Early Church Fathers

[amgid]

arieh0310:

What is frustrating is that this verse clearly states that we will be given the appellation “gods” and no more.

No sir, it says they shall be “…enthroned with the other gods who are ranked next below the Savior.” What does “enthroned” mean, who are the “other gods,” and how are they “ranked next below the Savior”? And why does he, shockingly, call them “gods” at all? Why not a more palatable term like “saints,” for example, if that is what he really means?

Nowhere in this book does it state a change ontologically into godhood.

I have never used the word “ontological,” and I don’t even know what it means. Please don’t try to confuse the issue with obscure jargon.

It is also important to note that Pope Gelasius in the catalogue attributed to him mentions Clement’s works, but adds, “they are in no case to be received amongst us”. Photius in the “Bibliotheca” censures a list of errors drawn from his writings.

And so what are you going to do about the rest of them then? Are they also “in no case to be received among us”?

Clement was more of a philosopher than a doctor of the Church,

Curious. I have read his writings (albeit a long time ago); and I don’t recall noticing much “philosophizing” going on there.

however I don’t see anything that lacks Cathlicity in the quote.

Is that so? Tell me about it.

amgid

 

[Paul_G]

arieh0310:

B. H. Roberts wrote, “Saddening as the thought may seem, the Church founded by the labors of Jesus and His Apostles was destroyed from the earth; the Gospel was perverted; its ordinances were changed; its laws were transgressed; its covenant was, on the part of man, broken; and the world was left to flounder in the darkness of a long period of apostasy from God… a universal apostasy from the Christian doctrine and the Christian Church took place” (D.H.C., Vol. I, Introduction, pp. 39 and 41)

This quote speaks to the loss of priesthood authority and the subsequent fall-out as a result

 

[Tmaque]

amgid:

No sir, it says they shall be “…enthroned with the other gods who are ranked next below the Savior.” What does “enthroned” mean, who are the “other gods,” and how are they “ranked next below the Savior”? And why does he, shockingly, call them “gods” at all? Why not a more palatable term like “saints,” for example, if that is what he really means?

I have never used the word “ontological,” and I don’t even know what it means. Please don’t try to confuse the issue with obscure jargon.

And so what are you going to do about the rest of them then? Are they also “in no case to be received among us”?

Curious. I have read his writings (albeit a long time ago); and I don’t recall noticing much “philosophizing” going on there.

Is that so? Tell me about it.

amgid

Amgid,

Don’t hold us to every obscure quip to come out of the mouth of an ECF, and we won’t hold you to the Adam-God doctrine, blood atonement, polygamy and the rest of the just plain weird doctrines of the EMF (Early Mormon Fathers) that have since been repudiated by your church.

You hold our Church to a standard that yours can in no way reach, and then condemn it for not meeting said standard. The list of changed doctrines and practices of the LDS Church are well documented, factual, and I believe far greater in number AND scope than the developmental changes in the universal Catholic Church.

 

[Tmaque]

Paul G:

This quote speaks to the loss of priesthood authority and the subsequent fall-out as a result

I have yet to have an LDS show me documented evidence where and when “ordinances were changed”. I believe the evidence is more compelling that ordinances were NOT changed. Furthermore, if changing ordinances and doctrines are indeed reasoning for losing priesthood authority then the LDS Church lost it’s authority over a century ago.

 

[catholic-rcia]

Given by Paul G

Originally Posted by arieh0310
B. H. Roberts wrote, “Saddening as the thought may seem, the Church founded by the labors of Jesus and His Apostles was destroyed from the earth; the Gospel was perverted; its ordinances were changed; its laws were transgressed; its covenant was, on the part of man, broken; and the world was left to flounder in the darkness of a long period of apostasy from God… a universal apostasy from the Christian doctrine and the Christian Church took place” (D.H.C., Vol. I, Introduction, pp. 39 and 41)
“Saddening as the thought may seem, the Church founded by the labors of Jesus and His Apostles was destroyed from the earth”

I was given this same quote as I was going through the Catholic RCIA 6 years ago. This is where I began the journey into apologetics. What I found was a tsolid treasure, Christ to his people. Everything about the Catholic Church is centered in the healing nature of Christ. It’s not about coming out on top, it’s about being on the bottom, at the foot of the Cross so that we can come to realize the importance of what Christ gave to us, how he freed us from our debt, in order to spend an eternity with Him. You loose yourself in this apostolic faith, that’s when you find Christ.

“Saddening as the thought may seem, the Church founded by the labors of Jesus and His Apostles was destroyed from the earth”

You need to come to see the underlying tone in the above quote.
In the end you will find Christ Jesus, a Church that is not mandated by what you do, but rather by what He has done for all of us.

It is the difference between night and day.

God Bless

 

[Paul_G]

Tmaque:

I have yet to have an LDS show me documented evidence where and when “ordinances were changed”. I believe the evidence is more compelling that ordinances were NOT changed. Furthermore, if changing ordinances and doctrines are indeed reasoning for losing priesthood authority then the LDS Church lost it’s authority over a century ago.

I think this topic has been covered in other threads. Truly we could pass this debate back and forth to no avail. However, I entered this thread to point out that ideas similar to LDS ideas about the Trinity can be found in the writings of the earliest Christian writers.

 

[amgid]

Tmaque:

I have yet to have an LDS show me documented evidence where and when “ordinances were changed”. I believe the evidence is more compelling that ordinances were NOT changed.

The word “ordinance,” as used in the KJV Bible, has a much wider meaning than the way it is used in the LDS Church. LDS use it exclusively to refer to the rites of the priesthood, or what the Christians in general call “sacraments”. In the Bible, however, it essentially means all the laws of God, or laws of the gospel. In other words, the commandment “thou shalt not kill,” is an ordinance. If you do a search in the KJV Bible for the word “ordinance” on the Church’s website, and consider the use of the word in various contexts, you will pretty soon be convinced that that is what it means. Thus in Isaiah, when it says that they have “changed the ordinances, broken the everlasting covenant…,” it essentially means that they have changed the laws of the gospel. This wider definition, of course, includes the word “ordinance” in the limited sense in which the LDS understand it—meaning the sacraments. Those too have been changed—e.g. baptism by sprinkling rather than by immersion.

Furthermore, if changing ordinances and doctrines are indeed reasoning for losing priesthood authority then the LDS Church lost it’s authority over a century ago.

The fundamentals have not been changed; and what changes have taken place, have been done under due authority in the Church.

amgid

 

[amgid]

Tmaq:

Don’t hold us to every obscure quip to come out of the mouth of an ECF, and we won’t hold you to the Adam-God doctrine, blood atonement, polygamy and the rest of the just plain weird doctrines of the EMF (Early Mormon Fathers) that have since been repudiated by your church. You hold our Church to a standard that yours can in no way reach, and then condemn it for not meeting said standard.

You are now singing from a different hymn sheet than Arieh. He was to trying to prove the impossible. He wanted to prove that the ECF teaching on the doctrine of the deification of man and the plurality of gods was consistent with current Catholic or Christian thinking on the subject, and inconsistent with the LDS thinking! Now you are being a little more realistic by admitting that their teachings are not so compatible with current Christian thinking after all. Well, I quite agree that they are not. That raises two further issues. The first is that this doctrine was not believed by one or two rouge ECFs. It was pretty widespread among them. So unless you are going to condemn all the ECFs to heresy, you will have to admit to the strong likelihood at least (if not certainty) that it must have originally formed a true and acceptable Christian doctrine in the early Church, but later abandoned. Secondly, their teachings come so close to the LDS doctrine on the subject, that the conclusion that the LDS doctrine is a restoration of the original true Christian doctrine becomes hard to resist.

The list of changed doctrines and practices of the LDS Church are well documented, factual, and I believe far greater in number AND scope than the developmental changes in the universal Catholic Church.

That is a non-issue here. If you are now admitting that the ECFs believed in doctrines that is no longer accepted by the Christian world, but comes pretty close to the LDS doctrine, that is fine with us, we have no quarrels with that. That was our argument from the beginning.

amgid

 

[arieh0310]

amgid:

No sir, it says they shall be “…enthroned with the other gods who are ranked next below the Savior.” What does “enthroned” mean, who are the “other gods,” and how are they “ranked next below the Savior”? And why does he, shockingly, call them “gods” at all? Why not a more palatable term like “saints,” for example, if that is what he really means?

I have never used the word “ontological,” and I don’t even know what it means. Please don’t try to confuse the issue with obscure jargon.

And so what are you going to do about the rest of them then? Are they also “in no case to be received among us”?

Curious. I have read his writings (albeit a long time ago); and I don’t recall noticing much “philosophizing” going on there.

Is that so? Tell me about it.

amgid

amgid,

I was camping for a week, so excuse the delay. I will try not to use “obscure jargon” that would require one to grab a dictionary (ontology is the branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of being, BTW) . I would agree with Tmaque that this statement was an obscure quip (a quip using flowery words to describe the glory of resurrection) and not plainly spelled out doctrine. If Clement of Alexandria was trying to lay out a doctrine of a plurality of gods, why do we find comments like:

“‘I have chosen you twelve disciples, judging you worthy of me,’ whom the Lord wished to be apostles, having judged them faithful, sending them into the world to the men on the earth, that they may know that there is one God, showing clearly what would take place by the faith of Christ” The Stromata, Book VI, Chapter VI

When I say that he was more of a philosopher than a doctor of the Church I mean that he held no ecclesiastical authority in the Church (he wasn’t a priest or a bishop). He was simply an Alexandrian philosopher who was well respected (had a huge influence on Origen) and well repudiated (by Gelasius and Photius, for example) by his contemporaries and later.

However, I feel we are at an impass with this quote from Clement. I have showed how even JPII used this language in one of his encyclicals and yet never has the former pope ever taught a plurality of gods and yet you insist that this Clement quote must be read with an LDS twist. This same language used by Clement I feel conveys the same message as JPII was trying to convey 1700 years later.

 

[amgid]

arieh0310:

If Clement of Alexandria was trying to lay out a doctrine of a plurality of gods, why do we find comments like:

“‘I have chosen you twelve disciples, judging you worthy of me,’ whom the Lord wished to be apostles, having judged them faithful, sending them into the world to the men on the earth, that they may know that there is one God, showing clearly what would take place by the faith of Christ” The Stromata, Book VI, Chapter VI

I turn that question around to you, ask you a pertinent question. If the ECFs (not just Clement) didn’t mean to say in reality that men become “gods,” why would they want to use such a strong, provocative, shocking, absurd terminology to describe whatever he would become? Why did they not use a milder, gentler, more palatable, less shocking terminology such as “saints” for example? Were they crazy? Were they stupid? Was it a joke? Didn’t they have a dictionary? Did they know what the word “god” means? Why call them “gods”?

amgid

 

[arieh0310]

amgid:

If the ECFs (not just Clement) didn’t mean to say in reality that men become “gods,” why would they want to use such a strong, provocative, shocking, absurd terminology to describe whatever he would become?

Because when a Catholic reads the terms with a Catholic understanding of deification/theosis the terms are not provocative. Just as Orientale Lumen was not provocative when John Paul II wrote, “In order for man to become God, the Word took on humanity” so the same can be said of Clement’s terminology. Many scolars and his contemporaries said that Clement lacked technical precision and makes no pretense to orderly exposition. It is easy, therefore, to misjudge him.

 

[amgid]

arieh0310:

Because when a Catholic reads the terms with a Catholic understanding of deification/theosis the terms are not provocative.

I am not discussing the ECFs in the context of “current” Catholic theological thinking (whatever that is). I am discussing it in the context of their own contemporary literature and thinking. I want to know what they meant by it when they said that men can become “gods”. If they meant something other than “gods” when they said “gods,” or if they had a special definition of “god” other than the common definition, then there should be something in their own extensive writings, or in the writings of their contemporaries, to tell us what that is. Why don’t you show us if you know?

Just as Orientale Lumen was not provocative when John Paul II wrote, “In order for man to become God, the Word took on humanity” so the same can be said of Clement’s terminology.

How should I know what JP2 meant by that? For all I know, he cold have meant by it the same thing that I mean by it. He is dead now; I can’t go and ask him. You are asking me to guess what the Pope is thinking again. That won’t get you anywhere.

Many scolars and his contemporaries said that Clement lacked technical precision and makes no pretense to orderly exposition. It is easy, therefore, to misjudge him.

Clement is not the only one that used that terminology. Pretty much all of them did. How about Origen? How about Atanasius? Both of them were extremely sophisticated and learned Christian thinkers. Did they also “lack technical precision”? Those were not the only ones either. Here is a quote from Irenaeus, not included in the previous list of quotes I had given:

Do we cast blame on him {God} because we were not **made gods ** from the beginning, but were at first created merely as men, and then later as gods? Although God has adopted this course out of his pure benevolence, that no one may charge him with discrimination or stinginess, he declares, “I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are the sons of the Most High.” (Irehaeus, Against Heretics, 4.38.)
What are you going to do about that? Did Irenaeus too “lack technical precision”? Notice especially, that Irenaeus is here actually using the same scripture that Jesus used to justify His own claim to divinity to the Jews, when they had challenged Him on that. He is in effect implying that we are all going to become gods as Jesus is. That is the implication. So what is your answer to that? If that is not enough, here is a quote from St. Augustine:

But he himself that justifies also defies, for by justifying he makes sons of God. “For he has given them power to become the sons of God” {John 1:12}. If then we have been made sons of God, we have also been made gods." (Augustine, On the psalms, 50.2.)
What are you going to do about that? This is almost word for word copied form LDS theology. LDS doctrine teaches that men have a potential to become divine by virtue of their divine parentage. Augustine agrees! Did he too “lack technical precision”? You are out on a limb I am afraid. You have got yourself into a no win situation. The more you dig this hole up, the deeper you find yourself into it.

amgid

 

[arieh0310]

I am glad you mentioned Augustine but displeased that you didn’t fully quote him. Here is a fuller quote:

"But He that justifieth doth Himself deify, in that by justifying He doth make sons of God. “For He hath given them power to become the sons of God.” If we have been made sons of God, we have also been made gods: but this is the effect of Grace adopting, not of nature generating. For the only Son of God, God, and one God with the Father, Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, was in the beginning the Word, and the Word with God, the Word God.

The rest that are made gods, are made by His own Grace, are not born of His Substance, that they should be the same as He, but that by favour they should come to Him, and be fellow-heirs with Christ."

If you would like to post some selective quotes from Athanasius, please do! He was the driving force behind the orthodox definition of the Trinity and I am sure we can find a way to clarify his statements.

As far as your consistent refusal to see my point about language used by JPII just read his encyclical (section 15) to get a flavor of what he means.

 

[arieh0310]

amgid:

Do we cast blame on him {God} because we were not **made gods ** from the beginning, but were at first created merely as men, and then later as gods? Although God has adopted this course out of his pure benevolence, that no one may charge him with discrimination or stinginess, he declares, “I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are the sons of the Most High.” (Irehaeus, Against Heretics, 4.38.)

You also didn’t finish the Irenaeus quote, let me do it for you:

“But since we could not sustain the power of divinity, He adds, “But ye shall die like men,” setting forth both truths – the kindness of His free gift, and our weakness, and also that we were possessed of power over ourselves.”

Again, we are called gods because we are lit not because we possess our own light. You should read all of Chapter 38 of Book IV because Irenaeus goes to great pains to show how wide the gulf is between us and God (even in our glorified state).

 

[papist1]

the Mormon Church has no early Church fathers, mothers, uncles, aunts, bishops, priests or anyone to look to for sound doctrine of theirs prior to their inception in the early 20th century.

They rely on very very selective views of the catholic Church writings in the early centuries. they take from the exception, not from the norm of teaching.

Theirs is truly a latter day wishful gospel which mixes just enough truth to attract, and the rest can be changed at their will, if their prophet deems so.

ludicrous at best.

 

[amgid]

arieh0310:

I am glad you mentioned Augustine but displeased that you didn’t fully quote him. Here is a fuller quote:

"But He that justifieth doth Himself deify, in that by justifying He doth make sons of God. “For He hath given them power to become the sons of God.” If we have been made sons of God, we have also been made gods: but this is the effect of Grace adopting, not of nature generating. For the only Son of God, God, and one God with the Father, Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, was in the beginning the Word, and the Word with God, the Word God.

I don’t know what you intended to demonstrate by that quote. This passage agrees with LDS doctrine. LDS don’t teach that we become gods by “nature generating”. It is by the grace of God. If deification was accomplished by “generation,” then we would already be gods. We wouldn’t need to “become” gods. As it is, we have the potential to become gods or devils, depending on what course of acton we take. Deification in LDS doctrine is synonymous with salvation. It represents the highest degree of salvation or exaltation in the kingdom of God. Man is deified to be saved. And salvation is a gift of God, accomplished through grace, by virtue of the Atonement. Neither does it mean that we become superior, equal to, or independent of the supreme Deity. He still remains our God, and we will still worship Him as God, and remain subject to Him. That is LDS doctrine.

The rest that are made gods, are made by His own Grace, are not born of His Substance, that they should be the same as He, but that by favour they should come to Him, and be fellow-heirs with Christ."

See the explanation given above. The sticking point in all of this is the use of the word “gods”. Why did they want to use the apparently blasphemous word “gods” to describe whatever it is they are describing? Why didn’t they find a less provocative word for it, if they meant something else by it? You dishonestly portray LDS as though they were committing some kind of blasphemy by saying that we become “gods,” but are willing to tolerate it when the ECFs say it. That is what you need to explain.

If you would like to post some selective quotes from Athanasius, please do! He was the driving force behind the orthodox definition of the Trinity and I am sure we can find a way to clarify his statements.

You can find the writings of Athanasius on the Internet like you can find the wirings of the rest of them. If you think I am misquoting Athanasius, either give us the correct quote, or stop your false accusations.

As far as your consistent refusal to see my point about language used by JPII just read his encyclical (section 15) to get a flavor of what he means.

I will have a look if I get a chance; but what JP2 thinks is not a priority, nor terribly relevant to the discussion. What is relevant is what the ECFs believed, in the context of their own writings and explanations.

You also didn’t finish the Irenaeus quote, let me do it for you:

“But since we could not sustain the power of divinity, He adds, “But ye shall die like men,” setting forth both truths – the kindness of His free gift, and our weakness, and also that we were possessed of power over ourselves.”

Again, we are called gods because we are lit not because we possess our own light.

This is entirely in agreement with LDS doctrine. We become gods by grace; it is “His free gift”. We don’t have “light” of our own. We are “lit;” we receive it as a gift from God. That is what LDS doctrine teaches. The sticking point here is, what “call” them gods in the first place? Couldn’t they find a less “blasphemous” word to use, if it is blasphemous indeed, as you claim?

amgid

 

[arieh0310]

amgid:

I don’t know what you intended to demonstrate by that quote. This passage agrees with LDS doctrine.

The LDS doctrine is an ocean apart from what Augustine taught, Joseph Smith once said:
*
"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. …I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil,…

It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, ...and that He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did; ...you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another,... from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings. and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power" (History of the Church, Vol.6, Ch.14, p.305-6)"*

The LDS church has clearly taught that we progress to godhood in the exact manner that the Father did and will become just as He is. However, what Augustine says is that we share in His glory. Augustine explicitly states that we “are not born of His Substance, that they should be the same as He”. He is saying that we will never be like Him because He is the uncreated “I am” and we cannot by nature become god. Later in this same exposition of Psalm 50 Augustine writes:

“‘But we know,’ he saith, 'that when He shall have appeared, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.’ The Only Son is like Him by birth, we like by seeing. For we are not like in such sort as He, who is the same as He is by whom He was begotten: for we are like, not equal: He, because equal, is therefore like.”

So, we are called and like God simply because we see Him as He is. Augustine sets some pretty stringent boundaries around what it means to be deified.

 

[gryskull]

mormon fool:

I will mention a few examples of ECFs gone awry:

• Tertullian unabashedly believed that God has a material body.
• Many ECF referred to Jesus as a second God: (Justin, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Origen, Novatian, Lactantius, Methodius, Gregory of Nyssa, and Eusebius).
• All pre-Nicene Fathers were subordinationalists.
• Some ANFs, a minority, believed in a pre-mortal existence. Origen’s views on this were later pronounced heretical.

Tertullian and origen are just early christian writers and not fathers of the church. Sorry, just had to but-in. I’m enjoying the thread though.

 

[amgid]

arieh0310:

The LDS doctrine is an ocean apart from what Augustine taught, Joseph Smith once said:

"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! …

That is not correct. LDS doctrine of deification is that which is given in LDS scripture, as quoted in post #33 of this thread. LDS define their own doctrine, you don’t. LDS leaders have clearly stated that LDS doctrine is that which is confirmed by LDS scripture. Gordon B. Hinckley has reputed the doctrine of divine progression taught in the King Follet discourse. It is not true LDS doctrine.

The LDS church has clearly taught that we progress to godhood in the exact manner that the Father did and will become just as He is.

Not correct. See above.

However, what Augustine says is that we share in His glory. Augustine explicitly states that we “are not born of His Substance, that they should be the same as He”. He is saying that we will never be like Him because He is the uncreated “I am” and we cannot by nature become god. Later in this same exposition of Psalm 50 Augustine writes:

“‘But we know,’ he saith, ‘that when He shall have appeared, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.’ The Only Son is like Him by birth, we like by seeing. For we are not like in such sort as He, who is the same as He is by whom He was begotten: for we are like, not equal: He, because equal, is therefore like.”

I agree that St. Augustine appears to be very shy and cagey, almost apologetic about the doctrine of deification. There is a reason for that. St. Augustine lived in the 5th century, by which time the corruption and distortion of true Christian doctrine had already advanced considerably. St Augustine knows that the doctrine of deification is true, because he has inherited it from earlier Christian theologians; but at the same time he appears to be very uncomfortable with the idea, and tries to find ways of getting round it. That is because by his time the Apostasy had already taken its toll of Christianity. Five centuries is a long time for things to go wrong. But the further you go back in time, you will find that the doctrine of deification taught by the ECFs becomes closer and closer to the LDS doctrine.

But I come back to you with the same question again and again: Why use the term “gods” at all? Why not use a less problematic terminology such as “angels” or “saints”? Why take the risk? What is the deal? Why “Gods”?

amgid

 

[majick275]

amgid:

Gordon B. Hinckley has reputed the doctrine of divine progression taught in the King Follet discourse. It is not true LDS doctrine.

When? His previously referenced talk in General Conference gave it a strong endorsement. his “waffling” in front of the media only stated that he didn’t know if it was taught or emphasized and that he didn’t know much about it. (but that he did understand the philosophy behind it) He later spoke to the LDS church to refute the “waffling” by saying that he did know what the church taught and that the members shouldn’t get their guidance from the media. that takes us back to his stated position in General conference. This position is reinforced by the current sunday school lesson manual (gospel doctrine). So either Hinckley is wrong and the Mormons that attend their churches Gospel Doctrine classes are being taught false doctrine OR the LDS doctrine on eternal progression is exactly the same as it has been presented here.