I see only two options for one who is a committed Christian: the RCC (for one who maintains continuity), or the CoJCoLDS [Mormonism] (for those who believe in a “great” apostasy). . . . But, and I want to be clear on this, if I have made a wrong choice, I am quite sure God will let me know; and I say this because I [am] a committed disciple of truth.
(David Waltz, Catholic Answers Forum, 12-16-04)
I have previously written twice about David Waltz and his publicly expressed difficulties in the last two months:
Clarifying Some Points of David Waltz's Present "Doctrinal Limbo" Status (Including Discussion of the Holy Trinity and the Definition of "Christian")
Dialogue With David Waltz on Infallibility and Development in Relation to Early Creeds and Councils (Particularly, Christology and Homoousion)
I've spent the last month or so dialoguing with David Waltz and also with those whom he says have influenced his present opinions to some extent (e.g., anti-Catholic Jason Engwer), and others of his circle of friends, of various theological opinions. By and large, I have enjoyed the vigorous discussion. It has been both cordial and challenging (though Engwer ignored about 88% of my arguments, as I demonstrated).
David Waltz is now openly questioning of Church teaching concerning infallibility and development of doctrine, as well as transubstantiation, and even speculating (in a very subtle and sophisticated fashion) about whether the Catholic (and Orthodox and Protestant) doctrine of God might be erroneous, or just one of many permissible options. As it turns out, sadly, this is nothing new for Mr. Waltz.
Enemies of the Catholic Church have been (predictably) exploiting the situation, as allegedly indicative of both the falsity of Catholic teaching (anti-Catholic Protestants have seized upon this) and/or the inherent illegitimacy of Catholic apologetics. Some have used it as a pretext to bash the use of conversion stories as an indication of the truth of Catholicism.
It is important to point out that some people may in fact be examples of insufficiently converted Catholics. This is no reflection of either Catholic apologetics or the truths of Catholic theology, but rather, merely of one person's intellectual difficulties, as an isolated case.
It is my opinion, after studying a great deal of Mr. Waltz's past utterances online about a variety of related topics, that he is most likely on the road to becoming a Mormon. I think he may be trying to "argue himself" into it, much like Cardinal Newman argued himself into Catholicism via his theory of development. Whether he knows this himself in his heart at present, is another question, and one beyond my purview. We must take people at their word. Mr. Waltz states that he is searching and in transition at present. But, like the person seriously considering Catholicism, I imagine that he may have a pretty good idea of where his search could possibly end up (given all the background thinking documented below), but is not yet certain.
Be those things as they may, the signs of a definite direction (at the very least) or strong tendency are, I think, abundant. We orthodox Catholics have every right to analyze what Mr. Waltz has been saying in public these past eleven years. If he wants to now put dogmatic Catholic teaching up to debate and open skepticism, then by the same token we can defend that. He desired for this to be a public discussion. I didn't have a clue that any of this was going on, before his announcement in early January that he could no longer in good conscience be a Catholic. I didn't seek this out. I assuredly don't enjoy it. But I have a certain duty as an apologist.
Like I have stated before, I have nothing against the man personally. I am far less familiar with him and his ideas than many apologist-types online have been, these past eight years (as I see now from doing some research on the background). I have no "personal stake" in the matter. But in any event we have to stand up for what we believe is the truth. It has been made a public matter; thus, here we are as orthodox Catholics expressing our point of view as well. And facts that seem to have been greatly downplayed ought to be laid out for all to see, so we can have a much better idea of additional reasons why David Waltz is in theological crisis. If one fully doesn't understand where a man is coming from, after all, how can constructive discussion proceed?
* * * * *
Here is a summary of what I see as troubling indications that David Waltz may in fact end up as a Mormon:
David Waltz is now openly questioning of Church teaching concerning infallibility and development of doctrine, as well as transubstantiation, and even speculating (in a very subtle and sophisticated fashion) about whether the Catholic (and Orthodox and Protestant) doctrine of God might be erroneous, or just one of many permissible options. As it turns out, sadly, this is nothing new for Mr. Waltz.
Enemies of the Catholic Church have been (predictably) exploiting the situation, as allegedly indicative of both the falsity of Catholic teaching (anti-Catholic Protestants have seized upon this) and/or the inherent illegitimacy of Catholic apologetics. Some have used it as a pretext to bash the use of conversion stories as an indication of the truth of Catholicism.
It is important to point out that some people may in fact be examples of insufficiently converted Catholics. This is no reflection of either Catholic apologetics or the truths of Catholic theology, but rather, merely of one person's intellectual difficulties, as an isolated case.
It is my opinion, after studying a great deal of Mr. Waltz's past utterances online about a variety of related topics, that he is most likely on the road to becoming a Mormon. I think he may be trying to "argue himself" into it, much like Cardinal Newman argued himself into Catholicism via his theory of development. Whether he knows this himself in his heart at present, is another question, and one beyond my purview. We must take people at their word. Mr. Waltz states that he is searching and in transition at present. But, like the person seriously considering Catholicism, I imagine that he may have a pretty good idea of where his search could possibly end up (given all the background thinking documented below), but is not yet certain.
Be those things as they may, the signs of a definite direction (at the very least) or strong tendency are, I think, abundant. We orthodox Catholics have every right to analyze what Mr. Waltz has been saying in public these past eleven years. If he wants to now put dogmatic Catholic teaching up to debate and open skepticism, then by the same token we can defend that. He desired for this to be a public discussion. I didn't have a clue that any of this was going on, before his announcement in early January that he could no longer in good conscience be a Catholic. I didn't seek this out. I assuredly don't enjoy it. But I have a certain duty as an apologist.
Like I have stated before, I have nothing against the man personally. I am far less familiar with him and his ideas than many apologist-types online have been, these past eight years (as I see now from doing some research on the background). I have no "personal stake" in the matter. But in any event we have to stand up for what we believe is the truth. It has been made a public matter; thus, here we are as orthodox Catholics expressing our point of view as well. And facts that seem to have been greatly downplayed ought to be laid out for all to see, so we can have a much better idea of additional reasons why David Waltz is in theological crisis. If one fully doesn't understand where a man is coming from, after all, how can constructive discussion proceed?
* * * * *
Here is a summary of what I see as troubling indications that David Waltz may in fact end up as a Mormon:
1) 1700 Mormon books in his personal collection. We are what we eat. Sometimes, when we study a topic in great depth (in this case, a heresy), we can become convinced by it.
2) Praise of Mormon apologetics (in their own publications and in Christian venues); particularly that of Dr. Barry Bickmore.
3) A pronounced dislike of counter-cult efforts of both Protestants and Catholics (characterized as "anti-Mormon").
4) A background of being raised as a Jehovah's Witness.
5) An insufficient understanding of the definition of Christian, so that he seems to think Mormons are at least as worthy of the title (if not more so) than Protestants.
6) A viewpoint whereby Mormon schemas of Church history are more plausible than Protestant ones; hence, he appears to have ruled out Protestantism already, as a Christian option.
7) A willingness to entertain the notion that the Mormon conception of "the Trinity" is within the scope of valid theological ideas.
8) Concentration on theosis or deification as a theme in the fathers, but misdefined in a way that supposedly would entail their being consistent with heretical Mormon notions of men becoming gods, or God.
9) Questioning of the Catholic clarification that Mormon baptism is invalid.
10) Defense of well-known Jehovah's Witnesses like Greg Stafford, over against Catholic and Protestant critiques.
11) Expression of the opinion that Arian interpretations of Scripture are as valid or respectable as trinitarian ones.
12) Seeming rejection of the essential clearness and material sufficiency of Holy Scripture.
13) Denial of the Transcendence of God and Assertion That Men Become God(s).
14) Assertion That Worship of Jesus Has "Little," If "Any" Biblical Support.
I shall now present evidence for each of these propositions from David Waltz's own words. His words will be indented. Footnotes will be bracketed and in smaller, blue font:
1) 1700 Mormon books in his personal collection
I am not a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but I have been investigating the church since 1987. . . . (My personal library has grown to more than fourteen thousand volumes, including more than sixteen hundred that are LDS-related.)
("A New Look at Historic Christianity," FARMS Review [Mormon publication]: Volume - 12, Issue - 2, Pages: 165-80; A review of Restoring the Ancient Church: Joseph Smith and Early Christianity, by Barry R. Bickmore [Ben Lomond, Calif.: Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, 1999]; Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute, 2000; cf. more compact version, "A Look At Barry Bickmore's Book From a Non-LDS Perspective," 1999, published on the Mormon FAIR site)
I have been an ardent student of Mormonism since 1987. It has been my intent, from the beginning of my studies, to be as objective as humanly possible in my examination. I have seriously studied Mormonism from many different angles. In the process, I have accumulated more than 1,700 books on Mormonism, including more than 150 anti-Mormon books. Add to this my collection of BYU Studies, Dialogue, Sunstone, and the vast majority of FARMS publications, and one could say I have a fairly substantial Mormon collection. I guess word of my studies has "gotten around," . . .
("Back to School," on the Mormon FAIR site, 2002)
I have now read the BoM [Book of Mormon] 6 times cover-to-cover, and each subsequent reading starts with considerably different presuppositions). . . . During my trip I decided to pay a visit to Temple Square (my first), but on my way there I noticed a large Deseret bookstore across the street. Given my passion for books, I went there first and ended up purchasing enough books to fill an entire suitcase! Thus began my studies into Mormonism and the LDS Church—1,700 plus LDS books later, the study continues…
(Blog, 11-19-07)
2) Praise of Mormon apologetics (in their own publications and in Christian venues); particularly that of Dr. Barry Bickmore
I find it very interesting that Bickmore has organized and put into print many of the themes that I have seen in my personal reading of the early church fathers. . . .
Enter Barry Bickmore's book. Is there strong evidence that distinctive LDS doctrine had its counterpart in the early church? The honest investigator, after reading this book, must come to a positive conclusion. . . . It is my opinion that Bickmore has accomplished what he set out to do. . . .
Bickmore has certainly demonstrated that many teachings of the LDS Church were present in writings of the early church fathers. Some of the evidence that Bickmore has presented is from confessedly heretical groups, but the majority has been gleaned from what most would call the "orthodox" fathers. . . . Latter-day Saint scholars can appeal to the early church fathers for support on many of their doctrines.
("A New Look at Historic Christianity," FARMS Review [Mormon publication]: Volume - 12, Issue - 2, Pages: 165-80, 1999; see additional info. under #1 above)
3) A pronounced dislike of counter-cult efforts of both Protestants and Catholics (characterized as "anti-Mormon")
I find it equally interesting that anti-Mormons who compare LDS doctrines with those of the early church fathers either ignore or gloss over much of the evidence.
("A New Look at Historic Christianity," FARMS Review [Mormon publication]: Volume - 12, Issue - 2, Pages: 165-80, 1999; see additional info. under #1 above)
I have been asked to contribute to FAIR's review of McKeever and Johnson's Mormonism 101. . . . It was my hope that this book would build upon the recent Evangelical/Mormon dialogue of Blomberg and Robinson [Craig L. Blomberg and Stephen E. Robinson, How Wide the Divide? (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997) ], and the excellent reviews of their work in Farms Review of Books. [Reviews of Blomberg and Robinson, How Wide the Divide?, Farms Review of Books, Vol. 11.2 (Provo, Utah: 1999) ] . . . Did the book live up to my expectations? I was less than fifteen minutes into the book when any hope of an objective, academic look at Mormonism had all but disappeared. Alas, the book, now in my hands, was nothing more than another ill-conceived, subjective, polemical, anti-Mormon publication. . . .
Once the historical data that I will present is honestly examined, I believe it will become clear that McKeever and Johnson's approach to Mormonism is severely flawed; and importantly, their approach is a double-edged sword, which when turned on Evangelicalism, inflicts a much greater wound.
("Back to School," on the Mormon FAIR site, 2002)
[Note: Co-author of the book in question, Eric Johnson, has written an extensive reply to David Waltz, on the Mormonism Research Ministry website site]
I picked up a small book titled, Mormon Claims Answered, by Marvin W. Cowan (I now believe this work to be unscholarly, anti-Mormon drivel—one of hundreds!), . . .
(Blog, 11-19-07)
4) A background of being raised as a Jehovah's Witness
. . . I had been raised (as a Jehovah's Witness) . . .
(Blog, 11-19-07)
. . . the faith I was born into (JWs) . . .
(Blog, 6-6-08)
. . . I was raised a Jehovah’s Witness (4th generation) . . .
(Blog, 3-23-09)
To get from point A (clarity of the Scriptures concerning the doctrine of the Trinity) to point C (clarity comes via authoritative development), I needed to reference point B (the non-Trinitarian position/s). I really don’t enjoy dwelling on point B, it brings back way too many deep, and profound memories. I know from personal experience the strength and lure of the Arian position—but, I suspect that it is difficult for someone who has not ‘walked in my shoes’ to understand.
(Blog, 7-6-09)
[this section is not an instance of the genetic fallacy or some ad hominem attack. It's a simple recognition that our background can affect us much more than we know. Many of us have changed our views (I have, several times), but the longer we believed something, the less likely it is that it will have little long-lasting effect. A serious JW background will harm anyone, as so many false beliefs are involved, and constantly hammered into the followers of the system. And so we do see some remnants, I think, of his former allegiance; especially, I submit, in some important ways in which he approaches Scripture from the outset -- more on that below]
5) An insufficient understanding of the definition of Christian, so that he seems to think Mormons are at least as worthy of the title (if not more so) than Protestants
The cry I have read and heard over and over again from the anti-Mormon camp is that Mormonism is not "historic" or "orthodox" Christianity. But, as Newman pointed out in the above quotation, neither is Protestantism. My reading of the early church fathers has forced me to concur with Newman's assessment. And yet Cunningham's assessment of Roman Catholicism is equally telling, "What ever be the Christianity of the New Testament, it is not Romanism. If ever there was a safe truth, it is this, and Romanism has ever felt it."
[William Cunningham, Discussions on Church Principles Popish, Erastian, and Presbyterian (1863; reprint, Edmonton: Still Waters Revival Books, 1991), 48.]
. . . To my knowledge, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only body of Christian believers who currently practice baptism for the dead (see pp. 218—27).
("A New Look at Historic Christianity," FARMS Review [Mormon publication]: Volume - 12, Issue - 2, Pages: 165-80, 1999; see additional info. under #1 above)
The two authors of Mormonism 101 begin their book with a quote from Bruce R. McConkie's Mormon Doctrine:
Mormonism is Christianity; Christianity is Mormonism; they are one and the same, and they are not to be distinguished from each other in the minutest detail. Mormons are true Christians; their worship is the pure, unadulterated Christianity authored by Christ and accepted by Peter, James and John and all the ancient saints.
[Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson, Mormonism 101 (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2001), 9.]
Now, what is wrong with this statement? I would hope McKeever and Johnson believe that the form of Christianity which they practice "is the pure, unadulterated Christianity authored by Christ." If they do not believe this, then perhaps they had better choose another form of Christianity from the more than 30,000 denominations that exist today.
. . . should not all honest Christian's [sic] believe that the form of Christianity they practice is, in fact, the purest form Christianity? . . .
Continuing on page 11 McKeever and Johnson seem to make reference to the book How Wide the Divide? when they write, "Some Mormon apologists have even declared that the divide between Christianity and Mormonism is not all that wide." Actually, that is the joint conclusion of Craig Blomberg, an Evangelical Christian, and Stephen Robinson, a Mormon. Although they found many points of agreement, they also acknowledged that all differences have not been settled. But, of course, this can be said of all Christian denominations. . . .
Having examined the attempts by McKeever and Johnson, in Chapter One, used to "prove" that Mormonism is not Christian, I think it is safe to say that they have failed miserably. . . .
If one truly adheres to the Protestant principles of "private judgment" and "sola scriptura," one cannot, in all honesty, exclude Mormonism as Christian.
("Back to School," on the Mormon FAIR site, 2002)
. . . the overall worldview of Mormonism has more in common with the ECF’s than the Protestant worldview.
(Catholic Answers Forum, 12-16-04)
6) A viewpoint whereby Mormon schemas of Church history are more plausible than Protestant ones; hence, he appears to have ruled out Protestantism already, as a Christian option
I will also demonstrate that McKeever and Johnson's brand of [Evangelical Protestant] Christianity has no greater claim to "historic," "orthodox," pre-Nicene Christianity than Mormonism.
("Back to School," on the Mormon FAIR site, 2002)
Enter Joseph Smith Jr. and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Apologists for the LDS Church very early on realized that the Protestant position had serious deficiencies in their historic paradigm, one of which included the contention that it is impossible to derive true authority from an apostate church; as such, what was needed was not a mere reformation, but rather, a restoration based on a divine, authoritative, calling by Jesus Christ (or one of His authorized authorities). I cannot help but agree that such an assessment is a valid one, and submit that an objective reflection on this issue of apostasy yields but two consistent options: either the Church founded by our Lord in the first century did not apostatize (and was protected from such via divine assistance); or if it did apostatize, a divine restoration was needed.
(Blog, 8-15-07)
7) A willingness to entertain the notion that the Mormon conception of "the Trinity" is within the scope of valid theological ideas
Anti-Mormon critics are quick to accuse Latter-day Saints of teaching polytheism—they add that Trinitarianism is monotheistic. What they neglect to tell us is that Unitarians (Christian, Jewish, and Muslim) have leveled the same charge of polytheism against Trinitarians. Bickmore does a very good job in this chapter of addressing the complex issues pertaining to the doctrine of the Godhead. Al though in my experience many Latter-day Saint writers have not been clear on this subject, Bickmore gives us an excellent presentation of the Godhead in LDS thought and then finds several parallels in early Christian writings. . . .
I fully concur with this assessment and will add that when one closely examines the doctrine of God and Jesus Christ in the early church fathers of the second and third centuries, one is hard pressed to find Trinitarianism—what one does find is diversity.("A New Look at Historic Christianity," FARMS Review [Mormon publication]: Volume - 12, Issue - 2, Pages: 165-80, 1999; see additional info. under #1 above)Closing out page 11 we read, "The logical question should be, Can an individual or organization willfully deny or distort the basics of the Christian faith and till(sic) be considered Christian?" I strongly believe that this is not the "logical" question that needs to be asked. The question that must first be addressed is, "What are the basics of the Christian faith?" I think I know what McKeever and Johnson believe they are-doctrines such as the Trinity, sola scriptura, sola fide, and sola Christi.Such answers, however, raise many questions. First, what form of the Trinity do McKeever and Johnson hold to? Do they affirm the "eternal generation" of the Son? Was the Son begotten before all time, or at his incarnation? Does the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father and the Son, or the Father alone? Do they hold that the Father alone is autotheos? Does the Son owe his existence to the Father? Are the Father, Son and Holy Spirit real persons (i.e., three centers of self-consciousness), or are they three relative modes of being? Is there a technical difference between ho theos and theos as used by the early Church Fathers? . . .
Now virtually all Mormons and Evangelicals who have compared the two groups' teachings on the doctrine God know that differences exist, but the real question one must ask is, "Are the differences great enough to exclude one of the above groups from the Christian religion?" To assist honest-hearted readers in making that decision, we are going to have to look at what Christians have believed about God, Jesus Christ, and the doctrine of the Trinity throughout the last 1,900 years. . . .
I am claiming that there are many common points of contact between the Mormon doctrine of the Godhead and the early Church Fathers. . . .
If Mormons are polytheists, then so are the early Church Fathers.
("Back to School," on the Mormon FAIR site, 2002)
What ever differences exist between Catholic and Mormons on this issue, the fact remains that both maintain that a 3 member Godhead is the creator, and that man is created in the image of God. While Mormons tend to blur the distinctions, Catholics tend to blur the image.
(Mormon Apologetics and Discussion Board, 3-15-05)
. . . there have been some interesting develops in recent LDS theology that moves their doctrine of the Godhead much closer to ‘mainstream’ Christian thought—see:
Blake Ostler’s Re-vision-ing the Mormon Concept of Deity.
And, David Paulsen’s Are Mormons Trinitarian.
(Blog, 7-6-09)
8) Concentration on theosis or deification as a theme in the fathers, but misdefined in a way that supposedly would entail their being consistent with heretical Mormon notions of men becoming gods, or God
Next Bickmore discusses the doctrine of deification (i.e., man becoming God). After a brief presentation of the LDS view, Bickmore turns to the writings of the church fathers. Before proceeding, I must say that, as one who is not LDS, I have been somewhat troubled by the immense number of passages in the church fathers that promote the doctrine of deification. As Bickmore points out, 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.
Bickmore gives his readers more than twenty citations from the church fathers that teach the doctrine that men can become gods. To this number I could add at least another thirty quotations from my personal notes on the church fathers that teach the same doctrine. I think the citations speak for themselves, . . . unless one is willing to completely ignore and discard the unified teaching of the early church fathers on the doctrine of deification, the honest reader must seriously look at either the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or the Eastern Orthodox Church as maintaining the truly "historic" teaching on this important doctrine.
("A New Look at Historic Christianity," FARMS Review [Mormon publication]: Volume - 12, Issue - 2, Pages: 165-80, 1999; see additional info. under #1 above)
. . . many of the same Christians who have embraced the concept that Jesus Christ is divine, then fail to make a similar connection with God's other sons, His adopted sons, His sons by grace. We have seen in this chapter [of a book he wrote] that the very same concepts used to describe the relationship between God the Father and Jesus Christ are in fact the same concepts used to describe the relationship between redeemed mankind and Jesus Christ. Consistent, honest, reflection forces one to conclude that if Jesus Christ truly shares in God's divine nature, then so too God's adopted sons (His sons by grace: i.e. redeemed mankind). This belief that redeemed mankind truly shares in God's divinity is the essence of the doctrine of theosis, and as we have seen, is the clear teaching of the Bible.
My understanding is this: there is little difference in the actual doctrine of deification between Catholics and Mormons (IMO a greater difference exists between Catholics and the EO). However, there does exist differences (at least for the vast majority of Mormons) between Catholics and Mormons as to what constitutes the attributes of God. This means that though both Catholics and Mormons teach that the redeemed will become God by grace (i.e. God will bestow all of His attributes on the redeemed), the end result is different (IMO -- though some of my Catholic brothers will disagree with on this).
(Mormon Apologetics and Discussion Board, 3-15-05)
In my book I discuss the fact that Jesus Christ is the image of God, and as such, many Christians argue that He is God; but when we then move to the fact that mankind is also the image of God (as well and the image of Christ), those same Christians begin to back-peddle (so-to-speak). [Though I believe that Jesus Christ is God by nature, while the redeemed become God by grace.]
So, to make a long story short, I believe God will one day deify redeemed mankind to the level, being, ontology, of God [by grace]. I have personally found no official Catholic documents that currently would exclude this conclusion.
(Mormon Apologetics and Discussion Board, 3-15-05)
Jesus Christ, the Son, is the image of God the Father (Col. 1:15), and as such He is God. . . . The construct seems quite simple to me: the Son is the image of the Father, so he is equal to the Father; glorified, redeemed Christians will be "conformed" to the image of the Son, so they will become equal to the Son (by grace, of course).
(Concerned Christians forum, 3-8-06)
Deification is simply union with God/Christ. The final result of this wondrous union is reception of God attributes/fullness -- to become one with God and Jesus Christ. . . . This "fullness of God" will include eternal life, immortality, holiness, perfection, glory, sitting on God's throne, partaking of the divine nature, a fullness of knowledge, etc. So in a nutshell, the Biblical basis for deification lies in God bestowing His attributes upon His adopted Sons; to live the life that God lives in eternity with Him, His Son, and His Holy Spirit.
(Concerned Christians forum, 3-29-06)
I want to make it clear that I too believe in a difference between the relationship that God the Father has with God the Son, and that with His adopted Sons: God the Son is God by nature, while the adopted Sons are God by grace. (This difference cannot be minimalized; indeed, in must be stressed.)
(Concerned Christians forum, 4-11-06)
9) Questioning of the Catholic clarification that Mormon baptism is invalid
Response to Fr. Luis Ladaria, S. J.'s clarification of the Catholic Church's decision (through the Congregation for the Doctrine of faith in 2001: then headed by Cardinal Ratzinger: Pope Benedict XVI) to regard Mormon baptism as invalid:
I would like to point out that all of the above LDS teachings are from non-official sources (i.e. they are not contained in the recognized LDS canon of Scriptures). As to whether or not they are ‘official’ teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I do not believe that they are—even though they have been, and are, widely held (the evidence I have complied to support this view is quite extensive—but, it lies beyond the scope of this thread to present it at this time).
. . . the problem is that Ladaria and the CDF concluded (right or wrong) that: “The teaching of the Mormons has a completely different matrix.”
(Blog, 7-3-09)
10) Defense of well-known Jehovah's Witnesses like Greg Stafford, over against Catholic and Protestant critiques
As for the phrase “various cultists”, I am somewhat disappointted that Jeff includes Greg Stafford in such a category, for an objective reading of his published works sure seems to place Mr. Stafford outside the bounds of a “cultist”.
(Countercult Apologetics blog, 8-2-07)
. . . contemporary debates between Arian/Socinian adherents and Trinitarians (I have those who maintain a high view of Scripture in mind) suggest that the issue is not nearly as ‘clear’ as you seem to indicate (the Stafford/Bowman, BeDuhn/Bowman, and Stafford/White debates come to mind, . . .
(Blog, 7-3-09)
11) Expression of the opinion that Arian interpretations of Scripture are as valid or respectable as trinitarian ones
Greg [Stafford], a neo-Arian (and NOT a Unitarian in the more historical sense), raises some serious questions, that from a stricly “Biblical” sense, cannot be resolved. Fact is, a neo-Arian/Eusebian interpretation is a valid interpretation of the appropriate Biblical texts—though, of course, not the ONLY valid one.
(Countercult Apologetics blog, 8-2-07)
I am surprised because I have read pretty much all that Greg has written, and his writings are certainly not from the mindset of a brainwashed cultist. Greg clearly thinks for himself, as such, I think it is not only ‘bad form’, but a misuse of term itself when he is labeled as a “cultist”. . . . As for automatically labeling a person a cultist who is not a Trinitarian, this is a practice that seems to have originated with the late Walter Martin, and has been adopted by pretty much all of his ‘offspring’ in the “counter-cult” culture. But, most Christian scholars know better than to throw around the term “cultist” in such a loose fashion, and prefer to reserve the term for the followers of religious leaders like David Koresh.
(Countercult Apologetics blog, 8-2-07)
[Dave: That would come as news to, e.g., evangelical Protestant Jan Karel van Baalen, who wrote The Chaos of Cults in 1938, objecting to such groups and belief-systems as Mormons, theosophy, Christian Science, and Jehovah's Witnesses. I would submit that the traditional word heresy is pretty much an equivalent for heterodox belief-systems falsely claiming to be Christian. Anglican A. H. Barrington wrote a book in 1898, entitled, Anti-Christian Cults: An Attempt to Show That Spiritualism, Theosophy, and Christian Science Are Devoid of Supernatural Powers and Are Contrary to the Christian Religion. Dr. Walter Martin's famous book, The Kingdom of the Cults, was published in 1965. He was a great man, whom I once had the privilege to meet]
I have often confided in my theological friends that if I held to the principal of sola scriptura that I would probably be a Homoiousian, or a Homoian Arian (I am Trinitarian due to Tradition, more precisely, Nicene and post-Nicene Tradition).
(Blog, 9-15-08)
. . . contemporary debates between Arian/Socinian adherents and Trinitarians (I have those who maintain a high view of Scripture in mind) suggest that the issue is not nearly as ‘clear’ as you seem to indicate (the Stafford/Bowman, BeDuhn/Bowman, and Stafford/White debates come to mind, . . .
(Blog, 7-3-09)
12) Seeming rejection of the essential clearness and material sufficiency of Holy Scripture
Though I personally believe that Jesus Christ was/is fully God, I do not believe that any one Biblical text, in and of itself, clearly teaches this.
(Concerned Christians forum, 4-11-06)
In all honesty, I truly believe that Bible is not clear on this; as such, a good argument can be made for either limited deification, or for full deification.
(Concerned Christians forum, 4-12-06)
I do want to make it clear that I believe in the full divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, but not because of John 8:58.
(Concerned Christians forum, 4-12-06)
I was constantly reminded that the doctrine of the Trinity was CLEARLY taught in the Bible. . . . My understanding of the Evangelical doctrine of perspicuity is that the Scriptures are clear on the “essentials”. It is also my understanding that Evangelicals believe the doctrine of the Trinity is one of those “essentials”. Now, I would like to explore this issue—is the doctrine of the Trinity clearly (i.e. explicitly) contained in the Scriptures? . . . are the scriptures “clear” concerning the doctrine of the Trinity? When one honestly examines history, and the current state of Evangelical theology, one must conclude that it is not “clear”. IHMO, to maintain that the scriptures are “clear” on this issue is to radically change the meaning of the word “clear”.
(Blog, 6-6-08)
My 30 plus years of study into the Bible (as well as the Church Fathers and theology) has certainly taught me that the belief/statement there exists a “clear testimony of Scripture to the truth of the Trinity” is not based on objective evidence—the ‘facts’ present something quite different.
(Blog, 3-23-09)
Now, you continue to argue that the doctrine of the Trinity is ‘clear’ teaching of the Bible. . . . this ‘clear’ teaching of the Bible took over 300 years before ‘clearly’ defined . . .
(Blog, 7-3-09)
My movement from an Arian position to a Trinitarian one took over 7 years of deep study to achieve. In that process, I read the best material (available in English) on the topic including such authors as the two Hodges, Shedd, Warfield, Barth, Bavinck, Berkhof, Berkouwer, Calvin, Dabney Edwards, Erickson, and Fortman, to name just a few. However, is wasn’t until I started my studies of the Church Fathers, that the ‘balance’ tipped in favor of the Trinitarian position. Without the benefit of the “400 years or more to flesh out the details of how to put it all together”, I may have remained Arian. . . . something that is CLEAR, should not take over 400 years to develop; nor should it take thousands of pages to defend. Don’t get me wrong here, I am not saying that the doctrine is indefensible, but rather, that it is only implicit in the Scriptures, and not explicit.
(Blog, 7-6-09)
[I agree that it is "not explicit" but I think it is quite clear in its basic outlines, and not merely "implicit". It is certainly clear enough in Scripture, to rather easily overcome -- all facts considered -- the heresy of Arianism and other non-trinitarian heresies. The fact that heretics have dissented from the biblical witness through the centuries does not prove in and of itself that the biblical testimony to trinitarianism was unclear or insufficient. But assuredly there was plenty of room for technical development through history.]
Yes, Scripture is CLEAR, but only to those who embrace the Catholic regula fidei. . . . Once again, Scripture is CLEAR, but only for those who have embraced the true regula fidei.
(Blog, 11-7-09)
13) Denial of the Transcendence of God and Assertion That Men Become God(s)
Attempts have been made by some to empty Irenaeus view of deification of its full import (i.e. Irenaeus really meant the redeemed become like God, not God.) However, some scholars are quite willing to let the texts speak for themselves and refuse to allow a preconceived theology distort what he really said. . . . our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through His transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself . . .
(ZLMB: A Forum Sounding Board for Academicians, Apologists, and Skeptics Interested in things LDS, 4-18-04)
Those who attempt to limit what the redeemed become to merely some of Christs divine attributes are reading something into the text (and the thought) of Irenaeus that just is not there.
(ZLMB: A Forum Sounding Board for Academicians, Apologists, and Skeptics Interested in things LDS, 4-21-04)
You said that "God will bestow all of His attributes on the redeemed" and that "God will one day deify redeemed mankind to the level, being, ontology, of God" how do your beliefs compare with the following Catholic teaching?
318 No creature has the infinite power necessary to "create" in the proper sense of the word, that is, to produce and give being to that which had in no way possessed it (to call into existence "out of nothing") (cf DS 3624). [ link ]
The context of the above quote from the new Catechism of the Catholic Church (p. 84) is emphasizing God's unique role as Creator of our universe and all that is within it. It is focusing on the fact that the very existence of every creature is owed to God. However, this does not exclude the possibility that our infinite God, if He so chooses, can bestow the attribute of infinite power upon redeemed mankind.
Interestingly enough, section 314 states that we do not understand the ways of God because we now have only "partial knowledge". Yet it also clearly states that this partial knowledge will "cease" when we see God "face to face". (Quoting 1 Cor. 13:12). The same passage states that in the future redeemed mankind will "know even as also I am known". God's knowledge is infinite, ours is currently finite, the passage strongly indicates that our knowledge in the future, by grace, shall be as God's.
(Mormon Apologetics and Discussion Board, 3-16-05)
. . . if believers receive the same glory from Jesus that God gave to him then why are we not already "what He essentially is and does"?
(Concerned Christians forum, 3-16-06)
Well, certainly Trinitarians argue that the sense/meaning of "one God" does not limit the number of persons who are God. With this in mind, there is a question I think needs to asked: if the one God chooses to bestow ALL of His attributes upon His adopted Sons, what will these Sons become?
(Concerned Christians forum, 3-30-06)
I believe other passages strongly indicate that ALL of God's attributes are involved, not just some.
(Concerned Christians forum, 3-31-06)
. . . we have been seated with Christ and yet in the future shall actually be seated on God's throne. In a nut-shell, we have been transformed, yet are being transformed, and in the future (heaven) shall be fully transformed. . . . I suppose if one understands that the phrase "Bible-based" is heavily influenced by differing hermeneutics, then I would have to say yes, and side with the motif "as God is, man may be." (BTW, this is not merely the "privilege of LDS"; but is a very Catholic/Orthodox understanding of the Scriptures.)
(Concerned Christians forum, 4-11-06)
I personally lean in the direction of full deification, and this for two important reasons: first, the language used to describe the relationship between God the Father and God the Son is same kind of language used to describe the relationship between God the Son and the redeemed Sons; and second, we have what is called parallelism to describe the Incarnation and redemption motif: God became man, that man might become God. I believe that Jesus became 100% man, if this is accepted then the parallel concerning deification would mean that redeemed mankind becomes 100% God: yet one important distinction remains: Jesus Christ's person was divine and remained divine when He became 100% man; redeemed mankind's person is human, and remains human even if fully deified.
And one last thought: can our omnipotent God fully deify us if He chooses to do so?
(Concerned Christians forum, 4-12-06)
14) Assertion That Worship of Jesus Has "Little," If "Any" Biblical Support
So, in ending, that Jesus, the long awaited Messianic king, the eschatological “Son of Man”, the great Prince, et al. receives proskuneō should come as no surprise. However, to then deduce that this act denotes an act of worship directed to the one true God, is to jump to a conclusion that has little (any?) Biblical support.
(Blog, 5-7-09)
This assertion that worship of Jesus as God is absent in the New Testament, is manifestly false. I refuted such a thing almost thirty years ago now, in the course of my studies about Jehovah's Witnesses. Even if we discount most or all of the instances of proskuneo (and there were many), and follow the Jehovah's Witness mentality that this was not true worship, but mere courtly honor, etc., there is much more relevant data (passages are KJV):
JOHN 5:23 That all {men} should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.
PHILIPPIANS 2:9-11 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: (10) That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of {things} in heaven, and {things} in earth, and {things} under the earth; (11) And {that} every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ {is} Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
HEBREWS 1:6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
REVELATION 5:8 . . . the four beasts and four {and} twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints. {cf. Rev 4:10, 7:11}
REVELATION 5:12-14 Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, honour, and glory, and blessing. (13) And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, {be} unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever. (14) And the four beasts said, Amen. And the four {and} twenty elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for ever and ever. (cf. Rev 4:9,11, 7:12, Rom 11:33, Col 2:6-7)
REVELATION 7:9-12,15-17 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands; (10) And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb. (11) And all the angels stood round about the throne, and {about} the elders and the four beasts, and fell before the throne on their faces, and worshipped God, (12) Saying, Amen: Blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, and honour, and power, and might, {be} unto our God for ever and ever. Amen . . . (15) Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them. (16) They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat. (17) For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.
In the New Testament, the Greek word for "worship," proskuneo, is used 22 times to refer to worship of the Father, five times of divine worship without specification, and 14 times in reference to worship of Jesus. Proskuneo is also explicitly defined, both in Revelation 4:10-11 and 7:11-12, since both passages define the worship of God by virtue of describing the words directed to God in praise and worship (". . . worshipped God, saying . . .").
Every Greek word (eleven in all) applied to God the Father in this fashion in Revelation is applied to Jesus as well (eucharistia is used of Christ in Colossians). One word, ploutos, is applied to Jesus only in Revelation, and to the Father in Romans 11:33. There can be no stronger evidence that Jesus is to receive worship equally with His Father, thus making Him equal to the Father, and no less than fully God:
Greek: Pipto English (KJV): Fell down beforeFurthermore, by strong implication, Revelation 7:11-12 can be said to apply equally to Jesus as well, since the "Lamb" is mentioned in the immediate context (7:10,17). Revelation 7:11 states, ". . . fell before the throne . . . and worshipped God," while Revelation 7:17 informs us of, "the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne . . ."
Father: Revelation 4:10, 7:11
Jesus: Revelation 5:8
Eulogia (Blessing)
Father: 5:13, 7:12
Jesus: 5:12-13
Doxa (Glory)
Father: 4:9,11, 5:13, 7:12
Jesus: 5:12-13
Sophia (Wisdom)
Father: 7:12
Jesus: 5:12
Time (Honour)
Father: 4:9,11, 5:13, 7:12
Jesus: 5:12-13
Dunamis (Power)
Father: 4:11, 7:12
Jesus: 5:12
Kratos (Power)
Father: 5:13
Jesus: 5:13
Ischus (Might)
Father: 7:12
Jesus: 5:12
Axios (Worthy)
Father: 4:11
Jesus: 5:12
Lambano (Receive)
Father: 4:11
Jesus: 5:12
Ploutos (Riches)
Father: (Romans 11:33)
Jesus: Rev 5:12
Eucharistia (Thanksgiving)
Father: 4:9, 7:12
Jesus: (Colossians 2:6-7)
![[Pinocchio.jpg]](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_FOIrYyQawGI/S3seb7eexDI/AAAAAAAACoA/reLr7We7W_M/s1600-h/Pinocchio.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.gif)
.jpg)
