God. Singular, I meant to say that god lives within us. So every human being has the spirit of the almighty God dwelling within.

Scripture says that it is only those who believe in Jesus:

John 7:39
39 But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.
NKJV

But unbelievers cannot receive the Holy Spirit:

John 14:16-17
17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you.
NKJV

Scripture says that it is only those who believe in Jesus:

John 7:39
39 But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.
NKJV

But unbelievers cannot receive the Holy Spirit:

John 14:16-17
17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you.
NKJV

True because it is said NOW we have hope.. Acts 2:26-28 Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope: Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance. KJV

Acts 2:29-32 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. KJV

Acts 2:33-35 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Until I make thy foes thy footstool.

When we believe in The WORD of GOD, and when we confess Christ as GOD begotten Son, then we can be baptized into newness of life. A life of righteousness in which Christ dwells within you, HIS righteousness that offers you death of this world, and able to rise as He did raise.

Baptized when Acts 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

The Word Of God

adam7gur,
Thanks.
I do believe as you do believe on this.
We are gods, some good, some bad.
Fred

Fred,

Huh?? Gods? Come ON! Surely that isn't a catholic teachng? We are human beings in need of a savior. We are ALL "BAD" if you want to use that term.. there is NONE that is good... except for Christ Jesus who IS GOD.

Fred,

huh???? gods? come ON! surely that isn't a catholic teacihng? we are human beings in need of a savior. We are ALL "BAD" if you want to use that term..there is NONE that is good...except for Christ Jesus who IS GOD.

Unfortunately, Classy, it is a Catholic teaching. Here is a quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, published by the Roman Catholic Church:

460 The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":78 "For this is why the Word became man, 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."79 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.

I copied this directly from the Vatican website.

It is, however, not Biblical.

Classyt.
Tj3 posted what I would have and it IS biblical as has been posted here in this thread.
Others just want to interpret it their way rather than as Jesus interpreted it.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Classyt.
Tj3 posted what I would have and it IS biblical as has been posted here in this thread.
Others just want to interpret it their way rather than as Jesus interpreted it.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

If it is Biblical, then Fred, show us where scripture endorses the belief that men are gods (or as the CCC says, that men are God).

As we have shown, Psalm 82 is a condemnation of that belief, and Jesus referred to it in John 10 to condemn the actions of those unbelievers who judged the Son of God falsely. No interpretation - it is Jesus' own words.

Tj3.
You have shown nothing that changes what the CCC said.
That I believe yoy can believe as you wish.
I'm going to bed now and I'll pray for you.
Fred

If it is Biblical, then Fred, show us where scripture endorses the belief that men are gods (or as the CCC says, that men are God).

As we have shown, Psalm 82 is a condemnation of that belief, and Jesus referred to it in John 10 to condemn the actions of those unbelievers who judged the Son of God falsely. No interpretation - it is Jesus' own words.

Hebrews 12.10: "in order that we may share <or: participate> in his holiness".

2Peter 1.4: "may become participants of the divine nature" (FYI: the divine nature is divinity--so we will participate in God's divinity).

1Corinthians 15.28: "so that God may be all in all [hina he ho theos ta panta en pasin]".

Ephesians 1.10: "as a plan for the fullness of time, to gather up all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth".

Acts 3.21 on apokatastasis. See Matthew 17.11, also on apokatasis.

This is an important issue, and it is directly relevant to the topic of the thread since it speaks to the question concerning what we are predestined for. The answer is given quite explicitly at 2Peter 1.4: Participation in the divine nature. In Greek this is called theosis. Don't make the mistake I have seen some fall into, of confusing theosis with the (Mormon) idea that we are to become gods in our own right. It is rather the idea that we are to become one with God, with the Divine nature. The oneness with God made possible by Christ isn't merely the harmony of our will with that of our Creator; the oneness with God which we are to enjoy is deeper than that. The perfection of our sanctification (a process which has already begun, of course) will come with our transformation, the transformation of our nature through unity with the Holy Trinity.

Note also that the Catholics, Orthodox, and others who believe in theosis are not as a rule adherents of the man-made doctrine of sola scriptura, a doctrine we recently saw you unable to vindicate. So, if your complaint is that theosis is not scriptural I would point out two things:

1. The above scriptures comport with one another to provide scriptural grounds for the doctrine of theosis, particularly when taken together with the teachings of the early Church regarding them. (The fifth book of Irenaeus's Adverus haereses, composed in the second century, is particularly helpful here.)

2. Scripture is not the sole authority and standard of truth in matters of doctrine and discipline--a fact that was recently brought vividly to light in the religious discussions forum where we saw (a.) that Scripture itself instructs us to uphold and abide by teachings that are outside Scripture* and (b.) that the doctrine of sola scriptura is itself an un-Scriptural man-made tradition. Recall that the only Scripture you were able to offer in defense of sola scriptura was a misreading of 2Timothy 3.14-17. That you had misunderstood (or perhaps consciously misrepresented--there's no way to know which) this passage was demonstrated repeatedly and was explained to you by a number of people, including a recent sola-scripturist. You have been unable to provide Scriptural vindication for your sola-scripturist commitments and so it really isn't at all reasonable of you to demand that others conform to those commitments. When you abandon that portion of God's revelation that has been given to us via Tradition, you severely limit your ability to reach a proper understanding of Scripture.

* The full import and proper understanding of the above-cited Scriptures would count as an authoritative teaching that is itself outside of Scripture.

Tj3.
You have shown nothing that changes what the CCC said.
That I believe yoy can believe as you wish.
I'm going to bed now and I'll pray for you.
Fred

So you do believe that man becomes God?

Hebrews 12.10: "in order that we may share <or: participate> in his holiness".

Christ's righteousness is imputed to those who believe - but it is HIS righteousness, not our. This has nothing to do with becoming "gods" or becoming God.


2Peter 1.4: "may become participants of the divine nature" (FYI: the divine nature is divinity--so we will participate in God's divinity).


Ever heard of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit? God remains God, man remain man. It does not make man God.


1Corinthians 15.28: "so that God may be all in all [hina he ho theos ta panta en pasin]".

1 Cor 15:28
28 Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.
NKJV

To claim that this suggests that man becomes gods or God is a major stretch. Especially if you take the time to read it in context:

1 Cor 15:20-27
20 But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. 23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ's at His coming. 24 Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. 27 For "He has put all things under His feet." But when He says "all things are put under Him," it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted.
NKJV


Ephesians 1.10: "as a plan for the fullness of time, to gather up all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth".

Read the whole verse:

Eph 1:7-10
7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace 8 which He made to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence, 9 having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, 10 that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth--in Him.
NKJV

This is speaking of redemption, not making men gods or God.



Acts 3.21 on apokatastasis. See Matthew 17.11, also on apokatasis.

This is speaking also of being saved:

Acts 3:19-21
19 Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, 20 and that He may send Jesus Christ, who was preached to you before, 21 whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began.
NKJV

This this is speaking of John the Baptist:

Matt 17:10-13
11 Jesus answered and said to them, "Indeed, Elijah is coming first and will restore all things. 12 But I say to you that Elijah has come already, and they did not know him but did to him whatever they wished. Likewise the Son of Man is also about to suffer at their hands." 13 Then the disciples understood that He spoke to them of John the Baptist.
NKJV

Yes, Akoue, I take the time to read the context!


This is an important issue, and it is directly relevant to the topic of the thread since it speaks to the question concerning what we are predestined for. The answer is given quite explicitly at 2Peter 1.4: Participation in the divine nature. In Greek this is called theosis. Don't make the mistake I have seen some fall into, of confusing theosis with the (Mormon) idea that we are to become gods in our own right. It is rather the idea that we are to become one with God, with the Divine nature. The oneness with God made possible by Christ isn't merely the harmony of our will with that of our Creator; the oneness with God which we are to enjoy is deeper than that. The perfection of our sanctification (a process which has already begun, of course) will come with our transformation, the transformation of our nature through unity with the Holy Trinity.

It does not matter how you explain it. Scripture is clear that men do not become gods. The only places that you find any mention of such a thing is when Satan tries to transfer his ambition to become god to man, and in Psalm 82 / John 10 when it is a condemnation / judgment against those who are unsaved and who have rejected the righteousness of God.

As for Mormons theology, I have, numerous times debated this very thing with Mormons and Roman Catholics who have joined together in agreement on their beliefs, defending them as a commonly held belief - one such catholic is a common participant on this board. Some people on another board thought for a while that he had converted to Mormonism, he was such a strong defender of their teachings for a period.


Note also that the Catholics, Orthodox, and others who believe in theosis are not as a rule adherents of the man-made doctrine of sola scriptura, a doctrine we recently saw you unable to vindicate.

Their lack of adherence to sola scriptura is no doubt one of the reasons that we differ on this point, I agree. Scripture is very clear regarding the fact that men are not gods, and I stick by what it says.

This has nothing to do with becoming "gods" or becoming God.

Theosis is not "men becoming gods."

Fred, Akoue
Thank you!

Theosis is not "men becoming gods."

I did not bring up theosis - Akoue did.

But the Roman catholic denomination does speak of men becoming god's and men becoming God.

What I am trying to figure out is why this is being brought up at all - what does that have to do with predestination in any case?

I did not bring up theosis - Akoue did.

But the Roman catholic denomination does speak of men becoming god's and men becoming God.

What I am trying to figure out is why this is being brought up at all - what does that have to do with predestination in any case?
adam7gur quoted from Psalm 82, and you responded to him that men do not become gods (no apostrophe). Others chimed in with opinions, and Akoue explained theosis, a sort of related but different and much misunderstood theology. It has to do with predestination in that... are we predestined for theosis?

adam7gur quoted from Psalm 82, and you responded to him that men do not become gods (no apostrophe). Others chimed in with opinions, and Akoue explained theosis, a sort of related but different and much misunderstood theology. It has to do with predestination in that...are we predestined for theosis?

Anyone can believe what they want, but men do not become gods in any way, shape or form. God even warned us against exalting ourselves:

Matt 23:12
12 And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.
NKJV

Which is what calling ourselves gods in any form does.

Therefore God could not have predestined anyone to something that He condemns.

I did not bring up theosis - Akoue did.

But the Roman catholic denomination does speak of men becoming god's and men becoming God.

What I am trying to figure out is why this is being brought up at all - what does that have to do with predestination in any case?

Reference: Ex 22:28 shows the gods, are as the rules, representiing God in judgement of the people. But they were being called gods.

And we are to walk in righteousness, being holy as He is HOLY because we confess faith and worthyness in HIS blood that set us free from what Adam and Eve did. There is no double minded option once baptized into the newness of life. We are no longer cursed because we have the free will choice to the Tree of Life.

If anyone doubts this, they doubt Christ's worthyness, and remain in sin.
1 John 3:7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. 1 John 3:6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

It is clear if anyone wants to be a sinner, they remain with satan and his tree of knowledge in evil.

1 John 3:1-3 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. 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. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.

Christ's righteousness is imputed to those who believe - but it is HIS righteousness, not our. This has nothing to do with becoming "gods" or becoming God.

Here's the verse I quoted:


Hebrews 12.10: "in order that we may share <or: participate> in his holiness".

This doesn't say anything about "imputation". It says, quite explicitly, that we share or participate in God's holiness. How many holinesses are there? Just one, right? God's. There is only one holiness, and it is in that one holiness that we participate.

Surely you aren't going to tell me that this verse doesn't mean what it says. I ask, because it says "share", not "impute".


Ever heard of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit? God remains God, man remain man. It does not make man God.

Here's the verse I quoted:


2Peter 1.4: "may become participants of the divine nature" (FYI: the divine nature is divinity--so we will participate in God's divinity).

This says nothing about the "indwelling" of the Holy Spirit. It says that we are to participate in the Divine nature. Again, I am assuming that the Scripture means what it says.


1 Cor 15:28
28 Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.
NKJV

To claim that this suggests that man becomes gods or God is a major stretch. Especially if you take the time to read it in context:

Why, then, I guess it's a good thing that I didn't claim that it "suggests that man becomes gods [sic] or God". It does, though, say that "God may be all in all". We will become one with God, we will participate in God's nature, in his holiness. This is exactly what the doctrine of theosis and its Catholic counterpart say. If you dislike the use of the word "deification" then it seems likely that the reason for this is your poor understanding both of Scripture and of the Orthodox and Catholic teachings. (You make a telling remark below which appears to indicate that this diagnosis is on the right track.)


Eph 1:7-10
7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace 8 which He made to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence, 9 having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, 10 that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth--in Him.
NKJV

This is speaking of redemption, not making men gods or God.

Theosis is redemption. I thought you had studied this stuff.


This is speaking also of being saved:

Acts 3:19-21
19 Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, 20 and that He may send Jesus Christ, who was preached to you before, 21 whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began.
NKJV

This this is speaking of John the Baptist:

Matt 17:10-13
11 Jesus answered and said to them, "Indeed, Elijah is coming first and will restore all things. 12 But I say to you that Elijah has come already, and they did not know him but did to him whatever they wished. Likewise the Son of Man is also about to suffer at their hands." 13 Then the disciples understood that He spoke to them of John the Baptist.
NKJV

Again, you have led us to believe that you've studied this stuff. So I am to gather that you know nothing about apokatastasis? That's fine. We'll just set it aside. You should spend some time pondering what is meant by talk about the "restoration of all things".


It does not matter how you explain it.

This is a very telling statement.


Scripture is clear that men do not become gods. The only places that you find any mention of such a thing is when Satan tries to transfer his ambition to become god to man, and in Psalm 82 / John 10 when it is a condemnation / judgment against those who are unsaved and who have rejected the righteousness of God.

Scripture is clear that we will participate in the Divine nature. This participation in the Divine nature is called theosis by Eastern Orthodoxy and deification by Catholicism.

I have said nothing about Psalm 82 or John 10. You can take that up with Adam7gur, if you like.


As for Mormons theology, I have, numerous times debated this very thing with Mormons and Roman Catholics who have joined together in agreement on their beliefs, defending them as a commonly held belief - one such catholic is a common participant on this board. Some people on another board thought for a while that he had converted to Mormonism, he was such a strong defender of their teachings for a period.

Since Catholic and Mormon theology are not in agreement on this matter, it seems likely that one or both of the following things were going on between these (fictional?) interlocutors: (a.) The Catholic and Mormon were in agreement with each other that you were mistaken, or (b.) one or both of them had a deficient understanding of the teachings of his own church. Either way, the anecdote contributes nothing to the present discussion.


Their lack of adherence to sola scriptura is no doubt one of the reasons that we differ on this point, I agree. Scripture is very clear regarding the fact that men are not gods, and I stick by what it says.

I'd offer a slightly different diagnosis. You reject much of God's revelation to his people. You reject God's word, every bit of it that isn't written down in the canon of Scripture that you have chosen to use. Scripture is very clear that we will participate in the Divine nature. Since God's nature is his divinity, we will share in God's divinity. Perhaps if you were to avail yourself of the whole of God's word you would find yourself less prone to misunderstand Scripture.

Then again, since you are unwilling to be obedient to God's word when it tells us to uphold and abide by oral Tradition, it isn't altogether surprising to find you unwiling to acknowledge the truth of the doctrine of theosis/deification despite Scripture's explicit affirmation that we are to participate in God's holiness and nature, becoming one with God so that, in the fullness of time, God "may be all in all".

Fred, Akoue
Thank you!

And thank you, Adam, for your very thoughtful contributions to the discussion.

Here's the verse I quoted:
This doesn't say anything about "imputation". It says, quite explicitly, that we share or participate in God's holiness. How many holinesses are there? Just one, right? God's. There is only one holiness, and it is in that one holiness that we participate.

Surely you aren't going to tell me that this verse doesn't mean what it says. I ask, because it says "share", not "impute".

IT does not say anything about making men gods or God. But we do know about the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in context. Surely you don't advocate taking a single verse out of context and altering what it says to agree with your private interpretation.

And so on with the other verses.


Theosis is redemption. I thought you had studied this stuff.

One of us has, and apparently you are not familiar with the teaching. I quoted the CCC, so we know what the Roman Catholic denomination has to say about it.


Scripture is clear that we will participate in the Divine nature. This participation in the Divine nature is called theosis by Eastern Orthodoxy and deification by Catholicism.

Which differs from the context of scripture which doe NOT say that men become gods or God, but says that the Holy Spirit indwells believers.


I have said nothing about Psalm 82 or John 10. You can take that up with Adam7gur, if you like.

Perhaps you have not been following the discussion.


I'd offer a slightly different diagnosis. You reject much of God's revelation to his people.

I accept ALL of God's revelation, which includes the prohibition against adding to it.

But then I note that you end your message moving in the direction that every discussion goes - a false accusation.

Which differs from the context of scripture which doe NOT say that men become gods or God....
Neither does theosis.

Neither does theosis.

I quoted the Roman Catholic denomination's doctrine which specifically says that men become gods and men become God. Deny that it says what it says if you wish, but that does not change anything.

I quoted the Roman Catholic denomination's doctrine which specifically says that men become gods and men become God. Deny that it says what it says if you wish, but that does not change anything.
That is not theosis. What you quoted is not what Akoue is talking about.

That is not theosis. What you quoted is not what Akoue is talking about.

Then perhaps he should not respond to CCC Article 460 with a comments on a different topic.

BTW, do you know that an alternate term used by the Orthdox Church for theosis is "deification" of man?

Then perhaps he should not respond to CCC Article 460 with a comments on a different topic.
He didn't. You threw in the CCC thing.


BTW, do you know that an alternate term used by the Orthdox Church for theosis is "deification" of man?
You have your facts wrong--or at least misunderstand that term.

He didn't. You threw in the CCC thing.

For your benefit, let's go back over what happened.

- Adam, with the agreement of Fred brought up the idea that men are gods.
- Classy questioned if that was a doctrine of the Roman Catholic denomination.
- I pointed out that it was by quoting the CCC article 460.
- Akoue responded in post 258.

You should check out the facts before criticizing others.


You have your facts wrong--or at least misunderstand that term.

Check any Orthodox church site. That is the word that THEY use.

Once again, it would benefit you to check first.

Once again, it would benefit you to check first.
I have checked. As I said, "deification" has a whole 'nother shade of meaning than what you are giving it. That's the meaning Akoue is using. I'm so sorry you are missing the boat. He explained it well more than once in this thread.

I have checked. As I said, "deification" has a whole 'nother shade of meaning than what you are giving it.

I gave it no definition, so you are making assumptions. Check the dictionary for the definition.


That's the meaning Akoue is using. I'm so sorry you are missing the boat. He explained it well more than once in this thread.

Akoue can believe what he wishes, but the discussion is on article 460 which is quite specific on it's meaning. I'll let you grab a dictionary to look up the meaning of deification.

Again, I suggest that you get your facts straight first.

I gave it no definition, so you are making assumptions. Check the dictionary for the definition.
Yes, you did. You said it means "men become gods or God."

Akoue can believe what he wishes, but the discussion is on article 460 which is quite specific on it's meaning. I'll let you grab a dictionary to look up the meaning of deification.

Again, I suggest that you get your facts straight first.
But that is NOT what he is referring to as "deification." Please read his very lucid definition.

Yes, you did. You said it means "men become gods or God."

I did not define deification, and that is what we are talking about.


But that is NOT what he is referring to as "deification." Please read his very lucid definition.

I do not care about HIS definition. He can create his own if he wishes, but the question was surrounding article 460 of the CCC.

Akoue,
Thanks much for that.
And...
In my prayers after partaking of the Eucharist at Mass this morning I gave thanks to God for providing to me the ability via the Eucharist to become one with Him.
Yes I do believe that a person can become God, that is one with God as Jesus mentioned becoming one with the Father.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

But that is NOT what he is referring to as "deification." Please read his very lucid definition.

Now, a quote from Fred


I do believe that a person can become God

Your turn WG :D

In Post #259, Akoue very nicely explained what "deification" is.

In Post #261 you said --


Ever heard of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit? God remains God, man remain man. It does not make man God.

To claim that this suggests that man becomes gods or God is a major stretch.
Akoue did NOT make that claim. Fred did, but Akoue didn't.

In Post #256, Akoue very nicely explained what "deification" is.

In Post #261 you said --


Akoue did NOT make that claim. Fred did, but Akoue didn't.

It does not matter. You are not talking definitions, but the opinions of two people. I quoted from the official doctrine of the Roman Catholic denomination.

It does not matter. You are not talking definitions, but the opinions of two people. I quoted from the official doctrine of the Roman Catholic denomination.
Why did you do that?

Why did you do that?

Post 276

Post 276
WHY, not where.

WHY, not where.

Post 276 tells you why. Trying reading what I post for a change!

Post 276 tells you why. Trying reading what I post for a change!
That didn't tell me anything. Why did you bother to look that up? It has nothing at all to do with deification as Akoue was using the term. Adam yes, but Akoue, no.

That didn't tell me anything. Why did you bother to look that up? It has nothing at all to do with deification as Akoue was using the term. Adam yes, but Akoue, no.

Again, try reading the posts.

Akoue responded to Article 460. That was what he first responded to. I explained why in that post where I summarized for you what happened, but despite the fact that you have been pointed to it serveral times, you apparently don't care enough to read what happened.

You are wasting time when you won't read the posts it has to be explained to you afterward.

Again, try reading the posts.

Akoue responded to Article 460. That was what he first responded to. I explained why in that post where I summarized for you what happened, but despite the fact that you have been pointed to it serveral times, you apparently don;t care enough to read what happened.

You are wasting time when you won't read the posts it has to be explained to you afterward.
No. YOU have it wrong. I've read it from the get-go. And again and again and again.

You do not understand deification.

No. YOU have it wrong. I've read it from the get-go. And again and again and again.

Then you would not be so confused about what role article 460 had in the discussion.


You do not understand deification.

Show me the dictionary definition that you are using.

Wondergirl,
I agree with Akoue and Jesus about deification.
Fred

Wondergirl,
I agree with Akoue and Jesus about deification.
Fred

You cannot agree with both. Scripture opposes the belief that men become gods and God.

Tj3,
I can agree with both and I have done so.
Fred

Tj3,
I can agree with both and I have done so.
Fred

You have to choose. Scripture says not to exalt man.

Show me the dictionary definition that you are using.
Akoue's definition.

Akoue's definition.

Akoue is not a dictionary, so you are tying your definition to Akoue's opinion.

Tj3,
Please DO NOT try to tell me what I can or can not do.
I will do as I think best, definitely not what you do.
Fred

Tj3,
Please DO NOT try to tell me what I can or can not do.
I will do as I think best, definitely not what you do.
Fred

Do as you wish Fred. I am just saying that you cannot hold to two different mutually exclusive positions at the same time. It is not me allowing or disallowing - it is reality.

Akoue is not a dictionary, so you are tying your definition to Akoue's opinion.
He was using passages from the NT.

He was using passages from the NT.

Most of which were not even related to the topic. Just using references does not mean that the reference are relevant or that they support the claim.

Most of which were not even related to the topic. Just using references does not mean that the reference are relevant or that they support the claim.
They were VERY relevant. Am I supposed to requote them for you?

They were VERY relevant. Am I supposed to requote them for you?

Again, why don't you read my response first before we start going around in circles. Because if all you do is quote them again, then I will just copy and paste my response.

Tj3,
Really?
How interesting for I just did that.
Fred

Again, why don't you read my response first before we start going around in circles. Because if all you do is quote them again, then I will just copy and paste my response.
I have read your response (more than once). You were not speaking to the subject, to what Akoue was saying is deification.

I see that you are not willing to move your imagination past the logjam that is stopping up your cognitive processes and be willing to consider that there is more than one way to think about deification, so I am off to wash dishes. Good night.

I have read your response (more than once). You were not speaking to the subject, to what Akoue was saying is deification.

I was indeed. For some reason, you appear to miss a lot of what I post.


I see that you are not willing to move your imagination past the logjam that is stopping up your usual cognitive processes and be willing to consider that there is more than one way to think about deification, so I am off to wash dishes. Good night.

Ah, I see that we are back into the personal attack mode.

BTW, I am well aware of the different ideas around deification, but you are right that I stick to one - the one taught in scripture. I am not like Fred who just said that he holds to two different mutually exclusive positions at the same time.

I was indeed. For some reason, you appear to miss a lot of what I post.
No, you weren't. No, I don't. I pour over what you write. Here are two of the passages mentioned:

Hebrews 12.10: "in order that we may share <or: participate> in his holiness".

2Peter 1.4: "may become participants of the divine nature" (FYI: the divine nature is divinity--so we will participate in God's divinity).

Even Wikipedia has it figured out a la Akoue.

Ah, I see that we are back into the personal attack mode.
Just paying you back for your subtle putdowns.

BTW, I am well aware of the different ideas around deification
And those are?

Dishes are air-drying, and I am off to bed.

Wondergirl,
Your are right to not let him get away with that.
Fred

Adam and Eve were made in the image of God.
His image has unlimited levels and one of them is NOT KNOWING EVIL . Adam and Eve were EXACTLY so , they did not know evil until they ate the fruit of knowing good and evil.
Psalm 82 is about how men , even though created not to know evil, choose to know .Men even though made like God, choosing to die like men.Men were not supposed to die at all but after they ate the fruit of knowing good and evil , death came.
Psalm 82 , John 10:34 is not about men being gods in God's place but as Akoue through Scripture indicated that men participate in God's holiness.If I participate in a murder , I am a murderer too,and if I participate in God, I am god too!
Psalm 82 is God saying,you chose evil but I said you are gods, therefore you die like men.
Those who participate in God, are foreknown and predestinated, because they are IN God,they are HIS.Don't let time mislead you, God is beyond time.
The Pharissees and the scribes knew the law and the prophets better than anyone but they failed to recognize Christ as the Son of God,while simple fishermen and taxcollectors became His desciples.

Tj3,
I can agree with both and I have done so.
Fred

And so do I!

Then you would not be so confused about what role article 460 had in the discussion.

What is quite clear, amid all this jousting, is that you haven't understood CCC 460. It occurs in a section that addresses the salvific import of the Incarnation. It opens with a quote of 2Peter 1.4 and goes on to include a quote from Athanasius and another from Aquinas. These appear to be the two things about which you are jumping up and down.

Both Athanasius and Aquinas are talking about theosis/deification. You would know this if you had taken the time to read the texts that are being quoted at CCC 460. The bit from Athanasius, taken from his On the Incarnation of the Logos, is the locis classicis for the doctrine of theosis/deification.

This is why it is important to work at understanding a view before proceeding to criticize it. You have elected to criticize CCC 460 because you find the formulations of the doctrine of theosis offered by Athanasius and Aquinas to be objectionable. But you clearly don't understand what they are saying, what their formulations mean, because they are saying nothing other than what I have already said about theosis/deification.

Had you studied this stuff as you have often claimed you would know this, you would understand that Athanasius and Aquinas are offering glosses on 2Peter 1.4, they are unpacking what is meant by participation in the Divine nature. Now one could argue that they are confused about this, that their glosses get 2Peter 1.4 wrong. But you haven't done this; you haven't argued that they are confused about the meaning of Scripture. Instead, you have fixated on their terminology, all the while giving voice to your incomprehension of that terminology. This is why the exchange that took place here last night, after I posted my second response to you, was doomed to go nowhere: You simply don't understand what is being said. Had you done your homework you'd have discovered that these two quotes are dealing with the doctrine of theosis/deification as I have explained it above. There is a word for what you have done: sophistry.


Show me the dictionary definition that you are using.

Why on earth would you think that an English dictionary is of any use in this context? The concept of theosis or deification is a very technical theological notion which cannot be adequately grasped by surveying the different uses to which the term "deification" is put in English (and which is what a dictionary provides). In order to understand it, one would have to roll up one's sleeves and read some pretty hard stuff, including Athanasius's On the Incarnation of the Logos, Pseudo-Macarius's Spiritual Homilies, Augustine's On the Trinity, and most of Evagrius of Pontus, to name only a very few of the seminal works on the topic. Rather than making an investment of time and effort by reading works from which you may learn something, you have instead chosen to come off half-cocked and opine about things you manifestly do not understand.

Scripture tells us that we will participate or share in God's nature, in his divinity. What could this possibly mean other than this: We will become one with God, we will be transformed by this oneness with God, we will be divinized. Why divinized? Because this is what it means to participate or share in God's divinity. This is what oneness with God means. The work of sanctification that has begun will be perfected when God is all in all.

If you wish to object to the claims, made by Athanasius and Aquinas and quoted at CCC 460, that we will become God or gods, try at least to come to grips with what that actually means. It isn't an exaltation; it is a description of the intimacy with the Holy Trinity that awaits us.

No, you weren't. No, I don't. I pour over what you write. Here are two of the passages mentioned:

Okay, let's do the copy and paste approach, if you wish.


Hebrews 12.10: "in order that we may share <or: participate> in his holiness".

Christ's righteousness is imputed to those who believe - but it is HIS righteousness, not our. This has nothing to do with becoming "gods" or becoming God.


2Peter 1.4: "may become participants of the divine nature" (FYI: the divine nature is divinity--so we will participate in God's divinity).

Ever heard of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit? God remains God, man remain man. It does not make man God.

Once again, it would be so much easier, WG, if you would only read what I posted.

What is quite clear, amid all this jousting, is that you haven't understood CCC 460. It occurs in a section that addresses the salvific import of the Incarnation.

I understand it only too well.

Let me ask a direct question. If you don'y mean "men become gods", why do you say "men become gods"?

If you don't mean "men become God", why do you say "Men become God"?

You in this context refers to the Roman Catholic denomination.


Why on earth would you think that an English dictionary is of any use in this context?

Maybe because we are speaking the English language

Maybe because we are speaking the English language
But deification is not a concept easily explained in English.

If you insist on a dictionary, maybe you will accept Wikipedia?

Through theoria, the contemplation of the triune God, human beings come to know and experience what it means to be fully human (the created image of God); through their communion with Jesus Christ, God shares Himself with the human race, in order to conform them to all that He is in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness. [This is what is to happen during our earthly life.]

As God became human, in all ways except sin, He will also make humans god, in all ways except his divine essence. St Irenaeus explained this doctrine in Against Heresies, Book 5, in the Preface, "the Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through his transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself."

St Maximus the Confessor wrote, "A sure warrant for looking forward with hope to deification of human nature is provided by the incarnation of God, which makes man god to the same degree as God himself became man... Let us become the image of the one whole God, bearing nothing earthly in ourselves, so that we may consort with God and become gods, receiving from God our existence as gods. For it is clear that He who became man without sin (cf. Heb. 4:15) will divinize human nature without changing it into the divine nature, and will raise it up for his own sake to the same degree as He lowered himself for man's sake. This is what St Paul teaches mystically when he says, '... that in the ages to come he might display the overflowing richness of His grace' (Eph. 2:7)."

From Wondergirl -- Think about it! He who became man without sin (cf. Heb. 4:15) will divinize human nature without changing it into the divine nature, and will raise it up for his own sake to the same degree as He lowered himself for man's sake -- now THAT I can wrap my mind around, not we will become gods as the Mormons believe, but, as Akoue mentioned, be brought into some aspect of God's divine nature as the final stage, completion, of the sanctification process.

I understand it only too well.

Your posts belie that statement.

This is just posturing. And it's a pity, since people here are trying to help you to learn something. It is sad that you aren't able to recognize them as benefactors or their efforts as acts of generosity. You have people taking time out of their day, time away from other meaningful things, in order to explain and help you to understand something quite profound. Wondergirl has been especially patient and generous in this regard and she does not deserve the frequent put-downs with which you have repaid her efforts on your behalf.


Let me ask a direct question. If you don'y mean "men become gods", why do you say "men become gods"?

I should think that were you interested in an answer to this question you might have read Aquinas's Opusculum 57.1-4, since this is the origin of the quote (the CCC provides the citation for this).

In any case, I did not choose this phrasing for Aquinas, he chose it for himself. I have already explained what it means above. It is important to understand the idiom in which a writer chooses to express himself or herself. Once you have taken the time, and invested the effort to do so, you will see that there is nothing theologically suspect about what Aquinas, or Athanasius (below), have said. Or, at least, you'll then be in a position to formulate a congent and informed response to what they've said. So far all you've offered is hand-waving.


If you don't mean "men become God", why do you say "Men become God"?


Here again, if you were genuinely interested in understanding what you read you would by now have studied Athanasius's On the Incarnation of the Logos and taken an especially close look at 54.3. It's a very famous work. Had you studied the matter as you have claimed you would surely have read it many times and so would not be as mystified by this use of language as you manifestly are.

That said, it should be quite obvious by now what it means, since I have explained participation in the Divine nature. If you disagree with the view then by all means bring forth a reasoned and cogent argument against it. But it's time to bring the rhetorical bluster to an end.


You in this context refers to the Roman Catholic denomination.

It's very important to you to peg people in denominational terms, which is all the more unfortunate as it keeps you from coming to grips with the things people say (or write, as the case may be). You've decided antecedently that you don't like Catholicism and that seems to motivate a good deal of what you write. We see this in evidence here, where you have taken a paragraph out of the CCC and adduced it to show that Catholics believe something that would strike some as quite preposterous. It certainly strikes you that way, because you have shorn that paragraph of its rich theological context which, if you had really studied it as you like to claim, would cause you far less cognitive dissonance. Oh, sure, you might still disagree with the doctrine of theosis/deification: Reasonable people can disagree about such things, it seems to me. But you are clearly hung up on the words; you haven't even made it to their meaning, to their theological import. And that shows us that you have, in fact, invested no time or effort to understand the view you are now bent on subjecting to scorn.

I have never posted any denominational affiliation. Nor will I, as I don't see that such things are anybody's business. I have, however, frequently defended Catholicism and Orthodoxy from your criticisms of them. The reason for this is that your criticisms--and this has been pointed out to you many times, by numerous posters--give evidence of a very superficial knowledge of them. I am not here to advocate for CCC 460 but rather to point out that you have misunderstood and distorted its meaning--this for the benefit of others who might otherwise read this thread and be misled by your posts. I am certainly not here to attempt to vindicate Catholicism in the face of your criticisms of it. As I see it, it is in need of no vindication, particularly in the face of your profoundly ill-informed criticisms--criticisms which, as I say, betray a pretty appalling ignorance, particularly coming from someone who regularly tells us all how thoroughly he's studied it. You seem to regard AMHD as an occasion to evangelize; I, on the other hand, see it as a question-and-answer forum and so am concerned that the information disseminated be accurate and, as far as possible, free from error and distortion. Where Catholicism is concerned, distortion is your stock-in-trade. My view is that if someone is going to reject Catholicism, or Orthodoxy, it should be for the right reasons and not as a result of a caricature that has been presented to them by a polemicist.

In any case, my sympathies lie more with Eastern Orthodoxy on this point, as I believe that the Catholic Church has not sufficiently emphasized the centrality and importance of theosis but has instead--in modern times, at least--overemphasized the notion of substitutionary atonement. I have the same criticism of Protestantism (I include your brand of fundamentalism here) which tends toward a single-minded obsession with substitutionary atonement to the nigh-well wholesale neglect of theosis and operates with a soteriology that is all the more impoverished as a consequence of that neglect. We see the upshot of that neglect played out here in your posts: You haven't even made conceptual space for it and so are mystified by not only the concept itself but by the language some have used to try to capture it. Since theosis was at the heart of the soteriology of the early Church, your mystification in the face of it proves that you have never truly studied early Christian history or theology. Now that would be fine if only you hadn't repeatedly claimed to have spent decades studying early Christian history and theology. We see once again that this was a lie.


Maybe because we are speaking the English language

Here again you betray the superficiality of your study of theology. The concept of theosis is not something that can be sufficiently grasped merely by surveying the common uses to which the word "deification" is put in English (this is all that a dictionary provides). A first semester freshman would know better than that. But you don't, and this can only be because you simply don't understand what is involved in working toward a deep understanding of theological concepts; it is foreign soil to you. Now I certainly don't begrudge anybody their choice to devote to their time and energies to things other than the study of theology and ancient languages. But it is just dishonest of you repeatedly to assert that you have studied these things when it is blazingly obvious to anyone with even a passing familiarity with them that you have not. Rather than constantly misrepresenting yourself as an expert, allow yourself to learn from others who know more than you about a particular issue. Or, at the very least, don't go out with both guns blazing when you don't know what you're talking about. Sit back, read what others post, and take it as an opportunity to learn something. I've done that many times. There's no shame in it.

adam7gur,
Very good explanation.
Thanks,
Fred

But deification is not a concept easily explained in English.

Sure it is:

de·i·fi·ca·tion
n.

1.
1. The act or process of deifying.
2. The condition of being deified.
2. One that embodies the qualities of a god.



de⋅i⋅fy

–verb (used with object), -fied, -fy⋅ing.
1. to make a god of; exalt to the rank of a deity; personify as a deity: to deify a beloved king.
2. to adore or regard as a deity: to deify wealth.

(Source: Dictionary.com)

Some may try to deny what the CCC says when it says that men become gods or men become God, and others on here write long posts making demeaning comments about those who disagree to distract away from this, but the word is actually very simply to define and understand in English.

What you will not find is the concept of deification endorsed in scripture.

What you will not find is the concept of deification endorsed in scripture.
You didn't read Akoue's post, did you.

OR I now wonder if you are as befuddled by string theory or multiple dimensions or worm holes or five-dollar words in English as you are by theosis. Here are two relevant Bible verses:

Hebrews 12.10: "in order that we may share <or: participate> in his holiness".

2Peter 1.4: "may become participants of the divine nature" (FYI: the divine nature is divinity--so we will participate in God's divinity).

You didn't read Akoue's post, did you.

I did. I acknowledge that his opinion differs.


Hebrews 12.10: "in order that we may share <or: participate> in his holiness".

2Peter 1.4: "may become participants of the divine nature" (FYI: the divine nature is divinity--so we will participate in God's divinity).

Refers to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. In no way, not by any sense of the word does that make a man God.

In no way, not by any sense of the word does that make a man God.
That is not what he said, based on the writings of St. Paul and Early Church fathers. Now I KNOW you didn't read what he said, or, if you did, as you claim to, you do not understand it. It is not making a man God.

That is not what he said, based on the writings of St. Paul and Early Church fathers.

First, don't forget that the whole discussion started over the proposal that men become gods, and CCC article 460 which specifically states that men become gods and that men become God. That is what we are discussing!

As for Paul, he neither said nor implied anything of the sort. As for early church fathers, you are into opinions of men.

First, don't forget that the whole discussion started over the proposal that men become gods, and CCC article 460 which specifically states that men become gods and that men become God. That is what we are discussing!

As for Paul, he neither said nor implied anything of the sort. As for early church fathers, you are into opinions of men.
Now I am sure you did not read (understand?) what Akoue so eloquently wrote today (and previously). Nor did you read (understand?) the Wiki passage. Had you read (understood?) either, you would not have posted what you just did about the bit (taken out of context) from the CCC article and men becoming gods/God (not deification).

Deification makes so very much sense in light of the entire process of sanctification.

Now I am sure you did not read (understand?) what Akoue so eloquently wrote today (and previously). Nor did you read (understand?) the Wiki passage. Had you read (understood?) either, you would not have posted what you just did about the bit (taken out of context) from the CCC article and men becoming gods/God (not deification).

First, just because I disagree based upon my knowledge of the topic does not mean that I did not read. To demand that I must agree because he holds that opinion is to suggest that disagreement is not permissible. Sorry WG, but you might be disappointed in the rights that we have in a free society. Actually, I am not sorry - if you cannot tolerate my right to disagree, that is your problem.

BTW, deification means to make men to be gods, thus article 460 by definition is deification.

First, just because I disagree based upon my knowledge of the topic does not mean that I did not read. To demand that I must agree because he holds that opinion is to suggest that disagreement is not permissible. Sorry WG, but you might be disappointed in the rights that we have in a free society. Actually, I am not sorry - if you cannot tolerate my right to disagree, that is your problem.

BTW, deification means to make men to be gods, thus article 460 by definition is deification.
It's not a matter of your disagreeing; it's a matter of your obviously not understanding the term.

If you disagree with the correct meaning of deification, you will not continually pipe up with the "men become gods" phrase. You would present more nimble arguments.

Wondergirl,
I stand by you on this.
I do believe that when I become one with God the Son via partaking of the Holy Eucharist become deified; that is again ONE WITH GOD.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

It's not a matter of your disagreeing; it's a matter of your obviously not understanding the term.

You keep saying so, but I understand all too well.


If you disagree with the correct meaning of deification, you will not continually pipe up with the "men become gods" phrase. You would present more nimble arguments.

You won't find a dictionary which gives a different definition. And it is what CCC Article 460 says, in those specific words.

You keep saying so, but I understand all too well.
Unfortuntely not.

You won't find a dictionary which gives a different definition. And it is what CCC Article 460 says, in those specific words.
Have you read the context, the entire article? Or do what you frown on, lifted it out of context?

Unfortuntely not.

Constantly saying "You're wrong because I say so" is getting a bit boring and repetitive. Try a new argument.


Have you read the context, the entire article? Or do what you frown on, lifted it out of context?

I have and I have.

Wondergirl,
I still stand by you on this.
The CCC DOES give and point out biblicly why it says what it says about being a god.
Fred

Constantly saying "You're wrong because I say so" is getting a bit boring and repetitive. Try a new argument.
You first since it has been explained to death to you.

I have and I have.
If you had, the discussion would be on a higher level from where you threw it.

Here is one explanation of deification (maybe this is clearer?):

[The saint] is simply concerned with the very Person, God. He wants God to take possession of Him and for him to possess God. It means that he becomes the very property of God because He no longer lives, but God who lives in Him (Gal 2:20). Being a property of God means that God, who is the great I AM, makes the human person, "I am YOURS." You still get to keep your personality, your "I," but it is always seen in relation to God: I am His, or much better, I am YOURS. To partake in the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4) is to really become a property of God.

What will your makeup be in heaven? What will you consist of?

Constantly saying "You're wrong because I say so" is getting a bit boring and repetitive. Try a new argument.
You first, since it has been explained to death to you.

I have and I have.
If you had, the discussion would be on a higher level from where you threw it.

Here is one explanation of deification (maybe this is clearer?):

[The saint] is simply concerned with the very Person, God. He wants God to take possession of Him and for him to possess God. It means that he becomes the very property of God because He no longer lives, but God who lives in Him (Gal 2:20). Being a property of God means that God, who is the great I AM, makes the human person, "I am YOURS." You still get to keep your personality, your "I," but it is always seen in relation to God: I am His, or much better, I am YOURS. To partake in the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4) is to really become a property of God.

What will your makeup be in heaven? What will you consist of?

You first, since it has been explained to death to you.

And your argument has been refuted to death. Move on.



Here is one explanation of deification (maybe this is clearer?):

I understand the claims, the attempts to distract from what the doctrine says, personal opinions, etc. but none of that tales away from what the doctrine actually says.

Until you are willing to face the actual doctrine and what it says head on, this discussion keeps going around in circles.

And your argument has been refuted to death.
When?

Until you are willing to face the actual doctrine and what it says head on, this discussion keeps going around in circles.
And you, of course, are correct re the doctrine.

You didn't answer my questions about what will you be in heaven, what will your makeup be.

When?

You haven't been reading my posts, have you?


And you, of course, are correct re the doctrine.

Thank for finally acknowledging that.


You didn't answer my questions about what will you be in heaven, what will your makeup be.

We are told very little about the details, so I guess that we will wait and see. I do know that I will not be God or a god.

You haven't been reading my posts, have you?
Nor you mine or Akoue's apparently.

Thank for finally acknowledging that.
(And he doesn't even recognize **friendly** sarcasm.)

We are told very little about the details, so I guess that we will wait and see. I do know that I will not be God or a god.
So you have no sense of heaven?

Definitely not, you won't be a god or God. Neither will I. But my sanctification will be complete (deification).

Wondergirl,
In heaven we will be one with Him (God) as Jesus has indicated.
Not that He also prayed that His disciples would be one with Him as He is One with The Father.
I believe that is what happened; they became one with Him as He is with the Father.
Thus they were deified here on earth before entering heaven.
I become One with Jesus Christ when I partake of the Holy Eucharist as does everyone else who worthily does so.
Those who do so in an unworthily manner become guilty of the body and blood of Christ.
So the bible tells us.
Peace and kindness,
Fred.

Wondergirl,
In heaven we will be one with Him (God) as Jesus has indicated.
Not that He also prayed that His disciples would be one with Him as He is One with The Father.
I believe that is what happened; they became one with Him as He is with the Father.
Thus they were deified here on earth before entering heaven.
I become One with Jesus Christ when I partake of the Holy Eucharist as does everyone else who worthily does so.
Those who do so in an unworthily manner become guilty of the body and blood of Christ.
So the bible tells us.
Peace and kindness,
Fred.
Thank you, Fred. I agree.

Nor you mine or Akoue's apparently.

I have indeed and have been responding. You appear to think that because I disagree, I have not read them.


So you have no sense of heaven?

That does not logically follow. You ask me details of my nature in heaven and if I cannot provide a detailed answer, you suggest that I have no sense of heaven.


Definitely not, you won't be a god or God. Neither will I. But my sanctification will be complete (deification).

Clearly you did not read the definition of deification or what CCC Article 460 says.

I will be saved - I will not be deified.

Clearly you did not read the definition of deification or what CCC Article 460 says.

I will be saved - I will not be deified.
Will be saved? You aren't yet?

I read the entire article with the quote in context and looked up the appropriate references to further understand it. Did you?

Will be saved? You aren't yet?

Please don't twist my words. You asked about the future, when I will be in heaven and I was referring to what my state will be at that time thus the future tense. I was not even discussing present, but as you well know I have stated many times that I am saved.


I read the entire article with the quote in context and looked up the appropriate references to further understand it. Did you?

Yes I did. And yes I told you that many times before, just as I told yopu that reading it and understanding it (BTW, there was nothing new to me in his post) does not mean or obligate me to agree that he is right in his conclusions or that he even has his facts right.

Do you wish to go around in circles for another cycle, or can we actually at some point get off the mery-go-round and discuss the topic rather than keep asking the same questions as though you think that the answer you got the 15th time may change if you just repeat it a 16th time.

can we actually at some point get off the mery-go-round and discuss the topic rather than keep asking the same questions as though you think that the answer you got the 15th time may change if you just repeat it a 16th time.
Apparently there is nothing left to discuss as long as you maintain that deification means only that men become gods/God.

Apparently there is nothing left to discuss as long as you maintain that deification means only that men become gods/God.

Yeah, I am a real stickler for staying with the accepted English definitions for words.

So let me see if I understand.

Because the English word "deification" is defined a certain way, the Catholic doctrine of deification--a doctrine that is formulated not in English but in Latin and Greek--can't be what I've described in my posts. It can only be about what the English dictionary says "deification" means... in English.

Using this same reasoning, we could say that String Theory is about cords that are used to bind things because this is what the dictionary I just looked at says that the word "string" means. I wonder what all those physicists working on String Theory would think about this...

The Latin word "deificatio" is used to translate the Greek word "theosis". So, if instead of using the English word "deification" we use the original Greek word "theosis", what then is your objection to the doctrine of theosis? Is it going to be that the doctrine of theosis is wrong because in English the word "deification" means such-and-such? That certainly doesn't seem plausible. So what then is the precise nature of your objection to the doctrine? I have a deep interest in the doctrine of theosis, and I'm sure we can agree that understanding the nature of salvation is of great importance, so I am interested to know why you find the doctrine to be false.

You have continued to claim that you are quite knowledgeable about the doctrine of theosis. You have also implied that my explanation of that doctrine is in error. Perhaps you could set things straight by:

1. explaining in a precise way how you take me to have misunderstood or misrepresented what Irenaeus, Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine, and Aquinas have in mind, and by

2. explaining in a precise way how you take Irenaeus, Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine, and Aquinas to have misunderstood or misrepresented the meaning of Scripture.

Wondergirl has kindly provided independent accounts of the doctrine of theosis. So far, you haven't explained why you take these accounts to err in their explanation of the doctrine of theosis. So how do you understand that doctrine? What you you take the doctrine of So how do you understand that doctrine? what you you take the doctrine of theosis to say, exactly? to say, exactly? (Since, as you've often said, we aren't interested in merely subjective opinion here, please provide references to the primary sources you discuss, taking special account of Irenaeus, Athanasius, and Aquinas, since these are quoted at CCC 460 which you claim to understand better than the rest of us.) Please explain what you take Athanasius to mean when he says that we will become God--be sure to do so by examining his statement in the context of the work in which it appears, On the Incarnation of the Logos. You take it to mean something other than the way it is understood by others. Please explain, again in a precise and rigorous way, what exactly you take Athanasius to mean by this.

This should go a long way toward freeing the terminological log-jam which has frozen the conversation. I've explained my understanding of these matters to the best of my ability. Kindly take a few minutes to set me, and others, straight, by explaining through engagement with the primary texts (those of Irenaeus, Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine, and Aquinas) the nature of my error regarding the doctrine of theosis. This may show that you are right and that the CCC was wrong to have quoted Irenaeus, Athanasius, and Aquinas.

So let me see if I understand.

Because the English word "deification" is defined a certain way, the Catholic doctrine of deification--a doctrine that is formulated not in English but in Latin and Greek--can't be what I've described in my posts. It can only be about what the English dictionary says "deification" means... in English.

Akoue,

I am not going to try go point by point - there is little need. The fact is that whether you reject English definitions for English words or not does not matter. Read the CCC Article 460 which is what you first responded to in the discussion in any case. What it says agrees with the dictionary definition of deification.

from en.allexperts.com (bolding is mine)--

Question
Can you explain the following paragraph in the Catholic Catechism #460:

460 The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":78 "For this is why the Word became man, 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."79 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."

I ran across this while studying the Catholic religion. I was shocked to read the statement "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."

Answer
Greg,

Thank you for your question; I apologize for the delay in my response. First of all, this is generally something outside of my expertise. I will try to give you an adequate answer though.

Without being able to refer to and read the original documents by the Saints these quotes come from, I can't give you a full interpretation of their meaning.

This part of the Catechism does not mean that we become omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. But the best and simplest explanation that I can give for this is that to "become God" and be "sharers in [Christ's] divinity" refers to the fact that the individual members of Christ's church make up his body, and thus him.

Remember the words of Jesus to Saul in Acts 9:1-5.

'Now Saul, still breathing murderous threats against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, that, if he should find any men or women who belonged to the Way, he might bring them back to Jerusalem in chains. On his journey, as he was nearing Damascus, a light from the sky suddenly flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?" He said, "Who are you, sir?" The reply came, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting."'

Notice that although Saul was persecuting the followers of Christ, Jesus said he was persecuting HIM.

Furthermore, CCC 460 also refers to our goal of holiness. Here is the full text of 2 Peter 1:4.

"Through these, he has bestowed on us the precious and very great promises, so that through them you may come to share in the divine nature, after escaping from the corruption that is in the world because of evil desire."

So, by becoming free from sin and of the evils in the world, we share in the divine nature. That is, by becoming so holy we become like God and, in a certain sense, become God.

I hope this answered your questions.

With many prayers,
-Cody

Deification/divinization is not really that scary a term. Even as a Protestant, I can fully appreciate and even get quite excited about it. For years, our Sunday School and Bible class teachers drummed it into our heads that, as Christians, we become "little Christs." Here's a related term, explained in Wikipedia (bolding is mine) --

Divine filiation is the condition of being a child of God, and thus a sharer in the life and role of Jesus Christ, who is the Son of God and Redeemer of all human beings, according to Christian doctrine.

Divine filiation, said John Paul II, constitutes the essence of the Good News. This is the purpose of Christ's redemption and through baptism, each Christian's fundamental state is being a child of God.

Divine filiation implies divinization: "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God" (Athenasius of Alexandria), "sharers in the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4), oter "Christs" (St. Cyril of Jerusalem).

Christians are said to be children of God because they have the same nature as God the Father. St. Peter referred to Christians as "partakers of the divine nature." (2 Peter 1:4)

Thus, the Fathers of the Church referred to the deification or divinization of the baptized. We are made gods, said St. Augustine.

St. Thomas Aquinas explained the terminology of the Fathers that Christians are "sons in the Son." He said that Christians enter the trinity through the Son, and they "have a certain participation in the filiation of the Second Person."

Thus, John Paul II said that divine filiation is "the culminating point of the mystery of our Christian life. In fact, the name 'Christian' indicates a new way of being, to be in the likeness of the Son of God. As sons in the Son, we share in salvation, which is not only the deliverance from evil, but is first of all the fullness of good: of the supreme good of the sonship of God."

Divine filiation is at the core of Christianity. "Our divine filiation is the centerpiece of the Gospel as Jesus preached it. It is the very meaning of the salvation He won for us. For he did not merely save us from our sins; He saved us for sonship." (Scott Hahn, Professor of Theology and Scripture at Franciscan University of Steubenville, OH)

Thus the incarnation and the redemption is for this:

The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature": "For this is why the Word became man, 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."[St. Irenaeus] "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."[St. Athanasius] "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."[St. Thomas Aquinas] (CCC 460)

The Christian then is another "Christ": "We can adore the Father because he has caused us to be reborn to his life by adopting us as his children in his only Son: .. through the anointing of his Spirit who flows from the head to the members, he makes us other "Christs." "...you who have become sharers in Christ are appropriately called "Christs." (CCC 2782)

The divinization of man through sonship is real and metaphysical. It is not metaphorical, i.e. a mere comparison with a real thing that is similar. In the Christian religion, God is really Father, and does not just act like human fathers. And God really made us share in his nature, and thus we are really children. Not in the same level as the Only Begotten Son, but truly sharing in his filiation and his divinity.

St. John the Evangelist: "See what love the Father has given us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are!" (1 John 3:1)

Deification/divinization is not really that scary a term. Even as a Protestant, I can fully appreciate and even get quite excited about it. For years, our Sunday School and Bible class teachers drummed it into our heads that, as Christians, we become "little Christs." Here's a related term, explained in Wikipedia (bolding is mine) --

I don't find the term scarey. I find it unBiblical - well that is not entirely true - it is the desire of Satan and was the promise that he made in the garden, but I find it to be not endorsed by scripture. It is an effort to exalt ourselves, something which is not Biblical.

As for little Christs, you will also spend a lot of time trying to find that in scripture - it is not there. Christ was the Messiah who died on the cross for our sins. We are in no way a "christ" of any size or magnitude. Check 2 Cor 11:4. There is only one Christ.


Christians are said to be children of God because they have the same nature as God the Father.

That is not what scripture says. Scripture says that we are "adopted" as children of God, and an adopted son never takes the nature of the father. Jesus is the only Son by nature.


St. Peter referred to Christians as "partakers of the divine nature." (2 Peter 1:4)

Right. The Holy Spirit indwells those who are saved and in that way we partake of the divine nature. But the Holy Spirit does not alter our nature to become divine.

I don't find the term scarey. I find it unBiblical - well that is not entirely true - it is the desire of Satan and was the promise that he made in the garden, but I find it to be not endorsed by scripture. It is an effort to exalt ourselves, something which is not Biblical.
It has NOTHING to do with exalting ourselves!!

As for little Christs, you will also spend a lot of time trying to find that in scripture - it is not there.
Neither is the Trinity.

Christians are "little Christs" (definition of "Christian"). We seek to be like Jesus. Consider 1 Corinthians 11:1 "Be ye imitators of me, even as I also am of Christ." Philippians 2:5 tells us to have the same mind He had. Because God in Christ has been righteous both for Himself and for us, we are freed, in the words of Martin Luther, to be "little Christs" for our neighbor. This means that we faithfully live out our relationship with God as we work at living in a right (i.e. Christlike) relationship with God's whole creation.


Right. The Holy Spirit indwells those who are saved and in that way we partake of the divine nature.
I'm so glad you finally understand and we agree!!

But the Holy Spirit does not alter our nature to become divine.
No one said he did.

We become, here on earth, more and more in God's image and more and more God-like. We grow in grace. Don't we believe, as did Tilhard DeChardin, the great anthropologist, that the destiny of man is to rise toward spiritual perfection until at last he is united with God? God gives us the power to become better than we are. He gives us the ability and the grace to evolve not only intellectually but also spiritually. We do not have to be enslaved by our past or by our smallness or by our sins. With God's power, we can rise to new heights of intellectual and spiritual perfection. Chardin called this "the ladder of divine ascent [that] is there for us to ascend, to climb each day, that we may achieve [I]theosis and be united with God.

Akoue,

I am not going to try go point by point - there is little need.

Well, we have you saying one thing and adam7gur, Fred, Wondergirl, and me saying something else. The only reason for you to go point by point would be an interest on your part in participating in a rational discussion. Your unwillingness to do the one is indicative of your unwillingness to do the other.


What it says agrees with the dictionary definition of deification.

With this you have committed a formal fallacy called "begging the question". Wondergirl and I have argued that CCC 460 does not in fact "agree" with the dictionary definition of "deification", that what is being said in the three quotes (from Irenaeus, Athanasius, and Aquinas) is not what is canvassed by the definition of the word "deification". We have even taken the time to explain several times and in several ways what the doctrine of theosis is. You have offered no alternative argument or account; you have instead assumed, taken for granted, that the two agree. Since this is the very point at issue, it isn't something that can be assumed, but must be demonstrated. This would, of course, require you to go point by point--the very thing you have said you are unwilling to do.

Notice also that CCC 460 does not use the word "deification". It offers several quotes, two of which you have found objectionable. But your finding them objectionable is predicated upon your failure to understand what the quotes mean, this despite their being explained to you and despite your having proven yourself unable to offer some explanation to show that we have misunderstood them. You are, therefore, being dogmatic, surrendering the canons of reason in order to cling doggedly and irrationally to an assumption which has been shown to be unwarranted.

Since you have, with this, given voice to a refusal to engage in rational discourse about the matter there is no point in continuing the discussion. One cannot engage in rational conversation with someone who has announced his intention to be irrational.

It has NOTHING to do with exalting ourselves!!

Well, let's see. There is one man who walked the earth who had the perfect right to call Himself God because He was an is God. But He humbled Himself to walk amongst us as a man.

Now men who are not gods, take it upon themselves to call themselves gods and God.

Yes, that is exalting one's self.


Christians are "little Christs" (definition of "Christian").

No it isn't. The definition of Christian is a follower of Christ. Christ is the one and only Messiah who died on the cross for our sins. You aren't even a little one - nor is any one else. There is one and one only.

Show me anyplace in scripture where God endorsed a person calling themselves a christ or a god (other than Jesus).



I'm so glad you finally understand and we agree!!

Then you are conceding that it ONLY the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and that we are not gods, not God and deified?



No one said he did.

That is what deification means.

Well, we have you saying one thing and adam7gur, Fred, Wondergirl, and me saying something else. The only reason for you to go point by point would be an interest on your part in participating in a rational discussion. Your unwillingness to do the one is indicative of your unwillingness to do the other.

Getting back into your usually line of argument. If the facts don't cut it, blame on whoever disagrees with you.

Closed