In Mormon theology, we can become gods, and as the god of this world once was a man, so man can be god. That means, when Mormons think about god, they may (if they choose) imagine what it would be like for one of us to become a god (Mormon theology lends itself to working backwards from what a creature imagines a god to be like — I will give my reason for saying this below). They can work backwards from what we are like now to what god was once like.

If I might trace this thought through (and think like a Mormon for a bit — speculating what this might mean for Mormon theology), then I could imagine the unbelievable monotony of being forever eternal. For me to be forever old and uncreated, I might go crazy after a bizillion years — my 1000th forever might seem like a hell to me, and my prospects would be another forever of forevers. A god better fitting to a Mormon mind is, indeed, a created god (and that is the god of Momronism — so I am not being anti-Mormon here, I am just stating back their own theology). I herein speculate that Mormon theology is thus so as per what I have been saying in this two-part series. If some of us are going to turn out to be hero-gods ourselves (and take our seats among the gods), then being uncreated would be the seat of the most bored god of them all (so the Mormon theology might go).

The gods of Mormonism are all creatures (they are all created). And that brings me full-circle back to Part 1 of this series, where I talked about what the Greeks and the Ancients imagined the gods to be like. They projected us onto them, and it turns out the gods get bored with an infinite amount of time to try an infinite amount of things. To this end, a created god is in our image, like us, as Lorenzo Snow said, “As man is, god once was; as god is, man may be.” Lorenzo Snow was the 5th president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1898-1901.

In reality, the Uncreated Trinity is the only true God. In this way, Mormonism is human philosophy gone religion. Once the idea of created gods made it into a religion, it caught a level of legitimacy for its followers, so that Mormons reject that they are captive to philosophy, for their theology is a matter for worship, not speculation (for them, it is not philosophy at all, but is real and sacred). They are not free to speculate about any of this, as for them it is not philosophy at all, but reality, and Lorenzo Snow is not considered a philosopher with whom we can dialog, but he is reckoned a prophet to be believed.

This is where the attack on the Uncreated Trinity is most acute to the Mormon mind. They can’t rethink their idea of god because that would mean a change in religion. If it was just a matter of philosophy, changing philosophy would be a mental exercise. When philosophy becomes religion, it requires conversion and so much more. When philosophy turns into religion, it burns in the bosom of its adherents. The human is incredibly capable of passion, zeal, and commitment to the idea that the real god was a creature like us. This really has nothing to do with Mormonism, as being anti-Uncreated-Trinity comes easily for creature-humans (Mormon or otherwise).

Islam won’t endure having an Uncreated Trinity either. Claiming to be monotheists, they pervert monotheism (see more about this in my article on mere-monotheism). That the Son of God is forever eternal is not compatible with what they are permitted to understand.

Judaism won’t endure having an Uncreated Trinity either.

Being anti-Uncreated-Trinity comes easily for creature-humans.

Related to your comment, I later wrote this article for the public newspaper in our area, “My Husband Hits Me, Can I Leave Him?”, it is here: http://mrrives.com/Gezer/?p=2230

Steve

The Reformer from Geneva also took up Ockham’s view of the Incarnation, as McGrath noted in A Life of John Calvin (Cambridge: Basil Blackwell, 1990). Calvin “makes it clear that the basis of Christ’s merit is not located in Christ’s offering of himself,” McGrath wrote, “but in the divine decision to accept such an offering as of sufficient merit for the redemption of mankind (which corresponds to the voluntarist [nominalist] approach). For Calvin, ‘apart from God’s good pleasure, Christ could not merit anything’ [Institutes, II.xvii.i-iv].” McGrath also noted that “Calvin’s continuity appears to be with the late medieval voluntarist tradition, deriving from William of Ockham and Gregory of Rimini.”

We need not reject ultimate necessity to see the problems in Ockham’s position whereby he also speaks blasphemy when he says (in essence): that God could have redeemed us by becoming a donkey. That Ockham would come to this conclusion shows what happens when divine character and divine will are not discussed with respect to their distinctions (which I have tried to do in this article and the last one).

If one wants to go more into this subject, this article on Divine Command Theory may be useful (speaking about the philosophy that generates the kind of thinking I have tried to refute).

One point I hope to be clear on is as I said in the article, “And his volition conforms to his character, not the other way around.” But I should expound further.

It is interesting to note that when Jesus was in the garden, he said, “Not my will, but thine be done” (Luke 22:42). In his dark hour, Jesus was wrestling with going to the Cross (the place where he was going to most reveal God’s character!). But his will (his volition) could not then pick some other course even as it was really painful to die on the Cross–real agony and anguish. And at that moment, the will (the volition) of Christ found a greater principle.

The will of God then conforms to his character. Not only is it impossible for God to lie, but his willing does not go against his nature. God, by his very nature, must act in conformity to his nature. Does this put God in a box? Only in an ironic way. It puts God in the God Box (if you will). God is like God, and cannot be unlike himself.

To answer the question directly: Yes, he exercises his will. And his will refuses to find a route that bypasses his nature. So Jesus goes to the Cross. It is fascinating that at the Cross (the crux of the revelation of God in the flesh — the very reason for all creation) that Jesus says, “Not my will, but thine be done.” His volition found the character of God more appealing than even the preservation of his own life.

Death was more appealing to Jesus than the horrifying notion of not revealing what God is like. In fact, in dying, he was revealing what God is like. God wants to be like God. So his willing turns out to be pleasing to him. Christ counted it all Joy to endure the Cross (Hebrews 12:2). He was able to see the revelation of the nature and character of God as the occasion for Joy — and this while he was in the Garden and sore oppressed by the suffering that was waiting for him.

When God uses phenomenological language, it is valid, and he knows full well the ultimate reality of the matter — just as me talking about the sun rising and setting being valid, even as I know the reality of how the earth and sun relate.

When I use this kind of language, it does not reveal some deep down confusion on my part, nor when God speaks about the future does it mean that he is uncertain or that the future is open. What makes sense of all this, again, is phenomenological language. When God said to Adam, “Where are you?”, he knew where Adam was. It wasn’t a statement about God not knowing, but it was about God revealing the condition of Adam through a question (Adam was hiding!). Language works this way.

For more on the errors of Open Theism, I encourage you to read, Beyond the Bounds by John Piper, et al.

Besides reading this book, I could do no better for you than a real live pastor can do. To that end, you should find a good PCA or OPC church in your area (PCA = Presbyterian Church of America and OPC = Orthodox Presbyterian church). Do not confuse the PCA with the PCUSA. They are totally different! Please go and ask a PCA or OPC pastor to help you understand what it is you are suggesting here. If you would be so kind to do this, please also write back and let us know what you find! May God help you see through to the truth that God does indeed fully and accurately know the future (or, should I say, he knows exactly the sequence of all events that will certainly come about — I say this to clarify in case we don’t say there is a created containment field called “time”), and this future is not open, nor is his knowledge of it. There is only one future, and all the events that will come to be are known rightly by God. It is fixed, as God has ordained all things.

Also, what is the general consensus on Best’s proposed decipherment. As I don’t read Dutch, I can’t comment myself.

You feel (and rightly so) that it is legitimate to call people to account for their public teachings. That’s why you posted your comment.

What your letter indicates to me is that you don’t want me to challenge Ed on his doctrine. You can call me to account (that was worth your time), but me challenging Ed on his doctrine of the resurrection… well, I crossed a line. Maybe you are saying that the doctrines of Christ are not worth our time, but how we talk about Christ is? Maybe you are saying that the way we say things is more important than the content? I’m confused.