Theologically Uninformed Evangelicals and LDS Beliefs

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, paulhadik said:

wait a minute.....this whole thread has been IRONIC????

Well you theologians are too smart for simple boys like me I guess.

What do you mean?  After all there are no facts, just interpretations. The point is, how many simple boys like me can see "consubstantial" in the bible.

I have looked and looked- I guess you will just have to point it out for me!

Edited November 5, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Five Solas]

On 11/3/2016 at 6:47 PM, rodheadlee said:

I'm curious how you understand those 2 verses? There is no interpretation needed. They mean exactly what they say.

Of course John 5:19-20 means what it says, rodheadlee.  But you see the passage in the context of Joseph Smith's King Follett Discourse, as Biblical evidence for Smith's notion of treading, progressing gods.  I simply see them in the context of the rest of John 5.  Recall the charge the Jews make against Jesus in the previous verse (18)--"making himself equal to God"--a blasphemy.  The Jews behold in Jesus nothing higher than human nature.  And they are understandably scandalized by his words.   

Jesus responds in verse 19 with a proverb or parable taken from apprenticeship in trade: the activity of a son is modeled on that of his father.  Jesus is making the point the healing of the diseased man (earlier in the chapter) was not by human power, but Divine power concealed under his visible flesh.  He doubles-down on the Jews sense of scandal.  And the rest of the chapter sees this out.  

The 4th century followers of Arius notwithstanding, only in Mormonism does anyone think John 5:19 implies Jesus was a progressing god, an actual apprentice deity.  But again, this only makes sense if the passage is seen in isolation & through the lens of Joseph Smith/King Follett Discourse.  It falls apart in the context of the rest of the chapter, and the rest of the book. 

Not what you wanted to hear, I suspect. 

--Erik

[mfbukowski]

43 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

Of course John 5:19-20 means what it says, rodheadlee.  But you see the passage in the context of Joseph Smith's King Follett Discourse, as Biblical evidence for Smith's notion of treading, progressing gods.  I simply see them in the context of the rest of John 5.  Recall the charge the Jews make against Jesus in the previous verse (18)--"making himself equal to God"--a blasphemy.  The Jews behold in Jesus nothing higher than human nature.  And they are understandably scandalized by his words.   

Jesus responds in verse 19 with a proverb or parable taken from apprenticeship in trade: the activity of a son is modeled on that of his father.  Jesus is making the point the healing of the diseased man (earlier in the chapter) was not by human power, but Divine power concealed under his visible flesh.  He doubles-down on the Jews sense of scandal.  And the rest of the chapter sees this out.  

The 4th century followers of Arius notwithstanding, only in Mormonism does anyone think John 5:19 implies Jesus was a progressing god, an actual apprentice deity.  But again, this only makes sense if the passage is seen in isolation & through the lens of Joseph Smith/King Follett Discourse.  It falls apart in the context of the rest of the chapter, and the rest of the book. 

Not what you wanted to hear, I suspect. 

--Erik

FWIW there is no comparison here.

We do not believe that humans are "equal with God", Jesus of course being the exception, who as we know, DID progress from grace to grace as a human and DID reach the stature of God while still on earth, which was necessary for him to bring about the atonement.

"Human Nature", according to LDS beliefs, like a worm becoming a butterfly allows human beings, as part of their nature, to BECOME LIKE God, though we will never be equal to or surpass our Father.

IF Jesus would have been an ordinary human, the Jews would have been justified in persecuting him for his claims- but he was not like ordinary humans- he had infinitely more intelligence and righteousness than an ordinary human can attain here.

Joseph never claimed to be "equal to God" which makes your argument fall flat.

Your point fails because by analogy you have compared a newly fertilized zygote (the ordinary human) to what that zygote could become after EONS of perfecting itself after an entire earth life AND THEN eons of progression.  THOSE are the two ends of human progression- from a single cell to a God- all part of "human nature".  Not two natures- one nature, from beginning to end.

John 17:

First Jesus prays that he may again attain to the glory he had before coming to earth, the glory he had in the pre-existence.  In other words, even here on earth he is not yet "equal to God".   And notice even here he does not pray to be "equal to his Father- just to achieve the glory he previously had

Quote

 

4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

 

Note also two LDS doctrines clearly stated- 1- the Pre-existence and 2- human progression beyond the grave.  Jesus himself before his atonement was not yet "equal with God".

Continuing in John 17:

Quote

 

10 And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.

11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

 

"That they may be one as we are one".

Not two- one.  Not two natures ONE nature.  We will be one with Christ and his Father in their thrones, IF we "overcome the world".  Not if we confess Jesus to be the Christ- but if we do that AND "overcome the world"

Rev 3

Quote

21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

I hope that helps you understand our position better.

1-One nature- human nature which can progress to something much higher than we see on this earth

2- And Joseph never claimed to be a God- so your case is not relevant.  If Joseph said that to those Jews, they would be perfectly right to condemn him- but Joseph is not Jesus.

[Vance]

On 11/4/2016 at 8:28 PM, danielwoods said:

"15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation."

And how does this make it clear that Mose's encounter was with the Father? 

Really?  To whom is Christ referring in this verse?

John 17: 3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

 

 

 

 

[Vance]

On 11/4/2016 at 10:24 PM, danielwoods said:

Depends what you think he means when he says it's finished. To me, when Jesus says, "It's finished." I believe him to mean that the Atonement is finished. All of it. Nothing left to atone for, he's done it all. The resurrection three days later is simply the net result of his finished work on the cross which testifies of his power over death. Just as the accession is or any other activity he participates in. 

So, it was finished but it wasn't finished quite yet. 

Ridiculous.

[danielwoods]

14 minutes ago, Vance said:

Really?  To whom is Christ referring in this verse?

John 17: 3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Right. I didn't actually expect an actual explanation of how collisions 1:15 states that Moses actually saw the Father. 

[danielwoods]

3 minutes ago, Vance said:

So, it was finished but it wasn't finished quite yet. 

Ridiculous.

Since you seem to believe that it wasn't finished, what work did he do that was left unfinished after he had declared it finished? 

[Vance]

On 11/5/2016 at 5:07 PM, Five Solas said:

Of course John 5:19-20 means what it says, rodheadlee.  But you see the passage in the context of Joseph Smith's King Follett Discourse, as Biblical evidence for Smith's notion of treading, progressing gods.  I simply see them in the context of the rest of John 5.  Recall the charge the Jews make against Jesus in the previous verse (18)--"making himself equal to God"--a blasphemy.  The Jews behold in Jesus nothing higher than human nature.  And they are understandably scandalized by his words.   

Jesus responds in verse 19 with a proverb or parable taken from apprenticeship in trade: the activity of a son is modeled on that of his father. 

Ok.

Jesus is making the point the healing of the diseased man (earlier in the chapter) was not by human power, but Divine power concealed under his visible flesh.  He doubles-down on the Jews sense of scandal.  And the rest of the chapter sees this out.  

The 4th century followers of Arius notwithstanding, only in Mormonism does anyone think John 5:19 implies Jesus was a progressing god, an actual apprentice deity. 

So, now you are contradicting yourself.

But again, this only makes sense if the passage is seen in isolation & through the lens of Joseph Smith/King Follett Discourse.  It falls apart in the context of the rest of the chapter, and the rest of the book. 

Not what you wanted to hear, I suspect. 

--Erik

You claim that Jesus responded with the "apprenticeship in trade" but he didn't really mean "apprenticeship in trade".

Oh well, just your typical inconsistency.

I often like to look at different translations to see a different perspective.  Take Ex 3:14 for example.

The oft copied Hellenized translation renders it,

14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

The old "self consistent" Hellenized version of God was retrofitted into the translation.

But if one just takes a look at the meaning of the individual Hebrew words one gets a totally different view.

14 and·he-is-saying Elohim to Moses I-shall-become who I-am-becoming and·he-is-saying thus you-shall-say to·sons-of Israel I-shall-become he-sent·me to·you

Clearly a progressing God.

And then there is this,

Luke 13:32 And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.

Clearly a progressing God.

And then there is this,

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

Clearly a progressing God.

Edited November 8, 2016 by Vance

[Vance]

18 minutes ago, danielwoods said:

Since you seem to believe that it wasn't finished, what work did he do that was left unfinished after he had declared it finished? 

It is rather OBVIOUS that the work left to do was,

1) to DIE

2) to be resurrected.

3) to organize His Church.

Just to name a few.

[Five Solas]

6 hours ago, Vance said:

You claim that Jesus responded with the "apprenticeship in trade" but he didn't really mean "apprenticeship in trade".

Oh well, just your typical inconsistency.

...

What I like about you, Vance, is we can always count on you to serve Mormonism neat.  In an age of LDS apologetics which seemingly draws its inspiration from Gordon B. Hinckley's media interviews in the 1990's (e.g., "I wouldn't say that,"  "I don't know that we teach it") and seeks to obfuscate distinctives wherever they can--you're a breath of fresh air.  Please take that as a compliment.        

:0)

But to your point, am I being inconsistent?  If we didn't recognize John 5:19 & Jesus's apprenticeship illustration as proverb or parable to make a point (discussed in some detail, above)--it would be tough to argue otherwise.  But Jesus isn't claiming to be an apprentice progressing god à la King Follett any more than he's claiming to be a farmer in the parable of the sower.  You've missed the rhetorical device and thereby the real meaning, completely.  And you need only look at the passage in the context of the rest of the chapter to see your mistake. 

--Erik

[Vance]

4 hours ago, Five Solas said:

What I like about you, Vance, is we can always count on you to serve Mormonism neat.  In an age of LDS apologetics which seemingly draws its inspiration from Gordon B. Hinckley's media interviews in the 1990's (e.g., "I wouldn't say that,"  "I don't know that we teach it") and seeks to obfuscate distinctives wherever they can--you're a breath of fresh air.  Please take that as a compliment.        

:0)

But to your point, am I being inconsistent?  If we didn't recognize John 5:19 & Jesus's apprenticeship illustration as proverb or parable to make a point (discussed in some detail, above)--it would be tough to argue otherwise.  But Jesus isn't claiming to be an apprentice progressing god à la King Follett any more than he's claiming to be a farmer in the parable of the sower.  You've missed the rhetorical device and thereby the real meaning, completely.  And you need only look at the passage in the context of the rest of the chapter to see your mistake. 

--Erik

What I dislike about your responses is that they don't address the issues.  You just repeat the same bald assertions.

Looking at that verse in the context of the rest of the chapter is what you have NOT done.

17 ¶ But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.

Here, the subjects of the following are set.

 

  18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, (A lie, for Jesus had not broken the sabbath by healing)  but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God. (Another lie by "the Jews", claiming divine parentage is not the same as claiming equality with God)

  19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

  20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.

  21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.

  22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:

  23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

 

Jesus is clearly explaining HIS relationship to HIS FATHER.  His not talking about the typical "apprenticeship in trade" as you claim.

 

  24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

  25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

  26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;

  27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man (of Holiness).

  28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

  29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

  30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

  31 If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.

 

Clearly Jesus is specifically speaking about Himself and His relationship with the Father.

 

I could go on but this is sufficient to demonstrate that you are in error. 

 

 

 

[Vance]

Jesus clearly didn't claim equality with God, the Father.

John 10:29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.

John 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

[danielwoods]

12 hours ago, Vance said:

It is rather OBVIOUS that the work left to do was,

1) to DIE

2) to be resurrected.

3) to organize His Church.

Just to name a few.

Let's see. You claim the above are works that he had left to do (which is apart of the atonement). 

To die? No, he said it was finished and breathed his last, in context he was referring to the whole event on the cross which includes Death. The atonement was finished at the moment of his death. 

To be resurrected - How is this apart of the atonement? 

To organize his church - How is this apart of the atonement? 

 

Seems pretty obvious that when he said it was finished, the atonement was done. Finished - paid in full. 

[waveslider]

52 minutes ago, danielwoods said:

To be resurrected - How is this apart of the atonement? 

"17  And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
18  Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
19  If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.
20  But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
21  For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22  For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."
1 Corinthians 15:17-22

If resurrection isn't part of the atonement then how does the sin of Adam and Eve get atoned for, so that we don't have to pay the consequences of death?

[waveslider]

13 hours ago, Vance said:

It is rather OBVIOUS that the work left to do was,

1) to DIE

2) to be resurrected.

3) to organize His Church.

Just to name a few.

Don't forget that Christ also had to set up the missionary program for those who have already passed beyond the veil:

"18  For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
19  By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
20  Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water."
1 Peter 3:18-20

"For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit."
1 Peter 4:6

[danielwoods]

11 hours ago, waveslider said:

"17  And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
18  Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
19  If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.
20  But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
21  For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22  For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."
1 Corinthians 15:17-22

If resurrection isn't part of the atonement then how does the sin of Adam and Eve get atoned for, so that we don't have to pay the consequences of death?

The proper question is what exactly did Christ's resurrection do in the atoning process? 

In the above passage resurrection is described as the first fruit of the atonement. It isn't the atonement itself. It's the result or first fruit. 

In Adam all die and in Christ all are made alive. But not through Christ's resurrection are we made alive, we're made alive by his work on the cross. Jesus was the lamb of God, a sacrificial lamb, that takes away the sin of the world. All of it. Nothing left to pay. The resurrection of Christ doesn't pay for anything or add anything to the atonement. 

If Christ isn't raised your faith (in that atonement that occurred on the cross) is in vain. Resurrection is the tangible/physical evidence to the whole world that our sins are forgiven. It is the first fruit as the passage says. Not the atonement itself. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, danielwoods said:

The proper question is what exactly did Christ's resurrection do in the atoning process? 

In the above passage resurrection is described as the first fruit of the atonement. It isn't the atonement itself. It's the result or first fruit. 

In Adam all die and in Christ all are made alive. But not through Christ's resurrection are we made alive, we're made alive by his work on the cross. Jesus was the lamb of God, a sacrificial lamb, that takes away the sin of the world. All of it. Nothing left to pay. The resurrection of Christ doesn't pay for anything or add anything to the atonement. 

If Christ isn't raised your faith (in that atonement that occurred on the cross) is in vain. Resurrection is the tangible/physical evidence to the whole world that our sins are forgiven. It is the first fruit as the passage says. Not the atonement itself. 

Angels dancing on the head of a pin. Slicing and dicing abstractions and words with no practical importance.

In a word, theology above scripture.

The "proper question" is improper because it cannot be clearly defined 

 Christ overcame death both physical and spiritual. That is all that matters.

Edited November 7, 2016 by mfbukowski

[danielwoods]

39 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Angels dancing on the head of a pin. Slicing and dicing abstractions and words with no practical importance.

In a word, theology above scripture.

The "proper question" is improper because it cannot be clearly defined 

 Christ overcame death both physical and spiritual. That is all that matters.

Who overcame death? 

"Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places..." (Eph. 1:20)

God the Father raised him. 

[Gray]

17 minutes ago, danielwoods said:

Who overcame death? 

"Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places..." (Eph. 1:20)

God the Father raised him. 

Meaning that Jesus was not God until after he was raised from the dead, right? At least not until later in the development of Christian theology.

[waveslider]

5 hours ago, danielwoods said:

In Adam all die and in Christ all are made alive. But not through Christ's resurrection are we made alive, we're made alive by his work on the cross. Jesus was the lamb of God, a sacrificial lamb, that takes away the sin of the world. All of it. Nothing left to pay. The resurrection of Christ doesn't pay for anything or add anything to the atonement. 

It looks like you ignored the previous verse to which you are alluding here. "....as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive," is clarified by the previous verse:

5 hours ago, danielwoods said:

21  For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

While Christ's sacrifice upon the cross is a large part of the atonement, it really isn't all of it

 

Edited November 7, 2016 by waveslider
I accidentally wrote resurrection instead of atonement

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, danielwoods said:

Who overcame death? 

"Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places..." (Eph. 1:20)

God the Father raised him. 

Ok, what's your point? What difference does that make in this discussion ? I suggest you stop looking at words and look for substance.  We readily acknowledge that the Plan was the Father's, and teach that boldly.

Yet of course he was the second Adam. If Adam brought death, Christ brought life. It was all part of the Father's plan to give us agency. That eliminates the alleged problem of evil by making evil man's choice. That in itself is brilliant philosophy.

Edited November 7, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Vance]

6 hours ago, danielwoods said:

Who overcame death? 

"Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places..." (Eph. 1:20)

God the Father raised him. 

So, I guess you are saying that Jesus lied when he said this,

John 10:17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.

  18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.

Edited November 8, 2016 by Vance

[danielwoods]

5 hours ago, waveslider said:

It looks like you ignored the previous verse to which you are alluding here. "....as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive," is clarified by the previous verse:

While Christ's sacrifice upon the cross is a large part of the atonement, it really isn't all of it

 

Please explain how Christ's resurrection raise us? 

You quoted, "21  For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead."

This doesn't explain it. Rather, it points to Christ as the man by whom all are saved and as a result of salvation, ultimately participate in resurrection. Nothing in this verse states that Christ's resurrection is how we are raised. Nor does it explain what you've not explained, that is how exactly is the resurrection apart of the atonement, when it's described as a first fruit. 

[danielwoods]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Ok, what's your point? What difference does that make in this discussion ? I suggest you stop looking at words and look for substance.  We readily acknowledge that the Plan was the Father's, and teach that boldly.

Yet of course he was the second Adam. If Adam brought death, Christ brought life. It was all part of the Father's plan to give us agency. That eliminates the alleged problem of evil by making evil man's choice. That in itself is brilliant philosophy.

I agree with you. However, those in your camp have made specific claims about doctrine, using words. I'm simply pointing out the facts as they are, and yes I'm using words as well. Ultimately you are correct. The grand picture is far more important. Loving God with all our hearts. 

[Vance]

And this,

John 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

  20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?

  21 But he spake of the temple of his body.

  22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.