|
Defending Your Doorstep Ministries
Defending Your Doorstep Ministries
Reaching Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons with the true gospel of Jesus Christ |
| Home > What's Included? > |
F.A.R.M.S. website October 9, 2006 (FARMS in black, DYD in blue)How can you believe that human beings can become gods?Actually, the doctrine is found in Psalms 82:1, 6-7,
1 John 3:1-3, 2
Peter 1:2-4, Philippians 2:5-6,
Romans 8:15-17, and Revelation 4:21;
21:7. From the very beginning, the Bible teaches theosis or the
deification of man. When Adam and Eve partook of the fruit of the tree
of knowledge of good and evil, "the Lord God said, Behold, the man is
become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth
his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever"
(Genesis 3:22). The implication is that had they been able to partake of
the tree of life, they would have been like God in another respect,
being immortal. This is precisely what is promised to the righteous in
Revelation 2:7, when Christ says, "To him that overcometh will I give to
eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God." This is really a great topic and example of how exegesis and hermeneutics ($.50 - words for "understanding what Scripture says for itself") is important in building a proper understanding of Scripture. The first principle of proper hermeneutics (the science of interpretation) is that we understand difficult or ambiguous passages in the light of clear passages. So first (and foremost) we come to the Scriptures with a "blank slate" - we don't interpret what the Bible says until it actually says it. Then we frame doctrine within the boundaries of what Scripture clearly teaches and "fill in" the rest with interpretations of Scriptures that are less clear. For example, we can't say that Scriptures overtly teach us not to cheat on our income taxes, because Scripture does not say so explicitly. However, we look at verses that teach us honesty, and integrity as well as Jesus' admonition to "give to Casear what is Caesar's" and we come away with a "doctrine" that we should not cheat on our taxes. OK, so let's start evaluating this doctrine: Can men become gods? Well, there is no Bible verse that says, "men can/cannot become gods" but there are verses that are clear with regards to the deity: Isaiah 43:10 10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. Isaiah 44:8 8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any. Romans 3:29-30 29 Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also, 30 since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. Ephesians 4:4-6 4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. 1 Timothy 2:5 5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, James 2:19 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe -- and tremble! So it's pretty clear that the Jews and early Christians were monotheistic (believed that there was only one God). With those clear declarations that there is only one god, we do have verses that we need to understand in that light. Here, the FARMS actually helps us do so - so let's take a look at them in Biblical order (you may click the title of each section to review how FARMS evaluated it above): Genesis 3:22 does say that "the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:". FARMS implies here that this is an early teaching of theosis, but then they go on to actually be fair to the text and state that what is being discussed is obtaining specific qualities that God has (the knowledge of good and evil). There is also the concern that Adam and Eve would eat from the Tree of Life and become immortal, and then the prophetic revelation that we will eventually eat from that tree. The problem here is that sharing two qualities with God does not make us god by nature (as we shall see here in a moment). Man shares many qualities with monkeys, that does not make all men monkeys. "...For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour." The issue that FARMS has with this verse is the use of the Hebrew word, elohim, and their desire to translate it "gods". Elohim is a plural intensive that is singular in meaning1.and is primarily translated the singular "God" (2346 times). This word comes of no surprise to Trinitarians who understand it to reflect the three "personhood" of aspect of God. While the word can and is translated in other places as "gods" it is done so in those places based on the context of the verse and Scripture. In each one of those cases it pertains to false gods. I don't think that God is declaring that he made man here a little lower than "false gods". Other possibilities include "angels", "judge", "godly" or even "God". Either way, it has no bearing on the clear monotheistic (the idea that there is only one God) declarations of the 6 verses above. Psalm 82:1 <A Psalm of Asaph.> God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. ... 6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. 7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. Again, the translation is of the word elohim. Elohim can be translated "judge" and based on the context of "judging", it might be a better fit than the KJV's translation in verse 1. Verses 6 and 7 are best understood in light of a common practice of the time. God appointed judges for the Jews and their rulings were were held by the Jewish community as if they came from God Himself. Therefore, it became common to refer to the judges as elohim in the context of their position and authority (not by nature). Here the psalmist mocks the practice and points out that they will die like men and fall like princes. Later, Jesus Himself will use this verse to show the hypocrisy of the the Jewish leaders challenging Him (John 10:33-36). Further bolstering the point that this is not reflective of the Mormon concept of progression to godhood is the fact that the psalmist (and later Jesus) are referring to men living on earth at that time. Mormon's believe that men become gods after death. The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? As discussed in the Psalm 82 passage, we see Jesus here cleverly pointing out the hypocrisy of the leaders of the time who were indignant at the fact that Jesus had referred to Himself as the Son of God. Jesus, pointing back to the Psalm 82 passage for reference, reminds them that they had assumed a title belonging to God because they were perceived to speak for God. How hypocritical was it, therefore, for them to be outraged when Jesus not only spoke for God but validated His words by virtue of His miracles (John10:32 Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? ). Even if we ignore the context of this exchange we still can't make this fit into the model of the Mormon doctrine of exaltation to godhood. Note the present tense used here, "ye are gods" (Gr. theoi este). This would indicate that these men were gods at that time - while alive on earth. Mormon doctrine does not hold this to be true. Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. 23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you. 24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; 25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; 26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; 27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: 28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. 29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. Here FARMS relies on the fact that the Greek word translated "offspring" (highlighted) is the Greek word genos. First, genos does not necessarily mean "species" (in fact, Strong's does not list "species" as a potential translation). It means a "kind" or "type" - a "class" or "family". Now, we understand that simply because things are associated in a certain "class" does not mean they have all of the same characteristics - just that they share (at least) one. For example, if we are discussing "passenger vehicles" we could appropriately include a DC-10, a school bus and a snowmobile all in the same genos. So the context of what we are talking about is important. Likewise, if we hold to the idea of a "family" I am quite different from my sister...but there are things we have in common. In Acts 17, Paul is discussing the intimate and personal relationship between God and mankind which is in stark contrast to the Greek perspective. His thesis is the God made man - man does not make God (either physically (into idols) or spiritually). God, in fact, makes all things and gives life and breath to all that is living. From "one blood(line)" God created all men. Therefore, what we see Paul discussing is that we are in the same "class" as God in the sense that our origins are not from human hands - we live and have our being separate from mankind - God gives us life. Also, God chose to do this through a common bloodline which originated from His will in Genesis. So in that sense, we are all one "family" inasmuch as we share the same bloodline, created by God. Certainly genos is the Greek word here, but there is no justification to use "species" as the English word to indicate that we are of the same species as God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. 16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: 17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. This teaching is very clear: we become sons of God by adoption. Like adoption, we do not share the same complete and essential nature of our father - we are different. The kindness and love of God extends to us that even though we are adopted (and not, by nature God), he still extends to us an inheritance of eternal life - something our own nature does not hold. Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: There are several important messages in this passages. Let's start by understanding what verse 6 is all about. Jesus, who existing in the very form of God, did not regard that equality with God as something to be held on to (Gr. arpagmon). This is best understood in the verse left out of the FARMS analysis, verse 7, where we Jesus emptying Himself of his divine nature to take on the form of a servant (humanity). While this certainly is an example of God taking on human nature, it does not tell us anything about humans becoming gods. Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord, 3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: 4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. Presumably FARMS relies on the statement in verse 4 where it says that by the promises given to us we might be "partakers of the divine nature". In the Greek the phrase is "become sharers in the divine nature" (genesthe theias koinonoi phuseos). First, we note that we do not take or receive, we get a "share" of the divine nature. I believe FARMS points us to a great example of that when they refer back to Genesis 3:22 when mankind assumed its first, non-ordained trait of deity - the knowledge of good and evil. We also see (as previously pointed out) that there is still a lot of deity we lack, in spite of obtaining a "share" from the Tree of Knowledge. So there is nothing in this verse that indicates that we will receive the infinite amount of deific qualities it would take for us to actually become "gods". Second, the remainder of the verse gives us an indication as to what Peter is attempting to communicate. The quality Peter focuses on here is our future ability to not sin. We will not escape the corruption that we currently face through our evil desires. The trait we will receive through the "great and precious promises" is the divine quality of not having to succumb to these desires. Again, what is not promised is a full change in nature whereby we are no longer a creation but become a Creator. Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. 2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. 3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure. Since FARMS does not actually expound on these verses and tell us why they believe this teaches the doctrine of eternal progression whereby men work their way into godhood, it's hard to understand exactly what they use this verse to prove. My best guess is they use the fact that we shall be called "sons of God". As already explained in the discussion on Romans 8:15 -17, this sonship comes through adoption, not by natural means. Revelation 4 only goes up to verse 11 in the all the Bible translations I've looked at - even the Joseph Smith Translation - so I am not exactly sure to what they are referring. He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. It's hard to understand how FARMS takes this to mean that men will become Gods, so I hesitate to speculate. What we know is that this verse is consistent with other verses that tell us that we shall be sons of God. We also know that this is done by adoption (Romans 8:15 (see above);8:23 ; 9:4, Galatians 4:5; Ephesians 1:5). The promise here is that even though we are adopted (versus having the nature of God, after all, if that were the case, theosis would not be necessary - we'd already be gods) we still are considered under the intimate label of "sons" and still receive an inheritance of all that God has prepared for us. -------------------------------- So what we have seen is that it is the clear teaching of the Bible that there is, was, and always will be just one God. The verses cited by FARMS (the ones that actually exist) can all be clearly understood on their own merit and all still fall within the clear framework established that there is only one God. While we will inherit some traits through our adoption as sons and daughters of God, we will not actually become gods ourselves - that would contradict the clear declarations of Isaiah, Romans, Ephesians, I Timothy and James. Now, while un-inspired people or writings are not be binding, they may be interesting. They may also be wrong! As we proceed let us remember that so far, we have only looked at the "outer layer" of the Mormon teaching of men becoming gods. The "shell game" that FARMS plays here is that they don't actually address the issue of their own doctrine. Their own doctrine of "Eternal Progression" is the doctrine that discusses men evolving into gods. In short, it is by strictly following a code of conduct and laws that Mormons teach that men with their earthly wife (and those additional women sealed to him in sacred secret ceremonies) will go off, have sex, and produce spirit-children to populate their own planets. Now, it is clear that there are no Biblical verses that teach this doctrine, nor do the remaining sources they cite support that contention either. Roman Catholic Church Article 460 The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature" "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." "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.""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." It is hard to understand exactly what the Roman Catholic Church means here. Out of it's context of Article 3 of the Catechism entitled, "The Son of God Became Man" paragraph I (Why Did the Word Become Flesh?) Article 460 is disturbing, because it is clearly un-Biblical. Wrong is wrong no matter from whence it comes. Now, it is again important to lay the background that Section 2 (The Creeds) Chapter 1 Article 1 ("I BELIEVE IN GOD THE FATHER ALMIGHTY, CREATOR OF HEAVEN AND EARTH") Paragraph I (I Believe in God) subsection I of the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church clearly states that there is only one God: 200 These are the words with which the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed begins. the confession of God's oneness, which has its roots in the divine revelation of the Old Covenant, is inseparable from the profession of God's existence and is equally fundamental. God is unique; there is only one God: "The Christian faith confesses that God is one in nature, substance and essence."3 201 To Israel, his chosen, God revealed himself as the only One: "Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God is one LORD; and you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might."4 Through the prophets, God calls Israel and all nations to turn to him, the one and only God: "Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other.. . To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. 'Only in the LORD, it shall be said of me, are righteousness and strength.'"5 202 Jesus himself affirms that God is "the one Lord" whom you must love "with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength".6 At the same time Jesus gives us to understand that he himself is "the Lord".7 To confess that Jesus is Lord is distinctive of Christian faith. This is not contrary to belief in the One God. Nor does believing in the Holy Spirit as "Lord and giver of life" introduce any division into the One God: We firmly believe and confess without reservation that there is only one true God, eternal infinite (immensus) and unchangeable, incomprehensible, almighty and ineffable, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; three persons indeed, but one essence, substance or nature entirely simple. I believe it is, therefore, important for us to place the Catholic view within this clear framework. To what extent Article 460 holds that man becomes deified is unclear within the rest of the catechism, but in order to be logically consistent we must assume it is divine qualities being imparted to mankind (consistent with the Biblical view of sharing or partaking of divinity). I am not a Catholic apologist, so I will not speculate further. With that said, if it is understood to imply that man will become a "god" distinct, separate and entirely equivalent to the God of the Bible, I would call that logically incoherent and heretical. Regardless, what is clear is that the Mormon concept that man can evolve into a god that goes off with his spirit wives bearing spirit children to populate their own planet is not in harmony with the teaching of any Catholic catechism or scholar. _________________________________ Since FARMS doesn't actually cite any church fathers or what they actually said and where it is impossible to evaluate the truth of these claims. Church Fathers taught that man was a created being and that there was, is and always will be one God. ________________________________ Again, there is no reference like they cite for the Roman Catholic church, so I can't really respond. I do know they teach that there was, is and always will be one God. _________________________________ Evangelicals, Wesley and Calvin Again, FARMS does not make any specific reference so we can't determine if the "Evangelicals" are really "Evangelicals". Furthermore, they give no reference to anything Wesley or Calvin - two staunch monotheistic Trinitarians - might have said that could have been construed to conflict with their clear teachings that there is only one God. _________________________________ This term was a common term used by the monotheistic Jews to indicate that Yahweh was superior to the hundreds of so-called "gods" of the time. It was used to indicate authority and position. As such, God is and always will be superior to all false gods - He is, in fact, God of gods. When we look at passages of Scripture it is important to keep them in their proper context - to attempt to understand why the author wrote what the author wrote. We need to ask ourselves what the author was trying to communicate. In each one of the cited texts (Deuteronomy 10:17; Psalm 136:2; Daniel 11:36) the point the author is trying to make is the superiority of Yahweh. The author is not writing about the idea that Yahweh is one God of many gods (note: Joshua 22:2 reads, "And said unto them, Ye have kept all that Moses the servant of the LORD commanded you, and have obeyed my voice in all that I commanded you: ". It does not have the phrase "God of gods" in it so I don't know to what FARMS is referring). So, when we keep the context of the author in focus we can see that there are verses that the author is clearly trying to communicate that there is only one God. When we ignore the context we can get lost in reading our own ideas into a text not intended to communicate such.
If you would like an in depth analysis of this and other un-resolvable problems within Mormon doctrine, click here for our Solving the Mormon Puzzle program. |
| Copyright © 2003 Defending Your Doorstep Ministries. | Statement of Faith | Contact Us | |