Orthodox Christianity : Proclaiming the Truth since 33AD

[ChoirDir]

LDS do not see any apostolic authority post the end of John’s public ministry.

Also, I believe that the authority of the Bishop continued for some time past the death of the last apostle (potentially until 1819, but I would generally doubt it).

So which is it? One thing that bothers me is that when some element of the LDS is questioned, they are quick to change their doctrine. Re: Polygamy, US outlaws it and the LDS then states God told us it is not neccessary anymore. Re: Blacks, US passes major Civil Rights legislation LDS now states it is ok for Blacks to be full members.
You partially answered my question regarding the Bible, but why if the Church was Apostate, is it ok to accept the Apostate Bible.

I believe God inspired Joseph Smith to choose the KJV of the Bible (including the rejection of the apocrypha) partially to create parallels from which to share greater light and knowledge.
I do not even thing that the absence of the apocrypha or the seeming reliance upon the 4th Century Canonization efforts is a “fatal flaw” even for sola scripturist. But for LDS who are not sola scripturist, I do not think that there is a real issue.

But the Apostate Church canonized the Bible to include all the works including the "Apocrypha" (we EO hate that term). So Joseph Smith picking and choosing which Bible to use is a fatal flaw since he chose to use a lesser version with books removed by the Jews at the Council of Jamnia to dispute that Christ was the Son of God.
So what we have is the following:
1) LDS use the KJV as most Protestants do
2) Orthodoxy regards the KJV as lacking in the OT because it does not contain all the books canonized by the Church
3)LDS claim the Church was Apostate after John died. So the Bible which was canonized in or about the 4th Century is also Apostate but ok to use.

How do you an Eastern Orthodox embrace the “natural revelation” of the first 7 councils, but reject the Papacy.

There is nothing in the first 7 councils that affirm the Papacy. Rome was always the first among equals. You also make mention of "Patriarch" a Patriarch is the head of the Church of a specific area ie The Patriarch of the Russian Church. But a Patriarch and a Bishop are equals neither can outweigh the other when it comes to matters of doctrine.

 

[Suzannah]

Sorry Tom,
I've been answering emails...

Your posts are very wordy. I hope there is no intent there to simply spam the thread with a lot of wild speculation, to knock us all off course.

Re: your quotes from the Patristic Fathers, which you claim as support for LDS teaching. I'm sure you're aware of the excellent reputation of these Holy Men and you genuinely would like to see support from them in your view. However, the true teaching of Theosis has already been covered through the links posted Dismas, and Oblio as well as my own. If you persist in taking these teachings out of context, and presenting them as support and promotion of LDS theory, I will begin to report those posts. The LDS do not appreciate it when Christians criticize their doctrine, and we do not appreciate it when you twist and bend our doctrine to support yours, completely misrepresenting our Church and its teaching.

So that we all don't get bogged down with replying to each and every wordy post, I will stick to these points which you summarized:

1. LDS interpret the Bible as prophesying an apostasy.
Since LDS teaching is outside the Holy Orthodox Church, and therefore without merit, your "interpretation" of the Bible irrelevant. The Holy Orthodox Church has existed from the beginning and in spite of many requests, you have failed to provide any evidence whatsoever regarding any "apostasy"



2. The Shepard of Hermas’ Vision was not describing the end of the world. The angel said that “a lesser organization” would be in place at the completion of the tower.
This is so obscure, I'm not even sure what merit it has for discussion. Can you be a little more clear as to why you think it is relevant? Are you suggesting that this book should have been included in the cannon and that because it was rejected, (mainly because of its heretical nature) this proves there was an apostasy???? It was a heretical work according to Constantine...This book denies the Holy Trinity.

3. The supernatural revelation vs. natural revelation issue discussed above.
This is involved in the next question.

4. How do you an Eastern Orthodox embrace the “natural revelation” of the first 7 councils, but reject the Papacy. What happened? This is why I would be Catholic without the Restoration if the Restoration never happened. If “natural revelation” is the guiding force of God’s church, why are you correct and not the Catholics. If you can find the place where God said, “Now I will lead by ‘natural revelation’” next you must find the place where God said, “’Natural revelation’ is done the 7 councils are enough.”
Why would the Orthodox follow a schismatic group who left Holy Tradition behind, who declared that the Bishop of Rome was suddenly infallible, when up to that point, all had been equal. Why would they change? Orthodox had always rejected the idea of one man being in charge of the church. All bishops were and still are, equal. The only Head of the Orthodox Church is Jesus Christ. Prior to 1054 AD, the Bishop of Rome was equal to all other Orthodox Bishops, being given a place of honor, but not infallibility among his equals because of his spiritual lineage to Peter.



5. The reality and miracles of the restoration witness to the reality of an apostasy.
We do not deny that "miracles" can and do occur outside the Church. One must have great discernment as to where these "miracles" come from. An exellent treatment of this and related subjects can be found in Father Seraphim Rose's book, Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future. Incidentally you may be interested to know that miracles have continued to this day in the Holy Orthodox Church. The Holy Fire happens annually at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem every year, without fail, before Pascha. Just one of literally millions of examples.
http://www.holyfire.org/eng/karta.htm

6. Most important, one must pursue spiritual witness of the truth. Augustine was lead into error by his intellect, but he taught that the spiritual witness is to come first/with the intellectual witness. I expect no one to reject intellectual argument, but spiritual witness is critical.
Yes, I agree with you that faith and reason should not be separated. But we are also taught that we are to be so humble that we are to refuse "spiritual experiences". God doesn't mind that we protect ourselves from deception. When we base everything upon a "burning in the bosom", we are clearly in danger of being led into all sorts of error. I think you would agree that the Devil is subtle, dangerously beautiful, and also a murderer who covets souls.


Let me say this again: Please stop misrepresenting Orthodoxy. If you do not understand Orthodox teaching, please ask us about it, and we will help you.

 

[TOmNossor]

Suzannah and others,



I have shown where the Early Chruch Fathers plainly use the term, “become gods” to show than men may become gods. I have never suggested that the meaning is identical. I always say it is not heretical for an Early Christian to say that “men may become gods.” They say this, are not declared heretical, so I do not see how I am flawed.



Now, as I was studying EO doctrine more I followed a link from Oblio in TAW section of CF. Here is the link:

http://www.geocities.com/verseoftheday/theosis.html#1.0

The title of the page is:

Theosis: Achieving Your Potential in Christ



From this page I quote (emphasis mine):

Power to Become

God gives us power to become. "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God" (John 1:12). The Apostle Peter once came upon a lame man begging for alms. He walked up to the cripple and said, "Silver and gold I do not have, but what I do have I give you: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk" (Acts 3:6).

That is the kind of power Christ gives us -
power to get up and walk out of a crippled past into a life of power, meaning, peace and joy;
power to become better than we are;
power to become new creatures in Christ Jesus;
power to become gods by grace, partakers of divine nature, heirs of His kingdom.



Psychiatry can tell us what is wrong with us, but only Christ can give us the power to rise out of sin and sickness to become what we ought to be and can be: children of God and gods by grace.



TOm:

This page says that Theosis is “The kind of power Christ gives US, power to BECOME GODS by grace.”

This is LDS theology. This is the representation of EO theology that Oblio directed investigators to. This is where I have developed my misperceptions. I do not understand how I misunderstand. I said above and I still agree, it is your purgative to define your beliefs. You may explain this to me or you may reject it as a heretical representation of EO belief. I am fine with this.



I will now try to respond specifically to some of the things on this thread.



Charity, TOm

 

[Lotar]

Suzannah and others,



I have shown where the Early Chruch Fathers plainly use the term, “become gods” to show than men may become gods. I have never suggested that the meaning is identical. I always say it is not heretical for an Early Christian to say that “men may become gods.” They say this, are not declared heretical, so I do not see how I am flawed.

Now, as I was studying EO doctrine more I followed a link from Oblio in TAW section of CF. Here is the link:

http://www.geocities.com/verseoftheday/theosis.html#1.0

The title of the page is:

Theosis: Achieving Your Potential in Christ



From this page I quote (emphasis mine):

Power to Become

God gives us power to become. "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God" (John 1:12). The Apostle Peter once came upon a lame man begging for alms. He walked up to the cripple and said, "Silver and gold I do not have, but what I do have I give you: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk" (Acts 3:6).

That is the kind of power Christ gives us -
power to get up and walk out of a crippled past into a life of power, meaning, peace and joy;
power to become better than we are;
power to become new creatures in Christ Jesus;
power to become gods by grace, partakers of divine nature, heirs of His kingdom.



Psychiatry can tell us what is wrong with us, but only Christ can give us the power to rise out of sin and sickness to become what we ought to be and can be: children of God and gods by grace.



TOm:

This page says that Theosis is “The kind of power Christ gives US, power to BECOME GODS by grace.”


This is LDS theology. This is the representation of EO theology that Oblio directed investigators to. This is where I have developed my misperceptions. I do not understand how I misunderstand. I said above and I still agree, it is your purgative to define your beliefs. You may explain this to me or you may reject it as a heretical representation of EO belief. I am fine with this.



I will now try to respond specifically to some of the things on this thread.



Charity, TOm

When they say "men may become gods" they are refering to the process of sanctification, another way to translate it would be "men may become as the angels." English is a horrible language for discussing doctrine, our vocabulary is too small, and leads to misinturpretations like this.

It has never been a Christain belief that we can become actual gods, there is only one God.

 

[TOmNossor]

Suzannah:
Your posts are very wordy. I hope there is no intent there to simply spam the thread with a lot of wild speculation, to knock us all off course.



TOm:

Not at all. I am naturally wordy, and I am still misunderstood at times.



Suzannah:

Re: your quotes from the Patristic Fathers, which you claim as support for LDS teaching. I'm sure you're aware of the excellent reputation of these Holy Men and you genuinely would like to see support from them in your view. However, the true teaching of Theosis has already been covered through the links posted Dismas, and Oblio as well as my own. If you persist in taking these teachings out of context, and presenting them as support and promotion of LDS theory, I will begin to report those posts. The LDS do not appreciate it when Christians criticize their doctrine, and we do not appreciate it when you twist and bend our doctrine to support yours, completely misrepresenting our Church and its teaching.



TOm:

On the contrary. Please read what I said. I said that the statement that “men may become gods” is not heretical to the Early Church. I did not say that we have any evidence that the ECF believed identically to the CoJCoLDS. I had not looked through this thread totally, but having done so, I do not see where Oblio or Dismas have shown that when the ECF say that men may “become gods.” They are saying heretical things. We may investigate the differences between the deification witnessed in the ECF and LDS deification if you wish, but my point is that the statement, “men may become gods” was not considered heresy in the early church.



Suzannah:

Since LDS teaching is outside the Holy Orthodox Church, and therefore without merit, your "interpretation" of the Bible irrelevant. The Holy Orthodox Church has existed from the beginning and in spite of many requests, you have failed to provide any evidence whatsoever regarding any "apostasy"



TOm:

There is much evidence for LDS teaching in the ECF. You will say that the EO church properly understands this teaching. That is fine, but if the LDS are correct then it is perfectly internally consistent for LDS to see the evidence of history supporting the apostasy. The EO church took 7 councils to develop from historic Christianity to current EO Christianity. LDS would say that some things were preserved correctly and some things were perverted. You would say that nothing was perverted. If the authority was present, you would likely be right. If the totality of the authority died with the apostles, then the position of the CoJCoLDS is perfectly consistent with the changes seen with respect to doctrine in the witness of history.



Suzannah:

This is so obscure, I'm not even sure what merit it has for discussion. Can you be a little more clear as to why you think it is relevant? Are you suggesting that this book should have been included in the cannon and that because it was rejected, (mainly because of its heretical nature) this proves there was an apostasy???? It was a heretical work according to Constantine...This book denies the Holy Trinity.



TOm:

Actually, I am saying that the Vision of Hermas came to a pious man from God. That it fairly convincingly describes an apostasy of the true Church of Christ and a “lesser organization” replacing this true church. This is solidly in line with LDS belief. I am also saying that these writings were extensively used during the worship service of the Early Church. That they were not canonized is not but part of the point. They teach apostasy and they were revered as authentic words from God.



Suzannah:

Why would the Orthodox follow a schismatic group who left Holy Tradition behind, who declared that the Bishop of Rome was suddenly infallible, when up to that point, all had been equal. Why would they change? Orthodox had always rejected the idea of one man being in charge of the church. All bishops were and still are, equal. The only Head of the Orthodox Church is Jesus Christ. Prior to 1054 AD, the Bishop of Rome was equal to all other Orthodox Bishops, being given a place of honor, but not infallibility among his equals because of his spiritual lineage to Peter.



TOm:

You have not explained why God changed from supernatural revelation to natural revelation. (#3)

You have attempted to explain that the Catholic Church ceased to defend tradition and introduced new things to the Church with the Papacy and thus ended the uniting of the EOs and the Catholics. The problem is that the Primacy of Rome has early witness that is more convincing (in Newman’s opinion) than the real presence in the sacrament. In my opinion the “defining” done by the first councils was not more radical than the emergence of the Papacy. There was a time when every single Bishop in the entire church was on record as embracing a semi-Arian (not in accordance with Augustinian Trinity) confession. It is true that the Bishop of Rome was forced to do this or be expelled, but the Eastern Church was the source of this semi-Arian confession.

St Vincent de Lerins test:

“Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est”; “We believe what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all”.

TOm:

Does not produce either EO or Catholic or Protestant or LDS theology. It just does not. There must be a guide through the morass of Early Christianity to arrive at any modern Christian belief.

Creedal Protestants inexplicably abandoned the guide after the first 4 councils.

Eastern Orthodox inexplicably abandoned the guide after the first 7 councils.

Catholics at least never abandoned the guide.

LDS believe the guide was imperfect as soon after the Apostles died.



Suzannah:

We do not deny that "miracles" can and do occur outside the Church. One must have great discernment as to where these "miracles" come from. An exellent treatment of this and related subjects can be found in Father Seraphim Rose's book, Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future. Incidentally you may be interested to know that miracles have continued to this day in the Holy Orthodox Church. The Holy Fire happens annually at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem every year, without fail, before Pascha. Just one of literally millions of examples.
http://www.holyfire.org/eng/karta.htm



TOm:

I do not deny the miracles of other churches either.

The point I make is that God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ told Joseph Smith to organize a Restoration. This is one of many early LDS miracles that point to the Restoration as valid and the apostasy as valid by association.



Suzannah:

Yes, I agree with you that faith and reason should not be separated. But we are also taught that we are to be so humble that we are to refuse "spiritual experiences". God doesn't mind that we protect ourselves from deception. When we base everything upon a "burning in the bosom", we are clearly in danger of being led into all sorts of error. I think you would agree that the Devil is subtle, dangerously beautiful, and also a murderer who covets souls.



TOm:

I agree with the above. I do not base everything upon “burning in the bosom.” But, I am convinced that regardless of how improbable, at least the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox churches are internally consistent and not “fatally flawed.” I have huge concerns for EO’s who abandoned the authority of councils after the 7th, and I have huge concerns for Catholics who created the authority of Pope. I have huge concerns for both who believe that God inexplicably changed the way He dealt with His children without saying anything. But these are internally consistent structures. The CoJCoLDS is also internally consistent and believable based on history. It is a Spiritual witness that will tell one which structure is truly right. For me the overwhelming logic points to the CoJCoLDS as well, but I have a Catholic friend who disagrees.



Suzannah:

Let me say this again: Please stop misrepresenting Orthodoxy. If you do not understand Orthodox teaching, please ask us about it, and we will help you.



TOm:

I will try to say that it is my opinion that the EO church does not believe that the statement that “men may become gods” is heretical in the future. I have posted some reasons for this, and I await to see why I am wrong. It is not my intention to misrepresent the EO church. I am aware that I do not embrace all that is said by all LDS, but I seldom declare their words heretical. I believe you are declaring the words of the web site Oblio pointed EO investigators to heretical, and I believe you are declaring the words of the ECF heretical (beyond the acknowledge heresy that ECF occasionally feel pray to). I await to be convince that I am wrong about what these folks say and believe.

You may define EO beliefs and explain away the errors of others for the purpose of this discussion, but I will not allow you to define what the ECF said. I do not believe that ECF are members of the EO or the Catholic Church. They are part of the “lessor organization” that grew from the Church of Christ. They are my boys just as much as they are your boys.



Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

The Holy Eastern Orthodox Church is the same as it was 1000 years ago.
We had no need of a "reformation" because we did not develop the "abuses" which were so prevalent.

The Protestant & Evangelical movements, though commendable for their attempt to "reform" Roman Catholicism tended to "throw the baby out with the bathwater" in a matter of speaking. Most rejected the writings of the Early Church Fathers, and the 7 Holy Ecumenical Councils, which define a large part of Basic Christianity.

Therefore, because of this problem, it is not possible for us to "join" together.

For more information on this subject, please reference the following link:
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/jeremiah.htm

The title of the article is: The Three Answers of Patriarch Jeremiah II
to the Lutheran Scholars in Tubingen (1576-1581), or
A Commentary on Modern Ecumenical Dialogue With the Heterodox

God Bless!

Tikon+

I agree with this assessment of the Reformation. This is one of a number of reasons that if I where not convinced of the Restoration, I would be part of a church that has a logical connection to historical Christianity.

Charity, TOm

 

[Suzannah]

St Iraeneus on the Gnostic Heresy that men evolve into "gods". LDS apologists love to try and say that the Holy Fathers agree with their doctrine ...hmmm....

This very important Holy Father does not agree. And this LDS idea isn't anything new either. Gnosticism was condemned then, and it still condemned.
Against Heresies, Book 2, Chapter1

4. These remarks are, in like manner, applicable against the followers of Marcion. For his two gods will also be contained and circumscribed by an immense interval which separates them from one another. But then there is a necessity to suppose a multitude of gods separated by an immense distance from each other on every side, beginning with one another, and ending in one another. Thus, by that very process of reasoning on which they depend for teaching that there is a certain Pleroma or God above the Creator of heaven and earth, any one who chooses to employ it may maintain that there is another Pleroma above the Pleroma, above that again another, and above Bythus another ocean of Deity, while in like manner the same successions hold with respect to the sides; and thus, their doctrine flowing out into immensity, there will always be a necessity to conceive of other Pleroma, and other Bythi, so as never at any time to stop, but always to continue seeking for others besides those already mentioned. Moreover, it will be uncertain whether these which we conceive of are below, or are, in fact, themselves the things which are above; and, in like manner, will be doubtful] respecting those things which are said by them to be above, whether they are really above or below; and thus our opinions will have no fixed conclusion or certainty, but will of necessity wander forth after worlds without limits, and gods that cannot be numbered.

5. These things, then, being so, each deity will be contented with his own possessions, and will not be moved with any curiosity respecting the affairs of others; otherwise he would be unjust, and rapacious, and would cease to be what God is. Each creation, too, will glorify its own maker, and will be contented with him, not knowing any other; otherwise it would most justly be deemed an apostate by all the others, and would receive a richly-deserved punishment. For it must be either that there is one Being who contains all things, and formed in His own territory all those things which have been created, according to His own will; or, again, that there are numerous unlimited creators and gods, who begin from each other, and end in each other on every side; and it will then be necessary to allow that all the rest are contained from without by some one who is greater, and that they are each of them shut up within their own territory, and remain in it. No one of them all, therefore, is God. For there will be [much] wanting to every one of them, possessing [as he will do] only a very small part when compared with all the rest. The name of the Omnipotent will thus be brought to an end, and such an opinion will of necessity fall to impiety.

Hmmmm....

 

[TOmNossor]

So which is it? One thing that bothers me is that when some element of the LDS is questioned, they are quick to change their doctrine. Re: Polygamy, US outlaws it and the LDS then states God told us it is not neccessary anymore. Re: Blacks, US passes major Civil Rights legislation LDS now states it is ok for Blacks to be full members.
You partially answered my question regarding the Bible, but why if the Church was Apostate, is it ok to accept the Apostate Bible.

But the Apostate Church canonized the Bible to include all the works including the "Apocrypha" (we EO hate that term). So Joseph Smith picking and choosing which Bible to use is a fatal flaw since he chose to use a lesser version with books removed by the Jews at the Council of Jamnia to dispute that Christ was the Son of God.
So what we have is the following:
1) LDS use the KJV as most Protestants do
2) Orthodoxy regards the KJV as lacking in the OT because it does not contain all the books canonized by the Church
3)LDS claim the Church was Apostate after John died. So the Bible which was canonized in or about the 4th Century is also Apostate but ok to use.


There is nothing in the first 7 councils that affirm the Papacy. Rome was always the first among equals. You also make mention of "Patriarch" a Patriarch is the head of the Church of a specific area ie The Patriarch of the Russian Church. But a Patriarch and a Bishop are equals neither can outweigh the other when it comes to matters of doctrine.

ChoirDir:

So which is it? One thing that bothers me is that when some element of the LDS is questioned, they are quick to change their doctrine. Re: Polygamy, US outlaws it and the LDS then states God told us it is not neccessary anymore. Re: Blacks, US passes major Civil Rights legislation LDS now states it is ok for Blacks to be full members.
You partially answered my question regarding the Bible, but why if the Church was Apostate, is it ok to accept the Apostate Bible.





TOm:

If you would like to take your off topic comments on Polygamy and Blacks to another thread they can be answered.



I am sorry I was unclear with respect to the authority of bishops vs. the authority to head the Church of God.

LDS like Catholics do not recognize the Bishop of New York as one among equals. LDS believe that Peter was at the head of the Church, and that it is this Apostolic authority that gives men jurisdiction as “prime (to use a Catholic term).”

Do you understand the absence of contradiction now? I would prefer you inquire.



ChoirDir:

But the Apostate Church canonized the Bible to include all the works including the "Apocrypha" (we EO hate that term). So Joseph Smith picking and choosing which Bible to use is a fatal flaw since he chose to use a lesser version with books removed by the Jews at the Council of Jamnia to dispute that Christ was the Son of God.
So what we have is the following:
1) LDS use the KJV as most Protestants do
2) Orthodoxy regards the KJV as lacking in the OT because it does not contain all the books canonized by the Church
3)LDS claim the Church was Apostate after John died. So the Bible which was canonized in or about the 4th Century is also Apostate but ok to use.



TOm:

I would suggest that you are placing more emphasis on the Bible than you should. You are not a sola scripturist. LDS neither believe in sola scriptura nor a closed canon. The KJV of the Bible in my opinion is a matter of convenience. We all agree it is God breathed. We all agree that it teaches of the true nature of God. If LDS staked out a claim and embraced the books that I believe history witnesses should be included, we would then be further separated from over 50% of Christians by accepting a bunch of books they PROTEST. It was not necessary. It was not expedient. Joseph Smith read the Apocrypha and said that if read with the proper spirit it would benefit Christians, but that we did not need to include it in our scriptures. In my opinion it is a small issue. We use the KJV of the Bible because it is one of many sources of information about God. We do not use the KJV of the Bible because it was compiled by a group of men in the latter part of the 4th century. If we thought it was inerrant and perfect, we might be married to those men to a larger degree than we are. But we just think like you do that it is a God breathed source of knowledge about God. Could it be improved by adding some books in the Old Testament? We don’t think by much, but it would separate us from over 50% of Christians. Could it be improved by including 1st Clement or the Shepard of Hermas? We don’t know, but it would separate us from all non-LDS Christians. So yes, an apostate church canonized the Bible. An apostasy group of reformist dropped previously canonized books from the KJV. But the Bible is still God breathed and it serves the purpose of providing LDS with information about the source of our religion, Jesus Christ and our Heavenly Father.



ChoirDir:

There is nothing in the first 7 councils that affirm the Papacy. Rome was always the first among equals. You also make mention of "Patriarch" a Patriarch is the head of the Church of a specific area ie The Patriarch of the Russian Church. But a Patriarch and a Bishop are equals neither can outweigh the other when it comes to matters of doctrine.



TOm:

“Natural Revelation” is not merely the source of Catholic papal primacy. It is also the source of definitive statements on the Trinity. It is also the source of definitive statements on the Christology of the incarnation. It is also the source of definitive statements concerning Purgatory.



Why did supernatural revelation from the Old and New Testaments become “natural revelation?” Why did the “natural revelation” of the first seven councils fail and now we have none?



Charity, TOm

 

[Suzannah]

Let's go back even further; I especially enjoyed Section 3: St. Iraeneus, Against Heresies:
3. Now, since there exists, according to them, also something else which they declare to be outside of the Pleroma, into which they further hold there descended that higher power who went astray, it is in every way necessary that the Pleroma either contains that which is beyond, yet is contained (for otherwise, it will not be beyond the Pleroma; for if there is anything beyond the Pleroma, there will be a Pleroma within this very Pleroma which they declare to be outside of the Pleroma, and the Pleroma will be contained by that which is beyond: and with the Pleroma is understood also the first God); or, again, they must be an infinite distance separated from each other--the Pleroma [I mean], and that which is beyond it. But if they maintain this, there will then be a third kind of existence, which separates by immensity the Pleroma and that which is beyond it. This third kind of existence will therefore bound and contain both the others, and will be greater both than the Pleroma, and than that which is beyond it, inasmuch as it contains both in its bosom. In this way, talk might go on for ever concerning those things which are contained, and those which contain. For if this third existence has its beginning above, and its end beneath, there is an absolute necessity that it be also bounded on the sides, either beginning or ceasing at certain other points, [where new existences begin.] These, again, and others which are above and below, will have their beginnings at certain other points, and so on ad infinitum; so that their thoughts would never rest in one God, but, in consequence of seeking after more than exists, would wander away to that which has no existence, and depart from the true God.

 

[TOmNossor]

When they say "men may become gods" they are refering to the process of sanctification, another way to translate it would be "men may become as the angels." English is a horrible language for discussing doctrine, our vocabulary is too small, and leads to misinturpretations like this.

It has never been a Christain belief that we can become actual gods, there is only one God.
[/font][/size]

Lotar:

It has never been a Christain belief that we can become actual gods, there is only one God.



TOm:

Concerning the EO church, I cannot speak definitively. I would suggest that you used English quite well to convey the thought that it was not meant to say, “men may become gods.” I would suggest that if the author had intended to distance himself form this thought he should have used a different phase. How can he mean "men may become as the angels.” BTW, I see no evidence that this was translated into English, but I could be wrong.
LDS do embrace the singularity of God. There is and always will be one God is perfectly in accord with LDS theology (see below).


Concerning the ECF who I quoted earlier in the thread, I have every bit as much right to interpret them as do you.

When they say, “men may become gods.” They do not mean that there is more than one God. They mean that by uniting with the Holy Trinity men are deified and become gods. Never equal to God. Never in addition to or without God, but gods. This is also in accordance with LDS belief.



Now, post Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria, the ECF did not embrace creation ex materia. The doctrine of creation ex nihilo and that God is “first cause” is certainly part of most ECF deification. There can not be two “first causes.” This is not an important distinction, but since LDS believe in creation ex materia like Justin Martyr, we do not have this little problem. Also, like Protestant scholar A. Plantinga, LDS theology most clearly speaks to a social Trinity. The deified uniting of men with the social Trinity is much easier to comprehend than the deified uniting of men with an Augustinian Trinity. So post Augustine there are additional hardships for this uniting within ECF thought.



So one very real difference seems to exist between the witness of the ECF and what is not heretical within the CoJCoLDS. No ECF spoke of men becoming gods and having worlds to love and serve(a 2nd Century Jew is the only person I know of who said something similar to this).

Another difference that is certainly part of the ECF beliefs after the 2nd Century is that LDS believe that we are homoousian with God. We are of the same species. To be deified is to be united, but we do not have to become uncreated. We like God are eternal. We unlike God have not always been God, but we may unite with the Holy Trinity and become gods without becoming uncreated. (few Catholics and perhaps no EOs recognize the possibility of becoming uncreated, but becoming this or being unable to become uncreated would both be differences between LDS deification and the writings of the ECF).



I believe the above two thing:

1. LDS believe that we are homoousian (in this instance of the same substance/type) with God.

2. LDS do speak of becoming gods in a way that would allow the loving of our worlds.



Are the only differences that Father Vajda found between LDS deification and the writings of the ECFs.



Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Let's go back even further; I especially enjoyed Section 3: St. Iraeneus, Against Heresies:
3. Now, since there exists, according to them, also something else which they declare to be outside of the Pleroma, into which they further hold there descended that higher power who went astray, it is in every way necessary that the Pleroma either contains that which is beyond, yet is contained (for otherwise, it will not be beyond the Pleroma; for if there is anything beyond the Pleroma, there will be a Pleroma within this very Pleroma which they declare to be outside of the Pleroma, and the Pleroma will be contained by that which is beyond: and with the Pleroma is understood also the first God); or, again, they must be an infinite distance separated from each other--the Pleroma [I mean], and that which is beyond it. But if they maintain this, there will then be a third kind of existence, which separates by immensity the Pleroma and that which is beyond it. This third kind of existence will therefore bound and contain both the others, and will be greater both than the Pleroma, and than that which is beyond it, inasmuch as it contains both in its bosom. In this way, talk might go on for ever concerning those things which are contained, and those which contain. For if this third existence has its beginning above, and its end beneath, there is an absolute necessity that it be also bounded on the sides, either beginning or ceasing at certain other points, [where new existences begin.] These, again, and others which are above and below, will have their beginnings at certain other points, and so on ad infinitum; so that their thoughts would never rest in one God, but, in consequence of seeking after more than exists, would wander away to that which has no existence, and depart from the true God.

First, we are discussion men becoming gods, not Gods above God. I will explain that I will not defend the thought that there are Gods above God, then I will return to the topic at hand.



LDS do not believe in the Plemora. We do not believe in the Gnostic evilness of all matter. We do not postulate a creator God and a benevolent God as a product of the evilness of matter. We are far from Gnostic.



Now allow me to define what I will defend as LDS theology. The following is LDS theology:

"There is a God in heaven who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God...." (D&C 20:17).



That there is a God above God is not scriptural. In the BOA all gods (of which there are a number of ways of looking at this term) are subordinate to God the Father.



So, the KFD and the Lorenzo Snow couplet from which the concepts that God was once not God and that there is a God above God, are not doctrinal statements of our faith. Gordon B. Hinckley has recently said that, “we do not know very much about that [God being once a man].” Also, I see the following in the same Book you quoted from Irenaeus:

"The Father, therefore, has been declared by our Lord to excel with respect to knowledge; for this reason, that we, too, as long as we are connected with the scheme of things in this world, should leave perfect knowledge, and such questions [as have been mentioned], to God, and should not by any chance, while we seek to investigate the sublime nature of the Father, fall into the danger of starting the question whether there is another God above God." [Irenaeus, Against Heresies 2:27:8, in ANF 1:402.]



I believe this is Irenaeus saying it is imprudent to speculate about a God above God. I do not think that Irenaeus has any problem with condemning the Plemora concept of the Gnostics, but I believe above he is saying that a God above God is beyond the revealed word and we will not discuss it.



Also, we are actually discussion if men may become gods, not if God was once man or if God has a God above him. Here are some PERTINANT words from Irenaeus concerning men becoming Gods.



Now more of Irenaeus’ words:

Irenaeus - Adv. Her. 3.6.1 “God stood in the in the congregation of the gods, He judges among the gods.” He [here] refers to the Father and the Son, and those who have received the adoption; but these are the Church. (ANF 1.419).



Irenaeus - Adv. Her. 3.19.1 He who was the Son of God became the Son of man, that man, having been taken into the Word, and receiving the adoption, might become the son of God. For by no other means could we have attained to incorruptibility and immortality, unless we had been united to incorruptibility and immortality.(ANF 1.448). [See also 3.6.1]



Irenaeus - Adv. Her. 4.Pref.4/ 4.1.1 ...there is none other called God by the Scriptures except the Father of all, and the Son, and those who possess the adoption. Since, therefore, this is sure and steadfast, that no other God or Lord was announced by the Spirit, except Him who, as God, rules over all, together with His Word, and those who receive the Spirit of adoption.(ANF 1.463).



Irenaeus - Adv. Her. 4.33.4 ... how can they be saved unless it was God who wrought out their salvation upon earth? Or how shall man pass into God, unless God has [first] passed into man?(ANF 1.507).



Irenaeus - Adv. 4.20.4 Now this is His Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, who in the last times was made a man among men, that He might join the end to the beginning, that is, man to God.(ANF 1.488).[see also 4.20.5-6]

Irenaeus - Adv. Her. 4.38.3-4 His wisdom [is shown] in His having made created things parts of one harmonious and consistent whole; and those things which, through His super-eminent kindness, receive growth and a long period of existence, do reflect the glory of the uncreated One, of that God who bestows what is good ungrudgingly. For from the very fact of these things having been created, [it follows] that they are not uncreated; but by their continuing in being throughout a long course of ages, they shall receive a faculty of the Uncreated, through the gratuitous bestowal of eternal existence upon them by God. ...man, a created and organized being, is rendered after the image and likeness of the uncreated God... we have not been made gods from the beginning, but at first merely men, then at length gods...He shall overcome the substance of created nature. For it was necessary, at first, that nature should be exhibited; then, after that, that what was mortal should be conquered and swallowed up by immortality, and the corruptible by incorruptibility, and that man should be made after the image and likeness of God, having received the knowledge of good and evil.(ANF 1.521-522).



Irenaeus - Adv. Her. 4.39.2 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.(ANF 1.522-523).



Irenaeus - Adv. Her. 5.Pref ...the Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through His transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself.(ANF 1.526).



Irenaeus - Adv. Her. 5.1.1 Since the Lord thus has redeemed us through His own blood, giving His soul for our souls, and His flesh for our flesh, and has also poured out the Spirit of the Father for the union and communion of God and man, imparting indeed God to men by means of the Spirit, and, on the other hand, attaching man to God by His own incarnation, and bestowing upon us at His coming immortality durably and truly, by means of communion with God...(ANF 1.527).[see also 5.36.3]





TOm:

Irenaeus clearly says that men become gods by adoption. “We have not been made gods from the beginning, but at first merely men, then at length gods.”

How do I misunderstand what he clearly says here?



Charity, TOm

 

[Lotar]

TOm:

Concerning the EO church, I cannot speak definitively. I would suggest that you used English quite well to convey the thought that it was not meant to say, “men may become gods.” I would suggest that if the author had intended to distance himself form this thought he should have used a different phase. How can he mean "men may become as the angels.” BTW, I see no evidence that this was translated into English, but I could be wrong.
LDS do embrace the singularity of God. There is and always will be one God is perfectly in accord with LDS theology (see below).

None of the ECF spoke English, so yes, they are all translations. Either from Greek or Latin.

Concerning the ECF who I quoted earlier in the thread, I have every bit as much right to interpret them as do you.



When they say, “men may become gods.” They do not mean that there is more than one God. They mean that by uniting with the Holy Trinity men are deified and become gods. Never equal to God. Never in addition to or without God, but gods. This is also in accordance with LDS belief.



Now, post Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria, the ECF did not embrace creation ex materia. The doctrine of creation ex nihilo and that God is “first cause” is certainly part of most ECF deification. There can not be two “first causes.” This is not an important distinction, but since LDS believe in creation ex materia like Justin Martyr, we do not have this little problem. Also, like Protestant scholar A. Plantinga, LDS theology most clearly speaks to a social Trinity. The deified uniting of men with the social Trinity is much easier to comprehend than the deified uniting of men with an Augustinian Trinity. So post Augustine there are additional hardships for this uniting within ECF thought.

Alrighty then


You do see that you are redefining their words and taking them out of context, don't you? Why do you think that ECF, who always professed and defended the Creeds, would ever agree with this theology?

So one very real difference seems to exist between the witness of the ECF and what is not heretical within the CoJCoLDS. No ECF spoke of men becoming gods and having worlds to love and serve(a 2nd Century Jew is the only person I know of who said something similar to this).

Another difference that is certainly part of the ECF beliefs after the 2nd Century is that LDS believe that we are homoousian with God. We are of the same species. To be deified is to be united, but we do not have to become uncreated. We like God are eternal. We unlike God have not always been God, but we may unite with the Holy Trinity and become gods without becoming uncreated. (few Catholics and perhaps no EOs recognize the possibility of becoming uncreated, but becoming this or being unable to become uncreated would both be differences between LDS deification and the writings of the ECF).

I'd say those are some very big differences between LDS thought and the ECF.

I believe the above two thing:

1. LDS believe that we are homoousian (in this instance of the same substance/type) with God.

2. LDS do speak of becoming gods in a way that would allow the loving of our worlds.



Are the only differences that Father Vajda found between LDS deification and the writings of the ECFs.

Who is this Vajda guy?

 

[Oblio]

I believe the above two thing:

1. LDS believe that we are homoousian (in this instance of the same substance/type) with God.

2. LDS do speak of becoming gods in a way that would allow the loving of our worlds.

To believe that we are homoousian with God is heresy. And those that promote this belief are heretics.

 

[Oblio]

When they say "men may become gods" they are refering to the process of sanctification, another way to translate it would be "men may become as the angels." English is a horrible language for discussing doctrine, our vocabulary is too small, and leads to misinturpretations like this.

It has never been a Christain belief that we can become actual gods, there is only one God.
[/font][/size]

Thank you Lotar

 

[Oblio]

The OP stated:

Orthodox Christianity : Proclaiming the Truth since 33AD


It has become very clear to me that there is a great deal of confusion in this section of CF as to what Orthodoxy, aka the Eastern Orthodox Church, teaches and exactly what it is.

{ ... Orthodox beliefs ... }

Speculation and misrepresentation by Mormons on what canonical Orthodoxy believes is Off Topic in this thread. Take Mormon views and beliefs to another thread please.

 

[Suzannah]

Tom,
I feel you are again seeing this out of context and using it to further LDS teaching by “creating“ a nonexistent connexion. LDS teaches that men become individual gods. Women become individual goddesses. They have physical bodies. They then are yet married polygamous ly and presumably obtain their own planets. They become gods BESIDESGod. Not only is there no God above God, there is also no god besides Him. They also are apart from Him, in spatial ways, since they are granted their own planets.


St. Gregory Palamas:
The Philokalia: Vol. 4, The Declaration of the Holy Mountain

(the first part you will be familiar with but it is inseparable from the latter paragraph)



2. If anyone declares that perfect union with God is accomplished simply in an imitative and relative fashion, without the deifying grace of the Spirit and merely in the manner of persons who share the same disposition and who love one another, and that the deifying grace of God is a state of our intellectual nature acquired by imitation alone, but is not a supernatural illumination and an ineffable and divine energy beheld invisibly and conceived inconceivably by those privileged to participate in it, then he must know that he has fallen unawares into the delusion of the Messalians. For if deification is accomplished according to a capacity inherent in human nature and if it is encompassed within the bounds of nature, then of necessity the person deified is by nature God. Whoever thinks like this should not attempt therefore to foist his own delusion upon those who stand on secure ground and to impose a defiled creed upon those whose faith undefiled; rather should lay aside his presumption and learn from persons of experience or from their disciples that the grace of deification is entirely unconditional and there is no faculty whatever in nature capable of achieving it since, if there were, this grace would no longer be grace but merely the manifestation of the operation of a natural capacity. Nor if deification were in accord with a natural capacity would there be anything miraculous in it; for then deification would truly be the work of nature, not the gift of God, and a man would be able to b e and to be called a God by nature in the full sense of the words. For the natural capacity of every being is nothing other than the undeviating and natural disposition for active accomplishment. It is indeed incomprehensible how deification can raise the person deified outside or beyond himself if it is encompassed with the bounds of nature.

The grace of deification is therefore above nature, virtue and knowledge and according to St. Maximos, all such things infinitely fall short of it. For all the virtue we can attain and such imitation of God as lies in our power does no more than fit us for UNION with the Deity but it is through grace that this ineffable union is actually accomplished Through grace God in His entirety penetrates the saints in their entirety and the saints in their entirety penetrate God entirely exchanging the whole of Him for themselves and acquiring HIM ALONE as the reward of their ascent towards Him for He embraces them as the soul embraces the body, enabling them to be in HIM as His own members.

 

[TOmNossor]

None of the ECF spoke English, so yes, they are all translations. Either from Greek or Latin.


Alrighty then


You do see that you are redefining their words and taking them out of context, don't you? Why do you think that ECF, who always professed and defended the Creeds, would ever agree with this theology?


I'd say those are some very big differences between LDS thought and the ECF.





Who is this Vajda guy?

Lotar:

None of the ECF spoke English, so yes, they are all translations. Either from Greek or Latin.



TOm:

We were talking about this statement:

That is the kind of power Christ gives us -
power to get up and walk out of a crippled past into a life of power, meaning, peace and joy;
power to become better than we are;
power to become new creatures in Christ Jesus;
power to become gods by grace, partakers of divine nature, heirs of His kingdom.



From this English website that speaks to Orthodox beliefs that Oblio sent investigators to.

http://www.geocities.com/verseoftheday/theosis.html#1.0



Lotar:

You do see that you are redefining their words and taking them out of context, don't you? Why do you think that ECF, who always professed and defended the Creeds, would ever agree with this theology?



TOm:

Show me which creed speaks against ECF deification or LDS deification for that matter. I would like to see what you are speaking of.

Also, many of me ECF quotes occur pre-Nicea. There was really no universally accepted creed then. Surely you do not think the Apostles Creed was composed on the day of Pentecost? Even if this is the creed to which you refer, what part of deification is denied by this creed?



Lotar:

I'd say those are some very big differences between LDS thought and the ECF.



TOm:

Big differences perhaps, but two things should be noted.

• It was not heretical to say, “Men may become gods.”
• The big differences do not have Biblical nor 1st century origins. The differences began during the late part of the second century in one case (and are the product of omission in another).

Lotar:

Who is this Vajda guy?

TOm:

I referenced a quote of his from in an earlier post. Here is this text.

Let us also remember that I do not claim that the writings of the ECF witness to the identical deification which LDS believe in. Ex-Catholic Priest Father Vajda 5 years before leaving the Catholic Church to become a LDS wrote a masters thesis where he compared the ECF’s statements about deification. This is from an introduction to this document:



"The underlying motive for this thesis," Father Vajda states in the new introduction that he has written for FARMS, "was my . . . perception that one connection between the Catholic Church and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints lay in the fact that those who sought to deny the label 'Christian' to the LDS Church were, more often than not, the very same people who would then turn around and attempt to deny this label to the Catholic Church with the same reasons often being used in both instances to justify the conclusion. And since it was easy enough for me to see through the many half-truths, misunderstandings, and even outright errors alleged against the Catholic Church, I suspected that similar critiques leveled against the LDSChurch as to its 'non-Christian' status were equally flawed." Accordingly, he decided that he "wanted to reach beyond the rhetoric and discover for [himself] what the LDS Church actually taught," in the hope of encouraging responsible and accurate interfaith dialogue.


"I firmly maintain," writes Father Vajda, "that the Latter-day Saints are owed a debt of gratitude by other Christians because the Saints remind us all of our divine potential. The historic Christian doctrine of salvation theosis, i.e., human divinization for too long has been forgotten by too many Christians." "Members of the LDSChurch," he promises near the beginning of his thesis, "will discover unmistakable evidence that their fundamental belief about human salvation and potential is not unique nor a Mormon invention. Latin Catholics and Protestants will learn of a doctrine of salvation 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 EasternCatholicChurches 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.'"



TOm:

Did Father Vajda become a LDS because of the remarkable similarities he saw in his study of the ECF? I do not know, but I consider the similarities to be powerful evidence that Joseph Smith is not the source of LDS deification ideas.



Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

To believe that we are homoousian with God is heresy. And those that promote this belief are heretics.

Please find the earliest reference to support your assertion. I have no doubt that this is heresy withing the Eastern Orthodox Church, I just say that it is not heresy to Jesus Christ.

You may judge my beliefs by your standards, but they have nothing to do with the consitency of my beliefs.


Charity, TOm

 

[Oblio]

Please find the earliest reference to support your assertion. I have no doubt that this is heresy withing the Eastern Orthodox Church,

Your request answers itself.
c.f. The OP title.

 

[TOmNossor]

Tom,
I feel you are again seeing this out of context and using it to further LDS teaching by “creating“ a nonexistent connexion. LDS teaches that men become individual gods. Women become individual goddesses. They have physical bodies. They then are yet married polygamous ly and presumably obtain their own planets. They become gods BESIDESGod. Not only is there no God above God, there is also no god besides Him. They also are apart from Him, in spatial ways, since they are granted their own planets.


St. Gregory Palamas:
The Philokalia: Vol. 4, The Declaration of the Holy Mountain

(the first part you will be familiar with but it is inseparable from the latter paragraph)



2. If anyone declares that perfect union with God is accomplished simply in an imitative and relative fashion, without the deifying grace of the Spirit and merely in the manner of persons who share the same disposition and who love one another, and that the deifying grace of God is a state of our intellectual nature acquired by imitation alone, but is not a supernatural illumination and an ineffable and divine energy beheld invisibly and conceived inconceivably by those privileged to participate in it, then he must know that he has fallen unawares into the delusion of the Messalians. For if deification is accomplished according to a capacity inherent in human nature and if it is encompassed within the bounds of nature, then of necessity the person deified is by nature God. Whoever thinks like this should not attempt therefore to foist his own delusion upon those who stand on secure ground and to impose a defiled creed upon those whose faith undefiled; rather should lay aside his presumption and learn from persons of experience or from their disciples that the grace of deification is entirely unconditional and there is no faculty whatever in nature capable of achieving it since, if there were, this grace would no longer be grace but merely the manifestation of the operation of a natural capacity. Nor if deification were in accord with a natural capacity would there be anything miraculous in it; for then deification would truly be the work of nature, not the gift of God, and a man would be able to b e and to be called a God by nature in the full sense of the words. For the natural capacity of every being is nothing other than the undeviating and natural disposition for active accomplishment. It is indeed incomprehensible how deification can raise the person deified outside or beyond himself if it is encompassed with the bounds of nature.

The grace of deification is therefore above nature, virtue and knowledge and according to St. Maximos, all such things infinitely fall short of it. For all the virtue we can attain and such imitation of God as lies in our power does no more than fit us for UNION with the Deity but it is through grace that this ineffable union is actually accomplished Through grace God in His entirety penetrates the saints in their entirety and the saints in their entirety penetrate God entirely exchanging the whole of Him for themselves and acquiring HIM ALONE as the reward of their ascent towards Him for He embraces them as the soul embraces the body, enabling them to be in HIM as His own members.

Suzanne:

I feel you are again seeing this out of context and using it to further LDS teaching by “creating“ a nonexistent connexion. LDS teaches that men become individual gods. Women become individual goddesses

Suzannah (an addition to the above quote):
They have physical bodies. They then are yet married polygamous ly and presumably obtain their own planets. They become gods BESIDESGod. Not only is there no God above God, there is also no god besides Him. They also are apart from Him, in spatial ways, since they are granted their own planets.





TOm:

You are not correct. I insist that I be allowed to define what I believe. I am awaiting evidence that it is heretical for EO’s to say “Men may become gods,” but I respect YOUR beliefs that men may not become Gods.

LDS become gods through uniting with the Holy Trinity. There is no other way.

TOm (edit):
Physical bodies yes. Gods besides god, no. United in the same fashion (although not equal) as the Holy Trinity is united, yes.
You address fiction which I will not accept or defend. Pls allow me to define my beliefs. I will explain things to you if you like, but I know what I believe.



Charity, TOm