Maximus and the Damascene Against Dualisms and the New Age

Au contraire! John of Damascus, Maximus the Confessor et al. countered the persistence of the dualists into their own time; indeed, as they stood as Christian theologians of the East in the 7th and 8th centuries. For Augustine, in his pagan days, he partook of an early dualistic religion, known as Manicheanism. This type of dualism, indeed, as it was imbibed by the Gnostics, and even some so-called Christian Gnostics, gained a foothold into the life of the Church, the world, that would perdure even into our present in the 21st century. For the Confessor and the Damascene, they were fighting some heir-apparents of the earlier formed Manicheanism and Gnosticism simpliciter. In their day, respectively, these folks were identified as the Paulicians, and latterly (after Maximus and John), the Bogomils. In nuce, these dualistic systems attempted to identify two competing principles within the world, within the principle of all reality; such that, when applied to God, they saw Light versus Darkness as two equidistant primordial combatants. As a result, they posited two principles largess, rather than just the one that Christian trinitarian monotheism thought from. Even so, these heretical dualistic groups had enough purchase among the people, that people like Maximus, in his respective time, and John of Damascus in his, felt the need to counter them through Christian and biblical theological reasoning (which also entailed some metaphysics).

Jaroslav Pelikan describes the competition this way:

While maintaining against Judaism that the Shema did not preclude the doctrine of the Trinity, but rather, when correctly understood, included it, orthodox Christian monotheism simultaneously opposed any effort to modify the singleness of the divine nature through the introduction of a double principle [ἀρχή]. The Trinity did not imply any compromise in the fundamental axiom that the divine principle was one, and in opposition to the Filioque this axiom was reinforced. To the dualists the orthodox declared: ā€œFor our part, we do not follow your godless ways, nor do we say that there are two principles which are to be separated according to location. But, declaring that there is one Creator of all things and a single principle of all things, we affirm the dogma . . . of the Father and the Son.ā€ ā€œThe confession of two principles, an evil god and a good oneā€ was understood by the orthodox to be the ā€œfirst articleā€ of the Paulician creed, taken over from the Manicheans. From the Manicheans and Paulicians the notion of a multiple principle had in turn been taken over by later dualist groups, particularly the Bogomils. Biblical justification for it was found in such passages as Matthew 7:18, which said that there were two different sources for the two different kinds of deeds, or 2 Corinthians 4:3–4, which spoke of ā€œthe god of this world.ā€ Replying to such exegesis, the orthodox produced biblical evidence that the very rejection of the authority of God by the world was evidence for one principle rather than two; for Christ ā€œcame to his own home, and his own people received him not.ā€

Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā  Although in later theologians the proof from Scripture took a more prominent role, in the polemics of John of Damascus such proof was heavily reinforced by logic and metaphysics. When the Manicheans contended that the two principles ā€œhave absolutely nothing in common,ā€ he replied that if they both existed, they had to have at least existence in common. By their very use of the term ā€œprinciple,ā€ the Manicheans contradicted their own dualism, for a principle had to be single. As in mathematics the unit was the principle of every number, so it was in metaphysics. If there was an individual principle for each existing thing, then these many principles had in turn to have a single principle behind them. Otherwise there would not be only the two principles of God and matter, as the dualists taught, but a plurality of them throughout the universe. Not only was this an absurdity on the face of it, but it negated the meaning of the word ā€œprinciple.ā€ Good and evil were not to be explained on the basis of a dual principle, but rather ā€œthe good is both the principle and the goal of all things, even of those things that are evil.ā€[1]

Okay, that is all well and interesting. But what I want to do with this is to attempt to identify how this type of dualism is presently present within the 21st century world, whether that be in the sacred or secular.

My simple observation is this (and this is for Christian consumption, primarily): The devil himself loves nothing more than leading people into the delusion that in fact he is equiprimordial with the living and triune God. He likes to lead his kingdom of darkness, and even us Christians who are still, in principle, in it (but not of it), into the fantasy that his powers of darkness represent a real-life contradiction of God’s life and Light. It is easy, in our bodies of death as we are, to give into this satanic delusion; indeed, even as Christians. In this current world of chaos and disorder it might in fact appear that the devil and minions have an upper hand on God’s economy in the world in Jesus Christ. But just as the Paulicians and Bogomils logic of antiChrist proportions were defeated, indeed, imploded, by folks like Maximus and John of Damascus, in their own respective ways, that same theo-logic applies against the inherent dualisms of our day in the 21st century.

Hence, there is no absolute dualism between the living God, and the minions of darkness. As the Apostle Paul triumphantly declares: ā€œWhen you wereĀ deadĀ in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, HeĀ made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions,Ā having canceled outĀ the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; andĀ He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.Ā When He hadĀ disarmed theĀ rulers and authorities, HeĀ made a public display of them, havingĀ triumphed over them through Himā€ (Colossians 2:13–15). Jesus as the Theanthropos came and destroyed, not an abstract evil, but a concrete one as that has polluted the human being, from the inside/out. Even though evil and sin remain consequential things in this ā€˜evil age,’ they eschatologically have already been put to death by the Godman, Jesus Christ. He currently is reigning at the Right Hand of the Father, which so contraposes the so called god of darkness, that the apparent war can be said to have never even really gotten off of the ground for the satanic horde’s parasitic ā€œnothingnessā€ economy.

And so, our Lord, contra the dualistic-delusion exhorts: ā€œThese things I have spoken to you, so thatĀ in Me you may have peace.Ā In the world you have tribulation, butĀ take courage;Ā I have overcome the world (John 16:33).ā€ He has not left us as orphans, or as defeated ones. What can death do to us? The same thing it did to Jesus. Though we die, yet shall we live. The forces of this current world order have been defeated; death has been put to death; the scourge of sin has lost its power; and we in fact are the victorious ones as we stand in the Victor of God’s grace for the world in Jesus Christ. This doesn’t necessarily make our daily lives easier, per se, but it does let us know that even though we might feel like we are drowning in the scuz of this world system, even within our own bodies of death, we know as Christians that the power of God, the Gospel funds our lives in Christ by the Holy Spirit, to the point that we can stand in victory. Even if such victory, to the dark-system, looks like defeat (like weakness and foolishness).

Dualism is a wicked evil in our world. Most Westerners are caught in its clutches by their submission to New Age theatrics and demonism (this is ironic because New Ageism is based broadly in Eastern monism—I need to flesh this out more fully since New Age ostensibly denies dualisms::I don’t think they actually achieve that though). But as we have already visited, these types of dualistic movements have been present throughout the world order since at least Genesis 3. And yet, even before these fake-power-plays came into existence in the natural world order, God had already pre-destined Himself to be for the world, to not be God without, but with us in Jesus Christ. The Enemy, the darkness has never had an eschatological chance in hell to get beyond the boundary of hell God had always already determined for it in His free life as the Deus incarnandus (the God to be incarnate).

[1] Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine: The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600—1700), Volume 2 (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1977), 219–20.

Heretic or Heterodox?

Arius the Heresiarch

I’ve been involved in some discussions recently revolving around figuring out what ought to count as heresy versus heterodoxy. Well, I should say, I’ve been attempting to introduce the heterodoxy category as a way to think about aberrant teachings without going to full ramming speed, and labelling everything we disagree with as heresy. The reason this has been coming up more on other social medias is because Kirk Cameron recently just came out as an Annihilationist (or Conditional Immortality proponent). So, predictably, folks have been calling him a heretic. But I protest.

It is better to identify teachings that we might disagree with, and that might be considered aberrant, as heterodox. The distinction I make between heresy and heterodoxy is as follows:

  1. Does it deny the eternally triune life of God (de Deo uno, de Deo trino)?
  2. Does it deny that the singular person of Jesus is both fully God and fully human?
  3. Does it deny that salvation comes by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone?

If the answer to the above questions is yes, then I would identify holding these teachings as damnable heresies; that if someone is committed to them, they cannot be eternally saved. But if someone, like Kirk Cameron, has arrived at what I would consider to be a matter of adiaphora and/or aberrant, non-essential, teaching in regard to a doctrine of hell, then I would consider this heterodoxy. Surely, heterodox teaching can have serious effects on someone’s Christian spirituality and the way they interpret the world, and those around them; and for this reason, if something is heterodox it represents a serious matter worth debating over. But just because Cameron, in this instance, affirms an aberrant or heterodox doctrine of hell (in my view), this will not result in him spending an eternity in hell for affirming it. Cameron, I presume in good faith, doesn’t reject any of the three marks of heresy I have indexed above. As such, he is eternally justified before the living God in Christ, and not a heretic.

If everything we disagree with, in regard to Christian teaching, is just heresy because I disagree with it, then in reality nothing will be heresy in the end. There needs to be some nuance on the continuum of Christian teaching; that is, in regard to its relative intensity vis-Ć -vis the role it might play in regard to identifying a teaching that is in fact eternally damning. Annihilationism does not represent a damnable teaching, even if, in my view, it represents a heterodox position. Matters of adiaphora, like doctrines of hell, respective viewpoints on biblical eschatological positions, so on and so forth, can indeed, as noted previously, have some serious and deleterious implications with reference to someone’s daily experience as a Christian person. And for this reason, bad teaching ought to be identified and called out. But it ought to be done in such a way, that recognizes distinctions along a continuum of gravity, and discern therefrom.

That said, many consider me a Barthian heretic; so, my post could be self-serving in that sense Haha.

Everyone is a Theologian, Even the aTheologians

Friedrich Nietzsche

I don’t think most know this: but every decision a person makes in this life is informed by theology. That doesn’t mean it is being informed by a genuinely Christian theology, but theology just the same. Many people presume that they aren’t religious, and thus further presume that they simply live a-theological lives. But the problem with that, one anyways, is that in a world that is contingent upon God’s Word, His eternal Logos, Jesus Christ, for its ongoing existence, everything in such a world necessarily becomes theological (“religious” even). If this is true (and be sure, it is!), it behooves the Christian and the non-Christian alike to work at having the good theology; indeed, as that is delivered afresh anew as Jesus Christ at the Father’s Right Hand, in-breaks into this world by the Holy Spirit into each one of our lives on the daily (second-by-second). You might think you’re free from this, oh dearest self-proclaimed “non-religious” person. Jesus makes clear that the Holy Spirit comes convicting the world of sin, righteousness, and the judgment to come. And so, this invites each and every one of us to live the repentant life. The life that Christ first lived for us every step, every breath He took for us as He lived here among us some two-thousand years ago. It is the life of the cross; we are called to take up the cross of Christ daily and follow Him. To be sure, He has already done that first for us. Hence, He has called us, and is calling us, and is calling you to walk in the power of His might, who is the Holy Spirit of the living God.

We are all theologians in this world, whether we might like it or not. Even if you think you’re an a-theologian (think atheist or agnostic, or “non-religious”), even so, you make “theological” decisions every day of your life. It is impossible not to whilst we inhabit a world that has been graciously created and recreated by the triune God; in a world where every single human life is held and made in the image of God, who is the image of Christ.

Barth’s Engagement with Mary Baker Eddy and Christian Science: A Quasi Critique of the New Age

Mary Baker Eddy

The following represents something that I found rather surprising in Barth’s Church Dogmatics. In a context where Barth is discussing the strength and weakness of the human body, he goes into a small-print excursus on Christian Science and Mary Baker Eddy. As I have been reading through the CD what I have found is that many of the themes Barth is known for, while present, only really represent a fraction of his overall corpus. Indeed, those themes (election etc.) are contextually conditioning for all of his work, even his thinking on the human body and physicality. But still, Barth is far more interesting than many folks might imagine, within their caricatured and reductionistic picture of him.

For the remainder of this post, I am going to quote Barth’s full excursus on Christian Science, if nothing else to illustrate the types of exposures Barth had to the broader world of ideas in his 20th century Swiss milieu. Ironically, here Barth is engaging with a fringe American ā€œthinker,ā€ in the person of Mary Baker Eddy.

The tenet that sickness is an illusion is the basic negative proposition which in the seventies of the last century the American Mary Baker Eddy said that she did not lay down but ā€œdiscoveredā€ through the authoritative inspiration of a book now regarded as canonical, namely, Christian Science. What was at first a small group of adherents has since spread to all parts of the world in the form of religious societies which are particularly popular among the upper and middle classes and more especially among women. Karl Holl has depicted and done it almost too much justice in a careful study entitled ā€œScientismusā€ Ges. Aufs. Z. Kgsch. III, 1928, 460 f.). The positive basis of this teaching is that God is the only reality, that he is Spirit and that the whole creation is only a reflection of his spiritual essence. Apart from God there are only powers, which in reality are only thoughts. All matter as such represents a mere appearance, and the same is true of all such associated features as sin, sickness, evil and death. Man as the image of God always was and is and shall be perfect. Everything that contradicts this perfection is in reality only an illusion and misunderstanding rooted in the forgetfulness of God, which in turn evokes fear. And fear is the true basis of all illness; indeed, it is actually illness itself. For fear creates a picture of illness which then falls externally upon the body. ā€œYou maintain that an ulcer is painful; but that is impossible, for matter without mind is no painful. The ulcer merely reveals by inflammation and swelling an appearance of pain, and this appearance is called an ulcer.ā€ The true and psychical man is not touched by it. He is only as it were enveloped in a mist and has disappeared from consciousness. Evil is unreal. ā€œTake away fear, and at the same time you have also removed the soil on which sickness thrives.ā€ Jesus was and is the embodiment of truth which scatters and breaks through the mist of these false appearances. The power bestowed and the task presented by Him consist in recognising that God is Spirit. It thus consists in freeing oneself from the false appearances of sin (which even Mrs. Eddy regards as particularly evil, is replaced by ā€œmind-reading,ā€ which is possible at a great distance and in which the thought images which only be a matter of acknowledging the cure already effected by God, of understanding His completed work and of initiating it in the patient. The ā€œhealerā€ā€”the name given to the active members of the Christian Science Association—is not then to rouse and fortify the will of others through his own, but simply to make a free path in the sufferer for the divine operation. ā€œCall to mind the presence of health and the fact of harmonious existence, until the body corresponds to the normal condition of health and harmony.ā€

This doctrine has several features which remind us of the message of the New Testament, and which are of course derived from it: the recognition of fear as the basic evil in man’s relation to God; an unconditional trust in the efficacy of prayer; and bold reference to a work already completed by God. But these are all devalued by the fact that they are related to a view which has nothing to do with that of the New Testament but in the light of it can only be described as utterly false. The fact that Christian Science can undoubtedly point to successes in healing—as well as disastrous failures—cannot of itself commend it to Christians. As is well-known, the magicians of Pharaoh could do quite a number of things. And the concession that Karl Holl (loc. cit., p. 477) is willing to make, namely, that its positive presupposition at least is correct, is one which cannot really be made to it. God is indeed the basis of all reality. But He is not the only reality. As Creator and Redeemer He loves a reality which different from Himself, which depends upon Him, yet which is not merely a reflection nor the sum of His powers and thoughts, but which has in face of Him an independent and distinctive nature and is the subject of is own history, participating in its own perfection and subjected to its own weakness. As the coming kingdom, the incarnation of the Word and the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ in His true humanity are not just an appearance, so it is with man in general, whether in his nature of perversion, in his psychical being or his physical, in his divine likeness or his sin and transgression. It is because Mrs. Eddy did not understand this that sin, evil and death—in conquest of which Jesus Christ did not ā€œdisappear from our level of consciousnessā€ but actually died on the cross—are for her mere ā€œappearancesā€ of human thinking, and redemption is only the act of man in which he submerges himself in God and leads a life submerged in God in order that God may work in him, putting an end to those ā€œappearancesā€ or thought images and bringing to light the perfection of psychical essence which was never lost, the presence of health and the fact of harmonious being. On this point we can only say that both the Old and New Testaments regard not only God and man, not only sin, evil and death and their conquest, but also sickness in a different light. They certainly do not see it as an illusion, and its conquest as the dispelling of this illusion. Whether Christian Science is really ā€œscienceā€ need to occupy us here. But there can be no doubt that it is not ā€œChristianā€ science.[1]

As Barth describes Christian Science vis-Ć -vis Holler, what we get is a type of pantheistic, Eastern monistic, neo-Gnostic mind cult, that today, and in a broad sense, fits well with the New Age ideology that is almost absolutely pervasive; even among professing Christians (Yoga, ā€œBest Life Now,ā€ self-actualization, therapeuticism etc. etc.). Surely, there are still Christian Science centers here and there, but they are mostly dilapidated signs of a past long been surpassed; except, ideologically. The New Age seeks to liberate and control the mind by abdicating it to the universal soul, the universal mind, the ancient secrets of the forever cosmos. And so that remains the universal thread that attaches something like a Christian Science with the New Age, as a broader category of the same thing.

What I found interesting about this engagement with Barth is that he felt compelled to engage it at all. But I’m glad he did. What this ought to help illustrate is that, indeed, there really is ā€œnothing new under the sun.ā€ Ideas and their ideologies are cycled and re-cycled over and over again; just in newer shinier packaging. Underneath it is the same old jalopy. Christian beware! As noted, these types of psychical mind cults represent the precise thing Christ came to save us from; our inward curved selves (homo incurvatus in se). There is no inner-salvation latent in our supposed Caspar-like-ghosts; the universe has no soul; there is no Word of God from within. There is only God extra nos (outside of us), and His iustitia aliena (alien righteousness) in Christ pro nobis (for us). Without Him in-breaking and disrupting our lives with His ā€˜militant Grace,’ we are simply enslaved in bondage to the hooks of our own thoughts and intellects and hearts. We might attempt to construct a way of salvation within the tempests of our own self-possessed cathedrals of grey matter, as Mrs. Eddy attempted to systemize in her own self-deluded way. But in the end without the transposition of our ā€˜bodies of death,’ into the grave with the body of death Christ took for us, and then our transposition of new life and resurrection with Christ’s elect body of ascension, we are of all people the most to be pitied. Ā 

[1] Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics III/4 §55 [364-5] The Doctrine of Creation: Study Edition (London: T&T Clark, 2010), 39-41.

On Mormonism as a Gnostic-Arianism and its Theosis

More engagement with a Mormon (a different one this time).

On Mormonism as a Form of Gnostic Arianism

No, it’s because the Mormon Jesus is equivocal with the Christian Jesus. In other words, the Mormon Jesus is not understood to be the second person of the Trinity (along with the Father and Holy Spirit), i.e., not ā„Žš‘œš‘šš‘œš‘œš‘¢š‘ š‘–š‘œš‘  (of the same exact being) with the Father and the Holy Spirit. The Mormon Jesus, at best, is a philosophical demiurge deployed by the Father (who alone is God) to point the LDS to their inherent need to be freed from the physical body and become “Father-Gods” themselves (with a harem of celestial wives … which I would imagine you’re aspiring towards). In the primitive church what Mormons present the world today with is what was known as Gnosticism (and a form of Arianism in regard to the Son) then. Yes, none of this is original to Joseph Smith or Brigham Young (barring their own respective historical idiosyncrasies and lack of intellectual sophistication).

In the end, the Mormon would do well to heed the Patristic theologian’s, Athanasius’, words against the Gnostic and Arian understanding of salvation and Godself, as he writes: “Therefore it is more pious and more accurate to signify God from the Son and call Him Father, than to name Him from His works only and call Him Unoriginate.” (Athanasius, š¶š‘œš‘›š‘”š‘Ÿš‘Ž š“š‘Ÿš‘–š‘Žš‘›š‘œš‘  1.9.34.)

On Mormon Deification and Theosis

Mormon notions of deification have zero correspondence with Christian and or Patristic (early church) thinking on deification. The LDS appeals to language like deification, but they do so only under the pressures of their own doctrine of ‘Godhead.’ The Christian notion of deification is purely grounded in the Christian God’s theopoiesis for us. This entails the notion that it required God to ‘become us that we might by grace and adoption [not nature] become Him,’ that is, that He freely became us in the grace of Christ’s life that we might by the faith of Christ by the Holy Spirit, come into spiritual union with Christ’s resurrected humanity, thereby becoming adoptees of God, and thus become participant in the triune life of God; indeed, just as the Son, in the bosom of the Father, has always been in the glory of the Father as the Father has been in the glory of the Son by the bonding glory of the Holy Spirit (one in three / three in one), see John 17. Since Mormons reject the Nicene (biblical) doctrine of the Trinity, they can only hope to be like their exemplar, Jesus (a creature, spirit-brother of Lucifer, in their view), and attain a life-like Father-God in the eschaton someday (where the man can have their own planet with a celestial harem, populating their respective planets with celestial children had by their celestial wives, just as the Father-God now did with Mary by birthing Jesus::they downplay this though). And this, based on their climbing a ladder of knowledge (so, thematically, Gnostic-like), which they identify as ‘covenant-keeping’ (which of course is based on their own striving, not grace as understood Christianly). Ultimately, for Christians, historically we do not believe that we become gods, instead we believe that we become fully human in the š‘‡ā„Žš‘’š‘Žš‘›š‘”ā„Žš‘Ÿš‘œš‘š‘œš‘  (Godman) humanity of Jesus Christ; who alone is God for us, and brings us into His Sonship (not by nature but grace) by which, as adopted children of the Father, as it were, within the triune Monarxia, we live in the beatific vision of the Godhead. That is, we inhabit the triune God’s inner-life, in all the mystery that entails; which sounds like Heaven to me.

So, when a Mormon appeals to ‘deification,’ which is a contested term itself in the history of orthodox Christian interpretation, it has zero correspondence with the Christian teaching on deification or theopoiesis. The Mormon holds to a doctrine of godness wherein the hope, through knowledge attainment (i.e., covenant keeping), is that the men, again, will become exalted Gods themselves; just as the Father is now (in their schemata). They try to downplay discussion about ultimate or eschatological things because they know it sounds strange, and thus ends up exposing the disparity there is between their respective understanding of Jesus, Father-God, the Holy Spirit and eternal life vis a vis actual Christian doctrine; not to mention with the contextual biblical teaching itself.

Engaging the Mormon Doctrine of God With Some Mormons

Here is a ā€œdiscussion,ā€ of sorts, I’ve been having today with some LDS (Mormons) on X/Twitter. I’m sharing this in hopes that it might be helpful for other Christians who engage with the LDS. Typically, you have to educate them on what they believe first before you can then compare, contrast, and defeat it as a viable ā€œChristianā€ belief system. That is what I experienced with the following fellow, which of course is not unusual.

Brigham Young

Mormon 1. I am leaving the Catholic Church and joining The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints What an absolute BANGER I selected ā€œIf You Could Hie to Kolobā€ for the opening song of my LDS baptism on Sunday ā€œThe Spirit of Godā€ to close YT Dei Misericordia Love you Saints!

My Response to Mormon 1. Dude. At least stay orthodox and become evangelical. LDS is based on demonstrable historical fabrications; it is polytheistic; and looks more like the Graeco-Roman pantheon of gods and goddesses than it does Christian.

Mormon 2. You don’t know what polytheism is. And the rest of Mormon 2’s Responses to Me (compressed). Well, you call us polytheists when we worship one God the Father. Full stop. Believing there is a Godhead doesn’t mean polytheism when two members of the Godhead work under the direction of God. We do not worship multiple gods aka, not polytheism. Yeah, maybe try not telling me what we believe. There is only one God. God the Father. And to misrepresent us in any other way is disingenuous to us, and quite frankly the Bible. You can call Monolatry if you want, but our “interpretation” is closest to the Biblical God.

My Responses to Mormon 2 (compressed). Sure, I do. My MA and BA degrees in bible theology ought to indicate as such. Help me out though. Explain it to me like I don’t understand what polytheism entails in a way that demonstrates you do. No, you believe Jesus and the Holy Spirit are lesser gods relative to the Father. But beyond that, you believe they are each distinct centers of consciousness, which entails a plurality of gods (of various degrees)—which ā€œpolyā€ signifies linguistically. You also believe that you too could one day become a Heavenly Father with your own celestial planetarium. Just because you rhetorically appeal to a monolatry doesn’t mean you don’t also affirm a functional polytheism; that isn’t even debatable. Eh. What you believe isn’t private, but public. Just as all idea systems are. I explained to you what polytheism is, and how it applies to LDS doctrine of God. If you are saying that Mormon teaching denies the notion that you can one day become a Father-God yourself, then I might recant to an extent. But you haven’t explained who the Son and Holy Spirit are in your theory of your godhead. I know what LDS doctrine teaches on that, and I haven’t misrepresented that. If I have show me how instead of just making brute assertions with no evidence or argument or even illustrations to the contrary. If you don’t recognize what I am saying about LDS doctrine then maybe you yourself don’t understand your own ostensible doctrine clearly; which wouldn’t be that strange, we have many Christians (most of them) on our historic Christian continuum who are in the same boat (don’t really know the doctrine they would say they affirm, only tacitly at best). In lieu of you offering substantial argument to counter my sketching of LDS doctrine vis a vis its ostensible polytheism, my claim still stands. PS. The very notion of your own future and potential Father-Godness inherently entails a polytheistic system of belief. If you, and your Mormon neighbor and his and his ad infinitum can be and/or will be Father Gods, this presupposes the notion, within Mormonism, the belief in poly (more than one) God in the Eschatological eventuation of the ā€œMormon hope.ā€ Further, if Jesus and the Holy Ghost, in the Mormon notion of the godhead are considered distinct centers of consciousness relative to Father-God, as his own distinct center of consciousness, and even if you consider the Son and Holy Spirit to be lesser (in Christian heresiology we call this ā€œsubordinationismā€) divine beings, then even so, you affirm a polytheism even in this instance. If your beliefs are insularly sacrosanct and without the possibility of being publicly critiqued, then yes, you’re in a cult. IOW, if only the initiate can understand LDS doctrine, then this is a cult; similar to the Gnostic cults that were present during the early days of the primitive Church. Pax Christi

Addendum:

šŒšØš«š¦šØš§ šŸ. I shouldn’t call it the “official doctrine” as I on Twitter do not speak in an official capacity.
Lastly the Greek word that is used often in “The Father and I are one” is “hen” meaning a unity in purpose, not a unity in being.
You can call us polytheists. I reject that label.
šŒš² š‘šžš¬š©šØš§š¬šž š­šØ šŒšØš«š¦šØš§ šŸ. I read the Greek, interestingly. As with any language meaning is determined by context (both near and broader context). In the total context of the Gospel of John, as I already shared, the very first verse of John (1:1) says that Jesus the Word *is* ontologically God. This sets the broader context for determining how the Son’s relationship to the Father (and Holy Spirit) are related. Jn 1:1 makes clear that they are one ousia (God), and John 10:30 makes clear that in their One ousia or being as God, they clearly share the same purpose (or we might say ā€œwillā€), as in fact they are one God in a unity of being (not just will/purpose). And then just prior and in a nearer context to Jn 10, Jn 8:58 Jesus says ā€˜ego eimi’ I am, which is a clear reference to Exodus 3:14; He is claiming to be Yahweh in the flesh (see Jn 1:14 also). So the unity of purpose/will is contextually only because first they have unity of being as the One God.
As we are taught in biblical hermeneutics: context, context, context is king. Words, sentences, and paragraphs only have meaning within their given and broader contexts.
As far as polytheist: I use that for the LDS doctrine of God, because on a continuum or taxonomy for identifying features of God in disparate belief systems and religions, it is helpful for purposes of categorization, differentiation, and intelligibility. Some prefer Henotheist. I mean, that’s fine, but that is only really a subset of polytheism still. So.

 

Stream of Consciousness on the Supernatural

It is unfortunate that so many Christians in the West, and elsewhere, have so taken on the materialist/physicalist picture of the world, like in the way we process things on a daily basis, that we allow that to impinge, and thus reduce, or negate, the reality of the supranatural reality of all reality. I.e., that humanity, the world, the globe, the earth and the š‘š‘œš‘ š‘šš‘œš‘  itself, is created by the living God, who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. As such, the rest of what Paul identifies as the š‘š‘™š‘’š‘Ÿš‘œš‘šš‘Ž (as he gives that his christological twist) in the epistle to the Colossians, also is necessarily negated; that is, the world of the spiritual realm of angels, demons, demiurges etc., in general.

Often times, in overreaction to the the materialist world, other Christians will go to other extremes and absolutize what has come to be known as the charismatic and even the Pentecostal world picture; where in fact, miracles and the supranatural becomes normalized, categorized, and codified, such that it becomes so normal that, in effect, God and the supranatural has been domesticated to our own personal experiences in consumerist types of ways.

Contrariwise to the aforementioned, a substantive benefit, one of many, of being immersed in Holy Scripture, is that these faulty extremes themselves become negated. The supranatural, the spiritual, miracles, so on and so forth come to have a concrete context. The context, is indeed God’s own free life within itself; within His own Self-determination, not ours. The reality of Jesus Christ, as the Self-determination of God for the world, wherein Heaven and earth, God and humanity, are united in His singular person becomes the norming norm (š‘›š‘œš‘Ÿš‘šš‘Ž š‘›š‘œš‘Ÿš‘šš‘Žš‘›š‘ ) of the real life Christian world picture. The material world (i.e., albeit created and contingent on the upholding power of God’s Word), and the spiritual world (i.e., the inner, eternal, and triune Life of God) have a ground to be thought from in the center of God’s life. The ground is both transcendent and immanent. God’s act in Christ, indeed as that has first been freely determined in God’s choice to not be God without but with us in Jesus Christ, becomes the point of departure by which the Christian world picture comes to have an organicism wherein miracles, the spiritual reality of life (which is the antecedent reality to all of contingent life), the supranatural and natural have an inner-core that is alien to us; that is outside of us (š‘’š‘„š‘”š‘Ÿš‘Ž š‘›š‘œš‘ ). As we live in this world, with this inner-ground of God’s life for us as the grounding-calibration of all things, we can rightly engage with this world, without reduction or negation, in the way it actually is, without it becoming more or less than it is at the same time.

The Dandelion of God’s Kingdom in the Midst of the Profanus Communio: With Reference to Charlie Kirk

Charlie Kirk was just a guy, a highly motivated and gifted brother. He was constrained by the love of Christ. He saw himself as an emissary for Jesus Christ. And it was because of all of this that he died a Christian martyr’s death. He was too young, some would say (I would). And yet, the Lord has a story, has a ministry, a service for each one of us who are His own. Sometimes that story entails living a long life on this earth, eighty or ninety years, maybe. And other times, like my little brother, it only lasts thirty minutes outside of the womb; and in Charlie’s case, it was thirty-one, almost thirty-two years. Our Lord, in His earthly ministry, had somewhere around thirty-three years, and then ascended. The point is, is that we all have something to do for our Lord whilst here. He has uniquely, in Himself, given each of us the strength, the gifts (as needed, relative to steps of faith) required to live out His witness through us, one for the other, and the other for the one.

Charlie, in obedience to his calling, took many steps into the Jordan. And with each step the water parted into the promised land of God’s abundance for Him in Jesus Christ. This is the power of Christ’s witness in someone’s life who has decided to charge hard after Him and His mission for the world. This ā€œhard chargingā€ is of course, not by might, nor by power, but by the Spirit of the living God where there is liberty.

But as is all too apparent, as these steps are taken in this ā€˜evil age’ there will always be pushback. The world system, or the Beast kingdom, is at counter-purposes with the missio Dei (ā€˜mission of God’) at every step. As the Apostle Paul recognizes, in his epistle to Timothy, there are doctrines of demons afoot and funding this world system. For those without the armor of God, for those who are still inhabitants of the kingdom of darkness, they are easy prey to such doctrines. They have no protection. As such, such populates look for safety in numbers; they look for groups and tribes that offer them a sense of safety and stridence within a clearly broken and fragmented world. It is within these cathedrals of darkness where the Enemy of our souls offers up the sacrament of their own bodies as the ultimate meaning of what is real, what is right, what is hope in the midst of darkness. And without the Holy Spirit, without being participants in the Kingdom of the Son of His love, these wary and frightened souls find repose and solace within the dictates of their own fellow bodies. It is within this type of profanus communio (unholy communion) that all manner of dastardly deeds, vices, thoughts, ideas, notions, feelings, so on and so forth are cultivated; all to the end of upbuilding this holy body, ā€œmy holy bodyā€ ā€œour holy bodyā€ within the desires of our sickened and blackened hearts, beyond all feeling.

Charlie Kirk, and all faithful Christians bearing witness to the holiness of the Kingdom of God, the ā€˜kingdom of the Son of His love,’ push into the aforementioned unholy communion. The darkness and delusion are exposed by the light of Christ, the power of God. It is this reality, the ascended Christ reality, that buggers the whole darkness-project. When self-actualization driven by my darkened inward turned navel feelings is challenged all it can do is recoil in shrieking anger and despise. The devil himself, identified by Jesus, as the father of lies, as the author of murder, becomes instigated by the light-bearers, as they reflect the Light of Light in the face of Jesus Christ, and he attempts to mount a counter-assault on such faces. This counter was what Charlie Kirk experienced; indeed, instigated by the devil, and implemented by his minions within the multilayered kingdom of darkness. Within this more volatile, this more active aspect of his kingdom, within the evil age, these agents of darkness, ensnared in ways that Ā they cannot even imagine themselves, lash out. In this instance, Charlie Kirk experienced what, I’m sure, the Dragon of old, in all his futility, hoped would extinguish the penetration of the Kingdom of Light of Light, into his kingdom of darkness; particularly among the young. And yet because of the Great Reversal, the one where Jesus triumphed on the cross, making a public spectacle of the Enemy and his minions, has been flipped on its ugly dragon head. The seed of the Kerygma, the Gospel, the Power of God, has now been blown a thousandfold all across the globe. The Kingdom of Light of Light spreads, not by might, nor by power, but by the Spirit of the LORD. Like a massive dandelion, the breath of the Holy Spirit blows forth, in what appears to be dead seeds, only to spread God’s Word all across the lands. Indeed, so much so, that it penetrates the conclaves of darkness the Enemy has so ghoulishly and carefully been cultivating for his own murderous and destructive ends.

The bottom line, the eschatological reality, is that God has already won. Charlie Kirk’s death within the economy of God’s Kingdom is no death at all. Instead, it is a spur that only magnifies the strength and Light of God’s Kingdom; resulting in more seeing, rather than less. We grieve at Charlie’s death, and we really do!, but we know the Victory has been already had. Charlie stepped into the eternal arms of the everlasting Father the split-second that bullet ended his earthly life; at least “ended” for the time being. Charlie was in union with Christ. Christ has already died, been buried, rose again, and ascended for over two thousand years; thus, Charlie, and all the saints past, present, and future (as the Lord tarries) lives, not dies.

A Catholic Ripping of the Protestant church / A Protestant Riposting to the Catholic churched

The following is from an X/Twitter account that identifies herself as THE Based Trinityā„¢. She is clearly a Roman Catholic, of the Latin Mass proclivity. And she was recently, or at some point, invited to a Protestant church service. Below I will provide her response to that experience, and then below that I will respectively present my response to her as I offered that on X.

I got invited to a Protestant ā€œservice.ā€ Here’s how it all went down. The intro alone was 40 minutes of the ā€œworshipā€ band finding the resonant frequency of all my internal organs, making me queasy, with the zombies around me waving their hands in the air like they didn’t care (about actual scripture). This was followed by guilt tripping tithes and forced socialization, boomer women screaming commands at God to HEEEAAAHHHL IN JESUS NAME some specific congregants, a hot mess of a sermon with the theme of ā€œdon’t complainā€, usurping parts of St. Paul’s epistles before boldly declaring ā€œif you’re born again, ALL YOUR SINS ARE FORGIVEN!ā€, heaps of vain repetition (pastor making the congregation repeat every 6th or so line he calls out), and the good ole ā€œaltar callā€ where people go kneel before the worship band (prots like to call that idol worship when we do it). Not to mention the fact that I was repeatedly ambushed by everyone forcefully introducing theirselves – even when I was very obviously trying to maintain my sanity by quietly reading my Catholic Press prayer book. One lady tried shoving a visitor contact card in my face while I was doing so, and gave me this appalled dirty look when I politely declined. I’d gone to the 8am Mass beforehand, prayed my usual pre-Mass rosary, then prayed an extra rosary afterward.. but when I came out of that dentist’s office ā€œchurchā€ I was ready to go to the noon Mass. I felt dirty and hollow and it broke my brain and my heart that while I was in there, everyone was lapping up the emotionally charged nonsense and waving their hands and muttering those ā€œyes Jesus thank you Jesus Aaaaaymenā€ vain Protestant repetitions. Nothing has ever made me want to run back to my car and gun it to a TLM more than what I endured today. Of course, there was plenty of irony woven into the sermon. It pains me to see so many well meaning people who are so dangerously misled. Pray for them. We have to.

And my response:

As an evangelical I’d say this is an apt description of many evangelical church services in North America (although, ā€œaltar call?ā€ if only most churches still did those). But yes, in my view, the evangelical churches have almost totally gone to seed; quite badly in fact. Even so, this does not necessarily entail that the Roman Catholics are the only or recommended alternative. It has its own problems—many in fact. What this does mean though, I think, is that evangelicalism shouldn’t be left on life support any longer by those of us who can feel this gal’s angst and emptiness, just the same. I don’t know what the way forward is for the evangelical churches (in name only). A return to simplicity and a Word focusedness is the only way I can really imagine. The Word for the Protestant, and the American evangelical as an ostensible subset, must shape the Protestant worship service; it must shape the body life of the church; it must be disentangled from this or that period of theological development and allow to stand on its own, within the history of its interpretation. Protestants, de jure, have a much surer way to offer than do the accretions found in Romanism. There is hope for the Protestant, a balm of Gilead available; and it must resound and find its ground in a theology of the Word of God alone as the esse of all that is real, and breathing and life giving. But I can resonate with this Catholic gal’s conclusion, in regard to the vanity of the evangelical churches. It’s just her antidote that is aloof.

My Final Oxford Essay for My Philo Rel Course: God’s Existence in Cosmic Relief

God’s Existence in Cosmic Relief

Is there any need to explain why there is a universe at all? Would God be an explanation? This is the question the rest of this essay will engage with. 1) This essay will reason on the moral need for an explanation of universe’s existence vis-Ć -vis human teleology. 2) Based on the affirmative of point one this essay will further attempt to reason from the universe’s apparent contingency concerning God’s existence as the best inference to an explanation, regarding the universe’s existence in general, and human existence embedded in the universe in particular. 3) For purposes of thoroughness T. J. Mawson’s chapter on the cosmological argument[1] will be engaged with as how we might conclude on the universe having an explanation for its existence (or not). As we engage with Mawson, it will become clear that the author of this essay affirms some relative value in thinking God’s existence from the cosmological argument. But in the end, it will be concluded that such metaphysical abstractions cannot finally lead a person to a knowledge of God in ways that satisfy the need for human purpose and value as that is evinced (or not) within the vastness of the universe. Once these matters have been duly weighed, this paper will summarize the various ideas posited and engaged with. As a parting note, the author of this paper will suggest a way forward towards thinking about what type of God might fit best with a universe that has at least one known planet (Earth) where human beings who are personal persons exist.

The universe is there. As such, an adequate explanation for its existence is required; at least, insofar that the people inhabiting it would like to live an ā€˜examined life.’ Being rather than not being ought to inculcate within someone’s inner being a desire to know why they have being and extension into the universe rather than not. I would argue that this is so because as self-reflecting entities, that is, as sentient beings extending into space and time, to know our whence, indeed, to know the universe’s whence, presents it with a potential context for understanding human self-determination and purpose in a universe wherein to the naked eye it might appear to be simply here for no reason at all. But human beings live with a sense of inherent purpose; humans move and breathe with sets of values—culturally ladened as they might be—which presents each and everyone of us with a ā€˜common sense’ of a shared being in the universe that preceded us, along with all of humanity from all time, that pressures the genuinely self-reflective agent towards a desire of knowing: ā€œwhere did it all come from?ā€ Once that desire is cultivated, even among just a percentage of people through the millennia, it is proper and even required for us to pursue the ā€œwhenceā€ question of the universe that we inhabit. And as a first instance of that pursuit towards understanding the whence of the universe, I would argue that the most organic question to probe is to understand whether the universe has always been, or did it have a beginning.

Since the universe is a finite entity, observable simply from the fact that human life, and other life forms, have beginnings and endings, it is proper to conclude, by extrapolation, that the universe itself, ever expanding as it is, likewise had a beginning. If this is the case, then to reason about the universe’s beginning from its contingency has a certain explanatory power to it all by itself; even if that only leads to a capacity for the reasoner to infer from the negation of contingency that there is something prior to the contingent, definitionally, that in itself is non-contingent. And to reason thusly, I would suggest, ought to lead the reasoner to an openness about their being what is classically understood as a God as the non-contingent begetter of the contingent.

The previous line of reasoning leads us to what philosophers have identified as a ā€˜cosmological argument’ or ā€˜argument from contingency’ regarding the existence of a Creator God. I believe, on its own, the cosmological argument, or argument from contingency, is a powerfully intuitive argument for the reasonability of a God’s existence. Beyond that, as already alluded to, as the literature and empirical data presents[2], the universe itself, in its expansive nature, is a contingent entity which, according to the “Principle of Sufficient Reason,ā€ as described by Mawson[3], requires a conclusion concerning its original instantiation. I think that rejecting the principle of sufficient reason is done so from a prior commitment to not want to believe that it is reasonable to believe in a God’s existence; of course, the obverse is also the case. That is, to want to believe that it is reasonable to believe in a God’s existence is done so from a prior commitment that already knows there to be or wants there to be a God who exists. In this sense, in my view, it becomes a matter of what “a priori” has the greater “intuitive” or even “revelational” explanatory power for it. That is, does an atheist’s desire, like Bertrand Russell’s, for there to only be the physical universe in a closed system determinately governed by random chance, space and time[4] fit better with this “pre” approach to something like affirming the cosmological argument? Or does the Christian theist’s desire, like mine, for there to be an “enchanted” universe, fulgent with a living and triune God’s glory to be on display, as revealed particularly in the face of Jesus Christ, fit better with a “pre” approach to something like affirming the cosmological argument of some type?

So, I might agree with Mawson that the cosmological argument left to itself isn’t a good argument for proving God’s existence.[5] But, when it is placed in a broader noetic web, it can come to have a serviceability to it that fits better with the affirmation that a living God exists rather than a No-God not existing. In other words, it is the prior and broader belief-frames that will end up determining whether or not someone seeing the cosmological argument has any value. And so, as Mawson rightly argues, it is required that we look elsewhere, and interrogate other things, to arrive at a conclusion that a God does or doesn’t exist.[6] And these other things, like “religious experience”, while related to the questions of contingency in deep ways, often, have a different criterion built into them; such as “encounter” “experience” “revelation” so on and so forth, that attempting to argue from mere physical or even metaphysical premises cannot inherently offer in and of themselves. That is to say, what is required is a personal touch, so to speak; that is, because we are persons and not just random quantum happenstances miraculously “happening” in the ether of a purely brute type of contingent universal and cosmic order. Notice, appeal to the black boxes of quantum happenstances, in the end, is just to appeal to something like a god, but a god who remains hidden, in the dark, and to whom we can ultimately remain unaccountable.

I see these matters as moral issues, which a cosmological argument, while compelling in highly intuitive ways, in and of itself, cannot ultimately address, per se. The cosmological argument cannot apprehend the moral issue, because, at best, all it can do is leave the universe open in regard to its need for a God to explain its existence. It cannot describe, per se, whether or not this God is personally present, or impersonally distant (like the God of the Deists). As a result, other means are required for determining whether or not the non-contingent being known as God is indeed personal and active in the universe’s world, or if God is simply a generic placeholder to fill in the gap in people’s minds with reference to the origination of the universe in toto.

Conclusion

This essay has considered the following things: 1) It is reasonable for sentient human beings to reflect on the universe’s existence. It was argued that this is the case because human beings, as finite beings in a finite universe, inherently desire to know their purpose whilst inhabiting the universe; which entails morality. 2) It was further argued that since life in general is finite, and thus contingent, by extrapolation, the universe in general is also a contingent entity that the ā€˜examined life’ seeks to understand regarding its origination. 3) Engaging with philosopher, T. J. Mawson, based on the ā€œprinciple of sufficient reason,ā€ as he explained, since the universe, as a contingent entity is, it requires an explanation.[7] Even so, it was reasoned that ultimately the cosmological argument only has relative value in regard to proving God’s existence.

In conclusion, this essay concludes that the universe does require an explanation for its existence, and that its best explanation is positing something greater than itself as its cause: this ā€œgreater thanā€ is classically understood to be God. Even so, it has also become apparent that a simple appeal to something like a cosmological argument does not suffice towards providing human beings with enough knowledge of who or what this God might be regarding the deepest questions of the human heart. So, while an argument from contingency might serve well for pointing out the coherence of a Creator God, it remains unhelpful in presenting someone with a personal God who can make sense of the various moral quandaries human beings are presented with throughout their lifespans. For this, what is required, this essay suggests, is an engagement with revelation claims about God such as is found among the Christians.

References

Mawson, T. J. Belief in God: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.

NASA Hubblesite. ā€œOne of Hubble’s Key Projects Nails Down Nearly a Century of Uncertainty.ā€ Accessed 03-28-2025.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. ā€œRussellian Monism.ā€ Accessed 03-28-2025.

[1] T. J. Mawson, Belief in God: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 153–62.

[2] NASA Hubblesite, ā€œOne of Hubble’s Key Projects Nails Down Nearly a Century of Uncertainty,ā€ accessed 03-28-2025.

[3] Mawson, Belief in God, 154–55.

[4] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ā€œRussellian Monism,ā€ accessed 03-28-2025.

[5] Mawson, Belief I God, 161–62.

[6] Ibid., 163–78.

[7] Mawson ultimately believes that the principle of sufficient reason can function as a double-edged sword which, in the end, can be applied to both the theist’s side as well as the physicalist side of the atheists. See Mawson, Belief in God, 161–2.