A Farm For Growing Christ

Joseph,

Do you need further examples of God listening to man who is in harmony and cooperation with His plan, CAUSING Him to do something?

PB1022,

IF God the Father is said to ber both "over all" and "in all", why cannot I believe BOTH statements? I trust in God who has told me BOTH statements.

I see no need to receive one and reject the other- IE.

Well if He is "over all" than He cannot be "in all."
Or conversly say, Well if He is "in all" than He cannot be "over all."


I want to believe both!
The God and Father is "over all AND through all AND in all" (See Eph. 4:6)

How about you?

@sonship said

"Christians can believe in our glorification, or deification, our transfiguration and becoming "like Him" without fear we are undoing the Most High or competing with the Head."


Are his fellow Christians cool with sonship sneaking in 'deification' between glorification and transfiguration?!

@josephw

"Now I come up with a term - We believers have caused God to be "We-ized". "

You are virtually blaspheming.

How can you possibly think you can characterize the Word of God as inferring that we can "cause" God anything?

God is the cause of anything "we" become. We don't "cause" jack squat.

You've gone too far.

See sonship now spam the thread to prevent dialogue.

@sonship said
@josephw

"Now I come up with a term - We believers have caused God to be "We-ized". "

You are virtually blaspheming.

How can you possibly think you can characterize the Word of God as inferring that we can "cause" God anything?

God is the cause of anything "we" become. We don't "cause" jack squat.

You've gone too far.

I sh ...[text shortened]... n harmony with His will?

Or is this a blasphemous thought we could ask and cause Him to grant?

Christians who own Jesus Christ as Lord.

The word of God says that we have become "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Pet. 1:4)

Should we follow the word of God that we have become "partakers of the divine nature"

OR

Should we follow the atheist who denies God's existence, His divine being, and His salvation while saying we blaspheme for believing we are "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Pet. 1:4) ?

Which way should we go, with the New Testament or with the atheist?

@sonship said
Christians who own Jesus Christ as Lord.

The word of God says that we have become "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Pet. 1:4)

Should we follow the word of God that we have become "partakers of the divine nature"

OR

Should we follow the atheist who denies God's existence while saying we blaspheme for believing we are "partakers of the divine nature"?

Which way should we go, with the New Testament or with the atheist?

Christians the NT says the church in Corinth (as representatibve) was God's cultivated larm, God's building - for growing Christ in people.

To the atheist Ghost of a Duke, who says there is no God , this is nonsense.

Choose which you want to believe - the New Testament in (1 Cor. 3:9) or an atheist.

I've made my decision, I believe the Bible.
You make yours.

@sonship said
Christians the NT says the church in Corinth (as representatibve) was God's cultivated larm, God's building - for growing Christ in people.

To the atheist Ghost of a Duke, who says there is no God , this is nonsense.

Choose which you want to believe - the New Testament in (1 Cor. 3:9) or an atheist.

I've made my decision, I believe the Bible.
You make yours.

Are Men Called "Gods" In Scripture?

The Bible in both Old and New Testaments explicitly and repeatedly affirms that there is only one God (e.g., Deut. 4:35-39; Isa. 43:10; 44:6-8; 1 Cor. 8:4-6; 1 Tim. 2:5; James 2:19). Therefore. the Bible most definitely rejects any sort of polytheism, including henotheism.

The Scriptures also very clearly teach that God is an absolutely unique being who is distinct from the world as its Creator (e.g, Gen. 1:1; John 1:3; Rom. 1:25; Heb. 11:3). This teaching rules out pantheism and panentheism, according to which the world is either identical to God or an essential aspect of God. Since He is eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient, God is totally unique, so that there is none even like God (e.g., Ps. 102:25-27; Isa. 40-46; Acts 17:24-28). [17] The Bible, then, unmistakably teaches a monotheistic world view.

In the face of so many explicit statements that there is only one God, and in light of His uniqueness, it may seem surprising that anyone would claim that the Bible teaches that men are gods. However, there are a few passages in Scripture which seem to call men "god" or "gods." Most or all of these, however, are irrelevant to any doctrine of deification. In practice, the question of whether the Bible ever calls men "gods" in a positive sense focuses exclusively on Psalm 82:6 ("I said, 'you are gods'" ) and its citation by Jesus in John 10:34-35.

The usual view among biblical expositors for centuries is that Psalm 82 refers to Israelite judges by virtue of their position as judges representing God; it is, therefore, a figurative usage which applies only to those judges and does not apply to men or even believers in general. If this interpretation is correct, Psalm 82:6 is also irrelevant to any doctrine of Christian deification.

An alternative interpretation agrees that the "gods" are Israelite judges, but sees the use of the term "gods" as an ironic figure of speech. Irony is a rhetorical device in which in which something is said to be the case in such a way as to make the assertion seem ridiculous (compare Paul's ironic "you have become kings" in 1 Corinthians 4:8, where Paul's point is that they had NOT become kings). According to this interpretation, the parallel description of the "gods" as "sons of the Most High" (which, it is argued, is not in keeping with the Old Testament use of the term "sons" of God), the condemnation of the judges for their wicked judgment, and especially the statement, "Nevertheless, you will die as men," all point to the conclusion that the judges are called "gods" in irony.

If the former interpretation is correct, then in John 10:34-35 Jesus would be understood to mean that if God called wicked judges "gods" how much more appropriate is it for Him, Jesus, to be called God, or even the Son of God. If the ironic interpretation of Psalm 82:6 is correct, then in John 10:34-35 Jesus' point would still be basically the same. It is also possible that Jesus was implying that the Old Testament application of the term "gods" to wicked judges was fulfilled (taking "not to be broken" to mean "not to be unfulfilled," cf. John 7:23) in Himself as the true Judge (cf. John 5:22,27-30; 9:39). [18] Those wicked men were, then, at best called "gods" and "sons of the Most High" in a special and figurative sense; and at the worst they were pseudo-gods and pseudo-sons of God. Jesus, on the other hand, is truly God (cf. John 1:1,18; 20:28; 1 John 5:20) and the unique Son of God (John 10:36; 20:31; etc.).

Neither the representative nor the ironic interpretation of Psalm 82 allows it (or John 10:34-35) to be understood to teach that men were created or redeemed to be gods. Nor is there any other legitimate interpretation which would allow for such a conclusion. The Israelite judges were wicked men condemned to death by the true God, and therefore were not by any definition of deification candidates for godhood.

http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/godsrus.htm

See folks. I am not the only one who can cut and paste am I?

I need no more argumentation with atheist Ghost of a Duke.

"God-ized" and "Son-ized" are not words you can find in the Bible.
Given all I have explained, if YOU are a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, YOU decide
whether such expressions are appropriate to full salvation.

Or do you choose to believe the atheist who says there is no God, no Son of God, no Spirit of God, no salvation.

I've made my stand. You make yours.
If in anything some fellow believer would like me to further explain, I am opened to your inquiry or input.

But know this. You may disagree. But I believe the day will come when you'll look at me and I'll look at you and we'll both say "Praise God! We certainly have been God-ized and Son-ized !"

@sonship said
See folks. I am not the only one who can cutr and paste am I?

I need no more argumenty with atheist Ghost of a Duke.

"God-ized" and "Son-ized" are not words you can find in the Bible.
Given all I have explained, if YOU are a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ YOU decide
whether such expressions are appropriate to full salvation.

Or do you choose to believe the ...[text shortened]... and I'll look at you and we'll both say "Praise God! We certainly have been God-ized and Son-ized !"

Christians, you decide "We will be like Him because we will see Him even as He is" as First John 3:2 says OR
the atheist's version "We will NOT be like Him - period, because God doesn't exist."

I've made my decision. I believe First John 3:2.
And I accept "Son-ized" or "God-ized" with understanding that we could say that.

You decide, O Christian brother / sister, which you want to believe, the Apostle John or the atheist Ghost of a Duke.

You may disagree. But I think O Christian sooner or latter that day will come when we'll look at each other and say "Praise the Lord Jesus, WE have been Son-ized. WE have certainly been God-ized!"

"Beloved, now are we children of God, and it has not yet been manifested what we will be. We know that if He is manifested, we will be like Him because we will see Him even as He is. And everyone who has this hope set on Him purifies HImself, even as He is pure." (1 John 3:2,3)

PB1022 and Joseph I am still looking forward to you further comments.
Joseph, is Jesus your Lord and God?

@Ghost-of-a-Duke

Unlike you I cite my source.

@sonship said

"Now the God of peace will crush Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you." (Rom. 16:20)