The Limits of Comparing Ourselves to Ancient Christians

[Uncertain]

It'd be nice if we could continue hearing people's thoughts about the apropriate way to use ancient Christian sources in apologetics, without straying too far into discussions about particular doctrines.

I think, however, that theosis is a great example that can be used to further the discussion. As has been pointed out, deification of man was a hallmark of ancient Christianity. It is also a hallmark of modern Mormonism. As we have recognized, however, the framework in which each respective philosophy places theosis is different.

I think the only way to talk about the ancient idea of theosis when defending the church is to show that although they are not exactly the same doctrines, ours isn't as unorthodox as most critics suppose. That is precisely the approach taken in Offenders For A Word.

In fact, one could potentially press the issue and argue that our version of theosis is vastly closer to the ancient idea of it than anything our (usually Protestant) critics have.

Beyond that, I hesitate to push the parallel further.

Hi Sargon,

Well I will say I find most use of parallels with ancient Christianity somewhat problematic for more or less the reasons already outlined. Here is the apologetic argument as I see it. The LDS church claims to be the restoration of biblical Christianity indeed Christianity was known and believed all the way back to Adam. By showing that LDS doctrine is similar or identical to doctrines held by some early church fathers this strengthens the claim of the LDS church that it is a restoration of the ancient church and is the only church with Gods authority. Now consider for example the Catholic church which claims to be the continuation of the ancient church and also claims to hold Gods authority. The LDS claim and the Catholic claims are mutually exclusive that is both cannot be correct. But the Catholic church also holds beliefs that are similar or identical to doctrines held by some church fathers that are incompatible with LDS doctrines. So what are we to make of this? Apparently a "false" church can have doctrines that are compatible with a selection of early church leaders teachings. Now the LDS response might be that parallels with early church fathers are clearly not conclusive evidence demonstrating which church truly represents biblical Christianity. But that the parallels with ancient Christianity is never the less evidence for the claim of restoration and similarly the Catholic parallels are also evidence for their claims of a continuous chain of authority. Now I agree to some extent the parallels could be evidence even if not conclusive evidence. The problem is if multiple churches can claim parallels with ancient Christianity this greatly weakens the evidentiary strength of such parallels.

One of the other issues I have is random chance. That is suppose a fraud simply made up a religion based on the Bible well since the early church fathers were familiar with at least some of the books of the bible and believed they are scripture. You would expect some degree of overlapping beliefs simply due to random chance and the fact that my modern fraud and the ancient church fathers both used scripture from the bible to arrive at their theology. The question then becomes are the given set of parallels for a given church (i.e. LDS, Catholic etc. ) more than would be expected based on random chance and dependence on common source material (i.e. the bible). To answer this question you would have to know what level of parallels would be expected by chance and dependence on the bible. The mere presence of parallels is in an off itself very weak evidence for claims of a restoration. It must be demonstrated that the level of parallels is greater than would be expected by random chance or common dependence on the bible. And as far as I can tell this question has not been addressed.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[BCSpace]

I think I have another quote or two around here on the same lines if I can find it. Seems like BCSpace used a good one or two before that seemed to suggest the same thing, FWIW.

I don't think there is any problem or conflict inherent in thinking that God is ontologically different than humans. Such simply reflects a loss of doctrine. It's similar to not knowing that butterflies come from catepillars. However, in the human-God case, the butterfly looks just like the catepillar.

The Bible is clear that God and homo sapiens are the same species. We are created in His literal image. We are His literal offspring (Acts 17 as opposed to other verses on adoption such as Romans 8 ). We will become exactly as He is. etc. The early Christians taught the same before they lost the doctrines. Consider this article.....

In thse two, you see scholarship recognizing the changing of the doctrine from Biblical to something else.....

From the earliest Christian teaching, indeed, the conception of the transcendence of God is absent.... The conception which underlies the earliest expression of belief of a Christian community is the simple conception of children...."

Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the Christian Church, p. 251.

It is easy to see what influence this school of thought [i.e. Neoplatonism] must have had upon Christian leaders. It was from it that they learnt what was involved in a metaphysical sense by calling God a Spirit. They were also helped to free themselves from their primitive eschatology and to get rid of that crude anthropomorphism which made even Tertullian [A.D. 160-220] believe that God had a material body.

Wand, A History of the Early Church to A.D. 500, p. 140.

Check out this short article....

The Nature of God and the Origin and Destiny of Man

All of these point to the ontological sameness of God and man and these doctrines where taught in early Christianity. The Pre-mortal Existence for example....

The Premortal Existence

According to a second-century Christian document called the Clementine Recognitions, which is a biography of the Apostle Peter's friend and disciple, Clement of Rome, the Apostle Peter preached "the doctrine of the pre-existence of souls."26 In addition, it is well known that the great theologian Origen [A.D. 185-254], who headed an important Christian school at Alexandria, was a firm exponent of the doctrine of pre-existence. "'Before the ages,' he writes, 'they were all pure intelligences, whether demons or souls or angels. One of them, the Devil, since he possessed free-will, chose to resist God, and God rejected him.'"27

Written between A.D. 100 and 150, The Pastor of Hermas , an account of a series of visions experienced by Hermas, brother of an early bishop of the church at Rome, claims that God created the Church even before He created the world. "She [the Church] was the first of all creation... and the world was made for her."28 This document was considered as authoritative as the New Testament books by many of the earliest Christian writers. The earliest extant Christian sermon, called 2 Clement [ca. A.D. 150], confirms the same teaching: "Moreover, the books and the apostles declare that the Church belongs not to the present, but existed from the beginning."29

The bottom line? Anyone who teaches that God and men are not the same species is a heretic.

Chapter I.--On the True Beauty.

It is then, as appears, the greatest of all lessons to know one's self.

For if one knows himself, he will know God; and knowing God, he will be

made like God, not by wearing gold or long robes, but by well-doing,

and by requiring as few things as possible. [1574]

Now, God alone is in need of nothing, and rejoices most when He sees us

bright with the ornament of intelligence; and then, too, rejoices in

him who is arrayed in chastity, the sacred stole of the body. Since

then the soul consists of three divisions; [1575] the intellect, which

is called the reasoning faculty, is the inner man, which is the ruler

of this man that is seen. And that one, in another respect, God guides.

But the irascible part, being brutal, dwells near to insanity. And

appetite, which is the third department, is many-shaped above Proteus,

the varying sea-god, who changed himself now into one shape, now into

another; and it allures to adulteries, to licentiousness, to

seductions.

"At first he was a lion with ample beard." [1576]

While he yet retained the ornament, the hair of the chin showed him to

be a man.

"But after that a serpent, a pard, or a big sow."

Love of ornament has degenerated to wantonness. A man no longer appears

like a strong wild beast,

"But he became moist water, and a tree of lofty branches."

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, "Men are gods,

and gods are men." For the Word Himself is the manifest mystery: God in

man, and man God. And the Mediator executes the Father'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, "Because He emptied Himself, taking the

form of a servant," [1577] 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.

There is, too, another beauty of men--love. "And love," according to

the apostle, "suffers long, and is kind; envieth not; vaunteth not

itself, is not puffed up." [1578] For the decking of one's self

out--carrying, as it does, the look of superfluity and uselessness--is

vaunting one's self. Wherefore he adds, "doth not behave itself

unseemly:" for a figure which is not one's own, and is against nature,

is unseemly; but what is artificial is not one's own, as is clearly

explained: "seeketh not," it is said, "what is not her own." For truth

calls that its own which belongs to it; but the love of finery seeks

what is not its own, being apart from God, and the Word, from love.

And that the Lord Himself was uncomely in aspect, the Spirit testifies

by Esaias: "And we saw Him, and He had no form nor comeliness but His

form was mean, inferior to men." [1579] Yet who was more admirable than

the Lord? But it was not the beauty of the flesh visible to the eye,

but the true beauty of both soul and body, which He exhibited, which in

the former is beneficence; in the latter--that is, the

flesh--immortality.

Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor 3:1

[BCSpace]

So, I say we continue to compare and contrast Mormonism with ancient Christianity. It is a useful and faith-promoting exercise. However, I think we should be careful in understanding the limits of that exercise.

Any thoughts?

At some point very early in Christian history, the doctrines began to change. In the NT, Paul spoke of false doctrines being introduced so we know it was very early. So if one claims universal apostasy as we do, what should one expect? One should expect that the closer you get to NT times, the more LDS-like doctrines you will find and that is exactly the case. Therefore, it is very useful to use early Christianity to prove the LDS case by constrasting the change in doctrine.

[mfbukowski]

Well said. The paper you mention sounds wonderful. I will check your website for the next few days. Thanks

Scott26.2

I have it up- here's a link

[rhinomelon]

I think this is somewhat of an oversimplification of the problem. It's true that LDS believe that deification will make us literally like God and bridge the Creator-created gap. However, I think it can also be said that there is a real difference between mortal man and God; we are ontologically different even (in a sense). So, on that we can agree, at least partially, with the early Christians. Plus, there is evidence that some early Christians as late as Augustine believed that the Creator-created gap could be bridged (if Augustine is to be believed).

I don't know that LDS would generally agree that there is an ontological gap between God and man in LDS theology. In fact, the lack of this ontological gap is frequently considered a "selling point" for the LDS church. I think Sterling McMurrin talked about this in his book about Mormons and philosophy, I'd have to find it when I get home. As for some Christians believing in a complete bridging of the ontological gap, I agree that there likely were some who held that belief. Just as there are LDS who hold to the belief that only members of the LDS church will be in heaven. It's a belief that's far outside the bell curve, that rarely (if ever) shows up in the early church fathers affirmatively.

That certainly is true. The ideas of preexistence in early Christianity doesn't have to be borrowed from Greek philosophy at all. However, the idea of preexistence as used by Origen, at least, clearly came from Greek philosophy. Origen was really steeped in that stuff.

But if the belief only shows up in the Christian era in a heavily-hellenized form (as it does in Origen), do LDS really have an apologetic leg to stand on if they want to say a doctrine of the preexistence was fully a part of the early Christian church (pre-apostasy, of course)? Or do they abandon finding an LDS-type preexistence doctrine after Christ and try to get it from the Old Testament (implying that the preexistence might not have been a part of the earliest Christian church at all)?

I don't think there is any problem or conflict inherent in thinking that God is ontologically different than humans. Such simply reflects a loss of doctrine. It's similar to not knowing that butterflies come from catepillars. However, in the human-God case, the butterfly looks just like the catepillar.

If it reflects a loss of doctrine, shouldn't LDS at least be able to demonstrate that it was there to lose in the first place? I think that is the main issue here. LDS can always say, "Well, the fact that this doctrine isn't in the early church writings is because it was lost," but unless they prove it was there to lose, that statement is just a faith claim with no apologetic value whatsoever (if one assumes that apologetics is not directed at the faithful, but at the skeptics outside the church, that is).

In thse two, you see scholarship recognizing the changing of the doctrine from Biblical to something else.....

From the earliest Christian teaching, indeed, the conception of the transcendence of God is absent.... The conception which underlies the earliest expression of belief of a Christian community is the simple conception of children...."

Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the Christian Church, p. 251.

It is easy to see what influence this school of thought [i.e. Neoplatonism] must have had upon Christian leaders. It was from it that they learnt what was involved in a metaphysical sense by calling God a Spirit. They were also helped to free themselves from their primitive eschatology and to get rid of that crude anthropomorphism which made even Tertullian [A.D. 160-220] believe that God had a material body.

Wand, A History of the Early Church to A.D. 500, p. 140.

First of all, Hatch's work is over a century old and has plenty of holes being poked in some of his Harnackian assumptions in today's scholarly work. Also, your quote of Hatch definitely needs some context. The "simple conception of children" (meaning childlike ideas, not the act of concieving children) that underlies the earliest conceptions of God still do not mesh well with modern LDS thought. Hatch's emphasis that Christianity was built upon an explicitly monotheistic foundation is just one example. Secondly, neither quote rejects permanent ontological distinctions between God and man.

The Pre-mortal Existence for example....

Origen is a very poor source for LDS type beliefs (unless LDS want to launch headlong into Greek philosophy like Origen did). As far as the preexistence of the church, can you tell me what their definition of "church" was in these writings, and what the preexistence of it actually meant? It's different from the LDS view, in which everyone preexisted individually.

And as your quote from Clement of Alexandria is speaking of the incarnation of God into man, using it to abolish the distinction between God and man will not work, especially considering that Clement (Origen's predecessor) was as steeped in Greek philosophy as Origen was. Is Greek philosophy good or bad, BCSpace?

In any case, the methodological problems of the above should be apparent. How can LDS apologetically appropriate early Christian sources without avoiding the uncomfortable facts that their respective theological assumptions and foundations are widely different?

Take care, everyone

[BCSpace]

First of all, Hatch's work is over a century old

The Bible is older. So?

and has plenty of holes being poked in some of his Harnackian assumptions in today's scholarly work.

I doubt it. Rather I'd say there is some desparate work to cover up the fact that the earliest Christians were LDS and LDS-like.

Also, your quote of Hatch definitely needs some context. The "simple conception of children" (meaning childlike ideas, not the act of concieving children)

I am not using or needing the context of conceiving children and I don't think Bickmore was either.

that underlies the earliest conceptions of God still do not mesh well with modern LDS thought. Hatch's emphasis that Christianity was built upon an explicitly monotheistic foundation is just one example.

Nobody is claiming that the early Christians weren't moving into a state of apostasy. That one of the fathers would hold some LDS doctrines and some nonLDS doctrines doesn't change the fact and the point that the earlier you go towards NT times, the more LDS doctrine you find.

Secondly, neither quote rejects permanent ontological distinctions between God and man.

Actually they do. "The transcendence of God is absent" and "and to get rid of that crude anthropomorphism which made even Tertullian [A.D. 160-220] believe that God had a material body" do a lot to shed the notion that God is adifferent animal altogether.

Origen is a very poor source for LDS type beliefs

He is a very rich source and see my fourth response above.

And as your quote from Clement of Alexandria is speaking of the incarnation of God into man, using it to abolish the distinction between God and man will not work, especially considering that Clement (Origen's predecessor) was as steeped in Greek philosophy as Origen was. Is Greek philosophy good or bad, BCSpace?

Irrelevant. See my fourth response above and see the highlighted text of my Clement quote. Clement is certainly no traditional Christian either. Your argument that Clement held other nonLDS doctrines does not change the fact that Clement ontologically links God and humans in "On the true Beauty"

In any case, the methodological problems of the above should be apparent. How can LDS apologetically appropriate early Christian sources without avoiding the uncomfortable facts that their respective theological assumptions and foundations are widely different?

Because we are not using them to prove LDS doctrine within the realm of traditional Christianity (which is contraBiblical in almost every way) We are simply pointing out LDS doctrines existing early and then being lost or changed to show the Bible predicted universal apostasy.

[rhinomelon]

The Bible is older. So?

Scholarly works have a much shorter shelf-life than inspired scripture does. In any case, I interpret the Bible differently, so it appears we're at an impasse on that score.

I doubt it. Rather I'd say there is some desparate work to cover up the fact that the earliest Christians were LDS and LDS-like.

Considering that Hatch doesn't make this case at all, and that there are very few scholars who are even aware that LDS claim any affinity with the early Christians, I'd say any "desperate cover-up" is greatly exaggerated. One doesn't have to cover-up something than hardly anybody sees.

That one of the fathers would hold some LDS doctrines and some nonLDS doctrines doesn't change the fact and the point that the earlier you go towards NT times, the more LDS doctrine you find.

Except that model doesn't really work. Before Origen, for example, references to preexistence are oblique and vague, and still not in agreement with the LDS concept of the idea. LDS have to go a couple centuries to start finding stuff they can use; the earliest works don't have much.

Actually they do. "The transcendence of God is absent" and "and to get rid of that crude anthropomorphism which made even Tertullian [A.D. 160-220] believe that God had a material body" do a lot to shed the notion that God is adifferent animal altogether.

The absence of God's transcendence (which is qualified by Hatch, by the way), and the anthropomorphism of Tertullian do not mean there was no ontological gap between man and God. In other words, just because God has a body does not mean that humans and God are the same by nature. Tertullian would be the first to say that much, as he believed God to be eternal, Creator, omniscient, etc. All attributes which he does not apply to man.

He is a very rich source and see my fourth response above.

Let me rephrase: Origen is a very rich source if you wish to link LDS beliefs with the very hellenizing influences that LDS belief stridently rejects. In other words, adopting Origen's views on certain subjects while condemning the corrupting influence of Greek philosophy is contradictory, a case of having cake and eating it, too. If you want to do it, that's fine, but the argument is not going to stand very long with such an obvious internal contradiction.

Irrelevant. See my fourth response above and see the highlighted text of my Clement quote. Clement is certainly no traditional Christian either. Your argument that Clement held other nonLDS doctrines does not change the fact that Clement ontologically links God and humans in "On the true Beauty"

Using Clement opens yourself up to the same logical contradiction that plagues your use of Origen. I would also point out that Clement's argument here presupposes the ontological gap between God and man, because the gap could only be bridged by God becoming a man. Also, as a Platonist, an ontological distinction between God and man, Creator and created, is part and parcel of his thought process. It undergirds his whole argument.

We are simply pointing out LDS doctrines existing early and then being lost or changed to show the Bible predicted universal apostasy.

I have yet to see a exact parallel between the early church fathers and any uniquely LDS doctrine. There's always something that doesn't fit. Sure, similar language may be used, maybe some ideas, but there's always major differences. Like I've said before, just because a cathedral and a barn have the same windvane on the top, doesn't make them even close to the same kind of building. Surface similarities just can't be stretched that far.

Take care, everyone