Double Standards

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I accept that the phrase "God became man to make man god" does not occur in the Bible, Ohio, but what would yourself make of man and his destiny in the universe? Does it really seem entirely implausible to you that at some level (and there is Scripture to support this view) God desires men to receive His 'own' actual, divine, and eternal life, that they might assume His nature (as legitimate sons ought to), and share His glory?

Otherwise, what, in your humble opinion, would you call the grand purpose of man? What was in God's heart and mind in His creation of human beings? Did He create them just to be, for example, good, moral people...to keep the ten commandments...to feed the hungry...to clothe the naked...to give to charity...to uphold human rights?

It seems to me that there is an important and underlying point of tension here that serves as a significant point of departure between the bedrock of LSM belief and whatever winds of teaching its detractors now embrace. While I wouldn't label it 'double standards' I would, however, note that there seems to be 'two distinct standards' (as evidenced on this forum) in the approach to this question of 'Who and What is Man?'.

I would very much be interested to hear your lucid and carefully considered 'opinion' on this topic. What do you believe, Ohio? (or IntotheWind, or Awareness, or OBW, or HERn, or Freedom, or Aron, or Terry, etc, etc)...Perhaps if there is a resolution to this question, it might give insight into the roots of the problems of other concerns raised on here. (Much like if the Arabs and the Jews could agree on which of Abraham's sons was actually directed to be sacrificed on Mt. Moriah: Ishmael or Isaac? then 'possibly' it might lead to more amiable and fruitful discussions and negotiations between them).

...Please feel free to 'be in your minds'...

I would use the N.T. to describe man's destiny, specifically the destiny of God's children. For example, I John 3.2 says, "It has not yet been manifested what we will be ... we shall be like him, for we shall see Him as He is." We also know that we shall become glorified sons of God, conformed to the image of His Firstborn Son. (Romans 8.29-30)

As far as being "made god," I reject it for several reasons. Firstly, because the Bible does not specifically say it, and it had ample opportunity to do so, either thru Paul, Peter, or John. We do become real sons of God partaking of His divine nature, but do not "become god in life and nature." Isn't that enough anyway? Aren't the plain words of scripture enough to satisfy you?"

Secondly, the rest of the body of Christ has not embraced this either. An obscure translated phrase from Athanasius in the early part of the 4th century is not adequate, to the greater body of Christ, to rise to the level of the canon.

Thirdly, this so-called "high peak" expression was introduced to the Recovery by Witness Lee following a pathetic coverup of unrighteous activities at LSM. It is highly unlikely to me (and to many others) that God would "recover" such a long-lost "truth" at a time when Witness Lee and his son Phillip should have been repenting to the churches for all the damage they had wrought throughout the era of the "new way."

Fourthly, the saying has never produced good fruit, rather many of its adherents have exhibited a boastful arrogance, contrary to God's nature, and has brought shame to the Lord's name. Instead of benefiting the children of God, Laodicea has resulted. A generation of young people have been taught to judge their brethren outside the Recovery for not knowing this great "truth."

Fifthly, this phrase connects its supporters to other aberrant cults and damages the simple message of the good news of the cross of Christ. Instead of dropping this extra-biblical expression, which only serves to divide His body, LSM has been forced to litigate other ministries in a failed attempt to save face.