Lds Apologetics And The Early Church Fathers

[Spammer]

I found the section on Salvation for the Dead in Ash's article interesting. I think it's important to note that LDS differ from Protestants and are closer to Catholics and Orthodox on the issue of those still living helping the deceased (and yes, there are obvious differences). Catholics and Orthodox believe in and practice prayer for the dead. LDS perform proxy ordinances for the dead. It was interesting when Ash quoted Clement and a non-LDS scholar as saying that when Christ went down to Hades, he preached and baptized the just. LDS do not believe that it is possible to perform baptism in the spirit world, hence why it has to be performed here by proxy. Ash says as much when he says in the references section-"Though we do not believe that Christ baptized people from the spirit world, this statement shows that the concept of baptism for the dead was very much alive among early Christians."

That's a good point. I've been focusing mainly on theosis, but you're right about the common concern for the dead among Catholics, Orthodox Christians, and Mormons.

[Spammer]

3DOP and Spammer, I am a firm believer in allowing evidence to speak for itself, without Mormonising it. Differences are important for proper understanding.

Agreed. That's sometimes easier said than done, though. All of us prefer to find evidence for our own treasured positions in the ancient books.

[ChristKnight]

Hi 3DOP, The Mormons do mean something different by degrees of glory than we do. I've never actually heard it referred to by that specific term by Catholics or Orthodox Christians, but that could be because I'm still rather new to the ancient church, having been baptized in 2008. The statement you provided from the Bull Laetantur Coeli does capture what the Orthodox believe about heaven. In the bull's words, each of us will be rewarded "according to the diversity of merits, one more perfectly than another." We don't really use the word 'merits', but it's the same idea. In the Orthodox view, although heaven and hell are very real, they're not places. They're experiential conditions, not locations or kingdoms. Nothing exists outside the presence of God and all of us will stand in the blazing light of God (to use a metaphor). Everything depends on how much we prefer God to ourselves. Those who preferred God will be able to dwell in and withstand His presence and will experience His presence as blissful joy. Those who preferred self to God will still be in His presence but will experience that Presence as pain and suffering. This is the state of being in Hell. This is God's Judgement, but in reality it's our own judgement of ourselves, in accordance with how much we have prepared ourselves for the inevitable meeting with the Divine in His fullness. God is love and calls everyone to enter into his rest. He keeps no one away. Even those who wish to stay away will still eventually find themselves in His presence and stay in His presence for eternity. All those who are in the condition of heaven will enjoy God's presence as they are able, i.e., in proportion to their degree of purity (in accordance with their merits, to use the Catholic terminology). This is the meaning of Irenaeus's couches at the wedding feast and Clement's 'grades', 'ranks', and 'abodes'. This is my understanding of the catholic-orthodox view of degrees of glory in heaven. St. Gregory the Theologian said that God Himself is Paradise and punishment for man, since each man tastes God according to the condition of his soul. The next life will be "light for those whose mind is purified...in proportion to their degree of purity" and darkness "to those who have blinded their ruling organ [i.e., their mind] in proportion to their blindness". As the bull says, there will also be degrees in Hell. It all depends on us. In this view, God is not a god who punishes. God calls everyone to His banquet and we only punish ourselves. We can have as much or as little of God as we want. According to this view, there are as many degrees in heaven (and in Hell) as there are men and women who have ever lived, now live, or will live.

The LDS view is very different and places everyone into one of three separate kingdoms in heaven. These kingdoms are actual places. I was taught that our earth will one day be celestialized and will become the highest, Celestial, Kingdom - the place where the Saints of God will reside. The Father and the Savior will dwell with us here (growing up, I heard some Mormons speculate about whether the Father has other Celestial Kingdoms on other celestialized earths). A fourth area is called Outer Darkness, the place reserved for the Devil and his angels. Only those in the highest Kingdom in heaven will enjoy the presence of the Father. Those in the highest and middle kingdom will enjoy the presence of the Son. Those in the lowest kingdom will not enjoy the presence of the Father or the Son, although Joseph Smith taught it is still a place of greater bliss and glory than life on earth. I was taught growing up by Sunday School and seminary teachers that if we could taste that lowest kingdom we would want to kill ourselves to get there. All who inherit one of these three kingdoms inherit salvation. You can go online on LDS.org and read about the kingdoms, their nature, and essential conditions for entry in Doctrine and Covenants 76.

I think it would be okay for a traditional Christian to understand Heaven and Hell as involving some level of physicality, or being a "real place", especially when we consider the belief in a bodily resurrection of all.

Also, I've always understood Catholic belief to be that while there is "one Heaven", each is rewarded individually based on their "merits", so I'm not surprised that there is Council support for that, or that Orthodox share that belief. It is interesting to me to note that within that belief, Catholics and Orthodox believe that while there are different "glories" or experiences/rewards in Heaven based on the deeds of the person, all are in the eternal presence of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. In contrast, in the LDS view, only those in the Celestial Kingdom dwell in the eternal presence of the Father and the Son (and the Holy Ghost).

[Spammer]

Good point. It seems to me that the critical issue as to whether the ECF thought as we depends on the extent they believed in an anthropomorphic god. Otherwise some of the quotes seem to lose their punch, if becoming a god just means being reabsorbed into Divinity.

I'd like to say two things in response to your comment. 1) None of the ECFs quoted in LDS writings believed in an anthropomorphic god. All of them believed God is a spirit. 2) The notion of "becoming a god just means being reabsorbed into Divinity" is pantheism. The major non-Christian religious systems of the East (e.g., Buddhism, Hinduism) are pantheistic. At root, salvation in those systems (nirvana) is to be reabsorbed into deity, losing one's identity in the process. Put another way, it means reacquiring your true identity, i.e., God, after freeing yourself from illusion. This is not Christianity. The ECFs, Catholic, Orthodox Christians, etc., all believe that God is spirit and transcendent, but our deification does not mean we will be reabsorbed into God. We will remain who were are as individuals. We will become divinized humans through the grace of the Holy Spirit, participating in the divine nature while retaining our created human nature. We will be permeated with the Uncreated Light of God. We will be transfigured and returned to the life in Paradise, transformed into creatures able to stand in the presence of God. This is the patristic view of theosis.

[3DOP]

I think it would be okay for a traditional Christian to understand Heaven and Hell as involving some level of physicality, or being a "real place", especially when we consider the belief in a bodily resurrection of all.

Also, I've always understood Catholic belief to be that while there is "one Heaven", each is rewarded individually based on their "merits", so I'm not surprised that there is Council support for that, or that Orthodox share that belief. It is interesting to me to note that within that belief, Catholics and Orthodox believe that while there are different "glories" or experiences/rewards in Heaven based on the deeds of the person, all are in the eternal presence of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. In contrast, in the LDS view, only those in the Celestial Kingdom dwell in the eternal presence of the Father and the Son (and the Holy Ghost).

Hey Christ Knight...that was my thinking too. Catholics seem to lean toward a place. We will have bodies that seem to have to be somewhere.

On the other hand...I personally love what Spammer says. I have expressed myself very similarly at times without being explicit. There is that passage in Hebrews about the presence of God as a consuming fire. That seems like it could be in the context of Hell. I have often thought about how both the damned and redeemed have the same experience, the eternal presence of God, but for the damned it is Hell because they cannot abide His presence, while for the Redeemed it is Heaven because we can. I have not broached this issue with my Catholic friends. I think I recall a while back that John Paul II had to backpedal a bit after saying Hell wasn't a place.

Spammer, Hey.

is this just your belief, or is it firmly in the Eastern Tradition, as in Eastern Fathers? Because if it is in the Eastern Tradition, it belongs to me to and I hope it is. I know God will be exonerated anyway, but I'd like to be more able to show before the Judgment how good He is, even to the damned. I think we have to admit some form of location for physical beings, but I would be very interested in how you came to believe that Hell along with Heaven is an experience of God's presence.

Thanks,

3DOP

[Stone holm]

I'd like to say two things in response to your comment. 1) None of the ECFs quoted in LDS writings believed in an anthropomorphic god. All of them believed God is a spirit. 2) The notion of "becoming a god just means being reabsorbed into Divinity" is pantheism. The major non-Christian religious systems of the East (e.g., Buddhism, Hinduism) are pantheistic. At root, salvation in those systems (nirvana) is to be reabsorbed into deity, losing one's identity in the process. Put another way, it means reacquiring your true identity, i.e., God, after freeing yourself from illusion. This is not Christianity. The ECFs, Catholic, Orthodox Christians, etc., all believe that God is spirit and transcendent, but our deification does not mean we will be reabsorbed into God. We will remain who were are as individuals. We will become divinized humans through the grace of the Holy Spirit, participating in the divine nature while retaining our created human nature. We will be permeated with the Uncreated Light of God. We will be transfigured and returned to the life in Paradise, transformed into creatures able to stand in the presence of God. This is the patristic view of theosis.

Although by definition the ECFs are not controlling for them, I believe that most Protestants believe in merger, so I don't think we can call it non Christian. But most of them also do not believe in an Anthropomorphic God. So again, it seems to me that where you go with some of the quotes depends a great deal on your belief in two things, one whether you believe in the survival of the self, and two whether you believe in anthropomorphic God.

[Spammer]

Hey Christ Knight...that was my thinking too. Catholics seem to lean toward a place. We will have bodies that seem to have to be somewhere.

On the other hand...I personally love what Spammer says. I have expressed myself very similarly at times without being explicit. There is that passage in Hebrews about the presence of God as a consuming fire. That seems like it could be in the context of Hell. I have often thought about how both the damned and redeemed have the same experience, the eternal presence of God, but for the damned it is Hell because they cannot abide His presence, while for the Redeemed it is Heaven because we can. I have not broached this issue with my Catholic friends. I think I recall a while back that John Paul II had to backpedal a bit after saying Hell wasn't a place.

Spammer, Hey.

is this just your belief, or is it firmly in the Eastern Tradition, as in Eastern Fathers? Because if it is in the Eastern Tradition, it belongs to me to and I hope it is. I know God will be exonerated anyway, but I'd like to be more able to show before the Judgment how good He is, even to the damned. I think we have to admit some form of location for physical beings, but I would be very interested in how you came to believe that Hell along with Heaven is an experience of God's presence.

Thanks,

3DOP

Hi 3DOP, this is the Orthodox tradition as I was taught and understand it, the tradition of the Eastern Fathers. The Orthodox tradition teaches the true physicality of our Resurrection and that there will be a new heaven and new earth at the coming of the Lord. Like you said, we will be physical beings and will have bodies that will seem to have to be somewhere. It teaches that heaven, the Kingdom of God, is already here with us right now, invisibly, and that one day we will no longer see through a glass, darkly, but will see the Lord of Glory as he truly is. That experience will either be heaven or hell for us, depending on the condition of our soul.

Here's something from The Orthodox Faith, a four-volume catechism prepared for the Orthodox Church of America by Fr. Thomas Hopko, Dean Emeritus of St. Vladimir's Theological Seminary in NY. You can find the whole thing online here: http://oca.org/ortho...orthodox-faith/.

"The Kingdom of heaven is already in the midst of those who live the spiritual life. What the spiritual person knows in the Holy Spirit, in Christ and the Church, will come with power and glory for all men to behold at the end of the ages.

The final coming of Christ will be the judgment of all men. His very presence will be the judgment. Now men can live without the love of Christ in their lives. They can exist as if there were no God, no Christ, no Spirit, no Church, no spiritual life. At the end of the ages this will no longer be possible. All men will have to behold the Face of Him who “for us men and our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate… who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried . . . ” (Nicene Creed) All will have to look at Him whom they have crucified by their sins: Him “who was dead and is alive again.” (Revelation 1-.17-18)

For those who love the Lord, His Presence will be infinite joy, paradise and eternal life. For those who hate the Lord, the same Presence will be infinite torture, hell and eternal death. The reality for both the saved and the damned will be exactly the same when Christ “comes in glory, and all angels with Him,” so that “God may be all in all.” (I Corinthians 15-28) Those who have God as their “all” within this life will finally have divine fulfillment and life. For those whose “all” is themselves and this world, the “all” of God will be their torture, their punishment and their death. And theirs will be “weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (Matthew 8:21, et al.)

The Son of Man will send His angels and they will gather out of His kingdom all causes of sin and all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire; there men will weep and gnash their teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the Kingdom of their Father. (Matthew 13:41-43)

According to the saints, the “fire” that will consume sinners at the coming of the Kingdom of God is the same “fire” that will shine with splendor in the saints. It is the “fire” of God’s love; the “fire” of God Himself who is Love. “For our God is a consuming fire” (Hebrews 12:29) who “dwells in unapproachable light.” (I Timothy 6:16) For those who love God and who love all creation in Him, the “consuming fire” of God will be radiant bliss and unspeakable delight. For those who do not love God, and who do not love at all, this same 66consuming fire” will be the cause of their “weeping” and their “gnashing of teeth.”

Thus it is the Church’s spiritual teaching that God does not punish man by some material fire or physical torment. God simply reveals Himself in the risen Lord Jesus in such a glorious way that no man can fail to behold His glory. It is the presence of God’s splendid glory and love that is the scourge of those who reject its radiant power and light.

... those who find themselves in hell will be chastised by the scourge of love. How cruel and bitter this torment of love will be! For those who understand that they have sinned against love, undergo no greater suffering than those produced by the most fearful tortures. The sorrow which takes hold of the heart, which has sinned against love, is more piercing than any other pain. It is not right to say that the sinners in hell are deprived of the love of God… But love acts in two ways, as suffering of the reproved, and as joy in the blessed! (St. Isaac of Syria, Mystic Treatises)

This teaching is found in many spiritual writers and saints: St. Maximus the Confessor, the novelist Fyodor Dostoevsky. At the end of the ages God’s glorious love is revealed for all to behold in the Face of Christ. Man’s eternal destiny - heaven or hell, salvation or damnation - depends solely on his response to this love."

Here's another excerpt from something published a few years ago in Orthodoxy Today by Fr. George Metallinos, a Greek Orthodox Priest and an emeritus professor in the theological department at the University of Athens.

"Paradise and hell are not two different places. Such an idea is an idolatrous concept. Rather they signify two different conditions [ways or states of being], which originate from the same uncreated source, and are perceived by man as two, differing experiences. More precisely, they are the same experience, except that they are perceived differently by man, depending on his internal state. This experience is the sight of Christ in the uncreated light of His divinity, of His "glory". From the moment of His Second Coming, through to all eternity, all people will be seeing Christ in His uncreated light. That is when "those who worked good deeds in their lifetime will go towards the resurrection of life, while those who worked evil in their lifetime will go towards the resurrection of judgment" (Jn.5:29). In the presence of Christ, mankind will be separated (like "sheep" and "kidgoats", to His right and His left). In other words, they will be discerning in two separate groups: those who will be behold Christ as paradise (the "exceeding good, the radiant") and those who will be looking upon Christ as hell ("the all-consuming fire" of Hebrews 12:29).

Paradise and hell are the same reality. This is what is depicted in the portrayal of the Second Coming. From Christ, a river of fire flows forth. It is radiant like a golden light at the upper end of it, where the saints are. At its lower end, the same river is fiery, and it is in that part of the river that the demons and the unrepentant ("the never repentant" according to a hymn) are depicted. This is why in Luke 2:34 we read that Christ stands "as the fall and the resurrection of many". Christ becomes the resurrection into eternal life for those who accepted Him and who followed the means given for the healing the heart. To those who rejected Him, however, He becomes their separation and their hell.

Among the patristic testimonies, Saint John of Sinai (of the Ladder) says that the uncreated light of Christ is "an all-consuming fire and an illuminating light". Saint Gregory Palamas (E.P.E. II, 498) observes: "Thus, it is said, He will baptize you by the Holy Spirit and by fire: in other words, by illumination and judgment, depending on each person's predisposition, which will in itself bring upon him that which he deserves." Elsewhere, (Essays, P. Christou Publications, vol.2, page 145): The light of Christ, "albeit one and accessible to all, is not partaken of uniformly, but differently".

Consequently, paradise and hell are not a reward or a punishment (condemnation), but the way that we individually experience the sight of Christ, depending on the condition of our heart. God doesn't punish in essence, although, for educative purposes, the Scripture does mention punishment. The more spiritual that one becomes, the better he can comprehend the language of the Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Man's condition (clean-unclean, repentant-unrepentant) is the factor that determines the acceptance of the Light as "paradise" or "hell"."

Edited May 20, 2013 by Spammer

[ChristKnight]

Although by definition the ECFs are not controlling for them, I believe that most Protestants believe in merger, so I don't think we can call it non Christian.

Really? Protestants believe in "merger", or "The notion of "becoming a god just means being reabsorbed into Divinity""? Do you have any quotes from relevant Protestant works to demonstrate that? I've never heard of that before, so I find it interesting.

[Spammer]

Although by definition the ECFs are not controlling for them, I believe that most Protestants believe in merger, so I don't think we can call it non Christian. But most of them also do not believe in an Anthropomorphic God. So again, it seems to me that where you go with some of the quotes depends a great deal on your belief in two things, one whether you believe in the survival of the self, and two whether you believe in anthropomorphic God.

I've never met a Protestant who thinks salvation means losing one's identity and being absorbed into God. A person can go wherever they want with ECF quotes, based on whatever it is they believe. I do think it's important to let the ECFs speak for themselves, though, like Volgadon said. That means learning about what it is they really believed by reading everything they wrote and in context.

[volgadon]

Rory, I'll track down some of the quotes in the ECF for you when I get a moment.

[Stone holm]

Really? Protestants believe in "merger", or "The notion of "becoming a god just means being reabsorbed into Divinity""? Do you have any quotes from relevant Protestant works to demonstrate that? I've never heard of that before, so I find it interesting.

I would refer yo to the doctrinal charts in His Many Mansions. When you take monotheism in a Protestant view where you are commanded to become one with Christ as He is one with the Father, you wind up with non survival of the self.

[Darren10]

Those we call our fathers would for them be more accurately designated as "Church Orphans",

Correct. But I also like the term "proto-Mormons" . As you can see, they at the very least expressed doctrines that are, borrowing from spammer and various others I've encountered on the web, the foundation of what make LDS doctrines unique. In the end, the differences between the LDS and non-LDS really are not that grave.

From your contributions here alone, which have been convincing, I do not see how they can fail to note that even before Nicea, the Fathers they cite for deification, are much closer to the Nicene Trinity than to the King Follet Discourse.

The nicene Creed is formal doctrine among traditional Christian churches. The King Follett Discourse is not formal doctrine of the LDS Church. That being said you would be correct in that deification from a typical LDS view is more in line with the King Follett's Discourse than from the Nicene Creed (if there is a deification portion to that).

However, I think you are failing to appreciate that according with the way they view our "Fathers", the fathers/orphans are, even with their corrupted view of God, preserving some traces of the apostolic teachings of the "Former-day Church". To them, these are significant finds.

I always appreciate two things from you, sir. First, it's your empathy. Second, it is how you share your in depth knowledge of your faith and Christianity in general. Always a pleasure to read your posts. I personally really enjoy learning how oters believe and it is important for me to "get it right" when presenting their side of view. I do not always do that which I regret so I value your feedback. Spammer's as well.

Edited May 20, 2013 by Darren10

[Spammer]

Darren10,

I also appreciate 3DOP's approach to the LDS church. I was raised LDS and now I'm not. That does give me a different take on things, since Mormonism permeated the air I breathed for over 30 years.

I can see your point about how the ECFs expressed doctrines that are the foundation of what makes the LDS Church unique, but I see the ECF's views about God to be so radically different from what Mormons believe about God that I don't think I can put myself in a Mormon's shoes and try to think of them as proto-Mormons. Knowing what I know now, I don't know that I could think of them that way, even if I was still attending Elder's Quorum as a believing church member. But that's a counterfactual. The important thing is what you said: "In the end, the differences between the LDS and non-LDS really are not that grave". I agree with you. We all follow the teachings of Jesus and aim toward union with the divine.

[Darren10]

He was 26 when Emperor Theodosius I made creedal Trinitarian Christianity the official state religion of the Empire and banned paganism. He was converted to Christianity and baptized 7 years later. The "compatible sect of Christians" Augustine encountered and joined was thus the orthodox Christian Church itself.

The belief in corporeality, and even in the separation of the Father and the Son as separate beings did not disappear after the Nicene Creed. In fact , was not Emperor Theodosius I of the Arius persuasion and thus inflicted heavy persecution upon those faithful to Athanasius and the Constantine and the the Council of Nicea? Also, doctrine such as a belief in a pre-mortal existence was not condemned by the Christian Church until around the 7th century in the Latin Church and a while after that in the Orthodox Church.

Sorry, I was unclear. I was referring to LDS prophets who erred in doctrine.

That makes more sense. Non-LDS Christians do point to errors in prophecy from LDS prophets but to my knowledge never with biblicxal prophets. I do apologize for misunderstanding you.

Yes, reception of the Holy Spirit is revelation. However, the traditional orthodox view of deification of Irenaeus, Clement, and Hippolytus and the LDS view are incompatible. Both claim to be the result of revelation. One view is wrong. LDS apologists can legitimately quote the ECFs only if the quoted ECFs shared the LDS view.

Than the mere fact that there's post-biblical revelation indicates a not so closed cannon of scripture. That too indicates that today's theological standards are more in line with LDS theology than what is typically thought of. The ECF's do share LDS views though I will agree with you not to the complete end of things. While they believe in deification, and I'll propose that the Latin Church has moved to demphasize it more in modern times (much much much more in fact) than in the early times whereas the Orthodox Church has done much more to preserve its emphasis. "Man becoming God" is a very strange phrase in Christianity today except in LDS circles yet that phrase was very commonly spoken of in Christianity's first centuries of existence.

[Darren10]

Darren10,

I also appreciate 3DOP's approach to the LDS church. I was raised LDS and now I'm not. That does give me a different take on things, since Mormonism permeated the air I breathed for over 30 years.

And then you found a good inhaler, eh?

I can see your point about how the ECFs expressed doctrines that are the foundation of what makes the LDS Church unique, but I see the ECF's views about God to be so radically different from what Mormons believe about God that I don't think I can put myself in a Mormon's shoes and try to think of them as proto-Mormons.

And you do make some good points otthat end.

The important thing is what you said: "In the end, the differences between the LDS and non-LDS really are not that grave". I agree with you. We all follow the teachings of Jesus and aim toward union with the divine.

Amen, my brother.

[ChristKnight]

I would refer yo to the doctrinal charts in His Many Mansions. When you take monotheism in a Protestant view where you are commanded to become one with Christ as He is one with the Father, you wind up with non survival of the self.

Do you have quotes from relevant Protestant works to show that they believe in merger, or non survival of the self? What is "In His Many Mansions"? Do you have a link and specific quote? Is this a Protestant doctrinal/apologetic text?

If anything, it seems as if you're drawing your own conclusion, based on your understanding of Protestant views, and not what Protestants are actually claiming they believe as far as what Heaven is like/deification.

[Spammer]

The belief in corporeality, and even in the separation of the Father and the Son as separate beings did not disappear after the Nicene Creed. In fact , was not Emperor Theodosius I of the Arius persuasion and thus inflicted heavy persecution upon those faithful to Athanasius and the Constantine and the the Council of Nicea? Also, doctrine such as a belief in a pre-mortal existence was not condemned by the Christian Church until around the 7th century in the Latin Church and a while after that in the Orthodox Church.

I think you're thinking of Constantius, who was a semi-Arian and did exile Athanasius. Athanasius was exiled five times. I'm pretty sure that none of them were ordered by Theodosius I. The latter was the emperor who made Nicene Orthodoxy the official state religion.

My point was only that there was an official orthodoxy after Nicea that just so happened to be the majority view before Nicea and after. It's that dominant strand that Augustine joined.

That makes more sense. Non-LDS Christians do point to errors in prophecy from LDS prophets but to my knowledge never with biblicxal prophets. I do apologize for misunderstanding you.

I was unclear, no apology needed!

Than the mere fact that there's post-biblical revelation indicates a not so closed cannon of scripture. That too indicates that today's theological standards are more in line with LDS theology than what is typically thought of. The ECF's do share LDS views though I will agree with you not to the complete end of things. While they believe in deification, and I'll propose that the Latin Church has moved to demphasize it more in modern times (much much much more in fact) than in the early times whereas the Orthodox Church has done much more to preserve its emphasis. "Man becoming God" is a very strange phrase in Christianity today except in LDS circles yet that phrase was very commonly spoken of in Christianity's first centuries of existence.

We believe the canon of scripture is, indeed, closed. The revelation of God in Christ was the final revelation. But revelation in the sense of guidance from God through the Holy Spirit still occurs.

"Man becoming God" is not strange at all in Orthdoxy. That language and theosis are absolutely central to our beliefs.

Edited May 20, 2013 by Spammer

[Darren10]

Rearding 3DOP and Spammer's posts that the eternities will be spent in the presence of God, both for the blessed and the damned, I ask: what biblical doctrine is used to bring people to that conclusion?

41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

(Mathew 25 - Bold mine)

Edited May 20, 2013 by Darren10

[Darren10]

I think you're thinking of Constantius, who was a semi-Arian and did exile Athanasius. Athanasius was exiled five times. I'm pretty sure that none of them were ordered by Theodosius I. The latter was the emperor who made Nicene Orthodoxy the official state religion.

You're probably correct. Thanks. Since there were Arian emperors, does that not indicate disunity within Christianity?

My point was only that there was an official orthodoxy after Nicea that just so happened to be the majority view before Nicea and after. It's that dominant strand that Augustine joined.

That "Official Orthodoxy" was governed by non Orthodox rulers, no? How did several emperors gain the throne and have become Christians (previous to or post gaining the throne) and still believe in Arian? If said belief was unorthodox than why allow baptism into the church? My understanding is that today the Catholic Church does not recognize LDS baptisms in large part because of the non-trinitarian beliefs the LDS vehemently hold to. So why were non trinitarian baptisms allowed regularly after Christianity's orthodoxy was established?

But revelation in the sense of guidance from God through the Holy Spirit still occurs.

Than you and I absolutely agree. I am still confused then how so much non biblical lingo such as "cosubstanital", "not three gods but one", and evewn "trinity" itself has become doctrine to traditional Christian churches bvut still the LDS will readily agree that the Holy Spirit guides one's understanding.

"Man becoming God" is not strange at all in Orthdoxy. That language and theosis are absolutely central to our beliefs.

It is not strange with the nuances and background qualifying understanding of what is meant by that phrase. But in and of itself that phrase is very stange amongst Christians except for LDS circles. Man becoming like God is very much why Christ atoned for man and "becoming God" is taken as spoken in LDS theology. For the rest, from my understanding, it needs be qualified bas meaning "being full of the grace of god,"being resurrected", "becoming immortal", "having sins forgiven", etc. That is indeed becoming "god-like" but in a strict sense not "becoming God". That's what I mean as the phrase, "man becoming God" would seem strange.

[Darren10]

Spammer;

Overall I think you make an excellent point in how Ash wrote his article. I would agree there's room to reword his statements.

[Darren10]

The Council of Nicaea

The “First Ecumenical Council” was held in Nicaea (modern day Iznik in Turkey) and attended by 318 bishops, although different sources suggest differing numbers. Convened May 20, 325, the council was lavishly hosted by Constantine, who took an active part in the deliberations.

The first task of the council was to evaluate the theological position of Arius. Although some bishops accepted the Arian position, a great majority did not and Arius was condemned. The second task was to produce a uniform creed that posited the core beliefs of all Christians. These efforts resulted in the Nicene Creed.

A key element of this early creed was the use of the term “consubstantial” to describe the relationship between God and Christ. Arians who could not accept this, like Arius himself, were promptly exiled. The Nicene Creed formalized the belief in the triune nature of God.

Continued Belief in Arianism after Nicaea

Like the Donatists, Arian belief persisted, notably in the Eastern Empire. This was particularly true after the death of Constantine in 337, one year after the death of Arius. Arius had been recalled from exile in Greece, returned to Alexandria only to renew the conflict with Athanasius.

Yet another council was held in Tyre in 335 but this time the assembly was packed with Arian bishops. Athanasius and his Egyptian bishops were refused a hearing. Traveling to Constantinople, Athanasius demanded justice from the emperor. His enemies, however, brought forward false charges against Athanasius to the effect that he had interrupted grain shipments.

An enraged Constantine exiled Athansius to Gaul. Arianism was strongest in the East where it influenced barbarians like the Goths. Spread to the West by these tribes, Arian Christianity became a chief threat to the missionary activities of Latin Christianity. The impasse was eventually resolved when Clovis, king of the Franks, rejected Arian Christianity after a dream or vision very similar to the one that had persuaded Constantine to embrace Christianity.

http://suite101.com/article/constantine-and-the-arian-heresy-a124024

[Stone holm]

Do you have quotes from relevant Protestant works to show that they believe in merger, or non survival of the self? What is "In His Many Mansions"? Do you have a link and specific quote? Is this a Protestant doctrinal/apologetic text?

If anything, it seems as if you're drawing your own conclusion, based on your understanding of Protestant views, and not what Protestants are actually claiming they believe as far as what Heaven is like/deification.

I will have to find my copy of His Many Mansions -- i have used it a lot because it was one of the few such works where they actually contacted the leaders of the church in question to get the answers to the questions rather than have some non-member spouting off, I was really kind of shocked to see number that really didn't allow for survival of the self.

[Calm]

When you take monotheism in a Protestant view where you are commanded to become one with Christ as He is one with the Father, you wind up with non survival of the self.

CFR from an authoritative Protestant site or text Edited May 20, 2013 by calmoriah

[3DOP]

Rearding 3DOP and Spammer's posts that the eternities will be spent in the presence of God, both for the blessed and the damned, I ask: what biblical doctrine is used to bring people to that conclusion?

(Mathew 25 - Bold mine)

For me, it is wishful thinking so far. As much as I appreciate Dostoevsky, whose works I have mostly read at least twice, he is far from a church father or someone I could use as a Catholic. Maybe he is where I got that heretical idea? Heh. Which book Spammer? It must be Father Zosima in Brothers K?

Anyway Darren, with regard to the "depart from me", one could argue that it means to be separated unto "the left hand", those designated as goats elsewhere, whereas Christ is on the right hand with those designated as sheep. So they depart to the other side, still in God's presence. I am not arguing it, just throwing out ideas.

3DOP

Edited May 21, 2013 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

"Man becoming God" is not strange at all in Orthdoxy. That language and theosis are absolutely central to our beliefs.

Nor is it strange in Catholic circles. From Irenaeus to Augustine to Aquinas to John of the Cross to Francis de Sales to John Paul II, to the language of the liturgy of the Mass, it has always been emphasized, and I can provide quotes if need be from all of them and many other lesser sources.

3DOP

Edited May 21, 2013 by 3DOP