Trinity and Mormon godhead

[Richard_Abanes]

JAMES TALMAGE
“A self-suggesting interpretation of history indicates that there has been a great departure from the way of salvation as laid down by the Savior, a universal apostasy from the Church of Christ …From the facts already stated it is evident that the Church was literally driven from the earth; in the first ten centuries immediately following the ministry of Christ the authority of the Holy Priesthood was lost among men, and no human power could restore it” (The Articles of Faith, pp.200,203).

“The significance and importance of the great apostasy, as a condition precedent to the re-establishment of the Church in modern times, is obvious. If the alleged apostasy of the primitive Church was not a reality, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not the divine institution its name proclaims” (The Great Apostasy, preface).

SPENCER W. KIMBALL
This is the Church of Jesus Christ. There are churches of men all over the land and they have great cathedrals, synagogues, and other houses of worship running into the hundreds of millions of dollars. They are churches of men. They teach the doctrines of men, combined with the philosophies and ethics and other ideas and ideals that men have partly developed and partly found in sacred places and interpreted for themselves" (Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, pg.421).

“Presumptuous and blasphemous are they who purport to baptize, bless, marry, or perform other sacraments in the name of the Lord while in fact lacking the specific authorization” (The Miracle of Forgiveness, pg.55).

BRUCE McCONKIE
“Through it [the restoration] the creeds of Christendom were shattered to smithereens, and because of it the truth about those Beings whom it is life eternal to know began again to be taught among men” (Mormon Doctrine, pp. 284 -85).

“…there is no salvation outside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” (Mormon Doctrine, p. 670).

“What is the church of the devil in our day, and where is the seat of her power? …It is all of the systems, both Christian and non-Christian, that perverted the pure and perfect gospel …It is communism; it is Islam; it is Buddhism; it is modern Christianity in all its parts” (The Millennial Messiah, pp.54-55).

“When inquiring and scientific minds delve into the narrow and bigoted creeds of the apostate sects of Christendom it is not surprising that they rebel against those dogmas falsely set forth as the tenets of true religion” (Mormon Doctrine, pg.107).

“Christianity is the religion of the Christians. Hence, true and acceptable Christianity is found among the saints who have the fullness of the gospel, and a perverted Christianity holds sway among the so-called Christians of apostate Christendom” (Mormon Doctrine, pg.132).

“And virtually all the millions of apostate Christendom have abased themselves before the mythical throne of a mythical Christ whom they vainly suppose to be a spirit essence who is incorporeal uncreated, immaterial and three-in-one with the Father and Holy Spirit” (Mormon Doctrine, pg.269).

"In large part the worship of apostate Christendom is performed in ignorance, as much so as was the worship of the Athenians who bowed before the Unknown God, and to whom Paul said: “Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you” (Mormon Doctrine, pg. 374).

“For instance: The creeds of apostate Christendom teach untruths about God, and the scriptures say that those who accept these creeds ‘have inherited lies.’ (Jer. 16:16-21.) Those who accept any of the doctrines of the apostate churches are said to ‘believe a lie.’ (2 Thess. 2:1-12.) The process of apostasy consists in changing ‘the truth of God into a lie.’” (Mormon Doctrine pg. 440).

“Pagan tribal gods were the creation of the imaginations of apostate peoples, just as the creeds and apostate views of God which prevail in modern Christendom are the result of forsaking the truth” (Mormon Doctrine, pg. 511).

“The gods of Christendom, for instance, are gods who were created by men in the creeds of an apostate people. There is little profit or peace in serving them, and certainly there is no salvation available through them” (A New Witness for the Articles of Faith, pg.545).

Not too pleasant, is it? The quotes you offered are in reference to the commonality of ethics and morality shared by Mormonism and Christians, as Bruce mcConkie explained: “The only real superiority of the apostate sects of Christendom over their more openly pagan counterparts is the fact that the Christian sects (though rejecting the doctrines, ordinances, and powers of the gospel) have nonetheless preserved many of the ethical teachings of Christ and the apostles” (Mormon Doctrine, pg.240).

MORE TO COME…

 

[Richard_Abanes]

T: I would also like to point out that all religions include the precepts of men to a degree, including Mormonism.

RA: This is something else entirely. We are not talking about precepts of men that creep in because we are sinners in a sinful world. When it comes to Mormonism, we are talking about doctrines that radically depart from orthodox Christianity in major areas of faith: God, man, Jesus Christ, salvation, the Bible…etc., etc., etc.

T: These are the tares mixed with the wheat.

RA: That is not the issue at all.

T: We are also all disconnected from the true God due to the fall of Adam and original sin.

RA: Not the issue.

**T: **I am eager to see these quotes. . . . As for worshiping a false god in vain, I would like to see the quote(s) in context. My intuition tells me . . .

RA: You need to tune up your intuition…Your wish is my command. The LDS Church teaches that we non-Mormons:

MORE TO COME…

 

[Richard_Abanes]

1. We believe in a false god we worship “in vain”

The Pharisees with their man-made doctrines and traditions were again condemned by the Savior. He said unto them: “This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. “… In vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” (Matt. 15:8–9.) The belief that God has no body, parts, and passions is not a doctrine of Jesus Christ or a doctrine of the holy scriptures but is a doctrine of men, and to worship such a God is in vain. From the time when the Lord created man in his own image and likeness, men have created false gods to worship, such as golden calves, sculptured images, etc.; and billions through the centuries including the very elect have been deceived and misled. The sacred purpose of eternal life is to know the only true God and Jesus Christ. “This is life eternal,” Jesus said, “that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” (John 17:3.)
– Bernard P. Brockbank, Of the First Quorum of the Seventy,
The Living Christ

1. We follow “precepts of men” regarding Christendom’s Trinity

I think of the words of the prophet Isaiah when he said: “Because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant. “Therefore hath the curse devoured the earth, and they that dwell therein are desolate: therefore the inhabitants of the earth are burned, and few men left.” (Isa. 24:5–6.) I am sure that he had in mind these thousand churches that are following the precepts of men, and that is what Isaiah had in mind when he said: “Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men: “Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid.” (Isa. 29:13–14.) Now I would like to point out a few of the differences between the ways of men and their teachings and the truth as the Lord has revealed it through his holy prophets. First, I refer to the way they believe in the Trinity. When the Prophet Joseph saw his vision, the whole Christian world believed in a God without body, parts, or passions. That means he had no eyes; he couldn’t see. He had no ears; he couldn’t hear. He had no mouth; he couldn’t speak. Moses knew that this condition would prevail, for when he went to lead the children of Israel into the Promised Land, he told them that they would not remain there long, but that they would be scattered among the nations, and that they would worship gods made by the hands of man (that’s man’s doing) that could neither see, nor hear, nor taste, nor smell. (See Deut. 4:26–28.) That’s exactly the kind of a god the whole Christian world was worshipping at the time Joseph Smith had his vision. But Moses didn’t leave it at that. He said in the latter days (and we live in the latter days) that if they would seek after God they would surely find him. (See Deut. 4:29.) Joseph Smith sought after him and found him.
– LeGrand Richards, Of the council of the Twelve,
The Things of God and Man

1. We are disconnected from the “real God” (which has a body, unlike Christendom’s God)

I thought of the many ways in which God’s true nature is distorted in the teachings of so many Christian churches. Joseph Smith taught that not only does God have a body, but that he “dwells in everlasting burnings.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1938, p. 361.) (This idea is found in a number of ancient sources as well.) But many—perhaps the majority—of churches teach that it is the devil who has a body (often pictured with horns, tail, and cloven hoof) and dwells in everlasting burnings. How often I have thought that Satan must surely enjoy the visual irony that much of Christianity has reversed his position with that of God! For the truth of the matter is that it is the devil who is but a spirit. Thank God—the real God—for the teachings of the restored gospel.
– John A. Tvedtnes, Brigham Young University Center,
Children of the Most High

Here’s my favorite quote about not only RCs, but Prptestants as well. It’s from 1984:

"Of historical and theological significance is the fact that in Paul’s prophecy [2 Thess. 2:1–12] the church structure survives. But God is not at its head, making that church—following the appearance in it of Satan—no longer the church of God. . . . To say that Satan sits in the place of God in Christianity after the time of the Apostles is not to say that all that is in it is satanic. . . . Still, “the power of God unto salvation” (Rom. 1:16) is absent from all but the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which the Lord himself has proclaimed to be “the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth” (D&C 1:30).

There…
RA

 

[TOmNossor]

The issue is more about the nature of what deity is in the first place than whether or not we can become gods. Unless we define what we mean by God or gods, exactly, we’ll be talking past each other.

Theosis: belief that God is qualitatively different from us humans. God is other, absolutely infinite, absolutely eternal, and independent. It’s like comparing an adult person to a pebble. He is the continual source of existence for all creation. Theosis is the notion that God might condescend to us finite creatures and infuse us with divinity. Going back to the pebble vs person analogy, it’s as if the human crafts out of the pebble a work of beauty that the pebble itself could never grow into or attain by nature.

Exaltation: belief that God is quantitatively different from us. God is incredibly great to be sure, but by degree, not by nature. It’s comparing a newborn to a full grown king. The newborn requires the tender mercy and help of adults to grow up safely and become an adult, but it is in the nature of the newborn to grow up and become teh adult. So it is that we humans, with the mercy and help of God can grow up, so to speak,a nd become gods ourselves.

I think there is much to what you say. I would say it a little differently because a LDS cannot believe that the natural growth of a human is into a god. Instead, it is through the grace of God, the incarnation and atonement of Christ, and His lifting us up that we might become gods.

So for most non-LDS Christians, God is ontologically different in a way that is unbridgeable or in a way that God refuses to bridge. Thus, the deified in non-LDS thought do not partake fully of God’s nature, but partake partially/derivatively of God’s nature. For those who adopt this limited deification view, it is not that God is selfish with His divinity but that there is a uniqueness associated with the fullness of divinity possessed by God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).

The LDS Christian has seldom answered the question “what is divinity as such?” but whatever the answer is, men can partake of the divine nature in its fullness. This does not mean we do so naturally of our own power because it is by grace that we receive this. This does not mean that we become equal to God, because God is always the one who lifted us up to what He is and we always rightly worship Him.

Now, in my recent posts to Richard (#437 and #438) I offered some of what I thought “divinity as such” is best understood to be in LDS thought. I also suggested that I believe this is far more Biblical then –ousia based divinity present within Catholicism. I also suggested that it is the absence of a solid –ousia based divinity in the Bible that allowed the Bible and the pre-Nicene ECF to speak so BOLDLY of deification (like LDS not like post-Nicene ECF).

So, I agree we have found a difference in what LDS and non-LDS mean when we speak of deification.
I said as much here:

Hmmm!
Ok, Catholic theosis and LDS deification are not the same.
Catholics claim to be the inheritors of apostolic truth though DEVELOPED doctrine.
LDS claim to be the inheritors of apostolic truth through RESTORED doctrine.
We are not both correct!!!

Again, if I am correct in this statement then I think Catholicism and its commitment to tradition has a problem. As a Catholic I would believe that divinity as such was –ousia based, but I would believe that deified humans would become dual natured persons like Christ (this is a minority view within Catholicism though).

No ECF before Nicea when talking about human deification (human theosis / “men becoming gods”) placed any limits on the FINAL state of deified man. Instead, they along with modern LDS boldly stated that through the grace of Christ we would become gods. They did not say “but only in the communicable attributes.” After Nicea it became increasingly popular to state that there were limits upon what it meant for humans to become gods.

Charity, TOm

 

[Richard_Abanes]

Tsuzuki,

Well, now everyone has a bevy of quotes showing everything and can decide for themselves. So that’s cool. :clapping:

RA

 

[TOmNossor]

I reject these argumentum ad populum statements. There are many terms which seem to be open to spin. Majority? Ancient? Modern sense? Developed?

It is certainly possible for arguments supported “ad populum” to be errant and fallacious. My argument was not strictly “ad populum” since I spoke of scholars specifically. My argument may be an appeal to a misleading authority (or expert), but I do not think so.
It has been my sad experience that an argument from a LDS is often dispense as false via some appeal to the universal fallacy of all of Mormon scholarship. So, I attempt to support my arguments from folks who are not LDS scholars but instead are non-LDS scholars.

Developed?

I am not sure how this is a problem. Pre-Nicea orthodoxy was subordinationism. The co-equal Trinity is development. Catholic authority is development.

cont …

 

[TOmNossor]

In the beginning was the Word (God) (John 1:1-5) and God created everything with his Word (Genesis 1:1-31.) The Word (God) became fresh (John 1:14).

I know non-Catholics would not embrace Maccabees, but it is a second century BC writing.

Richard finally wrote what I’d been thinking: the writings of the early Christians presupposes monotheism. And monotheism seems to presuppose creation ex nihilo.

I would recommend to folks who want to really look into this that they read, Creatio Ex Nihilo: The Doctrine of ‘Creation out of Nothing’ in Early Christian Thought by Gerard May is a very thorough treatment. The book is online:
http://books.google.com/books?id=Lo...a=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPP1,M1
so you can read it. It responds to Maccabees and the other Biblical arguments that SEEM to be in favor of creation ex nihilo. And May is a fan of creation ex nihilo he just thinks it developed.
Next to read would then be Copan and Craig. Either in The New Mormon Challenge or in their book Creation Out of Nothing: A Biblical, Philosophical, and Scientific Exploration. I actually read The New Mormon Challenge, but they are fairly similar AND even though their independent book came out after Ostler’s response, Copan and Craig neglected to engage him. I personally felt that Copan and Craig did not deal with the full sweep of May’s arguments and even made claims I found false concerning May’s argument. That being said, their philosophical argument was not something May had dealt with (and of course May would not since he embraces creation ex nihilo anyway). Finally, Ostler’s three essays in response to Copan and Craig are excellent and are available online:
http://www.fairlds.org/New_Mormon_Challenge/TNMC04.html
http://www.fairlds.org/New_Mormon_Challenge/TNMC05.html
http://www.fairlds.org/New_Mormon_Challenge/TNMC01.html

I find May alone stronger than Copan and Craig on all but the philosophical argument. I find Ostler to add to May’s strength on all but the philosophical argument. I think Ostler on the philosophical argument moves this to about a neutral position, but I wish Ostler had decimated the philosophical argument and I do not personally believe he did.

Now, here is a link to what I have written in response to what you offered on a Catholic blog:
http://www.defensorveritatis.net/?p=861
This was actually a spin off of from a wonderful thread on deification which included a Catholic who argues for “robust deification” unlike what is being argued for here:
http://www.defensorveritatis.net/?p=860

Anyway, you will find responses to all that you posted and much more. I might mention that Ostler’s third book in the Exploring Mormon Thought series added to his already impressive Biblical argument against creation ex nihilo.

Richard finally wrote what I’d been thinking: the writings of the early Christians presupposes monotheism. And monotheism seems to presuppose creation ex nihilo.

Let me ask this. If this “presupposition of monotheism” makes robust deification impossible, why do ALL of the ECF before Nicea BOLDLY speak of men becoming gods without placing any limits on the final state of deified man AND after Nicea we begin to see deification language combined with limits on the final state of deified man? Those closest to the apostles SCREAM that men can become gods. Those in the Western Church after the 5th or 6th century almost forget that this was apostolic truth and when they do talk about it they place limits upon the final state of deified man that those before Nicea NEVER did. (And those in the Eastern Church while talking about deification often make imprecise statement and then rely upon Gregory Palamas’s ideas which are at odds with Western thought).

Charity, TOm

 

[RebeccaJ]

No ECF before Nicea when talking about human deification (human theosis / “men becoming gods”) placed any limits on the FINAL state of deified man. Instead, they along with modern LDS boldly stated that through the grace of Christ we would become gods. They did not say “but only in the communicable attributes.” After Nicea it became increasingly popular to state that there were limits upon what it meant for humans to become gods.

Charity, TOm

You keep saying this, but the answer is obvious. We cannot become the Savior of the world. We cannot become the Creator of ourselves or of anything else as God is the Creator of ALL things. These are limits, which limits, are God Himself. The ECF’s clearly understood this, as do we, and so should you.

 

[TOmNossor]

You keep saying this, but the answer is obvious. We cannot become the Savior of the world. We cannot become the Creator of ourselves or of anything else as God is the Creator of ALL things. These are limits, which limits, are God Himself. The ECF’s clearly understood this, as do we, and so should you.

What you say is true as far as it goes. If the Bible clearly teaches that Christ became man so that we could become gods, the Bible cannot possible mean that we are to become gods who created ourselves ex nihilo. We are not to become gods who possess incommunicable attributes that cannot be communicated to us. We are not to become gods who are divine because they possess the –ousia that it is impossible to communicate to us.

It is my position that the radical witness of the early church that men can become gods and there is no limit upon the final state of deified man could be evidence that this belief in deification was a product of Biblical and Apostolic truth that does not include what you claim it cannot mean by deification.

After Nicea, the ECF were not shy about placing limits upon the final state of deified men. I can offer you quotes if you like. If what you say is correct why do the pre-Nicea ECF not place these limits? It would seem to me that they were not taught to limit human deification by the apostles and their writings.

Let me offer you this little bit too. God the Son is not unbeggotten. God the Holy Spirit is not non-proceeding. God the Father is the only PERSON of the Trinity who exists in His full personhood “a se.” There is a group of Eastern Orthodox scholars who claim that when the ECF assert God is one, they mean God the Father is one. They accuse John Calvin of tritheism because He claims there are three who are autotheos.

It is my position that the Bible and the ECF teach that whatever Christ’s divinity is, we can receive (this of course does not mean we will become the atoning savior who was crucified, the son of the virgin Mary, or the person who raised Lazarus from the dead).
LDS theology demands that God the Son is fully God, but there is clearly subordination of God the Son to God the Father. I believe there will be subordination of deified men to God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. I just suggest the Biblical witness suggest that we will be fully divine like Christ. He partook of our nature so that we might partake of His.

I would also suggest that there is NOTHING irreformable that would preclude the following three things being embraced by a Catholic:

• God the Son is homoousian with God the Father in His divinity.
• God the Son is homoousian in His humanity with mankind.
• Mankind may become homoousian with God (Father and Son) in his future deified state becoming gods via grace. This will result in man having a duel nature like Christ.

What do you think of 1-3?

Charity, TOm

 

[RebeccaJ]

What you say is true as far as it goes. If the Bible clearly teaches that Christ became man so that we could become gods, the Bible cannot possible mean that we are to become gods who created ourselves ex nihilo. We are not to become gods who possess incommunicable attributes that cannot be communicated to us. We are not to become gods who are divine because they possess the –ousia that it is impossible to communicate to us.

It is my position that the radical witness of the early church that men can become gods and there is no limit upon the final state of deified man could be evidence that this belief in deification was a product of Biblical and Apostolic truth that does not include what you claim it cannot mean by deification.

After Nicea, the ECF were not shy about placing limits upon the final state of deified men. I can offer you quotes if you like. If what you say is correct why do the pre-Nicea ECF not place these limits? It would seem to me that they were not taught to limit human deification by the apostles and their writings.

Let me offer you this little bit too. God the Son is not unbeggotten. God the Holy Spirit is not non-proceeding. God the Father is the only PERSON of the Trinity who exists in His full personhood “a se.” There is a group of Eastern Orthodox scholars who claim that when the ECF assert God is one, they mean God the Father is one. They accuse John Calvin of tritheism because He claims there are three who are autotheos.

It is my position that the Bible and the ECF teach that whatever Christ’s divinity is, we can receive (this of course does not mean we will become the atoning savior who was crucified, the son of the virgin Mary, or the person who raised Lazarus from the dead).
LDS theology demands that God the Son is fully God, but there is clearly subordination of God the Son to God the Father. I believe there will be subordination of deified men to God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. I just suggest the Biblical witness suggest that we will be fully divine like Christ. He partook of our nature so that we might partake of His.

I would also suggest that there is NOTHING irreformable that would preclude the following three things being embraced by a Catholic:

• God the Son is homoousian with God the Father in His divinity.
• God the Son is homoousian in His humanity with mankind.
• Mankind may become homoousian with God (Father and Son) in his future deified state becoming gods via grace. This will result in man having a duel nature like Christ.
  What do you think of 1-3?

1-Is Catholic teaching
2 - No, we are not the same being as Christ
3 - Both ECF and NT teach that we will partake of the divine nature of God, which includes eternal life, nowhere does it say we will be gods, as Mormons believe.

What is found in the NT is that God is love. The love that is God is shared between the Father and the Son and is shared with us when we believe in the Father and that he sent His Son to save the world, repent, and are baptized. Jesus makes this very clear in the Gospel of John.

That you try to explain this a “mere communication”. Or that the sharing with us of the Love of God, is somehow a limited form of existence…says to me you do not understand the love of God.

 

[TOmNossor]

1-Is Catholic teaching

2 - No, we are not the same being as Christ
3 - Both ECF and NT teach that we will partake of the divine nature of God, which includes eternal life, nowhere does it say we will be gods, as Mormons believe.
As I pointed out to Paul Dupre before he stopped talking to me, #2 is Catholic DOGMA.
It is my position that if Catholics must embrace #1 and #2, embracing #3 makes sense.

RebeccaJ:
What is found in the NT is that God is love. The love that is God is shared between the Father and the Son and is shared with us when we believe in the Father and that he sent His Son to save the world, repent, and are baptized. Jesus makes this very clear in the Gospel of John.

That you try to explain this a “mere communication”. Or that the sharing with us of the Love of God, is somehow a limited form of existence…says to me you do not understand the love of God.
I have no idea what you are referring to when you say I “try to explain this a ‘mere communication.’” I suspect there must be a large misunderstanding somewhere, but I do not even know where. If you would quote me directly, I will be better able to understand to what you are referring.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

Let me ask this. **If this “presupposition of monotheism” makes robust deification impossible, why do ALL of the ECF before Nicea BOLDLY speak of men becoming gods…… **

The early Church were monotheist just like the Church is today, so when I read the writings of the early Church I understand them in that way. Monotheism logically precludes the existence of another God. I have no idea what you mean by ‘robust deification.’ Could you provide a short quote from each of the Church Fathers before Nicea to support your statement?
Bible:

For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven (Matthew 22:30)

 

[Richard_Abanes]

**REBECCA: **You keep saying this, but the answer is obvious.

**RA: **Let it go. He keeps saying it, and saying it, and saying it, and saying it, and saying it, and saying it, and saying it … because that is his mental hook, so to speak, that he’s latched onto in order to rationalize his view against facts/history.

He’s been given the answer that EASILY explains away that little statement of his.

But Tom wants to believe what he believes, Rebecca, remember that. It’s common.

I learned this long ago with Mormons when, after I convincingly showed a Mormon that the God of the Bible was NOT the God of Mormonism, a dear woman was honest enough to admit the truth. But then she said she was going to remain a Mormon. I asked why. She said, “I like the Mormon God.”

That about says it all. The idea of “As man is God once was; As God is, man may become” is intoxicating. I mean, come on, think about it – we can become an actual, full blown, ontological, by nature, worship-receiving GOD!

It doesn’t matter the *context * in which the ECF who used words like God, deification, divinized. They said Gods, and by golly, as a Mormon, Tom and the others are going to take that word and push it to mean in the 21st century *everything *they want it to mean in order: to:

a) give themselves some kind of connection to the early church; and
b) justify their clearly unbiblical views.

It is, as Tom put it, a *RESTORATION *of all that the word *theosis *REALLY meant – even though there is no evidence for it to mean what he is trying to make it mean.

When Joseph Smith was around he’d have visions, dreams, and inner revelations that imparted such new restoration views all the time. And he, like modern Mormons, also loved to futz around with language and play word games.

It is also comforting, I suppose for some people, in certain ways, to think that God is just like us only a bit more advanced. And we are just like God, and can become and be exactly what he is: create our own planets, be worshiped by our own spirit children, procreate eternally – enjoy all the things, do all the things, be all the things of a God.

So, don’t beat your head too much. :banghead:

RA

 

[Richard_Abanes]

**Stephen: **The early Church were monotheist just like the Church is today, so when I read the writings of the early Church I understand them in that way.

**RA: **As I mentioned to Rebecca, brother, Tom has already been told this – he’s heard the answer and he doesn’t want it. he wants to just keep repeating:

1. his mantra statement: “No ECF before Nicea when talking about human deification (human theosis / “men becoming gods”) placed any limits on the FINAL state of deified man. Instead, they along with modern LDS boldly stated that through the grace of Christ we would become gods.”
2. his mantra question: “If this ‘presupposition of monotheism’ makes robust deification impossible, why do ALL of the ECF before Nicea BOLDLY speak of men becoming gods”

Do you notice how he keeps using the EXACT same phrase? Do you notice how the key word “boldly” keeps appearing? His mind has latched onto this as a kind of mental/emotional anchor.

This is something only God can break through – not you, not me, not Rebecca, not reason, not logic, not human argument: “For our struggle is not against human opponents, but against rulers, authorities, cosmic powers in the darkness around us, and evil spiritual forces in the heavenly realm” (Eph. 6:12).

Tom WANTS to be a god. He’s had both his statement and his question answered. And he doesn’t wish to accept those answers, as legitimate as they may be. I would venture to say that even if we did produce an ECF statement that clearly DID place “limits on the FINAL state of deified man,” it wouldn’t matter – he’d just find another reason to keep holding his view of what the ECF REALLY meant – i.e., they were “BOLDLY speaking of men becoming gods”…

Make sense?

RA

 

[TOmNossor]

The early Church were monotheist just like the Church is today, so when I read the writings of the early Church I understand them in that way. Monotheism logically precludes the existence of another God. I have no idea what you mean by ‘robust deification.’ Could you provide a short quote from each of the Church Fathers before Nicea to support your statement?

It is not true that pre-Nicene ECF were “monotheist just like the Church is today.” At least their words do not support such a statement. They regularly subordinate Christ to the Father in a way seldom evidenced in the Catholic Church today. They do not speak of homoousian as Athanasius or Augustine would (and in fact condemned this word as part of the Paul of Samosata’s modalism.
Robust deification is the bold declaration that men can become gods like God the Son without the qualifications commonly placed upon these statements today.
Before I get into this let me say that Catholic theology developed. I just did. Cardinal Newman makes this quite clear with numerous examples. Development does not make falsity necessarily. If it is your position that a developed theology is not a true theology, you can leave the Catholic Church as soon as you sufficiently study the ECF. Of course there is no church I know of that you could join if development was disqualifying. Few folks abandon their theology when they recognize development. I am just claiming that there is development and that the monotheism of Aquinas is not the monotheism of Irenaeus. My view of monotheism is not identical to Irenaeus, but I think it is the Biblical view and it is closer to the subordinationism in pre-Nicene thought than it is to Aquinas. My view of deification is not identical to that to the pre-Nicene Fathers either. I do not believe the ex nihilo creation of man is overcome in our deification because I reject creation ex nihilo. But the view of deification evidenced by all of the ECF before Nicea is a full deification.

Continued for ECF statements…

 

[TOmNossor]

Let me start with some good subordinationism statements from St. Justin says:

Our teacher is Jesus Christ…and we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third… (Justin Martyr, The First Apology

, ch. 13)

“I shall attempt to persuade you…that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things… (Justin, Dialogue With Trypho

, ch. 56)

Both of these passages from St. Justin evidence a clear subordination AND are largely monarchical monotheism statements.

And St. Justin on deification:

The Word exercises an influence which does not make poets: it does not equip philosophers nor skilled orators, but by its instruction it makes mortals immortal, mortals god. (Discourse to the Greeks ANF 1.272)

I can also show you that St. Justin (unlike Irenaeus BTW) did not believe in creation ex nihilo.

Now how about St. Irenaeus:

But, beyond reason inflated [with your own wisdom], ye presumptuously maintain that ye are acquainted with the unspeakable mysteries of God; while even the Lord, the very Son of God, allowed that the Father alone knows the very day and hour of judgment, when He plainly declares

, “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, neither the Son, but the Father only.” If, then, the Son was not ashamed to ascribe the knowledge of that day to the Father only, but declared what was true regarding the matter, neither let us be ashamed to reserve for God those greater questions which may occur to us. For no man is superior to his master. If any one, therefore, says to us, “How then was the Son produced by the Father?” we reply to him, that no man understands that production, or generation, or calling, or revelation, or by whatever name one may describe His generation, which is in fact altogether indescribable

. (Against Heresies

, 2.28.6 – ANF 1.401)

Now, you might say that Irenaeus when he speaks of the one God means the Father, but frequently mentions the Son too. I would agree. Here is Irenaeus speaking boldly and clearly about just who he ascribes the term “God” to:

…there is none other called God by the Scriptures except the Father of all, and the Son, and those who possess the adoption

. Since, therefore, this is sure and steadfast, that no other God or Lord was announced by the Spirit, except Him who, as God, rules over all, together with His Word, and those who receive the Spirit of adoption

. (Against Heresies

, 4.1.1 – ANF 1.463).

It would seem that we Irenaeus applying the term “God” to Father, Son, and deified humans. Here is another place where he does the same:

** 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).

This is a very interesting passage because it harkens back to a Monarchical and Social view of monotheism within the Old Testament. Irenaeus will not always speak in this way, but seldom do I hear a modern Catholic speak in this way.

I can offer deification and subordination statements for many other ECF (Theophilis, Tertullian, Origen, …) if you like, but St. Justin and St. Irenaeus were prolific authors and very early.
Charity, TOm

 

[Richard_Abanes]

Here we go ---- FAIR/FARMS at the ready with a ECF maze…

R.A.

 

[TOmNossor]

**REBECCA: **

You keep saying this, but the answer is obvious.

**RA: **Let it go. He keeps saying it, and saying it, and saying it, and saying it, and saying it, and saying it, and saying it … because that is his mental hook, so to speak, that he’s latched onto in order to rationalize his view against facts/history.

He’s been given the answer that EASILY explains away that little statement of his.

But Tom wants to believe what he believes, Rebecca, remember that. It’s common.

I learned this long ago with Mormons when, after I convincingly showed a Mormon that the God of the Bible was NOT the God of Mormonism, a dear woman was honest enough to admit the truth. But then she said she was going to remain a Mormon. I asked why. She said, “I like the Mormon God.”

That about says it all. The idea of “As man is God once was; As God is, man may become” is intoxicating. I mean, come on, think about it – we can become an actual, full blown, ontological, by nature, worship-receiving GOD!

It doesn’t matter the *context *in which the ECF who used words like God, deification, divinized. They said Gods, and by golly, as a Mormon, Tom and the others are going to take that word and push it to mean in the 21st century *everything *they want it to mean in order: to:
a) give themselves some kind of connection to the early church; and
b) justify their clearly unbiblical views.
It is, as Tom put it, a *RESTORATION *of all that the word *theosis *REALLY meant – even though there is no evidence for it to mean what he is trying to make it mean.

When Joseph Smith was around he’d have visions, dreams, and inner revelations that imparted such new restoration views all the time. And he, like modern Mormons, also loved to futz around with language and play word games.

It is also comforting, I suppose for some people, in certain ways, to think that God is just like us only a bit more advanced. And we are just like God, and can become and be exactly what he is: create our own planets, be worshiped by our own spirit children, procreate eternally – enjoy all the things, do all the things, be all the things of a God.
Richard, you are a cheer leader and you are inconsistent in your condemnation of my views.
You are a cheer leader because it is me and other LDS here who have quoted ECF and non-LDS scholars in support of our views. You say what you say, and cheer on others; but you do not put forth evidence.
You are inconsistent because on the one hand you argue that I have ceased to be a LDS because I do not believe as you think I should, but on the other you claim that I will not follow the clear path of the evidence. I have followed the clear path of the evidence and this is why you feel able to condemn my view as non-Mormon. The truth is that my view is not outside the spectrum of what is Mormon, but my study of the Bible, reason, the ECF, and … has informed my view. I assure you if I thought you had proven that God was not as I conceive Him to be, I would change my view. The problem is that I do not think your stating of your thoughts proves much. I am not committed to full deification because I want to be deified. I am unconvinced I will choose to be deified. I am committed to full deification because it is Biblical and makes the most sense of the data.

To the Catholics here, you should read Deification and Grace by Daniel Keating. He lays out the Biblical and ECF evidence for deification with great clarity. His argument for rejecting robust deification IMO is severely lacking, but I do not think the Catholic having read Keating can believe the LDS who embraces robust deification is somehow blind to evidence/understanding.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

Robust deification is the bold declaration that men can become gods like God the Son without the qualifications commonly placed upon these statements today

What qualifications?

My view of monotheism is not identical to Irenaeus, but I think it is the Biblical view and it is closer to the subordinationism in pre-Nicene thought than it is to Aquinas.

I don’t understand what subordinationism has to do with monotheism. How does Judaism understand subordination?

 

[TOmNossor]

Here we go ---- FAIR/FARMS at the ready with a ECF maze…

R.A.

Ad hominem and inaccurate.
You should deal with the evidence regardless of it source (rather than trying to divert attention from fact by saying FARMS/FAIR).
That being said, the source is a small part me and my readings and a large part the readings of your favorite (sarcasm) Catholic.
Charity, TOm