Lds/mormon Pre - Existence

[Anakin7]

    A recent encounter with a Calvary Chapel member states that all references to what we call the pre-existence are in GOD'S mind and that we get it wrong. Any references and materials/links ?. Thanks in advance.

 

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI

[JAHS]

We get it wrong because it doesn't fit with his interpretation. 

 

In the following scriptures God is talking to Job about the creation of the earth:

 

"Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?"(Job 38:4, 7)

 

These scriptures bring up two questions. If there were no pre-earth life why then would God ask Job where he was when he created the earth? God knew where he was but He knew that Job would not be able to remember. And while God was creating the earth, who were all those "sons of God" who "shouted for joy"? They were all of the spirit children of God(us) anxiously anticipating the completion of His work.

 

In Genesis before God created Adam and placed him on the earth it says:

 

"Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them." (Gen 2:1)

 

The only thing that the word "host" could be refering to are those spirits who would eventually inhabit the earth God created.

 

The Lord said to Jeremiah: "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations" (Jer. 1:5).

 

Here God explains to Jeremiah that He knew him, sanctified him, and ordained him before he was born. Jeremiah must have existed in some form for this to be possible.

 

In the New Testament Jesus and his disciples saw a man who had been born blind. The disciples asked if the man was blind due to his own sins or due to his parent's sins.

 

"And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?" (John 9:1-2) 

 

Jesus explained neither the man nor his parents had sinned, but the man was born blind that the works of God should be made manifest in him (John 9:3), that is, so Jesus could heal him. The account in John gives no reason for us to believe the disciples were insincere or incorrect in asking if the man had sinned prior to his birth. 

Likewise, Jesus said nothing to indicate it was impossible for the man to have sinned prior to birth. These verses thus imply the man could have sinned prior to birth, that is, he had a pre-earth existence of some type and had the capacity to sin in that existence.

[saemo]

I don't agree withe "in the mind of God".

As for the Job passage, of course it can be understood as God pointing out to Job that he wasn't there. The Sons of God being angels.

[boblloyd91]

If you are curious about this you may want to look up the works of a woman named Sarah Hinze. She is LDS and has written a number of books on what are called pre birth experiences, or PBE's.

[BCSpace]

The best verses are in scripture unique to the LDS Church which of course he won't believe.  The doctrine is mainly hinted at in the Bible and there is nothing in the Bible to conflict with pre-existence.  Most christians should accept the notion that Christ was pre-existent because the NT explicitly teaches that (John 1:1, 1 Peter 1:19-20, etc). From there I would equate Christ to us via verses like Hebrews 12:9 and Acts 17:21-22.

 

However, a christian who doesn't accept the universal apostasy must then deal with early Orthodox Christianity which taught and assumed the notion of pre-existence.  For example:
 

    Origen believed that God created a certain number of souls and gave them free will.  They could by their own choice, advance in glory by imitating God or rebel against Him.  Except for Christ's pre-existent soul, all rebelled to one degree or another and experienced a 'pre-cosmic' fall prior to the creation of the earth and this gave rise various gradations of spiritual beings in the world. (Very close to LDS doctrine not surprisingly). Kelly, J.N.D., Early Christian Doctrines, 180

 

 

    Peter said "after all things He made man, on whose account He prepared all things, who's internal species is older, and for whose sake all things that are were made..." Regarding the "internal species", the Presbyterian translators add the footnote: "That is, his soul, according to the doctrine of the pre-existence of souls." Clementine Recognitions 1:28, in ANF 8:85

 

So likewise Justin Martyr, Mathetes to Diognetus, The Epistle of Barnabas etc. Early Christians all.

The Pastor of Hermas and 2 Clement teach that God created the Church before he created the world. But this was not some abstract notion in the mind of God.  In Romans 8:28-30 it should be noted that to "foreknow" means to 'take note of', 'to fix regard upon' something preliminary to selecting it for special purpose. Hammerton-Kelly says that "Most commentators believe this took place in the eternal counsels of God, before the creation of the world.

In addition:

 

    R.G. Hammerton-Kelly, professor of New Testament at McCormick Theological Seminary also showed that not only is the pre-existence of Christ explicitly taught in the NT, but also the pre-existence of the Church (as many Early Christian Fathers also taught).

    "One is impressed by the ease with which the idea of pre-existence is assumed as the background for certain aspects of Paul's theology, especially for his doctrines of Christ and the Church..." Hammerton-Kelly, Pre-Existence, Wisdom, and the Son of Man, 156, 152

 

 

    "the Pauline mysticism is therefore nothing else than the doctrine of the making manifest in consequence of the death and resurrection of Jesus, of the pre-existent Church (the community of God)."
Albert Schweitzer, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle, translated by William Montgomery (London 1931), 116

 

Pre-existence wasn't formally condemned until 543 A.D. at a council which condemned many doctrines favored by Origen.  The change in doctrine can also be seen in the struggles St. Augustine had when he at first basically accepted Creationism, Traducianism, and two varieties of the pre-existent soul 'falling into the body' as equally possible until he settled on Platonism and creation ex nihilo, neither of which were extant in the early Church.

The second century was a time when, lacking revelation and Divine guidance, the Church struggled to find what it believed and eventually settled on the reasoning of Greek philosophy which brought about the abstraction of God. After that time, pre-existence may have fallen out of favor because 1) It was a staple doctrine of the Gnostics and people forgot that it had been a staple of orthodox Christianity as well 2) It may have been mainly part of Orthodox Christian secret tradition (esoteric and temple-like doctrines) which had been largely forgotten.

 

In short, the doctrine of pre-existence is an excellent starter on the topic of the universal apostasy which can be shown historically in the changing doctrines of the early church.

Edited June 7, 2014 by BCSpace

[Guest]

A recent encounter with a Calvary Chapel member states that all references to what we call the pre-existence are in GOD'S mind and that we get it wrong. Any references and materials/links ?. Thanks in advance.

 

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI

It can and is both.

[changed]

Topical and scripture guides are always great places to start:

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/premortal-life?lang=eng
 

• The spirit shall return unto God who gave it:Eccl. 12:7;
  
  You can't "return" to a place you have never been to.
  
  
  John 9: 2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this^aman, or his parents, that he was born blind?
  
  The disciplines believed "this man" had the ability to sin before he was born... etc.
  
  
  The entire point of having a Father in Heaven
   

[Kevin Christensen]

If you are really serious about pre-existence, try When Souls had Wings by Terryl Givens.

And read up on the importance of the Great Council in Ancient Israel. Bokovoy, for instance.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[The Nehor]

    A recent encounter with a Calvary Chapel member states that all references to what we call the pre-existence are in GOD'S mind and that we get it wrong. Any references and materials/links ?. Thanks in advance.

 

He must be jealous what with us having access to the mind of God and all.

[Abulafia]

The Letter to Diognetus (an apologetic tract seemingly written to a non christian) is interesting though it didn't get much coverage in the early christian communities. It can be read both ways, but certainly teaches that Jesus was there with God in the beginning.

Diog 8:9 says this "And after conceiving a great and marvellous plan, he communicated it to his child alone"......

9:1 is where the ambiguity lies. "So then, having already planned everything in his mind together with his child......"

It's a bit mysterious and can be interpreted both ways?

Edited June 8, 2014 by Abulafia

[Abulafia]

2 Clement contains mixed messages on a pre existence. Some of which contradict contemporary LDS theology.

It was a document more widely used by many of the earliest christian communities, but it's author (like the epistle to Diognetus) is unknown.

2 Clem 1:8 says. " For he called us when we did not exist, and out of nothing he willed us into being"

This contradicts the LDS idea of intelligent spirits as eternal?

Later on in Chapter 14:1...."So then, brothers and sisters, if we do the will of God our Father we will belong to the first church, the spiritual one, which was created long before the sun and the moon. (I wonder if this is Jesus as Church?)....

2 Clem 14:2 goes on to say " Now I do not suppose that you are ignorant of the fact that the living church is the body of Christ" he adds "for the scripture says "God created humankind male and female." The male is Christ; the female is the church. Moreover the books and the apostles (which books, which apostles?) declare that the church not only exists now but has been in existence from the beginning. For she was spiritual as was our Jesus, but was revealed in the last days in order that she might save us"

Edited June 8, 2014 by Abulafia

[saemo]

He is referencing the mystical Church, and goes on in the letter to name Christ as the spirit of the Church. It is He who exists before all things, because Jesus is God.

 

This spiritual Church, Christ, is revealed to us in the flesh, and so the spiritual Church is revealed. Christ is the Church and the Church is Christ. The baptized are joined to Christ and are called the body of the Church.

[saemo]

The ecclesiology of both Clement and Paul is that the Church is Christ and Christ is the Church. Clement sites Paul, in his description of the Church as the Bride of Christ. Just as a man and wife are one, so is the Bride and His Groom. Just as Jesus has no beginning and no end, so, the Church does not. The revelation of Jesus, God in the flesh, has many aspects, most importantly the Revelation of our salvation. Jesus also revealed His Church, which is also called the Kingdom of God on earth. The Church is heaven, present as Christ is present, in the world. Body, blood and divinity, in the Eucharist. The Church, the Kingdom of God, is the already but not yet. Already here, but not yet fully achieved, as she journeys towards the return of Her Groom, when She will be fulfilled in full.

This is the ecclesiology of Clement and Paul. No where do either teach that we pre existed, they only teach of the pre existence of Christ, who is the Church. And that the Church is the Kingdom of God, present on earth.

[Abulafia]

Saemo, I think it is important not to try and fit later orthodox thought back into the early communities. If you are saying that 2 Clement and the author of Diognetus believed that Jesus was God (the father), then I would have to disagree. It just isn't there. Both authors portray Jesus as separate to the father, yet still divine.

As for the ecclesiology of both texts, they are quite puzzling and 2 Clement in particular appears to be drawing upon the Gospel of Thomas for some of his ideas.

[Abulafia]

Another point worth mentioning is that there was no fixed canon in the earliest communities, and so there appears to be use of texts like Enoch, and Daniel, to posit a preexistence where characters like Raphael, Gabriel and Michael are used to do God's bidding. Luke appears to be the only NT writer who makes use of the character Gabriel. I would love to know why he picked him in particular.

To me, many of the texts only make sense if a preexistence is taken as a given. Aren't there some later (post destruction of Temple) solely rabbinic texts that posit a preexistence?

[Abulafia]

“Instead of being the last, man is really the first work of creation...With the soul of Adam the souls of all the generations of men were created. They are stored up in a promptuary, in the seventh of the heavens, whence they are drawn as they are needed for human body after human body.” The Haggadah (The Soul of Man)

[Abulafia]

Gospel, of Thomas (whom 2 Clem appears to use authoritatively) 49 Jesus said, "Congratulations to those who are alone and chosen, for you will find the kingdom. For you have come from it, and you will return there again."

2 Enoch 23:2 And Pravuil told me: All the things that I have told you, we have written. Sit and write all the souls of mankind, however many of them are born, and the places prepared for them to eternity; for all souls are prepared to eternity, before the formation of the world.

Enoch 40:1 After this I beheld thousands of thousands, and myriads of myriads, and an infinite number of people, standing before the Lord of spirits.

I don't know of the extent to which these writers were influenced by Platonic thought, but the passages are intriguing.

[MiserereNobis]

In short, the doctrine of pre-existence is an excellent starter on the topic of the universal apostasy which can be shown historically in the changing doctrines of the early church.

 

The fact that various beliefs/ideas were put forward in the early Church and then rejected by proper authority (Pope, Ecumenical Councils) does not show universal apostasy.  It shows that their were incorrect beliefs that the Church, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, corrected.

 

To use LDS terms, it shows that "revelation" continued and that errors were dealt with and the truth was the clarified.

 

Perhaps a parallel situation for Mormons would be some of the teachings of Brigham Young.  The criteria you used to show apostasy from the early Church is this:  church leaders teach something + time passes + church repudiates teachings = apostasy.  How about:  Brigham Young teaches something (pick your teaching -- Adam/God, priesthood ban, etc) + time passes + church repudiates teachings = apostasy of LDS church.

 

Obviously you don't accept that criteria as applied to the LDS church, so I don't think you should apply it to the early Christian Church.  Instead, apply the criteria that you apply to Brigham Young.  He was wrong and God led the LDS church to repudiate his teachings and clarify the truth.

 

That's exactly what happened quite frequently in the early Church.  There were many teachings, some false, some half-true, some unclear.  The Church, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the authority of the Pope and the Bishops in Ecumenical Council toss out the false teachings and clarify the truth.  This has happened through out the entire history of the Church, from the first Council of Jerusalem to the last Council of the Vatican.  And there is no reason to believe that there will not be more Ecumenical Councils to come, as the Church repudiates false teachings and clarifies the truth.

 

To sum up:  there have been and always will be false teachings in the Church.  The cleansing of these teachings does not show apostasy, but the guidance of God.

 

Deo gratias that He has not left us alone.

[saemo]

Saemo, I think it is important not to try and fit later orthodox thought back into the early communities. If you are saying that 2 Clement and the author of Diognetus believed that Jesus was God (the father), then I would have to disagree. It just isn't there. Both authors portray Jesus as separate to the father, yet still divine.

As for the ecclesiology of both texts, they are quite puzzling and 2 Clement in particular appears to be drawing upon the Gospel of Thomas for some of his ideas.

No, orthodox thought is not that Jesus is the Father, and I did not say that. Orthodox thought would define a teaching that Jesus is the Father as a heresy.

Jesus is distinct from the Father and divine, that is in Clement's homily.

Edited June 8, 2014 by saemo

[saemo]

Another point worth mentioning is that there was no fixed canon in the earliest communities, and so there appears to be use of texts like Enoch, and Daniel, to posit a preexistence where characters like Raphael, Gabriel and Michael are used to do God's bidding. Luke appears to be the only NT writer who makes use of the character Gabriel. I would love to know why he picked him in particular.

To me, many of the texts only make sense if a preexistence is taken as a given. Aren't there some later (post destruction of Temple) solely rabbinic texts that posit a preexistence?

I think that is because you are reading a much later thought into them. They are clear that Jesus existed with the Father before creation. There is not a Mormon idea of everyone uncreated, existing with Jesus and the Father, before creation. You have to ignore the very thing you posted in order to believe as Mormonism teaches.

[saemo]

“Instead of being the last, man is really the first work of creation...With the soul of Adam the souls of all the generations of men were created. They are stored up in a promptuary, in the seventh of the heavens, whence they are drawn as they are needed for human body after human body.” The Haggadah (The Soul of Man)

Not canonical. The canon did take time to form, but the major consideration for inclusion of one writing and not another is apostolic adherence. That is, does a writing support what the Apostles taught?

The gnostic "gospels" came much later, and when taken as a whole, in gnostic understanding, there is a reason that Gnosticism is declared a heresy.

Sometimes I read posts here, on this forum, that are so gnostic in nature that I'm stunned! They are usually a self interpretation of some Mormon teaching or idea, but still!

Edited June 8, 2014 by saemo

[Abulafia]

Saemo, yep agreed on the 'not canonical'. It's still interesting to see which texts the early communities used. To argue that canon was formed based on apostolic teaching would be to overstate confidence in what Jesus and the Apostles actually taught. Surely it isn't that easy to ascertain. And the matter is complicated by the seeming underplay of the teachings of James the brother of Jesus, and the disagreements between the baptist followers, the Judaizers, and the followers of Paul and Pauline Christianity. Who more clearly represented the teachings of Jesus (I don't know the answer), James the Lord's own brother, Peter, or Paul who had never met the living Jesus?

[saemo]

Saemo, yep agreed on the 'not canonical'. It's still interesting to see which texts the early communities used. To argue that canon was formed based on apostolic teaching would be to overstate confidence in what Jesus and the Apostles actually taught. Surely it isn't that easy to ascertain. And the matter is complicated by the seeming underplay of the teachings of James the brother of Jesus, and the disagreements between the baptist followers, the Judaizers, and the followers of Paul and Pauline Christianity. Who more clearly represented the teachings of Jesus (I don't know the answer), James the Lord's own brother, Peter, or Paul who had never met the living Jesus?

There was no canon at the death of Jesus. There were Apostles, disciples, and communities of believers. The baptized. The community of St. John the Beloved is a good example of how some of the canon came to be. The followers of St. John were taught directly by him, and so the community itself was apostolic. St. John also appointed his successors, such as Polycarp, who learned directly from St. John, and then later Iraeneus, who heard Polycarp speak while in his youth.

So apostolic teaching is not only what is found in the canon, but it is as St. Paul tells Timothy, the faith handed on. The faith handed on, and the Church itself, existed before the New Testament writings existed. So we rely on both, as forms of revelation, Scripture and Tradition.

Regarding the questions that arise we see they are resolved by councils, the first council being related in Acts. By the Holy Spirit, the councils are led to address controversies and heresies. These controversies and heresies arise over time, most heresies after c.500 AD are repackaging or reemergence of old heresies, such as Gnosticism, until the Protestant Reformation, which introduced a new heresy of sola scriptura.

So! Controversy does not indicate another Apostolic teaching, unless you don't follow through the investigation of the controversy, and recognize the resolution, and the organization on which the resolution took place. If this follow through to the resolution is not done, then yes, you could believe that controversy means multiple Apostoloc teachings, but that is not historically accurate.

[Abulafia]

Saemo, it would be interesting to consider what the communities considered sacred writing. I agree it would have included none of the NT books initially, but it would have included Jewish writings. 2 Clement is one of the first to use Matthew authoritatively as scripture.

John was written later than the other gospels and as I understand it we just don't know for sure who wrote it, but it wasn't an apostle. We also don't know who wrote Mark most likely the earliest gospel (or Matthew and Luke who use Mark as a source).

The only first hand accounts are Paul's genuine letters. This is why Galatians is so intriguing because it hints at the differences between the Jerusalem communities headed by James and the Pauline communities. Paul eventually ends up in Jerusalem having met Peter and James, and almost gets himself killed, that's how deep the differences went.

[BCSpace]

The fact that various beliefs/ideas were put forward in the early Church and then rejected by proper authority (Pope, Ecumenical Councils) does not show universal apostasy.  It shows that their were incorrect beliefs that the Church, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, corrected.

 

 

Of course I would completely disagree.  The new doctrines that came about not only conflict with the orginal doctrines, but scripture itself.

 

To use LDS terms, it shows that "revelation" continued and that errors were dealt with and the truth was the clarified.

 

Perhaps a parallel situation for Mormons would be some of the teachings of Brigham Young.  The criteria you used to show apostasy from the early Church is this:  church leaders teach something + time passes + church repudiates teachings = apostasy.  How about:  Brigham Young teaches something (pick your teaching -- Adam/God, priesthood ban, etc) + time passes + church repudiates teachings = apostasy of LDS church.

 

 

No parallel found.  BY never taught Adam/God and what he did teach regarding that was not doctrine anyway.  The priesthood ban remains doctrine.  It has not been repudiated but rather it's Divine origin has been reaffirmed in the latest 'essay' and it is merely prophecy fulfilled.  Were you going to mention plural marriage?  Same thing.

 

This is a far cry from the Biblical anthropomorphic tangible God morphing into the abstract god of the trinity and creation ex nihilo and the loss of numerous other significant doctrines.