The Trinity Questions – For Traditional Christians

[Islander]

Originally Posted by prisonchaplain

Your last line implies that we must interpret ourselves being the children of God in literal manner. If God the Father gave birth to us--if we are literally the stuff that He is--if we are the same species--then we are Gods. The New Agers are right.

On the other hand, it is not bizarre at all to understand "children of God," to mean tha we are eternal followers, worshipers, lovers of God, and that He will indeed exalt us to unknown greatness. There is no need to interpret "children of God" biologically, imho.

It is obvious that it does not relate to biology. I was referring to exaltation and our ability for unknown/infinite potential in terms of grace as offered by HIM as joint heirs with Christ.

It is clear that we will never surpass The Father or Christ. As I said, we will worship and honor Him forever. The doctrine in LDS theology does not relate to our position (created) vs The Creator. It hints, rather, to our potential whether an ion or a trillion ions we don't know. But that it is possible one day we will come to be like Him. It should not concern any of us currently but the critics have made it a trivia item.

[LittleNipper]

Originally Posted by Islander

It is obvious that it does not relate to biology. I was referring to exaltation and our ability for unknown/infinite potential in terms of grace as offered by HIM as joint heirs with Christ.

It is clear that we will never surpass The Father or Christ. As I said, we will worship and honor Him forever. The doctrine in LDS theology does not relate to our position (created) vs The Creator. It hints, rather, to our potential whether an ion or a trillion ions we don't know. But that it is possible one day we will come to be like Him. It should not concern any of us currently but the critics have made it a trivia item.

My belief is that the saved will be glorified as CHRIST is glorified; however, unlike CHRIST those glorified individuals will never be able to create nor sustain a creation. Those glorified will forever be sealed as GOD's adoptive children and everything they do will be GOD inspired and directed.

[LittleNipper]

Originally Posted by Traveler

It seems to me that your expression of Jesus

is:
1. Never expressed in scripture
2. A complete contradiction of itself
3. Meaningless and not connected with reality
4. More closely associated with pagan thought than Christianity.
5. Far more flawed that all your criticism of LDS combined.

I would point out to you your statement:



is the essence of the LDS doctrine that:

1. We were created to be "like" him.
2. The destiny of man is to be so like him that we are one - which is an ancient term meaning that there is no distinguishable or recognizable difference


The Traveler

However, there are recognizable differences. Those saved have been redeemed. CHRIST never needed redemption. I believe CHRIST has taken on qualities of the first Adam in order to accomplish this redemption and so those so redeemed will become as GOD entended Adam to remain.

[Traveler]

Originally Posted by LittleNipper

My belief is that the saved will be glorified as CHRIST is glorified; however, unlike CHRIST those glorified individuals will never be able to create nor sustain a creation. Those glorified will forever be sealed as GOD's adoptive children and everything they do will be GOD inspired and directed.

Your quote "those glorified individuals will never be able to create nor sustain a creation" says to me that you really do not believe your are an heir of G-d. Unless you do not define creation as something of G-d. Most that refer to G-d refer to him as the creator therefor if one is an heir of G-d and creation is a primary defination of G-d then to to be his true heir they must be heir to creation. If G-d could not create he whould not be G-d. If you will never create you will never be an heir of G-d (even by adoption).

I believe that the primary distinction of G-d from every other creature is that he is the creator. I cannot think of any more distinction of G-d. If someone is an heir of G-d they inherit not that which can be had by any other creature but that which is unique to G-d. Someone could be an heir of angles or an heir or all that is good but not quite G-d. But the scriptures are clear. Those that are “whole” and “one” with G-d are heirs of all that G-d has. And again the only unique distinction of G-d is creation. Therefore to be an heir of G-d one must be heir to creation.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

Originally Posted by LittleNipper

However, there are recognizable differences. Those saved have been redeemed. CHRIST never needed redemption. I believe CHRIST has taken on qualities of the first Adam in order to accomplish this redemption and so those so redeemed will become as GOD entended Adam to remain.

So you believe Adam was never intended to be like G-d or an example of his image (what G-d does)?

You in your faith do not believe that what G-d does is a reflection of his image? Do I understand you correctly?

The Traveler

[LittleNipper]

Originally Posted by Traveler

Your quote "those glorified individuals will never be able to create nor sustain a creation" says to me that you really do not believe your are an heir of G-d. Unless you do not define creation as something of G-d. Most that refer to G-d refer to him as the creator therefor if one is an heir of G-d and creation is a primary defination of G-d then to to be his true heir they must be heir to creation. If G-d could not create he whould not be G-d. If you will never create you will never be an heir of G-d (even by adoption).

I believe that the primary distinction of G-d from every other creature is that he is the creator. I cannot think of any more distinction of G-d. If someone is an heir of G-d they inherit not that which can be had by any other creature but that which is unique to G-d. Someone could be an heir of angles or an heir or all that is good but not quite G-d. But the scriptures are clear. Those that are “whole” and “one” with G-d are heirs of all that G-d has. And again the only unique distinction of G-d is creation. Therefore to be an heir of G-d one must be heir to creation.

The Traveler

An heir is not the founder of or an originator. An heir can be someone who receives what someone else accomplished, but does not in fact have the same skills of business, talent, etc... The simple fact is that GOD is everlasting. We will always have a point of origin.

[LittleNipper]

Originally Posted by Traveler

So you believe Adam was never intended to be like G-d or an example of his image (what G-d does)?

You in your faith do not believe that what G-d does is a reflection of his image? Do I understand you correctly?

The Traveler

I believe Adam was created triune in nature: Body, Soul, Spirit. Adam was creative (he named the animals and did gardening). Adma conversed with GOD.

[Faded]

Originally Posted by LittleNipper

An heir is not the founder of or an originator. An heir can be someone who receives what someone else accomplished, but does not in fact have the same skills of business, talent, etc... The simple fact is that GOD is everlasting. We will always have a point of origin.

What does the word "heir" mean? Let us take Prince Charles for example. He is heir to the throne of England. When Queen Elizabeth dies, he will become King. He will not be less powerful than his mother was. He will not be inferior to her in any way. He will gain the throne, crown and kingdom for the rest of his life. Just as Queen Elizabeth owes her position to those who came before her, so to Charles will owe his position to her. Without being born of royal blood, he would not have that privilege.

Now when we begin to talk of God the Father being the Supreme Lord of all the Universe, this will not change because He is not mortal and is obviously not going to die and He is not going to cease to exist. But we take Him at his word when He tells us that we are literally his children -- so ultimately we have the same potential. If we are made heirs through Christ to inherit a throne, crown and kingdom from God in some far distant future, then the first thing we must acknowledge is that we would owe it all God our Father and to Jesus Christ. Yet the imagery is very clear. An heir to a throne, crown and kingdom becomes what his predecessor is. Obviously, we would have to be that in another universe because God is not going to cease to reign in this one.

I do not see any reason to place limits on what God can make us. If he intends to make me like He is, then who am I to doubt His ability to do so? I cannot imagine it. I cannot begin to think I'm deserving in any way. I trust that He will get me there if that is what He intends to do. After all, God can do anything. Why should I doubt Him?

We do not accept nor believe in the notion that our existence begins at birth. We believe that the most basic spiritual essence from which we are made is eternal. So you're point that "God is everlasting and we are not" doesn't make sense in terms of LDS belief.

[LittleNipper]

Originally Posted by Faded

What does the word "heir" mean? Let us take Prince Charles for example. He is heir to the throne of England. When Queen Elizabeth dies, he will become King. He will not be less powerful than his mother was. He will not be inferior to her in any way. He will gain the throne, crown and kingdom for the rest of his life. Just as Queen Elizabeth owes her position to those who came before her, so to Charles will owe his position to her. Without being born of royal blood, he would not have that privilege.

Now when we begin to talk of God the Father being the Supreme Lord of all the Universe, this will not change because He is not mortal and is obviously not going to die and He is not going to cease to exist. But we take Him at his word when He tells us that we are literally his children -- so ultimately we have the same potential. If we are made heirs through Christ to inherit a throne, crown and kingdom from God in some far distant future, then the first thing we must acknowledge is that we would owe it all God our Father and to Jesus Christ. Yet the imagery is very clear. An heir to a throne, crown and kingdom becomes what his predecessor is. Obviously, we would have to be that in another universe because God is not going to cease to reign in this one.

I do not see any reason to place limits on what God can make us. If he intends to make me like He is, then who am I to doubt His ability to do so? I cannot imagine it. I cannot begin to think I'm deserving in any way. I trust that He will get me there if that is what He intends to do. After all, God can do anything. Why should I doubt Him?

We do not accept nor believe in the notion that our existence begins at birth. We believe that the most basic spiritual essence from which we are made is eternal. So you're point that "God is everlasting and we are not" doesn't make sense in terms of LDS belief.

I do not believe in reincarnation. Any inheritance we might claim is THROUGH CHRIST JESUS. CHRIST does not have to qualify HIMSELF in any way. GOD can do anything HIMSELF but we will always depend on GOD for any future existance we may be given --- unlike GOD ALMIGHTY. That is how my Bible study comes across to me.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by LittleNipper

I do not believe in reincarnation. Any inheritance we might claim is THROUGH CHRIST JESUS. CHRIST does not have to qualify HIMSELF in any way. GOD can do anything HIMSELF but we will always depend on GOD for any future existance we may be given --- unlike GOD ALMIGHTY. That is how my Bible study comes across to me.

How did you get to "reincarnation"? Nobody has mention it here.