Augustine On Deification

[PacMan]

The Mormon teachings of pre-existence and many Gods creating are not supported by the Bible nor the ECF.

Darn that Jeremiah! Darn that Paul! And should we darn Jesus too? I think not.

To better understand those footnotes you might want look at other Catholics teachings...

I think you've missed the point. We've looked, we've seen, and we've ignored because they're false. The Catholic church doesn't follow the bible. There dogma doesn't make sense in light of the scriptures, and depends on the fallacious flounderings of creative definition; i.e. that image = glory. Hmmm....why does that not make ANY sense?

Circular, circular, circular. That's all you've ever had Jonny, and that's all you ever will.

Best,

PacMan

[johnny]

Doctor Steuss,

May I put this in my signature line?

You might also want to add the following verse:

1Tim.2

[5] For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

[johnny]

PacMan,

Darn that Jeremiah! Darn that Paul! And should we darn Jesus too? I think not.

Jeremiah revealed that God had foreknowledge. Jesus revealed the blind man did not sin before he was born. Paul reveals "there is one God and that "called gods".

I think you've missed the point. We've looked, we've seen, and we've ignored because they're false. The Catholic church doesn't follow the bible. There dogma doesn't make sense in light of the scriptures, and depends on the fallacious flounderings of creative definition; i.e. that image = glory. Hmmm....why does that not make ANY sense?

Please back up your words with some facts ... where are they false. The Catholic Church teachings are consistent with the Bible.

[3DOP]

Tom

Hello 3DOP,

Hope all is well. I have been too busy, but I thought I should say some things.

3DOP

All is well, my friend, thanks. Alas, things are going so well I have to go back to work next week. I told the Beach Bum that now that I have tasted his world, I think I could live this way for a long time. Heh.

Tom

I have less that must be said about this part of your response, but I will go ahead and offer the less.

By my view dogmatism concerning this as a LDS or a Catholic is not necessary. As I have highlighted to Johnny, while I definitely embrace robust deification, I have views on God the Father that are not identical to most LDS. Where I Catholic, I would believe what I recommended to Johnny. Christ is homoousian to God the Father in His divinity and homoousian to men in His humanity so if this is coherent, then it can be coherent for us to become this too. I would call this a mystery, but I would also not believe that dogmatic agreement with me was necessary.

It is not a dogmatic need that drives me to argue the merits of robust deification. Instead, it is the fact that IMO Johnnyâ??s position (which it seems you somewhat embrace) is a poor read of the Bible (and the earliest of ECF). While Johnny may argue that the Bible does not teach eternal marriage (and mostly win) and LDS may argue that the Bible does not teach the perpetual virginity of Mary (and mostly win), I think the case for robust deification is a (mostly win) from the Bible that is seldom recognized as such. And since I think robust deification is no more difficult to embrace than a number of other mysteries (in fact easier), I think it is the best Biblical position for the Catholic and LDS alike.

3DOP

I want to compliment you on a very fine new expression (to me), "robust deification". Is that yours? But I need to ask, a thing can be robust without perfection, right? Robustness admits of degrees, such as the robust appetite of the old gentleman recovering from bypass surgery. But that does not mean his robust appetite at age 80 after surgery, is even close to his robust appetite when he was a healthy teenager. I think my deification is probably pretty near perfect, robust. But yours is limitless. Yours is perfect deification, or complete deification. It is such a good word Tom. I feel bad in attempting to hi-jack and if you are uninclined to yield, I understand. Your call.

I am open to persuasion. I don't believe differing degrees of glory is an insurmountable problem. You and Dave work on this a lot more than me. I know I brought that up one time, and he didn't know what to do with it. The next time he had a pretty good answer. The trouble is, I forget what it was. Heh. But also, I am not positively persuaded as you are that the earliest ECF's are a more important guide than the post-Nicene. However, I am aware that if one limits the deification of the adopted sons of God, it can be a slippery slope to limiting the deification of the natural Son of God. Dave is convinced that the arguments in favor of the full divinity of Christ, are so interrelated scripturally, with those for the deification of the adopted sons, that they must be robust together or incomplete together. I am not so convinced. Not yet.

Tom

Ok, I take exception to this line of thought.

I do not like hearing that LDS deification is â??no great thingâ? because of who God is in LDS thought. I understand the reasoning behind it, but I still do not like hearing it. I do not wish to dissuade you from saying it, but I will respond in the way that I am about to and I hope to not be too bombastic.

3DOP

I winced when I re-read it. It was undiplomatic. I apologize. The distance is fathomable because of who God is in LDS thought. If God is the same species already as us, if we are born "after His kind" there is already consubstantiality. If this is the case, I suppose His divinity could be considered as something added to his humanity. Do you see why I wonder about that? If that is granted, it would be potentially a greater thing to become deified. But I doubt that many Mormons would grant this. I used the undiplomatic expression because it is natural for children to grow up and be like their parents. No one is shocked when children become copies of their parents. If divinity is essential to God the Father's humanity in LDS thought, it seems to explain by means of ordinary biological process how one is deified. That was the thrust of my thinking.

On the other hand, it would seem strange if an adopted child bore strong particular resemblance to its adopted parents. Even more, since in Catholic thought, being made in his image does not mean a pre-existing consubstantiality, as it seems to mean for most LDS, the distance, the gap between man and God is, I think it can be accurately said, infinitely greater. This does not mean that Catholic deification is somehow better than LDS. In my post, I tried to balance the point made with my undiplomatic expression by pointing out that for Mormons, God is nearer. Immanence is a value for which LDS have more. I do not discount the story told by Mormons about the desert monk who had an anthropomorphic understanding of the Father, lamenting, because the Councils had defined Him away. I acknowledge the comfort that would naturally bring. When I used my undiplomatic expression, I meant that to a much greater degree than for us Catholics, the processes by which one arrives at final sanctity is more natural. That does not prove ours to be better.

Why would harder mean better? Only if we were engaged in a my God can beat up yours, as you allude to below, which would not prove which one is real.

Tom

God is only limited in ways that make Him capable of actually loving.

3DOP

Is that how Plantinga limits God, in your opinion?

I doubt that I would agree with you on a definition of love. In past discussions, I have thought I noted in you a reluctance to permit God's love to be primary and human love a reflection of that. I think you want to impose an imperfect love of man upon God. Doing this, you require a being with passions. It wasn't St. Thomas Aquinas, but St. James the Apostle who abandoned the anthropomorphism found elsewhere in Scripture to say of the Father of lights, "with whom there is no change, nor shadow of alteration."

Tom

The God who created ex nihilo, who exists â??a se,â? who is impassible, who is absolutely unchangeable, who â?¦ is most charitably called a big computer in the way He interacts with those who He chooses as His adopted children.

3DOP

Most charitably? You're sure the coiner of "robust deification" couldn't have made his pill easier to swallow than "big computer"?

Also, I just want to make sure we are speaking of the same thing. Now "esse" is usually translatable as "act-of-being", while "ens" is translated "being".

"...it is in general preferable not to translate the esse of St. Thomas by "being", but to render ens by "being" and esse by "act-of-being."

---The Christian Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, Etienne Gilson, University of Notre Dame Press (1994), p. 29

I don't know much Latin, but I recalled coming across a few things. I remembered what esse meant. I am not familiar with "a se", does it mean something besides "being" or "act-of-being"?

Tom

Those who through a combination of their choices and His will are not â??savedâ? would find Him to be a torture device.

3DOP

The unsaved definitely might say something like that. They will hate Him forever. But that is not how they find Him. If they found God to be like that, it would mitigate their suffering many times over. Their estrangement is only painful to them because they find God to be good and just, as I do.

As for whether my God can show Himself to be good and just, wow Tom, do you really want to be on record saying those things about who I think God is? Wouldn't you hate to have to account for calling Him a big computer, or torture device just because we can't successfully convince you that you have not exhausted all the options with regards to free will? I admit the problem, but I expect the problem. God reveals the whatness more often than the whyness or howness. In my opinion, in both of our canons, He has revealed the whatness about His omnipotence and the whatness of our free will. You don't seem to be objecting that dualism is in either of our canons. It does not seem prudent to me to imagine that I can imagine all of the ways that an omnipotent God can accomplish such a thing. It appears to me that your theology is the handmaid.

Tom

He does not experience our love or rejection of Him in any way so He cannot love us as a husband and wife or a father and son love each other (despite the prevalence of these images in scripture and tradition). He does not even love us as a master loves his dog. Perhaps as a feeding machine that automatically responds to a raised paw loves its dog.

3DOP

It hath not entered into the heart of man, what our God has prepared. He loves us as God loves man, no love being greater or more consoling to the desires of His beloved.

Tom

You may be correct when you say that the God who can create ex nihilo and has no use for man kind can â??beat upâ? my God, but I say such is a hollow victory. And since both of us conceive of God as the greatest of all beings, it is impossible for such a showdown to ever occur.

3DOP

Has no use for man? Obviously that is your inference, as is the idea that I ever imagined, let alone postulated that there is any comfort to be had in my God being stronger than yours. I have always known that comfort lies in the reality. I had thought that this underlay all my comments about the LDS God which helped remind me not to make a mock of Him. I have never for one moment thought that a Mormon would be apt to concede in the truth of my God, simply because mine is the "bigger" conception.

Tom

And we should never worship power anyway.

3DOP

Perhaps not. Maybe a little fear might be in order though.

Tom

I have indeed imbibed of the â??handmaiden of theologyâ? in order to say the horrible things I say above. Perhaps the solution to these things is shrouded in mystery.

Perhaps I should just pray to know the truth and ignore all applications of reason. This would certainly be a consistent way of addressing these questions.

3DOP

It seems you deliberately said "horrible" things. You were being candid. You will understand my trepidations for you above. I guess you reason that it will be as dangerous to say as to think. Thanks for sharing...I guess. Heh. Don't expect me to reciprocate though. And I promise you, no offense taken. Of course, I can't speak for the Father of lights, except that I know He loves you, not as you love your wife, or a pet, but infinitely better, beyond my comprehension too. Eye hath not seen and all that, etc.

I don't suggest praying and ignoring "all applications of reason." I want you to see that it is unreasonable to suppose that you can comprehend the whyness and the howness if you already depend on revelation, not reason alone for the whatness. Unless you are convinced that revelation points toward an eternal principle of Evil, I don't see how it is reasonable to suppose it, just because you can't figure out the workings of something you would not know by reason alone either.

Tom

Perhaps I should bifurcate my â??by faith and by reasonâ? such that reason is only applied to the historical difficulties / positives for Catholicism and Mormonism and not to the truths we can may perceive we can discern concerning God. Such seems to be a position espoused by a number of EOs, but they condemn Catholicism in there advocacy of this (and I think to be honest they die by the same sword just less obviously).

3DOP

Nope. You need to be reasonable about the limits of reason. It makes sense that we cannot comprehend some things.

Tom

I know that there are infinites within God that I as finite cannot grasp properly. I still think I should not be asked to embrace things that are mutually contradictive. Knowing that I do not know everything is not the same as saying God loves and yet God is absolutely impassible and unaffected such that love is emptied of all its meaning.

3DOP

I believe human love is empty in comparison. I can't comprehend it. I believe it. I don't think it is adequate to say God loves and cares for me. Limitations of human language you know. It seems doubtful to me that God revealed the eternal principle of Evil after 1830. He sure didn't do so before. If my crime is that I believe He is too great, that He can reconcile things I don't understand, I think I'll be okay. I never heard of the Dad being very mad at his boy for exaggerating his Dad's exploits and abilities to his playmates. On the other hand, what if I am right? God is so great that He CAN reconcile these paradoxes which we see at this time. Does not nature itself teach us that reason usually discovers the what before the why and how of a thing? Which came first, the knowledge of what electricity could do, or how and why it can do it? How is this Dad going to feel about being compared to a big computer? Yes, I use that word "feel" because anthropomorphisms teach us so much. There must be a correspondence, but a something surpassing "feeling/passion" in God.

I know that is not the best argument. I am not terribly impressed with Paschal's Wager either. I am just saying to please be sure of your footing Tom. Don't you see that if it is 50-50, I am in much the better situation? Not that either Father hates either of us. Both have tender love...but it seems like mine is more susceptible to being something that surpasses having His heart broken. I trust you wouldn't want to be an instrument of that.

Tom

If it can proven that Mormonism is of the devil, I will have no choice but to embrace truths about God that if logic was followed would make Him very similar to the God of Calvinism as characterized by Calvinismâ??s detractors (be they LDS, Catholic, or Protestant).

3DOP

This God would be far more than that which Calvin's detractors paint. I do not know about the origins of Mormonism. But I think God would have somehow slipped us a more sure word about the importance of dualism if He wanted us to go the direction you are suggesting.

Tom

I know the God you experience 3DOP is not the God I see as the logical conclusion from Creation ex Nihilo as developed by Aquinas. I have yet to be able to see the flaws in Aquinasâ??s logic. I know God can reach through such philosophical definitions to touch our soul. I will continue to believe this is what happened to Aquinas and that the God of Aquinas is not a good representation of God our Father.

The built up philosophical conclusions that feel are inevitable from the dogmatic Catholic positions may be the stumbling block that caused God to create Mormonism for me so that I could love Him without being hung upon His impassibility rather than join His one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Or the disdain you have for dualism in that there could not be co-eternals with God may be the reason that Catholicism is still around and God does not direct everyone to the Divine Restored Gospel of the Church of Jesus Christ. Hopefully God loves us enough (and I am sincere enough) that we will be mutually in His embrace after we die.

3DOP

God is good. He'll try to use anything at hand...

Very Truly Yours,

Rory

[PacMan]

Jeremiah revealed that God had foreknowledge.

Not quite...I don't care which "know" you want to use, but you cannot know someone before they exist. This is another evidence of Catholic twisting and turning which is not substantiated via the Bible.

Jesus revealed the blind man did not sin before he was born.

Huh? And why in the world did Jesus use the LDS interpretation of Psalms to shut-up the Jews? Because they WEREN'T gods? That makes sense...or not.

Paul reveals "there is one God and that "called gods".

That makes no sense.

Please back up your words with some facts ... where are they false.

Back up my words to show where they are false? On the contrary, I speak the truth. I'm glad we agree.

The Catholic Church teachings are consistent with the Bible.

Yeah...and I'm the Pope.

<<Just saying don't make it true!>>

PacMan

[Cold Steel]

This is something I think even many LDS don't fully comprehend. It's not that we'll be equal to God, or simply like God; it's that we will become God, which I think Augustine is alluding to. God, by His very Nature, is One. Since it's true that there are multiple gods who exist throughout the cosmos, they are, in reality, all part of the One God, just as is Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

[Zakuska]

Jesus uses the verse in Psalm 82 to show that those to whom the word of God is addressed can fittingly be called "gods." God the Father did not consult with "these Gods" as He created because he was alone and by himself (Isa 44:24). The Fall of Adam DOES NOT discuss "the incarnation of these folks", if it does then please explain this.

Isaiah 44

24 Thus saith the Lord, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the Lord that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

If God was alone and by himself...

Proverbs 8

22 The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.

23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.

24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water.

25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth:

26 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world.

27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:

28 When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep:

29 When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth:

30 Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing alays before him;

31 Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men.

Job 38

7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Who was doing all the shouting?

[johnny]

PacMan,

Not quite...I don't care which "know" you want to use, but you cannot know someone before they exist. This is another evidence of Catholic twisting and turning which is not substantiated via the Bible.

It is called foreknowledge ...

Huh? And why in the world did Jesus use the LDS interpretation of Psalms to shut-up the Jews? Because they WEREN'T gods? That makes sense...or not.

Those whom the word of God come to are called gods ...

That makes no sense.

It made sense to Paul, see 1Cor 8 ...

Zakuska,

If God was alone and by himself...

The Bible says one God created ... see earlier post

Who was doing all the shouting?

The angels who were created when Jehovah commanded ... see earlier post

[DispensatorMysteriorum]

Isaiah 44

24 Thus saith the Lord, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the Lord that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

If God was alone and by himself...

Proverbs 8

22 The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.

23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.

24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water.

25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth:

26 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world.

27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:

28 When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep:

29 When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth:

30 Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing alays before him;

31 Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men.

Job 38

7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Who was doing all the shouting?

And who did he keep talking to in Genesis 1-3 ---us," "our," "we," etc?

[Zakuska]

Johhny,

The Bible says one God created

Where? certianly not here...

Gen 1

26

[johnny]

DispensatorMyste...,

And who did he keep talking to in Genesis 1-3 ---us," "our," "we," etc?

The "us" in Genesis 1:26 is the Word that was with God (John 1:1).

Zakuska,

Where? certianly not here...

Malachi 2:10 reveals that "one God" created us ... the OT and the NT reveal one God created (Isa 45:18; Neh 9:6-13; Acts 4:24-26; Acts 14:15; Acts 17:24-29; Col 1:2-18).

[Zakuska]

Darn that Jeremiah! Darn that Paul! And should we darn Jesus too? I think not.

I think you've missed the point. We've looked, we've seen, and we've ignored because they're false. The Catholic church doesn't follow the bible. There dogma doesn't make sense in light of the scriptures, and depends on the fallacious flounderings of creative definition; i.e. that image = glory. Hmmm....why does that not make ANY sense?

Circular, circular, circular. That's all you've ever had Jonny, and that's all you ever will.

Best,

PacMan

Kind of makes you go Hmmm... eh?

It makes reason stare!

[Zakuska]

DispensatorMyste...,

The "us" in Genesis 1:26 is the Word that was with God (John 1:1).

Zakuska,

Malachi 2:10 reveals that "one God" created us ... the OT and the NT reveal one God created (Isa 45:18; Neh 9:6-13; Acts 4:24-26; Acts 14:15; Acts 17:24-29; Col 1:2-18).

Yes one "Father" of the human race... Luke 3:38... but where ever was there a father without a mother?

[johnny]

Zakuska,

Yes one "Father" of the human race... Luke 3:38... but where ever was there a father without a mother?

The Bible reveals our heavenly Father does not need a heavenly mother to create sons of God ...

- angles were created when Jehovah commanded (Psalm 148:2,5)

- the Lord forms the spirit of man within him (Zech 12:1)

- God makes the soul (Isa 57:16)

[TOmNossor]

Men will be rich, they are joint-heirs with Christ (Rom 8:17). They will inherit the kingdom, they will not inherit the Father's attributes because they are adopted children. Jesus is the only natural Son of God who inherits the attributes of his Father.

The Bible calls those who have not received â??the adoptionâ? sons of God. To receive â??the adoptionâ? is more than being a son of God. In fact, to adopt a son in the time of the apostles was generally to elevate said son to the first position supplanting your natural sons. If you were correct that the gospel authors were trying to suggest that Christ was merely natural son and we the adopted sons, in their culture they would quite possible saying that adopted men become GREATER than Christ.

I do not think this was their point myself. Instead, I think that Christ is greater due to His eternal communion with God. God the Father and God the Son CHOOSE to be related perfectly. We the natural sons of God chose/choose to rebel and be separated. Christ has shown us how to return to communion. The metaphor of adoption is used to show the voluntary nature of this greater union not the inferiority of this greater union.

Here are the words of a Protestant (not LDS) fellow: â??We thus learn that Roman adoption did not confer an inferior form of sonship. Rather, an adopted son had all the rights and privileges of a natural-born son. It is this legal-cultural view of adoption, along with the Old Testament ideas of fatherhood and sonship, that seem to be in Paulâ??s view when he picks up adoption as a metaphor to illuminate salvation.â?

I would suggest that an understanding of the concept of adoption St. Paul was familiar with closes yet another avenue through which you hoped to push your Bible denying cart.

Read verse 3 of 2Pet 1, it revels the limitation of this partaking of divine nature, it says.

2Pet.1

[3] 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:

[4] 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.

Wow, I always think I see hints of what you say above in your words, but this is fairly explicit.

Surely you do not bold â??godlinessâ? to show the limitation of our deification.

â??All things that pertain unto â?¦ godlinessâ? seems unlikely to be the limitation .

The fact that â??lifeâ? is included merely adds a further statement to godliness so that canâ??t be it.

Instead, whether you intended to or not you have communicated what I always thought you actually felt. It is the limitations in â??his divine powerâ? that you site when you say God CANNOT deify us. You seem to believe that God created us so far below Him that not even He can make us fully divine. I on occasion ask deification detractors if they believe God does not want to share His divinity with us or that He cannot share His divinity with us. I seldom get an answer, but the best read above is that you believe God cannot do it. He lacks the power necessary to elevate us from our human nature to the divine nature. I disagree. I think God can and if we let Him will.

I may get to more later.

Charity, TOm

[PacMan]

Zakuska,

The Bible reveals our heavenly Father does not need a heavenly mother to create sons of God ...

- angles were created when Jehovah commanded (Psalm 148:2,5)

- the Lord forms the spirit of man within him (Zech 12:1)

- God makes the soul (Isa 57:16)

Jonny,

It's one thing to proof-text and lie about others, but don't do it to God. The Bible reveals NOTHING suggesting he "does not need a heavenly mother to create sons of God." In fact, the evidences that you present simply suggest that God can create, but says nothing about how, nor about whom is, or may be incorporated in the process.

Your argumentum ad ignoratium is simple proof of your own inability to grasp what the Bible says (and to argue objectively). You mix up evidence with proof, and have unsuccessfully affirmed the consequent to further obfuscate the truth. If you do not have the objectivity to realize your zealous reasoning is foundationaly flawed (via logical fallacy), I wonder what your purpose is here. Bring up your level of apologetics, or please leave. This is not a new request, and why I have no patience for your posts.

PacMan

[Doctor Steuss]

Doctor Steuss,

You might also want to add the following verse:

1Tim.2

[5] For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Ok. I will also add Matthew 5: 48 and John 14:9 if that is alright.

[Doctor Steuss]

[...] In fact, to adopt a son in the time of the apostles was generally to elevate said son to the first position supplanting your natural sons. [...]

Just a bit on the concept of (Roman) adoption, since it's something somewhat fresh on my mind as I researched it a little a couple months back. It wasn't necessarily about the welfare of children, but more-so about property entitlement (1). As one entered into the potestas, their inheritance and identification was no longer associated with their "blood" family. In fact, all agnatic ties with that family are completely dissolved. The adoptee then has the exact same inheritance rights as a natural child of his new adoptive pater(2). A "perfect" adoption put the adopted individual under the complete control of the adopter. They took on their name, and if the adopter were to die without making a will, the adopted child would be the "necessary" heir (in lieu of natural children)(3). An interesting aspect of adoption within Roman law is that there was essentially no age limit. Also, although the adopted person became a "virtual slave" (by coming under the paternal authority of his adoptive father), rights were also conferred. It came with not only privileges, but it also "came with a list of duties as well."(4)

Ferguson talks briefly about adoption in Backgrounds of Early Christianity. I unfortunately don't have my notes from his book with me. From memory, he points out that any debts an individual had were either nullified when adopted, or taken on by the adoptive father and reiterates (what has already been stated) that an adoptive child had the same rights and was considered (for all intents and purposes) to be no different than a literal "blood" child, and in some cases had â??moreâ? than a natural child.

-----

Endnotes

(1) Jane F. Gardner, Family and Familia in Roman Law and Life, Clarendon Press (Oxford) 1998, pg 116.

(2) Bryn Mawr, Classical Review , 1999.02.10

(3) R.L. Burtsell, â??Canonical Adoption,â? The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume I 1907. New York: as accessed through http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01147b.htm on 3/03/2008.

(4) AP. H. Davids, Elwell Evangelical Dictionary, â??Adoption (Religious); Advanced Informationâ?, (2007) in BELIEVE Religious Information Source website, as accessed through http://mb-soft.com/believe/indexaz.html on 3/12/2008.

[johnny]

TOmNossor,

The metaphor of adoption is used to show the voluntary nature of this greater union not the inferiority of this greater union.

The concept of adoption is more than a metaphor because we receive the Spirit of adoption. Men were not born of a heavenly mother, men were created or willed by God. Men become children of God because they are born of the spirit. Men become children of God because they partake of the divine nature.

Wow, I always think I see hints of what you say above in your words, but this is fairly explicit.

Surely you do not bold â??godlinessâ? to show the limitation of our deification.

â??All things that pertain unto â?¦ godlinessâ? seems unlikely to be the limitation .

The fact that â??lifeâ? is included merely adds a further statement to godliness so that canâ??t be it.

The limitation comes from the fact that godliness is â??according to his divine powerâ? (2Pet 1:3).

Instead, whether you intended to or not you have communicated what I always thought you actually felt. It is the limitations in â??his divine powerâ? that you site when you say God CANNOT deify us. You seem to believe that God created us so far below Him that not even He can make us fully divine. I on occasion ask deification detractors if they believe God does not want to share His divinity with us or that He cannot share His divinity with us. I seldom get an answer, but the best read above is that you believe God cannot do it. He lacks the power necessary to elevate us from our human nature to the divine nature. I disagree. I think God can and if we let Him will.

God does not lack the power, he is Almighty. Men are not Almighty because their power is according his grace.

[Doctor Steuss]

[...]

God does not lack the power, he is Almighty. Men are not Almighty because their power is according his grace.

Is His Grace not sufficient to give men power enough to be â??Almightyâ??

[ ] - Yes

[ ] - No

[johnny]

Doctor Steuss,

Is His Grace not sufficient to give men power enough to be â??Almightyâ??

[ ] - Yes

[ ] - No

If there was more than one Almighty then their would be more than one God, from the apostle Paul we know that â??that there is none other God but one. For though there be that are called godsâ? (1Cor 8:4,5).

[Doctor Steuss]

Doctor Steuss,

If there was more than one Almighty then their would be more than one God, from the apostle Paul we know that â??that there is none other God but one. For though there be that are called godsâ? (1Cor 8:4,5).

I'm not finding the "yes" or "no" in your answer. From what I can gather from your response, His Grace is sufficient but He withholds it because of what Paul said (even though Christ hoped that we would be "one" with G-d and Christ just as G-d and Christ are "one").

Either that, or is His Grace not sufficient? This is where a "yes" or "no" can be helpful (with clarification of course). So again, is His Grace not sufficient to give men power enough to be â??Almightyâ??

[ ] - Yes

[ ] - No

[johnny]

Doctor Steuss,

I'm not finding the "yes" or "no" in your answer. From what I can gather from your response, His Grace is sufficient but He withholds it because of what Paul said (even though Christ hoped that we would be "one" with G-d and Christ just as G-d and Christ are "one").

I find your question requires more than a "yes" or "no", that is why I responded the way I did. Christ hoped that we would be one spirit, he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit (1Cor 6:15-17).

[Rommelator]

johnny,

You seem to be evading the question.

[Yes]

or

[No]

[Doctor Steuss]

Doctor Steuss,

I find your question requires more than a "yes" or "no", that is why I responded the way I did. Christ hoped that we would be one spirit, he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit (1Cor 6:15-17).

I'm sure it does (in the form of clarification), and I readily admit that I'm just being a punk and using rhetoric here (for some reason, I feel like being an *** today). I understand the classification of "Creator" and "Creature" given and the inability of man to ever be anything more than a "Creature." I simply reject that notion and I was hoping my (baiting) questions would help to illustrate why.

In the end though, I think it can be answered with a â??yesâ? or a â??noâ? with clarification as to why that particular response was given. If nothing else, I think it worth pondering as to whether or not G-dâ??s Grace is sufficient to grant men power enough to make them â??Almighty.â? Perhaps itâ??s a â??Can G-d make a rock so big that He canâ??t lift itâ? sort of thing, but I think it is at least worth pondering the implications of the question.