Lds Apologetics And The Early Church Fathers

[williamsmith]

Catechism of the Catholic Church-

460 The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":"For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God." "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God." "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."

Prayer in the Roman Rite liturgy-

"By the mystery of this water and wine may we come to share in the divinity of Christ who humbled himself to share in our humanity."

Among other examples.

I would like to point out that while in the "deeper" theology of Catholicism and even with some Evangelicals the idea of Theosis, that we are or can become "gods" can be found, it's certainly NOT a "doctrine" taught by ANY of the Churches.

Ask any Catholic or Evangelical whether they are "gods" or can become "gods", and they will say heck no, there is only One God and such is blasphemy.

Both will in fact in almost all cases attack Mormonism for this doctrine of Theosis.

[Stone holm]

CFR from an authoritative Protestant site or text

Does anyone have a copy of His Many Mansions with the compartive chart?

[ChristKnight]

I would like to point out that while in the "deeper" theology of Catholicism and even with some Evangelicals the idea of Theosis, that we are or can become "gods" can be found, it's certainly NOT a "doctrine" taught by ANY of the Churches.

Ask any Catholic or Evangelical whether they are "gods" or can become "gods", and they will say heck no, there is only One God and such is blasphemy.

Both will in fact in almost all cases attack Mormonism for this doctrine of Theosis.

The fact that deification/theosis is taught in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and it receives particular emphasis in the Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, is proof that it is a doctrine of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

Whether or not individual members are aware of theosis/deification is irrelevant to whether or not it's a doctrine (which it clearly is). Many Catholics use artificial contraceptives. That doesn't change the facts of Catholic doctrine.

Perhaps you should read "Partakers of the Divine Nature-Jordan Vajda." It'll give you some idea of the doctrine of theosis as understood by Catholics/Orthodox, and the differences that doctrine has with the doctrine of exaltation in the LDS Church. Informed Catholics/Orthodox do not "attack" or criticize Mormonism for its doctrine of theosis per se, but for the specific differences it has with their traditional doctrine of theosis. And maybe you'd be interested in Deification and Grace-Introductions to Catholic Doctrine by Daniel Keating. , among many other books and documents that demonstrate that this indeed is a doctrine taught by the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, so I'm not sure why you made the above statement.

Edited May 21, 2013 by ChristKnight

[3DOP]

Well said Christ Knight. You've saved me a longer post.

I will say that I don't have any intention of defending "ignorant Catholicism". I suppose it can be comforting to think that you have found "true Catholicism" in your baptized as an infant co-worker or neighbor who swears, doesn't know the mysteries of the Rosary, and isn't even confirmed. I have never proposed that you can be properly informed of the Catholic faith by asking the opinions of your desacramentalized co-worker who may or may not even go to Mass.

Informed Catholics embrace and even insist upon the language of deification as it has been taught by theologians, saints, doctors, and popes of the Catholic Church for 2,000 years.

[MormonMason]

Hey Darren, you guys occasionally forget about the books the Protestants threw out. ---2 Maccabees 7:28

...

You forgot one:

For not without means was your almighty hand, that had fashioned the universe from formless matter, to send upon them a drove of bears or fierce lions,

(Wisdom 11:17, NAB Official Catholic Bible)

By the way, the Vulgate has been changed recently by the Roman Catholic Church. It no longer reads "ex nihilo" in that passage. The translation still has a bit to go but it is closer now to the original Greek phraseology than it was.

Former Vulgate:

peto nate aspicias in caelum et terram et ad omnia quae in eis sunt et intellegas quia ex nihilo fecit illa Deus et hominum genus

Current Vulgate:

Peto, nate, ut aspicias ad caelum et terram et quae in ipsis sunt, universa videns intellegas quia non ex his, quae erant, fecit illa Deus; et hominum genus ita fit.

As I said, got a bit of a way to go but better now than it was. It is no longer so explicit a reference to creatio ex nihilo.

[Darren10]

3DOP;

A couple of reasons I say that the phrase, "man may become God" is strange amongst Christian circles. First, as mentioned in williamsmith's #101 post, I would venture to say that if you were to ask most Catholic and non-Catholic ((except east Orthodox) church goers if they believe that they can become God they would answer no and even feel uncomfortable with the idea. Ask most Mormon church goers the same question and if they are not shy they will respond with a clear yes. Second, even in the east Orthodox Church, "man becoming God" has conditions and limitations. Simply put, that phrase alone is not a complete doctrine except within LDS theology. When the bible says we will inherit all the father has, the LDS simply takes it at its word literally. Likewise, the LDS take "man may become God" at it's word literally.

So my main point is that in and of itself, without the nuances and esoteric knowledge behind it, the phrase, "man may become God", is strange outside LDS worship.

Edited May 21, 2013 by Darren10

[Darren10]

Mormon Mason;

Very cool

[Darren10]

Mormon Mason;

Here's the following from Wisdom 11:18

(English)

For thy almighty hand, which made the world of matter without form, was not unable to send upon them a multitude of bears, or fierce lions,

(Latin - Bold mine)

non enim inpossibilis erat omnipotens manus tua quae creavit orbem terrarum ex materia invisa inmittere illis multitudinem ursorum aut audaces leones

I'm 99.999999999999999999% sure (small chance I could be wrong) that "which made the world of matter" means that the world was made from matter as opposed to God creating "matter [without form]". I think this because what I can make of the Latin is the following:

erat = was

omnipotens = omnipotent, almighty

manus = hands

tua = thine, your

quae = that, which

creavit = create, created

orben = work

terrarum = world, earth

ex materia = out of material

I don't speak Latin so I may err in some translated words but the Latin construct does seem clear that the world was made ex materia or "out of material" and that material was invisa or "invisible".

Very interesting.

http://www.latinvulgate.com/verse.aspx?t=0&b=25&c=11

[MormonMason]

Older versions of the Vulgate have it as verse 18, whereas the Nova Vulgata (New Vulgate or New Common) renumbers to 17 to agree with the versification of the Greek. Thought I would bring that up for those who aren't aware of and might be confused by the differences that sometimes crop up between differing versions of the Bible. The same is the case in various places between the "Hebrew Bible" and English translations thereof.

By the way, no one really speaks Latin today although the Romanians are as close as one can come to doing so. But, you have pretty much the right idea concerning the phrase.

Finally, the doctrine of deification leapt forth without councils and geographically widespread from one end of the Empire to the other. It was redefined, however, as the doctrine of the Trinity came to the fore and was ratified by Councils. If you check the earliest examples of the teaching, you will find that they were stronger in nature than those examples that arose after the doctrine of the Trinity became the standard. For example, Irenaeus flatly stated that we would become eternal and actually have the powers and faculties of God. Those who do not read Greek do not know this. Justin Martyr also used a Greek term for "deified" that had reference in Greek thought to men becoming immortal and becoming gods in the most literal sense. Greek readers who read Justin knew what he meant until Greek terms began being redefined toward the end of and following the second century period. Later English translators have tried to hide Justin's meaning by rendering "shall have bliss" rather than "shall be deified."

In relation to this subject, many people try to read back the doctrine of the Trinity into the earlier teachings. What English readers often don't know is that one of the earliest examples used most in polemics actually does not use a word for Trinity but rather triados or Triad. A Triad is not the Trinity. Triad is so very much closer to the LDS cultural definition of the meaning of the term "Godhead" than to the later Trinity. Most in the general public, however, are unaware of this.

[Darren10]

Mormon Mason;

For example, Irenaeus flatly stated that we would become eternal and actually have the powers and faculties of God.

Yes. I knew I read that somewhere before. Now I'll have to search it.

Justin Martyr also used a Greek term for "deified" that had reference in Greek thought to men becoming immortal and becoming gods in the most literal sense. Greek readers who read Justin knew what he meant until Greek terms began being redefined toward the end of and following the second century period.

This I did not know.

Triad is so very much closer to the LDS cultural definition of the meaning of the term "Godhead" than to the later Trinity. Most in the general public, however, are unaware of this.

What I tell people is that Mormons are trinitarians in the pure grammatical sense of the word. "Tri" means "three" "ity" is a suffix which means the state of something. Thus Mormons are very much trinitarians but what Mormons do not believe in is the historical trinity as defined by the creeds. Thus while Mormons are absolutely trinitarians - they believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as a Godhead and as "One Eternal God" - they are not creedal trinitarians which declare three persons yet one being.

[MormonMason]

...

What I tell people is that Mormons are trinitarians in the pure grammatical sense of the word. "Tri" means "three" "ity" is a suffix which means the state of something. Thus Mormons are very much trinitarians but what Mormons do not believe in is the historical trinity as defined by the creeds. Thus while Mormons are absolutely trinitarians - they believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as a Godhead and as "One Eternal God" - they are not creedal trinitarians which declare three persons yet one being.

That is a good analogy. Something else not often thought about, however, is that we also have an underlying view of "same substance" although somewhat differently understood. In common LDS thought, the Son and Holy Ghost really are from the same substance as well as are of the same nature with the Father. Think about it for a moment how that is. Funny thing is, at least one early Father, Lactantius, spoke of both the Son and the Devil as begotten sons of the Father.

[Darren10]

Mason;

The only thing I can find of Iranaeus is that man may become God according to his (man's) power which God designated. Is there any other sources out there regarding deification including God's power?

[Darren10]

That is a good analogy. Something else not often thought about, however, is that we also have an underlying view of "same substance" although somewhat differently understood. In common LDS thought, the Son and Holy Ghost really are from the same substance as well as are of the same nature with the Father.

Correct. I view the LDS doctrine of intelligences as an underlying doctrine that more or less follows along the thought of cosubstanbility (sp?). The difference, of course, is that the Father is greater than all the intelligences and His plan is to become like Him through His Son who, so far as we know, always carried out and lived according to the will of the Father.

Think about it for a moment how that is. Funny thing is, at least one early Father, Lactantius, spoke of both the Son and the Devil as begotten sons of the Father.

If I'm not mistaken, Lactantius was considered a kook of a theologian by many. That said, he was on to something.

[Darren10]

In the book How Wide the Divide? A Mormon and an Evangelical in Conversation, an evangelical professor, Craig L. Blomberg, from Denver Seminary, and an LDS professor, Stephen E. Robinson, from Brigham Young University, engage in an honest exchange over the similarities and the differences between LDS and evangelical Christian belief. In chapter 2 they cover the topic of "God and Deification," and within the context of his presentation of LDS doctrine, Professor Robinson states the following in a footnote:

So many others in the Christian tradition have used the term gods to refer to the glorified saints. Evangelicals are always telling me that these authors used the term gods differently from the way the LDS do—but I can never understand the basis of the claim. When I read Clement or Irenaeus or C. S. Lewis and say, "There! That's exactly what I believe," Evangelicals usually answer, "No, that's not what you believe at all."¹

The aim of this chapter is to begin to clarify why Professor Robinson would find an equivalence to his belief in exaltation in the doctrinal writings of patristic authors as well as why his belief in an exact parallel would be challenged by his non-LDS friends. Thus, the similarities and the differences between the doctrines of theosis and exaltation will be covered before offering a concise analysis of the precise relationship between the two doctrines in question.

Theosis and Exaltation: In Dialogue

I do believe that Jordan Vajda was already LDSc when he wrote this paper. It's an interesting piece laying out the similarities and differences between exaltation and theosis.

After laying out several points of similarities between exaltation (LDS) and theosis (Orthodox Catholic), similarities which include but are not limited to baptism, euchrist ("sacrament" for the LDS), marriage, and priesthood authority, Vajda says the following regardng the differences between the two:

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.

Here its interesting that Vajda makes note that under the concept of growth the partaker of divinization views that he/she has power within him or her self to progress and become deified. What interests me is that searching for Iranaeus and theosis, I read that Iranaeus taught that man has power to become God. This of course, does not negate Christi's absolute necessity to usher in man's deification. But Iranaeus as well as other patristic fathers firmly believed that man were gods (and gods were man).

Thus, for the doctrine of theosis, to become divine means to unite in one created person both his or her own created human nature and the uncreated divine energies of the three uncreated divine persons. In other words, a divinized human person never ceases to be created and human; but insofar as that person is divinized, he or she becomes through grace what he or she is not by nature—divine. Furthermore, to speak of divinization by the divine energies, as opposed to the divine essence, is meant to reflect the ontological distinction between uncreated and created. Only God—the three divine persons—is divine essentially. Only the persons of the Trinity are uncreated and eternal by fact of their nature. Human persons cannot become divine essentially because this would be a logical contradiction. What humans are in essence, by nature, is created and dependent. The divine energies are God himself insofar as he shares his uncreated nature with created persons, thus divinizing them. In this sense, the divinized person is always both created and uncreated, finite and infinite: created and finite by nature, uncreated and infinite by grace, by reason of union with God's divinizing energies. The divinized person becomes all that God is except for identity in essence, which is to say, without ceasing to be created and finite.

In contrast, within the context of the doctrine of exaltation, there is no ontological divide or distinction between human and divine—divine and human do not refer to ontological categories.³ Instead, divine and human signify different levels of progression within a continuum. In other words, some uncreated intelligences have progressed to the point of godhood (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost), while other uncreated intelligences have not and are thus dependent on those who have already done so to attain godhood themselves (human persons). Thus, because humans and God already share a like essence, at some future time humans, as exalted beings, can become exactly as God now is.

Even given this profound difference rooted in ontology, the difference between participation and growth, the doctrines of theosis and exaltation both agree in teaching that divinized humans are always subordinate to the God who makes their divinization a reality. In the case of theosis, this subordination is clearly founded on ontology: those who become "gods by grace" are as dependent for their status as gods as they are for their very existence and being. And while the doctrine of exaltation has as premises the ontological independence of human persons from God and the innate potential of humans to become gods, based on being literally children of divine parents, this is not meant to imply that divinized persons will ever become greater than God or cease to be related to God after the attainment of exaltation.

Latter-day Saints do not, or at least should not, believe that they will ever be independent in all eternity from their Father in heaven or from their Savior Jesus Christ or from the Holy Spirit. Those who are exalted by his grace will always be "gods" (always with a small

g,

even in the Doctrine and Covenants) by grace, by an extension of

his

power, and will always be subordinate to the Godhead.

4

Despite what our critics claim, the Latter-day Saints do not believe that human beings will ever become the equals of God, or be independent of God, or that they will ever cease to be subordinate to God.

5

So just as human children have within their very being the capacity to become mature human adults, provided they receive the assistance of their parents, the doctrine of exaltation teaches that while human persons are ontologically independent of God and have within their very nature a capacity to become divine, they can do so, ultimately, only by the grace of God. In this sense, it is appropriate to refer to exalted persons as "gods by grace" as well.

I think Vajda has a handle on the differences and similarities between theosis and exaltation.

[Spammer]

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?

3DOP

I've been out of pocket for a while. I just saw this. Yes, I think maybe Fr. Zosima in Brothers K. Dostoevsky got the idea of Zosima, and much of Zosima's teaching in the novel, from a book he found on the Life of Starets (Elder) Leonid in the Optina Monastery in Russia.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Leonid_of_Optina

[Spammer]

Theosis and Exaltation: In Dialogue

I do believe that Jordan Vajda was already LDSc when he wrote this paper. It's an interesting piece laying out the similarities and differences between exaltation and theosis.

After laying out several points of similarities between exaltation (LDS) and theosis (Orthodox Catholic), similarities which include but are not limited to baptism, euchrist ("sacrament" for the LDS), marriage, and priesthood authority, Vajda says the following regardng the differences between the two:

Here its interesting that Vajda makes note that under the concept of growth the partaker of divinization views that he/she has power within him or her self to progress and become deified. What interests me is that searching for Iranaeus and theosis, I read that Iranaeus taught that man has power to become God. This of course, does not negate Christi's absolute necessity to usher in man's deification. But Iranaeus as well as other patristic fathers firmly believed that man were gods (and gods were man).

I think Vajda has a handle on the differences and similarities between theosis and exaltation.

I agree. What Vajda describes is the Orthodox view of theosis. We participate in God's uncreated energies, not his uncreated essence. The energies are not distinct from his essence, but are the means by which God manifests Himself within His material creation (as distinct from the Incarnation, which is the event through which God the Son united Himself with our human nature by taking on flesh). His essence is transcendent and outside time and space. God is unknowable in his essence. We remain created humans and unite only with His energies in theosis. We do not unite with God's essence. We are human in essence and will remain human. We are not literally God's offspring. Only God is divine in his essence. Humans and God are not the same species. St. Gregory Palamas provides the fullest exposition on the essence/energies distinction in Orthodox thought. See Fr. John Meyendorff's book on Palamas for a classic intro on the saint and his teachings on the divine energies.

http://www.amazon.co...amas meyendorff

Edited May 21, 2013 by Spammer

[Spammer]

Thinking about Vadja's description of theosis, is there there an orthodox LDS statement, something coined by Mormons and not borrowed from the patristic literature, that better describes what Mormons believe about exaltation? I know Lorenzo Snow's couplet is quoted often, though Gordon B. Hinckley seems to have deemphasized it. I ask because a lot of confusion could be avoided if LDS church members stopped saying "that's what I believe" after quoting Athanasius and other ECFs like Irenaeus and Clement verbatim. It seems that precision in our definitions and terminology is important. Athanasius and other others meant something very specific by the statements they coined and that something is better captured by Vadja's description of theosis than his description of exaltation. It seems the Pres. Snow's couplet, or something like it, is a much better phrase to use to describe the LDS view. It better captures the unique nature of LDS teachings about exaltation, namely that God is an exalted man and that we are literally his spiritual offspring. Athanasius et al meant something much different when they said things like " God became man so that man could become God."

Edited May 21, 2013 by Spammer

[MormonMason]

...

If I'm not mistaken, Lactantius was considered a kook of a theologian by many. That said, he was on to something.

Only those who dislike what he says take him that way. He was a Rhetorician. That means he fully understood the import of what it was that he was saying. Rhetoricians were regarded as expert in the use of language to make a point and argument. But, to each his/her own.

By the way, Vajda was not a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints at the time that he wrote that paper. It was the Orthodox position at the time he wrote it. I prefer Irenaeus and Justin to the later views. The Greek New Testament is more consistent with the LDS position. Unfortunately, today most Greeks even cannot read it without the use of assistance in the form of paraphrases and interpretive works. Today's Demotike is not the same grammatically as Koine Greek of the New Testament. Most all Greek Orthodox and those who have left that Church for various Greek Protestant faiths I have met over my lifetime simply cannot read it. Those who have come to understand the meaning of various passages in my presence while reading passages in the Greek New Testament, after repeated readings, end up having their eyes opening very, very wide, almost to the point of fear in their facial expressions.

One guy actually slammed the Greek New Testament shut in front of me, shoved it back into my hands, and started yelling, "It doesn't mean that! It cannot mean that!" as the full sense of 1 John 3:2-3 hit him while reading it several times to make sure he understood what it was that he was reading. He was visibly shaken by what he had read. Another passage that should be of considerable interest to Latter-day Saints is 2 Corinthians 8:9. That one is another eye-widener for many outside of the Orthodox tradition when they fully understand the ramifications of the passage.

The reason for that is because the first part of the passage clearly speaks of Christ's emptying himself. Now, if you understand that terms like rich, poor, and poverty in those passages relate to Christ's emptying (kenosis), and so forth, and come to understand just what concepts and meanings actually underlie those words, we find rich = God, poor = man, and poverty = manhood.

Even the English renderings can be instructive here. Compare the relevant passage with the formulary of the doctrine of deification enunciated by the early writers.

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.

God became man, so that through his manhood you may become God.

The "rich becoming poor" refers to the Kenosis of Christ. So, taking the passage with that in mind, to what does the second part of the passage refer? Even Mark the Ascetic in The Philokalia maintained that this passage referred to Christ and to the doctrine of theosis. Of course, this was well after the solidifying of the later concept of Trinity.

But, there are many passages in the Greek New Testament that hint at far more than the redefined doctrine of theosis of later Orthodoxy. But, one must read carefully to see it all. When the Greek New Testament says that we will attain to the holiness of God, share the nature of God that makes him what he is, will have unity with the Father and Son and with one another just like their unity, and that we will have the same glory and come into the same realm of power as God the Son, and to rule and reign over the kosmos and the very angels, it means it. It is no mere "idealistic gas"--to coin a phrase.

I just wish the English translations could better get across the full meanings of the texts.

Edited May 22, 2013 by MormonMason

[Darren10]

Spammer;

I'm glad you enjoyed Vajda's article. He is very knowledgable in Christian theology. Here's some quick reactions to your comments:

God is unknowable in his essence.

"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." - John 17:3 (bold mine).

We remain created humans and unite only with His energies in theosis. We do not unite with God's essence. We are human in essence and will remain human.

Bringing back my previous point that "man becoming God" is strange amongst Christians except for the LDS. Here I find you limiting what it means "becoming God". What I'm reading from you is that man cannot "become God".

We are not literally God's offspring.

But biblically-speaking we *are* God's offspring. "28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. 29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device." - Acts 17. As previously posted, "offspring" is from the Greek "genos" which means kind, kindred, family, and descenddnt. I do not see how being called God's offspring means anything but somethng literal.

Only God is divine in his essence. Humans and God are not the same species.

Again I see you rushing to make sure I know that man doesn't really "become God", nor is it possible he can according to your model.

"Offspring" - http://biblesuite.co.../genos_1085.htm

Edited May 22, 2013 by Darren10

[Darren10]

I know Lorenzo Snow's couplet is quoted often, though Gordon B. Hinckley seems to have deemphasized it.

You're reading bad sources regarding Hinkley.

Athanasius and other others meant something very specific by the statements they coined and that something is better captured by Vadja's description of theosis than his description of exaltation.

Actually, Vajda wrote another article arguing that the LDS belief in exaltation is better situated amongst the patristic teachings of theosis. And he made that argument while Catholic. I could not find the article. I'll post its title here and my source.

It seems the Pres. Snow's couplet, or something like it, is a much better phrase to use to describe the LDS view. It better captures the unique nature of LDS teachings about exaltation, namely that God is an exalted man and that we are literally his spiritual offspring. Athanasius et al meant something much different when they said things like " God became man so that man could become God."

What do you base that conclusion of Athanasius from?

Vajda's article in question: "'Partakers of the Divine Nature': A Comparative Analysis of Patristic and Mormon Doctrines of Divinization". I can't find it on the web as of yet.

Source for Vajda: Do any objective, qualified, non-Mormon experts agree that early Christians thought that they could become gods?

EXCERPT:

Yes! For example, there is Father Jordan Vajda, who, as a Dominican Catholic Priest, completed his master's thesis in 1998 at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley. His thesis, "'Partakers of the Divine Nature': A Comparative Analysis of Patristic and Mormon Doctrines of Divinization," argues that LDS theology is surprisingly consistent with early Christian thought.

Here are two excerpts cited by Daniel C. Petersen ("Editor's Introduction: American Apocrypha?", FARMS Review of Books, Vol. 13, No. 1, 2001, ix-xvi). The first is from the beginning of the thesis:

Members of the LDS Church will discover that their fundamental belief about human salvation and potential is not unique of a Mormon invention. Latin Catholics and Protestants will learn of a doctrine that, while relatively foreign to their ears, is nevertheless part of the heritage of the undivided Catholic Church of the first millennium. Members of Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches will discover on the American continent an amazing parallel to their own belief that salvation in Christ involves our becoming "partakers of the divine nature." (p. 14)

Then, referring to the anti-Mormon propaganda of Ed Decker in the "God Makers," Father Vajda states:

[T]he Mormons are truly "godmakers": as the [LDS] 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.

(pp. 94-95, emphasis mine)

(2004 Update: Father Vajda is now Brother Vajda. Intrigued by what he learned of LDS doctrine, after he completed his thesis, he accepted the challenge to meet with the missionaries and made the bold decision to be baptized as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints! Marvelous news. He has made a big sacrifice to do this, but what a marvelous example and testimony of the divinely restored nature of LDS doctrine.)

Father Vajda, as a Catholic priest and scholar, prepared a serious thesis on the topic of human divinization. His scholarly work could not be dismissed as mere apologetics from one of us biased Latter-day Saints (or "mopologists" as the antis like to say). Though non-LDs at the time of his research on deification, he came away highly impressed with the LDS position--so impressed that he would eventually join the Church and abandon his career plans.

Edited May 22, 2013 by Darren10

[MormonMason]

I prefer the definition of genos in both BAGD and BADG. The definition therein preferred for the word genos in Acts 17:28 is "descendants of a common ancestor." The Greeks believed that Zeus was the father of gods and men. They knew what Aratus meant when he penned those words and what Paul meant when he quoted those words at the Areopagus to them to lead up to what he wanted them to understand about God their unknown God. They would have taken those word somewhat literally and the argument was that those who were descendants of God ought to be looking and seeking for him, and trying to understand him better than they did.

[Spammer]

Spammer;

I'm glad you enjoyed Vajda's article. He is very knowledgable in Christian theology. Here's some quick reactions to your comments:

"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." - John 17:3 (bold mine).

Hi Darren10,

I'm only relating what the Orthodox believe about the essence-energy distinction, and what the ECFs actually believed about the nature of God. I'm not all that keen on quoting scripture back and forth. The standard prooftexts are ambiguous and scholars who can read Greek and Hebrew disagree. The interpretive framework is what counts. That said, I thought Vadja did a great job describing what we Orthodox believe about how we know the unknowable God. The energies-essence distinction is very important in Eastern Christian thought, especially in Palamas's writings. I'm not trying to make a case for it by mentioning it. Catholic thought doesn't really dwell on that distinction like the Orthodox do, but for us it contains the key to how we know the Father.

Regarding John 17:3, Palamas and the Orthodox tradition teaches that in theosis we will know the Father, by participating directly in his energies in a completely unmediated way. We will literally be united with the Father in his energies while retaining our individuality. We also know the Father through the Son. "If you have seen me you have seen the Father". Since they are one God, the Incarnation enables us to know God within the material creation since God in the person of the Son entered His creation and united Himself with matter. He became one of us. We can now know the Father in a direct, material way since we can know the Son who became man. One day we will stand before the resurrected Christ in the flesh, rather than just hear stories about Jesus.

There are thus two ways in the Orthodox tradition that we can know the Father. We can know Him through Jesus and we will know Him by participating directly in his energies, uniting ourselves with those energies (theosis). These two ways of knowing the Father are interrelated. The Son joined his essential divine nature to our human nature; in Christ, we will join our essential human nature to God's energies (not his essence). Unlike Jesus, we will remain 100% created humans in our essence, but permeated throughout by God's energies. We will be small 'g' gods, not God. There is only one God. We will not be god as God is God. We will not suddently acquire an uncreated, divine essence. Only God has a divine essence. Only the uncreated is divine. Jesus is God by nature in his divine essence; we will by gods by grace, not by nature, as our essence is and always will be created and human.

Our beliefs in God's true nature are basis for all of this. We don't believe the Father is an exalted man, so being brought into His presence cannot mean that we'll be able to run up to the Father and give him a hug. That's not what it means to know the Father. The Father is immaterial. Only the Son was incarnate and was made man. This is how all of the NT scriptures and ECF writings are intepreted, from within that framework. It begins with the premise that God is immaterial, residing beyond space and time, which just so happens to be the premise of the ECFs who Mormons quote when they discuss theosis.

Bringing back my previous point that "man becoming God" is strange amongst Christians axcept for the LDS. Here I find you limiting what it means "becoming God". What I'm reading from you is that man cannot "become God".

It's only limiting if you start from the premise that the Father is an exalted man and material in nature. We begin from a different premise. Our belief in the nature of theosis does mean that we will not be exactly what the Father is, nor will we be exactly what the Son is, since Father and Son, with the Spirit, uniquely share the one divine essence. We will not acquire that essence, which is outside time and space. We will be divinized through participation in God's energies, or through union with his active immaterial presence in the material creation.

But biblically-speaking we *are* God's offspring. "28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. 29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device." - Acts 17. as previously posted, "offspring" is from the Greek "genos" which means kind, kindred, family, and descendent. I do not see how being called God's offspring means anything but somethng literal.

Your reading once again assumes an embodied, material Father residing within space and time. A different reading is possible if you begin from the premise that God is immaterial and outside space and time. The ECFs and the tradition that decided that the writings of Paul and Acts are worthy of use and gave them to you certainly dont' interpret those verses the way the LDS church interprets it. The ECFs and that tradition began from the premise that the Father is immaterial.

Again I see you rushing to make sure I know that man doesn't really "become God", nor is it possible he can according to your model.

"Offspring" - http://biblesuite.co.../genos_1085.htm

If you work from within the orthodox catholic tradition, it's paradigm, it's isn't possible to really "become God", i.e., become exactly what God is in his essence and nature. It's only limiting if you work from within the LDS tradition and begin with the premise that God is an exalted man and that God and man are the same species. I'm only seeking to clarify what the orthodox tradition and the ECFs teach about theosis. IMO, it also just so happens to be the tradition that better fits what the standard quoted ECFs actually wrote, since that tradition and the ECFs believe that the Father is immaterial. But there's debate over the true nature of God. That's why we're chatting. But the paradigm comes first; translating individual greek terms and interpretation of verses comes second.

Edited May 22, 2013 by Spammer

[Spammer]

You're reading bad sources regarding Hinkley.

I'm only reporting what I'm hearing from LDS church members, both friends and family. There's some disagreement over what Hinckley meant. Some of them (the minority) use Hinckley's statement in 1997 to support their idea that God was never a man like us.

Actually, Vajda wrote another article arguing that the LDS belief in exaltation is better situated amongst the patristic teachings of theosis. And he made that argument while Catholic. I could not find the article. I'll post its title here and my source.

It all comes down to your paradigm. Everything else is interpretation within that framework. And, as should be obvious, I reject your paradigm!

What do you base that conclusion of Athanasius from?

Athanasis believed in a transcendant, immaterial God. He was a believer in orthodox Nicene creedalism. He believed this, and wrote about it, even before the Nicene Council. He was it's most ardent defender afterward. Understanding what Athanasius meant by his statement must begin from the the fact that he believed that God is an immaterial spirit, one divine essence in three persons. He and I share that interpretive framework.

Vajda's article in question: "'Partakers of the Divine Nature': A Comparative Analysis of Patristic and Mormon Doctrines of Divinization". I can't find it on the web as of yet.

Source for Vajda: Do any objective, qualified, non-Mormon experts agree that early Christians thought that they could become gods?

EXCERPT:

Thanks for the info on Vadja. I agree with everything he said about theosis. We are indeed intended to become gods. Nothing attributed to Vadja written in the excerpt you provided contradicts the Orthodox view. A problem only arises when the LDS go further and assert that we will be exactly what the Father is, which is based on the teaching that the Father is material, an exalted man. If Vadja came to believe that, then it's no surprise he became a Mormon. But he didn't find support for that in ECFs who are quoted in reference to theosis. Support for the idea of a material Father living in space time is not found in the usual quoted ECFs.

Edited May 22, 2013 by Spammer

[volgadon]

I've been out of pocket for a while. I just saw this. Yes, I think maybe Fr. Zosima in Brothers K. Dostoevsky got the idea of Zosima, and much of Zosima's teaching in the novel, from a book he found on the Life of Starets (Elder) Leonid in the Optina Monastery in Russia.

http://orthodoxwiki....eonid_of_Optina

Dostoevsky of course changed much to suit his own conceptions, but the monastery of Optina Pustyn did have a profound influence on him, and the Brothers Karamzov is saturated with Hesychastic notions. Definitely tome for me to reread it.

[Darren10]

Spammer #122;

We will be small 'g' gods, not God. There is only one God.

Therefore Jesus did not become man so that man 'may become God' is what you are saying.

so being brought into His presence cannot mean that we'll be able to run up to the Father and give him a hug

Don't care what faith you're in, that's just sad.

It begins with the premise that God is immaterial

I don't know of an LDS apologist who quotes the Early Christian Fathers for support in immateriality. in fact, since that's entirely nonbiblical, why should believing it be of any importance to a Christian?

It's only limiting if you start from the premise that the Father is an exalted man and material in nature.

Exaltation of man "to become God" is not in the least limiting, sir. Even if the premesis is that the Father is an exalted man. God being exalted is the key. Jesus christ is an exalted man yet I hardly think you'll find it limiting to say that deification is to become like Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is also material. I don't know of any Christians who believe He got rid of His human body after ascending to heaven. The body, it seems, is a tool which empowers one's spirit in the eternities.

Your reading once again assumes an embodied, material Father residing within space and time. A different reading is possible if you begin from the premise that God is immaterial and outside space and time. The ECFs and the tradition that decided that the writings of Paul and Acts are worthy of use and gave them to you certainly dont' interpret those verses the way the LDS church interprets it. The ECFs and that tradition began from the premise that the Father is immaterial.

You mentioned that seeing Jesus is seeing the Father and Jesus is embodied and takes up space and time, no? In fact, Jesus declared the doctrine of seeing Him is seeing the Father while embodied and while taking up space and time. How the Early Christian Fathers came to conclude that God is immaterial is controversial howbeit largly accepted as an eternal paradigm.

"Even the presumption that spirit means being immaterial is not scriptural, and is the product of later thinking: "in Scripture...there is no indication that by spirit and soul were meant any such principles as form or immateriality."^[2]"

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_the_nature_of_God/Corporality

" For it is also to be a subject of investigation how God himself is to be understood—whether as corporeal, and formed according to some shape, or of a different nature from bodies—a point which is not clearly indicated in our teaching.^[9]"

http://en.fairmormon.org/Nature_of_God/Corporeality_of_God

If you work from within the orthodox catholic tradition, it's paradigm, it's isn't possible to really "become God",

Thak you!!! So when Iranaeus said "man may become God" you must specify that he did not really mean "man may become God", correct? But within LDS theological circles, that's very much what it means.

and that God and man are the same species

How is beginning with the premise that man is of the same essence of an exalted, omnipotent being limiting to man?

But the paradigm comes first; translating individual greek terms and interpretation of verses comes second.

You're saying philosophy comes first, doctrine second. I tend to hold to the inverse as truth.

And, as should be obvious, I reject your paradigm!

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!

But that's OK. The Bible rejects yours.