Biblical evidence for becoming God in life & nature?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Eve never became Adam, the Bride never becomes the Spirit, the Body never becomes the Head, the branches never become the vine, and the many grains never become the first grain.

Adam and Eve may have been one flesh, but Eve never "became" Adam in life/nature.
Trapped

Trapped,

Agreed.... The Body never becomes the Head, the branches never become the Vine, and the many grains never become the First Grain, and Eve never becomes Adam, etc.

Nevertheless, the life and nature of the Head and Body are the same, the Vine and the branches share the same life and nature, the many grains we're produced because they share the life and nature of the original Grain,

...and of course Eve has the life and nature of Adam since she was built out of Adam! Though Eve did not become Adam, she became human. We can say, Eve became Adam in his life and nature (human) but not in what makes Adam uniquely Adam.

Likewise, the sons of God, the many brothers of the Firstborn, also share the life and nature of God..... when humans receive this divine life and divine nature through regeneration then these humans by natural birth also become divine by the new birth (regeneration). This birth brings in the oneness between the Triune God and the believers prayed for by the Lord Jesus in John 17.

Drake

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Drake

Trapped,

Agreed.... The Body never becomes the Head, the branches never become the Vine, and the many grains never become the First Grain, and Eve never becomes Adam, etc.

Nevertheless, the life and nature of the Head and Body are the same, the Vine and the branches share the same life and nature, the many grains we're produced because they share the life and nature of the original Grain,

...and of course Eve has the life and nature of Adam since she was built out of Adam! Though Eve did not become Adam, she became human. We can say, Eve became Adam in his life and nature (human) but not in what makes Adam uniquely Adam.

Likewise, the sons of God, the many brothers of the Firstborn, also share the life and nature of God..... when humans receive this divine life and divine nature through regeneration then these humans by natural birth also become divine by the new birth (regeneration). This birth brings in the oneness between the Triune God and the believers prayed for by the Lord Jesus in John 17.

Drake

Your analogies to produce your conclusion simply don't work, Drake.

Eve didn't become Adam. At all. Nowhere does the Bible say Eve became Adam. Nowhere does anyone say Eve became Adam. No one says this. Anywhere. This is not a teaching found in the church....that "Eve became Adam" even if you tack qualifiers on it. No one says "Eve became Adam in life and nature" because that is not what happened. You know that and we know that.

If you say "Eve did not become Adam, she became human" then use the same construction for your strange "become God" claim: "We do not become God, we become ......" What's a better way to finish this sentence, Drake?

Well....here might be a good time to look at what the Bible says.....we become "partakers of the divine nature."

We have words for what you say you mean but refuse to use. Things like "the human race" or "humankind". You have the opportunity to use words like "part of the divine family" or "take on a spiritual body" or any number of things that are much more scriptural that are not "become God", but local church proponents simply cannot suffer to admit that the teachings in the local church go. too. far.

Eve does not "have the life and nature of Adam". She is a human like Adam is. She has a human life like Adam does. She has the same type of life Adam does. She is part of the human race like Adam is. But none of these things are "having the life and nature of Adam" and certainly none of these things are "becoming Adam in life and nature".

Come on. When I state clearly what you say you are saying and juxtapose it against the words you use rather than the words you should use, it's patently obvious how silly the claim is.

All the analogies you provide that you say render biblical support actually show clearly that the conclusion doesn't work.

Trapped

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Eve does not "have the life and nature of Adam". She is a human like Adam is. She has a human life like Adam does. She has the same type of life Adam does. She is part of the human race like Adam is. But none of these things are "having the life and nature of Adam" and certainly none of these things are "becoming Adam in life and nature".

Trapped,

Adam saw it differently than you do:

"And Jehovah God built the rib, which He had taken from the man, into a woman and brought her to the man. And the man said this time this is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; This one shall be called Woman because out of Man this one was taken." Gen 2:22-23

And the analogy worked for Paul as he applied this to Christ and the Church:

Ephesians 5:23-30. Verses 29-30 here: "For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, even as Christ also the church, because we are members of His Body.

This is God's ordination in the propagation of life.. everything after its own kind. (Gen 1:20-31)

Drake

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Drake

Trapped,

Adam saw it differently than you do:

"And Jehovah God built the rib, which He had taken from the man, into a woman and brought her to the man. And the man said this time this is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; This one shall be called Woman because out of Man this one was taken." Gen 2:22-23

And the analogy worked for Paul as he applied this to Christ and the Church:

Ephesians 5:23-30. Verses 29-30 here: "For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, even as Christ also the church, because we are members of His Body.

This is God's ordination in the propagation of life.. everything after its own kind. (Gen 1:20-31)

Drake

Drake,

You know this already, but you keep presenting "A being made from B" and think we won't notice you are trying to make it mean "A becoming B".

Can you tell the difference between the two? One does not logically follow from the other.

You know that Ephesians 5 is speaking of husbands and wives. The wife does not become the husband, neither in life nor in nature. The church does not become Christ. And the Body does not become the Head. You haven't helped your case at all; instead you are showing how weak the case is.

Trapped

[Raptor]

The Bible describes believers as having God´s life and nature, yes. But it never goes beyond that to say man "is God" in life and nature." I think this is overstrechting, not Biblical, pushing the meaning of words beyond what is necessary and leads to confusion and misrepresentation of the believers status and relationship with God.

The word "God" is used throughout the Bible to refer to God Himself, to Deity. Even in the world, even among "unbelievers" the word "God" is commonly understood as refering to the supreme being, the Creator. Using the word "God" to describe believers is an unscriptural use. That's why LSM always has to attach the asterisk and add "in life and nature, but not in the Godhead", etc. etc.

So why not just stick to what the Bible does say about who believers are? The Word refers to the fact that believers have God´s life and nature, yes, but the Bible multiple times identifies believers as "sons of God." That is what is scriptural, not confusing, and that readily places a believer in the proper relationship to God as Creator and Father. We are sons of God, not need to try to change the use and meaning of the word "God", to describe believers, stripping it of Deity and leaving it only with divinity in order to avoid heresy and then have to add paragraphs of explanations about how what you really mean is in life and nature only and not in the Godhead, blah, blah, blah.

Just stick to the Word, just like John said it, from the beginning to the end:

But to all who did receive Him, to those who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God—children born not of blood, nor of the desire or will of man, but born of God. John 1:12-13.

The one who overcomes will inherit all things, and I will be his God, and he will be My son. Revelation 21:7.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Raptor

The Bible describes believers as having God´s life and nature, yes. But it never goes beyond that to say man "is God" in life and nature." I think this is overstrechting, not Biblical, pushing the meaning of words beyond what is necessary and leads to confusion and misrepresentation of the believers status and relationship with God.

The word "God" is used throughout the Bible to refer to God Himself, to Deity. Even in the world, even among "unbelievers" the word "God" is commonly understood as refering to the supreme being, the Creator. Using the word "God" to describe believers is an unscriptural use. That's why LSM always has to attach the asterisk and add "in life and nature, but not in the Godhead", etc. etc.

So why not just stick to what the Bible does say about who believers are? The Word refers to the fact that believers have God´s life and nature, yes, but the Bible multiple times identifies believers as "sons of God." That is what is scriptural, not confusing, and that readily places a believer in the proper relationship to God as Creator and Father. We are sons of God, not need to try to change the use and meaning of the word "God", to describe believers, stripping it of Deity and leaving it only with divinity in order to avoid heresy and then have to add paragraphs of explanations about how what you really mean is in life and nature only and not in the Godhead, blah, blah, blah.

Just stick to the Word, just like John said it, from the beginning to the end:

But to all who did receive Him, to those who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God—children born not of blood, nor of the desire or will of man, but born of God. John 1:12-13.

The one who overcomes will inherit all things, and I will be his God, and he will be My son. Revelation 21:7.

Raptor,

Thank you for your well reasoned point of view and the spirit in which you delivered it.

After prayerful consideration I will return to discuss in kind.

Thanks,
Drake

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Raptor

The word "God" is used throughout the Bible to refer to God Himself, to Deity. Even in the world, even among "unbelievers" the word "God" is commonly understood as refering to the supreme being, the Creator. Using the word "God" to describe believers is an unscriptural use. That's why LSM always has to attach the asterisk and add "in life and nature, but not in the Godhead", etc. etc.

So why not just stick to what the Bible does say about who believers are? The Word refers to the fact that believers have God´s life and nature, yes, but the Bible multiple times identifies believers as "sons of God." That is what is scriptural, not confusing, and that readily places a believer in the proper relationship to God as Creator and Father. We are sons of God, not need to try to change the use and meaning of the word "God", to describe believers, stripping it of Deity and leaving it only with divinity in order to avoid heresy and then have to add paragraphs of explanations about how what you really mean is in life and nature only and not in the Godhead, blah, blah, blah.

I agree with Raptor here. Part of what is going on is that the local church has redefined the word "God" in a way the Bible does not use it, and then points their finger at anyone who does not go along with their re-definitions.

It's what they do. Redefine common words to mean something else to keep their insider jargon and atmosphere of exclusivity. As another example, "Christianity" is a positive/neutral word to most Christians. But the local church has redefined it to mean something else and puts up a stink when others don't go along.

"Good" is another one! The local church has redefined "good" to be worse than evil! It's unbelievable!

Trapped

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Raptor

The Bible describes believers as having God´s life and nature, yes. But it never goes beyond that to say man "is God" in life and nature." I think this is overstrechting, not Biblical, pushing the meaning of words beyond what is necessary and leads to confusion and misrepresentation of the believers status and relationship with God.

So why not just stick to what the Bible does say about who believers are?

Raptor, thanks again for your post and thanks for your patience. I have been spending time before the Lord considering your words.

By the Lord's enlightening, mercy, and grace over time I have come to treasure reality. If I do not have God/Christ as my reality in what I believe and practice, and only possess a correct teaching, doctrine, phrase, or form then it is of little value in spiritual things... certainly to me and in my experience.

So I had a fresh consideration whether the phrase "God became man, to make man God in life and nature, but not in the Godhead" is a biblical truth and if so, is it also my reality and my truth. And upon a fresh reconsideration I know that it is to me both. So, I will proceed to show it is not only a scriptural truth, but an imperative as pertains to the accomplishment of God's eternal purpose.

I also reflected on whether the phrase might cause confusion and whether the same truth might be represented better using different words. For instance, if the phrase were modified to "God became a man to make man divine" would that then be more understandable or less alarming? Though that is another way of describing most of what is meant in the original phrase, I decided to abandon that consideration because, it limits the full definition of that biblical truth. I believe the original phrase best captures the full revelation in Bible. I know you do not believe that but I felt it worthwhile to let you know that your objections were not dismissed or unnoticed and I have given them prayerful consideration before the Lord. For that I thank you.

I will share more shortly and look forward to reading more of your challenging and thoughtful posts.

Thanks
Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

So I had a fresh consideration whether the phrase "God became man, to make man God in life and nature, but not in the Godhead" is a biblical truth and if so, is it also my reality and my truth. And upon a fresh reconsideration I know that it is to me both. So, I will proceed to show it is not only a scriptural truth, but an imperative as pertains to the accomplishment of God's eternal purpose.

I also reflected on whether the phrase might cause confusion and whether the same truth might be represented better using different words. For instance, if the phrase were modified to "God became a man to make man divine" would that then be more understandable or less alarming?

Yes, perhaps less "alarming," but why not adhere to the precise words of scripture? Why does LSM always need to push the limits of orthodoxy? Why not subscribe to the Apostles' teachings as recorded in the Bible? In this regard, the Bible repeatedly mentions our sanctification.

Sanctification really seems to be good enough for the body of Christ. Why introduce divination?

[Raptor]

Originally Posted by Drake

Raptor, So I had a fresh consideration whether the phrase "God became man, to make man God in life and nature, but not in the Godhead" is a biblical truth and if so, is it also my reality and my truth. And upon a fresh reconsideration I know that it is to me both.

It is good to "treasure reality"....but our reality as christians needs to be based on the Bible and the truth in the Word. So how is "GBMtoMMG" a biblical truth? First you need to provide a biblical basis, verses, references, passages, sound and healthy teaching that show us clearly you have a basis to change the meaning of the word "God" to refer to something else different than what the Bible uses it for.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ephesians 5:23-30. Verses 29-30 here: "For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, even as Christ also the church, because we are members of His Body.

This is God's ordination in the propagation of life.. everything after its own kind. (Gen 1:20-31)

Drake

Can you explain why smart college students walked out of meetings with WL shouting in the streets, "HEY EVERYBODY, LOOK AT ME, I AM A BABY GOD!"

How do they transition from the teachings of scripture to these wild proclamations without the help of WL's errant teachings?

No one walks out of other churches believing and shouting such crazy things.