Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah
In 1979 he taught that the term "deification" was equivalent to pantheism.
Regarding the mingling, some have gone so far as to accuse us of teaching pantheism or the deification of man. (Life Study of Exodus, Chapter 106, Section 2).
|
He didn't actually teach that pantheism=deification. Only that some accused him of teaching pantheism or the deification of man. Everybody knows that the two terms are not synonymous. It is possible to take the or in the way it is "used to connect words, phrases, or clauses representing alternatives:
books or magazines; to be or not to be."
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/or?s=t
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah
In 1980 he taught to be careful about the term because it is blasphemy.
Certain early church fathers went so far as to speak of the “deification” of the believers in Christ. We need to be careful in using such a term. To say that the believers are deified to become objects of worship is blasphemy. (Life Study of Galatians, Chapter 20, Section 2)
When we teach this, some accuse us of teaching the deification of man. We definitely do not believe or teach that as sons of God we shall become God Himself. Nevertheless, it is a fact that we have the divine life and nature. (Life Study of Galatians, Chapter 44, Section 2)
|
He didn't say the term was in itself blasphemy. It depends on what way the term I used. He explained the negative way of using the term and in the next sentence, which you didn't quote, he explained the positive meaning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah
Now in 1984 he waffles on the use of the term. Does he teach it? Yes, No, or does he sit on the fence?
Because we are children of God born of Him, we possess God’s life and also His nature for our enjoyment. Because I have proclaimed this truth according to the Bible, some have condemned me and falsely accused me of teaching deification. (Conclusion of the New Testament, Chapter 7, Section 2)
"falsely accused me of teaching deification" sounds pretty clear that he denies teaching this.
|
He denied teaching deification in the heretical and blasphemous sense he warned about in 1980. But in the same ant the next paragraph, he again referred to the positive meaning of the term.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah
Some of the church fathers have used the term “deification” to describe the fact that we have been mingled with God and that we are partakers of God's life and nature. When you use the word deified, though, if you mean that you have been made God in His Godhead to be an object of worship, this is heresy. On the other hand, if your denotation is that through regeneration you have received God's life and nature and that now you are a son of God, this is altogether safe and scriptural. (God’s New Testament Economy, Chapter 42, Section 1)
On the other hand, maybe he does teach this.
|
Yes, he taught deification since 1979 (I am just using the time frame from your first quote). He never said he didn't. He only denied what others accused him of: teaching deification in an heretical and blasphemous sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah
What changed? Absolutely nothing except for the term deification. No new bible verses, no new doctrine, nothing except now he uses a term that he is well aware of can cause problems, it can be understood as blasphemous, it can be understood as heretical, but instead of warning others concerning this term which he used to do, now he is referring to the "truth concerning deification".
|
About the term, he always warned about the negative meaning. And even if he didn't every time, it doesn't proof he was not more concerned about it.
There is the truth concerning deification and there is an heretical and blasphemous understanding.
The word Trinity can have negative connotations. This does not mean that every time theologians, or simple believers, talk about the Trinity they have to add a disclaimer.
Here you are correct when you say that deification "can be understood as blasphemous, it can be understood as heretical". So you were aware that the term could also be understood in a non blasphemous and non heretical way. Then, why did you focused only on its negative connotation?