G-d = Creator; Man = Created

[Traveler]

One of the concepts put forth concerning G-d and how man should understand him is the concept of creator. Often in discussions I have been told that man and G-d are eternally differentiated by G-d being the creator and man being the created – Thus it is argued that man cannot ever (in all of eternity) be like G-d.

I find that there are two parts to this argument. The first is that that which is created can never be like that which created it. The created must always be inferior to the image and likeness of that that which created it, therefore there can be no real likenesses, images or similarities of true quality. This argument puts into clear perspective both the understanding and limitations of those that argue it – which I am certain was not a pondered conclusion but pre-fabricated from somewhere else (not the Bible) ready made and obtained conclusion. As this applies directly to living things I have difficulty seeing or experiencing how this concept is derived and the logic that drives such thinking. I would respond to this with a few observations and a little logic of my own seeking and thus cannot be found anywhere else. (I posted in another thread about being “aware” of the source of the ideas and thoughts that we take upon ourselves to call our own),

1. The spawn of life resembles and mirrors (in image and likeness of) the creating sire. The argument of evolution is that regeneration of life can equal the creator, prenatal predecessor with the possibility of adaptation to surroundings to exceed the parent creator. The argument of the created always being advanced of the created relies completely on devolution in all circumstances. Not only is this most difficult to prove but it is, in my mind, impossible to imagine even within mankind as we observe the advances of civilization. I submit that beneficial evolution is possible.

2. Genesis counters the heresy of devolution by telling us that by the very command of G-d all life must reproduce after its kind rather than devolving into a lesser kind. This proves that the scriptures are in strict opposition to the intellectual doctrine of devolution or the creation of something inferior to forever and always to come, from that which is greater. I submit that the scriptures support the notion that the child can be in the image and likeness of its parent.

3. In scripture G-d declares that his crowning achievement of creation – the very reason all other creations were brought about was for that creature of his creation that by his word and in his wisdom was in his image and likeness. I submit that this image and likeness spoken of in scripture was not an inferior image and likeness – or else G-d would not have pronounced it good.

I submit that the inability to create a similar thing is the definite indication of a flawed creator – or if you will, an evil creator. The denial, that G-d can produce a creature of his image and likeness, is a denial of G-d, his abilities his power and even his divine goodness.

The second argument is a little more subtle and carefully explorers, as much as we can in our circumstance, the great advanced nature of the divine. Thus is the danger of describing or defining G-d by creation or that G-d-ness is creation-ness. The equation of setting G-d equal to creator is most problematic because of the transient law associated with the meaning of equal. It means that prior to creation there was no G-d because there was no creator. In essence the argument that the G-d and man are differentiated by G-d being the creator and man being the created is a flawed logical statement that cannot possibility be true because before there could be a creation, the first creation, of necessity, must be the creation of a creator. And so there is a paradox. If there is no creator how can a creator be created? But since there is a creation, rhetorical logic demands that there must be a creator and if creation has not always been then there must be the creation of a creator. If G-d equals creator then by rhetorical logic G-d the creator must have been created and so not only is man created but G-d must also be a result of some kind of creation.

This paradox of creating a creator is very similar and akin to the great paradox of the scientific Big Bang Theory and what took place beyond the event horizon of the Big Bang. I find it most interesting that many religionists use this argument against science to argue a creator but when this spot light is turned to shine on them they deny that it is a valid point of view.

My argument is that if a creator is an eternal being then their creations must be co-eternal with them. Other wise there must of have been an advent in which there was no creation and since we now know that there is an advent in which there is creation – The notion is proven by rhetorical logic that a creator was created and that there is no other possibility. Thus the argument that G-d is the creator and man is the created and therefore forever differentiated is a flawed argument that cannot possibly be true.

There is a possible perspective that G-d has creations which are co-eternal with him and are in the process of becoming G-d (an endless cycle that includes the creation of a creator) or the very definition of G-d and creator; is preciously the LDS point of view. I would also put forth that to deny G-d this ability or argue against the possibility that G-d is capable producing creations of his image and likeness is a limiting or damning notion of G-d’s divine power and abilities and not just a differentiation of man’s status.

I would put forth one more idea. That is that the nature of G-d and understanding that nature is the essence of “eternal life” or as the scripture say “And this is life eternal to know thee the only true G-d and Jesus Christ who thou has sent”. And since this is a notion of such great importance it is most critical to our understanding to seek G-d’s assistance through the personal interface that we enjoy in prayer (if indeed it can be believed that we can seek his personal guidance and assistance in prayer).

The Traveler

[AnthonyB]

Traveler,

Are you looking for refuting responses? Given this is an LDS gospel board any refutation would probably be argueing against the LDS position and therefore be inappropriate to post here.

Interesting topic though.

[prisonchaplain]

Traveler,

Are you looking for refuting responses? Given this is an LDS gospel board any refutation would probably be argueing against the LDS position and therefore be inappropriate to post here.

Interesting topic though.

Anthony, posters are welcome to express non-LDS religious views here, so long as we do so in a respectful manner.

[prisonchaplain]

Thus it is argued that man cannot ever (in all of eternity) be like G-d.

Keep in mind that those who believe in the Creator/Created chasm also believe that creation is ex nihilo, and that all humanity has a finite beginning. Therefore, on the surface of it, the chasm is unbreachable. Eternal vs. finite.

I find that there are two parts to this argument. The first is that that which is created can never be like that which created it. The created must always be inferior to the image and likeness of that that which created it, therefore there can be no real likenesses, images or similarities of true quality.

Remember that we are not speaking here about "birthing," but about true creation--that which starts with thought. I sense here that we may be comparing art with cloning.

1. The spawn of life resembles and mirrors (in image and likeness of) the creating sire. The argument of evolution is that regeneration of life can equal the creator, prenatal predecessor with the possibility of adaptation to surroundings to exceed the parent creator. The argument of the created always being advanced of the created relies completely on devolution in all circumstances. Not only is this most difficult to prove but it is, in my mind, impossible to imagine even within mankind as we observe the advances of civilization. I submit that beneficial evolution is possible.

You seem to be arguing that the creation of humanity was more of a birthing/cloning than a making of God's masterpiece.

2. Genesis counters the heresy of devolution by telling us that by the very command of G-d all life must reproduce after its kind rather than devolving into a lesser kind. This proves that the scriptures are in strict opposition to the intellectual doctrine of devolution or the creation of something inferior to forever and always to come, from that which is greater. I submit that the scriptures support the notion that the child can be in the image and likeness of its parent.

And again, birthing or regeneration, is not the same as creating. Is it the LDS position that God birthed us???

3. In scripture G-d declares that his crowning achievement of creation – the very reason all other creations were brought about was for that creature of his creation that by his word and in his wisdom was in his image and likeness. I submit that this image and likeness spoken of in scripture was not an inferior image and likeness – or else G-d would not have pronounced it good.

He would have called us good whether we were his masterpiece creation, or his spawn. That he called us "good," does not prove one or the other.

I submit that the inability to create a similar thing is the definite indication of a flawed creator – or if you will, an evil creator. The denial, that G-d can produce a creature of his image and likeness, is a denial of G-d, his abilities his power and even his divine goodness.

That an eternal God cannot create something out of nothing--YET endow it with an eternal preexistence is no limitation at all. It's akin to the logical absurdity of God creating a rock so big he couldn't lift it.

I'LL LOOK AT THE 2ND ARGUMENT LATER. :-)

[a-train]

'For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.' (Acts 17:28-29)

'The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.' (Romans 8:16-17)

It is a scriptural notion that man is the offspring of God that will inherit the glory of immortality and eternal life from Him.

Now, I cannot say that there is any specific proof that God cannot or will not bring mere nothingness into a lifeform capable of immortality and eternal life, John the Baptist said that 'God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham' (Matt 3:9). However, even if man's existance is a ray with a beginning and no end, I do not see how man would be any less the offspring of God or the inheritors of all He has.

The fact is, that both the ex nihilo doctrine and the eternal pre-mortal existance of the spirit of man are extra-biblical notions. We are left to determine what is right by the Spirit 'not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.' (1 Cor 2:12-14)

The LORD wants us to do more than read of Him, but come unto Him. The great question of whether Joseph Smith was a prophet or whether the traditional theology of Christians that was put in question by him is true can only come by the Spirit. An appeal to the Bible, the teachings of Christianity's greatest theologians, and the writings of Joseph Smith alone is insufficient.

-a-train

[prisonchaplain]

In reply to the 2nd argument of Traveler, like many arguments for and against God, based on purely philosophical grounds, I don't find them persuasive.

God cannot be defined as creator, vs. his creation, because, if so, before creation he didn't exist? If God is eternal, and we are not, then before he created us, he was still God. God is not dependent on what he does for his existence. He just is.

If God is eternal, he certainly can be the First Mover. There is no necessity that he was created.

[a-train]

When the Saviour says: 'I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last:' (Rev 1:11, Isa 48:12), or 'I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God' (Isa 44:6) what does He mean?

If 'Alpha' and 'first' refers to the singular eternal nature of the LORD, that He was the 'First Mover', or the First Being to exist and only Eternal, then what does it mean that He is also the 'Omega', 'the last'? If we apply the same logic, He will be the Last Being to exist and the only Eternal. Would this mean the dissolution of all other things other than the First and Last Being? If it means that He alone existed in the beginning, then doesn't it also mean that He will exist alone in the end?

-a-train

[prisonchaplain]

Atrain, God is the first God, and the Last God, and beside him there is no God. So, yes, no God was with him in the beginning, and no God will be with him in the end. He stands alone, as God.

[john doe]

Atrain, God is the first God, and the Last God, and beside him there is no God. So, yes, no God was with him in the beginning, and no God will be with him in the end. He stands alone, as God.

From my point of view, I think He meant that as far as we are concerned, He is the beginning and end of our concern. We are not to worship any other god (small g) or being other than Him. In generally accepted LDS thought, while there may be other gods, there is only one God the Father. He is the one we are to subject ourselves to, and none other.

[a-train]

Atrain, God is the first God, and the Last God, and beside him there is no God. So, yes, no God was with him in the beginning, and no God will be with him in the end. He stands alone, as God.

Understood, but do these scriptures mean He was the First Being, or the first Thing to ever exist? Also, if it is only to suggest that He is the only God and it doesn't tell us that He came before something and will go after something, what is the purpose in this language? What is it saying?

There is only one President Bill Clinton, but we don't say: 'He is the first and last President Bill Clinton.' This earth only has one moon, but we don't say: 'It is the first and last moon for this earth.' We can say these statements and technically be true, but for every expression there is a purpose. Why do the scriptures use this language?

I think we both believe that these scriptures demonstrate something clearly exclusive or unique about God, but being the only one of Himself or even the only one of His kind as a notion in itself is not unique. There are many things that are one of a kind. 'First' and 'Last' demonstrate that something came after and something came before, do these scriptures not do so?

Revelation 2:8 calls the Saviour the 'first and the last, which was dead, and is alive'. Do we see something deeper here than simply 'He is the only Saviour.'?

What about Revelation 22:13?: 'I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.' Certainly there has to be something more going on here. Beginning of what? End of what? What are we talking about?

-a-train

[Traveler]

<div class='quotemain'>

Thus it is argued that man cannot ever (in all of eternity) be like G-d.

Keep in mind that those who believe in the Creator/Created chasm also believe that creation is ex nihilo, and that all humanity has a finite beginning. Therefore, on the surface of it, the chasm is unbreachable. Eternal vs. finite.

I find that there are two parts to this argument. The first is that that which is created can never be like that which created it. The created must always be inferior to the image and likeness of that that which created it, therefore there can be no real likenesses, images or similarities of true quality.

Remember that we are not speaking here about "birthing," but about true creation--that which starts with thought. I sense here that we may be comparing art with cloning.

Thank you PC for responding. You missed my first point. If we are to understand "the Creator" as eternal and not finite then his creations must be eternal and not finite - Other wise it cannot be said that the creator is eternal because if his creations have a finite beginning then that which creates must have a finite beginning. This logic is stright forward - if creation if finite then so is the creator. There cannot be a creator and no creation or nothing created - but that is the logic of an eternal creator and finite creation. Only if there is creation can it be said there is a creator. To say there is a creator and no creation is the essence of a lie.

I am also a little confused about another point - how can there be a creation of life without birth? Were some men and women created different than others? If someone is born - does that mean that they were not created? Or if a person is created they are not born? I do not understand this concept. To me creation and birth are the same thing and neither can exist without the other.

The creation of a human is one of the most understood and observed of the works of G-d by man - even the evil and perverted men know of this method of G-d.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Thank you PC for responding. You missed my first point. If we are to understand "the Creator" as eternal and not finite then his creations must be eternal and not finite - Other wise it cannot be said that the creator is eternal because if his creations have a finite beginning then that which creates must have a finite beginning.

I understood, but I do not agree. It does not follow that because creation is finite, the creator is finite. We believe that God is infinite and eternal, and that this world--and humanity in particular--are finite, having been created at a specific time, out of nothing.

This logic is stright forward - if creation if finite then so is the creator. There cannot be a creator and no creation or nothing created - but that is the logic of an eternal creator and finite creation.

Why do you limit God to being a Creator, and nothing else? We see him in relation to ourselves, but God is infinite and eternal in himself. He is not dependent on us for his existence.

Only if there is creation can it be said there is a creator. To say there is a creator and no creation is the essence of a lie.

This is absurd. Before I was a father, I was still a man. Before we were created, God was God.

I am also a little confused about another point - how can there be a creation of life without birth? Were some men and women created different than others? If someone is born - does that mean that they were not created? Or if a person is created they are not born? I do not understand this concept. To me creation and birth are the same thing and neither can exist without the other.

Adam and Eve were not birthed--at least there is no indication of such in Scripture. God created them. Our parents gave birth to us--yet God created us.

Birthing has to do with propogation of the species. Creation need not. My five year old creates beautiful artwork. Those pieces are not human. God created us. He is not human, and we are not God.

Understood, but do these scriptures mean He was the First Being, or the first Thing to ever exist? Also, if it is only to suggest that He is the only God and it doesn't tell us that He came before something and will go after something, what is the purpose in this language? What is it saying?

The context suggests that God exclusively commands our worship, because He along was, is, and always will be God. I do not see any reason to speculate on other species--such does not seem to be the context of this passage.

'First' and 'Last' demonstrate that something came after and something came before, do these scriptures not do so?

Polytheism and the worship of false gods was rampant in the countries surrounding Israel. The Israelites often succumbed to worshipping them. That Isaiah is focussing on who alone was, is, and will always be God, makes perfect sense to me.

Revelation 2:8 calls the Saviour the 'first and the last, which was dead, and is alive'. Do we see something deeper here than simply 'He is the only Saviour.'?

What about Revelation 22:13?: 'I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.' Certainly there has to be something more going on here. Beginning of what? End of what? What are we talking about?

-a-train

I see both Jesus' role as only Savior (John 14:6), and his deity affirmed here.

[Traveler]

<div class='quotemain'>

Thank you PC for responding. You missed my first point. If we are to understand "the Creator" as eternal and not finite then his creations must be eternal and not finite - Other wise it cannot be said that the creator is eternal because if his creations have a finite beginning then that which creates must have a finite beginning.

I understood, but I do not agree. It does not follow that because creation is finite, the creator is finite. We believe that God is infinite and eternal, and that this world--and humanity in particular--are finite, having been created at a specific time, out of nothing.

This logic is stright forward - if creation if finite then so is the creator. There cannot be a creator and no creation or nothing created - but that is the logic of an eternal creator and finite creation.

Why do you limit God to being a Creator, and nothing else? We see him in relation to ourselves, but God is infinite and eternal in himself. He is not dependent on us for his existence.

Only if there is creation can it be said there is a creator. To say there is a creator and no creation is the essence of a lie.

This is absurd. Before I was a father, I was still a man. Before we were created, God was God.

I am also a little confused about another point - how can there be a creation of life without birth? Were some men and women created different than others? If someone is born - does that mean that they were not created? Or if a person is created they are not born? I do not understand this concept. To me creation and birth are the same thing and neither can exist without the other.

Adam and Eve were not birthed--at least there is no indication of such in Scripture. God created them. Our parents gave birth to us--yet God created us.

Birthing has to do with propogation of the species. Creation need not. My five year old creates beautiful artwork. Those pieces are not human. God created us. He is not human, and we are not God.

You have missed the point - The point is that G-d as creator is not eternal or his creation would have eternal occurance.

I agree on one point - very much that prior to creation G-d existed but we are not talking about G-d exiting we are talking about the existance of a creator and when and if a creator was created. My point is that if there was no creation prior to the creation spoken of in the Bible then there was no creator. Now there may be a problem at the next step of logic if we assume that G-d was not completely G-d until he created or became (created) the creator. That is an issue you will have to deal with because I believe a creator can be and must be created for there to be a begining to creation. This issue you have not addressed yet but the point I keep trying to make - leaving me to think you have not understood what I was saying. G-d was not a creator until he created. You may have been a man before your were a father but before you were a father you were not a father. You were not a father until you "fathered" a child - Thus there was no creator until something was created. Therefore a creator is as finite as their creation or if you will if creation is finite then so is the creator.

I am confused about your doctrine concerning birth and creation. Did G-d create man (you and me) or were we born? I have been holding to the notion that there is no difference - that birth and creation is the same thing when we are talking about living things. In other words all living things are created through the process of birth. I have also implied that this (birth creation) is a process man knows about. If you were created by any other process than was Adam - would you please provide the scripture reference for such doctrine? I believe the two (creation of life and birth) are the same. There is much more to this doctrine but if you do not believe that persons born are a "children of G-d" - only those created by some other process - you have lost me in the logic.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

I agree on one point - very much that prior to creation G-d existed but we are not talking about G-d exiting we are talking about the existance of a creator and when and if a creator was created.

God is God. Creator is a job title. When He creates, He is the Creator.

My point is that if there was no creation prior to the creation spoken of in the Bible then there was no creator.

Before creation God did not create. So? I'm not sure why it matters.

Now there may be a problem at the next step of logic if we assume that G-d was not completely G-d until he created or became (created) the creator.

Such an assumption seems absurd to me. As I said before, God is not dependent on a job or role, to be what He is. He does not need to be creating in order to be God.

G-d was not a creator until he created. You may have been a man before your were a father but before you were a father you were not a father. You were not a father until you "fathered" a child - Thus there was no creator until something was created. Therefore a creator is as finite as their creation or if you will if creation is finite then so is the creator.

Before God created he did not have the role or job of Creator. So what? He was still God, still complete, in himself. He simply was not doing something he is now doing. Such would not effect the nature of his existence.

I am confused about your doctrine concerning birth and creation. Did G-d create man (you and me) or were we born?

Yes (both).

I have been holding to the notion that there is no difference - that birth and creation is the same thing when we are talking about living things.

Creation is not the same as reproduction, imho.

In other words all living things are created through the process of birth.

You believe that Adam and Eve were born? Who raised them?

I have also implied that this (birth creation) is a process man knows about. If you were created by any other process than was Adam - would you please provide the scripture reference for such doctrine?

Genesis 1-2: Adam & Eve were created from the dust of the earth, directly by God.

I believe the two (creation of life and birth) are the same. There is much more to this doctrine but if you do not believe that persons born are a "children of G-d" - only those created by some other process - you have lost me in the logic.

If you mean by "children of God," that God literally reproduced us, rather than making us, then I suppose I do disagree. I'm wondering if other LDS also believe that God reproduced us, rather than making us?

[Traveler]

<div class='quotemain'>

I agree on one point - very much that prior to creation G-d existed but we are not talking about G-d exiting we are talking about the existance of a creator and when and if a creator was created.

God is God. Creator is a job title. When He creates, He is the Creator.

My point is that if there was no creation prior to the creation spoken of in the Bible then there was no creator.

Before creation God did not create. So? I'm not sure why it matters.

Then you agree that according doctrine (not LDS) - there is no such thing as an "eternal" creator and that G-d did not have or derseve the title of Creator until the creation spoken of in Genesis began?

And that man being finite cannot ever have "eternal" or "everlasting" life?

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Then you agree that according doctrine (not LDS) - there is no such thing as an "eternal" creator

I still sense you are conflating God's role as creator with his existence as God. Does it surprise you that God slips in and out of roles? Must everything he does be eternal?

and that G-d did not have or derseve the title of Creator until the creation spoken of in Genesis began?

You are clearly implying that God is deficient if he's not creating. Why? Further, it may well be that he was creating, before he created us. I honestly don't know if his creating "the world" means all material throughout all dimensions and all universes (could there be more than one?), or if it merely refers to the start of life on "the third rock from the sun."

And that man being finite cannot ever have "eternal" or "everlasting" life?

The Traveler

I obviously disagree with the last line. "The gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ, our Lord." (Romans 6:23, my paraphrase).

[Traveler]

<div class='quotemain'>

Then you agree that according doctrine (not LDS) - there is no such thing as an "eternal" creator

I still sense you are conflating God's role as creator with his existence as God. Does it surprise you that God slips in and out of roles? Must everything he does be eternal?

and that G-d did not have or derseve the title of Creator until the creation spoken of in Genesis began?

You are clearly implying that God is deficient if he's not creating. Why? Further, it may well be that he was creating, before he created us. I honestly don't know if his creating "the world" means all material throughout all dimensions and all universes (could there be more than one?), or if it merely refers to the start of life on "the third rock from the sun."

And that man being finite cannot ever have "eternal" or "everlasting" life?

The Traveler

I obviously disagree with the last line. "The gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ, our Lord." (Romans 6:23, my paraphrase).

Just a few ideas that come from my understanding of LDS doctrine:

Eternal is a term that describes our Father in Heaven as much as G-d or Creator does. All of these are descriptions of Our Father in Heaven. The terms are not mutually exclusive – for example G-d is an eternal G-d and is an Eternal Creator. Saying that his creations are finite is, I believe, a sad but telling form of heresy.

Jesus became the creator of what we understand in our universe as our heavens and earth and all things in them are. Jesus was made (created as) the creator by the "direction" of our Father in Heaven. Thus the creator of our universe is also a creation.

That which is spiritual is not finite - and this includes the spirit of man. Even though man can die his spirit cannot die because the spirit is eternal. The resurrection will reconnect the physical with the spiritual in a manner in which the physical will no longer die. (What was corruptible will become incorruptible).

And in conclusion for this post – The gift of G-d is eternal life – meaning that the argument that man is finite and G-d if infinite (therefore distinguished) is not a valid argument for differentiating redeemed and exalted man from G-d.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Eternal is a term that describes our Father in Heaven as much as G-d or Creator does. All of these are descriptions of Our Father in Heaven. The terms are not mutually exclusive – for example G-d is an eternal G-d and is an Eternal Creator. Saying that his creations are finite is, I believe, a sad but telling form of heresy.

I suppose that it would be--based on LDS Scriptures. However, apart from those unique revelations, there is nothing in the Bible or in Christian history up until Joseph Smith, that would require, or even favor the view that all of God's creation is eternal (or that humanity is, for that matter).

That which is spiritual is not finite - and this includes the spirit of man. Even though man can die his spirit cannot die because the spirit is eternal. The resurrection will reconnect the physical with the spiritual in a manner in which the physical will no longer die. (What was corruptible will become incorruptible).

While you reference a biblical phrase, there is nothing outside of LDS revelation that says that all spirits are eternal.

And in conclusion for this post – The gift of G-d is eternal life – meaning that the argument that man is finite and G-d if infinite (therefore distinguished) is not a valid argument for differentiating redeemed and exalted man from G-d.

The Traveler

If God has to give us eternal life, it means that we previous to the gifting, did not have eternal life.

[a-train]

Revelation 2:8 calls the Saviour the 'first and the last, which was dead, and is alive'. Do we see something deeper here than simply 'He is the only Saviour.'?

What about Revelation 22:13?: 'I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.' Certainly there has to be something more going on here. Beginning of what? End of what? What are we talking about?

-a-train

I see both Jesus' role as only Savior (John 14:6), and his deity affirmed here.

Absolutely, there is no disagreement here and this is my point. I would say that Jesus is the end to the natural man. He is the end to worldly ways and bondage of sin. He is the ONLY end to the torment of transgression and disobedience. He is also the beginning of a new walk with God, a new life, eternal life. He is the Author and Finisher of our faith. Without Him we could not begin to have faith, and without His efforts our faith would be fruitless in the end. None of this however, suggests that He and He alone existed at some vastly ancient time. I cannot find any vindication here for ex nihilo. Do you see my point?

-a-train

[prisonchaplain]

<div class='quotemain'>

Revelation 2:8 calls the Saviour the 'first and the last, which was dead, and is alive'. Do we see something deeper here than simply 'He is the only Saviour.'?

What about Revelation 22:13?: 'I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.' Certainly there has to be something more going on here. Beginning of what? End of what? What are we talking about?

-a-train

I see both Jesus' role as only Savior (John 14:6), and his deity affirmed here.

Absolutely, there is no disagreement here and this is my point. I would say that Jesus is the end to the natural man. He is the end to worldly ways and bondage of sin. He is the ONLY end to the torment of transgression and disobedience. He is also the beginning of a new walk with God, a new life, eternal life. He is the Author and Finisher of our faith. Without Him we could not begin to have faith, and without His efforts our faith would be fruitless in the end. None of this however, suggests that He and He alone existed at some vastly ancient time. I cannot find any vindication here for ex nihilo. Do you see my point?

-a-train

The text do not necessarily contradict LDS revelations about premortal existence, perhaps--not if you accept those revelations. Minus them, however, and absolute creation without a definite beginning point seems to be the easiest and most natural reading of the biblical passages, imho.

[Traveler]

<div class='quotemain'>

Eternal is a term that describes our Father in Heaven as much as G-d or Creator does. All of these are descriptions of Our Father in Heaven. The terms are not mutually exclusive – for example G-d is an eternal G-d and is an Eternal Creator. Saying that his creations are finite is, I believe, a sad but telling form of heresy.

I suppose that it would be--based on LDS Scriptures. However, apart from those unique revelations, there is nothing in the Bible or in Christian history up until Joseph Smith, that would require, or even favor the view that all of God's creation is eternal (or that humanity is, for that matter).

That which is spiritual is not finite - and this includes the spirit of man. Even though man can die his spirit cannot die because the spirit is eternal. The resurrection will reconnect the physical with the spiritual in a manner in which the physical will no longer die. (What was corruptible will become incorruptible).

While you reference a biblical phrase, there is nothing outside of LDS revelation that says that all spirits are eternal.

And in conclusion for this post – The gift of G-d is eternal life – meaning that the argument that man is finite and G-d if infinite (therefore distinguished) is not a valid argument for differentiating redeemed and exalted man from G-d.

The Traveler

If God has to give us eternal life, it means that we previous to the gifting, did not have eternal life.

Interesting that we both agree that the Bible is not clear and decisive on such an important topic. Please do not take this as personal criticism.

Also I am glad to understand that the thought that G-d is infinite and that man in finite is not really a barrier that will differentiate redeemed man from G-d – With that understanding I concede the argument.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Interesting that we both agree that the Bible is not clear and decisive on such an important topic. Please do not take this as personal criticism.

Wow. One sentence, two disagreements. 1. Perhaps it isn't an important topic. If we finitist are right, then the Bible does not address it because the incorrect idea that humans have eternal premortality was not being taught at the time it was written. 2. Why would I be offended--I didn't write the Bible?

Also I am glad to understand that the thought that G-d is infinite and that man in finite is not really a barrier that will differentiate redeemed man from G-d – With that understanding I concede the argument.

The Traveler

"Barrier" is an interesting term. The subtle difference between LDS theology and evangelicalism on this matter is whether humans will ever achieve equality of nature with God. We both agree that God will forever be worshipped by us (yes???). However, will we ever become what he is--not merely godlike--but literally Gods? I say no, and I suspect that you disagree. No need for concessions, as this is simply a discussion.