Also, David Paulsen and Brett McDonald have just published their paper comparing Joseph Smith’s view on Godhead with the Social Trinitarian model now accepted by many Christian, including Evangelical, philosophers. Richard Mouw considers it an important step. See this link: http://ldsfocuschrist.blogspot.com/2007/07/reassessing-joseph-smiths-theology-in.html

Thanks for letting me know what you think;
Steve St.Clair

Gerald McDermott

Personally I feel the Bible does not give enough information to come to a conclusion on those questions.

Eriol, thanks for your reply too. So do you think God created the zygote and placed it in Mary, not using one of Mary’s eggs at all? I am sorry if this kind of question offends anyone and surely hope it does not. If God did NOT use one of Mary’s eggs, then, in a way, Mary is not the biological mother of Jesus at all. Jesus just “borrowed” her womb to grow as a human being. She surely would be his mother in the sense that she raised him, the same that any adoptive mother would be. And that makes her just as important, but different.

I will be very interested to see what Ed has to say about this.

Joanie, you’ve asked some important questions related to the logical coherence of the Incarnation. I’ll try to address each one succinctly and separately in future blogs. Please be patient with me; I have major project deadlines this week and next.

Taffy, I’ll try to start posting some excerpts from the book in a week or two.

Ed Kratz, you raise a very valid concern. As you know, I’m eager to converse with folks of different theological persuasions—even if those folks fall outside the pale of what I consider to be orthodox. But such conversations can never involve compromise on essentials of the faith. We can be friendly without being fickle; we can watch our tone without changing our tune.

I’m not bothered, in itself, by the fact that an evangelical and a Mormon spoke jointly through an evangelical megaphone. But the distortion made me cringe. There’s simply no way that a Jesus whose godhood had a starting point and can be duplicated in other humans is comparable to the Jesus whose eternal, one-of-a-kind deity is professed by evangelicals. But even with an evangelical co-author and evangelical editors, a different impression was allowed to stand.

This is by no means an isolated incident. A few years back I read a book about Jesus that was published by one of the largest evangelical publishing houses on the planet. In that book, the author flatly stated that Jesus swapped his divinity for humanity. I couldn’t believe that he had written that, and I was even more stupefied that none of the editors caught it.

So what’s an average layperson to do? Three quick thoughts come to mind. First, learn to sniff bad theology by systematically studying good theology. The Theology Program provides this opportunity in a biblically grounded, historically sensitive, widely accessible way. Those of you, like Ed Kratz, who have been through the program know its value on this front.

Second, listen to more than one voice. It’s troublesome (and a bit creepy!) when people put a particular pastor, professor, author, etc., on a lone pedestal. I’ve known more than one person who would only read books by John MacArthur, sit under a pastor trained at DTS, or take a course led by Michael Patton. [Okay, I just added the third example for the sake of style.] Just as a single nutrient consumed alone and in excess can become toxic to the body, too much exposure to one limited perspective can produce theological blind spots. This is why Reclaiming the Mind Ministries is committed to exposing folks to various viewpoints within the Christian tradition, as can be clearly seen in our list of past guests for the Converse with Scholars webcast.

Third, continually watch your doctrine—and let others see it, too. Our theology is not something that we construct and then file away for retrieval as needed. It requires continual maintenance and ongoing refinement. Practically speaking, I think we should all, at any given time, be doing something to grow in our theological knowledge. This may mean putting the Christian living book or inspirational novel down for awhile. And it will certainly mean letting our guard down. Theology is meant to be done in community, with growing transparency that lends itself to genuine accountability. But theological community doesn’t exist merely for the sake of checks and balances; it’s the means by which God has ordained that we all grow.

I believe that there’s a certain protection that accompanies broad, balanced learning in the context of community. We simply need to do what we can in these three areas and lean heavily on God’s grace, asking him to set us—and keep us—on paths of truth.

Things like this always throw me for a loop, and when I pick up a book that has forewords or recommendations from scholars that I respect only to find that books author is contrary to the Evangelical Christian understanding of the topic at hand I’m equally discouraged and confused.

How is a layman such as myself to know who and what to read when it seems people who hold to a specific view appear to put their names on anything as long as it opens a door for discussion?

Michael is just playing with us. He knows I’m right.

Yes Chad the text does disappear on the right except for one of my computers, it lets me see it all.

You have two options. You must type eloquently and short on the left side or type in word and then copy and paste.

Michael is just playing with us. He knows I’m right.

Yes Chad the text does disappear, except one of my computers actually lets you see it all.

You have two options. Be very eloquent and short on the left side or type in word and copy and paste.

P.S. am I the only one who has all the right sided text invisible in the reply box as you’re typing?

A couple of answers off the top of my head (FWIW). Your questions have to do with anthropology and the nature of the Incarnation, both important theological matters.

Jesus is from everlasting, i.e., He always has been and always will be. He existed prior to the Incarnation, at which time He took upon Himself the likeness of human flesh. His embodiment had a beginning but He was always in existence: personhood, as I understand it, resides in the spirit of the person. The Person of Jesus Christ, the Second Member of the Triune God, took upon human flesh and was fully human.

Second, it is no problem for God to create a human zygote and implant it in Mary: He created the first human form and then breathed life into him; He can easily create another human form in which the Son of God may dwell and to which the Son gave life. Jesus’ earthly body had the DNA given Him by God, even as Adam’s DNA had been given to him by God.

Hope this helps. Sorry if it’s confused or too abbreviated.

I’m glad others share my argument about the cults who claim to be Christian. We have Christian meetings and I know for certain that Mormons attend. One even asked if he could help educate others in “our belief.” Ahhh. I don’t have the authority to say no, but I have to make sure that he doesn’t whip out the book of Mormon. Although they agree with the diety of Christ, I think you said that they also believe that we will eventually have the same status as our Savior and God also has a wife. I’m crossing myself as we speak. (At the same time I am also looking up to see if your book can be purchased anywhere near here.)

Keep up the great work.

Great post Ed. It is amazing that this type of affirmation can make it into a mainstream Christian magazine such as Christianity today without notice or challenge.

We need to keep in check those who name Christ as Lord and yet diminish His essential being.

I am so looking forward to your book, Ed.

Ed Said:

“If there’s interest, perhaps I can post some relevant excerpts in future blog entries”

Bring it on bro!

Thanks for bringing this out with your post and with yours and Rob’s book. I cringe when I hear other Christians refer to Mormons or JWs as “denominations”, as though they are Christians, too, like Baptist, Methodists, etc. Words have been emptied of any real meaning, becoming useless veneers.

You wrote something that I would like you to expand on, if you have the time. You write “…traditional Christian teaching has vigorously maintained that the Son is true deity by virtue of the fact that he is an uncreated being who has always existed in the form of God.” I agree that is what has been taught, but I don’t fully understand it. If the Son is an “uncreated being” and Jesus is a fully human (as well as fully divine) being, then isn’t Jesus himself “created” since he is a physical being? Are we saying that the Son is “in” Jesus? Jesus as a man had a birth-date, being born of Mary.

Another thing I started wondering about lately is that Jesus commented that John the Baptist was the greatest human being born of woman. So I always took him to understand that he was referring to being “born of woman” to mean people who were born by first being conceived through the coming together of a man and a woman, which didn’t happen in Jesus’ case. But the part I started wondering about is that I always figured that God still “used” an egg within Mary to conceive Jesus and now I am wondering if maybe God didn’t even use the egg but instead conceived Jesus within Mary without a sperm or an egg. But if that is so, how can we say that he is “fully human?” In fact, if Jesus didn’t have DNA contributed by a man, how still can we say that he is fully human? Perhaps you answer all this in your book.

Thank you for your time and I am sorry if this sounds so basic that I am silly for not understanding.

Joanie