Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical
The word become is not the issue it is the definition of "God in life and nature". If "God in life and nature" means the "economic Trinity" then it is orthodox, if it means the "essential Trinity" then it is heretical.
To alleviate any concerns, I will define the term "God in life and nature" as Lee used it - in Western theology, it means the "economic Trinity". In Eastern theology, it means "God's energies". If you can prove that Lee used it in any other way than this, then you have a point that it is heresy. But if not, you cannot say it is heresy.
Going with the Western terminology, "economic Trinity" refers to what God does. And the "“ontological Trinity” or "essential Trinity" refers to what God is.
Lee taught that we become God economically, but not ontologically.
For these reasons it falls under orthodoxy.
I did not exactly "fail to show that it is scriptural", I gave the scriptures that theologians like Blackwell say led to the doctrine of theosis, which confirms it is scriptural. A doctrine is not scriptural just because UntoHim or Evangelical thinks it is. One person's personal interpretation of Scripture does not define orthodoxy. It is confirmed by the earliest Christian sources from multiple accounts. It is like how the doctrine of the Trinity is Scriptural - there is no verse which defines it clearly for us as well as the Nicene Creed, but it is seen when comparing Scripture as a whole, and it raises all sorts of questions if people like Athanasius who defended the Trinity got it wrong about theosis.
|
UntoHim,
The above starts to address the main point of your earlier excellent question:
“Please tell us about the life and nature (of God) that we “become” that is different than the life and nature (of God) that we do “not become”.
Stated in accepted theological terms it serves as a solid basis for what I wanted to share sooner. That is, a believer in the Lord Jesus becomes God in life and nature, a bonified (John 1:12) son of God, one of “many brothers” in the genre of the Firstborn Son of God (Romans 8:29) ..... but never the Only-begotten Son of God (John 1:14).
The understanding of what we become pivots entirely on that distinction.
The scripture states clearly that we are genuine sons not just legally but in life.... yet according to and after the pattern of the Firstborn. So, what is the primary distinction between the Only-Begotten Son and Firstborn Son? It is primarily “creation”. The Firstborn is also a creature (Philippians 2:6-8) whereas the Only-Begotten is the Creator through whom all things were created (Colossians 1:16).
As pertains to us, the believers, we will always be creatures yet we also are in the same genre of possessing both divinity and humanity as our Firstborn Brother. In that sense, we are or becoming God in life and nature as He is.
I’ll pause here and ask for your acknowledgement of agreement or if you don’t agree I’ll ask an explanation of your differing understanding from what I have stated. Please provide scripture to substantiate your point of view.
Thanks
Drake