« Inside Bob Dylan's Jesus Years | Main | Monitor shifts from print to Web-based strategy »

Oct 29, 2008


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Good grief. I was just coming up to speed with supralapsarianism and theodicy and dispensationalism, and now they throw "theosis" at me. I can sort of divine its meaning (oops) by comparison with "osmosis", but the whole idea sounds a little fishy to me. Do you have any more thoughts?

The reference to "Ye are gods" is Psalm 82:6, and the Hebrew word there is "elohiym", which Strong says can be "rulers, judges, gods, ...". An interesting note in the "Gesenius's Lexicon" part (you have to expand the selection):

(A)(2): "once applied to kings, ..., Ps.82:1, especially verse 6".

The OT talks a lot about gods: "Thou shalt have no other god before Me". But as I read the verses, it's pretty clear that He means "idols". One of the points of the OT was to let people know that there were not gods of this and gods of that (wind, harvest, fertility, ...), but only One.

Michael W. Kruse

Mike, I think theosis is one of those concepts that requires careful consideration. I the G.O. would suggest that we are born in the image of God but we are being conformed to his likeness and one day we shall fully reflect his glory and character in a way do not presently. We aren't going to become omniscient or omnipresent. We will become gods in terms of character and will.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Calmly Considered: Videocasts on Faith & Economics

Kruse Kronicle Series Indexes

Your email address:

Powered by FeedBlitz

Kruse Kronicle on Kindle

Check It Out