The Human's Destiny

 

The cartoon was touchingly graphic, if somewhat tragic.

 

 A sad, shabbily dressed and lean honorable man enters his house with hanging shoulders within the center of a broken down staying. Some malnourished children are scattered on the floor. A melancholy wife with a wrinkled face stares blankly from the side of the room. "Honey, I heard good news today," he says, apparently at the end of a busy day. "We only pass this way once!"

 

A philosopher once said that most men "lead lives of quiet despair." And the famous founder of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud, once described the best efforts of his craft as "transforming neuroses into ordinary unhappiness."

 

A rather crude bumper sticker puts it this way: “Life is Hell. Then you die.”

 

What is the meaning of life? Is there a transcendent meaning to existence? If God created the world, what does He mean?

 

Was He just lonely, so He decided to create some beings to bow before Him in worship and adoration every day? Did God create man just for his own pleasure, even for fun? After a lifetime of struggles, intense pain, frustration, repeated disappointments, illness, and many disasters, what does one get when they "win"? And is it worth it? What will truly compensate him for the atrocities and hardships he has had to endure for these millennia?

 

 Is the best that human life has to offer really good enough? Think about it. You go to good schools and earn prestigious academic awards and degrees; get a prestigious, well-paid job that will give you the status and recognition that everyone would desire. Get married, buy a luxury house, possibly with several holiday homes in selected resorts. You buy a Mercedes or a Lincoln, even afford a yacht or a small plane. You have some great kids to be proud of. Life is absolutely wonderful - until you're covered in cancer or some rare disease. Your marriage is falling apart; you are "reengineered" from your job and thrown into the unemployment dump.

 

What position would you ever reach in life where you would feel completely safe, completely safe from harm? It's like life wasn't designed to work. As one pop song says, "If it's not one thing, it's another."

 

Indeed in the event that you had a culminate life, you can't keep it until the end of time. you will die All your achievements will mean nothing to you one day. Others might speak of them; but they will be of no use to you when you are in the grave. What is life about and what on earth is God doing?

 

In reality, see at the immensity and monstrosity of the universe. Does this tiny speck of the planet really matter and does human life matter after all?

 

Our universe contains fifty billion galaxies—not planets, but galaxies. Each of these galaxies contains billions—yes billions—of stars like our Sun. Our Sun is within the Smooth Way system, which has 100 billion stars. Does God even know we are here?

 

No ponder the psalmist inquires, "What is man simply remember him, and the child of man that you simply visit him?" (Psalm 8:4).

 

 It is easy to look at the vastness of the universe and say that man is truly insignificant in the cosmos.

 

The Copernican Revolution radically shattered man's self-importance by showing that the Earth was not the center of the universe and that in fact the Earth revolved around the Sun rather than the other way around. Our hagiocentric ideas were crushed. Then Freud came along and showed that man is unconsciously a captive of unconscious drives and psychological forces that make him, as the famous psychologist B.F. Skinner said, "for freedom and dignity."

 

Karl Marx came on the scene and told us that man is a victim of historical forces and subject to the inevitability of history. Before Marx presented his philosophy, Charles Darwin convinced many that human existence itself arose through blind, random, evolutionary forces and that our existence had no cosmic plan.A dejected, shabbily dressed and thin gentleman enters his house with drooping shoulders in the middle of a dilapidated dwelling. Some malnourished children are scattered on the floor. A melancholy wife with a wrinkled face stares blankly from the side of the room. "Honey, I heard good news today," he says, apparently at the end of a busy day. "We only pass this way once!"

 

A philosopher once said that most men "lead lives of quiet despair." And the famous founder of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud, once described the best efforts of his craft as "transforming neuroses into ordinary unhappiness."

 

A rather crude bumper sticker puts it this way: “Life is Hell. Then you die.”

 

What is the meaning of life? Is there a transcendent meaning to existence? If God created the world, what does He mean?

 

Was He just lonely, so He decided to create some beings to bow before Him in worship and adoration every day? Did God create man just for his own pleasure, even for fun? After a lifetime of struggles, intense pain, frustration, repeated disappointments, illness, and many disasters, what does one get when they "win"? And is it worth it? What will truly compensate him for the atrocities and hardships he has had to endure for these millennia?

 

 Is the best that human life has to offer really good enough? Think about it. You go to good schools and earn prestigious academic awards and degrees; get a prestigious, well-paid job that will give you the status and recognition that everyone would desire. Get married, buy a luxury house, possibly with several holiday homes in selected resorts. You buy a Mercedes or a Lincoln, even afford a yacht or a small plane. You have some great kids to be proud of. Life is absolutely wonderful - until you're covered in cancer or some rare disease. Your marriage is falling apart; you are "reengineered" from your job and thrown into the unemployment dump.

 

What position would you ever reach in life where you would feel completely safe, completely safe from harm? It's like life wasn't designed to work. As one pop song says, "If it's not one thing, it's another."

 

Indeed in case you had a culminate life, you can't keep it until the end of time. you will die All your achievements will mean nothing to you one day. Others might speak of them; but they will be of no use to you when you are in the grave. What is life about and what on earth is God doing?

 

In truth, see at the immensity and tremendousness of the universe. Does this tiny speck of the planet really matter and does human life matter after all?

 

Our universe contains fifty billion galaxies—not planets, but galaxies. Each of these galaxies contains billions—yes billions—of stars like our Sun. Our Sun is within the Smooth Way world, which has 100 billion stars. Does God even know we are here?

 

No ponder the psalmist inquires, "What is man simply remember him, and the child of man merely visit him?" (Psalm 8:4).

 

 It is easy to look at the vastness of the universe and say that man is truly insignificant in the cosmos.

 

The Copernican Revolution radically shattered man's self-importance by showing that the Earth was not the center of the universe and that in fact the Earth revolved around the Sun rather than the other way around. Our hagiocentric ideas were crushed. Then Freud came along and showed that man is unconsciously a captive of unconscious drives and psychological forces that make him, as the famous psychologist B.F. Skinner said, "for freedom and dignity."

 

Karl Marx came on the scene and told us that man is a victim of historical forces and subject to the inevitability of history. Before Marx presented his philosophy, Charles Darwin convinced many that human existence itself arose through blind, random, evolutionary forces and that our existence had no cosmic plan.A dejected, shabbily dressed and thin gentleman enters his house with drooping shoulders in the middle of a dilapidated dwelling. Some malnourished children are scattered on the floor. A melancholy wife with a wrinkled face stares blankly from the side of the room. "Honey, I heard good news today," he says, apparently at the end of a busy day. "We only pass this way once!"

 

A philosopher once said that most men "lead lives of quiet despair." And the famous founder of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud, once described the best efforts of his craft as "transforming neuroses into ordinary unhappiness."

 

A rather crude bumper sticker puts it this way: “Life is Hell. Then you die.”

 

What is the meaning of life? Is there a transcendent meaning to existence? If God created the world, what does He mean?

 

Was He just lonely, so He decided to create some beings to bow before Him in worship and adoration every day? Did God create man just for his own pleasure, even for fun? After a lifetime of struggles, intense pain, frustration, repeated disappointments, illness, and many disasters, what does one get when they "win"? And is it worth it? What will truly compensate him for the atrocities and hardships he has had to endure for these millennia?

 

 Is the best that human life has to offer really good enough? Think about it. You go to good schools and earn prestigious academic awards and degrees; get a prestigious, well-paid job that will give you the status and recognition that everyone would desire. Get married, buy a luxury house, possibly with several holiday homes in selected resorts. You buy a Mercedes or a Lincoln, even afford a yacht or a small plane. You have some great kids to be proud of. Life is absolutely wonderful - until you're covered in cancer or some rare disease. Your marriage is falling apart; you are "reengineered" from your job and thrown into the unemployment dump.

 

What position would you ever reach in life where you would feel completely safe, completely safe from harm? It's like life wasn't designed to work. As one pop tune says, "In case it's not one thing, it's another."

Indeed in case you had a idealize life, you can't keep it until the end of time. You will die All your achievements will mean nothing to you one day. Others might speak of them; but they will be of no use to you when you are in the grave. What is life about and what on earth is God doing?

 

In reality, see at the endlessness and monstrosity of the universe. Does this tiny speck of the planet really matter and does human life matter after all?

 

Our universe contains fifty billion galaxies—not planets, but galaxies. Each of these galaxies contains billions—yes billions—of stars like our Sun. Our Sun is within the Smooth Way universe, which has 100 billion stars. Does God even know we are here?

 

No ponder the psalmist inquires, "What is man that you just remember him, and the child of man that you simply visit him?" (Psalm 8:4).

 

 It is easy to look at the vastness of the universe and say that man is truly insignificant in the cosmos.

 

The Copernican Revolution radically shattered man's self-importance by showing that the Earth was not the center of the universe and that in fact the Earth revolved around the Sun rather than the other way around. Our hagiocentric ideas were crushed. Then Freud came along and showed that man is unconsciously a captive of unconscious drives and psychological forces that make him, as the famous psychologist B.F. Skinner said, "for freedom and dignity."

 

Karl Marx came on the scene and told us that man is a victim of historical forces and subject to the inevitability of history. Before Marx presented his philosophy, Charles Darwin convinced many that human existence itself arose through blind, random, evolutionary forces and that our existence had no cosmic plan.

 

 The nineteenth and twentieth centuries were not particularly favorable to the human sense of uniqueness. But the latest scientific discoveries refute some of the conclusions of Copernicus.

 

 Now it can be seen that instead of man being some insignificant part of a vast and majestic universe, the very design and creation of the universe had man in mind!

 

The "human-centered guideline," created by the brilliant astrophysicist and cosmologist Brandon Carter of Cambridge College, clearly educates that all the apparently self-assertive and irrelevant constants in material science have one thing in common: they are precisely the values you would like on the off chance that you need a universe able of creating life. In short, the laws of physics are tuned to produce human life on Earth.

The anthropic principle comes from the Greek word anthropos, man. Man thus regained the central position he lost five hundred years ago at the hands of Nicholas Copernicus.

 

 The anthropic principle gained supporters from some of the most respected scientists of the twentieth century. The prove for this is often basically overpowering.

 

There are four fundamental physical forces in the universe critical to sustaining human life: gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force. The book says: Is There a Maker Who Cares Around You?:

 

 “The elements vital to our life (especially carbon, oxygen, and iron) could not exist were it not for the fine-tuning of the four to be apparent in the universe. We have already mentioned one force, gravity, the other is the electromagnetic force. If it were significantly weaker, the electrons would not stick around the nucleus of the atom "Is this serious?" some might wonder. Yes, because atoms would not be able to combine to form molecules. Conversely, if this force were much stronger, the electrons would be trapped in the nucleus of the atom. There could be no chemical reactions between the atoms - which means no life. from this point of view it is clear that our existence and life depends on the fine tuning of the electro-magnetic force."

 

 Here are just a few more examples:

 

“Gravity is roughly 1039 times weaker than electron-magnetism. If gravity were 1033 times weaker than electromagnetism, stars would be a billion times less massive and burn a million times faster.

 

“The nuclear weak force is 1028 times greater than the force of gravity. If the weak force were a bit weaker, all the hydrogen in the universe would turn into helium (like making water impossible).

 

"A stronger nuclear force (by just 2 percent) would prevent protons from forming - creating a universe without atoms. A 5 percent reduction would give us a universe without stars."

 

“If the difference in mass between a proton and a neutron was not exactly about twice the mass of an electron - then all neutrons would become protons or vice versa. Say goodbye to chemistry as we know it – and to life.

 

“The very nature of water—so vital—is something of a mystery (a point noted by one of the nineteenth-century forerunners of anthropic thinking, the Harvard biologist Lawrence Henderson). Unique among molecules, water is lighter in its solid form than in its liquid form: ice floats. If this were not the case, the oceans would freeze from the bottom up and the earth would now be covered in solid ice. This property, in turn, is traceable to the unique properties of the hydrogen atom" (from Patrick Glynn's God:

 

 The Evidence-The

 

Reconciliation of Faith and Reason in a Post-Secular World).

 

The intellectual power of the Anthropic Principle was one of the factors that convinced former atheist Dr. Patrick Glynn, who received his Ph.D. from the prestigious Harvard University, to reject atheism as intellectually unsustainable. In his book God: The Evidence, Glynn says, "The irony is that the picture of the universe bequeathed to us by the most advanced science of the twentieth century is closer in soul to the vision displayed in Beginning than anything advertised since Copernicus."

 

 Glynn says, significantly - and this will be the main idea of ​​this booklet - that the Anthropic Principle is based on "the observation that countless laws of physics have been fine-tuned from the very beginning of the universe for the creation of man - that the Universe we inhabit appears to have been expressly designed for the creation of human beings."

 

 Religion offered no rational explanation as to why this was so. What does God really mean? Only the man will inherit immortality in human form at the end? Is there something much bigger and grander in God's plan? Religion has not been able to come up with the right answer.

 

What Christendom tells millions of people about what God has in store for the saved is far worse than what He really means. Read the PROOF! Believe it or not, the Bible reveals that man's wonderful destiny is to be like God!

 

Could you please stop reading and praying at this point because without the guidance of the Spirit we cannot come to the truth. Truth can be helped by scholarship, but it will not come through scholarship. Conviction of the truth comes through the Holy Spirit. There are many great minds who do not and will not understand God's truth in this age. Pray now for God's divine guidance on this subject.

 

· Entrance fee

 

Let's make one important concession at the outset: In one sense, the view that man becomes God "as God is God" is clearly demonstrably wrong. If eternity and self-existence are essential to the very definition of God - which it is - then man can never become God, and any such view is patently absurd. Man is finite and conditioned; God is eternal and necessary. So we could end the essay here by saying that this teaching is heresy and philosophical nonsense. However, language must be understood in its context, and literary analysis must—unlike deconstructivists—take into account the author's intent.

 

What we wanted to convey is clearly captured in our famous phrase "God reproduces" and in our statement that humans will become "God's beings". We have not taught that men as divine beings take the Father's highest place or dethrone Him. The Father and the son will continuously be over exalted beings. But we would be of the same kind of being—because God is a kind of being. The Father is quantitatively and hierarchically above the Son right now, but the Father and the Son are equal in nature.

 

 So let's understand from the beginning: Man does not take the place of the Father and the Son and will never even in the least deserve the same level of praise and honor as the Father and the Son. Deified men will always owe all praise and honor to the two divine Persons who bestow their divinity. They will not be so arrogant as to want equal honor or respect. But they will be of the same nature, they will have the same divine magnificence.

 

 So do not resist this doctrine for fear of detracting from God's glory and praise. No, the Father and the Son will stand out for all eternity because of their indescribable love that made them decide to share power with lumps of clay.

 

Imagine this incredible love—this amazing, tongue-defying love and selflessness. Here were two Persons who had existed alone for all eternity—and our minds cannot comprehend eternity—and at some point they decided that instead of keeping all this power and magnificence to themselves, they would create a race of beings of very low status, simply corruptible. flesh and blood, and eventually bestow upon them their own divinity through time and trials. It was a spirit quite the opposite of Satan's. Satan needed more control and honor than he had. He was attempting to get, not donate. But Jesus, who gave the clue to the divine nature, thought it burglary to cling to the holiness, but purged himself of it, secured it whereas on soil, and got to be man, that man might become God. This is love personified. If we reject this doctrine of deification, we shorten the love of God!

 

 Many times opponents of this truth of deification use semantics to suppress the truth of man's true destiny. So we concede: Man obviously cannot be eternal and does not exist by himself, so the incommunicable part of God's nature cannot be granted. But this in no way denies that God reproduces himself and that we become exactly like God and Christ by nature and power.

 

The glory of Jesus

 

In order to understand the truth about human destiny, it is essential that we understand who Jesus really is. If Jesus is not God, then man cannot be God. John 17 clearly shows that Jesus predated his human birth and possessed divinity. (For a pamphlet proving the basic truth that Jesus always existed, write to Is Jesus Really God?)

 

In John 17:5 Jesus asks the Father for the glory he had before the world was. Recall that Philippians 2:5-9 states that Jesus gave something up when he became a man; He renounced His divine glory, or, to express it in more precise theological language, His divine prerogatives were veiled during His earthly existence. So he could be hungry, tired, show a lack of knowledge and die.

 

 So Jesus gave up His divine glory which was His deity. But notice. He asks the Father to restore this glory after his resurrection. "And presently, O Father, laud me with you (or "in your claim nearness") with the eminence which I had with you some time recently the world was."

 

Acts 3:13 appears that the Father honored Jesus' ask and celebrated him. "The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has celebrated his hireling Jesus."

 

It will be exceptionally imperative to characterize what we cruel by the eminence of Jesus Christ. Could it mean His divine transcendence and divinity?

 

 While it is true that the word glory (Greek doxa) has various meanings and that the Bible shows that man already has a form of glory, the context shows which particular meaning should be taken. Within the setting of John 17, radiance certainly implies heavenly nature and the powers related with godlikeness that Jesus gave up (Philippians 2).

 

 Let's turn to one of the most important evangelical scholarly resources today, the 933-page Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospel: A Compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship. Under "Glory," the dictionary says that the Septuagint version of the Old Testament gives the technical meaning of glory (doxa) as "the honor due to God, or the majesty or eminence that emanates from the very being of God." Keep this definition in mind.

 

 While the Synoptics (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) develop the concept of glory eschatologically, John, who wrote to prove the full divinity of Jesus Christ, uses it to prove his theological point. For example, in John 1:14 it says that we have seen His glory. "Like Peter, John saw that Jesus was not a mere man, but that God had become flesh, though his divine powers were veiled."

 

 The writer of the article on glory makes an interesting and remarkable remark that John's view, connecting Jesus' glory with His divinity, "is consistent with the view offered elsewhere, where the divinity of the Son of God is inseparable from His glory (1 Corinthians 2). :8; 2 Cor 4:4; Eph 3:16; Heb 1:3; James 2:1). When the NT writers concluded that Christ was eternally one with God, it was left to John to outline these results for the Messiah's earthly life". Notice, then, the connection between Christ's glory and His divinity.

 

Presently, in the event that we afterward see that this exceptionally eminence of Christ is to be shared with His saints—His being "the firstborn among numerous brethren"—then what but bias or enthusiastic and/or social reaction would cause us to stand up to the essential and consistent conclusion that resurrected believers will also be divine beings? Who imposes his assumptions on the text, the one who follows the clear direction of the text, or the one who is horrified by the thought that he might detract from God's honor? Hebrews 1:3 is very significant. Jesus is said to be "the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person." The glory of Christ is therefore the glory of God, which is the divinity of the Father.

 

 The fact that man is not eternal and does not exist by himself does not mean that man can never have all the attributes of divinity by adoption. There is nothing logically impossible about it. It is only a philosophical assumption about what constitutes the incommunicableness of God, largely reflecting Platonic philosophy and Eastern mysticism, that would temper this biblical truth.

 

Hebrews 1:3 says that Jesus reflects the glory of God. The book of Hebrews was specifically written to an essentially Jewish audience to reinforce Jesus' divinity and His superiority over angels, Moses, and everything within the Old Testament economy. In Hebrews 1, the writer establishes Jesus' primacy over the universe and the angels.

 

 Again, we recognize that fame can have different meanings, but we must use context to determine the exact meaning.

 

 A very fascinating essay appears under the title "Glory" in the Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Development. Commenting on Jews 1:3, where Jesus is said to reflect God's radiance, the researcher says, “The comparison of doxa with hypostasis within the ontological characterization of Jesus clearly communicates Jesus' status. Jesus is the eminence of God, the exceptionally being of God. This hymn/confession shaped portion of the author's procedure to recognize between Jesus and the angels....Jesus is ontologically predominant to all radiant specialists Jesus is break even with to God, Jesus is God... The ritual confession of 'Jesus as the glory of Yahweh' created and reinforced the boundary between Christianity and by Judaism."

 

In his summary, the author states: "In the later New Testament writings and the Apostolic Fathers, the language of glory is what G. B. Caird called 'bivocal.' This means that fame has both a subjective and an objective field of meaning. On the subjective side, radiance alludes to the act of revere (ie, "donate eminence to God"; "laud God). On the objective side, eminence indicates the question of revere (ie, God's nearness). Radiance in its subjective and objective sense illustrates the advancement of the confidence and hone of the church. When the glory began to be attributed to Jesus in the liturgy of the church, and when Jesus was identified with the glory of God in the creed of the church, Christianity was well on its way to Nicaea and Chalcedon. The language of glory was an important vehicle for conveying the Christian new definition of God."

 

 Nicaea and Chalcedon infallibly recognized the church creed that Jesus is God, and the language of glory reinforced this. Now, what is the consequence of the same language of glory being applied to human beings? What but unruly prejudice and theological bigotry could cause serious biblical scholars to resist the conclusion that if Jesus' reflection of God's glory is a way of testifying to His divinity, does that mean that man also reflects Jesus' glory?

 

 Hebrews 2 shows that Jesus, like a man, was made lower than the angels for a while. This is often the normal meaning of the content to appear Jesus' display predominance over the blessed messengers. The angels were above Jesus when he was a human being on earth, but now that he is glorified, he is above them - which is exactly what will happen when true believers are resurrected! Glorified people will be above the angels, not lower than them or even equal to them.

 

In fact, after showing the likeness of Jesus to the Father, the writer of Hebrews goes on to identify the likeness of the resurrected saints to Jesus. If A is equal to B and B is equal to C, then how can we avoid concluding that A is equal to C?

 

Jews 2:10 says that "it was fitting for him, for whom are all things and through whom are all things, to bring numerous children to eminence, to perfect the captain of their salvation through suffering." Jesus' mission is to bring many sons to glory. This is the gospel! How can this glory be distinguished from the glory of Christ himself, and why would we want to suppress this incredible truth? It is not the doctrine of devils introduced by Lucifer in the Garden of Eden. It isn't the legendary innovation of a few religion pioneer who established his "true church" within the 1930s. It is the very revelation of an Almighty God who loves you more than you can ever imagine and wants to share his divinity with you for all eternity!

 

Now go to an even more surprising and surely more indubitable text in 2 Thessalonians 2:14: “to which he called you by our gospel (that is vital to the gospel) to obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. So what is the glory of Jesus Christ? Whatever it is, it's exactly what we're going to achieve. To attempt to limit what one can achieve now is disingenuous, if not dishonest! If you admit that the glory of Christ means His divinity; if you accept, as the two evangelical scholars (cited above) show, that the language of glory is the language of divinity and has moved Christianity away from narrow monotheism, then why not accept the simple, logical conclusion that this divinity will be shared with humanity at the resurrection?

 

 In 1 Peter 5:10 we have the infallible words from the pen of inspiration: “But may the God of all grace, who called us to his eternal glory in Christ Jesus, when you have suffered a little while, perfect, establish, strengthen, and settle you.” What? It is the Father who has called us to his radiance - which, as Jews 1:3 says, is the same radiance of Christ. This implies that the holy people - those called and really changed over in this age - will be no less divine than the Father and Child! Let's not engage in semantic gymnastics about our inability to attain the "ineffable aspects of divinity"—His eternity and self-existence. The truth is that God reproduces! He bestows divinity on lumps of clay!

 

 Colossians 3:4 says, "When Christ, who is our life, shows up, at that point you moreover will show up with him in eminence." This is the future. Second Corinthians 3:18 says that "we are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory" (New International Version). Romans 8:17 says that we are heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, which must mean that we have an interest in godliness.

 

 Now there are some who say that our acceptance of Christ's glory merely means that the character and righteousness which the First Adam failed to achieve because of sin will be restored to mankind at the resurrection. This means that we finally attain the perfection of moral attributes—and that is what is meant by “glory.” It does not mean that one becomes a divine being.

 

 It sounds noble on the surface, but it is flawed because Christ was perfect despite His humanity and had no flaw in character, if the glory He was inquiring for was anything less than the divine control of His preexistence at that point He would be inquiring. To the Father, to return something that he had in full measure and manifested during his earthly existence, namely, his moral perfection and sinlessness.

 

 Whereas His ubiquity, supremacy, and omniscience were hidden on soil, His blameless character was not.

 

When Romans 8:29 says we are to be conformed to the image of His Son, some say that image is spiritual perfection and moral perfection—anything that would dilute the full impact of the wonderful truth that God reproduces. How man stands up to God, indeed when God needs to do him great!

 We will have moral perfection, yes, but more than that. The Bible reveals that we will receive God's glory, God's image, and God's body. Hebrews 1:3 shows that Christ is the express image of God. We do not restrict the meaning of this description to moral qualities, so why would we place such restrictions on the same term when applied to humans? How else can we explain Romans 5:2? He states that through Jesus Christ "we have get to by confidence to this elegance in which we stand, and we celebrate in trust of the wonderfulness of God."

 What, in this context, limits the "glory of God" to anything less than His very essence, His divinity? So why would we want to limit it? Why not follow the plain sense of Scripture unless there are indications otherwise? It is not a reasonable principle for understanding the meaning of any biblical text?

 

 Take note another point in 1 Corinthians 15:23: "But each in his possess arrange: Christ the primary natural products, at that point those who are Christ's at his coming." Have you ever taken note that Christ, the first fruits, is no different from the others fruits of the harvest? In the agricultural economy from which the analogy is taken, the first fruits were of the same kind as the others that followed. It was not a different species - only the first fruits.

 

 Isn't this analogy clearly suggestive and reinforcing the point we see in Scripture that our gift of salvation is similar to the glorification that Jesus received?

 

 First John 3:2 says that when Jesus appears, "we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is." Why again limit the meaning of "we shall be like Him"? We already look like when Jesus first came to this earth. We already bear God's image in a limited sense. This text clearly means that the resurrected saints will be like Jesus in a much greater sense than any of us have experienced in this life.

 

 Notice that we "SEE" him. It is not His invisible moral qualities and attributes, but what we can see as resurrected spiritual beings! It does not yet appear what we will be, because no one has yet reached this state.

 

 Philippians 3:21 says that Christ will "change our lowly body to be conformed to His glorious body." What else could it mean? We are to have bodies like the body of Jesus! We are to have His glory. We are to have His image. We are to be like Him. He is God. He is celebrated. He is the Spirit. He is perfect and completely righteous. Yes, He is additionally unceasing and self-existent and we cannot be. But think about it! Our children are not the same age as us and we fathered them, but are they any less of our species because we have an age and reproductive advantage over them?

 

 Let us hold fast to the mighty truth, "Christ in you, the hope of glory." The Holy Spirit in us is the true salvation, the guarantee that God will eventually bestow His divinity on those who humbly submit to His will and accept His provision for salvation! The Holy Spirit is only the earnest or backup of this great When we do not proclaim this truth, we diminish God's great salvation.

 

Common Objections

 

There are some common objections to the biblical truth that God reproduces. They are repeated most often in Isaiah 42-44.

 

 Isaiah 42:8 says, “I am the Lord, that is my name; and my glory I will not give to another." At first glance, this verse seems to contradict 2 Thessalonians 2:14; 2 Peter 5:10; and other texts that clearly state that God will give his glory to others. But upon closer examination it is clear that Isaiah 40-45 is a polemic against the false gods of the surrounding Middle Eastern nations and warns Israel not to worship or recognize them Israel was trading the glory and honor of Yahweh for the false gods of the nations who, as Isaiah says, are not really gods , but they are futile, frail, so-called "divine beings," manifestations of human hands, as contradicted to the unceasing, ubiquitous God. The sections are brilliant pieces of questioning.

 

 Read the full text in Isaiah 42:8: “I am the Lord, that is my name; and I will not give My glory to another; nor My praise to graven images.” The last words clearly tell us what is meant. God deals with idolatry. He says he will never share his glory with pagan idols and false gods. Romans 8:29 clearly tells us that He will share His glory with His human creatures.

 

Isaiah 43:10 says, "Before me there was no god made, neither shall there be after me." This is a favorite among those who deny that man will eventually become God. But read the next three verses (and all of Isaiah 42-45) and you will see clearly that this section is not dealing with human destiny, but condemning the use of false gods. Almighty God says that He is the only true God and that the so-called "gods" of the heathen are nothing.

 

 Unexpectedly, indeed famous anti-cult master Robert Bowman has clearly expressed that there's a distinction between polytheistic exaltation and monotheistic exaltation. The Mormon view that men can become gods is completely unbiblical and bears no resemblance to the view advocated in this pamphlet. Humans do not become "gods" but rather divine beings. This is not just a semantic difference, for while the Bible emphatically declares that God is one, it reveals that there is more than one member of God's family (again, see the booklet Is Jesus Really God? for a detailed explanation). Men do not develop into "gods" but gain divinity through Him who alone has the power to bestow it.

 

 So Isaiah is right - there will be no "god"! But the one God, Yahweh, will multiply and add many divine beings to his formal family! No "gods" will be created independently.

 

 These texts from Isaiah cannot in any way challenge the undeniable biblical truth that God reproduces himself and fulfills his purpose.

 

 Another text often quoted and taken out of context is Luke 20:36, which says that in the world to come the saints will be like angels, neither marrying nor giving in marriage. No truly serious biblical scholar could quote this passage to disprove the deification of man. If the doctrine is false, this text can never prove it.

 

 What is the context of the discussion? It is about whether the sons of this age will marry in the next life (verses 27-34). Jesus, in saying no, compares the resurrected saints to angels, who are genderless beings, and says that in the world to come, people will be glorified as "angels in that they will be genderless beings." He does not say that the glorified saints will be like angels in every way; nor does it say that the saints will be angels.

 

 As we have seen, other texts make it clear that the glory God intends to share with man far exceeds that of the angels.

 

Weak lyrics

 

We in the Church of God movement have often defended this core biblical doctrine less than adequately. Some use texts like Revelation 3:9 and Psalm 82:6 to defend this doctrine. The text of Revelation says that people will come to worship at the feet of the saints. Ah, some said, God alone should be worshipped. In fact, the book of Revelation itself has the writer John refusing to accept the worship of the angel before him; so if we see people worshiping or bowing down at the feet of the saints after the resurrection, then they must be gods. Yes, it could be, but it is an ambiguous text for the Greek word translated "worship," which can mean simply to bow down or show special honor. In some cases it implies worshiping a god, but it is an vague content and ought to not It was not one of the most writings utilized to demonstrate the convention.

 

 Even weaker is the use of Psalm 82:6 and its quotation as evidence of the deification of man. The psalm that speaks to men says, "Ye are gods." This is an example of poor exegesis because a simple, reasonable interpretation should say that if humans are said to be gods in the present tense and we are clearly finite beings, then how could this text prove a future deification? Furthermore, the term is used for angels and even for human judges and kings.

 

 2 Peter 1:4 is a stronger verse, but not enough for our situation, which says that we receive good and beneficial promises, "through these promises you can be rewarded by God." Opponents will say we have already eaten. Divinity comes from the Holy Spirit, but not all. Or one could argue that the divine nature is simply a godly character that consists of love, patience, kindness, etc. na.

 

Unfortunately, some people focus on these weak arguments and conclude that the doctrine of the deification of man is unbiblical and should be rejected. They fail to understand that the real proof of this doctrine lies elsewhere in Scripture. However, others oppose this doctrine for other reasons.

 

Why Resistance?

 

Some of the psychological factors influencing resistance to the biblical truth that man will become God are understandable. There is a natural sense of awe and reverence for the uniqueness and majesty of God and the exclusivity of worship due to Him. That is right and proper.

 

 At a time when the New Age philosophy is strong, with the teaching that each of us is a "god" with a divine spark within, Christians who follow the Bible should also raise their voices against this evil. People are not good, not like gods. We are sinners who need salvation and salvation from sin. We receive good only through God, who is transcendent.

 

Furthermore, there are some charismatics with the equally reprehensible teaching that men are really "little gods", misusing the text of Psalm 67.6 "Ye are gods". We are not little gods, and this carryover from Gnosticism must be firmly resisted.

 

Traditional Christians also carefully maintain the distinction between Creator and creation.

 

"Evangelicals are determined to preserve the distinction between Creator and creature, especially in light of Paul's teaching in Romans 1:18-32 that the heart of idolatry and Craig Blomberg, his 1997 collaboration How Big Is It? Mormons and Evangelicals say in their Conversation, "Rebellion against God is to worship the created instead of the Creator."

But if God's own revelation shows that one day He will take the initiative to share His glory with mankind (Romans 5:2), then we will be more than mere creatures.

 

The point is that we must not impose our own ideas and philosophies on biblical revelation, but must accept it as it is.

 

The most gifted evangelical scholar, Professor Craig Blomberg, argues in his debate with Mormon scholar Stephen Robinson (How Wide the Divide?), “We can perfectly share God's communicable attributes, but we can never usurp his unique role by becoming all-powerful, omniscient and omnipresent."

 

 But notice the word "usurp," thrown in to evoke emotional distraction and resentment. If God clearly says in Scripture that He has called us to His eternal glory, where does the "usurpation" come in? Satan wanted to "usurp," but by God's grace man receives deification. And notice that there is not a single text that shows that God cannot make us all knowing, omnipotent, and omnipresent. It is simply stated as a given.

 

 Philosophy alone determines which properties can be changed and which cannot. Plato's philosophy is more relevant here than the Bible.

 

 Why would it be impossible for God to make us omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient? Why? According to what logical law? What would be violated in Aristotelian logic? Would the law of contradiction be violated? Did Jesus not change from humanity—full humanity—to full God?

 

 There is a raging theological and philosophical debate about God in evangelical theological circles right now, and many of the old assumptions are being sharply challenged. Many philosophical assumptions have been inserted into the Scriptures and it is time we put aside our traditions for the clear teaching of the Word of God. Paul says, "Beware that no one corrupts you with philosophy." As the brilliant evangelical philosopher Norman Geisler said in a Christianity Today article over twenty-two years ago, “You can't beware of philosophy unless you first become aware of philosophy. When you study philosophy, you realize that these neat categories, "communicable and incommunicable," are man-made and not infallible. Why do you use them to judge the Bible and not vice versa?

Comparison with Incarnation

 

The deep difficulty modern Christians have with the concept of deification is comparable to the problem Jews and others had with the Incarnation in the first century.

 

 The incarnation was a problem for many who felt that the eternal, transcendent God could never stoop so low as to become man. To this day, a key Unitarian argument is that the immutable, eternal God cannot become man and die. God cannot die, God cannot change. People impose certain categories on God and hinder biblical revelation. It is the same with the concept of deification.

 

 The well-known church father Athanasius expressed it well: “God became man so that man could become God. Absolutely right!

 

The incarnation was a signal of God's intention to deify man. In fact, in the creation account itself, the fact that animals were created after their own kind, but humans were created in the image and likeness of God—God's kind—gives us a glimpse of God's divine purpose.

 

The incarnation of Jesus Christ was another revelation, and at the Second Coming the full manifestation of God's plan will be revealed.

 

Kerry Robichaux wrote an excellent article in the July 1996 issue of Insight and Criticism: "Many Christians seem to want to stand up for God's justice, but with a certain twist. Sorry, being human is a risk that affects God's justice."

 

 "The New Testament speaks of being born unworthy (Der 2:7) and mockingly the death of Christ (Acts 8:33).

 

 "It serves to glorify God, not to belittle him... But if we ignore all the provisions of His salvation and do not enjoy the full extent of His communicability, we run the risk of offending Him in His grace and His economy."

 

 While Protestants like to talk sly about salvation, they detract from the magnificence of God's grace and the greatness of His salvation. To take the text a little out of its original context: “How shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? The churches are neglecting "so great a salvation" by not teaching the people what God really has in mind. The Church of God has this truth. Shouldn't your efforts be fully behind the church teaching the people this wonderful truth?

 

What truth in the Bible is more important and makes true God the almighty? Does this teaching show the love of God? How thankful we should be to come into contact with a church that has this precious knowledge!

 

Kerry Rubichaux writes in Insights and Criticism: “So when we talk about God's salvation, we need to look more broadly than today's Protestants. While Protestantism typically sees salvation and redemption as virtually identical, and thus focuses on Christ's suffering and death, we are compelled to view God's salvation as something much more complete than that which is accomplished by man's sharing God's life, maturity, and expression to to become His true sons and in kind like HIM.”

 

The Incarnation was divinity brought into humanity, and through deification at the Second Coming humanity will be brought into divinity.

 

The only obstacles to the acceptance of this doctrine are philosophical speculations (especially Platonic philosophy) and Eastern mysticism, which holds that God is completely different and inaccessible to man and deals with us through intermediaries. Yes, the Scriptures say that God dwells in "unapproachable light," but He will bring this light of His divinity to man who will be one with Him.

 

The truths about the Sabbath, holy days, the Kingdom of God ruling on earth, the fulfillment of prophecy, Christ's death and resurrection and ascension are all included in what God is really doing in history and what it really shows. "God is love."

Thank God for this VITAL TRUTH!