Double Standards

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Dear Freedom, oh dear me...
...
So, anyway, what do you make of the following words? How would you reconcile them with the astute observation you have made above?

"His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may [partake of] the divine nature..." (2 Peter 1: 3-4) NIV

(n.b. words in parenthesis are from KJV)

Unregistered,

Since you brought up 2 Peter 1:4, lets discuss that verse and the context surrounding it. First off, as I'm sure you're aware, the word partake is not synonymous with the word become. Equating the two is a stretch at best.

In regards to partaking, I'm sure you're familiar with the phrase, "you are what you eat". That of course, is never meant to be taken literally, but I'm afraid that's the kind of presumption being made by those who support the teaching of deification (and I'm fairly certain I've heard this exact "eat Jesus" analogy used before). If you have reason to believe "partake" and "become" are synonymous, please provide us with some evidence to support that.

The more important issue at hand is the nature of God. As we all know, WL claimed that we can become God "in life and nature". So please consider just exactly what this means, and what the implications of such a statement are. One element of God's nature (His essence) is that He is light (1 John 1:5). We are not light. Hopefully we express light as Christians, but light is not a characteristic of our nature. Another element of God's nature is that He is spirit (John 4:24). Again, our nature is material, not immaterial. I could make a long list of some of the attributes of God's nature. He is immortal, invisible, unchanging, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and many more things. How could humans ever take on any of these elements of God's nature? Do you see the problem that WL created?

Here is some commentary found in Gill's Exposition of the Bible related to 2 Pet 1:4

that by these you might be partakers of the divine nature; not essentially, or of the essence of God, so as to be deified, this is impossible, for the nature, perfections, and glory of God, are incommunicable to creatures; nor, hypostatically and personally, so as the human nature of Christ, in union with the Son of God, is a partaker of the divine nature in him; but by way of resemblance and likeness, the new man or principle of grace, being formed in the heart in regeneration, after the image of God, and bearing a likeness to the image of his Son, and this is styled, Christ formed in the heart, into which image and likeness the saints are more and more changed, from glory to glory, through the application of the Gospel, and the promises of it, by which they have such sights of Christ as do transform them, and assimilate them to him; and which resemblance will be perfected hereafter, when they shall be entirely like him, and see him as he is...

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/gill/2_peter/1.htm

You may not agree with this commentary, but I think it makes a valid point. Partaking of the divine nature can result in God-likeness or resemblance to God. Just look at the context of 2 Peter 1. It speaks of godliness and godly virtues. You don't need to be God to express godliness.

To address our nature as humans, 2 Cor 5:17 makes it quite clear what our human nature is both before and after salvation:
2 Cor 5:17 Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come. (NASV)

Notice here the translation is new creature instead of new creation as it is translated in the RcV. Either way is a fair way to render this verse. We were old creatures (humans) before we were saved and we are new creatures (humans) now. The fact that we are creatures, the product of a God the creator remains unchanged. I wanted to point this out because in the RcV, the footnotes for this verse emphasize "new creation" as meaning to become God in life and nature. WL might define this "new creation" as being a god-man, but that is a big jump, and it seems he took "new creation" to mean something much different than "new creature". Even then, it still doesn't solve the problem of how a creation/creature could gain the same nature as the creator.