I probably should say more later, but I will start here.

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?

[/quote]



In addition to your use of the term ?Almighty God? which is especially theologically significant within JW thought (thought it seems you may be less than familiar with JW thought), you also produced this:

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]



You also say:

QUOTE:
[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]



And yet Paul says in 2 Cor 4:4, ??Christ, who is the image (eikon) of God,??



To me it seems that if men being the image of Christ is not speaking of true divinity then Christ being ?the image of God? must also be less than true divinity.



For this reason and your JW-like ?Almighty God? use I thought that perhaps you were trying to say that Christ while perhaps ?Might God? was not in fact ?Almighty God.? If this is not what you are saying, why do you suppose Paul uses eikon to link God the Father and God the Son AND Paul uses eikon to link God the Son and glorified men?



[quote="Bob Betts"]

QUOTE:
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.

Actually, JWs are very comfortable calling Jesus, God, just not ?Almighty God.? JWs read the Bible quite consistently and say that while Jesus if in the image of God He is not fully God and while redeemed men are in the image of Christ we are not fully as Christ is.

LDS and a small but increasing number of non-LDS Christians are also consistent in that they say that Christ is fully divine because He is in the image of His Father and redeemed men are fully divine because we are in the image of our Christ.

I thought you might be following the JW path, but instead you follow the inconsistent path of stating that Christ is fully divine in that He is in the image of God the Father, but men are not fully (or even truly) divine because being ?in the image? of Christ is not about true divinity.

QUOTE:
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:

So God the Father and God the Son are the same God and yet God the Son was subordinate to God the Father while incarnated. Oh and to be God is to not change too. I will not suggest that LDS understanding is not without its difficulties, but I think you have a whopper here.



LDS recognize the concept of ?investiture? and this is also solidly Hebrew.

The actor in the Old Testament was almost always Christ. Here are Talmage?s words:



James E. Talmage, Articles of Faith, p.470 - 471

4. Jesus Christ the "Father" by Divine Investiture of Authority -- A fourth reason for applying the title "Father" to Jesus Christ is found in the fact that in all His dealings with the human family Jesus the Son has represented and yet represents Elohim His Father in power and authority. This is true of Christ in His pre-existent, antemortal, or unembodied state, in the which He was known as Jehovah; also during His embodiment in the flesh; and during His labors as a disembodied spirit in the realm of the dead; and since that period in His resurrected state. To the Jews He said: "I and my Father are one" (John 10:30; see also 17:11, 22); yet He declared "My Father is greater than I" (John 14:28); and further, "I am come in my Father's name" (John 5:43; see also 10:25). The same truth was declared by Christ Himself to the Nephites (see 3 Nephi 20:35 and 28:10), and has been reaffirmed by revelation in the present dispensation (D.&C. 50:43). Thus the Father placed His name upon the Son; and Jesus Christ spoke and ministered in and through the Father's name; and so far as power, authority, and Godship are concerned His words and acts were and are those of the Father.



Referencing Talmage the Encyclopedia of Mormonism says:

Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol.2, JEHOVAH, JESUS CHRIST

Divine names and titles, especially in the Bible, are occasionally ambiguous. The distinction between the Father and the Son is sometimes unclear. For example, the Hebrew term elohim?a title usually applied to the Father by Latter-day Saints?often refers to Jehovah in the Bible (e.g., Isa. 12:2). Furthermore, people prayed to Jehovah as if he were the Father. In some cases, ambiguity may be due to the transmission of the text; in others, it may be explained by divine investiture wherein Christ is given the authority of the Father: "Thus the Father placed His name upon the Son; and Jesus Christ spoke and ministered in and through the Father's name; and so far as power, authority, and Godship are concerned His words and acts were and are those of the Father" (MFP 5:32).



One other quick thing. Because God the Father?s power is Christ?s power is the deified man?s power (as you can see from Orson Pratt, LDS Apostle) there is no issue of multiple ?all powerful? folks. Instead there is a unity of deified man and God.



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.[/quote]



I do not believe Joseph Smith taught that there was a God above God. Don?t quote me other people (you said Joseph Smith taught this) as I know some have believed this, but show me where Joseph Smith taught this. I do not think he did. Instead I think people merely inferred this from words he said shortly before he died. In fact the KFD says that God the Father is the greatest/highest.





I believe that D&C 20:17 is clear that God was never not God.

I believe that the PGP points to the supremacy of God the Father over all beings.

I believe that the lectures on faith demand that there is no God above God.





I believe President Hinckley acknowledged that despite what many LDS believe/believed that we do not know very much about the concept that God was once a man.

I believe that the early church also dealt with the question of if there was a God about God the Father and Irenaeus said that we should not speculate upon such things.

Hinckley and Irenaeus sound similar in this respect to me.



And, I am absolutely certain that there is no binding doctrine that points to a God above God. I am quite comfortable in my position on this even if I am mistaken about what Joseph Smith said.



I have little doubt that you thought there was a God above God as a LDS. If it had anything to do with your departure from the faith then I think that is quite unfortunate. Many Christians cease to be Christian because as they move towards a more solid understanding they find that things they thought were absolutely true just could not be. Biblical inerrancy and young earth creationism are excellent examples. This too is quite unfortunate.

QUOTE:
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.

If God ?cares? he is ?affected.? If he is ?unaffected? then He does not care if the whole world hates Him. He does not care if the whole world loves Him.

Love given and received is a two way street in all that I know both from my earthly and heavenly experiences. The God who is unaffected is not the God who truly loves.

He does not need to gain through our love, but he chooses to be radically affected by us.

QUOTE:
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.

Again, I KNOW that LDS binding doctrine does not demand the above idea. I do not believe that LDS binding doctrine supports the above idea without far more speculation than seems warranted. And thus, I do not disparage those who believe such things, but I do not.

QUOTE:
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 I will grant you is somewhat problematic when dealing with infinites, but since we both believe in an infinite God, I think we can set aside this issue [which really seems much smaller than God?s ambivalence (Impassibility) that so concerns me].

QUOTE:
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.

Again there I think it is an error to demand that a future cycle existed before, but I think it just horrible that God would not care if we love Him.



Also, you said, ?more reason to love us and care if we loved Him? which means he is affected by us. Do you mean he is affected or he is not affected?



Charity, TOm

TOm,



Thanks for the response. I'm not really trying to advocate a firm position on this, since I think that much of it is speculation.



To answer your question, I believe that God cares whether we love Him, but is unaffected in that His glory and dominion become lessened by it. I do believe that He takes a personal interest in the individual man, as only a divine being could do. I believe also that it is possible, due to the nature of God, that He is able to be in many places at once, and yet give His full attention to any of those places.



So far as JS teaching God before Man, I possibly was mistaken in this- so thanks for the correction. However, you are correct that I was taught this and did believe it as an LDS. The majority of the mormons I know still believe it, including many well-educated members who study the doctrine.



How do you interpret Commander Cody's 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





This had no bearing on my leaving the church. At the time, I really hadn't given much thought to this particular doctrine. I do find the discussion very interesting, but I appreciate what you mean about a more solid understanding changing things that we think are absolutely true.



So if it is not necessarily the doctrine of the LDS church that God was created by a previous God, then it it your position that this is the first time that God is doing allowing deification? If so, do you think that it will continue on eternally? The issue, of course, is the word 'eternally' which means that it never had a beginning or end.



Justin

QUOTE:
And yet Paul says in 2 Cor 4:4, ??Christ, who is the image (eikon) of God,??



To me it seems that if men being the image of Christ is not speaking of true divinity then Christ being ?the image of God? must also be less than true divinity.



For this reason and your JW-like ?Almighty God? use I thought that perhaps you were trying to say that Christ while perhaps ?Might God? was not in fact ?Almighty God.? If this is not what you are saying, why do you suppose Paul uses eikon to link God the Father and God the Son AND Paul uses eikon to link God the Son and glorified men?

First, Almighty God occurs 56 times in the KJV. I still have no idea why you're linking that phrase to me as a JW-like usage.



Second, one of the keys to exegetical interpretation, as I have often pointed out on this Board, is context. The word "elohim" is the same word used in the OT for the One True God, false gods, and Hebrew judges. The way to differentiate which is which, is context. From the context it's obvious when elohim is being used for the One True God or false gods or Hebrew judges. The same principle of context applies with the word eijkwvn (image). It is obvious from the context of the Bible, that the incarnate God was always God (Deut. 4:35, Matt. 1:23, John 1:1-3, 10:30, etc.). Therefore, Christ's image/nature as the equal essence of God is not in question in the Bible. Image, regarding the nature of resurrected believers, used in context, is not taught nor implied as the same power, glory, or exaltation. JS was wrong.



The one verse you use which comes closest to your doctrinal assertion is 2 Pet. 1:4, which I addressed before. The word "partakers" actually proves MY point, since, by definition a partaker does not gain a fullness or sameness of the divine nature. JS was wrong.

QUOTE:
I thought you might be following the JW path, but instead you follow the inconsistent path of stating that Christ is fully divine in that He is in the image of God the Father, but men are not fully (or even truly) divine because being ?in the image? of Christ is not about true divinity.

There is no inconsistency on my part, TOm. I contend above, that the problem is improper interpretation on yours. You have shown no verse of the Bible which confirms JS's "To inherit the same power, the same glory and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a God" or "as God is, man may be."

QUOTE:
So God the Father and God the Son are the same God and yet God the Son was subordinate to God the Father while incarnated.

That's what Phil. 2:6-8 says, yes.

QUOTE:
Oh and to be God is to not change too.

Both the Bible and the BoM say that God and Christ are the same yesterday, today, and forever (2 Nephi 27:23, Moroni 8:18, Malachi 3:6, Heb. 13:8 {KJV and JST}). Are you suggesting that God becoming a man for the sake of our salvation, should be somehow tied to the progression doctrine of Mormonism?

QUOTE:
LDS recognize the concept of ?investiture? and this is also solidly Hebrew. The actor in the Old Testament was almost always Christ.



Here are Talmage?s words: James E. Talmage, Articles of Faith, p.470 - 471 4. Jesus Christ the "Father" by Divine Investiture of Authority -- A fourth reason for applying the title "Father" to Jesus Christ is found in the fact that in all His dealings with the human family Jesus the Son has represented and yet represents Elohim His Father in power and authority. This is true of Christ in His pre-existent, antemortal, or unembodied state, in the which He was known as Jehovah; also during His embodiment in the flesh; and during His labors as a disembodied spirit in the realm of the dead; and since that period in His resurrected state. To the Jews He said: "I and my Father are one" (John 10:30; see also 17:11, 22); yet He declared "My Father is greater than I" (John 14:2; and further, "I am come in my Father's name" (John 5:43; see also 10:25). The same truth was declared by Christ Himself to the Nephites (see 3 Nephi 20:35 and 28:10), and has been reaffirmed by revelation in the present dispensation (D.&C. 50:43). Thus the Father placed His name upon the Son; and Jesus Christ spoke and ministered in and through the Father's name; and so far as power, authority, and Godship are concerned His words and acts were and are those of the Father.

But, while Christ was on earth, the Father WAS greater than He as explained in Phil. 2:6-8. And, in the Bible, God is clear that Who He is has nothing to do with investiture:

QUOTE:
Deut. 6:4-5 (Mark 12:29)

4 Hear O Israel: The LORD (jehovah) our God (elohim) is one LORD (jehovah): 5 And thou shalt love the LORD (jehovah) thy God (elohim) with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

This doesn't even hint at investiture.



The LDS have to use investiture to explain their doctrine. But, their doctrine is not found in the miriad of verses declaring that Jehovah is Elohim:

QUOTE:
Deut. 4:35,39

35 Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD (jehovah) he is God (elohim); there is none else beside (except) him.

39 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.

No investiture here either.



Jehovah is Elohim's name:

QUOTE:
Ex. 6:2 And God (elohim) spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the LORD (jehovah): 3 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.

Talmage was wrong. Elohim didn't place His name on Jehovah. Elohim repeatedly says His name is Jehovah.



In reference to the EoM, there is no ambiguity in these OT passages at all. I don't know how they could be any more clearly stated. While the relationship between God and the incarnate God may be impossible for us to imagine in our finite minds, that shouldn't dissuade us from the truth of what the scriptures say. The above passages, and many more like them, are not the least ambiguous. The attempt by the LDS powers-that-be to render these passages ambiguous is baffling. Exegetical interpretation demands that we let God's Word speak for itself. Or, in this case, let God speak for Himself about who He is and about His own names. The Mormon church refuses to do that.

QUOTE:
One other quick thing. Because God the Father?s power is Christ?s power is the deified man?s power (as you can see from Orson Pratt, LDS Apostle) there is no issue of multiple ?all powerful? folks. Instead there is a unity of deified man and God.

OP was wrong. As I've alluded, there is no difference between the power of God and the power of the incarnate God. They are one in the same God, the same species, the same divine essence (John 10:30), with the same power and glory. Believers will be partakers of that divine nature, but will not, according to 2 Pet. 1:4 be of the same essence. We are a created species without a divine nature. God is the only eternal, fully divine, Creator.

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

There is no eviodence in the Bible or the BoM, that God was once a man, or that man can be the same nature/essence as God or with all of the same/equal attributes.

QUOTE:

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).

Dualing definitions; which shall we go by? In the KJV NT Greek Lexicon, "image" is defined:

QUOTE:
1. an image, figure, likeness



a. an image of the things (the heavenly things)



1. used of the moral likeness of renewed men to God

2. the image of the Son of God, into which true Christians are transformed, is likeness not only to the heavenly body, but also to the most holy and blessed state of mind, which Christ possesses

See my further explanation to TOm, March 10, 3:28pm. I do not weaken "the sense in which the Son was the image of the Father," I emphasize their equality. What I'm arguing is that in the definition of image, man does not inherit equality to God through conformity to the image of his Son. That simply is not inferred in the definition of "image." 2 Peter 1:4 ("...that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, ..." is a good proof-text of this, because the definition of partaker is, "To have or show a trace (of); have some of the qualities (of)."

QUOTE:
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?

What you don't know about me is that I don't formulate my understanding of the truth of God's Word by majority opinion. I believe I can do a hermeneutical study of God's Word with the exegetical method of interpretation, and the Holy Spirit will lead me into the truth of any passage. Occasionally I'll seek help. But, mostly I do my own study.



Anyway, again, I don't dilute the image issue between God and the incarnate God, being one in the same God. What I don't accept, is a definition of image which infers that believer's "...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," as JS taught. The scriptures don't support it. There is, and can only be one ALL powerful God, one Most High God, one "I AM," and God has already said He will not give His glory to another: Is. 42:8 "I am the LORD (jehovah): that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images."

Back to TOm's original post, which I did not finish commenting on, and last commented on a few days ago.



Unfortunately for TOm, since he went to so much time and trouble (or maybe not so much if he cut-n-paste his teaching to his post), I won't be addressing the scholars, ECFs, or LDS scriptures he quotes, since I specifically requested Bible scriptures to back up JS's teaching. I don't determine truth or formulate Biblical doctrine by what scholars or ECFs have said. And, ECFs would not be acceptable to JS or LDS leadership today anyway, because they wrote and taught during the time of the beginning of the alleged complete apostacy of authority. So, being apostates and devoid of any authority by LDS/JS's standard, nothing ECFs had to say should be relevant to LDS beliefs.

QUOTE:
On to my lesson (there will be 5 Biblical verses of note):

Anyway, I want to talk about the doctrine of exaltation/deification and how it is both a restoration of the Early Church and how it is taught in the Bible...



Now I want to introduce some Biblical verses together with ECFs mentioning them.

Bible1. Psalm 82:1

God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.

Bible2. Psalm 82:6

I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High...



Bible3 John 10:34

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



In context here, Jesus is defending Himself against the accusation that He is claiming to be divine. He does not deny that He makes this claim, but instead quotes Psalm 82:6. If Psalms 82 had nothing to do with actual divinity, this would be a particularly poor defense

Whatever Christ's intent by His statements in John 10:34-36, they could not have had anything to do with divinity of the Hebrew judges, since 1.) by LDS belief, men are not divine in this life, but are exalted to that state after this life; 2.) LDS Apostle James E. Talmage himself acknowledged that the reference to the Hebrew judges as "gods" was a title of high regard, in Articles of Faith, p. 376; 3.) If those Hebrew judges in Psalm 82 were truly divine in nature, the rebuke against them by God as bad judges, and their fate in verse 7, would be odd to say the least.



Regarding this as "a particularly poor defense" on Jesus' part: It may seem weak to us, but I have no doubt that Jesus knew what He was doing and saying, and I'm sure it had the necessary impact on the Pharisees that we may not understand. In verse 35, Jesus specifically referred to the "gods" (Hebrew judges) as those "unto whom the Word of God came." This and the rest of verse 35, "and the scripture cannot be broken," must hold a significance and special meaning to the Pharisees, or Jesus would not have made the point. The bottom line is, this passage in no way lends credence to the "Godhood of man" as taught by JS or any other LDS leader.

QUOTE:
Next let?s look at 2 Peter 1:3-4

Bible4. 2 Peter 1:3-4

According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that [pertain] unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:

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.



The important part of the above passage is ?ye might be partaker of the divine nature.? I included the rest because verse 3 makes it clear that the word divine (same Greek in both 3 and 4) is referring to actually divinity associated with God not associated with something less than God as some now assert.

As I've already addressed this in a previous post on this thread, I'll simply reiterate that, when you define "partakers" you cannot use this verse as a proof text for JS's teaching "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" and the couplet, "...as God is, man may be." It is actually a proof text for the opposite.

QUOTE:
Next we will go to 1 John 3:2. First I want to mention that LDS know that all men are sons of God. This is taught in the OT Malachi 2:10 and in the NT 1 Cor 8:6. In addition to this the Bible talks of the adoption and the BOM talks of becoming ?the children of Christ? or adoption in Mosiah 5:7. This is entering the gate and is involved with a fuller son-ship. This is what John is talking about in 1 John 3:2.



Bible5 1 John 3:2

BEHOLD, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.

Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

Beginning with TOm's "First" comment, the LDS do NOT know that all men are the sons of God, since that is not what is taught in Malachi 2:10 or 1 Co. 8:6.



Malachi 2:10 says, "Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us." In context, Malachi is talking to the Hebrew priests, and in verses 8 and 9, as the mouthpiece of God, he rebukes them. The "father" in verse 10 is not God the Father (upper case F), since God is never referred to as our Father in the OT, only in the NT. The (lower case f) father refers to Abraham who is often spoken of as father Abraham, the father of Israel. Malachi is a Jew, speaking to Jews about the father of the Jewish nation. The very next thing Malachi said is an additional clue: "hath not one God created us"? So, God did not birth us, he created us.



1 Cor. 8:6 says nothing about "all men [being] sons of God."



In 1 John 3:1 and 2, John is talking to Christians. Christians are the ones who are the sons of God, according to John 1:12. They are sons by receiving Christ and believing on His name. As the result of receiving and believing, Christ gave them the power to become the sons of God. Nothing is said in the scriptures of people being the children of God by natural birth in a pre-existence. The fact that the last part of verse 2 says, "when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is," does not imply "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" and the couplet, "...as God is, man may be" any more than being conformed to the image of Christ implies it. Since we are told that we will be "partakers of the divine image," and "partake" means "to have some of the qualitites (of)," then we know that what JS taught and what Mormonism teaches is wrong.



TOm, it's ironic that you use 1 John 3:2 which starts out saying, "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be." Because, JS and the LDS church seems to think they do know "what we shall be;" that we shall be Gods like God.

QUOTE:
The last Biblical passage I would like to mention is one of my favorites.



Bible6 2 Corinthians 8:9

For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.

Again, nothing in the verse, including the use of the word "rich" implies equality to God as JS pronounced sameness of power, glory and exaltation.

QUOTE:
On to my lesson (there will be 5 Biblical verses of note):

Anyway, I want to talk about the doctrine of exaltation/deification and how it is both a restoration of the Early Church and how it is taught in the Bible...



Now I want to introduce some Biblical verses together with ECFs mentioning them.

Bible1. Psalm 82:1

God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.

Bible2. Psalm 82:6

I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High...



Bible3 John 10:34

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



In context here, Jesus is defending Himself against the accusation that He is claiming to be divine. He does not deny that He makes this claim, but instead quotes Psalm 82:6. If Psalms 82 had nothing to do with actual divinity, this would be a particularly poor defense

Whatever Christ's intent by His statements in John 10:34-36, they could not have had anything to do with divinity of the Hebrew judges, since 1.) by LDS belief, men are not divine in this life, but are exalted to that state after this life; 2.) LDS Apostle James E. Talmage himself acknowledged that the reference to the Hebrew judges as "gods" was a title of high regard, in Articles of Faith, p. 376; 3.) If those Hebrew judges in Psalm 82 were truly divine in nature, the rebuke against them by God as bad judges, and their fate in verse 7, would be odd to say the least.[/quote]

And the fact that Psalm 82:6 says ye [b]are[/b] gods, as in ye are gods right now, a fact I mentioned elsewhere on this site.

Hello Bob,



You posted:



>>Dualing definitions; which shall we go by? In the KJV NT Greek Lexicon, "image" is defined:>>



DW: OK, I am missing something here?you seem to have ?dueling definitions? for the way the term ?image? is used in the Bible; a strong usage for Christ as the image of God; and a weak usage for glorified believers as the image of Christ. What am I misunderstanding here?



>>What you don't know about me is that I don't formulate my understanding of the truth of God's Word by majority opinion. I believe I can do a hermeneutical study of God's Word with the exegetical method of interpretation, and the Holy Spirit will lead me into the truth of any passage. Occasionally I'll seek help. But, mostly I do my own study.>>



DW: Well, what about the Church? St. Paul wrote:



But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. (1 Timothy 3:15)



Paul sure seems to be indicating that the Church plays an important role in determining truth.



>>Anyway, again, I don't dilute the image issue between God and the incarnate God, being one in the same God. What I don't accept, is a definition of image which infers that believer's "...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," as JS taught. The scriptures don't support it. There is, and can only be one ALL powerful God, one Most High God, one "I AM," and God has already said He will not give His glory to another: Is. 42:8 "I am the LORD (jehovah): that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.">>



DW: But, you must keep in mind that God the Father (the Most High God) did give His glory to another: His Son. We read in the Scriptures:



Matthew 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.



John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.



But, it is not just Jesus Christ to whom God will give His glory. Note the following words of our Lord:



John 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:



Grace and peace,



David

Bob,

David just said much of what I wanted to say (and thought he did, then I did, ?) concerning ?image.? I do not understand how the context of the times when ?image? is used to describe Christ in the image of God the Father demands that it means something different than the context when ?image? is used to describe redeemed man in the image of Christ. So it would be wonderful if you would address what you mean as you respond to David.



I do want to steer you away from senseless polemics though. I have tried to make the topic of this thread clear. It is about deification and the Bible. I happen to be a LDS and allow the teachings of Joseph Smith to INFORM my view of scripture, but concerning deification I do not think much informing is necessary, the Bible teaches deification!





I want you to answer this!

Can you see that the Bible teaches that men can become gods? And by ?gods? I mean possessors of at least a share of actual deifying divinity, not judges or corrupt ? but possessors of divinity. ????





You keep referring to what Joseph Smith taught. You who are not a LDS, who refuse to allow scholarly LDS to explain what our scriptures teach, and ? are not qualified to tell me what Joseph Smith taught. I am sure you have an above average non-LDS understanding of Mormonism, but I find your insistence to quote Joseph Smith and attack his ideas distracting. David is not a LDS, what is your message to him? It seems your message is, ?Since Joseph Smith taught ?, deification cannot be part of the Bible.? You and I have demonstrated an ability to misunderstand each other. Surely I have missed something. Towards clearing this up, I would like for you to answer the above question. Here it is again:



Can you see that the Bible teaches that men can become gods? And by ?gods? I mean possessors of at least a share of actual deifying divinity, not judges or corrupt ? but possessors of divinity. ????





Richard Abanes in his book One Nation Under Gods denied that the concept ?men can become gods? had any merit. Then in his book Becoming Gods he changed his words to state that while men can become deified (he even spoke favorably of making ?men gods?). LDS had it wrong. When I pointed out his development, he offered correction to my assessment of his position, claiming that his view has not changed over the two-three years between the books. This if fine, but after publishing Becoming Gods he has not denied that God desires to ?make men gods.? So can you go this far or will you continue to maintain that God does not desire to ?make men gods? in any way that includes actual divinity?



I may have more to say about you use of the ?Holy Spirit? to understand scripture, but for now this is what I want to see addressed.



Charity, TOm

TOm:

QUOTE:
This if fine, but after publishing Becoming Gods he has not denied that God desires to ?make men gods.?

Perhaps I missed your definition of "God", however I seem to remember certain discussions between you and me where the God you describe as the one you put your faith in is quite similar in many respects to my "evangelical" version--at the cost of moving away from the concept held by Joseph Smith and other early Mormon authorities... possibly to the extent of abomination.



If the LDS concept of making "men gods"--as you define it--is such that the final state of deified man is basically no different than the current state of the Biblical God, how do you reconcile that concept with Isaiah 43:10?

The Hick Preacher wrote a few posts back:

QUOTE:
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.

Hi David,

QUOTE:
OK, I am missing something here?you seem to have ?dueling definitions? for the way the term ?image? is used in the Bible; a strong usage for Christ as the image of God; and a weak usage for glorified believers as the image of Christ. What am I misunderstanding here?

As I explained, context often determines definition, as I illustrated with the word "Elohim." The same applies with the word "image." There is a fundamental difference in "image" in reference to the relationship between God the Father and God the Son, and the relationship between God the Son and created man or resurrected man.



Mormons like to use the fact that man was created in God's "image" in Genesis as proof positive to them that God is a man. Then why weren't we created with a divine nature; that "image," the image of God, to which Mormons are saying man can be exalted to, is the divine nature. Yet, in Mormon theology, that "image" in which we were created, is human only. Obviously, in Mormon theology, image can mean human only in one context and divine in another.



You, as a Catholic (I'm pretty sure you're TOm's Catholic friend whom he has spoken of in the past, correct me if I'm wrong) and TOm as a former Catholic, both understand that Jesus Christ, though the Son of God, was very much the one true God of the OT. He was not one of three separate Gods as taught in Mormonism; He was not the first-born pre-existent spirit offspring of heavenly father and heavenly mother as taught in Mormonism; He was not the one chosen, between Himself and Lucifer, by a council of gods to present His plan of salvation as opposed to Lucifer's plan of salvation as taught in Mormonism.



Jesus Christ is the Jehovah/Elohim, LORD God of the OT. He is the Creator of all things in existence. He is our Creator. The fact that our Creator became a man and dwelt among us, didn't lesson His Godhood. Phil 2:6-8 clearly explains Christ's status as God, and His manifestation on earth as a man.



The reality is that no one can fully explain how God the Father could sit on His throne in heaven, while God the Son was on the earth relating to the Father, and still be one God (even three personages in One, when you include the H.S.). But, then, as a few Mormons have quoted, in reference to hard-to-explain LDS doctines and the BoM, "For with God, nothing shall be impossible (Luke 1:37)." Paul also said, "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)." So, the inability to explain the mystery doesn't change the nature of God. He is Father, Son and H.S.. He is one God (Deut. 6:4).



With all this in mind, when reasoning about Christ being the image of God, we're talking about the incarnate God being the physical image of the Spirit God who sits on His throne (Col. 1:15). Not, as Mormons believe, an exalted man (God the Son) in the image of another exalted man (God the Father). When believers are resurrected to be partakers of the dvine nature (2 Pet. 1:4), whatever image we will actually partake in, whatever aspects of the divine nature we will actually possess, we won't possess the same divine nature as the Most High God (the Son), we will be sons of God partaking in an undisclosed portion of the divine nature.



If I'm still not making myself clear, David, let me know. I'll be glad to do another rephrase.

QUOTE:
DW: Well, what about the Church? St. Paul wrote:



But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. (1 Timothy 3:15)



Paul sure seems to be indicating that the Church plays an important role in determining truth.

Nothing at all in 1 Tim. 3:15 indicates that "the Church" determines truth. The truth was and is determined and established by Christ in the gospel He preached. The church is only the "stay, prop, support" (which is the definition of "pillar" and "ground" of the established truth which Christ already determined. The truth which the early church apostles and prophets taught was not additional or more gospel truth. Paul told the Corinthian church that he "determined not to know any thing among [them], save Jesus Christ, and him crucified (1 Cor. 2:2)." The apostles taught determined truth which they already knew. The church served to be the "stay, prop, and support" of that truth.

QUOTE:
DW: But, you must keep in mind that God the Father (the Most High God) did give His glory to another: His Son. We read in the Scriptures: (Matthew 16:27 and John 17:5 quoted)

Again, this isn't one exalted man (God the Father) talking to the next exalted man (God the Son). This is the one true and living Almighty God giving glory to the one true and living Almighty God incarnate, in self-imposed humility (Phil. 2:6-8). I'll have more to say on this at the end of this post.

QUOTE:
But, it is not just Jesus Christ to whom God will give His glory. Note the following words of our Lord:



John 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

And, I never said Jesus Christ will not give His glory to His children.



It is TOm who used 2 Peter 1:4 as a proof-text for JS's teaching that man can "...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" and the couplet, "...as God is, man may be." JS also said, "...and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves." But, again, that 2 Peter verse proves we will not be the same as God or arrive at the same, equal station of a God, when "partakers" is defined. TOm also, when defending his position, used lower case "g" when discussing JS's teaching that men can become gods. But, JS clearly used upper case "G" in his teaching about men "learning to be Gods" and arriving at the station of a God. By any standard of communication in the English language, same means same and God means God. JS was teaching that men could be equal with God. The Bible doesn't say that. JS was wrong.



In addition, BY taught:

QUOTE:
I will continue the point I am now at. The Lord created you and me for the purpose of becoming Gods like Himself; when we have been proved in our present capacity, and been faithful with all things He puts into our possession. We are created, we are born for the express purpose of growing up from the low estate of manhood, to become Gods like unto our Father in heaven. That is the truth about it, just as it is. The Lord has organized mankind for the express purpose of increasing in that intelligence and truth, which is with God, until he is capable of creating worlds on worlds, and becoming Gods, even the sons of God.

If this is not stating equality with Almighty God, I don't know what else to call it. BY is also famous for saying "...yet man is the king of kings and lord of lords in embryo."



Being "partakers of the divine nature" is one thing. Expecting to be God's unique equal as the Most High God, the I AM, the One who said, "...my glory will I not give to another," is quite another.



Mormonism has lowered Almighty God to the status of an exalted man. In fact, by doing so, Mormonism has made God the same species as man. He's simply a spiritually advanced, progressed version of us. Mormons aren't even theists. They worship a created (or birthed) exalted man and call him God the Father, because he's allegedly OUR natural, exalted parent. So, godhood is no more than advanced manhood, in Mormonism. This theology couldn't get any further from the teachings of the prophets, Christ and His apostles in the Bible.