Sign in to follow this  
Traveler

Difference in doctrine

Recommended Posts

Guest

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:

 

PC, I know I was the one that brought this up.  I surely don't think it is ridiculous or outrageous.  It actually makes sense if we remember God's gift of Free Will - that is, God did not create evil people.  God created good people with free will that used that free will to align themselves with Satan.

 

The teaching simply didn't satisfy my inquisitive nature on reconciling God's attributes of being Loving and All Knowing with ex-nihilo creation.  I simply felt there was something lacking to it... something that rankles in my brain that the priests and nuns couldn't settle.  But, as a devout Catholic, I have simply applied Faith to the teaching that, "it all will be made clear in due course".

 

It just so happened that, in my experience,  the "due course" was the LDS teaching on pre-mortal existence that was missing from the Catholic teaching that brought peace to that rankle.  Then God didn't create us for joy or death.  Rather, God saw us as babies with the potential for joy and gave us the opportunity to be Gods.

Edited by anatess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

That would be foreknowledge.  He knows us--knows what we will do--yet frees us to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

That would be foreknowledge.  He knows us--knows what we will do--yet frees us to do so.

 

Yes.

 

This is what I was referring to as All-Knowing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

I'm not PC, but that can easily be explained as foreknowledge.  God has a foreknowledge of things.  As PC pointed out, most explanations if you take into account the background of the interpreter are not too unreasonable.

This discussion led me to think about what leads us to knowledge of doctrine.  Here are some (not all) of them:

  • Prayer  "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God" (James 1:5)
  • Apostles, prophets, etc. (and the church) "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; ... Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God" (Ephesians 4:11-14)  And, Ephesians 3:2-6 provides an example of doctrine not understood by the disciples while Christ was on the earth, but revealed later to the church through apostles and prophets.
  • Righteousness "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine" (John 7:17)  See also 2 Peter 1:5-9.
  • All Scriptures "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine" (2 Timothy 3:16)  See also John 5:39.
  • Underlying all of these, is Revelation  "the things of God knoweth no man, but [by] the Spirit of God" (1 Corinthians 2:11-12) and "the Spirit of truth ... will guide you into all truth" (John 16:13)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the restoration of Christ's church, and has provided needed apostles and prophets, valuable scripture, and the opportunity for its members to receive more revelation through the authorized gift of the Holy Ghost.  God has provided a way for us to receive more knowledge of doctrine via his restored church than we could ever have without it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be foreknowledge.  He knows us--knows what we will do--yet frees us to do so.

 

There must be more to this - G-d is also the giver and overseer of law and the one responsible for the law and the condition of that which he creates.  To have full knowledge of evil before it happens and not just to allow it to happen but to create the very conditions for it to happen - and also as the one responsible for the law - G-d must share part of the responsibility for the evil that would occurs.  Letting someone be evil is one thing - but even more creating the conditions for such evil to occur - is that not in the extent of what is evil?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PC,
Without LDS theology about the nature of God some things become confusing to me. One of the biggest ones is what's the deal with Jesus's body?  We know his body served the purpose of allowing him to come teach us, suffer and die for us, and to conquer death.  But, is there a reason for the body now?  Does Jesus still reside in a body now and will he always?  If Jesus didn't have a body before but has one now, how does this fit with the teaching that God never changes (incidentally, an argument others use to dismiss LDS theology)? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PC,

Without LDS theology about the nature of God some things become confusing to me. One of the biggest ones is what's the deal with Jesus's body?  We know his body served the purpose of allowing him to come teach us, suffer and die for us, and to conquer death.  But, is there a reason for the body now?  Does Jesus still reside in a body now and will he always?  If Jesus didn't have a body before but has one now, how does this fit with the teaching that God never changes (incidentally, an argument others use to dismiss LDS theology)? 

 

 

"For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality.  54 But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, "Death is swallowed up in victory," 1 Cor 15:53-54

 

Christ's physical body, which was subject to death, put on the imperishable and immortal aspects of the spiritual body.  It is a spiritual, immoral body- it can't die again, it can walk through walls, it can instantly appear in one place and then another.  Yet it can still eat and Christ's has the wounds from the nail prints as a reminder of the gift He gave us. I don't think this represents a change in an unchangeable God, because the OT has several accounts of the pre-incarnate Christ appearing, such as in Daniel 3:25.

 

If it was just Spirit, and physical body was left behind, there wouldn't have been victory over death, resurrection and hope.  One day we will be resurrected in a  immortal, imperishable body like Christ's.  I imagine I might spend the first few "days" of eternity walking through walls just for the novelty of it. :)

Edited by Irishcolleen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The teaching simply didn't satisfy my inquisitive nature on reconciling God's attributes of being Loving and All Knowing with ex-nihilo creation.  I simply felt there was something lacking to it... something that rankles in my brain that the priests and nuns couldn't settle.  But, as a devout Catholic, I have simply applied Faith to the teaching that, "it all will be made clear in due course".

 

It just so happened that, in my experience,  the "due course" was the LDS teaching on pre-mortal existence that was missing from the Catholic teaching that brought peace to that rankle.  Then God didn't create us for joy or death.  Rather, God saw us as babies with the potential for joy and gave us the opportunity to be Gods.

 

Joseph Smith answered several of the great theological questions of the 19th century (many of which continue to this day).  He sided strongly with free will (I understand free agency goes even further).  He eased the frustration some had with last-minute converters getting the same reward as long-time faithful followers.  He presented a second chance for the lost who have died.  Then there are the eternal families.  As one Catholic priest told me, LDS theology is beautiful.  Of course, he did not believe it was accurate.

 

Your underlying question, if I read between the lines correctly, is the problem of eternal hell (and, perhaps, eternal potential).  Again, annihilation is more attractive than eternal damnation.

 

We who are without a testimony of the LDS revelations are left to see what is in scripture, and to hear what we can from the Holy Spirit.  And, even we Pentecostals (who walk in restorationist territory, as well) rely on Tradition.  Our Bible scholars, historians, pastors and administrators all look to Genesis 1 and see creation out of nothing.  We find nothing to steer us towards belief in pre-creation existence.  We see ourselves as forever God's creation, and are happy to look forward to a glorified life, always in his service and adoration--becoming godlike, but always looking to GOD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There must be more to this - G-d is also the giver and overseer of law and the one responsible for the law and the condition of that which he creates.  To have full knowledge of evil before it happens and not just to allow it to happen but to create the very conditions for it to happen - and also as the one responsible for the law - G-d must share part of the responsibility for the evil that would occurs.  Letting someone be evil is one thing - but even more creating the conditions for such evil to occur - is that not in the extent of what is evil?

 

There are philosophers who agree with you.  Free will means we really had to be able to choose evil.  God had to set it up so we could.  Since God is completely good, then the world we have has to be the best possible mix between conditions that allow us to sin (and even tempt us to do so) vs. providing us ways of escape, and the ability to reject evil, and choose God.  I am thoroughly convinced that come the Day of Judgment there will be no objections to God's actions, choices, or judgments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I don't think this represents a change in an unchangeable God, because the OT has several accounts of the pre-incarnate Christ appearing, such as in Daniel 3:25.

 

To non-LDS, did Jesus have a physical body before he lived on Earth that is just like the one he has now after his resurrection and ascension?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To non-LDS, did Jesus have a physical body before he lived on Earth that is just like the one he has now after his resurrection and ascension?

 

No. The premortal Christ was an unembodied spirit Son of God, called "the First" in a couple of places in scripture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. The premortal Christ was an unembodied spirit Son of God, called "the First" in a couple of places in scripture.

 

I know that, but I'm wanting to know more about what non-LDS believe compared to what we believe.  If they believe Jesus had the same body then as he does now, that's a significant difference in theology.  It would also affect the "only begotten" doctrine.

Edited by Rhoades

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that, but I'm wanting to know more about what non-LDS believe compared to what we believe.  If they believe Jesus had the same body then as he does now, that's a significant difference in theology.  It would also affect the "only begotten" and "son of God" doctrines, which would become less meaningful to them.

 

Sorry, I misread your question. I thought the "to non-LDS" meant that the question was being posed from a non-LDS perspective about LDS doctrine. Duh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are philosophers who agree with you.  Free will means we really had to be able to choose evil.  God had to set it up so we could.  Since God is completely good, then the world we have has to be the best possible mix between conditions that allow us to sin (and even tempt us to do so) vs. providing us ways of escape, and the ability to reject evil, and choose God.  I am thoroughly convinced that come the Day of Judgment there will be no objections to God's actions, choices, or judgments.

 

This is where the rhetorical exigence of a spiritual pre-physical existence solves the problem - That G-d presented the best possible mix conditions and allowed us the choice before we were physically created in the circumstance - thus satisfying an expression of free choice and not forcing the condition upon anyone.  There is another part; that implies that such a condition did not leave G-d above justice and some liability - requiring an atonement to pay not just the cost to individuals for their salvation from such sins but to absolve G-d of culpability - making G-d both just and merciful.  That the price paid by Jesus was both just and merciful.

 

I submit the reason there will be no objections on judgment day - is because the confusion and debate going on now is because of missing pieces in doctrines in use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that, but I'm wanting to know more about what non-LDS believe compared to what we believe.  If they believe Jesus had the same body then as he does now, that's a significant difference in theology.  It would also affect the "only begotten" doctrine.

 

I believe that Jesus has always been God (part of the Triune God) from the beginning.  There was never a time when He wasn't God. He was pre-incarnate, incarnate and resurrected in a glorified body.  Here is a useful article from an evangelical perspective:

 

http://www.valleybible.net/AdultEducation/ClassNotes/TheologySurvey/Christ/PreincarnateChrist.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question of whether Jesus had a body prior to the incarnation is interesting.  My quick, off-the-cuff answer would be no.  On the other hand, there are some references in the Old Testament that may be of Jesus being manifest.  If so, would that have been similar to one seeing an angel?  Then again, didn't Moses get a glimpse of the Father's back side?  Yet, we believe he was incorporeal (and share that understanding with Jews).  I'll stick with my initial thought, and say that Jesus was also incorporeal, and that the incarnation should be taken literally--the enfleshment of the Son of God. Does this mean that God changes?  Not in a meaningful sense.  Given God's foreknowledge, He has always known this would happen.  In reality, there is no time with God--just the eternal NOW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

...

Christ's physical body, which was subject to death, put on the imperishable and immortal aspects of the spiritual body.  It is a spiritual, immoral body- it can't die again, it can walk through walls, it can instantly appear in one place and then another.  Yet it can still eat and Christ's has the wounds from the nail prints as a reminder of the gift He gave us...

 

I believe this is also an indication that we have different ideas on the properties of spirits vs. bodies.

 

Let's face it guys.  It is just a "religious argument".

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would thank all that have posted in this thread - especially those that are not LDS.  I know and understand there are differences.  I am glad there is a forum to express those differences as is done here without what I have experienced in so many other places of discussion where there are differences.

 

And while we are on the subject of Jesus and his resurrection - I wonder if non-LDS believe resurrection (including the resurrection of Jesus) is to eternal "life".  In other words that a resurrected being is eternally bound perfectly or completely united spirit to a immortal (yet created) physical essence? - since all things that are physical (including the physical body of Jesus) of this universe are or were created?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

that's something i'd like to hear more about.

 

PC, could you start a new thread on that?

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another question on the resurrection. LDS believe that all people born will also be resurrected.  Do non-LDS Christians believe in a universal resurrection, or is it contingent on being saved?

 

I have seen1 Cor 15:22 used by LDS as evidence for a universal resurrection:  "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive."

Edited by bytebear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

To non-LDS, did Jesus have a physical body before he lived on Earth that is just like the one he has now after his resurrection and ascension?

 

From the Nicene Creed - Jesus proceeds from the Father.

 

Therefore, he is homoousios with the Father - one substance.

 

So, when did he proceed?  During his mortal birth or before that?

 

Well, according to Catholic tradition, his procession is generational - that is, he proceeded from the Father through his mortal birth through Mary.

 

 

The question of whether Jesus had a body prior to the incarnation is interesting.  My quick, off-the-cuff answer would be no.  On the other hand, there are some references in the Old Testament that may be of Jesus being manifest.  If so, would that have been similar to one seeing an angel?  Then again, didn't Moses get a glimpse of the Father's back side?  Yet, we believe he was incorporeal (and share that understanding with Jews).  I'll stick with my initial thought, and say that Jesus was also incorporeal, and that the incarnation should be taken literally--the enfleshment of the Son of God. Does this mean that God changes?  Not in a meaningful sense.  Given God's foreknowledge, He has always known this would happen.  In reality, there is no time with God--just the eternal NOW.

 

PC, doesn't AoG subscribe to the Nicene Creed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another question on the resurrection. LDS believe that all people born will also be resurrected.  Do non-LDS Christians believe in a universal resurrection, or is it contingent on being saved?

 

I have seen1 Cor 15:22 used by LDS as evidence for a universal resurrection:  "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive."

 

We will all continue to exist forever, either in heaven or hell. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the Nicene Creed - Jesus proceeds from the Father.

 

Therefore, he is homoousios with the Father - one substance.

 

So, when did he proceed?  During his mortal birth or before that?

 

Well, according to Catholic tradition, his procession is generational - that is, he proceeded from the Father through his mortal birth through Mary.

 

 

 

PC, doesn't AoG subscribe to the Nicene Creed?

 

I'm not sure what the question is.  Jesus is from the Father, yes--but, like the Father, He is eternal.  To us that means He has always been.  Keep in mind that we believe that humanity has not.  We came into existence.  He became flesh at conception.

 

As for the Nicene Creed, we do not specifically subscribe to it.  Nevertheless, most of the creeds and truth proclamations that Protestants use owe a lot of credit to Nicene.

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