Did Joseph Smith Restore Theosis? Part Five: Early Church Fathers

[Rob Bowman]

juliann,

I don't "need" anything to be "cut and dry." However, it is absolutely clear that the core ideas of Joseph Smith's doctrine of deification -- that God was not always God but was a man who became exalted to Godhood and that we can do the same -- are absolutely absent from the Bible, the church fathers, and all of the major branches of Christianity including the Eastern Orthodox Church.

It might not be as cut and dry as Mr. Bowman needs it to be. BTW, Pelikan later left the Lutherans for American Orthodox (yes, Mr. Bowman, that is Eastern Orthodox)

[zerinus]

Since many of the church fathers from the late second century onward taught an explicit doctrine of believers becoming gods, and since they quoted from Christ and the apostles profusely, if they had been aware of statements by Christ or the apostles explicitly affirming that idea we may reasonably presume they would have quoted such statements. They don't. Indeed, they don't attribute any statements to Christ or the apostles on this or other related subjects that we don't already find in the NT. So although we cannot absolutely prove with 100 percent certainty that Christ and the apostles made no such statements, the evidence we have overwhelmingly supports the view that they didn't.

That is of course incorrect. Jesus explicitly teaches this doctrine in John 10:34-36:

Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Edited November 6, 2011 by zerinus

[juliann]

DaddyG,

You wrote:

No. She can spell the word either way, her statement that Paul Owen became Orthodox/orthodox after dealing with the LDS doctrine of deification is false and makes no sense.

There ya go again..... twisting words while trying to divert the discussion away from your error. ( I expressed an opinion as to possible influence but I am not so brash as to do more than that when it comes to the very personal reasons as to why anyone converts.)

I can see why capitalizing Orthodox can be confusing if one is only familiar with Eastern Orthodox but there really are other possibilities and they even involve capital letters. It's been years and I don't recall what Orthodox/orthodox church he is involved with other than there was something akin to Catholicism but I do know it was Orthodox/orthdox. Can we move on now?

The Orthodox Anglican Church (OAC) is the American branch of the Orthodox Anglican Communion and is usually considered to be part of the Continuing Anglican movement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox_Anglican_Church

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill,

You are knocking down straw men left and right in your posts. I never claimed that Peterson or anyone else asserted that Joseph Smith's doctrine of deification was precisely the same as that of the church fathers, let alone the Greek Orthodox Church. I did not claim that the Orthodox doctrine of deification was identical to NT doctrine or to the patristic doctrine of deification. I did not argue that an idea needs to be 100 percent lost and completely unknown in any form to be restored. I did not argue or imply that the LDS doctrine of the Great Apostasy meant that there were no true Christians on the earth during the period from ca. 100 to 1830. I didn't deny that the church fathers appealed to the NT in support of their doctrine of deification (rather, I argued that they did not appeal to statements supposedly by Jesus or the apostles not recorded in the NT, as Bernard had speculated).

Great. So you agree with all my points. That was easy.

[juliann]

juliann,

I don't "need" anything to be "cut and dry." However, it is absolutely clear that the core ideas of Joseph Smith's doctrine of deification -- that God was not always God but was a man who became exalted to Godhood and that we can do the same -- are absolutely absent from the Bible, the church fathers, and all of the major branches of Christianity including the Eastern Orthodox Church.

I haven't seen you address Joseph Smith's understanding any more rigorously than you have the ECFs. You apparently seem to be relying on a transcription of one of his speeches although I will admit up front that I find your relentless need to denounce not worth investigation. However, this topic has been addressed by many in diverse religious circles as well as academia....but in an effort to increase knowledge and understanding.

I can see that you have to restrict yourself (and try to restrict all Mormons) to a simplistic formula that requires God to be "exalted man". That rescues you from having to face this topic head on as a serious and thoughtful theologian or academic because God did, of course, become "man" through the incarnation in classical Christianity. That is why it is so easy for others to discuss this without having to demean and namecall. For Athanasius and Irenaeus the very foundation of theois is the incarnation with baptism part of the process.

What a shame you have such a burning need to turn even the very discussion of such an exquisite doctrine into a pin the tail on the Heretic contest.

Edited November 6, 2011 by juliann

[mfbukowski]

Great. So you agree with all my points. That was easy.

[Vance]

What a shame you have such a burning need to turn even the very discussion of such an exquisite doctrine into a pin the tail on the Heretic contest.

It is called Anti-Mormonism.

One of its forms that I have seen often, is "i don't really know what ________ means, BUT, Mormons are WRONG!!!

As we have seen here.

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

You're not paying attention. Bernard's claim was that Jesus and the apostles may have taught the doctrine explicitly in statements NOT FOUND IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. I was explaining why this is extremely unlikely. I've already corrected this misunderstanding of my point once, which is why I'm "shouting" it here.

Whatever John 10:34-36 means, it does not explicitly teach that Christians may become gods. Jesus quotes the Old Testament as referring to some unidentified beings as "gods" at that time; neither Psalm 82 nor John 10 states that this means that believers in Jesus Christ may become gods in the future. Perhaps one could argue that these texts are consistent with a doctrine of Christian deification, or even perhaps that they imply it (which I doubt), but they certainly do not teach it explicitly.

That is of course incorrect. Jesus explicitly teaches this doctrine in John 10:34-36:

Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

[Rob Bowman]

juliann,

Let's go over this one more time, please. Paul Owen was "orthodox" (lower-case o) before he joined the Anglican Church. He did not join any church with the word "Orthodox" in its name (Eastern or otherwise). "Eastern Orthodoxy" is simply another name for the Orthodox Church in all of its geographical units, regardless of where they are located. Hence, when you said I was ignorant of what Orthodox means, you were mistaken. When you claimed that I was ignorant of the good stuff that you claimed to find in Mosser and Owen's article, you were mistaken: I was aware of and had published on the same basic point they made a decade before they did. Yet in your most recent post (see below) you still claim that I have committed some "error." Just what error would that be, pray tell?

There ya go again..... twisting words while trying to divert the discussion away from your error. ( I expressed an opinion as to possible influence but I am not so brash as to do more than that when it comes to the very personal reasons as to why anyone converts.)

I can see why capitalizing Orthodox can be confusing if one is only familiar with Eastern Orthodox but there really are other possibilities and they even involve capital letters. It's been years and I don't recall what Orthodox/orthodox church he is involved with other than there was something akin to Catholicism but I do know it was Orthodox/orthdox. Can we move on now?

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

Great. So you agree with all my points. That was easy.

Great. So you actually have nothing to say by way of critique of my article.

That was even easier.

[Rob Bowman]

juliann,

You wrote:

I haven't seen you address Joseph Smith's understanding any more rigorously than you have the ECFs.

You do realize, don't you, that my article provides a much more "rigorous" analysis of the church fathers than Peterson's article, to which mine was a response? If you want to fault my article for lack of rigor, your criticism will have to apply far more to his article than to mine.

By the way, I am not faulting Dan Peterson's article for lack of rigor. It was a popular article in a publication where he was allotted limited space. My position is that the more carefully one examines the evidence, the clearer it will be that Joseph Smith was not restoring a lost ancient doctrine as Peterson claimed.

You wrote:

You apparently seem to be relying on a transcription of one of his speeches although I will admit up front that I find your relentless need to denounce not worth investigation.

I am "relying" on a large number of sources that tell us what Joseph Smith's doctrine was in 1844, not limited to transcriptions of the King Follett Discourse. My understanding of what he taught there was the same understanding as that of such LDS presidents as Lorenzo Snow and Joseph Fielding Smith.

I have no relentless need to denounce anyone or anything. I do a lot of other things besides respond to LDS claims. You don't know me, and your attempts to characterize me reflect that fact.

You wrote:

I can see that you have to restrict yourself (and try to restrict all Mormons) to a simplistic formula that requires God to be "exalted man". That rescues you from having to face this topic head on as a serious and thoughtful theologian or academic because God did, of course, become "man" through the incarnation in classical Christianity. That is why it is so easy for others to discuss this without having to demean and namecall. For Athanasius and Irenaeus the very foundation of theois is the incarnation with baptism part of the process.

What a shame you have such a burning need to turn even the very discussion of such an exquisite doctrine into a pin the tail on the Heretic contest.

You know how to construct nice sentences, and you give the impression that you know something about these subjects. However, once again, you are not representing the facts correctly, either about me or about the theological and historical issues. Joseph Smith clearly taught that the Father was a man who then became a God, not a God who then became a man. Even some of the LDS apologists participating in this forum have insisted on this being the correct understanding of Joseph's teaching and of the LDS Church's doctrine (see the recent thread on the KFD).

[volgadon]

Not to derail this thread, I'm still waiting for a response on your use of the Seder Gan Eden.

[juliann]

juliann,

Let's go over this one more time, please. Paul Owen was "orthodox" (lower-case o) before he joined the Anglican Church. He did not join any church with the word "Orthodox" in its name (Eastern or otherwise). "Eastern Orthodoxy" is simply another name for the Orthodox Church in all of its geographical units, regardless of where they are located. Hence, when you said I was ignorant of what Orthodox means, you were mistaken. When you claimed that I was ignorant of the good stuff that you claimed to find in Mosser and Owen's article, you were mistaken: I was aware of and had published on the same basic point they made a decade before they did. Yet in your most recent post (see below) you still claim that I have committed some "error." Just what error would that be, pray tell?

Let's start with your errors in representing what I said. Like your claim that I said anything at all about your knowledge of the article I linked. I don't care about your knowledge of it, I used it as a description of your obvious problem in dealing with what you want to make Mormon doctrine and I was talking to someone else. I'm beginning to wonder if your misrepresentations are a deliberate effort to derail when the going gets tough for you. And I now see that you are acknowledging that a conversion from evangelicism to orthodox was 100% accurate as you try to leap frog to the next event. Good grief. The first event was a bit of side information for another poster that you are going to use to avoid the ECFs....how much longer?

As for your claim that your article is more comprehensive than anyone else's...another red herring. Irrelevant.

You know how to construct nice sentences, and you give the impression that you know something about these subjects. However, once again, you are not representing the facts correctly, either about me or about the theological and historical issues. Joseph Smith clearly taught that the Father was a man who then became a God, not a God who then became a man. Even some of the LDS apologists participating in this forum have insisted on this being the correct understanding of Joseph's teaching and of the LDS Church's doctrine (see the recent thread on the KFD).

I do know something, especially about early Christianty. So if you want to use that then you wil have to expect to support what you are saying about it. You are trying to avoid serious discussion by playing your version of Mormonism against your selective version of early Christianity. That leaves you defending two positions, neither of which I see support for. And it is bad form and considered lazy to send people to article links when all you want to argue so if you want something discussed, then please have the courtesy to post it, don't link it.

[mfbukowski]

Not to derail this thread, I'm still waiting for a response on your use of the Seder Gan Eden.

You won't get it.

[mfbukowski]

I'm beginning to wonder if your misrepresentations are a deliberate effort to derail when the going gets tough for you.

Golly Gee, you think maybe?

[volgadon]

You won't get it.

I hope I'm wrong, but it looks like I won't get an answer.

[mfbukowski]

I hope I'm wrong, but it looks like I won't get an answer.

He's here observing reactions like a mad scientist poking a guinea pig and seeing what kind of reaction he gets. It's not about discussion, its all about tactics. He's testing our defenses, that's all.

[juliann]

He's here observing reactions like a mad scientist poking a guinea pig and seeing what kind of reaction he gets. It's not about discussion, its all about tactics. He's testing our defenses, that's all.

To what end?

I guess I'm a little slow but it is becoming obvious this is a complete waste of time. I haven't stuck around long enough to see if he ever actually engages. I don't think anyone who just wants to poke Mormons should be allowed to post show and tell links under the guise of an OP. Report button may be in order.

[Rob Bowman]

juliann,

You wrote:

Let's start with your errors in representing what I said. Like your claim that I said anything at all about your knowledge of the article I linked. I don't care about your knowledge of it, I used it as a description of your obvious problem in dealing with what you want to make Mormon doctrine and I was talking to someone else.

It's too bad that it is necessary to spend time hashing over who said what instead of dealing with the substantive issues. Here is what you had written:

This was a groundbreaking article http://www.foranansw...cal_Neglect.htm by Owen and Mosser, both worthy evangelical apologists with a special interest in countering Mormonism whom we had the pleasure of interacting with. Owen eventually went Orthodox. I don't for a minute think that having to face deification doctrines didn't have something to do with that. Mr. Bowman's complete misunderstanding of the importance of this....and its duration outside of his limited theological boundaries noted by Owen and Mosser... is evident in the title of this thread.

The above-quoted post clearly claims that I did not understand something about Owen and Mosser; admittedly I might have misunderstood what, but that would be because you were vague. That is, "Mr. Bowman's complete misunderstanding of the importance of this" leaves the content of "this" ambiguous (did you mean something in Owen and Mosser's article, or the fact that you claim that "Owen eventually went Orthodox"? It's hard to tell. In any case, I understood a lot about the theological issues concerning deification long before Owen and Mosser's article, and I cannot be faulted for not knowing that "Owen eventually went Orthodox" because that is a false statement. So there doesn't seem to be anything left in your original post so far as my supposed "complete lack of understanding of the importance of this," whatever "this" is, that could be a valid observation.

You wrote:

I'm beginning to wonder if your misrepresentations are a deliberate effort to derail when the going gets tough for you.

Allow me to free you from wondering any longer. I am certainly not attempting to derail my own thread. I am not the one who brought up Mosser and Owen, their article, or Owen's supposed conversion to Orthodoxy, all of which is irrelevant to this thread. You are the one derailing the thread, not I!

You wrote:

And I now see that you are acknowledging that a conversion from evangelicism to orthodox was 100% accurate as you try to leap frog to the next event. Good grief.

Good grief indeed. I acknowledged no such thing. It it impossible to convert from evangelical to orthodox because evangelicalism is orthodox. So Paul Owen could not have converted from evangelicalism to orthodox. It is possible to convert from evangelicalism to the Orthodox Church, but Paul Owen did not do so; he joined the Anglican communion, which includes both evangelicals and non-evangelicals in its ranks and is not part of the Orthodox Church. So your statement is false no matter how one construes it.

The first event was a bit of side information for another poster that you are going to use to avoid the ECFs....how much longer?

I have no idea what you mean by "the first event" (or by "the next event" in your previous sentence). This is another one of those statements in your posts that is difficult to know what it means. In any case, I am not avoiding the ECFs; if anyone is, it is you. After all, my article quotes from them at length, and you have not quoted one ECF yet! Again, you are the one derailing the discussion here, not I.

You wrote:

As for your claim that your article is more comprehensive than anyone else's...another red herring. Irrelevant.

I didn't say that.

You wrote:

I do know something, especially about early Christianty.

So tell us something about it of relevance to the issue of whether the patristic doctrine of deification shows that Joseph Smith was restoring a lost doctrine of theosis. That is the issue here. If you know something of relevance, get off this sidetracking business about Owen and get down to business.

You wrote:

So if you want to use that then you wil have to expect to support what you are saying about it.

Excuse me, I did so; you have yet to offer any support for a contrary view.

You are trying to avoid serious discussion by playing your version of Mormonism against your selective version of early Christianity. That leaves you defending two positions, neither of which I see support for.

I provided explicit quotations supporting my statements. You have provided nothing but "nuh-uh" and "says you" responses.

You wrote:

And it is bad form and considered lazy to send people to article links when all you want to argue so if you want something discussed, then please have the courtesy to post it, don't link it.

Of all the things you have said so far, this may be the silliest. Was it bad form when Bill Hamblin started a thread three days ago with a post that gave a link to a recent article of his?

[juliann]

So tell us something about it of relevance to the issue of whether the patristic doctrine of deification shows that Joseph Smith was restoring a lost doctrine of theosis. That is the issue here. If you know something of relevance, get off this sidetracking business about Owen and get down to business.

Very funny.

Of all the things you have said so far, this may be the silliest. Was it bad form when Bill Hamblin started a thread three days ago with a post that gave a link to a recent article of his?

Ah.....I see. You put up links in this folder, try to compare them to links in Focused Discussion "..... for posters who have been invited to post on a specific topic", apparently hoping no one will notice the difference..... and then avoid all discussion by launching a vigorous debate over demonstrative determiners.

How's that workin' for ya?

[Rob Bowman]

juliann,

You wrote:

Very funny.

If you say so.

You wrote:

Ah.....I see. You put up links in this folder, try to compare them to links in Focused Discussion "..... for posters who have been invited to post on a specific topic", apparently hoping no one will notice the difference..... and then avoid all discussion by launching a vigorous debate over demonstrative determiners.

No, I'm not avoiding any discussion, let alone all discussion. Nor does your suggestion that it's okay to post links in the Focused Discussions forum but not the General Discussions forum have any legitimacy. Here are some recent threads in the General Discussions forum in which the opening posts gave links to outside articles:

Is Mormonism a Cult? This Minister Says No

Comfortable or Not the Mormons Are With Us

Cool PhD Candidate Paper on the Coc/Rlds

Perhaps you can come up with some reason why those opening posts were okay but mine is not.

Edited November 7, 2011 by Rob Bowman

[Hannah Rebekah]

If theosis was never lost then why are Evangelicals trying to rehabilitate their beliefs to fit with this ancient belief?

For an Evangelical Theosis: A Historical Theology of Theosis in Athanasius's De Incarnatione Verbi De

http://gcts.academia.edu/AntonioArsenal/Papers/1083075/For_an_Evangelical_Theosis_A_Historical_Theology_of_Theosis_in_Athanasiuss_De_Incarnatione_Verbi_Dei

(excerpt)

"If Protestants truly desire to have fellowship with Catholics and engage in ecumenical dialogue, integrating theosis into our atonement theories is a significant first step.

"The second major area that I believe theosis will benefit modern Evangelical theology is providing a rehabilitation for what may be potentially a flawed soteriological model. I say that it is flawed not so much because the components of the model are incorrect. Rather, it seems to me that they are incomplete."

[Nemesis]

juliann,

You wrote:

If you say so.

You wrote:

No, I'm not avoiding any discussion, let alone all discussion. Nor does your suggestion that it's okay to post links in the Focused Discussions forum but not the General Discussions forum have any legitimacy. Here are some recent threads in the General Discussions forum in which the opening posts gave links to outside articles:

Is Mormonism a Cult? This Minister Says No

Comfortable or Not the Mormons Are With Us

Cool PhD Candidate Paper on the Coc/Rlds

Perhaps you can come up with some reason why those opening posts were okay but mine is not.

I believe you were smart to post your articles off of irr's website, however no one here is a fool to your game. You are not here for discussion which really disturbs me since so much could have been. I believe the objection that posters have is not the link but more than that you don't discuss anything which I believe is starting to irritate them. You fight over cherry picked words to twist and mold them to fit your agenda. This is your final warning to start having a discussion and stop playing your games. If I continue to receive reports about you, we will be forced to take action.

Nemesis