A rather ignorant
anti-Mormon based in the UK posted the following on a friend's facebook status:
The only thing funny with this comment is the author's ignorance. Latter-day Saints do not believe that everything affirmed by Patristic-era authors were in error. After all, these patristic authors were pretty unanimous in affirming doctrines and concepts this (Reformed) Protestant would reject as heretical, such as baptismal regeneration; transformative, not merely declarative, justification; rejection of eternal security; did not hold to a view of the Bible similar to that of the Reformation-era concept of Sola Scriptura; and yes, they even affirmed a form of deification closer (though not identical) to LDS views than the weak deification held by Calvin et al. Such refuted a later comment from him that, “The early church fathers definitely didn't have parallel beliefs or doctrine anything like modern day LDS teaching.” As an example of the anti-biblical, ahistorical nature of this apologist's theollogy, particularly both the biblical and Patristic evidence against sola scriptura, the formal doctrine of Protestantism, a doctrine Brown holds to, see:
Not by Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura
Furthermore, one cannot help but see the hypocrisy of Protestant critics for criqituing Latter-day Saints for appealing to the writings of early Christian authors. After all, both historical (e.g., Martin Chemnitz and John Calvin in their critique of the Council of Trent) and modern (e.g., William Webster, The Church of Rome at the Bar of History) appeal to Patristic-era literature to support their theology and/or critique the theology of other groups such as Roman Catholicism, and yet, they were in some state of apostasy (Athanasius, for instance, held to the perpetual virginity of Mary; Augustine believed in Purgatory; personal sinlessness of Mary; prayers to saints, and yet these are two oft-appealed to early Chrisitans by Protestant apologists).
Jordan Vajda, at the time an ordained Roman Catholic priest who, based in part of his studies, would later become a Latter-day Saint, wrote a M.A. thesis which shows the strong Patristic evidence for the LDS doctrine of theosis:
"Partakers of the Divine Nature": A Comparative Analysis of Patristic and Mormon Doctrines of Divinization
In terms of the biblical evidence for robust deification, note one of the glorious promises to those who endure in Rev 3:9, 21 (this is Christ Himself speaking through John):
For more, see Edward T. Jones, The Christian Doctrine of Deification
For a balanced approach to Patristic theology, see Daniel O. McClellan, Latter-day Saints and Patristics
The only thing funny with this comment is the author's ignorance. Latter-day Saints do not believe that everything affirmed by Patristic-era authors were in error. After all, these patristic authors were pretty unanimous in affirming doctrines and concepts this (Reformed) Protestant would reject as heretical, such as baptismal regeneration; transformative, not merely declarative, justification; rejection of eternal security; did not hold to a view of the Bible similar to that of the Reformation-era concept of Sola Scriptura; and yes, they even affirmed a form of deification closer (though not identical) to LDS views than the weak deification held by Calvin et al. Such refuted a later comment from him that, “The early church fathers definitely didn't have parallel beliefs or doctrine anything like modern day LDS teaching.” As an example of the anti-biblical, ahistorical nature of this apologist's theollogy, particularly both the biblical and Patristic evidence against sola scriptura, the formal doctrine of Protestantism, a doctrine Brown holds to, see:
Not by Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura
Furthermore, one cannot help but see the hypocrisy of Protestant critics for criqituing Latter-day Saints for appealing to the writings of early Christian authors. After all, both historical (e.g., Martin Chemnitz and John Calvin in their critique of the Council of Trent) and modern (e.g., William Webster, The Church of Rome at the Bar of History) appeal to Patristic-era literature to support their theology and/or critique the theology of other groups such as Roman Catholicism, and yet, they were in some state of apostasy (Athanasius, for instance, held to the perpetual virginity of Mary; Augustine believed in Purgatory; personal sinlessness of Mary; prayers to saints, and yet these are two oft-appealed to early Chrisitans by Protestant apologists).
Jordan Vajda, at the time an ordained Roman Catholic priest who, based in part of his studies, would later become a Latter-day Saint, wrote a M.A. thesis which shows the strong Patristic evidence for the LDS doctrine of theosis:
"Partakers of the Divine Nature": A Comparative Analysis of Patristic and Mormon Doctrines of Divinization
In terms of the biblical evidence for robust deification, note one of the glorious promises to those who endure in Rev 3:9, 21 (this is Christ Himself speaking through John):
Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee . . . To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
In 3:21, believers are promised to sit down on Christ’s throne, which is the Father's very own throne! Interestingly, Christ sitting down on the throne of the Father is cited as prima facie evidence of his being numerically identical to the “one God” (see the works of Richard Bauckham on “divine identity” on this issue), and yet, believers are promised the very same thing! This is in agreement with John 17:22 in that we will all share the same glory and be one with Christ and God just as they are one. Sitting in it does not indicate such "oness" is that of "divine identity" contra Richard Bauckahm et al (cf. Testament of Job 32:2-9, where Job is promised to sit on God’s throne, something that is common in the literature of Second Temple Judaism and other works within the Jewish pseudepigrapha and elsewhere).
As for Rev 3:9, believers are promised that they will be the future recipients of προσκυνέω. While some may try to downplay the significance of this term, in all other instances where it is used in the book of Revelation it denotes religious worship (Rev 4:10; 5:14; 7:11; 9:20; 11:1, 16; 13:4, 8, 12, 15; 14:7, 9, 11; 15:4; 16:2; 19:4, 10, 20; 20:4; 22:8, 9). Only by engaging in special pleading and question begging can one claim it does not carry religious significance in Rev 3:9.
To add to the discussion, here is the exegesis provided by New Testament scholar, Jürgen Roloff, on these important verses:
[3:9] With the same words that are in 2:9, the claim of the Jews to be the assembly (synagōgē) of God and the people of God's is rejected as false. Because they rejected Jesus as bringer of God's salvation, in truth they subordinated themselves to the dominion of God's adversary. Israel's heritage and claim are completely transferred to the Christian community. To it, therefore, also belongs the promise, originally made to Israel, that at the end time of the Gentiles will enter the city of God and subjugate themselves to the people of God (Isa. 60:14 and elsewhere). Indeed, among those who then come will be the unbelieving Jews, who will realize that Jesus loved them and that means he chose them; (cf. Isa. 42:1) and made them into the people of God. When mention is made of "bowing down" before the feet of the church, this assumes full participation of the church in the kingdom of Christ and sitting with him on his throne (v. 21) . . . [3:21] The final word about overcoming in the series of letters has particular importance. It summarizes in conclusion the central promise of salvation, which is the promises heretofore was sounded several times with variations and modifications, by using another Synoptic expression of Jesus (Luke 22:30b; Matt 19:28 [Q?]: to those who overcome is promised here participation in Jesus' heavenly kingdom. Thus, just as Jesus sits on his throne (cf. 5:6) beside God as equal ruler on the basis of his having overcome and thereby shares his dominion, so also will those who have overcome for his sake receive a place in his messianic rule (cf. 20:6) with unlimited communion, and even equality, with him. (Jürgen Roloff, Revelation [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993], 61, 65-66)
This is yet another area where Latter-day Saint theology and practice is more commensurate with “biblical Christianity” and not the theologies of our Evangelical opponents.
For more, see Edward T. Jones, The Christian Doctrine of Deification
For a balanced approach to Patristic theology, see Daniel O. McClellan, Latter-day Saints and Patristics
