Augustine On Deification

[DispensatorMysteriorum]

The following quote from St. Augustine should be of interest to LDS readers.

But God forbid that we should meet him with such an assertion as he says certain persons advance against him: "That man is placed on an equality with God, if he is described as being without sin;" as if indeed an angel, because he is without sin, is put in such an equality. For my own part, I am of this opinion that the creature will never become equal with God, even when so perfect a holiness shall be accomplished in us, that it shall be quite incapable of receiving any addition. No; all who maintain that our progress is to be so complete that we shall be changed into the substance of God, and that we shall thus become what He is, should look well to it how they build up their opinion; for myself I must confess that I am not persuaded of this. (On Nature and Grace, chapter 37)

I believe this indicates that some Christians even as late as St. Augustine believed that those who are saved will "become what [God] is" and that their "substance" will "be changed into the substance of God." The word "substance" should be interesting to anyone who has studied early Christianity. The early Christians used "substance" as a code word for "same nature." The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are said to be of one substance, that is, each is of the same nature.

Food for thought.

[BCSpace]

1 John 3:2

[DispensatorMysteriorum]

It obviously is a Biblical doctrine. I just find it interesting that it pops up as late as Augustin and he has to deny it.

[Tanyan]

The following quote from St. Augustine should be of interest to LDS readers.

I believe this indicates that some Christians even as late as St. Augustine believed that those who are saved will "become what [God] is" and that their "substance" will "be changed into the substance of God." The word "substance" should be interesting to anyone who has studied early Christianity. The early Christians used "substance" as a code word for "same nature." The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are said to be of one substance, that is, each is of the same nature.

Food for thought.

SHHHHHH, look at Book Eleventh [Argument] #1. .

[DispensatorMysteriorum]

SHHHHHH, look at Book Eleventh [Argument] #1. .

Book Eleventh of On Nature and Grace? I can't find it...

Where?

[Tanyan]

Book Eleventh of On Nature and Grace? I can't find it...

Where?

I only have a photocopy in front of me [THE CITY OF GOD, SAINT AUGUSTINE, Translated by Marcus DODS.DD With an Introduction by Thomas Merton, The Modern Library New York] and it says : Book Eleventh 1. Paragraph intro - Of This part of the work, wherin we begin to explain the origin and end of the two cities. Which talks of those that reside in the Heavenly City are gods and that GOD is the GOD of GODS. Sorry no scanner to scan. Tanyan.

[DispensatorMysteriorum]

I only have a photocopy in front of me [THE CITY OF GOD, SAINT AUGUSTINE, Translated by Marcus DODS.DD With an Introduction by Thomas Merton, The Modern Library New York] and it says : Book Eleventh 1. Paragraph intro - Of This part of the work, wherin we begin to explain the origin and end of the two cities. Which talks of those that reside in the Heavenly City are gods and that GOD is the GOD of GODS. Sorry no scanner to scan. Tanyan.

Great, thanks! I'll look it up.

You rock

[DispensatorMysteriorum]

To this Founder of the holy city the citizens of the earthly city prefer their own gods, not knowing that He is the God of gods, not of false, i.e., of impious and proud gods, who, being deprived of His unchangeable and freely communicated light, and so reduced to a kind of poverty-stricken power, eagerly grasp at their own private privileges, and seek divine honors from their deluded subjects' but of the pious and holy gods, who are better pleased to submit themselves to one, than to subject many to themselves, and who would rather worship God than be worshiped as God.

[TOmNossor]

Augustine IMO is a solid representative of the DEVELOPED view of deification.

I believe that before Nicea you find many folks who boldly declare that men can become gods. They do not place limits upon what it means to become gods. They also clearly and boldly state that Christ became man so that we can become gods.

Athanasius in his later writings limits what it means to become deified.

Augustine limits what it means to become deified.

I believe that as the demands of metaphysical monotheism with its close companion creation ex nihilo were developed into the church, the doctrine of deification was radically weakened.

It is clear that Fathers spoke of becoming just what Christ is. While there was much more subordination of Christ (though many seem quite willing to call or speak of Christ as fully divine) to the Father in most of the ECF, it would be most consistent IMO to elevate deified man to fully divine in accordance with the exchange formula, but few folks seem to do this after Athanasius to today.

I think one of the more interesting things about the statement is that Augustine seems to be addressing folks who have not limited deification. It is interesting that these folks are running around. Taking a cue from David Paulsen, Augustine is a reluctant witness of robust deification. Very interesting!

The other thing of note is that the moderate or weak view of deification is not particularly prevalent in the minds of general Catholics 10+ years ago, but it has never vanished from the most scholarly of Catholic authors. Also, it seems to me that Catholics today are far more aware of their moderate / weak deification views today than just 10 years ago.

My mother grew up on the Baltimore Catechism which by my examination has no deification language. When I read CCC460 to a LDS friend she was almost scandalized and proclaimed that she did not believe any such thing. It is a good development that moderate / weak deification views are becoming part of the Catholic consciousness IMO.

Charity, TOm

[LeSellers]

I only have a photocopy in front of me [THE CITY OF GOD, SAINT AUGUSTINE, Translated by Marcus DODS.DD With an Introduction by Thomas Merton, The Modern Library New York] and it says : Book Eleventh 1. Paragraph intro - Of This part of the work, wherin we begin to explain the origin and end of the two cities. Which talks of those that reside in the Heavenly City are gods and that GOD is the GOD of GODS.

Try this:

Chapter 1.--Of This Part of the Work, Wherein We Begin to Explain the Origin and End of the Two Cities.

Lehi

[Sargon]

The following quote from St. Augustine should be of interest to LDS readers.

I believe this indicates that some Christians even as late as St. Augustine believed that those who are saved will "become what [God] is" and that their "substance" will "be changed into the substance of God." The word "substance" should be interesting to anyone who has studied early Christianity. The early Christians used "substance" as a code word for "same nature." The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are said to be of one substance, that is, each is of the same nature.

Food for thought.

Very interesting find.

I'm not sure that "substance" is best interpreted as "same nature" however. I certainly am no scholar, but in my understanding "substance" refers more precisely to the fact that each member of the Trinity is somehow linked to each other so intimately that they are only one 'being'. For example, although you and I share the same nature, we do not share the same substance, for we ultimately are two different 'beings.'

I don't know, maybe I'm just being nit-picky. It's only 8:15 in the morning, noone should be thinking about this stuff this early. Especially if you are Mormon and don't drink coffee.

[Lachoneus]

Try this:

Chapter 1.--Of This Part of the Work, Wherein We Begin to Explain the Origin and End of the Two Cities.

Or this:

The City of God (Book XI)

Argumentâ?? Here begins the second part of this work, which treats of the origin, history, and destinies of the two cities, the earthly and the heavenly. ; In the first place, Augustine shows in this book how the two cities were formed originally, by the separation of the good and bad angels; and takes occasion to treat of the creation of the world, as it is described in Holy Scripture in the beginning of the book of Genesis.

Chapter 1.â?? Of This Part of the Work, Wherein We Begin to Explain the Origin and End of the Two Cities.

The city of God we speak of is the same to which testimony is borne by that Scripture, which excels all the writings of all nations by its divine authority, and has brought under its influence all kinds of minds, and this not by a casual intellectual movement, but obviously by an express providential arrangement. For there it is written, Glorious things are spoken of you, O city of God. And in another psalm we read, Great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised in the city of our God, in the mountain of His holiness, increasing the joy of the whole earth. And, a little after, in the same psalm, As we have heard, so have we seen in the city of the Lord of hosts, in the city of our God. ; God has established it for ever. And in another, There is a river the streams whereof shall make glad the city of our God, the holy place of the tabernacles of the Most High. ; God is in the midst of her, she shall not be moved. From these and similar testimonies, all of which it were tedious to cite, we have learned that there is a city of God, and its Founder has inspired us with a love which makes us covet its citizenship. To this Founder of the holy city the citizens of the earthly city prefer their own gods, not knowing that He is the God of gods, not of false, i.e., of impious and proud gods, who, being deprived of His unchangeable and freely communicated light, and so reduced to a kind of poverty-stricken power, eagerly grasp at their own private privileges, and seek divine honors from their deluded subjects; but of the pious and holy gods, who are better pleased to submit themselves to one, than to subject many to themselves, and who would rather worship God than be worshipped as God. But to the enemies of this city we have replied in the ten preceding books, according to our ability and the help afforded by ourLord and King. ; Now, recognizing what is expected of me, and not unmindful of my promise, and relying, too, on the same succor, I will endeavor to treat of the origin, and progress, and deserveddestinies of the two cities (the earthly and the heavenly, to wit), which, as we said, are in this present world commingled , and as it were entangled together. And, first, I will explain how the foundations of these two cities were originally laid, in the difference that arose among the angels.

[TOmNossor]

Very interesting find.

I'm not sure that "substance" is best interpreted as "same nature" however. I certainly am no scholar, but in my understanding "substance" refers more precisely to the fact that each member of the Trinity is somehow linked to each other so intimately that they are only one 'being'. For example, although you and I share the same nature, we do not share the same substance, for we ultimately are two different 'beings.'

I don't know, maybe I'm just being nit-picky. It's only 8:15 in the morning, noone should be thinking about this stuff this early. Especially if you are Mormon and don't drink coffee.

Substance is not simply defined.

The key word â??homoousianâ? â?? â??one substance/same substanceâ? at Nicea has a very interesting history.

I have been saying the below for a while, but I am reading a book, God and Man by Labauche ( http://www.archive.org/details/godmanlectureson01labaiala ) that has a great quote to help explain some of the difficulties with this word.

To the word ouaia, substance, or essence, Aristotle gives two meanings : first, that of a concrete substance, as, e. g., this man, this horse ; and secondly, that of abstract substance, specific, or essential, as, e. g., man in general, horse in

general!

The word used by the modalist during the Sabelian heresy was â??homoousian.â? These folks were condemned because they claimed that God was one substance such the Christ was a manifestation of the Father.

Later, during Nicea there were three parties:

1. The Arians who could not accept that Christ was the same type of being as the Father. Christ was begotten/created and the Father was absolutely eternal.

2. The Athanasians who as I read the data embraced the word â??homoousianâ? with the first meaning above, but declared that God was still three persons. How to resolve the first meaning with the three-ness of God is something that I am still not satisfied with despite reading Labauche and others.

3. The moderate group. Eusebius the historian (as opposed to the other Eusebius who refused to accept the Nicene Creed) was in the moderate group which was the majority. They seem to have defined homoousian in the second way. Eusebius wrote to his church after Nicea saying essentially, â??God the Father and God the Son are homoousian just like a human father and human son are homoousian.â?

The third view seemed to rule the day after Nicea for many years. Athanasius said that those who held this view were his brothers in Christ. But, the third view was not to be the ultimate view. Athanasius and Augustineâ??s view 2 would come to dominate Christianity and most critics of the CoJCoLDS insist upon view 2 in their condemnation of the LDS Godhead.

An interesting wrinkle to this is that despite the victory of view 2, the Council of Chalcedon reverted back to view 3 in what seems to be there most central tenet. They said essentially that, â??Christ was homoousian with God the Father in His divinity and homoousian with man in his humanity.â?

I believe that despite all of the hand waving, view 2 is either a contradiction or a form of modalism. One might say that view 3 is too polytheistic, but I would suggest that the Biblical and early church witness did not find it so. In fact, I am going to begin using Ostlerâ??s words â??metaphysical monotheismâ? to describe the type of monotheism that both demands view 2 and makes view 2 either modalism or a contradiction.

I see historic Christianity, starting with creation ex nihilo, collapsing the allowable explanations of the Trinity until there is zero room between modalism and tri-theism. Then historic Christianity declares that in this definitional vacuum exists the Trinity, but NOTHING exists there.

Charity, TOm

[DispensatorMysteriorum]

Very interesting find.

I'm not sure that "substance" is best interpreted as "same nature" however. I certainly am no scholar, but in my understanding "substance" refers more precisely to the fact that each member of the Trinity is somehow linked to each other so intimately that they are only one 'being'. For example, although you and I share the same nature, we do not share the same substance, for we ultimately are two different 'beings.'

Right, that's how it is currently interpreted. However, many early Christians (even at the time of the council of Nicaea) interpreted "substance" to mean the same nature. (See Kelly, J. N. D. Early Christian Doctrines, pp. 233-237.)

EDIT: TOm hit it above already.

[Tanyan]

Yes you found it in the LDS JEDI KNIGHT Temple Archives I presume. . May Grace Rain on you and yours.

In His Debt/Grace, Tanyan.

[soren]

The following quote from St. Augustine should be of interest to LDS readers.

I believe this indicates that some Christians even as late as St. Augustine believed that those who are saved will "become what [God] is" and that their "substance" will "be changed into the substance of God." The word "substance" should be interesting to anyone who has studied early Christianity. The early Christians used "substance" as a code word for "same nature." The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are said to be of one substance, that is, each is of the same nature.

Food for thought.

It is good food for thought, and it illustrates why the biblical/historical teaching of Theosis is starkly at odds with the LDS doctrine of the same name, which radically denies the traditional teaching. In LDS theology, you do not acquire a divine nature or substance because you already have one in your own right. LDS theosis is predicated upon this opposite premise per Joseph Smith in the KFD, which is the exact opposite of what Augustine is saying. In Mormonism, deification is an actualization of your latent potential, not, as we see in Augustine, a divine gift whereby God infuses a new kind of sustance into a person.

[Sargon]

It is good food for thought, and it illustrates why the biblical/historical teaching of Theosis is starkly at odds with the LDS doctrine of the same name, which radically denies the traditional teaching. In LDS theology, you do not acquire a divine nature or substance because you already have one in your own right. LDS theosis is predicated upon this opposite premise per Joseph Smith in the KFD, which is the exact opposite of what Augustine is saying. In Mormonism, deification is an actualization of your latent potential, not, as we see in Augustine, a divine gift whereby God infuses a new kind of sustance into a person.

"Starkly at odds" is not at all how I would phrase the term.

No doubt they did not match LDS ideas exactly, but it can be said that on one important point they certainly agreed with modern LDS ideas. While they maintained the Creator/creature dichotomy, they saw the gap as completely bridgeable, while Augustine did not.

[TOmNossor]

It is good food for thought, and it illustrates why the biblical/historical teaching of Theosis is starkly at odds with the LDS doctrine of the same name, which radically denies the traditional teaching. In LDS theology, you do not acquire a divine nature or substance because you already have one in your own right. LDS theosis is predicated upon this opposite premise per Joseph Smith in the KFD, which is the exact opposite of what Augustine is saying. In Mormonism, deification is an actualization of your latent potential, not, as we see in Augustine, a divine gift whereby God infuses a new kind of sustance into a person.

I have justified my not dealing with your â??divine simplicityâ? comments by saying that I am letting you work on your finals.

â?¦

First, let me suggest that â??robust deificationâ? like LDS believe in is precisely the view that Augustine is addressing. While he is addressing folks who like him believe that God is a different kind of being than humans, these folks seem to believe that this chasm will be bridged through the grace and power or God. This belief that the chasm will be bridged is the last vestige of the earlier belief in the exchange formula. Augustine emptied the exchange formula of its logical meaning.

Now, I strongly reject that in Mormonism deification is MERELY an actualization of your latent potential. It seems to me that â??divinity as suchâ? is the entering into communion with God. Such may only occur for those who have learned to love in the divine way which entails turning to Christ so that He can heal the sin that inevitably resulted from our individual (selfish) way of living. It is only through Christ that we can be called out of this â??natural manâ? individualism. It is only through Christ that we can receive our divine potential.

Here is one of my favorite deification statements from John Taylor: Mediation and Atonement, Ch.20

A man, as a man, could arrive at all the dignity that a man was capable of obtaining or receiving; but it needed a God to raise him to the dignity of a God. For this cause it is written, "Now are we the sons of God; and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that when he shall appear we shall be like him." And how and why like Him? Because, through the instrumentality of the atonement and the adoption, it is made possible for us to become of the family of God, and joint heirs with Jesus Christ; and that as He, the potential instrument, through the oneness that existed between Him and His Father, by reason of obedience to divine law, overcame death, hell and the grave, and sat down upon His Father's throne, so shall we be able to sit down with Him, even upon His throne. Thus, as it is taught in the Book of Mormon, it must needs be that there be an infinite atonement; and hence of Him, and by Him, and through Him are all things; and through Him do we obtain every blessing, power, right, immunity, salvation and exaltation. He is our God, our Redeemer, our Savior, to whom, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, be eternal and everlasting praises worlds without end.

Next, â??God of godsâ? is good Biblical and Early Church language. The folks that use it in the Bible and some ECF give no indication they believe in some type of â??metaphysical monotheism.â? Not only are men spoken of as the children of God, but they are created in the image of God which is generally a more close resemblance than being the same kind of being that God is. They in fact are created in â??OUR image,â? because there were at the time multiple divine beings. It would seem that while the Bible is clear that God is supreme, there is no problem acknowledging that there are other gods. The use of the term â??godsâ? does not make these folks equal to God, but it is a later view imposed upon the Bible to suggest that these other gods are wholly â??other.â? The most clear read of the Bible is that these folks are subordinate, even radically subordinate, but not a different kind of being.

To become â??partakers of the divine natureâ? is to enter into communion with God in a way that completes our nature. Human nature is separated divine nature. To partake of the divine nature is to commune in the divine community through which emergent properties come into existence and outside of which these properties are not present. God the Father is the head of this divine community (the â??fount of divinityâ?) and one must conform ones will to the will of the Father to be united in this way. So while Christ had/has a will distinct from the Father, He freely chooses to conform His will to the will of the Father (and I would suggest has for all eternity).

We on the other hand had to separate from God in a way more distant than Christ (during his incarnation) did so that we might learn how to love God. Without this â??sacred distanceâ? created by our incarnation, Godâ??s greatness would so overwhelm us that we could not enter into the communion that God the Father and God the Son enjoy. By growing from â??grace to graceâ? we BECOME folks able to â??partake of the divine nature.â? Before this we could be pre-fall spirits/intelligences with some relation to God, but we could not enter into the communion as Christ is in the communion. The fall and the atonement were necessary for our Christification, our deification.

Charity, TOm

[TOmNossor]

"Starkly at odds" is not at all how I would phrase the term.

No doubt they did not match LDS ideas exactly, but it can be said that on one important point they certainly agreed with modern LDS ideas. While they maintained the Creator/creature dichotomy, they saw the gap as completely bridgeable, while Augustine did not.

Why is it that you and DispensatorMysteriorum can say things in a few dozen words it take me a few hundred words?

Yours in longwindedness,

TOm

[DispensatorMysteriorum]

Why is it that you and DispensatorMysteriorum can say things in a few dozen words it take me a few hundred words?

Yours in longwindedness,

TOm

Haha. TOm, you address the issues much more thoroughly and I appreciate it.

I think you and Sargon are both right: Augustine was rejecting that the gap between creator and creation could be closed, but at the same time confirms that some people believed exactly that.

[Sargon]

Why is it that you and DispensatorMysteriorum can say things in a few dozen words it take me a few hundred words?

Yours in longwindedness,

TOm

I was recently watching a NOVA special about the legal battles of the Intelligent Design crowd. One of the leaders of the ID movement described their strategy as a "wedge", like for splitting wood with the wedge end being used to crack open the wood, the blunt end to get in there and do all the hard work.

Sincerely,

Wedge End

[johnny]

DispensatorMyste...,

I think you and Sargon are both right: Augustine was rejecting that the gap between creator and creation could be closed, but at the same time confirms that some people believed exactly that.

To better understand why "Augustine was rejecting that the gap between creator and creation could be closed" you might want to read the paper by the Mormon Mr. Vajda he says the following (see link below):

Partakers of the Divine Nature

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/papersmain.php

- what God is by nature, what God is essentially, cannot be shared or participated in by any creature

- in essence the human person is ontologically different from God

- human persons become "partakers of the divine nature" in a way that is existentially different from the way Christ is divine.

- The supreme difference between human persons and Christ is that while humans are created persons, Christ is an uncreated person. What Christ is by nature, divine, we are called to be by grace or participation.

- When a human is divinized, a human is united to God's divine energies - the "'divine nature' in which humanity participates is not the essence of God but God's divine energies" - which are God himself but only insofar as God is participable.

- a divinized human person becomes all that God is except for identity in essence. In other words, a divinized human person does not cease to be human and created when participating in the uncreated and divinizing energies of God

- Nor does the human person, when it 'becomes god,' cease to be human:

- We remain creatures while becoming god by grace, as Christ remained God when becoming man by the Incarnation.

- The human being does not become God by nature, but merely a 'created god,' a god by grace or by status.

- the basic distinction between man and God as created and Creator

- the man who enters into communion with the divinizing grace, which makes him a god in every respect "save identity of essence."

Summary

Between the persons of the triune God and human persons there is an infinite ontological divide - the difference between the uncreated and the created. God, however, bridges this ontological divide.

[TOmNossor]

DispensatorMyste...,

To better understand why "Augustine was rejecting that the gap between creator and creation could be closed" you might want to read the paper by the Mormon Mr. Vajda he says the following (see link below):

Partakers of the Divine Nature

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/papersmain.php

Johnny,

I suspect you are aware of this, but since I consider it to be quite pertinent and no where evident in your post let me offer this clarification.

The list of things you are attributing to Mormon Mr. Vajda were written about Catholicism by Catholic Priest Father Vajda. Father Vajda wrote his masters thesis for seminary as I understand it and was graduated after defending it I presume in 1998. A few years later FARMS asked to publish it and Father Vajda agreed. A few years after this, Father Vajda CHOOSE to leave the Catholic priesthood and become a LDS. So, perhaps it is accurate to call him â??Mormon Mr. Vajda,â? but IMO it very much distracts from what he is saying to offer this.

I do not know what view of deification Brother Vajda embraces now that he is a LDS, but you gave the appearance that his Mormonness was somehow relevant to the info you put out. His Catholicism however was relevant to what he put forth as the view of an informed Catholic priest writing his Masterâ??s thesis.

Do you agree with this?

Now, I recall having two problems with Father Vajdaâ??s paper when I read through it a couple of times a number of years ago. I am not sure if what I am about to share was even one of them, but it seems to be the most pertinent thing.

I suggest that you and former Father Vajda have missed an aspect of Catholic thought where it diverges from Eastern Orthodox thought. Because of this, you have expressed yourself in a way that an EO might, but a Catholic should not.

You offered:

- what God is by nature, what God is essentially, cannot be shared or participated in by any creature

â?¦

- When a human is divinized, a human is united to God's divine energies - the "'divine nature' in which humanity participates is not the essence of God but God's divine energies" - which are God himself but only insofar as God is participable.

- a divinized human person becomes all that God is except for identity in essence. In other words, a divinized human person does not cease to be human and created when participating in the uncreated and divinizing energies of God

Catholic thought generally recognizes that the â??Beautific Visionâ? includes the essence of God and not merely the energies of God. In fact the Catholicâ??s view of divine simplicity makes the essence/energies distinctions much more difficult for the Catholic than for the EO who has much less in his tradition about divine simplicity.

So, you and Father Vajda as I recall have drunk deeply of Gregory Palamas who was most definitely not a Western Christian.

Eastern Christianity is the source of the detailed theology of theosis built around the separation of Godâ??s essence and energies. It is quite possible that the Western reluctance to speak about deification ALLOWED their theology to develop to a point were deification is just inconsistent within Western Christianity in which case borrowing from Eastern Christianity while ignoring the inconsistencies may be the best option. Here is a huge passage by a very intelligent fellow who examines much of this disconnect:

David Bradshaw - Aristotle East and West: Metaphysics and the Division of Christendom, pages 255-256

Aquinasâ?? teaching on the beatific vision exhibits with particular clarity the difference separating him from the eastern tradition. The most immediately obvious is that, whereas for the East God is beyond knowing, Aquinas regards Him as the highest intelligible object. Aquinas is aware of this disagreement. In the De Veritate he cites a long string of objections to the possibility of seeing God through His essence, and among them are several drawn from Dionysius and John of Damascus. The most fundamental, which Aquinas attributes to Dionysius, is that â??all cognition is of things that are; God, however, is no a being, but is above being; therefore, He cannot be known except by transcendent knowledge, which is divine knowledge.â? Aquinasâ?? reply is worth quoting in full:

â??Dionysiusâ?? argument proceeds from the knowledge had while in this life. This is had from forms in existing creatures, and, consequently, it cannot attain to what is transcendent. Such is not the case, however, of the vision had in heaven. His argument, therefore, is not pertinent to the problem at hand.â?

What for Dionysius had been a limitation inherent to the relation between creature and Creator become for Aquinas one imposed solely by our current ways of knowing. It is worth noting that Aquinasâ?? position had been considered and rejected by St. Gregory of Nyssa. In his Contra Eunomium Gregory denies that the ousia of God is known even to the angels, precisely in order to insist that this limitation is not due solely to human ways of knowing but is an intrinsic limitation of the creature. Gregoryâ??s writings were not available to Aquinas, however, and even if they had been it is unlikely that Aquinas would have changed his mind. He notes at the beginning of this article of the De Veritate that the denial that God can be seen through His essence had already been judged heretical. This judgment occurred at the University of Paris in 1241, in the rejection of the proposition that â??the divine essence will be seen in itself neither by man nor by angel.â? In his Commentary on Hebrews Aquinas attributes the rejected view to Eriugena, who in turn (unknown to Aquinas) depended for this point on St. Maximus the Confessor. One could hardly find a more string example of the misunderstanding between the two halves of Christendom: a view that Aquinas regards as heretical had, unknown to him, been orthodox in the East since at least the fourth century.

Bradshaw recognizes that Eastern Christians do not get as specific as Catholics, and he seems to suggest that ultimately Catholics have created a hole out of which they cannot climb. Part of me things he may be correct (in this area, and I guess I think this sentiment is generally correct in other areas).

Ok, on to some more stuff within your post. I already mentioned much of it, but I will touch upon it here.

- in essence the human person is ontologically different from God

- human persons become "partakers of the divine nature" in a way that is existentially different from the way Christ is divine.

- The supreme difference between human persons and Christ is that while humans are created persons, Christ is an uncreated person. What Christ is by nature, divine, we are called to be by grace or participation.

â?¦

- We remain creatures while becoming god by grace, as Christ remained God when becoming man by the Incarnation.

- The human being does not become God by nature, but merely a 'created god,' a god by grace or by status.

- the basic distinction between man and God as created and Creator

- the man who enters into communion with the divinizing grace, which makes him a god in every respect "save identity of essence."

Summary

Between the persons of the triune God and human persons there is an infinite ontological divide - the difference between the uncreated and the created. God, however, bridges this ontological divide.

The above including your Summary is IMO not the Biblical position and in many cases not entirely consistent with the Irenaeus and other very early ECF.

As I mentioned earlier, the Bible give no indication that the other gods are on the other side of some â??ontological divide.â?

Acknowledging as most Biblical scholars now do that the Bible does not teach creation ex nihilo (and many scholars are beginning to say that the Bible teaches against creation ex nihilo), this â??ontological divideâ? is a post Biblical development.

Worse than this however, this â??ontological divideâ? wreaks havoc with the incarnation of Christ and the deification of man both of which are clearly Biblical doctrines. I do not believe that they hypostatic union or the moderate/weak deification urged by most Catholics ultimately engages the Biblical witness.

If however the â??ontological divideâ? is a mistake, then Christâ??s kenotic incarnation and manâ??s elevation to the fullness of divinity can be placed into a Biblical framework that does not require the suspension of reason to embrace.

- Nor does the human person, when it 'becomes god,' cease to be human:

As an olive branch, let me offer you a Catholic position that I think is more consistent with the Bible and the pre-Nicene witness than the position espoused by Augustine, Aquinas, and most modern Catholics. I am not sure if this is an available Catholic position, but it is better IMO than the one I see most frequently.

Christ became man, but did not cease to be God. Since the exchange formula is one of the most universal aspects of deification speak within Catholicism (from the Bible 2 Cor 8:9 to the modern CCC #460) it would make sense that within the deified human the man would become god without ceasing to be human.

Chalcedon said that Christ was homoousian with God in his divinity and homoousian with man in His humanity. If such an existence is possible (and I believe it is charitably called â??mysteryâ? or otherwise called â??contradictionâ?) then deified men should be about to likewise become homoousian with men in their humanity and homoousian with God in their divinity.

To believe that Christâ??s partaking / participating in humanity made Christ fully human, but are partaking / participating in divinity does not make us fully divine is IMO a huge inconsistency. It is the emptying of the exchange formula of any real meaning, and the abandonment of what the Bible and Irenaeus taught.

- The human being does not become God by nature, but merely a 'created god,' a god by grace or by status.

That we become â??gods by grace and Christ was God by natureâ? is something that I do not have trouble with personally. I believe that this refers to the necessity of Christâ??s activity in our deification. We receive grace so that we may become deified. Christ on the other had did not stand in the need of a mediator. We will be the deified and Christ will be (with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit) our deifier. This is what John Taylor was saying in the quote I offered earlier.

Charity, TOm

[johnny]

TOmNossor,

Do you agree with this?

My point was that he is a Mormon ...

Catholic thought generally recognizes that the â??Beautific Visionâ? includes the essence of God and not merely the energies of God. In fact the Catholicâ??s view of divine simplicity makes the essence/energies distinctions much more difficult for the Catholic than for the EO who has much less in his tradition about divine simplicity.

The Catholic View recognizes that there is a difference between the Creator and the creature he created, the Catholic Church teaches in CCC318 that no creature has the infinite power necessary to create.

On the other hand Mormonism teaches that man can become a creator like the Heavenly Father.

The above including your Summary is IMO not the Biblical position and in many cases not entirely consistent with the Irenaeus and other very early ECF.

As I mentioned earlier, the Bible give no indication that the other gods are on the other side of some â??ontological divide.â?

The Bible gives us an indication of this â??ontological divideâ?. God does not need a heavenly wife to create a creature called man, God was alone and by himself at creation. On the other hand the creature called man needs a spouse to pro-create. This position is consistent with the ECF who taught that no creature has the infinite power necessary to create.

Worse than this however, this â??ontological divideâ? wreaks havoc with the incarnation of Christ and the deification of man both of which are clearly Biblical doctrines. I do not believe that they hypostatic union or the moderate/weak deification urged by most Catholics ultimately engages the Biblical witness.

The Biblical witness is that Christ DID NOT become God, he was God before his incarnation ... the Biblical witness is that the heavenly Father DID NOT become God, he is God from everlasting to everlasting ... the Biblical witness is that the Holy Ghost DID NOT become God, the Holy Ghost is God without taking on a mortal body.

To believe that Christâ??s partaking / participating in humanity made Christ fully human, but are partaking / participating in divinity does not make us fully divine is IMO a huge inconsistency. It is the emptying of the exchange formula of any real meaning, and the abandonment of what the Bible and Irenaeus taught.

You are abandoning what the Bible teaches and that is man is created. God makes the soul, God forms the spirit of man within him.

That we become â??gods by grace and Christ was God by natureâ? is something that I do not have trouble with personally. I believe that this refers to the necessity of Christâ??s activity in our deification. We receive grace so that we may become deified. Christ on the other had did not stand in the need of a mediator. We will be the deified and Christ will be (with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit) our deifier. This is what John Taylor was saying in the quote I offered earlier.

If find it interesting that you do not have trouble with the idea that Christ was God by nature ... could you explain how this fits in with Joseph Smith's teaching that our Heavenly Father became God by climbing a ladder ...

The Bible reveals that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost DID NOT climb a ladder to become God.

[jadams_4242]

TOmNossor,

My point was that he is a Mormon ...

The Catholic View recognizes that there is a difference between the Creator and the creature he created, the Catholic Church teaches in CCC318 that no creature has the infinite power necessary to create.

On the other hand Mormonism teaches that man can become a creator like the Heavenly Father.

The Bible gives us an indication of this â??ontological divideâ?. God does not need a heavenly wife to create a creature called man, God was alone and by himself at creation. On the other hand the creature called man needs a spouse to pro-create. This position is consistent with the ECF who taught that no creature has the infinite power necessary to create.

The Biblical witness is that Christ DID NOT become God, he was God before his incarnation ... the Biblical witness is that the heavenly Father DID NOT become God, he is God from everlasting to everlasting ... the Biblical witness is that the Holy Ghost DID NOT become God, the Holy Ghost is God without taking on a mortal body.

You are abandoning what the Bible teaches and that is man is created. God makes the soul, God forms the spirit of man within him.

If find it interesting that you do not have trouble with the idea that Christ was God by nature ... could you explain how this fits in with Joseph Smith's teaching that our Heavenly Father became God by climbing a ladder ...

The Bible reveals that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost DID NOT climb a ladder to become God.

................................................................................

................................................................................

...........

"Holy Ghost DID NOT become God, the Holy Ghost is God without taking on a mortal body."

................................................................................

................................................................................

.......

Then whom is God? i thought one beleived that he was w/out body as well? so why does he need two spirits?