Dear Evangelical Friends: Can A Mormon Be A Christian?

[danielwoods]

Except...as you would say, Jesus did not put any qualifiers on his statement. So if He is using the same language for us being one with Him and God the Father as they are one, then there are no qualifiers. There is no "as much as possible" in there, that is something that is read into it or assumed.

The fact that Jesus is fully human and fully God demonstrates that it can be done.

 

It's actually the opposite of what you are arguing. The context of the statement is Jesus in his humanity praying for us. He knows that we can't ever be God as he is God, or as the Father is God, or as the Holy Spirit is God. That's the context or the "qualifier" if you want to understand that way. 

 

Given that context, our relationship connection to God is greater and deeper than the relationship animals have with God, or other created things. We are unique in that we have been created in his image, which means we experience a range of intellectual and emotional experiences that God is able to share with us, that he's not able to share with any other. So, while we are able to be "one" with God, even as they are one (in quality), we aren't ever going to be one to the extent or depth that they are one (in quantity), because of the limitation of our finite nature. We will always be a finite created being, and he will always be an infinite uncreated being. 

[danielwoods]

 

Yes, i completely get that.

 

They aren't one in the same way, but Jesus wants them to be one in the same way that He and the Father are one.

 

Given how trinitarians define the way that Jesus and the Father are one-is it possible for you to be one in the way that Jesus wants you to be in this verse?

 

 

I'm fine if you believe this, but it doesn't fit what the scriptures say.  If Trinitarians are correct and every time the scriptures say or imply that Jesus and God the Father are one it means one in substance, then according to Trinitarianism in this verse Jesus is praying that His disciples can be one even as He and the Father are one-according to Trinitarians, one in substance.

 

 

In my reply above, I described it as two types of oneness. One is quality and one is quantity. 

 

In this verse it seems to me that Jesus is talking about the quality, not the quantity. We as followers of christ share the same Spirit of God, which transforms our lives and connects us to God in a very real, but mystical way. It's this spiritual quality of oneness or connectedness that I believe he's referring to here. So is it possible for us to fulfill this oneness here? Yes indeed if we are in Christ. 

[bluebell]

In my reply above, I described it as two types of oneness. One is quality and one is quantity. 

 

In this verse it seems to me that Jesus is talking about the quality, not the quantity. We as followers of christ share the same Spirit of God, which transforms our lives and connects us to God in a very real, but mystical way. It's this spiritual quality of oneness or connectedness that I believe he's referring to here. So is it possible for us to fulfill this oneness here? Yes indeed if we are in Christ. 

 

As i said, i'm fine if that's how you personally want to interpret it.

 

Given your belief in Trinitarianism, it's pretty much the only way for you to interpret it.  But it is an extra biblical interpretation and is not actually in the verse.

[danielwoods]

As i said, i'm fine if that's how you personally want to interpret it.

 

Given your belief in Trinitarianism, it's pretty much the only way for you to interpret it.  But it is an extra biblical interpretation and is not actually in the verse.

 

Which is an ironic statement coming from an LDS believer, given that I derive my theology solely from the biblical text, as opposed to those who hold to an LDS view. 

[Canadaigua]

CFR!!!!

 

Really????  Can you explain, using authoritative sources, when He was NOT a god/divine being???  Because I don't think you can.

Mormonism teaches that Jesus is our spirit brother and that we were all born to heavenly parents.  Prior to our (supposed) spirit birth by heavenly mother we existed as intelligences.

 

Is it your position that Jesus was a god prior to being born to heavenly mother?

[bluebell]

Which is an ironic statement coming from an LDS believer, given that I derive my theology solely from the biblical text, as opposed to those who hold to an LDS view. 

 

You have just shown here that you don't actually derive your theology solely from the biblical text.  You read the text and then interpret it to fit in with your theology.  You read what those verses say, and then you compare it to your theology on the Trinity, and have to infer things the verse does not teach in order to stay true to your theology AND accept the verse as true as well.

 

Being LDS, i don't believe in sola scriptura so it is congruent (and not at all ironic) with my theology to believe that the bible does not hold all theological truth.  I'm sorry if it annoys you that you can't force me to use only the bible to support my beliefs but that's the reality of having these kinds of discussions with a member of the LDS church.

 

You however, do espouse sola scriptura, so that does make having personal interpretations of verses that aren't actually in the bible an issue for you.  That's also not my problem though.

[Calm]

I am simply trying to figure out what you meant when you said

 

". . . it is what experience of the Spirit tells me as I study the scriptures that matters to me, not the text itself. . ."

 

Can you help me understand what you were trying to say here?

Apparently not.

[Canadaigua]

 

Being LDS, i don't believe in sola scriptura so it is congruent (and not at all ironic) with my theology to believe that the bible does not hold all theological truth.  I'm sorry if it annoys you that you can't force me to use only the bible to support my beliefs but that's the reality of having these kinds of discussions with a member of the LDS church.

 

 

But what do you do when your beliefs contradict what is taught in the Bible--such as your belief in polytheism?

[Calm]

But what do you do when your beliefs contradict what is taught in the Bible--such as your belief in polytheism?

Loaded question....we don't believe our beliefs contradict biblical teachings, but rather where different, that difference is a clarification, an addition of information that fits in quite nicely with what is taught in the Bible and does not contradict it.

Add-on: if you truly desire to understand the LDS point of view, you need to stop dragging your assumptions into our reasoning and instead attempt to see our reasoning with our own assumptions.

When you stop coming up with questions that are meaningless (we can't tell you what we do for a certain event if that event does not happen for us, for example, thus rendering the question nonsensical), you might be making progress. It is necessary, but not sufficient though.

Edited December 31, 2014 by calmoriah

[bluebell]

But what do you do when your beliefs contradict what is taught in the Bible--such as your belief in polytheism?

 

We don't believe they contradict.  We believe that it is your misunderstanding of biblical doctrine that makes you believe they contradict.

 

Much the same way that Judaism sees the concept of the Trinity to be polytheistic, yet Trinitarians don't agree with them.  

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

But what do you do when your beliefs contradict what is taught in the Bible--such as your belief in polytheism?

The bible teaches polytheism. Monotheism is abesent from it's pages. You have 3 people talked about that are devine. They don't share one essence. That is never said in the bible. So try again.

 

Jesus says, that his Father is greater than he. If they are all "co equal" how can the father be greater than the son?

[Teancum]

I understand bias and I understand the Bible, based on that bias which is what I have come to trust in (everyone has a bias to contend with in my experience), it was here long before Muhammad, Joseph Smith, Charles Taze Russell, each who has claims of being a restoration of a lost/distorted Christianity. This is not in dispute with what I know of history.

 

The Bible warns of the coming of false prophets/teachers coming in Jesus' name. It is there I start when considering other religious claims as I was already a believer before being confronted wit the truth claims of these others.

 

I will proceed with what I stated, assuming you are serious with giving me a fair hearing. I've read your previous posts at least wanting Christianity to be true or something to that affect.

 

There are two beginnings referenced in Genesis and John: In the beginning God and in the beginning was the word. . .My beginning was or at least out of the womb on Oct 26, 1950 (conceived more than likely earlier that year or at the end of the previous year).

 

We were a Navy family in which I was introduced to the Biblical stories in base chapels. Eventually we went to Lutheran, Missouri Synod churches. First in San Diego Ca, then in Westminster, Ca. This is where my faith blossomed so to speak. A key year being 1975.

 

The Sunday School class I began attending was in Acts 22 which is the second accounting of Paul's conversion experience, in defense in front of King Agrippa, which he was brought before by the local Jews in conflict with Paul. It had a deep impact on me at the time (already being a believer from an early age). 

  Was this a response to me?

 

Is this your evidence that you have the one true faith/religion?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Which is an ironic statement coming from an LDS believer, given that I derive my theology solely from the biblical text, as opposed to those who hold to an LDS view. 

But you don't derive your theology from the bible alone. You claim you do you believe you do, but you don't. Where is one essence taught?

[danielwoods]

You have just shown here that you don't actually derive your theology solely from the biblical text.  You read the text and then interpret it to fit in with your theology.  You read what those verses say, and then you compare it to your theology on the Trinity, and have to infer things the verse does not teach in order to stay true to your theology AND accept the verse as true as well.

 

Being LDS, i don't believe in sola scriptura so it is congruent (and not at all ironic) with my theology to believe that the bible does not hold all theological truth.  I'm sorry if it annoys you that you can't force me to use only the bible to support my beliefs but that's the reality of having these kinds of discussions with a member of the LDS church.

 

You however, do espouse sola scriptura, so that does make having personal interpretations of verses that aren't actually in the bible an issue for you.  That's also not my problem though.

 

Actually, deriving my theology from the whole context of the Bible is deriving it from the biblical text. Which is the main reason I have been pointing out what the context is in this particular passage. The LDS read these words and insert their own meanings, which are completely foreign to the original hearers of these words. 

 

The interesting thing to me is how strongly the LDS argue that they are the ones who actually understand the text correctly. It's almost like they want to validate their position by this claim. 

[danielwoods]

But you don't derive your theology from the bible alone. You claim you do you believe you do, but you don't. Where is one essence taught?

 

Remember, it's a mystery!

[bluebell]

Actually, deriving my theology from the whole context of the Bible is deriving it from the biblical text. Which is the main reason I have been pointing out what the context is in this particular passage. The LDS read these words and insert their own meanings, which are completely foreign to the original hearers of these words.

 

I know that's what you think you've been doing.  My point is that you aren't accomplishing it.  You are doing the exact same thing that we are, and denying you are doing it while you do it.

 

Again, i understand why you are denying it.  You're theology demands that you do so.  

 

The interesting thing to me is how strongly the LDS argue that they are the ones who actually understand the text correctly. It's almost like they want to validate their position by this claim.

 

 

Do we argue this more strongly than you?  

[coolrok7]

Teancum, no it is the foundational personal experience relating to how I've arrived at my conclusions about religious faith. There has to be a standard to measure against. Scripture, the Bible is that standard.

[MiserereNobis]

I'm with the Mormons on this one -- sola scriptura (and the other solas) are heresies

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Remember, it's a mystery!

Wait that is specific to one essence. Saing you don't know how God the Father and Jesus are one and that is the great mystery, is fine. But when asked to provider a reference for the bible that they share the same substance or the same essnece, you cannot claim that is a mystery and stick with "sola scriptura". It simply is not in the bible.

Edited December 31, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[ERayR]

Deleted

Edited December 31, 2014 by ERayR

[ERayR]

ERayR, on 30 Dec 2014 - 2:29 PM, said:

So this doesn't get lost as I am waiting for an answer.

 

If they are not three people are they then one people?

 

No. 

 

So how many are they?

[danielwoods]

I know that's what you think you've been doing.  My point is that you aren't accomplishing it.  You are doing the exact same thing that we are, and denying you are doing it while you do it.

 

Again, i understand why you are denying it.  You're theology demands that you do so.  

 

 

Do we argue this more strongly than you?  

 

Actually, I only want to know the truth, I don't have a theological agenda that I bring to the text. My theology is derived directly from my study of the scripture, not just part of it... If it taught what the LDS teach, I'd be LDS. I do agree on occasion with LDS points of view, probably around 60% of the time.

 

I know you disagree, which is fine.

[ERayR]

But what do you do when your beliefs contradict what is taught in the Bible--such as your belief in polytheism?

 

There you go declaring the Bible to be what you interpret it to be.  I just do not accept your statement that the Bible does not teach polytheism. 

[Calm]

I'm with the Mormons on this one -- sola scriptura (and the other solas) are heresies

One in purpose or essence?

[danielwoods]

Wait that is specific to one essence. Saing you don't know how God the Father and Jesus are one and that is the great mystery, is fine. But when asked to provider a reference for the bible that they share the same substance or the same essnece, you cannot claim that is a mystery and stick with "sola scriptura". It simply is not in the bible.

 

Here's a good link that shows it is derived from scripture:

 

http://creation.com/jesus-christ-our-creator-a-biblical-defence-of-the-trinity

 

Or if you'd prefer a link to the writings of Tertullian, one of the Church fathers from 160-225 AD, there are plenty of scripture references there as well.

 

http://newadvent.org/fathers/0317.htm