"God in life and nature but not in the Godhead"

[aron]

Originally Posted by micah6v8

One of the LSM's pet-phrases is "God becoming a man that man may become God in life and in nature, but not in the Godhead".

It is even described in the FTTA website as the "highest peak of the divine revelation" (http://ftta.org/about/purpose-and-goal/)

The phrase "God in life and in nature, but not in the Godhead" is unsatisfactory because it is too wide. If I became "God in life and nature", I would expect to also be omnipotent and omniscient since omnipotence and omniscience are part of God's nature. Even a staunch LSM believer would probably accept that Witness Lee and any aspiring overcomers were not and could never become omnipotent and omniscient.

Perhaps it is an impossible task to begin with:- But if you had to tell an unbeliever in one sentence what you thought was the "highest peak of the divine revelation" of the Bible, what would it be?

I would try modifying the LSM's phrase so that it now read "God redeeming man that he may be restored to the image of God".

I recently addressed this on another thread, and wanted to continue here, that "God's economy" as presented by Lee paved the way for the "deification" notion to set up shop in our minds. Lee's "God's economy" metric was that God dispenses Himself into humankind in order to make them ultimately into what He is: God.

I mentioned that Jesus taught about dispensing also, but in the context of obedience, and stewardship (Gk: "oikonomia" = "stewardship", e.g. Luke 16:1-13). God gives something, and then expects cooperation, and something in return. This began with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, and continued throughout scripture.

And my notion of stewardship is colored by what I call "agency": a rich man will operate through agents, through emissaries. A king, for example, will send ambassadors to speak for him, and make his wishes known. That ambassador represents the king's will, abroad. But no one confuses the ambassador with the king. Lee's theology unfortunately conflated the servant with the Master. The ambassador, or the servant, or the steward, in Lee's eyes became "God in life and nature but not in the Godhead." But it's incorrect to confuse the Sender with the sent, and to conflate the Creator with redeemed creation made new.

God alone is YHWH, "Kurios", the LORD, the Boss. We know that a servant is not above his Master (Matt 10:24; Luke 6:40; John 13:16, 15:20). Nor are we God's equals; God is peerless. Sustaining the idea that we become God requires so many qualifiers that it's essentially useless.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Peter says that we are "partakers of the divine nature." Lee changed this to "become God in nature."

Yes we partake of the divine life and nature through works of faith, and are promised transfiguration, and glory. But star differs from star in glory, and which one of these stars equals God? None. And we're promised that we'll be "transformed into the same image, from glory to glory", but transformation and transfiguration doesn't equal becoming God. My and cat are both are furry household pets, and both partake of mammalian image, pet life and domestic nature, but I don't conflate my dog with my cat, or for that matter with a goat or pig or cow. They're similar, or even "alike", but not exactly the same. Lee erred by conflating things such that it our LC mantra, repeated in song and story, became "Christ is everything", and nearly nothing. The LC "Christ" could be whatever one (Lee) wanted it to be. And what wasn't wanted, i.e "love your neighbor" or "remember the poor", could be ignored. "We're just here for Christ".

The same thing with the LC idea of "becoming God". Instead of reliance upon and restriction to the word of scripture, today whatever the LC uber bosses want is perforce God, and whatever they don't want is ignored. Doesn't matter if God repeatedly sent messengers to tell us all something - "No; we're only interested in God's economy, and becoming God in life and nature but not in the Godhead."