Speaking of "the pure Word of God" contrasted to something like "man becoming God in life and nature", I freely admit that I also engage in what might charitably be called 'speculative theology'. In other words, I connect the dots of scripture according to my own logic (and taste), and construct a meta-narrative overlay in which other scriptures are fit to make what is to me a compelling view.
I speculate and hypothesize because it interests me, engages me, explains a lot of scripture and human history (and celestial history!) to me, and it sometimes even informs my daily behaviors in meaningful ways. But when I am engaging in more-or-less novel propositions that cover "blank spots" in scripture, and do not have much traction in the church, I am aware of that fact. I remain at heart a 'fundamentalist' and don't pretend that I can subvert the scripture, or render it of none or little effect. On the contrary, unless it makes the gospel narrative come alive to me then it really has no value at all. If "becoming God" makes you excited, go for it. But if all you have is your logic and Athanasius' quote, don't assume that all Christianity should soon come rushing to your side, or that those who don't are "dark", "poor", and so forth.
Likewise, church history shows that a lot of 'speculative theology' by the Church Fathers got suppressed in later centuries by the 'Orthodox movement', for good or ill. Also, extra-canonical writings like the book of Enoch, quoted in the NT (by Jude the brother of Jesus) and probably alluded to by Jesus Himself (the Gates of Hades, or the unbridgeable chasm between the "good" and "suffering" parts of the underworld) was probably written a few centuries before Christ largely to "fill the gaps" in the whole "fall of the angels" story in Genesis 6 and elsewhere. And as speculative and novel "revelatory" writing it was (probably deliberately) disappeared from circulation among the Christian church until a European traveler discovered it in Abyssinia in the 19th century. So when I read it I don't assume it is the "pure Word of God", but it still clearly has a place in the dialog.
But again the $64.00 question: what scripture has the Book of Enoch or one of the Church Fathers caused us to characterize as "fallen", or of little account? No; rather they have illumined it in many ways. So if WL's (or anyone's) speculative theology causes us to overturn, disregard, or minimize the importance of what has been recorded in scripture we should turn away from that instead. Because scripture is about Christ, and we do not want different (and new) writings to present us a different (and new) Christ, however it may tickle our present fancy.
I suppose I have overstated my case, but that seems to be my habit, doesn't it?
In any event such a point seems rather necessary to make.