Thursday, December 9, 2021

“Partakers of the Divine Nature”: some expositions on the doctrine of deification from an unlikely source

Before delving into the primary theme of this post—i.e. the ‘unlikely source’—I would like to provide an introduction of sorts on the doctrine of deification (also termed theosis). From the entry under the heading “Deification” in The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology (1983) we read:

Deification (Greek theosis) is for Orthodoxy the goal of every Christian. Man, according to the Bible, is ‘made in the image and likeness of God’ (cf. Gen. 1.26), and the Fathers commonly distinguish between these two words. The image refers to man’s reason and freedom, that which distinguishes him from the animals and makes him kin to God, while ‘likeness’ refers to 'assimilation to God through virtues' (St John Damascus). It is possible for man to become like God, to become deified, to become god by grace. This doctrine is based on many passages of both OT and NT (e.g. Ps. 82 (81).6; 2 Peter 1.4), and it is essentially the teaching both of St Paul, though he tends to use the language of filial adoption (cf. Rom. 8.9-17; Gal. 4.5-7), and the Fourth Gospel (cf. 17.21-23). [Page 147 - for more Biblical passages germane to this issue see THIS POST.]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church under Part One 'The Profession of the Christian Faith’, chapter two, article 3.I.460 ‘Why did the Word become flesh?’, had the following to say:

The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":78 "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."79 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."81.

78 2 Pt 1:4.

79 St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 3, 19, 1: PG 7/1, 939.

80 St. Athanasius, De inc. 54, 3: PG 25, 192B.

81 St. Thomas Aquinas, Opusc. 57, 1-4.

[Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Eng. 1994 ed. p. 116; Eng. 1997 2nd ed. p. 116 - for additional selections on deification from Catholic authors see THIS THREAD; for dozens of references from the Church Fathers see THIS POST.]

Robert V. Rakestraw provides an Evangelical perspective on deification; note the following:

In one of his letters Athanasius, the fourth-century defender of the faith, made his famous statement that the Son of God became man “that he might deify us in himself.”1 Elsewhere he wrote similarly that Christ “was made man that we might be made God.”2 This is the doctrine of theosis, also known as deifcation, divinization or, as some prefer, participation in God.3

While the concept of theosis has roots in the ante-Nicene period, it is not an antiquated historical curiosity. The idea of divinization, of redeemed human nature somehow participating in the very life of God, is found to a surprising extent throughout Christian history, although it is practically unknown to the majority of Christians (and even many theologians) in the west.

1 Athanasius, Letter 60, to Adelphius, 4. See also 3, 8 (NPNF, 2d Series 4.575–578).

2 Athanasius On the Incarnation 54 (NPNF, 2d Series 4.65).

3 A. M. Allchin entitles his book on theosis Participation in God: A Forgotten Strand in Anglican Tradition (Wilton: Morehouse-Barlow, 1988).["Becoming Like God: An Evangelical Doctrine of Theosis", JETS 40/2 (June 1997) 257-269 – LINK.]

Time now to introduce the ‘unlikely source’ mentioned in the title of this thread: Charles Taze Russell. Russell was the founder of the Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society of Pennsylvania (1881; incorporated 1884), the related magazine Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence (1879), and the movement that became known as the Jehovah’s Witnesses (the name adopted in 1931). From the first three volumes of his six volume magnum opus, Millennial Dawn (later renamed Studies in the Scriptures), we read (all bold emphasis that follows in mine):

If the masses of mankind are saved from all the degradation, weakness, pain, misery and death which result from sin, and are restored to the condition of human perfection enjoyed before the fall, they are as really and completely saved from that fall as those who, under the special “highcalling” of the Gospel age, become partakers of the divine nature." (Millennial Dawn, 1.173)

Notice that this teaches not only that angelic nature is not the only order of spirit being, but that it is a lower nature than that of our Lord before he became a man ; and he was not then so high as he is now, for God hath highly exalted him,” because of his obedience in becoming man’s willing ransom. (Phil. 2 : 8, 9.) He is now of the highest order of spirit being, a partaker of the divine (Jehovah’s) nature. (Millennial Dawn, 1.178)

When Jesus was in the flesh he was a perfect human being ; previous to that time he was a perfect spiritual being ; and since his resurrection he is a perfect spiritual being of the highest or divine order. It was not until the time of his consecration even unto death, as typified in his baptism—at thirty years of age (manhood, according to the Law, and therefore the right time to consecrate himself as a man)that he received the earnest of his inheritance of the divine nature. (Matt. 3 : 16, 17.) Tlie human nature had to be consecrated to death before he could receive even the pledge of the divine nature. And not until that consecration was actually carried out and he had a6lually sacrificed the human nature, even unto death, did our Lord Jesus become a full partaker of the divine nature. After becoming a man he became obedient unto death ; wherefore, God hath highly exalted him to the divine nature. (Phil. 2 : 8, 9.) If this Scripture is true, it follows that he was not exalted to the divine nature until the human nature was actually sacrificed—dead. (Millennial Dawn, 1.179)

…it is purely of God's favor that angels are by nature a little higher than men ; and it is also of God's favor that the Lord Jesus and his bride become partakers of the divine nature. It becomes all his intelligent creatures, therefore, to receive with gratitude whatever God bestows. Any other spirit justly merits condemnation, and, if indulged, will end in abasement and destruction. A man has no right to aspire to be an angel, never having been invited to that position ; nor has an angel any right to aspire to the divine nature, that never having been offered to him. (Millennial Dawn, 1.189)

None have a right to dictate to God. If he established the earth, and if he formed it not in vain, but made it to be inhabited by restored, perfect men, who are we that we should reply against God, and say that it is unjust not to change their nature and make them all partakers of a spiritual nature either like unto the angels, or like unto his own divine nature ? (Millennial Dawn, 1.191)

That the Christian Church, the body of Christ, is an exception to God's  general plan for mankind, is evident from the statement that its selection was determined in the divine plan before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1 : 4, 5), at which time God not only foresaw the fall of the race into sin, but also predetermined the justification, the santification and the glorification of this class, which, during the Gospel age, he has been calling out of the world to be conformed to the image of his Son, to be partakers of the divine nature and to be fellow-heirs with Christ Jesus of the Millennial Kingdom for the establishment of universal righteousness and peace.Rom. 8 : 28-31. (Millennial Dawn, 1.193)

The conditions on which the Church may be exalted with her Lord to the divine nature (2 Pet. 1 : 4) are precisely the same as the conditions on which he received it ; even by following in his footprints (1 Pet. 2 : 21), presenting herself a living sacrifice, as he did, and then faithfully carrying out that consecration vow until the sacrifice terminates in death. This change of nature from human to divine is given as a reward to those who, within the Gospel age, sacrifice the human nature, as did our Lord, with all its interests, hopes and aims, present and futureeven unto death. In the resurrection such will awake, not to share with the rest of mankind in the blessed restitution to human perfection and all its accompanying blessings, but to share the likeness and glory and joy of the Lord, as partakers with him of the divine nature.Rom 8:17; 2 Tim. 2:12. (Millennial Dawn, 1.196)

Those thus transformed, or in processor change, are reckoned new creatures,” begotten of God, and partakers to that extent of the divine nature. Mark well the difference between these “new creatures” and those believers and “brethren” who are only justified. Those of the latter class are still of the earth, earthy, and, aside from sinful desires, their hopes, ambitions and aims are such as will be fully gratified in the promised restitution of all things. But those of the former class are not of this world, even as Christ is not of this world, and their hopes center in the things unseen, where Christ sitteth at the right hand of God. The prospect of earthly glory, so enchanting to the natural man, would no longer be a satisfying portion to those begotten of this heavenly hope, to those who see the glories of the heavenly promises, and who appreciate the part assigned them in the divine plan. This new, divine mind is the earnest of our inheritance of the complete divine naturemind and body. Some may be a little startled by this expression, a divine body; but we are told that Jesus is now the express image of his Father's person, and that the overcomers will be like him and see him as he is.” (1 John 3:2.) “There is a natural [human] body, and there is a spiritual body.” (1 Cor. 15 : 44.) We could not imagine either our divine Father or our Lord Jesus as merely great minds without bodies. Theirs are glorious spiritual bodies, though it doth not yet appear how great is the glory, and it shall not, until we also shall share the divine nature. (Millennial Dawn, 1.200)

At his second advent he does not come to be subject to the powers that be, to pay tribute to Csesar and to suffer humiliation, injustice and violence; but he comes to reign, exercising all power in heaven and in earth. He does not come in the body of his humiliation, a human body, which he took for the suffering of death, inferior to his former glorious body (Heb. 2:9); but in his glorious spiritual body, which is “the express image of the Father's person” (Heb. 1 13); for, because of his obedience even unto death, he is now highly exalted to the divine nature and likeness, and given a name above every namethe Father’s name only excepted. (Phil. 2:9; 1 Cor. 15:27.) The Apostle shows that it "doth not yet appear" to our human understanding what he is now like; hence we know not what we shall be like when made like him, but we (the Church) may rejoice in the assurance that we shall one day be with him, and like him, and see him as he is (1 John 3 : 2)not as he was at his first advent in humiliation, when he had laid aside his former glory and for our sakes had become poor, that we through his poverty might be made rich. (Millennial Dawn, 2.108, 109)

[Our Lord was put to death a fleshly or human being, but was raised from the dead a spirit being. And since the Church is to be  changedin order that she may be like Christ, it is evident that the change which occurred in the Head was of a kind similar to that described as in reservation for the overcomers, who shall be changed from human to spiritual nature, and made like him—“partakers of the-divine nature.” – footnote p. 108]

…we recognize A. D. 1881 as marking the close of the special favor to Gentilesthe close of the high calling, or invitation to the blessings peculiar to this ageto become joint-heirs with Christ and partakers of the divine nature. And, as we have seen, this marks a great movement among the Jewish people toward Christianity, known as the "Kishenev Movement." (Millennial Dawn, 2.235)

The stopping of the favor or ''call" here, in 1881, is followed, or rather lapped upon, by the general call of the whole world to the Millennial blessings and favors upon condition of righteousness, obedience (not self-sacrifice). This however is a lower call, a lesser favor than that which ceaseda call to enjoy the blessings of the Kingdom, but not to be parts of the anointed, Kingdom class. And this changethis stopping of the higher favor and beginning of a lesser favorwill be little noticed here, now, by reason of the fact that the great prize of the Kingdom and jointheirship with Christ as partakers of the divine nature, has been generally lost sight of in the Church. (Millennial Dawn, 3.218)

So, during the Gospel age, our Lord has continually, through his mouth-pieces in the church, invited all believers to enter into his service. The full reward, the divine nature and kingdom glory, was clearly stated at first, and continually repeated, though not always clearly understood throughout the age. (Millennial Dawn, 3.223, 224)*

 And from Zion’s Watchtower:

"YE ARE GODS."

"I have said ye are Gods; and all of you are children of the Most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes" [literally heads]. Psa. 82:6.

Our high calling is so great, so much above the comprehension of men, that they feel that we are guilty of blasphemy when we speak of being "new creatures"—not any longer human, but "partakers of the divine nature." When we claim on the scriptural warrant, that we are begotten of a divine nature and that Jehovah is thus our father, it is claiming that we are divine beings—hence all such are Gods. Thus we have a family of Gods, Jehovah being our father, and all his sons being brethren and joint-heirs: Jesus being the chief, or first-born. (Zion's Watchtower - December 1881 pp. 2, 3 - Reprints p. 301.)

Many more examples could be added, but I shall end here for now.


Grace and peace,

David

*All six volumes of the Millennial Dawn/Studies in the Scriptures series can be read and/or downloaded via THIS LINK.

9 comments:

Rory said...

Dave,

What do you think of Russell's claims about 1881?

Russell
"...we recognize A. D. 1881 as marking the close of the special favor to Gentiles—the close of the “high calling, “or invitation to the blessings peculiar to this age..."

Rory
Does this mean that through the whole period when the Jehovah's Witnesses have been active that they cannot attain to what was possible before through God's promises? It seems like that is what he is claiming. In the next paragraph he affirms that only righteousness and obedience, not self-sacrifice, is the new condition for whatever kind of salvation is left in this new age. Most Christians would not be able to draw any clear boundary between, for instance, "self-sacrifice" and "obedience". To be obedient is to have the habit of sacrificing one's own wishes to another party.

Russell
"The stopping of the favor or "call" here, in 1881, is followed, or rather lapped upon, by the general call of the whole world to the Millennial blessings and favors upon condition of righteousness, obedience (not self-sacrifice). This however is a lower call, a lesser favor than that which ceased—a call to enjoy the blessings of the Kingdom, but not to be parts of the anointed, Kingdom class. And this change—this stopping of the higher favor and beginning of a lesser favor..."

Rory
By "self-sacrifice" does he mean one must be killed, like Christ and others? Were they supposed to put themselves in the way of death deliberately, or were they supposed to passive to receive the gift? What follows will assume that this is his meaning is his meaning when he uses the word "self-sacrifice."

It seems peculiar for God to change conditions of salvation as well as rewards without any warning signs or apparent reasons. Who knew before 1881 that this was coming? 1881 is the end of the greater blessings? There have been a lot of Christian martyrs since 1881. Why would God want to give them less than those who died in 1880? That does not seem just or charitable. It would be difficult to love this teaching, or the Author of it.

I did find it interesting that he speaks of "the Church" prior to 1881.

Russell
"...the great prize of the Kingdom and joint heirship with Christ as partakers of the divine nature, has been generally lost sight of in the Church..."

Rory
So it sounds here like Russell is NOT a restorationist, but rather a new voice proclaiming that there is a new and less favorable way of behaving as a Christian should. I suspect that those who do accept this "lesser favor", are the new witnesses of Jehovah? He says that partaking of the divine nature has been lost sight of in the Church and that this new change won't bother anybody anyway! This is just untrue. The mysteries of this union with God by grace have always been prominent in the liturgy, the writings of mystics and doctors of the Church. Grace! The state of grace. It cannot exist after 1881, because a state of grace means that God sees His own nature being partaken of in the soul? So...are we the new bad guys who believe in grace, partaking of the divine nature after it became God's will in 1881 to take it away from men?

Maybe I am misunderstanding...but these are some objections that seem to me to arise from what was said above. Thanks for any corrections.

Rory

David Waltz said...

Hi Rory,

Yesterday, you asked/wrote:

==What do you think of Russell's claims about 1881?

Russell
"...we recognize A. D. 1881 as marking the close of the special favor to Gentiles—the close of the “high calling, “or invitation to the blessings peculiar to this age..."

Rory
Does this mean that through the whole period when the Jehovah's Witnesses have been active that they cannot attain to what was possible before through God's promises? It seems like that is what he is claiming. In the next paragraph he affirms that only righteousness and obedience, not self-sacrifice, is the new condition for whatever kind of salvation is left in this new age. Most Christians would not be able to draw any clear boundary between, for instance, "self-sacrifice" and "obedience". To be obedient is to have the habit of sacrificing one's own wishes to another party.=

Before I get into Russell’s thoughts on 1881, I need to point out that significant changes took place in Russell’s chronological speculations after 1914. Prior to the end of 1914 Russell thought that Christ would return in judgment with His angels and usher in the 1,000-year millennial kingdom before the end of 1914, and that Christ would rule over this millennial kingdom jointly with the 144,000 deified saints—from heaven, not on earth.

Obviously, Russell, and later leaders, needed to make some changes when he found himself still on earth after 1914. One of those changes—made by Rutherford—was that members continued to be added to the 144,000 class; a change that has been retained by JWs unto the present time.

As for the date 1881, Russell’s interpretation flows from his belief in “parallel dispensations”—the Jewish and Christian ages—which he delineates in chapter VII of volume 2 of his Millennial Dawn series (The Time Is At Hand, 1902, pp. 201-247 – link to pdf).

Russell wrote:

>>In previous chapters the fact has been referred to, that God's dealings with the nation of Israel were of a typical character ; yet few have any adequate conception of how fully this was the case. It has doubtless been observed by many that the apostles, particularly Paul, in instructing the Christian Church, frequently refer to some striking features of type and antitype in the Jewish and Christian dispensations. But a closer attention to the Apostle's teachings will show that he does not only make use of a few illustrations drawn from the Jewish economy, but that in his close reasonings he calls up the whole Jewish system as divinely instituted (ignoring entirely the ''traditions of the elders," which were no part of that system), and shows that in all its features it was typical of the then dawning Christian dispensation, mapping out most clearly the course of the Christian Church in the Gospel age, as well as pointing out its glorious work in the Millennial age.>> (Page 201)

And:

>>The Jewish harvest, in all a period of forty years, began with our Lord's ministry and ended with nominal Israel's rejection and overthrow, and the destruction of their city, accomplished by the Romans, A. D. 70. And the harvest of this age began with the presence of our Lord at the beginning of Earth's Great Jubilee, in 1874, as shown in chapter vi., and ends with the overthrow of Gentile power, in A. D. 1914, likewise a period of forty years—another of the wonderful parallels of the two ages.>> (Page 234)

cont'd

David Waltz said...

On the next page we read:

>>Similar periods are marked in the harvest of this age now closing, corresponding to the features of that harvest. The fall of A. D. 1874, where the Jubilee cycles point out that our Lord was due to be present, corresponds to the time of his baptism and anointing by the holy Spirit when he became Messiah the Prince (Dan. 9 : 25), and began his work of reaping the Jewish harvest. The Spring of A. D. 1878 (three and a half years after) corresponds to the date at which our Lord assumed the office of King, rode on the ass, cleansed the temple of its money-changers, and wept over and gave up to desolation that nominal church or kingdom ; and it marks the date when the nominal church systems were "spewed out" (Rev. 3:16), and from which time (A. D. 1878) they are not the mouth-pieces of God, nor in any degree recognized by him. And the three and a half years following the Spring of A. D. 1878, which ended October, A. D. 1881, correspond to the three and a half years of continued favor to individual Jews in the last half of their seventieth week of favor. As in the type that date—three and a half years after the death of Christ—marked the end of all special favor to the Jew and the beginning of favor to the Gentiles, so we recognize A. D. 1881 as marking the close of the special favor to Gentiles—the close of the “high calling,” or invitation to the blessings peculiar to this age—to become joint-heirs with Christ and partakers of the divine nature. And, as we have seen, this marks a great movement among the Jewish people toward Christianity, known as the "Kishenev Movement." And now trouble is impending over nominal Christendom, but the storm is stayed until the wheat is garnered, until God's messengers seal his servants in their foreheads (intellects) with the truth—Rev. 7 .-3.>> (Page 235 – bold emphasis mine)

In summation, Russell identified a number of key aspects that make up his system of Biblical chronology: 1.) the Jewish and Christian ages are intertwined ‘parallel dispensations’—the type and antitype; 2.) blessings bestowed upon faithful/true Israelites—the fleshly descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—are physical in nature, whilst the blessings upon faithful Christians are spiritual; 3.) the Jewish and Christian ages/dispensations are exactly 1845 years in length; 4.) at the end of both the Jewish and Christian ages/dispensations there is a 40 year harvest period.

Present day Jehovah’s Witnesses have dropped all four of the above aspects from their current understanding of Biblical chronology.

Will try to address some of your other questions later today, after lunch and some exercise.


Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...

Hello again Rory,

You wrote:

== By "self-sacrifice" does he mean one must be killed, like Christ and others? Were they supposed to put themselves in the way of death deliberately, or were they supposed to passive to receive the gift? What follows will assume that this is his meaning is his meaning when he uses the word "self-sacrifice."==

Russell contrasts the “special covenants and promises” made to the two “houses of Israel” (i.e. Jewish nation and Christian Church) with the following:

>>God has made special covenants or promises to both these houses of Israel. The promises to the fleshly house were all earthly, while those to the spiritual house are all heavenly.>> (Millennial Dawn, p. 207)

He then wrote:

>>To the spiritual house, on the contrary, it is said, "Ye are built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up sacrifices* acceptable to God by Jesus Christ . . l Ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people, that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light ; which in time past were not a people, but are flow THE PEOPLE OF GOD."—I Pet. 2 : 5, 9, 10.

* The word spiritual before sacrifices in this text (verse 5) is omitted in the oldest Greek manuscript—the Sinaitic. The correctness of this omission is evident when we reflect that not spiritual things are sacrificed, but earthly or human privileges, rights, etc.>> (Millennial Dawn, pp. 207, 208)

Given your theological background, I suspect that you detect some commonality between Russell and dispensationalism in the above. Interestingly enough, later JW leaders replaced the fleshly/physical Israel class with their “great crowd” doctrine.

Before proceeding, I would like to hear your thoughts on what I have so far contributed.


Grace and peace,

David

Rory said...

Hi Dave,

Charles Taze Russell was obviously an extraordinarily capable student of the Protestant Scriptures. But so was St. Augustine, Darby, Hodge, Chemnitz, Scofield, and on and on. The difference between Augustine and all of the rest, including Russell, is that Augustine did not feel adequate to use his intellect to understand the Scriptures differently than the Church that collected and eventually canonized the Scriptures.

It is also clear that the movement which began with Russell has had to undergo some difficult and serious adjustments because of the confidence he had in his own learning, when some of his interpretations turned out to be false.

I do not mean to be dismissive. If all I had was a Protestant Bible for an authority, I am sure I could have followed Charles Russell's lead in the 19th Century as I followed Peter Ruckman in the 20th Century, who also was a brilliant scholar and teacher that cut himself off from the "church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." (I Tim. 3:15)

------------

I do not deny that there are current difficulties in the Catholic Church that I am unable to resolve about the behavior of recent popes, and what it means to me. I do not know the best way to understand the Second Vatican Council. I do not believe the Catholic Church has yet clearly taught what we have to believe about Vatican II. At this point, I would find it a relief if the Catholic Church today would actually enact what the Council Fathers proposed! The so-called "spirit of Vatican II" still has so much momentum that the documents, especially on priestly formation and the sacred liturgy, remain as much ignored as they have been since 1965.

There were some draconian instructions published from Rome yesterday that are causing some angry and irrational reactions from many Traditionalists. It appears that the expression, "Christmas Massacre", might catch on as the title for this instruction as we prepare for our Lord's first Advent, in 2021. I do not say that the instruction is prudent or even charitable. But there is a consistency about it that should be acknowledged by Traditionalists who proceed from different presuppositions than myself.

I understand hesitancy at this moment in history. But I ask myself what Church I would have associated myself with in 1921, and it would not have been the Watchtower or any number of emerging Bible-based communities springing up around that time. I believe everything the Roman Catholic Church believes and teaches today, as I would have in 1921. I can be patient for more clarity about how to evaluate the current and recent papacies.

Rory

David Waltz said...

Hello Rory,

So good to see you back; earlier today, you wrote:

==Charles Taze Russell was obviously an extraordinarily capable student of the Protestant Scriptures. But so was St. Augustine, Darby, Hodge, Chemnitz, Scofield, and on and on. The difference between Augustine and all of the rest, including Russell, is that Augustine did not feel adequate to use his intellect to understand the Scriptures differently than the Church that collected and eventually canonized the Scriptures.==

There is certainly much truth to what you have written above; but with that said, there was, and there is today, significant divisions of thought amongst those who identify themselves as Catholic Christians. Many examples could be provided, but for now, I shall limit myself to two. First, Jerome vs. Augustine: they disagreed on some theological issues; perhaps most importantly, the content of the canonized Scriptures. Second, Archbishop Lefebvre vs. Pope Francis: since you well know the important divisions between these two I will point out just one—the nature and role of Tradition in the life of the Catholic Church.

==It is also clear that the movement which began with Russell has had to undergo some difficult and serious adjustments because of the confidence he had in his own learning, when some of his interpretations turned out to be false.==

Indeed. One significant change was the rejection of Russell’s teaching of the distinction between natural Israel and the Church (which was quite similar to the Dispensational view). Later JW leaders explicitly replaced the literal interpretation of OT prophecies concerning the restoration of the natural descendants Israel to the promise land, with non-literal interpretations.

==There were some draconian instructions published from Rome yesterday that are causing some angry and irrational reactions from many Traditionalists. It appears that the expression, "Christmas Massacre", might catch on as the title for this instruction as we prepare for our Lord's first Advent, in 2021. I do not say that the instruction is prudent or even charitable. But there is a consistency about it that should be acknowledged by Traditionalists who proceed from different presuppositions than myself.==

Just this morning, I received an email from The Catholic World Report that provided a link to the following online article:

Traditionis custodies - Vatican further tightens restrictions on Traditional Latin Mass

I suspect this treatment is germane to the issue you raised above; is that so?


Grace and peace,

David

TOm said...

David and Rory,
Sorry to be SOOOOOO late to this. Work and vacation and now family Covid would be good excuses, but truth is I am not sure how to add a LDS perspective to this. But, I will try.
LDS began boldly claiming that deification was a part of Christian doctrine from the beginning. Non-LDS have occasionally told me the Joseph Smith discovered this because he was (like Rory mentioned for Russell) a good student of the Bible. I suppose unmoored from Christian tradition it is not too hard to discover that Christ claims to be a representative of His Father and that we are to become as Christ is. I do not see any SPECIFICS in the way Russell or CCC460 discusses the doctrine of deification, so as a LDS I just say yes you are talking about a true doctrine: men are to become gods.
Concerning the JW aspects of this, they were very interesting to me. I am enjoying my time studying the Bible with a JW fellow who speaks with me about once a week. I see the flaw Rory points to in that he places an emphasis upon “what the Bible says” about everything in a way that I cannot embrace because I know so many different students of the Bible think the Bible says so many different things. Sometimes these folks are quite sure they KNOW. I am reminded of a story Rory told me concerning his finding some predestination in the Bible despite his seminaries view that such was not there.
To perhaps return to the topic of deification and to provide something a little provocative (mostly stolen from David so all that is of value is his and all that misses the mark surely comes from me), I would suggest:
The Bible clearly suggest that Christ is in the image of the Father. The Bible says we are to become as Christ is (even saying we are to be conformed to His, Christ’s, image). The Bible says that deified man will SEE God as GOD IS (which I understand implies a bridging between God and man most Christians are somewhat uncomfortable embracing). The early church fathers were very clear that Christ partook of human nature (the Bible has some antecedents for this perhaps) AND that we through Christ are to partake of the divine nature (the Bible says this quite clearly). As a LDS, I believe Christ truly/completely/totally became what we are when He partook/participated in His mortal experience. I further believe that we truly/completely/totally become what He is when we are deified. I like using the small (g)ods when I refer to deified humans, but whatever divinity is we are called to possess it like Christ possesses it. It seems to me that Catholics after the 4th century believe that this possession/partaking/participation is of a different sort when it comes to men becoming gods than it is when it comes to Christ becoming man. And that Christ is the image of God the Father in a different way than we are to become the image of Christ and this also limits the extent to which we are the image of God the Father. I am not sure the Bible gives a good reason for this to be the case.

One last thing since JW thought was mentioned. David, to what extent do you think the concept of TWO approved of God post mortal states for humans is Biblical AND to what extent do you think is an invention of Russell. I struggle to see two fates for faithful followers of Jehovah like the JWs seem want to see. Sometimes I say, “the Bible says xyz,” and my JW friend says, “that refers to the 144000, not to the rest of Jehovah’s Witnesses. And I say, “how do you know this.” And I still don’t know.

I hope this is a worthwhile contribution. I enjoy reading and am sorry I don’t post or interact as much as I once did. Sometimes I am doing important things like trying to take care of sick family (which should prevent me from posting). Sometimes I am just goofing off in less worthwhile pursuits (less worthwhile than posting on blogs about God and perhaps learning something).
Charity, TOm

David Waltz said...

Hi Tom,

So good to see you back—I certainly understand the tardiness of your post. Your life is much busier now than mine (getting old has a few advantages like retirement), and especially so now that Covid has invaded your family. I hope that the effects are mild, and that recovery is fast.

After your summation of the Biblical support for deification (which, as you mentioned, shares some common elements with THIS POST), you wrote:

==It seems to me that Catholics after the 4th century believe that this possession/partaking/participation is of a different sort when it comes to men becoming gods than it is when it comes to Christ becoming man. And that Christ is the image of God the Father in a different way than we are to become the image of Christ and this also limits the extent to which we are the image of God the Father.==

I agree with you on the above assessment. Prior to the end of the 4th century, it sure seems to me that the understanding of deification by those Church Fathers who wrote about was pretty straight-forward: the Son of God/Jesus Christ became what we are (fully human, not partially human) that we might become what He is (fully divine, not partially divine). [This has been termed by some theologians as the ‘formula of exchange’ and/or the ‘exchange theory’.]

The apostle Paul expressed this exchange in the following verse:

“For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might become rich.” (2 Cor. 8:9 – ASV)

==I am not sure the Bible gives a good reason for this to be the case.==

I am not sure either.

==One last thing since JW thought was mentioned. David, to what extent do you think the concept of TWO approved of God post mortal states for humans is Biblical AND to what extent do you think is an invention of Russell.==

If one is a Premillennialist, and understands many of the OT prophecies in a literal sense, then one can defend more than one ‘class’ concerning redeemed mankind. Russell’s doctrine on this topic shares some aspects with Dispensationalism. Russell was a Zionist, and fully expected a return of the 12 tribes of Israel to the Promise Land (i.e. Jerusalem and Palestine). Russell’s thoughts on this issue are expressed in the book Jewish Hopes (1910); a copy is available online HERE.

However, though the next President of the International Bible Students/JWs—J. F. Rutherford—initially accepted Russell’s teaching concerning the 12 tribes of Israel (and the two heavenly classes), he ended up rejecting the literal interpretations concerning Israel after the flesh.

Present day JWs follow the later Rutherford on this.

Looking forward to your thoughts and/or questions.


Grace and peace,

David

phillip said...

Bible Study always seems to me to be handicapped by the demand that said Bible be relevant to the reader, which it isn't. This might seem a rather radical remark to some but what contortions occur when this principle isn't employed throughout one's reading. To this extent at least the R.C.C has herself as the repository of God's Spirit and thus might speak anew to each generation a 'thus saith the Lord'.
New groups which spring up around personalities have only the leash of scriptural interpretation to direct and train them in the required institutional obedience, and usually it's never the founder but the more cunning subaltern, so the LDS, and so the JW's.
The Christian Faith is, as the Jewish, concerned with the memory of what God has done, the major difference being that the Christian faith has distinct warrant from its head for worship in any manner that is according to truth for then its worship is truly spiritual. That this hasn't been the case is obvious from all the silly ceremonies and vain repetitions that have passed for worship since the freedom of the local assembly was 'bishoped' (that really should be a verb). So daft doctrines like the Trinity and eternally begotten (you can't make it up) were presented as biblical, but who can read anything without the conditioning of his own environment determining the understanding? So Islam's prophet thought Jesus as the Son of God meant Mary was a consort but given that the Trinity is an exercise in Platonic philosophy, as the very terms of the various creeds testify, who really can fault the man.
So Russell like many 'bible students' were products of the burgeoning information age where newspapers delighted in pouring showers of shite down depraved throats gluttonous for gore. Of course the world was going to end, not for him the cheery prospect of an educated populace knowing the glory of the Lord from coast to shining coast but the a sure waxing worse and worse, and given the conviction that good old bible will always deliver the 'proof'. Small wonder even now Sola Scriptura Protestants insist the Trinity is there, not only there but the essential doctrine of our salvation. It seems self evident to this student that to participate in the divine nature is simply what Christ meant when he said you can either act like Satan and so show that he's your father or act like God (who dispenses his goodness to all as illustrated by the rain falling on just and unjust alike) and so show by your deeds that he is your father, but this might mean some self sacrifice so lets make it about repeating the Jesus' prayer or some other form of self obsession otherwise known as the interior life whereby we ascend through our ascetic denunciation of desire to an almost Buddhist nirvana and are thus purged to enter into that consuming fire which is Jehovah. Still as Dalton has it 'opinions vary'.
As Bobby sings it 'I pity the poor immigrant' for we are all strangers in a strange land when it comes to bible exegesis; and we look for the 'key' which for me is Full Preterism as its the only doctrine that makes sense of the NT authors persistent view that there world was ending, but wrong or right (of course I'm right) the Lord shall gather up his people 'one by one.