Ontology, the Transcendence of God, and Theosis

[InCognitus]

I have a very thoughtful and respectful Christian friend, and he and I share an interest in the writings of the early Christian fathers.  Recently we have been discussing the Latter-day Saint views on exaltation (as discussed in the Gospel Topic essay:  Becoming Like God) as compared with the early Christian views on deification or Theosis (or divinization, as some call it), which is the early Christian teaching that men can become "gods".  The early Christian views on Theosis that we have been discussing are all from within the second century AD (or pretty close to that).  Our recent discussion has centered on differences in ontology (i.e. the nature of being) between humanity and God, and the difference between the "created" and the "uncreated".  

There are a lot of historical and theological contexts that I believe are necessary to understand when trying to interpret what the early Christians meant when they taught that men can become gods in the second century AD, and so the discussion I have been having with my friend has gotten into a lot of complicated historical details that I may bring up later in this thread (I don’t want to over complicate this opening post).  But I explained to my friend that just as it would be wrong for me to read all of my Latter-day Saint views back into the early Christian writings, it would be equally wrong for him to read fully developed modern Christian theology back into the writings of the Christians in the second century AD, since there were a lot of doctrinal developments going on in that period of Christian history.

But I wanted to start out this thread by discussing one of the paragraphs in the Gospel Topic essay that started our discussion on the topic I used for this thread.   This is the paragraph in question (emphasis mine):

Quote

Latter-day Saints see all people as children of God in a full and complete sense; they consider every person divine in origin, nature, and potential. Each has an eternal core and is “a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents.” Each possesses seeds of divinity and must choose whether to live in harmony or tension with that divinity. Through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, all people may “progress toward perfection and ultimately realize their divine destiny.” Just as a child can develop the attributes of his or her parents over time, the divine nature that humans inherit can be developed to become like their Heavenly Father’s.

My friend sees a big difference here (and rightly so, from his modern Christian perspective) in the idea that Latter-day Saints believe that all humans inherently have a “divine nature”, and this is in contrast to the early Christian view (in his thinking) that humans and God have a completely different nature and are a completely different category of being, because they talked of God as the “uncreated one” and humans as the “created”. 

I explained to him that we also see a difference between the “created” and the “uncreated” from our perspective now, here on earth, but we also mean something different than modern Christians when we say we are “created”, since we don’t accept the doctrine of creation ex-nihilo (and he is aware of this too, because we have previously discussed that doctrine.  He is also aware of the Gospel Topic essays on Premortality and Creation).  So making a distinction between the “created” and “uncreated” alone (without more theological and historical context) is not sufficient to indicate a vast difference in meaning between the early Christian teachings and Latter-day Saint teachings (although I do recognize that they probably did mean something different depending on the time period of the writing.  But at face value it isn't a difference).  There are many more details from our discussion that I’m leaving out (for now).  

But this got me thinking about the Latter-day Saint views on the transcendence of God (or if we even have any views on it), and how we view the differences between man and God relative to creation.  Part of the problem is that “transcendence” can be a relative term (and has different meanings).  But since we don’t adopt any of the philosophical ideas and language of modern Christianity, it’s hard to identify any Latter-day Saint teachings on the subject.

So the first question I have is, how do each of you view the difference between God (as the uncreated) and humans (as the created)?  And are you aware of any Latter-day Saint teachings on this topic?  And how do you see our inherent "divine nature" as fitting into the distinction? 

I’m also interested in how the non Latter-day Saints on the board see our views on this topic as well.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

I have a very thoughtful and respectful Christian friend, and he and I share an interest in the writings of the early Christian fathers.  Recently we have been discussing the Latter-day Saint views on exaltation (as discussed in the Gospel Topic essay:  Becoming Like God) as compared with the early Christian views on deification or Theosis (or divinization, as some call it), which is the early Christian teaching that men can become "gods".  The early Christian views on Theosis that we have been discussing are all from within the second century AD (or pretty close to that).  Our recent discussion has centered on differences in ontology (i.e. the nature of being) between humanity and God, and the difference between the "created" and the "uncreated".  

There are a lot of historical and theological contexts that I believe are necessary to understand when trying to interpret what the early Christians meant when they taught that men can become gods in the second century AD, and so the discussion I have been having with my friend has gotten into a lot of complicated historical details that I may bring up later in this thread (I don’t want to over complicate this opening post).  But I explained to my friend that just as it would be wrong for me to read all of my Latter-day Saint views back into the early Christian writings, it would be equally wrong for him to read fully developed modern Christian theology back into the writings of the Christians in the second century AD, since there were a lot of doctrinal developments going on in that period of Christian history.

But I wanted to start out this thread by discussing one of the paragraphs in the Gospel Topic essay that started our discussion on the topic I used for this thread.   This is the paragraph in question (emphasis mine):

My friend sees a big difference here (and rightly so, from his modern Christian perspective) in the idea that Latter-day Saints believe that all humans inherently have a “divine nature”, and this is in contrast to the early Christian view (in his thinking) that humans and God have a completely different nature and are a completely different category of being, because they talked of God as the “uncreated one” and humans as the “created”. 

I explained to him that we also see a difference between the “created” and the “uncreated” from our perspective now, here on earth, but we also mean something different than modern Christians when we say we are “created”, since we don’t accept the doctrine of creation ex-nihilo (and he is aware of this too, because we have previously discussed that doctrine.  He is also aware of the Gospel Topic essays on Premortality and Creation).  So making a distinction between the “created” and “uncreated” alone (without more theological and historical context) is not sufficient to indicate a vast difference in meaning between the early Christian teachings and Latter-day Saint teachings (although I do recognize that they probably did mean something different depending on the time period of the writing.  But at face value it isn't a difference).  There are many more details from our discussion that I’m leaving out (for now).  

But this got me thinking about the Latter-day Saint views on the transcendence of God (or if we even have any views on it), and how we view the differences between man and God relative to creation.  Part of the problem is that “transcendence” can be a relative term (and has different meanings).  But since we don’t adopt any of the philosophical ideas and language of modern Christianity, it’s hard to identify any Latter-day Saint teachings on the subject.

So the first question I have is, how do each of you view the difference between God (as the uncreated) and humans (as the created)?  And are you aware of any Latter-day Saint teachings on this topic?  And how do you see our inherent "divine nature" as fitting into the distinction? 

I’m also interested in how the non Latter-day Saints on the board see our views on this topic as well.

As you pointed out, the term can mean many things, but I think a general sense it entails an experience surpassing the scope of purely physical human experience unaided by any degree of quickening beyond the light of Christ which we all possess.

So, the best reference I can find that supports the idea of transcendence is in 3 Nephi 28: 12 -14 (and elsewhere in this book, such as 26: 14, 19; 19: 32-34): “unspeakable things… forbidden them that they should utter; neither was it given unto them power that they could utter the things which they saw and heard…” Transfiguration in my mind entails transcendence (28: 15 -17).

I view the difference between God (uncreated) and us (created) as a simple matter of timing. None of us had a beginning; we are all co-eternal; we are all gnolaum. With such transcendence in common, He happened to get into a position to organize (create) us before we could organize Him (except in our perception and experience) – relatively speaking, He is thus uncreated and we are created from our perspective of purely physical and unaided human experience.

This might bring up the point that we are all transcendent, but this perception also would be a matter of timing (experience and memory).

[Saint Bonaventure]

I'll be glad to contribute to a conversation on this topic, Incognitus.

I'll start by reading the Gospel Topics essay that you've linked.  

[InCognitus]

37 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I view the difference between God (uncreated) and us (created) as a simple matter of timing. None of us had a beginning; we are all co-eternal; we are all gnolaum. With such transcendence in common, He happened to get into a position to organize (create) us before we could organize Him (except in our perception and experience) – relatively speaking, He is thus uncreated and we are created from our perspective of purely physical and unaided human experience.

I really like the way you said this, "as a simple matter of timing", and it is similar to how I was thinking about the difference as well.

I hadn't planned on quoting any of the early Christians in this thread, but what you said reminds me very much of the very unusual way that St. Irenaeus (c. 175 - c. 195) described the differences between created man and God, seemingly as a difference in timing, in Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapters 38 and 39.  

Here are a few excerpts (these are a few sentences taken from the whole chapter):

Quote

CHAP. XXXVIII.--WHY MAN WAS NOT MADE PERFECT FROM THE BEGINNING.

    1. 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....    

.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....

And thus in all things God has the pre-eminence, who alone is uncreated, the first of all things, and the primary cause of the existence of all, while all other things remain under God's subjection. But being in subjection to God is continuance in immortality, and immortality is the glory of the uncreated One. By this arrangement, therefore, and these harmonies, and a sequence of this nature, man, a created and organized being, is rendered after the image and likeness of the uncreated God, -the Father planning everything well and giving His commands, the Son carrying these into execution and performing the work of creating, and the Spirit nourishing and increasing [what is made], but man making progress day by day, and ascending towards the perfect, that is, approximating to the uncreated One. For the Uncreated is perfect, that is, God. Now it was necessary that man should in the first instance be created; and having been created, should receive growth; and having received growth, should be strengthened; and having been strengthened, should abound; and having abounded, should recover [from the disease of sin]; and having recovered, should be glorified; and being glorified, should see his Lord. For God is He who is yet to be seen, and the beholding of God is productive of immortality, but immortality renders one nigh unto God.  CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, IV.38 (St. Irenaeus)

And also from the next chapter:

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)

His idea of being "lately created" has to do with our place now as mortals in relation to our eventual potential as becoming "at length gods", and he says one can't be a God unless he has first been made a man (which makes me wonder how far he is really willing to take that concept).  But even so, I just find it really hard to not read Latter-day Saint views into what he's saying here.  But I also know that Irenaeus at one point adopted the doctrine of creation ex-nihilo, so he might be talking about something completely different.

Edited May 8, 2023 by InCognitus

[InCognitus]

22 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I'll be glad to contribute to a conversation on this topic, Incognitus.

I'll start by reading the Gospel Topics essay that you've linked.  

I look forward to the conversation! 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I have a very thoughtful and respectful Christian friend, and he and I share an interest in the writings of the early Christian fathers.  Recently we have been discussing the Latter-day Saint views on exaltation (as discussed in the Gospel Topic essay:  Becoming Like God) as compared with the early Christian views on deification or Theosis (or divinization, as some call it), which is the early Christian teaching that men can become "gods".  The early Christian views on Theosis that we have been discussing are all from within the second century AD (or pretty close to that).  Our recent discussion has centered on differences in ontology (i.e. the nature of being) between humanity and God, and the difference between the "created" and the "uncreated".  

There are a lot of historical and theological contexts that I believe are necessary to understand when trying to interpret what the early Christians meant when they taught that men can become gods in the second century AD, and so the discussion I have been having with my friend has gotten into a lot of complicated historical details that I may bring up later in this thread (I don’t want to over complicate this opening post).  But I explained to my friend that just as it would be wrong for me to read all of my Latter-day Saint views back into the early Christian writings, it would be equally wrong for him to read fully developed modern Christian theology back into the writings of the Christians in the second century AD, since there were a lot of doctrinal developments going on in that period of Christian history.

But I wanted to start out this thread by discussing one of the paragraphs in the Gospel Topic essay that started our discussion on the topic I used for this thread.   This is the paragraph in question (emphasis mine):

My friend sees a big difference here (and rightly so, from his modern Christian perspective) in the idea that Latter-day Saints believe that all humans inherently have a “divine nature”, and this is in contrast to the early Christian view (in his thinking) that humans and God have a completely different nature and are a completely different category of being, because they talked of God as the “uncreated one” and humans as the “created”. 

I explained to him that we also see a difference between the “created” and the “uncreated” from our perspective now, here on earth, but we also mean something different than modern Christians when we say we are “created”, since we don’t accept the doctrine of creation ex-nihilo (and he is aware of this too, because we have previously discussed that doctrine.  He is also aware of the Gospel Topic essays on Premortality and Creation).  So making a distinction between the “created” and “uncreated” alone (without more theological and historical context) is not sufficient to indicate a vast difference in meaning between the early Christian teachings and Latter-day Saint teachings (although I do recognize that they probably did mean something different depending on the time period of the writing.  But at face value it isn't a difference).  There are many more details from our discussion that I’m leaving out (for now).  

But this got me thinking about the Latter-day Saint views on the transcendence of God (or if we even have any views on it), and how we view the differences between man and God relative to creation.  Part of the problem is that “transcendence” can be a relative term (and has different meanings).  But since we don’t adopt any of the philosophical ideas and language of modern Christianity, it’s hard to identify any Latter-day Saint teachings on the subject.

So the first question I have is, how do each of you view the difference between God (as the uncreated) and humans (as the created)?  And are you aware of any Latter-day Saint teachings on this topic?  And how do you see our inherent "divine nature" as fitting into the distinction? 

I’m also interested in how the non Latter-day Saints on the board see our views on this topic as well.

It would be great if we had someone well educated in the Christian/ Catholic Orthodox tradition as well, they have important and central doctrines on this subject 

[CV75]

38 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

I really like the way you said this, "as a simple matter of timing", and it is similar to how I was thinking about the difference as well.

I hadn't planned on quoting any of the early Christians in this thread, but what you said reminds me of the very unusual way that St. Irenaeus (c. 175 - c. 195) described the differences between created man and God, seemingly as a difference in timing, in Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapters 38 and 39.  

Here are a few excerpts (these are a few sentences taken from the whole chapter):

And also from the next chapter:

His idea of being "lately created" has to do with our place now as mortals in relation to our eventual potential as becoming "at length gods", and he says one can't be a God unless he has first been made a man (which makes me wonder how far he is really willing to take that concept).  But even so, I just find it really hard to not read Latter-day Saint views into what he's saying here.  But I also know that Irenaeus at one point adopted the doctrine of creation ex-nihilo, so he might be talking about something completely different.

Even if he means that “lately created” refers only to a mortal beginning (not being aware of any earlier estate), we can ask, “How, then, shall he be a man, who has not as yet been thought of by the omniscient God, that is, set to be rendered after His uncreated image?” We still have our roots in that which is uncreated, so perhaps that leap into creation is an expression of the Uncreated Creator’s transcendence, and our later immortal union with the Uncreated through the merits of Christ is the next expression of transcendence. I suppose this “emanation from God” is what creatio ex nihilo was meant to refute.

[InCognitus]

24 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

It would be great if we had someone well educated in the Christian/ Catholic Orthodox tradition as well, they have important and central doctrines on this subject 

Yes, do you happen to know someone like that???   

[mfbukowski]

Not really, no one who posts here....there used to be someone....

Ask @Calm! She would remember!

Edited May 8, 2023 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

37 minutes ago, CV75 said:

We still have our roots in that which is uncreated....

How could we know about things that don't exist..... ?  I don't wanna start early.... 🤐

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Not really, no one who posts here....there used to be someone....

Ask @Calm! She would remember!

Isn’t Orthodox Christian one?  Or is that a different tradition?  I am brain dead today.

There was Spammer, iirc.  They were very well educated in the orthodox that I remember, but they don’t show up much anymore.

[mfbukowski]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Isn’t Orthodox Christian one?  Or is that a different tradition?  I am brain dead today.

There was Spammer, iirc.  They were very well educated in the orthodox that I remember, but they don’t show up much anymore.

Yes, @Spammer was the one I was thinking of.  I am still unfortunately unacquainted with @Orthodox Christian

Edited May 8, 2023 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Here's where I am starting.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosis_(Eastern_Christian_theology)

 

[3DOP]

 LDS are the same species as the most advanced organism. To be "exalted" is like a grub becoming a butterfly. It is a natural wonder. I do not make a mock of it.  The Orthodox/Catholic view of becoming God is beyond a natural wonder.  

"...the God of gods shall be seen in Zion." ---Ps. 83:7

The blessed Trinity wills to make of created nature, partaker of uncreated, divine nature.        

The difference between us, I think we should agree, is that you are delighted to be of the same species, exalted and worshipping your most advanced Father. While we, non-LDS, at least Catholics and Orthodox believe that God is raising us above our own natures. You like your way of looking at it. I can see why. Can you see why we like our way of looking at it? Can you see the appeal from how we view it, InCognitus?

Regards always,

Rory

[InCognitus]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Not really, no one who posts here....there used to be someone....

I was thinking that you would fit that description to some degree.

[InCognitus]

17 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

LDS are the same species as the most advanced organism. To be "exalted" is like a grub becoming a butterfly. It is a natural wonder. I do not make a mock of it.  The Orthodox/Catholic view of becoming God is beyond a natural wonder.  

I like your analogy, as it seems to fit.  And I hope I don't in any way show any disrespect to your views in this topic.  One of my goals is to fully understand our differences.

19 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

The blessed Trinity wills to make of created nature, partaker of uncreated, divine nature. 

I think we agree on this in principle, although we have differences in what this means exactly. 

We of course believe our spirits are eternal and come from God, and this is our "eternal core" as the Gospel Topics essay puts it.  But our current created state is mortal and corruptible because of the fall.  And through the atonement and resurrection of Jesus Christ we can made incorruptible and immortal and clean from sin, and thus partake of the divine nature.

28 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

The difference between us, I think we should agree, is that you are delighted to be of the same species, exalted and worshipping your most advanced Father. While we, non-LDS, at least Catholics and Orthodox believe that God is raising us above our own natures. You like your way of looking at it. I can see why. Can you see why we like our way of looking at it? Can you see the appeal from how we view it, InCognitus?

I can very much appreciate your way of looking at it.   And I hope to have a better understanding of your views in the process of my investigation.

But I also want to try to better comprehend what the second century Christians meant and understood when they taught that men become gods, using the theology of their day as handed down to them from the apostles and from the contemporary teachings of other Christians in that period, and not from some future development of doctrine that didn't exist at their time.  I want both of us to be careful to not try to read our current views back into their thinking so that we can try to arrive at how they understood the teachings in their day.  Does that make sense?

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, 3DOP said:

 LDS are the same species as the most advanced organism. To be "exalted" is like a grub becoming a butterfly. It is a natural wonder. I do not make a mock of it.  The Orthodox/Catholic view of becoming God is beyond a natural wonder.  

"...the God of gods shall be seen in Zion." ---Ps. 83:7

The blessed Trinity wills to make of created nature, partaker of uncreated, divine nature.        

The difference between us, I think we should agree, is that you are delighted to be of the same species, exalted and worshipping your most advanced Father. While we, non-LDS, at least Catholics and Orthodox believe that God is raising us above our own natures. You like your way of looking at it. I can see why. Can you see why we like our way of looking at it? Can you see the appeal from how we view it, InCognitus?

Regards always,

Rory

There is no clear definition on what "nature" means or is, or how one even defines it; dogs have dog natures, men have men's natures etc ad infinitum.  A pretty useless word in this context.

If you want to stick with the word, though, as I see it, moth nature works. It's a Caterpillar that becomes a flying moth. One nature includes both phases.

 

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I was thinking that you would fit that description to some degree.

I am not a history guy; I thought that we wanted to show the history of beliefs including theosis that western Christianity once had, and lost, while it kept growing in the East.  That fits the LDS understanding! The wikipedia article seems not to be a horrid place to trace the debates and arguments that left the west without the Doctrine of theosis.

For me, personally how it got that way in detail was unimportant. It is a dead fact that.  I am interested in PRESENT issues; my object was to support that the LDS-ish Doctrine still persists in the East.  In fact, I could probably become Orthodox if I had to, but I have too strong a testimony in the BOM et al. 

But transcendence is a whole different problem imo. 

Edited May 8, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Saint Bonaventure]

14 hours ago, InCognitus said:

 

So the first question I have is, how do each of you view the difference between God (as the uncreated) and humans (as the created)?  And are you aware of any Latter-day Saint teachings on this topic?  And how do you see our inherent "divine nature" as fitting into the distinction? 

I’m also interested in how the non Latter-day Saints on the board see our views on this topic as well.

Now that I've read the article that you linked, I'll say a little by way of a conversation starter. I'll go with bullets, so that you and others can respond in a manner that might be less sprawling than might otherwise occur. This is a massive topic, and one that I've encountered with my LDS family members.

Here I go:

• I think what 3DOP said has merit, and I'll try to keep things simple by using an analogy to geometry:
  • Imagine that in Catholic belief, God's Divine Nature is a line. There is no beginning, middle, or end, and there is no stopping or starting point. It's a line that always is, and that is beyond time.
  • The Incarnation puts a point on that line, a point that is the Son's human nature. The Son is always the line in His Divine Nature, and He is also a point in His human nature, as the Son fully possesses two natures, Divine and human.
  • The Divine Grace provided through the Atoning Sacrifice of the Son allows humans to become rays, or to be reconciled to God in a ray-like fashion. There is some discussion amongst theologians on this point.
  • Latter-day Saints seem to be saying that God--or gods--and humans are all lines. This runs smack into categorical, ontological issues and also into Catholics' understandings of the Son's Incarnation and Atoning Sacrifice.
• The mighty Wikipedia notwithstanding, divinization/sanctification/theosis is a topic in the Catholic Church, albeit without the same emphasis that it has in the Orthodox Church. It's the subject of paragraph 460 in the Catechism, and that paragraph cites St. Irenaeus, St. Athanasius, and St. Thomas Aquinas. This topic can be alluded to in a homily when the Mass readings are on 2 Peter 1, Revelation 3, etc. I hear it asked about on EWTN Radio every now and then. Priests are familiar with it, and theologians, apologists, and historians are too. As I do a search through my own library, I have five books that address the topic directly, and dozens of references to patristic-era authors and documents. I also have dozens of additional volumes and commentaries that discuss it as one of many topics. I can share titles and can say more here, as needed. 
• The Ancient Christians book by the BYU scholars has a chapter on this topic. I think any Latter-day Saint would benefit from reading it.

Again, thanks for your interest in this topic, including in the thoughts of non-LDS posters on the board.

 

Edited May 8, 2023 by Saint Bonaventure

[teddyaware]

16 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I have a very thoughtful and respectful Christian friend, and he and I share an interest in the writings of the early Christian fathers.  Recently we have been discussing the Latter-day Saint views on exaltation (as discussed in the Gospel Topic essay:  Becoming Like God) as compared with the early Christian views on deification or Theosis (or divinization, as some call it), which is the early Christian teaching that men can become "gods".  The early Christian views on Theosis that we have been discussing are all from within the second century AD (or pretty close to that).  Our recent discussion has centered on differences in ontology (i.e. the nature of being) between humanity and God, and the difference between the "created" and the "uncreated".  

There are a lot of historical and theological contexts that I believe are necessary to understand when trying to interpret what the early Christians meant when they taught that men can become gods in the second century AD, and so the discussion I have been having with my friend has gotten into a lot of complicated historical details that I may bring up later in this thread (I don’t want to over complicate this opening post).  But I explained to my friend that just as it would be wrong for me to read all of my Latter-day Saint views back into the early Christian writings, it would be equally wrong for him to read fully developed modern Christian theology back into the writings of the Christians in the second century AD, since there were a lot of doctrinal developments going on in that period of Christian history.

But I wanted to start out this thread by discussing one of the paragraphs in the Gospel Topic essay that started our discussion on the topic I used for this thread.   This is the paragraph in question (emphasis mine):

My friend sees a big difference here (and rightly so, from his modern Christian perspective) in the idea that Latter-day Saints believe that all humans inherently have a “divine nature”, and this is in contrast to the early Christian view (in his thinking) that humans and God have a completely different nature and are a completely different category of being, because they talked of God as the “uncreated one” and humans as the “created”. 

I explained to him that we also see a difference between the “created” and the “uncreated” from our perspective now, here on earth, but we also mean something different than modern Christians when we say we are “created”, since we don’t accept the doctrine of creation ex-nihilo (and he is aware of this too, because we have previously discussed that doctrine.  He is also aware of the Gospel Topic essays on Premortality and Creation).  So making a distinction between the “created” and “uncreated” alone (without more theological and historical context) is not sufficient to indicate a vast difference in meaning between the early Christian teachings and Latter-day Saint teachings (although I do recognize that they probably did mean something different depending on the time period of the writing.  But at face value it isn't a difference).  There are many more details from our discussion that I’m leaving out (for now).  

But this got me thinking about the Latter-day Saint views on the transcendence of God (or if we even have any views on it), and how we view the differences between man and God relative to creation.  Part of the problem is that “transcendence” can be a relative term (and has different meanings).  But since we don’t adopt any of the philosophical ideas and language of modern Christianity, it’s hard to identify any Latter-day Saint teachings on the subject.

So the first question I have is, how do each of you view the difference between God (as the uncreated) and humans (as the created)?  And are you aware of any Latter-day Saint teachings on this topic?  And how do you see our inherent "divine nature" as fitting into the distinction? 

I’m also interested in how the non Latter-day Saints on the board see our views on this topic as well.

Although I don’t recall any member of the Church ever declaring or teaching it, the Book of Mormon makes it clear that the only reason why we continue to have a divine nature in mortality is due to the mercy extended to each of us through atoning sacrifice of Christ. Nearly all Latter-Day Saints mistakenly believe they come to earth with an inherent divine nature apart from the atonement of Christ, but this is a falsehood. As a consequence of the fall, all the spirit sons and daughters of God who come to earth in mortality forever lose their divine natures, and the only way for us to repossess our lost divine natures is by means of the intersession of God through the atonement of Christ. The prophet Jacob makes all of this perfectly clear:

8 O the wisdom of God, his mercy and grace! For behold, if the flesh should rise no more our spirits must become subject to that angel who fell from before the presence of the Eternal God, and became the devil, to rise no more.

9 And our spirits must have become like unto him, and we become devils, angels to a devil, to be shut out from the presence of our God, and to remain with the father of lies, in misery, like unto himself; yea, to that being who beguiled our first parents, who transformeth himself nigh unto an angel of light, and stirreth up the children of men unto secret combinations of murder and all manner of secret works of darkness.

10 O how great the goodness of our God, who prepareth a way for our escape from the grasp of this awful monster; yea, that monster, death and hell, which I call the death of the body, and also the death of the spirit. (2 Nephi 9)

Even though we had a divine nature prior to the fall, it avails us absolutely nothing without the atonement. The only reason why the divine nature we possessed before the fall continues to exist within us today is because Christ retrieved what would have otherwise been forever lost due to the utterly destructive consequences fall. Thanks to atonement of Christ, in a very real sense our birth on earth is a kind of resurrection from spiritual death, a death of the spirit that would have been total and endless without his love and mercy.

 

Edited May 8, 2023 by teddyaware

[CV75]

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

How could we know about things that don't exist..... ?  I don't wanna start early.... 🤐

Oh, go ahead ... I'm using "uncreated" in a relative sense; the Father is "uncreated" -- unorganized -- by me, except in how I experience Him within the scope (sphere) that He has created (organized) for me.

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Now that I've read the article that you linked, I'll say a little by way of a conversation starter. I'll go with bullets, so that you and others can respond in a manner that might be less sprawling than might otherwise occur. This is a massive topic, and one that I've encountered with my LDS family members.

Here I go:

• I think what 3DOP said has merit, and I'll try to keep things simple by using an analogy to geometry:
  • Imagine that in Catholic belief, God's Divine Nature is a line. There is no beginning, middle, or end, and there is no stopping or starting point. It's a line that always is, and that is beyond time.
  • The Incarnation puts a point on that line, a point that is the Son's human nature. The Son is always the line in His Divine Nature, and He is also a point in His human nature, as the Son fully possesses two natures, Divine and human.
  • The Divine Grace provided through the Atoning Sacrifice of the Son allows humans to become rays, or to be reconciled to God in a ray-like fashion. There is some discussion amongst theologians on this point.
  • Latter-day Saints seem to be saying that God--or gods--and humans are all lines. This runs smack into categorical, ontological issues and also into Catholics' understandings of the Son's Incarnation and Atoning Sacrifice.
• The mighty Wikipedia notwithstanding, divinization/sanctification/theosis is a topic in the Catholic Church, albeit without the same emphasis that it has in the Orthodox Church. It's the subject of paragraph 460 in the Catechism, and that paragraph cites St. Irenaeus, St. Athanasius, and St. Thomas Aquinas. This topic can be alluded to in a homily when the Mass readings are on 2 Peter 1, Revelation 3, etc. I hear it asked about on EWTN Radio every now and then. Priests are familiar with it, and theologians, apologists, and historians are too. As I do a search through my own library, I have five books that address the topic directly, and dozens of references to patristic-era authors and documents. I also have dozens of additional volumes and commentaries that discuss it as one of many topics. I can share titles and can say more here, as needed. 
• The Ancient Christians book by the BYU scholars has a chapter on this topic. I think any Latter-day Saint would benefit from reading it.

Again, thanks for your interest in this topic, including in the thoughts of non-LDS posters on the board.

 

Great post, thanks. 👍

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

Oh, go ahead ... I'm using "uncreated" in a relative sense; the Father is "uncreated" -- unorganized -- by me, except in how I experience Him within the scope (sphere) that He has created (organized) for me.

But don't we all present ourselves as we want to be perceived?

Suit, tie, Porsche etc. Vs Levi's, with holes,  cowboy hat, etc?

Edited May 8, 2023 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

But don't we all present ourselves as we want to be perceived?

Suit, tie, Porsche etc. Vs Levi's, with holes,  cowboy hat, etc?

Yes, we do, despite the risks of faulty, filtered and unintended perceptions. So, God presents himself in my sphere, at least I perceive Him to have (heaven help me!).

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Thanks to atonement of Christ, in a very real sense our birth on earth is a kind of resurrection from spiritual death, a death of the spirit that would have been total and endless without his love and mercy.

I believe this is OK to mention for others: in the temple presentation, Eve perceives that there is an inconsistency in the commands to multiply and replenish the earth AND not eat the fruit of the tree: in their present higher "spiritual nature" they cannot reproduce.  And so she partakes, and gets Adam to partake.

Later God speaks and tells them that He will provide a Savior, so that if we follow his path, we WILL still die, but can still progress by following the Savior.

They rejoice. 

In Moses 5:11 there is a passage quoting Eve praising God for the plan, and the Fall.- see below

And so we have what we call the "fortunate Fall" while other Christians see it as a fall into depravity for all mankind, and then postulating that God is BOTH immanent AND transcendent- two natures etc.

We have no need for those views because we see the Fall as "just part of growing up" to know good from evil in our journey to become like God. 

We all just want  to be like Mom and Dad. 

Moses 5:11

11 And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient. 12 And Adam and Eve blessed the name of God, and they made all things known unto their sons and their daughters.

 

Edited May 8, 2023 by mfbukowski