Non-Mormon Christian Doctrine That Men May Become Gods

[dougtheavenger]

The defining characteristic of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the restoration of priesthood authority. The doctrines which many Mormons and non-Mormon Christians think are unique are not so unique after all. This is, after all, the restored church of Jesus Christ. Swedenborgians believe in eternal marriage, the existence of our Heavenly Mother is implied in the Nicene Creed which states that Jesus was "begotten, not made" by God the Father "before all worlds". Nor is the doctrine than men can become gods unique to LDS doctrine.

http://www.fairlds.o...deification.pdf

http://en.wikipedia....ion_(Christian)

http://affectionalth...x-doctrine.html

http://en.wikipedia....hodox_theology)

Edited July 23, 2012 by dougtheavenger

[boblloyd91]

From what I understand Eastern Orthodox also believe in deification, though the semantics are somewhat different.

[KevinG]

From what I understand Eastern Orthodox also believe in deification, though the semantics are somewhat different.

Yes. Semantics will decide who goes to heaven and who is condemned to hell.

[Grundelwalken]

You would think that some of the Christian denominations that believe in Athanasius would include something similar in their doctrines. MW

“For He was made man that we might be made God...” Athanasius, Incarnation, 54 (A.D. 318).

[mrmandias]

The defining characteristic of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the restoration of priesthood authority. The doctrines which many Mormons and non-Mormon Christians think are unique are not so unique after all. This is, after all, the restored church of Jesus Christ. Swedenborgians believe in eternal marriage, the existence of our Heavenly Mother is implied in the Nicene Creed which states that Jesus was "begotten, not made" by God the Father "before all worlds". Nor is the doctrine than men can become gods unique to LDS doctrine.

http://www.fairlds.o...deification.pdf

http://en.wikipedia....ion_(Christian)

http://affectionalth...x-doctrine.html

http://en.wikipedia....hodox_theology)

I am not aware of any Nicene Christian who believes that the creed implies a Heavenly Mother.

[Calm]

the existence of our Heavenly Mother is implied in the Nicene Creed which states that Jesus was "begotten, not made" by God the Father "before all worlds".

Only if you insist on the term "begotten" meaning something different than those who created the Nicene creed meant.

[djholmess]

I am not aware of any Nicene Christian who believes that the creed implies a Heavenly Mother.

Yeah, I have never heard of anyone claiming to be Christian and believing in a Heavenly Mother except in Mormonism...not that I'm too well read.

[djholmess]

You would think that some of the Christian denominations that believe in Athanasius would include something similar in their doctrines. MW

“For He was made man that we might be made God...” Athanasius, Incarnation, 54 (A.D. 318).

Actually I've heard a number of talks and sermons about Athanasius's understanding. I'd say his concepts are largely taught today (in my circles) but using different phrases-typically more akin to actual biblical phrases e.g. Transformed into the likeness of Christ

[Damien the Leper]

Transformed into the likeness of Christ

Please explain what this means EXACTLY and not one perspective what it means.

[dougtheavenger]

Only if you insist on the term "begotten" meaning something different than those who created the Nicene creed meant.

Are you sure of what the authors of the Nicen creed meant? Why use the term "begotten"?

[TAO]

Doug, it is far far more than just the Swedborgians. St. Augustine, Martin Luther, and CS Lewis all believed that the point of life was becoming like God too, if I remember correctly. And I'm sure many more as well. I am guessing it is something that I think that has disappeared or been de-emphasized much more recently than other things.

Edited July 24, 2012 by TAO

[theplains]

St. Augustine, Martin Luther, and CS Lewis all believed that the point of life was becoming like God too, if I remember correctly.

"For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing

good and evil"

Does being classified "as a god" make Adam and Eve deities? What of Moses (Ex. 7:1-2) and Satan (2 Cor. 2:4)?

Thanks,

Jim

[altersteve]

"For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing

good and evil"

Does being classified "as a god" make Adam and Eve deities? What of Moses (Ex. 7:1-2) and Satan (2 Cor. 2:4)?

Thanks,

Jim

"For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing

good and evil"

Does being classified "as a god" make Adam and Eve deities? What of Moses (Ex. 7:1-2) and Satan (2 Cor. 2:4)?

Thanks,

Jim

No. Adam and Eve were "as gods" because they knew good from evil, like God does. Moses was "a god to Pharaoh" because God would command Pharaoh to let His people go through Moses. And I see no reference to Satan being "as a god" in 2 Corinthians 2:4, but if you mean the verse which says Satan is the "god of this world," then he is described as such because he was given power over this world, or at least as much power as God allows him to have.

Edited July 25, 2012 by altersteve

[CASteinman]

One of the most interesting excommunications that I heard about from early Church History is Tatian who wrote the wonderful Diatessaron -- the only scripture that many Christians ever saw.

He was excommunicated for the heresy of suggesting that when God said "Let there be Light", he was requesting... not commanding and that there may have been other powers involved in the creation of Earth.

[3DOP]

The purpose of the expression, begotten not made, is to make clear that the Son came directly from the Father as opposed to being a creation of different substance. It is not in anyone's mind to suggest that the Son was begotten in a biological way, but rather to oppose those who say that Christ's divine nature was inferior to the Father's nature. Observe the reasoning of one of the participants:

In the same way we also admitted begotten, not made; since the Council alleged that made was an appellative common to the other creatures which came to be through the Son, to whom the Son had no likeness. Wherefore, say they, He was not a work resembling the things which through Him came to be , but was of an essense which is too high for the level of any work; and which the Divine oracles teach to have been generated from the Father , the mode of generation being inscrutable and incalculable to every originated nature.

---Eusebius of Caesarea, Letter to the faithful of his diocese explaining the Council, ch. 6

[3DOP]

Please explain what this means EXACTLY and not one perspective what it means.

---regarding "transformation in Christ".

Hi Valentinus. I'll take a whack at that using a book I just started two days ago even though I prefer expressions like "partaking of the divine nature" or "deification".

The superabundant life that God calls us to share is nothing less than the living interior activity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. It is briefly described well I think in the prologue to The Soul of the Apostolate, by Jean-Baptiste Chautard, who was a very busy Cistercian monk who was constantly balancing this or that needy work, or apostolate (mission). The theme of the book is that the "soul" of any mission activity taken for the cause of God must be vivified by the interior life of God in us. This last Sunday was the feast of St. Mary (Magdalene). Next Sunday is fittingly the feast of St. Martha. Remember the story in the Gospel about the little bit of contention when Mary was simply sitting at Jesus feet while Martha was busying herself with necessary chores. Our Lord Himself warned Martha that she was too concerned and anxious about many good things, and that Mary had chosen the better part, contemplating and pondering in the presence of Jesus. Any works undertaken without visiting God in prayer will be burned, as St. Paul says in I Cor 13. He spoke of faith to move mountains...to do any great thing...but without charity...it is all nothing.

That is Dom Chautard's theme. We must love God as God loves Himself. That is deification. The mystics are normal. If we make it to heaven, we will then know why there is nothing in all of creation that can enrapture and capture our wills and intellects to the core of our being. Only the immediate vision of God fills the soul of man. That is what we are created for. Here is how the book begins on page 1.

O God, infinitely good and great, wonderful indeed are the truths that faith lays open to us, concerning the life which Thou leadest within Thyself: and these truths dazzle us.

Father all holy, Thou dost contemplate Thyself forever in the Word, Thy perfect image--Thy Word exults in rapt joy at Thy beauty--and, Father and Son, from your joint ecstasy, leaps forth the strong flame of love, the Holy Spirit.

You alone, O adorable Trinity, are the interior life, perfect, superabundant, and infinite.

Goodness unlimited, you desire to spread this, Your own inner life, everywhere, outside Yourself. You speak: and your works spring forth out of nothingness, to declare your perfections and to sing your glory.

Between you and the dust quickened by Your breath, there is a deep abyss: and this, Your Holy Spirit wishes to bridge. Thus He will find a way of satisfying His immense need to love, to give Himself.

And therefore He calls forth from your bosom, the decree that we become divine. Wonder of wonders! This clay, fashioned by Your hands, will have the power to be deified, and share in Your eternal happiness.

Your Word offers Himself for the fulfillment of this work. And He is made flesh, that we may become gods.

---pages 1 and 2, work cited, TAN Books, 2010, italics are the author's

I understand that most Mormons will disagree that the chasm between man and God is so wide as Catholics believe it to be. But we are in perfect agreement that however wide the chasm, God has undertaken to adopt us as His children, and fills us with His life. Believing this, one cannot but see the wisdom of St. Mary, at Jesus feet. Progressive contemplation producing a fervent desire to know and love the good God above every created good is the normal way for all the baptized to become deified.

3DOP

Edited July 26, 2012 by 3DOP

[Hannah Rebekah]

Times may be changing...move over Godmakers movie, Christ really is a god maker. What follows are not from Mormons.

Protestants and Evangelicals Admit Their Theology is Incomplete

It's very interesting when Evangelical scholars admit themselves that "their theology is incomplete" and what they need to do to change that.

For an Evangelical Theosis: A Historical Theology of Theosis in Athanasius's De Incarnatione Verbi De

"If Protestants truly desire to have fellowship with Catholics and engage in ecumenical dialogue, integrating theosis into our atonement theories is a significant first step.

"The second major area that I believe theosis will benefit modern Evangelical theology is providing a rehabilitation for what may be potentially a flawed soteriological model. I say that it is flawed not so much because the components of the model are incorrect. Rather, it seems to me that they are incomplete."

"....it seems to me that they [their theology] are incomplete."

If theosis was never lost to Protestants and Evangelicals then why are they trying to rehabilitate their beliefs to fit with this ancient belief?

First, Mormons are berated for believing that "man can become a god." When shown that this ancient Christian doctrine and is taught in the Bible we get accused of misrepresenting the Bible. When it's shown that the Church Fathers also taught this doctrine then we were accused of quoting the Church Father's in the wrong context. When shown that the Greek Orthodox have preserved this doctrine as did the Catholics only with less emphasis we are accused that their doctrine of theosis is different than our doctrine of thosis (exaltation) by using a completely different subject of the trinity to blur the issues which the Mormons do differ in this area...apples and oranges. Now we get Protestants and Evangelicals proving the claims of the Mormons and writing about and how today they are missing this ancient Christian doctrine.

These quotes speak to this thought that this ancient doctrine is missing from the traditional Protestant and Evangelical Christian Churches.

…the concept of deification has been a popular one from the beginning of the Christian church. And modern writers are in fact beginning to ask why their church is not teaching it as doctrine. Lutheran scholar Robert Jenson, in an article in a Lutheran journal on the very topic of theosis, concludes by asking:“Perhaps the question has at least become a bit more urgent: The patristic church proclaimed deification; why do not we?”(Robert W. Jenson,“Theosis,” in Dialog: A Journal of Theology 32 (St. Paul, Minn: 1993): 108-112, at page 112.)

Robert Rakestraw, writing in the journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, after covering some of the evidence from the Greek fathers, as well as from Luther, and Charles Wesley, then writes:“Perhaps the most obvious deficiency is the terminology itself. To speak of divinization, deification, and human beings ‘becoming God’ seems to violate the historic Christian understanding of the essential qualitative distinction between God and the creation…. The strengths of theosis theology outweigh these weaknesses, however. The most significant benefit is that the concept as a whole, if not the specific terminology, is Biblical.”(Rakestraw, op. cit., 266-7.)

It's perfectly ironic that Protestants and Evangelicals today are now beginning to reach back into their own history to show that they have indeed "had" a past in the belief of theosis in their theological tradition that "man can become god." It's unfortunate that this has been one of the issues anti-Mormons have used to berat the LDS Church as a false gospel.

"The GreatestPossible Blessing: Calvin and Deification"

Luther and Theosis

THEOSIS INCHRYSOSTOM AND WESLEY: AN EASTERN PARADIGM ON FAITH AND LOVE

(scroll down to find)

Theosis among someAnglicans

For an EvangelicalTheosis: A Historical Theology of Theosis in Athanasius’s De Incarnatione VerbiDei

Other Gods

This is what the ancient Church Father, Origen had to say about theosis:

"Now it is possible that some may dislike what we have said representing the Father as the one true God, but admitting other beings besides the true God, who have become gods by having a share of God. They may fear that the glory of Him who surpasses all creation may be lowered to the level of those other beings called gods. We drew this distinction between Him and them that we showed God the Word to be to all the other gods the minister of their divinity.... As, then, there are many gods, but to us there is but one God the Father, and many Lords, but to us there is one Lord, Jesus Christ...." (Origen (ca. AD 185-251), Commentary on John 2:3, in ANF 10:323.)

“The Father, then, is proclaimed as the one true God; but besides the true God are many who become gods by participating in God.” (Origen in Bettensen, Henry. The Early Christian Fathers, 324)

1 Corinthians 8: 5

Bible has this to say about other gods:

The Lord God of gods, the Lord God of gods, he knoweth, and Israel he shall know; if it be in rebellion, or if in transgression against the Lord,(save us not this day,) Josh. 22:22

For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward: Deut. 10:17

O give thanks unto the God of gods: for his mercy endureth for ever. Ps. 136:2

The king answered unto Daniel, and said, Of a truth it is, that your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, seeing thou couldest reveal this secret. Dan. 2:47

And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done. Dan. 11:36

[Storm Rider]

3DOP, I am not sure that LDS are incapable of understanding the wide chasm between man and God. He is our Eternal God and we strive to follow the perfect and holy example of the Savior. However, we simply don't stop at that true concept. There is more to the story that should be taught. He is not just creator, but Father. His entire creation is so that we might have joy; joy in returning to his presence. Man is fallen in that we do not walk with God as Adam and Eve did in the Garden of Eden, but redeemed in that without this fall Christ could not open the way to return to God.

Hannah's comments and the quotes she adds are excellent. Evangelicals have a very incomplete gospel; it can only go so far and then it fails to enlighten. The very purpose of creation is Exaltation, Theosis, and deification. The Holy Spirit moves and all will come to a unity of the faith; every knee shall bow and a great day it will be.

As an aside, I am reading a book entitled, The Art of Prayer: An Orthodox Anthology, written by Igumen Chariton. It is a excellent read. What I have really enjoyed is how often it describes the working of the Holy Spirit as a burning or warming in the bosom. How often have Evangelicals and other anti-Mormons denigrated this working of the Spirit? Of course, those poor disciples on the road to Emmaus must have been talking about something else other than their hearts burning in their bosom; heartburn I guess.

[volgadon]

As an aside, I am reading a book entitled, The Art of Prayer: An Orthodox Anthology, written by Igumen Chariton. It is a excellent read. What I have really enjoyed is how often it describes the working of the Holy Spirit as a burning or warming in the bosom.

Very Hesychastic, indeed, very Russian.

[Cobalt-70]

One of the most interesting excommunications that I heard about from early Church History is Tatian who wrote the wonderful Diatessaron -- the only scripture that many Christians ever saw.

He was excommunicated for the heresy of suggesting that when God said "Let there be Light", he was requesting... not commanding and that there may have been other powers involved in the creation of Earth.

That, and the fact that he was reportedly a Valentinian Gnostic, and an ascetic vegetarian.

[Cobalt-70]

First, Mormons are berated for believing that "man can become a god." When shown that this ancient Christian doctrine and is taught in the Bible we get accused of misrepresenting the Bible. When it's shown that the Church Fathers also taught this doctrine then we were accused of quoting the Church Father's in the wrong context. When shown that the Greek Orthodox have preserved this doctrine as did the Catholics only with less emphasis we are accused that their doctrine of theosis is different than our doctrine of thosis (exaltation) by using a completely different subject of the trinity to blur the issues which the Mormons do differ in this area...apples and oranges. Now we get Protestants and Evangelicals proving the claims of the Mormons and writing about and how today they are missing this ancient Christian doctrine.

It is easy for us Mormons to over-play our hand on the theosis issue. The Mormon theology of eternal progression is, indeed, based on theosis ideas, via the Wesley an idea of holiness or Christian perfection. Of all the Protestant faiths, Wesleyanism was the one that most clearly retained the idea of theosis in common with Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

However, the Mormon idea of eternal progression is not, merely, theosis. It is much more radical and literal than theosis. Basically, Joseph Smith took the basic Wesleyan idea of theosis to its literal extreme. I think that there are many opportunities for dialogue between Mormons and traditional Christians on this issue, but we should not minimize our differences. In a sense, there is a vast chasm between us, because under traditional Christianity, humans are created and contingent beings while God, who was always God in his present form, is the only uncreated and necessary being. In Mormonism, by contrast, humans are uncreated beings as well, and both God and humans are capable of growth and progression.

[WalkerW]

This is an older blog post of mine entitled "The Irony of the Trinity":

British philosopher Christopher Stead writes,

Christian writers naturally turned to the Bible for their teaching on the nature of God. But the use of it was often influenced by the philosophical thought of their own day. The Hebrews...pictured the God whom they worshipped as having a body and mind like our own, though trascending humanity in the splendour of his appearance, in his power, his wisdom, and the constancy of his care for his creatures. Such a conception, set out in the earlier books of the Old Testament, retained its authority despite some later changes of emphasis. But this biblical view...was radically modified in the teaching of Philo of Alexandria...[who] presents him as the metaphysical first principal of the universe, without bodily form or human passions, indeed without any sensible qualities: a perfectly simple, unchangeable, unfathomable being...Christian writers developed a broadly similar view, partly because they were influenced by the same philosophical authorities, partly through direct imitation of Philo himself. To this they added their doctrine of the Trinity... [1].

Jewish theologians didn't completely rid themselves of the concept of an anthropomorphic God until the 12th-13th century [2]. Even the anti-anthropomorphism of certain Christian philosophers provide evidence that early Christians believed in an anthropomorphic God [3]. Humans were the literal image of God and therefore partook (or at least had the potential to partake) in His divinity [4]. David Bentley Hart, an Eastern Orthodox philosopher (and, consequently, a Trinitarian), recognizes that the earliest Christians would have understood the cosmos to consist of a hierarchy of divine beings, with the Father being at the top as the Most High. Christ was therefore understood as a subordinate, second god:

[T]his secondary divine principle could be called God's "Son" or "Wisdom" or "Logos." The term "Logos" came to enjoy a special favor among Christians, as it had been adopted by the author of the prologue of John's Gospel to identify the pre-incarnate Christ...As a general rule, the "articular" form ho Theos-literally, "the God"-was a title reserved for God Most High or God the Father, while only the "inarticular" form theos was used to designate this secondary divinity. This distinction, in fact, is preserved in the prologue of John, whose first verse could justly be translated as: "In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was a god." It was entirely natural, therefore, for many Christians...to think of Christ as the incarnation of this derivative divine being who, though he functions in all respects as God for us, is still a lesser being than the Father [5].

The Trinity, therefore, was not an original belief of Christianity. He goes on to explain the position of Arius (c. 250-336), who believed Jesus to be a created being, subordinate to the Father. It must be remembered that by this time, Christian philosophy and theology divided ontologically between God and the created order (and by created, they meant creatio ex nihilo or "creation out of nothing" - something that neither Mormonism or the Bible teaches). As Blake Ostler put it,

When we talk about one God in modern Christianity we begin with a basic fundamental assumption in all of Judeo-Christian-Islamic thought: it is that there is God and then there is everything else. I call this the assumption of metaphysical monotheism and this is the very fundamental point from which [other Christians] begin...and it is this assumption: There exists a simple, immaterial substance that is necessarily the sole instance of the kind "divine" and utterly unique in the sense that there are no other members in the class of being occupied by this simple substance; alone has ontologically necessary actuality; (that means God is the only one that can't fail to exist) and everything else that is actual in any way depends upon this simple substance for its actuality. What that means in shorthand term is, God created and everything else is created. It's that simple [6].

Therefore, to Arius, Jesus could not be divine in the same way the Father is. Hart explains why this was opposed, leading to the formulation of the Trinity:

Ultimately, though, the Arian position was untenable simply because it reduced to incoherence the Christian story of redemption as it had been understood, proclaimed, prayed, and lived for generations...For Athanasius, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, and many others, it was first and foremost the question of salvation that must determine how the identity of Christ is to be conceived. And they understood salvation, it must be appreciated, not in the rather impoverished way of many modern Christians, as a kind of extrinsic legal transaction between the divine and human by which a debt is canceled and the redeemed soul issued a certificate of entry into the afterlife; rather they saw salvation as nothing less than a real and living union between God and his creatures. To be saved was to be joined to God himself in Christ, to be in fact "divinized"-which is to say, in the words of 2 Peter 1:4, to become "partakers of the divine nature." In a lapidary phrase favored, in one form or another, by a number of the church fathers, "God became man that man might become god." In Christ, the Nicene party believed, the human and divine had been joined together in a perfect and indissoluble unity, by participation in which human beings might be admitted to share in his divinity...Only God can join us to God. And so, if it is Christ who joins us to the Father, then Christ must himself be no less than God, and must be equal to the Father in divinity [7].

Another scholar writes, "A fully divine Saviour was needed to ensure the salvation of mankind, which was understood on both sides as an actual divinization, or exaltation to the level of Deity" [8]. He continues:

To assert that deification is incompatible with the Bible on the basis of the differentiation between the divine and human found therein is to impose an ontological standard on the text which was not there originally. Stauffer asserts that the Semitic concept of God has to do primarily with power, not metaphysical being. Immortality "is simply a presupposition of this lordship," so that "the emphasis is on the dynamic definition rather than the metaphysical." Although the Septuagint had greatly subdued the anthropomorphisms of the Hebrew Scriptures, "the personal nature of God" was very much "a living reality" to the earliest Christians. Matthew 5:48 calls God τελειος "not in the sense of metaphysical speculation, but in terms of moral perfection." God is "faithful," meaning that his goodness is unfailing, but nowhere is he described as "unchangeable" in an ontological sense. The glib assumption that the Bible's "sharp distinction" between God and man precludes deification is ill-conceived; in fact, this is an example of Greek philosophical metaphysics read into the text. The irony is that it was the Church Fathers themselves who worked at reconciling such philosophical principles with the biblical revelation, while at the same time they were expounding a soteriology of deification [9].

The doctrine of theosis can be found in the writings of early Christians such as St. Justin Martyr, St. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, etc. Granted, it isn't exactly the same as Mormonism, mainly due to the differences between the concept of the Trinity and the concept of the Godhead:

The most profound difference between the doctrines of theosis and exaltation revolves around the way in which humans become divinized, or become gods. In the doctrine of theosis, divinization comes about through participation in the divine energies of the one divine nature, which divine nature is fully possessed by each of the three divine persons who comprise the Trinity—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. In the doctrine of exaltation, divinization comes about through growth of a capacity which is innate to the children born of Heavenly Parents—the Father and his eternal companion. This difference—the difference between participation and growth—can be rooted in two very different ontological understandings of divine nature and human nature [10].

In short,

[T]he doctrines of theosis and exaltation are functionally equivalent while being ontologically distinct. In other words, in both cases the results of human divinization are equivalent—humans come to possess divine qualities and attributes, a new manner of life, which they did not possess before and which they could not attain of their own volition. Yet the ways in which human divinization take place—in the case of theosis, through participation, and in the case of exaltation, through growth—are grounded in profoundly different ontological visions of human and divine nature [11].

Nevertheless, as Daniel Peterson said, "Now people have told me, 'Well your doctrine of deification is not exactly like that of the Early Christians.' To which I usually respond, 'Well your non-existent doctrine of deification is utterly unlike that of the Early Christians!'" [12] Vajda lists the following similarities between theosis and LDS exaltation: (1) terminology and attributes, (2) the centrality of Christ, (3) role of human works, (4) role of ritual, and (5) eternal progression. He concludes,

[T]he Mormons are truly "godmakers": as the doctrine of exaltation explains, the fullness of human salvation means "becoming a god." Yet what was meant to be a term of ridicule has turned out to be a term of approbation, for the witness of the Greek Fathers of the Church...is that they also believed that salvation meant "becoming a god." It seems that if one's soteriology cannot accommodate a doctrine of human divinization, then it has at least implicitly, if not explicitly, rejected the heritage of the early Christian church and departed from the faith of first millennium Christianity. However, if that is the case, those who would espouse such a soteriology also believe, in fact, that Christianity, from about the second century on, has apostatized and "gotten it wrong" on this core issue of human salvation. Thus, ironically, those who would excoriate Mormons for believing in the doctrine of exaltation actually agree with them that the early church experienced a "great apostasy" on fundamental doctrinal questions. And the supreme irony is that such persons should probably investigate the claims of the LDS Church, which proclaims that within itself is to be found the "restoration of all things" [13].

It is worth pointing out that Vajda wrote this while a Dominican priest. He has since joined the Church. So, next time you hear "but you believe you can become a god!!", remember that so did the earliest Christians. Ironically, it was this very belief that led to the finalization of the Trinity in the 4th century: the primary orthodoxy that defines supposed "true Christians."

1. Stead, Philosophy in Christian Antiquity (Cambridge University Press, 1994): pg. 120.

2. See Shamma Friedman, "Anthropomorphism and Its Eradication" in Iconoclasm and Iconoclash: Struggle for Religious Identity, ed. W.J. van Asselt, Paul van Geest, Daniela Muller, Theo Salemink (Brill, 2007).

3. See David L. Paulsen, "Early Christian Belief in a Corporeal Deity: Origen and Augustine as Reluctant Witnesses," Harvard Theological Review 83:2 (1990); Carl W. Griffin and David L. Paulsen, "Augustine and the Corporeality of God," Harvard Theological Review 95:1 (2002); Paulsen, "The Doctrine of Divine Embodiment: Restoration, Judeo-Christian, and Philosophical Perspectives," BYU Studies 35:4 (1995-1996); Paulsen, "Divine Embodiment: The Earliest Christian Understanding of God," in Early Christians in Disarray: Contemporary LDS Perspectives on the Christian Apostasy, ed. Noel B. Reynolds (FARMS, 2005).

4. See David Bokovoy's enduring "'Ye Really Are Gods': A Response to Michael Heiser concerning the LDS Use of Psalm 82 and the Gospel of John," FARMS Review 19:1 (2007).

5. Hart, Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies (Yale University Press, 2009): pg. 204.

6. Ostler, "The Fallacy of Fundamentalist Assumptions," Transcript of a presentation given at the 2005 FAIR Conference.

7. Hart, 2009: pgs. 205-206.

8. Keith Edward Norman, "Deification: The Context of Athanasian Soteriology," PhD dissertation, Duke University (1980).

9. Ibid. Deification (and thus a lack of metaphysical monotheism) can be found within Judaism as well. For example, after reviewing the "claims of the Hekhalot literature that a man, Enoch, ascended to heaven and was metamorphosed into Metatron, the 'little Yahweh'," Peter Hayman asks, "But how does this material square with the supposed transcendental monotheism of Judaism from the post-exilic period on? Not at all, as far as I can see!" (Hayman, "Monotheism: A Misused Word in Jewish Studies?" Journal of Jewish Studies 42:1, 1991: pg. 5).

10. Jordan Vajda, "'Partakers of the Divine Nature': A Comparative Analysis of Patristic and Mormon Doctrines of Divinization," Master's thesis, Dominican School of Philosophy and Theology (1998).

11. Ibid.

12. Peterson, "Autobiographical Notes on My Testimony," Transcript of a presentation given at the 2004 FAIR Conference.

13. Vajda, 1998.

[WalkerW]

Very Hesychastic, indeed, very Russian.

Speaking of Russians, an excellent description of the workings of the Spirit is St. Seraphim's (one of the most renowned Russian monks in the Eastern Orthodox Church) The Aim of the Christian Life as recorded by Nicholas Motovilov. In this manuscript, Seraphim says, "The true aim of our Christian life consists of the acquisition of the Holy Spirit of God." St. Seraphim explains through scripture that acquiring the Holy Spirit is how one acquires divine knowledge. Motovilov asks, "I do not understand how I can be certain that I am in the Spirit of God. How can I discern for myself His true manifestation in me?" To this, St. Seraphim replies, "We are both in the Spirit of God now, my son...You are now in the fullness of the Spirit of God yourself...The Lord is with us!" The following conversation occurs, which is enlightening on the subject of recognizing the emotional state brought about by the presence and revelation of the Spirit:

"How do you feel now?" Father Seraphim asked me.

"Extraordinarily well," I said.

"But in what way? How exactly do you feel well?"

I answered: "I feel such calmness and peace in my soul that no words can express it."

"This, your Godliness," said Father Seraphim, "is that peace of which the Lord said to His disciples: My peace I give unto you; not as the world gives, give I unto you (Jn. 14:21). If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hates you (Jn. 15:19). But be of good cheer; I have overcome the world (Jn. 16:33). And to those people whom this world hates but who are chosen by the Lord, the Lord gives that peace which you now feel within you, the peace which, in the words of the Apostle, passes all understanding (Phil. 4:7). The Apostle describes it in this way, because it is impossible to express in words the spiritual well-being which it produces in those into whose hearts the Lord God has infused it. Christ the Saviour calls it a peace which comes from His own generosity and is not of this world, for no temporary earthly prosperity can give it to the human heart; it is granted from on high by the Lord God Himself, and that is why it is called the peace of God. What else do you feel?" Father Seraphim asked me.

"An extraordinary sweetness," I replied.

And he continued: "This is that sweetness of which it is said in Holy Scripture: They will be inebriated with the fatness of Thy house; and Thou shalt make them drink of the torrent of Thy delight (Ps. 35:. And now this sweetness is flooding our hearts and coursing through our veins with unutterable delight. From this sweetness our hearts melt as it were, and both of us are filled with such happiness as tongue cannot tell. What else do you feel?"

"An extraordinary joy in all my heart."

And Father Seraphim continued: "When the Spirit of God comes down to man and overshadows him with the fullness of His inspiration, then the human soul overflows with unspeakable joy, for the Spirit of God fills with joy whatever He touches. This is that joy of which the Lord speaks in His Gospel: A woman when she is in travail has sorrow, because her hour is come; but when she is delivered of the child, she remembers no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the world. In the world you will be sorrowful; but when I see you again, your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no one will take from you (Jn. 16:21-22). Yet however comforting may be this joy which you now feel in your heart, it is nothing in comparison with that of which the Lord Himself by the mouth of His Apostle said that that joy eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor has it entered into the heart of man what God has prepared for them that love Him (I Cor. 2:9). Foretastes of that joy are given to us now, and if they fill our souls with such sweetness, well-being and happiness, what shall we say of that joy which has been prepared in heaven for those who weep here on earth? And you, my son, have wept enough in your life on earth; yet see with what joy the Lord consoles you even in this life! Now it is up to us, my son, to add labours to labours in order to go from strength to strength (Ps. 83:7), and to come to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ (Eph. 4:13), so that the words of the Lord may be fulfilled in us: But they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall grow wings like eagles; and they shall run and not be weary (Is. 40:31); they will go from strength to strength, and the God of gods will appear to them in the Sion (Ps. 83: of realization and heavenly visions. Only then will our present joy (which now visits us little and briefly) appear in all its fullness, and no one will take it from us, for we shall be filled to overflowing with inexplicable heavenly delights. What else do you feel, your Godliness?"

I answered: "An extraordinary warmth."

"How can you feel warmth, my son? Look, we are sitting in the forest. It is winter out-of-doors, and snow is underfoot. There is more than an inch of snow on us, and the snowflakes are still falling. What warmth can there be?"

I answered: "Such as there is in a bath-house when the water is poured on the stone and the steam rises in clouds."

[3DOP]

Hi WalkerW,

Your essay seemed like a balanced and fair summary of the case and well demonstrates the key differences between us WalkerW. I will also offer my opinion that If early Judaism tended toward anthropomorphism, their own revelation also lends itself readily to the views which became prevalent later. I suggest it is a mistake to hold that one side or the other is guilty of clear and plain infidelity to the words of Scripture we accept in common. The problem is not that our Scriptures are incompatible with either of our beliefs. The problem is that our Scriptures are compatible with either belief. We need to recognize that as opposed to having Scriptures which clearly dispel all doubts, our choice of faith tradition determines which view we think is correct.

Only a brief quibble...

The Trinity, therefore, was not an original belief of Christianity.

1) Primitive Christianity is not everyone's doctrinal target.

2) Primitive Christians, like Mormons, believed in a kind of Trinity. If you are saying that they were unfamiliar with later formulations that became dogmatic, I would agree.

3DOP

Edited July 28, 2012 by 3DOP

[volgadon]

Speaking of Russians, an excellent description of the workings of the Spirit is St. Seraphim's (one of the most renowned Russian monks in the Eastern Orthodox Church) The Aim of the Christian Life as recorded by Nicholas Motovilov. In this manuscript, Seraphim says, "The true aim of our Christian life consists of the acquisition of the Holy Spirit of God." St. Seraphim explains through scripture that acquiring the Holy Spirit is how one acquires divine knowledge. Motovilov asks, "I do not understand how I can be certain that I am in the Spirit of God. How can I discern for myself His true manifestation in me?" To this, St. Seraphim replies, "We are both in the Spirit of God now, my son...You are now in the fullness of the Spirit of God yourself...The Lord is with us!" The following conversation occurs, which is enlightening on the subject of recognizing the emotional state brought about by the presence and revelation of the Spirit:

Thanks, I was primarily thinking of St. Seraphim. His saintly stature among Russians is considered second only to that of St. Nicholas. Seraphim's popularity is due not merely to his examplary ascetic and pious lifestyle, but to how he shared the mysteries of the faith with all who searched for it. People like Motovilov. I've been reading some more in Russian, truly inspiring stuff. Russians (and Ukrainians and Belorusians) tend to be mystically inclined anyways, one of the reasons why they excell at poetry and art. I've noticed that among my own relatives too. It is amazing the amount of converts to our church who've had powerfully visionary experiences leading to their conversion. I think you'll like this quote from pg. 26-27 of Volume Three in the Collected Works of Georges Florovsky, who was one of the top Eastern Orthodox theologians and scholars.

But God spoke to man not only so that he would remember and call to mind his words. One can not just keep the Word of God in his memory. One must preserve the Word of God, above all, in a living and burning heart. The Word of God is preserved in the human spirit as a seed which sprouts and brings forth fruit. This means that the truth of divine Revelation must unfold within human thought, must develop into an entire system of believing confession, into a system of religious perspective—one may say, into a system of religious philosophy and a philosophy of Revelation.