Every so often, a post circulates on Facebook claiming to “defend biblical truth” while warning Christians about supposed “Mormon distortions” of Scripture. These posts often sound confident, even authoritative—but confidence is not the same as accuracy. And when Scripture is handled carelessly, God’s people are left with fear instead of clarity, suspicion instead of understanding, and slogans instead of Scripture.

You deserve better than that. You deserve context, exegesis, and the whole counsel of God. Engaging with Scripture requires a dedication to understanding its original intent, cultural background, and the intricate layers of meaning that inform its teachings. It is crucial that we approach biblical texts with a framework that seeks the truth, not merely to validate preconceived notions or biases.

This article is not about defending a denomination. It’s about defending the Bible from misuse, the gospel from reduction, and the promises of God from being shrunk down to fit someone’s theological anxieties. When individuals take snippets of Scripture out of context, or rely on misinterpretations to make sweeping claims about others, it creates a barrier to genuine dialogue and understanding. Instead of fostering unity and exploring our shared beliefs in a respectful manner, it often leads to division and an atmosphere of mistrust.

In exploring differing theological perspectives, we must strive for empathy and open-mindedness. By learning to articulate our own beliefs while honestly engaging with the beliefs of others, we can cultivate a deeper comprehension of the richness of Christian doctrine. This journey is not merely academic; it is a spiritual pursuit that invites us to reflect on our convictions and be willing to grow in our faith.

Ultimately, a robust understanding of Scripture encourages believers to embrace the fullness of God’s word, appreciate the diversity within the body of Christ, and engage with one another as fellow travelers seeking truth, rather than adversaries in a theological battleground. We are called to love and uplift one another, striving for a deep-seated comprehension of the message that binds us together.

Introduction & Summation

The Facebook post by Dennis Hines attempts to contrast “biblical Christianity” with “Mormon exaltation.” However, the argument rests on several key weaknesses, which undermine its effectiveness:

1. Selective Proof‑Texting: The use of isolated verses without considering the broader context often leads to misinterpretation. Cherry-picking scripture to support a specific viewpoint can distort the intended message.
2. Ignoring Context: Context is crucial for accurate biblical interpretation. By disregarding the historical and cultural contexts in which the scriptures were written, one risks drawing conclusions that do not align with the overall narrative of the Bible.
3. Confusing Humility with Stagnation: There is a misunderstanding that humility negates ambition or spiritual growth. While biblical teachings encourage humility, this does not imply that believers should remain stagnant in their faith journey or disregard the promise of exaltation.
4. Collapsing Biblical Exaltation into “Self‑Exaltation”: The assertion that biblical exaltation is synonymous with self‑exaltation is misleading. Scripture articulates a clear distinction, emphasizing that true exaltation comes from God and is a reflection of His glory, not a human endeavor.

Interestingly, the Bible articulates a much more robust and hopeful vision regarding human destiny, glory, inheritance, and exaltation than the post acknowledges. The depth of these promises often surprises those who may not engage with the text fully. It is not that Latter‑day Saints read too much glory into Scripture; rather, the issue lies in the tendency of many Christians to overlook or minimize these rich themes.

Before we delve into a thorough refutation of the claims made in the post, it is essential to first identify the logical fallacies at play. Each of these points reveals a misalignment between the claim being made and the truth that can be found within the scripture when it is interpreted holistically. Recognizing these fallacies is pivotal in fostering a more informed and respectful dialogue about differing theological perspectives.

Logical Fallacies in the Facebook Post

1. Strawman Fallacy: The post repeatedly misrepresents Latter-day Saints (LDS) belief as “wanting to become gods” in a way that rivals or replaces God. This portrayal is misleading and fails to capture the true essence of LDS teachings. Latter-day Saints believe in the concept of glorification, which emphasizes growth and divinization through a relationship with God, rather than an outright replacement of His divine authority. This misunderstanding is not only prevalent in contemporary discussions but can also be traced back to misinterpretations by early church fathers who had varying views about the nature of divinity.

2. Category Error: The post confuses ontological equality (the idea of being God by nature) with relational exaltation (the concept of being glorified by God, with Christ, through grace). This distinction is crucial in understanding the differences in doctrinal beliefs. Scriptural references predominantly speak of relational exaltation, which denotes a transformative process rather than an instantaneous state of being. The conflation of these two categories undermines the theological richness of LDS doctrine and distorts the biblical narrative surrounding grace and exaltation.

3. Begging the Question: The author assumes his conclusion—that exaltation is impossible—and then interprets every verse through that assumption. This circular reasoning reveals a lack of engagement with the broader theological framework that supports the LDS viewpoint. By presupposing the impossibility of exaltation, the author dismisses significant scriptural evidence that advocates for the potential of humans to attain a divine nature through divine grace. Such a stance limits the interpretation of scriptural texts and overlooks the nuances that can lead to a deeper understanding of exaltation.

4. Proof‑texting: Verses are quoted without considering essential factors such as context, genre, audience, or canonical connections. This practice is problematic because it may lead to a skewed interpretation of scriptures, where meanings are extracted in isolation rather than in conjunction with the broader narrative of scripture. A holistic approach to scriptural interpretation acknowledges the complexities involved in theological discussions, allowing for a more informed understanding of the doctrine in question.

5. False Equivalence: Equating Satan’s self‑exaltation with God’s exaltation of His children represents a significant theological category mistake. This false equivalence simplifies the complexity of divine versus human actions and misrepresents the fundamental distinctions between divine authority and earthly aspirations. When discussing exaltation, it is essential to understand that God’s exaltation of His children is rooted in love, grace, and an invitation to partake in divine nature, contrasting sharply with the self-serving ambition exhibited by Satan. By failing to recognize these differences, the dialogue surrounding exaltation becomes muddled and less constructive.

Steelman: The Best Version of the Opposing View

A fair reading of the critic’s position would be:

• God alone is God.
• Humans are creatures, not creators.
• Salvation is by grace, not works.
• Any doctrine that seems to elevate humans too highly risks repeating the pride of Lucifer.
• Therefore, language about “exaltation,” “glory,” or “becoming like God” must be interpreted metaphorically or morally, not ontologically.

This is a reasonable concern. It deserves a thoughtful, biblical response—not mockery or dismissal. Engaging with these issues sincerely requires us to reflect on our beliefs and values deeply, and to connect scripture with our contemporary challenges.

Now that we’ve steel manned the position, we can address it with Scripture. The Bible offers wisdom and guidance that can illuminate our understanding and help frame our responses to such concerns.

For instance, passages from the New Testament invite us to consider the importance of love, compassion, and understanding in our interactions with others. In Romans 15:1-2, we are encouraged to bear with the failings of the weak and not to please ourselves—essentially calling us to respond with empathy. This is critical when navigating complex issues where differing viewpoints exist.

Moreover, the wisdom literature, such as Proverbs, reminds us to pursue knowledge and understanding (Proverbs 18:15). Instead of swiftly dismissing concerns or resorting to mockery, we are urged to seek out what we can learn from each situation and approach discussions with grace and respect.

In conclusion, responding thoughtfully with a focus on scripture not only reflects our faith but also helps create dialogue that is constructive, fostering mutual understanding and growth.

Point‑by‑Point Biblical Refutation

Genesis 1–3 — Misreading the Image of God and the Fall

Hines’ Claim:

1. Genesis 1–3: Created in God’s Image, Not to Become Gods

– KJV Truth: “Let us make man in our image…” (Genesis 1:26) shows mankind’s dignity and moral capacity, not a blueprint for godhood.

– Genesis 3:22 — “The man is become as one of us, to know good and evil” — is God’s lament, not approval. It reflects disobedience, not divine progression.

– Mormon distortion: Teaches that Adam’s fall was a necessary step toward godhood (2 Nephi 2:25), twisting rebellion into a virtue

Exegetical Response

A. Genesis 1:26 — “Let us make man in our image…”

Hines reduces “image of God” to “moral capacity.” However, a deeper exploration into the Hebrew words tselem and demuth reveals much more than just moral implications. These terms refer to various aspects of our existence:

• Representation: The notion that humanity acts as a representative of the divine on Earth, embodying the qualities and characteristics of God in our interactions and stewardship of creation.
• Resemblance: This speaks to the intrinsic likeness that humans hold to the divine, suggesting that we reflect attributes such as creativity, rationality, and relationality that are inherently God-like.
• Functional Likeness: This aspect emphasizes the roles we are meant to play in the world—acting as caretakers and governors of creation. Our role is not just a title; it carries responsibilities that reflect God’s authority and care over the universe.
• Royal Status: In the cultural context of the Ancient Near East, the phrase “image of God” was unmistakably royal language. Kings held the title of being images of the gods, embodying divine authority and power. This understanding is fundamentally transformed in Genesis, which declares that all humanity bears royal, God-derived status. It democratizes the divine image, asserting that every individual possesses similar intrinsic worth and authority.

This concept transcends mere dignity; it carries implications of vocation and trajectory. Our understanding of being created in the image

B. Genesis 3:22 — “The man has become as one of us…”

Hines calls this a lament. The text does not.

The Hebrew construction is declarative, not sorrowful. God affirms that humanity now possesses a divine attribute: experiential moral discernment.

This is not “godhood,” but it is a divine likeness gained through experience, which sets the stage for humanity’s future growth.

Genesis 3:22 — What Did Humanity Actually Gain?

“Behold, the man has become as one of us, to know good and evil…”

The assertion that this statement is a “lament” misinterprets the nature of the text. A deeper examination reveals that the Hebrew grammar employed here is fundamentally declarative, indicating a clear statement of fact rather than an expression of sorrow. This distinction is vital for understanding the intent and meaning behind these words.

Essentially, this passage illustrates a significant transformation in humanity’s state—God affirms that humans have acquired a divine attribute: experiential moral discernment. This capability should not be equated to “godhood,” as it diverges from the essence of divinity. However, it does signify a likeness to the divine, showcasing that humanity has gained a profound understanding of morality that mirrors God’s own nature.

Furthermore, it’s essential to recognize that Genesis 3:22 echoes the earlier passage in Genesis 1:26–27, which explicitly states that humans are created in God’s image. This foundational aspect of human identity is crucial to the interpretation of the fall. The narrative emphasizes that the tragedy lies not in humanity’s acquisition of knowledge but rather in the act of disobedience itself. The text clearly states what it conveys, reinforcing the idea that the true downfall is rooted in the choices made rather than the wisdom attained.

Expository & Exegetical Commentary on 2 Nephi 2:25

“Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.”

The Context: Lehi’s Sermon on Agency, Law, and Opposition (2 Nephi 2)

2 Nephi 2 is not simply a stray proof-text about “godhood.” Instead, it serves as a tightly structured theological discourse wherein Lehi articulates several key doctrines fundamental to Latter-day Saint theology. In this chapter, Lehi elucidates the intricate relationships between the necessity of law, the necessity of agency, the necessity of opposition, the necessity of the Redeemer, and the purpose of mortal life. Each of these components plays a crucial role in understanding the human experience as depicted in the scriptures.

A verse often cited by Dennis Hines—2 Nephi 2:25—should not be isolated from this broader structural framework, as doing so would lead to a distortion of its profound meaning. Lehi is not primarily engaging in a discussion about exaltation, deification, or a detailed exploration of divine ontology. Instead, he is focused on explaining why mortality exists and why the Fall was permitted, which is a theme that runs throughout the entirety of this discourse and emphasizes the complexities of human existence.

The logic presented in this chapter follows a clear progression. Lehi posits that:

1. No law → no sin: Without law, there is no transgression. Law is essential for defining sin and guiding moral behavior.
2. No sin → no righteousness: If sin does not exist, the concept of righteousness becomes meaningless, as there is no contrast by which to define it.
3. No righteousness → no happiness: The absence of righteousness leads to an absence of true happiness—joy found in the acceptance of good and the fulfillment of divine law.
4. No opposition → no agency: Opposition is vital because it creates a context for choice. Without opposition to good, the agency to choose freely is nullified.
5. No agency → no purpose for existence: The culmination of these conditions leads to the conclusion that without agency, life lacks purpose and meaning.

Ultimately, Lehi asserts that the Fall introduces the conditions necessary for agency, redemption, and joy to become possible. This chain of reasoning serves as a theodicy; an explanation of why a benevolent God allows for the existence of evil and suffering in the world. In doing so, Lehi provides a theological model that addresses the complexities of existence, suggesting that it is through these challenges that individuals can find purpose and ultimately achieve joy. Far from being merely a doctrine of divine progression, this discourse provides a comprehensive understanding of mortality and its necessities.

Exegesis: What 2 Nephi 2:25 Actually Says:

1. “Adam fell that men might be”

Lehi’s point is ontological and existential, not metaphysical:

Humanity exists in a mortal, embodied state because of the Fall. This perspective emphasizes that our current condition is a direct result of a pivotal event that took place in the narrative of human history, which is essential for understanding our purpose and experience in life. Mortality, with all its trials and tribulations, is the arena where agency, moral choice, and redemption occur.

In this mortal state, individuals face decisions that will shape their character, influence their relationships, and ultimately lead to their spiritual progress. The ability to choose—fundamental to human existence—emerges in the context of opposition found in mortality. The notion of choice underscores the importance of free will, a critical element in achieving personal and spiritual growth during our earthly journey.

The Fall is not good—it is necessary within God’s plan to bring about human freedom. This necessity implies that without the Fall, humanity would lack the vital experiences that lead to growth and understanding. The Fall introduces a duality of experience: joy and sorrow, good and evil, which are indispensable for the realization of true freedom and the exercise of agency.

This idea parallels the theological underpinnings found in Romans 5, where Paul teaches about the impact of the Fall and redemption. Adam’s transgression introduced death into the world, signifying a separation from the divine and the onset of temporal mortality. In stark contrast, Christ’s obedience introduces life, representing the possibility of salvation and eternal life that transcends mere existence. Through Christ, the effects of the Fall are counterbalanced, paving a pathway for individuals to achieve eternal return to God.

The Fall sets the stage for grace, as it creates a necessary context for the Atonement to have meaning and purpose. Without the Fall, grace would be rendered unnecessary, as there would be no transgressions to warrant redemption. This framework allows individuals to comprehend their spiritual deficit and the necessity of divine intervention to restore their connection with the divine.

Paul never calls Adam’s sin “good,” but he does assert that God sovereignly uses it to bring about a greater good. This aligns with a broader theological understanding that through adversity and fallen nature, humanity is provided the means to seek repentance, strive for righteousness, and ultimately partake in divine grace.

Lehi’s logic operates on this same principle, suggesting that through the experiences of life—including those derived from the Fall—humans can discover purpose, learn vital lessons about love, sacrifice, and accountability, and cultivate a deeper relationship with God. Thus, the narrative illustrates how the Fall, while not inherently positive, serves through divine wisdom to facilitate profound opportunities for growth and divine connection.

2. “Men are, that they might have joy.”

In Lehi’s sermon, the concept of “joy” is elucidated through a lens that contrasts significantly with traditional LDS doctrines. It moves away from notions of a state of exaltation or the idea of becoming gods, which are often emphasized in the context of eternal progression and ontological transformation. Rather than focusing on these grand theological constructs, Lehi highlights a more profound and relational understanding of joy.

This joy embodies reconciliation with God, emphasizing the importance of mending the broken relationship that sin causes between humanity and the Divine. It is a joy deeply rooted in redemption through the Messiah, showcasing the transformative power of Christ’s atonement to restore individuals to grace and divine favor.

Furthermore, this joy signifies the blessedness of restored relationships, not only with God but also within the community of believers. It underscores the happiness that emerges from living a life grounded in righteousness and the exercise of agency. In this framework, joy is not a distant promise tied to future exaltation, but rather a present reality that is accessed through faithful living and connection with the divine.

This perspective aligns more closely with Psalm 16:11, which states, “in thy presence is fulness of joy.” This verse encapsulates the essence of a joyful life that is experienced in the here and now, rather than solely as a future anticipation of divine reward. Thus, the joy described by Lehi is not merely theological jargon but a tangible state of being that fosters peace, satisfaction, and fulfillment in the context of a relationship with God.

3. The Key Theme: “Opposition in All Things” (2 Nephi 2:11)

Lehi’s argument hinges on a profound philosophical principle encapsulated in the assertion:

“It must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things.”

This statement is not merely a celebration of sin or wrongdoing; rather, it serves as a crucial recognition that moral agency necessitates the existence of alternatives. In other words, for individuals to exercise true agency, they must be faced with choices that include both right and wrong. This duality is essential because:

• Righteousness requires the genuine possibility of wickedness, for without the opportunity to choose wrongly, the choice to do good lacks authenticity and depth.
• Joy is enriched by the all-too-real possibility of misery. The experience of happiness gains its meaning when contrasted against sadness and suffering.
• Redemption, a fundamental aspect of human experience and belief, is only possible because there exists the option of fallenness; if there were no capacity to fall, the act of being redeemed would lack its profound significance.
• The very mission of Christ gains its necessity through this framework, as it underscores the need for a savior in a world where choices lead to divergent paths.

Lehi’s position illustrates a classic moral-agency theodicy, reinforcing the idea that existence itself possesses strands of choice and consequence, rather than a mere doctrine of divine ascent wherein humanity smoothly transitions to perfection without struggle or decision.

A critical aspect of Lehi’s point is the understanding that God permits the Fall not as a punitive measure but as a means to establish conditions that enhance and enrich the human experience. In this framework, agency becomes meaningful because it is exercised in a world where choices—good and bad—are ever-present. The capacity for redemption flourishes in an environment conducive to moral decision-making, and authentic joy emerges from the lived experiences of both triumph and tribulation.

Importantly, nothing within the text suggests that Adam’s sin should be interpreted as a virtue or as a step toward godhood. Instead, the implications of these actions resonate with the complexities of human existence, and their consequences reflect a deeper narrative about the potential for growth and learning inherent in the human condition.

In conclusion, while some interpretations may portray the moment of the Fall as a sorrowful lament from God, a closer examination of the grammatical structure of the Hebrew text, along with the underlying theological implications, suggests otherwise. Humanity’s newfound ability to discern good and evil is a crucial development, one that should be viewed through the lens of its divine resemblance to the Creator. This marks a pivotal point in the biblical narrative, where the text stands as a testament to the complexity and richness of human moral experience, elevating the dialogue surrounding agency, choice, and the ultimate purpose of existence. Through this understanding, the story of humanity becomes one of struggle, acknowledgment, and the profound pursuit of a virtuous path amid the inherent challenges of life.

Matthew 23:12 — Misusing a Warning Against Pride

Hines’ Claim: “Jesus condemns exaltation; therefore, any doctrine of exaltation is satanic.” This assertion challenges the very foundation of doctrines that elevate individuals or ideologies above others, suggesting that such beliefs distort the core teachings of humility and servitude central to Jesus’ message.

2. Matthew 23:12 – Humility, Not Self-Exaltation

– KJV Truth: “Whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased…” — God exalts the humble, not those who seek exaltation.

– Mormon distortion: Teaches that faithful Mormons can progress to godhood, a form of self-exaltation (D&C 132:20). This is the very spirit Christ condemns.

Hines argues that the act of seeking exaltation not only opposes the values of compassion and equality but also leads believers away from the true path of spirituality, aligning instead with darker, more self-serving motivations. By framing exaltation as satanic, he emphasizes the dangers inherent in pursuing personal glory or status, which can ultimately result in a disconnection from one’s faith and community.

Exegetical Response

Matthew 23 serves as a powerful admonition regarding Pharisaic self‑promotion, emphasizing the stark distinction between self-serving pride and the honor that comes from God. In this chapter, Jesus calls out the Pharisees for their hypocrisy, highlighting how they prioritize their own status rather than the genuine worship and humility that God desires.

Jesus’ actual teaching is encapsulated in the profound principle:

“Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.”

This statement draws a clear contrast between two types of exaltation:

1. Self‑exaltation – This is what Jesus condemns throughout the chapter. It is characterized by pride, arrogance, and a desire to seek approval from others rather than from God. The Pharisees exemplified this behavior as they sought the admiration of the people, placing heavy burdens on others while failing to act with true humility and service.
2. God‑exaltation – In contrast, this is the exaltation that God promises to those who choose humility and servanthood. It is an affirmation that God values the heart’s posture over public accolades or titles.

The entire biblical narrative consistently affirms that God exalts the humble. Throughout Scripture, we find numerous examples of individuals who exemplified humility and were thus elevated by God:

• Joseph – Sold into slavery and wrongfully imprisoned, Joseph maintained his integrity and humility, eventually rising to become the second-in-command in Egypt, saving many from famine.
• David – Though anointed king, David’s path to the throne was marked by trials and humility, as he served Saul and waited for God’s timing.
• Daniel – In a foreign land, Daniel remained faithful and humble before God, earning respect and high positions within the Babylonian empire due to his wisdom and reliance on God.
• Mary – The mother of Jesus exemplifies the humble servant, accepting God’s will with grace and becoming a central figure in the fulfillment of the promise of salvation.
• Christ Himself – As expressed in Philippians 2:9, Jesus was exalted by God because of His obedience and humility, illustrating that true exaltation comes from God alone.

In summary, Matthew 23 highlights an essential truth of the Christian faith: while self-promotion leads to downfall, humility before God opens the door to His exaltation and blessings. This biblical principle serves as a guiding light for believers, encouraging a heart posture that aligns with God’s will and fosters spiritual growth.

Expository & Exegetical Commentary on Dennis Hines’ Claim

“Mormon distortion: Teaches that faithful Mormons can progress to godhood, a form of self-exaltation (D&C 132:20). This is the very spirit Christ condemns.”

This statement commits three major exegetical errors:

1. It conflates ontological exaltation with moral exaltation. The distinction between these two concepts is crucial for a proper understanding of theological discussions. Ontological exaltation refers to the nature of being elevated in status or existence, often associated with divine qualities. In contrast, moral exaltation pertains to the ethical dimensions of one’s life and actions. By merging these concepts, the statement fails to address the nuanced differences that are essential in understanding the teachings of various religious texts.
2. It misrepresents what the LDS text actually says. Accurate representation of religious texts is critical for meaningful discourse. Misinterpretation can lead to significant misunderstandings and misapplications of doctrine. A careful exegesis should involve not only reading the text but also considering its cultural, historical, and theological context. This ensures that the message is conveyed accurately and respectfully, avoiding any distortion that could arise from selective or erroneous readings.
3. It misuses Jesus’ teachings on humility by ripping them from their context. The teachings of Jesus on humility are often profound and layered, requiring contextual understanding to grasp their full meaning. When statements are extracted without their surrounding narrative or intended audience, the essence of the teaching can be lost. Proper exegesis demands a thorough contextual analysis of the scriptural passages, allowing for a more accurate interpretation that aligns with the intended message of humility as a virtue.

Let’s walk through each one with careful exegesis, examining the implications of these errors and their impact on our understanding of the texts in question. By doing so, we can deepen our grasp of the theological concepts at play and enrich our discourse on these important matters.

The Category Error: “Self‑Exaltation” vs. “God‑Given Exaltation”

In Scripture, the concept of “exaltation” is delineated into two distinct categories, each carrying significant theological implications.

A. Self‑exaltation

Self-exaltation refers to the prideful and sinful endeavor of elevating oneself against God. This act is often marked by an inflated sense of self-importance, where individuals seek to place themselves above others and, more critically, above divine authority.

Examples:

• Isaiah 14:13–14 captures the essence of self-exaltation through the voice of Satan, proclaiming, “I will ascend… I will be like the Most High.” Here lies a profound illustration of the desire to usurp God’s position, ultimately leading to downfall.
• In Luke 18:9–14, the Pharisee’s prayer illustrates self-exaltation, where he boasts of his own righteousness while looking down upon others, marking a clear deviation from humility in the presence of God.
• Matthew 23:12 warns, “Whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased,” serving as a stark reminder that self-exaltation ultimately leads to humiliation.

Such behaviors are unequivocally condemned within the biblical text, as they oppose the humility that God values.

B. God‑given exaltation

In contrast, God-given exaltation is a divine act wherein the humble are lifted up by God, showcasing His grace and favor. This form of exaltation is not an attempt to elevate oneself but rather to acknowledge and accept God’s sovereign will.

Examples:

• 1 Peter 5:6 encourages believers by stating, “Humble yourselves… that He may exalt you.” This reinforces the notion that true exaltation comes from God as a reward for humility.
• James 4:10 similarly instructs to “Humble yourselves… and He shall lift you up.” This reaffirmation emphasizes the divine promise that those who humble themselves will be honored by God.
• A powerful example is found in Philippians 2:9, where God exalts Christ following His profound humility, showcasing that exaltation is intrinsically linked with a spirit of surrender and servitude.

This divine act of lifting up the humble is not only promised but is an essential aspect of the Christian experience.

In his critique, Dennis conflates these two categories of exaltation into one, labeling them both as forms of self-exaltation. This is a hermeneutical fallacy; he presumes that any doctrine involving exaltation, even those rooted in divine grant, are automatically indicative of self-exaltation.

This perspective risks misunderstanding the biblical terminology and the nuances within scriptural teachings on humility and exaltation. It is crucial to discern the distinct meanings of these forms of exaltation as they reflect varying human attitudes towards God, fundamentally impacting one’s spiritual walk and relationship with the Divine.

What D&C 132:20 Actually Says

I am not defending LDS doctrine—I am calling out and exposing the misrepresentation.

D&C 132:20 does not say:

• “Exalt yourself.”
• “Seek your own glory.”
• “Lift yourself above others.”
• “Become equal with God through pride.”

It says that God exalts the faithful. This distinction is crucial as it highlights the divine role in the exaltation process, emphasizing that it is not about self-promotion or prideful aspirations, but rather about a faithful relationship with God.

The grammar is passive:

• “Then shall they be gods”
• “because they have no end”
• “they shall be from everlasting to everlasting”
• “because they continue”

In these phrases, the subject performing the action is God, not the individual. This underscores the central tenet of reliance on divine power and grace rather than personal ambition.

This is the same grammatical structure as:

• “He shall exalt you” (1 Peter 5:6)
• “God also hath highly exalted Him” (Philippians 2:9)
• “We shall be like Him” (1 John 3:2)

The consistent use of passive constructions across these scriptures reinforces the notion that exaltation is a divine gift bestowed upon believers, not something to be claimed or achieved through one’s own merits.

Whether one agrees with the LDS interpretation is irrelevant. The interpretation of scriptures often varies among different faith traditions, but Dennis’ accusation of “self‑exaltation” is exegetically false. It misrepresents the textual evidence and leads to a misunderstanding of the underlying theological principles. This highlights the importance of careful study and respectful dialogue when discussing matters of faith, particularly in relation to interpretations that may differ significantly from one’s own beliefs.

Christ Condemns Self‑Promotion, Not God‑Given Glory

Dennis cites Jesus’ warnings against self‑exaltation as if they apply to any doctrine of exaltation. However, it is important to understand that Jesus’ teaching is specific and nuanced in its context.

Jesus was cautious about pride and self-promotion, particularly among those who seek power or recognition for their own gain. He emphasized humility and the importance of serving others over seeking personal glory. The exaltation referenced in Jesus’ teachings is tied to the posture of one’s heart and the intentions behind one’s actions.

In the broader context of Jesus’ life and messages, the exaltation He spoke of aligns with divine acknowledgment and reward, rather than human pursuit of status. The call to humility is not a blanket condemnation of all forms of elevation or recognition, but a reminder that true exaltation comes from God and is given to those who live selflessly and authentically. Understanding this distinction is crucial for accurately interpreting the teachings of Jesus on exaltation.

To fully grasp the intentions behind His words, one must delve deeper into the essence of humility that Jesus modeled throughout His ministry, demonstrating that self-exaltation is not merely about positioning oneself but about the heart’s alignment with God’s will.

Christ condemns:

• pride
• self‑promotion
• seeking status
• elevating oneself above others
• grasping at divine prerogatives (like Satan)

Christ affirms:

• God exalts the humble
• God rewards the faithful
• God glorifies His children
• God shares His glory with those who suffer with Christ (Romans 8:17)

Paul explicitly teaches:

“If we suffer with Him, we shall also be glorified together.” —Romans 8:17

Jesus Himself says:

“To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne.” —Revelation 3:21

This is God‑given exaltation, not self‑exaltation.

Dennis’ argument ignores this biblical distinction, which is crucial in understanding the nature of true exaltation. The concept of God-given exaltation is rooted deeply in scripture and emphasizes that any elevation one experiences is not a result of personal ambition or self-serving motives but rather a divine favoritism and grace. This notion highlights the importance of humility and acknowledges that exaltation comes as a gift from God rather than an achievement of our own making.

In contrast, self-exaltation often leads to pride and a distorted perception of one’s abilities, resulting in a focus on personal glory rather than the glory of God. By overlooking the profound difference between these two concepts, Dennis fails to grasp the essence of biblical teachings that direct believers toward a life characterized by humility and reliance on God’s grace rather than self-promotion. The distinction serves as a vital reminder for individuals to seek divine approval instead of human accolades, reinforcing the foundational beliefs held within the faith.

The Logical Fallacy: “If a doctrine includes exaltation, it must be satanic.”

This is a non sequitur.

If Dennis’ logic were applied consistently, then:

• Romans 8:17
• 1 Peter 5:6
• James 4:10
• Revelation 3:21
• 1 John 3:2
• John 17:22 (“the glory which thou gavest me I have given them”)

Would all be “the spirit of Satan.” This assertion is, at its core, absurd and demonstrates a misunderstanding of the intricate themes explored within the scriptures.

The Bible is replete with instances of God‑given exaltation, underscoring the value and importance of divine upliftment in spiritual contexts. From the stories of the faithful receiving blessings to the principles of humility and service being rewarded, it is evident that exaltation is a significant aspect of God’s relationship with humanity.

Conversely, the only thing Scripture explicitly condemns is self‑exaltation. This distinction is crucial; self-exaltation promotes an ego-driven perspective that seeks glory and recognition apart from divine will, often derailing an individual’s spiritual journey.

Dennis’ argument falters because it mishandles these two distinct categories, thereby misrepresenting both the teachings within the Bible and those found in the LDS text. By conflating the two, the essential messages about humility, divine favor, and the nature of exaltation become obscured. This confusion not only undermines the integrity of the scriptures but also misguides adherents attempting to navigate their spiritual paths.

Therefore, it is vital to approach these texts with careful consideration, ensuring that we appreciate the nuanced teachings they offer, and recognize the importance of maintaining a clear differentiation between exaltation granted by God and the pitfalls of self-aggrandizement.

Dennis Hines’ accusation rests on a category error. Scripture condemns self‑exaltation—prideful attempts to elevate oneself above others—but it repeatedly affirms God‑given exaltation for the humble. D&C 132:20, whether one accepts it or not, describes exaltation as something God grants, not something individuals seize. Christ condemns self‑promotion, not divine reward. By conflating these categories, Dennis misrepresents both the biblical teaching on exaltation and the text he is criticizing.

Matthew 19:16–20:23 — Eternal Life as Exaltation

Jesus does not define eternal life as “going to heaven.” He defines it as entering into life, receiving treasure in heaven, and ultimately: “You who have followed me will sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” (Matthew 19:28)

This statement highlights the significance of eternal life as more than just an afterlife experience; it emphasizes a profound engagement with God’s divine purpose. The concept of royal enthronement underscores a unique relationship with Jesus and indicates a shared authority that His followers will experience in the age to come.

Then Jesus adds: “To sit at my right hand and on my left… is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.” (Matthew 20:23) This revelation further deepens our understanding of the roles that believers are destined to occupy. The Father prepares thrones for His children, suggesting that there is intentionality in the divine plan—an extraordinary promise of glory and responsibility that awaits those who faithfully follow Christ.

This is exaltation. Not self‑exaltation—God‑given exaltation. The distinction is crucial; it is not about pursuing personal glory or achievement through self-serving means but rather accepting and embracing the honor that God bestows. This God-given exaltation signifies a recognition of one’s position within God’s kingdom—a seat of influence, judgment, and eternal participation in His divine governance. Consequently, the idea of sitting on thrones serves as a powerful imagery of the hope and destiny laid out for believers, reinforcing the call to faithful discipleship and the assurance of eternal reward in the presence of Christ.

Matthew 5:48 — “Be Perfect” in Context

Hines’ Claim:

3. Matthew 5:48 – Be Perfect as Your Father

– KJV Truth: A call to moral maturity and holiness, not ontological equality with God.

– Mormon distortion: Misreads this as a command to become gods, ignoring the context of love, mercy, and humility in the Sermon on the Mount.

Exegetical Response

The Greek teleioi encompasses a rich and profound meaning that can be distilled into several key concepts:

• complete
• mature
• fully developed
• brought to intended end

In the context of the Gospel of Matthew, this term invites us to reflect on the aspiration of becoming like the Father in attributes such as character, mercy, and wholeness. It emphasizes a transformative journey that aligns with divine nature and purpose, rather than simply adhering to a set of moral standards.

However, it is crucial to understand that the Sermon on the Mount transcends mere moral teaching. It represents a process of kingdom formation—an ongoing cultivation that shapes disciples into the likeness of Christ. This transformation is rooted in a relationship with God, empowering individuals to embody His character and reflect His intentions in their lives.

When Jesus communicates His message, He is not merely advocating for a standard of being “morally decent.” Instead, He is challenging His followers to “Become what your Father is.” This call to action demands a deeper commitment to personal and spiritual growth, an invitation to participate in the divine nature that the Father exemplifies.

This concept intricately ties into the doctrine of theosis, a belief that has been affirmed by early Christians well before any modern interpretations, such as those proposed by Mormonism, emerged. Theosis signifies the process of becoming one with God, participating in His divine life, and allowing His qualities to permeate one’s being. This deep connection fosters a transformative experience that goes beyond superficial behavior and encapsulates the essence of genuine spiritual maturity.

In essence, the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount reflect a holistic approach to spirituality that calls for ongoing growth, personal integrity, and the embodiment of divine characteristics in the life of a believer. Through this lens, the pathway toward maturity is not only about ethical conduct but also about a profound relationship with the Father, leading to a life that genuinely reflects His glory in every aspect.

Expository & Exegetical Commentary on the Claim

Dennis Hines makes this claim here: “Mormon distortion: Misreads this as a command to become gods, ignoring the context of love, mercy, and humility in the Sermon on the Mount.”

This critique misunderstands both the verse and the structure of the Sermon on the Mount. A proper exegesis shows that Matthew 5:48 is:

• ethical, not ontological
• about character, not divinity
• about love, not status
• about imitation, not exaltation

Let’s walk through the text.

In Matthew 5:48, the phrase “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” serves as a profound ethical call to action. It invites followers to strive for completeness and wholeness in their moral conduct, rather than suggesting an aspiration to attain god-like status. This imperative emphasizes the importance of ethical behavior grounded in love and compassion, rather than a quest for divine power or recognition.

Furthermore, the context of the Sermon on the Mount repeatedly highlights themes of humility, mercy, and the fundamental precept of loving one’s neighbor. The teachings encourage a form of living that reflects the character and attitudes exhibited by Jesus, promoting values such as forgiveness, kindness, and service. This perspective reinforces the notion that the goal is to reflect God’s love in one’s actions, rather than achieving an elevated status akin to divinity.

As we delve deeper into the surrounding verses, we notice that the Sermon places a strong emphasis on relationships and ethical responses to others. Jesus calls His followers to a higher standard of morality—one that is rooted in authentic relationships characterized by love and humility. Thus, when interpreting Matthew 5:48, we should focus on how we can embody these values in our daily lives, seeking to imitate the qualities of compassion and integrity that are essential to the Christian faith.

The misunderstanding stems from a conflation of ethical striving with ontological status. The true essence of Matthew 5:48 lies in the call to develop our character in alignment with the values of love and service exemplified in Christ, urging us to imitate His example rather than seek an exalted position. Let’s walk through the text with a fresh perspective that embraces the deep ethical implications intended by these verses.

The Context: Matthew 5:43–48 Is About Love, Not Ontology

Matthew 5:48 concludes a section that begins in verse 43: “Love your enemies… pray for them which despitefully use you.” This significant passage encapsulates a core teaching of Jesus, emphasizing the radical call to love, even in the face of hostility.

Jesus’ argument is layered and profound:

1. God loves the righteous and the unrighteous: This highlights the universal nature of God’s love, suggesting that divine love is not limited to those who are deserving or aligned with righteousness. Instead, it extends to all humanity, regardless of their actions or beliefs.
2. God shows mercy to the undeserving: This point reiterates the idea that mercy is a fundamental characteristic of God. It emphasizes that divine grace is given freely and is not contingent upon merit, underscoring the vastness of God’s compassion.
3. God’s children must imitate that mercy: Here, Jesus lays a direct responsibility upon His followers: to reflect the same mercy and love that God shows. This sets a standard for behavior that transcends societal norms and personal grievances.

Conclusively, Jesus states: “Be perfect as your Father is perfect.” The command to be perfect can often be misinterpreted, but it is essential to unpack its true meaning.

The “perfection” that Jesus commands is perfect love, not the pursuit of a divine nature. Understanding this distinction is crucial to grasping the essence of his teaching and the type of relationship God seeks with humanity.

The Greek word teleios is pivotal in this discussion. It conveys several key meanings important for context:

• Mature: Suggesting that perfection is about growing in love and understanding, evolving to embody deeper qualities as one matures in faith.
• Complete: Indicating wholeness in love, rather than lacking in any respect.
• Whole: Denoting a sense of integrity and unity in one’s character, particularly in the application of love and grace.
• Fully formed in love: This encapsulates the idea that true perfection lies in the expression of love that mirrors God’s nature.

Importantly, it does not mean:

• Become gods: The notion of achieving godhood is not present in this assertion.
• Become divine beings: Similarly, the text does not imply that humanity can attain a divine status.
• Achieve ontological equality with God: Such a notion contradicts the fundamental teachings of Christ regarding the nature of God and humanity.

Dennis’ critique is correct in noting that the context of this passage is centered around love, mercy, and humility. However, it’s vital to recognize that this very context actually refutes the LDS reading without the necessity to caricature it. In essence, Jesus calls for a transformation of the heart that manifests through love and mercy, which is distinctly different from the aspirations toward divinity or equality with the divine. This deepens the understanding that the objective of spiritual growth is not to attain status but to cultivate a life characterized by perfect love and humility.

“Be Perfect” = “Be Complete in Love”

Jesus is not introducing a new doctrine but is rather echoing and reinforcing the messages found in the Old Testament, which is foundational to the understanding of holiness and perfection in a covenant relationship with God.

Leviticus 19:2 states, “Be holy, for I am holy.” This command underscores God’s expectation for His people to embody holiness as a reflection of His own divine nature. In a similar vein, Deuteronomy 18:13 instructs, “Thou shalt be perfect with the LORD thy God,” highlighting the call for completeness and integrity in one’s relationship with Him.

In both of these scriptures, the terms “holiness” and “perfection” convey vital concepts that extend beyond mere abstract qualities. They encompass:

1. Moral Likeness: This implies that followers are called to emulate the moral excellence and ethical standards that God exemplifies. It invites individuals to align their lives with God’s righteousness, aiming for virtues such as love, justice, mercy, and humility.
2. Covenant Loyalty: This aspect emphasizes the importance of faithfulness to the commitments made in the covenant with God. It reflects a steadfastness in relationship, encouraging believers to remain dedicated and loyal, regardless of circumstances.
3. Wholehearted Devotion: A call to complete dedication in heart and mind towards God, where individuals invest themselves fully in their pursuit of God and His ways. This involves prioritizing God’s will and aligning one’s actions with His purposes.

Importantly, these concepts do not imply a transformation into divine ontology or nature. Rather, Jesus is calling His disciples to reflect God’s character in their lives. They are to embody the traits of God in their dealings with others and the world, but they are not to attain the status of divinity themselves. Instead, the focus is on living a life that honors God through moral integrity, loyalty, and devotion, embodying the essence of His character to those around them. This call to reflect God’s character is essential in establishing a true representation of His love and truth in the world.

The Sermon on the Mount Is a Manifesto of Humility, Not Exaltation

The entire sermon emphasizes several profound and transformative qualities that are pivotal to spiritual growth and community living. These key attributes include:

• Poverty of spirit: This speaks to an acknowledgment of one’s need for God and a recognition of our limitations. It cultivates a humble heart open to receiving divine grace.
• Meekness: A gentle strength that allows individuals to interact with others with patience and kindness, reflecting a spirit that trusts in God rather than in one’s own power.
• Mercy: The call to show compassion and forgiveness towards others, embodying the principle of love and kindness even when it is undeserved.
• Purity of heart: This emphasizes the importance of intentions and motives aligning with goodness, leading to a genuine and sincere life.
• Peacemaking: Actively seeking harmony and resolution in conflicts, fostering relationships built on understanding and reconciliation.
• Secret prayer: Encouraging personal communication with God, highlighting the importance of private devotion over public displays of piety.
• Hidden generosity: The practice of giving and helping others without seeking recognition or reward, emphasizing the value of selfless acts of kindness.
• Self-denial: The discipline of saying no to selfish desires and embracing a life dedicated to serving others and God.
• Humility before God: Acknowledging God’s greatness and our own dependence on Him, leading to a deeper relationship with the divine.

Conversely, the sermon explicitly discourages several attitudes that can lead to spiritual pitfalls, which include:

• Self-promotion: The act of elevating oneself or seeking to draw attention to one’s achievements, which can undermine genuine humility.
• Self-exaltation: The tendency to elevate oneself in pride, which can distance individuals from true understanding of their need for God.
• Divine ambition: Pursuing personal glory or status in the name of religious aspirations, which can corrupt the true essence of faith.
• Ontological ascent: The notion of striving to achieve a higher state of being or enlightenment through one’s own efforts, rather than through divine grace and humility.

These contrasts serve to guide individuals towards a life that reflects core biblical values and fosters authentic relationships with others and with God.

If anything, the Sermon on the Mount is the antidote to the very pride Dennis is warning against. In this foundational discourse, Jesus emphasizes humility, mercy, and righteousness, calling His followers to display attributes that starkly contrast with arrogance and self-importance. He teaches that true greatness in the Kingdom of Heaven is not measured by one’s status or accomplishments but by a deep, genuine commitment to serving others and embodying love.

Moreover, the idea that Jesus is secretly commanding His disciples to “become gods” is not supported by the text. Throughout the Sermon, Jesus does not suggest divinity for His followers; instead, He invites them to pursue a life characterized by selflessness and grace. For example, the Beatitudes highlight the blessings on the meek and the poor in spirit, further reinforcing that humility is central to the Christian faith. In this context, rather than aspiring to godhood, disciples are encouraged to live in a manner that reflects the character of Christ, focusing on love, compassion, and a commitment to righteousness. This ultimately serves to uplift individuals and communities, steering them away from the destructive pride that can lead to division and strife.

The Real Issue: Dennis’ Critique Attacks a Misreading, Not the Text

Dennis’ jab assumes: “If someone misreads Matthew 5:48 as deification, then the verse itself must be about deification.”

But that is not how exegesis works. A proper reading shows that understanding a biblical text requires careful consideration of context, original language, and the broader theological implications of the passage.

Matthew 5:48 states, “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” This verse, placed within the context of the Sermon on the Mount, calls believers to aspire to a standard of moral excellence that reflects the character of God. The intent here is not to suggest that humans can achieve divine nature or status but rather to strive for completeness and maturity in faith and practice.

Exegesis involves unpacking the text through various critical methods, including historical-cultural analysis, literary structure, and audience relevance. Misreading or misinterpreting a verse by taking it out of its context leads to flawed conclusions. Instead, we should view Matthew 5:48 in light of the surrounding verses that emphasize love, righteousness, and ethical behavior rather than attempting to frame it within the concept of deification.

When approaching scripture, it is essential to recognize the numerous layers and interpretations that contribute to our understanding and to avoid jumping to conclusions based on isolated readings. By engaging in responsible exegesis, we can uncover the true meaning and application of biblical texts in our lives today.

• Jesus is calling for perfect love, not divine status
• the command is ethical, not metaphysical
• the context is humility, not exaltation
• the standard is God’s character, not God’s essence

Dennis is right to reject the LDS interpretation—but his critique misfires because it attacks a misinterpretation, not the verse itself, which requires a more nuanced examination. Instead of merely dismissing the viewpoint, he could engage with the complexities of the original text, analyzing the historical and linguistic contexts that shape its meaning. By addressing the substance of the verse directly, he could foster a deeper understanding of the discussion, moving beyond surface-level objections to explore the rich layers of interpretation that have emerged over time. This approach would not only strengthen his argument but also invite a more fruitful dialogue about the text’s implications and significance within the broader theological discourse.

Matthew 5:48 is not a command to become gods. In context, Jesus is concluding His teaching on enemy‑love, mercy, and humility. The Greek term teleios means mature or complete—specifically in love—not divine or exalted. The Sermon on the Mount calls disciples to imitate God’s character, not His ontology. Dennis’ critique attacks a misreading rather than the text itself, ignoring the clear ethical and relational context of Jesus’ words.

Romans 8:16–17 — Heirs and Joint‑Heirs with Christ

Hines Claim: “We inherit with Christ, but not what Christ inherits. His statement invites a straightforward response on the nature of our spiritual inheritance in the context of our relationship with Christ. As believers, we share in His sufferings and grace, embracing the transformative journey that leads us toward spiritual maturity. However, it is important to recognize that while we participate in the blessings of His love and redemption, we cannot claim the fullness of what He has inherited from the Father—specifically the divine authority and the eternal reign that belongs solely to Him. Our role as co-heirs signifies a shared experience in the richness of His grace and the promise of eternal life, yet it also reminds us of the distinct and unparalleled position Christ occupies in the divine order, emphasizing the unique and sacred nature of His eternal legacy.”

4. Romans 8:16–17 – Heirs with Christ, Not Equals to God

– KJV Truth: We are adopted as children of God, and our inheritance is with Christ, not as Christ.

– Mormon distortion: Teaches that being “joint-heirs” means we will become gods like God, rather than receiving eternal life through Christ.

Paul does not say we inherit with Christ in a symbolic sense. He articulates a profound truth when he states: “We are heirs of God and joint‑heirs with Christ.” This declaration is packed with meaning and significance.

A joint‑heir inherits what the primary heir inherits. Therefore, when we consider this concept of joint-heirship with Christ, we must ask an essential question:

What does Christ inherit?

To grasp the depth of this inquiry, we can explore several scriptures that give insight into Christ’s inheritance:

• All authority is given to Christ as noted in Matthew 28:18, where He declares, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” This indicates not just a fragment of power, but the totality of dominion over all realms.
• Moreover, Christ inherits all things, as stated in Hebrews 1:2, which emphasizes that God has appointed Him the heir of all things. This comprehensive inheritance signifies that everything created and sustained by God ultimately belongs to Him.
• Additionally, glory is another aspect of Christ’s inheritance, which is illuminated in John 17:22 where He prays, “The glory that you have given me, I have given to them.” This profound sharing of glory points to the intimate and exalted status bestowed upon Him.
• Furthermore, Christ inherits a throne, as highlighted in Revelation 3:21, where it is promised that those who overcome will sit down with Him on His throne. This symbolizes a position of ultimate authority and reign, marking the culmination of His victory and sovereignty.

Paul’s language is intentionally not metaphorical; it is rooted in legal, covenantal, and royal language. He presents these concepts in a straightforward manner, affirming that the believer shares in the promises and privileges that Christ receives. This understanding not only elevates our view of our identity in Christ but also deepens our comprehension of the significance that stems from being joint heirs with Him. Thus, we see that our inheritance in Christ encompasses authority, all things, glory, and a place on the throne—an inheritance that is both sacred and profound.

Expository & Exegetical Commentary on the Claim

“Mormon distortion: Teaches that being ‘joint‑heirs’ means we will become gods like God, rather than receiving eternal life through Christ.”

This critique misunderstands Paul’s argument, the meaning of inheritance, and the biblical logic of sonship. A proper exegesis shows that “joint‑heirs” is about participation, not deification, and about sharing Christ’s glory, not becoming His equal.

In examining Paul’s writings, it’s essential to recognize that he often emphasizes the intimate relationship between believers and Christ. The concept of being joint heirs signifies a collaborative journey toward spiritual maturity. It invites believers to partake in the blessings and responsibilities that come with following Christ, thus implying an active role in this divine narrative rather than a passive or elevated status.

Moreover, the notion of inheritance in the biblical context is deeply rooted in covenantal theology. It reflects the promises made by God and the subsequent responsibilities that accompany them. This inheritance is not merely about receiving material blessings or spiritual accolades; it encompasses the call to live out one’s faith actively and to embody Christ-like attributes. The sharing of Christ’s glory means reflecting His character in our lives and communities, thus fulfilling our purpose as His followers.

Let’s walk through the text carefully. Each phrase carries weight and significance that reinforces the argument of participatory inheritance rather than hierarchical superiority. By delving deeper into the original language and cultural context, we better understand the transformative implications of being a joint heir with Christ.

What Paul Actually Says in Romans 8:17

Paul writes: “If children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint‑heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.”

Three key observations:

The basis of inheritance is adoption, not achievement. Paul’s logical framework can be elaborated as follows:

1. We are adopted into God’s family through Christ, and this act of divine grace establishes our identity.
2. Therefore we are children of God, which signifies a profound relational connection rather than a merit-based status.
3. Therefore we are heirs, inheriting the promise, rights, and blessings intended for God’s children.
4. Therefore we share in Christ’s glory, which is the ultimate reward for our faith and connection to Him.

This framework indicates that our relationship with God is fundamentally relational, not ontological. It emphasizes the love and grace extended to us rather than suggesting any notion of inherent divinity or equal standing with the Father.

“Joint‑heirs” means shared inheritance, not shared identity. In the cultural context of Paul’s time, a “joint‑heir” did not imply that the heir became equal in status with the father. Instead, this status entailed:

• Sharing in the estate: We partake in the blessings that derive from our relationship with God.
• Receiving what the father chooses to give: Our inheritance is contingent upon God’s will and purposes.
• Participating in the family’s blessings: Being an heir means enjoying the benefits and gifts bestowed by our Heavenly Father.

It is crucial to understand that being a joint-heir with Christ does not mean we become the father; it emphasizes our shared access to the inheritance rather than a transformation into the divine essence of God.

The inheritance is “glory,” not “godhood.” Paul defines this inheritance explicitly: “that we may be glorified together.” In the context of Paul’s theology, glorification encompasses several vital elements:

• Resurrection: The promise of eternal life and victory over death.
• Immortality: The assurance that we will not face the decay associated with sin and mortality.
• Sanctification: The process of being made holy and set apart for God’s purposes.
• Conformity to Christ’s character: This reflects the transformative work within us that aligns our character with that of Jesus.

It is essential to note that glorification does not imply becoming divine beings or sharing in God’s essence.

Paul’s Broader Theology Confirms This; The Apostle consistently teaches that we are to be transformed in the image of Christ, which further clarifies God’s intention for His children:

• We are conformed to Christ’s image (Romans 8:29): This reinforces the idea of participation in God’s glory through association with Christ.
• We are transformed from glory to glory (2 Corinthians 3:18): This indicates an ongoing process of spiritual growth and refinement.
• We put on immortality (1 Corinthians 15:53): We receive the eternal life promised through Christ’s resurrection.
• We are raised in glory (1 Corinthians 15:43): This points to our ultimate hope in the resurrection.

However, throughout his teachings, Paul never conveys the notion of:

• Equality with God: This distinction is vital in understanding our relationship with the Father.
• Ontological divinity: He does not suggest that we possess any divine nature ourselves.
• Becoming gods: This is a concept Paul explicitly does not endorse.
• Sharing God’s essence: He emphasizes the distinction between the Creator and the created.

Paul’s language is participatory, reflecting an invitation to share in the blessings of God without crossing the boundary of divine nature. We share in the glory of Christ, highlighting our relationship and inheritance, but we do not claim His Godhood. This theological perspective maintains the integrity of God’s sovereignty while affirming the incredible gift of our status as heirs through Christ.

The Critique Commits a False Dichotomy

Dennis’ argument assumes: “Either ‘joint‑heirs’ means becoming gods, or it means only receiving eternal life.”

But Paul’s actual teaching is: Joint‑heirs = receiving the full inheritance Christ chooses to share, including glory, resurrection, and eternal life.

Paul does not limit the inheritance to “eternal life only.” He speaks of:

• Glory: Paul emphasizes that believers will share in the glory of Christ, a profound and transformative experience that elevates them into a closer union with Him. This glory is reflective of the divine nature, but it does not equate to becoming divine beings themselves.
• Resurrection: The promise of resurrection is central to Paul’s message, affirming that just as Christ was raised from the dead, so too will those who are in Him experience new life. This resurrection not only signifies physical renewal but also spiritual rejuvenation, marking the believer’s transition to a new form of existence.
• Adoption: Paul frequently refers to Christians as adopted children of God. This signifies a special relationship with the Father, granting believers access to His resources and a new identity within His family. Adoption is an intimate concept that implies belonging, security, and the responsibilities of being part of God’s household.
• Inheritance: The notion of inheritance in Paul’s letters includes not just eternal life but also the gifts and blessings that come with being a part of God’s kingdom. This includes the promise of being co-heirs with Christ, showcasing the richness of relationship and the abundance of God’s provisions for His children.
• Reigning with Christ (2 Timothy 2:12): Paul indicates that believers will rule with Christ, which establishes their position of authority and responsibility in the coming Kingdom. This reign is not about divinity but denotes a partnership in governance established by Christ’s victory.
• Judging angels (1 Corinthians 6:3): This powerful statement shows that believers will possess a significant role in the divine order, underscoring their elevated status without implying they are divine in nature. It speaks to the trust and authority bestowed upon them by God.

These are royal and exalted images, but not divine ontology. It is essential to grasp the distinction that Paul makes between the shared privileges of the believer and the nature of Christ Himself. While Christians are called to a high and noble status, becoming heirs with Christ, they do not attain divine nature; rather, they participate in the divine life through grace.

The critique oversimplifies Paul’s rich inheritance theology, overlooking the nuanced understanding that the Apostle articulates. Paul’s concept of joint heirs is a multifaceted and glorious sharing in the lavish inheritance of the Kingdom, emphasizing the grace and love of God rather than a theological shift toward divinity. His teachings highlight the dignity and honor bestowed upon believers while maintaining a clear distinction between Creator and creation. Therefore, one must appreciate the depth of Paul’s message and recognize the fullness of the inheritance that is offered to those who are united with Christ.

The Real Issue: “Joint‑Heirs” Is Familial, Not Metaphysical

Paul’s metaphor is intricately constructed upon the principles of Roman adoption law. In this framework, several key aspects come into play:

1. The adopted son receives the father’s estate, signifying a formal acceptance into the family and the sharing of the father’s resources and blessings.
2. The father remains the father, emphasizing the distinct roles within this relationship. The authority and identity of the father are unchanged, highlighting a structured familial hierarchy.
3. Importantly, the son never becomes equal in authority or nature to the father. This point underscores the maintained divinity of the father figure and the respective subordinate position of the son, which is vital for understanding the dynamics of this familial relationship.
4. Furthermore, the inheritance is a gift, not a promotion. This means that the adopted son receives his status and possessions not through earning them or climbing a hierarchical ladder but rather as a gracious gift from the father. It reflects the kindness and generosity inherent in the adoption process.

Through this metaphor, Paul articulates a profound theological understanding. When discussing the term “joint-heirs,” it is crucial to interpret it correctly. To read “joint-heirs” as implying that believers somehow “become gods” is a misreading that misrepresents the nature of the relationship Paul describes. Conversely, reading “joint-heirs” purely as receiving “only eternal life, nothing more,” is also a misinterpretation, as it diminishes the richness of the familial connection emphasized by Paul.

Paul’s point centers on familial participation in Christ’s glory, indicating that believers are granted the privilege of sharing in the glory and majesty of Christ through their spiritual adoption. This participation is a profound and transformative experience but does not suggest an ontological transformation into deity. Instead, it invites believers into a deeper relationship with Christ, one that acknowledges their status as children of God while affirming the distinction between Creator and creation. This understanding serves to foster humility, gratitude, and a sense of belonging within the divine family.

Paul’s phrase “joint‑heirs with Christ” in Romans 8:17 does not teach that believers become gods. It teaches that adopted children share in Christ’s inheritance—His glory, resurrection, and eternal life. The metaphor is familial, not metaphysical. Paul’s theology consistently affirms participation in Christ’s glory without ever suggesting equality with God. Dennis’ critique creates a false dichotomy by reducing inheritance to “eternal life only,” ignoring Paul’s broader teaching on glorification, adoption, and sharing in Christ’s victory.

1 Peter 5:6 – Humility and Exaltation

Hines Claims: “Exaltation is God’s act, not man’s achievement; therefore LDS doctrine is invalid.”

5. 1 Peter 5:6 – Exaltation Comes Through Humility

– KJV Truth: “Humble yourselves… that he may exalt you.”

Exaltation is God’s act, not man’s achievement.

– Mormon distortion: Teaches exaltation as a reward for temple ordinances, priesthood, and obedience to LDS leaders—a system of works, not grace.

Peter agrees, and it seems Hines is engaged in double speak here regarding exaltation as an act that belongs solely to God. This perspective is shared by Latter-day Saints, who uphold the belief that exaltation is not something that can be self-achieved, but rather a divine gift bestowed upon God’s faithful children. When we delve into the text, we find references that reinforce this belief. For instance, it states that we are to “humble [ourselves] … that He may exalt [us].” This passage underscores the necessity of humility as a prerequisite for receiving exaltation from God.

This theme of divine exaltation is not isolated to just a few teachings; rather, it resonates throughout scripture. It follows a consistent pattern that Jesus taught during His ministry, emphasizing the importance of humility and the grace of God in elevating His followers. Similarly, the Apostle Paul echoed this sentiment, writing about the relationship between humility and divine favor in his epistles. Furthermore, the Book of Revelation provides additional insights into the nature of exaltation, reinforcing the idea that it is God who determines the heights to which His children may ascend.

The central question is not whether God exalts His children—this is a certainty according to scripture—but rather how far God is willing to exalt them. The scriptures boldly answer this inquiry, outlining the heavenly promises and the ultimate destinations prepared for those who strive to live according to God’s commandments. The narrative of redemption is rooted in the understanding that exaltation is a culmination of God’s grace and mercy toward those who humbly seek to follow Him. Thus, the focus should remain not only on the act of exaltation itself, but also on the transformative journey of humility and obedience that leads to such divine favor.

Hines makes the following claim – more of a theological jab if you will:

Mormon distortion: Teaches exaltation as a reward for temple ordinances, priesthood, and obedience to LDS leaders—a system of works, not grace

This critique rests on three major misunderstandings—one theological, one logical, and one exegetical. Addressing each misunderstanding will not only clarify the points of contention but also expose why the accusation fails on its own terms. The theological misunderstanding centers on the misrepresentation of foundational beliefs that underpin the argument. In the logical realm, the critique highlights several fallacies that weaken the position of those making the accusations. Finally, the exegetical misunderstanding reveals how interpretations of texts can often lead to skewed conclusions, thus providing a more nuanced view. By unpacking these areas, we gain a clearer perspective on the issues at hand and ultimately demonstrate the shortcomings inherent in the critique itself.

The Theological Error: Confusing “Covenant Faithfulness” With “Works‑Righteousness”

Throughout Scripture, God consistently ties covenant blessings to covenant faithfulness, illustrating that the relationship between the Divine and humanity is structured around mutual commitments and promises. This connection highlights that while blessings are indeed a gift from God, they are intricately linked to the faithfulness exhibited by His followers in adhering to His commands and principles. This is not “works‑righteousness,” which suggests that human effort alone can earn divine favor; rather, it is the structure of biblical covenant theology where faithfulness is an expression of trust and love towards God. In this sacred relationship, the faithful are called to respond to God’s unwavering love and commitment, thereby experiencing the fullness of covenant blessings provided to those who remain steadfast in their devotion. Thus, the interplay of faith and divine favor underscores the profound depth of God’s redemptive plan throughout the ages.

Examples:

• Abrahamic covenant: blessings conditioned on walking before God (Genesis 17:1–2)
• Mosaic covenant: blessings tied to obedience (Deuteronomy 28)
• New Covenant: salvation is by grace, but discipleship has conditions (John 14:15; Hebrews 5:9)

Even in the New Testament:

• Jesus speaks of “keeping His commandments” as the expression of love
• Paul speaks of “the obedience of faith”
• James insists that faith without works is dead
• Revelation repeatedly promises rewards “to him that overcometh”

None of this is “works‑righteousness.” It is grace‑enabled obedience within a covenant relationship, which means that our actions and behavior are motivated by a loving response to God’s mercy, rather than a mere obligation to fulfill a set of rules. This distinction is crucial because it emphasizes the transformative power of grace in a believer’s life, leading to genuine obedience that reflects our commitment to the covenant we have with God.

Dennis’ critique assumes that any connection between obedience and divine blessing equals legalism. However, that is not how Scripture frames covenant life. In biblical terms, obedience is often portrayed as a natural outflow of faith and relationship with God, rather than a means to earn His favor. The covenant relationship is built on trust, love, and the acceptance of God’s grace, which compels believers to respond with obedience that aligns with God’s will.

It’s important to recognize that the blessings mentioned in Scripture are often tied to a faithful adherence to God’s commandments, but this should not be misconstrued as legalism. Instead, these blessings are part and parcel of living out the covenant life that God desires for His people. They serve as an affirmation of God’s promises and a reflection of His character in the lives of those who are obedient to Him. Thus, obedience within the context of grace should inspire believers to live in a manner that honors their relationship with God, rather than reducing it to a checklist of do’s and don’ts.

The Logical Error: Treating Ordinances as “Works” Rather Than “Means of Grace”

In historic Christianity, several key practices play an essential role in the faith. These include:

• Baptism
• Communion
• Laying on of hands
• Ordination
• Anointing
• Confession
• Marriage

It is important to understand that these practices are not merely “works.” Instead, they function as means of grace—rituals through which God acts in the lives of believers, signifying divine intervention rather than human achievement.

If we were to apply Dennis’ logic consistently, a number of significant beliefs within various Christian traditions would be classified as “works-righteousness.” This would include concepts like:

• Baptismal regeneration, which is affirmed by Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, and Anglicans
• Sacramental grace, which highlights the divine grace bestowed through sacraments
• Ordination, which confers spiritual authority
• Confirmation, which involves deepening faith
• Eucharistic participation, which embodies communion with Christ

However, mainstream Christianity has historically never viewed sacraments as tools for “earning salvation.” Rather, they are seen as expressions of grace that reflect the generosity of God, enhancing and nourishing the believer’s journey without substituting for faith itself.

In parallel, the framework of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) shares a similar sacramental understanding. Regardless of one’s views on it, the LDS perspective is built upon the following principles:

• Ordinances are channels of divine grace, working to connect individuals with heaven, rather than being mere achievements that one accomplishes.
• Obedience is response to God’s love and commandments, highlighting an authentic relationship rather than a transactional currency for grace.
• Priesthood is considered stewardship; it represents responsible service and care for others rather than a hierarchical status.

Dennis’ critique tends to collapse sacramental theology into a framework of legalism, which misrepresents both LDS practices and the essence of historic Christianity. By failing to recognize the divine relational aspect inherent in these rituals, this critique overlooks the profound significance of these practices in fostering a deeper spiritual connection and understanding among believers. Thus, appreciating the grace-filled nature of these rituals allows for a more enrichened view of faith that transcends mere legalistic interpretations.

The Exegetical Error: Ignoring the Biblical Pattern of Grace → Covenant → Obedience → Reward

Scripture consistently follows this order:

1. Grace initiates the relationship
God rescues Israel before giving the law (Exodus 19:4). This is crucial because it demonstrates that grace is the foundation of our relationship with God. Similarly, Christ saves us before we can obey (Romans 5:8). It emphasizes the unmerited favor of God, highlighting that we are accepted and loved before we have done anything to earn it. This divine initiative is central to understanding the nature of our relationship with God and the transformative power of His love.

2. Covenant establishes the terms
God defines how His people walk with Him. The covenant serves as a framework, outlining how we are to live in response to His grace. It reveals God’s desires for our lives and establishes the guidelines that help us navigate our relationship with Him and with each other. Understanding covenant helps us see that while we are saved by grace, there are expectations in our walk—a partnership between divine grace and human response.

3. Obedience expresses loyalty
Obedience is not a means to earn salvation; rather, it is a manifestation of our loyalty and gratitude towards God. Just as a faithful partner in any relationship expresses love through actions, our obedience demonstrates our commitment to God. It flows from a heart transformed by grace, leading us to follow His commandments out of love rather than obligation. This distinction is vital to avoid viewing our relationship with God as transactional.

4. God grants rewards
Jesus repeatedly speaks of rewards such as:

• “treasure in heaven”
• “a crown of life”
• “sitting with Him in His throne”
• “ruling over many things”
• “inheriting all things”

These promises of rewards underscore the idea that our faithfulness in obedience leads to blessings from God. These are rewards, not salvation itself. They serve as encouragement for believers to remain steadfast in their faith and continue to pursue a life of obedience as a natural response to God’s grace.

Dennis’ critique assumes:

“If God rewards obedience, then salvation is by works.” This misconception fundamentally misunderstands the relationship between grace and works.

However, Scripture teaches:

“Salvation is by grace; rewards are according to works.”

This distinction clarifies that while salvation is a gift from God that we receive by faith, our faithful living according to His will will be rewarded. This is not legalism—it is biblical. It affirms the goodness of God’s law and the grace that empowers us to live in a manner that pleases Him. It is a call to respond to grace with gratitude expressed through our actions. Understanding these dynamic fosters a deeper relationship with God and inspires us to live lives that reflect His love and purpose.

The Real Problem: Dennis’ Argument Is Built on a Straw Man

His statement assumes:

• LDS exaltation = earning salvation
• ordinances = human works
• obedience = legalism
• priesthood = authoritarianism
• grace = absence of covenant obligations

None of these assumptions are inherent in the LDS text he is critiquing. The critique presented does not engage with the core doctrines and teachings as they are outlined within official LDS scripture and church teachings. Instead, he is attacking a caricature, which is a distorted and oversimplified representation of those doctrines. This approach fails to address the complexities and nuances that are integral to the faith and practices of the Latter-day Saints. By focusing on an exaggerated portrayal rather than the actual beliefs, the critique risks misinforming readers about the true nature of LDS beliefs and practices. Engaging with the authentic doctrines would provide a more accurate understanding, leading to more constructive discourse.

Dennis’ critique collapses covenant theology into legalism. Scripture consistently teaches that God initiates salvation by grace, establishes covenants, and then rewards faithfulness—not as wages earned, but as blessings given. Ordinances in LDS theology function as means of grace, not human achievements. By treating every form of obedience, discipleship, or sacramental participation as “works‑righteousness,” Dennis attacks a straw man and misrepresents both biblical covenant patterns and the doctrine he claims to critique.

2 Peter 1:4 — Partakers of the Divine Nature

Hines claims: “this is only moral transformation, not participation in divine life.“

2 Peter 1:4 – Partakers of the Divine Nature

– KJV Truth: Refers to moral transformation, not becoming gods. We share in God’s holiness, not His essence.

– Mormon distortion: Twists this into literal deification, ignoring the context of escaping “the corruption that is in the world through lust.”

The post claims this refers only to “moral transformation.”

But Peter’s language is stronger:

“partakers” (koinōnoi) = sharers, participants, partners, which signifies a profound connection and involvement in a shared experience. This term implies a cooperative relationship that goes beyond mere association; it indicates an intimate participation in the divine.

“divine nature” (theias physeōs) = God’s own nature, refers not just to attributes of God but to a deeper essence that can transform the believer. It suggests a participation in the very characteristics of God that are holy, loving, and just.

Peter is not saying we become God. Instead, he emphasizes that we become like God through union with Christ. This transformative process indicates that the grace of God enables believers to reflect divine qualities in their lives. This is a call to a higher standard of living, one that mirrors the character and love of Christ.

This concept aligns with the doctrine of theosis, which is the process of becoming one with God through spiritual transformation. This doctrine has been affirmed by prominent figures in early church history, including:

• Athanasius, who emphasized the importance of the Incarnation and how it allows believers to participate in divine life.
• Irenaeus, who spoke of humanity’s return to the image of God through Christ, thus bridging the gap created by sin.
• Gregory of Nyssa, who explored the ongoing journey toward God, portraying theosis as a lifelong pursuit of holiness and divine likeness.
• Augustine, who articulated the transformative power of God’s grace and its role in bringing humanity into communion with the divine.
• C.S. Lewis, who illuminated this doctrine for modern readers, discussing the implications of becoming more like God as part of human flourishing and spiritual growth.

This understanding of theosis is not a “Mormon distortion.” It is rooted in the historical teachings of Christianity, affirming that the communion with Christ leads to a profound transformation that aligns believers more closely with God’s nature. It invites us to a life of holiness and deeper relationship with the Divine, echoing the early church’s belief in the potential for humans to embody the love and virtues characteristic of God.

Hines make the following assertion:

Mormon distortion: Twists this into literal deification, ignoring the context of escaping ‘the corruption that is in the world through lust

This accusation refers to 2 Peter 1:4, where Peter says believers become:

“partakers of the divine nature.”

Dennis’ critique rests on a misreading of the verse, a misunderstanding of Peter’s argument, and a false dichotomy between moral transformation and divine participation.

To unpack this further, it’s crucial to recognize that the interpretation of biblical texts often demands a careful analysis of context, language, and theological implications. In this case, Dennis seems to overlook the nuanced way in which Peter articulates the relationship between faith and works.

First, the accusation of misreading the verse suggests that Dennis may not have fully engaged with the original language or the intended message of the passage. This is an essential aspect of exegesis, as a surface-level reading can lead to significant errors in understanding. The verse in question likely conveys a multi-layered meaning that requires deeper exploration to appreciate fully.

Secondly, a misunderstanding of Peter’s argument can lead to a distorted view of the transformative process of faith. Peter advocates for a holistic approach to salvation that encompasses both divine grace and human responsibility. This intricate balance indicates that moral transformation is not merely an outcome of personal effort but is intrinsically linked with divine participation in the believer’s life.

Lastly, the false dichotomy posited by Dennis — treating moral transformation and divine participation as mutually exclusive — fails to acknowledge the biblical teaching that these elements work together in harmony. Rather than viewing them as separate pathways, a more faithful interpretation recognizes that true moral change is facilitated by divine influence, and vice versa. Thus, the critique not only misrepresents Peter’s argument but also undermines the richness of the theological implications presented in the text.

Let’s walk through the exegetical issues in greater detail to illustrate how these elements interact within the framework of biblical theology.

Peter’s Phrase “Partakers of the Divine Nature” Is Moral, Not Ontological

Peter is not discussing:

• becoming gods
• changing species
• ontological transformation
• metaphysical deification

He is discussing moral transformation—the restoration of God’s image through Christ. This profound change involves not only a shift in behavior but also a complete renewal of the heart and mind. As individuals embrace the teachings and example of Christ, they begin to reflect His character, embodying qualities such as love, compassion, and humility. This transformation empowers believers to overcome their past and live in a way that aligns with divine principles, ultimately drawing them closer to God. Through this process, they are not merely altering their actions but are engaging in a spiritual metamorphosis that reshapes their very identity in Christ.

The structure of 2 Peter 1:3–7 is:

1. God gives divine power
2. God gives promises
3. These promises enable believers to escape corruption
4. Escaping corruption enables participation in God’s nature
5. Participation in God’s nature produces virtue, knowledge, temperance, patience, godliness, charity

This is ethical participation, not ontological elevation. In embracing the notion of ethical participation, we acknowledge the significance of engaging with one another in meaningful ways that promote mutual respect and understanding. This approach encourages collaboration, where individuals actively contribute their unique perspectives while upholding the principles of equity and justice. In contrast, ontological elevation suggests a hierarchy of being, which can lead to divisive practices and a lack of inclusivity. By prioritizing ethical participation, we create an environment that fosters genuine connections and shared growth, paving the way for a more harmonious and equitable society.

Peter’s logic is clearly articulated in a succinct manner:

Escape corruption → share God’s holiness.

This straightforward premise suggests that the ultimate goal of escaping the moral decay and corruption of the world is to align oneself with divine holiness, embracing the values and ethical standards that God embodies. By focusing on this connection, believers are not only called to detach from sinful behaviors but also to actively cultivate a life that reflects divine characteristics.

It is essential to highlight what Peter does not suggest:

Escape corruption → become gods.

This distinction is critical in understanding the theological implications of the text. The notion that escaping corruption leads one to become divine or to attain a godlike status fundamentally alters the original intent of the message. This line of reasoning shifts the focus from a relationship based on servitude and holiness to one centered on attaining equality with God, which can mislead believers.

Dennis’ critique delves into an important aspect of biblical interpretation. He seems to assume that the interpretation aligned with Latter-day Saint (LDS) theology is inherently present within the text. However, this presumption is problematic, as it imposes a specific reading onto the scripture. By doing so, he critiques not the text itself but rather the interpretation he has superimposed upon it, leading to his conclusions that do not reflect the original authors’ intentions. This approach is an example of eisegesis, which is the act of interpreting a text by injecting one’s own ideas or biases into it, rather than drawing out the text’s inherent meaning through proper analysis and understanding, which is termed exegesis.

It is crucial to approach scriptural texts with the intention of uncovering their original messages rather than layering on pre-existing interpretations that may skew their intended meaning.

“Partakers of the Divine Nature” Is a Common Biblical Theme

Peter’s language echoes:

• Genesis 1:26–27 — humanity created in God’s image
• Leviticus 19:2 — “Be ye holy, for I am holy”
• Ephesians 4:24 — “put on the new man… created after God”
• 1 John 3:2 — “we shall be like Him”
• Romans 8:29 — “conformed to the image of His Son”

None of these passages teach literal deification. All of them teach moral likeness, spiritual renewal, and restored image-bearing. The concept of moral likeness speaks to the idea that through faith and transformation, individuals begin to reflect the attributes and character of the divine. This transformation is not about becoming divine in essence, but rather about embodying the values and virtues that align with divine teachings.

Spiritual renewal is a critical component of this theological perspective. It emphasizes the process of regeneration and rebirth that allows individuals to move away from their former selves and embrace a new way of living—one that is in harmony with spiritual truths and moral principles. This renewal might manifest in various aspects of life, influencing behavior, thoughts, and relationships.

Restored image-bearing connects closely with the idea that humanity was created in the image of God. This image, marred by sin and disobedience, is restored through divine grace. The restoration entails reclaiming the inherent dignity and purpose that comes from being an image-bearer of the Creator, fostering a relationship that goes beyond mere existence to one of active participation in the divine narrative.

Peter, as an apostle and a key figure in the early Church, operates within the same theological stream. His teachings resonate with the understanding that spiritual transformation is central to the Christian faith. He encourages believers to pursue holiness and to grow in their faith, reflecting the importance of moral likeness and spiritual renewal as essential to living out the Christian life. Through his letters, Peter emphasizes the need for believers to embody the teachings of Christ, promoting a lifestyle that mirrors the character of God and engages fully in restored image-bearing.

The Context Dennis Cites (“Escaping Corruption”) Actually Supports the Opposite of His Claim

Dennis argues: “The context is escaping corruption, not deification.” This statement sets the stage for understanding the fundamental challenges that believers face in their spiritual journeys. It’s a poignant reminder that the primary goal is not an elevation to divine status, but rather a crucial escape from the pervasive corruption that can taint the human experience.

But Peter’s argument expands on this idea further: Escaping corruption is the very means by which believers partake of the divine nature. In this view, there is a reciprocal relationship between the act of escaping corruption and the ability to access the divine essence. One cannot fully embrace the divine nature without first shedding the bonds of corruption that weigh down the soul. This implies that the process of purification is not just a prerequisite but an intrinsic part of the journey toward a higher spiritual existence.

The two ideas are not in tension—they are sequential. It’s essential to approach these concepts with the awareness that they function hand in hand. The journey toward the divine begins with an acknowledgment of corruption that exists within and around us, followed by intentional steps toward liberation from that state. Thus, the pathway to embracing divine traits is paved with the understanding and action of escaping the forms of corruption that inhibit spiritual growth. The believer, therefore, is on a continuous journey where each step away from corruption leads closer to the divine nature, illustrating a dynamic process of transformation that is both profound and essential for spiritual fulfillment.

Peter’s structure:

• Corruption = the world’s moral decay
• Escape = repentance, sanctification, transformation
• Participation = sharing God’s holiness and character

This is the same pattern found in:

• Romans 6 (dead to sin → alive to God)
• Romans 8 (mortify the flesh → walk in the Spirit)
• Galatians 5 (crucify lust → bear the fruit of the Spirit)

Peter is not contrasting “escaping corruption” with “partaking of the divine nature.” Instead, he is asserting that one directly leads to the other, illustrating a progression that is fundamental to his argument. This indicates that to escape the corruption present in the world, one must engage with or partake in the divine nature, suggesting a transformative process where the two concepts are interlinked rather than mutually exclusive.

Dennis’ critique misreads the flow of the argument and overlooks the crucial connection Peter establishes between these two ideas. By failing to recognize this relationship, Dennis diminishes the significance of the transformative journey that Peter describes. The essence of Peter’s message is that the act of escaping corruption is not merely a standalone endeavor; it is intrinsically tied to the experience of partaking in the divine nature, which serves as the means through which individuals can achieve spiritual growth and renewal. This interconnectedness is vital for a holistic understanding of the passage.

The Real Issue: Dennis Treats Any Strong Language of Transformation as “Deification”

This is a hermeneutical overreach. If his standard were applied consistently, then:

• “We shall be like Him” (1 John 3:2)
• “Conformed to the image of His Son” (Romans 8:29)
• “Christ in you” (Colossians 1:27)
• “Partakers of Christ” (Hebrews 3:14)
• “Filled with all the fullness of God” (Ephesians 3:19)

Would all be “literal deification.”

But mainstream Christianity has never interpreted these passages that way.

Dennis’ critique collapses moral likeness into ontological sameness, which is not what the text says.

Dennis’ claim misrepresents both Peter and the doctrine he critiques. In 2 Peter 1:4, “partakers of the divine nature” refers to moral transformation—escaping corruption and becoming holy—not literal deification. Peter’s argument is ethical, not ontological. By collapsing moral likeness into divine ontology, Dennis imports a meaning into the text that is not there, then condemns the text for his own eisegesis. The context of escaping corruption strengthens Peter’s point; it does not redefine it.

Revelation 3:21 & 21:7 — Reigning with Christ

Hines’ Claim: “Reigning with Christ is fellowship, not elevation.

However, Hines, like all other critics of the LDS faith miss this profound statement emphasizes that the essence of our relationship with Christ goes beyond mere power or status; it is rooted in a deep sense of community and connection with Him and with one another. To reign with Christ means to partake intimately in His suffering, love, and grace, fostering a shared bond among believers. This perspective encourages us to seek unity and support within the body of Christ, recognizing that our strength lies not in our individual achievements or spiritual hierarchies but in the collective experience of shared faith and devotion.”

7. Revelation 3:21 & 21:7 – Overcomers Reign with Christ

– KJV Truth: Believers reign with Christ, not as gods. It’s about fellowship and reward, not ontological elevation.

– Mormon distortion: Claims this is proof of future godhood, but the text says “I will be his God” — we remain His children, not His equals.

This ignores the throne language, which is often seen as a symbol of power and authority, wielded by those who govern and make crucial decisions. By overlooking this language, one misses out on the intricate nuances of governance, diplomacy, and the very essence of leadership that defines civilizations throughout history. The throne language embodies age-old traditions, rituals, and the unspoken rules that guide interactions among the elite.

Exegetical Response

Jesus promises: “To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with me in my throne.” This profound statement encapsulates not just a reward but an invitation to a deep and transformative relationship with Him.

This is not merely a symbolic gesture, nor is it a metaphorical expression of shared experience. It is not simply an abstract idea to reflect upon; it is a concrete promise that implies co‑regency. The invitation to sit on His throne signifies an extraordinary level of intimacy and partnership with the divine.

In Revelation 21:7, it is further emphasized: “He that overcometh shall inherit all things.” This inheritance is not a trivial matter but a solemn promise that extends beyond our current reality into the eternal. The connection to the themes found in Romans 8 highlights our identity as children of God, reminding us that our relationship with Him allows us to share in His glory, while Hebrews 1 underscores the elevation of Christ and the ultimate fulfillment of his promises.

This assurance of co-regency and inheritance fosters a sense of hope and purpose for believers, encouraging us to overcome the trials and tribulations of this life with the knowledge that we are called to reign with Him in the next. Thus, the promise not only invites us to perseverance but also assures us of our significant role in God’s eternal plan.

Revelation 2–3 — What Overcomers Receive

Jesus promises the faithful an array of profound and transformative gifts that signify not only His love but also the elevated status and responsibilities bestowed upon His followers. Among these promises are:

• the tree of life – This symbolizes eternal life and communion with God, reflecting the inner sustenance and growth that comes from a relationship with Him.
• a crown of life – Given to those who endure trials and maintain faith, this crown represents victory and recognition of perseverance in the face of adversity.
• hidden manna – This refers to divine nourishment that sustains the soul, a spiritual food that feeds the believer in ways that the world cannot comprehend.
• authority over nations – A promise of empowerment and responsibility, indicating that the faithful will share in Christ’s governance and have a role in His eternal kingdom.
• the morning star – Signifying hope and the brightness of new beginnings, the morning star represents the promise of Christ’s presence and the transformative power of His light in the believer’s life.
• white garments – Symbolic of purity and righteousness, these garments signify the faithful’s redemption and the new identity bestowed upon them as children of God.
• a pillar in God’s temple – This promise reflects stability, strength, and a lasting presence within God’s eternal plan, underscoring the believer’s integral role in His kingdom.
• to sit with Christ on His throne – This is perhaps the most profound promise, as indicated in Revelation 3:21, which states, “To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with me in my throne.” This is not merely an invitation to fellowship; it is an invitation to co‑reigning alongside Christ.

This co-reigning does not imply equality with God but rather highlights the special position of glorified children granted to those who remain faithful. It is a majestic honor to reign with Christ, recognizing the authority that derives from Him, while living in a profound relationship filled with love, grace, and responsibility. In this promise, believers find hope and motivation to persevere, knowing that their faithfulness is rewarded with a share in the glory of Christ’s eternal kingdom.

Expository & Exegetical Commentary on the Claim

Dennis Hines continues with his assertion and claims regarding what he views as a Mormon Distortion:

“Mormon distortion: Claims this is proof of future godhood, but the text says, ‘I will be his God’ — we remain His children, not His equals.”

This critique misunderstands the genre, the language, and the theological structure of Revelation. It also commits a false dichotomy: assuming that if believers remain God’s children, they cannot also receive divine inheritance, glory, or enthronement. Such a perspective not only simplifies the rich and complex themes present within Revelation but also overlooks the nuanced interpretation that the text invites from its readers.

Revelation, as a piece of apocalyptic literature, employs symbolic imagery and metaphorical language to convey deep spiritual truths. Therefore, to limit its interpretation strictly to a dualistic framework risk stripping away the layers of meaning that the original audience would have grappled with. The prophetic nature of the language serves both as an encouragement for believers in their current struggles and as a profound revelation of the hope that awaits those who remain steadfast in faith.

Let’s walk through the text carefully. Engaging with the specific passages, we can discern how the contextual cues and the socio-historical background of the early Christian community contribute to a richer understanding of what it means to inherit the promises of God. This careful exploration reveals that the divine inheritance is indeed accessible to all who believe, affirming the dignity and worth of every believer as they strive for spiritual maturity and ultimate communion with God. Furthermore, the theme of enthronement is intricately linked with the idea of shared glory; believers are invited into a transformative relationship with the divine, emphasizing not a separation but a deeply interconnected experience of divine favor and authority within the heavenly narrative. Through this lens, we begin to appreciate the fullness of Revelation’s message rather than imposing limiting interpretations that fail to capture its essence.

Revelation 21:7 Is About Inheritance, Not Ontology

The verse reads: “He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.”

This phrase carries profound significance within its covenantal context. It speaks to the promises and commitments made between God and His followers, emphasizing the relationship built on trust, faith, and resilience. To “overcome” implies a struggle, a challenge that demands strength and perseverance. The assurance that one will inherit “all things” suggests a reward that transcends the tangible world, offering a glimpse of divine blessing and fulfillment.

Furthermore, the declaration of God as one’s own deity and the believer as a son highlights the intimate connection that is established through this covenant. It is not merely a formal agreement; it represents a deep spiritual kinship characterized by love, guidance, and protection. This covenantal language serves to reinforce the idea that faithfulness leads to a transformative inheritance, where the believer is welcomed into a familial bond with the divine. It emphasizes a legacy of belonging that is not only spiritually enriching but also provides a sense of purpose and identity in the journey of life.

A. “I will be his God”

This is a standard biblical covenant formula:

• Exodus 6:7
• Jeremiah 31:33
• Ezekiel 36:28
• 2 Corinthians 6:16

It expresses relationship, not rank.

B. “He shall be my son”

This is adoption language, echoing:

• Romans 8:15–17
• Galatians 4:5–7
• John 1:12

In Scripture, sonship is the basis of inheritance. This concept emphasizes the profound relationship between God and believers, where being a “son” signifies a position of privilege and responsibility within the family of God. In this context, believers are not merely followers but heirs, sharing in the divine promises and blessings that are afforded to them through their relationship with God.

Revelation 21:7 states, “The one who conquers will inherit these things, and I will be his God, and he will be my son.” This verse highlights the importance of perseverance and faithfulness, assuring believers that their struggles and triumphs in faith lead to a significant inheritance. It is not about becoming God’s equal, which would contradict the very nature of God’s sovereignty. Instead, it focuses on the assurance of receiving God’s promised inheritance—an invitation to partake in the eternal life and glory that He has prepared for those who love Him.

The inheritance mentioned goes beyond material wealth or earthly possessions; it encompasses spiritual riches that come from a close and intimate relationship with the Creator. It involves access to His grace, the presence of the Holy Spirit, and the promise of eternal life. This assurance can bring great comfort to believers as they navigate life’s challenges, knowing that they are destined for something far greater than worldly achievements.

Thus, understanding sonship as the basis of inheritance invites believers to internalize their identity in Christ, to live out their faith boldly, and to look forward with hope to the ultimate fulfillment of God’s promises. This foundation of sonship affirms God’s love and commitment to His children, reinforcing that their future is secure in Him.

Revelation Uses Royal Imagery for the Redeemed

The critique ignores the broader context of Revelation, where Jesus repeatedly promises thrones, crowns, and authority to the faithful, signifying not just rewards but a divine partnership in His eternal kingdom. These promises serve as a profound source of hope and motivation for believers, encouraging them to persevere in their faith amidst trials and tribulations. Throughout the text, the imagery of thrones and crowns symbolizes the honor bestowed upon those who remain steadfast, illustrating the magnificent glory that awaits them. This assurance instills a sense of purpose, reminding the faithful that their sacrifices in this life are recognized and will lead to eternal joy and sovereignty in the next.

Examples:

• Revelation 2:26–27 — authority over nations
• Revelation 3:21 — sit with Christ on His throne
• Revelation 5:10 — “we shall reign on the earth”
• Revelation 20:4 — saints sit on thrones
• Revelation 22:5 — “they shall reign for ever and ever”

These are not metaphors for “remaining children.” They are metaphors for royal participation in Christ’s reign, emphasizing the idea that believers have an active role in the divine kingdom. This imagery illustrates not just a passive existence but a dynamic engagement with the responsibilities and privileges that come from being part of a royal lineage founded in faith.

However, it is crucial to understand that none of these metaphors imply equality with God. The distinction between the Creator and creation is maintained; even within the royal participation, there is a recognition of the profound difference in nature and authority. The relationship is one where believers are elevated in dignity and purpose, yet they do not share the essence of divinity.

Revelation’s imagery is participatory, not competitive. It invites individuals to engage in a shared mission, one that fosters collaboration and unity under God’s reign. This invitation to participate does not come through rivalry or the strive for supremacy but rather through love, service, and mutual edification. It paints a picture of a community where every member contributes to the larger purpose of glorifying God, revealing the beauty of divine fellowship and the collective journey toward spiritual fulfillment.

The Critique Commits a False Dichotomy

Dennis’ argument assumes: “If God says ‘I will be his God,’ then believers cannot receive glory, thrones, or divine inheritance.”

However, when we explore Scripture more deeply, we find a distinct and reassuring truth:

1. God remains God: This foundational truth emphasizes the sovereignty and uniqueness of God. He holds the ultimate authority and majesty, and His position as God is not diminished by our identity as His children.
2. We remain His children: The relationship we share with God as our Father is one of intimacy and belonging. As His children, we are not only known by Him but are also invited into a profound relationship that shapes our identity and purpose.
3. Yet we receive glory, inheritance, and participation in His reign: These concepts illuminate the incredible grace and love God has for us. While we are not equal to God, He has graciously chosen to share aspects of His glory and divine nature with us. This is not about elevating us to His level but rather about including us in His grand narrative and heavenly family.

These ideas are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they beautifully coexist within the framework of our faith.

Paul articulates this concept powerfully, stating: “We are heirs of God, and joint‑heirs with Christ.” —Romans 8:17. This reinforces the notion that, while God remains sovereign, we have a significant role as partakers of His inheritance.

John echoes this sentiment when he writes: “We shall be like Him.” —1 John 3:2. This phrase doesn’t imply that we become identical to God but points to our transformation into His likeness, reflecting His character and virtues.

Furthermore, Jesus teaches us about shared glory when He declares: “The glory which thou gavest me I have given them.” —John 17:22. Here, Jesus affirms that His followers are bestowed with a measure of glory, emphasizing our honored position within His kingdom.

None of these passages teach equality with God. Instead, they underscore the profound mystery of participation in divine glory. This participation does not dilute God’s holiness but enhances our understanding of His grace and our destiny.

In conclusion, Dennis’ critique collapses these rich theological categories into a simplistic framework. It overlooks the beautiful complexity of our relationship with God—a relationship that honors His supremacy while inviting us into divine fellowship. The Scriptures reveal a stunning portrait of a God who, while remaining transcendent and sovereign, lovingly shares His glory and inheritance with His children.

The Real Issue: Revelation’s Promises Are About Victory, Not Ontology

Revelation’s “overcomer promises” found in chapters 2 and 3 follow a consistent and illuminating pattern that emphasizes the relationship between Christ and His faithful followers. This relational dynamic unfolds in three key elements:

1. Christ possesses something

Throughout the messages to the seven churches, we see that Christ has a variety of attributes, rewards, and responsibilities—each foundational to His sovereign nature. For instance, He holds a throne, demonstrating His ultimate authority and dominion (Revelation 3:21).

2. Christ shares it with the faithful

What stands out in these promises is that Christ does not hoard His power or glory but chooses to share it with those who remain steadfast in their faith. This sharing is not an act of dilution but rather an invitation to participate in His divine nature. For example, while Christ possesses a crown of victory (Revelation 2:10), He generously bestows crowns upon His faithful followers, symbolizing victory in their spiritual journey against worldly challenges.

3. Christ remains the source and sovereign

Despite sharing these gifts, it is essential to acknowledge that Christ remains the ultimate source and sovereign in all things. When He grants authority (Revelation 2:26) to believers, it reflects a deep trust rather than a transfer of power. His act of sharing glory (Revelation 21:23; 22:5) with the faithful reaffirms His role as the sun that illuminates their path—guiding and empowering them without diminishing His own divine nature.

This theology woven throughout Revelation emphasizes that sharing is not equivalent to equality or independence. It is crucial to differentiate that while Christ invites His followers to partake in divine rewards, it does not imply that they are co-equals. Instead, His gifts serve to strengthen the familial aspect of faith—where community and relationship with the divine flourishes in love and mutual respect.

The essence of Revelation’s message reaches beyond mere ontology and delves into a familial relationship anchored in love, trust, and obedience. The spiritual inheritance granted to believers does not symbolize a break from dependence on Christ; rather, it is an affirmation of their identity as children under His care and leadership. Therefore, these “overcomer promises” offer profound insights into the nature of Christ as both sovereign and a nurturing figure.

Revelation does not teach that believers become God’s equals. It teaches that the redeemed receive divine inheritance as God’s children. The covenant formula “I will be his God” expresses relationship, not rank. Revelation consistently portrays believers as enthroned, crowned, and reigning with Christ—not as rivals to God, but as adopted heirs who share in His glory. Dennis’ critique creates a false dichotomy between divine sonship and divine inheritance, ignoring the participatory royal imagery that saturates Revelation.

Expository & Exegetical Commentary on the “Not Like Satan” Argument

Dennis Hines appears to feed into an AI prompt his very own confirmation bias and prejudicial assumption where it states: “YOU NAILED IT Satan’s sin was self‑exaltation — ‘I will be like the most High’ (Isaiah 14:14). The biblical path is humility, obedience, and worship, not aspiring to godhood. ‘Ye shall be as gods…’ — Genesis 3:5. That was Satan’s lie, not God’s promise.”

This argument commits three major errors:

1. It conflates Satan’s self‑exaltation with God‑given exaltation.
2. It misuses Genesis 3:5 by ignoring the narrative structure.
3. It assumes that any language of divine likeness is inherently satanic—even when Scripture itself uses it.

Let’s walk through each one.

Satan’s Sin Was Self‑Exaltation — Not God‑Given Exaltation

Isaiah 14:14 describes Satan’s ambition: “I will ascend… I will exalt my throne… I will be like the most High.” This powerful verse captures the essence of Satan’s desire for supremacy and illustrates the core attributes of his ambition:

• Self-initiated: Satan’s aspiration to rise above is rooted in his own volition, showcasing a profound desire to seize control.
• Pride-driven: His ambition is steeped in pride, reflecting a deep-seated belief that he deserves a place among the divine.
• Competitive: This drive fuels a rivalry not just with humanity but against God Himself, indicating an insatiable quest for power.
• Rebellious: Satan’s desire signifies a rebellion against the created order, challenging divine authority and structure.
• Grasping at equality with God: His goal is not merely to be a powerful entity but to attain equivalence with the Creator.

This mindset is the opposite of the biblical pattern laid out in Scripture. Throughout the Bible, the overarching principle is clear: God exalts the humble. This theme can be clearly seen in verses such as 1 Peter 5:6, James 4:10, and Matthew 23:12, which emphasize that true elevation comes from submitting to God’s will.

The distinction between these two paths is crucial for understanding spiritual dynamics. On one hand, there is Satan’s exaltation, characterized by attributes such as:

• Self-willed: Driven by personal desires rather than divine permission or purpose.
• Self-seeking: Focused entirely on his own glory and advancement, neglecting the needs or welfare of others, including humanity.
• Self-glorifying: Constantly striving for recognition and reverence, with a singular focus on himself.
• Against God: Each facet of his ambition stands in opposition to God’s sovereignty and authority.

In contrast, we see Biblical exaltation, which is fundamentally different:

• God-given: This form of exaltation is conferred by God Himself, a recognition of humility and faithfulness.
• God-initiated: It begins with divine action, as opposed to self-promotion.
• God-directed: The path to exaltation is guided by God’s purposes rather than personal agendas.
• Rooted in humility: True elevation is built upon a foundation of lowliness and service, reflecting the heart of God.

Dennis collapses these two categories into one, which is a category error. This conflation fails to differentiate between the nature of Satan’s self-serving ambitions and the divinely appointed humility that Scripture endorses as the foundation for true greatness. Recognizing this distinction is essential for a proper understanding of spiritual authority and the nature of God’s kingdom.

Genesis 3:5 Is a Lie About Autonomy, not a Commentary on Divine Nature

The serpent’s statement: “Ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” serves as a pivotal moment within the narrative of Genesis, epitomizing the deceptive nature of temptation. It introduces a profound theme of moral autonomy that resonates throughout the text. Importantly, the essence of the deception lies not in the claim that humans will attain divine status; rather, it is centered on the assumption that they can define good and evil for themselves.

Through this tempting assertion, the serpent encourages Adam and Eve to embrace the notion of autonomy. The subtleties of this temptation carry immense implications, suggesting that they could become self-determined beings, free from the constraints imposed by God. The serpent’s persuasion implies that independence from the divine is within their grasp, a seductive promise of freedom that ultimately leads to their downfall.

However, the narrative swiftly dismantles this illusion. Upon succumbing to the serpent’s temptation, Adam and Eve do not ascend to divinity, but instead experience a devastating fall from grace. The consequences of their choice manifest as shame, alienation, and the heavy burden of knowledge that they were not prepared to bear. Their so-called “awakening”—the moment when their eyes were opened—unfolds not as a divine elevation but rather as a tragic realization of their vulnerability and moral failure.

Genesis 3 encapsulates a profound message about rebellion against divine order. The quest for autonomy leads to disconnection from God and results in a fractured relationship with themselves and each other. Rather than achieving deification, Adam and Eve’s pursuit of moral independence invites chaos into their lives, illustrating that their rebellion does not grant them the power they sought but instead reveals their limitations and the shattered nature of humanity.

Ultimately, this narrative serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of seeking divine autonomy and the consequences of attempting to redefine morality apart from a foundational relationship with God. It highlights a critical truth: the desire to be as gods, knowing good and evil, results not in liberation but in bondage—a profound disconnect from the purpose for which they were created.

Scripture Itself Uses “God‑Likeness” Language — Without Condemning It

Dennis’ argument implies: “Any language of becoming like God is satanic.”

However, Scripture repeatedly uses such language positively, indicating that the pursuit of holiness and moral likeness is an integral part of the Christian faith. Consider the following passages:

1. “Be holy, for I am holy.” (Leviticus 19:2) – This command highlights the call for believers to live righteously, reflecting God’s nature in their lives.
2. “Be perfect, as your Father is perfect.” (Matthew 5:48) – Here, Jesus urges His followers to strive for perfection, pointing to the ideal standard of moral and spiritual integrity found in God.
3. “We shall be like Him.” (1 John 3:2) – This verse reassures believers of their future transformation to be like Christ, encompassing the hope of glorification and ultimate sanctity.
4. “Conformed to the image of His Son.” (Romans 8:29) – The objective of spiritual growth and discipleship is to become more like Jesus, the perfect image of God.
5. “Partakers of the divine nature.” (2 Peter 1:4) – This passage emphasizes that believers share in the nature of God, which involves a transformation that aligns them more closely with His character.
6. “The glory which thou gavest me I have given them.” (John 17:22) – The sharing of glory indicates a deep level of unity and relationship between Christ and His followers, stressing the idea of becoming more like Him.

If Dennis’ logic were applied consistently, these passages would also be labeled as “satanic.” But they are not.

Instead, they describe essential aspects of the Christian journey, including:

• Holiness – A state of being set apart, called to live out a life that reflects God’s righteousness.
• Moral likeness – The aspiration to mirror God’s moral characteristics such as love, justice, and mercy.
• Restored image‑bearing – A return to the original purpose for humanity, which is to reflect God’s image and represent Him on earth.
• Participation in Christ’s glory – This underscores the relationship believers have with Christ and the transformation that awaits them.
• Transformation through grace – The process of becoming more like Christ is not solely based on human effort but is driven by God’s grace working within believers.

None of these teachings promote equality with God. Instead, they provide a framework for understanding God‑given transformation, not self‑exaltation. The emphasis is on the divine enablement that leads believers toward a closer relationship with God, aligned with His will and purpose, fostering a life characterized by humility and service rather than pride or rebellion. This distinction is vital for maintaining a balanced theological perspective that honors God while recognizing the transformative power of His grace.

The Real Issue: Dennis Confuses “Likeness” With “Equality”

Satan wanted equality with God. Scripture calls believers to likeness to God. These are not the same.

Equality

• impossible
• forbidden
• satanic

Likeness

• commanded
• enabled by grace
• the goal of sanctification

The serpent’s lie was about autonomy, not sanctification. This difference is crucial for understanding the nature of temptation and the essence of the Christian walk. Autonomy suggests a detachment from God’s divine authority, an assertion of individual sovereignty that contradicts the fundamental teachings of Scripture. In contrast, sanctification represents a transformative process through which believers grow closer to God, embodying His character and moral standards in their daily lives.

God’s promise is about transformation, not competition. This transformation is the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer, guiding them toward a more profound reflection of Christ’s image. It is not about striving to outdo God or elevate oneself to His level; rather, it is about humility and surrender to the divine will. This process is intrinsic to the faith journey, where believers are called to continually renew their minds and hearts, becoming vessels for God’s glory.

Dennis’ critique collapses these categories and therefore misrepresents both the biblical text and the doctrine he is critiquing. By failing to distinguish between the pursuit of equality with God and the aspiration for likeness to Him, Dennis undermines the very nature of Christian discipleship. Understanding these concepts is vital for a coherent approach to theology, ethics, and the believer’s relationship with God. It is essential to maintain this distinction to uphold the integrity of biblical teachings and avoid misleading interpretations that could lead believers away from the true essence of the faith.

Satan’s sin was self‑exaltation—grasping at equality with God. Scripture condemns this. But Scripture also commands believers to become like God in holiness, love, and character. Genesis 3:5 is a lie about autonomy, not a promise of divinity. The biblical path is God‑given transformation, not self‑willed exaltation. Dennis’ argument confuses likeness with equality and collapses God‑given exaltation into satanic self‑exaltation, a category error that misrepresents both the biblical text and the doctrine he critiques.

A Biblical Summary That Actually Reflects the Text

Dennis’ four‑point summary sounds tidy, but each point oversimplifies the biblical witness and collapses rich theological categories into false dichotomies. A more faithful reading of Scripture affirms the beauty of his intentions while correcting the reductionism.

Summary: The Biblical Gospel

– We are made in God’s image — not to become gods, but to reflect His character.

– We are adopted as sons — not to rival God, but to glorify Him.

– We are heirs with Christ — not to sit above, but to sit with Him.

– We are called to holiness — not exaltation through works, but transformation by grace.

Here is a summary that reflects the full biblical picture, not a caricature of it:

We are made in God’s image — not as rivals, but as reflections.

Scripture never presents the imago Dei as a threat to God’s sovereignty. It is a gift, a calling, and a destiny:

• to bear His likeness
• to reflect His character
• to participate in His life
• to be restored through Christ into what Adam lost

The issue is not becoming gods but becoming fully human as God intended – and that includes sharing in His divine glory. In fact, Latter-day Saints hold to the reality that as we move from Glory to Glory – God’s very own glory increases as well.

We are adopted as sons — not to compete with God, but to share in His family.

Adoption in Scripture is not symbolic. It is legal, relational, and covenantal.

• “Heirs of God”
• “Joint‑heirs with Christ”
• “Children of the Most High”

These are not metaphors for passivity. They are metaphors for inheritance, belonging, and participation.

Adoption elevates us—but never above God, and never apart from Him.

We are heirs with Christ — not to dethrone Him, but to share in His glory.

Paul’s language is unmistakably participatory:

• “glorified together”
• “conformed to the image of His Son”
• “we shall be like Him”
• “we shall reign with Him”

Revelation’s imagery is royal, not competitive. Christ shares His throne, His glory, and His victory— but never His Godhood.

Inheritance is not equality. Participation is not rivalry.

We are called to holiness — not as a ladder of works, but as the fruit of grace.

Holiness is not self‑exaltation. It is:

• surrender
• transformation
• sanctification
• participation in God’s life
• the Spirit’s work in us

Grace is not opposed to effort; it is opposed to earning. Holiness is the evidence of grace, not the currency of exaltation.

The biblical gospel is not a story of human ascent, nor a story of human stagnation. It is the story of God restoring His children to the fullness of His image through Christ—lifting the humble, adopting the lost, glorifying the redeemed, and transforming the broken by grace. We do not become God, but we do become like Christ. We do not rival Him, but we do reign with Him. We do not earn holiness, but we are remade by it. This is the gospel Scripture actually teaches—richer, deeper, and more beautiful than the caricatures that so often replace it. And since Christ is God – fully Human and Fully Divine – we also inherit this dual nature.