Kangas The Becoming God

3 Volume VI I No.
2 October 2002
by Ron Kangas
B
ecoming God: This is an
ast ounding subject , is it not ?
To many it is ast onishing t o sug-
gest , and t o act ually believe and
t each, t hat , according t o t he
Bible, t he redeemed, just ified,
regenerat ed believers in Christ
will event ually become God in
t he sense of being t he same as God in life and in nat ure
but not in t he Godhead, t hat is, not in rank or posit ion,
and not as an object of worship. This will t ake place wit h-
out any essent ial change in t he Godhead, in t he et ernal,
immut able, t riune being of t he one t rue and unique God.
We are mindful of t he fact , however, t hat many will react
in dismay, perhaps in horror, t o find t hemselves confront -
ed wit h t he assert ion t hat in Christ and t hrough Gods
complet e salvat ion we who believe in Christ and are in
Christ will become God in t he limit ed sense posit ed here.
Some may immediat ely judge t his t o be a pagan not ion
t hat blasphemes t he t ranscendence and majest y of God.
Ot hers may insist t hat Script ure forbids t his as idolat ry
and blasphemy (Mart in 101). Perhaps some, wit hout
due considerat ion, will choose t o agree wit h R. C. Sproul
in repudiat ing t he crass view t hat salvat ion impart s some
measure of deit y t o us (43). Yet ot hers may follow
Sproul in misunderst anding t he biblical t rut h concerning
deificat ion as t he heresy of Apot heosis (becoming
God) and t hen set out t o warn believers t hat t his
ghast ly heresy of Apot heosis t hreat ens t he very
essence of Christ ianit y (45)
1
. Wit hout proceeding
beyond t his opening paragraph, cert ain readers may
accuse us of heresy or blasphemy or of yielding t o and
t hen perpet uat ing t he word of t he serpent in Genesis 3:
You will become like God (v. 5). Of course, as t he
open, object ive, and fair-minded reader will see, we do
not harbor or promulgat e heresy; we would never ut t er
blasphemy against t he unique t rue and living God, whose
name is blessed forever; and we repudiat e bot h t he sat an-
ic impulse in Isaiah 14 and t he sat anic lie in Genesis 3. In
t he face of cert ain opposit ion, some of which may be
rash, unreasonable, and unprincipled,
2
we int end t o pres-
ent as clearly as possible a complet e and balanced
t est imony t o t he divinely revealed t rut h in t he Script ures
t hat in Christ , t hrough Gods salvat ion, and according t o
Gods economy, we, t he believers in Christ , can and will
become God in life, in nat ure, in const it ut ion, and in
expression but not in t he Godhead and never as an object
of worship. We t herefore wish t o devot e t his edit ion of
Affi rmati on & Cri ti que t o t he marvelous mat t er of deifi-
cat ion in Christ .
This art icle is int ended t o serve a dual purpose. As t he
first essay in an issue of Affi rmati on & Cri ti que devot ed
t o t he t heme of deificat ion, it serves as an int roduct ion t o
our subject t he deificat ion of t he believers in Christ
according t o Gods economy, based on Gods judicial
redempt ion, in t he organic union wit h Christ , t hrough
Gods organic salvat ion, and for t he et ernal, consummat e,
corporat e expression of t he Triune God in His redeemed,
regenerat ed, t ransformed, and glorified t ripart it e elect .
This art icle is int ended t o est ablish t he boundaries and set
t he t one for our discourse on a mat t er of ut most impor-
t ance t o God and t o t he people of God. This essay, how-
ever, may be regarded as st anding on it s own in an
at t empt t o provide an informed, judicious, and biblical
overview of t he amazing t rut h, revealed in t he Script ures,
t hat in Christ we, t he believers in Christ , may become
God in life, in nat ure, in const it ut ion, in appearance, and
in expression but not in t he Godhead and not as an object
of worship.
Any endeavor t o present an overview of t he t rut h con-
cerning deificat ion should appeal first for an open mind,
like t hat of t he Bereans, and t hen bot h exhibit and call for
an irenic spirit in considering a t opic of t his nat ure and
magnit ude. A proper survey should t hen discuss t he cri-
t erion of t rut h, declare t he governing and cont rolling
script ural revelat ion regarding t he one, unique, t rue, and
living God, expose and denounce t he sat anic count erfeit
of deificat ion, examine and reject spurious not ions of
deificat ion, pay respect t o views of deificat ion similar t o
t he one propounded, and t hen set fort h, as clearly and
Affirmation & Critique 4
concisely as possible, t he t rut h of deificat ion as unveiled
in t he Word of God. This is what will be at t empt ed here.
An Appeal for an Open Mind
Many years ago we were encouraged by cert ain of our
crit ics t o be like t he noble Bereans in Act s 17:11.
According t o t hem, t o be a Berean is t o do not hing more
t han cont inually t est t eachings by t he Script ures. We
agree t hat all Christ ians should emulat e t he Bereans but
not in t he narrow, crit ical way advocat ed by some. Rat her,
we should be t odays Bereans in t he t wofold sense of
receiving t he word wit h all eagerness and examining t he
Script ures daily. Since t he
mat t er of an open, unbi-
ased mind is vit al in
knowing t he t rut h, it is
wort hwhile t o ponder t he
case of t he Bereans.
A
ccording t o Act s
17:1-9 Paul and Silas
went into a synagogue, and
Paul reasoned with those
assembled from the Scrip-
tures, opening and setting
before t hem t hat t he
Christ had to suffer and
rise from the dead, and saying, This is the Christ, the Jesus
whom I announce to you (v. 3). A number believed and
joined themselves to Paul and Silas. Moved with envy, the
unbelieving religionists stirred up opposition and set the
city in an uproar (v. 5). Immediately, the brothers sent
Paul and Silas away to Berea. Upon their arrival, the two
apostles again entered into a synagogue of the Jews. Now
these people were more noble than those in Thessalonica,
for they received the word with all eagerness, examining
the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so
(v. 11). The Greek word rendered noble denotes a qual-
ity of mind and heart. They were more noble in the
twofold sense of receiving the word with eagerness and
examining the Scriptures.
The Bereans, being neit her biased nor bigot ed, had an
open mind and a recept ive heart . Alt hough t he word pro-
claimed by Paul and Silas was somet hing ut t erly new, t he
Bereans were willing t o give it a fair hearing and honest
considerat ion. They gave Paul a sincere and int erest ed
hearing. Their first t hought was not t o conform t o accept -
ed beliefs but t o t he writ t en Word of God. They were
very different from religious people who would rat her be
ort hodox t han script ural. In fact , t he Bereans did not sim-
ply receive t he wordt hey received it wit h eagerness and
willingness and wit h a proper at t it ude and disposit ion.
What a t remendous cont rast t o t he religionist s in
Thessalonica!
A cts 1 7:1 1 d o e s n o t
say th at th e B e re an s
se arch e d th e S cri p tu re s
i n o rd e r to d i sp ro ve P au l
o r to fi n d g ro u n d to
accu se h i m o f h e re sy.
T h e y tu rn e d to th e Wo rd
as th e m e an s o f
d e te rm i n i n g th e tru th .
Such openness of mind and recept ivit y need t o be bal-
anced, however, by t he second aspect of Berean nobilit y:
They were not ed for examining t he Script ures daily t o
see whet her t hese t hings were so. Several mat t ers
require at t ent ion here.
First , t he Bereans t hemselves searched t he Script ures.
Inst ead of relying on ot hers t o do t he research for t hem,
t hey exercised t heir right of personal judgment by direct -
ly examining t he writ t en Word of God, t hereby avoiding
t wo ext remes of undiscerningly believing t he word of t he
apost les and of uncrit ically accept ing t he conclusions of
ot hers (such as t he Thessalonian religionist s). Assuming
t heir own responsibilit y for arriving at
t he knowledge of t he t rut h, t hey t hem-
selves examined t he Script ures.
The fact t hat t he Bereans examined the
Scri ptures indicat es t hat t he object of
t heir research was t he Word of God,
not t he opinions of t he rabbis or t he t ra-
dit ions of t he religionist s.
These Bereans exami ned t he Script ures;
t hey pored over t hem and st udied t hem
t horoughly and in det ail. The Greek
word rendered exami ned is anakri no,
which means t o invest igat e, t o make
inquiry. This word is used as a legal t erm wit h t he mean-
ing of conduct ing an examinat ion or invest igat ing (Luke
23:14; Act s 12:19). The word denot es an official or judi-
cial inquisit ion and suggest s t hat t he Bereans were
unbiased judges.
F
urt hermore, t he Bereans searched t he Script ures
dai ly. This suggest s t hat t hey st udied t he Word not
only at set t imes in t he synagogue but cont inually in t heir
daily life. They were not charact erized by rash accept ance
or rash reject ion; on t he cont rary, daily t hey st udied t he
Word, t horoughly and comprehensively, before finally
deciding t o believe in Christ as preached by Paul and
Silas. They were willing t o spend what ever t ime was
required t o consider what t hey heard honest ly and fairly
in t he light of t he Script ures.
This brings us t o a crucial point : The Bereans examined
t he Script ures t o see whet her t hese t hings were so. The
goal, t he object ive, of t heir daily examinat ion of t he
Script ures was t o find out whet her or not t he word
t aught by t he apost les was t rue according t o t he Word of
God. In st udying t he Script ures, t hey had a pure mot ive,
for t heir aim was t o ascert ain t he t rut h of Gods Word
and cleave t o it . It is significant t hat Act s 17:11 does not
say t hat t he Bereans searched t he Script ures in order t o
disprove Paul or t o find ground t o accuse him of heresy.
They t urned t o t he Word as t he means of det ermining t he
5 Volume VI I No. 2 October 2002
t rut h, not as a source of ammunit ion t o use in defending
t hemselves against a t eaching t hat t hreat ened t he reli-
gious st at us quo.
Every st udent of t he Bible and every seeker of t he divine
t rut h should appreciat e t he balance of t hese Bereans. On
t he one hand, t heir mind was open t o receive t he word
spoken by t he apost les; on t he ot her hand, t hey examined
t he Script ures. We ask t hat our readers be like t he
Bereans, neit her rashly accept ing nor rashly reject ing our
t est imony regarding deificat ion. We appeal for an open
mind, for Berean nobilit y.
An Appeal for an Irenic Spirit
In addit ion t o having an open mind t o
receive t he word and t o examine t he
Script ures, we need an irenic spirit .
Ireni c is a good word; it means pro-
mot ing peace, conciliat ory. Alt hough it
may be necessary, as we discourse or
even debat e over t he t rut h, t o speak
fort hright ly, our t one should always be
pleasant and respect ful, especially
t oward t hose wit h whom we disagree.
We are writ ing as believers in Christ t o
fellow believers, and surely we all need
t o hold t o t rut h in love, as Paul admon-
ishes us in Ephesians 4:15. Thus, t here is no room for
pride or arrogance, disdain or sarcasm, coarseness or
rudeness. It is our sincere convict ion t hat we are essen-
t ially correct in our underst anding of t he deificat ion of
t he believers in Christ , and it is our desire t o present t he
t rut h in purit y and fait hfulness wit h a holy and humble
spirit . If we need t o be correct ed, we wish t o receive
adjust ment wit h humilit y. To t his end, we once again
ext end an invit at ion t o publish wit hout edit orial revision
wort hy rebut t als (limit ed t o 3000 words) of t he posit ions
we advance. In t his mat t er, we choose t o walk as chil-
dren of light , as t hose who, t hrough t he marvelous divine
birt h, have become light in t he Lord (5:8). It is our
int ent ion, t herefore, t o discourse concerning deificat ion
wit h an irenic spirit and in a way t hat is wort hy of God
t he Fat her, whose name must be sanct ified on eart h.
We appeal to our readers to respond in kind, agreeing if
they can and disagreeing, if they must, in a manner fitting
people of God. Regrettably, this has not always been the
case, for some have thought, erroneously, that our writings
can be dismissed by uttering a few caustic comments or by
using words such as cult or heresy as pejorative expressions
or by distorting our position and then attacking it.
Perhaps an illust rat ion would be helpful. A few years ago,
we received a part icularly st rident response t o Kerry S.
Robichauxs art icle t hat we might be made God in
We ask th at o u r re ad e rs
b e li k e th e B e re an s,
n e i th e r rash ly acce p ti n g
n o r rash ly re je cti n g
o u r te sti m o n y re g ard i n g
d e i fi cati o n .
We ap p e al fo r an
o p e n m i n d ,
fo r B e re an n o b i li ty.
t he July 1996 issue of Affi rmati on & Cri ti que. Writ ing
wit h an uncomely spirit , t he respondent accuses us of
admit t ing t hat t he Bible does not t each t hat man becomes
God, of bringing what he calls an ad hoc approach t o new
height s, of regarding t he writ ings of t he church fat hers as
being on t he same level as Script ure, of combing t hrough
such writ ings in a desperat e at t empt t o find legit imiza-
t ion, of not honoring canonical Script ure as t he st an-
dard aut horit at ive measuring rod and only legit imat e
st art ing point of reference, of frant ically scrambling t o
find a few passages of Script ure t o support our t eaching,
of being t hose who simply resort t o non-canonical writ -
ings, of using fallible t radit ion as our aut horit at ive basis
for present ing your pet
doct rine of man becoming
God, of engaging in a
rabid insist ence on int ro-
ducing t his ext rascript ural
man becoming God doc-
t rine int o Christ ian circles
and act ually insinuat ing it
is a crucial it em of t he
fait h, of using t radit ion
and not Script ure as our
aut horit at ive basis, of set -
t ing fort h a not ion t hat
reeks of east ern myst i-
cism, of advocat ing a per-
version of t he gospel, of gleefully and wit h apparent
abandonment join[ing] t he recklessness of t he church
fat hers by dogmat ically promot ing t his non-canonical,
ext rascript ural t radit ion based t eaching, of being
involved wit h t he commodizat ion of God and subse-
quent dissect ion of God int o various part s, of making an
applicat ion t hat is especially insidious, as it provides t he
foundat ion for all manner of deviant t eachings and prac-
t ices t o proliferat e, of t eaching a doct rine t hat some
would reasonably argue is grossly heret ical, of displaying
t he t emerit y t o shamelessly disseminat e t his man
becomes God concept dressed up in a Christ ian cloak of
apparent respect abilit y, and of crossing t he imaginary
line int o t he realm of blat ant idolat rous man worship.
Not ice t he use of t he following: pet doctri ne, franti cally
scramble, desperate attempt, rabi d i nsi stence, i nsi nuati ng,
grossly hereti cal, commodi zati on, di ssecti on, i nsi di ous,
devi ant, perversi on, reeks of eastern mysti ci sm, temeri ty,
shamelessly di ssemi nate, gleefully, recklessness, blatant
i dolatrous man worshi p. This kind of writ ing, laced wit h
malice and ut t ered in cont empt , is alt oget her alien t o
proper, respect ful, loving Christ ian discourse. Such a
response t o a t hought ful, well-reasoned art icle on deifica-
t ion bears st riking similarit ies t o t he host ilit ies of t he
Thessalonian religionist s who opposed t he apost les; it is
diamet rically opposed t o t he nobilit y of t he Bereans. We
invit e our readers t o st udy Kerry Robichauxs art icle for
t hemselves and see if t hey find it rabid, deviant , and
insidious. And of course we invit e our readers t o read t his
ent ire issue of Affi rmati on & Cri ti quewit h care, giving it
t he mat ure considerat ion it merit s and requires.
W
e emphasize t his mat t er, even at some lengt h, be-
cause we realize t hat propounding t he t rut h
concerning deificat ion is challenging for bot h writ er and
reader alike. What ever conclusions t he readers may draw
aft er pondering all t he art icles present ed here, we hope
t hat t hey will not react as biased religionist s, who are
unable t o receive anyt hing new, but as noble Bereans, who
have an open mind and who diligent ly examine t he
Script ures mot ivat ed by t he love of t he t rut h and t he
willingness t o pay t he price t o gain it .
To show t hat we welcome crit ical responses if offered in
a proper spirit , we repeat here t he invit at ion offered in
our maiden January 1996 issue:
We recognize that some of our readers may wish to engage
in a constructive dialogue in response of our affirmation
and critique. We invite, therefore, reasonable, article-
length responses to our presentations (3000 words or
less). We welcome, and will provide space for, articles that
present alternative scholarly view on the issues we have
addressed. These will appear in an occasional department
called Counterpoint. While we reserve our editorial
privilege to accept or reject submissions, the submissions
we print will bear t heir
original cont ent . Submis-
sions t o Count erpoint
will be accepted if they are
thoughtful and delivered in
a proper spirit. Only signed
contributions will be ac-
cepted. Needless to say,
we will offer our further
comments on the points
raised by t hese guest
aut hors. On mat t ers of
great import ant we wel-
come an ongoing exchange
in print. (5)
The Holy ScripturesOur Criterion of Truth
Our sole crit erion of t rut h is t he Bible, t he writ t en Word
of God. Alt hough we respect t he creeds and t he deci-
sions of t he councils, we cannot and will not be limit ed
by t hem, as t hey, due perhaps t o t he circumst ances at
t he t ime, do not embody or declare t he complet e divine
revelat ion in t he Script ures. Wit h respect t o deificat ion
in part icular, while familiar wit h t he doct rine concerning
t his in t he ancient church, we do not derive our t eaching
on deificat ion from t hat source. The accusat ions of t he
crit ic cit ed above not wit hst anding, we, t o use his words,
We te ach
th e d e i fi cati o n
o f th e b e li e ve rs
i n C h ri st n o t b e cau se
i t was p ro clai m e d
b y th e an ci e n t ch u rch
b u t b e cau se
i t i s u n ve i le d
i n th e Wo rd o f G o d .
recognize canonical Script ure as t he st andard aut horit a-
t ive measuring rod and only legit imat e st art ing point of
reference. We t each t he deificat ion of t he believers in
Christ not because it was proclaimed by t he ancient
church but because it is unveiled in t he Word of God.
Script ure, not t radit ion, is our unique, aut horit at ive
basis. Wit ness Lees t est imony regarding t his is also our
own: I have not been influenced by any t eaching about
deificat ion, but I have learned from my st udy of t he
Bible t hat God does int end t o make t he believers God in
life and in nat ure but not in t he Godhead (Samuel 166).
We hold t he Bible as t he complet e and only divine reve-
lat ion. No mat t er what cert ain crit ics may wrongly
assert , our t eaching concerning deificat ion rest s ent irely
and absolut ely on t he Word of God. Since t his is our con-
fession and our pract ice, perhaps t he t ime is coming,
and now is, for all believers and for t he church as a
whole t o reread and rest udy t he Script ures t o see if t his
t hingt he believers becoming Godis so.
The One True and Living God
Any discussion of t he deificat ion of t he believers in Christ
must be governed, direct ed, and limit ed by a cont rolling
t hought : There is only one t rue and living God. The one,
t rue God is self-exist ing, ever-exist ing, et ernal, infinit e,
personal, immat erial, t ranscendent , omniscient , omni-
present , and omnipot ent . There never has been and
t here never will be a God ot her t han,
or in addit ion t o, t he one, unique
God. This is t he most basic revelat ion
in t he Script ures. In many inst ances and
ways, t he Bible says t hat God is unique-
ly one: There is no God but one
(1 Cor. 8:4). God is one (Rom.
3:30). There is one God (1 Tim.
2:5). You were shown t hese t hings t hat
you might know t hat it is Jehovah who
is God; t here is no ot her besides Him
(Deut . 4:35). Know t herefore t oday
and bring it t o heart t hat Jehovah is
God in heaven above and upon t he
eart h below; t here is no ot her (v. 39).
For You are great , and You do wondrous deeds; / You
alone are God (Psa. 86:10). You are My wit nesses,
declares Jehovah. / Before Me t here was no God
formed, / Neit her will t here be any aft er Me (Isa.
43:10). Thus says Jehovah t he King of Israel, / And his
Redeemer, Jehovah of host s, / I am t he First and I am t he
Last , / And apart from Me t here is no God (44:6). Who
relat ed t his long ago; / Who declared it from t hat t ime? /
Was is not I, Jehovah? / And t here is no ot her God
besides Me; / A right eous God and Savior, / And t here is
no one except Me (45:21). It is an incont rovert ible fact
t hat t here is one God and besides Him t here cannot be
anot her, not here or anywhere, not now or ever.
The only t rue God is Jehovah Elohim, t he great uncreat -
ed, et ernal I Am. He, and He alone, has t he ground t o
declare, I Am. He is self-exist ing, having no cause out -
side of Himself; t hus, He is unique in t hat He is a
non-cont ingent Being, depending for His exist ence only
on Himself. In his st udy of Exodus Wit ness Lee says, He
is t he only One who i s, t he only One who has t he realit y
of being. The verb t o be should not be applied absolut e-
ly t o anyone or anyt hing except t o Him. He is t he only
self-exist ing being (57). God i s. He who comes forward
t o God must believe t hat He is (Heb. 11:6). As t he I
Am, He is. He alone has independent exist ence; we, by
cont rast , are t ot ally and et ernally dependent beings. This
means t hat even in et ernit y, when we have been glorified
t o become God in expression as well as in life and in
nat ure, we will cont inue t o be Gods creat ures, ever rely-
ing on Him. Alt hough we will become God in Christ , we
will not exist apart from our organic union wit h Him. We
will not exist as independent gods ruling over a world of
our own making, as heret ically posit ed in Mormonism.
T
hat God is and t hat we are not hing apart from Him
is a lesson believers need t o learn as soon as possible.
For us t o have t he fait h t o confess t hat He is, t hat He
alone is I Am, is t o glorify Him. For one t o have t he
t emerit y t o assert of oneself I Am is t o insult Him.
Only He is self-exist ing; only He is ever-exist ing. Wit ness
Lees remarks are inst ruct ive:
God requires you only t o believe t hat He
is. The verb to be is act ually t he divine
t it le of our Triune God. In Exodus 3
Moses asked God what His name was.
God answered t hat His name is I Am
That I Am (vv. 13-14). Our Gods name
is t he verb to be. He is I Am That I
Am.This is t he very essence of t he
short word beli eve that God i s. To believe
t hat God is implies t hat you are not . He
must be t he only One, t he unique One,
in everyt hing, and we must be not hing in
everyt hing. (Romans 73, 75)
On t he one hand, we are becoming God in Christ ; on t he
ot her hand, only He isonly He is I Amand we are
not . The more we become Him, t he more we realize t hat
we are not hing wit hout Him or apart from Him. As t he I
Am, He is t he et ernal, self-exist ing, ever-exist ing God.
3
This unique God, t he I Am, is t he Creat or and Sust ainer
of t he universe and everyt hing in it : In t he beginning
God creat ed t he heavens and t he eart h (Gen. 1:1).
How many are Your works, O Jehovah! / In wisdom You
have made all of t hem (Psa. 104:24). O Jehovah of
host s, God of Israel, who dwells bet ween t he cherubim,
You, You alone are God of all t he kingdoms of t he eart h;
A lth o u g h we
wi ll b e co m e G o d
i n C h ri st, we wi ll n o t
e xi st ap art fro m o u r
o rg an i c u n i o n wi th H i m .
We wi ll n o t e xi st
as i n d e p e n d e n t g o d s
ru li n g o ve r a wo rld
o f o u r o wn m ak i n g .
You made t he heavens and t he eart h (Isa. 37:16).
Neit her is He served by human hands as t hough He
needed anyt hing in addit ion, since He Himself gives t o all
life and breat h and all t hings (Act s 17:25). Because out
from Him and t hrough Him and t o Him are all t hings
(Rom. 11:36). By fait h we underst and t hat t he universe
has been framed by t he word of God, so t hat what is seen
has not come int o being out of t hings which appear
(Heb. 11:3). You are wort hy, our Lord and God, t o
receive t he glory and t he honor and t he power, for You
have creat ed all t hings, and because of Your will t hey
were, and were creat ed (Rev. 4:11).
T
he unique, creating God is immutable and eternal:
For I, Jehovah, do not change (Mal. 3:6). All good
giving and every perfect gift is from above, coming down
from the Father of lights, with whom is no variation or
shadow cast by turning (James 1:17). Before the moun-
tains were brought forth, / And before You gave birth to
the earth and the world, / Indeed from eternity to eterni-
ty, You are God (Psa. 90:2). Do you not know, / Or have
you not heard, / That the eternal God, Jehovah, / The
Creator of the ends of earth, / Does not faint and does not
become weary? (Isa. 40:28). For thus says the high and
exalted One, / Who inhabits eternity, whose name is
Holy (57:15). For the invisible things of Him, both
His eternal power and divine characteristics, have been
clearly seen since the creation of the world, being per-
ceived by the things made,
so that they would be with-
out excuse (Rom. 1:20).
Now to the King of the
ages, incorruptible, invisi-
ble, the only God, be honor
and glory for ever and ever.
Amen (1 Tim. 1:17).
The only Godthe unique,
self-exist ing, ever-exist ing
Godis our unique source;
we depend on Him for our
existence, and we trust in
His revelation for all truth
regarding Himself. James R. White gives an admirable
summary of the essential truth concerning the one true
God:
There is only one God. God has et ernally been God; t hat
is, God did not become God at some point in t he past ,
but has et ernally been God. God is t he Creat or of all
t hings. There is not hing t hat exist s in nat ure t hat is not
t he direct creat ion of t he one t rue God. God is not grow-
ing, evolving, or changing. He is independent of all ot her
t hings, owing His exist ence t o no one or anyt hing else.
God has all power and is not limit ed by anyt hing out side
of His own nat ure. (45-46)
yet in et ernit y we shall be God in Him. He alone will be
worshipped, and we, His deified elect , will t ake t he lead
t o worship Him.
The Satanic Impulse and the Satanic Lie
Some crit ics of any and every t eaching about deificat ion
are quick t o argue t hat t o claim t hat believers can become
God in Gods salvat ion is eit her t o follow Sat an in his
self-exalt at ion described in Isaiah 14 or t o yield t o Sat ans
t empt at ion recorded in Genesis 3. Anyone who has read
t hrough t he Bible even once has at least some familiarit y
wit h t hese t wo chapt ers. It is t ot ally wit hout merit t o
insist t hat t o speak of t he believers
deificat ion is t o be driven by t he sat an-
ic impulse or inveigled by t he sat anic
life. The fact t hat a devilish count erfeit
of a part icular divine t rut h may exist is
no basis for denying t he realit y of t he
divine t rut h it self.
Exposing t he sat anic impulse t oward
self-exalt at ion and self-deificat ion,
Isaiah 14:13-14 says,
But you, you said in your heart : / I will
ascend t o heaven; / Above t he st ars of
God / I will exalt my t hrone. / And I will
sit upon t he mount of assembly / In t he ut t ermost part s
of t he nort h. / I will ascend above t he height s of t he
clouds; / I will make myself like t he Most High.
A
gain and again t he enemy declares, I will, express-
ing his perverse ambit ion t o occupy t he st at us of
deit y and t o be like God in His Godhead. This is not an
aspirat ion t o be made God in life and in nat ure; it is t he
overreaching int ent ion t o be equal wit h God in His
unique, incommunicable st at us and Godhead. We should
not e t hat verse 14 says, I will make myself like t he Most
High, a clear and evident case of at t empt ed self-deifica-
t ion. To equat e t he sat anic impulse t oward
self-deificat ion and equalit y wit h God in st at us and
Godhead wit h t he t eaching t hat in Christ and t hrough
Gods salvat ion t he believers become God not in t he
Godhead but in t he divine life and in t he divine nat ure is
t o misunderst and Isaiah 14:13-14 and t o be oblivious t o
t he New Test ament revelat ion relat ed t o t he scope and
consummat ion of t he salvat ion of God in t he economy of
God. It is an ext reme error t o use Isaiah 14:13-14 wit h
it s exposure of self-deificat ion in t he at t empt t o negat e
t he t rut h, based on t he Script ures, t hat in Christ t he
believers become God in t he limit ed sense enunciat ed in
t his art icle and elsewhere in our writ ings. We can surely
assert t he t rut h of deificat ion in Christ wit hout being
cont rolled by t he sat anic impulse t oward equalit y wit h
God in t he Godhead. Therefore, we reject as wholly
The t rut h concerning God is foundat ional for and det er-
minat ive of our present at ion of deificat ion, for t his t rut h
set s t he necessary limit s. The believers in Christ cannot
be deified in t he sense of sharing t he Godhead or of
becoming an object of worship or of part icipat ing in
Gods incommunicable at t ribut es (e.g., self-exist ence
and infinit y). As t he believers in Christ become God in
Christ and t hrough Gods organic salvat ion, t he exis-
t ence and at t ribut es of God are in no way t hreat ened.
Anot her God can never and will never come int o being.
There are permanent boundaries t o our deificat ion: In
Christ we become God in life and in nat ure for Gods
expression, but we do not become God in t he Godhead
or as an object of worship.
God is not affect ed in His
et ernal being by t he
believers becoming t he
same as He is in life and in
nat ure, just as a human
fat her is not changed in his
person and fat herhood as
t he result of beget t ing
children who are t he same
as he is in life and in
nat ure. We do not become
t he person of God; t hus,
cont rary t o t he specious
accusat ions of cert ain crit -
ics, in our view of deificat ion not hing happens t o God in
His et ernal Godhead once we become God in t he limit -
ed sense of being const it ut ed wit h His life, nat ure, and
communicable at t ribut es. God remains t he one, unique,
t rue God, self-exist ing, et ernal, infinit e, immut able, and
t ranscendent . Respect ing t his fact as much as all ot her
genuine Christ ians do, we nevert heless assert t hat in
Gods economy t he believers in Christ will be made God
in a manner t hat maint ains His unique Godhead while
allowing His children, for His good pleasure, t o became
t he same as He is in every way t hat He wishes t o make
possible.
We can simult aneously uphold t he t rut h concerning God
and t he t rut h concerning deificat ion because
in God t here are t hese t wo aspect s: one which refers t o
His t ranscendence above all and His absolut e inaccessibil-
it y and incommunicabilit y, and anot her which refers t o
t he demonst rat ion of His great love in coming t o man and
joining Himself t o our race. (Robichaux 23)
Gods operat ion in His economy by which, in Christ , He
shares wit h us His life, nat ure, and communicable at t rib-
ut es makes our deificat ion possible. Gods t ranscendence,
inaccessibilit y, and incommunicabilit y maint ain His
unique, et ernal Godhead and set t he boundaries of our
deificat ion. From et ernit y t o et ernit y, He is God alone,
A s th e b e li e ve rs
i n C h ri st b e co m e G o d
i n C h ri st an d th ro u g h
G o d s o rg an i c salvati o n ,
th e e xi ste n ce an d attri b u te s
o f G o d are i n n o way
th re ate n e d . A n o th e r G o d
can n e ve r an d wi ll n e ve r
co m e i n to b e i n g .
wit hout merit t he accusat ion t hat t o t each New
Test ament deificat ion is t o reenact t he sin of Sat an.
The satanic impulse in Isaiah 14 is hidden within the
satanic lie in Genesis 3:5: You will become like God,
knowing good and evil was the serpents seductive prom-
ise to the woman. Through his rebellion against God and
the derangement that ensued, the devil has become an evil
father, reproducing himself in his children and making
them serpents as his duplication and expression (John
8:44). The human beings created by God in His image and
according to His likeness for His duplication through
regeneration for His expression have been usurped by
Satan for his counterfeit of the divine
economy, his counterplot with its inten-
tion to mock God and glorify himself.
We confess that in ourselves as fallen
human beings, we are serpents, children
of the devil, but God gave His only
begotten Son for us, sending Him in the
likeness of the flesh of sin and concern-
ing sin. On the cross, the Son of God
who had become the Son of Man died
not only as the Lamb of God to take
away the sin of the world but also as the
fulfillment of the type of the bronze ser-
pent (3:14) to destroy the devil (Heb.
2:14) and to condemn sin in the flesh
(Rom. 8:3). Now by believing into Christ we can be born
of God to have eternal life and thereby become children
of God possessing the life and nature of God. Through the
Lords mercy and grace, we reject the bait of becoming
like God in the sense of knowing good and evil. This repli-
cation of satanic self-deification we abhor and condemn
without reservation. However, we do not agree that the lie
should deprive us of the truth or that the false should rob
us of the genuine. This means that we reject the notion
that avoiding the satanic impulse and the satanic lie
requires denying the ultimate goal of the divine econo-
mythat the believers become the same as God not in
the Godhead (Isa. 14) and not in the sense of knowing
good and evil (Gen. 3) but in the sense of becoming God
in life and in nature for His expression. May Gods people
learn to discern between the counterfeit (Satans imita-
tion) and the real (Gods revelation) and thus avoid the
pitiful error of denying the latter out of loathing the for-
mer. We understand the satanic impulse and the satanic lie
as much as, if not more, than other Christians. We will not
permit the pervasiveness of the lie to hinder us from pro-
claiming the preciousness of the true. We simultaneously
renounce the satanic counterfeit and announce the divine
reality. We request, therefore, that no one harbor the
puerile idea that one can disprove the teaching regarding
deification by simply mouthing the words found in Isaiah
14 and Genesis 3. Such a stratagem, if it is even worthy of
this appellation, is of no avail against the truth.
A cco rd i n g to th e Wo rd
o f G o d , th e o n ly way
th e d i vi n e e le m e n t
can e n te r i n to a falle n
p e rso n i s fo r th at p e rso n
to b e li e ve i n to C h ri st,
to b e ju sti fi e d b y fai th ,
an d to b e b o rn o f G o d
to b e co m e a ch i ld o f G o d .
Spurious Notions of Deification
Since t he devil is a liar and a deceiver who desires not h-
ing more t han t o perpet uat e t he sat anic impulse and t he
sat anic lie, it should come as no surprise t hat t here are
spurious not ions of deificat ion t hat must be examined,
exposed, and expunged.
The Concept of the I nnate Divinity of Human Beings
One false not ion of deificat ion is t he assert ion t hat at t he
core of t he self, human beings are essent ially divine and
need only t o realize t his and t hen act ivat e t he so-called
God-self, t he self which,
allegedly, is one wit h God
and even is God. In des-
cribing for t he sake of
crit icizing t his not ion, Pel-
phrey st at es, A key point
is t he assumpt ion t hat
human beings have a divine
nat ure hidden wit hin
(13). This idea is common
among myst ics, Gnost ics
(bot h ancient and mod-
ern), and adherent s of
New Age philosophy. The
underlying t hought is t hat
buried in human nat ure is a spark of divinit y t hat needs
t o be released. Deificat ion in t his view consist s not in
becoming God but in being enlight ened t o see t hat one
already is God. The fundament al idea is t hat what ever is
called God is really what lies deep wit hin ourselves. We
are ourselves divine. We are gods on eart h (3). God (or
t he divine spirit ) is hidden wit hin ourselves and is t he
only t rue realit y. This inner Self must be discovered care-
fully t hrough personal development . Therefore, we
ourselves are God (13).
T
his not ion is alien t o t he Script ures and cont rary t o
t he nat ure of humanit y in Gods creat ion. The Bible
nowhere suggest s t hat human beings are gods by creat ion
or t hat t here is a divine spark, an imprisoned element of
deit y, in humankind. God is not wit hin us in t he sense
t hat we ourselves are divine or t ake t he place of God or
are gods (13). According t o t he Word of God, t he only
way t he divine element can ent er int o a fallen person is
for t hat person t o believe int o Christ , t o be just ified by
fait h, and t o be born of God t o become a child of God.
In ot her words, t he divine element ent ers a human being
not t hrough birt h, human generat ion, but t hrough rebirt h,
t he divine regenerat ion.
This is in keeping wit h t he nat ure of humankind in Gods
creat ion. Human beings are t ripart it espirit , soul, and
body. The human spirit , t hough similar t o t he life of God
and t he Spirit of God, is neit her t he divine life nor t he
divine Spirit . The spirit of man is not somet hing divine in
man but somet hing in man t hat is similar t o God and is
capable of cont act ing God, receiving God, cont aining
God, and being one wit h God. For t his reason, it is possi-
bleand for believers a glorious fact !t hat t he human
spirit creat ed by God can be regenerat ed by God t o be
joined t o God, mingled wit h God, and one wit h God. We
reject t he concept of t he innat e divinit y of human beings;
we affirm t he innat e abilit y of human beings, as creat ures
of God, t o be born of God t o become God in life and in
nat ure but not in t he Godhead.
The Concept of Evolution into God
Anot her spurious not ion of deificat ion is t he concept of
evolut ion int o God. According t o t his school of t hought ,
a human person is not God but has t he pot ent ial, given
sufficient t ime, t o evolve int o God. God want s us t o
become Himself (or Herself or It self). We are growing
t oward godhood. God is t he goal of evolut ion (Peck
270). What an abhorrent idea! Humankind cannot
bridge t he gap bet ween God and human beings t hrough
evolut ion. This concept is a subt le variat ion of t he sat an-
ic impulse t o become God in t he Godhead. Whereas in
Isaiah a rebellious being sought t o become God by a sud-
den, drast ic revolut ion, here we see rebellious beings
expect ing t o become God t hrough gradual, increment al
evolut ion. We repudiat e
bot h t he concept of seizing
t he Godhead by revolu-
t ion and t he concept of
becoming t he Godhead by
evolut ion. Unfort unat ely,
some of t odays religion-
ist s, devoid of discern-
ment , cont inue t o con-
found evolut ion int o God
wit h becoming God in
Gods economy and per-
sist in accusing t hose who
advocat e t he lat t er of
t eaching t he former. Let
us, t herefore, be unequivocally clear: We reject any
t hought t hat human beings can evolve int o God. As
always, we have t reat ed t his pernicious idea wit h con-
t empt as somet hing unwort hy of t he t rue and living God.
I
t is unfort unat e t hat some Christ ian researchers cannot
discern bet ween evolut ion int o God and t he believers
becoming God in t he divine economy t hrough t he divine
dispensing. As a result of t heir own lack of clarit y and
t heir failure t o dist inguish t hings t hat differ, t hey falsely
accuse t hose who t each t he biblical t rut hs of Gods econ-
omy, especially t he crucial mat t er of Gods working
Himself int o His redeemed people, of advocat ing heresy.
A n o th e r sp u ri o u s n o ti o n
o f d e i fi cati o n i s th e
co n ce p t o f e vo lu ti o n
i n to G o d . A cco rd i n g to
th i s sch o o l o f th o u g h t, a
h u m an p e rso n i s n o t G o d
b u t h as th e p o te n ti al,
g i ve n su ffi ci e n t ti m e ,
to e vo lve i n to G o d .
For inst ance, t o accuse us of t eaching t hat human beings
are evolving int o God is ut t erly false and wit hout founda-
t ion. According t o t he Bible, we believe and t each t hat
t he Triune God in Christ as t he Spirit is dispensing
Himself int o t he believers, infusing His element int o
t hem and causing t hem t o be permeat ed and sat urat ed
wit h His life and nat ure t o be His expression. The fact
t hat , as children of God, we part ake, in Christ , of t he life
and nat ure of God in Christ does not mean t hat we
become God Himself in His Godhood or Godhead. Yes,
t he Triune God is being wrought int o us, and we are par-
t aking of His life, nat ure, and communicable at t ribut es,
but we are definit ely not evolving int o t he Godhead. The
not ion of evolut ion int o God is ut t erly incompat ible wit h
becoming God in life and in nat ure according t o Gods
economy. Since our Fat her is God, what are we, t he
sons? The sons must be t he same as t heir Fat her in life
and nat ure.However, none of us are or can be God in
His Godhead as an object of worship (Lee, Chri sti an
Li fe 133). Because our life is ourself and because Christ
is our life, we may say t hat Christ has become us.
However, t o say t his is neit her t o deify ourselves
4
nor t o
t each evolut ion int o God (Lee, Colossi ans 529).
The Charismatic Concept of Little Gods
It is alarming t hat cert ain t elevision evangelist s hold t he
concept of lit t le Godst he idea t hat human beings,
eit her by creat ion or t hrough regenera-
t ion, are Gods kind of being. This
not ion, which is far from coherent , is
oft en combined wit h t he idea t hat
believers can exercise t he force of
fait h t o claim miracles and prosperit y,
calling t hings int o being as if t hey were
God Himself. Consider t he t eaching of
Kennet h Copeland, who claims t hat
Adam was not subordinat e t o God.
Adam was walking as a god (Side 1). It
is not surprising, t herefore, t hat
Copeland would respond t o Paul
Crouchs exclamat ion, I am a lit t le
god! by saying, You are anyt hing t hat
He is (Kennet h Copeland Cont inued), t hereby oblit -
erat ing t he dist inct ion bet ween humanit y, including
redeemed and regenerat ed humanit y, and t he unique
Godhead. A web page called These Men Think That
Theyre Gods! offers more examples:
God draws no dist inct ion bet ween Himself and us. God
opens up t he union of t he very godhead (Trinit y), and
brings us int o it . (Paul Crouch)
Man is a spirit who possesses a soul and lives in a
body.He is in t he same class wit h God. (Kennet h
Hagin)
You are everyt hing He was and everyt hing He is and ever
He shall be.Dont say, I have. Say, I am, I am, I am,
I am, I am. (Benny Hinn)
If you say, I am, youre saying youre a part of him, right ?
Is he God? Are you his offspring? Are you his children?
Then youre not human! (Benny Hinn)
U
nderst andably, t his kind of speaking has received
crit icism. Some regard it as t he original sin in t he
garden, while Neil Rivalland t erms it t he ult imat e heresy
in t he hist ory of t he Christ ian Church (1). Bob DeWaay
remarks, To t each t hat God int ended us t o be gods over
t he eart h is a horrible perversion of t he t rut h. It is t he
very doct rine of Sat an (2). Toward t he end of his art icle,
DeWaay concludes, We neit her were creat ed t o be gods
nor commissioned t o become gods (4). Walt er Mart in
warns, It is dangerous, in t he presence of God, t o affirm
oneself as a deit yeven wit h a small g (104). Such an
affirmat ion is dangerous, Mart in argues, because
t he t eaching t hat man is a god or can become like God
in relat ion t o t he divine essence originat es not wit h God,
but wit h Sat an, who brought about t he fall of man by
deceiving Eve and t hen Adam int o believing t hat t hey
would be like gods. (97)
Mart in goes on t o art iculat e his convict ion t hat t hose
who maint ain t he lit t le gods doct rine
are affirming a t ype of pagan polyt he-
ism over against classic monot heism.
This const it ut es, by any assessment ,
heret ical doct rine (101).
5
Hank Hanegraaff t akes a somewhat dif-
ferent approach. Aft er providing lit t le
gods quot at ions similar t o t hose
included above, he says, Fait h t eachers
t ake t he Script ures depict ion of man
made in t he image of God and t wist it
int o a monst rosit y (110). Never-
t heless, he admit s t hat t he phrase
lit t le gods may be unfort unat e, but it
is not necessarily heret ical in and of
it self, as long as it is not int ended t o convey t hat man is
equal wit h, or a part of, God (110). For Hanegraaff, t he
real issue is t he meaning t hat is poured int o t he words
lit t le gods. The Fait h t eachers make it clear t hat by lit -
t le gods t hey mean a direct depart ure from ort hodox
Christ ianit y (111). He t hen proceeds t o offer a needed,
but unfort unat ely one-sided, crit ique in which he
advances his opinion t hat t he Fait h t eachers should be
classified as henot heist ic. He t hen at t empt s t o expound
various biblical port ions t hat are used by some t o but t ress
lit t le gods t heology (e.g., Psa. 82:6; John 10:31-39). He
concludes, right ly of course, t hat
We d o n o t wi sh to ali g n
o u rse lve s wi th th e d e vo te e s
o f li ttle g o d s d o ctri n e ,
e ve n th o u g h ce rtai n
e le m e n ts o f th e tru th
re g ard i n g d e i fi cati o n
are scatte re d am o n g ,
o r m i xe d i n wi th ,
th e i r te ach i n g s.
alt hough we were creat ed in t he image of God, we
possess none of Gods nont ransferable or incommunica-
ble at t ribut essuch as self-exist ence, immut abilit y,
et ernalit y, omnipot ence, omniscience, omnipresence, and
absolut e sovereignt y. (117)
6
We do not wish t o align ourselves wit h t he devot ees of
lit t le gods doct rine, even t hough cert ain element s of
t he t rut h regarding deificat ion are scat t ered among, or
mixed in wit h, t heir t eachings. The spokespersons are
oft en audacious and reckless in t heir public pronounce-
ment s and inaccurat e, or even confused, in t heir t heology,
confounding, for inst ance, t he nat ure of humanit y in
Gods creat ion wit h humanit y in Gods regenerat ion.
They oft en fail t o observe t he mandat ed boundaries
bet ween t he Godhead and t he believers becoming God
in t he sense of being born of Him t o possess His life and
nat ure. Furt hermore, t he lit t le gods concept of deifica-
t ion is proclaimed apart from t he script ural revelat ion
concerning t he divine economy wit h it s goalt he corpo-
rat e expression of God. To ignore t he divine economy and
t o speak carelessly of t he relat ionship bet ween God and
man is, t o say t he least , unwise, and it can lead t o error
and self-exalt at ion, self-glorificat ion, and self-promot ion.
The Concept of Deification in Mormonism
The Mormon doct rine of deificat ion is an out growt h, or
concomit ant , of t he Mor-
mon doct rine of deit y.
Mormons are neit her Christ -
ians nor monot heist s but
polyt heist s. Mormon t he-
ology propounds t he exis-
t ence of innumerable gods,
event ually numbering in
t he billions. Inst ead of
assert ing according t o t he
perspicuous revelat ion of
t he Bible t hat t here is, for
et ernit y and in all t ime and
space, only one t rue, self-
exist ing, ever-exist ing God,
Mormon doct rine t eaches
an endless succession of gods, each one ruling over it s
own eart h. God t he Fat her is an exalt ed man from anot h-
er planet similar t o eart h, having been begot t en of t he
species of gods, who exist ed before him in an infinit e
series of gods who were once men (Van Gorden 31).
Hence, t he god of t he Mormons was once a man, a crea-
t ure creat ed by a god who, in t urn, had been a creat ed
human being. According t o Mormon t heology, t here is no
unique, omnipot ent , omniscient , omnipresent , self-exist -
ing, ever-exist ing God. Rat her, every god began as a
cont ingent , creat ed ent it y who event ually progressed t o
t he point of becoming a god. The deificat ion of human
beings (limit ed t o t he Mormon fait hful, of course) is
simply t he cont inuat ion of t he unending progression of
humans int o gods. The present god (t o t he world in which
t he Mormon lives) was once a man on anot her planet who
progressed t o godhood. As a physical creat ure wit h a wife
t o mat ch him, he has begot t en millions of spirit children
in a st at e called t he preexist ence (31). Having become
human beings of flesh and blood, t he children of t his god
have t he opport unit y, it is alleged, t o marry, die, and ult i-
mat ely be exalt ed int o t he st at us of godhood and, else-
where in t he universe, become a god producing and
presiding over st ill ot her spirit children. From t his we can
see t hat t he Mormon doct rines of deit y and deificat ion
are inext ricably bound
t oget her, exist ing in a sym-
biot ic relat ionship.
Mormons, if they are forth-
coming and know t heir
own theology, will not deny
this. Joseph Smith boldly
proclaimed that God was
merely an exalted man and
that human beings could
become gods. I am going
to tell you, he boasted,
how God came t o be
God.You have got t o
learn how to be Gods yourselves (Ti mes and Seasons
614). Mormon Apostle Orson Pratt said,
We were begotten by our Father in Heaven; the person of
our Father in Heaven was begotten on a previous heaven-
ly world by His Father; and again, He was begotten by a
still more ancient Father; and so on, from generation to
generation, from one heavenly world to another still more
ancient, until our minds are wearied and lost in the multi-
plicity of generations and successive worlds. (The Seer 132)
This supposed development had no beginning, and it will
have no ending.
Then t hey shall be gods, because t hey have no end; t here-
fore shall t hey be from everlast ing t o everlast ing, because
t hey cont inue; t hen shall t hey be above all, because all
t hings are subject unt o t hem. Then shall t hey be gods,
because t hey have all power, and t he angels are subject t o
t hem. (Doctri ne and the Covenants 132:20)
It is evident , t herefore, t hat t he deificat ion of Mormon
t heology presupposes an infinit e number of gods, each
beget t ing subordinat e gods, of which t he human race rep-
resent s just anot her link in t he endless chain of gods
(Deificat ion, Mormonism, and t he Early Church).
In an online citation of an entry from the Encyclopedi a of
T h e G o d
o f th e M o rm o n s
wo rld was o n ce a m an ,
ju st as we are ; th i s i s
th e i r d o ctri n e o f d e i ty.
A s G o d , an e xalte d m an ,
i s n o w, m an m ay b e co m e ;
th i s i s th e i r d o ctri n e
o f d e i fi cati o n .
Mormoni sm, one Mormon apologist attempts to explain
the connection between deification and happiness. We are
led to believe that, according to the Book of Mormon,
Gods plan of salvation is the great plan of happiness, an
enterprise in which the happy God begets spirit children
with the intention that they will advance to the ecstatic
state of happy godhood (Carter).
Logically and nat urally, t he ult imat e desire of a loving
Supreme Being is t o help his children enjoy all t hat he
enjoys. For Lat t er-day Saint s, t he t erm godhood
denot es t he at t ainment of such a st at e.God has t he
great est capacit y for happiness. Thus, t o maximize joy in
ot hers, God desires t hem t o be as much
like Him as possible.Lat t er-day Saint s
believe t hat God achieved his exalt ed
rank by progressing much as man must
progress and t hat God is a perfect ed and
exalt ed man: God himself [in t he words
of Joseph Smit h] was once as we are
now, and is an exalt ed man, and sit s
ent hroned in yonder heavens. This is t he
great secret . (Cart er)
The Mormons desire t o propagat e t his
secret , informing t heir convert s of t his
doct rine: All of Gods spirit children
have wit hin t hem a divine nat ure wit h
t he pot ent ial t o become like him (Cart er).
R
egarding t his, we should pause t o consider t he most
famous of Mormon aphorisms, at t ribut ed t o Lorenzo
Snow: As man is, God once was; as God now is, man
may become. This conjoins t he doct rines of deit y and
deificat ion. The God of t he Mormons world was once a
man, just as we are; t his is t heir doct rine of deit y. As
God, an exalt ed man, is now, man may become; t his is
t heir doct rine of deificat ion. The t wo st and or fall
t oget her:
This concept cannot be split in t wo. That is, you cannot
have t he second half wit hout t he first . You cannot have
men becoming gods wit hout first recognizing t he fact t hat
God was once a man who also went t hrough t he process
of exalt at ion t o godhood. The t wo ideas go hand in hand,
and neit her exist s on it s own. The idea t hat men can
become gods is based upon t he idea t hat God and men
are of t he same species. This is t he heart and soul of t he
LDS concept . (Whit e 209)
That we may become as t he god of t his planet is because
he was once, on anot her planet , a man just as we are: t his
surely is t he core concept of Mormonism. This concept
and t he doct rines relat ed t o it have been subject t o t he
penet rat ing exposure by many able crit ics. The following
are represent at ive samples:
God is, in effect, 1) a contingent being, who was at one
time not God; 2) finite in knowledge (not truly omnis-
cient ), power (not omnipot ent ), and bei ng (not
omnipresent or immutable); 3) one of many gods; 4) a
corporeal (bodily) being, who physically dwells at a par-
t icular spat iot emporal locat ion and is t herefore not
omnipresent (as in the classical God); 5) a being who is
subject to the laws and principles of a beginningless uni-
verse wit h an infinit e number of ent it ies in it .
Mormonism teaches that God the Father is a resurrected,
exalted human being named Elohim who was at one
time not God. He was once a mortal man on another plan-
et who, through obedience to the precepts of hi s God,
eventually attained exalta-
tion, or godhood, himself
through eternal progres-
sion. (Beckwit h 51,
69-70)
The Mormon doctrines of
deit y and deificat ion are
grossly heretical; they are
neither Christian nor even
monot heist ic. No reader
should at t ribut e t hese
nefarious teachings to the
biblical truth of deification,
and Mormons should not
appeal to proper Christian
views of deification as support for their own. We reject the
Mormon doctrines of deity and deification as being con-
trary to the truth, an insult to the true God, and a snare
for unsuspecting and spiritually hungry persons.
Similar and Acceptable Views of Deification
There are t wo views of deificat ion t hat are similar t o our
own and t hat , given cert ain caveat s or qualificat ions, may
be considered accept able. The first of t hese views is pre-
sent ed by Paul Billheimer in t he first edit ion of Desti ned
for the Throne
7
; t he ot her accept able view is t he doct rine
of divinizat ion (t heosis) in East ern Ort hodox t heology.
Deification in Destined for the Throne
The original, unexpurgat ed edit ion of Billheimers vol-
ume cont ains st art ling and amazing insight s int o Gods
glorious plan and expect at ion for t he church as t he bride
of Christ . The t hesis of t he book is t hat t he onepurpose
of t he universe from all et ernit y is t he product ion and
preparat ion of an Et ernal Companion for t he Son, called
t he Bride, t he Lambs Wife (15). The bride consist s of
redeemed and regenerat ed humanit y, and redeemed
humani ty out ranks all ot her orders of creat ed beings in
t he universe, for t hrough t he new birt h a redeemed
human being becomes a bona fide member of t he original
The biblical Christ ians doct rine of God says He is et er-
nal, t he only God in t he universe, t he supreme creat or of
everyt hing out of not hing. He has always been and always
will be. The Mormon doct rine of God says He is pro-
gressive, having at t ained His exalt ed st at e by advancing
along a pat h t hat His children (Mormons) are permit t ed
t o follow.Briefly st at ed, t he hist oric Mormon view of
God includes t he following: Godt he heavenly Fat her
is really an exalt ed man. He is one of a species t hat
Mormons call gods. These gods exist ed before t he heav-
enly Fat her who rules Eart h t oday. In Mormon t hinking,
God is not t he et ernal creat or, t he first cause of every-
t hing. He was creat ed or begot t en Himself by anot her
god who had been creat ed and begot t en
by anot her god who had been creat ed
and begot t en by someone else, ad infini-
t um. (Ridenour 138)
Christ ianit y has t aught monot heism from
it s foundat ion, t he belief in t he exist ence
of one God. Mormonism believes in t he
exist ence of a pluralit y of gods. Accord-
ing t o Mormonism, t here are an infinit e
number of planet s like eart h in t he uni-
verse, each wit h t heir god or gods who
were once men who have evolved int o
godhood. Mormon t heologian and
Apost le Bruce McConkie st at es, [A]
pluralit y of gods exist t here is an infi-
nit e number of holy personages, drawn from worlds wit h-
out number, who have passed on t o exalt at ion and are
t hus gods.Alt hough t hey believe t hat numerous gods
exist , Mormons consider t hemselves t o be monot heist s
because t hey focus t heir worship exclusively on t he God-
head of t his eart h. Wit h t his being t he case, a more accu-
rat e descript ion of Mormon pract ice is henothei sm, a form
of polyt heism t hat st resses a cent ral deit y. (Zukeran 1)
Classical theism teaches that God never changes in His
essent ial nat ure. God has always been God.
Mormonism, on the other hand, teaches that God is a
being who has not always been God. God was once a man
on another planet who, by the laws of eternal progression
and through obedience to the precepts of his God, even-
tually attained Godhood himself.In the most radical
break with classical theism, the Mormons return to poly-
theism.Mormonism teaches that there exists more than
one God. In fact, according to Mormon theology, an indi-
vidual can progress to Godhood if he or she obeys the
appropriat e precept s of Mormonism. (Beckwit h and
Parrish 43, 45, 113)
Most people, including some Mormons, are unaware of
how radically the Mormon view of God differs from the
picture of God that one finds in the Bible and traditional
Christian theology.Current LDS doctrine teaches that
T h e M o rm o n d o ctri n e s
o f d e i ty an d d e i fi cati o n
are g ro ssly h e re ti cal;
th e y are n e i th e r C h ri sti an
n o r e ve n m o n o th e i sti c.
N o re ad e r sh o u ld attri b u te
th e se n e fari o u s te ach i n g s
to th e b i b li cal tru th
o f d e i fi cati o n .
cosmic family, next of kin t o t he Trinit y (15-16).
Alt hough redeemed human beings do not become mem-
bers of a family of Gods, it is nonet heless t rue t hat God
has exalt ed redeemed humanit y t o such a sublime height
t hat it is impossible for Him t o elevat e t hem furt her
wit hout breaching t he Godhead (16). The Godhead, we
may be assured, cannot and will not be breached, since
t here is a limit , det ermined by God according t o His
Godhood and set by God in His economy. Thus, t here is
no need t o be alarmed at Billheimers st at ement s.
T
he cent ral t heological port ion of Desti ned for the
Throne is chapt er t wo, Gods Purpose for t he
Church: Supreme Rank. In order t o grasp t he basic con-
cept unfolded here, it is necessary, and profit able, t o
quot e from t his chapt er at lengt h:
Creat ed originally in t he image of God, redeemed
humanit y has been elevat ed by means of a di vi nely con-
cei ved geneti c process known as t he new birt h t o t he
highest rank of creat ed beings. (33)
No angel can ever become a congenit al member of t he
family of God. They are creat ed, not generat ed, beings;
t herefore, no angel can become a blood-born son of God.
Angels can never have t he herit age, t he genes of God.
They can never be part akers of t he divine nat ure. (34)
He that is joined to the
Lord is one spirit [1 Cor.
6:17]. This union goes
beyond a mere formal,
functional, or idealistic har-
mony or rapport. It is an
organic unity, an organic
relat ionship of personali-
ties (Sauer). Through the
new birth we become bona
fide members of the origi-
nal cosmic family (Eph.
3:15), act ual generat ed
sons of God (1 John 3:2),
part akers of t he divine
nature (2 Peter 1:4), begotten by Him, impregnated
with His genes, called the seed or sperma of God
(1 John 5:1, 18 and 1 Peter 1:3, 23), and bearing His
heredity. Thus, through the new birthand I speak rever-
entlywe become next of kin to the Trinity, a kind of
extension of the Godhead. (35)
Not hing can ever dim t he fact t hat infinit y separat es t he
Creat or from t he creat ed. Christ is t he et ernally unique
and only begot t en Son, t he bright ness of [Gods] glory,
and t he express image of his person (Heb. 1:3). But
from all et ernit y God purposed t o have a family circle of
His ver y own, not only creat ed but also generated by His
T h e G o d h e ad ,
we m ay b e assu re d ,
can n o t an d wi ll n o t
b e b re ach e d ,
si n ce th e re i s a li m i t,
d e te rm i n e d b y G o d
acco rd i n g to H i s G o d h o o d
an d se t b y G o d
i n H i s e co n o m y.
own life, incorporat ing His own seed, sperma, genes,
or heredit y. (36)
Christ is t he Prot ot ype aft er which all ot her sons are
being fashioned.This is Gods purpose in t he plan of
redempt iont o produce, by means of t he new birt h, an
ent irely new and unique species, exact replicas of His Son
wit h whom He will share His glory and His dominion,
and who will const it ut e a royal progeny. (36-37)
While we recognize the infinite distinction between the
Eternal Son and the many sons born into the family, yet
such is their heredity as the result of the new birth that He
recognizes them as bona fide blood-brothers. And accord-
ing to 1 John 3:2 that is just what they are, true genetic
sons of God and therefore blood-brothers of the Son.
Christ is the divine Prototype after which this new species
is being made. They are to be exact copies of Him, true
genotypes, as utterly li ke Hi m as i t i s possi ble for the fi ni te
to be li ke the Infi ni te. As sons of God, begotten by Him,
incorporating into their fundamental being and nature the
very genes of God, they rank above all other created
beings and are elevated to the most sublime height possi-
ble short of becoming members of the Trinity itself. (37)
How should we respond to these startling yet altogether
Scripture-based statements? The author himself confesses
that the theses advanced and expounded
in the book were, at first, so startlingly
unconventional and sometimes so over-
whelmingly astounding to the writer as
to stagger his imagination and boggle his
mind (7). This is often what happens
when students of the Word drop their
opinions and presupposit ions and,
emerging from under the veils of tradi-
tional (as opposed to biblical) theology,
have the openness and the boldness to
acknowledge what the Bible is actually
saying when it speaks of the believers
being begotten of God to be children of
God. Since Billheimer had to cope with
the mind-boggling significance and impli-
cations of the divine revelation concerning our status as
sons of God, he says that it would not be surprising if oth-
ers find the viewpoints equally astonishing (7).
Walter Martin, at one time alleged by some to be an
expert on cults, was not astonishedhe was stumbled. At
least this is my inference after a careful reading of Ye
Shall Be As Gods (hereafter cited as Gods). Employing
the tactic of guilt by association, Gods closely associates
Billheimer with Herbert W. Armstrong, identifying the
views of the former with the concept of the latterthat it
is possible for redeemed men and women to be members
of the god family, and, in effect, members of the god
class (95). Failing to give Desti ned for the Throne the
respect it is due (as exemplified by Billy Grahams fore-
word), Gods hast ily and wit hout proper object ive
analysis renders t he judgment t hat t he t eaching in
Desti ned for the Throne puts man on the throne and
makes him an extension of the Trinity! (95). Insisting
that Billheimers terminology is imprecise and virtually
ignoring his guarded and careful mode of expression and
the strong declaration regarding the infinite distinction
between the Creator and the creature and between the
eternal Son and the many sons, Gods presses on with its
accusations and assertions: The finite (man) cannot be an
extension of the infinite (the Trinity), since any extension
of the Trinitys nature would be by definition deity. And
yet, Billheimer proposes just that (94). In fact, the con-
trary is the case as Billheimer, on the one hand, takes
seriously the divine revelation concerning the children of
God and, on the other hand, exercises care in maintaining
the Creator-creature distinction and disparity.
T
he crucial issue, I wish t o suggest , is t hat whereas
Gods denies t he spirit ual realit y of t he believers
regenerat ion, Desti ned for the Throne fait hfully upholds
it . Gods insist s, cont rary t o Script ure, t hat t he believ-
ers are not hing more t han Gods adopt ed children
whereas Desti ned for the Throne t est ifies, according t o
Script ure, t hat we have act ually been born of God and
t ruly are regenerat ed, begot t en, children of God.
Billheimer believes what t he Bible
reveals regarding regenerat ion and is
exercised t o present , as much as possi-
ble, t he full significance of t erms such
as born of God, chi ldren of God, sons of
God, and partakers of the di vi ne nature.
In ot her words, he t akes t he biblical
vocabulary seriously:
Alt hough t he inspired words of t he
Biblical vocabulary are so pregnant wit h
unequivocal meaning, t he nat ural mind is
overwhelmed by t heir implicat ions and is
t empt ed t o qualify t hem by t reat ing
t hem as fant asy, purely as symbols, or as
figures of speech. This is t he way unbelief frequent ly
emasculat es t he Word of God. (39)
This t ouches a key point : Regarding regenerat ion, what
we meet in Gods is unbelief, and what we meet in
Desti ned for the Throne is beliefgenuine belief in God
and in His inspired, infallible words.
Doubt less t he realit y behind t he Biblical t erms is far
beyond t he capacit y of human imaginat ion, yet these
terms are vali d as far as the mi nd can comprehend. To
accept t hem as less t han a fait hful represent at ion of heav-
enly realit y is t o rob t hem of t heir cont ent . (39)
C e n tral to Easte rn
O rth o d o x th e o lo g y i s
i ts d o ctri n e o f th e o si s.
T h e o si s d e n o te s
an o n g o i n g p ro ce ss
o f san cti fi cati o n an d
tran sfo rm ati o n th ro u g h
wh i ch th e b e li e ve r i n
C h ri st b e co m e s G o d .
The open, fair-minded reader of Desti ned for the Throne
will not be robbed but will be enriched by t he aut hors
at t empt t o proclaim t o Gods people t he realit y and prac-
t icalit y of t heir regenerat ion by which t hey become
children of God and brot hers of Christ members of t he
household of God.
Divinization in Eastern Orthodox Theology
Central to Eastern Orthodox theology is its doctrine of
divinization, or theosis. Theosis, (also called divinization
or deification) was one of the most important of early
Christian doctrines.It means parti ci pati ng i n, and par-
taki ng of, Gods Di vi ni ty (Our True, Final Hope). A
web page devoted to theosis explains,
The Holy Script ures and t he saint s t each us t hat t he goal
of life is t o become godt o part icipat e in His divinit y
t hrough His energies. This process of becoming is not h-
ing less t han t he realizat ion of God's plan for our salvat ion
and t he at t ainment of our full pot ent ial as humans.This
process of becoming god, of const ant conversion, of par-
t icipat ion in His divine energies, is t heosis. (Theosis)
Robert G. Stephanopoulos confirms,
The Ort hodox Christ ian doct rine of theosi s emphasizes
t hat t he work of Christ has est ablished t he object ive con-
dit ions for t he believers
part icipat ion in t he divine
life. This pat h of et hical
and spirit ual t ransforma-
t ion and illuminat ion is
seen as a gradual, dynamic
process of growt h and ele-
vat ion t o God by fait h
under grace. (159)
From this we can see that
by definition theosis, div-
inization, denotes an ongo-
ing process of sanctification
and transformation through
which the believer in Christ becomes God. Timothy Ware
observes,
Such, according t o t he t eaching of t he Ort hodox Church,
is t he final goal at which every Christ ian must aim: t o
become god, t o at t ain theosi s, deificat ion or diviniza-
t ion. For Ort hodoxy our salvat ion and redempt ion mean
our deificat ion. (231)
It is encouraging t o see t hat various non-Ort hodox
Christians find this notion agreeable. Gretchen Passantino
speaks of the nonheretical Eastern Orthodox theology
of theosis (4). Hank Hanegraaff says, The Eastern
Orthodox churchteaches that Christians are deified in
the sense that they are adopted as sons of God, indwelt by
the Spirit of God, and brought into communion with God
which ult imat ely leads t o glorificat ion (110-111).
Contrasting this view of deification with the little gods
doctrine, Hanegraaff goes on to say, They [the Orthodox]
do not teach that mere humans are reproductions or exact
duplicates of God. Thus their doctrine of deification is
consistent with Scripture and in keeping with a monothe-
istic world view (111). It is evident that in Hanegraaff s
estimation one may hold to and promulgate a doctrine
of deification that comports with the Bible and that is
in harmony with monotheism. Robert M. Bowman, Jr.
is somewhat more cautious
but still positive. He in-
forms his readers that a
monot heist ic doct rine of
deification was taught by
many of the early church
fathers, and is believed by
many Christians today, in-
cluding the entire Eastern
Orthodox church (1). It is
worthwhile to cite Bow-
man in more detail:
In keeping wit h monot he-
ism, t he East ern Ort hodox
does not t each t hat men will lit erally become gods
(which would be polyt heism). Rat her, as did many of t he
church fat hers, t hey t each t hat men are deified in t he
sense t hat t he Holy Spirit dwells wit hin Christ ian believ-
ers and t ransforms t hem int o t he image of God in
Christ .The subst ance of what t he East ern Ort hodox
are seeking t o express when t hey speak of deificat ion is
act ually fait hful t o t he monot heist ic world view.The
doct rine int ended by t his language in t he cont ext of t he
t eachings of t he fat hers and of East ern Ort hodoxy is quit e
biblical. (1)
Although he identifies what he thinks are weaknesses in
theosis theology, Robert V. Rakestraw nevertheless admits
that its strengths are considerable and concludes,
The doct rine of divinizat ion merit s t he ongoing at t ent ion
of Script ure scholars, t heologians, and past ors who desire
t o provide significant resources t o Christ ians in t heir
quest t o become like God. For t his is indeed why we
were creat ed. (269)
Finally, Gary Evans, while properly decrying certain sug-
gested means of theosis, bears witness to its truthfulness,
especially as it is embodied in Eastern Orthodox theology:
In it s t heology concerning deificat ion, East ern Ort hodoxy
point s t he believer t o t he apex of Christ ian purpose and
C h ri sti an s sh o u ld o p e n
to th e Lo rd an d to th e
S cri p tu re s to co n si d e r
th e tru th th at b e li e ve rs
i n C h ri st can an d wi ll
b e co m e G o d wi th o u t
ce asi n g to b e h u m an
an d wi th o u t e n cro ach i n g
u p o n th e G o d h e ad .
dest iny. It not only fait hfully maint ains t he not ion of
deificat ion cont ained in Script ure, but it also art iculat es
t heosis t hought fully and carefully. It ascends t o t he peak
in revelat ion and insight . (56)
Evidence of t he carefulness, t hought fulness, and fait hful-
ness in Ort hodox t heology wit h respect t o t heosis is
provided by Ware in his t reat ment of t he subject :
The idea of deificat ion must always be underst ood in t he
light of t he dist inct ion bet ween Gods essence and His
energies. Union wit h God means union wit h t he divine
energies, not t he divine essence: t he Ort hodox Church,
while speaking of deificat ion and union,
reject s all forms of pant heism.
8
Closely relat ed t o t his is anot her point of
equal import ance. The myst ical union
bet ween God and humans is a t rue
union, yet in t his union Creat or and crea-
t ure do not become fused int o a single
being. Unlike t he east ern religions which
t each t hat humans are swallowed up in
t he deit y, Ort hodox myst ical t heology
has always insist ed t hat we humans,
however closely linked t o God, ret ain
our full personal int egrit y. The human
person, when deified, remains dist inct
(t hough not separat e) from God.Nor does t he human
person, when it becomes god, cease t o be human: We
remain creat ures while becoming god by grace, as Christ
remained God when becoming man by t he Incarnat ion.
The human being does not become God by nature, but is
merely a creat ed god, a god by graceor by status. (232)
There is much t o ponder here. It would be part icularly
beneficial for t hose who call t hemselves evangelical or
fundament al Christ ians t o open t o t he Lord and t o t he
Script ures t o consider, or reconsider, t he t rut h revealed in
t he Word t hat t he believers in Christ can and will become
God wit hout ceasing t o be human and wit hout encroach-
ing upon t he Godhead.
Becoming God according to the Economy of God
I hope t hat t he foregoing discussion will help t o preserve
us from any and all ext remes relat ed t o deificat ion and
prepare t he way for a present at ion, offered as a brief
sket ch or overview, of t he script ural revelat ion concerning
t he believers in Christ becoming God according t o t he
economy of God.
A Definition of Deification
Gods economy is Gods plan and arrangement to dis-
pense Himself into tripartite human beings as their life,
their life supply, and their everything to make them His
eternal, corporate expression, the Body of Christ, con-
summating in the New Jerusalem. The outworking of such
an economy implies that in Christ God must become man
so that in Christ man might become God in life, in nature,
in constitution, in appearance, and in expression but not in
the Godhead and not as an object of worship. We become
God in the sense of being born of God through regenera-
tion and then being saturated and permeated with God
until we are wholly sanctified, transformed, and con-
formed to the image of Christ, the firstborn Son of God.
This process of deification, of becoming God, neither
effaces our humanity nor alters our status as creatures. We
shall remain creatures and humans forever. Furthermore,
deification certainly does not mean that we shall be exalt-
ed to become part of the Godhead or that we shall share
Gods incommunicable attributes. After we have been
deified in full, we shall not be able to create out of noth-
ing, and we shall never be omnipotent, omniscient, or
omnipresent. Likewise, we shall not advance to the point
of self-existence, a condition unique to God. No matter
how much we may be like God, for eternity we shall be
dependent on Him for our being, perpetually eating of the
tree of life and drinking of the river of water of lifesigns,
unveiled for the last time in Revelation 22, of constantly
receiving the Triune God as our life supply. Although we
shall be wholly one with God, we shall never be wor-
shipped as God. Rather, we shall take the lead to worship
Him who lives for ever and
ever. We shall not be God
by nat ure but only by
grace. God is God in
Himself; we are God not in
ourselves but only in Him,
by Him, with Him, and
through Him.
This understanding of the
believers becoming God in
the economy of God is bal-
anced, for it sets forth the
full extent of our participa-
tion in Gods divinity and
also limits the degree of that participation even as it main-
tains the eternal distinction between the Triune God and
His redeemed, regenerated, transformed, and glorified
people. We shall become God in life and nature, yet we
shall not become God in His Godhood or Godhead. Thus,
there will never be more than the one true God over the
entire universe. Our deification will neither exalt us to the
position of Godhood nor will it diminish the Godhead.
We were created to become God (as defined above), but
we were not created as God. Genesis 2:7 does not mean
that God infused His substance into humanity at the time
of creation. In creation human beings do not possess the
T h e re wi ll n e ve r
b e m o re th an
th e o n e tru e G o d o ve r
th e e n ti re u n i ve rse .
O u r d e i fi cati o n wi ll
n e ve r e xalt u s to th e
p o si ti o n o f G o d h o o d
n o r wi ll i t d i m i n i sh
th e G o d h e ad .
eternal divine Spirit but only the created human spirit.
There is no divine spark or innate divine nature in man by
creation. This does not detract from the fact that human
beings were created in the image of God to express God
and as vessels to contain God; however, having the image
of God and being a vessel to contain God does not make
us God. We become God not by creation but by regener-
ation and transformation, and this was Gods intention in
creation. He created us that He might regenerate us and
thereby make us His children. Therefore, creation is for
deification via regeneration. Once again we see that we are
not God by nature or by any kind of natural process. We
who were created to contain God and express God
become God in Christ, through Gods salvation, and
according to Gods economy. In Christ God became man
that in Christ man might become God in life and in nature
but not in the Godhead for the producing and building up
of the Body of Christ to consummate the New Jerusalem.
This, in essence, is the truth concerning deification.
The Testimony of the Scriptures
To t his t rut h t he Script ures give abundant t est imony.
Some may immediat ely ask, Does t he Bible t each t hat
we can become God? The answer depends on what is
meant in saying t hat t he Bible t eaches somet hing. Perhaps
t he Script ures do not explicit ly say t hat we shall become
God. Neit her does t he Word explicit ly declare t hat God
is t riune; nevert heless, t he Bible reveals
t hat God is et ernally t riune, coexist ing
and coinhering as t he Fat her, t he Son,
and t he Spirit . Just as t he Bible reveals
t hat God is t riune, t he Word reveals
t hat t he believers in Christ are becom-
ing God by t he grace of God for t he
fulfillment of t he economy of God.
The beli evers i n Chri st are chi ldren of
God. Behold what manner of love t he
Fat her has given t o us, t hat we should
be called children of God; and we
are.Beloved, now we are children of
God (1 John 3:1-2). According t o t he
Script ures, how did we become children of God? The
only fait hful and accurat e answer is t hat we have been
born, begot t en, of God. It is a serious and grievous depar-
t ure from t he t rut h t o deny t his fact . But as many as
received Him, t o t hem He gave t he aut horit y t o become
children of God, t o t hose who believe int o His name,
who were begot t en not of blood, nor of t he will of t he
flesh, nor of t he will of man, but of God (John 1:12-13).
Children of God are begot t en of God, not adopt ed by
God. To underst and begotten here t o mean adopted is t o
avoid t he plain meaning of t he t ext .
This is not an isolat ed wit ness t o t he believers having
been begot t en of God. Everyone who pract ices right -
eousness also has been begot t en of Him (1 John 2:29).
Everyone who loves has been begot t en of God and
knows God (4:7). Everyone who loves Him who has
begot t en loves him also who has been begot t en of Him
(5:1). He brought us fort h by t he word of t rut h, pur-
posing t hat we might be a kind of first fruit s of His
creat ures (James 1:18). This refers t o t he divine birt h,
our regenerat ion (John 3:5, 6), which is carried out
according t o Gods et ernal purpose (Recovery Version,
James 1:18, not e 1). This divine birt h t ook place in our
spirit , which was creat ed by God for t his very purpose.
That which is born of t he Spirit is spirit (John 3:6), and
now t he Spirit Himself wit nesses wit h our spirit t hat we
are children of God (Rom. 8:16).
L
et t he t rut h be t rumpet ed: We have not been adopt -
ed by Godwe have been born of God! When our
spirit was born of t he Spirit t hrough t he word of God
(1 Pet . 1:23), we were born, begot t en, of God t o become
children of God. As t he Fat hers children, we have t he
Fat hers life, which is et ernal, and we have t he Fat hers
nat ure, which is divine. However, we do not have His
Fat herhood. Because we are children of God, we are t he
same as t he beget t ing God in life and in nat ure. Human
children have t he life and nat ure of t heir parent s, and t he
children of God have t he life and nat ure of t heir Fat her.
The only way t o avoid t his obvious t rut h is t o deny t he
realit y of regenerat ion. To believe t hat
we have been born of God t o be chil-
dren of God is t o believe t hat , in a
cert ain rest rict ed sense, we are God.
The beli evers i n Chri st are the brothers
of Chri st. This is another result of regen-
eration, the divine birth. Consider the
Lords word in John 20:17: Go to My
brothers and say to them, I ascend to
My Father and your Father, and My God
and your God. From Gods point of
view, we were regenerated through the
resurrection of Christ (1 Pet. 1:3), a
point that is relevant here because we
are attending to the speaking of Christ on the day of His
resurrection. In resurrection He could for the first time
call the disciples brothers and refer to His Father as their
Father:
Previously, t he most int imat e t erm t he Lord had used in
reference t o His disciples was friends (John 15:14-15).
But aft er His resurrect ion He began t o call t hem brot h-
ers, for t hrough His resurrect ion His disciples were
regenerat ed (1 Pet . 1:3) wit h t he divine life, which had
been released by His life-impart ing deat h, as indicat ed in
12:24. He was t he one grain of wheat t hat fell int o t he
ground and died and grew up t o bring fort h many grains
Wh e n o u r sp i ri t
was b o rn o f th e S p i ri t,
we we re b o rn o f G o d
to b e co m e ch i ld re n
o f G o d . A s th e Fath e r s
ch i ld re n , we h ave th e
Fath e rs li fe , wh i ch i s e te rn al,
an d th e Fath e r s n atu re ,
wh i ch i s d i vi n e .
for t he producing of t he one bread, which is His Body
(1 Cor. 10:17). He was t he Fat hers only Son, t he
Fat hers individual expression. Through His deat h and
resurrect ion t he Fat hers only begot t en became t he
First born among many brot hers (Rom. 8:29). His many
brot hers are t he many sons of God and are t he church
(Heb. 2:10-12), a corporat e expression of God t he Fat her
in t he Son. This is Gods ult imat e int ent ion. The many
brot hers are t he propagat ion of t he Fat hers life and t he
mult iplicat ion of t he Son in t he divine life. Hence, in t he
Lords resurrect ion Gods et ernal purpose is fulfilled.
(Recovery Version, John 20:17, not e 2)
The many brot hers of t he First born are t he same as t he
First born (not as t he only Begot t en) in life and nat ure;
t hrough incarnat ion He, who was divine, became human,
and t hrough resurrect ion t hey, who were human, became
divine. This t rut h, which implies deificat ion, is t he clear
revelat ion in Hebrews 2:11: For bot h He who sanct ifies
and t hose who are being sanct ified are all of One, for
which cause He is not ashamed t o call t hem brot hers.
The First born among many brot hers was born of God in
His humanit y in His resurrect ion (Rom. 1:3-4; Act s
13:33), and t he many sons, His many brot hers, were also
born in His resurrect ion. This is t he basis for t he expres-
sion are all of One. Christ and His many brot hers are of
t he same source. Bot h t he first born Son and t he many
sons of God are born of t he same Fat her God in resur-
rect ion (Act s 13:33; 1 Pet .
1:3) and have t he same
divine life and nat ure.
Hence, He is not ashamed
t o call t hem brot hers
(Recovery Version, Heb.
2:11, not e 1). This indi-
cat es deificat iont he pro-
cess of becoming God in
life and in nat ure which
begins wit h regenerat ion
t hrough resurrect ion. We
are act ual brot hers of
Christ , t he first born Son of
God, having t he same
Fat her (My Fat her and
your Fat her) and t he same life and nat ure. He is divine
and human; we are human and divine.
The beli evers i n Chri st are the household of God. So then
you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fel-
low citizens with the saints and members of the household
of God (Eph. 2:19). Members of the household of God
points to the house of God, the church. But if I delay, I
write that you may know how one ought to conduct him-
self in the house of God, which is the church of the living
God, the pillar and base of the truth. And confessedly,
great is the mystery of godliness (1 Tim. 3:15-16). As
Gods dwelling place, the church is both Gods house and
His household; Gods family is His dwelling place, and
Gods dwelling place is His family. Thus, the house and
the household are one thingthe believers. This house of
God is a spiritual house (1 Pet. 2:5), the reality of which
is in our spirit (Eph. 2:22).
T
his house, or household, consisting of the Father with
His many children, is the continuation and enlarge-
ment of the manifestation of God in the flesh which began
with the incarnation of Christ. Gods manifestation was
first in Christ as an individual expression in the flesh. The
relative pronoun who in 1 Timothy 3:16 implies that
Christ as the manifestation
of God in the flesh is the
mystery of godliness. First
Timothy 3:15-16 indicates
t hat not only Christ
Himself as the Head is the
manifest at ion of God in
the flesh but also that the
church as the Body is the
manifest at ion of God in
the flesh; this manifesta-
tion, both in Christ and in
the church, is the mystery
of godliness. From this we
may infer that God is man-
ifested in His household, the church, as His enlarged,
corporate expression in the flesh. The manifestation of
God in the flesh which began with Christ continues with
the church, which is the enlargement of the manifestation
of God in the flesh. This is the great mystery of godliness,
a mystery that implies and indicates deification, because
the house of God, His corporate manifestation in the
flesh, is composed of His regenerated children, who have
His life and nature for His expression. In this household,
the Father is God with the Godhead, and the members of
the household of God are God in life and in nature but not
in the Godhead. The churchs being the corporate mani-
festation of God in the flesh requires that God have a
family, regenerated by Him and possessing His life and
nature. The members of the household of God are there-
fore the deified (and being deified) children of God.
The beli evers i n Chri st are the many grai ns. Truly, t ruly,
I say t o you, Unless t he grain of wheat falls int o t he
ground and dies, it abides alone; but if it dies, it bears
much fruit (John 12:24). Through His incarnat ion,
Christ became a grain of wheat , wit h t he shell of His
humanit y concealing His divinit y. The Gospel of John
reveals t hat Christ died not only as t he Lamb of God t o
t ake away t he sin of t he world and t he fulfillment of t he
t ype of t he bronze serpent t o judge t he ruler of t his age
and t o dest roy t he devil, but also as t he grain of wheat
t hat fell int o t he ground and died t o release t he divine
T h e m an i fe stati o n o f G o d
i n th e fle sh wh i ch b e g an
wi th C h ri st co n ti n u e s
wi th th e ch u rch ,
wh i ch i s th e e n larg e m e n t
o f th e m an i fe stati o n
o f G o d i n th e fle sh .
T h i s i s th e g re at
m yste ry o f g o d li n e ss.
life. This is Christ in His life-releasing deat h. Who was
t his grain of wheat in 12:24? It was t he Word t hat became
flesh in 1:14, t hat is, God incarnat e, t he God-man. This
God-man, as a grain of wheat , died on t he cross t o release
t he divine life, signified by t he wat er t hat flowed out
from His pierced side (19:34), in order t o have a repro-
duct ion of Himself in t he much fruit , t he many grains
who, aft er t hey have been broken, blended, and baked in
fulfillment of t he t ype of t he meal offering, form t he one
loaf which signifies t he Body of Christ (1 Cor. 10:17).
The crucial point here is t hat t he many grains are t he
reproduct ion, increase, and mult iplicat ion of t he one
grain, t he God-man. The many grains in
John 12:24 are t he brot hers in 20:17,
bot h of which were brought fort h in
resurrect ion. This is not hing less t han
t he reproduct ion of God, t he increase,
mult iplicat ion, and enlargement of God
not in His Godhead (which is impos-
sible) for His economy. It cannot
reasonably be denied t hat t he many
grains are t he same in life and in nat ure
as t he one grain? The one grain is t he
Son of God; t he many grains are t he
sons of God. We hast en t o add, how-
ever, t hat t his reproduct ion of t he one
grain by no means imperils t he
Godhead of t he one grain, for t his cannot be communi-
cat ed t o t he many grains.
I
ask my readers not t o dismiss 12:24 as mere met aphor.
It is incumbent upon us t o ponder t he realit y of t he
Lords word. Was not t he one grain t he God-man? Did
He not reproduce Himself in t he many grains? Are t hese
many grains not t he same in life and in nat ure as t he one
grain? The answer t o all t hese quest ions is yes. We, t he
many grains, are t he same as t he one grain in life and in
nat ure, yet t he one grain has at t ribut es of deit y t hat can-
not be shared. This is deificat ion bot h in it s essence and
in it s limit at ion.
The beli evers are the branches of Chri st as the true vi ne.
The many grains in 12:24 are the branches in 15:5. In
verse 1 the Lord Jesus unequivocally declares, I am the
true vine. This true vine (the Son) with its branches (the
believers in the Son) is the organism of the Triune God in
Gods economy. This organism grows with His riches and
expresses His divine life (Recovery Version, John 15:1,
note 1). Christ with the believers, the vine with the
branches, is a single organism in Gods economy. Consider
the implications of this. Contrary to the opinions of some
t heologians, t he vine in John 15 is not merely a
metaphorit is a profound reality and a sign, or symbol,
of Gods entire economy. Actually, the true vine is the
divine economy.
The vine signifies the spreading of Christ, the extension of
God in Christ not in the Godhead but in the economy of
God. As the vine, Christ is growing. In Himself as the eter-
nal, infinite God, Christ does not need to grow, cannot
grow, and does not in fact grow. But in Gods economy this
vine must grow. The thought here is similar to Colossians
2:19, which speaks of the Body of Christ growing with the
growth of God. God grows not in Himself but in the Body,
causing the growth of the Body. In like manner, Christ does
not grow, spread, and increase in Himself, but He does
grow, spread, and increase in the vine, in the organism in
the divine economy. In particular, the vine grows in and
through the branches, which are indisputably the exten-
sions of the vine and thus must be the
same as the vine in life and in nature.
I
f we know the significance of being
branches in the vine, we shall see that
the vine with the branches in John 15
implies deification. To be a branch signi-
fies that Christ is our life. The branch
has no life in itself; rather, the life of the
vine is the life in the branch. This life
the life that has made us branchesis
the divine, eternal, uncreated life received
through regeneration. To be a branch
also signifies that we are parts of Christ
in an organic union wit h Him. Since
Christ is the vine, the branches, as parts of the vine, are
parts of Christ. We not only have Christ in us as our life,
but we are in Him and thus are parts of Him. Moreover,
to be a branch signifies that Christ is being wrought into
us (Gal. 4:19; Eph. 3:17). Having Christ as our life, being
parts of Christ, and having Christ wrought into usall
these imply deification. Apart from being born of God to
have His life and nature, we cannot have Christ as our life
or be parts of Christ or have Christ wrought into us. The
branches of the vine, therefore, are the deified believers in
Christ. To be a branch is to be Godnot in His deity but
in His life and nature. Once again, this is a matter of regen-
erat ion and t he t remendous difference it makes in t he lives
of believers. Because we have been born of God, we have
t he life and nat ure of God, and in t his sense we are God.
The beli evers i n Chri st, bei ng chi ldren of God, have the
di vi ne seed i n them. Scripture is not silent on this matter
of the seed of God. The seed in Matthew 13:4 and Mark
4:26 is Christ as the word sown into our inner being for
the growth and development of the kingdom of God. The
seed in 1 Peter 1:23 is a container of life.
The word of God, as t he incorrupt ible seed, cont ains
Gods life. Hence, it is living and abiding. Through t his
word we were regenerat ed. It is Gods living and abiding
word of life t hat conveys Gods life int o our spirit for our
regenerat ion. (Recovery Version, 1 Pet . 1:23, not e 2)
To b e a b ran ch si g n i fi e s
th at we are p arts o f C h ri st
i n an o rg an i c u n i o n
wi th H i m . S i n ce C h ri st i s
th e vi n e , th e b ran ch e s,
as p arts o f th e vi n e ,
are p arts o f C h ri st.
We are i n H i m an d
th u s are p arts o f H i m .
In 1 John 3:9 the seed is the divine life itself: Everyone
who has been begotten of God does not practice sin,
because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because
he has been begotten of God. This mysterious seed
denotes Gods life, which we received of God when we
were begotten of Him. This life, as the divine seed, abides
in every regenerated believer (Recovery Version, 1 John
3:9, note 3). Speaking reverently, we may say that in this
seed is not only the law of Gods life (Rom. 8:2) but the
gene and the DNA of God in His economy. This seed,
this gene, should grow and develop within us until we are
mature in the divine life and are conformed to the image
of the firstborn Son. Our Christian life began with our
receiving the divine seed;
this was the beginning of
our deification. Now the
seed must develop accord-
ing to the law of its life and
cause Christ to be formed
within us to such an extent
that in every possible way
we are the same as He for
Gods corporat e expres-
sion; this is the advance-
ment and consummation of
our deification.
The beli evers i n Chri st wi ll
be the bri de of Chri st. If we read John 3 carefully, we shall
realize t hat regenerat ion is for t he bride of Christ . We
have been born of t he Spirit in our spirit , receiving et er-
nal life, so t hat we may ent er int o t he kingdom of God
and become t he bride of Christ , His increase. He who
has t he bride is t he bridegroom.He must increase
(vv. 29-30). The bride of Christ in verse 29 is t he
increase of Christ in verse 30. This indicat es t hat if Christ
is t o have a bride prepared for His et ernal marriage, He
must increase by dispensing Himself int o His chosen and
redeemed people, regenerat ing t hem t o become part s of
His bride as His increase in life and nat ure. The bride is a
living composit ion of regenerat ed persons, of t hose who
have been born of God t o receive t he life of God. This
t oo implies deificat ion.
T
he t ype of Eve in Genesis 2 reveals t hat Christ , t ypi-
fied by Adam, cannot join Himself t o someone who
is not bone of His bone and flesh of His flesh. His wife
must be t he same as He is in every possible way short of
t he Godhead. This is reasonable and logical; it is also nec-
essary. If Christ were t o join Himself t o one dissimilar t o
Himself, t hat would be an improper and st range union.
Adam could not be joined t o anyt hing ot her t han his
count erpart . In like manner, Christ cannot be joined t o
t hose who are simply human and do not have t he divine
life and nat ure. Christ is divine and human, and His wife
must also be divine and human; t hen t he t wo, Christ and
His count erpart , being t he same in life and in nat ure, can
be joined and enjoy a blissful married life for et ernit y.
This requires t hat His wife, a composit ion of believers,
becomes God in life and in nat ure. Christ is God becom-
ing man t o be our Husband, and we are men becoming
God t o be His wife. This is a st ory of a loving, personal,
and int imat e process t hrough which we, t he believers,
become God for t he bride of Christ .
The beli evers are i n the local churches whi ch are si gni fi ed
by the golden lampstands. The churches, not t he believers
individually, are t he golden lampst ands in Revelat ion 1,
but t he believers are t he component s of t he churches and
t hus are part s of t he lampst ands. The golden lampst and
signifies t he Triune God. The pure gold subst ance signi-
fies God t he Fat her in His divine nat ure (Exo. 25:31); t he
st and signifies Christ t he Son as t he embodiment of t he
Fat her (2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15; 2:9); and t he lamps signify
God t he Spirit as t he seven Spirit s of God for t he expres-
sion of t he Fat her in t he Son (Exo. 25:37; Rev. 4:5). The
golden lampst ands in Revelat ion 1 signify t he local
churches as t he reproduct ion of Christ and t he reprint of
t he Spirit . The lampst and in Exodus 25 signifies Christ as
t he embodiment of God; t he lampst and in Zechariah 4
signifies t he sevenfold int ensified, life-giving Spirit as t he
realit y of Christ (Rev. 5:6); and t he lampst ands are t he
reprint , t he reproduct ion, of t he pneumat ic Christ , t he
Christ who is t he life-giving Spirit . Since t he church
is what t he Triune God is
in His nat ure, form, and
expression, t o be t he lamp-
st and in realit y and pract i-
calit y requires t hat we
become God in His life
and nat ure for His expres-
sion. We do not become
t he Triune God; inst ead,
we are const it ut ed wit h
t he Triune God in His
economy t o become His
expression signified by t he
seven golden lampst ands.
The overcomi ng beli evers wi ll be pi llars i n the temple of
God. He who overcomes, him I will make a pillar in t he
t emple of My God (Rev. 3:12). We should underst and
t his in light of Revelat ion 21:22: I saw no t emple in it ,
for t he Lord God t he Almight y and t he Lamb are it s
t emple. The t emple of My God is t he Lord God t he
Almight y and t he Lamb, and t he overcomers are made
pillars in, and t hus become a part of, t he t emple which is
God Himself. For t he overcomers t o be pillars in t he t em-
ple means t hat t hey will be pillars in God. This involves
being mingled wit h God, const it ut ed wit h God, and built
int o God. In brief, t o be a pillar in t he t emple of God is
t o be made God in life and nat ure.
Fo r th e o ve rco m e rs
to b e p i llars
i n th e te m p le
m e an s th at th e y
wi ll b e p i llars i n G o d .
T h i s i n vo lve s b e i n g
m i n g le d wi th G o d ,
co n sti tu te d wi th G o d ,
an d b u i lt i n to G o d .
The beli evers wi ll be the New Jerusalem. The New
Jerusalem is not a material city, it is not heaven, and it is
not a place; the New Jerusalem is a corporate person, the
processed and consummat ed Triune God and His
redeemed, regenerated, transformed, and glorified tripar-
tite elect becoming one entity. In Gods economy, both
God and the believers must become the New Jerusalem.
God becoming the New Jerusalem is a matter of God
becoming man to be the temple in which the redeemed
will dwell. Man becoming the New Jerusalem is a matter
of man becoming God to be a tabernacle in which the
redeeming God will dwell. If God did not become man,
and if the believers do not become God, then Gods econ-
omy will not have a consummation. Gods ultimate goal is
the New Jerusalem, and for this He became man. Our
ultimate goal is also the New Jerusalem, and for this we
must become God. As we become the New Jerusalem, we
shall become jasperthe appearance of God (Rev. 21:11;
4:3). In order to have the appearance of God, we must
become God; otherwise, our appearance will be a coun-
terfeit. Thus, we are being deified for the New Jerusalem,
Gods eternal, consummate corporate expression.
The Process of Becoming God
In at least a preliminary way, we have offered a definition,
or a description, of what it means for us to become God,
and we have also considered, admittedly in an introducto-
ry way, some aspects of the scriptural
testimony to the truth of our deification,
of our becoming the same as God not in
the Godhead but in life, in nature, and in
expression. Now we proceed to the
process of becoming God.
The beli evers i n Chri st become God i n
and through thei r organi c uni on wi th
Chri st. The phrase i n Chri st (2 Cor.
5:17; 1 Cor. 1:30; Gal. 3:28) indicat es
an organic union wit h Christ . We have
believed int o Christ (Phil. 1:29), and
now we are one wit h Him. The believ-
er has an organic union wit h Christ
t hrough believing int o Him. To believe int o Christ is t o
have our being merged int o His t hat we t wo may be one
organically (Recovery Version, not e 1). Not only have
we believed int o Christ we also have been bapt ized
int o Christ (Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27). Through fait h and
bapt ism we are in Him and may now live in t he organic
union wit h Him. We are one spirit wit h Him (1 Cor.
6:17).
We are in Christ because we have been graft ed int o Him
(Rom. 11:17, 24). We were creat ed by God in such a way
t hat He and we could be graft ed t oget her t hrough fait h
and bapt ism:
Graft ing produces an organic union.It [graft ing] is t he
unit ing of t wo lives as one so t hat t hey may share one
mingled life and one living. Such a mingling of life t akes
place when t wo similar yet different lives [in our case, t he
divine and t he human] pass t hrough deat h (cut t ing) and
resurrect ion (growt h). This depict s our union wit h
Christ . (Recovery Version, Rom. 11:17, not e 1)
[Growing together with Him] denotes an organic union in
which growth takes place, so that one partakes of the life
and characteristics of the other. In the organic union with
Christ, whatever Christ passed through has become our
history. His death and resurrection are now ours because
we are in Him and are organically joined to Him. This is
grafting (11:24). Such a grafting (1) discharges all our neg-
ative elements, (2) resurrects our God-created faculties,
(3) uplifts our faculties, (4) enriches our faculties, and (5)
saturates our entire being to transform us. (6:5, note 1)
To see this is to understand the organic process in the
divine life by which we become God. We have been cut
out of Adam and the old creation and have been grafted
into Christ to become a new creation. Everything we have,
we have in Him; apart from Him we are nothing, we have
nothing, and we can do nothing. But as we remain, abide,
in Him, the converse is true; all that He is and has is ours,
and we are enriched, made full, in Him in every way pos-
sible. We remain human, for our God-created humanity
has been redeemed and is being uplifted.
The more we live in Christ, experiencing
and enjoying our organic union with
Him, the more the riches that are in
Him as the vine flow into us as the
branches. On the one hand, the cross,
the effectiveness of which is an element
of the all-inclusive Spirit, discharges all
our negative elements. On the other
hand, the flowing divine life resurrects,
uplifts, and enriches our God-created
faculties, bringing God into them and
t hem int o God. Furt hermore, our
redeemed tripartite being is gradually
permeat ed and sat urat ed wit h God.
Eventually, in the organic union with
Christ, we become God. We are God in life and in nature
only i n Hi m; we will never be independent gods, exer-
cising divine powers and prerogatives. Outside of Christ,
apart from Christ, and without Christ, we are not and
never will be God in life and in nature. He alone is God in
Himselfwe are God in Him. We become God only by
participation, not by nature. Through union with Christ,
we become by grace what God is by nature (Orthodox
Study Bible 561). It is our union with Christ that enables
us to pass through the process of becoming God, and it is
our union with Christ that preserves and maintains what
we are and what we shall become in Him.
We are G o d i n li fe an d
i n n atu re only in Him;
we wi ll n e ve r b e
i n d e p e n d e n t g o d s,
e xe rci si n g d i vi n e p o we rs
an d p re ro g ati ve s. A p art
fro m C h ri st, we are n o t
an d n e ve r wi ll b e G o d
i n li fe an d i n n atu re .
The beli evers i n Chri st become God through regenerati on.
The analogy wit h human birt h is bot h illust rat ive and
inst ruct ive. How did we become human beings? The
answer, of course, is by birt h. We were generat ed by our
human parent s t o become t he same as our parent s
humanin t heir life and nat ure but not in t heir person or
parent hood. We were born, generat ed, t o be human in life
and in nat ure. The principle is t he same wit h our becom-
ing God t hrough regenerat ion. We were born,
regenerat ed, t o be divine in life and in nat ure. By our first
birt h we became man; by our second birt h we became
God. We were regenerat ed of our Fat her t o be t he same
as He isdivinein life and in nat ure but not in His per-
son or Fat herhood.
The Bible clearly, repeat edly, and emphat ically speaks of
t he believers being born of God. (Many verses are refer-
enced above relat ed t o t he children of God.) We have
become children of Godbegot t enof God (John
1:12-13). Does t his not refer t o an act ual becoming by
means of an act ual beget t ing? If not , t hen t o what does
t his refer? It cert ainly does not refer t o adopt ion. Just as
we were begot t en of our human fat her t o be human chil-
dren wit h a human life and nat ure, so we were begot t en
of our divine Fat her t o be divine children wit h a divine
life and nat ure (in addit ion t o our human life and nat ure,
which we ret ain aft er regenerat ion). The point hereand
it cannot be overemphasizedis t hat we have t ruly been
begot t en of God t o be His
real, act ual, genuine chil-
dren possessing His life
and nat ure. We are called
children of God because
we are children of God.
D
eification begins with
and, in our spiritual
experience, is based upon
regeneration. We have been
born of God, and there-
fore, we are God in life and
nature. We affirm deifica-
tion through regeneration
and deification based upon regeneration. Those who deny
deification must also deny regeneration. Whereas some
deny both, we declare both. We, the regenerated children
of God, are God in life and in nature but not in the
Godhead. Through regenerating us God does not forfeit
His unique Godhead; by being regenerated we do not
attain the Godhead. Through regeneration we are God
without the Godhead and without the attributes that for-
ever belong to Him alone.
The beli evers i n Chri st become God through organi c salva-
ti on. By organi c salvati on we mean salvation in the divine
life, as revealed in Romans 5:10: For if we, being enemies,
were reconciled to God through the death of His Son,
much more we will be saved in His life, having been rec-
onciled. This word indicates that the complete salvation
of God has two aspectsthe judicial aspect and the
organic aspect.
9
The judicial aspect, which is according to
the righteousness of God and which fulfills the righteous
requirements of His law for sinners, is for sinners to be
forgiven (Luke 24:47), washed (Heb. 1:3), justified (Rom.
3:24-25), reconciled to God (5:10), and sanctified posi-
tionally (1 Cor. 1:2; Heb. 13:12). The judicial aspect is
focused on redemption. The organic aspect is through
the life of God and accomplishes Gods purpose in the
believers according to His eternal intention and hearts
desire. The organic aspect is
focused on life. Concerning
both aspects Romans 5:10
is pivotal:
Verse 10 of t his chapt er
point s out t hat Gods full
salvat ion revealed in t his
book consist s of t wo sec-
t ions: one sect ion is t he
redempt ion accomplished
for us by Christ s deat h,
and t he ot her sect ion is t he
saving afforded us by
Christ s life. The first four
chapt ers of t his book discourse comprehensively regard-
ing t he redempt ion accomplished by Christ s deat h,
whereas t he last t welve chapt ers speak in det ail concern-
ing t he saving afforded by Christ s life. Before 5:11, Paul
shows us t hat we are saved because we have been
redeemed, just ified, and reconciled t o God. However, we
have not yet been saved t o t he ext ent of being sanct ified,
t ransformed, and conformed t o t he image of Gods Son.
Redempt ion, just ificat ion, and reconciliat ion, which are
accomplished out side of us by t he deat h of Christ ,
redeem us object ively; sanct ificat ion, t ransformat ion, and
conformat ion, which are accomplished wit hin us by t he
working of Christ s life, save us subject ively. Object ive
redempt ion redeems us posit ionally from condemnat ion
and et ernal punishment ; subject ive salvat ion saves us dis-
posit ionally from our old man, our self, and our nat ural
life. (Recovery Version, Rom. 5:10, not e 2)
R
egeneration is the beginning, the initial step, in Gods
organic salvation, to be followed, if we are normal in
our spirit ual experience, by sanct ificat ion, renewing,
transformation, conformation, and glorification. To be
sanctified is to be saturated with the holy nature of God
until we are holy in our constitution and disposition. Since
God alone is holy, to become holy is to become God. To
be renewed is to have the old element discharged from
our soul and replaced by a new elementthe element of
the divine newness (Rev. 21:5). Since God Himself is
T h e p ro ce ss o f b e co m i n g
G o d th ro u g h G o d s o rg an ic
salvati o n i s a p ro ce ss
b y wh i ch we ad van ce
fro m re g e n e rati o n
to g lo ri fi cati o n vi a
san cti fi cati o n , re n e wi n g ,
tran sfo rm ati o n ,
an d co n fo rm ati o n .
newness, to become renewed, or to be renewed, is to
become God. Renewing is accompanied by transforma-
tion. To be transformed is to be changed into the likeness
of Christ, that is, to have the image of the glorified and
resurrect ed Christ formed wit hin us. According t o
2 Corinthians 3:18, we are transformed into the Lords
image from glory to glory by beholding the glory of the
Lord with an unveiled face. As the Lords glorious element
is infused into us, we undergo a divine metabolism and are
t ransformed int o t he realit y of t he Lords image.
Conformation saves us from our natural self-expression.
To be conformed to the image of the firstborn Son of God,
the divine-human Christ in His resurrection, is to be the
mass reproduction of Christ, the first
God-man, as t he prot ot ype for our
becoming His many brothers fully like
Him not only in life and nature but also
in expression. To be glorified has both an
objective and a subjective dimension.
Objectively, to be glorified is to be
brought into the realm of glory; subjec-
tively, to be glorified is to be permeated
with Christ as the indwelling glory (Col.
1:27) to such an extent that He bursts
forth from within us in glorious manifes-
tation, comparable to the blossoming of
a carnation seed.
The process of becoming God t hrough Gods organic sal-
vat ion is a process by which we advance from
regenerat ion t o glorificat ion via sanct ificat ion, renewing,
t ransformat ion, and conformat ion. All six st eps involve
t he addit ion of God int o our being, t he divine dispensing
of t he Divine Trinit y int o our spirit , our soul, and, even-
t ually, our body. This is a subject ive and experient ial
mat t er in which God act ually increases wit hin us as we
grow wit h t he growt h of God (Col. 2:19). Those who dis-
card deificat ion as a heresy or dismiss it as a dangerous,
het erodox not ion will in all likelihood deny t he organic
aspect of salvat ion and find t heir solace in only one
aspect , t he object ive aspect , of t he complet e salvat ion of
God. Theologians and preachers who are unbalanced in
t his way hinder bot h t hemselves and ot hers from pro-
gressing in t he experience of Gods salvat ion. By cont rast ,
t hose believers who t reasure equally bot h aspect s of sal-
vat ion st and firmly on t he solid rock of just ificat ion by
grace t hrough fait h in Christ and His redempt ive work
and simult aneously and cont inuously experience and
enjoy t he much more of Romans 5:10t he subject ive
salvat ion in t he divine life. By t his subject ive salvat ion,
which is est ablished upon object ive redempt ion, t he
believers are made God in life and nat ure.
The beli evers i n Chri st become God by eati ng God. The
Lord Jesus, t he Son of God, want s us t o eat Him. I am
t he bread of life.I am t he living bread which came
down out of heaven; if anyone eat s of t his bread, he shall
live forever (John 6:48, 51). Truly, t ruly, I say t o you,
Unless you eat t he flesh of t he Son of Man and drink His
blood, you do not have life wit hin yourselves (v. 53).
He who eat s My flesh and drinks My blood has et ernal
life.For My flesh is t rue food, and My blood is t rue
drink (vv. 54-55). He who eat s My flesh and drinks My
blood abides in Me and I in him (v. 56). He who eat s
Me, he also shall live because of Me (v. 57).
E
ating is a crucial matter in the Scriptures; the Bible is
actually a book of eating (Gen. 2:16-17; Rev. 2:7;
22:14). Gods placing man in front of the tree of life indi-
cates that God wanted man to receive Him as life by
eating Him organically and assimilating Him metabolical-
ly, that God might become the constituent of mans being.
The Passover reveals that God delivers us by feeding us;
He saves us by giving us the Lamb, Christ as our
Redeemer, to eat (Exo. 12:1-11). Whereas the Lamb
delivers us and energizes us, the manna nourishes us and
const it ut es us wit h a heavenly element (16:14-15).
Deuteronomy 8:7-10 reveals that God wants us to eat the
produce of the good land, which produce typifies the rich-
es of the all-inclusive Christ. Because the believers in
general have neglected the eating of the Lord, the Lord
wants to recover the church back to the beginningto
eating the tree of life (Rev. 2:7). For the sake of His econ-
omy, the Lord intends to recover our eating of Christ as
the food ordained by God
and typified by the tree of
life, the Passover lamb, the
manna, and the produce of
the good land.
To eat is t o cont act some-
t hing t hat is out side of us
and t ake it int o us in such a
way t hat it becomes our
const it ut ion. When we eat
our food, we t ake it int o us
t hat it may be assimilat ed
organically int o our body.
For t his reason, diet it ians
t ell t hat we are what we eat . This is t rue not only physi-
cally but also spirit ually. To eat God in Christ is t o receive
Him int o us t hat He may be assimilat ed by t he regener-
at ed spirit in t he way of life. This has a marvelous result :
If we eat God, we shall be God. By eat ing, digest ing, and
assimilat ing God in Christ as our food, we shall be con-
st it ut ed wit h God and in t his way become God.
The oneness that God desires to have with His redeemed
and regenerated people is illustrated by what takes place
when we eat, digest, and assimilate food. The food is first
dispensed into us, and then it is mingled with us. The food
eaten, digested, and assimilated by us actually becomes us;
T h e m o re we lo ve H i m
i n re sp o n se to H i s lo ve
fo r u s an d b y H i s lo ve
wi th i n u s, th e m o re we
are tran sfo rm e d i n to
H i s i m ag e , u n ti l we are
th e sam e as H e i s i n
li fe , n atu re , co n sti tu ti o n ,
an d e xp re ssi o n .
this is a matter of mingling. The principle is the same with
eating God. The more we eat Him, the more He dispens-
es Himself int o us and mingles Himself wit h us,
const it ut ing Himself int o us for His expression.
Therefore, God desires that we eat Him, digest Him, and
assimilate Him. God wants to be eaten, digested, and
assimilated by us so that He can become the constituent
of our inward being. If we eat God, then, in keeping with
the saying that we are what we eat, we shall be one with
God, we shall be constituted with God, and we shall even
become God in life and in nature but not in the Godhead.
We eat God by taking Him in as the word of God, which
words are spirit and life.
The beli evers become God by lovi ng God. This thought is
conveyed in some remarkable lines in an ancient hymn:
What eer thou lovest, man, / That too become thou
must; / God, if thou lovest God, / Dust, if thou lovest
dust (Hymns, # 477). That becoming God by loving God
is a reality in the experience and history of those who love
the Lord and pursue Him is depicted in Song of Songs, a
book of sublime poetry portraying the stages in the spiri-
t ual life: drawn t o pursue Christ for sat isfact ion
(1:22:7), called to be delivered from the self through
the oneness with cross (2:83:5), called to live in ascen-
sion as the new creation in resurrection (3:65:1), called
more strongly to live within the veil through the cross
after resurrection (5:26:13), sharing in the work of the
Lord (7:1-13), and hoping to be rap-
tured (8:1-14).
10
The more we love
Him in response to His love for us and
by His love within us, the more we grow
in His life and are transformed into His
image, until we are the same as He is in
life, nature, constitution, and expression
but not in the Godhead. Hence, it is
love that motivates the seeker to pursue
the Lord until she eventually becomes
the Shulammitethe reproduction of
Christ in female form as His spouse.
Those who know the depths of the
divine romance between God and His
redeemed people revealed in t he
Scriptures and who spend the course of their Christian life
seeking Him and loving Him with their whole being learn
the wonderful lesson that loving God eventually causes us
to become God. In love, by love, with love, and through
love we become absolutely open to Him, one with Him,
and constituted with Him. We become what we love; we
love Him.
11
The following is an elegant statement con-
cerning the necessity and efficacy of love in a believers
experience of Christ:
To realize and part icipat e in t he deep and hidden t hings
God has ordained and prepared for us [1 Cor. 2:9]
requires us not only t o believe in Him but also t o love
Him. To fear God, t o worship God, and t o believe in God
(t hat is, t o receive God) are all inadequat e; t o love Him
is t he indispensable requirement . To love God means t o
set our ent ire beingspirit , soul, and body, wit h t he
heart , soul, mind, and st rengt h (Mark 12:30)absolut ely
on Him, t hat is, t o let our ent ire being be occupied by
Him and lost in Him, so t hat He becomes everyt hing t o
us and we are one wit h Him pract ically in our daily life.
In t his way we have t he closest and most int imat e fel-
lowship wit h God, and we are able t o ent er int o His heart
and apprehend all it s secret s (Psa. 73:25; 25:14). Thus,
we not only realize but also experience, enjoy, and fully
part icipat e in t hese deep and hidden t hings of God.
(Recovery Version, 1 Cor. 2:9, not e 3)
The beli evers become God through the functi on of the law
of li fe. We use t he word law t o denot e not a decree or a
legislat ive enact ment but a nat ural power wit h cert ain
inclinat ions and act ivit ies. In t he physical universe t here
are various nat ural laws; t he law of gravit y is an obvious
example. Our int erest here, as was Pauls in Romans 8, is
not wit h physical laws but wit h laws relat ing t o life.
E
very kind of life has it s own law, it s innat e capacit y
and spont aneous funct ion. For inst ance, an apple t ree
bears apples according t o t he life of t he apple t ree. The
producing of apples is not a deliberat e, willful act ivit y or
a response t o ext ernal prodding or exhort at ion. An apple
t ree has an apple-t ree life, and wit h (or
in) t he apple-t ree life is t he apple-t ree
law of life, t he law of life t hat , accord-
ing t o it s inherent power and inclina-
t ion, governs, direct s, and shapes t he
development of t he apple t ree. The
same principle obt ains wit h every kind
of plant and animal life; human life, t oo,
funct ions according t o it s own laws. The
higher a part icular life is, t he higher is
it s law. Hence, t he law of t he dog life is
higher t han t he law of t he worm life.
Since t he human life is t he highest form
of creat ed life, t he law of t he human
life is higher t han t he law of any ot her
kind of nat ural life.
The life of Godt he et ernal lifeis t he highest life, and
wit h t his life is t he highest law called t he law of t he
Spirit of life (Rom. 8:2). Et ernal life is a life on t he high-
est plane, for it is t he divine life, t he life of God,
uncreat ed, incorrupt ible, and indest ruct ible (Eph. 4:18;
John 5:26; Rom. 8:2; Heb. 7:16). In fact , t he life of God,
t he et ernal life, is t he Triune God. The Fat her has life in
Himself; t he Son, as t he embodiment of t he Fat her, has
life in Himself (1 John 5:11-12); and t he Spirit , being t he
life-giving Spirit , t he Spirit who gives life, is t he Spirit of
life. Wit h t his marvelous et ernal life, we, t he believers in
T h e law o f th e li fe
o f G o d i s m ak i n g u s G o d .
T h e G o d wh o cre ate d
h u m an li fe wi th i ts law
fu n cti o n s wi th i n th e
b e li e ve rs acco rd i n g to
th e law o f H i s o wn li fe ,
m ak i n g th e m
H i s re p ro d u cti o n .
Christ , have been regenerat ed t o become children of God
and members of Christ (John 1:12-13; Eph. 5:30). This
life, God in Christ as t he life-giving Spirit in our spirit , is
now our life (Col. 3:4). The law of t his life, t he law of t he
Spirit of life, is t he aut omat ic and spont aneous capacit y
and funct ion of t he Triune God as life in t he believers.
What does the law of the life of God do in the believers,
in the children of God? In its essential function, the law of
the life of God is making us God. Consider the develop-
ment of a human being from gestation to maturity, a
development directed organically in every stage by the law
of human life. The law of human life produces a human
being, and this human person is the same in life and nature
as his or her parents without becoming the parents in per-
son or status. The God who created human life with its
law functions within the believers according to the law of
His own life, making them His reproduction.
12
This
reproduction is the same as the source, the Father, in life
and in nature but not in His Fatherhood or Godhead:
The function of the inner law [the law of the divine life]
refers to the divine capacity. In this law there is the divine
capacity, and the divine capacity is almighty. This divine
capacity can do everything in us for the fulfillment of
Gods purpose.The divine capacity of the inner law of
life can live God. This capacity can also cause the believ-
ers in Christ to be constituted with God. Because the
believers are const it ut ed
with God, they as a corpo-
rat e people are Gods
expression. Alt hough t he
believers are const it ut ed
with God, there is still a
distinction between them
and God. God remains
God with the Godhead,
and we, the believers, are
made the same as God in
life and in nature but not in
the Godhead. This means
that except for the God-
head, we are exactly the
same as God. Since we are the same as God in life and in
nature, we become His increase, His enlargement, as His
fullness to express Him. This is the highest aspect of the
capacity of the inner law of life. (Lee, Jeremi ah 184)
W
e may say t hat , in it s essent ial funct ion, t he law of
t he life of God is making us God. Now we need t o
point out t hat in part icular t he law of t he Spirit of life is
operat ing wit hin us t o conform us t o t he image of Christ
as t he first born Son of God.
13
Because t hose whom He
foreknew, He also predest inat ed t o be conformed t o t he
image of His Son, t hat He might be t he First born among
many brot hers (Rom. 8:29). In it s funct ion, t he law of
life conforms us t o t he image of Christ as t he first born
Son by causing His glorious image t o be fully formed
wit hin us. Inst ead of our t rying t o be like Jesus or ask-
ing t he vain quest ion What would Jesus do?, we should
simply allow t he life of God t o flow wit hin us and t he law
of t he life of God t o work wit hin us. Event ually, t his law
of life will cause every child of God and brot her of Christ
t o be conformed t o t he image of Christ :
Conformat ion is t he end result of t ransformat ion. It
includes t he changing of our inward essence and nat ure,
and it also includes t he changing of our out ward form,
t hat we may mat ch t he glorified image of Christ , t he
God-man. He is t he prot o-
t ype and we are t he mass
product ion. Bot h t he
inward and t he out ward
changes in us, t he product ,
are t he result of t he opera-
t ion of t he law of t he
Spirit of life (v. 2) in our
being. (Recovery Version,
Rom. 8:29, not e 3)
This is what it means t o
become God by t he func-
t ion of t he law of t he life
of God.
The Goal of Becoming God
It may be t hat some, who are ready t o admit t hat t his
present at ion of t he believers becoming God in Christ
according t o Gods economy is not heret ical, have linger-
ing quest ions. Some may wonder about t he point of it all
or ask whet her such a mat t er as deificat ion should be
regarded as cent ral t o Christ ian experience. Perhaps
someone may say, The deificat ion of t he believers is not
heret ical, but why should it assume a place of impor-
t ance? What difference does it make if we simply leave
t his mat t er alone and devot e ourselves t o ot her t hings?
Quest ions and object ions such as t hese oft en arise
because believers are self-cent ered rat her t han God-
cent ered, even in relat ion t o Gods salvat ion. Many care
only about t heir et ernal happiness and t hus cling t o t he
not ion of a heavenly mansion designed and built wit h
t heir comfort and bliss in mind. They may care lit t le, if at
all, for Gods good pleasure or et ernal purpose. For t hem,
Gods int ent ion and economy hold no int erest .
If, by the Lords mercy, we begin to care less for ourselves
and more for God and His economy, we may be in a posi-
tion to see the vital and intrinsic connection between
deification and Gods goal in His economy. Gods goal is
to have a corporate expression of Himself, first in and
through the Body of Christ and ultimately, consummately,
I n o rd e r fo r G o d
to e xp re ss H i m se lf
i n m an , H e m u st
b e co m e a m an
an d ye t re m ai n G o d .
I n o rd e r fo r m an
to e xp re ss G o d ,
m an m u st b e co m e G o d
an d ye t re m ai n m an .
and et ernally in and t hrough t he New Jerusalem.
Furthermore, God desires that this corporate expression
of Himself be through humanity as the vessel or channel.
However, mere humanit y cannot express divinit y; only
God can express God. This is in keeping wit h t he princi-
ple t hat we can express only what we are, not what we
are not . A cat has a feline expression because it has a
feline life and nat ure. The same is t rue of every living
t hing, including human beings. Because we are humans
wit h a human life and nat ure, we express humanit y. But
it is Gods int ent ion t o have a corporat e expression of
Himself in and t hrough humanit y. How is t his possible,
since only God can express God? The
answer consist s in t his simple st at e-
ment : God became man t o make man
God for t he expression of God. In
order for God t o express Himself in
man, He must become a man and yet
remain God. In like manner, in order
for man t o express God, man must
become God and yet remain man. By
becoming God in life and in nat ure, we
can become t he expression of God, for
we are const it ut ed wit h God t o become
God in His expression, t he expressed
God. At t he same t ime, since God
int ends t o express Himself in man, we
must remain human for Gods expression of Himself in
and t hrough redeemed humanit y.
T
he crucial point is t his: The corporat e expression of
God requires t hat man become God in life, in nat ure,
and in expression. We cannot be God in expression wit h-
out first becoming God in life and in nat ure. As we have
indicat ed, t he t erms t hat most fully define t he corporat e
expression of God are the Body of Chri st and the New
Jerusalem. Unless we become God, we cannot be t he
Body of Christ , and unless we become God, we cannot be
t he New Jerusalem, for bot h t he Body of Christ and t he
New Jerusalem are composed not only of t he Triune God
Himself but also of Gods regenerat ed, t ransformed,
glorified, deified sons. Gods goal in His economy is t o
have an et ernal, consummat e, corporat e expression of
Himself. The corporat e expression is Gods goal, and
deificat ion is t he organic process in Christ by which we
reach and act ually become Gods goal. For t he sake of t he
corporat e expression of God, we must become God in
life and in nat ure but not in t he Godhead. Therefore, we
become God for God. This is t he desire of Gods heart
and t he meaning of our exist ence.
Notes
1
Sproul cat egorically reject s any and all t eachings regarding
deificat ion, which is first given t he appellat ion Apotheosi s and
t hen defined as a heresy of t he most pernicious sort . That t his
is Sprouls at t it ude is proved by t he following remark:
Evangelical Christ ianit y affirms t he Trinit y and Chalcedonian
Christ ology and eschews all forms of Apotheosi s (45-46).
Admit t edly, Sproul was writ ing wit h specific reference t o t he
doct rine of lit t le gods espoused in cert ain sect ors of t he
Charismat ic movement . However, inst ead of limit ing his
remarks t o t hat part icular form of so-called Apot heosis, Sproul
maint ains t hat Evangelical Christ ianit y reject s all forms of
Apot heosis. Since Sproul defines Apot heosis as becoming
God, labels it a ghast ly heresy, and t hen assert s t hat all forms
of t his heresy must be repudiat ed, it is not likely t hat he would
make an except ion t o t he concept of becoming God t hat we
shall set fort h. It would be wonderful, how-
ever, if he and ot her advocat es of Reformed
t heology reconsidered t he absolut eness and
inflexibilit y of t heir posit ion and opened t o
t he possibilit y t hat t here might be more rev-
elat ion in Script ure t han dreamt of in t heir
t heology.
2
Consider t his: The ult imat e evil is t o
call oneself God (big or small). This is t he
doct rine of t he ant i Christ [sic] and part of
t he myst ery of iniquit y now working in t he
eart h (Ret urn of t he God/ Men).
3
The Lords name is I Am. In ot her
words, His name is simply t he verb t o
be. We are not qualified t o say t hat we are. We are
not hing; only He has being. Therefore, He calls Himself
I AM THAT I AM. The Chinese version [of t he Bible]
speaks of Him as t he self-exist ing One and ever-exist -
ing One. I Am denot es t he One who is self-exist ing,
t he One whose being depends on not hing apart from
Himself. This One is also t he ever-exist ing One, t hat is,
He exist s et ernally having neit her beginning nor end-
ing.Only God qualifies t o have t his verb applied t o
His being, for only He is self-exist ent . You and I must
realize t hat we are not self-exist ent .God is t he unique
self-exist ing One. Everyt hing else comes and goes, but
God remains. We are not , but God, and God alone,
always is. As we have seen, t he name of God as revealed
t o Moses in Exodus 3 is simply t he verb to be. This indi-
cat es t hat before anyt hing else came int o exist ence, God
was. Aft er so many t hings have passed out of exist ence,
God will st ill be. God was, God is, and God will be.It
is necessary t hat we know God as t he One who is. (Lee,
Exodus 59, 113-114)
4
To say t hat we do not deify ourselves does not deny t he
fact t hat we are being deified by God in Christ .
5
Walt er Mart in makes a number of t elling point s in Ye
Shall Be As Gods (hereaft er, Gods), his cont ribut ion t o t he
volume The Agony of Decei t. This we appreciat e and affirm.
However, Mart ins t heology as expressed in Gods is incom-
plet e, unbalanced, and seriously deficient , and t his we quest ion
I t wo u ld b e wo n d e rfu l
i f ad vo cate s o f R e fo rm e d
th e o lo g y re co n si d e re d
th e in flexib ility o f th e ir
p o sitio n an d o p e n e d to
th e p o ssib ility th at th e re
m i g h t b e m o re re ve lati o n
i n S cri p tu re th an d re am t
o f i n th e i r th e o lo g y.
and crit ique. The foundat ional t heological t rut h in Gods is, of
course, biblical monot heism; t here is only one God by nat ure,
one God who is omnipot ent , omniscient , omnipresent , one God
who possesses charact erist ics and at t ribut es t hat can be imit at -
ed but never duplicat ed in finit e creat ions (98). Here Gods
present s what we may call select ive ort hodoxy, a part ial, one-
sided t eaching of t he t rut h. To be sure, Gods incommunicable
at t ribut es may be neit her i mi tated nor dupli cated. However, t he
communicable at t ribut es, in part icular t he divine life and
nat ure, are duplicat ed and not merely imit at ed in t he believers.
This duplicat ion is what makes it possible for t he one grain t o
become many grains (John 12:24), for t he one vine t o have
many branches (15:1, 5), and for t he one Son t o have many
brot hers (Rom. 8:29). Aft er
st at ing, mist akenly, t hat God
has recorded t o our account
t he right eousness of His Son
(we do not have t he right -
eousness of Christ we have
Christ Himself as our right -
eousness), Gods goes on t o
claim, The image of God in
man, which was shat t ered,
marred, and defaced by
sinis rest ored in t he last
Adam, t he Lord from heaven
(99). To say t his is t o wrongly
reduce t he effect of Gods
complet e salvat ion t o a mere rest orat ion of t he human creat ure,
a condit ion far short of Gods goal in His economy t o be
expressed in sons of God who, in Christ , are t he same as He is
in life and nat ure.
For Gods, t o be a part aker of t he divine nat ure (2 Pet . 1:4) is
not , as t he t ext plainly says, t o be a part aker of t he divine
nat ure. Inst ead, Gods would have us believe t hat we part ake
of t he divine nat ure in t he sense t hat we imit at e, not duplicat e
(99). Relat ed t o t his, Gods employs an int erest ing illust rat ion.
It could be point ed out t hat on my last birt hday, I part ook of
my birt hday cake, but I did not become part of t he cake (98).
However, t he cake, aft er it was consumed, did, in fact , become
part of t he person who consumed it , for t hat person did not imi-
t at e t he cake but at e t he cake, digest ed t he cake, assimilat ed t he
cake, and, at least in measure, was const it ut ed wit h t he cake.
He did not become t he cake object ively; nevert heless, t he cake
became him subject ively, and in t his sense he became cake. The
principle is t he same wit h part aking of t he divine nat ure. We eat
t he Lord, as John 6 perspicuously reveals, and t hen we digest
and assimilat e Him and are const it ut ed wit h Him t o t he point
t hat Christ becomes our very life (Col. 3:4). Being permeat ed
and sat urat ed wit h God, we become God in t he sense of being
t he same as He is in His life and nat ure, which are mingled but
not confused wit h our human life and nat ure, result ing in t he
expression of divinit y in humanit y.
Gods cont inues t o display a defect ive and deficient t heology
by denying t hat t he believer in Christ is a god-bearing person,
sharing Gods divinit y. In place of t he biblical t rut h concerning
regenerat ion and concerning t he believers being act ual children
of God possessing His life and nat ure, Gods incredibly
assert s, As believers, we are adopted children (100). Here
Gods flat ly cont radict s t he Bible. Nowhere are we t old in
Script ure t hat we are adopt ed children; rat her, t he New
Test ament emphasizes t he fact t hat we have been born, begot -
t en, of God t o be children of God (John 1:12-13; 3:3-8; Rom.
8:16; 1 John 2:29; 3:2, 9; 4:7; 5:1, 4, 18). First John 3:10 men-
t ions t he children of t he devil, who are t he sons of t he evil
one (Mat t . 13:38). Did t he devil, who is a fat her (John 8:44),
adopt his children, or did he, as t he Word indicat es, beget
t hem by inject ing his sinful life and nat ure int o human kind t o
produce offspring of vipers (Mat t . 3:7; 12:34; 23:33)?
Cert ainly not ! Sinners are born of t he devilish fat her and act u-
ally have t he life and nat ure of Sat an wit hin; t hey are not
adopt ed sat anic children. Likewise, t he children of God are not
adopt ed by Godt hey are born of God t o have t he life of God
and t he nat ure of God but not t he Godhead of God. Because
believers are children of God, t hey are t he brot hers of Christ
(John 20:17; Heb. 2:10-12). In t he et ernal, unalt erable
Godhead, Christ , and only Christ , is t he only begot t en Son and
as such has no brot hers, but in t he economy of God, Christ is
t he first born Son of God and as such has many brot hers (Rom.
8:29). Gods ignores t his, present ing only one side of t he t rut h
by saying, Jesus Christ is t he unique, one-of-a-kind incarnat ed
Son of God and is, t herefore, different from believers (100).
What Gods does not ment ion is t hat in resurrect ion Christ is
t he first born Son and is,
t herefore, t he same as t he
believers in cert ain respect s.
For bot h He who sanct ifies
[Christ as t he first born Son of
God] and t hose who are being
sanct ified [t he believers as t he
many sons of God] are all of
One, for which cause He is
not ashamed t o call t hem
brot hers (Heb. 2:11). Bot h
t he Sanct ifier and t he sanct i-
fied are all of One, t hat is,
out of one sourcet he one
Fat her. The Sanct ifier is
divine and human, and t he sanct ified are human and divine, but
t he Sanct ifier is God in t he Godhead and is t he proper object
of t he believers worship, whereas t he sanct ified are God only
in life and in nat ure and worship Him who is God in t he unique,
incommunicable, non-ent erable Godhead.
Event ually, Gods concludes t hat t he believers are in a union
of fellowship wit h t he Trinit y (105). What ever t he expression
a union of fellowship may mean, it falls far short of t he divine
revelat ion regarding t he believers relat ionship wit h God in
Christ . We are one spirit wit h t he Lord (1 Cor. 6:17). We are in
Christ and Christ is in us, living in us, being formed in us, and
making His home in us (Gal. 2:20; 4:19; Eph. 3:17). While
Gods performs a service by refut ing heret ical t eachings, bot h
real and supposed, it also performs a disservice by present ing a
deficient and defect ive, if not deformed, t heology.
6
Hanegraaff, however, does not succeed in proving t hat
adherent s and advocat es of lit t le gods t heology believe t hat
t hey will part icipat e in Gods incommunicable at t ribut es.
Moreover, alt hough Hanegraaff is correct in insist ing upon cer-
t ain crucial revealed object ive t rut hs concerning God, his
t heology, as manifest ed in t his sect ion of his book, is unbalanced
and biased in ways similar t o Mart ins. The great subject ive,
experient ial t rut hs of t he New Test ament for example, t he
t rut h t hat we are children of God possessing His life and nat ure,
t hat t he Triune God dwells in us, t hat Christ is making His
home in our heart s and being formed in us, and t hat we are one
spirit wit h t he Lordare eit her ignored or not given proper
at t ent ion. This avoidance or ignorance of t he subject ive aspect
of t he believers relat ionship wit h Christ is charact erist ic of t he
t heology of t hose who specialize in hunt ing heret ics and expos-
ing heresy.
7
An emasculat ed edit ion of Billheimers book was print ed
by Bet hany House Publishers and Christ ian Lit erat ure Crusade
in 1996, supposedly t o remove st at ement s in t he original t hat
could lead, according t o t he edit ors preface, t o misunderst and-
ing. The second edit ion is, in many respect s, a t ravest y of t he
original publicat ion. Billheimers careful and fait hful t est imony,
based on t he Script ures, regarding t he exalt ed place of Gods
redeemed in Gods purpose, is eviscerat ed. For a penet rat ing
review of t he first edit ion and a crit ique of
t he second, see John Brooks, Kinship wit h
t he Triune God in Affi rmati on & Cri ti que,
Oct ober 1996, pp. 51-54.
8
In his art icle The Ort hodox Doct rine
of Theosis from The New Man: An
Orthodox and Reformed Di alogue, Robert
G. St ephanopoulos writ es,
Theosi scan in no sense be seen as a com-
promise or a reduct ion of God t o t he
creat ed order of being. Nor can it be
underst ood as a consequence of some
higher necessit y in God t o communicat e
wit h His creat ion. At best , deified man
is st ill of t he creat ed order, not t o be
confused wit h t he uncreat ed divine order. Deified man
is man renewed, re-creat ed and t ransfigured int o t he son
of God by grace, whereas God remains inviolat e,
sovereign and inaccessible in His unknowable and
unapproachable essence.
This necessary dist inct ion bet ween t he unknowable
essence and t he uncreat ed energies of God which is
absolut ely fundament al t o t he Ort hodox Christ ian doc-
t rine of theosi swas clearly and definit ively art iculat ed by
St . Gregory Palamas. St . Gregory summarizing and per-
fect ing t he pat rist ic t eaching, dist inguishes bet ween t he
various t ypes of unionessent ial union, hypost at ic
Avo i d an ce o r i g n o ran ce
o f th e su b je cti ve asp e ct
o f th e b e li e ve rs
re lati o n sh i p wi th C h ri st
i s ch aracte ri sti c o f th e
th e o lo g y o f th o se
wh o sp e ci ali ze
i n h u n ti n g h e re ti cs
an d e xp o si n g h e re sy.
union and union t hrough t he uncreat ed energiesin
order t o clarify t he doct rine of theosi s. By means of
t hese crit ical dist inct ions it is possible, according t o St .
Gregory Palamas, t o preserve on t he one hand t he
absolut e int egrit y of t he inner life of t he superessent ial
Trinit y and on t he ot her hand t he possibilit y of real com-
municat ion and part icipat ion of man in t he divine life of
grace.
God communicat es himself t o man and achieves a t ruly
personal relat ionship wit h him by means of His divine
energies, operat ions or manifest at ions.In t he sphere of
divine economy t he Triune God communicat es act ually
and effect ively out side His incomprehensible and
unknowable superessence wit h t he creat ed order, est ab-
lishing a personal and int imat e relat ionship which can
lead t o a union in t he divine life by grace. (152)
9
The failure t o recognize t he balance bet ween judicial
redempt ion and organic salvat ion as it relat es t o deificat ion is
highlight ed by Frit z Ridenours st at ement , Ort hodoxy st resses
deificat ion above just ificat ion (60). He explains:
Prot est ant s believe t hat put t ing fait h in Christ s deat h
t he at onement fully rest ores mans fellowship wit h
God. The Ort hodox, however, view Christ s deat h on
t he cross and Gods grace as t he means t o enable man t o
become god, t o obt ain theosi s(deificat ion or diviniza-
t ion).Evangelical Prot est ant scholars believe t hat t he
Ort hodox deificat ion approach t o salva-
t ion leaves t hem pract ically ignoring t he
doct rine of just ificat ion by fait h. For
example, Donald Fairbairn observes t hat
most element s of t he Ort hodox under-
st anding of salvat ion act ually pert ain t o
sanct ificat ion. (60-61)
10
See Holy Bible, Recovery Version
(907-908) for a det ailed out line; also con-
sult Cr ystalli zati on-study of Song of Songs
by Wit ness Lee. In t he Recovery Version
of t he Holy Bible, t he subject of Song of
Songs is described as The Hist ory of Love
in an Excellent Marriage, Revealing t he
Progressive Experience of an Individual
Believers Loving Fellowship wit h Christ
(909).
11
See The Economy of God in Song of Songs. Affi rmati on
& Cri ti queIV.3 (July 1999): 24-35.
12
Henry Drummond, quot ed in Vincent , says,
There is anot her kind of life of which science as yet has
t aken lit t le cognizance. It obeys t he same laws. It builds
up an organism int o it s own form. It is t he Christ -life. As
t he bird-life builds up a bird, t he image of it self, so t he
Christ -life builds up a Christ , t he image of Himself, in
t he inward nat ure of man.According t o t he great law
of conformit y t o t ype, t his fashioning t akes a specific
form.And all t hrough life t his wonderful, myst ical,
glorious, yet perfect ly definit e process goes on unt il
Christ be formed in it . (96-97)
13
A foot not e t o Romans 8:29 in t he Recovery Version of t he
New Test ament develops t his t hought :
Christ was t he only begot t en Son of God from et ernit y
(John 1:18). When He was sent by God int o t he world,
He was st ill t he only begot t en Son of God (1 John 4:9;
John 1:14; 3:16). By His passing t hrough deat h and
ent ering int o resurrect ion, His humanit y was uplift ed
int o His divinit y. Thus, in His divinit y wit h His human-
it y t hat passed t hrough deat h and resurrect ion, He was
born in resurrect ion as Gods first born Son (Act s
13:33). At t he same t ime, all His believers were raised
t oget her wit h Him in His resurrect ion (1 Pet . 1:3) and
were begot t en t oget her wit h Him as t he many sons of
God. Thus t hey become His many brot hers t o const i-
t ut e His Body and be Gods corporat e expression in
Him.
As t he only begot t en Son of God, Christ had divinit y
but not humanit y. He was self-exist ing and ever-exist ing,
as God is. His being t he first born Son of God, having
bot h divinit y and humanit y, began wit h His resurrect ion.
Wit h His first born Son as t he base, pat t ern, element ,
and means, God is producing many sons, and t he many
sons who are produced are t he many believers who
believe int o Gods first -
born Son and are joined t o
Him as one. They are
exact ly like Him in life
and nat ure, and, like Him,
t hey have bot h humanit y
and divinit y. They are His
increase and expression in
order t hat t hey may
express t he et ernal Triune
God for et ernit y. The
church t oday is a minia-
t ure of t his expression
(Eph. 1:23), and t he New
Jerusalem in et ernit y will
be t he ult imat e manifest a-
t ion of t his expression (Rev. 21:11). This book reveals
t hat Gods making sinners His sons is for t his expression
(12:5) and point s t o t he ult imat e manifest at ion of t his
expression (Eph. 3:19). (Not e 4)
Works Cited
Beckwit h, Francis J., et al. The Counterfei t Gospel of Mormoni sm.
Eugene: Harvest House, 1998.
Beckwit h, Francis J., and St ephen. E. Parrish. The Mormon
Concept of God: A Phi losophi cal Analysi s. Lewist on: The
Edwin Mellen Press, 1991.
Wi th H i s fi rstb o rn S o n
as th e b ase , p atte rn ,
e le m e n t, an d m e an s,
G o d i s p ro d u ci n g m an y
so n s; th e m an y so n s are
th e m an y b e li e ve rs
wh o b e li e ve i n to G o d s
fi rstb o rn S o n an d are
jo i n e d to H i m as o n e .
Billheimer, Paul E. Desti ned for the Throne. Fort Washingt on:
Christ ian Lit erat ure Crusade, 1975.
Bowman, Robert M., Jr. Ye Are Gods? Orthodox and Hereti cal Vi ews
on the Dei fi cati on of Man. Online. 3 Aug. 2002. Available:
ht t p:/ / www.decept ionint hechurch.com/ godsrus.ht m.
Cart er, K. Codell. Godhood. Encyclopedi a of Mormoni sm. Ed.
Daniel H. Ludlow. 4 vols. New York: Macmillan, 1992. 2:55355.
Online. 3 Aug. 2002. Available: ht t p:/ / ldsfaq.byu.edu.
Church of Jesus Christ of t he Lat t er-Day Saint s. Doctri ne and
the Covenants. Online. 19 Sept . 2002. Available:
ht t p:/ / script ure.lds.org/ dc/ cont ent s.
Copeland, Kennet h. Followi ng the Fai th of Abraham. Tape 01-
3002. Fort Wort h: Kennet h Copeland Publicat ions, 1983.
Deificat ion, Mormonism, and t he Early Church. Online.
3 Aug. 2002. Available: ht t p:/ / home.at t bi.com/ ~ neirr/
Deificat ion.ht m.
DeWaay, Bob. Lit t le gods? Online. 1 Sept . 2002. Available:
ht t p:/ / www.t wincit yfellowship.com/ cic.
Evans, Gary. Myst ical Forms in East ern Ort hodoxy.
Affi rmati on & Cri ti queIII.4 (Oct ober 1998): 55-57.
Frimmin, Jon. Our True, Final Hope: Theosis/
Divinizat ion/ Deificat ion. Online. 5 Aug. 2002. Available:
ht t p:/ / www.frimmin.com/ fait h/ t heosis.ht ml.
Hanegraaff, Hank. Chri sti ani ty i n Cri si s. Eugene: Harvest
House, 1993.
Hymns. Anaheim: Living St ream Minist ry, 1985.
Kennet h Copeland Cont inued. Online. 1 Sept . 2002.
Available: ht t p:/ / revelat ionwebsit e.co.uk/ index1/ word/
kc2.ht m.
Lee, Wit ness. The Chri sti an Li fe. Anaheim: Living St ream
Minist ry, 1994.
. The Cr ystalli zati on-study of the Epi stle to the Romans.
Anaheim: Living St eam Minist ry, 1994.
. Foot not es. Recovery Version of t he New Test ament .
Anaheim: Living St ream Minist ry, 1991.
. Li fe-study of 1 and 2 Samuel. Anaheim: Living St ream
Minist ry, 1994.
. Li fe-study of Colossi ans. Anaheim: Living St ream
Minist ry, 1984.
. Li fe-study of Exodus. Anaheim: Living St ream Minist ry,
1987.
. Li fe-study of Jeremi ah. Anaheim: Living St ream
Minist ry, 1992.
Mart in, Walt er. Ye Shall Be As Gods. The Agony of Decei t. Ed.
Michael Hort on. Chicago: Moody Press, 1990. 89-105.
Ort hodox St udy Bible. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1993.
Passant ino, Gret chen. Are We Dest ined t o Be Gods and
Goddesses? Online. 3 Aug. 2002. Available: ht t p:/ / www.cor-
nerst onemag.com/ feat ures/ iss199/ cslewis_and_mormonism
.ht ml.
Peck, M. Scot t . The Road Less Traveled. New York: Simon &
Schust er, 1978.
Pelphrey, Brendan. I Said, You Are Gods: Ort hodox Christ ian
Theosi s and Deificat ion in t he New Religious Movement s.
Online. 3 Aug. 2002. Available. ht t p:/ / www.t heonet .net /
spirit ualit y/ spirit 00-13/ You_are_gods_BP.ht ml.
Rakest raw, Robert . Becoming Like God: An Evangelical
Doct rine of Theosis. Journal of the Evangeli cal Theologi cal
Soci ety 40.2 (June 1997): 257-269.
Ret urn of t he God/ Men. Online. 3 Aug. 2002. Available:
ht t p:/ / www.let usreason.org/ wf17.ht m.
Ridenour, Frit z. So Whats the Di fference?Vent ura: Regal Books,
2001.
Rivalland, Neil. The Doct rine of Deificat ion. Online. 3 Aug.
2002. Available: ht t p:/ / op.50megs.com/ dit c/ deificat ion.ht ml.
Robichaux, Kerry S. t hat we might be made God.
Affi rmati on & Cri ti queI.3 (July 1996): 21-31.
The Seer I.9 (Sept ember 1853).
Sproul, R. C. A Serious Charge. The Agony of Decei t. Ed.
Michael Hort on. Chicago: Moody Press. 1990. 33-46.
St ephanopoulos, Robert G. The Ort hodox Doct rine of
Theosis. The New Man: An Orthodox and Reformed
Di alogue. Eds. John Meyendorff and Joseph McLelland.
New Brunswick: St andard Press, 1973. 149-161.
Theosis. Online. 25 Sept . 2002. Available: ht t p:/ / www.byzan-
t inefranciscans.org/ t heosis.ht m.
These Men Think That Theyre Gods! Online. 26 Aug. 2002.
Available: ht t p:/ / www.floridacp.com/ heresy/ quot es/ 23.ht m.
Ti mes and Seasons V.15 (August 15, 1844). Online. 10 Sept . 2002.
Available: ht t p:/ / www.cent erplace.org/ hist ory/ t s/ v5n15.ht m.
Van Gorden, Kurt . Mormoni sm. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1995.
Vincent , M. R. Word Studi es i n the New Testament. Vol. 3.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1946.
Ware, Timot hy. The Orthodox Church. London: Penguin Books,
1997.
Whit e, James R. Is the Mormon My Brother?: Di scerni ng the
Di fferences between Mor moni sm and Chri sti ani ty.
Minneapolis: Bet hany House, 1997.
Zukeran, Pat . The Mormon Doct rine of God. Online. 9 Aug.
2002. Available: ht t p:/ / www.probe.org/ docs/ mormon-
god.ht ml.

Kangas The Becoming God

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Kangas The Becoming God

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

3 Volume VI I No.

Вам также может понравиться