Ye are gods! Heresy or truth?

Note: This thread is on the same faith debates forum. Posting is restricted to Christians.

Through the scriptures, we learn that, as children of God, we may also be His heirs, joint-heirs with Christ, even glorified with Him. We might partake of the nature of divinity and be allowed to sit with our Savior on His throne, to rule over the nations. (See Romans 8:16-17, 2 Peter 1:4, Revelation 2:26-27 and Revelation 3:21)

In the second century, Saint Irenaeus said, “If the Word became a man, it was so men may become gods.” He also posed this question: “Do we cast blame on Him (God) because we were not made gods from the beginning, but were at first created merely as men, and than later as Gods?” At about the same period of time, Saint Clement made this statement: “The Word of God became a man so that you might learn from a man how to become a god.” And Saint Justin Martyr agreed, saying that men are “deemed worthy of becoming gods and of having power to become sons of the highest.” Some two centuries later, Athanasius explained that “the Word was made flesh in order that we might be enabled to be made gods. He became man that we might be made divine.” And, finally, Augustine, said, “But He that justifies also deifies, for by justifying he makes sons of God. For he has given them power to become the sons of God. If then we have been made sons of God, we have also been made gods.”

The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology states, “Deification (Greek theosis) is for Orthodoxy the goal of every Christian. Man, according to the Bible, is made in the image and likeness of God…. It is possible for man to become like God, to become deified, to become god by grace.”

And finally, the noted Christian theologian, C.S. Lewis, said (in his book Mere Christianity):
“The command Be ye perfect is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible. He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were “gods” and He is going to make good His words. If we let Him – for we can prevent Him, if we choose – He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God perfectly (though, of course, on a smaller scale) His own boundless power and delight and goodness. The process will be long and in parts very painful; but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant what He said."

So why is it that the vast majority of Christians today are so turned off by any suggestion that our potential as sons and daughters of God is to be as He is? Why is it that any of us who actually believe these things are classified as heretics and accused of doing the same thing that Lucifer did when he was cast out of heaven?

Kathryn, it is going on for midnight, and I need my ugly sleep. I'll pass o n this one tonight if you don't mind, I am too tired to do your post any justice........Ifind myself reading the same line over and over.......:help:

Since this thread clearly died in its infancy, I want to make just one observation before it slips permanently into oblivion. I find it really strange how often the LDS doctrine of “Eternal Progression” (a.k.a. deification) comes up. And when it does (as was the case recently on the threads, “Did the true Church apostatize?” and “Doctrinal Differences”), the conversation invariably turns into one where the doctrine is denounced as “un-Christian” and blasphemous by mainstream Christians. But what happens when I start a thread on the subject, quoting from the scriptures, early Christian apologists, a highly-respected 20th century non-LDS Christian theologian, and a dictionary of Christian theology?

Suddenly no one has anything to say! Has no one the resources to argue against this doctrine? I can guarantee that it will only be a matter of time before the subject surfaces again and that people will have plenty to say on it then.

Katzpur said:

Since this thread clearly died in its infancy, I want to make just one observation before it slips permanently into oblivion. I find it really strange how often the LDS doctrine of “Eternal Progression” (a.k.a. deification) comes up. And when it does (as was the case recently on the threads, “Did the true Church apostatize?” and “Doctrinal Differences”), the conversation invariably turns into one where the doctrine is denounced as “un-Christian” and blasphemous by mainstream Christians. But what happens when I start a thread on the subject, quoting from the scriptures, early Christian apologists, a highly-respected 20th century non-LDS Christian theologian, and a dictionary of Christian theology?

Suddenly no one has anything to say! Has no one the resources to argue against this doctrine? I can guarantee that it will only be a matter of time before the subject surfaces again and that people will have plenty to say on it then.

Click to expand...

I have something to say. Firstly, the most minor point, is that you wrongly attributed the 'God became Man that men might become gods' quote to St. Irenaeus. It actually comes from the text called 'On the Incarnation' by St Athanasios. That small point aside, this is not in any way heresy, and I am a main stream Christian. The problem is that LDS doctrine completely misinterprets what is meant by this. This presumably stems from your viewing God as pretty much exactly like man, with a body and all. That is certainly not how St. Athanasios viewed Him and nor is LDS deification an accurate interpretation of his teaching. We can never become gods in fact because we are creatures and utterly different from the creator. We can, by God's grace, become similar to Him and share in some of what makes Him God. We can never become immortal or omnipotent or any of the other things that God is by nature but we can become undying (I use this term rather than immortal because unlike God we have a beginning) and holy through a synergy of our own efforts and God's grace. This is the doctrine of theosis (which would be better described as becoming godlike than gods) that is so important to Orthodox soteriology.

James

Hi James,

So would you say that the issue isn't necessarily deification and our potential, but rather a disagreement on the nature of God?

jonny said:

Hi James,

So would you say that the issue isn't necessarily deification and our potential, but rather a disagreement on the nature of God?

Click to expand...

Sort of, yes, but it's actually both. What I mean is, that you appear to see God as a sort of deified man (understand that I'm describing how this appears to me as an outsider, not trying to teach you what you believe). If you think like this then it's easy to see why you think that we also have the potential to be, not just like God, but gods in fact. In effect, you alter the meaning of theosis by altering the nature of the God we aspire to be like.

If, on the other hand, you believe that God as Creator is completely other to all He created (as we do), then obviously we cannot have the potential to be exactly as He is. God through His grace can help us in our efforts to be like Him and we can become 'gods by grace', but this is entirely dependant on His will, just as any immortality of the human soul is entirely contingent on His will, not being naturally immortal (I believe you disagree with this position also). In fact all creation is contingent upon God's will for its continued existence (and always will be) whereas God is completely non-contingent, so how can we ever be what He is?

James

Thanks James.

So, the interpretation of Joseph Smith on us becoming like God isn't completely off base - but you believe he misunderstood what that means because he misunderstood the nature of God. I only bring this up because LDS members are often critisized for even the thought that we can become like God.

just as any immortality of the human soul is entirely contingent on His will, not being naturally immortal

Click to expand...

Could you explain this a little more? We believe that our spirits are eternal - is that what you're refering to?

jonny said:

Thanks James.

So, the interpretation of Joseph Smith on us becoming like God isn't completely off base - but you believe he misunderstood what that means because he misunderstood the nature of God. I only bring this up because LDS members are often critisized for even the thought that we can become like God.

Click to expand...

Well, I suppose you could say that. We would say it's off base, but you wouldn't get the same sort of reaction from us that you would from some other Christians, because we have never given up on the teaching of theosis and your doctrine looks like a misinterpretation/corruption of a very important doctrine of our own.

Could you explain this a little more? We believe that our spirits are eternal - is that what you're refering to?

Click to expand...

I thought you did. We don't. Only one is immortal, God. We actually call Him by the title Holy Immortal in our Liturgies, for instance. We are creations. That which is created must have a time when it was not, a beginning. Nothing with a beginning is immortal, though it can be undying. By God's grace we can partake of His immortality and then our soul will never die, but apart from God, Who is the source of all life, nothing can make us immortal. If He chose to cease to sustain us we would die, as would all creation. We are not completely independent beings but entirely contingent upon God. I think this is an equally major difference between us as is the different view of God's nature. It is also, incidentally, a view that puts us at odds with a large proportion of main stream western Christians, but our view is certainly that of the Church Fathers who wrote on this issue.

James

JamesThePersian said:

I thought you did. We don't. Only one is immortal, God. We actually call Him by the title Holy Immortal in our Liturgies, for instance. We are creations. That which is created must have a time when it was not, a beginning. Nothing with a beginning is immortal, though it can be undying. By God's grace we can partake of His immortality and then our soul will never die, but apart from God, Who is the source of all life, nothing can make us immortal. If He chose to cease to sustain us we would die, as would all creation. We are not completely independent beings but entirely contingent upon God. I think this is an equally major difference between us as is the different view of God's nature. It is also, incidentally, a view that puts us at odds with a large proportion of main stream western Christians, but our view is certainly that of the Church Fathers who wrote on this issue.

James

Click to expand...

I should clarify that we believe our spirits are eternal, but also that they were created by God. They are eternal because intelligence, the substance they were created with, it eternal.

JamesThePersian said:

because we have never given up on the teaching of theosis and your doctrine looks like a misinterpretation/corruption of a very important doctrine of our own.

Click to expand...

Well said James... and (for our LDS members) very important to Roman Catholics as well.

Excellent posts James. I'm not Orthodox but find myself in agreement on many of your points. Frubals.

Yippee! Somebody's willing to talk! :bounce

JamesThePersian said:

I have something to say. Firstly, the most minor point, is that you wrongly attributed the 'God became Man that men might become gods' quote to St. Irenaeus. It actually comes from the text called 'On the Incarnation' by St Athanasios.

Click to expand...

My source, Stephen E. Robinson (Ph.D in Biblical Studies, Duke University) attributes this quote to Iranaeus in "Against Heresies." Perhaps Athanasios said it as well. Robinson goes on to quote Iranaeus further:

"Do we cant blame on him [God] because we were not made gods from the beginning, but were at first created merely as men, and then later as gods? Although God has adopted this course out of his pure benevolence, that no one may charge him with discrimination or stinginess, he declares, 'I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are sons of the Most High.'"

That small point aside, this is not in any way heresy, and I am a main stream Christian. The problem is that LDS doctrine completely misinterprets what is meant by this. This presumably stems from your viewing God as pretty much exactly like man, with a body and all. That is certainly not how St. Athanasios viewed Him and nor is LDS deification an accurate interpretation of his teaching. We can never become gods in fact because we are creatures and utterly different from the creator. We can, by God's grace, become similar to Him and share in some of what makes Him God. We can never become immortal or omnipotent or any of the other things that God is by nature but we can become undying (I use this term rather than immortal because unlike God we have a beginning) and holy through a synergy of our own efforts and God's grace. This is the doctrine of theosis (which would be better described as becoming godlike than gods) that is so important to Orthodox soteriology.

Click to expand...

I wish I had time to address this paragraph now, but I'm on my lunch hour and must get back to work. I appreciate your willingness to discuss this, and will post more when I have time.

Kathryn

In effect, you alter the meaning of theosis by altering the nature of the God we aspire to be like.

Click to expand...

Some (including me) would argue that the idea of the nature of God being incorporeal was a result of the Greek Philosphers influence on Christianity and that many original Christians believed that God did have a body.

When Christ ascended into heaven he had a body. In Acts 1:11 it seems to indicate that when he returns he will have a body. I can see why some early Christians would believe that he would still have a body.

jonny said:

Some (including me) would argue that the idea of the nature of God being incorporeal was a result of the Greek Philosphers influence on Christianity and that many original Christians believed that God did have a body.

When Christ ascended into heaven he had a body. In Acts 1:11 it seems to indicate that when he returns he will have a body. I can see why some early Christians would believe that he would still have a body.

Click to expand...

Christ had a body, no doubt about it. In fact His ascension to Heaven complete with His divinised human nature is a very important aspect of our soteriology. It would make no sense, however, had He shared our human nature prior to the Incarnation. I don't believe that any early Christians thought God had a body. To pick a few groups that called themselves Christian in the early centuries, the Catholics (note that I don't mean RC) believed in the Trinity exactly as we do. The Gnostics, in the main, believed in a very different God and a proportion of them were docetists, which means that they believed even Christ had only the appearance of a body. For them, all matter was evil. The Arians didn't believe that Christ was really God at all, so they certainly didn't have any belief that Christ's Incarnation said anything about the nature of the Father at all. It's also worth noting that the Jews clearly believed in an incorporeal God and so I'd be amazed to see that there were any early Christians who believed He was corporeal. I'd be interested to see if you can come up with any evidence for this belief in the early Church.

James

JamesThePersian said:

It's also worth noting that the Jews clearly believed in an incorporeal God and so I'd be amazed to see that there were any early Christians who believed He was corporeal. I'd be interested to see if you can come up with any evidence for this belief in the early Church.
James

Click to expand...

Hi James,

Your assertion led me to think of a passage in Genesis

And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.

Genesis 3:8​

And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.

Genesis 5:24​

These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.

Genesis 6:9​

Genesis 3:8 clearly says that God is corporeal. I added the next two passages to point out the later symbolic use of the word so as to eliminate any confusion. Walking with God is used figuritively to mean that one was a godly man. These two references to the word walk are very different in their meaning and use in the OT. Genesis 3:8 says that God literally walked in the Garden. This could be a possible source for the belief in a corporeal God.

If you have an authoritative source for a semantical problem with using the word walk I would like to hear about it. I haven't researched it enough to find a possible alternative for this statement in Genesis.


Craig

Katzpur said:

So why is it that the vast majority of Christians today are so turned off by any suggestion that our potential as sons and daughters of God is to be as He is? Why is it that any of us who actually believe these things are classified as heretics and accused of doing the same thing that Lucifer did when he was cast out of heaven?

Click to expand...

Hi Katz.

I would say that the reason christians react to this is that it speaks of an inflated ego and one imagining themselves as having more power than mere mortals. Of course, this is equated with our worldly existence and not interpreted symblically. If one looks at it symbolically then one's spirit could hypothetically grow to the point that they knew God, but would not become God. When I first became a christian I always thought about what would Jesus do and tried to follow His example. I would never get to the point that I thought that I was actually Jesus. I have to admit that when I read your examples my first thought was that they were full of it and didn't have a good concept of God at all.

On a second point, I noticed the statement that LDS believes in an eternal spirit. This doesn't make sense to me because everything the God creates has a birth/life/death cycle. Just how long the spirit lives is a good question. Looking at reincarnation as a distinct possibility, the spirit could live through a long number of generations but would ultimately die at some point. Of course this could happen a lot sooner than that if someone were to live an evil life. I agree with James that God makes the decision.

I'll provide some proof that God many early Christians believe that God did have a body, but I'd like to point out the the God of the bible does have a body. In the Old Testament he is constantly referred to as having human features. The only scripture I can think of off the top of my head that would even connote that God didn't have a body is the scripture that says "God is spirit," but even that scripture cannot be used as proof. The fact that God is spirit does not mean that God cannot have a body, for we believe that everyone has a spirit - including God. Could you provide a scripture from the Bible that explicitly describes God as incorporeal?

I've got to get to work, so I'll finish this up later.

JamesThePersian said:

I have something to say. Firstly, the most minor point, is that you wrongly attributed the 'God became Man that men might become gods' quote to St. Irenaeus. It actually comes from the text called 'On the Incarnation' by St Athanasios. That small point aside, this is not in any way heresy, and I am a main stream Christian. The problem is that LDS doctrine completely misinterprets what is meant by this. This presumably stems from your viewing God as pretty much exactly like man, with a body and all. That is certainly not how St. Athanasios viewed Him and nor is LDS deification an accurate interpretation of his teaching. We can never become gods in fact because we are creatures and utterly different from the creator. We can, by God's grace, become similar to Him and share in some of what makes Him God. We can never become immortal or omnipotent or any of the other things that God is by nature but we can become undying (I use this term rather than immortal because unlike God we have a beginning) and holy through a synergy of our own efforts and God's grace. This is the doctrine of theosis (which would be better described as becoming godlike than gods) that is so important to Orthodox soteriology.

James

Click to expand...

This reminds me of No*s, who once said that he assents to theosis. He said that when he talks with Mormons, he has to say, "No, I don't believe what you believe, and no, it is not semantics!"

EDIT: To address the OP:

There is a huge difference in 'God became Man that men might become gods' and the statement "As God now is, man once was; as God is man may be."

'God became Man that men might become gods' is dependent upon the salvic work of Christ, God incarnate, which Mormons do not confess. The context of this statement is the Trinity. Because of Who Jesus is, the One and Only God, man will one day have a special communion with God, so much so that this unity is expressed in the doctrine of theosis. While your use of this quote is highly creative, it presupposes a doctrine that is contradictory to LDS doctrine and therefore grossly undermines your argument.

"As God now is, man once was; as God is man may be" implies a somewhat natural movement from God to humanity back to God. Therefore, Mormon theology has to explain why gods (us) came down to earth, how we will go back to "heaven," and how we will become "gods." Christian theology has no room for this heresy. The Only God, Creator, came to earth to be a servant (fully God and fully man) and die on a cross, and by the power of His resurrection bring salvation to humanity. There is no room in Christian thought for people to have once been gods and come down to earth - One God did this, not all of us. We are the created, God is the One Creator.

"Do we cant blame on him [God] because we were not made gods from the beginning, but were at first created merely as men, and then later as gods? Although God has adopted this course out of his pure benevolence, that no one may charge him with discrimination or stinginess, he declares, 'I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are sons of the Most High.'"

Mormons believe that we were once "gods" in the begginning. This quote also undermines your position.

There is a huge difference in 'God became Man that men might become gods' and the statement "As God now is, man once was; as God is man may be."

Click to expand...

There sure is - I think that the quote you are looking for is "As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become." There isn't too much difference if you have the right quote.