Review: Systematic Theology: From Canon to Concept by Stephen J. Wellum

I did a book review of the newly published Systematic Theology: From Canon to Concept, Volume 1 by Dr.  Stephen J. Wellum. Thanks to B&H Academic for allowing me an advance copy of the book. 

LDS, Heavenly Father and Aseity

 

A Latter-day Saint (LDS) missionary posed some interesting comments and questions (provided in quotes). Let me share my responses with the intent of bringing light.

“I just watched your most recent video about Theology”

For clarity I am interacting with LDS Philosopher Blake Ostler’s views and traditional LDS theology proper. 

“as far as the topic of becoming like God have you considered the following analogy? There's a father and a son. The son grows up and gets married and has a daughter.  So that makes the original son's identity change to father. Does that make him equal with his father? Some would argue yes but we would now also attribute the title grandfather to the son's father. In so doing the son has glorified the father. “

Given the offered human analogy it is not merely an identity or status change. It is an ontological change—or more precisely a relational change. There is, in fact, an intrinsic and extrinsic change that obtains. An intrinsic change causes an extrinsic change. The human father intrinsically produces the human son. The human son depends upon the human father for the son’s existence and personal identity. Whereas the the human father depends upon the son for his personal identity but not existence. A human father and human son both gain a new relation and personal identity.  But this is quite a separate point. In my video, I make the point that on traditional LDS theology Heavenly Father must create to actualize his full potential as Heavenly Father. Often this is expressed as the doctrine of eternal increase. Heavenly Father depends in some way upon his children to reach his full potential, namely having as many children as possible which worship him directly or indirectly and contributes (in some way, shape or form) to Heavenly Father’s actualized potential in knowledge, relations and personal identity. Relations in LDS theology would not merely be a dependence or causal relation but rather procreation. 

As to the point of equality. Humans are all derived (ie. owes/borrows their existence from other humans)—except Adam and Jesus. So the analogy breaks down at a crucial point. But I can agree that all humans are equal. Ostler’s kingship monotheism seems to apply this to the LDS Godhead. 

In the video I argue that if Heavenly Father alone becomes the organizer of eternal pre-existing matter to form the Son, Jesus, who is the one that organizes the eternal pre-existing matter to form the actual world. The Father alone is eternally organized while the Son is unorganized but then organized by the Father (on some accounts through procreating with his organized wife). 

Ostler sees the problem of an infinite regress in traditional LDS theology thus he denies Heavenly Father is created or formed by an infinite chain of prior gods. 

Peter Kreeft illustrates,

"Suppose I tell you there is a book that explains everything you want explained. You want that book very much. You ask me whether I have it. I say no, I have to get it from my wife. Does she have it? No, she has to get it from a neighbor. Does he have it? No, he has to get it from his teacher, who has to get it. . . et cetera, etcetera, ad infinitum. No one actually has the book. In that case, you will never get it. However long or short the chain of book borrowers may be, you will get the book only if someone actually has it and does not have to borrow it. Well, existence is like that book. Existence is handed down the chain of causes, from cause to effect. If there is no first cause, no being who is eternal and self-sufficient, no being who has existence by his own nature and does not have to borrow it from someone else, then the gift of existence can never be passed down the chain to others, and no one will ever get it. But we did get it. We exist. We got the gift of existence from our causes, down the chain, and so did every actual being in the universe, from atoms to archangels. Therefore there must be a first cause of existence, God."

Ostler denies traditional LDS theology of heavenly mother since it implies an infinite regress. Or at least an odd relationship in which Heavenly Father must create Heavenly Mother in order to be Heavenly Father and procreate. Ostler seems to say Heavenly Father is an eternal uncreated being with many others that initiate the law of eternal progression.

I actually think by definition God is that being which no greater can be conceived. So I take God to be fundamental—uncaused, uncreated, underived and does not depend upon anyone or anything external to God’s nature. So asking if humans can become like God is like asking can squares be circles. By definition they are qualitatively different in the relevant ways. Humans are created they cannot become uncreated. In the case of Christ, Christians historically affirmed by Holy Writ Christ has two natures divine and human—conjoined and possessed by the one person. 

“Is God a uniform status? Are all God's equal?” 

I take God as fundamental. God is uncreated and the sole source of all reality.  I deny there are many Gods. I affirm a form of traditional biblical, and historical Trinitarian monotheism. But I do admit to Dr. Michael Heiser scholarship and acknowledge a divine counsel. The heavenly hosts, namely, angels, make up God’s counsel. But angels are not properly speaking gods since they are created—thus creatures—and depend upon God. 

But I argue in my video, Ostler’s view entails Heavenly Father is superior to all other gods, including the Son. 

 “I can't say I honestly know but I know the father's glory in the analogy is increased by the son.” 

If what you say were true then Heavenly Father grows or increases in glory. But if Heavenly Father grows or increases in glory then Heavenly Father needs his Son to reach his full potential as God. This can be avoided if aseity is affirmed. But traditional LDS theology lacks the resources to affirm divine aseity.

Mormonism and Roman Catholicism

I posted two 2012 lectures from Dr. James N Anderson on Mormonism and Roman Catholicism. They were previously posted on Monergism but later removed. 

https://m.soundcloud.com/r-c-dozier

Divine Simplicity Debate Review: Gavin Ortlund vs. Ryan Mullins

 I did a reaction video on the recent debate. It was a pity they didn’t get to the crux of the issue. 

Book Review: The Revealed God by Dr. Jeffrey D Johnson

I provided a book review of Dr. Jeffrey D. Johnson’s book related to Classical theism and ongoing debates in theology proper. 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1W0Mwj_GS6Gt8jIPh3Vwqw06VdyzmQIsm/view?usp=drivesdk

The Sabbath

 Months ago I did complete some research into the nature of the Sabbath for my study of the book of Hebrews. My research led me to read Seventh Day Adventists, Progressive Dispensationalists and Progressive Covenantalists. I found Pastor Dale Ratzlaff of Life Assurance Minstries (LAM) and Dr. Rob Solberg of Biblical Roots Ministries very helpful. Pastor Ratzlaff’s book Sabbath in Christ is a definitive work on the Sabbath from a former Seventh Day Adventist. DA Carson’s book On the Lord’s Day was also consulted. The Tablets of Stone by John Resinger was also read. Finally, I listened to Tony Costa debate a Seventh Day Adventist.  

I prepared lecture notes. I gave two lectures. Only one lecture made it to YouTube: 

https://youtu.be/xHTs8SgsOY4

 

The Intermediate State and Heaven

 Heaven is God’s presence which is manifested to incorporeal creatures. The beatific vision is required. 

I find it odd that there is very little scholarly work written on the nature of the intermediate state. Yet non-scholarly work like Randy Alcorn’s Heaven is quite popular. Alcorn provides an ad hoc speculation that the intermediate state is a physical location in which God bestows disembodied souls temporary (loaner) physical bodies. I can provide an alternative proposal with equivalent or greater explanation power and scope. Suppose at death our disembodied souls are consigned by God to the intermediate state. The intermediate state is a created spiritual/mental realm with temporal location but not spacial location or extension. The obvious objection to my alternative is Christ dwells with His people in the intermediate state with a physical glorified body. But if we stipulate glorified bodies may voluntarily take on the property of incorporeality. Much like angels who are pure spirits can voluntarily materialize. Souls can communicate the property of immateriality to their glorified bodies. The objection is overcome. Yet it must be kept in mind this power of souls is divinely mediated. In the intermediate state, Christians dwell with Christ in comfort. Non-Christians suffer mental anguish and misery. Both await for the final bodily resurrection and judgment. 

Aquinas thinks the intermediate state is a place. A place in which disembodied souls are able to reside. It has both spacial and temporal location (E.g. souls and bodies). It has spacial extension by Christ’s glorified body alone. The disembodied souls of the saved are in union with Christ.  

William Lane Craig’s speculation:

https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxskWq8O95830kSU-I1gSNX9j3a5kBe3o2