View Single Post
Old 01-26-2020, 08:07 AM   #49
aron
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,169
Default Becoming God in a limited sense

Quote:
Originally Posted by JacobHoward View Post
I've just posted an entry in "Deconstructing False Doctrine" on Minister of the Age doctrine (MOTA). The first entry talks about what Witness Lee taught, how members reacted, and what the Bible actually says (https://thelordsrecovery.org/2020/01...corinthians-3/).
Not that you need my seal of approval, but good job. And "deconstructing" is a good word for the title. The whole thing is a construction, that needs to be worked down to its root. Because it's all built on the slenderest of reeds.

Another idea worth deconstructing: that we become God.

http://www.forthetruth.org/pdfs/02_02_a1.pdf

"We are mindful of the fact that many will react in dismay, perhaps in horror, to find themselves confronted with the assertion that in Christ and through God's complete salvation we who believe in Christ and are in Christ will become God in the limited sense posited here."

This limitation is stated as:

1. Without any essential change in the Godhead
2. Not the same as God in rank or position
3. Not as an object of worship

But supposedly we're becoming God in life and nature.

I noted the qualifier, the "limited sense" of being God. My cat is a member of my family, in a limited sense. It lives inside the house and eats food. By the same token, my cat is like my dog in that both have 4 legs, a tail, and fur. I'm like the Queen Mary in a limited sense, that we both can float in the ocean.

But as suggested above, "being like" something and becoming that something are two different ontological propositions. Seems to me that this is especially true when the two things compared are fallen, created, sinful human beings and sinless Creator. I mean, yes we are "like God" in some limited sense, but those very limitations make "becoming God" an empty phrase. Too many qualifiers, all imposed by the same fallen, finite human being, on who and what God is (and is not). How can we in our ignorance - we see, but darkly, said Paul - define "God" sufficiently in order to place ourselves as "God" in some limited capacity? Does God by definition have these constraints we place on ourselves?

I'm not sure all this asserting and positing is within our purview, unless our purview is to publish documents, and sell them. Beyond generating revenue and filling sermon time I'm not sure what utility it really serves.

My reaction isn't horror nor dismay, but simply a critique, or disagreement, a la LSM's own "Affirmation and Critique". I don't think the idea makes much sense, or has much value.

Put differently, what's the point of pushing conjecture that you state will elicit horror and/or dismay among many of your readers? Will the conceptual value of "becoming God" really be a spur to their human living, any more than "We all have to stand at the Judgment Seat of Christ, to give account of whatever we've done"? How is an idea with such tenuous and debatable logic going to bring us all somewhere good?
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers'
aron is offline   Reply With Quote