Early Christian Theosis Quotes

[johnny]

TOmNossor,

Here you are arguing that since manâ??s divinity is a derived divinity depending upon God the Father that man cannot be a creator. The problem is that Christ who we have previously established as divine through the Father, is called a creator in the New Testament. See Col 1:16, John 1:3, and Heb 1:10.

The Son is not a creator like the Father. The Son is the creator because he was "the Word" of God, the Lord "by whom are all things". The Son was NOT the origin and source, the Son was NOT the "whom are all things" (see 1Cor 8 below).

God the Father created all things (Acts 17:24,29) by his eternal Word, his beloved Son (John 1:1-3).

1Cor.8

[6] But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

So clearly those who are divine, but not the Font of Divinity, can be creators.

The Son is NOT the creator of divinity. Only the Father is the origin and source of divinity.

So, it is your position that Christ is fully divine because He partakes of the fullness of the Father who is the Font of Divinity.

Christ is God (John 1:1) ... it is NOT my position that Christ is fully divine because HE partakes ... Christ DOES NOT partake, scripture says "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" (Col 2:9).

But earlier you made a point of establishing that Christâ??s divinity comes from the Father.

Christ's divinity comes the fact that he is God, the fulness of the Godhead that dwelleth in him (Col 2:9). The divine persons of the Godhead DO NOT SHARE the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire.

How is Christ fully divine and yet his divinity comes from the Father and men (whose divinity comes from the Father, expresses with identical words in the New Testament) are not fully divine.

Christ is fully divine because he is God, men can share this divinity. Men do not have the fulness of divinity because men are "partakers of the divine nature" (2Pet 1:4).

[e=mc2]

Johnny:

Man can become one with the infinite, but even though he is one the creature is still dependent on his Creator because man can only partake of the divine nature through the grace of God.

Yes, in other words, man can be Deified and be a God. That is my point.

In other words, it is not a matter of "if", but when we become Deified by God the Father through Christ. The point is, that is man's final destination.

[johnny]

e=mc2,

Yes, in other words, man can be Deified and be a God. That is my point.

My point, is that a man cannot be a God like the Father.

The point is, that is man's final destination.

In man's final destination, human beings will never lose their attributes as creatures, they will never have boundless power like our Creator. Men will be limited to the confines of the created universe and never be omnipresent as the unique God is.

[cksalmon]

Like CK, they'll usually say we are taking them out of context, or it doesn't mean what it says, etc.

Did I just get mentioned in a thread in which I'm not involved? Cool!

Oh! Did you mean that guy from California?

CKS

[e=mc2]

Johnny:

In man's final destination, human beings will never lose their attributes as creatures, they will never have boundless power like our Creator. Men will be limited to the confines of the created universe and never be omnipresent as the unique God is.

Then you do not understand the power of the scripture, nor of Christ's Infinite Atonement where we are promised to be JOINT-HEIRS with Christ of *ALL* that the Father has. Our relationship with Him will never change, but all that He has is promised. Irenaeus, one of the Early Christian Church Fathers, taught that ALL of God's virtues, his Glory, Power, Love, Righteousness, and Abilities will be ours through Christ, nothing is left out, absolutely NOTHING. I just posted the link to my newest podcast on just this subject, of which I discuss our discussion here. Happy listening my friend......

[Jerubaal]

Hi Jerubaal,

You posted:

>>David:

This board has difficulties with quotes within quotes. Perhaps you could post what that Lutheran scholar said seperately?>>

Lenski, one more time:

Grace and peace,

David

Stupid me. I didn't realize that was the quote.

[johnny]

e=mc2,

Then you do not understand the power of the scripture, nor of Christ's Infinite Atonement where we are promised to be JOINT-HEIRS with Christ of *ALL* that the Father has.

The Atonement allows all people to rise from the dead with immortal bodies and also provides the way for us to be forgiven of our sins and live forever with God. Men can become heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ, they can become worthy of obtaining the promised inheritance of eternal life.

It appears you do not understand scritpture. Men are not promised that they can have a full divine nature like Christ. 2Pet 1:4 says that men can be "parters of the divine nature". In other words men can share in God's own nature. The Son of God DID NOT share the divine nature with the Father, the Son of God "was God" (John 1:1), "in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" (Col 2:9).

Again, it appears you do not understand scripture. The Son is not a creator like the Father. The Son is the creator because he was "the Word" of God, the Lord "by whom are all things". The Son was NOT the origin and source, the Son was NOT the "whom are all things" (1Cor 8:6). God the Father created all things (Acts 17:24,29) by his eternal Word, his beloved Son (John 1:1-3).

Our relationship with Him will never change, but all that He has is promised.

I agree our relationship with Him will never change, our Heavenly Father is the source and origin of divinity. "In him we live, and move, and have our being" (Acts 17;28). The creature called man is dependant on his Creator.

Irenaeus, one of the Early Christian Church Fathers, taught that ALL of God's virtues, his Glory, Power, Love, Righteousness, and Abilities will be ours through Christ, nothing is left out, absolutely NOTHING.

Theophilus of Antioch, one of the Early Christian Church Fathers, taught

"Furthermore, inasmuch as God is uncreated, he is also unchangeable; so also, if matter were uncreated, it would be unchangeable and equal to God. That which is created is alterable and changeable, while that which is uncreated is unalterable and unchangeable. What great thing were it, if God made the world out of existing matter? Even a human artist, when he obtains material from someone, makes of it whatever he pleases. But the power of God is made evident in this, that he makes whatever he pleases out of what does not exist, and the giving of life and movement belongs to none other but to God alone" (To Autolycus 2:4 [A.D. 181]).

I just posted the link to my newest podcast on just this subject, of which I discuss our discussion here. Happy listening my friend......

I hope you include the discussion that the Son is fully divine and does not partake of the divine nature because he is God (John 1:1), the fulness of the Godhead that dwelleth in him (Col 2:9).

Also in your podcast please include the discussion that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost do not share the one divinity, each of them is God whole and entire.

[e=mc2]

Johnny:

I hope you include the discussion that the Son is fully divine and does not partake of the divine nature because he is God (John 1:1), the fulness of the Godhead that dwelleth in him (Col 2:9).

Yes, and I did not forget to include that that fullness will also be shared with mankind as Irenaeus taught.

Also in your podcast please include the discussion that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost do not share the one divinity, each of them is God whole and entire.

Yer darn close to Mormon doctrine here. Yes I am slowly sharing this with all the Christian scholarship I am using in my podcasts, and their interesting elaborations and exegesis of the Biblical doctrine of Man's Divine potential and God's will in making us all into Gods.

[johnny]

e=mc2,

Yes, and I did not forget to include that that fullness will also be shared with mankind as Irenaeus taught.

You are not being consistent ... if it is shared then it is not full. Christ had a "fulness", Christ "was God". Men on the otherhand only "partake" of the divine nature, they can become gods or sons of God by partaking of his holiness.

Yer darn close to Mormon doctrine here. Yes I am slowly sharing this with all the Christian scholarship I am using in my podcasts, and their interesting elaborations and exegesis of the Biblical doctrine of Man's Divine potential and God's will in making us all into Gods.

I would say I am very far from Mormon doctrine. The Mormon God is an exalted man who became a God and who has a God. The God of the Bible is an infinite God who did not become God. The Mormon Church teaches that a man can become a creator like our Heavenly Father. I say men can be divinized by God but no creature has infinite power like our Creator. The giving of life and movement belongs to none other but to God alone.

Men are finite creatures who are dependent on external causes and conditions, men need to partake of the divine nature to be divinized. God on the other hand is infinite, he does not need to share in the divine nature because he is the divine nature, he is God. Those who partake of the divine nature become "new creatures". A "vine" does not become a "vine grower" (John 15).

[e=mc2]

Johnny:

but no creature has infinite power like our Creator.

When anything finite is added to the infinite, it becomes the infinite. It acquires all the properties of nonending infinity. This is a mathematic solidity, that by analogy when added to God's infinity (although that is not the idea used in the Bible as I present from the Bible scholar Cherbonnier on one of the other podcasts on the Trinity), becomes infinity for all intents and purposes. *anything* of a finite nature, when added to the infinite becomes wholly infinite.

Johnny further said:

Men are finite creatures who are dependent on external causes and conditions, men need to partake of the divine nature to be divinized. God on the other hand is infinite, he does not need to share in the divine nature because he is the divine nature, he is God. Those who partake of the divine nature become "new creatures". A "vine" does not become a "vine grower" (John 15).

This is refuted by the idea of being joint-heirs with Christ IN God.

Romans 8:17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

The word â??heirâ? in Greek is kleronomos {klay-ron-om'-os} which means 1) one who receives by lot, an heir 1a) an heir 1b) in Messianic usage, one who receives his allotted possession by right of sonship 2) one who has acquired or obtained the portion allotted to him.

The word â??joint-heirsâ? is the Greek sugkleronomos {soong-klay-ron-om'-os} which means 1) a fellow heir, a joint heir 2) one who obtains something assigned to himself with others, a joint participant .

1 Corinthians 3:22 Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours; And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's. Here, Johnny, is where the word â??allâ? is found in relation to be heirs. ALL are yours, since we are Christâ??s, and Christ is God. I see no exceptions used here. Robertsonâ??s Word Pictures even notes this - â??The wealth of the Christian includes all things, all leaders, past, present, future, Christ, and God. There is no room for partisan wrangling here.â?

Galatians 4:7 Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

Notice, an HEIR OF GOD. What does God have to give us? You tell me.

Hebrews 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Notice this! Christ is an heir of all things and we are joint-heirs. You tell me, what is Christ? What does he possess? And what does that mean for us? The Greek is kleronomon panton, and again I find Robertsonâ??s Word Pictures to be extremely revealing about this concept:

Heir of all things (kl

[johnny]

e=mc2,

When anything finite is added to the infinite, it becomes the infinite. It acquires all the properties of nonending infinity.

If all men who partake of the divine nature become infinite and acquire all the properties of nonending infinity what makes the God in Rev 21:7 unique?

Rev.21

[7] He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.

This is refuted by the idea of being joint-heirs with Christ IN God.

Being a joint-heir does not refute the idea that a finite creature is still a creature. Romans 8 clearly shows a heir is still a creature depended on God, 2Cor 5:17 says a "new creature".

2Cor.5

[17] Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

Rom.8

[17] And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

[18] For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.

[19] For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.

[20] For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,

[21] Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

So, you tell me, what is the Bible teaching about heirs in Christ in God?

The Bible says the following about the heirs of Christ, they shall inherit the kingdom and eternal life. The Bible does not reveal a heir inherits all the properties of nonending infinity.

Matt.25

[34] Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

Mark.10

[17] And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?

Irenaeus taught it is to receive all that the Father has, including his attributes, i.e., his POWER, ABILITY, LOVE, GLORY, etc. It is literally to become like God, live as a God, and do what God can do.

Irenaeus taught the Father alone is onmipotent, how does this fit in with your interpretation of Irenaeus that men receive all the Father's attributes .... please provide your Irenaeus reference and quote so we can all better understand the context and exact words ... thanks.

Irenaeus

"Of his own accord and by his own power he made all things and arranged and perfected them; and his will is the substance of all things. He alone, then, is found to be God; he alone is omnipotent, who made all things; he alone is Father, who founded and formed all things, visible and invisible, sensible and insensate, heavenly and earthly, by the Word of his power. And he has fitted and arranged all things by his wisdom; and while he comprehends all, he can be comprehended by none. He is himself the designer, himself the builder, himself the inventor, himself the maker, himself the Lord of all"

[e=mc2]

Johnny:

The Bible does not reveal a heir inherits all the properties of nonending infinity.

Maybe yours doesn't but mine promises *Eternal Life* for the joint-heirs, that is living for infinitiely long time, i.e., nonending. I suggest you change Bibles if you don't read this in yours.

[e=mc2]

Johnny:

Irenaeus taught the Father alone is onmipotent, how does this fit in with your interpretation of Irenaeus that men receive all the Father's attributes .... please provide your Irenaeus reference and quote so we can all better understand the context and exact words ... thanks.

It's all easily available in my podcast on my blog my friend.

http://backyardprofessor.typepad.com/the_backyard_professor/

It's called "Trinity and Being Joint Heirs with Christ...."

And it's by the non-LDS Christian scholar named Finch. You can also ask David Waltz about him, since it was Waltz who called my attention to Finch's article because Waltz feels that is closest to his own understanding of deification.

[johnny]

e=mc2,

Maybe yours doesn't but mine promises *Eternal Life* for the joint-heirs, that is living for infinitiely long time, i.e., nonending. I suggest you change Bibles if you don't read this in yours.

Mine also promises "Eternal life", will the Mormon God need to eat from the tree of life to live forever, creatures depend on the tree of life to live for ever?

Gen.3

[22] And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Rev.22

[2] In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

[14] Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

[johnny]

e=mc2,

It's all easily available in my podcast on my blog my friend.

Your intepretation of Irenaeus is not consistent with his other writings, why is that?

Could you easily post your Irenaeus quote for everyone to read, so we can compare your interpretation with the actual words of Irenaeus.

Irenaeus clearly says God alone is omnipotent (see quote below). God alone is omnipotent, this attribute of infinite power God alone possesses. God is omnipotent, His providence extends to all things. Since every agent produces an effect similar to itself, to every active power there must correspond as proper object, a category of possibilities proportioned to the cause possessing that power, e.g. the power of heating has for its proper object that which can be heated. Now Divine Being, which is the basis of Divine power, is infinite, not being limited to any category of being but containing within itself the perfection of all being. Consequently all that can be considered as being is contained among the absolute possibilities with respect to which God is omnipotent.

"Of his own accord and by his own power he made all things and arranged and perfected them; and his will is the substance of all things. He alone, then, is found to be God; he alone is omnipotent, who made all things; he alone is Father, who founded and formed all things, visible and invisible, sensible and insensate, heavenly and earthly, by the Word of his power. And he has fitted and arranged all things by his wisdom; and while he comprehends all, he can be comprehended by none. He is himself the designer, himself the builder, himself the inventor, himself the maker, himself the Lord of all"

Irenaeus also said that God is not moved by anyone, in other words he is onmipotent, he alone is God (see quote below).

"Nor is he moved by anyone; rather, freely and by his Word he made all things. For he alone is God, he alone is Lord, he alone is creator, he alone is father, he alone contains all and commands all to exist"

And it's by the non-LDS Christian scholar named Finch. You can also ask David Waltz about him, since it was Waltz who called my attention to Finch's article because Waltz feels that is closest to his own understanding of deification.

In your understanding of deification can a creature who has a glorified body of flesh and bones be transcendent like the God of the Bible?

The Bible says that the heavens cannot contain the God of the Bible (1Kigs 8:27). The God of the Bible is "above all, and through all, and in you all" ( Eph 4:6). The God of the Bible can dwell in the Son and do the works (John 14:10).

My understanding is that God transcends all creatures which is consistent with the Bible. Theophilus of Antioch wrote it is an attribute of God, the most high,

"It is the attribute of God, of the most high and almighty and of the living God, not only to be everywhere, but also to see and hear all; for he can in no way be contained in a place. . . . The three days before the luminaries were created are types of the Trinity: God, his Word, and his Wisdom" (Ad Autolycus 2:15 [A.D. 181]).

[e=mc2]

Johnny:

In your understanding of deification can a creature who has a glorified body of flesh and bones be transcendent like the God of the Bible?

The Bible says that the heavens cannot contain the God of the Bible (1Kigs 8:27). The God of the Bible is "above all, and through all, and in you all" ( Eph 4:6). The God of the Bible can dwell in the Son and do the works (John 14:10).

My understanding is that God transcends all creatures which is consistent with the Bible. Theophilus of Antioch wrote it is an attribute of God, the most high,

"It is the attribute of God, of the most high and almighty and of the living God, not only to be everywhere, but also to see and hear all; for he can in no way be contained in a place. . . . The three days before the luminaries were created are types of the Trinity: God, his Word, and his Wisdom" (Ad Autolycus 2:15 [A.D. 181]).

If the Bible is correct, and we are joint-heirs with Christ ***IN*** God, then I can hardly see why you are having such problems as you appear to above. We also will be able to have al that. We will, after all, be Gods ourselves, i.e. deified, the very meaning of the term. Our limited humanity will be superceded by Christ's powerful infinite atonement. That's what the Bible teaches, and I believe it.

[e=mc2]

Johnny:

Your intepretation of Irenaeus is not consistent with his other writings, why is that?

It's not my interpretation, but Finch's. And it's your interpretation of the rest of Irenaeus' writings that is not consistent with Finch's understanding. I'm reporting what Finch found in Irenaeus. Have you yet listened to the podcast? It is available for everybody, and is listenable by a mere click of a button, what's the pea pickin hold up already?

[johnny]

e=mc2,

If the Bible is correct, and we are joint-heirs with Christ ***IN*** God, then I can hardly see why you are having such problems as you appear to above. We also will be able to have al that. We will, after all, be Gods ourselves, i.e. deified, the very meaning of the term. Our limited humanity will be superceded by Christ's powerful infinite atonement. That's what the Bible teaches, and I believe it.

I have no problem with "we are joint-heirs with Christ ***IN*** God". Joint-heirs will inherit the kingdom and eternal life. We will be divinized. It appears you are confused about what the "infinite atonment" is. The atonement is about reconcilation, it is infite because it applies too all mankind. "Infinite atonment" DOES NOT imply that the "new creature" will have all the attributes of God.

The problem I have is that you are ignoring what the Bible reveals, the Bible reveals that one of the attributes of God is that he is infinite, he does not have limits. The God of the Bible transcends, he is onmipresent and omnipotent.

Man's humanity will always be limited, men will never be omnipresent and omnipotent as the unique God is. Human beings will forever posses the human form and the human nature. Human beings can at best be joined to God and thereby become God within the confines of creation.

It's not my interpretation, but Finch's. And it's your interpretation of the rest of Irenaeus' writings that is not consistent with Finch's understanding. I'm reporting what Finch found in Irenaeus. Have you yet listened to the podcast? It is available for everybody, and is listenable by a mere click of a button, what's the pea pickin hold up already?

I find it interesting that you won't post Irenaeus quote for everyone to see, why is that?

Why do you pick and choose your Irenaeus quotes?

Why do ignore the writings of Irenaeus that dont' fit Mormon theology?

IMO you are being deceiving about what Irenaeus really teaches.

Irenaeus taught that "God alone is omnipotent". If God alone is omnipotent then God does not have a God like the Mormon Church teaches. Deification as taught by the Mormon Church is not consistent with the words of Irenaeus and is not consistent with what the Bible reveals.

Irenaeus taught that "Nor is he moved by anyone ... he alone is God ... he alone contains all and commands all to exist. In other words he alone is God, God is not moved by anyone. Men on the other hand are dependent on external causes, men are limited.

[LifeOnaPlate]

e=mc2,

I have no problem with "we are joint-heirs with Christ ***IN*** God". Joint-heirs will inherit the kingdom and eternal life. We will be divinized. It appears you are confused about what the "infinite atonment" is. The atonement is about reconcilation, it is infite because it applies too all mankind. "Infinite atonment" DOES NOT imply that the "new creature" will have all the attributes of God.

The problem I have is that you are ignoring what the Bible reveals, the Bible reveals that one of the attributes of God is that he is infinite, he does not have limits. The God of the Bible transcends, he is onmipresent and omnipotent.

Man's humanity will always be limited, men will never be omnipresent and omnipotent as the unique God is. Human beings will forever posses the human form and the human nature. Human beings can at best be joined to God and thereby become God within the confines of creation.

I find it interesting that you won't post Irenaeus quote for everyone to see, why is that?

Why do you pick and choose your Irenaeus quotes?

Why do ignore the writings of Irenaeus that dont' fit Mormon theology?

IMO you are being deceiving about what Irenaeus really teaches.

Irenaeus taught that "God alone is omnipotent". If God alone is omnipotent then God does not have a God like the Mormon Church teaches. Deification as taught by the Mormon Church is not consistent with the words of Irenaeus and is not consistent with what the Bible reveals.

Irenaeus taught that "Nor is he moved by anyone ... he alone is God ... he alone contains all and commands all to exist. In other words he alone is God, God is not moved by anyone. Men on the other hand are dependent on external causes, men are limited.

Preface my remarks by saying I don't really view Ireaneus as a definitive source on the subject. I have a few questions adapted from a Madsen book I recently read:

1) Why did God make us at all?

2) Do you hold that God has and had all power, all knowledge, all anticipatory wisdom, and that he knew exactly what he was doing, and could have, if he wanted to, done differently?

3) If so: Why, since God could have created co-creators, did he choose to make us creatures? Why did God choose to make us his everlasting inferiors?

These questions aren't out to prove your point of view wrong; they are meant to get a feel for what you believe on these issues. Thanks!

[TOmNossor]

Johnny,

I thought I would comment on two points that you seem to feel must be noted in red.

Irenaeus taught that "God alone is omnipotent".

Without getting into the philosophical hair splitting necessary to define the term â??omnipotent,â? I respond thusly.

God is omnipotent. There is one God and one omnipotent. To believe there is more than one omnipotent is illogical given the definition omnipotence. That being said, God the Son is omnipotent and God the Father is omnipotent. All Christians must accept this as true. Thus, we must recognize that the singular omnipotence is rightly claimed for God the Father and for God the Son. I submit that whatever it is to be omnipotent in this way is descriptive of the omnipotence of the deified. Either Irenaeus was a logical buffoon or this was his position as well. The Bibleâ??s discussion of thrones and shared thrones would support this view.

Irenaeus taught that "Nor is he moved by anyone ... he alone is God ... he alone contains all and commands all to exist. In other words he alone is God, God is not moved by anyone. Men on the other hand are dependent on external causes, men are limited.

Johnny, I am not sure if you understand what you and Irenaeus are espousing here. There is clearly some question as to what the ECF meant when they spoke of being â??unmoved.â? Many of them could speak of the â??suffering of the impassible God.â? For much more on this see Gavrilyuk The Suffering of the Impassible God. Gavrilyuk, an Eastern Orthodox, discusses the tension between being immutable and the emotion / reactions evidenced in the Bible. Much of his discussion will turn to the Incarnation, but this is not the only issue with which scripture demands one work. Gavrilyuk never deals with Aquinas, and I am unsure if Aquinas leaves the tension adequately in place.

I agree with Jaroslav Pelikan that the impassibility of God was a development that came after the New Testament. When Jews spoke of God as unchangeable, they meant in his faithfulness to the covenant, not that he was absolutely immutable.

So, it is my position that Irenaeus probably had not gone as far as Aquinas, but you are correct in general that Irenaeus was on the path to espousing an immovable God. I find this to be a huge negative and you are welcome to distinguish your beliefs from mine here.

God truly loves. He engages human beings and is moved by them. He witnesses their pains and pleasures and experiences them compassionately. He does not stand so far outside our lives that He is unmoved by our acceptance or rejection of Him. As a loving Father, He allows Himself to be connected to our lives. Such is necessary for true love, IMO.

The view that God is passible in that he really cares has swept Christian theology. Not only is it almost the only view you will find in the pews, it is now prevalent among theologians. Gavrilyuk and Weinandy (a Catholic Priest) wrote recently to stem the tide of this scholarship (while acknowledging that it is now the prevalent view). Why? Well, the hypostatic union and even Nicea are built upon the view of impassibility almost absent in the pew and largely rejected by theologians. If this view is wrong, and I think it is, then it is unlikely (speaking based on a human review of the arguments) that the non-LDS view of the Trinity and Christ could be true.

So, Johnny, you are welcome to embrace the impassible, immovable, immutable God; but I cannot believe that such a being can truly love. I believe if the early church defined God from the Bible with a heavy emphasis upon the God who loves, they would of necessity rejected the concepts of perfection that required an immovable and impassible God. But they did not. So, you are correct, Irenaeus was not a LDS in his view of Godâ??s immovability. That being said, Chalcedon was all about how Christ could be immovable God and passible, movable man. If Chalcedon works (and I lean towards saying it does not), then men can be divine just as Christ is. And that is Irenaeusâ?? position.

Again, Irenaeus is not a LDS, but he places no limits upon the deified man. He boldly claims that â??men can become gods.â? In the context of these claims he places no limits upon this deification. If non-LDS theology works at all, then the fullness of divinity Irenaeus espouses is available to the deified man just as it is to Christ. The objections you offer damn the man Jesus Christ. Thus, your objections are misplaced.

Charity, TOm

[johnny]

TOmNossor,

That being said, God the Son is omnipotent and God the Father is omnipotent.

Scripture would disagree with you (see below),

Rev.19

[6] And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.

Rev.21

[22] And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.

Johnny, I am not sure if you understand what you and Irenaeus are espousing here. There is clearly some question as to what the ECF meant when they spoke of being â??unmoved.â? Many of them could speak of the â??suffering of the impassible God.â?

Irenaeus would disagree with your understanding of what he meant that "Nor is he moved by anyone", he is speaking of "free will" and "there is nothing either above Him or after Him" (see below), God is "above all" (Eph 4:6).

Adversus Haereses (Book II, Chapter 1)

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103201.htm

It is proper, then, that I should begin with the first and most important head, that is, God the Creator, who made the heaven and the earth, and all things that are therein (whom these men blasphemously style the fruit of a defect), and to demonstrate that there is nothing either above Him or after Him; nor that, influenced by any one, but of His own free will, He created all things, since He is the only God, the only Lord, the only Creator, the only Father, alone containing all things, and Himself commanding all things into existence.

Eph.4

[6] One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Again, Irenaeus is not a LDS, but he places no limits upon the deified man. He boldly claims that â??men can become gods.â? In the context of these claims he places no limits upon this deification. If non-LDS theology works at all, then the fullness of divinity Irenaeus espouses is available to the deified man just as it is to Christ.

Irenaeus would disagree with your words that "the fullness of divinity" is available, he says

Adversus Haereses (Book II, Chapter 1)

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103201.htm

5. These things, then, being so, each deity will be contented with his own possessions, and will not be moved with any curiosity respecting the affairs of others; otherwise he would be unjust, and rapacious, and would cease to be what God is. Each creation, too, will glorify its own maker, and will be contented with him, not knowing any other; otherwise it would most justly be deemed an apostate by all the others, and would receive a richly-deserved punishment. For it must be either that there is one Being who contains all things, and formed in His own territory all those things which have been created, according to His own will; or, again, that there are numerous unlimited creators and gods, who begin from each other, and end in each other on every side; and it will then be necessary to allow that all the rest are contained from without by some one who is greater, and that they are each of them shut up within their own territory, and remain in it. No one of them all, therefore, is God. For there will be [much] wanting to every one of them, possessing [as he will do] only a very small part when compared with all the rest. The name of the Omnipotent will thus be brought to an end, and such an opinion will of necessity fall to impiety.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I believe these questions are at the root of the discussion, and hope you will answer them.

1) Why did God make us at all?

2) Do you hold that God has and had all power, all knowledge, all anticipatory wisdom, and that he knew exactly what he was doing, and could have, if he wanted to, done differently?

3) If so: Why, since God could have created co-creators, did he choose to make us creatures? Why did God choose to make us his everlasting inferiors?

These questions aren't out to prove your point of view wrong; they are meant to get a feel for what you believe on these issues. Thanks!

[e=mc2]

Johnny:

"Infinite atonment" DOES NOT imply that the "new creature" will have all the attributes of God.

Oh yes it absolutely does. I wouldn't dare be so bold as you are here to deny the power of Christ's atonement. That's your problem bub, certainly never will be mine. Thank God.

The problem I have is that you are ignoring what the Bible reveals,

Patently ludicrous. I even use the Greek. Quit being silly.

the Bible reveals that one of the attributes of God is that he is infinite, he does not have limits.

You are being so illogical its pathetic. If God is GREAT, then he can't be SMALL. The moment you define God in *any* way, you limit Him. If he has all power, he is limited in not being powerless, etc. I have a podcast on this from the Bible scholar Cherbonnier.

The God of the Bible transcends, he is onmipresent and omnipotent.

And here you automatically limit him through definition.

[e=mc2]

Johnny:

I find it interesting that you won't post Irenaeus quote for everyone to see, why is that?

I find it interesting you refuse to consider al my analysis using Finch on Irenaeus in my podcast and you won't listen to that. Why is that? It's not the other Irenaeus quotes you use which contradict my use of him, it is your interpretation of what Irenaeus meant that contradicts. I don't see either option as necessary to accept .....

Johnny said:

Why do you pick and choose your Irenaeus quotes?

Kerry notes:

And I suppose you have used his fullest thought in your singular quote? Don't make me laugh here man!

[TOmNossor]

5. These things, then, being so, each deity will be contented with his own possessions, and will not be moved with any curiosity respecting the affairs of others; otherwise he would be unjust, and rapacious, and would cease to be what God is. Each creation, too, will glorify its own maker, and will be contented with him, not knowing any other; otherwise it would most justly be deemed an apostate by all the others, and would receive a richly-deserved punishment. For it must be either that there is one Being who contains all things, and formed in His own territory all those things which have been created, according to His own will; or, again, that there are numerous unlimited creators and gods, who begin from each other, and end in each other on every side; and it will then be necessary to allow that all the rest are contained from without by some one who is greater, and that they are each of them shut up within their own territory, and remain in it. No one of them all, therefore, is God. For there will be [much] wanting to every one of them, possessing [as he will do] only a very small part when compared with all the rest. The name of the Omnipotent will thus be brought to an end, and such an opinion will of necessity fall to impiety.

Johnny,

Your quote is Irenaeus condemning Marcion (and other Gnostics). It has nothing to do with the deification Irenaeus espouses. Did you even read the context?

Book II, Chapt 1,2,3 are about Gnostics.

Book II, Chapt 4, 5, and ? are about Marcionâ??s Gnosticism.

Here is your quote in context:

4. These remarks are, in like manner, applicable against the followers of Marcion. For his two gods will also be contained and circumscribed by an immense interval which separates them from one another. But then there is a necessity to suppose a multitude of gods separated by an immense distance from each other on every side, beginning with one another, and ending in one another. Thus, by that very process of reasoning on which they depend for teaching that there is a certain Pleroma or God above the Creator of heaven and earth, any one who chooses to employ it may maintain that there is another Pleroma above the Pleroma, above that again another, and above Bythus another ocean of Deity, while in like manner the same successions hold with respect to the sides; and thus, their doctrine flowing out into immensity, there will always be a necessity to conceive of other Pleroma, and other Bythi, so as never at any time to stop, but always to continue seeking for others besides those already mentioned. Moreover, it will be uncertain whether these which we conceive of are below, or are, in fact, themselves the things which are above; and, in like manner, [it will be doubtful] respecting those things which are said by them to be above, whether they are really above or below; and thus our opinions will have no fixed conclusion or certainty, but will of necessity wander forth after worlds without limits, and gods that cannot be numbered.

5. These things, then, being so, each deity will be contented with his own possessions, and will not be moved with any curiosity respecting the affairs of others; otherwise he would be unjust, and rapacious, and would cease to be what God is. Each creation, too, will glorify its own maker, and will be contented with him, not knowing any other; otherwise it would most justly be deemed an apostate by all the others, and would receive a richly-deserved punishment. For it must be either that there is one Being who contains all things, and formed in His own territory all those things which have been created, according to His own will; or, again, that there are numerous unlimited creators and gods, who begin from each other, and end in each other on every side; and it will then be necessary to allow that all the rest are contained from without by some one who is greater, and that they are each of them shut up within their own territory, and remain in it. No one of them all, therefore, is God. For there will be [much] wanting to every one of them, possessing [as he will do] only a very small part when compared with all the rest. The name of the Omnipotent will thus be brought to an end, and such an opinion will of necessity fall to impiety.

Johnny, Please comment on the context of your extracted quote. Please acknowledge that your quote was not part of Irenaeusâ?? discussion of Christian deification as he understands it.

If you would like more explanation about what Marcion and other Gnostics believed that resulted in Irenaeus condemning them this way, I will try to oblige.

Charity, TOm

P.S. See my post on the first page for the book 3, 4, and 5 references where Irenaeus discusses this view of Christian deification.