Did Joseph Smith Restore Theosis? Part Four: Esoteric Jewish Theology

[Ares]

Ares,

You wrote:

Does this mean that Bill has agreed to show me respect whether he thinks I have earned it or not?

It means the level of respect any poster is likely to receive is commensurate with the amount they demonstrate. That includes showing respect for others beliefs and answering questions.

[Rob Bowman]

Ares,

You wrote:

It means the level of respect any poster is likely to receive is commensurate with the amount they demonstrate. That includes showing respect for others beliefs and answering questions.

Just to clarify, are you suggesting that if I don't get around to answering one of Bill's questions -- despite answering several other questions from him and others -- or if I decline to answer a question he asked in a post that dismisses what I say as nonsense and word games, that I have failed to demonstrate sufficient respect for him? And are you saying that the board guideline does not apply if one poster views another poster as not showing him sufficient respect?

[Bill Hamblin]

If you are concerned, use the report function. I find the mods generally respond quite quickly, occasionally there's a delay, but it's rare I see no action and those cases it was an iffy thing.

Add-on, there is a difference between being respectful to a person based on the fact that he is a fellow human being and requiring unearned respect (acceptance as valid or well reasoned, etc) for research, arguments, etc. I believe the rules apply to the first and Dr. Hamblin's comment applied to the latter in that he doesn't believe you have established a strong enough foundation for your argument, but rely primarily on assertion....he can correct me if I am misreading him.

Exactly.

[Bill Hamblin]

Just to clarify, are you suggesting that if I don't get around to answering one of Bill's questions -- despite answering several other questions from him and others -- or if I decline to answer a question he asked in a post that dismisses what I say as nonsense and word games, that I have failed to demonstrate sufficient respect for him? And are you saying that the board guideline does not apply if one poster views another poster as not showing him sufficient respect?

With all due respect, I respectfully ask that you answer my questions, and my CFR.

[Ares]

Rob,

Stop arguing with me and don't play the game of re-defining what I said to fit your position. If you believe your position is not nonsense then show why. If Bill believes his position is not nonsense then he should show why.

No one should use being offended as an excuse not to engage the subject honestly.

We are moderators not your mother. This is an LDS discussion and dialogue board not a debate club. The rules have been developed over time to help discussion not stifle it when someone gets uncomfortable or cries foul. They are certainly not there to help someone avoid answering questions when the discussion gets uncomfortable for their position.

[wenglund]

Wade,

I had written:

"I understood YOU to be saying that Joseph meant that God was not God in every possible sense."

You replied:

I can see how you misunderstood the sentence I wrote, quoted above. There are three possibilities:

1. God was not God in any sense.

2. God was God in some senses but not in every sense.

3. God was God in every sense.

I understood, and understand, you to hold that (2) is correct. That is, you understand Joseph Smith in the KFD to mean that God was God in some senses but not in every sense.

Is that correct? If so, I have understood you all along, even if we kept having difficulty getting this stated clearly enough.

You wrote:

I agree that I am remarkably stubborn. The rest of your characterization of me is false.

You wrote:

I got that this was your position the first time you said it.

So, let me see if I can correctly state what you are arguing here. Your understanding of Joseph's position is that before coming to the earth in mortality, Jesus Christ was "God" in some senses but not in every sense. Specifically, you argue that according to Joseph, Christ was lacking in some glory and was not yet perfect. Further, you claim that in Joseph's teaching Christ could not attain this glory and perfection except by dying and being resurrected from the grave. You also contend that Joseph taught that the same was true of the Father: he was not yet fully glorious or perfect until after he passed through mortality, died, and rose from the dead. Once he did so, he became "God" in every sense, and likewise when Jesus rose from the dead he became "God" in every sense.

Is this a correct understanding of what you are saying was Joseph's position? I would also like to know, is this also your personal belief, and do you consider this to be official LDS doctrine?

Yes. That is correct. If that is what you understood all along, then i apologize for thinking you had not correctly understood me.

In follow-up posts, I will explain in greater detail the ways in which I believe Christ was "God" prior to mortality and for "eternity," as well as the ways I believe he wasn't "God" prior to his birth and also prior to his resurrection.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[volgadon]

volgadon,

Orthodox Christians, including evangelicals, expect that the redeemed in the new heavens and new earth will have experiences beyond our present understanding.

Yet these texts aren't talking about vague experiences beyond our current understanding, they are talking about men receiving the same condition as God, receiving his power, and repeating his acts.

[Bill Hamblin]

Those who are interested can read:

Roger E. Olson "Deification in Contemporary Theology" Theology Today 2007 64: 186-200

Available at: http://ttj.sagepub.c.../2/186.full.pdf

He notes about half a dozen contemporary Protestant theologians (not all Evangelicals) who are engaging the ancient ideas of deification. He also notes, however, the following issues, which are precisely what I describe to Rob.

Nevertheless, Protestants have often been reluctant to speak of real deification. Roman Catholics have always believed in it and spoken of it even if not precisely as it has been taught in Eastern Orthodoxy. In any case, it never was rejected by Roman Catholics as much as by Protestants (187)

Some contemporary [Protestant] theologians continue to have little or no use for deification. (189)

[Rejection of Greek conceptions] inevitably to one of two results: either a near-pantheistic identity of the redeemed person with God or belief that deification is merely a metaphor and not real participation in God. (192)

LaCugna is a good example of a contemporary Western theologian who appropriates deification language without reference to the Eastern essence/energies distinction. The question, of course, is whether this is still deification. If deification has any standard, the definition provided by the Eastern Orthodox tradition must be taken very seriously. To a very large extent both Catholic and Protestant traditions abandoned it for a long time. It seems somehow disingenuous for them now to rediscover union with Christ and call it deification, (193)

Norris provides a good example of a Western theologian who dares to appropriate not just the language and imagery of deification but also its metaphysical underpinnings. (194)

In the end one wonders if he (Pinnock) has really expressed deification or simply a traditional Protestant notion of union between God and redeemed persons through Christ and the Spirit.

Those who reject it [Palamas essence/engery distinction] or purposely neglect it should probably find some other term for their belief in real, ontological union between God and the believer. (199)

In other words, Olson agrees with my conclusions. Deification is not widespread among Evangelicals, and when they do talk of it, they generally use the term without engaging the actual substance of the idea.

Edited October 2, 2011 by Bill Hamblin

[Calm]

I would like to point out that Dr. Hamblin's only redefining of Mr. Bowman's beliefs that I have seen is his pointing out that the term 'deification' is used differently by Evangelicals and many Protestants than other Christians such as Orthodox, RCC and LDS (not claiming here our usage is identical). He does not appear to me to be correcting Mr. Bowman about any content of his beliefs, just language, ie it is 'nonsense' to equate the different beliefs even if the label is the same.

And I suspect that Dr. Hamblin is only concerned with interfaith or academic dialogue and has no care for what Evangelicals chose to call any of their beliefs among themselves.

If I am correct, then this is the same issue that LDS have where we must exercise care to define terms such as salvation when discussing such beliefs with nonLDS to avoid misunderstanding. I do not perceive an expectation for clarity to be anything close to an attack or insisting that one knows the other's beliefs better than the other.

Again, Dr. Hamblin can correct me if I've misread him.

The issue of the ancient church fathers from what I have read is simply one of interpretation no different than interpretation of the Bible where one claims their interpretation is correct and the other rejects that claim. Dr. Hamblin says nothing different about Evangelical belief than Mr. Bowman that I have seen (I might have missed something, of course), just whether or not as described by Evangelicals those beliefs actually match with the Church Fathers'.

Edited October 2, 2011 by calmoriah

[Bill Hamblin]

I would like to point out that Dr. Hamblin's only redefining of Mr. Bowman's beliefs that I have seen is his pointing out that the term 'deification' is used differently by Evangelicals and many Protestants than other Christians such as Orthodox, RCC and LDS (not claiming here our usage is identical). He does not appear to me to be correcting Mr. Bowman about any content of his beliefs, just language, ie it is 'nonsense' to equate the different beliefs even if the label is the same.

And I suspect that Dr. Hamblin is only concerned with interfaith or academic dialogue and has no care for what Evangelicals chose to call any of their beliefs among themselves.

If I am correct, then this is the same issue that LDS have where we must exercise care to define terms such as salvation when discussing such beliefs with nonLDS to avoid misunderstanding. I do not perceive an expectation for clarity to be anything close to an attack or insisting that one knows the other's beliefs better than the other.

Again, Dr. Hamblin can correct me if I've misread him.

The issue of the ancient church fathers from what I have read is simply one of interpretation no different than interpretation of the Bible where one claims their interpretation is correct and the other rejects that claim. Dr. Hamblin says nothing different about Evangelical belief than Mr. Bowman that I have seen (I might have missed something, of course), just whether or not as described by Evangelicals those beliefs actually match with the Church Fathers'.

You've got it exactly right.

[Calm]

Since you have supported your claims he challenged in posts 163 and 183 (and possibly others I missed when I skimmed through the past couple of pages), perhaps Mr. Bowman will focus on addressing these quotes now.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

My objections to the double standards and displays of disrespect toward me having been overruled in part and ignored in part, I will try for the moment to get past those complaints and respond to some of the things you have said.

You wrote:

Of course this is nonsense. Evangelicals consistently reject the idea of deification, unless the word is redefined to mean "not deification." The ancient Christians called their view "deification" for a reason, and it was not because they meant "not deification" like Evangelicals do The fact that there were many different ancient views of the meaning and nature of deification does not change the fact that ancient Christians and Mormons believed in deification while Evangelicals do not.

If there were many different ancient views of deification, and if the Mormon view is also very different from any of those views (which it is), then it is entirely possible for evangelicals to espouse a view that some of them, at least, feel comfortable calling "deification," and you have no rational basis for saying that they don't really mean it. That is, you do not get to define what evangelicals must believe in order to affirm some form of deification doctrine.

Robert V. Rakestraw is an evangelical theologian. He teaches at Bethel Theological Seminary, an evangelical institution. In the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, he published an article entitled "Becoming Like God: An Evangelical Doctrine of Theosis" (JETS 40 [1997]: 257-69). One could hardly ask for a more explicit example of an evangelical, writing in an evangelical periodical, affirming an evangelical doctrine of theosis (deification). Rakestraw quotes as Philip E. Hughes, an evangelical Anglican theologian, who defined theosis as "the reintegration of the divine image of man’s creation through the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit conforming the redeemed into the likeness of Christ, and also of the believer’s transition from mortality to immortality so that he is enabled to participate in the eternal bliss and glory of the kingdom of God" (The True Image [Eerdmans, 1989], 281). Rakestraw quotes the following from two hymns by Charles Wesley (obviously an evangelical) as an example of evangelical belief in theosis:

He deigns in flesh to appear,

Widest extremes to join;

To bring our vileness near,

And make us all divine:

And we the life of God shall know,

For God is manifest below.

Heavenly Adam, Life divine,

Change my nature into thine;

Move and spread throughout my soul,

Actuate and fill the whole;

Be it I no longer now

Living in the flesh, but thou.

After briefly commenting on some weaknesses in theosis doctrine as it is usually taught (e.g., statements going beyond what the Bible says or making questionable use of biblical texts), Rakestraw makes the following statement:

"The strengths of theosis theology outweigh these weaknesses, however. The most significant benefit is that the concept as a whole, if not the specific terminology, is Biblical. Pauline teaching supports much that is emphasized by theosis theologians" (267).

Rakestraw concludes:

"The doctrine of divinization merits the ongoing attention of Scripture scholars, theologians and pastors who desire to provide significant resources to Christians in their quest to become like God. For this is indeed why we were created" (269).

Rakestraw's article is not an isolated instance. In October 2008, Christianity Today -- a major, if not the major, evangelical news magazine -- published an article entitled "Keeping the End in View: How the Strange yet Familiar Doctrine of Theosis Can Invigorate the Christian Life," by James R. Payton Jr. Evangelical theologians have argued in numerous articles that Luther, Calvin, and Wesley all taught doctrines compatible with some form of theosis. See, for example, Carl Mosser's article "The Greatest Possible Blessing: Calvin and Deification,” Scottish Journal of Theology 55 (2002): 36-57. Finally, see the following recent publication, published by an evangelical publishing house:

Christensen, Michael J., and Jeffery A. Wittung, eds. Partakers of the Divine Nature: The History and Development of Deification in the Christian Traditions. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008.

I hope this documentation adequately demonstrates that what I said was not "nonsense" or mere "word games."

[KevinG]

Interesting. In searching this topic it seems Rob has had this discussion before...

http://www.apologetics.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=122755

Any new insights or updates to your web site to reflect the LDS point of view?

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

Another important point needs to be emphasized. Ancient Jews and Christians did not believe that God created the universe as we now define it, because they did not know of the existence of the universe as understood by modern cosmology. Before the sixteenth century, when Jews and Christians talk about creation, they are always talking about the creation of this kosmos or planetary order in a geocentric sense. The "universe," in the biblical creation narratives is the planet earth and the visible heavens (with stars not understood as distant suns of their own planetary system.

This appears to be a fallacious argument, comparable to arguing that the ancients could not even have the concept of a miracle because they were ignorant of the modern understanding of the laws of physics. I say "appears" because it is not entirely clear to me what you are trying to establish. It was not necessary for ancient Jews and Christians to know that stars were distant suns in order to believe and affirm that God created the entire universe. Their geocentric understanding of the cosmos did not prevent them from believing that all astronomical bodies, whatever they happened to be, were created by God. The fact is that they included the sun, moon, planets, and stars in the created world. By your reasoning not even Copernicus or Galileo believed that God created the universe "as we now define it," because they held to heliocentrism, which we now reject as well. It wasn't until the eighteenth century that anyone suggested that our sun is merely one of many stars in what is one of many galaxies--and this idea was not proved until the 1920s. But this doesn't mean that people in the ancient world, or even in the seventeenth century, could not believe that God was the creator of the entire universe. In fact, I don't see what the one possibly has to do with the other and am not sure just what you are suggesting. Is it your claim that ancient Jews and Christians meant only to affirm that God created our solar system, leaving open the possibility that other deities created other "worlds"? I cannot tell what substantive point you think you're making. Do you actually take the position that God did not create the entirety of our universe?

You wrote:

The Bible never claims God created universe as understood by modern astrophysics and cosmology. That is an assumption modern readers insert into the text, but it is not explicit in the text, and in fact distorts the essential meaning of the text as understood by its ancient readers and writers. Thus, when Joseph talks about multiple gods and eternal cycles of creation, he is transcending the biblical kosmos in terms of time and space and conceptualization. Ancient cosmogony does not correlate upon Joseph's KFD cosmogony because they are talking about two different things.

Again, I don't know what you think you are establishing here. The Bible affirms that God is the creator of the heavens and the earth, of all of the stars, as well as of the sun and moon. What is omitted here? Perhaps you could elaborate on your argument.

[Rob Bowman]

DaddyG,

You wrote:

Interesting. In searching this topic it seems Rob has had this discussion before...

http://www.apologeti...t&Number=122755

Any new insights or updates to your web site to reflect the LDS point of view?

I don't understand your question.

[KevinG]

I will break it down to a more simple form:

1) What did you learn from the previous discussion on the King Follett discourse?

2) Did you update the information on your web site to reflect those learnings.

If this was during your previous employment as a researcher for Walter Martin's Christian Research Institute the second question doesn't apply. I know you were otherwise occupied at that time.

(Found your Wiki article - it seems you were not with IRR at that time- but a ministry in Georgia. Please disregard #2)

Edited October 3, 2011 by DaddyG

[Rob Bowman]

Volgadon,

You still have not answered this question:

"Furthermore, how is a statement about God giving the righteous 310 worlds support for the LDS claim that the exalted will make their own worlds?"

Now, you could answer this question by denying that in LDS doctrine the exalted will make their own worlds. You have not answered in this way, at least not yet. Instead you have asserted that ruling over worlds is as important as making them, which does not answer the question.

So let me break the question down into a few parts so that it won't get missed this time.

1. In LDS doctrine, will the exalted make their own worlds?

2. If not, doesn't this mean that there are some types of works that God does that the exalted will not do?

3. If the exalted will make their own worlds, how does a statement about God giving worlds to the righteous support that idea that the exalted will make their own worlds?

4. Indeed, does not the statement that God will give them worlds entail that they will still be inferior to God, since they remain dependent on him to make the worlds for them and to give the worlds to them?

[Rob Bowman]

DaddyG,

You wrote:

1) What did you learn from the previous discussion on the King Follett discourse?

I learned that some online Mormon apologists, who have no standing in the LDS Church to define LDS doctrine, offer contorted interpretations of the King Follett Discourse to circumvent Joseph Smith's plain statement in it that God has not always been God.

2) Did you update the information on your web site to reflect those learnings.

I had that discussion right about the time I moved to Grand Rapids to begin working at IRR. The Mormon in question offered no evidence for his interpretation of the KFD outside his own reasonings. Therefore, I had no basis for accepting his interpretation as correct or as normative for Mormons.

[KevinG]

Interesting- what kind of evidence would you consider authoratative for Mormons if not Mormon apologists?

For example you and Hank Hanegraaff could both be considered experts in the Christian Research Institute even though you had obvious disagreements over the direction of that institution.

Edited October 3, 2011 by DaddyG

[KevinG]

P.S. The doctrines of deification are not well defined even for LDS. The King Follett sermon while interesting is not binding doctrine upon the Church. The belief that God somehow progressed and we can follow in His divine "footsteps" is sometimes discussed in Sunday School.

I see it as an elevation of God's children not placing any limits on God.

[Rob Bowman]

DaddyG,

You wrote:

Interesting- what kind of evidence would you consider authoratative for Mormons if not Mormon apologists?

For example you and Hank Hanegraaff could both be considered experts in the Christian Research Institute even though you had obvious disagreements over the direction of that institution.

My understanding is that authoritative interpretations of LDS doctrine must come from the standard works and the living prophet (presidents of the LDS Church, with preference for the current one), and that the official teaching of the LDS Church is to be found in these sources as expounded in its own official publications (especially its manuals or curricula, such as Gospel Principles). Of course, I pay attention to what LDS apologists say, but even here I give more weight to LDS apologists who have some sort of recognizable status as theologians or scholars in the LDS community, e.g., professors at BYU, authors published by Deseret or other mainstream LDS publishing houses, and so forth. And while I may listen to what anonymous or pseudonymous online LDS apologists may say, I don't recognize them as having any standing as far as defining what LDS doctrine is.

All that having been said, I distinguish between what an individual says in the LDS Church, what the current official position is, and what most Mormons might believe. For example, Brigham Young clearly taught some sort of Adam-God doctrine, but it is not the current official position of the LDS Church and hardly any Mormons today would affirm Young's doctrine (very likely none would do so). A scholarly approach is prepared to distinguish, if the evidence justifies doing so, between what Joseph Smith taught and what the LDS Church today understands Joseph to have taught. Of course, the LDS Church usually agrees with Joseph's views, since they view him as the Prophet of the Restoration; but it is possible that in some instances the LDS Church today either is noncommittal as to what Joseph taught or interprets him to mean something other than what he actually said. I would take such questions on a case by case basis. Clearly, some Mormons today interpret the KFD to mean that God the Father was God in some sense before he became a mortal. Just as clearly, as far as I can tell, this is not what Joseph taught, and it is not how the LDS Church understood Joseph for most of its history. Very, very recently, there are indications that the LDS Church has backed away from Joseph's view that God has not always been God--not denying that such was his teaching, but not affirming it explicitly, either. These things may change, but what Joseph Smith said is in the record.

[Rob Bowman]

DaddyG,

You wrote:

P.S. The doctrines of deification are not well defined even for LDS. The King Follett sermon while interesting is not binding doctrine upon the Church. The belief that God somehow progressed and we can follow in His divine "footsteps" is sometimes discussed in Sunday School.

I see it as an elevation of God's children not placing any limits on God.

That's fine, but my interest is in determining what Joseph Smith himself taught in the KFD, whether or not it is binding doctrine today and regardless of what individual Mormons today may choose to believe.

[Bill Hamblin]

I hope this documentation adequately demonstrates that what I said was not "nonsense" or mere "word games."

Nice try, but no cigar.

None of the articles you mention say that deification is an Evangelical doctrine. On the contrary, they all agree that most Evangelicals are unfamiliar with it. Rakestraw, for example, says that “it is practically unknown to the majority of [Evangelical] Christians (and even many theologians) in the west” (257). Mosser agrees, “many assume that the patristic notion of deification is absent from the mainstreams of post-patristic Western theology” (6). Payton says, the doctrine of deification “may sound strange to many evangelicals” and is “unfamiliar to most of us.” Thus, your articles simply add further evidence that my position is correct. None of these articles say that deification is an Evangelical doctrine. All of them say that most Evangelicals have never heard of it.

What your articles do is introduce the idea of deification to Evangelicals, and rather than embracing it whole-heartedly, they contend that while some parts of the idea deification may be compatible with Evangelical thought, they reject many other elements. Note Rakestraw, “While the doctrine of theosis is associated primarily with the Orthodox churches of the east, it has similarities with the teaching about sanctification in the west. As noted above, however, the two are not identical” (263). He continues: “the most obvious deficiency is the terminology [of deification] itself. To speak of divinization, deification, and human beings “becoming God” seems to violate the historic Christian [i.e. Evangelical] understanding of the essential qualitative distinction between God and the creation. “Becoming like God” appears to express more Biblically the concept of the Christian’s union and communion with God in sanctification” (266). In other words, just like I said, Evangelicals don’t like the idea of deification. They are willing to use the terminology only if they get to redefine it in a metaphorical sense, or use it to describe Evangelical ideas of sanctification or glorification. Rakestraw goes on to reject several other aspects of traditional Orthodox understanding of deification (266-7).

What the articles you provide have actually done is strengthen my original contention. 1- Most Evangelicals, far from embracing the idea of deification, have either never heard of it or don’t understand it. 2- Those few who consider using deification terminology do so only partially, by redefining the concept to bring it in line with Evangelical understandings of sanctification and glorification.

In other words, your claim that Evangelicals accept a doctrine of deification that is in substance the same as that the Greek Fathers is nonsense, just as I said.

[Bill Hamblin]

If there were many different ancient views of deification, and if the Mormon view is also very different from any of those views (which it is), then it is entirely possible for evangelicals to espouse a view that some of them, at least, feel comfortable calling "deification," and you have no rational basis for saying that they don't really mean it. That is, you do not get to define what evangelicals must believe in order to affirm some form of deification doctrine.

I don't claim to be able to define Evangelical doctrine. Evangelicals can define deification any way they want. I can, however, assess the historical accuracy of claims about the history of the idea of deification, and Evangelical claims of their position in that history. What Evangelicals cannot do, as you did, is claim that their ideas are the same as the Early Church Fathers concepts of deification. They are not. All of the sources cited by both you and me agree there are significant distinctions.

So, if you want to say "Evangelicals define dedication as X," I'll say fine. But if you say, "Evangelicals define dedication as X, and its just what the early Greek Fathers believed," I'll object.

I have never said that LDS concepts of deification are the same as the early Greek Fathers (which would be impossible, since there are many different early Christian theologies of deification.) What I said is that Mormons believe in deification, and early Christians believe in deification, and Evangelicals don't believe in deification. This is manifestly true. None of the sources mentioned so far claim that Evangelicals believe in deification. Talking about deification, or telling the history of deification is not the same as believing in deification.

[Bill Hamblin]

Again, I don't know what you think you are establishing here. The Bible affirms that God is the creator of the heavens and the earth, of all of the stars, as well as of the sun and moon. What is omitted here? Perhaps you could elaborate on your argument.

Biblical creation narratives discuss only the creation of the earth and the visible heavens--with stars conceived of as lights in the sky, not independent solar systems. The Bible never claims that God created other solar systems, inhabited planets, galaxies, or universes, nor does it recognize a created order beyond a few thousand years.

Joseph Smith is talking about God creating worlds (inhabitable planets) without number in eternal cycles.

The Evangelical objection that JS cosmogony does not match the biblical cosmogony is pointless, because they are talking about two different things, in terms of both time and space.