Jump to content

Did Irenaeus The Early Church Father Teach The Mormon


e=mc2

Recommended Posts

The podcast focuses on Irenaeus' teachings and those which effect the deification of mankind. With that focus I kept a straight podcast. And used a non-LDS Christian scholar to boot, because David Waltz gave me a heads up on it. In and of itself, the podcast is perfectly consistent with that labor of elucidation. There is a lot of material the podcast is missing concerning Book of Mormon geography, which toothpaste is the best for your teeth, and anything on Al Gore's new 24 hour long concert (Live Earth) to get our attention on environmental issues played out over the last day around the world. But since that was not the intent of that podcast, it is decidely weird that you castigate it for not including other things, when that clearly was not the intended purpose.

Link to comment

e=mc2,

Why do you pick and choose your Irenaeus teachings?

See the thread below for the teachings of Irenaeus that you ignore because they don't Mormon theology ...

Early Christian Theosis Quotes

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...mp;p=1208218498

If you follow the link, be sure to go to the beginning of the thread to determine if Johnny is being consistent or not in his rejection of deification and acceptance of the divinity of Christ. I do not believe he is.

Also, Irenaeus was not a LDS. He believed in Creation ex Nihilo. He embraced or moved toward the view that God is impassible. However, the issues that Johnny keeps bringing up are not connected to the statement from Irenaeus where he speaks of human deification.

An example would be where Irenaeus says that men are limited in power. Of course, but Irenaeus never says that deified men are limited in power.

Also, many of Johnnyâ??s examples in addition to not being associated with human deification, damn Christ if they were to be associated with human deification. Irenaeus speaks of God as immovable. While I reject this view, the Early Church at Chalcedon worked very hard to define how Christ was immovable (impassible is a subcomponent) and yet movable. If the solution at Chalcedon works (and I am not sure a LDS should believe it does, but Johnny must), then it works for deified men too. And of course just to say it again: here too, Irenaeus is not speaking about the deification of men.

Much of this is discussed in the link Johnny offered.

Charity, TOm

Link to comment

TOmNossor,

Much of this is discussed in the link Johnny offered.

On the link below you will get discussion like ...

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...mp;p=1208218878

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.

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.

Link to comment

Johnny:

Irenaeus teaches that if you have unlimited gods then none of them is God.

Then he's clearly wrong. The number of Gods be they one or 123,542,879,567,300,000,000,000 has absolutely nothing to do with the Father still having all power and abilities. In sharing them he does not lose any stature, power, glory, etc. This is akin to saying that if 1, and 45, and 765 are added to infinity then it means that there really is no infinity. No matter how much you add to infinity it does no damage to its properties.

Link to comment

e=mc2,

>> Irenaeus teaches that if you have unlimited gods then none of them is God.

Then he's clearly wrong. The number of Gods be they one or 123,542,879,567,300,000,000,000 has absolutely nothing to do with the Father still having all power and abilities. In sharing them he does not lose any stature, power, glory, etc.

Irenaeus says you lose the attribute of omnipotent, each deity would cease to be what God is (see below).

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.

Link to comment

Joseph Antley,

Once again, "God"/"god" can mean so many different things....

Even Satan is called god ...

2Cor.4

[4] In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

Link to comment

Joseph Antley,

Even Satan is called god ...

2Cor.4

[4] In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

Exactly. So we can agree that saying there is only one God and that there are multiple Gods is not a contradiction (even if you don't believe it)-- we're just using different definitions of the word.

Link to comment

Johnny:

Irenaeus says you lose the attribute of omnipotent, each deity would cease to be what God is

And he is wrong. I suspect though that it is your interpretation of Irenaeus that is wrong. The Bible does not teach this.

Link to comment

Here is my third podcast on the Trinity ideas as the exclusion principle against Mormonism of being Christian. Happy Listening!

http://www.backyardprofessor.com/the_backyard_professor/

Always informative e=mc2, and I agree. :P

By the way, I sent you a PM last night discussing a subject in another Podcast that doesn't relate to this topic, did you get it?

Link to comment

Hi Kerry,

Was able to listen to your third installment in your Trinity series a bit earlier today, and thought you did a great job representing many of the important points of Finchâ??s essay; and as such, Ireneausâ?? thought concerning deification.

Personally, I would have added a bit more on what is termed the â??exchange formulaâ? summed in Ireneausâ?? words:

...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. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5.Pref - ANF 1.526).

We find the same â??exchangeâ? in the Scriptures:

For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich. (2 Corinthians 8:9.)

Though the â??exchange formulaâ? is quite simple in what is affirms, the theology contained within it is a deep well that has been plumbed by few.

Grace and peace,

David

P.S. The fastest human, Asafa Powell, has been reached a speed of 26 mph, not 21/22. :P

Link to comment

Thanks David........ Nice extra touch with Irenaeus' thought. I intend fully to persue him even more in depth as I can. I have a few other things with my trinity podcast series I need to produce first. I am glad the podcast was enjoyable for you. Did it all come through? I seems some of my podcasts have been coming out shorter than usual, and I may have to re-upload them. I have no idea why they are sticking. I begin and end my podcasts with some really hippy dippy music, was there music at the end of the podcasts you have heard thus far? Thanks again man.

Link to comment

Johnny:

What is your interpretation of Irenaeus, the quote is in post #11 (see link below)

I'll tell you when you listen to my podcast on Irenaeus' thought in the Finch article and have a little bit better bearing on the approach. I suspect you will have a much better understanding of my understanding for a mere half an hours investment in time.

Link to comment

e=mc2: Did you receive my PM concerning another earlier Podcast you gave awhile back? (It was a Podcast from several months ago I believe, so it wouldn't be right to resurrect an old thread for my inquiry and input regarding it.)

Link to comment

YES! Thank you for your kind words......... it is appreciation like yours, and so very many others around here that keeps me going on podcast producing, DVD's, and writing. It's just fun to share that's all.......

Link to comment

YES! Thank you for your kind words......... it is appreciation like yours, and so very many others around here that keeps me going on podcast producing, DVD's, and writing. It's just fun to share that's all.......

Thanks for reading it! I've admired your articles, blog, and podcasts for quite awhile now. :P

Link to comment

Well, fortunately (or unfortunately, I suspect it depends on yer points of view) I have much else in the works also. So keep a lookin, and listenin, and a readin man, I ain't nowhere near anywhere done......... you know me, good ole motormouther Backyard professor! :P

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...