As you might recall the opening proposition was, “did Christ die to redeem Creation or just man?” I’d like to continue the discussion started by the original proposition as well a spin off proposal. Whether it was known to be profound, Asking pronounced that man can discern something of God’s nature.

Therefore, the second question under this topic might rightly be,

PART 2: Can we discern God’s nature and is that discernment dependent on whether or not Christ died to redeem all Creation or just man?


JoeT

The majority view of the first part of this proposition was that redemption was for all Creation. My view, the lone dissenting view, was that only man is redeemed. I argued that only man sinned, and that the rest Creation remains in harmony with its Creator and as such isn’t in need of redemption.

It’s my understanding that the majority view contends that those in the Church will be divinized as addressed by De Maria:

it is Jesus' mission to redeem all Creation. But man is different than the rest of known Creation. (Except for the Angels) We are the only ones who can worship God and thus know our Creator.

Furthermore that man “will be divinized, deified, because we will be sons in the Son, members of the body of Christ and are raised to a status higher than the angels because of our union with Christ.”

My contention with this argument was basically about form. Men have both body and soul. And as such when drawn to heaven, we would be whole beings; such beings can’t be incorporated into another. I can understand incorporation as an allegorical statement; but not in a literal physical sense.

But equally interesting, during that discussion Asking posed the question, In God’s Creation can (or can we not) discern something of the nature of God?


you should be able to infer something about Him from his Work.

I find this question most interesting. Being in the field of ‘applied’ science, I would respond emphatically in the positive. And I’d go on to say, that science is nothing more than the study of God as revealed through the various disciplines of science.

I’m interested in your thoughts on these topics.

JoeT

Does it help at all that divinization or union with God involves the union of something bodily (us) with something immaterial (God)? I see what you're saying about the union of two physical substances. But isn't the problem ameliorated by the fact that God isn't physical?

I do actually intend to do better than just respond to your question with more questions, it's just that I don't think I'm feeling the full force of this particular reservation.

Does it help at all that divinization or union with God involves the union of something bodily (us) with something immaterial (God)?

Scripture speaks against divinization. Perhaps you are mistaking the indwelling of the Holy Spirit with deification of man.

Does it help at all that divinization or union with God involves the union of something bodily (us) with something immaterial (God)? I see what you're saying about the union of two physical substances. But isn't the problem ameliorated by the fact that God isn't physical?

I do actually intend to do better than just respond to your question with more questions, it's just that I don't think I'm feeling the full force of this particular reservation.

I think your question is more than fair; knowing the context within which the question is asked can be as important as the question itself.

It’s not union with God that I object to; but rather the context, or framework, within which that Union takes place. I believe that the very essence of God is unknowable. This is revealed when Moses asked God what his name was. In that time and until the last few hundred years, when you asked a man his name, you were asking what defines you, what is the essence of who you are. As De Maria is fond of pointing out God answered “I AM, I AM”. I think God was telling Moses that He (God) is the essence of essence; something far beyond that which can be known by any intellect. A soul has a spiritual nature; while not known well, it still has a definable nature. To become incorporated in with God (indefinable nature) with the soul of man (definable nature) seems beyond comprehension.

Then too add to this, God’s promises to resurrect us as Christ was resurrected. Thus, as adopted sons of God we will be risen complete man, body and soul. Even still, I can accept the statement that we become members of the essence of God, but only in a metaphorical sense. That the essence of man is so inferior to the essence of God the two couldn’t ever be compatible.

And lastly, the scriptures never speak of union with God in the sense that the identity of the individual is lost. Consequently I view union with God in the sense of those things that make up the identity aren’t erased, but rather re-aligned in ‘union’ with God. Divinization means to make Holy. So in this respect I can say Man is made Holy in Union with God.

Did that make any sense?

JoeT

Divinization means to make Holy.


div⋅i⋅nize

to make divine; deify.
Also, especially British, div⋅i⋅nise.

Origin:
1650–60; divine + -ize; cf. F diviniser

Related forms:
div⋅i⋅ni⋅za⋅tion, noun
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.
Cite This Source

It's my understanding that divinization is understood as supernatural adoption of man by God, i.e. 'sons of God', otherwise known as holiness, coming in union with the Divine Truth. (added - see De Maria's response to the same comment in part 1 of this thread. "2 Peter 1:4
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." )

JoeT

It’s my understanding that divinization is understood as supernatural adoption of man by God, i.e. ‘sons of God’, otherwise known as holiness, coming in union with the Divine Truth. (added - see De Maria's response to the same comment in part 1 of this thread. "2 Peter 1:4
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." )

JoeT

The definition of divinization is deification, or to deify man.

2 Peter 1:4 merely refers to the indwelling of believers by the Holy Spirit. Completely different things.

The definiton of divinization is deification, or to deify man.

2 Peter 1:4 merely refers to the indwelling of believers by the Holy Spirit. Completely different things.

Thank you for your responses, but you misunderstand, I'm not speaking dogmatically. Rather I intended my comments to be understood metaphorically. I was quite aware of the dictionary definition.

JoeT

Thank you for your responses, but you misunderstand, I'm not speaking dogmatically. Rather I intended my comments to be understood metaphorically. I was quite aware of the dictionary definition.

JoeT

The problem is that many professing Christians actually teach that men become gods based upon this erroneous definition. That is why this point is important.

The definiton of divinization is deification, or to deify man.

2 Peter 1:4 merely refers to the indwelling of believers by the Holy Spirit. Completely different things.

As has been explained several times, on a couple of threads, "divinization" or "deification" is the typical English translation of the Greek word "theosis". It isn't a great translation, but there is no equivalent word in English. Quoting an English dictionary isn't going to help any of us to understand what theosis is, since English dictionaries give a snapshot of the usage of an English word during a certain period. We are interested in the theology of theosis.

So we are looking for a deeper understanding of these things than can be gleaned from perusing a lexicon.

Scripture speaks against divinization. Perhaps you are mistaking the indwelling of the Holy Spirit with deification of man.

No. The indwelling of the Spirit happens in this lifetime. Theosis, the topic the rest of us have been discussing, occurs with the union with God at the end of salvation history.

I think your question is more than fair; knowing the context within which the question is asked can be as important as the question itself.

It’s not union with God that I object to; but rather the context, or framework, within which that Union takes place. I believe that the very essence of God is unknowable. This is revealed when Moses asked God what his name was. In that time and until the last few hundred years, when you asked a man his name, you were asking what defines you, what is the essence of who you are. As De Maria is fond of pointing out God answered “I AM, I AM”. I think God was telling Moses that He (God) is the essence of essence; something far beyond that which can be known by any intellect. A soul has a spiritual nature; while not known well, it still has a definable nature. To become incorporated in with God (indefinable nature) with the soul of man (definable nature) seems beyond comprehension.

Yes, I agree with you. In fact, you have captured something I was myself struggling to articulate. So thanks for that.


Then too add to this, God’s promises to resurrect us as Christ was resurrected. Thus, as adopted sons of God we will be risen complete man, body and soul. Even still, I can accept the statement that we become members of the essence of God, but only in a metaphorical sense. That the essence of man is so inferior to the essence of God the two couldn’t ever be compatible.

It's true, the essence of humanity (we don't want to forget that women will be resurrected too!) is inferior to God. So inferior that, as we are, we cannot withstand the Divine presence. My own thinking has been that this is something that God will overcome so that he can keep his promise to be "all in all". And, as St. Paul says, we are in Christ [en Christo] even now. So the foundation has been laid, the transformation has begun. That transformation will be perfected when we are one with God. Now, I think that this union is not metaphorical, but that isn't to say that I have it figured out. I do think that the Incarnation gives us a clue to the possibility of a thoroughgoing union of the human and the divine.


And lastly, the scriptures never speak of union with God in the sense that the identity of the individual is lost. Consequently I view union with God in the sense of those things that make up the identity aren’t erased, but rather re-aligned in ‘union’ with God. Divinization means to make Holy. So in this respect I can say Man is made Holy in Union with God.

You are absolutely right. The identity of the individual isn't to be annihilated.

I do think that divinization is more than sanctification. To be sanctified is to be made holy. I believe that something more radical, a still more radical transformation, awaits us. In fact, I think that sanctification precedes union. The mystics often talk this way, when they say that purification and illumination precede union. God brings us along by stages.


Did that make any sense?

It made perfect sense. And it was a wonderful post. Thank you for taking the time to present it so clearly. I only hope I've done it some justice.

No. The indwelling of the Spirit happens in this lifetime. Theosis, the topic the rest of us have been discussing, occurs with the union with God at the end of salvation history.

Ah, then it has nothing to do with 2 Peter 1:4, or the usual verses quoted, John 10:34-5, or Psalm 82, because these are all in our lifetime.

Note that Theosis has within it the intent of the deification of man. I cannot find anything in scripture which says that men become gods after this lifetime either.

Nonetheless, thanks for clarifying your opinion.

Scripture speaks against divinization. Perhaps you are mistaking the indwelling of the Holy Spirit with deification of man.

Scripture says:

1 John 3
2 Dearly beloved, 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.

2 Peter 1 4 By whom he hath given us most great and precious promises: that by these you may be made partakers of the divine nature: flying the corruption of that concupiscence which is in the world.

Romans 8 17 And if sons, heirs also; heirs indeed of God, and joint heirs with Christ: yet so, if we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified with him.

2 Thessalonians 1 12 That the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and you in him, according to the grace of our God, and of the Lord Jesus Christ.

So, it sounds as though we will be united in some way more closely to Him than we can now imagine. A manner which is described in Scripture as partaking in His Divine nature and being glorified.

Yes, I agree with you. In fact, you have captured something I was myself struggling to articulate. So thanks for that.



It's true, the essence of humanity (we don't want to forget that women will be resurrected too!) is inferior to God. So inferior that, as we are, we cannot withstand the Divine presence. My own thinking has been that this is something that God will overcome so that he can keep his promise to be "all in all". And, as St. Paul says, we are in Christ [en Christo] even now. So the foundation has been laid, the transformation has begun. That transformation will be perfected when we are one with God. Now, I think that this union is not metaphorical, but that isn't to say that I have it figured out. I do think that the Incarnation gives us a clue to the possibility of a thoroughgoing union of the human and the divine.



You are absolutely right. The identity of the individual isn't to be annihilated.

I do think that divinization is more than sanctification. To be sanctified is to be made holy. I believe that something more radical, a still more radical transformation, awaits us. In fact, I think that sanctification precedes union. The mystics often talk this way, when they say that purification and illumination precede union. God brings us along by stages.



It made perfect sense. And it was a wonderful post. Thank you for taking the time to present it so clearly. I only hope I've done it some justice.

But we must also remember that Scripture says:

1 Corinthians 15

50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot possess the kingdom of God: neither shall corruption possess incorruption.

So, the physical will be transformed into the Spiritual.

1 Corinthians 15

44 It is sown a natural body, it shall rise a spiritual body. If there be a natural body, there is also a spiritual body, as it is written:

Apocalypse 21

1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth. For the first heaven and the first earth was gone, and the sea is now no more.

Scripture says:

1 John 3
2 Dearly beloved, 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.

Like, yes - scripture is clear that we shall have glorified bodies. It does not say that we become gods.


2 Peter 1 4 By whom he hath given us most great and precious promises: that by these you may be made partakers of the divine nature: flying the corruption of that concupiscence which is in the world.

Again, perhaps you missed it, but this refers to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit which occurs in this lifetime and Akoue said that he was referring to after this lifetime.



Romans 8 17 And if sons, heirs also; heirs indeed of God, and joint heirs with Christ: yet so, if we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified with him.

Again, does not say that we become gods. Scripture speaks in many places about our adoption as sons. An adoption son does not take on the nature of the Adoptive Father.


2 Thessalonians 1 12 That the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and you in him, according to the grace of our God, and of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Jesus is glorified in us - yes, again nothing about us becoming gods.


So, it sounds as though we will be united in some way more closely to Him than we can now imagine. A manner which is described in Scripture as partaking in His Divine nature and being glorified.

The indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Again, note that being a partaker of the Holy Spirit is here and now, not after this lifetime:

Heb 6:4-7
4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.
NKJV

But we must also remember that Scripture says:

1 Corinthians 15

50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot possess the kingdom of God: neither shall corruption possess incorruption.

So, the physical will be transformed into the Spiritual.

1 Corinthians 15

44 It is sown a natural body, it shall rise a spiritual body. If there be a natural body, there is also a spiritual body, as it is written:

Apocalypse 21

1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth. For the first heaven and the first earth was gone, and the sea is now no more.

Exactly. We are to undergo further transformation. God brings us to him, in other words.

Exactly. We are to undergo further transformation. God brings us to him, in other words.

Right - the question is what that transformation is - to make us gods? No.

Right - the question is what that transformation is - to make us gods? No.

Okay, Tom, we know where you stand.

Asking pronounced that man can discern something of God's nature.

Two things.

1. As I said before, I believe creation has been corrupted by Satan. So, we can't really see God as He is from the resulting good mixed with chaos. But, we see glimpses of the goodness of God, His love, in the love of creatures for their progeny and in the stretching of the leaves of plants towards the sun.

2. We also see in nature, the wisdom of God. Although, again, this has been corrupted by Satan to some extent, so that accidents occur. For the most part, creation works without a glitch. The sun, moon and stars move in the heavens with a precision which no manmade clock can match. We set our clocks by the stars.

The plants and animals have survival mechanisms in them which couldn't have evolved without wisdom having some input. Did the Himalayan Crickets get together and say, "hey, we'll permit ourselves to be frozen and thawed every year and thats how we'll survive the winter." Of course not! Wisdom was involved in creating them that way.

Two things.

1. As I said before, I believe creation has been corrupted by Satan. So, we can't really see God as He is from the resulting good mixed with chaos. But, we see glimpses of the goodness of God, His love, in the love of creatures for their progeny and in the stretching of the leaves of plants towards the sun.

2. We also see in nature, the wisdom of God. Although, again, this has been corrupted by Satan to some extent, so that accidents occur. For the most part, creation works without a glitch. The sun, moon and stars move in the heavens with a precision which no manmade clock can match. We set our clocks by the stars.

The plants and animals have survival mechanisms in them which couldn't have evolved without wisdom having some input. Did the Himalayan Crickets get together and say, "hey, we'll permit ourselves to be frozen and thawed every year and thats how we'll survive the winter." Of course not! Wisdom was involved in creating them that way.

You raise another really good point here, De Maria. It is customary to distinguish between moral evil and natural evil (natural disasters, etc.). But for the Fathers, this is a meaningless distinction inasmuch as natural evil is a consequence of moral evil. Sin erodes the harmonious order of creation (this is how St. Augustine and St. Gregory of Nyssa put it). Death is an example. Fred made a really interesting remark in the other thread, that where there is death there is a need for redemption, this because death is the consequence of sin, of moral evil.

Right - the question is what that transformation is - to make us gods? No.

St. Paul says that there are many gods:
1 Corinthians 8:5
For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

Scripture says NIV:
Psalm 8:5
You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor.

The term translated "heavenly beings" is elohim:

h430 אלהים 'elohiym

Elohym as you know, is the same word used for God.

I would say then, that if God says were created a little bit lower than gods, then He could make us into gods, if that is His will. And since Scripture says we will be like Him and we will share in His nature, then, apparently it is His will.

St. Paul says that there are many gods:
1 Corinthians 8:5
For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

Read the rest...

1 Cor 8:4-7
5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.
NKJV


Scripture says NIV:
Psalm 8:5
You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor.

The term translated "heavenly beings" is elohim:

h430 אלהים 'elohiym

Elohym as you know, is the same word used for God.
Get thee to a lexicon! The word Elohim can mean gods, God or judges. It effectively means mighty ones. The proper meaning of the word, like many wiords, depends upon the context.


I would say then, that if God says were created a little bit lower than gods, then He could make us into gods, if that is His will.

You are welcome to believe as you wish. It is just not in scripture.

Two things.

1. As I said before, I believe creation has been corrupted by Satan. So, we can't really see God as He is from the resulting good mixed with chaos. But, we see glimpses of the goodness of God, His love, in the love of creatures for their progeny and in the stretching of the leaves of plants towards the sun.

I disagree with this to the extent that the only thing Satan has the power over is to corrupt humankind. In my opinion this is why man is the focus of Satan. We do know that man was given dominion over the earth (Gen 1:26) but, (I don't think) scripture doesn't address what Satan has dominion over.


2. We also see in nature, the wisdom of God. Although, again, this has been corrupted by Satan to some extent, so that accidents occur. For the most part, creation works without a glitch. The sun, moon and stars move in the heavens with a precision which no manmade clock can match. We set our clocks by the stars.

I disagree in that there are no accidents. Everything happens according to God's plan. The reason why we see 'accidents' is that humankind substitutes its own plan for God's plan. (Akoue: Notice the absence of MAN – inclusive of Woman).


The plants and animals have survival mechanisms in them which couldn't have evolved without wisdom having some input. Did the Himalayan Crickets get together and say, "hey, we'll permit ourselves to be frozen and thawed every year and thats how we'll survive the winter." Of course not! Wisdom was involved in creating them that way.

It was God's plan. It wasn't the Cricket plan. If you were Cricket wouldn't your plan do away with cold altogether and just have eternal summer?

Just thinking out loud.

JoeT

I disagree with this to the extent that the only thing Satan has the power over is to corrupt humankind. In my opinion this is why man is the focus of Satan. We do know that man was given dominion over the earth (Gen 1:26) but, (I don’t think) scripture doesn't address what Satan has dominion over.

Okay, you've got to give my brain a rest. You're making good points faster than I can think through them

Scripture does say that Satan is the ruler of this age [ton archon tou aionou toutou], though it's less than transparent to me what that means. "This age" is vague, and it doesn't clearly state what it means that Satan is the ruler of it. As a fallen angel, though, Satan does enjoy powers we do not. Is this what you are thinking when you say that he only has power to corrupt?

(Interestingly, some Gnostics thought that it was saying not that Satan is the archon but that he is the arche, the source or origin of the physical world. But this is just an aside that's probably only of interest to geeks like me.)

You raise another really good point here, De Maria. It is customary to distinguish between moral evil and natural evil (natural disasters, etc.). But for the Fathers, this is a meaningless distinction inasmuch as natural evil is a consequence of moral evil. Sin erodes the harmonious order of creation (this is how St. Augustine and St. Gregory of Nyssa put it). Death is an example. Fred made a really interesting remark in the other thread, that where there is death there is a need for redemption, this because death is the consequence of sin, of moral evil.

It’s true, Evil is the most general, since the privation of form or right order or due measure in anything, whether subject or act, has the nature of evil. But, to do evil (sin) requires conscious cooperation with evil.
I disagree that there can be a thing such as natural evil or evil found in the things in nature. We can say that things are evil in the sense that they cause harm, e.g. a rock that falls and hit me on the head. – don’t anybody get any bright ideas. We can say that the rock was evil, in that it hurts my head, but there is no intrinsic evil in the rock. It was simply doing its thing hanging on the ledge. Evil requires conscience cooperation. The rock is incapable of cooperating; it must obey the laws of nature. How do we know whether God allowed the rock to fall that very instant that my head was directly below. You know, to knock some sense into me.

JoeT

It’s true, Evil is the most general, since the privation of form or right order or due measure in anything, whether subject or act, has the nature of evil. But, to do evil (sin) requires conscious cooperation with evil.
I disagree that there can be a thing such as natural evil or evil found in the things in nature. We can say that things are evil in the sense that they cause harm, e.g. a rock that falls and hit me on the head. – don’t anybody get any bright ideas. We can say that the rock was evil, in that it hurts my head, but there is no intrinsic evil in the rock. It was simply doing its thing hanging on the ledge. Evil requires conscience cooperation. The rock is incapable of cooperating; it must obey the laws of nature. How do we know whether or not God allowed the rock to fall that very instant that my head was directly below. You know, to knock some sense into me.

JoeT

I agree. Anything that doesn't involve conscious, deliberative agency, can only be said to be evil in an attenuated sense of that word. The Fathers reject the moral evil/natural evil distinction. And I think it's silly.

Okay, you've got to give my brain a rest. You're making good points faster than I can think through them

Scripture does say that Satan is the ruler of this age [ton archon tou aionou toutou], though it's less than transparent to me what that means. "This age" is vague, and it doesn't clearly state what it means that Satan is the ruler of it. As a fallen angel, though, Satan does enjoy powers we do not. Is this what you are thinking when you say that he only has power to corrupt?

(Interestingly, some Gnostics thought that it was saying not that Satan is the archon but that he is the arche, the source or origin of the physical world. But this is just an aside that's probably only of interest to geeks like me.)

(a little story) My boss and I were negotiating a contract a long time ago. We won the debate. But for some inexplicable reason, I continued the debate giving all the good points as to why we should have a LARGE fee. In front of the client, my boss turns to me and said, “You’ve won, SHUT-UP!” I don’t think I ever learned that lesson.

So, in that vein let me suggest that there is a vast difference in concept between being ruler over (having influence) and having dominion over (dominance, domination, complete control)

I would suggest that Satan does not enjoy power OVER man; rather he can only influence or sway mankind. That’s why he has to act with such guile; unless and except we cooperate with him does Satan have power. His power only resides in our cooperation (I pray).

Wouldn’t you think?

(a little story) My boss and I were negotiating a contract a long time ago. We won the debate. But for some inexplicable reason, I continued the debate giving all the good points as to why we should have a LARGE fee. In front of the client, my boss turns to me and said, “You’ve won, SHUT-UP!” I don’t think I ever learned that lesson.

Good story. I like that.



So, in that vein let me suggest that there is a vast difference in concept between being ruler over (having influence) and having dominion over (dominance, domination, complete control)


I'm not sure what dominion really means, to be honest. If humans have dominion over the earth, then "dominion" can't mean "complete control", because we don't have that. (Of course, what we were really given isn't dominion but stewardship.) So I'm not sure what to make of the distinction between being ruler and having dominion--although I agree with you that there is a distinction there.


I would suggest that Satan does not enjoy power OVER man; rather he can only influence or sway mankind. That’s why he has to act with such guile; unless and except we cooperate with him does Satan have power. His power only resides in our cooperation (I pray).

This is something I've been thinking about for years. In fact, I almost started a thread on this a couple of days ago. I do think that Satan's power extends beyond mere influence. Think about possession. What Satan doesn't have the power to do is to damn us against our will. For that we must cooperate. But he can do lots of other stuff to, or with, us against our will.

Good story. I like that.

Yeah, I was mad at the boss for weeks for making me look foolish. Being rather slow, it took that long to get it.


This is something I've been thinking about for years. In fact, I almost started a thread on this a couple of days ago. I do think that Satan's power extends beyond mere influence. Think about possession. What Satan doesn't have the power to do is to damn us against our will. For that we must cooperate. But he can do lots of other stuff to, or with, us against our will.

Possession was precisely what I was thinking of when I suggested that Satan’s powers are constrained. I’ve been taught that even possession requires some type of conscious cooperation, usually when sin is habitual, to allow Satan to enter and take control.

I’m going to study the backside of my eyelids for several hours. I’ve been told there are great and wondrous things there.

JoeT

Possession was precisely what I was thinking of when I suggested that Satan’s powers are constrained. I’ve been taught that even possession requires some type of conscious cooperation, usually when sin is habitual, to allow Satan to enter and take control.

What about Judas? He was an Apostle of the Lord, and we are told that Satan entered him.