Eternal Progression and The Omnipotence of God

  • Thread starter Thread starter Insomniac
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

Insomniac

Guest
Does the doctrine of Eternal Progression contradict the idea that God is omnipotent, since it implies a plurality of gods, one of whom was God’s god, implying that there is at least on being out there that is superior to our Deity?
 
God will always be our God. Through exaltation, we became co-heirs with Christ, entering the Celestial Kingdom of Heaven.
 
"The Father is the one true God. This thing is certain: no one will ever ascend above Him; no one will ever replace Him. Nor will anything ever change the relationship that we, His literal offspring, have with Him. He is Eloheim, the Father. He is God. Of Him there is only one. We revere our Father and our God; we worship Him.

There is only one Christ, one Redeemer. We accept the divinity of the Only Begotten Son of God in the flesh. We accept the promise that we may become joint heirs with Him.

(Boyd K. Packer, “The Pattern of Our Parentage,” Ensign, Nov. 1984, p. 69.) "

It doesn’t contradict God’s omnipotence.
 
"The Father is the one true God. This thing is certain: no one will ever ascend above Him; no one will ever replace Him. Nor will anything ever change the relationship that we, His literal offspring, have with Him. He is Eloheim, the Father. He is God. Of Him there is only one. We revere our Father and our God; we worship Him.

There is only one Christ, one Redeemer. We accept the divinity of the Only Begotten Son of God in the flesh. We accept the promise that we may become joint heirs with Him.

(Boyd K. Packer, “The Pattern of Our Parentage,” Ensign, Nov. 1984, p. 69.) "

It doesn’t contradict God’s omnipotence.
What of your god’s god?
 
What of your god’s god?
There is much speculation as to that, and I admittedly am not as versed in that speculation as others. However, Latter-day Saints emphasize that God is our Heavenly, Eternal Father, and we are His children. Through exaltation, made possible by Jesus Christ, we may become more like Him, and become joint-heirs with Christ. This does not diminish the omnipotence of God.
 
What of your god’s god?
Like LDSGuy I am not well versed in this speculation either. I know this speculation stems from the statement “As man is God once was; As God is, man may be” given by Lorenzo Snow. I also know that he was teaching the principle that as children of God we have the potential to become like God the Father just as Christ has become like God the Father. I believe that he was inferring that God progressed to his current state and we like him have a similar potential. However, unlike him we require a mediator, Jesus Christ to reach that potential.
 
Does the doctrine of Eternal Progression contradict the idea that God is omnipotent, since it implies a plurality of gods, one of whom was God’s god, implying that there is at least on being out there that is superior to our Deity?
We don’t have all the answers. Athanasius of Alexandria had something to say about deification but never explained what he knew about it. He wrote “God became human so humans would become gods” (On the Incarnation 54:3, PG 25:192B). Maximus the Confessor said “*A sure warrant for looking forward with hope to deification of human nature is provided by the incarnation of God, which makes man god to the same degree as God Himself became man.” and “let us become the image of the one whole God, bearing nothing earthly in ourselves, so that we may consort with God and become gods, receiving from God our existence as gods.” * but didn’t tell us everything he knew. Psalms 82:1,6-7, 1 John 3:1-3, 2 Peter 1:2-4, Phillipians 2:5-6, Romans 8:15-17, and Revelation 21:7 all talk about it. Genesis 3:22 indicates the belief has been around since before the earth was first populated. There is a lot of bible talk about it but alas nothing about if God the Father had a father. The Mormons don’t say anything about it either other than a few opinions from long dead leaders but there is nothing that is considered doctrine.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top