Lds/mormon Pre - Existence

[3DOP]

So, what did saemo mean by the statements in that post? Can you clarify it? Like I said, it all sounds nice but I have no idea about christ not being created.

 

She isn't saying anything extraordinary. She is like all Catholics/Orthodox/Protestants since the Council of Nicea nearly 16 centuries ago. She rejects the Arian doctrine which says that Christ was a creature. 

 

"God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, NOT MADE"

 

Probably the most unacceptable aspect of the Arian doctrine was that it said that Christ, was made when He was begotten. 

 

, 

Edited June 15, 2014 by 3DOP

[Flyonthewall]

So, what did saemo mean by the statements in that post? Can you clarify it? Like I said, it all sounds nice but I have no idea about christ not being created.

I cannot tell you what she meant, only what I think she meant.

Basically that Jesus is the God in the flesh. Jesus is God's wisdom...in the flesh. Jesus is God's love... in the flesh. Since Jesus is not created, any reference to Jesus' creation is figurative.

That would be my best guess...

[saemo]

Well, I don't consider myself a Catholic apologist, amateur or professional.

Flyonthe wall, that is my view. Thanks for presenting it.

[Storm Rider]

She isn't saying anything extraordinary. She is like all Catholics/Orthodox/Protestants since the Council of Nicea nearly 16 centuries ago. She rejects the Arian doctrine which says that Christ was a creature. 

 

"God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, NOT MADE"

 

Probably the most unacceptable aspect of the Arian doctrine was that it said that Christ, was made when He was begotten. 

 

, 

 

I don't even think Christ was made or created.  The Church of Jesus Christ teaches that Jesus was the first born of the Father in all things, but the Church also teaches that he is eternal without beginning or end.  Even more uniquely, there is only one Godhead and Jesus is a member of that Godhead.

 

I don't think the concept of "made" causes LDS too much of a problem when taken in context.  

[Vance]

Well there is this.

Col 1:15 (Christ) Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

It clearly implies that Christ is a "creature". And that he was the first one.

Edited to add,

And then there is this, also speaking of Christ.

Rev 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

So, Christ was "the beginning of the creation of God".

Edited June 16, 2014 by Vance

[3DOP]

Regarding Col. 1:15:

 

Here is what one commentator says: St. Chrysostom takes notice against the Arians, that the apostle calls Christ the first-begotten, or first-born, not the first created, because he was not created at all. And the sense is, that he was before all creatures, proceeding from all eternity from the Father; though some expound the words of Christ as man, and that he was greater in dignity. (Haydock Bible Commentary)

 

I would note that the significance of being the first born of creatures may be understood with reference to the inheritance which is due the firstborn. The passage supports this position when it continues to speak about Christ's primacy over creation, first noting Him as Head of the Church in v. 18, and then in v.19, the reason "that in him all fulness should dwell". Christ is King.

 

There is always a way to interpret Scripture in multiple plausible ways as Arius demonstrated ably when he offered teaching contrary to Catholic Tradition. This is why we are not sola scriptura. I do not say Arius was ignorant of the Scriptures. He used them capably, as have many others for hundreds of years since even as they imagine that their interpretation is the only one that works. The Scripture alone is never adequate to resolve doctrinal controversy.

Edited June 17, 2014 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

I don't even think Christ was made or created.  The Church of Jesus Christ teaches that Jesus was the first born of the Father in all things, but the Church also teaches that he is eternal without beginning or end.  Even more uniquely, there is only one Godhead and Jesus is a member of that Godhead.

 

I don't think the concept of "made" causes LDS too much of a problem when taken in context.  

 

Yeah Storm Rider...I have a friend (unaffiliated Christian) who has read the Book of Mormon carefully (and I think prayerfully) at least half a dozen times, and his judgment means something to me because I know him as a diligent student, and he believes that the Latter-day Scriptures will accommodate such a view as you express. He was at one time very open to conversion to Mormonism on such a basis. It seems to me like there is a lot of latitude for a faithful LDS. So much so than an LDS like you has a lot more in common with what we consider to be the Catholic view that prevailed at Nicea. On the other hand, it obviously allows, as Vance and why me demonstrate, for the view among devout LDS that Christ is NOT eternal, like Arius taught, and which lost ground at the Council. Unlike with us Catholics, maybe for LDS, the question of whether Christ is eternal can be a matter that is left open for both schools of thought.   

Edited June 17, 2014 by 3DOP

[Vance]

Regarding Col. 1:15:

 

Here is what one commentator says: St. Chrysostom takes notice against the Arians, that the apostle calls Christ the first-begotten, or first-born, not the first created, because he was not created at all.

So, he starts with the conclusion that "he was not created at all", which, as far as I can tell, is not supported by scripture. And this to show why that verse doesn't indicate that Christ was created?

Not very impressive.

[Vance]

There is always a way to interpret Scripture in multiple plausible ways as Arius demonstrated ably when he offered teaching contrary to Catholic Tradition. This is why we are not sola scriptura. I do not say Arius was ignorant of the Scriptures. He used them capably, as have many others for hundreds of years since even as they imagine that their interpretation is the only one that works. The Scripture alone is never adequate to resolve doctrinal controversy.

Well stated!

[Zakuska]

There is always a way to interpret Scripture in multiple plausible ways as Arius demonstrated ably when he offered teaching contrary to Catholic Tradition. This is why we are not sola scriptura. I do not say Arius was ignorant of the Scriptures. He used them capably, as have many others for hundreds of years since even as they imagine that their interpretation is the only one that works. The Scripture alone is never adequate to resolve doctrinal controversy.

Hi Rory, Gave you a Rep point for that one! Long time no talk.

 

I was reading over Proverbs 8 again and this thought came to my mind.  "I was Made" could also be used in the following sense in that verse.

 

"At recess the Coach made me the Team Captian"

 

I think that reading would dove tail quite nicely with what both you and I believe.  Because (and don't let me put words in your mouth) I think we could both agree that The Encarnate Christ was to be the Ultimate Team Captian for the Human race. (And much much more than that... I know team captain makes his role sound so trivial, But alas its an imperfect analogy)

 

With the LDS understanding of Christ as the Eldest Son of God and the council in heaven teachings and the "here I am send me" ideas. I think that goes write along with all of that.

 

Thanks for bringin this up and making me give it another thought.

[3DOP]

Hi Rory, Gave you a Rep point for that one! Long time no talk.

 

I was reading over Proverbs 8 again and this thought came to my mind.  "I was Made" could also be used in the following sense in that verse.

 

"At recess the Coach made me the Team Captian"

 

I think that reading would dove tail quite nicely with what both you and I believe.  Because (and don't let me put words in your mouth) I think we could both agree that The Encarnate Christ was to be the Ultimate Team Captian for the Human race. (And much much more than that... I know team captain makes his role sound so trivial, But alas its an imperfect analogy)

 

With the LDS understanding of Christ as the Eldest Son of God and the council in heaven teachings and the "here I am send me" ideas. I think that goes write along with all of that.

 

Thanks for bringin this up and making me give it another thought.

 

 

Yeah Zak...thanks...Its good to see Cap'n Zinger again. Thanks to you too Vance.

 

As far as Chrysostom goes, he does indeed start with the conclusion that God is eternal. I think you would agree that this belief can be supported in Scripture. He also believed that Christ is God which is also believed by many to be in Scripture. To retreat from Christ as eternal and unmade, is for Chrysostom, to retreat from Christ as God. You guys believe that Godhood can come in progression. That is a big difference between us. It just hinges on what you emphasize. Look at James 1, where of God it is stated that He does not change, nor any shadow of turning. Of course, I am sure you have a plausible way of understanding that teaching, which allows for a God who makes progress. But additionally to other Scriptures, which have more weight, Chrysostom was holding to the Tradition his Church already taught. He was dealing with Col. 1:15 as it was being used as a proof text against Church teaching. Taken alone anyone can see how one might think that Col 1:15 teaches that Christ was made, and therefore He wasn't eternal. But without Latter-day revelation, it seems to me like Chrysostom had multiple reasons to deny what Arius was teaching from Col 1 while offering an alternative meaningful understanding. I think Zakuska adds to this in seeing how one can be "made" something, without it necessarily implying a moment of one's creation.

 

Rory

[Storm Rider]

Godhood can come in progression for his children.  The old Snow couplet, "As man now is, God once was. As God now is man may become" is a can of worms and President Hinckley appears to have backed away from the first sentence.  The second and last sentence has been upheld by every prophet.  I do not think that the concept that God was once a man like we are is doctrinal regardless of how much individuals want it to be so based upon the Joseph Smith's King Follett discourse and the Sermon in the Grove.  Both of these talks were given just prior to his death and unfortunately we do not have any clarification or explanation of some of the things he has taught.  They teach concepts not found in scripture and are not accepted as doctrine.

 

If God was once a man, as in Christ was once a man, then there is a degree of symmetry and I can accept it.  When Jesus responded that he does nothing except that which he saw the Father do lays a foundation for his observing the Father function as a man/God.

 

FAIR addresses the underlying assumption of an infinite regression of Gods.  

 

The Church of Jesus Christ is not legalistic in the context of accepting specific beliefs regarding peripheral concepts such as this.

[Tacenda]

Godhood can come in progression for his children. The old Snow couplet, "As man now is, God once was. As God now is man may become" is a can of worms and President Hinckley appears to have backed away from the first sentence. The second and last sentence has been upheld by every prophet. I do not think that the concept that God was once a man like we are is doctrinal regardless of how much individuals want it to be so based upon the Joseph Smith's King Follett discourse and the Sermon in the Grove. Both of these talks were given just prior to his death and unfortunately we do not have any clarification or explanation of some of the things he has taught. They teach concepts not found in scripture and are not accepted as doctrine.

If God was once a man, as in Christ was once a man, then there is a degree of symmetry and I can accept it. When Jesus responded that he does nothing except that which he saw the Father do lays a foundation for his observing the Father function as a man/God.

FAIR addresses the underlying assumption of an infinite regression of Gods.

The Church of Jesus Christ is not legalistic in the context of accepting specific beliefs regarding peripheral concepts such as this.

Storm, you need to write/work for the church....so many non LDS Christian would probably like to know this about the church.

[Storm Rider]

Storm, you need to write/work for the church....so many non LDS Christian would probably like to know this about the church.

 

You are overly kind.  Almost everything I write has already been said by another.  I have few original thoughts, but I do think that I have a relatively decent handle on the doctrine and teachings of the Church and enjoy talking about the gospel more than the vast majority of things.  

 

Our non-LDS Christian brothers and sisters have limited access to the actual, true teachings of the Church.  Having grown up in a community with strongly Protestant/Evangelical presence I learned early what their concerns were about the Church of Jesus Christ and how they either exaggerated or distorted our teachings.  Once they actually understand what we believe they understand that we emphasize a few things differently, but there is far, far more commonality of beliefs than those that conflict.

 

We also have a pretty diverse body of saints.  Some really enjoy dwelling on the periphery of Church teachings where only speculation and opinion exists.  I have tended to stay with the fundamentals of the Church's teachings.  

 

Regardless, you are kind.  Hold to the rod and let the Holy Spirit kind you heart, mind, and spirit; most of all, reflect the joy of Christ.

 

God bless,

 

Mike