Quote:
Originally Posted by InChristAlone
Anyway, I just wanted to say that the concept of deification is biblical. “God became man so that man might become god” can be called a summary of what the message of the Gospel is.
|
Hi ICA, Thanks for the thoughtful post.
Here is a quote from the first article you recommend.
Most certainly, humans are not accorded ontological equality with God, nor are they considered to merge or co-mingle with the being of God as He is in His essence.
The first part of the statement could match the LC "not the Godhead" clause, but the second part pretty much contradicts the LC position on this--co-mingling with the divine essence is a cornerstone of LC belief.
"Becoming gods" and "becoming God" are two very different things. The word "gods" need only imply that we become a higher type of being than we are now. I don't think many Christians have a problem with that idea. But "becoming God" means something else altogether. And I think speculation on such a thing is folly, because we are delving into ideas the Bible is not specific enough about to say definitely ourselves. In doing so we are "making up the gap" between what the Bible says and what we think it must imply. But we don't have the wisdom to do that in many cases, and certainly not when our speculative conclusion is that we "become God." Qualifiers or not, it's just a phrase we should stay away from.
If by
theosis you mean getting so close to God or so united with him that we become some kind of higher order of being than we are now, then fine. I think there is a biblical case for that. But once "we become God" comes out of your mouth or pen or keyboard, you are in over your head.
The problem I have with the deification crowd is that they act like they know what they are talking about when they really don't. No one really knows what "become God in life and nature but not the Godhead" means. It sounds profound, it obviously satisfies some need in some people for the "ultimate destiny," but the bottom line is there is not enough biblical ground to say something that those who say it don't really understand the meaning of anyway. It's like saying "square circles." It might call up a feeling or image that you think has profundity, but who knows whether it does or not?
Here's another thought. LC doctrine says we have the humanity of Jesus, right? Just like they say we have the divinity of God.
But though we have the humanity of Jesus, does that mean we are becoming Jesus? Why don't we say this? I would say because we clearly look at Jesus as an individual and we know we cannot become another individual. But for some reason some of us don't look at God as much as a individual. They look at him as some kind of force or nature they can take in without taking in his personality. But if you can't become Jesus you can't become God, because Jesus is God.
My son is born from me but he is not me, he has a different personality, he is a different person. So it is with us as sons of God. You can't become God without losing your personality because God is a person.
So what "become God in life and nature but not the Godhead" really means is "become God in life and nature but not person," which is a "square circles" statement.