A Question of Exaltation

[_moksha]

Is there any historical reference to the idea and doctrine of exaltation and growing to be like our Heavenly Father?

Thought the knowledgeable people here could help provide some answers for me. Thanks.

[_moksha]

After no answer for so long, I suspect this is either an area the collective board does not know much about, or the question was poorly worded.

Let me reframe the question to ask about other biblical or extra-biblical histories that deal with the idea and doctrine of exaltation.

Hopefully, someone knows something or else knows someone who is the second cousin-once-removed who knows somebody who once knew something.

[_basilII]

This is actually an area that both Mormon and nonmormon apologetics have addressed extensively (man becoming gods). Here's my take on it:

1) Many early christian writers expressed the idea that God became man so that man could become God (Irenaeus, Athanasius, etc.)

2) LDS often take this as evidence that the early church believed in their doctrine of exaltation, and that this knowledge was lost or distorted by apostate Christianity

3) The idea of man becoming God is called theosis in Eastern Orthodoxy and has always been a prominent teaching of that church. It is also officially a part of Catholic doctrine as well, though it tends to be less emphasized/taught in western Christianity.

Although the language employed by the early church fathers is similiar to that used by the LDS, the meaning is somewhat different due to their different conceptions of the nature of God and man. In orthodox Christianity God is the wholly other: infinite and uncreated, the cause of all other being. Man is a creature: at one time we did not exist and we are wholly dependent on God for our very being. Through Christ we can become partakers of the divine nature, we can share in God's life. But we can never become God in our own right: we become gods by grace, not God by nature. Some early christians liked to use the analogy of iron heated in a fire. God is the fire and we are the iron, by being placed in the fire we gain some of the attributes of the fire like heat and light. But take the iron out of the fire and it loses those attributes, it remains fundamentally iron not fire. I think those early christians would have balked at the idea of us ever becoming a 'God the Father' to our own creatures. And theosis certainly never had anything to do with marriage, celestial or otherwise.

On the other hand in traditional LDS belief we are essentially of the same nature as God, just less developed or advanced. So we can literally become exactly as God is, a God to our own spirit offspring, a creator in our own right. Our Heavenly Father would, however, always rank above us in glory since he has vaster domains.

[_bcspace]

Through Christ we can become partakers of the divine nature, we can share in God's life. But we can never become God in our own right: we become gods by grace, not God by nature.

It's more accurate to say that this became true as the doctrine of Deification became diluted through the universal apostasy. For example, one nonLDS scholar writes:

"One can think what one wants of this doctrine of progressive deification, but one thing is certain: with this anthropology Joseph Smith is closer to the view of man held by the Ancient Church than the precursors of the Augustinian doctrine of original sin were, who considered the thought of such a substantial connection between God and man as the heresy, par excellence." Benz, E.W., Imago Dei: Man in the Image of God, in Madsen, ed., Reflections on Mormonism, 215-216

[Guest]

Through Christ we can become partakers of the divine nature, we can share in God's life. But we can never become God in our own right: we become gods by grace, not God by nature.

It's more accurate to say that this became true as the doctrine of Deification became diluted through the universal apostasy. For example, one nonLDS scholar writes:

"One can think what one wants of this doctrine of progressive deification, but one thing is certain: with this anthropology Joseph Smith is closer to the view of man held by the Ancient Church than the precursors of the Augustinian doctrine of original sin were, who considered the thought of such a substantial connection between God and man as the heresy, par excellence." Benz, E.W., Imago Dei: Man in the Image of God, in Madsen, ed., Reflections on Mormonism, 215-216

The problem with that scholar's view is that every early church father who taught that man can become God, because God became man in Christ, also believed in the Creator/creature distinction. This is true of even the earliest explicit teacher of this belief outside of the New Testament, Irenaeus in the 2nd century. So they could not have meant that we become identical to God in nature. We remain always god by grace since we are creatures who were created out of nothing (as Irenaeus also explicitly taught). But God himself is the everlasting one, uncreated and eternal. And the Orthodox who are the great proponents of deification never gave much credence to Augustine's views in any case. Their interpretation of the meaning of deification (energies vs essence) is in no way dependent on Augustine or any other Western/Roman Catholic theologian, or on Western notions of original sin. It has more ancient and deeper roots.

Again the main point is that those early christians who explicitly taught deification had views on the Creator/creature distinction that are closer (really identical) to those held by the Orthodox/Catholics today rather than those of the LDS. After all Athanasius, who is the source of many of the 'man becoming God' quotes, was himself the great defender of the council of Nicaea and its doctrine on God.

[_basilII]

But hopefully both Mormons and more traditional christians can agree that no matter what God has in store for us in the next life, and whatever being made partakers of the divine nature exactly means, the reality of heaven will far exceed our present imaginings and hopes. As Paul wisely said, "eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him".

We are probably like those ancient astronomers who debated how many spheres or heavens surrounded the earth, unaware of the true vastness and grandeur of the universe. Quoting Paul again: "For now we see through a glass, darkly, but then face to face"

Are you still there Moksha and are we addressing your question?

[_bcspace]

The problem with that scholar's view is that every early church father who taught that man can become God, because God became man in Christ, also believed in the Creator/creature distinction. This is true of even the earliest explicit teacher of this belief outside of the New Testament, Irenaeus in the 2nd century.

This is a rather Augustinian/Athanasian type of view and came at a time when it was often denied that the early Christians taught that God was anthropomorphic and corporeal. But it is instrtuctive to note that both Origen and Eusebius taught that Christ was surpassed by the Father.

Yet Eusebius said that "the saints also can enjoy precisely the same kind of fellowship with the Father" as Jesus Christ. And Origen, although he believed Jesus would be higher in rank than those who came after, taught that people would become Gods in the same way Jesus was a God Origen, Commentary on John 2:2, in ANF 10:323. In addition he said that God

"will be 'all' in each individual in this way: when all which any rational understanding, cleansed from the dregs of every sort of vice, and with every cloud of wickedness completely swept away, can either feel, or understand, or think, will be wholly God . . . ."
Origen, De Principiis 3:6:3, in ANF 4:345

Origen would certainly have rejected basilII's creator/creature distinction:

"Every one who participates in anything, is unquestionably of one essence and nature with him who is partaker of the same thing."
Origen, De Principiis 4:1:36, in ANF 4:381

Clement of Alexandria had no such thoughts of creature/created when he said:

It is then, as appears, the greatest of all lessons to know one's self. For if one knows himself, he will know God; and knowing God, he will be made like God . . . . But that man with whom the Word dwells does not alter himself, does not get himself up: he has the form which is of the Word; he is made like to God; he is beautiful; he does not ornament himself: his is beauty, the true beauty, for it is God; and that man becomes God, since God so wills. Heraclitus, then, rightly said, "Men are gods, and gods are men."
Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor 3:1, in ANF 2:271

And we could certainly preceed along the same lines with the likes of Justin Martyr and Peter in the Clementine Homilies. We might even enlist Irenaeus to help us in this endeavor as well because he taught that the saints would pass "beyond the angels, and be made after the image and likeness of God" and that they would attain "even unto God."

We can also appeal to the Bible itself where Peter tells the saints they will "come to share in the very being of God." 2 Peter 1:4 NEB

[Guest]

I’m not arguing that we will not share in the divine nature, that we will become like God. My point again is that those words must be interpreted in terms of the fundamental Creator/creature distinction which all the Fathers subscribed to.

Any quotes from an early Church Father must be interpreted in the context of his entire writings, just as individual passage from the Bible should be interpreted in light of the whole. Otherwise is just like the old proof-texts game that Bible bashers engage in. In any case appealing to those Church Fathers to support LDS teachings is a game that you cannot win. They were after all catholic Christians: they called themselves catholics, they worshiped like catholics, they taught catholic doctrines (although of course it took time for terminology to be standardized and for doctrine to be fully developed), some even died for the catholic faith. There’s a reason why the catholic and orthodox call these men the Church Fathers. They clearly demonstrate the theological heritage and lineage of both churches. A catholic or orthodox can pick up one of these almost 2000 year old texts and feel almost entirely at home in their teachings. Can a modern Mormon do the same with the much more recent Journal of Discourses or Mormon Doctrine without have his current beliefs seriously challenged?

I’ve read many personal stories about Protestants who after reading the Fathers converted to Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy, I’ve yet to come upon one who said ‘They were Mormons! I better become LDS’. I originally started reading early Christian writings with the goal of finding some justification for Mormon beliefs. Instead of that occurring I found my belief in a great apostasy crumble away when I saw the continuity in doctrine and church organization, and the witness of those who were tortured to death for the apostolic catholic faith.

[_basilII]

If you do want to find out what Origen and the others actually meant about man becoming God and the relationship between man and God here are some additional quotes (all quotes are from earlychristianwritings.com):

Origen, De Principiis:

“The particular points clearly delivered in the teaching of the apostles are as follow: First, that there is one God, who created and arranged all things, and who, when nothing existed, called all things into being.”

There, right at the beginning of De Principiis as the first point of the faith, is the fundamental Creator/creature distinction. Any other statements made by Origen must be interpreted in that light. Origen also clearly understands God to be immaterial and invisible. God is not in essence an exalted man:

“Having refuted, then, as well as we could, every notion which might suggest that we were to think of God as in any degree corporeal, we go on to say that, according to strict truth, God is incomprehensible, and incapable of being measured. “

and…

“See, therefore, if the apostle does not say the same thing, when, speaking of Christ, he declares, that ‘He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of every creature.’ Not, as some suppose, that the nature of God is visible to some and invisible to others: for the apostle does not say "the image of God invisible" to men or "invisible" to sinners, but with unvarying constancy pronounces on the nature of God in these words: "the image of the invisible God." Moreover, John, in his Gospel, when asserting that "no one hath seen God at any time," manifestly declares to all who are capable of understanding, that there is no nature to which God is visible: not as if, He were a being who was visible by nature, and merely escaped or baffled the view of a frailer creature, but because by the nature of His being it is impossible for Him to be seen.”

[_basilII]

Irenaeus, the great defender of the faith against the Gnostic heresies, had exactly the same beliefs.

Irenaeus, Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching:

“For it is necessary that, things that are made should have the beginning of their making from some great cause; and the beginning of all things is God. For He Himself was not made by any, and by Him all things were made. And therefore it is right first of all to believe that there is One God, the Father, who made and fashioned all things, and made what was not that it should be, and who, containing all things, alone is uncontained. Thus then there is shown forth One God, the Father, not made, invisible, creator of all things; above whom there is no other God, and after whom there is no other God.”

“This then is the order of the rule of our faith, and the foundation of the building, and the stability of our conversation: God, the Father, not made, not material, invisible; one God, the creator of all things: this is the first point of our faith.”

Again the fundamental Creator/creature distinction. Other teachings must be interpreted according to that ‘first point of our faith’.

Also from Irenaeus in his ‘Against Heresies’:

“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 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.”

“For, to attribute the substance of created things to the power and will of Him who is God of all, is worthy both of credit and acceptance. It is also agreeable [to reason], and there may be well said regarding such a belief, that "the things which are impossible with men are possible with God." While men, indeed, cannot make anything out of nothing, but only out of matter already existing, yet God is in this point preeminently superior to men, that He Himself called into being the substance of His creation, when previously it had no existence”