QUOTE:
I would like to suggest that when one speaks of ?growth in grace, newness, holiness and sanctification? one is describing a process; the very notion of growth is to invoke a process. In this life, sin remains in ALL believers; through the sanctifying grace of the Holy Spirit, the believer grows in holiness (or should be growing in holiness), and the final state of the believer, a sinless state, will not be realized until heaven.

I totally agree with you. Like I said in my previous post and you quoted me,

QUOTE:
I did not intend to suggest that we are not in a growth process toward those ends. I totally agree with the scriptures that teach growth in grace, newness, holiness and santification.

QUOTE:
Hagiasmos and hagios (sanctification and holy), along with their verbal cognates, are used in more than one sense in the LXX and NT, and many of the instances are directly related to the ACTIONS of believers. For instance, in Romans we read:



Romans 6:19 I am speaking in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness, resulting in further lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness, resulting in sanctification.



And:



2 Corinthians 7:1 Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.



Me: The ultimate goal of all believers should be the admonition of St. Peter, who wrote:



1 Peter 1:15. 16 but like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior; 1 Peter 1:16 because it is written, "YOU SHALL BE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY."



And towards the end of the book of Revelation we read:



Revelation 22:11 "Let the one who does wrong, still do wrong; and let the one who is filthy, still be filthy; and let the one who is righteous, still practice righteousness; and let the one who is holy, still keep himself holy."



Me: So, bottom line is that there is a sense in which we grow in holiness, that we ?practice righteousness?, and this is done via the grace that God HAS already given to us, and continues to give us. The work of grace by the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer is past, present, and future. As such there is a sense in which we were made holy, are now ?perfecting holiness?, and in the future, shall be holy as God is holy.

Again, I'm in complete agreement. You have well defined and properly used the scriptures to make your point. The only thing I would add is that the specific way in which this is all accomplished is when we are walking in the Spirit, thus operating our lives by His power:

QUOTE:
Gal. 5:16This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

17For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

18But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

19Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

20Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,

21Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

23Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

24And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

25If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

26Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.

Also,

QUOTE:
Zech. 4:6Then he answered and spake unto me, saying, This is the word of the LORD unto Zerubbabel, saying, Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the LORD of hosts.

An finally,

QUOTE:
4And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:

5That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

Now, back to the main subject of this thread. I asked a question of you, though I neglected the question mark. Here it is again: "...what is your Biblical basis for deification being an integral aspect of our sanctification"? (Emphasis on deification)



And, another question I asked you in a distant post which I don't believe you ever answered: "...are you, at this point, in light of your defense, still possibly seeing TOm's LDS doctrine that "as God is, man may be," is the Biblically-based privilege of LDS"?

Hello Bob,



Well, unless I have read your last post incorrectly, it sure seems that we are actually beginning to understand each other, and are agreeing on several issues.



At the end of your last post you wrote:



BB:>>Now, back to the main subject of this thread. I asked a question of you, though I neglected the question mark. Here it is again: "...what is your Biblical basis for deification being an integral aspect of our sanctification"? (Emphasis on deification)>>



DW: Deification is simply union with God/Christ. The final result of this wondrous union is reception of God attributes/fullness?to become one with God and Jesus Christ.



St. Paul wrote:

QUOTE:
Ephesians 3:14-19 For this reason, I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth derives its name, that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner man; so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; and that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled up to all the fulness of God.

This ?fullness of God? will include eternal life, immortality, holiness, perfection, glory, sitting on God?s throne, partaking of the divine nature, a fullness of knowledge, etc. So in a nutshell, the Biblical basis for deification lies in God bestowing His attributes upon His adopted Sons; to live the life that God lives in eternity with Him, His Son, and His Holy Spirit.



[BTW, I have been working on a book on deification, and chapter 1 is devoted to Biblical basis of the doctrine. If you are interested, I can email the chapter to you.]



Grace and peace,



David

QUOTE:
This ?fullness of God? will include eternal life, immortality, holiness, perfection, glory, sitting on God?s throne, partaking of the divine nature, a fullness of knowledge, etc. So in a nutshell, the Biblical basis for deification lies in God bestowing His attributes upon His adopted Sons; to live the life that God lives in eternity with Him, His Son, and His Holy Spirit.

DW:



It seems to me that you're reading a lot into the scripture. It could mean a lot of things. Perhaps the fulness of His love, His presence, His joy...



I have difficulty accepting the deifaction of man concept still, based on the Biblical statements that there is ONLY one God, and that He is unchanging. This argument of a "oneness" with God seems to be a work-around for LDS to overcome the Biblical doctrine.



No offense intended, I really think this is an interesting discussion although I haven't contributed much as of yet. I'm interested in how you can overcome the doctrine that God is unchanging, yet at the same time He is being added onto (for lack of better words here) and continually being "perfected."



Justin

Hi Justin,



Thanks for responding to my post. You wrote:



>>It seems to me that you're reading a lot into the scripture. It could mean a lot of things. Perhaps the fulness of His love, His presence, His joy...>>



Me: The passage taken in isolation ?could mean a lot of things?; but I submit that when systematically applied to the overall teaching of the final state of God?s redeemed and adopted Son?s, that my understanding of the passage is the consistent one. Just as there is no one passage (or even a group of passages), that explicitly teach the doctrine of the Trinity, most would agree that a systematic understanding of all the data yields the doctrine.



>>I have difficulty accepting the deifaction of man concept still, based on the Biblical statements that there is ONLY one God, and that He is unchanging. This argument of a "oneness" with God seems to be a work-around for LDS to overcome the Biblical doctrine.>>



Me: Well, certainly Trinitarians argue that the sense/meaning of ?one God? does not limit the number of persons who are God. With this in mind, there is a question I think needs to asked: if the one God chooses to bestow ALL of His attributes upon His adopted Sons, what will these Sons become?



>>No offense intended, I really think this is an interesting discussion although I haven't contributed much as of yet.>>



Me: You, and everyone else on this message board, have been very charitable. In my experience on message boards, this is somewhat unique, and I am appreciative of the charity that has been extended to me.



>>I'm interested in how you can overcome the doctrine that God is unchanging, yet at the same time He is being added onto (for lack of better words here) and continually being "perfected.">>



Me: God?s nature is unchanging. God is perfect in ALL of His attributes. But, God does act, though in acting, His nature does not change. [This raises on interesting side question for me: since one of the attributes of God is as the Creator, has God always been creating?]



Grace and peace,



David

DW:

QUOTE:
but I submit that when systematically applied to the overall teaching of the final state of God?s redeemed and adopted Son?s, that my understanding of the passage is the consistent one.

By adopted Sons, do you mean men who are to be exhalted? I do not know where the scriptural supprt exists that God will adopt us as Sons. Are we not already sons of God?

QUOTE:
Well, certainly Trinitarians argue that the sense/meaning of ?one God? does not limit the number of persons who are God. With this in mind, there is a question I think needs to asked: if the one God chooses to bestow ALL of His attributes upon His adopted Sons, what will these Sons become?

I can agree with this. The question you ask is valid. However, the issue as I see it is: At what point has God clearly stated that ALL of His attributes will bestowed? This is part of my original question. I think it is reading too much into the scripture. (Eph 3:14-19)

QUOTE:
God?s nature is unchanging. God is perfect in ALL of His attributes. But, God does act, though in acting, His nature does not change. [This raises on interesting side question for me: since one of the attributes of God is as the Creator, has God always been creating?]

My read of the scriptures is that God himself is unchanging. Not just His nature. I do not rule out that God has always been creating. In fact, this rules out the possibility of other Gods. The endless hierarchy of creating Gods is unnecessary in a universe in which God is all-powerful and eternal. Rather, I submit that at best our understanding of the nature of God is limited due, in part, to our inability to fully comprehend the nature of infinity. This is why I think that we must be very conservative in our read of the scriptures and their implications.



Another side question: If God is perfect in ALL His attributes, then what need has He to continue creating? To be more perfect? This leads, I think, to the definition of perfection.



Thanks for your comments.



Justin

Good morning Justin,



You wrote:



>>By adopted Sons, do you mean men who are to be exhalted? I do not know where the scriptural supprt exists that God will adopt us as Sons. Are we not already sons of God?>>



Me: I mean believers who have been redeemed by Jesus Christ. Like many of the motifs used to describe the nature of the redemption, there is a sense in which believers are already adopted sons, and a sense which is future. St. Paul wrote:



Romans 8:15 For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, "Abba! Father!"



Romans 8:23 And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body.



Ephesians 1:5 He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will?



>>I can agree with this. The question you ask is valid. However, the issue as I see it is: At what point has God clearly stated that ALL of His attributes will bestowed? This is part of my original question. I think it is reading too much into the scripture. (Eph 3:14-19)>>



Me: I believe other passages strongly indicate that ALL of God?s attributes are involved, not just some.



In this thread I have already mentioned Rom. 8:29 which states that we are to be ?conformed? to the image of God?s Son (Christ). One of the most respected Evangelical NT Greek Dictionaries had the following to say about this verse:

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.)

We also have 2 Cor. 8:9; 1 John 3:2; 2 Peter 1:4; and many other passages which, when examined together, give support to my thesis.



>>My read of the scriptures is that God himself is unchanging. Not just His nature. I do not rule out that God has always been creating. In fact, this rules out the possibility of other Gods. The endless hierarchy of creating Gods is unnecessary in a universe in which God is all-powerful and eternal. Rather, I submit that at best our understanding of the nature of God is limited due, in part, to our inability to fully comprehend the nature of infinity. This is why I think that we must be very conservative in our read of the scriptures and their implications.>>



Me: The apostle Paul said it beautifully in his first epistle to the Corinthians:



1 Corinthians 13:12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I shall know fully just as I also have been fully known.



Notice that though we only know in part now, in the future we shall ?know fully just as I also have been fully known?.



Now, I can certainly understand the need to be ?very conservative in our read of the scriptures and their implications?; but keep in mind that it was just such a methodology that led Arius and his followers to affirm full divinity to God the Father alone. I think the following from my book I am working on sums up some important implications:

QUOTE:
When one objectively, and reverently, reflects on the attributes, authority, and titles that God the Father has given to His Son, Jesus Christ, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that because Jesus Christ shares so deeply in the nature and divine life of God, He too must be of the same order of being as God the Father. One must water down the motifs of ?image of God?, ?Son of God?, ?life within Himself?, ?immortality?, ?heir?, ?kingly rule?, etc. in order to avoid the clear teaching that Jesus Christ truly shares in God the Father?s ?divine nature.?



However, many of the same Christians who have embraced the concept that Jesus Christ is divine, then fail to make a similar connection with God?s other sons, His adopted sons, His sons by grace. We have seen in this chapter that the very same concepts used to describe the relationship between God the Father and Jesus Christ are in fact the same concepts used to describe the relationship between redeemed mankind and Jesus Christ. Consistent, honest, reflection forces one to conclude that if Jesus Christ truly shares in God?s divine nature, then so too God?s adopted sons (His sons by grace?i.e. redeemed mankind). This belief that redeemed mankind truly shares in God?s divinity is the essence of the doctrine of theosis, and as we have seen, is the clear teaching of the Bible.

Looking forward to your comments.



Grace and peace,



David

Forgive me for stepping in in the middle of your discussion, but Bill P. posted a verse in the "Angels from God" thread that made me think of this thread. If LDS argue that we are made in God's image, etc...



The Bible says,

QUOTE:
?But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men? Phil 2:7

If Jesus was made in the "likeness of men", how have we been made in God's image? Does that make sense? If not, just ignore this post. :roll:

Hi there USMC513,



You posted:



>>If Jesus was made in the "likeness of men", how have we been made in God's image? Does that make sense? If not, just ignore this post.>>



Me: This verse (actually 2:6-8) is directed related to 2 Cor. 8:9 where we read:



For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich [in the form of God], yet for your sakes he became poor [form/likeness of man], that ye through his poverty might be rich [form of God].



As you can see, I placed the equivalents from the Philippians passage into the text to show the parallel. One Christian commentator had this to say about the two passages:

QUOTE:
If the Corinthians are being asked to impoverish themselves for the benefit of others, this is no more than the Lord himself did?though ?being rich? (plousios ōn) could be taken to mean that even when he became poor he was still in a sense rich; compare the ?being in the form of God? (en morphē theou huparchōn) of Phil. ii. 7.

Grace and peace,



David

DW-



Thanks for the response. As far as being adopted sons of God, I do not disagree, I was simply seeking clarification to your post.



Romans 8:29 is probably the strongest support you give for your theory, but I still think that you are reading a lot into it. The context of the chapter is hope, prayer, and the power of the spirit. I don't agree that this verse is necessarily even trying to convey a message about the final destination of man, much less about deifaction. I am not a Biblical scholar, and I will not pretend to be, but I believe that a person can (and should) read the word of God and interpret it in a straightforward manner. My best read of this scripture is that we can become like unto Christ and gain many of the attributes that He has, because of the power of the spirit. I also read in context that the chapter is referring to this life.



2 Cor. 8:9 Much the same argument, except I believe that it is clear that we can gain the riches of grace in this life. Reading further Paul speaks of the expediency of acting NOW, and that now is the time. I don't see how this verse at all supports the idea that man will become a God or even Godlike in nature.



1 John 3:2 should be read in context especially with verse 1. It seems to me to be referreing to the body of Christ (His church) and that the world does not see them as they are now (sons of God), just as they did not accept Christ. Verse 2 then states that they will know Christ when He returns, because they know Him now.

I don't see how this refers to man being like God, or having His attributes. Rather, it indicates that we will recognize Him.



2 Peter 1:4 by itself would seem like a strong support for your case. However, the context of the chapter, as I read it, actually disputes the concept of man receiving the full divinity and power of a God.



Verse 3 seems to indicate that these gifts have ALREADY been given.

QUOTE:
According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness,

Verse 4 speaks of partaking in the divine nature, but not in receiving it in full.

QUOTE:
that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature

Then we have to interpret "divine nature" and "godliness"



The rest of verse 4:

QUOTE:
having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

I believe this is what he meant by divine nature. It is a freedom from the desire to be sinful.



Then he goes on to add further virtues we should seek. One of these if godliness. But godliness can be added onto with brotherly kindness and charity.



My read is that if "godliness" is to be interpreted as meaning the final state and reward of man, then he would not have included it in a list of attainable virtues in this life. I believe that here it means righteousness or holiness.



You said:

QUOTE:
Notice that though we only know in part now, in the future we shall ?know fully just as I also have been fully known?.

I think that this means just what it says. When we are before God, we will fully know Him just as He knows us. We will have a knowledge of God rather than just faith.



I still think that even read together, these scriptures do not support the idea that man will be Godlike in the sense that the final state of man will be as a Creator, co-equal being with God.



I have had this discussion with some other LDS, and I have to say you and TOm are the few I have known that try to support this Biblically. Most of the time, this leads to a discussion about the need for further revelation (which of course is a whole new topic).



Do you think that this concept can be supported Biblically alone? BTW, how soon do you think the book will be finished?



Thank You for your comments



Justin

Hi Justin,



Only have time for a couple of items you commented on. You posted:



>>2 Peter 1:4 by itself would seem like a strong support for your case. However, the context of the chapter, as I read it, actually disputes the concept of man receiving the full divinity and power of a God.



Verse 3 seems to indicate that these gifts have ALREADY been given.



Quote:

According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness,





Verse 4 speaks of partaking in the divine nature, but not in receiving it in full.

Quote:

that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature





Then we have to interpret "divine nature" and "godliness"



The rest of verse 4:

Quote:

having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.





I believe this is what he meant by divine nature. It is a freedom from the desire to be sinful.>>



Me: As I have mentioned to Bob, the divine attributes given to believers in this life are but a token of what lies ahead in heaven. As for the interpretation of ?divine nature? note what the famous J.N.D. Kelly had to say:

QUOTE:
Though partially veiled in translation, the writer?s Hellenized vocabulary and thought-forms are well illustrated in this passage. They are all the more interesting since they are employed to expound a futurist eschatology and have archaic-sounding ?promises? embedded in them. An obvious example is the repeated divine (theios), an adjective which in the NT appears only here and in Acts xvii. 29?but was popular in classical and Hellenistic Greek and in Jewish writings influenced by Hellenism (e.g. 4 Macc.?26 times; Philo; Josephus). In particular, divine power (theia dunamis) and divine nature (theia phusis) deserve attention: both had been Greek philosophico-religious clich?s as early as Plato and Aristotle, were in popular use in the early empire?and were current coin in Hellenzied Jewish circles in the 1ST cent. A.D?.Most striking of all is sharers of the divine nature, associated as it is with escaping from the corrupt world. The affinity of these notion with Greek mystical philosophy, with its dualist presuppositions, cannot be disguised?In Plato assimilation to God had been the goal, but here it is actual participation in His nature?In the 1ST and 2ND cents., however, union with the divine was a widely entertained aspiration, being held out as a prize in the mystery cults and in the religion both of ordinary people and the intelligentsia?Alexandrian Judaism seem to have been deeply affected by this mystical trend, and so far as language is concerned expressions analogous to ?sharing the divine nature? are abundant in Philo and Josephus (e.g. Dec. 104; C. Ap. I. 232). We should note, however, that as good Jews they were careful to emphasize (e.g. Philo, Leg. Alleg. I. 38 ) that union with God?s being was not a natural possession of man but the effect of God?s drawing him to Himself?What is interesting about the present passage is the substitution of a metaphysical terminology for earlier language of sonship and fellowship, and the postponement of the realization of the promised grace to the consummation; it is also the individual, rather than the Christian as a body, that the grace is promised?His tentative ideas, however, were destined to provide a firm scriptural foundation for the vast theology of redemption by the divinization of human nature which, beginning with Clement of Alexandria, was to dominate the patristic centuries and remains immensely influential in large sections of the Church down to the present day.

You also posted:



>>I have had this discussion with some other LDS, and I have to say you and TOm are the few I have known that try to support this Biblically.>>



Me: I am Catholic, and have never been LDS. :~)



Great discussion so far Justin. Hope Bob joins in again.



Have a great weekend!!!



Grace and peace,



David

QUOTE:
Me: I am Catholic, and have never been LDS.

Oops. I think at some point I actually knew that, but I forgot.



I'll let you add more to your post. I need some time to ponder your last quote anyways.



Justin

Thanks, DW.