is really a diversion from the issue. Yes or no: Am I presently a god?

You wrote:

If only you knew how wrong you are you would know that repeating your error doesn't help you. You're basically saying that what is true is not true, and the reason is simply because you don't believe it.

I gave a reason for my view of the text drawn from the text itself. Your only reason given in support of your view of the meaning of the text is that your church says so.