QUOTE:
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.

I assume this was an appeal to respond to your point. I was only too happy for this to be the end of discussion of what LDS specifically believe concerning deification and I considered your opening statement to indicate that you had not actually read my post. I I responded to ?first and last? before you posted. I my statement about B.H. Roberts explained why I quoted him while offering PRESIDENTS of the church and references so that you would not get all wound up by the fact that B.H. Roberts was a seventy. Here is what preceded you questions and answered them. I am going to start another thread (hopefully) so you may take this discussion there.

QUOTE:

QUOTE:
Bible3 John 10:34

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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



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

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

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

[/quote]

Anyway, I will start another thread and if you want to pursue things related to that thread or things from this post unrelated to this thread or that one, feel free.



Charity, TOm

TOm, what I then conclude is that , LDS authorities do not agree on the nature or identification of these 'gods' of John 10 and Psalm 82





and what do you mean by

QUOTE:
real divinity

????





Thanks for the response TOm.

QUOTE:
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!

If the Bible teaches the deification of man as taught by JS, then you didn't make that case from the Bible verses you used. And, I'm pretty sure I addressed every verse you offered into evidence for that LDS doctrine. And, you certainly have not countered with any additional defense to my examination of those verses.[/quote]

Well, it is my position that your offering of a different definition of ?image? for God the Father to God the Son verses God the Son to glorified men is based more on preconceived notions than upon context. In any case, I am enjoying your discussion with David and you both are more qualified to assess the underlying Greek than I am.

I am happy that you responded to the below and I will offer a little of my thoughts.

QUOTE:
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. ????

Since that is not the terminology used by any NT writer, I would not use that terminology. I think it's misleading, if not out-n-out inaccurate. Paul said "that by these (exceeding great and precious promises) ye might be partakers of the divine nature." So, that is the only terminology I would use. And, I would be sure to point out the definition of "partakers."[/quote]

Thank you for answering my question!

First, I wish to mention that I do not think ?terminology? should stand in the way of assessing ideas. I think it is especially problematic to let ?terminology? stand in the way of assessing ideas when it is being used by someone whose doctrine of God includes terms like Trinity (not mentioned in the Bible), ousia- (not mentioned in the Bible and indeed not a Biblical concept), creation ex nihilo (not mention in the Bible and debatable whether it is a Biblical concept).

Second, there are places were men are referred to as gods. I do not think Psalms 82 stands well by itself. I think Psalms 82 stands well when paired with Jesus? use of it. That being said, while Psalms 82 and Jesus? quote help establish the appropriateness of the use of the term ?gods? they do not offer the strongest deification language in the Bible. In light of the term ?gods? and the strong deification language contained in other passages, I do not think it inappropriate to use this terminology.



Lastly, you said just recently:

QUOTE:
One thing I have not stated to either TOm or David (or anyone else for that matter), which I will declare now: if we were to try to talk hypothetical percentages regarding how much of the "divine nature" we will "be partakers of" (2 Peter 1:4), neither I nor anyone else could come up with a percentage. "...it doth not yet appear what we shall be ~" Nevertheless, "we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like Him; for we shall see Him as He is."



So, it could be that believers will partake in a very high percentage of the divine nature.

This is to me sounds like a positive, ?yes? response to the question that I asked:

QUOTE:
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. ????

If you misunderstood my question, I am sorry. If I misunderstood your above statement I am also sorry. But if this is just a ?terminology? thing, then I will add this to one of many dozens of examples of times when LDS and non-LDS disagree because they do not actually understand what the other person means.

QUOTE:
And, I would be sure to point out that what JS taught doesn't come close to matching what Peter said in light of the definition of "partakers."



Like I said in a previous post, the closest you get in the Bible to the belief that "as God is, man may be," is 2 Peter 1:4. But, the definition of "partakers" is not a match with the couplet or JS's teaching about inheriting the same power, glory and exaltation until we arrive at the station of a God.

I am unconvinced that ?Koinonos? demands a lessoning. Strongs do not suggest that it does, despite the fact that on some instances Strongs and Vines offer theologically colored translations of words. I am not qualified to assess this question today so I will merely offer this (but concerning ?image? I do not see what you see and do not think ?context? is demonstrated).

QUOTE:
And, as I said to David, your use of lower case "god," in contrast to JS's use of upper case "God" is apparent. I'm not sure if this is inadvertant or deliberate. But, it makes a difference. JS's "God" assumes equality, your use of "gods" assumes something less than equal.

I am unsure Joseph Smith WROTE much of what is attributed to have been SAID by him.

God is He who deifies, gods are those who are deified. This is the distinction that Athanasius draws. This is the distinction that many LDS scholars draw. This is the distinction that I draw.

We who are deified will always know that our divinity was/is contingent upon God?s lifting us up and uniting with us. God on the other had was/is divine whether we participate with Him or not.

QUOTE:

QUOTE:
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.

First, if the scholar is a GA or a prophet, I'm perfectly willing to hear his explanation of JS's teachings. Second, this is a different tone from you TOm :? . I don't recall telling you what JS taught, I've simply quoted him. Did I misquote him? What are you objecting to?

I really do not want to offend. What I am really saying is that this thread is not about what either you or I think Joseph Smith taught. If you agree that ?percentages? of the ?divine nature? (presumably true divinity) are given to redeemed mankind (I am not positive you have agreed with this yet), then we can discuss if this results in redeemed mankind being fully divine. After this on another thread we could discuss how this relates to what Joseph Smith said and/or how this relates to what LDS systematic theologies state.

LDS doctrine is found within the standard works not within the statements of PAST GAs for sure and not to its fullest extent within DOCTRINAL discussions (that are scriptural extentions) of present GAs.

QUOTE:
My message to David, you and anyone else, is that what JS taught is not what Christ and His Apostles taught. Your posts were supposed to refute that. I've countered with definitions of terms and an exegetical interpretation. You seem to be practicing eisegesis, by trying to read LDS doctrine into the scriptures. When terms are defined and in context, then the intended meaning can be extracted.

Thought it is certainly not relevant to this discussion, I think it is indeed unfortunate that you are more interested in expressing why JS is wrong then you are in expressing what the Bible teaches. While you probably discuss (your impression of) Biblical theology here and other places, that your first mission is to tear down Mormonism seems obvious to me and unfortunate by my assessment.

I have told a number of Catholics that there is much to be grasped within Catholicism concerning the idea that men can become gods (CCC460) without even proselyting for the CoJCoLDS. You too will be closer to understanding how much God truly loves you and how much He wants to give you when you realize this truth (even though there will still be problems with the CoJCoLDS). 20-25 years from now the message will be, ?Men can become gods, but not in the way the CoJCoLDS says they can.?

QUOTE:
I hope my discussion with David, will indeed help with your understanding of what I'm saying. Perhaps any miscommunications can be cleared up through his and my discussions. :~)

I am indeed enjoying your discussion.

Charity, TOm

The first mistake B.H. Roberts made, was attributing Psalm 82 to David instead of Asaph.



The second mistake B.H. Roberts made, was to capitalize "Gods" in both the John verse and the Psalm verse.



Third, it would have been nice to hear his explanation of Psa. 82:7. If they were really Gods, as Roberts states, how could they "die like men and fall like one of the princes"?

Hi Bob,



I am going to limit my response to just a couple of issues so that the dialogue does not get too expansive.



You wrote:



>>What I AM trying to say is that because of the different tenses, and because the first definition cannot apply to us, and because the latter definition can apply to both the glory which God gave Jesus and the glory Jesus gave us, therefore the latter definition is the only applicable definition in the case of verse 22.>>



Me: I share Lenski?s (a conservative Lutheran scholar) view on this instead. I am going to post his comments on John 17:22 again for easy reference:

QUOTE:
It is impossible to dissociate the glory the Father has given to Jesus from the glory mentioned in v.1 and 5. This is the eternal glory which the Logos had before the world was, the uncreated and essential glory of God, consisting of the sum of the divine attributes. This glory was given to Jesus in his human nature at the incarnation when the Logos assumed that nature. This glory the apostles beheld in Jesus, shining through the veil of his flesh (1:14). (The Interpretation of St. John's Gospel, p. 1159.)

IMO, this is by far the most natural reading of the text; so, I guess we will have to agree to disagree.



You also wrote:



>>While it is true that our salvation, justification, glorification, etc., won't be fully realized until we're in heaven, all NT scripture on the subject consistently indicates, by use of past and present tenses, that believers are presently in full possession of them. There is no reason to believe Paul is using past and present tenses only in the abstract. Believers are truly, fully and securely saved, justified, and glorified. The only thing separating believers from fully realizing what they already fully possess, is the resurrection. Jesus, whenever He taught the salvation gospel, also spoke of these things as being fully possessed in the present. I don't see Jesus praying in John 17 for us to have received a degree of His glory. I can't be any more saved, justified, glorified, one with my brethren in Christ and God than I already am.>>



Me: Once again I am going to have to disagree. My reading of the Scriptures strongly indicates that we ?grow in grace?, are ?being renewed?, increase in holiness/sanctification, and are on the on the path to fulfilling Christ?s command that we be ?perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect?.



The following are a few examples from sacred Scripture that seem to indicate that we are undergoing transformation via the Holy Spirit:





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.?





From my readings of Christian theology, I have not seen one Christian theologian who believes that sanctification is a completed event when one becomes a Christian; but rather, they teach that sanctification is an on going process that will not see its consummation until our glorification in heaven. I believe that glorification and deification are integral aspects of our continuing sanctification in Christ; as such we can, (dare I say we must), maintain that the whole process is by degrees.



With this in mind, I feel compelled to disagree with the following you posted:



>>2 Cor. 3:18 is making my case. My salvation, justification, glorification, the glory of the Lord...are beheld as in a glass (see also, 1 Cor. 13:12), but are nevertheless, beheld. And, we are being changed into the image of Christ, even by the Spirit of the Lord (who is in us, John 17:23), from the present glory that we fully possess to the glory we will fully realize at the resurrection.



You "now yet future" motif description "all over the NT," is correct. I just don't find any "degree" principle included.>>



I think the following translation of 2 Cor. 3:18 supports my observations:

QUOTE:
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)

Well, that concludes my two issues limit <grin>; have much more to say (especially concerning 1 Cor. 13:12), but it will have to wait until tomorrow.



Grace and peace,



David

David:



I realize your post was to Bob, but I simply cannot resist a few comments. I'm sure Bob will respond as well in due time.



You wrote:

QUOTE:
I share Lenski?s (a conservative Lutheran scholar) view on this instead.

...which is why I wrote:

QUOTE:
it appears to me that no matter what, it comes down to human interpretation of divine attributes, which, at best, can only be educated speculation.

Part of the Lenski quote included this:

QUOTE:
This is the eternal glory which the Logos had before the world was, the uncreated and essential glory of God, consisting of the sum of the divine attributes. This glory was given to Jesus in his human nature at the incarnation when the Logos assumed that nature.

Which, again, is why I had written:

QUOTE:
Doesn't this whole debate rest on the concept that "glory" and "divinity" are the same thing? Isn't it possible that "glorification" could refer to an "exalted" state above present humanity but still below--even well below--omniscience and omnipotence?

How does Lenski know what he believes is correct? Can he prove that his speculation is any more valid? In the end David asserts that:

QUOTE:
IMO, this is by far the most natural reading of the text; so, I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Which is fine, but it is certainly equally valid to take a different point of view.



David writes:

QUOTE:
Me: Once again I am going to have to disagree. My reading of the Scriptures strongly indicates that we ?grow in grace?, are ?being renewed?, increase in holiness/sanctification, and are on the on the path to fulfilling Christ?s command that we be ?perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect?.

Which I believe fits very nicely with my previous point that:

QUOTE:
Isn't it also possible that the "glory" obtainable by humans is something on the level of purity or holiness--something we are not capable of at present, but when actualized will indeed permit a "oneness" of fellowship with God without actually transforming us into being God (or gods)?

In fact the verses you listed support that idea as well... for instance:

QUOTE:
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.

Perfection/sanctification is not the same thing as "divinity." Yet here you make the leap, apparently without Biblical support...

QUOTE:
I believe that glorification and deification are integral aspects of our continuing sanctification in Christ; as such we can, (dare I say we must), maintain that the whole process is by degrees.

"Degrees" is not the key question unless one assumes a difference in the divinity given to Christ and that given by Christ to us... and I thought your point rested on the idea that there is no difference based on John 17:22?



The key question, rather, is how you get from perfection/sanctification to divinity? Or is "divinity" as you use the term perhaps something less than I think of it? Do you not equate "divinity" with "omnipotence," "omniscience," & "eternal/uncreated"? In that case the "degree" argument is a given because our "deification" will never equal that of God--which causes me to question the use of the term "deification".



In my view this is simply irresolvable because we, the finite, are attempting to harness the infinite. God is infinite. As humans we simply cannot grasp what that truly means... go back an "infinite" number of "years" and God is there with an "infinite" number both behind and ahead and an infinite number of infinite numbers to the point where the mind is infinitely boggled.



When you equate some sort of human "deification" to that of an infinite, limitless God, with all due respect, I truly question if you have a concept of what you are truly suggesting.



And grace & peace to you too.



r

Humm guys--





Jesus Christ said, "Be perfect (Greek teleioi) as your heavenly Father is perfect." Teleios carries the meaning of complete, mature in purpose.



I am not sure that this 'Perfect' means to have the exact nature of Almighty YHWH God.

Hick:

QUOTE:
Jesus Christ said, "Be perfect (Greek teleioi) as your heavenly Father is perfect." Teleios carries the meaning of complete, mature in purpose.



I am not sure that this 'Perfect' means to have the exact nature of Almighty YHWH God.

Well there you go! You just made my point for me in a much smaller amount of words! How do you do that? :? :wink:

QUOTE:
Humm guys--





Jesus Christ said, "Be perfect (Greek teleioi) as your heavenly Father is perfect." Teleios carries the meaning of complete, mature in purpose.



I am not sure that this 'Perfect' means to have the exact nature of Almighty YHWH God.

And it says be perfect, as be perfect right now, as opposed to millennia of eternal progression.

QUOTE:
Well, it is my position that your offering of a different definition of ?image? for God the Father to God the Son verses God the Son to glorified men is based more on preconceived notions than upon context.

Are you saying that the most correct definition of image that fits the context of Rom. 8:29 is the one that fits the LDS doctrine of the same power, glory, exaltation, and equally divine nature as God? Lets carry it to its logical conclusion: when God said in Gen. 1:26, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness," instead of just interpreting it as Mormons do, to mean that God has a body of flesh and bones, lets also interpret it to mean He created us with a fully and equally divine nature. That would complete the "image" and "likeness" of God in which we were created. And since, in Gen. 1:27, it is also states that "...in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them," then perhaps God is hermaphroditic? The problem is that we're obviously not (or, have I just not gotten in touch with my feminine side? :wink. Seriously, how far do you want to carry this image definition in Gen. 1:26-27, in order to be consistent with your personal interpretation of Rom. 8:29-30? It would also be consistent with John 17:22, except for the part that Christ had to give the disciples His glory, they didn't have it from birth (or from conception, or from pre-existence, or however far back your LDS theology wants to take us). It would also be consistent with Psalm 82:6, if you could just explain how gods could die like men.

QUOTE:
Thank you for answering my question!

First, I wish to mention that I do not think ?terminology? should stand in the way of assessing ideas.

And, I think the way in which most false doctrines and Biblical misunderstandings arise, is out of those who stray from Biblical terminology. If God's Word is inspired, then God's deliberate choice of words, their tenses and in their context, is by far the best. When one strays from those exegetical practices, even one jot or tittle of God's Word can be radically misunderstood. Such is the case with your use of 2 Peter 1:4. You used it to assert the divine nature that JS asserted and that the couplet asserts. But, upon defining the word "partakers" it becomes obvious that Peter was not at all advocating what JS was. So, Biblical terminology is of the utmost importance. Paraphrasing God's Word is shakey ground. That's why I rarely even consult a commentary. And, that's why paraphrased versions of the Bible make lousy study Bibles.

QUOTE:
I think it is especially problematic to let ?terminology? stand in the way of assessing ideas when it is being used by someone whose doctrine of God includes terms like Trinity (not mentioned in the Bible), ousia- (not mentioned in the Bible and indeed not a Biblical concept), creation ex nihilo (not mention in the Bible and debatable whether it is a Biblical concept).

But, I don't need to use those terms to defend those concepts. Those terms only describe the concepts, they don't define them. The concepts are defined by the scriptures. The term "exaltation" and "pre-existence" and "telestial" are not found in the Bible either. But, you certainly believe the concepts are defined within the scriptures. That's why it's so important to use correctly defined Biblical terminology and proper exegetical interpretation. When so done, Mormonism falls. LDS doctrine doesn't stand in the light of exegetical interpretation.

QUOTE:
Second, there are places were men are referred to as gods. I do not think Psalms 82 stands well by itself. I think Psalms 82 stands well when paired with Jesus? use of it. That being said, while Psalms 82 and Jesus? quote help establish the appropriateness of the use of the term ?gods? they do not offer the strongest deification language in the Bible. In light of the term ?gods? and the strong deification language contained in other passages, I do not think it inappropriate to use this terminology.

The problem with your method of interpretation is, you take verses at face value. Why aren't you looking at them in light of other definitive statements about there being only one God in not only the Bible, but the BoM? The OT repeatedly, dozens of times, and the NT several more times, and the BoM several more times, speaks either directly or indirectly to their being only one God. You completely blew off addressing any of the OT passages I quoted, and instead opted to quote Orson Pratt and the Encyclopedia of Mormonism on divine investiture. If words mean what they mean when defined, none of the verses or passages I quoted could be explained away as elohim placing His name on Jehovah. A concept of there being three Gods (Father, Son, H.S.) is not only not taught, there isn't even a hint of a suggestion of it in either the Bible or the BoM. You would think that if there were three Gods (or is it one? I'm so confused!) of this planet, both books would say so just once.



If "gods" didn't mean "judges" in Psalm 82:6, and if gods could die like men and fall like princes according to verse 7, then logically God would have inspired apostle Talmage to teach quite differently than he did on the subject. And, as you admit, this is not even a strong passage for the deification of man, although I don't know what stronger passages you think there are. The passages on "image" and being partakers of the divine nature certainly don't take the concept nearly as far as JS took it. Nor does the BoM.

QUOTE:
This is to me sounds like a positive, ?yes? response to the question that I asked

Only because you're desparate for validation :wink: . I have no dillusion of grandeur. Godhood is not an expectation, nor even a desire. I will be more than satisfied to sit at Jesus feet for eternity, and serve Him however He requires. The scriptures don't teach what JS taught. And, it's obvious that God is not just an exalted man. That false doctrine is rotten to the core. To be even more blunt about it, it's a doctrine of demons. Mormonism is humanism. It's the worship of men. "Praise to the Man" in the LDS hymnal is the perfect example. God help the Mormon people.

QUOTE:
If you misunderstood my question, I am sorry. If I misunderstood your above statement I am also sorry. But if this is just a ?terminology? thing, then I will add this to one of many dozens of examples of times when LDS and non-LDS disagree because they do not actually understand what the other person means.

I think I understood perfectly what you meant. And, I've already explained the importance of terminology usage. You can misconstrue what I said if you like. I don't want to be guilty before God of misconstruing what He said, and subsequently I won't acquiesce to your terminology. It's nothing personal. I just think your terminology is inferior to the scriptures. And, I know JS's terminology is.

QUOTE:
I am unconvinced that ?Koinonos? demands a lessoning.

It demands a lessoning because "partakers" cannot be defined to mean sameness (as JS said and the couplet alludes to). You would have to add a definition to "partakers" which currently doesn't exist. It's intellectually dishonest for Mormonism to continue to redefine common words in order to force their doctrinal beliefs into the Bible. "Partakers," by definition, demands a lessoning. JS was wrong.

QUOTE:
I am unsure Joseph Smith WROTE much of what is attributed to have been SAID by him.

Are you alleging mistranscription? It's one thing when JS's critics are accused of misquoting him. But, when even the LDS leadership is accused of it, it begs the question, whose authority and transcribing abilities in the Mormon church can be trusted.

QUOTE:
God is He who deifies, gods are those who are deified. This is the distinction that Athanasius draws. This is the distinction that many LDS scholars draw. This is the distinction that I draw.

When did Athanasius gain authority from the LDS church to be able to speak on the churches behalf? Do the LDS scholars you speak of hold the authority of the calling of a GA or higher? Are you a GA? Who in authority in the LDS church makes this distinction? Does that distinction incorporate the JS teaching that men may become God's (capital G) with the same power, glory and exaltation until they arrive at the station of a God?

QUOTE:
We who are deified will always know that our divinity was/is contingent upon God?s lifting us up and uniting with us. God on the other had was/is divine whether we participate with Him or not.

But, was God always divine, TOm? Or, was he once as we are now ("As man is, God once was;", and progressed to become an advanced version of us, who can become just like Him ("as God is, man may become)? If you agree with the former, you disagree with LDS doctrine. If you agree with the latter (LDS doctrine), you are not even a theist. You worship exalted men who progressed through their own merits to be worthy of being called gods.

QUOTE:
If you agree that ?percentages? of the ?divine nature? (presumably true divinity) are given to redeemed mankind (I am not positive you have agreed with this yet), then we can discuss if this results in redeemed mankind being fully divine. After this on another thread we could discuss how this relates to what Joseph Smith said and/or how this relates to what LDS systematic theologies state.

In so many words, you said you could and would Biblically defend the deification of men as taught by the prophet and as the couplet suggests. This is the thread in which you chose to take that stand. Your Biblical presentation should have confirmed what JS taught, which I thought was your goal. We don't really need to start another thread to discuss how the doctrine that JS taught relates to what JS taught. Whatever LDS systematic theology relates to what JS taught, should be presented by those in authority. Feel free to quote those GAs at your earliest convenience. I'm assuming that all who are in authority to teach and speak to the beliefs and doctrines of the church, are church scholars.

QUOTE:
LDS doctrine is found within the standard works not within the statements of PAST GAs for sure and not to its fullest extent within DOCTRINAL discussions (that are scriptural extentions) of present GAs.

OK, let's hear from the standard works and present GAs then. Quote from them as they teach and explain JS's teachings on the deification of men and on the couplet. There seems to be a narrowing of the potential authoritative sources on this topic if past GAs teachings don't count and not to its fullest extent from present GAs, but do the best you can.

QUOTE:
I think it is indeed unfortunate that you are more interested in expressing why JS is wrong then you are in expressing what the Bible teaches. While you probably discuss (your impression of) Biblical theology here and other places, that your first mission is to tear down Mormonism seems obvious to me and unfortunate by my assessment.

I spent a great deal of time and space on this thread expressing what the Bible teaches, with the conclusion that JS was wrong. My first mission is to search out and arrive at Biblical truth, by exegetical means. Anything that gets torn down in the process, deserves to be. Truth is of the utmost importance to God. It should also be to us, even if it tears down a precious, yet unbiblical belief. I'm not trying to be right as much as I'm letting God be true, and every man a liar (Rom. 3:4).

David,

QUOTE:
DW: Once again I am going to have to disagree. My reading of the Scriptures strongly indicates that we ?grow in grace?, are ?being renewed?, increase in holiness/sanctification, and are on the on the path to fulfilling Christ?s command that we be ?perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect?.

When I said, "While it is true that our salvation, justification, glorification, etc., won't be fully realized until we're in heaven, all NT scripture on the subject consistently indicates, by use of past and present tenses, that believers are presently in full possession of them," 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.



When I said, "Believers are truly, fully and securely saved, justified, and glorified. The only thing separating believers from fully realizing what they already fully possess, is the resurrection," I was not suggesting that Christians can spiritually sit around and do nothing while waiting for the resurrection. All I'm saying is that followers of the Biblical Christ are already in the will and testament of Jesus Christ. Through faith alone, we are in full possession of the promise of salvation, redemption, justification, and glorification (and, yes, of course, holiness and sanctification). At the resurrection, we will fully realize the inheritance we already possess through God's promise. To demonstrate my understanding of both the present full possession of the promise and the ensuing process involved, I offer the following scriptures:



By faith alone I have been saved, I am saved, I am being saved and I will be saved:

QUOTE:
Rom. 8:24 For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees?



Rom. 10:10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.



1 Cor. 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.



Rom. 5:9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.

By faith alone I have been justified, I am justified, I will be justified:

QUOTE:
Rom. 5:9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.



Rom. 3:24, 28 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.



Gal. 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.



Rom. 3:30 since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith.

I have received glory, I am glorified, I will receive glory:

QUOTE:
John 17:22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one:



Rom. 8:30 And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.



Rom 8:18 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us.

QUOTE:
From my readings of Christian theology, I have not seen one Christian theologian who believes that sanctification is a completed event when one becomes a Christian; but rather, they teach that sanctification is an on going process that will not see its consummation until our glorification in heaven.

Then, regardless of what the theologians have said, you need to read the following scriptures. Sanctification is a "setting apart." God (Christ) is the one who sets us apart and we can't get get any more set apart than we are. Look at the past or present tense usages in these scriptures:

QUOTE:
John 17:17, 19: Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth. For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified.



Acts 20:32 Now I commit you to God and to the word of his grace, which can build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified.



Acts 26:18 to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.'



Rom. 15:16 to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles with the priestly duty of proclaiming the gospel of God, so that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.



1 Cor. 1:2 To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ?their Lord and ours:



1 Cor. 6:11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.



1 Thess. 4:3 It is God's will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality;



1 Thess. 5:23 May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through. May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.



2 Thess. 2:13 But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth.



1 Peter 1:2 who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance.

QUOTE:
I believe that glorification and deification are integral aspects of our continuing sanctification in Christ;

So, are you saying that believers are continually being set apart, in contrast to what the above scriptures say? And, while the scriptures agree that we are glorified, what is your Biblical basis for deification being an integral aspect of our sanctification.



Thank you for continuing to wrestle through these issues with me, David.



Blessings.

Hello again Bob,



Sorry about the delay in getting back to you. Had my grandson visiting the last few days, and he is a handful! Anyway, getting back to my ?normal? life, which includes message boards?



You posted:



>>When I said, "While it is true that our salvation, justification, glorification, etc., won't be fully realized until we're in heaven, all NT scripture on the subject consistently indicates, by use of past and present tenses, that believers are presently in full possession of them," 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.



When I said, "Believers are truly, fully and securely saved, justified, and glorified. The only thing separating believers from fully realizing what they already fully possess, is the resurrection," I was not suggesting that Christians can spiritually sit around and do nothing while waiting for the resurrection. All I'm saying is that followers of the Biblical Christ are already in the will and testament of Jesus Christ. Through faith alone, we are in full possession of the promise of salvation, redemption, justification, and glorification (and, yes, of course, holiness and sanctification). At the resurrection, we will fully realize the inheritance we already possess through God's promise.>>



Me: 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.



BB:>> Then, regardless of what the theologians have said, you need to read the following scriptures. Sanctification is a "setting apart." God (Christ) is the one who sets us apart and we can't get get any more set apart than we are. Look at the past or present tense usages in these scriptures?



So, are you saying that believers are continually being set apart, in contrast to what the above scriptures say? And, while the scriptures agree that we are glorified, what is your Biblical basis for deification being an integral aspect of our sanctification.>>



Me: 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.



Grace and peace,



David