Home » Posts tagged 'Mormon'

Tag Archives: Mormon

Meat, Fat, and Bone (Faith as a Piece of Meat)

“That in doctrine and ceremonies nothing has been received on our part against Scripture or the Church Catholic.”Augsburg Confession

(This a bit of fun with an extended metaphor of mine.  Like any metaphor it isn’t perfect, but I hope it illustrates an important point).

Imagine for a moment that you have a cut of meat.  This cut includes meat, fat, and a large bone (perhaps a t-bone stake for my western American friends).  Now these three elements in the cut can vary greatly in proportion, and these proportions can greatly affect the taste, cooking, and perception of the meat.

So where am I going with this? It is my contention that the idea of “reformation” at its best is trimming the fat.  In the late medieval church, the “fat” part of the cut of meat was obscuring the meat and bone, and many of the leaders of the church were so focused in on the fat part that the meat and bone were being neglected or confused.  Notice however that the cut of meat still exists, and that the gospel is still present, even if the fat has gotten in the way.  Fat can be a good thing.  It can add flavor, complement the meat and bone, and for those who have had “good fat,” one absolutely misses it when it is gone.  This idea of “trimming the fat” is exactly what I think what most Lutherans and a good portion of Anglicans were doing.  Both were attempting to cut away the excess fat, but as a whole were naturally conservative, trying to maintain the classical Christian tradition (especially the councils, creeds, and liturgy).  This attitude is reformation at its best, a calculated and cautious response to the abuses of the age, and a call to the sources (Scripture, and the classical consensus).   There is nothing new being taught, as reflected in the quote from the Augsburg Confession above (the emphasis on the “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church” found in the Anglican tradition is similar).*

This can be contrasted with what one might call more “radical” types of reformation, so much so that some groups even argue for some form of “restoration.”**  Many of these groups are so paranoid about the fat part that they overreact, cutting away not only the good fat, but parts of the meat as well.  In fact, some pride themselves in creating theologies that define themselves by their avoidance of fat.  Some are perhaps left with a bone and little else.  Now this may be the correct bone (i.e., the gospel is still present), but it is such a limited and stunted view of the life of the church that they are missing out.  Many of these groups can be seen making statements like “we don’t preach the creeds here, we only preach the bible” (as if somehow one excludes the other), or “we don’t do what the Catholics do,” or “I like Luther, but he didn’t go far enough.”

Please don’t misunderstand, many that I know from this mindset do live exemplary lives, and know the Scriptures in ways that should make any orthodox Christian applaud.  But there is something inherently troubling when entire groups of Christians so divorce themselves from the historical church that the gospel is ONLY the bone, and anyone that disagrees “isn’t reading their bible.”  The blood, sweat, and tears that were shed over centuries to pass down to us a living breathing faith, is ignored because “it isn’t in my Bible” (usually based on a certain set of presuppositions going in).   Many fail to see that 19th century revivalism is NOT the norm for Christians everywhere and for all time, and that reading post-Enlightenment ideals of “democracy” into the church creates a myriad of problems.  When this occurs, those in the Roman and Eastern Orthodox traditions are absolutely correct when they accuse Evangelicals of having “millions of little popes.”

Augsburg Confession

So as we approach both Reformation Day and All Saints Day (and yes, we should keep observing the latter, along with the calendar in general), remember and honor all the great Christians that existed (and are alive today!) before the reformation, and for most of my Protestant friends, that means the Christians that lived between 500 and around 1200 in particular.  Unless of course you believe the church disappeared for 700 years and Christ lied when he said, “…I will build my church and the gates of Hades (Hell) will not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18).

* For an interesting take on some Anglican heroes, the pocket scroll has a good post (and he shares my sentiments I believe at the end).

** This is the view of heretical groups such as the LDS (Mormons), JW’s (Jehovah’s Witnesses) and perhaps some forms of the Seventh Day movements.  To use our analogy, the piece of meat completely disappeared for centuries, and needed to be restored and reconstituted by 19th century Americans.

Exaltation is Theosis?

In a recent faith column on the historic Christian doctrine of theosis (found here), it is asserted that the Latter-Day Saint (LDS) doctrine of exaltation is either equivalent to or a restatement of this classical Christian doctrine.  Church fathers (patristic) such as Athanasius, Augustine, and even the recent C.S. Lewis are brought to bear in support of this.  However, the thinking behind the two streams of thought are vastly different regardless of any similarity in terminology, as the classical Christian thinking demonstrates.

The doctrine of theosis in classical Christianity can only be understood by the traditional teaching of the Trinity, and in the nature of the Godhead.   In other words, both Eastern and Western fathers have in mind the idea of the Trinity as defined at Nicaea and Chalcedon, councils and creeds that are rejected by the LDS.  One cannot claim patristic support for a doctrine while rejecting the very nature of patristic thinking.   By definition, the three persons of the Trinity (one God in substance) are uncreated, immutable (never changed or changing), eternal, self-existent, Holy, and the supreme and ultimate source of all things, including time and space itself (Augustine, On the Trinity).  God is not a man (Hosea 11:9), and has always been God.  Humans, while created in the image of God, are finite beings created out of nothing (ex nihilo), and are completely dependent on the Trinitarian God for existence (Tertullian, Against Marcion).   Put another way, God minus the universe equals God, while the opposite is impossible.

When the church fathers such as Athanasius, Augustine, and others referred to the doctrine of theosis, these concepts of God and human nature were clearly in mind.  In order to reconcile humans to God because of sin, the second person of the Trinity (including all the attributes above, always being God before and never ceasing to be God) took on flesh, humbling himself.   By doing so, the gulf between humans and God has been “bridged” for those who have faith in Jesus’ life, death, and Resurrection.   The incarnation is God becoming flesh, not a man becoming god by exaltation.  Theosis states that because of Christ, believing humans now can be united to him, and become “partakers” or “participants” in the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4).  Union with the Trinitarian God of the Bible does not mean we become God in essence, but that we achieve status by grace to be called sons of God as co-heirs of Christ.

Through the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit, we are cleansed and made more and more like Christ, ultimately perfected in the final judgment and bodily Resurrection.  This does NOT mean that humans become God (or even like God) in his essential creator capacity or essential attributes, but that we are changed and glorified by our union in Christ.  We still retain our distinction as created humans with personalities, and will always remain human in a glorified state, completely dependent on the supreme Trinitarian God of the universe.   The human does not become a god unto himself or by nature, but is united to Christ by grace, pardoned for sin (Oden, Classic Christianity).   It must also be remembered that classical Christianity looks forward to the Resurrection of the body, where “people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven” (Matthew 22:30).

This concept of the believer’s ultimate glorification and union with Christ in classical Christian teaching is a far cry from the LDS concept of exaltation, in which men can become exactly as God is in essence (including the creation of new worlds), because God was also once a mortal man (Gospel Principles, 1992, 305).  Such a view is completely foreign to the church fathers, who believed in the classical view of the Trinity as outlined above, a belief still held by orthodox Christians across denominational lines today.  Utilizing these church fathers and the Scriptures in support of a doctrine at variance with classical Christianity is to completely decontextualize both, and is an exercise in eisegesis, or “reading into the text” what one wants to find.