The Outer Limits
A reply to Kevin W. Graham
Introduction
As before, I really must start with a compliment to Kevin Graham for exceeding, by far, what any Skeptic I have ever dealt with has done in terms of producing a reply. The endnotes you see represent real work; whether I think Graham refuted me or not (obviously, I don't!) the sort of earnest digging we see from him is a model that others need to emulate. As before, I will merely intersperse comments, except for sections here where Graham goes off on tangents not directly addressing my material. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches a doctrine of exaltation, which is commonly referred to as theosis or human deification in orthodox circles. It is salvation in the ultimate sense that can come only by the grace of Jesus Christ.[1] This doctrine is set in stone within the LDS canon, as the Prophet Joseph Smith revealed of those who receive exaltation in the celestial kingdom,
They shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.[2]
Generally, Evangelicals critical of the LDS faith consider this doctrine nothing short of repugnant and they have tried to use this doctrine against us, by presenting it as evidence that the LDS faith is not a genuine Christian faith. This was exemplified in the production of the book and film, "The God Makers."[3] Since its release, the modus operandi among counter-cultists has been to attack the LDS faith by exposing those doctrines which tend to cause knee-jerk reactions from those who are already predisposed that such doctrines have no place in Christianity. Catholic scholar Jordan Vajda seems to have understood this tactic well enough:
Obviously the titles chosen for these books [The God Makers] was no accident; it was something of a summary statement. Through reference to the doctrine of the LDS Church considered most objectionable, human divinization, the title epitomized the view of the authors that the LDS Church 'is not Christian…'"[4]
On the other end of the spectrum we should be thrilled with JP Holding's treatment of this subject, since he approaches it respectfully and accurately. This is the shortest chapter in the book because he agrees that the Bible teaches a doctrine of theosis (deification). With this position he thwarts - probably inadvertently - a major movement in modern anti-Mormonism. Inadvertantly? Nah. Graham knows better than that. I've told him before I'm out to start revolutions.
Having said that, he takes this position with qualification. He argues that theosis is biblical, but that the LDS version is not. Remaining consistent with the thesis of his book, he offers a few arguments intended to show that LDS apologists misuse Bible passages to support this doctrine. I believe Holding has bypassed the larger picture that probably left many of his readers confused. In short, the gist of this chapter focuses on what the Bible doesn't say as opposed to what it does say about human deification - all for the purpose of undermining something about the LDS version of theosis. Had he elaborated on what the true doctrine of "becoming a God" was, according to his interpretation of the Bible, I can only assume that he'd probably end up in hot water on his side of the fence. If I did, I really wouldn't care, and Graham's psychologization here is not appreciated. But the orientation Graham reads here is more a product of the fact that, as even LDS apologists admit, there is not a lot of positive evidence for the uniquely LDS position that can be drawn from the Bible. Note that I say "uniquely" -- meaning, you can find things that mainstream Christian writers can or will agree with; just not the unique elements of Mormonism (such as the stuff about Kolob, for example), which can only be "read between the lines" when you start with a premise of the authority of Mormon prophetic documents. As it remains, I'm not at all certain as to what verses Holding believes actually do support theosis, and I doubt his readers do either. It is certain, however, that the proof texts offered by LDS apologists carry no weight with him. That much is so.
I believe it is unfortunate that Holding doesn't delve into this subject further, because his readers could benefit from an informed Evangelical discourse on this doctrine. Then maybe Graham wants to cough up $4K to help me publish another book?
The impression given is that the LDS doctrine shares no resemblance at all with the historic doctrine. What "impression"? Why not quote me rather than rely on "impressions" that may be no more than the result, quite honestly, of what I have noted (including to Graham in person) to be a "persecution complex"? For these reasons, Holding's readers, who he intends to arm with apologetic ammunition, will be approaching this from a wrong angle and they will perhaps find themselves at odds with Holding's statement that the Bible teaches theosis in any sense at all. Not that I have yet been told, sorry. Suffice it to say, anti-Mormons, who undoubtedly represent a significant portion of Holding's audience, don't want to be embarrassed by having their own church history lectured to them by those they believe are in a cult. Even so, this appears to be exactly what has been occurring over the past few decades. As Father Vajda gracefully maintains,
The Latter-day Saints are owed a debt of gratitude by other Christians because the Saints remind us all of our divine potential. The historic Christian doctrine of salvation-theosis, i.e., human divinization-for too long has been forgotten by too many Christians. Though of course, as another Orthodox scholar said in the Ostlings' book, the Orthodox view sees the Mormon view as bizarre -- debt or no debt. Graham next takes some time to address views other than my own; as I have told him, I don't feel I need to take the time to address these things, so I will skip to where I am next dealt with. Just a couple of notes in what I skip: 1) I feel that again, Graham's "persecution complex" is showing and that he uses it to polemical advantage. I would like for him to reword material so that there does exist some possibility that one can honestly critique Mormon views without being regarded as engaging in persecution. 2) A minor nitpick, as he erroneously attributes an article on my site to "Brian Holt." It is actually about a view held by Holt, and was authored by Phantaz Sunlyk, a Catholic reader and contributing writer to Tekton. Graham may not be aware that there is also much said of theosis in Catholic tradition.[7]
Do LDS Apologists Misquote Christian Authorities?
Supporting Holding's thesis is an argument from staunch Evangelical journalists, Richard and Joan Ostling,[36] who believe LDS apologists have abused the writings of one of their most esteemed authors, C.S. Lewis. But not "misquoted", as the title implies above. Note as well that their "staunchness" no more addresses anything that would calling Daniel Peterson a "staunch Mormon scholar." These citations have proven to be a very delicate issue for Evangelicals mostly because Lewis is perhaps the most popular Christian author of his time, so it is assumed Lewis would naturally express doctrines similar to those who maintain LDS are not Christians, or else something has gone awry. Even so, "There are no ordinary people," writes Lewis. Rather, we "live in a society of possible gods and goddesses. The dullest and most uninteresting person you talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship."[37] Even more to the point, Lewis argues that,
The command Be ye perfect is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible. He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were 'gods' and He is going to make good His words. If we let Him--for we can prevent Him, if we choose --He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God perfectly (though, of course, on a smaller scale) His own boundless power and delight and goodness. The process will be long and in parts very painful; but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant what He said.[38]
The words from Lewis sound more flamboyant and detailed than anything Joseph Smith ever said in regards to deification, yet Evangelicals are still trying to save their champion from sounding too Mormon, by accusing the LDS of neglect. More flamboyant and more detailed? I should say not. There's not a word here about populating planets via eternal marriage; there is not a word here about God as a former man. It doesn't sound Mormon at all; but the reason some may think so is because they are looking at Mormon views in a far too general way.[39] Dr. Louis Midgley has recently addressed this bogus charge of misrepresentation, and it is worth citing in detail:
The Ostlings make an effort to distinguish the belief in deification found in the writings of C. S. Lewis from what the Saints really believe. They are obviously troubled by the use that some of the Saints have made of language found in the writings of Lewis… "Obviously troubled"? This kind of psychoanalysis I expect from atheists, in fact, the worst sort of atheists -- not from Mormons. Is there any way to point out an error, in Midgley's view, without sounding "troubled" about it? But they also have to admit that Lewis believed in deification. They do so reluctantly. No, they do not. There is not a hint of reluctance in what the Ostlings write of this; this is merely more psychoanalysis by Midgley in place of actual argument, and addressing the very important differences in what Lewis offered. They seek ways of distinguishing what Lewis taught from what the Saints believe. This is not difficult; there are obviously some matters upon which Lewis held opinions that differ from those held by the Saints. Obviously! Lewis did NOT share the idea of God as an ex-mortal man; he did not believe in eternal marriage or procreation. Take away these two distinctives, and there is very little left that can be called "Mormon" about his theosis! I wonder if the Ostlings accept what Lewis taught about deification. If so, how do they respond to contemporary conservative Christians, including both fundamentalist and evangelicals, whose dogmas simply do not tolerate anything approaching deification, however it is understood? And pointing out that Lewis may have subscribed to some of the classical Trinitarian ideas about God hardly explains away, but merely qualifies, his belief.
The Ostlings quote several passages from the writings of C. S. Lewis in which he set forth in his clear and forceful style his belief that it is our destiny - if we so desire, and of course through the grace of God - to become "gods and goddesses" (p. 308). I will add one little passage that they neglected to quote. In a letter consoling a woman for some suffering she had witnessed, Lewis wrote as follows: "It is so v[ery] difficult to believe that the travail of all creation which God Himself descended to share, at its most intense, may be necessary in the process of turning finite creatures (with free wills) into - well, Gods." When confronted with the claim that Lewis taught deification and finding it necessary to grant that he did, they still ask: "Did he?" (p. 308). Then, instead of granting the obvious, they dance around this uncomfortable fact. Once again we can be spared the psychologization. Midgley is not dealing with the key issue, which is that Lewis' theosis doctrine offered nothing distinctively Mormon. Hence he should not be used by Mormon writers, or only used with serious qualification. They do this initially by pointing out that "the real C. S. Lewis was aware of the Book of Mormon and assumed that Joseph Smith wrote it" (p. 308). This is true, but it does not address what the "real C. S. Lewis" believed about deification, which is the issue they were presumably confronting. They already addressed what the "real Lewis" believed about it -- and showed it was nothing like Mormon theosis, as Midgley must admit here: Then they point to theological differences between Lewis and the Saints. Something like this is also true, but I am unaware of Latter-day Saint scholars who do not acknowledge this fact. They do however, as Midgley does here, skirt over the issue as quickly as possible, while subjecting opponents like the Ostlings to rigorous psychologization. Let the balance speak for itself. So I must ask their question again: "Did he" teach deification? In the Mormon sense, obviously not, which is the entire point.
The Ostlings eventually grant, "Lewis did write a number of passages that do appear to express deification" (p. 309). "Appear"? Lewis is not murky on this issue - much of his popularity stems from his clarity. It is not the case that he merely appears to have taught deification - he did so, precisely and often. He did not thereby, according to the Ostlings, erase the distinction between God and all those with the potential to become Gods, but no Latter-day Saint scholar has said that he did. Then no LDS scholar should use him as a support, except with very serious qualification, since it is erasing that very distinction that lays at the heart of Mormon theosis. And the Saints do not deny or blur this distinction. Lewis, again according to the Ostlings, taught that "man has no luminosity of his own; he is only capable, through grace, of functioning as a clean mirror to reflect the brightness of God" (p. 309). What the Ostlings apparently do not realize is that something like this is also what the Saints believe and what is taught in our scriptures. "Something like" is an exceptionally vague description, like saying that Mormons believe "something like" the Nicean Trinity! It seems that the Ostlings have not understood that the Saints believe that only God can save us and that salvation from death and sin, as well as sanctification (or exaltation), is always a gift from God and never an autonomous human accomplishment. The Saints do not believe in self-apotheosis. Nowhere did I find that the Ostlings said they did. This is the same sort of misuse of Lewis, now done to the Ostlings. And the Ostlings are confused about our understanding of the atonement. This confusion seems to explain why they disregard scholarly Latter-day Saint appeals to the church fathers and to writers like C. S. Lewis on the issue of deification or sanctification. They wrongly assume that they have overcome the arguments presented by Latter-day Saint scholars by quoting people who insist that deification involves sharing in the manifestations and activities of God, "but only by grace, never of right" (p. 312). Unfortunately as Robinson admitted, even many mainstream LDS DO believe in a form of atonement by works, so it seems Midgley needs to clean up his own house before criticizing the specks of dirt he finds in others'.[40]
Thus, the attitude expressed by the Ostlings is reminiscent of what we have become accustomed to in anti-Mormon literature; majoring in minors by downplaying what was actually said, and dwelling on what wasn't said. Their frustration is exhibited by their refusal to admit that Lewis' words accurately represent his own belief in that humans can become gods. Lewis did not play the game of semantics by masquerading the doctrine with terms like theosis, holiness, sanctification or even deification. His position was unambiguous. He said point blank, we could become gods! This is something our critics can't bring themselves to admit and try to drag Lewis into their camp by questioning his teaching. I can, and I'll make it plain why: Lewis defined "gods" much as I did -- he looked at it in terms of something lesser beings could be called, and this is perhaps because of his literary background. Nevertheless he never saw men as the same species as God, and never saw God as an ex-mortal who had climbed the ladder. Take that away, and there is no Mormon theosis. In any case, from what I've read, no LDS apologist or scholar has ever denied the metaphysical distinctions promoted by early fathers and current Christian commentators. The best evidence for this that has been presented thus far is found in the book Mormonism on the Internet by Laura Maery Gold. The Ostlings quote from her book: "Yeah, yeah, so he wasn't technically LDS. But his personal theology continues to speak to LDS beliefs to such a degree that he certainly deserves the status of honorary member."[41] What this statement implied is not at all clear. Was it "tongue in cheek"? That would be a remarkable excuse. To what "degree" do Lewis' teachings conform to LDS? Either way, it should be obvious that this does not truly represent the norm among LDS apologists, and I would be terribly disappointed if this is the best evidence our critics can offer in support of these allegations. It had best not represent the norm, but the position is held, and if that is so, the Ostlings had their right to address it.
Our critics must also keep in mind that Latter-day Saints typically bring up theosis in the church fathers while in defense mode. Meaning, LDS critics tend to accuse Latter-day Saints for practicing a form of "heresy" by thinking it is ever proper to call humans gods. We simply point out that it is duplicitous to accept one group as Christian while rejecting another on this same basis.[42] Never has this issue been used to prove the LDS concept is identical to that of the church fathers, and by extension, that the doctrine must therefore be true. From an LDS perspective, such arguments would prove fruitless in light of the LDS doctrine of theological apostasy. Indeed, what need would there be for a restoration if the church fathers had everything right? The point is simply this: why is it thought to be inappropriate to say we can become gods and remain Christian, when this is exactly what took place among Christian leadership during Christianity's crucial years of development? Because again, the patristics also never thought of God as a man like us who made it up the theosis stepladder.
To say the least, this criticism can only appear as a straw man. That LDS scholarship has made a concerted effort to acknowledge the ontological distinctions so often reiterated by our critics is evident from even a cursory examination of LDS apologia. Twenty years ago Philip Barlow made it perfectly clear that, "There is obviously a sense in which the various deification allusions here considered have only verbal similarities to Mormon understandings of exaltation. I therefore do not wish to be misunderstood as implying that any or all of the thinkers referred to herein thought of theosis just as the Mormons do." But he emphasizes the point that our critics fervently deny: "On the other hand the affinities with Mormon thought of some thinkers are striking." But if the affinities are so general as to not reflect the doctrine of the sect adequately, then what is the point? By this logic Mormons also become mainstream Trinitarians. Once again it is a while before Graham addresses me again, so we will skip to where my name is again used in vain
To be sure, the "creature-Creator" argument is basically the only argument left to discredit LDS theosis, so it should not be surprising that Holding follows the party line when he refers to deification passages by saying they "never blur the distinction between creature and creator." "Party line"? It is the truth; if reporting the truth is "following the party line" then pass me the hat and whistle. This is not an answer at all but more psychologization.[49] On the surface this response seems to be a red herring, since theosis refers to a future state of being while the creature state refers to an original or present state of being. So long as God is transforming us into deified beings, what difference does it make if we are still referred to as created gods? Also, this sort of response merely begs the question because it assumes that such an ontological distinction exists in the first place. That such does exist would have to be shown in other chapters, actually, which I did do as in Ch. 1. As Norman illustrates, "To assert that deification is incompatible with the Bible on the basis of the differentiation between the divine and human found therein is to impose an ontological standard on the text which was not there originally." It would be? This is a package assertion that itself assumes to have proven that the "standard" was not there. It's here related to other issues covered elsewhere, such as pre-existence. [50] In accord with what was established in chapter one, Stauffer asserts the Semitic concept of God had to do primarily with powers, not metaphysical being. Immortality is "simply a presupposition of this Lordship," so that the "emphasis is on the dynamic definition rather than the metaphysical."[51] This distinction, which is so crucial to the argument before us, was not "blurred" because no such distinction was envisioned to begin with. We could point out that the verses never blur the distinction between raccoons and Toyotas either. But then again, why would this matter? That makes very little sense as it stands. How does this relate to whether or not we are creations and He is the Creator? How does this make God of the same species, especially since He is described explicitly as the "only immortal" (meaning, the only one who has it by nature as opposed to through Him)?
Since it is generally conceded that deification language is replete in early Christianity, we will offer only a few examples for reference. Irenaeus says that, "from the beginning we are first made men and then gods."[52] Clement of Alexandria very bluntly stated, "The Logos of God was made man in that you might learn from man how to become a God."[53] Saint Athanasius declared, "The Word was made flesh in order that we might be enabled to be made gods...Just as the Lord, putting on the body, became a man, so also we men are both deified through his flesh, and henceforth inherit everlasting life."[54] As Church Historian Robert Wilken states, salvation according to the early church fathers meant that "we are not only freed from something, we become something. 'You have put off the old nature…and have put on the new nature which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator.'(Col 3:10)"[55] The idea was clearly to become something entirely new, and the new creature was to be whatever God was. "Whatever God was"? That's rather vague. It is clear that we become like God in certain aspects -- as even the Bible intimates -- but that is not the same as making a case for full species identification. Given this premise, the notion that we are ontologically different from God presently, has absolutely no bearing on the fact that we will become something new through salvation in Christ, and that that something is a god!
Fr. J. Arintero stops short of declaring man to be "uncreated" beings, but uses St. Augustine to support the concept that men become a race of divinity:
A Christian is part of a new and heavenly race of men, of a divine trunk: divinum genus. He is a deified man, a son of God the Father, incorporated into the Incarnate Word, animated by the Holy Ghost. His life must be that of a citizen of heaven: "If God humiliated Himself to such an extent as to make Himself man," says St. Augustine, "this was in order to exalt men to such an extent as to make of them gods [Serm. 166]."[56]
So now we must ask ourselves, what did all this "becoming a god" talk mean? To say that God became man so that man could become God, hardly indicates qualification, as our critics would have it. Indeed, if what our critics say is true, and theosis does not involve an ontological likeness, then what, may we ask, did it really mean? This is slippery again: The issue is not, "an ontological likeness," but, "TO WHAT EXTENT" a likeness? The Mormon sense is much farther along than anything recorded in the patristics. Could ante-Nicean or even post-Nicean fathers have neglected such a dichotomy? If such is the case, then Evangelicals who criticize LDS apologists for generalizing an "early church doctrine," are only guilty of the charge they impose on us. Take Owen and Mosser for example,
…it is extremely difficult to define precisely the doctrine of deification among the church fathers because it meant various things to different writers. However, the various views on the doctrine did have much in common. Volz writes: "The deification of human beings does not imply an equality with God, or a participation in the godhead. There remains a distinction between God and humanity. The similarity lies in the sharing of qualities, such as holiness, incorruption, and immortality, but human beings remain creatures, and their godlike qualities are the gift of God's grace."[57]
I find this approach inconsistent and it is reflected in Holding's footnotes.[58] First they imply that any ruling on what all the fathers believed would be an exercise in futility since there were simply too many of them who believed differently. With this premise I would agree. Yet, this is immediately followed up with a caricature that all fathers agreed on the Evangelical premise of ontological distinction between God and man. So, what of it? That one could not nail them all down to every particular does not prevent an evaluation that NONE of them went past a specific point. This is epistemically absurd. [59] This is not so certain, and it questions many statements made by various fathers, which we will get to momentarily. But I find it interesting that while Evangelicals assert that certain church fathers were wedded to the creature/Creator dichotomy, they do very little to explain away the deification writing of others who were not so convinced. Were the church fathers united in one thought on primary issues such as deification or even the Trinity? Certainly not. What does this have to do with anything? The point remains that none of them went as far as Mormons on this particular issue. How they dealt with an entirely different issue with entirely different categories of data isn't in the least relevant. And according to John Henry Newman,
If we limit our view of the teaching of the Fathers by what they expressly state, St. Ignatius may be considered as a Patripassian, St. Justin arianizes, and St. Hippolytus is a Photinian…Tertullian is heterodox on the doctrine of our Lord's divinity… Origen is, at the very least, suspected, and must be defended and explained rather than cited as a witness of orthodoxy; and Eusebius was a Semi-Arian.[60]
Catholic apologist David Waltz kindly admits that he had, "been somewhat troubled by the immense number of passages in the church fathers that promote the doctrine of deification."[61] But he also agrees that "the later fathers began to qualify what deification meant or did not mean, but the vast majority of the pre-Nicene fathers established no guidelines on the matter for their readers." Funny, this is more or less what Owen and Mosser said; so why is Waltz "kindly" when they are not?[62] If LDS apologists fail to see a clear distinction in the earliest pre-Nicene fathers, then they are in good company. My position is that the consensus is ambiguous at best. Where else do we find an awareness of ambiguity? Samuel Angus reports that Lactanius believed, "that the chaste man will become 'identical in all respects with God'." Samuel Angus is a very poor source for information; he rejected Scripture's authority, which makes it hard to accept him supporting a case for theosis from Scripture. I would like a quote from Lactanius; Tekton Research Associate Punkish obliged with a possibility: Lactantius and "the chaste man will become 'identical in all respects with God'" quote - initial searches on the Internet reveal the phrase used in the original Latin is, "consimilis Deo"...and unfortunately consimilis means "similar" not "identical"... [63] Wilken claims that according to the fathers, salvation involved becoming "like God", that is, "we will possess those qualities that are God-like." Yes, but which ones? Is this full ontological identity? as yet this remains unsupportive of that which is to be uniquely identified with Mormon theosis.[64] He does not limit these attributes to morality or incorruptibility as do Holding and Blomberg. Even as late as the late fourth century we can find Gregory of Nazianzus speaking on deification: "I too might be made God so far as He [Jesus] is made Man." I don't see that Blomberg would disagree and nor would I. More shortly.[65] This qualifier "so far as" should serve as a key to interpreting the intent behind the passage. This is of course a simple rewording of the famous phrase used by Irenaeus who exhorted Christians to follow Jesus Christ who, "become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is himself."[66] This comment by Iraneaus appears unambiguous, It isn't as it is used. For one thing, it offers no specifications for in what particulars we will "become what we are". It is presumptive to assume that this means, "in every single way" and it isn't in the comment. and Arthur C. McGiffert seems to have understood this as follows:
Participation in God was carried so far by Irenaeus as to amount to deification. 'We were not made gods in the beginning,' he says, 'but at first men, then at length gods.' This is not to be understood as mere rhetorical exaggeration on Irenaeus' part. He meant the statement to be taken literally.[67]
The logical inference from these phrases requires an understanding that men will become gods in the same exact way God became man. That "logical inference" depends on nothing but a presumptive reading of category. So if we use this as a Rosetta stone of sorts, we could ask ourselves "How did God become man?" and come away with an answer to our question. Jesus Christ became man, not in a strictly "moral" sense. In fact, He did not become man in a moral sense at all. But he did become man in that he became exactly what man was physically, or ontologically! That's not quite so. Jesus became 100% God, 100% man, by the usual understanding. This did not involve becoming man in a species sense. Graham is compelled to admit the exception: Christ was never a sinner so this excludes the possibility of moral similarity, but He did participate in human nature as evidenced by his birth and crucifixion. In that case, it seems that we can argue as well that theosis does not mean taking on aspects of "godness" that are unique to God as a being. If Christ can't become sinful, then we can't become something God is. By participating in human nature He became a man, which is something no Evangelical would deny. Therefore, it could be deduced that according to some church fathers, men join God in the same ontological, incorruptible nature as Christ joined mankind in the same ontological, corruptible human nature. And that's just a moral and characteristics issue. No divine procreation; no species joining. Aside from the more ambiguous statements from the successors of Athanasius, the presupposed ontological distinction is not at all clear in all the fathers. If they held to the same limitations as did the later fathers, then they do not demarcate this to avoid ambiguity. It is most likely they saw no need. The point begs the question that anyone would have reached such a conclusion in the first place.
But the evidence of ambiguity doesn't stop there. Macarius of Egypt, who lived from 300-390 AD, said, "Between God and man there exists the greatest kinship."[68] Certainly this sort of language has no place in a creature-Creator dichotomy. It doesn't? I noted elsewhere that the Jews used kinship language of men, angels, and God, without blurring species category distinctions. This comment has nowhere near the specificity Graham needs to make his case. Gregory of Nyssa said mortals are capable of rejoicing in God, "because there is something of the divine in (human) nature." That's fine. Some part of it in us; but not a word about any sort of "species" connection. [69] Further, Origen (185-254) believed that, "with respect to His mortal body, and the human soul which it contained, we assert that not by their communion merely with Him, but by their unity and intermixture, they received the highest powers, and after participating in His divinity, were changed into God."[70] Where is the creature/Creator dichotomy here? It's not hard, and it relates back to a point we have made elsewhere that theos is not a proper name. It is more like the word "god" -- lower case G -- and was clearly applied in the OT (as elohim) and NT to beings without the same ontological nature as YHWH. Thus Origen does not support a view of Mormon theosis, unless we confuse "god" into modern usage as a more or less proper name. In what sense are we really "changed" if we retain the same nature as before? The two natures are not so opposite to one another for Origen. In fact, the unanimity is what made them Gods. Origen urged all to "flee with all…power from being men and make haste to become gods." From Christ, he wrote, "there began the union of the divine with the human nature, in order that the human, by communion with the divine, might rise to be divine, not in Jesus alone, but in all those who not only believe, but enter upon the life which Jesus taught." [71] Contrast this with the declaration of seventh-century Byzantine theologian Maximus the Confessor, who firmly maintains an unambiguous ontological and eternal distinction between creature and Creator: "The one deified through grace receives for himself everything God possesses, apart from the identity of substance." Nothing opposite of what Origen says here. Origen and the others say nothing about having "identity of substance" (nature) with God.[72] Thus, Maximus forms the theological construct of theosis by which Evangelicals presume to be universal. Finding one would hardly be anything to write home about, but it so happens, as shown, that Maximus is really too vague to be of use anyway.
A recent Evangelical response by James K. Kwah, Jr. of Dallas Theological Seminary makes the following generalization:
In summary, from the Church Fathers, we see that we cannot be God by nature; yet in a certain sense the divinized do 'become God' by grace since they participate in divine nature. Precisely, the truth is that human beings remain 'by nature' human, and it is only 'by participation' (i.e., as often explicitly affirmed, 'by grace') that they become divine. Here, 'becoming divine' does not mean our humanity or our human nature is destroyed in the process of divinization. In fact, God's deifying grace does not destroy nature, but elevates and perfects it[73]
We see here that a participation of nature is conceded, but not without importing more non-biblical terminology. "Essence" is now the underlying distinction between man and God - Holding points our attention to yet another non-biblical term by stressing the distinction in our "energies." This is confusion by Graham. He is commingling the words "nature" and "essence" as though synonyms; in fact nature deals in attributes of all kinds, both ontological and behavioral; essence deals in nature only; energies deals in behavioral aspects. Not one quote he has offered claims a semblance of essence, but of energies; and only specifically ever mentions behavioral aspects.[74] It doesn't come from the text, but is read into the text. It is true that some church fathers used this particular jargon as a catalyst for rejecting ontological deification described by the LDS, but this is to be expected. On the other hand, we find at least in the case of Origen, an explicit dismissal of the distinction made by Kwah: "Every one who participates in anything, is unquestionably of one essence and nature with him who is partaker of the same thing." I checked the source of this quote as given by Graham -- De Principiis 4:1:36 -- and didn't even find anything that matched. I'll assume it is a typo or an error in my source.[75] This certainly sounds as though man was to become the same "essence" as God if he were to participate in it. Perhaps this is not what Origen intended to convey, but this is enough to prove further ambiguity. G.L. Prestige says of the ancient theologians of Antioch, "they shrank in horror from the idea that [Christ] was not in all respects as truly kin to us as He was kin to God." [76] Kinship assumes something far more than sharing moral attributes. It denotes a genetic link, which is essentially the LDS position. It does no such thing, as I noted in Ch. 1. Graham is forgetting here (or may not know) that kinship language was used of social ingroups, as for example the Christians used familial terminology. It can hardly indicate genetics; the science of genetics did not yet exist and was unknown! I'll once again skip to where I am again addressed as the matter of what happened beyond this is not in my interest range:
In another attempt to demonstrate discrepancies between the LDS and biblical doctrines of deification, Holding points our attention to the doctrine of procreation in the hereafter. Of course, he offered no source for this doctrine, and for good reason too. No such source exists. So this appears to be little more than a needless red herring that attempts to widen the division between LDS and biblical deification. I beg Graham's pardon? Is he now denying that eternal procreation is an essential part of Mormon beliefs? This whole setup is reflected in the Mormon Temple rituals, is it not? If the differences exist, then there is no "herring" here but a real difference that needs to be noted. His argument, naturally, would need as many LDS "details" as possible in order to make the similarities between the LDS and orthodox view appear illusive. To show that Japanese and English are different, our argument, naturally, would need as many Japanese linguistic "details" as possible in order to make the similarities between the two languages appear illusive. Actually replace "illusive" with "general, so much so as to be of no real point." But what we will be doing as gods has no bearing on the fact that we will become gods. It has an IMMENSE bearing if one hopes to make use of the Bible for support, which was the point of my whole book. The fact that Evangelicals are preoccupied with such distinctions means very little to Latter-day Saints who reject the unbiblical notion that, "There is no greater sense of distance than that which lies in the words creator-creation." It's also not particularly useful as an argument, in the context of my purposes. I'll again skip portions until I am addressed again. After some comments on patristics, Graham spends some time addressing matters of "monotheism" which are not addressed directly to me. My own position is found here. We pick up where Graham goes back to addressing my material.
Hermeneutics
Holding begins his arguments from scripture by offering his own interpretation No, not "my own" -- they are derived from credentialed scholars. of select passages that are commonly used in LDS apologia. But Holding already acknowledges a biblical doctrine of theosis. He just doesn't acknowledge the doctrine of LDS theosis; meaning, all the details that presumably follow (marriage, procreation, ruling your own planet, etc.) That's more or less what I said, yes. As we have established, the primary discrepancy between the two is clearly the creature-creator dichotomy, and to be sure, Holding does nothing aside from assertion, to defend the Evangelical claim that such a dichotomy exists biblically in the first place. "Nothing aside from assertion" -- never mind Chapter 1 where I pilloried the entire Mormon case for God as a man, eh? This "you just asserted it" tactic I expect from atheists, not intelligent Mormons. It's just an admission that the argument itself can't be handled. [115] Instead, he intends to show how select verses do not offer the "details" assumed by LDS. But as he stated in the beginning, LDS apologists will readily admit this. They will? Then why do I find so many NOT admitting it whose work I was able to allude to?? So with that being said, we must now wonder why Holding continued with what can only appear, from an LDS perspective, as straw beating. Straw beating? I guess the LDS apologists and writers whose works I quoted and responded to don't actually exist... Do LDS apologists really argue that marriage in heaven, procreation or ruling our own planet, come from Bible verses? No, and I don't say they do. What I show is that they use Bible verses for supportive bits and pieces. Coming from the Evangelical assumptions of Biblicism, the burden of proof is on his shoulders to support his doctrine's details, or lack thereof. If he cannot show from the Bible that God and man are an entirely different species, then his entire argument is rendered ineffective. I did. Chapter 1. Next issue?
Matthew 5:48: Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect.
Holding rightly argues that this refers to becoming like God in a "moral" sense, but this is a natural prerequisite of LDS deification - so it still supports LDS theosis. It doesn't encapsulate LDS theosis, but it certainly embraces it. I hope Graham gets the word on this to Hopkins, who used it as a support for a much broader concept of theosis. Holding then offers a comment from Evangelical scholar, Donald Hagner: "The parallel verse at Lk 6:36 says 'merciful' rather than 'perfect.'" Is Holding arguing that one verse is right while the other incorrect? Does "merciful" really offer a proper finale in the sermon on the mount? It seems more probable that in this instance, Christ was making a parallel with known scripture, "Ye shall be holy: for I the LORD your God am holy." No, I am arguing that Luke interpreted Jesus' comment for a Gentile reader who would not know that for a Jew, "perfection" implies merciful behavior. And no, there is no parallel to that Scripture, other than a structural one.[116] To "be holy" implies far more than "be merciful," and this corresponds well with our understanding of perfection or completeness - to say nothing of sanctification as theosis was commonly described in the church fathers. Holiness to a Jew meant to be set apart. It does not relate to being perfect or merciful; hence, no parallel as Graham requires.
I was disappointed however that Holding appears to be skimming through LDS apologia looking for easy victories. Imagine that! Now if there are "easy victories" in LDS apologia, whose fault is that?[117] For instance he would read several arguments from various apologists and address only those that require brief comments. I'd like to see that demonstrated. No, I addressed all that were applicable. Period.[118] With all things being equal, this wouldn't be a problem. However, all things are not equal, as he offers big names like Daniel C. Peterson in his footnotes, which gives the impression that he has dealt with Peterson.[119] He has not. In fact, Peterson agrees with Holding and reasonably asks the same question: "How far will the process of perfection extend?" It is peculiar that Graham does not see his own strawman here. If I agree with Peterson to the extent specified, then why in the world would I need to "deal with" Peterson at all, and what virtue is there in saying I "did not" deal with him?? Dr. Keith Norman makes the same exact argument as does Holding: Matthew 5:48 calls God perfect, "not in the sense of metaphysical speculation, but in terms of moral perfection."[120] But as the argument goes, if a "metaphysical" concept was not included in any sense at all, then likewise, it cannot be used as a barrier, as is intended with the creature-Creator dichotomy. Norman demonstrates that these same exact passages were used by the earliest church fathers in a similar manner as used in LDS apologetics. Shouldn't this in itself mean something? Yes. It should mean that the fathers made perhaps the same false extension of idea that the LDS do. Matt. 5:48 is limited to a moral sense. To take it to equate with a creator-creature equity in other departments is patently fallacious.
2 Peter 1:4 "whereby he hath granted unto us his precious and exceeding great promises; that through these ye may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in that world by lust,"
This is further dismissed as a theosis proof text, since, as Holding concludes, it only refers to perfection in the "moral" sense. This is the same response from Blomberg, Owen and Bowman. However, the verse "consists, in fact, of making man to live in the 'eternal glory' in the same life as God…in short, to deify him." No, that's just another fallacious extension of concept. The clear connection is made to escaping from corruption. This is followed by a long list of virtues that the believers live by. Finding someone who commits the same exegetical fallacy without a retorting exegesis is not an answer.[121] Moral perfection is something that we work towards in this life, however the "partaking of divinity" is something that is fulfilled in the afterlife. No, that is false. As I noted in the book, writers of the time agreed that people could partake of the divine nature even NOW. In context, Peter also referred to an eschatological hope of receiving "a crown of glory that fadeth not away."He "referred" to this in FIRST Peter 5:4, which is quite some distance from the passage at issue! [122] So it seems unreasonable to narrow its meaning to strict morality, despite the fact that moral perfection is undoubtedly involved in our transformation from humans to gods. There's nothing unreasonable about it. It is all that the context allows, period. We skip some more tangents to what other writers say and go to:
This brings us to our next verse as found in 1 Corinthians:
2 Corinthians 3:17-18 "Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.
Holding, relying strictly on the assumption that he has proven image to have nothing to do with physical appearance, And having done so successfully is compelled to interpret this verse as he has others: "This verse does suggest that men will, because of Christ, regain their full range of authority originally granted to them by God in Gen 1:26, but it offers no support for the specifics of the Mormon doctrine of theosis." On the contrary, this verse, along with its context, further reinforces our exegesis of the "image" of God as it pertains not to a strictly jurisdictional concept, but rather a physical appearance. It cannot be doubted that Paul makes a clear connection with the image of God and a physical appearance. Verse 13 makes a direct reference to Moses' veiled face as the glory of God changed his physical appearance. The concept of jurisdiction is quite alien to the context of Paul's sermon. It isn't in the least. We are told we will reign with Christ; that is jurisdiction, period. Quoting someone who makes the same error while providing no answer is not a reply: It should also be pointed out that these were key verses used by the church fathers in promoting the doctrine of human theosis. And as Pelphrey elaborates,
The word "glory" (doxa) denotes radiance but also means appearance or face. Thus Paul's meaning is that those who behold the glory of God's face, as Moses did, take on the divine radiance just as Moses himself shone with the bright light of God's glory. Similarly, the believer in Christ is transfigured into His divine likeness, and this transformation is the real purpose and destiny of human beings. By becoming human God has transformed humanity and made it to partake of the divine nature.[127]
In a parallel passage Paul explains that it is the divine purpose for human beings to be glorified. This has nothing to do with retaining a previously held jurisdiction. It doesn't? Yes it does: Because Paul also says that we will reign with Christ. We will judge angels. It's all of a piece. Now we skip a bit to where Graham sees that I know this:
Rev 3:21 "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne."
Holding accepts that an inheritance of ruling power is implied, but that it does not imply the sharing of God's essential attributes. It seems that every time LDS theosis crosses the deification line previously drawn in the sand, the line is then backed up another ten feet. An irrelevant comment, since I was not involved in drawing those lines in the first place. But certainly kingship is one of God's essential attributes! One of God's "attributes"? No, it is one of God's FUNCTIONS. This is like saying being a waiter is an "attribute" of a person! John J. Collins, in his Hermeneia commentary on the book of Daniel, helps to elucidate such passages, pointing out that "The background of this notion lies in ancient traditions about the council of 'El, where the gods sit on their 'princely thrones.' In the later period, compare Matt 19:28, where the apostles are promised that they will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel, and Rev. 20:4 ('and then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom judgment had been committed')."[129] If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck… However, walking and quacking are not "attributes" of a duck. They are FUNCTIONS of a duck. The real analogy needed is, "If it has duck feathers...." and that is exactly the sort of analogy Mormon theosis arguments lack.
1 John 3:2-3: "Beloved, now are we children of God, and it is not yet made manifest what we shall be. We know that, if he shall be manifested, we shall be like him; for we shall see him even as he is. And every one that hath this hope set on him purifieth himself, even as he is pure."
Again, Holding puts the morality straightjacket on this verse as well. It wears it thanks to the context. But is moral perfection something that can be determined visually? Why is this even a question? Nothing here says a word about "determining" perfection visibly. What we shall be was the question first pondered, not what shall we do in a moral sense. Graham needs to remember here that under Semitic Totality thought, what we "be" and what we "do" are inseparable questions. But again, the doctrine of deification is similar to the biblical doctrine of sanctification in that we "become holy" through faith in Christ and also through our actions of moral obedience. It is not at all surprising therefore, that the various references to deification would be accompanied by allusions of moral perfection. Not only accompanied by, but LIMITED TO. But the important thing to keep in mind is that these allusions cannot be viewed as substitutes for the intended meaning. To do so would be to place unnecessary confines within the message. This is essentially the damage that is inflicted with Evangelical interpretation. "Intended meaning" here means, begging the question that scads of Mormon theosis particulars lies behind these passages.
John 17:21-23 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. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
Holding responds to this verse, along with Hebrews 12:22-23: "Mormon apologists appeal to the references to 'perfection' as meaning theosis. But the Greek word behind 'perfect' means 'complete' not necessarily perfect in the sense that God is perfect." True, but this argument does very little to diffuse the significant resemblance to LDS theosis, and we do not deny that to be perfect means complete. "Significant resemblance" by no means. This is nothing but a very vague, general, non-specific resemblance worth nothing to speak of. Holding says the Bible says nothing about becoming perfect like God is perfect, but that is exactly what the Bible says: "even as your Father in heaven is perfect." If Holding wants to qualify this, then let him do so. I don't have to. I do not say THE BIBLE says nothing of this; I said these verses say nothing of it. But he cannot accuse the LDS of doing anything except reading the Bible literally and contextually (In my opinion, placing limitations on literal meanings when theologically necessary, is gradually becoming the hallmark of Evangelical apologetics). Holding continues: "The Mormon apologist may argue that we will reach our completion, and perfection in that sense, upon theosis, but one must come with that doctrine assumed true in order to find it in these passages." Likewise, the Evangelical apologist may argue that being perfect like God has nothing to do with being transformed into His perfect ontological state, but one must first assume that such theosis is impossible in order to filter this implication from the exegesis. And one has shown this to be so previously.
We must ask ourselves if it makes any real sense that we are to be perfected or completed like Christ was, in a strictly moral sense. This suggests that God was somehow "completed" or "perfected" morally. How does this comply with Evangelical thought, which declares God as having always been perfect in every sense imaginable? Likewise, the LDS critic may argue, as does Holding, that perfection does not, "blur the ontological distinction between creature and creator," but as we have pointed out, this first assumes such a distinction exists in the first place. Indeed, LDS apologists have already agreed that the "details" of LDS deification cannot be found in scripture. But this should offer little comfort for Evangelicals who have failed to prove the "details" of their own doctrine of theosis. Keep in mind that Evangelical theology is bound by the requirement that the Bible teach it! Ours is not. And such indeed is the problem, and at the heart of what I was writing about.
1 Corinthians 15:40-42 "There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption"
Holding argues that this does not refer to progressive rewards in a three-tiered heaven, but that it can only be argued that it offers a typology of degrees of glory to be found in the afterlife. I would concur with this, but I would also point out that Paul's language all throughout the NT is clearly supportive of human deification. According to James Tabor,[130] "Paul's understanding of salvation involves a rather astounding (at least to modern ears) scheme of 'mass apotheosis.'" Agreed, but once again this is not quite as far as saying that we have no category distinction between YHWH and ourselves. As noted in the link far above, being a "god" has functional aspects. Ontological aspects is another matter altogether. [131] Commenting on Romans 8:28-30, Tabor says that,
Jesus' transformation or glorification foreshadows that of the many "in Christ" who follow. "First-born" [New Jerusalem 'eldest'] as used here is therefore anticipatory, pointing toward recapitulation. It means more than pre-eminence; it implies there are those who will be "later born." The equation of Jesus the Son of God, with the many glorified sons of God to follow is God's means of bringing into existence a family (i.e., "many brothers") of cosmic beings, the Sons of God, who share his heavenly doxa ["glory"]. Or, to put it another way, Jesus already stands at the head of a new genus of cosmic "brothers" who await their full transformation at his arrival from heaven[132]
And even further,
One must not miss the radical implications of Paul's understanding of the destiny of the elect group. Paul develops his exegesis from Gen. 1:27 and Psa. 8:6 as well. These texts speak of man in the "image" (eikon) of God, having "all things placed under his feet." Paul interprets this in the light of Christ, who is the "image of God" (Rom. 8:29; 2 Cor. 3:18) and has been given all rule and authority (I Cor. 15:24; Phil. 2:10) with "all things" subject to him. So it takes on the vastly expanded meaning of cosmic rule, power, and exaltation. What is said of Jesus as glorified Son of God, is also said of those "many brothers" who follow. In the wider context of Hellenistic religions, it makes little sense to speak of an exalted, heavenly, group of immortals, who are designated "Sons of God," as human beings. The old rubric, "Gods are immortal, humans are mortal" is apt here. Paul's understanding of salvation involves a particularly Jewish notion of apotheosis [deification], and would have been understood as such by his converts.... I would argue that this idea of heavenly glorification is the core of Paul's message.... Paul is consumed with two great insights-the vision he has had of the exalted and glorified Christ whom he knows to be the crucified man Jesus, whose followers he had once opposed; and his conviction that by grace through faith this same heavenly glorification is the destiny of the elect group.[133]
"Ye are Gods…Figuratively Speaking!?"
John 10:33-36 "The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 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?"
Psalm 82:1-8"God stands in the assembly [of the representatives] of God; in the midst of the magistrates or judges He gives judgment [as] among the gods. How long will you [magistrates or judges] judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked? Selah [pause, and calmly think of that]! Do justice to the weak (poor) and fatherless; maintain the rights of the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy; rescue them out of the hand of the wicked. [The magistrates and judges] know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in the darkness [of complacent satisfaction]; all the foundations of the earth [the fundamental principles upon which rests the administration of justice] are shaking. I said, You are gods [since you judge on My behalf, as My representatives]; indeed, all of you are children of the Most High. But you shall die as men and fall as one of the princes. Arise, O God, judge the earth! For to You belong all the nations."
There is little doubt that the Savior was citing the Psalm of Asaph in John chapter 10. That these passages played a fundamental role in Early Christian theosis should not be disputed, since "The theology of Christian deification," writes Nispel, "arose chiefly out of the exegetical debate over Psalm 82." So they made the same exegetical error as the Mormons. What of it? [134] It is odd therefore, that Holding believes these verses have absolutely no application to biblical theosis. After offering a survey of interpretations, Holding begins to criticize LDS apologists for misusing the Savior's comments, suggesting that this verse has nothing to do with human deification whatsoever. Stranger still, is it never mentioned that the majority view, as understood by Evangelicals, has been thoroughly refuted via scholarship; the view that the gods refer to "human judges" as opposed to literal "gods." It is never mentioned because I do not hold that view myself. Why do I need to waste time mentioning and then refuting a view I do not agree with if I choose not to do so? I skip where Graham takes a tangent into this view, and move to:
Holding explains this as follows,
The reference is thought to be to the Israelites at Sinai who received the covenant which would make them, in an adoptionist sense, "sons of the Most High." When they received the Torah ("to whom the Word of God came") and obeyed it, "this led to genuine holiness which resulted in deathlessness; hence Israel could be god because [it was] deathless." But because of their idolatrous conduct, they suffered the penalty for sin: "you shall die like men." The Psalmist, observing present sins among the Israelites, now brings up what happened at Sinai as a stern reminder. This Interpretation of Psalm 82:6 was held by a number of rabbinic commentators."(Mormon Defenders, p.124)
The primary difficulty with this explanation is that it is a later interpretation supported only by Midrashic sources that postdate the Gospel, as even Neyrey acknowledges. It's not a difficulty at all. For one thing, it is still the earliest interpretation available from a Jewish view. For another, it is still necessary to exegete Ps. 82 in context, and it makes the best sense of the passage. It assumes that those to which "the Word of God came," must be referring to Israel at Sinai.[139] However, there is no reason to confine the Word of God to the Torah. "It is important to observe" notes Michael Heiser, "that nowhere in the passage is the law actually mentioned. It is an assumption and a flawed one at that that the word of God in verse 35 is a reference to the reception of the Mosaic law. In fact, there is no reference to the law in all of Psalm 82." There isn't? What about the allusions to the requirements of the law in Ps. 82:3-4? What about allusion to judging (a legal term) in 82:2?[140] Jesus Christ himself, as well as the message of the Gospel are both clearly called the Word of God and the context of the Gospel of John should better determine how Jesus intended this phrase to be understood. He is the Word of God, and those who receive him are thus deified. Excuse me, but all through the OT, revelations from God are called WORDS from the Lord. And when did Jesus come to the people mentioned in Ps. 82? Again, to be one with God is to have "eternal life"; hence the immediate context:
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish (John 10:27-28)
Holding had already argued vigorously in chapter two that the Logos of John was Jesus, but now he appears to rely on a tradition that argues the Logos of God to be the Torah. It is. Logos = Torah as well. It's part of the whole Jewish background. He is using two absolutely contradicting theories simultaneously. Not at all. Graham just isn't up on the equation as he needs to be. Simply put, Neyrey's interpretation leaves much to be desired.
Moreover, as we have already discussed, in the Semitic mind to live forever (eternal life) meant becoming immortal or quite literally, a god. Now enter John 1:1, 11-12 where we read:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.
In an Old Testament setting, the "sons of God" were gods themselves.[141] They were subordinate to the Most High God, but as Hayman informs us, they were not different in kind. This leads back to my "monoelohim" article above. By "kind" it is not clear what Graham means here. In correspondence we had a discussion over the use by C. S. Lewis of the word hnau in his fiction to mean a "rational being". If that is what is meant by "kind" then we are in agreement. But even on a Linnean scale, one can have "kinds" of affinity to different levels. A Jack Russell and a wolf are both canines, but both are not dogs. But that they are both canines does not erase the distinction between one as a wild animal and one as a domesticated animal. Thus, Christ is said to give his followers the power to become gods. The power to live forever. It is important to keep in mind that the themes in these verses are repeated in John 10, and are complimented with 1 John 3:2 "But we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is." The Greek here for "see" (optanomai) does not permit an abstract digression from its literal meaning. In other words, the verse cannot be understood as a means by which we can "perceive" or "sense" Christ in a manner that would communicate His moral attributes. The term means to look at or behold visually. Is it reasonable that we could comprehend our moral perfection through visual means? No, and that is not what is said. It is implied that our moral perfection will be a reaction to seeing Christ as he is. We next have a few more tangents; I will only note that I deal with John 17 in Chapter 2, with respect to the Trinity. We pick up at:
Another weakness of the "Israel at Sinai" interpretation is that there is absolutely nothing in the biblical text suggesting that the result of the initial purification of Israel at Sinai was a state of deathlessness or a return to an Edenic condition. That in and of itself is a troublesome aspect since it implies that under certain circumstances, the effects of the Fall could be reversed without the atonement. Theoretically that is quite so and it is not troublesome in the least. It may not occur to Graham that we do accept two ways of salvation -- but one of them, being absolutely perfect, has never been achieved. That's what Romans 2-3 is all about. Are we going to try laying this theology onto John 10? Was Jesus declaring for himself a deathless nature? Was he declaring that he was sanctified and was thus capable of being called elohim? Was Jesus really arguing that he was not one with the Father in an ontological sense? I frankly don't know where Graham gets these questions or why he thinks they are relevant, but the answers would be yes, yes, and no. Evangelicals have accepted Jesus' use of scripture in an extremely controlled manner. As Neyrey writes: "Ps 82:6 then, functions in a limited way; it proves the judges' judgment is false, but it hardly pertains to the substance of Jesus' claims in 10:28-30. Psalm 82, moreover would not be a satisfactory explanation for Jesus equality with God according to the Fourth Gospel." Nor would I suppose to use it that way. [146]
Thus, Neyrey claims that in resorting to a Sinai interpretation, Jesus' intent is not to provide a theological explanation of what that equality means, but to only show that the Jewish judgment of him was without serious basis. This is an entirely weak argument as it avoids the doctrine of theosis by confuting the argument and declaring that it only addresses the evidence by which he is judged, not the crime itself. It isn't weak at all. It respects Jesus' use of riposte and challenge in context; it is, as I go on to say, a "gotcha" quote. Neyrey as a member of the Context Group knows of such things; at the time I wrote TMD I was unaware of much of the Context Group's work, but now that I know how riposte-challenge functioned in this world, the Israel at Sinai interpretation looks even better than before. But this is simply another, "textbook example where New Testament scholars, lacking any knowledge of Ugaritic or other comparative Semitic data, interpret the Hebrew text via the appeal to Jewish tradition, or appeal to the previous generation of New Testament scholars who wrote before the discovery of the Ugaritic materials." Uh huh. As if the Pharisees Jesus was speaking to knew zip about the Ugaritic material themselves....that sure would make sense for Jesus to refer to in this context, wouldn't it?[147]
Any solution to the text, which follows this thesis, must realistically address the associated issues as well. If Jesus intended this to be applied in a "limited way," there is certainly no evidence of this, especially given the context and conclusion that Jesus, the Father, along with those who hear His voice, "are one." Heiser correctly points out that, "the point being made was that it was fallacious on their part [Pharisees] to assume that Yahweh did not have divine 'offspring'." It's just someone else making the same error as the Mormons do, not actually providing an answer.[148] Naturally, Latter-day Saints can cope with this implication quite well.
So how does the true meaning of Psalm 82:6 factor into John 10 for Evangelicals? The question of whether these gods refer to real gods or merely human judges, is never really answered in Holding's book. It didn't need to be. But I gave more of an answer on this in the monoelohim article linked above. Instead, he opts to address this in a manner that would allow him to dismiss the LDS interpretation while forgoing any apparent need to reconcile the Evangelical dilemma. Dilemma for them, maybe. I had the monoelohim material already done at the time, so no problem for me. He responds that, "this passage actually exemplifies, within the rabbinic rules of hermeneutics, a type of analogical argument which argued 'from lesser to greater.'"[149] In this he follows the explanation offered by John Calvin. That's nice, but I had no idea Calvin offered such an explanation. I deduced it myself.
The first rule of Hillel[150] is that which Holding alludes to, and I agree that this could be an example of Hillel's literary technique. However, this does nothing to explain the use of the phrase or its meaning. I already explained that previously. It must be realized that Jesus was not merely claiming that it was ok to be "called" God. Jesus was defending his claim to Godhood, because equality with God was implied. The fact that he called himself the Son of God made it clear to the Pharisees that he "makest" himself God in the most literal sense. This is what Christ defended. And as Dr. Peterson elucidates, the response by Jesus, as interpreted by most Evangelicals, requires that He avoid the question by appealing to absolute pretense That's actually false, as is what follows:
It does not seem that Jesus' citation of a metaphorical use of the term god, as applied to human beings, would go very far toward justifying his ascription to himself of literal divinity. So understood, Jesus would seem merely to be playing a word game, practicing a semantic sleight of hand, and, in fact, to be committing the logical fallacy of equivocation, wherein a word surreptitiously changes its meaning from one part of an argument to another. It's standard Jewish exegesis, and for a Westerner to call it "equivocation" is bigoted in the extreme. Such "word games," as I now know even better, were simply normal challenge and riposte. It was a contest of the dozens, first century Jewish style. (The point of Jesus' argument is not that the Jews are unrighteous judges, but that it is not blasphemy for him to call himself divine.) It would be as if someone were declaring himself, madly enough, to be a vast ball of fusion-inflamed gases. We would scarcely be convinced if he were to offer, as evidence for the plausibility of his assertion, the fact that Rudolph Valentino, Lucille Ball, and John Wayne are generally called stars, and to demand that we, in fairness, grant the same title to him. Well isn't that unfortunate for us as modern, literalist Westerners who don't appreciate Jewish exegesis and riposte.[151]
"One stream of critical opinion," writes Neyrey, "takes the citation extrinsically, on a literal level as a mere play on words. If mortals, for whatever reason, can truly be called 'gods' according to scripture, then the term is not a priori preposterously applied to Jesus. This type of explanation does not ask under what circumstances mortals might be called 'gods,' and it sees Jesus basically engaging in an evasive maneuver."[152] However, Neyrey reconciles this by assuming this wasn't meant to be understood literally since, "The Fourth Gospel always criticizes people who take things literally, either Jesus' word or the scriptures."[153] This seems to be a rather weak argument to make, and a slippery slope at that. It isn't in the least. Neyrey as a member of the Context Group knows this kind of riposte was used at the time, and if there is any slippery slope it is one that foolish literalist decontextualizers climbed of their own accord. If the Gospel of John does not expect to be understood literally, then why believe Jesus is God at all? Straw man. What is at issue is not ALL of John but particular sorts of passages Neyrey alludes to. We fall into the quicksand of question begging whenever we pretend to know what is and what isn't supposed to be understood literally. Given the fact that Neyrey's argument rests on a subsequent tradition, his reasoning here appears to be little more than ad hoc. Ad hoc not in the least. It's rooted in his expertise as a member of the Context Group; it's basically a foreign language to Graham -- not that he's unusual in that respect.
Holding, being perfectly aware of the logical fallacy upon which this explanation rests, responds that Christ's argument, "did not involve logical processes, as we understand them; indeed, to a Western mind, such arguments appear fallacious."[154] Indeed they do. The problem with this response is that - mental "processes" aside - it still requires a mischievous move on the part of the Savior. And there's not a thing wrong with that, other than Western assumptions. I know now that Jesus' words are full of such "mischief" -- it was just par for the riposte course. Forget the logical aspect and let us deal with the moral implications for a moment. Would such protocol accurately reflect the methods of Jesus Christ? Yes, they would. To say that Jesus Christ could justify his own deceit simply because the East had not developed "logical processes," is to really say something in itself. Yes, it is to say that we are not to judge the text of the Savior my modern, bigoted, Western standards. Further, this approach seriously begs the question: were logical processes truly absent as Holding implies? I said nothing about them being "absent". I simply said that this was an example of non-logical (not illogical) argumentation used in the period. I found this interesting since he is willing to grant that the Ancient Jews understood God in the same Greek understanding of God, with all its abstract elements (they just didn't know how to express it), yet we are to understand now that the Hebrews couldn't understand simple logic? See previous; this is a false understanding of my position. Christians seemed to be perfectly aware of the logical fallacy of the "double standard" with their rebuke of hypocrites. The Savior also seemed to highlight the fallacy of quoting out of context ("ye know not the scriptures"). That's not what that is either. It is actually another mischievous insult, implying that these excellent scholars of the day didn't even read their own texts. The appeal to authority fallacy was popular among the Pharisees. It was not understood as a fallacy at all in that time. To appeal to authority was a standard and accepted argument. Why then must we believe they would be unable to identify the fallacy of equivocation and the deception it presents? It is a huge leap to assume it wouldn't be recognized as a fallacious argument. My little nephew, who is a huge baseball fan, asked for a ball and bat for his birthday. Could I expect to get away with presenting him with a rubber kick-ball and plastic vampire bat? Having not been trained in the "western logical processes" that doesn't mean he is stupid by default. And this is the point; neither were the Pharisees. And that is the point: The rules were different then.
Moreover, examples of the Kal V'Khomer literary technique can be found all throughout scripture, yet I have been unable to find just one single instance where "logical processes" were completely abandoned in that a teaching met this characteristic on both counts: a) by making no logical sense to my "Western mind," and b) by using deception to argue a point.& I don't know why Graham thinks "completely abandoned" is the rule here. Logic is simply non-relevant to qal vohmer; it is analogical, not logical. Graham continues rather tiresomely in this vein of "either-or" when it comes to logic and Jewish exegesis; I will bypass this, and a couple of repeated points from earlier; I will also refer the reader to my response to Barney's Ch. 3 on Acts 17:28-9 (adding only the note that the NT clearly says we become sons of God by ADOPTION, which does not comport with the LDS view which makes us sons by NATURE), pass by comments made to Blomberg, Owen, and Mosser, and go to:
So my hat's off to Holding for actually attempting to tackle this issue head-on. While I hardly think he has reconciled this verse with the Evangelical system of belief, nor has he in any way shown that Latter-day Saints have misunderstood the verse, he has at least made the attempt.[166] Even more troubling for Evangelicals is the fact that this verse implies that God is a species to begin with. One is at great pains to reconcile this concept with a bodiless, immaterial, immutable being, so it is little wonder why Evangelicals have consistently refused to deal with this verse head-on. I'm hard pressed to see why this is a problem to cause pain at all. God as a "species" is hardly a problem. Beings can and always will be able to be put into categories of some sort; what's news about that? "Man is not only structured morally and attuned to the divine by decree" says Evdokimov, "he is of the divine race (genos). The image of God predestines the human being for deification."[167] G. Ernest Wright once said, "The basic language of the Bible and of the Christian religion is an anthropomorphic language, drawn from the categories of personality and community," so therefore, "Confusion with metaphors drawn from other realms should be avoided because there is a basic relatedness and kinship between God and human life which does not exist in the same sense between God and nature."[168]
Eternal Marriage
Unable to demonstrate a significant divergence Having done so in full, actually between LDS theosis and the Bible, Holding seeks elsewhere. In this case, the activity of the deified is being contrasted with the Bible again, as opposed to the state of deification itself. As noted, precisely because the devil is in the details and trying to force attention to the generalities isn't going to solve the problem. Graham offers some background on this verse we have no comment on, and we skip to:
Matthew 22:23-30: "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven."
Which brings us to Holding's objection that Matthew's reference to being like angels, had something to do with sexuality. But as we have demonstrated beforehand, "angel" denotes a function or activity, whereas "gods" or "elohim" would better correspond to state of being. In particular, to be like an angel is to be a servant or messenger. Given this understanding, the comments by the Savior come through with greater clarity. It doesn't at all. What the word "denotes" is not at issue; what is at issue is what the background context said about such beings. Graham has not answered this point at all. Especially since Holding's assumption on angels has its own obstacles to overcome within the Bible itself. For example, if angels were sexless as so many assume, then why does the Bible mention female angels? "Then lifted I up mine eyes, and looked, and, behold, there came out two women, and the wind was in their wings." There's a category error here. Graham is confusing GENDER with sexuality. This same error is behind what he uses Frame for next:[177] Professor John M. Frame, who teaches Systematic Theology at Reformed Theological Seminary, is not so convinced that we are stripped of our sexuality in the hereafter. He offers a few compelling reasons:
1) Those who appear after death in Scripture always appear similar to their earthly forms (1 Samuel 28:11-15; Matthew 17:1-13; 27:52ff; Revelation 11:1-12). I would assume that the men continued to appear as bearded (if they wore beards on earth), speaking with masculine voices. This fact seems to yield some presumption, at least, that we retain our sexual characteristics after death.
2) Jesus' resurrection body also resembled the form He bore on earth, even down to the wounds in His hands and side (John 20:25, 27), although His new existence is mysterious in many ways. At the resurrection appearances, I have no doubt that the disciples saw a male figure.
3) Sexuality, as we have seen, is part of the image of God, part of what it now means to be human. It is possible that this resemblance might in the next life be replaced with other kinds of resemblance. ("Image of God," we will recall, covers much territory.) But if we lose our sexuality, why should we not also lose our arms, eyes, and brains? However, what Graham appeals to is gender, not sexuality.[178]
Even more devastating to his claim is the fact that angels not only lusted after human women, but they also married them and even procreated with them physically: "That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all that they chose." The "devastation" is amiss. The beings in question were fallen beings -- demonic. I think Graham would want to be cautious about citing as normative a practice that was regarded as part of demonic activity, and resulted in condemnation for the angels in question. It does not bode well for the idea of sexuality by angels as normative. [179] (The LXX translates the sons of God as angels) This would be impossible if angels were sexless and celibate as Holding asserts. More like, they were SUPPOSED to remain celibate. This clearly tells us that angels can be married and can even procreate with a species which Evangelicals believe to be ontologically "other." Where is this phenomenon explained in Evangelical literature and how is it reconciled with Evangelical doctrine? Rather simply: The fallen angels took on human forms. Graham makes a side note about another comment from elsewhere; I skip to:
The Apostasy Problem?
Holding seems to concede to the soundness of the LDS argument in that a Platonist philosophy is plastered all over the theological construct offered by Evangelicals No, actually, I don't; I go on to refute the idea.; a paradigm which determines how man and God are related, or in this case, not related. Their appeal is towards a philosophical lingo and creedal profession that cannot be found in scripture, and this will forever be their Achilles heel since they themselves profess that divine truth, which is essential to Christian knowledge, can be found only in the scriptures, and that this is the sole source from whence their doctrine came. That's actually a straw man position, or one that is found only in primitive, Bob Jones Christianity; see here. Likewise the LDS appeal to "Greek philosophy" as a corrupter will apparently remain a distraction. It is rather a paradox, therefore, that their grievance is with Latter-day Saints who they believe have failed to account for every detail of LDS doctrine, biblically speaking; something we never claimed to be able to do in the first place.
Holding's last stab at the LDS apostasy argument relies on the assumption that, "there is little in the way of evidence that the first-century Judaism out of which Christianity sprang adhered to any such detailed doctrine of theosis as the Mormon Church."[180] While partially true, it is also entirely true that there is nothing in the way of evidence that the first-century Judaism adhered to any such doctrine of metaphysical distinction imposed by later creedal statements of faith. There is indeed, as Ch. 1 demonstrated. Otherwise this has already been dealt in above. [181] Therefore, any doctrine of deification in Judaism could plausibly meet the terms of the LDS doctrine since no such chasm existed. That's not enough, actually, if LDS apologists wish to use the Bible for support. We must remember that since the New Testament offers no description of God's ontology, any declaration that God's ontology is essentially different that man's, is simply question begging. No description of God's ontology? This all relies on assumptions of proof in areas such as ex nihilo, pre-existence, and image language. Needless to say we argue that we have shown the inadequacies of the LDS position on these. To say that this is an eternal distinction, only extends the fallacy. Evangelicals have come to accept this premise through the prevailing driving force of 1700+ years of tradition, yet the best biblical proof text the have to offer is "God created us from dust!" It wasn't from me that that came.
This opens up another discussion from which I will make my final point. Holding admits that both Peterson and Cook have provided evidence of deification in early Judaism, but he responds again that none of the "details" such as eternal marriage and procreation, are found therein. This certainly isn't the argument made by Owen and Mosser, as they clearly deny that even the earliest Christians believed in theosis, and unwittingly tried to blame the concept on Greek philosophy.[182] But this brings up another question. When dragging Judaism into the fray, why not address the so-called creature/creator dichotomy? Because it doesn't exist. Therefore, Evangelicals are wandering into uncharted territory when they attempt to address deification in Judaism. They will continuously shoot themselves in the foot if they argue, as have Owen and Mosser, that early Judaism had no concept of deification. The discovery at the Dead Sea has refuted such assumptions. Adela Yarbro Collins, who is currently Buckingham Professor of New Testament Criticism and Interpretation at Yale University, informs us that, "Qumran community entertained the idea of the enthronement, exaltation, and even divinization of a human being." "Divinization" again here is a slippery term. Does this mean that Qumran thought God was a divinized man?[183]
To be a "god" in Ancient Judaism simply meant to be immortal, and the problem which Evangelicals face is that that nowhere in Judaism can we find a doctrine similar to that which presupposes ontological division between God and man. However, since being a "god" in Mormonism means far more than that, this is nothing more than a confusion of terminology -- the same one which leads Evangelicals to be offended more than they should be because they do not know that in Mormon theology, God will continue to advance even as we do. Nowhere is it suggested that in heaven we are divorced from our spouses, or that our God given ability to procreate will be stripped from us. Other than Matt. 22;30, no... These are viewed as non-biblical "details" for Mormons, just as marriage in heaven appears to be an extra detail to an Evangelical. These assumptions are drawn not from the Bible alone, but from the theological paradigm from which we come. Precisely my point. Another detail commonly attributed to LDS thought is the idea that in our exaltation we will be granted ruler ship over other worlds. This is usually reiterated as a point of ridicule, but I'm compelled to ask what Evangelicals would do with such evidence if it were found in ancient writings? I'm inclined to believe they would simply sweep it under the carpet as references to gnostics or heretics, as evidenced by their reaction to Tertullian and Origen. If that is indeed where they come from, then why is that a problematic reaction? Does Graham also want to reckon with Gnostic ideas that gender will be removed in the afterlife? But actually I have no objection to "rulership over other worlds" generally. So the cite below misses the mark with me. But there actually is evidence of this sort of post-mortem activity in Jewish belief. For example, Rabbi Akiba, an early second century Jewish Rabbi, had this "detail" to offer on our exaltation:
The Holy One, blessed be He, will in the future call all of the pious by their names, and give them a cup of exilir of life in their hands so that they should live and endure forever…And the Holy One, blessed be He, will in the future reveal to all the pious in the world to come the ineffable Name with which new heavens and a new earth can be created, so that all of them should be able to create new worlds…The Holy One, blessed be He, will give every pious three hundred and forty worlds in inheritance in the World to Come. And does the Rabbi say, "And we shall procreate with our many wives and fill this world with new people?" No. This is once again abuses generalities to support specifics.[184]
One saying from the Talmud implies that man may be given the ability to create life:
Raba said: If the righteous desired it, they could be creators, for it is written, But your iniquities have distinguished between yourselves and God. [Raba understands mabadilim in the sense of 'draw a distinction'. But for their iniquities, their power would equal God's, and they could create a world.] Raba created a man, and sent him to R. Zera. R. Zera spoke to him, but received no answer. Thereupon he said unto him: 'Thou art a creature of the magicians. Return to thy dust.' (Sanhedrin 65b) Hmm. Not procreation. And the act ends up being mildly condemned. Is that a good sign for the LDS?
Another Talmudic saying speaks of man as God's equal, sharing with him the ruler ship over the world.
Even as it has been taught: One was for Himself and one for David: this is R. Akiba's view. R. Jose protested to him: Akiba, how long will thou profane the Shechinah? [By asserting that a human being sit beside Him.] (Sanhedrin 38b)
Regarding the sayings above, Erich Fromm comments that,
It is obvious that neither R.Akiba's view that the messiah sits on a throne beside God nor Raba's view that if only man were entirely pure he could create life, like God, are in any way official views of Judaism. But the very fact that two of the greatest rabbinical masters could express such 'blasphemies' shows the existence of a tradition related to the main current of Jewish thought: man, though being mortal and beset by the conflict between his godly and his earthly aspects, nevertheless is an open system and can develop to the point of sharing God's power and capacity for creation... Man is seen as being created in God's likeness, with a capacity for an evolution of which the limits are not set.[185]
So we see that the extra features in LDS theosis finds some level of support from a second century Jewish Rabbi. "Some level" is rather equivocal. It finds support for a level of perhaps 10% of the doctrine. Does the Bible detail this doctrine? Certainly not. And this is all well and good for Latter-day Saints since we don't presuppose a requirement of sola scriptura. The extra features may or not be biblical in the sense that they are detailed in the Bible, though the Bible may indirectly allude to them. Latter-day Saints are ok with this, so long as the Bible doesn't explicitly forbid them. Evangelicals, however, by their own admission, cannot accept any doctrine not found in the Bible. Therefore, the convoluted nature of this criterion (i.e, "That's not in my Bible") is clearly in the Evangelical arena, not ours, and the Evangelical tendency to assume a valid argument against the LDS in these instances, is attributed to their tendency to read LDS doctrines under an Evangelical model of sola scriptura. They point out that some LDS doctrines don't meet their standards (being explicitly biblical), and then reinforce this point as if it carries some meaning in an LDS context. But since LDS are not bound by the Evangelical criterion, we remain unimpressed with these arguments. Even so, LDS apologists still try to draw the Bible in for support, which is the whole point of my book.
In the end, this is what it boils down to. Evangelicals can respect the LDS position for what it is or they can presume to read Evangelical presuppositions, such as sola scriptura, into LDS thought, for the purposes of creating "inconsistencies." If they persist in the latter, they will forever be tearing up a straw man.
Conclusion
In light of the obvious discrepancies, I would like to conclude by highlighting the similarities between the LDS doctrine of deification and the Orthodox doctrine of theosis, as stressed by Father Vajda:
1) Terminology and Attributes This is perhaps the most obvious, as Evangelicals cannot bring themselves to accept this doctrine without qualifying it as something abstract, (becoming god "in a sense" is hardly becoming god at all) even by changing the terms used by their own church fathers. One cannot become god "in a sense" anymore than one could "in a sense" be pregnant. I have no idea what Graham means here; this does not describe my position at all.
2) The Centrality of Jesus Christ. This similarity I found to be most impressive coming from a Catholic perspective, and it is most definitely true. Without Christ being the central focus, divinization, deification, theosis, or becoming a God would be virtually impossible. It is He who gives us eternal life; therefore it is He who deifies us. This "similarity" is so vague as to be worthless. JWs argue that Jesus Christ is central to their own doctrine of the afterlife. So now what?
3) Role of Human Works. This should probably put another thorn in the sides of Evangelicals, but it is essentially true. The church fathers believed that theosis came about through a process of works. Considering this fact, the Evangelical arguments as presented in this review can be turned around on them since this will demonstrate a discrepancy between the biblical/orthodox doctrine of theosis with whatever theosis doctrine is acceptable for Evangelicals. Actually it's no thorn at all. Paul speaks of rewards based on works; a parable of Jesus depicts rule over cities in line with quality of work.
4) Role of Ritual. "The following rituals, recognized by patristic authors as 'sacraments,' are similar to ordinances found in the LDS Church: baptism, confirmation, Eucharist (sacrament), priesthood ordination, marriage, anointing of the sick with oil, confession of sins to a priest." This too is vague. It is also meaningless since the LDS obviously easily secured these rites from prior church activity.
5) Eternal Progression. "A nonstatic view of heaven is another shared belief. Contrary to a modern mythology which depicts heaven as that place where the saved do nothing more than strum harps, both the doctrines of theosis and exaltation understand heaven to be a place where the divinized humans continue to learn and grow and do… they will continue in progression and activity forever." But not one in which God went through the same process. All in all these "similarities" are worthless, like saying a VW bug and a monster truck are "similar" because they both have wheels, a gear shift, and red paint.[186]
What then, shall we make of the Evangelical discomfort with the prospect of becoming a God in power and authority? In their attempt to confine godliness to incorruptibility and moral attributes alone, they have neglected several passages that speak clearly of man's divine potential. Blomberg shows apprehension when he concludes that Paul refers to spiritual blessings, "not godlike powers."[187] Yet, "godlike powers" is exactly what the Bible teaches. If the works of Christ are given as proof that He is God, then how do we interpret his statement, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father." Not quite. Graham makes the same mistake atheists do on this verse. If Evangelicals are correct in that we will be incapable of "godlike powers," then how does this mesh with the fact that, according to the Bible, we already have them? Simple, see the link -- and ignore the charismatics.
Further, with this approach we must conclude that Christ's miracles were equally lacking the characteristic of divinity. Of course, I don't believe for a moment that Evangelicals would accept this proposal. They are firm proponents of Christ's divinity, as evidenced by his miracles. I would simply urge them to reconsider the divine potential in mankind, as delineated by Christ himself. Indeed, we are informed that the faith of a mustard seed is sufficient for moving mountains. That's another charismatic misapprehension; see here. Many of Graham's comments that follow are no more than repeats of this same basic error, so I will ask why we do not have LDS equals of Benny Hinn clearing out Salt Lake City hospitals. The same question asked about why Hinn is not doing it applies here as well. Peter defied the laws of gravity as he walked on water.[188] Later, the Apostles went about performing miracles of healing. Is this not "godlike"? We can only wonder what our potential might be if we exercised the faith of an apple seed or for that matter, the faith of an apple? What could this entail, the ability to move countries? Could we move planets, perhaps? These "impossible" acts are explained to us in the Bible as being a matter of faith, not ability due to our ontological insufficiencies. Again, a very poor (charismatic at that) exegesis of such passages, taken from their Jewish context. To be sure, these particulars are not detailed in the Bible or official LDS doctrine, but these are concepts advanced by Latter-day Saints who ponder the scriptures, who in turn have their opinions ridiculed by Evangelical critics. But there is certainly nothing unbiblical in speculations such as these. There is indeed once the proper context is taken into consideration.
How limited is our divine potential? Not very, according to scripture. "Nothing shall be impossible unto you," insisted the Savior. Same mistake noted above.[189] Yet, we are to understand that our God-given ability to procreate, or remain with our spouse - the things that bring us the most joy in this life - will be stripped from us in the Kingdom of God? What does "joy" have to do with preservation of anything? [190] Paul tells us that we will judge the world and angels.[191] We will receive the same image and glory as Christ. Again, see above and Ch. 1 on the meaning of this.[192] We are further informed through scripture that we will be joint-heirs with Christ,[193] that we will "inherit all things,"[194] and even more exasperating for Evangelicals, we will sit upon, not merely a throne, but God's throne![195] It hardly seems reasonable that all of this should involve incorruptibility and moral attributes alone. I agree and do note that rulership is also part of the package. What exactly is the inheritance, which we will share with Christ? Christ already had perfect morality and incorruptibility. Of course, eternal life is the primary inheritance, but what else did Christ inherit: "Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they."[196] Paul Owen argues that since "God made the name of Jesus equivalent to the divine name YHWH," this means that Jesus was included in God's "unique identity."[197] This should be taken as further evidence of our status as divinity, since we are in Christ and His name is in us. "Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God…and I will write upon him my new name." Graham is apparently unaware of the informing contexts here. The writing of the name implies the brand of a slave or servant. Not equality. This ends my comments on the main section; I have but a bit on the notes. [198]
The fact remains that the New Testament only speaks of man's ability as divine, and describes it as unlimited so long as faith in Christ is applied. Nothing indicates a limited, figurative or metaphorical "godliness" as Evangelicals, remaining faithful to a traditional-creedal paradigm, are compelled to interpret it. So far all we have witnessed is an Evangelical failure to demonstrate their own doctrine from the earliest church fathers, the Bible and Ancient Judaism. In reference to the lower level polemics as outlined by the "God Makers," Father Vajda concludes that, "what was meant to be a term of ridicule has turned out to be a term of approbation, for the witness of the Greek Fathers of the Church is that they also believed that salvation meant 'becoming a god.'"[199]
[1] Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 1-4 vols., edited by Daniel H. Ludlow (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 479.[2] Doctrines and Covenants section 132, vs. 20.[3] A true ornament to Evangelical literature, this was initially welcomed by the majority of Evangelicals. It has now suffered severe criticism from Evangelicals all over the world, including those in the counter-cult industry. Formal criticisms of this film can be found here: http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/tagm/tagm35.html and here http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/tagm/tagm34.html[4] Father Jordan Vajda "'Partakers of the Divine Nature': A Comparative Analysis of Patristic and Mormon Doctrines of Divinization" FARMS 2002, p 3. Dominican School of Philosophy and Theology in Berkeley, California. It has recently come to my attention that as of June 2003, Father Vajda is now a member of the LDS faith. His conversion is sure to send shockwaves through the world of anti-Mormonism. Not to me though. If the above list of similarities represents what is typical of Vajda's style of argument, he's clearly not a very profound thinker in the details and rationality department.[5] Holding, note 4, page 157. "LDS apologists fail to use the works of second-century church fathers, the Eastern Orthodoxy Church, and C.S. Lewis correctly, for each of these works asserts a doctrine of God vastly different from that of Mormonism." Relying on James White, Is the Mormon My Brother?, and the Ostlings, Mormon America.[6] Holding, 128. "The Bible clearly teaches a doctrine of theosis, but that it does not teach the Mormon version of theosis is equally cle