God became man so that man could become God

[Johnnz]

Not sure about the other church history figures mentioned, but Edwards (as I recall from George Marsden's biography) while solidly believing in original sin was also post-millennial in his eschatology, and would likely have had a different outlook than the one described.

I wasn't suggesting that they all agreed on all doctrines, but that they all adopted a jurisdictional framework of sin, guilt, judgement rather than relationship restored though love as the primary basis for understanding the Gospel.

John
NZ

 

[Yoder777]

Christos Gennatai! Doxasate!

 

[Lisa*Lisa]

Again, I agree with what you say here and think you have said it well. I quoted that scripture for you to show you that what Yoder777 was talking about in the OP is not just a theology of man but is something that the apostle Paul taught. It's important to understand this because once you realise that your new self that God created in you is just as righteous and holy as Christ is it will end most or all of the guilt and condemnation you place on yourself, or that others place upon you, because of your sins and your past.

Yikes! I don't believe we will ever be as holy and righteous as Jesus Himself. No way, I think that's blasphemous. I'm not sure if you meant it that way or not, but I almost fell off my chair just now.

We are washed clean of our sin, through His grace as long as we continue to be faithful and serve Him, but we will never be as holy and righteous as God. He alone is King of Kings and Lord of Lords and we are His servants and friends, but in no way equal to our Lord. Not now, not ever.

We were created for His pleasure, to glorify Him and to enjoy His blessings and share a place in His Kingdom if we are found worthy.

 

[Lisa*Lisa]

I'm telling you, this is borderline New Age stuff here........very dangerous. We are not God, we are not gods, we are sinful humans. We worship a holy and righteous God. Be humble before Him and before men and do not look to elevate yourself to a position that is equal to God. For He alone is Holy, Righteous, Good, and no man is.

Submit yourselves before Him, be humble as a child, be a grateful slave, so that you may be found approved by Him. Pride and ego will have no place in the kingdom of God.

 

[wayseer]

I need a reason for believing that God became man other than that he'd just suffer and die and a reason for following his teachings other than fear of judgment. What I want more than anything in life is to have intimate friendship with Jesus.

I return to this post as your succession of posts indicate, in my view, that you are veering off dangerously into something which sounds more like pop culture on steroids.

Could I suggest that you avail yourself of the works of theologists such as Tyrone Inbody, James Alison, Roger Haight and Timothy Gorrige, all of whom will offer you a more contemporary perspective.

If I could be bold enough to summarize their works I would suggest that God did not come to earth as a man in order to die so your can offer some sort of 'satisfaction' for your sins. This is the 'ransom' style atonement.

The real object of God was to restore balance to an otherwise fractured creation. Although Anslem reject the 'ransom' idea that we have been somehow held to ransom by the devil, he open the door for a more disturbing thought. It was not the devil who wanted blood; it was God.

This 'wrath of God' metaphor was adopted by the church for many years which led to state induced bloodshed - i.e. the Crusades, amongst other things. Both Luther and Calvin followed suit in their own individual ways where 'violence was located in the divine' (Gorrige. 1996). The overt bloody scenes in Mel Gibson's The Passion of Christ exemplified this popularized notion that God demands bloody justice for our sins. All of which were in complete contradiction to Jesus' life and message.

What Alison alerts us all to is that the original sinless state of humanity must be restored rather than some wrong that need covering over. Christ's death is not some sanctimonious expression of a grudge against the power and brutality of the world but a demonstration that before anything can be restore someone must be the first to seek forgiveness.

It was this act that Jesus carried out on behalf of humanity. He asked for the forgiveness that we did not have the courage to seek. There was no God 'demanding' forgiveness for to do so would have resulted in his using his power and authority thereby negating the whole process. Alison provides and example of what he means.

In 2000, the Pope had apologized to various groups that had been hitherto historically marginalized and suffered at the hands of organized Christianity over the millennia. At that time, Alison recalls the gay and lesbian group also asked for an apology. The Catholic Church did not respond to their calls. Alison endorses the church's position 'not because there is a lot to apologise about, but because an apology without a change of heart is a lie'. The point Alison is making is that we generally do not understand how forgiveness, and therefore Atonement, works. The reason no apology was forth coming from the the church was not that one needed to shout louder in order to gain some attention, but '[t]hey can't apologise yet, because they have to received forgiveness'. What Alison directs our attention to is that 'a simple pronouncement of forgiveness by the one who has been persecuted would be a form of weak retaliation dressed in sanctimony'. Demanding forgiveness is simply another form of emotional blackmail.

What Christ did was to become the passover lamb not to abolish something that was bad, but to restore harmony in something, Creation, that was good but not good enough. The salient point is that we have already been forgiven - the balance has been restore. What we have to do is recognize that as we advance towards God, God has already begun running towards us.

 

[Yoder777]

I return to this post as your succession of posts indicate, in my view, that you are veering off dangerously into something which sounds more like pop culture on steroids.

Could I suggest that you avail yourself of the works of theologists such as Tyrone Inbody, James Alison, Roger Haight and Timothy Gorrige, all of whom will offer you a more contemporary perspective.

If I could be bold enough to summarize their works I would suggest that God did not come to earth as a man in order to die so your can offer some sort of 'satisfaction' for your sins. This is the 'ransom' style atonement.

The real object of God was to restore balance to an otherwise fractured creation. Although Anslem reject the 'ransom' idea that we have been somehow held to ransom by the devil, he open the door for a more disturbing thought. It was not the devil who wanted blood; it was God.

This 'wrath of God' metaphor was adopted by the church for many years which led to state induced bloodshed - i.e. the Crusades, amongst other things. Both Luther and Calvin followed suit in their own individual ways where 'violence was located in the divine' (Gorrige. 1996). The overt bloody scenes in Mel Gibson's The Passion of Christ exemplified this popularized notion that God demands bloody justice for our sins. All of which were in complete contradiction to Jesus' life and message.

What Alison alerts us all to is that the original sinless state of humanity must be restored rather than some wrong that need covering over. Christ's death is not some sanctimonious expression of a grudge against the power and brutality of the world but a demonstration that before anything can be restore someone must be the first to seek forgiveness.

It was this act that Jesus carried out on behalf of humanity. He asked for the forgiveness that we did not have the courage to seek. There was no God 'demanding' forgiveness for to do so would have resulted in his using his power and authority thereby negating the whole process. Alison provides and example of what he means.

In 2000, the Pope had apologized to various groups that had been hitherto historically marginalized and suffered at the hands of organized Christianity over the millennia. At that time, Alison recalls the gay and lesbian group also asked for an apology. The Catholic Church did not respond to their calls. Alison endorses the church's position 'not because there is a lot to apologise about, but because an apology without a change of heart is a lie'. The point Alison is making is that we generally do not understand how forgiveness, and therefore Atonement, works. The reason no apology was forth coming from the the church was not that one needed to shout louder in order to gain some attention, but '[t]hey can't apologise yet, because they have to received forgiveness'. What Alison directs our attention to is that 'a simple pronouncement of forgiveness by the one who has been persecuted would be a form of weak retaliation dressed in sanctimony'. Demanding forgiveness is simply another form of emotional blackmail.

What Christ did was to become the passover lamb not to abolish something that was bad, but to restore harmony in something, Creation, that was good but not good enough. The salient point is that we have already been forgiven - the balance has been restore. What we have to do is recognize that as we advance towards God, God has already begun running towards us.

Why are you repeating everything I've said from the start of this thread and yet telling me that I'm "veering off dangerously into something which sounds more like pop culture on steroids"? Did you even read the OP?
You might be well intentioned but you're not saying anything important that I haven't already said.

Here's an interesting book:

Book Review
By Frederic and Mary Ann Brussat
The Wisdom Jesus
Transforming Heart and Mind — A New Perspective on Christ and His Message
Cynthia Bourgeault
Shambhala 08/08 Paperback $16.95
ISBN: 9781590305805

Cynthia Bourgeault is an Episcopal priest, teacher, retreat and conference leader. She is the author of many books, including The Wisdom Way of Knowing. Bourgeault is a Living Spiritual Teacher on our website. She believes that "the great cultural monolith that we call Christianity" is breaking into pieces as denominations lose membership and communities are being split by differing views of homosexual unions, women's ordinations, and abortion rights.

It is a propitious time to ask some hard questions about the Christian way and the radical ministry of Jesus of Nazareth. Bourgeault is convinced that we should now see this agitator first and foremost as a wisdom teacher of the inner transformation of the whole human being. He stood in the tradition of Hebrew teachers such as Ecclesiastes, Job, and Proverbs with his pithy sayings and personalized questions. Bourgeault quotes Lynn Bauman referring to Jesus's parables as "spiritual hand grenades" aimed at changing people's consciousness. Or they could also be seen as Buddhist koans conveying the many paradoxes of life.

Bourgeault discusses Jesus's ideas about the kingdom of God, the path of metanoia, the Beatitudes, and the "hard teachings" from the Gospel of Thomas. She concludes that Jesus is "the first truly integral teacher to appear on the planet." She also marvels at his path of self-emptying love and his Tantric mastery. In a section of the book titled "The Mysteries of Jesus," the author celebrates his life as a sacrament — a spiritual force in its own right. Here she covers the incarnation, the passion, the crucifixion and its aftermath, and the great Easter fast. Bourgeault rejoices in the mystical body of Christ present in our daily lives. She concludes the book with five Christian Wisdom Practices (Centering Prayer Meditation, Lectio Divina, Chanting and Psalmody, Welcoming, and Eucharist). These practices deepen our encounter with Jesus as the wisdom teacher and enable us to walk the talk of transformation, love, hospitality, and compassion.
http://www.spiritualityandpractice.com/books/books.php?id=20331

 

[wayseer]

Why are you repeating everything I've said from the start of this thread and yet telling me that I'm "veering off dangerously into something which sounds more like pop culture on steroids"? Did you even read the OP?
You might be well intentioned but you're not saying anything important that I haven't already said.

The fact that you don't recognize the difference confirms my thoughts.

When you write ...

... theosis sees the path taken by Christ as enabling a path within us. Christ's incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection enable our transformation.

... your words fail to recognize the postmodern individualistic drive to hold in suspicion, if not contempt, any meta-narrative.

Your focus on 'our transformation' as something we, as individuals, should aspire to through the process of Atonement resonates with pop culture. Theosis sounds like 'the stages of the path' according to Tibetan Buddhist practice.

Athanasius', 'God became man so that man might become God' is a metaphor. As far as I am aware there is no state of hypostasis for us mortals. To suggest that we are Godlike in that we are of the same substance as God is unsupported by the biblical texts.

What you are suggesting is that all we need to do is 'transform' ourselves through some process. Sure we might need to change our behaviour and thinking but 'transforming' into God is not what Jesus was teaching. I know the idea is catchy and sensational but its effect is that the Work of Jesus is denied - there is nothing to make right.

Here's an interesting book:

I know it all sounds enticing and rather romantic but fantasy is not my thing.

 

[Johnnz]

Hi Wayseer.

I understand your concerns. It's hard to set out a full blown presentation of what is a detailed theological position. If I understand Yoder correctly he has given part of a Trinitarian view of our salvation. if that is the case then Baxter Kruger (American) is a good exponent of such teaching. Baxter was influenced by the Torrance brothers, two modern Scottish theologians who are less easily readable but profound in their biblical insights.

John
NZ

 

[benf]

God took human because we are/were too proud and arrogant to heed teaching from anyone else.

 

[wayseer]

Hi Wayseer.

I understand your concerns. It's hard to set out a full blown presentation of what is a detailed theological position. If I understand Yoder correctly he has given part of a Trinitarian view of our salvation. if that is the case then Baxter Kruger (American) is a good exponent of such teaching. Baxter was influenced by the Torrance brothers, two modern Scottish theologians who are less easily readable but profound in their biblical insights.

John
NZ

Thanks for the heads up.

I have not come across the authors you mention, so I really cannot comment.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

God became man so that man could become God

Subscribing

http://www.christianforums.com/t7412311/
John 10:34......Are we "gods" now?

 

[Yoder777]

I think it's important for the church to teach that salvation is a free gift paid for by Christ's work on the cross, yet this only pertains to salvation from hell. It takes an active cooperation with God's grace to be saved from the domination of sin over our daily lives. It's a mistake when Christian writers and preachers focus only on salvation from hell, ignoring the Bible's message that full salvation pertains to the entire self and that forgiveness of sin is only the beginning of that process.

 

[Aibrean]

There is only ONE salvation. A Christian, by their changed nature and with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, will want to remove sin from their lives. They go hand in hand. Faith without works is dead but our salvation comes outside of good works because faith comes first. To worry about self-perfection by doing good works and running from sin is NOT a Bible message. Spiritual righteousness comes from the Holy Spirit, not ourselves.

 

[Yoder777]

There is only ONE salvation. A Christian, by their changed nature and with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, will want to remove sin from their lives. They go hand in hand. Faith without works is dead. To worry about self-perfection by doing good works and running from sin is NOT a Bible message. Spiritual righteousness comes from the Holy Spirit, not ourselves.

In the Bible, there's the message of we are saved, we are being saved, and we will be saved. This is the process of justification, sanctification, and glorification.

 

[Aibrean]

You are confusing them. Salvation is justification and it is not a life ling process. Sanctification is, but that is after one is justified. We cannot work towards our salvation if it is a gift.

 

[Yoder777]

You are confusing them. Salvation is justification and it is not a life ling process. Sanctification is, but that is after one is justified. We cannot work towards our salvation if it is a gift.

Like I said, it's Biblical language to say we "are saved," we are "being saved," and we "will be saved." What did Paul mean by "work out your own salvation in fear and trembling"? From a Biblical perspective, justification is the beginning of salvation, sanctification is the working of salvation, and glorification is the finishing of salvation.

Jesus declared that we will be judged according to how we treat the least of these (Matt. 25:31-46) and that the wise man is the one who practices the words of Jesus (Matt. 7:24-27). In addition, every judgment scene in the Bible is portrayed as a judgment based on works; no judgment scene looks like a theological articulation test.
Five Streams of the Emerging Church | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction

 

[Aibrean]

But they do not all require "active" participation on our part. Paul was not referring to justification.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Yikes! I don't believe we will ever be as holy and righteous as Jesus Himself. No way, I think that's blasphemous. I'm not sure if you meant it that way or not, but I almost fell off my chair just now.

LOL, yeah, don't hurt yourself on account of me.

We are washed clean of our sin, through His grace as long as we continue to be faithful and serve Him,

I hope you know that by the looks of what you just said grace is sustained according to what we do and that makes for a works based salvation forumula. I'm not sure if that's what you meant though, I hope not.

but we will never be as holy and righteous as God. He alone is King of Kings and Lord of Lords and we are His servants and friends, but in no way equal to our Lord. Not now, not ever.

In our born again spirit we are just as righteous and holy as God, Paul said that our new self was created to be just like him.

We are 3 part beings; body, soul, and spirit. Before we became christians, before we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, our spirit was dead. But when we became christians and first believed on the Lord we became born again. During the born again experience God creates in us a new live spirit. Paul in Ephesians 4, the verses I posted earlier, said that this new self was "created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness".

So let me be clear about this, only the born again spirit that God created in us is righteous and holy like God is, not our bodies and soul. Our bodies and soul still need to be redeemed. This means that in our soulish lives we will continue to struggle with sin and unrighteousness. But one very important thing, God only considers our new selves as being who we are, it's our true identity, being the true sons and daughters of God.

We were created for His pleasure, to glorify Him and to enjoy His blessings and share a place in His Kingdom if we are found worthy.

"if we are found worthy"? Again, this sounds like a works based salvation to me which I totally reject. No, not if we are found worthy but if we believe on him. God is not looking for subjects who will do his bidding but looking for people who will have faith in him.

 

[Yoder777]

The topic of this thread might be over the heads of many Western Christians. Please just try to think of sanctification as, not just overcoming sin, but growing in oneness with God.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

I haven't completed reading this entire thread, but I thought I'd interject some thoughts here.

I noticed one person mistakenly read panENtheism as pantheism. They aren't the same thing. Pantheism says all is god (pan "all" + theos "god"), panENtheism says God is present in all things (pan "all" + en "in" theos "god"); the former is blasphemous, the latter is (arguably) biblical -->

"one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all." (Ephesians 4:6)

"For 'In him we live and move and have our being,' as even some of your poets have said, 'For we too are his offspring.'" (Acts 17:28)

That is we exist "in" God insofar as God is omnipresent, everywhere, and maintaining the entire created order. God is not like a ba'al, nor a Zeus or an Odin; of Him, says Solomon, not even the highest heavens can contain Him (2 Chronicles 6:18).

The emphasis is on proclaiming the vastness, the bigness, and the magnitude of God, as the Psalmist says, "Where can I go to hide from Your presence?" and "Even if I make my bed in Death, You are there."

Additionally...

To properly understand Theosis and what Christianity has historically meant with phrases such as "He became flesh so that we might become god," it is crucial to understand the essential distinction between God's Ousia and God's Energia, God's Essence and God's Activity. Theosis never says that we become, ontologically or substantially god. Only the Holy Trinity is God. Only the Father, Son and Holy Spirit share, consubstantially, in the one, undivided, indivisible Divine Nature. What Theosis says is that, we, in our being united to God through Christ, are becoming sharers, partakers, inhabitants in the Divine Life. The perfect, ineffable, and glorious friendship and love which the Three Persons of the Trinity have in and with one another is shared with us creatures, we are united to God by Grace, not Essence. We are not ontologically united to God--never, that is blasphemous--but we are being, by Grace, united to Him. As we have been baptized, clothed with Jesus, put on Christ, made members of Him and His Body; as sharers in the Eucharistic Table, being filled with the Holy Spirit, made joint-heirs with Christ, having been crucified with Jesus and raised up with Him; in being transformed and conformed to the Image of Christ, being made like Him--in all this we are being partakers in the indescribable life of God. By Grace.

Nothing created can know the ineffable Nature and Being of God, but by God's grace we can know Him in His acts, His works, His activity; and He is working that gracious work in us, to make us more like Him, "Beloved, we are God's children now; what we shall be has not yet been revealed. We do know that when it is revealed we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is." (1 John 3:2).

-CryptoLutheran