I’ve been dialoguing with an LDS. Here is his latest objection:
Not true. Most of these verses refer to Jesus in his glorified and resurrected state: John 14:28; 20:17; Rom. 15:6; 2 Cor. 11:31; Eph. 1:2–3, 17; 5:20; Col. 1:2–3; 1 Peter 1:3; John 17:5 Jesus is divine, no arguments. But he is at the same time subordinate to the Father.
That is a human invention. I don’t find that anywhere in the Bible. I prefer to obtain my theology directly from the Bible, rather than indirectly from human interpretations. The scriptural references I had given speak for themselves. Do away with those, or my theology stands.
I maintain that Jesus isn’t ontologically inferior to the Father in regards to his divine nature. Jesus is obedient, subservient, etc regarding his human nature. He maintains that the Hypostatic union is a human invention, but that is arbitrary dismissal of the view for the 19th-century invention of LDS theology. Why prefer his view to mine? He cannot merely assume the Bible teaches an LDS perspective of God he has to demonstrate it. I’ll go through some of these passages:
John 14:28
28 You heard that I said to you, ‘I go away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.
It is clear the Father is superior to Christ in terms of comparing the Father being divine and Christ’s human nature. That his return to the Father and vindication would be superior to his current situation (John 17:1-5, Phil. 2:5-11).
The only interpretation that makes adequate sense of the context connects for the Father is greater than I with the main verb (as does the preceding option), but understands the logic of the for or because rather differently: If Jesus’ disciples truly loved him, they would be glad that he is returning to his Father, for he is returning to the sphere where he belongs, to the glory he had with the Father before the world began (17:5), to the place where the Father is undiminished in glory, unquestionably greater than the Son in his incarnate state. To this point the disciples have responded emotionally entirely according to their perception of their own gain or loss. If they had loved Jesus, they would have perceived that his departure to his own ‘home’ was his gain and rejoiced with him at the prospect. As it is, their grief is an index of their self-centredness.
Carson, D. A.. The Gospel according to John (Pillar New Testament Commentary) (Kindle Locations 10688-10694). Eerdmans Publishing Co – A. Kindle Edition.
Some may wish to take this in terms of Nicene theology where the Father is the fountain of being. Thus Father is greater because he eternally generates the Son. I don’t hold this perspective, but it is a perspective. I have been critical of Nicene theology in the past:
http://spirited-tech.com/2018/09/29/is-eternal-generation-biblical-2/
Another reason to doubt the LDS perspective on this is that they are pouring too much ontology into the phrase ‘greater than I’. What is the relationship between them not loving Christ because they aren’t rejoicing that Christ is returning to the Father? These are the questions we receive from the immediate context.
In the clause before us, the Father is greater than I cannot be taken to mean that Jesus is not God, or that he is a lesser God: the historical context of Jewish monotheism forbids the latter, and the immediate literary context renders the former irrelevant. If the writer of this commentary were to say, ‘Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second is greater than I’, no-one would take this to mean that she is more of a human being than I. The greater than category cannot legitimately be presumed to refer to ontology, apart from the controls imposed by context. The Queen is greater than I in wealth, authority, majesty, influence, renown and doubtless many more ways: only the surrounding discussion could clarify just what type of greatness may be in view. What, then, does for the Father is greater than I mean in this context? Some have attached these words to those immediately preceding: ‘I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.’ This is syntactically reasonable, but the precise logic inherent in for (hoti, ‘because’) is obscure. Presumably it would mean that Jesus is going back to the one who commissioned him, under the assumption that Jesus has all but completed his task, for the one who sent him is greater than the one who is sent (cf. 13:16). The connection is not tight, and it bears little on the rest of the verse.
Carson, D. A.. The Gospel according to John (Pillar New Testament Commentary) (Kindle Locations 10671-10680). Eerdmans Publishing Co – A. Kindle Edition.
Something to consider as well:
But in the process these words have all too often been abstracted from the line of thought pursued in the text, where Jesus is obviously not concerned to teach his disciples about the nature of his divine personhood or the distinction between his human and his divine nature–or to detract from the glory in which he participated as the Son of God (cf. 5:20f.). All that is at issue here is what is “more,” “greater,” or “more profitable” (cf. 16:7) for the disciples: Jesus’ remaining with them on earth or his going away to the Father? In the context everything is focused on his departure. That the Father is “more” than Jesus means only that his return to the Father is the beginning of a new dispensation of grace, one based in heaven and therefore coming down from the Father. This new dispensation will exceed the limitations of the dispensation represented by Jesus’ presence on earth (cf. v12), just as the glory that Jesus will receive as the Son who returns to the Father will be greater than his earthly glory (17:5,24), even though both issue from his oneness with the Father. Jesus is not excluded from that “greater” reality that the Father will confer on the disciples after Jesus’ departure (cf. 17:11-13). He will, in fact, have a hand in it, as is evident from everything that has been said so far, especially about his “coming” to them.
-
- Ridderbos,The Gospel of John: A Theological Commentary(Eerdmans 1997), 512.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/12/is-father-great-than-son.html
The late Steve Hays put it this way:
The Father is “greater” in the sense that the heavenly realm is greater than the earthly realm. By returning to heaven, Jesus is leaving behind the limitations of his earthly ministry. He can do more from heaven, for that mode of existence isn’t subject to our spacetime limitations. Of course, his earthly ministry lays the groundwork for his heavenly ministry. The ascended Son can empower the disciples to do greater works because heaven affords a greater field of action.
In 14:28, I think the “Father” functions as a metonymy or synecdoche for God’s exclusive domain, in contrast to the world. A greater place.
That identification accounts for the emphasis on changing places (heaven>earth, earth>heaven), with the attendant abilities.
This is similar to how the Gospels alternate between “kingdom of God” and “kingdom of heaven,” where “heaven” is a synonym for “God,” and vice versa.
https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-greatest.html
The other issue is that we have cases where Jesus is stated to have equality with the Father in the same Gospel:
3:31 He who comes from above is above all.
5:18 This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
John 17:5
4 I have brought you glory on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do. 5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.
The passage isn’t about how the Son is ontologically inferior to the Father. The Son is functioning lower than the Father to accomplish the work on the cross. He acts in this lesser role and is returning to the glory he had prior to the world (contradicting the thesis that the world is eternal as LDS theology would entail). You have probably seen the show “Undercover Boss” where a CEO pretends to be a worker at his company to get a perspective on how to make his company better. The CEO takes a lesser status (even though he remains the CEO) in order to accomplish some goal. This is similar to the incarnation. Christ takes on a human nature to accomplish the work of redemption.
John 20:17
17 Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”
In isolation, this would be convincing, but the Gospel of John has already set out and declared the deity and supremacy of Christ (John 1:1-3, 18, 3:31, 5:19-27, 6:35-50, etc).
Furthermore, Christ as incarnate worships his Father and there is nothing problematic with this notion. In fact, the Father brings glory to the Son as well. We have a case where the Father recognizes Christ as the creator of the universe in Hebrews 1
8 But about the Son he [The Father] says,
“Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever;
a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy.”
10 He also says,
“In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands.
11 They will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment.
12 You will roll them up like a robe;
like a garment they will be changed.
But you remain the same,
and your years will never end.”
13 To which of the angels did God ever say,
“Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet”?
This shows that the Father recognizes the Son as his equal and the Lord of the world. This hardly fits in the narrative that Christ is a lesser deity. The rest of these prooftexts run the same mistakes.
Answer remains the same. I prefer to extract my theology directly from the Bible. For example in John 17:5, “And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the *glory which I had with thee before the world was*,” that refers to his divinity, not to his humanity.
Answer previously given. Why do you keep repeating the same thing over and over to which a reply has already been given?
I repeat ideas when they aren’t being taken into account. The Son via his incarnation isn’t possessing the same status he has via his incarnation. This is referring to how Christ as a human will return to the Father (he took on human flesh in John 1:1-14). This isn’t to say that Jesus gave up His divinity while on earth, but rather he gave up his status to operate. In the previous article, I gave the example of a CEO.
This isn’t affirming that Christ had some divine preexistence and temporality he gave up being divine to live as a man to earn his divinity back. Jesus was God throughout his entire ministry and into the eternal future. I don’t wish to avoid this passage, but there is another passage that is about the same thing with added information:
Phil. 2:6-11
6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
The issue is that there is some sort of equality that was originally had. This shows that your thesis is utterly contradictory to the text. Even if there were irreconcilable problems with my views, that wouldn’t leave LDS theology as an option. We both would be off the table. But I think there is a way to defend this apparent issue:
His subsequent exaltation is in part a resumption of his preexistent status as the Father’s compeer. The plot typifies the classic comic curve, where the action comes full circle. The hero begins on top, then there’s a downward motion where he goes on a quest or undergoes ordeal, then he’s restored to his former position. Indeed, enhanced in some respect.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2018/04/highly-exalted.html
There is an assumed co-equality between the two in Phil 2 and John 17 (and other places in John’s gospel). We should keep an eye out for these theological motifs:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-rightful-heir.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2018/03/see-conquering-hero-comes.html
And in the following verses the Father is referred to as the “God of Jesus Christ” in heaven: (Rom. 15:6; 2 Cor. 11:31; Eph. 1:2–3, 17; 5:20; Col. 1:2–3; 1 Peter 1:3). Jesus was divine, and yet remained subordinate to the Father after his resurrection and glorification in heaven.
So to summarize, according to John 17:5, Jesus was divine and subordinate to the Father *before* his incarnation; and accounting to Rom. 15:6; 2 Cor. 11:31; Eph. 1:2–3, 17; 5:20; Col. 1:2–3; 1 Pet. 1:3; he was so *after* his resurrection and glorification in heaven.
Jesus also is forevermore incarnate. So, there’s nothing inconsistent with him being obedient to his Father’s will. This seems strange given that gods in LDS thought are just glorified human beings. What makes one more powerful than another? Is the Father obedient to the Grandfather? Of course, this is already in conflict with the biblical narrative where Jesus is the maker of all things, the giver of life, and without beginning. LDS theology is already at odds with the Biblical narrative on so many points that it wouldn’t be a plausible alternative. In fact, this only ignores the fact that Jesus being recognized to be God by the Father doesn’t undermine his deity, but when the Son recognizes the divinity of the Father he becomes inferior. Why the inconsistency?
The difference is that I quote you scripture, and you give me back philosophical speculation. The Bible says nothing about “ontology” and “hypostatic union;” but it does make it clear that the Son is subordinate to the Father in his divinity, and not just humanity.
Even supposing it was true, that wouldn’t be able to establish your position rather than classical Nicene tradition or EFS. You are facing an underdetermination issue. That is until we look at other theological teachings (eg creation from nothing, God is immaterial, etc.) and see that LDS theology isn’t able to explain the Bible’s theology in totality. The Bible isn’t a metaphysical textbook but it makes ontological claims that can be ascertained.
You quote Heb. 1:13, about the Father inviting the Son to sit on his throne, and use that as evidence of the “equality” of the Father and the Son; and overlook Rev. 3:21, in which all true believers will ultimately be invited to share the same throne as the Father and the Son.
This is an unwarranted jump between two different contexts. Jesus is being shown to be higher than the angels because he is God’s son who was prophesied to have a kingdom without end given the quotes from Ps. 2:7 and 2 Sam 7:14. This points to Christ’s supremacy in three ways: His universal reign over creation, being God’s unique Son, and being the promised Davidic king. These are not promises to average Christians and go to show we are not greater than the angels.
Furthermore, Rev. 321 is just stating we participate in Christ’s sovereign rule over the age to come. While being our highest honor, it doesn’t mean we are the Davidic kings awaited for and no scholar agrees with such a notion.
This also ignores that the major point was that the Father recognizes the Son as Divine. He states the Son is the unchanging creator of the world and this is a further reason why he is higher than the angels. The point was the Father recognizing the deity of the Son didn’t make the Father a lesser divinity. So, when the Son does the same it doesn’t imply that the Son is inferior.
The Council 