Sign in to follow this  
Traveler

Difference in doctrine

Recommended Posts

The odd part is that most people who accept ex nihilo as dogma also purport to believe that that Bible is all they need -- and ex nihilo is not in the Bible.

Even our own footnote for Gen 1:1 says that "create" is always divine activity. The Hebrew word bara translated as create does not mean creatio ex nihil. It means to form or fashion, to shape as with an axe. Joseph was correct when he told us that God organized the materials for the earth (and the rest of the universe).

We've all had the discussion with "Bible-only" believers who simply cannot grasp that their interpretation of the Bible does not become truth merely because it's what they believe or what their pastor told them. Ain't it great to have living prophets?

Lehi

One problem I have had with many in other religions is the inability to understand basic modern principles of science; specifically the relationship of matter, energy and light. Since G-d is believed to be a being of light and energy – we can conclude that he created the matter of this universe from his own light and energy (or power). To say that G-d created the universe ex nihilo is a contradiction of the reality that G-d is a being of light and power and able to create the universe by virtue of his light and power. The very notion of ex nihilo rhetorically denies that G-d (of light and power) existed prior to the creation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To say that G-d created the universe ex nihilo is a contradiction of the reality that G-d is a being of light and power and able to create the universe by virtue of his light and power. The very notion of ex nihilo rhetorically denies that G-d (of light and power) existed prior to the creation.

You'll never find me defending the ex nihilo heresy. It makes no sense in any universe: not scientific, not religious, not philosophical.

Lehi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The odd part is that most people who accept ex nihilo as dogma also purport to believe that that Bible is all they need -- and ex nihilo is not in the Bible.

Lehi

 

Put yourself in our shoes for a bit.  We have never heard of pre-mortal existence.  There is nothing in our scriptures about it.  No minister or Sunday School teacher has ever even speculated about such.  We come to Genesis 1 and it says that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 

 

Why would we imagine anything other than creation out of nothing.  In the beginning GOD.  Then He started making stuff.

 

I'm not asking you to agree with me.  At least consider the reasonableness of our assumption--given the knowledge we have.  I'd humbly suggest that creation-out-of-nothing is "common sense."  In return for that consideration, I would grant that common sense is often wrong.  Further, the debate over whether or not matter is eternal remains a hotly contested one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One problem I have had with many in other religions is the inability to understand basic modern principles of science; specifically the relationship of matter, energy and light. Since G-d is believed to be a being of light and energy – we can conclude that he created the matter of this universe from his own light and energy (or power). To say that G-d created the universe ex nihilo is a contradiction of the reality that G-d is a being of light and power and able to create the universe by virtue of his light and power. The very notion of ex nihilo rhetorically denies that G-d (of light and power) existed prior to the creation.

 

I'm not sure it is universally accepted that God is light and energy.  This line of reasoning makes that assumption.  It's an interesting thought though--that God made the universe out of himself. 

 

Here's an argument that God is not energy:  http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-god-made-of-energy

 

The short version is that energy is created substance (e = m * c-squared), so God, who is uncreated, would not be energy.

Edited by prisonchaplain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Put yourself in our shoes for a bit.  We have never heard of pre-mortal existence.  There is nothing in our scriptures about it.  No minister or Sunday School teacher has ever even speculated about such.  We come to Genesis 1 and it says that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 

 

Why would we imagine anything other than creation out of nothing.  In the beginning GOD.  Then He started making stuff.

 

I'm not asking you to agree with me.  At least consider the reasonableness of our assumption--given the knowledge we have.  I'd humbly suggest that creation-out-of-nothing is "common sense."  In return for that consideration, I would grant that common sense is often wrong.  Further, the debate over whether or not matter is eternal remains a hotly contested one.

I have to respond to this - As we try to move forward in understanding - the scripture you quote from in Genesis was not initially recorded in English. It is my understanding that the English term “In the beginning” as recorded in Genesis could be more properly translated from the Hebrew as “When G-d first established his covenant”. The implied reference to establishing covenant would obviously be with man.

My purpose in bring this to light is to emphasize the notion that the translated versions of ancient scripture is evolving – even in our current day through discoveries by scholars and experts. Many things we thought about ancient scripture are being proven to be inaccurate. But there is another problem – anciently the authority of revelation was never established through scholarly endeavor but rather through oracles called by G-d. The normal nomenclature of such a divinely chosen oracle was known in ancient times as a prophet.

In our modern time – there is indication of a pre-mortal existence of spirits in the presents of G-d that later came to earth as human souls and that G-d personally knew such spirits – Job being an example. Even if one is to argue that there is not enough evidence in scripture of a spirit existence before creation – there is some evidence. But this is somewhat like a replay in a football game where a call is made and then kept or overturned based on observations of a replay. In essence a call stands unless there is conclusive evidence to overturn the call. In this case one may argue there is not enough scriptural evidence – but if the call was that there is a spiritual existence – then the reality would be that there is not enough scripture evidence to prove it false.

My point for this particular discussion is twofold – First that the notion of G-d creating each individual ex nihilo with individual attributes or propensities some for good and some for evil is rhetorically illogical to the very nature or a “wise and loving” G-d. And Secondly, that there is room for understanding of a spiritual existence in scripture if we start with that notion rather than the ex nihilo notion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to respond to this - As we try to move forward in understanding - the scripture you quote from in Genesis was not initially recorded in English. It is my understanding that the English term “In the beginning” as recorded in Genesis could be more properly translated from the Hebrew as “When G-d first established his covenant”. The implied reference to establishing covenant would obviously be with man.

 

 

I just checked 21 different translations of Genesis 1:1, including the Jewish Publication Society's Tanakh.  Every one of them simply has "In the beginning ... "  Further, the word for created (bara) is one that is only used in reference to God beginning something.  Commentators see both effortlessness and creation-out-of-nothing implied in the wording.

 

Again, I'm not trying to convince here.  Rather, to show that apart from LDS revelations, traditional Christians are quite reasonable in our belief.  You have added material that leads you to different conclusions, but without those there is precious little in the Bible itself that hints at human pre-mortal existence.

Edited by prisonchaplain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure it is universally accepted that God is light and energy.  This line of reasoning makes that assumption.  It's an interesting thought though--that God made the universe out of himself. 

 

Here's an argument that God is not energy:  http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-god-made-of-energy

 

The short version is that energy is created substance (e = m * c-squared), so God, who is uncreated, would not be energy.

I'm not sure it is universally accepted that God is light and energy.  This line of reasoning makes that assumption.  It's an interesting thought though--that God made the universe out of himself. 

 

Here's an argument that God is not energy:  http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-god-made-of-energy

 

The short version is that energy is created substance (e = m * c-squared), so God, who is uncreated, would not be energy.

The statement is that G-d is light and power - and that energy comes from or is a durative of power. Your article is completely void of reality on several counts. First that G-d is light – note that article references Einstein’s equation E=MC**2. The answer in the article does not recognize that light is a component and element of the same direct relationship as matter to energy. To say the creation of matter results in the creation of energy proves any notion ignores the element of light and would demand that G-d was not a being of light in the same manner that he was not a being of energy. This is a contradiction of scripture and a serious flaw in rhetorical logic. Edited by Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just checked 21 different translations of Genesis 1:1, including the Jewish Publication Society's Tanakh.  Every one of them simply has "In the beginning ... "  Further, the word for created (bara) is one that is only used in reference to God beginning something.  Commentators see both effortlessness and creation-out-of-nothing implied in the wording.

 

Again, I'm not trying to convince here.  Rather, to show that apart from LDS revelations, traditional Christians are quite reasonable in our belief.  You have added material that leads you to different conclusions, but without those there is precious little in the Bible itself that hints at human pre-mortal existence.

What you are referencing is not a translation of scripture but a version. What you need to check are the varient readings. I suggest you reference textual criticism of the ancient text for possible interplertations.

As I have been saying - First it that it is possible to interpert the scriptures to include that the spirits of man existed before creation with G-d and second - that it is more consistent and logical to understand G-d and his nature by such an interpertation.

Edited by Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The statement is that G-d is light and power - and that energy comes from or is a durative of power. Your article is completely void of reality on several counts. First that G-d is light – note that article references Einstein’s equation E=MC**2. The answer in the article does not recognize that light is a component and element of the same direct relationship as matter to energy. To say the creation of matter results in the creation of energy proves any notion ignores the element of light and would demand that G-d was not a being of light in the same manner that he was not a being of energy. This is a contradiction of scripture and a serious flaw in rhetorical logic.

 

Good point that by the same logic in the article, one would have to say God is also not light.  And, we reject that.

 

However, something that also needs pointed out is that the article's attempted logic all starts with the assumption that God created matter and energy out of nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Put yourself in our shoes for a bit.  We have never heard of pre-mortal existence.  There is nothing in our scriptures about it.  No minister or Sunday School teacher has ever even speculated about such.  We come to Genesis 1 and it says that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 

 

Why would we imagine anything other than creation out of nothing.  In the beginning GOD.  Then He started making stuff.

 

I'm not asking you to agree with me.  At least consider the reasonableness of our assumption--given the knowledge we have.  I'd humbly suggest that creation-out-of-nothing is "common sense."  In return for that consideration, I would grant that common sense is often wrong.  Further, the debate over whether or not matter is eternal remains a hotly contested one.

I can see your point. But I think it's important to also include that people's understanding of "nothing" has changed drastically in the last couple of hundred years. Those who lived long ago thought that air was nothing. Even today physicists  discuss the concept of "vacuum energy" roughly defined below:

 

"Vacuum energy is an underlying background energy that exists in space throughout the entire Universe. One contribution to the vacuum energy may be from virtual particles which are thought to be particle pairs that blink into existence and then annihilate in a timespan too short to observe."  Wikipedia

 

So perhaps it's just semantics when we say God created the heavens out of nothing or fashioned it out of something. If nothing is really something then both interpretations may be correct.

 

No matter what we think here on earth, I'm sure we will all be fascinated beyond measure to discover all the glory of God's creations and the processes He uses in the next life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no doubt that any articles we bring up will be based in assumptions.  The one I referenced was theological in orientation, not scientific.  It did not assume creation-out-of-nothing directly, but it did embrace the common traditional teaching that God and his creation on distinct from each other.  In other words, there is God, and then there is everything else.  Where did the "everything else" come from.  He made it.  So, yes, we reach creation-out-of-nothing.

 

A quick check on the "God is light" aspect of this discussion--it does appear that in most traditional understandings such biblical references would be  interpreted as metaphorical.  God is a mighty mountain.  The wings of God cover me.  Interestingly, both the Father and Son are called light.  But no, most scholars would not take those passages to mean that God was literally, physically light.  After all, He created light in Gen 1:3.

Edited by prisonchaplain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you are referencing is not a translation of scripture but a version. What you need to check are the varient readings. I suggest you reference textual criticism of the ancient text for possible interplertations.

 

You'll have to explain this to me.  The "versions" I looked up are translations.  The NIV, NLT, etc. were translated by Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic scholars.  :confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'll have to explain this to me.  The "versions" I looked up are translations.  The NIV, NLT, etc. were translated by Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic scholars.  :confused:

I will try to explain - If you get any book on textual criticism of ancient scripture there are many parts of translation – we see this in modern translations as well. For example- If I were talking about sports and wrote that the Utah Jazz will “whip the Lakers buts”. How would that be translated? One translation may be that the Utah Jazz will take whips and slash the buttocks of the Lakers players. Though that would be a translation and perhaps even the most accurate translation – it is not the intended interpretation of the text. As a result experts have developed what are called variant readings. There are possible meanings to translations.

As texts become more symbolic the more direct translations can be off. Jesus told his disciples that he often used symbolism as a means to convey sacred and important information – perhaps in part to avoid casting pearls before swine.

In the days of Jesus the Pharisees and Scribes were the experts in interpreting scripture – and as Christians we know well that religious experts and scholars are just as apt to be wrong as is a heretic or apostate. When you look at different versions – the fact that you are getting the same interpretation does not mean that there are no other variant readings for specific texts or that the translation is accurate. As a student, not expert in ancient Hebrew – if you are like me – you have to research the different possibilities of variant readings. This means that to research such possibilities one must reference the Hebrew text and all the possible interpretations of that text.

What I am suggesting is this is much like the call made on a play in football. If we are looking for evidence for or against a specific concept or doctrine – what is expected has an impact. Thus I say there are two possibilities. So I will give you an assignment – contact your local Jewish Rabbi – and ask them if they can read and intemperate ancient Hebrew. If they say yes – ask them if the text in Genesis can be interpreted to reference – when G-d first established a covenant – as opposed to “In the beginning”. Ask if that particular text has anything to do with covenants with G-d.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The nature of God, the nature of humanity, and then, to a lesser extent, the canon of scripture--yes, these stand as three big distinctives.

 

The nature of God

Others: God has children, but not literally.  They can become sort of like him, but not literally.  If God had children, that would make God seem lesser.  And if God made beings in to something like him, that would diminish from his greatness.

LDS: God has children, literally.  They can become like him, literally.  A being that can create children is more powerful and wonderful than one that can not.  God is such a being, and so much more.  God having children that can become like him does NOT diminish from his greatness.  It's one of the things that makes him great. It adds to his glory.

 

Others: There is one God.  Jesus and the Father are God and are different persons.  Yet, they are the same substance because they are one.  God the Father does not have a body, because that would make him less great and/or because he doesn't need one.  Jesus was in the image of God the Father, but not in the literal physical sense.  Although the Father doesn't have a body and doesn't need one, Jesus has a body and always will.

LDS: To us, there is one God.  Jesus and the Father are God and are different persons.  God the Father has a body.  His son Jesus also has a body.  Their bodies are in some ways like ours, but glorious and perfect.

 

Others: God is perfectly just and merciful. But, if there are people in this world that do not accept Jesus as their Savior, even if they never heard about him or because of mental handicaps or age or whatever, they will not be saved.

LDS: God is perfectly just and merciful.  All have a chance to hear and accept Jesus as their Savior, whether it's in this life or the next.

 

Nature of humanity

Others: People were created in God's image, but not literally.  God creating man is more like someone making a creation out of legos.  Or, since legos aren't alive how about a puppy.  Yes, a puppy is neat but not at the same level as its master.  Nor could it ever be.  Even if that master was perfect and all powerful, a puppy can never become like his master.  God and man are totally unrelated types of beings.

LDS: We are children of God in both literal and figurative senses. Although we are fallen due to Adam's transgression as well as our own sins and although we are only children now, we can be redeemed and cleansed and exalted by his greatness and grace in to something like him eventually.  We marvel that although we are fallen wayward children, he still loves us and wants to redeem and rescue us.  We marvel that we are his children.  To us, this makes God seem even greater.  This also helps increase our capacity to love others as we recognize their divine potential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no doubt that any articles we bring up will be based in assumptions.  The one I referenced was theological in orientation, not scientific.  It did not assume creation-out-of-nothing directly, but it did embrace the common traditional teaching that God and his creation on distinct from each other.  In other words, there is God, and then there is everything else.  Where did the "everything else" come from.  He made it.  So, yes, we reach creation-out-of-nothing.

 

A quick check on the "God is light" aspect of this discussion--it does appear that in most traditional understandings such biblical references would be  interpreted as metaphorical.  God is a mighty mountain.  The wings of God cover me.  Interestingly, both the Father and Son are called light.  But no, most scholars would not take those passages to mean that God was literally, physically light.  After all, He created light in Gen 1:3.

But the article did reference scientific notions - as a means to explain religious notions. If the two are not related then it is a flaw in logic to reference one to explain the other. What I am saying is you cannot have it both ways and pick some things from science and some things from religion and think it proff. If we are talking about religious notions and saying science does not apply - it is a mistake to reference anything in science - thinking it helps prove a religious notion. Edited by Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I checked several Orthodox Jewish sources, and all point to God who brought all into existence.  Even the last one, which recognizes the interpretation that God made have fashioned creation from existing material, still places emphasis on the God who called things into existence.

 

Acccording to Chabad.org

 

The Creation

 

The word of G-d brought everything into being: heaven and earth, mountains and rivers, and every living thing. In the beginning, G-d called into existence the heaven and earth. Within six days He shaped a world of order and beauty.

 

 

According to JewFaq.org:

 

G-d is the Creator of Everything

 

Everything in the universe was created by G-d and only by G-d. Judaism completely rejects the dualistic notion that evil was created by Satan or some other deity. All comes from G-d. As Isaiah said , "I am the L-rd, and there is none else. I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create evil. I am the L-rd, that does all these things." (Is. 45:6-7).

 

 

According to JewishEncyclopedia.com (1906)

 

The bringing into existence of the world by the act of God. Most Jewish philosophers find in (Gen. i. 1) creation ex nihilo (). The etymological meaning of the verb , however, is "to cut out and put into shape," and thus presupposes the use of material. This fact was recognized by Ibn Ezra and Naḥmanides, for instance (commentaries on Gen. i. 1; see also Maimonides, "Moreh Nebukim," ii. 30), and constitutes one of the arguments in the discussion of the problem.

 

Whatever may be the nature of the traditions in Genesis (see Cosmogony), and however strong may be the presumption that they suggest the existence of an original substance which was reshaped in accordance with the Deity's purposes (see Dragon; Darkness), it is clear that the Prophets and many of the Psalms accept without reservation the doctrine of creation from nothing by the will of a supermundane personal God (Ps. xxxiii. 6-9, cii. 26, cxxi. 2; Jer. x. 12; Isa. xlii. 5, xlv. 7-9): "By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth." To such a degree has this found acceptance as the doctrine of the Synagogue that God has come to be desinated as "He who spake and the world sprang into existence"

Edited by prisonchaplain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PC, I have avoided commenting in this discussion so far. Let me poke my head in just long enough to say that what modern Jewish philosophers think about the Torah may have little to do with the original interpretations of those texts. Not even the Talmud can tell us those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vort...and all...the question of what people thought at the time is one of those impossibilities.  My only purpose in this string has been to show the reasonableness of the traditional view.  That most translators, most traditional commentators, the current Orthodox of the religion in which the Bible originated, all concur that creation was God making stuff seems to me sufficient to show the plausibility  of creation-out-of-nothing.  I recognize also that some scientists argue for the eternal existence of matter, that the original interpretations of Bible passages cannot be known with absolute certainty, and that LDS prophets have revealed that there was an existence before the creation of the world, and each of us had a conscience part in it.  I guess my bottom line is that none of us is being ridiculous or outrageous.  :cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

OK, the conversation took a 90 deg turn really fast.

 

When Anatess first noted the topic of ex-nihilo, she was referring to the idea that a benevolent God could create creatures just so they will go to hell seems self-refuting.  I agreed.  This is especially true when you consider the doctrine of pre-destination, which most evangelicals believe if not most other Christian faiths.

 

1) God alone exists.  Nothing else.

2) God creates some beings with flaws that will eventually send them to hell.

3) God is over all, the concept of choice doesn't really exist, since God has already determined who is going to hell and who is going to heaven.

4) Conclusion, a benevolent God created some beings to be evil so they will eventually burn in hell for ever.

 

That doesn't make sense.

 

I really have no problem with God being able to create ex-nihilo.  It just doesn't fit with all the other stuff that comes from the same people who espouse it.

 

CONSIDER THE LDS VIEW

1) Man was co-eternal with God.

2) He organized spirits for man to progress from this unknown state to a greater state.

3) He organized matter that was already there to create the universe.

4) He placed these organized spirits into an organized physical universe to have them learn and grow.

5) He gave man the gift of free agency to choose good or evil and be tried and tested according to their own spirit.

6) He then sends them to their rewards accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have never heard of pre-mortal existence. There is nothing in our scriptures about it. No minister or Sunday School teacher has ever even speculated about such. We come to Genesis 1 and it says that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Had it said, "Before the flood, Noah created an ark," would you assume that Naoh called the big floating box out of nothing?

The word would have been the same.

You say that there is nothing in "[your] scriptures about it", yet the scripture we read in Genesis is exactly the same in today's LDS edition as it was in the Cambridge Press AV I used 50 years ago. It's not a matter of the words, it's a matter of interpretation. And nothing supports the creatio ex nihil interpretation other than the hellenistic notion of matter's being evil. Recall that, for centuries, Christians regarded Plato and Aristotle nearly as highly as they did Moses and Paul. There is not a single verse of scripiture that implies that God created the universe of nothing unless one brings the idea in from outside and reads it into the passage.

Why would we imagine anything other than creation out of nothing. In the beginning GOD. Then He started making stuff.

We're back to the word bara again. Bara means to form or shape with an axe. Whatever modern Hebrew scholars may say about it, bara does not require, nor even hint at, creatio ex nihil. That's a later redefining of the word. You can check Strong's for the half dozen or so places in the Old Testament where bara is used to describe human activity. I submit that no human can create out of nothing, and, because the verb in these cases describes organizating, shaping, etc., not calling-into-existence, that it means the same thing in Genesis 1. The Hebrews surely knew of a word, or could have created a new one, that meant what they were trying to convey, had creatio ex nihil been that concept.

And, if we look carefully at verse 2, it says that the earth was without form and void before any creating had gone on. There was matter there.

[C]onsider the reasonableness of our assumption--given the knowledge we have. I'd humbly suggest that creation-out-of-nothing is "common sense." In return for that consideration, I would grant that common sense is often wrong.

I can see that. I simply reject that your underlying premises are reasonable or derived from scripture itself.

One of Paul's biggest fights was against the judaizers, and a second, equally important battle was against the hellenizers. I seems he won the war on the first front and lost it on the second.

Lehi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I checked several Orthodox Jewish sources, and all point to God who brought all into existence. Even the last one, which recognizes the interpretation that God made have fashioned creation from existing material, still places emphasis on the God who called things into existence.

The Jews were fighting the hellenizers for centuries before Christ was born.

It is a reasonable conclusion, based on the New Testament, that they lost, that is, that the Jewish religion went into apostasy, and accepted much of Hellenism. To cite Orthodox Jewish sources is not the same as cheking reliable Jewish sources.

The number of times the Jews (and all of Israel) went into apostasy and had to have prophets called to restore truths, or even to give them a law that was only a schoolmaster for them is a fairly high number. In the case of Moses, the four centuries of Egyptian bondage had ade them extraordinarily apostate, so much so that, after having made a covenant to obey the Law of the Gospel, the Children of Israel broke that covenant while Moses was up on the mountain getting more light and knowledge*.

* Cecil B. DemMille was wrong, and most people believe his chronolgy. The Children of Israel had alreeady accepted the ten Commandments (and other parts of the Gospel) when Moses went back up the mountain. They did not sin ignorantly, they were in open rebellion.

Greek philosophy had permeated much of Jewish "doctrine" and practice before Peter was called as the chief Apostle. The Apostles and others spent almost all of their time calling the saints to repentance. That's why we have nearly every epistle. Apostasy was rampant among the Jews and the saints in the I, and there is no ebidence that the Church recovred from the onslaught.

What happened to the saints in the I & II happened to the Jews in the v and iv: their beliefs had been corrupted by the same Greek philosophies that destroyed the early church. So, again, an appeal to the heirs of a corrupt Jewery does not rescue your argument.

The Old Testament uses bara on several occasions to tell what men did, and men do not create out of nothing. Neither did God.

Lehi

Edited by LeSellers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, the conversation took a 90 deg turn really fast.

 

When Anatess first noted the topic of ex-nihilo, she was referring to the idea that a benevolent God could create creatures just so they will go to hell seems self-refuting.  I agreed.  This is especially true when you consider the doctrine of pre-destination, which most evangelicals believe if not most other Christian faiths.

 

Actually Pre-destination is held by one branch of Evangelicalism.  Most Pentecostals (the largest branch of Christianity, outside of Catholicism) do not agree with the doctrine.  We agree that God fore-knew who would reject him, but do not believe He created them to do so.  And, for the record, I am Pentecostal, and do not agree with Predestination.  So, if that's the topic, we all agree.

 

I don't think it is, though.  The question of who God is and who we are are central differences in our doctrine.  Pre-mortal existance is a big part of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would cite other verses than the one used, to debate against ex nihilo. But I agree with Prison Chaplin in that it could be a reasonable way to interpret scripture. (It should be obvious that while I say it is reasonable, I still disagree with his position. Which is Okay! :o )

Edited by Crypto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

PC,

 

So, what to others believe about Jeremiah 1:5?  It seems pretty clear to me that "Before I formed thee in the belly" refers to before even conception.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[N]one of us is being ridiculous or outrageous.

I hope you do not imagine that I or anyone else here is accusing you (or anyone else here) of being ridiculous or outrageous.

I can only speak for myself, but my point is that the apostasy of the I & II was two-fold. The loss of the Priesthood of God was the most significant, but that came about because the people rejected the teachings of the Apostles and the Apostles themselves as representatives of God -- so God took them and His Church and His Priesthood from among them. We do not know when that uptaking was complete (John notwithstanding -- his keys were made inactive), but we do know it was before the mid-II. A scholar has said that if we look at the history of the Church as a play, something happened between the I and II acts: the scenery and props were all moved, the players changed roles, and the script changed completely.

That missing century is critical to understanding what happened to the Gospel and Church of Jesus Christ. I know the answer to that question, not because of the years I've studied early Church history (although I am no expert), but because of the testimonies of living prophets and by the witness of the Holy Ghost.

Lehi

Edited by LeSellers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this