Was Justin Martyr a Mormon?

[spockrates]

Saint Justin was not in error: please understand that St. Justin is speaking primarily in philosophical jargin at these points, which -because it is a specialized knowledge- is exactly why this Mormon apologist took it out of context to expose it to controversy.

This can be done with practically any Christian philosophy. Let’s look at Saint Thomas, for instance:

The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in His divinity, assumed our nature, so that He, made man, might make men gods. – St. Thomas Aquinas

Clearly this could be made to sound a lot like Mormonism too, and easily perverted as if St. Thomas meant to say that mankind was elevated by Christ to the same and equal status of God- i.e., that our relationship as creature to Creator was obliterated; however, this is not the case, and it can be proven so from Saint Thomas’ philosophy. With St. Justin, we do not have a collection of his entire philosophical or theoloical doctrine like we do with other Church Fathers and Doctors of the Church; however, the Church both knows and believes that St. Justin was not a heretic, otherwise she would have never acknowledged and honoured him as a saint.

So what I think you are saying is that the writings of Justin Martyr are ambiguous and require (like those of saint Aquinas) additional writings (which in this case are absent) to clarify their meaning.

If this is the case, then I’d say my attempt to resolve the ambiguous statements of Christ regarding the Real Presence by looking to the ambiguous statements of Justin Martyr is itself flawed. So on what early Church father should I rely besides Justin?

Furthermore, our faith must not rest on arguments, Spockatres. Our faith resides largely in our confession and acknowledgement of the Mystery inherent in Christ:

[13] And Jesus came into the quarters of Caesarea Philippi: and he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men say that the Son of man is? [14] But they said: Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets. [15] Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am?

[16] Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.

Yes, and I find these words just as ambiguous as “this is my body,” because the title Son of the living God could refer to an angel, or even a human being. Consider what Christ said:

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.”

(Matthew 5:9)

So when a Mormon, or a Jehovah’s Witness tells us this means the term son of God applies to you, or me and so Christ is no more the same God as the Father than your, or I are, how should we reply?

The Evangelists all give different versions of this one confession made by St. Peter: how come? Firstly is the fact that this confession was said, naturally, in Aramaic and not Greek; moreover, the words used by Saint Peter to express Christ’s mystery have no actual equivalents in any other language: in Aramaic or Hebrew they were probably what we would today called “loaded words”: words or terms that have much more backage, especially in certain contexts/circumstances, than a plain translation into another language could possibly ever hope to render.

Similarly, St. Justin Martyr is desperately trying to confess -using Greek and with the philosophical terminology and nuances of his day- that one ultimately ineffable mystery of Christ. Consequently, we find it easily misunderstood.

Hang in there Spockrates- keep the faith and keep researching and studying this issue. Eventually with God’s grace the problem will be resolved, but not without faith on our parts first.

So since Justin Martyr’s words are as easily misunderstood as Christ’s words, what method should you, or I use to correctly understand them?

 

[choliks]

It’s a matter of who said it first, I think!



Similar to the Catholic-Protestant debate: It’s a matter of who said it first. But if Justin Martyr first said Christ was not the same God as the Father, should we consider what the wise Church father had to say?

Could the Son be of the same substance as the Father, but also a different person in the Holy Trinity?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Well, a statement or proposition that denies another, or itself and is logically incongruous is a logical contradiction, and so is never true. To say (a) is true and (a) is at the same time not true is never true. So how can it be true to say Martyr believed there is only one God and did not believe there is only one God? I suppose he could if he was illogical, but then we should not trust such irrational thinking. Don’t you agree?

Not what I meant.

 

[spockrates]

Could the Son be of the same substance as the Father, but also a different person in the Holy Trinity?

Yes, this would not be a logical contradict to say that God is one what in three whos, for a what is not a who. I’d say this is true, but is this what Justin Martyr was saying? Let us consider his words more carefully:

“And now I shall again recite the words which I have spoken in proof of this point. When Scripture says, ‘The Lord rained fire from the Lord out of heaven,’ the prophetic word indicates that there were two in number: One upon the earth, who, it says, descended to behold the cry of Sodom; Another in heaven, who also is Lord of the Lord on earth, as He is Father and God; the cause of His power and of His being Lord and God."

(Dialo with Trypho 129)

Do you think it is possible that Martyr is saying the Son is a different person from the Father, but not a different God?

 

[spockrates]

Not what I meant.

Sorry for misunderstanding. Please tell me what you did mean.

 

[Todd_Martin]

It sounds like you are saying the Wikipedia author took the early church father out of context. Would you be willing to look at the context with me to discern the true meaning of the quoted texts.

Absolutely! Wikipedia is great for a quick reference, BUT anyone can update a page. So look up a page on Palestinians, Emma Smith, Mohammed’s wives or whatever, it’s likely to be heavily manipulated!

Mormon updating on Wikipedia if fairly notorious. If you looked up the word “cart” for example, in addition to learning about the five thousand year history of the common cart, you’d also get a full paragraph on how mormon women pushed carts across the desert. The page has since been updated and now only includes a graphic of a ‘mormon cart’.
The problem on Wikipedia has been that every statistically insignificant religious or political group attempts to do advertising their cause by updating pages to include references to them. Surf around on Wikipedia and you’ll see what I mean.

On a second note, Justin Martyr beautifully illustrates an early conception of Holy Trinity. Of course, it is an early apologetic for a specific argument so you have to look at the entirety of his works rather than take two sentences and twist them.
This may be of help.

equip.org/articles/jesus-as-god-in-the-second-century/

 

[1AugustSon7]

So what I think you are saying is that the writings of Justin Martyr are ambiguous and require (like those of saint Aquinas) additional writings (which in this case are absent) to clarify their meaning.

If this is the case, then I’d say my attempt to resolve the ambiguous statements of Christ regarding the Real Presence by looking to the ambiguous statements of Justin Martyr is itself flawed. So on what early Church father should I rely besides Justin?

But are St. Justin’s words necessarily ambiguous in regards to the Real Presence? Are they clear in context? If they are, there exists no need to re-evaluate them. However, with the words presented here, we clearly see a need to re-evaluate them. Notwithstanding, St. Justin was never thought of as a heretic in any age: not by his contemporaries (he appears to have been honoured very early on, and he certainly taught doctrine in no less a place than in Rome itself to catechumens) nor by any later age, except, it seems, until now and then only in the view of non-Catholics.

Moreover, the Church for a long time remembered his works, took the time and care to ensure they were trasmitted to every age and -as often happens in such cases- there was even a large body of apocryphal works that were later associated with him, though probably not his own. We do, however, have some of his original works; and these extant.

Therefore, if St. Justin -who, we recall, was well and widely known in each age by the Church- was, after the Christological definitions or the definitions concerning the Trinity, suddenly problematic theologically, we should have expected at least a body of literature, or a tradition, which sought to harmonize his words with subsequent doctrinal clarifications made by the Church; however, there is none; whereas, these as-it-were appendages made by the Church to interpreteting and rightly understanding the words of some Saint or Doctor of the Church do indeed exist with other persons who really were sometimes problematic, e.g. as with Origen’s writings. In his case, the Church carefully selected from his works what was worthy and what was not. The question is: if, as this Mormon apologist implies, St. Justin was a heretic, why didn’t the Church at least expunge the offensive parts or at least try to harmonize his words with the Church’s Christological and Trinitarian definitions?

Yes, and I find these words just as ambiguous as “this is my body,”

“This is my body” is ambiguous for you? I can’t imagine how much sophistic literature you must have been exposed to that could have rendered these words ambiguous for you.

because the title Son of the living God could refer to an angel, or even a human being. Consider what Christ said:

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.”

(Matthew 5:9)

These are not actually the texts usually cited to justify the difference between ourselves and Christ in relationship to God the Father: the passages usually cited are those that always portray our Lord as making a distinction between His Father and “our” (or “your”) Father: e.g., “Thus therefore shall you pray: Our Father . . .” (Matt 6:9).

Our Lord Himself drew the difference and distinction in His unique relationship with the Father and our relationship to Him.

So when a Mormon, or a Jehovah’s Witness tells us this means the term son of God applies to you, or me and so Christ is no more the same God as the Father than your, or I are, how should we reply?

I reply that I am so privileged by God’s awesome grace that the term does apply to me: I am, by Christ’s grace, truly a son of the holy and living God, albeit an adopted one. However, I add that based on the Lord’s words recorded in Scripture, as also the constant testimony of the Fathers and Sacred Tradition, that I am not the son of the living God in the same way or sense that Christ our Lord is His Son. I might then proceed to give those passages where our Lord makes a clear distinction between His relationship to the Father and ours, which carefully discriminate between us and He.

Con’t.

 

[1AugustSon7]

So since Justin Martyr’s words are as easily misunderstood as Christ’s words, what method should you, or I use to correctly understand them?

The method of reasonableness. If what they (i.e., any controvertist) says or implies is true, then certain things follow or would have followed; however, we find no such evidence that those things actually followed: e.g., if Saint Justin taught (remember he did teach in Rome) and believed what they claim he did, then why weren’t there any peculiarly Justinian schools or sects to be found maintaining or promoting this doctrine of “two (or more) Gods”? Indeed, why didn’t the Church simply adopt Saint Justin’s supposed polytheism as the normative definition or formula, if she was so pleased to honour and remember this man as both a Saint and a Martyr? We have, however, no evidence that the controvertist’s claims are in any way true.

Therefore, we reasonably conclude that what Saint Justin wrote was never understood by either Saint Justin himself or the Church in the sense that later controvertists -approching these texts at a distance of over a millenia and a half, mind you- apply to it.

Furthermore, we know, for instance, that Saint Justin had a background in specifically Platonic philosophy. Therefore, we righly inquire: Do these controvertists have a competent grasp and understanding of i) that philosophy as it was contemporary for St. Justin, and ii) even as St Justin himself actually held and adapted it to Christianity following his conversion, which understanding would consequently enable them to actually know what he meant exactly by use of its [or peculiarly his own] terms, definitions and distinctions? If no, then they are immediately incompetent as either certain or authoritative interpreters of his works.

Having established this, their credibility or authority to apply their own sense to Saint Justin’s words is proven non-existent and we can thus dismiss their speculations as being nothing more than that.

God bless.

 

[KathleenGee]

Referring back to a previous post that asked if yes, there is this one substance of God, Eternal.

But when we consider the Persons of One God, we are not looking at Person as different from each other as we would human beings who are different persons.

In Christ’s humanity, He was tempted in all ways like we are but did not sin. But He always had the beatific vision of God the Father and the perfect indwelling of the Holy Spirit…but all 3 Persons of God operate with One Perfect Will, One communion of thought word and action.

So the 3 Persons of God are not going in different directions or wills but always in this Communion of Oneness of the Holy Trinity.

And our goal and growth as Catholics, when we are baptized, we are made adopted sons and daughters of God, and in this life, it is a matter of life long conversion, entering deeper and deeper into God and communion with Him and all creation.

But Justin’s reflections about God were along side many philosophers of his time. The Church was already in ancient times expressing reason and philosophy in our understanding of God, not from a fundamentalist perspective.

 

[1AugustSon7]

Referring back to a previous post that asked if yes, there is this one substance of God, Eternal.

But when we consider the Persons of One God, we are not looking at Person as different from each other as we would human beings who are different persons.

In Christ’s humanity, He was tempted in all ways like we are but did not sin. But He always had the beatific vision of God the Father and the perfect indwelling of the Holy Spirit…but all 3 Persons of God operate with One Perfect Will, One communion of thought word and action.

So the 3 Persons of God are not going in different directions or wills but always in this Communion of Oneness of the Holy Trinity.

And our goal and growth as Catholics, when we are baptized, we are made adopted sons and daughters of God, and in this life, it is a matter of life long conversion, entering deeper and deeper into God and communion with Him and all creation.

But Justin’s reflections about God were along side many philosophers of his time. The Church was already in ancient times expressing reason and philosophy in our understanding of God, not from a fundamentalist perspective.

Well said.

 

[1AugustSon7]

Yes, this would not be a logical contradict to say that God is one what in three whos, for a what is not a who. I’d say this is true, but is this what Justin Martyr was saying? Let us consider his words more carefully:

“And now I shall again recite the words which I have spoken in proof of this point. When Scripture says, ‘The Lord rained fire from the Lord out of heaven,’ the prophetic word indicates that there were two in number: One upon the earth, who, it says, descended to behold the cry of Sodom; Another in heaven, who also is Lord of the Lord on earth, as He is Father and God; the cause of His power and of His being Lord and God."

(Dialo with Trypho 129)

Do you think it is possible that Martyr is saying the Son is a different person from the Father, but not a different God?

Based on what you cited, absolutely, yes: let us recall that Christ is also wholly, fully and entirely God properly so-called (cf. previous quotes from Catechism in earlier post).

I don’t see anything problematic with what St Justin here writes. Indeed, I think it is quite beautiful; and St Justin seems already aware of the belief or doctrine that God the Father is “the principle without principle,” to quote the (modern) Catechism.

Moreover, St Justin seems to be clearly aware that the Father is the origin of the other Two persons of the Trinity; however, we might add that this is not a chronological priority or origin-in-time: both (Persons) existed with the Father from all eternity. Indeed, it is remarkable how much Saint Justin understands about the Trinity, though it would seem in still yet a primitive age and in a primitive form, at least in comparison to today’s more standardized and clarified manner of speaking about the Trinity.

Furthermore, God the Father might be called the Lord of the Lord in the sense that fathers are held to be the lords of their sons/children (and even of their wife: cf. Shakespeare’s Romeo and Julliet, where Julliet refers to her Romeo (and now also husband) as her “lord” - though they had not yet consummated their union. See also the example of Sara(h), who called her husband (Abraham) lord, as the Apostle St. Paul takes care to remind the Church as an example).

 

[KathleenGee]

Well elucidated, August7…

We have to step back and reflect on the idea that the Church, using Fr Barron’s description, begin with Peter, and as a small seed. The original seed does not look like the Church today…but the Church evolved from the complete life-giving, small seed to bring us the Church…the Tree of Life whose roots go down deep to the living waters of baptism and sacramental nourishment in Jesus Christ.

St. Justin the Martyr offered his reflections to the Church for discernment. Origen wrote prolific theological reflections, but his later writings fell into serious heresy to the point that he is not a declared saint. But his prior reflections were excellent and in the spirit of faith and church.

What we recognize as true doctrine is already compiled for us in our universal Catholic Catechism. It footnotes early church fathers’ contributions to the understanding and depth of our faith.

St. Justin the Martyr was the first to provide us a clear description of how the Mass was said throughout the ancient Christian world in 155 AD. The structure, spirit and tone’s basic elements of the Mass then is the same today. This could not have been perserved for 2,000 years without the Holy Spirit…the will of God.

God defined how He wanted to be worshipped in the Old Testament. Christ commanded to the apostles, ‘Do this in memory of Me’, the Memorial of His life, passion, death and resurrection, His glorious ascension into heaven in the Mass.

The Mass is not man made form of worship but given us by Jesus Christ. St. Justin the Martyr’s great testament to the Church is this, and other reflections that the Mass fulfilled the prophetic words of Melchizedek…the offering of ordinary gifts and wine…Note…no extraordinary miracles…but ordinary gifts of wine…that our salvation is based on the ordinary movements of daily life and how we live it in the grace of Christ, as well as St. Justin’s contributions in apologetics in face of new faith and new life.

St. Justin’s was crowned with offering his life up for Christ as a martyr…the crown of martyrdom. To die for Christ is impossible for us, but with the Holy Spirit…the same who filled the apostles who were in hiding and very afraid, to become emboldened, to be understood by peoples of different tongues…and who likewise gave their lives to Christ in martyrdom, with the exception of St. John who cared for Christ’s mother and wrote the contemplative Gospel of St. John.

To clarify again, when it comes to questions about reflections of early church fathers, those reflections that contributed to the understanding of our faith and its fullness of knowledge of Christ are compiled in the universal catechism.

I read a few years ago the story of a young woman who was raised in an anti-Catholic protestant family. She wanted to study Christianity’s ancient roots. She came across writings from an ancient catechism. Then later she got hold of our contemporary catechism and was amazed to see that the teachings of our Church have not changed for 2,000 years.

On CAF when you witness Catholics dialoguing with Mormons, you see this ongoing reaction by Catholics in regards to the ever changing beliefs of Mormonism. However, some day I and many others, considering the orthopraxis…right way of living by many Mormons, we will see the Mormons accept belief in the Holy Trinity.

 

[1AugustSon7]

Well elucidated, August7…

Thank-you! I’m humbled.

We have to step back and reflect on the idea that the Church, using Fr Barron’s description, begin with Peter, and as a small seed. The original seed does not look like the Church today…but the Church evolved from the complete life-giving, small seed to bring us the Church…the Tree of Life whose roots go down deep to the living waters of baptism and sacramental nourishment in Jesus Christ.

I understand what you are saying, and moreover agree with it whole-heartedly, in the sense you clearly mean it: this is very true and an important analogy for (e.g.) a non-Catholic, who is perhaps struggling to see the present or modern Catholic Church as being the same Church described in the Bible; he might be helped by being prompted to consider how much resemblence a fully-grown tree has to its (original) seed.

However, with the bolded word, “evolved,” I feel I must make a quibble: while I am by no means the sort of person who protests the use of this word in contemporary speech (moreover, St Augustine advises us not to make controversy over conventual forms of speaking), and hold the word to be a legitimate one and sometimes even most appropriate, I do not believe that -in context- it is the right word to use.

My reason is simple: the word “evolve” suggests or has the connotation of changing from one thing to another thing (although most don’t necessary believe this needs to be radical or extreme: e.g., a change in species within a greater categorical family: perhaps thinking of a lion to a cat, for example, or something like that; as opposed to, e.g., from a lion to a lizard). However, the analogy given by our Lord is a seed to a tree or its fruit: in this case, there is no real “change” in the sense we think of it in the context of evolution, but a natural growth or fruition into that which was already present within the seed or in seed-form, as we say.

Therefore, I think the better word here might rather be (natural) growth (as, e.g., from an embryo to a fully grown man or woman) or perhaps (logical and natural) development (as, e.g., the development and expansion of a theory into a working principle or verified law, or something like that;- and perhaps even progress or progression).

As for the remainder of what you wrote, I agree completely and whole-heartedly -especially with this:

On CAF when you witness Catholics dialoguing with Mormons, you see this ongoing reaction by Catholics in regards to the ever changing beliefs of Mormonism. However, some day I and many others, considering the orthopraxis…right way of living by many Mormons, we will see the Mormons accept belief in the Holy Trinity.

Let us pray for it and hope so!

God bless.

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

Was St. Methodius a Methodist?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Was St. Methodius a Methodist?

A Mormon.

 

[MartinJordan]

No. But he surely was a Martyr.

MJ

 

[runningdude]

Yes, this would not be a logical contradict to say that God is one what in three whos, for a what is not a who. I’d say this is true, but is this what Justin Martyr was saying? Let us consider his words more carefully:

“And now I shall again recite the words which I have spoken in proof of this point. When Scripture says, ‘The Lord rained fire from the Lord out of heaven,’ the prophetic word indicates that there were two in number: One upon the earth, who, it says, descended to behold the cry of Sodom; Another in heaven, who also is Lord of the Lord on earth, as He is Father and God; the cause of His power and of His being Lord and God."

(Dialo with Trypho 129)

Do you think it is possible that Martyr is saying the Son is a different person from the Father, but not a different God?

Both the Father and Son (and the Holy Spirit for that matter) are omnipresent, equally in heaven and on earth. It is just symbolic language to ascribe the Son as the one acting on earth, while the Father remains in heaven. The Nicene Creed states that “through him [the Son] all things were made”, and I think Justin’s language here just reflects this teaching.

 

[KathleenGee]

Yes…and please know that the Apostles Creed was in place by 100 AD. The Creed was affirmed at every Mass by the faithful with the presbyter. St. Justin the Martyr would have prayed and affirmed the Creed as well.

Again, what you are witnessing is the emerging Church and the beginning of Christian philosophical thought. Every single early church father was not 100% correct. But all submitted their reflections to the Church. Today you can find what teachings by the early church fathers were the work of the Holy Spirit in building up understanding of our faith. Footnotes identify them.

 

[spockrates]

Absolutely! Wikipedia is great for a quick reference, BUT anyone can update a page. So look up a page on Palestinians, Emma Smith, Mohammed’s wives or whatever, it’s likely to be heavily manipulated!

Mormon updating on Wikipedia if fairly notorious. If you looked up the word “cart” for example, in addition to learning about the five thousand year history of the common cart, you’d also get a full paragraph on how mormon women pushed carts across the desert. The page has since been updated and now only includes a graphic of a ‘mormon cart’.
The problem on Wikipedia has been that every statistically insignificant religious or political group attempts to do advertising their cause by updating pages to include references to them. Surf around on Wikipedia and you’ll see what I mean.

On a second note, Justin Martyr beautifully illustrates an early conception of Holy Trinity. Of course, it is an early apologetic for a specific argument so you have to look at the entirety of his works rather than take two sentences and twist them.
This may be of help.

equip.org/articles/jesus-as-god-in-the-second-century/

Perhaps some knowledgeable Catholics should update the page?

 

[spockrates]

But are St. Justin’s words necessarily ambiguous in regards to the Real Presence? Are they clear in context? If they are, there exists no need to re-evaluate them. However, with the words presented here, we clearly see a need to re-evaluate them. Notwithstanding, St. Justin was never thought of as a heretic in any age: not by his contemporaries (he appears to have been honoured very early on, and he certainly taught doctrine in no less a place than in Rome itself to catechumens) nor by any later age, except, it seems, until now and then only in the view of non-Catholics.

As context to the quote from chapter 56, there is this comment of Trypho in chapter 50:

And Trypho said, “You seem to me to have come out of a great conflict with
many persons about all the points we have been searching into, and therefore
quite ready to return answers to all questions put to you. Answer me then,
first, how you can show that there is another God besides the Maker of all
things; and then you will show that He submitted to be born of the
Virgin.”

Trypho–who is a monotheistic Jewish person–understands Justin to be proposing the idea that the Father and Son are not one God, but two. For he says that Justin is telling them that there is another god besides the Father.

Justin does not deny this, but instead defends it, for in chapter 56 he says:

“There is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things, above whom there is no other God, wishes to announce to them… I shall endeavour to persuade you, that He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from Him who made all things, I mean numerically, not in will.”

I guess the question is this: Did Justin believe God was both one god and also two gods? Or did he believe the words god and person are synonymous? Or did he believe the Son is a different god from the Father? In each case, he does not appear to be proposing the clear and logical teaching of the Trinity, which is that a person is not the same as God, so it is not illogical to say there is one God in three persons.

Moreover, the Church for a long time remembered his works, took the time and care to ensure they were trasmitted to every age and -as often happens in such cases- there was even a large body of apocryphal works that were later associated with him, though probably not his own. We do, however, have some of his original works; and these extant.

Therefore, if St. Justin -who, we recall, was well and widely known in each age by the Church- was, after the Christological definitions or the definitions concerning the Trinity, suddenly problematic theologically, we should have expected at least a body of literature, or a tradition, which sought to harmonize his words with subsequent doctrinal clarifications made by the Church; however, there is none; whereas, these as-it-were appendages made by the Church to interpreteting and rightly understanding the words of some Saint or Doctor of the Church do indeed exist with other persons who really were sometimes problematic, e.g. as with Origen’s writings. In his case, the Church carefully selected from his works what was worthy and what was not. The question is: if, as this Mormon apologist implies, St. Justin was a heretic, why didn’t the Church at least expunge the offensive parts or at least try to harmonize his words with the Church’s Christological and Trinitarian definitions?

So I guess the question is this: Does the Church today recognize Justin Martyr as a Trinitarian? If so, what evidence is there to support the idea that he was?

“This is my body” is ambiguous for you? I can’t imagine how much sophistic literature you must have been exposed to that could have rendered these words ambiguous for you.

Are you saying it is logically impossible for the words, “This is my body,” to mean “This bread in my hands is a symbol of my body, which will be sacrificed for you”? Or are you saying it’s not illogical, but simply incorrect?

These are not actually the texts usually cited to justify the difference between ourselves and Christ in relationship to God the Father: the passages usually cited are those that always portray our Lord as making a distinction between His Father and “our” (or “your”) Father: e.g., “Thus therefore shall you pray: Our Father . . .” (Matt 6:9).

Our Lord Himself drew the difference and distinction in His unique relationship with the Father and our relationship to Him.

I reply that I am so privileged by God’s awesome grace that the term does apply to me: I am, by Christ’s grace, truly a son of the holy and living God, albeit an adopted one. However, I add that based on the Lord’s words recorded in Scripture, as also the constant testimony of the Fathers and Sacred Tradition, that I am not the son of the living God in the same way or sense that Christ our Lord is His Son. I might then proceed to give those passages where our Lord makes a clear distinction between His relationship to the Father and ours, which carefully discriminate between us and He.

Con’t.

Yes, but is it logically impossible for Christ to mean that men might become gods, or is it not illogical, but simply incorrect?