Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Not really knowing what you regard as the divine nature, it is not possible to 100% say you are incorrect but I do know when I take Communion, when Christ fills me with the Holy Spirit, when by His spirit He leads me, and when two or more of us join together in worship, we join together with Christ. I and many others call these continual events and processes participating in the divine nature. Also, in another respect, to be dead and without the breath of life could be considered the only way "not" to participate in the divine nature, since Christ is the one that breathed the Spirit of life into all men. You could be using a different understanding of the divine nature than many of us use.We are adopted into God's family. We participate in the divine nature. But as for sharing it, no, we don't. We never become divine beings.
Please don't misunderstand my original question as I asked about the "don't" in the following statement and I think you wanted to say we did share in the divine nature.We are adopted into God's family. We participate in the divine nature. But as for sharing it, no, we don't. We never become divine beings.
Yes, as long as we don't think that we actually end up ontologically sharing in the divine nature, even as the reality of the divine essence becomes made alive by the presence of God (i.e. the Holy Spirit) within us.Yes, as long as we don't think that we actually end up ontologically sharing in the divine nature, even as the reality of the divine essence becomes made alive by the presence of God (i.e. the Holy Spirit) within us.
I did understand you. And I have answered you. I did say "don't" and, as I explained above, I continue to want to say "don't." But, PLEASE, understand that in the context of the discussion. The idea of Christian maturity, Christian perfection is that we grow to become the people that God created us to be. This is accomplished in Christ. But this perfection does not make us divine beings as Christ was divine. Rather, we become perfect human beings as Christ was the perfect man.Please don't misunderstand my original question as I asked about the "don't" in the following statement and I think you wanted to say we did share in the divine nature.</p>
I go along with that my friend.None of us can be perfect. Only God is perfect. But we can be mature, which is the acceptance of our human limitations, knowing that we can do much more through God than through our selves.
How did being divine get into this discussion?Since it is here, please define divine for both man and God?I did understand you. And I have answered you. I did say "don't" and, as I explained above, I continue to want to say "don't." But, PLEASE, understand that in the context of the discussion. The idea of Christian maturity, Christian perfection is that we grow to become the people that God created us to be. This is accomplished in Christ. But this perfection does not make us divine beings as Christ was divine. Rather, we become perfect human beings as Christ was the perfect man.
Just who is making such an argument? Not me!Certainly the celebration of communion, the Eucharist, involves a sharing in Christ, and the Holy Spirit enables us to have constant communion with God. (Indeed, I almost added that cavet to what I wrote above, but didn't want to get into a long and drawn out extended discussion such as this one.) But in no ways do we become gods ourselves.
I think the following verse will help us escape from this semantic argument.We don't share in the divine nature the same way that Christ shares in our human nature. He actually became human, but we don't actually become divine. The nature of our being does not change. As one who likes to speak of God as THE ontology, I would think it would be obvious to you that we cannot speak of humans this way. This being so, it follows that we, therefore, don't share in the divine nature. If we did, then we would have to speak of the ontology of human beings, and such an idea is inconsistent with our nature as created beings.
If this is what made Christ divine, then I guess we had to settle for a measure of what Christ had but you say we can not be divine as Christ but can we be filled with the spirit? Also, why do you object to ontology as the essence of Christ? You don't see the ontological argument for God as a threat to your theology, do you?Jn:3:34: For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.
Because you questioned my original statement in which I said that we don't share in the divine nature.How did being divine get into this discussion?Since it is here, please define divine for both man and God?
I do not argue with the person. But most every time I post something, especially about ontology, you are there to challenge me. Is it your responsibility to question me on every little issue and why only me?
I am a bit confused when you all agree that we cannot become God, or that this is not what the process of utter sanctification (or theosis or divinization) is about. My understanding is that we are more conformed to Christ each day of our lives, and the process is all about becoming one with God and being Jesus to the world. Guys, help me out here.
I am a bit confused when you all agree that we cannot become God, or that this is not what the process of utter sanctification (or theosis or divinization) is about. My understanding is that we are more conformed to Christ each day of our lives, and the process is all about becoming one with God and being Jesus to the world. Guys, help me out here.
===============
What do you think that John Wesley means by perfect holiness?
We become like God [Jesus specificially] in that with sanctification we love like Jesus, point people to the Father like Jesus did, try to bring reconciliation like Jesus did and so on. Butlike Lee52 said, we can never save someone from their sins, only God can do that.
With Sanctification, the image of God in us [imago dei] is redeeemed and restored so that we can naturally act like Jesus [love, forgive, accept others, heal].
And for your last question, Wesleyan theology views God's holiness and love as not mere attributes of God [and 2 of many] but sees them as the very essence of who God is. In a nutshell for me, when I hear perfected in holiness, I really hear "perfectly loving". The last 3 years I've prayed everyday to love like Jesus did, to have it be my essence. I view this as a daily prayer for continued sanctification. So when I pray to be healed emotionally and spiritually, it is cuz a) I'm tired of pain and b) I can't love like Jesus did when I am so filled with emotional misery inside.
Am I dependent on God? Yes: for every life's breath, every green tree, every compassionate gesture. All of it. Am I independent from God? Yes, I believe in someway I am. It is this independence that gives me freedom, (or at least a sense of it). I feel free to choose to act and think and be. Independent in the idea that God is God and I am not. Being the human in the dance of Divinity and humanity. And yet, it is hard for me to state with any strength that I am independent from God, though on paper there's something to it. Maybe this third word is the one to use. Am I interdependent with God? Is interdependence, the ebb and flow, the giving and receiving, the reciprocity and mutual connection, the essence of Divinity itself?[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Calibri, Arial, sans-serif]I don't have all the answers. But, then again, neither do all the experts. What do you think?[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Calibri, Arial, sans-serif]Anna Woofenden[/FONT]
Is perfection an essential Wesleyan emphasis?
Posted on July 29, 2009 by John Meunier
I know all the elders have to say yes. They get asked if they are going on to perfection at ordination, but I’m trying to determine how central ‘perfection’ is to being a Wesleyan.
Rather I want to know how important is it to affirm that perfection is generally attainable in this life?
First, to clarify, what Wesley meant by perfection was not a general state. He wrote that perfection did not mean a person would be free of sickness or bodily weakness. Perfection did not prevent people from being ignorant or making mistakes about things that one encounters in every day life. Most importantly, perfection did not exempt a person from temptation. So, for instance, the fact that person such as Mother Teresa struggled with doubt and temptation does not remove her from the candidates of perfected Christians.
Wesley wrote that perfection means
one in whom is ‘the mind which was in Christ,’ and who so ‘walketh as Christ also walked;’ a man ‘that hath clean hands and a pure heart,’ or that is ‘cleansed from all filthiness of flesh and spirit;’ one in whom is ‘no occasion of stumbling,’ and who, accordingly, ‘does not commit sin.’ To declare this a little more particularly: We understand by that scriptural expression, ‘a perfect man,’ one in whom God hath fulfilled his faithful word, ‘From all your filthiness and from all your idols I will cleanse you: I will also save you from all your uncleannesses.’ We understand hereby, one whom God lath ‘sanctified throughout in body, soul, and spirit;’ one who ‘walketh in the light as He is in the light, in whom is no darkness at all; the blood of Jesus Christ his Son having cleansed him from all sin.’For Wesley, the command in the Sermon on the Mount to be perfect as God is perfect (Matthew 5:48), and other commands to be Christ-like, could only make sense if the command implied an ability or the grace to allow us to obey. Therefore, perfection must be possible. Entire sanctification could be the goal of every Christian.
When pressed, Wesley said that if no evidence could be found of any that had attained perfection, then he would have to give up preaching it.
If I were convinced that none in England had attained what has been so clearly and strongly preached by such a number of Preachers, in so many places, and for so long a time, I should be clearly convinced that we had all mistaken the meaning of those scriptures; and therefore, for the time to come, I too must teach that ‘sin will remain till death.As he preached perfection to the end of his days, clearly he was never convinced it was an error.
My question, though, is not whether we can locate a few individuals who with some confidence we might agree exhibit entire sanctification, but whether this is a goal for which we expect a great number or most Christians to approach?
My experience tells me that few reach it. Those who show some qualities of complete Christian love in one area of their life, may lack it in another. Some may show great zeal for some neighbors but have venom for others. Some may appear to be full of love, but then stumble suddenly and dramatically.
Eugene Peterson – who is decidedly not a Wesleyan – goes so far as to decry perfectionism as anti-Christian.
Perfectionism: a most ruinous deviation from the way, a detour from the way of Jesus. It is unlikely that it will plunge us headlong into damnation, but it certainly makes us most undesirable company with others on the pilgrim way. Perfectionism is a perversion of the Christian way.We Methodists do not have to answer to Peterson, but I do wonder whether we see enough fruit of the preaching of perfection to hold to Wesley’s interpretation of scripture on this point. He admitted himself that if the preaching of the doctrine did not produce fruit, he would be forced to reconsider whether his reading of the Bible was right.
Of course, our first handicap in answering this question is the absence of much preaching of this doctrine today. Do one in 50 or one in 100 United Methodist pulpits announce the doctrine of perfection once a year? Do the Sunday schools?
I do know this. I have seen and known Christians who seem much further along toward perfection than I am. I have seen those who grow in grace. So, set out as a goal of the Christian life, perfection appears to be a good thing. It draws the Christian toward deeper harmony between Lord and life. Seeking the mind that is in Christ seems to be a prod that moves some Christians, and so it seems that it would be foolish to remove it - whatever Rev. Peterson thinks of it.
My provisional answer to my own question is this: Perfection is essential to Wesleyan understanding of the life of our faith, but we must be very careful with this term.
Too often, Christians justify criticisms such as Peterson’s by boasting of their own progress toward sanctification and drawing distinctions that do not exist between themselves and other Christians. This is folly and surely a sign of incomplete sanctification.
Perfection is not something we attain, but something we receive. We grow toward it only as we are watered by grace and fed by God’s love. But like all growing things, we long to grow rather than to wither and die.
And then there is this thesis on Christian Perfection:
For myself, I like those closing thoughts:
Perfection is NOT something we attain, but something we receive. (i.e, by grace)
AND
We grow toward it.
Also interesting just how being perfect takes us right up next to being divine, but doesn't actually make us so. We become Christ-like. But we don't actually become Christ himself. What we become are the people that God intended us to always be when he first made us (before sin and the fall marred the image of God within us). Christ is the best illustration of what the perfect sinless man is going to look like that we will ever see. When we grow into the person God intends us to be, we begin to more and more resemble Christ -- not in his diety, but in his perfect humanity -- which can only be realized in us by the presence of Christ's divine Spirit working within us to drive out sin and lead us into all righteousness.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?