Bill Hamblin Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 Bill:1. False. There are evangelical doctrines of deification or theosis. I have documented evangelicals affirming the validity of theosis and arguing that it should be recognized as a legitimate part of the evangelical theological heritage.2. True. There are hundreds of millions of evangelicals, and most have not studied historical theology. Most would also not have heard terms like perichoresis. In fact, I would guess that most would not recognize the term homoousios. So the ignorance of the masses in evangelicalism of such theological terms is not particularly relevant to whether these terms express something to which evangelicals can agree.3. True, if they hear the word but don't have it explained to them adequately; false, if they do have it explained to them adequately.4. True, if you are including the theological vocabulary, since most if not all evangelicals do not think the vocabulary is biblical; false, if we are talking about what the words mean in the early church fathers; true, with regard to Greek Orthodoxy (Palamas, et. al.), I agree that evangelicals don't accept Greek Orthodox soteriology in toto.5. True.OK, things have been clarified. On #1, I meant a doctrine of deification as widely accepted and embraced by most Evangelicals. I think you would agree there is no such thing. What you are describing is theological speculations by some Evangelical scholars who are trying to engage the ancient Christian ideas about deification. That's quite a different thing. But lets not quibble.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 I have revised part four of my blog series, "Did Joseph Smith Restore Theosis?" We were discussing this post, subtitled "Esoteric Jewish Theology and Joseph Smith's Doctrine of Exaltation," in an earlier thread. I have made some significant revisions to the article that I think should overcome most if not all of the criticisms that were made in that thread.Thanks to those who expressed those criticisms.Before I read it...what is the purpose. Are you Jewish?
Bill Hamblin Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 Bill,Now it's your turn:Other than a general disinclination to use words like deification, theosis, etc., what, in your opinion, is the substantive way in which all evangelical theology differs from all ancient Greek patristic teachings about deification?Have you read Russell's Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition? They are legion. First would be the role of the eucharist in deification. The central importance of mysticism. The role of monasticism. The nature of sainthood. Deification of Mary. Etc.
Bill Hamblin Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 Other than a general disinclination to use words like deification, theosis, etc., what, in your opinion, is the substantive way in which all evangelical theology differs from all ancient Greek patristic teachings about deification?The words, by the way, are important. Deification--however understood--means becoming God. Evangelicals have a very hard time with that idea, unless redefined to mean something else.
Bill Hamblin Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 (edited) God will share His glory with us, but He will always be more glorious than we will ever be. As we glorify Him, He shares that glory with us, which glorifies Him even more, and so forth. It's like running towards a mirage. You can run as fast as you like, but you will never reach it.It's the ancient mirror analogy. We reflect God's glory like a mirror reflects the light. The mirror is not an independent source of the light, but the light in the mirror is real light. Edited October 3, 2011 by Bill Hamblin
Rob Bowman Posted October 3, 2011 Author Posted October 3, 2011 Bill,You wrote:On #1, I meant a doctrine of deification as widely accepted and embraced by most Evangelicals.Bill, I'm going to keep reminding you of your original assertion until you address it fairly and squarely. Your original assertion was that evangelicals "consistently reject" deification.You wrote:But lets not quibble.Yes, let's not.
Rob Bowman Posted October 3, 2011 Author Posted October 3, 2011 Steve,You wrote:God will share His glory with us, but He will always be more glorious than we will ever be. As we glorify Him, He shares that glory with us, which glorifies Him even more, and so forth. It's like running towards a mirage. You can run as fast as you like, but you will never reach it.Gospel Principles says the exalted will have "all glory." Do you have a secret decoder ring that reveals that "all" here means something other than all?
Rob Bowman Posted October 3, 2011 Author Posted October 3, 2011 Pa Pa,You wrote:Before I read it...what is the purpose. Are you Jewish?Why do you ask?And have you asked Dan Peterson if he is Jewish?
Rob Bowman Posted October 3, 2011 Author Posted October 3, 2011 Bill,The question was, "Other than a general disinclination to use words like deification, theosis, etc., what, in your opinion, is the substantive way in which all evangelical theology differs from all ancient Greek patristic teachings about deification?" Is it your claim that all ancient Greek patristic writers who affirmed deification taught that it involved the Eucharist and monasticism? Are all of the Greek fathers mystics? Do they all teach that Mary was deified (in some way other than the way all believers will be deified)?Have you read Russell's Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition? They are legion. First would be the role of the eucharist in deification. The central importance of mysticism. The role of monasticism. The nature of sainthood. Deification of Mary. Etc.
Rob Bowman Posted October 3, 2011 Author Posted October 3, 2011 Bill,You wrote:The words, by the way, are important. Deification--however understood--means becoming God. Evangelicals have a very hard time with that idea, unless redefined to mean something else.The church fathers also "redefined" deification, since they made it clear that believers will not actually become God, i.e., they will not become the being known as God.
KevinG Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 Steve,You wrote:Gospel Principles says the exalted will have "all glory." Do you have a secret decoder ring that reveals that "all" here means something other than all?Rob - what does the statement "joint heirs with Christ" mean to you?
Bill Hamblin Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 The church fathers also "redefined" deification, since they made it clear that believers will not actually become God, i.e., they will not become the being known as God.GO generally teach that deification means becoming god in all but his essence. Do Evangelicals believe that?
Bill Hamblin Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 3. True, if they hear the word but don't have it explained to them adequately; false, if they do have it explained to them adequately.Which is what I mean by playing word games.Look, the word Trinity means believe in three gods united in one. There have been lots of different ways Christians have understood the Trinity. So Mormons say we believe in the Trinity, though we don't believe in the Nicene Creed, without completely changing the meaning of the word Trinity. Deification/Theosis, on the other hand, means becoming god. There have been lots of different ways Christians have understood the concept of deification. Mormons believe in deification, though we don't believe in many aspects of the way the GO understand deification. Evangelicals, on the other hand, don't really believe in deification in the standard meaning of the term--becoming god. They qualify the meaning so that it equates with Evangelical sanctification and glorification, which they then call deification. But in doing so they transform the core meaning of the term from "becoming God" to something else. The Rakestraw article said precisely that. See the difference? It's not a problem of having differing concepts of deification. It is a problem of redefining the term deification so that it means something other than deification. Why would an Evangelical theologian want to use the term deification when they already have a term glorification, which accurately and precisely defines their belief?
Bill Hamblin Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 The church fathers also "redefined" deification, since they made it clear that believers will not actually become God, i.e., they will not become the being known as God.So? They still believe they do become gods. Its not THE God but it is A god.
Bill Hamblin Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 Bill, I'm going to keep reminding you of your original assertion until you address it fairly and squarely. Your original assertion was that evangelicals "consistently reject" deification.Quibbling! Consistently does not mean "universally." It means broadly and generally. But let's not quibble.
Rob Bowman Posted October 3, 2011 Author Posted October 3, 2011 DaddyG,You asked:Rob - what does the statement "joint heirs with Christ" mean to you?It means that God adopts believers in Christ as his "children," bestowing on them immortality and physical and spiritual perfection, conforming them to the image of Christ in those respects, making them inheritors with Christ of the eternal kingdom. It does not mean that they become Gods, i.e., it does not mean that they become omnipotent, omniscient beings. See my Parchment and Pen article that discusses this very statement in Romans 8.
Bill Hamblin Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 The question was, "Other than a general disinclination to use words like deification, theosis, etc., what, in your opinion, is the substantive way in which all evangelical theology differs from all ancient Greek patristic teachings about deification?" Is it your claim that all ancient Greek patristic writers who affirmed deification taught that it involved the Eucharist and monasticism? Are all of the Greek fathers mystics? Do they all teach that Mary was deified (in some way other than the way all believers will be deified)?Good grief, I'm not going to write a book for you. It's already been done. Read Russell and see for yourself.
Rob Bowman Posted October 3, 2011 Author Posted October 3, 2011 Bill,That's a very big qualification! It confirms my point that even the church fathers "redefined" deification. You wouldn't exclude that the exalted will become gods in essence, do you?Evangelicals would agree with that statement in a proper context, but I'm guessing we disagree about what that context is.GO generally teach that deification means becoming god in all but his essence. Do Evangelicals believe that?
Bill Hamblin Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 (edited) Bill,That's a very big qualification! It confirms my point that even the church fathers "redefined" deification. You wouldn't exclude that the exalted will become gods in essence, do you?Evangelicals would agree with that statement in a proper context, but I'm guessing we disagree about what that context is.Essence (ousia) is a made up hellenistic philosophical and theological category, which has little if anything to do with the reality of God and essentially nothing to do with Mormonism. When Symeon and Palamas distinguish God's ousia from his energia/energy they are essentially making stuff up. They do this so they can simultaneously claim that they really do become god in his energia, but not in his ousia, thereby retaining the idea of true deification without threatening God's uniqueness. But in their view it really is deification. Its not Evangelical glorification described using the word deification.When Evangelicals talk about this, they always qualify by saying, "You know, we really don't become a god. We become a glorified immortal being that is in the presence of God, but we're going to call that deification." This is precisely what you said.So I ask you. Do you believe you will become a god in the hereafter? Edited October 3, 2011 by Bill Hamblin
Rob Bowman Posted October 3, 2011 Author Posted October 3, 2011 Bill,I'm not going to write a book for you, either. You could answer my questions in just a few words, like "Yes" or "No." So it seems you're ducking this one. Russell's book (which we have in our library and which I have been studying recently) does not support some of what you say. For example, Russell says nothing about Mary playing any significant role in deification, and he doesn't even seem to mention her being deified. Monasticism is irrelevant to the church fathers of the second and third centuries, at least. It is also dubious to claim that all of the Greek fathers who taught deification embraced mysticism. I think a fair answer to my question would have to acknowledge that there is nothing essential to all deification teaching in the ancient church fathers that is rejected by all evangelicals.Good grief, I'm not going to write a book for you. It's already been done. Read Russell and see for yourself.
Bill Hamblin Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 (edited) Bill,I'm not going to write a book for you, either. You could answer my questions in just a few words, like "Yes" or "No." So it seems you're ducking this one. Russell's book (which we have in our library and which I have been studying recently) does not support some of what you say. For example, Russell says nothing about Mary playing any significant role in deification, and he doesn't even seem to mention her being deified. Monasticism is irrelevant to the church fathers of the second and third centuries, at least. It is also dubious to claim that all of the Greek fathers who taught deification embraced mysticism. I think a fair answer to my question would have to acknowledge that there is nothing essential to all deification teaching in the ancient church fathers that is rejected by all evangelicals.Good grief, this is a preposterous question. There is nothing essential to all deification teaching in the ancient church fathers, period. There are many different perspectives. Saints are deified humans from the Greek perspective. Mary is the greatest of the saints. Therefore she is deified. Would Evangelicals say that Mary is deified? Would any of them use that language. Mormons and GO would.Would Evangelicals accept the Neoplatonic assumptions of Clement and Origen? I really doubt it. The reality is that the imaginal and conceptual world of the early Fathers is very distant from that of the Evangelicals. Edited October 3, 2011 by Bill Hamblin
Rob Bowman Posted October 3, 2011 Author Posted October 3, 2011 Bill,"Consistently" means "broadly and generally"; got it. And I presume "I have never seen it" means "I don't see it very often."I must get one of those secret decoder rings.Quibbling! Consistently does not mean "universally." It means broadly and generally. But let's not quibble.
Bill Hamblin Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 Bill,"Consistently" means "broadly and generally"; got it. And I presume "I have never seen it" means "I don't see it very often."I must get one of those secret decoder rings.Quibble, quibble, quibble.
LeSellers Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 (edited) You might consider editing this. FixedLehi, himself the fumble-fingered Edited October 3, 2011 by LeSellers
Rob Bowman Posted October 3, 2011 Author Posted October 3, 2011 Bill,On the one hand, you say there is no one patristic doctrine of deification. On the other hand, you insist that no evangelical agrees with the patristic doctrine of deification. Hmm.On the one hand, you want to argue that Mormons, the Greek fathers, and the Eastern Orthodox line up on one side of the deification/no-deification divide. On the other hand, you acknowledge that the Greek/Eastern deification tradition largely developed in the context of Neoplatonic assumptions, which presumably if we were discussing the Trinity you would be criticizing. Hmm.As far as I can tell, evangelicals agree with at least some of the church fathers as to what the "deified" believer will be, i.e., what kind of being he or she will be, what essential changes that transformation will involve. Obviously, we disagree with them regarding various aspects of their teachings as to how believers get there, including their sacramentalism, their Neoplatonic understanding of the spiritual life, etc.If any believers are currently "deified," Mary would be. Evangelicals have a problem with the Roman Catholic Mariological doctrines that place her in a key if not unique role in church piety and the Christian life.God grief, this is a preposterous question. There is nothing essential to all deification teaching in the ancient church fathers, period. There are many different perspectives. Saints are deified humans from the Greek perspective. Mary is the greatest of the saints. Therefore she is deified. Would Evangelicals say that Mary is deified? Would any of them use that language. Mormons and GO would.Would Evangelicals accept the Neoplatonic assumptions of Clement and Origen? I really doubt it. The reality is that the imaginal and conceptual world of the early Fathers is very distant from that of the Evangelicals.
Recommended Posts