Trinity

[Juliann]

I am implying you are using the Missionary bob and weave.:>)The LDS I know admitted they believed in a multitude of other gods, but that they were to worship only the god of this planet. and that they hoped they would be gods of their own planets some day.
By definition a belief in more than one god is polytheism

In Mormonism you have the plurality of gods, plurality of marriages, plurality of worlds and even other saviors. The LDS believes other worlds have the fall repeated just like Adam and Eve on earth. So there must be a savior for them as well.

Oh, brother. You know what we believe better than we do...if we won't accept your inserting ideas into our heads (why you would need to is another matter) we are doing a "missionary bob and weave". So we not only do not know what we believe...we are dishonest. You don't even know what simple dictionary definitions are. LDS would more properly be called henotheists.

The LDS Godhead doctrine seems to change all the time. It began as Trinitarians, became Unitarians ("modalists", to be precise, the Book of Mormon teaching), then became Binitarians -- two Gods (at Kirtland), then Tritheists -- three Gods (at Nauvoo), then rampant Polytheists -- billions of gods (in early Utah), to then return to their moderate polytheism of three Gods today.

Yeah, right.

Orthodox Christians have a stable doctrine!

Really? And which church and doctrine would that be?

There are some really deep teachings in the Bible which man cannot be expected to fathom but which Trinitarian formulations can explain better than LDS polytheism, such as the instance in which Jesus told Nicodemus that He was simultaneously in heaven and on earth, something Mormons in their physical mind-frame cannot fathom.

We can't, huh? It is pretty deep. Kind of like being in a chair and being in a room at the same time! Wow! Heavy stuff! Does better explaining something make it right? Has it ever occured to you to start doing a little homework on your own false beliefs?

I once read an article written by a man that often debated Mormons.
He commented that trying to get a definitive answer out of a mormon was like trying to nail jello to a wall. It was his opinion that the leadership has intentionally kept actual doctrine (that is written,not taught or believed ) to a minimum so they always had plausible deniability . I have come to se the truth of that .

You seem to have no need to worry about plausible deniability with your ridiculous magical beliefs. Why would anyone else? But, true to form...if there are alternative explanations always assign the most horrific one to your neighbor.

For instance McConkey caused quite a stir in mormon circles when he denied knowing of progression and denied the snow couplet..kind of "lying for the Lord" I guess..but observant Mormons were upset that he had misstated a church doctrine.

Do you know what a reference is? USE one when you come up with this bilge.

I just read an article written by a Mormon where he said his mother ..a member for 20 years had never heard of eternal progression. There is intentional misstating ,and hiding So it does not surprise me that you may have a different doctrine.

I just read this!

“[After leaving] I also saw how deeply destructive the Evangelical mentality had been to me, not only as I applied it to myself, but as it was applied to me as a potential convert. Once someone recites the formula “I accept Jesus as my personal Savior: they have become what they should be and the rest is hardly important. . .Overall, the person becomes an object, a thing to be manipulated into he proper configuration . I feel that I was violated by this ideology. I feel that I was seen primarily as a quantity to be shifted from one column to another in God’s great ledger book. What happened to me was not qualitatively different from rape, inasmuch as it is a ‘doing to’ rather than a ‘doing with’.” (p 204).
Marlene Winell, Leaving the Fold. (Oakland, CA: New Harbinger Publications, 1994)

BTW the word of God is fixed as is His nature ..you guys have a doctrine that seems to revolve every 10 minutes.

You guys forgot to tell God that when he put out the New Testament. Yikes.

There is the Father had sex with Mary "speculation" so "the father" was the physical father of jesus
Then there is the ever popular Adam was god "speculation"

I have met Mormons that believe the church had no right to eliminate polygamy

You "doctrine "changed from the POM to the PoGP to the D&C ( the actual teachings by the prophets)

A non Mormon trying to understand what you believe is faced with a religion that claims to restore Christianity has more speculation than answers.

Till you read another book or a new speculation comes up:>)

The only speculating I see is from you. You really do love talking about sex, don't you. Sheesh.

You are right I am a missionaries worse nightmare:>)

I think your attitude is any good Christian's worst nightmare, actually.

I do not "hate you." or any Mormon , I consider Joseph Smith a deceived reprobate (Brigham too)
I believe that Mormons are a spiritually deceived people that will learn of the day of Judgment there is no second chance , and that indeed hell is for eternity .

I believe that if there is such a place as hell, your religion will indeed be there to see what everyone learns. See? I can play "hell and damnation" if I am around you long enough!

Perhaps I should reword my words about JS (and BY) and say he/they hated Christian religions .

Perhaps you should stop hanging around hate sites. I notice that you do not give any source for these quotes. Are you ashamed to tell us where you got them from? It's considered plagairizing not to, you know. Or are you claiming that you read dozens of volumes and found these little gems yourself? Of course the first Mormons weren't too entranced with the good Christians who drove them out of their homes. What is Christian about that?

But let's not stop at the 19th century! Let's look at what is going on today with your version of Christian "love":

David Sproul described Texas pastor W.A. Criswell as "perhaps second only to Billy Graham in being the biggest Judas-goat of the century". Bob Jones, Jr. called Falwell, "the most dangerous man in America", characterizing Falwell's political maneuvering as "spiritual fornication.". (Lloyd J. Averill, Religious Right, Religious Wrong (New York: The Pilgrim Press, 1989), p 51

 

[Juliann]

Out-of-context! What did Justin mean by "deified", when he speaks of only one God? Justin did say, “men are deemed worthy of becoming gods”, in the same way as the unjust judges in Psalm 82.

The distinction between LDS belief and the Church Fathers is that they do not close the gulf between creature and creator. LDS did not start with that gulf. It is a matter of ontology not theology.

There is absolutely no evidence ,other than need, for the wording of Psalms82 to be changed. Do you really think that the author did not have another word for "judges"..or that he put god because, what...he goofed? Look at how hard you have to work at explaining away each and every reference...and there are many, many more. This early doctrine is simply not disputable. You lose credibility to not acknowledge what is acknowledged by every student of Christian history.

If you don't like the ancients, look at how many moderns you have to brush aside...are these Christians also condemned in your eyes for believing the "wrong things"?

Paul Crouch of the Trinity Broadcasting Network says, "I am a little god. I have His name. I am one with Him. I'm in a covenant relation. I am a little god. Critics begone." (7)
Robert Tilton says, "Man is a God kind of creature. Originally you were designed to be as a god in this world. Man was designed or created by God to be the god of this world. (8)

Kenneth Copeland says, "You don't have a god in you. You are one!" Additionally, he writes, "that man had total authority to rule as a god over every living creature on earth." (9)

C.S. Lewis says, "It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest and most uninteresting person you can talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship." (10)

Lewis also states in almost exactly the same words as Lorenzo Snow: "The Son of God became a man to enable men to become sons of God."

(7) Paul Crouch, "Praise the Lord." TBN 7 July 1986.

(8) Robert Tilton, "God's Laws of Success (Dallas: Word of Faith, 1983) pp. 170-71.

(9) Kenneth Copeland, "The Force of Love: (Fort Worth: Kenneth Copeland, n.d.), tape BCC-56.

(10) C.S. Lewis, "The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses," rev. ed. (New York: Mamillian, Collier Books, 1980), p. 18.

 

[Der Alte]

The distinction between LDS belief and the Church Fathers is that they do not close the gulf between creature and creator. LDS did not start with that gulf. It is a matter of ontology not theology.

I see nothing but your unsupported assertions. Care to explain any of this with references, support, documentation, etc.?

There is absolutely no evidence ,other than need, for the wording of Psalms82 to be changed. Do you really think that the author did not have another word for "judges"..or that he put god because, what...he goofed? Look at how hard you have to work at explaining away each and every reference...and there are many, many more. This early doctrine is simply not disputable. You lose credibility to not acknowledge what is acknowledged by every student of Christian history.

Oh please do lecture me on credibility and Christian History without citing one source. About an arms length away I have Early Christian Doctrines, J.N.D. Kelly, 1978; A History of Christianity Vol. 1, Kenneth Scott Latourette, 1975, and The History of Doctrines, Reinhold Seeberg, 1978, and others, care to discuss church and Christian history?

Now for the rest of your unsupported objection. Ever hear of BDB, the leading authority on Biblical Hebrew?

H430 אלהים 'elohiym
BDB Definition:
1) (plural)
1a) rulers, judges
1b) divine ones
1c) angels
1d) gods
2) (plural intensive - singular meaning)
2a) god, goddess
2b) godlike one
2c) works or special possessions of God
2d) the (true) God
2e) God
Part of Speech: noun masculine plural
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: plural of H433
Same Word by TWOT Number: 93c

Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, Francis Brown, S.R. Driver, C. A. Briggs, Clarendon Press, 1980.
​

If you don't like the ancients, look at how many moderns you have to brush aside...are these Christians also condemned in your eyes for believing the "wrong things"? . . .

(7) Paul Crouch, "Praise the Lord." TBN 7 July 1986.

(8) Robert Tilton, "God's Laws of Success (Dallas: Word of Faith, 1983) pp. 170-71.

(9) Kenneth Copeland, "The Force of Love: (Fort Worth: Kenneth Copeland, n.d.), tape BCC-56.

(10) C.S. Lewis, "The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses," rev. ed. (New York: Mamillian, Collier Books, 1980), p. 18.

First, what was your source? As indicated by the footnote numbers you copied this from a secondary source. Weren't you presuming to lecture someone in this very thread for not documenting sources?

And OBTW you did not quote any ancient sources, that I saw.

As for these persons I have never read or heard any of their writings or sermons, none of them represent mainline evangelical Christianity, and I am no more responsible for them than I am Jim Jones or David Koresh. Although I have driven by TBN's main studio in Tustin, CA many times.

Are you responsible for the 30,000 Mormons who practice polygamy today? Care to discuss how teen age girls are being forced, against their wills, into polygamymous marriages within the your own church, the CoJCoLDS?

 

[TOmNossor]

Der Alger:

Oh please do lecture me on credibility and Christian History without citing one source. About an arms length away I have Early Christian Doctrines, J.N.D. Kelly, 1978



TOm:

We discussed ECF before and you said that you rejected my ideas. I said that Patristic Scholars generally recognize deification within the writings of the ECF. You didn’t seem to care.

Now you suggest that Kelly is important to you. How about this.



Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, p. 180:

While the [early Christian] theologians... repeat and elaborate the familiar eschatological themes, there is a further theme, that of the deification of the Christian, which is interwoven with their teaching and which was to have a profound influence on subsequent theology. According to this, the final flowering of the Christian hope consisted in participation in the divine nature and in the blessed immortality of God.



TOm:

My source for the above is actually an essay be Barry Bickmore, but I was actually shocked when you seemed to deny that deification was part of the Early Christian teachings. I have read LDS and non-LDS sources that say this.



I do not suggest that Kelly embraces deification, but it is my understanding that generally patristic scholars recognize deification within the writings I previously quoted to you.



I will again site an introduction for former Father Jordan Vajda who 5 years before he left the RCC wrote a master thesis on the similarities between LDS and Early Church deification.



"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 LDS Church 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 LDS Church," 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 Eastern Catholic Churches will discover on the American continent an amazing parallel to their own belief that salvation in Christ involves our becoming 'partakers of the divine nature.'"



Other than those who seek “to deny the label ‘Christian’ to the LDS Church” I have not seen a lot of people denying deification within the ECF.



Charity, TOm

 

[skylark1]

C.S. Lewis says, "It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest and most uninteresting person you can talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship." (10)

Lewis also states in almost exactly the same words as Lorenzo Snow: "The Son of God became a man to enable men to become sons of God."

I think that some statements by C.S. Lewis have been misunderstood by LDS. Perhaps this quotation will help to clarify his beliefs:

"What God begets is God; just as what man begets is man. What God creates is not God; just as what man makes is not man. That is why men are not Sons of God in the sense that Christ is. They may be like God in certain ways, but they are not things of the same kind. They are more like statues or pictures of God." Beyond Personality, pg 12-13


I hope this helps.

 

[TOmNossor]

I do not take my theology from C.S. Lewis, but I believe I can explain what C.S. Lewis thought and how it is different from what LDS think. This of course is not because I am so smart, but because Father Vajda explained the difference between LDS and non-LDS deification.



Two quotes previously mentioned:

"What God begets is God; just as what man begets is man. What God creates is not God; just as what man makes is not man. That is why men are not Sons of God in the sense that Christ is. They may be like God in certain ways, but they are not things of the same kind. They are more like statues or pictures of God." Beyond Personality, pg 12-13



C.S. Lewis says, "It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest and most uninteresting person you can talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship." – Weight of Glory





These are in perfect accord with non-LDS deification. For the non-LDS men are made gods by “partaking of the divine nature” and what they are can be said to change. So in Beyond Personality C.S.Lewis explains what men are which is and will always be less than what those within the Trinity from the beginning are. The Godhead is uncreated. Man is created. But in the Weight of Glory C.S. Lewis focuses on what we may become. Note how he is clearly talking about the future.



Justin Martyr was the last ECF to show that he did not believe in Creation ex. Nihilo. Before Nicea Creation ex Nihilo was accepted. Nicea then had to distinguish between creator and created and Jesus and the Holy Ghost could not be part of created. This lead to the different nature doctrines C.S. Lewis embraced.

LDS can embrace Nicea, but in truth we believe that we are of the same Nature as the Godhead. We participate in the divine nature through our uniting with the Holy Trinity, requiring no change of substance to occur.



It seems that C.S. Lewis had a good ECF and Catholic understanding of deification. LDS are different, but you do not demonstrate that C.S. Lewis didn’t understand or accept deification.



Charity, TOm

 

[xsimmsx]

Why are most of the threads in here on Mormon theology could they be reduced to a fewer number please?

 

[Der Alte]

Der Alger:

Oh please do lecture me on credibility and Christian History without citing one source. About an arms length away I have Early Christian Doctrines, J.N.D. Kelly, 1978

Please explain to me why it is necessary to misspell my name?

We discussed ECF before and you said that you rejected my ideas. I said that Patristic Scholars generally recognize deification within the writings of the ECF. You didn’t seem to care.

I certainly did and I backed it up from the primary sources, NOT second hand quotes from another source. All, as in 100%, of the ECF I addressed did NOT support deification. Further, I will state IF that is true then there should be a consistent record of that throughout church history. And I don't mean ambiguous phrases like, "in the divine nature and in the blessed immortality of God." I expect to see the same degree of explanation and elucidation as I see for other Christian doctrines, e.g. Baptism. That is of course if Matthew 16:18, is true.

Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.​

Now you suggest that Kelly is important to you. How about this.

Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, p. 180:

While the [early Christian] theologians... repeat and elaborate the familiar eschatological themes, there is a further theme, that of the deification of the Christian, which is interwoven with their teaching and which was to have a profound influence on subsequent theology. According to this, the final flowering of the Christian hope consisted in participation in the divine nature and in the blessed immortality of God.

The quote does NOT appear on page 180 of Kelly, or any other page in the chapter in which page 180 falls. That is the problem with quoting second hand. But you are correct Kelly does NOT support "deification"

I will again site an introduction for former Father Jordan Vajda who 5 years before he left the RCC wrote a master thesis on the similarities between LDS and Early Church deification.

And I am still no more interested in what Vajda says than I was before. If you can, back up your assertions with clear, in-context quotes from the primary sources, i.e. the ECF. Just for fun go through your list of quotes from Vajda and pick out the 5 or 6 very best you can find and lets discuss those.

 

[TOmNossor]

Der Alder:

The quote does NOT appear on page 180 of Kelly, or any other page in the chapter in which page 180 falls. That is the problem with quoting second hand. But you are correct Kelly does NOT support "deification"



TOm:

Could you site where Kelly does NOT support that men may become gods (be his term deification or theosis). If you do find a statement concerning this, could you look around it to see if perhaps we have a version issue and not a mis-quote issue. I will do my homework too, but is the chapter on page 180 about “deification?” If not is there a chapter about “deification?” Could the quote be in that chapter?



While I hope you or I can verify the above quote, and put to bed the thought that YOUR well respected (and indeed perhaps the most well respected in the world) patristic scholar believes that the ECF embraced the fact that men could become gods, I will give you a couple of quotes for you to interpret as you see fit.



Mark the Ascetic - Letter to Nicolas The Logos become man, so that man might become Logos. Being rich he became poor for our sakes, so that through his poverty we might become rich. (cf. 2 Cor. 8:9) In His great love for man He became like us, that through every virtue we might become like Him. (The Philokalia 1.155)



TOm:

I choose this because of the reference to 2 Cor 8:9. I do not see how you could say that the above “become Logos” and “become like him” is referring to becoming a judge and not a god like Jesus.



Jerome - Homily 14 ...That we are gods, not so by nature, but by grace. "But as many as received him he gave power of becoming sons of God." I made man for that purpose, that from men they may become gods. "I said: You are gods, all of you sons of the most High."(The Fathers of the Church 48.106)



Augustine - The City of God 21.16 Accordingly vices are then only to be considered overcome when they are conquered by the love of God, which God Himself alone gives, and which He gives only through the Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who became a partaker of our mortality that He might make us partakers of His divinity.(PNF 2.465)



TOm:

BTW, my list of deification quotes is not from Vajda. It is from a Catholic friend of mine.



Charity, TOm

 

[Ragman]

"...but following the only true and steadfast Teacher, 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."
(Irenaeus-Agaisnt Heresies, Ante-Nicene Fathers vol. 1 Pg. 526)

I'm jumping into this conversation late and I'm not sure if it is a discussion pro and con for the concept of deification or pro or con of Latter Day Saints.

Thank,
Ragman

 

[TOmNossor]

Ragman,
At this point Der Alter and I are trying to decide if the ECF taught that men may become gods.
Charity, TOm

 

[rnmomof7]

Der Alder:

In Eastern Orthodox teaching theosis or divinization is a process by which human beings achieve the union with God that was lost in the fall into sin, a process whereby human beings become participants in the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4). The Orthodox do not think of theosis in terms of pantheism, however. Rather it is the process by which human beings are restored to the likeness of God. “As we cooperate with God's grace, he renews the distorted image in us so that we attain the likeness and consequently become godlike.” (Daniel B. Clendenin, Eastern Orthodox Christianity: A Western Perspective. p.134, Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994)

This is sanctification

 

[fatboys]

Is God God like?

 

[Ragman]

Ragman,
At this point Der Alter and I are trying to decide if the ECF taught that men may become gods.
Charity, TOm

ECF= Early Church Fathers?

 

[rnmomof7]

It seems to me that trinitarians, who think that Athanasius was the only one who could define the Godhead, would agree with his other statement that, "God became man, so that man could become God."

Divine community? How about divine family? 1 John 3:1-2; "Behold what manner of love the Father hath bestowed on us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. 2; Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him.
Romans 8:16-17, tells us that we are, "joint heirs with Christ."
It would logically follow, that if your father is a Larson, and your elder brother is a Larson, you would obviously be a Larson.

God, the Father, created man because he is in the process of recreating himself. This earthly existence is only a stepping stone in that direction.

Sounds like the united Church of God right?

 

[rnmomof7]

Is God God like?

Well He is not like man

 

[Der Alte]

Der Alder:

The quote does NOT appear on page 180 of Kelly, or any other page in the chapter in which page 180 falls. That is the problem with quoting second hand. But you are correct Kelly does NOT support "deification"

Repeat after me, D-E-R(space)A-L-T-E-R. It means "The Elder" in German and Yiddish. Alder is a tree.

Could you site where Kelly does NOT support that men may become gods (be his term deification or theosis). If you do find a statement concerning this, could you look around it to see if perhaps we have a version issue and not a mis-quote issue. I will do my homework too, but is the chapter on page 180 about “deification?” If not is there a chapter about “deification?” Could the quote be in that chapter?

It is virtually impossible to prove a negative. It may be an edition issue but I don't think so. There is no chapter which discusses deification. I am not at home at the moment will check the chapter title a little later.

Mark the Ascetic - Letter to Nicolas The Logos become man, so that man might become Logos. Being rich he became poor for our sakes, so that through his poverty we might become rich. (cf. 2 Cor. 8:9) In His great love for man He became like us, that through every virtue we might become like Him. (The Philokalia 1.155)

I choose this because of the reference to 2 Cor 8:9. I do not see how you could say that the above “become Logos” and “become like him” is referring to becoming a judge and not a god like Jesus.

Here is the link to the ECF online. I cannot find this writer among those listed. "become rich' and "become like Him" are ambiguous, they do not necessarily mean become gods. Does this writer further develop this thought in his writing, or is this the ONLY reference?

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/

Jerome - Homily 14 ...That we are gods, not so by nature, but by grace. "But as many as received him he gave power of becoming sons of God." I made man for that purpose, that from men they may become gods. "I said: You are gods, all of you sons of the most High."(The Fathers of the Church 48.106)

Quotes Psalm 82, in which God is addressing unjust judges who pervert justice, lack knowledge, and walk in darkness. Do you think Psalm 82 is talking about deification, when God tells them they will die like men? If they were gods in their own right, YHWH could not make them die like men. Does Jerome develop this idea further? Ps 82, doesn't say they were actually gods but, "I have said you are gods."

Augustine - The City of God 21.16 Accordingly vices are then only to be considered overcome when they are conquered by the love of God, which God Himself alone gives, and which He gives only through the Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who became a partaker of our mortality that He might make us partakers of His divinity.(PNF 2.465)

"partakers of His divinity," does NOT necessarily mean become gods. Does Augustine develop this idea further?

Once again I expect to see unequivocal, statements, throughout the majority of the ECF, that men will become gods. Not ambiguous statements like those posted here, "become rich," "become like Him," and "partakers of His divinity."

 

[TOmNossor]

Der Alder:

In Eastern Orthodox teaching theosis or divinization is a process by which human beings achieve the union with God that was lost in the fall into sin, a process whereby human beings become participants in the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4). The Orthodox do not think of theosis in terms of pantheism, however. Rather it is the process by which human beings are restored to the likeness of God. “As we cooperate with God's grace, he renews the distorted image in us so that we attain the likeness and consequently become godlike.” (Daniel B. Clendenin, Eastern Orthodox Christianity: A Western Perspective. p.134, Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994)

This is sanctification

Rnmomof7,

Hello again!

LDS do not suggest their deification doctrines are about pantheism either. In fact the most clear view is that the Social Trinitarian structure that includes Jesus Christ in union with Heavenly Father would included lesser men in identical union (seemingly at some future time). Resulting in a larger Social, mutually indwelling, divine, group. The person-ness of the former man would of course not be subject to worship, but the oneness of God would not be compromised. I would guess that many LDS would suggest that at some point in time the oneness may be compromised, but I do not think that is the most straight forward read of our scripture.



Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Der Alter,



I am barely capable of keeping up in English farther more keep German straight. Again I am sorry.



I will try to make it to a library and see if I can find R.N. Kelly. At the very least it will be good education for me since as you have noted I spend much time in secondary sources.



I cannot suggest that you have no room to interpret the ECF as you do, but I am not sure I can see it as the most straight forward view. Perhaps if men becoming gods for you equals a pantheism then you would know that that was not what was meant, but I of course agree that this is not want is meant.



The Philokalia is a collection of the writings of Christian mystics from the 4th and 5th century.



For me, a trip to the library will be good even if I cannot find J.N. Kelly!



Charity, TOm

 

[Der Alte]

Der Alter,

I will try to make it to a library and see if I can find R.N. Kelly. At the very least it will be good education for me since as you have noted I spend much time in secondary sources.

I cannot suggest that you have no room to interpret the ECF as you do, but I am not sure I can see it as the most straight forward view. Perhaps if men becoming gods for you equals a pantheism then you would know that that was not what was meant, but I of course agree that this is not want is meant.

The false doctrine, of men becoming gods, which is NOT supported by the Bible or the overwhelming majority of the ECF, when taken in context, contradicts the undisputed word of God, as listed here. I have said this before and it has gone basically unaswered. God said there was NO god before Him, NO god beside Him, and NO god after Him. He knows NOT any.

So what part of NO and NOT is unclear? Even if you could find some ECF who state unequivocally that man may become gods, you still must deal with the unquestioned word of God. NO NOT any.

Deu 32:39 See now that I, [even] I, [am] he, and [there is] no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither [is there any] that can deliver out of my hand.

Isa 43:10 Ye [are] my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I [am] he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
11 I, [even] I, [am] the LORD; and beside me [there is] no saviour.

Isa 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I [am] the first, and I [am] the last; and beside me [there is] no God.

Isa 44:8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared [it]? ye [are] even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, [there is] no God; I know not [any].

Isa 45:5 I [am] the LORD, and [there is] none else, [there is] no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:
6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that [there is] none beside me. I [am] the LORD, and [there is] none else.

Isa 45:21 Tell ye, and bring [them] near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? [who] hath told it from that time? [have] not I the LORD? and [there is] no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; [there is] none beside me.

Isa 46:9 Remember the former things of old: for I [am] God, and [there is] none else; [I am] God, and [there is] none like me,
​

Why look for something in the uninspired writings of men, ancient or modern, when God has already settled the issue?

For me, a trip to the library will be good even if I cannot find J.N. Kelly!

Charity, TOm

The chapter in J.N.D. Kelly's, "Early Christian Doctrine, 1978, in which page 180 falls is "Man and His Redemption," nothing about deification. Let me quote the last few sentences of Kelly's conclusion,

The chief enjoyment of heaven, or the city of God, will lie in praising God: 'He shall be the end of our desires, Who shall be contemplated without ceasing, loved without cloy, and praised without weariness'. There will be degrees of honour there, based on merit, but there will be no jealousy; and free will will not only continue to be exercised by the saints, but will be the more truly free because liberated from the desire in sinning. In fact, eternal life will for the redeemed be a perpetual Sabbath, when they will be filled with God's blessing and santification. The Psalmist's words will at last find fulfilment, 'Be still, and know that I am God.' (footnotes omitted.)​

Not one word about men becoming gods. Not referred to as gods, but "the saints", "the redeemed." NOT gods but, "filled with God's blessing and santification" NOT gods but, "know that I am God.," Kelly, "Doctrines" p. 489.