gdemetz wrote:
Grindael, you interpretation of Psalms 82:6 is pathetic. It reminds me of the boss I had once who received the plastic feces with the inscription; "If you can't dazzel them with brilliance, then baffle them with BS! You lame explanation does nothing at all to explain why Christ quoted that same scripture to the Jews who tried to stone Him for BLASPHEMY! He defends Himself by quoting that it was written in their law that they were gods! He didn't state that isn't it written in your law that Elohim was god! What sense would that have made?!? You sound like Albion now!
Let me just give you a few non Mormon quotes from persons that were a lot more knowledgeable than you two about this and were not just trying to twist the meaning to fit their false beliefs!
Justin Martyr writes: "I have said ye are gods, and are all children of the Most High... let the interpretation of the Psalm be just as you wish, yet thereby it is demonstrated that all men are deemed worthy of becoming gods,and having power to become sons of the Highest."
Irenaeus states: "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" {or partakers of the divine nature, or we shall be like HIm when He appears as the New Testament states!}
Clement of Alexandria writes: "...and they are called by the appellation of gods, being destined to sit on thrones {"To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me on my throne just as I overcame and am sat down with my Father on His throne." Revelation 3:21} with the other gods that have been first put in their places by the Savior."
Tertullian writes: "I have said ye are gods," and God standeth in the congregation of the gods, " but this comes of His own grace..."
Origen stated: "{God} is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God {the Most High God as Daniel writes}, as it is written, "the God of gods, the Lord hath spoken and called the earth."
There are so many more, however, the Papa Joe revised Evangelical version states: "Ya'll are corrupt judges just actin' like gods, and ye ain't really the chillen of God unless ya have made a professen of faith, and ya'll gonna die ye hear me?! {he never read Acts 178:28!}"
Like with the spelling of names, you don't seem to be able to read anything in context either. Are you really going to try and pull that old trick of ripping the Early Church Fathers out of context? What I have found, is that anyone who tries this deception, has either been getting their information from F.A.I.R., or some other Mormon "apologist" like Jeff Lindsay from Lightplanet. The concept of divinization, or theosis to the ECF's (Early Church Fathers) was completely different from what Jo Smith taught. First of all, they only believed in ONE GOD. One God that took on human form, one God that was ontologically (ὤν, ὄντος) the same or of the same substance (Οὐσία). The reason that the ECF's taught that men could become gods was because they took on the divine nature, but they would never become a GOD, because GOD is ONE and unique and there were to be no more gods.
Mormons constantly take the ECF’s out of context to make their ‘theosis’ fit in with their beliefs. Justin called Jesus ‘another God’, but only in the sense that he was the Logos, the Word of God, and as Irenaeus (who quotes Justin many times) states: "That there are two Gods and two Lords, however, is a statement which we will never allow to issue from our mouth…” That Mormons can ‘become gods in the very same sense that God is God, is something that was anathema to first century Christians, and clarified in the centuries leading up to the Council of Nicaea.
Irenaeus taught:
“Now, that this God is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Paul the apostle also has declared, [saying,] There is one God, the Father, who is above all, and through all things, and in us all. I have indeed proved already that there is only one God ; but I shall further demonstrate this from the apostles themselves, and from the discourses of the Lord. For what sort of conduct would it be, were we to forsake the utterances of the prophets, of the Lord, and of the apostles, that we might give heed to these persons, who speak not a word of sense? (Against Heresies,II:2;5)
If there is but one God, how can there by two, if not one in substance? This was the crux of what Jerome would say later:
“Give thanks to the God of Gods.” The prophet is referring to those gods of whom it is written:
I said: You are gods;” and again: “God arises in the divine assembly.” They who cease to be mere men, abandon the ways of vice and are become perfect, are gods and the sons of the Most High.
This is a favorite of Mormon apologists, who have a habit of only quoting bits and pieces, and that is where they end the quote by Jerome, forgetting? to include this later part:
‘Give thanks to the Lord of lords’ This refers to the Son and ‘God of gods’ to the Father. We give thanks, therefore, to the Father and to the Son, for the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father. ‘Who alone does great wonders.’ First the prophet said, give thanks to the God of gods, and then to the Lord of lords; now, because he mentioned two persons, he says: ‘Who ALONE does great wonders,’ IN ORDER TO OFFSET ANY MISCONCEPTION OF TWO GODS. It is written, moreover: ‘Only one God from whom all things’ and one Lord Jesus, through whom are all things, and we through him!”
‘Who made the heavens in wisdom.’ These are the heavens that declare the glory of God, that are clothed in the image of the heavenly, not in the image of the earthly. In wisdom, ‘in intellectu’ in ‘Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God’: so wisdom actually declares in the Book of Proverbs: ‘When he established the heavens I was there.’ (The Homilies of St. Jerome, p. 353-354)
If he is here making a distinction that there are not two Gods, but one, then how can Mormon theosis, fit in with this concept? One must do, (as many modern scholars now do – go back and try to filter the Old Testament through a lens of falsehood – the Ugarit Texts – to arrive at the conclusion that there are more than one God, and that Israel got its God from the idolatrous Canaanites).
Irenaeus makes this clear in the middle of the 2nd century, having been handed down the doctrine from John himself:
2. Wherefore, as I have already stated, NO OTHER IS NAMED GOD, or is called Lord, except Him who is God and Lord of all, who also said to Moses, I am that I am. And thus shall you say to the children of Israel: He who is, has sent me unto you; Exodus 3:14 and His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who makes those that believe in His name the sons of God. And again, when the Son speaks to Moses, He says, I have come down to deliver this people. Exodus 3:8 For it is He who descended and ascended for the salvation of men. Therefore God has been declared through the Son, who is in the Father, and has the Father in Himself — He who is, the Father bearing witness to the Son, and the Son announcing the Father.— As also Esaias says, I too am witness, he declares, says the Lord God, and the Son whom I have chosen, that you may know, and believe, and understand that I am. (AH, 3:6:2)
3. When, however, the Scripture terms them [gods] which are no gods, it does not, as I have already remarked, declare them as gods in every sense, but with a certain addition and signification, by which they are shown to be no gods at all. As with David: The gods of the heathen are idols of demons; and, You shall not follow other gods. For in that he says the gods of the heathen— but the heathen are ignorant of the true God— and calls them other gods, he bars their claim [to be looked upon] as gods at all. But as to what they are in their own person, he speaks concerning them; for they are, he says, the idols of demons. And Esaias: Let them be confounded, all who blaspheme God, and carve useless things; even I am witness, says God. Isaiah 44:9 He removes them from [the category of] gods, but he makes use of the word alone, for this [purpose], that we may know of whom he speaks. Jeremiah also says the same: The gods that have not made the heavens and earth, let them perish from the earth which is under the heaven. Jeremiah 10:11 For, from the fact of his having subjoined their destruction, he shows them to be no gods at all. Elias, too, when all Israel was assembled at Mount Carmel, wishing to turn them from idolatry, says to them, How long do you halt between two opinions? If the Lord be God, follow Him. 1 Kings 18:21, etc. And again, at the burnt-offering, he thus addresses the idolatrous priests: You shall call upon the name of your gods, and I will call on the name of the Lord my God; and the Lord that will hearken by fire, He is God. Now, from the fact of the prophet having said these words, he proves that these gods which were reputed so among those men, are no gods at all. He directed them to that God upon whom he believed, and who was truly God; whom invoking, he exclaimed, Lord God of Abraham, God of Isaac, and God of Jacob, hear me today, and let all this people know that You are the God of Israel. (Against Heresies:3:6:3)
5. And the Apostle Paul also, saying, For though you have served them which are no gods; you now know God, or rather, are known of God, Galatians 4:8-9 has made a separation between those that were not [gods] and Him who is God. And again, speaking of Antichrist, he says, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped. 2 Thessalonians 2:4 He points out here those who are called gods, by such as know not God, THAT IS, IDOLS. For the Father of all is called God, and is so; and Antichrist shall be lifted up, not above Him, but above those which are indeed called gods, but are not. And Paul himself says that this is true: We know that an idol is nothing, and that there is none other God but one. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth; yet to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we through Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him. 1 Corinthians 8:4, etc. For he has made a distinction, and separated those which are indeed called gods, but which are none, from the one God the Father, from whom are all things, and, he has confessed in the most decided manner in his own person, one Lord Jesus Christ. But in this [clause], whether in heaven or in earth, he does not speak of the formers of the world, as these [teachers] expound it; but his meaning is similar to that of Moses, when it is said, You shall not make to yourself any image for God, of whatsoever things are in heaven above, whatsoever in the earth beneath, and whatsoever in the waters under the earth. Deuteronomy 5:8 And he does thus explain what are meant by the things in heaven: Lest when, he says, looking towards heaven, and observing the sun, and the moon, and the stars, and all the ornament of heaven, falling into error, you should adore and serve them. Deuteronomy 4:19 And Moses himself, being a man of God, was indeed given as a god before Pharaoh; Exodus 7:1 but he is not properly termed Lord, NOR IS CALLED GOD by the prophets, but is spoken of by the Spirit as Moses, the faithful minister and servant of God, Hebrews 3:5; Numbers 12:7 which also he was.”(AH:3:6:5)
Moses was only a god in a limited sense, like the judges from Psalm 82. Mormons, though, teach that ALL are gods, the very literal offspring of God, ‘gods in embryo’, ontologically the same. Here, Irenaeus makes a clear distinction on the created and the uncreated (coming back to John again):
3. For that all things, whether Angels, or Archangels, or Thrones, or Dominions, were both established and created by Him who is God over all, through His Word, John has thus pointed out. For when he had spoken of the Word of God as having been in the Father, he added, All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made. John 1:3 David also, when he had enumerated [His] praises, subjoins by name all things whatsoever I have mentioned, both the heavens and all the powers therein: For He commanded, and they were created; He spoke, and they were made. Whom, therefore, did He command? The Word, no doubt, by whom, he says, the heavens were established, and all their power by the breath of His mouth. But that He did Himself make all things freely, and as He pleased, again David says, But our God is in the heavens above, and in the earth; He has made all things whatsoever He pleased. But the things established are distinct from Him who has established them, and what have been made from Him who has made them. For He is Himself uncreated, both without beginning and end, and lacking nothing. He is Himself sufficient for Himself; and still further, He grants to all others this very thing, existence; but the things which have been made by Him have received a beginning. But whatever things had a beginning, and are liable to dissolution, and are subject to and stand in need of Him who made them, must necessarily in all respects have a different term [applied to them], even by those who have but a moderate capacity for discerning such things; so that He indeed who made all things can alone, together with His Word, properly be termed God and Lord: but the things which have been made cannot have this term applied to them, neither should they justly assume that appellation which belongs to the Creator.(AH:3:8:3)
Why does he make this distinction? Because of
Heresy, where is it proclaimed (as with Jo Smith also) that MAN is ontologically the same as GOD:
1. This calumny, then, of these men, having been quashed, it is clearly proved that neither the prophets nor the apostles did ever name another God, or call [him] Lord, except the true and only God. Much more [would this be the case with regard to] the Lord Himself, who did also direct us to render unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's, and to God the things that are God's; Matthew 22:21 naming indeed Cæsar as Cæsar, but confessing God as God. In like manner also, that [text] which says, You cannot serve two masters, Matthew 6:24 He does Himself interpret, saying, You cannot serve God and mammon; acknowledging God indeed as God, but mentioning mammon, a thing having also an existence. He does not call mammon Lord when He says, You cannot serve two masters; but He teaches His disciples who serve God, not to be subject to mammon, nor to be ruled by it. For He says, He that commits sin is the slave of sin. John 8:34 Inasmuch, then, as He terms those the slaves of sin who serve sin, but does not certainly call sin itself God, thus also He terms those who serve mammon the slaves of mammon, not calling mammon [MAN] God. (AH:3:8:1)
Smith, on the other hand, tells us:
“We say that God himself is a self-existent being. Who told you so? It is correct enough; but how did it get into your heads? Who told you that man did not exist in like manner upon the same principle? MAN DOES EXIST UPON THE SAME PRINCIPLES.” (JOD 6:6)
In fact, Smith taught that God did not, and could not ‘create’ man, that,
“All the fools and learned and wise men from the beginning of creation, who say that the spirit of man had a beginning, prove that it must have an end; and if that doctrine is true, then the doctrine of annihilation would be true. But if I am right, I might with boldness proclaim from the housetops that GOD NEVER HAD THE POWER TO CREATE THE SPIRIT OF MAN AT ALL. GOD HIMSELF COULD NOT CREATE HIMSELF.” (ibid, page 7)
Smith calls man God, for he says that God could not create the spirit of man, because GOD could not create himself! Man is self-sufficient, because he is God! This is against everything taught by the ECF’s.
In his epic apology Against Heresies, Irenaeus destroys Smith’s theology with this:
THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD:
1. It is proper, then, that I should begin with the first and most important head, that is, God the Creator, who made the heaven and the earth, and all things that are therein (whom these men [the Gnostics & Marcion] blasphemously style the fruit of a defect), and to demonstrate that there is nothing either above Him or after Him; nor that, influenced by any one, but of His own free will, He created all things, since HE IS THE ONLY GOD, the only Lord, the only Creator, the only Father, alone containing all things, and Himself COMMANDING ALL THINGS INTO EXISTENCE
IF THERE IS MORE THAN ONE GOD, HE WOULD HAVE A BEGINNING, MIDDLE AND END.
2. For how can there be any other Fulness, or Principle, or Power, or God, above Him, since it is matter of necessity that God, the Pleroma (Fulness) of all these, should contain all things in His immensity, and should be contained by no one? But if there is anything beyond Him, He is not then the Pleroma of all, nor does He contain all. For that which they declare to be beyond Him will be wanting to the Pleroma, or, [in other words,] to that God who is above all things. But that which is wanting, and falls in any way short, is not the Pleroma of all things. IN SUCH A CASE, He would have both beginning, middle, and end, with respect to those who are beyond Him. And if He has an end in regard to those things which are below, He has also a beginning with respect to those things which are above. In like manner, there is an absolute necessity that He should experience the very same thing at all other points, and should be held in, bounded, and enclosed by those existences that are outside of Him. For that being who is the end downwards, necessarily circumscribes and surrounds him who finds his end in it. And thus, ACCORDING TO THEM, the Father of all (that is, He whom they call Proön and Proarche), with their Pleroma, and the good God of Marcion, is established and enclosed in some other, and is surrounded from without by ANOTHER mighty Being, who must of necessity BE GREATER, inasmuch as that which contains is greater than that which is contained. But then that which is greater is also stronger, and in a greater degree Lord; and that which is greater, and stronger, and in a greater degree Lord— must be God.
OTHER GODS MAKE ONE DEPART FROM THE TRUE GOD
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 OTHER CERTAIN 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 ONE TRUE GOD.
IF THERE ARE TWO, THERE WOULD BE MORE AND ADD CONFUSION
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, [it 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 CERTAINTY OR CONCLUSION, but will of necessity wander forth after worlds without limits, AND GODS THAT CANNOT BE NUMBERED.
THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN OTHER GODS WILL ‘FALL TO IMPIETY’
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 IMPEITY. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies ii:i)
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103201.htm
Here is Tertullian who you quoted:
“After settling the origin of the soul, its condition or state comes up next. For when we acknowledge that the soul originates in the breath of God, it follows that we attribute a beginning to it. This Plato, indeed, refuses to assign to it, for he will have the soul to be unborn and unmade. We, however, from the very fact of its having had a beginning, as well as from the nature thereof, teach that it had both birth and creation. And when we ascribe both birth and creation to it, we have made no mistake: for being born, indeed, is one thing, and being made is another—the former being the term which is best suited to living beings. When distinctions, however, have places and times of their own, they occasionally possess also reciprocity of application among themselves. Thus, the being made admits of being taken in the sense of being brought forth; inasmuch as everything which receives being or existence, in any way whatever, is in fact generated. For the maker may really be called the parent of the thing that is made: in this sense Plato also uses the phraseology. So far, therefore, as concerns our belief in the souls being made or born, the opinion of the philosopher is overthrown by the authority of prophecy even.” (A Treatise on the Soul, Chapter 4)
Athanasius tells us, that deification
“IS GRANTED BY GRACE, NOT BY MAKING PART OF THE DIVINE ESSENCE: "It is clear that he called men gods being deified by his grace and NOT BORN OF HIS SUBSTANCE. For he justified, who is just of himself and not from another, and he deifies, who is god of himself and not by participation in another. … If we have been made sons of god, we have been made gods; but this is by GRACE OF ADOPTION AND NOT THE NATURE OF OUR BEGETTER" (en. Ps. 49.1.2).
Mormons teach:
“Jesus Christ is not the Father of the spirits who have taken or yet shall take bodies upon this earth, for HE IS ONE OF THEM. He is The Son, AS THEY ARE SONS or daughters of Elohim. So far as the stages of eternal progression and attainment have been made known through divine revelation, we are to understand that only resurrected and glorified beings can BECOME PARENTS OF SPIRIT OFFSPRING. Only such exalted souls have reached maturity in the appointed course of eternal life; and the spirits born to them in the eternal worlds will pass in due sequence through the several stages or estates by which the glorified parents have attained exaltation.” (“The Father and the Son, A Doctrinal Exposition by The First Presidency and The Twelve”, June 30, 1916.)
This is an official statement of doctrine by the First Presidency, and not ‘speculation’, as many Mormons try to tell me this doctrine is. Here, they tell us that men are literally the spirit sons and daughters of God, and in the D&C (Section 132), it says that men can LITERALLY become gods with ‘all power’, when they achieve ‘exaltation’. Couple that with becoming “parents of spirit offspring” and THEY ARE JUST LIKE GOD, literally, in every sense.
Tertullian again:
“As if in this way also one were not All, in that All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons — the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. How they are susceptible of number without division, will be shown as our treatise proceeds.” (Against Praxeus ii)
Yes, Tertullian had some issues with the order of the hypostases, but this is only because of misinterpretation of scripture, but he makes himself (as Irenaeus and others do) perfectly clear that there is only one God:
"That there are two Gods and two Lords, however, is a statement which we will never allow to issue from our mouth; not as if the Father and the Son were not God, nor the Spirit God, and each of them God; but formerly two were spoken of as Gods and two as Lords, so that when Christ would come, he might both be acknowledged as God and be called Lord, because he is the Son of him who is both God and Lord" (Against Praxeas xiii:6)
He also states (as quoted above) that the spirit of man is created, exactly the opposite of what Smith teaches in D&C 93:
Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.”
Tertullian again:
“Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, [παράκλητος or the Advocate] produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another.
These Three are, one essence, not one Person, as it is said, “I and my Father are One,” in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number.”(Against Praxeus, 25)
You quote Tertullian, but you obviously have no idea what he is talking about, since you only quoted a couple of sentences from him. Jerome says basically the same thing, and is also the victim of Mormon misquoting, like they do with this quote:
“Give thanks to the God of Gods.” The prophet is referring to those gods of whom it is written:
I said: You are gods;” and again: “God arises in the divine assembly.” They who cease to be mere men, abandon the ways of vice and are become perfect, are gods and the sons of the Most High.
( Jerome:: Homilies of St Jerome, Catholic University of America Press, 1964,Washington DC, p. 353)
To complete the quotation:
‘Give thanks to the Lord of lords’ This refers to the Son and ‘God of gods’ to the Father. We give thanks, therefore, to the Father and to the Son, for the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father.
‘Who alone does great wonders.’ First the prophet said, give thanks to the God of gods, and then to the Lord of lords; now, because he mentioned two persons, he says: ‘Who alone does great wonders,’ IN ORDER TO OFFSET ANY MISCONCEPTION OF TWO GODS. It is written, moreover: ‘Only one God from whom all things’ and one Lord Jesus, through whom are all things, and we through him!”
‘Who made the heavens in wisdom.’ These are the heavens that declare the glory of God, that are clothed in the image of the heavenly, not in the image of the earthly. In wisdom, ‘in intellectu’ in ‘Chirst, the power of God and the wisdom of God’: so wisdom actually declares in the Book of Proverbs: ‘When he established the heavens I was there.’ (The Homilies of St. Jerome, p. 353-354)
And again,
‘Will God reject forever?’ This is the whole burden of my meditation. God made man from clay and promised him eternal life. How, then, is he cast off from Paradise? From the kingdom of God? ‘And nevermore be favorable? Will his kindness utterly cease, his promise fail for all generations? Will he reject both generations, the chosen people and their successors? Granted that He rejected the Jews; will He also reject the Gentiles.? ‘Does his anger withhold his compassion?’ This could not be better expressed. No matter how long He restrains His compassionate mercy, nevertheless, His kindness will always triumph.
‘And I say, “Now I have begun.” The Hebrew says by contrast: ‘And I say, “This is my weakness.”’ In other words, my suffering is not from the cruelty of God, but from my own sins. ‘The right hand of the Most High is changed.’ That the Lord is merciful and grants His grace to the whole universe and does not in anger withhold His clemency, that is the change of the right hand of the Most High. Unless His right hand, that is, His Son, has changed and taken upon Himself the human body of man, we cannot have His mercy. ‘And I say, “Now I have begun. The right hand of the Most High is changed.”’ ‘Who though he was BY NATURE GOD, did not consider being EQUAL TO GOD a thing to be clung to, but emptied himself, taking on the nature of a slave.’
‘I remember the deeds of the Lord’: His wonderful deeds for Moses, the deeds He had performed for His saints. ‘Yes, I remember your wonders of old. And I meditate on your works; your exploits I ponder.’ I occupy all my thoughts with Your wondrous deeds. Meditating upon the compassionate kindness You have shown toward Your saints, I am no longer without hope.
‘O God, your way is HOLINESS.’ If you are not holy, the way of God IS NOT IN YOU. What is the way of God? ‘I am the way, the truth and the life.’ It is the Savior who says this. The way, therefore, is the Son of God. The way of God, moreover, is only in the saintly man. If we want Christ to dwell in us, let us be saints, for the way of God is holiness. ‘What great god is there like our God?’ Just as ‘there are many gods and many lords,’ the saints are called gods. (This is from the Apostle. ‘God arises in the divine assembly’; and ‘I said, you are gods: all of you sons of the Most High’; and God said to Moses, ‘I have made you as a God to Pharao.’) THEY are gods BY GRACE, but YOU are God BY NATURE. ‘You are the God who works wonders.’ Every day God works wonders; He works, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. ‘You are the God who works wonders.’ Yesterday a theif, today a Christian; yesterday a fornicator, today continent; yesterday you were plundering the goods of others; today you are offering your own.
‘Among the peoples you have made known your power.’ ‘Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God’; the mystery which was hidden for ages’; now You have made Your power known among the peoples. ‘With your strong arm you redeemed your people,’ ‘Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom in the arm of the Lord revealed? ‘With your strong arm you redeemed your people,’ in Christ of course. ‘The sons of Jacob and Joseph’: of both peoples, of Jews and of Christians; the sons of Jacob in the Jews, of Joseph in the Gentiles. Joseph furthermore, means ‘increase,’ in Hebrew. The Jews came first and we have followed; hence, the saying ‘the sons of Jacob and Joseph. Pages 71-73
‘May the Lord bless you from Sion, the maker of heaven and earth’: if you are a saint, ‘the maker of heaven’; if a sinner, ‘the maker of earth.’ He made both heaven and earth. For the present, let us stay with the literal sense. The prophet uttered this verse to discriminate between idols and the true God. Let the gods who did not make heaven and earth, he said, perish from the earth, ‘but the Lord made the heavens.’ So much for the literal interpretation; now for the spiritual. Just as it is said to the sinner: ‘Dust you are, and unto dust you shall return,’ so likewise, to the saint: heaven you are, and unto heaven you shall return. Why have I stressed all this? To prove that saints are heaven. ‘The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament proclaims his handiwork.’ ‘You waters above the heavens, let them praise the name of the Lord.’ ‘Heaven is the heaven of the Lord.’ ‘The maker of heaven and earth.’ Granted we are earthly, granted we move about on earth, nevertheless, our residence is in heaven; there we have our citizenship. ‘The maker of heaven and earth.’ Even though you are a sinner, do not be discouraged; the Lord is all powerful. Many of earth have become heaven, and many of heaven become earth. Unhappy Judas was heaven, and he became earth. Paul the Apostle was earth when he was persecuting the Church; he confessed and became heaven. It behooves one who is of heaven not to feel secure, nor ought he who is of earth lose hope of life. pages 350-351
This is a mystery and a divine dispensation. Be that as it may, and the father leads to the son, and they are one nature, one substance… (Homilies 1-59 on the Psalms, Jerome, page 46)
If, indeed, you follow those who at the time did not endure the lord when showing Himself to be the Son of God, because they would not believe him to be Lord, then call to mind along with them the passage where it is written, “I have said, Ye are gods, and ye are children of the Most High;” and again, “God standeth in the congregation of gods;” in order that, if the Scripture has not been afraid to designate gods as human beings, who have become sons of God by faith, you may be sure that the same Scripture has with greater propriety conferred the name of Lord on the true and one-only Son of God. (Tertullian: The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids MI, Walmart B Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1885, vol. 3, p.608)
We see that Mormonism is nothing like what was taught in the early Church, even from the very beginning, and that there is no way to reconcile the Mormon concept of inherent godhood with what the EFC’s taught, and that there is billions of gods running around the universe. Irenaeus rejected the very thought of this in relation to Marcion’s creation of another God as the Father of Jesus:
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 [Fullness] 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 By thus 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, [it 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 CERTAINTY OR CONCLUSION, but will of necessity wander forth after worlds without limits, AND GODS THAT CANNOT BE NUMBERED. (Against Heresies, 2:4)
Marcion, was the same heretic that was practicing baptism for the dead. Many will take the matter of distinction in the hypostases, and create a whole issue out of it, rather than focus on the fact that it has always been taught there is one God, and that Jesus was with him from the beginning, being of the same being, that man was created, body and soul, and is a creature of God, and that true deification, is getting back to that innocent and immortal state that Adam enjoyed in the Garden, (not becoming gods in a literal sense of having all power, and creating a multi-verse of gods), but of that heavenly union of men with their creator, men who are lost and incomplete without Him, and become gods (divinized) through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. Here is Justin, who you also quoted, and PAY ATTENTION to the CONTEXT:
"I shall give you another testimony, my friends," said I, "from the Scriptures, that God begat before all creatures a Beginning, [who was] a certain rational power [proceeding] from Himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom, again an Angel, then God, and then Lord and Logos; and on another occasion He calls Himself Captain, when He appeared in human form to Joshua the son of Nave (Nun). For He can be called by all those names, since He ministers to the Father’s will, and since He was begotten of the Father by an act of will; just as we see happening among ourselves: for when we give out some word, we beget the word; yet not by abscission, so as to lessen the word [which remains] in us, when we give it out: and just as we see also happening in the case of a fire, which is not lessened when it has kindled [another], but remains the same; and that which has been kindled by it likewise appears to exist by itself, not diminishing that from which it was kindled. The Word of Wisdom, who is Himself this God begotten of the Father of all things, and Word, and Wisdom, and Power, and the Glory of the Begetter, …" (Dialog of Justin with Trypho, a Jew, ch 60)
It is a given that the Word and the Father had the same will. (One in purpose) What the argument was all about was that they are the same SUBSTANCE. Justin taught that the Word sprang out of the essence of the Father, as an act of will, as an intermediary, another ‘God’ in that sense, but still unbegotten, unique and part of himself. In no way can anyone get Mormon theosis out of this. Irenaeus and Tertullian crystallize what Justin meant in their apologia, firmly declaring there is only ONE GOD. And they do it long before the Council of Nicaea. Irenaeus again,
8. Now, these remarks which have been made concerning the emission of intelligence are in like manner applicable in opposition to those who belong to the school of Basilides, as well as in opposition to the rest of the Gnostics, from whom these also (the Valentinians) have adopted the ideas about emissions, and were refuted in the first book. But I have now plainly shown that the first production of Nous, that is, of the intelligence they speak of, is an untenable and impossible opinion. And let us see how the matter stands with respect to the rest [of the Æons]. For they maintain that Logos and Zoe were sent forth by him (i.e., Nous) as fashioners of this Pleroma; [Greek πλήρωμα or fullness] while they conceive of an emission of Logos, that is, the Word after the analogy of human feelings, and rashly form conjectures respecting God, as if they had discovered something wonderful in their assertion that Logos was I produced by Nous. All indeed have a clear perception that this may be logically affirmed with respect to men. But in Him who is God over all, since He is all Nous, (Greek, νοῦς intelligence) and all Logos, as I have said before, and has in Himself nothing more ancient or late than another, and nothing at variance with another, but continues altogether equal, and similar, and homogeneous, there is no longer ground for conceiving of such production in the order which has been mentioned. Just as he does not err who declares that God is all vision, and all hearing (for in what manner He sees, in that also He hears; and in what manner He hears, in that also He sees), so also he who affirms that He is all intelligence, and all word, and that, in whatever respect He is intelligence, in that also He is word, and that this Nous is His Logos, will still indeed have only an inadequate conception of the Father of all, but will entertain far more becoming [thoughts regarding Him] than do those who transfer the generation of the word to which men gave utterance to the eternal Word of God, assigning a beginning and course of production [to Him], even as they do to their own word. And in what respect will the Word of God— yea, rather God Himself, since He is the Word— differ from the word of men, if He follows the same order and process of generation? (AH, II:13:8)
Irenaeus clear statement here, that those who assign a beginning to the Word, are in error, and that the Word is God himself, and that he cannot follow the same order and process of generation as men. Irenaeus is clearly an instrumental link in all this, having been taught by Polycarp, who was intimate with the Apostles themselves. Irenaeus was also thoroughly familiar with the works of Justin, and indeed probably knew him. And we only have SOME of Justin’s works. As Irenaeus so aptly puts it, and in doing so blasts the Mormon notion of a Universal Apostasy:
"When, however, they [these heretics] are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce: wherefore also Paul declared, "But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world." And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, forsooth; so that, according to their idea, the truth properly resides at one time in Valentinus, at another in Marcion, at another in Cerinthus, then afterwards in Basilides, or has even been indifferently in any other opponent, who could speak nothing pertaining to salvation. For every one of these men, being altogether of a perverse disposition, depraving the system of truth, is not ashamed to preach himself. But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 3, Ch 2, 1-2).
Here is another that Mormons love to rip out of context,
“Fifthly, with regard to the full participation of the Divinity, which is the true bliss of man and end of human life; and this is bestowed upon us by Christ’s humanity; for Augustine says in a sermon (xiii de Temp.): “God was made man, that man might be made God.”
What one must do, is read the Early Church Fathers IN CONTEXT. Let’s go down the road of deification, as conceptualized by them, which is restoring or reconciling the human nature or man with God. We will start with Thomas Aquinas:
“A DOUBLE CAPACITY may be remarked in human nature: one, in respect of the order of natural power, and this is always fulfilled by God, Who apportions to each according to its natural capability; the other in respect to the order of the Divine power, which all creatures implicitly obey; and the CAPABILITY WE SPEAK OF pertains to this. But God does not fulfil all such capabilities, otherwise God could do only what He has done in CREATURES, and this is false, as stated above (FP, Q[105], A[6]). But there is no reason why HUMAN NATURE should not have been raised to SOMETHING GREATER after sin. For God allows evils to happen in order to bring a greater good therefrom; hence it is written (Rom. 5:20): "Where sin abounded, grace did more abound." Hence, too, in the blessing of the Paschal candle, we say: "O happy fault, that merited such and so great a Redeemer!" (Summa Theologica, Article 3)
Now, let’s read the ENTIRE passage quoted above IN CONTEXT:
What frees the human race from perdition is necessary for the salvation of man. But the mystery of the Incarnation is such; according to Jn. 3:16: "God so loved the world as to give His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him may not perish, but may have life everlasting." Therefore it was necessary for man's salvation that God should become incarnate.
I answer that, A thing is said to be necessary for a certain end in two ways. First, when the end cannot be without it; as food is necessary for the preservation of human life. Secondly, when the end is attained better and more conveniently, as a horse is necessary for a journey. In the first way it was not necessary that God should become incarnate for the restoration of human nature.
For God with His omnipotent power could have RESTORED HUMAN NATURE in many other ways. But IN THE SECOND WAY it was NECESSARY that God should become incarnate for the restoration of human nature. Hence Augustine says (De Trin. xii, 10): "
“We shall also show that other ways were not wanting to God, to Whose power all things are equally subject; but that there was not a more fitting way of healing our misery."
Now this may be viewed with respect to our "FURTHERANCE IN GOOD." First, with regard to faith, which is made more certain by believing God Himself Who speaks; hence Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xi, 2): "In order that man might journey more trustfully toward the truth, the Truth itself, the Son of God, having ASSUMED HUMAN NATURE, established and founded faith."
Secondly, with regard to hope, which is thereby greatly strengthened; hence Augustine says (De Trin. xiii): "Nothing was so necessary for raising our hope as to show us HOW DEEPLY GOD LOVED US. And what could afford us a stronger proof of this than that the Son of God should become A PARTNER WITH US OF HUMAN NATURE?"
Thirdly, with regard to charity, which is greatly enkindled by this; hence Augustine says (De Catech. Rudib. iv): "What greater cause is there of the Lord's coming than to show God's love for us?" And he afterwards adds: "If we have been slow to love, at least let us hasten to love in return."
Fourthly, with regard to well-doing, in which He set us an example; hence Augustine says in a sermon (xxii de Temp.): "Man who might be seen was not to be followed; but God was to be followed, Who could not be seen. And therefore God was made man, that He Who might be seen by man, and Whom man might follow, might be shown to man."
Fifthly, with regard to the full participation of the Divinity, which is the true bliss of man and end of human life; and THIS IS BESTOWED UPON US BY Christ’S HUMANITY; for Augustine says in a sermon (xiii de Temp.): "God was made man, that man might be made God."
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.TP_Q1_A2.html
Aquinas is talking here about men taking on the NATURE of God, not being god, god’s in embryo, or of the substance of god (his literal ‘spirit children’, see quote below by Augustine).
We all know that God is ONE GOD, and that is what the Bible teaches. Christianity is a monotheistic religion and this means that there can be no other God than the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob:
"Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord alone!” (Deuteronomy 6:4)
Both the Christians and the heretics held to this doctrine in the early days of the Church. The Christians wanted to pass on the apostolic tradition that the Logos was God and became flesh (John 1:1,14) and at the same time keep the doctrine that there is only one God. The heretics tried to limit mystery and couldn't understand how there can be three Persons in one God.
They put a lot of effort in trying to understand the relationship between God and Jesus Christ while, like the faithful Christians, keeping the doctrine that there is only one God. This led them to assert many erroneous views such as Jesus being a creature or that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are only "modes" of the one true God. (As Smith taught in the Book of Mormon & Lectures On Faith) By the power of the Holy Spirit, the Church has faithfully kept the apostolic faith that there are three Persons in one God and rejected the heretics' erroneous views.
Because the Church Fathers believed that the Logos became flesh, this means that the nature of God and the nature of man are UNITED IN ONE PERSON. What does this imply? One of the answers is that MAN CAN BE DIVINIZED (cf. 2 Peter 1:4; 1 John 3:1-3).
This does not mean that man's nature changes into the nature of God. This simply means that man can PARTAKE in the divine nature of God. This what St. Thomas Aquinas was teaching.
According to Aquinas, the Son is the Eternal Wisdom and "man is perfected in wisdom (which is his proper perfection, as he is rational) by participating [in] the Word of God" (ST III, q. 3. a. 8) [and this is exactly what Jesus taught in John 10] and that the reason for the Incarnation is for:
"the full participation of the Divinity, which is the true bliss of man and end of human life; and this is bestowed upon us by Christ's humanity; for Augustine says in a sermon (xiii de Temp): 'God was made man, that man might be made God' " (ST III, q. 1 a. 2).
There can be no ascent of man unless God descends FIRST. God is infinitely above man and man by his power cannot form a friendship with Him BECAUSE OF HIS SIN.
Throughout history, however, there was a type of relationship between God and man. This was expressed in a contract or a covenant. God made promises to a particular group of people and this particular group made their own promises. Because of man's weaknesses he could not keep up with his promises. But God is not only infinitely above but also infinitely near. His love for man is infinite because He is infinite love. Where man goes He wants to go even if it means becoming weak like him, or even going to the dead with him. Because of His infinite love for us, "he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness; and found human in appearance, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross" (Philippians 2:7-8).
The very act of the Incarnation shows what kind of God He is. The Jews have always thought of Him as the Creator of the universe, the One who created the universe
OUT OF NOTHING. He was the great I AM, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The Incarnation gives us a greater picture of who God is. In fact, it gives us more than a picture; it gives us a human face.
The Incarnation shows that God is a kenotic being, a self-emptying being. But how can God empty Himself without becoming a non-God? It must not be a type of emptying which makes Himself to be a non-God, but a different kind. Thanks to revelation and human experience, there is one kind of self-emptying which is rich in value and that which does not destroy the essence but rather fulfills it or perfects it.
And that is LOVE. Love is a total self-giving of one's self to another. We know from revelation that God is love and that He consists in three divine Persons: Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father, the principle without a principle, is the source of origin for both the Son and the Spirit. The Father knows and loves Himself and this generates the Son and the Holy Spirit. He knows Himself and this gives Him an Idea of Himself, which is the Son. The Father knows the Son and loves Him. The Son in turn knows and loves the Father. The love between the Father and the Son generates another Person, who is the Holy Spirit.
This does not mean that the Father creates the Son and the Holy Spirit. Because the Father is an eternal Father and this means that His identity necessarily consists of a relationship. So too with the Son. Because the Son is eternal, this means that His identity consists of a relationship. This in turn means that this is an eternal relationship, an eternal self-giving of each other, loving each other in the fullest sense. And that is why the Holy Spirit, the communion between the Father and the Son, is also eternal. The Incarnation, then, reveals the Trinity to us; it reveals to us who God really is.
The Father could have sent the Son to the world in many ways (as Aquinas explains above). It is most appropriate for the Son to become flesh as a Son because being a Son is His very Person. This leads to a Mariology. Because the Son wanted to reveal Himself as a Son, He needed to be born of a woman (Gal 4:4). The Father, however, could not force any woman to accept to become the mother of His Son. The Father had to favor a woman who is willing to give a fiat, an assent, to His will. Through that favor and assent, the Holy Spirit will then dwell in her and she will bear a son called Jesus.
Because of Mary's word, the Eternal Word became flesh. Her Son "will rule over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end" (Luke 1:33).
His kingdom will not be limited to a particular group, but to the whole world. He is the Savior of all men (1 Tim 4:10; 2:4,6; 1 John 2:2).
We can see a glimpse of how the Son's relationship with man will be like through His relationship with Mary. The God-man does not treat man as slaves anymore, but as a family member. The relationship between Mary and Jesus was that of a mother and son, a familial relationship. This prefigures how His relationship with the other men will be like. Because of His act of kenosis on the cross as well as His resurrection, He no longer call His disciples slaves but friends. He also reveals them who God is, a Father. He will send them the Holy Spirit who will give us the power to cry out, "Abba, Father" (Romans 8:14-17). Everything that the Father gives will also be given to Him in the end. The relationship between God and man is that of a father and a son because of Jesus Christ with the power of the Holy Spirit.
Jesus Christ came to do the Father's will. Though Jesus Christ emptied Himself for us, He did not do it primarily for us but "to the glory of the Father" (Phil 2:11). This is something which may make some uncomfortable, but it is the truth of the Christian faith.
Glorifying the Father is more important than the salvation of a soul. It is true, as St. Thomas said, that the reason for the Incarnation is so that man can fully participate in divinity. But the Eternal Son would not have done so if the divinization of man does not glorify the Father.
It is because the divinization of man glorifies the Father that the Son emptied Himself. His obedience to the Father, which glorifies Him, is His primary reason for the Incarnation. There is no better way to glorify the Father than emptying Himself, accomplishing the works the Father gave Him (John 17:4), and obeying Him to death.
Because God became man, "man can become god." But what does it really mean to become god? This is where abstraction must be avoided. There are mysteries which simply cannot be "solved" intellectually. It can only be lived. The best way we can know what it means to become a god is to look at it concretely which means looking at saints, like Paul.
Paul says:
"For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor present things, nor future things, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 8:38-39)
What drives these saints to have such faith? The reason comes from St. Paul: the love of Christ.
Again, an example from a saint, St. Ignatius of Loyola says,
"TAKE, O Lord, and receive all my liberty, my memory, my understanding, and my whole will. Thou hast given me all that I am and all that I possess: I surrender it all to Thee that Thou mayest dispose of it according to Thy will. Give me only Thy love and Thy grace; with these I will be rich enough, and will have no more to desire. Amen."
The saint is not concerned with religious experience or even mystical experience. He is simply concerned with the very Person, God. He wants God to take possession of Him and for him to possess God. It means that he becomes the very property of God because He no longer lives, but God who lives IN HIM (Gal 2:20). Being a god, being a property of God means that God, who is the great I AM, makes the human person, "I am YOURS." You still get to keep your personality, your "I," but it is always seen in relation to God: I am His, or much better, I am YOURS. To partake in the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4) is to really become a property of God. But even this analysis does not go far enough. God is not an object but a subject. God is a self-subsistent Self. He cannot be treated as if He is an object.
Finally, if gods are properties of God, because He possesses them, that their identity becomes "I am YOURS," then in what way will we possess God? In other words, what will God's identity be like? This is where my musings will end because I believe I have reached the point where I can only say,
"Eye has not seen nor ear has heard." (1 Corinthians 2:9; Isaiah 64:4)
That is why Augustine also said:
“He has called men gods that are deified OF HIS GRACE, NOT BORN OF HIS SUBSTANCE.” (Exposition of the Psalms L:2, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, first series, 14 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989)
Let us become the image of the one whole God, bearing nothing earthly in ourselves, so that we may consort with God and become gods, receiving from God our existence as gods --St. Maximus the Confessor On Theology, 7.73
The Word became flesh and the Son of God became the Son of Man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God --St. Irenaeus, Adv Haer III
Let us applaud and give thanks that we have become not only Christians but Christ himself. Do you understand, my brothers, the grace that God our head has given us? Be filled with wonder and joy--we have become veritable Christs! --St. Augustine of Hippo
The highest of all things desired is to become god. --St Basil the Great
Basil also expounds on this concept,
7. After thus describing the outcome of our adversaries' arguments, we shall now proceed to show, as we have proposed, that the Father does not first take of whom and then abandon through whom to the Son; and that there is no truth in these men's ruling that the Son refuses to admit the Holy Spirit to a share in of whom or in through whom, according to the limitation of their new-fangled allotment of phrases. There is one God and Father of whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ through whom are all things. 1 Corinthians 8:6
Yes; but these are the words of a writer not laying down a rule,
but carefully distinguishing the hypostases. The object of the apostle in thus writing was not to introduce the diversity of nature, but to exhibit the notion of Father and of Son as unconfounded...13. Our opponents, while they thus artfully and perversely encounter our argument, cannot even have recourse to the plea of ignorance. It is obvious that they are annoyed with us for completing the doxology to the Only Begotten together with the Father, and for not separating the Holy Spirit from the Son. On this account they style us innovators, revolutionizers, phrase-coiners, and every other possible name of insult. But so far am I from being irritated at their abuse, that, were it not for the fact that their loss causes me heaviness and continual sorrow, I could almost have said that I was grateful to them for the blasphemy, as though they were agents for providing me with blessing. For blessed are you, it is said, when men shall revile you for my sake. Matthew 5:11 The grounds of their indignation are these: The Son, according to them, is not together with the Father, but after the Father. Hence it follows that glory should be ascribed to the Father through him, but not with him; inasmuch as with him expresses equality of dignity, while through him denotes subordination. They further assert that the Spirit is not to be ranked along with the Father and the Son, but under the Son and the Father; not coordinated, but subordinated; not connumerated, but subnumerated.
14. Let us first ask them this question: In what sense do they say that the Son is after the Father; later in time, or in order, or in dignity? But in time no one is so devoid of sense as to assert that the Maker of the ages holds a second place, when no interval intervenes in the natural conjunction of the Father with the Son. And indeed so far as our conception of human relations goes,
it is impossible to think of the Son as being later than the Father, not only from the fact that Father and Son are mutually conceived of in accordance with the relationship subsisting between them, but because posteriority in time is predicated of subjects separated by a less interval from the present, and priority of subjects farther off.
The superior remoteness of the Father is really inconceivable, in that thought and intelligence are wholly impotent to go beyond the generation of the Lord; and St. John has admirably confined the conception within circumscribed boundaries by two words, In the beginning was the Word.For thought cannot travel outside was, nor imagination beyond beginning. Let your thought travel ever so far backward you cannot get beyond the was, and however you may strain and strive to see what is beyond the Son, you will find it impossible to get further than the beginning.
True religion, therefore, thus teaches us to think of the Son together with the Father.” [/guote]
Thus his declaration made clear earlier in the treatise,
“He makes them spiritual BY FELLOWSHIP WITH HIMSELF. Just as when a sunbeam falls on bright and transparent bodies, they themselves BECOME BRILLIANT TOO, and shed forth a fresh brightness from themselves, so souls wherein the Spirit dwells, illuminated by the Spirit, themselves BECOME SPIRITUAL, and send forth THEIR GRACE to others. Hence comes foreknowledge of the future, understanding of mysteries, apprehension of what is hidden, distribution of good gifts, the heavenly citizenship, a place in the chorus of angels, joy without end, abiding in God, the being made LIKE TO GOD, and, highest of all, THE BEING MADE GOD. Such, then, to instance a few out of many, are the conceptions concerning the Holy Spirit, which we have been taught to hold concerning His greatness, His dignity, and His operations, by the oracles of the Spirit themselves. “(Basil, De Spiritu Sancto)
”Becoming a god is the highest goal of all”, is not being born a god, as Mormonism teaches, and proving oneself by a set of laws to become one, as Joseph F. Smith taught:
“Salvation is attainable only through COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAWS and ordinances of the Gospel; and all who are thus saved become sons and daughters unto God in a distinctive sense.” And what is that sense? In the same way that Jesus is the Son of the Father:
“There is no impropriety, therefore, in speaking of Jesus Christ as the Elder Brother of the rest of human kind. That He is by spiritual birth Brother to the rest of us is indicated in Hebrews: "Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people" (Hebrews 2:17). Let it not be forgotten, however, that He is essentially greater than any and all others, by reason (1) of His seniority as the oldest or firstborn; (2) of His unique status in the flesh as the offspring of a mortal mother and of an immortal, or resurrected and glorified, Father; (3) of His selection and foreordination as the one and only Redeemer and Savior of the race; and (4) of His transcendent sinlessness.”
The difference here is the four points they make, that Jesus was the senior child, that Jesus was sired in the flesh by ‘the father’, that Jesus was ‘foreordained to be a ‘savior’, and that Jesus was sinless. He is not this God, the God of the Christians, who, as Gregory of Nazianzen asks:
“For how could this Universe have come into being or been put together, unless God had called it into existence, and held it together?” (Second Theological Oration 28:VI)
“For what is older than that which is from the beginning, if we may place there the previous existence or non-existence of the Son? In either case we destroy its claim to be the Beginning. Or perhaps you will say, if we were to ask you whether the Father was of existent or non-existent substance, that he is twofold, partly pre-existing, partly existing; or that His case is the same with that of the Son; that is, that He was created out of non-existing matter, because of your ridiculous questions and your houses of sand, which cannot stand against the merest ripple.” (Third Theological Oration, 29:IX”)
“But in the case of which we are speaking, you couple the Name of God with adorable Majesty, and make It surpass every essence and nature (an attribute of God alone), and then you ascribe this Name to the Father, while you deprive the Son of it, and make Him subject to the Father, and give Him only a secondary honour and worship; and even if in words you bestow on Him one which is Equal, yet in practice you cut off His Deity, and pass malignantly from a use of the same Name implying an exact equality, to one which connects things which are not equal. And so the pictured and the living man are in your mouth an apter illustration of the relations of Deity than the dogs which I instanced. Or else you must concede to both an equal dignity of nature as well as a common name— even though you introduced these natures into your argument as different; and thus you destroy the analogy of your dogs, which you invented as an instance of inequality. For what is the force of your instance of ambiguity, if those whom you distinguish are not equal in honour? For it was not to prove an equality but an inequality that you took refuge in your dogs. How could anybody be more clearly convicted of fighting both against his own arguments, and against the Deity?” (ibid, XIV)
And to his fellow Christians Gregory wrote,
“To You, I think, are fitting those words, The lot is fallen unto You in a fair ground: yea You have the goodliest heritage. Nor will I allow that the most populous cities or the broadest flocks have any advantage over us, the little ones of the smallest of all the tribes of Israel, of the least of the thousands of Judah, of the little Bethlehem among cities, where Christ was born and is from the beginning well-known and worshipped; among those whom the Father is exalted, and the Son is held to be equal to Him, and the Holy Ghost is glorified with Them: we who are of one soul, who mind the same thing, who in nothing injure the Trinity, neither by preferring One Person above another, nor by cutting off any: as those bad umpires and measurers of the Godhead do, who by magnifying One Person more than is fit, diminish and insult the whole.” (Oration 3)
Then, Gregory extols,
IV. Yesterday I was crucified with Him; today I am glorified with Him; yesterday I died with Him; to-day I am quickened with Him; yesterday I was buried with Him; to-day I rise with Him. But let us offer to Him Who suffered and rose again for us-you will think perhaps that I am going to say gold, or silver, or woven work or transparent and costly stones, the mere passing material of earth, that remains here below, and is for the most part always possessed by bad men, slaves of the world and of the Prince of the world. Let us offer ourselves, the possession most precious to God, and most fitting; let us give back to the Image WHAT IS MADE AFTER THE IMAGE. Let us recognize our Dignity; let us honour our Archetype; let us know the power of the Mystery, and for what Christ died.
V. Let us become like Christ, since Christ became like us. Let us become God's for His sake, since He for ours became Man. He assumed the worse that He might give us the better; He became poor that we through His poverty might be rich;9 He took upon Him the form of a servant that we might receive back our liberty; He came down that we might be exalted; He was tempted that we might conquer; He was dishonoured that He might glorify us; He died that He might save us; He ascended that He might draw to Himself us, who were lying low in the Fall of sin. Let us give all, offer all, to Him Who gave Himself a Ransom and a Reconciliation for us. But one can give nothing like oneself, understanding the Mystery, and becoming for His sake all that He became for ours.(Oration 1)
Now we see how Christians become gods, by taking on the divine nature, (not already having it as Mormons claim) and we go back to Jacobs, who tells us that,
“In his essence, God is transcendent, unknowable, incommunicable. But the divine energies are immanent, knowable, communicable. The divine energies are the activities of God, divine operations or manifestations. They are not the effects of God; nor are they emanations from God. They are “God Himself in His activities" 22 and “natural processions of God Himself." 23 These uncreated energies are not personal beings, but are rather manifestations or modes of existence of a personal being. 24 As Ware puts it, “essence signifies the whole God as he is in himself; the energies signify the whole God as he is in action." 25” (ibid, page 5)
“Though human persons by their very nature are open to union with God, they are not capable of union with God in his essence. If human persons were united to the essence of God, they would be God by nature, and hence God would not be triune but a multitude. Neither are human persons capable of being united hypostatically to one of the persons of the Trinity, for that sort of union is unique to the Son. 26 Theosis is, therefore, union with God in his energies according to the Eastern church. This energetic union is not a “fusion or confusion"; 27 neither is it an “ontological commingling of the divine with the human nature." 28 It is, rather, a genuine union of God, IN HIS ENERGIES, with human persons.” (ibid)
While Adam's sin did not destroy the image of God in man -- it was “obscured but not obliterated"
30|his sin did, according to the Eastern church, effect a change in human nature. 31 It is this distorted nature, not original guilt, that Adam passed on to future generations. 32 In this sense, sin introduced a kind of sickness needing healing, not merely a legal debt needing payment. Because of this sick or “mutilated" 33 nature, man was no longer capable of union with God. “The original natural chasm between God and man" -- which man was called to bridge through grace -- was “insuperably widened" after the fall. 34 The fall had thus \rendered man inferior to his vocation." 35 In short, the fall caused human nature itself to become deformed. The descendants of Adam were thus incapable of being deified without some dramatic change -- a restoration or recreation of human nature. (ibid, page 6)
As Cyril explains,
“Man then is a rational creature (λογικὸν ζῶον), being composite of soul and of this perishable and earthly flesh. And when he was made by God and was brought into being, not having of his own nature
incorruption and indestructibility (for those things appertain essentially to God alone), he was sealed with the Spirit of life, by PARTICIPATION (ςφέςιρ) in the divinity, gaining the good that is above nature. For, ―He breathed, - it says,―into his nostrils the breath of life and the man became a living soul”[Gen 2.7]. But when he was being punished for the transgression, then rightly hearing ―You are dust and to dust you will return. [Gen 3.19], he was stripped of grace. The breath of life, that is the Spirit of him who says ―I am the life,--departed from the earthly flesh, and the creature falls into death, through the flesh alone—the soul being preserved (ςῴζψ) in immortality since it was said only to the flesh, ―You are dust and to dust you will return. [Gen 3.19]. Therefore it was necessary that the thing which was most of all endangered in us should be vigorously restored and should be recalled to immortality by intertwining again with Life by nature. It was necessary to find release from the suffering of evil. It was necessary that at length the sentence, ―You are dust and to dust you will return. [Gen 3.19], should be relaxed when the fallen body is united ineffably to the Word who gives life to all things. For it was necessary when his flesh came to partake of the immortality that is from him. (Commentary on John. 1.14, 1:108-9 [1:138-39])
For since the Word by nature consists of something different from that which is by adoption, and that which is in truth from that which is by imitation, and we are called sons of God by adoption and imitation; he is therefore Son by nature and in truth, to whom we, who are made sons, are compared, gaining the good by grace instead of by natural endowments. (Commentary on John. 1.12, 1:105 [1:134])
“For we were all in Christ, and the community of human nature ascends to his person; since on account of this he was named the last Adam, giving richly to the common nature all things that belong to joy and glory, even as the first Adam gave what pertained to corruption and dejection. The Word then dwelled in all through one in order that when the one is ―declared the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness‖ [Rom 1.4], the dignity might come unto all the human nature. And thus the saying ―I have said you are gods and all of you are children of the Most High‖ [Ps 82.6] might come to us also because of one of us. Therefore in Christ the slave is truly made free, ascending to mystic union with him who bore the form of the slave, and it is in us according to imitation of the one because of the kinship according to the flesh. (Commentary on John. 1.14, 1:110 [1:141])
The Spirit [is] God and of God by nature. We too, being accounted worthy to partake of him through faith in Christ, are rendered partakers of the divine nature [2 Pet 1.4] and are said to be begotten from God. For this reason, we are called gods, not by grace alone winging our flight to the glory above us but also by having God already indwelling and lodging in us, according to what is said in the prophet, ―I will dwell in them and walk in them! [2 Cor 6.16/Lev 26.11-12]. (Commentary on John. 1.13, 1:107 [1:136-37])
That is what, according to the Eastern church, Christ accomplished in the Incarnation. Christ took upon himself human nature and united it to the divine nature, thereby transforming it. “Recasting human nature as if it were a shattered and ruined statue, He raised it up new, spiritual, and imperishable." 36
It is for this reason that it would be appropriate to refer to the birth of Christ as the birthday of the human race, 37 for it was at the moment of the union of the divine and human natures in the person of Christ that
human nature was remade. (ibid)
“Theosis is the union of a human person with God IN HIS ENERGIES. Theosis was our original purpose and was written into our nature, but the Fall deformed our nature and made theosis impossible. God therefore united himself to human nature, in the person of the Son, and transformed it so that we are once again capable of union with him. The transformation of each of our own natures is accomplished in the sacrament of baptism, but theosis itself requires the grace of God and each person's cooperation.” (ibid, page 8)
Here, we have taken all the original quotes, and put them in their context, learning that the Early Church Fathers believed in only ONE God, who was one in essence, substance, and of three persons, the doctrine of the Trinity. Man becomes god by taking on his nature, which transforms him, NOT into little gods that are just like God in every way, but perfect in the sense that they are resurrected and immortal and once again, free from sin as Adam was in the beginning. This is true deification in the Christian sense, not the heretical teaching that Mormonism presents, that men can become gods in every way, with all power, part of some grand ‘cycle of the gods’ that goes on forever, a universe full of many gods that Irenaeus and others so heartily condemned. Many Mormons take the writings of the Early Church Fathers, cherry pick them, and then try to say that they taught other than what they actually taught. They do not understand the underlying meanings of what was being taught. They cling to the false interpretations of those like Jo Smith and then go further into heresy like Brigham Young did in proclaiming Adam as God the Father.
You lame explanation does nothing at all to explain why Christ quoted that same scripture to the Jews who tried to stone Him for BLASPHEMY!
I did address it. You must have missed it.
In John 10, Jesus uses this Psalm to justify one reason to take on the appellation “Son of God”. “If he called them 'gods' to whom the word of God came…” Whoever, then, is called "god" is so named because "the word of God came" to them and they believed and lived it. Jesus himself interprets this Psalm and why these men were called gods: it is because the “word of God” came to them.
Let me just give you a few non Mormon quotes from persons that were a lot more knowledgeable than you two about this and were not just trying to twist the meaning to fit their false beliefs!
I’m glad you did. Now that you see what they said in context, we can apply that to you. (“they were a lot more knowledgeable than you..) I’m sure if they were here, they would be laughing at your pitiful effort to misquote them to support the heresy of Mormonism.
