Deification in the Church Fathers - personal file now online

[David Waltz]

For those who may be interested, my personal compilation of quotations on deification in the Church Fathers is now online:

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2010/11/deification-in-church-fathers.html

Grace and peace,

David

[Zakuska]

For those who may be interested, my personal compilation of quotations on deification in the Church Fathers is now online:

http://articulifidei...ch-fathers.html

Grace and peace,

David

Thanks David for the heads up...

Irenaeus - Adv. Her. 3.6.1

[David Waltz]

Hi Zak,

Longtime no chat! Hope all is well with you and yours...

My fav quote from Irenaeus is:

"...the Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through His transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself." (Irenaeus, Adv. Her., 5.Pref - ANF 1.526).

Patristic scholars have termed the above motif as the "exchange formula", which, btw, is also found in the NT:

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

Grace and peace,

David

[Hick Preacher]

Nice list, nice blog too.

[Rob Bowman]

Zakuska,

You wrote:

Thanks David for the heads up...

Irenaeus - Adv. Her. 3.6.1

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Zakuska,

You wrote:

Um, according to the quotation above, Irenaeus thought the gods of Psalm 82 were Christians who were adopted as God's children in the church. The current academic interpretation of Psalm 82 favored by maklelan et. al. is that the gods were supernatural beings in the "divine council," which these LDS scholars and apologists suggest is akin to the LDS doctrine that we all preexisted in heaven as God's spirit offspring. Not the same idea at all.

It is important to note that David is not LDS though he is a good friend to the LDS.

[Doctor Steuss]

David,

If I ever create a doomsday device, you will be spared because of this. Do you still plan on publishing a book on this (I hope, I hope, I hope)?

As always, thank you for being so generous with sharing your knowledge,

-Stu

[Zakuska]

It is important to note that David is not LDS though he is a good friend to the LDS.

It's also important to note that as late as the Olympics of 2002 Deification in Evangelical Counter Cult circles was non-existant.

[Zakuska]

Zakuska,

You wrote:

Um, according to the quotation above, Irenaeus thought the gods of Psalm 82 were Christians who were adopted as God's children in the church. The current academic interpretation of Psalm 82 favored by maklelan et. al. is that the gods were supernatural beings in the "divine council," which these LDS scholars and apologists suggest is akin to the LDS doctrine that we all preexisted in heaven as God's spirit offspring. Not the same idea at all.

Actually it is the same idea. Since man is a species of fallen Angels, and before was a super natural being.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It's also important to note that as late as the Olympics of 2002 Deification in Evangelical Counter Cult circles was non-existant.

That old huh? I knew on my mission (97-99) that it was heveally taught to lots of EV's in my area that there is no biblical evidence for deification and that it certainly had no roots in early Christianity.

[Hick Preacher]

Actually it is the same idea. Since man is a species of fallen Angels, and before was a super natural being.

Added (And related to Psalm 82/Irenaeus' view)

This could have been the view of Origen, who had a version of a plan of Salvation what had a similar pattern to LDS Eternal Progression. As I recall, Origen;s senario was that humanity made errors in the first estate, and now living out this mortal life to on a mission to win back God's approval and eventually God's presence.

[mfbukowski]

Very valuable insights- thanks for this!

[Mike Reed]

Actually it is the same idea.

But it isn't really the same, is it David Waltz? Although the quotes may sound similar, some underlying theological, cosmological, and stereological premises are different. Correct? Even the conclusion of what it means to be like God is different, right?

BTW... nice to see you posting on this forum. It has been a while. Hope all is well. Great work with the compilation. Thanks for sharing!

Not looking for a debate. Wouldn't even have time for it if I was. Just wondering what your opinion on the matter is. Thanks!

Best,

Mike

[thatjimguy]

Someone clue me in please. When I read "church fathers" Ia kind of assumed it was about the church leaders. These guys I have never heard of. What is it all about. Thanks.

[3DOP]

Someone clue me in please. When I read "church fathers" Ia kind of assumed it was about the church leaders. These guys I have never heard of. What is it all about. Thanks.

Hi thatjimguy.

The title of "Church Father" probably best fits the Catholic/Orthodox perception of the roles and beliefs of prominent church men whose written works have been preserved to this day. "The Patristic Era" ended according to the way most historians understand it at around 700 AD with St. John of Damascus. Often, the Fathers are divided into the pre- and post-Nicene Fathers to designate whether they flourished before or after the Council of Nicea toward the beginning of the 4th Century, which is of course accepted by Catholics and Orthodox and rejected by LDS. While there is more literature from the later period, there often tends to be more "value" in finding traditions from the earlier period. LDS would consider the literature on deification to represent a belief that is important in the Restored Church while largely forgotten elsewhere. This does not mean that the Fathers, for LDS are authoritative, but rather that they might give evidence as to other doctrines that in their opinion were disappearing even during the earliest times, but still lingering from the Apostolic Age. Catholics and Orthodox tend to read back into the pre-Nicene Fathers, a post-Nicene doctrine that does not always seem justified by the data. This problem among non-LDS only contributes to a misperception on the part of LDS that the LDS understanding is probably the only plausible one. I think that conclusion is debatable and fails to take other possibilities into consideration.

3DOP

[ChristKnight]

Catholics and Orthodox tend to read back into the pre-Nicene Fathers, a post-Nicene doctrine that does not always seem justified by the data.

Interesting to hear you say this 3DOP. I usually see this said by Orthodox about Catholics, usually in reference to doctrines such as Papal Infallibility and Universal Jurisdiction, Immaculate Conception of Mary, and a few other "innovations" (their word). In the context of this discussion, I assume that both Catholics and Orthodox would say that the doctrine of theosis was never lost (and is the same doctrine as that stated by the Church Fathers), and it receives particular emphasis in the Eastern Orthodox Church (and perhaps for Eastern Catholics as well).

[3DOP]

Interesting to hear you say this 3DOP. I usually see this said by Orthodox about Catholics, usually in reference to doctrines such as Papal Infallibility and Universal Jurisdiction, Immaculate Conception of Mary, and a few other "innovations" (their word). In the context of this discussion, I assume that both Catholics and Orthodox would say that the doctrine of theosis was never lost (and is the same doctrine as that stated by the Church Fathers), and it receives particular emphasis in the Eastern Orthodox Church (and perhaps for Eastern Catholics as well).

Hey Christ Knight.

A Blessed Feast of St. Francis Xavier Cabrini to you!

I tend to think we are sometimes overly confident that Nicene dogma was clearly percieved in the pre-Nicene Church. I can admit as much. After all, the doctrine of Vatican I didn't expand infallibility; it restricted infallibility. We have the liberty to consider the writings of Fathers who without the light that was shed later (in a Mormon context...this would be continuing revelation), came to the best conclusions they could.

On a different note, I was mildly disappointed that your thread from weeks ago about Episcopal succession wasn't concluded by your own reflections. If you are so-minded to share, I for one would still be most interested to hear any further thoughts you may have at this time.

Best Regards in Christ,

Rory

[Joseph Antley]

But it isn't really the same, is it David Waltz? Although the quotes may sound similar, some underlying theological, cosmological, and stereological premises are different. Correct? Even the conclusion of what it means to be like God is different, right?

Not addressed to me, but I thought I'd give my thoughts. The early Christian Fathers certainly had a doctrine of theosis/deification, but it was not identical to the Latter-day Saint doctrine of exaltation. And what exactly they believed theosis to be was certainly not universal--like modern Christians, early Christians surely disagreed with each other over the specifics of what it meant to become gods, or become like God, or become one with God. But probably very few, if any, of them envisioned something akin to Joseph Smith's King Follett discourse.

That notion of deification belonged to an older world, one that was untainted by Greek and Roman philosophical ideas. In a Hellenistic society, there was little room to think that man might become a separate deity in the same sense that God the Father is Deity, and potentially rule over his own creations and worlds.

3DOP mentioned that Catholics sometimes presumptuously read post-Nicene doctrine into the ante-Nicene Fathers. Mormons do the same thing with Mormon doctrine.

[Mike Reed]

Joseph Antley,

This is pretty much my view too. Thanks for the response. Do you agree David Waltz?

[LeSellers]

3DOP mentioned that Catholics sometimes presumptuously read post-Nicene doctrine into the ante-Nicene Fathers. Mormons do the same thing with Mormon doctrine.

Many, certainly, do so.

However, I believe that it is more common for us to point a the ECFs and say something like, "the early Saints held similar beliefs to what we do. It's not unchristian to believe that we may become like Father some day."

It would be nice if we could find a I revelation that reads like Doc&Cov 138 or the King Follet Discourse, but that's not going to happen in my lifetime (although our grandsons may see it). But it is more than interesting that the ECFs frequently paralleled (or at least co-planarred) things for which many self-professed Christians deride us.

Lehi

[urroner]

We have the liberty to consider the writings of Fathers who without the light that was shed later (in a Mormon context...this would be continuing revelation), came to the best conclusions they could.

3DOP mentioned that Catholics sometimes presumptuously read post-Nicene doctrine into the ante-Nicene Fathers. Mormons do the same thing with Mormon doctrine.

The more I read the writings of those much smarter and wiser than me, including many who post on this board, the more I know the less I know. Also, the Margaret Barker's article which Kevin Christensen mentioned earlier was an eye opener for me.

I have learnt that studying the text without knowing the proper context will often lead to huge mistakes in understanding what the writer of the text wanted to convey to the reader. Most people, when they read something that originated in a different culture, will instinctively force the text into they own culture.

A Catholic, a Protestant, and a Mormon, all reading the same text that is highly open to various interpretations, will read the text with a very biased eye and that is not something that is evil. It is just the way it is since they don't know nor understand the original context. So, when people tell me that there is only one way to interpret the scriptures and that the scriptures to interpret themselves so clearly that a baby can understand them, I just have to smile, knowing that I use to think that way not too long ago. Joseph Smith once said, IIRC, that if God gives us a revelation, but he doesn't give us the interpretation of it, then He will not consider it evil when we give a sincere misinterpretation.

In the writings of the ECFs, their use of the word "deification" and others like it, can be interpreted in many different ways and I believe that how each of the ECFs had their own distinct interpretation of those words and even when they used the same words, they meant different things.

I have heard people declare that the Bible in totally consistent internally and that there is no disagreement between the different writers, but I don't believe that. I also believe that the Book of Mormon doesn't suffer that problem to the same degree, not because it's the Book of Mormon, but because, basically, there are only two different authors in the BofM, Nephi and Mormon. There were two other authors in the BofM, Moroni and Jacob, but Jacob was the brother of Nephi and Moroni was the son of Mormon, so these two pretty well knew what their relative meant in their writings.

I have also learnt that when certain scholars said something, whether they are Mormons or not, I need to take what they say with a lot of gravitas. They have studied the culture where the scripture came from and they know a lot more than I do and they put forth their ideas and learnings in a non-offensive way, "This is what I have learnt, this is what I believe, and this is why I believe it, what do you think?" I grateful that they don't lean on the logical fallacy of "Appeal to Authority," "I'm smarter than you Lynn and I know more, therefore you must accept what I have said as right especially since if you try to defend what you believe, I'll just be forced to destroy you and I'll do it with my eyes closed, one hand tied behind my back, and suffering from a terrible headache."

[mfbukowski]

It would be nice if we could find a I revelation that reads like Doc&Cov 138 or the King Follet Discourse, but that's not going to happen in my lifetime (although our grandsons may see it). But it is more than interesting that the ECFs frequently paralleled (or at least co-planarred) things for which many self-professed Christians deride us.

I'm just curious, and not sure what you mean- you mean a clarification of LDS doctrine on the point or a "find" of a manuscript etc indicating a belief closer to the KFD by the ECF's?

In either case, why do you think either of these might change in the next few generations?

[LeSellers]

I'm just curious, and not sure what you mean- you mean a clarification of LDS doctrine on the point or a "find" of a manuscript etc indicating a belief closer to the KFD by the ECF's?

The latter.

In either case, why do you think either of these might change in the next few generations?

Who knows what's in the Vatican Library?

We have found many an ancient document in obscure places, including caves in the Judean desert. It seems likely that we'll uncover more as time rolls on.

Lehi

[David Waltz]

Hello Mike and Joseph,

Joseph

[mfbukowski]

Who knows what's in the Vatican Library?

We have found many an ancient document in obscure places, including caves in the Judean desert. It seems likely that we'll uncover more as time rolls on.

Lehi

Ok- makes sense to me!