Are Mormons' Christians?

[Del March]

Justice preceded God?  So, just who's justice is God subordinate to?

Nobody's. Justice is Justice. It's not created. It just is.

And, do you not realize that you've just admitted to the imperfection of God?

How so??

I went on dictionary.com, and I found those definitions for perfect:

1. Lacking nothing essential to the whole; complete of its nature or kind.

2. Being without defect or blemish: a perfect specimen.

3. Thoroughly skilled or talented in a certain field or area; proficient.

4. Completely suited for a particular purpose or situation: She was the perfect actress for the part.

5.

1. Completely corresponding to a description, standard, or type: a perfect circle; a perfect gentleman.

2. Accurately reproducing an original: a perfect copy of the painting.

6. Complete; thorough; utter: a perfect fool.

7. Pure; undiluted; unmixed: perfect red.

8. Excellent and delightful in all respects: a perfect day.

The LDS God is perfect according to every single one of those definitions. It looks like you've once again made up your own definition and are trying to apply it on people who don't agree with it to start with...

Do you not now understand, in part, why I keep saying that the LDS God is not worth revering, or most likely, does not exist at all?

No, not at all. I think you thoroughly misundestand the LDS God.

As for your question, God never got rid of the "law of justice" through the sacrifice of his Son.  For to do so would have meant that he would have gotten rid of himself, who is the standard of justice, and that is logical absurdity.  Instead, he established, or fulfilled, the law through Jesus' sacrifice, and then graciously applied the finished results to those who would be saved, "according to his kind intention" (Eph. 1:9).

Let me get that right. God established, for no reason, the law of justice, and then sent His Son to pay for it and to establish another law? What's the logic in that? What was the point of establishing the law of justice in the first place?

As for dependence, if God does not depend on anyone, or anything, for his existence, then why, in this post, are you suggesting that "justice" precedes God?

Just because Justice is an eternal principle doesn't mean God depends on it. Where do you get this idea?

Also, since God was not always God in LDS thought

[Guest johnny_cat]

Nobody's. Justice is Justice. It's not created. It just is.

Del,

The problem I have with saying that justice precedes God is that everything is eternal in LDS theology, so justice does not precede God. It is coequal, or coeternal with God, just as we are.

[PD1]

Well, as I've said before, Paul, depending on one's view of God will certainly affect what kind of "Christian" they are.  Would you not agree?  Therefore, if one holds to a view of God which assumes that he is in need of something to exist as God, then just what should that say about their testimony, assurance, or future as a Christian?  Furthermore, what should that say about what they know about what God has revealed about himself?

Actually, I think what a person believes about this sort of philosophical question is almost meaningless in terms of what kind of Christian he is.

I believe that a person can probably have a wonderfully strong "testimony and assurance" with a variety of beliefs about the origin and ontological nature of God. After all, God spent precious little time in the scriptures talking about these kinds of philosophical issues. What He *did* reveal was that he was a loving, powerful, holy, just, merciful, eternal Being that is the source of our life and our only hope for eternal happiness.

I think there is an incredible number of unknowns when it comes to God. I believe people don't have to be astute philosophers to be saved. They can be children, mentally disabled, uneducated people and believe some wrong or unsophisticated things, and God still loves them and can and will save them if they are willing to submit to Him and acknowledge Him.

This is not philosophical speculation, Paul. It is theology, as revealed in Scripture versus what LDS believe to the contrary. And if you think that it doesn't matter one iota what a person believes, thinks, or espouses about God, and that erroneous beliefs about Him do not affect other beliefs successively, then you've just managed to sully the name of Christ, as well as what he and those who later wrote regarding the Christian faith.

What you believe about God does matter. For worshiping someone or something other than the God revealed in Scripture makes one an idolater, not a Christian. And we know that there is no room in heaven for those practicing idolatry.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Paul, please don't be an idolater. Think about what you supposedly believe. If it doesn't add up, then maybe you need to consider what God really says about himself.

Praying for you.

[Del March]

Since I don't want to be accused of misrepresenting the LDS beliefs, it would be best that you simply let me know what you do believe.  What does God need to exist as God?  As I said earlier, I've seen "justice," and a Father.  Is that all? 

God doesn't need justice to be God. God is free from justice. God is above justice. WE are the ones who are submitted to justice. Not God.

As for what happened before we were created, all of it is speculation. You don't know, we don't know, nobody knows because nobody was there to see it. Your philosophers have stated that nothing happened, our God has hinted that something might have happened. But the fact remains that none of us knows, and none of us CAN know... Unless God Himself reveals it, that is.

You do realize, though, that the more you add to the list, the less perfect you make God out to be, and add to the potential that he does not exist at all, do you not?

Absolutely not. The more we "add to the list", the more we can only find that God is perfect.

Del

[Del March]

The problem I have with saying that justice precedes God is that everything is eternal in LDS theology, so justice does not precede God. It is coequal, or coeternal with God, just as we are.

Yep, that's a better way to put it I don't always manage to clearly express what I'm thinking. And it becomes particularly hard when talking of what is supposed to have happened before eternity

Thanks for the help

Del

[Del March]

What you believe about God does matter.  For worshiping someone or something other than the God revealed in Scripture makes one an idolater, not a Christian.  And we know that there is no room in heaven for those practicing idolatry.

The Samaritans had the most hideous religion possible: a mixture of the truth with pagan concepts. Consequently, their concept of Christ was necessarily different from the Jewish concept. We also know that they had wrong ideas concerning the nature of God and the right way to worship Him, since Jesus had to correct the woman at the well on those matters.

And yet, when the Samaritans accepted Jesus as their Christ, according to their understanding of Christ, He justified them and accepted them in His flock.

Why?

Del

[rameumptom]

I was very much impressed with the post by Bikeemikey. It showed a great deal greater understanding of LDS theology than does the "bid for legitimacy" tactic used by many Mormons (trying to point out as many similarities as possible even when they're not there). Wonderful job Mikey!

However, this doesn't change the fact that I think this is a really stupid question, and I wonder why people argue about it at all. As I have said many times, I can count seven different definitions for the word "Christian" in English. Noe of these is more right than any of the others. By some, Mormons are Christian. By otheres they are not. So what? Arguing about what is the correct definition for a word means nothing. Heck, the word wasn't even around in Jesus' time!

The reason why, Randy, is because we are in competition with one another for converts. Why did the Pharisees attack Jesus? Because they felt he was cutting in on their gig, and they stood to lose followers to this new upstart religion. So, they called him names, saying he performed his works by the power of Satan, etc.

So it is today. Many Christians feel threatened by those who are different enough to seem like a competitor. We share the commandments with them, so it is difficult for them to call us a Satanic organization. However, it helps them to retain their converts if they mask the discussion in a Christian/non-Christian way. Why? Because most Christians don't have a problem with finding a new pastor they like in a different Christian denomination. However, they aren't going to go looking in a non-Christian sect (Jewish, Muslim, Buddhism, etc), because they fear a loss of salvation. And so, if the definition of Christianity is couched in such a manner that it excludes some groups that proclaim Christ, then they have won the battle of the minds.

I hope that helps to explain the issue. If being a Christian means you follow Jesus as God and Savior, then We (LDS) are Christian. However, if one narrows the definition of Christian down enough, no one qualifies.

[Golden Tapir]

from the mish field (Don't ask me how long ago!)

there was a line in the hum-drum, routine 'lesson plan' thingee that read:

So, Mr. Brown, suppose a person SAY's they're a Christian, but they don't Do the things a christian should do (or something like that)" Would they REALLY be a Christian?

Hmmmm

earth to Joseph & Brigham.... Are you listening?

[Paul McNabb]

This is not philosophical speculation, Paul. It is theology, as revealed in Scripture versus what LDS believe to the contrary. And if you think that it doesn't matter one iota what a person believes, thinks, or espouses about God, and that erroneous beliefs about Him do not affect other beliefs successively, then you've just managed to sully the name of Christ, as well as what he and those who later wrote regarding the Christian faith.

What you believe about God does matter. For worshiping someone or something other than the God revealed in Scripture makes one an idolater, not a Christian. And we know that there is no room in heaven for those practicing idolatry.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Paul, please don't be an idolater. Think about what you supposedly believe. If it doesn't add up, then maybe you need to consider what God really says about himself.

Praying for you.

You may choose to call it "theologoy" rather than "philosophical speculation," but whichever it is, it is not etched in tablets brought down from the mount.

The things you are talking about in terms of the nature of God are not unambiguously pronounced in the Bible. Nor have they been universally accepted by those who accept the Bible as the word of God. As wonderful as the Bible is, the Bible does not lay out a well-reasoned, formal theology.

Whether you can believe it or not, most of your belief about God is based on amalgamating and interpretting Bible verses and phrases. Just because you've been told what you now believe or read it somewhere doesn't mean that your theology doesn't derive ultimately from human reasoning.

Of course, I never said "that it doesn't matter one iota what a person believes, thinks, or espouses about God, and that erroneous beliefs about Him do not affect other beliefs successively." In case there is any doubt, I'll assure you right now that it is important and meaningful to better understand God, and that one's beliefs about God affect other beliefs.

What I *DO* believe, however, is that one can have mistaken or simplistic beliefs about God, and still be saved.

I am curious about two things:

(1) Just how "wrong" can a person be and still be saved? Can a modalist be saved or would he be classified as an idolator? What about a Social Trinitarian? What about an Apollinarian? Does Jesus today still have a physical body or is He purely spiritual, and can one be saved if one believes the wrong way? Does the Holy Ghost proceed from the Father only or from both the Father and the Son (this 'filioque' controversy was the main issue splitting the Roman Catholic from the Eastern Orthodox churches)?

(2) By what authority do you decide #1? Who gets to decide just how "messed up" one's theology can be still be good enough so that one isn't an idolator? Where did God tell us that, or if you can't find where God did, whose reasoning are you using?

For what it is worth, I believe that the Jesus of Nazareth, as described in the Bible, was the only begotten Son of God, that He suffered and died for our sin, that He was resurrected from the dead, and that He will return to judge the quick and the dead.

In fact, I have no problem at all with the Apostle's Creed:

I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.

And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. AMEN.

Are there other creeds that I need to believe to be saved?

I'd even be happy with the Nicean creed if we could change "of one substance" (homoousis) to "of the same substance" (homoiousis), though this battle was fought 1600 years ago. To be honest, I'm not sure whether filioque is right or not. To me, it isn't a big deal, though obviously it was big enough to split the Christian church.

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.

And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

[Paul McNabb]

from the mish field (Don't ask me how long ago!)

there was a line in the hum-drum, routine 'lesson plan' thingee that read:

So, Mr. Brown, suppose a person SAY's they're a Christian, but they don't Do the things a christian should do (or something like that)" Would they REALLY be a Christian?

Hmmmm

earth to Joseph & Brigham.... Are you listening?

Uh, no one really has a problem with that. Pretty much everyone, LDS and non-LDS, makes a distinction between those that are merely called Christian and those that "really are." It is not excluding the use of the term Christian for those people who don't act like a Christian. When asked, the missionaries would say something like "but they're not 'real' Christians'." No one is denying that there aren't different kinds of Christians, and one of those distinctions could be between "real" and "fake" Christians. Of course, such a definition is not universally defined, which is exactly why the missionary discussion was asking if the person being taught understood and accepted the distinction and definition.

[Zakuska]

PD1,

I'm truly sorry that you feel that you cannot answer what is a fairly basic question about God. Do you not realize that your whole eternal destiny could be in jeopardy? May God help you, before time runs out, to see Him as He is, and not what LDS theology has characterized Him as being.

In Jesus name,

Amen.

1 JUDGE not, that ye be not judged.

2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother

[Paul McNabb]

Just in case there is any doubt about where I stand in regard to the creeds, as I mentioned I don't have a problem with the Apostle's Creed (possibly formulated as early as the 3rd or even 2nd century), and even the Nicean Creed (4th century) isn't too bad with just a word or two difference (the same words that people fought over at the time).

But by the time we get to the Athanasian Creed, probably in the 5th century, things look pretty grim. Now we're expanding the simple concepts of the Bible and the New Testament Church using full-blown philosophical rhetoric.

• Whoever wants to be saved should above all cling to the catholic faith.
  
• Whoever does not guard it whole and inviolable will doubtless perish eternally.
  
• Now this is the catholic faith: We worship one God in trinity and the Trinity in unity, neither confusing the persons nor dividing the divine being.
  
• For the Father is one person, the Son is another, and the Spirit is still another.
  
• But the deity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, equal in glory, coeternal in majesty.
  
• What the Father is, the Son is, and so is the Holy Spirit.
  
• Uncreated is the Father; uncreated is the Son; uncreated is the Spirit.
  
• The Father is infinite; the Son is infinite; the Holy Spirit is infinite.
  
• Eternal is the Father; eternal is the Son; eternal is the Spirit:
  
• And yet there are not three eternal beings, but one who is eternal;
  
• as there are not three uncreated and unlimited beings, but one who is uncreated and unlimited.
  
• Almighty is the Father; almighty is the Son; almighty is the Spirit:
  
• And yet there are not three almighty beings, but one who is almighty.
  
• Thus the Father is God; the Son is God; the Holy Spirit is God:
  
• And yet there are not three gods, but one God.
  
• Thus the Father is Lord; the Son is Lord; the Holy Spirit is Lord:
  
• And yet there are not three lords, but one Lord.
  
• As Christian truth compels us to acknowledge each distinct person as God and Lord, so catholic religion forbids us to say that there are three gods or lords.
  
• The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten;
  
• the Son was neither made nor created, but was alone begotten of the Father;
  
• the Spirit was neither made nor created, but is proceeding from the Father and the Son.
  
• Thus there is one Father, not three fathers; one Son, not three sons; one Holy Spirit, not three spirits.
  
• And in this Trinity, no one is before or after, greater or less than the other;
  
• but all three persons are in themselves, coeternal and coequal; and so we must worship the Trinity in unity and the one God in three persons.
  
• Whoever wants to be saved should think thus about the Trinity.
  
• It is necessary for eternal salvation that one also faithfully believe that our Lord Jesus Christ became flesh.
  
• For this is the true faith that we believe and confess: That our Lord Jesus Christ, God's Son, is both God and man.
  
• He is God, begotten before all worlds from the being of the Father, and he is man, born in the world from the being of his mother --
  
• existing fully as God, and fully as man with a rational soul and a human body;
  
• equal to the Father in divinity, subordinate to the Father in humanity.
  
• Although he is God and man, he is not divided, but is one Christ.
  
• He is united because God has taken humanity into himself; he does not transform deity into humanity.
  
• He is completely one in the unity of his person, without confusing his natures.
  
• For as the rational soul and body are one person, so the one Christ is God and man.
  
• He suffered death for our salvation.
  
• He descended into hell and rose again from the dead.
  
• He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
  
• He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
  
• At his coming all people shall rise bodily to give an account of their own deeds.
  
• Those who have done good will enter eternal life,
  
• those who have done evil will enter eternal fire.
  
• This is the catholic faith.
  
• One cannot be saved without believing this firmly and faithfully.
  

[emaughan]

I'm truly sorry that you feel that you cannot answer what is a fairly basic question about God. Do you not realize that your whole eternal destiny could be in jeopardy? May God help you, before time runs out, to see Him as He is, and not what LDS theology has characterized Him as being.

Your impossible dude - you can't take time to clarify what your trying to get at and then start preaching from your perch.

Fine - let's go to the basics and if you can not answer these questions. Your at risk of hell fire if you can not!

Can God create something so big he can not move it?

Can God make a distance so long that He can not travel it?

What was God doing for the infinite amount of time before the creation?

Your soul rest on your ability to answer these questions.

P.S. I've always wanted to meet the guy in Monte Python and the Holy Grail who was the keeper of the bridge. "Answer me these questions three". Now I have met him.

[YH8]

If you want to argue that LDS believe God is not perfect, then you do not understand what LDS believe. 

If you continue to insist on your views of what LDS believe over what LDS views of what they believe, then you display your agenda in full force. 

LDS (and I am one of those dastardly uniborws) don't like to be told what they really believe by people who 1) don't understand what they believe, 2) don't seem interested in understanding what they believe, 3) aren't willing to accept the LDS view of what LDS believe, 4) etc.

You "sound" like you are overly rigid, irrationally dogmatic, and deigning to be here because you love us and only want to help.  We are poor lost fools who aren't able to understand the modern version of popular Protestant Evangelical Christianity and thus are not Christian and not saved and never will be, unless we deny things LDS and accept things Popular Protestest, right?  Nevermind the untold multimillions who thought they were Christians before your reformed-again-version came on the scene in the last what, 150-200 years.

Is it that I don't understand what the LDS believe (they're obviously telling me here in black and white), or is it that some of the LDS do not understand what they're believing, much less the questions that I'm asking in respect to those beliefs? Frankly, I think it is more the latter than the former.

In other words, you believe you know more about things LDS than LDS do.

[YH8]

So when I die and stand before the Lord Jesus and kneel and say "my Lord and my God", He will check to see if in mortality I believed properly in Sola Scriptura and the Trinity and Sola Fide before accepting my faith in Him.

Just out of curiosity, if I am a KJV-only guy, believe in modalism, and believe in election only, is that close enough to correct belief so that my faith in Christ counts?

Inquiring minds want to know.

You were doing so well, then you took a lefthand turn on me.

Paul, the issue is God. Do you believe that God needs something to exist as God?

Would God be God if all there was was God?

Good question. What's the LDS answer?

That was directed at you. Are we playing games now?

As far as "the LDS response" to this question. It is a matter of speculation. I'm guessing you will grab on to an "improper" response and not let it go - much like your insistence on claiming that LDS do not believe God is perfect because you interpret their beliefs to mean as much. Nevermind what LDS actually believe, stick with your interpretation of what they believe and act as if there are no other options - much like your view of the Bible. Sure there are other interpretations, but yours is the only one that has the possibility of being valid a la some sort of empirical evidence that you've got.

In other words, I'm hesitant to give you my speculation on this matter, because it appears you are not interested in discussion, but rather telling LDS how it is.

[YH8]

As for your conclusion, let me ask you: Does the Mormon believe that God needs anything to exist as God? The Christian, according to biblical revelation, says no. What say ye?

What verses are you using to come to this conclusion?

[PD1]

Justice preceded God?

[YH8]

Paul, please don't be an idolater. Think about what you supposedly believe. If it doesn't add up, then maybe you need to consider what God really says about himself.

Praying for you.

I'll give a try at correcting you and writing what you really mean:

Paul, please believe my interpretation of the Bible. Think about what I say you believe, not what you say you believe. If what you say you believe doesn't square with what I say you believe, then you need to keep trying until you agree with what I say you believe.

Condescending toward you.

How does it feel?

[PD1]

Since I don't want to be accused of misrepresenting the LDS beliefs, it would be best that you simply let me know what you do believe.

[Paul McNabb]

The LDS have told me that God at least needs "justice" and a Father to exist. The Bible says, God does not need anything to exist as God. So, just who has a misunderstanding of what?

Just to keep things straight, this should be "an LDS person has told me".

This sounds like the sort of thing that would be debated in a High Priest Group lesson.

I'm not aware of any doctrine of the Church about what God needs to be God. Each member is free to speculate and reason.

[Del March]

Pardon me for saying so, but to say that justice "just is," and yet is attributable to no one, is just plain absurd.

How is that any worse than saying that God just is, that He was never created? If a god can just exist, why not a law?

For that would mean that justice is some kind of impersonal abstraction, and that a personal God is subject to it.

Justice is an eternal law, an eternal principle.

Justice is what it is because it is based on the character and attributes of a holy, living, personal God, and nothing else.

Scriptural support for that, please?

To answer your question about the imperfection of the LDS God, he's imperfect in the sense that he needs something to exist as God.

How many times do I have to repeat the same thing? GOD DOES NOT NEED ANYTHING TO BE GOD. Get it?

And in this case, you're telling me that he subordinate to some kind of impersonal justice, whatever that is.

He is not subordinate to it, WE are.

Once again, if God needs something or someone to be God, then God is imperfect, and has the potential to be something other than he is, which LDS theology tells us is exactly what happened.  And is that the kind of God you want to placing your faith in?

One last time: GOD DOES NOT NEED ANYTHING TO BE GOD.

Whether God DID need something to BECOME God has NO influence on whether God NOW needs something to BE God. If you can't make the difference between a past event and the present, between being and becoming, then you must live in a very "interesting" world indeed.

As for your definition, just because you think that the LDS God fits your definition does not make it so.

I did not give you MY definition. I gave you the definitions of the word "perfect" in English. Now, unless you mean that the word "perfect" in the Bible does not mean what "perfect" means in every day life, you can't accuse me of cheating.

What you need to do before running to a dictionary is to simply answer the question of need, which I've asked you to do several times now.

First, you are the only one arguing that perfection includes not-needing. This is NOT part of any common understanding of the word perfect.

Second, I HAVE answered your question. Just because you don't like my answer doesn't mean I haven't answered.

As for misunderstanding the LDS concept of God, again, is it me that is doing the misunderstanding, or is it the LDS who really understand who their God is versus the God of the Bible?

Are we talking about understanding the LDS God or are we comparing Him to the so-called God of the Bible? That's NOT the same thing. Methinks you are trying to blur the issue.

  Acts 17:24-25 states,

"The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; neither is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all life and breath and all things."

God doesn't need anything men can give Him. LDS don't argue that in any way. We call ourselves useless servants and such things. So I really don't see what your point is.

Del, the rest of your post I'm foregoing for the sake of length.  If you don't mind, I would like to keep these posts readable.

Funny how you cut off the point I made about your God being illogical. Allow me to re-post it:

There is nothing that God could be other than God himself.  His perfection necessitates that.  Therefore, God has always existed as God, and will always continue to do so, necessarily.

Isn't that an external requirement put on God? "God must be God": who defined that? Who or what can impose such a restriction on God? What would happen if God chose not to be God anymore? Or maybe God could not choose not to be God anymore? But in that case, God is not all-powerful. So?

Care to comment?

Allow me also to re-post two questions I asked you and that you didn't answer:

1: What is your Biblical support for aseity?

2: Where does the Bible describe God's perfection as you do?

Del

[Guest Daddy of DanseM]

Are Mormons Christians? (sans apostrophe)

Well, sure, I suppose... if they wanna be.

[PD1]

What you believe about God does matter.

[YH8]

At the very least, God needs Himself to be God, right? Poof.

(are you saying that God exists in a vacuum?)

If not, then He needs at least one other thing to exist for Him to be God, otherwise He is not God. By definition God is superior to something else. If God was the first of everything, then he needs whatever came after for Him to be considered God.

Strange to be arguing about something like this. Since we don't understand Eternity clearly (of course, you probably do, right? THe Bible is probably clear about it, right?), then this kind of minutia probably isn't related to salvation?

[YH8]

QUOTE

"The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; neither is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all life and breath and all things."

So, this verse means God exists in a vacuum?