Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
The Bible repeatedly says that we are sons of God if we had believed in to Christ. Why is being a Son of God not enough? Why can we not simply say what the Bible says?
When a woman marries a man, they become one flesh according to scripture. But she does not become exactly like him. She has access to all that he has and enjoys his presence hopefully for their entire lives.
If a man has a son, that son has much of him in him. The son has his life since the Bible states clearly that it is the father who gives life. The son therefore is a partaker of his father's life. He enjoys all the rights and privileges of the household and is his heir if he dies. He is, again, the son of his father. As long as his father lives, that is his position.
The LC has stated, quite correctly, that we are never a part of the Godhead. That is good. But they would do far better by moving away from teaching that we are gods (which I believe we are not) back to what the Bible actually says, which is that we are sons of God. You have to ask yourself why it is not enough to be a son of God. In my opinion it is and I need no other terminology to describe it. In fact, I tremble at saying that I am a baby god. There is a verse in the Bible, applied to another being who decided that he should be God and share all that God has, that says: "Ye have said that ye are gods but ye shall die as men." I think I shall continue to be a son of God and feel deeply and profoundly content to be just that.
|
Even saying "son of God" is not acceptable to many. Even to call ourselves sons of God is a blasphemous thing to say to the Jewish mind (John 10:33-36). Jews and Muslims will kill people who say they are even sons of God, so to them we may as well call ourselves God. That's what got Jesus into trouble and why they wanted to kill Him.
I don't think Lee's intention was to make us ever more than a son of God though. The question is around the type of son we are. When we understand where Lee is coming from it makes sense. Most of (Western) Christianity thinks we are only adopted sons of God or considered to be sons of God rather than in actuality. Lee emphasized the fact that the born again experience (as it is known in Evangelical circles) makes us truly sons of God, not incarnated like Christ of course, but nonetheless more than merely being "considered" or "adopted". This teaching goes back to the early church and the Eastern church, Orthodoxy etc still retains the form of it.
Many Christians only understand being born again or saved in a legal sense of contractual exchange and obligation. Even though the spiritual reality is that their spirit is one with God, they do not consider this to be in a real sense, only metaphorical. It is for this reason that Lee emphasized the spiritual reality of the matter.
Pentecostals, as they emphasize the Spirit, tend to understand that being a son of God is more than just a consideration. However they consider this more in terms of miracles or outward acts than inner life. A key point of difference between Lee and the TV evangelists is that the TV evangelists only think in terms of miracles and power. Lee's teaching emphasizes what takes place in the heart/spirit of the believer which is more important than outward miracles. An outward miracle may work in 1 situation out of 10, but knowing we are truly sons of God gets us through the other 9 times. A person who understands only that they are adopted sons of God typically seeks God for a miracle as they are not aware of the availability of the inner life to draw upon. A person who understands only that they are adopted sons of God and rejects miracles and the Spirit has little strength to draw upon at all.