Early Christian Theosis Quotes

[johnny]

TOmNossor,

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?

I read the context, through his condemning Marcion he makes the points that I emphasized earlier and that is:

1 - there is nothing above God or after God and that God is not influenced by any one but only His own free will. He is the only God.

2 - if there are unlimited gods, who begin from each other, and end in each other then there is not one them is God.

Point #1 directly contradicts the Mormon teaching that God has a God.

Point #2 directly contradicts the Mormon teaching that there are unlimited gods.

[johnny]

e=mc2,

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.

If it does then please provide some evidence ... please back up your words.

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.

Could you please explain how that stating "one of the attributes of God is that he is infinite, he does not have limits" is illogical ... thanks

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?

I have no interest in listening to your podcast. I would suggest you present your analysis on the message board.

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.

Do you agree with the following interpretions of the Irenaeus (see earlier link for exact quotes), if not please explain ... do these quotes fit the Mormon teaching of deification?

1 - there is nothing above God or after God and that God is not influenced by any one but only His own free will. He is the only God.

2 - if there are unlimited gods, who begin from each other, and end in each other then there is not one them is God.

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor,

I read the context, through his condemning Marcion he makes the points that I emphasized earlier and that is:

1 - there is nothing above God or after God and that God is not influenced by any one but only His own free will. He is the only God.

2 - if there are unlimited gods, who begin from each other, and end in each other then there is not one them is God.

Point #1 directly contradicts the Mormon teaching that God has a God.

Point #2 directly contradicts the Mormon teaching that there are unlimited gods.

Johnny,

Gnostics believed in various theoryâ??s that removed the â??good godâ? from the creation of evil matter. Irenaeus is responding to the existence of creator god(s).

Neither point #1 or #2 point toward refuting the truth that we are to be fully divine through union with God such that there is one God, one omnipotence.

Jesus Christ is fully divine (unlimited) and God the Father is fully divine (unlimited) and yet there is one. It seems that you have attempted to deny that Christ is fully divine and unlimited, but this is either a huge departure from Catholicism or in radical need of qualification. The Athanasian Creed says that God the Father and God the Son are â??co-equal.â? Do you reject the Athanasian Creed?

BTW, Irenaeus said we should not speculate about a God above God. President Hinckley said that we do not know much about such things. I reject your view of Mormonism, but I am quite certain that neither you nor I know too much about it.

Charity, TOm

P.S. If you want to review what Irenaeus said about deification then you should look at the context and material near were here said men can become gods, not where he is attacking Marcion.

[cksalmon]

Hi LOAP--

You asked Johnny, but I'm going to attempt a response here.

Note that I am responding to one of your enquiries--albeit not one made to me personally.

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?

I'd like to address this later if the discussion warrants it. My answer may well differ in emphasis from Johnny's. And as I think it is such a crucial question, I'm curious as to his take on this as well.

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?

Yes. Within logical limits.

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?

If I read you correctly, it seems as if you're asking why did God not create us as equals to himself. Why did he create us as "everlasting inferiors" when he could have created us as gods. Is that on target?

At this point, we run into a significant worldview-derived dissonance. We're starting from different basic presuppositions (foundational claims, you could say), and so it is no surprise that we would come to different conclusions in certain areas. From a traditional Christian perspective, the question

"Why didn't God create us as gods?"

is illogical.

Correctly or incorrectly, the traditional Christian God is a se, "from oneself." Or, he possesses the attribute of aseity. That is, "God is not dependent upon anything else for existence, but has eternally existed without any external or prior cause" (to quote my little dictionary of theological terms).

I trust you'll see the illogicality of the question when viewed from a traditionally-Christian worldview.

Definitionally, God's creation of us renders us contingent beings. If, as traditional Christians believe, aseity is a God-making property, then no created (and hence contingent) being can be classed (or later re-classed) as God.

This conclusion stems from a radically-monotheistic worldview. There is truly no one like God.

The notion that God could have done otherwise wouldn't apply in this situation, as it is logically impossible that God could have created a non-contingent creature (i.e., God).

My take.

Best.

CKS

[William the Conqueror]

Johnny:

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.

Johnny doesn't use the Joseph Smith translation.

[johnny]

TOmNossor,

Gnostics believed in various theory's that removed the 'good god' from the creation of evil matter. Irenaeus is responding to the existence of creator god(s).

I am also responding to "the existence of creator god(s)", the Mormon Church teaches that a man can become a Creator like our Heavenly Father.

Neither point #1 or #2 point toward refuting the truth that we are to be fully divine through union with God such that there is one God, one omnipotence.

Irenaeus would disagree with the Mormon Church teaching that "our Heavenly Father became God". If God became God then there is a "above God" and "after God". Irenaeus says there is only God.

Jesus Christ is fully divine (unlimited) and God the Father is fully divine (unlimited) and yet there is one. It seems that you have attempted to deny that Christ is fully divine and unlimited, but this is either a huge departure from Catholicism or in radical need of qualification.

I am not denying that Christ is fully divine, Christ is God. For more discussion see my earlier posts.

The Athanasian Creed says that God the Father and God the Son are 'co-equal.' Do you reject the Athanasian Creed?

I accept the Athanasian Creed, "co-equal" does not imply that there are two Gods each seperately unlimited.

BTW, Irenaeus said we should not speculate about a God above God. President Hinckley said that we do not know much about such things.

The Mormon Church and Joseph Smith appears to know about such things, they teach,

Chapter 47 Gospel Principles

http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,11-1-13-59,00.html

Exaltation is eternal life, the kind of life God lives. He lives in great glory. He is perfect. He possesses all knowledge and all wisdom. He is the Father of spirit children. He is a creator. We can become like our Heavenly Father. ... This is the way our Heavenly Father became God.

Joseph Smith Jr., The King Follett Sermon, Ensign, Apr 1971, 1314

http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menu..._&hideNav=1

God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! ... I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see. These ideas are incomprehensible to some, but they are simple. It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, and to know that we may converse with Him as one man converses with another, and that He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did; and I will show it from the Bible.

I reject your view of Mormonism, but I am quite certain that neither you nor I know too much about it.

Do you reject the idea that God has a God?

Do you reject the idea of eternal progression?

P.S. If you want to review what Irenaeus said about deification then you should look at the context and material near were here said men can become gods, not where he is attacking Marcion.

The logic of Irenaeus also applies to the Mormon teaching of deification, Irenaeus teaches that if you have unlimited gods then none of them is God.

[e=mc2]

Johnny:

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?

The fact that he *can* bestow these wonderful gifts on all men and women, and the fact that he chooses to do so. THAT is what makes God TOTALLY unique. He shares, instead of condemns and limits anyone. That is pure love, unlike Christians who wish to damn othes for not seeing things their own ways.

And if you have no interest in listening to my podcasts and seeing how I use the materials, why should I do you any favors of posting what I already have rsearched and shared in the podcasts? I have given the info. If you don't wish to make use of it, that's just not my problem.

[johnny]

e=mc2,

The fact that he *can* bestow these wonderful gifts on all men and women, and the fact that he chooses to do so. THAT is what makes God TOTALLY unique.

That is exactly my point ... the Father bestows ... he is unique because the Father alone is the source of divinity because he is the origin of divinity.

He shares, instead of condemns and limits anyone.

Humans by nature are limited, they are limited because they need to partake of the divine nature to be divinized.

And if you have no interest in listening to my podcasts and seeing how I use the materials, why should I do you any favors of posting what I already have rsearched and shared in the podcasts?

I came to the message board to exchange ideas by posting on a message board, I did not come to a message board to listen to podcasts.

[johnny]

LifeOnaPlate,

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

Sorry about the late response ... things have been busy and I wanted to focus on the discussion with TOmNossor and e=mc2. Below are some offical Catholic teachings on the topics below, for more discussion go to the assoicated links.

1) Why did God make us at all?

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p4.htm#III

CCC293 - Scripture and Tradition never cease to teach and celebrate this fundamental truth: "The world was made for the glory of God." St. Bonaventure explains that God created all things "not to increase his glory, but to show it forth and to communicate it", for God has no other reason for creating than his love and goodness: "Creatures came into existence when the key of love opened his hand." The First Vatican Council explains: This one, true God, of his own goodness and "almighty power", not for increasing his own beatitude, nor for attaining his perfection, but in order to manifest this perfection through the benefits which he bestows on creatures, with absolute freedom of counsel "and from the beginning of time, made out of nothing both orders of creatures, the spiritual and the corporeal..."

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?

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p1.htm#I

CCC202 - Jesus himself affirms that God is "the one Lord" whom you must love "with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength". At the same time Jesus gives us to understand that he himself is "the Lord". To confess that Jesus is Lord is distinctive of Christian faith. This is not contrary to belief in the One God. Nor does believing in the Holy Spirit as "Lord and giver of life" introduce any division into the One God: We firmly believe and confess without reservation that there is only one true God, eternal infinite (immensus) and unchangeable, incomprehensible, almighty and ineffable, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; three persons indeed, but one essence, substance or nature entirely simple.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p4.htm#V

CCC310 - With infinite wisdom and goodness God freely willed to create a world "in a state of journeying" towards its ultimate perfection. In God's plan this process of becoming involves the appearance of certain beings and the disappearance of others, the existence of the more perfect alongside the less perfect, both constructive and destructive forces of nature. With physical good there exists also physical evil as long as creation has not reached perfection.

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?

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p4.htm#V

CCC306 - God is the sovereign master of his plan. But to carry it out he also makes use of his creatures' co-operation. This use is not a sign of weakness, but rather a token of almighty God's greatness and goodness. For God grants his creatures not only their existence, but also the dignity of acting on their own, of being causes and principles for each other, and thus of co-operating in the accomplishment of his plan.

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!

To get a even better feel for what I believe I would suggest you go to the link below to see what the Catholic Church teaches:

Catechism of the Catholic Church

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/index/a.htm

[cksalmon]

Hi Kerry--

The fact that he *can* bestow these wonderful gifts on all men and women, and the fact that he chooses to do so. THAT is what makes God TOTALLY unique. He shares, instead of condemns and limits anyone. That is pure love, unlike Christians who wish to damn othes for not seeing things their own ways.

As I posted to LOAP earlier, I think this sort of divide is indicative of a larger worldview issue--i.e., an issue not decided on the basis of exegesis alone, but with deference to foundational claims.

Per a monotheistic worldview, the notion that God might share his godhood is logically incoherent. The issue is not that God limits anyone (other than himself). The issue is that no contingent being can be said to be God. That knocks any and all contingent beings out of the running for a "godhood" equal to God's. For traditional Christians, God is utterly unique, a one-of-a-kind being. God has no prior cause. Obviously, this conflicts with LDS theology. But it behooves us to recognize that the two sides are operating from fundamentally different and contradictory presuppositions: the LDS view, that God is a contingent being himself, on the one hand, and that God is an a se being, on the other.

If God himself is contingent, then it makes sense that God can make his creatures equal to himself (i.e., divinized, but contingent, beings). If God is not contingent, then it doesn't make sense to suggest that God can make contingent beings to be non-contingent.

This is a fundamental divide that separates an eternal LDS polytheism from a traditionally-Christian monotheism (the Trinity issue notwithstanding).

I would suggest that pure love does not entail the belief that God is a contingent being who can exalt others, but rather in recognizing that God is utterly unique in his being (not one among many--thousands, millions, or billions), such that worship of said God is the only rational response.

To my mind, the traditional Christian concept of God is theocentric. The LDS view, that counts God as one contingent deity among many, and to whose station we might progress, strikes me as a man-centered theology.

The question is whether our theology is God-centered (praising God for his absolute uniqueness) or man-centered (believing that we can become like him).

I utterly reject an anthropocentric theology. The God I worship is not something I can become. He is infinitely more exalted and glorious than anything I can be. Like him? Yes. Consumed in his being? Yes. In eternal fellowship with his glorious personage? Yes.

Equal to him? No.

He is God. I am not. I will never be God. I will never be a god. Deification promises me a participation in Christ's divine nature. Human perfection as God intended. It does not promise me that I will become God in my own right.

Behold, I have refined you, but not as silver; I have tried you in the furnace of affliction.

For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it, for how should my name be profaned? My glory I will not give to another. [isa 48:10-11]

Why do you believe that you can become an equal of God himself? From a monotheistic perspective, this is completely impossible.

Best.

CKS

[johnny]

cksalmon,

The God I worship is not something I can become. He is infinitely more exalted and glorious than anything I can be. Like him? Yes. Consumed in his being? Yes. In eternal fellowship with his glorious personage? Yes.

cksalmon,

Thank you for the wonderful post ... your words have expounded on the words of the Apostle Paul in 1Cor 8. In 1Cor 8 Paul rephrases the monotheistic confession of v 4 in such a way as to contrast it with polytheism (1 Cor 8:5) and to express our relationship with the one God in concrete in personal and Christian terms.

In 1Cor 8, Paul is saying "there is none other God but one". There is that are "called gods" but to traditional Chritians "there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things". The disciples of Christ believe "the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he" (Mark 12:29,32).

1Cor.8

[4] As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.

[5] For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

[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.

Mark.12

[29] And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

[32] And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:

[LifeOnaPlate]

cksalmon,

cksalmon,

Thank you for the wonderful post ... your words have expounded on the words of the Apostle Paul in 1Cor 8. In 1Cor 8 Paul rephrases the monotheistic confession of v 4 in such a way as to contrast it with polytheism (1 Cor 8:5) and to express our relationship with the one God in concrete in personal and Christian terms.

In 1Cor 8, Paul is saying "there is none other God but one". There is that are "called gods" but to traditional Chritians "there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things". The disciples of Christ believe "the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he" (Mark 12:29,32).

1Cor.8

[4] As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.

[5] For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

[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.

Mark.12

[29] And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

[32] And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:

The fact that we have the potential to become Gods, even the Sons of god and joint-heirs with Jesus Christ, does not negate any of the verses you mentioned. God will always be God, and he will always be our God. We have no other God; period. Throughout all eternity we will worship no other God.

[johnny]

LifeOnaPlate,

The fact that we have the potential to become Gods, even the Sons of god and joint-heirs with Jesus Christ, does not negate any of the verses you mentioned.

In your becoming God, do you believe you will be omnipotent like our heavenly Father ... if so does this mean there are many omnipotent Gods? Wikipedia says that omnipotence means (literally, "all power") is power with no limits or inexhaustible, in other words, unlimited power.

Paul says "there is none other God but one."

God will always be God, and he will always be our God. We have no other God; period.

In your becoming God, do you believe you will be a Father of whom are all things, in other words a Creator like our Heavenly Father? The Mormon Church teaches that a man can become a Creator like our Heavenly Father.

Paul says "to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things"

[LifeOnaPlate]

LifeOnaPlate,

In your becoming God, do you believe you will be omnipotent like our heavenly Father ... if so does this mean there are many omnipotent Gods? Wikipedia says that omnipotence means (literally, "all power") is power with no limits or inexhaustible, in other words, unlimited power.

Paul says "there is none other God but one."

In your becoming God, do you believe you will be a Father of whom are all things, in other words a Creator like our Heavenly Father? The Mormon Church teaches that a man can become a Creator like our Heavenly Father.

Paul says "to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things"

Joint-heirs with Christ would be just that: joint heirs.

Ok I admit it; all the Mormons wanna do is dethrone the God they worship, overthrow and rule over everyone and become the ultimate power of the pluriverse and send all the naysayers to the literal fire of a burning hell we will create for them, since one currently does not exist.

[Lachoneus]

Equal to him? No.

This is LDS theology.

Why do you believe that you can become an equal of God himself?

This is NOT LDS theology.

It has been stated on this board numerous times that the LDS do not beleive that we will ever, through all eternity, be equal to our God. As LOAP just said, "God will always be God, and he will always be our God. We have no other God; period." We will never be His equal. For all eternity we will worship Him.

We also believe that He is our literal Father. We take literally the commandment to become like Him (Matt 5:48 ). Therefore we believe that some day, through His grace, if we are worthy, we can be like He is now. But remember, we do not believe in a stagnant God. He is dynamic. He acquires more glory through His endless creations. So, when that day comes that we become like He is now, He will still be as far ahead of us then as He is now. That will never change through all eternity. He will always be our God. We will always, forever, worship Him.

[Lachoneus]

Paul says "to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things"

Of course, Paul is correct. "to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things" What other Gods there may be are of no concern to us. They are not our Father. We do not worship them. We have one God, Our Father.

[johnny]

LifeOnaPlate,

Joint-heirs with Christ would be just that: joint heirs.

Joint heirs simply means that men are joint participant with Christ, a fellow heir. Men can inherit the eternal kingdom and eternal life.

Men do no inherit the attibutes of God such as omnipotence and omnipresence.

Ok I admit it;

You failed to admit if you will be omnipotent like our heavenly Father ... why is that?

You failed to admit if you will be a Creator like our heavenly Father ... why is that?

[johnny]

Lachoneus,

What other Gods there may be are of no concern to us.

Are you concerned that there is omnipotent God, one who has unlimited power?

If you become a God will you have unlimited power, Mormon scripture says a "fulness".

[LifeOnaPlate]

LifeOnaPlate,

Joint heirs simply means that men are joint participant with Christ, a fellow heir. Men can inherit the eternal kingdom and eternal life.

Men do no inherit the attibutes of God such as omnipotence and omnipresence.

You failed to admit if you will be omnipotent like our heavenly Father ... why is that?

You failed to admit if you will be a Creator like our heavenly Father ... why is that?

Omnipotent? Depends on your definition of omnipotent. Can we inherit "all that the father hath? [unqualified]" This would be a "fulness," and yes, it is possible.

Are you under the impression latter-day saints believe they will somehow become greater than God, stop worshipping god, dethrone God, etc?

I realize we aren't going to see eye to eye on this issue any time soon; and that's ok; keep in mind that quoting Bible verses to me is of little avail, as I have read the bible, and believe the bible, and see no conflict in the Bible with what I believe.

If men do not comprehend the character of God, they do not comprehend themselves, and vice versa.

[johnny]

Lachoneus,

We also believe that He is our literal Father. We take literally the commandment to become like Him (Matt 5:48 ).

In becoming like Him does this include God's characteristics of omniscience and omnipresence?

[Lachoneus]

Joint heirs simply means that men are joint participant with Christ, a fellow heir. Men can inherit the eternal kingdom and eternal life.

Men do no inherit the attibutes of God such as omnipotence and omnipresence.

Your second sentence is inconsistent with your first sentence. If we are joint-heirs such that we are "joint participant with Christ, a fellow heir," then we will have his same attributes (1 John 3:2; Matt 5:48).

[Lachoneus]

In becoming like Him does this include God's characteristics of omniscience and omnipresence?

How can we become as He is (Matt 5:48) if we lack any of His attributes?

[johnny]

LifeOnaPlate,

Omnipotent? Depends on your definition of omnipotent.

My defination is unlimited power, power with no limits or inexhaustible.

Are you under the impression latter-day saints believe they will somehow become greater than God, stop worshipping god, dethrone God, etc?

Do you believe you will be "equal" to God in terms of power ... will you be omnipotent like God?

[LifeOnaPlate]

Lachoneus,

In becoming like Him does this include God's characteristics of omniscience and omnipresence?

Omnipresent? Depends on what you mean by omnipresent. If you refer to omnipresence as defined in the Nicene and athanasian creeds, then, no, because that would be extra-biblical.

[johnny]

Lachoneus,

Your second sentence is inconsistent with your first sentence. If we are joint-heirs such that we are "joint participant with Christ, a fellow heir," then we will have his same attributes (1 John 3:2; Matt 5:48).

The Bible reveals that men will inherit the eternal kingdom and eternal life. The Bible DOES NOT reveal men will inherit his characteristes like omniscience and omnipresence.

How can we become as He is (Matt 5:48) if we lack any of His attributes?

We can have the attribute of eternal life.

But we will not have his attributes of omniscience and omnipresence.