Agreed. I actually think that the Orthodox teaching on theosis is rather well organically derived…
Kady M.

Nothing wrong with a little intellectual heresy against well established religous norms, so far as you follow through on the intellectual part and refer to your sources, which the author failed to do here.

The message is fairly benign on the surface but what bothers me about it is that there is no supporting passages from the Bible to assert his claims about the meaning of Christ. Normally we should expect more from a minister in training, but I think maybe a few allowances should be made based on the theme of his series, small insightful reads over a quick cup of coffee.

Jesus is part of the Godhead yes, however he is also both the Divine as well as a mortal Man. You can’t consider him any other way. He had the mortal fear of death as he labored in his mind over turning himself in to authorities. It is safe to assume he suffered the same moral temptations that we all do as it is not a sin to be tempted, that comes from our actions not our thoughts.

Jesus is not a completely defined entity then until he acheived his mortality by being born. It could be argued that the Godhead was not complete until this happened.

So again, I am hesitant to cry heresy without knowing where he derives biblical reasoning for this viewpoint. There can be multiple viewpoints derived from the same text. Councils and religious mores are not infallible, thr Word of God is.

Like what you read? Give Dustin Briscoe a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.