Our PERSONAL Best to Best.

[TOmNossor]

On our personal best:

There are some things about the Catholic Church that I have not seen systematically developed. There are some things about the Catholic Church that have been systematically developed that I KNOW are mistaken to the extent I couldn’t believe them.

We must know God to be saved. There are those who formulate “Baptism of Desire” as desiring to follow God without actually knowing God. I have suggested in the past, and I would believe were I Catholic that those who are saved under the “Baptism of Desire” will be purged of ignorance in Purgatory. Purgatory is certainly a place of purging, but in Catholic thought is seldom thought of a place of learning. I believe there is room to see ignorance of God purged in Purgatory. Unless shown why I couldn’t believe this, I would believe this as a Catholic.

The Eastern Orthodox Church has worked hard to develop what men becoming gods means in light of Nicea AND the oneness of God. I have been told that there are one or two Catholic books in French that address this, but nothing in English. There is certainly nothing definitive from any council.

Summa Theologica is a brilliant systematic theology. I cannot believe that God is as Aquinas claimed Him to be. My interactions with God are more rich than those allowed by the understanding of God formulated by Aquinas IMO. My perception of who God is, is far greater IMO than the God formulated by Aquinas. While Summa Theologica is very important in Catholic thought there is freedom to disagree. Molina is a great example (and I would be more inclined to embrace Molina’s ideas rather than Aquinas’, but this area is not my above concern).

It would be quite easy to declare that a Catholic believes what is taught in Summa Theologica, or a Catholic cannot resolve the creator/creature dichotomy and deification, or a Catholic believes that men are united with God in ignorance, or … and then say Catholicism is not acceptable to me. But, a Catholic is not required to embrace all of Summa Theologica, there are ideas/mysteries that could be formulated to explain deification in Catholic thought, and some simple Purgatory ideas may resolve the “united in ignorance” concern. I choose not to declare Catholicism “fatally flawed” merely because of the above things as a part of comparing the best to the best.

I can imagine that most folks think dismissing much of Summa Theologica is horrible. Some might even suggest I cannot do this and be Catholic, but my best understanding of things is that I can. And it would be required to align who I believe God has lead me to become and Catholicism.
I suggest that in comparing best to best I am willing to be in communion with a majority of people who explicitly or implicitly accept Summa Theologica. Catholic DOGMA is not strictly determined by large majorities so I do not feel I can dismiss Catholicism because of flaws in Summa Theologica and its prominence in both ancient and modern thought and still be comparing best to best for me.

Charity, TOm

 

[arieh0310]

TOmNossor:

The Eastern Orthodox Church has worked hard to develop what men becoming gods means in light of Nicea AND the oneness of God. I have been told that there are one or two Catholic books in French that address this, but nothing in English. There is certainly nothing definitive from any council.

I don’t know about books solely devoted to this subject, but I think the doctrine is fairly fleshed out:

newadvent.org/cathen/01148a.htm
newadvent.org/cathen/09703a.htm
newadvent.org/cathen/12714a.htm
Vatican
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/MAN_BECO.htm

 

[PaulDupre]

TOmNossor:

We must know God to be saved. There are those who formulate “Baptism of Desire” as desiring to follow God without actually knowing God. I have suggested in the past, and I would believe were I Catholic that those who are saved under the “Baptism of Desire” will be purged of ignorance in Purgatory. Purgatory is certainly a place of purging, but in Catholic thought is seldom thought of a place of learning. I believe there is room to see ignorance of God purged in Purgatory. Unless shown why I couldn’t believe this, I would believe this as a Catholic.

Hi Tom,
I think you’re really mixed up as to the meaning of “baptism by desire”. It has nothing to do with ignorance and in fact belies the notion:

Say you’ve been in RCIA for over a year and you are scheduled to be baptized tonight. You are really looking forward to it and believe with all your heart that it is truly a sacrament and will wash away all sin and make you a child of God.

On the way to the church, you die in a terrible auto accident and so do not undergo actual baptism. You have been baptized by desire - your desire to be baptized. You would not have desired baptism unless you accepted and understood what baptism is and that the grace and merits of Jesus make baptism possible.

Baptism by desire is the Church’s way of phrasing the idea that God sees into our hearts and is wonderfully merciful. For Him, our sincere desire and efforts to be baptized is the same as if we actually do it. (Think of Abraham sacrificing Isaac - he was not actually permitted to do it, but God rewarded him for it all the same). Of course, in the normal course of events, our desire and efforts lead us to actually be baptized. Baptism by desire is extremely rare, and usually occurs in the kind of scenario I’ve given here.

What’s this ignorance stuff?

God love you,
Paul

 

[TOmNossor]

arieh0310:

I don’t know about books solely devoted to this subject, but I think the doctrine is fairly fleshed out:

newadvent.org/cathen/01148a.htm
newadvent.org/cathen/09703a.htm
newadvent.org/cathen/12714a.htm
Vatican
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/MAN_BECO.htm

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01148a.htm

Says Scheeben went too far. I actually much prefer Scheeben to the message of this link, but I guess I would.

But in Scheeben (or any of the links you sent me to) the term “gods” when mentioned associated with what humans may become, is never explained in light of the oneness of God or the creator/creature dichotomy (which presumably defines what it is to be God and not God). This despite the common use of the term “gods” by the ECF AND the use of the term “gods” in the modern Catechism.

I have seen a few Catholics touch upon this subject, but they have leaned upon EO thought which after Gregory Palamas asserted that the deified would participate in God’s energies but never in his essence. Indeed God’s essence is un-experience-able in EO thought. But in Catholic thought God’s essence is part of the beatific vision, so it seems that Catholics cannot quite follow EOs.

I am really the congealer of ideas in the above, but I am pretty comfortable with my source.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

arieh0310:

I don’t know about books solely devoted to this subject, but I think the doctrine is fairly fleshed out:

newadvent.org/cathen/01148a.htm
newadvent.org/cathen/09703a.htm
newadvent.org/cathen/12714a.htm
Vatican
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/MAN_BECO.htm

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01148a.htm

Says Scheeben went too far. I actually much prefer Scheeben to the message of this link, but I guess I would.

But in Scheeben (or any of the links you sent me to) the term “gods” when mentioned associated with what humans may become, is never explained in light of the oneness of God or the creator/creature dichotomy (which presumably defines what it is to be God and not God). This despite the common use of the term “gods” by the ECF AND the use of the term “gods” in the modern Catechism.

I have seen a few Catholics touch upon this subject, but they have leaned upon EO thought which after Gregory Palamas asserted that the deified would participate in God’s energies but never in his essence. Indeed God’s essence is un-experience-able in EO thought. But in Catholic thought God’s essence is part of the beatific vision, so it seems that Catholics cannot quite follow EOs.

I am really the congealer of ideas in the above, but I am pretty comfortable with my source.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

PaulDupre:

Hi Tom,
I think you’re really mixed up as to the meaning of “baptism by desire”. It has nothing to do with ignorance and in fact belies the notion:

Say you’ve been in RCIA for over a year and you are scheduled to be baptized tonight. You are really looking forward to it and believe with all your heart that it is truly a sacrament and will wash away all sin and make you a child of God.

On the way to the church, you die in a terrible auto accident and so do not undergo actual baptism. You have been baptized by desire - your desire to be baptized. You would not have desired baptism unless you accepted and understood what baptism is and that the grace and merits of Jesus make baptism possible.

Baptism by desire is the Church’s way of phrasing the idea that God sees into our hearts and is wonderfully merciful. For Him, our sincere desire and efforts to be baptized is the same as if we actually do it. (Think of Abraham sacrificing Isaac - he was not actually permitted to do it, but God rewarded him for it all the same). Of course, in the normal course of events, our desire and efforts lead us to actually be baptized. Baptism by desire is extremely rare, and usually occurs in the kind of scenario I’ve given here.

What’s this ignorance stuff?

God love you,
Paul

In the past what you explained above is in fact what was originally “Baptism of Desire.” When Augustine does not damn the unBaptized Catechumen to hell (which he does in some of his writings) he allows for the saving of the unBaptized Catechumen, but he never gives any suggestion that salvation is available to the Japanese mountain man who never heard of Christ.

I guess more appropriately I should have said the salvation of the “Invincibly Ignorant.” I am fairly certain that I am in Catholic company when I suggest that the “Invincibly Ignorant” may be saved through the “Baptism of Desire,” but as I reflect on this view, it may have largely been me who pieced it together like this.

In any case, the “Invincibly Ignorant” are not without hope for salvation. I should have just said they will receive the “purging of ignorance” in Purgatory.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

I chose my specific examples because I thought they were interesting. As such, discussing them is interesting too.

But, the message of the thread is still that to truly compare two religions you need to understand them well enough to not only know what 90% of their adherents embrace, but to know what it is allowable for you to believe. If the way is narrow then the 90% solution may not be the best available to us.

Charity, TOm

 

[mormon_fool]

PaulDupre:

Baptism by desire is the Church’s way of phrasing the idea that God sees into our hearts and is wonderfully merciful. For Him, our sincere desire and efforts to be baptized is the same as if we actually do it. (Think of Abraham sacrificing Isaac - he was not actually permitted to do it, but God rewarded him for it all the same). Of course, in the normal course of events, our desire and efforts lead us to actually be baptized. Baptism by desire is extremely rare, and usually occurs in the kind of scenario I’ve given here.

Paul,

Excellent post. I love it when the discussion turns to Catholic beliefs and the faithful can teach the rest of us learners. Well, at least, me anyway. Your disctinctions and TOm’s clarifications help me understand the doctrine better. Do you have a good source supporting your presentation? You are good at coming up with quotes from Mormon leaders, so I imagine you could put something together for us from Catholic theologians.

Are you a little worried when you deconstruct TOm’s personal best understanding of Catholicism? I can see where your position leads to “boundary maintenance”, but this also has a drawback of keeping people who are on the wrong side of the fence to stay there. What do you think?

later,
fool

 

[arieh0310]

TOmNossor:

I have seen a few Catholics touch upon this subject, but they have leaned upon EO thought which after Gregory Palamas asserted that the deified would participate in God’s energies but never in his essence. Indeed God’s essence is un-experience-able in EO thought. But in Catholic thought God’s essence is part of the beatific vision, so it seems that Catholics cannot quite follow EOs.

Most of the debate between EO and RCC is rhetorical. What RCC defines as engergies the EO defines as essence. Ask any EO or RCC if they will by nature become “god” and the answer will be an unequivacal “no”. When you read ECF writings in whole and in context you will promptly discover the same. All of Christian history has proclaimed that you will share in many attributes of God’s glory, just as everything in the universe reflects his majesty in some way. Everything come from Him and Him alone, the one and only Eternal Being.

 

[TOmNossor]

arieh0310:

Most of the debate between EO and RCC is rhetorical. What RCC defines as engergies the EO defines as essence.

I disagree. The filoque clause is a real not rhetorical difference. Concerning Essence and Energies I have never seen anyone assert that RCC energies = EO essence, but RCC believe that the Beatific Vision includes both Essence and Energies so there is no solution in the above assertion.

arieh0310:

Ask any EO or RCC if they will by nature become “god” and the answer will be an unequivacal “no”.

“Any” is too strong here, but I agree most will say this. The EOs are being faithful to the teachings of Gregory Palamas.

arieh0310:

Ask any EO or RCC if they will by nature become “god” and the answer will be an unequivacal “no”. When you read ECF writings in whole and in context you will promptly discover the same.

I strongly believe you are mistaken about the ECFs.

I can provide dozens of quotes where the ECF say men may become “gods” or call deified men “gods.”

There is a singular difference between the basic and binding components of the LDS view of deification and the ECFs view of deification AND it is not what you just mentioned. The ontological starting point in LDS thought is different than the ontological starting point in all ECF after Justin Martyr (Justin Martyr and Clement of Rome did not elaborate upon what their rejection of creation ex nihilo meant with respect to this. If I remember correctly Justin Martyr may have some words on the ontological separation, but I am not sure either way). This starting point is the difference. Do the ECF believe that God has the power to bridge the ontological divide when He deifies? I say yes could an omnipotent God be unable to do this? Do they believe that God will do this? If they do not, I am unaware of where they explain this.

I say that in context the ECF (before Augustine and I am not sure if Augustine does) NEVER express that deified man will not become in very nature gods. I have regularly seen your assertion concerning the ECF and I have provided this challenge, but I have not seen it taken up. Show me were the ECF compromise our deification by saying that we will not have our natures deified. There is a ton of literature and I could be incorrect, but I have not found this to be the case.

I think I will leave this here and see if you want to show me what you assert. I have not read every word available (probably not even half), but I have not found what you are asserting to be true.

Charity, TOm

 

[arieh0310]

TOmNossor:

I say that in context the ECF (before Augustine and I am not sure if Augustine does) NEVER express that deified man will not become in very nature gods. I have regularly seen your assertion concerning the ECF and I have provided this challenge, but I have not seen it taken up. Show me were the ECF compromise our deification by saying that we will not have our natures deified. There is a ton of literature and I could be incorrect, but I have not found this to be the case.

St Augustine, Tractates on the Gospel of John:
9. But see what answer the Lord gave to their dull apprehension. He saw that they could not bear the brilliance of the truth, and He tempered it with words. “Is it not written in your law,” that is, as given to you, “that I said, Ye are gods?” And the Lord called all the Scriptures generally, the law: although elsewhere He speaks more definitely of the law, distinguishing it from the prophets; as it is said, “The law and the prophets were until John;” and “On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” Sometimes, however, He divided the same Scriptures into three parts, as where He saith, “All things must be fulfilled which were written in the law, and the prophets, and the psalms, concerning me.” But now He includes the psalms also under the name of the law, where it is written, “I said, Ye are gods. If He calleth them gods, to whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken: say ye of Him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world. Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?” If the word of God came to men, that they might be called gods, how can the very Word of God, who is with God, be otherwise than God? If by the word of God men become gods, if by fellowship they become gods, can He by whom they have fellowship not be God? If lights which are lit are gods,is the light which enlighteneth not God? If through being warmed in a way by saving fire they are constituted gods, is He who gives them the warmth other than God? Thou approachest the light and art enlightened, and numbered among the sons of God; if thou withdrawest from the light, thou fallest into obscurity, and art accounted in darkness; but that light approacheth not, because it never recedeth from itself. If, then, the word of God maketh you gods, how can the Word of God be otherwise than God? Therefore did the Father sanctify His Son, and send Him into the world. Perhaps some one may be saying: If the Father sanctified Him, was there then a time when He was not sanctified? He sanctified in the same way as He begat Him. For in the act of begetting He gave Him the power to be holy, because He begat Him in holiness. For if that which is sanctified was unholy before, bow can we say to God the Father, “Hallowed be Thy name”?

 

[arieh0310]

Justin Martyr, Hortatory address to the Greeks:

CHAPTER XXI.–THE NAMELESSNESS OF GOD.

For God cannot be called by any proper name, for names are given to mark out and distinguish their subject-matters, because these are many and diverse; but neither did any one exist before God who could give Him a name, nor did He Himself think it fight to name Himself, seeing that He is one and unique, as He Himself also by His own prophets testifies, when He says, “I God am the first,” and after this, “And beside me there is no other God.” On this account, then, as I before said, God did not, when He sent Moses to the Hebrews, mention any name, but by a participle He mystically teaches them that He is the one and only God. “For,” says He; “I am the Being;” manifestly contrasting Himself, “the Being,” with those who are not, that those who had hitherto been deceived might see that they were attaching themselves, not to beings, but to those who had no being. Since, therefore, God knew that the first men remembered the old delusion of their forefathers, whereby the misanthropic demon contrived to deceive them when he said to them, “If ye obey me in transgressing the commandment of God, ye shall be as gods,” calling those gods which had no being, in order that men, supposing that there were other gods in existence, might believe that they themselves could become gods. On this account He said to Moses, “I am the Being,” that by the participle “being” He might teach the difference between God who is and those who are not. Men, therefore, having been duped by the deceiving demon, and having dared to disobey God, were cast out of Paradise, remembering the name of gods, but no longer being taught by God that there are no other gods. For it was not just that they who did not keep the first commandment, which it was easy to keep, should any longer be taught, but should rather be driven to just punishment. Being therefore banished from Paradise, and thinking that they were expelled on account of their disobedience only, not knowing that it was also because they had believed in the existence of gods which did not exist, they gave the name of gods even to the men who were afterwards born of themselves. This first false fancy, therefore, concerning gods, had its origin with the father of lies. God, therefore, knowing that the false opinion about the plurality of gods was burdening the soul of man like some disease, and wishing to remove and eradicate it, appeared first to Moses, and said to him, “I am He who is.” For it was necessary, I think, that he who was to be the ruler and leader of the Hebrew people should first of all know the living God. Wherefore, having appeared to him first, as it was possible for God to appear to a man, He said to him, “I am He who is;” then, being about to send him to the Hebrews, He further orders him to say, “He who is hath sent me to you.”

 

[TOmNossor]

Arieh0310,
You provided me with two quotes. One was from Justin Martyr and one from Augustine. I will guess that you are responding to the following.

(Justin Martyr and Clement of Rome did not elaborate upon what their rejection of creation ex nihilo meant with respect to this. If I remember correctly Justin Martyr may have some words on the ontological separation, but I am not sure either way).

You quote of Justin is along the lines of what I thought Justin might have said about ontological separation. I do not suggest that Justin has what I consider to be the best LDS understanding of our status relative to God as he speaks, but I believe that the exercise of our will and our being in this respect is CONTINGENT upon God. The existence of our will and our being in this respect is eternal.
There is nothing in Justin that explains how we can “become gods.”

TOm:

I say that in context the ECF (before Augustine and I am not sure if Augustine does) NEVER express that deified man will not become in very nature gods.

You quoted AUGUSTINE who said:

Augustine:
If lights which are lit are gods,is the light which enlighteneth not God? If through being warmed in a way by saving fire they are constituted gods, is He who gives them the warmth other than God?
I think this is one of the best expressions of deification through the communication of energies. I do not see where Augustine denies the communication of essence like Palamas does and would, do you? In any case, I am still of the opinion that Augustine MIGHT see deification as Palamas did, but others (non-LDS) more informed than me would not.

You do agree that my challenge still stands though, don’t you?
Here are a few of the quotes that you might place in context that could show your “not deified in nature” to be true. I still do not believe you are correct.
Irenaeus - Adv. Her. 3.6.1 “God stood in the in the congregation of the gods, He judges among the gods.” He [here] refers to the Father and the Son, and those who have received the adoption; but these are the Church. (ANF 1.419).
Irenaeus - Adv. Her. 4.39.2 How, then, shall he be a God, who has not as yet been made a man? Or how can he be perfect who was but lately created? How, again can he be immortal, who in his mortal nature did not obey his Maker? For it must be that thou, at the outset, shouldest hold the rank of a man, and then afterwards partake of the glory of God.(ANF 1.522-523).
Theophilus - To Autolycus 27 Was man made by nature mortal? Certainly not. Was he, then, immortal? Neither do we affirm this. …He was by nature neither mortal nor immortal. For if He had made him immortal from the beginning, He would have made him God. … keeping the commandment of God, he should receive as a reward from Him immortality, and should become God.(ANF 2.105).
Tertullian - Adv. Marcion 25 Now, although Adam was by reason of his condition under law subject to death, yet was hope preserved to him by the Lord’s saying, “Behold, Adam is become as one of us;” that is, in consequence of the future taking of the man into the divine nature.(ANF 3.317).
Tertullian - Adv. Hermogenes 5 Well, then, you say, we ourselves at that rate possess nothing of God. But indeed we do, and shall continue to do—only it is from Him that we receive it, and not from ourselves. For we shall be even gods, if we shall deserve to be among those of whom He declared, “I have said, Ye are gods,” and “God standeth in the congregation of the gods.” But this comes of His own grace, not from any property in us, because it is He alone who can make gods. (ANF 3.480).
Hippolytus - Discourse on the Holy Theophany 8 If, therefore, man has become immortal, he will also be God. And if he is made God by water and the Holy Spirit after the regeneration of the laver he is found to be also joint-heir with Christ after the resurrection from the dead.(ANF 5.236).

I can provide more if you like.
Charity, TOm

 

[arieh0310]

TOm,

I thought it clear in the Augustine quote that when we are termed “gods” it is an totally different sense than The True God. We are given the word and called gods, He is the Word and is God; we are lit, He is the Light; we radiate warmth, He is Warmth, etc. We simply reflect His glory like the moon reflects the sun.

I don’t have time to go into all your other quotes (taking off for the weekend) but it is easy to reconcile your copy/paste quotes. For example your quote from Irenaeus - Adv. Her. 3.6.1, if you keep reading to 3.6.4:

“Wherefore I do also call upon thee, LORD God of Abraham, and God of Isaac, and God of Jacob and Israel, who art the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the God who, through the abundance of Thy mercy, hast had a favour towards us, that we should know Thee, who hast made heaven and earth, who rulest over all, who art the only and the true God, above whom there is none other God; grant, by our Lord Jesus Christ, the governing power of the Holy Spirit; give to every reader of this book to know Thee,** that Thou art God alone**, to be strengthened in Thee, and to avoid every heretical, and godless, and impious doctrine.”

Then you quote Irenaeus - Adv. Her. 4.39.2 however the title of this chapter is “Man is endowed with the faculty of distinguishing good and evil; so that, without compulsion, he has the power, by his own will and choice, to perform God’s commandments, by doing which he avoids the evils prepared for the rebellious.” Which refers to Gen.3 when God said that man has become like one of us, knowing good from evil. Again we are just partaking in his divine attributes.

You should read all of “Against Heresies” because you will come across passages such as 2.30.9:
“He is the Former, He the Builder, He the Discoverer, He the Creator,** He the Lord of all; and there is no one besides Him, or above Him, neither has He any mother, as they falsely ascribe to Him; nor is there a second God,** as Marcion has imagined; nor is there a Pleroma of thirty Aeons, which has been shown a vain supposition; nor is there any such being as Bythus or Proarche; nor are there a series of heavens; nor is there a virginal light, nor an unnameable Aeon, nor, in fact, any one of those things which are madly dreamt of by these, and by all the heretics. But there is one only God, the Creator – He who is above every Principality, and Power, and Dominion, and Virtue: He is Father, He is God, He the Founder, He the Maker, He the Creator, who made those things by Himself, that is, through His Word and His Wisdom – heaven and earth, and the seas, and all things that are in them”

That all the time I have though…

 

[TOmNossor]

arieh0310:

I thought it clear in the Augustine quote that when we are termed “gods” it is an totally different sence than The True God. We are given the word and called gods, He is the Word and is God; we are lit, He is the Light; we radiate warmth, He is Warmth, etc. We simply reflect His glory like the moon reflects the sun.

Clear, systematic, well defined? No. Pointing toward your view? Yes. From “an ECF before Augustine?” No, not at all.

"Wherefore I do also call upon thee, LORD God of Abraham, and God of Isaac, and God of Jacob and Israel, who art the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the God who, through the abundance of Thy mercy, hast had a favour towards us, that we should know Thee, who hast made heaven and earth, who rulest over all, who art the only and the true God, above whom there is none other God

; grant, by our Lord Jesus Christ, the governing power of the Holy Spirit; give to every reader of this book to know Thee,** that Thou art God alone**, to be strengthened in Thee, and to avoid every heretical, and godless, and impious doctrine."

Then you quote Irenaeus - Adv. Her. 4.39.2 however the title of this chapter is “Man is endowed with the faculty of distinguishing good and evil; so that, without compulsion, he has the power, by his own will and choice, to perform God’s commandments, by doing which he avoids the evils prepared for the rebellious.” Which refers to Gen.3 when God said that man has become like one of us, knowing good from evil. Again we are just partaking in his divine attributes.

That there is one God and that there is no God above or beside God is solid LDS and Catholic theology (these statements come directly from the Bible and therefore must be included in ones understanding of truth if one accepts the Bible and we all do). This is not the issue. The question is how does the deification of man fit into this truth. Gregory Palamas answered this for the EO Christians (and despite the fact that they recognize no council since the 7th this has become a solid and generally unquestioned part of EO thought). I believe Blake Ostler’s answer is the most sophisticated I have seen among LDS (Eugene England, B.H. Roberts, Orsen Pratt, John A. Widsoe have presented other ideas that Blake draws upon). I do not know of a comparable answer among the Catholic Church (other than borrowing from the EO which I believe is unacceptable based on essence/energies distinctions). But Irenaeus maintains that men can become gods. He maintains that those called gods include those who receive the adoption. And he maintains that there is One God. These are all solid LDS and Catholic and EO ideas. But no one before Augustine walks with Gregory Palamas and this is what I have and continue to assert.

BTW, one of the most troubling points for your position is that the Bible does not say that we are to become "partakers of the divine ATTRIBUTES,” but rather “partakers of the divine NATURE.”

Charity, TOm

 

[majick275]

TOmNossor:

That there is one God and that there is no God above or beside God is solid LDS and Catholic theology (these statements come directly from the Bible and therefore must be included in ones understanding of truth if one accepts the Bible and we all do). This is not the issue.

I have to challenge this. I finde a plethora of evidence regarding plurality of Gods and etrnal progression that indicates that it NOT LDS doctrine, much less solid, that there is one God only or that there is no other god beside him or above him. While Catholics believe in the Bible, LDS only believe in it so far as it is translated correctly. (and even then won’t commit to JST) Is not heavenly Father’s father (under whose guidance he worked out his salvation in fear and trembling) above him? Are not his brothers who also achieved exaltation Gods beside him in their own domains? That there is only one god for US on THIS earth may be solid LDS doctrine but the rest most certainly is NOT! I think this IS the issue as this appears to be the most significant difference in dogma between Catholics and LDS.

 

[TOmNossor]

majick275:

I have to challenge this.

I encourage you to continue to challenge my understanding. This is important.

majick275:

I finde a plethora of evidence regarding plurality of Gods and etrnal progression that indicates that it NOT LDS doctrine, much less solid, that there is one God only or that there is no other god beside him or above him.

There is certainly a great deal of evidence that advocates a “plurality of Gods.” There is evidence for this however in the ECF (a plethora even), the modern CCC, and the Bible. The question is HOW do we resolve this conflict.

There is certainly evidence for God the Father’s “eternal progression” and evidence for a “god beside him” and “above him” in LDS writing. But unless these are righted/aligned with D&C 20:17, “There is a God in heaven who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God…” AND the BOA (Chapt 3 and 4 explain that God the Father is supreme) AND the Bible (we will get to this shortly) they MUST be mere pre-critical statements and/or potentially untrue personal opinions.

Eugene England (who was asked to leave BYU for his controversial teachings) attempted to align all of the above. He preserved the idea of God’s eternal progression and a God above God, but I do not espouse his position personally.

Ultimately, the bottom line is that D&C20:17 AND the BOA AND the Bible are the source of binding doctrine for the CoJCoLDS. Blake Ostler and Eugene England attempt to align the Lorenzo Snow Couplet and the KFD with that which is binding LDS doctrine. Other LDS may pre-critically believe this or that, but when shown to be in conflict with the scripture they should IMO incorporate the binding scriptures into their understanding. Some LDS may choose to simply declare they do not know if the non-canonical teachings of the couplet and the KFD are true. Others may come to solution different than Ostler and England, but all of these solution are speculation.

More later tonight I hope.

Charity, TOm

 

[majick275]

and yet we see that same term “from everlasting to everlasting” applied to mortals of this earth who achieve exaltation.

So I certainly do not see any scriptural “workarounds” for this LDS doctrine.

 

[TOmNossor]

majick:

While Catholics believe in the Bible, LDS only believe in it so far as it is translated correctly. (and even then won’t commit to JST)

I personally advocate what I call “functional inerrancy.” I know of very few times any LDS has evoked, “so far as it is translated correctly” to explain any LDS belief. I have never excused myself from aligning my belief with the Bible, I do not intend to, AND even in light of the ever emerging picture from modern scholarship of “lack of inerrancy,” I encourage LDS (apologists and not) to embrace a “functional inerrancy.” The problem with anything else is that there has never been an authoritative explanation of what is and what is not translated correctly in the Bible. Until this happens, the Bible (not the JST, not the DSS) has been accepted by common consent and is binding upon LDS.
I think had things been different there might have been commitment to the JST, but I am glad to see that you and I agree. I see two reasons for this. Joseph Smith did not get a chance to review and firmly establish the JST. And perhaps more importantly the Bible is sufficient and an excellent common point for discussion.
I think the oneness of God is in the BOM, the supremacy of the Father is in the BOA, and the eternality of God is in the D&C. How LDS choose to frame “eternal progression” within these bounds is fine, but to neglect any is to speak in error or in absence of thorough elaboration.

majick275:

Is not heavenly Father’s father (under whose guidance he worked out his salvation in fear and trembling) above him? Are not his brothers who also achieved exaltation Gods beside him in their own domains?

If it were binding upon LDS to believe that Heavenly Father has a Father, then it seems that Eugene England’s thoughts or others would be necessary to explain how this could be. Blake Ostler on the other hand shows that the KFD and the Snow couplet are quite compatible with the binding scriptures and in so doing does not point to a God the Father above our Heavenly Father.
All of this is speculation though. We just do not know IF the Snow couplet or the KFD contain truth OR exactly how to align this truth IF it exists. With our prophet saying that we do not know much about this AND with its absence from the church experience of most LDS (certainly within the last 10+years) it is quite possible to reject it outright.
Don’t get me wrong. I do not deny that God the Father’s eternal progression has been taught. I do not deny that it has been taught by LDS general authorities. I do not deny that it has been believed by many/most of the church in the past. I merely state that which is sustained by common consent is binding upon LDS and that which is not sustained by common consent is not binding. This teaching has never been sustained by common consent. This teaching is specifically being framed as less understood by modern leaders. And this teaching is not being taught.
My personal belief is that the Snow Couplet and the KFD are not so much in error as they are misunderstood, but this of course involves speculation on my part.
We should remember that St. Irenaeus speaks of the council of Gods. He even cautions folks not to speculate upon if there is a God above God.
majick:

That there is only one god for US on THIS earth may be solid LDS doctrine but the rest most certainly is NOT! I think this IS the issue as this appears to be the most significant difference in dogma between Catholics and LDS.

For me this is certainly not the issue. I personally do not see room for the “for US on THIS earth” qualification in light of the BOA. I would suggest that if you find solutions such as “for US on THIS earth” or Eugene England’s solution problematic then YOUR PERSONAL Best to Best comparison is not had through incorporating this idea into LDS theology.
As I stated at the beginning of this thread, I find the view of God advocated by Summa Theologica to be antithetical to the God that I in fact KNOW. It would be easy to say that the majority of Catholics either knowledgably or unknowledgably accept the Aquinas’ ideas, therefore the whole church is in error and could not be true. But there are Catholics who reject some of the ideas in Summa Theologica and yet are in full communion with the Thomists. Rejecting Catholicism because Aquinas is prevalent is too hasty.
Charity, TOm

 

[PaulDupre]

TOmNossor:

We should remember that St. Irenaeus speaks of the council of Gods. He even cautions folks not to speculate upon if there is a God above God.

I’d like to look this up. Citation please.
Paul