5 things Latter-day Saints should know about ancient Christians

[smac97]

Very cool article at LDS Living: 5 things Latter-day Saints should know about ancient Christians

Quote

As we prepare to read the New Testament for Come, Follow Me in 2023, there are many ways that we can enhance our study.
...
One way to follow this counsel is by turning our hearts to our spiritual ancestors, our ancient Christian fathers and mothers who lived in the centuries after the mortal ministry of Jesus and his Apostles. Here are five things that Latter-day Saints should know about these ancient Christians.

 

1. They taught that becoming like God begins in this life.

As early as AD 180, Irenaeus of Lyons taught that Christ became “what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself.”¹ This idea was reaffirmed by other ancient Christians. For instance, Athanasius of Alexandria (ca. AD 296–373) wrote that Jesus Christ, the Word of God, “assumed humanity”—that is, he took on all that it means to be human—“that we might become God.”²

Ancient Christians had different understandings from Latter-day Saints regarding what it meant to become like God. Professor Daniel Becerra explains: “Irenaeus and Athanasius understood God (as Creator) and humans (as creations) as different species, so to speak, rather than the same species albeit at different points of development.”³ Despite this important distinction, Latter-day Saints can still find this ancient Christian teaching insightful and edifying.

I agree with this.  I think we need to allow the leaders of the Primitive Church the same sort of parameters we have for modern prophets and apostles.  Perhaps these parameters ought to be even more broadly construed for folks like Irenaeus given the disparity in circumstances and information.

In any event, there sure seems to be a good amount of overlap between 

Iranaeus: "What we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself") and

Lorenzo Snow: “As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may become.”

Dan Peterson wrote about this back in 2015:

Quote

In the second century, Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, who is arguably the most important Christian theologian of his time (about A.D. 130-200), said much the same thing as President Snow: “If the Word became a man, it was so men may become gods.”

Similarly, Irenaeus' rough contemporary Clement of Alexandria (about A.D. 150-215) wrote, “Yea, I say, the Word of God became a man so that you might learn from a man how to become a god.” And, referring to the famous pagan pre-Socratic philosopher Heraclitus, Clement endorsed his declaration that “Men are gods, and gods are men.” This recalls the apostle Paul’s approving citation of the third-century B.C. pagan poet Aratus of Cilicia to a pagan audience in Athens (Acts 17:28-29): Paul taught that humans are God’s “offspring.”
...

Earlier in the second century, St. Justin Martyr (about A.D. 100-165) insisted that humans can be “deemed worthy of becoming gods and of having power to become sons of the highest.” Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria (about A.D. 296-373), also stated his belief in deification in terms very similar to those of Lorenzo Snow: “The Word was made flesh in order that we might be enabled to be made gods.” On another occasion, Athanasius observed that “He became man that we might be made divine.” Finally, Augustine of Hippo (A.D. 354-430), perhaps the greatest of the early Christian Fathers, said: “But he himself that justifies also deifies, for by justifying he makes sons of God. ‘For he has given them power to become the sons of God’ (John 1:12). If then we have been made sons of god, we have also been made gods.”

These five writers weren’t just orthodox Christians; in time, they were revered as saints. Three of them wrote within roughly a century of the apostles. Human deification was part of historical Christianity until relatively recent times, and a form of it still exists in some Eastern Christian churches. One scholar states that recognizing “the history of the universe as the history of divinization and salvation” was fundamental to ancient orthodox Christianity: “Because the Spirit is truly God, we are truly divinized by the presence of the Spirit.”

Whether one accepts or rejects the doctrine of human deification, it was clearly taught in very early Christianity. Joseph Smith obviously didn’t make it up. Instead, Latter-day Saints believe, it’s an eternal truth miraculously restored through a modern prophet.

Back to the original article:

Quote

2. They believed the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are distinct personages.

The word Trinity (Latin, trinitas) was first used by a Christian named Tertullian around AD 200.⁵ He used the term to encapsulate his belief that the Father and the Son were distinct persons who were one in other ways. Latter-day Saints have sometimes assumed that Christians who accept the Nicene Creed (AD 325) believe that God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one person. After all, the creed states that God the Father and the Son are homoousios—a Greek word sometimes translated as “same substance” or “one being.” Yet this term was clarified by the Council of Chalcedon (AD 451) in the following way: Jesus Christ is “one substance [homoousios] with the Father as regards his divinity, and … one substance [homoousios] with us as regards his humanity.”⁶

In other words, Jesus is “one substance” with the Father just as he is “one substance” with us humans—and clearly we are not the same person as Jesus. For ancient Christians, the terms “being” and “person” meant different things. Christians used the term “being” to describe the oneness of God, the divine nature of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. These same Christians also affirmed that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are three distinct “persons.”

Elder Jeffrey R. Holland taught, “I think I am safe in saying that part of the reason we are so misunderstood by others in the Christian tradition is because in stressing the individual personages of the Godhead, we have not followed that up often enough by both conceding and insisting upon Their unity in virtually every other imaginable way. For this we have reaped needless criticism, and we have made our LDS position harder to be understood than it needs to be.” Understanding how ancient Christians described their beliefs about the nature of God can help us appreciate the beliefs of others and more accurately understand and explain our own beliefs.

This is helpful stuff.

Quote

5. We may not always agree with ancient Christians, but we can still learn from them.

Latter-day Saints who seek to understand our ancient Christian ancestors will likely not agree with everything we find in their writings or view in the art and architecture they left behind. Although many of our core beliefs are the same, ancient Christians who lived in the centuries after Jesus’s Apostles believed and practiced some things that differ from what has been revealed to the Latter-day Saints.

Of course, we should expect to encounter some differences because God speaks to different peoples “according to their language, unto their understanding” (see 2 Nephi 31:3; see also Doctrine and Covenants 1:24). Keeping this in mind, Latter-day Saints can benefit from studying both similarities and differences in a spirit of charity. In so doing, we follow Christ’s admonition: “As ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise” (Luke 6:31).

As we explore the world of ancient Christianity in a spirit of humility and love, we will discover new richness and new understanding about our own beliefs and practices, and we will come to understand better many of our fellow Christians today. I believe that turning our hearts to our ancient Christian fathers and mothers is part of what President Brigham Young had in mind when he encouraged us to seek truth among other churches and gather it to Zion.

Very good.

Thanks,

-Smac

[teddyaware]

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

Very cool article at LDS Living: 5 things Latter-day Saints should know about ancient Christians

I agree with this.  I think we need to allow the leaders of the Primitive Church the same sort of parameters we have for modern prophets and apostles.  Perhaps these parameters ought to be even more broadly construed for folks like Irenaeus given the disparity in circumstances and information.

In any event, there sure seems to be a good amount of overlap between 

Iranaeus: "What we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself") and

Lorenzo Snow: “As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may become.”

Dan Peterson wrote about this back in 2015:

Back to the original article:

This is helpful stuff.

Very good.

Thanks,

-Smac

Any informed Catholic or Protestant will tell you that their churches teach the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three separate and distinct personages. They will go even further by assuring you that the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are not three different manifestations of one divine personage (the heresy of modalism).

So wherein do we Latter-Day Saints actually differ from the Catholics and Protestants with regard to nature the Godhead? They teach that the three separate and distinct personage of the Godhead are all of one divine substance, but said mysterious unifying substance is left undefined. Meanwhile the the Latter-Day Saints’ Lectures on Faith asserts that each of the three members of the Godhead are filled to eternal fulness with an uncreated spiritual substance called the  Spirit of Truth or Light of Truth.

So when you get right down to it, I believe there are basically three ways that we Latter-Day Saints differ from the Catholics and Protestants on the nature of the Godhead.

1) Unlike the Catholics and Protestants, we are able to define the spiritual substance that fills and unifies each member of the Godhead. (Lest any misunderstand, the primary reason why the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are of one purpose and of one mind is because all three are filled with an infinite and eternal outpouring of the Spirit of Truth. Just as the only way the Church can achieve unity is through the unity of the Spirit, so also the only way the Godhead is able to achieve its perfect unity is through the unity of the Spirit.

2) Unlike the Catholics and Protestants, we believe all three members of the Godhead are material beings.

3) Unlike the Catholics and Protestants, we’ve believe God the Father has a glorified material body of flesh and bones.

 

Edited December 16, 2022 by teddyaware

[InCognitus]

From the article:

Quote

Ancient Christians had different understandings from Latter-day Saints regarding what it meant to become like God. Professor Daniel Becerra explains: “Irenaeus and Athanasius understood God (as Creator) and humans (as creations) as different species, so to speak, rather than the same species albeit at different points of development.”³ Despite this important distinction, Latter-day Saints can still find this ancient Christian teaching insightful and edifying.

It is definitely true that Athanasius had a different understanding regarding what it meant to become like God.  And Irenaeus did too, but his views were less developed on this (it seems to me), because he was living at a time (c. 175 - c. 195 AD) when the doctrine of creation ex-nihilo (creation out of nothing) had just been adopted as a way to explain the greatness of the Christian God.  

Some of what Irenaeus taught on men becoming gods sounds like he hadn't fully stepped over the edge after adopting the doctrine of creation out of nothing.  Even though he refers to the difference between men and God to be the "created" compared to the "uncreated" (we even hold a similar view with respect to our current existence), he discusses the differences in purely relative terms.  For example:

Quote

If, however, any one say, "What then? Could not God have exhibited man as perfect from beginning?" let him know that, inasmuch as God is indeed always the same and unbegotten as respects Himself, all things are possible to Him. But created things must be inferior to Him who created them, from the very fact of their later origin; for it was not possible for things recently created to have been uncreated. But inasmuch as they are not uncreated, for this very reason do they come short of the perfect. Because, as these things are of later date, so are they infantile; so are they unaccustomed to, and unexercised in, perfect discipline. For as it certainly is in the power of a mother to give strong food to her infant, [but she does not do so], as the child is not yet able to receive more substantial nourishment; so also it was possible for God Himself to have made man perfect from the first, but man could not receive this [perfection], being as yet an infant.

....in like manner, God had power at the beginning to grant perfection to man; but as the latter was only recently created, he could not possibly have received it, or even if he had received it, could he have contained it, or containing it, could he have retained it...   There was nothing, therefore, impossible to and deficient in God, [implied in the fact] that man was not an uncreated being; but this merely applied to him who was lately created, [namely] man.  (CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, IV.38 (St. Irenaeus))

And in the next chapter he continues the same line of thought:

Quote

2. How, then, shall he be a God, who has not as yet been made a man?  Or how can he be perfect who was but lately created?  How, again, can he be immortal, who in his mortal nature did not obey his Maker?  For it must be that thou, at the outset, shouldest hold the rank of a man, and then afterwards partake of the glory of God. For thou dost not make God, but God thee. If, then, thou art God's workmanship, await the hand of thy Maker which creates everything in due time; in due time as far as thou art concerned, whose creation is being carried out.  Offer to Him thy heart in a soft and tractable state, and preserve the form in which the Creator has fashioned thee, having moisture in thyself, lest, by becoming hardened, thou lose the impressions of His fingers. But by preserving the framework thou shalt ascend to that which is perfect, for the moist clay which is in thee is hidden [there] by the workmanship of God.  (CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, IV.39 (St. Irenaeus))

It's fascinating to see what doctrines were taught in early Christianity.

[RevTestament]

5 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Any informed Catholic or Protestant will tell you that their churches teach the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three separate and distinct personages. They will go even further by assuring you that the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are not three different manifestations of one divine personage (the heresy of modalism).

So wherein do we Latter-Day Saints actually differ from the Catholics and Protestants with regard to nature the Godhead? They teach that the three separate and distinct personage of the Godhead are all of one divine substance, but said mysterious unifying substance is left undefined. Meanwhile the the Latter-Day Saints’ Lectures on Faith asserts that each of the three members of the Godhead are filled to eternal fulness with an uncreated spiritual substance called the  Spirit of Truth or Light of Truth.

So when you get right down to it, I believe there are basically three ways that we Latter-Day Saints differ from the Catholics and Protestants on the nature of the Godhead.

1) Unlike the Catholics and Protestants, we are able to define the spiritual substance that fills and unifies each member of the Godhead. (Lest any misunderstand, the primary reason why the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are of one purpose and of one mind is because all three are filled with an infinite and eternal outpouring of the Spirit of Truth. Just as the only way the Church can achieve unity is through the unity of the Spirit, so also the only way the Godhead is able to achieve its perfect unity is through the unity of the Spirit.

2) Unlike the Catholics and Protestants, we believe all three members of the Godhead are material beings.

3) Unlike the Catholics and Protestants, we’ve believe God the Father has a glorified material body of flesh and bones.

I believe the differences extend a little further. More than these, I believe more importantly that we do not believe the Son is eternally begotten. That is one of my main differences with Catholicism. I have to go with the scriptural version that the Son was begotten when the Father said to Him "Thou art my Son. This DAY I have begotten thee." I believe this is central to what Christ was teaching us as so aptly pointed out by Smac, and is central to truly understanding not only the scriptures, but the nature of God. However, to say the Church has a concrete answer at present, I think would be stretching things. To solely focus on the first three points I think plays into their hands a little bit. There are some more minor differences, but this will suffice for now.

[3DOP]

16 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Any informed Catholic or Protestant will tell you that their churches teach the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three separate and distinct personages. They will go even further by assuring you that the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are not three different manifestations of one divine personage (the heresy of modalism).

So wherein do we Latter-Day Saints actually differ from the Catholics and Protestants with regard to nature the Godhead? They teach that the three separate and distinct personage of the Godhead are all of one divine substance, but said mysterious unifying substance is left undefined. Meanwhile the the Latter-Day Saints’ Lectures on Faith asserts that each of the three members of the Godhead are filled to eternal fulness with an uncreated spiritual substance called the  Spirit of Truth or Light of Truth.

So when you get right down to it, I believe there are basically three ways that we Latter-Day Saints differ from the Catholics and Protestants on the nature of the Godhead.

1) Unlike the Catholics and Protestants, we are able to define the spiritual substance that fills and unifies each member of the Godhead. (Lest any misunderstand, the primary reason why the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are of one purpose and of one mind is because all three are filled with an infinite and eternal outpouring of the Spirit of Truth. Just as the only way the Church can achieve unity is through the unity of the Spirit, so also the only way the Godhead is able to achieve its perfect unity is through the unity of the Spirit.

2) Unlike the Catholics and Protestants, we believe all three members of the Godhead are material beings.

3) Unlike the Catholics and Protestants, we’ve believe God the Father has a glorified material body of flesh and bones.

 

Hi Teddy. LDS chide Catholics because we don't know. I am inclined to chide LDS for thinking they DO know. Allow me to try say why neither side should chide the other. But this would only be if you could admit that like Catholics, the light LDS have received so far, is necessarily very dim.  

It is true as you say above that among Catholics, "the three separate and distinct personage of the Godhead are all of one divine substance, but said mysterious unifying substance is left undefined."

In apparently superior contrast to our mystery, you offer the LDS way of having things figured out: "Meanwhile the the Latter-Day Saints’ Lectures on Faith asserts that each of the three members of the Godhead are filled to eternal fulness with an uncreated spiritual substance called the  Spirit of Truth or Light of Truth."

I do not understand how LDS can think that anybody should have full, comprehensive, DEFINITIVE knowledge of something that is claimed to infinite. I am sorry that LDS find our acknowledged ignorance to be non-satisfactory. And I am sure I do not understand how this uncreated, presumably beneficent, spiritual substance explains and defines God for the Latter-day Saints. Is this substance a person? Or is It just a good "tool" that is available for which no one is responsible? I am not mocking. I am asking a couple of questions to discover how Latter-day revelation is "definitive" and how much remains cloaked in mystery.      

We do not say we know nothing. But it is revealed that faith is limited knowledge of many great truths that remain unrevealed, especially about the God whose attributes we know, and admire. We know we cannot appreciate what God must be like. But we worship and adore the Father, through His Son, Who seeing, we see His Father. When we love God our Father as we should, it is because He loved us before we even knew of Him, and because He and His Son sends us the Holy Ghost to comfort us.

"We see now through a glass in a dark manner; but then face to face. Now I know in part; but then I shall know even as I am known." (I Cor. 13:14)

The Catholic Church says that now is not the time for the kind of revelation that allows us to say "we have seen Him as He is". The Apostle described as the one who Jesus loved, St. John the Apostle, enjoyed an intimacy with God that allowed him to lean upon our Saviour's breast at the Last Supper. He probably heard the beating heart of His God. But he hadn't yet "seen Him as He is". St. John also denied that we can have definitive knowledge of what it means to be a CHILD of God. Why is this? Including himself, St. John goes even further and proclaims that the reason we cannot even know ourselves as God's children is because we are ignorant about what it means to be God! 

"Dearly beloved, we are now the sons of God; and it hath not yet appeared what we shall be. We know, that, when he shall appear, we shall be like to him: because we shall see him as he is." (I Jn. 3:2)

I have heard this same complaint about our "undefined God" multiple times over the years here. I have come to believe that it is an unreasonable expectation to hope that God will define Himself fully to anyone before the times spoken of by Sts. John and Paul the Apostles. Speaking of the mystery of the Eucharist in his massive work, The Mysteries of Christianity, Fr. Matthias Scheeben repeats with the Apostles what the Catholic Church teaches regarding the present condition and what remains to be revealed:

"Partaking of the Eucharist is, let us repeat, but the figure and pledge of the promised enjoyment of the divinity. The Eucharist is, as it were, the milk in which the divine food is adapted to our present powers of reception; some day it will be given to us in all its greatness."  

---Fr. Mattias Scheeben, The Mysteries of Christianity, B. Herder Book Co., St. Louis, MO, (1947), p. 527

I sincerely thank you Teddy for your remarks and hope that you might be able to appreciate some of my objections to your evaluation of the seeming poverty of Catholic mysteries. Yup. We know almost nothing. But praise be to the good God who is currently hidden from us for reasons that we could only understand another day, and perhaps very soon.   

Regards,

Rory
 

Edited December 16, 2022 by 3DOP

[Dario_M]

I am an member of the LDS church. So uhm.. what should i know about the ancient Christians   ??? 

[Eschaton]

Quote

2. They believed the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are distinct personages.

The word Trinity (Latin, trinitas) was first used by a Christian named Tertullian around AD 200.⁵ He used the term to encapsulate his belief that the Father and the Son were distinct persons who were one in other ways. Latter-day Saints have sometimes assumed that Christians who accept the Nicene Creed (AD 325) believe that God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one person. After all, the creed states that God the Father and the Son are homoousios—a Greek word sometimes translated as “same substance” or “one being.” Yet this term was clarified by the Council of Chalcedon (AD 451) in the following way: Jesus Christ is “one substance [homoousios] with the Father as regards his divinity, and … one substance [homoousios] with us as regards his humanity.”⁶

In other words, Jesus is “one substance” with the Father just as he is “one substance” with us humans—and clearly we are not the same person as Jesus. For ancient Christians, the terms “being” and “person” meant different things. Christians used the term “being” to describe the oneness of God, the divine nature of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. These same Christians also affirmed that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are three distinct “persons.”

Elder Jeffrey R. Holland taught, “I think I am safe in saying that part of the reason we are so misunderstood by others in the Christian tradition is because in stressing the individual personages of the Godhead, we have not followed that up often enough by both conceding and insisting upon Their unity in virtually every other imaginable way. For this we have reaped needless criticism, and we have made our LDS position harder to be understood than it needs to be.” Understanding how ancient Christians described their beliefs about the nature of God can help us appreciate the beliefs of others and more accurately understand and explain our own beliefs.

Yes, aside from modalists, almost all Christians, ancient and modern, believed Jesus to be a different person than the Father, even if they are "one God" and "one substance." Trinitarianism itself doesn't exist in any first century Christian documents, although the focus on the three (Father/Son/Spirit) begins in the first century, particularly in Matthew. 

As far as the Holy Spirit goes, that seems harder to nail down - some seemed to consider the Holy Spirt a person, others considered it the power of God and not a distinct person. 

 

Edited December 16, 2022 by Eschaton

[manol]

2 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Allow me to try say why neither side should chide the other. But this would only be if you could admit that like Catholics, the light LDS have received so far, is necessarily very dim.  

... praise be to the good God who is currently hidden from us for reasons that we could only understand another day, and perhaps very soon.  

Perhaps God doesn't give us case-closing answers when the searching, pondering, praying, and focusing of our attention induced by our desires for greater light and knowledge has its own worthwhile effect upon us.  In other words, perhaps mysteries are a divine teaching device in and of themselves because the contemplation they induce elevates us.  Perhaps the journey itself, rather than an eventual arrival at the destination (solution to the mystery), is the point.

Edited December 16, 2022 by manol

[3DOP]

54 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

 

If somebody wants to tell me how to get rid of this. I will do it...if I can. Otherwise ignore. Same for the one below.

 

On 12/15/2022 at 10:21 AM, smac97 said:

 

Edited December 16, 2022 by 3DOP

[CV75]

21 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Any informed Catholic or Protestant will tell you that their churches teach the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three separate and distinct personages. They will go even further by assuring you that the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are not three different manifestations of one divine personage (the heresy of modalism).

So wherein do we Latter-Day Saints actually differ from the Catholics and Protestants with regard to nature the Godhead? They teach that the three separate and distinct personage of the Godhead are all of one divine substance, but said mysterious unifying substance is left undefined. Meanwhile the the Latter-Day Saints’ Lectures on Faith asserts that each of the three members of the Godhead are filled to eternal fulness with an uncreated spiritual substance called the  Spirit of Truth or Light of Truth.

So when you get right down to it, I believe there are basically three ways that we Latter-Day Saints differ from the Catholics and Protestants on the nature of the Godhead.

1) Unlike the Catholics and Protestants, we are able to define the spiritual substance that fills and unifies each member of the Godhead. (Lest any misunderstand, the primary reason why the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are of one purpose and of one mind is because all three are filled with an infinite and eternal outpouring of the Spirit of Truth. Just as the only way the Church can achieve unity is through the unity of the Spirit, so also the only way the Godhead is able to achieve its perfect unity is through the unity of the Spirit.

2) Unlike the Catholics and Protestants, we believe all three members of the Godhead are material beings.

3) Unlike the Catholics and Protestants, we’ve believe God the Father has a glorified material body of flesh and bones.

 

I would say in your item "1)" that we are not defining a spiritual substance ("spiritual substance" being a finer and purer form of matter), except to the say that the Godhead is a union of kindred, even familial, Persons, all three of whom are of the finest and purest spirit matter, and two of whom are inseparably connected with the finest and purest of element matter. I would suggest that “fine” and “pure” are quantitative as well as qualitative properties. Where the glory of the body (element) is driven by the spirt, and the glory of the spirit is driven by agency, agency is the substance upon which godhood hinges – substance in this case being the essential nature of the personage possessing it, and glory being its expression.

[The_Monk]

Yep. I gave this a quick review (dissertation writing, not a ton of time) and added it to my shortlist of recommended books. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I would say in your item "1)" that we are not defining a spiritual substance ("spiritual substance" being a finer and purer form of matter), except to the say that the Godhead is a union of kindred, even familial, Persons, all three of whom are of the finest and purest spirit matter, and two of whom are inseparably connected with the finest and purest of element matter. I would suggest that “fine” and “pure” are quantitative as well as qualitative properties. Where the glory of the body (element) is driven by the spirt, and the glory of the spirit is driven by agency, agency is the substance upon which godhood hinges – substance in this case being the essential nature of the personage possessing it, and glory being its expression.

Agency is an ability, not sure “substance” is an appropriate description of it even if godhood is dependent on having agency. 
 

The relevant substance might be whatever gives them the pure agency they have. 

Edited December 17, 2022 by Calm

[CV75]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

Agency is an ability, not sure “substance” is an appropriate description of it even if godhood is dependent on having agency. 
 

The relevant substance might be whatever gives them the pure agency they have. 

Yes, there can be an infinite regression in this; "agency" is as far back as I could describe it.  I use "substance" as "essential nature" in this case, the essential nature of intelligence being its agency, or ability to choose. I am not using "substance" as "a particular kind of matter (tangible or not) with uniform properties," like "Evil" in the movie Time Bandits where it is a substance in the form of a chunk of burning, coal-like matter.

I am also speaking of drivers, not dependencies since at some point all these attributes are integrated aspects of intelligence as it expands and progresses from more fundamental to more advanced estates.

I believe as God gave us agency (the essential conditions under which our essential nature could be fully exercised), someone gave it to Him/Them (the couplet). So, He would be the driver of our agency, and someone else the driver for His. The mystery for us may be temporally comprehending this eternal round along with the concept of "gnolaum" but the concepts themselves are very simple. We can give others agency, at least advancing their agency, by doing the same within our scope of life (it is the opposite of unrighteous dominion).

 

[TheTanakas]

22 hours ago, Eschaton said:

As far as the Holy Spirit goes, that seems harder to nail down - some seemed to consider the Holy Spirt a person, others considered it the power of God and not a distinct person. 

https://www.ldsliving.com/4-things-we-know-about-the-holy-ghost/s/91381

In a sermon delivered in 1857, President Heber C. Kimball stated: “The Holy Ghost is 
a man; he is one of the sons of our Father and our God; and he is that man that stood 
next to Jesus Christ, just as I stand by Brother Brigham.”

[Eschaton]

35 minutes ago, TheTanakas said:

https://www.ldsliving.com/4-things-we-know-about-the-holy-ghost/s/91381

In a sermon delivered in 1857, President Heber C. Kimball stated: “The Holy Ghost is 
a man; he is one of the sons of our Father and our God; and he is that man that stood 
next to Jesus Christ, just as I stand by Brother Brigham.”

I was talking about early first century Christian beliefs, not 19th century LDS beliefs. 

[theplains]

On 12/15/2022 at 10:11 PM, InCognitus said:

It is definitely true that Athanasius had a different understanding regarding what it meant to become like God. 

I read the article that you referred to but I don't see the early Christians equating 'becoming like God' to
'becoming Gods'. 

If my understanding of LDS theology is correct, exalted beings are those who 'become Gods' and inherit
the highest level in the Celestial Kingdom.  

Are these so-called Gods omnipotent too like Heavenly Mother is taught to be?  

O How Great the Plan of Our God!
By President Dieter F. Uchtdorf
Second Counselor in the First Presidency

We are the literal spirit children of divine, immortal, and omnipotent Heavenly Parents.

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

I read the article that you referred to but I don't see the early Christians equating 'becoming like God' to
'becoming Gods'. 

The article I referred to in my post is the same one referenced in the opening post.  The bullet point in the article (relevant to your comment) says (of the early Christians):  "1. They taught that becoming like God begins in this life."  Latter-day Saints also teach that becoming like God begins in this life.  

But if you are trying to claim that the early Christians didn't teach that men could "become Gods", then you should read the other two links (from Irenaeus) and the quotes from him that I included in my post.  What did Irenaeus mean when he asked:  "How, then, shall he be a God, who has not as yet been made a man?"  He goes into great depth in those two chapters (Against Heresies, Book IV, chapter 38 and chapter 39), about how men are to become "gods", or to "be a God".  

1 hour ago, theplains said:

If my understanding of LDS theology is correct, exalted beings are those who 'become Gods' and inherit
the highest level in the Celestial Kingdom.  

They become "gods", or "Gods".  It could be written either way.  It's explained in similar ways in the writings of the early Christians.  This is what Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170–235 AD) wrote:  "And thou shalt be a companion of the Deity, and a co-heir with Christ, no longer enslaved by lusts or passions, and never again wasted by disease. For thou hast become God" (Hippolytus - Refutation Book 10 Ch. 30)

1 hour ago, theplains said:

O How Great the Plan of Our God!
By President Dieter F. Uchtdorf
Second Counselor in the First Presidency

We are the literal spirit children of divine, immortal, and omnipotent Heavenly Parents.

What is "omnipotence" to you?   Is Jesus omnipotent?  When one receives "all power" from the Father (as Jesus did from his Father - Matthew 28:18, Rev 5:12), doesn't that make that being omnipotent?  Those who overcome will sit with God in his throne and they are given power over the nations (Rev 3:21 and 2:26).  What's the difference here?

Do you agree with what the article in the opening post is saying?  

[Damien the Leper]

Here, here and here are great articles on Orthodox teaching of theosis.

[theplains]

On 12/19/2022 at 6:46 PM, InCognitus said:

For thou hast become God" (Hippolytus - Refutation Book 10 Ch. 30)

I don't agree with the teachings that man can become gods (Deities).    It was this sort of temptation
that caused the original sin (the Fall).

“You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know
and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any
after me" (Isaiah 43:10, ESV). 
 

On 12/19/2022 at 6:46 PM, InCognitus said:

What is "omnipotence" to you?   Is Jesus omnipotent?  When one receives "all power" from the Father (as Jesus did from his Father - Matthew 28:18, Rev 5:12), doesn't that make that being omnipotent?  Those who overcome will sit with God in his throne and they are given power over the nations (Rev 3:21 and 2:26).  What's the difference here?

Do you agree with what the article in the opening post is saying? 

Yes. Jesus is omnipotent in the sense that God has all power and that he is God from eternity past. But we
also have to consider that "all power" can also mean someone who is not omnipotent; as in the coming of
a future wicked one who will deceive many.

"Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders (2
Thessalonians 2:9).

Regarding how I viewed the article:

1. They taught that becoming like God begins in this life.
Yes. But not become God.

2. They believed the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are distinct personages.
Yes. But not 3 Gods like Joseph Smith taught.

3. They found scriptural symbolism in their sacred ordinances.
Yes.

4. They powerfully taught about the Atonement of Jesus Christ.
Yes.

5. We may not always agree with ancient Christians, but we can still learn from them.
Yes. But many a false gospel principle has been taught when people have not agreed with biblical
teachings.

[teddyaware]

2 hours ago, theplains said:

I don't agree with the teachings that man can become gods (Deities).    It was this sort of temptation
that caused the original sin (the Fall).

“You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know
and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any
after me" (Isaiah 43:10, ESV). 
 

Yes. Jesus is omnipotent in the sense that God has all power and that he is God from eternity past. But we
also have to consider that "all power" can also mean someone who is not omnipotent; as in the coming of
a future wicked one who will deceive many.

"Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders (2
Thessalonians 2:9).

Regarding how I viewed the article:

1. They taught that becoming like God begins in this life.
Yes. But not become God.

2. They believed the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are distinct personages.
Yes. But not 3 Gods like Joseph Smith taught.

3. They found scriptural symbolism in their sacred ordinances.
Yes.

4. They powerfully taught about the Atonement of Jesus Christ.
Yes.

5. We may not always agree with ancient Christians, but we can still learn from them.
Yes. But many a false gospel principle has been taught when people have not agreed with biblical
teachings.

It appears you believe that in spite of his omnipotence and omniscience God is incapable of sharing the fullness of his power and glory with his own special creation whom he made in his own divine image, likeness and glory? And it seems you believe this even though he has solemnly promised those who overcome the world that they will become joint heirs with Christ and inherit all things that he himself possesses as the Son of God, including the right to rule and reign as kings and priests throughout eternity?

16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

17 And if children, then heirs  of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. (Romans

And…

19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. (Revelation 3)

And…

6 And he said unto me, It is done. I an Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.

7 He that over cometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. (Revelation 21)

 

Edited December 22, 2022 by teddyaware

[Teancum]

On 12/15/2022 at 9:14 PM, teddyaware said:

Meanwhile the the Latter-Day Saints’ Lectures on Faith asserts that each of the three members of the Godhead are filled to eternal fulness with an uncreated spiritual substance called the  Spirit of Truth or Light of Truth.

Lecture Five teaches the father is a personage of spirit, the son of tabernacle and the HG the mind of God.

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Lecture Five teaches the father is a personage of spirit, the son of tabernacle and the HG the mind of God.

Yep, we believe in continuing revelation, so no surprise here, right?

[Teancum]

36 minutes ago, Calm said:

Yep, we believe in continuing revelation, so no surprise here, right?

Nope.  Lots of problems here.  Remember JS said the first principle of the gospel is to know God and His attributes and character.  Well those items have been ever changing in LDS theology. So no. Continuing revelation does not help you here.

[Calm]

What makes you think by that he meant we had to know what God was first rather than it being the most important principle we were to learn in our existence, since to be one with God we must know who is he?

He also said the first principle of the gospel was faith.  If we have true knowledge of God, there is no need for faith.  Thus it makes sense that one principle needs to come first (faith) while the other is the ultimate of what we are aiming towards, our first priority in life (knowledge of God so we can become like him and one with him).

Edited December 22, 2022 by Calm

[InCognitus]

5 hours ago, theplains said:

I don't agree with the teachings that man can become gods (Deities).    

So you don't agree with the early Christians teachings on this.   Why do you suppose that the earliest Christians (those who lived closest to the time of Jesus and the apostles) taught that men become gods, but most Christians today don't teach those things anymore? 

5 hours ago, theplains said:

“You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know
and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any
after me" (Isaiah 43:10, ESV). 

This verse doesn't mean what you think it means.  We've already discussed Isaiah 43:10, remember?   See this post from me to you on 09/16/2019.  And you may want to read this thread from June 21, 2011.

5 hours ago, theplains said:

Yes. Jesus is omnipotent in the sense that God has all power

Except Jesus was given this power from his Father, he didn't always have that power.

5 hours ago, theplains said:

and that he is God from eternity past.

What scripture says this about Jesus?  And don't quote the "from everlasting to everlasting" verses.  We've already discussed that "from everlasting" can't possibly mean from all eternity past (see 07/09/2022, 07/25/2022,  08/10/2022, 10/30/2022, and probably several other places).

5 hours ago, theplains said:

But we
also have to consider that "all power" can also mean someone who is not omnipotent; as in the coming of
a future wicked one who will deceive many.

"Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders (2
Thessalonians 2:9).

That's not the same kind of "power" in that verse.  2 Thes 2:9 uses the Greek word dynámei, which refers to miraculous power or "mighty deeds" (as it is used in Matthew 7:22).  But when Jesus said that "all power is given unto me in heaven and in earth", it is the Greek word exousía, which refers to magisterial power or authority.  There is a difference.

5 hours ago, theplains said:

Regarding how I viewed the article:

1. They taught that becoming like God begins in this life.
Yes. But not become God.

They taught that men become "gods", or even "God" (as my prior quotes showed).  They taught that there are many "gods".   Do you dispute that they taught those things?  Or do you just disagree with what they taught?

5 hours ago, theplains said:

2. They believed the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are distinct personages.
Yes. But not 3 Gods like Joseph Smith taught.

Actually, the pre-Nicene early Christians taught that Jesus is the "second God"  (Origen Against Celsus, book V chapter XXXIX,  Lactantius, The Divine Institutes - Book IV, Chap. VI), or that Jesus is "another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things” (Justin Martyr, Dialog of Justin with Trypho, a Jew, ch LVI ). Or that "the nature of the Son, which is nearest to Him who is alone the Almighty One, is the most perfect, and most holy, and most potent, and most princely, and most kingly, and most beneficent."  (Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, Book VII, Chapter 2).  Or even that Jesus, "the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him" (Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book II, Chapter 2).   That sounds very similar to what Joseph Smith taught, doesn't it?

5 hours ago, theplains said:

5. We may not always agree with ancient Christians, but we can still learn from them.
Yes. But many a false gospel principle has been taught when people have not agreed with biblical
teachings.

False gospels also arise when true teachings that are found in the Bible are ignored while other teachings are emphasized.  The teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are completely in harmony with doctrines found in the Bible.