This is part 3 of this blog series. You can read Part 1 here and Part 2 here.
The Biblical Christ
“And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, begotten from the Father before all ages, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made; of the same essence as the Father.” This is really where the rubber meets the road concerning the nature and person of Christ. What did the Nicaean bishops mean by this statement? Let’s walk through one section at a time and see whether this creed matches what the Bible teaches about Christ.
“The only Son of God, begotten from the Father before all ages.” I think that this first statement is ground zero for where the LDS church gets it wrong concerning the nature of Christ. What does it mean for Christ to be the Son of God? We know what it means for man to sire a son, but does that apply to the Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ? The answer is a resounding “No.” We will almost certainly get into heresy when we start with man and try to reason our way up to God. In the Bible, there are certain anthropomorphisms and rhetorical statements that ascribe specific attributes to God so that humans might better understand Him. For example, Psalm 91:4 says that God “shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler.” Is the point of this verse that God has wings and feathers, or is this just rhetorical language to show us that God will keep those who trust in Him safe? The latter is the obvious answer. What about Isaiah 66:1 when it says, “Thus saith the LORD, The heaven is my throne and the earth is my footstool.” Does this mean that God literally has His feet propped up on the earth, or is the point that God is powerful beyond our comprehension? Again, the point is unmistakable. So when the Bible calls Christ the “Son of God”, does this mean that Heavenly Father impregnated Heavenly Mother, and that’s how Christ came into existence? Or is the term “Son of God” the best that human language can give us to describe the eternal relationship that the Father and Son have always enjoyed? The Bible clearly teaches the latter, which is also why the Nicaean bishops taught it.
The Nicaean Creed makes it a point to call Christ the only Son of God who was “begotten.” Jesus is called the “only begotten Son of God” in several places in the New Testament (John 1:18, 3:16, 3:18, I John 4:9, etc.) The word “begotten” as it pertains to Christ is translated from the Greek word, monogenēs, which means “unique or one of a kind.” It does not mean firstborn. Monogenēs is also used to describe Isaac in Hebrews 11:7 when it says, “By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son.” Isaac wasn’t the firstborn son of Abraham, Ishmael was. However, Isaac was unique or “begotten” because he was the child of God’s promise (see Galatians 4:21-31). This is why the Nicaean Creed says that Christ was “begotten from the Father before all ages.” Christ is the unique Son of God in that He shares both essence and eternity with God the Father. There has never been a time when the Father or Christ didn’t exist (or the Holy Spirit for that matter). This is another similarity between the Arian heresy and the LDS church, Arius taught that there was a time when Christ was not, and so does the LDS church.
The LDS church teaches that Christ was the firstborn spirit child of Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother. The 1997 edition of Gospel Principles states in chapter 2 (“Our Heavenly Family”), “Every person who was ever born on earth was our spirit brother or sister in heaven. The first spirit born to our heavenly parents was Jesus Christ (see D&C 93:21), so he is literally our elder brother (see Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 26).” It may not come as a shock to learn that the 2009 edition of Gospel Principles also completely removed that second sentence. However, as we have seen, the use of monogenēs presents a real problem for LDS doctrine because it won’t allow for the idea of Christ simply being the firstborn child of Heavenly Father. The Bible teaches that Christ is eternal, uncreated, and unborn. We will see this principle in the next section as we discuss the Trinity.
God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made; of the same essence as the Father. The Nicaean bishops made it clear that they believed that whatever God the Father is, Christ is. This sentence could be restated; The Father is God, Christ is God. The Father is Light, Christ is Light. The Father is true God, Christ is true God. Christ is unique, not made, of the same essence as the Father. This word “essence” (homoousion) caused more outrage than anything else in the Nicaean Creed. The reason is that it’s Trinitarian language. The Trinity is one of the most hated doctrines in Scripture because our finite minds can’t comprehend an infinite God. How can God be one in essence or being, and yet three distinct persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit)? Logic says that God must be one or three, but He can’t be both. However, if we are going to let Scripture stand on its own, we must believe in a triune God. Let’s see what the Bible has to say about the Trinity.
First, let me quickly address a popular strawman, that the word “trinity” isn’t found anywhere in the Bible. That’s a true statement, but it’s misleading, and here’s why. The word “missionary” isn’t found anywhere in the King James Version. I don’t think any of my LDS friends would try to argue that there are no missionaries found in the Bible. “Missionary” is a term that someone coined to explain the work and calling of someone like the Apostle Paul who went to foreign countries in order to spread the gospel and plant churches. In the same way, the term “trinity” was coined to explain the biblical teaching of one God manifested in three persons. Don’t get hung up on the terms, pay attention to the teaching. What does the Bible teach concerning the essence of God? Let’s look at that now.
Trinitarian language is found throughout the Bible, even from the very beginning. Genesis 1:26 says, “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” Notice that God uses the plural pronouns “us” and “our” to describe Himself. Why would God use plural pronouns to describe Himself? In the very next verse, it says, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” (Genesis 1:27) Now this same God is referring to Himself with singular pronouns, “his” and “he.” This interchange of singular and plural pronouns to describe the same God can only make sense in a trinitarian framework.
The Trinity is also seen in the use of the name “Jehovah” (Yahweh) in the Old Testament. The LDS church teaches that “Christ is Jehovah; they are one and the same person.” I would not argue that Christ is Jehovah in the Old Testament. Christ’s reference to Himself as the “I AM” of Exodus 3 in John 8:58 is sufficient alone to prove this point. However, there are instances in the Old Testament that God the Father and the Holy Spirit are also referred to as “Jehovah.” For example, Psalm 110:1 says, “The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.” Notice that the first “LORD” is in all caps. The English translators did this to show that this word was translated from the covenant name of Jehovah (Yahweh). The second “Lord” in this verse is not in all caps. In this case, it’s translated from the word “Adonai”, which means “master.” So Yahweh said unto Adonai, sit at my right hand. Jesus quoted this verse to the Pharisees in reference to Himself (Matt. 22:41-46). The point that Christ was making was that He was much more than a human king. For why would David call his son “Lord?” Hebrews 13:1 also gives commentary on Psalm 110:1 when it says, “But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?” This leaves no doubt that in Psalm 110:1 Jehovah is God the Father and He said unto Christ to sit at His right hand, which is exactly where Christ is today (Acts 2:33-34, Hebrews 10:12).
Jeremiah 31:33 says, “But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.” Pay attention to the fact that this is a direct quote from Jehovah (“saith the LORD”). Hebrews 10:15-16 gives commentary on Jeremiah 31:33 and it attributes this verse as being given by the Holy Ghost. “Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them” So the Holy Spirit is referred to as Jehovah in Jeremiah 31:33. The Father is Jehovah, the Son is Jehovah and the Holy Spirit is Jehovah. The three persons of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit share in the one essence of being of Jehovah, and yet the Father is not the Son, is not the Holy Spirit. There is no way to make heads or tails out of this without a Trinitarian framework.
Let’s look at some New Testament examples of the Trinity. Think about the command to baptize converts. Jesus said, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” (Matthew 28:19). Jesus didn’t tell us to baptize in the names, plural, but in the name, singular of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. What sense does that make? It’s because there is one God manifested in three co-equal and co-eternal persons. There is no way to make this fit without a Trinitarian understanding of God.
We looked at the use of the name “Jehovah” in the Old Testament but let’s also take a look at the use of “God” in the New Testament. Romans 10:9 says, “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” This is really important as it tells a person how they might be saved from their sin, which is to believe that God raised Christ from the dead. So who raised Christ from the dead? Well, God did. But Acts 3:26 says that God the Father raised up his Son Jesus. In John 2:19-21 Christ said that He would raise Himself from the dead. Romans 8:11 says that it was the Spirit that raised Jesus from the dead. How is this possible? It’s because the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, while distinct persons, make up the one being or essence of God and they all played a part in the resurrection of Christ. I hate to sound like a broken record but this cannot be explained coherently outside of a Trinitarian framework.
The first verse of John chapter 1 is despised by many. It’s kryptonite to anyone who would try to hold onto the idea that Christ isn’t the second person of the triune God. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” The “Word” (Logos) is Jesus Christ, and He is God. But wait, He was also in the beginning with God. How is that possible? It’s because God the Father and God the Son are co-equal and co-eternal. It’s also interesting to note that the very next verse says, “The same was in the beginning with God.” (John 1:2). This is a third reference to God within these two verses. In other words, God (the Father) was with God (The Word) and was with God (The Holy Spirit) before the beginning of time. The Joseph Smith “translation” has butchered this verse. John 1:1 in the JST says, “In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God” In the JST rendering of this verse, Christ isn’t the “Word”, the Word is the gospel message. And Christ isn’t God, He is just of God. The reader must understand that none of the many ancient manuscripts that we have for John 1:1 support the JST’s rendering of this verse, not even close. That’s because it isn’t a translation, it’s a fabrication. It isn’t an honest attempt to explain John 1:1, but an attempt to explain it away.
John 1:14 says, “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.” The Word is a person, not merely a message. This is the central theme of the book of John, that God became flesh and dwelt among us. This attempt to change the identity of Christ is damnable heresy. Time and ink simply will not allow me to expound more upon this issue. But one thing is clear, the Nicaean bishops so overwhelmingly opposed Arius not because they were abandoning the Scriptures but because they were standing upon them. Let’s return to the Nicaean Creed.
“Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven; he became incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary, and was made human.” There is no way that this statement can be true unless Christ is eternal and uncreated. This is another major point of discrepancy between Biblical Christianity and the LDS church. We mentioned earlier that the LDS church teaches that Christ is the firstborn of Heavenly Father, but they also teach that Christ is the brother of Satan. This is another teaching that has been greatly watered down in the LDS church in recent years because it’s so glaringly anti-Christian. However, the early church leaders were very vocal about this doctrine. Not only did they teach that Christ is the spirit brother of Satan, but that both Christ and Satan presented a plan of salvation to Heavenly Father, who chose Christ’s plan over Satan’s. “After hearing both sons speak, Heavenly Father said, “I will send the first.” (Abraham 3:27)
The Bible says that Christ is the creator of all things both in heaven and on earth. Colossians 1:15-17 says, “Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.” The term “firstborn” in this text comes from the Greek word “prōtotokos” which speaks of highest rank or first cause. This context will not allow for Christ to be a result of creation when He is the cause of creation. The point to be made here is simple. Christ cannot be the brother of Satan if He is the creator of Satan. Christ cannot be the creator of all things if there were gods before Him. This is a huge distinction to make. In LDS theology Christ was a man who became God. In Biblical Christianity, Christ is the eternal God who became a man. They are not the same Christ.
Conclusion: I started this chapter off by quoting former LDS Church President, Gordon B. Hinckley when he stated that the LDS church rejects the Christ of the ancient creeds in favor of the Christ presented by Joseph Smith. I then presented this deductive argument, President Hinckley admitted that the LDS church doesn’t believe in the Christ of the ancient church creeds. The ancient church creeds line up perfectly with the Biblical Jesus. Therefore, the LDS church doesn’t believe in the Biblical Jesus. We then walked through the Nicaean Creed as it pertains to the nature of Christ and saw that Nicaean bishops aligned their belief with the Bible, in total contradiction with LDS doctrine.
To put it plainly, the Biblical Christ is the eternal second person of the trinity, co-equal and co-eternal with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. He is the one true God and creator of all things. This God became a man in order to die for sinners In LDS doctrine, Christ is the first spirit child of Heavenly Father and the spirit brother of Satan. He was a man who became a god. He isn’t eternal God, but a mere god among gods. There is no comparison between the two. Things that are different are not the same. Truth is based in reality and not on someone’s sincere false belief. Our faith will never be greater than the object of our faith, no matter how sincere that faith may be. I make an earnest plea to my LDS friends when I say that they have placed their faith in a false Christ, a mere figment of Joseph Smith’s imagination. And that Christ cannot save.
No comments:
Post a Comment