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

[volgadon]

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?"

As I have said, I documented a genuinely ancient portion of the quote. This, combined with the statements by Scholem, Dan, and Schiffman, calls into question your blanket assertion that the yod section of the ORA is medieval.

The Mishnah says too little about the worlds for us to conclude either way. That God makes and gives them to the righteous is a reasonable interpretation, but so is the interpretation that the righteous are involved somehow in the process. As I said, where the quote is found is a clue. With all this beign said, the text doesn't have to teach that the worlds are created for it to resonate with LDS theosis. Seems like you are purposefully focusing on just one aspect of LDS theology, ignoring the rest.

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.

I could, I could do many things, but why should I.

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?

According to the most commonly heard versions, yes.

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

Who knows.

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?

Does the text state that the worlds are already prepared?

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?

We don't believe that we will ever be superior to God.

[Calm]

The Book of Abraham teaches creation is the work of many, a family affair so to speak working under God the Father. Why would any worlds God's children rule be any different?

Edited October 3, 2011 by calmoriah

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

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.

All you are doing here is moving the goalposts. I never said that deification is "an evangelical doctrine." Let's review. I had written the following in post #147 (emphasis added):

Orthodox Christians, including evangelicals, expect that the redeemed in the new heavens and new earth will have experiences beyond our present understanding. Many evangelicals are comfortable with some sort of "deification" doctrine and certainly are comfortable with the substance of what the church fathers were communicating if not the language they used to communicate it. We will be immortal, perfect beings, holy, good, loving, and supremely happy. We will enjoy God's presence forever. We will have great power (but not be omnipotent) and great knowledge (but not be omniscient). Any and every perfection consistent with our being created, finite, human persons will be ours. Physically and spiritually, we will be like Christ in his incarnate human nature (Rom. 8:29; 1 John 3:2).

None of these ideas or expectations have ever been lost, and so none of them needed to be or could be restored in the nineteenth century. Here is what I argue was not lost because it was never true: that God the Father was once a mortal man; that he progressed and was exalted, becoming God; that we preexisted as God's spirit children and have been sent here to follow in the Father's footsteps and become Gods ourselves; that we will become omnipotent, omniscient beings that can create universes the same way that God created this one.

In reply, in post #148 you quoted part of the above material and then commented (emphasis added):

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.

So, our disagreement was not over whether deification is an evangelical doctrine, or whether most evangelicals are familiar with the (patristic or Eastern Orthodox) doctrine of deification, but rather over which of the following two claims is true: (1) Many evangelicals are comfortable with some sort of "deification" doctrine, or (2) evangelicals consistently reject the idea of deification. If all you had asserted was that deification is not a regular or conventional part of evangelical theology, or that most evangelicals are not familiar with the theological terminology or conceptual apparatus of the doctrine of theosis or deification, I would have agreed with you. The fact is that your claim that "evangelicals consistently reject the idea of deification" is false, as I have documented.

You wrote:

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.

Again, the issue is not whether most evangelicals have heard of theosis or deification, but whether, as you asserted, evangelicals consistently reject the idea of deification. That statement is false. Furthermore, you are ignoring the whole point of Mosser's article, which is to show that deification actually has a significant presence (conceptually, not the term deification) in Western theology, including important sources of evangelical theology. The abstract is worth quoting in full (it includes the sentence you quoted):

"Many assume that the patristic notion of deification is absent from the mainstreams of post-patristic Western theology. Recent scholarship, however, identifies deification in Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, early Anglicanism, early Methodism and Jonathan Edwards – all fountainheads of Western theology. This article contends that deification is also present in Calvin's theology. It is not a prominent theme in its own right and some of the bolder patristic terminology is not employed. Nonetheless, the concept and imagery of deification regularly appear on stage while other doctrines are explicated. For Calvin, deification is the eschatological goal and blessing greater than which nothing can be imagined."

This is precisely what I have been saying all along. Evangelicals generally don't use deification language (theosis, "becoming gods," etc.), but equivalent theological concepts are expressed in different language in evangelical theology, and many evangelicals who are familiar with theosis or deification express comfort with some such doctrine.

You wrote:

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).

I never claimed that evangelical teaching about sanctification is identical to the Eastern Orthodox doctrine of theosis! You are knocking down a straw man argument of your own creation and not engaging what I said. What Eastern theologians call theosis embraces what Western theologians traditionally have called sanctification and glorification; but even here, the doctrines are worked out in different ways, so that Rakestraw is correct in cautioning against a simplistic identification of one doctrine with another. But again, I didn't claim that evangelicals accept the Eastern Orthodox doctrine of theosis. I said that many evangelicals are comfortable with some sort of deification doctrine though not, generally, with the language of deification. This is precisely what Rakestraw, an evangelical, is advocating: that deification can be understood as a positive theological concept within an evangelical theological framework.

You wrote:

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).

I had already pointed out that Rakestraw had expressed some criticisms of theosis from an evangelical perspective--and I pointed out also that he thought this weakness was more than counterbalanced by the positive strengths of theosis doctrine:

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 does not agree with you that he is redefining deification or merely using it to describe evangelical ideas. He is proposing that theosis has positive contributions to make to evangelical theology, that the core affirmations of theosis are both biblical and evangelical in substance if not in terminology, and that an evangelical theology of theosis is possible.

You wrote:

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.

Again, your first statement here was not part of your original contention. Your second statement is a softened version of your original contention, which was that evangelicals consistently reject deification or redefine it as "not deification." But that claim is false. Rakestraw does not redefine deification. Nor does Mosser. You have not provided one quotation from any evangelical writer that exemplifies this alleged redefinition of deification.

You wrote:

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.

And your assertion here is still false. When we examine what the Greek Fathers actually said about the meaning and significance of their doctrine of theosis or deification, what we find are affirmations with which evangelicals can and do agree, even though most of us remain critical of the terminology the church fathers used. That is, we agree that the redeemed will be conformed to and will perfectly embody the image of God; that we will be immortal; that God himself dwells in us and will dwell in us forever; etc.

Two good recent articles by evangelical scholars on the patristic doctrine of theosis are Carl Mosser's "The Earliest Patristic Interpretations of Psalm 82, Jewish Antecedents, and the Origins of Christian Deification," JTS ns 56 (2005): 30-74, and Donald Fairbairn's "Patristic Soteriology: Three Trajectories," JETS 50 (2007): 289-310. These articles exemplify a trend in recent evangelical theological scholarship that takes the patristic doctrine very seriously and that does not simplistically reject or redefine it.

You wrote:

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.

No, your original claim was not merely that evangelicals don't believe in deification but that they consistently reject deification or redefine it with "word games" to make it mean "not deification." And that claim is false. While evangelicals generally don't use theosis terminology, the basic concepts or truths that theosis expresses in Eastern theology are genuinely part of evangelical theology. Mosser, for example, says that deification is in the theology of Luther, Calvin, early Methodism (i.e., the Wesleys), Jonathan Edwards, et. al.--all major figures in the development of evangelical theology.

To say that Mormons and early Christians believed in deification while evangelicals do not--now that is a good example of word games. It is true that Mormons use deification language, that the early Christians (beginning in the second century) also used deification language, and that evangelicals generally do not. But what Mormons mean by deification is much farther removed theologically from patristic theology than is evangelical theology, despite the fact that evangelicals generally don't use deification language. While you disavow claiming that LDS theology is identical to patristic theology, your statement requires some sort of theological kinship between them to be meaningful. Yet it really would be nonsense to claim that the Mormon doctrine of eternal progression or exaltation is in any serious, substantial way akin to the church fathers' theology of theosis. Only in the sense of bare, partial verbal parallels is there any association between the two. As I pointed out before, the church fathers were the architects of the theological tradition that Mormon doctrine claims that God condemned in the First Vision. To divorce the patristic doctrine of deification from the patristic doctrine of God and the patristic, creedal doctrine of the Trinity -- now that's "redefining deification" with a vengeance!

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

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.

I don't see what relevance this comment has. The Bible doesn't mention the creation of Uranus or Neptune. Does that mean that a biblical doctrine of creation would exclude them from "the heavens" that God created?

You wrote:

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.

I still don't see what your point is. The issue under discussion at the time you first made this claim was the idea of exalted human beings becoming creators of their own worlds. I had stated that the doctrine was never lost, because it was never true, "that we will become omnipotent, omniscient beings that can create universes the same way that God created this one." Please explain how your comments about Joseph Smith's "cosmogony" are pertinent to what I said.

I asked you before, and you have not answered: "Do you actually take the position that God did not create the entirety of our universe?" So how about it: Do you or do you not believe that God created our entire universe?

[Rob Bowman]

volgadon,

Apparently, you have no answer to my question. The fact is that the statement you quoted views the "worlds" that will be given to the righteous as gifts from God, not as creations by the righteous. And this leaves intact the classic Jewish and Christian distinction between the Creator and the creature.

You wrote:

We don't believe that we will ever be superior to God.

That isn't the issue. I never suggested you believed any such thing. However, your theology does appear to claim that you will become equal to God in nature, power, glory, and works.

[altersteve]

That isn't the issue. I never suggested you believed any such thing. However, your theology does appear to claim that you will become equal to God in nature, power, glory, and works.

Our theology never makes this claim. Equal in nature and power, yes; glory and works, NO.

[Calm]

Our theology never makes this claim. Equal in nature and power, yes; glory and works, NO.

And only nature and power through God inviting us to be one with him.

[wenglund]

Rob,

Since portions of our recent discussion were somewhat off topic on this thread, I have opened a new thread in hopes of continuing the discussion. The thread is titled: "Jesus, Eternal God?." I look forward to your participation, and the participation of others there.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 3, 2011 by wenglund

[Bill Hamblin]

Rob

Let’s see if we can come to some consensus. Do you agree with the following formulations?

1- There is no Evangelical doctrine of deification.

2- Most Evangelicals have never heard that there was an early Christian doctrine of deification.

3- Of those who have heard of deification, most reject it outright. Most of the rest are very uncomfortable with the idea.

4- Of those who are willing to consider the idea of deification positively, no Evangelicals are willing to accept an unqualified version of the idea as formulated by the Early Church Fathers or the Greek Orthodox Fathers.

5- Of those who are willing to consider the idea of deification positively, some are willing to use the term deification--in a qualified sense of--to describe (and perhaps in some ways enrich) Evangelical ideas of sanctification and glorification.

[Rob Bowman]

Steve,

You wrote:

Our theology never makes this claim. Equal in nature and power, yes; glory and works, NO.

Gospel Principles (2009 ed.) states: "They will have everything that our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have—all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge" (277). So that would appear to establish that they will be equal to God in glory as well as in nature and power.

If they are going to have the same power, knowledge, dominion, and glory that God has, it would seem difficult to argue that they will not do the same kinds of things that God does. Will they have the same power as God but not use it?

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You still seem to be trying to move the goalposts. Before trying to maneuver me into agreeing with you, are you willing to concede that your initial statement that evangelicals consistently reject deification was incorrect, and that your characterization of what I said was "nonsense" and "word games" was unfair?

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill,

You wrote:

I don't see what relevance this comment has. The Bible doesn't mention the creation of Uranus or Neptune. Does that mean that a biblical doctrine of creation would exclude them from "the heavens" that God created?

You wrote:

I still don't see what your point is. The issue under discussion at the time you first made this claim was the idea of exalted human beings becoming creators of their own worlds. I had stated that the doctrine was never lost, because it was never true, "that we will become omnipotent, omniscient beings that can create universes the same way that God created this one." Please explain how your comments about Joseph Smith's "cosmogony" are pertinent to what I said.

I asked you before, and you have not answered: "Do you actually take the position that God did not create the entirety of our universe?" So how about it: Do you or do you not believe that God created our entire universe?

The point is that the idea that exalted humans might become creator deities in their own right (under the authority and direction of God) does not appear in biblical cosmology or cosmogony because the biblical cosmology and cosmogony describe only this world. (For example, the Bible describes God creating the land and the skies (plural--not heaven or heavens). He creates these before he creates the sun, moon, planets and stars. Their view of the created order is obviously very different from our modern conceptions.) The Bible never discusses the possibility of other solar systems or inhabited planets; they had no idea that such things existed. It is pointless to try to use the lack of such ideas in biblical cosmology and cosmogony to discredit JS's thoughts because they are talking about two different things.

[KevinG]

Steve,

You wrote:

Gospel Principles (2009 ed.) states: "They will have everything that our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have—all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge" (277). So that would appear to establish that they will be equal to God in glory as well as in nature and power.

If they are going to have the same power, knowledge, dominion, and glory that God has, it would seem difficult to argue that they will not do the same kinds of things that God does. Will they have the same power as God but not use it?

You are making Steve an offender for a word.

We will be "joint heirs with Christ" but God the Father will always be our Father and our God. What "join heir" means we cannot know fully in this mortality.

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill,

You still seem to be trying to move the goalposts. Before trying to maneuver me into agreeing with you, are you willing to concede that your initial statement that evangelicals consistently reject deification was incorrect, and that your characterization of what I said was "nonsense" and "word games" was unfair?

No.

I said Evangelicals consistently reject deification as taught by early Christians and the GO Fathers. Claims to the contrary are nonsense. If you're not making that claim, then that's fine.

I also said that when Evangelicals use the term deification, they do it with a modified content--that is, they use it to describe Evangelical ideas of sanctification and glorification. To me that's a word game. Look at the idea of Trinity. If I were to say Mormons believe in the Trinity, and their understanding of the Trinity is the same as the Greek Fathers and the Nicene Creed, you would naturally object. I don't object to Evangelicals using the term deification in their own way. I object to them doing so, and then claiming (as you did), that their use of the term is consistent with the use of the term by early Christians and GO Father. It's not.

Here is the key passage to which I object.

Many evangelicals are comfortable with some sort of "deification" doctrine and certainly are comfortable with the substance of what the church fathers were communicating if not the language they used to communicate it.

Edited October 3, 2011 by Bill Hamblin

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

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?

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill,

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?

Answer my questions and I'll answer yours.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

This is something like the third time I am asking you this question: Do you or do you not believe that God created our entire universe?

[Ares]

Bill,

This is something like the third time I am asking you this question: Do you or do you not believe that God created our entire universe?

Please respond to Bill's questions before going down another path. He has answered yours.

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill,

This is something like the third time I am asking you this question: Do you or do you not believe that God created our entire universe?

Sure. You're turn!

Edited October 3, 2011 by Bill Hamblin

[KevinG]

Sure. You're turn!

God created the universe but we got to help! (Sorry to interrupt)

[Rob Bowman]

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.

Rob

Let’s see if we can come to some consensus. Do you agree with the following formulations?

1- There is no Evangelical doctrine of deification.

2- Most Evangelicals have never heard that there was an early Christian doctrine of deification.

3- Of those who have heard of deification, most reject it outright. Most of the rest are very uncomfortable with the idea.

4- Of those who are willing to consider the idea of deification positively, no Evangelicals are willing to accept an unqualified version of the idea as formulated by the Early Church Fathers or the Greek Orthodox Fathers.

5- Of those who are willing to consider the idea of deification positively, some are willing to use the term deification--in a qualified sense of--to describe (and perhaps in some ways enrich) Evangelical ideas of sanctification and glorification.

[Rob Bowman]

Ares,

I just answered his questions. But be aware, please, as I explicitly pointed out, that I asked him my question twice before he asked me those recent questions. I am not "going down another path."

Please respond to Bill's questions before going down another path. He has answered yours.

Edited October 3, 2011 by Rob Bowman

[Bill Hamblin]

God created the universe but we got to help! (Sorry to interrupt)

Yup!

[Rob Bowman]

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?

[altersteve]

Gospel Principles (2009 ed.) states: "They will have everything that our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have—all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge" (277). So that would appear to establish that they will be equal to God in glory as well as in nature and power.

If they are going to have the same power, knowledge, dominion, and glory that God has, it would seem difficult to argue that they will not do the same kinds of things that God does. Will they have the same power as God but not use it?

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.