The ECFs must be crazy

[arieh0310]

The Early Church Fathers must be schizophrenic if you look at the proof texts given by the latest batch of Mormon apologetics. In the same way that Scripture passages are ripped out of context and perverted to prove heretical beliefs, the writings of the ECFs are being touted as evidence of LDS beliefs in the early Church. It has been asserted that Justin, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Origen, Novatian, Lactantius, Methodius, Gregory of Nyssa, and Eusebius all believed that Christ was a second God, however we find quotes such as:

Tertullian, Against Praxeas, Chapter 13: “That there are, however, two Gods or two Lords, is a statement which at no time proceeds out of our mouth”

Origen, Against Celsus, Book II, Chapter 40: “but imagine those to be most religious who err regarding God, and who apply to everything rather than to God the ineradicable idea of Him (which is implanted in the human mind), and especially when they eagerly rush to destroy those who have yielded themselves up with their whole soul (even unto death), to the clear evidence of one God who is over all things” And Chapter 76: “But Christians, who know only one God”

Novatian, On The Trinity, Chapter 30: “Christ is God also, in such a way as that it may not militate against the truth of Scripture; nor yet against our faith, how there is declared to be one God by the Scriptures, and how it is held and believed by us.”

Hippolytus, Against Noetus, Section 3: “Yet, though Noetus does not understand the truth, the Scriptures are not at once to be repudiated. For who will not say that there is one God? Yet he will not on that account deny the economy (i.e., the number and disposition of persons in the Trinity)”

Lactantius, Divine Institutes, Book II, Chapter 9: “It is perfect wisdom in man, if he knows that there is but one God, and that all things were made by Him.”

Eusebius, Oration in Praise of Constantine, Chapter 3: “Hence there is one God, and not two, or three, or more: for to assert a plurality of gods is plainly to deny the being of God at all.”

Gregory of Nyssa, On “Not Three Gods”: “Therefore we must confess one God, according to the testimony of Scripture”

Justin Martyr, On the Sole Government of God, Chapter 2: “There is one God, in truth there is but one”

Just as Scripture interprets Scripture, so does Novatian interpret Novatian, Origen interpret Origen, etc. Mormon attempts to pull LDS doctrines out of ECF writings may be novel and clever but in the end are intellectually dishonest.

 

[amgid]

arieh0310:

The Early Church Fathers must be schizophrenic if you look at the proof texts given by the latest batch of Mormon apologetics.

You tell me!

In the same way that Scripture passages are ripped out of context and perverted to prove heretical beliefs, the writings of the ECFs are being touted as evidence of LDS beliefs in the early Church. It has been asserted that Justin, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Origen, Novatian, Lactantius, Methodius, Gregory of Nyssa, and Eusebius all believed that Christ was a second God, however we find quotes such as:

So you reckon the ECFs must be nuts because they believed in one God, and in lots of gods at the same time? Don’t worry, they are in good company. LDS believe the same:

1 Nephi 13:

41 And they must come according to the words which shall be established by the mouth of the Lamb;… for there is one God and one Shepherd over all the earth.

Alma 11:

28 Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God?

29 And he answered, No.

D&C 20:

28 Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen.

Moses 1:

6 And I have a work for thee, Moses, my son; and thou art in the similitude of mine Only Begotten; and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the Savior, for he is full of grace and truth; but there is no God beside me, and all things are present with me, for I know them all.

Just as Scripture interprets Scripture, so does Novatian interpret Novatian, Origen interpret Origen, etc. Mormon attempts to pull LDS doctrines out of ECF writings may be novel and clever but in the end are intellectually dishonest.

I am amazed! Like it or not, ECFs teach LDS doctrine. If ECFs are crazy, so are we; if they are sane, so are we. If they teach many gods, so do we; if they teach one God, so do we. Sorry, can’t escape from that.

amgid

 

[arieh0310]

amgid:

So you reckon the ECFs must be nuts because they believed in one God, and in lots of gods at the same time? Don’t worry, they are in good company. LDS believe the same:

The ECFs would be crazy if they believed in one and many gods at the same time, but they didn’t. LDS theology is nuts because some scriptures say there is one God and yet others (and consistent teaching from church officials and publications) teach a plurality of gods and that men will become gods of their own planets. When ECFs talk of becoming divine they are not talking of anything even remotely similar to Mormon exhaltation.

 

[amgid]

arieh0310:

The ECFs would be crazy if they believed in one and many gods at the same time, but they didn’t. LDS theology is nuts because some scriptures say there is one God and yet others (and consistent teaching from church officials and publications) teach a plurality of gods and that men will become gods of their own planets. When ECFs talk of becoming divine they are not talking of anything even remotely similar to Mormon exhaltation.

I will let others be the judge.

amgid

 

[TOmNossor]

How about RPC Hanson and Rowan Williams (two non-LDS scholars).

Pre-Nicea Subordination was orthodoxy. Here is a non-LDS scholar:
Indeed, until Athanasius began writing, every single theologian, East and West, had postulated some form of Subordinationism. It could, about the year 300, have been described as a fixed part of catholic theology. (RPC Hanson, “The Achievement of Orthodoxy in the Fourth Century AD” in Rowan Williams, ed., The Making of Orthodoxy, New York, NY: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1989, reprinted 2002, p. 153.)

And

With the exception of Athanasius virtually every theologian, East and West, accepted some form of subordination at least up to the year 355; subordinationism might indeed, until the dénouement of the controversy [Arian], have been described as accepted orthodoxy. (RPC Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1988, p. xix.)

Justin Martyr said Christ was in the “second place,” and The term “deutros theos” or “second God” was also used by a number of ECF.

Not only did many Christian writers identify Jesus with Yahweh, until the 5th century it was quite common to call Jesus either a “second God”, the chief angel, or both. Similarly, it was made clear that the Holy Spirit occupies the third place.
Danielou, The Theology of Jewish Christianity, 146

If it is important, I could provide some ECF quotes to back up the position of these non-LDS scholars, but I know they didn’t just make this up.

I guess my comment will communicate to you that the ECF are in fact crazy. On the one hand they maintain the oneness of God, the divinity of Christ, and other orthodox ideas. On the other hand they maintain the subordination of Christ to the Father and in a certain sense the plurality of gods.

Barry Bickmore makes a convincing but not flawless case that the EarlyChurch started very LDS and moved toward emerged orthodoxy in the doctrines that separate us. I believe that he has done a good job, but that one of the real transitions was from orthopraxy (with supernatural public revelation) to orthodoxy with (possibly) conditionally inspired leaders.
(briefly the Council at Jerusalem was primarily about PRACTICE not DOCTRINE).

In any case without the Catholic Church or the CoJCoLDS to make sense of the Bible and the EarlyChurch we do not have a uniform picture. I am not sure how one can come to the conclusion that this is not the case if one has engaged the evidence.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

arieh0310:

The ECFs would be crazy if they believed in one and many gods at the same time, but they didn’t. LDS theology is nuts because some scriptures say there is one God and yet others (and consistent teaching from church officials and publications) teach a plurality of gods and that men will become gods of their own planets. When ECFs talk of becoming divine they are not talking of anything even remotely similar to Mormon exhaltation.

I am going to restate my previous challenge without adding some of the extraneous things I previously did. I suggested that you responded to the extraneous parts, but not the whole. I will eliminate the extraneous parts and see what happens.

There is a singular difference between the basic and binding components of the LDS view of deification and the ECFs view of deification. The ontological starting point in LDS thought is different than the ontological starting point in the ECFs. This starting point is different in that creation ex nihilo and the radical creator/creature dichotomy is accepted as describing our mortal reality by the ECF, but not by LDS (LDS do not equate men with God; He is infinitely greater. But we do believe He is our literal Father and we are ontologically the same species). 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. The ECFs who speak of men becoming gods (which is quite a number of them) NEVER before Augustine place limits upon what it is to be deified such that men are not deified in nature as well as energies.

Again, we are engaging a great deal of literature here, I could have missed something. I say you will not find an ECF who says, “Men may become gods, but only in ??? way,” such that it is explained that God will not communicate His very nature to deified men.

Charity, TOm

 

[arieh0310]

I never argued that subordinationalism didn’t exist in the early Church, but it is not true that all pre-Nicean Fathers were subordinationalists, nor were all Fathers who believed in subordinationalism staunch supporters of the idea. Check out this article and scroll down to section 4. One thing we should make clear is that subordinationalism is not an idea that teaches that Jesus is a second, or lesser god but instead teaches that Christ’s Person is involuntarily subject to the Father (more or less).

 

[arieh0310]

TOmNossor:

This starting point is different in that creation ex nihilo and the radical creator/creature dichotomy is accepted as describing our mortal reality by the ECF, but not by LDS (LDS do not equate men with God; He is infinitely greater. But we do believe He is our literal Father and we are ontologically the same species). 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. The ECFs who speak of men becoming gods (which is quite a number of them) NEVER before Augustine place limits upon what it is to be deified such that men are not deified in nature as well as energies.

A couple of things first:

1. To say that God, because he is omnipotenet, can make a created being ontologically the same as He is a paradoxical question. It is like asking, “Can’t an omnipotent God create a God greater that Himself, or change Himself into evil instead of love, or can’t he make Himself not exist?”. It is a question that cannot be answered because it cannot happen.
2. Scripture is very loose when in comes the term “gods”. Judges here on earth were called “gods” because they were given divine prerogatives of judgement and they were also given the word of the Lord. Some of these “gods” were also condemned as evil, and you can agree with me that in LDS theology a “god” cannot be evil. The same liberty with these titles was used by ECF writers as well.

As I stated in another post, you need to get into the language and mindset of a Catholic to appreciate what is being communicated. Coming from a Protestant perspective I felt like covering my ears when I heard some Catholic Marian devotions, it wasn’t until I realized what was meant that I became more comfortable with the words used.

 

[BJRumph]

TOm;

If the starting point is so different, then how can the writings of the ECFs support the lds position?

You have stated that “ontologically we are the same species” according to the lds veiw. Every ex-mo in these forums have stated repeatedly that the lds believe such a thing. You have reasserted what has often been disputed upon these boards: That the lds teaching/belief is that God is Man, and Man can become God. I won’t reiterate my “toe-wiggling” analogy that offended you in the past, but it is apt; You have stated, in common speech, that God is an exalted man (“infinitely” superior in your words, but then we could get into a discussion about what ‘infinitly’ really means within a mormon context), but no more than an example of what we can become ourselves (my elaboration, but still consistent with your stated conclusions as interpretted from an lds perspective).

Yet, you also indicate that the ECF’s believe that, ontologically, they believe that we, as human beings, are different from God, as is inferred by your question “Do the ECFs believe that God can bridge the ontological divide?”. Regardless of the answer you would posit, the question itself aknowledges the distinction between what the ECF’s were talking about, and what the lds mean when the common ‘topic’ of human deification/glorification means.

Yes, the RCC aknowledges some form of deification of man; but this process and meaning as defined by it (the RCC) and its tradition (of the ECF’s) is irreconcilably *distinct from * the lds ideology and formulation of the same.

Caritas numquam excidit
Inter arma caritas

 

[TOmNossor]

arieh0310:

I never argued that subordinationalism didn’t exist in the early Church, but it is not true that all pre-Nicean Fathers were subordinationalists, nor were all Fathers who believed in subordinationalism staunch supporters of the idea. Check out this

article and scroll down to section 4. One thing we should make clear is that subordinationalism is not an idea that teaches that Jesus is a second, or lesser god but instead teaches that Christ’s Person is involuntarily subject to the Father (more or less).

I do not think that your article (Catholic Encyclopedia) shows that all pre-Nicea non-Athanasius folks are not subordinationalists. The concept of Eternal Generation, same nature, and other things are certainly viewable in the writings of many of these folks, but the idea of “co-equal” is absent in every instance.

Include the absence of “co-equal” statements with the presence of “dueteros theos” and “in the second place” statements and Hansen’s/William’s statement are quite true. Post Nicea the semi-Arian position was the prevalent position for many years. Athanasius expertly defeated Arius (because Christ was not a mere creature), but the incomprehensibility of what became the Trinity resulted in various subordinationist views enjoying almost universal acceptance after Nicea.

In any case, the ECF did speak in terms of subordination. In terms of second god. In terms of God in the second place. These ideas are not rejected by the earliest ECF.

Add to this the fact that the earliest ECF did reject creation ex nihilo. And a solid Mormon foundation emerges. I am unconvinced that the ECF (weighing the earliest greater than the later fathers) are more Catholic than Mormon, but of course I am biased. One thing is sure, if crazy is holding to the oneness of God and the threeness of God, they are definitely crazy. If crazy is saying “men can become gods” and not explaining that this is only through energies and not through nature, but there is one God, they are crazy. Crazy like a LDS. (Or perhaps crazy like a pre-critical Catholic).

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

arieh0310:

A couple of things first:

1. To say that God, because he is omnipotenet, can make a created being ontologically the same as He is a paradoxical question. It is like asking, “Can’t an omnipotent God create a God greater that Himself, or change Himself into evil instead of love, or can’t he make Himself not exist?”. It is a question that cannot be answered because it cannot happen.

I can understand this. If God is God because he creates ex nihilo and not God is not God because he is not non-created, one can argue that God cannot logically create something that is not created. (A very small number of philosophers allow God to do the totally illogical, but I think this is a mistake). However, God did in fact BEGET Christ AND the Holy Spirit did in fact proceed. Is Christ’s existence contingent upon the Father? If not then how can we rightly say He is the Son or He is Begotten? These are of course tough questions that result from such thinking, and the best answer I have found is that Christ is both contingent and non-contingent and that at the end of the day it is a mystery. This is all well and good, but this is not something elaborated upon effectively by the ECF. In addition to this, is it fair to say omnipotent does not include … because … is illogical, but Christ is both contingent and non-contingent and this is just a mystery?

arieh0310:

1. Scripture is very loose when in comes the term “gods”. Judges here on earth were called “gods” because they were given divine prerogatives of judgement and they were also given the word of the Lord. Some of these “gods” were also condemned as evil, and you can agree with me that in LDS theology a “god” cannot be evil. The same liberty with these titles was used by ECF writers as well.

Psalms 82 is a particularly interesting use of the word gods, but I have in mind things like this Irenaeus quote:

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).

The inclusion of the Father, the Son, and those who receive the adoption in the term “gods” certainly implies that Ireneaus is not speaking of two different senses when he uses the term gods.

And Christ’s use of Psalm 82 to defend the acceptability of His implied divinity certainly raises Psalms 82 to a higher level than it would stand upon by itself.

When they ECFs say “men may become gods” they do not give any indication that “gods” is a radically deflated term.

arieh0310:

As I stated in another post, you need to get into the language and mindset of a Catholic to appreciate what is being communicated. Coming from a Protestant perspective I felt like covering my ears when I heard some Catholic Marian devotions, it wasn’t until I realized what was meant that I became more comfortable with the words used.

I have studied the concept of Marian devotion and defended it. Its proper understanding is quite easy to right with the 10 commandments. Its actual practice in some instances and in the hearts of some less informed Catholics is certainly not in accordance with the 10 commandments, but God does not begrudge those who step over the line in their devotion to Mary (at least I am quite convinced He does not).

The meaning of “men becoming gods” has not enjoyed the clarity of Marian devotion largely due to its general absence from all but the most scholarly Catholic circles. Even when explained the EO position seems to be borrowed and I find this untenable. And the ECF before Augustine give us no explanation.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

BJRumph:

If the starting point is so different, then how can the writings of the ECFs support the lds position?

Because the concept that “men may become gods” was so engrained in the Bible and the message of Jesus Christ it was regularly mentioned by the ECF. After the creation ex nihilo ERROR the way in which men could become gods was not explored. Augustine began the process of compromising what this meant. Palamas for the EOs completed the process and produces a logical conclusion (that Catholics cannot embrace). And the doctrine virtually disappeared until the light of the restoration shown (or if you are not a LDS until the Vatican Library was available ).

The starting point is different because in the second century the doctrine of creation ex nihilo was uncritically accepted (Tertullian is the only person who engages the debate and his position is quite unusual as he argues for the importance of ancient sources and the newness of Hermogenes AND then states that Hermogenes is the second Hermogenes –there are two???- and there was another before him who embrace creation ex materia, undermining his main argument).

I cannot suggest that the starting point is the same for the ECF because it is not, but I can show how this is an error in ECF thought and not in Mormon though. Or rather I can suggest with evidence, because if the Catholic authority could define what Tradition was, I cannot demand that there are not enough seeds of ex nihilo to form a Tradition, only that this was not the view held by anyone despite the seeds they planted.

More later hopefully.

Charity, TOm

 

[BJRumph]

I do not think that your article (Catholic Encyclopedia) shows that all pre-Nicea non-Athanasius folks are not subordinationalists.

Why does it have to? IOW, why does it have to show that all are not subordinationalists? It has already been established that some were, so you are rejecting an alternate veiw because it canot be proven (as its definitions require it to be so), rather than question the basic assumption that gives rise to the question. Seems like a false dilemma to me.

The RCC aknowledges that there were many streams of thought on just about every topic concerning the Church; and further, that it was this fact that required the definitions of orthodoxy that you necessarily reject.

For a mormon example of the point I am trying to make to you;

Oliver Cowdery, a mormon ECF, apparently rejected Smith’s teachings on polygamy, as it was one of his reasons for leaving the church at a point. But, your church adopted Smith’s polygamy as being “orthodox”. Does this make Cowdery’s rejection of polygamy “evidence”, “proof”, or “support” for the falsity of Smith’s polygamy? Or rather, does it provide evidence that Crowdery was, while occasionally respected, wrong in the matter?

Understand, that a mormon who uses the ecf’s as they are being used here, and on the parallel thread, is to fit into the first scenario (that Crowdery’s rejection of polygamy “supports” the non-lds rejection of the lds church’s stance that it is an orthodox doctrine). Your church, necessarily, demands the latter scenario (that Crowdery is simply wrong on the specific matter).

Yet, the line of reasoning that follows from the lds research into the ecfs for support is denying the RCC (and all traditional Christianity) the very defense that it (the CoJCoLDS) would make for itself.

I realize that it is Mormon Fool who tries to make this point more openly than yourself, TOm; but fundamentally you two do not deviate in a meaningful manner as to the usefulness of the RCC ECF’s in regards to supporting mormon doctrine, especially as it pertains to decreasing the actual divide between the realities presented by the two different religions or mitigate the ‘shock value’ of the more ‘peculiar’ lds teachings.

Caritas numquam excidit
Inter arma caritas

(PS- Sorry to all about my inconsistent spelling of Oliver’s last name, I don’t have any handy references anymore that would allow me to verify the correct spelling. At any rate, I will assume that you know who I am referring to.)

B

 

[BJRumph]

Sorry TOm, we crossed posts. I will respond to your response more directly in a bit (gotta run…)

B

 

[arieh0310]

TOmNossor:

Psalms 82 is a particularly interesting use of the word gods, but I have in mind things like this Irenaeus quote:

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).

The inclusion of the Father, the Son, and those who receive the adoption in the term “gods” certainly implies that Ireneaus is not speaking of two different senses when he uses the term gods.

And Christ’s use of Psalm 82 to defend the acceptability of His implied divinity certainly raises Psalms 82 to a higher level than it would stand upon by itself.

When they ECFs say “men may become gods” they do not give any indication that “gods” is a radically deflated term.

Look carefully at your quote from Irenaeus, notice how he uses the singular “He” when he says “He refers to the Father and the Son”. This is a clear example of Trinitarian thought.

Also, in Adv. Her. 4.38.4 he explains: “. He declares, “I have said, Ye are gods; and ye are all sons of the Highest.” 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”. Again “gods” is a much more deflated term than you give it.

And, Jesus seems to give a deflated definition to “gods” as well:
“If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world?” John 10:35-36. He is clearly stating “If God called men gods simply because the word of God came to them, how much more the One He set apart and sent into the world?”

 

[mormon_fool]

BJRumph:

Why does it have to? IOW, why does it have to show that all are not subordinationalists?

The encyclopedia article does not show that **any **of the pre-Nicean ECFs were non-subordinationalists. Hence the non-LDS scholar, Hansen’s, observation stands. The encyclopedia is useful in that it admits that Justin, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen were all subordinationalists.

I found this passage interesting as the article does some damage control.
This anxiety to adapt apologetic discussion to the circumstances of their hearers had its dangers, since it was possible that in this way the apologists might land well inside the lines of their adversaries.

Compare this to with how a recent FARMS publication characterizes the early apologists.

Despite the ability of some Christian leaders to communicate in Greek using the resources of Greek culture, the content of early Christian writings remained close in character to that of Hebrew writings. It is only in the mid-second century that Christians began to use Greek forums and genres to communicate publicly with the pagan world. They did so at first only to make their case to the secular world and to refute heresies which had some philosophical inspiration. Although in retrospect we can see some philosophical ideas creeping into Christian thought, the authors of the apologies did not consciously embrace the theories of Greek philosophy and typically understood any wisdom found among the Greeks to be a borrowing from the Hebrews. (Daniel W. Graham and James L. Siebach, *The Introduction of Philosophy into Early Christianity, *in Early Christians in Disarray, Noel B. Reynolds ed.)
When ECFs take positions that are more LDS-like than they are post-Nicean like, even Catholic Encyclopedias are forced to draw similiar conclusions that LDS scholars do.

later,
fool

 

[arieh0310]

mormon fool:

The encyclopedia article does not show that **any **of the pre-Nicean ECFs were non-subordinationalists. Hence the non-LDS scholar, Hansen’s, observation stands. The encyclopedia is useful in that it admits that Justin, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen were all subordinationalists.

From the article: “Amid these speculations of apologists and Alexandrian theologians, elaborated not without danger or without error, the Church maintained her strict dogmatic teaching concerning the Word of God. This is particularly recognizable in the works of those Fathers more devoted to tradition than to philosophy, and especially in St. Irenaeus”

Irenaues was pre-Nicean

 

[TOmNossor]

BJRumph:

You have stated that “ontologically we are the same species” according to the lds veiw. Every ex-mo in these forums have stated repeatedly that the lds believe such a thing. You have reasserted what has often been disputed upon these boards: That the lds teaching/belief is that God is Man, and Man can become God. I won’t reiterate my “toe-wiggling” analogy that offended you in the past, but it is apt; You have stated, in common speech, that God is an exalted man (“infinitely” superior in your words, but then we could get into a discussion about what ‘infinitly’ really means within a mormon context), but no more than an example of what we can become ourselves (my elaboration, but still consistent with your stated conclusions as interpretted from an lds perspective).

Here this is. God begets spirit children through some process that absolutely involves the giving of energy to eternal intelligences (energy that we continue to receive see D&C 88:13). God as an eternal intelligence and we as lesser eternal intelligences who receive the divine light from the supreme eternal intelligence are the same ontologically, but radically different in degree. As I recall, I said that your “toe-wiggling” was “an irreverent and overly simplistic way of expressing something that I have thought before.”

Anyway, it is quite possible that God has never been a “common man.” Mormon thought demands that Christ became divine without being a “common man.” The Holy Ghost today is divine and has never been a “common man.” I suggest it is within the realm of possibilities that there was never a time before which God was not divine. Perhaps we are ontologically the same types of beings, but not being as great as God we could not learn the things He knew without experiencing mortality. Thus we have a mortal experience where we choose good and evil and hopefully learn to lean upon Christ to choose God’s will, but God never choose evil as fallen men have.

Adam and Eve before the fall would be even closer to God in that they would still have the full measure of divine communion AND they would have a body. After the fall, they still received the divine light, but the more full communion was something that they needed to again pick up through the atonement of Christ and His righteousness. This is how it has been for all of us.

Non-LDS must take the concepts of “man created in the image of God” and “we shall be like Him; for we shall see Him as He is,” and create lesser meanings for them. LDS just take them for what they say. But nothing in any of this demands that there was a time before which God was once God, and any belief structure that implies this must take into account things like D&C 20:17.

There are also other ways of understanding the above. Truman Madsen speaks of begetting as the infusing of eternal intelligences with the divine DNA and through this we became spirit children that had the potential to be like God the Father. The truth is we do not understand too much about this, but our ontological similarity to God does not require that he was ever a “common man.”

BJRumph:

Yet, you also indicate that the ECF’s believe that, ontologically, they believe that we, as human beings, are different from God, as is inferred by your question “Do the ECFs believe that God can bridge the ontological divide?”. Regardless of the answer you would posit, the question itself aknowledges the distinction between what the ECF’s were talking about, and what the lds mean when the common ‘topic’ of human deification/glorification means.

I explained above that the error of creation ex nihilo resulted in this problem, but the earliest ECF did not believe in creation ex nihilo.

BJRumph:

Yes, the RCC aknowledges some form of deification of man; but this process and meaning as defined by it (the RCC) and its tradition (of the ECF’s) is irreconcilably distinct from the lds ideology and formulation of the same.

Actually, neither the ECF nor the Catholic Church have made their position clear on this. There are a few that walk by the light of the EO church, but this is an untenable position.

Where the Catholic Church will go with this I do not know. It will be interesting to see.

Charity, TOm

 

[mormon_fool]

BJRumph:

For a mormon example of the point I am trying to make to you;

Oliver Cowdery, a mormon ECF, apparently rejected Smith’s teachings on polygamy, as it was one of his reasons for leaving the church at a point. But, your church adopted Smith’s polygamy as being “orthodox”. Does this make Cowdery’s rejection of polygamy “evidence”, “proof”, or “support” for the falsity of Smith’s polygamy? Or rather, does it provide evidence that Crowdery was, while occasionally respected, wrong in the matter?

This quote is worth framing for Ariel. When you compare Cowdery to Ariel’s “almost canonical” ECFs, you, by implication, lower them to “occasionally respected, [but] wrong in the matter.”

I love your analogies, because they end up making all my points for me . OC’s opposition to polygamy does provide evidence for the truth of it. Without OC’s participation, historians might have an entirely different chronology for the development of the polygamy doctrine. Let’s just say that the earlier the first polygamy revelation can be traced to, the less it appears to be an after-the-fact rationalization for illegitimate relationships.

Whether Oliver Cowdery or the ECFs are right or not, their reports help frame the issues. We can accept the facts in their reports without accepting their judgments. The existence of a teaching has to be established before we can ask if it is right or wrong. More importantly, we can to evaluate whether the existence of established beliefs supports the LDS interpretive framework. Here is how David Waltz summarizes Barry Bickmore what this framework is:

“Since we believe the post-apostolic Church had fallen away, we fully expect these documents to include views contrary to ours” (pp. 16-17n); “we also expect that the earlier we go, the more true doctrine we are likely to find” (p. 17n); and “Given the incomplete nature of the historical record . . . it would be fruitless to search the extant early Christian literature for data to falsify’ LDS claims” (pp. 16-17). Bickmore ends his preface with “Those who reject these assumptions will no doubt find the arguments presented here less compelling, but even so I believe these arguments demonstrate conclusively that Mormonism is very similar in many respects to some very early forms of Christianity” (p. 17).

In the introduction of the book, Bickmore makes the following cogent remark: “If Joseph Smith taught doctrines that are in harmony with those of the early Church but which were essentially unknown in his time, the skeptic must provide explanation for the phenomenon” (p. 24). Those of us not belonging to the LDS Church need to keep this in mind when we look at Bickmore’s evidence.

The ECFs’ “error” in regards to their subordinationalism clearly fits the LDS interpretive framework. But more than that, their writings, right or wrong, help us know how doctrine developed in the early Christian church.

later,
fool

 

[BJRumph]

Me again, TOm.

While I can recognize your decision to claim *ex nihilo * as an “error”, I cannot accept such a position myself.

I find your claim that “no one” believed in such a creation mechanic incredulous, mostly because it is found within the Catholic cannon of scripture, most obviously in 2 Maccabees 7, specifically verse 28, though the CCC references 22 & 23 as well.

Granted, we can nitpick about the Book itself, or the conditions and nature of the speaker in this specific case, but that such a thing could come from the source that it did bespeaks that this is a belief held by some, if not (certainly) all.

Obviously this simple woman held beliefs that counter an earlier assertion that *all palestinian jews * were specifically anthropormorphic in their theology in addition to the current, on hand, discussion regarding the variety of thought regarding the mechanism of Creation.

If the doctrine was accepted “uncritically” as you present, then it seems that there was not much dicussion needed for persuading the Church that it is to be adopted, as the ECFs were quite vocal in voicing their rejection of error in all other cases. In other words, when we see evidence of heated resistance in every contested arena, it seems unlikely that if your pre-supposition is true (that ex nihilo is an erroneous and fallicious doctrine, created by a controlling minority rather than common realization and vision) that it would have been adopted as quietly, and unresisted as it was (duly noting Tertullian as the exception). Clearly, it seems to have had a larger following than you are supposing or are presenting.

As to how this intersects with the deification of man I can only say that I recognize how they are related, though not critically so. I will have to research Augustine’s writings a bit in order to see if there is an obvious solution to the “problem”.

Until then, as a personal hypothesis, I believe that to dwell upon such a particular doctrine, especially with the limited nature of the revelation regarding it, that it is more of a stumbling block to the Humility of Faith necessary for us as Christians in order to do the work given us by God. While a dwelling upon the divine nature given us by God can help us realize and recognize the Divine in our neighbors, I believe that pursuing the idea (especially in the ‘erroneous’ lds version where we work out our own godhood with “fear and trembling”, but never the less as an active pursuit of ours; as opposed to the Anointing of Grace as I perceive the Catholic version calls for, though those are my terms) of our own godhood leads us further from the relationship with God that He has appointed for us. It is, plainly, a source of spiritual pride that undercuts the message of Christ IMHO.

Consider, Jesus said that whenever we feed the hungry, that we are doing that to Him. While this might seem to provide evidence to your idea of being of the same “species” as God; it is not a declaration of such, nor is he transforming or deifying the fed person. Remember, we are created in His image; to aid another is to honor Him in recognition of this fact. But an image is all we are, eternally subordinate to His glory. If He can breach this ‘gap’ is irrelevant; if He will is also nothing we can discern. It is quite obvious to me that the majority of the “ye are gods” style musings in the bible are not concrete expressions of “fact”, but hyperbole. As such, to express the expected splendors and glories promised to the faithful in Heaven in terms of “godhood” are likewise to be best handled in similar spirit. Indeed, compared to the idols of the pagans, the Catholic saints (as presented in dogma, if not accepted by your faith) would appear to be “gods” given their “powers” to affect their respective ministries, however it is clear that their power comes from God, not themselves; therefore calling them “gods” in the sense used even in this discussion is to engage in ‘dangerous’ hyperbole.

Rightly, imho, the church does not engage in such speech.