A
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
You can't even ANSWER THE 1ST TWO POINTS HONESTLY!!!!!
You can't even get through 2 points, without lying about what the church teaches.
Seriously?
That is what Mormonism is about... just pure deception.
Since YOU won't be honest and admit what your church believes, I'll go to your church publications.
Mormon Teaching:
Christ was once a man, and man can become a God.
“As man now is, God once was; as God is now man may be.”
( The Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, ed. Clyde J. Williams [1984], 1.)
Lorenzo Snow was the 5th president of the LDS church, and the above couplet is a very famous saying of his, quoted in many different places, and well know by ALL Mormons.
NOTE: a president of the Mormon Church, like Lorenzo Snow, is not an ordinary man like the president of a college... he is officially a PROPHET of the Mormon Church.
"He [God] is our Father--the Father of our spirits, and was once a man in mortal flesh as we are, and is now an exalted being. It appears ridiculous to the world, under their darkened and erroneous traditions, that God has once been a finite being;"
(Brigham Young in the Journal of Discourses, v. 7, p. 333)
"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!...........It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God........yea, that God himself, the father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did; and I will show it from the Bible...."
(from Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith and History of the Church, 6:302-17)
"The Gods who dwell in the Heaven...have been redeemed from the grave in a world which existed before the foundations of this earth were laid. They and the Heavenly body which they now inhabit were once in a fallen state....they were exalted also, from fallen men to Celestial Godsto inhabit their Heaven forever and ever."
(Apostle Orson Pratt in The Seer, page 23)
"You and I--what helpless creatures are we! Such limited power we have, and how little can we control the wind and the waves and the storms! We remember the numerous scriptures which, concentrated in a single line, were stated by a former prophet, Lorenzo Snow: 'As man is, God once was; and as God is, man may become.'"
(President Spencer W. Kimball in "Our Great Potential" from the April 1977 Priesthood Session of General Conference)
"While serving in Pennsylvania several years ago, I was pleasantly surprised to be visited by a minister of a huge Protestant congregation. We exchanged pleasantries and discussed the doctrinal subjects on which we could find benign agreement. Suddenly he interrupted our conversation by stating, "You teach one belief with which I could never agree. It is your idea that 'as God is, man may become.' " (See History of the Church, 6:302-17.) He held a well-worn white Bible in his hand. I asked him to turn to Matthew 5:48. His nimble fingers quickly turned to that reference, and he read, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." He gasped and then hesitatingly agreed to man's great potential. We read other scriptures, such as: "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." (Gen. 1:26.) He understood, and found a new respect for our teachings. He left a wiser man, and I felt a renewed gratitude for the inspiring truths that we understand and teach."
("Learning Our Father's Will" Elder Hugh W. Pinnock, October 1984 Sunday Afternoon Session of General Conference)
On the other hand, the whole design of the gospel is to lead us onward and upward to greater achievement, even, eventually, to godhood. This great possibility was enunciated by the Prophet Joseph Smith in the King Follet sermon (see Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 342-62) and emphasized by President Lorenzo Snow. It is this grand and incomparable concept: As God now is, man may become! (See The Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, comp. Clyde J. Williams, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1984, p. 1) Our enemies have criticized us for believing in this. Our reply is that this lofty concept in no way diminishes God the Eternal Father. He is the Almighty. He is the Creator and Governor of the universe. He is the greatest of all and will always be so. But just as any earthly father wishes for his sons and daughters every success in life, so I believe our Father in Heaven wishes for his children that they might approach him in stature and stand beside him resplendent in godly strength and wisdom.
(Conference Report, Oct. 1994)
You can't even get through 2 points, without lying about what the church teaches.
Seriously?
That is what Mormonism is about... just pure deception.
Since YOU won't be honest and admit what your church believes, I'll go to your church publications.
Mormon Teaching:
Christ was once a man, and man can become a God.
“As man now is, God once was; as God is now man may be.”
( The Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, ed. Clyde J. Williams [1984], 1.)
Lorenzo Snow was the 5th president of the LDS church, and the above couplet is a very famous saying of his, quoted in many different places, and well know by ALL Mormons.
NOTE: a president of the Mormon Church, like Lorenzo Snow, is not an ordinary man like the president of a college... he is officially a PROPHET of the Mormon Church.
"He [God] is our Father--the Father of our spirits, and was once a man in mortal flesh as we are, and is now an exalted being. It appears ridiculous to the world, under their darkened and erroneous traditions, that God has once been a finite being;"
(Brigham Young in the Journal of Discourses, v. 7, p. 333)
"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!...........It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God........yea, that God himself, the father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did; and I will show it from the Bible...."
(from Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith and History of the Church, 6:302-17)
"The Gods who dwell in the Heaven...have been redeemed from the grave in a world which existed before the foundations of this earth were laid. They and the Heavenly body which they now inhabit were once in a fallen state....they were exalted also, from fallen men to Celestial Godsto inhabit their Heaven forever and ever."
(Apostle Orson Pratt in The Seer, page 23)
"You and I--what helpless creatures are we! Such limited power we have, and how little can we control the wind and the waves and the storms! We remember the numerous scriptures which, concentrated in a single line, were stated by a former prophet, Lorenzo Snow: 'As man is, God once was; and as God is, man may become.'"
(President Spencer W. Kimball in "Our Great Potential" from the April 1977 Priesthood Session of General Conference)
"While serving in Pennsylvania several years ago, I was pleasantly surprised to be visited by a minister of a huge Protestant congregation. We exchanged pleasantries and discussed the doctrinal subjects on which we could find benign agreement. Suddenly he interrupted our conversation by stating, "You teach one belief with which I could never agree. It is your idea that 'as God is, man may become.' " (See History of the Church, 6:302-17.) He held a well-worn white Bible in his hand. I asked him to turn to Matthew 5:48. His nimble fingers quickly turned to that reference, and he read, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." He gasped and then hesitatingly agreed to man's great potential. We read other scriptures, such as: "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." (Gen. 1:26.) He understood, and found a new respect for our teachings. He left a wiser man, and I felt a renewed gratitude for the inspiring truths that we understand and teach."
("Learning Our Father's Will" Elder Hugh W. Pinnock, October 1984 Sunday Afternoon Session of General Conference)
On the other hand, the whole design of the gospel is to lead us onward and upward to greater achievement, even, eventually, to godhood. This great possibility was enunciated by the Prophet Joseph Smith in the King Follet sermon (see Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 342-62) and emphasized by President Lorenzo Snow. It is this grand and incomparable concept: As God now is, man may become! (See The Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, comp. Clyde J. Williams, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1984, p. 1) Our enemies have criticized us for believing in this. Our reply is that this lofty concept in no way diminishes God the Eternal Father. He is the Almighty. He is the Creator and Governor of the universe. He is the greatest of all and will always be so. But just as any earthly father wishes for his sons and daughters every success in life, so I believe our Father in Heaven wishes for his children that they might approach him in stature and stand beside him resplendent in godly strength and wisdom.
(Conference Report, Oct. 1994)
Last edited:
A
No. Rob has an extensive scholarly resume. If you had clicked on the link provided (hint: it's the one linked to his name in a post above), you'd see that his academic background is quite good. Also, he happens to have a full-time ministry dedicated to discussing the false religious worldview of Mormonism... a topic he is well versed in and an activity he's been involved in for a very long time.
So, it's no surprise to see him deconstructing the false worldview in pointing out profound logical inconsistencies with issues relating to the false teaching under discussion.
You, on the other hand, have resorted to ad hominem and false assertions. Is this the best we can expect from you, name calling and making false assertions?
So, it's no surprise to see him deconstructing the false worldview in pointing out profound logical inconsistencies with issues relating to the false teaching under discussion.
You, on the other hand, have resorted to ad hominem and false assertions. Is this the best we can expect from you, name calling and making false assertions?
T
maxwel, remember when I stated our official doctrine is found ONLY in our standard works? Not one of those were from our scriptures. The book by Orson Pratt entitled the Seer, was officially disavowed. He did not have church backing on that publication.
Given this, there is still not much that is not true. Do you believe that Jesus was fully God and fully man? If yes, you also believe that God was a man. I already stated that we believe in deification, I even cited biblical scriptures to support this notion. In my response, I said that we believe in the existence of 'gods,' yet there is only One God. I acknowledged that we believe in deification. Accusing me of lying is not becoming of you, especially since I did no such thing.
I've already pointed out that you deviated from the only official source the church recognizes (scriptures) and even in these passages, you did not produce a single quote that said Jesus was not divine before he came to earth.
Given this, there is still not much that is not true. Do you believe that Jesus was fully God and fully man? If yes, you also believe that God was a man. I already stated that we believe in deification, I even cited biblical scriptures to support this notion. In my response, I said that we believe in the existence of 'gods,' yet there is only One God. I acknowledged that we believe in deification. Accusing me of lying is not becoming of you, especially since I did no such thing.
I've already pointed out that you deviated from the only official source the church recognizes (scriptures) and even in these passages, you did not produce a single quote that said Jesus was not divine before he came to earth.
T
Let's remember who attacked who first. All I did was answer a simple question, then got bombarded with attacks against something I hold very dear to me. I was accused of lying, of misleading people. Maxwell questioned my very motives from the start. You called my faith a cult...yet you disagree with my opinion that this man's attempts were amateurish? I didn't call anyone a name. I truly believe his tactics were not well thought out and any Mormon who knew his stuff would have done considerably better. He found two kids and tried bullying them with his superior knowledge. I don't care where he got his degree. All I know is that his biblical exegesis was faulty, his defense of Trinitarianism by comparing it to Obama made no sense and he was arguing against things the church doesn't teach.
ROFL.
The things I posted are exactly what EVERY Mormon knows and believes.
Those are all from LDS sources; most of them official church sources.
Like all cults, the Mormon church "pretends" to not believe the crazy things it believes.
Maybe, just for fun, I should get into interviews with PROPHET Gordon B. Hynkley, where he states, in his own words, that many real beliefs of the Mormon Church SHOULD BE HIDDEN FROM NON BELIEVERS, and not discussed with them.
That's a fun read huh?
NICE... a Mormon prophet talking about how they should hide all their crazy ideas from the non-believers.
Uhhh... kinda like what YOU, as a Mormon apologist, is doing in this thread?
: )
True Christianity isn't about deception.
Cults are all about deception.
Cults hide what they believe, lie about what they believe, and try to cover up what they believe.
Christians don't need to do this.
The things I posted are exactly what EVERY Mormon knows and believes.
Those are all from LDS sources; most of them official church sources.
Like all cults, the Mormon church "pretends" to not believe the crazy things it believes.
Maybe, just for fun, I should get into interviews with PROPHET Gordon B. Hynkley, where he states, in his own words, that many real beliefs of the Mormon Church SHOULD BE HIDDEN FROM NON BELIEVERS, and not discussed with them.
That's a fun read huh?
NICE... a Mormon prophet talking about how they should hide all their crazy ideas from the non-believers.
Uhhh... kinda like what YOU, as a Mormon apologist, is doing in this thread?
: )
True Christianity isn't about deception.
Cults are all about deception.
Cults hide what they believe, lie about what they believe, and try to cover up what they believe.
Christians don't need to do this.
Last edited:
A
Teaching heresy, which is the epistemological foundation of the false religious system you choose to adhere to, is actually against this forum's rules.
One of the reasons for that has to do with the fact that people who have become deceived, often propagate the lies attempting to mislead others into the same error they've fallen into.
Personally, I think we should have a sub-section of the forum dedicated to refuting heretical worldviews such as Mormonism. But that's not presently the case.
And I might want to warn you that continuing your name calling with respect to Rob is also against this forum's rules. While I discern that you're not a troll, you should be aware of it.
Rob is a well educated Christian apologist with theological degrees from institutions like Talbot. His exegesis is not faulty. The exegesis of Mormonism is. And he wasn't bullying anyone. That's a lie you're fabricating. He had a nice discussion in which he refuted false assertions made by your church.
Of course, you don't enjoy seeing your church's heresies and false assertions refuted. But this display of ad hominem, personal libelous attacks on reputable trained Christian apologists, etc... that you're choosing to engage in is completely unwarranted, immoral, and against the forum's rules. If you continue to engage in it, I'll have to report you to the moderators.
My advice is to try and address what he had to say so that we can correct your erroneous beliefs instead of making false assertions about it and calling him names. That's where you're going to get in trouble here. Understand?
One of the reasons for that has to do with the fact that people who have become deceived, often propagate the lies attempting to mislead others into the same error they've fallen into.
Personally, I think we should have a sub-section of the forum dedicated to refuting heretical worldviews such as Mormonism. But that's not presently the case.
And I might want to warn you that continuing your name calling with respect to Rob is also against this forum's rules. While I discern that you're not a troll, you should be aware of it.
Rob is a well educated Christian apologist with theological degrees from institutions like Talbot. His exegesis is not faulty. The exegesis of Mormonism is. And he wasn't bullying anyone. That's a lie you're fabricating. He had a nice discussion in which he refuted false assertions made by your church.
Of course, you don't enjoy seeing your church's heresies and false assertions refuted. But this display of ad hominem, personal libelous attacks on reputable trained Christian apologists, etc... that you're choosing to engage in is completely unwarranted, immoral, and against the forum's rules. If you continue to engage in it, I'll have to report you to the moderators.
My advice is to try and address what he had to say so that we can correct your erroneous beliefs instead of making false assertions about it and calling him names. That's where you're going to get in trouble here. Understand?
T
My apologies regarding my words about Rob. More than likely, born out of frustration at the attacks and unfounded accusations being hurled at me. My intent was not to preach heresies, or to convince anyone of the validity of my faith. I game an on point response to the topic that someone else started. If Maxwell hadn't entered into the discussion, my first post in this thread would have probably been my only one, and no one reading this would have even known of my religious affiliation.
I respect that Rob is well learned, but that doesn't really impress me that much. I saw the exchange, and I didn't feel his arguments were convincing. Part of the reason for his perceived success was because the two missionaries were not very well learned in apologetics. They are specifically cautioned against that, because their message is one of unity and of developing a relationship with God. Rarely do debates result in conversion. I wasn't bothered by his arguments because they weren't very convincing to me.
Admittedly, I only saw about the first six minutes, and skipped the last three, so maybe I missed some things he said, but he kept arguing against the missionaries about the relationship between Jehovah and Elohim. It was a question the missionaries were not equipped to answer, for they did not understand that the current usage of these words in modern Mormonism is a rather recent construct. The two terms were used interchangeably in the 1800s.
The missionaries were on the right track when attempting to refute the Trinitarian notion of God, by citing "The Father is greater than I." To be honest, I didn't understand Rob's rebuttal that Obama is greater than he is, but they are still both humans. To accurately render this metaphor, one would have to assume that both Obama and Rob, despite one being greater than the other, were both equal in authority and were both President of the United States. Had I been discussing this, I would have cited John 20:17 in which Christ specifically refers to the Father as His God. If Christ is God, co-equal with him, how can God have a God? Maybe he'd have a good rebuttal, but so far, I've never heard one.
Then he attempted to explain away the Mormon belief that others were present at the creation. He cited a scripture (which I can't remember off hand) that talked of God's hand stretching out and creating everything...? Something like that. The point he was making was that God alone created everything. I would have cited the creation story wherein we read, "let US make man in OUR image." Clearly there were at least two beings present.
Then, in order to explain away our beliefs about the deification of man, he cited numerous scriptures that talked of God's supreme rule, and how there are not gods beside him. Mormons agree with this. Deification does not mean we will be equal with God or replace him. It means only that we will inherit a life similar to what he lives, glorified, perfected and holy.
Again, sorry about my actions. I get that way from time to time, and sometimes regret what I post later. I'm sure Rob is a very intelligent man who loves the Lord. I just had some particular issues with his arguments.
I respect that Rob is well learned, but that doesn't really impress me that much. I saw the exchange, and I didn't feel his arguments were convincing. Part of the reason for his perceived success was because the two missionaries were not very well learned in apologetics. They are specifically cautioned against that, because their message is one of unity and of developing a relationship with God. Rarely do debates result in conversion. I wasn't bothered by his arguments because they weren't very convincing to me.
Admittedly, I only saw about the first six minutes, and skipped the last three, so maybe I missed some things he said, but he kept arguing against the missionaries about the relationship between Jehovah and Elohim. It was a question the missionaries were not equipped to answer, for they did not understand that the current usage of these words in modern Mormonism is a rather recent construct. The two terms were used interchangeably in the 1800s.
The missionaries were on the right track when attempting to refute the Trinitarian notion of God, by citing "The Father is greater than I." To be honest, I didn't understand Rob's rebuttal that Obama is greater than he is, but they are still both humans. To accurately render this metaphor, one would have to assume that both Obama and Rob, despite one being greater than the other, were both equal in authority and were both President of the United States. Had I been discussing this, I would have cited John 20:17 in which Christ specifically refers to the Father as His God. If Christ is God, co-equal with him, how can God have a God? Maybe he'd have a good rebuttal, but so far, I've never heard one.
Then he attempted to explain away the Mormon belief that others were present at the creation. He cited a scripture (which I can't remember off hand) that talked of God's hand stretching out and creating everything...? Something like that. The point he was making was that God alone created everything. I would have cited the creation story wherein we read, "let US make man in OUR image." Clearly there were at least two beings present.
Then, in order to explain away our beliefs about the deification of man, he cited numerous scriptures that talked of God's supreme rule, and how there are not gods beside him. Mormons agree with this. Deification does not mean we will be equal with God or replace him. It means only that we will inherit a life similar to what he lives, glorified, perfected and holy.
Again, sorry about my actions. I get that way from time to time, and sometimes regret what I post later. I'm sure Rob is a very intelligent man who loves the Lord. I just had some particular issues with his arguments.
A
Ok. Your misunderstanding that the points Rob was discussing in that exchange are not, in fact, important aside; Rob does also engage in scholarly debates with Mormon theologians in addition to teaching.
And while debates may not be beneficial to the propagation of Mormonism, they certainly are a valuable vehicle for educating people why Mormonism is a heretical false worldview.
Rob's metaphor was appropriate as Mormonism heretically rejects and redefines the Christian understanding of the triune nature of God (e.g. Trinitarian monotheism), which is fully accepted by Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox.
The historical orthodox Christian view of the Godhead is that God is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and they are the personal, unique, infinite, Creator God. They are not three beings or three Gods, because Trinitarianism firmly embraces monotheism—the belief that there is only one true God. According to orthodox Trinitarianism, there are three distinct persons in one indivisible substance together as one being: God.
Now Mormonism, on the other hand, heretically teaches the heresy that there are three totally separate gods in the Godhead—the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These three separate gods are one only in purpose, not one in being or nature. Latter-day Saints reject the Christian belief that God is three coequal persons in one substance or essence.
As Dr. Stephen Robinson makes clear in his book Are Mormons Christians?:
"If by the doctrine of the Trinity' one means the doctrine formulated by the councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon and elaborated upon by subsequent theologians and councils—that God is three coequal persons in one substance and essence—then Latter-day Saints do not believe it. The LDS understanding of the Godhead is not Christian Trinitarianism but Mormon tritheism, that is, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three totally separate gods that progressed and developed into individual deities at different times prior to creation."
Dr. Bruce McConkie writes:
"Three separate personages—Father, Son, and Holy Ghost—comprise the Godhead. As each of these persons is a God, it is evident, from this standpoint alone, that a plurality of Gods exists [in Mormonism not reality]. In fact, the LDS Church describes the Godhead—the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—more as the supreme heavenly presidency of three gods than as the historically and universally accepted Christian doctrine of the eternal triune nature of one God."
On what authoritative basis does Mormonism teach this misunderstanding of the Godhead? Dr. Stephen Robinson explains:
"We believe this not because it is the clear teaching of the Bible but because it was the personal experience of the [false] prophet Joseph Smith in his first vision and because the information is further clarified for us in modern revelation."
As Dr. Andrew Jackson states:
"Mormonism’s doctrine of the Godhead has absolutely no precedence in the history of the Christian church. For example, during the in-depth theological discussions among Christians concerning the internal nature of God, they never promoted a doctrine of tritheism or belief in three separate gods, as taught in Mormonism today. Early Christians were at all times strict monotheists, believing in one absolute eternal God."
Mormonism's blatant heresy about who God is underpins their blatant heresies with respect to human deification. You're being disingenuous if you falsely assertion that the LDS does not teach the heresy of human deification. In fact, I can direct you to the very LDS dot org webpage that acknowledges it and then deconstruct it point by point and refute it.
It is a fact that the heresy of Mormonism teaches that God was once a human being, and that human beings can become gods. This was explained by Lorenzo Snow (fifth Mormon President and false prophet) in this way, “As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may become” (some Mormons even speak about humans as “Gods in embryo.” [doctrinal restoration]). Mormon heresy clearly teaches polytheism affirming and teaching a plurality of gods derived from the deification of men.
And while debates may not be beneficial to the propagation of Mormonism, they certainly are a valuable vehicle for educating people why Mormonism is a heretical false worldview.
Rob's metaphor was appropriate as Mormonism heretically rejects and redefines the Christian understanding of the triune nature of God (e.g. Trinitarian monotheism), which is fully accepted by Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox.
The historical orthodox Christian view of the Godhead is that God is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and they are the personal, unique, infinite, Creator God. They are not three beings or three Gods, because Trinitarianism firmly embraces monotheism—the belief that there is only one true God. According to orthodox Trinitarianism, there are three distinct persons in one indivisible substance together as one being: God.
Now Mormonism, on the other hand, heretically teaches the heresy that there are three totally separate gods in the Godhead—the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These three separate gods are one only in purpose, not one in being or nature. Latter-day Saints reject the Christian belief that God is three coequal persons in one substance or essence.
As Dr. Stephen Robinson makes clear in his book Are Mormons Christians?:
"If by the doctrine of the Trinity' one means the doctrine formulated by the councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon and elaborated upon by subsequent theologians and councils—that God is three coequal persons in one substance and essence—then Latter-day Saints do not believe it. The LDS understanding of the Godhead is not Christian Trinitarianism but Mormon tritheism, that is, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three totally separate gods that progressed and developed into individual deities at different times prior to creation."
Dr. Bruce McConkie writes:
"Three separate personages—Father, Son, and Holy Ghost—comprise the Godhead. As each of these persons is a God, it is evident, from this standpoint alone, that a plurality of Gods exists [in Mormonism not reality]. In fact, the LDS Church describes the Godhead—the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—more as the supreme heavenly presidency of three gods than as the historically and universally accepted Christian doctrine of the eternal triune nature of one God."
On what authoritative basis does Mormonism teach this misunderstanding of the Godhead? Dr. Stephen Robinson explains:
"We believe this not because it is the clear teaching of the Bible but because it was the personal experience of the [false] prophet Joseph Smith in his first vision and because the information is further clarified for us in modern revelation."
As Dr. Andrew Jackson states:
"Mormonism’s doctrine of the Godhead has absolutely no precedence in the history of the Christian church. For example, during the in-depth theological discussions among Christians concerning the internal nature of God, they never promoted a doctrine of tritheism or belief in three separate gods, as taught in Mormonism today. Early Christians were at all times strict monotheists, believing in one absolute eternal God."
Mormonism's blatant heresy about who God is underpins their blatant heresies with respect to human deification. You're being disingenuous if you falsely assertion that the LDS does not teach the heresy of human deification. In fact, I can direct you to the very LDS dot org webpage that acknowledges it and then deconstruct it point by point and refute it.
It is a fact that the heresy of Mormonism teaches that God was once a human being, and that human beings can become gods. This was explained by Lorenzo Snow (fifth Mormon President and false prophet) in this way, “As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may become” (some Mormons even speak about humans as “Gods in embryo.” [doctrinal restoration]). Mormon heresy clearly teaches polytheism affirming and teaching a plurality of gods derived from the deification of men.
Last edited:
T
Difference in perspective, I guess. Trinitarianism, in my view, is not monotheistic. There are three divine personages. That is three gods. What does it mean to be of one substance? I've never seen anyone explain where that's found in the Bible.
Also, I never disputed our doctrine of deification. I made a case for it in my first post in this thread.
The heresy about God being man...if Trinitarians believe Jesus is God, but Jesus was also Man, wouldn't God have once been a man, also?
Also, I never disputed our doctrine of deification. I made a case for it in my first post in this thread.
The heresy about God being man...if Trinitarians believe Jesus is God, but Jesus was also Man, wouldn't God have once been a man, also?
T
Yes, but who's to say orthodoxy is right? What you call orthodoxy now, wasn't orthodoxy until the fourth century. Subordinationism was. Who gets to decide this? Centuries ago ecumenical councils? The Trinity doctrine as currently understood, is not found in the biblical text. Without biblical support, I don't see how it can be the correct understanding for those who adhere to the Bible.
A
God, Jesus Christ, the apostles, and the church patriarchs. And now you're making another soundly refuted false assertion.
Historical scholars assert that although the late first and early second century gave birth to a variety of heretical movements, the set of core beliefs known as orthodoxy was earlier and widespread.
Furthermore, the proponents of second-century orthodoxy were not innovators but mere conduits of the orthodox theology espoused already in the New Testament period. Historical scholars assert the following:
• AD 33: Jesus dies and rises from the dead.
• AD 40s-60s: Paul writes letters to various churches; orthodoxy is pervasive and mainstream; churches are organized around a central message; undeveloped heresies begin to emerge.
• AD 60s-90s: the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament are written and continue to propagate the orthodoxy that preceded them; orthodoxy continues to be pervasive and mainstream; heresies are still undeveloped.
• AD 90s-130s: the New Testament writers pass from the scene; the apostolic fathers emerge and continue to propagate the orthodoxy that preceded them; orthodoxy is still pervasive and mainstream; heresies begin to organize but remain relatively undeveloped.
• AD 130s-200s: the apostolic fathers die out; subsequent Christian writers continue to propagate the orthodoxy that preceded them; orthodoxy is still pervasive and mainstream, but various forms of heresy are found; these heresies, however, remain subsidiary to orthodoxy and remain largely variegated.
• AD 200s-300s: orthodoxy is solidified in the creeds, but various forms of heresy continue to rear their head; orthodoxy, however, remains pervasive and mainstream.
• AD 1800s: A practitioner of occult folk magic named Joseph Smith fabricates a heretical cult and begins making wild claims and prophecies [that have since been falsified] by which he begins deceiving others.
Heresy arose after orthodoxy and did not command the degree of influence that some claim. Moreover, the orthodoxy established by the third- and fourth-century creeds stands in direct continuity with the teachings of the orthodox writers of the previous two centuries.
In essence, when orthodoxy and heresy are compared in terms of their genesis and chronology, it is evident that orthodoxy did not emerge from a heretical morass; instead, heresy grew parasitically out of an already established orthodoxy. And while the church continued to set forth its doctrinal beliefs in a variety of creedal formulations, the DNA of orthodoxy remained essentially unchanged.
You have a great deal to learn of history, theology, philosophy, logic, etc... Fortunately, I am here to assist you.
Historical scholars assert that although the late first and early second century gave birth to a variety of heretical movements, the set of core beliefs known as orthodoxy was earlier and widespread.
Furthermore, the proponents of second-century orthodoxy were not innovators but mere conduits of the orthodox theology espoused already in the New Testament period. Historical scholars assert the following:
• AD 33: Jesus dies and rises from the dead.
• AD 40s-60s: Paul writes letters to various churches; orthodoxy is pervasive and mainstream; churches are organized around a central message; undeveloped heresies begin to emerge.
• AD 60s-90s: the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament are written and continue to propagate the orthodoxy that preceded them; orthodoxy continues to be pervasive and mainstream; heresies are still undeveloped.
• AD 90s-130s: the New Testament writers pass from the scene; the apostolic fathers emerge and continue to propagate the orthodoxy that preceded them; orthodoxy is still pervasive and mainstream; heresies begin to organize but remain relatively undeveloped.
• AD 130s-200s: the apostolic fathers die out; subsequent Christian writers continue to propagate the orthodoxy that preceded them; orthodoxy is still pervasive and mainstream, but various forms of heresy are found; these heresies, however, remain subsidiary to orthodoxy and remain largely variegated.
• AD 200s-300s: orthodoxy is solidified in the creeds, but various forms of heresy continue to rear their head; orthodoxy, however, remains pervasive and mainstream.
• AD 1800s: A practitioner of occult folk magic named Joseph Smith fabricates a heretical cult and begins making wild claims and prophecies [that have since been falsified] by which he begins deceiving others.
Heresy arose after orthodoxy and did not command the degree of influence that some claim. Moreover, the orthodoxy established by the third- and fourth-century creeds stands in direct continuity with the teachings of the orthodox writers of the previous two centuries.
In essence, when orthodoxy and heresy are compared in terms of their genesis and chronology, it is evident that orthodoxy did not emerge from a heretical morass; instead, heresy grew parasitically out of an already established orthodoxy. And while the church continued to set forth its doctrinal beliefs in a variety of creedal formulations, the DNA of orthodoxy remained essentially unchanged.
You have a great deal to learn of history, theology, philosophy, logic, etc... Fortunately, I am here to assist you.
A
Furthermore, you're making false assertions about the orthodox Christian doctrine of the Trinity.
Historical investigations by scholars such as Dr. Gerald Bray clearly show that the authors of the Nicene Creed did not anachronistically read orthodoxy back into previous centuries. Examining the Nicene Creed step by step, Dr. Bray and his team of historical scholars, traced every detail of its theological contents from the New Testament through the Fathers to its codification in the creed remarking:
"The bedrock of the church's beliefs remained unaltered, and in the first article of the creed we can be confident that we are being transported back to the earliest days of the apostolic preaching."
Although the term "Trinity" does not appear in the New Testament, the concept is clearly present (e.g., Matt. 28:19; 1 Pet. 1:2). Creedal third- and fourth-century orthodoxy is an organic continuation of what the New Testament writers began without any transmutation of the DNA of the New Testament gospel message, which, in turn, is rooted in the Old Testament.
This is especially evident in historical records such as the following words of Irenaeus:
"[The Church believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed by the prophets the (divine) dispensations and the coming of Christ, his birth from a virgin, his passion, his rising from the dead, and the bodily ascension into heaven of our beloved Lord Jesus Christ, and his manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father to sum up all things in one and to raise up again all flesh of the whole human race."
As Dr. Larry Hurtado states:
"Well before the influence of Constantine and councils of bishops in the fourth century and thereafter, it was clear that proto-orthodox Christianity was ascendant, and represented the emergent mainstream. Proto-orthodox devotion to Jesus of the second century constitutes the pattern of belief and practice that shaped Christian tradition thereafter."
The church fathers' Rule of Faith served both as a theological continuation of New Testament orthodoxy and as a conduit to the orthodoxy of the creeds and the Trinity was already present.
I'm truly sorry that you've been deceived by a heretical religious fabrication but you have a serious responsibility to yourself and your progeny to disassociate from such blatant fabricated heresy as Mormonism espouses which Jesus Christ Himself stated in the gospels would arise in these last days misleading many (which it has you).
Historical investigations by scholars such as Dr. Gerald Bray clearly show that the authors of the Nicene Creed did not anachronistically read orthodoxy back into previous centuries. Examining the Nicene Creed step by step, Dr. Bray and his team of historical scholars, traced every detail of its theological contents from the New Testament through the Fathers to its codification in the creed remarking:
"The bedrock of the church's beliefs remained unaltered, and in the first article of the creed we can be confident that we are being transported back to the earliest days of the apostolic preaching."
Although the term "Trinity" does not appear in the New Testament, the concept is clearly present (e.g., Matt. 28:19; 1 Pet. 1:2). Creedal third- and fourth-century orthodoxy is an organic continuation of what the New Testament writers began without any transmutation of the DNA of the New Testament gospel message, which, in turn, is rooted in the Old Testament.
This is especially evident in historical records such as the following words of Irenaeus:
"[The Church believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed by the prophets the (divine) dispensations and the coming of Christ, his birth from a virgin, his passion, his rising from the dead, and the bodily ascension into heaven of our beloved Lord Jesus Christ, and his manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father to sum up all things in one and to raise up again all flesh of the whole human race."
As Dr. Larry Hurtado states:
"Well before the influence of Constantine and councils of bishops in the fourth century and thereafter, it was clear that proto-orthodox Christianity was ascendant, and represented the emergent mainstream. Proto-orthodox devotion to Jesus of the second century constitutes the pattern of belief and practice that shaped Christian tradition thereafter."
The church fathers' Rule of Faith served both as a theological continuation of New Testament orthodoxy and as a conduit to the orthodoxy of the creeds and the Trinity was already present.
I'm truly sorry that you've been deceived by a heretical religious fabrication but you have a serious responsibility to yourself and your progeny to disassociate from such blatant fabricated heresy as Mormonism espouses which Jesus Christ Himself stated in the gospels would arise in these last days misleading many (which it has you).
8
I never implied that you said that....lets recap shall we.....
Your question--->yet I have also heard from many believers that man cannot become...God. Agree? Disagree? Comments?
My response.......is under the comments section...no where did I imply anything toward you.
Re: The deification of man.
Your question--->yet I have also heard from many believers that man cannot become...God. Agree? Disagree? Comments?
My response.......is under the comments section...no where did I imply anything toward you.
Can a servant be above his MASTER...It is enough that a servant be as his MASTER..........
Jesus is God and he will always be so far above us that if it were not for him bridging the gap we would not even be able to see him.....much less become a god........!
Once again, you and others are implying (yes, implying) that I am saying through scripture that I or you can become "a god". I never said that, and never will say that. What I did say in many different ways is that "man can become God in life and nature, although NOT in the Godhead." If you go back and read my post and dissect what I really mean by that, you will see what I really meant. Many in this thread jump to conclusions and tie my post into some kind of Mormon doctrine and then it somehow becomes a Mormon theology debate. My opinion on the deification of man has nothing to do with the Mormon theology of a bunch of little gods roaming the universe. The fact remains, according to the scripture that I posted (many more I didn't post) that Gods desire is to bring man into God. What I would like to see here instead of expression of "feelings", is a verse by verse rebuttal of my position. So far, I have not seen one reply to this post that has done that. For example, just what do you and others receive from the scriptures that show us we are "born of God", .."partakers of the divine nature"...."members of His body"..."many grains that were produced from One grain"..."created in His image and Likeness"...."Joined to Him in the oneness of a divine marriage". I would be curious to know how you can receive that word from the bible and not deduce that we are becoming divine and yes, even God...(although not "gods" and not elevated to the Godhead).
Jesus is God and he will always be so far above us that if it were not for him bridging the gap we would not even be able to see him.....much less become a god........!
Once again, you and others are implying (yes, implying) that I am saying through scripture that I or you can become "a god". I never said that, and never will say that. What I did say in many different ways is that "man can become God in life and nature, although NOT in the Godhead." If you go back and read my post and dissect what I really mean by that, you will see what I really meant. Many in this thread jump to conclusions and tie my post into some kind of Mormon doctrine and then it somehow becomes a Mormon theology debate. My opinion on the deification of man has nothing to do with the Mormon theology of a bunch of little gods roaming the universe. The fact remains, according to the scripture that I posted (many more I didn't post) that Gods desire is to bring man into God. What I would like to see here instead of expression of "feelings", is a verse by verse rebuttal of my position. So far, I have not seen one reply to this post that has done that. For example, just what do you and others receive from the scriptures that show us we are "born of God", .."partakers of the divine nature"...."members of His body"..."many grains that were produced from One grain"..."created in His image and Likeness"...."Joined to Him in the oneness of a divine marriage". I would be curious to know how you can receive that word from the bible and not deduce that we are becoming divine and yes, even God...(although not "gods" and not elevated to the Godhead).
Once again, you and others are implying (yes, implying) that I am saying through scripture that I or you can become "a god". I never said that, and never will say that. What I did say in many different ways is that "man can become God in life and nature, although NOT in the Godhead." If you go back and read my post and dissect what I really mean by that, you will see what I really meant. Many in this thread jump to conclusions and tie my post into some kind of Mormon doctrine and then it somehow becomes a Mormon theology debate. My opinion on the deification of man has nothing to do with the Mormon theology of a bunch of little gods roaming the universe. The fact remains, according to the scripture that I posted (many more I didn't post) that Gods desire is to bring man into God. What I would like to see here instead of expression of "feelings", is a verse by verse rebuttal of my position. So far, I have not seen one reply to this post that has done that. For example, just what do you and others receive from the scriptures that show us we are "born of God", .."partakers of the divine nature"...."members of His body"..."many grains that were produced from One grain"..."created in His image and Likeness"...."Joined to Him in the oneness of a divine marriage". I would be curious to know how you can receive that word from the bible and not deduce that we are becoming divine and yes, even God...(although not "gods" and not elevated to the Godhead).
8
With all respect, this just sounds like an opinion based on "feelings". If you read my second post you will see I included a variety of scripture references. I too early in my christian walk raised my eyes at the suggestion that we are "becoming God". (not gods). However, after I admitted to myself that this skepticism was based only on my natural feelings about man and God and not actually based on scripture I became open to getting into the bible concerning this thought. I also was like many that have replied in this thread, put off by something that sounded like it had Mormon attachments. It does not. If you are truly open to the revelation in the bible (I trust you are) and go over the scripture that I included in my second post and still stand firm in your belief that man cannot become deified,...then I would like to know why you take that position. Use the scripture I included in your rebuttal to my position on the deification of man. By that way, this is not something new in the historical account of Christian theology.