The doctrine of deification/etc.

In light of recent discussion and the Mormon question.

At 10:12 AM 4/5/2006, Chris Barden wrote:

>I also find Orthodoxy fascinating. ... I'd be
>interested to know your thoughts and those of
>others on the list: is Orthodoxy fundamentally
>more appreciative of evolution? ..I also wonder
>whether it is the doctrine of deification
>(theosis) that proves more compelling for the
>Orthodox.... And a further, more "out there"
>question: do such doctrines drive the
>Mormon support of, or at least indifference to, evolution? ~ Chris

@ Quote: "...I could go on and on.
Hopefully, this short list of references will
adequately convince anyone interested in
Mormonism that the church really is adamantly
anti-evolution." http://www.lds-mormon.com/mo_evolv.shtml

*
The doctrine of deification http://www.tektonics.org/mordef/deify.html

Mormon: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints teaches a doctrine of exaltation, which is
commonly referred to as theosis or human deification in orthodox circles."

[Huge snip]

Holding: It is clear that we become like God in
certain aspects -- as even the Bible intimates --
but that is not the same as making a case for full species identification.

Mormon: "...Given this premise, the notion that
we are ontologically different from God
presently, has absolutely no bearing on the fact
that we will become something new through
salvation in Christ, and that that something is a god!

Fr. J. Arintero stops short of declaring man to
be "uncreated" beings, but uses St. Augustine to
support the concept that men become a race of divinity:

"A Christian is part of a new and heavenly race
of men, of a divine trunk: divinum genus. He is
a deified man, a son of God the Father,
incorporated into the Incarnate Word, animated by
the Holy Ghost. His life must be that of a
citizen of heaven: "If God humiliated Himself to
such an extent as to make Himself man," says St.
Augustine, "this was in order to exalt men to
such an extent as to make of them gods"[Serm. 166]."[56]

So now we must ask ourselves, what did all this
"becoming a god" talk mean? To say that God
became man so that man could become God, hardly
indicates qualification, as our critics would
have it. Indeed, if what our critics say is true,
and theosis does not involve an ontological
likeness, then what, may we ask, did it really mean?

Holding: This is slippery again: The issue is
not, "an ontological likeness," but, "TO WHAT
EXTENT" a likeness? The Mormon sense is much
farther along than anything recorded in the patristics.

[Huge snip]

The Mormon's Conclusion:

Mormon: In light of the obvious discrepancies, I
would like to conclude by highlighting the
similarities between the LDS doctrine of
deification and the Orthodox doctrine of theosis, as stressed by Father Vajda:

1) Terminology and Attributes This is perhaps
the most obvious, as Evangelicals cannot bring
themselves to accept this doctrine without
qualifying it as something abstract, (becoming
god "in a sense" is hardly becoming god at all)
even by changing the terms used by their own
church fathers. One cannot become god "in a
sense" anymore than one could "in a sense" be pregnant.

Holding: I have no idea what Graham means here;
this does not describe my position at all.

2) The Centrality of Jesus Christ. This
similarity I found to be most impressive coming
from a Catholic perspective, and it is most
definitely true. Without Christ being the central
focus, divinization, deification, theosis, or
becoming a God would be virtually impossible. It
is He who gives us eternal life; therefore it is He who deifies us.

Holding: This "similarity" is so vague as to be
worthless. JWs argue that Jesus Christ is central
to their own doctrine of the afterlife. So now what?

3) Role of Human Works. This should probably put
another thorn in the sides of Evangelicals, but
it is essentially true. The church fathers
believed that theosis came about through a
process of works. Considering this fact, the
Evangelical arguments as presented in this review
can be turned around on them since this will
demonstrate a discrepancy between the
biblical/orthodox doctrine of theosis with
whatever theosis doctrine is acceptable for Evangelicals.

Holding: Actually it's no thorn at all. Paul
speaks of rewards based on works; a parable of
Jesus depicts rule over cities in line with quality of work.

4) Role of Ritual. "The following rituals,
recognized by patristic authors as 'sacraments,'
are similar to ordinances found in the LDS
Church: baptism, confirmation, Eucharist
(sacrament), priesthood ordination, marriage,
anointing of the sick with oil, confession of sins to a priest."

Holding: This too is vague. It is also
meaningless since the LDS obviously easily
secured these rites from prior church activity.

5) Eternal Progression. "A nonstatic view of
heaven is another shared belief. Contrary to a
modern mythology which depicts heaven as that
place where the saved do nothing more than strum
harps, both the doctrines of theosis and
exaltation understand heaven to be a place where
the divinized humans continue to learn and grow
and do… they will continue in progression and activity forever."

Holding: But not one in which God went through
the same process. All in all these "similarities"
are worthless, like saying a VW bug and a monster
truck are "similar" because they both have
wheels, a gear shift, and red paint.[186]

[snip]

~ Janice
Received on Wed Apr 5 18:23:55 2006