James Whiteâ??s YouTube diatribeâ?¦

[David Waltz]

Hey CK,

You said:

>> Hah! I think he's more like an RCC'er going rogue. (But's he's been "rogue" for several years now. He's even referenced [negatively] in one of Abanes's books.)>>

Me: That Richard referred me in a negative manner in his book is a compliment!!! (Oh, and btw, he also said I was a Mormon spy, posing as a Catholic.)

Anyway, I am most certainly a post-Vatican II Catholic; and one who keeps a very open mind to other worldviews. The recent ruling of the Vatican concerning the use of Yahweh in our liturgy and translations of the Scriptures was quite troubling to meâ??vigorously attempting to wrap my brain around the decisionâ?¦

Grace and peace,

David

[David Waltz]

Hi jw,

You wrote:

>> Does this make any difference?>>

Me: It should not, for I have accurately presented the position of some important LDS scholars on many the issues that have been dealt with in this thread (though it seems that few are actually reading the material that is being referenced).

Grace and peace,

David

[David Waltz]

Hi jw,

You posted:

>>The Bible is clearly polytheistic according to your broad definition. That's what I'm demonstrating. The only point is that if you want to paint Mormonism as polytheistic, the Bible - by your same definition - is polytheistic in the same way. I make no other claim at the current time concerning my own viewpoint on the subject, other than to opine that "polytheism" doesn't accurately describe LDS theology.>>

Me: Well said; and not just the Bible, but some of the Trinitarian theologies that Billy believes are â??mainstreamâ?â??these observations are quite tellingâ?¦

Grace and peace,

David

[Obiwan]

Ol James needs to think that maybe it's HE (his religions) who has "changed" what the word "Christian" means.

James lies saying we don't believe Jesus was "born" of a VIRGIN Mary. Irony in that is in the next clip our Apostle directly say's he was "born a Virgin".

James lies again in misrepresenting our version of the Atonement, claiming we believe it occured in the Garden, not the cross.

We believe the "suffering for the sins of the world" occured in the Garden, his Mission, the Full Atonement was finished on the Cross.

Anyway, lot's more lies by James the supposed good "Christian", but, seen it all before.

[urroner]

Hey CK,

You said:

>> Hah! I think he's more like an RCC'er going rogue. (But's he's been "rogue" for several years now. He's even referenced [negatively] in one of Abanes's books.)>>

Me: That Richard referred me in a negative manner in his book is a compliment!!! (Oh, and btw, he also said I was a Mormon spy, posing as a Catholic.)

Anyway, I am most certainly a post-Vatican II Catholic; and one who keeps a very open mind to other worldviews. The recent ruling of the Vatican concerning the use of Yahweh in our liturgy and translations of the Scriptures was quite troubling to meâ??vigorously attempting to wrap my brain around the decisionâ?¦

Grace and peace,

David

A couple of weeks ago, I happened across a certain thread on ZLMB where RA was doing that spying accusation because of something I had affectionately called you. It was a rather humorous thread.

[Billy]

Me: Well said; and not just the Bible, but some of the Trinitarian theologies that Billy believes are â??mainstreamâ?â??these observations are quite tellingâ?¦

I am most certainly a post-Vatican II Catholic

One of the main points that I was trying to make is that LDS believe in many Gods excluding the Godhead, this includes prior to the Godhead as we know it and in the future where individual members can become a god. So as a "post-Vatican II Catholic" do you share any of those views with the LDS about these other Gods or you becoming a god? Are any of the LDS views on multiple Gods before and after the Godhead consistent with scripture? Is your opinion consistent with the RCC?

[urroner]

One of the main points that I was trying to make is that LDS believe in many Gods excluding the Godhead, this includes prior to the Godhead as we know it and in the future where individual members can become a god. So as a "post-Vatican II Catholic" do you share any of those views with the LDS about these other Gods or you becoming a god? Are any of the LDS views on multiple Gods before and after the Godhead consistent with scripture? Is your opinion consistent with the RCC?

Billy, would you consider Michael Heiser to be a polytheist?

[David Waltz]

Hi Billy,

You asked the following pertinent questions:

>>One of the main points that I was trying to make is that LDS believe in many Gods excluding the Godhead, this includes prior to the Godhead as we know it and in the future where individual members can become a god. So as a "post-Vatican II Catholic" do you share any of those views with the LDS about these other Gods or you becoming a god? Are any of the LDS views on multiple Gods before and after the Godhead consistent with scripture? Is your opinion consistent with the RCC?>>

Me: First, there is/was no God before God the Father; God the Father is the ultimate beginning, the source of everything that exists. (Some LDS also believe that there was no God before the Father, Blake Ostler for instance, but also hold to many non-divine â??eternalsâ??â??e.g. matter, intelligences, etc.)

As for redeemed mankind becoming God, that has been taught by the Catholic Church since the beginning of Christianity, and is a clear teaching of the NT. Earlier, I posted just a few of the quotes I have compiled on this issue, and since this thread seems to be winding down, I shall provide an extensive list for the sake of posterity:

Catholics on deification â??

G. H. Joyce

God, says St. Peter â??has given us most great and precious promises that by these you may be made partarkers of the Divine nature (2 Pet. i. 4). Startling as the words are, the teaching which we have already considered will have prepared us for them. They signify that the sonship conferred on us through Jesus Christ raises us so far above our creaturely condition, that by it we partake in the life which is proper to the Three Divine Persons in virtue of Their nature. The passage does not stand altogether alone. When our Lord prays to His Father on behalf of the apostles and all who through their word should believe in Him, â??that they all many be one, as Thou, Father in Me and I in Thee, that they may be made perfect in oneâ? (John xvii. 22, 23), His words can hardly signify less than this. If our union with God is comparable to that which unites the Father and the Son, it can only be a union bases on a share in the Divine life...The fathers of the Church from the earliest times with one consent take the apostleâ??s words in their literal sense. There is no question of any figurative interpretation. They do not hesitate to speak of the â??deificationâ? of man. By grace, they tell us, men become gods. (G.H. Joyce, S.J., The Catholic Doctrine of Grace, London: 1920, pp. 34, 35)

Matthias Joseph Scheeben

If man is to be reunited to God as his Father, God Himself must raise him up again to His side...God must again draw man up to His bosom as His child, regenerate him to new divine life, and again clothe him with the garment of His children, the splendor of His own nature and glory...this transformation of the will is essentially bound up with the inner elevation of our entire being by the grace of divine sonship and participation in the divine nature...The children of God participate as such in the divine holiness of their Father, in His very nature. (Matthis J. Scheeben, The Mysteries of Christianity, B. Herder Book Co.: St. Loius, pp. 615, 616, 617, 619 - emphasis mine - German first ed. 1865; English ed. 1946, translated from the 1941 German ed.)

What we cannot claim by right, the infinite liberality of God gives us in grace. Although we are not by nature the children of God, we become such through grace, and so true is this that, as adopted children, we are put on par with the natural Son of God. We become by grace what He is by nature. What He has in Himself, that we obtain through participation in His nature. (Matthis J. Scheeben, The Glories of Divine Grace, Tan Books, 2000, p. 96.)

â??But the Son is not only kindred or similar to the Father, He is one with Him as the branch is one with the tree, the ray of light with the light, the brook with the fountain. So too, grace makes us one with God, not in the same perfect manner [i.e. â??by natureâ??], but in a similar way. And yet it is not a question of a mere relationship or similarity, but on an intimate union which makes us, as it were, one being with Godâ? (Ibid., p. 154).

â??Thus, when we are united to God by grace [i.e. not â??by natureâ??, as is the Son], we not only obtain and direct into our soul a ray of divine glory, a small stream of divine life, but we may also consider as our own the divine Sun itself, the foundation of divine life, and we may rejoice at Godâ??s perfections as though they were oursâ? (Ibid., p. 158).

Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P

â?¦we must bear in mind that grace is really and formally a participation in the divine nature precisely in so far as it is divine, a participation in the Deity, in that which makes God God, in His intimate Lifeâ?¦Grace is a mysterious participation in this essence, which surpasses all natural knowledgeâ?¦Grace makes us participate really and formally in this Deity, in this eminent and intimate life of God, because grace is in us the radical principle of essentially divine operating that will ultimately consist in seeing God immediately, as He sees Himself, and in loving Him as He loves Himself. Grace is the seed of glory. In order to know its essence intimately, we must first have seen the divine essence of which grace is the participation. (Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., Christian Perfection and Contemplation, St. Louis and London: B. Herder Book Co., 1937 â?? reprinted by Tan Books and Publishers, 2003, pp. 55, 56.)

The Deity as we know it here on earth contains only implicitly the divine attributes deduced from it. But when we shall see it as it is in itself there will no longer be any need for deduction. We shall see explicitly in the eminence of the Deity, superior to being, to unity, to goodness, all the infinite perfections and the three divine persons. (Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., Our Saviour and His Love For Us, St. Louis and London: B. Herder Book Co., 1951 â?? reprinted by Tan Books and Publishers, 1998, pp. 351, 352.)

Lugwig Ott

The Church prays in the Offertory of the Holy Mass : â??Grant that by the mystery of this water and wine, we may be made partakers of His divinity, who vouchsafed to become partaker of our humanity.â? Similarly in the Preface of the Feast of Christâ??s Ascension into Heaven : â??He was assumed into Heaven in order that we might be partakers in His divinity.â? Cf. D 1021.

According to 2 Peter 1, 4 the Christian is elevated to participation in the Divine nature...Again, the scriptural texts which represent justification as generation or birth from God (John 1, 12 et seq. ; 3, 5 ; 1 John 3, 1. 9 ; Titus 3. 5 ; James 1, 18 ; 1 Peter 1, 23), indirectly teach the participation of man in the Divine nature, as generation consists in the communication of the nature of the generator to the generated.

From the scriptural texts cited, and from others (Ps. 81, 1. 6 ; John 10, 34 et seq.), the Fathers derived the teaching of the deification of man by grace (theosis, deificatio). It is a firm conviction of the Fathers that God became man so that man might become God, that is, defied. (Dr. Lugwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 256 - German ed. 1952; English 1955.)

George D. Smith

The application of all this to the question of sanctifying grace will be seen more and more as we proceed, but for the present we simply assert the magnificent truth that grace is not only a positive reality in the soul, not only a reality which no created being could produce, but a reality which in itself is higher than the whole order of created things (even angelic) and is truly divine. This brings us at once to a wonderful phrase of St Peter, who says that we are made â??partakers of the divine nature.â? Catholic theology has ever clung to the belief that here we have no mere figure of speech but the declaration of a definite fact. We really are made to be partakers of the divine nature. It is not merely that our spiritual faculties of intellect and will establish a special likeness to God in our souls; that is true enough, but over and above this natural likeness to God a wholly supernatural quality is given to us which makes us to be of the same nature as God...St Augustine puts the matter thus: He descended that we might ascend, and â??whilst retaining his own divine nature he partook of our human nature, that we whilst keeping our own nature, might become partakers of his.â? St Thomas Aquinas, echoing the constant teaching of the past, declares in a passage which the Church uses for the feast of Corpus Christi: â??the only-begotten Son of God, wishing to make us partakers of his own divinity, took upon himself our human nature that having become man he might make men to be gods.â? And we know how the Church has enshrined this wonderful truth in one of the most beautiful of the prayers at Mass. â??O God, who in creating human nature, didst marvellously ennoble it, and hast still more marvellously renewed it, grant that by the mysery of this water and wine we may be made partakers of his Godhead, who vouchsafed to become partaker of our humanity, Jesus Christ, thy Son, our Lord.â? (The Teaching of the Catholic Church, edited by Canon George D. Smith, 1960, volume 1, pp. 553, 554.)

Both St John and St Paul exult in proclaiming this act of divine condescension. â??Dearly beloved,â? the first writes with all the earnestness of the disciple of love, â??we are now the sons of God: and it hath not yet appeared what we shall be. We know that when he shall appear we shall be like to him: because we shall see him as he is. And everyone that hath this hope in him sanctifieth himself.â?...In light of such luminous teaching it is clear that is in a very special sense that we are children of God...Sanctifying grace, as we have seen, is a positive reality infused into the soul by which we are made to share the divine life...By sanctifying grace the very life of God is imparted unto them. (Ibid. pp. 556, 557.)

Catherine Mowry LaCugna

Jesus Christ, the visible icon of the invisible God, discloses what it means to be fully personal, divine as well as human. The Spirit of God, poured into our hearts as love, (Rom. 5:5), gathers us together into the body of Christ, transforming us so that â??we become by grace what God is by nature,â? namely, persons in full communion with God and with every creature. (God For Us, p. 1.)

Christoph Sch

[jwhitlock]

Hi jw,

You wrote:

>> Does this make any difference?>>

Me: It should not, for I have accurately presented the position of some important LDS scholars on many the issues that have been dealt with in this thread (though it seems that few are actually reading the material that is being referenced).

Grace and peace,

David

You've done good job, as usual, with it.

I was interested if Billy would change the tone of his responses to you when he found out you weren't a Mormon - despite Abanes's fantasies.

[3DOP]

You've done good job, as usual, with it.

I was interested if Billy would change the tone of his responses to you when he found out you weren't a Mormon - despite Abanes's fantasies.

Me too jwhitlock. I resisted several times blowing Dave's cover. But since he has never blown mine...

3DOP (Post-Vatican II Catholic too)

[mpschmitt]

On 12-29-08, James White posted an anti-Mormon video on YouTube:

Four days later, he posted the same video on his AOMIN site:

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3058

Within the first minute of his diatribe, James states:

“Mormonism is the most polytheistic religion that I have ever encountered…”

Yet, the LDS apostle, Jeffrey R. Holland, in the October 2007 GC address that James is critiquing, states:

There are many serious problems with James’ video; but, for the moment, I would like to address the issue of whether or not Latter-day Saints are polytheists—as such, I am looking forward to your responses.

Grace and peace,

David

To answer your most important question. No.

The terms polytheist and monotheist and polyhenomagnacumlaudetheist are younger than God and not in the Bible (especially that last one - which I just invented). God gets the prerogative of defining himself as he pleases. And in every dispensation of the Gospel there is a man called to whom God reveals himself in a special way.

Through his servants the Prophets (Amos 3:7)

"The Father is the one true God. This thing is certain: no one will ever ascend above Him; no one will ever replace Him. Nor will anything ever change the relationship that we, His literal offspring, have with Him. He is Eloheim, the Father. He is God. Of Him there is only one. We revere our Father and our God; we worship Him.

There is only one Christ, one Redeemer. We accept the divinity of the Only Begotten Son of God in the flesh. We accept the promise that we may become joint heirs with Him." Boyd K. Packer, The Pattern of Our Parentage, Ensign, Nov. 1984, p. 69

Now to the other errors...

Mr White says: "As long as Christianity can define itself."

Now there's a difficult premise upon which to build an airtight argument...

Which Christianity is it that is defining itself here?

By what authority does Mr. White demand that we repudiate our beliefs?

And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. ~Hebrews 5:4

Mr White says: "There's a lot of Mormons who just don't know what they believe."

Puh-leez

Mr White says: "The growth of the Church has really leveled off."

Puh-leeeez

Mr White says: "I guess the Church is more interested in appearance than substance." (paraphrased)

Puh-leeeeeez

Mr White says: "Mormonism takes the words and changes the meaning."

But who changed the meaning first, dear brother? I grow weary of this argument. Somebody find me the word Consubstantial in the Bible...

Mr White says: "God the father in a physical body has begotten Jesus"

How many times must we answer the false accusation that there was a sexual relationship between the Father and Mary. That is not what Brigham said. Anywhere. In our modern day of science we must surely be able to understand how a conception could occur naturally without intercourse. http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Brochures/Did_...x_with_Mary.pdf

Mr White says: "The Atonement did not take place (in Mormonism) on the Cross, but in the Garden of Gethsemane."

James, James, James, please read Jesus the Christ. We believe the Atonement involved Gethsemane and the Cross.

As did the early Saints. From the Church's Gospel Topics pages:

Jesus's atoning sacrifice took place in the Garden of Gethsemane and on the cross at Calvary. In Gethsemane He submitted to the will of the Father and began to take upon Himself the sins of all people. He has revealed some of what He experienced as He paid the price for our sins:

"I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent;

"But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;

"Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink—

"Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men" (D&C 19:16–19; see also Luke 22:44; Mosiah 3:7).

The Savior continued to suffer for our sins when He allowed Himself to be crucified—"lifted up upon the cross and slain for the sins of the world" (1 Nephi 11:33).

On the cross, He allowed Himself to die. His body was then laid in a tomb until He was resurrected and became "the firstfruits of them that slept" (1 Corinthians 15:20). Through His death and Resurrection, He overcame physical death for us all.

Mr White says: "The Book of Mormon contradicts the bible especially with regard to grace."

Really? I haven't found that to be the case. I've found it to be precisely in line with the Biblical teaching on grace and works...Here are a few specific ones to compare and contrast...

Matthew 7:21 http://scriptures.lds.org/en/matt/7/21#21

Matthew 25 http://scriptures.lds.org/en/matt/25

Romans Chapter 5 http://scriptures.lds.org/en/rom/5/2,15,17,20-21#2

Romans 6:14-23 http://scriptures.lds.org/en/rom/6/14-23#14

Moroni 10:32-33 http://scriptures.lds.org/en/moro/10/32-33#32

Ether 12:27 http://scriptures.lds.org/en/ether/12/26-27,36,41#26

2 Nephi 10:24-25 http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_ne/10/24-25#24

2 Nephi 25:23 http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_ne/25/23#23

[urroner]

An interesting thread over on the old ZLMB about David being accused of being a Mormon which I accidentally instigated by a sweet innocent statement earlier.

http://pacumenispages.yuku.com/topic/6846/...n-Catholic.html

[Billy]

Me: First, there is/was no God before God the Father; God the Father is the ultimate beginning, the source of everything that exists. (Some LDS also believe that there was no God before the Father, Blake Ostler for instance, but also hold to many non-divine â??eternalsâ??â??e.g. matter, intelligences, etc.)

So other than a few LDS that may hold you view, would you agree that the LDS position is completely different than yours with respect that God the Father is the ultimate beginning in your view verses the LDS position that God the Father lived as a man on another planet and has a Father who is a God?

Also would you agree or disagree with the statement from the King Follett Sermon (by Joseph Smith in the May 1971) that we co-existed with God as intelligences? Ensign http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgne..._&hideNav=1

"The mind or the intelligence which man possesses is co-equal [co-eternal] with God himself. . .

. . .Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle. It is a spirit from age to age and there is no creation about it. All the minds and spirits that God ever sent into the world are susceptible of enlargement.

The first principles of man are self-existent with God. God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself. The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge. He has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with Himself, so that they might have one glory upon another, and all that knowledge, power, glory, and intelligence, which is requisite in order to save them in the world of spirits." End of LDS Ensign article May 1971

As for redeemed mankind becoming God, that has been taught by the Catholic Church since the beginning of Christianity, and is a clear teaching of the NT. Earlier, I posted just a few of the quotes I have compiled on this issue, and since this thread seems to be winding down, I shall provide an extensive list for the sake of posterity:

Could you clarify what you mean by "mankind becoming God". Do you believe that man can become a separate God, resulting in many Gods in heaven, or do you mean that man becomes God like in qualities (with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit), but not really a God?

"In Christianity theology, particularly in Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy and Eastern Catholic theology, theosis (written also: theiosis, theopoiesis, theōsis; Greek: Θεωσις, meaning divinization, or deification, or making divine) is the process of a believer in emulating the life example of Jesus Christ and of following the gospel of Christ in one's daily life; the process of seeking to become more holy."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosis

[urroner]

If God is all powerful, can He, if He desires, make Gods out of the like of us?

[Billy]

Very interesting post. Billy keeps informing us that he believes in â??one Godâ?, and is quite comfortable in adding two more heâ??s/whoâ??s to the â??one Godâ? formula.

Me: Well said; and not just the Bible, but some of the Trinitarian theologies that Billy believes are â??mainstreamâ?â??these observations are quite tellingâ?¦

Grace and peace,

David

Here is what I have written in a previous post

1. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons

2. Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God

3. There is only one God

Lets look at the points individually

1. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons

>>On the Trinity:

Me: Depends on how you interpret the word â??beingâ?; if you follow Boethiusâ?? quite famous description of the term â??personâ? (as many important Trinitarians have), then yes, the Trinity is composed of three separate â??beingsâ? (i.e. real, concrete persons).

2. Father is God, Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God

Me: Christ is fully God (as the BoM clearly states), and is subordinate the Father (as the Bible clearly states). The Father, Son and Holy Ghost all share in ONE DIVINE NATUREâ??all members of the human race share in ONE HUMAN NATURE; yet I am subordinate to numerous other humans who share that one nature.

From this statement it appears that you believe that each member of the Godhead are fully God. If you do not believe that each member is fully God, please correct me on this point.

3. There is only ONE God

Letâ??s start with, â??There is only one Godâ?. As you know, phrase â??one Godâ? in the Bible is used of the Father alone, and is never applied to Jesus/the Son (or HG). The same follows in ALL the pre-Nicene Church Fathers, and in the Nicene Creed itself (â??We believe in one God, the Fatherâ?¦â?).

David

I am not sure you point here, because in the post below you seem to indicate that the ONE God is made up of the distinct persons of the Godhead.

I believe that there is â??ONE Godâ? in the two senses that I delineated earlier.

I believe that three, distinct personsâ??each of which share in the ONE DIVINE NATUREâ??comprise the Godhead.

Grace and peace,

I went back this morning to try to see what are the distinguishing factors from my viewpoint and yours with respect to the Godhead. But after looking at several of your post, it seems like our views are more similar that they are different, despite your criticism of my point of view. I have posted each of my points from my earlier post followed by a statement from you that addresses that specific point. Could you give us a brief paragraph of your understanding of the Godhead, and how your view differs from mine? Please don't refer me to an article, I am interested in YOUR view not someone else's viewpoint.

[HiJolly]

This card-carrying Mormon is not a polytheist.

I am a panentheist. :-)

HiJolly

[urroner]

This card-carrying Mormon is not a polytheist.

I am a panentheist. :-)

HiJolly

How can you be a member of the choir? Have they lower their standards that much? Does your bishop know? Does your wife know? I guess that it's true, they are the last to know and I held you in such high esteem. I weep for my lost of my trust for you. I had such high hopes for you. You were going places and now, the only place you're going to go to is Hell, well, that or Texas. I'd choose Hell if I were you, but Texas did whoop up on Ohio State the other day. I really hate Barry Switzer. He is such an idiot.

[HiJolly]

How can you be a member of the choir? Have they lower their standards that much? Does your bishop know? Does your wife know? I guess that it's true, they are the last to know and I held you in such high esteem. I weep for my lost of my trust for you. I had such high hopes for you. You were going places and now, the only place you're going to go to is Hell, well, that or Texas. I'd choose Hell if I were you, but Texas did whoop up on Ohio State the other day. I really hate Barry Switzer. He is such an idiot.

I've been to Texas. I liked it there.

HiJolly

[urroner]

I've been to Texas. I liked it there.

HiJolly

I weep for you and refuse to be comforted.

[David Waltz]

Hi Billy,

Forgive the tardiness of my response, I had pretty much taken it for granted that this thread had run itâ??s course; you wrote:

>> I went back this morning to try to see what are the distinguishing factors from my viewpoint and yours with respect to the Godhead. But after looking at several of your post, it seems like our views are more similar that they are different, despite your criticism of my point of view. I have posted each of my points from my earlier post followed by a statement from you that addresses that specific point. Could you give us a brief paragraph of your understanding of the Godhead, and how your view differs from mine? Please don't refer me to an article, I am interested in YOUR view not someone else's viewpoint.>>

Me: I believe in one God, the Father, maker of heaven and earth; that this one God begat before time a Son in His full image. I also believe in the Holy Ghost, who, like the Son is from the one God, the Father. These three distinct, concrete persons all share ONE DIVINE NATUREâ??the nature of God the Father, the one God.

I also believe that God intends to share that ONE DIVINE NATURE with His adopted Sons. God, being omnipotent and omnibenevolent, can (and I believe that He will) share with His adopted Sons, all of His ONE DIVINE NATURE.

And finally, I fully understand why Jews, Moslems, Arians, Unitarians, et al. deem my position as polytheistic, for they are unwilling to admit that the one God, the Father can fully communicate His ONE DIVINE NATURE to other persons.

Sincerely hope that this helps to clarify MY position.

Grace and peace,

David

[e=mc2]

If God is all powerful, can He, if He desires, make Gods out of the like of us?

Do I *really* have to answser this in reference to you and myself Urroner? Can I show just a smidgin of mercy please?

Hi Billy,Forgive the tardiness of my response, I had pretty much taken it for granted that this thread had run itâ??s course; you wrote:>> I went back this morning to try to see what are the distinguishing factors from my viewpoint and yours with respect to the Godhead. But after looking at several of your post, it seems like our views are more similar that they are different, despite your criticism of my point of view. I have posted each of my points from my earlier post followed by a statement from you that addresses that specific point. Could you give us a brief paragraph of your understanding of the Godhead, and how your view differs from mine? Please don't refer me to an article, I am interested in YOUR view not someone else's viewpoint.>>Me: I believe in one God, the Father, maker of heaven and earth; that this one God begat before time a Son in His full image. I also believe in the Holy Ghost, who, like the Son is from the one God, the Father. These three distinct, concrete persons all share ONE DIVINE NATUREâ??the nature of God the Father, the one God. I also believe that God intends to share that ONE DIVINE NATURE with His adopted Sons. God, being omnipotent and omnibenevolent, can (and I believe that He will) share with His adopted Sons, all of His ONE DIVINE NATURE.And finally, I fully understand why Jews, Moslems, Arians, Unitarians, et al. deem my position as polytheistic, for they are unwilling to admit that the one God, the Father can fully communicate His ONE DIVINE NATURE to other persons.Sincerely hope that this helps to clarify MY position.Grace and peace,David

Fascinating that they in their limited human abilities. likewise limit what God can and cannot or will or will not do eh? LOL! Good to see ya again Dave.

[Billy]

Fascinating that they in their limited human abilities. likewise limit what God can and cannot or will or will not do eh? LOL!

I am not sure who this comment was aimed at. But if it was aimed at me, here is my response.

I have never limited what God can do. Rather, I have used God breathed scripture to show what God has stated on a specific issue, so it is not what I am saying, but what God is saying. God says that there is only one God and that no God was formed before him or after him.

As far as limiting the abilities of God, I believe that God is all powerful and that He is God from everlasting to everlasting. LDS on the other hand state that God the Father has not always been God, but was a man on another planet. This brings God down to our level by stating that He was once like us. Which view to you see as more limiting?

[Billy]

Me: I believe in one God, the Father, maker of heaven and earth; that this one God begat before time a Son in His full image. I also believe in the Holy Ghost, who, like the Son is from the one God, the Father. These three distinct, concrete persons all share ONE DIVINE NATUREâ??the nature of God the Father, the one God.

You state that the Father beget the Son before time. What exactly do you mean by the term begat? Do you believe that the Father was by Himself at one point, and that Jesus and the Holy Spirit were made or created by the Father in some way OR do you believe that the Three have always existed in the relationship that they now exist?

I also believe that God intends to share that ONE DIVINE NATURE with His adopted Sons. God, being omnipotent and omnibenevolent, can (and I believe that He will) share with His adopted Sons, all of His ONE DIVINE NATURE.

And finally, I fully understand why Jews, Moslems, Arians, Unitarians, et al. deem my position as polytheistic, for they are unwilling to admit that the one God, the Father can fully communicate His ONE DIVINE NATURE to other persons.

Sincerely hope that this helps to clarify MY position.

Grace and peace,

David

I also believe that God will share what He has with us. But when you use the word share what he has, do you think that we will become our own separate god (i.e. each an individual god separate from the Godhead)?

[urroner]

I also believe that God will share what He has with us. But when you use the word share what he has, do you think that we will become our own separate god (i.e. each an individual god separate from the Godhead)?

I can't answer for David, and this really isn't an answer, rather it's a question.

I realize that I'm just listing some quotes and I don't have the time right now to provide a link to them, but here are some quotes from some Early Church Fathers that talk about men becoming gods:

For the Son of God became man, that we might become God. â??St. Athanasius,

He has called men gods that are deified of His Grace, not born of His Substance. â??St. Augustine

"the Word became flesh and the Son of God became the Son of Man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God" â??St. Irenaeus, Adv Haer III 19,1

In the last quote, the phrase "son of God" in early Christianity and during the First Temple period during the OT meant "god."

In the early church, the idea of theosis or deification was very pronounced in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers and the Ante-Nicene Fathers.

[Billy]

I can't answer for David, and this really isn't an answer, rather it's a question.

I realize that I'm just listing some quotes and I don't have the time right now to provide a link to them, but here are some quotes from some Early Church Fathers that talk about men becoming gods:

For the Son of God became man, that we might become God. â??St. Athanasius,

He has called men gods that are deified of His Grace, not born of His Substance. â??St. Augustine

"the Word became flesh and the Son of God became the Son of Man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God" â??St. Irenaeus, Adv Haer III 19,1

In the last quote, the phrase "son of God" in early Christianity and during the First Temple period during the OT meant "god."

In the early church, the idea of theosis or deification was very pronounced in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers and the Ante-Nicene Fathers.

Like so many other terms that have different meanings, could this also be a case where what was said was meant to be something different that what you think that they said. One possibility is that you can become a separate and distinct God resulting in billions of Gods, OR it can mean that we share in Gods divinity by becoming Christlike with the help of the indwelling Holy Spirit. Which one is it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosis

Theosis

In Christianity theology, particularly in Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy and Eastern Catholic theology, theosis (written also: theiosis, theopoiesis, theōsis; Greek: Θεωσις, meaning divinization, or deification, or making divine) is the process of a believer in emulating the life example of Jesus Christ and of following the gospel of Christ in one's daily life; the process of seeking to become more holy. . .

. . .St. Athanasius of Alexandria wrote, "God became man so that man might become God." (On the Incarnation 54:3, PG 25:192B). His statement is an apt description of the doctrine. What would otherwise seem absurdâ??that fallen, sinful man may become holy as God is holyâ??has been made possible through Jesus Christ, who is God incarnate. Naturally, the crucial Christian assertion, that God is One, sets an absolute limit on the meaning of theosis: it is not possible for any created being to become (ontologically) God, or even part of God (the henosis of Greek Neoplatonic philosophy).[1]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosis