The
Council of Nicaea had firmly established the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus
Christ as a fundamental tenet of the Christian religion. The controversy,
however, had also served to heighten people’s awareness of the various
theological issues involved, with the result that after the Nicene controversy
had finally died down, which took several decades, the Christians turned their
attention to another very difficult question of how the divinity and humanity
of Jesus Christ were related to, or connected with each other. The nature of
this controversy may broadly be defined as follows:
It has
always been recognized by the Christians, since the earliest days of
Christianity, that Jesus Christ was unique among men in that he possessed a
divine as well as a human nature. He not only possessed a human nature and
attributes like the rest of mankind, which he had inherited from his natural
mother; he also possessed divine attributes, which no other human being has
ever had. In other words, he was both God and man at the same time. This,
however, raises a theological problem. It creates a theological paradox:
because divine and human attributes are often incompatible, even contradictory.
God is infinite in all his capacities, whereas man is finite. God is
omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent; but man is not. God is perfect in all
his attributes. He has perfect love, perfect wisdom, perfect knowledge etc.;
but man does not. God is not subject to sickness, pain, suffering, decay, or
death; nor to hunger, thirst, weakness, or fatigue; but man is. God does not
experience growth, development, and change; but man does. God cannot be tempted
(James 1:13); but man can be. In fine, to use the technical vocabulary of
theology, we would say that God is impassible, whereas man is passible. The question therefore arises: How was it possible for Jesus to possess these two contradictory attributes at the same time? How could he be both passible and impassible at the same time? He could only be one or the other, not both.
It is
possible to put these questions differently. The scriptures teach that Jesus
was divine before he was born on earth (John 1:1–2; Mosiah 3:5; 15:1; Ether
3:13–18). He was the great Jehovah of the Old Testament, the God of the ancient
prophets. He spoke to Moses on Mount Sinai, led the Children of Israel out of
Egypt, delivered them out of the power of their enemies when they put their
trust in him, and answered their prayers. The scriptures also teach that he was
divine when he performed the Atonement (D&C 19:16–18). The Atonement could
only be performed by a divine being; it was impossible for any man to
accomplish it (Alma 34:10–14). The question therefore arises: What happened to
his divinity between the time of his birth, and the time of his death on the
cross? Did he temporarily lose his divinity when he was born, and afterwards
regained it; or did he retain it all along?
If you
said that he retained it all along, that raises a theological problem: How can
a helpless babe in its mother’s arms, which cannot even look after its own basic
needs, be the omnipotent God controlling and governing the universe with
infinite authority and power? It does not make good sense. If you said that he
temporarily lost his divinity when he was born, and afterwards regained it,
that raises two further questions. The first is, How can God lose his divinity?
God is immutable and unchangeable; he cannot cease to be God. If it were
possible for God to lose his divinity, the basis of the exercise of faith in
him would be lost. The second question is, Let us suppose for argument’s sake
that he did temporarily lose his divinity; when did he regain it? Did he regain
it when he was twelve years old, or twenty years, or thirty years? Did he
regain it in Gethsemane, or on the cross? The scriptures teach that Jesus
suffered severe temptations throughout his life, and overcame them all by means
of the divine power which was in him, and remained without sin; which implies
that he possessed divine powers throughout his life. Hence the Christological
controversies of those early days were often epitomized by the use of the Greek
word Theotokos, meaning “God bearer” or “mother of God.” Was Mary literally the “mother of God?” Was the babe born in Bethlehem literally God? Early Christian literature on the subject is extensive, and span a century of sometimes heated debate, and books have been written on the subject. The following brief extract is intended to give the reader a foretaste of what is involved:
“‘Only
the very God can save sinners’: we would note, in the first place, how
Athanasius develops the principle that Jesus Christ is the Logos Himself who
has become man. Like Origen and Origenists, he asserts that this becoming man
has not involved any change in respect of the eternal existence of the Logos:
He has not become other than himself, but remains the same … ‘Jesus Christ is
the same yesterday, today, and for ever.’ So he holds that, while quickening
the body which He had put on, He was at the same time quickening the universe:
… As he says: ‘The Logos did not cease to be God when he became man; neither,
since he is God, does he shrink from what is man’s.’ What has taken place is
that He, the Logos who is eternal with the Father, has in these last days
assumed flesh—but he is still the same Person both before and after the
Incarnation.”2
The
early Christians in their efforts to answer these questions were handicapped by
lack of knowledge on two important principles: one is a knowledge of the
preexistence of spirits; and the other is the knowledge of God, or of Jesus
Christ, as possessing a body and a spirit the same as man’s.
The
doctrine of the preexistence of spirits was not unknown to the early
Christians. Origen and many other early Christian theologians believed and
taught it. But it was not a doctrine clearly spelled out in the Bible, and
Origen’s knowledge of it was also imperfect, therefore it did not become a widely
accepted doctrine at that time. The second is a knowledge of God, or of Jesus
Christ, as possessing a body and a spirit the same as man’s—the difference
between them being that Jesus’ spirit in the preexistence had been endowed
with divine attributes, which no other human being has ever had. Only in this
respect did he differ from the rest of mankind.3
The
provision of this information in modern revelation resolves most of the
Christological issues of those early days, and renders much of that controversy
redundant. Modern scripture, however, still does not answer the basic question
of how Jesus could possess both divine and human attributes at the same time.
That core issue still remains unresolved. Modern revelation not only does not
answer that core issue, it adds to it a further twist which deepens the mystery
still further.
On the
day before the Lord was born, the prophet Nephi in the Book of
Mormon cried to the Lord on behalf of his people who were about to be destroyed by their enemies because of their belief in the sign given of his birth; and the Lord answers Nephi’s prayers out of heaven in these words: “Lift up your head and be of good cheer; for behold, the time is at hand, and on this night shall the sign be given, and on the morrow come I into the world, … And behold, the time is at hand, and this night shall the sign be given” (3 Nephi 1:13–14). Here the Lord is answering Nephi’s prayer out of heaven, after he had already spent nine months in his mother’s womb here on earth. Now let us suppose that Nephi had prayed to his God the day after Jesus was born; would he have been able to repeat the process? If you answered “No,” that raises a theological problem. God is immutable and unchangeable; he cannot cease to be God. He cannot suddenly disappear from the spiritual radar-screens while attending some important business, such as working out the Atonement. He must always be available to do what God always does, such as answering the prayers of the faithful. If you said “Yes” to the above question, that raises another theological problem: how can a helpless babe in its mother’s arms be the omnipotent God controlling and governing the universe with infinite authority and power?
In
those days people took the theology of their religion a lot more seriously than
they do nowadays. They had a penchant for wanting to analyze and discuss those
issues, ask serious questions about them, and find answers to those questions; and they deserve to be respected for that. The fact that modern man does not
find those issues terribly interesting is not necessarily a credit to them. An
inevitable consequence of this, however, was that certain individuals arose who
came up with rather exaggerated or heretical answers to those questions, which
alarmed the more sober-minded majority who were concerned about preserving the
purity of Christian doctrine. This led to controversy, which the council of
Chalcedon tried to resolve.
It is
not necessary here to discuss in detail all the various exaggerated or
heretical views which were put forward, for there were many. Some
over-emphasized the divinity of Jesus Christ at the expense of his humanity,
while others went to the other extreme and over-emphasized his humanity at the
expense of his divinity. Still others differentiated between his divinity and
humanity to such an extent as to give him a split personality; while
others went to the other extreme and erased any distinction between the two to
the confusion of the two natures.4 The council of Chalcedon of AD 451, composed of over 500 (some say 600) bishops, was held to resolve this controversy, and the formula that it came up with was basically sound. It is as follows:
“Therefore,
following the holy Fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one
and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and
complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable
soul and body; of one substance [homoousios] with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance [homoousios] with us as regards his manhood;5
like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before all the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer [Theotokos];6 one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognised in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the Fathers has handed down to us.”7
Latter-day Saint gospel scholars usually display considerable misunderstanding when it comes to
discussing the early Christian theological issues (as well as those of the
latter Scholastic and Reformation periods); and that prevents them from making
a significant contribution to the development of Christian theology, which they
otherwise would be able to make. For example Professor S. E. Robinson
of Brigham Young University, in his book, Are Mormons
Christians? makes the following observations about the council of Chalcedon of AD 451:
“Of
course the greatest passion of all was the suffering of Christ in Gethsemane
and on the cross. Thus the central fact of the Christian gospel was also the
biggest obstacle to embracing the absolutely non-biblical Greek ideal of an
impassible God—a God who cannot suffer. This obstacle was finally overcome in
451 AD at the council of Chalcedon when the theologians declared that unlike
all other entities, which have a single essence or nature, Jesus Christ must
have had two natures, one human and one divine. It was the human nature that
suffered on the cross—the divine nature, the pre-existent Son of God, didn’t
feel anything. The human Jesus may have suffered and died for sinners, but the
divine Son of God never did! …
“Thus
Chalcedon provided a formula by which the theologians could maintain
contradictory propositions—that God suffered, because of the corporate identity
of the two natures in Christ, and that God did not suffer, because of the
strict distinction between the two natures. The formula allowed orthodoxy to
affirm with the New Testament that Christ suffered while agreeing with Plato
that God is impassible.…
“The theological
proposition of the two natures in Christ, an invention of the post-apostolic
Church, was so incomprehensible and so controversial that it took two hundred
years to finally go down, and even then Egyptian, Abyssinian, Syrian, and
Armenian churches never swallowed it.…”8
This
statement contains a number of serious mistakes which stem from a complete lack
of understanding of the whole subject. The aim here is not to criticize an
individual author; rather, this is characteristic of the way in which Latter-day Saint scholars as a rule discuss these subjects; a closer examination of them
therefore will prove instructive.
1. The doctrine of the impassibility of God is not derived from Greek philosophy, but is a true gospel principle. The scriptures teach that God is indeed impassible, meaning that he cannot be acted upon.9
This doctrine is brought out even more fully in modern scripture. The Book of Mormon associates impassibility with freedom, and effectively describes the saved condition as one of being able to act, but not be acted upon (2 Nephi 2:13–29); and since God enjoys both salvation and freedom to the fullest possible extent, he must also enjoy impassibility to the fullest possible extent. Now this does not mean that God does not
have any emotions. Modern theologians have sometimes misunderstood it that way,10 but that has not been the verdict of the best theologians. Better theologians have been able to understand it correctly.11
What it means is that God cannot be imposed upon by anything
against his will. He cannot die for example, or be killed. He cannot be attacked or injured. He is not subject to sickness, pain, suffering, decay or corruption. He has no adversary greater than him who could subject him to himself. He does not get hungry, or thirsty, or wearied, or go to sleep. He cannot be tempted. These are “passions” to which man is subject, not God.
We know
from modern revelation that the three Nephite disciples in the Book of Mormon were already placed in such a condition while they still lived here on earth. They were sanctified in the
flesh, so that they could not suffer pain, sorrow, or
distress of any kind, save it be “for the sins of the world;” and they could not be tempted (3 Nephi 28:7–9, 38–39). The unbelieving of the Nephites actually tried to kill them, or to inflict pain and suffering on them, but could not (3 Nephi 28:19–22). They had become impassible! The Book of Mormon also teaches that the angels in heaven, as well as God himself are in the same situation (3 Nephi 28:10, 30). In fact, sorrow “for the sins of the world” is the only kind of sorrow that God is able to experience; and it is the only kind of sorrow that he is known to have expressed (Moses 7:28–29, 37).
Now
whether that means that God is actually incapable of experiencing suffering and
pain; or whether it means that he is capable of experiencing pain and suffering
if he wanted to, but has the power to prevent it from ever happening to him is
a debatable issue. The scriptural language is capable of either interpretation.
Some early Christian theologians have tended towards the former view; and since
they believed in the full deity of the Son, they tended to attribute the
sufferings of Christ to the natural side of him (i.e. his flesh), and not to the divine side of him (i.e. his spirit). They had some good scriptural reasons for believing that (e.g. 1 Peter 2:24; Matthew 26:26–28; Galatians 3:13). Modern scripture, however, teaches that that is not in fact correct. Jesus suffered in his spirit as well as in his body (D&C 19:18). But that is a minor technical error which is excusable for want of sufficient information. What is important is that the doctrine of the impassibility of God which they believed in was most certainly correct. It was neither Hellenistic, nor philosophistic, nor anything of the kind.
The
doctrine of the impassibility also implies that God is not subject to human emotions, because they are often carnal, sensual, and unrighteous. For example the scriptures teach that God gets angry; but they also teach that human anger is always wrong (James 1:20; Proverbs 14:29; 15:18). When God gets angry, that does not mean that he flies into a fit of a rage, loses control of his senses, and behaves rashly; but that is what human anger often amounts to. Human anger amounts to yielding to a
form of temptation, and God is not subject to temptation.12
The scriptures teach that God is jealous (Exodus 20:5, 34:14; Deuteronomy 32:16; Ezekiel 39:25); but they also teach that human jealousy is always wrong (2 Nephi 26:32; Alma 5:29; D&C 67:10). The scriptures teach that loud laughter is sinful (D&C 59:15; 88:69, 121). Does that mean that God does not laugh? Evidently so! Similarly, God is not subject to other human “passions” such as hunger, thirst, lustfulness, weariness, or indolence. The scriptures often use the same vocabulary to refer to divine as well as human emotions, but that does not mean that they are therefore the same.13
2. The doctrine of the immutability of God which the author has also denied14
is equally a true gospel principle. The scriptures teach that God is indeed immutable (i.e. unchangeable). He is “the same yesterday, today, and forever” (Malachi 3:6; Hebrews 13:8; James 1:17; Mormon 9:9–10; D&C 20:12, 17; 35:1). He does not change. Joseph Smith makes a great play of this doctrine in his Lectures on Faith, and in lectures III, IV, and VII presents this as the most important attribute of the Deity without which it would be impossible for rational beings to exercise faith in him unto life and salvation.15
The
doctrines of the impassibility and immutability of God are closely
interrelated, rather like the doctrines of justification and sanctification
that are closely interrelated. God has to be immutable in order to be
impassible; and he has to be impassible in order to be immutable. Immutability
is the primary attribute. Impassibility is the secondary attribute and derived
from it. “Chief among the metaphysical attributes [of God] are … his
immutability which includes his impassibility (which both point to the fact that, for the classical conception, God is pure actuality, entirely devoid of any potentiality [i.e. acts, but cannot be acted upon]).”16 St Thomas Aquinas, the greatest of the medieval theologians, discusses the doctrine of the impassibility and immutability of God in these words:
“‘God, therefore, to whom potentiality does not belong, is immutable. It can also be concluded that God is immutable “as regards the several species of mutation, as for instance, He cannot be increased or diminished, or altered, or generated, or corrupted.… Moreover, He cannot be conquered, or suffer violence,” for these only belong to one who can be moved’ (Summa c. Gentiles, ii. 25).
“As regards Christ, Thomas teaches (Summa Theol. III. xiv. 1) that it was convenient that the body assumed by the Lord God should be subject to human infirmities and defects, for three reasons: (1) that Christ might be able to bear the penalty of sin, (2) that man might believe in the truth of the incarnation, (3) that Christ might be an example to us in bearing bravely the passions [i.e. sufferings] and defects of human nature. Further, Thomas teaches (III. xv. 4) that Christ’s soul also, as the ‘form’ of His body, suffered in his bodily sufferings; it also suffered in a way proper to itself, that being a mark of human nature.”17
A more
modern theologian has expressed it in these words:
“The second main inference drawn from God’s independence of temporal succession is that He is immutable. ‘I am the Lord, I change not’ (Mal. iii. 6). The causes which produce change and dislocation in us by the course of time have nothing analogous to them in the life of God.… He does not go through a series of transient phases, like us. This is what is meant by
calling God impassible, or exempt from passions.… Impassible is not the same as
unfeeling.… Only we must remember that no storms of grief can shake the permanent serenity of God in its inmost deeps, inasmuch as God sees the end from the beginning, and knows Himself to be able to overcome at last all that now causes sorrow to Him and to those He loves.”18
All of
these are true gospel principles. None of them are “Greek,” or “philosophic,”
or “Platonic.” It is indeed the case that some modern scholars have mistakenly
portrayed them as such; but that only proves their ignorance. It does not make it true. As an example, consider J. N. D. Kelly’s treatment
of Origenist theology.
Origen
taught two great doctrines which agree almost precisely with the teachings of Latter-day Saints.
Firstly, he taught that the Godhead consists of three distinct and separate
personages, and their unity consists of a unity of mind, purpose, and will,
rather than a numerical unity of substance. He also taught a clear doctrine of
the subordination of the Son and the Spirit to the Father. Secondly, he taught
that the spirits of men were created by God in the preexistence long before
they were born on earth; and he even concluded that they were eternal. Kelly (a
particularly fine scholar) discusses both these two doctrines on page 131 of
his classic book, Early Christian Doctrines, and attributes them both to Platonic philosophy!19 He completely ignores one thing, that Origen was very jealous for scriptural doctrine, and was anxious not to promote any doctrine which could not, in his mind at least, be substantiated from scripture. And notice that Kelly does not prove his theory. That is just his opinion; it is what he thinks. But we have to disagree with him on that. If Origen obtained it from Plato, then so must have Joseph Smith, because they both taught the same thing. Either that, or Plato must have been a prophet.
I don’t
know whether Plato and Aristotle had also recognized the doctrines of the
impassibility and immutability of God or not. It is possible that they had. If so,
that only proves that they were smart. It does not prove that the doctrines must
therefore be false.
Another
interesting example is the doctrine of the deification of man. It is a revealed doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that man has the potential to become a god. This is clearly taught in
sections 76 and 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants, and is also affirmed by Christian tradition.20
But notice how R. V. Sellers, in his otherwise very good book on the council of Chalcedon, discusses this doctrine:
“… but primarily theirs is the thought … that Jesus Christ came into the world to effect man’s deification: ‘He became man that we might become divine,’ says Athanasius; and the rest teach the same way.
“We can well understand why they chose to explain the central fact of Christian experience in this way. Close at hand lay the ideal, which had at last satisfied the Greek spirit … and it was this conception which, with a clear appreciation of current pagan ideas, these Christian teachers put to good use as they sought to commend the Gospel to their neighbours.”21
So we
now have this extraordinary situation where early Christian theologians and
Apologists are condemned by Latter-day Saints for believing in what are essentially
approved Church doctrines—and that for no better reason than because a few unbelieving
modern secular scholars have said so!
3. The objection that the author raises to the doctrine of the “two natures” in Christ (i.e. that he was both God and man); and the suggestion he makes that the doctrine was invented by the theologians of Chalcedon in order to resolve the problem of the “impassibility,” are also completely incorrect and unjustified on all accounts.
Firstly,
the doctrine of the “impassibility” of God was not an issue at the council of
Chalcedon. That is not why the council was held. Secondly, the doctrine of the
two natures in Christ, as mentioned earlier, is a longstanding Christian
doctrine which has been believed in and accepted by the Christians since time
immemorial, and it is actually scriptural and true. It was not invented by the
Chalcedonian theologians. The council merely reaffirmed a longstanding and true
Christian doctrine. Clement of Alexandria, writing at the close of the first
century states, “He [Christ] alone is both God and man; he is for us the source
of all good;”22 and J. N. D. Kelly states that, “The all but unanimous Christian conviction in the preceding centuries [i.e. before Nicaea] had been that Jesus was both divine as well as human.”23
The
doctrine is actually scriptural. Jesus was God because he possessed divine
attributes without which he would not have been able to perform the infinite
and eternal Atonement, and modern scripture bears ample witness to that. He was
at the same time man, because he acquired a physical body like ours, and was subject to the same trials and vicissitudes of mortality—
i.e. growth, development, and change; suffering, pain, and death; and of course, temptation. As Paul says, “He took not on him the form of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham” (Hebrews 2:16); and “was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin” (Hebrews 4:15).
The
idea that Jesus was both God and man had been part and parcel of Christian
doctrine from the very beginning. It was not the invention of post-Apostolic
Christianity.
4. As discussed earlier, the council of Chalcedon of AD 451 was held to resolve the Christological controversies which had arisen in the Christian Church since the council of Nicaea, not the doctrine of the impassibility of God as such. The impassibility of God was generally accepted by all sides; it was not an issue at the council. And as stated earlier, the formula that it came up with is basically sound. It does not leave any room for serious criticism by Latter-day Saints.
The
amount of misunderstanding portrayed by the author in the pages discussed above
is quite considerable; and this is characteristic of the way in which Latter-day Saint scholars as a rule discuss these subjects. Even senior Church officers are not
immune from making those kinds of mistakes. As an example, consider the following remarks
by Elder M. Russell Ballard of the Quorum of the Twelve, quoted from his
October 1994 general conference address:
“History
tells us, for example, of the great council held in AD 325 in Nicaea. By this time Christianity had emerged from the dank dungeons of Rome to become the state religion of the Roman Empire, …
“The
beautiful simplicity of Christ’s gospel was under attack from an enemy that was
even more destructive than the scourges and the crosses of early Rome: the
philosophical meanderings of uninspired men. The doctrine became based more on
popular opinion than on revelation. This period of time was called the Dark
Ages. They were dark largely because the light of the gospel of Jesus Christ
had been lost.
“Then in
1517, the Spirit moved Martin Luther, a German priest who was disturbed at how
far the church had strayed from the gospel as taught by Christ. His work led to
a reformation, a movement that was taken up by such other visionaries as John
Calvin, Huldrych Zwingli, John Wesley, and John Smith.
“I
believe these reformers were inspired to create a religious climate in which
God could restore lost truths and priesthood authority.…”24
In this
passage a number of historical and doctrinal errors have been made, of which
the following highlights are briefly mentioned:
1. Contrary to popular opinion among Latter-day Saints, Constantine did not make Christianity the “state religion” or the “official religion” of the Roman Empire.25
What he did was something quite different. He lifted the ban which hitherto had been imposed on the Christian religion.
Previous
to the time of Constantine Christianity was banned, it was illegal. Magistrates
had draconian powers to oblige Christians, and suspected Christians, to renounce
their faith by worshipping idols. If they refused various penalties could be
imposed, such as confiscation of goods, imprisonment, and even torture and death.
These harsh rules, however, were not always rigidly enforced. It depended on
the attitude of the reigning emperor. If the emperor was particularly hostile
the rules would be enforced with greater severity, and a period of
“persecution” of the Christians would then ensue. This period, however, would
eventually come to an end, and another emperor would appear on the scene who
was less hostile, and the rules would be relaxed, and the Christians would
enjoy a season of respite to get on with their normal lives, and engage in
their favorite activity of “witnessing” to non-Christians, as they called it.
This
cycle of persecution and relaxation continued right up to the time of
Constantine. The severest and longest lasting series of persecutions, known as
the Great Persecution, took place shortly before Constantine came to power.
Constantine for the first time lifted that ban, and extended to Christianity
the same rights and privileges enjoyed by all the other religions in the
Empire.
The
Romans had generally been very tolerant of minority customs and religions, and
had granted freedom of worship to all the nations and peoples whom they had
conquered. Only Christianity had been the exception. But now this was no longer
the case, and people were free to become Christians without breaking the law,
and incurring the penalties. But he did not make Christianity the state religion. The famous Edict of Milan (AD 313) by which Constantine effected this change in the law is as follows:
“When
we, Constantine and Licinius, Emperors, met at Milan in conference concerning
the welfare and security of the realm, we decided that of the things that are
of profit to all mankind, the worship of God ought rightly to be our first and
chiefest care, and that it was right that Christians and all others should have
freedom to follow the kind of religion they favoured; so that the God who
dwells in heaven might be propitious to us and to all under our rule. We
therefore announce that, notwithstanding any provisions concerning the
Christians in our former instructions, all who choose that religion are to be
permitted to continue therein, without any let or hindrance, and are not to be
in any way troubled or molested. Note that at the same time all others are to
be allowed the free and unrestricted practice of their religions; for it
accords with the good order of the realm and the peacefulness of our times that
each should have freedom to worship God after his own choice.… You are to use
your utmost diligence in carrying out these orders on behalf of the Christians,
that our command may be promptly obeyed, for the fulfilment of our gracious
purpose in establishing public tranquillity. So shall that divine favour which
we have already enjoyed, in affairs of the greatest moment, continue to grant us
success, and thus secure the happiness of the realm.”26
Thus
the oft-repeated assertion in Latter-day Saint literature that Constantine made Christianity
the “state religion” or the “official religion” of the Roman Empire is not
true.
2. Another mistake that he makes of course is that he still adheres to the false notion generally entertained by Latter-day Saint scholars, of the supposed “Hellenization” and “philosophization” of the Christian religion which, as discussed earlier, is not true. This is not to say that Greek philosophical ideas had no influence at all on Christian thought. They did. But it is widely exaggerated; and whatever influence there was, it was often a wholesome and good influence, not an evil or an undesirable influence. Greek philosophical thought actually enriched Christianity, not diminish it. In the words of R. V. Sellers:
“…
but, as we have said, it should be remembered that, in setting out to present
the Gospel to the Greek world, the Christian teachers were compelled to use
terms with which that world was familiar. This, however, is not to say that
they took over the ideas with which those terms were associated among the
Greeks.”27
A lot
of what is often construed as “philosophization” and “Hellenization” of
Christianity is just that, nothing more.28
3. The portrayal of Europe during the Middle Ages as “Dark Ages” stems from a malicious misrepresentation of history. This title was originally applied to that period by the Humanists of the Renaissance period, with connotations exactly the opposite of what the author intends to convey.
After
the final collapse of the western half of the Roman Empire, partly under the
weight of corruption from within, and partly from the repeated onslaught of the
barbarian invasions from the north, the northern European tribes who had
effectively overrun and occupied much of the Empire showed little regard for
and interest in the high civilization and highly advanced Greco-Roman culture
of the Romans. They did not have an advanced culture of their own, and had
little appreciation for the one which Rome possessed, and therefore they made
little effort to preserve it. Thus for about a thousand years after the fall of
the Roman Empire in the West, Greco-Roman culture was lost to Europe. It was
preserved largely in the Byzantine Empire in the East, and in the Islamic
world. The Humanists of the Renaissance period (14th–16th
century), who had become intoxicated with the rediscovery of Greco-Roman learning, saw the loss of this culture in Europe during the Middle Ages as a great calamity, and had coined the phrase “Dark Ages” to refer to that period for this reason.
The
Renaissance Humanists were generally anti-religious (although there were
exceptions), and they despised the Middle Ages precisely because it was
religious. The Middle Ages was the most devoutly religious period in the
history of the Western world, for which it has always been despised by the
proud intellectuals of Europe in latter times who thought that they had grown
out of religion.
It was precisely this preoccupation with religion that nurtured those uncultured
European tribes to the point where they were ready for the outpouring of the
Spirit of the Lord upon them which came to be known as the Renaissance, and which
gradually raised them up to the level of civilization enjoyed by Western
nations today. This is something that is attested to in modern revelation (3 Nephi 20:27).
I don’t
think anyone who has studied the history of Middle Ages with sympathy and
respect would want to describe that interesting period in human history as the
Dark Ages. Every age has had its share of problems, and theirs didn’t go
without. But it would be a misrepresentation of the truth to describe their
interesting period as “dark,” and to disregard the great humanizing influence
of Christianity which operated in their lives; and which gave rise to such
shining lights as St. Francis of Assisi and Bernard of Clairvaux; great rulers
like Charlemagne; even great Popes like Innocent III; and of course, great
theologians like St. Thomas Aquinas.
The
idea that during the Middle Ages Bible reading was banned (as expressed by some
historians) is not true. During the reign of Charlemagne the Catholic Church
made great efforts to make the Bible available to the general public, but they
faced an uphill task because print was not available at that time, and most of
the people were illiterate.
4. The suggestion the author makes that the Protestant Reformers were “inspired of God,” and that the work that they did resulted in a genuine “reformation” of the Christian Church is also highly questionable. The Protestant Reformation was in reality a heretical movement like the many others which had preceded it, and its outcome for the Christian world was more disastrous than good. One of the greatest mistakes that Latter-day Saints have made during the past 170 years has been their tacit endorsement of Protestantism, which has absolutely nothing in common with the restored gospel, and which is utterly repugnant to it. Joseph Smith identifies the Protestant Reformers as “traitors and apostates”:
“The
character of the old churches have always been slandered by all apostates since
the world began. I testify again, as the Lord lives, God never will acknowledge
any traitors or apostates. Any man who will betray the Catholics will betray
you; and if he will betray me, he will betray you.”29
The
reference to the Protestant Reformers is obvious, as well as to the Evangelical
churches at that time who slandered both him as well as the Catholics.30
Latter-day
Saints, with the wealth of knowledge gained through modern revelation, are in a
position to make an enormous contribution to the development of Christian
theology; but they have so far failed to take advantage of that great
opportunity because they have such a distorted notion of the historical
development of Christianity, and lack of appreciation for traditional Christian
theology. Latter-day Saint gospel scholars as a rule do not make a serious study of
Christian theology. They are not familiar with basic theological terms, and
often misunderstand them.
Latter-day
Saints can also learn an awful lot by carrying out an intelligent study of Christian theology. For example until quite recently the doctrine of justification had been completely misunderstood by Latter-day Saints. The following extract is taken from lesson 28 of the 1984 edition of the Melchizedek Priesthood Study Guides. The lesson is on the subject of justification and sanctification, and the lesson material is derived from the doctrinal writings of Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie:
“What
then is the law of justification? It is simply this: ‘All covenants, contracts,
bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations or
expectations’ (D&C 132:7), in which men must abide to be saved and exalted,
must be entered into and performed in righteousness so that the Holy Spirit can
justify the candidate for salvation in what has been done.… An
act that is justified by the Spirit is one that is sealed by the Holy Spirit of
Promise, or in other words, ratified and approved by the Holy Ghost. This law of justification is the provision the Lord has placed in the gospel to assure that no unrighteous performance will be binding on earth and in heaven, and that no person will add to his position or glory in the hereafter by gaining an unearned blessing.”31
This
definition of justification of course is completely incorrect. That is not what
justification means at all. Since the publication of this material that mistake
thankfully has been corrected, and this error no longer appears in official
Church publications or in the writings of informed scholars. But if they had taken the trouble of making themselves acquainted with Christian
theology, and made sure they understood it, instead of dismissing anything they could not understand as Greek philosophy, they would have never made that mistake in the first place. The meaning of justification and sanctification has been correctly understood by Christian theologians for centuries. Latter-day Saint scholars are the only ones it seems who have had difficulty understanding what it means.
The
failure of Latter-day Saints to make a significant impact on traditional Christian
theological discussions stems from several misconceptions. The first is the
idea that the early Christian thinkers, Apologists, and theologians came under
the influence of Greek philosophy, and that everything that they said or wrote
was “Hellenized” and “philosophized,” and therefore are unworthy of a serious
consideration. This idea is not derived from modern scripture or from the
teachings of Joseph Smith. It is obtained from modern secular scholars who
have either themselves been ignorant; or worse still, who have had sinister
motives whose purpose have been to undermine the basic Christian theological instinct, and
Latter-day Saints have failed to see through them. A classic example of the latter
group is The Influence of Greek Ideas on Christianity by Edwin Hatch,32 which has had considerable influence among some Latter-day Saints in the past.
In this
book Edwin Hatch seemingly tries to show that the early Christians came under
the (undesirable) influence of Greek thought and philosophy; but his real
intent is something quite different. He uses this as a ploy to undermine the
basic Christian (creedal) doctrine of the divinity of Jesus Christ, his miraculous
birth, life, Atonement, death, resurrection, ascension to heaven, and expected
return to earth. That is what he is the real enemy of. The reason why he takes
an anti-Nicene stance in his book is because he is pro-Arian. His entire book is an extremely subtle and clever attempt to undermine the Nicene position in order to promote the Arian position. But Latter-day Saints have failed to see through his cunning. They have been deceived by him.33
Another
misconception is a rather distorted notion of the “Apostasy” of the early
Christian Church which has been prevalent among Latter-day Saints in the past, and which is
derived from Protestant traditions and not from the restored gospel.34
It effectively teaches that the entire Christian institution after the first or second centuries became an apostate (and by definition evil) institution out of which nothing good could possibly emerge. This doctrine is not derived from modern revelation, and even contradicts it (see D&C 10:53–55; 67–69; 3 Nephi 16:7).
Another
mistake that Latter-day Saints tend to make is that they assume that everything
that God has revealed to us in this dispensation he must have revealed in every
other dispensation; and everything that we know they should know; and if they
don’t, that means they are apostates. That of course is not correct. The Lord
has revealed in each dispensation only a portion of his word according to the needs and circumstances of the time (see Alma 12:9; 29:8); and this applies equally to our time.
A
typical example is the idea that God made everything out of nothing. This idea
is not derived from Greek philosophy. On the contrary, Greek philosophers
believed that God created the universe out of pre-existent matter. This idea is
derived from a purely logical deduction from scriptural assertions that God is
the creator of “all” things. If you understand “all” to mean “all,” and carry
that to its logical conclusion, that is what you would arrive at, that God made
everything out of nothing.
Most
early Christian theologians actually believed that God created the world out of
pre-existent matter, for which they have been roundly condemned by modern scholars (and
presumably also by Latter-day Saints) for coming under the influence of Greek philosophy:
“In
Justin the oneness, transcendence and creative role of God are asserted in
language strongly coloured by the Platonizing Stoicism of the day. It was
apparently his sincere belief that the Greek thinkers had had access to the
works of Moses.… ‘We have learned,’ he states, ‘that, being good, He created
all things in the beginning out of formless matter.’ This was the teaching of Plato’s Timaeus, which Justin supposed to be akin to, and borrowed from, that contained in Genesis. For Plato, of course, pre-existent matter was eternal, …”35
Other
Christian theologians, however, have tended towards the idea of creation out of
nothing, out of a purely logical deduction from the scriptures:
“The
other Apologists were in line with Justin, although some quite definitely
supported creation ex nihilo [out of nothing].… He [Theophilus] was particularly critical of the Platonic notion of the eternity of matter, arguing that, if it were true, God could not be the creator of all things, … As he expressed it, ‘The power of God is manifest in this, that out of things that are not He makes whatever He pleases.’”
36
On the
basis of all the information that is available to us at the present time, it
would appear that the doctrine that creation was made out of pre-existent
matter had not been revealed to the early Christian Church, therefore the early
Christians were left to their own devices to reach the best conclusions they
could on the basis of the information that they already possessed, which is
what Latter-day Saints have been doing under the same circumstances.37
With
the wealth of knowledge gained through modern revelation, Latter-day Saints
are in a position to make a very significant contribution to the development of
Christian theology. But in order to do so they need first to approach the
subject with intelligence, understanding, and respect; instead of treating it
with suspicion and contempt. If they are going to dismiss everything as
apostasy and Greek philosophy, then they won’t be able to make much of a
contribution. That of course is not correct. The Prophet Joseph Smith I believe
has set a good example for us to follow:
“One
of the grand fundamentals of Mormonism is to receive truth let it come from
whence it may.”38
“Have
the Presbyterians any truth? Yes. Have the Baptists, Methodists, etc., any
truths? Yes. They all have a little truth mixed with error. We should gather
all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall
not come out true ‘Mormons’.”39
─────────
Notes
1 The interconnection between them has been discussed in
the fifth article in this series, “A Reappraisal of the Doctrine of the Godhead
Based on the Lectures on Faith”.
2 R. V. Sellers, Two Ancient
Christologies [London: SPCK, 1954], pp. 34–35. The author quotes and discusses some of Athanasius’ writing on the subject. Note that Athanasius had been battling against the Arian heresy most of his life, which denied the divinity of Jesus Christ.
3 See Ether 3:13–20.
4 There were three main theories put forward which were
considered by the orthodoxy to be heretical: Apollinarianism, Nestorianism, and
Monophysitism (or Eutychianism). All the rest were considered to be a variation on one
of these.
Apollinarius put forward the idea that Jesus did not
possess a human rational soul; the place of that being taken by the divine
Logos. The correctness of that theory depends on what he meant by a human
rational soul. If he meant that in Jesus the place of the human soul or spirit
was taken by the divine Logos, that would be a correct doctrine. But evidently
that is not what he meant by it. He meant that Jesus effectively did not
possess a human mind. That would not be correct. As shown in the fifth article
in this series, “A Reappraisal of the Doctrine of the Godhead Based on the
Lectures on Faith,” the human body (the “natural man”) actually possesses a
mind of its own, just as the spirit does (the scriptures call it the “carnal
mind;” see Rom. 8:7; Alma 30:53; 36:4; D&C 67:12), and Jesus was no
different. Apollinarius denied the existence of this human mind in Jesus,
however it may have been understood at the time. He effectively taught that the
humanity of Jesus was not complete, and the orthodoxy quite rightly rejected
his doctrine as heretical.
Nestorius taught that in Jesus there were two
completely separate persons, one divine and one human. The correctness of that
theory again depends on what he meant by it. If he had correctly understood the
duality that exists in all human nature, as discussed in the aforementioned
article, he would have been right. But it appears that he hadn’t. He taught
that the human side of Jesus was a complete human person with a soul of its own
which was conjoined with the divine—a situation not unlike that of an ordinary
prophet. Hence he was accused of teaching that there were “two Sons,” one
divine and one human.
Monophysitism comes in several different flavors. The
variety of it that was current at that time and was hotly debated was proposed
by Eutychese, hence it is also known as Eutychianism. The essential feature of
it is that the divine and human aspects of Jesus were mixed up together so as
to form a new kind of entity which was neither fully divine nor fully human.
To these should be added the Arian heresy which
denied the divinity of Jesus Christ. The statement put forth by the council of
Chalcedon contains clauses which are calculated to counter each of these
heresies.
Those who objected to the expression “in two natures”
in the Chalcedonian declaration did not dispute the basic doctrine that Jesus
was both God and man at the same time. That was accepted by all sides. The
doctrine of the impassibility of God was also generally accepted by all sides. What they
objected to was that this expression, as formulated in the Chalcedonian
declaration, harbored a secret tendency towards Nestorianism—i.e. that Jesus was made up of effectively two separate persons. That concern was not justified. The statement of the council makes it quite clear that it rejects that doctrine as heretical. That was just a petty bickering on their part which the council quite rightly disregarded. Those who thus rejected the Chalcedonian declaration were actually Monophysites who did not want to abandon their false views, and in fact they never did.
5 Notice how the word homoousios (of one substance) is used in this context. It is applied in the spiritual sense to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son, and in the natural sense to describe the relationship between the Son and the rest of mankind, which proves that by the use of this term the early Christians did not mean that the Father and the Son were numerically identical, otherwise we would have to conclude that they meant that the Son and the rest of mankind were also numerically identical, which clearly is not the intended meaning.
6 Note especially that in the first edition of the Book of Mormon, Mary is referred to as the “mother of God” (1 Nephi 11:18). For a discussion of these verses see endnote 2 in the fifth article in this series: “A Reappraisal of the Doctrine of the Godhead Based on the Lectures on Faith.” The Theotokos controversy, initiated by Nestorius, who had challenged the theological concept it embodied, was eventually settled by the Council of Ephesus in AD 431. This council affirmed the use of the word Theotokos, and the theological concept it embodied, as a long-held Christian tradition. The Council of Chalcedon reaffirms the findings of the Council of Ephesus.
7 Henry Bettenson, Documents of the
Christian Church, 2nd ed. [London: Oxford University Press, 1963], p. 73.
8 S. E. Robinson, Are Mormons
Christians? [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1991], pp. 85–86. See pp. 82–87.
9 See F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone, eds, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church [London: Oxford University Press, 1947], p. 694. In this article the author has mistakenly assumed that this idea is derived from Greek philosophy. But notice that at the same time he makes it quite clear that this is only an assumption. He is just guessing. He does not provide any documentary evidence as conclusive proof of his theory. Professor Robinson eagerly appropriates his false assumptions as statements of fact (see Are Mormons
Christians? pp. 84, 122 n. 36).
10 See, for example, Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic
Theology [Grand Rapids: Zondervan; Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994], pp. 165–66. In the second edition of his book recently published (December 2020, p. 196), Wayne has tried to rectify that error. The ancient Christian theologians who employed this term initially, however, had a much better understanding of what it means.
11 See quotes from Aquinas and Mason given below. Among
the more recent publications that do give a sensible treatment of the subject
is A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion, by Dr. Robert L. Reymond [Nashville, USA: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1998], pp. 177–180. Another modern author has expressed it in these words: “God is impassible. This means, not that God is impassive and unfeeling (a frequent misunderstanding), but that no created beings can inflict pain, suffering and distress on him at their own will. In so far as God enters into suffering and grief … it is by his own deliberate decision; he is never his creatures’ helpless victim.”—Sinclair B. Ferguson and David F. Wright, New Dictionary of Theology [Leicester, England; Illinois, USA: Inter-Varsity Press, 1988, repr. 1998], p. 277. This definition is not expressed with perfect accuracy in theological terms (see further discussion below); but he gets closer to the mark than a lot of other modern theologians have done.
12 St. Augustine, from whom the author quotes critically
in his book (p. 85), appears to have understood the doctrine correctly, and
discusses it correctly. It is the author who has not understood it correctly.
13 In Acts 14:15, St. Paul does not mean to say that God
does not have any “passions” or emotions at all. He means that God is not
subject to human emotions. They are two different things.
14 Are Mormons Christians? p. 83.
15 Joseph Smith, Lectures on Faith, 3rd ed. [Antum Publications, December 18, 2021. ISBN: 978-1-8381250-4-2].
16 Alan Richardson, ed., A Dictionary
of Christian Theology [London: SCM Press Ltd, 1969], pp. 24–25. Emphasis added.
17 James Hastings, ed., Encyclopædia of
Religion and Ethics [Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1908–1927], IX:659.
18 Arthur James Mason, The Faith of the
Gospel–A Manual of Christian Doctrine [London: Longmans, Green, & Co., third ed., 1892], pp. 32–33; emphasis added. For further discussion on this subject see Dr. Robert L. Reymond, op. cit., pp. 177–184.
19 J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian
Doctrines, 5th ed. [London: Adam and Charles Black, 1977], p. 131.
20 The following quotes are copied from Henry Bettenson, The Early Christian Fathers [London: Oxford University Press, 1956, repr. 1958]. Author’s name and page number are given after each quote:
“… and they have received the title of ‘gods,’ since
they are destined to be enthroned with the other ‘gods’ who are ranked next
below the Saviour.” (Clement of Alexandria, p. 244.)
“… the Word, I say, of God, who became man just that
you might learn from a man how it may be that man should become God.” (Clement of Alexandria, p. 244.)
“The Son in his kindness generously imparted
deification to others … who are transformed through him into gods, as images of
the prototype … the Word is the archetype of the many images.” (Origen, p. 274.)
“For the Word was not degraded by receiving a body, so
that he should seek to “receive” God’s gift. Rather he deified what he put on;
and, more than that, he bestowed this gift upon the race of men.” (Athanasius, p. 384.)
“… If the works of the Godhead had not taken place by
means of the body, man would not have been made divine.” (Athanasius, p. 399.)
S. E. Robinson also has a good discussion on that in
his book, Are Mormons Christians?, pp. 60–65.
21 R. V. Sellers, The Council of
Chalcedon [London: SPCK, 1953], pp. 132–133.
22 The Early Christian Fathers, p. 236. Cf. Moroni 7:20–24.
23 Early Christian Doctrines, p. 138.
24 Elder M. Russell Ballard, “Restored Truth.” In Conference Report, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, October 1994.
25 This view is commonly expressed by Latter-day Saints. See
for example the Ready References, included in the previous editions of the Bible published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, known as the Missionary Edition, p. 68. This material was an official Church publication in its time, now superseded by the Topical Guide.
26 Henry Bettenson, Documents of the
Christian Church, 2nd ed. [London: Oxford University Press, 1963], pp. 15–16.
27 R. V. Sellers, Two Ancient
Christologies [London: SPCK, 1954], pp. 62–63.
28 In our time too Latter-day Saints make use of the
cultural, scientific, artistic, and literary talents and products of our age to
further the progress of the restored gospel. That does not mean that the
restored gospel has been somehow compromised, or become tainted by “Westernization”. This has been
the common practice throughout history. Note for example how Ammon in the Book of Mormon tries to make the gospel intelligible to the Lamanites by making use of the concepts with which they were already familiar (Alma 18:24–28).
29 Teachings, p. 375.
30 For a fuller discussion of this subject see my
article, “Martin Luther Versus the Catholic Church,” in this
series.
31 Search These Commandments. Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide [Salt
Lake City: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1984], pp. 203–204.
Emphasis in the original.
32 New York: Harper & Brothers, 1957.
33 These errors and misconceptions are too deeply
ingrained in the psychology of Latter-day Saints to be easily removed. As further example, consider the
following:
“When Constantine took over the Christian Church, he
found that it was more splintered even than his Roman empire had been. To make
the Church helpful to him it would have to be fused into a unified force. So he
called the Nicene Council to settle the main point of dissension—the nature of
God.…
“Constantine chose two protagonists, both of them
Greek philosophers. They were Arius and Athanasius. Arius denied the prevailing
doctrine that Jesus and our Heavenly Father are of one and the same substance.
“Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, was spoken of by
early Christians as the father of orthodoxy. He advocated the three-in-one
concept of Deity. His doctrine prevailed and is still accepted by many modern
denominations.
“Definitions of the Holy Ghost virtually abolished
Him.
“What chance did the truth have in this situation?
Where was revelation? Where were the pure doctrines of Christ, now drowned in a
relentless stream of philosophy? Where was divine authority?
“The Nicene Creed was devised strictly and
unquestionably through Greek thought and Greek debate. The two opponents were
Greek. Their training was Greek. Their method of debate was unadulterated
Athenian. And the creed that came out of the entire disaster was a direct
reflection of the efforts made to brew an impossible potion by mixing idolatry
with the gospel.” (Mark E. Petersen, The Unknown God [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1978], pp. 41–43.)
A detailed discussion of this passage, in the light of
what has already been said in this and the previous article is unnecessary; but
briefly note the following: Constantine did not “take over the Christian
Church,” and he did not “choose two protagonists”. Arius did not “deny the
prevailing doctrine that Jesus and our Heavenly Father are of one and the same
substance,” and Athanasius did not “advocate the three-in-one concept of
Deity,” and “definitions of the Holy Ghost” did not “virtually abolish Him”. In
particular, all this diatribe against anything “Greek” is quite unacceptable.
There is nothing wrong with being Greek. To suggest that “the two opponents” (i.e. Arius and Athanasius) were no good because they were “Greek,” would be like saying that Joseph Smith and Governor Boggs were no good because they were Americans.
Arius and Athanasius were not “Greek philosophers”.
They were Christian bishops and ministers of religion. Their training and
education in the highly advanced and sophisticated Greco-Roman civilization of
their time did not render them unfit to be true Christians, or unworthy to hold
office in the Christian Church. That would be like saying that somebody who
has a university degree from Harvard today is thereby rendered unfit to be a
worthy Latter-day Saint, or to hold ecclesiastical office in the restored Church.
A more recent example is the following quote by Elder Quentin L Cook, from his October 2016 General Conference address, where he quotes approvingly from the historian Will Durant in these words: “The historian Will Durant wrote: ‘Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it. The Greek mind, dying, came to a transmigrated life.’” That quote from Will Durant is given out of context. The context of it is as follows (emphasis added):
“Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it. The Greek mind, dying, came to a transmigrated life in the theology and liturgy of the Church; … From Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity, the Last Judgement, and a personal immortality of reward and punishment; … from Syria [came] the resurrection drama of Adonis; from Thrace, perhaps [from] the cult of Dionysus, [came] the dying and saving god. From Persia came millenarianism, the ‘ages of the world,’ the ‘final conflagration,’ the dualism of Satan and God, of Darkness and Light. Already in the Fourth Gospel Christ is the ‘Light shining in the darkness, and the darkness has never put it out.’ … Christianity was the last great creation of the ancient pagan world.” (The Story of Civilization: Caesar and Christ, [New York: Simon and Schuster, 1944] vol. III, p. 595.)
The highlighted passages are self-explanatory. In this passage Will Durant is questioning the most fundamental tenets of the Christian faith, including those of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He is undermining the following fundamental doctrines of Christianity—including the restored gospel—attributing them all to paganism: (1) The Trinity or Godhead (including how it is understood by Latter-day Saints—there is no such thing as “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost” regardless of how it is understood). (2) The last judgment. (3) The resurrection of Jesus Christ. (4) The resurrection of all mankind, followed by a reward or punishment. (5) The Atonement and Redemption of Jesus Christ. (6) The sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. (7) Millenarianism (i.e. the millennial ages of the world, as in Rev. 20:2–7; D&C 77:6–12; 88:101–110). (8) The “final conflagration” (e.g. Mal. 4:1; 2 Pet. 3:7, 10-13; 3 Ne. 26:3; Morm. 9:2; D&C 101:23–25). (9) The duality of Satan and God. (10) The separation of light and darkness as taught in the Gospel of John (John 1:5; 3:19; 8:12; 12:35, 46; 1 John 1:5; 2:8–9). (11) Of Jesus being the “light that shines in darkness, …” (John 1:5; also Matt. 4:16; Luke 1:79; John 8:12; D&C 6:21; 10:58; 11:11; 14:9; 34:2; 39:2; 45:7; 88:49). When Durant condemns Christianity for adopting paganism, he is referring to all of the above. He is saying that all the above doctrines came from paganism and the religious philosophies of Egypt, Syria, Thrace, Persia; and from the cult of Dionysus, and the resurrection drama of Adonis etc.—and Elder Cook apparently agrees!
Will Durant believed that the Apostles Paul and John were influenced by the pagan philosophies of the day. Here is a quote:
“Mithraism, Neoplatonism, Stoicism, Cynicism, and the local cults of municipal or rustic gods … these mystic ideas left their mark on on the apostles Paul and John …” (Will Durant, The Story of Civilization, Volume IV, The Age Of Faith, ch. 1, p. 9)
Paul did not “attempt a philosophical approach” at Athens (as Elder Cook suggests). On the contrary, to the philosophers at Mars’ Hill he spoke by the power of the Holy Ghost, and preached one of the greatest inspired sermons recorded in the Bible; but he spoke to them in a language that was suited to his audience.
Paul did not “find it more difficult to relate to the intellectual and sophisticated Greeks;” nor was his comment to the Corinthians intended to be such an acknowledgement. Paul made himself “all things to all men” to gain as many as he could (1 Cor. 9:19-23). To the Jews he became a Jew, to the Greeks he became a Greek. To the weak he became weak, and to the strong he became strong. To the philosophers he became a philosopher, and to simple people he became simple. It does not mean that his approach to the Greeks was therefore a mistake, and he was now determined to do better; or that his approach to the philosophers was a cause for regret, and he was now minded to do differently. Paul was “rejected” by the Jews far more than he was by the Greeks (Acts 13:15–52; 18:5–6; 28:17–29); and it wasn’t because he had been teaching them Greek philosophy.
This fascination with the writings of Will Durant, Edwin Hatch, and others among Latter-day Saints has a longer history. Here is another interesting quote from a talk given by Elder Neal A. Maxwell in the October 1993 General Conference, titled “From the Beginning,” expressing similar sentiments:
“Another force was at work too: the cultural Hellenizing of Christianity. Wrote Will Durant in The Story of Civilization, ‘The Greek language, having reigned for centuries over philosophy, became the vehicle of Christian literature and ritual’ (part 3, Caesar and Christ, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1944, p. 595). The errant grooves earlier used in defining deity were already there and were so easy to slide into (see Robert M. Grant, Gods and the One God, Philadelphia: Westminster Press, pp. 75–81, 152–58).
“Another scholar concluded: ‘It was impossible for Greeks, … with an education which penetrated their whole nature, to receive or to retain Christianity in its primitive simplicity’ (Edwin Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas on Christianity, Gloucester, Mass: Peter Smith, reprinted 1970, p 49).
• • •
“Historian Will Durant also wrote: ‘Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it. The Greek mind, dying, came to a transmigrated life’ (Caesar and Christ, p. 595).”
34 See the Ready References, p. 68.
35 Early Christian Doctrines, pp. 84–85. Emphasis added. Notice that none of
these scholars produce any documentary evidence or proof for their theory. It
is just their opinions, and are often based on the flimsiest kinds of evidence.
36 Ibid., p. 85; emphasis added. Compare the last expression
with Hebrews 11:3. So it appears from what we have learned thus far, that
according to modern scholars all the best doctrines, the most interesting and
true doctrines, such as the separate identity of the members of the Godhead,
the preexistence of spirits, the eternity of matter, the deification of man (and
lots more, all of which are core teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), were all derived from Greek
philosophy and paganism; and Latter-day Saint scholars have readily accepted that! It
appears that the counsel of the Lord to the Church in D&C 46:7–8 has
been in short supply in the world of Latter-day Saint scholarship.
37 I am not aware of any serious doctrinal problem,
issue, or controversy that has arisen in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints since Joseph Smith that has been resolved by revelation. Whenever such issues have
arisen, Latter-day Saints have generally tended to resolve them in the same way that the
early Christians did—by reasoning as best they could out of the scriptures, and
by relying on the Church’s doctrinal tradition—and in the process they have
often made the same kinds of mistakes. This is not to say that the
authority to receive those kinds of revelations has not existed in the Church;
but that for some reason it has not been exercised; even in situations where
one would have thought that was the most appropriate thing for them to do.
38 Teachings, p. 313
39 Ibid., p. 316.
