Early Christian Theosis Quotes

[LifeOnaPlate]

LifeOnaPlate,

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

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

We will inherit "all that the Father hath," as Christ did. That's the promise; that's the belief. [Parenthetically, God doesn't technically have "all" power, philisophically speaking. For example: God cannot lie or sin.

[johnny]

LifeOnaPlate,

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.

My Omnipresent I mean it like 1 Kings 8:27

1Kgs.8

[27] But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?

[LifeOnaPlate]

LifeOnaPlate,

I mean it like Rev 19:6, I mean it like the lexicon defination which says "1) he who holds sway over all things; 2) the ruler of all; 3) almighty: God"

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.

Well, that doesn't define "omnipresent," though.

[johnny]

LifeOnaPlate,

We will inherit "all that the Father hath," as Christ did. That's the promise; that's the belief. [Parenthetically, God doesn't technically have "all" power, philisophically speaking. For example: God cannot lie or sin.

The Son of Man did not inherit being Omnipotence, the Father is God Almighty (Rev 21:22).

Rev.21

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

[Lachoneus]

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.

That the Bible does not reveal something does not mean that that thing is not true. It just means that the Bible is silent on the matter.

In this case, you are wrong. I already referenced Matt. 5:48 and 1 John 3:2. The Bible does reveal that we can have all His attributes. Otherwise He would not have commanded us to be as He is and would not have said that we will be like him

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

The Bible does not say this.

[johnny]

LifeOnaPlate,

Well, that doesn't define "omnipresent," though.

See my earlier post on 1Kgs.8 ... the heavens cannot contain God.

[LifeOnaPlate]

LifeOnaPlate,

My Omnipresent I mean it like 1 Kings 8:27

1Kgs.8

[27] But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?

There is a heaven of heavens?

You believe God said "you can become like me, mostly..." I don't believe that is what he said. That seems to be the crux of the argument.

[johnny]

Lachoneus ,

In this case, you are wrong. I already referenced Matt. 5:48 and 1 John 3:2. The Bible does reveal that we can have all His attributes.

Which verse reveals "that we can have all His attributes" ... will you inherit being Omnipotent ... please explain?

Otherwise He would not have commanded us to be as He is and would not have said that we will be like him

To be like him is to be perfect, holy, and have eternal life like him.

The Bible does not say this.

The Bible reveals only the Father is Almighty (Rev 21:22).

The Bible reveals that men will a glorified body of flesh and bones, if a person has finite body then they cannot be like the Father, the "heavens cannot contain thee" God.

[johnny]

LifeOnaPlate,

There is a heaven of heavens?

Yes ...

You believe God said "you can become like me, mostly..." I don't believe that is what he said. That seems to be the crux of the argument.

The Bible clearly tells us how we can become him ... we can become perfect, holy, and have eternal life.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Lachoneus ,

Which verse reveals "that we can have all His attributes" ... will you inherit being Omnipotent ... please explain?

To be like him is to be perfect, holy, and have eternal life like him.

The Bible reveals only the Father is Almighty (Rev 21:22).

The Bible reveals that men will a glorified body of flesh and bones, if a person has finite body then they cannot be like the Father, the "heavens cannot contain thee" God.

Again, because you and I define God differently, our conclusions about what it means to "become like God" will never align, as we are arguing for different points entirely.

Where is the doctrine of resurrection in the Catechism? Dealing specifically with body of "flesh and bone"? Thanks.

We can become perfect. We can have eternal life. We agree on these points. What they entail we disagree on, because we disagree on the very nature of God. Again; there isn't going to be any agreement in this discussion other than the ones I just listed.

[Lachoneus]

Which verse reveals "that we can have all His attributes" ... will you inherit being Omnipotent ... please explain?

Matt 5:48 commands us to be "perfect" as He is perfect. The word "perfect" means to be "complete" or "fully grown." We are not "complete" as He is complete if we lack even one attribute He has.

The Bible reveals only the Father is Almighty (Rev 21:22).

The Bible reveals that the Father is Almight. The Bible does not reveal that only the Father is Almighty. "To us" He is the only Almight being with whom we have to do.

The Bible reveals that men will a glorified body of flesh and bones, if a person has finite body then they cannot be like the Father, the "heavens cannot contain thee" God.

What does the phrase "heavens cannot contain thee" mean? Is the Father an immensely large Being?

[TOmNossor]

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.

As has hopefully been obvious from early responses in this thread, I maintain that the Bible calls God the Son a creator. LDS can be creators as the Son is a creator. It seems that you place limits on the creator title when it is applied to the Son. I am not convinced you are Catholic in your thinking here, but I am not concerned too much. I would say that the Son is creator in communion with the Father and this is the creator-hood that we as the deified can possess. Or so Irenaeus and the scriptures would suggest.

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.

I will just answer here your later query. I believe all LDS must incorporate D&C 20:17 into their understanding of God. When I do this, I find that an eternity ago God the Father was God and there were no Gods above Him. I find that God the Father was man like God the Son was man, but that this incarnation (and Joseph Smithâ??s discussion of this truth which I believe points away from believing there is a God above God) should not be viewed as indicating that God the Father was a sinful man who became God.

I respect other LDS positions, especially when they incorporate D&C 20:17 and things like D&C 121:28&32, but when I am speculating (hopefully taking into account Pres. Hinckleyâ??s caution or Irenaeusâ??s â??who specifically said that we should not speculate if there are Godâ??s above God- caution), I see God the Father as eternally divine AND having no Gods above Him.

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

I have already explained that I do not embrace the view that there are two God, â??separately unlimited.â?

Anyway, Johnny, you should review the quotes I offered and their context. Your attempts to condemn Irenaeusâ??s view with Irenaeusâ??s polemics addressing Gnostics and not what he would consider orthodoxy is flawed.

Your attempt to define LDS theology beyond the position that I keep espousing, will also not make Irenaeus your ally.

Your attempt to show places where Irenaeus does differ from the LDS view will also not make Irenaeus condemn the position in question.

Irenaeus boldly claims that men can become gods. He does not place limits upon what the deified will be.

Irenaeus may (like you appear to on occasion) embrace a limited God the Son, be he does not do this in conjunction with his deification talk concerning men. I think it unlikely that Irenaeus thought deified men would be â??more divineâ? than God the Son, so perhaps those scholars who believe Irenaeus was a subordinationalist (and I would generally agree) could rightly claim he believed in some limits on the deified because of the limits placed on God the Son. As you have noted, the New Testament also opens itself to limiting the deity of God the Son, and such limits in he New Testament could be argued to be limiting upon deified man too.

But from the commencing of Nicea to the conclusion of Chalcedon, the reasons to make God the Son not divine or less divine than the God the Father were addressed and dismissed. A solid scholarly position could be made that the Son was elevated through development until he was fully divine. This of course begs the question, why was the deified left behind? This is a mistake you make. It is common within Catholicism, but I know of no irreformable reason it must be embraced by the Catholic who can see the clear teachings of the early church. To be consistent you should abandon this view.

The Bible clearly teaches that Jesus Christ is the example of what the Father is.

The Bible clearly teaches that we are to become what Jesus Christ is.

Either Christ is a â??weak copyâ? or we are to become fully divine like the Father. I see no other consistent way of reading the scriptures.

Charity, TOm

[LifeOnaPlate]

As has hopefully been obvious from early responses in this thread, I maintain that the Bible calls God the Son a creator. LDS can be creators as the Son is a creator. It seems that you place limits on the creator title when it is applied to the Son. I am not convinced you are Catholic in your thinking here, but I am not concerned too much. I would say that the Son is creator in communion with the Father and this is the creator-hood that we as the deified can possess. Or so Irenaeus and the scriptures would suggest.

I will just answer here your later query. I believe all LDS must incorporate D&C 20:17 into their understanding of God. When I do this, I find that an eternity ago God the Father was God and there were no Gods above Him. I find that God the Father was man like God the Son was man, but that this incarnation (and Joseph Smithâ??s discussion of this truth which I believe points away from believing there is a God above God) should not be viewed as indicating that God the Father was a sinful man who became God.

I respect other LDS positions, especially when they incorporate D&C 20:17 and things like D&C 121:28&32, but when I am speculating (hopefully taking into account Pres. Hinckleyâ??s caution or Irenaeusâ??s â??who specifically said that we should not speculate if there are Godâ??s above God- caution), I see God the Father as eternally divine AND having no Gods above Him.

I have already explained that I do not embrace the view that there are two God, â??separately unlimited.â?

Anyway, Johnny, you should review the quotes I offered and their context. Your attempts to condemn Irenaeusâ??s view with Irenaeusâ??s polemics addressing Gnostics and not what he would consider orthodoxy is flawed.

Your attempt to define LDS theology beyond the position that I keep espousing, will also not make Irenaeus your ally.

Your attempt to show places where Irenaeus does differ from the LDS view will also not make Irenaeus condemn the position in question.

Irenaeus boldly claims that men can become gods. He does not place limits upon what the deified will be.

Irenaeus may (like you appear to on occasion) embrace a limited God the Son, be he does not do this in conjunction with his deification talk concerning men. I think it unlikely that Irenaeus thought deified men would be â??more divineâ? than God the Son, so perhaps those scholars who believe Irenaeus was a subordinationalist (and I would generally agree) could rightly claim he believed in some limits on the deified because of the limits placed on God the Son. As you have noted, the New Testament also opens itself to limiting the deity of God the Son, and such limits in he New Testament could be argued to be limiting upon deified man too.

But from the commencing of Nicea to the conclusion of Chalcedon, the reasons to make God the Son not divine or less divine than the God the Father were addressed and dismissed. A solid scholarly position could be made that the Son was elevated through development until he was fully divine. This of course begs the question, why was the deified left behind? This is a mistake you make. It is common within Catholicism, but I know of no irreformable reason it must be embraced by the Catholic who can see the clear teachings of the early church. To be consistent you should abandon this view.

The Bible clearly teaches that Jesus Christ is the example of what the Father is.

The Bible clearly teaches that we are to become what Jesus Christ is.

Either Christ is a â??weak copyâ? or we are to become fully divine like the Father. I see no other consistent way of reading the scriptures.

Charity, TOm

Couldn't have been stated better, imo.

[johnny]

LifeOnaPlate,

Where is the doctrine of resurrection in the Catechism? Dealing specifically with body of "flesh and bone"? Thanks.

See quote below, for more discussion see the link:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c2a6.htm

663 - Henceforth Christ is seated at the right hand of the Father: "By 'the Father's right hand' we understand the glory and honour of divinity, where he who exists as Son of God before all ages, indeed as God, of one being with the Father, is seated bodily after he became incarnate and his flesh was glorified"

[johnny]

Lachoneus,

Matt 5:48 commands us to be "perfect" as He is perfect. The word "perfect" means to be "complete" or "fully grown." We are not "complete" as He is complete if we lack even one attribute He has.

If you become a God will have the attribute of being Omnipotent?

The Bible reveals that the Father is Almight. The Bible does not reveal that only the Father is Almighty. "To us" He is the only Almight being with whom we have to do.

Does the Father know of any other Gods that are Almighty?

What does the phrase "heavens cannot contain thee" mean? Is the Father an immensely large Being?

He is spirit, he is "above all, and through all, and in you all" ( Eph 4:6).

[LifeOnaPlate]

LifeOnaPlate,

See quote below, for more discussion see the link:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c2a6.htm

663 - Henceforth Christ is seated at the right hand of the Father: "By 'the Father's right hand' we understand the glory and honour of divinity, where he who exists as Son of God before all ages, indeed as God, of one being with the Father, is seated bodily after he became incarnate and his flesh was glorified"

So Catholics are polytheists, indeed. They do believe while christ has a body, God the Father does not.

Still, I don't see from this quote that we will be resurrected as a body of flesh and bone.

[johnny]

TOmNossor,

LDS can be creators as the Son is a creator.

Can Mormons be creators like the Father as the Mormon Church teaches?

I see God the Father as eternally divine AND having no Gods above Him.

Will the Mormons that become God like the Father have Gods above them?

Irenaeus boldly claims that men can become gods. He does not place limits upon what the deified will be.

I have no problem with the claim "that men can become gods". Irenaeus puts a limit on their power when he talks about one God and omnipotentence.

Irenaeus may (like you appear to on occasion) embrace a limited God the Son, be he does not do this in conjunction with his deification talk concerning men.

I believe his works have to read as a whole, just like the Bible you cannot just pick and choose.

But from the commencing of Nicea to the conclusion of Chalcedon, the reasons to make God the Son not divine or less divine than the God the Father were addressed and dismissed.

The Father and the Son are equal in glory, the Son receives his power from the Father.

The Bible clearly teaches that Jesus Christ is the example of what the Father is.

The Bible clearly teaches that we are to become what Jesus Christ is.

The Bible does not teach that the Son can become exactly like Father "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" (1Cor 8:6).

Either Christ is a â??weak copyâ? or we are to become fully divine like the Father. I see no other consistent way of reading the scriptures.

Christ is a Son, he will never be exactly like the Father. He receives his power from the Father (Matt 28:18).

[LifeOnaPlate]

Christ is a Son, he will never be exactly like the Father. He receives his power from the Father (Matt 28:18).

Yikes, more "polytheism."

If you can't say Christ is literally equal with God, and has the same power, ability, qualities, etc. I see no point in continuing a discussion about regular old guys like me doing just that.

[johnny]

LifeOnaPlate,

So Catholics are polytheists, indeed. They do believe while christ has a body, God the Father does not.

Catholics are not polytheists, they believe in one God. God the Father does not have a body,he is spirit only.

Still, I don't see from this quote that we will be resurrected as a body of flesh and bone.

http://scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a11.htm#990

990 The term "flesh" refers to man in his state of weakness and mortality. The "resurrection of the flesh" (the literal formulation of the Apostles' Creed) means not only that the immortal soul will live on after death, but that even our "mortal body" will come to life again.

[LifeOnaPlate]

LifeOnaPlate,

Catholics are not polytheists, they believe in one God. God the Father does not have a body,he is spirit only.

http://scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a11.htm#990

990 The term "flesh" refers to man in his state of weakness and mortality. The "resurrection of the flesh" (the literal formulation of the Apostles' Creed) means not only that the immortal soul will live on after death, but that even our "mortal body" will come to life again.

Ah, that's the ticket, just the kind of quote I was looking for, thanks.

As for polytheism, it is a play on the accusation leveled at the LDS church over a similar issue/ Do you believe God does not have a body of flesh and bone, but that Christ does? And also, do you believe that Christ is God?

[David Waltz]

Hi CKS,

You posted:

>>Per a monotheistic worldview, the notion that God might share his godhood is logically incoherent.>>

Me: Depends on how one defines â??monotheismâ?. If we define â??monotheismâ? as one personal God who is self-existent (i.e. does not owe His being to anyone or anything), the source of everything else, then one must deny true deity to God the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

However, if we define â??monotheismâ? as set of attributes, as a generic â??natureâ??, then the apparent logical incoherence vanishes; and this concerning not only the Son and HG, but also Godâ??s adopted, deified Sons.

>>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.>>

Me: Ostler (and other Latter-day Saints) reject the notion that God the Father is a â??contingent being himselfâ?. But, this fact aside, the real issue is whether or not God the Father can bestow all of His divine attributes on His adopted Sons. If we truly believe that God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, then should would not say YESâ?¦

>>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.>>

Me: We once again explore the nature of Godâ??s (God the Father) being â??utterly uniqueâ?. Certainly you would agree that the Father alone is the source of ALL divinity; that the Father alone is unbegotten. If one acknowledges the two above aspects of Godâ??s uniqueness, then one must admit there is a real sense that the Father alone is â??utterly uniqueâ?. But, despite the fact the it is God the Father who is â??utterly uniqueâ?, the vast majority of Christians down through the centuries do not deny â??fullâ? divinity to the Son. Now, if God can communicate full divinity to persons other than Himself, why hesitate when move from the Son of God to the Sons of God?

>>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.>>

Me: I personally know of no Scripture that limits what God will give to His adopted Sons, but I am aware of many Scriptures which indicate that we will become just like His begotten Son.

>>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.>>

Me: I think St. Ireneaus said it best â??

How, then, shall he be a God, who has not as yet been made a man? Or how can he be perfect who was but lately created? How, again can he be immortal, who in his mortal nature did not obey his Maker? For it must be that thou, at the outset, shouldest hold the rank of a man, and then afterwards partake of the glory of Godâ?¦ the Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through His transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself.

Grace and peace,

David

[e=mc2]

Excellent points David.

Johnny:

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

I have never taught otherwise. The Bible does not say the limitations of mankind are an ETERNAL aspect though. The Bible says we will be JOINT-HEIRS with Christ IN God. That says it all to me. What they have and are, we will also partake of, that is the Divine nature." Pray tell what IS the Divine Nature? The Divine Nature of God is omnipotence, Omnipresence, etc., yes? O.K. then, that is what we are partakers of.

[Doctor Steuss]

Just so Iâ??m following some of the logic here thatâ??s happened in this threadâ?¦

1) We can become joint-heirs with Christ.

2) By becoming joint-heirs with Christ, we will share in all that He has (it is not limited).

3) Christ created all things, and hypothetically could create more things if He so chose.

4) Therefore, by being joint-heirs with Christ, and partaking in His divine nature, and having all that He has, we will not have the ability to create.

Makesâ?¦ ummmmâ?¦ perfect sense.

Not.

[johnny]

David Waltz,

If we truly believe that God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, then should would not say YESâ?¦

Do you believe the Son has the attribute of Almighty, should the Nicene Creed (see below) state "the Father, the Almighty ... the Son, the Almighty"?

Nicene Creed - We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten not made, one in being with the Father.

Now, if God can communicate full divinity to persons other than Himself, why hesitate when move from the Son of God to the Sons of God?

Do you think the Son is Almighty ... if so how many Almighties can you have if each is onmipotent with unlimited power?

Me: I think St. Ireneaus said it best â??

I think the Catholic Catechism says it best,

2782 We can adore the Father because he has caused us to be reborn to his life by adopting us as his children in his only Son: by Baptism, he incorporates us into the Body of his Christ; through the anointing of his Spirit who flows from the head to the members, he makes us other "Christs."

God, indeed, who has predestined us to adoption as his sons, has conformed us to the glorious Body of Christ. So then you who have become sharers in Christ are appropriately called "Christs."

The new man, reborn and restored to his God by grace, says first of all, "Father!" because he has now begun to be a son.

[johnny]

e=mc2,

Pray tell what IS the Divine Nature? The Divine Nature of God is omnipotence, Omnipresence, etc., yes? O.K. then, that is what we are partakers of.

If a person is a "partaker" then by defination then that person CAN NOT be omnipotence, omnipotence is about unlimited pwer. By act of partaking that person is limited.