Z-- when questioned about his hope for godhood writes:

QUOTE:
Who are you to limit my potential? I am a child of God. He has promised to share all the He has with me if I am faithful. Who are you to dare tell me what I may become under the tutelage of my Father in Heaven? How arrogant of you!

God has spoken on this issue over and over-- It is in His Word-- In the Bible.

The Bible is accessible and can be read and what God has had to say on this topic is known.



That is why I can point to God's Word and dare say-- YOU will not become an Almighty Creator God with the same nature as The Almighty God of the Bible,



A Christian who reads the Bible knows from what He said centuries ago that God will not share His glory with even the elevated and exhaulted of His creation---



Jeremiah 10:11

QUOTE:
?Thus shall ye say unto them, The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, [even] they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens.?

Isaiah 42.8

QUOTE:
?I am the Lord, that is My name;

And My glory I will not give to another,

Isaiah 43:10

QUOTE:
"You are my witnesses," declares the LORD,

"and my servant whom I have chosen,

so that you may know and believe me

and understand that I am he.

Before me no god was formed,

nor will there be one after me.

In terms of Christians becoming 'gods' or judges or administrators in the Kingdom of God--- "gods" are not to hold the same nature or office as the Almighty God.





Zeezrom advises me:

QUOTE:
I recommed that you humble yourself before almighty God and beg for forgiveness and hope that the curse of Matthew 18:6 is not visited on your head on the day of judgment.

Zeezrom is refering to--

Matthew 18:6

QUOTE:
6But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

I would point out to Zeezrom Gal. 1.9

QUOTE:
9As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned

Ironically:



Alma Chapter 11

QUOTE:
26 And Zeezrom said unto him: Thou sayest there is a true and living God?

27 And Amulek said: Yea, there is a true and living God.

28 Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God?

29 And he answered, No

I will try to address the small subset of things mentioned here that are ?on topic.?

This does not mean that those things I do not address are not evidence of radical misunderstanding on the part of Hick Preacher.

Hick Preacher, if you would like for me to address something off topic; then form a propagandist (or a more rigorous) position, post it somewhere else, and if the propaganda is suitably interesting I will try to respond.

QUOTE:

QUOTE:
Will you agree that the Bible teaches that men can become gods?

Z-- what meaning are you going to assign to the word "god".

I may ask that we pursue increased meaning later, but I would like to start small.

For now, a god is one who has true divinity.

God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit have true divinity and they have a FULL share of this divinity. And this full divinity is something they enter into without the need for atonement or ?

For the initial purpose of this thread becoming a god entails having true divinity, not necessarily a ?FULL share? and absolutely not something entered into without the need for atonement.



Alternatively, I might say that the phrase, ?men can become gods? is taught in the Bible and should not be considered heretical as long as we acknowledge that men who become gods will never be equal to the persons of the Trinity.

QUOTE:

QUOTE:
Bible3 John 10:34

Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

If you think this means men becoming Almighty Creator Gods, you should read what Apostle James Talmage taught about these "gods".

(Talmage, James LDS Apostle---Says Psalms 82 'gods' are human JudgesArticles of Faith, CH 23. p 376)

I am aware of Talmage?s statement. I explained why I believe Jesus?s words in John?s gospel demand that Psalms 82 means more than it might first appear Psalms 82 means.

President Joseph Fielding Smith agrees Chapt. 36 of The Way to Perfection.

The Message of the First Presidency dated April, 1912 agrees. (Joseph F. Smith a different person was the President).

Elder B.H. Roberts President of the Seventy argues just as I did. He said:

QUOTE:
One wonders at this argument when he takes into account the evident carefulness of Mr. V. as a writer. Jesus, whom he quotes as saying, the beings referred to as Gods are but called Gods, not that they are so, really fails to give due weight to the Psalm which Jesus quotes: "I have said ye are Gods, and all of you are children of the Most High" (Psalm 82:6). Of this scripture, Jesus says: "Is it not written in your law, I said, ye are Gods," and he quotes with evident approval these inspired words of David, for he adds?"the scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:33); that is, the scripture of David saying, "ye are Gods," is true, it cannot be gain-said. Nor is this endorsement of David's utterance weakened by the subsequent remark of Jesus, "If he called them Gods unto whom the word of God came," etc.; for, when considered in the light of all the Psalmist said, and all that Jesus said, the "called them Gods" by no manner of means signifies that they were not Gods. David said, "ye are Gods, and all of you are children of the Most High" (Psalm 82:6). The Jews accused Jesus of blasphemy, because he had said he was the son of God (John 10:36); in defense, Jesus quoted the passage from the Psalms where it is said of men, "ye are Gods; and all of you are children of the Most High"?as showing that he was but claiming for himself the relationship that in the law of the Jews was accorded to men?sons of God, children of the Most High, and hence, he was not a blasphemer. In other words, if the Psalmist could say to those he addressed, "all of you are children of the Most High," why should he, the Christ, be considered a blasphemer because he called himself the Son of God?

Add to this list Elder Penrose and I suspect others who I do not have time to find.



In any case, I think my argument and B.H. Roberts argument provide solid reasons to recognize that John 10:34 is talking about real divinity. The early church universally agreed and never said, ?but Psalms 82 speaks of judges??



Isaiah 43:10 is true. I would suggest that deified men are neither before or after, but through and with and one.

I personally think the best read of such passages is that deification must include becoming one with God. I think John 17:21 should aid in this understanding.

QUOTE:
That they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me

So, I would suggest that pointing to the oneness of God and other things (with the Bible and the BOM) merely demands that deification is associated with becoming one with God. It does not change the fact that men are to become gods.



Charity, TOm

TOm-

Why reject the teaching of an Apostle as Talmage, who LDS consider to hold the same office as Peter, James, John, Paul-- yet opt for a Seventy as B.H. Roberts?



If an LDS Apostle is so far in error about the nature of 'gods' then how can any LDS member trust what LDS Apostles teach?

It is the main claim of the LDS org that it has the 'truth' because divine truths are channeled direct from God(s) via their Apostles.





And how can there be other creator gods when God has said that he is the first and last, and will not share his glory with anyother? And the gods spoken of by Jeremiah are not even immortal--they die.

QUOTE:
Turning now to the Christian?s relationship to their Redeemer, Jesus Christ, we read: "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren" (Rom. 8:29). One very important concept embedded in this text is the teaching that the redeemed are predestined to be "conformed" (symmorphos ? literally: "having the same form" ), "to the image of his Son." This portion of the passage is directly related to theosis

I'm only going to deal with the scriptures you've entered into evidence for "as God is, man may be," for the reason I've previously expressed: ECFs don't determine doctrinal truth, God's exegetically interpreted Word does.



Joseph Smith taught:

QUOTE:
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. What did Jesus do? 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.

I don't have a problem with the fact that believers will be conformed to Christ's image. The question is, what is that image? Is it "to inherit the same power, the same glory and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a God? Or, something less than equal to God. Let's define image intead:

QUOTE:
image: gr. eijkwvn; eikon - 1. (3) (c) "of believers, in their glorified state, not merely as resembling Christ but representing Him, Rom. 8:29; 1 Cor. 15:49; here the perfection is the work of divine grace; believers are yet to represent, not something like Him, but what He is in Himself, both in His spiritual body and in His moral character;" Vines Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words

From this definition we know that we will be in a glorified state, resembling and representing Christ. Believers will represent what He is in Himself, both in spiritual body and in moral character. This definition falls way short of stating that we will be equal to God with the same power, the same glory, or the same exaltation as Almighty God.

QUOTE:
In Jesus? case, one should be careful not to construe the term "image" as a "weakening or a feeble copy of something", and the apostle Paul wants to make sure that we do not miss this point, for he conjoins symmorphos (an adjectival form of morphE) with eikOv.

Symmorphos is akin to summorphizo, meaning "to make of like form with another person or thing, to render like," signifying "having the same form as another. Nothing is implied in this Greek term to mean exact divine equality (i.e. the same power, the same glory and the same exaltation). Also, simply because we could not be equal with God, having the same power, glory or exaltation, doesn't imply "a weak or feeble copy." This sounds like a negative spin on "image" in order to elevate the belief that we can be equal to Almighty God. Why must we be equal to God in eternity, or we would somehow be reduced to "a weak or feeble copy"?

QUOTE:
this change, transformation into the image of Christ is "progressive," and though the full transformation will not take place until the saints are glorified after Christ's second coming, the transformation begins in Christ's redeemed disciples during their earthly sojourn. The apostle Paul makes this quite clear in 2 Cor. 3:18: "But we all, with unveiled face beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit" (NAS).

Agreed. But, what the "image" will be, is never described in the Bible as an exact equal to almighty God. God is omnipotent. Being omnipotent precludes God from making others omnipotent. It precludes God from having an equal (disolving the "council of Gods" theory). If others were equal to Him or MORE powerful than Him (God's Heavenly Father, Grandfather, etc., then He wouldn't be ALL powerful anymore. There can only be one ALL powerful God. No one else could have the same power as God, if God is ALL powerful.



Throughout the Bible, the Lord is the "Most High God." If we were equal to God, He would no longer be the MOST High God. There can be only one MOST High God, just like there can be only one ALL powerful God.



No one else can be "I AM" (YHWH: the letters broken down into their root meanings, "I was, I AM, I will be," or "I exist" like God. It would go against God being ALL and MOST and I AM, if there was any other being equal to Him. We could never be I AMs, because we are created; God is not. In Isaiah 42:8, God said, "...my glory will I not give to another..." When JS taught that we could "...inherit the same power, the same glory, the same exaltation...," he was dead wrong.

QUOTE:
Concerning this transformation (Gr. metamorphoumetha), Ralph Martin observed that the "verb metamorphoumetha, 'are being transformed,' strongly suggests a link with Christ as God?s 'image' who is the prototype."

Yes, "[Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: (Col. 1:15)" How does this translate us into being God's exact divine equal, being omnipotent, being "Most High," being "I AM"?

QUOTE:
The implications seem clear: Jesus Christ, being the ?image of God? is by nature divine, and when the redeemed become fully "conformed to the image of his Son (Jesus)" they too shall share in the same divine nature.

Although not included in the quotation marks, you add "fully" to your explanation. Are you saying that you believe, and Mormonism teaches, that we can be fully God's exact divine equal, being omnipotent, being "Most High," being "I AM"?



What the scripture does say that you allude to is, "Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. (2 pet. 1:4)." The relevant dictionary definitions of "partake" are "to take a portion or take some...to have or show a trace (of); have some of the qualities (of)." This is, again, a far cry from being God's exact divine equal, being omnipotent, being "Most High," being "I AM."



BTW, Christ, contrary to LDS doctrine, was always the same God who is elohim:

QUOTE:
"And Moses said unto God (elohim), Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God (elohim) of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? What shall I say unto them?...And God (elohim) said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD (jehovah) God (elohim) of your fathers, the God (elohim) of Abraham, the God (elohim) of Isaac, and the God (elohim) of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations (Ex. 3:13,15)."



"And God (elohim) spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the LORD

(jehovah): And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God (el) Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them (Ex. 6:2-3)."



"Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD (jehovah) he is God (elohim); there is none else beside (except) him...Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the LORD (jehovah) he is God (elohim) in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else (Deut. 4:35,39)."



"That all the people of the earth may know that the LORD (jehovah) is God (elohim), and that there is none else (1 Kings 8:60)."



"Know ye that the LORD (jehovah) he is God (elohim): it is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves; we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture (Psa. 100:3)."



"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government

shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful,

Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. (Is. 9:6)."



"I am the LORD (jehovah): that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images (Is. 42:8)."



"Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD (jehovah), and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God (el - God, the one true God, Jehovah) formed, neither shall there be after me (Isa. 43:10)."



"Thus saith the LORD (jehovah) the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD (jehovah) of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God (elohim). Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God (elowahh - God) beside (except) me? yea, there is no God (Tsuwr - Rock); I know not any (Isa. 44:6,8)."



"I am the LORD (jehovah), and there is none else, there is no God (elohim) beside (except) me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me: (Is. 45:5)."

As you can see from these O.T. passages jehovah was elohim and elohim was jehovah, because LORD (jehovah) is the name of God (elohim). That is why John 1:1-3 and 14 refers to Christ as the Word that was not just WITH God, but also WAS God, and became a man (flesh). The fact that Christ was the only begotten of the Father doesn't change the fact that before Christ was a man (come in the flesh) and became the Son, He was the Father.



We will never be God's divine equal. We will be godly. We will be Christ-like (to some degree, His followers aready are). But, not God's exact divine equal, not omnipotent, not "Most High," not "I AM."

QUOTE:
Another important teaching in the Rom. 8:29 is that Jesus Christ is our brother. This teaching must be linked to the direct relationship between having "the image of God" and being a "son of God". These concepts, in turn, are tied into the doctrine that those who receive the gospel are "born?of God" (John 1:12, 13), and that those who have faith in Jesus Christ "are all sons of God" (Gal. 3:26), as are those who are "led by the Spirit of God" (Rom. 8:14).

None of which implies that we can be God's exact divine equal, omnipotent, "Most High," or "I AM."

QUOTE:
And the author of Hebrews adds one more significant reason why the redeemed are called Christ?s brothers:



NAS Hebrews 2:11 For both He who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all from one Father; for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren?



NIV Hebrews 2:11 Both the one who makes men holy and those who are made holy are of the same family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers.



NRS Hebrews 2:11 For the one who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one Father. For this reason Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers and sisters?



KJV Hebrews 2:11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren?

This is also not a verse that suggests that we can "...inherit the same power, the same glory, the same exaltation...," If you are implying the LDS doctrine of pre-existent birth to heavenly father and mother,...:

John the baptist said of Christ, and then of himself:

QUOTE:
He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all. John 3:31

Jesus said of Himself to the Pharisees:

QUOTE:
And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world. John 8:23

Obviously, since we are of Adam, we are of the earth, earthly, like John the baptist; and, of this world. Jesus, on the other hand, is clearly the One Who is from above and comes from heaven (the sent One) and is not of this world. These two teachings destroy OUR pre-existence, since we did not come from above like Christ.

QUOTE:
Although the translation of the above verse has "been a matter of dispute since patristic times, and the debate continues" the majority of commentators (e.g. Chrysostom, Aquinas, Westcott, Moffatt, F.F. Bruce) are of the opinion that ex enos (literally: out of/from one) refers to God the Father, which interpretation is reflected in many modern translations (e.g. Amplified, NAB, NAS, NRS).



The above Biblical evidences lead us back to the source of all divinity: God the Father. Jesus Christ is "the Son of God", and as such possesses "the image of God"; yet what Jesus Christ is by nature, Christians become by grace; hence, we too become "sons of God", and as such are "brothers" of our Lord Jesus Christ.

?.

2 Peter 1:4



The following are some modern translations of the verse:



NAB 2 Peter 1:4 Through these, he has bestowed on us the precious and very great promises, so that through them you may come to share in the divine nature, after escaping from the corruption that is in the world because of evil desire.



NAS 2 Peter 1:4 For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, in order that by them you might become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust.



NIV 2 Peter 1:4 Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.



NRS 2 Peter 1:4 Thus he has given us, through these things, his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of lust, and may become participants of the divine nature.



Unlike many other Biblical passages, opponents of the doctrine of deification must come to grips with what this passage literally says, for the Greek seems quite clear to me. (And yet, despite the clear teaching of this passage, opponents have gone to great lengths to try and explain away the literal meaning of this text.)

This passage I addressed above. I have come to grips with it. Obviously, we will be partakers of the divine nature. But, by definition of the word partake, equality with God, omniscience, being Most High, being equal to I AM, is not what we partake of or participate in. If it were even possible, God would cease to be all powerful and the Most High God. Since it's not possible for Almighty God to not be Almighty, then no one ever has been, or could ever be God's equal. No one ever has or could have "the same power, the same glory, the same exaltation" as Almighty God. JS was wrong.

Hello Bob,



You wrote:



>>I don't have a problem with the fact that believers will be conformed to Christ's image. The question is, what is that image? Is it "to inherit the same power, the same glory and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a God? Or, something less than equal to God. Let's define image intead:>>



DW: You then quote Vine?s. But note the following:

QUOTE:
The passage presupposes that Christ is the → image of God. In Christ God is really present. Again symmorphos means that we shall not only be similar to or like Christ but that we shall come into the same realm of power as he. We shall be identified with the same substance as he, and enter into the same essential nature as Christ. One might even speak in the same vein as the Hel. mystery religions and speak of a ?divinization? of ?Christening?. (Colin Brown ed., Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1975) 6th ed., vol. 1, p. 707.)

DW: Jesus Christ, the Son, is the image of God the Father (Col. 1:15), and as such He is God. Arians/Unitarians weakened the sense in which the Son was the image of the Father, arguing that He was ?something less than equal to God?, something I am not willing to do. With this in mind I have grave reservations about your interpretation of Rom. 8:29. The construct seems quite simple to me: the Son is the image of the Father, so he is equal to the Father; glorified, redeemed Christians will be ?conformed? to the image of the Son, so they will become equal to the Son (by grace, of course).



Bob:>> But, what the "image" will be, is never described in the Bible as an exact equal to almighty God. God is omnipotent. Being omnipotent precludes God from making others omnipotent. It precludes God from having an equal (disolving the "council of Gods" theory). If others were equal to Him or MORE powerful than Him (God's Heavenly Father, Grandfather, etc., then He wouldn't be ALL powerful anymore. There can only be one ALL powerful God. No one else could have the same power as God, if God is ALL powerful.>>



DW: Once again, I think most Christians are in agreement that ?image? in the Son?s case is not to be diluted; what in Rom. 8:29 convinces you to do so in that context?



Grace and peace,



David

Bob,

I will hopefully get more into your post in a while (although David, welcome to this board David, will prolly have some things to say).

To begin with, I just wanted to ask a question (two part) and offer a few quick points.



I really see by your use of the term ?Almighty God? and your willingness to compromise what it is for Christ to be in the ?image? of God the Father a very Jehovah?s Witness (or Arian) bent. I think this is good Biblical theology BTW, but not very evangelical.

Are you suggesting embracing a subordinationism?

Are you embracing a subordinationism that denies the full divinity of Christ?



I included the ECF to show that the Biblical scriptures that I quoted (many of which you neglected to mention) were understood by the Early Church to teach deification and they were.



Your characterization of LDS Old Testament understanding is flawed. I mentioned this to you on this thread: http://concernedchristians.org/board/viewtopic.php?t=294&start=75

In addition to this the absolute designation of Elohim and Jehovah is a later development (about 1900) that I would suggest is convenient rather than absolutely theological. That being said as LDS scholars interact with the Old Testament today they point to Christ as the divine actor. This was taught just a few weeks ago by the former Temple, Mission, Stake, ? president who substituted for our regular gospel doctrine teacher.



LDS do not believe that we will ever be equal to God the Father or God the Son, this is not a good read of LDS teaching.



I specifically expressed that this thread was to be about the concept that men can become gods.

I said:

QUOTE:
For now, a god is one who has true divinity.

God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit have true divinity and they have a FULL share of this divinity. And this full divinity is something they enter into without the need for atonement or ?

For the initial purpose of this thread becoming a god entails having true divinity, not necessarily a ?FULL share? and absolutely not something entered into without the need for atonement.

When and if you surrender to this truth then we can explore more, but only the most forward looking evangelicals (today, one day this will change) will even acknowledge this.



Charity, TOm

TOm,



I've just been following this thread a bit, but if you could, please clarify what you mean:

QUOTE:
LDS do not believe that we will ever be equal to God the Father or God the Son, this is not a good read of LDS teaching

As a former-LDS, I always understood that indeed man DID have the capacity to be equal to God. Now I also understood that it wasn't exactly the same in that man would not be so progressed as God, but that man would be able to eternally progress, as does God. Is this what you intend to say in:

QUOTE:
For the initial purpose of this thread becoming a god entails having true divinity, not necessarily a ?FULL share? and absolutely not something entered into without the need for atonement.

The term "full share" is a bit confusing to me.



The eternal progression aspect of this is where I have difficulty seeing Biblical support. If God is portrayed as omnipotent, and perfect what need has He of progression? Wouldn't this indicate that God is in fact imperfect?



Thanks for your posts on the this thread, the discussion is very interesting.



Justin

QUOTE:
I really see by your use of the term ?Almighty God? and your willingness to compromise what it is for Christ to be in the ?image? of God the Father a very Jehovah?s Witness (or Arian) bent. I think this is good Biblical theology BTW, but not very evangelical.

Are you suggesting embracing a subordinationism?

Are you embracing a subordinationism that denies the full divinity of Christ?

:? :? :? How in the world did you get this from my post?



First, JWs don't believe Jesus is God at all; or, that he was when on earth; or, that he ever was before He came to earth.



Second, I explicitly said, "BTW, Christ, contrary to LDS doctrine, was always the same God who is elohim:" I then gave 10 OT proof texts.



While on earth, according to the scriptures, Jesus the Christ was God with us AND subordinate to the Father [Matt. 1:23, John 17:1-5, Phil. 2:6-8]. Don't ask me how. It is explained by Paul to Timothy as a mystery:

QUOTE:
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory (1 Tim. 3:16).

QUOTE:
I included the ECF to show that the Biblical scriptures that I quoted (many of which you neglected to mention) were understood by the Early Church to teach deification and they were.

But, Christ and the Apostles didn't teach it. And, you already know I don't determine the truth of the scriptures by what some ECFs said. I specifically asked you for Biblical evidence for "...as God is, man may be." Not more of the teachinigs of the ECFs. As for the scriptures I neglected to mention, I apologize that my abrupt end to my post lead you to believe I was finished addressing your points. I should have explained that I would be back, but I was in a hurry to end the post because of an extremely important meeting I was due at...date night with my wife. I will finish addressing your original post soon.

QUOTE:
Your characterization of LDS Old Testament understanding is flawed. I mentioned this to you on this thread: http://concernedchristians.org/board/viewtopic.php?t=294&start=75

Could you give the date an time of your post? There's a lot to wade through in that thread.

QUOTE:
In addition to this the absolute designation of Elohim and Jehovah is a later development (about 1900) that I would suggest is convenient rather than absolutely theological.

Again, I don't know what you're talking about. God says what He says in those and many other similar passages, which I didn't bother to spell out. The "absolute designation" came through the prophets as recorded in the OT. Are you going to tell me that those passages don't mean what they clearly say? When Elohim says His name is Jehovah, are you saying that Elohim is somehow saying that Jehovah is the name of a separate God, and not He Himself?

QUOTE:
That being said as LDS scholars interact with the Old Testament today they point to Christ as the divine actor. This was taught just a few weeks ago by the former Temple, Mission, Stake, ? president who substituted for our regular gospel doctrine teacher.

??? What do the OT passages say? If you're going to quote a Mormon, please quote a GA.

QUOTE:
LDS do not believe that we will ever be equal to God the Father or God the Son, this is not a good read of LDS teaching.

What IS a good read JS's teaching, "...To inherit the SAME power, the SAME glory, the SAME exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a God" and "...as God is, man may be." Not to be flippant, but is there a new definition for the word "SAME"? Is there a way for man to be "as God" with "the same power, glory and exaltation" without being, by definition, "identical" in power, glory and exaltation?

QUOTE:
I specifically expressed that this thread was to be about the concept that men can become gods.

I said:

QUOTE:
For now, a god is one who has true divinity.

God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit have true divinity and they have a FULL share of this divinity. And this full divinity is something they enter into without the need for atonement or ?

For the initial purpose of this thread becoming a god entails having true divinity, not necessarily a ?FULL share? and absolutely not something entered into without the need for atonement.

When and if you surrender to this truth then we can explore more, but only the most forward looking evangelicals (today, one day this will change) will even acknowledge this.

"Surrender to this truth"? You mean your explanation that "becoming a god entails having true divinity, not necessarily a ?FULL share? and absolutely not something entered into without the need for atonement."? Your explanation doesn't square with Joseph Smith's teaching of "the SAME power, the SAME glory, the SAME exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a God" and whichever GA coined the "couplet," "...as God is, man may be." What passages in your presentation that I have addressed, don't teach what JS taught or the message of the couplet. So far, there is nothing to surrender TO that nails down what JS taught and the couplet.



TOm, you continually bring up ECFs and now those whom you call "the most forward looking evangelicals." I'm trying to have a Bible study with you, pure and simple. When I asked for a Biblical basis for "...as God is, man may be," I wasn't asking for the opinions of ECFs, a "former Temple, Mission, Stake, ? president" or evangelicals. The only accepted, authoritative perspectives between your belief system and mine are the Bible (for me), the four standard works and the teachings of GAs (for you). Your persistence in using anyone and their writings beyond these recognized authorities is not only not helpful, but distracting (and time-consuming for you). As I've said before (in so many words), JS would not have accepted anyone else's teachings after the death of the last Apostles, because of his belief in and teaching about the complete apostacy of authority that followed. No ECF or evangelical would have been relevant to JS unless he were to have reversed his doctrine of a complete apostacy of authority. The authority you and unauthorized LDS apologetic groups or individuals continually place in them is outside of the Mormon church authority's acceptance, and flies in the face of JS's doctrine of the complete apostacy of authority.



Now, back to the study of the Bible.

Justin,



Thank you for the valuable input of your testimony of confirmation.

QUOTE:
LDS do not believe that we will ever be equal to God the Father or God the Son, this is not a good read of LDS teaching

As a former-LDS, I always understood that indeed man DID have the capacity to be equal to God. Now I also understood that it wasn't exactly the same in that man would not be so progressed as God, but that man would be able to eternally progress, as does God. Is this what you intend to say in:[/quote]

How and if God progresses is debatable within LDS thought.

Here is a statements that would seem to contradict what you believe AND Bob Betts will accept them uncritically as absolutely doctrine for LDS.

Orson Pratt - ?It has been most generally believed that the Saints will progress in knowledge to all eternity: But when they become one with the Father and Son, and receive a fulness of their glory, that, will be the end of all progression in knowledge, because there will be nothing more to be learned.? (The Seer p.117).



I like Orson Pratt?s statement especially because he acknowledges that to be deified is to ?become one with the Father and Son.? As long as we define all knowledge as the set of all true propositions, Orsen Pratt?s statement is philosophically sophisticated enough that I can embrace it without reservation.



Now when we ?become one? with God the Father we will have become such through the mediation of God the Son and through the tutelage of God the Holy Spirit. Thus unlike God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit our divinity will be contingent upon the invitation of the Godhead. In addition to this Joseph Smith was quite clear that God accepted our subordination to Him and that in doing so He received. We as humans do not accept the subordination of God to ourselves and thus we are not equal to Him in this respect either.

QUOTE:
For the initial purpose of this thread becoming a god entails having true divinity, not necessarily a ?FULL share? and absolutely not something entered into without the need for atonement.

The term "full share" is a bit confusing to me.



The eternal progression aspect of this is where I have difficulty seeing Biblical support. If God is portrayed as omnipotent, and perfect what need has He of progression? Wouldn't this indicate that God is in fact imperfect?

[/quote]

God only progresses through the action of His children who not only love Him, but affect Him.

I am not sure if you have pondered the philosophical implications of some of the words you bandy about. Do you believe that God cares if we love Him? Or is God totally unaffected by our love? I believe He cares immensely and is deeply affected by our love.

This is eternal progression, the acceptance of TRUE love.



My reason for speaking of ?full share? and ? is because I thought Bob Betts would and think he has refused to acknowledge that the Bible teaches men can become gods. I do not believe that men become gods without the lifting up provided by God. I do not believe that men become gods apart from God. I do believe that men become ?fully divine,? but because of the first two things I mentioned I do not want to try to define how one is ?fully divine? and yet ones divinity is contingent upon the actions of God. Instead, I wish to start with men become divine in that they are truly given actually divinity.

Instead of going to where I have asked for this thread to go, Bob says that Joseph Smith taught?

What Bob fails to realize is that Joseph Smith did not present a systematic theology in which deification was explained. That Joseph Smith?s ideas do not only lend themselves to Bob?s limited non-believing and polemic-driven concepts demand. That LDS prophets and general authority have held different opinions on these subjects. And that it is he who is farther from understanding the Bible when (and if) he denies that it teaches men can become gods than the LDS (who I believe is in error and who may not exist because I have never met said LDS) who believes that men can become gods and then leave behind God the Father as an unwanted monarch in a distant universe.



Charity, TOm

QUOTE:
In addition to this Joseph Smith was quite clear that God accepted our subordination to Him and that in doing so He received. We as humans do not accept the subordination of God to ourselves and thus we are not equal to Him in this respect either.

Then does this mean that God is subordinate to His creator? Certainly JS taught that God was once as a man is now. It seems logical that He would have to have then, therefore, gone through much the same process.



Also, I do believe that God cares whether or not we love Him, but I'm not so sure that it truly affects Him. I believe, rather, that our creation was born of His love for us. This love was to give us some small part of His creation to experience, and it is given not for his own (unnecessary) gain whatsoever.



I don't know that a person can fully ponder the philosophical implications when speaking of eternity. I actually believe that this is why LDS doctrine runs into trouble. The implication, despite Biblical teaching, that God was created as a man and then progressed implies an infinite cycle of previous and future divine beings. This implies an infinite number of created beings. This also implies, to me, that our existence is infinitely small and meaningless. So, theoretically, it would have an infitinitely small impact upon our creator whether or not we loved Him.



This doesn't make any sense. It seems more logical that one single God, that has always existed (as the Bible indicates) and is completely sovereign would have more reason to love us and care if we loved Him. He is able to give to us, for our benefit. He gains nothing because He doesn't need it.



Now, does this disprove the concept of deification of Man? Not necessarily. But I believe that a future cycle of divinity for man implies that it has existed before. This is where I think the concept fails.





Justin

QUOTE:
In addition to this Joseph Smith was quite clear that God accepted our subordination to Him and that in doing so He received. We as humans do not accept the subordination of God to ourselves and thus we are not equal to Him in this respect either.

Then does this mean that God is subordinate to His creator? Certainly JS taught that God was once as a man is now. It seems logical that He would have to have then, therefore, gone through much the same process. [/quote]

And this little tidbit saying tht God had father Himself, and so on:

QUOTE:
The Prophet (Joseph Smith) taught that our Father had a Father and so on. Is not this a reasonable thought, especially when we remember that the promises are made to us that we may become like him? - Joseph F. Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 1:12