An Interesting Post Apostolic Belief

[ebeddoulos]

Rather than derailing a thread by responding to a to a comment from a critic, I thought I would start a new one. The following shows that the great intellects of ancient Orthodox Christianity once agreed that men could become gods. However, due to the great apostasy, most Christians are not even aware that this was once taught.

Very early on, Irenaeus (130-200 A.D), Bishop of Lyons, wrote: â??For we cast blame upon Him, because we have not been made gods from the beginning, but at first merely men, then at length gods.â?

4. Irrational, therefore, in every respect, are they who await not the time of increase, but ascribe to God the infirmity of their nature. Such persons know neither God nor themselves, being insatiable and ungrateful, unwilling to be at the outset what they have also been created-men subject to passions; but go beyond the law of the human race, and before that they become men, they wish to be even now like God their Creator, and they who are more destitute of reason than dumb animals [insist] that there is no distinction between the uncreated God and man, a creature of to-day. For these, [the dumb animals], bring no charge against God for not having made them men; but each one, just as he has been created, gives thanks that he has been created. For we cast blame upon Him, because we have not been made gods from the beginning, but at first merely men, then at length gods; although God has adopted this course out of His pure benevolence, that no one may impute to Him invidiousness or grudgingness. He declares, â??I have said, Ye are gods; and ye are all sons of the Highest.â? But since we could not sustain the power of divinity, He adds, â??But ye shall die like men,â? setting forth both truths-the kindness of His free gift, and our weakness, and also that we were possessed of power over ourselves. For after His great kindness He graciously conferred good [upon us], and made men like to Himself, [that is] in their own power; while at the same time by His prescience He knew the infirmity of human beings, and the consequences which would flow from it; but through [His] love and [His] power, He shall overcome the substance of created nature. For it was necessary, at first, that nature should be exhibited; then, after that, that what was mortal should be conquered and swallowed up by immortality, and the corruptible by incorruptibility, and that man should be made after the image and likeness of God, having received the knowledge of good and evil.â? (Irenaeus, â??Against Heresiesâ?, Book IV, Chapter 38, Verse 4)

St. Clement of Alexandria â?? â??Heraclitus, then, rightly said, â??Men are gods, and gods are men.â?? For the Word Himself is the manifest mystery: God in man, and man God.â?

â??Passions break out, pleasures overflow; beauty fades, and falls quicker than the leaf on the ground, when the amorous storms of lust blow on it before the coming of autumn, and is withered by destruction. For lust becomes and fabricates all things, and wishes to cheat, so as to conceal the man. But that man with whom the Word dwells does not alter himself, does not get himself up: he has the form which is of the Word; he is made like to God; he is beautiful; he does not ornament himself: his is beauty, the true beauty, for it is God; and that man becomes God, since God so wills. Heraclitus, then, rightly said, â??Men are gods, and gods are men.â? For the Word Himself is the manifest mystery: God in man, and man God. And the Mediator executes the Fatherâ??s will; for the Mediator is the Word, who is common to both-the Son of God, the Saviour of men; His Servant, our Teacher. And the flesh being a slave, as Paul testifies, how can one with any reason adorn the handmaid like a pimp? For that which is of flesh has the form of a servant. Paul says, speaking of the Lord, â??Because He emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant,â? calling the outward man servant, previous to the Lord becoming a servant and wearing flesh. But the compassionate God Himself set the flesh free, and releasing it from destruction, and from bitter and deadly bondage, endowed it with incorruptibility, arraying the flesh in this, the holy embellishment of eternity-immortality.â? (St. Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus, Book 3, Chapter 1, On True Beauty)

St. Clement of Alexandria â?? â??After which redemption the reward and the honours are assigned to those who have become perfect; they are called by the appellation of godsâ?¦â?

â??And this takes place, whenever one hangs on the Lord by faith, by knowledge, by love, and ascends along with Him to where the God and guard of our faith and love is. Whence at last (on account of the necessity for very great preparation and previous training in order both to hear what is said, and for the composure of life, and for advancing intelligently to a point beyond the righteousness of the law) it is that knowledge is committed to those fit and selected for it. It leads us to the endless and perfect end, teaching us beforehand the future life that we shall lead, according to God, and with gods; after we are freed from all punishment and penalty which we undergo, in consequence of our sins, for salutary discipline. After which redemption the reward and the honours are assigned to those who have become perfect; when they have got done with purification, and ceased from all service, though it be holy service, and among saints. Then become pure in heart, and near to the Lord, there awaits them restoration to everlasting contemplation; and they are called by the appellation of gods, being destined to sit on thrones with the other gods that have been first put in their places by the Saviour.â? (Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Book 7, Chapter 10 Steps to Perfection)

Origen â?? â??There are some gods of whom God is god, as we hear in prophecy, â??Thank ye the God of gods,â?? and â??The God of gods hath spoken, and called the earth.â?? Now God, according to the Gospel, â??is not the God of the dead but of the living.â?? Those gods, then, are living of whom God is god.â?

â??Further, we have to ask in what sense He is called in the Apocalypse the First and the Last, and how, in His character as the First, He is not the same as the Alpha and the beginning, while in His character as the Last He is not the same as the Omega and the end. It appears to me, then, that the reason able beings which exist are characterized by many forms, and that some of them are the first, some the second, some the third, and so on to the last. To pronounce exactly, however, which is the first, what kind of a being the second is, which may truly be designated third, and to carry this out to the end of the series, this is not a task for man, but transcends our nature. We shall yet venture, such as we are, to stand still a little at this point, and to make some observations on the matter. There are some gods of whom God is god, as we hear in prophecy, â??Thank ye the God of gods,â? and â??The God of gods hath spoken, and called the earth.â? Now God, according to the Gospel, â??is not the God of the dead but of the living.â? Those gods, then, are living of whom God is god. The Apostle, too, writing to the Corinthians, says: â??As there are gods many and lords many,â? and so we have spoken of these gods as really existing. Now there are, besides the gods of whom God is god, certain others, who are called thrones, and others called dominions, lordships, also, and powers in addition to these.â? (Origen, â??Commentary on Johnâ?, Book 1:34)

Justin Martyr maintained that in the beginning mankind was â??made like God, free from suffering and deathâ? and â??that all men are deemed worthy of becoming â??godsâ??.â?

â??And when I saw that they were perturbed because I said that we are the sons of God, I anticipated their questioning, and said, "Listen, sirs, how the Holy Ghost speaks of this people, saying that they are all sons of the Highest; and how this very Christ will be present in their assembly, rendering judgment to all men. The words are spoken by David, and are, according to your version of them, thus: 'God standeth in the congregation of gods; He judgeth among the gods. How long do ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Judge for the orphan and the poor, and do justice to the humble and needy. Deliver the needy, and save the poor out of the hand of the wicked. They know not, neither have they understood; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth shall be shaken. I said, Ye are gods, and are all children of the Most High. But ye die like men, and fall like one of the princes. Arise, O God! judge the earth, for Thou shalt inherit all nations.' But in the version of the Seventy it is written, 'Behold, ye die like men, and fall like one of the princes, in order to manifest the disobedience of men,--I mean of Adam and Eve,--and the fall of one of the princes, i.e., of him who was called the serpent, who fell with a great overthrow, because he deceived Eve. But as my discourse is not intended to touch on this point, but to prove to you that the Holy Ghost reproaches men because they were made like God, free from suffering and death, provided that they kept His commandments, and were deemed deserving of the name of His sons, and yet they, becoming like Adam and Eve, work out death for themselves; let the interpretation of the Psalm be held just as you wish, yet thereby it is demonstrated that all men are deemed worthy of becoming "gods," and of having power to become sons of the Highest; and shall be each by himself judged and condemned like Adam and Eve. Now I have proved at length that Christ is called God.â? (Justin the Martyr, â??Ante-Nicene Fathers: Dialogue With Tryphoâ?, vol. 1 of 38, chap. CXXIV, pg. 261-262)

Augustine of Hippo stated "If we have been made sons of God, we have also been made gods: but this is the effect of Grace adopting, not of nature generating."

â??But then who are those gods, or where are they, of whom God is the true God? Another Psalm saith, "God hath stood in the synagogue of gods, but in the midst He judgeth gods." As yet we know not whether perchance any gods be congregated in heaven, and in their congregation, for this is "in the synagogue," God hath stood to judge. See in the same Psalm those to whom he saith, "I have said, Ye are gods, and children of the Highest all; but ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes." It is evident then, that He hath called men gods, that are deified of His Grace, not born of His Substance. For He doth justify, who is just through His own self, and not of another; and He doth deify who is God through Himself, not by the partaking of another. But He that justifieth doth Himself deify, in that by justifying He doth make sons of God. "For He hath given them power to become the sons of God." If we have been made sons of God, we have also been made gods: but this is the effect of Grace adopting, not of nature generating. For the only Son of God, God, and one God with the Father, Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, was in the beginning the Word, and the Word with God, the Word God.â? (Augustine of Hippo, A. Cleveland Coxe, ed., â??Exposition on the Book of Psalms 50:2â?, [ca. 354-430 CE], pg 178).

St. Maximos the Confessor â?? â??God made us so that we might become 'partakers of the divine nature' and sharers in His eternity, and so that we might come to be like Him through deification by grace. â?¦ and he who is ignorant of the great mystery of the new grace does not rejoice in the hope of future deification.â?

â??God made us so that we might become 'partakers of the divine nature' (2 Pet. 1:4) and sharers in His eternity, and so that we might come to be like Him (cf. 1 John 3:2) through deification by grace. It is through deification that all things are reconstituted and achieve their permanence; and it is for its sake that what is not is brought into being and given existence.â?

â??Everyone who does not apply himself to the spiritual contemplation of Holy Scripture has, Judaic-wise, also rejected both the natural and the written law; and he is ignorant of the law of grace which confers deification on those who are obedient to it. He who understands the written law in a literal manner does not nourish his soul with the virtues. He who does not grasp the inner principles of created beings fails to feast his intellect on the manifold wisdom of God. And he who is ignorant of the great mystery of the new grace does not rejoice in the hope of future deification. Thus failure to contemplate the written law spiritually results in a dearth (lack, an inadequate supply) of the divine wisdom to be apprehended in the natural law; and this in its turn is followed by a complete ignorance of the deification given by grace according to the new mystery.â? (G.E.H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard, Kallistos Ware, â??Philokalia: The Complete Text: Compiled by St. Nikodimos of the Holy Mountain and St. Markarios of Corinthâ?, London: Faber & Faber, [1983] Vol. 1 p. 173, 267)

St. Augustin, in his â??City of God and Christian Doctrineâ? described God as â??the God of gods, not of false, i.e., of impious and proud gods, â?¦ 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.â?

â??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. (St. Augustin, Philip Schaff, Ed., â??City of God and Christian Doctrineâ?, New York: The Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1890], bk. 11, ch. 1)

It is not just the ancient Saints who believed that we are destined to Godhood. Are the views of the ancient Christians irreconcilable with modern, mainstream Christianity? Many, not familiar with the scriptures, may think so, but consider this quote from M. Scott Peck: â??God wants us to become Himself â?¦ We are growing toward godhood.

"For no matter how much we may like to ******foot around it, all of us who postulate a loving God and really think about it eventually come to a single terrifying idea: God wants us to become Himself (or Herself or Itself). We are growing toward godhood." (M. Scott Peck, â??The Road Less Traveledâ?, New York: Simon and Schuster, [1978], pg. 269-70)

Watergate conspirator and subsequent born again minister and religious radio commentator Charles W. â??Chuckâ? Colson credited â??Mere Christianityâ? by C. S. Lewis with bringing him to Christ.

â??If sales are souls, then Mere Christianity is Lewisâ??s most influential theological work. â?¦ Perhaps the most dramatic incident happened in 1973. The president of an American electronics firm handed a copy of the work to a lawyer who was then special counsel to the White House. After reading it, praying over it, discussing it with others, Charles W. Colson underwent a conversion to Christ that he was to describe in his best selling Born Again.â? (Lewis, C.S., â??The Joyful Christianâ?, New York: Collier Books, Macmillan Publishing Company, paperback edition, [1977], pg. xi-xii of the Forward)

In that book, C.S. Lewis elaborates, â??He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, a dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine.â?

â??The command Be ye perfect [Matt. 5:48] is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible. He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were â??godsâ? and he is going to make good His words. If we let Him - for we can prevent Him, if we choose - He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, a dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God perfectly (though of course, on a smaller scale) His own boundless power and delight and goodness. The process will be long and in parts very painful; but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant what he said.â? (Lewis, C.S., â??Mere Christianityâ?, New York: Touchstone Books, Simon & Schuster, paperback edition, [1996], pg. 176)

In short, theologians from the beginning through modern times have taught that while we may become like gods, we can never replace, displace or be equal in status to God himself.

â??Moreover, God had previously foretold that it would happen, that as the ages passed on, and the end of the world was near at hand, God would gather to Himself from every nation, and people, and place, worshippers much better in obedience and stronger in faith, who would draw from the divine gift that mercy which the Jews had received and lost by despising their religious ordinances. Therefore of this mercy and grace the Word and Son of God is sent as the dispenser and master, who by all the prophets of old was announced as the enlightener and teacher of the human race. He is the power of God, He is the reason, He is His wisdom and glory; He enters into a virgin; being the holy Spirit, He is endued with flesh; God is mingled with man. This is our God, this is Christ, who, as the mediator of the two, puts on man that He may lead them to the Father. What man is, Christ was willing to be, that man also may be what Christ is.â? (Cyprian, â??Treatise VI â?? On the Vanity of Idolsâ? [c. 250 CE])

The real question one should ask is: â??If Irenaeus, Origen, Maximos the Confessor, Clement of Alexandria, and others, including M. Scott Peck and C.S. Lewis in modern days, can teach the doctrine of deification, why is it that only the Latter-day Saint denomination hold such beliefs today?â?

[Eguzkitanedan]

The real question one should ask is: â??If Irenaeus, Origen, Maximos the Confessor, Clement of Alexandria, and others, including M. Scott Peck and C.S. Lewis in modern days, can teach the doctrine of deification, why is it that only the Latter-day Saint denomination hold such beliefs today?â?

I take it you've never been to an Eastern Orthodox church.

[Joseph Antley]

This is an excellent thread with an excellent point that most EV's will dismiss. Their basis will be that it's not in the Bible, so what the early saints -- many of whom you quoted lived before the Bible was compiled -- and their understanding of doctrine is irrelevant. Such is one of the many flaws of the false doctrine of sola scriptura.

[Mudcat]

This is an excellent thread with an excellent point that most EV's will dismiss. Their basis will be that it's not in the Bible, so what the early saints -- many of whom you quoted lived before the Bible was compiled -- and their understanding of doctrine is irrelevant. Such is one of the many flaws of the false doctrine of sola scriptura.

Hey Joseph,

I don't think the concept of theosis is absent from Scripture.

Rom 8:17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

I see Paul's statement here as good evidence.

I don't know what other EV's positions are on the subject is, but as Equz pointed out the EOC doesn't reject the notion, and I for one agree with them. The position is probably closer to LDS in regards to LDS "exaltation" . You could say it is likely the most similar concept.... But given the differing parameters associated with either concept, there is enough of a difference to say they are dissimilar on some key points and aren't very compatible.

Regards,

Mud

[lostindc]

All of these quotes were in books inside the Palmyra library and they were translated into English and were accessible in the reading room per every EV.

[Zakuska]

Who needs the Eastern Othodox Church... What about Rome herself?

460 The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":78 "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."79 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "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."81

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p122a3p1.htm

Note: IIRC this change to the Cathecism came in Vatican II - when after many years of neglect and apostasy and a restoration... Joseph steadied Israels staff.

[lostindc]

Who needs the Eastern Othodox Church... What about Rome herself?

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p122a3p1.htm

Note: IIRC this change to the Cathecism came in Vatican II - when after many years of neglect and apostasy and a restoration... Joseph steadied Israels staff.

That is my bread and butter in pointing out that Catholics have similar beliefs

[Zakuska]

That is my bread and butter in pointing out that Catholics have similar beliefs

The only reason they brought it back was because people started looking into the history because of the truth claims of the LDS and they found that yes indeed there it was.

[Eguzkitanedan]

This is all good, but the fact is, when Christians say we get made into gods by God, they mean something totally different by "god" and "God" than what we do. In our faith, God is a personal personage who knew us and we knew Him before we were born, and He is Our Father in the most literal sense. To other Christians, God is a Supreme Being greater than which nothing can be conceived, and His elevation of mankind to His status makes them "gods" ie beings that just passively reflect His glory for eternity but not much else, and it doesn't change their fundamental nature as resurrected beings. In our faith, God is a resurrected being. I don't want to start the "my God's better than your God" but the fact is what is defined as "God" makes theosis and exaltation similar in many respects, but fundamentally different as well.

[lostindc]

This is all good, but the fact is, when Christians say we get made into gods by God, they mean something totally different by "god" and "God" than what we do. In our faith, God is a personal personage who knew us and we knew Him before we were born, and He is Our Father in the most literal sense. To other Christians, God is a Supreme Being greater than which nothing can be conceived, and His elevation of mankind to His status makes them "gods" ie beings that just passively reflect His glory for eternity but not much else, and it doesn't change their fundamental nature as resurrected beings. In our faith, God is a resurrected being. I don't want to start the "my God's better than your God" but the fact is what is defined as "God" makes theosis and exaltation similar in many respects, but fundamentally different as well.

You say tomato and we say look at the sources and then go back and reexamine your theories.

[Eguzkitanedan]

You say tomato and we say look at the sources and then go back and reexamine your theories.

I'm LDS. I'm just pointing out, the beliefs that LDS vs. say Orthodox/Catholics have on theosis, are similar on the surface, but the underlying idea of what kind of being God is makes the results look extremely different. I think "joint heirs with Christ" in the Bible indicates just that, joint heirs, resurrected like Him and crowned like Him.

[lostindc]

I'm LDS. I'm just pointing out, the beliefs that LDS vs. say Orthodox/Catholics have on theosis, are similar on the surface, but the underlying idea of what kind of being God is makes the results look extremely different. I think "joint heirs with Christ" in the Bible indicates just that, joint heirs, resurrected like Him and crowned like Him.

Good enough, you have a point

[Zakuska]

Up until a few years ago... (Think 2002 Winter Olympics) the Idea of become a god, joint heir with Christ was totally absent from the dialog. I saw many protestor signs ridiculing Lorenzos couplet. You just don't see that much any more... I wonder why?

[No Touch]

I'm LDS. I'm just pointing out, the beliefs that LDS vs. say Orthodox/Catholics have on theosis, are similar on the surface, but the underlying idea of what kind of being God is makes the results look extremely different. I think "joint heirs with Christ" in the Bible indicates just that, joint heirs, resurrected like Him and crowned like Him.

You're talking about modern Orthodox and Catholics though, people who are more than 1500 years removed from most of the quoted sources. The substance of this argument is that there are recorded statements by ancient church leaders which are not at all inconsistent with the LDS understanding.

[rhinomelon]

This is all good, but the fact is, when Christians say we get made into gods by God, they mean something totally different by "god" and "God" than what we do. In our faith, God is a personal personage who knew us and we knew Him before we were born, and He is Our Father in the most literal sense. To other Christians, God is a Supreme Being greater than which nothing can be conceived, and His elevation of mankind to His status makes them "gods" ie beings that just passively reflect His glory for eternity but not much else, and it doesn't change their fundamental nature as resurrected beings. In our faith, God is a resurrected being. I don't want to start the "my God's better than your God" but the fact is what is defined as "God" makes theosis and exaltation similar in many respects, but fundamentally different as well.

Ebedoulos is quite correct that the early church fathers taught deification (as do mainstream Christians today, just in a very different way from LDS). But Eguzikatedane hits the nail on the head in the above paragraph. The early church fathers had a much different conception of God than LDS do, and they also maintained the clear distinction between God's nature and man's nature. Men never become God by nature, but participate in His divinity as human beings. I've been discussing this very subject on another thread, and a book on deification was recommended by an LDS poster, "The Deification of the Christian According to the Greek Fathers" by Jules Gross. This scholar, like every other scholar I've read on the subject, states clearly that this distinction between God and man was clearly maintained by the early church fathers. Here are some quotes I posted in that other thread:

Regarding Clement of Alexandria (a favorite of LDS):

QUOTE

However, his Christianity preserved him from the pantheistic tendencies which dominate Hermeticism, whereby ultimate human happiness would consist in absorption by the first principle. Indeed, our doctor firmly maintains the distinction between God and the perfect human being.

--pg 141. So Clement of Alexandria certainly does not teach deification in the LDS sense, according to Gross (and everyone else I've read on the topic).

Regarding Origen, another LDS favorite:

QUOTE

This [fundamentally Christian] inspiration is clearly revealed in the place reserved for human freedom, in the central role assigned to the incarnate Logos, in the preponderance granted to the divine initiative in the work of salvation, and finally, above all, in the firmness with which the distinction between God and the deified creature is maintained.

--pg. 149. Origen does not fit with the LDS view of deification either.

Methodius, while maintaining the distinction between God and man, throws some extra wrinkles into the mix for LDS:

QUOTE

By transforming a person to the image of the divine Husband, virginity, and that 'alone, renders the one who possesses it, who has been initiated to its pure mysteries, like God.' Thus, above all, it is the divine gift of virginity that immortalizes humankind, and by that deifies them.

--pg 158. This is also about as far from LDS deification as one can get!

Regarding the "nature" question, Methodius also makes clear and permanent distinctions between God's nature and human nature:

QUOTE

The fact is that 'God alone is declared the unbegotten nature [agenetos], exempt from need and suffering, being incorporeal.

--pg. 154.

Hippolytus, quoted by zerinus earlier, also doesn't jive well with LDS deification:

QUOTE

After this, He had created the head of the universe [i.e. man], forming him out of every compound substance. He did not end up wanting to make a god or an angel--I am not misleading--but a human being. In fact, if He had wanted to make him god, He could gave done it; you have the example of the Logos. Wanting you to be human, He made you human. If, however, you also want to become god, obey the One who has made you and do not resist Him now, in order that having been found faithful in the little things, you can receive great things from Him. The Logos alone is [descended] from God; this is why He is God, being God's substance [ousia huparchon theou]. The world, on the contrary, is derived from nothingness. This is why it is not god; it is susceptible to being dissolved, when the Creator wants it.

--Hippolytus, "Heresies" 10:33, quoted by Gross on pg. 150-151. Once again, distinctions between God's nature or substance and man's. Gross also writes that Hippolytus distinguishes between the divine Word and the human nature in Christ, pg. 152.

Regarding Athanasius:

QUOTE

Assimilation, not identification, specifies the bishop of Alexandria, for the deified are children of God by adoption, by grace alone; they will never become children by nature, like the incarnated Logos: 'Only One is Son by nature; the others of us become children as well, not, however, like Him, by nature and reality, but according to the grace of the One who calls us. While being people of the earth, we are called gods, not like the true God or His Logos, but just as God has wanted, who has given this grace to us.'

--Gross, pg. 172-173, Athanasius quote from "Contra Arius" 3:19. Once again, from Athanasius this time, a clear distinction between the divine and human natures. Athanasius also defines his use of the term "theos" with reference to humans, noting that it is not in terms of nature, but in terms of adoption and grace that humans can be called "gods".

Regarding Gregory of Nyssa, quoted by zerinus above:

QUOTE

The original condition of our first parents, then, could not have been higher and happier: in them human nature was truly 'assimilated to the sovereign dignity,' [Or. catech. 6] thus deified, 'as far as possible.'[On the Making of Man 12] What this reservation as far as possible implies, the bishop of Nyssa explains more than once with all desirable clarity. 'Human beings are a copy [minema] of the divine nature,'[Or. catech. 21] they partake 'of the properties of divinity;' but will never be able to obtain 'the identity of nature' [ten tes physeos idioteta][Anim. et res.] with God. The archetype, the 'uncreated,' is 'unchanging by nature,' whereas the image, the 'created,' 'having existence from a change, is subject to alteration and does not remain absolutely in existence.' [On the Making of Man 16]

--pg. 180. Once again, Gregory of Nyssa assumes clear distinctions between God and man in terms of nature. Therefore, on that basis alone it is inarguable that the early church fathers taught deification in the same way LDS do, as zerinus claims. There is clearly at least one absolutely fundamental contradiction between the two.

And from a recent article:

QUOTE

Moderns are often unaware that [theos] had a much broader semantic range than is allowed for G/god in contemporary Western European languages. With respect to patristic notions of deification, drastic misunderstanding will occur if one does not properly appreciate this. As Murray Harris observes, God "may be used only to identify, not to describe, it cannot be used predicatively without suggesting equivalence or numerical identity (Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1992], p. 297). The same holds true for god. In contrast, [theos] originated as a predicative term and for this reason enjoyed a broad semantic range. Operative throughout the interpretation of Justin [Martyr's] testimony is the common synonymy between [theos] and [athanatos], that is, the understanding that any immortal being is a 'god'. Here [theos] retains the sense of its predicative usage. On the broad semantic range of [theos] and it's various synonymies, see [a long list of scholars and authors all exploring the various meanings of [theos] in antiquity--if you want the reading list, just let me know].

From Carl Mosser, "The Earliest Patristic Interpretations of Psalm 82, Jewish Antecedents, and the Origin of Christian Deification", Journal of Theological Studies, NS, Vol. 56, Pt 1, April 2005.

I just wrote a paper last semester on deification in Irenaeus which has been read by a few LDS people on the boards here. Irenaeus clearly distinguished God's nature from man's nature, and taught that man will be made into the perfect image of God, but not becoming God by nature. After all, for the vast majority of the early church fathers, an integral part of God's nature is being uncreated, which by definition is impossible for a created human being to possess as part of his human nature.

If anyone wants to read the paper, I'd be happy to email it to you, just let me know. I'll be presenting it at a patristics conference in Boston next month, so any constructive criticisms would be helpful!

Take care, everyone

[Eguzkitanedan]

Ebedoulos is quite correct that the early church fathers taught deification (as do mainstream Christians today, just in a very different way from LDS). But Eguzikatedane hits the nail on the head in the above paragraph. The early church fathers had a much different conception of God than LDS do, and they also maintained the clear distinction between God's nature and man's nature. Men never become God by nature, but participate in His divinity as human beings. I've been discussing this very subject on another thread, and a book on deification was recommended by an LDS poster, "The Deification of the Christian According to the Greek Fathers" by Jules Gross. This scholar, like every other scholar I've read on the subject, states clearly that this distinction between God and man was clearly maintained by the early church fathers. Here are some quotes I posted in that other thread:

And from a recent article:

From Carl Mosser, "The Earliest Patristic Interpretations of Psalm 82, Jewish Antecedents, and the Origin of Christian Deification", Journal of Theological Studies, NS, Vol. 56, Pt 1, April 2005.

I just wrote a paper last semester on deification in Irenaeus which has been read by a few LDS people on the boards here. Irenaeus clearly distinguished God's nature from man's nature, and taught that man will be made into the perfect image of God, but not becoming God by nature. After all, for the vast majority of the early church fathers, an integral part of God's nature is being uncreated, which by definition is impossible for a created human being to possess as part of his human nature.

If anyone wants to read the paper, I'd be happy to email it to you, just let me know. I'll be presenting it at a patristics conference in Boston next month, so any constructive criticisms would be helpful!

Take care, everyone

Yep, everyone take a look. Rhinomelon's post clearly shows how apostate teachers in the early church corrupted these doctrines and taught falsehoods that most Christians such as Rhinomelon today swallow hook, line, and sinker. I am so thankful for Joseph Smith and the clarity of the doctrines given to him.

[rhinomelon]

Oddly enough, I take that last post as a compliment (albeit of the backhanded variety)

"Look everybody, rhino is totally right about how wrong they all are!"

Ha! Brilliant...

[Eguzkitanedan]

Oddly enough, I take that last post as a compliment (albeit of the backhanded variety)

"Look everybody, rhino is totally right about how wrong they all are!"

Ha! Brilliant...

Glad you enjoyed it. I felt like you were using my post against my religion, so I just tried to play along.

[Sentinus]

Yep, everyone take a look. Rhinomelon's post clearly shows how apostate teachers in the early church corrupted these doctrines and taught falsehoods that most Christians such as Rhinomelon today swallow hook, line, and sinker. I am so thankful for Joseph Smith and the clarity of the doctrines given to him.

Similar statements could be made against the early LDS teachings and the slow evolution of Doctrine, I mean revelation. Rhino makes a very valid and respectful point, and you return with this? Just plain rude and unfalsifiable due to the fact that its merely an opinion, and we all know what they say about opinions. Why not respond with something of substance instead of adding fuel to the so called "anti" fire.

Regards,

Sentinus

[Eguzkitanedan]

Similar statements could be made against the early LDS teachings and the slow evolution of Doctrine, I mean revelation. Rhino makes a very valid and respectful point, and you return with this? Just plain rude and unfalsifiable due to the fact that its merely an opinion, and we all know what they say about opinions. Why not respond with something of substance instead of adding fuel to the so called "anti" fire.

Regards,

Sentinus

Why don't you read the post I put above and mind your own beeswax? And yes, anyone who writes against the Church or doctrine, is "anti-Mormon." So waht? When I write against Evangelicals or Catholics, I'm anti-Evangelical or anti-Catholic. Why do you insist on putting out a fire when you come and goad me to post this response, just stoking the flames?

[Sentinus]

Why don't you read the post I put above and mind your own beeswax? And yes, anyone who writes against the Church or doctrine, is "anti-Mormon." So waht? When I write against Evangelicals or Catholics, I'm anti-Evangelical or anti-Catholic. Why do you insist on putting out a fire when you come and goad me to post this response, just stoking the flames?

Occasionally people reply at the same time, and therefor occasionally posts get crossed. My overall point is that there is no call for such divisive language from either side, and since you made your highly opinionated post in a public forum I replied. As for all your "anti" titles I would say I disagree very few people are truly "anti" they simply have opinions, and many times misunderstandings.

Regards,

Sentinus

[rhinomelon]

I felt like you were using my post against my religion, so I just tried to play along.

Ah, I thought you were joking. Anyway, I wasn't meaning to pit you against your own religion. I was actually agreeing with you, that early church beliefs about deification are much different from modern LDS ones. I don't see it as a slight against LDS that their beliefs are truly unique. I thought that was one of the selling points!

By acknowledging that early Christian beliefs are fundamentally different from modern LDS ones, I did not make any conclusions as to which was right or true, only that they both cannot be right, because they contradict. Now, I happen to believe (obviously) that the early church is in the right here, and you believe otherwise. That's fine. My concern here was getting facts straight about the early church, as opposed to attacking the LDS church directly.

And thanks, Sentinus, for getting my back. I don't think Eguz was intentionally attacking me or anything. But I appreciate your stepping in.

And for the record, according to Eguz' definition, I would be an "anti-Mormon", although it should also be noted that the term carries far more pejorative connotations in popular LDS culture. I reject those elements of the definition, as they do not apply to me at all.

Take care, everyone

[Eguzkitanedan]

Ah, I thought you were joking. Anyway, I wasn't meaning to pit you against your own religion. I was actually agreeing with you, that early church beliefs about deification are much different from modern LDS ones. I don't see it as a slight against LDS that their beliefs are truly unique. I thought that was one of the selling points! By acknowledging that early Christian beliefs are fundamentally different from modern LDS ones, I did not make any conclusions as to which was right or true, only that they both cannot be right, because they contradict. Now, I happen to believe (obviously) that the early church is in the right here, and you believe otherwise. That's fine. My concern here was getting facts straight about the early church, as opposed to attacking the LDS church directly. And thanks, Sentinus, for getting my back. I don't think Eguz was intentionally attacking me or anything. But I appreciate your stepping in. And for the record, according to Eguz' definition, I would be an "anti-Mormon", although it should also be noted that the term carries far more pejorative connotations in popular LDS culture. I reject those elements of the definition, as they do not apply to me at all.Take care, everyone

Ok. You seem like a nice guy. Sorry about that. But, I mean, anti just means against? Right? Like I grew up Catholic, and whenever anyone who was Protestant told me something negative about my (former) religion, I considered it anti (against)-Catholic. And sometimes I responded with insults or saying something anti (against) Protestant. So, I mean, I made statements that were anti (against) mainstream Christian doctrine above, and I'd have no problem being called anti-mainstream Christian. What's the big deal with anti-Mormon? If you are against what we believe, wouldn't you want to be seen as anti-(whatever it is)?

Occasionally people reply at the same time, and therefor occasionally posts get crossed. My overall point is that there is no call for such divisive language from either side, and since you made your highly opinionated post in a public forum I replied. As for all your "anti" titles I would say I disagree very few people are truly "anti" they simply have opinions, and many times misunderstandings. Regards,Sentinus

Whatever. Anti means against.

[Zemah]

Rather than derailing a thread by responding to a to a comment from a critic, I thought I would start a new one. The following shows that the great intellects of ancient Orthodox Christianity once agreed that men could become gods. However, due to the great apostasy, most Christians are not even aware that this was once taught.

Very early on, Irenaeus (130-200 A.D), Bishop of Lyons, wrote: â??For we cast blame upon Him, because we have not been made gods from the beginning, but at first merely men, then at length gods.â?

St. Clement of Alexandria â?? â??Heraclitus, then, rightly said, â??Men are gods, and gods are men.â?? For the Word Himself is the manifest mystery: God in man, and man God.â?

St. Clement of Alexandria â?? â??After which redemption the reward and the honours are assigned to those who have become perfect; they are called by the appellation of godsâ?¦â?

Origen â?? â??There are some gods of whom God is god, as we hear in prophecy, â??Thank ye the God of gods,â?? and â??The God of gods hath spoken, and called the earth.â?? Now God, according to the Gospel, â??is not the God of the dead but of the living.â?? Those gods, then, are living of whom God is god.â?

Justin Martyr maintained that in the beginning mankind was â??made like God, free from suffering and deathâ? and â??that all men are deemed worthy of becoming â??godsâ??.â?

Augustine of Hippo stated "If we have been made sons of God, we have also been made gods: but this is the effect of Grace adopting, not of nature generating."

St. Maximos the Confessor â?? â??God made us so that we might become 'partakers of the divine nature' and sharers in His eternity, and so that we might come to be like Him through deification by grace. â?¦ and he who is ignorant of the great mystery of the new grace does not rejoice in the hope of future deification.â?

St. Augustin, in his â??City of God and Christian Doctrineâ? described God as â??the God of gods, not of false, i.e., of impious and proud gods, â?¦ 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.â?

It is not just the ancient Saints who believed that we are destined to Godhood. Are the views of the ancient Christians irreconcilable with modern, mainstream Christianity? Many, not familiar with the scriptures, may think so, but consider this quote from M. Scott Peck: â??God wants us to become Himself â?¦ We are growing toward godhood.

Watergate conspirator and subsequent born again minister and religious radio commentator Charles W. â??Chuckâ? Colson credited â??Mere Christianityâ? by C. S. Lewis with bringing him to Christ.

In that book, C.S. Lewis elaborates, â??He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, a dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine.â?

In short, theologians from the beginning through modern times have taught that while we may become like gods, we can never replace, displace or be equal in status to God himself.

The real question one should ask is: â??If Irenaeus, Origen, Maximos the Confessor, Clement of Alexandria, and others, including M. Scott Peck and C.S. Lewis in modern days, can teach the doctrine of deification, why is it that only the Latter-day Saint denomination hold such beliefs today?â?

Great collection of early Christian wisdom; thanks for doing the research.

Is everyone ready to leave the Catholic and Christian churches which have kept this mighty truth a secret?

Zemah

[Sentinus]

Ah, I thought you were joking. Anyway, I wasn't meaning to pit you against your own religion. I was actually agreeing with you, that early church beliefs about deification are much different from modern LDS ones. I don't see it as a slight against LDS that their beliefs are truly unique. I thought that was one of the selling points!

By acknowledging that early Christian beliefs are fundamentally different from modern LDS ones, I did not make any conclusions as to which was right or true, only that they both cannot be right, because they contradict. Now, I happen to believe (obviously) that the early church is in the right here, and you believe otherwise. That's fine. My concern here was getting facts straight about the early church, as opposed to attacking the LDS church directly.

And thanks, Sentinus, for getting my back. I don't think Eguz was intentionally attacking me or anything. But I appreciate your stepping in.

And for the record, according to Eguz' definition, I would be an "anti-Mormon", although it should also be noted that the term carries far more pejorative connotations in popular LDS culture. I reject those elements of the definition, as they do not apply to me at all.

"

Take care, everyone

And thanks, Sentinus, for getting my back. I don't think Eguz was intentionally attacking me or anything. But I appreciate your stepping in.

Your welcome However my biggest problem with his post was his use of inflammatory language, and its highly biased and opinionated content.

Yep, everyone take a look. Rhinomelon's post clearly shows how apostate teachers in the early church corrupted these doctrines and taught falsehoods that most Christians such as Rhinomelon today swallow hook, line, and sinker. I am so thankful for Joseph Smith and the clarity of the doctrines given to him.

"Clearly"... I think not

"Most".... Opinionated

"Church corrupted these doctrines and taught falsehoods" Implies a great deal of intent and deceit.

"Today swallow hook line and sinker". Implies that among other things todays "Christians" are ignorant and in fact gullible, falling for a trick like a worm on a hook.

No good can come from divisive language like this, and with the plethora of LDS members I know practically screaming for understanding and tolerance, this type of post will only build walls not tear them down. Perhaps Mr. Eguzkitanedan is happy building walls, I am not.

Regards,

Sentinus