Dear Evangelical Friends: Can A Mormon Be A Christian?

[ERayR]

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

 

 

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. 

 

Sorry that you have trouble with context.

[danielwoods]

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.

 

Nature

1.

the fundamental qualities of a person or thing; identity or essential character

[bluebell]

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. 

 

I'll check out the link, thanks.

 

To the second point though, i'm actually now more confused than ever.

 

My husband and I both have the same human nature, but we are not two persons in one being.  We can have the same nature-and that nature is not dimmed or lessened in anyway-without being consubstantial.  Every human being on earth has that same nature and it doesn't make it any less than if only one human being existed.  So why is it that God the Father and Jesus Christ must be two persons in one being or they can't have the same nature like the bible claims they do?

 

Also, part of LDS doctrine is that God the Father and Jesus Christ have the same nature, yet we obviously don't believe in the doctrine of the trinity.  

 

Does that help explain why your definition of essence has confused me?

[Vance]

Vance my brother you might want to rethink this post.

 

ERayR

Yeah, I see your point.  I had a headache this morning when I posted it.  I shouldn't waste my time with colrok.  It is impossible to get him to get it, because he doesn't want to get it.

[Vance]

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

That is just your erroneous interpretation, as we have shown numerous times.

 

For both "wisdom" and "the sons of men" were with the Lord in the beginning.

 

Prov 8:12 I wisdom dwell with prudence, and find out knowledge of witty inventions.

. . .

  22 The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.

  23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.

  24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water.

  25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth:

  26 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world.

  27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:

  28 When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep:

  29 When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth:

  30 Then I was by him,as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him;

  31 Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men.

[Bobbieaware]

I'll check out the link, thanks.

To the second point though, i'm actually now more confused than ever.

My husband and I both have the same human nature, but we are not two persons in one being. We can have the same nature-and that nature is not dimmed or lessened in anyway-without being consubstantial. Every human being on earth has that same nature and it doesn't make it any less than if only one human being existed. So why is it that God the Father and Jesus Christ must be two persons in one being or they can't have the same nature like the bible claims they do?

Also, part of LDS doctrine is that God the Father and Jesus Christ have the same nature, yet we obviously don't believe in the doctrine of the trinity.

Does that help explain why your definition of essence has confused me?

Don't trouble yourself about it. By their own admission, the whole Trinity thing is an incomprehensible mystery to them. So if they can't even define or explain there own terms, why should we have to?

The Trinity concept falls apart when you see the Son of God in Gethsemane pleading with His Father to allow him to escape the fear and agony of having to endure the atoning sacrifice, and the Saviour says, "not my will but thy will be done," When you have two persons engaged in such a monumentally important conversation,and one wants, if possible, to escape a painful responsibility and the other insists that the reluctant one carry out that responsibility, you have two separate individuals -- no matter how cleverly someone might try to spin it.

In reality, we Mormons do believe the Father and the Son are of one substance. and that substance is the Spirit of Truth. That Spirit is the holy substance the enables the Father and the Son to be one in Spirit, even though they are two separate personages; and that very same Spirit is the identical holy substance that allows the the disciples of Christ to be one with the Father and Son.

The main difference between the Mormons and the Trinitarians is that we define what the unifying substance is, while they leave it a profound and inscrutable mystery. Simple...

Edited January 9, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[danielwoods]

I'll check out the link, thanks.

 

To the second point though, i'm actually now more confused than ever.

 

My husband and I both have the same human nature, but we are not two persons in one being.  We can have the same nature-and that nature is not dimmed or lessened in anyway-without being consubstantial.  Every human being on earth has that same nature and it doesn't make it any less than if only one human being existed.  So why is it that God the Father and Jesus Christ must be two persons in one being or they can't have the same nature like the bible claims they do?

 

Also, part of LDS doctrine is that God the Father and Jesus Christ have the same nature, yet we obviously don't believe in the doctrine of the trinity.  

 

Does that help explain why your definition of essence has confused me?

 

I'll do my best to try and clear up this confusion, from my own understanding. 

 

All analogies end up failing when trying to understand the Divine nature. The reason for this is that there is only one Infinite being. When we compare our human nature, what we are doing is comparing our similarities, those attributes that we all share as humans. There is also specific male and female characteristics that further define our essence or nature, hence we could say that we are a Male Human in essence or nature, or a Female Human and so on. The Male and Female share some characteristics, that we call human. We also share some characteristics with other animals. We all breath air and assimilate food for example. But, there are also some characteristics that we don't share. It's those characteristics that define us as Male or Female or Human or non-human. 

 

So, for example, we can look at a dog and tell that it's not human by analyzing it's character traits, or who is a human or not. The same principles apply with God, with one difference. There is only one God. His traits/characteristics/essence/nature are mentioned by people in the past who have interacted directly with God. A study of these interactions leads us to understand more and more who he is, and what his characteristics are. Some of these characteristics are shared with us humans, as he stated he made us in his image and likeness. So, we have emotions, intellect and will. Unlike animals. Some of these characteristics he didn't share with us. Now, it's theorized that he couldn't share them by some, but whether he could or couldn't, the fact is he didn't. One of those is his infinite nature that is that - he is all powerful, all knowing, and present everywhere (The Omni's if you will). 

 

So, with this background mind, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit share an infinite connection that is intrinsic to their nature making them one being or one entity or ontologically one. Yet, because of their uniqueness of being the only one infinite God, there is nothing we can point to, by way of analogy that demonstrates this truth. So, the easy criticism is that it's not true, because we can't demonstrate it so easily and seems contradictory. Which on one hand sounds logical. But, the reality of life is we humans have the ability to project what we believe onto our idea of God, so to me, the fact that it is not easy to grasp or understand only lends credence to the idea that it isn't made up by man. 

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

Nature

1.

the fundamental qualities of a person or thing; identity or essential character

 

Yeah but there is only one human nature but 6 billion distinct and separate personages. With the divine nature you want to mix it and change it into something else. One metaphysical being = one nature. You are not consistent at all with what you are saying. That is the whole problem.

[Vance]

So I do a little scripture search for "divine nature" and I find this.

 

2 Pet 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

 

So, it looks like the faithful get to be partakers of the divine nature.

 

Ok now Daniel, explain this away without being inconsistent.

[danielwoods]

That is just your erroneous interpretation, as we have shown numerous times.

 

For both "wisdom" and "the sons of men" were with the Lord in the beginning.

 

Prov 8:12 I wisdom dwell with prudence, and find out knowledge of witty inventions.

. . .

  22 The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.

  23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.

  24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water.

  25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth:

  26 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world.

  27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:

  28 When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep:

  29 When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth:

  30 Then I was by him,as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him;

  31 Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men.

 

If this is supposed to demonstrate that men pre-existed, I'm sorry but it doesn't say anything close to that. 

 

Notice in verse 31, it states that Wisdom is "Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth;" which indicates that men were already created, where? On Earth. 

 

Does it say that the sons of men were with Wisdom from the beginning, before the Earth was formed? No. It only mentions men after Earth is already "habitable."

[danielwoods]

So I do a little scripture search for "divine nature" and I find this.

 

2 Pet 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

 

So, it looks like the faithful get to be partakers of the divine nature.

 

Ok now Daniel, explain this away without being inconsistent.

 

Just as we are partakers of the wedding feast, we are also partakers of God's divine nature, because he shares it with us. But, being partakers, doesn't indicate that we have all the attributes the divine has. Nor does partaking of the wedding feast indicate that we eat the whole feast by ourselves, rather we share it with others as God shares it with us. 

 

Our stomaches get full by eating the feast, just as our hearts are full of his spirit by his sharing his divine nature with us. Eating the feast doesn't change our human nature, but gives us strength. Just as having his spirit doesn't change who we are, but gives us energy and strength as well to live for him. 

[Vance]

 But, being partakers, doesn't indicate that we have all the attributes the divine has.

LOL!!!

 

Inconsistency thy name is danielwoods.

 

So, being partakers of "divine nature", the thing that you claim is what makes God God, and us not, somehow doesn't make us what God is?

 

You have retrogressed into third grade logic here.  As I expected you would.

[ERayR]

But, being partakers, doesn't indicate that we have all the attributes the divine has.

 

 

 

How can one partake of the divine without becoming divine?

[coolrok7]

Does one become a loaf of bread when one partakes of it?

[ERayR]

Does one become a loaf of bread when one partakes of it?

 

It seems that you believe God has.

[Flyonthewall]

Does one become a loaf of bread when one partakes of it?

You are what you eat

[coolrok7]

That is not what I said. The nutrients of anything one eats as food is for its nourishment derived from what is eaten. Partaking of the Divine nature of what Peter said is in the context of having escaped the corruption that is in the world. Read the whole chapter for the context of his statement.

[JLHPROF]

Does one become a loaf of bread when one partakes of it?

 

That is not what I said. The nutrients of anything one eats as food is for its nourishment derived from what is eaten. Partaking of the Divine nature of what Peter said is in the context of having escaped the corruption that is in the world. Read the whole chapter for the context of his statement.

 

Wrong kind of partaking.  It's not about food.

 

When we partake of the divine nature we inherit everything that Christ has.  It's about being a joint heir with Jesus Christ.  Every blessing bestowed upon his head will be bestowed upon our heads.

[Flyonthewall]

That is not what I said. The nutrients of anything one eats as food is for its nourishment derived from what is eaten. Partaking of the Divine nature of what Peter said is in the context of having escaped the corruption that is in the world. Read the whole chapter for the context of his statement.

I thought the smilie would have given some context...

[coolrok7]

For some further context, consider the words of Jesus in John chapter six. They are spiritual blessings derived from His divine nature which doesn't make us God or Divine beings, particularly vs. 63.

Edited January 10, 2015 by coolrok7

[coolrok7]

Thanks for the smile, I sort of overlooked it.

[Teancum]

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.

 

Mormons believe Jesus was God before his birth as well as one with the Father in all ways but substance and essence... whatever essence means.

[ERayR]

Mormons believe Jesus was God before his birth as well as one with the Father in all ways but substance and essence... whatever essence means.

 

I have tried but can't get a coherent statement as to what essence is or hoe they are using it.

[Bobbieaware]

Mormons believe Jesus was God before his birth as well as one with the Father in all ways but substance and essence... whatever essence means.

According to the prophet Joseph Smith, there iS a substance that unifies the Father and the Son and that substance is the uncreated and unchanging Spirit of Truth (see the Lectures on Faith). While I know you're not a believer in Mormonism (so I'm not speaking of you), for the life of me, I don't understand why so many otherwise knowledgeable LDS members so often miss this important, basic point of doctrine? The Spirit of Truth (the Lectures on Faith also calls this Spiritual substance the Mind of God, with a capital "M") is indeed a divine substance that is the quickening storehouse of all divine light, life, truth, wisdom, knowledge and power.

Because the Father and the Son are filled to infinite and eternal degree with this holy substance, they are one God, though two separate and discrete personages (see D&C 88 for a good description of this holy substance). And not coincidentally, it is this same uncreated and unchanging Spirit of Light, Life and Truth that has the power to make the saints one with the Father and the Son, so that the Father, and the Son, and the saints of God might all be one, living and dwelling in each other by means of this holy substance (see Christ's intercessory prayer in John) .

For those in the know, they realize the main difference between the Trinitarians and the LDS Church is that the LDS define what the unifying substance is, while the Trinitarians believe the unifying substance is an unknowable and incomprehensible mystery. Simply put, LDS theology demystifies the unity of the Godhead -- and we catch endless grief for it.

Edited January 10, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[ERayR]

Simply put, LDS theology demystifies the unity of the Godhead -- and we catch endless grief for it.

 

And I say who care I am not living my life to please anybody but God and myself.