Words can have different meanings, depending upon context. This is especially true when the words under review were written thousands of years ago, requiring the reader to obtain at least a general understanding of the culture in which they were written. Mormons ferociously (and I think dishonestly) exploit this elasticity of words when dealing with critics of their doctrines. It has been my personal experience that they unfairly abuse history, claiming certain meanings existed in the past that never existed at all.
On this page, for example, a Mormon here named Porter Rockwell recently posted an article arguing that humans can become true gods [Mr.Rockwell posted the article word for word, from Stephen E. Robinson]. In this article the Mormon tried to support his claim by arguing that ancient Christian authorities Irenaeus, Clement, Justin Martyr, Athanasius and Augustine all taught this belief.
The claim is false, and demonstrably so. Nevertheless because the Bible and ancient Christian authorities have applied the word "god" to men in a symbolic sense, Mormons disingenuously exploit the elasticity of the word to claim ancient Christians believed men could become true gods as Mormons believe.
Though I am not exactly a Christian in the common sense, I have reviewed this issue enough to satisfy myself that Mormon belief is contrary to the historically accepted principles that comprise the family of Christian belief. In fact, the matter is so clear to me that I am intellectually hostile to Mormonism. So I am going to try to reveal the error of the Mormon view as I see it, and I am going to try to do it so that no honest reader will wish to disagree.
Am I open minded? I do not subscribe to the politically correct notion that to be "open minded" one must seriously entertain what one has already discovered to be complete and utter hogwash. I may not accept Christianity as others accept it, but I am not fully hostile to it because its age little affords me the opportunity to evaluate it as critically as I might the younger beliefs like Mormonism. Mormonism, contrary to Christianity, is so young one may clearly see its fraudulence and summarily reject it.
But this unfortunately takes a lot of work. To demonstrate the falsity of the Mormon approach requires more than a simple post here. We must accomplish a number of things. We must show what the Mormons mean when they claim such things as the ability of men to become gods. We must show what the historic Christian and his Bible mean when they apply the word "god" symbolically to men. This will take a lot of work. So what I hope to do here is post my views on this issue exhaustively " over a series of posts.
I am not interested in debating Mormons. My interest here is to engage Christians, atheists and agnostics - people who by simple reason know that Mormon belief is not Christian, but who are not yet able to systematically demonstrate why it is not Christian. While this is obviously an open forum, I will personally ignore pro-Mormon responses except when the following conditions are met:
1. I am asked in sincerity to share my view or explain a view further because one does not understand it.
2. I am addressed with not even the slightest bit of apparently intentional illogic, sleight of hand trickery or reliance upon existential ignorance. Most pro-Mormon responses will be obviously flawed to those who know Christian history and the Bible. Nevertheless if there are readers who do not see the flaw in a certain pro-Mormon response, that reader should feel free to sincerely ask my view and I will try to address it as best I can.
3. The questioner must demonstrate a willingness to be led by the common rendering of words in their historic and linguistic contexts, never exploiting differences in time simply to advance an agenda.
I will end this introductory post by briefly showing why I think what I am about to do is a worthwhile pursuit. Consider the Robinson article Mr. Porter cut and pasted here. In that article the author argues that men can become true gods. The author claims that in the ancient work "Against Heresies," the Church Father Irenaeus essentially wrote these words:
"If the Word became a man, It was so men may become gods."
I have a full set of the writings of both the Ante and Post Nicene Church fathers and have read them for myself. The quote above, contrary to Mormon claims,does not exist in any of the writings neither literally nor essentially.
In fact there is no record of Irenaeus or any other Church authority claiming we can become a god in our own right (being "above all" as the Mormons maintain). There is not a single claim in any of those writings that men can become gods by any process resembling the Mormon doctrine of eternal progression. Moreover, in none of the ancient Christian writings do we find any support for the idea that God was once a man.
What Irenaeus actually wrote was this:
"Jesus Christ, through his transcendent Love, became what we are, that we might be even as he is himself". (see Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume I, pg. 526)
Irenaeus and other Christian writers were simply explaining Christ"s incarnation and the effect his death had upon those who receive Him. According to historic Christianity, Christ became sin like us so that men can become sinless like Him.
Here is the biblicalevidence for it. Irenaeus, Clement, Justin Martyr, Athanasius and Augustine all embraced a Bible that makes this argument:
1. Christ is the "radiance of God"s glory and the exact image of God"s being" (Hebrews 1:3).
2. God has predestined some humans "to become conformed to the image of Christ." (Romans 8:29).
3. Thereforeby conforming to Christ, humans can become the image of God.
Irenaeus and the other writers were commenting on the nature of salvation. As humans become the image of God through Christ, they will be judged sinless and acceptable to God at the Great Judgement. As we shall see later, Irenaeus pointedly rejected the idea of an eternal progression of true gods, only accepting that men can become symbolic gods always in Christ"s righteousness. This logic was expressed also by the apostle Paul in 2 Corinthians 5:21:
God made Christ, who had no sin, to be sin for us, so that in Christ we might become the righteousness of God. (2 Corinthians 5:21)
I think it is worthwhile to post extensively on Mormonism because as we have seen here, it misrepresents the historic facts, especially of Christianity. It in fact seeks to create and exploit confusion so that some imperceptive modern readers will be unable to see Christian tenets in their true contexts - leading them to erroneously claim Mormonism is just another brand of Christianity.
In my next post I will address more of the erroneousness in the Mormon"s post. I will in later posts eventually turn to Mormon texts to display what Mormon authorities have meant when they claim men can become gods and other such doctrines. No prudent reader will claim one should only speak about "Jesus" where Mormonism is concerned.Mormon history proves beyond doubt that the doctrines of Mormonism are so radically different from those commonly considered Christian, it would be an abortion of logic to claim they and their "Jesus" have anything to do with authentic Christianity-- except to contradict it.
Mormons ferociously (and I think dishonestly) exploit this elasticity of words when dealing with critics of their doctrines.
I've encountered this too. Even refusing to use basic reading comprehension skills, because to do so would go against doctrine. Like the way the Bible tells us that our heavenly bodies will be different than our earthly bodies. As an analogy we are told that the difference is like the difference between the earth and the sun, the sun and the stars, even the like the difference between the many stars themselves.
Somehow, this equates (to them) as different levels of heaven. This doctrine also goes against one of Christ's direct teachings -- the parable of the house holder. In this parable, we are taught that all who enter the kingdom of heaven will receive the same reward -- not different levels of rewards depending upon your acts or behavior on earth.
If Christ's wprds are true, and Smith's words are true, then that means all who go to heaven become Gods. Is that the Mormon doctrine, or is it that only some become gods?
Mormons ferociously (and I think dishonestly) exploit this elasticity of words when dealing with critics of their doctrines.
I've encountered this too. Even refusing to use basic reading comprehension skills, because to do so would go against doctrine. Like the way the Bible tells us that our heavenly bodies will be different than our earthly bodies. As an analogy we are told that the difference is like the difference between the earth and the sun, the sun and the stars, even the like the difference between the many stars themselves.
Somehow, this equates (to them) as different levels of heaven. This doctrine also goes against one of Christ's direct teachings -- the parable of the house holder. In this parable, we are taught that all who enter the kingdom of heaven will receive the same reward -- not different levels of rewards depending upon your acts or behavior on earth.
If Christ's wprds are true, and Smith's words are true, then that means all who go to heaven become Gods. Is that the Mormon doctrine, or is it that only some become gods?
Eto, it does'nt matter to God!
1Tim.4:10
[10] For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.
__________________
Jesus said, "he who stands firm to the end will be saved" Mark 13:13.
Live Life in such a way that those who do not know Christ will come to know Him because they know you
ORIGINAL: etothepii
If Christ's wprds are true, and Smith's words are true, then that means all who go to heaven become Gods. Is that the Mormon doctrine, or is it that only some become gods?
Mormon heaven is a bit like a gigantic pyramid scheme, except that it has three essential parts. In Mormonism, God the Father is your upline and will always be your upline. This God has an upline himself, but worshipping God"s God does not apply to humans. They are only concerned with God the Father. He lives near a planet named Kolob in the Celestial Kingdom. This is the highest place of Mormon heaven.
To get here, one must acquire what the Mormons call "exaltation." To be exalted, one must perform a number of Mormon rituals including becoming married in a Mormon temple, etc., etc. As the Mormon god produces children with his wife in heaven, they come to earth in bodies and many of them become gods, producing children who become gods in the exact same way. In this way the God above you keeps growing, as does the god above his god.
Not everyone will achieve exaltation in Mormon heaven. But the vast majority will fit in the other, lesser two heavenly realms.
The idea is ultimately to become God, "to inherit the same power, the same glory and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a God, and ascend the throne of eternal power."
I will deal with this in much greater detail later, showing how Mormon authorities have established their doctrine. For now, read what Joseph Smith taught:
"Beloved Saints: I will call [for] the attention of this congregation while I address you on the subject of the dead. The decease of our beloved brother, Elder King Follett, who was crushed in a well by the falling of a tub of rock, has more immediately led me to this subject. I have been requested to speak by his friends and relatives, but inasmuch as there are a great many in this congregation who live in this city as well as elsewhere, who have lost friends, I feel disposed to speak on the subject in general, and offer you my ideas, so far as I have ability, and so far as I shall be inspired by the Holy Spirit to dwell on this subject".
"I will go back to the beginning before the world was, to show what kind of a being God is. What sort of a being was God in the beginning? Open your ears and hear, all ye ends of the earth, for I am going to prove it to you by the Bible, and to tell you the designs of God in relation to the human race, and why He interferes with the affairs of man.
"God himself was Once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by His power, was to make himself visible,"I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with Him, as one man talks and communes with another.
"In order to understand the subject of the dead, for consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how He came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see.
"These are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are simple. It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, and to know that we may converse with Him as one man converses with another, and that He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did; and I will show it from the Bible".
"I wish I was in a suitable place to tell it, and that I had the trump of an archangel, so that I could tell the story in such a manner that persecution would cease forever. What did Jesus say? (Mark it, Elder Rigdon!) The scriptures inform us that Jesus said, as the Father hath power in himself, even so hath the Son power" to do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious"in a manner to lay down his body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again. Do you believe it?"
(MY NOTE " We see here that Smith uses Jesus as an example of what humans can become. He does this quite a few times in this discourse. Smith continues")
"These are the first principles of consolation. How consoling to the mourners when they are called to part with a husband, wife, father, mother, child, or dear relative, to know that, although the earthly tabernacle is laid down and dissolved, they shall rise again to dwell in everlasting burnings in immortal glory, not to sorrow, suffer, or die any more, but they shall be heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ. What is it? To inherit the same power, the same glory and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a god, and ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as those who have gone before""
(MY NOTE " We see here that Smith is claiming that when the Bible says Christians will be "joint heirs" with Christ, it means they will become a god in exactly the same way he allegedly became a god. He continues by, once again, using Jesus as an example of what humans can become
"What did Jesus do? [**NOTE - Here follows Smith's example for us]Why, I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds came rolling into existence. My Father worked out His kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to My Father, so that He may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt Him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take His place, and thereby become exalted myself. So that Jesus treads in the tracks of His Father, and inherits what God did before; and God is thus glorified and exalted in the salvation and exaltation of all His children. It is plain beyond disputation, and you thus learn some of the first principles of the gospel, about which so much hath been said.
"When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the gospel"you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation." http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/sermons_talks_interviews/kingfolletsermon.htm
We see here that Smith is claiming that men can become God, even replacing God Almighty (just as he thinks Jesus has now done), so that they receive exactly the same power and glory that God enjoys at this time. God Almighty will then move ever upward to replace His own god " and His god will move upwards, and so on and so forth.
Discovering whether any of this is true is not my interest. What I wish to explore is whether this has ever been taught at anytime in established Christianity. I maintain it never has, despite the manner in which Mormons have abused Christian statements of the past.
In my next post (maybe today, maybe tomorrow), I am going to prove beyond any reasonable doubt, that the Mormons have distorted Irenaeus, claiming he taught Mormon doctrine when in fact he did nothing of the sort. I found a link to Irenaeus" "Against Heresies," and so will refer to it to make this case. The post will be a bit long, but I will try to shorten it as best I can. If anyone will follow it honestly and with plain reason, they will see that the Church Fathers, for all of their erroneousness and ridiculousness, never taught anything like the Mormons are claiming.
It appears you have already been where I am in trailing up this subject. You also seem to be going about it in a more effective manner than I have, I will have to study your approach.
For me, trying to pin down a subjectof the LDS doctrine with the LDS membershas been like herding cats. I pray you may have better results Sir.
Thanks
Mr-Pirk
__________________
A proud owner of a Flying Vee. Bestowed by the fine Gentleman VC1111 himself.
First, let me begin by stating that your allegation is not only specious but another example of a classic double standard. You attempt to impugn Stephen E. Robinson for his use ancient writers such as "Irenaeus, Clement, Justin Martyr, Athanasius and Augustine" asserting that he is misrepresenting their position and yet the abuse of what you term "elasticity of words" is glaringly apparent in the anti-Mormon redefinition of the term "Christian" and in their pejorative redefinition of the term "cult." Be cautious of the falling glass as you cast about your rocks.
You state that where "the words under review were written thousands of years ago" one is required "to obtain at least a general understanding of the culture in which they were written." Um, would an MA in Ancient Scripture and a Ph.D. in Biblical Studies from Duke University meet such a requirement? I think so, so stop acting as if Robinson is ignorant of the ancient usage of terms or deliberately trying to twist their meaning for his own ends.
You state that "It has been my personal experience that they unfairly abuse history, claiming certain meanings existed in the past that never existed at all." And then you provide an example "On this page" where Stephen E. Robinson, Ph.D., Duke University, has done as you infer. The problem is that Robinson has neither abused history nor presented meanings from "the past that never existed at all." Robinson in fact addresses such arguments:
Quote:
Critics of the Latter-day Saints may respond that early Christian saints, the later Greek theologians, and C.S. Lewis all understand the doctrine of deification differently that the Latter-day Saints do, but this is untrue in the case of most early Christians and C.S. Lewis. Anyway, such a response amounts to a quibble, for it retreats abjectly from the claim that deification is a pagan doctrine wholly foreign to true Christianity. It argues instead that deification is a Christian doctrine misunderstood by the Latter-day Saints (and abandoned by most others I might add).1
And elsewhere he addresses the argument thusly:
Quote:
It could be argued that Latter-day Saints have misinterpreted the evidence from the New Testament and the early Christian church in this case, but that is merely to stipulate that we disagree over how to interpret what is in fact New Testament and early Christian evidence. And in that case deification ought not to be considered some pagan idea that the Latter-day Saints have invented and imposed on the text, but as a biblical doctrine that may be, and has been, interpreted variously by different groups.2
So you see the doctrine of deification is not an abuse of history, a manipulation of the "elasticity of words" or a meaning from the past which "never existed at all." It is in fact an orthodox belief which the large majority of fundamentalist non-denominational Christians have rejected. They try covering this up by rejecting that it ever was part of orthodox belief (it still is in many circles) but Robinson demonstrates that such is false. Take note that it is not Robinson"s argument that the LDS belief is exactly that of early Christians (although it is similar), or to argue that the LDS belief is correct for that matter (although he certainly believes that is the case), but merely to provide evidence that such a belief was part and parcel of early Christianity thus eliminating that as a standard upon which to brand the Latter-day Saints as non-Christian.
Of course you missed this because you assume that what Porter posted was an "article" the purpose of which is to argue "that humans can become true gods" when in fact is was an excerpt from a book3 in which Robinson makes clear his purpose:
Quote:
It is not my purpose in these pages to prove, or even to argue, that the LDS church is true or that its doctrines are correct, even though I believe both of those propositions. Rather, I will attempt to show why the arguments used to exclude the Latter-day Saints from the "Christian" world are flawed. The operating principle behind most of my arguments will not be rectitude but equity"what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. That is, if Augustine or Luther or John Paul II can express opinions or insist on beliefs that differ fro the Christian mainstream and yet still be considered Christians, then Joseph Smith and Brigham Young cannot be disqualified form bearing that title when they express the same or similar opinions. If theological or ecclesiastical diversity can be tolerated among mainstream Christian churches without the charge if their being "non-Christian," then diversity of a similar kind, or to a similar degree, ought to be tolerated in the Latter-day Saints. This is simply an issue of playing on a level field.4
So you are entirely mistaken, Robinson is not arguing in any way, shape, or form "that humans can become true gods" or that "that ancient Christian authorities Irenaeus, Clement, Justin Martyr, Athanasius and Augustine all taught [that specific] belief." Robinson is arguing that these ancient Christians used the term to denote those who practice divine prerogatives through the grace of God and this is certainly true of their statements.
And further I believe you are misrepresenting the LDS belief and particularly Robinson"s belief on the matter of deification. For you seem to argue that Robinson and LDS Christians in general do not believe in the doctrine of deification as early Christians did. I am well read in regards to Robinson"s work and familiar with the context and the statements of the early Church authorities he cites and I believe that his particular position is quite similar if not parallel to theirs. As for LDS Christians in general there may be a few who disagree with Robinson"s presentation on the matter5 but I am not one of them. Robinson"s belief in deification is contingent divinity through the grace of Christ whereby exalted and gloried humans practice divine prerogatives.
So what is "false, and demonstrably so" is your view of what Robinson"s argument is meant to establish.
Your contention that "the Bible and ancient Christian authorities have applied the word "god" to men in a symbolic sense" is utter conjecture. In context, many of them literally believed that glorified, resurrected humans were gods. It is not disingenuous exploitation but rather honest presentation and comparison that leads LDS Christians such as Robinson to draw parallels between ancient Christian belief and modern LDS belief in deification. In drawing such parallels we may be overstating the matter but we are not attempting to be deliberately deceptive or manipulative.
I also believe you have an incorrect understanding of LDS belief based upon your use of the qualifier "true" in front of the term "gods" Pray tell, what is the difference between a god and a true god?
You claim to have "reviewed this issue enough to satisfy [your]self that Mormon belief is contrary to the historically accepted principles that comprise the family of Christian belief." Yes, I would tend to agree; LDS Christians are not "historically" orthodox and have no desire to be so but if you are inferring that LDS belief has not relationship to Christian history whatsoever you are overstating the matter for a great deal of LDS belief is biblical at its roots and therefore inextricably tied to that which is fundamentally Christian.
You attempt to sidestep the question of whether or not you are open-minded through the same semantic footwork you are accusing LDS Christians of. I am unaware of any "politically correct" definition of open-mindedness that stands opposed to its general connotation of one who is receptive to arguments or ideas. What you are actually saying is that you are not open-minded but rather closed-minded; having already made the decision that regardless of what an LDS Christian might say it will not be of any value.
Contrary to your assertion I do not believe that the validity of a system of belief, or ones ability to critically assess its validity, is determined by its age. You may feel free to "summarily reject" LDS Christianity based upon such a standard but it is hardly valid. On such a standard one would have to grant the validity of any system of belief ancient enough to fall beyond the pale of your ability to assess it. Seeing as how this is only a few thousand years at best, it seems there is a great deal of religious belief beyond your ability to address leaving a great deal of competition for Christianity.
Although your purposes seem rather malevolent you at least grant the need to determine "what the Mormons mean when they claim such things as the ability of men to become gods" yet you falsely assert that it is something that "We must show"; meaning you and all of your anti-Mormon compatriots. Yet LDS belief is not defined by what you determine we believe but by what LDS Christians determine they believe either collectively or individually. It is a constant source of bewilderment to me that anti-Mormons such as yourself seem to feel more qualified to tell me what I believe that I am. No amount of work outside of interaction with me and questions directed to me will accomplish that. And unfortunately you are "not interested in debating Mormons."
You also state that "We must show what the historic Christian and his Bible mean when they apply the word "god" symbolically to men." And just which "historic Christian" are you referring to? I would assume the ones mentioned previously such as "Irenaeus, Clement, Justin Martyr, Athanasius and Augustine." Since you feel they are so clearly to be understood as always employing the term gods to men in a symbolic sense why not reproduce the passages wherein they employ such terms and demonstrate that they indeed used the term in that manner?
I suppose I will have to look forward to your promised exhaustive treatment to be forthcoming in a "series of posts." Be assured that whether you are interested or not "in debating Mormons" your posts will not escape review and rebuttal.
It is fascinating that "people who by simple reason know that Mormon belief is not Christian" cannot see by that same simple reason that all arguments which attempt to support the assertion "that Mormon belief is not Christian" or do not fall within the pale of Christianity are hopelessly flawed6. Any and all attempts to "systematically demonstrate why it is not Christian" are not only thoroughly unconvincing but utterly inequitable.
Obviously, I could care less if you "ignore pro-Mormon responses." It is enough that those who see my replies understand that all theses of a scholarly nature are exposed to a thorough process of critical examination and rigorous review and the individual truly interested in presenting the most honest and objective production possible would heed feedback regardless of its favorable or critical concentration.
Your conditions:
Quote:
1. I am asked in sincerity to share my view or explain a view further because one does not understand it.
Oh I understand your view well enough although I think it inconsistent and inaccurate.
Quote:
2. I am addressed with not even the slightest bit of apparently intentional illogic, sleight of hand trickery or reliance upon existential ignorance. Most pro-Mormon responses will be obviously flawed to those who know Christian history and the Bible. Nevertheless if there are readers who do not see the flaw in a certain pro-Mormon response, that reader should feel free to sincerely ask my view and I will try to address it as best I can.
Hmm, I "know Christian history and the Bible" and yet I do not accept any and all "pro-Mormon responses" as "obviously flawed."
Quote:
3. The questioner must demonstrate a willingness to be led by the common rendering of words in their historic and linguistic contexts, never exploiting differences in time simply to advance an agenda.
Oh I am more than willing to observe such a standard.
Let"s address your example. You site Robinson"s use of Irenaeus and claim that based upon your exhaustive knowledge of your "full set of the writings of both the Ante and Post Nicene Church fathers" and your careful reading thereof that Robinson"s reference is non-existent: "The quote above, contrary to Mormon claims, does not exist in any of the writings neither literally nor essentially."
Yes, you are correct, the exact quotation that Robinson cites in not only Are Mormons Christians7but also in an article entitled "LDS Doctrine Compared with Other Christian Beliefs"8 is falsely attributed to Irenaeus. Yet even Ronald Huggins is more charitable than you are being about the matter. He forgives Robinson"s oversight as "failing to check a quotation from a secondary source against its original source"9 rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead through the manipulation of language. He adds "The significance of Robinson"s misquote of Irenaeus obviously becomes less as we understand its origin." One can be wrong without being deliberately deceptive you know. Are you prepared to condemn orthodox writers such as Symeon Lash and Vladimir Lossky for manipulating ancient meanings because they too present Irenaeus" statement inaccurately?
And Huggins in honest enough to note that "there is not much doctrinal significance to knowing the right reading since Irenaeus uses the language of becoming gods elsewhere in Against Heresies." Yet he is careful to note that "any fair reading of Irenaeus clearly demonstrates that he was certainly not, as Robinson claimed, saying "essentially the same thing" as Lorenzo Snow in his famous couplet" and I agree. Yet as Robinson notes "The incarnation proves, in the person of the Son at least, that God is, indeed, a corporeal being. It also proves that humanity and divinity are not incompatible categories."10 So irrespective of Robinson"s failure to accurately quote Irenaeus God was indeed, "in the person of the Son at least," human at one point and remains corporeal even as God, and who assures us we can become as He is, which the accurate quotation supports quite well:
Quote:
the only true and steadfast teacher, the Word of God, through His transcendent love, became what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself.11
Indeed, Irenaeus certainly seems to support the assertion here "that humanity and divinity are not incompatible categories." And notice Irenaeus" use of the present tense "what He is Himself," which is God. So regardless of Huggins correct observation that "the term gods is not used in the passage at all" Irenaeus certainly implies it and "Irenaeus uses the language of becoming gods elsewhere in Against Heresies." So Irenaeus is applying the term gods to humans deified through the grace of Christ which was Robinson"s point and which is essentially Robinson"s belief; certainly not exactly the same as that of Irenaeus but definitely similar.
Once again I believe you are most definitely misrepresenting Robinson"s position and the position of many LDS Christians for we do not claim, contrary to your assertion, that "we can become a god in our own right." We will never be independent of God the Father and His Son through whose grace we are deified nor will our abilities ever surpass or even match theirs being an extension of their power and glory.
And seeing as how you misunderstand contingent divinity through the grace of Christ although you present this as the position of the ECF"s and Apologists, I would love to hear your take on exactly what you think the "Mormon doctrine of eternal progression" is. I believe I will find it to be just as erroneous as your view of Robinson"s belief.
And although you claim that "in none of the ancient Christian writings do we find any support for the idea that God was once a man" this is utterly false. As I quoted above "The incarnation proves, in the person of the Son at least, that God is, indeed, a corporeal being. It also proves that humanity and divinity are not incompatible categories." God, "in the person of the Son at least," was indeed a man.
Although I appreciate you supplying "biblical evidence" for your interpretation "Irenaeus, Clement, Justin Martyr, Athanasius and Augustine" the argument you detail does not represent the entirety of the biblical formulae for humanity"s divine prospects. It doesn"t even tough the tip of the proverbial iceberg. The implications of "Irenaeus and other Christian writers" are more complex than you infer.
You state that "Irenaeus pointedly rejected the idea of an eternal progression of true gods, only accepting that men can become symbolic gods always in Christ"s righteousness." Please define the terms "eternal progression" and "true God," produce the quote in which Irenaeus states that he rejects "the idea of an eternal progression of true gods" consistent with your supplied definitions, then demonstrate where that Irenaeus" perception was "that men can become symbolic gods always in Christ"s righteousness" and demonstrate how Robinson"s position is utterly foreign not merely to Irenaeus but to the biblical affirmations of human prospects through the grace of Christ in the eternities to come.
Again, heedless of your assurances that "Mormonism" misrepresents the historic facts, especially of Christianity" LDS Christians do no such thing. The incessant implication that LDS Christians are somehow deliberately and wantonly manipulating the meaning of words or the implications of historical writings is simply false. Yes, you have demonstrated one instance in which an LDS Christian failed to check a secondary source and thereby was drug across the carpet for it. But even writers who are ardently opposed to LDS Christianity are willing the grant that the error was unintentional and understandable based upon the sources he employed.
There is no conspiracy "to create and exploit confusion so that some imperceptive modern readers will be unable to see Christian tenets in their true contexts - leading them to erroneously claim Mormonism is just another brand of Christianity." LDS Christianity is another brand of Christianity although certainly by historically orthodox standards an unorthodox one. Call me unorthodox, call me a heretic, but I am not a liar.
I suppose I will look forward to your "next post" so you can get one with addressing "more of the erroneousness in the Mormon"s post." Hopefully in doing so you will employ not simply the Christian concept of charity but the intellectual and logical conception thereof in future posts. And some equity might be helpful too.
As you get one to "later posts" and "turn to Mormon texts to display what Mormon authorities have meant when they claim men can become gods and other such doctrines" I will be happy to correct you where you err and to provide a "Mormon" position since yours will certainly not be anything of the kind.
_________________________
Notes: 1 Stephen E. Robinson, Are Mormons Christians? (Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft, 1991), p. 64. Hereafter AMC. 2 Stephen E. Robinson in Stephen E. Robinson and Craig L. Blomberg, How Wide the Divide? (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997), p. 81. Hereafter HWTD. 3 Specifically, pages 60-65 of AMC. 4AMC, p. viii. 5 I would suggest AMC, pp. 65-69, a section entitled "The Plurality of Gods" and HWTD, pp. 77-88, or Robinson"s treatment of "God and Deification" for his position. 6 Robinson is not the only LDS author to have tackled the fallacious nature of such an assertion although his treatment is a classic. Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks added to Robinson"s arguments in 1992 with Offenders for a Word (Salt Lake City, UT: Aspen Books, 1992) wherein they argue the same issue and interestingly level the same accusation as herein has been directed at LDS Christians against their anti-Mormon opponents, yet I must say they support it more soundly. 7AMC, p. 60. 8 Stephen E. Robinson, "Doctrine: LDS Doctrine Compared with Other Christian Doctrines" in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 4 volumes (New York, NY: Macmillan, 1992), v. 1 (A-D), p. 402. 9 Ronald V. Huggins, "Tracing the source of Stephen E. Robinson"s misquote of Irenaeus," at http://www.irr.org/mit/Huggins-on-FARMS.html All quotes attributed to Huggins are drawn from this article. It should be noted that as the author indicates that the erroneous quotation also found its way into Latter-Day Christianity: 10 Basic Issues (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1998), p. 26, of which the author writes "The same quote again appears in the fifth chapter of the F.A.R.M.S. booklet Latter-day Saints: 10 Basic Issues (p. 26).Robinson is one of the authors of this booklet." Without actually questioning Robinson it would be impossible to know for certain that this is his contribution but it does indeed seem very likely. 10HWTD, p. 91. 11 Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book V, "Preface," in Anti-Nicene Fathers, The Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325, 10 volumes (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994), v. 1, p. 526.
__________________
"And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith." (D&C 88:118)
ORIGINAL: mr-pirk
For me, trying to pin down a subjectof the LDS doctrine with the LDS membershas been like herding cats. I pray you may have better results Sir.
Thanks
Mr-Pirk
Well, the trick is not to pin them down at all. They are often irrational and I think even dishonest. I suggest we appeal only to those who are willing to see the facts. I think very few people will read my posts. But I am posting for the one out of a thousand who honestly wants to see these issues from a reasoned point-of-view. When we approach the issue from reason, we find the Mormon view is a bogus corruption of history. Follow my next two (unfortunately long) posts and you will see this without any problem.
In a prior post I showed how Mormons have distorted the words of Irenaeus so that they seem to support Mormon beliefs. I am going to further demonstrate this Mormon tendency by using the Stephen E. Robinson article mentioned in that prior post. In the article, Robinson quotes from Irenaeus's ancient work, "Against Heresies":
Do we cast blame on [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.".. . For it was necessary at first that nature be exhibited, then after that what was mortal would be conquered and swallowed up in immortality. 3 Against Heresies 4, 38
It would seem from this snippet that Irenaeus did indeed support the notion that men can become true gods. But in truth it only seems he did because of the way the Mormons have falsely presented his words.
Irenaeus relied upon Psalm 82:6 "I have said, Ye [are] gods; and all of you [are] children of the most High". Mormons also rely on this verse to support the notion that men can evolve into true gods. Jesus Himself relied upon the verse to make an entirely different point. We will view Jesus' usage to learn who these "gods" are. Then we will return to Irenaeus.
In John 10:24 we see Jesus being approached by a group of Jews. We must keep in mind the historical fact that Jews were vigorous monotheists who would stone a person merely for declaring that there are many gods.
In John 10:30 we see Jesus declaring that He and God are One. In verses 31-33 we see that the Jews took Christ"s statement to mean that He declared Himself God.
Now Jesus does an interesting thing in verses 34-36:
"Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?"
Admittedly this is a tough chunk of text for uninitiated readers; but if one will simply stick with it andmaintain mere reason here, one will see Jesus employing a down-to-earth, but logically elegant approach to His problem. Here is a paraphrasing of verses 34-36:
"Jesus told the Jews "Doesn"t your own scripture call other folks "gods"? Well, if God called folks who needed to receive His instruction "gods," (and we know He did because the scriptures don"t lie), then are you going to tell Me (who God has specially set apart and sent into the world) "You are blaspheming!" just because I said I am the Son of God?"
A question emerges before us. Who is being called "gods" here?
It does not seem that these "gods" are genuine deities because Jesus declared they were given God"s word and are therefore lesser than He. Moreover, they were called "gods" in a historical context that was virulently monotheistic. It is to destroy the structure of this text to claim that the "gods" that Jesus denigrated here were actual gods. Remember,Joseph Smith described them as having "the same power, the same glory and the same exaltation" as the Almighty, and having "immortal glory, not to sorrow, suffer, or die any more." We see that Jesus, though human, was actually setting Himself above these "gods."
The truth of the matter is seen when we take alook at more of the Psalm 82 text. We find that these "gods" are not true deities at all. Wesee they in fact will even die, which is impossible for any real god to do:
"God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked?" I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes." (Psalm 82:1-7)
It is completely illogical that the Mormon"s gods, those who have "the same power, the same glory and the same exaltation" as God and who have "immortal glory, not to sorrow, suffer, or die any more", would die like mere men. The fact is, these texts do not refer to genuine deity, but to mere men indeed. The men were called "judges."
According to the Hebrew texts, God established groups of men to judge and rule over Israel (see Judges 2:16). They were mere men who judged Israel in God"s stead. This view of authority persisted even to Christian times. Paul wrote that those who rule over men are established by God and therefore disobeying them is to disobey God Himself (Romans 13:1-2). God established Moses as a "god" over Israel to rule as God (Exodus 4:16). And according to the Hebrew text, God established Moses as "god" over Pharoah (Exodus 7:1-2)
It was because of this many faceted view of the word "god" that the monotheistic Jews were able to read of "gods" in their law and yet insist that there are no other Gods - period. The word simply referred to human rulers who ruled with God"s authority. The Mormon Stephen E. Robinson, whose article Mr. Porter Rockwell here used, admits this when he says:
"In the New Testament, at John 10:34-36, we read that Jesus himself quoted Psalm 82:6 and interpreted the term gods as referring to human beings who had received the word of God" In other words, 'If the scriptures [Psalm 82] can refer to mortals who receive the word of God as "gods," then why get upset with me for merely saying I am the Son of God?' The Savior's argument was effective precisely because the scripture does use the term gods in this limited way to refer to human beings."
Indeed, and as Mr. Robinson admits this, he condemns the Mormon belief. You see, Mormons do not believe that mortal men on earth can be genuine immortal gods as Joseph Smith described. Mormons believe mortal men can BECOME genuine gods after they leave the earth. Yet they are supporting their exaltation beliefs by relying upon biblical texts that refer to mere men as "gods".
Clearly then, the Mormons are abusing these texts. They are exploiting the the way the word "god" is being used in the Bible to support the belief that men can become real gods with eternal power. It is obviously illogical and, I think, grossly dishonest.
In my next post we will return to Irenaeus more fully, having now seen how the word "gods" in the Bible applies to men in a symbolic way. We will see that the Mormons have maligned Irenaeus"s memory. We will see that Irenaeus has supported the Christian view on this issue all along. We will also see that Irenaeus pointedly rejected the Mormon view, and not by mere implication. We will actually see him describing what amounts to the Mormon view of polytheistic henotheism, and then declaring it heresy!
Mormon Duplicity and Illogic
