Theologically Uninformed Evangelicals and LDS Beliefs

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, danielwoods said:

You're asking a hypothetical question which leads to speculation. God decided to design our physical world in such a way that we have a physical body. Did he have to do it this way? Of course not. If he did it some other way we'd be asking the opposite hypothetical question, couldn't God have given everyone a physical body? 

I'm asking these questions to see if your beliefs can explain why resurrection is necessary.  In my belief system asking why the resurrection was necessary isn't any more hypothetical than asking why Christ needed to die for our sins is.  Which is to say, it's not hypothetical at all but critical to our understanding of the Gospel. 

I mean no disrespect but if i'm understanding you right, you don't know why we will be resurrected or even exactly why Jesus was (other than to show His power).

Resurrection is one of the major doctrines of the gospel of Jesus Christ because it is half of the Atonement.  Resurrection is the good news of Christ but it seems like a lot of Christianity doesn't know why.  This is an example of MB's point.

Mysteries will always exist of course and no denomination or religion needs to have a certain percentage of the answers to be considered valid or not.  It's just that mormon doctrine seems to provide more of the big answers than other Christian denominations seem able to.  I realize you disagree, but if i was searching for the answers to the big questions, I don't know that non-LDS Christianity would be a good place to turn.

[danielwoods]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I'm asking these questions to see if your beliefs can explain why resurrection is necessary.  In my belief system asking why the resurrection was necessary isn't any more hypothetical than asking why Christ needed to die for our sins is.  Which is to say, it's not hypothetical at all but critical to our understanding of the Gospel. 

I mean no disrespect but if i'm understanding you right, you don't know why we will be resurrected or even exactly why Jesus was (other than to show His power).

Resurrection is one of the major doctrines of the gospel of Jesus Christ because it is half of the Atonement.  Resurrection is the good news of Christ but it seems like a lot of Christianity doesn't know why.  This is an example of MB's point.

Mysteries will always exist of course and no denomination or religion needs to have a certain percentage of the answers to be considered valid or not.  It's just that mormon doctrine seems to provide more of the big answers than other Christian denominations seem able to.  I realize you disagree, but if i was searching for the answers to the big questions, I don't know that non-LDS Christianity would be a good place to turn.

Please explain how resurrection is half of the atonement in your view? 

[bluebell]

Just now, danielwoods said:

Please explain how resurrection is half of the atonement in your view? 

When Adam and Eve fell, they (and subsequently all of us) became subject to two kinds of death:  Spiritual and Physical.  Neither kinds of death existed in the garden before the Fall.  This is why it took someone with power over both sin and death to right what was made wrong in the Garden of Eden.

The Atonement overcomes the effects of the Fall by overcoming both of those deaths.  By Jesus suffering for our sins and paying (for lack of a better word) the demands of justice, we are no longer spiritually separated from God (spiritual death is overcome).  Through Jesus' resurrection and our eventual resurrection, we will regain our bodies and no longer be under the power of physical death either (physical death is overcome).

That is why the resurrection (power over death) is a part of the Atonement.  Suffering for our sins is the other part.  The Atonement would not have been complete and we could not gain eternal life with God if either aspect had not happened.

[mfbukowski]

15 hours ago, danielwoods said:

Right, so your claim in the OP is only true if you're LDS. For everyone else it's false. 

Evangelicals aren't confused. That is your opinion. Those who aren't interested in studying or ignorant for what ever reason, they may be confused (even if they claim to be EV). But, that's not the problem of the doctrine. One could say the same about any topic. 

That is not what I said.  I said no Evangelical would SAY that the LDS have the correct view.  But they are wandering confused about the doctrines which we have clarified.  They would never admit we are right of course, yet if they suddenly heard the same answer coming from a felow Evangelical. they would see it as aq clarification.  THAT is what I am saying.

For example if a fellow Evangelical said to another Evangelical "You know how in the New Testament, it says "God is love?  Well what that means is that the three persons of the Trinity are like a family- they are unified by love!"  I propose that the listener, a doctrinally uninformed Evangelical would completely accept it without question.   It just makes sense.  No "Being" no "Essence" no "Consubstantiability" - just love.   That is what unifies the "trinity"- they are unified in purpose and love like a family with a common goal- raising the children or weeding the yard or cleaning the garage.  But if they thought that was a Mormon idea, they would reject it immediately because those people are Godless devils who worship Joseph Smith and not Jesus Christ.   "Everyone knows that of course."

 

[mfbukowski]

15 hours ago, danielwoods said:

Clarity is only a strength if it's true. 

What does sharing love have to do with having a body? 

I was responding to a question about resurrection, which necessarily involves a body. 

 

Ah and how does one know if it is true?

So convoluted statements about Being and Essence can be true or false?  How would one know about consubstantiality of the Tinity being "true"?

Because some philosophers in 300 AD said so?

[danielwoods]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

When Adam and Eve fell, they (and subsequently all of us) became subject to two kinds of death:  Spiritual and Physical.  Neither kinds of death existed in the garden before the Fall.  This is why it took someone with power over both sin and death to right what was made wrong in the Garden of Eden.

The Atonement overcomes the effects of the Fall by overcoming both of those deaths.  By Jesus suffering for our sins and paying (for lack of a better word) the demands of justice, we are no longer spiritually separated from God (spiritual death is overcome).  Through Jesus' resurrection and our eventual resurrection, we will regain our bodies and no longer be under the power of physical death either (physical death is overcome).

That is why the resurrection (power over death) is a part of the Atonement.  Suffering for our sins is the other part.  The Atonement would not have been complete and we could not gain eternal life with God if either aspect had not happened.

This is described as "clarifying" what was previously "unclear". However, this is inaccurate. What is actually happening is a completely different doctrine is replacing the doctrine of Atonement that has been taught down through Church history. Not a clarification at all. A replacement that is different from what was taught before. 

Why is that? Because the wages of sin is death. Sin and death aren't two separate deaths to overcome. The result of sin is death (all types). That's it. On the cross, Jesus said, "It is finished." At that moment the atonement was finished. All of our debt was paid, not some of it. All of it was paid. The result of that finished work on the cross is everything else (salvation, imputed righteousness, etc.), including our resurrection. 

[danielwoods]

32 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

That is not what I said.  I said no Evangelical would SAY that the LDS have the correct view.  But they are wandering confused about the doctrines which we have clarified.  They would never admit we are right of course, yet if they suddenly heard the same answer coming from a felow Evangelical. they would see it as aq clarification.  THAT is what I am saying.

For example if a fellow Evangelical said to another Evangelical "You know how in the New Testament, it says "God is love?  Well what that means is that the three persons of the Trinity are like a family- they are unified by love!"  I propose that the listener, a doctrinally uninformed Evangelical would completely accept it without question.   It just makes sense.  No "Being" no "Essence" no "Consubstantiability" - just love.   That is what unifies the "trinity"- they are unified in purpose and love like a family with a common goal- raising the children or weeding the yard or cleaning the garage.  But if they thought that was a Mormon idea, they would reject it immediately because those people are Godless devils who worship Joseph Smith and not Jesus Christ.   "Everyone knows that of course."

 

And I agree with you. The LDS are just like some doctrinally uninformed Evangelicals. 

[danielwoods]

31 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Ah and how does one know if it is true?

So convoluted statements about Being and Essence can be true or false?  How would one know about consubstantiality of the Tinity being "true"?

Because some philosophers in 300 AD said so?

If someone said that I'm going to give you a clarification on how your car works. What you actually do is put water in the gas tank, and gas in the coolant tank... yeah that's the clarification... 

How do I know if it's true or not? It either works or it doesn't. We test it. 

It's only a clarification if it's actually true. 

[bluebell]

16 hours ago, danielwoods said:

This is described as "clarifying" what was previously "unclear". However, this is inaccurate. What is actually happening is a completely different doctrine is replacing the doctrine of Atonement that has been taught down through Church history. Not a clarification at all. A replacement that is different from what was taught before. 

Why is that? Because the wages of sin is death. Sin and death aren't two separate deaths to overcome. The result of sin is death (all types). That's it. On the cross, Jesus said, "It is finished." At that moment the atonement was finished. All of our debt was paid, not some of it. All of it was paid. The result of that finished work on the cross is everything else (salvation, imputed righteousness, etc.), including our resurrection. 

The wages of sin is death, spiritual and physical death.  Exactly.  

Until our conversation today i had no idea that some Christians don't understand that the resurrection is a part of the Atonement, or believe that Christ's resurrection was unnecessary to bring about their own.  This is another great example of why a restoration was needed.  

 

Edited November 4, 2016 by bluebell

[danielwoods]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The wages of sin is death, spiritual and physical death.  Exactly.  

Until our conversation today i had no idea that some Christians don't understand that the resurrection is a part of the Atonement, or that Christ's resurrection was unnecessary to bring about their own.  This is another great example of why a restoration was needed.  

 

lol

[rodheadlee]

11 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Well, I certainly don't understand those verses the way you appear to understand them (i.e., through the lens of Joseph Smith's King Follett Discourse with Smith's notion of treading, progressing gods). 

But I will concede my previous illustration, intended to be humorous while making a point (i.e., it matters who you think Jesus is), fell flat.   

--Erik

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

Edited November 4, 2016 by rodheadlee

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, danielwoods said:

And I agree with you. The LDS are just like some doctrinally uninformed Evangelicals. 

Thanks.

That makes my point in the OP.  Those who are "doctrinally  uniformed" have not been poisoned by the meaningless mumbo jumbo of "doctrine" and actually read the bible as it is.

My point precisely.

[mfbukowski]

duplicate

Edited November 4, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

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

FWIW I agree.

They say that the Father teaches the Son and the Son observes and learns what the Father does, and progresses thereby. 

Luke 2:52

Quote

And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man

Seems clear to us.  Same old problem.

Greek philosophy teaches that "perfect" means "complete" and therefore unchageable, and so Christian philosophy, having taken in pagan Greek ideas, have to maintain that God and Christ do not progress or change in any way.

So then they face the absurdity that the human Jesus could not progress because of course he was "perfect".   How can you get better than perfect?  They do not understand that perfection is a variable thing- you can be perfect in certain things and not others, or perfect sometimes and not others.

Silly example, but an innocent one:  Think of bowling a "perfect" game!  It can be done but that does not mean that the one who bowls such a game always does so.   I am sure that Jesus as a child was like any other child yet also I am sure a total "genius"- beyond that- in spiritual matters.   Did he need to learn how to hold a plane to plane a board?  Did he need to learn how to use a saw or a draw-knife?   Was every carpentry project exactly perfect and flawless from the first one he attempted? Using a chisel, did he ever split a board by hitting it too hard?  These are manual skills- how perfect was he in those?

 He had obviously performed miracles before the marriage feast since Mary knew he was capable of changing water to wine- but were those abilities developed?

Another question Evangelicals don't even ask, I suppose.

But it does say he increased in favor with God, so he could not have been "perfect" in the sense of "complete" if he increased in favor with God!  So it seems that even in spiritual matters he progressed

Edited November 4, 2016 by mfbukowski

[danielwoods]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Thanks.

That makes my point in the OP.  Those who are "doctrinally  uniformed" have not been poisoned by the meaningless mumbo jumbo of "doctrine" and actually read the bible as it is.

My point precisely.

It's only meaningless if you don't understand the meaning. 

[mfbukowski]

37 minutes ago, danielwoods said:

It's only meaningless if you don't understand the meaning. 

Heavy.

[Vance]

On 11/2/2016 at 10:24 AM, danielwoods said:

Indeed, but not all are seen. Jesus is the "Image of the unseen God..." 

And yet He has been seen, by Moses,

Heb 11:27 By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible.

[Vance]

20 hours ago, danielwoods said:

 On the cross, Jesus said, "It is finished." At that moment the atonement was finished. All of our debt was paid, not some of it. All of it was paid. The result of that finished work on the cross is everything else (salvation, imputed righteousness, etc.), including our resurrection. 

That doesn't make sense,  If THAT was when it was finished, then why did He have to die AFTER that?  Why didn't He just come down from the cross (thus showing His power) ????  If THAT was when it was finished then His death and resurrection make no sense at all.

[danielwoods]

7 hours ago, Vance said:

And yet He has been seen, by Moses,

Heb 11:27 By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible.

And yet this too could have been an encounter with the pre-incarnate Christ as well. 

[danielwoods]

6 hours ago, Vance said:

That doesn't make sense,  If THAT was when it was finished, then why did He have to die AFTER that?  Why didn't He just come down from the cross (thus showing His power) ????  If THAT was when it was finished then His death and resurrection make no sense at all.

If you knew the context of the statement (and I suspect you do) then you would know that just after he said it is finished, he breathed his last breath. He was saying very simply that IT is finished. His work to save mankind is done. So he breathed his last and it was done. A sacrificial lamb isn't a true sacrifice if he's still alive. 

[paulhadik]

18 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Thanks.

That makes my point in the OP.  Those who are "doctrinally  uniformed" have not been poisoned by the meaningless mumbo jumbo of "doctrine" and actually read the bible as it is.

My point precisely.

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

[Vance]

1 hour ago, danielwoods said:

And yet this too could have been an encounter with the pre-incarnate Christ as well. 

Nope!

Col 1:15 makes it clear that it is the Father.

[Vance]

1 hour ago, danielwoods said:

If you knew the context of the statement (and I suspect you do) then you would know that just after he said it is finished, he breathed his last breath. He was saying very simply that IT is finished. His work to save mankind is done. So he breathed his last and it was done. A sacrificial lamb isn't a true sacrifice if he's still alive. 

So then he LIED, because it wasn't finished.  The thing that was finished at that point was the physical and spiritual suffering.  And the resurrection didn't occur until three days later.  Your position does NOT fit the facts. 

[danielwoods]

18 minutes ago, Vance said:

Nope!

Col 1:15 makes it clear that it is the Father.

"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? 

[danielwoods]

5 minutes ago, Vance said:

So then he LIED, because it wasn't finished.  The thing that was finished at that point was the physical and spiritual suffering.  And the resurrection didn't occur until three days later.  Your position does NOT fit the facts. 

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.