Wednesday, November 29, 2023

Don Bradley, "Ye Shall Be as Gods" (1991)

  

The Latter-day Saints believe that Jesus Christ makes it possible for men to become what God is. The Bible teaches that the righteous will become “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4) and become divine themselves (John 10:34-35; 17;22-28; 2 Cor 3:18; Eph 3:19; Rev 3:21, etc.)

 

The concept that men may become divine is usually called “exaltation” by Latter-day Saints, “deification” by Christian scholars, and “blasphemy!” by anti-Mormons. To many this is Mormonism’s most objectionable doctrine. The Saints are constantly excoriated by their opponents for holding this belief. Some anti-Mormon writers go so far as to claim that the LDS doctrine of exaltation is not only un-Christian, but Satanic, founded on “Satan’s promise of godhood” to Eve in Genesis 3:5.

 

“Satan’s Promise”

 

In Genesis 3 the serpent persuaded Eve to partake of the forbidden fruit by telling her “ye shall not surely die,” as a consequence of partaking of the fruit, but rather, “ye shall be as gods.” Ed Decker, director of “Saints Alive in Jesus,” has written the following, attempting to equate the serpent’s “promise” with the LDS doctrine of exaltation:

 

Jesus called Satan “a liar and the father of it”—i.e., the father of the lie. No greater life could be conceived than the humans could become Gods. Eve was deceived by the Serpent’s seductive offer of godhood. . . .

 

It is astonishing how thoroughly Mormonism has embraced Satan’s promise of godhood! . . . [It] comprises the very heart of Mormonism. (The Godmakers, pp. 29 & 30).

 

Decker assumes that the doctrine of deification is an anti-Christian idea which was first formulated in the mind of Satan. It is interesting to contrast the assumption of this anti-Mormon propagandist with the views of competent Christian scholars and theologians.

 

Protestant

 

With reference to a statement by the early Christian writer, Hippolytus (170-236 A.D.), to the effect that through Christ men could be “deified” and “become God,” Cleaveland Coxe, an Anglican scholar and editor of the American edition of The Ante-Nicene Fathers, wrote:

 

This startling expression is justified by such texts as [2] Pet. 1:4 compared with John 17:22, 23, and Rev 3:21. Thus Christ overcomes the Tempter (Genesis 3:5) and gives more than was promised by the “Father of Lies.” (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978, 5:153)

 

Dr. Coxe’s meaning here is clear: Satan promised men that they could be as Gods, but Christ made it possible for men to be Gods! Christ really does give more than was promised by Satan. The great advocate, then, of the true deification of men is not Satan, but Christ!

 

Roman Catholic

 

Giovanni Papini, a Catholic scholar, after quoting Ps. 81:6 & John 10:34-35 (“Ye are gods”) writes,

 

We have, therefore, a double testimony that God considers and calls certain men gods. . . . And what else was it that the Serpent said to the first parents, if not something very similar: “You will be as gods.” He was promising, then, what God Himself is ready to sustain.

 

And when Christ teaches the chosen to imitate God—“You are to be perfect, even as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matthew 5:48)—is he not asserting that man . . . can achieve one of the essential attributes of God, that is, perfection? To become perfect, as perfect as God, is that not perhaps like becoming gods?

 

The Christian doctrine of “deification” is, in my opinion, profoundly sublime and true . . . (Giovanni Papini, The Devil, NY: E. P. Dutton & Co., 1954, pp. 44-46)

 

The Desire for Deification

 

Papini attributes the doctrine of deification, not to Satan, but to Christ. Certainly, Satan is jealous of God’s power, and desires to be God himself; but Satan’s desire for “deification” is of an entirely different sort than that of the Christian who seeks to become like God. As Papini explains (p. 46), while the Devil seeks divinity by trying to rival God, the Christian seeks to become divine by imitating Christ, developing a God-like character, and submitting his will to the Father’s. This path to Godhood was advocated and exemplified by Christ Himself.

 

Eastern Orthodox

 

The deification doctrine has survived to some extent in the Eastern Orthodox Churches. Georgios I. Mantazaridis, a Greek Orthodox scholar, writes,

 

Deification . . . from the beginning has constituted the innermost longing of man’s existence. Adam, in attempting to appropriate it by transgressing God’s command, failed, and in place of deification met with corruption and death. The love of God, however, through His Son’s incarnation, restored to men the possibility of deification:

 

“Adam of old was deceived
wanting to be God he failed to be God,
God becomes man,
so that he may made Adam god.”

 

[this latter quote is part of a doxastikon, or hymn of praise, from the Feast of Annunciation. This doxastikon about Adam’s deification is still sung today at this feast, as it is celebrated in Eastern orthodoxy.] The Deification of Man: St. Gregory and Palamas and the Orthodox Tradition, Crestwoood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1984, pp. 12 & 13)

 

Thus, according to a centuries-old Christian formulation, God the Son condescended to become a mortal man, to obtain for men what they had failed to obtain for themselves—Godhood.

 

These quotes are but a sampling of the acknowledgment by scholars of the three main branches of Christianity that the early Christians advocated deification. This poses a dilemma for anti-Mormons: If the LDS concept of exaltation is un-Christian and satanic, must not the same be true of the deification doctrine predominant in early Christianity? Were the early Christians “satanic,” also?

 

Rejecting Christ’s Promise?

 

My study of Biblical and early Christian teachings on deification has led me to disagree strongly with those who denounce it as a Satan-inspired deception. Christ has made it possible for men to be one with Himself, to partake fully of His divine nature, and thereby become Gods themselves. It is astonishing to me how thoroughly mainstream Christianity has rejected Christ’s promise of deification to those who follow Him. But the Latter-day Saints have neither forgotten, nor rejected this promise; so they continue to put their faith in Christ and strive to be perfect, even as He is perfect. (Don Bradley, “’Ye Shall Be as Gods,’” Mormon Issues no. 2 [May 1991]: 3)

 

 

Van Hale, "Could a Prophet . . . ?" (October 1985)

  

Critics have rummaged through Mormon writings in search of any apparent weaknesses or mistakes committed by LDS prophets. They claim their findings prove that Joseph Smith and his successors must be condemned as false prophets and that the Bible is our only reliable guide. However, upon examination, their argument is obviously inconsistent. They have resorted to the use of a double standard to maintain their own faith while condemning Mormonism. The Bible portrays prophets as human, capable of virtually any human weakness or mistake. These critics, however, defend the Biblical prophets in spite of their apparent weaknesses, while they condemn LDS prophets because of their apparent weaknesses.

 

The following list reveals the wide latitude for human weakness allowed prophets in the Bible. “Prophet,” as used here, refers to one whom God has guided by revelation, or to one who has authored canonical scripture.

 

Could a prophet . . .

 

1. kill? Jg 14:19 (Samson) Ex 2:11-16 (Moses).

2. lie Gen 12:10-20 (Abraham); Jer 38:24-28 (Jeremiah); 1 Ki 2:8-9 (David); 2 Ki 8:10 (Elisha); and Mt 26:69-75 (Peter).

3. get drunk? Gen 9:21 (Noah).

4. boast? 2 Cor 11:16 (Paul).

5. for a small fee, use his supernatural powers to tell where to find lost animals? 1 Sam 9:6-8, 20.

6. prophesy of an event which fails to occur? Jon 3:1-10; Jer 18:5-10.

7. gamble? Jg 14:12-20.

8. be angry at God? Jon 4:1, 19

9. believe something unscientific? Lev 11:7; Deu 14:7 (the hare does not chew the cud).

10. curse children? 2 kg 2:23-25 (Elisha).

11. want vengeance? Ps 137:9; Jer 18:19-23.

12. contradict a former prophet? Mt 19:3-8 compare Deu 24:1-4 (divorce); 2 Sa 24:1 compare to 1 Ch 21:1 (who caused David to sin?); Ex 34:7 compare Ez 18:20 (are children punished for the sins of their father?); Ex 23:7 compare Ro 4:5 (does God justify the ungodly?).

13. fail to understand a revelation? Ac 10:3, 17; 1 Cor 13:9-12.

14. advocate divorce? Ezra 9, 10:3, 11, 19, 44.

15. institute strange sounding rituals? Ex 29.

16. give counsel not approved by the Lord? 2 Sa 7:1-5 (Nathan).

17. worship false gods? 1 Ki 11:9-10.

18. accept a position as the chief of magicians, astrologers, and soothsayers? Dan 5:11.

19. break God’s moral law? Jg 1:1 (Samson visits a prostitute); 2 Sa 11 (David and Bathsheba).

20. give two contradictory prophecies? 1 Ki 22:14-18.

21. lie to another prophet in the name of the Lord? 1 Ki 13:11-32.

22. accuse God of deception and betrayal? Jer 20:7.

23. go out in public naked? Is 20:1-6 (Isaiah); 2 Sa 6:20-22 (David); Mic 1:8 (Micah).

24. attribute doubtful characteristics to God? 2 Sa 6:6-7 (God kills in anger); Ex 7:3 (God hardens Pharaoh’s heart); 1 Sa 24:1, 10 (God punishes David for a sin he “moved” him to commit); 1 Ki 22:9-23 (God causes prophets to lie); Ez 14:9 (God deceives prophets); Am 3:6 (God is the cause of evil in a city); Ez 20:25-26, 31 (God gave laws and judgments which were not good, including child sacrifice); Hos 9;15-16 (God hates and curses); Deu 20:10-11, Lev 25:44 (God commands and condones slavery); 1 Sa 16:14, 18:10 (God sends evil spirits to influence men); 2 Th 2:11 (God will delude men); Ex 32;14, Deu 28:68, Am 7:3, 6, Jonah 3:9-10, Jer 26:13; 2 Sa 24:16 (God changes his mind).

 

God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise. 1 Cor. 1:27 (Van Hale, “Could a Prophet . . . ?,” Scrapbook of Mormon Polemics 1, no. 1 [October 1985]: 9)

 

Van Hale, "Critique of 'The Godmakers' Terminology" (1985)

  

The movie “The Godmakers,” released early in 1983, is the production of several ex-Mormons who are now ultra-conservative Christians. In addition to a number of obvious errors, distortions, and the like, the producers of the movie use a clever technique throughout. Mormon beliefs are re-phrased in the producer’s own sensational and offensive terms. The result is a most unfair portrayal of Mormonism. For example, Mormons often express belief that man is in the image of God. In the movie this is re-phrased, to present, as Mormon belief, that God is an “extra-terrestrial humanoid.”

 

This technique can, of course, be used to disparage any system of belief. For example, the following paragraphs are presented as a statement of the beliefs of the producers of “The Godmakers.” It sounds bizarre and offensive, not because it inaccurately presents their beliefs, but rather because their beliefs have been re-phrased in sensational and offensive terms. It is, thus, unfair, just as is their portrayal of Mormonism presented in the film.

 

A being of three separate persons at the same time, God is a mysterious schizophrenic. He decided to try out mortality, and thus became the only extra-terrestrial ever to become a humanoid. To do this he created a woman named Mary, and after an unnatural conception to this unwed mother-to-be, he became her illegitimate, half-breed son.

 

He suffered a self-inflicted stroke of amnesia, and had to re-develop even the most basic abilities. As his supernatural powers began to return, he traveled through the area talking with demons, and as a human god, succeeded in impressing many with spectacular fetes of magic. He wanted a large following, and offered the bribe that all who would become his groupees would never be held accountable for any of their wicked deeds, no matter how heinous. He threatened that he would see to it, that those who would not follow him would be tortured by burning forever, and ever, with no possible relief.

 

He had outraged a number of the leading citizens to the point that they wanted to put him to death. Still a young man, he decided he had had enough of mortality, and wanted to return to his former state, but he did not want to suffer the death his enemies had planned for him. After a chat with his father, he carried out his father’s will, which was that he leave mortality only after a moving drama in which he was offered as a human sacrifice, the condition upon which the father agreed to make good the incredible promises the son had made to his followers. (Van Hale, “Critique of ‘The Godmakers’ Terminology,” Scrapbook of Mormon Polemics 1, no. 1 [October 1985]: 12)

 

Tuesday, November 28, 2023

Cyprian of Carthage Understanding the New Covenant Priesthood in light of Old Testament Paradigms

  

Returning again to the liturgical aspect of priesthood, in Epistle 67, Cyprian speaks of the requirement for purity among Christian clergy, saying

 

for the voice of heaven and the law of God long ago commanded (mandatur) and ordered (praescribitur) who and what sort of men ought to serve the altar and celebrate sacred sacrifices. For in Exodus God speaks to Moses and warns him, saying, ‘Let the priests (sacerdotes) who approach the Lord God be sanctified lest the Lord perhaps should forsake them’ [Exod. 19:22]. And again: ‘And when they approach to minister at the altar (ministrare ad altare) of the holy place (sancti), they shall not bring sin upon themselves lest they should die’ [Exod. 30:20]. And likewise in Leviticus the Lord commands and says: ‘The man in whom there has been any blemish or sin shall not approach to offer gifts to God’ [Lev. 21:17]. (Ep. 67.1.2, CCSL 3C, 448)

 

Lest there be any question whether Cyprian thinks these commands apply, he continues “Since these have been prescribed and commanded to us (nobis), it is necessary that we subject our obedience to these divine commands.” (Ep. 67.1.2, CCSL 3C, 448) What was “commanded and ordered” for the Levites has direct application for the Church.

 

In other words, Cyprian draws upon the commands to the Levitical priesthood and applies them to Christian bishops because he assumes a strong continuity between Israel and the Church. Commands to one can be appropriated and applied as commands to the other. Again in De Lapsis 7 Cyprian comments that “the prophets predicted constant oppression by the Gentiles,” (De Lapsis 7, CCSL 3, 224) a subtle but important rhetorical assumption that the Church (who are nearly all, by Cyprian’s time, gentiles) now equals Israel and the “gentiles” who oppress “Israel” are the pagans and schismatics. (Brian Alan Stewart, "'Priests of My People': Levitical Paradigms for Christian Ministers in the Third and Fourth Century Church" [PhD Dissertation; University of Virginia, May 2006], 199)

 

Early Baptist Warnings Against "Bibliolatry"

  

2. Wee hould that seeing prophesiing is a parte of spiritual worship: therefore in time of prophesijing it is vnlawful to have the booke [the Bible] as a helpe before the eye (John Smyth, “Differences of the Churches of the Separation,” 1608, in H. Leon McBeth, A Sourcebook for Baptist Heritage [Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman Press, 1990], 15)

 

. . . Some make too much of Scripture, setting it up in the room of the Spirit, and so it is indeed become na Idol, not in itself, but through that Idolatry which dwels in the hearts of men: For

 

First, Some say that it is the Spirit, and that there is no Letter in it; If these make it not an Idol. I know not what an Idol is.

 

Secondly, Others know no other touch-stone or trial, no other light by which they judge of Truth: thus putting it in the room of the Spirit, who is light, and the greater light to make an Idol of it; for they say, they cannot know Truth untill they bring it to the letter for trial: thus making an Idol of the Letter, setting it up in the room of God, . . . (Thomas Collier, “A General Epistle,” 1651, Chapter X: Of the Scripture, in ibid., 53)

 

Arch S. Reynolds on Isaiah 45:7

  

Isa. 45:7 reveals that, “I (God) form the light and create darkness, I made peace, and create evil.” This seems inconsistent with Prov. 8:13 which records, “the fear of the Lord is to hate evil.” Also Isa. 65:18 informs us to “be glad and rejoice forever in that which I (God) create.” The question has often been asked did God create evil, or did He permit evil to appear? Because we find that “God is not the author of confusion, but of peace.” (I Cor. 14:33) If the Lord hate evil, then why should He create it? Because Psa. 97:9 gives us to understand that “Ye that love the Lord, hate that which I (God) create.” Now, should I rejoice in evil since Isa. 45:7 reads, “I create evil”? Some things God creates now and not form the beginning. “I have created also the destroyer to make havoc.” (Isa. 54:16 Goodspeed-Smith) Yet we find that God created us perfect.

 

“Thu wast perfect in thy ways from the days that thou wast created, until iniquity was found in thee.” (Ezek. 28:15) This proves that even Satan and his co-workers were created good and perfect; however, he became wicked later.

 

God creates light (His word). “Light is sown for the righteous.” (Psa. 97:11) While further, “Thy word is a lamp.” (Psa. 119:105) God will deliver the wicked into “darkness to be reserved for judgment.” (II Pet. 2:4) (See Jude 13) God does not create evil in the sense of wickedness, or moral badness; His is to instruct in righteousness and justice. “His work is perfect.” (Deut. 32:40 The Lord, however, creates evil in the sense of things that impair happiness, welfare or deprive us of good, to give us injury or disaster. The evil He creates is to set the stage for calamity or disaster to those who are unfaithful. This is depicted in Judges 2:11-12, “The children of Israel did evil in the sight of the Lord . . . and provoked the Lord to anger against them for evil.” Justice may bring evil upon those against whom it is enforced: although justice is not wrong, but proper for doing good and suffering for doing wickedness is entirely up to us, however, God makes it possible, and in that sense He creates evil. (See Deut. 30:15-19).

 

We look on what God has made as good, yet Ex. 4:11 gives us a new aspect of the problem, “Who hath made man’s mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? Have not I the Lord?” here is always a reason for such things, a cause for an effect. These things (whether good or bad) come about by the operation of the laws of the Lord or being passed on to the offspring at birth. These things more than likely have happened as penalty for violating God’s laws. God may be the source of certain disabilities, but not necessarily responsible for them. Paul, Zecharias, the Sodomites, Elynas, etc., were stricken temporarily with blindness and dumbness for a purpose. John 9:1-3 informs us, “Neither has this man sinned, nor his parents, but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.” God’s and Christ’s works are still going on. John 5:17 proves this, “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.” Verse 21 informs us, “For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the son quickeneth whom He will.” This is further explained in (Jer. 50:25)

 

God spared Pharaoh for a reason to show His wonderful works. (See Ex. 9:15) Favortism is no element of God’s mind. To show partiality is to have respect to persons. “For if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sins.” (James 2:9)

 

(1) God does not sin.

 

(2) To have respect to persons is to be partial.

 

(3) To be partial is sinful.

 

(4) To show respect to persons would bring the doctrine of election and damnation in the pre-existent state of man.

 

(5) This doctrine of election and condemnation brings predestination.

 

(6) This doctrine of predestination means we are all predetermined before birth, having no choice in the matter.

 

(7) “For if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin.” (James 2:9)

 

(8) God is not partial; He is no respector of persons; He is not sinful; He would not violate one of His own commandments; therefore, predestination or fatalism is not of God. This shows conclusively that fatalism would violate God’s own laws, therefore is false.

 

Sin may lay dormant as during the millennium; but it is manifested by the breaking of the law or transgressing the righteous edicts of God. (Arch S. Reynolds, God’s Ways are Wonderful, Comprehensible [Springville, Utah: Arch S. Reynolds, n.d.], 73-75)

 

Arch S. Reynolds vs. Original Sin and Total Depravity

  

Man is not depraved, but there is a continued warfare within us. However, since we are the offspring of Deity we have soundness goodness, spiritual health, and the Spirit of truth within us. Sin to us is acquired and not inherent; however, the possibility of sin is ever present by the enticings of Satan and his followers not only in this life but in the life to come. That sin would be done away with by Christ is made plain in Daniel 9:24, “to make an end of sins (the sin of our first parents), and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness.” The Catholic Bible says “And sin may have an end, and iniquity may be abolished.” Hebrews gives new light on this subject: “But this man (Christ), after He had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever,” or as verse 10 says: “By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”

 

If Christ has made an end of sins, expiated the guilt of our first parents, and abolished iniquity to make us clean of the transgression of Adam and Eve, then we are clean from the original so-called taint of Adam before God: made free from the original transgression as David proclaimed. But they were not actually free from this original sin until Christ actually give His life as a propitiation for us.

 

Bildad answered Job, “How can man be justified with God? Or how can he be clean that is born of a woman?” (Job 25:4) And, “How much less (pure) man, that is a worm?” (25:6) David gives the impression that man is a mere worm, “But I am a worm.” (Psa. 22:6) And again, “The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.” (Psa. 58:3) This passage has occasioned the false notion that small children are sinful.

 

If we had original sin do you think David would have said, “By thee (God) have I been holden up from the womb: thou art He that took me out of my mother’s bowels.” (Psa. 71:6) Would the Lord have taken him out of his mother’s bowels if he had been sinful? (Arch S. Reynolds, God’s Ways are Wonderful, Comprehensible [Springville, Utah: Arch S. Reynolds, n.d.], 69-70)


Blog Archive