This broadcaster has 165 podcast archives available on-demand.
Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.
June 20, 2021 7:30 am
In this episode, the scions of light tackle a topic that an LDS missionary listener named Jeremy asked them to discuss. The doctrine of creation, and whether God created ex materia (from existing materials) or ex nihilo (from nothing), is a key point of departure between Mormonism and Christianity. Here we discuss how it affects other doctrines and practices.
You can read Paul Copan's (Christian) defense of the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo against the claim that it was a later development in church history here.
Blake Ostler's (Mormon) response to Craig and Copan "The Doctrine Of Creation Ex Nihilo Was Created Out Of Nothing: A Response To Copan And Craig" can be read here.
Your answering and and and is likely is just here.
We had a special request from one of our fireflies who is currently out serving an LDS mission and asked us to discuss creation asked you, so if you're listening Jeremy this is for you to be honest, when I was a member of the church.
I didn't think creation asked Nilo versus creation ex material was that big of a deal. I didn't consider it a make or break doctrine when it came to deciding between Mormonism or evangelical Christianity. However, in recent years.
I made friends with another young missionary who convinced me that the distinction is actually pretty important because it trickles down and plays a role in all our theological differences without further ado let's get into it ask you question first paragraph you was creation ex materia a big deal to you as a latter-day St., did you think Orthodox Christianity was missing out big time by not believing in it wasn't something that I thought was a major part of my testimony, my faith but I found it to be something that I thought was very fascinating and it felt kind of like a piece of hidden knowledge or something. As part of the great apostasy that have been lost over the centuries, so one of the chapters in the doctrine and covenants section 131 that's kind of where part of this doctrine of no creation out of out of matter, rather than out of nothing its counterpart partially tied to that verse seven, D&C 131 it says there is no such thing as material matter, all spirit is matter. But it is more finer pure can only be disturbed but your eyes. We cannot see it but when our bodies are purified. We shall see that it is all matter so that there is this idea that in just thought that everything that exists, but her spirit or material physical. It's all made up matter. So I found a kind of interesting to me as as an engineering student when I was still mission government mission. I thought oh that's neat. Kind of like obeys the laws of thermodynamics because the laws of thermodynamics, you can create something for nothing, and you can't really destroy something just break things down or combine them in change of different forms, so I kind of made sense to be in my brain that way.
So I thought that comes a two state intellectual – terms of my testimony.
I think that was really a core part of my stays but I did find it interesting and it kept my attention and it made me think in different ways and it made and didn't really make sense to you got create something from nothing. So I did kind of feel like Christians were missing the mark when they believe that God could have everything from a dream. I was pretty much right there with you where I did me was a big deal but I didn't kind of take that that first long right. Words like matter cannot be destroyed or be re-created and I might well look where the more scientific more scientifically sound position. The more logical position so I didn't turn it take that as is were riding in their wrong, but it's not you will make it or break it. Deal is not something to be horribly ashamed of being wrong about what would you think all that. I think it was was something that I kind of held to be important because of what Mormonism teaches about intelligence is molded into that a little bit more later. You know so you know, without the without a doctrine of creation ex materia for Mormonism. Then a lot of the other theology kinda falls apart. Yeah, I agree that I think when we get a little further into this discussion will see that there's a lot of pieces that just don't fit together so nicely.
I was in sound when you when you first start talking about creation ex materia University does sound like a real logical thing, but there's a lot of details in coming to it will get into tall, in your opinion, what does creation with intelligence.
It is actually made out of matter. What is that due to God's eternal status will first of all, it means that God is not the only eternal being right so you take the latter-day St. teaching that before we were born into mortality. We were spiritual to know God and even prior to that we were autonomous intelligences then you basically equating each of us with with God, which is exactly what Joe Smith taught the can follow sermon right that that the mind or the intelligence of man is Cody Gore coeternal with God. And so what that does for God's eternal reality is like a said it made it means that each and every human being ever born is is eternal as well. No beginning, no and twitches you know something that the Bible read the status of the Bible retains for God alone as having no beginning in the land and so not only not only that, it also places the universe itself right the created universe the sun, the moon, the stars and galaxies places all of that coeternal with God as well. So yeah it's it's it's a big deal and what that does me just check my notes to see what else I wanted to say on this.
Just a there's there's a book I want to read a little bit from its Christian theology, and introduction by Alastair McGrath and he talks about a little bit about the development of the doctrine of creation asked Nilo and they did something interesting to kind of touch on holy ground `and I give a quick introduction as well. So I just kind of brushing up this week on what what Latter Day Saints kind of tend to say about creation asked Nilo and if you did you go on like that the gospel at those called Gospel library app.
I think it's with Eric perhaps called now if you search for axial load.
You don't come up with a whole lot you come up with a couple of references in the recent gospel topics essay on becoming like God and you come up with a talk called the creation that Russell M Nelson did before. He was the president profit of the LDS church. I remember reading that talk and then maybe 10 or 15 years ago and he talks to the kid, denies the doctrine of creation asked Nilo and they do that as well. In the gospel topics essay one of the claims that they make is that this this is a doctrine that comes to comes to Christianity after the Bible right and so the claim is made that the Bible doesn't have a doctrine of creation asked Nilo and that the doctrine in Christian theology was developed in response to the Gnostics, and so the way that's argued in the gospel topics essay is that they refer back to a book on the creation expand Nilo by Gerhard may was a German theologian and that she wrote a lengthy book in which she or he argues just that point that that this doctrine was developed as a reaction to Gnosticism which which is a dualistic theology that early Christianity dealt with. It's based on Platonic thought which which has the universe being eternal so Alastair McGrath, touches on this. He says this is this for Gnosticism is in most of the significant forms a sharp distinction was to be drawn between the God who redeemed humanity from the world in a somewhat inferior deity, often termed the demiurge who created that world in the first place.
The Old Testament was regarded by the Gnostics is dealing with this lesser deity whereas the New Testament was concerned with the Redeemer, God. As such, belief in God as creator and in the authority of the Old Testament came to be interlinked at an early stage of the early writers to deal deal with the steam readiness of lions is of particular importance. The distinct debate centered on the question of creation asked Nilo out of nothing. It must be remembered that Christianity took root and then expanded and in the eastern Mediterranean world of the first and second centuries which was dominated by various Greek philosophies sent to the general Greek understanding of the origin of the world could be summarized as follows. God is not to be thought of as having created the world.
Rather, God is thought of as an architect who ordered preexistent matter matter was already present within the universe and did not require to be created and needed to be given a definite shape and structure. God was therefore thought of is the one who fashioned the world from this already existing matter. Thus, in one of his dialogues to Marious. Plato developed the idea that the world was made out of preexistent matter, which was fashioned into the present form of the world. The idea this idea was taken up by most Gnostic writers who were the sheer followed by individual Christian theologians such as Theophilus of Antioch and Justin Martyr, and I think it's important to point out that the way this argument goes, is that because there were some Christian writers who took up this this idea. Like Justin Martyr, then the argument goes that almost to the Christians didn't initially believe in creation asked Nilo but the point I wanted I want to make of this. Is this kind of twofold. One is that note the charge that I often heard growing up as Latter Day Saints or read from some of their most studied theologians like James E.
Talmage and others. BH Roberts is that Christian theology was corrupted by Greek philosophy and that's why you have the doctrines of of the Trinity.
The doctrines of creation asked Nilo but what you see here with this doctrine. In particular, is that it's actually Latter Day Saints theology with regards to creation that is agreeing with Gnostic thought that is agreeing with Greek philosophy.
So although Christianity early Christianity bumped up against that in and maps that Greek culture and reacted to it. It was a reaction to it. It wasn't except it wasn't but it was nonacceptance of Greek philosophy. In this case and the other thing to remember is that just because there were some Christian theologians who may have taken up and ends believed that the doctrine of creation ex materia like Justin Martyr, it's important to keep in mind that he was also if he was training philosophy and Greek philosophy, so it's not surprising, necessarily that he would take that up and and and and believe it, but the doctrine of creation asked Nilo flows from Scripture and will get into that more later, but it it it it is a definite truth that flows from Scripture and so the to try to make the argument that well. There were some Christian writers in the second and third century play second and early third century who didn't seem to believe in creation asked Nilo.
Therefore it's not in the Bible. That's akin to saying well. The doctrine of salvation by grace alone.
Never really came about. So explicitly as it did in the Reformation therefore is not biblical. Those two things don't follow the doctrines are either in the Bible or they're not and I would argue that the doctrine of creation asked Nilo can be found in the Bible, even if some early Christian theologians presented the opposite. Yet that is really interesting. I like a set that the LDS church is the one that is kind of embracing these Gnostic ideas ceiling for a restoration of Gnosticism and with the whole Greek philosophy is interesting, although say no. The message of the cross to the Greeks foolishness right and that whole gospel messages influenced by creation ex X Nilo you know so clearly something different was being taught.
I mean, they would've thought it was so foolish.
If it just blended in with all of their philosophies already measure so you nodding quite a bit while he was talking some guessing you come up against some of these arguments before. Yeah, I was actually reading an article from bentonite nine January & where they're talking about all the restoration of all the major doctors because it spent in errors using these exiting the caller saying this is written by Donald Q Cannon guessing is George q. Cannon son Larry Udall and John W. Welch, and they were saying the same things as they were saying that original Christianity taught creation from ex materia from something and Christians later corrupted it through Greek philosophy, lusty to current supply may be largely responsible for the change of traditional Christian doctrine Gnostic ideas and Greek philosophy both Gnostics and Greek philosophers thought that only the spiritist you're in the body matter are corrupt. There is therefore inconceivable for them to believe that material things to spiritual things because of such ideas.
X Nilo creation, a pillar of Satan. Traditional Christianity is commonly accepted view of creation was what just challenged as he initiated a return to the view of your Christians that's inadequate. So yeah, this isn't something that were just coming up with by talking Latter Day Saints or something. We heard something that she published an enzyme in their official church so this these are things they've actually said and what's funny though to is like all your strength that it's kind of interesting but it's also a little bit of projection because when you read other creation myths like 3D Egyptian mystery. The Greek myths and even Plato and Lucretia setting his name was that they all believed the creation came out of pre-existing universe of pre-existing chaotic matter. Look always different creation myths and I think even the Greek myths they said that the that the universe is virtually like a river or sky or something and so then everything was kind of organizing what it is now so it is kind of funny that Tim asked as being the Gnostics ravens Gnostic you creation when you could just as easily point them to you know ancient Egyptian or ancient Sumerian or ancient Greek and I'll ideas creation says is kind of funny that it's like you know the accusations against us because just as easily use it against them so that this is for since were kind of talking a little bit about Gnosticism. If you think about the Latter Day Saints view of of cosmology right that there was a counsel in heaven, in which the plan of happiness was presented and that plan was presented by Jehovah right who would come to earth as Jesus Christ according Latter Day Saints theology and then a contrary view of her contrary plan was presented by Lucifer who would be cast out of heaven and become Satan according to Latter Day Saints theology in his contrary plan was that she would ensure that every every spare child of God would return to live with God again and he would force them right and it did.
There was a battle over agency of war in heaven over free agency. If you think about that.
The Gnostics is as a as I read from Alister McGrath. The Gnostics believed that there was this demiurge right this this lower deity that created evil world and the Christian Gnostics valentine absent, and others. They equated the demiurge with the God of the Old Testament, and so the Old Testament was not that the Old Testament God was not the God that they worshiped and so if you think about this is so for for Gnostics, there's this dualism right there is this eternal battle between good and evil, right, it's not.
It's not the Christian view that God created man God.
Angels, Satan rebelled as an angel right it's it's rather the view that there is this coequal evil force in continual battle against against God, and is, as I think through Latter Day Saints theology kind of holistically right if you say okay everyone who was ever born. Was it was an intelligence and autonomous being before God created them.
Spirit children and then created the moral if that's true, if that's the way things are than what you have is a Lucifer or Satan who is coequal with God's ear almost back in in form to the Gnostic teaching that there's this dualistic code eternal battle between good and evil. I don't think the Latter Day Saints theologian could claim that well God is is all-powerful over Lucifer. If Lucifer is not time that you know an eternal autonomous being.
Yes, all I'll stop there because I know will touch on more that later but just to the point that out. Yeah. And just to double that. And here I think that a lot of St. probably would say that yes God has power over Lucifer, maybe, but not over evil is a white hole in the universe, because there's always going to be somebody in that role in the Lucifer's movements. He's put away for eternity, like there's still going to be evil by now you touch onto because he said there's basically this this duality is always good. There's always evil and that question is that creation ex materia do something to God's current status and I think it's very hard to even say that God is eternally God.
If everything's created ex materia because that means that at one point God was an intelligence autonomous intelligence coup had to be formed by a higher being. Otherwise he wouldn't exist and and he had no free agency until it was given him and it's hard to say that some sort of being in that form could really be God. So there was a point where he was not God, do you guys agree with that guy I think you are spot on their mind when I had this conversation with Latter Day Saints and asked them no have you had you account for how God the father became God right because they're kind of shying away from the teachings of King Follett there shying away from the teachings of Joseph Smith in the sermon in the Grove where he explicitly taught that the father had a father and and so on. Back in a grandfather and all of that which you were just kind of talking about Michael and the out that they kind of go to now is that well maybe God the father is the first God to have traversed the path of exultation right but that doesn't really get you anywhere because you you know you you were say.
Well, I think they would just say well, of course, God the father has power over Lucifer, but he doesn't necessarily have power over evil in the universe right will if you say that God the father. Elohim is the first to traverse the path of exultation what it you know what is to stop Lucifer from doing the same right that they say that he is cast down in the hell never received a mortal body, but if if Elohim figured it out and is the first to do it. Why couldn't Lucifer figure it out to cinnamon so doesn't really get you anywhere. Another think is I've never actually heard the claim that Elohim was the first to Trevor. Maybe the father is the first God, but I think the only consistent position to take their is actually the Christian position that the father was never created and was always God and never had to go through a appearing of going to North because the second he stated Elohim went to an earth and had progress will who was tempting him that is, that says that there had to be an evil being tempting him before there ever was a God and whose atonement was he using if he was the first to undergo that sensing that he was completely sinister. I have never heard that before. So that's pretty interesting to go into all that detail.
I think they're just trying to trying just to back away from King Follett in the sermon in the Grove but there also trying to maintain creation ex materia right because Joseph Smith clearly taught that we are all were all intelligences. So yeah, I mean that that's what I say doesn't really get them anywhere because really it for it places them almost at the Christian position right way to say that Elohim is the first God right but at the same time if if we are to become like him.
It's a pattern that we have to follow right so they have to maintain that he followed some type of path. It we're going to follow as well is a pattern and they're always putting Christ is saying I can do this.
I'm getting nothing of himself and what he sees the father dealing the state yes because the father went to the same the exact same thing but then you to get out of the car to get out of the charge of another being other gods prior to Elohim. That's where they get us, where the guy was all he was the first to do it for sure yet underneath. Matthew any other thoughts on that as a good discussion of talk to Latter Day Saints that tried to kind of reinterpret the King Follett discourse to try to make it sound like Joseph Smith wasn't really saying that God father had always been God's time talking more about Jesus and how you know when you look at Philippians chapter 2 says that he emptied himself, and he took the form of a servant.
So there they try to use that kind of equation that this thing will start talking like a father suck but Jesus and how he humiliated himself to become man is not like he gave up his DAD but he took the form of a man so he can to give up his exalted status know Mike okay but that's just Christian orthodoxy does not want Latter Day Saints prophets and apostles of talk decades and the like. So, you risk admitting that if that's the case, then the King Follett discourse is completely misinterpreted by every LDS leader in the past hundred.
Whatever years and he said yeah probably so you know it's like you. You gotta throw your leaders under the bus to accept Christian orthodoxy or go fold it fall in but then at that point you got serious issues so Kendra Is a tricky situation that the other challenge their Matthew is that if they're going to take that road. They basically have to pretend that Joseph Smith didn't preach the sermon in the growth. A few weeks later, in which she more explicitly said there's a father God in a grandfather God and on back in an unending chain speaking tricky situations, listening to our brightness contrast from Micon to walk with Jesus when he is will you measure born and raised in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, commonly referred to as the Mormon faith.
All of us have left that religion and have been drawn to faith in Jesus Christ based on biblical teaching. The name of our podcast.
Our brightness reflects John 19 which calls Jesus, the true light which gives light to everyone you found life beyond Mormonism to be brighter than we were told in the light, we have is not our own. Thus, our brightness, our purpose is to share our journeys of faith what God has done in drawing us to his son to have conversations about all aspects of the transition years challenges, joys, and everything in between. Glad you found us and we hope you'll stick around.
One of these Latter Day Saints others are really enthusiastic about is to go around saying that we are literal children of God teaching countless lessons as a missionary to new investigators is to be one of the very first things that I would try to tell them we are literally God's children, and he cares about asked, casting his first Matthew but kind of in regards everything else we talked about as far as being intelligence and being formed out of that intelligence is it really possible for us to be literal children of God. Well, you have to start off with. How do you define God is what needs to be God, and it seems like that's where we start with completely different definitions as Bible believing Christians versus Latter Day Saints so it seems like try to member how I wanted to find the same God is basically someone who is an exalted celestial eyes and so this being is achieved exaltation in which the fullness of salvation and these there the summer Conkey said in his Mormon doctrine is that there's an infinite number of these exalted beings. And so when you think about it that way by their own definition that you could create a God I suppose. But when you define it in the low, the historical Orthodox Christian that God is eternal is the only being that has self existence within himself is unchanging.
He's independently doesn't require anything for sustenance of her existence, and there's no way can create a God because God is uncreated, so if you were to try to create a God it by definition without God because God by definition is uncreated, so I think it really just depends on how you define your terms terms of what you think God is and I think since we base our beliefs on what God is said in his word that there is no God before or after him that that that you cannot create a God there's no God, that's like him. There are God's able team or sons of God that are in terms of like heavenly beings, heavenly entities, but they're more like spiritual created beings that are subservient to God. But in terms of who God is and what he's like.
He says that he doesn't know anyone caustically is Isaiah chapters 44 through 46.
In particular, so yeah thing of Hannah) than circles but yet basically defined depends on how you define what God is. So in that sense, I think, by our definition can't be literal children of God because of their literal offsprings of God. We little God's presence. God's. He created them. That's just not possible.
Brilliant feedback on that we think I'll just think Matthew spot on the challenges this to a Latter Day Saints is specifically Joseph Smith statement of the King Follett sermon that the mind of the intelligence of the mind of man is coequal or coeternal with God.
There's various ways.
The Latter Day Saints theologians and scholars have tried to define what Joseph Smith and what LDS scripture means by intelligence, whether it's from the King Follett sermon or for the from the book of Abraham.
Chapter 3 book of Abraham.
Chapter 3 seems to present intelligence is plural, as autonomous entities right I saw the noble and great ones is what the what the book of Abraham says and you know just as an aside, there my my patriarchal blessing us as I was one of those noble and great ones. Prior to coming here and that is instrumental in casting Lucifer from heaven.
So Latter Day Saints theology definitely seems to can consider intelligences as may be akin to spirits. In some ways, but when you have this idea that matter. There's there's no what was the looks of the NC pastor quoted Matthew earlier. There's there's there's no immaterial matter when you have that idea. Combined with this idea of intelligence that I don't I don't follow those Latter Day Saints thinkers who have tried to define intelligence as kind of like an amorphous massive of eternal matter from which spirit children were created. I don't know what that would mean on Latter Day Saints cosmology and I think most Latter Day Saints when they think of what their what their doctrine and teaching is on us being literal children is that were literal spirit offspring what the mechanism is for that isn't quite clear, especially if if Elohim is an exalted physical being. So I think Matt I think Michael you raise this this point in prayer prior episode. How does a physical being create a spirit being. How does a physical couple of mother and a father, God created a spiritual being that to get the whole idea of us being literal children of God.
I don't know where that comes from. I would love to hear a Latter Day Saints theologian explained that that mechanism to me, taking into account everything that's taught about intelligences.
Yeah the only thing that comes to my mind is your audience in the acts where Paul is supporting that the poet saying here is your own publicist January offspring. You're the offspring of God and offspring is typically a pretty strong word for you.
Literal children actually cannot stand that's the only place I can think of resistant a number of times and articles and probably shown the podcast where it doesn't make sense for two physical beings to create a spiritual offspring and it doesn't make sense that that offspring already existed before you even created them.
Basically if there eternal and Mormonism is true. That means that if I were to go to the celestial kingdom somehow, which is pretty unlikely that my spirit children already exist in some form, even though I am not like it and see older or any of that. Which means that they cannot possibly have both. You know like any given person cannot have both the father and the mother's DNA unit because his freedom of choice, and you know who's going to get hooked up with who. So how can they be a spirit children now that no one thing that did come to my mind and this is just going on My Way, Mormon hat again. But when we create children on earth.
We are using preexistent cereals, you know, our genes are forming another child. But those genes are inside of us.
It's not something outside of us that we are creating the little children so I do think it's very illogical and it's very very problematic. Did come out and say that we are literal children of God because really, not just can we not say that word literally has children but the other thing is Newman seem right to say that words children because we've always existed, were eternal and I'm thinking that means it were equal with God when you say it is interesting that it's kind of doing it do different definition of what it means to be a child. It's like, like how LDS believe that our spirit bodies preexists our physical bodies are physical forms so they are taking a spiritual entity and basically clothing/and now your neither parent has Same thing with God the father being our spiritual parents seeking pre-existing intelligences in reforming and reshaping them into spiritual bodies now is the parent. So it's kind like a totally different idea of what it means to get parent it's it's like taking something art exist like adding something to it or reshaping it or changing it in an and that something new now, and that's how your it's your the parents us, yet strange anything about Lance doubt it kinda makes sense in their own logic and that the internal logic of how to make sense, but it's got from the outside. It's kind of weird yeses, like when I take you know some fruits send apple juice and blend together make a smoothie and that's Lily's parent and then I drink it kind of twisted have about what that would yeah building you a home cooked meal again. Now that I know that that's my offspring.
So any room you need when you say you're going to drop the kids off. Cool literal.
Anyways moving on okay with her this question to you first. Matthew, live probably will of God can only rearrange pre-existing material, can he truly eradicate evil and I don't think you can go back to posting at the beginning of discussion for the radio segments is that if if God created if God didn't create from nothing that people already existed, and I've shared LDS use, as they say that God and in Christianity God is complicit in evil because he greets us from nothing is a since evil exists. He's at.
He is accountable for Craig, but in their view on some LDS's view since since we exist as intelligences and we have free will.
If you will get stopped.
God gives us.
We will protects every well well God is completely hands-off. He has no complicity in evil like existing so they would say that that takes care of the problem of God being of being accountable for evil, or why evil exists sculpt the Odyssey, but then you get into a pulsing earlier about this. It's good, but it is a very Gnostic idea that evil and good are just things always exist and that they're just constantly combating each other and there's no real clear winner. Even if God wins then there still has to be opposition in all things, so you also must exist, and if you believe it's one eternal round where we are supposed become celestial eyes beings that we have our wives we have spirit children and they are to fill our creations lower worlds then yeah I don't think you will ever can or will be defeated. It's something adjustable continually exist for eternity right you agree with that. All I do – strongly and to maybe try to put a finer point on it, trying to think out of how to phrase this so Matthew was describing this idea over this challenge that Latter Day Saints Matic right that that God is somehow complicit in evil. If he creates ask Nilo but I don't think Mormons are really off born of that dilemma, and here's why. According to Mormon cosmology. God's plan presupposed that we would fall and that we would need a Savior. So according to Mormon teachings God for new that evil would be a part of this mortal probation that were part of and created this world were fashioned this world or organize this world anyway so there right on the horns of that dilemma as well because he knew evil would exist here. Even if evil exists as a force that she cannot completely eradicate in the universe because he's not the ultimate creator of the universe, she created a world in which he knew evil would thrive in abound and he created it anyway so yeah that they don't get off the horns about the lamentable agree. They really don't get this versus second Nephi chapter 2, and something that he said stuck out where it has to be in opposition in all things in Mormon doctrine, so it was really a second Nephi chapter 2 verse 13 in the book of Mormon says if he shall say there is no longer shall also say there is no sin if you shall say there is no saying you shall also say there is no righteousness, and if there be no righteousness there be no happiness that there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery.
And if these things are not there is no God, so basically just this one statement here. If there is no sin. There is no righteousness and that means that there there God could not exist and taught. Honestly, I by himself without the forces of evil and sin being there because there is no righteousness if there is no standard.
If there are if there is no stand wickedness and punishment. There is no God made it explicitly says that) so our view is a completely different God than what their worldview can even fathom because our God does exist completely free of any need for evil to exist. So it's not just that God created evil or created the world, knowing that we would choose evil over that the LDS God actually needs that evil to existence and meaning that he has, whereas the Christian God does not have any needs whatsoever that may be. Maybe they would say that that is speaking specifically of this mortal probation may be they don't think that in an internal sense that God requires evil to exist just thinking of ways of how they might respond that. Yeah, although it does still say there's no God, so it it brings it up to that level, even if it's not directly talking about the eternal nature site. I think it still can be applied to that. I don't think they can really sidestep it. Okay, call Latter Day Saints sometime say that if we are created. Ask Nilo then God predetermines whether we will be sinners or saints. First off, does formation of intelligence sidestep this issue in second in your opinion, is Calvinism a logical byproduct of X-two questions. There does formation of intelligence sidestep this issue. No because like I was saying before, on Mormon cosmology, God still foreknew the same would enter the world presumably also knew the mechanism by which sin would enter the world if one believes the book of Mormon. She brought about the mechanism by which sin entered the world by placing two contrary commandments before Adam and Eve, which could not both be kept so no it doesn't sidestep the issue and then the second part of the question, in my opinion is Calvinism logical byproduct of creation. Ask Nilo but no, I don't think so many an Arminian theologian would strongly disagree that creation ex Nilo results in Calvinism.
They would argue that classical Arminian theologian would argue that God creates beings and they chose to created beings that he freely chose to created beings in his image with free will and by giving them free will. He freely chooses to limit himself with regards to forcing them to do one thing or another. Whether that is to say, in order to choose to believe in Jesus Christ. So you know creation ex Nilo does not assess Nesta necessarily result in my mouth doesn't work all that it does not necessarily result in Calvinism. Okay so one of the points that you mentioned in it and Elliott's friend. We talk quite often and he's really big into creation ex materia and he is strongly of the opinion I think a lot of Latter Day Saints are if you embrace ex Nilo then here you got embrace communism to want to stay consistent in his reasoning is that yes God gave me a given agency to wherever he creates the freedom of choice, but in creating ask. He's given us already are tendencies to either be known quickly and are good or obedient or are not trusting of Godalming, do you think that there's any truth to that are not a valid point.
No, it's not a valid point because even even on on Calvinism. As I understand it from my many conversations with my friend Matthew even on Calvinism. Adam was created an empty vessel who had free will to choose good or evil, but was also innocent and I did not know. Also, so no it doesn't necessarily lead to Calvinism because even on Calvinism.
God is powerful enough to created being who is an empty vessel. It seems like there are trying to equate Calvinism with just hard determinism, which, depending on how you define it. I think Calvinism is honest on a certain spectrum of determinism in the sense that if you define determinism as God knows everything that's going to happen. Saving classical Christians.
The theists would be somewhere on the deterministic spectrum it would only be really open theists that could be able to say we don't. God does know exactly it's going to happen.
He knows all possible possibilities, or contingencies, but he doesn't know exactly which will will come to pass.
So even Arminians callously. We believe that God knows what's going to happen.
Get in. So it seems like there are trying to say that while God creates anything out of nothing that God is a hard determinist that were just going to do exactly everything that that we were made to do and have no other decision but to do what were programmed to do as if we don't have a will of our own. That's what it sounds like for me my perspectives.
I don't think that's really a Calvinist Arminian or or any other kind of view it's it's it's it's kind of a misunderstanding of of these various views because they don't believe that were just hard determinist and that it which in and out of working or puppet of its about a will of Stephen Callis to believe that we have a will of our it's just that our will follow nature of man are will is a slave to sin, which is what you said and says your slight sin. So we still choose.
We still choose to sit still choose to indulge in our sins because that's our nature got us to change your heart, so that our nature is changed so that we will that we will during after righteousness after God and come to faith so I don't just some thoughts I had on so that lets you rebuttal all debate here, but none of them because I was a running clock. Okay well if there's any Latter Day Saints them listening and you just heard from a real life Calvinist that does not necessarily mean that Calvinism is true.
Just because God creates out of nothing so and they heard from a real live, many in a while, so your is there another word for something that's in between the two matters likely pointers for cleaners temporality is the okay believe them just push back on on the Latter Day Saints that that makes that claim.
So Michael, you and I have talked on on the phone before about my experience going to a classically Arminian seminary and studying under two theology professors who had both studied at Princeton theological seminary back before it went very liberal, and so they they were trained and in return and theology, and so they they understood well reformed theology from the from the more, Calvinistic side of things and they they taught us Arminian theology and they taught it, taught it to us in contrast with Calvinist theology, but they did so in a very charitable way and you know we pointed out many times but I think it's worth repeating. Latter Day Saints will often charge that Christians are so divided, and a minute Joseph Smith even did it, you know, in his writings about the first is his first vision know that that there's just pretended unity right but that's not been my experience at all studying for for advanced degree in biblical studies of the other Christian seminary is not been you know that there were with me studying in those classes there were Calvinists who were attending the seminary because it was close to where they live and they wanted to get a higher level of the biblical studies archaeological studies education estate prepared for ministry. And I never experienced animosity in those classes between students or between students and professors I saw Christian love and respect and a willingness to dialogue with one another and so that's been my experience on the Christian side just like to have to to challenge Latter Day Saints with regards to Calvinism to have had that charitable attitude don't don't buy into the oh mood makes you robots are mixed up. It's kind of cheap barbs that people toss out there because although all those really equate to regard the direction to some of the cheap barbs that that like the new atheists throw it Christians you believe in the sky God the sky daddy you know that that's what you sound like when you're when you're talking out the puppet or the robot charge.
So this is my challenge Latter Day Saints. That's great, thank you for doing into this number seven of the outer ring as hard as we love to hear from please visit the out of line is not free to send us a message that comments are clicking send a message at the time the pain appreciated the page aligned. We also have and how to write is in others. As we discussed the pursuit can also send this writing is right to the other brightness podcast on podcasts cast box cast cast the spot of science teacher. Also you can check out our new YouTube channel. If you like it certainly is likely surveyed also connect with Michael just wind up lungs and sometimes Poland method you as well. Music for the other brightness podcast is graciously provided by the talented Breanna Flournoy and by Adams Road. Learn more about Adams Road. By visiting their ministry page. It Adams Road ministry.com. Stay bright fireflies to show in the daily kind will do, and is and a man in the he may and and and and and and the human way that an and in