danielwoods Posted April 4, 2016 Posted April 4, 2016 On April 2, 2016 at 0:42 AM, RevTestament said: I dont know - you tell me. Do you believe that scripture is telling us to think it is not robbery to be equal to God? Philippians 2:6 states, "who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped," [NASB] Do I think that this is stating that it's not robbery to be equal to God? No. I don't think that scripture is talking about us being equal to God. Rather, talking about Jesus alone, and he was equal to God, he didn't hold on to it. Rather, he humbled himself and clothed himself with humanity so that we might be saved.
danielwoods Posted April 4, 2016 Posted April 4, 2016 On April 2, 2016 at 2:20 PM, Bernard Gui said: You have misunderstood my point. Of course it is not deceptive for God to describe himself as our Father, because that term truthfully defines our relationship with him, whether from the LDS or the Evangelical point of view. Yet all the interactions of the prophets with God describe Him in anthropomorphic terms. If he does not have a face, eyes, ears, back parts, hair, hands, feet or other parts then it is a deception with no purpose. If He is not Man, He could simply say so and we would understand just fine. Jesus, who is also God, has a glorified tangible resurrected body which His disciples saw and touched and with which he shared food with them. Therefore, God is not only anthropomorphic, he is corporeal and we are created in His express image as He so declared in the beginning. God stated, "God is not a man, that he should lie..." (Numbers 23:19) Seems pretty clear to me.
pcarthew Posted April 4, 2016 Posted April 4, 2016 On 4/1/2016 at 1:08 PM, Steve Noel said: I am reading Stephen E. Robinson's "Introduction" in the book How Wide the Divide? (co-authored w/ Craig Blomberg). I am very impressed and, in all honesty, convicted by some of what he writes about evangelicals. That being said, I find the difference of perspective concerning the nature of God between evangelicals and Latter-day Saints to be so significant that it is difficult to see how we can be talking about the same God. Robinson states, "We believe that God and humans are the same species of being..." (18). I cannot think of a more significant difference between evangelicals and Latter-day Saints. For here the most basic of distinctions, the Creator - creature distinction, is erased. Blomberg calls this "the heart of traditional Christianity's disagreement with Mormonism" (96). Given that this divide is very wide, would you say that evangelicals and Latter-day Saints believe in, worship, pray to, etc. the same God? If it is the God of Israel that exists in the bible, I guess we are worshiping the same God.
danielwoods Posted April 4, 2016 Posted April 4, 2016 10 hours ago, Calm said: Was Jesus a man? Did he lie? Jesus took on humanity and did not sin. So, no he didn't lie.
RevTestament Posted April 4, 2016 Posted April 4, 2016 11 hours ago, danielwoods said: Philippians 2:6 states, "who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped," [NASB] Do I think that this is stating that it's not robbery to be equal to God? No. I don't think that scripture is talking about us being equal to God. Rather, talking about Jesus alone, and he was equal to God, he didn't hold on to it. Rather, he humbled himself and clothed himself with humanity so that we might be saved. There is nothing wrong with the King James V, but here is another: Philippians 2:6 6Though he was God( Or Being in the form of God. ),a he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to. I would say most Protestants definitely do not cling to being made in the image of God, since they do not believe that and constantly choose to think of God in some amorphous form, and no they choose not to believe they can approach the perfection of God - even with Christs help. 1
danielwoods Posted April 4, 2016 Posted April 4, 2016 32 minutes ago, RevTestament said: There is nothing wrong with the King James V, but here is another: Philippians 2:6 6Though he was God( Or Being in the form of God. ),a he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to. I would say most Protestants definitely do not cling to being made in the image of God, since they do not believe that and constantly choose to think of God in some amorphous form, and no they choose not to believe they can approach the perfection of God - even with Christs help. A couple of things are interesting here. One is the passage you are quoting is saying that Jesus didn't cling to this, and it's saying that we should have the same mindset as Jesus. A humble mindset. Yet, your point appears to criticize this mindset. You seem to be saying that we should cling to this. The other thing is your telling us what we believe. Do we believe we are made in the image of God? Of course. Does anything change whether we cling to this or not? No Christ demonstrated this point. We are still made in God's image regardless. The question of course is what is God's image? Do we believe we can approach the perfection of God? Of course. Our righteousness is Christ's not our own. I don't stand by my own righteousness, I only live by the grace and righteousness of Christ.
RevTestament Posted April 4, 2016 Posted April 4, 2016 33 minutes ago, danielwoods said: A couple of things are interesting here. One is the passage you are quoting is saying that Jesus didn't cling to this, and it's saying that we should have the same mindset as Jesus. A humble mindset. Yet, your point appears to criticize this mindset. You seem to be saying that we should cling to this. No, I am saying that Protestants by and large refuse to adopt that mindset - to think that they could possibly be like God - as a goal to aim for. Without the goal, they are content to not even try to follow any commandments, but to be content that Jesus will save them in their chosen imperfection. It is the mindset which I am critical of.
danielwoods Posted April 4, 2016 Posted April 4, 2016 (edited) 11 hours ago, RevTestament said: No, I am saying that Protestants by and large refuse to adopt that mindset - to think that they could possibly be like God - as a goal to aim for. Without the goal, they are content to not even try to follow any commandments, but to be content that Jesus will save them in their chosen imperfection. It is the mindset which I am critical of. I think you are confusing an attitude of humility and submission with indifference. For the evangelical it's God who changes us from the inside out. He changes our will and our hearts which has the net effect of changing our actions (or fruit if you prefer). We don't rely on the arm of the flesh to effect this change, we rely on God alone. But, the key is humility and submission to God, which is what this passage is about. "Have this mindset in you..." What I have noticed is that those who allow God to change them from the inside out seem to have a higher probability of stability. Those who rely on the arm of the flesh sometimes burn out, at least that's been my observation. Edited April 5, 2016 by danielwoods
RevTestament Posted April 5, 2016 Posted April 5, 2016 15 hours ago, danielwoods said: I think you are confusing an attitude of humility and submission with indifference. For the evangelical it's God who changes us from the inside out. He changes our will and our hearts which has the net effect of changing our actions (or fruit if you prefer). We don't rely on the arm of the flesh to effect this change, we rely on God alone. But, the key is humility and submission to God, which is what this passage is about. "Have this mindset in you..." What I have noticed is that those who allow God to change them from the inside out seem to have a higher probability of stability. Those who rely on the arm of the flesh sometimes burn out, at least that's been my observation. This has been my observation - that at some sites people who have "accepted Christ" believe their sin is taken away, and that they cannot sin because their sin is taken away in Christ. They then post all over the site, and do not hesitate to call others names such as "pig" and the like if they happen to disagree or are not a "Christian" like them. This is the problem with the "Pauline gospel" as I see it - it is an excuse to go be a sinner - which is not Pauls intent at all, but is what happens when a few verses are read without context to the rest of scripture. Someone who is truly in Christ cannot sin because their intent becomes clean and therefore their actions good - not because Christ covers their bad intent and acts. The erroneous interpretation comes from a "linear reading" of the scriptures. I am not saying that this is your approach, but it is one of the flaws with ignoring God's call to be like Him even as Christ is/was. Yes I realize we cannot be perfect without Christ, but there are many different approaches or interpretations on what this means and how it is accomplished in Christianity.
Bernard Gui Posted April 5, 2016 Posted April 5, 2016 (edited) On April 4, 2016 at 8:54 PM, danielwoods said: God stated, "God is not a man, that he should lie..." (Numbers 23:19) Seems pretty clear to me. If it is so clear, why does He need to hide behind anthropomorphic deceptions? Edited April 5, 2016 by Bernard Gui
danielwoods Posted April 5, 2016 Posted April 5, 2016 3 hours ago, RevTestament said: This has been my observation - that at some sites people who have "accepted Christ" believe their sin is taken away, and that they cannot sin because their sin is taken away in Christ. They then post all over the site, and do not hesitate to call others names such as "pig" and the like if they happen to disagree or are not a "Christian" like them. This is the problem with the "Pauline gospel" as I see it - it is an excuse to go be a sinner - which is not Pauls intent at all, but is what happens when a few verses are read without context to the rest of scripture. Someone who is truly in Christ cannot sin because their intent becomes clean and therefore their actions good - not because Christ covers their bad intent and acts. The erroneous interpretation comes from a "linear reading" of the scriptures. I am not saying that this is your approach, but it is one of the flaws with ignoring God's call to be like Him even as Christ is/was. Yes I realize we cannot be perfect without Christ, but there are many different approaches or interpretations on what this means and how it is accomplished in Christianity. What you have described and then criticized is what I would call a baby in Christ or an immature Christian, someone who has yet to learn the depths of God's love for us all. Even Paul stated that it's better to not eat meat (not offend someone else) even though there's nothing actually wrong with eating the meat. Paul said, it's better to be wronged than to drag someone to court. I do take issue with your statement that "Someone who is truly in Christ cannot sin...". I don't think that's true at all.
danielwoods Posted April 5, 2016 Posted April 5, 2016 1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said: If it is so clear, why does He need to hide behind anthropomorphic deceptions? You asked why doesn't he just state it. He did. Now you ask again why use anthropomorphic descriptions (what you call deceptions)? The answer is the same as before, to communicate his love to us in ways that we understand.
Storm Rider Posted April 5, 2016 Posted April 5, 2016 1 hour ago, danielwoods said: You asked why doesn't he just state it. He did. Now you ask again why use anthropomorphic descriptions (what you call deceptions)? The answer is the same as before, to communicate his love to us in ways that we understand. God created us in his likeness and image. I think that says enough to understand some of God's characteristics. Man did not create God to look like man, but God created man in his own image and likeness.
danielwoods Posted April 5, 2016 Posted April 5, 2016 1 hour ago, Storm Rider said: God created us in his likeness and image. I think that says enough to understand some of God's characteristics. Man did not create God to look like man, but God created man in his own image and likeness. I don't disagree with the concept or passage. Rather, I think we disagree in how we define image and likeness. Which is fine, it simply is a different interpretation.
Storm Rider Posted April 5, 2016 Posted April 5, 2016 31 minutes ago, danielwoods said: I don't disagree with the concept or passage. Rather, I think we disagree in how we define image and likeness. Which is fine, it simply is a different interpretation. How do you define image and likeness?
danielwoods Posted April 6, 2016 Posted April 6, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Storm Rider said: How do you define image and likeness? I believe his image and likeness is that which differentiates us from the rest of creation. Those abilities that are in the likeness of God, such as the ability to choose good or evil (freewill), the ability to love as God does (agape), the ability to reason (intelligence), the ability to have relationships with others as he does, the ability to create. Just to name a few. Edited April 6, 2016 by danielwoods
Storm Rider Posted April 6, 2016 Posted April 6, 2016 33 minutes ago, danielwoods said: I believe his image and likeness is that which differentiates us from the rest of creation. Those abilities that are in the likeness of God, such as the ability to choose good or evil (freewill), the ability to love as God does (agape), the ability to reason (intelligence), the ability to have relationships with others as he does, the ability to create. Just to name a few. I don't want to get hung up on this single verse, but it is interesting how you limit likeness to characteristics or gifts from God. If the context is creation and he created man in his image - what he looks like - and with his likeness - this is difficult to make into characteristics. His creation will be made in his likeness seems more about what is integral to his creation. Context is everything for a proper understanding of scripture. Thanks for your answer.
Bernard Gui Posted April 6, 2016 Posted April 6, 2016 (edited) 13 hours ago, danielwoods said: You asked why doesn't he just state it. He did. Now you ask again why use anthropomorphic descriptions (what you call deceptions)? The answer is the same as before, to communicate his love to us in ways that we understand. So, God is not a man, but because He loves us He pretends to be one. He allows us to use anthropomorphic terms to describe Him. In fact He even encourages their use by showing various parts of His body to men, but this is not based in the truth of His nature, which we could not understand anyway. Isn't that deceptive? It certainly does not make sense. Edited April 6, 2016 by Bernard Gui
danielwoods Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 On April 6, 2016 at 8:15 PM, Storm Rider said: I don't want to get hung up on this single verse, but it is interesting how you limit likeness to characteristics or gifts from God. If the context is creation and he created man in his image - what he looks like - and with his likeness - this is difficult to make into characteristics. His creation will be made in his likeness seems more about what is integral to his creation. Context is everything for a proper understanding of scripture. Thanks for your answer. I know the LDS view is this is used to say that God has a physical body. The problem (well one problem) that I see is that God said that his image is both male and female together. In his image he made them. So for me this indicates that the context of his image is that it isn't physical at all.
danielwoods Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 19 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: So, God is not a man, but because He loves us He pretends to be one. He allows us to use anthropomorphic terms to describe Him. In fact He even encourages their use by showing various parts of His body to men, but this is not based in the truth of His nature, which we could not understand anyway. Isn't that deceptive? It certainly does not make sense. God states he's not a man. That's not deceptive its direct description. God's attributes are described as "like" this or that human trait, but since we already know that God is not a man, these comparisons help us understand who God is. He is like us, but is so much more than we could ever imagine.
Bernard Gui Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 1 hour ago, danielwoods said: God states he's not a man. That's not deceptive its direct description. God's attributes are described as "like" this or that human trait, but since we already know that God is not a man, these comparisons help us understand who God is. He is like us, but is so much more than we could ever imagine. We are talking past each other. Let's change the subject. How is God like us?
salgare Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 Steve, This is a good example of milk verses meat. JLHProp is a loyal TBM. He is an old schooler (like myself). I would suggest you ask him about the Hierarchy of Gods, Adam God, The God Head as role titles verses actual individuals, etc. these are meat doctrines, which because of there distaste to the world have been buried by the correlated gospel, and even later by the "main streaming" which Gordon B. Hinckley spent much effort on in his final years as president. These old school truths are held by a good number of the Baby Boomer generation who were in the know, but correlation milk and New Mormonism is much more palatable to the main stream and the post baby boomer generations. 2
Recommended Posts