Recently, an LDS challenged me to prove that Athanasius did not express or adhere to the LDS view of exaltation their own specific understanding of deification. This was in the context of another LDS utilizing quotes from Athanasius to support LDS claims to which I objected on the basis of equivocation. Below I take up my share of the burden of proof regarding Athanasius and deification. First, we need to take some space clarifying in sum what the LDS view is. The LDS deny creation ex nihilo such that other agents are of the same “species” as their father deity and the other LDS gods. Consequently, the deities and humans are metaphysical siblings, fundamentally at different stages of development. In this way, the father deity is an organizer and facilitator of the progression and embodiment of other pre-existing agents and so is more of a “Big Brother” than a father because none of these other agents are derived from him or depend on him for their existence. In sum, these agents move from being deities potentially, to being deities in actuality.

Now that the dust has settled a bit from the death of John MacArthur I wanted to make a few remarks. First, I grew up in SoCal during the heyday of ppl like MacArthur (Chuck Smith, David Hawking, Chuck Swindoll). I am familiar with the influence of Jmac at the boots on the ground level.

Jmac was always an odd duck, being more Reformed in terms of soteriology while being Dispensational. This fit the market of SoCal well, which was Ground Zero for the Jesus movement. You were never going to have significant cash flow and followers here (note that those things go together) without the Rapture. So while it is theologically and conceptually incoherent and inconsistent, it makes sociological and fiscal sense. As to irony, this is exhibited by Jmac on two fronts. While being virulently anti-Catholic his view of justification via his “Lordship” views are fundamentally in line with Trent on obedience as an essential element of justifying faith as such over against the Reformers. I recall many years ago speaking with Horton about this at his home when the CURE Lordship Salvation issue of Modern Reformation came out. And Horton pointed out that making this move constituted essentially the same position as Trent with formed faith being justifying, rather than a more Reformation position of faith as purely passive and only extrinsically valuable as an instrumental cause. Second, Jmac’s functional position was rather papal or monarchial, as was the case with all of the mega church pastors. His sect was run like a one sheriff town, with Jmac at the top. His “seminary” taught what he wanted it to teach, which is why its texts reflect his own views and emphases. This is why its graduates tend to be Jmac clones theologically speaking as well as temperamental and intellectual clones. (I will return to this shortly.) Its monarchial structure is one reason why it will likely collapse as have the others within 20 years of Jmac’s death.

On the Theotok-Oh-No Discussion

James White has apparently reposted something he wrote 26 years ago on this matter. Here I take some space to discuss the matter and offer some critical remarks.

He correctly points out that the impetus of the term was Christological and not primarily Marian. This is very much true. But it was true within a specific theological context and soteriological framework that was decidedly not Reformed. More on this later.

He mistakenly identifies Theotokos (God bearer) with Mater Theou (Mother of God). Putting that mistake aside, White misses the heart of the Christological issue. White says to the effect that the issue was whether one could affirm that "Jesus Christ was God and man on earth.” Or that he was the God-man and one person. But White doesn’t seem to understand that any self-respecting Nestorian could and did agree with the phrase “Jesus Christ was God and man on earth.” They could and did also agree that Jesus Christ was "one person" and "God-man" or theanthropos. They were quite happy with saying Jesus was a "divine and human person." Nothing he says would preclude Nestorianism. White simply after 26 years is unaware of the Christological Shibboleths.

White's grasp then of what Nestorianism is/was is anemic at best. His past associates such as Eric Svendsen openly professed a dual subject Christology where Jesus was composed of two minds and each mind was a person. White let that Christological heresy slide for a very long time until Svendsen up and disappeared for some unknown reason some years ago.

So Lizzie here floats a fairly common objection to saintly invocation. Here are some thoughts on it.

https://twitter.com/IFFFMEISTER/status/1874289838889013478

First, she seems to mistake omnipresence for omniscience. Saints would not need access to every point in space and time to answer prayers from a multitude of petitioners. They would only need knowledge.

Watching the discussion about the NYPost article about Orthodoxy and the "surge" here are my 2 cents, which focuses on one part of the pushback from Reformed and Lutheran traditions mainly. The pushback goes, at least in one part, something like the following. Such who converted are popular evangelicals who really never understood Protestantism, but only a weaker caricature of it. If they had taken the time to investigate the Reformation properly, they would not become Orthodox.

Here Mr. Hess, whom I am sure is a swell guy, gives a fairly standard & Reformed line of reasoning against Libertarian conception of freedom in the context of Christology. To see why this line of reasoning rests on a mistake, see the following.

https://twitter.com/paulhess1689/status/1837580559876608180

Mr. Hess states to the effect that Jesus could not, in his human power of choosing (will) have met the conditions on libertarian freedom. Why? Because that conception, he claims, requires choosing between good and evil options.

So here is assumedly an Anglican of sorts making this claim and appealing to Calvin. So a few remarks below.

https://twitter.com/prima_scriptura/status/1829986359383376062

First, not even the Lutherans follow Calvin here. Note no less a Lutheran authority than Martin Chemnitz below. Consequently, Calvin is an innovator here.
Loci Theologici, p. 80

@Infinity8831456 Continued...

I am not seeing anything in Toronen that I disagree with. So if you think what he says is incompatible with what I have said, then you need to say what it is and why. First, “person” is an English term, translated from the term prosopon, which may or may not capture the meaning of the English term person historically speaking. So just saying that Hypostasis and prosopon are synonymous doesn’t move the ball any.

Recently, Gavin Ortlund made an appearance with Fr. DeYoung over at Transfigured Life w/ Fr. Ivanoff. Here I'd like to offer some critical remarks. The conversation (not a debate) was centered around the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Fr. DeYoung began with noting that on SS everything is revisable. And given the cultural decay this revising is accelerating and this is why many ppl are looking into Orthodoxy.

Some reflections on the discussion last night with the LDS participants. First, thanks for giving us the air time on your space. These kinds of discussions can be difficult. ISTM that the LDS position boiled down to about 4 areas.
1. Philosophical argument/Trinitarianism.
2. Catholics or others acted immorally at times.
3. Measuring the early church by LDS claims/ecclesiology
4. 2 Thess 2:3

Gavin Ortlund @gavinortlund released a short video today trying to express/defend the Extra Calvinisticum, so I think there are some worthwhile things to say here. He frames the matter in terms of a question-Was the Son of God omnipresent during his earthly sojourn? This is the typical way the Extra Calvinisticum (EC) is promoted but it is mistaken. A variety of Christological positions affirm as much and they do so without the EC.

It appears that Trent Horn's video on the absence of Sola Fide in the church fathers has triggered the Lutherans, notably Jordan Cooper and his Scholastic comrades. I'll add my 2 cents on Cooper's response. 1 Clement-Cooper argues that what Clement excludes provides strong support for a SF reading. But this begs the question as to how what is excluded is to be read. Are these things of ones own power or by divine?

Since the cancellation of Dr. Frost's interview on AFR, the Phoebe center and its allies have put out a number of fallacious and misleading statements on the matter. I aim to address some of them here. First, the Phoebe center says that they do not advocate for Women's Ordination, but this is misleading. Many of its members openly support ordination of woman at all levels. So stating that the organization doesn't advocate for it rings hallow when its leaders do.

On "Female Deacons."

The strategy is fundamentally Postmodern. That is take some ambiguous point in a system and "deconstruct" it, that is, show that it is capable of a radically different interpretation and then use it to flip the entire system on its head. That is what "deconstruct" means in PM thought. It doesn't mean to analyze. So what is currently being done with deaconesses is to reinterpret them within a modern philosophical framework of a mixture of Post structuralism and the Frankfurt school,

Apparently, according to his own statements, Fr. Simeon B. Corona, a priest in the Greek jurisdiction in San Diego, Calif is already having female altar servers and other women serve at the altar. This of course is directly contrary to the Christian tradition, East and West. I do not know if he has episcopal approval, though that wouldn't matter much.