The California Collection/TheCaliforniaCollection.cdr/his075/godsrus.lzh/GODSRUS.TXT

Text File | 1991-06-30 | 34KB | 624 lines

CUL:YE ARE GODS? heretical views on the deification of MAN  by Robert M. Bowman

   Is the belief that men were created to be "gods", either in this
life or in some future exaltation, a Christian teaching? Is it in any
sense Christian to speak of the "deification" of man -- to say that God
created or redeemed man in order to become deity? What do various
religious groups who use such language today mean? Are they all saying
the same thing? Are all who use such terminology heretics? If not, how
do we tell the difference? All of these questions will be addressed in
this article.

   DIFFERENT IDEAS OF DEIFICATION

   The first step in answering these interrelated questions is to
recognize that talk about men being gods cannot be isolated from basic
world views, or conceptions of the world and its relation to God.
Norman Geisler and William Watkins have pointed out that there are
seven basic world views: atheism (no god), polytheism (many gods),
pantheism (God is all), panentheism (God is in all), finite godism (a
finite god made the world), deism (a God who does not do miracles made
the world), and theism, or monotheism (a God who does miracles created
the world) which is the biblical view (and is held by orthodox Jews and
Muslims, as well as Christians). [1] Not all doctrines can be neatly
categorized into one of these seven world views, since some people do
hold to combinations of two views; but such positions are inherently
inconsistent, and usually one world view is dominant.

   In this article our concern will be with doctrines of deification
which claim to be strictly Christian. (This means that we will not
discuss, for example, New Age concepts of deification.) Varieties of
such "Christian" views on deification can be found among adherents of
monotheism, polytheism, and panentheism.

   Monotheistic Deification

   It may surprise some to learn that a monotheistic doctrine of
deification was taught by many of the church fathers, and is believed
by many Christians today, including the entire Eastern Orthodox church.
In keeping with monotheism, the Eastern Orthodox does not teach that
men will literally become "gods" (which would be polytheism). Rather,
as did many of the church fathers [2], they teach that men are
"deified" in the sense that the Holy Spirit dwells within Christian
believers and transforms them into the image of God in Christ,
eventually endowing them in the resurrection with immortality and God's
perfect moral character.

   It may be objected that to classify as monotheistic any doctrine
which refers to men in some positive sense as "gods" is self-
contradictory; and strictly speaking such an objection is valid.
Indeed, later in this study it shall be argued that such terminology is
not biblical. However, the point here is that however inconsistent and
confusing the language that is used (and it is inconsistent), the
substance of what the Eastern Orthodox are seeking to express when they
speak of deification is actually faithful to the monotheistic world
view. The language used is polytheistic, and in the light of Scripture
should be rejected; but the doctrine intended by this language in the
context of the teachings of the fathers and of Eastern Orthodoxy is
quite biblical, and is thus not actually polytheistic.

   Thus, it should not be argued that anyone who speaks of
"deification" necessarily holds to a heretical view of man. Such a
sweeping judgment would condemn many of the early church's greatest
theologians (e.g. Athanasius, Augustine), as well as one of the three
main branches of historic orthodox Christianity in existence today. On
the other hand, some doctrines of deification are most certainly
heretical, because they are unbiblical in substance as well as
terminology.

   Polytheistic Deification

   Two examples of polytheistic doctrines of deification are the
teachings of Mormonism and Armstrongism, although adherents of these
religions generally do not admit to being polytheistic.

   The Mormons are very explicit in their "scriptures" that there are
many Gods; for example, the three persons of the Trinity are regarded
as three "Gods." [3] Since they believe that many Gods exist but at
present worship only one -- God the Father -- at least one Mormon
scholar has admitted with qualifications that their doctrine could be
termed "henotheistic." [4] Henotheism is a variety of polytheism in
which there are many gods, but only one which should be worshiped.
Thus, the meaning of deification in Mormonism is radically different
than that of the church fathers who used similar terms, despite Mormon
arguments to the contrary. [5]

   The Worldwide Church of God of Herbert W. Armstrong (who died early
in 1986) claims to believe in only one God. However, Armstrongism
defines "God" as a collective term (like "church" or "family")
referring to a family of distinct beings all having the same essential
nature. Presently this "God family" consists of two members, God the
Father and Christ, but it is their plan to reproduce themselves in
human beings and so add millions or even billions to the God family.
[6] Therefore, by the normal use of the words on which our
categorizations are based, Armstrong's world view is also polytheistic.

   Panentheistic Deification

   An important example of a panentheistic doctrine of deification
within professing Christianity is Union Life, founded by Norman Grubb,
who at one time was a respected evangelical leader. In 1980
CORNERSTONE, an evangelical magazine, ran an article arguing that Union
Life was teaching pantheism or panentheism. [7] Union Life has
attempted to argue [8] that panentheism, unlike pantheism, is not
heretical (despite Grubb's admission that he does not know the
definition of pantheism! [9]). However, neither pantheism nor
panentheism separates the creation from the essential nature of the
Creator, though panentheism does posit a differentiation in which the
creation is the expression of the Creator. The heretical nature of
Union Life is made evident by such statements as, "there is only One
Person in the universe," "everything is God on a certain level of
manifestation," and "Nothing but God exists!" [10] Therefore, Union
Life's claim to following the traditions of the church fathers [11] is
no more valid than that of the Mormons.

   Positive Confession: Monotheistic Or Polytheistic?

   Not all views of the deification of man are easily classifiable.
Perhaps the most difficult doctrine of deification to categorize into
one of the seven basic world views is that of the "positive confession"
or "faith" teachers, including Kenneth Copeland, Kenneth Hagin,
Frederick K. C. Price, Charles Capps, Casey Treat, and many others.

   In brief, the "faith" teaching maintains that God created man in
"God's class", as "little gods", with the potential to exercise the
"God kind of faith" in calling things into existence and living in
prosperity and success as sovereign beings. We lost this opportunity by
rebelling against God and receiving Satan's nature. To correct this
situation, Christ became a man, died spiritually (receiving Satan's
nature), went to Hell, was "born again", rose from the dead with God's
nature, and then sent the Holy Spirit so that the Incarnation could be
duplicated in believers, thus fulfilling their calling to be little
gods. Since we are called to experience this kind of life now, we
should experience success in everything we do, including health and
financial prosperity.

   Some aspects of this teaching have been documented and compared with
Scripture in articles published in previous issues of this journal.
[12] Regarding the claim that men are "little gods", there is no
question (as shall be demonstrated shortly), that the language used is
unbiblical, but are the ideas being conveyed contrary to Scripture as
well? Specifically, is the world view of the "faith" teaching
monotheistic or polytheistic?

   A simple answer to this question is somewhat elusive. The positive
confession teachers have made statements that seem polytheistic, and
yet often in the same paragraph contradict themselves by asserting the
truth of monotheism. [13] At least two positive confession teachers,
Frederick K. C. Price and Casey Treat, have admitted that men are not
literally gods and have promised not to use this terminology again.
[14] In many cases, the dominant world view appears to be monotheism,
with their teachings tending at times toward a polytheistic world view.
It seems best, them, to regard the "faith" teaching as neither soundly
monotheistic nor fully polytheistic, but instead as a confused mixture
of both world views.

   This means that the "faith" teaching of deification cannot be
regarded as orthodox. Their concept of deification teaches that man has
a "sovereign will" comparable to God's, and that man can therefore
exercise the "God kind if faith" and command things to be whatever he
chooses . [15] At least one "faith" teacher, Kenneth Copeland, seems to
regard God as finite, since he says, speaking of Adam, "His body and
God were exactly the same size." [16] Again, it is the context in which
the doctrine appears that determines whether the teaching is orthodox
or heretical. In this case, there seems to be significant evidence to
show that some, at least, of the "faith" teachers have a heretical view
of God, as well as a heretical view of the nature of the believer.
Nevertheless, there also appears to be evidence that not all of the
"faith" teachers are heretical in the same sense as, say, Mormonism or
Armstrongism.

   At this point we will turn to the biblical teaching relating to this
subject to see whether the Bible teaches deification at all.

   THE BIBLICAL TEACHING

   All of the various doctrines of deification discussed above appeal
to the same passages of Scripture and the same biblical themes to
validate their. Besides the passages where men are called "gods" or
"sons of God," there are the biblical themes concerning men in the
image of God; the close relationship between Christ and Christians; and
the statement in 2 Peter 1:4 that Christians are "partakers of the
divine nature." In this article we shall discuss each of these texts
and themes.

   Are Men Called "Gods" In Scripture?

   The Bible in both Old and New Testaments explicitly and repeatedly
affirms that there is only one God (e.g., Deut. 4:35-39; Isa. 43:10;
44:6-8; 1 Cor. 8:4-6; 1 Tim. 2:5; James 2:19). Therefore. the Bible
most definitely rejects any sort of polytheism, including henotheism.

   The Scriptures also very clearly teach that God is an absolutely
unique being who is distinct from the world as its Creator (e.g, Gen.
1:1; John 1:3; Rom. 1:25; Heb. 11:3). This teaching rules out pantheism
and panentheism, according to which the world is either identical to
God or an essential aspect of God. Since He is eternal, omnipresent,
omnipotent, and omniscient, God is totally unique, so that there is
none even like God (e.g., Ps. 102:25-27; Isa. 40-46; Acts 17:24-28).
[17] The Bible, then, unmistakably teaches a monotheistic world view.

   In the face of so many explicit statements that there is only one
God, and in light of His uniqueness, it may seem surprising that anyone
would claim that the Bible teaches that men are gods. However, there
are a few passages in Scripture which seem to call men "god" or "gods."
Most or all of these, however, are irrelevant to any doctrine of
deification. In practice, the question of whether the Bible ever calls
men "gods" in a positive sense focuses exclusively on Psalm 82:6 ("I
said, 'you are gods'") and its citation by Jesus in John 10:34-35.

   The usual view among biblical expositors for centuries is that Psalm
82 refers to Israelite judges by virtue of their position as judges
representing God; it is, therefore, a figurative usage which applies
only to those judges and does not apply to men or even believers in
general. If this interpretation is correct, Psalm 82:6 is also
irrelevant to any doctrine of Christian deification.

   An alternative interpretation agrees that the "gods" are Israelite
judges, but sees the use of the term "gods" as an ironic figure of
speech. Irony is a rhetorical device in which in which something is
said to be the case in such a way as to make the assertion seem
ridiculous (compare Paul's ironic "you have become kings" in 1
Corinthians 4:8, where Paul's point is that they had NOT become kings).
According to this interpretation, the parallel description of the
"gods" as "sons of the Most High" (which, it is argued, is not in
keeping with the Old Testament use of the term "sons" of God), the
condemnation of the judges for their wicked judgment, and especially
the statement, "Nevertheless, you will die as men," all point to the
conclusion that the judges are called "gods" in irony.

   If the former interpretation is correct, then in John 10:34-35 Jesus
would be understood to mean that if God called wicked judges "gods" how
much more appropriate is it for Him, Jesus, to be called God, or even
the Son of God. If the ironic interpretation of Psalm 82:6 is correct,
then in John 10:34-35 Jesus' point would still be basically the same.
It is also possible that Jesus was implying that the Old Testament
application of the term "gods" to wicked judges was fulfilled (taking
"not to be broken" to mean "not to be unfulfilled," cf. John 7:23) in
Himself as the true Judge (cf. John 5:22,27-30; 9:39). [18] Those
wicked men were, then, at best called "gods" and "sons of the Most
High" in a special and figurative sense; and at the worst they were
pseudo-gods and pseudo-sons of God. Jesus, on the other hand, is truly
God (cf. John 1:1,18; 20:28; 1 John 5:20) and the unique Son of God
(John 10:36; 20:31; etc.).

   Neither the representative nor the ironic interpretation of Psalm 82
allows it (or John 10:34-35) to be understood to teach that men were
created or redeemed to be gods. Nor is there any other legitimate
interpretation which would allow for such a conclusion. The Israelite
judges were wicked men condemned to death by the true God, and
therefore were not by any definition of deification candidates for
godhood.

   If, then, the deification of man is to be found in Scripture, it
will have to be on the basis of other biblical texts or themes, as
Scripture gives men the title of "gods" only in a figurative or
condemnatory sense.

   The Image Of God: An Exact Duplicate?

   One biblical teaching upon which great emphasis is usually laid by
those who teach some form of the deification of man is the doctrine of
man as created and redeemed in the image of God. Of the many examples
that could be given, two will have to suffice. Casey Treat's claim that
man is an "exact duplicate" of God is based on his understanding of the
meaning of "image" in Genesis 1:26-27. [19] The Mormon apologetic for
their doctrine that God is an exalted Man and that men can also become
Gods typically appeals to the image of God in man, and to the parallel
passage in Genesis 5:1-3 where Adam is said to have begotten Seth "in
his own likeness, after his own image" (Genesis 5:1-3). [20]

   These claims raise two questions. Does the creation of man in the
image of God imply that God Himself is an exalted man (as in
Mormonism), or perhaps a spirit with the physical form or shape of a
man (as in Armstrongism)? And does the image of God in man imply that
men may become "gods"? There are several reasons why such conclusions
are incorrect.

   First, there are the biblical statements which say that God is not a
man (Num. 23:19; 1 Sam. 15:29; Hos. 11:9). Second, there is the
biblical teaching on the attributes of God already mentioned, according
to which God obviously cannot now or ever have been a man (except in
the sense that the second person of the triune God became a man by
taking upon Himself a second nature different from the nature of
deity). Third, in the context of Genesis 1:26-27 and 5:1-3 there is one
very important difference between the relationship between God and Adam
on the one hand and Adam and Seth on the other hand: Adam was CREATED
or MADE by God, while Seth was BEGOTTEN by Adam. To create or make
something in the image or likeness of someone means to make something
of a DIFFERENT kind that nevertheless somehow "pictures" or represents
that someone (cf. Luke 20:24-25). It is therefore a mistake to reason
backwards from the creation of man in God's image to deduce the nature
of God. Genesis 1:26-27 is telling us something about man, not about
God.

   Besides the passages in Genesis (see also 9:6), the Old Testament
says nothing else about the image of God. The New Testament teaches
that man is still in God's image (1 Cor. 11:7); James 3:9), but also
says that, in some unique sense, Christ is the image of God (2 Cor.
4:4; Col. 1:15). Christians are by virtue of their union with Christ
being conformed to the image of God and of Christ resulting finally
(after this life) in glorification (2 Cor. 3:18; Rom. 8:29-30), which
includes moral perfection (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10) and an immortal
physical body like Christ's (1 Cor. 15:49; cf. Phil. 3:21).

   Orthodox biblical theologians and scholars do have some differences
of opinion as to how best to define and explain what these passages
mean by the "image of God." [21] However, these differences are
relatively minor, and do not obscure the basic truth of the image,
which is that man was created as a physical representation (NOT a
physical REPRODUCTION or "exact duplicate") of God in the world. As
such, he was meant to live forever, to know God personally, to reflect
His moral character--His love--through human relationships, and to
exercise dominion over the rest of the living creatures on the earth
(Gen. 1:28-30; cf. Ps. 8:5-8).

   From the biblical teaching on the image of God, then, there is
nothing which would warrant the conclusion that men are or will ever be
"gods", even "little gods," as the "faith" teachers often put it.

   Sons Of God: Like Begets Like?

   Although men are never called "gods" in an affirmative sense in
Scripture, believers in Christ are called "sons" or "children" of God
(John 1:12; Rom. 8:14-23; Gal. 4:5-7; 1 John 3:1-2; etc.). Based on the
assumption that sons are of the same nature as their father, some
conclude that since believers are sons of God, they must also be gods.
This reasoning is thought to be confirmed by those passages in John's
writings which speak of believers as being "begotten" or "born" of God
(John 1:13; 3:5-6; 1 John 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1,4,18).

   As convincing as this argument may seem, it actually goes beyond the
Bible's teaching and is at best erroneous and at worse heretical. The
above Scriptures do not mean that the "sonship" of believers is a
reproduction of God's essence in man for the following reasons.

   1) In one sense all human beings are God's "offspring" (Acts 17:28),
so that even Adam could be called God's "son" (Luke 3:38); yet this
cannot mean that human beings are gods or have the same nature as God,
for the reasons already given in our analysis of the "image of God."

   2) Paul speaks of our sonship as an "adoption" (Rom. 8:15,23; Gal.
4:5), which of course suggests that we are not "natural" sons of god.

   3) John, who frequently speaks of Christians as having been
"begotten" by God, also tells us that Jesus Christ is the
"only-begotten" or "unique" Son of God (John 1:14,18; 3:16,18; 1 John
4:9). At the very least, this means that we are NOT sons of God in the
same sense that Christ is the Son of God, nor will we ever be. Christ
was careful to distinguish between His Sonship and that of His
followers (e.g., John 20:17). For this reason Kenneth Copeland's
assertion that "Jesus is no longer the only begotten Son of God" [22]
must be regarded as false doctrine.

   4) Finally, the New Testament itself always interprets the spiritual
birth which makes believers sons, not as a conversion of men into gods,
but as a renewal in the MORAL likeness of God, produced by the
indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and resulting in an intimate
relationship with God as a Father who provides for His children's needs
(Matt. 5:9,45; 6:8,10,32; 7:11,21; Rom. 8:14-17; Gal. 4:6-7; 1 John
2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1-5).

   The biblical doctrine that believers in Christ are children of God
is a glorious teaching, to be sure, and what it means we do not yet
fully know (1 John 3:2). But we do know something about what it means,
as well as what it does not mean. It does mean eternal life with
Christ-like holiness and love, in which the full potential of human
beings as the image of God is realized. But it does not mean that we
shall cease to be creatures, or that "human potential" is infinite, or
that men shall become gods.

   Union With Christ: Are Christians Incarnations Of God?

   The doctrine that Christians are adopted sons of God is closely
related to the doctrine of the spiritual union between Christ and
Christian believers. This union is expressed both as a union between
Christ and the individual believer and as a union of Christ and the
church. Paul in particular teaches that Christians are "in Christ" (a
phrase which occurs over 160 times in Paul's letters), "with Christ" in
His death, burial, resurrection, and ascension (Rom. 6:3-8; Eph.
2:5-6), corporately the "body" of Christ (Rom. 12:4-5; 1 Cor. 12:12-27;
Eph. 1:22-23; 4:12; Col. 1:18), that they have Christ, dwelling within
(Rom. 8:9-11; 1 Cor. 3:16; 6:17-20; 2 Cor. 13:5; Eph. 3:16-17), and
that Christ Himself is their "life" (Gal. 2:20; Col. 3:4). On the basis
of this teaching, many have concluded that Christians are in fact
either a corporate extension of the Incarnation (as the church) or
replications of the Incarnation (as individual Christians). Such a
conclusion is often tied to the teaching of some concept of
deification. The question is, does the Bible support such a conclusion?

   As with the doctrine of Christians as the sons of God, such ideas go
far beyond the teaching of Scripture. To say that believers are "in
Christ" means that they are somehow spiritually united to Christ, not
that they ARE Christ. When Paul says that we have been crucified,
buried, raised, and ascended with Christ, he is not speaking literally,
but means simply that by virtue of our legal identification and close
spiritual relationship with Christ we benefit by His death and
resurrection. The teaching that the church is the body of Christ is
also not to be taken literally, and should not be pressed to imply that
the church is Christ or even an essential part of Christ. That the
relationship between Christ and the church involves a substantial union
without the church becoming Christ is best seen in the figure of the
church as the bride of Christ (Eph. 5:28-32): the bride is physically
united to her husband, yet they remain distinct. The Spirit indwells
the believer, to be sure, but the believer does not become divine as a
result, any more than the temple under the old covenant became a part
of God simply because His presence filled it (cf. 1 Cor. 3:17). Christ
is our life, not in the sense that our individuality is replaced by His
person, but in the sense that we have eternal and spiritual life
through our union with Him.

   Finally, the notion that each believer is somehow a duplicate of the
Incarnation deserves a closer look. The rationale for this view is that
an "incarnation" is defined as the indwelling of God in a human being;
and since, we are told, this is as true of the Christian as it was of
Christ, it follows that the Christian, as Kenneth Hagin puts it, "is as
much an incarnation as was Jesus of Nazareth." [23] The error in this
reasoning lies in the definition of "incarnation." Christ was not
merely God dwelling in a human being, a heresy (known as Nestorianism)
the early church condemned because it meant that the Word did not
actually BECOME flesh (John 1:14) but only joined Himself to a human
being. Rather, the incarnate Christ was one person in whom were
perfectly united two natures, deity and humanity; the Christian is a
person with one nature, human, in whom a separate person, God the Holy
Spirit (and through Him, the Father and the Son as well), dwells.

   Does Partaking Of The Divine Nature Make Us Gods?

   In 2 Peter 1:4 we are told that through God's promises Christians
may "become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the
corruption that is in the world by lust." This text, even more so than
Psalm 82, has suggested to many a doctrine of deification. And indeed,
if by deification one means simply "partaking of divine nature," then
such "deification" is unquestionably biblical. The question, then, is
what does Peter mean by "partakers of divine nature"?

   Since the word "divine" is used earlier in the same sentence ("His
divine power," verse 3), where it MUST mean "of God," "divine nature"
must mean God's nature. The word "nature," however, should not be
understood to mean "essence." Rather, as the context makes evident,
Peter is speaking of God's moral nature or character. Thus Christians
are by partaking of the divine nature to escape the corruption that is
in the world because of sinful lust, and are instead to exhibit the
moral attributes of Christ (cf. verses 5-11).

   DISCERNING ORTHODOX FROM HERETICAL TEACHINGS

   It is not always easy to tell the difference between heretical and
orthodox doctrines. Often people of different religions use the same or
nearly the same words to express widely different ideas. One of the
marks of the "cults," in fact, is the use of Christian terminology to
express non-Christian concepts. [24] This is very much the case with
deification.

   How, then, can Christians tell the difference? There are four
essential elements to an orthodox view of the relationship between God
and man, and any doctrine which compromises or denies these teachings
is less than soundly orthodox. These four elements are monotheism,
trinitarianism, incarnationalism, and evangelicalism.

   MONOTHEISM, as has already been explained, is the view that a
single, unique, infinite Being (called God) created all other beings
out of nothing, and that this Creator will forever be the only, real,
true God.

   TRINITARIANISM is the distinctive Christian revelation of God,
according to which the one God exists eternally as three distinct but
inseparable persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. [25]

   INCARNATIONALISM is the teaching that the second person of the
Trinity (called the "Word" in John 1:1,14, and the "Son" in Matthew
28:19), without ceasing to be God, became flesh, uniting uniquely in
His one undivided person the two natures of deity and humanity.

   EVANGELICALISM is the belief that salvation is by grace alone,
through faith alone, in Christ alone.

   With these four criteria of orthodoxy in mind, how do the various
doctrines of deification measure up? The doctrines of the church
fathers, as well as of Eastern Orthodoxy, are, as we have already
indicated, thoroughly orthodox on all four points. Mormonism and
Armstrongism fail on all four counts, and are therefore heretical.
Union Life appears to hold to the Trinity and salvation by grace, but
sets these doctrines in the context of panentheism; therefore, it too
is heretical.

   But what shall we say about the "faith" teachers? They do affirm a
monotheistic world view and generally affirm the Trinity (though there
is some evidence of confusion on that score). Some at least of these
teachers consider the Christian to be as much an incarnation as Jesus,
and thus fail the third test. Most speak unguardedly of man as existing
in "God's class," of being the same "kind" as God, and so forth, even
while occasionally making disclaimers about men never becoming equal to
God. Are these teachers heretics, or are they orthodox?

   It may be that a simple black-or-white approach to this question is
inappropriate in some cases. Certainly these teachers are not to be
placed in the same category as Mormonism and Armstrongism, since the
"faith" teachers affirm monotheism and trinitarianism. Yet too many
statements have been made by these teachers which can only be called
heretical, though it may be that such statements are due to
carelessness or hyperbole and not actual heretical belief. It is to be
hoped that the "faith" teachers will recognize the errors of their
unbiblical statements and repent of them. Until that time, their
doctrine of men being "little gods" is so far from being orthodox that
it should not be placed in that category either. How, then, should we
categorize such teachings?

   In recent years ministries which specialize in discerning orthodox
from heretical teachings have been using the term "aberrational" to
describe teachings which do not fit neatly into either the orthodox or
heretical category. Specifically, "heretical" teaching explicitly
DENIES essential biblical truth, while "aberrational" teaching
COMPROMISES or CONFUSES essential biblical truth. Both are in error,
but a heresy is an outright rejection or opposition to truth, while an
aberration is a distortion or misunderstanding of truth only.
Aberrational teachers affirm the essential doctrines of orthodoxy, and
then go on to teach doctrines that compromise or are otherwise
inconsistent with orthodoxy, while heretics actually deny one or more
of the essentials.

   If we apply this distinction to the cases at hand, their usefulness
becomes apparent. Mormonism and Armstrongism both explicitly reject
certain essential teachings of orthodoxy; they are therefore heretical.
Union Life rejects monotheism in favor of panentheism; it is also
heretical. Many of the "faith" teachers affirm the essentials, but then
go on to teach doctrines which undermine their professed orthodoxy;
their doctrine is aberrational and false. On the other hand, there are,
unfortunately, at least some "faith" teachers (for example, Kenneth
Copeland) whose teachings are so opposed to orthodoxy that they can
only be regarded as heretical.

   It is not always easy to decide whether a teaching is orthodox,
aberrational, or heretical. Nevertheless, it can be done, and we should
not allow the unpopularity of making doctrinal judgments to deter us
from the necessary (if sometimes unpleasant) task of evaluating
questionable teaching. In doing so, we must avoid the extreme of
labeling as heretics absolutely everyone who uses the term
"deification", as well as the extreme of regarding as Christian any
doctrine of deification which makes reference to Christ. It is the
substance of each doctrine which must be examined as the basis for
discerning whether it is orthodox, aberrational, or heretical. Only in
this way can the church's calling to "test the spirits, to see whether
they are from God" (1 John 4:1) be fulfilled.

   NOTES

   [1] Norman Geisler and William Watkins, PERSPECTIVES: UNDERSTANDING
AND EVALUATING TODAY'S WORLD VIEWS (San Bernardino, CA: Here's Life,
1984).

   [2] See, for example, Gerald Bonner, "Augustine's Concept of
Deification," JOURNAL OF THEOLOGICAL STUDIES, n.s., 37 (Oct. 1986):
369-386.

   [3] Bruce R. McConkie, MORMON DOCTRINE, 2nd edition (Salt Lake City,
UT: Bookcraft, 1966), 317.

   [4] Van Hale, "Defining the Mormon Doctrine of Deity," SUNSTONE 10,
1 (1985), 25-26.

   [5] See especially Philip Barlow, "Unorthodox Orthodoxy: The Idea of
Deification in Christian History," SUNSTONE 9 (Sept.-Oct. 1984), 13-18.

   [6] See "A Summary Critique: MYSTERY OF THE AGES, Herbert W.
Armstrong," by Robert M. Bowman, Jr., CHRISTIAN RESEARCH JOURNAL, vol.
9 no. 3, (Winter/Spring 1987): 28.

   [7] "A Case in Point: Union Life," CORNERSTONE, 9, 52 (1980), 32-36.

   [8] Norman Grubb, "The Question Box," UNION LIFE 6 (May-June 1981),
23.

   [9] Norman Grubb, "The Question Box," UNION LIFE 6 (July-August
1981), 23.

   [10] See note 7 above.

   [11] Tom Carroll, "The Mystery According to St. Augustine," UNION
LIFE 10 (Nov.-Dec. 1985), 20-21.

   [12] Brian A. Onken, "A Misunderstanding of Faith," FORWARD 5
(1982), and Onken, "The Atonement of Christ and the 'Faith' Message,"
FORWARD 7 (1984).

   [13] E.g., Casey Treat, COMPLETE CONFIDENCE: THE ATTITUDE FOR
SUCCESS (Seattle, WA: Casey Treat Ministries, 1985), 319-324.

   [14] At private meetings between Walter Martin and Larry Duckworth
with Frederick K. C. Price on May 1, 1986, and between Walter Martin
and Casey Treat in early April, 1987.

   [15] Treat, 82-83, 306-327; HOLY BIBLE: KENNETH COPELAND REFERENCE
EDITION (Ft. Worth, TX: Kenneth Copeland Ministries, 1972), iii.

   [16] HOLY BIBLE: KENNETH COPELAND REFERENCE EDITION, lvi.

   [17] On the biblical teaching on the nature of God, see THE NATURE
AND ATTRIBUTES OF GOD, by Robert and Gretchen Passantino of CARIS
(write to CARIS, PO Box 2067, Costa Mesa, CA 92628), or this author's
outline study, "The Attributes of God," available from CRI (order
#DA-250).

   [18] E. Jungkuntz, "An Approach to the Exegesis of John 10:34-36,"
CONCORDIA THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY 35 (1964):560.

   [19] Casey Treat, RENEWING THE MIND: THE ARENA FOR SUCCESS (Seattle,
WA: Casey Treat Ministries, 1985), 90.

   [20] Barlow (note #5 above), 17.

   [21] See G. C. Berkouwer, MAN: THE IMAGE OF GOD, Studies in
Dogmatics (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1962), 37-118.

   [22] Kenneth Copeland, NOW WE ARE IN CHRIST JESUS (Ft. Worth, TX:
Kenneth Copeland Ministries, 1980), 24.

   [23] Kenneth E. Hagin, "The Incarnation," THE WORD OF FAITH (Dec.
1980), 14.

   [24] Walter Martin, THE KINGDOM OF THE CULTS, rev. ed. (Minneapolis,
MN: Bethany House Publishers, 1985), 18-24.

   [25] Introductory literature on the Trinity is available from CRI.