QUOTE:
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.

In your humility, you make it easy, David. It's also very refreshing to converse with someone who uses the exegetical method of Biblical interpretation, even though when all is said and done, we may have slightly different perspectives of the same scriptures.

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

Thank you. I am playing "catch-up" on the entire Discussion Board since my return from the General Conference (Monday, 3am) in SLC. So, at this time I only have time to contribute snippets.



Justin, you have been doing an outstanding job with the scriptures which you and David are discussing. So, I will continue to hold back and allow you to take the lead that you've taken in my absense.

QUOTE:
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.

Depending on your specific definition usage of the word "token," I am intellectually uncomfortable with it. If your definition usage were to imply only symbolism, which I doubt it does, I might be lead to think you are suggesting that our present godly attributes, fully possessed now (Eph. 3:17b-19; 4:11-13; Col. 2:9-10), are merely symbolic, as opposed to real. And, thus the real thing will be inherited in heaven. So, what do you mean by token?



References written out:

QUOTE:
Eph. 3:17 That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, 18 May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; 19 And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.



Eph. 4;11-13 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:



Col. 2:9-10 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. 10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

QUOTE:
As for the interpretation of ?divine nature? note what the famous J.N.D. Kelly had to say:

But, unless I'm misunderstanding Kelly, he seems to more defend my and Justin's position when he said:

QUOTE:
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;

I, myself, have referred in a previous post to the "realization" in heaven of what we as believers currently possess in Christ and with Christ in us. And, we are currently in full possession of the fullness of the Godhead without being divine.



There continues to be this scriptural struggle between who we are now, either in comparison or in contrast, with who we will be when we see Christ face to face. But, we're still making progress.



Finally, David, I need to know if you're deliberately or inadvertantly avoiding the question I last addressed to you. If it's deliberate and you don't want to answer, say so and I'll quit asking. Once again, "...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"?

DW:



I finally have gotten around to trying to answer this post. Sorry about the long delay.



I read through the above quote time and again, and it seems that Kelly is referring to the text of the Bible (is that correct) as written in Greek. He seems to be trying to say that several examples exist in the Bible (particularly in Greek) that illustrate the terms of divinity and promises of such used together. He goes on to say that these terms were commonly in use in the 1st and 2nd centuries. This is fine, and I think are probably some support for your assertion. However, I do not know what the Greek definiton of 'divinity' or 'theios' meant in a practical sense to those who used the terms. Were not the Greeks polytheistic? He seems to belive that sharing in divine means to "escape from the corrupt world." I would certainly agree with that. God is incorrupt in nature. So, this attribute would be shared.



Do you think that he implies that it(sharing divinity) means more? If so, in what way?



He goes on to note that the Jews did not see it this way, but in fact were careful to view this not as divinity possessed by man. My understanding of Jewish culture and religion, especially at that time, isn't enough for me to know why they would take this position. But, he goes on to say:



"His tentative ideas, however, were destined to provide a firm scriptural foundation for the vast theology of redemption by the divinization of human nature"



I think that this is the real point. Divinization of human nature. This, to mean means to share some of the attributes of God, while still human. Charity, for instance. I don't read into this the intent by the author to attempt to assert that divinization means any more, such as sharing creative powers, or being co-equal with God.



Interestingly, I don't believe that Catholicism views it that way, either. Yet don't these writings and concepts "remain immensly influential in large sections of the church today"? If so, then why aren't they taught?



Thanks for the quote, it sure made me think.



DW, I am interested in your take on this same passage. Perhaps I am reading it entirely wrongly?



Thanks



Justin

David:



I'm not trying to gang up on you, but I tend to side with Justin and Bob on this... some thoughts...

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.?

Absolutely. And I think the implications of this actually point away from your thesis as I will explain.

QUOTE:
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.

I keep attempting to point out that, at least from my perspective, it appears that in the final analysis this entire discussion centers around one's definition of words like: "glory," "santification," "incorruptable" and even "divine."



To me, the attributes that make God God, are not replicable or transferable... namely: omniscience, omnipotence and eternal past, present and future. There is a difference, in my view, between the relationship of {God the Son & God the Father} and {God the Trinity and human beings.}



You and I and Justin and Bob can all agree, I presume, that Jesus Christ is an uncreated being--a being who has always existed and therefore, presumably has always been co-equal with God, hence, John's conclusion: and the Word was God.



There is no clearer statement of Christ's absolute equal share (for lack of a better word) of complete Godhood than the "I AM" statement he makes to the Pharisees in Matthew (I believe) in which Jesus claimed not only to be one with God but to actually be God. This was all they needed to pick up stones and start throwing.



I believe this is significant to this discussion in that no matter what state of "glory" we may or may not achieve, and however we choose to define the relevant words, we can never lay claim to such equality with God. This is a key distinction and, in my view, should be considered when attempting to determine Biblical teaching on the deification or lack thereof of created human beings.



Where am I wrong?

Good afternoon Bob, Justin, and Roger!



I am just now reading through the last responses you each posted (I had taken a hiatus of sorts from the web to catch up on running, biking and outdoor-house projects during this somewhat rare/dry period here at the beach).



Once I finish reading your posts, I would like to ponder a bit over the content, and shall respond either later today, or tomorrow (Lord willing).



Grace and peace,



David

Hello Bob,



You posted:



BB:>>Depending on your specific definition usage of the word "token," I am intellectually uncomfortable with it. If your definition usage were to imply only symbolism, which I doubt it does, I might be lead to think you are suggesting that our present godly attributes, fully possessed now (Eph. 3:17b-19; 4:11-13; Col. 2:9-10), are merely symbolic, as opposed to real. And, thus the real thing will be inherited in heaven. So, what do you mean by token?>>



DW: By ?token?, I do not intend symbolism at all, but rather am using the term in a very realistic sense. I am using ?token? in the sense of partial. Though the Godly attributes that have been bestowed upon believers are by their very nature fully divine in and of themselves, in this life/economy (oikonomia) our current nature restricts their full manifestation. We are, IMHO, once again dealing with the? now-yet future? motif. We have been sanctified and yet we are growing in sanctification; we have been made holy and yet are growing in holiness; we have been glorified, and yet a future glorification awaits us; we have eternal life, yet we shall die and await resurrection and immortality; we have been made complete, and yet shall be made complete; we have been seated with Christ and yet in the future shall actually be seated on God?s throne. In a nut-shell, we have been transformed, yet are being transformed, and in the future (heaven) shall be fully transformed.



Once again, here are a few verses I feel demonstrate the past/now/future motif:



2 Cor. 3:18 But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.



[And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit. (RSV)]



NAS 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.



NAS Romans 8:17 and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him in order that we may also be glorified with Him.



NAS Hebrews 12:14 Pursue peace with all men, and the sanctification without which no one will see the Lord. [KJV Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord?]



NAS 1 John 3:3 And everyone who has this hope fixed on Him purifies himself, just as He is pure.



NAS Philippians 1:6 For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.



NAS Philippians 3:12 Not that I have already obtained it, or have already become perfect, but I press on in order that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus.



NAS James 1:4 And let endurance have its perfect result, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.



NAS 2 Peter 3:18 but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.



NAS 1 Peter 5:10 And after you have suffered for a little while, the God of all grace, who called you to His eternal glory in Christ, will Himself perfect, confirm, strengthen and establish you.



NAS Colossians 3:10 and have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him



NAS Ephesians 4:24 and put on the new self, which in the likeness of God has been created in righteousness and holiness of the truth.



NAS Isaiah 1:16 ?Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean; Remove the evil of your deeds from My sight. Cease to do evil??



NAS Deuteronomy 10:16 ?Circumcise then your heart, and stiffen your neck no more.?



NAS Jeremiah 4:4 ?Circumcise yourselves to the LORD And remove the foreskins of your heart, Men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem, Lest My wrath go forth like fire And burn with none to quench it, Because of the evil of your deeds.?



NAS Matthew 19:21 Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."



NAS 2 Corinthians 13:9 For we rejoice when we ourselves are weak but you are strong; this we also pray for, that you be made complete.



NAS 2 Corinthians 13:11 Finally, brethren, rejoice, be made complete, be comforted, be like-minded, live in peace; and the God of love and peace shall be with you.



NAS Colossians 1:28 And we proclaim Him, admonishing every man and teaching every man with all wisdom, that we may present every man complete in Christ.



NAS James 1:4 And let endurance have its perfect result, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.



NAS 1 John 1:4 And these things we write, so that our joy may be made complete.







BB:>> But, unless I'm misunderstanding Kelly, he seems to more defend my and Justin's position when he said:

Quote:

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;>>





DW: Could you define what ?position? you are referring to?





BB:>>I, myself, have referred in a previous post to the "realization" in heaven of what we as believers currently possess in Christ and with Christ in us. And, we are currently in full possession of the fullness of the Godhead without being divine.>>



Me: But I would argue that ?realization? by its very definition deals with reality, and as such we await a future reality that is not fully ours now.



BB:>>There continues to be this scriptural struggle between who we are now, either in comparison or in contrast, with who we will be when we see Christ face to face. But, we're still making progress.>>



DW: Amen! I truly believe that semantics are causing apparent differences and that we may actually be much closer in our respective beliefs than we realize.



BB:>>Finally, David, I need to know if you're deliberately or inadvertantly avoiding the question I last addressed to you. If it's deliberate and you don't want to answer, say so and I'll quit asking. Once again, "...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"?>>



DW:>>I have avoided this questions for a couple of reasons: first, Tom?s understanding of God is not same as folk/popular Mormonism, but is rather what I would term a progressive/systematic understanding as represented by some current LDS thinkers like Blake Ostler and David Paulsen; and second, Tom?s understanding has been deeply influenced by the writings of the early Church Fathers. These two factors make it somewhat difficult to answer your question with either a yes or no; but, I suppose if one understands that the phrase ?Bible-based? is heavily influenced by differing hermeneutics, then I would have to say yes, and side with the motif ?as God is, man may be.? (BTW, this is not merely the ?privilege of LDS?; but is a very Catholic/Orthodox understanding of the Scriptures.)



Nice to have you back!



Grace and peace,



David

Hi Justin,



You wrote:



J:>>I read through the above quote time and again, and it seems that Kelly is referring to the text of the Bible (is that correct) as written in Greek. He seems to be trying to say that several examples exist in the Bible (particularly in Greek) that illustrate the terms of divinity and promises of such used together. He goes on to say that these terms were commonly in use in the 1st and 2nd centuries. This is fine, and I think are probably some support for your assertion. However, I do not know what the Greek definiton of 'divinity' or 'theios' meant in a practical sense to those who used the terms.>>



DW: I think Kelly is attempting to inform his readers that one cannot divorce the meaning/usage of the Greek words in the NT from their contemporary setting.



J:>>Were not the Greeks polytheistic?>>



DW: Some were, and some were not; the Christian adaptation of the Greek language was generally in accordance with those who rejected polytheism.



J:>>He seems to belive that sharing in divine means to "escape from the corrupt world." I would certainly agree with that. God is incorrupt in nature. So, this attribute would be shared.



Do you think that he implies that it(sharing divinity) means more? If so, in what way?>>



DW: Kelly stated, ?In Plato assimilation to God had been the goal, but here it is actual participation in His nature.? God's ?nature? is divinity as such, so ?actual participation in His nature? certainly means more than an ?escape from the corrupt world.?



J:>>He goes on to note that the Jews did not see it this way, but in fact were careful to view this not as divinity possessed by man. My understanding of Jewish culture and religion, especially at that time, isn't enough for me to know why they would take this position. But, he goes on to say:



"His tentative ideas, however, were destined to provide a firm scriptural foundation for the vast theology of redemption by the divinization of human nature">>



DW: Kelly is specifically dealing with Hellenized/Alexandrian Jewish philosophers like Philo who in turn were heavily influenced by Middle-Platonism. Certain Christian doctrines were repugnant to the Middle-Platonists, especially the idea that God could become man; this in turn also lead to restrictions on deification, restrictions that the early Church Fathers (and I believe the New Testament) rejected.



>>I think that this is the real point. Divinization of human nature. This, to mean means to share some of the attributes of God, while still human. Charity, for instance. I don't read into this the intent by the author to attempt to assert that divinization means any more, such as sharing creative powers, or being co-equal with God.>>



DW: I believe that statements about the present are conditioned by the future.



J:>>Interestingly, I don't believe that Catholicism views it that way, either. Yet don't these writings and concepts "remain immensly influential in large sections of the church today"? If so, then why aren't they taught?>>



DW: I shall start a new thread in the ?Christianity? section concerning Catholic teachings on deification.



J:>>Thanks for the quote, it sure made me think.>>



DW: It got me to thinking too!!!



>>DW, I am interested in your take on this same passage. Perhaps I am reading it entirely wrongly?>>



The following is from my book:

QUOTE:
Unlike many other Biblical passages, opponents of the doctrine of theosis must come to grips with what this passage literally says, for the Greek is quite clear. 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. To begin our exploration of this important passage, I would like to start with some comments made by one the foremost patristic scholars of the 20th century, J.N.D. Kelly: [quoted above]



Kelly?s commentary on the 2 Peter passage is refreshing, for he truly allows the text to speak for itself with little personal interpretation. When one examines the text in the manner adopted by Kelly, the theological conclusion of the text is quite clear: ?sharers of the divine nature? shall actually ?participate in His [God?s] nature.??



Calvin wrote:



Indeed, Peter declares that believers are called in this to become partakers of the divine nature [2 Peter1:4]. How is this? Because ?he will be... glorified in all his saints, and will be marveled at in all who have believed? [2 Thessalonians 1:10]. If the Lord will share his glory, power, and righteousness with the elect? nay, will give himself to be enjoyed by them and, what is more excellent, will somehow make them to become one with himself, let us remember that every sort of happiness is included under this benefit.



And in Calvin?s commentary on 2 Peter we read: ?Let us then mark, that the end of the gospel is, to render us eventually conformable to God, and, if we may so speak, to deify us.?

Grace and peace,



David

Hello Roger,



You posted the following:



R:>>I'm not trying to gang up on you, but I tend to side with Justin and Bob on this... some thoughts...>>



DW: I don?t feel ganged up on at all; I am truly enjoying our respectful dialogue/s. So, please feel free to take me to task as often as you wish/can.



R:>>I keep attempting to point out that, at least from my perspective, it appears that in the final analysis this entire discussion centers around one's definition of words like: "glory," "santification," "incorruptable" and even "divine.">>



DW: Agreed.



R:>>To me, the attributes that make God God, are not replicable or transferable... namely: omniscience, omnipotence and eternal past, present and future. There is a difference, in my view, between the relationship of {God the Son & God the Father} and {God the Trinity and human beings.} >>



DW: First, the attributes you listed which ?make God God? are, IMO, not the only ones which ?make God God?. Second, I want to make it clear that I too believe in a difference between the relationship that God the Father has with God the Son, and that with His adopted Sons?God the Son is God by nature, while the adopted Sons are God by grace. (This difference cannot be minimalized; indeed, in must be stressed.)



R:>>You and I and Justin and Bob can all agree, I presume, that Jesus Christ is an uncreated being--a being who has always existed and therefore, presumably has always been co-equal with God, hence, John's conclusion: and the Word was God.>>



DW: Yes, we all agree on this. However, non-Trinitarians have, and do, adamantly disagree with us on this.



T:>>There is no clearer statement of Christ's absolute equal share (for lack of a better word) of complete Godhood than the "I AM" statement he makes to the Pharisees in Matthew (I believe) in which Jesus claimed not only to be one with God but to actually be God. This was all they needed to pick up stones and start throwing.>>



DW: Though I personally believe that Jesus Christ was/is fully God, I do not believe that any one Biblical text, in and of itself, clearly teaches this.



R:>>I believe this is significant to this discussion in that no matter what state of "glory" we may or may not achieve, and however we choose to define the relevant words, we can never lay claim to such equality with God. This is a key distinction and, in my view, should be considered when attempting to determine Biblical teaching on the deification or lack thereof of created human beings.



Where am I wrong?>>



DW: With all due respect, I would say that you are allowing certain presuppositions to overly influence your reading of the texts themselves. I would also say that you need to understand much of your argument/s and presuppositions against the full deification of God the Father?s adopted Sons is very similar to the argument/s and presuppositions used by non-Trinitarians against the full deity of God the Son.



But then, I could be all wet!!! :~) :~) :~)



Grace and peace,



David

David:



Going back to your Kelly quote:

QUOTE:
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? (emphasis mine)

This quote, I believe, is referring to 2 Peter 1:4. I probably missed the discussion on this but the question of timing is applicable. Obviously if this is referring to before heaven it cannot mean "divine" in an equal sense to the divinity of God or Jesus. This is reinforced by verse 20 of chapter 2:

QUOTE:
For if after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. - 2 Peter 2:20

If escaping "the defilements of the world" is akin to deification, (and I see no reason why it would not be on the same level as some of the other concepts you've used in support of your thesis) then deification cannot mean the same thing as "the nature of God" because the subject could obviously loose his or her deification whereas God never changes.





I wrote:

QUOTE:
I keep attempting to point out that, at least from my perspective, it appears that in the final analysis this entire discussion centers around one's definition of words like: "glory," "santification," "incorruptable" and even "divine.

You agreed. If that is the case it would appear to be somewhat of a semantic quagmire in that those terms could always be said to be different when applied to humans as when applied to God... apples and oranges, which really, I think is the backbone of our argument opposed to deification... meaning that we all recognize the "glorified state" of every believer in heaven will be far superior to our current condition and this could easily be labeled as "deification" if deification is anything less than infinite. There is simply no comparison between that which is infinite and that which is not. The highest "level?" "degree?" of finite "glorification" --whatever that may be--is not even in the ballpark when compared to the infinite. We could be sanctified, glorified, made perfect, incorruptible, etc. and still not "divine" as I understand the term in relation to almighty God.



I wrote:

QUOTE:
To me, the attributes that make God God, are not replicable or transferable... namely: omniscience, omnipotence and eternal past, present and future. There is a difference, in my view, between the relationship of {God the Son & God the Father} and {God the Trinity and human beings.}

You responded:

QUOTE:
DW: First, the attributes you listed which ?make God God? are, IMO, not the only ones which ?make God God?.

Agreed and any further attributes merely serve to reinforce the unfathomable difference between the created and the Creator. It is easy for us to throw around words like omniscient and omnipotent, but much more difficult for us to even begin to get the minutest concept of what that really entails.

QUOTE:
Second, I want to make it clear that I too believe in a difference between the relationship that God the Father has with God the Son, and that with His adopted Sons?God the Son is God by nature, while the adopted Sons are God by grace. (This difference cannot be minimalized; indeed, in must be stressed.)

With all due respect, it would appear that the difference is being minimalized unless I completely misunderstand your concept of deification--which is quite possible!



To me the key is the difference between "infinite" and "finite." I simply do not believe the boundaries can be crossed--at least in terms of the finite becoming infinite. I do not see how we, the finite, can ever become infinite? At the very least, we will always have had a beginning. Yet this would be required, IMHO, if we were to become equal participants in the Godhead, which I believe is what TOm suggests. I know that "with God all things are possible" but this appears to be along the same lines of the age old question: Can God make a rock too big for him to throw? I tend to answer such questions with "Yes, but if he wanted to He could throw it." Either way, the answer is a mystery, much like I believe our final state of "glorification" is.





I wrote:

QUOTE:
You and I and Justin and Bob can all agree, I presume, that Jesus Christ is an uncreated being--a being who has always existed and therefore, presumably has always been co-equal with God, hence, John's conclusion: and the Word was God.

You wrote:

QUOTE:
Yes, we all agree on this. However, non-Trinitarians have, and do, adamantly disagree with us on this.

Well we can collectively simply agree that they are wrong, then can't we! This is where non-Trinitarians mistakenly reduce the nature of Christ, IMHO. Most of those groups also have a dislike for a literal interpretation of the opening verses of John.

QUOTE:
Though I personally believe that Jesus Christ was/is fully God, I do not believe that any one Biblical text, in and of itself, clearly teaches this.

Well I think the first-century Jews who heard Jesus claim to be "I AM" would heartily disagree with you. This was blatant blasphemy in their view. They had murmured when he claimed to be "one" with the Father, but now he was actually taking it to the next level... "I tell you the truth, before Abraham was, I AM." This was the name God had given when Moses in effect asked: "Who shall I say sent me?" God says: I AM that I AM." Now Jesus was actually claiming to be the same I AM.

QUOTE:
57 The Jews therefore said to him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?"

58 Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am."

59 Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple. - John 8:57-59

The concept was certainly understood by the Jews (who also understood the implications) and was instantly taken by them as sheer blasphemy.

QUOTE:
With all due respect, I would say that you are allowing certain presuppositions to overly influence your reading of the texts themselves. I would also say that you need to understand much of your argument/s and presuppositions against the full deification of God the Father?s adopted Sons is very similar to the argument/s and presuppositions used by non-Trinitarians against the full deity of God the Son.

Well that may or may not be the case but again, as the passage I just quoted illustrates, and whether or not non-Trinitarians acknowledge it, there is a vast difference between the known deity of God the Son and the speculative deity of God's adopted sons.

QUOTE:
But then, I could be all wet!!!

Where I live, moisture is generally not a bad thing! :wink:



Thanks for your response.

DW-



Thanks for your reply. I'm a little short on time these days, so I have to keep it short for now.



Seems to me that in the discussion we have all been having, the very definition of the term divinity is not very clear.



The quotes you provided, particularly the one by Calvin, is not disagreeable to me at all, but he is unclear (in the passage presented) what he means by glorified. I certainly agree that the end of the gospel is to be "more conformable to God". If that is what is meant by deification, then it is a principle I can accept.



The issue then is, where does one draw the line? Does God give a small share of His immense power and glory as reward for faith in this life? I am comfortable in thinking He does. However, does He also transfer the ability to create, and participation as a member of the Trinity? I have a lot of problems with that.



One question, do you believe that deification has any limits? If so, in what way?



Thanks



Justin

Hello Justin,



Thanks for responding. You wrote:



>>The issue then is, where does one draw the line? Does God give a small share of His immense power and glory as reward for faith in this life? I am comfortable in thinking He does. However, does He also transfer the ability to create, and participation as a member of the Trinity? I have a lot of problems with that.



One question, do you believe that deification has any limits? If so, in what way?>>



Me: I think you have hit-the-nail-on-the-head with: ?The issue then is, where does one draw the line??



In all honesty, I truly believe that Bible is not clear on this; as such, a good argument can be made for either limited deification, or for full deification. However, I personally lean in the direction of full deification, and this for two important reasons: first, the language used to describe the relationship between God the Father and God the Son is same kind of language used to describe the relationship between God the Son and the redeemed Sons; and second, we have what is called parallelism to describe the Incarnation and redemption motif?God became man, that man might become God. I believe that Jesus became 100% man, if this is accepted then the parallel concerning deification would mean that redeemed mankind becomes 100% God?yet one important distinction remains?Jesus Christ?s person was divine and remained divine when He became 100% man; redeemed mankind?s person is human, and remains human even if fully deified.



And one last thought: can our omnipotent God fully deify us if He chooses to do so?



Thank you so much for your patience we me in this important discussion. As always, I shall be looking forward to your response.



Grace and peace,



David

David wrote:

QUOTE:
I believe that Jesus became 100% man, if this is accepted then the parallel concerning deification would mean that redeemed mankind becomes 100% God?yet one important distinction remains?Jesus Christ?s person was divine and remained divine when He became 100% man; redeemed mankind?s person is human, and remains human even if fully deified.

This sounds contradictory to me. How can one be 100% man and "divine" at the same time? I understand that Jesus was fully human and experienced everything we do, yet there was obviously something unique about him. The infinite, I suppose, is capable of temporarily limiting his infiniteness, but this quickly begins to boggle my simple mind.

QUOTE:
And one last thought: can our omnipotent God fully deify us if He chooses to do so?

Yes. But this, of course, is the rock question. With God all things are possible--even if I can't figure it out!

Hi Roger,



Thanks much for taking the time to respond to my post. You wrote:



R:>> To me the key is the difference between "infinite" and "finite." I simply do not believe the boundaries can be crossed--at least in terms of the finite becoming infinite. I do not see how we, the finite, can ever become infinite? At the very least, we will always have had a beginning. Yet this would be required, IMHO, if we were to become equal participants in the Godhead, which I believe is what TOm suggests. I know that "with God all things are possible" but this appears to be along the same lines of the age old question: Can God make a rock too big for him to throw? I tend to answer such questions with "Yes, but if he wanted to He could throw it." Either way, the answer is a mystery, much like I believe our final state of "glorification" is.>>



DW: As I mentioned to Justin, I think the Biblical data concerning deification can legitimately be read two ways: partial deification or full deification. As such, I can agree with your assessment that we are (Biblically speaking) dealing with a ?mystery?. But, with that said, when one adds the interpretations of the early Church Fathers, I personally believe the weight of the evidence points in the direction of full deification.



R:>> Well I think the first-century Jews who heard Jesus claim to be "I AM" would heartily disagree with you. This was blatant blasphemy in their view. They had murmured when he claimed to be "one" with the Father, but now he was actually taking it to the next level... "I tell you the truth, before Abraham was, I AM." This was the name God had given when Moses in effect asked: "Who shall I say sent me?" God says: I AM that I AM." Now Jesus was actually claiming to be the same I AM.>>



DW: Most scholars are of the opinion that the ?I am sayings? of Jesus are not related to the Exodus 3:14 passage. After learning Greek, I must concur with this growing consensus?the grammar of Johannine I am sayings weighs decidedly against equating it with the grammar of the LXX translation of Ex. 3:14. There is an excellent online debate over John 8:58 that pretty much explores all of the issues surrounding the I am sayings. Though it will certainly help if you know Greek, it is not necessary to follow most of this 500 plus page debate on John 8:58 between Robert Bowman and Jason DeBuhn (both men are highly respected scholars):


http://www.forananswer.org/Mars_Jw/JB-RB.Jn8_58.Index.htm



R:>> The concept was certainly understood by the Jews (who also understood the implications) and was instantly taken by them as sheer blasphemy.>>



DW: But blasphemy for what? For claiming to be the one true God? Or was it for claiming to be the Messiah, the Son of the one true God? [See Matt. 26:63-65; Mark 16:61-64; Luke 22:67-71; John 4:25, 26; 8:28.]



Now, with this said, I do want to make it clear that I believe in the full divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, but not because of John 8:58.



R:>> Where I live, moisture is generally not a bad thing!>>



DW: It is considered a dry year here in the little coastal community I live if we get less than 45 inches of rain!



Grace and peace,



David