Dear Evangelical Friends: Can A Mormon Be A Christian?

[Vance]

Actually, the reason I didn't reply to your other post is because you aren't attempting to discuss this as a person understanding my position, as your statement here shows. It isn't news that we believe that Jesus put on humanity, and as a result was also fully human, with two natures. Hence, the term "Incarnation".

This goes back to your false dichotomy that God can't be man and man can't be God but somehow Jesus did it.  It isn't that complicated.  God and man are the same ontologically, the same species if you will.  The Bible makes it rather clear that God is our Father and Jesus is our brother.  It is all that post biblical mumbo jumbo that is leading you astray.

[bluebell]

Nope. Not me. I have stated (and I don't expect everyone to remember actually, so no worries) that it is my opinion that the LDS are going to Heaven. Who or who is not actually "Christian" is a question that is not in my power to answer. 

 

Thanks for clarifying.  I just assumed you did not believe mormons were Christian because of the name of this thread.  I should learn not to make assumptions.

[Flyonthewall]

No. I think this happens all the time. Godly men are are moved to write to their generation, in their language, with their idioms and vernacular.

This is how ALL scripture is. Too bad that stopped in a different time, different place, different culture, different language. Or did it?

 

This doesn't make their writings scripture, even if it agrees with scriptures. Now you're going to ask me why this is? 

 

Well, what would rise to level of scripture? Off the top of my head I would say something similar to Peter's statement in Acts, where they choose a replacement for Judas, based on someone who was an eye-witness to the life and events of Jesus. So, on that basis, new scripture would have to be from someone with similar credentials.

Then this would exclude the entirety of the OT - as none of those "authors" were eye-witness to the life and events of Jesus. Or perhaps there is different criteria than you will allow? Edited January 9, 2015 by Flyonthewall

[danielwoods]

Does God the Father share in the "human" nature too? I thought the whole point of them being one ontological being was because of their unique nature.

 

No. And the whole point of their oneness is their divinity. 

 

It almost does not even matter that you just admitted that Christ has a human nature. Is that not enough to prove that they are separate and distinct personage? That they all don't share things co equal?

They all share divinity co-equally. They don't all share each other's personhood or roles, one is distinct from the other, yet still one divinity. One is the Father, one is the Son, and one is the Spirit. Separate and distinct, but one divine essence. 

[danielwoods]

"So, on that basis, new scripture would have to be from someone with similar credentials. "

 

And is this possible at this time or is the possibility over with?

 

Generally speaking no. The reason I'm qualifying that is because no one knows the future, except God himself.  

[danielwoods]

This goes back to your false dichotomy that God can't be man and man can't be God but somehow Jesus did it.  It isn't that complicated.  God and man are the same ontologically, the same species if you will.  The Bible makes it rather clear that God is our Father and Jesus is our brother.  It is all that post biblical mumbo jumbo that is leading you astray.

 

The Bible makes it clear that All things were created by Jesus. So our "brotherhood" with him has to do with him coming down to our level (humanity which he created) and allowing us to be connected to him. 

[danielwoods]

Thanks for clarifying.  I just assumed you did not believe mormons were Christian because of the name of this thread.  I should learn not to make assumptions.

 

No worries. It's a long thread, and I said it near the beginning. 

[danielwoods]

This is how ALL scripture is. Too bad that stopped in a different time, different place, different culture, different language. Or did it?

 

Then this would exclude the entirety of the OT - as none of those "authors" were eye-witness to the life and events of Jesus. Or perhaps there is different criteria than you will allow?

 

The OT contains different types of Jewish literature (History, Wisdom, etc), that they consider to be the word of God. Christianity is based on this Jewish foundation. 

[LittleNipper]

Well, Biblically speaking Jesus the Christ was a MAN. However, Christ became a MAN. Christ was not a man who became GOD. And the additional reality is that as Jesus, the Messiah was also a man and yet fully God. He was placed in Mary through supernatural means by the Holy Spirit. And the resulting "man" was also God in the flesh. This cannot be fully explained in human terms and that is where FAITH comes into play. And there is nothing whatsoever wrong with anyone imagining that this group or that group isn't "Christian." I'm sure Mormons do it all the time or they wouldn't insist in sticking with Mormonism. I base Christianity on biblical evidence and where different groups draw the line on biblical inerrancy.

 

I find that the vast majority of Mormons fall into several categories as do many groups who profess to be "Christian". They may believe the Bible is lacking information, or that the information has been corrupted, or that God's information was mixed in with human error. Such tend to scoff at believers who faithfully believe that the Bible is above reproach and without any major un-reconcilable translational error. They may distort insignificant verses to incorporate heresy or make allowances for sinful behavior while ignoring verses that are most poignant and concise. An example of this is where "Gay" marriage is being accepted as totally OK by some churches and yet 6 day Creation, the Deluge, the Exodus, and the virgin birth are looked upon as merely allegorical and or hyperbole. 

 

There are others who genuinely have no real clue what the Bible says or the full ramifications of what their religion teaches and are simply going along for the ride. These I like to say were born "Roman Catholic" and that is why they are such. They may at some point be led to actually study the Bible. And this is when some may get that deer in the headlight moment. I feel this is the moving of the Holy Spirit. For some it happens very fast and for others it takes a little more prodding. But eventually, a person is going to accept one and reject another, or is going to simply ignore the issues entirely. 

 

It is always a matter of personal choice.

[coolrok7]

Became a human being, in the flesh, in order to suffer death as spirits don't die.

He didn' become "a God" He already was God.

[Vance]

The Bible makes it clear that All things were created by Jesus. So our "brotherhood" with him has to do with him coming down to our level (humanity which he created) and allowing us to be connected to him. 

The Bible also says that He is the first creation.  So, that makes Him like us.

 

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;

 

Besides, that "all" of which you speak has to be taken in context.  Did they know about atoms?  No. So they weren't talking about atoms.  Did they know about the earth, moon, sun and stars?  Yes, so they were talking about them.

 

Also,

 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

 

Makes it clear that there were things that weren't made.  He made only the things that were made.  The things that pre-existed, he didn't make.

Edited January 9, 2015 by Vance

[Vance]

Became a human being, in the flesh, in order to suffer death as spirits don't die.

He didn' become "a God" He already was God.

If Jesus was already God, why did He have to be given all power?

 

Matt 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

[ERayR]

 

No. And the whole point of their oneness is their divinity. 

 

I don't understand what you mean here.

They all share divinity co-equally. They don't all share each other's personhood or roles, one is distinct from the other, yet still one divinity. One is the Father, one is the Son, and one is the Spirit. Separate and distinct, but one divine essence.

 

What is divine essence?  If you were to substitute Godhead for divine essence you would have a valid LDS statement.  It appears to me a problem of semantics.

[danielwoods]

The Bible also says that He is the first creation.  So, that makes Him like us.

 

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;

 

Besides, that "all" of which you speak has to be taken in context.  Did they know about atoms?  No. So they weren't talking about atoms.  Did they know about the earth, moon, sun and stars?  Yes, so they were talking about them.

 

Also,

 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

 

Makes it clear that there were things that weren't made.  He made only the things that were made.  The things that pre-existed, he didn't make.

 

All things were made by him. What things are those? All of them. Yes, this include atoms as they are not exempt from "all things". The only thing that pre-existed, is God, at least according to the Bible. 

[ERayR]

Became a human being, in the flesh, in order to suffer death as spirits don't die.

He didn' become "a God" He already was God.

 

You have posted Mormon doctrine and belief.

[danielwoods]

 

 

No. And the whole point of their oneness is their divinity. 

 

I don't understand what you mean here.

They all share divinity co-equally. They don't all share each other's personhood or roles, one is distinct from the other, yet still one divinity. One is the Father, one is the Son, and one is the Spirit. Separate and distinct, but one divine essence.

 

What is divine essence?  If you were to substitute Godhead for divine essence you would have a valid LDS statement.  It appears to me a problem of semantics.

 

 

It would be a problem of semantics if the words didn't indicate different ideas. My understanding of the LDS position is that it would be accurately described as a "social" trinity. Three together with each other as three with one purpose. What we see described in the bible is a three in one being or essence. 

 

If it was simply a problem of semantics then it would be easy to solve. However, the trinity isn't a simple concept, because at it's core is a mysterious infinite being. 

[ERayR]

If Jesus was already God, why did He have to be given all power?

 

Matt 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

 

Vance my brother you might want to rethink this post.

 

ERayR

[ERayR]

It would be a problem of semantics if the words didn't indicate different ideas. My understanding of the LDS position is that it would be accurately described as a "social" trinity. Three together with each other as three with one purpose. What we see described in the bible is a three in one being or essence. 

 

If it was simply a problem of semantics then it would be easy to solve. However, the trinity isn't a simple concept, because at it's core is a mysterious infinite being. 

 

You have not told me what you mean by essence.

[coolrok7]

Vance, in Phillipines 2, Jesus took back what He surrendered as a servant in humbling Himself as He relied on the Holy Spirit to do the things He did as a man that he became (to suffer death).

He already was God.

Edited January 9, 2015 by coolrok7

[bluebell]

It would be a problem of semantics if the words didn't indicate different ideas. My understanding of the LDS position is that it would be accurately described as a "social" trinity. Three together with each other as three with one purpose. What we see described in the bible is a three in one being or essence.

Can you describe what verses in the bible that you are referring to when you say the bible describes the oneness as being of one 'essence'?  Also, can you describe, as ERayR asked, what you mean by 'essence'?

[danielwoods]

Can you describe what verses in the bible that you are referring to when you say the bible describes the oneness as being of one 'essence'?  Also, can you describe, as ERayR asked, what you mean by 'essence'?

 

Since I don't the time needed to fully answer this, this link provide many passages that articulate and teach the idea of the trinity. 

 

http://www.evidenceunseen.com/theology/christian-doctrine/defending-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity/

 

Essence is another word for nature. Just as there is Human nature, or a dog or fish nature, there also is a divine nature. That which identifies who they are. 

[Vance]

All things were made by him. What things are those? All of them. Yes, this include atoms as they are not exempt from "all things". The only thing that pre-existed, is God, at least according to the Bible. 

Really, so someone makes a statement based upon what they know, and now 2000 years later it means something totally different because knowledge has increased???

 

I think you need to review your New Testament again.  It is apparent that "all" does NOT mean "EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE".  (Because if it did, it would mean that Jesus created the Father.)

 

Example:

31 ¶ Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field:

  32 Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.

 

Really?  No.

 

http://waynesword.palomar.edu/ww0601.htm#seed

Edited January 9, 2015 by Vance

[Vance]

Vance, in Phillipines 2, Jesus took back what He surrendered as a servant in humbling Himself as He relied on the Holy Spirit to do the things He did as a man that he became (to suffer death).

He already was God.

Sorry, but NOWHERE in there did it say he surrendered power.

 

Besides, you just don't get it.  He did NOT claim to take back something that he had surrendered.  He claimed it was GIVEN to him.  Why did it have to be GIVEN to him?  The OBVIOUS answer is He didn't have it before.

 

This it another example of where you guys claim that the scripture doesn't mean what it says because:  You don't believe it.

 

BTW there is no Phillipines 2.  There is Philippians 2 and there is Philippines but not Phillipines.

Edited January 9, 2015 by Vance

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Since I don't the time needed to fully answer this, this link provide many passages that articulate and teach the idea of the trinity. 

 

http://www.evidenceunseen.com/theology/christian-doctrine/defending-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity/

 

Essence is another word for nature. Just as there is Human nature, or a dog or fish nature, there also is a divine nature. That which identifies who they are. 

Cool, so what does Nature mean?

 

BTW Jesus clearly has something that the Father does not. By your own admission Jesus has a Human Nature that he does not share with the Father.

[danielwoods]

 

Really, so someone makes a statement based upon what they know, and now 2000 years later it means something totally different because knowledge has increased???

 

I think you need to review your New Testament again.  It is apparent that "all" does NOT mean "EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE".  (Because if it did, it would mean that Jesus created the Father.)

 

Example:

31 ¶ Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field:

  32 Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.

 

Really?  No.

 

http://waynesword.palomar.edu/ww0601.htm#seed

 

 

Unless, as I stated, the Father is also God. Who was the only thing that pre-existed, according to the Bible. 

 

Sorry, but NOWHERE in there did it say he surrendered power.

 

Besides, you just don't get it.  He did NOT claim to take back something that he had surrendered.  He claimed it was GIVEN to him.  Why did it have to be GIVEN to him?  The OBVIOUS answer is He didn't have it before.

 

This it another example of where you guys claim that the scripture doesn't mean what it says because:  You don't believe it.

 

It helps to keep things in context. Sometimes Jesus spoke as God, and acted as God, because that's who he was. Sometimes Jesus spoke as a man and acted as a man, because that's who he was as well. If the statements aren't kept in context, then false conclusions are made, and apparent contradictions are claimed. But, when understood in context and in light of Jesus' two natures, it isn't that difficult to understand what is meant.