Mormonism'S Anthropomorphic God: Why Is This A Problem For Other Theists?

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

What can I say.

Rather, it's what you can refrain from saying, such as that I don't believe the verses.

You wrote:

You, like nearly all of the anti-Mormons I have met, simply say that the verses quoted don't mean what they say.

If that bothers you, then change your ways.

No, my point is that I do believe those verses but that neither of us believes that they mean that humans can become one with each other in every way that the Father and the Son are one with each other.

You wrote:

It is true that those terms are not used, but then again, those are NOT the only terms available to describe that notion.

True, but I was using your stated standard, which was the mere omission of the words.

You wrote:

If you think that the "Godhead" is in the context, perhaps you could explain why you think that. But you will have to have a compelling argument. Something I doubt you can provide.

Au contraire, it is easily provided. The Father and the Son are two of the three members of the Godhead, and both of them are mentioned in the verses in question.

But Vance, you've got the argument turned inside out, like a shirt with the logo on the inside. I wasn't the one using John 17:21-23 as a proof text for my doctrine. I was simply responding to those Mormons who claim that this passage proves that people can become gods. It's up to them (you, if you want to take this on) to show that exaltation to godhood is in the context. I've already shown that elevation to the status of members of the Godhead is not in the passage (and not anywhere, as most but not all Mormons admit). This is the "wedge" in the door proving that people cannot become one in every way that the Father and the Son are one. Then I showed from the context what Jesus' meaning actually is.

Edited March 20, 2012 by Rob Bowman

[mfbukowski]

Believers' deification, exaltation, or becoming gods is not mentioned and is not part of the context. So reading these ideas into John 17:21-23 is mistaken, by your own standard.

I quoted one scripture which said it clearly there are many others. We have been over it many times before. Please read all the past threads in which this has been discussed ad nauseum

[mfbukowski]

You really need to have a huddle with the other Mormons here who insist that the text must mean that we will become everything that God is.

Will you become everything your earthly father is? I am assuming the "ideal" human father- impeccable in character, intelligence, learning and righteousness, and I am assuming the same for you. How about the same hypothetical great great great grandfather?

Will you ever know as much as your hypothetical great great great grandfather? (Assume for a moment that we can live for thousands of years here on earth)

You will never "catch up" to be as great as your hypothetical g.g.g. grandfather because he has been learning and progressing in character and knowledge for say a thousand years and you are, say, 55.

But yet will you ever catch up to where he is now, in 950 years? In 950 years will you catch up to all he "is" NOW? Hopefully! But you will never catch up to all he "is" 950 years from now, because he also has been progressing during the 950 years you have been progressing.

Will you be part of his family and "one" with him? Yes. Will you ever be him? Of course not- you are you and he is who he is. You are individuals.

Will you ever be "equal" to him at any given point of time- say now? Of course not! But you can progress to where he is "now".

It is like he is standing on a ladder in an elevator and you are on the floor of the elevator. You can go up 100 floors but he will still be higher than you are relative to you.

This is an analogy and I hope it communicates, but frankly the prospects are slim. You still haven't even "gotten" this model no matter how many times it has been explained to you.

[Rob Bowman]

Mr. Bukowski,

There may be other scriptures that you think clearly support your view. Fine. But I am addressing this one in John 17:21-23. It doesn't, for the reasons I gave. Asserting that there are other scriptures that support your view is not relevant to the issue I raised.

[Zakuska]

I quoted one scripture which said it clearly there are many others. We have been over it many times before. Please read all the past threads in which this has been discussed ad nauseum

Modern Christian exegesis

The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology describes "deification" thusly: Deification (Greek Theosis) is for orthodoxy the goal of every Christian. Man, according to the Bible, is ‘made in the image and likeness of God’...it is possible for man to become like God, to become deified, to become God by grace. This doctrine is based on many passages of both O.T. and N.T. (Psalms 82: (81) .6; 2 Peter 1:4), and it is essentially the teaching both of St. Paul, though he tends to use the language of filial adoption (Romans 8:9-17, Galatians 4:5-7) and the fourth gospel (John 17:21-23).^[28]

Joseph Fitzmyer wrote:

The language of 2 Peter is taken up by St. Irenaeus, in his famous phrase, ‘if the Word has been made man, it is so that men may be made gods; (adv. Haer v, pref.), And becomes the standard in Greek theology. In the fourth century St. Athanasius repeats Irenaeus almost word for word, and in the fifth century St. Cyril of Alexandria says that we shall become sons ‘by participation’ (Greek methexis). Deification is the central idea in the spirituality of St. Maximus the confessor, for whom the doctrine is corollary of the incarnation: ‘deification, briefly, is the encompassing and fulfillment of all times and ages’,...and St. Symeon the new theologian at the end of the tenth century writes, ‘he who is God by nature converses with those whom he has made gods by grace, as a friend converses with his friends, face to face...’ Finally, it should be noted that deification does not mean absorption into God, since the deified creature remains itself and distinct. It is the whole human being, body and soul, who is transfigured in the spirit into the likeness of the divine nature, and deification is the goal of every Christian.^[29]

According to Christian scholar G.L. Prestige, the ancient Christians “taught that the destiny of man was to become like God, and even to become deified.”^[30]

William R. Inge, Archbishop of Canterbury, wrote: "God became man, that we might become God" was a commonplace of doctrinal theology at least until the time of Augustine, and that "deification holds a very large place in the writings of the fathers...We find it in Irenaeus as well as in Clement, in Athanasius as well in Gregory of Nysee. St. Augustine was no more afraid of deificari in Latin than Origen of apotheosis in Greek...To modern ears the word deification sounds not only strange but arrogant and shocking.^[31]

Yet, these "arrogant and shocking" doctrines were clearly held by early Christians!

This view of the early Christians' doctrines is not unique to the Latter-day Saints. Many modern Christian writers have recognized the same doctrines. If the critics do not wish to embrace these ancient doctrines, that is their privilege, but they cannot logically claim that such doctrines are not "Christian." One might fairly ask why modern Christians do not believe that which the ancient Christians insisted upon?

http://en.fairmormon...fication_of_man

Hmmm... modern Christians don't even think it is attainable! Perhaps Mormons are the ONLY true Christians after all.

And as you can see John 17 does indeed point to man becoming "One" with God just as Christ is. (IE Deified) In the context that Rob says it cannot be.

Edited March 20, 2012 by Zakuska

[wenglund]

They couldn't. Jesus was praying for them to experience this oneness of love in the future, after the coming of the Holy Spirit.

Agreed, though I would say the same about their receiving a perfect oneness in glory (power and light of truth and righteousness).

While the disciples had been given love and glory while Christ was on earth, they didn't experience or gain a oneness until the future. They didn't attain a perfect oneness, and wouldn't become perfect emblems that the Father sent the Son, until they would be given life eternal: "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." (Jn 17:3--emphasis mine)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Log]

So, was there ever any good reason to accept Rob's first premise - you know, the one that is causing all of the conundrum?

I mean, does anyone anywhere ever claim Joe Biden and Barack Obama are one in any relevant sense by virtue of comprising a Presidency?

No?

Why is this discussion still happening?

Edited March 20, 2012 by Log

[Rob Bowman]

Mr. Bukowski,

You wrote:

Will you become everything your earthly father is? I am assuming the "ideal" human father- impeccable in character, intelligence, learning and righteousness, and I am assuming the same for you....

I fully expect to be fully like God the Father in many of these ways -- in character, righteousness, love, goodness, and so forth. I don't expect to be as intelligent or knowledgeable as God because God is eternally omniscient; he does not need to "learn" anything because he already knows it.

You wrote:

This is an analogy and I hope it communicates, but frankly the prospects are slim. You still haven't even "gotten" this model no matter how many times it has been explained to you.

I understand the analogy just fine, but I simply don't accept the theological model it is illustrating. You don't seem to have "gotten" that simple distinction. I can understand your view and still reject it. That this is a possibility doesn't fit the usual Mormon polemical paradigm, which is that all critics of Mormonism misunderstand everything they criticize.

From an orthodox Christian perspective, what you and most Mormons fail to accept and often fail to grasp is that the Fatherhood of God is itself an analogy. We are not his literal offspring; we are creatures whom God made in his image, not literal offspring that God procreated. He made us to know him and to be like him in some tremendously wonderful ways, but we will never be like him in every respect. If you're not already God, you never will be, because part of what it means to be God is to be God eternally. This is the orthodox view, which you are free to reject, just as I reject the LDS view.

[Log]

[God] does not need to "learn" anything because he already knows it.

Weird. The Bible says quite differently. Why do you hold to this anti-scriptural view?

[Rob Bowman]

Zakuska,

Your quotation does not answer the arguments I gave against understanding John 17:21-23 to teach deification. A bald, exegetically unsupported statement from a theological dictionary is not sufficient.

[Zakuska]

So, was there ever any good reason to accept Rob's first premise - you know, the one that is causing all of the conundrum?

I mean, does anyone anywhere ever claim Joe Biden and Barack Obama are one in any relevant sense by virtue of comprising a Presidency?

No?

Why is this discussion still happening?

I and my wife are echad ("one") at least according to the Bible. (Gen 2:24)

[Zakuska]

Zakuska,

Your quotation does not answer the arguments I gave against understanding John 17:21-23 to teach deification. A bald, exegetically unsupported statement from a theological dictionary is not sufficient.

Bald? I gave attribution...

Here is another:

“Deification — a doctrine of the Orthodox church based on Christ’s words found in St John 17:22–23 [verse cited] ... The true aim of Christian life is ”Deification,” or union with Almighty God by acquiring the Holy Spirit. Our call in living is not just to be ‘good,’ but to be perfect, to be ‘gods by grace.’ ... As St John Damascene writes, ‘Since the Creator bestowed on us His own image and Spirit, and we did not keep them secure, He Himself took a share of our poor and weak nature so that He might cleanse us, and make us incorruptible, while reinstating us as participants in His Divinity.’ St Maximos the Confessor says, ‘A sure warrant for looking forward with hope to the Deification of human nature is provided by the Incarnation of God, which makes man God, to the same degree as God Himself became man. For it is clear that He who became without sin will make human nature divine, and will raise it up for His own sake, and to the same degree as He lowered Himself for man’s sake.’”

• Complete Book of Orthodoxy, pp. 102–103, underlining mine

Edited March 20, 2012 by Zakuska

[mfbukowski]

http://en.fairmormon...fication_of_man

Hmmm... modern Christians don't even think it is attainable! Perhaps Mormons are the ONLY true Christians after all.

And as you can see John 17 does indeed point to man becoming "One" with God just as Christ is. (IE Deified) In the context that Rob says it cannot be.

[Log]

To support this, here is one of your evangelical coreligionists making a Biblical case against omiscience as you have described it: http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/02/exploring-evasions.html

[mfbukowski]

So, was there ever any good reason to accept Rob's first premise - you know, the one that is causing all of the conundrum?

I mean, does anyone anywhere ever claim Joe Biden and Barack Obama are one in any relevant sense by virtue of comprising a Presidency?

No?

Why is this discussion still happening?

Because Mr Bowman seems to think we are divided on this issue which we clearly are not. As long as we keep worrying about what Mr. Bowman thinks, the thread will continue

[Log]

Because Mr Bowman seems to think we are divided on this issue which we clearly are not. As long as we keep worrying about what Mr. Bowman thinks, the thread will continue

Let me get this straight - more than a full page has been dedicated to thwarting an obviously unsound deductive argument when a simple rejection of the first premise would have sufficed?

[/argument]

[mfbukowski]

Mr. Bukowski,

You wrote:

I fully expect to be fully like God the Father in many of these ways -- in character, righteousness, love, goodness, and so forth. I don't expect to be as intelligent or knowledgeable as God because God is eternally omniscient; he does not need to "learn" anything because he already knows it.

You wrote:

I understand the analogy just fine, but I simply don't accept the theological model it is illustrating. You don't seem to have "gotten" that simple distinction. I can understand your view and still reject it. That this is a possibility doesn't fit the usual Mormon polemical paradigm, which is that all critics of Mormonism misunderstand everything they criticize.

From an orthodox Christian perspective, what you and most Mormons fail to accept and often fail to grasp is that the Fatherhood of God is itself an analogy. We are not his literal offspring; we are creatures whom God made in his image, not literal offspring that God procreated. He made us to know him and to be like him in some tremendously wonderful ways, but we will never be like him in every respect. If you're not already God, you never will be, because part of what it means to be God is to be God eternally. This is the orthodox view, which you are free to reject, just as I reject the LDS view.

That's fine with me, as long as you understand it. And incidentally I think it is misleading to call yourself "orthodox" if you are not a member of the Orthodox church. It is only the difference between a capital letter and a small letter, but it is a bit disconcerting.

[Rob Bowman]

Log,

You wrote:

So, was there ever any good reason to accept Rob's first premise - you know, the one that is causing all of the conundrum?

I mean, does anyone anywhere ever claim Joe Biden and Barack Obama are one in any relevant sense by virtue of comprising a Presidency?

No?

Why is this discussion still happening?

Are you saying that you do not believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are "one Godhead"? If they are "one Godhead," is this not a way in which they are "one"?

[Rob Bowman]

Zakuska,

You wrote:

Bald? I gave attribution...

You misunderstood my point. The source you quoted gave no exegetical arguments or reasons for its claim that John 17 teaches deification. In that sense, its claim was bald or unsupported.

[altersteve]

Log,

You wrote:

Are you saying that you do not believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are "one Godhead"? If they are "one Godhead," is this not a way in which they are "one"?

I would say that being "one Godhead" is not how they are one. Rather, they are "one Godhead" because they are one.

[maklelan]

Dan,

You wrote:

I didn't say he does.

You cannot assert that John is not indicating multiple senses of oneness with God without presupposing that John accepts multiple senses of oneness with God, and I don't see any indication John acknowledges anything other than a oneness of glory.

You wrote:

As am I, but I am trying to reason with traditionally minded Mormons who read ideas of exaltation to godhood into the biblical text that are not there.

Regarding the oneness for which Jesus prayed in John 17, you wrote:

Let's get the text in front of us:

"I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, 23 I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me. 24 Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world. 25 O righteous Father, even though the world does not know you, I know you, and these know that you have sent me. 26 I made known to them your name, and I will continue to make it known, that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them" (John 17:20-26 ESV).

If we are to pit glory and love against one another as if one must be the dominant theme of the passage rather than the other, then love would "win," although I don't see a need to argue in that way.

I'm not pitting the two against each other, I'm trying to identify the focus of the chapter, and I disagree that "love would 'win.'"

John 17 should be read in the context of the entire Upper Room Discourse (John 13-17). Throughout this lengthy part of the Gospel, love is quite obviously a dominant theme. The word love itself occurs 34 times in these five chapters (John 13:1, 23, 34, 35; 14:15, 21, 23, 24, 28, 31; 15:9, 10, 12, 13, 17, 19; 16:27; 17:23, 24, 26) and 23 times in the rest of the book. Glory is of course also a significant theme; the words glory and glorify occur 16 times in these five chapters (John 13:31, 32; 14:13; 15:8; 16:14; 17:1, 4, 5, 10, 22, 24) and 17 times in the rest of the book. So both receive some emphasis in John 13-17, but love clearly more so.

But you're just extending the boundaries of the text in order to draw in more occurrences of "love" so they outnumber the occurrences of "glory," but this is a quite self-contained chapter. Love may be the broader theme of the collection of chapters, but in Christ's intercessory prayer, glory is more central. There is no need to transgress the boundaries of the textual unit.

In any case, a careful exegesis of the chapter will prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the "oneness" for which Jesus prays here is a oneness of love.

First, Jesus says here that he has given (past tense, specifically perfect indicative) to the disciples the glory the Father had given to him (v. 22a), so they already have this "glory," whatever it is.

Yes, but there are stages evidenced in the chapter. We can look to vv. 11-12 for another example of a condition Christ produced that he then asks God to produce himself. Specifically, he says he has "kept" those given to him in God's name. He also asks God to keep them in his name. We know that glory is directly associated with the oneness because v. 22 states unequivocally that Christ gave them that glory in order that they may be one with him as Christ is one with God. This is a purpose clause, not a result clause. The reception of glory is what makes possible the bringing about of the state of oneness with God, but it seems from the text that that oneness is something that God must establish. It is not Christ's prerogative. Christ would otherwise not be praying for it. Love is only ever mentioned in connection with this oneness as a state that that oneness evinces. That God sent Jesus is another condition that is described as equally evinced by that oneness.

By the way, if they already have this glory, it cannot be referring to exaltation to godhood sometime in the future after they are resurrected to immortality. One could speculate that it will eventually lead to that exaltation, but the text does not say so. I'm pointing this out so that Mormons here won't misunderstand this "glory" to refer to their concept of eternal progression or exaltation.

Now, Jesus says that he gave his disciples this glory "that they may be one even as we are one," and so forth (v. 22b-23). Love is not the catalyst for the glory, as you put it; rather, the glory is the catalyst for the oneness. The disciples already have the glory; Jesus is praying that the glory will result in their becoming one in the desired sense, whatever that is. Jesus does not pray that the disciples may come to have glory just as he and the Father have glory; he does not pray this because, he says, he has already given the disciples the glory he came to give them.

He also explains that that glory is the very same glory that the Father has given Christ. Love is also described as preceding that oneness, but only glory is directly described as the proximate cause for it. That oneness is in part intended to manifest that Christ was sent by God, and that God has loved Christ and his followers. Love is never described as the nature of the oneness.

Second, Jesus explains that the oneness is in fact a oneness of love. He concludes his prayer by praying "that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them" (v. 26). Notice how this prayer parallels the prayer "that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me" (vv. 22b-23a). Jesus actually prays here that the Father's love for the Son will be in the disciples. In both cases he prays "that" something "may be" (hina followed by the verb in the subjunctive), something that is not yet but he prays will be true about the disciples during their moral lives. In both cases Jesus prays that this may become the case, and "I in them" (ego en autois). Christ will be truly "in them" as this oneness is realized in their lives, as the Father's love for the Son comes to be in them as well. In context this "oneness" appears then to be equated with love.

There is some conceptual overlap here, but glory is also described as the attribute that God has given to Christ, that Christ has given to his followers, and that produces a state of oneness. Notice earlier in the chapter Christ talks about the glory that the two of them shared before the creation of the earth. In v. 24 Christ says that God has given Christ glory because he loved him from before the creation of the earth. It seems to me that glory is the salient concept, and love is the conduit.

Third, the crucial reason that Jesus gives for his prayer should be given careful notice: "so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me" (v. 23b). This is not the first time that Christ spoke about the world knowing because of something about the disciples. Toward the beginning of the discourse Jesus tells them, "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another (John 13:34-35 ESV). When the disciples have love for one another, that will have the result that people in the world will know that they are followers of the one who came to bring the Father's love. But this is just what Jesus prays for in John 17:23--that the world may know that the disciples are people who have experienced the Father's love for the Son whom they are following.

And in that instance it is God's glory that produces that knowledge.

By the love of the disciples for one another, the world will know that they are people who have experienced his love, which is the love that the Father and the Son have for one another. This thematic connection proves that it is a oneness of love that Jesus prays the disciples will have, a oneness of love that will persuade people that the love of the Father and the Son is real.

It shows that love is intimately connected with the process, but it identifies God's glory as directly responsible for oneness.

This discussion is really tangential to my main point, which is that the oneness that Jesus shares with God throughout John is the very oneness that Christ seeks to extend to his disciples. John does not describe any other kind of oneness. In John 10 when Christ says "I and the father are one," there is simply no indication he is indicating any other oneness than that oneness sought for on the part of the disciples in John 17. This is supported not only in the lack of any distinction, but in the Jews' assertion that he is claiming to be divine and in John 1:12's insistence that those who receive Christ can be begotten by God and become "children of God," or divine.

Edited March 20, 2012 by maklelan

[Rob Bowman]

Mr. Bukowski,

You wrote:

And incidentally I think it is misleading to call yourself "orthodox" if you are not a member of the Orthodox church. It is only the difference between a capital letter and a small letter, but it is a bit disconcerting.

I don't think a Mormon really wants to start telling others what religious labels they should not apply to themselves, do you?

[Log]

Log,

You wrote:

Are you saying that you do not believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are "one Godhead"? If they are "one Godhead," is this not a way in which they are "one"?

Yes, they are one Godhead. No, this is not a way in which the three are one, anymore than Joe Biden is one with Barack Obama.

I await, with bated breath, your response to Vox Day on how omniscience of the kind you attribute to God is anti-scriptural, by the way.

Edited March 20, 2012 by Log

[thesometimesaint]

Rob:

John 17:21-22 says otherwise.

²¹ That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.²² And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

[Rob Bowman]

Steve,

How is not the issue. I said this was a way in which they are one, i.e., this is something that can be meant by saying they are "one."

I would say that being "one Godhead" is not how they are one. Rather, they are "one Godhead" because they are one.