Calling Out Christianity

@kingdavid403 said
If we take "at the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ" to describe a level of maturity we might describe as deification (with the limits explained) is that blasphemy?

Deification means: 'to be worshiped as a god' [paraphrased].
If you are saying that you, or any human are to be worshiped as a god, then yes, that is blasphemy.
We will be "purified," "cleansed," "washed whiter than snow." etc; however, WE will never be deified; that is Jesus.

@josephw

"Full salvation"? I think better "complete salvation". Happens the moment one is saved.

Josephw,

"Glorification" I think is the final "full" expectation of the believer, and that happens after death, or if one should be alive at the second advent.

Either way, "deification", in my opinion, falls off the chart. I think it speaks of hyper-spirituality. It's like hyper-dispensationalism.

@josephw said
To me, to be "deified", implies becoming infinite.

We're human, finite. Always will be. Always approaching, never arriving, in the ages to come.

I think sonship has an excellent understanding of the scriptures with regards to the references he uses, but "deification" takes it a step to far, imo.

In the meantime could someone in Christianity could help me with First Peter 5:6 ?

Several times it has been charged that the expectation of deification isa proud one, over reaching, Lucifer like, a power grab, and arrogance in the extreme like the Devil had.

Now the Apostle Peter wrote in First Peter 5:6 -

"Therefore be humbled under the mighty hand of God thatr He may exalt you in dude time."

Should I as a Christian believe only HALF of that passage ?
"Be humbled under the mighty hand of God."
And that is the end of the matter?

Or should I believe both parts of the entire passage as a WHOLE?
"Be humbled under the mighty hand of God . . .
THAT . . . He may exalt you in due time."

Should we Christians only take the first part about being humbled?
Or with that humbling we should expect also God to "exalt you in due time?"

Are both parts of the passage important or only the first half?

@sonship said
In the meantime could someone in Christianity could help me with First Peter 5:6 ?

Several times it has been charged that the expectation of deification isa proud one, over reaching, Lucifer like, a power grab, and arrogance in the extreme like the Devil had.

Now the Apostle Peter wrote in First Peter 5:6 -

"Therefore be humbled under th ...[text shortened]... due time?"

Are both parts of the passage important or only the first half?

@kingdavid403 said
"Therefore be humbled under the mighty hand of God thatr He may exalt you in dude time."
dude time? lol... what about the dudettes ?

@sonship said
@josephw

"Full salvation"? I think better "complete salvation". Happens the moment one is saved.

When Paul writes that "having been reconciled we shall be saved in His life" (Romans 5:10) Do the words "shall be" refer to a future matter ?

Toward that PAST he writes - "being enemies were reconciled to God through the death o ...[text shortened]... ngoing salvation [b]"in His life."

Do you see a future element in that aspect of salvation ?

@kingdavid403 said
he uses, but "deification" takes it a step to far, imo.
Well, it was Witness Lee who first used the word "deification" to describe our purification when we receive our new incorruptible bodies, that will never die. Me thinks Witness Lee was not very good with English; I believe he was talking about our purified state of being, after we are purified and with Jesu ...[text shortened]... ree with much of it, including I. I want to hear much about Jesus etc; not much about Witness Lee.

@KingDavid403

I think sonship has an excellent understanding of the scriptures
I agee. However, I do not agree with attempting to teach a new Christian Theory as, 'Witness Lee's teachings' in this forum. It's far to in-depth etc. Furthermore, many do not agree with much of it, including I. I want to hear much about Jesus etc; not much about Witness Lee.

When Thomas Aquinas (AD 1225 –1274) wrote:
" The only-begotten Son of God, wishing to make us sharers in his divine nature, assumed our nature, so that made man he might make gods. For the human mind and will could never imagine, understand, or ask that God become man, and that man become God and a sharer in the divine nature. But he has done this in us by his power, and it was accomplished in the Incarnation of his Son: “That you may become partakers of the divine nature.” (2 Peter 1:4)[7] "

do you feel he was creating "a new Christian Theory" in the 13th century?

The point is not that Lee copied exactly every concept from Thomas Aquinas.
The point is - Isn't it a very old theology that some form of deification was
already spoken to here?

KingDavid403,

Going back further, we have Athanasius of Alexandria (AD c. 296-298 - 373)
saying:

“God became man so that man might become God.”

Indicates a very old instroduction of the thought of deification into Christian theology? ( Incidently Lee more often adds the qualifying limit - something like " in llife and narture but not in the Godhead" )

Ron Goetz (not a co-worker of Witness Lee) writes:

I used to be under the mistaken impression that the doctrine of theosis, or deification, was basically an Eastern Orthodox doctrine. A few years ago, however, I was surprised to find the Athanasius quote highlighted prominently in the first few pages of the Roman Catholic catechism. “God became man so that man might become God.” This statement of Athanasius is not some bizarre, minority opinion held by heretics, non-Christians, and cults. Many church fathers after Athanasius quoted and paraphrased him, and it is still a Catholic and Orthodox teaching to this day.

@josephw

Sorry, but I just don't parse it out that way.

All I see in your characterizations is a flushing-out-of-interpretations by the use of a preponderance of excessive words, some of which don't appear in scripture, to the extent that one is drowned into an oblivion of the loss of the ability to think critically about what the scriptures are teaching, especially to the individual student.

Josephw,

The remainder of your comment seem to be a kind of credentialist argument. I have no comment on "Who gave you this authority?" type of objections at this time.

Interesting comments though before those imo.

Jesus Christ is Lord indeed.
And His blood cleanses us from all sins.

@sonship said
KingDavid403,

Going back further, we have Athanasius of Alexandria (AD c. 296-298 - 373)
saying:

“God became man so that man might become God.”

Indicates a very old instroduction of the thought of deification into Christian theology? ( Incidently Lee more often adds the qualifying limit - something like " in llife and nart ...[text shortened]... [/quote]

https://biblethumpingliberal.com/2011/10/28/god-became-man-that-man-might-become-god/

@kingdavid403 said
Just a joke, sorry. 🙂