Trinity

[Peterson]

rnmomof7
Nope, I'm not a member of any church, and as I read this thread, I am convinced to not even think about it.

I will still rely on Paul and the other Apostles as the only church fathers worthy of defining God; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Eph. 4:6; 1 John 22-24. These are clear, complete statements that cannot be added to, nor subtracted from, There is one God the Father, and one Lord and saviour Jesus Christ - PERIOD

Will men (women) become gods? Sure. See post#100. If God wants nothing but creatures to praise him forever, He could have created automatons and never created this crazy creature called man.

 

[TOmNossor]

Der Alter:

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.



TOm:

I thought I might have said this already, but Jesus is NO god before, beside, or after the Father. This is the type of unity that men will enjoy as gods.

So, my view of deification has nothing to do with denying those scriptures.



Der Alter:

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.)

TOm:

“Degrees of honour there, based on merit” is this mainstream Protestant theology?



Charity, TOm

 

[rnmomof7]

rnmomof7
Nope, I'm not a member of any church, and as I read this thread, I am convinced to not even think about it.

I will still rely on Paul and the other Apostles as the only church fathers worthy of defining God; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Eph. 4:6; 1 John 22-24. These are clear, complete statements that cannot be added to, nor subtracted from, There is one God the Father, and one Lord and saviour Jesus Christ - PERIOD

Will men (women) become gods? Sure. See post#100. If God wants nothing but creatures to praise him forever, He could have created automatons and never created this crazy creature called man.

All Christian faiths believe that man was made to glorify God ..to love and serve him.

That is the purpose of creation..it was not to make other gods.

Isa 43:7 [Even] every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him.


BTW the word god also means judge. The saved will rule and reign with Christ and Judge with Him.

I do not think you understand God.

God will not "share " His glory"

Isa 42:8 I [am] the LORD: that [is] my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images

Rom. 9. 36. "Of him, and through him, and to him, are all things; to whom be glory for ever." And 1 Cor. 10. 31. Whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God."

God is all together self sufficient..He did not need men to love or have friendship with .

The chief end of man is "To please God." It was for this that man is and was created
Rev 4:11**
Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

Do you accept the creeds of the church?
BTW Mormons do not believe woman will be gods..only men

 

[Peterson]

rnmomof7
No, I do not accept man-made creeds that have no scriptural basis. By the way, "god" also means family, and we will be a part of that family, and the Father will be supreme.

God created the earth, and the driving force behind every plant, germ, fish, reptile, mammal and humanity is the urge for reproduction. Everything in scripture revolves around family. The problem with mankind is the misuse of free moral agency in action apart from the Spirit of the Father and Christ. If God does not intervene (and soon), man will self-destruct. When we learn that lesson, we will be on the way to being apart of God's family.

 

[rnmomof7]

rnmomof7
No, I do not accept man-made creeds that have no scriptural basis. By the way, "god" also means family, and we will be a part of that family, and the Father will be supreme.

God created the earth, and the driving force behind every plant, germ, fish, reptile, mammal and humanity is the urge for reproduction. Everything in scripture revolves around family. The problem with mankind is the misuse of free moral agency in action apart from the Spirit of the Father and Christ. If God does not intervene (and soon), man will self-destruct. When we learn that lesson, we will be on the way to being apart of God's family.

This sure sounds lie the Herbert Armstrong doctrine to me..

Do you know that if you deny the creeds you can not post on the Christian side of the forum?

 

[gort]

Mans duty is to Glorify God. To love God for who He says He is. And who He has always been from eternity to etrnity. To come to understanding of His Goodness, Faithfullness, Justice and Truth. His never ending Mercies and Grace. I would imagine those who are given crowns will lay them all at His feet. For God is truly Good.

My hope is God likes to talk a lot, tell stories to His Sons and Daughters, that we may enjoy Him for all eternity, and He may enjoy us, having found our place in His Family.....on our knees before Him.

Praise the Lord
God is Good. Amen.

 

[Peterson]

rnmom,
You are determined to pidgeon-hole me some place. You seem to be a Billy Graham type, when he stated that, in heaven, we would ride around on streets of gold in gold Cadillacs. Now that's something to look forward to. God's plan for mankind encompasses a lot more than that.

Yes, I've heard rumers to that effect. What you are saying is, that unless one becomes a follower of Athanasius, one is not a Christian. Can you give me chapter and verse on that one? Of course it follows that I will, not only, be forbidden from posting on the creed side, but will burn in hell forever for not accepting the creeds.

 

[rnmomof7]

Mans duty is to Glorify God. To love God for who He says He is. And who He has always been from eternity to etrnity. To come to understanding of His Goodness, Faithfullness, Justice and Truth. His never ending Mercies and Grace. I would imagine those who are given crowns will lay them all at His feet. For God is truly Good.

Thats what we will do ..throw them at His feet:>)

Our very presence glorifies God.
He is glorified by Our Salvation and care and He is glorified by His Justice and damnation . He is Holy(fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom)

My hope is God likes to talk a lot, tell stories to His Sons and Daughters, that we may enjoy Him for all eternity, and He may enjoy us, having found our place in His Family.....on our knees before Him.

Praise the Lord
God is Good. Amen.

I hope so too..I have a million questions:>)

 

[rnmomof7]

rnmom,
You are determined to pidgeon-hole me some place. You seem to be a Billy Graham type, when he stated that, in heaven, we would ride around on streets of gold in gold Cadillacs. Now that's something to look forward to. God's plan for mankind encompasses a lot more than that.

I do not think that this is all about me. We are here to glorify God , not ride around in Cadillacs.

Yes, I've heard rumers to that effect. What you are saying is, that unless one becomes a follower of Athanasius, one is not a Christian. Can you give me chapter and verse on that one? Of course it follows that I will, not only, be forbidden from posting on the creed side, but will burn in hell forever for not accepting the creeds.

I am simply saying that the church has defined itself, it is defined by the creeds.

Will you burn in hell? I really do not know Gods plan for your life.
But I do know that right now we worship different Gods and a different Jesus.

Only one of us can be right and I think it is me .

 

[Peterson]

Hey rnmomof7
As a gentile Christian, I worship the Godhead that Paul worshiped and declared in all of his opening salutations to his Epistles, as did Peter, as did John and as does Jesus Christ himself. John defines the Godhead very clearly in 1 John 2:20-24, and the creeds are not consistent with John. I'll stand on that ground. If your god is something else, so be it.

 

[rnmomof7]

Hey rnmomof7
As a gentile Christian, I worship the Godhead that Paul worshiped and declared in all of his opening salutations to his Epistles, as did Peter, as did John and as does Jesus Christ himself. John defines the Godhead very clearly in 1 John 2:20-24, and the creeds are not consistent with John. I'll stand on that ground. If your god is something else, so be it.

The Holy Spirit demonstrates that He is a personal being by exercising volition (Acts 15:28; Rom. 8:26; John 16:8), emotion (Eph. 4:30), and intelligence (Rom. 8:27), [only a personal being can be lied to]; Matt. 12:31 [only a personal being can be blasphemed]). Thus the overwhelming weight of Scriptural evidence proves that there is one God and that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are all God! To deny this biblical truth leads to the unitarian heresy of arianism.

The pagans believed in triads of Gods who ruled in a pantheon of other Gods (Ron Rhodes, Reasoning From the Scriptures, [Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1993] 222).

The polytheistic tritheism of paganism is radically different from the monotheistic Trinitarianism of biblical Christianity. Polytheistic pagan ideas predate Christianity by two million years and circulated in an area of the world far removed from where Christianity was born.

1 John :24 tells us what other scripture teaches..that is no one can believe in Jesus as Lord but by the Holy Spirit


**
*
1Jo 2:27**
But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

**
*
1Jo 4:13**
Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.


**
*
1Jo 2:27**
But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.


*
Jhn 14:26**
But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

**
*
Jhn 16:13**
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

1Pe 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.


1Cr 6:19**
What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost [which is] in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?


1Pe 1:2**
Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.


*
*
1Jo 5:6**
This is he that came by water and blood, [even] Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.

**
*
1Jo 5:7**
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

1Jo 5:6**
This is he that came by water and blood, [even] Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. **
*
1Jo 5:8**
And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. .



Mat 28:19**
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:


2Cr 13:14**
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, [be] with you all. Amen. [[[The second [epistle] to the Corinthians was written from Philippi, [a city] of Macedonia, by Titus and Lucas.]

 

[rnmomof7]

rnmomof7
No, I do not accept man-made creeds that have no scriptural basis. By the way, "god" also means family, and we will be a part of that family, and the Father will be supreme.

Not in any Hebrew dictionary I know of

elohiym {el-o-heem'}

TWOT Reference
Root Word

TWOT - 93c
plural of 0433

Part of Speech

n m p

Outline of Biblical Usage


1) (plural)

a) rulers, judges

b) divine ones

c) angels

d) gods

2) (plural intensive - singular meaning)

a) god, goddess

b) godlike one

c) works or special possessions of God

d) the (true) God

e) God

We are indeed adopted Children of God when we are saved..but we do not "morph " with him.

God created the earth, and the driving force behind every plant, germ, fish, reptile, mammal and humanity is the urge for reproduction. Everything in scripture revolves around family. The problem with mankind is the misuse of free moral agency in action apart from the Spirit of the Father and Christ. If God does not intervene (and soon), man will self-destruct. When we learn that lesson, we will be on the way to being apart of God's family.

The "family " teaching is found in the World wide church of god under armstrong, now as the united church of god.

It is not in scripture that we will be morphed into the godhead .

It always amused me that they deny the divinity of the Holy Spirit , but they were willing to put themselves in the godhead .

 

[Der Alte]

The pagans believed in triads of Gods who ruled in a pantheon of other Gods (Ron Rhodes, Reasoning From the Scriptures, [Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1993] 222).

The polytheistic tritheism of paganism is radically different from the monotheistic Trinitarianism of biblical Christianity. Polytheistic pagan ideas predate Christianity by two million years and circulated in an area of the world far removed from where Christianity was born.

I believe this information is incorrect. I have asked people who try to argue that the Christian Trinity was supposedly copied from pagan religions to list any pagan trinity or triad in any religion which could have influenced early Christianity. Nobody has produced one to date. Some have tried.

There were absolutely NO trinities in any pagan religion from which Chrsitianity could have copied or borrowed. By trinity, I mean three deities that somehow manifest as one, or one deity that somehow manifests as three. And there were NO triads in any pagan society or religion, from which the trinity might have been copied or borrowed. By triad I mean three deities functioning together in unison, affecting the affairs of mankind.

Now before all our anti-Trinitarian friends run off to get their unchecked, undocumented, unproven laundry list from their religion headquarters, I want to see authentic, historical documentation from at or near the time these pagan trinities or triads were supposed to have been worshipped.

I am not interested in the anti-trinity suppositions of modern scholars who randomly pick three deities from some pagan pantheon, and call it a triad or trinity. And the truth is there are none. As in zero.

The pagan pantheons read like a soap opera. Deities allying with one another, then betraying them, ravishing female deities, killing one another, banishing one another to earth or the underworld, and turning each other into goats, etc., etc. etc.

The ONLY true Trinity, outside of Chrsitianity, was in Judaism, before the Christian era. Jewish mystics, before Christ was born, knew of a Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Jewish Encyclopedia-Trinity-In the Zohar.

The Cabala, on the other hand, especially the Zohar, its fundamental work, was far less hostile to the dogma of the Trinity, since by its speculations regarding the father, the son, and the spirit it evolved a new trinity, and thus became dangerous to Judaism. Such terms as "ma?ronita," "body," "spirit," occur frequently (e.q., "Tazria'," ed. Polna, iii. 43b); so that Christians and converts like Knorr von Rosenroth, Reuchlin, and Rittangel found in the Zohar a confirmation of Christianity and especially of the dogma of the Trinity (Jellinek, "Die Kabbala," p. 250, Leipsic, 1844 [trans]. of Franck's "La Kabbale," Paris, 1843]). Reuchlin sought on the basis of the Cabala the words "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" in the second word of the Pentateuch, as well as in Ps. cxviii. 22 (ib. p. 10), while Johann Kemper, a convert, left in manuscript a work entitled "Ma??eh Mosheh," which treats in its third section of the harmony of the Zohar with the doctrine of the Trinity (Zettersteen, "Verzeichniss der Hebraischen und Aramaischen Handschriften zu Upsala," p. 16, Lund, 1900). The study of the Cabala led the Frankists to adopt Christianity; but the Jews have always regarded the doctrine of the Trinity as one irreconcilable with the spirit of the Jewish religion and with monotheism. See Christianity in Its Relation to Judaism; Polemics.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=338&letter=T
​

 

[TOmNossor]

Der Alter,

I found it. I do not know if the error was mine or Bickmore’s, but I found the quote in ECD by Kelly anyway.



BTW, I did address the one God scriptural statements in my post before this.



Here it is:





While the [early Christian] theologians we have been studing 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 eternal salvation of the righteous, state Justin, will take the form of that incorruptibility and impassibility which fellowship with God will impart; and on Tatian’s view, when the divine image and likeness have been restored in a man, he become capable of ‘seeing perfect things’, and after the resurrection will receive a blessed immorality. The grace of the Spirit, Irenaeus taught, already at work in us, will, when fully given, ‘make us perfect according to the Father’s will; for it will restore man to God’s image and likeness’. After the resurrection God will cause Him to share in His own privilege of incorruptibility. This will effect the vision of God which, out of sheer goodness, the Father will bestow o the elect; for ‘those who see God are within God, sharing His glory’. In the third century Origen developed these and kindred ideas, interpreting the kingdom of God either as the apprehension of divine truth and spiritual reality, or (this in explanation of Luke 17,21) as the indwelling of the Logos or the seeds of truth implanted in the soul, or as ‘the spiritual doctrine of the ensouled Logos imported through Jesus Christ’. ‘The intelligence (vous) which is purified’, he wrote, and rises above all material things to have a precise vision of God is deified in its vision’; and since true knowledge, on his view, presupposed the union of knower and object, the divine gnosis of the saints culminates in their union with God. But Origen’s reflectionon eschatology are so far-reaching that they deserve a closer scrutiny.



All on page 469-470 (opps). Bold is mine. Footnotes excluded.

Early Christian Doctrines, JN Kelly 1958 1st edition. Harper and Brothers NY

And

Early Christian Doctrines, JN Kelly 1960 2nd edition Harper Row NY

And

Early Christian Doctrines, JN Kelly 1960 2nd edition Adam & Charles Black London



All of the above 3 books were in the library and were identical on page 469-470.



A few notes. “Him” was capitalized in the 1958 book (and I assume in the two 1960 books). This I personally do not do when I speak of deification.



I looked all through the books to find this. In doing so I seem to remember where Kelly suggested that the union with God is not the same as the union within the Trinity. The fact that he felt compelled to say this I thought was interesting, but not enough to show that he was aware that the ECF taught deification.



And, together with the fact that Kelly mentioned the above, I noted that in the quote I reference above Kelly quotes Irenaeus, but does not quote the most powerful deification statements by Irenaeus. While Kelly does not deny that the ECF taught deification in the above paragraph he does not present the most compelling quotes for deification from the ECF.



In any case, I hope we can agree that Kelly recognized that the ECF taught deification. Thank you for your patience with me.



Charity, TOm

 

[Der Alte]

Der Alter,

BTW, I did address the one God scriptural statements in my post before this.

Here it is:

While the [early Christian] theologians we have been studying 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 eternal salvation of the righteous, state Justin, will take the form of that incorruptibility and impassibility which fellowship with God will impart; and on Tatian’s view, when the divine image and likeness have been restored in a man, he become capable of ‘seeing perfect things’, and after the resurrection will receive a blessed immorality. The grace of the Spirit, Irenaeus taught, already at work in us, will, when fully given, ‘make us perfect according to the Father’s will; for it will restore man to God’s image and likeness’. After the resurrection God will cause Him to share in His own privilege of incorruptibility. This will effect the vision of God which, out of sheer goodness, the Father will bestow on the elect; for ‘those who see God are within God, sharing His glory’. In the third century Origen developed these and kindred ideas, interpreting the kingdom of God either as the apprehension of divine truth and spiritual reality, or (this in explanation of Luke 17,21) as the indwelling of the Logos or the seeds of truth implanted in the soul, or as ‘the spiritual doctrine of the ensouled Logos imported through Jesus Christ’. ‘The intelligence (vous) which is purified’, he wrote, and rises above all material things to have a precise vision of God is deified in its vision’; and since true knowledge, on his view, presupposed the union of knower and object, the divine gnosis of the saints culminates in their union with God. But Origen’s reflection on eschatology are so far-reaching that they deserve a closer scrutiny.

I looked all through the books to find this. In doing so I seem to remember where Kelly suggested that the union with God is not the same as the union within the Trinity. The fact that he felt compelled to say this I thought was interesting, but not enough to show that he was aware that the ECF taught deification.

And, together with the fact that Kelly mentioned the above, I noted that in the quote I reference above Kelly quotes Irenaeus, but does not quote the most powerful deification statements by Irenaeus. While Kelly does not deny that the ECF taught deification in the above paragraph he does not present the most compelling quotes for deification from the ECF.

In any case, I hope we can agree that Kelly recognized that the ECF taught deification. Thank you for your patience with me.

Because you believe that man can becomes gods, you see what you want to see in this quote from Kelly. I do see the use of the word "deification," twice, but I also see it qualified in both cases. Does Kelly quote any church father as saying that man can become a god? How does Kelly define "deification." Note the text you yourself highlighted in the first paragraph, "the deification of the Christian, . . .According to this, the final flowering of the Christian hope consisted in participation in the divine nature and in the blessed immortality of God."

Since Kelly defines what he means by "deification" it is clear he is using the word in its secondary sense, "to glorify as of supreme worth," and not to become gods. This is clearly evident by the lack of a definitive statement that man will or can become god.

The second use of the sword "defied" is also qualified, "The intelligence (vous) which is purified’, . . .to have a precise vision of God is deified in its vision" and "culminates in their union with God." The purified vison of man's intelligence is "deified", see definition, NOT man himself. And "union with God" does not necessarily mean become a god.

Main Entry: de·i·fy
Pronunciation: 'dE-&-"fI, 'dA-
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -fied; -fy·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French deifier, from Late Latin deificare, from Latin deus god + -fiacre -fy
Date: 14th century
1 a : to make a god of b : to take as an object of worship
2 : to glorify as of supreme worth​

Here are the other descriptions given. Note none of the ECF Kelly quoted says that man may become god.

• The eternal salvation of the righteous.
    
  [*] incorruptibility and impassibility
    
  [*] fellowship with God
    
  [*] the divine image and likeness restored in a man,
    
  [*] capable of ‘seeing perfect things’
    
  [*] after the resurrection will receive a blessed immorality.
    
  [*] make us perfect according to the Father’s will.
    
  [*] share in His [God’s] own privilege of incorruptibility.
    
  [*] ‘those who see God are within God, sharing His glory’.
    
  [*] the apprehension of divine truth and spiritual reality
    
  [*] the indwelling of the Logos
    
  [*] the seeds of truth implanted in the soul,
    
  [*] the spiritual doctrine of the ensouled Logos imported through Jesus Christ’

What do you think are the, "most powerful deification statements by Irenaeus?"

 

[TOmNossor]

Der Alter:

Because you believe that man can becomes gods, you see what you want to see in this quote from Kelly.



TOm:

I am well aware that I cannot see anything in this world accept through my own eyes. In case you do not see this, I say to you:

“Because you believe that men cannot become gods, you see what you want to see in this quote from Kelly.”



I grant you the right to interpret the ECF and the words of R.N. Kelly in a way that all I have read suggests is unique. Albert Einstein was unique in the way he viewed space-time too.

Catholics, Easter Orthodox, Jordan Vajda, and the most straight forward read of the words of Kelly disagree with you. At the very least I think it seems that LDS have some solid ground to stand on and some good company. It also seems that Joseph Smith could not have known the Early Church witness that would SEEM to come to his defense.



Here are three Irenaeus quotes:

Irenaeus - Adv. Her. 4.38.3-4 …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).



There are few unbiased people in the great religious questions. In truth, I am surprised that the words I have shared have not had any impact. I do see that some can look at the Psalms quote as talking purely about judges. Then with this there is the ability to interpret the term gods in SOME of the ECF as also referring to judges. I do not think this is the most straightforward interpretation. I do not think I am alone in not seeing this as the not the most straightforward interpretation. I do not expect you to decide that just because the ECF spoke of deification, that Joseph was a prophet (Catholics and Easter Orthodox Christians do not draw this conclusion), but for me it is some good evidence.



Charity, TOm

 

[Der Alte]

Der Alter:

Because you believe that men cannot become gods, you see what you want to see in this quote from Kelly.”

Because the church has taught for almost 2000 years that man is not, and cannot become gods and you have NOT produced conclusive evidence to support your argument, as I have shown. All you have produced is evidence of the logical fallacy of equivocation.

I grant you the right to interpret the ECF and the words of R.N. Kelly in a way that all I have read suggests is unique. Albert Einstein was unique in the way he viewed space-time too.

The logical fallacy of appeal to authority. Albert Einsteins theories are totally irrelevant to this discussion.

Catholics, Easter Orthodox, Jordan Vajda, and the most straight forward read of the words of Kelly disagree with you. At the very least I think it seems that LDS have some solid ground to stand on and some good company. It also seems that Joseph Smith could not have known the Early Church witness that would SEEM to come to his defense.

I could care less about Vajda he is just an other heretic spouting opinions. I won't even bother with the Catholic church. But lets take a brief look at the Eastern Orthodox. Does it support the false doctrine of men becoming gods? I think not.

Theosis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Theosis, deification, or divinization, is the Christian doctrine of sanctification as it developed in Eastern Orthodoxy, especially in the hesychast tradition. According to this teaching, Man is to become holy, godly, and in that sense adopt the nature of God. This early Christian understanding of sanctification was an important discovery of the pietist movement, and especially the Methodists, who used it to develop their distinctive Protestant doctrine of entire sanctification (which teaches, in summary, that it is possible to live without any sin).

Theosis in Orthodox Christianity

The crucial Orthodox assertion, that God is one, sets an absolute limit on the meaning of theosis – it is not possible for any created being to become, ontologically, God or, another god. Rather, by deification is meant that, God causes Man to be in creaturely form everything that God is: that is, in terms of knowledge of the truth, in wisdom and in holiness, in all the energies of God.

http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosis
​

Here are three Irenaeus quotes:

Irenaeus - Adv. Her. 4.38.3-4 …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).

I will only address the first quote you posted. Note how it has been truncated, omitting much of the context. Especially the reference to Psalm 82, where God is most certainly addressing human judges. I highlighted your entire quote in red. Also I have included the final chapter of the last book of the series, Against Heresies.. Note no reference to men becoming gods.

Irenaeus Against Heresies, Book IV.

Chapter XXXVIII.-Why Man Was Not Made Perfect from the Beginning.

3. With God there are simultaneously exhibited power, wisdom, and goodness. His power and goodness [appear] in this, that of His own will He called into being and fashioned things having no previous existence; 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. And thus in all things God has the pre-eminence, who alone is uncreated, the first of all things, and the primary cause of the existence of all, while all other things remain under God's subjection. But being in subjection to God is continuance in immortality, and immortality is the glory of the uncreated One. By this arrangement, therefore, and these harmonies, and a sequence of this nature, man, a created and organized being, is rendered after the image and likeness of the uncreated God, -the Father planning everything well and giving His commands, the Son carrying these into execution and performing the work of creating, and the Spirit nourishing and increasing [what is made], but man making progress day by day, and ascending towards the perfect, that is, approximating to the uncreated One. For the Uncreated is perfect, that is, God. Now it was necessary that man should in the first instance be created; and having been created, should receive growth; and having received growth, should be strengthened; and having been strengthened, should abound; and having abounded, should recover [from the disease of sin]; and having recovered, should be glorified; and being glorified, should see his Lord. For God is He who is yet to be seen, and the beholding of God is productive of immortality, but immortality renders one nigh unto God.

4. Irrational, therefore, in every respect, are they who await not the time of increase, but ascribe to God the infirmity of their nature. Such persons know neither God nor themselves, being insatiable and ungrateful, unwilling to be at the outset what they have also been created-men subject to passions; but go beyond the law of the human race, and before that they become men, they wish to be even now like God their Creator, and they who are more destitute of reason than dumb animals [insist] that there is no distinction between the uncreated God and man, a creature of to-day. For these, [the dumb animals], bring no charge against God for not having made them men; but each one, just as he has been created, gives thanks that he has been created. For we cast blame upon Him, because we have not been made gods from the beginning, but at first merely men, then at length gods; although God has adopted this course out of His pure benevolence, that no one may impute to Him invidiousness or grudgingness. He declares, "I have said, Ye are gods; and ye are all sons of the Highest." But since we could not sustain the power of divinity, He adds, "But ye shall die like men," setting forth both truths-the kindness of His free gift, and our weakness, and also that we were possessed of power over ourselves. For after His great kindness He graciously conferred good [upon us], and made men like to Himself, [that is] in their own power; while at the same time by His prescience He knew the infirmity of human beings, and the consequences which would flow from it; but through [His] love and [His] power, 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.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-62.htm#P8843_2519626

Irenaeus Against Heresies, Book V.

3. John, therefore, did distinctly foresee the first "resurrection of the just," and the inheritance in the kingdom of the earth; and what the prophets have prophesied concerning it harmonize [with his vision]. For the Lord also taught these things, when He promised that He would have the mixed cup new with His disciples in the kingdom. The apostle, too, has confessed that the creation shall be free from the bondage of corruption, [so as to pass] into the liberty of the sons of God. And in all these things, and by them all, the same God the Father is manifested, who fashioned man, and gave promise of the inheritance of the earth to the fathers, who brought it (the creature) forth [from bondage] at the resurrection of the just, and fulfils the promises for the kingdom of His Son; subsequently bestowing in a paternal manner those things which neither the eye has seen, nor the ear has heard, nor has [thought concerning them] arisen within the heart of man, For there is the one Son, who accomplished His Father's will; and one human race also in which the mysteries of God are wrought, "which the angels desire to look into; " and they are not able to search out the wisdom of God, by means of Which His handiwork, confirmed and incorporated with His Son, is brought to perfection; that His offspring, the First-begotten Word, should descend to the creature (facturam), that is, to what had been moulded (plasma), and that it should be contained by Him; and, on the other hand, the creature should contain the Word, and ascend to Him, passing beyond the angels, and be made after the image and likeness of God.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-63.htm#P9417_2763149
​

There are few unbiased people in the great religious questions. In truth, I am surprised that the words I have shared have not had any impact. I do see that some can look at the Psalms quote as talking purely about judges. Then with this there is the ability to interpret the term gods in SOME of the ECF as also referring to judges. I do not think this is the most straightforward interpretation. I do not think I am alone in not seeing this as the not the most straightforward interpretation. I do not expect you to decide that just because the ECF spoke of deification, that Joseph was a prophet (Catholics and Easter Orthodox Christians do not draw this conclusion), but for me it is some good evidence.

Your arguments have had no effect because they are all equivocation. You have not presented any evidence that any church father clearly, consistently, and unequivocally taught that men can become gods. All your supposed evidence was a few out-of-context sentences that you have not bothered to verify yourself.

I cannot understand how you can believe in a perfect God and assume anything other than in Psalm 82 God was addressing human judges.

If these were gods, where did they come from? If they were part of the Godhead how could a perfect and omniscient God promote someone or something to the perfection of God whom He knew would turn out to be unjust and He would have to demote them back into human beings? If they were not part of the Godhead, that violates the several passages in Deut and Isaiah, which state there is no other god.

These supposed gods you have conjured up, judge unjustly and favor the wicked, vs. 2, they lack knowledge, and understanding and walk in darkness, vs. 5. So where did gods come from that were this corrupt?

Psa 82:1-8
(1) <A Psalm of Asaph.> God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.
(2) How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.
(3) Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.
(4) Deliver the poor and needy: rid [them] out of the hand of the wicked.
(5) They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.
(6) I have said, Ye [are] gods; and all of you [are] children of the most High.
(7) But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.
(8) Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.
​

 

[TOmNossor]

Der Alter:

Because the church has taught for almost 2000 years that man is not, and cannot become gods and you have NOT produced conclusive evidence to support your argument, as I have shown. All you have produced is evidence of the logical fallacy of equivocation.



TOm:

There are two churches that dogmatically attempt to hold to “2000 years” of tradition. Those two church are the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. You have granted my already that you recognize the Catholic Church believes in deification, and thus you have dismissed their witness as worthless. We will briefly talk about the EO Church in a minute. I am sorry you are unconvinced. In truth I didn’t expect to convince you, but I wanted the evidence to be on the table for all to read so they could decide for themselves.



The belief in “salvation by grace through faith ALONE” has a less than 500 year history. I believe that the dogmatic rejection of deification also has less than 500 years of history. It is not that I am trying to suggest that the EO, RCC, or ECF believed identically to the CoJCoLDS. I am merely suggesting that deification is present in some form. You do not agree. As I said before you have a right to your opinion. I will not even attach derogatory words to it.



Der Alter:

The logical fallacy of appeal to authority. Albert Einsteins theories are totally irrelevant to this discussion.



TOm:

Pls forgive me my slight indulgence. I need to make a point.

If you bothered to read what I was saying when I appealed to Albert Einstein, you would have noticed it was my attempt to extend an olive branch to YOU. I said your beliefs were “unique” by my study of the matter, but then I tried to make it clear to you that I do not da*n your “unique” views because they are unique. You failed to understand what I said and then attacked me by suggesting that Einstein has no merit in this discussion. I brought him up because like you he had a unique position.

Perhaps if you read the rest of my positions, the words of R.N. Kelly, the ECF, and the below EO words without such reckless abandon, you would notice that I am do not produce evidence of “logical fallacy of equivocation.”



I have always admitted and I will never deny that I see the world through my own eyes. I have spent over a year trying to see through the eyes of other Christians. It is impossible to perfectly do this, but it is quite illuminating to learn how difficult it is to try to divorce oneself from all bias.



Concerning the EO Christians:

From your link, what you posted continues:

That the Trinity is this one God, is also an essential assertion underlying the Orthodox doctrine of theosis. Belief in the Trinity is the indispensible premise of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ: that He alone is the Son of God and the Son of Man, the only one who is ontologically both God and Man, having both natures, unmixed and distinct, in one person.

The proverbial expression of theosis, "The Son of God became man, that we might become God" (— Athanasius of Alexandria), presupposes the limitations made explicit by the doctrine of the Trinity. That is, it is as absurd to suppose that a creature may become the eternally self-existant God, as that God would be changed into a creature. But what would otherwise seem to be absurd, that sinful people may become holy as God is holy, this has been made possible through Jesus Christ, who is God incarnate. Substantially the same idea can be expressed in terms more familiar to the Western Church: through the knowledge of God in Jesus Christ, Man comes to know and experience what it means to be fully Man (the created image of God); through Man's communion with Jesus Christ God shares Himself with Man, in order to conform Man to all that God is in knowledge, righteousness and holiness.



TOm:

The quote I bolded I have posted on this message board. You were unimpressed. You suggested that “God” is to be understood as “judge.” The EO do not hold to your assumption.

I have never tried to suggest that ECF’s writings, Catholics, or EOs have identical beliefs to the CoJCoLDS. All I suggests is that in a certain sense we all agree that man can become god.

Justin Martyr believed in creation from pre-existent matter a few years later Tiatian said creation ex nihilo. Never was this questioned again until Joseph Smith. After this and the denial of Origin’s pre-existence ideas every being and thing became either eternal God or created. This lead to the separation of what is God from what is man. Some modern Catholic’s believe that to be “partakers of the divine nature” may mean to become “uncreated.” LDS believe that we are all “uncreated.” This is the foundation difference from which all the rest flow. I do not say they are the same, but I do say there are solid parallels.



In truth you have shown me at your link that the EOs see deification in the ECF and interpret the word “gods” as meaning not identical to god, but certainly not “judges.” Again, I believe you are unique in your read of the ECF. Again being unique (like Einstein) does not mean you are wrong. I wish you would disagree with me and not say that I am illogical.



Charity, TOm

 

[Peterson]

Hey rnmomof7
You keep bringing up Armstrong. Are you a former Armstrongite? I hear they have split into all sorts of factions, as the Protestants have done. Incidently, all the verses you quoted are all taken out of context.
I find it to be nonproductive to argue the trinity with trinitarians (so why am I doing it?), since they analogize it in modalistic terms, but deny modalism, and deny its polytheistic nature, but claim threeness, and finally profess faith in a trinity based on total unknowable ignorance.


The Godhead of the Bible consists of the Father and Son. The Holy Spirit is the mind of the Father given us through his Son. That's it! Hanegraaff, like others, sets up a 'straw man" by claiming that the Holy Spirit in nontrinitarian terms is merely an unfeeling force like electricity, and then tries to shoot it down with many of the verses you quote.

Of course the Holy Spirit has feelings etc., because the Holy Spirit is the mind of the Father, and the mind of Jesus Christ working in total agreement (as one). Try looking at it in those terms.There are many passages that

make this abundantly clear.

I'm not going to take space refuting each of the passages you cited, but if you are serious, I'll go over each of them with you - in context. If the Bible taught the trinity I would be a follower of Athanasius, but then, I guess I would have to become a Roman Catholic to make sure I had access.

 

[TOmNossor]

Bump.