Augustine On Deification

[TOmNossor]

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.

This is not a response to what I said. Do you acknowledge that your essence / energies distinction is not compatible with Catholicism and you misspoke? This is and was my point with the little section you quoted.

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

The Bible teaches that only gods can create, â??baraâ? in Hebrew. This divine action is not something humanâ??s can do, but the best read of Genesis is that gods plural create.

Since the Bible teaches that men can become gods, it would seem likely that deified men could in fact create, â??bara.â? It is however true that men cannot do this.

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.

In the Catholic systematic theology I am reading they trace the seeds of the Trinity in the Old Testament to Godâ??s Wisdom being present with God. They neglect to mention that Wisdom is generally female.

I do not believe that the Bible is clear that there is a Heavenly Mother, but it seems to me that no LDS scripture is. The absence of a Heavenly Mother is a HUGE jump to an â??ontological divide.â?

It would seem that in your view today we have become Godâ??s since men can â??pro-createâ? without a member of the opposite sex. Surely there is more to divinity than asexual creation?

I do not mean to be crude, but you have attached a great deal of theology to a silence regarding some type of God the Mother.

Instead, it would seem that the Bible does call many beings â??gods.â? On occasion it is obvious that said â??godsâ? are â??false gods,â? but often it is obvious that they are not in fact â??false gods.â? God creates in â??ourâ? image not in â??Hisâ? image so it would seem that these folks are ontologically similar to God the Father. While I do not deny that there is radical subordination within the â??council of the gods,â? it is just NOWHERE evident than this subordination is ontological. The evidence would suggest it is not.

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.

There is nothing in my post that would suggest that I have abandoned any of this. In fact Heavenly Father being God from â??everlasting to everlastingâ? is remarkably similar to D&C 20:17 upon which I place much weight when I am trying to decide what the consistent read of Biblical and other LDS scriptures.

In the end, I think my read is consistent and yours (or the Catholic read if you can correct you essence/energies issues) is inconsistent.

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.

I do not abandon the view that man is created. Instead I acknowledge that man is created only not ex nihilo. Again, Biblical scholarship disconnected from theological systematization is now on my side not yours. The God of the Bible did not create ex nihilo.

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.

As I said above, I place a lot of emphasis upon D&C 20:17. I generally embrace the LDS thought elaborated by Ostler in his Exploring Mormon Thought series. I also do not believe the KFD says what you think it says.

However, I would suggest your limited deification, your ontological divide, your creation ex nihilo, your hypostatic union, and â?¦ are more problematic than some Father of God the Father. I do not see a Father of God the Father in LDS scriptures, but fitting this view into the Bible IMO is easier than fitting the view whole pantheon of views you espouse into the Bible.

Charity, TOm

[johnny]

TOmNossor,

This is not a response to what I said. Do you acknowledge that your essence / energies distinction is not compatible with Catholicism and you misspoke? This is and was my point with the little section you quoted.

My response is that the creature called man can partake of the divine nature or essence. When they partake of this essence they DO NOT become what God is by nature because partaking of this essence is by the grace of God and they become â??new creaturesâ?. They become a member of Christ. This response is consistent with Catholicism which teaches that:

- 1265 Baptism not only purifies from all sins, but also makes the neophyte "a new creature," an adopted son of God, who has become a "partaker of the divine nature," member of Christ and co-heir with him, and a temple of the Holy Spirit.

The Bible teaches that only gods can create, â??baraâ? in Hebrew. This divine action is not something humanâ??s can do, but the best read of Genesis is that gods plural create.

Since the Bible teaches that men can become gods, it would seem likely that deified men could in fact create, â??bara.â? It is however true that men cannot do this.

God (plural) can create ... â??the Word was with Godâ?. The Bible reveals that men can become like God in terms of holiness, perfection, and knowledge of good and evil. Adam and Eve become like god but clearly they DID NOT become all that God is.

In the Catholic systematic theology I am reading they trace the seeds of the Trinity in the Old Testament to Godâ??s Wisdom being present with God. They neglect to mention that Wisdom is generally female.

You neglect that in Catholic theology Wisdom is not a female heavenly mother. The Catholic Church teaches the following about â??Wisdomâ?

292 The Old Testament suggests and the New Covenant reveals the creative action of the Son and the Spirit, inseparably one with that of the Father. This creative co-operation is clearly affirmed in the Church's rule of faith: "There exists but one God. . . he is the Father, God, the Creator, the author, the giver of order. He made all things by himself, that is, by his Word and by his Wisdom", "by the Son and the Spirit" who, so to speak, are "his hands". Creation is the common work of the Holy Trinity.

From Proverbs 8 the NAB â?¦ [22-31] Wisdom is of divine origin. It is here represented as a being which existed before all things (Proverb 8:22-26) and concurred with God when he planned and executed the creation of the universe, adorned it with beauty and variety, and established its wonderful order (Proverb 8:27-30). Here that plurality of divine Persons is foreshadowed which was afterward to be fully revealed when Wisdom in the Person of Jesus Christ became incarnate.

I do not believe that the Bible is clear that there is a Heavenly Mother, but it seems to me that no LDS scripture is. The absence of a Heavenly Mother is a HUGE jump to an â??ontological divide.â?

The â??ontological divideâ? becomes evident when you look at that a creature like man had a beginning. A man has a beginning when be becomes a living soul, when God makes his soul or forms the spirit of man within him. On the other hand our Creator DID NOT have a beginning, he is the beginning and the end.

Instead, it would seem that the Bible does call many beings â??gods.â? On occasion it is obvious that said â??godsâ? are â??false gods,â? but often it is obvious that they are not in fact â??false gods.â? God creates in â??ourâ? image not in â??Hisâ? image so it would seem that these folks are ontologically similar to God the Father. While I do not deny that there is radical subordination within the â??council of the gods,â? it is just NOWHERE evident than this subordination is ontological. The evidence would suggest it is not.

Genesis does not say men are created â??ontologically similar â??. Genesis is speaking of image, men are created in â??ourâ? image. In the beginning the Word was with God. Men are created in the image of the Son of God who is God.

There is nothing in my post that would suggest that I have abandoned any of this. In fact Heavenly Father being God from â??everlasting to everlastingâ? is remarkably similar to D&C 20:17 upon which I place much weight when I am trying to decide what the consistent read of Biblical and other LDS scriptures.

If God is God from â??everlasting to everlastingâ? why did Joseph Smith teach that the Father became God?

I do not abandon the view that man is created. Instead I acknowledge that man is created only not ex nihilo. Again, Biblical scholarship disconnected from theological systematization is now on my side not yours. The God of the Bible did not create ex nihilo.

The teachings of the ECF are on my side,

"On the first day God made what He made out of nothing. But on the other days He did not make out of nothing, but out of what He had made on the first day, by moulding it according to His pleasure." Hippolytus, Six Days Work(Hexameron)(A.D. 217),in ANF,V:163

"For, to attribute the substance of created things to the power and will of Him who is God of all, is worthy both of credit and acceptance. It is also agreeable [to reason], and there may be well said regarding such a belief, that 'the things which are impossible with men are possible with God.' While men, indeed, cannot make anything out of nothing, but only out of matter already existing, yet God is in this point proeminently superior to men, that He Himself called into being the substance of His creation, when previously it had no existence." Irenaeus,Against Heresies,2,10:4(A.D. 180),in ANF,I:370

As I said above, I place a lot of emphasis upon D&C 20:17. I generally embrace the LDS thought elaborated by Ostler in his Exploring Mormon Thought series. I also do not believe the KFD says what you think it says.

Do you believe the Mormon Gospel Principles when it says:

"The Prophet Joseph Smith taught: "When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top . . . This is the way our Heavenly Father became God. ... He was once a man like us . . .God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did."

However, I would suggest your limited deification, your ontological divide, your creation ex nihilo, your hypostatic union, and â?¦ are more problematic than some Father of God the Father. I do not see a Father of God the Father in LDS scriptures, but fitting this view into the Bible IMO is easier than fitting the view whole pantheon of views you espouse into the Bible.

Limited deification is consistent with the Bible, the Bible reveals what it means to become like him. We become like him only in limited terms, in the terms of holiness and perfection. Men do not become Almighty with infinite understanding.

Ontological divide is consistent with the Bible, the Bible reveals that men can become â??new creaturesâ?, adopted sons of God through the grace of God. We become like him by partaking of the divine essence or nature through his grace. God did not become God, he is God from everlasting to everlasting.

[DispensatorMysteriorum]

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.

TOm,

Once again, you nailed it on the head. Very good argument.

[TOmNossor]

My response is that the creature called man can partake of the divine nature or essence. When they partake of this essence they DO NOT become what God is by nature because partaking of this essence is by the grace of God and they become â??new creaturesâ?. They become a member of Christ. This response is consistent with Catholicism which teaches that:

- 1265 Baptism not only purifies from all sins, but also makes the neophyte "a new creature," an adopted son of God, who has become a "partaker of the divine nature," member of Christ and co-heir with him, and a temple of the Holy Spirit.

This is all well and good. I am accusing you of speaking as an Eastern Orthodox Christian when you try to make deification a reasonable thing. Now you have contradicted the underlying premises of your first response by saying that humans can partake of the â??essenceâ? of God.

Do you not understand what I am saying to you?

Have you researched this and now changed your mind from your original post?

The view you espouse whether you speak as an EO or as a Catholic is less Biblical than the view I espouse, but I would like to know which one I should address for you personally.

God (plural) can create ... â??the Word was with Godâ?. The Bible reveals that men can become like God in terms of holiness, perfection, and knowledge of good and evil. Adam and Eve become like god but clearly they DID NOT become all that God is.

You neglect that in Catholic theology Wisdom is not a female heavenly mother. The Catholic Church teaches the following about â??Wisdomâ?

292 The Old Testament suggests and the New Covenant reveals the creative action of the Son and the Spirit, inseparably one with that of the Father. This creative co-operation is clearly affirmed in the Church's rule of faith: "There exists but one God. . . he is the Father, God, the Creator, the author, the giver of order. He made all things by himself, that is, by his Word and by his Wisdom", "by the Son and the Spirit" who, so to speak, are "his hands". Creation is the common work of the Holy Trinity.

From Proverbs 8 the NAB â?¦ [22-31] Wisdom is of divine origin. It is here represented as a being which existed before all things (Proverb 8:22-26) and concurred with God when he planned and executed the creation of the universe, adorned it with beauty and variety, and established its wonderful order (Proverb 8:27-30). Here that plurality of divine Persons is foreshadowed which was afterward to be fully revealed when Wisdom in the Person of Jesus Christ became incarnate.

And again this does not deal with the fact that Wisdom is generally FEMININE. What do you make of this? I personally have not studied this in a long time, but you again seem to respond independent of what I am saying.

The â??ontological divideâ? becomes evident when you look at that a creature like man had a beginning. A man has a beginning when be becomes a living soul, when God makes his soul or forms the spirit of man within him. On the other hand our Creator DID NOT have a beginning, he is the beginning and the end.

Genesis does not say men are created â??ontologically similar â??. Genesis is speaking of image, men are created in â??ourâ? image. In the beginning the Word was with God. Men are created in the image of the Son of God who is God.

If God is God from â??everlasting to everlastingâ? why did Joseph Smith teach that the Father became God?

The teachings of the ECF are on my side,

I disagree.

Psalm 82 explains that gods become men.

Presumably these gods are the radically inferior beings with whom God the Father consulted as He created.

A very consistent read of the Bible is that pre-mortal spirits are discussed in the Bible and Psalm 82 (together with the Fall of Adam) discuss the incarnation of these folks. Important in this consistent read is that these other gods are radically inferior to God.

What I suggest is inconsistent is to believe that God was by Himself when He created. The â??ourâ? we speak of in Genesis may be just God the Father and God the Son (and I guess you would include God the Holy Spirit), but in light of other divine counsel evidence in the Bible and the culture of the authors of the Bible; it is more consistent to believe that the unspecified others are present. Who are they? Divine simplicity does not offer a satisfactory answer.

Now, the ECF are not on your side universally. The earliest ECF are on my side. Clement of Rome and Justin Martyr did not believe in creation ex nihilo. Now, before you march out a canned response to this, the pre-2nd century hints at creation ex nihilo are not supportive of creation ex nihilo. The only thing that supports creation ex nihilo is an over literal read of â??created all things.â? The Bible even helps occasionally by saying â??created all things that were createdâ? which is what the inspired authors meant.

Beyond this â??created all thingsâ? does not speak to how â??all thingsâ? were created. While to a modern mind, this may imply creation ex nihilo. Ancient Greeks and Hebrews could speak of bringing forth being from non-being and also speak of creation from eternal matter. So to say that all things were created can mean that all things were created through forming and/or cleaving eternal chaos. This is the most clear read of what happens in Genesis.

Here is a discussion devoted to much of this evidence:

http://www.defensorveritatis.net/?p=861

And, I actually do not believe that KFD teaches what you think it teaches. I believe that God the Father was incarnate like God the Son, but He, like God the Son was fully divine prior to His incarnation. The key text for the KFD is that Christ only did what He saw His Father do. I am following Ostler and I believe Joseph Smith here, but I acknowledge that most LDS think differently. So while one could say that while incarnate that Father did gain experiential knowledge just like Christ gained, but I would not suggest He earned His divinity during His incarnation.

"On the first day God made what He made out of nothing. But on the other days He did not make out of nothing, but out of what He had made on the first day, by moulding it according to His pleasure." Hippolytus, Six Days Work(Hexameron)(A.D. 217),in ANF,V:163

If by â??On the first day Hippolytus means the account in Genesis, he is not doing justice to the text. The text speaks of the chaos from which God created.

Now, if Hippolytus is offering something that I have heard before in that God created the â??Chaosâ? ex nihilo and then from this He began creating, then there is a very good reason to reject this. As the Bible witnesses, Jews would not speak of â??Chaosâ? as created. Chaos was the antithesis of created. Here is a non-LDS scholar (Methodist, was last a Professor Emeritus of Old Testament Theology at Princeton) who explains this quite well:

<i>From Bernard Anderson, <b>From Creation to New Creation</b> p. 30 quoted by Ostler</i>

Stylistic and contextual consideration â?¦ favor the view that Gen 1:1 is an independent sentence that serves as a preface to the entire creation account. On this view, the story actually begins in v. 2 with a portrayal of uncreated chaos as the presupposition and background of Godâ??s creative work. The notion of creation out of nothing is undoubtedly too abstract for the Hebrew mind; in any case the idea of a created chaos would have been strange to a narrative that is governed by the view that creation is the antithesis to chaos (cf. Isa 45:18)

I have largely left behind the thought that before Genesis God created ex nihilo. Genesis never said this, but now I am of the opinion that the Bible speaks against it.

Do you believe the Mormon Gospel Principles when it says:

"The Prophet Joseph Smith taught: "When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top . . . This is the way our Heavenly Father became God. ... He was once a man like us . . .God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did."

To be honest, I would introduce such qualifications into this statement that it would loose most of its meaning. Generally I disagree with it.

Limited deification is consistent with the Bible, the Bible reveals what it means to become like him. We become like him only in limited terms, in the terms of holiness and perfection. Men do not become Almighty with infinite understanding.

Is Christ Almighty God. The JWs would tell you the Bible does not say this. They have a strong case. In fact, I would suggest that Arius reads/read the Bible more consistently than do limited deifiers.

Christ is the manifestation of the Father. And Christ is the manifestation of what we are to become. If He is a weak copy of the Father, then we can be a weak copy of Him. But if He is fully divine; then the Bible teaches that we, when conformed to His image as He is in the image of the Father (same word for â??imageâ?), will be fully divine too.

Ontological divide is consistent with the Bible, the Bible reveals that men can become â??new creaturesâ?, adopted sons of God through the grace of God. We become like him by partaking of the divine essence or nature through his grace. God did not become God, he is God from everlasting to everlasting.

The ontological divide is imposed on the Bible and is certainly not the most clear message of the Bible.

1. The Bible does not shy away from calling others gods.

2. To be created in the image of another is to be more than merely of the same kind as another not less. Christ is the image of the Father.

3. The Bible does not even speak of ontology.

I am not certain that an ontological divide is consistent with the Bible, but I am quite convinced that an unbridgeable ontological divide is inconsistent with the Bible.

Charity, TOm

[johnny]

TOmNossor,

Have you researched this and now changed your mind from your original post?

My original post is correct, men can partake of the divine nature. In this post I was sloppy in interchanging "essence" and "nature" in this context.

And again this does not deal with the fact that Wisdom is generally FEMININE. What do you make of this?

What is there to make ...in the book of Proverbs Wisdom is personified as feminine.

I disagree.

Psalm 82 explains that gods become men.

Presumably these gods are the radically inferior beings with whom God the Father consulted as He created.

A very consistent read of the Bible is that pre-mortal spirits are discussed in the Bible and Psalm 82 (together with the Fall of Adam) discuss the incarnation of these folks. Important in this consistent read is that these other gods are radically inferior to God.

Jesus uses the verse in Psalm 82 to show that those to whom the word of God is addressed can fittingly be called "gods." God the Father did not consult with "these Gods" as He created because he was alone and by himself (Isa 44:24). The Fall of Adam DOES NOT discuss "the incarnation of these folks", if it does then please explain this.

Man was NOT a pre-mortal spirit, the Bible reveals that Adam became a living soul (Gen 2:8 ) , man's soul is made (Isa 57:16), man's spirit is formed with him (Zech 12:1)

What I suggest is inconsistent is to believe that God was by Himself when He created. The â??ourâ? we speak of in Genesis may be just God the Father and God the Son (and I guess you would include God the Holy Spirit), but in light of other divine counsel evidence in the Bible and the culture of the authors of the Bible; it is more consistent to believe that the unspecified others are present. Who are they? Divine simplicity does not offer a satisfactory answer.

What you are suggesting is inconsistent with scripture, the prophet Isaiah says the Lord was alone and by himself (see Isa 44:24 below):

Isa.44

[24] Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

Now, the ECF are not on your side universally. The earliest ECF are on my side. Clement of Rome and Justin Martyr did not believe in creation ex nihilo. Now, before you march out a canned response to this, the pre-2nd century hints at creation ex nihilo are not supportive of creation ex nihilo. The only thing that supports creation ex nihilo is an over literal read of â??created all things.â? The Bible even helps occasionally by saying â??created all things that were createdâ? which is what the inspired authors meant.

What supports creation ex nihilo is Genesis 1:1,2 which says "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void ...". The ECF Hippolytus in 217 A.D. explained this by saying:

"On the first day God made what He made out of nothing. But on the other days He did not make out of nothing, but out of what He had made on the first day, by moulding it according to His pleasure."

I believe that God the Father was incarnate like God the Son, but He, like God the Son was fully divine prior to His incarnation. ... I would not suggest He earned His divinity during His incarnation.

Interesting ... sounds like you disagree with the clear Mormon teaching found the Mormon Church Gospel Principles which teaches that "the Father became God".

If by â??On the first day Hippolytus means the account in Genesis, he is not doing justice to the text. The text speaks of the chaos from which God created. Now, if Hippolytus is offering something that I have heard before in that God created the â??Chaosâ? ex nihilo and then from this He began creating, then there is a very good reason to reject this. As the Bible witnesses, Jews would not speak of â??Chaosâ? as created. Chaos was the antithesis of created. Here is a non-LDS scholar (Methodist, was last a Professor Emeritus of Old Testament Theology at Princeton) who explains this quite well:

He is not speaking of "Chaos" being created, Hippolytus is speaking of the elements of creation. Tertullian says "the One God ... brought forth from nothing this entire mass of our world, with all its array of elements, bodies, spirits ...". The Catholic Church says this about Genesis 1:1:

290 - "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth": [Gen 1:1] three things are affirmed in these first words of Scripture: the eternal God gave a beginning to all that exists outside of himself; he alone is Creator (the verb "create" - Hebrew bara - always has God for its subject). The totality of what exists (expressed by the formula "the heavens and the earth") depends on the One who gives it being

326 - The Scriptural expression "heaven and earth" means all that exists, creation in its entirety. It also indicates the bond, deep within creation, that both unites heaven and earth and distinguishes the one from the other: "the earth" is the world of men, while "heaven" or "the heavens" can designate both the firmament and God's own "place" - "our Father in heaven" and consequently the "heaven" too which is eschatological glory. Finally, "heaven" refers to the saints and the "place" of the spiritual creatures, the angels, who surround God [Pss 115:16; 19:2; Mt 5:16]

To be honest, I would introduce such qualifications into this statement that it would loose most of its meaning. Generally I disagree with it.

Since you in general disagree with the Mormon teaching that "our Heavenly Father became God" ... do you believe in the Mormon teaching of eternal progression ... do you believe that Adam's fall was necessary if the Holy Ghost is God without having to become mortal?

Is Christ Almighty God. The JWs would tell you the Bible does not say this. They have a strong case. In fact, I would suggest that Arius reads/read the Bible more consistently than do limited deifiers.

Christ is the manifestation of the Father. And Christ is the manifestation of what we are to become. If He is a weak copy of the Father, then we can be a weak copy of Him. But if He is fully divine; then the Bible teaches that we, when conformed to His image as He is in the image of the Father (same word for â??imageâ?), will be fully divine too.

You are forgetting that Christ had a divine heavenly Father and a human earthly Mother. Christ had two natures, he was the son of God and the son of Man. On the other hand, fallen man has one nature because he is born of a human mother and father. Through the grace of God a fallen human man can partake of divine nature. As partakers they are not the fullness of the Godhead bodily like Jesus. The divine heavenly Father is not man's natural father, men are not naturally a son of God like Jesus. Men can become adopted sons of God by partaking of the divine nature through the grace of God. Men do not have the fullness of the Godhead like Jesus because they only partake of the divine nature.

The ontological divide is imposed on the Bible and is certainly not the most clear message of the Bible.

1. The Bible does not shy away from calling others gods.

2. To be created in the image of another is to be more than merely of the same kind as another not less. Christ is the image of the Father.

3. The Bible does not even speak of ontology.

1. The Bible does not shy away from calling Satan god.

2. Christ is the image of the Father, Christ is the Word of God

3. The Bible does not speak of the Father becoming a God but yet the Mormon Church teaches it and imposes it on the Bible.

I am not certain that an ontological divide is consistent with the Bible, but I am quite convinced that an unbridgeable ontological divide is inconsistent with the Bible.

I am certain that a creature called man can "be partakers of the divine nature"(2Pet 1:4) and can become a "new creature" (2Cor 5:17).

I am certain that in Jesus "dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" (Col 2:9) and that "there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1Tim 2:5).

[DispensatorMysteriorum]

I am certain that in Jesus "dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" (Col 2:9)

How good is your Greek? What does the next verse say?

"And we have received a fullness in him." Context sure changes everything.

[TOmNossor]

Jesus uses the verse in Psalm 82 to show that those to whom the word of God is addressed can fittingly be called "gods." God the Father did not consult with "these Gods" as He created because he was alone and by himself (Isa 44:24). The Fall of Adam DOES NOT discuss "the incarnation of these folks", if it does then please explain this.

Man was NOT a pre-mortal spirit, the Bible reveals that Adam became a living soul (Gen 2:8 ) , man's soul is made (Isa 57:16), man's spirit is formed with him (Zech 12:1)

Jesus uses Psalm 82 to respond to those who claimed it was blasphemy for Him to call Himself the Son of God and imply that He was a God.

Psalm 82 is a narrative of both the divine council and the fall of gods to mortality. Genesis very consistently fits into this narrative.

It is possible that 2nd Isaiah holds a different view of creation than did the author of Genesis. Your view would require that these two books are inconsistent.

I would suggest that 2nd Isaiah in a couple of places attempts to radically emphasis the Kingship Monotheism by speaking of God the Father as so supreme there are no others. There are other Biblical examples where this type of language is used to emphasize supremacy and subordinancy. My view maintains some consistency between the Genesis account and 2nd Isaiah.

Either way, 2nd Isaiah is far removed from the Genesis account of creation. God speaks and creation occurs, but later we Gen 1:26 we discover that God is speaking to others in whose image (His image too) He creates men. A divine simplicity view of God does not support â??othersâ? at all; but I would suggest in the context of the Hebrew culture, it is most likely these â??othersâ? are the council of gods found in other places in the Bible and throughout the ancient cultures.

I believe â??metaphysical monotheismâ? is likely inconsistent with any reasoned notion of the Trinity, but beyond this it is not the monotheism of the Bible. Instead there are two components of Biblical monotheism. There is the Kingship Monotheism that recognized God the Father as supreme and there is the Communal Monotheism that recognizes the perfect unity present within those who perfectly subordinate their will to the will of the Father. Neither of these are logically exclusive and together they explain the full picture of the Bible. Metaphysical Monotheism cannot do this.

What supports creation ex nihilo is Genesis 1:1,2 which says "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void ...". The ECF Hippolytus in 217 A.D. explained this by saying:

"On the first day God made what He made out of nothing. But on the other days He did not make out of nothing, but out of what He had made on the first day, by moulding it according to His pleasure."

Scholars, Catholic and non-Catholic, acknowledge that Genesis does not teach creation ex nihilo. Many scholars are now going farther and saying that Genesis absolutely teaches creation ex materia. Some theologians have recognized that this is true and postulate that Genesis speaks of creation from chaos, but is silent about the fact that God created the chaos ex nihilo before He began His creative work. I have never been partial to this view, but I now think it is particularly unbiblical. Jews would not believe that God created chaos.

do you believe in the Mormon teaching of eternal progression ... do you believe that Adam's fall was necessary if the Holy Ghost is God without having to become mortal?

You open an interesting can of worms for yourself here, but I think my answers are rather easy.

LDS simply must believe that God the Son and God the Holy Spirit were fully divine prior to incarnation. Most LDS see Christ acting in the Old Testament in some places and certainly he interacted with the Brother of Jarod.

So for Christ and the Holy Ghost incarnation was not necessary to become divine.

I believe that we are to become fully divine, but incarnation was necessary for our progression. This is quite simple to explain in LDS thought. The eternal intelligent and pre-mortal spirit that is me was radically inferior to the eternal intelligent and pre-mortal spirit that is God the Son. Thus, the path to exaltation for me contains different sets of experiences than the experience Christ needed to partake of during His mortality. Still, there are similarities. Christ did gain experiential knowledge through His incarnation and thus did in fact progress. But this does not mean He became fully divine through this progression because He was this before. I on the other hand have a different starting point (which is also different from the starting point of President Monson AND the Pope), requiring different experiences than those Christ had.

LDS believe in graded eternal intelligence and pre-mortal existence. God created the world as it is and provides for us experiences because they are the perfect way of fulfilling His plan.

You who believe in creation ex nihilo, an omnipotent God, and a perfect sinless existence in heaven must answer the question, â??Why did God not just create everyone sinless in heaven.â? Plantinga explains this, but he limits Godâ??s omnipotence to do so. It is seems impossible to explain otherwise. What say you? Why did Adam fall? Didnâ??t God know that He would? Is God unable to save good Catholics without torturing misguided Mormons in hell for an eternity? I cannot answer this question well from a Catholic perspective. This is even more true when one recognizes that creation ex nihilo entails determinism. That Aquinas postulated that God knows what we do because He causes our actions. And â?¦

You are forgetting that Christ had a divine heavenly Father and a human earthly Mother. Christ had two natures, he was the son of God and the son of Man.

Forgetting that you believe this? No. Rejecting as unbiblical and ultimately illogical usually.

But, the exchange formula as articulated in the Bible and in the earliest of the ECF says nothing about becoming what Christ is in His human nature. It just says Christ became man so the man could become god.

I am certain that in Jesus "dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" (Col 2:9) and that "there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1Tim 2:5).

1 Tim 2:5 should read this is from the NAB a Catholic Bible, â??For there is one God. There is also one mediator between God and the human race, Christ Jesus, himself human.â? (bolding mine).

The New Testament regularly separated God the Father from God the Son. There is One God (the Father) and One Lord / Mediator (the Son). While it is true that the Father and the Son are one, it is only John that tries to explain how the Father and Son are ONE. And John says that we can be ONE with them too, again this would be robust deification.

Charity, TOm

PS and what DM said too!

[3DOP]

...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.

Excellent quote, especially the italicized part showing both St. Augustine's position and prudence in taking care to not condemn a position that to his own day (and ours) has never to my knowledge been condemned. This issue is not a deal breaker between Catholics. Like Augustine, I doubt that the chasm between creature and Creator is perfectly breached in deification, else why would there be differing degrees of glory in heaven, as one star differing from another (I do not know that that was one of his difficulties)? And also like him, I encourage those who permit no limitation to deification to look well to their way, especially if they would be dogmatic about it. I have an opinion and no dogma. My only possible beef would be with anyone who would insist upon imagining to define the delights of something that according to revelation "eye hath not seen, ear hath not heard, nor has entered into the heart of man"...on either side. I think we may speculate, so the only thing I tend to insist upon is the legitimacy of differing schools of thought at this time and for the foreseeable future.

For Catholics impatient with LDS persistence on what may be called "perfect deification", I would suggest that we remember that for Mormons, it is no great thing if they become completely "deified". They do not believe in the creator-creature distinction that we Catholics do. Most of them already endorse the idea that God and man are of the same species. There is not the transcendence (distance) in their God that we have. And on their side, I would think that perhaps they should be able to more easily recognize the reasonableness of Catholic hesitance. There is not the immanence (nearness) in our God that they have. The problem as I see it, is that Mormons and Catholics cannot be discussing the same thing until they agree for sake of argument that man and God either are or or not consubstantial now...to use our terminology...of the same species or not...to use LDS terminology. The Mormon says yes, God and man are now consubstantial/same species. The Catholic says no. From each view of God and man spring the different conclusions.

Trying to be more "wedgy" (nodding to Sargon, heh),

3DOP

[3DOP]

Hey Tom.

You who believe in creation ex nihilo, an omnipotent God, and a perfect sinless existence in heaven must answer the question, â??Why did God not just create everyone sinless in heaven.â? Plantinga explains this, but he limits Godâ??s omnipotence to do so. It is seems impossible to explain otherwise. What say you? Why did Adam fall? Didnâ??t God know that He would? Is God unable to save good Catholics without torturing misguided Mormons in hell for an eternity? I cannot answer this question well from a Catholic perspective. This is even more true when one recognizes that creation ex nihilo entails determinism. That Aquinas postulated that God knows what we do because He causes our actions. And â?¦

I have never read one word of Plantinga to my recollection, but I don't see why He would need to limit God's omnipotence. Does omnipotence mean that God does everything that He can do? Of course not. It means that God has the potency to do everything reasonable. If He condescends to suspend this potency for just and merciful reasons, it would not compromise His abilities in the least. Some would have it that omnipotence means God can make two and two make any number including four.

Continuing to wane wedgy...

R

Oh wait...

I know I sound cranky sometimes, but what is with the "Mormons in hell so Catholics can go to heaven business", Tom? You should read the Divine Comedy Tom. It is beautiful and it is brilliant. Sometimes the Florentine politics can be a little tiring but you can't afford to ignore it if you would see what the Church really taught in the Middle Ages. Catholics including popes are in Hell and pagans are in Heaven, with the orthodox defenses by St Thomas Aquinas (died in 1274) in the margins (provided by the editors) written in 1300 when everyone who does so insist, insists that the Catholic Church at that time held that every saved person had to be a visible member of the Catholic Church. Furthermore, it was not taught then, or implied ever that anyone has to be tortured in hell for eternity so someone else can go to heaven. Only the reprobate go to hell. Those who want to go to hell are the only ones who go there. No one in hell wants to be in heaven. Universalist Christians and atheists love to paint a sympathetic picture of all these sorrowing nice people whose only error was to make a theological mistake burning in agony, begging for mercy forever and ever. I know you don't believe in that picture. I hope you know that I don't either.

There are other ways besides your Manicheistic assumption (which isn't even a part of your own official revelation if I correctly understand an authority we both appreciate on the subject) to exonerate God of this world's suffering. Does dualism have no philosophical difficulties at all within your worldview? I admit the problem of evil. It has been on the top of the list of discussion topics since Moses (as I believe) wrote that God made everything good. I don't admit that you offer the best solution. You offer a solution yes. But a bullet between the eyes is not my favorite way of draining a sinus infection. That is how I view your solution. It is quick and easy, but multiplies the problems. Where besides philosophy do you discover in anyone's canon that Evil is an eternal principle (capitalized on purpose since your remedy raises it to such a status in the cosmos) which God cannot destroy? In your impersonal universe, there is no one responsible for making the laws. God is nothing more than another dependent being that was quicker than his comrades to climb the ladder to success. How do you know that Evil will lose in the end?

As repulsive as Omnipotence is to you, you see how Dualism appears to me. I am hoping we can both agree that there are mysteries that are beyond our capacity to reason, and not revealed in the dim light of faith. Perhaps supernatural mystery and philosophical humility comes more easily to those who think God is transcendent. It seems to me like we live in an arrogant age where humanity decides negatively in regard to natural and supernatural mysteries. We live in a skeptical age when every paradox is assumed to be a contradiction. I have taken my share of lumps here and elsewhere for my dismissal of modernity. I don't think that moderns are stupid and I don't think I am smart. That is not my position. I mention that I am a truck driver occasionally to show that even if I can spin a word, I couldn't possibly be an academic. But I have a rock solid faith that does not require me to be an intellectual. I believe in no more than common sense philosophically and revelation as taught by the Church in the supernatural order. Only by partaking in the arrogance of an age that guarantees that busy farmers and factory hands could never find their way, would I be pushed by the problem of evil into being a Manichee.

Continuing to be your faithfully blunt (nod to Sargon, heh) friend,

Rory

[johnny]

TOmNossor,

Jesus uses Psalm 82 to respond to those who claimed it was blasphemy for Him to call Himself the Son of God and imply that He was a God.

Psalm 82 is a narrative of both the divine council and the fall of gods to mortality. Genesis very consistently fits into this narrative.

Psalm 82 does not fit in the narrative found in Genesis 1. Psalm 82 comes occurs after the creation found in Genesis, the narrative in Psalm 82 speaks of "nations". The heavenly council found in Psalm 82 are angels. All angels were created when God commanded (Psalm 148:2-5), angels or spirits were not born of a heavenly mother like Mormonism teaches.

It is possible that 2nd Isaiah holds a different view of creation than did the author of Genesis. Your view would require that these two books are inconsistent.

I would suggest that 2nd Isaiah in a couple of places attempts to radically emphasis the Kingship Monotheism by speaking of God the Father as so supreme there are no others. There are other Biblical examples where this type of language is used to emphasize supremacy and subordinancy. My view maintains some consistency between the Genesis account and 2nd Isaiah.

Your view is not consistent with neither Genesis nor Isaiah. The Mormon view is that many gods were present during creation (Abr 4 and 5). Isaiah's view is that God was alone and by himself during creation (Isa 44:24). Isaiah's view is consistent with the the author of Genesis. The Genesis account is that "God said, Let us make ...". The "us" is not many gods, Malachi 2:10 reveals that "one God" created us.

Either way, 2nd Isaiah is far removed from the Genesis account of creation. God speaks and creation occurs, but later we Gen 1:26 we discover that God is speaking to others in whose image (His image too) He creates men. A divine simplicity view of God does not support â??othersâ? at all; but I would suggest in the context of the Hebrew culture, it is most likely these â??othersâ? are the council of gods found in other places in the Bible and throughout the ancient cultures.

The NT reveals that the "us" is the Word (John 1:1). Neither the OT nor the NT reveal many gods at creation like Mormon scripture. The OT and the NT reveal one God created (Isa 45:18; Neh 9:6-13; Acts 4:24-26; Acts 14:15; Acts 17:24-29; Col 1:2-18).

I believe â??metaphysical monotheismâ? is likely inconsistent with any reasoned notion of the Trinity, but beyond this it is not the monotheism of the Bible. Instead there are two components of Biblical monotheism. There is the Kingship Monotheism that recognized God the Father as supreme and there is the Communal Monotheism that recognizes the perfect unity present within those who perfectly subordinate their will to the will of the Father. Neither of these are logically exclusive and together they explain the full picture of the Bible. Metaphysical Monotheism cannot do this.

The picture in the Bible is that there is "there is one God; there is none other but he" (Mark 12:29,32). The apostle Paul taught "there is none other God but one ... one God, the Father, ... and one Lord Jesus" (1Cor 8:4-6). Neither Jesus or the apostle Paul taught "three Gods" like Joseph Smith taught.

Scholars, Catholic and non-Catholic, acknowledge that Genesis does not teach creation ex nihilo. Many scholars are now going farther and saying that Genesis absolutely teaches creation ex materia. Some theologians have recognized that this is true and postulate that Genesis speaks of creation from chaos, but is silent about the fact that God created the chaos ex nihilo before He began His creative work. I have never been partial to this view, but I now think it is particularly unbiblical. Jews would not believe that God created chaos.

I do not believe that "God created chaos". I believe like the ECF which believed "On the first day God made what He made out of nothing" and God himself "called into being the substance of His creation, when previously it had no existence" and that "the One God ... brought forth from nothing ... elements." Catholic theologians recognize creation ex nihilo see paragraphs 296, 297, 327, 338 in the CCC (see link below).

God Created Out of Nothing

http://comparing-views.com/book/c06create.htm

LDS believe in graded eternal intelligence and pre-mortal existence. God created the world as it is and provides for us experiences because they are the perfect way of fulfilling His plan.

The ECF did not believe in pre-mortal existence like Mormon's believe (see below):

Irenaeus

"For, to attribute the substance of created things to the power and will of Him who is God of all, is worthy both of credit and acceptance. It is also agreeable [to reason], and there may be well said regarding such a belief, that 'the things which are impossible with men are possible with God.' While men, indeed, cannot make anything out of nothing, but only out of matter already existing, yet God is in this point proeminently superior to men, that He Himself called into being the substance of His creation, when previously it had no existence." (Irenaeus,Against Heresies,2,10:4(A.D. 180),in ANF,I:370)

Origen

"The specific points which are clearly handed down through the apostolic preaching are these: First, that there is one God who created and arranged all things and who, when nothing existed, called all things into existence, and that in the final period this God, just as he had promised beforehand through the prophets, sent the Lord Jesus Christ. Secondly, that Jesus Christ himself, who came, was born of the Father before all creatures; and after he had ministered to the Father in the creation of all things, for through him all things were made" (The Fundamental Doctrines 1:0:4 [A.D. 225]).

Hippolytus

"The one God, the first and only, both Creator and Lord of all things, had nothing co-eternal . . . No, he was one, to himself alone. And when he so willed, he created those things which before had no existence other than in his willing to make them and inasmuch as he had knowledge of what would be, for he also has foreknowledge" (Refutation of All Heresies [A.D. 228]).

You who believe in creation ex nihilo, an omnipotent God, and a perfect sinless existence in heaven must answer the question, â??Why did God not just create everyone sinless in heaven.â? Plantinga explains this, but he limits Godâ??s omnipotence to do so. It is seems impossible to explain otherwise. What say you? Why did Adam fall? Didnâ??t God know that He would? Is God unable to save good Catholics without torturing misguided Mormons in hell for an eternity? I cannot answer this question well from a Catholic perspective. This is even more true when one recognizes that creation ex nihilo entails determinism. That Aquinas postulated that God knows what we do because He causes our actions. And â?¦

God created Adam sinless. Adam fell because he disobeyed God's commandment. God is all knowing.

Forgetting that you believe this? No. Rejecting as unbiblical and ultimately illogical usually.

But, the exchange formula as articulated in the Bible and in the earliest of the ECF says nothing about becoming what Christ is in His human nature. It just says Christ became man so the man could become god.

The Catholic also teaches about the "exchange" like the Bible and the ECF's, it teaches:

526 To become a child in relation to God is the condition for entering the kingdom. For this, we must humble ourselves and become little. Even more: to become "children of God" we must be "born from above" or "born of God". Only when Christ is formed in us will the mystery of Christmas be fulfilled in us. Christmas is the mystery of this "marvelous exchange": O marvelous exchange! Man's Creator has become man, born of the Virgin. We have been made sharers in the divinity of Christ who humbled himself to share our humanity.

1 Tim 2:5 should read this is from the NAB a Catholic Bible, â??For there is one God. There is also one mediator between God and the human race, Christ Jesus, himself human.â? (bolding mine).

The New Testament regularly separated God the Father from God the Son. There is One God (the Father) and One Lord / Mediator (the Son). While it is true that the Father and the Son are one, it is only John that tries to explain how the Father and Son are ONE. And John says that we can be ONE with them too, again this would be robust deification.

This oneness described by John is not "robust deification", it is simply about "he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit" (1Cor 6:17). Those who receive the word of God become sons of God, they are born of God, born of the spirit. Those in whom the Spirit dwells are divinized. By the participation of the Spirit, we become communicants in the divine nature. The Spirit of adoption makes the faithful partakers in the divine nature by uniting them in a living union with the only Son.

PS and what DM said too!

> "And we have received a fullness in him." Context sure changes everything.

What is DM's point ... the next verses or context does not change my point which is that men can share or partake in the fullness in Christ.

[DispensatorMysteriorum]

What is DM's point ... the next verses or context does not change my point which is that men can share or partake in the fullness in Christ.

johnny,

the point is that the "fulness of the godhead" that was in Christ isn't reserved for him alone. The next verse says "you have a fullness [same word] in him."

So, the passage does not support your catholic doctrine that God and man are fundamentally different.

[johnny]

DispensatorMyste...,

the point is that the "fulness of the godhead" that was in Christ isn't reserved for him alone. The next verse says "you have a fullness [same word] in him."

Which Bible are you using ... the KJV says "ye are complete in him", the NAB says "you share in this fullness in him"

So, the passage does not support your catholic doctrine that God and man are fundamentally different.

Could you explain how this verses supports your statement above ... The Catholic doctrine teaches:

460 - The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature": [2 Pt 1:4] "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God." "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God." "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods

51 - It pleased God, in his goodness and wisdom, to reveal himself and to make known the mystery of his will. His will was that men should have access to the Father, through Christ, the Word made flesh, in the Holy Spirit, and thus become sharers in the divine nature.

[DispensatorMysteriorum]

DispensatorMyste...,

Which Bible are you using ... the KJV says "ye are complete in him", the NAB says "you share in this fullness in him"

Like I said, "How good is your Greek?"

The verses say "For in [Christ] dwells a fullness of Deity in bodily form, and you have a fullness in Him." The NAB has a great translation of the verse. "you share in this fullness in him." Clearly it's speaking of the same fullness.

So, the "fullness of deity" that dwelt in Jesus also can dwell in a true Christian. So, this "fullness" is not unique to him. Therefore, the idea that Jesus, being God, is "totally other" or that there is some insurmountable chasm between God and man is not to be argued from this passage. The passage teaches just the opposite.

Go look at the Greek.

[johnny]

DispensatorMysteriorum,

The verses say "For in [Christ] dwells a fullness of Deity in bodily form, and you have a fullness in Him." The NAB has a great translation of the verse. "you share in this fullness in him." Clearly it's speaking of the same fullness.

If men "share", then men are not "fulness".

So, the "fullness of deity" that dwelt in Jesus also can dwell in a true Christian. So, this "fullness" is not unique to him. Therefore, the idea that Jesus, being God, is "totally other" or that there is some insurmountable chasm between God and man is not to be argued from this passage. The passage teaches just the opposite.

The divine nature can dwell in a Christian, the "fullness of deity" does not dwell in a Christian because they are sharing the divine nature. The passage teaches that men can share the one divine nature among themselves but in Christ dwelt ALL the fulness of the Godhead ... it says "ALL" meaning whole and entire.

Go look at the Greek.

Look at other passages ... partakers of the divine nature (2Pet 1:4) ... we are made partakers of Christ (Heb 3:15) ...were made partakers of the Holy Ghost (Heb 6:4) ...

1Cor.6

[15] Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.

[17] But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

[19] What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

[MormonMason]

DispensatorMysteriorum,

If men "share", then men are not "fulness".

The divine nature can dwell in a Christian, the "fullness of deity" does not dwell in a Christian because they are sharing the divine nature. The passage teaches that men can share the one divine nature among themselves but in Christ dwelt ALL the fulness of the Godhead ... it says "ALL" meaning whole and entire.

Look at other passages ... partakers of the divine nature (2Pet 1:4) ... we are made partakers of Christ (Heb 3:15) ...were made partakers of the Holy Ghost (Heb 6:4) ...

1Cor.6

[15] Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.

[17] But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

[19] What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

Ephesians 2:19-22 19 So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the holy ones and members of the household of God, 20 built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the capstone. 21 Through him the whole structure is held together and grows into a temple sacred in the Lord; 22 in him you also are being built together into a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

Ephesians 3:14-19 14

[DispensatorMysteriorum]

Thanks for pointing out those interesting scriptures, MormonMason

[MormonMason]

Thanks for pointing out those interesting scriptures, MormonMason

No problem. I often like to share and help when I can. I cannot take credit for finding them, though. I followed some footnotes in an older study edition of a Catholic Bible. No, really, I did.

[johnny]

MormonMason,

Fullness of Deity = fullness of God. Christ had Deity dwelling in him and we by means of Christ, just as Christ lives because of the Father and we because of Christ. Yet, as Christ has all the fullness dwelling in him his people also will one day receive the life of God and themselves "be filled with all the fullness of God."

Read the Book of Ephesians a little closer, it is about becoming a perfect man like the man Jesus, it IS NOT about "all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" (Col 2:9) ...

The fullness of God that Ephesians is speaking of is being "filled with the Spirit" (Eph 5:18). His people will one day be a "unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ" (Eph 4:13). They will "put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness" (Eph 5:24).

We are the temple of God, the Spirit of God dwells in us (Eph 2:21,22). "According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness ... partakers of the divine nature" (2Pet 1:3,4). "If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature" (2Cor 5:17).

Eve fell because she wanted to be like God. Adam and Eve became "as gods" only in a very limited way only in terms of knowing good and evil. Satan fell he because he wanted to be like God.

No problem. I often like to share and help when I can. I cannot take credit for finding them, though. I followed some footnotes in an older study edition of a Catholic Bible. No, really, I did.

To better understand those footnotes you might want look at other Catholics teachings, such as:

504 From his conception, Christ's humanity is filled with the Holy Spirit, for God "gives him the Spirit without measure." From "his fullness" as the head of redeemed humanity "we have all received, grace upon grace."

797 "What the soul is to the human body, the Holy Spirit is to the Body of Christ, which is the Church." "To this Spirit of Christ, as an invisible principle, is to be ascribed the fact that all the parts of the body are joined one with the other and with their exalted head; for the whole Spirit of Christ is in the head, the whole Spirit is in the body, and the whole Spirit is in each of the members." The Holy Spirit makes the Church "the temple of the living God":

[TOmNossor]

Hello 3DOP,

Hope all is well. I have been too busy, but I thought I should say some things.

Excellent quote, especially the italicized part showing both St. Augustine's position and prudence in taking care to not condemn a position that to his own day (and ours) has never to my knowledge been condemned. This issue is not a deal breaker between Catholics. Like Augustine, I doubt that the chasm between creature and Creator is perfectly breached in deification, else why would there be differing degrees of glory in heaven, as one star differing from another (I do not know that that was one of his difficulties)? And also like him, I encourage those who permit no limitation to deification to look well to their way, especially if they would be dogmatic about it. I have an opinion and no dogma. My only possible beef would be with anyone who would insist upon imagining to define the delights of something that according to revelation "eye hath not seen, ear hath not heard, nor has entered into the heart of man"...on either side. I think we may speculate, so the only thing I tend to insist upon is the legitimacy of differing schools of thought at this time and for the foreseeable future.

I have less that must be said about this part of your response, but I will go ahead and offer the less.

By my view dogmatism concerning this as a LDS or a Catholic is not necessary. As I have highlighted to Johnny, while I definitely embrace robust deification, I have views on God the Father that are not identical to most LDS. Where I Catholic, I would believe what I recommended to Johnny. Christ is homoousian to God the Father in His divinity and homoousian to men in His humanity so if this is coherent, then it can be coherent for us to become this too. I would call this a mystery, but I would also not believe that dogmatic agreement with me was necessary.

It is not a dogmatic need that drives me to argue the merits of robust deification. Instead, it is the fact that IMO Johnnyâ??s position (which it seems you somewhat embrace) is a poor read of the Bible (and the earliest of ECF). While Johnny may argue that the Bible does not teach eternal marriage (and mostly win) and LDS may argue that the Bible does not teach the perpetual virginity of Mary (and mostly win), I think the case for robust deification is a (mostly win) from the Bible that is seldom recognized as such. And since I think robust deification is no more difficult to embrace than a number of other mysteries (in fact easier), I think it is the best Biblical position for the Catholic and LDS alike.

For Catholics impatient with LDS persistence on what may be called "perfect deification", I would suggest that we remember that for Mormons, it is no great thing if they become completely "deified". They do not believe in the creator-creature distinction that we Catholics do. Most of them already endorse the idea that God and man are of the same species. There is not the transcendence (distance) in their God that we have. And on their side, I would think that perhaps they should be able to more easily recognize the reasonableness of Catholic hesitance. There is not the immanence (nearness) in our God that they have. The problem as I see it, is that Mormons and Catholics cannot be discussing the same thing until they agree for sake of argument that man and God either are or or not consubstantial now...to use our terminology...of the same species or not...to use LDS terminology. The Mormon says yes, God and man are now consubstantial/same species. The Catholic says no. From each view of God and man spring the different conclusions.

Ok, I take exception to this line of thought.

I do not like hearing that LDS deification is â??no great thingâ? because of who God is in LDS thought. I understand the reasoning behind it, but I still do not like hearing it. I do not wish to dissuade you from saying it, but I will respond in the way that I am about to and I hope to not be too bombastic.

God is only limited in ways that make Him capable of actually loving. The God who created ex nihilo, who exists â??a se,â? who is impassible, who is absolutely unchangeable, who â?¦ is most charitably called a big computer in the way He interacts with those who He chooses as His adopted children. Those who through a combination of their choices and His will are not â??savedâ? would find Him to be a torture device. He does not experience our love or rejection of Him in any way so He cannot love us as a husband and wife or a father and son love each other (despite the prevalence of these images in scripture and tradition). He does not even love us as a master loves his dog. Perhaps as a feeding machine that automatically responds to a raised paw loves its dog.

You may be correct when you say that the God who can create ex nihilo and has no use for man kind can â??beat upâ? my God, but I say such is a hollow victory. And since both of us conceive of God as the greatest of all beings, it is impossible for such a showdown to ever occur. And we should never worship power anyway.

I have indeed imbibed of the â??handmaiden of theologyâ? in order to say the horrible things I say above. Perhaps the solution to these things is shrouded in mystery.

Perhaps I should just pray to know the truth and ignore all applications of reason. This would certainly be a consistent way of addressing these questions.

Perhaps I should bifurcate my â??by faith and by reasonâ? such that reason is only applied to the historical difficulties / positives for Catholicism and Mormonism and not to the truths we can may perceive we can discern concerning God. Such seems to be a position espoused by a number of EOs, but they condemn Catholicism in there advocacy of this (and I think to be honest they die by the same sword just less obviously).

I know that there are infinites within God that I as finite cannot grasp properly. I still think I should not be asked to embrace things that are mutually contradictive. Knowing that I do not know everything is not the same as saying God loves and yet God is absolutely impassible and unaffected such that love is emptied of all its meaning.

If it can proven that Mormonism is of the devil, I will have no choice but to embrace truths about God that if logic was followed would make Him very similar to the God of Calvinism as characterized by Calvinismâ??s detractors (be they LDS, Catholic, or Protestant).

I know the God you experience 3DOP is not the God I see as the logical conclusion from Creation ex Nihilo as developed by Aquinas. I have yet to be able to see the flaws in Aquinasâ??s logic. I know God can reach through such philosophical definitions to touch our soul. I will continue to believe this is what happened to Aquinas and that the God of Aquinas is not a good representation of God our Father.

The built up philosophical conclusions that feel are inevitable from the dogmatic Catholic positions may be the stumbling block that caused God to create Mormonism for me so that I could love Him without being hung upon His impassibility rather than join His one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Or the disdain you have for dualism in that there could not be co-eternals with God may be the reason that Catholicism is still around and God does not direct everyone to the Divine Restored Gospel of the Church of Jesus Christ. Hopefully God loves us enough (and I am sincere enough) that we will be mutually in His embrace after we die.

Charity, TOm

[MormonMason]

... Satan fell he because he wanted to be like God.

Lucifer fell and became Satan because he thought to exalt his throne above that of God. The imagery which you apply to this, however, is not in the Bible speaking of the falling of Lucifer, but rather of the prideful thoughts of the King of Babylon who thought he would exalt his throne "above the stars of God" but who instead would be brought down to the ground and meet those stirred up to meet him in Sheol as those who pass by see the rotting corpse and make comments. Do you really believe that Satan will be brought down to Sheol and become a rotting corpse to be covered bottom to top with worms?

To better understand those footnotes you might want look at other Catholics teachings, such as:

504 From his conception, Christ's humanity is filled with the Holy Spirit, for God "gives him the Spirit without measure." From "his fullness" as the head of redeemed humanity "we have all received, grace upon grace."

797 "What the soul is to the human body, the Holy Spirit is to the Body of Christ, which is the Church." "To this Spirit of Christ, as an invisible principle, is to be ascribed the fact that all the parts of the body are joined one with the other and with their exalted head; for the whole Spirit of Christ is in the head, the whole Spirit is in the body, and the whole Spirit is in each of the members." The Holy Spirit makes the Church "the temple of the living God":

No need for me to consider these to help steer me away from a plain reading of the biblical text, thank you. We already saw where Catholic tradition got us with the scripture to which you alluded above.

[johnny]

MormonMason,

Lucifer fell and became Satan because he thought to exalt his throne above that of God.

The command of Jehovah created Satan, Satan is called a god. Our God is a God of created gods. The angel Satan has a different nature than the Son of God.

No need for me to consider these to help steer me away from a plain reading of the biblical text, thank you. We already saw where Catholic tradition got us with the scripture to which you alluded above.

What is clear to me is when you step back and look at the big picture ...

- it is clear that their is "God and men" and there is one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus. Christ Jesus is the Son of God and the Son of a human. Jesus is only begotten Son of God, he did not become God. Men are adopted sons of God, men are not natural sons of God. Men are by nature the children of wrath.

- it is clear that God did not become God, he is God from everlasting to everlasting. God created the first man. This created man can become a "new creature", perfect men who can be called gods. A new man who is is created in righteousness and true holiness. The uncreated God is the God of created gods.

[johnny]

TOmNossor,

I think the case for robust deification is a (mostly win) from the Bible that is seldom recognized as such.

Could you provide the Bible verses that you think support â??robust deificationâ? â?¦ thanks.

By â??robust deificationâ? do you mean the Mormon teaching that a fallen man can become a creator like the Father.

The Bible does not support â??robust deificationâ?, the Bible reveals:

- men do not become Almighty, men are given things pertaining to godliness, they are partaker of divine nature (2Pet 1:3,4)

- men remain creatures, they become new creatures (2Cor 5:17), they become new men (Eph 5:24)

- men do not become a creator like the Father, men can become like God only in a limited way in terms of righteousness and holiness (Eph 5:24)

- men do not become true Gods like the Father; men are a creature that can be called a â??godâ? (John 10:35), the created Satan was called a god (2Cor 4:4)

- God and men are distinct, there is God and men (1Tim 2:5)

- the Son was true God (1John 5:20), he did not become a God; he was God (John 1:1)

- God and that called gods are distinct, there is one God and that called gods (1Cor 8:4-6)

- men are not natural sons of God, Jesus is the only begotten (John 1:14), men are adopted sons (Gal 4:1-19)

- God is our Father, he created men, he is the Father of all (1Cor 8:4-6).

- God did not become God; God is God from everlasting to everlasting (Psalm 90:2)

- there were not many gods at creation; God was by himself at creation (Isa 44:24), one God created (Mal 2:10

- there was no heavenly mother; the â??usâ? in the beginning was the Word (John 1:1; Acts 17:24-29)

- spirits were not born of heavenly parents; spirits were created when Jehovah commanded (Psalm 148:2-5)

- manâ??s spirit did not pre-exist, manâ??s spirit is formed within him (Zech 12:1)

- there were no pre-existing spirits; God called into being the substance of His creation (Gen 1:1)

- Jesus and Satan were not brothers born of heavenly parents; the Son of God did not have the nature of an angel (Heb 2:16,17)

- men are not natural sons of God; men become sons of God (John 1:12), by nature they are children of wrath (Eph 2:3)

The ECFâ??s did not support â??robust deificationâ?, they taught:

- On the first day God made what He made out of nothing. But on the other days He did not make out of nothing, but out of what He had made on the first day (Hippolytus)

- there is one God who created and arranged all things when nothing existed, called all things into existence (Origen)

- God Himself called into being the substance of His creation when previously it had no existence (Irenaus)

- when he so willed, he created those things which before had no existence (Hippolytus)

- with the Father were the Word and Wisdom â?¦ let us (Irenaeus)

[TOmNossor]

Johnny,

The entire New Testament is about robust deification.

The Man Jesus Christ is the manifestation of God the Father.

The Man Jesus Christ is the example of what we are to become.

The Bible says that Jesus Christ is the “image” of God the Father [2 Cor 4:4].

The Bible says that men are to become the “image” of Jesus Christ [Rom 8:9].

One may argue that “image” should refer to a “weak copy.” In which case Christ is a “weak copy” of God the Father and we become a “weak copy” of Christ. Or one may argue that “image” is a robust identification and thus Christ is as God the Father is and we are to become as Christ is.

You seem to desire to say that Christ is as God the Father, but that we are to become a “weak copy” of Christ. Bully for you! But no one should believe you make a good Biblical case because you do not.

**********************************************************************

The exchange formula is present in the Bible and ubiquitous within the ECF who until the 4th century do not have “and but” qualification. Here is the Bible:

2 Cor 8.9 –

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.

The above passage is the seed of such exchange formula statements as this one from Irenaeus:

Irenaeus - Adv. Her. 5.Pref

...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.(ANF 1.526).

1. Again there are a few ways to read the above. Christ is a really good fellow and through His becoming what we are we can become a really good fellow too.

Or

2. Christ is fully divine and through His kind of / sort of / somewhat becoming human we can kind of / sort of / somewhat become divine.

Or

3. Christ is fully divine and through His becoming fully human we can become fully divine.

Unless you do not understand your own doctrine you cannot embrace 1 or 2 because Christ is/was fully divine and he did become fully human. But, you do not like 3.

Instead it would seem that you would like to change the exchange formula to say, “Christ who was rich became poor so that we who are poor could become middle class fellows.”

You do pervert the scriptures and the ECF.

********************************************************************

What about 2 Pet 1:4. and Hebrews 2:14.

Hebrews 2:14 claims that Christ partook of our nature. And 2 Pet 1:4 says that we are to “partake of the divine nature.”

The language of participation/partaking is here a different Greek word, but the ECF sufficiently linked the two concepts by explaining that Christ partook of our nature and Christ participated in our nature as we are to partake of His nature or participate in His nature.

Again if participate/partake is to be a weak association where some aspect of nature is communicated, then Christ was not fully human and we are not to become fully divine. Or participate/partake is a strong association and Christ became fully human and we are to become fully divine.

Your read is just theological question begging.

********************************************************************

There are many others. “Seeing God as He is” is not weak deification.

The regular use of the word “gods” by the Bible and the ECF to describe men and folks who are (or were) gloriously communed with God is deification speak.

Your “God the creator ex nihilo” and (but Mormon's believe xyz) are either post Biblical definitions placed upon what it is to be divine, poor Biblical exegesis, or desperate responses that do not respond to the accusation that your tradition is unbiblical. If your idea of God as the one who creates ex nihilo is inconstant with the Bible that says men can become gods, then you should abandon your idea that God created ex nihilo (especially since Biblical scholars are quite convinced that the Bible does not teach creation ex nihilo).

It is my position that Catholicism ESPECIALLY as you insist that it must be, has developed away from the Biblical and Early Church witness. You are welcome to your developments, but I am quite convinced that the religion I espouse is the one more faithful to the Bible.

Charity, TOm

[johnny]

TOmNossor,

The entire New Testament is about robust deification.

The Man Jesus Christ is the manifestation of God the Father.

The Man Jesus Christ is the example of what we are to become.

The Man Jesus Christ is not a good example of what we are to became. Christ is Almighty, he has all power. Fallen man is given things pertaining to godliness, they are partakers of divine nature (2Pet 1:3,4).

The Bible says that Jesus Christ is the â??imageâ? of God the Father [2 Cor 4:4].

The Bible says that men are to become the â??imageâ? of Jesus Christ [Rom 8:9].

One may argue that â??imageâ? should refer to a â??weak copy.â? In which case Christ is a â??weak copyâ? of God the Father and we become a â??weak copyâ? of Christ. Or one may argue that â??imageâ? is a robust identification and thus Christ is as God the Father is and we are to become as Christ is.

This "image" is associated with glory. The Son is the express image of the Father, the Son is equal in brightness to the glory of the Father (Heb 1:3,8 ) . In the end, all righteous men will have the glory of the Father (Rev 21:11).

You seem to desire to say that Christ is as God the Father, but that we are to become a â??weak copyâ? of Christ. Bully for you! But no one should believe you make a good Biblical case because you do not.

Men are a "weak" in terms of power. Christ is Almighty, fallen man are given things pertaining to godliness, they are only partakers of divine nature.

The exchange formula is present in the Bible and ubiquitous within the ECF who until the 4th century do not have â??and butâ? qualification. Here is the Bible:

The exchange formula applies to divine nature. The Word of God was fully divine nature (John 1:1), those who partake of the Word of God, partake of the divine nature. Those in whom the Spirit dwells are divinized.

The exchange formula does not apply to divine power. The Son of God had divine nature and the fulness of divine power. The adopted sons of God partake of divine nature and are given their powers pertaining to godliness (2Pet 1:3,4).

Instead it would seem that you would like to change the exchange formula to say, â??Christ who was rich became poor so that we who are poor could become middle class fellows.â?

You do pervert the scriptures and the ECF.

Men will be rich, they are joint-heirs with Christ (Rom 8:17). They will inherit the kingdom, they will not inherit the Father's attributes because they are adopted children. Jesus is the only natural Son of God who inherits the attributes of his Father.

What about 2 Pet 1:4. and Hebrews 2:14.

Hebrews 2:14 claims that Christ partook of our nature. And 2 Pet 1:4 says that we are to â??partake of the divine nature.â?

I agree Christ partook of our nature.

The language of participation/partaking is here a different Greek word, but the ECF sufficiently linked the two concepts by explaining that Christ partook of our nature and Christ participated in our nature as we are to partake of His nature or participate in His nature.

Read verse 3 of 2Pet 1, it revels the limitation of this partaking of divine nature, it says.

2Pet.1

[3] According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:

[4] Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

Again if participate/partake is to be a weak association where some aspect of nature is communicated, then Christ was not fully human and we are not to become fully divine. Or participate/partake is a strong association and Christ became fully human and we are to become fully divine.

You are mixing up nature and power. For example, a man can have be fully human nature but yet he does not necessarily have all power. A divinized man can partake of divine nature but yet he does not necessarily have all divine power. Human nature is mortal, divine nature is immortal.

There are many others. â??Seeing God as He isâ? is not weak deification.

The regular use of the word â??godsâ? by the Bible and the ECF to describe men and folks who are (or were) gloriously communed with God is deification speak.

- â??Seeing God as He isâ? has nothing to do with deification, for example Stephen saw God as He is.

- the word "god" also describes Satan, the word "god" does not necessarily speak of deifcation.

Your â??God the creator ex nihiloâ? and (but Mormon's believe xyz) are either post Biblical definitions placed upon what it is to be divine, poor Biblical exegesis, or desperate responses that do not respond to the accusation that your tradition is unbiblical. If your idea of God as the one who creates ex nihilo is inconstant with the Bible that says men can become gods, then you should abandon your idea that God created ex nihilo (especially since Biblical scholars are quite convinced that the Bible does not teach creation ex nihilo).

The tradition of God created from nothing comes from apostolic tradition, the ECF's clearly taught God created from nothing. The ECF's associated Genesis 1:1 with their teaching of God created from nothing.

It is my position that Catholicism ESPECIALLY as you insist that it must be, has developed away from the Biblical and Early Church witness. You are welcome to your developments, but I am quite convinced that the religion I espouse is the one more faithful to the Bible.

The Bible (see Genesis 1:1) and Early Church witness that God created from nothing (see my earlier for quotes or see the link below).

Ex Nihilo(Creation out of Nothing)

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/exnihilo.htm

The Mormon teachings of pre-existence and many Gods creating are not supported by the Bible nor the ECF. The ECF taught (see link above for full quote):

- there is one God, who created and arranged all things, and who, when nothing existed.

- He Himself called into being the substance of His creation, when previously it had no existence

- made out of nothing the things that exist

[Doctor Steuss]

TOmNossor,

The Man Jesus Christ is not a good example of what we are to became.

[...]

May I put this in my signature line?