Augustine On Deification

[TOmNossor]

3DOP,

How can you have such words!!!

You have left me feeling bad for the way I responded to the comment that to be deified as a LDS is not so great (even when I said I would stomp about). I am glad I did not offend you, and I hope that such groping by one such as I does not offend God.

I have said in the past (partially because you were able to help me see that a dog does not condemn God because he is a dog and not a man) that I could love the Calvinistic God who shortly (through no choice of mine) will condemn me to eternal hell. I can love the God of Aquinas as well.

I agree that truth is what we should seek, not anything else. This includes feel-good fluff. I hope to not discover that it was feel-good fluff that I embraced because the truth was just too difficult for one such as me. If it is true that God loves in a completely different way than humans do, I hope this truth is bestowed upon me one day. If it is true that God created ex nihilo then I hope that this truth is bestowed upon me one day. Truth is more important than the solution found via the handmaiden.

I still believe that if all things were equal your aversion to dualism must surely be as problematic towards finding truth if it be dualistic as my aversion to impassibility if truth be impassibility.

I would like to suggest that dualism is not quite as problematic in my system as it might seem. I embrace a dualism in that there are co-eternals with God. I do not suggest that good and evil are co-equal or even necessarily co-eternal. I believe eternally there was the will to commune which existed perfectly within God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. There were latent wills with no ability to actuate choices or process data such that they could direct their wills one way or another. These latent wills (eternal intelligences) were enlivened by God and then invited to commune to the extent they could as lesser beings. Once enlivened these eternal intelligences began to grow. At some point in time 1/3 of these intelligences choose separation/rebellion and this free will act was the beginning of evil.

God has such love and respect for the 1/3 and the 2/3 and such a knowledge of what it takes to become like He is, that as a matter of principle and expediency/love He almost invariably chooses to not withdraw His concurring energy. But, He could. Instead, He works with the free will choices of those who receive His concurring energy to ensure that His purposes come to pass. This may involve direct communication to prophets or anyone. It is more likely to involve the removal of concurring energy from flesh and fire so the flesh does not burn in the fire than the removal of concurring energy from human wills, but such flesh in fire is rare. It may involve the use of Josephâ??s brothers, a baker, and a butler who all made free choices to save all of Egypt, but God is that capable. I have FAITH that God will win in the end, and theology as I conceive it provides for many avenues through which God can and will win.

Now, you may be correct that impassibility is not as problematic as I perceive it to be, but it is the acknowledgement of mystery that would allow me to embrace such a statement. I will also suggest that it is quite accepted that there are multiple types of love in the Greek language, but â??agape loveâ? is the divine love that we are called to have for God and one another. Among a group of folks who navigated through 3-4 words that we generally translate â??loveâ? there was not word for â??impassible loveâ? and seemingly no distinction between the divine Agape love God offers and the divine Agape love we are asked to offer.

â??Robust Deificationâ? is Ostlerâ??s term. He reserves one greater deification term for some of the writings of various divines (generally Catholics BTW). I forget what the term is, but it is becoming identical with the One God. Presumably there is no room for any type of Social Trinity or real distinctions in God. In such a model and the deified cease to be individualized and become the One God.

He called EO deification â??moderate deificationâ? and Protestant statement about receiving eternal life and becoming holy â??weak deification.â?

In my mind Plantinga claims that there is a possible world in which God and resurrected humans exist in heaven. And yet, God did not create this possible world because humanâ??s needed to make choices so that they could live in heaven. Thus the evil world is part of a greater good that includes heaven. The problem I see with this is that if heaven is a possible world, then one omnipotent should be able to create it directly. I suspect Plantinga would respond (probably has responded) that humans in heaven are identical to humans who choose good over evil, who accepted Christ as their savior rather than evil, â?¦ There could be no human in heaven without such choices and such choices even when some humans fall result in greater good than the absence of such choices. I do not see how this can be defended in light of two things. First, just saying that the acts of choosing makes humans heavenly just pushes back the problem, God could theoretical create humans who have already choose rightly and now occupy heaven. Second, God could create humans who always choose rightly. Such is not an inferior existence because it is the existence in which God exists. To me I see many limits to omnipotence in here.

As a disclaimer, I have read only a little Planginga myself and I did so a long long time ago. I remember seeing a Protestant minister (I think) quote Planginga and include an â??*â? to show that this minister rejected the part that seemed to suggest a limit on Godâ??s omnipotence. In my mind this unraveled all of Plantingaâ??s argument.

I hope I answered most of your post. I would like a taste of the Beach Bum life some too.

Anyway, may you have Beach Bum life without pains or other negative reasons for having Beach Bum life.

Charity, TOm

[johnny]

Doctor Steuss,

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?

What you are suggesting is simply not consistent with scripture, scripture reveals:

1Cor.15

[24] Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

[28] And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

[TOmNossor]

Doctor Steuss,

What you are suggesting is simply not consistent with scripture, scripture reveals:

1Cor.15

[24] Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

[28] And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

I have more to say on this, but I thought I would quickly offer this.

It seems that you will not say that God lacks the ability to fully deify men (concerning menâ??s receiving of power).

You are have not said that God chooses to not give men power consistent with full deification, but He could have done so had He chosen.

Instead you say that your particular read of scripture dictates that God does not give men power such that they are fully deified.

Is this fairly correct. Is the answer that you do not know if it is Godâ??s inability or Godâ??s intentional withholding, but whatever it is; you know it is in opposition to the Bible (and you might say tradition) so you know it does not happen?

Just so you can think about it, I am pretty certain this is true.

With the possible exception of the passage you sited which says that Christ has â??all authority and powerâ? now (presumably bestowed upon Him by the Father BTW) but that at the completion of His mission this â??all authority and powerâ? will reside with the Father and not with Christ, Christ is never called â??almighty.â?

Also if:

1. This is how you read scripture such that you can say that scripture never promises men they will be â??almighty.â?

And

2. You read scripture to say that the fullness of divinity is solely possessed by those who are â??almighty.â?

It would seem that the only clear read of 1 Cor 15: 24,28 is that Christ will cease to be fully divine when he subjects himself to the Father. Then only the Father will be almighty.

I would suggest the only consistent way to read the Bible if you key on â??almightyâ? is the way that the JWs read the Bible. Christ is â??mighty godâ? but not â??almighty God.â? This of course is IMO what it takes to deny that men are to become fully divine, but I cannot imagine you would find it acceptable.

Charity, TOm

[johnny]

TOmNossor,

I have more to say on this, but I thought I would quickly offer this.

It seems that you will not say that God lacks the ability to fully deify men (concerning menâ??s receiving of power).

You are have not said that God chooses to not give men power consistent with full deification, but He could have done so had He chosen.

Instead you say that your particular read of scripture dictates that God does not give men power such that they are fully deified.

Is this fairly correct. Is the answer that you do not know if it is Godâ??s inability or Godâ??s intentional withholding, but whatever it is; you know it is in opposition to the Bible (and you might say tradition) so you know it does not happen?

My answer is that it is contrary to scripture, scripture reveals:

- the measure of manâ??s godliness is according to Sonâ??s divine power (2Pet 1:2-4)

- in the end, the Sonâ??s put down all authority and power, the Son is subject to the Father (1Cor 15:24-28)

Just so you can think about it, I am pretty certain this is true.

With the possible exception of the passage you sited which says that Christ has â??all authority and powerâ? now (presumably bestowed upon Him by the Father BTW) but that at the completion of His mission this â??all authority and powerâ? will reside with the Father and not with Christ, Christ is never called â??almighty.â?

Also if:

1. This is how you read scripture such that you can say that scripture never promises men they will be â??almighty.â?

And

2. You read scripture to say that the fullness of divinity is solely possessed by those who are â??almighty.â?

It would seem that the only clear read of 1 Cor 15: 24,28 is that Christ will cease to be fully divine when he subjects himself to the Father. Then only the Father will be almighty.

Again you are confusing divine nature and divine power. Christ will still be divine nature but in the end the Son shall â??have put down all rule and all authority and powerâ? and â??the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under himâ? (1Cor 15:24-28)

I would suggest the only consistent way to read the Bible if you key on â??almightyâ? is the way that the JWs read the Bible. Christ is â??mighty godâ? but not â??almighty God.â? This of course is IMO what it takes to deny that men are to become fully divine, but I cannot imagine you would find it acceptable.

I would suggest it is better to key in on â??kingdomâ?, see the scripture and Catholic teachings below:

1Cor.15

[24] Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

[28] And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all

Catholic Teaching 1050

"When we have spread on earth the fruits of our nature and our enterprise . . . according to the command of the Lord and in his Spirit, we will find them once again, cleansed this time from the stain of sin, illuminated and transfigured, when Christ presents to his Father an eternal and universal kingdom." God will then be "all in all" in eternal life:

NAB footnote for 1Cor 15

12 [27b-28] The one who subjected everything to him: the Father is the ultimate agent in the drama, and the final end of the process, to whom the Son and everything else is ordered (24.28). That God may be all in all: his reign is a dynamic exercise of creative power, an outpouring of life and energy through the universe, with no further resistance. This is the supremely positive meaning of "subjection": that God may fully be God.

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor,

My answer is that it is contrary to scripture, scripture reveals:

- the measure of manâ??s godliness is according to Sonâ??s divine power (2Pet 1:2-4)

- in the end, the Sonâ??s put down all authority and power, the Son is subject to the Father (1Cor 15:24-28)

Again you are confusing divine nature and divine power. Christ will still be divine nature but in the end the Son shall â??have put down all rule and all authority and powerâ? and â??the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under himâ? (1Cor 15:24-28)

I would suggest it is better to key in on â??kingdomâ?, see the scripture and Catholic teachings below:

1Cor.15

[24] Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

[28] And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all

Catholic Teaching 1050

"When we have spread on earth the fruits of our nature and our enterprise . . . according to the command of the Lord and in his Spirit, we will find them once again, cleansed this time from the stain of sin, illuminated and transfigured, when Christ presents to his Father an eternal and universal kingdom." God will then be "all in all" in eternal life:

NAB footnote for 1Cor 15

12 [27b-28] The one who subjected everything to him: the Father is the ultimate agent in the drama, and the final end of the process, to whom the Son and everything else is ordered (24.28). That God may be all in all: his reign is a dynamic exercise of creative power, an outpouring of life and energy through the universe, with no further resistance. This is the supremely positive meaning of "subjection": that God may fully be God.

Ok. So you believe that Christ is presently almighty because the Father has given Him all power and authority, but ultimately Christ will not be almighty.

The God-man, the second person of the Trinity, from some future moment in time and for all of eternity after this moment will not be almighty. Yet, He will still have the divine nature.

I assume He will be fully divine?

I find this very interesting. There is subordination within the Godhead as far as I am concerned, but I would have thought that you would find this difficult to acknowledge. I key off of Christ when I say we are to be deified. So to the extent that Christ is not â??unbegotten and non-proceedingâ? I think humans will have similar limitations (even some more since it was Christ who lifted us to be what He is).

However, as long as we both agree that Christ is fully divine now and forever and yet Christ is not almighty forever, then I would suggest you are moving the goal posts as you have responded to Doc S. (and me). It would seem it was merely a red-herring when you said that men will not be â??almighty.â? Since Christ will be fully divine and he will not be â??almighty,â? clearly you cannot respond to show men cannot be fully divine because they cannot be almighty.

So we are now back to the question of whether God chooses to not make us fully divine or whether He lacks power to make us fully divine. Clearly â??almightinessâ? is only peripherally related.

Charity, TOm

[johnny]

TOmNossor,

Ok. So you believe that Christ is presently almighty because the Father has given Him all power and authority, but ultimately Christ will not be almighty.

The God-man, the second person of the Trinity, from some future moment in time and for all of eternity after this moment will not be almighty. Yet, He will still have the divine nature.

I assume He will be fully divine?

What to mean by â??fully divineâ?? â?¦ what attributes do you associate with your words. If you can please provide some scripture to help me understand where you are coming from.

I find this very interesting. There is subordination within the Godhead as far as I am concerned, but I would have thought that you would find this difficult to acknowledge. I key off of Christ when I say we are to be deified. So to the extent that Christ is not â??unbegotten and non-proceedingâ? I think humans will have similar limitations (even some more since it was Christ who lifted us to be what He is).

What do you mean by â??subordinationâ?? â?¦ the creeds speak of subordination.

However, as long as we both agree that Christ is fully divine now and forever and yet Christ is not almighty forever, then I would suggest you are moving the goal posts as you have responded to Doc S. (and me). It would seem it was merely a red-herring when you said that men will not be â??almighty.â? Since Christ will be fully divine and he will not be â??almighty,â? clearly you cannot respond to show men cannot be fully divine because they cannot be almighty.

By â??fully divineâ? do you mean divine nature? â?¦ righteous men will have the divine nature. Men will not be â??almightyâ? because the measure of their divine power depends on the Son. In the end, the Son puts down all authority and power (1Cor 15:28).

So we are now back to the question of whether God chooses to not make us fully divine or whether He lacks power to make us fully divine. Clearly â??almightinessâ? is only peripherally related.

I believe we are at the question as to what do you mean by "fully divine", it appears your usage is different than by usage ...

Righteous men will be divine nature. God is Almighty, he does not lake power to gives us divine nature nor power. Again divine nature is different than divine power. Almighty is associated with having all divine power and being divine nature.

[Doctor Steuss]

Doctor Steuss,

What you are suggesting is simply not consistent with scripture, scripture reveals:

1Cor.15

[24] Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

[28] And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

Perhaps. Then again, the Apocalypse of John 1:7-8 reads:

7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

When Christ is "subdued unto" the Father, will Christ no longer be "Almighty"? Will He stop being that which He is when He â??cometh with cloudsâ?? If He (Christ) will continue to be "Almighty" whilst being submissive to the Father, why cannot we do/be the same as joint heirs?

I think the question still remains and your claim that it is â??not consistent with scriptureâ? does not hold water. At least your claim is not supported by the scripture you provided.

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor,

What to mean by â??fully divineâ?? â?¦ what attributes do you associate with your words. If you can please provide some scripture to help me understand where you are coming from.

What do you mean by â??subordinationâ?? â?¦ the creeds speak of subordination.

By â??fully divineâ? do you mean divine nature? â?¦ righteous men will have the divine nature. Men will not be â??almightyâ? because the measure of their divine power depends on the Son. In the end, the Son puts down all authority and power (1Cor 15:28).

I believe we are at the question as to what do you mean by "fully divine", it appears your usage is different than by usage ...

Righteous men will be divine nature. God is Almighty, he does not lake power to gives us divine nature nor power. Again divine nature is different than divine power. Almighty is associated with having all divine power and being divine nature.

Those attributes that make it possible to say:

God the Father is fully divine.

God the Son is fully divine.

God the Holy Spirit is fully divine.

And not any attributes beyond those attributes are what I am using to define â??fully divine.â?

From your response to me and Doc S it originally seemed you included â??being almightyâ? as among those attributes. However, it is now obvious that you do not include â??being almightyâ? within that list.

I am certain you do not believe:

â??It is necessary to be unbegotten and non-proceeding to be fully divine.â?

I know you do not believe:

â??It is necessary to be almighty to be fully divine.â?

I am certain that you would also not say this:

â??It is ONLY necessary to have eternal life to be called fully divine.â?

The Bible teaches that we become what Christ is. I think the exchange formula demands it.

I find it quite likely that I think what you mean by â??fully divineâ? is unbiblical, but proving this with scripture after scripture strikes me as tedious. For my definition I personally would focus on Godâ??s love and oneness, but I think my definition of â??onenessâ? would be more Biblical than the one presumed by the Council of Nicea. This is not my point though.

In response to the question of why will God not make us gods, you responded that we will never be almighty. This was a red herring because you believe Christ is and will forever be God and yet you do not believe he will be almighty. Now you are asking me to define terms rather than acknowledging your slight of hand.

Can you acknowledge that you intentionally or otherwise moved away from answering direct questions with something of little relevance?

Charity, TOm

[3DOP]

Hi johnny,

I have the same opinion as you, however, I have not concluded that the "robust deification", as we have been pleased to agree to call it on this thread, is something that would qualify as heresy for a Catholic. I would suggest that the differences are something like the Molinist vs. the Thomist schools of Predestination. Here is what I said early on in the thread. It appeared to me from the quote alone, I did not track down the context, that there were different schools of thought within the Church, and they were tolerated at the time of St. Augustine. Do you know a little more about this than I do? In your opinion, has the Church since Augustine's day, wrestled with this question to the point of declaring robust deification heretical? If so, when and where. Thanks a lot. My quote follows:

Like Augustine, I doubt that the chasm between creature and Creator is perfectly breached in deification, else why would there be differing degrees of glory in heaven, as one star differing from another (I do not know that that was one of his difficulties)? And also like him, I encourage those who permit no limitation to deification to look well to their way, especially if they would be dogmatic about it. I have an opinion and no dogma. My only possible beef would be with anyone who would insist upon imagining to define the delights of something that according to revelation "eye hath not seen, ear hath not heard, nor has entered into the heart of man"...on either side. I think we may speculate, so the only thing I tend to insist upon is the legitimacy of differing schools of thought at this time and for the foreseeable future.

Regards,

3DOP

[johnny]

Doctor Steuss,

When Christ is "subdued unto" the Father, will Christ no longer be "Almighty"? Will He stop being that which He is when He â??cometh with cloudsâ?? If He (Christ) will continue to be "Almighty" whilst being submissive to the Father, why cannot we do/be the same as joint heirs?

Before the new heaven and new earth Christ is Almighty in the sense that he was given all power. After his second coming and after the new heaven and new earth he puts â??down all rule and all authority and power.â? (1Cor 15:24).

I think the question still remains and your claim that it is â??not consistent with scriptureâ? does not hold water. At least your claim is not supported by the scripture you provided.

My claim is supported by scripture â?¦ men can NOT have all power if the Son of God puts down all his power in the end.

TOmNossor,

Those attributes that make it possible to say:

God the Father is fully divine.

God the Son is fully divine.

God the Holy Spirit is fully divine.

And not any attributes beyond those attributes are what I am using to define â??fully divine.â?

It is still not clear to me what you mean by â??fully divineâ? â?¦ does â??fully divineâ? include being a Creator like the Father like the Mormon Church teaches?

From your response to me and Doc S it originally seemed you included â??being almightyâ? as among those attributes. However, it is now obvious that you do not include â??being almightyâ? within that list.

I am certain you do not believe:

â??It is necessary to be unbegotten and non-proceeding to be fully divine.â?

I know you do not believe:

â??It is necessary to be almighty to be fully divine.â?

I am certain that you would also not say this:

â??It is ONLY necessary to have eternal life to be called fully divine.â?

God, the Father, is almighty. In the end the Son of God is not Almighty, before the end the Son of God became almighty when God gave him all power after his resurrection.

Maybe the following Catholic Church teachings will help you better understand what I believe:

233 - there is only one God, the almighty Father, his only Son and the Holy Spirit

1988 - those in whom the Spirit dwells are divinized.

398 - Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully "divinized" by God in glory.

The Bible teaches that we become what Christ is. I think the exchange formula demands it.

The exchange formula is referring to â??divine natureâ?, it does not mention â??divine powerâ? (2Peter 1:3,4).

I find it quite likely that I think what you mean by â??fully divineâ? is unbiblical, but proving this with scripture after scripture strikes me as tedious. For my definition I personally would focus on Godâ??s love and oneness, but I think my definition of â??onenessâ? would be more Biblical than the one presumed by the Council of Nicea. This is not my point though.

It appears from you response every believer is â??fully divineâ? since your definition of â??fully divineâ? only focuses only â??on Godâ??s love and onenessâ?.

In response to the question of why will God not make us gods, you responded that we will never be almighty. This was a red herring because you believe Christ is and will forever be God and yet you do not believe he will be almighty. Now you are asking me to define terms rather than acknowledging your slight of hand.

I am asking for you to define terms so I can better understand what you are talking about. The creature called men will NEVER be almighty because men get their godliness from the Son of God and the Son of God will NOT be almighty forever. He will be God or the divine nature forever, remember for me divine nature is distinct from divine power.

Can you acknowledge that you intentionally or otherwise moved away from answering direct questions with something of little relevance?

Can you acknowledge that you intentionally or otherwise moved away from answering direct questions with something of little relevance?

For example, I have asked without any answer from you the question can men become a Creator like the Father like the Mormon Church teaches?

3DOP.

I have the same opinion as you, however, I have not concluded that the "robust deification", as we have been pleased to agree to call it on this thread, is something that would qualify as heresy for a Catholic. I would suggest that the differences are something like the Molinist vs. the Thomist schools of Predestination. Here is what I said early on in the thread. It appeared to me from the quote alone, I did not track down the context, that there were different schools of thought within the Church, and they were tolerated at the time of St. Augustine. Do you know a little more about this than I do? In your opinion, has the Church since Augustine's day, wrestled with this question to the point of declaring robust deification heretical? If so, when and where. Thanks a lot. My quote follows:

I do not know any more about this than what you have presented. I would consider it heretical in the sense that â??robust deificationâ? infers that the creature called man can become â??a Godâ? like our Creator. The Mormon Church teaches that men can become a Creator like our Heavenly Father. The creeds clearly teach that there is one God.

[Doctor Steuss]

Doctor Steuss,

Before the new heaven and new earth Christ is Almighty in the sense that he was given all power. After his second coming and after the new heaven and new earth he puts â??down all rule and all authority and power.â? (1Cor 15:24).

My claim is supported by scripture â?¦ men can NOT have all power if the Son of God puts down all his power in the end.

Just to try to flesh out the progression of our conversation, it was initiated with TOmNossor stating that your stance that G-d cannot deify us, to which you responded:

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

So, here we have established that G-d is Almighty, and men are not and by extension your statement carries the implication that G-d has the power to deify us.

I then asked:

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

[ ] - Yes

[ ] â?? No

You responded:

If there was more than one Almighty then their would be more than one God

So, here we have you establishing that there can only be one â??Almighty,â? and that being "Almighty" makes one a G-d (as you said that if there were more than one "Almighty" there would be more than one G-d) Yet later in our conversation, you point out your view that Christ will cease to be â??Almightyâ? (yet, He is currently â??Almightyâ?), which is summed up with your above statement.

But now we are essentially back to my initial question. It appears that power and authority are not necessary to be fully deified (I imagine you would agree that Christ will still be â??Godâ? once He gives all power and authority and rule to the Father). So, why cannot men receive this same form of being fully deified in the way Christ is going to be (without power, authority, rule, and submissive to the Father)? Unless of course you are going to stand by your statement that being "Almighty" makes one a God. Which of course would mean that Christ will stop being God when He relinquishes His power.

It seems to me my previous question canâ??t be answered as there doesnâ??t seem to be any definitive characteristic of being fully deified other than the characterization of Creator and creature (which, conceptually would potentially be able to be a distinction nullified by an Almighty G-d). Once that Jell-o gets nailed to the wall, perhaps you will understand why my previous question is worth dwelling upon.

[johnny]

Doctor Steuss,

But now we are essentially back to my initial question. It appears that power and authority are not necessary to be fully deified (I imagine you would agree that Christ will still be â??Godâ? once He gives all power and authority and rule to the Father). So, why cannot men receive this same form of being fully deified in the way Christ is going to be (without power, authority, rule, and submissive to the Father)? Unless of course you are going to stand by your statement that being "Almighty" makes one a God. Which of course would mean that Christ will stop being God when He relinquishes His power.

I believe we keep speaking past each other because our terminology and usage is different since we come from different backgrounds. Men can receive or partake of the divine nature. Christ is the divine nature or â??Godâ?. In scripture the word â??Godâ? has different usages, it can refer to divine nature or it can refer to the Father.

It seems to me my previous question canâ??t be answered as there doesnâ??t seem to be any definitive characteristic of being fully deified other than the characterization of Creator and creature (which, conceptually would potentially be able to be a distinction nullified by an Almighty G-d). Once that Jell-o gets nailed to the wall, perhaps you will understand why my previous question is worth dwelling upon.

One definite characteristic of our Creator, the Almighty Father, is that he is â??Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you allâ? (Eph 4:6). To Christians â??there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all thingsâ? (1Cor 8:6).

Do you believe that a man can become a Creator like the Father?

[Doctor Steuss]

Doctor Steuss,

I believe we keep speaking past each other because our terminology and usage is different since we come from different backgrounds. Men can receive or partake of the divine nature. Christ is the divine nature or â??Godâ?. In scripture the word â??Godâ? has different usages, it can refer to divine nature or it can refer to the Father.

I'm sure you're right (in regards to us talking past each other). Just one of the sticky issues of coming from different traditions and backgrounds.

One definite characteristic of our Creator, the Almighty Father, is that he is â??Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you allâ? (Eph 4:6). To Christians â??there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all thingsâ? (1Cor 8:6).

And here would be an example of where we are probably going to talk past each other. The statement that there "is but one G-d, the Father..." taken on the surface is all fine and dandy, but gets complicated when considering that Christ is also God (albeit, not G-d). So, to (mainstream) Christians, there is not but one G-d, the Father. Instead there is one, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Do you believe that a man can become a Creator like the Father?

As the Father gave Christ power and authority to create, I think that it is conceptually possible that G-d the Father would grant man the same if the adoption is a "perfect" adoption (which, given the milieu of the Gospel writers, I would think it would necessarily need to be or else their metaphor loses substantial weight).

In the end though, although these types of things are fun to argue, for all I know we are all going to be nothing more than footrests for the angels in the hereafter.

[johnny]

Doctor Steuss,

And here would be an example of where we are probably going to talk past each other. The statement that there "is but one G-d, the Father..." taken on the surface is all fine and dandy, but gets complicated when considering that Christ is also God (albeit, not G-d). So, to (mainstream) Christians, there is not but one G-d, the Father. Instead there is one, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

I would not say â??Christ is also Godâ?, I would say Christ is God where the term God means divine nature in this context. For me, to say â??also Godâ? means a second God and this is contrary to the many scriptures that say â??one Godâ?.

As the Father gave Christ power and authority to create, I think that it is conceptually possible that G-d the Father would grant man the same if the adoption is a "perfect" adoption (which, given the milieu of the Gospel writers, I would think it would necessarily need to be or else their metaphor loses substantial weight).

Could you explain your statement â??Father gave Christ power and authority to createâ? â?¦ thanks.

Do you think that men can create angels or spirits by a command like the Lord did (Psalm 148:2-5; Neh.9:6-13; Isa.45:7-21; Col.1:2-18)?

For me, Christ was â??the Wordâ? before his incarnation. For me, Christ was not adopted. For me, Christ was given all power after his resurrection.

In the end though, although these types of things are fun to argue, for all I know we are all going to be nothing more than footrests for the angels in the hereafter.

For me I do not see it as arguing, for me it is simply exchanging ideas.

[Doctor Steuss]

Johnny,

Could you explain your statement â??Father gave Christ power and authority to createâ? â?¦ thanks.

I will try. Essentially, hereâ??s my thought process (which I hope makes sense):

Ephesians 3:9 states that G-d created all things â??by Jesus Christ.â? This tends to give the impression that although Christ did the â??work,â? it was G-d who created by granting Christ the power/authority.

Christ stated that all things were delivered to Him by the Father (Luke 22:10), and within this I think it fair to assume that the power to create is something that is the Fatherâ??s, but that He has granted to the Son. I think to a small extent, John 3:35 is an allusion as well to the Son having received His power/authority from the Father (albeit, it is probably a stretch of the verse). Of course, I do draw from LDS scripture as well (which D&C 93 is pretty clear on Christ having received His power according to the will of the Father).

So, if Christ received â??allâ? from the Father, and if G-d created all things by Christ, it seems to me that the Father has given Christ the power and authority to create.

Do you think that men can create angels or spirits by a command like the Lord did (Psalm 148:2-5; Neh.9:6-13; Isa.45:7-21; Col.1:2-18)?

If G-d were to will it, yes.

In an LDS framework though (which I know you disagree with), angels/spirits are children of the Father (much of which belief is drawn upon through tradition and unique LDS scripture).

For me, Christ was â??the Wordâ? before his incarnation.

Iâ??m still toying with the concept that â??the Wordâ? is a throwback to Stoicism.

For me, Christ was not adopted.

For me as well. But we can be adopted, and this is where it is important to realize what was entailed by adoption during the period the Apostles, et.al. used it as a metaphor.

For me, Christ was given all power after his resurrection.

Iâ??m not sure He has an un-equivocated (I believe â??un-equivocatedâ? is the word Iâ??m after here) â??allâ? in regards to power, but I do agree that His power was given to Him.

[johnny]

Doctor Steuss,

Ephesians 3:9 states that G-d created all things â??by Jesus Christ.â? This tends to give the impression that although Christ did the â??work,â? it was G-d who created by granting Christ the power/authority.

I view it in terms of â??the Wordâ? â?¦ All things were made by â??the Wordâ?, Jesus is â??the Wordâ? made flesh (John 1:3-14). The Father is of whom are all things and Jesus(the Word made flesh) by whom are all things (1Cor 8:6).

In an LDS framework though (which I know you disagree with), angels/spirits are children of the Father (much of which belief is drawn upon through tradition and unique LDS scripture).

You are correct I would disagree. In the Bible framework angels/spirits are not sons of heavenly mother, in the Bible framework angels/spirits are simply created when the Lord commanded (Psalm 148:2-5; Neh.9:6-13; Isa.45:7-21; Col.1:2-18).

Iâ??m still toying with the concept that â??the Wordâ? is a throwback to Stoicism.

The concept of â??the Wordâ? comes from the gospel of John. This term combines God's dynamic, creative word (Genesis), personified preexistent Wisdom as the instrument of God's creative activity (Proverbs).

For me as well. But we can be adopted, and this is where it is important to realize what was entailed by adoption during the period the Apostles, et.al. used it as a metaphor.

The apostles speak of the â??Spirit of Adoptionâ? (Rom 8:9-17) â?¦ could you explain how this could viewed as a metaphor.

[Doctor Steuss]

[...]The concept of â??the Wordâ? comes from the gospel of John. This term combines God's dynamic, creative word (Genesis), personified preexistent Wisdom as the instrument of God's creative activity (Proverbs).

Yes, I am aware of what Gospel it comes from. I was making reference to the potential that Philo and his thoughts/writings (and borrowing[?]) of the Stoic Logos was influential to the author of John's Gospel.

I admittedly hold a much more liberal view of the Bible than most, so I readily acknowledge that such a concept is unpalatable to most (if not just downright heresy to some).

The apostles speak of the â??Spirit of Adoptionâ? (Rom 8:9-17) â?¦ could you explain how this could viewed as a metaphor.

Refer to post #68 (hopefully that will help, if not let me know and I'll try to clarify).

[TOmNossor]

For example, I have asked without any answer from you the question can men become a Creator like the Father like the Mormon Church teaches?

This is fairly easy.

I believe that past necessity demands that deified men will not be the creator of our first president George Washington. I believe that past necessity demands that in no sense could a deified man be said to have created God the Father, but it is true that God the Father created men. Now, in my previous posts you may have detected that I believe God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit an eternity ago were God the Trinity (generally a Social Trinity). I do not believe God the Father has external causality in His divinity and I believe that God the Son and God the Holy Spirit of their own will and choice eternally united with God the Father. We will have external causality in our ultimate fullness of divinity. This is because:

John Taylor, Mediation and Atonement, Ch.20

â?¦ through the instrumentality of the atonement and the adoption, it is made possible for us to become of the family of God, and joint heirs with Jesus Christ; and that as He, the potential instrument, through the oneness that existed between Him and His Father, by reason of obedience to divine law, overcame death, hell and the grave, and sat down upon His Father's throne, so shall we be able to sit down with Him, even upon His throne.

However, I see nothing in scripture that should deny that deified men can like Christ create in accordance with the will of the Father.

So my answer is, we will not be creators like our Father because it is ultimately in communion with Him that said creativity is exercised (not in communion with us except perhaps if we are in communion with Him).

We both may and will not be creators like the Son. We may be creators like the Son because it is possible that we could create in accordance with the will of the Father. We will not be creators like the Son because the Son will always be involved in our creation and deification, but we will not be involved in His creation or deification. The atonement and â?¦ is necessary for our deification and our divine creativity, but not for Christâ??s.

So, can God make us fully divine such that we would properly be called gods. Not such that we are necessarily almighty, not such that past necessity is violated and we become His creator. But fully divine such that we become what Christ is like He became what we are. Can God make is so that those properties possessed by the persons of the Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) that are NECESSARY for divinity be properties that we come to possess.

Alternatively, if He can do this, does He choose not to.

Alternatively, perhaps you believe He does in fact do this for deified humans.

Also, you have been speaking powerfully about our receiving the divine nature when you claim that we still will not be almighty. Do you believe that God will make us â??homoousianâ? with Him. This IMO was a very critical aspect of defining divinity at the council of Nicea. Christ became homoousian with humans, will we become homoousain with God?

Charity, TOm

[johnny]

Doctor Steuss,

Refer to post #68 (hopefully that will help, if not let me know and I'll try to clarify).

In post #68 I did not see any reference to the Spirit of Adoption, could you explain it in terms of the Spirit of Adoption and the scriptures below.

I believe the Spirit of adoption makes the faithful partakers in the divine nature by uniting them in a living union with the only Son. I believe we are brethren not by nature, but by the gift of grace. The mission of the Spirit of adoption is unite us to Christ.

2Cor.6

[18] And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

John.1

[12] But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

[13] Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

1John.3

[1] 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.

[2] 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.

John.3

[6] That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Rom.8

[14] For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

[15] For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

[16] The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

[17] And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Gal.4

[4] But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

[5] To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

[6] And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

[7] Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

Eph.1

[5] Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

[johnny]

TOmNossor,

So my answer is, we will not be creators like our Father because it is ultimately in communion with Him that said creativity is exercised (not in communion with us except perhaps if we are in communion with Him).

Your answers appears to differ with the teachings of the Mormon Church ... Chapter 47 of Mormon Gospel Principles says "He is the Father of spirit children. He is a creator. We can become like our Heavenly Father"

So, can God make us fully divine such that we would properly be called gods. Not such that we are necessarily almighty, not such that past necessity is violated and we become His creator.

Again, your answers appears to differ with the teachings of the Mormon Church ... Chapter 47 of Mormon Gospel Principles says "They will have everything that our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have--all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge."

Also, you have been speaking powerfully about our receiving the divine nature when you claim that we still will not be almighty. Do you believe that God will make us â??homoousianâ? with Him. This IMO was a very critical aspect of defining divinity at the council of Nicea. Christ became homoousian with humans, will we become homoousain with God?

The term â??homoousianâ? is associated with being eternal and unchangeable. Men are neither eternal nor unchangeable like the Son of God. Christ has two natures. Man on the other hand have a beginning which is human nature and can change through the grace of God by partaking of the divine nature.

[TOmNossor]

Your answers appears to differ with the teachings of the Mormon Church ... Chapter 47 of Mormon Gospel Principles says "He is the Father of spirit children. He is a creator. We can become like our Heavenly Father"

Again, your answers appears to differ with the teachings of the Mormon Church ... Chapter 47 of Mormon Gospel Principles says "They will have everything that our

Johnny,

You claimed I had failed to answer a question. Despite the fact much of this thread is you dodging a question, I answered. Then in response to me re-asking the question, you again dodge.

You are incorrect in that my statements and the statements that you quoted cannot be reconciled. That you cannot reconcile them is fine, you are not a LDS and do not seem to desire to become one.

The term â??homoousianâ? is associated with being eternal and unchangeable. Men are neither eternal nor unchangeable like the Son of God. Christ has two natures. Man on the other hand have a beginning which is human nature and can change through the grace of God by partaking of the divine nature.

Johnny, are you saying that Christ is not homoousian with humans?

I do not think you know what â??homoousianâ? means, not even a little. I assume you say the Nicene Creed (the one formulated at the Council of Constantinople and with the filoque clause added, but still called the Nicene Creed) every week. â??Homoousianâ? is the transliteration of the Greek term that is translated into the creed you say. Its definition is not â??associated with being eternal and unchangeable.â?

Christ is homoousian with humans, and yet Catholics do not believe that humans are â??eternal and unchangeable.â?

I think this thread served its purpose. You have argued that the Bible teaches some things and I think most folks will disagree with you. You may distract a few folks by saying that Mormons believes XYZ, but I would hope that few folks will actually believe that you have made any kind of case for your position.

I wonder if I see too much of me in your posts. You provide a lot of words as do I. I hope my volume of words does not impact people the way that your volume of words impacts me, but perhaps it does.

I should mention however that it is difficult to argue a very minority position and you are quite persistent at this. This is a testament to your passion for Catholicism and I personally believe God is pleased by such passion. If our topic was the Biblical merits of â??marriage in heavenâ? you would likely do much better. If our topic was the Biblical merits of the â??perpetual virginity of Mary,â? you would likely have many fewer words to offer and there would be less confusion. This topic is more complex, but I hope there has been some clarity brought to this issue. I do think that some study on homoousian is warranted however.

Charity, TOm

[johnny]

TOmNossor,

Johnny, are you saying that Christ is not homoousian with humans?

I do not think you know what â??homoousianâ? means, not even a little. I assume you say the Nicene Creed (the one formulated at the Council of Constantinople and with the filoque clause added, but still called the Nicene Creed) every week. â??Homoousianâ? is the transliteration of the Greek term that is translated into the creed you say. Its definition is not â??associated with being eternal and unchangeable.â?

Christ is homoousian with humans, and yet Catholics do not believe that humans are â??eternal and unchangeable.â?

Christ is consubstantial with us as to his humanity. Below was my point with homoousian being associated with eternal. The Catholic Encyclopedia says:

Homoousion

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07449a.htm

(Gr. homoousion - from homos, same, and ousia, essence; Latin consubstantialem, of one essence or substance), the word used by the Council of Nicaea (325) to express the Divinity of Christ. Arius had taught that the Son, being, in the language of Philo, the Intermediator between God and the world, was not eternal, and therefore not of the Divine substance, but a creature brought forth by the free will of God. (See ARIANISM)

I think this thread served its purpose. You have argued that the Bible teaches some things and I think most folks will disagree with you. You may distract a few folks by saying that Mormons believes XYZ, but I would hope that few folks will actually believe that you have made any kind of case for your position.

I have presented that the Bible reveals that the creature called man will NEVER be almighty because men get their godliness from the Son of God and the Son of God will NOT be almighty forever (1Cor 15:24). The measure of manâ??s godliness is according to the Sonâ??s divine power (2Pet 1:2-4).